BCA Indicators/Model

Highlights US politics are the chief source of global geopolitical risk over the coming year – and likely beyond. President Trump’s reelection remains our base case – the sitting president rarely loses if the economy is expanding. Yet the risk of a Democratic victory is high – Trump’s low approval rating, impending impeachment trial, and various policy troubles threaten his reelection bid. Trump’s tactics and the Democrats’ turn to the progressive left pose threats to BCA Research’s cyclically bullish house equity view. Feature If a time-traveler had accosted you in the fall of 2014 and told you that Donald Trump, the host of the reality TV show The Apprentice, would be the next American president, would you have believed him? What if the time-traveler had gone on to say that President Trump’s unconventional behavior would get him into hot water and that in 2020 he would become the first president in US history to be impeached and removed from office? Granting the premise, the second proposition is easier to imagine. And yet Trump is highly unlikely to be removed from office. He is in fact favored to be reelected. Just as his victory in 2016 proved more likely than the consensus held at the time, so his reelection in 2020 is more likely than the consensus holds today. The reason comes down to political constraints. First, the bar for removal in the Senate is very high. Second, it is easier for a sitting president to get reelected than it is for the opposition to convince voters to start over with something entirely different. Especially if the economy is in decent shape. In what follows we present our quantitative 2020 election model and our qualitative, constraints-based analysis of the election and likely market responses. Trump's fate is only one factor. But US politics is the chief source of market-relevant global political risk over the next 12-24 months. Not A Lame Duck (Yet) After a harrowing year in which global manufacturing slumped due to China’s tight credit policy and Trump’s trade war, the probability of a US recession is now – tentatively – subsiding (Chart 1). This is good news for Trump, whose presidency is hanging by a thread. Chart 1Recession Averted? Or Trump's Death Knell? Recession Averted? Or Trump's Death Knell? Recession Averted? Or Trump's Death Knell? Chart 2Bookies Expect A Democrat Victory US Election 2020: Civil War Lite US Election 2020: Civil War Lite Betting markets like PredictIt.org suggest that Democrats are slightly more likely than Republicans to win the White House next November (Chart 2). The narrow spread is appropriate given that the balance of evidence is fairly even. However, if there is to be a tilt, it should go the opposite way, i.e. toward Republicans as the incumbent party. The history of US elections since 1860 shows a strong tendency for the incumbent party to hold the White House when the sitting president is running at the head of the ticket. This is especially true when there has not been a recession during the president’s four-year term. It is even true when the ruling party has lost seats in preceding congressional elections, as occurred in 2018 and as is often the case (Chart 3). Other than recession, the biggest exception to the sitting president’s victory – especially in modern times – is when a major scandal has occurred, as with Gerald Ford in 1976. This is clearly relevant to today. In these rare cases the incumbent president’s and incumbent party’s historic reelection rates are both 50/50. The implication of Chart 3 is that Trump’s odds, from a historical point of view, are slightly above 50%. Of course, history does not afford an example of a first-term president being impeached, acquitted, and running for election again.1 Yet this is the most likely outcome today, as there is not an overwhelming popular demand to remove Trump from office. Despite the revelations and public hearings in the impeachment inquiry so far, support for removal stands at 47%, while opposition to removal stands at 45% (Chart 4). In other words, there is no majority in favor of removal, but only a narrow plurality. Removal – nullifying an election result – requires more. Chart 3History Says Trump More Likely To Win Than Not US Election 2020: Civil War Lite US Election 2020: Civil War Lite Chart 4No Consensus On Removal From Office US Election 2020: Civil War Lite US Election 2020: Civil War Lite The spread is conspicuously close to the 46%-to-48% popular vote spread for Trump and Hillary Clinton, respectively, in 2016. The impeachment is not a tsunami of public opposition to the administration. It is a bare-knuckle power struggle: Trump tried to have his top rival investigated and tarred with corruption allegations, the Democrats are retaliating by trying to remove Trump prior to the election. Support for removal will fluctuate, but it will take more than 47% of the population to generate a 67-vote supermajority against Trump in a Republican-held Senate. Republican senators would be taking a grave risk in voting against their base when they have the option of deferring to voters in just 11 months’ time. Both Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton were in their second terms when Congress began moving articles of impeachment: the public had no other recourse in the event that they committed “high crimes and misdemeanors.” Trump is in his first term and is due for the public’s verdict shortly. Nixon resigned when it became clear that grassroots Republicans had lost faith in him and the Senate would not acquit. Trump’s political base has not yet lost faith – his approval among Republicans is still 90%, higher than the average of Republican presidents and at the high end of his term in office (Chart 5). When it comes to the final vote, some Republican senators may defect, but it would take 20 to remove Trump from office. This will require a Nixon-like hemorrhage of support. Remarkably Trump’s general approval rating has not been affected by the impeachment inquiry (Chart 6). His approval rating is still comparable to President Barack Obama’s rating at this stage in his first term (as well as Ronald Reagan’s). While Trump is highly unlikely to break above 50%, he is emphatically not a lame duck … at least not yet. Presidential approval tends to rise as the opposition nomination is settled and the election approaches. If Trump’s approval revives to the 46% of the popular vote he won in 2016, then he remains competitive in the swing states where the election will be fought and won. Chart 5Trump’s Political Base Geared Up For Battle US Election 2020: Civil War Lite US Election 2020: Civil War Lite Chart 6A Precarious Approval Rating US Election 2020: Civil War Lite US Election 2020: Civil War Lite What about the Republicans’ heavy losses in the midterm elections and special elections since 2016? Haven’t national voting trends already condemned Trump and the Republicans to a loss in 2020? Not necessarily. Democrats lost elections more dramatically in 2009-11 than Republicans lost in 2017-19 – both in voter support and turnout (Table 1) – and yet President Obama secured the victory in 2012. Presidential elections are a different beast. Table 1Democrats Suffered More Post-2008 Than Republicans Post-2016 … Yet Obama Won Reelection US Election 2020: Civil War Lite US Election 2020: Civil War Lite Chart 7GOP Governorships At Low End Of Rising Trend US Election 2020: Civil War Lite US Election 2020: Civil War Lite The same goes for Republican losses in recent gubernatorial races. In Kentucky the incumbent governor was a Republican and lost; in Louisiana the incumbent governor was a Democrat and won. The catch is that the number of Republican governors was extremely elevated prior to 2018. Recent losses have merely brought the Republicans back to the bottom of their upward channel as a share of the nation’s 50 governors (Chart 7). Thus while the interim elections are a warning sign to Trump and the GOP, they are not a death knell – as long as the economy rebounds and President Trump’s approval rises as the election approaches. Bottom Line: Trump is not a lame duck yet. His administration is embattled and the impeachment process could permanently damage his standing. But so far his general approval rating and the specific impeachment polling suggest that he will stay in office and remain competitive in the 2020 race. If the election were today he would almost surely lose, but a lot can change in 12 months. If the economy avoids recession, then investors should take reelection as their base case. Cyclical Constraints Will Prevail A recession is the surest way to render a president a lame duck. It does not have to be a technical recession. The contraction in the manufacturing sector – and corresponding cutbacks in lending in the manufacturing-heavy and electorally vital Midwest – are extremely threatening to a president who promised to revive manufacturing and trade (Chart 8). Incumbency, economic growth, failed impeachment, and partial policy victory are enough to win the key swing states. Having declared that “trade wars are good and easy to win,” President Trump will not be able to hide from a deeper slowdown in the industrial heartland. State-level wage growth is positive, but swing states, particularly Trump swing states, are seeing a sharp drop-off from the highs prior to the trade war (Chart 9). The solution is the trade ceasefire being pursued with China. Trump is now in the position of the Federal Reserve Chairman: he can no longer afford to hike (tariff) rates, and the equity market may force him to cut, as long as he can reasonably hope to improve the economy. If the economy is lost, the trade war is back on. Chart 8An Urgent Need For A Trade Ceasefire An Urgent Need For A Trade Ceasefire An Urgent Need For A Trade Ceasefire Chart 9Trump Swing States Took A Hit From The Trade War Trump Swing States Took A Hit From The Trade War Trump Swing States Took A Hit From The Trade War Chart 10Buttigieg And Warren More Favorable Than Others US Election 2020: Civil War Lite US Election 2020: Civil War Lite Are incumbency, economic growth, failed impeachment, and partial policy victories enough to get Trump over the line in the key swing states?2 Subjectively, we think so. The Democrats have to win all of the states they won in 2016 plus Michigan and Florida (or two other states in place of Florida, such as Wisconsin and Pennsylvania). President Trump can afford to lose Michigan and one other state (but not Florida). This assessment has little to do with the Democratic presidential nominee – as yet unknown – and everything to do with whether the incumbent president or party has been fundamentally discredited. Democratic candidates like Senator Elizabeth Warren and Mayor Pete Buttigieg are generally more competitive than consensus holds. Warren, for instance, is one of the few candidates in recent elections who has a net positive favorability rating (Chart 10). But her favorability is not enough to overturn a sitting president – that will most likely require a shock that renders the status quo intolerable. The cyclical constraints on Trump and his opponents are thus clear. What of the structural constraints? Trump’s 2016 victory is often attributed to long-running structural trends in the US such as deindustrialization, immigration, and racial attitudes. The Democrats’ “blue wall” in the Rust Belt crumbled because Trump courted the working-class voter there and/or stoked racial anxieties. The implication, however, is that Trump still has an advantage in these swing states. Older voters and especially white voters have drifted toward Republicans for several years – the trend was interrupted only by the Great Recession, which saw a surge in Democratic support that has now subsided (Chart 11). Chart 11Old And White People Drifting To GOP Over Time ... Excepting The Great Recession US Election 2020: Civil War Lite US Election 2020: Civil War Lite While the white share of the swing states is falling over time, that trend is not sufficient to prevent Trump from winning the Electoral College in the year 2020. Instead the rapidly changing racial and ethnic composition of society should be seen as motivating the attitudes that Trump exploits. Trump’s electoral strategy of maximizing white turnout and support for the Republican Party, which we dubbed “White Hype” in 2016, is still the only way for him to achieve a popular vote victory in 2020, and hence the clearest pathway for him to achieve an Electoral College victory (Chart 12). Needless to say, tensions and controversies over race and immigration will swell in the coming year. Chart 12Electoral College Scenarios Show Trump Win Still Possible US Election 2020: Civil War Lite US Election 2020: Civil War Lite Chart 13Swing State Turnout Follows Unemployment US Election 2020: Civil War Lite US Election 2020: Civil War Lite By the same token, demographic change means that the Democrats can theoretically win by performing no better than they did in 2016 in terms of voter turnout and support rates (see the “Status Quo” scenario in Chart 12). This is a low hurdle for Democrats – suggesting once again that the election will be extremely close, that Trump can win only through the Electoral College (not the popular vote), and that the election outcome will ultimately swing on the cyclical factors outlined above, particularly the state of the economy. A final word about voter turnout. The greatest electoral risk to President Trump is an increase in voter turnout among traditionally low turnout groups that heavily favor the Democratic Party, such as young people and minorities. Given the surge in turnout for the 2018 midterm elections, and the extremely controversial and heated environment surrounding Trump’s presidency, there is considerable reason to suspect that 2020 will be a high-turnout election. Other things being equal, this would likely penalize Trump’s reelection prospects. However, it is important to recognize that voter turnout in swing states is fairly well correlated with the unemployment rate (Chart 13). Depending on the state, surges in turnout occurred in 1992, in the wake of recession; 2004, in the wake of recession, terrorism and war; and 2008, in the wake of the great financial crisis. The exception is Pennsylvania, where a surge in white voter turnout helped Trump pull off a surprise win in the state. Turnout is the hardest political variable to predict, so it is not clear whether Trump’s scandals and impeachment will do the trick. But an increase in the unemployment rate would virtually destroy Trump’s bid, being negatively correlated with presidential approval and positively correlated with voter turnout. Bottom Line: Trump’s executive powers give him the potential to achieve some additional policy victories that could boost his approval rating – namely a trade ceasefire with China that simultaneously improves the economic outlook. Meanwhile structural factors such as demographics do not forbid Trump from winning the Electoral College – on the contrary, aging and the decline in the white share of the population mean that Trump’s electoral strategy could succeed again in 2020, but will be much harder to pull off after 2020. Introducing … BCA’s Geopolitical Strategy 2020 US Presidential Election Model The BCA Geopolitical Strategy Presidential Election Model is a state-by-state model that uses political and economic variables to predict the Electoral College vote. What differentiates our model from that of others is that it attempts to predict the probability of the incumbent party winning the Electoral College votes in each of the 50 states. The model would have predicted the past five elections correctly on an out-of-sample basis, even the controversial win of George W. Bush over Al Gore in 2000. Why do we predict the electoral vote rather than the popular vote? First, the winner of the presidential election is determined by the Electoral College, not the popular vote. Second, in recent history, two candidates who lost the popular vote (George W. Bush in 2000 and Donald Trump in 2016) won the election. It is possible that we will see a similar result in 2020, given President Trump’s low national popularity yet distinctive policy pitch for the Midwestern states (e.g. economic patriotism, hardline on immigration). With only minor exceptions, electoral votes are allocated based on a winner-take-all process, as opposed to proportionately to the popular vote. Hence the best way to forecast the presidential election winner is to predict the probability of winning each state, i.e. receiving all the electoral votes assigned to each state.3 Due to the data availability of our input variables, our sample size includes nine elections (1984 to 2016) across 50 states, making for a total of 450 observations. We designed the model to be as succinct as possible. It includes four explanatory variables: A weighted average of the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia State Leading Index, from the beginning of the previous presidential term until September of the election year. The state leading indexes predict the 6-month growth rate of the state coincident indexes, which include nonfarm payroll employment, average hours worked in manufacturing by production workers, the unemployment rate, and wage and salary disbursements deflated by the consumer price index (U.S. city average).4 Chart 14Voters Make Up Their Minds Ahead Of Time US Election 2020: Civil War Lite US Election 2020: Civil War Lite We use a weighted average of all the monthly forecasts in the presidential term preceding an election, where later months are weighted more heavily than earlier months. Our sample includes 6-month growth rates up to and including September of the election year, which means it includes a rough forecast of the direction of the state’s economy in Q1 of the new president’s term. Since we weigh recent months more heavily, our model assigns more importance to forward-looking factors. It is sufficient to end our calculations of the average state leading indexes in September of the election year. First, the October data comes out in early November, just days before the election, which would be an insufficient lead-time for our final forecast. Second, most voters make their decision at least one month in advance of the election and last-minute changes in economic forecasts will likely not influence their decision (Chart 14). The incumbent party’s margin of victory in the previous presidential election in each state. This is measured as the incumbent party vote share minus the non-incumbent party vote share. Simply put, if the incumbent party failed to secure a solid win in a given state in the previous election, the probability of securing a solid win in the current election is much smaller. Average national approval level of the incumbent president in July of the election year. We tested the correlation between presidential approval in every month leading up to the election versus the election outcome and found that July approval levels have the second-highest correlation with the popular vote and Electoral College vote (Chart 15). Average October approval levels have slightly higher correlation with election outcomes, but not sufficiently so to sacrifice three months of lead-time. A “time for change” variable. This is a categorical variable indicating whether the incumbent party has been in the White House for one or more terms. Academic literature shows that a party that has occupied the White House for two terms or more is much less likely to win an election than a party that is running for a second term.5 Chart 15Voters Mostly Decided By July US Election 2020: Civil War Lite US Election 2020: Civil War Lite The output of our model is the probability of an incumbent win in each state. There are two ways of aggregating these probabilities to produce a national-level outcome: Allocate the number of Electoral College votes won by the incumbent proportionally to their probability of victory in each state, and then sum them up across all states. This method would smooth out potential errors in our forecast. The Republican Party is expected to win with 279 Electoral College votes in 2020. Assume a probability threshold of 50%: any state with an incumbent win that is at least 50% likely is fully assigned to the incumbent. While this method could significantly sway our forecast towards one of the parties because of small changes in probability, it is closer to the political reality. Even the smallest majority in a given state will (usually) result in the winning candidate getting all of the state’s Electoral College votes. We therefore adopt this method in our aggregation.6 Our model performs well in back tests: it correctly predicted every election in in-sample tests and every election from 2000 to 2016 in out-of-sample tests (Chart 16). Chart 16BCA Research Geopolitical Strategy Election Model: Back Tests Accurate US Election 2020: Civil War Lite US Election 2020: Civil War Lite Chart 17 shows our initial 2020 prediction. Overall, the Republican Party is expected to win 279 Electoral College votes, a 25-vote decrease from its 2016 result. Chart 17Trump Narrowly Slated To Win 2020 With 279 Electoral College Votes US Election 2020: Civil War Lite US Election 2020: Civil War Lite As of the latest available data, our model predicts that the Republicans will lose Michigan and Wisconsin (critical victories in 2016). Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and New Hampshire become borderline or “toss-up” states: the probability of a Republican win in these states is 48.77%, 50.17%, and 46.90%, respectively. Even the smallest change in our inputs can shift these states to either party. The two inputs that can affect our forecast are the state leading index and President Trump’s approval level, since the other two inputs – the time for change variable and last election’s margin of victory – are fixed. Table 2 shows the predicted Electoral College votes for the Republican Party for various scenarios of these two variables. According to the model, President Trump is currently at the lowest level of approval and weakest state-by-state economy that he can afford. If one of these factors stabilizes below today’s level, Trump will lose his reelection bid. Table 2Small Decline In State Economies Could Ruin Trump’s 2020 Bid US Election 2020: Civil War Lite US Election 2020: Civil War Lite In the worst-case scenario for Trump – if his approval and the state leading indexes drop to the lowest levels they have touched in Trump’s presidency – the Republican Party will only manage to secure 230 Electoral College votes. The opposite, optimistic scenario would see them winning with 329 votes. An interesting takeaway from our model is that it captures the increase in American political polarization that has been widely observed by scholars. The 2020 forecast shows that many states will be won or lost by the incumbent party with extreme certainty (0% or 100%). Results of in-sample predictions show that this trend has been increasing since 1992 (Chart 18, top panel), which is also in line with our own measure of polarization (Chart 18, bottom panel). Since the results are based on in-sample estimations, the coefficients remain constant, so the differences in the results can be attributed to the underlying data. The impression of ever-intensifying polarization in the US is correct. What does this mean for Trump? He cannot be written off simply because he has a relatively low approval rating. Structural political factors that propelled him to the White House are still in place. His approval and the economy must deteriorate to change this base case. The chief risk to our model is the accuracy and interpretation of presidential approval polling. While polling data always has a margin of error, it is possible that approval polling is underestimating Trump’s support, particularly on the state level, as was witnessed in 2016 (Chart 19). Chart 18Rising Polarization – It’s Empirical US Election 2020: Civil War Lite US Election 2020: Civil War Lite Chart 19State-Level Polling Still A Risk State-Level Polling Still A Risk State-Level Polling Still A Risk We have a high degree of confidence in professional pollsters, who have also made improvements since 2016.   But asking Americans whether they “approve” of the unorthodox Trump may be a different proposition than in the past, disguising voting intentions to some degree. By choosing the level of Trump’s approval in our model (see Appendix), we are guarding against overstating his support and not allowing much room for any dampening effects or self-censorship, which is thus a risk to our model. Bottom Line: Quantitative modeling, entirely independent of our qualitative assessment, suggests that Trump is favored to win the 2020 election. However, he is skating on very thin ice with regard to key cyclical variables such as state-level economic performance and popular approval rating. If his approval level suffers from a slowing economy, or scandal and impeachment, then he will lose the critical toss-up states and the White House. Investment Conclusions In this report we have outlined a case where President Trump, despite his extreme unorthodoxy in general, and acute vulnerability at this moment in time, is still the most likely winner of the 2020 election. Elections are a Bayesian process in which investors should establish a clear prior, or starting place, and update their probabilities according to reliable data streams. This report establishes our prior and our key data streams. So what? Does it matter if Trump is reelected? Is it relevant to investors? From a bird’s eye view, Trump has made a few decisions that clearly distinguish his term in office from that of previous presidents. First, by replacing Janet Yellen with Jerome Powell at the Federal Reserve, Trump arguably accelerated the normalization of monetary policy, which contributed to a rise in bond yields, an increase in market volatility, a strong dollar, and a global slowdown. Second, by embracing sweeping Republican tax reform, Trump initiated pro-cyclical fiscal stimulus that widened the US’s monetary and economic divergence from the rest of the world, while exacerbating the US’s long-term fiscal woes. Third, by adopting protectionist trade policy to confront China’s mercantilism, Trump rattled global sentiment and contributed to a manufacturing recession. As long as our view remains correct, investors will have a base case that is cyclically bullish. Of these three macro developments, the only one that the election could substantially change is trade policy – and yet the Democrats are also taking a more hawkish approach to China. On the fiscal front, the Democrats will raise taxes, but they will not impose austerity – instead they propose large expansions of entitlements that the populace increasingly demands. Populist social spending combined with geopolitical struggle with China ensures that the deficit/GDP ratio will go up regardless of the party in power. From a market point of view, the historical record suggests that presidential elections – specifically elections that lead to gridlock between the White House and Congress, since we do not expect the Democrats to lose the House of Representatives – usually see a rising US stock market beforehand and a higher degree of volatility afterwards (Chart 20). Relative to developed market equities, US stocks typically underperform, and only resume their rise in the second half of the following year (i.e. 2021). Comparing Trump to other first-term presidents, it is clear that his “pluto-populism” (populism plus tax cuts for the rich) has exerted a reflationary effect on the equity market (Chart 21). As long as the data show that he has a fair chance of reelection, investors will have a base case that is cyclically bullish, despite the volatility to come from the Democrats’ taxation and regulation proposals. Chart 20Equity Outcomes Surrounding US Presidential Votes Equity Outcomes Surrounding US Presidential Votes Equity Outcomes Surrounding US Presidential Votes Chart 21Trump A Reason To Be Bullish Trump A Reason To Be Bullish Trump A Reason To Be Bullish What is most striking about Trump’s presidency is the low real total return on US Treasuries. This is despite his aggressive foreign and trade policy, which has motivated safe-haven flows into Treasuries this year (Chart 22). The bottom line is that the output gap is closed, the labor market is tight, and fiscal policy is expansive, putting upward pressure on yields. Given that Trump needs to cultivate a China ceasefire and economic improvement for reelection, this trend should continue until the next recession looms. Chart 22Trump Marks End Of Bull Market In Bonds Trump Marks End Of Bull Market In Bonds Trump Marks End Of Bull Market In Bonds The risk, however, is that Trump’s precarious China negotiations fall through, or that his scandals cause a permanent downshift in his approval rating, rendering him a lame duck. Not only would this free him of the election constraint that currently forces him to pursue pro-market policies, but it would also make a Democratic victory more likely. The Democratic nomination, meanwhile, could easily produce a progressive populist in the figure of Elizabeth Warren, who is still a frontrunner in the Democratic nomination. A bear market could develop quite easily if a normal equity market correction, which improves the odds of a Democratic victory becomes entangled in expectations that Warren is set to win the nomination. If the opposition can summon enough votes to unseat an incumbent president, chances are that the circumstances will include a “blue wave” that also sees the Democrats take the Senate. This would institute another sweeping change to American policy, this time in a direction that is unfriendly to corporate profits. As the probability of such a scenario rises, the equity market will have to discount it. Expectations of a Trump victory will spur the market upward – but investors should be wary. If this very long bull market has continued all the way to November 3, 2020, and President Trump is confirmed in office, the positive stock market reaction will likely provide an excellent time for booking profits and reducing risk. In a second term, Trump will be unshackled from his electoral constraints – very much unlike a first-term Democrat. This would free him to pursue his trade wars with fewer inhibitions – against China but also likely against Europe. A continuation of the trade war has important impacts across the full slate of global assets, as outlined in Chart 23, which depicts the movement of assets on days in which US equities reacted negatively to trade war developments. Chart 23A Trump Second Term Means Trade War With Fewer Constraints US Election 2020: Civil War Lite US Election 2020: Civil War Lite With 11 months to go, we are a world away from the election. The party nomination process, or third-party candidates, could overturn all expectations. But if there is one certainty, it is that polarization and political risk will rise in the coming 12-24 months. The losing side of the population will have deep heartburn. A crisis of legitimacy could easily haunt the next administration. There could be hanging chads, vote recounts, faithless electors, or contested results. The outcome of the election could turn upon unprecedented developments in the Electoral College, Supreme Court, or even in cyberspace. If the Democrats win, redistribution will amplify partisanship. If Trump wins, inequality will rise. There is no easy way forward for the United States.   Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com   Ekaterina Shtrevensky Research Analyst ekaterinas@bcaresearch.com Appendix 1: The Approval Question: Level Or Change? Chart 24Trump’s Historically Low Approval Rating US Election 2020: Civil War Lite US Election 2020: Civil War Lite The chief risk to our model is the interpretation of the presidential approval rating and its impact on the election. President Trump’s approval rating is notoriously low compared to the average president (Chart 24). While many authors use approval rating (or popularity) in their models, some argue that it is not the approval level, but the change in approval leading up to the election that matters.7 Consider the following: if President Trump’s approval increases from today’s level of 43% by 5%, he would be at the same level of approval as the average president if their approval were to drop by 5%. A model based on approval level would place these two presidents equally, while a model based on the change in approval would favor Trump. So which one is correct? We compare the incumbent’s popular vote in post-WWII elections with four different “variations” of incumbent president approval: the average level in July of the election year (as in our model); the deviation of the average October level from the election-year average, the change during the last two years of the term; and the range throughout the entire term. Directionally, the results are as expected. Level and change in approval are positively correlated with the popular vote, while a less stable approval (higher range) is negatively correlated (Chart 25A). We also find that approval level has the best fit with the election outcome, followed by the change in approval in the two years leading up to the election. However, if we restrict the sample size to the range of elections used in our model, 1984 to 2016, we find that the change in approval has a much better fit than the level (Chart 25B). In other words, in modern elections the presidential candidate’s momentum matters more in the final outcome. Chart 25AHigh, Rising, And Stable Approval Ratings … US Election 2020: Civil War Lite US Election 2020: Civil War Lite Chart 25B… Help Presidents Win Elections US Election 2020: Civil War Lite US Election 2020: Civil War Lite We tested each variation of approval as an input in our model instead of the July approval level. Table 3 summarizes the results. Trump wins in all four versions. Table 3All Measures Of Approval Favor Trump In 2020 US Election 2020: Civil War Lite US Election 2020: Civil War Lite Our current model penalizes Trump the most, while the model based on approval range favors him. This makes sense, given that President Trump’s approval is relatively low but very stable (Chart 26). Chart 26Trump Approval Very Low … And Very Stable US Election 2020: Civil War Lite US Election 2020: Civil War Lite We will continue to use approval level in our model to generate updated predictions, given that this measure has the best long-term historical fit with the election outcome. However, given that President Trump is performing relatively well on these other measures of approval, there is upside risk to his 2020 performance. Appendix 2: A Word About The Probit Model Table 4 presents the regression coefficients of our model. Since this is a probit model, the coefficients cannot be directly interpreted as they would in an ordinary regression. The coefficients in a probit regression model measure the change in the Z-score associated to each independent variable for a one-unit change in that variable. Table 4BCA 2020 US Presidential Election Model Statistics US Election 2020: Civil War Lite US Election 2020: Civil War Lite The sign of the coefficient corresponds to the direction of change in probability. So increases in the state leading index, presidential approval, or the incumbent’s margin of victory in the last election increase the probability of the incumbent winning a state. Of course, the latter variable is fixed and will not change until the election. At the same time, having occupied the White House for two terms or more decreases the probability of an incumbent win. But this is not the case in the current election. Footnotes 1 Andrew Johnson, the first to be impeached, did not run in 1868; Ulysses Grant bowed out after two terms in 1876, amid the “Great Barbecue” scandal; Warren Harding died before the election of 1924, amid the infamous “Teapot Dome” scandal; Harry Truman stepped down amid scandal after two terms in 1952; Richard Nixon resigned before the election of 1976; Bill Clinton was impeached and hit the two-term limit before the election of 2000. For these examples, and the electoral impact of great scandals in general, please see Allan J. Lichtman, Predicting The Next Presidency: The Keys To The White House 2016 (Rowman and Littlefield, 2016). 2 Trump’s policy record contains one major legislative victory, the Tax Cut and Jobs Act of 2017, along with a number of works in progress. The Republicans’ failed attempt to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) exacted an opportunity cost: it deprived Trump and the GOP Congress of time needed to legislate a southern border wall, while mobilizing the opposition for all subsequent elections. As for other policies, the renegotiation of NAFTA is only a partial success as the USMCA has not been ratified. The promised infrastructure package will become a campaign pledge for the second term. We expect some kind of North Korea deal. 3 To this end, we use a probit model, where the dependent variable is stated as 1 = incumbent party won all Electoral College votes in this state, or 0 = incumbent party did not win any Electoral College votes in this state. This model allows us to measure the probability that a state with certain characteristics will fall into one of these two categories. 4 “The leading index for each state predicts the six-month growth rate of the state’s coincident index. In addition to the coincident index, the models include other variables that lead the economy: state-level housing permits (1 to 4 units), state initial unemployment insurance claims, delivery times from the Institute for Supply Management (ISM) manufacturing survey, and the interest rate spread between the 10-year Treasury bond and the 3-month Treasury bill.” See the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia, www.philadelphiafed.org. 5 Alan I. Abramowitz, “Forecasting the 2008 Presidential Election with the Time-for-Change Model,” Political Science and Politics, Vol. 41, No. 4 (Oct., 2008), pp. 691-695. 6 We also assume that the Democrats always win the District of Columbia. 7 Please see Michael S. Lewis-Beck, Charles Tien, “Forecasting presidential elections: When to change the model,” International Journal of Forecasting, Volume 24, Issue 2, April–June 2008, Pages 227-236, and Mark Zandi, Dan White, Bernard Yaros, “2020 Presidential Election Model,” Moody’s Analytics, September 2019.

Highlights Global Growth: The latest readings from our global leading economic indicator and the global ZEW index show further improvement in growth momentum. Maintain a below-benchmark stance on global duration, favoring inflation-linked bonds/swaps over nominal bond exposure, while positioning for steeper government bond yield curves. New Zealand: The RBNZ is likely done cutting rates, amid signs that the momentum is bottoming for both growth and inflation in New Zealand. Take profits on our long-standing recommended NZ-US and NZ-Germany 5-year government bond spread trades. Feature Investors have a lot of information to process at the moment. The daily ebb and flow of headlines on the US-China trade negotiations remains the biggest source of intraday volatility. Yet there are also mixed signals coming from economic data releases. “Soft” survey data like global manufacturing PMIs are showing some improvement, while “hard” measures of economic activity like export volumes and capital goods orders continue to languish in both the developed and emerging economies. As we have discussed in recent reports, these sorts of cross-currents are typical at cyclical inflection points. “Hard” data is reported with a lag after “soft” data, making the latter a better indicator of future economic activity than exports or fixed investment data (or even GDP data) that can be several months old once reported, reducing their market-moving relevance. The indicators that we trust the most are sending a bullish message on growth – and a bearish message for government bonds. When global growth is in the process of bottoming, as appears to be the case now, leading economic indicators are more reliable guides to follow for investment decision-making. To that end, the indicators that we trust the most are sending a bullish message on growth – and a bearish message for government bonds. The Latest From Our Global LEI & Global ZEW Chart of the WeekMore Cyclical Upward Pressure On Bond Yields More Cyclical Upward Pressure On Bond Yields More Cyclical Upward Pressure On Bond Yields We received updates on two of our most reliable indicators – our global leading economic indicator (LEI) and the global ZEW expectations index – last week. Both showed broad-based improvement, highlighting that the sharp downward momentum in global growth seen over the past year is in the process of bottoming out. The global LEI and the global ZEW index are key inputs into our Duration Indicator, which has historically led developed market bond yields by between six and nine months (Chart of the Week). The Duration Indicator bottomed back in January of this year and, right on cue, the yield on the Bloomberg Barclays Global Treasury Index has gone up 28bps from the low seen on September 3. The improvement in our global LEI is also broad based. The diffusion index (i.e. the share of countries with a rising LEI) shows that around 75% of the countries in the global LEI are experiencing improved economic activity. Importantly, that share is consistent across both the developed market (DM) and emerging market (EM) nations in the indicator, heralding a synchronized improvement in global growth. (Chart 2).   In absolute level terms, however, the EM sub-component of our global LEI has shown the most dramatic improvement over the past several months, compared to the DM sub-index that is only in the process of bottoming out. The EM index is boosted by improvements in large economies like China and Mexico – countries that have seen significant easing of monetary policy and financial conditions over the past 6-9 months. At the same time, the lagging performance of the DM component of our global LEI is consistent with the more subdued signals to date from the individual DM country data. The US LEI continues to drift lower, while the LEIs within the euro area for Germany, Italy and (most notably) France have all been moving higher (Chart 3). Even the Japan and UK LEIs have picked up a bit, although both remain at only moderate levels. At the same time, the expectations components of the individual country ZEW surveys have all begun to increase (bottom panel), despite more mixed performance within the current conditions components of the same ZEW survey (top panel). Chart 2Our Global LEI Continues to Climb, Led By EM Our Global LEI Continues to Climb, Led By EM Our Global LEI Continues to Climb, Led By EM Chart 3A Mixed Bag Of DM Growth Indicators A Mixed Bag Of DM Growth Indicators A Mixed Bag Of DM Growth Indicators Without a doubt, a reduction of US-China trade tensions would flatter the bullish growth signals seen in the global LEI and ZEW indices. Yet the turn in these indicators is so consistent, across so many countries, that we suspect it has more to do with the easier monetary policies, and the associated loosening of financial conditions, that have taken place in response to the uncertainty over global trade. The turn in these indicators is so consistent, across so many countries, that we suspect it has more to do with the easier monetary policies, and the associated loosening of financial conditions, that have taken place in response to the uncertainty over global trade. Taken together, these signals are all bond-bearish, on the margin. The diffusion index of our global LEI has proven to be an excellent leading indicator of the real component of DM bond yields, leading the latter by around one year, and is pointing to higher yields ahead (Chart 4). At the same time, the inflation expectations component of DM yields (measured using CPI swaps rates) is also expected to drift higher in the next 6-12 months, led by firmer oil prices and some softening of the US dollar. Global central banks will maintain a dovish bias over at least the first half of 2020, to ensure that there is enough positive growth momentum to push inflation expectations back up towards policymaker targets. This means that there can be some modest bear-steepening of government bond yield curves across the major DM nations over the next 6-9 months (Chart 5), as policymakers will not begin to raise policy interest rates too soon. Chart 4Global Yields Moving Higher For The Usual Reasons Global Yields Moving Higher For The Usual Reasons Global Yields Moving Higher For The Usual Reasons Chart 5Higher Inflation Expectations = Steeper Yield Curves Higher Inflation Expectations = Steeper Yield Curves Higher Inflation Expectations = Steeper Yield Curves Chart 6Global Yields Starting To Climb Above Moving Averages Global Yields Starting To Climb Above Moving Averages Global Yields Starting To Climb Above Moving Averages The notable exception is the UK. Inflation expectations there are already elevated due to Brexit uncertainty, which has depressed the pound and reduced UK productivity growth while forcing the Bank of England to maintain highly accommodative monetary policy – all factors that should result in higher UK inflation, both realized and expected. Yet even there, the nominal Gilt curve has been bear-steepening of late, alongside the similar trends seen in the other major DM countries like the US and Germany. The move upward in global bond yields suggested by our most reliable leading indicators suggests more of a slow grinding increase in yields (through higher inflation expectations) rather than a rapid acceleration of real rates. The latter would require a shift towards more hawkish central bank monetary policies, which will not happen before there is a sustained pickup in both growth momentum and inflation expectations. The Federal Reserve is the central bank that is likely to lead that transition, but not until late in 2020 and perhaps not until after the November US presidential election. At the country level, the move upward in yields since the early September lows has begun to take out some technical targets (Chart 6). The benchmark 10-year government bond yield is above the 100-day moving average for the major DM countries (the US, Germany, UK, Japan, Canada and Australia). The 200-day moving averages represent the next key resistance level for those markets. The 10-year yield in Japan has already breached that level, perhaps signaling that similar breakouts are on the way in other major markets. Bottom Line: The latest readings from our global leading economic indicator and the global ZEW index show further improvement in growth momentum. Maintain a below-benchmark stance on global duration, favoring inflation-linked bonds/swaps over nominal bond exposure, while positioning for steeper government bond yield curves. Time To (Finally) Take Profits On Our New Zealand Spread Trades We have been structurally positive on New Zealand (NZ) government bonds since mid-2017. This was originally a shorter-term “tactical” view based on expectations that the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (RBNZ) would be forced to keep policy rates steady due to sub-par domestic economic growth and sluggish inflation. Since this was occurring at a time of improving global economic growth in 2017, especially in the US and euro area, we expressed our view as spread trades between 5-year government bonds in NZ versus equivalent maturity debt in the US and Germany (hedged back into US dollars and euros, respectively). The “tactical” trade turned into a medium-term recommendation, as the NZ economy and inflation slowed more than expected. NZ government bonds significantly outperformed global peers as a result, helping boost the returns on our recommended trades. The 5-year NZ-US yield spread has fallen from +74bps when we first initiated the trade to -52bps today, while the spread for 5-year NZ-Germany has narrowed from +292bps to +171bps (Chart 7). We now see several good reasons to take profits on those long-standing positions: NZ economic growth is set to improve The year-over-year growth rate of real GDP in NZ has slowed from 3.1% in mid-2017 (when we initiated our spread trades) to 2.1% in the Q2/2019 (Chart 8). This has occurred in both the manufacturing and services sides of the economy, based on the sharp drop in the PMIs (middle panel). Export growth has also slowed, particularly during the recent global manufacturing downturn, leading to sharp declines in business confidence and capital spending plans. The economic weakness was enough to push NZ real GDP growth below the rate of potential GDP - which is estimated by the RBNZ to have fallen from 3% to 2.5% due primarily to slowing population growth related to reduced net immigration into the country. Chart 7NZ Bonds Have Solidly Outperformed NZ Bonds Have Solidly Outperformed NZ Bonds Have Solidly Outperformed Chart 8NZ Growth Should Soon Bottom Out NZ Growth Should Soon Bottom Out NZ Growth Should Soon Bottom Out The long slump in NZ manufacturing appears to have ended, however. The manufacturing PMI index jumped 3.8 points to 52.6 in October, with the New Orders component rising 5.3 points to 56.2. This pushed the New Orders-to-Inventories ratio – a leading indicator of overall NZ business sentiment – to the highest level since March 2017 (bottom panel). The domestic side of the NZ economy is also set to improve (Chart 9). Consumer spending has been weighed down by both the structural factor of slowing immigration and the cyclical factor of slowing house prices. Median NZ house price growth has perked up of late, however, in response to the RBNZ’s rate cuts this year, which should help boost consumer spending through wealth effects. Business investment should also start to speed up as manufacturing activity improves, especially with the terms of trade (relative prices of NZ exports to imports) now starting to accelerate (middle panel). The external side of the economy is also set for some improvement. In the November 2019 RBNZ Monetary Policy Statement (MPS) published last week, the central bank laid out a very cautious forecast for an increase in the GDP growth of NZ’s trading partners in 2020 (bottom panel). The sharp pickup in the EM component of our global LEI, however, suggests that global growth, and demand for NZ exports, may be much stronger than the central bank envisions next year. NZ’s economy is running at close to full capacity In the November MPS, the RBNZ also presented its own estimates for spare capacity in the NZ economy, using a variety of economic models for both the output gap and the full employment “NAIRU” (Chart 10). The median estimate of the output gap models is around 0% and is expected to stay around those levels for the next two years. The NZ unemployment rate is projected to be stable around 4% through 2020, which is close to the median model estimate of NAIRU. Thus, by the central bank’s own reckoning, the NZ economy is running at full capacity. Chart 9An Upside Growth Surprise In 2020? An Upside Growth Surprise In 2020? An Upside Growth Surprise In 2020? Chart 10NZ Does Not Need More Rate Cuts NZ Does Not Need More Rate Cuts NZ Does Not Need More Rate Cuts The RBNZ also produces model estimates of the neutral level of its policy rate, the Overnight Cash Rate (OCR). The current OCR of 1.0% is at the low end of the range of model estimates (bottom panel). This seems inconsistent with an economy that may be operating with no spare capacity, as the RBNZ’s other models suggest. Those models appear to be giving an accurate read on the inflationary tendencies of the NZ economy, though. Underlying NZ inflation is accelerating While headline CPI inflation fell to 1.5% in Q3/2019, close to the bottom of the RBNZ’s 1-3% target band, core CPI inflation accelerated to 1.9% - just below the midpoint of the band (Chart 11). The decline in headline inflation can be attributed to weakness in the tradeables component of the CPI, but this should soon start to increase based on the lagged impact of the acceleration of energy prices denominated in NZ dollars (middle panel). With both growth and inflation dynamics now bottoming out in NZ, the RBNZ’s recent rate cuts may be working too well. Meanwhile, non-tradeables (i.e. domestically generated) CPI inflation has accelerated over the past few quarters and is now at 3.2% - above the top end of the RBNZ inflation band. This has occurred alongside an acceleration of average hourly earnings growth to 4.2%, suggesting a tight labor market that confirms the message from the RBNZ’s NAIRU models. NZ monetary conditions are now very easy With both growth and inflation dynamics now bottoming out in NZ, the RBNZ’s recent rate cuts may be working too well. The central bank also produces estimates of the neutral real rate in NZ, using the same “r*” framework used by the US Federal Reserve (Chart 12). The neutral real rate is estimated to be 1.25% which, when added to the 2% midpoint of the RBNZ’s target band, produces a neutral nominal rate of 3.25% - a whopping 225bps above the current OCR rate. Chart 11NZ Inflation Bottoming Out NZ Inflation Bottoming Out NZ Inflation Bottoming Out Chart 12NZ Monetary Conditions Now Appear Too Easy NZ Monetary Conditions Now Appear Too Easy NZ Monetary Conditions Now Appear Too Easy With rates so far below neutral in nominal terms, it is no surprise that the NZ dollar is at such low levels versus both the US dollar and the euro (bottom panel). This is providing an additional easing of monetary conditions that will help boost NZ growth and inflation over at least the next year – and likely force the RBNZ to stop cutting rates and, perhaps, even begin to lay the groundwork for taking back some of the 2019 rate reductions. In sum, the combination of improving growth momentum, accelerating inflation dynamics, loose monetary policy settings, and overvaluation make a powerful case for closing out our NZ-US and NZ-Germany spread trades at a healthy profit. NZ yields look too low versus the US and Germany Our fair value regression models for both the 5-year NZ-US spread (Chart 13), and the 5-year NZ-Germany spread (Chart 14), are both signaling that NZ government bonds are relatively expensive. These models estimate the fair value of the spreads as a function of relative central bank policy rates, relative unemployment rates and relative inflation rates. Both models suggest that the cross-country yield spreads have tightened too much relative to the economic fundamentals of NZ, the US and Germany. Chart 13NZ Government Bonds Look Expensive Versus US Treasuries ... NZ Government Bonds Look Expensive Versus US Treasuries ... NZ Government Bonds Look Expensive Versus US Treasuries ... Chart 14... And German Government Debt ... And German Government Debt ... And German Government Debt In sum, the combination of improving growth momentum, accelerating inflation dynamics, loose monetary policy settings, and overvaluation make a powerful case for closing out our NZ-US and NZ-Germany spread trades at a healthy profit (see the Tactical Overlay Trade table on Page 16). Bottom Line: The RBNZ is likely done cutting rates, amid signs that the momentum is bottoming for both growth and inflation in New Zealand. Take profits on our long-standing recommended NZ-US and NZ-Germany 5-year government bond spread trades Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index When In Doubt, Trust The Leading Indicators When In Doubt, Trust The Leading Indicators Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Highlights There is little risk that inflation will heat up over the next several months, … : Weak growth is more of a threat to the global economy than inflation. … which means the Fed won’t be in any hurry to take away this year’s rate cuts, … : We expect the Fed to leave the target fed funds rate alone for nearly all of 2020. … giving the economy plenty of opportunity to overheat: If trade tensions move to the back burner, and global manufacturing activity revives, the “insurance” rate cuts executed by the Fed and other central banks may turn out to have been unnecessary. The investment punch line is that accommodative monetary policy is likely to push asset prices and Treasury yields higher: Our revised Rates View Checklist supports going back to a below-benchmark duration stance over the tactical timeframe, in line with our cyclical view. Feature BCA researchers’ latest monthly view meeting opened with a discussion of whether inflation or deflation is the bigger risk to financial markets. Should investors be more concerned about signs of overheating or stalling growth? With inflation unable to get traction in any of the major economies, we all agreed that growth is the more critical unknown. An investor who gets the growth call right has the best chance of getting broad asset class positioning right, along with country, sector, duration, credit and currency tilts. While we continue to believe that there are more inflation pressures beneath the surface of the US economy than most investors realize, they are highly unlikely to manifest themselves any time soon. At today’s low-single-digit levels, inflation’s investment import is limited to its impact on monetary policy. Inflation expectations remain far below the levels that are consistent with the Fed’s inflation target (Chart 1), and the Fed is likely to keep policy easy until they adjust higher. Though it is uncertain just what levels of realized inflation, or inflation expectations, would trigger the Fed’s reaction function, we are confident that inflation will not be an issue in the coming year. Chart 1No Pressure To Remove Accommodation No Pressure To Remove Accommodation No Pressure To Remove Accommodation Chart 2Global Revival Ahead? Global Revival Ahead? Global Revival Ahead? We expect that global growth will surprise to the upside, pulling bond yields and risk asset prices higher. BCA’s global LEI bottomed earlier this year, and the diffusion index that leads directional moves in the LEI has turned sharply higher (Chart 2). The improvement is consistent with the easing in global financial conditions and the tentative détente in the trade war. Although we will not count on a completed “Phase I” agreement until it is signed, financial markets’ allergic reaction to trade tensions seems to have encouraged the White House to back off lest it undermine its re-election prospects. Interest Rates – Looking Back Figure 1Rates View Checklist Refreshing Our Rates View Refreshing Our Rates View We rolled out our Rates View Checklist a little over a year ago to systematize our interest rate analysis and to clarify the rationale underpinning our views1 (Figure 1). Detailing the key series we monitor to anticipate the future direction of rates helps clients think along with us while giving them the chance to adapt the framework for their own purposes. As we were starting from a position of recommending below-benchmark duration, the checklist was aimed at identifying and tracking the factors that could encourage us to become more constructive about Treasury bonds. We never did warm to duration on a cyclical basis, though we did turn tactically neutral in mid-August. Part of the reason was that we did not give enough weight to events outside of the US. Highly-rated, developed-market sovereign bonds are substitutes for one another, and there is a limit to how much currency-adjusted yields can deviate across countries. Very low to negative yields in the UK, France, Germany and Switzerland have exerted a magnetic pull on Treasury yields (Chart 3), and the different sovereigns should move in tandem going forward, with currency-hedged yields observing a tight range. Chart 3Birds Of A Feather Birds Of A Feather Birds Of A Feather The short end of the yield curve exerts considerable influence on rates across all maturities. Our US bond strategists’ golden rule of bond investing homes in on the deviation between actual and expected moves in the fed funds rate as the key determinant of duration positioning outcomes. Following their lead, our checklist is oriented around anticipating the Fed’s reaction to important incoming data. It seems to have done its job over the last year, highlighting the factors that drove the Fed to switch from dialing back accommodation to dialing it up. Although we never checked more than four of the eleven boxes in the checklist – Inverted Yield Curve, Sluggish Rise in Realized Inflation, Sluggish Rise in Inflation Breakevens and International Duress – those four boxes were enough to inspire the Fed’s dovish pivot. That pivot has so far encompassed three quarter-point rate cuts, pruning back the funds rate to 1.75% from 2.5%. It turns out that the key items in the checklist were the orientation of the yield curve; sluggish inflation expectations that the Fed worried could become “unanchored on the downside;” and the shadow of trade tensions that seem to have induced a global manufacturing recession, even if they have yet to infect the DM economies’ larger services sector. They tipped the scales for Fed policy and we will be especially alert to them going forward. Interest Rates – Looking Ahead Figure 2Revised Rates View Checklist Refreshing Our Rates View Refreshing Our Rates View While our interpretation of the checklist left something to be desired, we are convinced that the checklist approach is sound. We return to its framework for insight into the current rates outlook, after making a few tweaks to shore it up (Figure 2). Starting with Fed perceptions, there is still some daylight between our fed funds rate expectations and the market’s, as we think the Fed is done cutting, while the money market assigns a high probability to the possibility of one more cut (Chart 4). The combination of rate cuts and the rally in 10-year Treasury yields got the yield curve back to its typical upward-sloping orientation in October (Chart 5), so we can now uncheck the inverted curve box. We see the five-month inversion as a reason to be more vigilant, but given the unusually negative term premium, we are not treating it as a hard-and-fast sign of looming weakness. The money market has priced out all but one more rate cut, and the yield curve is no longer inverted, suggesting that recession fears are abating. Chart 4Looking For One More Cut Looking For One More Cut Looking For One More Cut Chart 5The Curve Is No Longer Inverted The Curve Is No Longer Inverted The Curve Is No Longer Inverted Chart 6Inflation Is Muted, ... Inflation Is Muted, ... Inflation Is Muted, ... We continue to check both of the sluggish inflation boxes. Realized inflation measures, headline and core, have slumped (Chart 6), and below-target inflation expectations remain a hot-button concern, judging by Fed speakers’ repeated references to them. The Fed has strapped itself to the mast with all its talk about inflation expectations, and it will not begin removing accommodation until inflation expectations revive. We cannot directly observe the output gap, but nearly 3% growth in 2018, and a rip-roaring labor market, offer solid evidence that it has closed and we leave its box unchecked. Labor market indicators unanimously point to the conclusion that monetary accommodation is not necessary. The unemployment rate is a full percentage point below the Fed’s and the CBO’s estimates of NAIRU. Ancillary indicators like the broader definition of unemployment including discouraged workers and involuntary part-time workers (Chart 7, top panel), and the openings (Chart 7, middle panel) and quits rates (Chart 7, bottom panel) from the JOLTS survey, testify to an extremely tight labor market. We expect that the pause in wage acceleration will prove temporary (Chart 8). Chart 7... Despite A Red-Hot Labor Market ... Despite A Red-Hot Labor Market ... Despite A Red-Hot Labor Market Chart 8Wage Gains Will Pick Up Again Wage Gains Will Pick Up Again Wage Gains Will Pick Up Again Chart 9No Overheating In The Real Economy No Overheating In The Real Economy No Overheating In The Real Economy With cyclical spending well short of past business cycle peaks (Chart 9), the real economy isn’t exerting any pressure on the Fed to intervene to choke off the expansion. (Although a modest pace of Fed hikes would support below-benchmark duration positioning, aggressive tightening to cut off overheating leads to recessions, and would favor long-maturity Treasuries.) We have removed the financial sector imbalances box because there has been no apparent follow through from Governor Brainard’s speech last September, which appeared to set the stage for tightening on the basis of frothy credit conditions. We maintain the international duress box, which is meant to alert us to an overseas crisis or near-crisis that could spark a flight to quality that depresses Treasury yields and/or inspires the Fed to pursue easier policy in an attempt to stave off contagion risks. Green shoots in manufact-uring, here and abroad, support the idea that growth outside the U.S. could be poised to accelerate. Chart 10Global Manufacturing Is Coming Back ... chart 10 Global Manufacturing Is Coming Back ... Global Manufacturing Is Coming Back ... Chart 11... And US Manufacturing May Have Bottomed ... And US Manufacturing May Have Bottomed ... And US Manufacturing May Have Bottomed We add “Flagging Global Growth” to address the global growth blind spot that undermined our call last year. Our US Bond Strategy colleagues find that the Global Manufacturing PMI, the US ISM Manufacturing PMI and the CRB Raw Industrials Index are the global growth measures that exert the strongest influence on Treasury yields. The Global Manufacturing PMI has risen off its lows over the last three months and is within striking distance of getting back above the 50 contraction/expansion line, led by the US2 and China (Chart 10). The outlook for the US ISM Manufacturing PMI looks good on several counts. First, the comparatively modest manufacturing sector tends to move with the much larger services sector, and the sharp bounce in the Services PMI bodes well for the Manufacturing PMI (Chart 11, top panel). Within the manufacturing survey, New Export Orders’ leap back over 50 suggests that the global economy may have already seen the worst of the manufacturing weakness that has swept the rest of the world (Chart 11, bottom panel). The jury is still out on the CRB Raw Industrials-to-gold ratio (Chart 12, top panel), as industrial commodity prices have yet to show any spunk (Chart 12, bottom panel).   Chart 12Commodities Have Yet To Turn Commodities Have Yet To Turn Commodities Have Yet To Turn Chart 13A Weaker Dollar Would Support Higher Rates A Weaker Dollar Would Support Higher Rates A Weaker Dollar Would Support Higher Rates With our trio of indicators mixed-to-positive on balance, we leave the global growth box unchecked. We have also added a dollar box to monitor when Treasury yields are drifting out of alignment with other sovereign yields. If the dollar and Treasury yields rise together, we would view the rise in yields as suspect and at risk of being reversed.3 There doesn’t appear to be any decoupling pressure now, as Treasury yields have risen while the dollar has bumped around in a narrow range (Chart 13, top panel), and bullish sentiment toward the dollar has cooled off, pointing the way to a currency-approved path to higher yields (Chart 13, bottom panel). Bottom Line: We check only two of the boxes in our revised rates checklist (Figure 2), supporting a below-benchmark duration stance. Investment Implications Like all investors, we hate to get anything wrong. We were wrong on rates, though, failing to see the potential for the 10-year Treasury yield to fall to 1.5%. The duration miss undermined results within the fixed income sleeve of our recommendations, as we didn’t take it off until the 10-year Treasury yield had fallen to 1.74% .4 We have modified our rates checklist to force ourselves to be more aware of the world beyond the US, but the available data still support below-benchmark duration positioning, and we now recommend going back to it over the tactical (0-3-month) timeframe. The date when monetary policy turns restrictive has been pushed out, and so have the dates when the bull markets in risk assets will end. We note that our overall asset allocation calls have performed well. Since we upgraded equities in our first 2019 report,5 the S&P 500 Total Return Index has gained 24% while our Treasury underweight, as proxied by the Bloomberg Barclays US Treasury Total Return Index, is up 7% (Chart 14, top panel). Since we upgraded spread product in late January,6 the Bloomberg Barclays US Corporate Investment Grade and High Yield Total Return Indexes are up 12% and 8%, respectively, versus the Treasury Index’s 7% (Chart 14, bottom panel). Chart 14Underweighting Treasuries Has Been The Way To Go Underweighting Treasuries Has Been The Way To Go Underweighting Treasuries Has Been The Way To Go The run-up to the Fed’s series of mid-cycle rate cuts doomed our duration call, but it has fortified the case for overweighting equities and spread product. We still expect the expansion, the equity bull market, and spread product’s long period of generating excess returns to die at the hands of the Fed. Now that the date when monetary policy settings become restrictive has been indefinitely delayed, the end-dates of the equity and credit bull markets have as well. We continue to recommend overweighting equities and spread product, and underweighting Treasuries.   Doug Peta, CFA Chief US Investment Strategist dougp@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see the September 17, 2018 US Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “What Would It Take To Change Our Bearish Rates View?” available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 2 The Global PMI is compiled from Markit’s individual country PMIs, so the chart shows the Markit US PMI instead of the more familiar ISM measure. 3 It the dollar were to rise significantly while Treasury yields rose faster than other DM sovereign yields, currency-adjusted Treasury yields would decouple from peer yields and arbitrage activity would likely bring them back down. 4 Please see the August 12, 2019 US Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “When The Facts Change,” available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see the January 7, 2019 US Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “What Now?” available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see the January 28, 2019 US Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “Double Breaker,” available at usis.bcaresearch.com.

Highlights The mood among investors is shifting from the recessionary gloom of this past summer. Equities worldwide are rallying, buoyed by a combination of dovish monetary policies, tentative signs of bottoming global growth and expectations of some sort of trade détente between the US and China. The latter is fueling more bullish sentiment towards equities in regions most exposed to global trade and manufacturing like Emerging Markets (EM) and Europe. Feature Chart 1Global Corporates: 2016 Revisited? Global Corporates: 2016 Revisited? Global Corporates: 2016 Revisited? Credit investors, in an unusual twist, have been far more optimistic than their equity brethren. Corporate bonds have delivered solid performance in 2019, with the Bloomberg Barclays Global Corporates total return index up +9.5% year-to-date. This is a surprising development, as global growth concerns triggered a major decline in developed market government bond yields but no widening of credit risk premia (Chart 1). With that in mind, this week we are presenting the latest update of our Corporate Health Monitor (CHM) Chartbook. The CHMs are composite indicators of balance sheet and income statement ratios (using both top-down and bottom-up data) designed to assess the financial well-being of the overall non-financial corporate sectors in the major developed economies. A brief overview of the methodology is presented in Appendix 1 on page 15. The overriding message from the latest read of our CHMs is that the manufacturing-led slowing of global growth this year has not resulted in much deterioration in overall corporate creditworthiness. There are fascinating cross-currents within the data, however. On a regional basis, the CHMs in the euro area, the UK and Canada are in better shape than in the US and Japan. The most interesting differences are across credit quality, with our “bottom-up” high-yield (HY) CHMs looking better than the investment grade (IG) equivalents in both the US and euro area, mostly due to greater relative increases in IG leverage. Our current global corporate bond investment recommendations broadly follow the trends signaled by our CHMs: an aggregate overweight stance versus global government debt, but with a “reverse quality bias” favoring HY over IG in the US and Europe. With government bond yields now on the rise across the developed markets – and with credit spreads fairly tight across the majority of countries - the period of hyper-charged absolute corporate bond returns is over. Expect more carry-like excess returns over sovereigns during the next 6-12 months. US Corporate Health Monitors: Steady Deterioration, Mostly Within Investment Grade Our top-down US CHM is sending a negative message on credit quality, staying in the “deteriorating health” zone since 2015 (Chart 2). The structural declines in the profitability ratios (return on capital and operating margin), debt coverage and, more recently, short-term liquidity are the main causes of that deterioration in US corporate health. Not all the news is negative, however. While operating margins have clearly peaked, they remain at a very high level. The top-down interest coverage ratio is also improving, thanks to low corporate borrowing rates. That is a welcome development that will help extend the US credit cycle by keeping downgrade/default risk, and the credit spreads required to compensate for it, subdued. When looking at our bottom-up US CHMs, the story becomes more nuanced. The bottom-up US high-yield CHM is signaling a surprisingly positive story, spending the past two years in “improving health” territory. The bottom-up US IG CHM remains above the zero line, as has been the case since 2012 (Chart 3). The multi-year increase in the debt-to-equity ratio, and declines in return on capital and interest coverage over the same period, are the main reasons why US IG corporate health has worsened, even as profit margins have stayed high. Chart 2Top-Down US CHM: Steadily Worsening Top-Down US CHM: Steadily Worsening Top-Down US CHM: Steadily Worsening Chart 3Bottom-Up US IG CHM: Some Areas Of Concern Bottom-Up US IG CHM: Some Areas Of Concern Bottom-Up US IG CHM: Some Areas Of Concern The bottom-up US HY CHM is signaling a more positive story, spending the past two years in “improving health” territory (Chart 4), led by stable balance sheet leverage and improvements in operating margins and return on capital. The absolute levels of interest and debt coverage ratios for US HY remain low – a potential future risk for US HY when the US economy goes into its next prolonged downturn. One common signal from all our US CHMs, both top-down and bottom-up, is that short-term liquidity ratios have declined. Those moves are driven by increases in the denominator of the ratios (the market value of assets for the top-down CHM, and the value of current liabilities in the bottom-up CHMs), rather than declines in working capital or cash on corporate balance sheets – trends that would typically precede periods of corporate distress. Just last week, we downgraded US IG to neutral, while maintaining an overweight tilt on US HY.1 The rationale for the move was based on value, as spreads for all US IG credit tiers had tightened to our spread targets, which is not yet the case for HY. The message from our bottom-up US CHMs supports that recommendation. The combination of improving global growth and a Fed that will stay dovish until US inflation has sustainably moved higher paints a favorable backdrop for the relative performance of all US corporate debt versus Treasuries. However, given our expectation that US bond yields will continue to move higher over the next 6-12 months, the lower interest rate duration of US HY relative to IG also supports favoring the former over the latter (Chart 5). Chart 4Bottom-Up US HY CHM: Looking Better Than IG (!) Bottom-Up U.S. HY CHM: Looking Better Than IG (!) Bottom-Up U.S. HY CHM: Looking Better Than IG (!) Chart 5US Corporates: Stay Overweight HY & Neutral IG U.S. Corporates: Stay Overweight HY & Neutral IG U.S. Corporates: Stay Overweight HY & Neutral IG Euro Corporate Health Monitors: Some Cyclical Weakness Our bottom-up euro area CHMs are sending different messages for lower-rated and higher-quality issuers, similar to the divergence in our bottom-up US CHMs. For euro area IG, the gap between domestic and foreign issuers has been widening, with the former now in “deteriorating health” territory (Chart 6). Leverage has gone up for all issuers, with debt/equity ratios now above 100%, but the pace of increase has been faster for domestic issuers. Return on capital and profit margins for domestic issuers have declined since the start of 2018 alongside the prolonged slowing of euro area economic growth. For domestic euro area IG issuers, interest coverage has been steadily climbing since 2015 when the ECB went to negative rates and, more importantly, started its Asset Purchase Program that included corporate debt. Our bottom-up euro area CHMs are sending different messages for lower-rated and higher-quality issuers, similar to the divergence in our bottom-up US CHMs. For euro area HY, the signal from the bottom-up CHM is more positive for both domestic and foreign issuers (Chart 7), with both CHMs sitting just in the “improving health” zone. Leverage has declined, but profit-based metrics have worsened for both sets of issuers. Interest/debt coverage and liquidity, however, are far worse for domestic issuers than foreign issuers. Chart 6Bottom-Up Euro Area IG CHMs: Weak Growth Hitting Domestic Issuers Bottom-Up Euro Area IG CHMs: Weak Growth Hitting Domestic Issuers Bottom-Up Euro Area IG CHMs: Weak Growth Hitting Domestic Issuers Chart 7Bottom-Up Euro Area HY CHMs: Healthy, But Leverage Now Rising Bottom-Up Euro Area HY CHMs: Healthy, But Leverage Now Rising Bottom-Up Euro Area HY CHMs: Healthy, But Leverage Now Rising Within the euro area, our bottom-up IG CHMs for Core and Periphery countries have worsened over the past year, from healthy levels, with both above the zero line (Chart 8). Interest coverage is considerably stronger for Core issuers, although profitability metrics are remarkably similar. Short-term liquidity ratios have also fallen for both regional groups over the past year. We have maintained a moderate overweight stance on euro area corporates, both for IG and HY, since the summer of this year (Chart 9). This view was based on expectations that the European Central Bank (ECB) would ease monetary policy, not on a forecast that euro area growth would revive organically. That outcome came to fruition when the ECB cut rates in September and restarted asset purchases earlier this month. The ECB’s moves create a more supportive monetary backdrop (along with an undervalued euro) that will help keep euro area credit spreads tight – a trend that is reinforced by decent corporate health. Chart 8Bottom-Up Euro Area Regional IG CHMs: Heading In The Wrong Direction Bottom-Up Euro Area Regional IG CHMs: Heading In The Wrong Direction Bottom-Up Euro Area Regional IG CHMs: Heading In The Wrong Direction Chart 9Euro Area Corporates: Stay Overweight IG & HY Euro Area Corporates: Stay Overweight IG & HY Euro Area Corporates: Stay Overweight IG & HY Chart 10Relative Bottom-Up CHMs: Turning In Favor Of The US? Relative Bottom-Up CHMs: Turning In Favor Of The US? Relative Bottom-Up CHMs: Turning In Favor Of The US? We see no reason to alter our recommendations on euro area credit, based on our forecast of better global growth, with no change to the ECB’s ultra-accommodative monetary stance, in 2020. However, a stronger growth backdrop could benefit euro area HY performance more than IG, based on the comparatively healthier signal from the bottom-up euro area HY CHM. The gap between the combined IG/HY bottom-up CHMs for the US and euro area aligns with credit spread differentials between euro area and US issuers (Chart 10).2 latest trends show a narrowing of the gap between the US and euro area CHMs, suggesting relative corporate health favors US names (middle panel). At the same time, the stronger performance of the US economy, which is much less levered to global trade and manufacturing compared to Europe, continues to support US corporate performance versus euro area equivalents (bottom panel). UK Corporate Health Monitor: Some Improvement, Even With Brexit Uncertainty Despite the persistent uncertainty over the UK-EU Brexit negotiations that has weighed on UK economic confidence, our top-down UK CHM remains in the "improving health" zone (Chart 11). All of the individual components are contributing to the strength of the CHM, which even improved from those healthy levels in Q2/2019 (the most recent data available). A sustained easing of UK financial conditions – easy monetary policy alongside a deeply undervalued currency – have helped boost interest/debt coverage ratios by keeping UK corporate borrowing costs low. Top-down operating margins for UK non-financial firms have surprisingly increased and now sit just under 25%. Short-term liquidity remains solid with leverage holding at non-problematic levels. As we discussed in a recent Special Report, the UK economy has been holding up fairly well despite the political uncertainty that has driven a prolonged slowdown in productivity growth through weak business investment.3 The UK consumer has continued to spend, however, seemingly desensitized to the political drama, and the labor market has remained tight enough to support a decent pace of household income growth. Despite the persistent uncertainty over the UK-EU Brexit negotiations, our top-down UK CHM remains in the "improving health" zone. The near term performance of the UK's economy is highly dependent on the final result of Brexit negotiations. If a negotiated Brexit occurs, UK corporates can start to ramp up the capital spending that has been delayed due to the political uncertainty, which will eventually lead to an improvement in UK productivity growth and overall corporate performance. A strengthening pound and rising government bond yields, driven by markets unwinding Brexit risk premia, will mitigate some of that growth thrust, but the net effect will still boost the relative performance of UK corporate debt versus Gilts. There are still near-term political risks stemming from the UK parliamentary election next month, with the deadline for a UK-EU Brexit deal delayed until after the election. Thus, we continue to maintain only a neutral stance on UK IG corporates in our model bond portfolio, despite our overall bias to be overweight global corporate debt versus government bonds. We will reconsider that stance after we have more clarity on the final resolution of the Brexit uncertainty. At a minimum, however, we expect UK corporates to continue to deliver solid excess returns versus UK Gilts (Chart 12). Chart 11UK Top-Down CHM: Solid Improvement, Despite Brexit U.K. Top-Down CHM: Solid Improvement, Despite Brexit U.K. Top-Down CHM: Solid Improvement, Despite Brexit Chart 12UK Corporates: Stay Neutral U.K. Corporates: Stay Neutral U.K. Corporates: Stay Neutral Japan Corporate Health Monitor: A Further Cyclical Deterioration Our bottom-up Japan CHM remains in the "deteriorating health" zone, as has been the case since the start of 2018 (Chart 13).4 The message from the individual CHM components, however, is that this is a cyclical, not structural, deterioration in Japanese corporate credit quality, and from a very healthy starting point. Leverage, defined here as the ratio of total debt to the book value of equity, is slightly above 100%, well below the 100-140% range seen between 2006 and 2015. A similar trend exists for return on capital, which has dipped below 5% but remains high relative to its history (although very low by global standards). Operating margins, debt coverage and short-term liquidity are down from recent peaks but all remain well above the lows of the decade since the 2008 financial crisis. Interest coverage has suffered a more meaningful deterioration relative to its history. However, this is more a cyclical issue related to falling profits (the numerator of the ratio) rather than rising interest costs (the denominator), with the latter remaining subdued thanks to the Bank of Japan’s hyper-easy monetary policy. For the former, the cyclical momentum in Japan’s economy is not improving, despite some recent evidence that global growth may be stabilizing. According to the latest Tankan survey, Japanese manufacturers – who saw profits fall -31% on a year-over-year basis in Q2/2019 - reported a worse business outlook than previously expected, both for large and small firms. This is not surprising, as Japan’s economy remains highly levered to global growth and export demand, in general, and China, in particular. Yet the less trade-sensitive services sector has also weakened – forecasts of the Tankan non-manufacturing index have already rolled over and the services PMI dropped to 49.7 in October. Japan’s corporate spread has widened slightly (+10bps) since the beginning of this year (Chart 14), in contrast to the spread tightening seen in other major developed economy corporate bond markets. This is sign that the markets have responded to the slowing growth momentum in Japan with a bit of a wider risk premium. Yet despite that widening, Japanese corporates with small positive yields continue to generate positive excess returns (on a duration-matched basis) versus Japanese Government Bonds (JGBs); yields on the latter will remain anchored near zero by the Bank of Japan’s Yield Curve Control policy. Thus, we continue to recommend an overweight stance on Japanese corporates vs JGBs as a buy-and-hold carry trade, even with the softening in our Japan CHM.  Chart 13Japan Bottom-Up CHM: Cyclical Deterioration Japan Bottom-Up CHM: Cyclical Deterioration Japan Bottom-Up CHM: Cyclical Deterioration Chart 14Japan Corporates: Stay Overweight Vs JGBs For Carry Japan Corporates: Stay Overweight Vs JGBs For Carry Japan Corporates: Stay Overweight Vs JGBs For Carry Canada Corporate Health Monitors: Continuous Improvement Our top-down and bottom-up Canadian CHMs indicate an improving trend in Canadian corporate health, with both remaining in the “improving” zone as of the latest data available from Q2/2019 (Chart 15). The cyclical components (return on capital and operating margins) have gradually improved over the past three years, but remain relatively weak compared to history. Leverage is rising (now above 120% in our bottom-up CHM), but interest/debt coverage ratios remain steady and, in the case of the bottom-up CHM, have outright improved over the past year. We reviewed the Canadian economy last week5 and concluded that a Bank of Canada interest rate cut was unlikely because of signs of improving domestic growth momentum at a time when core inflation was at the midpoint of the BoC’s 1-3% target range. Overall, Canadian growth has been resilient in the face of the 2019 global manufacturing downturn, and should re-accelerate in the next year led by a firm consumer with rebounding housing and business investment. This should help boost the cyclical components of our Canada CHMs, especially if some improvement in global growth helps lift demand for Canadian commodity exports. We also introduced a framework to analyze Canadian corporate bonds in a Special Report published in late August.6 We concluded that Canadian companies’ financial health remains a positive for corporate bond returns on a cyclical basis, but high leverage and mediocre profitability were longer-term concerns. We also noted that the higher credit quality of Canadian corporates, where only 40% of the investment grade index is rated BBB, made them more potentially appealing on a creditworthiness basis relative to the lower quality markets in the US (50% BBB share) and euro area (52%). We continue to recommend an overweight position in Canadian corporate debt relative to Canadian government bonds as a carry trade. We continue to recommend an overweight position in Canadian corporate debt relative to Canadian government bonds as a carry trade. Spreads have held in a well-established range of 100-200bps since the 2009 recession (Chart 16), even during periods when our CHMs were indicating worsening corporate health. Accommodative monetary conditions and relatively low Canadian interest rates will continue to make Canadian corporates relatively attractive, in an environment of decent growth and firm corporate health. Chart 15Canada CHMs: Still Healthy, Despite Slower Growth Canada CHMs: Still Healthy, Despite Slower Growth Canada CHMs: Still Healthy, Despite Slower Growth Chart 16Canadian Corporates: Stay Overweight Vs Canadian Govt. Debt Canadian Corporates: Stay Overweight Vs Canadian Govt. Debt Canadian Corporates: Stay Overweight Vs Canadian Govt. Debt   Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com   Ray Park, CFA Research Analyst ray@bcaresearch.com Appendix 1: An Overview Of The BCA Corporate Health Monitors The BCA Corporate Health Monitor (CHM) is a composite indicator designed to assess the underlying financial strength of the corporate sector for a country. The Monitor is an average of six financial ratios inspired by those used by credit rating agencies to evaluate individual companies. However, we calculate our ratios using top-down (national accounts) data for profits, interest expense, debt levels, etc. The idea is to treat the entire corporate sector as if it were one big company, and then look at the credit metrics that would be used to assign a credit rating to it. Importantly, only data for the non-financial corporate sector is used in the CHM, as the measures that would be used to measure the underlying health of banks and other financial firms are different than those for the typical company. The six ratios used in the CHM are shown in Table 1 below. To construct the CHM, the individual ratios are standardized, added together, and then shown as a deviation from the medium-term trend. That last part is important, as it introduces more cyclicality into the CHM and allows it to better capture major turning points in corporate well-being. Largely because of this construction, the CHM has a very good track record at heralding trend changes in corporate credit spreads (both for Investment Grade and High-Yield) over many cycles. Table 1Definitions Of Ratios That Go Into The CHMs BCA Corporate Health Monitor Chartbook: Mixed Signals, But Growth Matters More BCA Corporate Health Monitor Chartbook: Mixed Signals, But Growth Matters More Top-down CHMs are now available for the US, euro area, the UK and Canada. The CHM methodology was extended in 2016 to look at corporate health by industry and by credit quality.7 The financial data of a broad set of individual US and euro area companies was used to construct individual “bottom-up” CHMs using the same procedure as the more familiar top-down CHM. Some of the ratios differ from those used in the top-down CHM (see Table 1), largely due to definitional differences in data presented in national income accounts versus those from actual individual company financial statements. The bottom-up CHMs analyze the health of individual sectors, and can be aggregated up into broad CHMs for Investment Grade and High-Yield groupings to compare with credit spreads. In 2018, we introduced bottom-up CHMs for Japan and Canada. With the country expansion of our CHM universe, we now have coverage for 92% of the Bloomberg Barclays Global Aggregate Corporate Bond Index (Appendix Chart 1). Appendix Chart 1We Now Have CHM Coverage For 92% Of The Developed Market Corporate Bond Universe BCA Corporate Health Monitor Chartbook: Mixed Signals, But Growth Matters More BCA Corporate Health Monitor Chartbook: Mixed Signals, But Growth Matters More Footnotes 1 Please see BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, “How Sweet It Is”, dated November 6, 2019, available at gfis.bcareseach.com. 2 We only use the CHMs for euro area domestic issuers in this aggregate bottom-up CHM, as this is most reflective of uniquely European corporate credits. This also eliminates double-counting from US companies that issue in the euro area market that are part of our US CHMs. 3 Please see BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report, “United Kingdom: Cyclical Slowdown Or Structural Malaise?”, dated September 20, 2019, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 4 We do not currently have a top-down CHM for Japan given the lack of consistent government data sources for all the necessary components. 5 Please see BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, “How Sweet It Is”, dated November 6, 2019, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report, “The Great White North: A Framework For Analyzing Canadian Corporate Bonds”, dated August 28, 2019, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 7 Please see Section II of The Bank Credit Analyst, “U.S. Corporate Health Gets A Failing Grade”, dated February 2016, available at bca.bcaresearch.com. Appendix 2: US Bottom-Up CHMs For Selected Sectors APPENDIX 2: ENERGY SECTOR APPENDIX 2: ENERGY SECTOR APPENDIX 2: MATERIALS SECTOR APPENDIX 2: MATERIALS SECTOR APPENDIX 2: COMMUNICATIONS SECTOR APPENDIX 2: COMMUNICATIONS SECTOR APPENDIX 2: CONSUMER DISCRETIONARY SECTOR APPENDIX 2: CONSUMER DISCRETIONARY SECTOR APPENDIX 2: CONSUMER STAPLES SECTOR APPENDIX 2: CONSUMER STAPLES SECTOR APPENDIX 2: HEALTH CARE SECTOR APPENDIX 2: HEALTH CARE SECTOR APPENDIX 2: INDUSTRIALS SECTOR APPENDIX 2: INDUSTRIALS SECTOR APPENDIX 2: TECHNOLOGY SECTOR APPENDIX 2: TECHNOLOGY SECTOR   APPENDIX 2: UTILITIES SECTOR APPENDIX 2: UTILITIES SECTOR   The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index BCA Corporate Health Monitor Chartbook: Mixed Signals, But Growth Matters More BCA Corporate Health Monitor Chartbook: Mixed Signals, But Growth Matters More Recommendations Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

  Highlights While the Caixin PMI is pointing to improving economic conditions, other data series still reflect weak growth. China’s business cycle is likely to bottom in Q1 of next year, rather than in Q4. The failure of Chinese stocks to significantly outperform the global benchmark and the continued underperformance of cyclical stocks underscore the near-term risks to equities if this month’s trade & manufacturing data disappoint. We continue to recommend a neutral tactical stance (0-3 months) towards Chinese equities versus global stocks, but expect them to outperform on a cyclical (6-12 month) time horizon after economic growth firmly bottoms. Feature Tables 1 and 2 on pages 2 and 3 highlight key developments in China’s economy and its financial markets over the past month. On the growth front, the data remains mixed: the strength in the October Caixin PMI and the September pickup in electricity production are positive signs, but other important datapoints still point to weak conditions. We continue to expect that China’s business cycle is likely to bottom in Q1 of next year, rather than in Q4. We continue to expect that growth will bottom in Q1 of next year, rather than in Q4. Table 1China Macro Data Summary China Macro And Market Review China Macro And Market Review Table 2China Financial Market Performance Summary China Macro And Market Review China Macro And Market Review Within financial markets, Chinese stocks have rallied in absolute terms over the past month in response to greatly increased odds of a trade truce between China and the US, but have failed to outperform the global benchmark. This, in combination with the continued underperformance of cyclical stocks, suggests that hard evidence of an economic improvement in China will be required before Chinese stocks begin to rise in relative terms. The risk of near-term underperformance is still present, especially if October’s hard trade and manufacturing data disappoint. We continue to recommend a neutral tactical stance (0-3 months) towards Chinese equities versus global stocks, but expect them to outperform on a cyclical (6-12 month) time horizon after economic growth firmly bottoms. In reference to Tables 1 and 2, we provide below several detailed observations concerning developments in China’s macro and financial market data: Chart 1Not Yet A Clear Change In Trend Not Yet A Clear Change In Trend Not Yet A Clear Change In Trend The Bloomberg Li Keqiang index (LKI) ticked up in September, led by an improvement in electricity production. An improvement in the LKI in lockstep with a rising Caixin manufacturing PMI (discussed below) raises the odds that the Chinese economy may be bottoming earlier than we expect, but for now only modestly so. Chinese economic data is highly volatile, and Chart 1 shows that the improvement in the LKI is very muted when shown as a 3-month moving average. In addition, a slight improvement also occurred earlier this year, but proved to be a false signal. All told, for now we continue to expect that growth will bottom in Q1 of next year, rather than in Q4. Our leading indicator for the LKI was essentially flat in September on a smoothed basis, with sequential declines in M3 growth and the credit components of the indicator offsetting improvements in monetary conditions and M2. From a big picture perspective, the story of our LKI leading indicator remains unchanged: it continues to trend higher, at a much shallower pace than has been the case during previous easing cycles. The uptrend is the basis of our forecast that China’s growth will soon bottom, but the uncharacteristically shallow nature of the rise suggests that the eventual recovery will be modest. On a smoothed basis, Chinese residential floor space sold improved again in September, following a very significant rise in August. Over the past 12-18 months, we had emphasized that the double-digit pace of growth in China’s housing starts was unsustainable because it had entirely decoupled from the trend in sales (which have reliably led construction activity over the past decade). This gap disappeared over the summer due to a significant slowdown in starts, which is what we predicted would occur. However, the recent acceleration in floor space sold represents a legitimate fundamental improvement in the housing market, that for now is difficult to attribute to the recent drivers of housing demand (Chart 2).1 Still, investors should continue to watch China’s housing demand data closely over the coming few months, for further signs of a potential re-acceleration in housing construction. Investors need to see meaningful sequential improvements in China’s October trade and manufacturing data. The October improvement in China’s Caixin PMI was quite notable, as it appears to confirm the full one-point rise in the index that occurred in September and suggests that manufacturing in China’s private-sector is now durably expanding. Still, conflicting signals remain: the official PMI fell in October and remains below 50, and the significant September improvement in the Caixin PMI was not corroborated by an improvement in producer prices or nominal import growth (Chart 3). As PMIs are simply timely coincident indicators that do not generally have leading properties, investors will need to see meaningful sequential improvements in China’s October trade and manufacturing data in order to have confidence that the Caixin PMI improvement is not a false signal. Chart 2It Is Not Yet Apparent What Is Driving A Pickup In Housing Demand It Is Not Yet Apparent What Is Driving A Pickup In Housing Demand It Is Not Yet Apparent What Is Driving A Pickup In Housing Demand Chart 3If The Caixin PMI Is Not A False Signal, A Hard Data Improvement Must Occur Soon If The Caixin PMI Is Not A False Signal, A Hard Data Improvement Must Occur Soon If The Caixin PMI Is Not A False Signal, A Hard Data Improvement Must Occur Soon Chinese stocks have rallied 6-7% over the past month in absolute terms, but have modestly underperformed global equities. The rally in global stock prices has occurred largely in response to the mid-October announcement of a trade truce between China and the US. The failure of Chinese stocks to outperform during this period suggests hard evidence of an economic improvement in China will be required before Chinese stocks begin to outpace their global peers. At the regional equity level, the other notable development over the past month has been the continued outperformance of the MSCI Taiwan Index versus the global benchmark. Taiwan’s outperformance has been boosted by a rising TWD versus the dollar, but Taiwanese stocks have also outperformed in local currency terms. Taiwan province is highly exposed to global trade, and it is not surprising that equities have reacted positively to the prospect of a trade truce between the US and China. Further meaningful outperformance, however, will likely require a re-acceleration in Taiwanese exports, as export growth has merely halted its contraction (Chart 4). Within China’s investable equity market, cyclicals have underperformed defensives over the past month after having rallied significantly from late-August to mid-September (Chart 5). We noted in our October 30 Special Report that these cyclical sectors have historically been positively correlated with pro-cyclical macroeconomic and equity market variables,2 and their underperformance versus defensives is thus consistent with the failure of Chinese stocks in the aggregate to outperform global equities over the past month. In both cases, outperformance likely requires hard evidence of an upturn in China’s business cycle. Chart 4Export Growth Needs To Improve In Order To Expect Further Taiwanese Relative Outperformance Export Growth Needs To Improve In Order To Expect Further Taiwanese Relative Outperformance Export Growth Needs To Improve In Order To Expect Further Taiwanese Relative Outperformance Chart 5Cyclical Underperformance Underscores The Near-Term Risks To Chinese Vs. Global Stocks Cyclical Underperformance Underscores The Near-Term Risks To Chinese Vs. Global Stocks Cyclical Underperformance Underscores The Near-Term Risks To Chinese Vs. Global Stocks We do not take the rise in Chinese government bond yields as necessarily indicative of an imminent breakout in relative equity performance. Chart 6Chinese Relative Equity Performance Leads Bond Yields, Not The Other Way Around Chinese Relative Equity Performance Leads Bond Yields, Not The Other Way Around Chinese Relative Equity Performance Leads Bond Yields, Not The Other Way Around Chinese 10-year government bond yields have risen roughly 15bps over the past month, and are now 30bps off of their mid-August low. Many market participants view Chinese government bond yields as a leading growth barometer, but 10-year yields have actually lagged Chinese investable stock performance over the past two years (Chart 6). As such, we do not take the rise in yields as necessarily indicative of an imminent breakout in relative equity performance. Chinese onshore corporate bond spreads have declined over the past month as government bond yields have been rising, continuing a pattern of negative correlation between the two that has prevailed since early-2018. A negative correlation between yields and corporate bond spreads is a normal relationship, and it suggests that spreads may narrow over the coming year if the Chinese economy bottoms in Q1, as we expect. Spreads remain elevated despite the substantial easing in monetary conditions that occurred last year, due to persistent concerns about rising onshore defaults. While we acknowledge that defaults are indeed occurring, we have argued on several occasions that the pace of defaults would have to be much faster in order for current spreads to be justified.3 We continue to recommend a long RMB-denominated position in China’s onshore corporate bond market. The RMB has appreciated over the past month in response to news of a likely trade truce between the US and China, with most of the rise having occurred versus the US dollar. USD-CNY is likely to sustainably trade below the 7 mark in a trade truce scenario, but how much further downside is possible in the near-term absent a re-acceleration in Chinese economic activity remains an open question. With the Fed very likely on hold for the next year, stronger than expected economic growth in China would likely catalyze a persistent selloff in USD-CNY barring a re-emergence of the Sino-US trade war. This, however, is not our base-case view, meaning that we expect modest post-deal strength in the RMB.   Jonathan LaBerge, CFA Vice President Special Reports jonathanl@bcaresearch.com Jing Sima China Strategist JingS@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1. Please see China Investment Strategy Special Report, “China’s Property Market: Where Will It Go From Here?” dated September 13, 2018. 2. Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “A Guide To Chinese Investable Equity Sector Performance,” dated October 30, 2019. 3. Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Reports, “A Shaky Ladder,” dated June 13, 2018, "Investing In The Middle Of A Trade War,” dated September 19, 2018 and "2019 Key Views: Four Themes For China In The Coming Year,” dated December 5, 2018. Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations

Highlights Our leading gauges of EM commodity-demand growth indicate global industrial-commodity demand has troughed and will be moving higher in the wake of supportive global financial conditions. The magnitude and speed of any commodity-demand rebound hinges on the joint evolution of the USD, which remains close to record highs, and global economic policy uncertainty. Reduced policy uncertainty will translate to a weaker USD, which, all else equal, will be bullish for commodity demand. Chinese economic stimulus remains weak, suggesting policymakers are holding off deploying aggressive fiscal and monetary policy until later this year or next year. Policy risk remains the chief threat to a robust recovery of industrial-commodity demand globally. A ceasefire in the Sino-US trade war will not resolve deeper trade and security issues, which means global financial easing must offset still-pronounced economic uncertainty that is keeping the USD well bid. If policy uncertainty remains high, it will continue to be a headwind for commodity-demand growth.  Feature EM GDP growth is showing signs of accelerating, based on our EM Commodity-Demand Nowcast model. This will translate to higher commodity demand in coming months (Chart of the Week). Our EM Commodity-Demand Nowcast is a coincident indicator of commodity demand, comprised of our Global Industrial Activity (GIA) Index, and our Global Commodity Factor (GCF) and EM Import Volume (EMIV) models (Chart 2). The GIA index uses trade data, FX rates, manufacturing data, and Chinese industrial activity statistics to gauge current global industrial activity, which is highly correlated with trade-related activity. The GCF uses principal component analysis to distill the primary driver of 28 different commodity prices traded globally. Lastly, the EMIV model is driven by EM import volumes reported with a two-month lag by the CPB in the Netherlands, which we update to current time using FX rates for trade-sensitive currencies, commodity prices and interest rates variables. Chart of the WeekEM Commodity-Demand Nowcast Hooking Up EM Commodity-Demand Nowcast Hooking Up EM Commodity-Demand Nowcast Hooking Up Chart 2BCA EM Commodity-Demand Nowcast Components Show Growth Resuming Globally BCA EM Commodity-Demand Nowcast Components Show Growth Resuming Globally BCA EM Commodity-Demand Nowcast Components Show Growth Resuming Globally We expect the recovery in global economic growth to reduce the marginal impact of the global policy uncertainty on the USD, and on oil demand. Our EM Commodity-Demand Nowcast is strongly correlated with y/y growth in nominal EM GDP and non-OECD oil consumption. Its improvement supports our view oil demand will continue to strengthen, particularly next year, when we expect growth to average 1.4mm b/d. We expect the recovery in global economic growth to reduce the marginal impact of the global policy uncertainty on the USD, and on oil demand.1 As demand strengthens – and recession fears subside – economic policy uncertainty’s contribution to safe-haven demand for the USD will diminish. This means economic growth will once again be the main driver of cyclical commodity demand growth. The GIA component of our Nowcast is sensitive to real activity in China, which is the largest consumer of base metals, iron ore and steel. Here, it is instructive to see the components other than manufacturing appear to have bottomed, which, at the margin, should be supportive of base metals, iron ore and steel products (Chart 3). The China Economy Component of the index has hooked higher last month, but it still is lagging. This suggests policymakers are holding off on deploying fiscal and monetary stimulus aggressively for now. We expect this will change by 1H20, if organic growth fails to materialize.2 Chart 3BCA GIA Index Components Point Toward Demand Growth BCA GIA Index Components Point Toward Demand Growth BCA GIA Index Components Point Toward Demand Growth Global Financial Conditions Support Commodity Demand For the better part of this year, systemically important central banks globally have been running accommodative monetary policies. With this week’s rate cut, the Fed now has lowered rates three times this year, and the ECB is preparing to roll out QE once again. We expect monetary policy to continue to support a revival of industrial-commodity demand (Chart 4). The easing of global financial conditions has been a pillar of our view. The easing of global financial conditions has been a pillar of our view that globally accommodative monetary policy will reverse the damage done to global commodity demand growth by the Fed’s rates-normalization policy last year and China’s deleveraging campaign of 2017-18. Financial markets have responded to this stimulus, as our colleague Rob Robis points out in this week’s Global Fixed Income Strategy.3 Global equity markets have moved 10% higher y/y, as financial conditions ease (Chart 5): Chart 4Global Financial Conditions Remain Supportive For Commodities Global Financial Conditions Remain Supportive For Commodities Global Financial Conditions Remain Supportive For Commodities Chart 5Global Equities, LEIs Move Higher Global Equities, LEIs Move Higher Global Equities, LEIs Move Higher “Equity prices are an excellent leading indicator of global growth, while bond yields typically reflect current economic conditions. … We see no reason to discount the positive message on growth from rallying equity markets, especially when confirmed by an improvement in our global leading economic indicator (LEI), led by the more cyclical emerging market (EM) countries.” (Chart 6). The real economy also is responding to stimulative global financial conditions, as EM manufacturing activity indicates. EM manufacturing is outpacing activity in DM markets (Chart 7). This is bullish for trade volumes and EM income growth, which will, all else equal, be supportive of industrial-commodity demand (Chart 8). Chart 6EM Equity, FX Markets Strengthen EM Equity, FX Markets Strengthen EM Equity, FX Markets Strengthen Chart 7EM Manufacturing Outperforms DM EM Manufacturing Outperforms DM EM Manufacturing Outperforms DM Chart 8EM Manufacturing Correlates With Trade Growth EM Manufacturing Correlates With Trade Growth EM Manufacturing Correlates With Trade Growth Economic Policy Uncertainty Continues To Dog Growth As promising as these indications of a revival in commodity demand may be, global economic policy uncertainty – particularly as regards the Sino-US trade war and trade in general – will remain a hindrance to reviving commodity demand. We have shown that global economic uncertainty stifles oil-demand growth, and commodity demand generally.4These policy risks are exogenous to the commodity markets and are, therefore, very difficult to hedge. While we expect economic uncertainty globally to decline, it will not completely evaporate. It will remain elevated vs. its historical average, despite the decline from its recent record-high level. Presently, commodity markets are positively discounting the likely “phase one” trade deal expected to be agreed between Presidents Trump and Xi Jinping. We expect this to reduce economic uncertainty and weaken the USD, at the margin. In addition, as our colleague Matt Gertken notes in last week’s Geopolitical Strategy, other sources of uncertainty – particularly a disorderly Brexit – also are being addressed: “Not only are U.S.-China relations slightly thawing, but also the risk of the U.K. leaving the EU without a withdrawal agreement has collapsed. This will reinforce Europe’s underlying political stability despite the manufacturing recession and help create a drop in global uncertainty.”5 Still, while we expect economic uncertainty globally to decline, it will not completely evaporate. It will remain elevated vs. its historical average, despite the decline from its recent record-high level. Consequently, monetary policy will have to remain accommodative in order for the momentum in global growth – mainly in EM economies – to increase and reach the threshold where fears of recession dissipate, a necessary condition required to reduce the correlation between global economic policy uncertainty and the USD. For the USD to no longer be a headwind to commodity-demand growth, monetary policy globally will be forced to offset the remaining, lingering economic policy uncertainty that is keeping the USD well bid.  There still are significant risks going into 2020, as our geopolitical strategists note: “Uncertainty will remain elevated beyond the fourth quarter, however, for two main reasons. First, US uncertainty will rise, not fall, as a result of the impending 2020 election. Second, the trade ceasefire is highly unlikely to resolve the slate of disagreements and underlying strategic distrust plaguing U.S.-China relations. This will cap the rebound we expect in global business sentiment.” So, while uncertainty will fall as President Trump retreats from his previously intransigent trade position vis-à-vis China, its diminution will be limited. All the same, the chances markets will return to the status quo ante are close to zero. This means that for the USD to no longer be a headwind to commodity-demand growth, monetary policy globally will be forced to offset the remaining, lingering economic policy uncertainty that is keeping the USD well bid. So far, it would appear this is happening, given the improvement in global financial conditions currently visible in the data. However, it is not a given this will continue, and markets will be forced to keep a weather eye on these conditions going forward. Bottom Line: Global financial conditions are easing significantly and propelling financial markets higher, particularly global equity markets. We expect the real economy – i.e., commodity markets – also will benefit from monetary accommodation and that aggregate demand will lift as EM income growth improves. This likely will put downward pressure on the USD. Importantly, if the divergence between EM and DM increases, it could offset the impact of global economic policy uncertainty’s impact on the USD and reduce the demand for dollars. We continue to expect oil demand to be supported by monetary accommodation globally and fiscal stimulus as 2019 winds down and into 2020. We also expect real interest rates will remain soft, as central banks try to keep financial conditions loose enough to encourage risk taking and investment. This will continue to support demand for industrial commodities, particularly oil and base metals.   Robert P. Ryan Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist rryan@bcaresearch.com Hugo Bélanger Senior Analyst Commodity & Energy Strategy HugoB@bcaresearch.com   Market Round-Up NB: This week we are adopting a new format and moving our short summaries of other commodity markets to the back of our Weekly Report, which will align our layout with BCA Research’s new look. Energy: Overweight. Saudi Aramco is set to IPO November 3, 2019, according to Reuters. The company is looking at a float of 1 – 2% on the Tadawal, which could be the largest IPO in history.6 Separately, the Trump administration renewed Chevron’s waiver to operate in Venezuela for three months last week. Chevron produces ~ 47k b/d in Venezuela. Sanctions waivers for Halliburton, Schlumberger, Baker Hughes and Weatherford International also were renewed.7 Base Metals: Neutral. LME nickel closed close to 12% below the five-year high registered September 2, following the announcement of an immediate ban in exports of nickel ore from Indonesia on Monday. Although LME nickel stocks are at an 11-year low refined nickel production is expected to rise 4.5% next year to 2.5mm MT, according to MB Fastmarkets. Precious Metals: Neutral. Gold traded sideways going into this week’s FOMC meeting. We remain long gold as a portfolio hedge, and continue to expect it to move higher as 4Q19 progresses. Ags/Softs: Underweight. Grains remain lackluster, despite President Trump's expectations of cementing his “phase one deal” with Chinese President Xi Jinping, which will open the way for China to purchase some $40-$50 billion worth of US ag products. Footnotes 1 We discuss the impact of global economic policy uncertainty on oil prices at length in Policy Uncertainty Lifts USD, Stifles Global Oil Demand Growth, which we published October 17, 2019.  2 Our China Investment Strategy team cautions investors to wait for “hard data” to confirm recent indications the economy has bottomed and will be moving toward stronger growth.  Please see our China Macro And Market Review published October 2, 2019.  It is available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see Big Mo(mentum) Is Turning Positive, published by BCA Research’s Global Fixed Income Strategy October 29, 2019.  It is available at gfis.bacresearch.com. 4 Please see Policy Uncertainty Lifts USD, Stifles Global Oil Demand Growth, which we published October 17, 2019, for more detail on the transmission mechanism from global economic uncertainty to the USD to commodity demand.  Briefly, as uncertainty increases safe-haven demand for the USD increases.  This stifles demand growth for commodities generally, because it increases the local-currency costs of commodities ex-US. 5 Please see Is China Afraid Of The Big Bad Warren?, a Special Report published by BCA Research’s Geopolitical Strategy October 25, 2019.  It is available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see Saudi Aramco aims to begin planned IPO on Nov. 3: sources published by reuters.com on October 29, 2019. 7 Please see US Extends Chevron's Venezuela waiver published by Argus Media’s argusmedia.com service October 21, 2019. Investment Views and Themes Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades TRADE RECOMMENDATION PERFORMANCE IN 2019 Q3 Global Economic Policy Uncertainty Lifts Gold And USD Together Global Economic Policy Uncertainty Lifts Gold And USD Together Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed in Summary Of Trades Closed In 2018 Global Economic Policy Uncertainty Lifts Gold And USD Together Global Economic Policy Uncertainty Lifts Gold And USD Together Summary Of Trades Closed In 2017 Global Economic Policy Uncertainty Lifts Gold And USD Together Global Economic Policy Uncertainty Lifts Gold And USD Together Summary Of Trades Closed In 2016 Global Economic Policy Uncertainty Lifts Gold And USD Together Global Economic Policy Uncertainty Lifts Gold And USD Together

Highlights The U.S. and China are moving toward formalizing a trade ceasefire that reduces geopolitical risk in the near term. The risk of a no-deal Brexit is finished – removing a major downside to European assets. Spanish elections reinforce our narrative of general European political stability. Go long 10-year Italian BTPs / short 10-year Spanish bonos for a trade. Geopolitical risks will remain elevated in Turkey, rise in Russia, but remain subdued in Brazil. A post-mortem of Canada’s election suggests upside to fiscal spending but further downside to energy sector investment over the short to medium term. Feature After a brief spike in trade war-related geopolitical risk just prior to the resumption of U.S.-China negotiations, President Trump staged a tactical retreat in the trade war. Chart 1Proxy For Trade War Shows Falling Risk Proxy For Trade War Shows Falling Risk Proxy For Trade War Shows Falling Risk Negotiating in Washington, President Trump personally visited the top Chinese negotiator Liu He and the two sides announced an informal “phase one deal” to reverse the summer’s escalation in tensions: China will buy $40-$50 billion in U.S. agricultural goods while the U.S. will delay the October 15 tariff hike. More difficult issues – forced tech transfer, intellectual property theft, industrial subsidies – were punted to later. The RMB is up 0.7% and our own measures of trade war-related risk have dropped off sharply (Chart 1). We think these indicators will be confirmed and Trump’s retreat will continue – as long as he has a chance to save the 2020 economic outlook and his reelection campaign. Odds are low that Trump will be removed from office by a Republican-controlled senate – the looming election provides the republic with an obvious recourse for Trump’s alleged misdeeds. However, Trump’s approval rating is headed south. While it is around the same level as President Obama’s at this point in his first term, Obama’s started a steep and steady rise around now and ended above 50% for the election, a level that is difficult to foresee for Trump (Chart 2). So Trump desperately needs an economic boost and a policy victory to push up his numbers. Short of passing the USMCA, which is in the hands of the House Democrats, a deal with China is the only way to get a major economic and political win at the same time. Hence the odds of Presidents Trump and Xi actually signing some kind of agreement are the highest they have been since April (when we had them pegged at 50/50). Trump will have to delay the December 15 tariff hike and probably roll back some of the tariffs over next year as continuing talks “make progress,” though we doubt he will remove restrictions on tech companies like Huawei. Still, we strongly believe that what is coming is a détente rather than the conclusion of the Sino-American rivalry crowned with a Bilateral Trade Agreement. Strategic tensions are rising on a secular basis between the two countries. These tensions could still nix Trump’s flagrantly short-term deal-making, and they virtually ensure that some form of trade war will resume in 2021 or 2022, if indeed a ceasefire is maintained in 2020. Both sides are willing to reduce immediate economic pain but neither side wants to lose face politically. Trump will not forge a “grand compromise.” Our highest conviction view all along has been – and remains – that Trump will not forge a “grand compromise” ushering in a new period of U.S.-China economic reengagement in the medium or long term. China’s compliance, its implementation of structural changes, will be slow or lacking and difficult to verify at least until the 2020 verdict is in. This means policy uncertainty will linger and business confidence and capex intentions will only improve on the margin, not skyrocket upward (Chart 3). Chart 2Trump Needs A Policy Win And Economic Boost How Much To Buy An American President? – GeoRisk Update: October 25, 2019 How Much To Buy An American President? – GeoRisk Update: October 25, 2019 Chart 3Sentiment Will Improve ... Somewhat Sentiment Will Improve ... Somewhat Sentiment Will Improve ... Somewhat The problem for bullish investors is that even if global trade uncertainty falls, and the dollar’s strength eases, fear will shift from geopolitics to politics, and from international equities to American equities (Chart 4). Trump, hit by impeachment and an explosive reaction to his Syria policy, is entering into dangerous territory for the 2020 race. Trump’s domestic weakness threatens imminent equity volatility for two reasons. Chart 4American Outperformance Falls With Trade Tensions bca.gps_wr_2019_10_25_c4 bca.gps_wr_2019_10_25_c4 Chart 5Democratic Win In 2020 Is Market-Negative Democratic Win In 2020 Is Market-Negative Democratic Win In 2020 Is Market-Negative First, if Trump’s approval rating falls below today’s 42%, investors will begin pricing a Democratic victory in 2020, i.e. higher domestic policy uncertainty, higher taxes, and the re-regulation of the American economy (Chart 5). This re-rating may be temporarily delayed or mitigated by the fact that former Vice President Joe Biden is still leading the Democratic Party’s primary election race. Biden is a known quantity whose policies would simply restore the Obama-era status quo, which is only marginally market-negative. Contrary to our expectations Biden's polling has not broken down due to accusations of foul play in Ukraine and China. Nevertheless, Senator Elizabeth Warren will gradually suck votes away from fellow progressive Senator Bernie Sanders and in doing so remain neck-and-neck with Biden (Chart 6). When and if she pulls ahead of Biden, markets face a much greater negative catalyst. (Yes, she is also capable of beating Trump, especially if his polling remains as weak as it is.) Chart 6Warren Will Rise To Front-Runner Status With Biden How Much To Buy An American President? – GeoRisk Update: October 25, 2019 How Much To Buy An American President? – GeoRisk Update: October 25, 2019 Second, if Trump becomes a “lame duck” he will eventually reverse the trade retreat above and turn into a loose cannon in his final months in office. Right now we see a decline in geopolitical risk, but if the economy fails to rebound or the China ceasefire offers little support, then Trump will at some point conclude that his only chance at reelection is to double down on his confrontation with America’s enemies and run as a “war president.” A cold war crisis with China, or a military confrontation with Iran (or North Korea, Venezuela, or some unexpected target) could occur. But since September we have been confirmed in believing that Trump is trying to be the dealmaker one last time before any shift to the war president. Bottom Line: The “phase one” trade deal is really just a short-term ceasefire. Assuming it is signed by Trump and Xi, it suggests no increase in tariffs and some tariff rollback next year. However, as recessionary fears fade, and if Trump’s reelection chances stabilize, U.S.-China tensions on a range of issues will revive – and there is no getting around the longer-term conflict between the two powers. For this and other reasons, we remain strategically short RMB-USD, as the flimsy ceasefire will only briefly see RMB appreciation. BoJo's Brexit Bluff Is Finished Our U.K. indicator captured a sharp decline in political risk in the past two weeks and our continental European indicators mirrored this move (Chart 7). The risk that the U.K. would fall out of the EU without a withdrawal agreement has collapsed even further than in September, when parliament rejected Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s no-deal gambit and we went long GBP-USD. We have since added a long GBP-JPY trade. Chart 7Collapse In No-Deal Risk Will Echo Across Europe Collapse In No-Deal Risk Will Echo Across Europe Collapse In No-Deal Risk Will Echo Across Europe Chart 8Unlikely To See Another Tory/Brexit Rally Like This Unlikely To See Another Tory/Brexit Rally Like This Unlikely To See Another Tory/Brexit Rally Like This The risk of “no deal” is the only reason to care about Brexit from a macro point of view, as the difference between “soft Brexit” and “no Brexit” is not globally relevant. What matters is the threat of a supply-side shock to Europe when it is already on the verge of recession. With this risk removed, sentiment can begin to recover (and Trump’s trade retreat also confirms our base case that he will not impose tariffs on European cars on November 14). Since Brexit was the only major remaining European political risk, European policy uncertainty will continue to fall. The Halloween deadline was averted because the EU, on the brink of recession, offered a surprising concession to Johnson, enabling him to agree to a deal and put it up for a vote in parliament. The deal consists of keeping Northern Ireland in the European Customs Union but not the whole of the U.K., effectively drawing a new soft border at the Irish Sea. The bill passed the second reading but parliament paused before finalizing it, rejecting Johnson’s rapid three-day time table. The takeaway is that even if an impending election returns Johnson to power, he will seek to pass his deal rather than pull the U.K. out without a deal. This further lowers the odds of a no-deal Brexit as it illuminates Johnson's preferences, which are normally hidden from objective analysis. True, there is a chance that the no-deal option will reemerge if Johnson’s deal totally collapses due to parliamentary amendments, or if the U.K. and EU have failed to agree to a future relationship by the end of the transition period on December 31, 2020 (which can be extended until the end of 2022). However, the chance is well below the 30% which we deemed as the peak risk of no-deal back in August. Johnson created the most credible threat of a no-deal exit that we are likely to see in our lifetimes – a government with authority over foreign policy determined to execute the outcome of a popular referendum – and yet parliament stopped it dead in its tracks. Johnson does not want a no-deal recession and his successors will not want one either. After all, the support for Brexit and for the Tories has generally declined since the referendum, and the Tories are making a comeback on the prospect of an orderly Brexit (Chart 8). All eyes will now turn toward the impending election. Opinion polls still show that Johnson is likely to be returned to power (Chart 9). The Tories have a prospect of engrossing the pro-Brexit vote while the anti-Brexit opposition stands divided. No-deal risk only reemerges if the Conservatives are returned to power with another weak coalition that paralyzes parliament. Chart 9Tory Comeback As BoJo Gets A Deal Tory Comeback As BoJo Gets A Deal Tory Comeback As BoJo Gets A Deal Chart 10Brexit Means Greater Fiscal Policy Brexit Means Greater Fiscal Policy Brexit Means Greater Fiscal Policy Whatever the election result, we maintain our long-held position that Brexit portends greater fiscal largesse (Chart 10). The agitated swath of England that drove the referendum result will not be assuaged by leaving the European Union – the rewards of Brexit are not material but philosophical, so material grievances will return. Voter frustration will rotate from the EU to domestic political elites. Voters will demand more government support for social concerns. Johnson’s own government confirms this point through its budget proposals. A Labour-led government would oversee an even more dramatic fiscal shift. Our GeoRisk indicator will fall on Brexit improvements but the question of the election and next government will ensure it does not fall too far. Our long GBP trades are tactical and we expect volatility to remain elevated. But the greatest risk, of no deal, is finished, so it does make sense for investors with a long time horizon to go strategically long the pound. The greatest risk, of a no deal Brexit, is finished. Bottom Line: Brexit posed a risk to the global economy only insofar as it proved disorderly. A withdrawal agreement by definition smooths the process. Continental Europe will not suffer a further shock to net exports. The Brexit contribution to global policy uncertainty will abate. The pound will rise against the euro and yen and even against the dollar as long as Trump’s trade retreat continues. Spain: Further Evidence Of European Stability We have long argued that the majority of Catalans do not want independence, but rather a renegotiation of the region's relationship with Spain (Chart 11). This month’s protests in Barcelona following the Catalan independence leaders’ sentencing are at the lower historical range in terms of size – protest participation peaked in 2015 along with support for independence (Table 1). Table 1October Catalan Protests Unimpressive How Much To Buy An American President? – GeoRisk Update: October 25, 2019 How Much To Buy An American President? – GeoRisk Update: October 25, 2019 Our Spanish risk indicator is showing a decline in political risk (Chart 12). However, we believe that this fall is slightly overstated. While the Catalan independence movement is losing its momentum, the ongoing protests are having an impact on seat projections for the upcoming election.  Chart 11Catalonians Not Demanding Independence Catalonians Not Demanding Independence Catalonians Not Demanding Independence Chart 12Right-Wing Win Could Surprise Market, But No Worries Right-Wing Win Could Surprise Market, But No Worries Right-Wing Win Could Surprise Market, But No Worries Since the April election, the right-wing bloc of the People’s Party, Ciudadanos, and Vox has been gaining in the seat projections at the expense of the Socialist Party and Podemos. Over the course of the protests, the left-wing parties’ lead over the right-wing parties has narrowed from seven seats to one (Chart 13). If this momentum continues, a change of government from left-wing to right-wing becomes likely. However, a right-wing government is not a market-negative outcome, and any increase in risk on this sort of election surprise would be short-lived. The People’s Party has moderated its message and focused on the economy. Besides pledging to limit the personal tax rate to 40% and corporate tax rate to 20%, the People’s Party platform supports innovation, R&D spending, and startups. The party is promising tax breaks and easier immigration rules to firms and employees pursuing these objectives. Chart 13Spanish Right-Wing Parties Narrow Gap With Left How Much To Buy An American President? – GeoRisk Update: October 25, 2019 How Much To Buy An American President? – GeoRisk Update: October 25, 2019 Another outcome of the election would be a governing deal between PSOE and Podemos, along with case-by-case support from Ciudadanos. After a shift to the right lost Ciudadanos 5% in support since the April election, leader Albert Rivera announced in early October that he would be lifting the “veto” on working with the Socialist Party. If the right-wing parties fall short of a majority, then Rivera would be open to talks with Socialist leader Pedro Sanchez. A governing deal between PSOE, Podemos, and Ciudadanos would have 175 seats, as of the latest projections, which is just one seat short of a majority. As we go to press, this is the only outcome that would end Spain’s current political gridlock, and would therefore be the most market-positive outcome. Bottom Line: Despite having a fourth election in as many years, Spanish political risk is contained. This is reinforced by a relatively politically stable backdrop in continental Europe, and marginally positive developments in the U.K. and on the trade front. We remain long European versus U.S. technology, and long EU versus Chinese equities. We will also be looking to go long EUR/USD when and if the global hard data turn. Following our European Investment Strategy, we recommend going long 10-year Italian BTPs / short 10-year Spanish bonos for a trade. Turkey, Brazil, And Russia Chart 14Turkish Risk Will Rise Despite 'Ceasefire' Turkish Risk Will Rise Despite 'Ceasefire' Turkish Risk Will Rise Despite 'Ceasefire' Turkey’s political risk skyrocketed upward after we issued our warning in September (Chart 14). We maintain that the Trump-Erdogan personal relationship is not a basis for optimism regarding Turkey’s evading U.S. sanctions. Both chambers of the U.S. Congress are preparing a more stringent set of sanctions, focusing on the Turkish military, in the wake of Trump’s decision to withdraw U.S. forces from northeast Syria. At a time when Trump needs allies in the senate to defend him against eventual impeachment articles, he is not likely to veto and risk an override. Moreover, Turkey’s military incursion into Syria, which may wax and wane, stems from economic and political weakness at home and will eventually exacerbate that weakness by fueling the growing opposition to Erdogan’s administration and requiring more unorthodox monetary and fiscal accommodation. It reinforces our bearish outlook on Turkish lira and assets. Chart 15Brazilian Risk Will Not Re-Test 2018 Highs Brazilian Risk Will Not Re-Test 2018 Highs Brazilian Risk Will Not Re-Test 2018 Highs Brazil’s political risk has rebounded (Chart 15). The Senate has virtually passed the pension reform bill, as expected, which raises the official retirement age for men and women to 65 and 63 respectively. This will generate upwards of 800 billion Brazilian real in savings to improve the public debt profile. Of course, the country will still run primary deficits and thus the public debt-to-GDP ratio will still rise. Now the question shifts to President Jair Bolsonaro and his governing coalition. Bolsonaro’s approval rating has ticked up as we expected (Chart 16). If this continues then it is bullish for Brazil because it suggests that he will be able to keep his coalition together. But investors should not get ahead of themselves. Bolsonaro is not an inherently pro-market leader, there is no guarantee that he will remain disciplined in pursuing pro-productivity reforms, and there is a substantial risk that his coalition will fray without pension reform as a shared goal (at least until markets riot and push the coalition back together). Therefore we expect political risk to abate only temporarily, if at all, before new trouble emerges. Furthermore, if reform momentum wanes next year, then Brazil’s reform story as a whole will falter, since electoral considerations emerge in 2021-22. Hence it will be important to verify that policymakers make progress on reforms to tax and trade policy early next year. Our Russian geopolitical risk indicator is also lifting off of its bottom (see Appendix). This makes sense given Russia’s expanding strategic role (particularly in the Middle East), its domestic political troubles, and the risks of the U.S. election. The latter is especially significant given the risk (not our base case, however) that a Democratic administration could take a significantly more aggressive posture toward Russia. Political risk in Turkey and Russia will continue to rise. Bottom Line: Political risk in Turkey and Russia will continue to rise. Russia is a candidate for a “black swan” event, given the eerie quiet that has prevailed as Putin devotes his fourth term to reducing domestic political instability. Brazil, on the other hand, has a 12-month window in which reform momentum can be reinforced, reducing whatever spike in risk occurs in the aftermath of the ruling coalition’s completion of pension reform. Canada: Election Post-Mortem Prime Minister Justin Trudeau returned to power at the head of a minority government in Canada’s federal election (Chart 17). The New Democratic Party (NDP) lost 15 seats from the last election, but will have a greater role in parliament as the Liberals will need its support to pass key agenda items (and a formal governing coalition is possible). The NDP’s result would have been even worse if not for its last-minute surge in the polls after the election debates and Trudeau’s “blackface” scandal. Chart 17Liberals Need The New Democrats Now How Much To Buy An American President? – GeoRisk Update: October 25, 2019 How Much To Buy An American President? – GeoRisk Update: October 25, 2019 The Conservative Party won the popular vote but only 121 seats in parliament, leaving the western provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan aggrieved. The Bloc Québécois, the Quebec nationalist party, gained 22 seats to become the third-largest party in the House. Energy investment faces headwinds in the near-term. The Liberal Party will face resistance from the Left over the Trans Mountain pipeline. Trudeau will not necessarily have to sacrifice the pipeline to appease the NDP. He may be able to work with Conservatives to advance the pipeline while working with the NDP on the rest of his agenda. But on the whole the election result is the worst-case scenario for the oil sector and political questions will have to be resolved before Canada can take advantage of its position as a heavy crude producer near the U.S. Gulf refineries in an era in which Venezuela is collapsing and Saudi Arabia is exposed to geopolitical risk and attacks. More broadly, the Liberals will continue to endorse a more expansive fiscal policy than expected, given Canada’s low budget deficits and the need to prevent minor parties from eating away at the Liberal Party’s seat count in future. Bottom Line: The Liberal Party failed to maintain its single-party majority. Trudeau’s reliance on left-wing parties in parliament may prove market-negative for the Canadian energy sector, though that is not a forgone conclusion. Over the longer term the sector has a brighter future.   Matt Gertken Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com Ekaterina Shtrevensky Research Analyst ekaterinas@bcaresearch.com Appendix GeoRisk Indicator TRADE WAR GEOPOLITICAL RISK INDICATOR TRADE WAR GEOPOLITICAL RISK INDICATOR U.K.: GeoRisk Indicator U.K.: GEOPOLITICAL RISK INDICATOR U.K.: GEOPOLITICAL RISK INDICATOR France: GeoRisk Indicator FRANCE: GEOPOLITICAL RISK INDICATOR FRANCE: GEOPOLITICAL RISK INDICATOR Germany: GeoRisk Indicator GERMANY: GEOPOLITICAL RISK INDICATOR GERMANY: GEOPOLITICAL RISK INDICATOR Spain: GeoRisk Indicator SPAIN: GEOPOLITICAL RISK INDICATOR SPAIN: GEOPOLITICAL RISK INDICATOR Italy: GeoRisk Indicator ITALY: GEOPOLITICAL RISK INDICATOR ITALY: GEOPOLITICAL RISK INDICATOR Canada: GeoRisk Indicator CANADA: GEOPOLITICAL RISK INDICATOR CANADA: GEOPOLITICAL RISK INDICATOR Russia: GeoRisk Indicator RUSSIA: GEOPOLITICAL RISK INDICATOR RUSSIA: GEOPOLITICAL RISK INDICATOR Turkey: GeoRisk Indicator TURKEY: GEOPOLITICAL RISK INDICATOR TURKEY: GEOPOLITICAL RISK INDICATOR Brazil: GeoRisk Indicator BRAZIL: GEOPOLITICAL RISK INDICATOR BRAZIL: GEOPOLITICAL RISK INDICATOR Taiwan: GeoRisk Indicator TAIWAN: GEOPOLITICAL RISK INDICATOR TAIWAN: GEOPOLITICAL RISK INDICATOR Korea: GeoRisk Indicator KOREA: GEOPOLITICAL RISK INDICATOR KOREA: GEOPOLITICAL RISK INDICATOR What's On The Geopolitical Radar? How Much To Buy An American President? – GeoRisk Update: October 25, 2019 How Much To Buy An American President? – GeoRisk Update: October 25, 2019 Section III: Geopolitical Calendar

Leading Equity Indicator Leading Equity Indicator Following up on our “chart of the year candidate” we published two weeks ago,1 we drilled deeper and discovered two additional economically sensitive indexes that have consistently peaked prior to the SPX in the past three cycles. They now comprise the U.S. Equity Strategy’s Equity Leading Indicator – an equally weighted composite of the S&P Banks index, the Russell 2000 index and the Value Line Geometric index. Importantly, our new indicator is now signaling that the easy money has already been made this cycle in the SPX (top panel) – a message that is also shared by another in-house computed gauge: Corporate Pricing Power Indicator (CPPI). Following its sharp decline in late 2018, CCPI is now contracting (middle panel) arguing that companies’ pricing power, and consequently margins, are headed south (bottom panel). Bottom Line: Caution is still warranted on the prospects of the broad market. For a detailed update on our CPPI, please refer to the most recent Weekly Report.   1 Please See U.S. Equity Strategy, "Peak Margins," dated October 7, 2019.

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

Highlights Q3/2019 Performance Breakdown: Our recommended model bond portfolio underperformed the custom benchmark by -30bps during the third quarter of the year. Winners & Losers: The biggest underperformance came from underweight positions in U.S. Treasuries (-28bps) and Italian government bonds (-18bps) as yields plunged, dwarfing gains from overweights in corporate bonds in the U.S. (+11bps) and euro area (+4bps). Scenario Analysis For The Next Six Months: We are maintaining our current positioning, staying below-benchmark on duration while overweighting U.S. and euro area corporates vs. government debt. In our base case scenario, global growth will begin to stabilize but the Fed will deliver one more “insurance” rate cut by year-end, leading to corporate bond outperformance. Feature Global bond markets have enjoyed a powerful bull run throughout 2019, as yields have plummeted alongside weakening global growth and growing political uncertainty. Those two forces came to a head in the third quarter of the year, with U.S.-China trade tensions ratcheting up another notch after the imposition of higher U.S. tariffs in early August and global manufacturing PMI data moving into contraction territory – especially in the U.S. The result was a significant fall in government bond yields as markets discounted both lower inflation expectations and more aggressive monetary easing from global central banks, led by the Fed and ECB. The benchmark 10-year U.S. Treasury yield and 10-year German Bund yield plunged -40bps and -25bps, respectively, during the July-September period. Yet at the same time, global credit markets remained surprisingly stable, as the option-adjusted spread on the Bloomberg Barclays Global Corporates index was unchanged over the same three months. In this report, we review the performance of the BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy (GFIS) model bond portfolio during the eventful third quarter of 2019. We also present our updated scenario analysis, and total return projections, for the portfolio over the next six months. As a reminder to existing readers (and to new clients), the model portfolio is a part of our service that complements the usual macro analysis of global fixed income markets. The portfolio is how we communicate our opinion on the relative attractiveness between government bond and spread product sectors. This is done by applying actual percentage weightings to each of our recommendations within a fully invested hypothetical bond portfolio. Q3/2019 Model Portfolio Performance Breakdown: Good News On Credit Trumped By Bad News On Duration Chart of the WeekDuration Losses Dwarf Credit Gains In Q3/19 Duration Losses Dwarf Credit Gains In Q3/19 Duration Losses Dwarf Credit Gains In Q3/19 The total return for the GFIS model portfolio (hedged into U.S. dollars) in the third quarter was 2.0%, lagging the custom benchmark index by -30 bps (Chart of the Week).1 This brings the cumulative year-to-date total return of the portfolio to +7.8%, which has underperformed the benchmark by a disappointing –67bps. The Q3 drag on relative returns came entirely from the government bond side of the portfolio; specifically, the underweight allocation to U.S. Treasuries and Italian government bonds (Table 1). Those allocations reflected our views on overall portfolio duration (below benchmark) and a relative value consideration within European spread product (preferring corporates to Italy). Both those recommendations went against us as global bond yields dropped during Q3, with Italian yields collapsing (the benchmark 10-year yield was down –126bps) as investors chased any positive yield denominated in euros after the ECB signaled a new round of policy easing. The total return for the GFIS model portfolio (hedged into U.S. dollars) in the third quarter was 2.0%, lagging the custom benchmark index by -30 bps  Table 1GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q3/2019 Overall Return Attribution Q3/2019 GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Performance Review: More Duration/Credit Divergence Q3/2019 GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Performance Review: More Duration/Credit Divergence Providing some partial offset to the U.S. and Italy allocations were gains from overweight positions in government bonds in the U.K., Australia and Japan. More importantly, our overweights in corporate debt in the U.S. and euro area made a strong positive contribution to the performance of the portfolio. The bar charts showing the total and relative returns for each individual government bond market and spread product sector are presented in Charts 2 and 3. The most significant movers were: Chart 2GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q3/2019 Government Bond Performance Attribution Q3/2019 GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Performance Review: More Duration/Credit Divergence Q3/2019 GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Performance Review: More Duration/Credit Divergence Chart 3GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q3/2019 Spread Product Performance Attribution By Sector Q3/2019 GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Performance Review: More Duration/Credit Divergence Q3/2019 GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Performance Review: More Duration/Credit Divergence Biggest outperformers Overweight U.S. high-yield Ba-rated (+4bps) Overweight U.S. high-yield B-rated (+3bps) Overweight U.S. investment grade industrials (+3bps) Overweight Japanese government bonds with maturity of 5-7 years (+2bps) Overweight euro area corporates, both investment grade (+2bps) and high-yield (+2bps) Biggest underperformers Underweight U.S. government bonds with maturity beyond 10+ years (-15bps) Underweight Italy government bonds with maturity beyond 10+ years (-10bps) Underweight U.S. government bonds with maturity of 7-10 years (-5bps) Underweight Japanese government bonds with maturity beyond 10+ years (-4bps) Underweight U.S. government bonds with maturity of 3-5 years (-4bps) Chart 4 presents the ranked benchmark index returns of the individual countries and spread product sectors in the GFIS model bond portfolio for Q3/2019. The returns are hedged into U.S. dollars (we do not take active currency risk in this portfolio) and are adjusted to reflect duration differences between each country/sector and the overall custom benchmark index for the model portfolio. We have also color-coded the bars in each chart to reflect our recommended investment stance for each market during Q3/2019 (red for underweight, blue for overweight, gray for neutral).2 Ideally, we would look to see more blue bars on the left side of the chart where market returns are highest, and more red bars on the right side of the chart were returns are lowest. Chart 4Ranking The Winners & Losers From The Model Bond Portfolio In Q3/2019 Q3/2019 GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Performance Review: More Duration/Credit Divergence Q3/2019 GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Performance Review: More Duration/Credit Divergence One thing that stands out from Chart 4 is that every fixed income sector generated a positive return, except for EM USD-denominated corporates. This is a fascinating outcome given the sharp falls in risk-free government bond yields which typically would correlate to a selloff in risk assets and widening of credit spreads. The soothing balm of looser global monetary policy seems to have offset the impact of elevated uncertainty on trade and future economic growth, allowing both bond yields and credit spreads to stay low. The soothing balm of looser global monetary policy seems to have offset the impact of elevated uncertainty on trade and future economic growth, allowing both bond yields and credit spreads to stay low.  We maintained an overweight stance on global spread product throughout Q3, as we felt that the monetary policy effect would continue to overwhelm uncertainty. We did, however, make some tactical adjustments to our duration stance after the U.S. raised tariffs on Chinese imports, upgrading to neutral on August 6th.3 We had felt that higher tariffs were a sign that a potential end to the U.S.-China trade conflict was now even less likely, which raised the odds of a potential risk-off financial market event that would temporarily push bond yields lower. We shifted back to a below-benchmark duration stance on September 17th, given signs of de-escalation in the trade dispute and, more importantly, some improvement evident in global leading economic indicators.4 Bottom Line: Our recommended model bond portfolio underperformed the custom benchmark index during the third quarter of the year, with the drag on performance from an underweight stance on U.S. Treasuries and Italian BTPs overwhelming the gains from corporate credit overweights in the U.S. and euro area. Future Drivers Of Portfolio Returns Looking ahead, the performance of the model bond portfolio will continue to be driven by two main factors: our below-benchmark duration bias and our overweight stance on global corporate debt versus government bonds. Chart 5Overall Portfolio Allocation: Overweight Credit Q3/2019 GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Performance Review: More Duration/Credit Divergence Q3/2019 GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Performance Review: More Duration/Credit Divergence In terms of the specific high-level weightings in the model portfolio, we currently have a moderate overweight, equal to eight percentage points, on spread product versus government debt (Chart 5). This reflects a more constructive view on future global growth. Early leading economic indicators are starting to bottom out and global central bankers are maintaining a dovish policy bias despite low unemployment rates – both factors that will continue to benefit growth-sensitive assets like corporate debt. Early leading economic indicators are starting to bottom out and global central bankers are maintaining a dovish policy bias despite low unemployment rates – both factors that will continue to benefit growth-sensitive assets like corporate debt. We are maintaining our below-benchmark duration tilt at 0.6 years short of the custom benchmark (Chart 6). We recognize, however, that the underperformance from duration in the model portfolio will not begin to be clawed back until there are signs of a bottoming in widely-followed cyclical economic indicators like the U.S. ISM index and the German ZEW. We think that will happen given the uptick in our global leading economic indicator (LEI), but that may take a few more months to develop based on the usual lead time from the LEI to the survey data like the ISM. The hook up in the global LEI does still gives us more confidence that the big decline in global bond yields seen this year is over, especially if a potential truce in the U.S.-China trade war is soon reached, as our political strategists believe to be increasingly likely. Chart 6Overall Portfolio Duration: Moderately Below Benchmark Overall Portfolio Duration: Moderately Below Benchmark Overall Portfolio Duration: Moderately Below Benchmark Turning to country allocation, we are sticking with overweights in countries where central banks are likely to be more dovish than the Fed over the next 6-12 months (Germany, France, the U.K., Japan, and Australia). We are staying underweight the U.S. where inflation expectations appear too low and Fed rate cut expectations look too extreme. The Italy underweight has become a trickier call. We have long viewed Italian debt as a growth-sensitive credit instrument rather than the yield-driven rates vehicle it became in Q3 as markets priced in fresh monetary easing measures from the ECB (including restarting government purchases). We will revisit our Italy views in an upcoming report but, until then, we will continue to view Italian BTPs within the context of our European spread product allocation. Thus, we are maintaining an overweight on euro area corporate debt (by 1% each in investment grade and high-yield) while having an equal-sized underweight (-2%) in Italian government bonds. Our combined positioning generates a portfolio that has “positive carry”, with a yield of 3.1% (hedged into U.S. dollars) that is +25bps over that of the custom benchmark index (Chart 7). That same portfolio, however, generates an estimated tracking error (excess volatility of the portfolio versus its benchmark) of 55bps - well below our self-imposed 100bps ceiling and still within the 40-60bps range we have targeted since the start of 2019 (Chart 8). Chart 7Portfolio Yield: Positive Carry From Credit Portfolio Yield: Positive Carry From Credit Portfolio Yield: Positive Carry From Credit Chart 8Portfolio Risk Budget Usage: Cautious Portfolio Risk Budget Usage: Cautious Portfolio Risk Budget Usage: Cautious Scenario Analysis & Return Forecasts In April 2018, we introduced a framework for estimating total returns for all government bond markets and spread product sectors, based on common risk factors.5 For credit, returns are estimated as a function of changes in the U.S. dollar, the Fed funds rate, oil prices and market volatility as proxied by the VIX index (Table 2A). For government bonds, non-U.S. yield changes are estimated using historical betas to changes in U.S. Treasury yields (Table 2B). Table 2AFactor Regressions Used To Estimate Spread Product Yield Changes Q3/2019 GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Performance Review: More Duration/Credit Divergence Q3/2019 GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Performance Review: More Duration/Credit Divergence Table 2BEstimated Government Bond Yield Betas To U.S. Treasuries Q3/2019 GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Performance Review: More Duration/Credit Divergence Q3/2019 GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Performance Review: More Duration/Credit Divergence This framework allows us to conduct scenario analysis of projected returns for each asset class in the model bond portfolio by making assumptions on those individual risk factors. In Tables 3A & 3B, we present our three main scenarios for the next six months, defined by changes in the risk factors, and the expected performance of the model bond portfolio in each case. The scenarios, described below, all revolve around our expectation that the most important drivers of future market returns will continue to be the momentum of global growth and the path of U.S. monetary policy. The scenario inputs for the four main risk factors (the fed funds rate, the price of oil, the U.S. dollar and the VIX index) are shown visually in Chart 9. Table 3AScenario Analysis For The GFIS Model Bond Portfolio For The Next Six Months Q3/2019 GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Performance Review: More Duration/Credit Divergence Q3/2019 GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Performance Review: More Duration/Credit Divergence Table 3BU.S. Treasury Yield Assumptions For The 6-Month Forward Scenario Analysis Q3/2019 GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Performance Review: More Duration/Credit Divergence Q3/2019 GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Performance Review: More Duration/Credit Divergence Chart 9Risk Factor Assumptions For The Scenario Analysis Risk Factor Assumptions For The Scenario Analysis Risk Factor Assumptions For The Scenario Analysis Base Case (Global Growth Bottoms): The Fed delivers one more -25bp rate cut by the end of 2019, the U.S. dollar weakens by -3%, oil prices rise by +10%, the VIX hovers around 15, and there is a bear-steepening of the UST curve. This is a scenario where the U.S. economy ends up avoiding recession and grows at roughly a trend-like pace. The Fed, however, still delivers one more “insurance” rate cut to mitigate the risk of low inflation expectations becoming more entrenched. Global growth is expected to bottom out as heralded by the global leading indicators. A truce (but not a full deal) is expected on the U.S.-China trade front, helping to moderately soften the U.S. dollar through reduced risk aversion. The model bond portfolio is expected to beat the benchmark index by +91bps in this case. Global Growth Strongly Rebounds: The Fed stays on hold, the U.S. dollar weakens by -5%, oil prices rise by +20%, the VIX declines to 12, there is a modest bear-steepening of the UST curve. In this tail-risk scenario, global growth starts to reaccelerate in lagged response to the global monetary easing seen this year, combined with some fiscal stimulus in major countries (China, the U.S., perhaps even Germany). The U.S. dollar weakens as global capital flows shift to markets which are more sensitive to global growth. The model bond portfolio is expected to beat the benchmark index by +106bps in this case. U.S. Downturn Intensifies: The Fed cuts rates by -75bps, the U.S. dollar is flat, oil prices fall by -15%, the VIX rises to 30; there is a bull-steepening of the UST curve. Under this tail-risk scenario, the current slowing of U.S. growth momentum gains speed, pushing the economy towards recession. The Fed cuts rates aggressively in response, helping weaken the U.S. dollar, but not before global risk assets sell off sharply to discount a worldwide recession. The model portfolio will underperform the benchmark by -38bps in this scenario. In terms of our conviction level among the main drivers of the model portfolio returns – duration allocation (across yield curves and countries) and asset allocation (credit versus government bonds) – we are most confident that credit returns will exceed those of sovereign debt over the next six months. In terms of our conviction level among the main drivers of the model portfolio returns – duration allocation (across yield curves and countries) and asset allocation (credit versus government bonds) – we are most confident that credit returns will exceed those of sovereign debt over the next six months. The underweight duration position, however, will also eventually begin to pay off if the message from the budding improvement in global leading economic indicators turns out to be correct. A collapse of the U.S.-China trade negotiations is the biggest threat to our base case, which would make the “U.S. Downturn Intensifies” scenario a more likely outcome. Bottom Line: We are maintaining our current positioning, staying below-benchmark on duration while overweighting U.S. and euro area corporates governments. In our base case scenario, global growth will begin to stabilize but the Fed will deliver one more “insurance” rate cut by year-end, leading to spread product outperformance.   Robert Robis, CFA, Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com Ray Park, CFA, Research Analyst ray@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 The GFIS model bond portfolio custom benchmark index is the Bloomberg Barclays Global Aggregate Index, but with allocations to global high-yield corporate debt replacing very high quality spread product (i.e. AA-rated). We believe this to be more indicative of the typical internal benchmark used by global multi-sector fixed income managers. 2 Note that sectors where we made changes to our recommended weightings during Q3/2019 will have multiple colors in the respective bars in Chart 4. 3 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, “Trade War Worries: Once More, With Feeling”, dated August 6, 2019, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, “The World Is Not Ending: Return To Below-Benchmark Portfolio Duration”, dated September 17, 2019, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, “GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q1/2018 Performance Review: A Rough Start”, dated April 10th 2018, available at gfis.bcareseach.com. Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Q3/2019 GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Performance Review: More Duration/Credit Divergence Q3/2019 GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Performance Review: More Duration/Credit Divergence Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns