Monetary

Dear Client, Owing to BCA’s 40th Annual Investment Conference in New York City next week, we will not be publishing a report on Friday, September 27. We will return to our regular publishing schedule on Friday, October 4, when we will be sending out our quarterly Strategy Outlook. Best regards, Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Highlights The spike in oil prices underscores the vulnerability of key Saudi oil facilities. The fact that OPEC spare capacity is on the low side is an added source of concern. Fortunately, if oil prices do rise again, the impact on the global economy will be mitigated by the following: 1) the amount of oil necessary to produce one unit of real GDP is much lower than in the past; 2) oil prices are currently nowhere near restrictive levels; 3) higher oil prices will boost investment in the energy sector; and 4) unlike in the past, central banks will not need to hike rates to quell oil-induced inflationary pressures. The Federal Reserve is likely to cut rates once more in October and then keep rates on hold through 2020. The Fed will also begin expanding the size of its balance sheet to alleviate tensions in funding markets. Investors should remain overweight equities relative to bonds and start tilting exposure towards EM assets and cyclical stocks later this year. Feature All Aboard The Crude Oil Roller Coaster Chart 1A Price For The Books After gapping up by nearly 20% to $72/barrel on Monday morning – the biggest one-day spike in history – Brent oil prices have retreated to the $64-$65 range, representing a markup of around 7% over last Friday’s close (Chart 1). The near-term direction of oil prices will be governed by how quickly the Saudis are able to restore lost output. Brent fell by over $3/barrel on Tuesday following news reports quoting key Saudi sources saying that state-run Saudi Aramco would be able to bring production back to normal in the next two-to-three weeks. Bob Ryan, BCA’s chief commodity strategist, is skeptical of this reassurance. He notes that the drone attacks destroyed highly sophisticated “one-of-a-kind” equipment that had been specially built for the Abqaiq facility. Beyond the near-term impact, the longer-term question is whether Sunday’s pre-dawn strike is the start of a new violent trend. The fact that much of Saudi Arabia’s oil infrastructure is densely concentrated in the eastern part of the country makes it vulnerable to further attacks. The proliferation of drone technologies is also a source of concern since such devices can be used to wreak significant havoc at minimal cost.  Chart 2Limited Availability Of Spare Capacity To Offset Outages Chart 3Key Strategic Petroleum Reserves Iran’s apparent involvement in the attack further complicates matters. As Matt Gertken, BCA’s chief geopolitical strategist, has argued, the drone strike may have been orchestrated by hardliners in Iran who regard President Rouhani’s efforts to restart negotiations with the United States as evidence of appeasement (some of these hardliners are also profiting from the sanctions by smuggling crude out of the country). President Trump’s decision to sack John Bolton over Bolton’s opposition to making any deal with the Iranians may have created a sense of urgency among the hardliners. In this respect, attacking Iran would probably give the hardliners what they want. All this has occurred at a time when OPEC spare capacity – the difference between what the cartel is capable of producing and what it is actually producing – is below its historic average (Chart 2). Crude oil reserves have also been trending lower within the OECD. Saudi Arabia’s own reserves have fallen by over 40% since peaking in 2015 (Chart 3). Oil And The Economy: How Big A Risk? While a major spike in oil prices is not our base case, it cannot be ruled out completely. If the price of crude were to increase significantly, how much damage would this do to the global economy? History is certainly not encouraging: Every single U.S. recession since 1970 has been preceded by  a large jump in oil prices (Chart 4). Chart 4Oil Spikes And Recessions Chart 5The Global Economy Is Less Oil Intensive The fact that we are dealing with a potential supply disruption only makes things worse. It is one thing if oil prices are rising in response to stronger global growth; it is quite another if prices rise at a time, such as the present, when global growth is under pressure. Despite these concerns, there are four reasons to be optimistic that higher oil prices will not precipitate a major global economic downturn. First, the global economy is less reliant on oil than in the past. Chart 5 shows that the amount of oil necessary to produce one unit of real GDP has fallen by half since 1990. Second, oil prices are still quite low by historic standards. Even after this week’s jump, Brent is still 24% below where it was last October (Chart 6). In real terms, both Brent and WTI are more than 60% below their 2008 highs. Chart 6Oil Prices Are Well Off Their 2008 Peak Third, if oil prices do stay elevated, this will encourage investment in the oil patch, which will eventually bring prices back down. It is worth remembering that rising oil prices reduce aggregate demand in part by shifting wealth from oil consumers, who tend to spend most of their disposable income, to oil producers, who are often inclined to save the windfall from higher oil prices in such entities as sovereign wealth funds. However, if higher oil prices cause producers to expand production, the positive “investment effect” could offset much of the negative “consumption effect” on aggregate demand. Ironically, this means that a transfer of production from easily accessible oil deposits, such as those in Saudi Arabia, to less accessible shale or deep-sea deposits has the effect of increasing overall energy-sector capital spending, even if it does entail a loss of average efficiency. Fourth, higher oil prices today are unlikely to dislodge long-term inflation expectations. This represents a critical difference between the 1970s, 80s, and early 90s when central banks often felt the need to hike rates in the face of rising oil prices (Chart 7). These days, central banks are more likely to see oil price increases – especially those due to supply-side disruptions – as negative income shocks. Such shocks warrant looser, rather than tighter, monetary policy. Chart 7Core Inflation No Longer Driven By Oil Prices FOMC Cuts Rates As Expected This brings us to this week’s Fed meeting. As widely expected, the Fed cut rates by 25 basis points. It also lowered the projected policy rate path. Compared to the Summary of Economic Projections released in June – which suggested no rate change in 2019, one rate cut in 2020, and one rate hike in 2021 – the median dots in the September Summary of Economic Projections released this week show two cuts in 2019, no rate change in 2020, one rate hike in 2021, and one rate hike in 2022. Seven out of 17 participants penciled in a projected third cut for 2019. Judging from the tone of his post-meeting press conference, Jay Powell, dressed in his trademark bipartisan purple tie, was likely among those advocating for further easing. While it is far from a done deal, an additional rate cut in October appears more likely than not. In total, we expect 75 basis points in cuts, equivalent to the amount of easing orchestrated during both the 1995/96 and 1998 mid-cycle slowdowns (Chart 8). The Fed appears to be using these two episodes as a template for its current thinking. Chart 8Will The Fed Follow The 1990s Template Of 75 Bps Of Mid-Cycle Easing? The Fed is also likely to start expanding the size of its balance sheet starting in November. The spike in funding rates this week, while not at all related to the sort of counterparty risk that prevailed during the financial crisis, still underscored the fact that bank reserves are becoming increasingly scarce. To the extent that the Fed creates bank reserves when it purchases assets, this would help alleviate funding pressures. We are assuming that rate cuts beyond 75 basis points in total are possible. However, this would require a significant deceleration in U.S. growth, which looks unlikely. Real personal consumption spending is on track to increase by 3.1% in Q3, according to the Atlanta Fed’s GDPNow (Chart 9). While business capex spending continues to be weighed down by the manufacturing recession, rays of light are emerging. Industrial production rose by 0.6% in August, well above the consensus forecast of 0.2%. Despite an ongoing drag from the auto sector, manufacturing output rose by a solid 0.5%. Chart 9Inventories And Net Exports Have Subtracted From Growth Chart 10Easier Financial Conditions Will Boost Global Growth Globally, the growth picture remains shaky. Looking out, the sharp easing in financial conditions should boost activity (Chart 10). The nascent de-escalation in trade tensions, if sustained, should also help. As such, we continue to expect global growth to stabilize in the coming months and accelerate into year-end. Investment Conclusions Oil prices are likely to rise over the next 12 months. Geopolitical tensions could contribute to any upward pressure on the price of crude, but most of the increase in prices will probably be driven by stronger global growth. If global growth does pick up, the dollar will probably weaken (Chart 11). A weaker dollar will further boost oil prices, along with other commodity prices (Chart 12). Chart 11The Dollar Is A Countercyclical Currency Chart 12A Weaker Dollar Bodes Well For Commodities Stronger global growth, rising commodity prices, and a weaker dollar will hurt safe-haven government bonds but boost stocks. EM and cyclical equity sectors should gain disproportionately.   Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com   Strategy & Market Trends MacroQuant Model And Current Subjective Scores Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

Dear Client, Owing to BCA’s 40th Annual Investment Conference at the Grand Hyatt in New York City next week, there will be no report on Wednesday, September 25. We will return to our regular publication schedule on Wednesday, October 2. I look forward to meeting China Investment Strategy clients in person at our conference. Please do not hesitate to say hello. Best regards, Jing Sima China Strategist Highlights China’s economy should bottom as a result of the pickup in credit that occurred earlier this year, but the circumstances surrounding the ongoing slowdown are unprecedented in nature. This raises the risk that policymakers will have to do more in order to stabilize growth. Optimism surrounding recent Chinese policy announcements is misguided. For now, Chinese policymakers are not upping the pace of stimulus, which underscores the risk to our forecast that growth will soon stabilize. A more meaningful shot of reflation will occur in the coming few months if the economy slows further, but policymakers will be reactive rather than proactive. Barring a successful (even if temporary) trade deal, we expect more weakness in the RMB as a passive source of reflation to aid the economy. But currency devaluation is a double-edged sword, and cannot be counted on to single-handedly stabilize China’s economy. Over a 6-12 month time horizon, investors should continue to overweight Chinese stocks versus the global benchmark in currency hedged terms, but the risk of further underperformance over the near-term is high. Feature Chinese economic growth continues to weaken. The Caixin manufacturing PMI for August, along with the New Export Orders component of the manufacturing PMI released by China’s National Bureau of Statistics, registered small gains in August from July. However, any hopes pinned on this being an emerging sign of turnaround in the Chinese economy soon faded. A slew of August data showed continued sluggishness in exports, an even worse domestic-demand picture, and further deflation in ex-factory producer prices. Most importantly, we continue to witness “half-measured” stimulus. In explaining past and existing economic weakness, many investors point to the trade war with the U.S. However, Charts 1 and 2 serve as an important reminder that domestic weakness predates U.S. protectionism. The trade war tensions and tariffs are magnifying this weakness, but China’s slowdown is, at its core, policy driven. Chart 1Weakness In Chinese Economy Predates The Trade War... Chart 2…And Has Been A Byproduct Of Financial De-Risking Campaign Given this, investors should be more focused on identifying signs of a major reversal in policy. So far Chinese policymakers have been firmly holding their line in keeping credit growth somewhat in check.  Policy-Induced Economic Stabilization: A Tough Forecast To Make Our baseline view is that the current scale of stimulus should be sufficient to stop economic growth from decelerating further.  Two factors support our baseline view: The direct impact from tariffs on the Chinese economy is limited. Growth in China’s exports to the U.S. in 2019 is likely to be somewhere close to a 9% contraction, down from the 10.8% increase registered in 2018. Based on a simple calculation with all else being equal, this is likely to shave 1.6 percentage points off China’s total export growth and 0.3 percentage points off nominal GDP growth in 2019. This is not trivial, but arguably not devastating to China’s aggregate economy either. There is anecdotal evidence suggesting some Chinese exports have been re-routed to peripheral countries such as Vietnam and Taiwan in order to avoid the U.S. import tariffs on Chinese goods (Chart 3). This suggests that real growth in Chinese exports to the U.S. could be stronger than the current data suggests. Chart 3Exports Finding Alternative Routes? Chart 4Bottoming in the economy In Sight? Credit growth has picked up since the beginning of this year. Based on the historical relationship between China’s credit impulse (measured by the 12-month change in BCA’s adjusted total social financing as a percentage of nominal GDP) and domestic demand, the economy should bottom out at some point before the end of the year (Chart 4). Although, import growth, a key measure of China’s domestic demand, remains in deep contraction, some of its components that usually lead industrial activities are showing signs of improvement (Chart 5). Chart 5Early Signs of Improved Domestic Demand Chart 6Manufacturing Investment Growth In Contraction However, our level of confidence that the existing stimulus will be sufficient to stabilize economic growth is lower than it otherwise would be. This is due to the fact that the challenges facing the Chinese economy are unprecedented in nature.  For one, the indirect impact of the trade war on China’s economy through business sentiment and manufacturing investment has yet to be fully revealed in the data. As Chart 6 shows, manufacturing investment is already deteriorating, particularly in export-intensive sectors. The ultimate impact on investment from the trade war is still uncertain, and can pose significant downside risks to the Chinese economy in the coming year. More importantly, as Chart 7 suggests, a weak credit impulse will at best lead to a very subdued economic recovery even if growth does indeed bottom. In terms of the link between policy and the economy, Chart 8 points out a key difference between the current slowdown and previous down cycles: Monetary conditions have been ultra-loose for more than a year, but current economic conditions remain on a downward trend – much more so than in the previous cycles. This huge gap and lag in economic response to monetary stance can only be explained by an impaired policy transmission mechanism. An expansionary monetary stance has not proportionally translated into credit expansion or economic recovery. This challenges the effectiveness and timeliness of future monetary loosening in terms of its ability to revive the Chinese economy. Chart 7Current Pace Of Credit Growth Will Lead To A Fragile Recovery, At Best Chart 8An Impaired Monetary Policy Transmission The scale and timing of the current stimulus measures have been “behind the curve.” Therefore, the historical relationship between China’s credit impulse and the turning points in the economy may not apply to the current cycle. Bottom Line: China’s economy should bottom as a result of the pickup in credit that occurred earlier this year, but the circumstances surrounding the ongoing slowdown are unprecedented in nature. This raises the risk that policymakers will have to do more in order to stabilize growth. An Unusually Prudent Policy Bias For some, the recent slew of announcements on upcoming stimulus qualified as a major shift in policy bias. Our analysis suggests otherwise. The bank reserve requirement ratio (RRR) cuts announced late in August have been among the most cited policy announcements, with the PBoC stating that the new cuts will release RMB 900 billion of fresh liquidity.1 In our view, this measure is more about maintaining liquidity in China’s large commercial banks than adding to it (on a net basis). Chart 9RRR Cuts May Not Be That Stimulative Chart 9 shows that, in previous episodes of meaningful RMB depreciation against the U.S. dollar, in order to prevent the RMB from falling at an undesirable pace, PBoC has had to intervene in the spot market by selling U.S. dollars. The selling of U.S. dollars in this round of RMB depreciation has been much more muted than in 2015-2016, but we suspect some intervention has taken place following each bout of escalation in the trade war. This has had a liquidity tightening effect on banks, as selling central bank foreign-exchange reserves reduces liquidity in the banking system. It is very likely that following the PBoC’s defense of the RMB in the last two months, the RRR cuts were a measure aimed at preventing a liquidity crunch ahead of the September tax season. If true, this hardly qualifies as net new stimulus for the economy. There were also two important announcements that came out of the September 5th State Council meeting: The entire 2019 quota for local government special project bonds must be issued by the end of September, and all money raised from the bonds must be disbursed to projects by the end of October. This too is not exactly “stimulative,” as over 90% of the 2019 local government special-project bond quota has already been issued. This leaves less than 10% of the quota outstanding, an 80% decline from what was issued last September. On a quarterly basis, special-bond issuance in the third quarter of 2019 will end up being 30% lower than the same period last year.   It was also announced that, in order to meet the local needs for construction of key projects, part of 2020’s special bonds quota will be allocated in advance to ensure that the funds are available for use at the beginning of next year.2  While the announcement did not indicate how much in the way of special-purpose bonds local governments are allowed to frontload through the remainder of this year, we maintain our view that this is not a policy shift towards materially larger stimulus than we have seen so far this year: Without an additional quota, local government special-purpose bond issuance would essentially fall to zero in the fourth quarter as the 2019 target would be hit by the end of September. Thus, the frontloading of next year’s bond issuance will only “fill the gap” between now and year-end. As special-purpose bond issuance only accounts for 15% of total funding for local governments’ infrastructure spending, the new measure alone is unlikely to meaningfully accelerate investment growth.3  We have noted in previous reports that in order for local governments to accelerate spending within the current fiscal budget framework, one of three things must occur: more direct funding from the central government, an acceptance by policymakers of more shadow bank lending, or a larger quota for bond issuance. So far we have not seen any of the above-mentioned shifts in policy. Chart 10Local Governments Tightening Belt This Year The only positive sign for local government spending has been a pickup in land sales in Q2, which makes up more than 70% of local government revenues. But, it is far from making up the shortfalls in local governments’ budgets (Chart 10). Local governments are facing considerable fiscal pressure as annual tax revenue growth has fallen to near zero. Critically, the government’s regulatory stance on local government budgets has continued to tighten: Local governments have been ordered by the Ministry of Finance to liquidate state-owned assets to fund their budget deficits this year.4 This austerity measure is also being met with explicit reiteration from the Ministry of Finance on the central government not bailing out local governments, and that local government officials are held responsible for their own borrowing and spending.5   Bottom Line: Optimism surrounding recent Chinese policy announcements is misguided. For now, Chinese policymakers are not upping the pace of stimulus, which underscores the risk to our forecast that growth will soon stabilize. A more meaningful shot of reflation will occur in early 2020 if the economy slows further in Q4, but policymakers will most likely continue their reactive approach rather than proactive. RMB Depreciation: A Plus Or Peril? The RMB’s renewed depreciation since August initially raised fears among global investors that an uncontrolled decline might occur, but these fears have subsided over the past several weeks. Even though the USD-CNY exchange rate has broken the psychological 7 threshold, it is not forming a linear downward trend. Unlike after the August 2015 devaluation, it appears that the PBoC can successfully enact countercyclical measures to guide the RMB’s value higher following each large depreciation (Chart 11). Chart 11PBoC Not Panicking Over RMB Depreciation Fears of uncontrolled capital outflows following the depreciation are also abating. We presented a dashboard for monitoring short-term capital outflows from China in our March 20 Special Report,6 and an update of these indicators suggests that China’s heightened capital controls are holding – i.e., outflows have not escalated as they did in 2015 (Chart 12). Chart 12No Major Capital Outflow Chart 13RMB Depreciation Partially Offsets Tariffs Thus, the conclusion is that Chinese policymakers appear to be in control of the currency. The reduced risk of an uncontrolled decline has allowed policymakers to (passively) provide meaningful stimulus to the domestic economy via depreciation. Indeed, the RMB has not only depreciated against the USD, but also against many Asian currencies including direct trade competitors such as Vietnam and Taiwan (Chart 13). This is helping offset the negative impact of U.S. tariffs on Chinese exporters. But currency devaluation can come with a price tag – in particular for corporations that have borrowed heavily in U.S. dollar-denominated debt. We estimate that $440 billion of U.S. dollar debt will be maturing over the coming two years, for Chinese companies and banks in the aggregate.7 A 12% depreciation in the RMB since April 2018 means that debt servicing costs will be 12% higher for unhedged debtors. This is particularly painful for real estate and financial services companies, two of the largest holders of U.S. dollar-denominated loans, and the weakest sectors in the current economic downturn. Most importantly, while currency devaluation ease the slowdown, it cannot be counted on to stabilize Chinese economic activity on its own. For example, while our earnings recession model suggests that the decline in the RMB since May has reduced the odds of a major decline in economic activity by roughly 20%, the model also shows that such an event is still highly probable (current odds are roughly at 70%). Bottom Line: Barring a successful (even if temporary) trade deal, we expect more weakness in the RMB as a passive source of reflation to aid the economy. But currency devaluation is a double-edged sword, and cannot be counted on to single-handedly stabilize China’s economy if a further slowdown occurs. An Update On Corporate Earnings Against a backdrop of what may turn out to be insufficient policy support, the earnings picture is providing one modest positive for equity investors. While the growth rate in investable earnings per share has slowed significantly over the past year (Chart 14), it has merely fallen to zero and not deeply into negative territory, as what seemingly occurred in 2015-2016. In our view, the risk of a similar collapse in earnings per share (EPS) has been an important factor weighing on Chinese investable equities’ relative performance since June 2018. In reality, a closer examination of MSCI China Index earnings reveals that a huge decline in EPS this year was never really a threat, because the apparent collapse in 2015-2016 did not actually transpire. Changes to the composition in the MSCI China Index that took effect in November 2015 and June 2016 had the effect of depressing index EPS, due to the sizeable inclusion of a set of richly valued stocks. Chart 15 presents BCA’s calculation of “break-adjusted” EPS for Chinese investable stocks, which shows that EPS growth bottomed out at -10% in late-2016, as opposed to the -28% implied by the unadjusted series. Chart 14Investable EPS Has Yet To Contract Meaningfully Chart 15The Potential Downside For Earnings Is Less Than Many Fear Chart 16A Cyclical Recovery In Earnings Has Not Yet Begun The existence of less downside potential for earnings is certainly positive for investable stocks at the margin, but it does not alter the outlook for equity fundamentals over the coming year. We have shown in several previous reports that there is a strong and reliable link between investable EPS growth and China’s coincident economic activity,8 and the continued slowing in the latter does not suggest that a bottom in earnings is imminent. In addition, Chart 16 highlights that while net earnings revisions have recovered from their early-year lows, they remain in negative territory and have stopped rising over the past few weeks. Twelve-month forward EPS momentum, also presented on a break-adjusted basis, is modestly negative, and has recently weakened (panel 2). Bottom Line: The downside risk to earnings for Chinese investable equities is less than many investors fear. But absent stronger credit growth, it remains too early to confidently project a cyclical earnings recovery. Investment Conclusions The historical relationship between credit growth and economic activity suggests that the latter should soon stabilize, which is our base case view for the coming few months. Still, the risk of a further, meaningful deceleration in growth is elevated, given the unprecedented circumstances surrounding the ongoing slowdown. For equity investors, less potential downside risks to earnings than previously feared is a positive at the margin, but the fundamental outlook still hinges on a durable pickup in economic activity. Over a 6-12 month time horizon, this implies that one of two scenarios will unfold: The economy will stabilize in response to the easing that has already occurred (i.e. our base case view). The economy slows further in the near-term, prompting a more significant policy response that leads to an even sharper pickup in activity. Chart 17Investable Stocks: An Overshoot To The Downside? In the first scenario, investable stocks have probably overshot to the downside versus the global benchmark and thus will very likely outperform from current levels. Near-term performance is likely to be flat-to-down, as investors await hard evidence of a sequential improvement in growth (Chart 17). In the second scenario, investable stocks are at potentially acute near-term risk, but will likely eventually outperform global stocks once activity begins to pick up sharply. In this scenario, the outperformance of Chinese equities will commence later, but would likely still occur by the tail end of our cyclical investment horizon (6-12 months). As a final point, we are not ruling out the possibility of a temporary trade deal between the U.S. and China, as both sides have the incentive to avoid a further escalation and are now showing goodwill towards constructive negotiations. This may change our tactical view on Chinese stocks, but our cyclical view remains focused on China’s domestic policy and economic fundamentals.   Jing Sima China Strategist JingS@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes   1      PBC Official: The RRR Cut Aims at Bolstering Real Economy, September 6, 2019 2      China to accelerate the issuance and use of special local government bonds to catalyze effective investment, China State Council, September 4, 2019 3      Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, “Chinese Infrastructure Investment: A Ramp-Up Ahead?”, dated August 1, 2019, available at ems.bcaresearch.com 4      China’s Local Governments Sell Assets to Make Up for Revenue Loss, Caixin, September 3, 2019 5      http://www.mof.gov.cn/zhengwuxinxi/caizhengxinwen/201909/t20190906_3382239.htm?mc_cid=eb2b199651&mc_eid=9da16a4859 6      Please see China Investment Strategy Special Report, “Monitoring Chinese Capital Outflows”, dated March 20, 2019, available at cis.bcaresearch.com 7      Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, “China’s Foreign Debt, And A Secret Weapon”, dated September 12, 2019, available at ems.bcaresearch.com 8      Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “Threading A Stimulus Needle (Part 2):Will Proactive Fiscal Policy Lose Steam?”, dated July 24, 2019, available at cis.bcaresearch.com Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations

Highlights Fed: The Fed will cut rates by 25bps this week, accompanied by a balanced message on future moves given firm domestic U.S. growth amid global uncertainties. This could trigger additional near-term increases in Treasury yields if the market prices out future expected rate cuts. More likely, higher Treasury yields will manifest via higher inflation expectations, as investors price in Fed accommodation amid the recent acceleration of realized inflation. ECB: The ECB’s easing package last week fell short of market expectations, as policymakers face the operational constraints of cutting already-negative interest rates and restarting asset purchases. Portfolio Recommendations: Return to below-benchmark on overall interest rate duration on a tactical (0-3 months) basis, with global leading economic indicators bottoming and U.S.-China trade tensions easing. Within country allocation, maintain an underweight stance on U.S. Treasuries versus German Bunds on a USD-hedged basis. Feature Dear Client, Next week, we will be publishing a joint Special Report on the U.K. with our colleagues at BCA Foreign Exchange Strategy and BCA Geopolitical Strategy. The report will be sent to clients this Friday, September 20, on the regular publishing day of the other two services. Thus, Global Fixed Income Strategy clients will be receiving their next report a few days early. We will return to our usual publishing schedule on Tuesday, October 1. Best regards, Rob Robis Chart of the WeekA Fundamental Bottoming Of Bond Yields The bond market has been full of surprises over the past year, and the price action so far this month is no exception. The benchmark 10-year U.S. Treasury yield has climbed +42bps from the September 3 inter-day low of 1.43%, while the 10-year German Bund yield also rose by +23bps over that same period, even as the ECB announced a fresh set of policy easing measures last week. There are several possible reasons for this increase in yields: profit-taking in deeply overbought government bond markets; global central bankers delivering incrementally less dovish surprises; and hints of progress in the U.S-China trade negotiations. We prefer a more fundamental explanation – bond markets may be sniffing out an end of the 2019 global growth downturn. The message from the improving trend in both our global leading economic indicator (LEI) and our Duration Indicator is that global growth (Chart of the Week) is stabilizing, which should help boost government bond yields from current depressed levels. The recent attack on oil facilities in Saudi Arabia does represent a near term risk to this potentially more optimistic narrative on the world economy. Our colleagues at BCA Geopolitical Strategy do expect a military response from the U.S., although U.S. President Trump will attempt to keep it limited. A full-blown U.S.-Iran conflict would likely further raise the risk premium on global oil prices, potentially creating the kind of major spike that has preceded past global recessions – an outcome that Trump would prefer to avoid heading into an election year. For now, we prefer to heed the message from our cyclical indicators, which point to additional increases in bond yields in the next few months. For now, we prefer to heed the message from our cyclical indicators, which point to additional increases in bond yields in the next few months, led by some improvement in inflation expectations and a reduction in the amount of monetary easing discounted in markets – most notably, in the U.S. We now see less of a need for the cautious near-term view on overall duration exposure that we’ve maintained since the announcement of fresh U.S. tariffs on China in early August, especially given the recent easing of U.S.-China trade tensions ahead of the next round of talks in early October. Thus, we recommend shifting to a below-benchmark stance on overall portfolio duration on a tactical (0-3 months) basis, bringing that view back in line with our cyclical (up to 12 months) call, which has remained bearish on bonds (see the table on Page 12 for changes to our model bond portfolio). FOMC Preview: 25bps This Week, With No Promises After That While there is still a lot of investor angst over the underlying health of the global economy, the “recession narrative” appears to be receding. The New York Fed’s recession probability model, based on the slope of the U.S. Treasury curve, has seen the odds of a 2020 downturn fall from a peak of 42% in August to 32% today. At the same time, there has been a sharp drop in the number of Google searches involving the word “recession” (Chart 2). Chart 2Hold Off On That Inevitable Recession A similar message can be seen in financial markets, where classic risk-off/save haven assets like gold, and the VIX index have pulled back a bit from recent highs (Chart 3). Government bond volatility measures like the MOVE index remain elevated, though, as fixed income markets continue to price in expectations of low inflation and easier monetary policy – especially in the U.S. Chart 3Yields Discount A Lot Of Risk-Aversion This week’s FOMC meeting, including an update to the committee’s own growth and rate forecasts, will shed light on the Fed’s latest thinking. A modest downgrade of the Fed’s U.S. growth projections is likely given the downturn in the U.S. manufacturing sector. Yet with U.S. financial conditions easing (Chart 4) and the U.S. consumer remaining confident and willing to spend – purely a function of a robust labor market and despite media coverage of the growing threat of recession – the risk is that the Fed does not end up downgrading its growth projections much. Already, the annual growth rate of core U.S. retail sales is up to a solid 5.3%, after the nearly 10% (annualized) surge seen over the June-August period. Chart 4U.S. Domestic Economic Growth Is Rebounding Chart 5U.S. Inflation Is Accelerating Inflation Could Use A Boost A similar story exists in realized U.S. inflation measures, the majority of which are accelerating. Core CPI in August rose to 2.4% on year-over-year basis, after a surge of 3.4% annualized over the previous three months – the fast such rate over such a short window since May 2006 (Chart 5). Core PCE inflation has also picked up, and is now up 1.6% year-over-year and 2.2% – above the Fed’s 2% target – on a 3-month annualized basis. Wage growth, measured using average hourly earnings, continues to grow at a solid 3.6% year-over-year rate. Given these readings, combined with a persistently low unemployment rate, the FOMC is likely to make few (if any) changes to its inflation forecasts at this week’s meeting. Chart 6Stretched Treasury Yields Can Keep Climbing Given the underlying firm trends in the U.S. economic and inflation data, odds are low that the Fed will deliver an incremental dovish surprise to markets. The reverse is more likely. At the same time, the Fed is keenly aware of the fragility of non-U.S. economic growth, and U.S. financial markets, amid the persistent drag on U.S. manufacturing activity and business confidence from the U.S.-China tariff war. Once again, Fed Chair Jerome Powell will have to thread the needle with a message that sounds neither too dovish nor too hawkish. We fully expect another 25bp rate cut to be delivered this week. However, we also expect forward guidance to reflect a balanced outlook for a strong U.S. economy juxtaposed against concern for non-U.S. growth. In other words, the same message the Fed has been giving the markets since mid-year. Given the current stretched momentum of Treasury yields/prices, amid large overweight positioning according to measures like the J.P. Morgan client duration survey, any sign of a less dovish Fed should trigger some increase in Treasury yields (Chart 6). This is especially true with the U.S. Overnight Index Swap (OIS) curve still discounting 71bps of rate cuts over the next twelve months – an amount of easing that is unlikely to be delivered. In our view, though, the bigger near-term threat of rising Treasury yields will not come from the Fed being too hawkish, but from appearing too dovish amid accelerating inflation and firm U.S. economic growth. In our view, though, the bigger near-term threat of rising Treasury yields will not come from the Fed being too hawkish, but from appearing too dovish amid accelerating inflation and firm U.S. economic growth. Market-based inflation expectations remain depressed, with the 10-year TIPS breakeven rate now at 1.68%. That is well below levels consistent with the Fed’s 2% PCE inflation target despite the persistent tightness of the U.S. labor market and the acceleration seen in realized inflation measures. We recommend that clients shift back to a below-benchmark duration stance in the U.S. this week, while maintaining the maximum exposure to TIPS versus nominal Treasuries to position for higher inflation expectations that will also result in some steepening of the Treasury yield curve. Bottom Line: The Fed will cut rates by 25bps this week, accompanied by a balanced message on future moves given firm domestic U.S. growth amid global uncertainties. This could trigger additional near-term increases in Treasury yields if the market prices out future expected rate cuts. More likely, higher Treasury yields will manifest via rising inflation expectations, as investors price in Fed accommodation amid the recent acceleration of realized inflation. ECB: Take It To The Limit One More Time Last week’s much anticipated policy easing announcement by the European Central Bank (ECB) was comprehensive in scope, but disappointing in size. Short-term interest rates were cut, but only through a modest -10bp reduction in the overnight deposit rate. The Asset Purchase Program (APP) was restarted, but only at a pace of €20bn per month, well off the €80bn peak pace of the 2015-18 APP (Chart 7). Chart 7A Relatively Modest Easing Package From The ECB Those new initiatives fell short of the consensus forecast of a -20bp cut and €30bn of new APP. The ECB did introduce some tools to help struggling euro area banks - allowing some portion of banks’ excess reserves to Chart 8No Wonder There Is Disagreement With The ECB avoid the negative deposit rate (a.k.a. “tiering”) and extending the maturity of the TLTRO III program announced earlier this year from two to three years. Nonetheless, the overall stimulus package fell short of a “big bazooka” that did not break new ground on policy instruments (like buying equities in the APP). The biggest change from previous ECB easing initiatives was by making these new programs “open-ended”, with no specific expiration date. Instead, the asset purchases and lower interest rates would be maintained until euro zone inflation sustainably converged to the ECB’s inflation target of just under 2%. With the ECB’s newly revised forecasts calling for headline inflation to only climb to 1.5% by 2021, the new program has already been mockingly branded “QE Forever” by those who do not expect inflation to ever return to 2%. A big reason why the ECB was unable to deliver a bigger package was the disagreement within the ECB Governing Council on the need for more aggressive stimulus. Prior to last week’s meeting, several ECB officials publically voiced their reluctance to restart asset purchases and deliver deeper interest rate cuts, believing that they would have little impact on future euro area growth and inflation. While the opposition to fresh bond buying came from predictable sources like Germany and Austria, there was also an unprecedented level of public dissent after the ECB meeting, with the heads of the Dutch, Austrian and French central banks publically expressing doubts on the effectiveness of the new easing measures. This came after outgoing ECB President Mario Draghi noted in his post-meeting press conference last week that the consensus on restarting APP within the Governing Council was so broad that “there was no need to take a vote.” Given the diverging economic and inflation trends within the euro area, it should not be a surprise that a broad consensus within the Governing Council was hard to produce. For example, Germany is suffering through a much deeper manufacturing downturn than the other major euro area countries, judging by the trends in manufacturing PMIs (Chart 8). At the same time, Germany has a much lower unemployment rate and higher inflation rates than Italy and Spain. Focusing only on the German manufacturing downturn when setting monetary policy may produce results that are too stimulative – especially when the services sides of euro area economies appear in better shape (most notably in Germany). The ECB will run into some difficulties on running a “QE Forever” program of asset purchases given the current self-imposed constraints on the APP. Looking ahead, the ECB will run into some difficulties on running a “QE Forever” program of asset purchases given the current self-imposed constraints on the APP. The ECB cannot own more than 33% of the outstanding pubic debt of any single country (counting both sovereign debt and government agency bonds). At the moment, the ECB ownership shares are below that 33% threshold for the largest countries, based on our calculations that are presented in Chart 9. Chart 9"QE Forever" Is Not Credible Under Current Constraints However, that 33% limit will be threatened by the end of 2020 in several countries: the ECB will buy €15bn per month of government bonds under the new APP1 the ECB continues to allocate its bond buying in line with the size of each country (as determined by the ECB Capital Key) the stock of debt eligible for the APP expands at the same rate as consensus forecasts of nominal GDP growth Draghi also noted in his press conference that there was “relevant headroom to go on for quite a long time at this rhythm without the need to raise the discussion about limits.”2 We disagree, as our calculations show that the 33% threshold will be at threat of being reached by the end of next year in Germany, Spain, the Netherlands, Finland & Ireland (see the gray bars of Chart 9). If the ECB truly wants to commit itself to buying bonds until inflation returns to just under 2%, however long that takes, then one of three things must happen: the ECB must raise the issuer limit from 33% the ECB must allocate its bond buying using different weights than the Capital Key the supply of available government debt must increase through easier fiscal policy. Chart 10The ECB Will Have To Raise Issuer Limits To BoJ Levels Of those three options, altering the country weights away from the Capital Key is the most politically contentious, as it would involve more purchases from countries with weaker government finances, like Italy and Spain. Raising the issuer limit from 33% is a more realistic option, as that is a completely self-imposed rule with no economic grounds, although it raises the risk of the ECB bond ownership approaching Bank of Japan type levels (Chart 10). Solving the ECB’s “headroom” constraint by issuing more government debt through fiscal expansion is the one option that could truly help Europe get out of its low inflation trap. Yet that is also an option fraught with political tension in places like Germany where keeping low levels of government debt has been a politically popular choice. With the new ECB President, Christine Lagarde, set to take over from Draghi in November, the policy debate within Europe will turn toward the need for more fiscal stimulus. Already, there have been media reports suggesting the German government is considering new stimulus measures to boost a Germany economy that is now in a technical recession. Solving the ECB’s “headroom” constraint by issuing more government debt through fiscal expansion is the one option that could truly help Europe get out of its low inflation trap. Chart 11Inflation Expectations & Bund Yields Are Stabilizing If the ECB’s APP capacity issues are not eventually resolved, then the market will soon come to the realization that there can be no “QE Forever”. Combined with the known limitations on pushing policy rates deeper into negative territory - for fears of reaching a “reversal rate” that will cause banks to horde cash and make fewer loans - there is limited scope for additional declines in euro area bond yields from the deeply depressed current levels under the new policy announcements made last week. For now, we continue to favor overweighting core euro area government debt in global fixed income portfolios, on a currency-hedged basis. Despite the persistent negative yields on offer, those can be transformed into positive-yielding assets when the currency exposure is swapped into U.S. dollars. Furthermore, the so-called “convexity buying” of longer-dated euro area government bonds by asset-liability managers like insurers and pension funds will continue to anchor the long-end of euro area yield curves (Chart 11) – although that same factor can potentially hyper-charge a rise in yields as convexity buying turns into convexity selling if the economic fundamentals were to swing in a bond-bearish fashion (which is a topic we plan on covering in a future report). Bottom Line: The ECB’s easing package last week fell short of market expectations, as policymakers face the operational limits of cutting already-negative interest rates and restarting asset purchases. Yet for now, the economic/inflation backdrop in Europe remains bond friendly. Maintain a strategic overweight stance on Germany versus the U.S. in global government bond portfolios, with Bunds still supported by ECB buying and with USD-hedged Bund yields continuing to offer a yield pickup over Treasuries.   Robert Robis, CFA, Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 The other €5bn per month is assumed to go towards the purchases of corporate debt. 2 The full transcript of Draghi’s press conference can be found here: https://www.ecb.europa.eu/press/pressconf/2019/html/ecb.is190912~658eb51d68.en.htm The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Recommendations Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Highlights Duration: The ebbing of U.S. / China trade tensions and swing toward positive data surprises are enough for us to re-initiate a below-benchmark duration recommendation, on both tactical (0-3 month) and cyclical (6-12 month) time horizons. While not our base case, a continued deterioration in the Manufacturing PMI or CRB Raw Industrials, or a significant appreciation of the U.S. dollar would cause us to question our view. Credit: Corporate debt levels are elevated, but still-low inflation expectations will ensure that monetary conditions remain accommodative for the time being. Easy Fed policy will support interest coverage ratios and prevent banks from tightening lending standards. Stay overweight corporate bonds, focusing on the Baa and high-yield credit tiers. Fed: The Fed will cut rates by 25 basis points tomorrow and Chairman Powell will do his best to sound dovish and prevent a tightening of financial conditions. Core inflation has strengthened in recent months, but the Fed needs to see a rebound in inflation expectations before turning hawkish. Feature Move Back To Below-Benchmark Portfolio Duration The sensitivity of bond yields to U.S./China trade policy was on full display last week. President Trump took significant steps to de-escalate tensions between the two nations, delaying the October 1st tariff hike and scheduling talks between principal negotiators for October. The result is that the bond market sold off dramatically. The 10-year Treasury yield rose from 1.55% at the start of the week to 1.90% as of last Friday. As we go to press, the yield has fallen back to 1.85% in response to the drone attacks in Saudi Arabia and resulting spike in oil prices. Chart 1Has The Tide Turned? Our Geopolitical Strategy service discussed the near-term outlook for U.S. / China trade negotiations in last week’s report.1 Our main takeaway is that the President has shifted into dealmaker mode, hoping to secure some “wins” in advance of next year’s election. Talk of a looming recession in the mainstream media is doubtless also encouraging the President to adopt a more conciliatory strategy. Our political strategists view a comprehensive U.S. / China trade agreement as unlikely. But if the U.S. and China can reach a détente where tariffs are no longer rising every few months and the immediate threat to economic growth dissipates, then U.S. bond yields have a lot of upside. Chart 1 shows that the 10-year Treasury yield fell much more sharply in recent months than would have been expected given the U.S. economic data. The chart also shows that economic data are now beating expectations for the first time since February. Positive data surprises usually coincide with rising Treasury yields, and the chart suggests that yields still have a lot of catching-up to do. The de-escalation of trade tensions and shift in data surprises is enough for us to remove our tactical “at benchmark” duration stance, which had been in place since August 6. Investors should keep portfolio duration low on both tactical (0-3 month) and cyclical (6-12 month) time horizons. Risks To The Duration View There are three main risks to our below-benchmark duration positioning. The first is that the global manufacturing data – Manufacturing PMIs and the CRB Raw Industrials index – have not yet rebounded (Chart 2). We have written extensively about why we expect a bounce-back before the end of the year, and an ebbing of U.S. / China trade tensions will only speed that process along, as firms gain more confidence in the outlook and initiate long-delayed investments.2 However, until we actually see the data improve we cannot be certain. It’s notable, and concerning, that the ratio between the CRB Raw Industrials index and Gold did not increase alongside Treasury yields during the past week (Chart 2, bottom panel). If the dollar continues to appreciate as Treasury yields move up, it will limit how high yields rise.  The second risk to our view comes from the dollar. If it continues to appreciate as Treasury yields move up, it will limit how high yields rise. Treasury yields can increase alongside a stronger dollar when global leading indicators are improving, as was the case in the second half of 2016 (Chart 3). But a strong dollar will eventually undermine global growth and cap the upside in yields. Chart 2Risk 1: Global Manufacturing Still Weak Chart 3Risk 2: Stronger Dollar The third risk is that the recent attack on Saudi oil installations prompts a military response from the U.S. government that escalates into all-out war. The lesson from the oil crash of 2014 is that any negative effects on the U.S. consumer from a spike in the oil price will be offset by greater investment from U.S. energy firms. However, if the situation dissolves into a significant military conflict, then U.S. bonds would benefit from flight to quality flows. Our Geopolitical and Commodity teams discussed the still-unfolding situation in a Special Alert yesterday.3   Bottom Line: The ebbing of U.S. / China trade tensions and swing toward positive data surprises are enough for us to re-initiate a below-benchmark duration recommendation, on both tactical (0-3 month) and cyclical (6-12 month) time horizons. While not our base case, a continued deterioration in the Manufacturing PMI or CRB Raw Industrials, or a significant appreciation of the U.S. dollar would cause us to question our view.   Corporate Bonds: Weak Balance Sheets Vs. Easy Money The slope of the yield curve is an important and useful indicator for corporate bond investors. In fact, our research has demonstrated that corporate bond excess returns versus Treasuries tend to be highest early in the recovery when the yield curve is steep. On the flipside, we’ve also shown that an inverted yield curve is often a good signal to scale back exposure.4 Corporate balance sheets are highly levered today, as they were in the mid-1990s. For this purpose, our preferred measure of the yield curve has been the 3-year/10-year slope, calculated on a monthly basis using average daily closing values. Chart 4 shows this slope with vertical lines denoting the first inversion of each cycle. Notice that we have not yet received an inversion signal from this measure in the current cycle, but it is getting close. Chart 4Yield Curve & Corporate Spreads Even if we get an inversion signal in the next few months, Chart 4 reveals an interesting contrast between the mid-2000s cycle and the mid-1990s cycle. In the mid-1990s, 3/10 curve inversion was an excellent signal to reduce corporate credit exposure. Spreads widened almost immediately, and didn’t peak until four years later. Conversely, spreads continued to tighten for another year after the yield curve inverted in 2006. So how should we view the current cycle in relation to these prior two episodes? Should we expect further outperformance after the yield curve inverts, as in the mid-2000s? Or should we prepare to reduce corporate bond exposure as soon as the yield curve sends a signal, as in the 1990s? Balance Sheets Are In Poor Health … Chart 5Firms Carrying A lot Of Debt The first thing to consider is how corporate balance sheets stack up compared to each of these prior two episodes. Chart 5 makes it apparent that balance sheets are highly levered today, as they were in the mid-1990s. Net debt-to-EBITDA for the median high-yield firm in our dynamic bottom-up sample is above 4.0x, even higher than in the late 1990s. Similarly, the median firm’s debt-to-assets ratio is reminiscent of the 1990s. Chart 5 clearly shows that balance sheets were in poor health in the 1990s, and are in a similar state today. This is in sharp contrast to the mid-2000s, when balance sheets were pristine. The sole exception is interest coverage, which remains robust (Chart 5, bottom panel). This is the result of still-accommodative monetary policy (more on this below). … But The Monetary Environment Is Supportive While today’s corporate balance sheets have more in common with the mid-1990s than the mid-2000s, today’s monetary environment looks more like the mid-2000s, and is probably even more supportive. Chart 6Supportive Monetary Environment: Reminiscent Of The Mid-2000s Chart 6 shows that when the yield curve inverted in the 1990s, banks’ commercial & industrial (C&I) lending standards were on the cusp of tightening, as were the terms that banks offered on C&I loans. In contrast, C&I lending standards and loan terms continued to ease for some time after the curve inverted in the mid-2000s. Today, C&I lending standards and C&I loan terms are both in “net easing” territory. But most crucially, inflation expectations are extremely depressed (Chart 6, bottom panel). Low inflation expectations mean that the Fed must ensure that monetary policy stays accommodative until inflation expectations are re-anchored at levels closer to its target. Accommodative Fed policy will keep firms’ interest costs down, and give lenders the confidence to extend credit, even if firms are already loaded with debt. Bringing it all together, we find that both credit quality metrics and monetary indicators help explain the corporate default rate (Chart 7). Our top-down measure of gross leverage (total debt over pre-tax profits) lines up well with the default rate over time, but has diverged during the past few years (Chart 7, top panel). Meanwhile, C&I lending standards also correlate tightly with the default rate, and this relationship continues to track (Chart 7, panel 3). Chart 7Drivers Of The Corporate Default Rate Overall, we find the divergence between gross leverage and the default rate concerning, and reminiscent of 2007/08 when it predicted a surge in the default rate. However, unlike in 2007/08, lending standards are moving deeper into “net easing” territory and interest coverage remains steady. Considering all the evidence, we are inclined to remain bullish on corporate credit spreads for the time being. Yes, corporate debt levels are a worry, as they were in the 1990s. But, with inflation expectations still very low, the Fed has a strong incentive to keep policy easy. Historically, banks do not tighten lending standards unless the monetary environment is restrictive. Our sense is that, in this cycle, banks will turn a blind eye to corporate debt levels until inflation expectations rise and the Fed moves interest rates into restrictive territory. Credit Investment Strategy Chart 8Focus On The Baa And High-Yield Credit Tiers Our relatively bullish assessment of the credit cycle means that we will continue to abide by the spread targets we introduced in February.5 To obtain those targets we calculated the median 12-month breakeven spread for each credit tier during periods when the yield curve was very flat (less than 50 bps), but not yet inverted.6  We then converted those breakeven spreads into option-adjusted spread targets using current index duration and the current index credit rating distribution. Chart 8 shows that investment grade spreads are slightly above target, but this is only due to the cheapness of Baa-rated debt. Aaa, Aa and A-rated credits all trade at spreads below our targets, and we recommend focusing investment grade exposure on the Baa space. Chart 8 also shows that high-yield spreads are much more attractive relative to target. This is partly because the negatively convex nature of high-yield debt means that index duration fell sharply as bonds rallied this year (Chart 8, bottom panel). All else equal, lower index duration means that more spread widening is required before investors see losses. Thus, spreads appear more attractive. Bottom Line: Corporate debt levels are elevated, but still-low inflation expectations will ensure that monetary conditions remain accommodative for the time being. Easy Fed policy will support interest coverage ratios and prevent banks from tightening lending standards. Stay overweight corporate bonds, focusing on the Baa and high-yield credit tiers. FOMC Preview: Fed Will Do Its Best To Stay Dovish The results of this week’s FOMC meeting will be made public tomorrow afternoon. A 25 basis point rate cut is widely anticipated, and we expect that is what will be delivered. A 25 basis point rate cut is widely anticipated, and we expect that is what will be delivered. Judging from recent remarks, Fed Chairman Jerome Powell is well aware that easy financial conditions will encourage a recovery in economic growth.7 He also understands that in order for financial conditions to stay easy, the market must continue to believe that monetary policy is supportive. We therefore think that Chairman Powell will do everything he can to prevent a hawkish surprise following tomorrow’s FOMC statement and press conference. However, the Chairman cannot control the placement of each FOMC participant’s interest rate forecast (or “dot”), and there is a risk that the end-of-2019 forecasts don’t fall enough to appease markets. Chart 9 shows the fed funds rate along with a projection based on current pricing in the fed funds futures market. It shows that the market expects a 25 bps rate cut tomorrow, followed by one more 25 bps cut before the end of the year. We don’t expect the majority of FOMC participants to forecast such a dovish outcome, but as long as a significant number of participants forecast one more cut before the end of the year, a hawkish surprise should be avoided. Chart 9Can The Fed Avoid Sounding Hawkish? Case in point, the Fed avoided a hawkish surprise following the June meeting. Heading into that meeting the market was priced for an end-of-2019 funds rate of 1.75% (denoted by the ‘X’ in Chart 9). The June FOMC dots show that 7 FOMC participants expected a similar outcome (also shown in Chart 9). If around 7 participants place their 2019 dot in the 1.50%-1.75% range following tomorrow’s meeting, it should be enough to prevent a hawkish surprise. Will Strong Inflation Sway The Fed? There has been some speculation that the recent spate of strong inflation data might prevent the Fed from delivering a sufficiently dovish message. We think this is unlikely. It’s true that core inflation has rebounded sharply, but inflation expectations remain downtrodden (Chart 10). At this juncture, the Fed is principally concerned with re-anchoring inflation expectations near target levels. It may require an overshoot of the actual inflation target to achieve this goal. Investors should focus more on inflation expectations to assess Fed policy going forward. Chart 10Still Well Anchored? Chart 11Unsustainable Uptrend in Goods   Further, if we dig into the details of the recent inflation prints, we find some reason to believe that the recent uptrend is not sustainable. Chart 11 shows that a substantial portion of inflation’s rise has been driven by the core goods component, which tracks non-oil import prices with a lag of about 1½ years (Chart 11, panel 2). For their part, import prices have already rolled over and will continue to decelerate unless we see a significant depreciation of the dollar (Chart 12). Chart 12Import Prices & The Dollar Bottom Line: The Fed will cut rates by 25 basis points tomorrow and Chairman Powell will do his best to sound dovish and prevent a tightening of financial conditions. Core inflation has strengthened in recent months, but the Fed needs to see a rebound in inflation expectations before turning hawkish.   Ryan Swift, U.S. Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, “Trump’s Tactical Retreat”, dated September 13, 2019, available at gps.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy / Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, “Where’s The Positive Carry In Bond Markets?”, dated August 20, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see Commodity & Energy Strategy / Geopolitical Strategy Special Alert, “Attacks On Critical Infrastructure In KSA Raise Questions About U.S. Response”, dated September 16, 2019, available at ces.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, “2019 Key Views: Implications For U.S. Fixed Income”, dated December 11, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 5 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Value In Corporate Bonds”, dated February 19, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 6 The 12-month breakeven spread is the spread widening required before a corporate bond sees losses versus a duration-matched Treasury bond on a 12-month horizon. It can be calculated roughly as the option-adjusted spread per unit of duration. 7  https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/06/watch-fed-chairman-jerome-powells-qa-in-zurich-live.html Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

Highlights The ECB loaded a bazooka, and core Eurozone yields rose: The ECB surprised dovishly last Thursday, and European bond yields duly fell … for an hour. Then they began to back up as fast as they fell, and when Friday’s trading ended, only Greek and Italian yields were lower than where they started. The market action supports our contention that things are not so bad, assuming the worst-case trade scenarios do not materialize: Underpinned by a robust labor market, the U.S. should have little trouble growing at a trend pace over the next twelve months. Meanwhile, the global economy may be in the process of turning. Reversals within the U.S. equity market have gotten a lot of attention so far this month, but it’s too early to claim that a broad factor inflection is underway: If global growth prospects have bottomed, defensive sectors’ outperformance is due to reverse, which will cause havoc for momentum strategies. It is premature to call for a value revival, however. Feature Maybe long Treasury yields aren’t going to zero after all. After bottoming just below 1.43% the day after Labor Day, the 10-year Treasury yield surged 45 basis points across eight sessions as of Friday’s lunchtime peak (Chart 1). The move has been enough to retrace better than three-fifths of its steep slide from mid-July to the beginning of September, but relative to the extended plunge from 3.24% that began last November, the bounce barely registers. Chart 1Up, Up And Away Chart 2Pulled Lower By Expected Rate Cuts... The takeaway is that it’s important to keep the moves in context. Just as the collapse in Treasury yields didn’t indicate that the U.S. economy was headed for an imminent recession, their modest, if rapid, recovery doesn’t indicate that all the dark clouds are gone from the horizon. From a purely domestic perspective, the 180-basis-point (“bps”) peak-to-trough decline in the 10-year Treasury yield unfolded nearly step-for-step with an equivalent decline in the expected fed funds rate twelve months out (Chart 2). Since a 1.25% target fed funds rate this time next year is incompatible with our view of the economy, we expect rates will move higher. The ECB committed itself to accommodation for longer than markets had expected; … Chart 3...And Other Sovereign Yields Chart 4Better Times Ahead? The Treasury market doesn’t exist in a vacuum, however. Yield moves in similarly-rated sovereign bonds have an effect on Treasuries, and declines in European sovereign yields have exerted a gravitational pull all year long (Chart 3). The backup in yields that followed the ECB’s dovish surprise on Thursday suggests that Eurozone sovereign bond markets may have bought the rumor and sold the news. If global growth is in the process of bottoming, as global leading indicators suggest, falling yields would run counter to the fundamental backdrop (Chart 4). You May Fire When Ready, Draghi To judge by the spate of columns urging helicopter-style accommodation measures, the expectations bar for the European Central Bank’s long-awaited September meeting had been set pretty high. The cut in the ECB’s deposit facility rate to -0.5% from -0.4%, with provisions to mitigate the pressure negative rates exert on banks, was in line with the market consensus, as was a resumption of quantitative easing. Investors did not foresee that the ECB would embark on open-ended bond purchases, however, a plan quickly labeled “QE Infinity.” The ECB also dumped its no-hikes-before-mid-2020 guidance – now it won’t move until the inflation outlook “robustly” moves toward its 2% target – and lengthened the maturities on TLTRO loans while lowering their rates.1 The surprise indicated that the ECB is taking the slowdown seriously, at home (most evident in Germany, which is flirting with recession after a quarter-over-quarter GDP contraction) and abroad. It is premature to declare the action a flop, as headline writers were quick to do, citing the evanescent decline in core bond yields and the euro, because QE impacts are subject to several factors. Sovereign yields can rise on QE announcements if markets judge the impact of relaxed inflation vigilance will outweigh the impact of the entry of a new, price-insensitive buyer to the marketplace. As long as real yields fall, the central bank will have achieved its goal. … if it develops that the incremental accommodation wasn’t necessary, equities and spread product should reap the benefits. U.S. investors are mostly concerned with the impact on global markets and the global economy. Even if nominal sovereign yields have bottomed and competitive devaluation has neutered the currency channel, incremental easing should boost risk assets’ prospects, via pushing incumbent sovereign holders into spread product (the portfolio balance effect), promoting business and consumer confidence, incentivizing bank lending, and nudging other central banks (like Denmark’s, which immediately cut its policy rate in response) to ease monetary conditions themselves (Figure 1). On those counts, we view the ECB’s surprise as modestly improving the prospects for risk assets. TINA is alive and well. Figure 1Monetary Policy And The Economy The Employment Situation We have repeatedly cited the robustness of the labor market as a reason for not giving up on the U.S. economy, or equities and spread product. If expanding payrolls and increasing compensation can keep consumption growing at just a 2% clip, the probability of a U.S. recession, and of an equity bear market and a new default cycle, is fairly slim. If the labor market isn’t as strong as we’ve judged, more defensive portfolio positioning may be in order. Since the beginning of the second quarter, the monthly employment situation reports have revealed a slowing in hiring activity, halting the quickening that stretched from last year through the end of the first quarter (Chart 5). The slowing trend is less concerning than it might appear to be on its face. The current expansion, 122 months old and counting, is the longest on record, and now that it has already drawn considerable numbers of people back into the labor force and back to work, it has become increasingly difficult to find and attract new workers. Even the current monthly pace of job gains, 156,000 over the last three months, still puts downward pressure on the unemployment rate, as it takes less than 110,000 new jobs to maintain the status quo. With net job gains outpacing new entrants into the labor force, wages should rise. Average hourly earnings rose 3.2% in August on a year-over-year basis, though the 0.4% month-over-month gain suggests they may be about to challenge the top end of the tight 3.1-3.2% range that’s prevailed all year. Investors’ and economists’ patience with the Phillips Curve is increasingly wearing thin, as they wait for the decline in the unemployment rate to show up in wage gains, but we consider the underlying supply-demand relationship to be immutable. The prime-age employment-to-population ratio hit an 11-year high in August, and is solidly back in the middle of the range that has prevailed over the 30 years that female participation gains have stabilized (Chart 6). Chart 5Slower Payroll Gains... Chart 6...Will Still Tighten The Labor Market Chart 7The Unkinked Phillips Curve The prime-age employment-to-population ratio is an important measure for the Phillips Curve because it exhibits a consistent linear relationship with wage gains. The fit between the non-employment-to-population ratio (1 minus the employment-to-population ratio) and the employment cost index (Chart 7, top panel) is a little tighter than the fit with average hourly earnings (Chart 7, bottom panel), but both regression equations project an annual increase in wages of 3.3% at the current 20% (1-80%) level, and a 7-bps gain for every 20-bps decline in the prime-age non-employment-to-population ratio. Given that our payrolls model projects a pickup in the pace of hiring (Chart 8, top panel), and the quits rate just moved off of its extended plateau (Chart 9), upward pressure on wages will continue to build.   Chart 8Demand For Workers Is Still Solid Chart 9Movin' On Up Bottom Line: Payroll gains are slowing, but they remain robust enough to push the key prime-age employment-to-population ratio higher, and exert upward pressure on wages.   Factor Rotation Chart 10Momentum Hits The Wall,... Reversals within the U.S. equity market have been drawing increasing amounts of attention, as momentum stocks have hit a wall while long-suffering value stocks have begun to peel themselves off the canvas (Chart 10). We can easily see a scenario in which the momentum factor has a very difficult time, if relative performance shifts from defensive sectors to cyclical sectors as investors begin to perceive that they have been overly pessimistic about the domestic and global business cycle, and cease to hide in bond proxies like Utilities and REITs. Given the defensives’ run of outperformance over the last year, momentum indexes disproportionately favor them over cyclicals. The S&P 500, MidCap 400 and SmallCap 600 Momentum Indexes all show a pronounced defensives bias, with Health Care, Utilities and Real Estate all commanding double their baseline weight in at least one index (Table 1), making S&P’s momentum indexes vulnerable to a defensives-to-cyclicals rotation. Table 1The Dullest Stocks Have Been The Hottest Over the last three years, we have thought a lot about the value factor, asking how it should be defined, which financial statement metrics indicate its presence, and the business and monetary policy cycle backdrops that are most conducive to its outperformance. Low-priced stocks have been in a punishing extended slump versus high-priced stocks since early 2007 (Chart 11), and we think they have yet to bottom. The recent value stock rally has been a function of higher 10-year Treasury yields, and banks’ (which account for an outsized share of popular value benchmarks) recent tendency to trade in lockstep with them. We do not think a two-week backup in yields is the stuff that a genuine value factor inflection point is made of. Chart 11...But The Value Factor Has Yet To Turn A detailed explanation of our rationale is beyond the scope of this report,2 but the following points summarize our take: The value factor has gotten killed since the crisis, but we doubt that it’s dead. Value has historically treaded water during bull markets, and shined in bear markets. The fed funds rate cycle is the best predictor of value’s relative performance. Value has historically crushed the overall market when monetary policy is restrictive. The most popular style indexes have barely any factor merit. The S&P 500’s Growth and Value indexes are little more than Tech and Financials proxies. Value will shine again, but not until monetary policy is restrictive. If the Fed doesn’t hike the fed funds rate above the equilibrium fed funds rate until 2021, value investors will have to gut out another year-plus of underperformance. Bottom Line: The momentum factor could suffer in the near term if cyclicals reassert primacy over formerly hot defensives. The value factor’s fortunes will not turn for at least another year. Investment Implications We understand the discomfort of investors who feel like ZIRP, NIRP and QE have obliterated normal investing relationships. Disorienting as it has been to see nominal Treasury returns shrivel, the rising tide of negative-yielding bonds is like a surreal detail from a David Lynch movie. The investment world has indeed turned upside-down when investors buy bonds for capital gains to offset the interest they have to pay for the privilege of lending. Austrian School advocates are surely not the only dearly departed investing veterans rolling in their graves. It’s not the environment we wanted, but it’s the environment we got, so we’re going to buck up and do our best to squeeze excess returns out of it. We have to invest in the markets we have, however, not the markets we want. It does neither ourselves nor our clients any good to throw up our hands, bitterly lament our fate and wish ill upon the exponents of the activist, ultra-accommodative approach to central banking that is now in fashion. Some old relationships still apply, and the combination of a quietly improving global economic backdrop with incremental monetary accommodation everywhere one turns is good for risk assets. We continue to recommend that investors resist the urge to get defensive before the excess-return window closes for this cycle. We are not advocating that investors let their guard down, and assume that central banks will be able to keep the plates spinning indefinitely. They will not – monetary interventions are a poor substitute for organic growth in productivity or the size of the working-age population, and so are inefficiently directed fiscal spending programs – but we bet they can through the next quarterly or annual period over which an institutional manager is going to be evaluated. The upshot is that investors should remain especially vigilant for signs of trouble, and be prepared to act more tactically than normal to adjust their portfolios, but shouldn’t de-risk them yet, lest they miss the last of the fat-year returns they’ll need to tide themselves over during the coming lean years.   Doug Peta, CFA Chief U.S. Investment Strategist dougp@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1 Targeted longer-term refinancing operations (TLTROs) are ECB loans to banks intended to encourage lending to households and non-financial corporations. 2 Interested readers should see the May 16, 2018 Global ETF Strategy/Equity Trading Strategy Special Report, “Smart-Beta ETF Selection Update – Is Value Still Worth It?,” the October 2018 Bank Credit Analyst Special Report, “Is It Time To Buy Value Stocks?,” and the October 2, 2018 U.S. Investment Strategy Special Report, “When Will Value Work Again?,” available at etf.bcaresearch.com, www.bcaresearch.com and usis.bcaresearch.com, respectively.

Highlights Growth & Yields: The massive bond rally of 2019 is in its dying days - the sharp downward momentum of global bond yields is fading, just as leading economic indicators are starting to move higher. Data Surprises & Yields: The risk of a snapback in yields is growing in countries where there are more positive economic data surprises but where yields remain depressed – like the U.S., Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Duration Strategy: We still recommend investors to stick to a neutral (at benchmark) stance on overall portfolio duration in the near term (0-3 months). Markets will need more than just one or two positive data points to be convinced that global growth is rebounding, and U.S.-China trade tensions remain a lingering concern. On a cyclical horizon (6-12 months), however, once it is clear that we’ve entered into a new global manufacturing up-cycle, global yields will rise more sustainably, justifying reduced duration exposure. Feature Chart of the WeekA Potential Bottoming Of Growth & Yields Is The Great Global Bond Rally of 2019 finally running out of gas? Government bond yields in the major developed economies have stabilized and are now starting to drift a bit higher. Benchmark 10-year yields are all up by healthy amounts from the inter-day lows reached on September 3rd (U.S. +18bps, Germany +17bps, U.K. +24bps, Canada +24bps). Yields remain well below intermediate term trend measures like the 200-day moving average, however, suggesting that these rebounds may only be corrective in nature and not yet the start of a more sustained cyclical move higher. Reliable economic data like our global manufacturing PMI are still falling and remain at levels suggesting weakening global growth. Yet on a rate-of-change basis, the pace of the decline in the PMI is fading, indicating that the worst of the downturn is likely behind us. A bottoming of the downward momentum of the PMI typically coincides with fading downward momentum in bond yields (Chart of the Week), which suggests that, at a minimum, bond yields are unlikely to fall below the recent lows. A similar signal is given by our global leading economic indicator (LEI), which has clearly bottomed and is now starting to drift higher. We shifted to a tactically neutral stance on global duration exposure back in early August, based on our near-term concerns that the ratcheting up of U.S.-China trade tensions through new tariffs would further raise economic uncertainty and heighten the demand for safe assets like government bonds – especially given the decline in global manufacturing activity. Last week’s announcement that U.S.-China trade talks would resume in early October was a positive step towards a potential de-escalation of trade tensions, which did help provide a pro-risk lift to global bond yields (at least for one day). For now, however, we are staying with a near-term neutral view on duration until we see more concrete signs of progress from the October 5 U.S.-China trade meetings in D.C. The heightened political drama in the U.K. is another reason to be cautious, with the October 31 Brexit deadline – and potentially a U.K. election before then – fast approaching (NOTE: we will be publishing a joint Special Report on the U.K. with our colleagues at Foreign Exchange Strategy and Geopolitical Strategy on September 20). More fundamentally, we will look to reduce our recommended duration exposure back to below-benchmark once global manufacturing data (i.e. U.S. ISM, Markit PMIs) and economic sentiment data (i.e. global ZEW, German IFO) stabilize – an outcome that grows increasingly likely given the signs of improvement we are seeing in the global LEI. Finding The Biggest Disagreements Between Economic Data & Bond Yields One time-tested way to identify a potential cyclical market top or bottom, for any asset class and not just bonds, is to look for divergences in prices from fundamentals. For example, when bond yields continue to fall despite signs that economic data are starting to improve (or, at least, when there is less data underperforming expectations). We can see such a divergence today when looking at bond yields versus data surprise indices. The most visible divergences between better data surprises and low bond yields are in the U.S., Australia, Canada and New Zealand. In Charts 2 & 3, we show the 26-week change in the benchmark 10-year government bond yield (in basis points) versus the widely followed Citigroup Economic Data Surprise Indices for the U.S., euro area, Japan, the U.K., Australia, Canada, New Zealand and Sweden The broad relationship is that yields fall faster when data is weaker than expected, and vice versa. The relationship is stronger in some countries like the U.S. and the U.K., and very weak in Japan, but we can still look for divergences between yield changes and data surprises for signs of bond yields deviating from economic growth. Chart 2Data Surprises Diverging From Yields In The U.S. … Chart 3… And In "The Dollar Bloc" The most visible such divergences are in the U.S., Japan, Australia, Canada and New Zealand; in those countries, more data releases have been surprising to the upside versus consensus forecasts of late, yet bond yields have been falling at a very rapid rate. In the euro area, the U.K. and Sweden, data has been disappointing versus expectations, justifying the rapid move down in bond yields in those countries purely from an economic growth perspective. For all countries shown, interest rate markets are now priced for aggressive monetary easing. Our 12-month discounters, based on pricing from Overnight Index Swap (OIS) curves, all show that money markets expect central banks to ease policy over the next year. Our discounters remain highly correlated to the level of government bond yields (Charts 4 & 5), which means that the biggest risk to the Great Global Bond Rally of 2019 is that policymakers do not deliver the full amount of easing discounted by markets. Chart 4Bond Yields Are Vulnerable To A Rebound … Chart 5… Given Overly Dovish Policy Expectations That risk looks greatest in countries where there is both a divergence between improving data surprises and low bond yields AND a significant amount of interest rate cuts priced into the OIS curve – like the U.S. (98bps of cuts discounted), Australia (42bps), Canada (32bps) and New Zealand (33bps). Japan (13bps), the euro area (22bps) and Sweden (4bps) are all cases where central bank policy rates (and bond yields) are negative but where additional rate cuts are still discounted. Data continues to disappoint to the downside in the euro area and Sweden, however, suggesting that bond yields there are less at risk of a corrective snapback. A similar argument applies in the U.K. (25bps), where there is not a divergence between weak data and falling Gilt yields. Given the weak correlation between data surprises and changes in bond yields in Japan – an unsurprising outcome given the Bank of Japan’s outright manipulation of JGB yields – we find it difficult to make any conclusions on the next move in yields based solely on an analysis of Japanese data surprises. That risk of higher bond yields is greatest in countries where data surprises are diverging from bond yields AND a significant amount of interest rate cuts are discounted. Bottom Line: The massive bond rally of 2019 is in its dying days - the sharp downward momentum of global bond yields is fading, just as leading economic indicators are starting to move higher. The risk of a snapback in yields is growing in countries where there are more positive economic data surprises but where yields remain depressed – like the U.S., Canada, Australia and New Zealand. The Increasingly Schizophrenic Nature Of Global Central Banks The dovish turn of global monetary policy in 2019 has been fairly limited in terms of the size of cuts, but broad in terms of the number of countries that have delivered cuts. Our Global Monetary Easing Indicator (GMEI), which measures the percentage of central banks (out of a list of 29) that have cut policy rates from three months earlier, is a simple way to measure the “breadth” of the global monetary policy cycle. In Chart 6, we compare the GMEI (shown on an inverted scale) to our global LEI. Historically, the GMEI has peaked around three months after the global LEI troughs. Afterward, facing prospects of improving growth, central banks gradually took their feet off the gas pedal, with the GMEI moving to zero as the global LEI continued to climb. Chart 6Introducing Our Global Monetary Easing Indicator The ups and downs of central banker actions have become more complicated since 2008. After the financial crisis, policymakers had to keep rates at or near the zero lower bound. For the Fed looking over at its Japanese counterpart, the prospect of keeping rates too low for too long, and thereby eventually losing the ability to stimulate the economy through rate cuts in the next downturn, was a fearful one. At the same time, creating overly easy financial conditions and indirectly causing the next asset bubble was another concern for policymakers in the aftermath of the financial crisis. After 2016, central bank behavior became particularly misguided. This “bi-polar” policy environment clearly caused a change in the reaction function of global central banks. Post-crisis, they have been slower to react to signs of global weakness. In 2016, for example, the GMEI peaked a full six months after the trough in the LEI – a longer reaction time compared to previous cycles. Even when they did react, however, it was at a lower intensity, with smaller easings by fewer banks, compared to previous cycles After 2016, however, central bank behavior became particularly misguided. The subsequent monetary tightening was clearly too abrupt. Investor sentiment and expectations of global growth, captured by our GFIS duration indicator (Chart 7), were on their way down while global central banks were all too eager to stop easing, ignoring the data showing signs of global weakness – especially from China. Chart 7Central Banks Are Zigging When They Should Be Zagging By June 2018, none of the central banks included in the GMEI were easing, despite the global LEI having peaked six months earlier. In September 2018, despite facing persistent global weakness – the global manufacturing PMI had fallen from its peak of 54.4 nine months earlier to 52.1 and the global LEI was already in negative territory indicating more weakness to come – only a meagre 3% of central banks had begun stimulating. The Fed exemplified this complacency with its rate hike in December 2018 and its refusal to clearly pivot in a dovish direction until three months later. When they ultimately delivered a rate cut in late July of this year, it was clear they had waited too long. Chart 8How Will Dovish Policymakers Respond To Improving Growth? Globally, the overall policy response was non-existent all the way until May 2019, when central banks finally got with the program and scrambled to ease. Now, with the Fed having cut rates and facing the possibility of further rate cuts (possibly hastened by the Tweeter-in-Chief), global central bankers will not want to be left behind, lest they suffer unwanted currency strength and forgo export competitiveness. However, they might be once again misreading the data and the global easing cycle might be much closer to its end than its beginning. BCA’s Chief Global Strategist, Peter Berezin, has noted that global manufacturing cycles average three years from peak to peak. As the last growth cycle began in late spring of 2017, this means that we are likely at the bottom of the current cycle and therefore, global growth should start to pick up soon. This message is reinforced by our Global LEI diffusion index (Chart 8), which indicates that the Global LEI has put in a bottom and will continue climbing higher in the coming months. The easing of global financial conditions, and the lagged impact of China’s policy stimulus measures from earlier in 2019, corroborate the message from the global LEI. With bonds as overbought as they are today, we expect yields to rebound once investors realize that the sky is not really falling. A pick up in the global LEI, in turn, suggests that the global PMI will follow and should soon move higher, with a lead time of six months based on past cycles (as we show in the bottom panel of Chart 1). Another reliable leading growth indicator, the level of high-yield corporate bond spreads, is also signaling a rebound in both the U.S. and euro area economies over the next few quarters (Chart 9). Chart 9High-Yield Spreads Are A Leading Economic Indicator Global bond yields, meanwhile, seem stuck between a rock and a hard place. As shown in Chart 10, yields move with expectations of future growth. Bond investors are sensitive to declines in expectations of future growth, captured by the global LEI, as this necessitates central bank intervention in the future to lower short-term rates, thus bringing down the expectations component of long-term yields. At the same time, a slowdown in growth in the present increases the safe-haven demand for bonds which again drives down yields. Chart 10Potential Triggers For Higher Bond Yields   Although the global is ticking back up, global policy uncertainty (Chart 10, middle panel) is near all-time highs due to the U.S.-China trade war. In such an environment, investors will naturally flock to the safety of bonds. In previous reports, we have shown how similar the current backdrop is to the 2015/2016 episode, when nervous bond investors were less likely to be forward-looking and needed to see firm evidence of a pickup in global growth before they started to push up yields on a sustained basis. Given the increasing likelihood that global central banks will not be able to fully deliver the amount of aggressive easing discounted by markets because of a more stable growth backdrop, any lessening of trade tensions – a growing possibility with U.S. President Donald Trump gearing up for the 2020 election – should allow calmer heads to once again prevail as global economic momentum improves and policy uncertainty wanes. With bonds as overbought as they are today, we expect yields to rebound once investors realize that the sky is not really falling. It remains to be seen how policymakers respond to that outcome. Given recent history, however, we fear that central bankers could end up turning more hawkish once again faster than markets expect, which would set the stage for a more sustainable rise in global bond yields in 2020. Bottom Line: We still recommend that investors stick to a neutral benchmark overall portfolio duration stance in the near term (0-3 months). Markets will need more than just one or two positive data points to be convinced that global growth is rebounding. On a cyclical horizon, once it is clear that we’ve entered into a new global manufacturing up-cycle, global yields are likely to rise. As Trump reaches for a deal ahead of the 2020 election, the decline in global policy uncertainty will contribute to a more bond-bearish environment.   Robert Robis, CFA, Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com Shakti Sharma, Research Associate shaktis@bcaresearch.com Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Highlights Global bond yields have closely tracked the trajectory of global growth. While the global economy remains fragile, some positive signs are emerging: Our global leading economic indicator has moved off its lows; global financial conditions have eased significantly; U.S. household spending remains resilient; and China is set to further increase stimulus. Neither a severe escalation of the trade war nor a hard Brexit is likely. A simple comparison between current dividend yields and bond yields implies that global equities would need to fall by an outsized amount over the next decade for bonds to outperform stocks. As global growth stabilizes and then begins to recover over the coming months, bond yields will rebound from depressed levels. Investors should overweight stocks versus bonds for now, and look to upgrade EM and European equities later this year. Feature Global Growth Driving Bond Yields Chart 1Global Bond Yields: How Low Will They Go? Global bond yields rose sharply yesterday on word that U.S. and Chinese trade negotiators will meet in October. The announcement by China’s State Council of additional stimulus measures and better-than-expected data on the health of the U.S. service sector also drove the bond sell-off. The jump in yields follows a period of almost unrelenting declines. After hitting a high of 3.25% last October, the U.S. 10-year yield fell to 1.43% this Tuesday, just shy of its all-time low of 1.34% reached on July 5, 2016. The 30-year Treasury yield broke below 2% for the first time in history on August 15, falling to as low as 1.91% this week. It now stands at 2.07%. In Japan and across much of Europe, bond yields remain firmly in negative territory (Chart 1). The large movements in bond yields can be attributed to both the state of the global economy as well as to changes in how central banks are reacting to economic uncertainty. Just as stronger global growth pushed yields higher between mid-2016 and early-2018, the deceleration in growth since then has pulled yields lower. Chart 2 shows that there has been a close correlation between changes in the U.S. 10-year yield and the ISM manufacturing index. The release on Tuesday of a weaker-than-expected ISM manufacturing print for August was enough to push the 10-year yield down by seven basis points within a matter of minutes. Chart 2The Deceleration In Growth Has Pulled Yields Down The forward-looking new orders component of the ISM manufacturing index sunk to a seven-year low. The export orders component fell to the lowest level since 2009. Export volumes track ISM export orders quite closely (Chart 3). Not surprisingly, the ISM press release noted that trade remains “the most significant issue” for U.S. manufacturers. Chart 3Export Volumes Track The ISM Export Component The only redeeming feature in the report was that the customers’ inventories index dropped a notch from 45.7 in July to 44.9 in August. A reading below 50 for this subindex indicates that manufacturers believe that their customers are holding too few inventories, which is positive for future production. Global Manufacturing PMI Not Looking Much Brighter The Markit global manufacturing PMI remained below 50 for the fourth month in a row in August. While the global PMI did edge up slightly from July’s reading, this was largely due to a modest rebound in the Chinese PMI, which rose from 49.9 to 50.4. The improvement in the China Markit-Caixin PMI stands in contrast to the further deterioration observed in the “official” National Bureau of Statistics PMI. The former is more heavily geared towards private-sector exporting companies, and hence may have been influenced by the front-loading of exports ahead of the planned tariff increase on Chinese exports to the United States. Some Positive Signs Chart 4Global LEI Has Moved Off Its Lows In light of the disappointing manufacturing data, it is too early to call a bottom in the global industrial cycle. Nevertheless, there are some hopeful signs. Our Global Leading Economic Indicator (LEI) has moved off its lows (Chart 4). It usually leads the PMIs by a few months. Sterling will probably be the best performing currency in the G7 over the next five years. Despite ongoing weakness in the manufacturing sector, household spending has held up in most economies. In the U.S., the nonmanufacturing ISM index jumped to 56.4 in August from 53.7 in July. Real personal consumption is still on track to grow by 2.8% in Q3 according to the Atlanta Fed (Chart 5). The euro area services PMIs have also been resilient (Chart 6). In Germany, where the manufacturing PMI stood at 43.5 in August, the services PMI rose to 54.8.  Chart 5Inventories And Net Exports Have Subtracted From U.S. Growth In Q2 And Q3 Chart 6AThe Service Sector Has Softened Much Less Than Manufacturing (I) Chart 6BThe Service Sector Has Softened Much Less Than Manufacturing (II) Global financial conditions have eased significantly, mainly thanks to the steep decline in bond yields. The current level of financial conditions implies that global growth could rebound swiftly (Chart 7). The Chinese government is also likely to step up fiscal/credit stimulus over the coming months in an effort to shore up growth. In a boldly worded statement released on Wednesday, the Chinese State Council promised to further increase bond issuance to finance infrastructure projects, while cutting interest rates and reserve requirements. A stronger Chinese economy should benefit global growth (Chart 8). Chart 7Easier Financial Conditions Will Benefit Global Growth Chart 8Stronger Chinese Growth Should Benefit The Global Economy   The Trade War: Moving Towards A Détente? The announcement that the U.S. and China will resume trade negotiations on October 5th is a step in the right direction. As we noted last week, both parties have an incentive to de-escalate the trade conflict. President Trump wants to prop up the stock market and the economy in order to improve his re-election prospects. China also wants to bolster growth.1 Chart 9Would China Really Be Better Off Negotiating With A Democrat As President? As difficult as it has been for China to deal with Donald Trump, trying to secure a trade deal with him after he has been re-elected would be even more challenging. This would be especially the case if Trump thought that the Chinese had tried to sabotage his re-election bid. Even if Trump were to lose the election, it is not clear that China would end up with someone more palatable to deal with on trade matters. Does the Chinese government really want to negotiate over labor standards and human rights with President Warren, who betting markets now think has a better chance of becoming the Democratic nominee than Joe Biden (Chart 9)? While Republicans in Congress would be able to restrain a Democratic president on domestic issues, the president would still enjoy free rein over trade policy.   Brexit Uncertainty Adding To Investor Angst Two weeks before the Brexit vote on June 23, 2016, I wrote that “Just like my gut told me last August that Trump would do much better at the polls than almost anyone thought possible, I increasingly feel that come June 24th, the EU may find itself with one less member.”2 Chart 10Brexit Opposition Has Been Growing Soon after the shocking verdict, we argued that a hard Brexit would prove to be politically infeasible, meaning that the U.K. would either end up holding another referendum or be forced to negotiate some sort of customs union with the EU. Our view that a hard Brexit will not happen has not changed. Chart 10 shows that opposition to Brexit has only grown since that fateful day. Boris Johnson does not have enough votes in Westminster to force a hard Brexit. Another election would not change this outcome, given that it would almost certainly produce a hung parliament. In any case, it is not clear that Johnson actually wants a hard Brexit. The Times of London recently reported that the government’s own contingency plans for a hard Brexit, weirdly code-named “Operation Yellowhammer,” predicted a crippling logjam at British ports leading to shortages of fuel, food and medicine.3  Boris Johnson is all hat and no cattle. He will be forced to make a deal with the EU. Buy the pound on any dips. Sterling will probably be the best performing currency in the G7 over the next five years. Central Banks: Cut First, Ask Questions Later Chart 11Inflation Expectations Are Low Across The Globe Despite a few glimmers of good news, central banks are in no mood to take any chances. St. Louis Fed President James Bullard said it bluntly last week: “Our job is to get the yield curve uninverted.”4 If history is any guide, global growth will stabilize and begin to recover over the coming months. Inflation expectations are below target in most economies (Chart 11). Central banks know full well that if the current slowdown morphs into a full-blown recession, they will be out of monetary ammunition very quickly. In such a setting, it does not make sense to hold your punches. Much better to generate as much inflation as possible, and as soon as possible, so that real rates can be brought deeper into negative territory if economic circumstances later warrant it. What If The Medicine Works? The risk of easing monetary policy too much is that economies will eventually overheat, producing more inflation than is desirable. It is easy to forget that the aggregate unemployment rate in the G7 is now below its 2007 lows (Chart 12). True, inflation has yet to take off, but this may simply be because inflation is a lagging indicator (Chart 13). Chart 12Unemployment Rates Keep Trending Lower Chart 13Inflation Is A Lagging Indicator For all the talk about how the Phillips curve is dead, the empirical evidence suggests it is very much alive and well (Chart 14). Ironically, this means that lower interest rates today could set the stage for much higher rates in the future if hyperstimulative monetary policies ultimately generate a bout of inflation.  Chart 14The Phillips Curve Is Alive And Well Chart 15The Dollar Is A Countercyclical Currency   Investment Conclusions Like most economic forecasters, central banks tend to extrapolate recent trends too far into the future. Global growth has been weakening since early 2018 so it seems reasonable to assume that this trend will persist into next year. However, as we have documented, global industrial cycles tend to last about three years – 18 months of rising growth followed by 18 months of falling growth.5 If history is any guide, global growth will stabilize and begin to recover over the coming months. Should that occur, we will enter an environment where the lagged effects of easier monetary policy are hitting the economy just when the manufacturing cycle is taking a turn for the better. Stocks are likely to fare well in such a setting, while long-term bond yields will move higher. As a countercyclical currency, the dollar will also start to weaken anew (Chart 15). Granted, an intensification of the trade war or some other major adverse shock would upset this rosy forecast. Nevertheless, current market pricing offers a fairly large cushion against downside risks. Thanks to the drop in bond yields, the equity risk premium is quite high globally (Chart 16). Even if one were to assume that nominal dividend payments remain unchanged for the next ten years, the S&P 500 would still need to fall by more than 20% in real terms over the next decade for bonds to outperform stocks (Chart 17). Euro area stocks would need to drop by more than 42%. U.K. stocks would need to plummet by at least 60%! Chart 16AEquity Risk Premia Remain Quite High (I) Chart 16BEquity Risk Premia Remain Quite High (II) Chart 17AStocks Need To Fall By A Considerable Amount For Bonds To Outperform Over A 10-Year Horizon (I) Chart 17BStocks Need To Fall By A Considerable Amount For Bonds To Outperform Over A 10-Year Horizon (II) Investors should remain overweight stocks versus bonds over the next 12 months. We intend to upgrade EM and European equities once we see a bit more evidence that global growth has troughed.   Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “A Psychological Recession?” dated August 30, 2019. 2Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “Worry About Brexit, Not Payrolls,” dated June 10, 2016. 3Rosamund Urwin and Caroline Wheeler, “Operation Chaos: Whitehall’s Secret No-Deal Brexit Preparations Leaked,” The Times, August 18, 2019. 4“Fed’s Bullard Sees ‘Robust Debate’ Over Half-Point Cut,” Bloomberg, August 23, 2019. 5Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “Three Cycles,” dated July 26, 2019. Strategy & Market Trends MacroQuant Model And Current Subjective Scores Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades