Inflation/Deflation

Highlights We were on the road last week, discussing our economic and market outlooks: We met with a range of Midwestern clients who focus primarily on the U.S. A majority of our meetings were with fixed-income teams. The Fed will ultimately decide the fate of the expansion, … : Nearly everyone wanted to get a read on how much longer the expansion will last. We offered the view that the Fed will induce the next recession, provided that an exogenous event doesn’t beat it to the punch. … and inflation will be the catalyst that prompts the Fed to act: Inflation was typically far from investors’ minds, and several of our meetings centered on what will drive it, and where and when we expect it will show up. Feature We traveled throughout the Midwest last week, discussing our outlook for financial markets and the economy with a range of investors. We got the sense that our clients are constructive about the economy and are generally open to tilting portfolios in a risk-friendly direction, albeit somewhat grudgingly. They recognized the challenge that worsening U.S.-China trade relations would pose to a constructive call, but were content to wait for more information before adjusting their views or their portfolios. Our views continue to follow the outline we’ve laid out in our written reports. In the absence of economic or financial market excesses, or an exogenous shock that induces a material slowdown, we expect the expansion to roll on until the Fed begins to fear that it’s gone too far and imposes restrictive monetary policy settings to rein it in. Until it does, we expect that the equity bull market will continue and spread product will deliver positive excess returns over Treasuries. The investment strategy takeaway is that it is too early to de-risk portfolios. De-risking will become the order of the day once the Fed resumes tightening monetary conditions via rate hikes. There is currently no sign that the Fed is contemplating a meaningfully hawkish shift, but we expect that inflation pressures will eventually force its hand. Ten years of subdued inflation have made a mockery of recurring post-crisis inflation warnings, and clients have developed a robust immunity to them. What, they wanted to know, has changed enough to resuscitate inflation? Steroid-Fueled Demand Aggregate demand crashed during the crisis and was far short of the economy’s capacity when it bottomed in mid-2009. In economics lingo, that meant that the U.S. economy faced a sizable negative output gap when it embarked on the recovery/expansion. Although the economy grew at a tepid 2% rate over the ensuing decade, capacity grew even more slowly, held back by consistently weak capital expenditures, and the output gap finally closed around the beginning of 2018 (Chart 1), removing a stout inflation-absorbing buffer. Chart 1The Excess Capacity Cushion Is Gone The Excess Capacity Cushion Is Gone The Excess Capacity Cushion Is Gone The United States then poured fuel on the fire by injecting a significant quantity of stimulus into an economy that was already operating at capacity. Corporations and other businesses that viewed the pickup in aggregate demand as a one-off event refrained from expanding capacity to meet that demand, as it appeared as if it would be a poor use of capital. Imported goods from economies that still have excess capacity can relieve some of the pressure of inadequate domestic supply, but they’re unlikely to absorb all of the pressure from excess demand, even in the absence of new tariff barriers. The aggregate 2018-19 stimulus shapes up as a catalyst for higher prices. Capacity vastly exceeded demand when the economy began to turn around ten years ago, but the stimulus package has made it look a little thin. The trouble is that no one can pinpoint exactly when upward price pressures will reveal themselves. Inflation is the mother of all lagging indicators, peaking and bottoming well after business cycle transitions suggest it should (Chart 2). All we can say is that the steroid injection from the stimulus planted the seeds of inflation. Just when they’ll begin to sprout is uncertain, but we believe the Fed’s pause will give them a chance to take root. Chart 2 Wage Inflation The labor market is so tight that it squeaks. The unemployment rate has fallen to a 49-year low; baby boomer retirements will cap the labor force participation rate around its current level (Chart 3, top panel); and discouraged workers (Chart 3, middle panel) and involuntary part-time workers are few and far between (Chart 3, bottom panel). Now that it has been absorbed, the glut of idled workers will no longer serve as a buffer neutralizing upward wage pressures. The labor market is tight as a drum. The pool of discouraged workers and involuntary part-timers is smaller than it was at the last two cyclical peaks, while employer demand is more robust. Employees are starting to gain bargaining power. The Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey (JOLTS) indicates that demand for new workers is intense. As a share of total filled positions, job openings are at an all-time high in the 18-year history of the series (Chart 4, middle panel). No one quits a job unless s/he has another one lined up, and it almost always requires higher pay to induce an employee to jump from Employer A to Employer B. The elevated quit rate thus reveals that employers are poaching workers from each other to meet that demand (Chart 4, bottom panel). After Employer B lures an employee away from Employer A, Employer A hires a worker from Employer C or Employer D, which now has an opening it needs to fill. The employment merry-go-round creates a self-reinforcing cycle pushing wages higher and endowing employees with newfound bargaining power. Chart 3With Fewer Workers On The Sidelines … With Fewer Workers On The Sidelines ... With Fewer Workers On The Sidelines ... Chart 4… Employers Have Turned To Poaching ... Employers Have Turned To Poaching ... Employers Have Turned To Poaching Self-sustaining wage gains could produce price-level increases via a demand-pull or a cost-push mechanism. In a demand-pull framework, businesses observing steady payroll expansions and increased household income may well attempt to push through selling price increases. Under cost-push, corporations raise prices in an attempt to offset increased labor costs. Then again, the pass-through from wage inflation to price inflation might not occur at all, as the dynamics of inflation are not fully understood. What The Fed Believes Investors may be frustrated by the lack of a clear connection between wages and prices, but they should not be put off by a little ambiguity – there would be no alpha without uncertainty. An absence of realized inflation does not eliminate the prospect of rate hikes. Our Inflation → Rate Hikes → Restrictive Monetary Policy → Recession → Bear Market roadmap may still come to pass. The first step in the chain would simply have to be perceived inflation as opposed to realized inflation, and it’s the Fed’s perception that drives monetary policy, not the public’s. As we stressed in our Special Report on the Phillips curve,1 there is no alternative explanation in mainstream economics connecting the dots between the elements of the Fed’s dual mandate. Every mainstream economic model posits an inverse relationship between inflation and the unemployment rate. Every economist learned about the expectations-augmented Phillips curve multiple times in the course of his or her undergraduate and graduate studies. Until the profession settles on an alternative narrative, the Fed and other major central banks will be beholden to the Phillips curve. The connection between wages and prices is a mystery, but the Phillips curve’s place in mainstream economics remains secure. It’s easy to talk of patience when inflation has been hibernating for ten years, even with the unemployment rate at 49-year lows, but once wage gains begin to exceed 3.5% and 4%, we expect the Fed will change its tune. Wages do not respond to changes in the unemployment rate when there’s ample slack in the labor market, but they do once it becomes difficult to find employees. The varying sensitivity of changes in wages at different levels of unemployment explains the kink in the Phillips curve, but we found the NAIRU-based unemployment gap2 to be a reliable proxy for identifying the point at which the labor market meaningfully tightens (Chart 5). Chart 5NAIRU, … NAIRU, ... NAIRU, ... The natural rate of unemployment is only a concept, however, and the CBO series we use to calculate the unemployment gap is subject to retroactive adjustments intended to better match the CBO’s estimates with real-world observations. We therefore incorporated two alternative measures of labor market slack to test the robustness of the unemployment-gap framework. The first is the Jobs Plentiful/Jobs Hard To Get responses from the Conference Board’s consumer confidence survey. The top panel of Chart 6 calculates the difference between Jobs Hard To Get and Jobs Plentiful; when it’s positive (negative), survey respondents are indicating that the labor market is soft (tight). The disparity in wage growth between the soft and the tight states, as estimated by the hoi polloi, is a little larger than under the CBO’s revised NAIRU estimates, suggesting Main Street may be better positioned to evaluate labor-market dynamics than D Street (the CBO’s address). Chart 6… The Consumer Confidence Survey, … ... The Consumer Confidence Survey, ... ... The Consumer Confidence Survey, ... To get away from the arbitrariness of the unemployment rate and the uncertainty of NAIRU estimates, we considered the employment gap from the perspective of the prime-age (non-)employment-to-population ratio (Chart 7). It also supports the conclusion that wage gains are a function of the degree of labor market slack, but the outlier results from the crisis render the mean non-employment ratio since 1985 a less-than-perfect boundary between tightness and slack. The prime-age (non-)employment-to-population ratio better fits the standard Phillips curve framework, producing a solidly linear relationship (Chart 8). It points to further wage gains as prime-age employment increases. Chart 7… And Prime-Age (Non-)Employment All Point To Faster Wage Gains ... And Prime-Age (Non-)Employment All Point To Faster Wage Gains ... And Prime-Age (Non-)Employment All Point To Faster Wage Gains Chart 8 If productivity continues to grow by leaps and bounds – the fourth-quarter gain was impressive, the first-quarter’s was eye-popping – the Fed won’t feel much pressure to hike rates. Productivity is a function of capital expenditures; workers are able to increase output when they’re provided with more and better tools. Capex has been extremely weak ever since the crisis in the U.S. and the rest of the world, however, and we do not think that investors should count on productivity remaining much above its low 1%-plus trend level of the last several years. Investment Implications The ultimate effect of the Fed’s pause will be to extend the duration of the expansion, assuming that an exogenous shock does not pull the plug on it. Extending the expansion will have the effect of extending the equity bull market, and the period in which spread product generates positive excess returns over Treasuries. There is no free lunch, and dovishness now will be offset by hawkishness later. Larger bull-market gains will ultimately be countered by larger bear-market losses. That is a concern for another day, however, and we continue to recommend that investors remain at least equal weight equities and spread product in balanced portfolios. We do not see a recession until the second half of 2020 at the earliest. Our best guess is that it will begin around the middle of 2021, so it is too early to de-risk portfolios or shift to a more defensive asset allocation profile.   Doug Peta, CFA Chief U.S. Investment Strategist dougp@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1 Please see the U.S. Investment Strategy Special Report,  “The Phillips Curve: Science Or Superstition?”, published February 26, 2019. Available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 2 The unemployment gap in the top panel of Chart 5 is calculated by subtracting the Congressional Budget Office’s estimate of NAIRU from the official unemployment rate. NAIRU, or the natural rate of unemployment (u*), is the minimum unemployment rate that would exist even in a full-employment economy. It results from structural factors like skill and geographic mismatches. The CBO currently estimates that NAIRU is 4.7%; the Fed’s dots suggest that it estimates u* is around 4.6%.  

We are strongly committed to our 2 percent inflation objective and to achieving it on a sustained and symmetric basis. – Jerome Powell, May 1, 2019 St Louis Fed President James Bullard, a voting member of the central bank’s policy committee, said he “certainly would be open to a cut” should inflation continue to fall short of expectations after the summer. – Financial Times, May 3, 2019 The Federal Reserve’s preferred measure of prices (the core personal consumption deflator) rose by 1.6% in the year to March, a shortfall from the 2% inflation target. Moreover, the 10-year-moving average of core inflation has remained persistently below the 2% level over the past 17 years (Chart 1). Recent comments from some policymakers and market analysts highlight growing concerns about this shortfall. Personally, I see little to worry about. Chart 1Core Inflation: Not Quite At 2% Core Inflation: Not Quite At 2% Core Inflation: Not Quite At 2% For investors, high and rising inflation is a terrible thing, as is its even more evil twin, a high and accelerating pace of deflation. The Holy Grail for investors and policymakers alike is for actual inflation and inflation expectations to remain both low and stable. It seems to me that this has been achieved, with resulting huge benefits to the economy and financial markets. It matters little that inflation has fallen slightly short of the arbitrary 2% target. If inflation was problematically low, what might we expect to see? Importantly, companies would be complaining about a tough pricing environment and pressure on profits. Yet, S&P 500 profit margins are close to an all-time high (Chart 2). And that is providing powerful support to the stock market, with the S&P 500 also close to its highs. If there were building deflationary pressures in the economy, then it also would be reasonable to expect spreading signs of economic distress. While not every indicator is flashing green, the overall economy is doing just fine. Healthy employment growth, rising real wages and strong profits are more consistent with a nascent inflation problem than with deflation. According to the National Federation of Independent Business survey, small companies’ main problem is the quality of labor, not concerns about demand. Excessively low inflation is a problem for debtors, but loan delinquency rates – albeit a lagging indicator – are well contained. The Fed makes a big deal about the importance of keeping inflation expectations anchored – i.e. stable at a low level. There does not appear to be any major problem on this front. For example, the New York Fed’s survey of consumers shows median expected inflation of 2.9% in three years’ time (Chart 3). The University of Michigan Survey of Consumers shows expected inflation of 2.3% over the next 5-10 years. The gap between nominal and real 10-year Treasury yields – a proxy for financial market inflation expectations – is lower (currently 1.88%), but that measure moves around a lot and is highly correlated with oil prices. No measures of expected inflation are in free-fall or dangerously low. Chart 2No Signs Of Pricing Distress No Signs of Pricing Distress No Signs of Pricing Distress Chart 3Inflation Expectations Are Contained Inflation Expectations Are Contained Inflation Expectations Are Contained   What If? Suppose that the Fed had been prescient enough to realize 10 years ago that, despite its best efforts, core inflation would average only 1.6% rather than the desired 2% over the coming decade. Presumably, the Fed would have taken even more extreme actions than actually occurred, implying a bigger expansion of its balance sheet. It is unclear whether it would have been any more successful in pushing up actual inflation. But we can be sure that it would have further inflated asset prices and encouraged even more leverage in the corporate sector. Increased financial imbalances in the economy – asset price overshoots and greater leverage – would not have been an attractive trade-off to pushing up inflation by an average 40 basis points. The core problem is that monetary policy is ill-equipped to deal with the forces that have held back economic growth. A combination of demographics, high debt and slower productivity growth have limited the U.S. economy’s potential. Thus, I have a lot of sympathy for Larry Summer’s secular stagnation thesis. Yes, that implies that the real equilibrium interest rate is very low and, therefore, that monetary policy needs to be accommodative. But it also implies that force-feeding the system with easy money is more likely to lead to asset bubbles and financial distortions than to increased consumer price inflation. What About Policy Ammo For The Next Downturn? One of the main arguments for getting inflation up is to give the Fed more scope to ease policy in the next recession. In the past, the Fed has cut the funds rate by an average of around 500 basis points during recessions. Going into the next downturn with inflation and thus interest rates close to current levels means it would not take long for the funds rate reach the constraints of the zero bound. However, this also would be the case if core inflation was at or modestly above the 2% target. That is why some commentators (e.g. Olivier Blanchard and Larry Summers) have argued for an inflation target of 4% during good times in order to allow for a large fall in interest rates when times turn bad. As long as inflation is in moderate single digits, its stability probably is more important than its level. In other words, if inflation was at 4% and was expected by all economic and financial agents to remain at that level for the foreseeable future, then the economy should not perform any worse than if inflation had stabilized at 2% - and it might even perform better. However, central banks have long had the view that the higher the inflation rate, the less stable it would be. And the same logic would apply to the downside if there was deflation. For example, once inflation rises from 2% to 4%, then it could easily move from 4% to 6% etc. Given the challenges of fine-tuning monetary policy, that view has merit. Raising the inflation target is all very well, but if central banks are having trouble getting the rate to 2%, how on earth would they get it to 4%. And the same point applies if the Fed were to shift from targeting the inflation rate to targeting the level of prices or of nominal GDP. If boosting the Fed’s balance sheet from less than $1 trillion to $4.5 trillion did not get inflation to 2%, what would it take to get inflation to 4%? It is always possible to increase inflation. For example, the government could give all households a check for $10,000 that had to be spent on domestically-produced goods and services. Furthermore, assume the checks were valid only for one year and the fiscal costs were directly financed by the Fed. This would undoubtedly unleash a powerful consumer boom and a spike in inflation. And the government could keep repeating the exercise until a sustained inflation upturn took hold. But that is an unrealistic scenario except in the event of an Armageddon economic situation. And it hardly would fit in with keeping inflation stable at a modestly higher pace. A recession is very likely within the next couple of years and monetary policy will indeed face major constraints on its actions. We undoubtedly would see renewed quantitative easing on a heroic scale with an expanded range of assets purchased by the central bank. And advocates of Modern Monetary Theory may well have their wishes granted with direct monetary financing of fiscal deficits. But, as already noted, policymakers would face these policy challenges regardless of whether inflation was modestly below or above the 2% target. Be Careful What You Wish For The Fed spent three decades squeezing inflation out of the system. In the 1970s and 1980s, high inflation expectations were deeply embedded in the behavior of consumers, companies and investors. It was a long and at times painful process to change that psychology. With inflation expectations now in the range of 2% to 3%, the Fed can claim success. Why would they want to risk undoing that achievement? Letting the economy run hot to try and offset sub-2% inflation with a period of above-2% inflation would be a dangerous strategy. History shows us that central banks have both limited understanding of the inflation process and limited control over the economy. If policymakers were successful in raising inflation, they run the risk that expectations would no longer be anchored. Moreover, the Fed would have a massive problem in communicating the logic of a pro-inflation strategy. Having spent so long in selling the message that low and stable inflation is the best way to maximize long-run economic growth, it likely would create considerable confusion to then say that a period of higher inflation was acceptable. Investors and businesses would face huge uncertainty about the magnitude and duration of an inflation overshoot and about whether the Fed could even control the process. The Fed’s credibility undoubtedly would suffer. It is true that policymakers know how to bring inflation back under control – they simply have to tighten policy. But that introduces increased instability into the economy and financial markets. Rather than be obsessed about hitting the 2% target, policymakers should be happy that they have met the requirements of the Federal Reserve Act: “to promote effectively the goals of maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long-term interest rates.” The Policy Outlook And Market Implications The Fed was right to stop raising interest rates. The economy does not appear to be on the verge of overheating and there are enough risks to the outlook to warrant a cautious wait-and-see approach to policy. Yet, I am somewhat troubled by the dovish tone of some Fed officials. Thank goodness President Trump’s recent choices for Fed Board positions are now out of the picture. If I am worried now, I can only imagine how much worse I would have felt with Stephen Moore and Herman Cain on the Board. With no recession on the horizon and the labor markets extremely tight, I fully expect to see inflation gather steam later this year. But I suspect that the Fed will be slow to react. And then the timing of the 2020 elections will become a factor. The FOMC is not particularly sensitive to political considerations, but this is no ordinary President. The Fed would have to be very sure of itself before it started raising rates again in the midst of the election cycle. The bottom line is that we are setting up for a monetary policy error with the Fed falling behind the inflation curve later this year or in early 2020. This will be positive for risk assets in the short run, but poses a big threat down the road. Notwithstanding our concerns about the near-term market impact of current U.S.-China trade tensions, our strategy is thus to remain overweight equities and corporate credit until we see signs that financial conditions are about to significantly tighten.   Martin H. Barnes, Senior Vice President Economic Advisor mbarnes@bcaresearch.com

Highlights U.S.: The Fed remains decidedly neutral, despite market expectations (and White House pressure) for lower U.S. interest rates. Treasury yields are mispriced and should grind higher over the next 6-12 months, led first by inflation expectations and later by a more hawkish Fed. Canada: The Bank of Canada’s latest reports and commentary indicate that monetary policy will stay on hold over at least the balance of 2019. Bond markets are already priced for that outcome. Maintain a neutral stance on Canadian government bonds in global hedged fixed income portfolios. Sweden: The Riksbank’s recent dovish turn, calling for a flatter trajectory for interest rates and extending asset purchases, will keep Swedish bond yields lower for longer. Thus, we are closing our recommended tactical trades in Sweden that were positioned for rate hikes. Feature Global bond yields remain stuck in a range, seeking a new directional narrative. The downside is limited by green shoots of improving global growth (mostly from China stimulus), some commodity price reflation through higher oil prices and robust returns in most risk asset markets (i.e. an easing of financial conditions). At the same time, the upside for yields is capped by dovish forward guidance from data-dependent central banks who see below-trend economic growth and below-target inflation in the rearview mirror. Chart of the WeekForward MIS-guidance Forward MIS-guidance Forward MIS-guidance We expect these opposing forces to be resolved through faster global growth and higher realized inflation over the next 6-12 months. Major central banks will not need to turn even more dovish and begin a monetary policy easing cycle to boost growth, despite current market pricing suggesting otherwise. Global bond yields will grind upward, first through higher inflation expectations and, later, from a shift away from discounting rate cuts and, in some countries, pricing in rate hikes. The pressure for higher yields will be strongest in the U.S., where the Treasury market now discounts that the current 2.5% fed funds rate will be the cyclical peak, below the median FOMC projection, even as inflation expectations have been moving higher (Chart of the Week).  We continue to recommend pro-growth, pro-risk allocations in global fixed income markets: below-benchmark overall duration exposure, favoring global corporates over government bonds, focusing government bond exposure to countries where policymakers will be relatively less hawkish (Japan, U.K., Australia, Canada, New Zealand), and positioning for faster inflation expectations and bearish steepening of yield curves (most notably in the U.S. and core Europe). May FOMC Meeting: Sorry, Mr. President The Fed kept rates unchanged at last week’s FOMC meeting, dashing market hopes of a potential shift in language toward a future rate cut. The official statement acknowledged that U.S. inflation was running below the 2% target, but Fed Chair Jerome Powell later described that inflation shortfall as “transitory” and expected to reverse. Treasury yields got whipsawed by the mixed messaging, with the 2-year yield falling -6bps after the statement but then climbing +11bps during Powell’s press conference. Powell standing his ground so firmly was a sharp rebuke to U.S. money markets, which remain priced for rate cuts over the next year. It was also a strong sign of the Fed maintaining its political independence in the face of U.S. President Trump calling for aggressive rate cuts. From a growth perspective, the Fed is right to not panic. The employment backdrop remains solid, with the U.S. unemployment rate hitting a 50-year low in April of 3.6%. While cyclical growth indicators like the ISM Manufacturing index have trended lower, the headline index remains above the expansionary 50 level (Chart 2). The rally in U.S. equity and credit markets seen so far in 2019 has eased financial conditions, signaling an imminent rebound in the U.S. leading economic indicator (second panel). Furthermore, core measures of retail sales and capital goods orders have begun to reaccelerate after the Q1 slump impacted by the U.S. government shutdown. From a growth perspective, the Fed is right to not panic. On the inflation side, the story is more nuanced. Higher oil prices will boost headline inflation measures over the next six months. At the same time, the lagged impact of the surprising pickup in U.S. productivity growth (+2.4% year-over-year in Q1) will help dampen core inflation rates (Chart 3) via lower unit labor costs (flat year-over-year in Q1). Further complicating the issue for the Fed is the impact of lower inflation in the components that Fed Chair Powell deemed “transitory”, such as airfares, apparel and, most interestingly, the cost of financial services. Chart 2A Blossoming U.S. ##br##Rebound A Blossoming U.S. Rebound A Blossoming U.S. Rebound Chart 3Blame Equities For The Cooling Of ##br##U.S. Core Inflation Blame Equities For The Cooling Of U.S. Core Inflation Blame Equities For The Cooling Of U.S. Core Inflation The broad Financial Services and Inflation grouping, which includes market-related costs such as wealth management fees, now represents 9% of the overall U.S. core PCE deflator. The inflation rate of the Financial Services index is highly correlated to the performance of U.S. equity markets (Chart 4). This makes sense, as the costs of professional portfolio management are often tied to the size of assets under management. At a minimum, the market should be priced for the same neutral (unchanged) stance that the Fed is currently signaling, which is appropriate given signs of U.S. growth perking up. Chart 4Faster Productivity Means The Fed Can Be Patient Faster Productivity Means The Fed Can Be Patient Faster Productivity Means The Fed Can Be Patient In 2018, prior to the year-end correction in U.S. equity markets, the contribution to core PCE inflation from the Financial Services category was a steady 0.5-0.6 percentage points. After the market rout, that contribution has fallen to 0.2 percentage points, accounting for nearly all of the 40bp decline in core PCE inflation since U.S. equities peaked last September. With equity markets having now regained all the late-2018 losses, Financial Services inflation should boost core PCE inflation by at least 20-30bps by year-end – and perhaps more if stocks continue to appreciate, per the BCA House View. With our Fed Monitor now sitting just above the zero line, indicating no pressure on the Fed to hike rates, the -30bps of rate cuts now discounted over the next year is too aggressive (Chart 5). At a minimum, the market should be priced for the same neutral (unchanged) stance that the Fed is currently signaling, which is appropriate given signs of U.S. growth perking up. The Fed will remain cautious on returning to a more hawkish stance until actual U.S. inflation turns higher, which will take some time given the competing forces of falling unit labor costs and fading “transitory” disinflationary effects. Chart 5Stay Underweight USTs & Below-Benchmark UST Duration Stay Underweight USTs & Below-Benchmark UST Duration Stay Underweight USTs & Below-Benchmark UST Duration We think the 2017 experience will be useful to think about in the coming months. Then, the Fed paused its rate hiking cycle for a few months, primarily due to softer inflation readings related to unusual forces temporarily dampening core inflation (most notably, a one-time collapse in wireless phone prices related to a change in how those costs were measured). Once those “transitory” forces faded out of the data, the Fed resumed lifting the funds rate. It will likely take longer in 2019 before the Fed would feel confident enough to begin raising rates again, especially with the funds rate now much closer to neutral than two years ago. Nonetheless, we expect a similar story of rebounding inflation driving Treasury yields higher to unfold over the latter half of this year. A moderate below-benchmark U.S. duration stance, favoring shorter maturities, combined with a long position in inflation-protected TIPS over nominal Treasuries, remains appropriate. Bottom Line: The Fed remains decidedly neutral, despite market expectations (and White House pressure) for lower U.S. interest rates. Treasury yields are mispriced and should grind higher over the next 6-12 months, led first by inflation expectations and later by a more hawkish Fed. Canada Update: Stay Neutral Back in March, we upgraded our recommended Canadian government bond exposure to neutral after spending a long time at underweight.1 The rationale for our move was that the stunning loss of momentum in the Canadian economy at the end of 2018 would force the Bank of Canada (BoC) to not only stop raising rates, but stay on hold for longer than expected. After our upgrade, we noted that we would consider additional changes to our Canadian allocation after the releases of the latest BoC Business Outlook Survey (BoS) and the updated economic projections at the April 24 monetary policy meeting. None of those events makes us want to move away from the current neutral recommendation. The problem for the BoC is that its policy rate of 1.75% remains well below its own estimated neutral range, which is now 2.25%-3.25% (Chart 6). A similar message comes when looking at the neutral real rate (“r-star”) estimate for Canada produced by the New York Fed, with an r-star of 1.5% versus a current real policy rate around 0%.2 This suggests that Canadian monetary policy remains accommodative and that the BoC should be looking for opportunities to continue moving interest rates toward “neutral” when the economy is accelerating. Yet our own BoC Monitor suggests that an unchanged policy stance is currently appropriate, while -11bps of rate cuts are now discounted in the Canadian Overnight Index Swap (OIS) curve. In other words, the BoC is torn between a fundamental interest rate framework that says the hiking cycle is not done yet, and a sluggish economy that demands a dovish bias. The BoC is torn between a fundamental interest rate framework that says the hiking cycle is not done yet, and a sluggish economy that demands a dovish bias. In the press conference following the April 24 BoC policy meeting, BoC Governor Steve Poloz noted that any reference to the need for interest rates to return to the BoC’s neutral range was deliberately omitted from the official policy statement. This is a clear signal that the central bank has shifted its focus from “normalizing” rates to preventing a deeper downturn in Canadian growth. The latest BoS showed that business confidence, expected sales and future investment intentions all fell sharply in the first quarter of 2019 (Chart 7). There was a huge drop in the number of firms reporting capacity pressures and labor shortages, with more firms now expecting their prices to fall than rise over the next year. The main headwinds to the diminished outlook for future sales were related to “a more uncertain outlook in the Western Canadian energy sector, continued weakness in housing-related activity in some regions, and tangible impacts from global trade tensions”.3 Chart 6A Long Way From BoC ##br##Rate Cuts A Long Way From BoC Rate Cuts A Long Way From BoC Rate Cuts Chart 7Negative Messages From The BoC Business Outlook Survey Negative Messages From The BoC Business Outlook Survey Negative Messages From The BoC Business Outlook Survey   The BoC places a lot of weight on the BoS in determining its economic forecasts, and in setting monetary policy. Thus, it is no surprise that in the official statement following the April 24 monetary policy meeting, the BoC Governing Council noted that they were “monitoring developments in household spending, oil markets and global trade policy to gauge the extent to which the factors weighing on growth and the inflation outlook were dissipating”.4 Those were the same three concerns of businesses highlighted in the BoS, assuming that “weakness in the Canadian housing market” is related to “developments in household spending” – a logical link given the high level of Canadian household and mortgage debt. Looking at those three factors, there is nothing suggesting that the BoC needs to adjust policy anytime soon (Chart 8). Oil prices are rising, but household spending remains weak and global trade uncertainties have not completely diminished and Canadian export growth has stagnated. Given the mixed picture from the economic data, the BoC will likely remain on hold until there is a clear signal from the data. From a bond investment strategy perspective, staying at neutral also makes sense. A move to overweight Canadian bonds would require an even deeper economic downturn into recessionary territory that would push Canadian unemployment higher (Chart 9). Downgrading back to underweight, however, would require signs of a sustainable rebound in Canadian domestic demand and stronger global growth that would boost Canadian exports – an outcome that would not be visible in the data until at least the third quarter of 2019. Chart 8Watch What The BoC ##br##Is Watching Watch What The BoC Is Watching Watch What The BoC Is Watching Chart 9A Neutral Weight On Canada Is Still Justified A Neutral Weight On Canada Is Still Justified A Neutral Weight On Canada Is Still Justified   One final point on staying neutral on Canada comes from looking at cross-country spread levels between government bonds in Canada and other major developed economies. The spread levels look historically wide versus sovereign debt from Germany, the U.K., and Australia; wide versus recent history in Japan; but very narrow versus the U.S. (Chart 9). Those spreads are shown without hedging out the currency risk of going long Canadian bonds – and, by association, the Canadian dollar. Once the currency risk is hedged out of those cross-country spreads using 3-month currency forwards, the spread differentials are all far less interesting both in absolute terms and relative to history (Chart 10 & 11). Chart 10Big Differences In Canadian Bond Spreads Vs Other Major DM... Big Differences In Canadian Bond Spreads Vs Other Major DM... Big Differences In Canadian Bond Spreads Vs Other Major DM... Chart 11… But Those Spreads Disappear Once The C$ Exposure Is Hedged ...But Those Spreads Disappear Once The C$ Exposure Is Hedged ...But Those Spreads Disappear Once The C$ Exposure Is Hedged So even on an individual country basis, there is no compelling case to be anything but neutral Canadian government bonds versus global currency-hedged benchmarks – which is how we present all our fixed income recommendations in Global Fixed Income Strategy. Bottom Line: The Bank of Canada’s latest reports and commentary indicate that monetary policy will stay on hold over at least the balance of 2019. Bond markets are already priced for that outcome. Maintain a neutral stance on Canadian government bonds in global hedged fixed income portfolios. Sweden Trade Update – Time To Retreat & Regroup Exactly one year ago (May 8, 2018), we initiated trades in our Tactical Overlay portfolio to position for tighter monetary policy, and higher bond yields, in Sweden.5 Specifically, we have been recommending shorting 2-year Swedish government bonds versus German equivalents (hedging the currency exposure back into krona), while also selling 2-year Swedish bonds and buying 10-year Swedish debt in a yield curve flattening trade. The positions were chosen to benefit from an expected bearish repricing of the short-end of the Swedish curve. At this time last year, the positive upward momentum of Swedish growth and inflation had reached a point where the Riksbank was clearly – and credibly – signaling that the long process of normalizing its highly accommodative crisis-era monetary policies would begin. That meant lifting policy rates away from negative territory, as well as shutting down the bond-buying quantitative easing (QE) program. One year later, the economic backdrop has done a 180-degree turn against our original thesis (Chart 12): Swedish growth has slowed, with both the manufacturing PMI and leading economic indicator at the lowest levels since 2013. Unemployment has increased and nominal wage growth has rolled over. Headline CPIF inflation has fallen back below the Riksbank 2% target, while core CPIF inflation remains stuck near 1.5%. The Riksbank changed its forward guidance at last month’s monetary policy meeting, signaling that the benchmark interest rate will remain at -0.25% for “somewhat longer” than was indicated as recently as February (when a rate hike around the end of 2019 or in early 2020 was signaled). The Riksbank also pledged to maintain the size of its QE bond purchases from July 2019 to December 2020, a dovish surprise. Swedish money markets are still discounting 13bps of rate hikes over the next twelve months. Yet our Riksbank Monitor, on the other hand, is now indicating a need for rate cuts, driven by both softer inflation and weaker growth. The minutes from last month’s policy meeting revealed that the forward guidance was adjusted simply because headline inflation had temporarily dipped back below the 2% Riksbank target. The implication is that a return to 2% inflation would prompt the Riksbank to hike. Swedish money markets are still discounting 13bps of rate hikes over the next twelve months. Yet our Riksbank Monitor, on the other hand, is now indicating a need for rate cuts, driven by both softer inflation and weaker growth. A useful rule for investment risk management is: when the underlying rationale for a position is clearly not unfolding as expected, the best thing to do is simply close that position and look for new opportunities better aligned to the current reality. Chart 12No More Pressure On Riksbank ##br##To Hike No More Pressure On Riksbank To Hike No More Pressure On Riksbank To Hike Chart 13Time To Exit Our Recommended "Hawkish" Trades In Sweden Time To Exit Our Recommended "Hawkish" Trades In Sweden Time To Exit Our Recommended "Hawkish" Trades In Sweden With that in mind, we are choosing to close our tactical trades in Sweden (Chart 13). The 2-year Sweden-Germany spread trade generated a loss of -52bps (including the return from hedging the euro exposure in Germany back into Swedish krona). We were more fortunate with the curve flattening trade, which generated a return of +61bps as the Swedish curve bullishly flattened through falling 10-year yields rather than bearishly flattening through rising 2-year yields (our original expectation). Thus, we are closing out our Sweden trades at a small net gain of +9bps. We will do a deeper analysis on Sweden in an upcoming Global Fixed Income Strategy report to search for new potential trade ideas. Bottom Line: The Riksbank’s recent dovish turn, calling for a flatter trajectory for interest rates and extending asset purchases, will keep Swedish bond yields lower for longer. Thus, we are closing our recommended tactical trades in Sweden that were positioned for a faster path of rate hikes.   Robert Robis, CFA, Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com Ray Park, CFA, Research Analyst ray@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, “March Calmness”, dated March 19, 2019, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 2 The NY Fed’s estimates for non-U.S. r-star rates for the euro area, Canada, and the U.K. can be found on the NY Fed website. https://www.newyorkfed.org/research/policy/rstar 3https://www.bankofcanada.ca/2019/04/business-outlook-survey-spring-2019/ 4https://www.bankofcanada.ca/2019/04/fad-press-release-2019-04-24/ 5 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report, “Sweden: The Riksbank Cannot Kick The Can Down The Road Anymore”, dated May 8, 2018, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. Recommendations Reconcilable Differences Reconcilable Differences Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Highlights Chart 1Is Low Inflation Transitory? Is Low Inflation Transitory? Is Low Inflation Transitory? Persistent /pə’sıst(ə)nt/ adj. If inflation runs persistently above or below 2 percent, then the Fed would be forced to adjust its policy stance to nudge it back towards target. Transitory /’trænsıtərı/ adj. If inflation’s deviation from target is only transitory, it means that it will return to target even if the Fed maintains its current policy stance. Symmetrical /sı‘metrık(ə)l/ adj. The Fed’s inflation target is symmetrical because the FOMC is as concerned with undershoots as it is with overshoots. More recently, some members are urging the Fed to demonstrate the target’s symmetry by explicitly pursuing an overshoot.  Last week, Chair Powell described recent low inflation readings as transitory (Chart 1). In other words, the Fed believes that interest rates are already low enough to send inflation higher over time. Equally, with downbeat inflation expectations signaling doubts about the symmetry of the Fed’s target (bottom panel), the committee is in no rush to hike. The result is status quo monetary policy for the time being. With the market priced for 25 basis points of rate cuts over the next 12 months, investors should keep portfolio duration low. Feature Investment Grade: Overweight Chart 2Investment Grade Market Overview Investment Grade Market Overview Investment Grade Market Overview Investment grade corporate bonds outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 95 basis points in April, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +365 bps. The corporate bond sector’s strong outperformance has resulted in spread tightening across the credit spectrum. In fact, average index spreads for the Aaa, Aa and A credit tiers are now at or below our fair value targets.1 Only the Baa credit tier, which accounts for about 50% of index market cap, remains attractively valued, with an average spread 11 bps above target (Chart 2). We recommend that investors focus their investment grade credit exposure on Baa-rated bonds. The combination of above-trend economic growth and accommodative Fed policy creates a favorable environment for credit risk. Spreads should continue to tighten in the near-term. However, we will turn more cautious once Baa spreads reach our target. Gross corporate leverage ticked higher in Q4, breaking a year-long downtrend (panel 4). Meantime, while C&I lending standards eased slightly in Q1 after having tightened in Q4 (bottom panel), C&I loan demand contracted for the third consecutive quarter. Weaker loan demand in the Fed’s Senior Loan Officer Survey often precedes tighter lending standards, and tighter lending standards usually coincide with wider corporate bond spreads.    Chart Chart High-Yield: Overweight Chart 3High-Yield Market Overview High-Yield Market Overview High-Yield Market Overview High-Yield outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 137 basis points in April, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +710 bps. Junk spreads for all credit tiers remain above our spread targets (Chart 3).2 At present: The Ba-rated option-adjusted spread is 214 bps, 35 bps above target. The B-rated spread is 356 bps, 79 bps above target. The Caa-rated spread is 709 bps, 145 bps above target. An alternative valuation measure, the excess spread available in the junk index after accounting for expected default losses, is currently 267 bps, slightly above average historical levels (panel 4). However, this measure uses the Moody’s baseline default rate forecast of 1.7% for the next 12 months. For that forecast to be realized, it would require a substantial decline from the current default rate of 2.4%. In a previous Special Report, we flagged some reasons why the Moody’s forecast might be too optimistic.3 Among them is the increase in job cut announcements, which remains a concern despite last month’s drop (bottom panel). If we assume that the default rate holds at 2.4% for the next 12 months, the default-adjusted junk spread would fall to 237 bps. Still reasonably attractive by historical standards, and consistent with positive excess returns. MBS: Neutral Chart 4MBS Market Overview MBS Market Overview MBS Market Overview Mortgage-Backed Securities underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 1 basis point in April, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to +27 bps. The conventional 30-year zero-volatility spread widened 1 bp on the month, as a 5 bps widening in the option-adjusted spread (OAS) was partially offset by a 4 bps drop in the compensation for prepayment risk (option cost). At 42 bps, the conventional 30-year OAS now looks elevated compared to recent years, though it remains below the pre-crisis mean (Chart 4). In fact, we would assign high odds to MBS outperformance during the next few months. Not only is the OAS attractive, but mortgage refinancings – which have recently caused the nominal MBS spread to widen – have probably peaked (panel 2). Following its sharp decline earlier in the year, the 30-year mortgage rate has now leveled-off. Another downleg is unlikely, given the recent improvements in housing data. New home sales and mortgage purchase applications have both surged in recent months, while homebuilder optimism remains close to one standard deviation above its long-run mean.4 Moreover, even at current mortgage rates we calculate that only about 17% of the conventional 30-year MBS index is refinanceable.  All in all, given that corporate credit offers higher expected returns, we continue to recommend only a neutral allocation to MBS. However, MBS spreads are very likely to tighten during the next few months.   Government-Related: Underweight Chart 5Government-Related Market Overview Government-Related Market Overview Government-Related Market Overview The Government-Related index outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 37 basis points in April, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +152 bps. Sovereign debt outperformed duration-equivalent Treasuries by 83 bps on the month, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +420 bps. Local Authorities outperformed the Treasury benchmark by 67 bps and Foreign Agencies outperformed by 40 bps, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +208 bps and +192 bps, respectively. Domestic Agencies outperformed by 10 bps in April, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +29 bps. Supranationals outperformed by 7 bps on the month, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +23 bps. The Fed’s on-hold policy stance and signs of improvement in leading global growth indicators could set the U.S. dollar up for a period of weakness. All else equal, a softer dollar makes USD-denominated sovereign debt easier to service, benefiting spreads. However, a period of dollar weakness driven by improving global growth would also benefit U.S. corporate bonds, and valuation is heavily tilted in favor of U.S. corporate debt relative to sovereigns (Chart 5). Given that the last period of significant sovereign outperformance versus corporates was preceded by much more attractive valuation (panels 2 & 3), we maintain an underweight allocation to sovereign debt for the time being. We make an exception for Mexican sovereign debt, where spreads are attractive compared to similarly rated U.S. corporates (bottom panel). Our Emerging Markets Strategy service also thinks that the market is taking too dim a view of Mexican government finances.5 Municipal Bonds: Overweight Chart 6Municipal Market Overview Municipal Market Overview Municipal Market Overview Municipal bonds outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 52 basis points in April, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +105 bps (before adjusting for the tax advantage). The average Aaa-rated Municipal / Treasury yield ratio fell 3% in April, and currently sits at 78% (Chart 6). This is more than one standard deviation below its post-crisis mean and slightly below the average of 81% that prevailed in the late stages of the previous cycle, between mid-2006 and mid-2007. Long-dated municipal bonds (10-year, 20-year and 30-year) outperformed short-dated munis (2-year and 5-year) dramatically last month, but yield ratios at the long end remain well above those at the short end of the curve (panel 2). In other words, the best value in the municipal bond space continues to be found at the long-end of the Aaa muni curve. We showed in a recent report that lower-rated and shorter-maturity munis are much less attractive.6 First quarter GDP data revealed that state & local government tax revenues snapped back sharply in Q1, following a contraction in 2018 Q4. Meanwhile, current expenditures actually ticked down. Incorporating an assumption for Q1 corporate tax revenues, we forecast that state & local government interest coverage jumped to 16% in Q1 from 4% in 2018 Q4.7  This is consistent with municipal ratings upgrades continuing to outpace downgrades for the time being (bottom panel). Treasury Curve: Adopt A Barbell Curve Positioning Chart 7Treasury Yield Curve Overview Treasury Yield Curve Overview Treasury Yield Curve Overview The Treasury curve bear-steepened in April. The 2/10 Treasury slope steepened 10 bps on the month and currently sits at 21 bps (Chart 7). The 5/30 slope steepened 7 bps on the month and currently sits at 60 bps. In recent reports we have urged investors to adopt barbell positions along the yield curve. In particular, investors should avoid the 5-year and 7-year maturities and instead focus their allocations at the very short and long ends of the curve.8 There are three main reasons to prefer a barbell positioning. First, the 5-year and 7-year yields are most sensitive to changes in our 12-month discounter. In other words, those yields fall the most when the market prices in rate cuts and rise the most when it prices in rate hikes. With recession likely to be avoided this year, the market will eventually price rate hikes back into the curve. Second, barbells currently offer a yield pick-up relative to bullets. The duration-matched 2/10 barbell offers 8 bps more yield than the 5-year bullet (panel 4), and the duration-matched 2/30 barbell offers 5 bps more yield than the 7-year bullet. This means that investors will earn positive carry in barbell positions while they wait for rate hikes to get priced back in. Finally, almost all barbell combinations look cheap according to our yield curve fair value models (see Appendix B). TIPS: Overweight Chart 8TIPS Market Overview Inflation Compensation Inflation Compensation TIPS outperformed the duration-equivalent nominal Treasury index by 81 basis points in April, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +157 bps. The 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate rose 13 bps on the month and currently sits at 1.91% (Chart 8). The 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rate rose 12 bps on the month and currently sits at 2.02%. Both rates remain below the 2.3% - 2.5% range that has historically been consistent with inflation expectations that are well-anchored around the Fed’s target. As we noted in a recent report, the Fed has clearly pivoted to a more dovish stance in an effort to re-anchor inflation expectations at levels more consistent with its 2% target.9 This change should support wider TIPS breakevens, though investors will also need to see evidence of firming realized inflation before meaningful upside materializes. So far, such evidence is in short supply. Year-over-year core PCE inflation dipped to 1.55% in March. However, as Fed Chair Powell went out of his way to mention in last week’s press conference, core PCE was dragged down by one-off adjustments in the ‘Clothing & Footwear’ and ‘Financial Services’ components. In fact, 12-month trimmed mean PCE inflation actually moved up in March. It now sits at 1.96%, just below the Fed’s target (bottom panel). The combination of a dovish Fed and above-trend economic growth should push TIPS breakevens higher over time. Maintain an overweight allocation to TIPS versus nominal Treasuries. ABS: Underweight Chart 9ABS Market Overview ABS Market Overview ABS Market Overview Asset-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 9 basis points in April, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +49 bps. The index option-adjusted spread for Aaa-rated ABS narrowed one basis point on the month and, at 32 bps, it remains close to its all-time low (Chart 9). In addition to poor valuation, the sector’s credit fundamentals are also shifting in a negative direction. Household interest payments continue to trend up, suggesting a higher delinquency rate going forward (panel 3). Meanwhile, the Fed’s Senior Loan Officer Survey revealed that average consumer lending standards tightened in Q1 for the second consecutive quarter. Tighter lending standards usually coincide with rising consumer delinquencies (bottom panel). Loan officers also reported slowing demand for credit cards for the fifth consecutive quarter, and slowing auto loan demand for the third consecutive quarter. The combination of poor value and deteriorating credit quality leads us to recommend an underweight allocation to consumer ABS.     Non-Agency CMBS: Neutral Chart 10CMBS Market Overview CMBS Market Overview CMBS Market Overview Non-Agency Commercial Mortgage-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 40 basis points in April, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +187 bps. The index option-adjusted spread for non-agency Aaa-rated CMBS tightened 6 bps on the month. It currently sits at 67 bps, below its average pre-crisis level but somewhat higher than levels seen last year (Chart 10). In a recent report, we noted that non-agency CMBS offer the best risk/reward trade-off of any Aaa-rated U.S. spread product.10 While we remain cautious on the macro outlook for commercial real estate, noting that prices are decelerating (panel 3) and banks are tightening lending standards (panel 4) amidst falling demand (bottom panel), we view elevated CMBS spreads as providing reasonable compensation for this risk for the time being. Agency CMBS: Overweight Agency CMBS outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 21 basis points in April, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +95 bps. The index option-adjusted spread tightened 2 bps on the month and currently sits at 47 bps. The Excess Return Bond Map in Appendix C shows that Agency CMBS offer high potential return compared to other low-risk spread products. An overweight allocation to this defensive sector remains appropriate. Appendix A - The Golden Rule Of Bond Investing We follow a two-step process to formulate recommendations for bond portfolio duration. First, we determine the change in the federal funds rate that is priced into the yield curve for the next 12 months. Second, we decide – based on our assessments of the economy and Fed policy – whether the change in the fed funds rate will exceed or fall short of what is priced into the curve. Most of the time, a correct answer to this question leads to the appropriate duration call. We call this framework the Golden Rule Of Bond Investing, and we demonstrated its effectiveness in the U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, “The Golden Rule Of Bond Investing”, dated July 24, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com. Chart 11 illustrates the Golden Rule’s track record by showing that the Bloomberg Barclays Treasury Master Index tends to outperform cash when rate hikes fall short of 12-month expectations, and vice-versa. At present, the market is priced for 25 basis points of cuts during the next 12 months. We do not anticipate any rate cuts during this timeframe, and therefore recommend that investors maintain below-benchmark portfolio duration. Chart 11The Golden Rule's Track Record The Golden Rule's Track Record The Golden Rule's Track Record We can also use our Golden Rule framework to make 12-month total return and excess return forecasts for the Bloomberg Barclays Treasury index under different scenarios for the fed funds rate. Excess returns are relative to the Bloomberg Barclays Cash index. To forecast total returns we first calculate the 12-month fed funds rate surprise in each scenario by comparing the assumed change in the fed funds rate to the current value of our 12-month discounter. This rate hike surprise is then mapped to an expected change in the Treasury index yield using a regression based on the historical relationship between those two variables. Finally, we apply the expected change in index yield to the current characteristics (yield, duration and convexity) of the Treasury index to estimate total returns on a 12-month horizon. The below tables present those results, along with 95% confidence intervals. Excess returns are calculated by subtracting assumed cash returns in each scenario from our total return projections. Image Image Appendix B - Butterfly Strategy Valuation The following tables present the current read-outs from our butterfly spread models. We use these models to identify opportunities to take duration-neutral positions across the Treasury curve. The following two Special Reports explain the models in more detail: U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, “Bullets, Barbells And Butterflies”, dated July 25, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, “More Bullets, Barbells And Butterflies”, dated May 15, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Table 4 shows the raw residuals from each model. A positive value indicates that the bullet is cheap relative to the duration-matched barbell. A negative value indicates that the barbell is cheap relative to the bullet. Table 4Butterfly Strategy Valuation: Raw Residuals In Basis Points (As of April 30, 2019) The Fed's Inflation Dictionary The Fed's Inflation Dictionary Table 5 scales the raw residuals in Table 4 by their historical means and standard deviations. This facilitates comparison between the different butterfly spreads. Table 5Butterfly Strategy Valuation: Standardized Residuals (As of April 30, 2019) The Fed's Inflation Dictionary The Fed's Inflation Dictionary Table 6 flips the models on their heads. It shows the change in the slope between the two barbell maturities that must be realized during the next six months to make returns between the bullet and barbell equal. For example, a reading of +56 bps in the 5 over 2/10 cell means that we would only expect the 5-year to outperform the 2/10 if the 2/10 slope steepens by more than 56 bps during the next six months. Otherwise, we would expect the 2/10 barbell to outperform the 5-year bullet. Table 6Discounted Slope Change During Next 6 Months (BPs) The Fed's Inflation Dictionary The Fed's Inflation Dictionary Appendix C - Excess Return Bond Map The Excess Return Bond Map is used to assess the relative risk/reward trade-off between different sectors of the U.S. fixed income market. The Map employs volatility-adjusted breakeven spread analysis to show how likely it is that a given sector will earn/lose money during the subsequent 12 months. The Map does not incorporate any macroeconomic view. The horizontal axis of the Map shows the number of days of average spread widening required for each sector to lose 100 bps versus a position in duration-matched Treasuries. Sectors plotting further to the left require more days of average spread widening and are therefore less likely to see losses. The vertical axis shows the number of days of average spread tightening required for each sector to earn 100 bps in excess of duration-matched Treasuries. Sectors plotting further toward the top require fewer days of spread tightening and are therefore more likely to earn 100 bps of excess return. Chart 12   Ryan Swift, U.S. Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Jeremie Peloso, Research Analyst jeremiep@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 For further details on how we arrive at our spread targets please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Paid To Wait”, dated February 26, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 For further details on how we arrive at our spread targets please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Paid To Wait”, dated February 26, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, “Assessing Corporate Default Risk”, dated March 19, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “A High Bar For Rate Cuts”, dated April 30, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 5 Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, “Mexico: The Best Value In EM Fixed Income”, dated April 23, 2019, available at ems.bcaresearch.com 6 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Full Speed Ahead”, dated April 16, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 7 Corporate tax revenue is not released until the second GDP estimate. We assume that the 2019 Q1 value equals the 2018 Q4 value. 8 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Paid To Wait”, dated February 26, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 9 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The New Battleground For Monetary Policy”, dated March 26, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 10 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Search For Aaa Spread”, dated March 12, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification Corporate Sector Relative Valuation And Recommended Allocation

Highlights This week’s FOMC meeting confirmed that the Fed is on hold. We would downplay Powell’s reference to the decline in inflation as being “transitory”. Strictly speaking, he is correct. All of the decline in core inflation since last September has occurred in just two categories: financial services and clothing/footwear. The bigger point is that the Fed no longer sees fit to raise rates even though the unemployment rate is at a 50-year low and real rates are barely positive. Both the Fed and the markets have completely bought into two of Larry Summers’ core views, which are that the neutral rate of interest is much lower today than in the past, and that the Fed should wait to see the “whites of inflation’s eyes” before raising rates any further. We think the neutral rate will prove to be higher than widely believed and that the Fed will eventually find itself far behind the curve. Risk assets may see heightened volatility over the next few days as markets adjust to the fact that rate cuts are not forthcoming. Nevertheless, with rates still far below our estimate of neutral, the path of least resistance for global equities remains to the upside. The bull market in stocks will only end when inflation moves significantly higher, requiring the Fed to hike rates aggressively. That is unlikely to happen during the next 12 months. Feature Gentle Jay Ruffles The Markets … Transitorily This week’s FOMC statement confirmed that the Fed is on hold. In sharp contrast to his claim last October that rates were “a long way from neutral,” Chair Powell stressed during his press conference that there was no strong case for moving rates in “either direction.” Equities initially rose, while the dollar weakened, only to reverse direction following Powell’s subsequent comment that the recent decline in inflation was “transitory.” We would not make a big deal of Powell’s “transitory” remark. As a factual matter, he is correct. Table 1 shows that almost all of the decline in core PCE inflation from 2% in September 2018 to 1.6% in March 2019 can be explained by a drop in inflation in two categories: financial services and clothing/footwear. The former was weighed down by the steep decline in equity prices late last year (Chart 1). The latter was affected by a methodological change in how the Bureau of Labor Statistics calculates apparel prices.1    Table 1Weaker Core PCE Inflation Driven Mainly By Financial Services Larry Summers: Shadow Fed Chair Larry Summers: Shadow Fed Chair Chart 1Stock Market Swings Feed Into Price Indices Stock Market Swings Feed Into Price Indices Stock Market Swings Feed Into Price Indices The more important takeaway is that the Fed is now in a “wait and see” mode. Considering that the unemployment rate is at a 50-year low and real rates are barely positive, this is an extraordinary development. How to explain it? Two words: Larry Summers. Everyone Loves Larry Six years after President Obama dashed Larry Summers’ hopes of becoming the next Fed chair by anointing Janet Yellen instead, the former Treasury Secretary’s shadow hangs over the central bank like never before. Two of Summers’ key views – that the neutral rate of interest is much lower today than in the past, and that the Fed should wait to see the “whites of inflation’s eyes” before raising rates any further – have become accepted wisdom not just at the Fed, but on Wall Street as well. At the same time, another of Larry Summers’ core beliefs, that the Fed should aim for an inflation rate above the current target of 2%, is gaining traction.   This raises an important question: What would it mean for investors if all these hypotheses turned out to be wrong? Let’s examine the arguments. How Low Is The Neutral Rate Of Interest? Conceptually, the interest rate on safe government securities should adjust to ensure that global savings equal investment. Interest rates will fall if either desired savings rise or desired investment declines (Chart 2). To the extent that some countries have more savings and/or fewer worthwhile domestic investment opportunities than others, they will run current account surpluses. Countries with less savings and better investment prospects will run current account deficits (Chart 3). Chart 2 Chart 3 There is a strong case to be made that the neutral rate of interest has fallen over the past few decades. Potential GDP growth in developed economies has slowed. This has reduced the need for new capital investment. The advent of the digital age, or the “demassification” of the economy as Summers calls it, has also brought down the amount of physical capital firms need to function. Meanwhile, China’s entry into the global economy greatly expanded productive capacity without a concomitant increase in spending, thus creating the “savings glut” that Ben Bernanke first described in 2005. The question is how will these forces evolve over the coming years? According to the standard “accelerator” model, the optimal level of investment spending is determined by the growth rate of aggregate demand.2 As Chart 4 illustrates, most of the decline in trend real GDP growth in developed economies occurred between 1960 and 2000. Growth may decelerate further over the next decade, but not by much. Chart 4 Chart 5Dependency Rates Are Rising Again In Developed Economies Dependency Rates Are Rising Again In Developed Economies Dependency Rates Are Rising Again In Developed Economies   Investment growth in China is likely to slow, but savings could also decline as a more robust consumer culture emerges and the government continues to take steps to strengthen the social safety net. Population aging in China and elsewhere could also erode savings. Falling fertility rates in most of the world starting in the early 1960s led to a decline in dependency rates in the 1980s and 1990s (Chart 5). However, now that baby boomers are starting to retire, dependency rates are rising. Once health care spending is included, consumption increases in old age, especially in the last few years of life (Chart 6). Globally, the ratio of workers-to-consumers peaked earlier this decade. The pace of the decline in this ratio is set to accelerate over the next few decades (Chart 7). More desired consumption relative to any given level of production implies less savings and a higher neutral rate of interest. Chart 6Savings Over The Life Cycle Savings Over The Life Cycle Savings Over The Life Cycle Chart 7The Worker-To-Consumer Ratio Has Peaked Globally The Worker-To-Consumer Ratio Has Peaked Globally The Worker-To-Consumer Ratio Has Peaked Globally   Even in Japan, the neutral rate may be stealthily moving higher (Chart 8). Despite an influx of women into the labor market, the household savings rate has fallen from nearly 20% in the early 1980s to around 4% of late. The ratio of job openings-to-applicants has risen to a 45-year high. The trade balance has moved into deficit. Yet, 20-year inflation swaps are trading at 0.3%, implying that investors do not expect the Bank of Japan to achieve its 2% inflation target anytime soon. They may be in for a big surprise. Gauging The Cyclical Drivers Of The Neutral Rate At its core, the secular stagnation thesis is a theory about the long-term determinants of interest rates. It says little about the appropriate level of interest rates over cyclical horizons of a few years, even though that is the period over which monetary policy decisions tend to affect the economy. Today, aggregate demand in the United States is being buoyed by a number of cyclical forces. These include very loose fiscal policy, fairly strong credit growth (especially among corporates), high levels of asset prices, and faster wage growth at the bottom of the income distribution (Chart 9). All of these forces are helping to lift the neutral rate of interest. Chart 8Japan May Be Slowly Moving Towards Higher Inflation Japan May Be Slowly Moving Towards Higher Inflation Japan May Be Slowly Moving Towards Higher Inflation Chart 9U.S.: Cyclical Forces Are Propping Up Demand U.S.: Cyclical Forces Are Propping Up Demand U.S.: Cyclical Forces Are Propping Up Demand Consider the impact of looser fiscal policy. The IMF estimates that the U.S. structural budget deficit averaged 3.2% of GDP in 2015. In 2019, the IMF reckons it will average 5.2% of GDP. The budget deficit could rise further if Trump and Congress succeed in negotiating a new infrastructure package or if, as is likely, the Democrats insist on new spending measures as a condition for increasing the debt ceiling later this year. For the sake of argument, let us suppose that every $1 of additional fiscal stimulus adds $1 to aggregate demand. In this case, fiscal policy has added about 2% of GDP to annual aggregate demand over the past five years. Suppose that a one percentage-point increase in aggregate demand raises the appropriate level of interest rates by one percentage point, which is in line with the specification of the Taylor Rule that former Fed Chair Janet Yellen favored. This implies that fiscal policy alone has raised the neutral rate by over two percentage points over this time period. Laubach-Williams And The Fed Pause The discussion above suggests that the neutral rate of interest may be much higher than what the widely-used Laubach-Williams (LW) model implies. The LW model essentially calculates the trend growth rate of the economy in order to come up with its estimate for the neutral rate (Chart 10). It is an overly simplistic approach, as it ignores all the other factors influencing savings and investment decisions. Nevertheless, it seems to be driving the Fed’s thinking to a significant degree. Chart 10 Chart 11Things That Make The Fed Go "Hmm"... Things That Make The Fed Go "Hmm"... Things That Make The Fed Go "Hmm"... The real fed funds rate reached the LW estimate for the first time in 11 years last December (Chart 11). While we would not go as far as crediting the model for the Fed’s decision to go on hold – the sell-off in stocks and the flattening of the yield curve played a much larger role – the Fed’s reliance on the model does explain why it has maintained a dovish stance this year even as financial conditions have eased. Waiting For The Whites Of Inflation’s Eyes To his credit, John Williams, who helped develop the model more than 15 years ago, and now serves as the President of the New York Fed and the Vice Chair of the FOMC, has stressed that there is a wide band of uncertainty around any estimate of the neutral rate. Given this inherent uncertainty, a growing number of policymakers have shifted towards the Summers view that it is better to err on the side of caution and take a go-slow approach to raising rates. The rationale is straightforward: If the neutral rate turns out to be higher than expected and inflation starts to accelerate, central banks can always tighten monetary policy. In contrast, if the neutral rate is very low, the decision to raise rates could plunge the economy into a downward spiral. Historically, the Fed has cut rates by about six percentage points during recessions (Chart 12). At present rates of inflation, that would surely mean that the zero lower bound on interest rates would be reached, at which point monetary policy becomes increasingly impotent. Chart 12The Fed Is Worried About The Zero Bound The Fed Is Worried About The Zero Bound The Fed Is Worried About The Zero Bound A major drawback to waiting too long to raise rates is that it can take up to 18 months for changes in monetary policy to affect the economy. Inflation is also a highly lagging indicator: It normally does not peak until after a recession has begun, and does not bottom until the recovery is well underway (Chart 13). By the time you realize that the economy is overheating, it may be too late to prevent inflation from rising. Chart 13 Of course, in the minds of many influential economists, higher inflation would be a virtue rather than a vice. Summers has argued that the Fed should aim to bring inflation into a range of 3%-to-4% in order to ensure that real rates can fall far enough into negative territory during the next recession. Higher inflation could also alleviate the nominal wage rigidity problem, thus allowing real wages to adjust more readily in response to economic shocks. The risk of aiming for higher inflation is that you will get more of it than you bargained for. True, inflation was broadly stable in the mid-to-late 1980s at around 4%, but this followed a period of much higher inflation in the late 1970s/early 1980s (Chart 14). It may be more difficult to stabilize inflation after it has risen than after it has fallen. This is especially likely to be the case if the central bank has purposely taken steps to raise inflation. Chart 14Inflation Was Broadly Stable At Around 4% In The Mid-To-Late 1980s Inflation Was Broadly Stable At Around 4% In The Mid-To-Late 1980s Inflation Was Broadly Stable At Around 4% In The Mid-To-Late 1980s Supersymmetry: Inflation Edition The Fed is not about to raise its inflation target anytime soon. It is, however, rethinking the manner in which it conducts monetary policy in a way that will probably lead to somewhat higher inflation. Under the Fed’s existing framework, its “symmetric” inflation target is not supposed to be backward-looking. Symmetry simply means that the Fed targets 2% inflation every year, allowing for an equal probability of inflation ending up overshooting its mark as undershooting it. If inflation has missed its target in the past, this does not give the Fed license to try to exceed it in the future. Bygones are bygones. Chart 15 Chart 16Inflation Has Been Below The Fed's 2% Target For The Past 10 Years Inflation Has Been Below The Fed's 2% Target For The Past 10 Years Inflation Has Been Below The Fed's 2% Target For The Past 10 Years This definition of symmetry is starting to shift to one that is both forward-looking and backward-looking. This effectively brings the Fed one step closer to adopting price-level targeting – an idea John Williams has spoken glowingly about. Under a price-level targeting regime, the Fed would try to keep the price level on a predetermined trend (Chart 15). Inflation undershoots would have to be rectified with overshoots, and vice versa. This is obviously relevant for the current environment. Chart 16 shows that the core PCE deflator is now 4.6% below where it would have been if it increased by 2% per year since the financial crisis. Even if the Fed did not change its inflation target, bringing the deflator back towards its pre-crisis trend would still require that inflation run above the Fed’s target over the next few years. As Neel Kashkari said earlier this year: “We officially have a symmetric target and actual inflation has averaged around 1.7%, below our 2% target, for the past several years.  So if we were at 2.3% for several years that shouldn't be concerning.”3 Investment Conclusions Risk assets may see heightened volatility over the next few days as markets adjust to the fact that rate cuts are not forthcoming. Nevertheless, with rates still far below our estimate of neutral, the path of least resistance for global equities remains to the upside. Recessions typically do not occur when monetary policy is accommodative. The stock market, in turn, rarely falls in a sustained manner when the economy is expanding (Chart 17). This view prompted us to upgrade global equities in December. We remain cyclically bullish today. Chart 17Recessions And Bear Markets Usually Overlap Recessions And Bear Markets Usually Overlap Recessions And Bear Markets Usually Overlap Regionally, we do not have any strong preferences at the moment, but expect to upgrade EM and Europe by this summer. Despite the occasional disappointment such as this month’s manufacturing ISM, a broad swath of the evidence suggests global growth is reaccelerating (Chart 18). EM and European stocks tend to outperform in that environment. The dollar tends to weaken when the global economy strengthens (Chart 19). Hence, the greenback should enter a soft patch over the coming months which could last until the second half of next year. Chart 18Global Growth Is Reaccelerating Global Growth Is Reaccelerating Global Growth Is Reaccelerating Chart 19The Dollar Is A Countercyclical Currency The Dollar Is A Countercyclical Currency The Dollar Is A Countercyclical Currency Global bond yields will drift higher over the coming months as global growth surprises on the upside. Investors should position for somewhat steeper yield curves globally. The U.S. yield curve will flatten again late next year as inflation starts to reach levels that even a dovish Fed is not comfortable with. This will likely set the stage for an inversion of the yield curve in early 2021 and a global recession later that same year.    Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1      “Government Economists Turn to Big Data to Track the Economy,” The Wall Street Journal, April 30, 2019. 2       In most economic models, the capital-to-output ratio is assumed to converge towards a stable level over time. By definition, the capital stock in Year t is determined by the capital stock in Year t-1 plus whatever net investment (gross investment minus depreciation) takes place in Year t. In general, the optimal net investment-to-GDP ratio will equal the product of the capital-to-output ratio and the growth rate of GDP. For example, suppose that the capital-to-output ratio is three (meaning that the capital stock is three times as large as GDP). If output does not change from one year to the next, no additional net investment would be necessary to maintain a stable capital-to-output ratio. However, if output is growing at 2%, net investment of 3X2%=6% of GDP would be required. 3      “Fed's Kashkari says some overshoot on inflation would not be alarming,” Reuters, April 11, 2019. Strategy & Market Trends MacroQuant Model And Current Subjective Scores Chart 20 Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

Feature What Could Sour The Sweet Spot? This continues to look like a very benevolent environment for risk assets. Growth in the U.S. remains decent, with Q1 GDP growth beating expectations at 3.2% QoQ annualized (albeit somewhat distorted by rising inventories). Leading indicators point to U.S. GDP growth of around 2.5% for 2019. The rest of the world is showing the first “green shoots” of economic recovery. China continues to expand credit, and the effects of this are starting to stabilize growth in Europe, Japan, and the Emerging Markets (Chart 1). Recommended Allocation Monthly Portfolio Update Monthly Portfolio Update Chart 1China Reflation Helping Growth To Bottom China Reflation Helping Growth To Bottom China Reflation Helping Growth To Bottom At the same time, central banks everywhere have turned accommodative. Following the Fed’s dovish shift late last year, the market has priced in rate cuts by end-2019. The ECB is about to relaunch its TLTRO funding program, and is expected to keep rates in negative territory for at least another year (Chart 2) – though there are worries whether Mario Draghi’s successor as ECB president might be more hawkish. The Bank of Canada and Bank of Japan, among others, have recently reemphasized monetary caution. Chart 2No Rate Hikes Anywhere No Rate Hikes Anywhere No Rate Hikes Anywhere Chart 3Term Premium Keeping Down Yields Term Premium Keeping Down Yields Term Premium Keeping Down Yields This goes some way to explain the biggest puzzle in markets currently: why, despite global equities being less than 1% below a record high, long-term interest rates remain so low, with the 10-year U.S. Treasury yield at 2.5%, and yields in Germany and Japan hovering around zero. There are other explanations too. A decomposition of the U.S. 10-year yield shows that most of the downward pressure has come from a sharp drop in the term premium (Chart 3). This is partly because lousy growth in other developed economies, such as Germany and Japan, has pushed down yields in these countries and, given that spreads to the U.S. were at record highs, depressed U.S. rates too. It also reflects a lingering pessimism among investors who bought Treasuries at the end of last year to hedge against recession and who remain concerned about the economy. This is evidenced by continuing strong flows into bond funds in 2019 (Chart 4). A decomposition of the U.S. 10-year yield shows that most of the downward pressure has come from a sharp drop in the term premium. Chart 4Investors Buying Bonds, Not Equities Investors Buying Bonds, Not Equities Investors Buying Bonds, Not Equities Chart 5Why Has Inflation Fallen? Why Has Inflation Fallen? Why Has Inflation Fallen? A further explanation is the recent softness in inflation, with the Fed’s focus measure, core PCE inflation, slowing to an annual rate of only 0.7% over the past three months (Chart 5). This is probably mostly due to the economic slowdown late last year. But it may also have structural causes: the recent improvement in labor productivity can perhaps allow wages to rise without feeding through into consumer price inflation (Chart 6). Chart 6Maybe Because Of Better Productivity Maybe Because Of Better Productivity Maybe Because Of Better Productivity Chart 7Indicators Suggest Inflation Will Still Trend Up Indicators Suggest Inflation Will Still Trend Up Indicators Suggest Inflation Will Still Trend Up How is this all likely to pan out?  We think it improbable that inflation will stay low for long if growth is as robust as we expect. Leading indicators of inflation continue to suggest prices will trend higher (Chart 7). The Fed may not rush to raise rates (not least since, with the lower inflation recently, the Fed Funds Rate in real terms is now at neutral according to the Laubach-Williams model, Chart 8). But we also find it inconceivable that the Fed will cut rates, if growth remains strong, stocks continue to rise, and global risks recede. By the end of this year, it should be able to make a renewed case for a further hike. But even if it doesn’t do that – and permits either inflation to overheat for a while, or asset bubbles to form – these scenarios should be more conducive to equity outperformance, than bond outperformance. Global equities have already risen by 22% since last December’s low and may struggle to make rapid progress over the next few months. The key to further upside for stocks will be earnings: since analysts have cut EPS forecasts for S&P 500 companies for this year to only 4%, those expectations should not be hard to beat. In the Q1 earnings season, for instance, 79% of companies have so far come in ahead of the consensus EPS forecast. For global asset allocators, the key decision is always at the asset-class level. Will equities outperform bonds over the coming 12 months? Equities should have further upside if our macro scenario proves correct. On the other hand, we find it hard to imagine that global bond yields will not rise moderately if global growth recovers, the Fed refrains from cutting rates, inflation rises somewhat, and investors turn less wary of equities. We continue, therefore, to expect the stock-to-bond ratio (Chart 9) to rise further over the next 12 months. We think it improbable that inflation will stay low for long if growth is as robust as we expect. Chart 8Is Fed Now At Neutral? Is Fed Now At Neutral? Is Fed Now At Neutral? Chart 9Stock-To-Bond Ratio Can Rise Further Stock-To-Bond Ratio Can Rise Further Stock-To-Bond Ratio Can Rise Further   Chart 10Europe And EM Outperform Only Briefly Europe And EM Outperform Only Briefly Europe And EM Outperform Only Briefly Equities: We remain overweight global equities, but are reluctant to take higher beta country exposure until there is greater clarity on the bottoming out of ex-U.S. growth. Moreover, the structural headwinds that have prevented anything more than short-term outperformance for eurozone stocks (banking sector weakness) and Emerging Markets (excess debt and poor productivity) since 2010 remain powerful negative factors (Chart 10). Our moderately pro-cyclical sector recommendations (overweight energy and industrials) should hedge us against upside risk emanating from a strong rebound in Chinese imports. Fixed Income: Over the past few years, periods where equities have decoupled from bond yields have been resolved with bond yields playing catch-up (Chart 11). We expect the same to happen over the next few months, with global government bond yields rising moderately. The risk-on environment continues to be positive for credit. We prefer credit to government bonds within fixed income, but are only neutral within our overall recommended portfolio. U.S. high-yield bonds in particular look attractively valued, as long as growth continues and default rates don’t start to rise too much (Chart 12). Chart 11When Bonds And Equities Diverge… When Bonds And Equities Diverge... When Bonds And Equities Diverge... Chart 12Junk Bonds Attractively Valued Junk Bonds Attractively Valued Junk Bonds Attractively Valued Currencies: A pick-up in global growth would be negative for the U.S. dollar, typically a counter-cyclical currency (Chart 13). BCA’s currency strategists have slowly been moving towards a more positive stance on some currencies versus the dollar, particularly the euro and Australian dollar. We would expect to see the trade-weighted dollar start to depreciate in H2 once global growth accelerates, fueled by the very skewed long-dollar positioning currently. However, this may be only a six- to 12-month move, since growth and interest-rate differentials suggest that the structural dollar bull market that began in 2012 has not yet fully run its course. Commodities: Oil remains dominated by supply-side dynamics. How much the ending of waivers on Iranian oil sanctions, plus troubles in Venezuela and Libya, push up oil prices will depend on whether President Trump can persuade Saudi Arabia and UAE to increase production. BCA’s energy team expects he will be only partially successful in doing so, and see Brent reaching $80 a barrel and WTI $77 (from $72 and $64 currently) during 2019. Industrial commodities prices will depend on the strength and nature of China’s reflation: our commodities strategists see copper, the most sensitive metal to Chinese demand, as the best way to play this.1 Garry Evans Chief Global Asset Allocation Strategist garry@bcaresearch.com Chart 13Stronger Growth Would Be Dollar Negative Stronger Growth Would Be Dollar Negative Stronger Growth Would Be Dollar Negative   Footnotes 1       Please see Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, “Copper Will Benefit Most From Chinese Stimulus,” dated April 25, 2019, available at ces.bcaresearch.com GAA Asset Allocation  

Highlights Fed: Fed policymakers are sending a unified message that they want to keep rates on hold until they see a significant increase in inflation. However, our reading of their recent remarks suggests that they will be reluctant to actually cut rates unless GDP growth falls to below its estimated potential. Economy: If we strip out the volatile net exports, government and inventory components of growth, we see that economic activity slowed to below potential in the first quarter. However, the timeliest data on consumer spending, nonresidential investment and residential investment all suggest that Q1 will be the trough for the year. All in all, economic growth should be comfortably above potential in 2019, keeping rate cuts at bay. Investment Strategy: Investors should keep portfolio duration low, avoiding the 5-year/7-year part of the Treasury curve. Investors should also overweight spread product versus Treasuries, with a focus on Baa and junk rated corporate bonds. Feature Since January, Federal Reserve policymakers have sent a strikingly unified message: Policy should remain “patient” in an effort to re-anchor inflation expectations and demonstrate the symmetry of the Fed’s 2 percent inflation target. Take for example, two excerpts from recent speeches by Boston Fed President Eric Rosengren and Chicago Fed President Charles Evans. Rosengren:1 My own preference is for the Federal Reserve to adopt an inflation range that explicitly recognizes the challenge of the effective lower bound. We might be forced to accept below-2-percent inflation during recessions, but we would commit to achieving above-2-percent inflation in good times, so as to provide more policy space to counteract the next recession. Evans:2 I think the Fed must be willing to embrace inflation modestly above 2 percent 50 percent of the time. Indeed, I would communicate comfort with core inflation rates of 2-1/2 percent, as long as there is no obvious upward momentum and the path back toward 2 percent can be well managed. The consensus appears to be not only that higher inflation is necessary before the Fed lifts rates again, but also that the Fed should explicitly target an overshoot of its 2 percent target. With trailing 12-month core PCE inflation running at only 1.55% as of March, it will undoubtedly take some time before these inflation goals are met. We think the Fed’s commitment to keeping rates steady could waver if financial conditions ease sufficiently.3 But for now, with the market priced for 36 basis points of rate cuts over the next 12 months, the more pertinent question is: What will it take for the Fed to lower rates from current levels? Expecting A Rate Cut? Don’t Hold Your Breath Our Fed Monitor has an excellent track record calling turning points in monetary policy, and at present it is very close to zero, consistent with the Fed’s “on hold” stance (Chart 1). The Monitor is comprised of 44 indicators of economic growth, inflation and financial conditions. In other words, for the Monitor to recommend rate cuts going forward we will need to see some further deterioration in either economic growth, inflation or financial markets (Chart 2). This is roughly consistent with how Chicago Fed President Evans described his reaction function in his speech from two weeks ago: Chart 1"On Hold" Stance Justified "On Hold" Stance Justified "On Hold" Stance Justified Chart 2Fed Monitor Components Fed Monitor Components Fed Monitor Components If growth runs close to or somewhat above its potential and inflation builds momentum, then some further rate increases may be appropriate over time… In contrast, if activity softens more than expected or if inflation and inflation expectations run too low, then policy may have to be left on hold – or perhaps even loosened – to provide the appropriate accommodation to obtain our objectives. Our interpretation of the Fed’s reaction function is that it wants to maintain an accommodative monetary policy to ensure that inflation and inflation expectations move higher over time. However, it will consider monetary policy to be accommodative as long as GDP growth stays close to, or above, estimates of its potential rate. In other words, while the Fed is in no rush to tighten, we probably need to see a significant period of below-potential GDP growth before rate cuts are on the table. In his speech, Evans indicates that his personal estimate of potential GDP growth is 1.75%. The March Summary of Economic Projections shows that the central tendency of FOMC participant estimates is 1.8% - 2%. Our view is that U.S. growth will easily surpass this threshold in 2019, keeping rate cuts at bay. Tracking U.S. Growth Markets were caught off guard last week when we learned that real GDP grew 3.17% in the first quarter, above consensus estimates and well above the 1.8% - 2% potential growth threshold. However, the headline Q1 figure was flattered by significant gains in a few volatile GDP components. Chart 3Underlying Growth Slowdown Underlying Growth Slowdown Underlying Growth Slowdown Much like how core measures of inflation strip out volatile food and energy prices to give us a better sense of the underlying trend, we can also look at Real Final Sales To Domestic Purchasers (FSDP) to get a better sense of the underlying trend in economic growth. FSDP includes only consumer spending, nonresidential investment and residential investment. That is, it removes government spending, net exports and inventory investment from the overall number. Viewed this way, we see that the U.S. economy did experience a significant growth slowdown in the first quarter. Real FSDP grew only 1.45% in Q1, below the 1.8% - 2% potential growth threshold (Chart 3). Net Exports & Inventories Chart 4Net Exports & Inventories Net Exports & Inventories Net Exports & Inventories First quarter GDP was boosted by a +1.03% contribution from net exports and a +0.65% contribution from inventory investment, neither of which is likely to be repeated in Q2 (Chart 4). The top panel of Chart 4 shows just how unusual it is to see such a large contribution from net exports, an event that becomes even less likely when you factor in the dollar’s recent appreciation (Chart 4, panel 2). Turning to inventories, a significant build was long overdue given the backlog of orders seen during the past two years. But the ISM Manufacturing Index’s backlog of orders component has now fallen back to a neutral level (Chart 4, bottom panel). This suggests that firms are comfortable with their current inventory stockpiles, and that no aggressive inventory increases are likely during the next few quarters. Interestingly, while net exports and inventories will almost certainly pressure GDP growth lower in Q2, back toward the growth rate in FSDP, the latter has probably already troughed for the year. Recent data on consumer spending, nonresidential investment and residential investment all appear to have turned a corner. Consumer Spending Consumer spending added a meager +0.8% to GDP in Q1, but core retail sales growth has recovered sharply after having plunged near the end of last year (Chart 5). What’s more, with consumer sentiment close to one standard deviation above its historical mean – whether we look at expectations or current conditions surveys – consumers don’t seem inclined to retrench in the months ahead (Chart 6). Chart 5Consumer Spending Consumer Spending Consumer Spending Chart 6Buoyant Consumer Sentiment Buoyant Consumer Sentiment Buoyant Consumer Sentiment Nonresidential Investment Chart 7Nonresidential Investment Nonresidential Investment Nonresidential Investment We expected business investment to weaken in Q1, and its +0.4% growth contribution is low compared to recent readings. The decline was anticipated due to last year’s significant deterioration in global growth. Slower global growth necessarily causes firms to downgrade their profit expectations. Faced with lower expected profits, companies are much more inclined to curtail investment. However, considering the outlook heading into mid-year, we have already noticed signs of improvement in leading global growth indicators.4 More recently, we have even seen that improvement translate into stronger U.S. investment data. Core durable goods new orders grew +17% (annualized) in March, dragging the year-over-year rate up to +5.3% (Chart 7). Further, our BCA Composite New Orders Indicator – a weighted combination of ISM New Orders and NFIB Capital Spending Plans – has bounced during the past few months, returning close to its historical mean (Chart 7, panel 3). An average of Capital Spending Intentions from regional Fed surveys also remains close to one standard deviation above its historical average (Chart 7, bottom panel). Residential Investment Residential investment (aka Housing) has exerted a meaningful drag on GDP growth in each of the past five quarters, and it lowered GDP by -0.1% in Q1 (Chart 8). However, much like with consumer spending and nonresidential investment, the timely economic data suggest a turnaround is in the offing. Much like with consumer spending and nonresidential investment, the timely economic data suggest a turnaround is in the offing. Optimism has returned to housing since mortgage rates fell earlier this year. New home sales and mortgage purchase applications have jumped, and single-family housing starts are the only important housing-related data that haven’t yet rebounded. We expect that rebound to occur soon, as do homebuilders whose confidence has risen during the past few months. Homebuilder optimism surveys remain close to one standard deviation above their historical averages (Chart 9). Chart 8Residential Investment Residential Investment Residential Investment Chart 9Buoyant Homebuilder Confidence Buoyant Homebuilder Confidence Buoyant Homebuilder Confidence Bottom Line: Fed policymakers are sending a unified message that they want to keep rates on hold until they see a significant increase in inflation. However, our reading of their recent remarks suggests that they will be reluctant to actually cut rates unless GDP growth falls to below its estimated potential. Potential GDP growth is estimated to be in the 1.8% to 2% range. If we strip out the volatile net exports, government and inventory components of growth, we see that economic activity slowed to below potential in the first quarter. However, the timeliest data on consumer spending, nonresidential investment and residential investment all suggest that Q1 will be the trough for the year. All in all, economic growth should be comfortably above potential in 2019, keeping rate cuts at bay. Investment Implications To translate the above views on the economy and the Fed’s reaction function into a portfolio strategy, we first return to our Golden Rule of Bond Investing.5The Golden Rule states that if the Fed delivers more (fewer) rate hikes than are currently discounted in the market over the next 12 months, then the Treasury index will earn negative (positive) excess returns versus cash during that investment horizon (Chart 10). At present, this means that investors should only expect positive excess returns from taking duration risk in the event that the Fed cuts rates by more than 36 basis points during the next 12 months. Given our view that rate cuts are unlikely, investors should maintain below-benchmark portfolio duration. Chart 10The Golden Rule's Track Record The Golden Rule's Track Record The Golden Rule's Track Record If we further assume that market expectations will shift to price-in fewer rate cuts, or even possibly some rate hikes, then we would expect 5-year and 7-year yields to rise the most (Chart 11). Investors should avoid those maturities and focus their Treasury exposure on the short and long ends of the curve. These barbell over bullet trades have the advantage of being positive carry, so they will earn money even if rate hike expectations are unchanged.6  Chart 11Avoid The 5- And 7-Year Maturities Avoid The 5- And 7-Year Maturities Avoid The 5- And 7-Year Maturities Chart 12Investment Grade Spread Targets Investment Grade Spread Targets Investment Grade Spread Targets Finally, the combination of above-potential GDP growth and a patient Fed is positive for spread product. Investors should remain overweight spread product versus Treasuries in bond portfolios, focusing on Baa and junk rated corporate bonds. Spreads for those credit tiers remain wide compared to historical median levels for this phase of the cycle (Charts 12 &13).7 Chart 13High-Yield Spread Targets High-Yield Spread Targets High-Yield Spread Targets Ryan Swift, U.S. Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 https://www.bostonfed.org/news-and-events/speeches/2019/monetary-policymaking-in-todays-environment.aspx 2 https://www.chicagofed.org/publications/speeches/2019/risk-management-and-the-credibility-of-monetary-policy 3 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The New Battleground For Monetary Policy”, dated March 26, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Bond Kitchen”, dated April 9, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 5 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, “The Golden Rule Of Bond Investing”, dated July 24, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 6 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Paid To Wait”, dated February 26, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 7 For further details on how we calculate these spread targets please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Value In Corporate Bonds”, dated February 19, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

Highlights Oil & Bond Yields: Global growth indicators are starting to rebound, risk assets have returned to previous cyclical highs, and oil prices remain buoyant. This is a combination that will eventually result in rising global bond yields, but more through higher inflation expectations that will bear-steepen yield curves. Stay below-benchmark on overall portfolio duration, but enter new reflationary trades in core Europe (long inflation breakevens) and Australia (yield curve steepeners). EM vs DM Credit: Signs of a pickup in Chinese growth will be more supportive for growth in EM economies. Hedging against an extended downturn in China is no longer needed. Upgrade EM U.S. dollar denominated sovereign and corporate debt to neutral (3 of 5), at the expense of a smaller overweight position in U.S. investment grade corporates. Feature Chart of the WeekA Consistent Message On Rebounding Growth A Consistent Message On Rebounding Growth A Consistent Message On Rebounding Growth Evidence is starting to point to a bottoming in global economic momentum. Credit growth has notably picked up in China, global leading economic indicators are stabilizing and sentiment measures like our Duration Indicator have started to climb (Chart of the Week). While it is still early in this reflation process, the leading data is now moving in a direction that bodes well for continued gains in global equities and growth-sensitive spread product. The sharp rallies across risk assets seen so far this year have merely retraced the stinging losses incurred in the final months of 2018. Those moves were fueled by a combination of slowing global growth and overly hawkish central bankers. Now that policymakers have “course corrected” towards dovishness, led by the Fed’s 180-degree turn on the outlook for rate hikes in 2019 that drove U.S. Treasury yields lower, the next leg of the risk rally can begin, led by improving global growth. At some point, looser financial conditions – higher equity prices, tighter credit spreads and lower market volatility – will require global central bankers to retreat from dovish forward guidance (Chart 2). Policymakers who have been focused on sluggish global growth, “persistent uncertainty” (as ECB President Mario Draghi has described it), and falling inflation expectations will eventually have to adjust their policy bias once those factors reverse. On that front, the combination of improving global growth, rising oil prices and an increasingly likely U.S.-China trade deal will help boost global bond yields through rising inflation expectations first and higher interest rate expectations later (Chart 3). Chart 2A Full Unwind Of Late-2018 Moves...Except For Inflation A Full Unwind Of Late-2018 Moves...Except For Inflation A Full Unwind Of Late-2018 Moves...Except For Inflation Chart 3Get Ready For A Bond-Bearish Turn In Growth Get Ready For A Bond-Bearish Turn In Growth Get Ready For A Bond-Bearish Turn In Growth We continue to recommend a high-level fixed income portfolio construction that will benefit from these trends: below-benchmark on overall duration exposure with overweights on global corporate debt versus government bonds. We also see a case to selectively position for steeper yield curves and higher inflation expectations in countries more sensitive to higher oil prices and where central banks will be less hawkish/more dovish. Most importantly, we no longer see a need to maintain a defensive underweight in emerging market (EM) hard currency spread product, as we discuss later in this report. Yes, Oil Prices Still Matter For Bond Yields Global oil prices hit a new 2019 high last week on news that the Trump administration was letting waivers expire on U.S. sanctions of Iranian oil exports. Coming on top of the lost output from Venezuela, increased tensions in Libya and persistent production discipline from the major oil players (OPEC, the so-called “OPEC 2.0” of Russia and Saudi Arabia, and even U.S. shale producers), a boost to global oil demand from faster global growth is likely to result in even higher oil prices in the next 6-9 months. The combination of improving global growth, rising oil prices and an increasingly likely U.S.-China trade deal will help boost global bond yields. Our colleagues at BCA Commodity & Energy Strategy remain steadfast bulls on oil prices, with a year-end price target of $80/bbl on the Brent crude benchmark. They view the supply constraints as large and persistent enough to cause oil prices to continue rising alongside firmer global demand. Our most optimistic forward-looking growth indicator, the diffusion index of global leading economic indicators, is now calling for a sharp rebound in cyclical data like the global manufacturing PMI in the latter half of 2019. A move back to the 55-60 range for the global PMI, which the diffusion indicator is pointing towards (Chart 4, bottom panel), would be consistent with the +50% year-over-year growth rates in oil prices implied by BCA’s bullish oil forecasts (middle panel). Chart 4The 2019 Oil Rally Is Not Over Yet The 2019 Oil Rally Is Not Over Yet The 2019 Oil Rally Is Not Over Yet Over the past several years, there has been a strong correlation between oil prices and government bond yields in most developed economies (Chart 5). Since the most recent bottom in global yields back on March 27, that behavior has persisted. Longer-term bond yields have risen more than shorter-dated yields, alongside higher inflation expectations further out the yield curve (Table 1). Chart 5Inflation Expectations Still Driving Bond Yields Inflation Expectations Still Driving Bond Yields Inflation Expectations Still Driving Bond Yields Such “bear-steepenings” do not usually last for long periods of time. Inflation targeting central banks typically look at the reflationary implications of higher oil prices – faster economic growth with more future inflation as energy costs seep into core inflation measures – as a sign to maintain a more hawkish bias for monetary policy. That is not the case today, though, as data dependent central bankers have been more focused on past soft readings on both growth and inflation momentum. This should support a growth-driven rise in global oil prices in the coming months, as policymakers will be reluctant to alter the current dovish guidance without signs of both faster growth and higher realized inflation. Within the major developed markets, the recent correlations between oil prices (in local currency terms) and inflation expectations have been weakest in regions where central banks are most likely to keep policy interest rates stable. In the euro area, Japan and Australia – where core inflation rates are well below central bank targets and money markets are discounting flat-to-lower interest rate expectations over the next 1-2 years – market-based measures of inflation expectations like CPI swap rates have diverged from the rising path of local-currency denominated oil prices (Chart 6). In the U.S. and Canada, which have only recently paused their rate hike cycles, the correlation between oil prices and inflation expectations has been a bit more in line with the experience of the past several years. The same goes for the U.K., although inflation expectations there seem more driven by currency weakness stemming from the Brexit uncertainty rather than a central bank that is perceived to be too hawkish (even though the Bank of England only recently shifted away from its past language signaling a desire to start normalizing very low interest rates). Table 1A Reflationary Bear-Steepening Of Yield Curves Since Yields Troughed In March It's Time To Break Out The Fine China It's Time To Break Out The Fine China Correlations between longer-term inflation expectations and the slopes of government bond yield curves have also become less consistent across countries (Chart 7). In particular, 2-year/10-year yield curves been more positively correlated to inflation expectations in the euro zone, Australia and even Japan (where the BoJ is actively targeting the yield curve) than in the U.S., U.K. and Canada. Chart 6Higher Oil, Higher Inflation Expectations Higher Oil, Higher Inflation Expectations Higher Oil, Higher Inflation Expectations Chart 7Position For Reflationary Yield Curve Steepening Position For Reflationary Yield Curve Steepening E Position For Reflationary Yield Curve Steepening E Given BCA’s bullish oil forecast, we recommend positioning for higher inflation expectations and steeper yield curves in selected countries based on the above correlations. We are already doing this in the U.S., where we are running a long position in U.S. 10-year TIPS breakevens. This week, we are entering the following new positions in our Tactical Trade portfolio (see page 15): Long 10-year CPI swaps (or inflation-linked bonds versus nominal debt) in Germany A 2-year/10-year government bond curve steepener in Australia We are not confident enough about the growth outlook in Canada and Japan, and the political outlook in the U.K., to recommend inflation-focused trades in those markets at the present time. We recommend positioning for higher inflation expectations and steeper yield curves in selected countries. Bottom Line: Global growth indicators are starting to rebound, risk assets have returned to previous cyclical highs, and oil prices remain buoyant. This is a combination that will eventually result in rising developed market global bond yields, but more through higher inflation expectations that will bear-steepen yield curves. Stay below-benchmark on overall portfolio duration, but enter new reflationary trades in core Europe (long inflation breakevens) and Australia (yield curve steepeners). Upgrade EM U.S. Dollar Denominated Debt To Neutral Chart 8A Cyclical Rebound In China Is Underway A Cyclical Rebound In China Is Underway A Cyclical Rebound In China Is Underway Back in January, we upgraded our recommended allocation for global corporate debt to overweight, while downgrading developed market government bonds to underweight.1 That decision was in response to the Fed’s dovish turn, which lowered the risk of a monetary policy-induced U.S. recession that spooked investors in late 2018. Yet while a more accommodative Fed meant an extension of the U.S. business cycle expansion, it did not solve the problems of slowing growth elsewhere in the world – most notably in China and Europe. For that reason, we have maintained a preference for U.S. investment grade and high-yield corporate debt relative to European and EM spread product, even within an overall overweight recommended allocation to global corporates. In particular, we maintained an outright underweight stance on EM U.S. dollar denominated sovereigns and corporates within our model bond portfolio. That tilt served as a hedge to the risk of persistent softening growth in China – the nation to which EM economies remain most highly levered. It is the pickup in the China credit impulse that is most relevant for EM growth and asset markets. Now, amid signs that Chinese policy stimulus is starting to show up in faster credit growth – a reliable precursor to greater Chinese domestic demand (Chart 8) – that EM hedge to our overweight stance on global corporates is no longer needed. Thus, this week, we are upgrading our recommended exposure on EM USD-denominated sovereign and corporate debt to neutral, while reducing the size of our recommended overweight in U.S. investment grade corporates in our model bond portfolio (see the changes on page 14). The broadening rebound in Chinese economic data makes us more confident that growth there has turned the corner (Chart 9): Aggregate government spending is up 15.5% on a year-over-year basis. Infrastructure spending is now starting to grow again after the sharp slowdown seen in 2018. The China manufacturing PMI rose sharply in March, with the surge in the import sub-component of the overall PMI suggesting that domestic demand may be improving. In addition, with all signals pointing to a U.S./China trade deal being signed by the end of May, a major source of uncertainty weighing on the Chinese (and global) economy will soon be lifted. It is the pickup in the China credit impulse that is most relevant for EM growth and asset markets. Over the past decade, the credit impulse has led both the EM (ex-China) manufacturing PMI and annual growth in overall EM corporate earnings by around 9-12 months (Chart 10). The credit impulse bottomed back in October 2018, which means EM growth should begin to improve in the third quarter of 2019. Financial markets will discount that improvement in advance, however, which is why it makes sense to increase EM credit allocations today. Chart 9The Arrows Are Pointing 'Up' For Chinese Growth The Arrows Are Pointing 'Up' For Chinese Growth The Arrows Are Pointing 'Up' For Chinese Growth Chart 10EM Growth Is Highly Dependent On China EM Growth Is Highly Dependent On China EM Growth Is Highly Dependent On China   As can be seen in the bottom panels of Chart 11 and Chart 12, there is a strong correlation between Chinese credit (as a % of GDP) and the relative performance of EM U.S. dollar denominated spread product versus U.S. investment grade corporates. Our colleagues at BCA China Investment Strategy recently noted that if the pace of China’s credit expansion seen in Q1 were to be maintained over the rest of 2019, this would imply a credit overshoot beyond the stated medium-term goal of Chinese policymakers to avoid significant further increases in leverage.2 Such additional stimulus would very beneficial for EM growth (via strong Chinese import demand), supporting continued EM credit market outperformance. Chart 11Upgrade EM USD Sovereigns Vs U.S. IG Corporates Upgrade EM USD Sovereigns Vs U.S. IG Corporates Upgrade EM USD Sovereigns Vs U.S. IG Corporates Chart 12Upgrade EM USD Corporates Vs U.S. IG Corporates Upgrade EM USD Corporates Vs U.S. IG Corporates Upgrade EM USD Corporates Vs U.S. IG Corporates By moving our EM credit allocation only to neutral, we are merely responding to the pickup in Chinese credit growth seen over the past several months. The increasingly positive cyclical story is not yet bullish enough to justify a full-blown overweight stance on EM credit, however, for several reasons: Past periods of EM credit market outperformance have typically occurred during periods of U.S. dollar weakness. Chart 13A Weaker USD Is Good For EM Markets A Weaker USD Is Good For EM Markets A Weaker USD Is Good For EM Markets The amount of policy stimulus likely to be delivered in China in 2019 will be more limited than in past cycles, given policymakers’ concerns over high Chinese debt levels and excess industrial capacity. A U.S.-China trade deal may not involve the swift reduction in U.S. tariffs on Chinese imports, if the White House chooses to use tariffs as the mechanism to ensure Chinese compliance with the terms of an agreement. “Hard data” in China that measures private sector spending (retail sales, autos sales, etc.) has yet to bottom, which may indicate that the improvement seen in the credit aggregates and survey data like the manufacturing PMI is overstating the growth rebound. The U.S. dollar remains firm, and past periods of EM credit market outperformance have typically occurred during periods of dollar weakness (Chart 13). We do anticipate moving to an overweight position sometime in the next several weeks, after getting more Chinese economic data to confirm the improvement seen in March. This also lines up with the timetable for a potential trade deal, the details of which will be critical for boosting investor sentiment towards assets sensitive to Chinese demand, like EM credit. We will also look for signs of the U.S. dollar breaking to the downside to confirm any decision to upgrade EM credit. One final point – we are only reducing our recommended overweight on U.S. investment grade credit in our model bond portfolio as part of this EM upgrade. We are leaving our U.S. high-yield credit overweights untouched, as U.S. investment grade is much closer to the spread targets laid out by our colleagues at BCA U.S. Bond Strategy than U.S. high-yield. Bottom Line: Signs of a pickup in Chinese growth will be more supportive for growth in EM economies. Hedging against an extended downturn in China is no longer needed. Upgrade EM U.S. dollar denominated sovereign and corporate debt to neutral (3 of 5), at the expense of a smaller overweight position in U.S. investment grade corporates.   Robert Robis, CFA, Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, “Enough With The Gloom: Upgrade Global Corporates On A Tactical Basis”, dated January 15th, 2019, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “In The Wake Of An Upgrade: An Investment Strategy Post-Mortem”, dated April 17th, 2019, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index It's Time To Break Out The Fine China It's Time To Break Out The Fine China Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns