Asset Allocation

Highlights Corporate Bonds: Corporate bond spreads have been slow to price-in the escalation of the U.S./China trade dispute. Nimble investors should take steps to mitigate their near-term (0-3 month) exposure to credit spreads, but remain overweight corporate bonds (both investment grade and high-yield) on a 6-12 month investment horizon. Duration: With 50 bps of rate cuts already priced into the market for the next 12 months, there is very little money to be made from extending duration and potentially a lot of money to be made by keeping duration low. This is especially true given that the Fed has so far done nothing to suggest that rate cuts are on the table. TIPS: Long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates look cheap on our model, and the core PCE deflator’s sharp drop probably overstates the deflationary pressures in the economy. Maintain an overweight allocation to TIPS versus nominal Treasuries in U.S. bond portfolios. Feature Concerns that the ongoing U.S./China trade war will exacerbate the decline in global growth flared again last week, and our geopolitical strategists see high odds of further near-term escalation.1 For starters, China has not yet retaliated to the U.S. Commerce Department’s blacklisting of Huawei and a handful of other Chinese tech firms. Meanwhile, the U.S. stands ready to extend tariffs across the full slate of imported Chinese goods. To cap it all off, there are currently no firm plans for the resumption of talks between the countries’ respective negotiating teams, and no assurance that Presidents Donald Trump and Xi Jinping will speak to each other at the G20 Summit in Japan on June 28-29. Credit Spreads Are Too Complacent Chart 1Corporate Bonds At Risk Corporate Bonds At Risk Corporate Bonds At Risk While Treasury yields responded to the turmoil by dropping for the second consecutive week, the spillover to corporate bond markets has been less severe. Chart 1 on page 1 shows that corporate bond excess returns have de-coupled from the CRB Raw Industrials index during the past 12 months. The CRB Raw Industrials index tracks a broad basket of commodity prices, making it an excellent real-time indicator of the market’s assessment of global growth. Like Treasury yields, the CRB index has fallen sharply during the past two weeks. The wide gulf between corporate bond and commodity returns suggests that we will soon see either a sell-off in the corporate bond market or a positive re-rating of global growth that sends the CRB index higher. Recent history provides examples of both cases (Chart 2). The CRB index rose to meet corporate bond returns in 2012, but dragged corporate bond returns lower in 2014. Given the long list of potential negative trade catalysts, some near-term downside for corporate bond excess returns appears more likely. But it’s not just political headlines that make us cautious about the near-term outlook for credit spreads. The uncertainty created by the U.S./China trade dispute is now finding its way into the economic survey data. Flash Manufacturing PMIs for the U.S., Eurozone and Japan all fell in May, with respondents quick to blame the decline on global trade tensions. Much like the CRB index, PMI readings are sending a starkly different message than credit spreads. Either trade tensions will ease during the next couple of months, sending PMIs higher, or corporate bond spreads will widen. A model of U.S. capacity utilization based on lagged junk spreads predicts that capacity utilization will rise from its current 78% to 80% during the next six months (Chart 3). However, both the Markit and ISM Manufacturing PMIs suggest a further decline is more likely. Once again, either trade tensions will ease during the next couple of months, sending the PMIs higher, or corporate bond spreads will widen. Chart 2Position For Reconvergence Position For Reconvergence Position For Reconvergence Chart 3Capacity Utilization & Junk Spreads Capacity Utilization & Junk Spreads Capacity Utilization & Junk Spreads   We recommend that investors take measures to limit their near-term (~3-month) exposure to corporate spread risk. Stay Positive On A Cyclical (6-12 Month) Horizon Chart 4Expect More Stimulus From China Expect More Stimulus From China Expect More Stimulus From China While near-term caution is warranted, we would still position for positive corporate bond excess returns (both investment grade & high-yield) on a 6-12 month investment horizon. Ultimately, the U.S. and China will navigate toward some sort of truce, and the negative impact from tariffs is unlikely to derail the U.S. economic recovery.2 What’s more, Chinese policymakers will accelerate their stimulus efforts to mitigate the negative impact of higher tariffs. Our China Investment Strategy service tracks a composite of six money and credit growth indicators that lead Chinese economic activity. This leading indicator has already bottomed, and our strategists anticipate a return to stimulus levels reminiscent of mid-2016 (Chart 4).3 As long as a U.S. recession is avoided, corporate bond spreads will eventually settle near levels seen in the late stages of previous economic cycles (Chart 5A & Chart 5B).4 Chart 5AInvestment Grade Spread Targets Investment Grade Spread Targets Investment Grade Spread Targets Chart 5BHigh-Yield Spread Targets High-Yield Spread Targets High-Yield Spread Targets   Bottom Line: Corporate bond spreads have been slow to price-in the escalation of the U.S./China trade dispute. Nimble investors should take steps to mitigate their near-term (0-3 month) exposure to credit spreads, but remain overweight corporate bonds (both investment grade and high-yield) on a 6-12 month investment horizon. Risk & Reward In The Treasury Market Unlike credit spreads, Treasury yields have responded aggressively to the negative news flow. The 10-year Treasury yield currently sits at 2.32%, 7 bps lower than at this time last week. Meanwhile, the overnight index swap curve is priced for two full 25 basis point rate cuts over the next 12 months. Interestingly, while market prices imply 50 bps of rate cuts during the next year, the New York Fed’s Survey of Market Participants shows that, as of the May FOMC meeting, investors didn’t actually expect rate cuts any time soon. The shaded region in Chart 6 shows the interquartile range of the surveyed investors’ fed funds rate forecasts, while the dashed black line shows the median forecast. The survey responses convey widespread consensus that the fed funds rate will remain flat until the end of the year – the 25th percentile, median and 75th percentile are all equal until the end of 2019. Then, heading into 2020, the 75th percentile of the distribution starts to forecast rate hikes. The 25th percentile doesn’t move in the direction of rate cuts until Q4 2020, and the median forecaster sees the fed funds rate staying put at least through the second half of 2021. Chart 6Market And Survey Expectations Differ Market And Survey Expectations Differ Market And Survey Expectations Differ Why would market prices imply a much lower path for the fed funds rate than actual investor survey responses? The most likely reason relates to assessments about the balance of risks. When responding to surveys, investors will usually provide their modal (or most likely) outcome. However, investor bets in financial markets will reflect a dollar-weighted average of different possible scenarios. It’s possible that while investors think a flat fed funds rate is the most likely outcome, they also view rate cuts as a higher probability tail risk than rate hikes. They therefore invest some of their money to hedge that risk, even if it does not reflect their base case view. Chart 7 The intuition that rate cuts remain a “tail risk” is confirmed by another question from the survey. This question asks investors to consider a time period between now and the end of the year, and then attach a probability to the Fed’s next move i.e. whether it will be hike, a cut, or whether there will be no change in the funds rate until the end of 2019 (Chart 7). As of the April/May survey, market participants thought the odds of a hike were 23%, odds of a cut were 17% and the odds of flat rates until the end of the year were 59%. Before the Fed meeting in March, investors saw 50% chance of a hike, 13% chance of a cut, and 37% chance of no change. The overall message is that investors continue to view a 2019 rate cut as a tail risk, but one that’s perceived probability is rising. In any event, for our purposes it doesn’t really matter how investors respond to surveys. According to our Golden Rule of Bond Investing, if the actual change in the fed funds rate over the next 12 months exceeds what is currently priced into the OIS curve for that period, then below-benchmark portfolio duration positions will pay off.5 In fact, the Golden Rule even gives us a framework for translating different rate hike/cut scenarios into expected 12-month Treasury returns (Table 1). Table 1The Golden Rule Of Bond Investing Hedge Near-Term Credit Exposure Hedge Near-Term Credit Exposure Based on current prices, if the fed funds rate holds steady for the next 12 months – as the median market participant expects – we calculate that the Bloomberg Barclays Treasury Master Index will lose between 1.98% and 2.41% relative to cash. Even in the scenario where the Fed delivers two rate cuts during the next 12 months, we would still expect Treasury index returns to lag cash by 12-13 bps. Negative excess returns in the “two rate cut” scenario are due to the negative carry in the Treasury index. Capital gains/losses would be close to zero in that scenario, since the change in the fed funds rate is exactly equal to the market’s expectations. Investors continue to view a 2019 rate cut as a tail risk, but one that’s perceived probability is rising. What’s evident from those figures is that there is currently very little money to be made betting on rate cuts, and quite a bit to be made betting on rate hikes. The risk/reward balance in the Treasury market clearly favors keeping portfolio duration low. But What Will The Fed Actually Do? The minutes from the last FOMC meeting show broad consensus around the Fed’s current “on hold” policy stance, though it’s notable that “a few” participants thought rate hikes would be appropriate if the economy evolved in line with their expectations. The minutes contain no mention of a possible rate cut. Our sense is that it would require a further sharp tightening of financial conditions or significantly worse economic data before the Fed seriously considers cutting rates. Our Fed Monitor – an aggregate indicator that measures economic growth, inflation and financial conditions – is currently very close to the zero line, a level consistent with the Fed’s “on hold” stance (Chart 8). The ISM Manufacturing PMI is also firmly above the 50 boom/bust line. Historically, Fed rate cuts are usually preceded by a negative reading from our Fed Monitor and a sub-50 PMI. We would be looking for those two signals before expecting the Fed to cut rates. Chart 8Sub-50 ISM Required Before The Fed Cuts Rates Sub-50 ISM Required Before The Fed Cuts Rates Sub-50 ISM Required Before The Fed Cuts Rates Bottom Line: With 50 bps of rate cuts already priced into the market for the next 12 months, there is very little money to be made from extending duration and potentially a lot of money to be made by keeping duration low. This is especially true given that the Fed has so far done nothing to suggest that rate cuts are on the table. Inflation & TIPS Chart 9Adaptive Expectations Model Adaptive Expectations Model Adaptive Expectations Model It’s not just nominal Treasury yields that dropped during the past two weeks. Long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates – the spread between nominal Treasury yields and TIPS yields – also fell precipitously. The 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate is currently 1.76% and the 5-year/5-year forward breakeven is only 1.9%. These figures suggest that the market does not trust the Fed to meet its inflation target in the long-run. Our main valuation tool for the 10-year TIPS breakeven rate is our Adaptive Expectations Model.6 It derives a fair value for the 10-year breakeven based on: The 10-year rate of change in the core consumer price index The 12-month rate of change in the headline consumer price index The New York Fed’s Underlying Inflation Gauge At present, the 10-year TIPS breakeven rate is 20 bps below the model’s fair value (Chart 9). It shouldn’t be too surprising that TIPS look cheap relative to nominals. Recent inflation data have been weak and the Fed has written off the weakness as “transitory”, leading to doubts about whether it will keep rates low enough to meet its target. For our part, we think investors should take advantage of low breakevens and overweight TIPS versus nominal Treasuries in U.S. bond portfolios. In fact, the Fed’s characterization of low inflation as “transitory” seems correct. Chart 10 shows both the core and trimmed mean PCE deflators. The dramatic fall in the core measure, which strips out food and energy prices from the headline number, is what has caught the market’s attention. But it’s important to note that trimmed mean PCE inflation has not confirmed the decline. In fact, it remains in a multi-year uptrend. Recent inflation data have been weak, but the Fed has written off the weakness as “transitory”. Chart 10Low Inflation Looks "Transitory" Low Inflation Looks "Transitory" Low Inflation Looks "Transitory" This is the third time during this cycle that core PCE inflation has diverged negatively from the trimmed mean. Core eventually rebounded and re-converged with the trimmed mean in both of the prior two episodes. The Fed is banking on the third time playing out the same way, and we think it would be unwise to bet against them. Recently released research from the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas shows that trimmed mean PCE inflation provides a less-biased real-time estimate of the headline figure than the traditional core measure. The latter tends to run too low. The trimmed mean is also more closely related to labor market slack.7 Bottom Line: Long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates look cheap on our model, and the core PCE deflator’s sharp drop probably overstates the deflationary pressures in the economy. Maintain an overweight allocation to TIPS versus nominal Treasuries in U.S. bond portfolios. Ryan Swift U.S. Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com 1      Please see Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, “Is Trump Ready For The New Long March?” dated May 24, 2019, available at gps.bcaresearch.com 2      The potential economic impact from tariffs is discussed in Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “Tarrified,” dated May 16, 2019, available at gis.bcaresearch.com 3      Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “Simple Arithmetic,” dated May 15, 2019, available at cis.bcaresearch.com 4      For details on how we determine the spread targets shown in Charts 5A & 5B, please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Paid To Wait”, dated February 26, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 5      Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, “The Golden Rule Of Bond Investing”, dated July 24, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 6      For details on the model’s construction please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Adaptive Expectations In The TIPS Market,” dated November 20, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 7      https://www.dallasfed.org/-/media/Documents/research/papers/2019/wp1903… Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

Highlights Falling Yields: There have been three main drivers of the latest decline in global bond yields: slower global growth, softer inflation expectations and increased safe-haven demand for bonds given the intensifying U.S.-China trade conflict. The first two are more than fully discounted in current yield levels, but the latter is likely to persist in the near-term with no resolution of the trade conflict in sight. Model Portfolio Adjustments: We are tactically reducing the sizes of the overall strategic tilts in our model bond portfolio – below-benchmark duration exposure and overweight global corporates vs. governments. There is a growing risk of deeper selloffs in global equity and credit markets if the June G-20 meeting produces no positive signals on ending the trade dispute. We do not yet see a case to position more defensively on a medium-term horizon, however, given the pickup in “early” global leading economic indicators. Feature Chart of the WeekYields Discount A Lot Of Bad News Yields Discount A Lot Of Bad News Yields Discount A Lot Of Bad News The investment backdrop at the moment – slowing global growth momentum, softening inflation expectations, an increasingly prolonged U.S.-China trade dispute with no immediate sign of resolution, and a strengthening U.S. dollar– is fairly bond bullish. Unsurprisingly, government bond yields in the developed markets have fallen to levels more consistent with a less certain macro environment. At one point last week, the 10-year U.S. Treasury yield dipped as low as 2.30%, while the 10-year German Bund fell deeper into negative territory at -0.13%. There are now expectations of easier monetary policy discounted in yield curves of several countries, most notably the U.S. where markets are priced for 50bps of Fed rate cuts over the next year – despite no indication from the Fed that cuts are coming anytime soon. From a valuation perspective, bond yields are starting to look a bit stretched to the downside (Chart of the Week). The term premium component of yields has fallen to near post-crisis lows in the majority of countries, while the U.S. dollar has surged despite lower U.S. interest rate expectations – both indications of investors driving up the value of traditional safe-havens at a time of uncertainty. Looking purely at the growth side of the equation, the downward momentum in bond yields should start to fade with the global leading economic indicator now in the process of bottoming out. That does not mean, however, that yields could not fall further in the near-term if the trade headlines get worse and risk assets sell off more meaningfully – an outcome that grows increasingly likely as the two sides in the trade war seem to be digging in for a longer battle. The State Of The World Since The “TTT” Our colleagues at BCA Geopolitical Strategy now believe that there is only a 40% chance of a U.S.-China trade deal by the end of June. This could trigger a deeper selloff in global equity and credit markets if investors begin to price in a larger and more prolonged hit to economic growth and corporate profits from the U.S. tariffs. This would trigger even greater safe-haven flows into government bonds, pushing yields lower through a more negative term premium. The much lower level of U.S. Treasury yields has helped limit the hit to risk asset prices from the elevated uncertainty over global trade. Since the “Trump Tariff Tweet” (TTT) of May 5, when the new round of tariffs on U.S. imports from China was announced which sparked the new leg of the trade war, the fall in benchmark 10-year government bond yields across the developed world can be fully explained by the fall in the term premium (Table 1). For example, the 10-year U.S. Treasury yield has fallen -14bps since the TTT, while our estimate of the term premium on the 10-year Treasury as decreased by -20bps. Over the same time period, 10-year U.S. inflation expectations have also fallen -11bps, but the market has only priced in an additional -5bps of Fed rate cuts over the next year according to our Fed Discounter. Table 1Decomposing 10-Year Government Bond Yield Changes Since The "Trump Tariff Tweet" The Message From Low Bond Yields The Message From Low Bond Yields The big difference between last December and today is the much lower level of U.S. Treasury yields. Lower yields have helped mute the hit to risk asset prices from the elevated uncertainty over global trade since the TTT (Chart 2). The Fed’s more dovish pivot in the early months of 2019 has helped push Treasury yields lower as investors have moved from pricing in rate hikes to discounting rate cuts. Even traditional “risk-off” measures like the VIX, U.S. TED spreads, the price of gold and the Japanese yen have only risen modestly since the TTT compared to the big moves seen back in December when investors feared that the Fed would tighten right into a U.S. recession (Chart 3). Chart 2Risk Assets Remain Relatively Calm Risk Assets Remain Relatively Calm Risk Assets Remain Relatively Calm Chart 3Falling Bond Yields Helping Keep Vol Subdued Falling Bond Yields Helping Keep Vol Subdued Falling Bond Yields Helping Keep Vol Subdued Easier monetary policy, if delivered, can help underwrite a rebound in equity and credit markets. When looking across the array of financial market returns since the TTT (Table 2), the only developed economies that have seen equities appreciate are Australia and New Zealand – countries where rate cuts are being signaled by policymakers (or already delivered, in the case of New Zealand). Table 2Asset Returns By Country Since The "Trump Tariff Tweet" The Message From Low Bond Yields The Message From Low Bond Yields In the case of the U.S., however, numerous Fed officials have stated recently that no changes to U.S. monetary policy are likely without decisive evidence that the new round of China tariffs and trade uncertainty was having a major negative impact on U.S. growth. On that front, forward-looking measures of U.S. economic activity, like the Conference Board leading economic indicator or our models for U.S. employment and capital spending, are not pointing to an imminent sharp slowing of U.S. growth (Chart 4). At the same time, leading indicators like our global LEI diffusion index and the China credit impulse are both signaling that global growth momentum may soon start surprising to the upside (Chart 5). Chart 4No U.S. Recession Signal Yet From These Indicators No U.S. Recession Signal Yet From These Indicators No U.S. Recession Signal Yet From These Indicators Chart 5Some Reasons For Optimism On Global Growth Some Reasons For Optimism On Global Growth Some Reasons For Optimism On Global Growth If the Fed does not see a case to deliver the rate cuts that are now discounted, or even to just signal to the markets that easier policy is coming soon, then there is a greater chance of a deeper pullback in U.S. equity and credit markets from any new negative news on trade. This suggests that the risk-aversion bid for U.S. Treasuries will result in an even more deeply negative U.S. term premium and lower bond yields. Easier monetary policy, if delivered, can help underwrite a rebound in equity and credit markets. Already, we are seeing such increasingly negative correlations between returns on equities and government bonds across the major developed markets. In Charts 6 & 7, we show the rolling 52-week correlation between local government bond and equity returns for the U.S., euro area, Japan, U.K., Canada and Australia. For each country, we also plot that correlation versus our estimate of the term premium on 10-year government bond yields. Chart 6Safe Haven Demand For Bonds ... Safe Haven Demand For Bonds... Safe Haven Demand For Bonds... Chart 7... Helping Drive Down Term Premia ...Helping Drive Down Term Premia ...Helping Drive Down Term Premia It is clear that there is a significant “risk-aversion bid” for government bonds right now, given the increasingly negative stock/bond correlations and falling term premia. One possible interpretation is that falling bond yields are being driven more by fears of a risk-off selloff in global equity and credit markets rather than rational pricing of future monetary policy or inflation expectations because of slowing growth. Interestingly, Australia – where the central bank has been signaling that rate cuts are imminent – is the only exception in this list of countries where the stock/bond correlation is not negative. There, the deeply negative term premium is more about weakening growth and low inflation expectations, which is forcing a dovish response from the Reserve Bank of Australia, rather than a risk aversion bid for safe assets from investors. It is clear that there is a significant “risk-aversion bid” for government bonds right now, given the increasingly negative stock/bond correlations and falling term premia. Net-net, while bond yields discount a lot of bad news and now look too low compared to tentative signs of improving global growth, it is hard to build a case for an imminent rebound in global bond yields without signs that U.S. and China are getting closer to a trade deal. Bottom Line: There have been three main drivers of the latest decline in global bond yields: slower global growth, softer inflation expectations and increased safe-haven demand for bonds given the intensifying U.S.-China trade conflict. The first two are more than fully discounted in current yield levels, but the latter is likely to persist in the near-term with no resolution of the trade conflict in sight. Tactical Risk-Reduction Adjustments To Our Model Bond Portfolio Chart 8Easier Monetary Policy Required In Europe & Australia Easier Monetary Policy Required In Europe & Australia Easier Monetary Policy Required In Europe & Australia Given the growing potential for a larger selloff in global risk assets if no U.S.-China trade deal comes out of next month’s G-20 meeting (where Presidents Trump and Xi will both be in attendance), we think it is prudent to make some tactical adjustments to the recommended weightings within our model bond portfolio. These moves will provide a partial hedge against any near-term widening of global credit spreads or further reduction in government bond yields in the event of a complete breakdown of the trade talks. Specifically, we are making the following changes: Duration Exposure: We are increasing the overall duration of the model bond portfolio by 0.5 years, which still leaves a duration position that is 0.5 years below the custom benchmark index of the portfolio. We are doing this by increasing allocations to the longer maturity buckets in the U.S., Japan and France. Credit Exposure: We are cutting the sizes of our recommended overweight tilts for U.S. corporates in half for both investment grade and high-yield. This is a combined reduction of nearly 4% of the portfolio that will be used to fund the increase in duration on the government bond side. We are making no other changes to our government bond country allocations, staying overweight in core Europe (Germany plus France), Japan and Australia where our Central Bank Monitors are calling for a need for easier monetary policy (Chart 8). We are also staying overweight U.K. Gilts, where yields continue to trade more off Brexit uncertainty than domestic economic growth or inflation pressures. We are not making any changes to the model bond portfolio exposure to euro area corporate debt or Italian governments, riskier spread products where we are already underweight. We are, however, maintaining our weightings for U.S. dollar denominated EM sovereign and corporate debt at neutral. EM debt has performed relatively well versus developed market equivalents since the May 5 “Trump Tariff Tweet” (TTT). We understand that not downgrading EM seems counterintuitive when we are trying to position more defensively in the model portfolio. We prefer to reduce exposure to U.S. credit, however, given that EM debt has performed relatively well versus developed market equivalents since the May 5 TTT (Table 3), and with EM spreads now at more attractive levels relative to U.S. investment grade (Chart 9). In addition, EM credit tends to perform better during periods when Chinese credit growth is accelerating, as is currently the case (bottom panel) – and which may continue if China’s policymakers eventually turn to more domestic stimulus measures to combat the effects of U.S. tariffs, as seems likely. Table 3Credit Market Performance Since The "Trump Tariff Tweet" The Message From Low Bond Yields The Message From Low Bond Yields Chart 9EM Credit Offers Value Versus U.S. Corporates EM Credit Offers Value Versus U.S. Corporates EM Credit Offers Value Versus U.S. Corporates Importantly, these are all only tactical changes to our model portfolio to partially protect against the risk of U.S. credit spread widening in the event of more negative news on the U.S.-China trade front. We still have not changed our strategic (6-12 month) views on global bond yields (higher) and global corporates (outperforming government bonds) given the tentative signs of improving global growth from the leading indicators. Bottom Line: We are tactically reducing the sizes of the overall strategic tilts in our model bond portfolio – below-benchmark duration exposure and overweight global corporates vs. governments. There is a growing risk of deeper selloffs in global equity and credit markets if the June G20 meeting produces no positive signals on ending the trade dispute. We do not yet see a case to position more defensively on a medium-term horizon, however, given the pickup in “early” global leading economic indicators.   Robert Robis, CFA, Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index The Message From Low Bond Yields The Message From Low Bond Yields Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Highlights In the second half of 2019, economic growth will stop accelerating… …but an underpinning of equity valuations will limit sell-off magnitudes to around 10 percent or so, rather than deeper sustained plunges. The equity market will end up in a sideways channel… …but defensives, such as healthcare, will outperform economically-sensitive sectors. Overweight Euro Stoxx 50 versus Shanghai Composite. Overweight the JPY. Bitcoin is due another technical correction. Feature The 2019 playbook for economies and markets is playing out exactly as we predicted. In our first report of this year we wrote that 2019 would be the economic and investment opposite of 2018. Opposite to 2018 because the first half of 2019 would see inflation fade, and growth accelerate. And opposite to 2018 because the second half of 2019 would see inflation stop fading, and growth stop accelerating (Chart of the Week). Chart of the WeekIn The First Half Of 2019, Inflation Faded, Growth Accelerated In The First Half Of 2019, Inflation Faded, Growth Accelerated In The First Half Of 2019, Inflation Faded, Growth Accelerated Inflation Faded, Growth Accelerated Back in early January, we wrote: “Inflation is set to disappoint as the recent near-halving of the crude oil price feeds into both headline and core consumer price indexes. With central banks now promising even greater ‘dependence on the incoming data’, this unfolding dynamic will force them to temper any hawkish intentions and rhetoric, limiting the extent of upside in bond yields.” This was a controversial view at the time. Yet within a month of writing, the Federal Reserve had stopped hiking interest rates, while the ECB and other major central banks had also pivoted to more dovish. We also wrote: “Germany should benefit from another support to growth. Last year, the auto sector – a major engine of the German economy – spluttered as it absorbed the new WLTP emissions testing standard. Through the middle of 2018 German motor vehicle exports suffered a €20 billion hit which shaved 0.6 percent from Germany’s €3.4 trillion economy (Chart I-2). Now, if auto exports stabilize, this drag will disappear. And if auto exports recover to the pre-WLTP level after this one-off and temporary shock, Germany will receive a 0.6% mirror-image boost to growth.” 1 2019 is the economic and investment opposite of 2018. We now know that the German economy accelerated to a close-to-trend 1.7% clip in the second quarter, up from a -0.8 percent rate of contraction in the third quarter of 2018 (Chart I-3). This is not just due to relief in the auto sector. Growth in other European economies has also rebounded, so the acceleration in growth has a broader foundation, and is now beyond doubt. Given the openness of the European economy, it is also inconceivable that this growth pick-up does not reflect a more generalized acceleration in global activity.2 Chart I-2The WTLP Drag On German Auto Exports Is Over The WTLP Drag On German Auto Exports Is Over The WTLP Drag On German Auto Exports Is Over Chart I-3German GDP Growth Accelerated To A 1.7 Percent Clip German GDP Growth Accelerated To A 1.7 Percent Clip German GDP Growth Accelerated To A 1.7 Percent Clip To repeat, the 2019 playbook for economies and financial markets is playing out exactly as expected; in the first half of the year, inflation faded while growth accelerated. The question is: what happens next? Growth Will Struggle To Accelerate Further Clients ask us an important theoretical question: what is the most important driver for the economy and financial markets; is it the change in the bond yield (or interest rate) or is it the level of the bond yield? The answer is that both the change and the level of the bond yield are important in their different ways. The German economy accelerated to a close-to-trend 1.7% clip in the second quarter. When it comes to accelerations and decelerations in credit creation, it is the change in the bond yield that is the most important. Remember, GDP is a flow statistic, which means that GDP growth is a change of flow statistic receiving contributions from the change of flow of credit. As changes in the flow of credit result from the change in the bond yield – all else being equal – it is the change in the bond yield that drives GDP growth. If all of this sounds somewhat confusing, then Chart I-4 should make the point crystal clear. Chart I-4The Change In The Bond Yield Drives GDP Growth The Change In The Bond Yield Drives GDP Growth The Change In The Bond Yield Drives GDP Growth Since last November, high-quality 10-year bond yields have plunged 70 bps, and this collapse in yields helped to provide a strong impulse to growth in the first half of 2019. To receive the same impulse again in the second half, bond yields would have to plunge another 70 bps. But with the German 10-year bund yield already at -0.1 percent, the same rate of decline seems highly unlikely, if not mathematically impossible. The upshot is that the growth impulse from declining bond yields can only fade in the second half of this year.   However, when it comes to valuations and solvencies in the financial markets, it is the level of the bond yield that is the most important. Essentially, at a tipping point, higher bond yields can suddenly and viciously undermine the valuation support of equities, triggering a plunge in the stock market and other risk-assets which threatens a disinflationary impulse on the economy. The growth impulse from declining bond yields can only fade in the second half of this year. How can we sense this tipping point? It broadly equates to when the sum of the 10-year yields on the T-bond, German bund, and JGB is at 4 percent, the ‘rule of 4’ (Chart I-5). Conversely, when the sum is below 3 percent, the ‘rule of 3’, – as it is now – the seemingly rich valuation of equities versus bonds is broadly justified (Chart I-6).3 Chart I-5When The Sum Of 10-Year Yields On The T-Bond, Bund, And JGB Equals 4 Percent, The Global 10-Year Yield Equals 2 Percent When The Sum Of 10-Year Yields On The T-Bond, Bund, And JGB Equals 4 Percent, The Global 10-Year Yield Equals 2 Percent When The Sum Of 10-Year Yields On The T-Bond, Bund, And JGB Equals 4 Percent, The Global 10-Year Yield Equals 2 Percent Chart I-6The Rule Of 4, And The Rule Of 3 The Rule Of 4, And The Rule Of 3 The Rule Of 4, And The Rule Of 3 The upshot is that in the second half of 2019, economic growth will stop accelerating, but the support to equity valuations will limit sell-off magnitudes to around 10 percent or so, rather than deeper sustained plunges (Chart I-7). In aggregate, the equity market will end up in a sideways channel, but defensives, such as healthcare, will outperform economically-sensitive sectors. Chart I-7The Low Expected Return On Equities Is Justified When Bond Yields Are Ultra-Low The Low Expected Return On Equities Is Justified When Bond Yields Are Ultra-Low The Low Expected Return On Equities Is Justified When Bond Yields Are Ultra-Low How Did We Do? In our first report of the year, we also made (or reiterated) five investment recommendations. Today, we will review whether they worked or not, and what to do with them now. 1. Own a 25:75 combination of European banks relative to market, plus U.S. T-bonds. Chart I-8Banks Didn’t Outperform, But Bonds Did! Banks Didn't Outperform, But Bonds Did! Banks Didn't Outperform, But Bonds Did! Did it work? Yes. Although European banks underperformed the market, this was more than offset by the huge rally in T-bonds that resulted from the Fed going on hold (Chart I-8). Hence, the position is up 1 percent this year and 3.5 percent since its inception last November with the added advantage of negligible volatility. What to do now. Take profits. 2. Overweight EM versus DM. Did it work? No. EM has underperformed DM this year, though the position is broadly flat since its inception in November. What to do now. Close this position and switch into overweight Euro Stoxx 50 versus Shanghai Composite. 3. Overweight European versus U.S. equities. Did it work? The position is flat this year, though modestly up since its inception in November. What to do now. Maintain the position for a little while longer, as an expected short-term underperformance of the tech sector should benefit the tech-lite European equity market.  4. Overweight Italian assets versus European assets. Did it work? The position is broadly flat this year for both Italian equities and bonds relative to their European benchmarks. What to do now. Close any cyclical exposure to Italy, but maintain a structural exposure to Italian BTPs either in absolute or relative terms. 5. Overweight the JPY. Chart I-9In Japan And Europe, The Expected Interest Rate Cannot Go Much Lower In Japan And Europe, The Expected Interest Rate Cannot Go Much Lower In Japan And Europe, The Expected Interest Rate Cannot Go Much Lower Did it work? Yes. The broad trade-weighted JPY has outperformed this year, and especially so the JPY/EUR cross.   What to do now. Maintain the position. When the expected interest rate is at its lower bound, then it is difficult for the central bank to hurt its currency. In technical terms, the currency possesses a highly attractive payoff profile called positive skew (Chart I-9). Of course, there are plenty of currencies whose interest rates are near the technical lower bound, but we like the JPY because it has less political risk than the others. So for the moment, remain overweight the JPY.     Fractal Trading System*  This week we note that after a 100 percent rally in a near straight line, bitcoin’s 65-day fractal dimension is at the lower bound that has reliably signaled previous technical corrections. On that basis, this week’s recommended trade is short bitcoin, setting the profit target and symmetrical stop-loss at 27 percent. Also, we are very pleased to report that short tech versus healthcare quickly achieved its 6.5 percent profit target and is now closed. This leaves four open positions. For any investment, excessive trend following and groupthink can reach a natural point of instability, at which point the established trend is highly likely to break down with or without an external catalyst. An early warning sign is the investment’s fractal dimension approaching its natural lower bound. Encouragingly, this trigger has consistently identified countertrend moves of various magnitudes across all asset classes. Chart I-10 Bitcoin Bitcoin The post-June 9, 2016 fractal trading model rules are: When the fractal dimension approaches the lower limit after an investment has been in an established trend it is a potential trigger for a liquidity-triggered trend reversal. Therefore, open a countertrend position. The profit target is a one-third reversal of the preceding 13-week move. Apply a symmetrical stop-loss. Close the position at the profit target or stop-loss. Otherwise close the position after 13 weeks. Use the position size multiple to control risk. The position size will be smaller for more risky positions. * For more details please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report “Fractals, Liquidity & A Trading Model,” dated December 11, 2014, available at eis.bcaresearch.com. Dhaval Joshi, Chief European Investment Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 German auto net exports and GDP are quoted at annualized rates. The Worldwide Harmonized Light Vehicle test Procedure (WLTP) is a new standard for auto emissions that took effect on September 1 2018. 2 Quarter-on-quarter real GDP growth at annualized rates. 3 Please see the European Investment Strategy Weekly Report “The Rule of 4 Becomes the Rule of 3” dated March 21, 2019 available at eis.bcaresearch.com. Fractal Trading System Recommendations Asset Allocation Equity Regional and Country Allocation Equity Sector Allocation Bond and Interest Rate Allocation Currency and Other Allocation Closed Fractal Trades Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields   Interest Rate Chart II-5Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations    

HighlightsU.S. inflation is on a structural uptrend. Monetary and fiscal policy, populism, and demographics will tend to push inflation higher over the coming decade.How can investors protect portfolios against inflation risk? We look at periods of rising inflation to determine which assets were the best inflation hedge.We find that the level of inflation is very important in determining which assets work best.When inflation is rising and high, or very high, the best inflation hedges at the asset class level are commodities and U.S. TIPS.When inflation is very high, gold is the best commodity to hold and defensive sectors will minimize losses in an equity portfolio.However, hedges have a cost. Allocating a large percentage of a portfolio to inflation hedges will be a drag on returns. Investors should opt for a low allocation to hedges now, and increase to a medium level when inflation rises further.FeatureSome 38 years have passed since the last time the U.S. suffered from double-digit inflation. The Federal Reserve reform of 1979, championed by Paul Volcker, changed the way the Fed approached monetary policy by putting a focus on controlling money growth.1 The reform gave way to almost four decades of relatively controlled inflation, which persists today.But times are changing. While most of today’s investors have never experienced anything other than periods of tame inflation, BCA expects that rising inflation will be a major driving force of asset returns over the coming decade.2 The main reasons behind this view are the following:A rethink in the monetary policy framework: At its most recent meeting, the FOMC openly discussed the idea of a price-level target, implying that it would be open to the economy running hot to compensate for the past 10 years of below-target inflation (Chart I-1A, top panel).Procyclical fiscal policy: The U.S. is conducting expansionary fiscal policy while the economy is at near-full employment (Chart I-1A, middle panel). The last time this happened in the U.S., during the 1960s, high inflation followed, as the fiscal boost made the economy run substantially above capacity.Waning Fed independence: President Trump has openly questioned the hiking campaign undertaken by the Fed. Moreover, he has tried to nominate Fed governors with dovish tendencies. Historically around the world, a lack of central bank independence has often led to higher inflation rates (Chart I-1A, bottom panel).Peak in globalization: Globalization accelerated significantly in the 1990s and 2000s, flooding the global economy with cheap labor (Chart I-1B, top panel). However, we believe that globalization has peaked. Instead, populism and protectionism will be the dominant paradigms for years to come, reducing the cheap pool of workers and goods previously available.Demographics: The population in the U.S. is set to age in coming years (Chart I-1B, middle panel). As the percentage of U.S. retirees increases, the number of spenders relative to savers will begin to rise (Chart I-1B, bottom panel). Higher spending and lower savings in the economy should create upward pressure on inflation. Chart I-1AStructural Forces Point To Higher Inflation In The Coming Decade (I) Structural Forces Point To Higher Inflation In The Coming Decade (I) Structural Forces Point To Higher Inflation In The Coming Decade (I)   Chart I-1BStructural Forces Point To Higher Inflation In The Coming Decade (II) Structural Forces Point To Higher Inflation In The Coming Decade (II) Structural Forces Point To Higher Inflation In The Coming Decade (II)  If our view is correct, how should investors allocate their money?We attempt to answer this question by evaluating the performance of five major asset classes during periods when inflation was rising. Furthermore, we look into sub-asset class performance to determine how investors should position themselves within each asset class to take advantage of an inflationary environment.In our asset-class analysis, we use a data sample starting in 1973 and we limit ourselves to five publicly traded assets that have adequate history: global equities, U.S. Treasuries, U.S. real estate (REITs), U.S. inflation-linked bonds,3 and commodities. We compare asset classes according to their Sharpe ratios: average annualized excess returns divided by annualized volatilities.4 BCA expects that rising inflation will be a major driving force of asset returns over the coming decade.In our sub-asset class analysis, we analyze global equity sectors, international vs U.S. equities, and individual commodities. In some of the sections in our sub-asset class analysis, our sample is slightly reduced due to lack of historical data. Moreover, since in some instances all sectors have negative returns, we compare sub-asset classes according to their excess returns only.We base our analysis on the U.S. Consumer Price Index, given that most of the assets in our sample are U.S. based. We opt for this measure because it tends to track the living expenses for most U.S. citizens and it is the preferred measure to index defined-benefit payments.Finally, we decompose the periods of rising inflation into four quartiles in order to examine whether the level of inflation has any impact on the performance of each asset. Chart I-2 and Table I-1 show the different ranges we use for our analysis as well as a description of the typical economic and monetary policy environments in each of them. Chart I-2 Chart I- Summary Of ResultsTable I-2 shows the summary of our results. For a detailed explanation on how each asset class and sub-asset class behaves as inflation rises, please see the Asset Class section and the Sub-Asset Class section below. Chart I- Which assets perform best when inflation is rising?Rising inflation affects assets very differently, and is especially dependent on how high inflation is.Global equities performed positively when inflation was rising and low or mild, but they were one of the worst-performing assets when inflation was rising and high or very high. Importantly, equities underperformed U.S. Treasuries in periods of both high and very high inflation.Commodities and U.S. TIPS were the best performers when inflation was high or very high.U.S. REITs were not a good inflation hedge.Which global equity sectors perform best when inflation is rising?Energy and materials outperformed when inflation was high.Every single sector had negative excess returns when inflation was very high, but defensive sectors such as utilities, healthcare, and telecommunications5 minimized losses.Which commodities perform best when inflation is rising?With the exception of energy, most commodities had subpar excess returns when inflation was in the first two quartiles.Industrial metals outperformed when inflation was high.Gold and silver outperformed when inflation was very high. Additionally, gold had consistent returns and low volatility.What is the cost of inflation hedging?To answer this question, we construct four portfolios with different levels of inflation hedging:Benchmark (no inflation hedging): 60% equities / 40% bonds.Low Inflation Hedging: 50% equities / 40% bonds / 5% TIPS / 5% commoditiesMedium Inflation Hedging: 40% equities / 30% bonds / 15% TIPS / 15 % commoditiesPure Inflation Hedging: 50% TIPS / 50% commodities. At the asset-class level, investors should allocate to commodities and U.S. TIPS to hedge inflation. Chart I-3Inflation Hedging Comes At A Cost Inflation Hedging Comes At A Cost Inflation Hedging Comes At A Cost  While increased inflation hedging provides better performance when inflation is high and rising, these hedges are costly to hold when inflation is at lower ranges or when it is falling (Chart I-3, panels 1 & 2). However, adding moderate inflation hedging (low or medium) to a portfolio achieved the right balance between cost and protection, and ultimately improved risk-adjusted returns over the whole sample (Chart I-3, panel 3).What about absolute returns? The benchmark outperformed over the whole sample. However, the low and medium inflation hedging did not lag far behind, while avoiding the big drawdowns of high inflation periods (Chart I-3, panel 4).Investment ImplicationsHigh inflation may return to the U.S. over the next decade. Therefore, inflation hedging should be a key consideration when constructing a portfolio. Based on our results, our recommendations are the following:1.  At the asset-class level, investors should allocate to commodities and U.S. TIPS to hedge inflation.2.  However, these hedges are costly to hold as they will create a drag on returns in periods when inflation is not high or very high. Therefore, a low allocation to inflation hedges is warranted now.3.  Inflation will probably start to pick up in the 2020s. A medium allocation to inflation hedges will then be appropriate.4.  When inflation is high (3.3%-4.9%), investors should overweight energy and materials in their equity portfolios. Likewise, they should overweight industrial metals and energy within a commodity portfolio.5.  When inflation is very high (4.9% or more), investors should overweight defensive sectors in their equity portfolio to minimize losses. Moreover, investors should overweight gold within a commodity portfolio.Asset ClassesGlobal EquitiesThe relationship between equity returns and rising inflation depends on how high inflation is, with outstanding performance when inflation is rising but low or mild, and poor performance as it gets higher (Chart II-1, top panel). Chart II-1 This relationship can be explained by the interaction between interest rates, inflation, earnings, and valuations:Earnings growth was usually slightly negative when inflation was recovering from low levels. However, given that interest rates were very low in this environment and growth expectations were high, multiple expansion boosted equity returns (Chart II-1, bottom panel).When inflation was mild, the Fed typically started to raise rates, resulting in a declining multiple. However, equities had the best performance in this range thanks to very high earnings growth – a result of the economy growing strongly due to a healthy level of inflation.When inflation climbed into the high or very high range, earnings growth was usually positive but beginning to slow, as high inflation weighed on growth. Meanwhile the multiple started to decline rapidly due to rising interest rates and declining growth expectations.With the exception of the mild inflation range, the return profile of equities during inflationary periods was similar to its normal profile: negative skew and excess kurtosis (Table II-1). However, the consistency of returns decreased at higher levels of inflation, with only 45% of months with positive returns when inflation was rising and in its highest quartile. Chart II- U.S. Treasuries Chart II-2 U.S. Treasuries reacted in a similar fashion to equities when inflation was rising (Chart II-2). However, while Treasuries underperformed equities when inflation was low or mild, they actually outperformed equities when inflation was high or very high. This was in part due to the fact that at higher inflation ranges, U.S. Treasuries offer a higher coupon return when rates are high, at least partially counteracting losses from falling prices.The steady stream of cash flows from the coupons helped Treasuries achieve positive returns roughly two-thirds of the time at the highest levels of inflation (Table II-2). However, this consistency in returns came at a cost: very high inflation resulted in negative skew and high excess kurtosis. Therefore, while Treasuries provided frequent positive returns when inflation was very high, they were prone to violent selloffs. Chart II- U.S. REITs Chart II-3 While REITs had high risk-adjusted returns when inflation was rising but mild, much like equities they had subpar performance in every other quartile and particularly poor performance when inflation was high or very high (Chart II-3). These results confirm our previous research showing that REITs performance is very similar to that of equities.6The return consistency for REITs was generally poor in inflationary periods, with the second-lowest percentage of positive return of any asset class (Table II-3). Moreover, REIT returns had excess kurtosis and negative skew throughout all inflation quartiles. Chart II- Commodity Futures Chart II-4 Commodities performed positively in every quartile, and did particularly well when inflation was mild (Chart II-4, top panel). However, total return and price return were very different due to the behavior of the roll and collateral return:Total risk-adjusted returns were lower than spot risk-adjusted returns when inflation was low and rising. This happened because during these periods, commodity supply was high relative to demand, as the economy was recovering from a deflationary shock. Thus, there was an incentive for producers to conserve inventories, making the futures curve upward-sloping (contango). Thus, roll return was negative (Chart II-4, bottom panel).When inflation was in the upper two quartiles, total risk-adjusted returns were much higher than risk-adjusted spot returns. This was because high inflation was the product of supply shocks. These supply shocks resulted in a downward-sloping futures curve (backwardation), which, in turn, resulted in a positive roll return. Additionally, high rates during these regimes contributed to a high collateral return.Commodities provided good return consistency during inflationary periods, with roughly 60% of positive return months in the upper two inflation quartiles (Table II-4). The skew of returns was neutral or positive in the top two quartiles. This means that although volatility was high for commodities, extreme return movements were normally positive. Chart II- U.S. Inflation-Protected Bonds Chart II-5 While inflation-protected bonds provided meager returns when inflation was rising but in the mild range, they provided excellent performance at the highest levels of inflation (Chart II-5). Moreover, this high Sharpe ratio was not just simply the result of low volatility, since U.S. TIPS had excess returns of 4.6% when inflation was high and 5.7% when inflation was very high.7The return profile of inflation-protected bonds during inflationary periods was also attractive in our testing period. Average skew was positive, while kurtosis was relatively low (Table II-5). The percentage of positive months across all quartiles was also the highest of all asset classes, with a particularly high share of positive returns in the periods of highest inflation. Chart II- Sub-Asset ClassesGlobal Equity Sectors Chart III-1 For the sector analysis, we looked at information technology, financials, energy, materials, utilities, healthcare, and telecommunications. We excluded industrials, consumer discretionary, and consumer staples given that they do not have adequate back data.Once again, we separate rising inflation periods into four quartiles, arriving at the following results:When inflation was low, information technology had the best excess returns while utilities had the worst (Chart III-1, panel 1). This matches our observations at the asset class level, as IT is highly responsive to changes in the valuation multiple.When inflation was mild, energy had the best performance, followed by information technology (Chart III-1, panel 2). Meanwhile, financials had the worst performance, as rates were normally rising in these periods.When inflation was high, sectors highly correlated with commodity prices such as energy and materials outperformed. Meanwhile, IT was the worst performer (Chart III-1, panel 3).When inflation was very high, every sector had negative excess returns. Overall, investing in energy minimized losses (Chart III-1, panel 4). However, this performance was in part attributable to the oil spikes of the 1970s. Alternatively, defensive sectors such as utilities, telecommunications, and healthcare also minimized losses. International vs U.S. Equities Chart III-2 How do equities outside of the U.S. behave when inflation is rising? While the high share of U.S. equities in the global index causes U.S. equities to be the main driver of global stock prices, is it possible to improve returns in inflationary environments by overweighting international equities?The answer once again depends on the level of inflation. When inflation was rising but low, U.S. stocks outperformed global ex-U.S. equities in both common currency and local currency terms (Chart III-2, panel 1). This was in part due to the inherent tech bias in U.S. stocks. Additionally, the low level of inflation was often accompanied by slowing global growth in our sample, helping the U.S. dollar.When inflation was mild, U.S. stocks once again outperformed international stocks in both local and common currency terms, though to a lesser degree (Chart III-2, panel 2). The dollar was roughly flat in this environmentU.S. stocks started to have negative excess returns when inflation was high (Chart III-2, panel 3). On the other hand international equities had positive excess returns in dollar terms, partly because of their energy and material bias and partly because the dollar was generally weak in this period.U.S. equities outperformed global ex-U.S. equities by a small margin when inflation was very high, given that defensive sectors such as telecommunication were over-represented in the U.S. index (Chart III-2, panel 4). The dollar was roughly flat in this period. Individual Commodities Chart III-3 Our analysis above confirmed that commodities were one of the best assets to hold when inflation was rising. However, which commodity performed best?8Total return for every commodity was lower than spot return when inflation was low (Chart III-3, panel 1). This was due to the upward-sloping term structure of the futures curve (contango), resulting in a negative roll yield. In this range, energy had the best performance, followed by industrial metals. Precious metals had negative excess returns.When inflation was mild, energy had the best performance of any commodity by far (Chart III-3, panel 2). Precious and industrial metals had low but positive excess returns in this period.When inflation was high, industrial metals had the highest excess returns, followed by energy (Chart III-3, panel 3).We omit energy for the last quartile since there is not enough data available. Overall, when inflation was very high, both gold and silver had the highest excess returns (Chart III-3, panel 4). However, gold’s return volatility was much lower, while it also had positive returns  64% of the time compared to 52% for silver.Other AssetsU.S. Direct Real Estate Chart IV-1Direct Real Estate Is A Good Inflation Hedge Direct Real Estate Is A Good Inflation Hedge Direct Real Estate Is A Good Inflation Hedge  Our asset-class analysis confirmed that public real estate (REITs) as an asset class offered poor risk-adjusted returns during inflationary periods. But how did direct real estate perform?We analyzed direct real estate separately from all other assets because of a couple of issues:Our return dataset is available only on a quarterly basis, versus a monthly basis for the rest of the assets in our sample. Even when annualized, volatility is not directly comparable when using data with different frequencies.The NCREIF Real Estate Index that we used is a broad aggregate, which is not investable. Individual property prices might differ from this aggregate.Finally, real estate returns are measured on an appraisal basis. Appraisal-based indices are not reflective of real transactions. Moreover, prices tend to be sticky. To attenuate this issue we unsmoothed the capital returns by removing return autocorrelation.Overall, the Sharpe ratio of direct real estate was solid throughout the first three quartiles of rising inflation (Chart IV-1, top panel). There is not enough data available for the fourth quartile. However, judging by the performance of U.S. housing in the 1970s from OECD, risk-adjusted returns when inflation was very high was likely positive (Chart IV-1, bottom panel). Cash Chart IV-2Very High Inflation Erodes The Value Of Cash Very High Inflation Erodes The Value Of Cash Very High Inflation Erodes The Value Of Cash  Cash (investing in a 3-month U.S. Treasury bill) outperformed inflation over our sample. (Chart IV-2, top panel). Moreover, cash provided positive real returns when inflation was mild, or high, or when it was decreasing (Chart IV-2, bottom panel). However, cash was not a good inflation hedge at the highest inflation quartile, with an average annualized real loss of almost 2%. Juan Manuel Correa OssaSenior Analystjuanc@bcaresearch.com Footnotes1      Please see Carl E. Walsh, “October 6, 1979,” FRSBF Economic Letter, 2004:35, (December 3, 2004).2      Please see Global Investment Strategy Special Report, “1970s-Style Inflation: Could it Happen Again? (Part 1), ” dated August 10, 2018, available at gis.bcaresearch.com and Global Investment Strategy Special Report, “1970s-Style Inflation: Could it Happen Again? (Part 2),” dated August 24, 2018, available at gis.bcaresearch.com.3      We use a synthetic TIPS series for data prior to 1997. For details on the methodology, please see: Kothari, S.P. and Shanken, Jay A., “Asset Allocation with Inflation-Protected Bonds,” Financial Analysts Journal, Vol. 60, No. 1, pp. 54-70, January/February 2004. Jay A., “Asset Allocation with Inflation-Protected Bonds,” Financial Analysts Journal, Vol. 60, No. 1, pp. 54-70, January/February 2004.4      Excess returns are defined as asset return relative to a 3-month Treasury bill.5      Sector classification does not take into account GICS changes prior to December 2018. 6      Please see Global Asset Allocation Strategy Special Report "REITS Vs Direct: How To Get Exposure To Real Estate," dated September 15, 2016, available at gaa.bcaresearch.com.7      It is important to note that the synthetic TIPS series does not completely match actual TIPS series for the periods where they overlap. Specifically, volatility is significantly higher in the synthetic series. Thus, results should be taken as approximations.8      We decompose the returns into the same 4 quartiles to answer this question. However, due to lower data availability, we start our sample in 1978 instead of 1973. Moreover, our sample for energy is smaller beginning in 1983. This mainly reduces the amount of data available at the upper quartile.       

Highlights Portfolio Strategy Macro headwinds, deficient demand along with rising chemicals stockpiles that have dealt a blow to industry pricing power warn that chemicals stocks are on the verge of a breakdown. Downgrade to a below benchmark allocation. At the margin deteriorating domestic conditions, along with a sustained softness in global growth indicators that are prone to an additional setback given the rising trade policy uncertainty suggest that it is prudent to move to the sidelines on the long materials/short utilities pair trade. Recent Changes Downgrade the S&P chemicals index to underweight, today. This also pushes the S&P materials sector’s weight back down to neutral. Close the long S&P materials/short S&P utilities pair trade, today. Table 1 Consolidation Consolidation Feature The SPX suffered its first 5% pullback for the year early last week, and now that President Trump has opened Pandora’s Box, there are high odds that equities will continue to seesaw, at least, until the late-June G20 meeting when the heads of states meet again. Since early-March we have been, and remain, cautious on the short-term equity market outlook as a slew of our tactical indicators have soured. Chart 1 shows three additional non-confirming equity market breakout indicators that are exerting downward pull on the SPX. Stock correlations have increased (shown inverted, top panel, Chart 1), junk spreads have widened (shown inverted, middle panel, Chart 1) and the NYSE’s FANG+ Index has run out of steam (bottom panel, Chart 1). Now the risk is, as we first highlighted in the middle of last week, that the back half of the year global growth reacceleration phase goes on hiatus as this trade policy uncertainty further shatters CEO confidence and global exports remain downbeat (Chart 2). Chart 1Non-Confirming Indicators Non-Confirming Indicators Non-Confirming Indicators   Chart 2Stalled Export Engine Stalled Export Engine Stalled Export Engine Worrisomely, a number of our cyclical indicators are also firing warning shots. Not only did the ISM’s manufacturing new orders-to-inventories ratio breach parity, but also BCA’s boom/bust indicator took a turn for the worse (Chart 3). Importantly, while a lot of ink is spent on how the U.S. economy is beyond full employment, labor markets are tight and the output gap has closed, resource utilization has petered out – interestingly at a lower high compared with the previous two peaks. This backdrop points to more stock market turmoil in the coming months, similar to the mid-2015 message (Chart 4). Chart 3Cyclical Trouble Brewing Cyclical Trouble Brewing Cyclical Trouble Brewing   Chart 4No Tightness Here No Tightness Here No Tightness Here Tack on China’s cresting credit impulse and factors are falling into place for a tumultuous back half of the year (bottom panel, Chart 3). Keep in mind that the two ultimate “risk off” indicators we track remain tame and underscore that investor complacency remains elevated: the TED spread is at 16bps and the Japanese yen has barely budged of late. This is worrying and suggests that investors expect a positive U.S./China trade resolution (USD/JPY shown inverted, Chart 5). Chart 5No Real Risk Off Phase Yet No Real Risk Off Phase Yet No Real Risk Off Phase Yet Were the equity markets to spin out of control however, the “Fed put” remains in place and would save the day. While the Fed has taken down the median dots and projects no hikes for the rest of the year and a single hike next year, the message from the bond market is diametrically opposite. Thus, we are de-risking our portfolio and this week we are downgrading a deep cyclical sector to neutral and also closing an explicit cyclical/defensive pair trade. Chart 6 shows that over 40bps of cuts are priced in by May 2020, according to the OIS curve. Historically, this has been an excellent leading indicator of the annual delta in the fed funds rate. Our takeaway is that the Fed remains the only game in town and were another mini-riot point to occur, then the Fed would not hesitate to step in and put a floor under the equity market. Chart 6The Bond Market Has The Stock Market’s Back The Bond Market Has The Stock Market’s Back The Bond Market Has The Stock Market’s Back In sum, the risks are rising for a prolonged consolidation phase in equities on the back of a trade war escalation that pushes out the global growth recovery to early-2020. Thus, we are de-risking our portfolio and this week we are downgrading a deep cyclical sector to neutral and also closing an explicit cyclical/defensive pair trade. Chemical Reaction We have been on the sidelines on the heavyweight S&P chemicals index of late (it comprises 74% of the S&P materials sector), but factors have now fallen into place and warrant a below benchmark allocation. First, global macro headwinds will continue to weigh on this deep cyclical index as the risk of a full blown trade war will likely take a bite out of final demand. Chemical producers garner 60% of their revenues from abroad (a full 20 percentage points higher than the SPX) and thus are extremely sensitive to the ebbs and flows of emerging markets economic growth in general and China in particular. Adding it all up, macro headwinds, deficient demand along with rising chemicals stockpiles that have dealt a blow to industry pricing power warn that chemicals stocks are on the verge of a breakdown. Chart 7 shows that U.S. chemical products exports are contracting and if the greenback sustains its recent upward trajectory given heightened global trade policy uncertainty, further global market share losses are likely at a time when the overall chemicals market will be shrinking. With regard to China specifically, the recent drop in the credit impulse is far from reassuring (bottom panel, Chart 3) and, assuming that the Chinese authorities will await a riot point prior to really opening up the credit spigots, more pain lies ahead for U.S. chemical exports. Second, the picture is not brighter on the domestic front. Importantly, the American Chemical Council’s Chemical Activity Barometer is nil, warning that domestic end-demand is also ailing (Chart 8). Chart 7Hazard Warning Hazard Warning Hazard Warning Chart 8Toxic Profit Prospects Toxic Profit Prospects Toxic Profit Prospects Tack on a surprisingly persistent jump in industry headcount (bottom panel, Chart 9), and the implication is that waning productivity will slash chemicals profits (bottom panel, Chart 8). Finally, a number of other operating metrics are languishing. Chemicals railcar loads are outright contracting and the softening ISM manufacturing survey points to further downside in the coming months (middle panel, Chart 9). The chemicals shipments-to-inventories ratio is also in contraction territory as this downbeat demand has been met with a buildup in inventories both at the wholesale and manufacturing levels. As a result, a liquidation phase has ensued and chemicals selling prices have sunk into the deflation zone (middle & bottom panels, Chart 10). Chart 9Deficient Demand Deficient Demand Deficient Demand Chart 10Liquidation Phase Liquidation Phase Liquidation Phase Adding it all up, macro headwinds, deficient demand along with rising chemicals stockpiles that have dealt a blow to industry pricing power warn that chemicals stocks are on the verge of a breakdown. Bottom Line: Trim the S&P chemicals index to underweight. Given the 74% weight chemicals stock have in the S&P materials sector, this move also pushes the S&P materials sector’s (Chart 11) weight to neutral from overweight, and we crystalize modest losses of 5.2% in this niche deep cyclical sector. The ticker symbols for the stocks in the S&P chemicals index are: BLBG: S5CHEM – DWDP, ECL, SHW, PPG, IFF, CE, ALB, LIN, APD, DOW, LYB, FMC, CF, MOS, EMN. Chart 11Trim Materials Back Down To Neutral Trim Materials Back Down To Neutral Trim Materials Back Down To Neutral Materials/Utilities: Move To The Sidelines While we were early in identifying a reflationary impulse from the Chinese authorities and put on an explicit cyclicals/defensives pair trade to capitalize on this opportunity at the end of January, the long materials/short utilities pair trade has failed to live up to its expectations, and today we recommend moving to the sidelines. Such a move is part of our de-risking of the portfolio given the rising global macro headwinds on the horizon we identified earlier. More specifically on the domestic front, our Economic Impulse Indicator (EII) suggests that beneath the surface some cracks are appearing in the U.S. economy. The EII encapsulates six parts of the U.S. economy and on a second derivative basis, softness is apparent (top panel, Chart 12). The ISM manufacturing survey corroborates this message and is also flirting with the boom/bust 50 line, signaling that it is prudent to take some risk off the table (bottom panel, Chart 12). The bond market is sniffing out this deteriorating domestic backdrop and the recent 25bs drop in the 10-year Treasury yield has breathed life into utilities and sucked the oxygen out of materials. Fixed income proxies are also benefiting from the drubbing in Citi’s Economic Surprise Index to the detriment of growth-sensitive deep cyclicals. The melting stock-to-bond ratio reflects all these domestic forces and warns against preferring materials to utilities stocks (Chart 13). Chart 12Move To The Sidelines Move To The Sidelines Move To The Sidelines Chart 13Mushrooming Domestic… Mushrooming Domestic… Mushrooming Domestic… The specter of a re-escalation in the trade war will not only continue to weigh on some domestic indicators, but gauges monitoring the health of the global economy will also suffer a setback. Already, our Global Activity Indicator has lost its spark, underscoring that global export volumes will continue to contract. King Dollar is also flexing its muscles, especially versus vulnerable twin deficit emerging market countries which saps economic growth. Tack on the derivative deflationary effect the appreciating greenback has on the commodity complex and materials stocks are at a great disadvantage versus domestic focused utilities (Chart 14). A number of additional global growth indicators are waning and signal that relative profitability will move in favor of utilities and at the expense of materials in the coming months. BCA’s global synchronicity indicator, which gauges the number of countries with a PMI above versus below 50 is sinking like a stone. In fact, the overall global manufacturing PMI is just barely above the expansion/contraction line and global industrial production is decelerating. All of this is a net negative for the deep cyclical materials sector, but a net positive for defensive utilities stocks that sport nil foreign sales exposure (Chart 15). Chart 14…And Global Growth… …And Global Growth… …And Global Growth… Chart 15…Worries …Worries …Worries But before getting outright bearish on this pair, there is a powerful offset. Likely, most of the bad news is reflected in bombed out relative valuations and oversold technicals. This actually also prevents us from fully reversing the trade and buying utilities at the expense of materials. A move to the sidelines is more appropriate (Chart 16). At the margin deteriorating domestic conditions, along with a sustained softness in global growth indicators that are prone to an additional setback given the rising trade policy uncertainty suggest that it is prudent to move to the sidelines on the long materials/short utilities pair trade. Bottom Line: Book losses of 5.3% in the long S&P materials/short S&P utilities pair trade and move to the sidelines.   Anastasios Avgeriou, U.S. Equity Strategist anastasios@bcaresearch.com Chart 16Saving Grace Saving Grace Saving Grace   Current Recommendations Current Trades Size And Style Views Favor value over growth Favor large over small caps

While we remain bullish on global equities and other risk assets over 12 months, we went tactically short the S&P 500 last Friday following the market’s complacent reaction to the Trump Administration’s further tariffs increases on Chinese imports. While a moderate trade war would still produce more economic damage than standard economic models imply, this would be greatly mitigated by significant Chinese economic stimulus and a Fed that is in no hurry to raise rates and could even cut rates. Barring any further major developments, we recommend investors start increasing risk exposure if the S&P 500 falls to 2711. A dip in global bourses would also create an opportunity to go overweight EM/European equities. Favor gold over government bonds as a low-cost hedge against trade war risks for now.

Highlights Portfolio Strategy Firming relative demand and input cost dynamics, the Medicare For All (MFA)-induced panic selling in HMOs coupled with 5G euphoria buying in semis have set the stage for an exploitable pair trade opportunity: long S&P managed health care/short S&P semiconductors. Relative supply/demand dynamics, crumbling lumber prices, lower interest rates and compelling valuations and technicals all suggest that the long homebuilding/short home improvement retail pair trade is in the early innings. Recent Changes Initiate a long S&P managed health care/short S&P semiconductors trade today, with a tight stop loss at -7%. Table 1 On Edge On Edge Feature Equities hit a speed bump last week, as President Trump’s trade related tweets instilled some fear back into the markets. Investor complacency reigned supreme and, given the liquidity crunch, risk premia exploded higher with the VIX more than doubling from the recent lows. Historically, a parabolic rise in policy uncertainty is synonymous with an equity market selloff and a widening in risk premia; last week was no different (economic policy uncertainty shown inverted, second panel, Chart 1). Adding insult to injury, given that the forward P/E multiple expansion explained all of the equity market’s advance year-to-date as we highlighted three weeks ago, the trade-related melt up in policy uncertainty caused a mini meltdown in the forward multiple as financial conditions tightened (financial conditions shown inverted, third panel, Chart 1). The implication is that short-term equity market caution is still warranted as we have been writing over the past few weeks, at least until the U.S./China trade dispute dust settles. Chart 1Caution Still Warranted Caution Still Warranted Caution Still Warranted Chart 2Tenuous Trio Tenuous Trio Tenuous Trio The recent simultaneous rise of three asset classes, that we call “the tenuous trio”, warned that something had to give: stocks, bond prices and the trade-weighted U.S. dollar cannot all go up in tandem for an extended period of time. When this happens it is typically a forewarning of an equity market snap (Chart 2). One simple explanation is that a rising greenback comes back and haunts equities via a negative P&L hit, albeit with a lagged effect. Irrespective of where the U.S. dollar will move in the coming months, it will continue to weigh on EPS as the surge in the greenback took root from April to November last year. Thus, with a six-to-nine month lag it will continue to infiltrate EPS and Q2 – which the sell-side already expects to barely breach year ago levels – will also feel the U.S. dollar’s wrath. Were the dollar to continue its ascent from current levels, it would put in jeopardy the back half of this year’s EPS growth numbers, especially Q4/2019 that sell-side analysts forecast to jump to 8%, according to I/B/E/S data. This week we recommend putting on a new pair trade involving an unloved health care subgroup and a mighty tech sector subindex but with a tight stop, and also update an intra-consumer discretionary market-neutral housing-levered pair trade. Importantly, the 12-month forward EPS number is artificially rising. Chart 3 shows that calendar 2019 and 2020 EPS estimates continue to build a base, but the 12-month forward number has been rising since early-February. What explains the increase in the 12-month forward estimate is arithmetic. In other words, despite a multi-month downgrading of calendar 2019 and 2020 EPS, the first two quarters of next year are forecast to come in significantly higher than 2019’s first six months. As the latter roll off and the former get added to the 12-month forward EPS number, a deceiving jump occurs. For next year, we continue to expect $181 EPS, and we would lean against the double-digit EPS growth in 2020 that the sell-side currently forecasts. Our top down macro S&P 500 EPS model softened anew recently, warning that mid-single digit growth, at best, is more likely than low double-digit growth (Chart 4).   Chart 3Artificial EPS Rise Artificial EPS Rise Artificial EPS Rise Chart 4SPX Macro EPS Model Forecasts Softness SPX Macro EPS Model Forecasts Softness SPX Macro EPS Model Forecasts Softness Finally, one of the tech sector’s invincible subgroups is cracking with the S&P semis relative performance hitting a wall both versus the broad market ex-TMT and versus the NASDAQ 100. This is significant not only from a sentiment perspective, but also because semis have high international sales exposure in general and China in particular (Chart 5). Chart 5Vertigo Warning Vertigo Warning Vertigo Warning This week we recommend putting on a new pair trade involving an unloved health care subgroup and a mighty tech sector subindex but with a tight stop, and also update an intra-consumer discretionary market-neutral housing-levered pair trade. New High-Octane Pair Trade Idea While health care and tech stocks started the year on a similar footing, a wide gulf has opened that is likely to, at least partially, reverse in the back half of the year. This dichotomy is most evident at the subsector level where managed health care stocks are still down in absolute terms for the year, whereas chip stocks are up roughly 20% year-to-date (Chart 6). This is an exploitable gap and today we suggest a new pair trade: long S&P managed health care/short S&P semiconductors. Chart 6Exploitable Reversal Looms Exploitable Reversal Looms Exploitable Reversal Looms Bernie Sanders’ revamped MFA bill sent the managed health care group to the ER. While there is heightened uncertainty surrounding MFA and we are working on a joint Special Report with our sister Geopolitical Strategy service due on June 3rd, this is likely a 2022 story. Not only will Sanders have to win the Democratic candidacy and subsequently the Presidential election, but also the GOP would have to lose the Senate. This is an extremely low probability event that has dealt a massive blow to HMO stocks. On the flip side, semis are priced for perfection. The recent catalyst for this group’s stratospheric rise was Apple’s patent settlement with Qualcomm that set in motion a 5G-related euphoria. Again 5G is a late-2021 story and a lot of good news is already priced in to semis stocks. Moreover, historically, semi cycles last four-to-five quarters and investors’ neglect of the semi downcycle is puzzling as we have recently concluded just two down quarters. Explicitly, what is truly baffling is that 12-month forward EPS are slated to contract in absolute terms and forward sales are hovering near the zero line, yet the Philly SOX index recently vaulted to all-time highs. Taken together, we would lean toward health care insurers at the expense of semiconductor stocks. Netting it all out, relative demand and input cost dynamics, the MFA-induced panic selling in HMOs coupled with 5G euphoria buying in semis have set the stage for an exploitable pair trade opportunity: long S&P managed health care/short S&P semiconductors. With regard to relative macro drivers, managed health care has the upper hand. Chart 7 shows that relative demand dynamics clearly favor HMOs and are working against chip stocks. Non-farm payroll growth is trouncing global semi billings. The message from the small business sector is similar with the labor market upbeat compared with declining global semi revenues. Finally, on the relative pricing power gauge front, overall wage inflation is outpacing DRAM prices. On all three fronts, the message is to expect a mean reversion higher in the relative share price ratio. Chart 7Buy Managed Health Care… Buy Managed Health Care… Buy Managed Health Care… Chart 8…At The Expense… …At The Expense… …At The Expense… Input cost/inventory dynamics suggest that HMOs also have the advantage. The health care insurance employment cost index is growing on a par with inflation, but semi industry employment is climbing at a rate over 5%/annum (bottom panel, Chart 8). Taking stock of medical cost inflation, costs are still melting, however global semi inventories are expanding. The upshot is that relative share prices have ample upside (middle panel, Chart 8). Finally, the previous relative valuation overshoot has returned to the neutral zone and, encouragingly, relative technicals are probing multi-year lows near one standard deviation below the historical mean. Importantly, over the past two decades every time our Technical Indicator has hit such a depressed level, a playable rebound in relative share prices has ensued (bottom panel, Chart 9). Chart 9…Of… …Of… …Of… Chart 10…Semis …Semis …Semis Nevertheless, this highly volatile market-neutral trade faces one big risk we previously alluded to: relative profit expectations are extended. In other words, the bombed out S&P semiconductor forward EPS and revenue projections are masking the relative profit and revenue backdrop (Chart 10). Netting it all out, relative demand and input cost dynamics, the MFA-induced panic selling in HMOs coupled with 5G euphoria buying in semis have set the stage for an exploitable pair trade opportunity: long S&P managed health care/short S&P semiconductors. Bottom Line: Initiate a long S&P managed health care/short S&P semis pair trade today with a stop loss at the -7% mark. The ticker symbols for the stocks in the S&P managed health care and S&P semi indexes are: BLBG: S5MANH – UNH, ANTM, HUM, CNC, WCG and BLBG: S5SECO – INTC, AVGO, TXN, NVDA, QCOM, MU, ADI, XLNX, AMD, MCHP, MXIM, SWKS, QRVO, respectively. Homebuilding/Home Improvement Retail Pair Trade Update In late-January we put on a market, sector and subindustry neutral trade preferring homebuilders to home improvement retailers (HIR) as a way to benefit from the increase in residential construction at the expense of residential investment. This trade moved in the black from the get-go and is now generating alpha to the tune of 7% since inception, but more gains are in store in the coming months. President Trump’s hawkish tariff rhetoric should keep interest rates at bay, at least for a short while, and bond market nervousness is more of a boon to homebuilders than to HIR (top panel, Chart 11). The drop in the price of mortgage credit along with minor price concessions from homebuilders are causing sales of new homes to take off versus existing home sales (middle panel, Chart 11). Granted, bankers remain willing extenders of residential loans and the latest Fed Senior Loan Officer Opinion Survey revealed that demand for residential credit is making a comeback following a near yearlong decline (not shown). As a result, relative loan growth metrics also underpin the relative share price ratio (bottom panel, Chart 11). Chart 11Still In Early Innings Still In Early Innings Still In Early Innings In sum, relative supply/demand dynamics, crumbling lumber prices, lower interest rates and compelling valuations and technicals all suggest that the long homebuilding/short HIR pair trade is in its early innings. Importantly, the new/existing home sales–to-inventory ratio is an excellent leading indicator of relative share prices and is currently emitting an unambiguously bullish signal for homebuilders at the expense of HIR (Chart 12). Chart 12Supply/Demand Backdrop Says Stick With This Pair Trade Supply/Demand Backdrop Says Stick With This Pair Trade Supply/Demand Backdrop Says Stick With This Pair Trade Chart 13Relative Sales ##br##Expectations… Relative Sales Expectations… Relative Sales Expectations… Examining the relative demand backdrop reveals that homebuilders will continue to outshine HIR. Current readings in the NAHB home sales survey versus the remodeling survey and future expectations both point to more gains in the relative share price ratio (Chart 13). The felling in lumber prices also represents a benefit to homebuilders to the detriment of HIR. Lumber is a key building input cost in new home construction so any price liquidation is a boon for homebuilding margins. In contrast, HIR makes a set margin on lumber sales, therefore deflating lumber prices cut HIR profits (Chart 14). Chart 14…Felling Lumber Prices And … …Felling Lumber Prices And … …Felling Lumber Prices And … Chart 15…Bombed Out Valuations Signal More Relative Share Price Gains …Bombed Out Valuations Signal More Relative Share Price Gains …Bombed Out Valuations Signal More Relative Share Price Gains Finally, on the relative valuation and technical fronts, there is anything but froth. In fact, the relative price to book ratio is perched near an all-time low and relative momentum has only recently troughed and has yet to reach the neutral zone (Chart 15). In sum, relative supply/demand dynamics, crumbling lumber prices, lower interest rates and compelling valuations and technicals all suggest that the long homebuilding/short HIR pair trade is in its early innings.       Bottom Line: Stick with a long S&P homebuilders/short S&P HIR pair trade. The ticker symbols for the stocks in the S&P homebuilding and S&P HIR indexes are: BLBG: S5HOME – PHM, DHI, LEN and BLBG: S5HOMI – HD, LOW, respectively.   Anastasios Avgeriou, U.S. Equity Strategist anastasios@bcaresearch.com   Current Recommendations Current Trades Size And Style Views Favor value over growth Favor large over small caps

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

Highlights Since AQR rebranded its flagship “Risk Parity” mutual fund late last year, many clients have asked about risk parity and its potential impact on financial markets if interest rates rise. The key to a “risk-based” approach is “risk diversification” and the use of leverage. Like any investment tool, it has its advantages and limitations. “Risk parity” portfolios differ greatly, depending on the choice of assets and the portfolio construction method. There are many ways to construct a risk-based portfolio. We highlight three: fixed weights; variable weights with inverse volatility; and variable weights with optimization. Fixed-weight risk-parity portfolios are not “risk diversified” ex post. Variable-weight risk-parity portfolios constructed using inverse volatility do not guarantee equal risk allocations. “Truly risk-diversified” portfolios constructed using our proprietary optimization algorithm have consistently outperformed those constructed with inverse volatility. Our approach not only achieves better risk diversification, but can also be used as an alpha overlay strategy. Risk parity does not always outperform in the long run, but always outperforms in recessions. Rising yields alone do not necessarily hurt risk parity. The worst environment for risk parity is the combination of rising yields and the underperformance of bonds relative to both cash and stocks – because both leverage and interest-rate movements work against risk parity. Worryingly, the past three years have been like this, similar to the 1949-1969 period when risk parity would not have performed. Feature Beautiful Simulation! Ugly Reality? Ray Dalio’s Bridgewater Associates created in the 1990s “The All Weather Investment Strategy,” which is known as the foundation of the “Risk Parity” movement.1, 2 Both back-testing and real-life performance from Bridgewater show that the “All Weather” portfolio did live up to its purpose as a low-beta, long-term portfolio that weathers through different economic cycles.2 The term “Risk Parity,” however, was coined by Edward Qian in 2005, and Qian even went as far as saying that risk parity is a way to the “New Holy Grail In Investing” – i.e. “upside participation and downside protection.”3 Only after the 2008 financial crisis did risk parity gain real traction, because investors were hungry for alternative tactics after traditional asset allocation approaches all failed miserably. Invesco began offering a risk parity strategy mutual fund in June 2009, and AQR launched its risk parity mutual fund in September 2010. According to the IMF, risk parity funds had AUM of US$150 billion to $175 billion at the end of 2017,4 while Bridgewater estimated in 2016 that there were about US$400 billion AUM dedicated to risk parity strategies globally, of which about US$150 billion was managed by external managers – with Bridgewater accounting for about half of the externally managed assets.2  While most risk parity believers dedicate a portion of their assets to risk parity strategies, some investors have gone in full-heartedly. For example, in 2016, Danish pension fund ATP completed its transition to a risk-based multi-factor approach by adopting a “four-factor building-block portfolio approach” that is “…in part inspired by Bridgewater’s All Weather” yet “owes more to the thinking of investment manager AQR and the academic field of ‘financial economics’ more generally.”5 At the end of 2018, ATP’s risk allocation to the four risk factors – interest-rate factor, inflation factor, equity factor and other factors – is shown in Chart 1.6 Chart 1 On the other hand, in September 2014, the San Diego County Employees Retirement Association board decided to fire its outsourced CIO from Houston-based Salient Partners, who had favored leverage-heavy (up to five times) risk-parity investments and had been given the reins of the US$10 billion pension fund.7 In fact, the growing popularity of risk parity has been accompanied by growing criticism, especially when risk-parity funds did not do well. In December 2018, AQR re-branded its flagship risk-parity mutual fund by dropping “Risk Parity” out of its name and tweaking the strategy for more flexibility after having suffered heavy outflows.8 Even though the change in the US$344 million fund did not reflect a shift in AQR’s views on the merits of risk-parity strategies (which accounted for about US$30 billion out of AQR’s US$226 billion in assets), Cliff Asness, the co-founder of AQR, did write a long blog discussing sticking with factor investing in general. “If sticking with them were easy, the threat of them being ‘arbitraged away’ would indeed be much greater, and nobody would take the other side,” he wrote.9 Chart 2Beautiful Simulation, Ugly Reality Beautiful Simulation, Ugly Reality Beautiful Simulation, Ugly Reality It is easy to say “stick with it for the long run,” especially when back-tests show robust results from well-respected asset managers and researchers.10,11,12 Our own simulations also show beautiful results even for the recent period not covered by most published papers (Chart 2, top panel).  In reality, however, publicly available information shows that risk parity funds have encountered some unpleasant underperformance since 2013 compared to conventional global 60/40 stock-bond portfolios (Chart 2, bottom three panels). Seven years of underperformance is a tough pill to swallow for any investor; it is little wonder we have received client requests on this subject more frequently of late. In this Special Report, we attempt not to take sides to argue for or against risk parity strategies. Instead, we focus our efforts on sorting through the jungle of confusing ways that risk-parity portfolios are defined and constructed, and highlight three typical ways used by many risk parity managers. We present simulated results using these different methods and our own proprietary optimization algorithm, aiming to answer the following questions often asked by our clients: What is risk parity?  How is a risk parity portfolio constructed? What are the key differences among the various ways of constructing risk parity portfolios? Is it true that risk parity outperforms in the long run? Is it true that risk parity can outperform even if yields rise? How should asset allocators use risk-parity strategies? Risk Parity Basics There is no widely agreed-upon definition of risk parity, nor on how to construct a risk-parity portfolio. However, the “risk-based” allocation principle is the same, while differences among different managers lie largely in the process of portfolio construction, especially when the number of assets in consideration is more than two – because correlation does not matter when there are just two assets in a risk-based allocation approach. The Risk-Parity Principle: According to Bridgewater: “Risk parity is the means of adjusting the expected risks and returns of assets to make them more comparable.”13 If so, then a “better diversified portfolio” can be created by equally weighting those adjusted assets with low or no correlation with one another. This way, a portfolio with a higher Sharpe ratio can be achieved than would otherwise be possible using the conventional capital-based approach. Then, different degrees of leverage can be used to achieve desirable levels of risk and return. In terms of risk, investors need to consider not only the volatility of a portfolio, but also the risk of large portfolio drawdowns due to wrong assumptions. Since one does not know for sure in advance how each asset will perform, Bridgewater characterizes the investment regimes using growth and inflation, identifying which asset classes do well in each regime and allocating 25% weight in each of the four growth-inflation regimes.14 Despite robust back-test results from asset managers and researchers, risk parity funds have not lived up to their promise since 2013. So, one key to risk parity is to diversify across asset classes that behave differently across different economic regimes such that each asset contributes equally to portfolio risk. In general, equities do well in rising growth and falling inflation regimes, nominal bonds do well in deflationary or recessionary regimes, and commodities do well in rising inflation regimes.  While Bridgewater includes corporate and EM credits and inflation-linked bonds in its universe of asset classes, not all risk-parity strategies include the exact same breadth of assets. For example, it can be argued that corporate and EM credits share more of the “equity factor,” since they have a high degree of sensitivity to rising growth as do equities, while inflation-linked bonds are a hybrid of nominal bonds and inflation. The Risk-Parity Portfolio Construction: There are many different ways to construct a risk-based diversified portfolio. The key differences are: 1) how the weights of assets are determined for the unlevered risk-parity portfolio, and 2) how leverage is determined to reach the desired return/risk profile. Based on these two key aspects, there are generally three different ways to construct a risk-parity portfolio, as shown in Table 1. The one represented by Bridgewater is more qualitative, while the other two are more quantitatively defined. Table 1Risk Parity Implementation Summary Demystifying Risk Parity Demystifying Risk Parity When there are only two assets, it is easy to show that all three methods produce exactly the same allocations for the basic risk-parity portfolio without leverage. When there are more than two assets, however, the two approaches represented by Bridgewater15 and AQR16,17 are easy to compute, but the optimization approach based on equal contribution to risk (either in the sense of marginal contribution to risk or contribution to total risk18) has high demand in computing power. Also, it is not true that risk-parity does not need return estimates. Return estimates are not needed to determine a basic risk-parity portfolio, but they are needed to determine leverage when the target is a specific return other than volatility. Does Strategic Risk Parity Outperform In The Long Run? The pioneering “All Weather” fund was launched by Bridgewater in 1996, and has been used as a “strategic asset allocation mix” that is rebalanced to keep “constant” asset weights.19 To try to understand the early thinking behind risk parity, we used Bridgewater’s method to simulate a simple two-factor constant-weight risk-parity portfolio using global stocks20 and global bonds21 in two steps: First, we used monthly return data of stocks and bonds from January 1970 to December 1995 to estimate stock volatility (Vs ) and bond volatility (Vb ). The stock and bond weights in the unlevered risk parity portfolio (RP1) are determined as follows: Wb = Vs / (Vs +Vb), and Ws = 1- Wb......................(1) Depending on the required target, leverage will be applied to RP1. The leverage ratio is simply the target volatility (or return) divided by the volatility (or return) of the unlevered risk parity portfolio. Table 2 shows the simulated results with seven different targets, which appear to support the following claims of risk-parity supporters: A risk parity portfolio is better than a 60/40 portfolio because it achieves a higher Sharpe ratio; Equities and bonds contribute equally to total portfolio risk in a risk-parity portfolio, while a 60/40 portfolio risk is dominated by equities (85% in the stated period); With the use of proper leverage, risk parity achieves higher return with the same volatility or the same return with lower volatility. The statistics in Table 2, however, are based on “in sample” data with “perfect foresight.” In reality, no portfolio manager has the luxury of going back in time to implement any portfolio. Table 2Global Stock-Bond Risk Parity Portfolios (In Sample) Demystifying Risk Parity Demystifying Risk Parity So, the second step of our simulation is to test how these portfolios would have performed going forward if they were rebalanced monthly to the same weights as those in December 1995. Table 3 shows the simulated ex post results for the “out of sample” period between January 1996 and March 2019. Table 3Global Stock-Bond Risk Parity Portfolios (Out Of Sample) Demystifying Risk Parity Demystifying Risk Parity Comparing Table 3 to Table 2, several observations are worth highlighting: It is not true that assets have similar Sharpe ratios over longer time frames. Bonds generated higher returns with significantly lower volatility, resulting in a Sharpe ratio of 1.05 in the 1996-2019 period, compared to 0.28 between 1970 and 1995. The Sharpe ratios of stocks in both periods were similar. It is true that RP1 (no leverage) is a better portfolio than 60/40, with a higher Sharpe ratio, even though both portfolios’ Sharpe ratios increased due to the improvement in bonds. More impressively, RP2 (with the same return as 60/40) not only generated 30 basis points of annual outperformance compared to 60/40, it achieved such outperformance with significantly lower volatility. And RP4 (with the same volatility as stocks), also sharply outperformed stocks in terms of both return and volatility. So, the simulated risk-parity portfolios constructed using data from 1970 to 1995 have done well ex post. Upon closer examination, however, two issues arise: Table 4Risk Contribution* Comparison Demystifying Risk Parity Demystifying Risk Parity First, as shown in Table 4, the risk-parity portfolio constructed using information as of 1995 turned out not to be risk parity in the subsequent period – because only 12% of the portfolio risk came from bonds, compared to the intended 50%. Granted, 88% from stocks is still less concentrated than the 60/40 portfolio which had 99% risk from equities in the same period, but the ex post risk-parity performance violates the very foundation of the risk-parity principle: true risk diversification. Second, as shown in Chart 3, even though risk-parity portfolios have outperformed their reference portfolios since 1970, the outperformance has not been consistent, with long periods of under- and over-performance. The only consistent observation is that risk parity outperforms in recessions, which is not surprising given its consistently large overweight in bonds. Chart 3Does Risk Parity Outperform In The Long Run? Does Risk Parity Outperform In The Long Run? Does Risk Parity Outperform In The Long Run? Also, it seems that most of the outperformance came from the period after bond yields peaked in September 1981. Risk parity did poorly during the period from 1978 to 1982, when bond yields increased sharply, while it performed slightly better than the reference portfolios between 1970 and 1978, when rates increased gradually. In reality, even strategic asset allocators do not keep weights constant for such long periods of time. How do variable-weight risk-parity strategies do in different interest-rate environments? Do Rising Yields Hurt Risk Parity? To assess how risk-parity portfolios constructed based on different weighting schemes behave in different interest-rate environments, the simulations in this section use U.S. stocks22 and government bonds23 – only because of their long history that includes both secular rising and falling rate environments.  Variable weights are determined based on moving volatility with different lookback windows. Statistically, the shorter the window length and the more frequent the return measured, the more volatile the volatility estimate is. AQR uses both 1-year24,25 and 3-year26 monthly moving windows, while S&P Dow Jones Risk Parity Indexes are based on a 5-15 year period of a monthly moving window.27 The worst combination for risk parity is rising yields and the underperformance of bonds relative to both cash and stocks. Worryingly, the past three years have been like this. Our research shows that a 1-year monthly moving window is too short, even though it produces higher total returns than longer windows. Chart 4A and 4B show the simulated results of three different moving windows – 36 months, 180 months and 360 months – for two risk-parity portfolios. RP1 is leveraged to have the same volatility as a monthly rebalanced 60/40 U.S. stock-bond portfolio, and RP2 is leveraged to have the same volatility as U.S. stocks. The weights calculated using formula (1) change monthly, based on the corresponding moving window. The following observations are true concerning the choices of our lookback period: Chart 4AU.S. Risk Parity* Vs. 60/40 U.S. Risk Parity* Vs. 60/40 U.S. Risk Parity* Vs. 60/40 Chart 4BU.S. Risk Parity* Vs. Stocks U.S. Risk Parity* Vs. Stocks U.S. Risk Parity* Vs. Stocks The longer the lookback period, the more stable the asset weightings and leverage ratios, and vice versa (bottom three panels in Charts 4A and 4B). This is not specific for risk parity, though. Any approach using historical mean-variance-correlation estimates share this feature. The leverage ratio spikes more often when the window length gets shorter, which may be too uncomfortable for some investors. RP2 has equity weight consistently over 60%, no matter what lookback period is used (this is also true for fixed-weight risk parity). In comparison, the less-leveraged RP1 only briefly assigns higher than 60% to equities when the lookback period is very short (panel 4 in 4A and 4B). In terms of absolute performance from March 1933 to March 2019, the shorter the window length, the better the overall full-period total return (panel 1 in 4A and 4B). However, this outperformance comes with much higher leverage ratios, which may be too high for the majority of investors (panel 5 in 4A and 4B).  In terms of relative performance versus the corresponding reference portfolio, longer window options have not done well overall. Only the shorter window option produced a marginally better relative performance for the full 86-year period (panel 2 in 4A and 4B). However, there are three stages of relative performance: a secular underperformance period from 1950 to 1970, a secular outperformance window from 2000 to July 2016, and a cyclical under- / over-performance period from 1970 to 1999. For the 36-month window, which has a longer history dating back to 1933, it also has a long period of outperformance from 1933 to 1949, as shown in Chart 5. Chart 5Does A Rising Bond Yield Hurt Risk Parity? Does A Rising Bond Yield Hurt Risk Parity? Does A Rising Bond Yield Hurt Risk Parity? Risk parity has a heavy weighting in bonds. It is natural to think that underperformance occurs only when rates rise, and vice versa. As shown in Table 5, however, this is true only for three periods. Risk-parity portfolios outperformed from March 1933 to July 1941, and from January 2000 to July 2016 when rates dropped (Table 5 rows 1 and 6). They underperformed from January 1950 to December 1969 when yields rose (row 3). Table 5What Drives Risk Parity Performance? Demystifying Risk Parity Demystifying Risk Parity What is puzzling is how risk parity performed in the following three periods: From August 1941 to December 1949, when rates rose slightly yet risk parity outperformed significantly (row 2); From January 1970 to September 1981, when interest rates rose even more than the previous period from 1949 to 1969, but risk parity did not underperform significantly (row 4); From October 1981 to December 1999, when yields dropped more than 900 basis points, yet risk parity did not outperform at all (row 5). Other than interest rates, what are the other forces driving risk parity performance?  A closer examination of Table 5 reveals that the direction of interest-rate movements alone does not fully explain the performance of risk parity relative to its reference portfolio. It is the reason why rates rise or fall, combined with how assets react to those reasons, that determine how risk parity performs. This makes sense because risk parity not only overweights bonds in general, but uses leverage. The worst combination for risk parity is when interest rates rise such that bonds underperform both cash and stocks, as in the period from January 1950 to December 1969 (Table 5 row 3) – because leverage and interest-rate movements both worked against risk parity. This may not sound very encouraging for risk parity going forward, because the current period from July 2016 to March 2019, albeit very short in length, has so far shared similar characteristics to the period from 1949 to 1969 in terms of annualized excess return of stocks and bonds as well as relative performance between stocks and bonds. Table 5 also shows that during the hyper-inflationary period from 1970 to 1981, both stocks and bonds underperformed cash, which also underperformed inflation. Even though risk-parity portfolios performed in line with their reference portfolios, this period was actually the worst for investors because real returns were negative for all three assets. The key to risk parity is to diversify across asset classes that behave differently across different economic regimes such that each asset contributes equally to portfolio risk. So how does diversification across asset classes and geographic regions impact risk parity performance? How To Achieve True Risk Diversification? Commodities outperformed inflation during the hyper-inflationary period from 1970 to 1981. Intuitively, adding commodities to the asset mix would have been beneficial for that period. How about other periods? To assess the impact, we add commodities28 to our two-factor U.S. risk parity and two-factor global risk-parity portfolios to simulate three-factor risk-parity portfolios with two different lookback periods (36 months and 180 months) and three different volatility targets (10%, 12% and 15%). The weight of each asset for the unlevered risk parity portfolio is calculated using the inverse of the volatility (V) of each asset: Wi = (1/Vi) / ((1/Vs +1/Vb +1/Vc)...................(2) Where i stands for s (stocks), b (bonds) and c (commodities). The volatility of the unlevered risk-parity portfolio (URP) in each window period is then calculated as Vurp and the leverage ratio is calculated as Vtarget / Vurp. Chart 6A and 6B compare how the addition of commodities to the asset universe changes the performance of risk parity. For a longer history of performance, we show the simulations with the 36-month moving window. Chart 6ACommodity Impact On U.S. Risk Parity Commodity Impact On U.S. Risk Parity Commodity Impact On U.S. Risk Parity Chart 6BCommodity Impact On Global Risk Parity Commodity Impact On Global Risk Parity Commodity Impact On Global Risk Parity Overall the addition of commodities has performed in line with the two-asset risk parity portfolios. However, the three-factor risk parity portfolio did significantly outperform the two-factor portfolio before 1990. After more than a decade of ups and downs, relative performance made a strong rebound during the GFC, only to give up all the gains in the next seven years (Charts 6A and 6B, panel 1), coinciding with a sharp change in commodities-stocks correlations (panel 5). A “truly risk-diversified” portfolio constructed using our proprietary optimization algorithm outperforms consistently a risk-parity portfolio based on inverse of volatility. Chart 7Risk Contributions Risk Contributions Risk Contributions It is worth noting that diversification across asset classes and geographies is not exclusive to risk parity. It is a well-accepted practice in the asset management industry. Panel 4 in both 6A and 6B show that a 50/40/10 stock-bond-commodity portfolio also outperforms or underperforms a 60/40 equity-bond portfolio in line with the movement of relative asset performance. Risk parity, however, amplifies the upside by using leverage and slightly limits downside risk by allocating risk in a more diversified fashion (Chart 7). Chart 7 shows that a conventional portfolio, despite a 50% weight in equities, is dominated by equity risk, while the risk-parity portfolio has much less concentrated risk allocations.  However, the three assets in the risk-parity portfolio do not have an equal share of risk contribution. Why? Because we constructed the risk-parity portfolio using the inverse of volatility according to formula (2). It assigns a higher weight to a lower volatility asset, but does not guarantee equal allocation of risk. How will a more precisely equal risk allocation improve risk-parity performance? We ran another simulation using the same three global assets and a 180-month moving window. However, asset weights were optimized using a proprietary optimization procedure such that each asset contributed equally to total portfolio risk. Chart 8, shows that the optimized risk-parity portfolios have outperformed those constructed by using formula (2), i.e. inverse volatility. Impressively, the outperformances are consistent through time in terms of both returns and Sharpe Ratios (panels 1 and 2). The optimized risk contributions are equally distributed (panel 4) as intended. By contrast, when the weights were constructed using inverse volatility, each asset's contribution to total risk varied considerably (panel 3). This makes sense because the optimization procedure takes into consideration not only volatility but also correlations between assets. Correlation between stocks and bonds, and correlation between stocks and commodities, have both gone through significant changes over time, especially since 2006 when the directions reversed. (Chart 9, panel 5). Consequently, on an unlevered basis, ex ante volatility of the optimized portfolio has turned lower since 2006, resulting in a higher Sharpe ratio (Chart 9, panels 3 and 4). Chart 8True Risk Diversification Works Better True Risk Diversification Works Better True Risk Diversification Works Better Chart 9Why Does True Risk Diversification Work Better? Why Does True Risk Diversification Work Better? Why Does True Risk Diversification Work Better?   Even though the returns of the two unlevered portfolios are similar, the optimized portfolio’s lower volatility permits a higher leverage ratio at any given target portfolio volatility, which in turn drives much better returns of the leveraged portfolios (panels 1 and 2). The bottom line is that a “truly risk-diversified” portfolio constructed using our proprietary optimization algorithm does produce better results than a risk-parity portfolio constructed using less risk-diversified approaches, such as the inverse of volatility. It does require more computing power, but this will become much less an issue with technological advancement. Our finding can also be used as a pure alpha overlay strategy. The implementation, though, is out of the scope of this report. Conclusions The key features of a “risk-based” approach is “risk diversification” and the use of leverage. The risk parity approach is one of many investment tools. Like any other investment tool, it has its advantages and limitations. Because of choices in the universe of assets and also portfolio construction methods, not all “risk parity” portfolios are equal. Investors should apply rigorous due diligence before choosing a risk-parity manager. Based on our simulations, we find: Risk parity outperforms in recessions due to its large allocation to bonds. The direction of interest-rate movements alone does not fully determine how risk parity performs. The worst environment for risk parity is the combination of rising yields and the underperformance of bonds relative to both cash and stocks – because both leverage and interest-rate movements work against risk parity. Worryingly, the past three years have been like this, similar to the 1949-1969 period when risk parity would not have performed. Fixed-weight risk-parity portfolios are not truly risk diversified ex post. An inverse volatility approach generates less concentrated risk allocation, but not necessarily equal risk contribution. Risk-parity portfolios constructed with shorter lookback periods outperform those with longer lookback periods if historical volatility estimates are used. Risk-parity portfolios constructed using our proprietary optimization algorithm that truly allocates risks equally to all assets, consistently outperform those constructed using approximation, such as inverse volatility. This finding not only proves that “true risk diversification” works, it can also be used as an alpha overlay strategy for asset allocators.   Xiaoli Tang, Associate Vice President xiaoliT@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1      Bridgewater Associates, “The All Weather Story” 2      Bridgewater Associates, “Our Thoughts about Risk Parity and All Weather,” Daily Observations, September 16, 2016. 3      Edward E. Qian, “Risk Parity Fundamentals,” CRC Press, 2016. 4      Sergei Antoshin, Fabio Cortes, Will Kerry and Thomas Piontek, “Volatilities Strike Back,” IMF Blog, dated May 3, 2018. 5      Rachel Fixsen, ”ATP: Rebalancing the risk diet,” IPE Magazine, July/August 2016. 6      “Annual Announcement of Financial Statements 2018,” ATP Group. 7      Jeff Macdonald, “Pension board to consider firing CIO,” The San Diego Union-Tribune, September 18, 2014.   8      Miles Weiss, “AQR Strips ‘Risk Parity’ Name From Mutual Fund After Redemptions,” Bloomberg, December 7, 2018. 9      Cliff Asness, “Liquid Alt Ragnarök?” AQR Alternative Investing, September 7, 2018. 10     Bridgewater Associates, “Our Thoughts about Risk Parity and All Weather,” Daily Observations, September 16, 2016. 11     Edward E. Qian, “Risk Parity Fundamentals,” CRC Press, 2016. 12     Clifford S. Asness, Andrea Frazzini, and Lasse H. Pedersen, “Leverage Aversion and Risk Parity,” Financial Analyst Journal, Jan/Feb 2012. 13    Bridgewater Associates, “Our Thoughts about Risk Parity and All Weather,” Daily Observations, September 16, 2016. 14     Bridgewater Associates, “The All Weather Story” 15     Bridgewater Associates, “The All Weather Story” 16     Clifford S. Asness, Andrea Frazzini, and Lasse H. Pedersen, “Leverage Aversion and Risk Parity,” Financial Analyst Journal, Jan/Feb 2012. 17     Brian Hurst, Bryan Johnson, Yao Hua Ooi, “Understanding Risk Parity,” AQR, Fall 2010. 18     Edward E. Qian, “Risk Parity Fundamentals,” CRC Press, 2016. 19     Bridgewater Associates, “Our Thoughts about Risk Parity and All Weather,” Daily Observations, September 16, 2016. 20       MSCI All Country World Total Return Index in U.S. dollars, unhedged, from December 1987 to now. For back history, we used the MSCI World from December 1969. Prior to December 1969 we used the S&P 500. 21     Bloomberg Barclays (BB) Global Aggregate hedged total return in U.S. dollar from January 1990 to the present. For back history, we used the BB Global Treasury hedged total return in U.S. dollar from January 198, the BB U.S. aggregate total return from January 1976, and the BB U.S. Treasury total return from December 1972. Prior to December 1972 we used our own calculations based on U.S. 10-year government bond yield. 22     MSCI U.S. Total Return Index from December 1969 to the present. Back history was the S&P 500 Total Return Index. 23     Bloomberg Barclays (BB) U.S. Treasury Total Return Index from December 1972. Back history was calculated based on U.S. 10-year government bond yield. 24     Brian Hurst, Bryan Johnson, Yao Hua Ooi, “Understanding Risk Parity,” AQR, Fall 2010. 25     Brian Hurst, Michael, Yao Hua Ooi, “Can Risk Parity Outperform If Yields Rise?,” AQR, July 2013. 26     Clifford S. Asness, Andrea Frazzini, and Lasse H. Pedersen, “Leverage Aversion and Risk Parity,” Financial Analyst Journal, Jan/Feb 2012. 27     https://eu.spindices.com/indices/strategy/sp-risk-parity-index-12-target-volatility-tr 28     GSCI Commodities Total Return Index from December 1969, before which the total return index of the Bloomberg Commodities Index was used.  

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