Gov Sovereigns/Treasurys

Highlights Since 2008, no developed economy central bank has been able to hike interest rates sequentially by more than 2 percent before needing to take a breather… and then reverse course. The current vulnerability to further tightening emanates from stock markets and risk spreads. Through the next couple of years U.S. long bonds will strongly outperform German bunds… …and USD/EUR will trend lower. Since October 2017, no stock market rally or sell-off has lasted more than three months. Overweight equities tactically, but don’t get too comfortable. The broad stock market will remain trendless, but offer excellent tactical opportunities in both directions. Feature More than a decade has passed since the Global Financial Crisis. Yet through the past ten years, no developed economy central bank has been able to hike interest rates sequentially by more than 2 percent before needing to take a breather… and then swiftly reverse course. 2019 is a pivotal year for monetary policy because it will answer a fundamental question: will the 2 percent limit for monetary tightening that has held since 2008 continue to hold, or finally break? (Chart of the Week). The answer will have a huge bearing on European investment strategy for equities, bonds and currencies. Chart of the WeekSince 2008, The Limit For Sequential Rate Hikes Has Been 2 Percent... So Far Since 2008, The Limit For Sequential Rate Hikes Has Been 2 Percent... So Far Since 2008, The Limit For Sequential Rate Hikes Has Been 2 Percent... So Far A History Of Policy Reversals Swedish interest rates peaked near 5 percent in 2008 before collapsing to the zero bound in the financial crisis. But when the Riksbank started its so-called ‘policy normalisation’ in 2010, the interest rate could only reach 2 percent before the central bank had to backtrack; Norway could manage just 1 percent of tightening before its volte-face. Admittedly, Sweden and Norway were caught in the maelstrom of the euro debt crisis in 2011-12. But on the other side of the world and relatively immune to the crisis in Europe, New Zealand could achieve a tightening of only 1 percent; Korea could manage just 1.25 percent (Chart I-2); the Reserve Bank of Australia marched interest rates up by 1.75 percent before taking a breather… and then marched them down again.   Chart I-2Since 2008, The Limit For Sequential Rate Hikes Has Been 2 Percent Since 2008, The Limit For Sequential Rate Hikes Has Been 2 Percent Since 2008, The Limit For Sequential Rate Hikes Has Been 2 Percent The Federal Reserve has sequentially raised interest rates by 2 percent, and guess what? It has just decided to take a breather! Last week, Chairman Jay Powell was asked the question as plainly as possible: is the next move in interest rates as likely to be up as down? And his answer: “we don’t have a strong prior… we will patiently wait and let the data clarify.”1 There is no requirement at BCA for strategists to agree. In fact, the opposite is true in that we encourage independent thinking and diverse ways of looking at the world. BCA’s house view is that the Fed will resume its sequential hiking later in the year. But I believe this takes a too rosy view on the global financial system’s capacity to tolerate further tightening. The Vulnerability Is In Stock Markets And Risk Spreads   Monetary policy operates on an economy by adjusting its financial conditions: its bond yields, credit availability, currency, stock market, and risk spreads. And the neutral monetary policy stance – the so-called ‘neutral real interest rate’ – is the policy stance consistent with the economy growing at trend. In the past, a simple rule of thumb was that real rates, over time, should approximate to the real growth in the economy. But some studies argue that the neutral real rate may now be close to zero. All the Fed has done is bring the real interest rate out of negative territory to barely above zero. Yet its recent hikes have been blamed for extreme volatility in stock markets and risk spreads. Last week, Powell acknowledged that if there is a sustained change in financial conditions through any one or more of its components then “that has to play into our thinking.” Furthermore, “the policy stance is now in the range of the Committee’s estimates of neutral… and when you get to that (neutral) range we have to put aside our own priors and let the data speak to us.” All of which raises a salutary observation from my colleague Martin Barnes, BCA Chief Economist: if a real interest rate that is barely above zero is enough to trigger extreme market volatility and threaten the economic expansion, then the system is much more vulnerable than generally assumed.2  Martin has hit the nail on the head. At the current level of tightening, the system is much more vulnerable than generally assumed. But the vulnerable components of financial conditions are not bond yields, credit availability, or currency; the vulnerability emanates from stock markets and risk spreads, and specifically their potential for extreme volatility. Previous reports have focused on the source of this vulnerability. To recap, at low yields, bond prices develop the same unattractive negative asymmetry as equities. Therefore, an extended period of ultra-low interest rates removes the need for an equity risk premium, and justifies sharply higher valuations for equities and other risk-assets. But when the 10-year global bond yield rises back to around 2 percent, the process viciously reverses: bond prices lose their negative asymmetry, re-requiring an equity risk premium and sharply lower valuations for risk-assets.3 Put simply, when interest rates rise from low levels they undermine the support for elevated risk-asset valuations in a viciously non-linear way. The consequent plunge in risk-asset prices aggressively tightens financial conditions and thereby sets an unusually low ceiling for nominal interest rates and bond yields. This dynamic proved to be the major feature of the financial market landscape in 2018 and will loom large in 2019 too. It also solves the riddle as to why the neutral real rate may now be close to zero. An unusually low ceiling for the nominal interest rate combined with inflation hovering around 2 percent, translates into a neutral real interest rate that is not much higher than zero. The Investment Implications When the Riksbank paused after its near 2 percent of hiking, it proved to be a good structural entry point for Swedish long bonds, and a good structural exit point for the Swedish krona (Chart I-3 and Chart I-4). Likewise, when the Reserve Bank of Australia paused after its near 2 percent of hiking, it was an excellent moment to buy Australian long bonds and to sell the Australian dollar (Chart I-5 and Chart I-6). Chart I-3When The Riksbank Paused, It Was A Good Structural Entry Point In To Swedish Bonds... When The Riksbank Paused, It Was A Good Structural Entry Point In To Swedish Bonds... When The Riksbank Paused, It Was A Good Structural Entry Point In To Swedish Bonds... Chart I-4...And A Good Structural Exit Point Out Of The Swedish Krona ...And A Good Structural Exit Point Out Of The Swedish Krona ...And A Good Structural Exit Point Out Of The Swedish Krona Chart I-5When The RBA Paused, It Was A Good Structural Entry Point In To Australian Bonds... When The RBA Paused, It Was A Good Structural Entry Point In To Australian Bonds... When The RBA Paused, It Was A Good Structural Entry Point In To Australian Bonds... Chart I-6...And A Good Structural Exit Point Out Of The Australian Dollar ...And A Good Structural Exit Point Out Of The Australian Dollar ...And A Good Structural Exit Point Out Of The Australian Dollar Will the the 2 percent limit for monetary tightening that has held since 2008 continue to hold? If, as we expect, the answer is yes the implication is that through the next couple of years U.S. long bonds will strongly outperform German bunds. Over the same time frame, USD/EUR will trend lower (Chart I-7 and Chart I-8).  Chart I-7A Good Structural Entry Point In To Long T-Bonds/Short Bunds A Good Structural Entry Point in To Long T-Bonds/Short Bunds A Good Structural Entry Point in To Long T-Bonds/Short Bunds Chart I-8A Good Structural Exit Point Out Of USD/EUR A Good Structural Exit Point Out Of USD/EUR A Good Structural Exit Point Out Of USD/EUR Finally, as regards the broad stock market, a quick glance at the MSCI all country world index shows a striking feature. Since October 2017, no rally or sell-off has lasted more than three months (Chart I-9). Given the current highly non-linear relationship between equities and bond yields, this pattern is set to continue. Chart I-9Since October 2017, No Rally Or Sell-Off Has Lasted More Than Three Months Since October 2017, No Rally Or Sell-Off Has Lasted More Than Three Months Since October 2017, No Rally Or Sell-Off Has Lasted More Than Three Months In essence, the broad stock market will remain trendless, but offer excellent tactical opportunities in both directions. The current stance is tactically long, but don’t get too comfortable! Fractal Trading System* The sharp recent rally in government bonds has hit a point where tight liquidity conditions could trigger a temporary reversal. Accordingly, the 65-day trade is to go short 30-year T-bonds, setting a profit target at 3 percent with a symmetrical stop-loss. All of the five other open positions are in healthy profit. 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 Short U.S. 30 year T-Bond Short U.S. 30 year T-Bond 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.   Dhaval Joshi, Senior Vice President Chief European Investment Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com  * 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 Footnotes 1 The Federal Reserve has raised the federal funds rate by a total of 2.25 percent comprising an isolated 0.25 percent hike at the end of 2015 and a sequential 2 percent hike from December 2016 through December 2018. 2 Please see the BCA Special Report “A Grumpy View Of The Outlook” January 28, 2019 available at www.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see the European Investment Strategy Weekly Report “Risk: The Great Misunderstanding Of Finance”, October 25, 2018 available at eis.bcaresearch.com  Fractal Trading System Recommendations Asset Allocation Equity Regional and Country Allocation Equity Sector Allocation Bond and Interest Rate Allocation Currency and Other Allocation Closed Fractal Trades Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Interest Rate Chart II-5Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations

Highlights Fed Policy: The Fed’s move to a more dovish posture is positive for global risk assets in the near-term. This is setting up for a revival of volatility later in 2019, however, with U.S. growth unlikely to slow enough to justify a continuation of the Fed’s dovish stance. With the market now discounting no change in Fed policy rates over the next year, the risks for U.S. Treasury yields are now tilted to the upside. ECB Policy: Growth has slowed in Europe, but the ECB is limited in its ability to ease policy further given tight labor markets and rising wage growth. Policy rates will stay on hold over at least the next year. U.S. & European Duration: Keep global duration exposure below benchmark, with a more defensive stance on U.S. Treasuries over German Bunds given that the Treasury-Bund spread has overshot to the downside. Feature “In fact, our policy works through changing financial conditions, so it’s sort of the essence of what we do” – Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell Have central bankers now turned TOO dovish? That is a question that will be answered in the coming weeks and months after the Federal Reserve and European Central Bank (ECB) signaled a more cautious outlook on growth and inflation. Both central banks cited common causes for the increased caution, such as financial market instability related to geopolitical uncertainty (U.S.-China trade tensions, Brexit, the U.S. government shutdown). Importantly, neither the Fed nor ECB expressed conviction that monetary policy settings were now too restrictive. The sharp selloff in global stock and credit markets at the end of 2018 did tighten financial conditions which, in and of itself, should result in slower growth on either side of the Atlantic in the first half of 2019 (Chart of the Week). Yet we do not expect a move to a below-trend pace of growth that would trigger rising unemployment and weaker inflation pressures. Chart of the WeekFed Too Dovish, ECB Not Dovish Enough Fed Too Dovish, ECB Not Dovish Enough Fed Too Dovish, ECB Not Dovish Enough The shift to a more dovish posture by the Fed and ECB has already induced some easing of financial conditions to help support growth in the U.S. and Europe until the uncertainties over geopolitics and the Chinese economy are resolved. This appears to be providing more stimulus to economies that may not necessarily need it. That is a risk that policymakers have decided to take to protect against the downside tail risks to economic growth and confidence from global uncertainty. In terms of fixed income markets, more dovish policymakers have created a pro-risk backdrop that will support the outperformance of corporate bonds versus government debt over the next 3-6 months. Without a deeper slowdown of global growth beyond what is currently expected, however, this will only be a temporary respite as central banks revert back to fighting inflation pressures instead of calming financial markets. The result will be a return to monetary tightening and higher bond yields, although that is a far more likely scenario in the U.S. than in Europe over the next 6-12 months given the relative signals from our Central Bank Monitors (bottom panel). Fed Outlook – A Temporary Dovish Turn, Nothing More The quote at the beginning of this report was taken from Fed Chair Powell’s press conference after last week’s FOMC meeting, in response to a question on how the Fed thinks about financial conditions. We can think of no cleaner way to explain the Fed’s understanding of how its monetary policy actions get transmitted to the real economy. By inducing changes in financial asset values (equity prices, corporate bond yields, the value of the U.S. dollar) through adjustments in the fed funds rate – and perceptions about its forward path – the Fed is able to impact the cost of financing across much of the U.S. economy. The goal is either to slow or stimulate growth, as needed, to allow the Fed to reach its dual mandate of maximizing employment while keeping inflation stable. Viewed from this perspective, the Fed’s “dovish” turn last week was a necessary step to not only stabilize financial markets, but to induce a pro-growth rally in risk assets that had sold off too aggressively. On that front, the Fed can say “Mission Accomplished”. Year-to-date, the S&P 500 is up 8% while U.S. investment grade and high-yield corporate bond spreads have fallen by 26bps and 110bps, respectively. The U.S. dollar is also down 1.6% since the start of the year, providing further stimulus to the U.S. economy. U.S. Treasury yields, which had fallen thanks to lower real and inflation components, have also helped ease financial conditions. Real yields have declined as the market has moved to price out all Fed rate hikes for 2019 in response to some signs of cooling U.S. growth (i.e. housing) and the big fall in asset prices. At the same time, inflation expectations have drifted lower as markets now expect the plunge in oil prices seen in 2018 to filter though more broadly into lower realized inflation (Chart 2). Chart 2Too Much Pessimism In UST Yields Too Much Pessimism In UST Yields Too Much Pessimism In UST Yields The ability for yields to decline further is now limited, however, with U.S. economic growth likely to continue at an above-trend pace in the next few quarters, based on the readings from reliable indicators. The ISM Manufacturing index rebounded to 56.6 in January, still well above the 50 level indicating an expanding U.S. economy, even after the decline that began last September. Within the sub-components of the index, the New Orders series also rose last month by 6.9 points, suggesting that the bounce in the overall ISM series could persist. The 10yr UST yield broadly tracks the ISM Manufacturing index (Chart 3), with the post-crisis relationship indicating that the bond yield will have difficulty falling below 2.5% if the ISM remains above 55. Chart 3U.S. Treasuries Vulnerable To Better U.S. Data U.S. Treasuries Vulnerable To Better U.S. Data U.S. Treasuries Vulnerable To Better U.S. Data U.S. economic data continues to broadly meet expectations, and the momentum in U.S. Treasury yields has overshot to the downside versus data surprises (bottom panel). Admittedly, there have been far fewer data releases of late because of the U.S. government shutdown last month. Yet even if the bulk of the unreleased data was weak, Treasury yields at current levels already seem to be discounting very soft growth. Forward-looking indicators of growth - the Conference Board leading economic indicator and BCA’s U.S. employment and capital spending models – are all pointing to the U.S. economy continuing to expand at a solid, above-trend pace in the coming months (Chart 4). Chart 4No Signs Pointing To Slower U.S. Growth No Signs Pointing To Slower U.S. Growth No Signs Pointing To Slower U.S. Growth The U.S. labor market remains tight, as evidenced by continued low unemployment and solid growth in wage measures like Average Hourly Earnings and the Wages and Salaries component of the Employment Cost Index (Chart 5). At the same time, readings from leading inflation indicators like the New York Fed’s Underlying Inflation Gauge remain elevated (bottom panel). The combined message is that U.S. core inflation rates will remain surprisingly sticky in the coming months, even given the lagged impact of last year’s drop in oil prices. Chart 5Persistent U.S. Inflation Pressures Persistent U.S. Inflation Pressures Persistent U.S. Inflation Pressures Many have made the case that the current cycle looks a lot like the Fed’s 2016 pause on policy tightening, which ended up lasting one full year after the December 2015 initial post-QE rate hike. Back then, the Fed’s more dovish posture helped generate easier financial conditions through a weaker U.S. dollar, tighter U.S. corporate credit spreads and higher U.S. equity values. U.S. Treasury yields fell sharply as the market aggressively covered a large bearish tilt towards U.S. interest rates while removing all rate hikes that were discounted for 2016 (Chart 6). There is one major difference between then and now, however – the U.S. economy is growing at a much faster pace, with far less spare capacity (bottom panel). Chart 6This Is NOT A Repeat Of 2016 This Is NOT A Repeat Of 2016 This Is NOT A Repeat Of 2016 When looking at all the U.S. data objectively, we conclude that the Fed’s latest dovish turn will not last anywhere near as long as the 2016 episode. The current easing of U.S. (and global) financial conditions alongside still-solid U.S. growth will eventually set up a return to the Fed rate hiking cycle, at a time when no interest rate increases are discounted in U.S. money markets. This supports our current recommendation to be tactically overweight U.S. corporate debt versus U.S. Treasuries on a 3-6 month horizon, during this window when the Fed is deliberately easing financial conditions by being overly dovish. On a more medium term 6-12 month horizon, however, we are maintaining a below-benchmark stance on U.S. duration exposure. The only way Treasury yields can move lower from here is if a Fed rate cutting cycle starts to be discounted – a highly unlikely scenario given the signals from leading growth and inflation indicators. Bottom Line: The Fed’s move to a more dovish posture is positive for global risk assets in the near-term. This is setting up for a revival of volatility later in 2019, however, with U.S. growth unlikely to slow enough to prevent inflation pressures from surfacing. With the market now discounting a stand-pat Fed over the next year, with minimal expected inflation, the risks for U.S. Treasury yields are now tilted to the upside. ECB Outlook – Firmly Neutral The euro area is currently facing a fairly significant growth slowdown. The manufacturing PMI has fallen for 13 consecutive months and now sits just above the 50 line indicating expanding growth. The OECD’s leading economic indicator (LEI) has also declined over that same period. Both indicators are now back to levels last seen prior to the 2009 and 2012 recessions (Chart 7). Chart 7Euro Area LEI and PMI Overstating The Downturn? Euro Area LEI and PMI Overstating The Downturn? Euro Area LEI and PMI Overstating The Downturn? Yet at the same time, surveys of business and consumer confidence from the European Commission suggest that the current downturn is nothing like those previous slumps. Even the Commission’s indicator of exporter order books (bottom panel) suggests that things do not appear as bad as indicated by the PMI and LEI. So where does the truth lie about the euro area economy? When looking at the hard data on exports (using the IMF’s Direction of Trade statistical database that includes both goods and services), it is obvious that there was a sharp slowing of euro area exports last year (Chart 8). Slumping Chinese demand was a major reason for that slowdown, but exports to the rest of the world also took a major hit. For the more export-intensive economies of Europe, last year’s global growth deceleration was a major punch to the gut. Chart 8European Export Shock Should Bottom Out Later In 2019 European Export Shock Should Bottom Out Later In 2019 European Export Shock Should Bottom Out Later In 2019 Looking ahead, there is still likely to be some pain coming from weaker export demand in the first half of 2019. The Chinese credit impulse (measured as a 12-month change in Total Social Financing as a % of GDP) is still negative, while our global LEI measure continues to drift lower. However, there are some tentative signs that things may be stabilizing. The shorter 6-month China credit impulse has hooked up (the “x’ in the top panel of Chart 8). Our diffusion index of countries within our global LEI – itself a leading indicator of the global LEI – has also begun to move higher, meaning there are fewer countries within the euro area with falling LEIs. While it is still too early to draw firm conclusions, there is a chance that euro area export growth will bottom out by mid-year. This is especially true if a U.S.-China trade detente is soon reached and Chinese policymakers deliver some additional growth stimulus measures, which is BCA’s base case scenario. ECB President Mario Draghi noted last week that a stabilization of global trade tensions would reduce much of the perceived uncertainty within the euro area economy. The U.S.-China trade spat has not been the only thing weighing on euro area growth, though. In our framework for analyzing the ECB’s policy decisions, we look at how broad-based are the trends in growth and inflation within the euro area to determine the next likely move on monetary policy. The way we do that is by looking at diffusion indices of economic data, constructed using figures from as many euro area countries as possible, given data availability. We show those diffusion indices for real GDP growth, manufacturing PMIs, headline inflation and core inflation in the euro area in Chart 9. Chart 9No Pressure On The ECB To Adjust Interest Rates No Pressure On The ECB To Adjust Interest Rates No Pressure On The ECB To Adjust Interest Rates The diffusion indices show that the vast majority of euro area countries are now suffering slowing real GDP growth and falling PMIs, with levels seen during recessions. Yet the actual pullbacks in real GDP growth and the PMIs have been shallower than those past episodes. It is as if today, all countries are suffering a slump, but no deep downturn. This is consistent with the ECB’s belief that Europe has suffered a bunch of one-off triggers for slowing growth – cutbacks in German auto production related to new emission standards, large-scale French street protests, the Italian fiscal policy debate with the EU, slowing exports from global trade tensions – but no broad-based decline that can be attributed to, or solved by, monetary policy. This is especially true with the diffusion index for core euro area inflation which now rising, suggesting that core inflation could remain surprisingly sticky in the coming months. The diffusion indices for euro area labor markets provide additional information as to why the ECB has not shifted to an even more dovish stance, despite the signs of weaker growth. Not only is the overall euro area unemployment rate now below the OECD’s estimate of the full employment NAIRU, the vast majority of countries within the euro area are at full employment (Chart 10). That diffusion index correlates strongly with a traditional Taylor Rule estimate of the equilibrium ECB policy rate, and suggests that the ECB should be raising rates right now. That can also be seen in the diffusion index for wage growth (bottom panel), which shows that the majority of euro area countries are seeing higher wage inflation. Chart 10Tightening Labor Markets In Europe Tightening Labor Markets In Europe Tightening Labor Markets In Europe Given the readings on the core inflation and labor market related diffusion indices, the current backdrop is not one where the ECB should be shifting to a more dovish posture. Yet when looking at market-based measures of inflation expectations like CPI swaps, investors clearly do not believe that the ECB’s optimistic inflation forecasts will be achieved over the next two years – typically a sign of policy settings that appear too tight (Chart 11). Chart 11Bund Yields Will Stay Subdued Without More Euro Area Inflation Bund Yields Will Stay Subdued Without More Euro Area Inflation Bund Yields Will Stay Subdued Without More Euro Area Inflation It will require some signs of euro area growth reacceleration, and maybe some upside surprises on core inflation and wage growth, before inflation expectations (and Bund yields) begin rising again. Those are unlikely to become visible until at least the latter half of 2019, and the ECB is likely to keep policy rates unchanged over the balance of the year. Given our relative views on the Fed and ECB, we see the scope for the yield spread between the benchmark 10-year U.S. Treasury and German Bund to widen from current levels. That spread is wide on a long-term basis because of the relative policy stance of the two central banks, with the current 255bps gap roughly equal to the gap between the fed funds rate and ECB refi rate. Yet the momentum of that spread is closely correlated to the difference in the data surprise indices for the U.S. and euro area, and a divergence has opened up between those two measures on the back of better U.S. growth (Chart 12). Chart 12UST-Bund Spread Has Overshot To Downside UST-Bund Spread Has Overshot To Downside UST-Bund Spread Has Overshot To Downside With the forward curves currently pricing in some additional tightening of the Treasury-Bund spread, betting on some renewed spread widening is a positive carry trade that also makes sense on a fundamental basis. Bottom Line: Growth has slowed in Europe, but the ECB is limited in its ability to ease policy further given tight labor markets and rising wage growth. Policy rates will stay on hold over at least the next year.   Robert Robis, CFA, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com   Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index The Pause That Refreshes The Pause That Refreshes Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Highlights Chart 1Look For Rate Hikes In H2 2019 Look For Rate Hikes In H2 2019 Look For Rate Hikes In H2 2019 First things first: The Fed’s rate hike cycle is not over. Last week’s FOMC statement told us that the Fed will be “patient” and Chairman Powell cited slower global growth and tighter financial conditions as reasons to keep the funds rate steady. However, both of those reasons could soon evaporate. With the market now priced for 8 bps of rate cuts during the next 12 months and the dollar off its highs, there is scope for financial conditions to ease and global growth to improve in the first half of the year. According to our Fed Monitor, only tight financial conditions warrant a pause in rate hikes (Chart 1). The economic growth and inflation components of our Monitor (not shown) continue to recommend a tighter policy stance. The message is that if risk assets rally during the next six months causing financial conditions to ease, then all else equal, the Fed will have the green light to re-start rate hikes in the second half of the year. Investors should maintain below-benchmark duration in U.S. bond portfolios. Feature Investment Grade: Overweight Investment grade corporate bonds outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 183 basis points in January. The index option-adjusted spread tightened 25 bps on the month and currently sits at 127 bps. We upgraded our recommended allocation to corporate bonds three weeks ago because spreads had become too wide given the current phase of the credit cycle.1 Presently, we observe that the 12-month breakeven spread for Baa-rated corporate bonds has been tighter 43% of the time since 1989 (Chart 2). In the phase of the credit cycle when the 3/10 Treasury slope is between 0 bps and 50 bps, corporate breakeven spreads are typically in the lower third of their distributions.2 Chart 2Investment Grade Market Overview Investment Grade Market Overview Investment Grade Market Overview Baa-rated bonds currently offer better value than higher-rated credits. The 12-month breakeven spread for A-rated debt has been tighter 29% of the time since 1989 (panel 2). Aa and Aaa-rated credits clock in at 25% and 4%, respectively. With the Fed in a holding pattern, we are comfortable taking credit risk for the next six months and recommend that investors move down in quality to capture the extra return. The Fed’s Q4 Senior Loan Officer Survey, released yesterday, showed that a net 3% of banks reported tightening lending standards on C&I loans. Tighter lending standards correlate with higher defaults and wider spreads, so this tentative development bears close monitoring going forward. Chart   Chart High-Yield: Overweight High-yield outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 408 basis points in January. The index option-adjusted spread tightened 103 bps, and currently sits at 416 bps. Our measure of the excess spread available in the High-Yield index after accounting for expected default losses is currently 224 bps, slightly below the historical average of 250 bps (Chart 3). In other words, if corporate defaults match the Moody’s baseline forecast for the next 12 months, high-yield bonds will return 224 bps in excess of duration-matched Treasuries, assuming no change in spreads. Chart 3High-Yield Market Overview High-Yield Market Overview High-Yield Market Overview Moody’s revised its baseline 12-month default rate forecast higher last month, from 2.6% to 3.4%, and as was discussed in last week’s report, the revised forecast looks reasonable given our economic outlook.3 Specifically, our measure of nonfinancial corporate sector gross leverage – calculated as total debt over pre-tax profits – is roughly consistent with a 4% default rate. This leverage measure improved rapidly during the past year, but should start to stabilize during the next few quarters as profit growth decelerates. All in all, baseline default rate expectations have moved higher in recent months, but junk spreads still offer adequate compensation for that risk. In fact, if we assume excess compensation equal to the historical average, then junk spreads embed an expected default rate of 3% (panel 4), not far from the Moody’s base case. While junk spreads offer adequate compensation given our 12-month default outlook, the near-term outlook for excess returns is somewhat brighter as the Fed’s dovish turn should lead to spread compression during the next few months. MBS: Neutral Mortgage-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 32 basis points in January. The conventional 30-year zero-volatility spread tightened 3 bps on the month, driven by a 3 bps decline in the option-adjusted spread (OAS). The compensation for prepayment risk (option cost) held flat. The drop in the 30-year mortgage rate to 4.46%, from 4.94% in November, led to a sharp spike in mortgage refinancings. However, refi activity remains very low relative to history (Chart 4). With the longer-run uptrend in mortgage rates still intact, the recent spike in refinancings is bound to reverse in the coming months. This will keep MBS spreads capped near historically low levels. Chart 4MBS Market Overview MBS Market Overview MBS Market Overview Outside of refi activity, MBS spreads are also influenced by changes in mortgage lending standards. The Federal Reserve’s Senior Loan Officer Survey showed no change in residential mortgage lending standards in Q4 2018 (bottom panel), while reported mortgage demand took a significant dip. Periods of tightening lending standards tend to coincide with MBS spread widening, but faced with weaker demand banks are much more likely to ease standards going forward. This is particularly true because very little progress has been made easing lending standards since the financial crisis. The median FICO score for new mortgages peaked at 781 in Q1 2011, but had only fallen to 758 as of Q3 2018. With relatively little risk of spread widening we are comfortable with a neutral allocation to Agency MBS, though tight spreads make the sector less appealing than corporate bonds from a return perspective. Later in the cycle, when the risk of corporate spread widening is more pronounced, MBS will likely warrant an upgrade. Government-Related: Underweight The Government-Related index outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 53 basis points in January. Sovereign debt led the way, outperforming the Treasury benchmark by 221 bps. Foreign Agencies outperformed by 65 bps, Local Authorities outperformed by 32 bps, and Supranationals outperformed by 3 bps. Domestic Agency bonds were the sole laggard, underperforming Treasuries by 3 bps on the month. The Fed’s pause and the accompanying weakness in the dollar spurred last month’s outperformance of USD-denominated Sovereign debt. But given the current attractiveness of U.S. corporate credit, we are not eager to chase the outperformance in Sovereigns. The option-adjusted spread advantage in Baa-rated U.S. corporate credit relative to the Sovereign index is as wide as it was in mid-2016 (Chart 5), a period when corporate bonds outperformed Sovereigns by a significant margin. Chart 5Government-Related Market Overview Government-Related Market Overview Government-Related Market Overview At the country level, our analysis of USD-denominated Emerging Market Sovereign spreads shows that only Argentina, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE and Poland offer excess spread compared to equivalently-rated U.S. corporates.4 We continue to view the Local Authority sector as very attractive. The sector offers similar value to Aa/A-rated corporate debt on a breakeven spread basis (bottom panel), and it is also dominated by taxable municipal securities that are insulated from weak foreign economic growth. Municipal Bonds: Overweight Municipal bonds outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 7 basis points in January (before adjusting for the tax advantage). The average Aaa-rated Municipal / Treasury yield ratio fell 2% in January, and currently sits at 84% (Chart 6). This is about one standard deviation below its post-crisis mean but above the average of 81% that prevailed in the late stages of the previous cycle, between mid-2006 and mid-2007. Chart 6Municipal Market Overview Municipal Market Overview Municipal Market Overview In our research into the phases of the credit cycle, we often divide the cycle based on the slope of the yield curve. Since 1983, in the middle phase of the credit cycle when the 3/10 Treasury slope is between 0 bps and +50 bps (where it stands today), investment grade corporate bonds have delivered annualized excess returns of -14 bps. In contrast, municipal bonds have delivered annualized excess returns of +47 bps (before adjusting for the tax advantage).5  Given strong historical returns during the current phase of the cycle and the fact that our Municipal Health Monitor remains in “improving health” territory (bottom panel), we advocate an overweight allocation to municipal bonds. Long maturity municipal debt continues to offer a substantial yield advantage relative to the short-end of the curve. For example, a muni investor needs an effective tax rate of 35% to equalize the after-tax yields between a 5-year Aa-rated municipal bond and the equivalent-duration U.S. credit index. For a 20-year muni the same breakeven tax rate is between 10% and 17%. Treasury Curve: Favor 2/30 Barbell Over 7-Year Bullet Treasury yields declined in January, with the 5-year and 7-year maturities falling more than the short and long ends of the curve. The 2/10 slope flattened 3 bps on the month, from 21 bps to 18 bps. The 5/30 slope steepened 5 bps on the month, from 51 bps to 56 bps. In a recent report we looked at the correlations between different yield curve slopes and our 12-month Fed Funds Discounter.6 We found that the 5-year and 7-year maturities are most sensitive to changes in the discounter, while the short and long ends of the curve tend to be more stable. In other words, a decline in our 12-month discounter, like the one seen during the past two months (Chart 7), will tend to flatten the curve out to the 5-year/7-year maturity point and steepen the curve beyond that point. An increase in the discounter has the opposite effect. Chart 7Treasury Yield Curve Overview Treasury Yield Curve Overview Treasury Yield Curve Overview We expect the market to price some Fed rate hikes back into the curve as financial conditions ease during the next few months. Based on that view, we recommend adopting a yield curve strategy that benefits from a rise in our 12-month discounter. A position short the 7-year bullet and long a duration-matched 2/30 barbell provides the appropriate exposure and is attractively valued by our yield curve models (panel 4).7 TIPS: Overweight TIPS outperformed the duration-equivalent nominal Treasury index by 84 basis points in January. The 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate rose 14 bps on the month, and currently sits at 1.88%. The 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rate rose 9 bps, and currently sits at 2.04%. Both rates remain below the 2.3% - 2.5% range that has historically been consistent with inflation expectations that are well-anchored around the Fed’s target. The 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate also remains below the fair value reading from our Adaptive Expectations Model (Chart 8).8 This model is based on a combination of backward-looking and forward-looking inflation measures and is premised on the idea that investors’ expectations take time to adjust to changing macro environments. The current fair value reading from the model is 1.97%, but that fair value reading will trend steadily higher as long as core CPI inflation remains above 1.83%. The 1.83% threshold is the annualized trailing 10-year growth rate in core CPI, and it is the most important variable in our model.   Chart 8Inflation Compensation Inflation Compensation Inflation Compensation On that note, core CPI has increased at an annual rate of 2.48% during the past 3 months, well above the necessary threshold. And while some forward-looking inflation measures have moderated, notably the ISM Prices Paid index (panel 4), this is largely a reaction to the recent drop in energy prices. A drop that should reverse as global growth improves in the coming months. ABS: Neutral Asset-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 16 basis points in January. The index option-adjusted spread for Aaa-rated ABS tightened 8 bps on the month, and currently sits at 40 bps, 6 bps above its pre-crisis low. The Excess Return Bond Map in Appendix C shows that consumer ABS offer greater expected return than Domestic Agencies and Supranationals, though with a commensurate increase in risk. The Map also shows that Agency CMBS offer very similar return potential with much less risk. The Fed's Senior Loan Officer Survey for Q4 2018 showed that banks tightened lending standards slightly for both credit cards and auto loans. This is consistent with a continued gradual uptrend in consumer credit delinquencies (Chart 9). Chart 9ABS Market Overview ABS Market Overview ABS Market Overview Rising household interest expense further confirms that the consumer credit delinquency rate is biased higher, albeit from a low starting point (panel 4). All in all, ABS still offer a reasonable risk/reward trade-off but could warrant a downgrade in the coming quarters as credit quality worsens. Non-Agency CMBS: Underweight Non-Agency Commercial Mortgage-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 67 basis points in January. The index option-adjusted spread for non-agency Aaa-rated CMBS tightened 11 bps on the month and currently sits at 105 bps. The Fed’s Senior Loan Officer Survey showed that banks tightened lending standards on commercial real estate (CRE) loans in Q4 and witnessed falling demand (Chart 10). This is a typical negative environment for CMBS spreads. Decelerating CRE prices are also a cause for concern (panel 3). Investors should maintain an underweight allocation to non-Agency CMBS. Agency CMBS: Overweight Agency CMBS outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 28 basis points in January. The index option-adjusted spread tightened 4 bps on the month and currently sits at 57 bps. The Excess Return Bond Map in Appendix C shows 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. Chart 10CMBS Market Overview CMBS Market Overview CMBS Market Overview Appendix A - The Golden Rule Of Bond Investing We follow a two-step process to formulate recommendations for bond portfolio duration. First, we determine the change in the federal funds rate that is priced into the yield curve for the next 12 months. Second, we decide – based on our assessments of the economy and Fed policy – whether the change in the fed funds rate will exceed or fall short of what is priced into the curve. Most of the time, a correct answer to this question leads to the appropriate duration call. We call this framework the Golden Rule Of Bond Investing, and we demonstrated its effectiveness in the U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, “The Golden Rule Of Bond Investing”, dated July 24, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com. Chart 11 illustrates the Golden Rule’s track record by showing that the Bloomberg Barclays Treasury Master Index tends to outperform cash when rate hikes fall short of 12-month expectations, and vice-versa. Chart 11The Golden Rule's Track Record The Golden Rule's Track Record The Golden Rule's Track Record At present, the market is priced for 8 basis points of rate cuts during the next 12 months. Given that we expect the Fed to deliver rate hikes in the second half of this year, we recommend that investors maintain below-benchmark portfolio duration. Appendix B- Butterfly Strategy Valuation The following tables present the current read-outs from our butterfly spread models. We use these models to identify opportunities to take duration-neutral positions across the Treasury yield curve. The models are explained in detail in the following two Special Reports: U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, “Bullets, Barbells And Butterflies”, dated July 25, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, “More Bullets, Barbells And Butterflies”, dated May 15, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Table 4Butterfly Strategy Valuation: Raw Residuals In Basis Points (As of January 31, 2019) On Pause But Not Forgotten On Pause But Not Forgotten   Table 5Butterfly Strategy Valuation: Standardized Residuals (As of January 31, 2019) On Pause But Not Forgotten On Pause But Not Forgotten   Table 6Discounted Slope Change During Next 6 Months (BPs) On Pause But Not Forgotten On Pause But Not Forgotten Appendix C - Excess Return Bond Map The Excess Return Bond Map is used to assess the relative risk/reward trade-off between different sectors of the U.S. fixed income market. The Map employs volatility-adjusted breakeven spread analysis to show how likely it is that a given sector will earn/lose money during the subsequent 12 months. The Map does not incorporate any macroeconomic view. The horizontal axis of the 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 of excess return. Chart 12   Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Buy Corporate Credit”, dated January 15, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 For further details on how we divide the credit cycle based on the slope of the yield curve please see U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, “2019 Key Views: Implications For U.S. Fixed Income”, dated December 11, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Running Room”, dated January 29, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Oil Supply Shock Is A Risk For Junk”, dated October 9, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 5 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, “2019 Key Views: Implications For U.S. Fixed Income”, dated December 11, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearh 6 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Don’t Position For Curve Inversion”, dated January 22, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 7 The output from all of our yield curve models is shown in Appendix B of this report. 8 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Adaptive Expectations In The TIPS Market”, dated November 20, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification Corporate Sector Relative Valuation And Recommended Allocation

Feature Half Way Back Since BCA went overweight global equities in late December, the MSCI ACWI index has rallied by 8% and the S&P 500 is back to only 8% off its September historical high. So far, this has been little more than a technical rally from the extreme oversold position in Q4. But with U.S. economic growth still resilient, earnings likely to grow healthily again this year (albeit more slowly than in 2018), and the valuation of risk assets (both equities and credit) no longer a headwind, we expect the rally to continue for some time, and so reiterate our overweight on equities. Recommendations Monthly Portfolio Update Monthly Portfolio Update True, there have been some disappointments in U.S. data in recent weeks. In particular, the December manufacturing ISM fell sharply to 54.3 from 59.3, raising fears that the U.S. is starting to decelerate in line with other regions (Chart 1). But the ISM may have been affected by the government shutdown and, overall, U.S. data still look solid, with the Citigroup Economic Surprise Index beginning to rebound, and stronger than in other regions (Chart 2). The residential housing market, which was exhibiting signs of stress last year, with existing home sales -6.4% YoY in December, is showing the first signs of stabilization, helped by mortgage interest rates that are now 50 BPs off their recent peak (Chart 3). Chart 1How Worrying Is The U.S. Slowdown? How Worrying Is The U.S. Slowdown? How Worrying Is The U.S. Slowdown? Chart 2U.S. Data Surprisingly Positive U.S. Data Surprisingly Positive U.S. Data Surprisingly Positive Chart 3Housing Market Should Stabilize Housing Market Should Stabilize Housing Market Should Stabilize In particular, the outlook for consumption looks healthy, with average hourly earnings growing at 3.3% YoY, consumer confidence close to an historic high, and the savings rate above 6%. Unsurprisingly, then, retail sales have boomed in recent months (Chart 4). Unless consumer confidence is dented by a repetition of the government shutdown or some other shock, consumption (68% of GDP, remember) should grow strongly this year. Add to this a residual positive impact of close to 0.5% of GDP coming from last year’s fiscal stimulus, and it is hard to imagine the U.S. going into recession over the next 12 months. Chart 4Consumption Booming Consumption Booming Consumption Booming The Fed will probably go on hold for now, however, given the market jitters in Q4. We are likely back to a situation like that in 2015-2016, where the Fed Policy Feedback Loop becomes the key factor for markets (Chart 5). When financial conditions tighten, with stock prices falling and the dollar appreciating, the Fed turns more dovish. However, this triggers a rally in risk assets and loosens financial conditions, allowing the Fed to start hiking again. With the tightening in financial conditions over the past six months, the Fed is likely to err on the side of caution for now (Chart 6). However, if our macro view is correct – and as inflation starts to pick up again after April, partly due to the base effect – the Fed will want to continue withdrawing accommodation over the course of this year. The Fed Funds Rate, at around 2.4% is still two hikes below what the FOMC sees as the neutral level of interest rates (the 2.8% terminal rate in the FOMC dots). We see the Fed, therefore, raising rates in June and perhaps hiking two or even three times this year. By contrast, the futures market assigns only a 25% probability of even one rate hike this year, and is even pricing in a small probability of a cut. Chart 5 Chart 6Tighter Conditions Mean More Cautious Fed Tighter Conditions Mean More Cautious Fed Tighter Conditions Mean More Cautious Fed Clearly, there are plenty of risks to the scenario of growth continuing. But those in the hands of President Trump, especially the trade war with China and the fight over funding of the wall on the border with Mexico, we don’t see as being serious impediments. Trump is fully aware that he is unlikely to be reelected in November 2020 if the U.S. is in recession by then. Every incumbent U.S. president since World War Two who fought for reelection during a recession failed to be reelected (Chart 7). The view of BCA’s geopolitical strategists, therefore, is that the White House and Congressional Democrats will agree to concessions to end the shutdown before the end of the current three-week stop-gap period. Less likely, Trump will declare a national emergency that will cause much controversy but have little impact on the economy. Our strategists also argue that there is a 45% probability of trade negotiations with China producing a result (at least a short-term one the president can boast about) before the March 1 deadline, and a further 25% probability of the deadline being extended without further sanctions being imposed.1 Chart 7Trump Won't Be Reelected In A Recession Trump Won't Be Reelected In A Recession Trump Won't Be Reelected In A Recession Equities: Analysts have become overly pessimistic about the earnings outlook for this year, cutting 2019 U.S. EPS growth to 7% (and only 2% YoY in Q1). Our top-down model (based on, admittedly optimistic, U.S. growth assumptions, but also headwinds from a stronger dollar) indicates 12% growth. If analysts are forced to revise up their numbers as better earnings come through, that should be a catalyst for further equity performance (Chart 8). We continue to prefer U.S. over European equities. The steady slowdown in European growth over the past 12 months has not yet bottomed, banks in Europe remain troubled, the earnings picture is less positive, and valuations relative to the U.S. are not especially attractive. We also remain underweight on EM equities: they may produce a positive return in a risk-on environment, but we see them underperforming DM as rising U.S. interest rates and a stronger USD put pressure on EM borrowers with excess foreign-currency debt. Chart 8Analysts Have Overdone Downward Revisions Analysts Have Overdone Downward Revisions Analysts Have Overdone Downward Revisions Fixed Income: The recent fall in U.S. Treasury yields was mainly caused by the inflation expectation component, itself very sensitive (if rather illogically so) to the oil price (Chart 9). As the oil price recovers (see below), inflation picks up moderately, and the Fed hikes by more than the market expects, we see the 10-year Treasury yield rising to 3.5% during the course of the year. BCA’s fixed-income strategists recently raised their recommendation on global credit to overweight, given more attractive spreads and the likelihood that the Fed will be on hold for the next six months.2 Their recommendation is for 3-6 months, and the Fed restarting the hiking cycle, say in June, might terminate the positive story. We are following their lead, by raising both high-yield and investment-grade bonds to overweight within the (underweight) fixed-income asset class. That means we are neutral credit in the overall portfolio. We would warn, though, that this is a somewhat short-term call: we still prefer equities as a way to play the continuing risk-on rally. Given the high level of U.S. corporate leverage, and the over-owned nature of the credit market, this is likely to be an asset class that performs very poorly in the next recession (Chart 10). Chart 9Inflation Expectations Should Recover Inflation Expectations Should Recover Inflation Expectations Should Recover Chart 10Corporate Leverage Is A Concern Corporate Leverage Is A Concern Corporate Leverage Is A Concern Currencies: Currencies will continue to be driven by relative monetary policy. With the growth desynchronization between the U.S. and other DMs set to continue (to a degree), we see modest further USD appreciation this year. The Fed (as argued above) will probably hike more than the market expects. But, given slow European growth, the ECB is unlikely to be able to hike in Q4 this year, as it currently is guiding for and the futures market implies (Chart 11). We see the ECB reopening the Targeted Long-Term Repo Facility (TLTRO), which expires soon. Italy and Spain have been big borrowers from this facility, and bank loan growth is likely to slow as it ends (Chart 12). A renewed TLRTO would be seen as a dovish move. Tighter dollar liquidity conditions also point to a stronger USD. U.S. credit growth continues to accelerate (to 12% YoY – Chart 13) in an environment where the monetary policy has tightened: credit growth is outpacing U.S. money supply growth by 7%. Historically this has been negative for global growth (mainly because the deteriorating liquidity is a problem for EM dollar borrowers) and positive for the dollar (Chart 14).3 Chart 11Can ECB Really Hike In 2019? Can ECB Really Hike In 2019? Can ECB Really Hike In 2019? Chart 12 Chart 13...U.S. Loan Growth Accelerating... ...U.S. Loan Growth Accelerating... ...U.S. Loan Growth Accelerating... Chart 14... Which Will Tighten Liquidity Further ... Which Will Tighten Liquidity Further ... Which Will Tighten Liquidity Further Commodities: The supply/demand situation for oil should improve over coming months. With Saudi Arabia and Russia committed to cut supply by 1.2 million barrels/day, U.S. shale production growth slowing given the low one-year forward price for WTI, Canada reducing production, and Venezuela on the verge of collapse (which alone could remove 700-800k b/d from the market), our energy strategists see the crude oil balance in deficit over the next four quarters (Chart 15). Given this, they forecast Brent crude rebounding to above $80 a barrel. Other commodity prices are mostly driven by Chinese demand. We see China continuing to slow, until the accumulated effects of its fiscal and mild monetary stimulus start to come through in H2 and stabilize growth. Our analysis suggests that China remains very disciplined about the size and nature of its stimulus: it is not turning on the liquidity taps as it did in early 2016. Bank loan growth has stabilized, but shadow banking activity continues to contract, as the authorities persist with their crackdown and their emphasis on deleveraging (Chart 16). Industrial commodities prices are therefore likely to weaken over the next six months.  Chart 15Oil Balance In Deficit This Year Oil Balance In Deficit This Year Oil Balance In Deficit This Year Chart 16China Sticking To Credit Crackdown China Sticking To Credit Crackdown China Sticking To Credit Crackdown   Garry Evans, Senior Vice President Global Asset Allocation garry@bcaresearch.com   GAA Asset Allocation Footnotes 1      Please see Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, “So Donald Trump Cares About Stocks, Eh?”, dated 9 January 2019, available at gps.bcaresearch.com 2      Please see Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, “Enough With The Gloom: Upgrade Global Corporates On A Tactical Basis,” dated 15 January 2019, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com 3      For a detailed explanation, please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report, “Global Liquidity Trends Support The Dollar, But…,” dated 25 January 2019, available at fes.bcaresearch.com

Highlights We advocate implementing asset allocation not across EM assets, but rather relative to their DM counterparts. EM stocks should be part of a global equity portfolio. EM sovereign and corporate credit should be part of a global credit portfolio. EM local currency government bonds are a unique asset class with idiosyncratic features and a low correlation with other assets. Hence, their addition to any multi-asset class portfolio is beneficial. We continue recommending below benchmark allocation to EM equities, credit and local bonds. The rebound in various EM financial markets is reaching a critical technical level where it will either stop or, if broken, will carry on for some time. In Peru, further decline in industrial metals prices and ongoing involuntary monetary tightening bode ill for share prices; continue underweighting. Feature We frequently receive questions from our clients on how they should be positioning their portfolios within EM asset classes such as equities, EM U.S. dollar bonds (credit markets) and local currency government bonds – whether they should be overweight EM stocks versus EM credit markets and domestic bonds, or vice versa. While BCA’s Emerging Markets Strategy service covers EM stocks, credit and domestic bonds and exchange rates, we do not make asset allocation calls between EM equities, EM credit and local currency bonds. The reason is very simple: in a risk-on market, EM equities always outperform EM credit and local bonds, and in a risk-off environment, stocks always underperform fixed income (Chart I-1). Chart I-1EM Stocks Versus EM Credit And Local Bonds EM Stocks Versus EM Credit And Local Bonds EM Stocks Versus EM Credit And Local Bonds With respect to the relative performance of EM credit markets versus domestic bonds, the performance of EM currencies is key. A large portion of total returns on EM local currency bonds comes from exchange rates (Chart I-2). Hence, when EM currencies appreciate, domestic bonds outperform EM credit markets (U.S. dollar bonds), and vice versa (Chart I-3). Chart I-2EM Currencies Are Key To EM Local Bonds Returns EM Currencies Are Key To EM Local Bonds Returns EM Currencies Are Key To EM Local Bonds Returns Chart I-3EM Local Bonds Versus EM Credit: It Is A Currency Call EM Local Bonds Versus EM Credit: It Is A Currency Call EM Local Bonds Versus EM Credit: It Is A Currency Call For investors willing to allocate across EM asset classes, a directional view on financial markets should drive allocation between equities and fixed-income. In rallies, equities should be favored, while during risk-off periods, fixed income should be preferred. It follows that investors should overweight EM credit markets versus domestic bonds when EM currencies depreciate, and tilt allocation toward local currency bonds versus EM credit markets when EM exchange rates appreciate. Recommended Approach To Asset Allocation We advocate implementing asset allocation not across EM assets, but relative to their DM counterparts: EM stocks should be part of a global equity portfolio. A pertinent asset allocation decision should be whether to be overweight, neutral or underweight EM within a global equity portfolio. In short, EM stocks should not be compared with EM credit or local bonds, but rather versus their DM counterparts. Having mentioned that, we are maintaining our underweight recommendation on EM within a global equity portfolio for now. EM sovereign and corporate credit should be part of a global credit portfolio – i.e., asset allocators should compare them with other credit instruments such as U.S. and European corporate bonds. Total returns on EM U.S. dollar-denominated sovereign and corporate bonds can be deconstructed into the total return on U.S. Treasurys and the excess return of these EM bonds over U.S. Treasurys. Investors can obtain exposure to U.S. Treasurys by owning them outright. Hence, the unique feature of EM sovereign and corporate bonds is their spreads over U.S. government bonds. EM sovereign and corporate bond spreads over U.S. Treasurys reflect issuers' ability and willingness to pay. Thereby, investors should treat EM dollar-denominated bonds as a pure credit product and this asset class should be part of a global credit portfolio. At the moment, we recommend asset allocators underweight EM sovereign and corporate credit versus U.S./DM corporate credit, in line with our short EM equities/long U.S./DM equities strategy (Chart I-4). Within credit markets, EM investment-grade and high-yield credit should be compared with their peers in U.S./DM, respectively. The reason we are negative on EM credit markets relative to the U.S. and DM universe is that the majority of EM sovereign and corporate bond issuers in Latin America and the EMEA are commodity producers. Hence, their revenues fluctuate with commodity prices, and their spreads should be under upward pressure as commodity prices drop further and EM currencies correspondingly depreciate (Chart I-5). Chart I-4EM Credit Versus U.S. Credit EM Credit Versus U.S. Credit EM Credit Versus U.S. Credit Chart I-5EM Credit Spreads Are Sensitive To Commodities And EM Currencies EM Credit Spreads Are Sensitive To Commodities And EM Currencies EM Credit Spreads Are Sensitive To Commodities And EM Currencies In the meantime, Chinese property companies, financials and industrials/materials remain the largest issuers of corporate debt in emerging Asia. Specifically, U.S. dollar bonds issued by Chinese companies account for 32% of the Barclay’s overall EM USD Credit index and 56% of the EM Asia USD Credit index. Crucially, Chinese corporate credit is essential to trends in emerging Asian credit markets. We are bearish on the fundamentals of Chinese corporate bond issuers due to our negative view on Chinese capital spending, particularly in the real estate sector. With respect to EM local-currency government bonds, this is an entirely different asset class with returns often uncorrelated with any other asset. Table 1 shows that EM local currency bond returns in U.S. dollars have a low correlation with most other asset classes. Therefore, adding EM local-currency bonds to a global multi-asset class portfolio will help achieve risk diversification provided an expectation of a positive return on this asset class in the long run. Chart I- EM domestic bond returns are comprised of local yield carry and capital gains/losses, as well as currency appreciation/depreciation. Business cycles and monetary policies could from time to time be desynchronized across EM countries, and EM currencies could also at times diverge. In short, all of this will add idiosyncratic risk to any global multi-asset class portfolio and push out the portfolio’s efficient frontier – i.e., the portfolio could achieve higher returns for the same amount of risk (volatility). The exposure to EM local currency bonds should be altered according to the view on this asset’s absolute performance. Presently, we recommend below benchmark allocation to this asset class because we expect the majority of EM currencies to depreciate versus the U.S. dollar, the euro and the Japanese yen. The key driver of EM currencies is not U.S. interest rates but the global business cycle (Chart I-6). Odds are high that global trade will continue disappointing as China’s growth weakens further. This will lead to tumbling EM currencies and outflows from high-yielding EM domestic bonds. Chart I-6What Drive EM Currencies What Drive EM Currencies What Drive EM Currencies Within an EM local currency bond portfolio, our recommended overweights are Mexico, Brazil, Chile, Russia, central Europe, Thailand and Korea. The list of our overweights and underweight across EM stocks, credit markets, local bonds and currencies is always published at the end of our reports. Bottom Line: Global asset allocation should treat EM stocks as part of a global equity portfolio. EM sovereign and corporate credit should be part of a global credit portfolio. In turn, EM local currency government bonds are a unique asset class with idiosyncratic features and a low correlation with other assets. Hence, their addition to any multi-asset class portfolio is recommended given an expectation of a positive return in the long run. A Make It Or Break It Juncture The rebound in various EM financial market segments is reaching a critical technical level. At that point, it will either reverse, or will break through and carry on the upward momentum for some time: EM share prices have troughed at their three-year moving averages but are now facing resistance at their 200-day moving averages (Chart I-7). Failure to break above their 200-day moving averages would signal higher risks of a major breakdown. Conversely, a decisive break above their 200-day moving averages would suggest that the recent rebound has much farther to go. Our Risk-on versus Safe-Haven currency ratio has found support at its 6-year moving average but is now facing resistance at its 200-day moving average (Chart I-8, top panel). This ratio is highly correlated with EM share prices, and its breakout or breakdown will be an important signal for the direction of EM, commodities and global cyclical assets in general (Chart I-8, bottom panel). Chart I-7EM Share Prices Are Between Support And Resistance EM Share Prices Are Between Support And Resistance EM Share Prices Are Between Support And Resistance Chart I-8This Currency Ratio Is Key To EM And Commodities Trend bca.ems_wr_2019_01_31_s1_c8 bca.ems_wr_2019_01_31_s1_c8 A relapse from this level would be a major bearish signal, as it would confirm the formation of a head-and-shoulders pattern in this currency ratio. The latter would entail a major breakdown. A number of EM currencies such as ZAR, MXN, KRW, TWD, MYR and CNY are at a critical juncture (Chart I-9). A breakout or failure to do so will entail a major move. Chart I-9AEM Exchange Rates Are At Make It Or Break It Juncture EM Exchange Rates Are At Make It Or Break It Juncture EM Exchange Rates Are At Make It Or Break It Juncture Chart I-9BEM Exchange Rates Are At Make It Or Break It Juncture EM Exchange Rates Are At Make It Or Break It Juncture EM Exchange Rates Are At Make It Or Break It Juncture Meanwhile, the BRL may be forming an inverted head-and-shoulders pattern (Chart I-10). Hence, continuous BRL strength would signal rising odds of an extension to the rally in Brazilian markets. Chart I-10The Brazilian Real: An Inverted Head-And-Shoulder? The Brazilian Real: An Inverted Head-And-Shoulder? The Brazilian Real: An Inverted Head-And-Shoulder? Finally, industrial metals prices have failed to rebound and appear to be forming a head-and-shoulders formation. This pattern foreshadows considerable downside from current levels (Chart I-11, top panel). In the meantime, oil prices have bounced off their long-term moving average and might have a bit more room to advance before hitting a major resistance between $65-$70 for Brent (Chart I-11, bottom panel). Image Bottom Line: Our fundamental view on EM risk assets remains negative due to our expectations of further weakness in China’s growth. However, we are monitoring various signals and indicators to gauge whether the latest rebound can last much longer, which would cause us to change our stance tactically. Arthur Budaghyan, Senior Vice President Emerging Markets Strategy arthurb@bcaresearch.com Peru: Involuntary Monetary Tightening Peru’s central bank is tightly managing the country’s exchange rate. As a result, it has little control over local interest rates. The Impossible Trinity thesis stipulates that in a country that has an open capital account, the central bank can control either interest rates or the exchange rate, not both simultaneously. Provided Peru has an open capital account, its central bank can have tight control over either the exchange rate or interest rates. So long as the central bank focuses on exchange rate stability, local interest rates will fluctuate with its balance of payments (BoP). Therefore, Peru’s credit cycle and hence domestic demand swings and bank share prices are driven by BoP (Chart II-1). Negative BoP dynamics – shrinking inflow of U.S. dollars – causes local interest rates to move higher while a positive BoP leads to lower borrowing costs (Chart II-2). Chart II-1Commodities Prices & Bank Stocks Are Correlated Commodities Prices & Bank Stocks Are Correlated Commodities Prices & Bank Stocks Are Correlated Chart II-2Trade Balance Drives Interbank Rates Trade Balance Drives Interbank Rates Trade Balance Drives Interbank Rates We expect negative BoP dynamics for Peru going forward – metals prices will drop as China’s growth continues to decelerate, and EM countries will likely experience a bout of portfolio capital outflows. If Peru’s central bank continues to favor limited currency depreciation, its interbank rates will march higher. Chart II-3 illustrates that the pace of net foreign exchange reserves accumulation often negatively correlates with interbank rates and leads loan growth by around 12 months (Chart II-4). Chart II-3Peruvian Local Rates Have Risen Peruvian Local Rates Have Risen Peruvian Local Rates Have Risen Chart II-4Peru: Bank Loan Growth Will Relapse Peru: Bank Loan Growth Will Relapse Peru: Bank Loan Growth Will Relapse When the monetary authorities purchase foreign exchange reserves, they inject local currency excess reserves (liquidity) into the banking system. More plentiful banking system liquidity drives down interbank rates and allows banks to expand credit, boosting domestic demand. The reverse also holds true. The Peruvian central bank was able to mitigate upside in local rates amid the negative terms-of-trade shock in 2014-‘15 by conducting foreign currency swaps with banks. This swap led to an injection of local currency reserves into the system. Currently these swaps are being unwound and banks’ excess reserves are dwindling, putting upward pressure on local rates. Hence, the rise in interbank rates in the past 12 months has not only been due to negative terms of trade but also due to the expiration of foreign currency swaps. As metals prices drop and exports contraction deepens, the currency will come under selling pressure (Chart II-5). To prevent the currency from depreciating considerably, the central bank has to tighten liquidity, producing higher interbank rates. The latter bodes ill for domestic demand. Chart II-5Money Growth Is Contingent On Trade Money Growth Is Contingent On Trade Money Growth Is Contingent On Trade Bottom Line: We continue to underweight the Peruvian bourse because of its exposure to mining companies and banks. The former is at risk from falling industrial metals prices, while the latter will suffer from rising interbank rates. Within the mining sector, gold and silver stocks should outperform copper producers because we foresee more downside in industrial metals than precious metals prices. Andrija Vesic, Research Analyst andrijav@bcaresearch.com Footnotes Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations

Highlights The main headwinds to euro area growth in 2018 are easing in 2019, at least in part and for the time being. The two main tail-risks are a messy Brexit and financial market volatility, but these are not our central case. Stay overweight the Eurostoxx50 versus the S&P500. Go underweight German bunds. Go overweight the German DAX versus German long-dated bunds. Add the German DAX as a new long position to the existing long basket holdings in France, Ireland and Switzerland. Maintain the short basket holdings in Norway and Denmark. Feature Chart of the WeekThe Underperformance Of German Equities Vs. German Bonds Is At A Euro Debt Crisis Extreme! The Underperformance Of German Equities Vs. German Bonds Is At A Euro Debt Crisis Extreme! The Underperformance Of German Equities Vs. German Bonds Is At A Euro Debt Crisis Extreme! Economies do not grow in straight lines. Rather, the process of economic expansion is a never-ending ebb and flow, creating clockwork-like oscillations in economic activity. As a perfect illustration, the growth in the euro area wage bill has trended higher through the past five years and is now running at very healthy 4 percent clip. Yet this strong uptrend has been interspersed with wobbles that have occurred with a remarkable regularity (Chart I-2). Chart I-2Economies Have Regular Wobbles... Economies Have Regular Wobbles... Economies Have Regular Wobbles... The recent setback in euro area activity has spooked some economy watchers. Even the ECB has just moved its risk assessment surrounding the growth outlook to the downside. But the downgrade was largely a result of its ‘data-dependency’ which, by definition, is always backward looking. This meant that the downgrade had a negligible effect on the financial markets which are always forward looking. For the markets, there is a much more important issue: is the recent setback the start of something serious, or can we expect a bounce back? The Setback The explanation for the regular wobbles in euro area growth comes from the oscillations in global economic activity (Chart I-3). But here we need to be wary of a potentially circular argument. As Europe is a dominant component of the global economy, euro area domestic demand setbacks could themselves be the root cause of the over-arching global growth oscillations. Chart I-3...Because Of Clockwork-Like Oscillations In Global Economic Activity ...Because Of Clockwork-Like Oscillations In Global Economic Activity ...Because Of Clockwork-Like Oscillations In Global Economic Activity Recently, Italy and Germany have suffered idiosyncratic ‘country and sector specific’ setbacks. The spat between Rome and Brussels over Italy’s 2019 budget caused Italian bond yields to soar and Italian bank lending to contract viciously (Chart I-4). Meanwhile, the auto sector – a major engine of the German economy – spluttered as it absorbed the new WLTP emissions testing standard. Through the middle of 2018 German vehicle exports suffered a €20 billion hit which shaved 0.6 percent from the €3.4 trillion German economy (Chart I-5).  Chart I-4Italian Bank Lending Contracted Viciously, But Will Now Recover Italian Bank Lending Contracted Viciously, But Will Now Recover Italian Bank Lending Contracted Viciously, But Will Now Recover Chart I-5German Auto Exports Plunged, But Will Now Recover German Auto Exports Plunged, But Will Now Recover German Auto Exports Plunged, But Will Now Recover Despite all of this, the epicentre of the 2018 growth setback was not inside Europe, but outside Europe. The ECB correctly blames the recent down-oscillation not on domestic causes, but on softer external demand, specifically “vulnerabilities in emerging markets”. The central bank argues that once there is clarity on the exports and the trade sector, much of the euro area’s weakness will wash out.  Another very important driver of European growth oscillations is the oil price. In recent years, the growth in GDP in excess of wages has perfectly and inversely tracked oscillations in the oil price (Chart I-6). The simple reason is that Europeans are net importers of energy, and the amount of energy they consume tends to be price inelastic. Hence, when energy prices soar as they did for most of 2018, it squeezes European real spending. Conversely, when energy prices plunge as they have more recently, it boosts real spending. Chart I-6Oil: Another Driver Of European Growth Oil: Another Driver Of European Growth Oil: Another Driver Of European Growth Somewhat contrary to received wisdom, one thing that does not generally drive euro area growth oscillations is the euro exchange rate. When the euro weakens, it does of course make the euro area’s exporters more competitive. But working against this, a weaker euro also raises the prices of imported energy and food, thereby squeezing euro area consumers’ real incomes. And vice-versa when the euro strengthens. Hence, while the euro’s moves do create growth winners and losers within the euro area, these tend to cancel out at the aggregate economy level. The Bounce Back The main headwinds to euro area growth in 2018 are easing in 2019, at least in part and for the time being. Regarding the vulnerabilities in emerging markets, many ECB governors argue that “everything we know says that the Chinese government is taking strong measures to address its slowdown”. Recent improvements in China’s monetary statistics provide strong evidence for this view (Chart I-7). Chart I-76-Month Credit Impulses Are Bouncing Back Everywhere 6-Month Credit Impulses Are Bouncing Back Everywhere 6-Month Credit Impulses Are Bouncing Back Everywhere Meanwhile, credit growth in the euro area itself is also accelerating, albeit modestly. This is hardly surprising given that financing conditions are very favourable. Even though the ECB has done nothing to policy interest rates, more dovish forward guidance has effectively made euro area monetary policy more accommodative: since October, core euro area 10-year bond yields are down 40 bps. And with banks’ balance sheets stronger, the ECB claims “the conditions for a continuation of credit to the economy are in place.”  Over the same three month period, the crude oil price has plunged by 35 percent (Chart I-8). Draghi confirmed our observation above: lower energy prices support real disposable income for euro area households. Chart I-8Double Boost: Lower Bond Yields And Lower Oil Double Boost: Lower Bond Yields And Lower Oil Double Boost: Lower Bond Yields And Lower Oil Draghi also pointed out another positive impulse: fiscal policy in the euro area has now flipped from contractionary to slightly expansionary. As regards the idiosyncratic sector specific setbacks, the Italian 10-year BTP yield has unwound its budget spat spike, and is down 100 bps since October. It follows that Italian bank credit growth is likely to recover. And Draghi explained that “the specific episode of the car industry in Germany will soon wash out because there is going to be a rebound in the sector.” Still, two significant tail-risks could smother the bounce back: Uncertainties related to geopolitical factors and the threat of protectionism, specifically, a messy Brexit. Financial market volatility. The Investment Implications Our central case is that the tail-risks do not materialise. And that the recent combination of more favourable financing conditions in the euro area and globally, lower energy prices, fiscal thrust, and the removal of specific setbacks in Italy and Germany should engineer some sort of growth bounce back in the euro area.  One important implication is that the strong recent rally in German bunds is close to exhaustion, and even vulnerable to a short-term retracement. This is supported by our trusted technical indicator warning of an imminent liquidity shortage and a corrective price reversal (Chart I-9). Go underweight German bunds on a short term horizon. Chart I-9The Rally In The German Bund Is Exhausted The Rally In The German Bund Is Exhausted The Rally In The German Bund Is Exhausted A mirror-image implication is that the underperformance of the German DAX relative to German long-dated bunds is now at euro debt crisis extremes (Chart I-1 and Chart I-10). This relative performance also appears technically exhausted and ripe for a reversal. As an asset allocation position, go overweight the DAX versus German long-dated bunds on a tactical. Chart I-10The Extreme Underperformance Of The DAX Will Reverse The Extreme Underperformance Of The DAX Will Reverse The Extreme Underperformance Of The DAX Will Reverse In line with the growth rebound thesis, stock market selection – through the underlying sector exposures – should now have a modest tilt towards cyclicality. Stay overweight the Eurostoxx50 versus the S&P500. Within Europe, our current long positions in France, Ireland, and Switzerland combined with short positions in Norway and Denmark do provide the required tilt towards cyclicality. Nevertheless, today we are adding the oversold German DAX to our long stock markets basket. Fractal Trading System* In line with the fundamentals-based arguments in the main body of this report, this week’s recommended trade is to go long the DAX versus the 30-year bund. Set a profit target of 2.5 percent with 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-11 Long DAX Vs. 30-Year Government Bond Long DAX Vs. 30-Year Government Bond The post-June 9, 2016 fractal trading model rules are: When the fractal dimension approaches the lower limit after an investment has been in an established trend it is a potential trigger for a liquidity-triggered trend reversal. Therefore, open a countertrend position. The profit target is a one-third reversal of the preceding 13-week move. Apply a symmetrical stop-loss. Close the position at the profit target or stop-loss. Otherwise close the position after 13 weeks. Use the position size multiple to control risk. The position size will be smaller for more risky positions. * For more details please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report “Fractals, Liquidity & A Trading Model,” dated December 11, 2014, available at eis.bcaresearch.com   Dhaval Joshi, Senior Vice President Chief European Investment Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading System Recommendations Asset Allocation Equity Regional and Country Allocation Equity Sector Allocation Bond and Interest Rate Allocation Currency and Other Allocation Closed Fractal Trades Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Interest Rate Chart II-5Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations

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

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

Highlights Chart 1Checklist To Buy Credit Checklist To Buy Credit Checklist To Buy Credit The sell-off in spread product continued through the holiday season, but with spreads now looking more attractive, it is time to consider increasing exposure to corporate credit. Much like in 2015/16, spread widening is being driven by the combination of weaker global growth and the perception of restrictive monetary policy. With that in mind, we are monitoring a checklist of global growth and monetary policy indicators to help us decide when to step back in.1 With the market now pricing-in rate cuts for the next 12 months, monetary policy indicators already signal a buying opportunity (Chart 1). However, before increasing spread product exposure from neutral to overweight we are waiting for a signal from our high frequency global growth indicators. The CRB Raw Industrials index has so far only flattened off (Chart 1, top panel). It started to rise prior to the early-2016 peak in credit spreads. Investors should maintain below-benchmark portfolio duration on a 6-12 month investment horizon, and a neutral allocation to spread product for now. We expect to upgrade spread product in the near future as global growth indicators stabilize. Stay tuned. Feature Investment Grade: Neutral Investment grade corporate bonds underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 106 basis points in December. The index option-adjusted spread widened 16 bps on the month to reach 153 bps. Corporate bonds underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 320 bps in 2018, making it the worst year for corporate bond performance since 2011. Recent poor performance has restored some value to the corporate bond sector. The 12-month breakeven spread for Baa-rated debt has only been wider 37% of the time since 1988 (Chart 2). As a result, we are actively looking for an opportunity to increase exposure to corporate bonds. Chart 2Investment Grade Market Overview Investment Grade Market Overview Investment Grade Market Overview To assess when to raise exposure from neutral to overweight, we are monitoring a checklist of indicators related to global growth and monetary policy.2 While current spread levels present an attractive tactical entry point, spreads may not re-tighten all the way back to their post-crisis lows. Corporate profit growth far outpaced debt growth during the past year causing our measure of gross leverage to fall (panel 4), but a stronger dollar and rising wage bill will weigh on profit growth in 2019. We expect gross corporate leverage to rise in 2019. Chart   Chart High-Yield: Neutral High-Yield underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 366 basis points in December. The average index option-adjusted spread widened 108 bps, and currently sits at 498 bps. High-Yield underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 363 bps in 2018, making it the worst year for high-yield excess returns since 2015. Our measure of the excess spread available in the High-Yield index after accounting for expected default losses is currently 394 bps, well above average historical levels (Chart 3). In other words, if corporate defaults match the Moody’s baseline forecast for the next 12 months, high-yield bonds will return 394 bps in excess of duration-matched Treasuries, assuming no change in spreads. If we factor in enough spread compression to bring the default-adjusted spread back to its historical average, then we get a 12-month expected excess return of 814 bps. Chart 3High-Yield Market Overview High-Yield Market Overview High-Yield Market Overview For a different perspective on valuation, we can also calculate the default rate necessary for High-Yield to deliver 12-month excess returns in line with the historical average. As of today, this spread-implied default rate is 4.58%, well above the 2.64% default rate anticipated by Moody’s (panel 4). Junk bond value is definitely attractive, and as stated on the front page of this report, we are looking for an opportunity to tactically upgrade the sector. That being said, the uptrend in job cut announcements makes it likely that default rate forecasts will be revised higher in 2019 (bottom panel). At present, spreads appear to offer enough of a buffer to absorb these upward revisions. MBS: Neutral Mortgage-Backed Securities underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 15 basis points in December. The conventional 30-year zero-volatility spread widened 8 bps on the month, driven by a 7 bps increase in the compensation for prepayment risk (option cost) and a 1 bp widening in the option-adjusted spread (OAS). MBS underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 59 bps in 2018. The zero-volatility spread widened 12 bps on the year, split between a 10 bps widening in the OAS and a 2 bps increase in the option cost. Lower mortgage rates during the past two months spurred a small jump in refinancings, but this increase will prove fleeting. Interest rates are poised to move higher in 2019, and higher rates will limit mortgage refi activity and keep a lid on MBS spreads (Chart 4). Chart 4MBS Market Overview MBS Market Overview MBS Market Overview All in all, with higher interest rates likely to limit refinancings, and with mortgage lending standards still easing from restrictive levels (bottom panel), the macro back-drop for MBS remains supportive. Elevated corporate bond spreads currently offer a better opportunity than those in the MBS space, but the supportive macro back-drop means that there is very low risk of significant MBS spread widening during the next 12 months. We maintain a neutral allocation to MBS for now, and will only look to upgrade the sector as the credit cycle matures and it becomes time to adopt an underweight allocation to corporate credit. For the time being, corporate bonds are the more attractive play. Government-Related: Underweight The Government-Related index underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 31 basis points in December, and by 80 bps in 2018. Sovereign debt underperformed the Treasury benchmark by 77 bps in December and by 263 bps in 2018. Sovereign spreads still appear unattractive compared to similarly-rated U.S. corporate spreads (Chart 5). Chart 5Government-Related Market Overview Government-Related Market Overview Government-Related Market Overview Foreign Agencies underperformed by 24 bps in December and by 152 bps in 2018. Local Authorities underperformed by 86 bps in December and by 75 bps in 2018. Domestic Agencies underperformed by 7 bps in December and by 6 bps in 2018. Supranationals outperformed by 3 bps in December and by 22 bps in 2018. In a recent report we looked at USD-denominated Emerging Market Sovereign debt by country and found that only a few nations offer excess spread compared to equivalently-rated U.S. corporates.3 Those countries are Argentina, Turkey, Lebanon and Ukraine at the low-end of the credit spectrum and Saudi Arabia, Qatar and UAE at the upper-end. We continue to view the Local Authority sector as very attractive. The sector offers similar value to Aa/A-rated corporate debt on a breakeven spread basis (bottom panel), and it is also dominated by taxable municipal securities that are insulated from weak foreign economic growth. Municipal Bonds: Overweight Municipal bonds underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 114 basis points in December, and by 17 bps in 2018 (before adjusting for the tax advantage). The average Aaa-rated Municipal / Treasury (M/T) yield ratio rose 2% in December, and currently sits at 87% (Chart 6). This is about one standard deviation below its post-crisis mean but above the average of 81% that prevailed in the late stages of the previous cycle, between mid-2006 and mid-2007. Chart 6Municipal Market Overview Municipal Market Overview Municipal Market Overview In our research into the phases of the credit cycle, we often divide the cycle based on the slope of the yield curve. Since 1983, in the middle phase of the credit cycle when the 3/10 Treasury slope is between 0 bps and +50 bps (where it stands today), investment grade corporate bonds have delivered annualized excess returns of -49 bps. In contrast, municipal bonds have delivered annualized excess returns of +45 bps before adjusting for the tax advantage.4 We attribute the pattern of mid-cycle outperformance to the fact that state & local government balance sheet health tends to lag the health of the corporate sector. At present, our Municipal Health Monitor remains in “improving health” territory, consistent with an environment where ratings upgrades will outpace downgrades (bottom panel). Meanwhile, corporations are already deep into the releveraging process. Treasury Curve: Favor The 2-Year Bullet Over The 1/5 Barbell Treasury yields fell sharply in December, but with only minor changes to the slope beyond the 2-year maturity point. The 2/10 slope was unchanged on the month and currently sits at 17 bps. The 5/30 slope steepened 5 bps on the month and currently sits at 49 bps. The biggest changes in slope occurred for maturities less than 2 years, as a result of Fed rate hikes being completely priced out of the curve (Chart 7). Our 12-month Fed Funds Discounter fell from +44 bps at the beginning of the month to -11 bps currently. Meanwhile, our 24-month discounter fell from +41 bps to -23 bps. Chart 7Treasury Yield Curve Overview Treasury Yield Curve Overview Treasury Yield Curve Overview As a result of the sharp 1/2 flattening, the 2-year note no longer appears cheap relative to the 1/5 barbell (panel 4). Alternatively, we could say that the 1/2/5 butterfly spread is now priced for 15 bps of 1/5 steepening during the next six months (bottom panel). In fact, our yield curve models now point to bullets being expensive relative to barbells for almost every butterfly spread combination (see Tables 4 and 5). This means it is currently less attractive to initiate curve steeper trades than flattener trades. Despite the relatively low yield pick-up in steepener trades, we think they still make sense at the moment given that the Treasury market is discounting an economic outlook that is far too grim. As we discussed in our Key Views report for 2019, sustainable yield curve inversion is unlikely until later in the year, after inflation expectations are re-anchored around pre-crisis levels.5 As such, we maintain our recommendation to favor the 2-year bullet over the duration-matched 1/5 barbell.  TIPS: Overweight TIPS underperformed the duration-equivalent nominal Treasury index by 196 basis points in December, and by 175 bps in 2018. The 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate fell 26 bps on the month and currently sits at 1.71%. The 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rate also fell 26 bps on the month and currently sits at 1.91%. Long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates have fallen sharply alongside the prices of oil and other commodities during the past two months, as they continue to grapple with two competing forces: Falling commodity prices on the one hand, and U.S. core inflation that continues to print close to the Fed’s target on the other. Eventually, the decisive factor in the TIPS market will be core U.S. inflation continuing to print close to the Fed’s 2% target. This will drive both the 10-year and 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rates back into a range between 2.3% and 2.5%, once the headwind from weakening commodity prices has passed. This is reinforced by the fact that the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate is now well below the fair value from our Adaptive Expectations Model (Chart 8).6 This model is based on a combination of long-run and short-run inflation measures and is premised on the idea that investors’ expectations take time to adjust to changing macro environments. In other words, the market will need to see core inflation print close to the Fed’s target for some time before deciding that it will remain there on a sustained basis. Chart 8Inflation Compensation Inflation Compensation Inflation Compensation ABS: Neutral Asset-Backed Securities underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 8 basis points in December, but outperformed by 13 bps in 2018. The index option-adjusted spread for Aaa-rated ABS widened by 6 bps on the month and now stands at 48 bps, 14 bps above its pre-crisis low. The excess return Bond Map on page 15 shows that consumer ABS offer greater expected returns than Domestic Agencies and Supranationals, though with a commensurate increase in risk. The Map also shows that Agency CMBS offer very similar return potential with much less risk. The New York Fed’s most recent SCE Credit Access Survey showed a decline in consumer credit applications during the past year, as well as an increase in rejection rates. This is consistent with the observed uptrends in household interest expense and the consumer credit delinquency rate (Chart 9). Chart 9ABS Market Overview ABS Market Overview ABS Market Overview Going forward, consumer credit delinquencies will continue to rise from very low levels, but are unlikely to spike without a significant deterioration in labor market conditions. As such, we maintain a neutral allocation to consumer ABS for now, but our next move will likely be a reduction to underweight as consumer credit delinquencies rise further. Non-Agency CMBS: Underweight Non-Agency Commercial Mortgage-Backed Securities underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 62 basis points in December, but outperformed by 20 bps in 2018. The index option-adjusted spread for non-agency Aaa-rated CMBS widened 14 bps on the month and currently sits at 92 bps (Chart 10). A typical negative environment for CMBS is characterized by tightening bank lending standards on commercial real estate loans as well as falling demand. The Fed’s Q3 Senior Loan Officer Survey showed that lending standards were close to unchanged and that demand deteriorated. All in all, a slightly negative macro picture for CMBS that will bear close monitoring in the coming quarters. Agency CMBS: Overweight Agency CMBS underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 15 bps in December, and by 2 bps in 2018. The index option-adjusted spread widened 4 bps on the month and currently sits at 60 bps. The Bond Maps on page 15 show that Agency CMBS offer high potential return compared to other low-risk spread products. An overweight allocation to this sector continues to make sense. Chart 10CMBS Market Overview CMBS Market Overview CMBS Market Overview 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 11   Chart 12   Table 4Butterfly Strategy Valuation (As Of January 4, 2019) Get Ready To Buy Credit Get Ready To Buy Credit   Table 5Discounted Slope Change During Next 6 Months (BPs) Get Ready To Buy Credit Get Ready To Buy Credit   Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com Jeremie Peloso, Research Analyst JeremieP@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see Charts 2A and 2B in U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Fed In 2019”, dated December 18, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 For the full checklist please see Charts 2A and 2B from the U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Fed In 2019”, dated December 18, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Oil Supply Shock Is A Risk For Junk”, dated October 9, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, “2019 Key Views: Implications For U.S. Fixed Income”, dated December 11, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 5 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, “2019 Key Views: Implications For U.S. Fixed Income”, dated December 11, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 6 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Adaptive Expectations In The TIPS Market”, dated November 20, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification Corporate Sector Relative Valuation And Recommended Allocation Total Return Comparison: 7-Year Bullet Versus 2-20 Barbell (6-Month Investment Horizon)

Highlights Investors ran for cover in December as they succumbed to a litany of worries regarding the outlook. The key question is whether the pessimism is overdone or an extended equity bear market is underway. Our outlook for the U.S. and global economies has not changed since we published our 2019 Outlook. There are some tentative signs that the two U.S. weak spots, housing and capital spending, are bottoming out. However, our global leading economic indicators continue to herald a soft first half of 2019 outside of the U.S. The dollar thus has more upside in the near term. The political risks facing investors have not diminished either. In particular, we expect turbulence related to the U.S./China trade war to extend well beyond the 3-month “truce” period. The returns to stocks, corporate bonds and commodities historically have not been particularly attractive on average when the U.S. yield curve is this flat. Nonetheless, the risk/reward balance has improved enough as prices fell over the past month to justify upgrading equities in the advanced economies back to overweight. Move to a neutral level of cash, and keep bonds underweight on a 6-12 month investment horizon. The upgrade to stocks in the developed markets does not carry over to emerging markets. The backdrop will remain hostile to EM assets until China pulls out the big policy stimulus guns and the dollar peaks. Stay clear of EM assets and neutral on base metals for now, but be prepared to upgrade sometime in 2019. Global government bonds could rally a little more in the near term if the risk-off phase continues. Nonetheless, with little chance of any more rate hikes discounted in the U.S. yield curve, the risks for U.S. and global yields are tilted to the upside. Bond investors with a 6-12 month horizon should ride out the near-term volatility with a short-duration position. Oil prices have overshot to the downside. Supply is adjusting and, given robust energy demand in 2019, we still expect prices to rise to $82. Feature Investors ran for cover in December as they succumbed to concerns regarding the U.S./China trade war, corporate leverage, global growth, rising U.S. interest rates and the shift toward quantitative tightening. Some equity indexes, such as the Russell 2000, reached bear market territory, having lost more than 20%. Losses have been even worse outside the U.S. Earnings revisions have plunged into the “net downgrade” zone. Implied volatility has spiked and corporate bond spreads are surging (Chart I-1). The key question is whether the pessimism is overdone or an extended equity bear market is underway. Chart I-1A Flight To Quality A Flight To Quality A Flight To Quality We laid out our economic view in detail in the BCA Outlook 2019 report, published in late November. Not enough has changed on the global economic front in the three weeks since then that would justify such a violent shift in investor sentiment. That said, our favorite global leading economic indicators continue to erode (Chart I-2). The only ray of hope is that the diffusion index constructed from our Global Leading Economic Indicator appears to have bottomed. Nonetheless, the actual LEI will keep falling until the diffusion index shifts into positive territory.   Chart I-2Global Leading Indicators Still Weak Global Leading Indicators Still Weak Global Leading Indicators Flashing Red Global Leading Indicators Still Weak Global Leading Indicators Flashing Red For China, a key source of investor angst, the latest retail sales and industrial production reports reinforced that economic momentum continues to recede. We will not be convinced that growth is bottoming until we see an upturn in our credit impulse indicator (Chart I-3). Its continued decline in November suggests that the outlook for emerging market assets and commodity prices is poor for at least the next quarter. Global industrial output appears headed for a mild contraction. The manufacturing troubles are centered in the emerging Asian economies, but Europe and Japan are also feeling the negative effects. Chart I-3China: No Bottom Yet China: No Bottom Yet China: No Bottom Yet In the U.S., November’s bounce in housing starts and permits is a hopeful sign that the soft patch in this sector is ending. However, it is not clear how the devastating wildfires on the west coast have affected the housing data (Chart I-4). The downdraft in capital goods orders may also be drawing to a close, based on the latest reading from the Fed’s survey of capital spending intentions. The U.S. leading economic indicator dipped slightly in November, but remains consistent with above-trend real GDP growth in the months ahead. Chart I-4U.S.: Some Hopeful Signs U.S.: Some Hopeful Signs U.S.: Some Hopeful Signs The bottom line is that our outlook for growth has not been significantly altered. We see little risk of a U.S. recession in 2019. The global economy continues to weaken, but we expect enough policy stimulus out of China to stabilize growth in that economy in the second half of the year. We highlighted in the BCA Outlook 2019 that, while the risks appeared elevated, we would consider shifting back to overweight in stocks if they cheapened sufficiently. Valuation has indeed improved in recent weeks and sentiment has turned more cautious. Global growth will likely continue to decelerate in the first half of 2019, but markets have largely discounted this outcome. In other words, the shift toward pessimism in financial markets appears overdone. The fact that the Fed has signaled a move away from regular quarter-point rate hikes adds to our confidence in playing what will likely be the last upleg in risk assets in this cycle. Fed: Rate Hikes No Longer On Autopilot The Fed lifted rates by a quarter point in December and signaled that any additional tightening will be data-dependent. The FOMC also trimmed the expected peak in the funds rate and its estimate of the long-run, or neutral, level. Policymakers were likely swayed by some disappointing U.S. economic data, the pullback in core PCE inflation, and the sharp tightening in financial conditions (Chart I-5). Chart I-5Financial Conditions Have Tightened Financial Conditions Have Tightened Financial Conditions Have Tightened Monetary conditions are not tight by historical yardsticks, such as the level of real interest rates. The problem is that investors fear that the neutral level of the fed funds rate, the so-called R-star, remains very depressed. If true, it could mean that the Fed is already outright restrictive, which would signal that the monetary backdrop has turned hostile for risk assets. The OIS curve signals that the consensus believes that the Fed is pretty much done the tightening cycle (Chart I-6) Chart I-6Investors Believe The Fed Is Done! Investors Believe The Fed Is Done! Investors Believe The Fed Is Done! We believe that R-star is higher than the current policy setting and is rising, as the growth headwinds related to the Great Financial Crisis fade with the passage of time. The problem is that nobody knows the level of the neutral rate. Thus, we need to watch for signs that the fed funds rate has surpassed that level, such as an inverted yield curve. The 10-year/3-month T-bill spread is still in positive territory, but barely so. Meanwhile, our R-star indicator is also flashing yellow as it sits on the zero line (Chart I-7). It is a composite of monetary indicators that in the past have been useful in signaling that monetary policy had become outright restrictive, leading to slower growth and trouble for risk assets. The lead time of this indicator relative to economic activity and risk asset prices has been quite variable historically, but a breakdown below zero would send a powerful bearish signal for risk assets if confirmed by an inverted yield curve. Chart I-7Worrying Signs Of Tight Money Worrying Signs Of Tight Money Worrying Signs Of Tight Money The Implications Of Four Fed Scenarios It is not surprising that investors are struggling with a number of different possible scenarios on how the R-star/Fed policy nexus will play out. We can perhaps boil down discussion of the Fed and the implications for financial markets to a matrix of four main outcomes, based on combinations related to the level of R-Star (high or low) and the pace of Fed rate hikes in 2019 (pause or continue increasing rates by 25 basis points per quarter). Policy Mistake #1: R-star is still very low, but policymakers do not realize this and the FOMC continues to tighten into restrictive territory in 2019. By definition, the economy begins to suffer in this scenario, inflation and inflation expectations decline and long-bond yields are flat-to-lower. The yield curve inverts. However, current real rates are still so low that the fed funds rate cannot be very far above R-Star, which means it would represent only a small policy mistake. As long as the Fed recognizes the economic slowdown early enough and truncates the rate hike cycle, then there is a good chance that a recession would be avoided. Investors would initially fear a recession, however, which means that risk assets would be hit hard in absolute terms and relative to bonds and cash until recession fears fade. The direction of the dollar is perhaps trickiest part because there are so many potential cross currents. To keep things simple we will assume that global growth follows our base-case view and remains lackluster in the first half of 2019, followed by a modest re-acceleration. We believe the dollar would likely rally a little as the Fed continues tightening, but then would fall back as the FOMC is forced to turn dovish in the face of a U.S. growth scare. Policy Mistake #2: R-Star is high and rising but the Fed fails to hike rates fast enough to keep up. The economy accelerates in this scenario because monetary policy remains stimulative through 2019, at a time when the 2018 fiscal stimulus will still be providing a demand tailwind. Core PCE inflation moves above 2% and long-term inflation expectations shift up, signaling to investors that the Fed has fallen behind the inflation curve. Risk assets rip for a while and the yield curve bear-steepens as the 10-year Treasury yield moves gradually higher at first. Belatedly, the FOMC realizes it has underestimated the neutral rate and signals a hawkish policy shift. A 50-basis point rate hike at one FOMC meeting causes risk assets to buckle on the back of surging Treasury yields. The yield curve begins to bear-flatten. Eventually the curve inverts and the economy enters recession. The dollar weakens at first because higher inflation lowers U.S. real interest rates relative to the rest of the world. Global growth prospects would initially get a boost from the acceleration in U.S. growth, which is also dollar-bearish. However, in the end the dollar would likely rise as global financial markets turn risk-off. Fed Gets It Right (1): R-star is high and rising. The Fed continues to tighten in line with the increase in the neutral rate. Treasurys sell off hard and the yield curve shifts higher, but remains fairly flat (parallel shift). The curve could mildly invert temporarily, but market worries about a recession eventually recede as economic momentum remains robust, allowing the curve to subsequently trade in the 0-50 basis point range. As discussed below, risk assets tend to outperform Treasurys and cash when the yield curve is in this range, but not by much. The Treasury market would suffer significant losses. This is the most dollar-bullish of the four scenarios, given our global growth view (tepid) and the fact that the market is not even priced for a full quarter-point rate hike in 2019. Fed Gets It Right (2): R-Star is actually still quite low, but the Fed correctly sees recent economic data disappointments and the tightening in financial conditions as signs that policy is close to neutral. The Fed pauses the rate hike cycle, followed by a slower and more data-dependent pace of tightening. The yield curve stays fairly flat and flirts with inversion as investors try to figure out if the Fed has overdone it. Risk assets are volatile and deliver little return over cash. Treasurys rally a bit as the chance of any further rate hikes is priced out of the market, but the rally is limited unless the economy falls into recession (which is not part of this scenario because we are assuming the Fed “gets it right”). The dollar fluctuates, but delivers no real trend since U.S. yield differentials versus the rest of the world do not change much. As we go to press, financial markets are moving in a way that is consistent the Policy Mistake #1; the consensus appears to believe that the Fed has already lifted the fed funds rate too far, causing financial conditions to tighten. But if U.S. real GDP growth remains above-trend as we expect, then the market view could eventually transition to a belief in Mistake #2; the Fed falls behind the inflation curve. The curve would re-steepen and risk assets could have one last hurrah before the Fed gets hawkish again and the 2020 recession arrives. The transition from Mistake #1 to Mistake #2 is essentially our base-case outlook. Nonetheless, obviously the risks around this central scenario are high, especially given how late it is in the U.S. economic and policy cycle. Asset Returns And The Yield Curve Our 2018 late-cycle investing theme focussed on historical asset return and policy dynamics after the U.S. unemployment rate fell below the full-employment level in past cycles. We found that risk assets tend to run into trouble once the U.S. S&P 500 operating margin peaks. As we highlighted in the BCA Outlook 2019, our margin proxies are still not heralding that a peak is at hand. Given the recent investor obsession with the U.S. yield curve, this month we look at historical asset returns at different levels of the 10-year/3-month T-bill yield curve slope: Phase I, when the slope is above 50 basis points; Phase II, when the curve is between 0 and 50 basis points; and Phase III, when the curve is inverted (Table I-1). The data are presented as (not annualized) monthly average returns. It may be surprising that risk asset returns are for the most part positive even in when the curve is inverted. However, keep in mind that we are focussing on the curve, not on recession periods. The curve can be inverted for a long time before the subsequent recession occurs. Risk asset returns often remain positive during this period. The broad conclusions are as follows: Unsurprisingly, risk assets perform their best, in absolute terms and relative to government bonds and cash, in Phase I when the yield curve is steep. Returns tend to deteriorate as the curve flattens. This includes equities, corporate bonds and commodities. Small caps underperform large caps when the curve is between 0 and 50 basis points, but the reverse is true when the curve is flatter or steeper than that range. The ratio of cyclical stocks to defensives has not revealed a consistent pattern with respect to the yield curve, although this may reflect the short historical period available. Value stocks shine versus growth when the curve is inverted. Hedge fund and private equity returns have not varied greatly across the three yield curve environments. Structured product, such as CMBS and ABS, have enjoyed their best performance when the curve is inverted. Timberland and Farmland have also rewarded investors during Phase III. We suspected that asset returns when the curve is in the 0-50 basis point range would vary importantly with the direction of the curve. In Table I-I we split Phase II into two parts: when the curve is steepening after being inverted, and when the curve is flattening after being steep. In other words, when the consensus is either transitioning from quite bullish to very bearish, or vice-versa. Chart I- Risk assets such as equities (U.S. and Global) and U.S. investment-grade corporate bonds indeed perform much better in absolute terms when the curve is flat but is steepening rather than flattening. The same is true for U.S. structured product. In terms of excess returns relative to government issues, both U.S. IG and HY corporates have tended to underperform when the curve is in the 0-50 basis point range. Surprisingly, the underperformance is worse when the curve is steepening than when it is flattening. This appears to reflect an anomalous period in early 2006 when the curve was flattening but corporate bonds enjoyed strong excess returns. Emerging market equities show very strong returns in all three curve phases. This reflects the inclusion of the pre-2000 period in the mean calculations, a time when EM equities were much less correlated with U.S. financial conditions. EM equity returns have been significantly lower on average since 2000 when the curve is in the 0-50 basis point range (and especially when the curve is flattening) The bottom line is that risk assets can still reward investors with positive returns during periods when the yield curve is flat. However, it is a dangerous time, especially when the global economy is up to its eyeballs in debt. This month’s Special Report beginning on page 17 argues that, although regulation has made the global financial system more resilient to shocks compared to the pre-Lehman years, the number of potentially destabilizing shocks has increased. Moreover, the trade war and Brexit risks make the investment backdrop all the more precarious. No Quick End To The Trade War The honeymoon following the trade ceasefire between the U.S. and China, agreed at the G20 summit in early December, did not last long. The arrest of the chief financial officer of Chinese telecom maker Huawei and continuing hawkish tweets from the U.S. president dampened hopes that a trade agreement can be negotiated by March. Even news that China intended to cut tariffs on U.S. auto imports did not help much. We highlighted in the BCA Outlook 2019 that negotiations will prove to be protracted and testy. It will take a lot more than some token market-opening action on the part of China to placate the U.S. Our geopolitical team emphasizes that “trade war” is a misnomer for a broader strategic conflict that is centered on the military-industrial balance rather than the trade balance.1 For example, while China is rapidly catching up to the U.S. in research and development spending, it is only spending about half as much as the U.S. relative to its overall economy (Chart I-8). While the U.S. can accept China’s eventually surpassing it in economic output, it cannot accept China’s technological superiority. This would translate into military and strategic supremacy over time. Chart I-8R&D Expenditure By Country R&D Expenditure By Country R&D Expenditure By Country U.S. demands will also be hard for China to swallow. Most importantly, the U.S. is requesting that China rein in its hacking and spying, shift its direct investment to less tech-sensitive sectors, adjust its “Made in China” targets to allow for more foreign competition, and lower foreign investment equity restrictions. These stumbling blocks will make it difficult to strike a deal on trade. We continue to believe that a final trade deal between the U.S. and China will not arrive in the 90-day timeframe of the ceasefire. Thus, global risk assets will be subject to swings in sentiment regarding the likelihood of a trade deal well beyond March. Meanwhile, as previously discussed, Chinese policy stimulus has not yet become aggressive enough to spark animal spirits in the private sector. The Chinese authorities are proceeding cautiously so as to avoid adding significantly to private- and public-sector’s debt mountain. This month’s Special Report also discusses the risks that the surge in debt over the past decade poses for the global financial system, including escalating risk in China’s shadow banking system. Brexit Pain Continues Politics surrounding the torturous Brexit process will also remain a source of volatility for global markets in 2019. Prime Minister May survived a leadership challenge, but this is hardly confidence-inspiring. The question is whether any deal can get through Westminster. The votes appear to be in place for the softest of soft Brexits, the so-called Norway+ option, if May convinces the Labour Party to break ranks. Such a deal would entail Common Market access, but at the cost of having to essentially pay for full EU membership with no ability to influence the regulatory policies that London would have to abide by. The alternative is to call for a new election (which may usher the even less pro-Brexit Labour Party into power), or to delay Brexit for a more substantive period of time, or simply to buckle under the pressure and call for a second referendum. We disagree that the failure of the Tories to endorse May’s proposed agreement means that the “no deal Brexit,” or the “Brexit cliff,” is nigh. Such an outcome is in nobody’s interest and both May and the EU can offer delays to ensure that it does not happen. Whatever happens, one thing is clear; the median voter is turning forcefully towards Bremain (Chart I-9). It will soon become untenable to delay the second referendum. The bottom line is that, while a soft Brexit is the most likely outcome, the path from here to the end result will be punishing. We do not recommend Brexit-related bets on the pound, despite the fact that it is cheap. Chart I-9A Shift Toward Bremain A Shift Toward Bremain A Shift Toward Bremain 2019: A Tale Of Two Halves For EM, Commodities And The Dollar One of our key themes in the BCA Outlook 2019 is that the growth divergence between China and the U.S. will persist at least for the first half of 2019. The result will be weak EM asset prices and currencies, little upside for base metals and a strong U.S. dollar. We expect the Chinese authorities will do enough to stabilize growth by mid-year, providing the impetus for a playable bounce in EM and commodity prices in the second half of 2019, coinciding with a peak in the U.S. dollar. Nonetheless, the dollar still has some upside potential in broad trade-weighted terms in the first half of 2019. Our Central Bank Monitors continue to show a greater need for policy tightening in the U.S. than in the rest of the major countries. The dollar has usually strengthened when this has been the case historically. In particular, the ECB’s Central Bank Monitor has slipped back into “easy money required” territory, reflecting moderating economic momentum and still-depressed consumer price inflation (Chart I-10). Chart I-10Our CB Monitors Support A Stronger Dollar Our CB Monitors Support A Stronger Dollar Our CB Monitors Support A Stronger Dollar The ECB announced the well-anticipated end of its asset purchase program in December. The central bank will now focus on forward guidance as its main policy tool outside of setting short-term interest rates. Lending via targeted LTROs will also be considered under certain circumstances. Policymakers retained the latest forward guidance after the December MPC meeting, that rates are on hold “through the summer of 2019”. The latest reading from our ECB Monitor suggests that the central bank could be on hold for longer than that. We expect Eurozone growth to improve somewhat through the year, but we still believe that interest rate differentials will move further in favor of the dollar relative to the euro and the other major currencies. Periods of slow global growth also tend to favor the greenback. The bottom line is that, while a correction is possible in the very near term, investors with at least a six-month horizon should remain long the dollar. Investment Conclusions: Our outlook for the U.S. and global economies has not changed since we published our 2019 Outlook. The risks facing investors have not diminished either, especially given the precarious nature of late-cycle investing and the uncertainty regarding the neutral level of the fed funds rate. Historically, the returns to stocks, corporate bonds and commodities have not been particularly attractive on average when the yield curve is this flat. Nonetheless, we believe that the risk/reward balance has improved enough as prices fell over the past month to justify upgrading equities in the advanced economies to overweight. Move to a neutral level of cash, and keep bonds underweight on a 6-12 month investment horizon. Despite our more positive view on equities, we remain cautious on credit. Spreads have widened recently to more attractive levels, but we remain concerned about the high leverage of U.S. corporates, whose debt/assets ratio is on average higher now than in 2009. Signs of strain are already showing in the junk bond market, with new issuance having largely dried up since early December. If this continues, borrowers may struggle to refinance maturing debt in early 2019.  Credit is an asset class that is likely to perform particularly poorly in the next recession. Our upgrade to stocks in the advanced markets does not carry over to emerging markets. The backdrop will remain hostile to EM assets until China pulls out the big policy stimulus guns and the dollar peaks. Stay clear of EM assets and neutral on base metals for now. Global government bonds could rally a little more in the near term if the risk-off phase continues. Nonetheless, with little chance of any more rate hikes discounted in the U.S. yield curve, the risks for U.S. and global yields are tilted to the upside. Bond investors with a 6-12 month horizon should ride out the near-term volatility with a short-duration position. Oil markets are still in the process of re-adjusting to an extraordinary policy reversal by the Trump Administration on its Iranian oil-export sanctions in November, as last-minute waivers were granted to Iran’s largest oil importers. We believe that oil prices have overshot to the downside. Following OPEC 2.0’s decision to cut 1.2mm b/d of production to re-balance markets in the first half of the year, we continue to expect prices to recover on the back of solid global energy demand. Canada also mandated energy firms to trim production. Our energy experts expect oil prices to reach $82/bbl in 2019. We also like gold as long as the fed funds rate remains below its neutral level. Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst December 21, 2018 Next Report: January 31, 2019 II. (Part II) The Long Shadow Of The Financial Crisis This is the second of a two-part Special Report on the structural changes that have occurred as a result of the Great Recession and financial crisis. We look at three issues: asset correlation, the safety of the financial system, and the level of global debt. First, correlations among financial assets shifted dramatically during the financial crisis and the after-effects lingered for years. Some believe that the underlying level of correlation among risk assets has shifted permanently higher for two main reasons: (1) trading factors such as the increased use of exchange-traded funds and algorithms; and (2) the risk-on/risk-off environment in which trading has become more binary in nature, due to the sharp rise in policy uncertainty, risk aversion and risk premiums in the aftermath of the Great Recession. We have sympathy for the second explanation. The equity risk premium (ERP) was forced higher on a sustained basis by the financial crisis, driven by fears that the advanced economies had entered a ‘secular stagnation’. Elevated correlation among risk assets was a result of a higher-than-normal ERP. The ERP should decline as fears of secular stagnation fade, leading to a lower average level of risk asset correlation than has been the case over the last decade. Second, regulators have been working hard to ensure that the financial crisis never happens again. But is the financial system really any safer today? Undoubtedly, banks have improved balance sheet and funding resilience, and have significantly reduced their involvement in complex financial activities. The propensity for contagion among banks has diminished and there has been a dramatic decline in the volume of complex structured credit securities. The bad news is that the level of global debt has increased at an alarming pace. The third part of this report highlights that elevated levels of debt could cause instability in the global financial system. Choking debt levels boost the vulnerability to negative shocks. The number and probability of potential shocks appear to have increased since 2007, including extreme weather events, sovereign debt crises, large-scale migration, populism, water crises and cyber & data attacks. The lack of a fiscal buffer in most countries means that it will be difficult or impossible to provide any fiscal relief in the event of a negative shock. Moreover, the end of the Debt Supercycle means that the monetary and fiscal authorities will find it difficult to encourage the private sector to spend more in most cases. For EM, deleveraging has not even started and more financial fireworks seem inevitable in the context of a strong dollar and rising global yields. China may avoid a crisis, but the adjustment to a less credit-driven economy is already proving to be a painful process. The Great Recession and Financial Crisis cast a long shadow that will affect economies, policy and financial markets for years to come. Rather than reviewing the roots of the crisis, the first of our two-part series examined the areas where we believe structural change has occurred related to the economy or financial markets. We covered the changing structure of the corporate bond market, the inflation outlook, central bank policymaking and equilibrium bond yields. We highlighted that the financial crisis transformed the corporate bond market in several ways that heighten the risk for quality spreads in the next downturn. We made the case that the prolonged inflation undershoot is sowing the seeds of an overshoot in the coming years, in part related to central bank policymakers that are doomed to fight the last war. Finally, we argued that the forces behind the structural and cyclical bull market in bonds reached an inflection point in 2016/2017. In Part II, we examine the theory that the financial crisis has permanently lifted market correlations among risk assets. Next, we look at whether regulatory changes implemented as a result of the financial crisis have made the global financial system safer. Finally, we highlight the implications of the continued rise in global leverage over the past decade in the context of BCA’s Debt Supercycle theme. The bottom line is that the global financial system still faces substantial risks, despite a more highly regulated banking system. (1) Are Risk Asset Correlations Permanently Higher? Correlations among financial assets shifted dramatically during the financial crisis and the after-effects lingered for years. For example, risk assets became more highly correlated, suggesting little differentiation within or across asset classes. Chart II-1 presents a proxy for U.S. equity market correlations, using a sample of current S&P 100 companies. The average correlation was depressed in the 1990s and 2000s relative to the 1980s. It spiked in 2007 and fluctuated at extremely high levels for several years, before moving erratically lower. It has jumped recently and is roughly in the middle of the post-1980s range. Chart II-1Two Factors Driving Correlation bca.bca_mp_2019_01_01_s2_c1 bca.bca_mp_2019_01_01_s2_c1 Correlations will undoubtedly ebb and flow in the coming years and will spike again in the next recession. But a key question is whether correlations will oscillate around a higher average level than in the 1990s and 2000s. The consensus seems to believe that the underlying level of correlation among risk assets has indeed shifted higher on a structural basis for two main reasons: Market Structure Changes: Many investors point to trading factors such as the increased use of index products (exchange-traded funds for example), and high-frequency/algorithmic trading as likely culprits. Macro “theme” investing has reportedly become more popular and is often implemented through algorithms. The result is an increase in stock market volatility and a tendency for risk-asset prices to move up and down based on momentum because they are all being traded as a group. These factors would likely be evident today even if the financial crisis never happened, but the popularity of algorithm trading may have been encouraged by the fact that the macro backdrop was so uncertain for years after Lehman collapsed. Risk On/Off Trading Environment: Trading has become more binary in nature, due to the sharp rise in policy uncertainty, risk aversion and risk premiums in the aftermath of the Great Recession. Even after the recession ended, the headwinds to growth were formidable and many felt that the sustainability of the recovery hinged largely on the success or failure of unorthodox monetary policies. The general feeling was that either the policies would “work”, the output gap would gradually close and risk assets would perform well, or it would fail and risk assets would be dragged down by a return to recession. Thus, markets traded on an extreme “risk-on/risk-off” basis, as sentiment swung wildly with each new piece of economic and earnings data. While the market structure thesis has merit on the surface, the impact should only be short term in nature. It is difficult to see how a change in the intra-day microstructure of the market could have such a fundamental, wide-ranging and permanent impact on market prices. Previous research suggests that any impact on market correlation beyond the very short term is likely to be small. For the sake of brevity, we won’t present the evidence here, but instead refer readers to two BCA Special Reports.2 The risk on/off trading environment thesis is a more plausible explanation. However, we find it more useful to think about it in terms of the equity risk premium (ERP). A higher ERP causes investors to revalue cash flows from all firms, which, in turn, causes structural shifts in the correlation among stocks. A lower ERP results in less homogenization of the present value of future cash flows, and raises the effect of differentiation among business models. A rise in the ERP could occur for different reasons, but the most obvious are an increase in the perceived riskiness of firms, a shift in investor risk aversion, or both. Shifts in the ERP are sometimes structural in nature, but there is also a strong cyclical element in that persistent equity declines historically have had the effect of temporarily raising the ERP and correlations. A simple model based on the ERP and volatility explains a lot of the historical variation in equity correlation, including the elevated levels observed in the years after 2007 (Chart II-2).3 The shift lower in correlations after 2012 reflects both a lower equity risk premium and a dramatic decline in downside volatility. Chart II-2Simple Model Explains Correlation Simple Model Explains Correlation Simple Model Explains Correlation It is tempting to believe that the lingering shell-shock related to the financial crisis means that the underlying equity risk premium has shifted permanently higher. The ERP is still elevated by historical standards, but this is more reflective of extraordinarily low bond yields than an elevated forward earnings yield. Investors evidently believe that the U.S. and other developed economies are stuck in a “secular stagnation”, which will require low interest rates for many years just to keep economic growth near its trend pace. In other words, the equilibrium interest rate, or R-star, is still very low. The ERP and correlations among risk assets will undoubtedly spike again in the next recession. Nonetheless, in the absence of recession, we expect fears regarding secular stagnation to fade further. If the advanced economies hold up as short-term interest rates and bond yields rise, then concerns that R-star is extremely low will dissipate and expectations regarding equilibrium bond yields will shift higher. The ERP will move lower as bond yields, rather than the earnings yield, do most of the adjustment. The underlying correlations among risk asset prices should correspondingly recede. This includes correlations among a wide variety of risk assets, such as corporate bonds and commodities. While this describes our base case outlook, there is a non-trivial risk that the next recession arrives soon and is deep. This would underscore the view that R-star is indeed very low and the economy needs constant monetary stimulus just to keep it out of recession (i.e. the secular stagnation thesis). The ERP and correlations would stay elevated on average in that scenario. What About The Stock/Bond Correlation? Chart II-3 shows the rolling correlation between monthly changes in the 10-year Treasury bond yield and the S&P 500. The correlation was generally negative between the late-1960s and the early-2000s. Bond yields tended to rise whenever the S&P 500 was falling. Over the past two decades, however, bond yields have generally declined when the stock market has swooned. Chart II-3Structural Shifts In The Stock/Bond Correlation Structural Shifts In The Stock/Bond Correlation Structural Shifts In The Stock/Bond Correlation Inflation expectations can help explain the shift in stock/bond correlation. Expectations became unmoored after 1970, which meant that inflationary shocks became the primary driver of bond yields. Strong growth became associated with rising inflation and inflation expectations, and the view that central banks had fallen behind the curve. Bond yields surged as markets discounted aggressive tightening designed to choke off inflation. And, given that inflation lags the cycle and had a lot of persistence, central banks were not in a position to ease policy at the first hint of a growth slowdown. This was obviously a poor backdrop for stocks. When inflation expectations became well anchored again around the late 1990s, investors no longer feared that central banks would have to aggressively stomp on growth whenever actual inflation edged higher. Central banks also had more latitude to react quickly by cutting rates at the first sign of slower economic growth. Fluctuations in growth became the primary driver of bond yields, allowing stock prices to rise and fall along with yields. The correlation has therefore been positive most of the time since 2003. Bottom Line: A negative correlation between stocks and bond yields reared its ugly head in the last quarter of 2018. The equity correction reflected several factors, but the previous surge in bond yields and hawkish Fed comments appeared to spook markets. Investors became nervous that the fed funds rate had already entered restrictive territory, at a time when the global economy was cooling off. We expect more of these episodes as the Fed normalizes short-term interest rates over the next couple of years. Nonetheless, we see no evidence that inflation expectations have become unmoored. This implies that the stock-bond correlation will generally be positive most of the time over the medium term. In addition, the average level of correlation among risk assets has probably not been permanently raised, although spikes during recessions or growth scares will inevitably occur. (2) Is The Global Financial System Really Safer Today? The roots of the great financial crisis and recession involved a global banking and shadow banking system that encouraged leverage and risk-taking in ways that were hard for investors and regulators to assess. Complex and opaque financial instruments helped to hide risk, at a time when regulators were “asleep at the switch”. In many countries, credit grew at a much faster pace than GDP and capital buffers were dangerously low. Banking sector compensation skewed the system toward short-term gains over long-term sustainable returns. Lax lending standards and a heavy reliance on short-term wholesale markets to fund trading and lending activity contributed to cascading defaults and a complete seizure in parts of the money and fixed income markets. A vital question is whether the financial system is any less vulnerable today to contagion and seizure. The short answer is that the financial system is better prepared for a shock, but the problem is that the number of potential sources of instability have increased since 2007. Since the financial crisis, regulators have been working hard to ensure that the financial crisis never happens again. Reforms have come under four key headings: Capital: Regulators raised the minimum capital requirement for banks, added a buffer requirement, and implemented a surcharge on systemically important banks. Liquidity: Regulators implemented a Liquidity Coverage Ratio (LCR) and a Net Stable Funding Ratio (NSFR) in order to ensure that banks have sufficient short-term funds to avoid liquidity shortages and bank runs.4 Risk Management: Banks are being forced to develop systems to better monitor risk, and are subject to periodic stress tests. Resolution Planning: Banks have also been asked to detail options for resolution that, hopefully, should reduce systemic risk should a major financial institution become insolvent. Global systemically-important banks, in particular, will require sufficient loss-absorbing capacity. A major study by the Bank for International Settlements,5 along with other recent studies, found that systemic risk in the global financial system has diminished markedly as a result of the new regulations. On the whole, banks have improved balance sheet and funding resilience, and have significantly reduced their involvement in complex financial activities. Lending standards have tightened almost across the board relative to pre-crisis levels, particularly for residential mortgages. Additional capital and liquid assets provide a much wider buffer today against adverse shocks, allowing most banks to pass recent stress tests (Chart II-4). Financial institutions have generally re-positioned toward retail and commercial banking and wealth management, and away from more complex and capital-intensive activities (Chart II-5). The median share of trading assets in total assets for individual G-SIBs has declined from around 20% to 12% over 2009-16. Chart II-4 Chart II-5 Moreover, the propensity for contagion among banks has diminished. The BIS notes that assessing all the complex interactions in the global financial system is extremely difficult. Nonetheless, a positive sign is that banks are focusing more on their home markets since the crisis, and that direct connections between banks through lending and derivatives exposures have declined. The BIS highlights that aggregate foreign bank claims have declined by 16% since the crisis, driven particularly by banks from the advanced economies most affected by the crisis, especially from some European countries (Chart II-6). It is also positive that European banks have made some headway in diminishing over-capacity, although problems still exist in Italy. Finally, and importantly, there has been a distinct shift toward more stable sources of funding, such as deposits, away from fickle wholesale markets (Charts II-7 and II-8). Chart II-6Less Cross Border Lending (Until Recently) Less Cross Border Lending (Until Recently) Less Cross Border Lending (Until Recently)   Chart II-7 Chart II-8 Outside of banking, many other regulatory changes have been implemented to make the system safer. One important example is that rules were adjusted to reduce the risk of runs on money market funds. What About Shadow Banking? Of course, more could be done to further indemnify the financial system. Concentration in the global banking system has not diminished, and it appears that the problem of “too big to fail” has not been solved. And then there is the shadow banking sector, which played a major role in the financial crisis by providing banks a way of moving risk to off-balance sheet entities and securities, and thereby hiding the inherent risks. Shadow banking is defined as credit provision that occurs outside of the banking system, but involves the key features of bank lending including leverage, and liquidity and maturity transformation. Complex structured credit securities, such as Collateralized Debt Obligations, allowed this type of transformation to mushroom in ways that were difficult for regulators and investors to understand. A recent study by the Group of Thirty6 concluded that securitization has dropped to a small fraction of its pre-crisis level, and that growing non-bank credit intermediation since the Great Recession has primarily been in forms that do not appear to raise financial stability concerns. Much of the credit creation has been in non-financial corporate bonds, which is a more stable and less risky form of credit extension than bank lending. Other types of lending have increased, such as corporate credit to pension funds and insurance companies, but this does not involve maturity transformation, according to the Group of Thirty. There has been a dramatic decline in the volume of complex structured credit securities such as collateralized debt obligations, asset-backed commercial paper, and structured investment vehicles since 2007 (Chart II-9). While the situation must be monitored, the Group of Thirty study concludes that the financial system in the advanced economies appears to be less vulnerable to bouts of self-reinforcing forced selling, such as occurred during the 2008 crisis. Chart II-9Less Private-Sector Securitization Less Private-Sector Securitization Less Private-Sector Securitization One exception is the U.S. leveraged loan market, which has swelled to $1.13 trillion and about half has been pooled into Collateralized Loan Obligations. As with U.S. high-yield bonds, the situation is fine as long as profitability remains favorable. But in the next recession, lax lending standards today will contribute to painful losses in leveraged loans. The Bad News That’s the good news. The bad news is that, while the financial system might have become less complex and opaque, the level of debt has increased at an alarming rate in both the private and public sectors in many countries. Elevated levels of debt could cause instability in the global financial system, especially as global bond yields return to more normal levels by historical standards. We discuss other pressure points such as Emerging Markets and China in the next section, although the latter deserves a few comments before we leave the subject of shadow banking. The Group of Thirty notes that 30% of Chinese credit is provided by a broad array of poorly regulated shadow banking entities and activities, including trust funds, wealth management products, and “entrusted loans.” Links between these entities and banks are unclear, and sometimes involve informal commitments to provide credit or liquidity support. The study takes some comfort that most of Chinese debt takes place between Chinese domestic state-owned banks and state-owned companies or local government financing vehicles. Foreign investors have limited involvement, thus reducing potential direct contagion outside of China in the event of a financial event. Still, the potential for contagion internationally via global sentiment and/or the economic fallout is high. The other bad news is that, while regulators in the advanced economies have managed to improve the ability of financial institutions to weather shocks, potential risks to the financial system have increased in number and in probability of occurrence. The Global Risk Institute (GRI) recently published a detailed comparison of potential shocks today relative to 2007.7 The report sees twice the number of risks versus 2007 that are identified as “current” (i.e. could occur at any time) and of “high impact”. The most pressing risks today include extreme weather events, asset bubbles, sovereign debt crises, large-scale involuntary migration, water crises and cyber & data attacks. Any of these could trigger a broad financial crisis if the shock is sufficiently intense, despite improved regulation. The GRI study also eventuates how the risks will evolve over the next 11 years. Readers should see the study for details, but it is interesting that the experts foresee cyber dependency rising to the top of the risk pile by 2030. The increase is driven by the importance of data ownership, the increasing role of algorithms and control systems, and the $1.2 trillion projected cost of cyber, data and infrastructure attacks. Our computer systems are not prepared for the advances of technology, such as quantum computing. Climate change moves to the number two risk spot in its base-case outlook. Space limitations precluded a discussion of the rise of populism in this report, but the GRI sees the political tensions related to income inequality as the number three threat to the global financial system by 2030. Bottom Line: Regulators have managed to substantially reduce the amount of hidden risk and the potential for contagion between financial institutions and across countries since 2007. Banks have a larger buffer against stocks. Unfortunately, the number and probability of potential shocks to the financial system appear to have increased since 2007. (3) Implications Of The Global Debt Overhang The End of the Debt Supercycle is a key BCA theme influencing our macro view of the economic and market outlook for the coming years. For several decades, the willingness of both lenders and borrowers to embrace credit was a lubricant for economic growth and rising asset prices and, importantly, underpinned the effectiveness of monetary policy. During times of economic and/or financial stress, it was relatively easy for the Federal Reserve and other central banks to improve the situation by engineering a new credit up-cycle. However, since the 2007-09 meltdown, even zero (or negative) policy rates have been unable to trigger a strong revival in private credit growth in the major developed economies, except in a few cases. The end of the Debt Supercycle has severely impaired the key transmission channel between changes in monetary policy and economic activity. The combination of high debt burdens and economic uncertainty has curbed borrowers’ appetite for credit while increased regulatory pressures and those same uncertainties have made lenders less willing to extend loans. This has severely eroded the effectiveness of lower interest in boosting credit demand and supply, forcing central banks to rely increasingly on manipulating asset prices and exchange rates. On a positive note, the plunge in interest rates has lowered debt servicing costs to historically low levels. Yet, it is the level, rather than the cost, of debt that seems to have been an impediment to the credit cycle, contributing to a lethargic economic expansion. The Bank for International Settlements (BIS) publishes an excellent dataset of credit trends across a broad swath of developing and emerging economies. Some broad conclusions come from an examination of the data (Charts II-10 and II-11):8 Chart II-10Advanced Economies: Some Deleveraging Advanced Economies: Some Deleveraging Advanced Economies: Some Deleveraging Chart II-11EM: Deleveraging Has Not Even Started EM: Deleveraging Has Not Even Started EM: Deleveraging Has Not Even Started Private debt growth has only recently accelerated for the advanced economies as a whole. There are only a handful of developed economies where private debt-to-GDP ratios have moved up meaningfully in the past few years. These are countries that avoided a real estate/banking bust and where property prices have continued to rise (e.g. Canada and Australia). The high level of real estate prices and household debt currently is a major source of concern to the authorities in those few countries. Even where some significant consumer deleveraging has occurred (e.g. the U.S., Spain and Ireland), debt-to-income ratios remain very high by historical standards. In many cases, a stabilization or decline in private debt burdens has been offset by a continued rise in public debt, keeping overall leverage close to peak levels. This is a key legacy of the financial crisis; many governments were forced to offset the loss of demand from private sector deleveraging by running larger and persistent budget deficits. Weak private demand accounts for close to 50% of the rise in public debt on average according to the IMF. Global debt of all types (public and private) has soared from 207% of GDP in 2007 to 246% today. The Debt Supercycle did not end everywhere at the same time. It peaked in Japan more than 20 years ago and has not yet reached a decisive bottom. The 2007-09 meltdown marked the turning point for the U.S. and Europe, but it has not even started in the emerging world. The financial crisis accelerated the accumulation of debt in the latter as investors shifted capital away from the struggling advanced economies to (seemingly less risky) emerging markets. Both EM private- and public-sector debt ratios have continued to move up at an alarming pace. The lesson from Japan is that deleveraging cycles following the bursting of a major credit bubble can last a very long time indeed. One key area where there has been significant deleveraging is the U.S. household sector (Chart II-12). The ratio of household debt to income has fallen below its long-term trend, suggesting that the deleveraging process is well advanced. However, one could argue that the ratio will undershoot the trend for an extended period in a mirror image of the previous overshoot. Or, it may be that the trend has changed; it could now be flat or even down. Chart II-12U.S. Household Deleveraging... U.S. Household Deleveraging... U.S. Household Deleveraging... What is clear is that U.S. attitudes toward saving and spending have changed dramatically since the Great Financial Crisis (GFC) (Chart II-13). Like the Great Depression of the 1930s that turned more than one generation off of debt, the 2008/09 crisis appears to have been a watershed event that marked a structural shift in U.S. consumer attitudes toward credit-financed spending. The Debt Supercycle is over for this sector. Chart II-13...As Attitudes To Debt Change ...As Attitudes To Debt Change ...As Attitudes To Debt Change Developing Countries: Debt And Economic Fundamentals BCA’s long-held caution on emerging economies and markets is rooted in concern about deteriorating fundamentals. Trade wars and a tightening Fed are negative for EM assets, but the main headwinds facing this asset class are structural. Excessive debt is a ticking time bomb for many of these countries. EM dollar-denominated debt is now as high as it was in the late 1990s as a share of both GDP and exports (Chart II-14). Moreover, the declining long-term growth potential for emerging economies as a group makes it more difficult for them to service the debt. The structural downtrend in EM labor force and productivity growth underscores that trend GDP growth has collapsed over the past three decades (Chart II-14, bottom panel). Chart II-14EM: High Debt And Slow Growth... EM: High Debt And Slow Growth... EM: High Debt And Slow Growth... The 2019 Key Views9 report from our Emerging Markets Strategy team highlights that excessive capital inflows over the past decade have contributed to over-investment and mal-investment. Much of the borrowing was used to fund unprofitable projects, as highlighted by the plunge in productivity growth, profit margins and return on assets in the EM space relative to pre-Lehman levels (Chart II-15) Decelerating global growth in 2018 has exposed these poor fundamentals. Chart II-15...Along With Deteriorating Profitability ...Along With Deteriorating Profitability ...Along With Deteriorating Profitability As we highlighted in the BCA Outlook 2019, emerging financial markets may enjoy a rally in the second half of 2019 on the back of Chinese policy stimulus. However, this will only represent a ‘sugar high’. The debt overhang in emerging market economies is unlikely to end benignly because a painful period of corporate restructuring, bank recapitalization and structural reforms are required in order to boost productivity and thereby improve these countries’ ability to service their debt mountains. China’s Debt Problem Space limitations preclude a full discussion of the complex debt situation in China and the risks it poses for the global financial system. Waves of stimulus have caused total debt to soar from 140% of GDP in 2008 to 260% of GDP at present (Chart II-16). Since most of the new credit has been used to finance fixed-asset investment, China has ended up with a severe overcapacity problem. The rate of return on assets in the state-owned corporate sector has fallen below borrowing costs (Chart II-17). Chinese banks are currently being told that they must lend more money to support the economy, while ensuring that their loans do not sour. This has become an impossible feat. Chart II-16China's Overinvestment... China's Overinvestment... China's Overinvestment... Chart II-17Has Undermined The Return On Assets Has Undermined The Return On Assets Has Undermined The Return On Assets The previous section highlighted that much of the debt has been created in the opaque shadow banking system, where vast amounts of hidden risk have likely accumulated. Whether or not the central government is willing and/or able to cover a wave of defaults and recapitalize the banking system in the event of a negative shock is hotly debated, both within and outside of BCA. But even if a financial crisis can be avoided, bringing an end to the unsustainable credit boom will undoubtedly have significant consequences for the Chinese economy and the emerging economies that trade with it. Interest Costs To Rise Globally, many are concerned about rising interest costs as interest rates normalize over the coming years. In Appendix Charts II-19 to II-21, we provide interest-cost simulations for selected government, corporate and household sectors under three interest-rate scenarios. The good news is that the starting point for interest rates is still low, and that it takes years for the stock of outstanding debt to adjust to higher market rates. Even if rates rise by another 100 basis points, interest burdens will increase but will generally remain low by historical standards. It would take a surge of 300 basis points across the yield curve to really ‘move the needle’ in terms of interest expense. This does not imply that the global debt situation is sustainable or that a financial crisis can be easily avoided. The next economic downturn will probably not be the direct result of rising interest costs. Nonetheless, elevated government, household and/or corporate leverage has several important long-term negative implications: Limits To Counter-Cyclical Fiscal Policy: Government indebtedness will limit the use of counter-cyclical fiscal policy during the next economic downturn. Chart II-18 highlights that structural budget deficits and government debt levels are higher today compared to previous years that preceded recessions. The risk is especially high for emerging economies and some advanced economies (such as Italy) where investors will be unwilling to lend at a reasonable rate due to default fears. Even in countries where the market still appears willing to lend to the government at a low interest rate, political constraints may limit the room to maneuver as voters and fiscally-conservative politicians revolt against a surge in budget deficits. This will almost certainly be the case in the U.S., where the 2018 tax cuts mean that the federal budget deficit is likely to be around 6% of GDP in the coming years even in the absence of recession. A recession would push it close to a whopping 10%. Even in countries where fiscal stimulus is possible, the end of the Debt Supercycle means that the monetary and fiscal authorities will find it difficult to encourage the private sector to spend and take on more debt. Chart II-18 Growth Headwinds: The debt situation condemns the global economy to a slower pace of trend growth in part because of weaker capital spending. From one perspective this is a good thing, because spending financed by the excessive use of credit is unsustainable. Still, deleveraging has much further to go at the global level, which means that spending will have to be constrained relative to income growth. The IMF estimates that deleveraging in the private sector for the advanced economies is only a third of historical precedents at this point in the cycle. The IMF also found that debt overhangs have historically been associated with lower GDP growth even in the absence of a financial crisis. Sooner or later, overleveraged sectors have to retrench. Vulnerability To Negative Shocks: If adjustment is postponed, debt reaches levels that make the economy highly vulnerable to negative shocks as defaults rise and lenders demand a higher return or withdraw funding altogether. IMF work shows that economic downturns are more costly in terms of lost GDP when it is driven or accompanied by a financial crisis. This is particularly the case for emerging markets. Bottom Line: Although credit growth has been subdued in most major advanced economies, there has been little deleveraging overall and debt-to-GDP is still rising at the global level. Elevated debt levels are far from benign, even if it appears to be easily financed at the moment. It acts as dead weight on economic activity and makes the world economy vulnerable to negative shocks. It steals growth from the future and, in the event of such a shock, the lack of a fiscal buffer in most countries means that it will be difficult or impossible to provide fiscal relief. The end of the Debt Supercycle means that the monetary and fiscal authorities will find it difficult to encourage the private sector to spend in most cases. For EM, deleveraging has not even started and more financial fireworks seem inevitable in the context of a strong dollar and rising global yields. China may avoid a crisis, but the adjustment to a less credit-driven economy is already proving to be a painful process. Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst APPENDIX Chart II-19Corporate Interest Cost Scenarios Corporate Interest Interest Cost Scenarios Corporate Interest Interest Cost Scenarios   Chart II-20Government Interest Cost Scenarios Government Interest Cost Scenarios Government Interest Cost Scenarios   Chart II-21U.S. Household Sector Interest Cost Scenarios U.S. Household Sector Interest Cost Scenarios U.S. Household Sector Interest Cost Scenarios   III. Indicators And Reference Charts Our tactical upgrade of equities to overweight this month goes against most of our proprietary indicators. Our Willingness-to-Pay (WTP) indicators for the U.S., Japan and Europe are all heading lower. 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. Investors are clearly moving funds away from the equity market at the moment. Our Revealed Preference Indicator (RPI) for stocks continues to issue a ‘sell’ signal. 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. Momentum remains out of sync with valuation and policy, supporting the view that caution is still warranted. The U.S. net earnings revisions ratio has dropped into negative territory. The earnings surprises index has also declined, although it remains above 60%. Finally, our Composite Technical Equity Indicator has broken below the zero line and its 9-month exponential moving average, sending a negative technical signal. On the positive side, our Monetary Indicator has hooked up, although it is still in negative territory for equities. From a contrary perspective, the fact that equity sentiment has turned bearish is positive for stocks. In fact, this is the main reason why we upgraded stocks this month. While it is late in the U.S. economic expansion and the Fed is tightening, sentiment regarding U.S. and global growth has become overly pessimistic. Thus, we are playing a late-cycle bounce in stocks. For bonds, the term premium moved further into negative territory in December, which is unsustainable from a long-term perspective. Long-term inflation expectations are also too low to be consistent with the Fed meeting its 2% target over the medium term. These facts suggest that bond yields have not peaked for the cycle, although at the moment they have not yet worked off oversold conditions according to our technical indicator. The U.S. dollar is overbought and very expensive on a PPP basis. Nonetheless, we believe it will become more expensive in the first half of 2019, before its structural downtrend resumes in broad trade-weighted terms. EQUITIES: Chart III-1U.S. Equity Indicators U.S. Equity Indicators U.S. Equity Indicators   Chart III-2Willingness To Pay For Risk Willingness To Pay For Risk Willingness To Pay For Risk Chart III-3U.S. Equity Sentiment Indicators U.S. Equity Sentiment Indicators U.S. Equity Sentiment Indicators Chart III-4Revealed Preference Indicator Revealed Preference Indicator Revealed Preference Indicator   Chart III-5U.S. Stock Market Valuation U.S. Stock Market Valuation U.S. Stock Market Valuation Chart III-6U.S. Earnings U.S. Earnings U.S. Earnings Chart III-7Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Chart III-8Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance FIXED INCOME: Chart III-9U.S. Treasurys And Valuations U.S. Treasurys And Valuations U.S. Treasurys And Valuations Chart III-10Yield Curve Slopes Yield Curve Slopes Yield Curve Slopes Chart III-11Selected U.S. Bond Yields Selected U.S. Bond Yields Selected U.S. Bond Yields   Chart III-1210-Year Treasury Yield Components 10-Year Treasury Yield Components 10-Year Treasury Yield Components Chart III-13U.S. Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor U.S. Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor U.S. Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor Chart III-14Global Bonds: Developed Markets Global Bonds: Developed Markets Global Bonds: Developed Markets Chart III-15Global Bonds: Emerging Markets Global Bonds: Emerging Markets Global Bonds: Emerging Markets CURRENCIES: Chart III-16U.S. Dollar And PPP U.S. Dollar And PPP U.S. Dollar And PPP   Chart III-17U.S. Dollar And Indicator U.S. Dollar And Indicator U.S. Dollar And Indicator   Chart III-18U.S. Dollar Fundamentals U.S. Dollar Fundamentals U.S. Dollar Fundamentals   Chart III-19Japanese Yen Technicals Japanese Yen Technicals Japanese Yen Technicals Chart III-20Euro Technicals Euro Technicals Euro Technicals Chart III-21Euro/Yen Technicals Euro/Yen Technicals Euro/Yen Technicals Chart III-22Euro/Pound Technicals Euro/Pound Technicals Euro/Pound Technicals COMMODITIES: Chart III-23Broad Commodity Indicators Broad Commodity Indicators Broad Commodity Indicators   Chart III-24Commodity Prices Commodity Prices Commodity Prices Chart III-25Commodity Prices Commodity Prices Commodity Prices Chart III-26Commodity Sentiment Commodity Sentiment Commodity Sentiment Chart III-27Speculative Positioning Speculative Positioning Speculative Positioning ECONOMY: Chart III-28U.S. And Global Macro Backdrop U.S. And Global Macro Backdrop U.S. And Global Macro Backdrop   Chart III-29U.S. Macro Snapshot U.S. Macro Snapshot U.S. Macro Snapshot   Chart III-30U.S. Growth Outlook U.S. Growth Outlook U.S. Growth Outlook Chart III-31U.S. Cyclical Spending U.S. Cyclical Spending U.S. Cyclical Spending Chart III-32U.S. Labor Market U.S. Labor Market U.S. Labor Market Chart III-33U.S. Consumption U.S. Consumption U.S. Consumption Chart III-34U.S. Housing U.S. Housing U.S. Housing Chart III-35U.S. Debt And Deleveraging U.S. Debt And Deleveraging U.S. Debt And Deleveraging Chart III-36U.S. Financial Conditions U.S. Financial Conditions U.S. Financial Conditions   Chart III-37Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Chart III-38Global Economic Snapshot: China Global Economic Snapshot: China Global Economic Snapshot: China Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst   1      For more details, please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report "U.S.-China: The Tech War And Reform Agenda," dated December 12, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com 2      Please see BCA U.S. Investment Strategy Special Report "The Bane Of Investors’ Existence: Why Is Correlation High And When Will It Fall?" dated January 4, 2012, available at usis.bcaresearch.com. Also see BCA Global ETF Strategy Special Report "The Passive Menace," dated September 13, 2017, available at etf.bcaresearch.com 3       We use only below average returns in the calculation of volatility (downside volatility) because we are more concerned with the risk of equity market declines for the purposes of this model. 4       The LCR requires a large bank to hold enough high-quality liquid assets to cover the net cash outflows the bank would expect to occur over a 30-day stress scenario. The NSFR complements the LCR by requiring an amount of stable funding that is tailored to the liquidity risk of a bank’s assets and liabilities, based on a one-year time horizon. 5       Structural Changes in Banking After the Crisis. CGFS Papers No.60. Bank for International Settlements, January 2018. 6       Shadow Banking and Capital Markets Risks and Opportunities. Group of Thirty. Washington, D.C., November 2016. 7       Back to the Future: 2007 to 2030. Are New Financial Risks Foreshadowing a Systemic Risk Event? Global Risk Institute. 8       For more details on public and private debt trends, please see BCA Special Report "The End Of The Debt Supercycle: An Update," dated May 11, 2016, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 9       Please see BCA Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report "2019 Key Views: Will The EM Lost Decade End With A Bang Or A Whimper?" dated December 6, 2018, available at ems.bcaresearch.com EQUITIES:FIXED INCOME:CURRENCIES:COMMODITIES:ECONOMY: