Gov Sovereigns/Treasurys

Highlights Declining uncertainty over policy, stabilizing growth in China and improvements in international liquidity, all will allow global economic activity to pick up in the months ahead. A weak dollar will reinforce this positive economic outlook; investors should favor pro-cyclical currencies such as the AUD, NZD and SEK. Bond yields will rise and stocks will outperform bonds on a 12- to 18-month basis. Cyclical stocks are more attractive than defensives. European stocks will outperform U.S. equities and European financials will shine. Copper is a promising buy; stay long the silver-to-gold ratio. Feature The outlook for risk assets and bond yields hinges on global economic activity. The S&P 500 has hit a new high, but our BCA Equity Scorecard Indicator remains non-committal towards stocks (Chart I-1). If global economic activity improves, the Scorecard will begin to flash a clear buy signal, but if growth deteriorates, the indicator will point towards sell. Chart I-1Stocks Could Go Either Way Cautious optimism is in order. Politics, China, liquidity conditions and the dollar collectively will determine the global economic outlook. The liquidity backdrop has significantly improved, political uncertainty should recede and China will morph from a headwind to a modest tailwind. A weak dollar will indicate that the world is healing, and also will ease global financial conditions which will facilitate economic strength. We remain committed to a positive stance on equities on a 12- to 18-month horizon, and recommend below-benchmark duration in fixed-income portfolios. Cyclicals should outperform defensives, European banks offer an attractive tactical buying opportunity and European equities will outperform their U.S. counterparts. Heightened Risks… Chart I-2Risks To The Economy And Stocks Many domestic indicators overstate the intrinsic fragility in the U.S. The Duncan LEI, which is the ratio of consumer durable spending and residential and business investment to final sales, has flattened. Therefore, the S&P 500 looks vulnerable and real GDP may contract (Chart I-2). CEO confidence and small business capex intentions warn of a looming retrenchment in household income (Chart I-2, bottom two panels). If consumer spending weakens, then a recession will be unavoidable. As worrisome as these indicators may be, we previously discussed that the major debt imbalances that often precede U.S. recessions are absent,1 the rebound in housing starts and homebuilding confidence is inconsistent with a restrictive monetary stance,2 and pipeline inflationary pressures are absent.3 Instead, business confidence and the Duncan LEI have been eroded by heightened political uncertainty and weak global manufacturing and trade. … Meet Receding Policy Uncertainty … The two biggest sources of policy uncertainty affecting markets, the Sino-U.S. trade war and Brexit, are diminishing. However, the U.S. election will continue to lurk in the background. Chart I-3Weaker Brexit Support = No Hard Brexit Support Brexit Westminster and Britain’s Supreme Court have rebuked U.K. Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s threat of a “No-Deal” Brexit. Moreover, parliamentary support for his latest plan, which essentially keeps Northern Ireland’s economy within the EU, indicates that the probability of a “No-Deal” Brexit has collapsed to less than 5%. This assessment is reinforced by the delay of Brexit to January 31, 2020. An election is scheduled for December 12 and the chance of a new referendum to vet the deal is escalating. According to Matt Gertken, BCA’s Geopolitical Strategist, an election does not increase the risk of a hard Brexit. Meanwhile, support for Brexit is near its lowest point since the June 2016 referendum (Chart I-3). Thus, a new plebiscite would not favor a “No Deal” Brexit. Sino-U.S. Trade War Chart I-4Why The Trade-War Ceasefire? The trade war truce will also greatly diminish economic uncertainty. Uncertainty created by the China-U.S. conflict accentuated the collapse in business confidence and capex intentions. The “phase one deal” announced earlier this month will likely materialize. The White House’s tactical retreat on trade is tied to U.S. President Donald Trump’s desire for a second term. He cannot risk inflicting further economic pain on his base of constituents.  Weekly earnings are decreasing for workers in swing states located in the industrial rust belt, especially in those areas that Trump carried in 2016 (Chart I-4). Those swing states are most affected by the slowdown in the global manufacturing and trade sectors. Beijing is also motivated to agree to truce due to its soft economy and deflationary pressures. An easing in trade uncertainty will be positive for the domestic economy. China’s willingness to replace Carrie Lam, the embattled Chief Executive of Hong Kong, and to withdraw the extradition bill at the heart of the protests confirms its eagerness to come to an agreement with the U.S. China’s readiness to make a deal is also made evident by its increasing imports of U.S. agricultural products (Chart I-4, bottom panel). Ultimately, the U.S. will not implement tariffs in December on $160 billion of Chinese shipments. Consequently, investors and businesses should become less concerned about the chances of a worsening trade war. Moreover, chances are growing of a decrease (but not a complete annulation) of the previously imposed U.S. tariffs on China. … And A Q1 2020 Acceleration In Global Growth Global economic activity will improve in Q1 2020 because the drag from China will dissipate and global liquidity conditions will improve. Many activity indicators increasingly reflect these fundamental supports. China China’s economy has reached a new low point: Q3 annual GDP growth is at a 27-year low of 6%, capital spending is weak, industrial production and profits show little life, the labor market is soft, and imports and exports continue to contract. However, a turn in policy has materialized, which will protect the domestic economy. Moreover, this summer’s Politburo and State Council statements showed an increased willingness to reflate the economy. The global economy will accelerate in Q1 2020. Credit creation has stabilized and monetary conditions have eased (Chart I-5). Faced with producer price inflation of -1.2% and employment PMIs of 47.3 and 48.2 in the manufacturing and non-manufacturing sectors, respectively, authorities have allowed the credit impulse to improve to 26% of GDP from a low of 23.8%. In accordance with this new policy direction, the drag from the shadow banking system’s contraction will slow considerably, thanks to a stabilization in both the growth rate of deposits of non-depository financial institutions and the issuance of bonds by small financial institutions. Additionally, the emission of local government bonds will accelerate. Beijing has also meaningfully eased fiscal policy, which is its preferred reflationary tool. Policymakers have cut taxes by 2.8% of GDP in the past two years. The marginal propensity of households to consume is trying to bottom (Chart I-5, bottom). If history is a guide, the acceleration in the rate of change of public-sector capex will fuel this turnaround in China’s marginal propensity to consume, and push up BCA’s China Activity Indicator (Chart I-6). Chart I-5Overlooked Chinese Improvements Chart I-6Public Investment Matters   Chart I-7A Bottom In Chinese Exports Growth? China’s economy is unlikely to bounce back as violently as in 2009, 2012 or 2016. Authorities are much more circumspect in their use of credit to reflate the economy than they were previously. Moreover, the regulatory environment will prevent a boom in the shadow banking system. Nonetheless, the fiscal push and the end of the decline in aggregate credit growth will allow the Chinese economy to stabilize and maybe pick up a bit. Therefore, China will move from a large headwind to a slight tailwind for global activity (Chart I-7, top panel). Mounting public capex also points toward a modest global recovery (Chart I-7, middle panel). Finally, the upturn in our Chinese reflation indicator, which incorporates both fiscal and monetary policy, points to a re-acceleration in U.S. capex intentions (Chart I-7, bottom panel). Global Liquidity Global liquidity conditions continue to improve and the global economy should soon respond within normal policy lags. 95% of central banks are loosening policy, which normally leads to an escalation in global activity (Chart I-8). The dominant central banks (the Federal Reserve, the European Central Bank and the Bank of Japan) will not tighten anytime soon. Inflation expectations in the U.S., the euro area and Japan stand at 1.9%, 1.1%, and 0.2%, respectively, well below levels consistent with a 2% inflation target. Moreover, U.S. core CPI has been perky, but both the ISM and the performance of transportation equities relative to utilities indicate that a deceleration in inflation is imminent (Chart I-9). Salaries are not yet inflationary either because U.S. real wages are growing in line with productivity (Chart I-9, bottom panel). In the euro area and Japan, realized core inflation remains at 1.0% and 0.5%, respectively, and supports the dovish message emanating from inflation expectations. Chart I-8Easier Global Policy Is Important Chart I-9If Inflation Peaks, The U.S. Economy Will Breath A Sigh Of Relief     Liquidity indicators are reflecting this accommodative policy setting. The growth of U.S. and European bank deposits has reaccelerated from 2.5% to 6%, a development linked to the exit of a soft patch (Chart I-10). Moreover, BCA’s U.S. Financial Liquidity Indicator is still moving higher and flashing a resurgence in the BCA Global Leading Economic Indicator (LEI), the ISM Manufacturing Index, commodity prices, and EM export prices (Chart I-11). Finally, U.S. and global excess money reinforce the message of BCA’s U.S. Financial liquidity Indicator (Chart I-12). Chart I-10Deposits Suggest The Worst Of The Slowdown Is Behind Us Chart I-11Continued Pick-Up In Financial Liquidity       The Fed will add to the supply of global liquidity by tackling the repo market’s seize-up. Depleting excess reserves and mounting financing needs among primary dealers resulted in the September surge in the Secured Overnight Financing Rate (SOFR). The Fed announced three weeks ago it would buy $60 billion per month of T-Bills and T-Notes, which will lead to a climbing stock of excess reserves. Higher excess reserves create a weaker dollar, stronger EM currencies and firming global PMIs (Chart I-13). Ultimately, EM currency strength eases EM financial conditions, which supports global growth (Chart I-13, bottom panel). Chart I-12Excess Liquidity Is Accelerating Chart I-13U.S. Excess Reserves Will Grow Again   Borrowing activity in Advanced Economies is showing signs of life. Bank credit is already responding to the drop in global yields, and global corporate bond issuance in September 2019 rose to $434 billion. In the U.S., new issues of corporate bonds have also reaccelerated (Chart I-14). Global Growth Indicators Crucial indicators of global economic activity are picking up on this improving fundamental backdrop. The list includes: A sharp takeoff in the annualized three-month rate of change of capital goods orders in the U.S., the Eurozone and Japan (Chart I-15, top panel). Improvement in this indicator precedes progress in the annual growth rate of orders and in capex itself. Chart I-14Borrowers Are Responding To Easier Financial Conditions Chart I-15Some Green Shoots Are Coming Through Chart I-16Positive Market Signals A significant upturn in the Philly Fed, Empire State, and Richmond Fed manufacturing surveys for October, which sends a positive signal for the ISM Manufacturing Index (Chart I-15, second panel). Moreover, the new orders and employment components of these surveys indicate that cyclical sectors of the economy will recover and the recent deterioration in employment conditions will be fleeting. A rebound in BCA’s EM economic diffusion index, which incorporates 23 variables. Such an increase usually precedes inflections in global industrial production (Chart I-15, bottom panel). An acceleration – both in absolute and relative terms - in the annual appreciation of Taiwanese stocks. A strong and outperforming Taiwanese equity market is a harbinger of firmer PMIs (Chart I-16, top two panels). A solid performance of EM carry trades financed in yen, European luxury equities, and the relative performance of global semiconductors, materials and industrial stocks, which signal stronger global PMIs (Chart I-16, bottom three panels). Bottom Line: The global economy will accelerate in Q1 2020. A melting probability of a “No-Deal” Brexit and a truce in the Sino-U.S. trade war will allow global uncertainty to recede. Concurrently, China’s economic slowdown is ending and global liquidity conditions are improving. The Dollar As The Arbiter Of Growth Chart I-17The Dollar Is A Counter-Cyclical Currency The dollar faces potent headwinds. The greenback is a countercyclical currency; a business cycle upswing and a weak USD go hand in hand (Chart I-17). The tightness of this relationship results from a powerful feedback loop: weak growth boosts the dollar, but the dollar’s strength foments additional economic slowdown. Global liquidity and activity indicators signal a weaker dollar because they point toward an economic recovery. BCA’s U.S. Financial Liquidity Index, which foresaw a deceleration in the greenback’s rate of appreciation, is calling for an outright depreciation (Chart I-18, top panel). The expanding holdings of securities on U.S. commercial banks’ balance sheets (a key measure of liquidity) corroborates this message. According to a model based on the U.S., Eurozone, Japanese and Chinese broad money supply, the USD should significantly depreciate in the coming 12 months (Chart I-18, third panel). Finally, our EM Economic Diffusion Index validates pressures on the greenback, especially against commodity currencies (Chart I-18, bottom two panels). Chart I-18Liquidity And Growth Indicators Point To A Weaker Dollar Growth differentials support this picture. Late last year, the stimulating effect of President Trump’s tax cuts allowed the U.S. to temporarily diverge from a weak global economy, but the U.S. manufacturing sector is now succumbing to the global slowdown. Once global growth snaps back, the U.S. is likely to lag behind as fiscal policy is becoming more stimulative outside the U.S. than in the U.S. Based on historical delays, this will continue to hurt the dollar (Chart I-19, top panel). Finally, the European economy generally outperforms the U.S. when China reflates, especially if Beijing’s push lifts the growth rate of M1 relative to M2, a proxy for China’s aggregate marginal propensity to consume (Chart I-20). Europe’s greater cyclicality reflects is larger exposure to both trade and manufacturing compared with the U.S. Chart I-19A Global Growth Convergence Will Hurt The Dollar Chart I-20European Growth To Rise Vis-A-Vis The U.S.   The greenback is expensive and technically vulnerable, which compounds its cyclical risk. The trade-weighted dollar is at a 25% premium to its purchasing power parity equilibrium (PPP), an overvaluation comparable to its 1985 and 2002 peaks. Moreover, our Composite Technical Indicator is overextended and has formed a negative divergence with the price of the dollar (see page 54, Section III). Finally, speculators are massively long the U.S. Dollar Index (DXY). Balance-of-payment flows also flash a significant downside in the dollar (Chart I-21). The U.S. current account deficit stands at 2.5% of GDP, but it is widening in response to the dollar’s overvaluation and the White House’s expansive fiscal policy. Since 2011, foreign direct investments (FDI) have been the main driver of the dollar’s gyrations. Last year, net FDI surged in response to profit repatriations encouraged by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, while portfolio flows stayed in neutral territory. This regulatory change had a one-off impact and FDI will begin to dry out. Therefore, financing the widening current account deficit will become harder. Finally, after years in the red, net portfolio flows into Europe have turned positive (Chart I-21, bottom panel). The USD’s depreciation will ease global financial conditions and supports growth further. In this context, interest rate differentials are noteworthy. The two-year spread in real rates between the U.S. and the rest of the G-10 has fallen significantly since October 2018. Reversals in real rates herald a weaker dollar, especially when it faces valuation, technical and flow handicaps. Moreover, European five-year forward short rate expectations are near record lows. If global growth can stabilize, then the five-year forward one-month OIS will pick up, especially relative to the U.S. An uptick will boost the EUR/USD pair and hurt the dollar (Chart I-22). Chart I-21Balance-Of-Payments Dynamics Turning Against The USD Chart I-22Relative Long-Term Rate Expectations And The Euro   The three most pro-cyclical currencies in the G-10 – the AUD, NZD and SEK - strengthen the most when BCA’s Global LEI bottoms but global inflation slows (Chart I-23). The GBP will likely generate a much stronger-than-normal performance next year. Cable trades at a 22% discount to PPP. It is also 19% cheap versus short-term interest rate parity models. The absence of a “No-Deal” Brexit should allow these risk premia to dissipate and the pound to recover. The CAD is also more attractive than Chart I-23 implies. The loonie is trading 10% below its PPP, and the USD/CAD often lags the EUR/CAD, a pair that has broken down (Chart I-24). Chart I-23Currency Performance As A Function Of Growth And Inflation Chart I-24EUR/CAD Flashing A Bearish USD/CAD Signal Bottom Line: A rebound in the global manufacturing sector next year will hurt the USD. The dollar is particularly vulnerable because growth differentials between the U.S. and the rest of the world have melted, the greenback is expensive, balance-of-payment dynamics are deteriorating and interest rate differentials are becoming less supportive. The USD’s depreciation will ease global financial conditions and supports growth further. Additional Investment Implications Bond Yields Have More Upside While the short-term outlook for bonds remains murky, the 12- to 18-month outlook is unambiguously bearish. The BCA Bond Valuation Index is still consistent with much higher U.S. yields in the next 12-18 months (see Section III, page 51). BCA’s Composite Technical Indicator for T-Notes is massively overbought and sentiment, as approximated by the Long-Term Interest Rates component of the ZEW survey, is overly bullish (Chart I-25). Thus, bonds represent an attractive cyclical sell. The Fed will not cut rates aggressively enough for bonds to ignore these valuation and technical risks. Treasurys have outperformed cash by 7.5% in the past year. Based on historical relationships, the Fed needs to cut rates to zero for bonds to beat cash in the coming 12 months (Chart I-26). After this week’s Fed cut to 1.75%, our base case is none to maybe one more rate cut. Chart I-25Sentiment Points To Yield Upside Chart I-26The Fed Must Cut To Zero For T-Notes To Outperform Cash Further   Bond yields will need a recession to move lower. The deviation of 10-year Treasury yields from their two-year moving average closely tracks the Swedish Economic Diffusion Index (Chart I-27, top panel). Sweden, a small, open economy highly levered to the global industrial cycle, is a good gauge of the global business cycle. The broad weakness in the Swedish economy is unlikely to worsen unless the global slowdown morphs into a deep recession. Even if global growth remains mediocre, Sweden’s Economic Diffusion Index will rise along with yields. The expansion in securities holdings of U.S. commercial banks and the stabilization in China’s credit flows both support this notion (Chart I-27, bottom panel). Financial market developments also point to higher yields. Sectors that typically capture the momentum in the global economy are perking up. For example, bottoms in the annual performance of European luxury equities or Taiwanese stocks have preceded increases in yields (Chart I-28). Chart I-27Yields Have Upside Chart I-28Key Financial Market Signals For Yields   Stocks Will Outperform Bonds Our conviction is strengthening that equities will outperform bonds. The total return of the stock-to-bond ratio has upside. BCA’s Global Economic and Financial Diffusion Index has rallied sharply, which often precedes an ascent in the stock-to-bond ratio, both in the U.S. and globally (Chart I-29). Bonds are much more expensive than stocks, therefore, only a recession will allow stocks to underperform in the coming 12 to 18 months. The environment is positive for equities. BCA’s Monetary Indicator is very elevated and our Composite Sentiment Indicator shows little complacency toward stocks among investors (see Section III, page 47). Finally, the strength in the U.S. Financial Liquidity Indicator supports the S&P 500’s returns (Chart I-30). Chart I-29Cyclical Indicators Argue In Favor Of Stocks Over Bonds Chart I-30Liquidity Tailwind For The S&P 500   A few market developments are noteworthy. 55.6% of the S&P 500’s constituents have reported Q3 earnings, and 74% of those firms are beating estimates. Moreover, the market is generously rewarding firms with the largest positive earnings surprises. Additionally, the Value Line Geometric Index is forming a reverse head-and-shoulder pattern, while the relative performance of the Russell 2000 has formed a double bottom (Chart I-31). The environment also favors cyclicals relative to defensive equities. By lifting bond yields, stronger economic activity leads to a contraction in the multiples of defensives relative to cyclicals. The latter’s earnings expectations respond more positively to reviving economic activity, which creates an offset to climbing discount rates. As a result, cyclicals often outperform defensives when the stock-to-bond ratio increases, or after Taiwanese equities gain momentum (Chart I-32). Chart I-31Improving Equity Market Dynamics Chart I-32Favor Cyclicals Over Defensives   Compared to other equity markets, the U.S. faces the most challenges. Our model forecasts a 3% annual drop in the S&P 500’s operating earnings in June 2020, and the deviation of U.S. equities from their 200-day moving average has greatly diverged from net earnings revisions (Chart I-33). U.S. equities have already discounted a turnaround in earnings. Moreover, the S&P 500’s margins have downside, a topic covered by BCA’s Chief Equity Strategist Anastasios Avgeriou.4 Our Composite Margin Proxy, Operating Margins Diffusion Index and Corporate Pricing Power Indicator all remain weak (Chart I-34). Downward pressure on margins will limit how rapidly earnings respond when a rebound in global economic activity lifts revenues. Finally, the S&P 500 trades at a historically elevated forward P/E ratio of 18.4, the MSCI EAFE trade at a much more reasonable 14-times forward earnings. Chart I-33Headwinds For U.S. Stocks Chart I-34Headwinds For U.S. Margins   The tech sector will also weigh on the performance of U.S. equities relative to international stocks. Tech stocks represent 22.5% of the U.S. benchmark, compared with 9.7% for the euro area. Anastasios recently argued that software spending has remained surprisingly resilient despite the global economic slowdown; it will likely lag spending on machinery and structures when the cycle picks up.5 Consequently, tech earnings will lag other traditional cyclical sectors. Moreover, tech multiples will suffer when the dollar depreciates and bond yields rise (Chart I-35). As high-growth stocks, tech equities derive a large proportion of their intrinsic value from long-term deferred cash flows and their terminal value. Thus, tech multiples are highly sensitive to discount factors. Unaffected by those negatives, European equities will benefit most from the outperformance of stocks relative to bonds. A weak dollar will be the first positive for the common-currency returns of European equities. Valuations are the second tailwind. The risk premium for European equities is 300 basis points higher than for U.S. stocks. Moreover, U.S. margins will likely diminish relative to the Eurozone’s because of stronger unit labor costs in the U.S. Sector composition will also dictate the performance of European equities. Compared with the U.S., Europe is underweight tech and healthcare stocks, a defensive sector (Table I-1). Investors who favor Europe will also bet against these two sectors. Europe is a wager on the other cyclical sectors: materials, industrials, energy and financials. Chart I-35Tech P/Es Are At Risk Table I-1Europe Overweights The Correct Cyclicals   European financials are particularly attractive. Negative European yields are a major handicap for European financials, but this handicap is already reflected in their price. European banks trade at a price-to-book ratio of 0.6 versus 1.3 for the U.S. This discount should be narrowing, not widening. Yields are bottoming and European loan growth is contracting at a -2% annual rate relative to the U.S. versus -8.6% five years ago. Meanwhile, the annual rate of change of European deposits is in line with the U.S. The attraction of European banks comes from the outlook for their return on tangible equity. A model shows that three variables govern European banks’ ROE: German yields, Italian spreads and the momentum of the silver-to-gold ratio (SGR). German yields impact net interest margins, Italian spreads drive peripheral financial conditions and thus, loan generation in the European periphery, and the SGR tracks the global manufacturing cycle (silver has more industrial uses than gold, but is equally sensitive to real yields), which affects loan flows in the European core. This model logically tracks the performance of European banks and financials (Chart I-36). Our positive outlook on global growth and yields, along with the fall in Italian spreads, augurs well for cheap European financial equities and banks in particular. Commodities Our constructive stance on the global business cycle and yields, plus our negative view on the greenback, is consistent with higher industrial commodity prices. Copper looks particularly attractive. Speculators are aggressively selling the metal, whose price stands at an important technical juncture (Chart I-37). Chart I-36The Drivers Of RoE Point To Higher European Bank Stock Prices Chart I-37Cooper Is An Attractive Play On Global Growth   Chart I-38Favorable Technical Backdrop For Silver-To-Gold Ratio Finally, we have favored the SGR since late June. Silver is deeply oversold and under-owned relative to the yellow metal (Chart I-38). Consequently, silver’s greater industrial usage should be a potent tailwind for the SGR.6 Mathieu Savary Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst October 31, 2019 Next Report: November 22, 2019 - Outlook 2020   II. Back To The Nineteenth Century The Cold War is a limited analogy for the U.S.-China conflict; In a multipolar world, complete bifurcation of trade is difficult if not impossible; History suggests that trade between rivals will continue, with minimal impediments; On a secular horizon, buy defense stocks, Europe, capex, and non-aligned countries. There is a growing consensus that China and the U.S. are hurtling towards a Cold War. BCA Research played some part in this consensus – at least as far as the investment community is concerned – by publishing “Power and Politics in East Asia: Cold War 2.0?” in September 2012.7 For much of this decade, Geopolitical Strategy focused on the thesis that geopolitical risk was rotating out of the Middle East, where it was increasingly irrelevant, to East Asia, where it would become increasingly relevant. This thesis remains cogent, but it does not mean that a “Silicon Curtain” will necessarily divide the world into two bifurcated zones of capitalism. Trade, capital flows, and human exchanges between China and the U.S. will continue and may even grow. But the risk of conflict, including a military one, will not decline. In this report, we first review the geopolitical logic that underpins Sino-American tensions. We then survey the academic literature for clues on how that relationship will develop vis-à-vis trade and economic relations. The evidence from political theory is surprising and highly investment relevant. We then look back at history for clues as to what this means for investors. The U.S.-China conflict will not lead to complete bifurcation of the global economy. Our conclusion is that it is highly likely that the U.S. and China will continue to be geopolitical rivals. However, due to the geopolitical context of multipolarity, it is unlikely that the result will be “Bifurcated Capitalism.” Rather, we expect an exciting and volatile environment for investors where geopolitics takes its historical place alongside valuation, momentum, fundamentals, and macroeconomics in the pantheon of factors that determine investment opportunities and risks. The Thucydides Trap Is Real … Speaking in the Reichstag in 1897, German Foreign Secretary Bernhard von Bülow proclaimed that it was time for Germany to demand “its own place in the sun.”8 The occasion was a debate on Germany’s policy towards East Asia. Bülow soon ascended to the Chancellorship under Kaiser Wilhelm II and oversaw the evolution of German foreign policy from Realpolitik to Weltpolitik. While Realpolitik was characterized by Germany’s cautious balancing of global powers under Chancellor Otto von Bismarck, Weltpolitik saw Bülow and Wilhelm II seek to redraw the status quo through aggressive foreign and trade policy. Imperial Germany joined a long list of antagonists, from Athens to today’s People’s Republic of China, in the tragic play of human history dubbed the “Thucydides Trap.”9 Chart II-1Imperial Overstretch The underlying concept is well known to all students of world history. It takes its name from the Greek historian Thucydides and his seminal History of the Peloponnesian War. Thucydides explains why Sparta and Athens went to war but, unlike his contemporaries, he does not moralize or blame the gods. Instead, he dispassionately describes how the conflict between a revisionist Athens and established Sparta became inevitable due to a cycle of mistrust. Graham Allison, one of America’s preeminent scholars of international relations, has argued that the interplay between a status quo power and a challenger has almost always led to conflict. In 12 out of the 16 cases he surveyed, actual military conflict broke out. Of the four cases where war did not develop, three involved transitions between countries that shared a deep cultural affinity and a respect for the prevailing institutions.10 In those cases, the transition was a case of new management running largely the same organizational structure. And one of the four non-war outcomes was nothing less than the Cold War between the Soviet Union and the U.S. The fundamental problem for a status quo power is that its empire or “sphere of influence” remains the same size as when it stood at the zenith of power. However, its decline in a relative sense leads to a classic problem of “imperial overstretch.” The hegemonic or imperial power erroneously doubles down on maintaining a status quo that it can no longer afford (Chart II-1). The challenger power is not blameless. It senses weakness in the hegemon and begins to develop a regional sphere of influence. The problem is that regional hegemony is a perfect jumping off point towards global hegemony. And while the challenger’s intentions may be limited and restrained (though they often are ambitious and overweening), the status quo power must react to capabilities, not intentions. The former are material and real, whereas the latter are perceived and ephemeral. In a multipolar world, the U.S. will not be able to exclude China from the global system. The challenging power always has an internal logic justifying its ambitions. In China’s case today, there is a sense among the elite that the country is merely mean-reverting to the way things were for many centuries in China’s and Asia’s long history (Chart II-2). In other words, China is a “challenger” power only if one describes the status quo as the past three hundred years. It is the “established” power if one goes back to an earlier state of affairs. As such, the consensus in China is that it should not have to pay deference to the prevailing status quo given that the contemporary context is merely the result of western imperialist “challenges” to the established Chinese and regional order. Chart II-2China’s Mean Reverting Narrative In addition, China has a legitimate claim that it is at least as relevant to the global economy as the U.S. and therefore deserves a greater say in global governance. While the U.S. still takes a larger share of the global economy, China has contributed 23% to incremental global GDP over the past two decades, compared to 13% for the U.S. (Chart II-3). Chart II-3The Beijing Consensus Bottom Line: The emerging tensions between China and the U.S. fit neatly into the theoretical and empirical outlines of the Thucydides Trap. We do not see any way for the two countries to avoid struggle and conflict on a secular or forecastable horizon. What does this mean for investors? For one, the secular tailwinds behind defense stocks will persist. But what beyond that? Is the global economy destined to witness complete bifurcation into two armed camps separated by a Silicon Curtain? Will the Alibaba and Amazon Pacts suspiciously glare at each other the way that NATO and Warsaw Pacts did amidst the Cold War? The answer, tentatively, is no. … But It Will Not Lead To Economic Bifurcation President Trump’s aggressive trade policy also fits neatly into political theory, to a point. Realism in political science focuses on relative gains over absolute gains in all relationships, including trade. This is because trade leads to economic prosperity, prosperity to the accumulation of economic surplus, and economic surplus to military spending, research, and development. Two states that care only about relative gains due to rivalry produce a zero-sum game with no room for cooperation. It is a “Prisoner’s Dilemma” that can lead to sub-optimal economic outcomes in which both actors chose not to cooperate. Diagram II-1 illustrates the effects of relative gain calculations on the trade behavior of states. In the absence of geopolitics, demand (Q3) is satisfied via trade (Q3-Q0) due to the inability of domestic production (Q0) to meet it. Diagram II-1Trade War In A Bipolar World However, geopolitical externality – a rivalry with another state – raises the marginal social cost of imports – i.e. trade allows the rival to gain more out of trade and “catch up” in terms of geopolitical capabilities. The trading state therefore eliminates such externalities with a tariff (t), raising domestic output to Q1, while shrinking demand to Q2, thus reducing imports to merely Q2-Q1, a fraction of where they would be in a world where geopolitics do not matter. The dynamic of relative gains can also have a powerful pull on the hegemon as it begins to weaken and rethink its originally magnanimous trade relations. As political scientist Duncan Snidal argued in a 1991 paper, When the global system is first set up, the hegemon makes deals with smaller states. The hegemon is concerned more with absolute gains, smaller states are more concerned with relative, so they are tougher negotiators. Cooperative arrangements favoring smaller states contribute to relative hegemonic decline. As the unequal distribution of benefits in favor of smaller states helps them catch up to the hegemonic actor, it also lowers the relative gains weight they place on the hegemonic actor. At the same time, declining relative preponderance increases the hegemonic state’s concern for relative gains with other states, especially any rising challengers. The net result is increasing pressure from the largest actor to change the prevailing system to gain a greater share of cooperative benefits.11 History teaches us that trade occurs even amongst rivals and during wartime. The reason small states are initially more concerned with relative gains is because they are far more concerned with national security than the hegemon. The hegemon has a preponderance of power and is therefore more relaxed about its security needs. This explains why Presidents George Bush Sr., Bill Clinton, and George Bush Jr. all made “bad deals” with China. Writing nearly thirty years ago, Snidal cogently described the current U.S.-China trade war. Snidal thought he was describing a coming decade of anarchy. But he and fellow political scientists writing in the early 1990s underestimated American power. The “unipolar moment” of American supremacy was not over, it was just beginning! As such, the dynamic Snidal described took thirty years to come to fruition. When thinking about the transition away from U.S. hegemony, most investors anchor themselves to the Cold War as it is the only world they have known that was not unipolar. Moreover the Cold War provides a simple, bipolar distribution of power that is easy to model through game theory. If this is the world we are about to inhabit, with the U.S. and China dividing the whole planet into spheres like the U.S. and Soviet Union, then the paragraph we lifted from Snidal’s paper would be the end of it. America would abandon globalization in totality, impose a draconian Silicon Curtain around China, and coerce its allies to follow suit. But most of recent human history has been defined by a multipolar distribution of power between states, not a bipolar one. The term “cold war” is applicable to the U.S. and China in the sense that comparable military power may prevent them from fighting a full-blown “hot war.” But ultimately the U.S.-Soviet Cold War is a poor analogy for today’s world. In a multipolar world, Snidal concludes, “states that do not cooperate fall behind other relative gains maximizers that cooperate among themselves. This makes cooperation the best defense (as well as the best offense) when your rivals are cooperating in a multilateral relative gains world.” Snidal shows via formal modeling that as the number of players increases from two, relative-gains sensitivity drops sharply.12 The U.S.-China relationship does not occur in a vacuum — it is moderated by the global context. Today’s global context is one of multipolarity. Multipolarity refers to the distribution of geopolitical power, which is no longer dominated by one or two great powers (Chart II-4). Europe and Japan, for instance, have formidable economies and military capabilities. Russia remains a potent military power, even as India surpasses it in terms of overall geopolitical power. Chart II-4The World Is No Longer Bipolar A multipolar world is the least “ordered” and the most unstable of world systems (Chart II-5). This is for three reasons: Chart II-5Multipolarity Is Messy Math: Multipolarity engenders more potential “conflict dyads” that can lead to conflict. In a unipolar world, there is only one country that determines norms and rules of behavior. Conflict is possible, but only if the hegemon wishes it. In a bipolar world, conflict is possible, but it must align along the axis of the two dominant powers. In a multipolar world, alliances are constantly shifting and producing novel conflict dyads. Lack of coordination: Global coordination suffers in periods of multipolarity as there are more “veto players.” This is particularly problematic during times of stress, such as when an aggressive revisionist power uses force or when the world is faced with an economic crisis. Charles Kindleberger has argued that it was exactly such hegemonic instability that caused the Great Depression to descend into the Second World War in his seminal The World In Depression.13 Mistakes: In a unipolar and bipolar world, there are a very limited number of dice being rolled at once. As such, the odds of tragic mistakes are low and can be mitigated with complex formal relationships (such as U.S.-Soviet Mutually Assured Destruction, grounded in formal modeling of game theory). But in a multipolar world, something as random as an assassination of a dignitary can set in motion a global war. The multipolar system is far more dynamic and thus unpredictable. Diagram II-2 is modified for a multipolar world. Everything is the same, except that we highlight the trade lost to other great powers. The state considering using tariffs to lower the marginal social cost of trading with a rival must account for this “lost trade.” In the context of today’s trade war with China, this would be the sum of all European Airbuses and Brazilian soybeans sold to China in the place of American exports. For China, it would be the sum of all the machinery, electronics, and capital goods produced in the rest of Asia and shipped to the United States. Diagram II-2Trade War In A Multipolar World Could Washington ask its allies – Europe, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, etc. – not to take advantage of the lucrative trade (Q3-Q0)-(Q2-Q1) lost due to its trade tiff with China? Sure, but empirical research shows that they would likely ignore such pleas for unity. Alliances produced by a bipolar system produce a statistically significant and large impact on bilateral trade flows, a relationship that weakens in a multipolar context. This is the conclusion of a 1993 paper by Joanne Gowa and Edward D. Mansfield.14 The authors draw their conclusion from an 80-year period beginning in 1905, which captures several decades of global multipolarity. Unless the U.S. produces a wholehearted diplomatic effort to tighten up its alliances and enforce trade sanctions – something hardly foreseeable under the current administration – the self-interest of U.S. allies will drive them to continue trading with China. The U.S. will not be able to exclude China from the global system; nor will China be able to achieve Xi Jinping’s vaunted “self-sufficiency.” A risk to our view is that we have misjudged the global system, just as political scientists writing in the early 1990s did. To that effect, we accept that Charts II-1 and II-4 do not really support a view that the world is in a balanced multipolar state. The U.S. clearly remains the most powerful country in the world. The problem is that it is also clearly in a relative decline and that its sphere of influence is global – and thus very expensive – whereas its rivals have merely regional ambitions (for the time being). As such, we concede that American hegemony could be reasserted relatively quickly, but it would require a significant calamity in one of the other poles of power. For instance, a breakdown in China’s internal stability alongside the recovery of U.S. political stability. Bottom Line: The trade war between the U.S. and China is geopolitically unsustainable. The only way it could continue is if the two states existed in a bipolar world where the rest of the states closely aligned themselves behind the two superpowers. We have a high conviction view that today’s world is – for the time being – multipolar. American allies will cheat and skirt around Washington’s demands that China be isolated. This is because the U.S. no longer has the preponderance of power that it enjoyed in the last decade of the twentieth and the first decade of the twenty-first century. Insights presented thus far come from formal theory in political science. What does history teach us? Trading With The Enemy In 1896, a bestselling pamphlet in the U.K., “Made in Germany,” painted an ominous picture: “A gigantic commercial State is arising to menace our prosperity, and contend with us for the trade of the world.”15 Look around your own houses, author E.E. Williams urged his readers. “The toys, and the dolls, and the fairy books which your children maltreat in the nursery are made in Germany: nay, the material of your favorite (patriotic) newspaper had the same birthplace as like as not.” Williams later wrote that tariffs were the answer and that they “would bring Germany to her knees, pleading for our clemency.”16 By the late 1890s, it was clear to the U.K. that Germany was its greatest national security threat. The Germany Navy Laws of 1898 and 1900 launched a massive naval buildup with the singular objective of liberating the German Empire from the geographic constraints of the Jutland Peninsula. By 1902, the First Lord of the Royal Navy pointed out that “the great new German navy is being carefully built up from the point of view of a war with us.”17 There is absolutely no doubt that Germany was the U.K.’s gravest national security threat. As a result, London signed in April 1904 a set of agreements with France that came to be known as Entente Cordiale. The entente was immediately tested by Germany in the 1905 First Moroccan Crisis, which only served to strengthen the alliance. Russia was brought into the pact in 1907, creating the Triple Entente. In hindsight, the alliance structure was obvious given Germany’s meteoric rise from unification in 1871. However, one should not underestimate the magnitude of these geopolitical events. For the U.K. and France to resolve centuries of differences and formalize an alliance in 1904 was a tectonic shift — one that they undertook against the grain of history, entrenched enmity, and ideology.18 Political scientists and historians have noted that geopolitical enmity rarely produces bifurcated economic relations exhibited during the Cold War. Both empirical research and formal modeling shows that trade occurs even amongst rivals and during wartime.19 This was certainly the case between the U.K. and Germany, whose trade steadily increased right up until the outbreak of World War One (Chart II-6). Could this be written off due to the U.K.’s ideological commitment to laissez-faire economics? Or perhaps London feared a move against its lightly defended colonies in case it became protectionist? These are fair arguments. However, they do not explain why Russia and France both saw ever-rising total trade with the German Empire during the same period (Chart II-7). Either all three states were led by incompetent policymakers who somehow did not see the war coming – unlikely given the empirical record – or they simply could not afford to lose out on the gains of trade with Germany to each other. Chart II-6The Allies Traded With Germany ... Chart II-7… Right Up To WWI   Chart II-8Japan And U.S. Never Downshifted Trade A similar dynamic was afoot ahead of World War Two. Relations between the U.S. and Japan soured in the 1930s, with the Japanese invasion of Manchuria in 1931. In 1935, Japan withdrew from the 1922 Washington Naval Treaty – the bedrock of the Pacific balance of power – and began a massive naval buildup. In 1937, Japan invaded China. Despite a clear and present danger, the U.S. continued to trade with Japan right up until July 26, 1941, few days after Japan invaded southern Indochina (Chart II-8). On December 7, Japan attacked the U.S. A skeptic may argue that precisely because policymakers sleepwalked into war in the First and Second World Wars, they will not (or should not) make the same mistake this time around. First, we do not make policy prescriptions and therefore care not what should happen. Second, we are highly skeptical of the view that policymakers in the early and mid-twentieth century were somehow defective (as opposed to today’s enlightened leaders). Our constraints-based framework urges us to seek systemic reasons for the behavior of leaders. Political science provides a clear theoretical explanation for why London and Washington continued to trade with the enemy despite the clarity of the threat. The answer lies in the systemic nature of the constraint: a multipolar world reduces the sensitivity of policymakers to relative gains by introducing a collective action problem thanks to changing alliances and the difficulty of disciplining allies’ behavior. In the case of U.S. and China, this is further accentuated by President Trump’s strategy of skirting multilateral diplomacy and intense focus on mercantilist measures of power (i.e. obsession with the trade deficit). An anti-China trade policy that was accompanied by a magnanimous approach to trade relations with allies could have produced a “coalition of the willing” against Beijing. But after two years of tariffs and threats against the EU, Japan, and Canada, the Trump administration has already signaled to the rest of the world that old alliances and coordination avenues are up for revision. There are two outcomes that we can see emerging over the course of the next decade. First, U.S. leadership will become aware of the systemic constraints under which they operate, and trade with China will continue – albeit with limitations and variations. However, such trade will not reduce the geopolitical tensions, nor will it prevent a military conflict. In facts, the probability of military conflict may increase even as trade between China and the U.S. remains steady. Second, U.S. leadership will fail to correctly assess that they operate in a multipolar world and will give up the highlighted trade gains from Diagram II-2 to economic rivals such as Europe and Japan. Given our methodological adherence to constraint-based forecasting, we highly doubt that the latter scenario is likely. Bottom Line: The China-U.S. conflict is not a replay of the Cold War. Systemic pressures from global multipolarity will force the U.S. to continue to trade with China, with limitations on exchanges in emergent, dual-use technologies that China will nonetheless source from other technologically advanced countries. This will create a complicated but exciting world where geopolitics will cease to be seen as exogenous to investing. A risk to the sanguine conclusion is that the historical record is applicable to today, but that the hour is late, not early. It is already July 26, 1941 – when U.S. abrogated all trade with Japan – not 1930. As such, we do not have another decade of trade between U.S. and China remaining, we are at the end of the cycle. While this is a risk, it is unlikely. American policymakers would essentially have to be willing to risk a military conflict with China in order to take the trade war to the same level they did with Japan. It is an objective fact that China has meaningfully stepped up aggressive foreign policy in the region. But unlike Japan in 1941, China has not outright invaded any countries over the past decade. As such, the willingness of the public to support such a conflict is unclear, with only 21% of Americans considering China a top threat to the U.S. Investment Implications This analysis is not meant to be optimistic. First, the U.S. and China will continue to be rivals even if the economic relationship between them does not lead to global bifurcation. For one, China continues to be – much like Germany in the early twentieth century – concerned with access to external markets on which 19.5% of its economy still depend. China is therefore developing a modern navy and military not because it wants to dominate the rest of the world but because it wants to dominate its near abroad, much as the U.S. wanted to, beginning with the Monroe Doctrine. This will continue to lead to Chinese aggression in the South and East China Seas, raising the odds of a conflict with the U.S. Navy. Given that the Thucydides Trap narrative remains cogent, investors should look to overweight S&P 500 aerospace and defense stocks relative to global equity markets. An alternative way that one could play this thesis is by developing a basket of global defense stocks. Multipolarity may create constraints to trade protectionism, but it engenders geopolitical volatility and thus buoys defense spending. Second, we would not expect another uptick in globalization. Multipolarity may make it difficult for countries to completely close off trade with a rival, but globalization is built on more than just trade between rivals. Globalization requires a high level of coordination among great powers that is only possible under hegemonic conditions. Chart II-9 shows that the hegemony of the British and later American empires created a powerful tailwind for trade over the past two hundred years. Chart II-9The Apex Of Globalization Is Behind Us The Apex of Globalization has come and gone – it is all downhill from here. But this is not a binary view. Foreign trade will not go to zero. The U.S. and China will not completely seal each other’s sphere of influence behind a Silicon Curtain. Instead, we focus on five investment themes that flow from a world that is characterized by the three trends of multipolarity, Sino-U.S. geopolitical rivalry, and apex of globalization: Europe will profit: As the U.S. and China deepen their enmity, we expect some European companies to profit. There is some evidence that the investment community has already caught wind of this trend, with European equities modestly outperforming their U.S. counterparts whenever trade tensions flared up in 2019 (Chart II-10). Given our thesis, however, it is unlikely that the U.S. would completely lose market share in China to Europe. As such, we specifically focus on tech, where we expect the U.S. and China to ramp up non-tariff barriers to trade regardless of systemic pressures to continue to trade. A strategic long in the secularly beleaguered European tech companies relative to their U.S. counterparts may therefore make sense (Chart II-11). Chart II-10Europe: A Trade War Safe Haven Chart II-11Is Europe Really This Incompetent? USD bull market will end: A trade war is a very disruptive way to adjust one’s trade relationship. It opens one to retaliation and thus the kind of relative losses described in this analysis. As such, we expect that U.S. to eventually depreciate the USD, either by aggressively reversing 2018 tightening or by coercing its trade rivals to strengthen their currencies. Such a move will be yet another tailwind behind the diversification away from the USD as a reserve currency, a move that should benefit the euro. Bull market in capex: The re-wiring of global manufacturing chains will still take place. The bad news is that multinational corporations will have to dip into their profit margins to move their supply chains to adjust to the new geopolitical reality. The good news is that they will have to invest in manufacturing capex to accomplish the task. One way to articulate this theme is to buy an index of semiconductor capital companies (AMAT, LRCX, KLAC, MKSI, AEIS, BRIKS, and TER). Given the highly cyclical nature of capital companies, we would recommend an entry point once trade tensions subside and green shoots of global growth appear. “Non-aligned” markets will benefit: The last time the world was multipolar, great powers competed through imperialism. This time around, a same dynamic will develop as countries seek to replicate China’s “Belt and Road Initiative.” This is positive for frontier markets. A rush to provide them with exports and services will increase supply and thus lower costs, providing otherwise forgotten markets with a boon of investments. India, and Asia-ex-China more broadly, stand as intriguing alternatives to China, especially with the current administration aggressively reforming to take advantage of the rewiring of global manufacturing chains. Capital markets will remain globalized: With interest rates near zero in much of the developed world and the demographic burden putting an ever-greater pressure on pension plans to generate returns, the search for yield will continue to be a powerful drive that keeps capital markets globalized. Limitations are likely to grow, especially when it comes to cross-border private investments in dual-use technologies. But a completely bifurcation of capital markets is unlikely. The world we are describing is one where geopolitics will play an increasingly prominent role for global investors. It would be convenient if the world simply divided into two warring camps, leaving investors with neatly separated compartments that enabled them to go back to ignoring geopolitics. This is unlikely. Rather, the world will resemble the dynamic years at the end of the nineteenth century, a rough-and-tumble era that required a multi-disciplinary approach to investing. Marko Papic Consulting Editor, BCA Research Chief Strategist, Clocktower Group III. Indicators And Reference Charts The S&P 500 is making marginally new all-time highs. Seasonality is becoming very favorable for stock prices. However, our U.S. profit model continues to point south and expanding multiples have already driven this year’s equity gains. The S&P 500 has therefore already priced in a significant improvement in profits. Further P/E expansion will be harder to come by with bond yields set to rise. Thus, until the dollar falls and creates another tailwind for profits, stocks will not be as strong as seasonality suggests and will only make marginal new highs. Our Revealed Preference Indicator (RPI) remains cautious towards equities. The RPI combines the idea of market momentum with valuation and policy measures. It provides a powerful bullish signal if positive market momentum lines up with constructive readings from the policy and valuation measures. Conversely, if strong market momentum is not supported by valuations and policy, investors should lean against the market trend. Until global growth bottoms and boosts the earnings forecasts of our models, stock gains will stay limited. The outlook for next year remains constructive for stocks. Our Willingness-to-Pay (WTP) indicator for the U.S. continues to improve. This same indicator has recently turned lower in Japan. Meanwhile, it is deteriorating further in Europe. The WTP indicator tracks flows, and thus provides information on what investors are actually doing, as opposed to sentiment indexes that track how investors are feeling. Global yields have turned higher but they remain at exceptionally stimulating levels. Moreover, money and liquidity growth has picked up around the world, and global central banks continue to conduct very dovish policies. As a result, our Monetary Indicator remains at extremely elevated levels. Furthermore, our Composite Technical Indicator is still flashing a buy signal. Also, our BCA Composite Valuation index is still improving. As a result, our Speculation Indicator is back in the neutral zone. 10-year Treasury yields continue to rise, but they remain very expensive. Moreover, both our Bond Valuation Index and our Composite Technical Indicators are still flashing high-conviction sell signals. If the strengthening of the Commodity Index Advance/Decline line results in higher natural resource prices, then, inflation breakevens will also climb meaningfully. Therefore, the current setup argues for a below-benchmark duration in fixed-income portfolios. Weak global growth has been the key support for the dollar in recent months. On a PPP basis, the U.S. dollar remains extremely expensive. Additionally, our Composite Technical Indicator has lost momentum and has formed a negative divergence with the Greenback’s level. Moreover, the U.S. current account deficit has begun to widen anew. This backdrop makes the dollar highly vulnerable to a rebound in global growth. In fact, a breakdown in the greenback will be the clearest signal yet that global growth is rebounding for good. EQUITIES: Chart III-1U.S. Equity Indicators Chart III-2Willingness To Pay For Risk Chart III-3U.S. Equity Sentiment Indicators   Chart III-4Revealed Preference Indicator Chart III-5U.S. Stock Market Valuation Chart III-6U.S. Earnings Chart III-7Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Chart III-8Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance   FIXED INCOME: Chart III-9U.S. Treasurys And Valuations Chart III-10Yield Curve Slopes Chart III-11Selected U.S. Bond Yields Chart III-1210-Year Treasury Yield ComponentsChart III-13U.S. Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor Chart III-14Global Bonds: Developed Markets Chart III-15Global Bonds: Emerging Markets   CURRENCIES: Chart III-16U.S. Dollar And PPP Chart III-17U.S. Dollar And Indicator Chart III-18U.S. Dollar Fundamentals Chart III-19Japanese Yen Technicals Chart III-20Euro Technicals Chart III-21Euro/Yen Technicals Chart III-23Euro/Pound Technicals   COMMODITIES: Chart III-23Broad Commodity Indicators Chart III-24Commodity Prices Chart III-25Commodity Prices Chart III-26Commodity Sentiment Chart III-27Speculative Positioning   ECONOMY: Chart III-28U.S. And Global Macro Backdrop Chart III-29U.S. Macro Snapshot Chart III-30U.S. Growth Outlook Chart III-31U.S. Cyclical Spending Chart III-32U.S. Labor Market Chart III-33U.S. Consumption Chart III-34U.S. Housing Chart III-35U.S. Debt And Deleveraging   Chart III-36U.S. Financial Conditions Chart III-37Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Chart III-38Global Economic Snapshot: China   Mathieu Savary Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst Footnotes 1   Please see The Bank Credit Analyst "September 2019," dated August 29, 2019, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 2   Please see The Bank Credit Analyst "June 2019," dated May 30, 2019, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 3   Please see The Bank Credit Analyst "August 2019," dated July 25, 2019, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 4   Please see U.S. Equity Strategy Special Report "Peak Margins," dated October 7, 2019, available at uses.bcaresearch.com 5   Please see U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report "Follow The Profit Trail," dated October 15, 2019, available at uses.bcaresearch.com 6   Please see Foreign  Exchange Strategy Weekly Report "On Money Velocity, EUR/USD And Silver," dated October 11, 2019, available on fes.bcaresearch.com 7   Please see BCA Research Geopolitical Strategy, “Power And Politics In East Asia: Cold War 2.0?,” September 25, 2012, “Sino-American Conflict: More Likely Than You Think,” October 4, 2013, “The Great Risk Rotation,” December 11, 2013, and “Strategic Outlook 2014 – Stay The Course: EM Risk – DM Reward,” January 23, 2014, “Underestimating Sino-American Tensions,” November 6, 2015, “The Geopolitics Of Trump,” December 2, 2016, “How To Play The Proxy Battles In Asia,” March 1, 2017, and others available at gps.bcaresearch.com or upon request. 8   Please see German Historical Institute, “Bernhard von Bulow on Germany’s ‘Place in the Sun’” (1897), available at http://germanhistorydocs.ghi-dc.org/ 9   See Graham Allison, Destined For War: Can America and China Escape Thucydides’s Trap? (New York: Houghton Miffin Harcourt, 2017).  10  The three cases are Spain taking over from Portugal in the sixteenth century, the U.S. taking over from the U.K. in the twentieth century, and Germany rising to regional hegemony in Europe in the twenty-first century. 11   Duncan Snidal, “Relative Gains and the Pattern of International Cooperation,” The American Political Science Review, 85:3 (September 1991), pp. 701-726. 12   We do not review Snidal’s excellent game theory formal modeling in this paper as it is complex and detailed. However, we highly encourage the intrigued reader to pursue the study on their own.  13   See Charles P. Kindleberger, The World In Depression, 1929-1939 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2013). 14   Joanne Gowa and Edward D. Mansfield, “Power Politics and International Trade,” The American Political Science Review, 87:2 (June 1993), pp. 408-420. 15   See Ernest Edwin Williams, Made in Germany (reprint, Ithaca: Cornell University Press), available at https://archive.org/details/cu31924031247830. 16   Quoted in Margaret MacMillan, The War That Ended Peace (Toronto: Allen Lane, 2014). 17   Peter Liberman, “Trading with the Enemy: Security and Relative Economic Gains,” international Security, 21:1 (Summer 1996), pp. 147-175. 18  Although France and Russia overcame even greater bitterness due to the ideological differences between a republic founded on a violent uprising against its aristocracy – France – and an aristocratic authoritarian regime – Russia.  19  See James Morrow, “When Do ‘Relative Gains’ Impede Trade?” The Journal of Conflict Resolution, 41:1 (February 1997), pp. 12-37; and Jack S. Levy and Katherine Barbieri, “Trading With the Enemy During Wartime,” Security Studies, 13:3 (December 2004), pp. 1-47.

Highlights Rising recession risk, shaky economic fundamentals, and absence of positive yielding assets motivate us to reexamine which assets can be counted on to protect a portfolio in the future. We analyze 10 safe havens on four different dimensions: consistency, versatility, efficiency, and costs. Using this framework, we examine the historical performance of each safe haven and provide an outlook on their likely effectiveness over the next decade. We conclude that U.S. TIPS and farmland should provide the best portfolio protection. Cash, U.S. Treasuries and gold are other good alternatives. Meanwhile, U.S. investment-grade bonds, global ex-U.S. bonds, silver, and currency futures are likely to be poor protection choices. Feature For most investors, capital preservation is the most important goal when managing money. However, how to go about it remains a difficult question.  Investing in safe havens can be painful during bull markets, as their returns are usually lower than those of equities. Moreover, economic, political, and financial regimes change over time, which means that an asset that protected your portfolio in the past might not do so in the future. Therefore, it becomes good practice to review one’s safety measures periodically, even if one does not think that a crash is imminent. The current environment in particular, is a propitious time to review safe havens given that: Chart I-1A Great Time To Review Safety Measures A key recession signal is flashing red: The yield curve inverted in the United States in August (Chart I-1 – top panel). An inversion of the yield curve does not necessarily imply a recession, but historically it has been a very reliable signal of one, given that it indicates that monetary policy is too tight for the economy. Structural risks are rising: Rich equity valuations in the U.S. and high leverage levels elsewhere are signs that the pillars supporting this bull market might be fragile (Chart I-1 – middle panel). In addition, protectionism and populism, forces that BCA has long argued are here to stay, threaten to upend the regime of free trade that has benefited equities since the 1950s.1 Yields are near all-time lows: Historically, investors have been able to endure bear markets by hiding in safe assets with positive yield, as these assets will normally provide a reliable cash flow regardless of the economic situation. However, these type of assets are increasingly hard to find, particularly in the government bond space, where 50% of developed country bonds have negative yields (Chart I-1 – bottom panel). Considering these factors, how should investors protect their portfolios in the next decade? To answer this question, we analyze 10 safe havens divided into five broad asset classes: Nominal government bonds: U.S. Treasuries and global ex-U.S. government bonds. Other fixed income: U.S. investment-grade credit and U.S. TIPS.2 Currencies: yen futures and Swiss franc futures. Precious metals: gold futures and silver futures. Other assets: farmland and U.S. cash. We look at historical performance since 1973 for all safe havens except for global ex-U.S. bonds and farmland. For these assets, we look at performance since 1991 due to limited data availability. We mainly look at quarterly returns in order to compare illiquid assets to publicly traded ones. We do not consider each safe haven in isolation, but rather as an addition to equities within a portfolio. Specifically, we explore our safe haven universe relative to the MSCI All Country World equity index from the perspective of a U.S. investor. For our non-U.S. clients, we will release a report from the perspective of other countries if there is sufficient interest. Importantly, we do not look only at historical performance. We also examine whether there is a reason to believe that future returns will be different from past ones, by analyzing how the properties of each safe haven might have changed. When evaluating each safe haven, we focus on four properties: Consistency: a safe haven should generate consistent positive returns during periods of negative equity performance, with returns increasing with the severity of the equity drawdown. Versatility: safe havens should perform well across different types of crises. Efficiency: a safe haven should produce enough upside during crises, so only a small allocation to the safe haven is necessary to reduce losses. Costs: drag to portfolio overall performance (opportunity costs) should be as small as possible. Readers who wish to see just our overall conclusions should read our Summary Of Results section below. For our analysis of how safe havens have performed in the past, please see the Historical Performance section. Finally, for our analysis of how we expect the performance of safe havens to change, please see our Outlook section. Summary Of Results The Best Safe Havens U.S. TIPS should be an excellent safe haven to protect a portfolio in the next decade. While TIPS might not be as cheap to hold as they have been in the past, upside potential remains strong, which means that a moderate allocation can provide substantial protection to an equity portfolio. Moreover, U.S. TIPS are one of the best hedges against crises triggered by rising rates and inflation, which in our view are the biggest structural risks that asset allocators face. Farmland could also be a great safe haven for investors who have the ability to allocate to illiquid assets given that it is the cheapest safe haven in terms of portfolio drag. However, investors should be aware that the current low yield could potentially affect its performance during crises. Good Alternatives Cash can be a good alternative to protect an equity portfolio, given its outstanding performance during equity drawdowns caused by inflation. Moreover, its opportunity costs should decrease relative to the past. However, investors should take into account that the efficiency of cash at the current juncture is poor, which means that a relatively large allocation is needed in order to achieve meaningful portfolio protection. A portfolio with a 30% allocation to Treasuries historically provided the same downside protection as a portfolio with a 44% allocation to gold. We also like gold futures as a safe haven since they offer some of the most attractive opportunity costs. In addition, their upside is greater than that of most safe havens due to their negative correlations with real rates. However, gold’s volatility makes it an unreliable asset, which prevents us from placing it higher in the safe haven hierarchy. Historically, U.S. Treasuries have been one of the best safe havens to hedge an equity portfolio. Will this performance continue in the future? We do not think so. While yields are still high enough to provide plenty of upside potential, they have fallen to the point where they have increased the opportunity costs of U.S. Treasuries and reduced their consistency. The Rest Global ex-U.S. bonds have very limited upside due to their low yields. Meanwhile U.S. investment-grade credit remains at risk from poor corporate balance sheets, compounded by the fact that credit no longer has an attractive yield cushion. Currencies like the yen and the Swiss franc will continue to be unreliable and very expensive safe havens. Finally, while silver’s costs and reliability could improve, its high cyclicality relative to other safe havens will make silver a poor protection choice. Historical performance Consistency How did safe havens perform when equities lost money? To assess consistency, we plot the performance of each safe haven during all quarters when global equities had losses (Chart I-2). Cash and farmland were the only assets to have positive returns during every equity drawdown. U.S. Treasuries and U.S. TIPS were also very consistent, and had the additional advantage that their returns tended to increase as equity losses worsened. Global ex-U.S. bonds, while not as consistent, generated positive returns most of the time. Chart I-2Safe Haven Returns During Drawdowns In Global Equities On the other hand, investment-grade bonds, the yen, the Swiss franc, gold, and silver were much more inconsistent. In general, even though these assets had larger positive returns than other assets, they were prone to deep selloffs concurrent with equity drawdowns. Silver was the worst of all safe havens, being mostly a negative return asset during quarters of negative equity performance. Versatility How did the type of crisis affect the performance of safe havens? We classify crises according to their catalyst into the following four categories: bursts of U.S. asset bubbles (tech bubble, 2008 housing crisis), ex-U.S. crises (1998 EM crisis, European debt crisis), flash crashes/political events (1987 Black Monday, 9/11 terrorist attack),  rate/inflation shocks (1974 oil crisis, 1980 Fed shock) and others (every other equity drawdown we could not classify).3  We look at the performance of seven safe havens since 1973 (Chart I-3A) and of all 10 since 19914 (Chart I-3B): Chart I-3ASafe Haven Return During Different Type Of Crisis (1973 - Present) Chart I-3BSafe Haven Return During Different Type Of Crisis (1991 - Present)   During bursts of U.S. asset bubbles, U.S. Treasuries were the most effective hedge in both sample periods, followed by U.S. TIPS and farmland. Corporate bonds, cash, gold, and the Swiss franc also had positive returns, though they were small. Finally, the yen and silver had negative returns. During crises happening outside of the U.S., U.S. Treasuries were once again the best option. U.S. TIPS, yen futures, farmland, gold, and U.S. investment-grade bonds also provided strong returns.  Meanwhile, global ex-U.S. bonds and cash provided relatively weak returns, while both the Swiss franc and silver accrued losses. During flash crashes/political events, the Swiss franc had the best performance followed by global ex-U.S. bonds, though in general all safe havens but silver provided positive returns. Rate/inflation shocks were the most difficult type of crisis to hedge. Cash and U.S. TIPS were by far the best performers. Moreover, while U.S. Treasuries were able to eke out a small positive return, all other safe havens lost money during these crises. Efficiency How much allocation to each safe haven was needed to protect an equity portfolio? Chart I-4 show how adding incremental amounts of each safe haven5 to an equity portfolio reduced the overall portfolio’s 10% conditional VaR (the average of the bottom decile of returns).6 Since 1973, U.S. TIPS and U.S. nominal government bonds were the most efficient safe havens, providing the most protection per unit of allocation (Chart I-4 – top panel). Conditional VaR was reduced by almost half when allocating 40% to either Treasuries or TIPS. Cash, U.S. investment-grade, the yen, the Swiss franc, gold, and silver followed in that order. The difference between the safe havens was significant. As an example, a portfolio with a 30% allocation to U.S. Treasuries historically provided the same downside protection as a portfolio with a 36% allocation to U.S. IG credit, a 39% allocation to the yen or a 44% allocation to gold. Meanwhile, there was no allocation to silver which would have provided the same level of protection. When using a sample from 1991, the main difference was the reduced efficiency of cash – the result of lower average interest rates when using a more recent sample. Other than cash, the efficiency of most safe havens remained unchanged: U.S. Treasuries were the best option, followed by U.S. TIPS, farmland, U.S. investment-grade bonds, global ex-U.S. government bonds, cash, the yen, gold, the Swiss franc, and silver in that order (Chart I-4 – bottom panel). Chart I-4Historically, Fixed-Income Assets Were The Most Efficient Safe Havens Costs How do safe haven returns compare to equities? To evaluate opportunity costs, we compare the difference of the historical return of each safe haven versus global equities. Overall, hedging with currencies was extremely costly, as their return was well below that of equities in both samples (Chart I-5). Cash was also an expensive safe haven to hedge with, particularly in the most recent sample. On the other hand, fixed-income assets like U.S Treasuries, investment-grade credit, and U.S. TIPS had very low costs (global ex-U.S. bonds also had cost of around 2% in a limited sample).  Farmland had negative opportunity costs because it outperformed equities during the sample period.7 Chart I-5Historically Fixed Income Assets And Farmland Had The Lowest Opportunity Cost Outlook Chart I-6No More Yield Cushion Chart I-7Silver Has Become Less Cyclical For our outlook, we assess how the four traits under study have changed for all safe havens: Consistency: Will safe havens continue to be reliable in the absence of high coupons? Many of the safe havens in our sample were effective at hedging equities due to their high yield. Even if they had negative capital appreciation, total returns stayed positive thanks to the offsetting effect of the yield return. However, as rates have declined, yield return has also decreased substantially (Chart I-6). Therefore, safe havens, like cash, government bonds, and even farmland will not be as consistent as they were in the past. Credit could be even more vulnerable: the combination of a low yield, and unhealthy fundamentals will turn U.S. corporate bonds into a negative-return asset in the next crisis. Silver might be the lone safe haven to improve its consistency. Industrial use for silver has fallen substantially in the past 10 years, decreasing its cyclical nature (Chart I-7). Thus, while silver might still be an erratic safe haven, it should be more consistent in the future than its historical performance would suggest.   Versatility: What will the next crisis look like? Chart I-8Inflation and Political Crisis Will Plague The 2020s Determining what the next crisis will look like is crucial for safe haven selection. Below we rank the types of crises in order of how likely and severe we think they will be in the future: Inflation/rate shock: We expect inflation to be significantly higher over the next decade. This will be the highest risk for asset allocators in the future. As we explained in our May 2019 report, a change in monetary policy framework, procyclical fiscal policy, waning Fed independence, declining globalization, and demographic forces are all conspiring to lift inflation in the next decade.8 Importantly, we believe that the Fed will be dovish initially, as it cannot let inflation continue to underperform its target after missing the mark for the last 10 years (Chart I-8 – top panel). However, this will cause an inflationary cycle, which will eventually lead the Fed to raise rates significantly and trigger a recession. Political events/flash crashes: Political events will also pose a risk to the markets on a structural basis. The rise of China as a superpower has shifted the world into a paradigm of multipolarity, which historically has resulted in military conflict. Moreover, animus for conflict is not dependent on President Trump. The American public in general feels that the economic relationship with China is detrimental to the United States (Chart I-8 – bottom panel). This means that any president, Democrat or Republican will have a political incentive to jostle with China for economic and political supremacy for years to come. Ex-U.S. crises: We expect Emerging Markets in general, and China in particular, to be among the most vulnerable parts of the global economy as we enter the next decade. Over the last 10 years, China’s money supply has increased four-fold, becoming larger than the money supply of the U.S. and the euro area combined. In addition, corporate debt as a % of GDP stands at 155%, higher than Japan at the peak of its bubble and higher than any country in recorded history (Chart I-9). We rank this type of crisis slightly below the first two because Emerging Market assets are depressed already. Thus, while we believe that there is further downside to come for these economies, some weakness has already been priced in. U.S. asset bubble burst: We believe that there are no systemic excesses in the U.S. economy, making a U.S. asset bubble burst a lesser risk than other types of crises. Although it is true that U.S. corporate debt stands at all-time highs, it is still at a much lower level than in other countries. Moreover, weakness of corporate credit is not likely to have systemic consequences on the economy, given that leveraged institutions like banks and households hold only a small amount of outstanding corporate debt (Chart I-10). Chart I-9EM crises Are Also A Risk Chart I-10A U.S. Corporate Debt Deblacle Will Not Have Systemic Consequences What does this ranking mean in terms of safe haven performance? U.S. TIPS and cash should be held in high regard as they will be some of the only assets that will perform well during an inflation/rate shock. The Swiss franc and global ex-U.S. bonds should be best performers during political crises, although U.S. TIPS could also provide adequate protection. Efficiency: Is there any upside left for safe havens when interest rates are near zero? As yields go below the zero bound it becomes harder for bonds to generate large positive returns. European or Japanese government bonds in particular would need their yields to go deep into negative territory to counteract a large selloff in equities (Table I-1). But can interest rates go that low? We do not think so. The recent auction of German bunds, where a 0%-yielding 30-year bond attracted the weakest demand since 2011, suggests that interest rates in these countries might be close to their lower bound.  On the other hand, though U.S. yields are low, they are still high enough for U.S. Treasuries to provide high returns in case of a crisis. Table I-1No Room For Positive Returns In The Government Bond Space Outside Of The U.S. Low rates also have an effect on the efficiency of U.S. investment-grade bonds, cash, and farmland because their upside during crises does not come from capital appreciation but rather from their yield, (the price of IG credit actually declines during most crisis). As mentioned earlier, their yield has declined substantially compared to the past, which means that a larger allocation will be necessary to counteract a selloff. Chart I-11Switzerland Has A High Incentive To Prevent The Franc From Appreciating The upside of the yen could also be compromised. The Bank of Japan is likely to intervene aggressively in the currency market to prevent the Japanese economy from falling into a deflationary spiral, since it is very difficult for it to lower Japanese rates further. The Swiss franc is even more vulnerable. In contrast to Japan, Switzerland is a small open economy that has to import most of its products (Chart I-11). This means that the Swiss National Bank has a very high incentive to intervene in currency markets during a crisis, given that a rally in the franc could depress inflation severely. What about U.S. TIPS? In contrast to nominal government bond yields or even yields on corporate debt, U.S. real rates are not limited by the zero bound (Chart I-12).  This makes TIPS a more attractive option than other fixed-income assets, since real rates can have much more room for further downside than nominal ones. To be clear, this will only be the case if our forecast of an inflationary crisis materializes. Likewise, since gold is heavily influenced by real rates, it should also offer significant upside during the next crisis.9 Chart I-12Real Rates Have More Downside Potential Than Nominal Ones Costs: Can I afford to hold safe havens in a world of low returns? To provide an outlook for the expected cost of each safe haven, we use the return assumptions from our June Special Report.10 We subtract the expected return on global equities from the expected return for each safe haven to reach an expected cost value. However, three of the safe havens (global ex-U.S. government bonds, the Swiss franc and silver) did not have a return estimate. We compute their expected returns as follows: For the Swiss franc we use the methodology we used for all other currencies in our report. We base the expected return on the current divergence from the IMF PPP value, as well as the IMF inflation estimates. In addition, we add the relative cash rate assumed return for both our yen and Swiss franc estimates, as futures take into account carry return. For global ex-U.S. bonds we take the weighted average of the expected return of the euro area, Japan, U.K., Canada, and Australia government bonds. We weight the returns according to their market capitalization in the Bloomberg/Barclays government bond index. Due to silver’s dual role as an inflation hedge and industrial metal, silver prices are a function of both gold prices and global growth. To obtain a return estimate we run a regression on silver against these two variables and use our growth and gold return estimate to arrive at an assumed return for silver. Chart I-13 shows our results: while their cost will improve, currency futures remain the most expensive hedge. The opportunity cost of precious metals and cash will decrease, making them more attractive options than in the past. Meanwhile, low yields will increase the opportunity costs of most fixed-income assets. Finally, farmland will remain the cheapest safe haven, even with decreased performance. Chart I-13Oportunity Cost For Fixed Income Safe Havens Will Be Higher Than In The Past Juan Manuel Correa Ossa Senior Analyst juanc@bcaresearch.com Appendix A Footnotes 1 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "The Apex Of Globalization – All Downhill From Here, " dated November 12, 2014, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 We use a synthetic TIPS series for data prior to 1997. For details on the methodology, please see: Kothari, S.P. and Shanken, Jay A., “Asset Allocation with Inflation-Protected Bonds,” Financial Analysts Journal, Vol. 60, No. 1, pp. 54-70, January/February 2004. 3 For a detailed list of how we classified each equity drawdown, please see Appendix A. 4 The only crises caused by a rate/inflation shock occurred in 1974 and 1980. Thus we have this type of drawdown only in Chart 3A and not in Chart 3B. 5 For yen, Swiss franc, silver and gold futures we assume an allocation to an ETF which follows their performance. Since futures have zero initial costs they cannot be directly compared to traditional assets in terms of percentage allocation. 6 We prefer this measure over VaR given that it captures the properties of the left tail of returns more accurately. 7  While the farmland index subtracts management fees, we recognize that there are costs involved in holding these illiquid assets which are not necessarily captured by the return indices. Thus, the real historical cost of holding farmland was not negative but likely close to zero. 8 Please see Global Asset Allocation Strategy Special Report "Investors’ Guide To Inflation Hedging: How To Invest When Inflation Rises," dated May 22, 2019, available at gaa.bcaresearch.com. 9 Please see Commodity & Energy Strategy Special Report "All that Glitters…And Then Some" dated July 25, 2019, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 10 Please see Global Asset Allocation Strategy Special Report "Return Assumptions - Refreshed and Refined" dated June 25, 2019,  

Highlights Equities & Bonds: The accelerating upward momentum of global equities – the ultimate “leading economic indicator” – suggests that the current rise in global bond yields can continue. Maintain below-benchmark overall duration exposure, while staying overweight global corporate credit versus government bonds. U.S. Agency MBS: U.S. agency MBS spreads are now attractive relative to high-quality U.S. corporate bonds, both in absolute terms and on a risk-adjusted basis. Increase allocations to agency MBS, while reducing exposure to Aaa-, Aa- and A-rated U.S. corporates. Feature The U.S. Federal Reserve and European Central Bank (ECB) are both set to ease monetary policy this week. The Fed is almost certain to deliver a third consecutive 25bp rate cut at tomorrow’s FOMC meeting, while the ECB will restart its bond buying program on Friday. Yet government bond yields around the world continue to drift higher, as markets reduce expectations of incremental rate cuts moving forward. Equity prices are an excellent leading indicator of global growth, while bond yields typically reflect current economic conditions. Thus, equity prices should be considered a leading indicator of bond yields. Chart of the WeekMore Upside For Global Bond Yields Yields are finally responding to the evidence that global growth is troughing - a dynamic that we have been telegraphing in recent weeks. Global equity markets are rallying, with the U.S. S&P 500 hitting a new all-time high yesterday. The year-over-year increase in global equities, using the MSCI World Index, is now at +10%, the fastest pace of upward acceleration seen since January 2017. Some of that rally in U.S. stock markets can be chalked up to 3rd quarter earnings beating depressed expectations. Yet there is also a forward-looking component of the rally that bond markets are starting to notice. Equity prices are an excellent leading indicator of global growth, while bond yields typically reflect current economic conditions. Thus, equity prices should be considered a leading indicator of bond yields. We see no reason to discount the positive message on growth from rallying equity markets, especially when confirmed by an improvement in our global leading economic indicator (LEI), led by the more cyclical emerging market (EM) countries (Chart of the Week). Falling stock prices in 2018 accurately heralded the global growth slowdown of 2019 which triggered the huge decline in bond yields. Why should rising stock prices not be interpreted in the same light, predicting better global growth – and higher bond yields – over the next 6-12 months? Multiple Signals Point To Higher Bond Yields The more optimistic message on growth is not only confined to developed market (DM) stock prices. EM equities and currencies have begun to perk up, with EM corporate credit spreads remaining stable, as well, mimicking the moves seen in U.S. credit markets. Bond volatility measures like the U.S. MOVE index of Treasury options are retreating to the lower levels implied by equity volatility indices like the U.S. VIX index, which is now just above the 2019 low (Chart 2). Markets are clearly pricing out some of the more negative tail-risk outcomes that prevailed through much of 2019. Some of that reduction in volatility can be attributed to the recent de-escalation of U.S.-China trade tensions and U.K. Brexit risks, both important developments that can help lift depressed global business confidence. A reduction in trade/political uncertainty should help fortify the transmission mechanism between easing global financial conditions and economic activity – an outcome that could extend the rise in yields given stretched bond-bullish duration positioning (Chart 3). Chart 2A More Pro-Risk Global Market Backdrop Chart 3Less Uncertainty = Higher Yields The improving global growth story remains the bigger factor pushing bond yields higher, though. While the manufacturing PMI data within the DM world remain weak, the downward momentum is starting to bottom out on a rate-of-change basis (Chart 4). The EM aggregate PMI index is showing even more improvement, sitting at 51 and above the year-ago level, helping confirm the pickup in EM equity market momentum (bottom panel). Importantly, if this is indeed the trough in the EM PMI, the index would have bottomed above the 2015 trough of 48.5. Given the improvement seen in “Big Mo” for global equities and global LEIs and PMIs, we remain comfortable with our current below-benchmark stance on global interest rate duration exposure.  Given the improvement seen in “Big Mo” for global equities and global LEIs and PMIs, we remain comfortable with our current below-benchmark stance on global interest rate duration exposure. How high could yields rise in the near term? Looking at yields on a country-by-country level, a reasonable initial target for yields would be a return to the medium-term trend as defined by the 200-day moving average (MA). For benchmark 10-year DM government yields, those targets are: U.S. Treasuries: the 200-day MA is 2.18%, +23bps above the current level German Bunds: the 200-day MA is -0.22%, +11bps above the current level U.K. Gilts: the 200-day MA is 0.89%, +17bps above the current level Japanese government bonds (JGBs): the 200-day MA is -0.10%, +2bps above the current level Canadian government bonds: the 200-day MA is 1.59%, -2bps below the current level Australian government bonds: the 200-day MA is 1.53%, +43bps above the current level Among those markets, the U.S. is likely to reach the level implied by the 200-day MA, led by the market pricing out the -53bps of rate cuts over the next twelve months discounted in the U.S. Overnight Index Swap curve (Chart 5) – a number that includes the likely -25bp cut tomorrow. A move beyond that 200-day MA may take longer to develop, as it would require markets to begin pricing in some reversal of the Fed’s “mid-cycle cuts” of 2019. That outcome would first require a pickup in TIPS breakevens. The Fed would not feel justified in risking a tightening of financial conditions by signaling rate hikes without the catalyst of higher inflation expectations. Chart 4EM Growth Leading The Way? Chart 5UST Yields Have More Upside German Bund yields are even closer to that 200-day MA than Treasuries but, as in the U.S., a sustained move beyond that level would require an increase in bombed-out inflation expectations, with the 10-year EUR CPI swap rate now sitting at only 1.05% (Chart 6). As for other markets, the likelihood of reaching, or breaching, the 200-day MA is more varied (Chart 7). Chart 6Bund Yield Upside Limited By Inflation The move in the Canadian 10-year yield to just above its 200-day MA fits with Canada’s status as a “high-beta” bond market, as we discussed in last week’s report.1 Chart 7Which Yields Will Test The 200-day MA? The Bank of Canada also meets this week and, while no change in policy is expected, the central bank will be publishing a new Monetary Policy Report that will update their current line of thinking about the Canadian economy and inflation. U.K. Gilts should easily blow through the 200-day MA if and when a final Brexit deal is signed, as the Bank of England remains highly reluctant to consider any policy easing even as political uncertainty weighs on economic growth. With the European Union now agreeing to an extension of the Brexit deadline to January 31, and with U.K. prime minister Boris Johnson now pursuing an early election in December, the political risk premium in Gilts will persist. Thus, Gilt yields will likely lag the move higher seen in higher-beta markets like the U.S. and Canada. JGBs remain the ultimate low-beta bond market with the Bank of Japan continuing to anchor the 10-yield around 0%, making Japan a good overweight candidate in an environment of rising global bond yields. Australian bond yields have the largest distance to the 200-day MA, but the Reserve Bank of Australia is giving little indication that it is ready to shift away from its dovish bias anytime soon, while inflation remains subdued. We do not expect a rapid jump in yields back towards the medium-term trend in the near term, and Australian yields will continue to lag the pace of the uptrend in the higher-beta global bond markets. Net-net, a climb in yields over the next 3-6 months to (or beyond) the 200-day MA is most likely in the U.S. and Canada, and least likely in Japan, Germany and Australia (and the U.K. until the Brexit uncertainty is finally sorted out). Bottom Line: The accelerating momentum of global equities – the ultimate “leading economic indicator” – is suggesting that the current rise in global bond yields can continue. Maintain below-benchmark overall duration exposure, while staying overweight global corporate credit versus government bonds. Raise Allocations To U.S. Agency MBS Out Of Higher Quality Corporate Credit Chart 8U.S. MBS More Attractive Than High-Rated U.S. Corporates Our colleagues at our sister service, BCA Research U.S. Bond Strategy, recently initiated a recommendation to favor U.S. agency MBS versus high-rated (Aaa, Aa, A) U.S. corporate bonds.2 This week, we are adding this position to the BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy recommended model bond portfolio. There are three factors supporting this recommendation: 1) The absolute level of MBS spreads is competitive The average option-adjusted spread (OAS) for conventional 30-year U.S. agency MBS – rated Aaa and with the backing of U.S. government housing agencies - is currently 57bps. That is only 3bps below the spread on Aa-rated corporates and 26bps below that of A-rated credit. (Chart 8). 2) Risk-adjusted MBS spreads look very attractive Agency MBS exhibit negative convexity, with an interest rate duration that declines when yields fall. The opposite is true for positively convex investment grade corporate bonds, where the duration rises as yields decrease. This makes agency MBS look attractive on a risk-adjusted basis after the kind of big decline in bond yields seen in 2019. The average duration of the Bloomberg Barclays U.S. agency MBS index is now only 3.4 compared to 7.9 for an A-rated corporate bond. Both of those durations were around similar levels at the 2018 peak in U.S. bond yields, but now the gap between them is large. With those new durations, it would take a 17bp widening of the agency MBS spread for an investor to see losses versus duration-matched U.S. Treasuries, compared to only an 11bp widening of the A-rated corporate spread (bottom panel). This is a big change in the relative risk profile of agency MBS versus high-rated U.S. corporates compared to a year ago, making the former look relatively more attractive. That was not the case the last time agency MBS duration fell so sharply in 2015/16, since corporate bond spreads were widening (getting cheaper) at that time. Today, corporate bond spreads have been stable as corporate duration has increased and agency MBS duration has plunged, making risk-adjusted MBS spreads more attractive. Given our view that U.S. Treasury yields will continue to grind higher, favoring lower duration assets like agency MBS over higher duration investment grade corporates makes sense. Given our view that U.S. Treasury yields will continue to grind higher, favoring lower duration assets like agency MBS over higher duration investment grade corporates makes sense. 3) Macro risks are reduced Mortgage refinancing activity remains the biggest macro driver of MBS spreads, particularly in an environment when mortgage rates are falling and prepayments are accelerating. There was a pickup in refinancing activity over the past year as mortgage rates fell, but the increase has been small relative to similar-sized rate declines in the past (Chart 9). We interpret this as an indication that, after the sustained period of low mortgage rates seen in the decade since the Great Financial Crisis, most homeowners have already had an opportunity to refinance. In other words, the so-called “refi burnout“ is now quite high. Chart 9Muted Refi Activity Keeping Nominal U.S. MBS Spreads Low Beyond refinancing, the other macro risks for agency MBS are subdued. The credit quality of outstanding U.S. mortgages remains solid. The median credit (FICO) score for newly-issued mortgages remains high and stable near the post-2008 crisis highs, while mortgage lending standards have mostly been easing over that same period according to the Federal Reserve Senior Loan Officers Survey. In addition, U.S. housing activity remains solid, with the most reliable indicators like single-family new home sales and the National Association of Home Builders activity surveys all up solidly following this year’s sharp drop in mortgage rates (Chart 10). This makes MBS less risky for two reasons: a) stronger housing activity typically leads to higher mortgage rates, which limits future refi activity; and b) more robust housing demand will boost home prices, the value of the underlying collateral for MBS securities. Chart 10U.S. Housing Activity Hooking Up Chart 11Relative Value Favoring U.S. MBS Over U.S. Corporates Given the improved risk-reward balance of agency MBS versus higher-quality U.S. corporates, we recommend that dedicated fixed income investors make this shift within bond portfolios, reducing allocations to Aaa-rated, Aa-rated and A-rated corporates while increasing exposure to agency MBS. Agency MBS is part of the investment universe of our model bond portfolio. Thus, we are increasing the recommended weighting of agency MBS while reducing the exposure to U.S. investment grade corporates in the portfolio. The changes can be seen in the table on Page 11. We do not split out the investment grade exposure by credit tier in the portfolio, as we prefer to allocate by broad sector groupings (Financials, Industrials, Utilities). So we cannot implement the precise “MBS for high-rated corporates” switch in the model portfolio. There is still a case for reducing overall investment grade exposure and adding to MBS weightings, however. The relative option-adjusted spread of agency MBS and investment grade corporates typically leads the relative excess returns (over duration-matched U.S. Treasuries) between the two by around one year (Chart 11). Thus, the compression of the spread differential between MBS and corporates over the past year is signaling that agency MBS should be expected to outperform the broad U.S. investment grade universe over the next twelve months. Bottom Line: U.S. agency MBS spreads are now attractive relative to high-quality U.S. corporate bonds, both in absolute terms and on a risk-adjusted basis. Increase allocations to agency MBS, while reducing exposure to Aaa-, Aa- and A-rated U.S. corporates. Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1 Please see BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, “Cracks Are Forming In The Bond-Bullish Narrative”, dated October 23, 2019, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Research U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Two Themes And Two Trades”, dated October 1, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresarch.com. Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Highlights Duration: The upturn in bond yields is not yet confirmed by our preferred global growth indicators. We anticipate that a reduction in trade uncertainty during the next few months will cause our indicators to rebound. But until then, investors should view the bond sell-off as tenuous. Yield Curve: Expect modest 2/10 steepening during the next few months, as the Fed keeps rates low even as economic growth improves. Steepening will show up in real yields, not in the TIPS breakeven inflation curve. The 2/10 slope will stay in a range between 0 bps and 50 bps for the next 6-12 months. Yield Curve Strategy: The 5-year Treasury note looks expensive compared to the rest of the yield curve, and historical correlations suggest it will rise the most if the Fed delivers fewer rate cuts than are currently expected. We recommend that investors short the 5-year bullet versus a duration-matched 2/30 barbell. Await Confirmation Bond yields look like they might be bottoming. The 2-year and 10-year Treasury yields are up 10 bps and 31 bps, respectively, since the 2/10 slope briefly inverted in late August (Chart 1). We are cautiously optimistic that the growth revival getting priced into Treasury yields will materialize. However, it’s vital to note that the yield rebound is not yet confirmed by the economic data. Even timely global growth indicators like the CRB Raw Industrials index remain downbeat (Chart 1, bottom panel). If global growth measures don’t bottom soon, then Treasury yields are certain to fall back. Chart 1Yields Are Ahead Of The Data We do expect the economic data to follow bond yields higher. We noted in last week’s report that the weakness in US economic data is concentrated in survey measures (aka “soft” data), while measures of actual economic activity (aka “hard data”) are holding up well.1    For example: The ISM Manufacturing survey is below its 2016 trough, but the year-over-year growth rate in industrial production is well above 2016 levels (Chart 2, top panel). Capacity utilization also remains elevated (Chart 2, bottom panel). New orders for core capital goods are holding firm, even with CEO confidence at its lowest since 2009 (Chart 2, panel 2). Employment growth remains strong, despite the employment component of the ISM Non-Manufacturing survey being just above the 50 boom/bust line (Chart 2, panel 3). Chart 2Will "Soft" Data Rebound? Our interpretation of the divergence is that uncertainty about the US/China trade war is weighing on sentiment and holding survey measures down. If that uncertainty is removed, survey measures will quickly rebound and converge with the “hard” data. On that front, we think it’s very likely that trade uncertainty diminishes during the next few months. The US and China have already agreed to an informal “phase one deal” that will require China to buy $40-$50 billion of US agricultural goods while the US delays the October 15 tariff hike. Odds are that President Trump will also delay the planned December 15 tariff hike and probably roll back some existing tariffs.2 The reason is that while Trump’s overall approval rating has been consistently low; until recently, he had been receiving high marks for his handling of the economy (Chart 3). But his economic approval rating took a tumble this summer and, as we head toward the 2020 election, he desperately needs an economic boost and/or policy victory to push up his numbers. We already see some tentative signs of a rebound in the regional Fed manufacturing surveys. A tactical retreat on trade should improve sentiment and cause survey data to move higher, alongside bond yields. And in fact, we already see some tentative signs of a rebound in the regional Fed manufacturing surveys (Chart 4). October figures are out for the New York, Philadelphia, Richmond, Kansas City and Dallas surveys, and they have all diverged positively from the national ISM. Chart 3It's Trump's Economy Chart 4Some Optimism From Regional Surveys Bottom Line: The upturn in bond yields is not yet confirmed by our preferred global growth indicators. We anticipate that a reduction in trade uncertainty during the next few months will cause our indicators to rebound. But until then, investors should view the bond sell-off as tenuous. Yield Curve: Macro Drivers We noted in the first section that the 2/10 Treasury slope has steepened sharply since it briefly broke below zero in late August. In this section, we consider whether this 2/10 steepening might continue. To do this we run through the main macro drivers of the yield curve. The Fed Funds Rate Traditionally, there is a very tight correlation between the fed funds rate and the slope of the curve (Chart 5). Fed tightening puts upward pressure on the curve’s front-end relative to the back-end, leading to a bear-flattening. Conversely, Fed easing drags the front-end down relative to the long-end, leading to bull-steepening. Chart 5The Fed's Yield Curve Control The traditional pattern broke down between 2009 and 2015 when the fed funds rate was pinned at zero. This period saw many episodes of bear-steepening and bull-flattening. But since the funds rate has been off zero, the traditional correlation has begun to re-assert itself. Our base case outlook calls for one more 25 bps rate cut tomorrow, followed by an extended on-hold period. This scenario might be expected to impart some mild steepening pressure to the curve, except for the fact that the front-end is already priced for 53 bps of easing during the next 12 months, significantly more than we expect. Our base case outlook calls for one more 25 bps rate cut tomorrow, followed by an extended on-hold period. If our base case scenario is incorrect, and growth continues to deteriorate, forcing the Fed to cut rates all the way back to zero. Then we would expect some initial bull-steepening, followed by bull-flattening as the funds rate approaches the zero bound. Wage Growth Wage growth is another excellent yield curve indicator, mainly because it helps determine the direction of the fed funds rate. Stronger wage growth causes the Fed to tighten and the curve to flatten. On the flipside, wage growth is a less effective indicator during Fed easing cycles, when it tends to lag changes in the funds rate (Chart 6). In fact, while wage growth is tightly correlated with the 2/10 slope, it lags changes in the slope by about 12 months (Chart 6, panel 2). Chart 6Wages Lead Tightening, But Lag Easing The upshot is that if the economy heads toward recession, then wage growth will not be a timely indicator of Fed rate cuts. However, if recession is avoided and wages continue to accelerate (Chart 6, bottom 2 panels), strong wage growth will limit how accommodative the Fed can be as it seeks to re-anchor inflation expectations. As such, persistently strong wage growth will limit the amount of curve steepening that can occur. Inflation Expectations The Fed’s need to re-anchor inflation expectations in a range consistent with its target is the main reason to forecast curve steepening. At present, the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate is a mere 1.66%, well below the 2.3%-2.5% range that the Fed would consider “well anchored”. One might conclude that if the Fed succeeds in driving this rate higher, it will impart significant steepening pressure to the curve. However, we must also note that the 2-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate is even lower than the 10-year rate (Chart 7). Given our view that long-dated inflation expectations adapt only slowly to the actual inflation data, we would expect both the 2-year and 10-year breakevens to rise in tandem, exerting some modest flattening pressure on the curve.3 Chart 7Any Steepening Will Come From Real Yields Ironically, if the Fed is successful in re-anchoring long-dated inflation expectations, we expect it will cause the yield curve to steepen, but through its impact on real yields. At present, the 2-year and 10-year real yields are 0.37% and 0.14%, respectively. The act of holding rates steady for long enough to re-anchor inflation expectations will exert downward pressure on the 2-year real yield, while the 10-year real yield will rise in response to an improved growth outlook. The Fed’s goal of re-anchoring inflation expectations will likely lead to some curve steepening, but through the real component of yields, not the inflation component. The Neutral Rate The neutral rate – the fed funds rate that is neither inflationary nor deflationary – is a major wild card when it comes to the yield curve. Right now, the median Fed estimate calls for a neutral rate of 2.5%, while the market is pricing-in an even lower rate of 2%, at least according to the 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yield (Chart 8). Neutral rate estimates have been revised lower during the past few years, exerting significant flattening pressure on the yield curve. In theory, if we reach an inflection point where neutral rate estimates are revised higher, it would lead to substantial curve steepening. One thing to watch to help predict movement in neutral rate estimates is the gold price.4 Gold performs well when the market perceives monetary policy as increasingly accommodative, either because the Fed is cutting rates or because the assumed neutral rate is rising. The 2013 drop in gold foreshadowed downward revisions to the Fed’s neutral rate estimate (Chart 8, bottom panel). A further increase in gold, especially once the Fed stops cutting rates, would send a strong signal that current neutral rate estimates are too low. Monetary policy arguably exerts its greatest economic impact through the housing market. Investors can also watch the housing market for clues about the neutral rate. Monetary policy arguably exerts its greatest economic impact through the housing market. If housing activity starts to wane, it can be a strong signal that interest rates are too high. Last year, housing activity started to flag once the mortgage rate moved above 4% (Chart 9). If 4% proves to be the ceiling on mortgage rates, it would mean that the Fed’s current neutral rate estimate is roughly correct. However, home prices have moderated since last year, and new construction has started to focus more on the low-end of the market, where supply remains scarce.5 This shift in focus from homebuilders has caused the price of new homes to fall considerably (Chart 9, bottom panel), a supply side re-adjustment that could make the housing market more resilient in the face of higher rates. Chart 8Tracking The Neutral Rate: Gold Chart 9Tracking The Neutral Rate: Housing An upward re-assessment of the neutral rate would impart steepening pressure to the yield curve, but only if it occurs quickly, before the Fed has time to deliver offsetting rate hikes. However, we think it’s more likely that any increase in neutral rate estimates will occur gradually, alongside Fed tightening. In that case, a roughly parallel upward shift in the yield curve would be the most likely outcome. Verdict Considering all of the above factors, we would look for some modest 2/10 curve steepening during the next few months. The steepening will be driven by the Fed’s desire to re-anchor long-dated inflation expectations, a desire that will result in them keeping rates steady (apart from one more cut tomorrow), even as economic growth improves. As noted above, this steepening will show up in real yields, not in the TIPS breakeven inflation curve. That being said, strong wage growth and overly dovish market rate cut expectations will ensure that any steepening is well contained. We expect the 2/10 slope to stay in a range between 0 bps and 50 bps for the next 6-12 months. Yield Curve Strategy Chart 10Treasury Yield Curve When thinking about how to position a Treasury portfolio for our expected yield curve outcome, we first look at the value proposition offered by different Treasury maturities. Chart 10 shows the Treasury yield curve, and also each maturity’s 12-month rolling yield. The rolling yield is simply the combination of each maturity’s 12-month yield income and the price impact of rolling down the curve. It can be thought of as the return you would earn holding each bond for 12 months in an unchanged yield curve environment. The first thing that sticks out in Chart 10 is that the 5-year note offers poor value. We also note that the curve steepens sharply beyond the 5-year maturity point, so maturities greater than 5 years benefit a lot from rolldown. The simple intuition from Chart 10 is confirmed by our butterfly spread models.6  Chart 11shows that the 5-year bullet looks very expensive relative to a duration-matched barbell portfolio consisting of the 2-year and 10-year notes. In fact, with only a few exceptions, bullets are expensive relative to barbells across the entire Treasury curve (see Appendix). Chart 11Bullets Are Very Expensive All else equal, bullets tend to outperform barbells when the yield curve steepens. However, given current valuations, it would take a lot of steepening for bullets to outperform barbells during the next few months. Chart 12Yield Curve Correlations Further, Chart 12 shows that the front-end of the yield curve – out to about the 5-year/7-year point – tends to steepen when our 12-month discounter rises, while the long-end of the curve – beyond the 7-year point – tends to flatten. Given that our 12-month discounter is currently -53 bps, meaning that the market is priced for 53 bps of rate cuts during the next year, we expect it will rise during the next few months. This should exert the most upward pressure on the 5-year/7-year part of the curve. We have been recommending that investors play the curve by going long a 2/30 barbell and shorting the 7-year bullet. But given the significant rolldown advantage in the 7-year compared to the 5-year, we amend that recommendation this week. We now recommend that investors short the 5-year bullet and go long a duration-matched barbell consisting of the 2-year and 30-year maturities. Bottom Line: The 5-year Treasury note looks expensive compared to the rest of the yield curve, and historical correlations suggest it will rise the most if the Fed delivers fewer rate cuts than are currently expected. We recommend that investors short the 5-year bullet versus a duration-matched 2/30 barbell. Appendix Table 1Butterfly Strategy Valuation: Raw Residuals In Basis Points (As of October 25, 2019) Table 2Butterfly Strategy Valuation: Standardized Residuals (As of October 25, 2019) Ryan Swift U.S. Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Crisis Of Confidence”, dated October 22, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 For further details on BCA’s outlook for US/China trade negotiations please see Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, “How Much To Buy An American President?”, dated October 25, 2019, available at gps.bcaresearch.com 3 For further details on how inflation expectations adapt to the actual inflation data please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Adaptive Expectations In The TIPS Market”, dated November 20, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “A Signal From Gold?”, dated May 1, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 5 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Long Awkward Middle Phase”, dated July 2, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 6 For details on our butterfly spread models please see U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, “Bullets, Barbells And Butterflies”, dated July 25, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

Highlights Analysis on Chile is available below. EM local bond yields have decoupled from their traditional macro drivers. This could be a sign that EM domestic bonds are entering a New Normal. We refer to a New Normal for EM local bonds when their yields drop during a global growth slowdown even as their currencies depreciate. Only time will tell whether the recent decoupling between EM local bond yields and their currencies is due to investor complacency or represents a sustainable paradigm shift. We are instituting a buy stop on the MSCI EM equity index at 1075. If and when the EM stock index in dollar terms breaks decisively above this level, we will become cyclically bullish and recommend playing the rally. Feature EM local currency bond yields have fallen below their 2013 lows (Chart I-1) – levels not reached since before the Federal Reserve-induced “Taper Tantrum” in the spring of 2013, when EM domestic bond yields spiked and currencies plunged. Crucially, in a major departure from their historical relationship, the aggregate EM GBI index of local bond yields has decoupled from EM currencies (Chart I-1), commodities prices, EM U.S dollar-denominated sovereign bond yields and the global business cycle (Chart I-2). Chart I-1EM Local Bond Yields Have Decoupled From EM Currencies Chart I-2EM Domestic Bond Yields Have Diverged From Their Traditional Macro Drivers   Will this decoupling persist, or will the past relationship be re-established? In other words, have EM local currency bonds entered a New Normal – a paradigm where their yields behave like DM yields – falling during deflationary periods and rising during business cycle recoveries? What We Got Right And Wrong We had not been anticipating such a large drop in EM domestic bond yields this year. Our analysis has been based on the following pillars: That the global trade and manufacturing recession would persist until late 2019, and that such an outcome would herald lower commodities prices and weaker EM currencies. Falling resource prices and EM currency deprecation, consistent with the history shown in Chart I-1 and I-2, would lead to a foreign investor exodus from EM local bonds, reinforcing currency depreciation and somewhat higher yields.   Our theme that the global trade and manufacturing recession has been driven by weak domestic demand in China and the rest of the EM has played out quite well; commodities prices have been weak and EM currencies have depreciated. In addition, the broad trade-weighted dollar has been strong and DM bond yields have plunged in the past 12 months, in line with our theme of a global growth slump. In a major departure from their historical relationship, the aggregate EM GBI index of local bond yields has decoupled from EM currencies commodities prices, EM U.S dollar-denominated sovereign bond yields and the global business cycle. Nevertheless, our view of a selloff in EM domestic bonds has not panned out. In other words, our spot-on macro analysis has not translated into a successful investment call on the direction of EM local yields. The reason has been a change in the relationship between EM bond yields and their typical global macro drivers, specifically EM currencies. A potential counter-argument could be that falling DM bond yields have pushed EM local yields lower. However, contrary to the widespread consensus view, both EM local bond yields and currencies have illustrated a relatively weak correlation with U.S. bond yields (Chart I-3). All in all, even though our macro view has been on the ball, we have been flat-footed by the shifting relationship between EM domestic bond yields and their traditional macro drivers as illustrated in Chart I-1 and I-2.  Finally, even though EM bond yields have plunged, their total returns in U.S. dollar terms have not been spectacular (Chart I-4, top panel). Crucially, the EM GBI total return index in dollar terms has not outperformed that of duration-matched U.S. Treasurys (Chart I-4, bottom panel). Chart I-3No Stable Correlation Between EM Markets And U.S. Bond Yields Chart I-4EM Local Bonds Have Rallied But Have Not Outperformed U.S. Treasurys   Our macro views and themes have been positive for DM bonds. Fixed-income investors who favored U.S. Treasurys over EM local bonds have not underperformed by much in the past 12 months and have actually dramatically outperformed in 2018. Complacency Or A New Normal? There are two possible scenarios for EM domestic bonds going forward: Bullish Scenario: EM Local Bonds Have Entered A New Normal We refer to a New Normal for EM local bonds when their yields drop during a global growth slowdown even as EM currencies depreciate. This implies the past relationships between EM domestic yields on the one hand, and EM currencies and global macro variables on the other hand have permanently reversed. If EM domestic bonds have entered a New Normal, central banks in high-yielding EMs should cut interest rates during global growth slowdowns even if their exchange rate depreciates. Besides, their local bond yields should move lower despite currency weakness. If these two conditions are satisfied, one can argue that a major regime shift in EM interest rates has taken place. Ongoing rate cuts by a few of EM central banks - despite lingering weakness in their currencies - could be an indication that we are entering such a regime shift (Chart I-5). We refer to a New Normal for EM local bonds when their yields drop during a global growth slowdown even as EM currencies depreciate. We are open to accept this idea of a New Normal. Central banks in any economy where growth is slowing and inflation is low or falling should reduce interest rates even if their exchange rate depreciates. This will be a positive development for these countries, as it will make their monetary policy counter-cyclical - as it should be. One pre-condition for EM domestic bonds entering a New Normal is for the share of foreign investors holding of local currency bonds to decline. It is occurring at the margin in some countries. In Turkey, South Africa, Malaysia and Poland, the share of foreign investors in domestic bonds has fallen (Chart I-6). Yet, this phenomenon is not occurring in Indonesia, Russia, Colombia and Mexico. Chart I-5Rare Examples Of Rate Cuts Amid Currency Weakness Chart I-6Falling Share Of Foreign Investors   Negative Scenario: Investor Complacency Ends Chart I-7EM Currencies Correlate With Global Business Cycle And Commodities Prices Another potential explanation for the resilience of EM domestic yields to local currency depreciation is investor complacency: extremely low and negative bond yields in DM is inducing an unrelenting search for yields. As a result, investors are looking through EM currency depreciation, hoping it will be fleeting. Conditional on our view that EM currencies remain at risk of further depreciation panning out, EM local bonds are unlikely to avoid foreign outflows and higher yields under this scenario. This is especially true for the EM countries with high foreign ownership of local bonds. In theory, various macro forces such as expectations of domestic monetary policy, fiscal policy, inflation prospects, domestic business cycles, individual countries’ exchange rates as well as global interest rates should influence EM local bond yields. In reality, however, EM local yields have historically risen during periods of global business cycle downturns and falling commodities prices. The channel was via EM currencies, which depreciated during these periods (Chart I-7). Thereby, the primary driver for local bond yields has historically been swings in domestic exchange rates. In turn, the basis for this high sensitivity of EM domestic bond yields to their exchange rates has been due to the large share of foreign ownership. Table I-1 illustrates that the share of local currency government bonds held by foreign investors is high in the majority of EM countries. The exceptions are China, India, Korea, the Philippines and Chile. The data for Brazil are suspect. It is difficult to believe that foreigners own a mere 12% and declining share of Brazilian local currency bonds. Another potential explanation for the resilience of EM domestic yields to local currency depreciation is investor complacency: extremely low and negative bond yields in DM is inducing an unrelenting search for yields. As a result, investors are looking through EM currency depreciation, hoping it will be fleeting. What is critical, is that international investors care about the returns on their investments in U.S. dollars, euros or Japanese yen. Hence, they are very sensitive to exchange rates. Historically, foreign investors flee EM local bond markets when EM currencies depreciate, and vice versa. Chart I-8 illustrates the wide gap between total returns on EM domestic bonds in local currency and U.S. dollar terms. Table I-1Share Of Domestic Bonds Held By Foreign Investors Chart I-8EM Currencies Are Key To EM Local Bonds Volatility   In short, most investment return volatility in EM local bonds can be attributed to exchange rates – i.e., investments in EM local bonds have in practical terms constituted a bet on their exchange rates. If EM currencies experience another downleg, foreign investors’ patience might run out, causing a spike in EM local yields. Bottom Line: It is still early to conclude if a New Normal in EM domestic bonds has already taken hold. Only time will tell whether the recent decoupling between EM local bond yields and their currencies is due to an unrelenting search for yield or represents a paradigm shift. Reasons Why Local EM Yields Could Rise There are two macro risks to EM local bonds: 1.  A deepening/persisting growth slump in China Deteriorating Chinese domestic growth or a weaker RMB remain the key risks to the rest of the world. In brief, odds are high that China will continue exporting deflation to the rest of the world. Shrinking Chinese imports imply that the rest of the world’s export revenues emanating from their shipments to China are contracting (Chart I-9). A negative growth shock in EM economies that are exposed to China heralds both weaker currencies and lower interest rates. Given that high-yielding EM local bonds yields have risen historically during negative growth shocks, we are reluctant to chase these EM yields lower. This has been, and remains, our main thesis for high-yielding EM bond markets. 2.  Rising inflation in the U.S. Despite commentators’ preoccupation with global deflation and recession, U.S. core inflation is moving up. The equal-weighted average of various core measures presently stands at 2.2% and is drifting higher (Chart I-10). Chart I-9Chinese Imports Are Shrinking Chart I-10U.S. Core Inflation Is Above 2% And Rising   Besides, BCA Research’s U.S. wage tracker and unit labor costs have been accelerating (Chart I-11). The tight labor market in the U.S. suggest that risks to wages and unit labor costs and, ultimately, inflation are skewed to the upside. Chart I-11U.S. Wages And Unit Labor Costs Are Accelerating Unless U.S. growth slows much further, America’s fixed-income markets will at some point wake up to the reality of rising inflation. This will produce a shift up in the entire yield curve. Such a spike in U.S. Treasury yields will lead to a period of dollar strength and a selloff in overbought EM local bonds. Bottom Line: EM local bonds are discounting a goldilocks scenario. The two most likely risks that investors should monitor are a deepening growth slump in China and upside surprises in U.S. consumer price inflation.  Investment Strategy: Instituting A Buy Stop on EM Equities Given our negative stance on EM exchange rates, we have been receiving rates in EM countries where interest rates historically dropped amid currency deprecation. These include Korea, Chile and Mexico (the latter due to the value in local rates). For a dedicated EM local bond portfolio, our recommended overweights have been: Mexico, Russia, Central Europe, Chile, Korea and Thailand. Our underweights have been South Africa, Turkey, Indonesia, the Philippines and Argentina. Clients can always find our country allocation and trades for the EM local bond universe at the end of our weekly reports - please refer to page 14 - or on our website.  Also, gauging the direction of EM local bond yields is critical not only to fixed-income portfolio managers but to equity managers as well. Chart I-12 illustrates that EM equities rally when their domestic bond yields are falling. The failure of EM share prices to rally in recent months amid plunging EM local bond yields has been due to shrinking corporate profits. We are instituting a buy stop on the MSCI EM equity index at 1075. Any pick-up in EM domestic bond yields without recovery in EM corporate earnings will cause a major drop in EM equities. As to our EM equity strategy, our negative view is currently being challenged by the reaction of global share prices to negative profits and growth data releases. Despite very weak global trade and manufacturing data as well as downbeat profits from cyclical sectors, U.S. high-beta stocks and global cyclicals – an equal-weighted average of global industrials, materials and semiconductor stocks - have held up well (Chart I-13). Chart I-12EM Stocks Struggled Despite Falling Local Yields Chart I-13Global Cyclicals And U.S. High-Beta Stocks Are Holding Up   This could reflect investor complacency or it could be that the equity market is sensing an imminent recovery in global growth that we do not see in data. In particular, DM equities are at a critical juncture – not only the S&P 500 but also euro area stock prices are flirting with their previous highs (Chart I-14). Chart I-14Euro Area Stocks Are At Their Major Resistance If they relapse from here, it will signify a bear market. On the other hand, if these equity markets break out, it would suggest that a major upleg is in the making. Even though EM share prices are well below their previous highs, they are also at a make or break juncture. Therefore, we are instituting a buy stop on the MSCI EM equity index at 1075 (Chart I-15). If and when the EM stock index in dollar terms breaks decisively above this level, we will become cyclically bullish and recommend playing the rally. Chart I-15We Are Instituting A Buy Stop at 1075 on MSCI EM Index   Arthur Budaghyan Chief Emerging Markets Strategist arthurb@bcaresearch.com Chile: Structural Equity De-Rating The latest violent protests in Chile have raised doubts about its socio-political and economic stability. As a result, Chilean share prices could be facing both absolute and relative (versus other EM bourses) de-ratings. We are downgrading this bourse from overweight to neutral within an EM equity portfolio, reiterating our short position in the peso versus the dollar, and continue to bet on lower rates and falling inflation cyclically, as discussed in great length in our recent report. Chilean stocks have always been among the most expensive within the EM universe due to the nation’s economic and socio-political stability. The violent protests now warrant a structural de-rating of equity valuations (Chart II-1). Chart II-1Chilean Share Prices: A Long-Term Perspective First, the government will be forced to adopt much more populist policies, such as the recently announced raise in minimum wages, pension payments and healthcare benefits. Unit labor costs for businesses are set to rise substantially, eating into corporate profit margins. Second, in line with more populist policies, larger budget deficits and structurally higher inflation will cause the long-end of the yield curve to rise. Higher interest rates will put downward pressure on equity multiples. Finally, equity investors will require a higher risk premium to invest in this bourse. Chile’s equity valuation premium versus EM overall will shrink. Bottom Line: The central bank will have to cut rates by a larger margin: continue receiving 3-year swap rates. A recession is unavoidable as business confidence will plunge and derail hiring and investments. Inflation will fall much further cyclically: bet on lower inflation by going long 3-year local currency bonds and shorting their inflation-linked counterparts. Continue shorting the peso versus the U.S. dollar. Downgrade the allocation to Chilean stocks from overweight to neutral within an EM equity portfolio. Footnotes   Equities Recommendations Currencies, Credit And Fixed-Income Recommendations

Highlights On a tactical horizon, underweight bonds versus cash, especially those bonds with deeply negative yields… …and underweight bonds versus equities. On a strategic horizon, remain overweight a 50:50 combination of U.S. T-bonds and Italian BTPs versus a 50:50 combination of German Bunds and Spanish Bonos, at either 10-year or 30-year bond maturities. Investors could also play the component pairs: overweight U.S. T-bonds versus German bunds; and overweight Italian BTPs versus Spanish Bonos. New recommendation: switch Japanese yen long exposure into Swedish krona long exposure. Fractal trade: long SEK/JPY. Feature Chart of the WeekSwiss Bond Yields Have Found It Difficult To Go Down, But Easy To Go Up! Anybody who has dared to bet that JGB yields would rise has ended up being carried out of their job, feet first. Shorting Japanese government bonds (JGBs) is known as the widow maker trade. Over the past 20 years, any investment manager who has dared to bet that JGB yields would rise – whether starting from 2 percent, 1 percent, or even 0.5 percent – has ended up being carried out of their job in a box, feet first. Today, the Bank of Japan’s policy of ‘yield curve control’ means that JGB yields are constrained within a tight range around zero, limiting their immediate scope to break higher. The European equivalent of the widow maker trade has been to short Swiss government bonds. Just as with JGB’s during the past two decades, anybody who has dared to bet that Swiss government bond yields would rise – whether starting from 2 percent, 1 percent, or 0.5 percent – has been proved fatally wrong (Chart I-2). Chart I-2Widow Makers: Shorting Japanese And Swiss Bonds That is, until this year, when Swiss government bond yields reached -1 percent. The Lower Bound To Bond Yields Is Around -1 Percent According to several senior central bankers who have spoken to us, the practical lower bound to the policy interest rate is -1 percent, because “-1 percent counterbalances the storage cost of holding physical cash and/or other stores of value”. They argue that if bank deposit rates were to fall much below -1 percent, it would be logical for bank depositors to flee wholesale into physical cash, and such a deposit flight would destroy the banking system.1 Still, couldn’t central banks just abolish physical cash, forcing us all into ‘digital cash’ with unlimited negative interest rates? No, because that would just push us into other stores of value: for example, gold, or the rapidly growing ‘decentralised’ cryptocurrency asset-class. The common counterargument is that cryptocurrencies’ volatility makes them a poor store of value. But that is also true for gold: during a few months in 2013, gold lost one third of its value (Chart I-3). Yet who has ever argued that gold cannot be a store of value just because its price is volatile! Chart I-3Gold Is A Store Of Value ##br## Despite Its Volatility The practical lower bound to the policy interest rate is around -1 percent because the central bank policy rate establishes the banking system’s funding rate – for example, the Eonia rate in the euro area (Chart I-4). If the funding rate fell well below the rate that the banks were paying on deposits, the banking system would come under severe strain and ultimately go bust. The lower bound of the policy rate also sets the lower bound of the bond yield, because a bond yield is just the expected average policy rate over the bond’s lifetime. Chart I-4The Policy Interest Rate Establishes The Banking System's Funding Rate There is one important exception. If bond investors price in the possibility of being repaid in a different and more valuable currency, the bond yield will carry a further redenomination discount as an offset for the potential currency gain. This is relevant to euro area bonds because there remains the remote possibility of euro disintegration. Bonds which would expect to see a currency redenomination gain – notably, German bunds – therefore carry an additional discount on their yields. But for bonds where no currency redenomination is possible, the practical lower bound to bond yields is around -1 percent. Overweight High Yielding Bonds Versus Low Yielding Bonds To state the obvious, the closer that a bond yield gets to the -1 percent lower bound, the more limited becomes the possibility for a further yield decline (capital gain), while the possibility for a yield increase (capital loss) stays unlimited. This unattractive lack of upside combined with plenty of potential downside is called negative skew or negative asymmetry. It follows that, close to the lower bound of yields, the cyclicality or ‘beta’ of bond prices also becomes asymmetric. In risk-off phases, the bond prices cannot rally; while in risk-on phases, bond prices can plummet. Making such bonds a ‘lose-lose’ proposition. Case in point: Swiss bond yields have found it difficult to go down this year, but very easy to go up (Chart of the Week). Because their yields were already so close to -1 percent, Swiss bond yields could not decline much during the bond market’s recent strong rally – meaning, Swiss bond prices were very low beta on the way up. But in the recent reversal, Swiss bond yields have risen much more than others – meaning, Swiss bond prices are high beta on the way down (Chart I-5).   Chart I-5Swiss Bond Prices Are Low Beta Going Up, But High Beta Going Down Does this mean the widow maker trade can finally work? Yes, but only on a tactical horizon. For the full rationale, which we will not repeat here, please see Growth To Rebound In The Fourth Quarter, But Fade In 2020. However in summary, expect bond yields to edge modestly higher, and especially those yields that are deeply in negative territory. Also on a tactical horizon, prefer equities over bonds.  On a longer term horizon, a much safer way to play the asymmetric beta is to short low yielding bonds in relative terms. In other words, overweight high yielding bonds versus low yielding bonds.2 Close to the lower bound of yields, the cyclicality or ‘beta’ of bond prices becomes asymmetric. Our strategic recommendation is to overweight a 50:50 combination of U.S. T-bonds and Italian BTPs versus a 50:50 combination of German Bunds and Spanish Bonos, at either 10-year or 30-year bond maturities. Since initiation five months ago, the recommendation at the 30-year maturity is already up by almost 7 percent. Nevertheless, it has a lot further to go (Chart I-6). Investors could also play the component pairs: overweight U.S. T-bonds versus German bunds; and overweight Italian BTPs versus Spanish Bonos (Chart I-7 and Chart I-8), but the combined two bonds versus two bonds recommendation has better return to risk characteristics. Chart I-6Expect High Yielding Bonds To Outperform Low Yielding Bonds Chart I-7Expect Yield Spread Convergence At 10-Year Maturities... Chart I-8...And At 30-Year ##br##Maturities Switch Into The Swedish Krona   Bond yield spreads are also an important driver of currency moves. The currency corollary of overweighting high yielding versus low yielding bonds is to tilt towards low yielding currencies, because these are the currencies that have the most scope for substantial upside. Our favourite low yielding currency has been the Japanese yen, and this has worked very well. Since early 2018, the yen has been the strongest major currency, and is up 16 percent versus the euro. But our favourite currency is now changing to the Swedish krona, for three reasons: The SEK is depressed from a valuation perspective. For example, it is the only major currencies that is weaker than the GBP compared to before the Brexit vote in 2016 (Chart I-9). Chart I-9The Swedish Krona Has Underperformed The Pound Despite Brexit Unlike other major central banks, the Riksbank is seeking to normalise the policy rate upwards. The SEK is technically oversold on its 130-day fractal dimension, signalling over-pessimism in the price (Chart I-10), while the JPY is showing the opposite tendency. Chart I-10The Swedish Krona Is Due A Countertrend Move Bottom Line: switch Japanese yen long exposure into Swedish krona long exposure. Fractal Trading System* (Chart 1-11) As just discussed, this week's recommended trade is long SEK/JPY. Set the profit target at 1.5 percent with a symmetrical stop-loss. In other trades, long NZD/JPY has started off very well and long Spain versus Belgium achieved its 3.5 percent profit target, at which it was closed, leaving five open positions. For any investment, excessive trend following and groupthink can reach a natural point of instability, at which point the established trend is highly likely to break down with or without an external catalyst. An early warning sign is the investment’s fractal dimension approaching its natural lower bound. Encouragingly, this trigger has consistently identified countertrend moves of various magnitudes across all asset classes. Chart I-11 The post-June 9, 2016 fractal trading model rules are: When the fractal dimension approaches the lower limit after an investment has been in an established trend it is a potential trigger for a liquidity-triggered trend reversal. Therefore, open a countertrend position. The profit target is a one-third reversal of the preceding 13-week move. Apply a symmetrical stop-loss. Close the position at the profit target or stop-loss. Otherwise close the position after 13 weeks. Use the position size multiple to control risk. The position size will be smaller for more risky positions. For more details please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report “Fractals, Liquidity & A Trading Model,” dated December 11, 2014, available at eis.bcaresearch.com.   Dhaval Joshi Chief European  Investment Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 The cost of holding physical cash is the cost of its safe storage. 2 Please see the European Investment Strategy Weekly Report ‘Growth To Rebound In The Fourth Quarter, But Fade In 2020’, October 3, 2019 available at eis.bcaresearch.com. Fractal Trading Model Cyclical Recommendations Structural Recommendations Fractal Trades Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields   Interest Rate Chart II-5Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations  

Highlights Shifting Trends: The factors that have driven bond yields lower throughout 2019 – slowing growth, rising uncertainty, demand for safe assets and dovish monetary policy expectations – have all started to turn in a more bond-bearish direction. Duration & Country Allocation Strategy: Maintain a moderate below-benchmark stance on aggregate bond portfolio duration. Favor lower-beta countries with central banks that are more likely to stay relatively dovish as global yields drift higher, like core Europe, Australia and Japan. Credit Allocation Strategy: Stay overweight corporate bonds versus government debt in the U.S. and Europe, both for investment grade and high-yield. Maintain just a neutral stance on EM USD-denominated spread product, but look to upgrade if global growth improves further and the USD begins to weaken. Feature Chart of the WeekBond Yields Sniffing A Turn In Global Growth? It has been fifty days (and counting) since the 2019 low for the benchmark 10-year U.S. Treasury yield was reached on September 3. The year-to-date low for the benchmark 10-year German bund yield was seen six days before that on August 28. Yields have risen by a healthy amount since those dates, up +34bps and +37bps for the 10yr Treasury and Bund, respectively. This has occurred despite the significant degree of bond-bullish pessimism on global growth and inflation that can be found in financial media reporting and investor surveys. The fact that yields are now steadily moving away from the lows suggests that the 2019 narrative for financial markets – slowing global growth, triggered by political uncertainty and the lagged impact of previous Fed monetary tightening and China credit tightening, forcing central banks to turn increasingly more dovish – is no longer correct. If that is true, yields have more near-term upside as overbought government bond markets begin to “sniff out” a bottoming out of global growth momentum (Chart of the Week). In this Weekly Report, we take a look at the changing state of the factors that fueled the sharp decline in bond yields in 2019. We follow that up with a review of all our current recommended investment positions on duration, country allocation and spread product allocations in light of recent developments. We conclude that maintaining a below-benchmark duration exposure, while favoring lower-beta countries in sovereign debt and overweighting corporate debt in the U.S. and Europe, is the most appropriate fixed income strategy for the next 6-12 months. The timing of the bottoming of yields in the major developed markets (DM) should not be surprising, given the more bond-bearish turn of reliable leading directional yield indicators. Yields Are Rising At The Right Time, For The Right Reasons Chart 2Bond-Bullish Growth & Inflation Factors Are Turning The timing of the bottoming of yields in the major developed markets (DM) should not be surprising, given the more bond-bearish turn of reliable leading directional yield indicators. The diffusion index of our global leading economic indicator (LEI), which leads the real (ex-inflation expectations) component of DM bond yields by twelve months, is at an elevated level (Chart 2). At the same time, the slowing of the annual rate of growth in the trade-weighted U.S. dollar, which leads 10-year DM CPI swap rates by around six months, is signaling that bond yields have room to increase from the inflation expectations side. Finally, the rising trend of positive data surprises for the major DM countries is also pointing to higher yields. Breaking it down at the country level, the pickup in DM 10-year bond yields since the 2019 lows has been widespread (Charts 3 & 4). The range of yield increases is as low as +16bps in Japan, where the Bank of Japan (BoJ) is pursuing a yield target, to +46bps in Canada where the economy and inflation are both accelerating. Chart 3Pricing Out Some Expected Rate Cuts … Chart 4… Across All Developed Markets The increase in yields has also occurred alongside reduced expectations for easier monetary policy. Our 12-month discounters, which measure the expected change in short-term interest rates priced into Overnight Index Swap (OIS) curves, show that markets have partially priced out some (but not all) expected rate cuts in all major DM countries. The Three Things That Have Changed For Global Bond Markets So what has changed to trigger a reduction in rate cut expectations and an increase in global yields? The bond-bullish narrative that we refer to in the title of this report can be broken down into the following three elements, which have all turned recently: Slowing global growth (now potentially bottoming) Chart 5Global Growth Bottoming Out Current global growth is still trending lower, when looking at measures like manufacturing PMIs or sentiment surveys like the global ZEW index. Forward-looking measures like our global LEI, however, have been moving higher in recent months, suggesting that a bottom in the PMIs may soon unfold (Chart 5). We investigated that improvement in our global LEI in a recent report and concluded that the move higher was focused almost exclusively within the emerging market (EM) sub-components that are most sensitive to improving global growth.1 This fits with the improvement shown in the OECD LEI for China, a bottoming of the annual growth rate of world exports, and the general acceleration of global equity markets – the classic leading economic indicator. Rising political uncertainty (now potentially fading) The U.S.-China trade war (including the implications for the upcoming 2020 U.S. presidential election) and the U.K. Brexit saga have been the main sources of bond-bullish political uncertainty over the past several months. Yet recent developments have helped reduce the odds of the most negative tail risk outcomes, providing a bit of a boost to global bond yields. The U.S. and China have agreed (in principle) to a “phase one” trade deal that, at a minimum, lowers the chances of a further escalation of the trade dispute through higher tariffs. Meanwhile, the momentum has shifted towards a potential final Brexit agreement between the U.K. and European Union that can avoid an ugly no-deal outcome. Our colleagues at BCA Research Geopolitical Strategy believe that developments are likely to continue moving away from the worst-case scenarios, given the constraints faced by policymakers.2 U.S. President Donald Trump is now in full campaign mode for the 2020 elections and needs a deal (of any kind) to deflect criticism that his trade battle with China is dragging the U.S. economy into recession. Already, there has been a sharp decline in income growth for workers in swing states that could vote for either party’s candidate in next year’s election (Chart 6). Trump cannot afford to lose voters in those states, many of which are in the U.S. industrial heartland (i.e. Ohio, Michigan) that helped put him in the White House. In other words, he is highly incentivized to turn down the heat on the trade war or else face a potential loss next November. While these political uncertainties have not been fully resolved by these latest developments, the shift in momentum away from worst-case scenarios has likely been enough to reduce the safe-haven bid for DM government bonds, helping push yields higher. Meanwhile, China is facing a slowing economy and rising unemployment, but with reduced means to fight the downtrend given high private sector debt that has impaired the typical response between easier monetary conditions and economic activity (Chart 7). While the Chinese government does not want to be seen as caving in to U.S. pressure on trade policy, its desire to maintain social stability by preventing a further rise in unemployment from the trade war provides a powerful incentive to try and ratchet down tensions with the U.S. Chart 6Political Reasons For Trump To Retreat On Trade In the U.K., a no-deal Brexit is an economically painful and politically unpopular outcome that would severely damage the re-election chances of Prime Minister Boris Johnson and his Conservative party. Thus, even a hard-line Brexiteer like Johnson must respond to the political constraints forcing him to try and get a Brexit deal done (Chart 8). Chart 7Economic Reasons For China To Retreat On Trade Chart 8Political Reasons To Retreat On A No-Deal Brexit While these political uncertainties have not been fully resolved by these latest developments, the shift in momentum away from worst-case scenarios has likely been enough to reduce the safe-haven bid for DM government bonds, helping push yields higher. Bull-flattening pressure on yield curves (now turning into moderate bear-steepening) The final leg down in bond yields in August had a technical aspect to it, fueled by the demand for duration and convexity from asset-liability managers like European pension funds and insurance companies. Falling yields act to raise the value of liabilities for that group of investors, forcing them to rapidly increase the duration of their assets to match the duration of their liabilities (the technique used to limit the gap between the value of assets and liabilities). That duration increase is carried out by buying government bonds with longer maturities (and higher convexity), but also through the use of interest rate derivatives like long maturity swaps and swaptions. The end result is a bull flattening of yield curves (both for government bonds and swaps) and a rise in swaption volatility (i.e. the price of swaptions). Those dynamics were clearly in play in August after the shocking imposition of fresh U.S. tariffs on Chinese imports early in the month. Bond and swaption volatilities spiked, and bond/swap yield curves bull-flattened, in both Europe and the U.S. (Chart 9). That effect only lasted a few weeks, however, and volatilities have since declined and curves have steepened. This suggests that the “convexity-buying” effect has run its course and is now starting to work in the opposite direction, with asset-liability managers looking to reduce the duration of their assets as higher yields lower the value of their liabilities. This is putting some upward pressure on longer-maturity global bond yields. Chart 9Signs Of Reduced Convexity-Related Bond Buying Chart 10Bull-Flattening Yield Curve Pressures Easing Up A Bit Chart 11Fed & ECB Actions Should Help Steepen Up Curves The steepening seen so far must be put in context, however, as yield curves remain very flat across the DM world (Chart 10). Term premia on longer-term bonds remain very depressed, although those should start to increase as global growth stabilizes and the massive safe-haven demand for global government debt begins to dissipate. Some pickup in inflation expectations would also help impart additional bear-steepening momentum to yield curves – a more likely result now that the Fed and ECB have both cut interest rates and, more importantly, will start provide additional monetary easing by expanding their balance sheets (Chart 11). Bottom Line: The factors that have driven bond yields lower throughout 2019 – slowing growth, rising uncertainty, demand for safe assets and dovish monetary policy expectations – have all started to turn in a more bond-bearish direction. Reviewing Our Recommended Bond Allocations In light of these shifting global trends described above, the fixed income investment implications are fairly straightforward: Yields are rising around the world, suggesting that the current move is a shift higher driven by non-country-specific factors like more stable future global growth prospects. Duration: A moderate below-benchmark overall duration stance is warranted for global fixed income portfolios, with yields likely to continue drifting higher over at least the next six months. A big surge in yields is unlikely, as central banks will need to see decisive evidence that global growth is not only bottoming, but accelerating, before shifting away from the current dovish bias. Given the reporting lags in the economic data, such evidence is unlikely to appear until the first quarter of 2020 at the earliest. Yet given how flat yield curves are across the DM government bond markets, the trajectory of forward rates is quite stable relative to spot yield levels, making it much easier to beat the forwards by positioning for even a modest yield increase. Country Allocation: Yields are rising around the world, suggesting that the current move is a shift higher driven by non-country-specific factors like more stable future global growth prospects. In that case, using yield betas to the “global” bond yield is a good way to consider country allocation decisions within a fixed income portfolio. We looked at those yield betas in an August report, using Bloomberg Barclays government bond index data for the 7-10 year maturity buckets of individual countries and the Global Treasury aggregate (Chart 12).3 The rolling 3-year betas were highest in the U.S. and Canada, making them good countries to underweight within a global government bond portfolio in a rising yield environment. The yield betas were lowest in Japan, Germany and Australia, making them good overweight candidates. The U.K. was a unique case of having a relatively high historical yield beta prior to the 2016 Brexit referendum and a lower yield beta since then - making the U.K. allocation highly conditional on the resolution of the Brexit uncertainty. Spread Product Allocation: The backdrop described in this report, where global growth is bottoming out but where central banks maintain a dovish bias, is a perfect sweet spot for global spread product like corporate bonds and Peripheral European government debt. Thus, an overweight stance on overall global spread product versus governments is warranted. The backdrop described in this report, where global growth is bottoming out but where central banks maintain a dovish bias, is a perfect sweet spot for global spread product like corporate bonds and Peripheral European government debt. With regards to our current strategic fixed income recommendations and model bond portfolio allocations, we already have much of the positioning described above in place. We are below-benchmark on overall duration, underweight higher-beta U.S. Treasuries; overweight government bonds in lower-beta Germany, France, Japan and Australia (Chart 13); overweight investment grade corporate bonds in the U.S., euro area and U.K.; and overweight high-yield corporate bonds in the U.S. and euro area. Chart 12Favor Lower-Beta Government Bond Markets There are areas where our positioning could change, however. Chart 13Lower-Beta Laggards Should Start To Outperform In terms of government bonds, we are currently overweight the U.K. and neutral Canada. A final Brexit deal would justify a downgrade of Gilts to at least neutral, if not underweight, as the Bank of England has signaled that rate hikes would be justified if the Brexit uncertainty was resolved. A downgrade of higher-beta Canadian government debt to underweight could also be justified, although the Bank of Canada is not signaling that a change in monetary policy (in either direction) is warranted. For now, we will hold off on any change to our U.K. stance, as it is now likely that there will be another extension of the Brexit deadline beyond October 31. As for Canada, we remain neutral for now but will revisit that stance in an upcoming Weekly Report. With regards to spread product, we are only neutral EM USD-denominated sovereign and corporate debt, as well as Spanish sovereign bonds; and underweight Italian government debt. An EM upgrade to overweight would require two things that are not yet in place: a weaker U.S. dollar and accelerating Chinese economic growth. Chart 14Stay Overweight Corporates In The U.S. & Europe As for Peripheral governments, we have preferred to be overweight European corporate debt relative to sovereign bonds in Italy and Spain. The recent powerful rally in the Periphery, however, has driven the spreads over German bunds in those countries down to levels in line with corporate credit spreads (Chart 14). We will maintain these allocations for now, but will investigate the relative value proposition between euro area Peripheral sovereigns and corporates in an upcoming report. Bottom Line: Maintain a moderate below-benchmark stance on aggregate bond portfolio duration. Favor lower-beta countries with central banks that are more likely to stay relatively dovish as global yields drift higher, like core Europe, Australia and Japan. Stay overweight corporate bonds versus government debt in the U.S. and Europe, both for investment grade and high-yield. Maintain just a neutral stance on EM USD-denominated spread product, but look to upgrade if global growth improves further and the USD begins to weaken. Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1 Please see BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, “What Is Driving The Improvement In The BCA Global Leading Economic Indicator?”, dated October 2, 2019, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Research Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, “Five Constraints For The Fourth Quarter”, dated October 11, 2019, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Research U.S. Bond Strategy/Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, “Where’s The Positive Carry In Bond Markets?", dated August 20, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com and gfis.bcaresearch.com. Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Highlights The investors we met last week were ready to hear some good news: The constructive story we told across three days of client meetings is more sanguine than the consensus view, but clients were open to considering it. Global economic weakness and the elevated risk of a U.S. recession were primary concerns, … : As our Global Investment Strategy colleagues have suggested, it will take some time for investors to be convinced that global manufacturing really has seen the bottom and that the U.S. isn’t flirting with a recession. … followed by trade tensions and corporate indebtedness, … : Our small sample suggests that investors may have become de-sensitized to the daily ebb and flow of the U.S.-China conflict, though we continue to believe it looms large in the minds of corporate managements. … but nothing matches the anxiety provoked by Elizabeth Warren’s ascent: Every client asked about the potential consequences of a Warren White House. Feature We spent most of last week meeting with a subset of wealth management and family office clients. They are more focused on absolute returns than relative returns, but their primary concerns are nearly identical to their relative-return peers’. Our meetings touched on a broad constellation of questions about the fate of the expansion, the equity bull market, global growth and the U.S.-China trade negotiations. Clients also asked about the credit outlook and if inflation should be on their radar, but the topic that they raised with the most fervor, in every single one of our meetings, was the prospect of a Warren or Sanders presidency. Q: What is the bond market telling us? We think of the bond market as having two distinct components, rates (Treasuries) and credit (spread product). We have gotten used to regular retracements in the 10-year Treasury yield since it bottomed in July 2016, but watching it melt from 3.25% last November to 1.5% this August has challenged our constructive take on the U.S. economy. Falling yields are not necessarily signaling imminent economic trouble, however, so we continue to hold the view that a recession won’t occur before late 2021 or early 2022. We see this year’s falling Treasury yields as a coincident reflection of decelerating growth, not a harbinger of a recession. On a purely domestic basis, the principal driver of the decline in yields has been the shift in monetary policy expectations. The Fed’s dovish pivot did not occur in a vacuum, of course. Clear signs of decelerating growth set the stage for easier policy, both here and abroad. Whether or not the Fed was always calling the tune, all three step-function declines in 12-month forward fed funds rate expectations occurred as it was guiding markets to expect easier policy: ahead of the March FOMC meeting, when Fed speakers began warning of the danger of inflation expectations becoming unanchored on the downside; in May, when they were busily preparing the ground for a rate cut; and after the July meeting raised the prospect that the July cut would not be a one-off event (Chart 1). Chart 1The Fed's Dovish Pivot, ... Sovereign rates are not entirely determined domestically, and much of the softness in Treasury yields reflects the softness in yields in the rest of the world. So far this year, 10-year sovereign yields have moved in lockstep on either side of the Atlantic (Chart 2), preserving no-arbitrage conditions in currency-hedged Treasuries, gilts and bunds. Crude prices are another global variable, and their decline has weighed on inflation break-even rates (Chart 3), dampening the inflation compensation demanded by Treasury buyers. From a rates perspective, we think the bond market is telling us that global growth has slowed, central banks have taken monetary accommodation up a notch, and oil prices have slid. That’s not exactly an ideal growth backdrop, but it hardly spells the end of the expansion. Chart 2... And European Sovereigns' Gravitational Pull Have Dragged Treasury Yields Lower The credit market concurs. It doesn’t betray a whit of concern that the expansion is in trouble. Spreads quickly unwound last year’s fourth-quarter spike, and have since hung around their post-crisis lows (Chart 4). Non-financial corporations have become more indebted throughout the expansion, but servicing the debt is not at all onerous with yields at rock-bottom levels (Chart 5). Our U.S. Bond Strategy service’s proprietary corporate health monitor is signaling that corporate balance sheets have weakened (Chart 6, third panel), but the other elements required for a meaningful widening of spreads – a completed monetary tightening cycle1 (Chart 6, second panel), and a tightening of lending standards (Chart 6, bottom panel) – are not yet in place. Chart 3Falling Oil Prices Have Smothered Inflation Worries Chart 4Spreads Are Tight, ...   Chart 5... And Debt Service Is Easy Q: Isn’t it time to reduce credit exposures? Tight spreads may be a contrarian warning sign. Though it is sensible to shift some of a company’s financing burden to debt when it is so much cheaper than equity, combining a larger debt burden with degraded covenant protections is a concern. Low interest rates will keep debt service costs from chafing, and help keep defaults in check for now, but the bond market is increasingly vulnerable. Chart 6Spread Widening Conditions Aren't Yet In Place Chart 7Income Investors Need Not Apply Despite that vulnerability, when the next default cycle arrives, it will not have anywhere near the impact of the housing bust because it will deal no more than a glancing blow to the banks. Single-family homes collateralize the American banking system; corporate bonds are held by a diffuse assortment of unlevered players. It stinks for any unlevered investor when it loses money, but it doesn’t cause much of a ripple in the overall economy. Today’s buildup in corporate borrowing is not analogous to 2006-7’s residential mortgage Superfund site, and suggestions to the contrary are ill-founded. Elevated corporate leverage is a vulnerability, but it is not enough for an investor to identify a vulnerability; s/he also has to identify the catalyst that will cause it to snap. Nonfinancial corporate debt levels are a fissure that has been made longer by debauched covenants. Markets won’t suffer until the fissure lengthens and widens enough to turn into a crack that no investor can ignore. It is our view that easy monetary conditions will keep the fissure out of sight and out of mind for several months at least. Defaults only occur when a borrower is unable to refinance its maturing obligations. As long as there is at least one lender willing to extend new credit at manageable terms, the borrower won’t go bust. The current monetary policy backdrop, featuring zero/negative interest rate policy in much of the major economies, all but ensures a steady supply of willing lenders. Life insurers, pension funds and endowments with a need for income to offset fixed liabilities have been forced out the risk curve to source income sufficient to meet them (Chart 7). The net result has been to provide even wobbly credits offering an incremental 50 or 75 basis points with a line of would-be lenders out the door and around the corner. The global manufacturing sector has already succumbed to recession, but stout performance in the service sector has allowed developed economies to keep expanding. The weakest credits will not find lifelines, but plenty of dubious ones will. The current ultra-loose monetary policy environment is simply not a backdrop in which defaults pick up in earnest. Until central banks get a little less prodigal, the marginal lender won’t become more selective, the plates will keep spinning, and spread product will continue to generate excess returns over cash and Treasuries. Q: Things look worse outside the U.S. What’s your global growth outlook? Chart 8Manufacturing May Be Bottoming, ... The global manufacturing sector is in recession, but the overall global economy is not (Chart 8). A manufacturing recession does not necessarily lead to a full-blown recession, and the ongoing expansion in developed economies’ much larger service sector provides a formidable bulwark against manufacturing’s struggles (Chart 9). While it is too early to conclude if or when global activity will accelerate, our global leading economic indicator, and the diffusion index that leads it, suggest that it is in the process of bottoming (Chart 10). Chart 9... And Services May Have Stopped Decelerating ... Chart 10... If Leading Indicators Have Found A Footing Chart 11From Headwind To Tailwind Our China Investment Strategy team sees scope for Chinese growth to gather some steam in the first quarter of 2020, when local governments will be freed from the budget constraints imposed by Beijing through the end of this year. In the meantime, September money and credit growth topped expectations, and policymakers have been undertaking modest stimulus measures like trimming bank reserve requirement ratios. Changes in Chinese credit growth lead changes in global growth (Chart 11), via China’s credit-reliant import channel. Its imports are Europe’s, Japan’s, Asian EMs’, and Australia’s, Brazil’s and Chile’s exports. As their exports rise, so too does their aggregate demand, giving rise to a self-reinforcing virtuous circle. Q: What would President Warren mean for markets? Investors’ concerns about a Warren presidency are surely justified; Senator Warren has openly, and often gleefully, expressed hostility for banks, defense contractors, drug companies, oil companies engaged in fracking, and big tech. That’s quite a list, and it accounts for a considerable share of S&P 500 market capitalization. It is fair to say that a Warren administration would be unfriendly to equity investors, but there are several points to keep in mind before liquidating one’s portfolio and fleeing the country. It’s too early to award her the Democratic nomination. In October 2007, the smart money was certain that Hillary Clinton had already locked up a berth in the finals against the eventual Republican nominee. Very few Americans could have named the freshman senator from Illinois, known for little more than a well-received speech at the 2004 convention, but he became President Obama. A lot could still happen between now and the Iowa caucuses on February 3rd. Unseating an incumbent president is a tall order. As long as the economy does not enter a recession between now and next November, and the administration can achieve a policy victory without suffering a high-profile policy failure, our Geopolitical Strategy colleagues argue that Trump should be the presumed winner of the 2020 election. Their presumption applies no matter who captures the Democratic nomination, even as the U.S. electorate is shifting to the left over time (Chart 12). Transforming Washington is easier said than done. The framers designed the federal government to be fairly resistant to sweeping change. The Electoral College tamps down popular passions in the presidential election, and Congress and the courts limit the power of the executive branch. Administrations with majorities in the House and Senate routinely find themselves with less freedom than they would like, especially after they exhaust political capital achieving one major legislative initiative (as with the Obama Administration and the Affordable Care Act). Even if the Democrats ride President Warren’s coattails to control over Capitol Hill next November, legislators from conservative or swing districts and states will balk at her entire suite of proposals. Chart 12Democratic Voters Are Leaning More Left Investment Implications Our sunnier view of the global economic outlook translates into more constructive equity allocations across global regions and blocs. The BCA house view recommends equal weight allocations to Emerging Markets and the Eurozone within global equity portfolios across tactical (0-3-month) and cyclical (3-12-month) timeframes. We expect to upgrade EM and Eurozone equities to overweight, and downgrade U.S. equities from overweight, across those timeframes once global growth begins to accelerate. We would also favor higher-beta currencies versus the dollar, and limit or avoid exposure to lower-beta currencies like the yen or the Swiss franc, if the data are poised to validate our base-case growth scenario. BCA’s recommendations have become especially data dependent because global investors seem to be firmly ensconced in “show-me” mode. It has been our sense as a firm, supported by the impression we got from last week’s meetings, that investors are reluctant to give growth prospects, and risk assets, the benefit of the doubt. Ground down by trade-related tweets, and skeptical that the latest wave of extraordinary monetary policy measures will have a perceptible impact on growth or inflation, they want to see definitive evidence of a turn before they’ll adjust their portfolio positioning to accommodate it. The wariness is also a reflection of the conflicting signals issued late in the business cycle and the elevated levels of geopolitical uncertainty. If the global economy turns as we think it soon will, global investors should be prepared to add cyclical exposures to their portfolios, even if Elizabeth Warren solidifies her current status as the front-runner for the Democratic nomination. That sense of wariness keeps us recommending benchmark duration exposure in fixed income portfolios over the 0-to-3-month tactical timeframe, though we have little appetite for interest-rate exposure looking out beyond the near term, and are below-benchmark duration over the 3-to-12-month cyclical and greater-than-12-month strategic timeframes. We still like spread product over the full 12-month horizon, as we expect stronger growth will make viable U.S. corporations better credits and that ZIRP/NIRP will continue to protect some of the rest. We endorse the house view that relative U.S. equity returns may slow, but global growth should give a boost to absolute equity returns, and we continue to recommend that investors remain at least equal weight equities in balanced portfolios. Doug Peta, CFA Chief U.S. Investment Strategist dougp@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 We are in accord with Chair Powell’s stated view that the rate cuts are mid-cycle cuts, not the beginning of a new easing cycle.

Highlights Duration & Fed: Our late-1990s & 2015/16 roadmap for the economy still holds, but risks are mounting. Despite the risks, we expect that trade tensions will calm enough for the economic data to improve during the next few months. The result will be one more Fed rate cut this month, followed by an extended on-hold period. Investors should keep portfolio duration low in that environment. Junk Quality Spreads: This year’s divergence between the Caa/Ba quality spread and the high-yield index spread is highly unusual, but has more to do with movements in Treasury yields and changing index duration than with broader concerns about corporate credit quality. Investment Grade Risk & Reward: We present a novel approach for assessing the risk/reward trade-off among investment grade corporate bond sectors. We note that Saudi Arabian and Mexican Sovereign bonds, Foreign Agency bonds and Conventional 30-year Agency MBS look particularly attractive in risk-adjusted terms. Feature Contagion? This publication has repeatedly pointed to the late-1990s and the 2015/16 periods as appropriate comparables for today’s global growth slowdown. That is, we expect that the current spate of weakness will stay confined within the manufacturing sector and will not spread into the broader economy, leading the U.S. into recession. This call is important from an investment perspective because it implies that the Fed is not currently engaged in an easing cycle that will bring the funds rate back to zero. Rather, we anticipate only three rate cuts this year (we’ve already seen two), followed by the eventual resumption of hikes. Bond yields will not make new lows in that environment. Chart 1Manufacturing Weakness Spreading? Chart 2"Hard" Data Still Firm But some data received this month challenge our economic narrative. Specifically, September’s drop in the ISM Non-Manufacturing PMI from 56.4 to 52.6 and the year-over-year decline in the Conference Board’s survey of consumer confidence (Chart 1). Both are sending tentative signals that economic weakness might be spreading from the manufacturing sector into the broader U.S. economy. The Fed is worried about the same thing, as evidenced by this passage from the September FOMC minutes: One risk that the economy faced was that the softness recorded of late in firms’ capital formation, manufacturing, and exporting activities might spread to their hiring decisions, with adverse implications for household income and spending. Participants observed that such an eventuality was not embedded in their baseline outlook; however, a couple of them indicated that this was partly because they assumed that an appropriate adjustment to the policy rate path would help forestall that eventuality. This passage makes two important points. First, it stresses the risk of contagion from manufacturing into services and consumer spending as a precondition for recession. This risk has clearly increased, but we are not yet ready to abandon our base case outlook. For one thing, Chart 1 shows that the ISM Non-Manufacturing survey printed at 51.8 for one month in 2016, before rebounding sharply. Second, the “hard” economic data paint a much rosier picture that the “soft” survey data (Chart 2). Industrial production has already bounced off its lows and, unlike the ISM Manufacturing PMI, has not yet approached 2015/16 levels. Similarly, new orders for capital goods are much stronger than during the 2015/16 period. As for consumer spending, it continues to grow at a rapid pace despite the drop in confidence. Chart 3Expect One Rate Cut In October The most logical explanation for the divergence between “hard” and “soft” data is that business and consumer sentiment are being pulled down by concerns about the ongoing trade war. Our sense is that some positive news on that front is now required to bring the survey data back into line with the “hard” numbers. On that note, we anticipate that the looming 2020 election will provide enough incentive for President Trump to reach some sort of détente with China. In fact, as we go to press, optimism about a potential trade deal has pushed the 10-year Treasury yield up above 1.70%. If this optimism is not vindicated, then weak survey data will eventually drag the “hard” data lower. The economy is at a critical and highly uncertain juncture. Amidst so much uncertainty, and with so much hinging on near-term political decisions, how should we expect the Fed to respond? The above passage from the September FOMC minutes gives us a strong clue. It illustrates that the Fed believes that sufficiently accommodative monetary policy will help mitigate the risk of contagion from manufacturing into services and consumer spending. In other words, the Fed must help weather the current storm by ensuring that financial conditions remain supportive. This means refraining from delivering hawkish surprises to market expectations.1 The Fed believes that sufficiently accommodative monetary policy will help mitigate the risk of contagion from manufacturing into services and consumer spending. With that in mind, we note that the market has mostly priced-in an October rate cut (Chart 3), and we expect the Fed to deliver on that expectation. Assuming an October cut, the market is only pricing-in a 28% chance of another cut in December. Overall, the market is priced for 59 basis points of rate cuts during the next 12 months. We anticipate a 25 bps cut this month, followed by an improvement in the economic data that will make further cuts unnecessary. Bottom Line: Our late-1990s & 2015/16 roadmap for the economy still holds, but risks are mounting. Despite the risks, we expect that trade tensions will calm enough for the economic data to improve during the next few months. The result will be one more Fed rate cut this month, followed by an extended on-hold period. Investors should keep portfolio duration low in that environment. High-Yield Quality Spreads: Less Than Meets The Eye Corporate bonds have generally performed quite well this year, but oddly, the lowest tier of junk has not kept pace (Chart 4). Investment grade excess returns have followed a typical risk-on pattern. That is, the lowest rated / riskiest credit tiers have performed best in a bull market. However, in the high-yield space, Caa-rated debt has bucked the trend and actually underperformed the duration-matched Treasury index by 33 bps. Chart 4Caa-Rated Junk Is Not Keeping Pace Is this a potentially worrying sign for corporate spreads more generally? To consider the question, we looked at the historical relationships between quality spreads – the spread differential between low-rated and high-rated credit tiers – and the overall index spreads for both investment grade and high-yield. We found a strong positive correlation in both cases, but no leading or lagging properties. That is, quality spreads tend to follow the same trend as the overall index spread, but do not flag signs of trouble before the overall index. Nonetheless, the current divergence between the Caa/Ba quality spread and the high-yield index spread is highly unusual (Chart 5). Our sense, however, is that the divergence has less to do with concerns about credit quality and more to do with this year’s large moves in Treasury yields and changes to bond index duration. Chart 5De-Coupling In Quality Spreads... Chart 6...Is Due To Duration   Specifically, we note that this year’s large decline in Treasury yields has caused junk index duration to plunge, but the drop has been greater for the Ba credit tier than the Caa credit tier (Chart 6). Ba index duration has fallen by 0.8 this year (from 4.4 to 3.5), while Caa index duration has fallen by 0.6 (3.4 to 2.8). The result is that if we control for changes in duration by looking at a 12-month breakeven spread instead of the average index option-adjusted spread (OAS), we see that the quality spread widening is roughly consistent with the overall index (Chart 6, panel 3).2 In other words, the steep drop in Treasury yields has not led to the same reduction in risk in the Caa credit tier as it has in the other junk credit tiers. Caa spreads have widened on a relative basis, as a result. This year’s large decline in Treasury yields has caused junk index duration to plunge. It’s also interesting to note that the opposite dynamic is afoot within the investment grade corporate space. The Baa/Aa quality spread is more or less consistent with the overall index spread in OAS terms (Chart 5, top panel), but the quality spread widening is exacerbated when the impact of changing duration is considered (Chart 6, panels 1 & 2). That is, index duration has lengthened by more for the upper credit tiers than it has for the Baa credit tier. This makes Baa corporates look particularly attractive in risk-adjusted terms, as we have noted in prior research.3 From a big picture perspective, it is unusual for Treasury yields to fall so much without a concurrent widening in credit risk premiums. Eventually, this anomaly will be resolved by either: Higher Treasury yields in the event that recession is avoided, or Wider credit spreads in the event of a contraction in U.S. economic activity But in the meantime, negatively convex sectors such as high-yield corporates and Agency MBS look particularly attractive on a risk-adjusted basis. These sectors have benefited from the drop in Treasury yields by seeing their durations fall. They should perform well as long as the current environment of low Treasury yields and stable credit spreads persists. We take a more detailed look at the prospects for risk-adjusted performance within the different investment grade bond sectors in the next section. Risk And Reward In Investment Grade Bond Sectors As mentioned above, in this week’s report we present a novel approach for considering the risk/reward trade-off between different investment grade sectors of the U.S. bond market. We consider 23 sectors in total: 4 corporate credit tiers Conventional 30-year Agency MBS and Agency CMBS Aaa-rated non-Agency CMBS, credit card ABS and auto loan ABS Domestic and Foreign Agency bonds Supranationals Local Authority bonds (mostly taxable munis and USD-denominated Canadian provincial debt) USD-denominated Sovereign bonds for 10 different emerging markets Reward First, we consider the reward side of the equation. We do not impose any macro view, but instead, use the average index OAS as the best estimate for each sector’s 12-month expected excess returns relative to a duration-matched position in Treasuries. Chart 7 shows the expected excess returns for each sector. Right away, the attractiveness of Mexican sovereign debt is apparent. Mexico carries an A rating, but offers a greater spread than the Baa corporate index. Chart 7Expected Returns Risk We decided to assess risk using a breakeven spread framework. We calculate a 12-month breakeven spread for each sector. This spread represents the basis point spread widening required for each sector to break even with a duration-matched position in Treasury securities on a 12-month horizon. We calculate the breakeven spread using the following equation: 0 = OAS – D(B) + 0.5*CVXs*(dYs)2 - 0.5*CVXT*(dYT)2 Where: OAS = the sector’s option-adjusted spread D = the sector’s duration B = the breakeven spread CVXs = the sector’s convexity CVXT = the convexity of a duration-matched Treasury security dYs = trailing 1-year volatility of the sector’s yield dYT = trailing 1-year volatility of the duration-matched Treasury yield Chart 8 shows each sector’s 12-month breakeven spread, and it illustrates that the breakeven spread is a sub-optimal measure of risk. In theory, the highest breakeven spreads should be the least likely to see losses, but this is obviously not the case. Baa-rated South African Sovereign debt carries the largest breakeven spread, but it should be among the riskiest of the sectors. Chart 812-Month Breakeven Spreads The missing piece of the puzzle is spread volatility. South African sovereign spreads need to widen by 39 bps before losses are incurred, while Aaa-rated credit card ABS spreads only need to widen by 13 bps. However, if spread volatility is much higher for South African sovereigns than for credit card ABS, then the sovereign sector still might be more likely to see losses. To control for this difference we calculate the standard deviation of annual spread changes for each sector, starting from May 2014 when all sectors have available data. We then divide each sector’s breakeven spread by the result. This calculation gives us a volatility-adjusted 12-month breakeven spread. In other words, it is the number of standard deviations of spread widening required for each sector to see losses on a 12-month horizon (Chart 9). Chart 912-Month Volatility-Adjusted Breakeven Spreads Risk & Reward We bring risk and reward together in Charts 10-12. Chart 10 shows expected returns on the y-axis and the vol-adjusted 12-month breakeven spread on the x-axis. Sectors plotting near the top-right of the chart give the best returns and lowest risk of losses, while sectors plotting near the bottom-left provide low expected returns and high risk of losses. Immediately, Saudi Arabian sovereigns and Foreign Agency debt stand out as offering high expected returns for their risk levels. Note that South African sovereigns plot off the charts, toward the top-left of Charts 10-12, as indicated by the arrows. Chart 10Expected Returns Vs. Risk Of Negative Excess Returns Chart 11Expected Returns Vs. Risk Of Losing 100 BPs Chart 12Expected Returns Vs. Risk Of Losing 200 BPs In Charts 11 and 12 we make one further refinement to our risk measure. In these charts, instead of calculating 12-month breakeven spreads, we calculate the spread change necessary for each sector to underperform Treasuries by 100 bps and 200 bps, respectively. Saudi Arabian sovereigns and Foreign Agency debt stand out as offering high expected returns for their risk levels. This adjustment arguably gives a more useful perspective on risk. For example, because spreads are quite narrow in the Supranational and Domestic Agency sectors, the risk of negative returns versus Treasuries is quite elevated. However, these sectors also carry high credit ratings and low spread volatility, making it exceedingly unlikely that they would deliver losses of 100 bps or more. Considering Charts 11 and 12, we look for sectors that clearly dominate other ones, i.e. plotting both higher and further to the right. Once again, Foreign Agencies and Saudi Arabian sovereigns both look very appealing. Mexican sovereign debt also offers very high expected return, and less risk that the Baa corporate sector. We would also like to point out the attractiveness of Agency MBS. As we noted in a recent report, Agency MBS offer considerably less risk than high-rated corporate debt, and similar expected returns. Note that this analysis doesn’t impose any macroeconomic view, and our sense is that the macro back-drop is more favorable for MBS spreads than for corporates.4 All in all, we reiterate our recommendation to favor Agency MBS over Aaa-, Aa- and A-rated corporate bonds. We will continue to refine this approach to measuring the risk/reward trade-off in the coming weeks, including incorporating high-yield debt into our analysis. Stay tuned. Ryan Swift, U.S. Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 For further discussion on this topic please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Act As Appropriate”, dated August 27, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 The 12-month breakeven spread is the spread widening required on a 12-month horizon to break even with a duration-matched position in Treasury securities. It can be approximated by dividing the option-adjusted spread by duration, as is done in Chart 6. 3 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Two Themes And Two Trades”, dated October 1, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Two Themes And Two Trades”, dated October 1, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

Highlights In this Weekly Report, we present our semi-annual chartbook of the BCA Central Bank Monitors. All of the Monitors are now below the zero line, indicating a growing need to ease global monetary policy (Chart of the Week). Central bankers have already gone down that path in several countries over the past few months (the U.S., the euro area, Australia and New Zealand), helping sustain the powerful 2019 rally in global bond markets. Feature With the global manufacturing & trade downturn now threatening to spill over into domestic demand in the major developed markets, policymakers will need to stay dovish to stave off recession. This will keep global bond yields at depressed levels in the near term, at least until widely-followed data like manufacturing PMIs stabilize and/or there is positive news on U.S.-China trade negotiations. Chart of the WeekStrong Pressures To Ease Global Monetary Policy Yields already discount a lot of bad economic news, however, and there is a ray of hope visible in the bottoming out of our global leading economic indicator. A sustainable bottom in global bond yields, though, will require some change in the current downward growth or inflation momentum highlighted in our Central Bank Monitors. Yields already discount a lot of bad economic news, however, and there is a ray of hope visible in the bottoming out of our global leading economic indicator. A sustainable bottom in global bond yields, though, will require some change in the current downward growth or inflation momentum highlighted in our Central Bank Monitors.  An Overview Of The BCA Central Bank Monitors* Chart 2Low Bond Yields Are Consistent With Our CB Monitors The BCA Central Bank Monitors are composite indicators designed to measure the cyclical growth and inflation pressures that can influence future monetary policy decisions. The economic data series used to construct the Monitors are not the same for every country, but the list of indicators generally measure the same things (i.e. manufacturing cycles, domestic demand strength, commodity prices, labor market conditions, exchange rates, etc). The data series are standardized and combined to form the Monitors. Readings above the zero line for each Monitor indicate pressures for central banks to raise interest rates, and vice versa. Through the nexus between growth, inflation, and market expectations of future interest rate changes, the Monitors do exhibit broad correlations to government bond yields in the Developed Markets (Chart 2). All of the Monitors are currently pointing in a bond-bullish direction, making them less useful as a country allocation tool within global bond portfolios. With easing pressures most intense in the euro area, given that the ECB Monitor has the lowest reading, our recommended overweight stance on core euro area government bonds (hedged into U.S. dollars) remains well supported. In each BCA Central Bank Monitor Chartbook, we include a new chart for each country that we have not shown previously. In this edition, we show the components of the Monitors, grouped into those focusing on economic growth and inflation, plotted against our central bank discounters that indicate the amount of rate cuts/hikes priced into global Overnight Index Swap (OIS) curves. Fed Monitor: Signaling A Need For More Cuts Our Fed Monitor has fallen below the zero line (Chart 3A), indicating that the Fed’s summer rate cuts were justified with more easing still required. The Monitor, however, has not yet fallen to levels seen during U.S. recessions and is more consistent with the below-trend growth periods in 2016 and the late-1990s. The views of the FOMC on U.S. monetary policy are more deeply divided now than has been seen in many years. The doves can point to slumping global growth, persistent trade uncertainty, contracting capital spending and falling inflation expectations as reasons to continue cutting rates. The hawks can look at continued labor market tightness, elevated asset prices and realized inflation rates holding near the Fed’s 2% inflation target (Chart 3B) as reasons to keep monetary policy steady. That mixed picture can be seen in the components of our Fed Monitor, with the growth components showing the biggest pressure for more rate cuts compared to more stable readings from the inflation and financial components (Chart 3C). Chart 3AU.S.: Fed Monitor Chart 3BU.S. Realized Inflation Holding Firm Chart 3CGreatest Pressure For Fed Rate Cuts From Growth Components Of Our Fed Monitor The U.S. Treasury market may have gotten ahead of itself after the latest decline in yields, which looks stretched versus the Fed Monitor. The U.S. Treasury market may have gotten ahead of itself after the latest decline in yields, which looks stretched versus the Fed Monitor (Chart 3D). We still expect the Fed to deliver just one more rate cut at the FOMC meeting at the end of October, as the “hard” U.S. data is outpeforming the “soft” data like the weak ISM surveys. That leaves Treasury yields vulnerable to some rebound if global growth stabilizes, although that is conditional on no new breakdown of the U.S.-China trade negotiations – a factor that continues to weigh on U.S. business confidence. Chart 3DTreasury Yields More Than Fully Discount Fed Easing Pressures BoE Monitor: Easier Policy Needed Our Bank of England (BoE) Monitor, which was in the “tighter money required” zone from 2016-18, has been below the zero line since April of this year (Chart 4A). The market agrees with the message from the Monitor and is now pricing in -12bps of rate cuts over the next twelve months. The relentless uncertainty surrounding Brexit has triggered sharp downgrades of growth expectations and weakened business confidence, which the BoE is now factoring into its own projections. In the August Inflation Report, the BoE lowered its 2020 inflation forecast to below 2% - no surprise given the sharp fall in realized inflation that has already occurred even as economic growth has still not yet fallen substantially below trend (Chart 4B). Chart 4AU.K.: BoE Monitor Chart 4BFalling U.K. Inflation Opens The Door To A BoE Ease Still, weakening growth components have been the main driver of the BoE Monitor into rate cut territory (Chart 4C). While a strong jobs market is helping support consumer spending, the Brexit turmoil is having a lasting impact on future growth. Since the 2016 Brexit referendum, business confidence and real business investment have collapsed which, in turn, has hurt productivity growth, as we discussed in a Special Report last month.1 Chart 4CBrexit Uncertainty + Slumping Growth = Pressure For BoE Rate Cuts The uncertainty around Brexit dominates the economic outlook and any future BoE decisions. Our Geopolitical Strategy service anticipates that Brexit will be delayed beyond October 31st. As a result, uncertainty will continue to weigh on Gilt yields, even though yields have already fallen in line with our BoE Monitor (Chart 4D). We continue to recommend an overweight stance on U.K. Gilts. Chart 4DGilt Yields Have Fallen In Line With Our BoE Monitor ECB Monitor: Intense Pressure For Easier Monetary Policy Our European Central Bank (ECB) Monitor is now well below the zero line, signaling a strong need for easier monetary policy (Chart 5A). The global manufacturing downturn has hit the export-dependent economies of the euro area hard, with Germany now likely in a technical recession. Our European Central Bank (ECB) Monitor is now well below the zero line, signaling a strong need for easier monetary policy. Despite the weaker growth momentum, there remains far less spare capacity in the euro area economy than at any time since before the 2009 global recession (Chart 5B). This is keeping realized inflation in positive territory, in contrast to what was seen during the previous downturn in 2015-16. Chart 5AEuro Area: ECB Monitor Chart 5BEuro Area Inflation Is Subdued, Despite Tight Labor Markets The ECB has already responded to the weakening growth & inflation pressures, introducing a new TLTRO program back in March and then cutting the overnight deposit rate and restarting its Asset Purchase Program in September. The latest policy moves were reported to be more contentious, with the “hard money” northern euro area countries opposed to restarting bond purchases. The new incoming ECB President, Christine Lagarde, will likely have her hands full trying to gain consensus on any further easing measures from here, even as both the growth and inflation components of our ECB Monitor indicate that more stimulus is needed (Chart 5C). Chart 5CA Consistent Message On The Need For Future ECB Easing From Growth & Inflation The big decline in euro area bond yields, which has pushed large swaths of sovereign yields into negative territory, does not look particularly stretched relative to the plunge in the ECB Monitor (Chart 5D). Without signs that the global manufacturing downturn is ending, however, euro area yields will stay mired at current deeply depressed levels. We recommend a moderate overweight on core European government bonds, on a currency-hedged basis into U.S. dollars. Chart 5DBund Rally Looks In Line With The ECB Monitor BoJ Monitor: A Rate Cut On The Horizon? Our Bank of Japan (BoJ) Monitor has drifted slightly below the zero line into “rate cut required” territory (Chart 6A). Over the past few years, the BoJ’s monetary policy has remained unchanged for the most part and its messaging has grown less dovish, citing an expanding economy. However, recent Japanese economic data shows widespread deterioration in growth momentum, as the nation has been hit hard by the global manufacturing and trade recession. Yet even with weaker growth, Japan’s unemployment rate keeps hitting all-time lows. This has not helped boost inflation much, though, with Japan’s CPI inflation still struggling to reach even the 1% level (Chart 6B). Still, the latest leg lower in our BoJ Monitor has been driven by the growth, rather than inflation, components (Chart 6C). Chart 6AJapan: BoJ Monitor Chart 6BNo Spare Capacity In Japan, But Still No Inflation Weakening confidence has resulted in significant declines in both consumer spending and business investment. Due to the struggling domestic economy, it was expected that the Abe government would postpone the scheduled consumption tax hike, but it was finally initiated on October 1st. The timing could not be worse given the ongoing contraction in global manufacturing and trade activity that has clearly spilled over into Japan’s export and industrially-focused economy. Chart 6CThe Slumping Japanese Economy Could Use Some More BoJ Assistance The BoJ will likely try and deliver some sort of easing in the next few months, but its options are limited after years of already hyper-easy policy. A modest rate cut is likely all that will be delivered, on top of a continuation of the Yield Curve Control policy. That will be enough to keep JGB yields at depressed levels (Chart 6D), even if global yields were to begin climbing. Chart 6DJGB Yields Look Fairly Valued Vs The BoJ Monitor BoC Monitor: Rate Cuts Needed, But Will The BoC Deliver? The Bank of Canada (BoC) Monitor has been below zero since April of this year, indicating a need for easier monetary policy (Chart 7A). Although the BoC has maintained its policy rate at 1.75%, dovish Fed policy and softening domestic economic growth are making it harder for the BoC to continue sitting on its hands Although the Canadian labor market remains solid, household consumption has continued to weaken alongside falling consumer confidence. However, the inflation rate for both headline and core CPI measures is still hovering near the mid-point of BoC 1-3% target range (Chart 7B). Chart 7ACanada: BoC Monitor Chart 7BRising Inflation Making The BoC’s Job Harder At the moment, our BoC Monitor is more influenced by weaker growth components than stabilizing inflation components (Chart 7C). Similar mixed messages are also evident in other data. According to the latest BoC Business Outlook Survey, the overall outlook has edged up to the historical average,2 but real capex growth remains in negative territory and manufacturing new orders are still falling. In contrast, the Canadian labor market remains tight and both wage and price inflation are holding firm. Chart 7CBoC Growth & Inflation Components Signaling Moderate Pressure To Ease Canadian government bonds have rallied strongly this year, but the yield momentum has appeared to overshoot the decline in our BoC Monitor (Chart 7D). The Canadian OIS curve is discounting -27bps of rate cuts over the next twelve months, but the BoC is not signaling that they will ease. We upgraded our recommended stance on Canadian government bonds to neutral back in May, and we see no need to alter that view without further evidence of more deterioration in Canadian growth or inflation data.3 Chart 7DCanadian Bond Rally Looks A Bit Stretched RBA Monitor: Expect Another Cut The Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) Monitor has been below the zero line since September 2018, indicating a need for easier monetary policy (Chart 8A). The RBA has already delivered on that signal this year, cutting the Cash Rate twice to an all-time low of 0.75%. Markets are still expecting more, with the Australian OIS curve discounting another -29bps of cuts over the next year, although most of those cuts are expected to occur within the next six months. The signal from our RBA Monitor suggests that Australian bond yields should remain under downward pressure, although the yield momentum has been excessive relative to the fall in the Monitor. Both headline and core CPI inflation remain below the RBA’s 2-3% target range (Chart 8B), and the central bank continues to lower its inflation forecasts, suggesting an entrenched dovish bias. Chart 8AAustralia: RBA Monitor Chart 8BNo Inflation For The RBA To Worry About The latest downturn in our RBA Monitor is related to declines in both the inflation and growth components (Chart 8C). The weakness in the growth components is led by falling exports to Asia, in addition to the sharp drop in house prices in the major cities. The fall in the inflation components reflects both weak inflation expectations and spare capacity in labor markets. Chart 8CA Loud & Clear Message On The Need For RBA Easing The signal from our RBA Monitor suggests that Australian bond yields should remain under downward pressure, although the yield momentum has been excessive relative to the fall in the Monitor (Chart 8D). Australia’s economy will not begin to outperform again, however, until China’s current growth slump starts to bottom out, which is unlikely to occur until the first quarter of 2020 at the earliest. Thus, we expect the RBA to deliver another rate cut before the end of the year, justifying a continued overweight stance on Australian government bonds. Chart 8DA Lot Of Bad News Discounted In Australian Bond Yields RBNZ Monitor: More Easing To Come Our Reserve Bank of New Zealand (RBNZ) monitor remains well below zero, indicating that easier monetary policy is still required (Chart 9A). The central bank has already delivered two rate cuts this year: a -25bps cut in May and, more importantly, a shock rate cut of -50bps in August. Forward guidance remains dovish, with RBNZ Governor Adrian Orr signaling more easing is likely and even hinting at negative rates in the future. This rhetoric is reflected in the NZ OIS curve, which is pricing in a further -42bps of easing over the next twelve months. High inflation is not a constraint for the RBNZ. Both headline and core measures of inflation are currently at 1.7% (Chart 9B). As the RBNZ targets a 1-3% range over the medium term, the prospect of overshooting the 2% longer-term target will not restrict policymakers from acting as appropriate to boost growth. Chart 9ANew Zealand: RBNZ Monitor Chart 9BNZ Inflation Creeping Higher Most of the pressure to ease has come from the continued deterioration in the growth component of our RBNZ Monitor (Chart 9C), reflecting weakness in manufacturing and consumption. The manufacturing PMI is currently in contractionary territory at 48.4, having fallen almost five points since February of this year. Annual growth in retail sales has been slowing for the past two years while consumer confidence is at 7-year lows. Chart 9CWeak Growth Is The Reason RBNZ Rate Cuts Are Needed We feel confident in reiterating our bullish recommendation on NZ government bonds versus U.S. and German sovereign debt. The RBNZ Monitor suggests that policy will stay dovish for some time, while NZ yields still offer a relatively attractive yield, unlike deeply overbought Treasuries and Bunds (Chart 9D). Chart 9DStill A Bullish Case For New Zealand Government Bonds Riksbank Monitor: Watching And Waiting Our Riksbank Monitor remains very slightly below zero and the market is currently priced for -4bps of rate cuts over the next year (Chart 10A). The Riksbank has decided to hold the Repo Rate constant at -0.25% while forecasting a hike towards the end of this year or the beginning of 2020. Given the policy environment, rate cuts remain unlikely. At most, the Riksbank can further delay rate hikes if the data continues to disappoint. The Riksbank noted in its September Monetary Policy Report that the unexpectedly weak development of the labor market indicates that resource utilization will normalize sooner than expected. This is reflected in Chart 10B, where the unemployment gap is now negative. Meanwhile, inflation readings are giving a mixed signal for the central bank. While the headline CPI measure has declined precipitously year-to-date, owing to the dramatic fall in oil prices, core inflation has continued to climb steadily. Chart 10ASweden: Riksbank Monitor Chart 10BMixed Messages From Swedish Inflation As a result, the inflation components of our Riksbank monitor - driven by a spike in the Citigroup Inflation Surprise Index, wage growth hooking upward and inflation expectations holding firm around 2% - are signaling the need for tighter monetary policy (Chart 10C). However, the growth components – led by weak exports, employment, and manufacturing data - are exerting pressure in the opposite direction. This is evident in the Swedish Manufacturing PMI, which tumbled from 51.8 to 46.3 in September, deep into contractionary territory. Chart 10CThere Is A Reason Why The Riksbank Has Been On Hold Keeping in mind the inflation constraint, it remains unlikely that the Riksbank will cut rates unless the economic data disappoints more significantly to the downside. This should help put a floor under Swedish bond yields in the near term (Chart 10D). Chart 10DSwedish Yields Have Fallen Too Far, Too Fast Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com   Ray Park, CFA Research Analyst ray@bcaresearch.com   Shakti Sharma Research Associate shaktis@bcaresearch.com Footnotes * NOTE: All information in this report reflects our knowledge of global events as of Thursday, October 10. 1 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report “United Kingdom: Cyclical Slowdown Or Structural Malaise?” dated September 20, 2019, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 2https://www.bankofcanada.ca/2019/06/business-outlook-survey-summer-2019/ 3 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Weekly Report, “Reconcilable Differences” dated May 8, 2019, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns