Gov Sovereigns/Treasurys

Highlights Provided that the coronavirus outbreak is contained, global growth should accelerate over the course of 2020. Stocks usually rise when the economy is strengthening. But could this time be different? We explore five scenarios in which the stock market could decouple from the economy: 1) The economy holds up, but stretched valuations bring down equities, especially high-flying growth stocks; 2) Bond yields rise in response to faster growth, hurting equities in the process; 3) A strong US economy lifts the value of the dollar, denting multinational profits and tightening financial conditions abroad; 4) Faster wage growth cuts into corporate profits; and 5) Redistributionist politicians seek to shift income from capital to labor. We are not too concerned about the first four scenarios, but we do worry about the fifth, especially now that betting markets are giving Bernie Sanders a nearly 50% chance of becoming the Democratic nominee. Matters should be clearer by mid-March, by which time more than 60% of Democratic delegates will have been awarded. If Bernie Sanders does emerge as the nominee at that point, we will consider trimming back our bullish cyclical bias towards stocks. Coronavirus: A Break In The Clouds? Chart 1Coronavirus Remains Mostly Contained To China Will The Stock Market Decouple From The Economy? Will The Stock Market Decouple From The Economy? Investors continue to grapple with two distinct narratives about how the coronavirus outbreak is unfolding. On the pessimistic side, some contend that the true number of infections in China is much higher than the Chinese authorities are disclosing. How else, they ask, can one explain why the government has taken the extreme step of imposing some form of quarantine on 400 million of its own people? More optimistic observers argue that the Chinese government is simply being proactive. While the number of cases in Hubei province spiked yesterday, this was due to a loosening in the definition for what constitutes a confirmed infection. Whereas previously a positive laboratory test was required, now a positive imaging-based clinical examination will suffice. Under the new definition, the number of newly confirmed cases fell from 6,528 on February 11th to 4,273 on February 12th. Under the old definition, newly diagnosed cases peaked on February 2nd (Chart 1). The revised definition adopted in Hubei brought the mortality rate in the province down to 2.7%. The mortality rate observed in the rest of China is 0.5%. The share of all cases in China originating in Hubei also rose to 81%. Even before the rule change, the share of cases diagnosed in Hubei had risen from 52% on January 26th to 75% on February 11th. This suggests progress in limiting the outbreak to the province. Critically, the number of cases in the rest of the world remains low. In the US, a total of 13 cases have been confirmed as of February 12th, just two more than the 11 reported on February 2nd. The Exception To The Rule? Provided that the coronavirus outbreak is contained, global growth should bounce back forcefully in the second quarter. If that were to occur, history suggests that equities will continue to rally, while bond prices will fall (Chart 2). But could history fail to repeat itself? In this week’s report, we explore five scenarios in which that may happen. Scenario 1: Stretched valuations bring down equities, especially high-flying growth stocks Stocks have moved up considerably since their December 2018 lows. This suggests that investors have become more confident about the economic outlook. Nevertheless, while most investors may no longer be worried about an imminent recession, they do not foresee a sharp acceleration in global growth either. This is evidenced by the fact that cyclical stocks have generally underperformed defensives (Chart 3). Oil prices have also languished, while copper prices are back near a 2.5-year low (Chart 4). Chart 2Stocks Usually Outperform Bonds When Global Growth Is Accelerating Stocks Usually Outperform Bonds When Global Growth Is Accelerating Stocks Usually Outperform Bonds When Global Growth Is Accelerating Chart 3Cyclicals Have Failed To Outperform Defensives Cyclicals Have Failed To Outperform Defensives Cyclicals Have Failed To Outperform Defensives   At the broad index level, global equities trade at 16.7-times forward earnings. Conceptually, the inverse of the PE ratio – the earnings yield – should serve as a reasonable guide for the total real return that equities will deliver over the long haul.1 At 6%, the global earnings yield still points to decent returns for global stocks. Relative to bonds, the case for owning stocks is even more compelling. The equity risk premium, which one can compute as the earnings yield minus the real bond yield, remains well above its historic average (Chart 5). Chart 4Commodity Prices Have Taken It On The Chin Commodity Prices Have Taken It On The Chin Commodity Prices Have Taken It On The Chin Chart 5Relative Valuations Favor Equities Relative Valuations Favor Equities Relative Valuations Favor Equities   That said, there are pockets where valuations have gotten stretched. US equities trade at 19.5-times forward earnings compared to 14.1-times in the rest of the world. Growth stocks, in particular, have gotten very expensive (Chart 6). The five largest stocks in the S&P 500 (Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, Alphabet, and Facebook) now account for 18% of the index, the same share that the top five stocks (Microsoft, Cisco, GE, Intel, and Exxon) commanded in 2000. The big risk for stocks is that wages go up not because the overall size of the economic pie is growing, but because policies are implemented that shift a bigger share of the pie from capital to labor. Despite the similarities between today and the dotcom era, there are a few critical differences – most of which make us less worried about the current state of affairs. First, while tech valuations are currently stretched, they are not in bubble territory. The NASDAQ Composite trades at 30-times trailing earnings. At its peak in March 2000, the tech-heavy index traded at more than 70-times earnings (Chart 7). Chart 6Growth Stocks Have Become Expensive Relative To Value Stocks Growth Stocks Have Become Expensive Relative To Value Stocks Growth Stocks Have Become Expensive Relative To Value Stocks Chart 7Not Yet Partying Like 1999 Not Yet Partying Like 1999 Not Yet Partying Like 1999   Second, IPO activity has also been more muted today than during the dotcom boom (Chart 8). Only 110 companies went public last year, with the gain on the first day of trading averaging 24%. In 1999, 476 companies went public. The average first day gain was 71%. Meanwhile, companies continue to buy up their shares. The buyback yield stands at 3%, twice as high as in the late 1990s. Third, there is no capex overhang like in the late 1990s (Chart 9). This reduces the odds of a 2001-recession scenario where falling equity prices prompted companies to pare back capital expenditures, leading to rising unemployment and even lower equity prices. Chart 8IPO Activity Is Muted Today Compared To The Late 1990s IPO Activity Is Muted Today Compared To The Late 1990s IPO Activity Is Muted Today Compared To The Late 1990s Chart 9No Capex Boom This Time No Capex Boom This Time No Capex Boom This Time   Scenario 2: Bond yields rise in response to faster growth, hurting equities in the process The period between November 2018 and September 2019 was an odd one for the stock-to-bond correlation. If one looks at daily data, stocks did best when bond yields were rising. Yet, for the period as a whole, stocks finished higher while bond yields finished lower (Chart 10). Chart 10Daily Changes: S&P 500 Vs. 10-Year Treasury Yield Will The Stock Market Decouple From The Economy? Will The Stock Market Decouple From The Economy? How can one explain this seeming paradox? The answer is that the underlying trend in bond yields was squarely to the downside last year. While yields did rise modestly on days when equities rallied, yields fell sharply on days when equities swooned. If one zooms out, one sees the underlying trend, whereas if one zooms in, one only sees the wiggles around the trend. Bond yields trended lower last year because the Fed and most other central banks were delivering one dose of dovish medicine after another. This year, however, the Fed is on hold, and while a few central banks may still cut rates, global monetary policy is unlikely to become much looser. This means that bond yields are likely to drift higher if economic growth surprises on the upside. Will rising bond yields sabotage the stock market? We do not think so. Stocks crashed in late 2018 because investors became convinced that US monetary policy had turned restrictive after the Fed had raised rates by a cumulative 200 basis points over the prior two years. The fact that the Laubach-Williams model, one of the most widely followed models of the neutral rate, showed that real rates had moved above their equilibrium level did not help sentiment (Chart 11). Chart 11The Fed Will Keep Policy Easy For The Time Being The Fed Will Keep Policy Easy For The Time Being The Fed Will Keep Policy Easy For The Time Being Chart 12Stocks Do Well When Earnings And Growth Surprise On The Upside Stocks Do Well When Earnings And Growth Surprise On The Upside Stocks Do Well When Earnings And Growth Surprise On The Upside Today, real rates are about 100 basis points below the Laubach-Williams estimate. This will not change anytime soon, given that the Fed is likely to remain on hold at least until the end of the year. So long as rates stay put, monetary policy will remain accommodative, allowing the economy to grow at a solid pace. Granted, rising long-term bond yields will reduce the present value of future cash flows, thus potentially hurting stocks. However, as we discussed three weeks ago, the discount rate is not the only thing that affects equity valuations.2 The expected growth rate of earnings matters too. As Chart 12 shows, global equity returns are highly sensitive to earning revisions. While earnings may disappoint in the first quarter due to the economic damage from the coronavirus, they should bounce back during the remainder of this year. This should pave the way for higher equity prices. Scenario 3: A strong US economy lifts the value of the dollar, denting multinational profits and tightening financial conditions abroad The US is a fairly closed economy. Imports and exports account for only 14.6% and 11.7% of GDP, respectively. In contrast, the US stock market is very exposed to the rest of the world. S&P 500 companies derive over 40% of their sales from abroad. As such, changes in the value of the dollar tend to have a bigger impact on Wall Street than on Main Street. Estimating the degree to which a stronger dollar reduces S&P 500 profits is no easy task. Direct estimates that measure the currency translation effect on overseas profits from a stronger dollar tend to yield fairly modest results, typically showing that a 10% appreciation in the trade-weighted dollar reduces S&P 500 profits by about 2%. These estimates, however, generally do not take into account feedback loops between a strengthening dollar and global financial conditions (Chart 13). According to the Bank of International Settlements, $12 trillion of dollar-denominated debt has been issued outside the US. A stronger dollar makes it more challenging to service this debt, which can put a significant strain on borrowers. As a result, a vicious cycle can erupt where a stronger dollar leads to tighter financial conditions, which in turn lead to weaker global growth and an even stronger dollar. Chart 13A Strong US Dollar Could Tighten Global Financial Conditions, Leading To Lower Equity Prices, Especially In EM A Strong US Dollar Could Tighten Global Financial Conditions, Leading To Lower Equity Prices, Especially In EM A Strong US Dollar Could Tighten Global Financial Conditions, Leading To Lower Equity Prices, Especially In EM Such an outcome cannot be dismissed, especially if the spread of the coronavirus fuels significant foreign inflows into the safe-haven US Treasury market. Nevertheless, we continue to see it as a low-probability event given the tailwinds to global growth, including the lagged effects of last year’s decline in bond yields, an improvement in the global manufacturing inventory cycle, diminished Brexit and trade war risks, and ongoing policy stimulus out of China. In fact, one can more easily envision the opposite outcome – a virtuous cycle of dollar weakness, leading to easier global financial conditions, stronger growth, and ultimately, an even weaker dollar (Chart 14). In such an environment, earnings growth is likely to accelerate (Chart 15). Chart 14The Dollar Is A Countercyclical Currency The Dollar Is A Countercyclical Currency The Dollar Is A Countercyclical Currency Chart 15The Virtuous Cycle Of Dollar Easing The Virtuous Cycle Of Dollar Easing The Virtuous Cycle Of Dollar Easing     Scenario 4: Faster wage growth cuts into corporate profits Labor compensation is the largest expense for most companies. Thus, it stands to reason that faster wage growth could depress earnings, and by extension, share prices. Although this is possible conceptually, in practice, it happens less often than one might guess. Chart 16 shows that rising wage growth is positively correlated with earnings. The bottom panel of the chart explains why: Wages tend to rise most quickly when sales are growing rapidly. Strong demand growth adds to revenues, while allowing companies to spread fixed costs over a large amount of output. The resulting improvement in “operating leverage” helps buffer profit margins from higher wages. Scenario 5: Redistributionist politicians seek to shift income from capital to labor As long as wages are rising against a backdrop of fast sales growth, equities will fare well. The big risk for stocks is that wages go up not because the overall size of the economic pie is growing, but because policies are implemented that shift a bigger share of the pie from capital to labor. Bernie Sanders has promised to do just that. The S&P 500 has tended to increase when Sanders’ perceived chances of winning the Democrat nomination have risen (Chart 17). Investors have apparently concluded that Trump would clobber Sanders in a presidential race. Hence, the better Sanders performs in the primaries, the more likely Trump is to be re-elected. Chart 16Stocks Tend To Do Best When Wage Growth Is Rising Stocks Tend To Do Best When Wage Growth Is Rising Stocks Tend To Do Best When Wage Growth Is Rising Chart 17The Sanders Effect On Stocks The Sanders Effect On Stocks The Sanders Effect On Stocks   Is this really a safe assumption? We are not so sure. Sanders has still beaten Trump in 49 of the last 54 head-to-head polls tracked by Realclearpolitics over the past 12 months. Sanders tends to appeal to white working class voters – the same demographic that propelled Trump into office. Sanders is also benefiting from a secular leftward shift in voter attitudes on economic issues. According to a recent Gallup poll, 47% of Americans believe that governments should do more to solve problems, up from 36% in 2010. Almost 40% of Americans have a positive view on socialism (Chart 18). Today’s youth in particular is enamored with left-wing ideology (Chart 19). Chart 18The US Is Moving To The Left Will The Stock Market Decouple From The Economy? Will The Stock Market Decouple From The Economy? Chart 19Woke Millennials Cozying Up To Socialism Will The Stock Market Decouple From The Economy? Will The Stock Market Decouple From The Economy? It’s not just the Democratic voters who are trending left. Some prominent Republicans are having second thoughts too. Tucker Carlson is probably the best leading indicator for where the Republican Party is heading. His attacks on “woke capitalism” have become a staple of his popular evening show.3 It is not surprising why many Republicans are having a change of heart. For decades, the Republican Party has been a cheap date for corporate interests: It has given businesses what they want – lower taxes, less regulation, etc. – without asking for much in return (aside from campaign contributions, of course). This has allowed corporations to focus on appealing to left-wing interests by taking increasingly strident positions on a variety of social issues. The fact that some of these positions – such as support for open-border immigration policies – are a boon for profits has only increased their appeal. The risk for corporations is that they end up with no real political support. If the Democrats move further to the left, “soak the rich” policies will become popular no matter how much virtue signaling corporate leaders deliver. Likewise, if Republicans abandon big businesses, today’s fat profit margins will become a thing of the past. When The Music Ends The current market climate resembles a Parisian ball on the eve of the French Revolution. The music is still playing, but the discontent among the commoners outside is growing. The question is when will this discontent boil over? Trump’s victory in 2016 represented a shot across the bow of the political establishment. Fortunately for corporate interests, aside from his protectionist impulses, Trump has been on their side. Bernie Sanders would not be so friendly. Matters should be clearer by mid-March. Super Tuesday takes place on March 3rd. By March 17th, more than 60% of Democratic delegates will have been awarded. If Bernie Sanders emerges as the likely nominee at that point, we will consider trimming back our bullish cyclical 12-month bias towards stocks. Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist peterb@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1  Please see Global Investment Strategy Special Report, “TINA To The Rescue?” dated August 23, 2019. 2  Please see Global investment Strategy Weekly Report, “Bond Yields: How High Is Too High?” dated January 17, 2020. 3  Ian Schwartz, “Tucker Carlson: Elizabeth Warren's "Economic Patriotism" Plan "Sounds Like Donald Trump At His Best," realclearpolitics, June 6, 2019. Global Investment Strategy View Matrix Will The Stock Market Decouple From The Economy? Will The Stock Market Decouple From The Economy? MacroQuant Model And Current Subjective Scores Will The Stock Market Decouple From The Economy? Will The Stock Market Decouple From The Economy? Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

Highlights Global Growth & Market Volatility: Fears over global growth have pushed government bond yields lower as markets discount dovish monetary policy responses to the China viral outbreak. That combination may, perversely, be helping keep risk assets stable, even as investors try to assess the potential hit to global growth from a sharp China demand shock, through lower interest rate and currency volatility. Tactical Trade Overlay: We are in the process of revamping our Tactical Trade Overlay framework, thus we are closing all our recommended current positions this week. We will begin unveiling the new trade selection process - with more specific rules on idea development, holding period, security selection and performance measurement - in the coming weeks. Feature Chart of the WeekLow Inflation Sustaining The Low Volatility Backdrop Low Inflation Sustaining The Low Volatility Backdrop Low Inflation Sustaining The Low Volatility Backdrop The timing of the coronavirus outbreak in China has introduced uncertainty into what was looking like a true bottom in global growth after the 2019 slowdown. The epicenter of that improvement seen in measures like the global PMI was China, where not only was there a visible pickup in soft data like the manufacturing PMI about also hard data like import growth. The coronavirus outbreak - and the severe actions to contain its spread via widespread quarantines, factory shutdowns, supply chain disruptions and travel bans – has most likely triggered a “sudden stop” in Chinese economic growth in the first quarter of the year that will spill over beyond China’s borders. This could potentially snuff out the nascent 2020 global growth recovery if the virus is not soon contained. Global government bond markets, however, have already discounted a fairly sharp slowdown in global activity. 10-year US Treasury yields are back below 1.6%. Inflation expectations across the developed economies remain well below central bank targets and short-term interest markets are discounting additional rate cuts to varying degrees. This has created a backdrop of relative tranquility in interest rate and currency markets, with option implied volatilities for the latter back to post-crisis lows (Chart of the Week). Perversely, the shorter-term uncertainty surrounding the coronavirus outbreak may have created a backdrop for risk assets to stay resilient, by reducing the more longer-lasting uncertainty that comes from interest rate and currency market volatility.  Perversely, the shorter-term uncertainty surrounding the coronavirus outbreak may have created a backdrop for risk assets to stay resilient, by reducing the more longer-lasting uncertainty that comes from interest rate and currency market volatility. If the virus is contained and the hit to the world economy limited to just the first quarter of the year, then our underlying thesis of faster growth underpinning another year of global corporate bond market outperformance versus government bonds will remain intact. Extending The “Sweet Spot” For Global Risk Assets Chart 2How Low Will These Go? How Low Will These Go? How Low Will These Go? Investors are right to be worried about the potential hit to the global economy from China. Prior to the outbreak of the coronavirus, a modest improvement in Chinese import demand was underway that was finally starting to put a floor under global trade activity after the sharp 2019 downturn (Chart 2). Without that boost from Chinese demand, the world economy will be far less likely to recover in 2020. BCA Research’s Chief Investment Strategist, Peter Berezin, has attempted some back-of-the-envelope calculations to determine the potential hit to global growth from a “sudden stop” of China’s economy from the coronavirus.1 Assuming that real GDP growth will essentially be zero in the first quarter of 2020, Peter calculates that global growth will slow to 1.7% in Q1 – or one-half the IMF’s expected average growth rate for 2020 of 3.4%. The bulk of that effect comes from the direct impact of Chinese growth slowing from a trend pace of 5.5% in Q1, but that also includes spillover effects to the rest of the world from weaker Chinese spending on imported goods and tourism (Chart 3). Chart 3Chinese GDP Growth Will Plunge In Q1, But Should Recover In The Remainder Of 2020 - Provided The Coronavirus Outbreak Is Contained Slow & Steady Wins The Race Slow & Steady Wins The Race Importantly, Peter sees Chinese and global growth recovering during the rest of 2020, if the virus is contained by the end of March. The potential hit to overall global growth this year would only be 0.3 percentage points under that scenario. There is obviously a lot of uncertainty involved in making such estimates, from the timing of the spread of the virus to the potential monetary and fiscal policy responses from China (and other nations) to boost growth. Yet a total hit to global growth of only 0.3 percentage points would be fairly modest and may not end up derailing the signs of an economic rebound seen in indicators like the ZEW economic sentiment surveys. The individual country expectations component of the ZEW survey have shown solid improvements for the US, the UK, the euro area and even Japan over the past few months (Chart 4). Also, the current conditions component of the ZEW survey was just starting to bottom out in the most recent readings in the US, the UK and euro area. We have found that the spread between those two measures (ZEW current conditions minus expectations) is a reliable coincident indicator of year-over-year real GDP growth in the countries surveyed. Chart 4Will The Coronavirus Delay, Or Derail, The Recovery Process? Will The Coronavirus Delay, Or Derail, The Recovery Process? Will The Coronavirus Delay, Or Derail, The Recovery Process? As of the latest read of the data from mid-January – importantly, before the start of the more widespread media coverage of the viral outbreak in China – the “current conditions minus expectations gap” from the ZEW survey was still trending downward (Chart 5). Chart 5The ZEW "Current Vs Expected" Gap Is Still Signaling Soft Global Growth The ZEW "Current Vs Expected" Gap Is Still Signaling Soft Global Growth The ZEW "Current Vs Expected" Gap Is Still Signaling Soft Global Growth In other words, the boost in expectations had not yet translated into in a larger pickup in current economic activity. The risk now is that the turnaround in that gap, and in global GDP growth, will be delayed by a severe pullback in Chinese demand. The response of global business confidence to the virus is critical. According to the Duke University CFO Global Business Outlook survey taken at the end of 2019, more than half (52%) of US CFOs believe the US will be in an economic recession by the end of 2020, and 76% predict a recession by mid-2021. These numbers are similar to the 2018 survey, where 49% of CFOs thought a recession was likely by the end of 2019 and 82% predicted a recession by the end of 2020. The “CFO recession odds” are even larger outside the US, particularly in Asia and Latin America (Chart 6). Chart 6Duke/CFO Survey Respondents' 1-Year-Ahead Probability Of A Recession Slow & Steady Wins The Race Slow & Steady Wins The Race The Duke CFO survey also asks a question on CFO optimism about the outlook for their own businesses. That data, measured on a scale of 0 to 100, shows that companies remain relatively optimistic about their own companies (Chart 7). The levels of optimism at the end of 2019 were roughly the same as at the end of 2018, except for the US where CFO optimism has soared above the highs seen prior to the 2008 financial crisis (Chart 8). Chart 7Duke/CFO Survey Respondents’ Own Company Optimism Level Slow & Steady Wins The Race Slow & Steady Wins The Race Chart 8US Companies Are Thinking Globally, But Acting Locally US Companies Are Thinking Globally, But Acting Locally US Companies Are Thinking Globally, But Acting Locally The interesting implication of this data is that a considerable number of global companies has believed that recession was “only a year or two away” since the end of 2018, but have not expressed similar pessimism when it comes to their own businesses. The extreme financial market volatility at the end of 2018 likely explains why investors thought a recession was likely in 2019 or 2020, while the US-China trade war last year meant those recession fears were “extended” into 2020 and 2021. Yet one big variable changed over that period since the end of 2018 – global monetary policy was eased significantly and bond yields (i.e. borrowing costs) fell sharply for both governments and companies. Looking ahead, the likely policy response to the sharp fall in Chinese growth in Q1/2020 will be continued dovishness from global central bankers. With the US dollar now firming again, in what is shaping up to be a typical response of the greenback to slower global growth expectations, the reflation narrative that was brewing for 2020 has been postponed (Chart 9). With the US dollar now firming again, in what is shaping up to be a typical response of the greenback to slower global growth expectations, the reflation narrative that was brewing for 2020 has been postponed. A softer US dollar is a necessary ingredient for that reflation. Thus, a stable-to-firmer dollar will keep global inflation pressures muted, allowing central banks to maintain their current dovish policy biases. This will help keep market volatility for bonds, currencies and equities subdued – if the China demand shock to global growth is contained to the first quarter. From a fixed income investment perspective, an extended period of low rates/currency volatility, combined with very low government yields already reflecting a sharp global growth slowdown that is not yet assured, is an ideal “sweet spot” backdrop for corporate credit spreads to remain relatively stable. From a fixed income investment perspective, an extended period of low rates/currency volatility, combined with very low government yields already reflecting a sharp global growth slowdown that is not yet assured, is an ideal “sweet spot” backdrop for corporate credit spreads to remain relatively stable (Chart 10). Chart 9Renewed USD Strength Would Delay Global Reflation Renewed USD Strength Would Delay Global Reflation Renewed USD Strength Would Delay Global Reflation We continue to recommend a strategic (6-12 months) overweight allocation to corporate credit versus government bonds for global fixed income investors, focused on high-yield credit in the US. Chart 10Still A Sweet Spot For Global Credit Still A Sweet Spot For Global Credit Still A Sweet Spot For Global Credit Bottom Line: Fears over global growth have pushed government bond yields lower as markets discount dovish monetary policy responses to the China viral outbreak. That combination may, perversely, be helping keep risk assets stable, even as investors try to assess the potential hit to global growth from a sharp China demand shock, through lower interest rate and currency volatility. A Quick Note: Rebooting Our Tactical Trade Overlay Framework Back in 2016, we introduced a part of our service that was separate from our main framework which emphasized medium-term (6-12 month) investment recommendations.2 We called this piece our Tactical Trade Overlay and it was intended to focus on ideas with shorter-term horizons (less than 6-months) with specific “exit strategies”. The majority of past trades included in the Overlay did fit that description. The current list of open positions, however, has drifted away from the original mandate with recommendations now being held far longer than six months. We are in the process of developing a new framework for the Tactical Trade Overlay, with more specific rules on idea development, holding period, security selection and performance measurement. Thus, this week, we are closing out all the recommendations currently in the Overlay (see the table on page 12). The goal is to create a list of trade suggestions for our clients with the capability and/or mandate to seek out “quicker” ideas that can also be implemented in more liquid instruments whenever possible. The new Overlay will also include ideas from smaller fixed income markets not included in our Model Bond Portfolio (i.e. New Zealand or Sweden), but with the same focus on holding periods of six months or less. We will be introducing the new Tactical Overlay framework over the next few months. We plan on publishing separate reports covering the new process for selecting ideas for different types of fixed income trades, similar to the current groupings in the Overlay (rates trades, yield curve trades, relative value trades, inflation trades). The first such report, to be published by the end of February, will introduce a methodology for identifying yield curve trades in global government bond markets.   Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see BCA Research Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "From China To Iowa", dated February 7, 2020, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report, "GFIS Overlay Trades Review", dated October 4, 2016, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Slow & Steady Wins The Race Slow & Steady Wins The Race Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Highlights Duration: The coronavirus outbreak will cause our preferred global growth indicators to move lower during the next couple of months. Bond yields will also stay low until the daily number of new cases approaches zero, at which point a sell-off is likely. Monetary Policy: A preemptive rate cut designed to offset the economic impact of the coronavirus is unlikely. In fact, investors should short August 2020 fed funds futures and maintain below-benchmark portfolio duration on the view that the Fed will keep the policy rate stable in 2020. TIPS: Our improved Adaptive Expectations Model suggests that the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate will rise by 19 bps during the next 12 months, bringing it up to 1.84%. Investors should remain overweight TIPS versus nominal Treasuries in US bond portfolios. Recovery Delayed A little more than two months into the year and, despite elevated market volatility, a couple trends have become apparent. First, it is now clear that global economic growth bottomed near the end of last year. Second, any lift that bond yields might have received from that rebound has been more than offset by the spike in uncertainty surrounding the 2019 novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) outbreak. Case in point, the US Economic Surprise Index recently jumped deep into positive territory, but the 10-year Treasury yield remains muted, below its level from three months ago (Chart 1). Chart 1Bond Yields Have De-Coupled From The Economic Data Bond Yields Have De-Coupled From The Economic Data Bond Yields Have De-Coupled From The Economic Data It’s not just the Surprise index that is signaling a growth upturn. Our three preferred global growth indicators – the Global Manufacturing PMI, the US ISM Manufacturing PMI and the CRB Raw Industrials index – have all decisively bottomed (Chart 2). Chart 2Global Growth Indicators Hooking Up Global Growth Indicators Hooking Up Global Growth Indicators Hooking Up The Global PMI moved up to 50.4 in January, from a July low of 49.3. As of January, 45% of countries now have PMIs above 50 compared to 34% in August (Chart 2, top panel). The US ISM Manufacturing PMI shot higher in January, from 47.8 to 50.9. It is moving closer to the Services PMI, which remains very healthy at 55.5 (Chart 2, panel 2). The CRB Raw Industrials index is also now well off its 2019 low (Chart 2, bottom panel). The overall message from our three favorite indicators is that economic growth remains sluggish, but is clearly on an improving trend. A trend we would have expected to continue until the 2019-nCoV outbreak hit. Our Global Investment Strategy team estimates that the virus could trim 1.6% from global growth in the first quarter, cutting the IMF’s Q1 global GDP growth projection of 3.3% in half.1 The hit to growth will unwind once the virus’ spread is contained, but it is difficult to know how long that will take. In the meantime, we anticipate some weaker readings from our preferred global growth indicators during the next couple of months. The coronavirus could trim 1.6% from global GDP growth in the first quarter. However, it’s important to note that bond yields have already de-coupled from trends in the global growth data and are now taking their cues from news about 2019-nCoV. We noted in last week’s report that this also happened during the 2003 SARS crisis.2 Bond yields fell initially but then recovered sharply once the number of daily new SARS cases hit zero. If we map this experience to the present day, we see that the number of confirmed 2019-nCoV cases continues to rise, but the daily number of new cases has rolled over (Chart 3). Further, our China Investment Strategy team points out that it might be more market-relevant to focus on cases outside of Hubei province where the virus started, and which has now been quarantined.3 Already, we see that the daily number of new cases outside Hubei province is approaching zero (Chart 3, bottom panel). Chart 3Tracking The Coronavirus Tracking The Coronavirus Tracking The Coronavirus Bottom Line: The coronavirus outbreak will cause our preferred global growth indicators to move lower during the next couple of months. Bond yields will also stay low until the daily number of new cases approaches zero, at which point a bond sell-off is likely. Will The Fed Respond? Chart 4Go Short August 2020 Fed Funds Futures Go Short August 2020 Fed Funds Futures Go Short August 2020 Fed Funds Futures Markets have already moved to price-in a Federal Reserve reaction to the 2019-nCoV outbreak. Our 12-month Fed Funds Discounter is down to -43 bps, meaning that the overnight index swap curve is priced for 43 bps of rate cuts during the next year (Chart 4). Last Monday our Discounter hit -51 bps, meaning that the market was looking for slightly more than 2 rate cuts during the next year. Turning to the fed funds futures market, we also see that investors are pricing-in significant odds of a rate cut between now and the end of the summer (Chart 4, bottom 2 panels). Odds of a March rate cut are low, but the futures market is priced for a 30% chance of a rate cut between now and the end of the April FOMC meeting. Investors also see 52% chance of a rate cut between now and the end of the June FOMC meeting and 72% chance of a cut between now and the end of the July meeting. But will the Fed actually respond to the nCoV outbreak by easing policy? Other central banks have taken different approaches to that question during the past week. The Reserve Bank of Australia left its policy rate unchanged on Tuesday, noting that “it is too early to determine how long-lasting the impact [from the coronavirus] will be.” In contrast, the Bank of Thailand did cut rates last week while citing the nCoV outbreak as one of several reasons for the move. The market is priced for 72% chance of a rate cut between now and August. But perhaps the most interesting example is last week’s rate cut in the Philippines. There, the central bank cited “a firm outlook for the domestic economy”, but ultimately concluded that the “manageable inflation environment allowed room for a preemptive reduction in the policy rate.” Chart 5A High Bar For Rate Cuts A High Bar For Rate Cuts A High Bar For Rate Cuts If the Fed were to justify a rate cut in the coming months, it would have to use a similar logic as the Philippines. Something along the lines of: The domestic US economy is solid, but inflation is low enough that an additional rate cut carries little risk. A proactive rate cut could also help lean against any potential headwinds from the coronavirus. Our sense is that the Fed will not be eager to make that argument, and that things will have to get a lot worse before a rate cut is considered. The Fed was well aware that the US/China trade war could have negative economic effects in 2019, but it didn’t cut rates until after the S&P 500 dropped by 20% and the yield curve became deeply inverted (Chart 5). We would monitor those same two indicators to assess the odds of a rate cut this year. So far, neither suggests that a cut is forthcoming. Investors should consider shorting the August 2020 fed funds futures contract. If the economic fall-out from 2019-nCoV only lasts for a few months, then the Fed will stand pat through July and the August contract will earn an un-levered 18 bps between now and the end of August. Our Golden Rule of Bond Investing also dictates that below-benchmark portfolio duration positioning will profit if the Fed delivers less than the 43 bps of rate cuts that are currently priced for the next 12 months. Towards A Better Breakeven Model At BCA we track long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates very closely. Not only because TIPS are an interesting investment vehicle in their own right, but also because elevated long-maturity TIPS breakevens (above 2.3%) will be an important trigger for us to recommend a more defensive US bond portfolio – favoring Treasuries over spread product.4 For those reasons, it’s extremely important for us to have a framework for forecasting long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates. A little more than one year ago, we unveiled a framework for thinking about TIPS breakevens based on the concept of adaptive expectations.5 We also applied that framework to a fair value model for the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate. We still think that the adaptive expectations framework is the best way to think about breakevens, but this week we present an improved application of that framework, i.e. a new model for forecasting the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate. Adaptive Expectations The theory of adaptive expectations essentially says that today’s long-run inflation expectations are formed based on peoples’ recent experiences with inflation. For example, the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate is currently 1.67%, well below the 2.3%-2.5% range that we view as consistent with the Fed’s target. We posit that today’s inflation expectations are depressed because realized inflation has been so low during the past decade (CPI inflation has averaged only 1.75% during the past 10 years). This experience makes it very difficult for investors to believe that inflation might be high (say, above 2%) during the next decade. Building A Better Model To apply the adaptive expectations theory to a specific model, we need to make a decision about which specific inflation measures to use. For this week’s report, we tested annualized rates of change of headline CPI ranging from 1 year to 10 years. We also looked at survey measures of long-run inflation expectations from the Survey of Professional Forecasters and the University of Michigan. The 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate is 50 bps below 1-year headline CPI inflation. To test the different measures, we looked at the difference between the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate and each inflation measure. We then looked at how successfully each difference predicted changes in the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate during the subsequent 12 months. We identified the following three measures as the best performers (Charts 6A & 6B): Chart 6A10-Year TIPS Breakeven Versus Fair Value 10-Year TIPS Breakeven Versus Fair Value 10-Year TIPS Breakeven Versus Fair Value Chart 6BDeviation From Fair Value Deviation From Fair Value Deviation From Fair Value The 1-year rate of change in headline CPI The 6-year rate of change in headline CPI Median 10-year inflation expectations from the Survey of Professional Forecasters Table 1 shows the results of our test on 1-year headline CPI inflation. It shows that, historically, when the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate has been more than 25 bps above the 1-year rate of change in headline CPI it has tended to fall during the next 12 months. At present, the 10-year breakeven is about 50 bps below the 1-year rate of change in headline CPI. Table 1Deviation Of 10-Year TIPS Breakeven Inflation Rate From 1-Year Rate Of Change In Headline CPI How Are Inflation Expectations Adapting? How Are Inflation Expectations Adapting? Table 2 shows the results of our test on 6-year headline CPI inflation. Here, we see that the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate becomes much more likely to fall when it exceeds 6-year CPI inflation by more than 10 bps. The current deviation is +14 bps. Table 2Deviation Of 10-Year TIPS Breakeven Inflation Rate From 6-Year Annualized Rate Of Change In Headline CPI How Are Inflation Expectations Adapting? How Are Inflation Expectations Adapting? Finally, Table 3 shows the results of our test on median 10-year inflation expectations from the Survey of Professional Forecasters. In this case, the 10-year breakeven rate has rarely exceeded the survey measure historically. But we find evidence that the breakeven is much more likely to rise when it is more than 50 bps below the survey measure. Currently, the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate is 56 bps below the survey measure. Table 3Deviation Of 10-Year TIPS Breakeven Inflation Rate From SPF* 10-Year Median Inflation Forecast How Are Inflation Expectations Adapting? How Are Inflation Expectations Adapting? Making A Prediction Chart 7Our New Adaptive Expectations Model Our New Adaptive Expectations Model Our New Adaptive Expectations Model The final step is to combine our three chosen factors into a model that will predict the future 12-month change in the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate. This model is presented in Chart 7, and it tells us that, based on the current deviation of the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate from our three different inflation measures, the 10-year breakeven should rise by 19 bps during the next 12 months. This would bring the rate up to 1.84% (Chart 7, bottom panel). We will continue to experiment with different inflation measures in the coming weeks (i.e. core and trimmed mean measures) in an effort to improve our model further. Bottom Line: Our improved Adaptive Expectations Model suggests that the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate will rise by 19 bps during the next 12 months, bringing it up to 1.84%. Investors should remain overweight TIPS versus nominal Treasuries in US bond portfolios.   Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “From China To Iowa”, dated February 7, 2020, available at gis.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see US Bond Strategy Portfolio Allocation Summary, “Contagion”, dated February 4, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “Recovery, Temporarily Interrupted”, dated February 5, 2020, available at cis.bcaresearch.com 4 For more details on why TIPS breakeven inflation rates are an important trigger for our spread product allocation please see US Bond Strategy Special Report, “2020 Key Views: US Fixed Income”, dated December 10, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 5 Please see US 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

In lieu of the next weekly report I will be presenting the quarterly webcast ‘What Are The Most Attractive Investments In Europe?’ on Monday 17 February at 10.00AM EST, 3.00PM GMT, 4.00PM CET, 11.00PM HKT. As usual, the webcast will take a TED talk format lasting 18 minutes, after which I will take live questions. Be sure to tune in. Dhaval Joshi Feature The recent coronavirus scare seems to have added a fresh deflationary impulse into the world economy, at a time that central banks are already struggling to achieve and maintain inflation at the 2 percent target. Begging the question: will central banks’ ubiquitous ultra-loose monetary policy ever generate inflation? The answer is yes, but not necessarily where the central banks desire it. Universal QE, zero interest rate policy (ZIRP), and negative interest rate policy (NIRP) have already created rampant inflation. The trouble is that it is in the wrong place. Rather than showing up in consumer price indexes it is showing up in sky-rocketing asset prices. Feature Chart Ultra-Low Bond Yields Have Created The Greatest Asset-Price Inflation Of All Time The Greatest Asset-Price Inflation Of All Time The Greatest Asset-Price Inflation Of All Time Feature ChartUltra-Low Bond Yields Have Created The Greatest Asset-Price Inflation Of All Time The Greatest Asset-Price Inflation Of All Time The Greatest Asset-Price Inflation Of All Time The Greatest Asset-Price Inflation Of All Time Since 2014, ultra-loose monetary policy has boosted the valuation of equities by 50 percent. But that’s the small fry. The really big story is that ultra-loose monetary policy has boosted the value of the world’s real estate from $180 trillion to $300 trillion (Chart I-2).1 Chart I-2Ultra-Low Bond Yields Have Boosted The Value Of The World’s Real Estate By $120 Trillion Ultra-Low Bond Yields Have Boosted The Value Of The World's Real Estate By $120 Trillion Ultra-Low Bond Yields Have Boosted The Value Of The World's Real Estate By $120 Trillion Just pause for a moment to digest those numbers. In the space of a few years the value of the world’s real estate has surged by $120 trillion, equivalent to one and half times the world’s $80 trillion GDP. Moreover, it is a broad-based boom encompassing not just Europe, but North America and Asia too. Now add in the surge in equity prices, as well as other risk-assets such as private equity, corporate bonds and EM debt and the rise in wealth conservatively equals at least two times world GDP. To the best of our knowledge, there is no other time in economic history that asset prices have risen so broadly and by so much as a multiple of world GDP in such a short space of time. Making this the greatest asset-price inflation of all time. Yet central banks seem unmoved. To add insult to injury, Europe’s central banks do not even include surging owner-occupied housing costs in their consumer price indexes. This seems absurd given that the costs of maintaining owner-occupied housing is one of the largest costs that European households face. Europe’s central banks do not include surging owner-occupied housing costs in their consumer price indexes. Including owner-occupied housing costs would lift European inflation closer to 2 percent, eliminating the need for QE and negative interest rates. But its omission has kept measured inflation artificially low (Chart I-3), forcing European central banks to double down on their ultra-loose policies. Which in turn lifts risk-asset prices even further, and so the cycle of asset-price inflation continues. Chart I-3Using The US Definition Of Inflation, The ECB Wouldn't Need Ultra-Loose Policy Using The US Definition Of Inflation, The ECB Wouldn't Need Ultra-Loose Policy Using The US Definition Of Inflation, The ECB Wouldn't Need Ultra-Loose Policy European QE has spawned other major imbalances. Germany, as the largest shareholder of the ECB, now owns hundreds of billions of ‘Italian euro’ BTPs that the ECB has bought. But given the fragility of Italian banks, the Italians who sold their BTPs to the ECB deposited the cash they received in German banks. Hence, Italy now owns hundreds of billions of ‘German euro’ bank deposits. This mismatch between Germans owning Italian euro assets and Italians owning German euro assets combined with other mismatches across the euro area constitutes the Target2 banking imbalance, which now stands at a record €1.5 trillion. It means that, were the euro to ever break up, the biggest casualty would be Germany (Chart I-4). Chart I-4ECB QE Has Taken The Target2 Banking Imbalance To An All-Time High The Greatest Asset-Price Inflation Of All Time The Greatest Asset-Price Inflation Of All Time Meanwhile, the US Federal Reserve, to its credit, does include surging owner-occupied housing costs in its measure of consumer prices. As a result, US inflation has been closer to the 2 percent target enabling the Fed to tighten policy when the ECB had to loosen policy. This huge divergence between euro area and US monetary policies, stemming from different treatments of owner-occupied housing costs, has depressed the euro/dollar exchange rate and thereby spawned yet another major imbalance: the euro area/US bilateral trade surplus which now stands at an all-time high. Providing President Trump with the perfect pretext to start a trade war with Europe, should he desire (Chart I-5).  Chart I-5ECB QE Has Taken The Euro Area/US Trade Surplus To An All-Time High ECB QE Has Taken The Euro Area/US Trade Surplus To An All-Time High ECB QE Has Taken The Euro Area/US Trade Surplus To An All-Time High What Caused The Greatest Asset-Price Inflation Of All Time? Why did the past decade witness the greatest asset-price inflation of all time? The answer is that universal QE, ZIRP, and NIRP took bond yields to the twilight zone of the lower bound (Chart I-6). At which point, the valuation of all risky assets undergoes an exponential surge. Chart I-6The Past Decade Was The Decade Of Universal QE The Past Decade Was The Decade Of Universal QE The Past Decade Was The Decade Of Universal QE Understand that when bond yields approach their lower bound, bonds become extremely risky assets because their prices take on an unattractive ‘lose-lose’ characteristic. As holders of Swiss government bonds discovered last year, prices can no longer rise much in a rally, but they can collapse in a sell-off (Chart I-7). Chart I-7At Low Bond Yields, Bonds Become Much Riskier The Greatest Asset-Price Inflation Of All Time The Greatest Asset-Price Inflation Of All Time The upshot is that all (long-duration) assets become equally risky, and the much higher prospective returns offered on formerly more risky assets – such as real estate and equities – collapses to the feeble return offered on now equally-risky bonds. Given that valuation is just the inverse of the prospective return, this means that the valuation of risk assets undergoes an exponential surge. When bond yields approach their lower bound, bonds become extremely risky assets because their prices take on an unattractive ‘lose-lose’ characteristic.  An obvious question is: which valuation measure best predicts this depressed prospective return offered on equities? Most people gravitate to price to earnings (profits), but earnings are highly problematic – because even if you cyclically adjust them, they take no account of structurally high profit margins. The trouble is that earnings will face a headwind when profit margins normalise, depressing prospective returns. For this reason, price to earnings missed the valuation extreme of the 2007/2008 credit bubble and should be treated with extreme caution as a predictor of prospective returns (Chart I-8). Chart I-8Price To Earnings Missed The 2007/2008 Valuation Extreme Price To Earnings Missed The 2007/2008 Valuation Extreme Price To Earnings Missed The 2007/2008 Valuation Extreme A much more credible assessment comes from price to sales – or equivalently, market cap to GDP at a global level (Chart I-9). This is because sales are quantifiable, unambiguous, and undistorted by profit margins. Using these more credible prospective returns, we can now show that the theory of what should happen to risk-asset returns (and valuations) at ultra-low bond yields and the practice of what has actually happened agree almost perfectly (Feature Chart). Chart I-9Price To Sales (Or Global Market Cap To GDP) Is The Best Predictor Of Prospective Return Price To Sales (Or Global Market Cap To GDP) Is The Best Predictor Of Prospective Return Price To Sales (Or Global Market Cap To GDP) Is The Best Predictor Of Prospective Return Some Investment Conclusions It is instinctive for investors to focus first and foremost on the outlook for the real economy. After all, the evolution of the $80 trillion global economy drives company sales and profits. But the value of the world’s real estate, at $300 trillion, dwarfs the economy. Public and private equity adds another $100 trillion, while other risk-assets such as corporate bonds and EM debt add at least another $50 trillion. So even on conservative assumptions, risk-assets are worth $450 trillion – an order of magnitude larger than the world economy. Now combine this with the overwhelming evidence that risk-asset valuations are exponentially sensitive to ultra-low bond yields. A relatively modest rise in yields that knocked 20 percent off risk-asset valuations would mean a $90 trillion loss in global wealth. Even a 10 percent decline would equate to a $45 trillion drawdown. Could the $80 trillion economy sail through such declines in wealth? No way. Such setbacks would constitute a severe deflationary headwind, and likely trigger the next recession. Hence, though equities are preferable to bonds at current levels, a 50-100 bps rise in yields – were it to happen – would be a great opportunity to add to bonds. Meanwhile, the record high Target2 euro area banking imbalance means that the biggest casualty of the euro’s disintegration would not be Italy. It would be Germany. As all parties have no interest in such a mutually assured destruction, investors should go long high-yielding versus low-yielding euro area sovereign bonds. Finally, the record high euro area/US trade surplus is a political constraint to a much weaker euro versus the dollar. In any case, the ECB is close to the practical limit of monetary policy easing, while the Fed is not. Long-term bond investors should prefer US T-bonds versus German bunds or Swiss bonds. Long-term currency investors should prefer the euro versus the dollar. Fractal Trading System*  This week’s recommended trade is long EUR/CHF. As this currency cross has relatively low volatility, the profit target and symmetrical stop-loss is set at a modest 1 percent. In other trades, short NZD/JPY achieved its profit target, while long US oil and gas versus telecom reached the end of its 65-day holding period in partial loss having reached neither its profit target nor its stop-loss. The rolling 1-year win ratio now stands at 61 percent. Chart I-10EUR/CHF EUR/CHF EUR/CHF 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. * 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 Chief European Investment Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Source: Savills World Research. The last data point is $281 trillion at the end of 2017, but we conservatively estimate that the value has increased to above $300 trillion in the subsequent two years. Fractal Trading System The Greatest Asset-Price Inflation Of All Time The Greatest Asset-Price Inflation Of All Time The Greatest Asset-Price Inflation Of All Time The Greatest Asset-Price Inflation Of All Time Cyclical Recommendations Structural Recommendations The Greatest Asset-Price Inflation Of All Time The Greatest Asset-Price Inflation Of All Time The Greatest Asset-Price Inflation Of All Time The Greatest Asset-Price Inflation Of All Time The Greatest Asset-Price Inflation Of All Time The Greatest Asset-Price Inflation Of All Time The Greatest Asset-Price Inflation Of All Time The Greatest Asset-Price Inflation Of All Time 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 Chart 1The 2003 SARS Roadmap The 2003 SARS Roadmap The 2003 SARS Roadmap The bond market impact from the coronavirus has already been substantial. The 10-year Treasury yield has fallen back to 1.51%, below the fed funds rate. Meanwhile, the investment grade corporate bond index spread is back above 100 bps, from a January low of 93 bps. The 2003 SARS crisis is the best roadmap we can apply to the current situation. Back then, Treasury yields also fell sharply but then rebounded just as quickly when the number of SARS cases peaked (Chart 1). The impact on corporate bond excess returns was more short-lived (Chart 1, bottom panel). Like in 2003, we expect that bond yields will rise once the number of coronavirus cases peaks, but it is difficult to put a timeframe on how long that will take. The economic impact from the virus could also weigh on global PMI surveys during the next few months, delaying the move higher in Treasury yields we anticipated earlier this year. In short, we continue to expect higher bond yields and tighter credit spreads in 2020, but those moves will be delayed until markets are confident that the virus has stopped spreading. Feature Investment Grade: Neutral Chart 2Investment Grade Market Overview Investment Grade Market Overview Investment Grade Market Overview Investment grade corporate bonds underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 80 basis points in January. The sector actually outpaced the Treasury benchmark by 7 bps until January 21 when the impact of the coronavirus started to push spreads wider. As stated on page 1, we expect the impact of the coronavirus on corporate spreads to be short lived. Beyond that, low inflation expectations will keep monetary conditions accommodative. This in turn will encourage banks to ease credit supply, keeping defaults at bay and providing a strong tailwind for corporate bond returns.1 Yesterday’s Fed Senior Loan Officer survey showed a slight easing of C&I lending standards in Q4 2019, reversing the tightening that occurred in the third quarter (Chart 2). We expect that accommodative Fed policy will lead to continued easing of C&I lending standards for the remainder of the year. Despite the positive tailwind from accommodative Fed policy and easing bank lending standards, investment grade corporate bond spreads are quite expensive. Spreads for all credit tiers are below our targets (panels 2 & 3).2 As a result, we advise only a neutral allocation to investment grade corporate bonds. We also recommend increasing exposure to Agency MBS in place of corporate bonds rated A or higher (see page 7). Table 3ACorporate Sector Relative Valuation And Recommended Allocation* Contagion Contagion Table 3BCorporate Sector Risk Vs. Reward* Contagion Contagion High-Yield Overweight Chart 3High-Yield Market Overview High-Yield Market Overview High-Yield Market Overview High-Yield underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 111 basis points in January. Junk outperformed the Treasury benchmark by 30 bps until January 21 when the coronavirus outbreak sent spreads sharply wider. Once the negative impact of the coronavirus passes, junk spreads will have plenty of room to tighten in 2020. In fact, the junk index spread is now at 390 bps, 154 bps above our target (Chart 3).3 While spreads for all junk credit tiers are currently above our targets, Caa-rated bonds look particularly cheap. We analyzed the divergence between Caa and the rest of the junk index in a recent report and came to two conclusions.4 First, the historical data show that 12-month periods of overall junk bond outperformance are more likely to be followed by underperformance if Caa is the worst performing credit tier. Second, we can identify several reasons for 2019’s Caa spread widening that make us inclined to downplay any negative signal. Specifically, we note that the Caa credit tier’s exposure to the shale oil sector is responsible for the bulk of 2019’s underperformance (bottom panel). Absent significant further declines in the oil price, this sector now has room to recover.   MBS: Overweight Chart 4MBS Market Overview MBS Market Overview MBS Market Overview Mortgage-Backed Securities underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 53 basis points in January. The sector was only lagging the Treasury benchmark by 7 bps as of January 21, when the coronavirus outbreak sent spreads wider. The conventional 30-year zero-volatility spread widened 8 bps in January, driven by a 7 bps widening of the option-adjusted spread (OAS) and a 1 bp increase in expected prepayment losses (aka option cost). The fact that expected prepayment losses only rose by a single basis point even though the 30-year mortgage rate fell by 23 bps is notable. It speaks to the high level of refi burnout in the mortgage market, which is a key reason why we prefer mortgage-backed securities over investment grade corporate bonds in our portfolio. Essentially, most homeowners have already had at least one opportunity to refinance during the past few years, so prepayment risk is low even if rates fall further. Competitive expected compensation is another reason to move into Agency MBS. The conventional 30-year MBS OAS is 49 bps, only 7 bps below the spread offered by Aa-rated corporate bonds (Chart 4). Also, spreads for all investment grade corporate bond credit tiers are below our cyclical targets. Risk-adjusted compensation favors MBS even more strongly. The Excess Return Bond Map in Appendix C shows that Agency MBS plot well to the right of investment grade corporates. This means that the sector is less likely to see losses versus Treasuries on a 12-month horizon. Government-Related: Underweight Chart 5Government-Related Market Overview Government-Related Market Overview Government-Related Market Overview The Government-Related index underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 14 basis points in January. The index was up 2 bps versus the Treasury benchmark until January 21, when the coronavirus outbreak hit. Sovereign debt underperformed duration-equivalent Treasuries by 99 bps on the month, and Foreign Agencies underperformed by 28 bps. Local Authorities, however, bested the Treasury benchmark by 60 bps. Domestic Agency bonds underperformed Treasuries by 2 bps in January, while Supranationals outperformed by 2 bps. We continue to recommend an underweight allocation to USD-denominated sovereign bonds, given that spreads remain expensive compared to US corporate credit (Chart 5). However, we noted in a recent report that Mexican and Saudi Arabian sovereigns look attractive on a risk/reward basis.5 This is also true for Local Authorities and Foreign Agencies, as shown in the Bond Map in Appendix C. Our Emerging Markets Strategy service also thinks that worries about Mexico’s fiscal position are overblown, and that bond yields embed too high of a risk premium (bottom panel).6  Municipal Bonds: Overweight Chart 6Municipal Market Overview Municipal Market Overview Municipal Market Overview Municipal bonds underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 33 basis points in January (before adjusting for the tax advantage). They were up 39 bps versus the Treasury index before the coronavirus outbreak hit on January 21. The average Aaa-rated Municipal / Treasury (M/T) yield ratio swung around during the month, but settled close to where it began at 77% (Chart 6). We upgraded municipal bonds in early October, as yield ratios had become significantly more attractive, especially at the long-end of the Aaa curve (panel 2).7 Yield ratios have tightened a lot since then, but value remains at long maturities. Specifically, the 2-year, 5-year and 10-year M/T yield ratios are all below average pre-crisis levels at 62%, 65% and 78%, respectively. But 20-year and 30-year yield ratios stand at 89% and 93%, respectively, above average pre-crisis levels. Fundamentally, state and local balance sheets remain solid. Our Municipal Health Monitor is in “improving health” territory and state & local government interest coverage has improved considerably in recent quarters (bottom panel). Both of these trends are consistent with muni ratings upgrades continuing to outpace downgrades going forward. Treasury Curve: Maintain A Barbell Curve Positioning Chart 7Treasury Yield Curve Overview Treasury Yield Curve Overview Treasury Yield Curve Overview The Treasury curve bull-flattened dramatically in January. Treasury yields declined across the curve, and the 2/10 slope flattened from 34 bps to 18 bps. The 5/30 slope flattened from 70 bps to 67 bps. Despite the significant flattening, the 2/10 slope remains near the middle of our target 0 – 50 bps range for 2020, and we anticipate some bear-steepening once the coronavirus is contained.8 The front-end of the curve also moved in January to price-in 57 bps of Fed rate cuts during the next 12 months (Chart 7). At the beginning of the year the curve was priced for only 14 bps of rate cuts. We expect that the Fed would respond with rate cuts if the coronavirus epidemic worsens, leading to inversion of the 2/10 yield curve. However, for the time being the safer bet is that the virus will be contained relatively quickly and the Fed will remain on hold for all of 2020. Based on this view, we continue to recommend holding a barbelled Treasury portfolio. Specifically, we favor holding a 2/30 barbell versus the 5-year bullet, in duration-matched terms. The position offers positive carry and looks attractive on our yield curve models (see Appendix B).9  TIPS: Overweight Chart 8Inflation Compensation Inflation Compensation Inflation Compensation TIPS underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 75 basis points in January. The 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate fell 12 bps on the month and currently sits at 1.66%. The 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rate fell 16 bps on the month and currently sits at 1.71%. Both rates remain well below the 2.3%-2.5% range consistent with the Fed’s target. The divergence between the actual inflation data and inflation expectations remains stark. Trimmed mean PCE inflation has been fluctuating around the Fed’s target since mid-2018 (Chart 8). However, long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates remain stubbornly low. It takes time for expectations to adapt to a changing macro environment, but even accounting for those long lags, our Adaptive Expectations Model pegs the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate as 31 bps too low (panel 4).10 It is highly likely that the Fed will have to tolerate some overshoot of its 2% inflation target in order to re-anchor long-term inflation expectations. As a result, the actual inflation data will lead expectations higher, causing the TIPS breakeven inflation curve to flatten.11 ABS: Underweight Chart 9ABS Market Overview ABS Market Overview ABS Market Overview Asset-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 32 basis points in January. The index option-adjusted spread for Aaa-rated ABS tightened 14 bps on the month. It currently sits at 26 bps, below its minimum pre-crisis level (Chart 9). Our Excess Return Bond Map (see Appendix C) shows that Aaa-rated consumer ABS ranks among the most defensive US spread products. This explains why the sector performed so well in January when other spread sectors struggled. ABS also offer higher expected returns than other low-risk sectors such as Domestic Agency bonds and Supranationals. However, we remain wary of allocating too much to consumer ABS because credit trends are slowly shifting in the wrong direction. The consumer credit delinquency rate remains low, but has put in a clear bottom. This is also true for the household interest expense ratio (panel 3). Senior Loan Officers also continue to tighten lending standards for both credit cards and auto loans. Tighter lending standards usually coincide with rising delinquencies (bottom panel). Non-Agency CMBS: Neutral Chart 10CMBS Market Overview CMBS Market Overview CMBS Market Overview Non-Agency Commercial Mortgage-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 43 basis points in January. The index option-adjusted spread for non-agency CMBS tightened 6 bps on the month. It currently sits at 67 bps, below its average pre-crisis level (Chart 10). In last week’s Special Report, we explored how low interest rates have boosted commercial real estate (CRE) prices this cycle, and concluded that a sharp drawdown in CRE prices is likely only when inflation starts to pick up steam.12 In that report we also mentioned that non-agency Aaa-rated CMBS spreads look attractive relative to US corporate bonds from a risk/reward perspective (see our Excess Return Bond Map in Appendix C), and that the macro environment is only slightly unfavorable for CMBS spreads. Specifically, CRE bank lending standards are just in “net tightening” territory. But both lending standards and loan demand are very close to neutral (bottom 2 panels). Agency CMBS: Overweight Agency CMBS outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 34 basis points in January. The index option-adjusted spread tightened 4 bps on the month to reach 54 bps. The Excess Return Bond Map in Appendix C shows that Agency CMBS offer a compelling risk/reward trade-off. An overweight allocation to this sector remains appropriate. 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 US 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. At present, the market is priced for 57 basis points of cuts during the next 12 months. We anticipate a flat fed funds rate over that time horizon, and therefore anticipate that below-benchmark portfolio duration positions will profit. Chart 11The Golden Rule's Track Record The Golden Rule's Track Record The Golden Rule's Track Record We can also use our Golden Rule framework to make 12-month total return and excess return forecasts for the Bloomberg Barclays Treasury index under different scenarios for the fed funds rate. Excess returns are relative to the Bloomberg Barclays Cash index. To forecast total returns we first calculate the 12-month fed funds rate surprise in each scenario by comparing the assumed change in the fed funds rate to the current value of our 12-month discounter. This rate hike surprise is then mapped to an expected change in the Treasury index yield using a regression based on the historical relationship between those two variables. Finally, we apply the expected change in index yield to the current characteristics (yield, duration and convexity) of the Treasury index to estimate total returns on a 12-month horizon. The below tables present those results, along with 95% confidence intervals. Excess returns are calculated by subtracting assumed cash returns in each scenario from our total return projections. Contagion Contagion Contagion Contagion Appendix B: Butterfly Strategy Valuations 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 curve. The following two Special Reports explain the models in more detail: US Bond Strategy Special Report, “Bullets, Barbells And Butterflies”, dated July 25, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com US Bond Strategy Special Report, “More Bullets, Barbells And Butterflies”, dated May 15, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Table 4 shows the raw residuals from each model. A positive value indicates that the bullet is cheap relative to the duration-matched barbell. A negative value indicates that the barbell is cheap relative to the bullet. Table 4Butterfly Strategy Valuation: Raw Residuals In Basis Points (As Of January 31, 2020) Contagion Contagion Table 5 scales the raw residuals in Table 4 by their historical means and standard deviations. This facilitates comparison between the different butterfly spreads. Table 5Butterfly Strategy Valuation: Standardized Residuals (As Of January 31, 2020) Contagion Contagion Table 6 flips the models on their heads. It shows the change in the slope between the two barbell maturities that must be realized during the next six months to make returns between the bullet and barbell equal. For example, a reading of 33 bps in the 5 over 2/10 cell means that we would only expect the 5-year to outperform the 2/10 if the 2/10 slope steepens by more than 33 bps during the next six months. Otherwise, we would expect the 2/10 barbell to outperform the 5-year bullet. Table 6Discounted Slope Change During Next 6 Months (BPs) Contagion Contagion 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 US bond market. It is a purely computational exercise and does not impose any macroeconomic view. The Map’s vertical axis shows 12-month expected excess returns. These are proxied by each sector’s option-adjusted spread. Sectors plotting further toward the top of the Map have higher expected returns and vice-versa. Our novel risk measure called the “Risk Of Losing 100 bps” is shown on the Map’s horizontal axis. To calculate it, we first compute the spread widening required on a 12-month horizon for each sector to lose 100 bps or more relative to a duration-matched position in Treasury securities. Then, we divide that amount of spread widening by each sector’s historical spread volatility. The end result is the number of standard deviations of 12-month spread widening required for each sector to lose 100 bps or more versus a position in Treasuries. Lower risk sectors plot further to the right of the Map, and higher risk sectors plot further to the left. Excess Return Bond Map (As Of January 31, 2020) Contagion Contagion ​​​​​​​ Footnotes 1 Please see US Bond Strategy Special Report, “2020 Key Views: US Fixed Income”, dated December 10, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2  For details on how we calculate our spread targets please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Value In Corporate Bonds”, dated February 19, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 3  For details on how we calculate our spread targets please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Value In Corporate Bonds”, dated February 19, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 4  Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Caa-Rated Bonds: Warning Sign Or Buying Opportunity?”, dated November 26, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 5 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “A Perspective On Risk And Reward”, dated October 15, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 6 Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report, “Country Insights: Malaysia, Mexico & Central Europe”, dated October 31, 2019, available at ems.bcaresearch.com 7 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Two Themes And Two Trades”, dated October 1, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 8 Please see US Bond Strategy Special Report, “2020 Key Views: US Fixed Income”, dated December 10, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 9 For further details on our recommended yield curve trade please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Best Spot On The Yield Curve”, dated January 21, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 10 For further details on our Adaptive Expectations Model please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Adaptive Expectations In The TIPS Market”, dated November 20, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 11  Please see US Bond Strategy Special Report, “2020 Key Views: US Fixed Income”, dated December 10, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 12  Please see US Investment Strategy / US Bond Strategy Special Report, “Commercial Real Estate And US Financial Stability”, dated January 27, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification Corporate Sector Relative Valuation And Recommended Allocation

Highlights Global Growth Fears: Efforts to contain the China coronavirus outbreak risk creating the outcome that investors feared most in 2019 from the US-China trade war – weaker global growth and a severe disruption to supply chains worldwide. Monetary Policy Responses: Global bond yields have plunged as investors have piled into safe haven assets and priced in additional monetary easing from major central banks. Some of that decline in yields, however, may be a repricing of future rate hike probabilities with central banks like the Fed and ECB rethinking their inflation mandates and how to achieve them. Duration Strategy: Maintain a moderate below-benchmark cyclical (6-12 months) stance on overall interest rate duration in global fixed income portfolios. Yields now discount a significant hit to global economic growth from China. This outcome is far from certain, especially if China delivers more aggressive fiscal and monetary policy easing to mitigate the deflationary effects of the public health crisis. Feature Chart of the WeekBond Yields Have "Gone Viral" Bond Yields Have "Gone Viral" Bond Yields Have "Gone Viral" Global bond yields have declined sharply over the past two weeks, as investors have tried to process the potential implications of the China coronavirus outbreak. Scenes of empty streets in Chinese cities under quarantine look like something out of a Hollywood science fiction movie. Fears of a “zombie apocalypse” scenario plunging the global economy into recession are proliferating among doomsayers. The viral outbreak is interrupting global growth just as it is starting to show signs of recovery from the manufacturing slump of 2019 (Chart of the Week). Global bond yields had been slowly rising alongside that economic improvement, and risk premia in equity and credit markets had begun to narrow in earnest. Against that backdrop with markets priced for perfection, a massive public health crisis in the most marginal driver of global growth, China, was a potent trigger for a correction in risk assets. The story is obviously very fluid, with the number of infected continuing to grow in China and more cases being discovered across the world. At least 50 million Chinese citizens are now under quarantine, across several major cities. More countries are instituting travel bans to and from China, and important global companies like Apple are shuttering their China operations until further notice. The ultimate hit to global growth is yet to be determined, but measures being taken to slow the spread of the coronavirus will clearly have an impact on global trade, supply chain management and, thus, economic growth. This risks a repeat of the May-August period last year, when markets were pricing in the potential negative effects of US-China trade tariffs on global growth, triggering a major decline in global bond yields. A big driver of that bond rally last year was a shift towards expectations of easier global monetary policy. Those were largely realized as central banks cut rates while global growth was actually slowing. Bond yields now discount another round of rate cuts, most importantly from the US Federal Reserve, despite no formal indication (yet) that policymakers are looking to deliver more easing. The risk now is that investors will become too pessimistic, setting up a swing of the pendulum in the opposite direction if the hit to global growth from the virus is less than feared. On that note, a significant Chinese economic growth slowdown now appears fully priced into global bond yields. The risk now is that investors will become too pessimistic, setting up a swing of the pendulum in the opposite direction if the hit to global growth from the virus is less than feared. On that note, a significant Chinese economic growth slowdown now appears fully priced into global bond yields, as we discuss later in this Weekly Report. Breaking Down The Latest Decline In Global Bond Yields The decline in government bond yields in the developed markets (DM) has been sharpest since Chinese authorities confirmed human-to-human transmission of the coronavirus on Monday, January 20. That appears to be the date when investors began to take the outbreak much more seriously. Growth-sensitive assets like emerging market (EM) equities, copper and oil prices peaked on Friday, January 17, while measures of volatility like the US VIX index and US high-yield credit spreads troughed (Chart 2). The price of safe haven assets like gold and the Japanese yen have also increased since that “pre-virus peak” on January 17, as have bond volatility measures like the US MOVE index or European swaption volatility (Chart 3). Importantly, the increases in rates volatility have been smaller to date compared to mid-2019, when the “convexity” trade triggered an insatiable demand for duration that drove longer-maturity global bond yields sharply lower. Chart 2A Pullback In Growth-Sensitive Assets A Pullback In Growth-Sensitive Assets A Pullback In Growth-Sensitive Assets Chart 3A Mild Bid For Safe Havens Compared To 2019 A Mild Bid For Safe Havens Compared To 2019 A Mild Bid For Safe Havens Compared To 2019 A breakdown of the decline in the benchmark 10-year government bond yields in the major DM countries (US, Germany, Japan, the UK, Canada and Australia) since that “pre-virus peak” is shown in Table 1. Table 1Global Bond Yield Changes Since January 17, 2020 The China Syndrome The China Syndrome The biggest declines were in the US (-33bps), Canada (-29bps) and Australia (-23bps) where central bank monetary policy expectations also saw the largest shift. Our 12-month discounters, which measure the change in short-term interest rates over a one-year horizon priced into Overnight Index Swap (OIS) curves, have fallen by -30bps in the US, -26bps in Canada and -22bps in Australia – indicating that markets had fully priced in a rate cutting response to the coronavirus outbreak from the Fed, Bank of Canada and Reserve Bank of Australia. Bond yields have fallen to a lesser extent in Germany (-19bps), the UK (-11bps) and Japan (-7bps), but with very modest declines in our 12-month discounters for those three countries were policy interest rates are close to, or below, 0%. Therefore, the decline global yields over the past two weeks can, on the surface, be attributed to expectations of easier monetary policy in response to the potential hit to growth, and tightening of financial conditions as risk assets sell off, from the coronavirus (Chart 4). Chart 4Falling Yields Reflect Expectations Of More Rate Cuts In 2020... Falling Yields Reflect Expectations Of More Rate Cuts In 2020... Falling Yields Reflect Expectations Of More Rate Cuts In 2020... Chart 5...But Also Expectations Of Lower Rates For Longer ...But Also Expectations Of Lower Rates For Longer ...But Also Expectations Of Lower Rates For Longer Yet when looking at our estimates of the term premium for all six countries, the decline in the nominal 10-year yields is almost equal to the reduction in the term premium. On the surface, this would be consistent with the idea that the fall in yields is due to risk aversion driving up the demand for the safety of government bonds – and can hence be unwound if the news were to turn less gloomy on the spread of the coronavirus. Yet interest rates further out the yield curve have also fallen by similar amounts in all countries shown, when looking at 1-year interest rates, 5-years forward (the bottom row of Table 1). That decline in longer-dated forwards does correlate strongly with lower inflation expectations as measured by 10-year CPI swap rates (Chart 5). This suggests an alternative explanation for the recent fall in global bond yields that is not related to worries over the coronavirus: bond markets increasingly believe that policy interest rates will be lower for a lot longer. An alternative explanation for the recent fall in global bond yields that is not related to worries over the coronavirus: bond markets increasingly believe that policy interest rates will be lower for a lot longer. With the Fed and ECB now openly discussing changing their monetary policy frameworks to manage achievement of their statutory inflation targets more proactively, the hurdle for contemplating any interest rate hikes in the future is now much higher. Thus, central banks are giving forward guidance to the markets that rates will be lower. That is a message that would also be consistent with the decline in the term premium, to the extent that the premium is compensation for the future volatility of short-term interest rates. When looking at all the components, the message from the most recent decline in global bond yields may be more complex than simple virus-driven risk aversion. Our Duration Indicator continues to improve alongside rebounding global economic sentiment, signaling cyclical upward pressure on yields (Chart 7) – assuming, of course, that the hit to Chinese growth from the coronavirus outbreak is no worse than currently discounted in financial asset prices. In the case of US Treasuries, the bond rally also has a cyclical component, with yields now down to levels more consistent with the softer pace of growth indicated by the ISM Manufacturing index and the recent softening trend in US data surprises (Chart 6). Yet with US monetary policy and financial conditions still highly accommodative, the odds still favor some improvement in the current trend-like pace for US GDP growth that will, eventually, begin to put moderate upward pressure on Treasury yields again. Chart 6Low UST Yields Are Not Just A coronavirus Story Low UST Yields Are Not Just A coronavirus Story Low UST Yields Are Not Just A coronavirus Story Chart 7Global Yields Were Due For A Corrective Pullback Global Yields Were Due For A Corrective Pullback Global Yields Were Due For A Corrective Pullback A similar message is given when we look at global bond yields, more generally. Our Duration Indicator continues to improve alongside rebounding global economic sentiment, signaling cyclical upward pressure on yields (Chart 7) – assuming, of course, that the hit to Chinese growth from the coronavirus outbreak is no worse than currently discounted in financial asset prices. Bottom Line: Efforts to contain the China coronavirus outbreak risk creating the outcome that investors feared most in 2019 from the US-China trade war – weaker Chinese growth and a severe disruption to global supply chains. Global bond yields have plunged as investors have piled into safe haven assets and priced in additional monetary easing from major central banks. Some of that decline in yields, however, may be a repricing of future rate hike probabilities with central banks like the Fed and ECB rethinking their inflation mandates and how to achieve them. How Much China Weakness Is Priced Into Global Bond Yields? The China coronavirus outbreak, and the response to contain it, represents a potentially severe hit to Chinese – and global – economic growth. A lot of comparisons have been made to the 2003 SARS outbreak to try and find a comparable past event. However, as our colleagues at BCA Research Emerging Markets Strategy have noted, China’s economy is so much larger now, rendering comparisons of the economic impact from SARS to that of the coronavirus far less meaningful.1 For example, China’s GDP at purchasing power parity accounts for 19.3% of world GDP compared to 8.3% in 2002 before the SARS outbreak occurred. China’s share of the global consumption of various industrial metals has surged, as well, from between 10-20% in 2002 to 50-60% today. A simple alternative way to measure the impact of any virus-driven slowing of Chinese economic growth would be to calculate the reduction in full-year 2020 GDP growth relative to consensus forecasts. In this sense, the comparison is made to current expectations rather than to a past episode – an approach that should be far more relevant for predicting the response of financial asset prices today. For example, the Bloomberg consensus expectation for Chinese nominal GDP growth for all of 2020 is currently 7.2%. Using that rate and the level of nominal GDP from 2019, we can calculate an expected level for nominal GDP for 2020. We can then make some simplifying assumptions for the impact on full-year growth from an extended period of lost output from the quarantines, government-ordered factory shutdowns and extended holidays, travel bans, etc. Assuming that one full month of expected nominal GDP growth is lost (i.e. 1/12th of the expected increase in the level of nominal China GDP), the full-year growth rate falls to 6.6% Assuming that two full months of expected nominal GDP growth are lost, the full year growth rate falls to 6.0% Global bond yields now reflect a considerable slowdown of Chinese economic activity from the coronavirus, representing between 1-2 months of expected full-year 2020 nominal GDP growth that will be lost.  The last time that Chinese nominal GDP growth fell to a sub-7% pace was back in 2015 (Chart 8). The Caixin manufacturing PMI reached a low of 47.2 then, 3.9 points below the current level of 51.1. The level of global bond yields, using our “Major Countries” GDP-weighted aggregate, was at 0.72% - similar to today’s level. Global growth ex-China was also at similarly subdued levels in 2015 (i.e. the US ISM manufacturing index was below 50). Chart 8Global Yields Already Priced For A 2015-Type Slowdown In China Global Yields Already Priced For A 2015-Type Slowdown In China Global Yields Already Priced For A 2015-Type Slowdown In China Chart 9New Stimulus Measures In China Are Inevitable New Stimulus Measures In China Are Inevitable New Stimulus Measures In China Are Inevitable We conclude from this admittedly simple analysis that global bond yields now reflect a considerable slowdown of Chinese economic activity from the coronavirus, representing between 1-2 months of expected full-year 2020 nominal GDP growth that will be lost. The final impact on China economic growth in 2020 will likely be less than that full hit, as Chinese policymakers will surely look to ease monetary and fiscal policy to offset the hit to the economy (Chart 9). While BCA’s China strategists do not currently expect the same magnitude of policy responses as was seen in 2015/16, there will likely be enough to at least partially offset the hit to growth from containing the virus. In terms of timing, the critical point for financial markets – and bond yields – will be when the growth rate of new coronavirus cases peaks. During the 2003 SARS episode, global equity markets bottomed when that number of new cases peaked, which we believe to be a useful template for timing a potential turning point in the “fear narrative” (Chart 10). The number of new coronavirus infections continues to rise, however, suggesting that risk assets and bond yields will likely remain subdued in the near term. Chart 10Markets Bottomed In 2003 When The SARS Infection Rate Peaked Markets Bottomed In 2003 When The SARS Infection Rate Peaked Markets Bottomed In 2003 When The SARS Infection Rate Peaked When that turn does happen, any potential increase in global bond yields will be driven more by unwinding the declines in real yields and term premia of the past two weeks shown earlier in this report in Table 1. Chart 11Only A Pause In The Cyclical Upturn In Yields? Only A Pause In The Cyclical Upturn In Yields? Only A Pause In The Cyclical Upturn In Yields? That suggests a potential rise in the 10-year US Treasury yield of as much as 30bps, and a 23bps increase in the 10-year German bund yield. An additional increase of 5-10bps for both markets could come from higher inflation expectations, although that would likely need to be accompanied by a sizeable rebound in the price of oil and other industrial commodities. We are not seeing signs in our most favored leading indicators – like our global LEI diffusion index or the global ZEW index – suggesting that the next cyclical move in yields will be lower. We acknowledge that the recent fall in yields has gone against our expectations of a moderate grind higher global bond yields in 2020. However, we are not seeing signs in our most favored leading indicators – like our global LEI diffusion index or the global ZEW index – suggesting that the next cyclical move in yields will be lower (Chart 11). We will monitor those indicators in the coming months for any signs of a serious hit to global growth from the coronavirus outbreak. Bottom Line: Maintain a moderate below-benchmark cyclical (6-12 months) stance on overall interest rate duration in global fixed income portfolios. Yields now discount a significant hit to global economic growth from China. This outcome is far from certain, especially if China delivers more aggressive fiscal and monetary policy easing to mitigate the deflationary effects of the public health crisis.   Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see BCA Research Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report, "Coronavirus Versus SARS: Mind The Economic Differences", dated January 30, 2020, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index The China Syndrome The China Syndrome ​​​​​​​ Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

  Feature Everyone’s asset-allocation plans for the year have been disrupted by the novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV). Our view is that, while the virus is serious and will hurt the Chinese and global economy in the short term, it does not change the 12-month structural outlook for financial markets. Once the epidemic is under control (which it is not yet), there will be an excellent buying opportunity for risk assets and for the most affected asset classes. Many commentators have pointed to the lessons from SARS in 2003. Markets bottomed around the time that new cases of the disease peaked (Chart 1). But there are risks with such a simplistic comparison. The US invasion of Iraq happened at the same time – between 19 March and 1 May 2003 – with arguably a bigger impact on global markets. The Chinese economy was much less significant: China represented only 4% of global nominal GDP in 2003 (versus 17% now), 7% of global car sales (35% now), and 10-20% of commodity demand (50-60%). And it is still unclear how similar 2019-nCoV is to SARS: it appears to be spreading more rapidly (Chart 2) but (so far, at least) is less deadly, with a mortality rate of about 2%, compared to 10% for SARS. Recommended Allocation Monthly Portfolio Update: Going Viral Monthly Portfolio Update: Going Viral Chart 1The Lesson From Sars The Lesson From Sars The Lesson From Sars Chart 2But Is Novel Coronavirus Different? Monthly Portfolio Update: Going Viral Monthly Portfolio Update: Going Viral     Nonetheless, the basic theory that markets should bottom around the time that new cases and deaths peak is likely to prove correct. With the number of deaths still growing, however, that is not yet the case. Our advice to investors would be not to sell at this point. The hedges we have in our portfolio (overweight cash and gold) should help to cushion any further downside. But, within a few weeks, assets such as EM equities, airline stocks, commodities, or the Australian dollar should look very attractive again (Chart 3). For the next few months, economic data, particularly from China, will be hard to interpret. In 2003, Chinese GDP was reduced by 1.1% because of SARS, according to estimates by the Brookings Institute.1 The global economy is likely to be more heavily impacted this time, given today’s closely integrated supply chains. On the other hand, most academic research shows that consumption and production lost during an epidemic are later made up. Additionally, the Chinese government is likely to respond with easier fiscal and monetary policy. Once the air clears, we think our thesis that the manufacturing cycle bottomed in late 2019 will remain intact. The data over the past few weeks supports this. In Asia, in particular, PMIs for the major emerging economies are back above 50 (Chart 4). Europe’s rebound has lagged a little but, in the key German economy, indicators of business and investor sentiment have bottomed. Demand in the auto sector, crucial for Europe and Japan, is clearly starting to recover. Data in Europe and EM have generally surprised to the upside recently (Chart 5). Chart 3Some Assets May Soon Look Attractive Some Assets May Soon Look Attractive Some Assets May Soon Look Attractive   Chart 4Asian And European Data Picking Up Asian And European Data Picking Up Asian And European Data Picking Up Chart 5Positive Surprises Positive Surprises Positive Surprises The theory that markets should bottom around the time that new cases and deaths peak is likely to prove correct. To a degree, the new virus gave investors an excuse to take profits in some over-bought markets. The US equity market, in particular, looked expensive at the start of the year, with a forward PE of 19x. But we would dismiss the common view that investors had become too optimistic. The bull-bear ratio is not elevated (Chart 6), with only 37% of US individual investors at the start of January believing that the stock market would go up over the next six months, not particularly high by historical standards – it has fallen now to 32%. Last year, investors took money out of equity funds, despite strong returns from stocks. In the past – for example 2012 and 2016 – when this happened, it was followed by further gains for equities, as investors belatedly bought into the rally (Chart 7).   Chart 6Retail Investors Aren't So Bullish... Retail Investors Aren't So Bullish... Retail Investors Aren't So Bullish... Chart 7...Indeed, They Have Been Selling Stocks ...Indeed, They Have Been Selling Stocks ...Indeed, They Have Been Selling Stocks     On a 12-month investment horizon, therefore, we remain overweight risk assets such as equities and credit, albeit with some hedges. The upside to global growth remains underestimated: the economists’ consensus is for only 1.8% GDP growth in the US and 1.0% in the euro area this year. A combination of accelerating global growth and central banks that will stay dovish should allow equities to outperform bonds over the next 12 months (Chart 8). Chart 8If PMIs Pick Up, Equities Will Outperform If PMIs Pick Up, Equities Will Outperform If PMIs Pick Up, Equities Will Outperform   Chart 9First Signs Of US Equity Underperformance? First Signs Of US Equity Underperformance? First Signs Of US Equity Underperformance? Equities:  In December, we moved underweight US equities and recommended shifting into more cyclical markets: overweight the euro zone, and neutral on EM, the UK, and Australia. Before the outbreak of 2019-nCoV, this had worked in EM, but less well in Europe (Chart 9). Once the effects of the virus have cleared, we still believe this allocation will outperform as the global manufacturing cycle picks up. But we have a couple of concerns. (1) The recent US/China trade deal will require China to increase imports from the US by a highly unrealistic 83% year-on-year in 2020 (Chart 10). Our China strategists don’t expect this target to be fully met, but think any increase will come from substitution.2 This would hurt exporters in Europe and Asia. (2) The outperformance of euro area equities is very much determined by how banks fare. The headwinds against them continue: the ECB recently decreed that six major banks fall below required capital ratios; loan growth to corporates in the euro area has fallen to 3.2% year-on-year. Much, though, depends on the yield curve (Chart 11). If it steepens, as a result of stronger growth this year, as we expect, bank stocks should outperform, especially since they remain very cheap (the average price/book ratio of euro area banks is currently only 0.65).   Chart 10China’s Import Targets Are Unrealistic Monthly Portfolio Update: Going Viral Monthly Portfolio Update: Going Viral Chart 11Bank Performance Depends On The Yield Curve Bank Performance Depends On The Yield Curve Bank Performance Depends On The Yield Curve Once the air clears, we think our thesis that the manufacturing cycle bottomed in late 2019 will remain intact. Fixed Income: Government bond yields have fallen in recent weeks as investors sought cover, with the US Treasury 10-year yield dropping to 1.55%. While it may test last September’s low of 1.46%, we do not see much further room for global yields to fall. They tend to be highly correlated with manufacturing PMIs, which we expect to rise over the next 12 months (Chart 12). Also, we see the Fed staying on hold this year, not cutting rates twice, as the market is now pricing in. This mildly hawkish surprise should push up rates (Chart 13). We continue to prefer credit over government bonds. Our global fixed-income strategists consider that, from a valuation standpoint, US high yield, and UK investment grade and high yield are the most attractive (Chart 14).3 Chart 12Rates Move In Line With PMIs Rates Move In Line With PMIs Rates Move In Line With PMIs Chart 13What If The Fed Doesn't Cut Rates? What If The Fed Doesn't Cut Rates? What If The Fed Doesn't Cut Rates? Chart 14US Junk Looks Most Attractive Monthly Portfolio Update: Going Viral Monthly Portfolio Update: Going Viral Currencies:  Defensive currencies such as the yen, Swiss franc, and US dollar have benefitted from the recent risk-off move. We see this as temporary. Once investors refocus on growth, the US dollar should start to depreciate again (the DXY index did fall by 3% between September and early January). The dollar is a counter-cyclical currency. It is 15% overvalued relative to PPP (Chart 15). It is also very momentum-driven – and, since December, momentum has pointed to depreciation and continues to do so (Chart 16).  Chart 15Dollar Is 15% Overvalued... Dollar Is 15% Overvalued... Dollar Is 15% Overvalued... Chart 16...And Momentum Has Moved Against USD ...And Momentum Has Moved Against USD ...And Momentum Has Moved Against USD Commodities: Industrial metals prices had started to pick up over the past few months, reflecting the stabilization of Chinese growth (Chart 17). How they fare from now will depend on: (1) how sharply Chinese growth slows as a result of 2019nCoV, and (2) how much stimulus the Chinese government rolls out to offset this. Given the degree of decline in some commodity prices (zinc down by 16% since mid-January, and copper by 9%, for example), there should be an attractive buying opportunity in these assets over coming weeks. Gold has proved to be a handy hedge against geopolitical risks (Iran) and unexpected tail risks (the coronavirus), rising by 4% year-to-date. We continue to believe it has a useful place in investors’ portfolios as a diversifier and hedge, particularly in a world of very low interest rates where cash is unattractive (Chart 18). The oil price has been hit by the disruption to air travel in January, but supply remains tight (and OPEC is likely to cut supply further in response to the demand shock).4 As long as economic growth picks up later this year, we see the crude oil price recovering over the coming months. Chart 17Metals Reflect Chinese Growth Chinese Slowdown Will Weigh On Metal Prices Metals Reflect Chinese Growth Chinese Slowdown Will Weigh On Metal Prices Metals Reflect Chinese Growth Chart 18Gold Attractive With Bond Yields So Low Gold Attractive With Bond Yields So Low Gold Attractive With Bond Yields So Low Garry Evans, Senior Vice President Chief Global Asset Allocation Strategist garry@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1  Please see Globalization and Disease: The Case Of SARS, Jong-Wha Lee and Warwick J. McKibbin, Brookings Discussion Paper No. 156, available at https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/20040203-1.pdf 2 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report “Managing Expectations,” dated 22 January 2020, available at cis.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report “How To Find Value In Corporate Bonds,” dated 21 January 2020, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report “Expect OPEC 2.0 To Cut Supply In Response to Demand Shock,” dated 30 January 2020, available at ces.bcaresearch.com GAA Asset Allocation  

Highlights The coronavirus scare is the catalyst for the recent correction, not the cause. The true cause is that the stock market had reached a point of groupthink-triggered instability and therefore needed the slightest catalyst to correct. Bond yields will stay depressed for (at least) the first half of 2020. Long-term investors should use corrections to overweight equities versus bonds, provided bond yields stay near or below current levels. The pound and UK-exposed investments will come under near-term pressure as UK/EU trade deal tensions ratchet up. But ultimately, UK-exposed investments will enjoy a major leg up later this year if both the UK and EU blink. Feature Chart of the WeekThe Next Up-Leg In The Pound And UK-Exposed Investments Will Occur Later In 2020 The Next Up-Leg In The Pound And UK-Exposed Investments Will Occur Later in 2020 The Next Up-Leg In The Pound And UK-Exposed Investments Will Occur Later in 2020 Corrections, Catalysts, And Coronavirus Markets have suffered a correction, begging the question: what caused it? The question is a good one, because identifying the cause can help to inform our response. Yet the danger is that the knee-jerk narrative pinpoints the catalyst rather than the true cause. In which case our response will be wrong too. For example, consider the following two narratives: Tree foliage collapses because of 40 mph winds. Tree foliage collapses because it is autumn. The first narrative is exciting, satisfying, and headline grabbing, but it only pinpoints the catalyst for the foliage collapse: the puff of wind. The second explanation is dull and less newsworthy, but it pinpoints the true cause: in autumn, tree foliage is unstable. Likewise, the coronavirus scare is the catalyst for the recent correction. The true cause is that the stock market had reached a point of groupthink-triggered instability and therefore needed the slightest catalyst to correct. The catalyst could have come from anywhere at any time. If it hadn’t been the coronavirus scare, it would have been the next worry… or the one after that. On January 9 in Markets Are Fractally Fragile we warned that usually cautious value investors had become momentum traders – undermining market liquidity and stability. When this happens, there is a two in three chance of a tactical reversal (Chart I-2). Chart I-2When Markets Are Fractally Fragile, There Is A 2 In 3 Chance Of A Tactical Reversal When Markets Are Fractally Fragile, There Is A 2 In 3 Chance Of A Tactical Reversal When Markets Are Fractally Fragile, There Is A 2 In 3 Chance Of A Tactical Reversal We also warned that the bond yield 6-month impulse – the change in the change – had recently become a severe 100 bps headwind to growth. At this severity of headwind, there is a nine in ten chance that bond yields have reached a near-term peak (Chart I-3). Chart I-3When The Bond Yield 6-Month Impulse Becomes A Severe Headwind, There Is A 9 In 10 Chance Of A Near-Term Peak In Yields When The Bond Yield 6-Month Impulse Becomes A Severe Headwind, There Is A 9 In 10 Chance Of A Near-Term Peak In Yields When The Bond Yield 6-Month Impulse Becomes A Severe Headwind, There Is A 9 In 10 Chance Of A Near-Term Peak In Yields In combination, we warned that equities would underperform bonds by about 4 percent on a tactical horizon. Now that this anticipated correction has happened, what next? Long-term investors should use corrections to overweight equities versus bonds.  First, irrespective of coronavirus – or any other catalyst – the recent severe headwind to growth from the bond yield impulse suggests that bond yields will stay depressed for (at least) the first half of 2020. Second, the good news is that the ultra-low bond yields justify and underpin the valuation of equities. Hence, at the current level of bond yields, long-term investors should use corrections to overweight equities versus bonds. Brexit Is “Done”. Or Is It? Rumour has it that Boris Johnson will banish the word Brexit from the UK government lexicon after January 31, because Brexit is now “done”. Good luck with that. When Britain wakes up bleary-eyed on Saturday February 1, what will have changed? Not a lot. The UK will have lost its voice and votes in the EU decision making institutions. Yet in practical terms nothing will have changed, because the UK and EU will enter an 11-month ‘standstill’ transition period in which existing arrangements will continue: the free movement of people, financial contributions, and full access to the single market without tariffs or customs checks. The Conservative government made a manifesto pledge not to extend the 11-month transition, so the more important question is: what will change when the standstill period ends on December 31? The answer depends on what sort of trade deal the UK and EU can negotiate in the limited space of 11 months. Or indeed whether they can negotiate a trade deal at all. Therein lies the problem. A free trade deal with the EU will require a mutual commitment to a ‘level playing field’. If the UK wants to diverge on food standards, environmental protection, labour rights, and state aid – as the Brexit purists yearn – then there is zero chance that the EU will agree to a free trade deal.  This leaves two options, neither of which is appealing. The first is for the UK to end the 11-month standstill period without a trade deal. Technically, this would not be ‘no deal’ because the withdrawal agreement would still bind both sides on citizens’ rights, financial contributions, and arrangements for Northern Ireland. A free trade deal with the EU will require a mutual commitment to a ‘level playing field’.  However, for UK companies, the option of ending the standstill period without a trade deal would constitute a painful dislocation from the single market involving tariffs and customs checks. It would also hurt the EU economies most exposed to the UK, notably Ireland and the Netherlands. Moreover, a full customs and tariff border in the Irish Sea would endanger the very existence of a ‘United’ Kingdom which included Northern Ireland.   The second option is for the UK to accept a trade deal on EU terms, recognising that the EU is the larger and more economically powerful party in the negotiation. The EU will offer the UK a tariff-free and quota-free trade deal conditional on strict level playing field conditions where the UK chooses to diverge from EU standards, combined with a mechanism to adjudicate on any level playing field disputes. Though economically better than no trade deal at all, the Brexit purists would claim it isn’t Brexit. Meanwhile, even without tariffs and quotas, UK companies whose just-in-time supply chains depended on the EU would still suffer disruption, as the level playing field was policed at every border crossing. So this option would satisfy nobody in the UK. The bigger practical problem is a lack of time to leave the EU regulatory orbit smoothly. Nobody believes that eleven months is enough time to implement a system in Northern Ireland that prevent a hard border in the Irish Sea; or indeed to implement a new UK immigration system if free movement were to end at the end of 2020. So what’s the resolution? The answer is the same as it has always been for Brexit – a gradual ratcheting up of tension ahead of a hard deadline to focus minds and force progress. Followed by a ‘fudged resolution’ at the eleventh hour in which both sides blink – because neither side is prepared to go over the cliff-edge. Recall that to get the withdrawal agreement over the line, the UK blinked by allowing Northern Ireland to be treated differently; but the EU also blinked by allowing the withdrawal agreement to be reopened. And once this happened, the pound and UK-exposed investments enjoyed a major leg up (Chart I-1 and Chart I-4-Chart I-7). Chart I-4The FTSE 250 Is A UK-Exposed ##br##Investment The FTSE 250 Is A UK-Exposed Investment The FTSE 250 Is A UK-Exposed Investment Chart I-5The FTSE 100 Is Not A UK-Exposed Investment The FTSE 100 Is Not A UK-Exposed Investment The FTSE 100 Is Not A UK-Exposed Investment Chart I-6UK General Retail Is A UK-Exposed Investment UK General Retail Is A UK-Exposed Investment UK General Retail Is A UK-Exposed Investment Chart I-7UK Clothing And Accessories Is Not A ##br##UK-Exposed Investment UK Clothing And Accessories Is Not A UK-Exposed Investment UK Clothing And Accessories Is Not A UK-Exposed Investment In the next fudged resolution, the UK could blink by retaining full regulatory alignment with the EU in most areas for a little while longer, and where it doesn’t the EU could blink by becoming flexible in its interpretation of ‘level playing field’. Obviously, nobody would call this an extension to the transition, but the UK would, in most practical terms, still be in the single market on January 1 2021. UK-exposed investments will enjoy their next major leg up later this year In this playbook, the pound and UK-exposed investments will come under near-term pressure, as UK/EU trade deal tensions ratchet up. But ultimately, UK-exposed investments will enjoy their next major leg up later this year if both the UK and the EU blink (Chart I-8). Chart I-8The Pound Still Has A Brexit Discount The Pound Still Has A Brexit Discount The Pound Still Has A Brexit Discount Fractal Trading System* There are no new trades this week. The rolling 1-year win ratio now stands at 62 percent. Chart I-9EUR/GBP EUR/GBP EUR/GBP 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. * 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 Chief European Investment Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading System Don't Mention The C-Word Or The B-Word Don't Mention The C-Word Or The B-Word Don't Mention The C-Word Or The B-Word Don't Mention The C-Word Or The B-Word   Cyclical Recommendations Structural Recommendations Don't Mention The C-Word Or The B-Word Don't Mention The C-Word Or The B-Word Don't Mention The C-Word Or The B-Word Don't Mention The C-Word Or The B-Word Don't Mention The C-Word Or The B-Word Don't Mention The C-Word Or The B-Word Don't Mention The C-Word Or The B-Word Don't Mention The C-Word Or The B-Word 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 BCA’s “Golden Rule of Bond Investing” framework, which links developed economy government bond returns to central bank policy rate “surprises” versus market expectations, also works in China. The relationship between unexpected changes in China’s de facto short-term policy rate and government bond yields has been surprisingly strong over the past decade. Any additional easing by the PBoC this year is likely to be focused on reducing lending rates to the real economy, not interbank rates (which drive government bond yields). As such, yields at the short-end are likely to be flat until later this year at the earliest, whereas yields at the long-end are likely to move modestly higher, at most. The persistent historical gap between economic growth and bond yields in China makes it difficult to forecast the structural outlook for yields using conventional methods. To the extent that Chinese policymakers succeed at shifting the drivers of growth from investment to consumption, we believe that bond yields are more likely to structurally rise than fall. Over the coming 6-12 months, investors should underweight Chinese government bonds versus Chinese equities and onshore corporate bonds. Within a regional government bond portfolio, however, investors should overweight USD-hedged China versus US and developed markets ex-US, as well as in unhedged terms. Feature Last year’s inclusion of Chinese onshore government and policy bank bonds in the Bloomberg Barclays Global Aggregate Index was a significant milestone of China’s journey to internationalize its capital markets. Other bond benchmark providers have since followed suit, highlighting that the trend of increased passive exposure to Chinese assets is likely to continue. Over the past year, the bulk of the market discussion concerning the addition of China to the major bond indices has focused on estimating the size of potential capital inflows that could be triggered and the related impact on onshore bond yields. By contrast, comparatively little work has been done to analyze the core drivers of Chinese government bond yields, and how they compare to the factors that influence yields in the developed markets that dominate the bond indices. This Special Report attempts to fill a hole in the analysis of Chinese bonds. This Special Report attempts to fill that hole in the analysis of Chinese bonds. We look at the predictability of China’s government bond market through the lens of BCA’s “golden rule” framework, and find a surprisingly strong relationship between changes in China’s de facto short-term policy rate and government bond yields. We then present our cyclical (6-12 month) and secular outlooks for government yields given this relationship, and conclude by presenting four specific investment recommendations pertaining to China’s fixed-income market with two audiences in mind: mainland/onshore investors who are focused on returns in unhedged RMB terms, and global fixed-income investors who are primarily focused on hedged US-dollar regional bond exposure. The Golden Rule Of Bond Investing, With Chinese Characteristics In a July 2018 Special Report,1 BCA’s Chief US Bond Strategist, Ryan Swift, elegantly distilled the cyclical US government bond call into a simple question: During the next 12-months, will the Federal Reserve move interest rates by more or less than what is currently priced into the market? Chart 1The (US) Golden Rule Of Bond Investing In Practice The (US) Golden Rule Of Bond Investing In Practice The (US) Golden Rule Of Bond Investing In Practice Ryan argued that a predictive framework for US Treasury returns built around the answer to this question has historically worked so well that it should be referred to as the “Golden Rule of bond investing” (Chart 1). In a follow-up report, our Global Fixed Income Strategy service confirmed that the Golden Rule also largely works in non-US developed market economies, with the exception of Japan due to the absence of any meaningful fluctuation in policy rates over the past two decades.2 The Golden Rule provides a very strong framework to aid fixed-income investors with their cyclical (i.e. 6-12 month) asset allocation decisions, by quantitatively linking government bond returns relative to cash – in other words, the excess return earned by taking duration risk - to policy rate “surprises” compared to what is discounted in shorter-term money markets. The practical application is that a decision to allocate to longer-maturity government bonds is reduced to a bet on whether a central bank will adjust policy rates by more or less than the market expects. The first question we address in this report is to what degree does the Golden Rule apply in China (in yield space rather than in return space), along with an explanation of any differences that may exist. However, we must first note why the Golden Rule of bond investing works, particularly in the US. The first reason is that there is a strong relationship between the US 3-month T-bill rate and Treasury yields of all other maturities. Conceptually, all fixed income investors have a choice when buying US government bonds: they can purchase a 3-month Treasury bill and simply perpetually roll over the position as it matures, or they can purchase a Treasury bond of a longer maturity. This means that yields on longer maturity Treasury bonds simply reflect investor expectations for the average 3-month T-bill rate over the life of the bond, plus some positive risk premium to compensate for the inherent uncertainty of the path and tendency of short-term yields. This helps explain the close link between cyclical changes in 3-month T-bill rates and yields on longer maturity Treasurys. Chart 2In The US, The 3-Month T-Bill Rate Perfectly Tracks The Fed Funds Rate In The US, The 3-Month T-Bill Rate Perfectly Tracks The Fed Funds Rate In The US, The 3-Month T-Bill Rate Perfectly Tracks The Fed Funds Rate The second reason for the Golden Rule’s success is that there is a very tight relationship between the effective Fed funds rate and the 3-month T-bill rate. While it is the (higher) discount rate that is the theoretical no-arbitrage ceiling for the 3-month rate, in practice T-bill rates trade extremely close to the Fed funds rate (Chart 2). This means that Fed funds rate “surprises” (relative to traded market expectations) are akin to surprises in the 3-month rate, which in turn strongly influence the expected future path of short-term interest rates and thus yields on longer maturity Treasurys. In China, we noted in a February 2018 Special Report3 that the 7-day interbank repo rate is now the de jure short-term policy rate in China following the establishment of an interest rate corridor system in 2015. Chart 3 presents our first test of the Golden Rule in China (in yield space rather than in return space), by plotting the annual change in the level of Chinese government bond yields alongside the 7-day repo rate “surprise” over the past year from 2010 to the present. Here, we use the first principal component of zero coupon Chinese government bond yields to represent the average level of yields (rather than selecting a particular maturity), and we use the 12-month RMB swap rate (versus 7-day repo) to represent market expectations for the policy rate. The chart highlights that the fit is good, as measured by a 50% R-squared between the two series. However, deviations in the relationship do exist, with the most notable exception having occurred in 2017: Chinese government bond yields rose considerably more than what the annual surprise in the 7-day repo rate would have suggested. Chart 3In China, The Golden Rule Works Decently Well Using 7-Day Repo... In China, The Golden Rule Works Decently Well Using 7-Day Repo... In China, The Golden Rule Works Decently Well Using 7-Day Repo... Chart 4...And Extremely Well Using 3-Month SHIBOR ...And Extremely Well Using 3-Month SHIBOR ...And Extremely Well Using 3-Month SHIBOR Chart 4 helps resolve a good portion of the 2017 discrepancy, and clarifies the link between Chinese monetary policy and government bond yields. Chart 4 is similar to Chart 3, except that it replaces the 7-day repo rate surprise with that of 3-month SHIBOR (which trades very closely to the 3-month repo rate). The chart illustrates an even closer fit between the two series (with an R-squared close to 80%), and shows that the 3-month SHIBOR surprise does a meaningfully better job at explaining the 2017 rise in Chinese government bond yields. The Golden Rule of bond investing works surprisingly well in China. The fact that the annual surprise in 3-month SHIBOR has done a better job at predicting changes in bond yields over the past decade underscores that the 3-month repo rate is the de facto short-term policy rate in China, a point that we have made in several previous reports. We have noted that the spike in the 3-month/7-day repo rate spread that occurred in late-2016 and lasted until mid-2018 happened because of China’s crackdown on shadow banking activity. This crackdown caused a funding squeeze for China’s small & medium banks, which caused a material rise in lending rates and government bond yields. This episode highlights that future changes in the 3-month repo rate are likely to reflect both underlying changes in net liquidity provided to large commercial banks (measured by the 7-day repo rate), and any dislocations in the interbank market that have the potential to push up lending rates and government bond yields. Bottom Line: BCA’s “Golden Rule” framework, which links developed economy government bond returns to central bank policy rate “surprises” versus market expectations, works for China as well – using the correct measure of the PBOC policy rate. This provides a useful investment framework for Chinese government bonds, which are now significant part of major global bond market benchmarks. The Cyclical Outlook For Chinese Government Bond Yields Given the establishment of the relationship between Chinese short-term interbank rates and government bond yields detailed above, we are now able to more precisely discuss the likely cyclical trajectory of Chinese government bond yields as a function of Chinese monetary policy. Two opposing forces have the potential to affect China’s government bond market this year. The first, a stabilization and modest rebound in Chinese economic activity, may exert upward pressure on yields due to expectations of eventual policy tightening. The second, continued attempts by the PBoC to ease corporate lending rates, may exert downward pressure on yields as it will reflect not just easy but easier monetary conditions. Yields at the long-end are likely to move modestly higher this year, at most. For investors, the raises the obvious question of whether Chinese government bond yields are likely to move up, down, or trend sideways this year. In our view, yields at the short-end are likely to be flat until later this year at the earliest, whereas yields at the long-end are likely to move modestly higher, at most. Yields at the short-end of China’s government bond curve are likely to stay flat for most of this year. There are two reasons why yields at the short-end of China’s government bond curve are likely to stay flat for most of this year. The first is that the PBoC is generally a reactive central bank and has historically lagged a pickup in economic activity, as illustrated in Chart 5. The chart shows the historical path of 3-month SHIBOR in the year following a bottom in economic activity in 2009, 2012, and 2015, and makes it clear that there has been no precedent for a significant rise in interbank rates in the first nine months of an economic recovery. The 2012 episode did see a very sharp rise in 3-month SHIBOR once the PBoC shifted into tightening mode, but we doubt that this experience will be repeated again unless economic growth accelerates much more aggressively than we expect. The second reason why we expect yields at the short-end of the curve to remain muted this year is because any additional easing by the PBoC is likely to be focused on reducing corporate lending rates, not interbank rates. Chart 6 highlights that while there is a strong correlation between changes in Chinese government bond yields and average lending rates in the economy, the former leads the latter. In the past, this relationship has existed because changes in interbank rates have coincided with reductions in the now obsolete benchmark lending rate, with the former usually occurring earlier than the latter. But in a scenario where the PBoC reduces the loan prime rate (LPR) and keeps net banking sector liquidity roughly constant, the extremely tight relationship shown in Chart 4 suggests that short-term bond yields are unlikely to be affected by a reduction in lending rates. Any meaningful decline in short-term yields below short-term interbank rates would simply prompt banks to stop buying these bonds. Chart 5The PBoC Is Generally A Reactive Central Bank The PBoC Is Generally A Reactive Central Bank The PBoC Is Generally A Reactive Central Bank Chart 6Average Lending Rates Lag Short-Term Bond Yields Average Lending Rates Lag Short-Term Bond Yields Average Lending Rates Lag Short-Term Bond Yields Chart 7China's Yield Curve Is Generally Pro-Cyclical China's Yield Curve Is Generally Pro-Cyclical China's Yield Curve Is Generally Pro-Cyclical Additional easing by the PBoC does have the potential to impact the long-end of the government bond curve if investors view these actions as a sign that interbank rates will remain low for some time. This view is reinforced by the fact that China’s yield curve is not particularly flat, and thus has room to move lower. However, Chart 7 also shows that China’s yield curve, defined here as the second principal component of zero coupon Chinese government bond yields, is positively correlated with the relative performance of investable Chinese equities. This suggests that there is a procyclical element to the curve. We suspect that this procyclical element will dominate a potential decline in expectations for future short-term interest rates, but that yields at the long-end are likely to move modestly higher this year, at most. Bottom Line: Any additional easing by the PBoC this year is likely to be focused on reducing lending rates to the real economy, not interbank rates (which drive government bond yields). As such, yields at the short-end are likely to be flat until later this year at the earliest, whereas yields at the long-end are likely to move modestly higher, at most. The Secular Outlook For Chinese Government Bond Yields A common approach to forecasting the likely structural trend for nominal government bond yields is to estimate the trajectory of real long-term potential output growth and to add the monetary authority’s inflation target. This framework is based on the idea that interest rates are in equilibrium when the cost of borrowing is roughly equal to nominal income growth, a condition that results in no change in the burden to service existing debt. Chart 8China's Potential Growth Is Likely To Trend Lower... China's Potential Growth Is Likely To Trend Lower... China's Potential Growth Is Likely To Trend Lower... Based on this framework, we would expect Chinese government bond yields to trend down over time, or possibly flat if the PBoC were to tolerate higher inflation over the coming decade. Chart 8 illustrates the IMF’s forecast of falling real potential growth in China over the coming several years, which is consistent with a shift in the composition of growth from investment to consumption as well as China’s looming demographic crisis. But Chart 9highlights an obvious problem with applying this framework to forecast the secular trend in Chinese government bond yields: over the past decade, yields have persistently averaged below actual nominal GDP growth, both in China and in the developed world. In the latter case, it is an open question whether this will continue to be true in the future, but in China’s case it is clear that government bond yields have little connection (in magnitude) to the pace of GDP growth. This reflects the longstanding strategy of Chinese policymakers to promote investment via persistently low interest rates, as has occurred in other manufacturing and export-oriented Asian economies (Chart 10). Chart 9...But Bond Yields Are Well Below GDP Growth, Just Like In Developed Markets ...But Bond Yields Are Well Below GDP Growth, Just Like In Developed Markets ...But Bond Yields Are Well Below GDP Growth, Just Like In Developed Markets Chart 10In Industrial Asian Economies, Low Bond Yields Are A Policy Choice In Industrial Asian Economies, Low Bond Yields Are A Policy Choice In Industrial Asian Economies, Low Bond Yields Are A Policy Choice   The persistent historical gap between economic growth and bond yields in China makes it difficult to forecast the structural outlook for yields using conventional methods, and largely limits us to inference. To the extent that Chinese policymakers succeed at shifting the drivers of growth from investment to consumption, bond yields are more likely to rise than fall over time. This is because as long as interest rates remain well below the pace of income growth, the incentive to excessively borrow (and invest) is likely to persist. Chart 11China Needs Higher Interest Rates, But Only To A Point China Needs Higher Interest Rates, But Only To A Point China Needs Higher Interest Rates, But Only To A Point However, even in a scenario where Chinese government bond yields structurally trend higher, we expect the rise to be modest. Chart 11 highlights that China’s “private sector” debt service ratio is extremely elevated, underscoring that the country’s ability to tolerate significantly higher bond yields is not strong. In addition, since 2015, China’s debt service ratio has been mostly flat despite rising a rising debt-to-GDP ratio, which has been achieved through lower short-term interest rates. To the extent that policymakers fail to make meaningful progress in shifting China’s growth drivers away from investment over the coming few years, lower (potentially sharply lower) bond yields would appear to be all but inevitable to cope with what would become a permanently growing drag on economic activity from the servicing of debt. For now, we would characterize this scenario as a risk to our base case view, but it is a risk that we will be closely monitoring over the coming years. Bottom Line: The persistent gap between Chinese nominal GDP growth and government bond yields is likely contributing to the problem of excessive leveraging. To the extent that Chinese policymakers succeed at shifting the drivers of growth from investment to consumption, bond yields are more likely to structurally rise than fall. Investment Conclusions Our analysis above points to four recommendations for investors over the coming year: Overweight Chinese stocks versus Chinese government bonds in RMB and USD terms Overweight Chinese onshore corporate bonds versus duration-matched Chinese government bonds in RMB terms Overweight 7-10 year USD-hedged Chinese government bonds versus their US and developed market (DM) counterparts For offshore US dollar-based investors, long 7-10 year Chinese government bonds in unhedged terms Regarding the first two recommendations, our view that yields are likely to be flat at the short-end and modestly higher at the long-end suggests that investors can expect total returns on the order of 2-3% from Chinese government bonds this year. Barring a major and lasting economic slowdown from the 2019-nCoV outbreak, we expect Chinese domestic and investable equities to outperform government securities over the coming 6-12 months. Onshore corporate bonds have a similar outlook: onshore spreads are pricing in (massively) higher default losses than we believe is warranted, meaning that they will outperform duration-matched government equivalents without any changes in yield. Chart 12Within Global Fixed-Income, Hedged Chinese 10-Year Yields Are Relatively Attractive Within Global Fixed-Income, Hedged Chinese 10-Year Yields Are Relatively Attractive Within Global Fixed-Income, Hedged Chinese 10-Year Yields Are Relatively Attractive Chart 13Unhedged Yield Spreads Predict Hedged Relative Performance Versus The US Unhedged Yield Spreads Predict Hedged Relative Performance Versus The US Unhedged Yield Spreads Predict Hedged Relative Performance Versus The US For global fixed-income investors, Charts 12-14 present USD-hedged 10-year Chinese government yields versus the US and DM/DM ex-US, along with the historical relative return profile of USD-hedged Chinese bonds versus hedged and unhedged returns. In hedged space, Chinese 10-year government bond yields are modestly attractive: 2.2% versus 1.6% in the US and 1.8% in DM ex-US. China’s historically low yield beta to the overall level of global 10-year bond yields (Chart 15) suggests that Chinese yields should perform well in 2020 – a year where we expect global bond yields to drift higher as economic growth rebounds. Combined with relatively attractive valuation, this bodes well for the relative performance of Chinese debt versus DM equivalents. A low yield beta against a backdrop of drifting higher global yields implies that longer-maturity Chinese government bonds will outperform their DM equivalents. Chart 14Unhedged Yield Spreads Predict Hedged Relative Performance Versus DM Unhedged Yield Spreads Predict Hedged Relative Performance Versus DM Unhedged Yield Spreads Predict Hedged Relative Performance Versus DM Chart 15China's Yield Beta Has Been Rising, But Is Still Japan-Like China's Yield Beta Has Been Rising, But Is Still Japan-Like China's Yield Beta Has Been Rising, But Is Still Japan-Like   We would also recommend longer-maturity Chinese government bonds in unhedged terms versus a USD-hedged global government bond portfolio. Chart 16 highlights that the relative return of this trade is strongly (negatively) linked to USD-CNY, and we expect further (albeit more modest) gains in RMB over the cyclical horizon. Chart 16Modest Further RMB Upside Means Unhedged Chinese Bonds Will Outperform Modest Further RMB Upside Means Unhedged Chinese Bonds Will Outperform Modest Further RMB Upside Means Unhedged Chinese Bonds Will Outperform As a final point, investors should note that today’s report is part of a heightened focus on China’s fixed income market, in terms of both forecasting fixed income returns and analyzing the cyclical and structural implications of the increasing investability of China’s financial markets. More research on this topic is likely to come in 2020 and beyond: Stay Tuned!   Jonathan LaBerge, CFA, Vice President Special Reports jonathanl@bcaresearch.com         Footnotes 1    Please see US Bond Strategy Special Report "The Golden Rule Of Bond Investing," dated July 24, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2   Please see Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report "The Global Golden Rule Of Bond Investing," dated September 25, 2018, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com 3   Please see China Investment Strategy Special Report "Seven Questions About Chinese Monetary Policy," dated February 22, 2018, available at cis.bcaresearch.com

Dear clients, Please note that in next week’s China Macro And Market Review, we will include a section explaining our view on the coronavirus outbreak and its economic as well as financial market implications. We maintain our overweight stance on both Chinese investable and A-share equities, over a tactical (0-3 months) and cyclical (6-12 months) time horizon. Please stay tuned. Jing Sima, China Strategist   Highlights BCA’s “Golden Rule of Bond Investing” framework, which links developed economy government bond returns to central bank policy rate “surprises” versus market expectations, also works in China. The relationship between unexpected changes in China’s de facto short-term policy rate and government bond yields has been surprisingly strong over the past decade. Any additional easing by the PBoC this year is likely to be focused on reducing lending rates to the real economy, not interbank rates (which drive government bond yields). As such, yields at the short-end are likely to be flat until later this year at the earliest, whereas yields at the long-end are likely to move modestly higher, at most. The persistent historical gap between economic growth and bond yields in China makes it difficult to forecast the structural outlook for yields using conventional methods. To the extent that Chinese policymakers succeed at shifting the drivers of growth from investment to consumption, we believe that bond yields are more likely to structurally rise than fall. Over the coming 6-12 months, investors should underweight Chinese government bonds versus Chinese equities and onshore corporate bonds. Within a regional government bond portfolio, however, investors should overweight USD-hedged China versus US and developed markets ex-US, as well as in unhedged terms. Feature Last year’s inclusion of Chinese onshore government and policy bank bonds in the Bloomberg Barclays Global Aggregate Index was a significant milestone of China’s journey to internationalize its capital markets. Other bond benchmark providers have since followed suit, highlighting that the trend of increased passive exposure to Chinese assets is likely to continue. Over the past year, the bulk of the market discussion concerning the addition of China to the major bond indices has focused on estimating the size of potential capital inflows that could be triggered and the related impact on onshore bond yields. By contrast, comparatively little work has been done to analyze the core drivers of Chinese government bond yields, and how they compare to the factors that influence yields in the developed markets that dominate the bond indices. This Special Report attempts to fill a hole in the analysis of Chinese bonds. This Special Report attempts to fill that hole in the analysis of Chinese bonds. We look at the predictability of China’s government bond market through the lens of BCA’s “golden rule” framework, and find a surprisingly strong relationship between changes in China’s de facto short-term policy rate and government bond yields. We then present our cyclical (6-12 month) and secular outlooks for government yields given this relationship, and conclude by presenting four specific investment recommendations pertaining to China’s fixed-income market with two audiences in mind: mainland/onshore investors who are focused on returns in unhedged RMB terms, and global fixed-income investors who are primarily focused on hedged US-dollar regional bond exposure. The Golden Rule Of Bond Investing, With Chinese Characteristics In a July 2018 Special Report,1 BCA’s Chief US Bond Strategist, Ryan Swift, elegantly distilled the cyclical US government bond call into a simple question: During the next 12-months, will the Federal Reserve move interest rates by more or less than what is currently priced into the market? Chart 1The (US) Golden Rule Of Bond Investing In Practice The (US) Golden Rule Of Bond Investing In Practice The (US) Golden Rule Of Bond Investing In Practice Ryan argued that a predictive framework for US Treasury returns built around the answer to this question has historically worked so well that it should be referred to as the “Golden Rule of bond investing” (Chart 1). In a follow-up report, our Global Fixed Income Strategy service confirmed that the Golden Rule also largely works in non-US developed market economies, with the exception of Japan due to the absence of any meaningful fluctuation in policy rates over the past two decades.2 The Golden Rule provides a very strong framework to aid fixed-income investors with their cyclical (i.e. 6-12 month) asset allocation decisions, by quantitatively linking government bond returns relative to cash – in other words, the excess return earned by taking duration risk - to policy rate “surprises” compared to what is discounted in shorter-term money markets. The practical application is that a decision to allocate to longer-maturity government bonds is reduced to a bet on whether a central bank will adjust policy rates by more or less than the market expects. The first question we address in this report is to what degree does the Golden Rule apply in China (in yield space rather than in return space), along with an explanation of any differences that may exist. However, we must first note why the Golden Rule of bond investing works, particularly in the US. The first reason is that there is a strong relationship between the US 3-month T-bill rate and Treasury yields of all other maturities. Conceptually, all fixed income investors have a choice when buying US government bonds: they can purchase a 3-month Treasury bill and simply perpetually roll over the position as it matures, or they can purchase a Treasury bond of a longer maturity. This means that yields on longer maturity Treasury bonds simply reflect investor expectations for the average 3-month T-bill rate over the life of the bond, plus some positive risk premium to compensate for the inherent uncertainty of the path and tendency of short-term yields. This helps explain the close link between cyclical changes in 3-month T-bill rates and yields on longer maturity Treasurys. Chart 2In The US, The 3-Month T-Bill Rate Perfectly Tracks The Fed Funds Rate In The US, The 3-Month T-Bill Rate Perfectly Tracks The Fed Funds Rate In The US, The 3-Month T-Bill Rate Perfectly Tracks The Fed Funds Rate The second reason for the Golden Rule’s success is that there is a very tight relationship between the effective Fed funds rate and the 3-month T-bill rate. While it is the (higher) discount rate that is the theoretical no-arbitrage ceiling for the 3-month rate, in practice T-bill rates trade extremely close to the Fed funds rate (Chart 2). This means that Fed funds rate “surprises” (relative to traded market expectations) are akin to surprises in the 3-month rate, which in turn strongly influence the expected future path of short-term interest rates and thus yields on longer maturity Treasurys. In China, we noted in a February 2018 Special Report3 that the 7-day interbank repo rate is now the de jure short-term policy rate in China following the establishment of an interest rate corridor system in 2015. Chart 3 presents our first test of the Golden Rule in China (in yield space rather than in return space), by plotting the annual change in the level of Chinese government bond yields alongside the 7-day repo rate “surprise” over the past year from 2010 to the present. Here, we use the first principal component of zero coupon Chinese government bond yields to represent the average level of yields (rather than selecting a particular maturity), and we use the 12-month RMB swap rate (versus 7-day repo) to represent market expectations for the policy rate. The chart highlights that the fit is good, as measured by a 50% R-squared between the two series. However, deviations in the relationship do exist, with the most notable exception having occurred in 2017: Chinese government bond yields rose considerably more than what the annual surprise in the 7-day repo rate would have suggested. Chart 3In China, The Golden Rule Works Decently Well Using 7-Day Repo... In China, The Golden Rule Works Decently Well Using 7-Day Repo... In China, The Golden Rule Works Decently Well Using 7-Day Repo... Chart 4...And Extremely Well Using 3-Month SHIBOR ...And Extremely Well Using 3-Month SHIBOR ...And Extremely Well Using 3-Month SHIBOR Chart 4 helps resolve a good portion of the 2017 discrepancy, and clarifies the link between Chinese monetary policy and government bond yields. Chart 4 is similar to Chart 3, except that it replaces the 7-day repo rate surprise with that of 3-month SHIBOR (which trades very closely to the 3-month repo rate). The chart illustrates an even closer fit between the two series (with an R-squared close to 80%), and shows that the 3-month SHIBOR surprise does a meaningfully better job at explaining the 2017 rise in Chinese government bond yields. The Golden Rule of bond investing works surprisingly well in China. The fact that the annual surprise in 3-month SHIBOR has done a better job at predicting changes in bond yields over the past decade underscores that the 3-month repo rate is the de facto short-term policy rate in China, a point that we have made in several previous reports. We have noted that the spike in the 3-month/7-day repo rate spread that occurred in late-2016 and lasted until mid-2018 happened because of China’s crackdown on shadow banking activity. This crackdown caused a funding squeeze for China’s small & medium banks, which caused a material rise in lending rates and government bond yields. This episode highlights that future changes in the 3-month repo rate are likely to reflect both underlying changes in net liquidity provided to large commercial banks (measured by the 7-day repo rate), and any dislocations in the interbank market that have the potential to push up lending rates and government bond yields. Bottom Line: BCA’s “Golden Rule” framework, which links developed economy government bond returns to central bank policy rate “surprises” versus market expectations, works for China as well – using the correct measure of the PBOC policy rate. This provides a useful investment framework for Chinese government bonds, which are now significant part of major global bond market benchmarks. The Cyclical Outlook For Chinese Government Bond Yields Given the establishment of the relationship between Chinese short-term interbank rates and government bond yields detailed above, we are now able to more precisely discuss the likely cyclical trajectory of Chinese government bond yields as a function of Chinese monetary policy. Two opposing forces have the potential to affect China’s government bond market this year. The first, a stabilization and modest rebound in Chinese economic activity, may exert upward pressure on yields due to expectations of eventual policy tightening. The second, continued attempts by the PBoC to ease corporate lending rates, may exert downward pressure on yields as it will reflect not just easy but easier monetary conditions. Yields at the long-end are likely to move modestly higher this year, at most. For investors, the raises the obvious question of whether Chinese government bond yields are likely to move up, down, or trend sideways this year. In our view, yields at the short-end are likely to be flat until later this year at the earliest, whereas yields at the long-end are likely to move modestly higher, at most. Yields at the short-end of China’s government bond curve are likely to stay flat for most of this year. There are two reasons why yields at the short-end of China’s government bond curve are likely to stay flat for most of this year. The first is that the PBoC is generally a reactive central bank and has historically lagged a pickup in economic activity, as illustrated in Chart 5. The chart shows the historical path of 3-month SHIBOR in the year following a bottom in economic activity in 2009, 2012, and 2015, and makes it clear that there has been no precedent for a significant rise in interbank rates in the first nine months of an economic recovery. The 2012 episode did see a very sharp rise in 3-month SHIBOR once the PBoC shifted into tightening mode, but we doubt that this experience will be repeated again unless economic growth accelerates much more aggressively than we expect. The second reason why we expect yields at the short-end of the curve to remain muted this year is because any additional easing by the PBoC is likely to be focused on reducing corporate lending rates, not interbank rates. Chart 6 highlights that while there is a strong correlation between changes in Chinese government bond yields and average lending rates in the economy, the former leads the latter. In the past, this relationship has existed because changes in interbank rates have coincided with reductions in the now obsolete benchmark lending rate, with the former usually occurring earlier than the latter. But in a scenario where the PBoC reduces the loan prime rate (LPR) and keeps net banking sector liquidity roughly constant, the extremely tight relationship shown in Chart 4 suggests that short-term bond yields are unlikely to be affected by a reduction in lending rates. Any meaningful decline in short-term yields below short-term interbank rates would simply prompt banks to stop buying these bonds. Chart 5The PBoC Is Generally A Reactive Central Bank The PBoC Is Generally A Reactive Central Bank The PBoC Is Generally A Reactive Central Bank Chart 6Average Lending Rates Lag Short-Term Bond Yields Average Lending Rates Lag Short-Term Bond Yields Average Lending Rates Lag Short-Term Bond Yields Chart 7China's Yield Curve Is Generally Pro-Cyclical China's Yield Curve Is Generally Pro-Cyclical China's Yield Curve Is Generally Pro-Cyclical Additional easing by the PBoC does have the potential to impact the long-end of the government bond curve if investors view these actions as a sign that interbank rates will remain low for some time. This view is reinforced by the fact that China’s yield curve is not particularly flat, and thus has room to move lower. However, Chart 7 also shows that China’s yield curve, defined here as the second principal component of zero coupon Chinese government bond yields, is positively correlated with the relative performance of investable Chinese equities. This suggests that there is a procyclical element to the curve. We suspect that this procyclical element will dominate a potential decline in expectations for future short-term interest rates, but that yields at the long-end are likely to move modestly higher this year, at most. Bottom Line: Any additional easing by the PBoC this year is likely to be focused on reducing lending rates to the real economy, not interbank rates (which drive government bond yields). As such, yields at the short-end are likely to be flat until later this year at the earliest, whereas yields at the long-end are likely to move modestly higher, at most. The Secular Outlook For Chinese Government Bond Yields A common approach to forecasting the likely structural trend for nominal government bond yields is to estimate the trajectory of real long-term potential output growth and to add the monetary authority’s inflation target. This framework is based on the idea that interest rates are in equilibrium when the cost of borrowing is roughly equal to nominal income growth, a condition that results in no change in the burden to service existing debt. Chart 8China's Potential Growth Is Likely To Trend Lower... China's Potential Growth Is Likely To Trend Lower... China's Potential Growth Is Likely To Trend Lower... Based on this framework, we would expect Chinese government bond yields to trend down over time, or possibly flat if the PBoC were to tolerate higher inflation over the coming decade. Chart 8 illustrates the IMF’s forecast of falling real potential growth in China over the coming several years, which is consistent with a shift in the composition of growth from investment to consumption as well as China’s looming demographic crisis. But Chart 9highlights an obvious problem with applying this framework to forecast the secular trend in Chinese government bond yields: over the past decade, yields have persistently averaged below actual nominal GDP growth, both in China and in the developed world. In the latter case, it is an open question whether this will continue to be true in the future, but in China’s case it is clear that government bond yields have little connection (in magnitude) to the pace of GDP growth. This reflects the longstanding strategy of Chinese policymakers to promote investment via persistently low interest rates, as has occurred in other manufacturing and export-oriented Asian economies (Chart 10). Chart 9...But Bond Yields Are Well Below GDP Growth, Just Like In Developed Markets ...But Bond Yields Are Well Below GDP Growth, Just Like In Developed Markets ...But Bond Yields Are Well Below GDP Growth, Just Like In Developed Markets Chart 10In Industrial Asian Economies, Low Bond Yields Are A Policy Choice In Industrial Asian Economies, Low Bond Yields Are A Policy Choice In Industrial Asian Economies, Low Bond Yields Are A Policy Choice   The persistent historical gap between economic growth and bond yields in China makes it difficult to forecast the structural outlook for yields using conventional methods, and largely limits us to inference. To the extent that Chinese policymakers succeed at shifting the drivers of growth from investment to consumption, bond yields are more likely to rise than fall over time. This is because as long as interest rates remain well below the pace of income growth, the incentive to excessively borrow (and invest) is likely to persist. Chart 11China Needs Higher Interest Rates, But Only To A Point China Needs Higher Interest Rates, But Only To A Point China Needs Higher Interest Rates, But Only To A Point However, even in a scenario where Chinese government bond yields structurally trend higher, we expect the rise to be modest. Chart 11 highlights that China’s “private sector” debt service ratio is extremely elevated, underscoring that the country’s ability to tolerate significantly higher bond yields is not strong. In addition, since 2015, China’s debt service ratio has been mostly flat despite rising a rising debt-to-GDP ratio, which has been achieved through lower short-term interest rates. To the extent that policymakers fail to make meaningful progress in shifting China’s growth drivers away from investment over the coming few years, lower (potentially sharply lower) bond yields would appear to be all but inevitable to cope with what would become a permanently growing drag on economic activity from the servicing of debt. For now, we would characterize this scenario as a risk to our base case view, but it is a risk that we will be closely monitoring over the coming years. Bottom Line: The persistent gap between Chinese nominal GDP growth and government bond yields is likely contributing to the problem of excessive leveraging. To the extent that Chinese policymakers succeed at shifting the drivers of growth from investment to consumption, bond yields are more likely to structurally rise than fall. Investment Conclusions Our analysis above points to four recommendations for investors over the coming year: Overweight Chinese stocks versus Chinese government bonds in RMB and USD terms Overweight Chinese onshore corporate bonds versus duration-matched Chinese government bonds in RMB terms Overweight 7-10 year USD-hedged Chinese government bonds versus their US and developed market (DM) counterparts For offshore US dollar-based investors, long 7-10 year Chinese government bonds in unhedged terms Regarding the first two recommendations, our view that yields are likely to be flat at the short-end and modestly higher at the long-end suggests that investors can expect total returns on the order of 2-3% from Chinese government bonds this year. Barring a major and lasting economic slowdown from the 2019-nCoV outbreak, we expect Chinese domestic and investable equities to outperform government securities over the coming 6-12 months. Onshore corporate bonds have a similar outlook: onshore spreads are pricing in (massively) higher default losses than we believe is warranted, meaning that they will outperform duration-matched government equivalents without any changes in yield. Chart 12Within Global Fixed-Income, Hedged Chinese 10-Year Yields Are Relatively Attractive Within Global Fixed-Income, Hedged Chinese 10-Year Yields Are Relatively Attractive Within Global Fixed-Income, Hedged Chinese 10-Year Yields Are Relatively Attractive Chart 13Unhedged Yield Spreads Predict Hedged Relative Performance Versus The US Unhedged Yield Spreads Predict Hedged Relative Performance Versus The US Unhedged Yield Spreads Predict Hedged Relative Performance Versus The US For global fixed-income investors, Charts 12-14 present USD-hedged 10-year Chinese government yields versus the US and DM/DM ex-US, along with the historical relative return profile of USD-hedged Chinese bonds versus hedged and unhedged returns. In hedged space, Chinese 10-year government bond yields are modestly attractive: 2.2% versus 1.6% in the US and 1.8% in DM ex-US. China’s historically low yield beta to the overall level of global 10-year bond yields (Chart 15) suggests that Chinese yields should perform well in 2020 – a year where we expect global bond yields to drift higher as economic growth rebounds. Combined with relatively attractive valuation, this bodes well for the relative performance of Chinese debt versus DM equivalents. A low yield beta against a backdrop of drifting higher global yields implies that longer-maturity Chinese government bonds will outperform their DM equivalents. Chart 14Unhedged Yield Spreads Predict Hedged Relative Performance Versus DM Unhedged Yield Spreads Predict Hedged Relative Performance Versus DM Unhedged Yield Spreads Predict Hedged Relative Performance Versus DM Chart 15China's Yield Beta Has Been Rising, But Is Still Japan-Like China's Yield Beta Has Been Rising, But Is Still Japan-Like China's Yield Beta Has Been Rising, But Is Still Japan-Like   We would also recommend longer-maturity Chinese government bonds in unhedged terms versus a USD-hedged global government bond portfolio. Chart 16 highlights that the relative return of this trade is strongly (negatively) linked to USD-CNY, and we expect further (albeit more modest) gains in RMB over the cyclical horizon. Chart 16Modest Further RMB Upside Means Unhedged Chinese Bonds Will Outperform Modest Further RMB Upside Means Unhedged Chinese Bonds Will Outperform Modest Further RMB Upside Means Unhedged Chinese Bonds Will Outperform As a final point, investors should note that today’s report is part of a heightened focus on China’s fixed income market, in terms of both forecasting fixed income returns and analyzing the cyclical and structural implications of the increasing investability of China’s financial markets. More research on this topic is likely to come in 2020 and beyond: Stay Tuned!   Jonathan LaBerge, CFA, Vice President Special Reports jonathanl@bcaresearch.com         Footnotes 1    Please see US Bond Strategy Special Report "The Golden Rule Of Bond Investing," dated July 24, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2   Please see Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report "The Global Golden Rule Of Bond Investing," dated September 25, 2018, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com 3   Please see China Investment Strategy Special Report "Seven Questions About Chinese Monetary Policy," dated February 22, 2018, available at cis.bcaresearch.com Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations