BCA Indicators/Model

Feature GAA DM Equity Country Allocation Model Update The GAA DM Equity Country Allocation model is updated as of April 30, 2019.  The quant model has not made significant changes in the major country allocations, but has upgraded Australia to slight overweight from underweight and downgraded Sweden to slight underweight from overweight, as shown in Table 1.  Table 1Model Allocation Vs. Benchmark Weights GAA Quant Model Updates GAA Quant Model Updates As shown in Table 2 and Charts 1, 2 and 3, the overall model outperformed the MSCI World benchmark by 43 bps in April, with 113 bps of outperformance from the Level 2 model, offset by 11 bps of underperformance from Level 1.  Directionally, 8 out of the 12 choices generated positive alpha. The largest contributions to the outperformance in April came from the overweight in Germany and Netherlands, as well as the underweight in Japan and the U.K. Since going live, the overall model has outperformed by 152 bps, with 365 bps of outperformance by the Level 2 model, offset by a slight underperformance from Level 1. Table 2Performance (Total Returns In USD %) GAA Quant Model Updates GAA Quant Model Updates Chart 1GAA DM Model Vs. MSCI World GAA DM Model Vs. MSCI World GAA DM Model Vs. MSCI World Chart 2GAA U.S. Vs. Non U.S. Model (Level 1) GAA U.S. Vs. Non U.S. Model (Level 1) GAA U.S. Vs. Non U.S. Model (Level 1)     Please see also the website http://gaa.bcaresearch.com/trades/allocation_performance. For more details on the models, please see Special Report, “Global Equity Allocation: Introducing The Developed Markets Country Allocation Model,” dated January 29, 2016, available at https://gaa.bcaresearch.com. Please note that the overall country and sector recommendations published in our Monthly Portfolio Update and Quarterly Portfolio Outlook use the results of these quantitative models as one input, but do not stick slavishly to them. We believe that models are a useful check, but structural changes and unquantifiable factors need to be considered too in making overall recommendations. Chart 3GAA Non U.S. Model (Level 2) GAA Non U.S. Model (Level 2) GAA Non U.S. Model (Level 2)     GAA Equity Sector Selection Model The GAA Equity Sector Model (Chart 4) is updated as of April 30, 2019. Chart 4Overall Model Performance Overall Model Performance Overall Model Performance Table 3Model’s Performance (March 1, 2019 - Current) GAA Quant Model Updates GAA Quant Model Updates Table 4Current Model Allocations GAA Quant Model Updates GAA Quant Model Updates         The model’s relative tilts within cyclicals and defensives have changed compared to last month. The model has turned more cautious on Materials and cut it from overweight to underweight due to a weakness in its momentum component. This in turn increases the overweight allocations to Industrials and Utilities, the model’s two overweights, and decreases the underweight allocation to the nine remaining sectors. While global growth is set to bottom, the hard data has not fully materialized yet, therefore preventing the model from being outright bullish on cyclicals. The valuation component remains muted across all sectors. The model is still overweight Utilities due to positive inputs from its growth and liquidity components. For more details on the model, please see the Special Report “Introducing the GAA Equity Sector Selection Model,” dated July 27, 2016, as well as the Sector Selection Model section in the Special Alert “GAA Quant Model Updates,” dated March 1, 2019 available at https://gaa.bcaresearch.com.   Xiaoli Tang, Associate Vice President xiaoliT@bcaresearch.com Amr Hanafy, Research Associate amrh@bcaresearch.com

Highlights So what? Quantifying geopolitical risk just got easier. Why?   In this report we introduce 10 proprietary, market-based indicators of country-level political and geopolitical risk. Featured countries include France, U.K., Germany, Italy, Spain, Russia, South Korea, Taiwan, Turkey, and Brazil. Other countries, and refinements to these beta-version indicators, will come in due time. We remain committed to qualitative, constraint-based analysis. Our GeoRisk Indicators will help us determine how the market is pricing key risks, so we can decide whether they are understated or overstated. Feature For the past three months we have been tracking a “Witches’ Brew” of political risks that threaten the late-cycle bull market. Some of these risks have abated for the time being: the Fed is on pause, China’s stimulus has surprised to the upside, and Brexit has been delayed. Other risks we have flagged, however, are heating up: Iran And Oil Market Volatility: Surprisingly the Trump administration has chosen not to extend oil sanction waivers on Iran from May 2, putting 1.3 million barrels per day of oil on schedule to be removed from international markets by an unspecified time.  It remains to be seen how rapidly and resolutely the administration will enforce the sanctions on specific allies and partners (Japan, India, Turkey) as well as rivals (China, others). Because the decision coincides with rising production risks from renewed fighting in Libya and regime failure in Venezuela, we expect President Trump to phase in the new enforcement over a period of months, particularly on China and India. But official rhetoric is draconian. Hence the potential for full and immediate enforcement is greater than we thought. In the short term, individual political leaders, and very powerful nations like the United States, can ignore material economic and political constraints. Since the Trump administration’s decision exemplifies this point, geopolitical tail risks will get fatter this year and next. Global oil price volatility and equity market volatility will increase with sanction enforcement actions and retaliation. We would think that Trump’s odds of reelection will marginally suffer, though for now still above 50%, as any full-fledged confrontation with Iran will raise the chances of an oil price-induced recession. U.S.-EU Trade War: Neither the Trump administration nor the U.S. has a compelling interest in imposing Section 232 tariffs on imports of autos and auto parts. Nevertheless the risk of some tariffs remains high – we put it at 35% – because President Trump is legally unconstrained. The decision is technically due by May 18 but Economic Council Director Larry Kudlow has said Trump may adjust the deadline and decide later. Later would make sense given the economic and financial risks of the administration’s decision to ramp up the pressure on Iran.1 But the risk that tariffs will pile onto a weak German and European economy will hang over investors’ heads. U.S.-China Talks Not A Game Changer: The ostensible demand that China cease Iranian oil imports immediately and the stalling of U.S. diplomacy with North Korea are not conducive to concluding a trade deal in May. We have highlighted many times that strategic tensions will persist even if Beijing and Washington quarantine these issues to agree to a short-term trade truce. The June 28-29 G20 meeting in Japan remains the likeliest date for a summit between Presidents Trump and Xi Jinping, but even this timeframe could be too optimistic. Continued uncertainty or a weak deal will fail to satisfy financial markets expecting a very positive outcome.   With a 70% chance that U.S. tariffs on China will not increase this year and, contingent on a U.S.-China deal, only a 35% chance that the U.S. slaps tariffs on German cars, we sound optimistic to some clients. But the Trump administration’s decision on Iran is highly market-relevant and portends greater volatility. We expect to see a geopolitical risk premium creep higher into oil markets as well as a greater risk of “Black Swan” events in strategically critical or oil-producing parts of the Middle East. There is limited research devoted to quantifying geopolitical risk. We are late in the business cycle and President Trump has emphatically decided to increase rather than decrease geopolitical risk. Quantifying Geopolitical Risk Geopolitical analysis has taken a bigger role in investors’ decision-making over the last decade. Surveys show that geopolitical risks rank among global investors’ top concerns overall. In the oft-cited Bank of America Merrill Lynch survey, geopolitical and related issues have dominated the “top tail risk” responses for the past half-decade (Chart 1). In other surveys, the most worrisome short-term risks are mostly political or geopolitical in nature, ranking above socio-economic and environmental risks (Chart 2). Chart 1 Chart 2 Despite this high level of concern, there is limited research devoted to quantifying geopolitical risk. Isolating and measuring the range of risks under this umbrella term remains a challenge. As such, for many investors, geopolitics remains an ad hoc, exogenous factor that is often mentioned but rarely incorporated into portfolio construction. For the past four decades the predominant ways of measuring political or geopolitical risk have been qualitative or semi-qualitative. The Delphi technique, developed on the basis of low-quality data sets in social sciences, relies on pooled expert opinions.2 Independently selected experts are asked to provide risk assessments and their responses are then interpreted by analysts to create a measure of risk. Another semi-qualitative method of measuring geopolitical risk ranks countries according to a set of political and socio-economic variables. These variables – such as governance, political and social stability, corruption, law and order, or formal and informal policies – are extremely important but inherently difficult to quantify.3 These results are useful but suffer from dependency on expert opinion, data quality, and institutional biases. More importantly, these methods are slow to react to breaking events in a rapidly changing world. The same goes for bottom-up assessments using political intelligence. The weakness of these methods is that it is highly unlikely that they will produce statistically significant estimates of risk. The odds of getting a “silver bullet” insight from a “key insider” are decent for simple political systems, but not in the complex jurisdictions that host the vast majority of global, liquid investments. Quantitative approaches to measuring geopolitical risk have since become more widespread. The most prominent method is based on quantifying the occurrence of words related to political and geopolitical tensions that appear in international newspapers. These word-counts typically include terms like “terrorism,” “crisis,” “war,” “military action,” etc. As a result, the indices reflect incidents of physical violence or other “Black Swan” events that may not have direct relevance to financial markets. Moreover, while news-based indices accurately capture dramatic one-time peaks at the time of a crisis, they are largely flat aside from these, as they rely on popular topics rather than underlying structural trends (Chart 3). They fail to capture geopolitical developments associated with electoral cycles, protest movements, paradigm shifts in economic policy, or other policy changes.4 Notice, for instance, that the fall of the Soviet Union in late 1991 and the resulting chaos in Russia and many other parts of the emerging world hardly register in Chart 3. Chart 3News-Based Indices Only Capture Crisis Peaks, Not Geopolitical Developments News-Based Indices Only Capture Crisis Peaks, Not Geopolitical Developments News-Based Indices Only Capture Crisis Peaks, Not Geopolitical Developments Introducing BCA’s GeoRisk Indicators The past 70 years have taught BCA Research to listen and respect the market. Why would we suddenly follow the media instead? Most quantitative geopolitical indicators begin with the premise that journalists and the news-reading public have accurately emphasized the most relevant risks and uncertainties. They proceed to quantify the terms of these assessments with increasingly sophisticated methods. This approach solves only part of the puzzle. News-based indices ... fail to capture geopolitical developments associated with underlying policy changes. At BCA Geopolitical Strategy, we aim to generate geopolitical alpha.5 This means identifying where financial media and markets overstate or understate geopolitical risks. We do not primarily aim to predict events or crises. As such, traditional news-based indicators that capture only major events, even those ex post facto, are of little relevance to our analysis. What is needed is a better way to quantify how the market is calculating risks. We start with a simple premise: the market is the greatest machine ever created for gauging the wisdom of the crowd. Furthermore, it puts its money where its predictions are, unlike other methods of geopolitical risk quantification which have no “value at risk.” Chart 4USD/RUB Captures Geopolitical Risk In Russia... USD/RUB Captures Geopolitical Risk In Russia... USD/RUB Captures Geopolitical Risk In Russia... To this end, we have introduced market-based indicators over the years that rely on currency movements, which are often the simplest and most immediate means of capturing the process of pricing risk. In 2015, for instance, we introduced an indicator that measures Russia’s geopolitical risk premium (Chart 4). It is constructed using the de-trended residual from a regression of USD/RUB against USD/NOK and Russian CPI relative to U.S. CPI. We can show empirically that it captures geopolitical risk priced into the ruble, as the indicator increases following critical incidents. These include the downing of Malaysian Airlines Flight 17 over eastern Ukraine in 2014; the warnings that Russia aimed to stage a “spring offensive” in Ukraine in 2015; Russian military intervention in the Syrian Civil War later that year; and the poisoning of former intelligence agent Sergei Skripal in the U.K. in 2018 and subsequent tensions. Using similar methods, we created a proxy to capture geopolitical risk in Taiwan, based on USD/JPY and USD/KRW exchange rates and relative Taiwanese/American inflation (Chart 5). The indicator tracks well with previous cross-strait crises. It jumped upon Taiwan’s election of President Tsai Ing-wen and her pro-independence government in January 2016 – and this was well before any tensions actually flared. It even registered a small increase upon her controversial phone call congratulating Donald Trump upon winning the U.S. election. Chart 5...And USD/TWD Captures Geopolitical Risk In Taiwan ...And USD/TWD Captures Geopolitical Risk In Taiwan ...And USD/TWD Captures Geopolitical Risk In Taiwan This year we have expanded on this work, constructing a set of ten standardized GeoRisk Indicators for five developed economies and five emerging economies: U.K., France, Germany, Spain, Italy, Russia, Turkey, Brazil, Korea, and Taiwan. Indicators for the U.S., China, and others will be rolled out in a future report. These indicators attempt to capture risk premiums priced into the various currencies – except for Euro Area countries, where the risk is embedded in equity prices. In each case, we look at whether the relevant assets are decreasing in value at a faster rate than implied by key explanatory variables. The explanatory variables consist of (1) an asset that moves together with the dependent variable while not responding to domestic geopolitical risks, and (2) a variable to capture the state of the economy. This set of indicators differs from our earlier indicators in the following ways: We aim to create a simple methodology that we can apply consistently to all countries, both in the DM and EM universes. We therefore omitted using regression models that can prove to be quite whimsical. Instead, we simply looked at the deviation of the dependent variable from the explanatory variables, all in expanding standardized terms, to create the GeoRisk proxy. We wanted an indicator that would immediately respond to priced-in risks, so we opted for a daily frequency rather than the weekly frequency we used in our initial work. To get as accurate of a signal as possible, we use point-in-time data. Since economic data tends to be released with a one-to-two-month lag, we lagged the economic independent variable to correspond to its release date. All ten indicators are shown in the Appendix. Across all countries, they track well with both short-term events and long-term trends in geopolitical risk. In the case of France, for example, the indicator steadily climbs during the period of domestic tensions and protests in the early 2000s; as the European debt crisis flares up; again during the rise of the anti-establishment Front National and the Russian military intervention in Ukraine; and finally during the U.S. trade tariffs and Yellow Vest protests (Chart 6). Our GeoRisk indicators isolate risks that either originate internally or otherwise affect the country more so than others. Similarly, in Germany, there is a general increase in perceived risk as Chancellor Gerhard Schröder implements structural reforms in the early 2000s; another increase leading up to the leadership change as Angela Merkel is elected Chancellor; another during the global and European financial crises; another during the Ukraine invasion and refugee influx; and finally another with the U.S.-China trade war (Chart 7). Chart 6Our French Indicator Picks Up Domestic And European Unrest Our French Indicator Picks Up Domestic And European Unrest Our French Indicator Picks Up Domestic And European Unrest Chart 7Greater German Risk Amid The Trade War Greater German Risk Amid The Trade War Greater German Risk Amid The Trade War   We have annotated each country’s GeoRisk indicator heavily in the appendix so that readers can see for themselves the correspondence with political events. The indicators are affected by international developments – like the Great Recession – but we have done our best to isolate risks that either originate internally or otherwise affect the country more than other countries. (As a consequence, the Great Recession is muted in some cases.) What are the indicators telling us now? Most obviously, they highlight the extreme risk we have witnessed in the U.K. over the now-delayed March 29 Brexit deadline. We would bet against this risk as the political reality has demonstrated that a “hard Brexit” is very low probability: the U.K. has the ability to back off unilaterally while the EU is willing to extend for the sake of regional stability. In this sense the pound is a tactical buy, which our foreign exchange strategist Chester Ntonifor has highlighted.6 Our U.K. risk indicator has been fairly well correlated with the GBP/USD since the global financial crisis and it suggests that the pound has more room to rally (Chart 8). Chart 8Betting Against A Hard Brexit, the GBP Is A Tactical Buy Betting Against A Hard Brexit, the GBP Is A Tactical Buy Betting Against A Hard Brexit, the GBP Is A Tactical Buy Meanwhile, Spanish risks are overstated while Italy’s are understated. As for the emerging world, Turkish risks should be expected to spike yet again, as divisions emerge within the ruling coalition in the wake of critical losses in local elections and a failure to reassure investors over monetary policy and the currency. Brazilian risks will probably not match the crisis points of the impeachment and the 2018 election, at least not until controversial pension reforms reach a period of peak uncertainty over legislative passage. Both our new Russian indicator and its prototype are collapsing (see Chart 4 above). This captures the fact that we stand at a critical juncture in Russian affairs, where President Putin is attempting to shift focus to domestic stability even as the U.S. and the West maintain pressure on the economy to deter Russia from its aggressive foreign policy. Given that both Putin’s and the government’s approval ratings are low amid rising oil prices, the stage is set for Russia to take a provocative foreign policy action meant to distract the populace from its poor living conditions. Venezuela is the obvious candidate, but there are others. Moscow will want to test Ukraine’s newly elected, inexperienced president; it may also make a show of support for Iran. With Russia equities having rallied on a relative basis over the past year and a half, and with the Iranian waiver decision already boosting oil prices as we go to press, the window of opportunity to buy Russian stocks is starting to close. (We remain overweight relative to EM on a tactical horizon; our Emerging Markets Strategy is also overweight.) Going forward, we will update these risk indicators regularly as needed and publish the full appendix at the end of every month along with our long-running Geopolitical Calendar. We will also fine-tune the indicators as new information comes to light. In other words, here we present only the beta version. We hope that these indicators will help inform investors as to the direction, and even magnitude, of political risks as the market prices them. Our GeoRisk indicators are not predictive, as establishing a trend is not a prediction. The main purpose of this exercise is to answer the critical question, “What is already priced in?” How is the market currently calculating geopolitical risk for a country? After that, it is the geopolitical strategist’s job to unpack this question through qualitative, constraint-based analysis. It is when our qualitative assessments disagree with what is priced in that we can generate geopolitical alpha.    Ekaterina Shtrevensky, Research Analyst ekaterinas@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken, Vice President Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com Marko Papic Consulting Editor marko@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1      See Sean Higgins, “Auto tariffs decision could be delayed, Kudlow says,” Washington Examiner, April 3, 2019, www.washingtonexaminer.com. 2      Norman C. Dalkey and Olaf Helmer-Hirschberg, “An Experimental Application of the Delphi Method to the Use of Experts,” Management Science, Vol. 9, Issue: 3 (April 1963) pp. 458- 467. 3      Darryl S. L. Jarvis, “Conceptualizing, Analyzing and Measuring Political Risk: The Evolution of Theory and Method,” Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy Research Paper No. LKYSPP08-004 (July 2008).  William D. Coplin and Michael K. O'Leary, "Political Forecast For International Business," Planning Review, Vol. 11 Issue: 3 (1983) pp.14-23. The PRS Group, “Political Risk Services”™ (PRS) or the “Coplin-O’Leary Country Risk Rating System”™ Methodology. Daniel Kaufmann, Aart Kraay, and Massimo Mastruzzi, “The Worldwide Governance Indicators: Methodology and Analytical Issues,” World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No. 5430 (September 2010). 4      Scott R. Baker, Nicholas Bloom, and Steven J. Davis, “Measuring Economic Policy Uncertainty,” The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Volume 131, Issue 4, November 2016 (July 2016) pp.1593–1636. Dario Caldara and Matteo Iacoviello, “Measuring Geopolitical Risk,” Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve Board, Working Paper (January 2018). 5      Please see BCA Research Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, “Five Myths On Geopolitical Forecasting,” dated July 9, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 6      Please see BCA Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report, “Not Out Of The Woods Yet,” April 5, 2019, available at www.bcaresearch.com.   Appendix Appendix France France: GeoRisk Indicator France: GeoRisk Indicator Appendix U.K. U.K.: GeoRisk Indicator U.K.: GeoRisk Indicator Appendix Germany Germany: GeoRisk Indicator Germany: GeoRisk Indicator Appendix Italy Italy: GeoRisk Indicator Italy: GeoRisk Indicator Appendix Spain Spain: GeoRisk Indicator Spain: GeoRisk Indicator Appendix Russia Russia: GeoRisk Indicator Russia: GeoRisk Indicator Appendix Korea Korea: GeoRisk Indicator Korea: GeoRisk Indicator Appendix Taiwan Taiwan: GeoRisk Indicator Taiwan: GeoRisk Indicator Appendix Turkey Turkey: GeoRisk Indicator Turkey: GeoRisk Indicator Appendix Brazil Brazil: GeoRisk Indicator Brazil: GeoRisk Indicator What’s On The Geopolitical Radar? Chart 19      Geopolitical Calendar

Highlights Q1/2019 Performance Breakdown: Our recommended model bond portfolio underperformed the custom benchmark index by -17bps in the first quarter of the year. Winners & Losers: The underperformance came from the government side of the portfolio (-40bps), where our below-benchmark duration stance was mainly implemented through underweight positions in long-ends of government bond yield curves. On the other side was a solid outperformance from spread product allocations (+23bps) after our tactical upgrade to global corporates in January. Scenario Analysis For The Next Six Months: An improving global growth backdrop, and benign monetary policy backdrop, should help generate an outperformance of the model bond portfolio – mostly through credit, but also through moderate bear-steepening of government bond yield curves. Feature For fixed income markets, the start of 2019 has been categorized by three main trends: falling bond yields, narrowing credit spreads, and slower global growth. Central bankers have been forced to shift to a much more dovish stance on monetary policy, in response to heightened uncertainties over the global economy, helping trigger rallies in both government bonds and credit. In this report, we review the performance of the BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy (GFIS) model bond portfolio during the surprisingly eventful first 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. Q1/2019 Model Portfolio Performance Breakdown: Overweight Credit Pays Off, Below-Benchmark Duration Does Not Chart of the WeekDuration Losses Offset Credit Gains In Q1/2019 Duration Losses Offset Credit Gains In Q1/2019 Duration Losses Offset Credit Gains In Q1/2019 Table 1GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q1/2019 Overall Return Attribution Q1/2019 GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Performance Review: Credit Good, Duration Bad Q1/2019 GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Performance Review: Credit Good, Duration Bad   The total return for the GFIS model portfolio (hedged into U.S. dollars) in the first quarter was 3.1%, underperforming the custom benchmark index by -17bps (Chart of the Week).1 The bulk of the underperformance came from the government bond side of the portfolio (-40bps) - a function of both our below-benchmark duration tilt and underweight stance on sovereign bonds (Table 1). Of course, the flipside of that government bond underweight is a spread product overweight. The tactical upgrade to global corporate debt (favoring the U.S.) that we introduced back on January 15 helped boost the credit piece of the model bond portfolio, which outperformed the custom benchmark by +23bps. The tactical upgrade to global corporate debt (favoring the U.S.) that we introduced back on January 15 helped boost the credit piece of the model bond portfolio, which outperformed the custom benchmark by +23bps. 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. Chart 2 Chart 3 The main individual sectors of the portfolio that drove the excess returns were the following: Biggest outperformers Overweight U.S. investment grade industrials (+11bps) Overweight U.S. high-yield Ba-rated (+10bps) Overweight U.S. high-yield B-rated (+8bps) Overweight U.S. investment grade financials (+5bps) Overweight Japanese government bonds with maturity of 7-10 years (+4bps) Biggest underperformers Underweight Japanese government bonds with maturity beyond 10+ years (-17bps) Underweight U.S. government bonds with maturity beyond 10+ years (-12bps) Underweight France government bonds with maturity beyond 10+ years (-8bps) Underweight Emerging Markets U.S. dollar denominated corporates (-7bps) Underweight U.S. government bonds with maturity of 7-10 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 Q1/2019. 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 Q1/2019 (red for underweight, blue for overweight, gray for neutral). Chart 4 It was a great quarter for global fixed income, as all countries and spread products generated positive total returns. Generally, our allocations did reasonably well. There were more blue bars than red bars on the left side of Chart 4 (i.e. more overweights than underweights where returns were higher), and vice versa on the right side (more underweights than overweights where returns were lower). Some of the hit to performance from below-benchmark duration is already starting to be recouped in the first weeks of Q2 as markets become more comfortable with early signs of improving global growth. The negative overall Q1/2019 result is obviously not satisfactory, but we are still pleased with the positive returns generated from the spread product side after we did our January upgrade. More importantly, some of the hit to performance from below-benchmark duration is already starting to be recouped in the first weeks of Q2 as markets become more comfortable with early signs of improving global growth, pushing bond yields higher. Bottom Line: Our recommended model bond portfolio underperformed the custom benchmark index in the first quarter of the year. The underperformance came from the government side of the portfolio, where our below-benchmark duration stance was mainly implemented through underweight positions on the long-ends of government bond yield curves. On the other side was a solid outperformance from spread product allocations after our tactical upgrade to global corporates in January. Future Drivers Of Portfolio Returns Chart 5 Chart 6Overall Portfolio Duration: Below-Benchmark Overall Portfolio Duration: Below-Benchmark Overall Portfolio Duration: Below-Benchmark Looking ahead, the performance of the model bond portfolio will benefit from two main factors: our below-benchmark duration bias and our overweight stance on global corporate debt (favoring the U.S.) versus government bonds. In terms of the specific high-level weightings in the model portfolio, we are maintaining our tactical overweight tilt, equal to seven percentage points, on spread product versus government debt (Chart 5). This reflects a more constructive view on global growth, which appears to be bottoming out after the sharp slowdown seen in 2018, to the benefit of corporate bond performance. That faster growth backdrop will also benefit our below-benchmark duration stance through a rebound in government bond yields. This should happen only slowly, however, as global central bankers are likely to keep their newly-dovish policy bias in place for some time until there are more decisive signs of accelerating growth AND inflation. We are maintaining our significant below-benchmark duration tilt (one year short of the custom benchmark), but we recognize that the underperformance from duration seen in Q1 will only be clawed back slowly over the next 3-6 months (Chart 6). As for country allocation, we continue to favor regions where tighter monetary policy is least likely (overweight Japan, the U.K., and Australia, neutral core Europe and Canada). We are staying underweight the U.S., however, as the market’s expectations for the Fed is too dovish, with -25bps of rate cuts now discounted over the next twelve months. We expect to make some changes to those country allocations over the next few months, however - most notably a potential downgrade in core Europe, and upgrade in Peripheral Europe, if the euro area stabilizes on the back of firmer global growth. We expect to make some changes to those country allocations over the next few months, however - most notably a potential downgrade in core Europe, and upgrade in Peripheral Europe, if the euro area stabilizes on the back of firmer global growth. The overall yield from the model bond portfolio is modestly above that of the benchmark (+7bps). That is admittedly a fairly small amount of positive carry (Chart 7) given the overweight credit position. It is a consequence of our below-benchmark duration stance, which is focused on underweights in longer, higher-yielding ends of government bond yield curves (i.e. we have a bear-steepening bias in the U.S., core Europe and even the very long-end in Japan). Chart 7Portfolio Yield: Small Positive Carry Portfolio Yield: Small Positive Carry Portfolio Yield: Small Positive Carry Chart 8Portfolio Risk Budget Usage: Cautious Portfolio Risk Budget Usage: Cautious Portfolio Risk Budget Usage: Cautious   Even though we have decent-sized overall tilts on global duration and spread product allocation, our estimated tracking error (excess volatility of the portfolio versus its benchmark) remains low (Chart 8). This is a function of some of the offsetting country and sector tilts within the overall allocations (i.e. more Japan than Germany, more Spain than Italy, more U.S. corporates than EM corporates). We remain comfortable maintaining a tracking error target range of between 40-60bps, well below our self-imposed 100bps ceiling, as our internal weightings are helping keep overall portfolio volatility at a modest level. Scenario Analysis & Return Forecasts Chart Chart 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.2 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). 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, are all driven by what we continue to believe will be the most important driver of market returns in 2019 – the path of U.S. monetary policy. Chart Chart Our Base Case: the Fed stays on hold, the U.S. dollar remains flat, oil prices rise by +10%, the VIX index hovers around 15, and there is a mild bear-steepening of the U.S. Treasury curve. This is the case of a pickup in U.S. and global growth that is strong enough to support higher commodity prices, but not intense enough to rapidly boost U.S. core inflation, allowing the Fed to keep rates unchanged. A Very Hawkish Fed: the Fed does a surprise +25bps rate hike in June or September, the U.S. dollar rises by +3%, oil prices increase +10%, the VIX index climbs to 25 and there is a sharp bear-flattening of the U.S. Treasury curve. This would occur if the U.S. economy reaccelerates alongside improved global growth, U.S. core inflation and inflation expectations move higher, and market volatility increases from a surprisingly hawkish Fed. A Very Dovish Fed: the Fed cuts the funds rate by -25bps, the U.S. dollar falls by -3%, oil prices decline -15%, the VIX index increases to 35 and there is a sharp bull steepening of the U.S. Treasury curve. This is a scenario where U.S./global growth momentum fades once again, leaving the Fed little choice but to ease monetary policy as market volatility surges alongside elevated recession risks. 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 all unchanged from our late portfolio review in early January (Chart 9). The U.S. Treasury yield changes, however, are more moderate than what we used three months ago (Chart 10). That reflects the Fed’s dovish turn since then, which limits the upside for yields from multiple Fed hikes in 2019. Chart 9Risk Factors Assumptions For The Scenario Analysis Risk Factors Assumptions For The Scenario Analysis Risk Factors Assumptions For The Scenario Analysis Chart 10U.S. Treasury Yield Assumptions For The Scenario Analysis U.S. Treasury Yield Assumptions For The Scenario Analysis U.S. Treasury Yield Assumptions For The Scenario Analysis     The model bond portfolio is expected to outperform the custom benchmark index by +43bps in our Base Case scenario. This comes from the relative outperformance of credit versus government bonds in an environment of slowly rising bond yields (below-benchmark duration), and tighter credit spreads (overweighting U.S. corporates). In the Very Hawkish Fed scenario, our model portfolio is projected to outperform the benchmark by +29bps. This comes mostly from below-benchmark duration, with more muted credit performance as spreads widen and volatility increases due to the unexpected Fed rate hike. In the Very Dovish Fed scenario, the model bond portfolio is expected to lag the benchmark by -49bps. Performance would get hit from both credit and duration, as government bond yields fall and credit spreads widen sharply against a backdrop of even slower global growth. The overall expected excess return of our model bond portfolio over the benchmark is positive, given that the scenario analysis produces positive excess returns in the Base Case and Very Hawkish Fed scenarios. While we do not place probabilities on our scenarios in this analysis, if we did, the Very Dovish Fed scenario would be far less likely than the Very Hawkish Fed scenario (by definition, the Base Case is our most likely outcome). Global growth is much more likely to rebound than decelerate further over the rest of 2019. Thus, the overall expected excess return of our model bond portfolio over the benchmark is positive, given that the scenario analysis produces positive excess returns in the Base Case and Very Hawkish Fed scenarios. Bottom Line: An improving global growth backdrop, and benign monetary policy backdrop, should help generate an outperformance of the model bond portfolio – mostly through credit, but also through moderate bear-steepening of government bond yield curves.   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 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 Q1/2019 GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Performance Review: Credit Good, Duration Bad Q1/2019 GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Performance Review: Credit Good, Duration Bad Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Highlights 10-Year Yield: In this week’s report we run through different macro factors that could be used to create a macroeconomic model of the 10-year Treasury yield, and describe the current outlook for each one. On balance, the indicators suggest that the 10-year Treasury yield is near its floor. Global Growth: Leading indicators have hooked up recently, suggesting that the Global Manufacturing PMI – a key driver of the 10-year Treasury yield – may rise in the coming months. Wages: Average hourly earnings softened in March, but survey measures suggest that wage growth remains in an uptrend. We show that rising wages have put considerable upward pressure on the 10-year yield in recent years, and should continue to do so going forward. Sentiment: The depressed Economic Surprise Index suggests that investor economic sentiment is downbeat. This means that the bar for positive data surprises (and higher bond yields) is relatively low. Feature Chart 1CRB/Gold Ratio On The Rise CRB/Gold Ratio On The Rise CRB/Gold Ratio On The Rise Treasury yields stabilized during the past week, and investors are trying to figure out whether the next big move will be higher or lower. We’re on the record as predicting that yields will eventually head higher, and have flagged the CRB Raw Industrials / Gold ratio as an important indicator to watch to time the next big move.1  Encouragingly, this indicator has risen during the past few weeks (Chart 1). Though the message from the CRB/Gold index is promising, the outlook for the 10-year Treasury yield remains uncertain. To shed some light on this important investment question, in this week’s report we run through different macroeconomic indicators that could be used to create a model of the 10-year Treasury yield. By performing this exercise out in the open, our goal is to present readers with a good way to think about the linkages between the economy and the 10-year Treasury yield. Recipe For A 10-Year Treasury Yield Model Ingredient #1: Growth Factors The first logical factor to include in any model of the 10-year Treasury yield is some measure of economic growth. We have found that the Global Manufacturing PMI is often highly correlated with the 10-year yield (Chart 2). Interestingly, the manufacturing PMI correlates more strongly with the 10-year yield than do the services or composite (manufacturing + services) PMIs. The Global PMI also correlates more strongly with the U.S. 10-year yield than does the U.S. PMI. It only takes a quick glance at the Global Manufacturing PMI to see why the 10-year Treasury yield fell this year. The Global PMI has been in a sharp downtrend for some time, driven mostly by the Euro Area and China. U.S. PMIs have also weakened in recent months, though they remain above levels seen in Europe and China. Another global growth indicator that correlates tightly with the 10-year Treasury yield is investor sentiment toward the U.S. dollar (Chart 3). Since the dollar is a countercyclical currency that appreciates when global growth slows and depreciates when it quickens, we observe that the 10-year Treasury yield tends to be lower when investors are extremely bullish on the U.S. dollar and higher when they are more bearish on the dollar. Chart 2Growth Factor Ingredient 1: Global Manufacturing PMI Growth Factor Ingredient 1: Global Manufacturing PMI Growth Factor Ingredient 1: Global Manufacturing PMI Chart 3Growth Factor Ingredient 2: Dollar Bullish Sentiment Growth Factor Ingredient 2: Dollar Bullish Sentiment Growth Factor Ingredient 2: Dollar Bullish Sentiment     Notice in Charts 2 and 3 that the Global Manufacturing PMI and dollar bullish sentiment are both close to levels seen near the 10-year yield’s mid-2016 trough. At 50.6, the PMI is only slightly above its 2016 low of 49.9. Meanwhile, dollar bullish sentiment is currently 79%. It maxed out at 82% in 2016. Interestingly, despite the fact that our economic growth indicators paint a similar growth back-drop as 2016, the 10-year yield remains well above its mid-2016 low of 1.37%. Logically, we must conclude that some other “non-growth” factor is propping yields up (more on this below). The 10-year Treasury yield tends to be lower when investors are extremely bullish on the U.S. dollar and higher when they are more bearish on the dollar.  Looking ahead, we remain optimistic that the most important global growth indicators (Global Manufacturing PMI and dollar bullish sentiment) will soon reverse course, as some leading global growth indicators have recently turned a corner. We already saw that the CRB Raw Industrials index has broken out (Chart 1). Additionally: Chart 4The Worst Is Behind Us? The Worst Is Behind Us? The Worst Is Behind Us? The Global ZEW Economic Sentiment index has risen in two consecutive months (Chart 4, top panel). Our Global LEI Diffusion Index shows that more than half of the countries in our sample now have improving leading economic indicators (Chart 4, panel 2). Our BCA Boom/Bust Indicator – an indicator based on the CRB index, Global Metals equities and U.S. unemployment claims – has also jumped (Chart 4, bottom panel). Ingredient #2: Output Gap As noted above, the 10-year Treasury yield looks too high relative to our preferred economic growth indicators. This could be because yields haven’t yet caught up to the deteriorating global economy, but more likely it is because our bond model is still missing some key ingredients. The next most obvious factor to incorporate into our model is some measure of the output gap. If an economy is operating at very close to its peak capacity, with a small output gap, then it doesn’t take much additional growth to spark inflation. Conversely, even rapid economic growth will not be inflationary if the output gap is large. As long as the central bank is expected to lean against rising inflation with higher interest rates, then some measure of the output gap should be included in our bond model. Unfortunately, appropriate output gap measures are difficult to find. We could rely on the CBO or IMF’s output gap estimates, but those are often subject to large ex-post revisions – not ideal if we want to create a bond model that is useful in real time. Since the Fed tends to lift rates when the output gap closes, another option would be to include the fed funds rate as an independent variable in our model. However, this is also not ideal since we would expect the macroeconomic data and the 10-year yield to lead changes in the policy rate. Some measure of inflation might be the best factor to include. However, we find that the correlation between different price inflation measures and the 10-year Treasury yield is incredibly unstable over time. This is likely because the Fed targets price inflation explicitly, making its correlation with bond yields less empirically apparent. Wage growth is the best “output gap” measure to include in a 10-year Treasury yield model.  In fact, our analysis reveals that wage growth is the best “output gap” measure to include in a 10-year Treasury yield model. Specifically, average hourly earnings from the monthly employment report. Not only does the fed funds rate respond – with a lag – to changes in average hourly earnings, but average hourly earnings also line up reasonably well with the 10-year yield over time (Chart 5). Looking at Chart 5, we can now clearly see why the 10-year yield is above its mid-2016 low, despite the poor readings from our growth indicators. Wages have risen sharply since mid-2016, indicating that the output gap has closed, and the Fed has hiked rates 8 times as a result. The obvious conclusion is that in the present situation, with a much smaller output gap than in 2016, it would require a Global Manufacturing PMI well below 50 to produce a 10-year yield near 2% or below. Going forward, we see the uptrend in wage growth continuing for some time. The proportion of workers quitting their jobs each month, a signal of worker bargaining power, remains very high relative to history. Meanwhile, many more households continue to describe jobs as “plentiful” as opposed to “hard to get” (Chart 6). Chart 5Output Gap Ingredient: Average Hourly Earnings Output Gap Ingredient: Average Hourly Earnings Output Gap Ingredient: Average Hourly Earnings Chart 6More Room For Wages To Grow More Room For Wages To Grow More Room For Wages To Grow Ingredient #3: Policy Uncertainty The third ingredient we’ll add to our 10-year Treasury yield model is a measure of policy uncertainty. Specifically, the index of Global Economic Policy Uncertainty created by Baker, Bloom and Davis.2  Investors often flock to the safety of U.S. Treasuries in times of economic distress. But Treasuries can also benefit from flight-to-quality flows during periods of stable economic growth but heightened political turmoil. In other words, elevated political uncertainty can make investors fear a downturn in the future, and drive a flight into the safety of U.S. Treasuries. The Global Economic Policy Uncertainty index also shows a relatively strong correlation with the 10-year Treasury yield over time (Chart 7). Chart 7Policy Uncertainty Ingredient: Global Economic Policy Uncertainty Index Policy Uncertainty Ingredient: Global Economic Policy Uncertainty Index Policy Uncertainty Ingredient: Global Economic Policy Uncertainty Index Looking more closely at Chart 7, we see that global policy uncertainty is currently as high as it was in mid-2016, when the 10-year Treasury yield hit its cycle low. This lines up pretty well with intuition, since investors are understandably quite nervous about the state of Brexit negotiations and U.S./China trade relations. In that context, it is reasonable to expect that some geopolitical risk premium is currently priced into the 10-year Treasury yield, though a smaller output gap than in 2016 is preventing the 10-year yield from reaching mid-2016 levels. Going forward, though political uncertainty will probably stay elevated compared to history. It seems increasingly likely that a “hard Brexit” will be avoided and that President Trump will seek some sort of agreement with China in advance of the 2020 U.S. election.3 The political risk premium in 10-year notes could unwind somewhat in the coming months. Ingredient #4: Sentiment The fourth and final ingredient we’ll add to our 10-year Treasury yield model is a component related to investor sentiment. Our favorite being the U.S. Economic Surprise Index. Chart 8Sentiment Ingredient: Economic Surprise Index Sentiment Ingredient: Economic Surprise Index Sentiment Ingredient: Economic Surprise Index Investors don’t often think of the Surprise index as a sentiment indicator, but in fact that’s exactly what it is. It measures whether the economic data exceeded or fell short of expectations during the past 30 days, a measurement that is heavily influenced by whether investor expectations are optimistic or pessimistic. When economic expectations are extremely downbeat it doesn’t take much good news to generate a positive surprise, and vice-versa. Also, investor expectations are influenced in one direction or the other by whether the recent economic data are positive or negative. This behavioral dynamic causes the Economic Surprise Index to be a mean-reverting series, one that we can even describe with a simple auto-regressive model, as shown in Chart 8. More importantly, we have found that the Economic Surprise Index is tightly correlated with the change in the 10-year Treasury yield. A given month that ends with the Surprise index above zero is usually a month when the 10-year Treasury yield increased, and vice-versa (Chart 9). This correlation also holds relatively well over 3-month and 6-month horizons (Charts 10 & 11), but breaks down beyond that.4 Chart 9 Chart 10   Chart 11 The U.S. data surprise index is deeply negative at present, and has been for several weeks. But the longer the data continue to disappoint, the more downbeat investor expectations become and the more likely it is that the surprise index will rise in the future. Right now, our simple auto-regressive model projects that the surprise index will be slightly higher in one month’s time, though still deeply negative. Nevertheless, the Surprise index suggests we are approaching a turning point in investor sentiment. Mix Well, Cover, Stir Occasionally We’ve now presented what, in our view, is a fairly complete list of factors that should be included in a macroeconomic model of the 10-year Treasury yield. Importantly, each factor complements the other ones in the sense that they each capture a different element of the economic landscape. At this stage, it would be nice to weight all of the factors together and arrive at a fair value estimate for the 10-year yield. Unfortunately, we won’t be performing that exercise in this report (we may do so in the future). The key challenge in combining all of the indicators together is that the sensitivity of the 10-year yield to each of the above factors changes over time. For example, there are periods when policy uncertainty appears to be a very significant driver of the 10-year yield, and other times when it appears to not matter much at all. The macro indicators listed in this report generally signal that the 10-year yield is near its trough. While it is often useful to boil all of the important drivers down into a point estimate of the 10-year yield, such an exercise can also create problems if it causes us to zero-in on the model’s output and avoid thinking critically about what the different macro inputs are telling us. As of today, we think the macro indicators listed above generally signal that the 10-year yield is near its trough. Leading global growth indicators have hooked up, suggesting that the Global Manufacturing PMI will improve during the next few months and that bullish dollar sentiment could soften. Survey indicators suggest that the labor market remains tight, and that wage growth will stay in an uptrend. Policy uncertainty will probably continue to apply some downward pressure to yields, but a long Brexit extension and/or trade agreement between the U.S. and China could cause that impact to wane in the next few months. Economic sentiment is likely quite depressed, meaning that the bar for positive surprises is low. All in all, our investment strategy is unchanged. We recommend that investors maintain below-benchmark duration in U.S. bond portfolios, while focusing short positions on the 5-year and 7-year maturities.   Ryan Swift, U.S. Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 The rationale for tracking the CRB/Gold ratio can be found in U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Search For Aaa Spread”, dated March 12, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 www.policyuncertainty.com 3 Please see Global Investment Strategy Quarterly Outlook, “From Dead Zone To End Zone”, dated March 29, 2019, available at gis.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “How Much Higher For Yields?”, dated October 31, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

Highlights Duration: A growing list of leading global growth indicators are either climbing or are in the process of bottoming. This is putting a floor under global bond yields, as signaled by our new GFIS Duration Indicator. Maintain a below-benchmark overall duration stance in global bond portfolios. New Zealand: The RBNZ has signaled that the next move in policy rates is down in New Zealand, a move that would be justified by slowing domestic growth and below-target inflation. Stay long New Zealand 5-year government bonds versus equivalent maturity U.S. Treasuries and German debt, but set fairly tight stops to protect profits given how far spreads have already compressed. Feature A New Duration Indicator … But No Change In Our Duration Stance The downward pressure on global government bond yields looks to be losing steam. The “inversion panic” in the U.S. Treasury market has subsided with the 10-year Treasury yield climbing back above 2.50% last week. Yields have bounced well off the lows in the major markets, as well, including the 10-year German Bund which is no longer in negative yield territory. Some tentative signs of stabilization in global growth indicators has helped stem the flow of bond-bullish news, coming alongside a pickup in commodity prices. The new rising trend in our GFIS Duration Indicator suggests that investors should maintain a strategic below-benchmark overall duration stance in global bond portfolios. We have combined some of those growth indicators, which have been reliably correlated with global bond yields over the past several years, into our new Global Fixed Income Strategy (GFIS) Duration Indicator (Chart of the Week). This indicator is a combination of the standardized levels of our global leading economic indicator (LEI), our global LEI diffusion index (the relative share of countries in our global LEI where the LEI is rising versus where it is falling) and the global ZEW economic expectations index (a combination of the individual country indices produced by the German ZEW Institute). Chart of the WeekOur New GFIS Global Duration Indicator Has Bottomed Out Our New GFIS Global Duration Indicator Has Bottomed Out Our New GFIS Global Duration Indicator Has Bottomed Out Chart 2Early Signs Of A Global Growth Recovery Early Signs Of A Global Growth Recovery Early Signs Of A Global Growth Recovery   The GFIS Duration Indicator has provided a reliable directional signal for global bond yields since 2012, with a lead of six months. The indicator bottomed back in October 2018 and, with that six month lead, signals that global bond yields should be bottoming now (April 2019). Two of the three components of the GFIS Duration Indicator – the global LEI diffusion index and the global ZEW expectations index – have both clearly bottomed and are the main reason why the Indicator has started to move higher (Chart 2). The global LEI has stopped falling, as well, and is no longer putting downward pressure on the Indicator. Combined with the readings on price momentum for global government bonds (very overbought) and duration positioning among bond investors (well above-benchmark), it is no surprise that bond yields have finally had a chance to stabilize. Looking at the individual country components of these indicators, it is clear that the pickup in sentiment seen in the U.S., euro area, Japan and the U.K. has not been matched by a pickup in their individual LEIs (Chart 3). Interestingly, there are signs of life in some of the individual emerging market (EM) LEIs in places like Mexico.1 The biggest country to watch for improvement, of course, is China and, even here, the sharp deceleration of the OECD LEI appears to be losing steam. The new rising trend in our GFIS Duration Indicator suggests that investors should maintain a strategic below-benchmark overall duration stance in global bond portfolios. Yields may not come roaring back quickly until there is more decisive evidence of improving global growth. On a risk/reward basis, though, betting on higher bond yields from current levels appears prudent. Our new GFIS Duration Indicator may also prove to be useful in guiding fixed income allocation between government bonds and corporate debt in the future. In Chart 4, we show the performance of global government bond yields, corporate bond spreads and corporate excess returns (over duration-matched government debt) since the start of 2018. The shaded region represents the time frame when we moved to a more cautious stance on global corporates versus governments (from June 26, 2018 to Jan 15, 2019). Chart 3Could EM Lead DM Out Of The Slump? Could EM Lead DM Out Of The Slump? Could EM Lead DM Out Of The Slump? Chart 4Our Duration Indicator Can Help With Asset Allocation Our Duration Indicator Can Help With Asset Allocation Our Duration Indicator Can Help With Asset Allocation Our decision to downgrade corporates was based on our concern that slowing global growth, tighter U.S. monetary policy and growing U.S.-China trade tensions would result in a risk-off pullback in global risk assets like corporate bonds and equities. Yet we could have made a similar decision when looking at only the GFIS Duration Indicator. The most recent peak in the Indicator occurred in October 2017, occurring about one full year before the blowout in credit spreads. In a future report, we will investigate the potential links and optimal lead/lag relationships between the GFIS Duration Indicator and fixed income allocation. Bottom Line: A growing list of leading global growth indicators are either climbing or are in the process of bottoming. This is putting a floor under global bond yields, as signaled by our new GFIS Duration Indicator. New Zealand Spread Trade Update – Too Soon To Take Profits Chart 5Impressive Outperformance From NZ Bonds Impressive Outperformance From NZ Bonds Impressive Outperformance From NZ Bonds One of our more successful calls over the past two years has been to go long New Zealand (NZ) government bonds versus U.S. Treasuries and German sovereign debt. Since we initiated that recommendation back on May 30, 2017, the 5-year NZ-US spread has tightened from +74bps to -74bps, while the 5-year NZ-Germany yield differential has narrowed from +289bps to +213bps (Chart 5). Relative to the Bloomberg Barclays Global Treasury index (on a duration-matched basis, hedged into U.S. dollars), NZ government bonds have outperformed by +413bps, compared to +289bps for euro area debt and -269bps for U.S. debt. Our original thesis was that market expectations for the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (RBNZ) were too hawkish relative to decelerating NZ economic growth and inflation persistently coming in below the central bank’s 2% target. Any rate hikes discounted in the NZ yield curve were unlikely to be delivered against that backdrop, keeping NZ bond yields contained. We preferred to position this benign view on NZ rates as a bond spread trade versus the U.S., where the Fed was in a tightening cycle, and versus Germany where a cyclical growth upswing was shifting the ECB in a less-dovish direction. The returns on our NZ recommendation have far exceeded our expectations, with the benchmark 10-year NZ bond yield having fallen -82bps since we initiated the position. The more recent part of that decline has come from the markets moving to price in RBNZ rate cuts over the next year. The bigger driver of the yield move, however, has been due to markets discounting a lower medium-term neutral level of the RBNZ’s policy rate, the Official Cash Rate (OCR). Our proxy for the market expectation of the real terminal rate (the inflation-adjusted level of interest rates derived from forward pricing in the NZ overnight index swap (OIS) curve and medium-term inflation expectations taken from inflation-linked bonds) has fallen from 2.2% in May 2017 to 1.4% today (Chart 6). This is in sharp contrast to the pricing of the real terminal rate in the U.S. and core Europe, which has remained in a narrow range near 0% over the same period. As we discussed in a recent Weekly Report, there has been a trend in recent years towards convergence of real terminal rate expectations across most developed economies – a move driven by a narrowing of differentials in medium-term labor productivity and inflation.2 In the case of NZ, however, the sharp downward adjustment of interest rate expectations also had a cyclical component. Investors are seeing a steady deceleration of NZ growth, even with the RBNZ keeping policy rates at historically-low levels. The result: a reduction of expectations for the terminal (or “neutral”) interest rate. One of our more successful calls over the past two years has been to go long New Zealand (NZ) government bonds versus U.S. Treasuries and German sovereign debt. The economy has faced a broad-based deceleration since the middle of 2016 and is now growing at a below-trend pace of 0.9%. A slower global economy has hit NZ exporters hard, with the annual pace of export growth having slowed from 20% to 4% since last December. The NZ manufacturing PMI has also fallen over the same period, but at 54 remains above the boom/bust 50 level (Chart 7). The RBNZ’s own business surveys show huge declines in confidence, capacity utilization and the outlook for export demand. Chart 6A Big Convergence Of Interest Rate Expectations A Big Convergence Of Interest Rate Expectations A Big Convergence Of Interest Rate Expectations Chart 7Slowing Global Growth Has Hit NZ Hard Slowing Global Growth Has Hit NZ Hard Slowing Global Growth Has Hit NZ Hard   Monetary conditions had to become easier to help mitigate the external shock to NZ growth. This did happen through a weaker New Zealand dollar (NZD) – which fell -8% on a trade-weighted basis from the most recent peak in March 2014 – but not through interest rates, as the RBNZ has kept the OCR steady at 1.75% since November 2016. Looking across the NZ economy, a case can be made for introducing additional monetary stimulus. Could the next move to ease monetary conditions be actual rate cuts from the RBNZ? There are now -40bps of cuts over the next twelve months discounted in the NZ OIS curve. RBNZ Governor Adrian Orr stated last month that, given weaker global growth with reduced momentum in domestic spending and core inflation remaining below target, the next move for the OCR is likely down. Looking across the NZ economy, a case can be made for introducing additional monetary stimulus: Chart 8NZ Growth Has Slowed A Lot From The 2015/16 Boom NZ Growth Has Slowed A Lot From The 2015/16 Boom NZ Growth Has Slowed A Lot From The 2015/16 Boom   Growth: Real consumer spending has decelerated sharply from the 2015/16 boom years, with the annual growth falling from a peak of 6.1% in 2016 to 3.5% in Q4/2018 (Chart 8). A weaker housing market, fueled by slower inflows of new immigrants, has been an important factor underlying the softer pace of consumer spending. Capital spending by NZ companies has also slowed substantially from the robust 2015/16 pace, a consequence of weaker global demand (both from China and Australia, the most important export markets for NZ) and stagnant prices for important NZ commodities like dairy products. Importantly, the broad-based deceleration of NZ economic growth appears to have stabilized, although there is little sign of an imminent reacceleration in domestic demand. Labor Markets & Inflation: NZ’s labor market has been very strong. The unemployment rate of 4.3% sits well below both the RBNZ and OECD estimates of full employment. The labor force participation rate has climbed a full three percentage points since 2015 and is now stable around 71% (Chart 9). Job vacancies were up 7.2% on a year-over-year basis in Q4 2018, with full-time employment growth holding stable at 3.1% even as part-time employment growth has been contracting. This all suggests that the pool of available workers has become tight enough to allow part-time workers to find full-time work and wages to accelerate. Yet despite +3% wage growth persisting over the past year, both headline and core CPI inflation has remained stubbornly below 2% (the midpoint of the RBNZ 1-3% target band) since the end of 2014. Chart 9Tight NZ Labor Markets, But Where's The Inflation? Tight NZ Labor Markets, But Where's The Inflation? Tight NZ Labor Markets, But Where's The Inflation?   Against this backdrop of slowing growth but underwhelming inflation, the RBNZ would be justified in delivering a rate cut or two to provide a boost to the economy. The RBNZ’s latest set of economic forecasts are not overly pessimistic with real GDP expected to grow at a 3% pace in 2019 and 2020. Governor Orr has noted, however, that the weakness in consumer spending is the biggest downside threat to the central bank’s growth forecasts. More importantly, despite forecasting that the NZ labor market will remain tight (i.e. beyond full employment), and the output gap will remain above zero (i.e. no spare capacity), the central bank does not expect inflation to return to the 2% target until 2021. Pricing in inflation-linked NZ government bonds is even more pessimistic, with longer-term inflation breakevens now sitting below 1%. Adding to the dovish bias of the RBNZ is the revised mandate for the central bank from the NZ government. The RBNZ now has a dual mandate similar to the U.S. Federal Reserve, targeting both stable inflation and maximum sustainable employment. The central bank has also moved away from having the RBNZ Governor solely make decisions, with a new seven-person monetary policy committee now voting on policy changes.3 Governor Orr stated last week that the RBNZ’s new dovish bias introduced in March will be “the starting point” for deliberations by the enlarged monetary policy committee. Such a candid statement suggests that the committee’s first formal policy meeting on May 8 will be dedicated to discussing the need for a rate cut. Yet even if the RBNZ does ease in May, the markets are already priced for such an outcome. The NZ OIS curve discounts -32bps of cuts within the next six months, and -18bps of cuts in the next three months. So what does this all mean for our NZ spread trades? In Charts 10 & 11, we present a “fair value” regression model for the 5-year NZ-US and 5-year NZ-Germany bond spreads. The independent variables in the model are based on relative monetary policy, relative growth and relative inflation between NZ and the U.S. and Germany. The logic is that the bond spread should be a function of the differentials between policy interest rates, unemployment rates and inflation rates.   Chart 10Our NZ-US 5-Year Spread Model Our NZ-US 5-Year Spread Model Our NZ-US 5-Year Spread Model Chart 11Our NZ-Germany 5-Year Spread Model Our NZ-Germany 5-Year Spread Model Our NZ-Germany 5-Year Spread Model The model is indicating that the NZ-US spread is far too tight, although this is not unusual when looking at the very wide spreads between U.S. Treasury yields and bonds from other countries which are also historical extremes (i.e. Germany, Australia and the U.K.). As discussed earlier, the market pricing of NZ neutral real interest rates has converged substantially towards the lower levels seen in other developed countries. This suggests that the unusually narrow spreads reflect a structurally lower interest rate environment in NZ, which has historically been a country with some of the highest nominal rates and bond yields in the developed world. Adding it all up, we think that the conditions for a widening of NZ-US and NZ-German spreads is not yet in place. Thus, we are sticking with our recommended spread trades. Our model for the NZ-Germany spread also suggests that the spread is getting too tight, although it is still within the normal ranges (+/- 1 standard deviation) of fair value. So on the basis of valuation, the period of NZ bond outperformance looks stretched. In terms of what is discounted in NZ money markets, it is unlikely that the RBNZ will deliver on the -39bps of rate cuts currently discounted in the OIS curve over the next year without a sharper downleg in both growth and inflation (that also pushes up unemployment). Yet at the same time, the backdrop for global bond yields is shifting due to bottoming global growth that is likely to put more upward pressure on U.S. and German yields than NZ yields, which have already fallen substantially. Adding it all up, we think that the conditions for a widening of NZ-US and NZ-German spreads is not yet in place. Thus, we are sticking with our recommended spread trades. Given the overvaluation signals from our new fair value models, however, we do recommend setting a stop on these spread positions to protect profits. For the 5-year NZ-US spread, which is currently at -74bps, we are setting a fairly tight stop at -60bps given how overvalued that spread looks in our model. For 5-year NZ-Germany, which is currently at +207bps, we are setting a slightly wider stop at +230bps. Bottom Line: The RBNZ has signaled that the next move in policy rates is down in New Zealand, a move that would be justified by slowing domestic growth and below-target inflation. Stay long New Zealand 5-year government bonds versus equivalent maturity U.S. Treasuries and German debt, but set fairly tight stops to protect profits given how far spreads have already compressed.   Robert Robis, CFA, Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com Ray Park, CFA, Research Analyst ray@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1 Note that we are using the OECD set of leading economic indicators in this analysis. 2 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, “Pervasive Uncertainty, Persuasive Central Banks”, dated March 12th 2019, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 3 A lengthy but detailed Monetary Policy Handbook, highlighting the philosophy and new policy framework for the Reserve Bank of New Zealand, can be found here. https://www.rbnz.govt.nz/monetary-policy/about-monetary-policy/monetary-policy-handbook Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index A Sustainable Bottom In Global Bond Yields A Sustainable Bottom In Global Bond Yields Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Highlights Odds are that the recent improvement in Chinese manufacturing PMIs could be due to inventory re-stocking rather than a decisive turnaround in final demand. “Hard” data have not shown meaningful improvements in China’s final demand. Weighing the pros and cons, we are instituting a stop-buy on our EM strategy: We will turn tactically positive on EM risk assets if the MSCI EM equity index breaks above 1125, which is 4% above its current level. Keep Malaysia on an upgrade watch list. Downgrade Brazil to underweight. Feature The strong Chinese PMI prints released this week have challenged our negative view on EM assets and China plays. This week we take a deeper look at the underlying reasons behind the recent improvement in China’s PMI data. In addition, we elaborate on what it would take for us to alter our current strategy on EM risk assets. A Manufacturing Upturn The upturn in China’s manufacturing PMIs in March has been validated by improvement in Taiwanese PMI’s export orders (Chart I-1, top panel). The latter’s amelioration has been broad-based across all sectors: electronics and optical, electrical machinery and equipment, basic materials, and chemical/biological/medical (Chart I-1, bottom panel). China accounts for 30% of Taiwanese exports, making Taiwan’s manufacturing sector heavily exposed to China’s business cycle. Does this improvement in manufacturing PMIs reflect a final demand revival in China? Looking For Final Demand Revival China’s domestic and overseas orders remain weak, as exhibited in Chart I-2. These indicators give us the primary trajectory of the Chinese business cycle, while the PMI indexes exhibit considerable short-term volatility. Chart I-1One-Month Surge In China's And Taiwan's PMIs One-Month Surge In China's And Taiwan's PMIs One-Month Surge In China's And Taiwan's PMIs Chart I-2Noise And Business Cycle Trajectory Noise And Business Cycle Trajectory Noise And Business Cycle Trajectory   The domestic demand and overseas orders reflect quarterly data from 5,000 enterprises. The latest datapoints are from Q1 2019 and were released on March 22. To be sure, we are not suggesting an absence of bright spots, but at the moment “hard” data do not corroborate broad-based improvement in final demand. Consumer spending: There has been no improvement in households’ propensity to spend. Our proxy for households’ marginal propensity to spend has not turned up (Chart I-3). Consistently, China’s smartphone sales and passenger car sales are contracting at double-digit rates, while the growth rate in online sales of services has not improved (Chart I-4, top three panels). Chart I-3Chinese Consumers' Propensity To Spend Chinese Consumers' Propensity To Spend Chinese Consumers' Propensity To Spend Chart I-4China: No Improvement In "Hard" Data China: No Improvement In "Hard" Data China: No Improvement In "Hard" Data   The bottom panel of Chart I-4 demonstrates the retail sales of consumer goods during the Chinese New Year compared with the previous year’s spring festival. It is evident that as of mid-February, when this year’s spring festival took place, there was no improvement in Chinese consumer demand. Business spending / investment: Our proxy for enterprises’ propensity to spend continues to decline (Chart I-5). Companies’ propensity to spend has historically led the cyclical trajectory in industrial metals prices. Crucially, this has not corroborated the rebound in base metals prices over the past three months. Besides, China’s imports of capital goods, its total imports from Korea and its machinery and machine tool imports from Japan are all still contracting at a double-digit rate (Chart I-6). Chart I-5China: Enterprises' Propensity To Spend And Metals China: Enterprises' Propensity To Spend And Metals China: Enterprises' Propensity To Spend And Metals Chart I-6Contracting At A Double Digit Rate Contracting At A Double Digit Rate Contracting At A Double Digit Rate   China’s fixed asset investment in infrastructure has picked up of late and will continue to improve. However, this may not be sufficient to revive the mainland’s economy. China’s growth decelerated in 2014-2015 and industrial commodities prices dwindled, despite robust growth in infrastructure investment at the time (Chart I-7). The culprit was the decline in property construction in 2014-2015. As to the property market, the People’s Bank of China’s (PBoC) Pledged Supplementary Lending (PSL) financing points to further weakness in property demand in the coming months (Chart I-8). Chart I-7China's Infrastructure Investment And Base Metals Prices China's Infrastructure Investment And Base Metals Prices China's Infrastructure Investment And Base Metals Prices Chart I-8China: The Outlook For Residential Property Demand China: The Outlook For Residential Property Demand China: The Outlook For Residential Property Demand   Moreover, property starts have been surging, yet their completions have been tumbling. This suggests a ballooning amount of work-in-progress on real estate developers’ balance sheets. To be sure, we are not suggesting an absence of bright spots, but at the moment “hard” data do not corroborate broad-based improvement in final demand. It may well be that property developers do not have financing to complete work or that they are reluctant to bring new units to the market amid tame demand. Whatever the case, the mediocre pace of construction activity is negative for suppliers to the construction industry. Government spending: Aggregate government spending in China – including central and local government as well as government-managed funds (GMF) – has been very robust in the past year (Chart I-9). Hence, government spending has not been the reason behind the economic slowdown. Chart I-9China's Aggregate Fiscal Spending China's Aggregate Fiscal Spending China's Aggregate Fiscal Spending For 2019, overall government spending is projected to expand by 11% in nominal terms from a year ago, down from 17% in 2018. The key fiscal risk is shrinking land sales, which account for 86% of GMF revenues. The latter have substantially increased in size and now makeup 27% of aggregate fiscal spending. Local and central government expenditures account for 62% and 11% of aggregate fiscal spending, respectively. If land revenues undershoot, GMF and local governments will not be able to meet their expenditure targets without Beijing altering the former’s borrowing quotas. In brief, fiscal policy may be involuntarily tightened due to a shortfall in land sales revenues before the central government permits local governments to borrow more. Exports: Chinese shipments to the U.S. will recover as China and the U.S. finalize their trade deal. The media is extremely focused on the trade negotiations, and markets have been trading off the headlines. Nevertheless, it is essential to realize that China’s exports to the U.S. make up only 3.6% of the country’s total GDP (Chart I-10). This contrasts with capital spending that accounts for 42% of the mainland’s GDP.  Consequently, we believe the credit cycle that drives construction and capital spending is more important to China’s growth than its shipments to the U.S. Global ex-China Demand: The areas of global final demand that weighed on global growth last year remain depressed. Global semiconductors and auto sales have been shrinking at a rapid pace and have so far not experienced a reversal (Chart I-11). Chart I-10China Is Not Reliant On Exports To The U.S. China Is Not Reliant On Exports To The U.S. China Is Not Reliant On Exports To The U.S. Chart I-11Global "Hard" Data Are Still Bad Global "Hard" Data Are Still Bad Global "Hard" Data Are Still Bad   Bottom Line: There is a lack of pertinent “hard” business cycle data in China that have improved. What Does It All Mean Having reviewed final demand conditions in China, it is reasonable to argue that the improvement in the Chinese and Taiwanese manufacturing PMIs could be due to inventory re-stocking. Unfortunately, in China, there is limited reliable data that quantifies inventory levels well in various industries. Having reviewed final demand conditions in China, it is reasonable to argue that the improvement in the Chinese and Taiwanese manufacturing PMIs could be due to inventory re-stocking. The consensus view in the investment community is that China’s credit stimulus has boosted the economy since the beginning of this year. Business conditions have certainly improved. The rally in Chinese stocks has in turn mirrored this improvement. Yet it is not clear that this revival in the business cycle is due to the credit stimulus. Chart I-12 plots the credit impulse, including local government general and special bonds issuance, with the three typical business cycle variables: manufacturing PMI and nominal manufacturing production growth. Chart I-12China: Credit Impulse Leads "Hard" Data China: Credit Impulse Leads "Hard" Data China: Credit Impulse Leads "Hard" Data As can be seen from the chart, the manufacturing PMI is very volatile. In the short term, there is little correlation between it and the credit impulse (Chart I-12, top panel). Meanwhile, the credit impulse leads nominal manufacturing output growth by nine months (Chart I-12, bottom panel). Based on the past time lag relationships, the mainland’s business cycle should not have bottomed until the third quarter of this year. Hence, the bottom in the manufacturing PMIs in January does not fit the historical pattern of the relationship between the credit impulse and the mainland’s business cycle. Bottom Line: Presently, it is hard to make a definite conclusion on the reasons behind the pick-up in Chinese manufacturing. That said, business cycles do not always evolve in a common-sense manner that can be both rationalized and forecast by indicators. Therefore, it is essential for investors, to have confirmation signals from financial markets on the direction of the business cycle. Financial Markets As A Litmus Test We continuously monitor numerous financial markets that are sensitive to both the global and Chinese business cycles. These financial market-based indicators are often coincident with EM asset prices. Hence, they can be used to confirm or refute EM market direction. Our Risk-On-to-Safe-Haven (ROSH) currency ratio has recently softened, flashing a warning signal for EM share prices (Chart I-13). Chart I-13Currency Markets Are Flashing Amber For EM Stocks bca.ems_wr_2019_04_04_s1_c13 bca.ems_wr_2019_04_04_s1_c13 The ROSH ratio is the relative total return (including carry) of six commodities currencies (AUD, NZD, CAD, CLP, BRL and ZAR) versus two safe-haven currencies: the yen and Swiss franc. Hence, this currency ratio is agnostic to U.S. dollar trends, making its signals especially valuable. Our Reflation Confirming Indicator has retreated, also signaling a pullback in the EM equity index (Chart I-14). This indicator is composed of an equal-weighted average of industrial metals prices (a play on Chinese growth), platinum prices (a play on global reflation) and U.S. lumber prices (a proxy play on U.S. growth). Chart I-14Commodities Markets Are Flashing Amber For EM Stocks Commodities Markets Are Flashing Amber For EM Stocks Commodities Markets Are Flashing Amber For EM Stocks Within EM credit markets, corporate investment-grade spreads have begun narrowing versus high-yield spreads (Chart I-15). This typically coincides with lower EM share prices. Finally, EM share prices have been underperforming DM since late December. Relative performance of EM ex-China stocks against the global equity index has been even more underwhelming. In short, these markets are at a critical juncture. A decisive breakout will entail a lasting rally, while a failure to break out will signal imminent downside risk. Bottom Line: These financial market signals are not consistent with a durable China-led recovery in the global business cycle. Investment Strategy A number of financial markets are currently at a critical juncture. These markets will either break out or break down, with subsequently significant moves. The broad U.S. trade-weighted dollar has been flattish in the past nine months despite falling interest rate expectations in the U.S. and the risk-on market environment. We read this as a sign of underlying strength. The trade-weighted dollar is presently sitting on its 200-day moving average (Chart I-16). Consistent with a flattish trend in the greenback, the U.S. dollar volatility has dropped to very low levels. Exchange rates usually do not trade sideways much longer than that. Hence, the dollar is about to break out or break down and any move will be lasting and large. Chart I-15A Message From EM Corporate Credit Market A Message From EM Corporate Credit Market A Message From EM Corporate Credit Market Chart I-16The U.S. Dollar Is About To Make A Big Move The U.S. Dollar Is About To Make A Big Move The U.S. Dollar Is About To Make A Big Move   The Korean won has been forming a tapering wedge pattern from both short-term and long-term perspectives (Chart I-17, top and middle panels). Its volatility has also plunged to a record low (Chart I-17, bottom panel). Chart I-17The Korean Won Is At Crossroads The Korean Won Is At Crossroads The Korean Won Is At Crossroads Chart I-18A Stop-Buy On EM Stocks A Stop-Buy On EM Stocks A Stop-Buy On EM Stocks Finally, emerging Asian equities’ relative performance to global stocks is facing an important technical resistance as are copper and oil prices. In short, these markets are at a critical juncture. A decisive breakout will entail a lasting rally, while a failure to break out will signal imminent downside risk. Consistently, China’s “soft” data that has improved markedly yet there is no “hard” data confirmation. Moreover, there is some evidence to suggest that the pickup in the soft data may simply reflect inventory building.   Weighing the pros and cons, we are instituting a stop-buy on our EM strategy: We will turn tactically positive on EM risk assets if the MSCI EM equity index in U.S. dollar terms breaks above 1125, which is 4% above its current level (Chart I-18). Arthur Budaghyan Chief Emerging Markets Strategist arthurb@bcaresearch.com Malaysia: Keep On Upgrade Watch List Malaysian equities have been underperforming their EM counterparts since 2013 and are now resting around their 2017 lows (Chart II-1). The odds are high that this market’s underperformance is late. Chart II-1Malaysian Stocks Relative to EM Malaysian Stocks Relative to EM Malaysian Stocks Relative to EM Investors should keep Malaysian equities on an upgrade watch list. We upgraded the Malaysian bourse from underweight to neutral in December 2018. In a Special Report published at that time, we argued that the structural outlook for Malaysia had improved, yet the cyclical downturn would persist. The latter did not warrant moving the bourse to overweight. This view is still at play. Economic Slowdown Is Advanced The Malaysian economy has been digesting credit and property market excesses. Property sector: Property sales have declined by 37% since 2010, and prices for some property segments are beginning to deflate (Chart II-2). Similarly, housing construction approvals have slumped severely since 2012. Consumers: Passenger vehicle sales have been falling since 2012 along with households' declining marginal propensity to consume, and retail trade has been very weak (Chart II-3). Chart II-2Property Sector Is Depressed Property Sector Is Depressed Property Sector Is Depressed Chart II-3Consumer Sector Is Weak Consumer Sector Is Weak Consumer Sector Is Weak   An ongoing purge of excesses by companies entails lower wage growth and weaker employment, resulting in subdued household income growth. The latter could extend the consumer slump. Business sector: Capital spending growth in real terms has decelerated and may contract. Both profit margins and return-on-equity (ROE) for non-financial publicly listed companies have slumped and are currently resting below their 2008 levels (Chart II-4). This warrants cost-cutting and reduced corporate spending/capital expenditures for now. Chart II-4Corporate Restructuring On The Way? Corporate Restructuring On The Way? Corporate Restructuring On The Way? Reduced employment and weak wage growth are negative dynamics for households but positive for companies’ profit margins. Commercial Banks: Malaysian banks remain unhealthy. At 1.5%, their NPLs remain low relative to the credit boom that occurred over the past decade. Moreover, Malaysian banks have been lowering their provisions levels to boost profits. This is an unsustainable strategy. Provided economic growth will remain weak, both NPLs and provisions will rise, hurting banks’ profits and share prices. Banks hold a very large market-cap weighting in this bourse, and the negative outlook for banks’ profits deters us from upgrading this equity market. Purging Excesses: Implications For The Exchange Rate Purging of economic excesses is painful in the short- and medium-term, as it instills deflation. A currency often depreciates during this phase to mitigate the deflationary forces in the economy. However, purging excesses, deleveraging and corporate restructuring are ultimately structurally bullish for a currency. First, corporate restructuring and improved capital allocation lift productivity growth in the long run. The Malaysian economy has been digesting credit and property market excesses. Second, low inflation or outright deflation allow the currency to depreciate in real terms. The Malaysian ringgit is already cheap based on the real effective exchange rate (Chart II-5). Finally, amid deflation and in the absence of widespread bailout of debtors funded by bank loans or excessive government borrowing, cash becomes “king”. Hence, deleveraging is ultimately currency positive. In contrast, pervasive bailouts funded by money creation – i.e., mushrooming money growth – usually undermine residents’ and foreigners’ willingness to hold the currency. A capital flight ensues and the currency plunges. Malaysia in 2015 was the latter case, with the ringgit plummeting as residents converted their ringgits to U.S. dollars (Chart II-6, top panel). Chart II-5The Ringgit Is Cheap The Ringgit Is Cheap The Ringgit Is Cheap Chart II-6Malaysia: 2015 Vs. Now Malaysia: 2015 Vs. Now Malaysia: 2015 Vs. Now   Presently, the opposite dynamics are at play. The central bank is reducing commercial banks’ excess reserves, domestic private credit growth is weak and residents are not fleeing the ringgit (Chart II-6). In addition, the structural reorientation of the economy from commodities to semiconductors/technology is beginning to bear fruit. As a result, overall trade balance has significantly improved, despite weak commodities prices. This is also positive for the currency. Finally, a more stable (i.e., modestly weaker) exchange rate amid both a global and domestic downturn will allow Malaysia’s central bank to reduce interest rates and smooth the growth slump. This is in contrast to 2015 when capital outflows and the plunging currency did not allow the central bank to reduce borrowing costs. Investment Conclusions We recommend keeping Malaysian stocks on an upgrade watch list for now. We recommend upgrading Malaysian sovereign credit and local currency government bonds from underweight to neutral relative to their respective EM benchmarks A relatively stable ringgit will benefit Malaysia’s local and U.S. dollar bonds. Furthermore, foreign ownership of local bonds has fallen meaningfully, diminishing the risk of future outflows. Ayman Kawtharani, Associate Editor ayman@bcaresearch.com Arthur Budaghyan Chief Emerging Markets Strategist arthurb@bcaresearch.com Downgrading Brazil: The Honeymoon Is Over In our October 9 report, we upgraded Brazil following the outcome of the first round of presidential elections. We, like the market, gave a benefit of the doubt to the new president. However, the honeymoon is over for President Bolsonaro. The markets are becoming increasingly pessimistic because of the lack of progress on the social security reforms front. It is no secret that Brazil needs bold pension reform to make its public debt sustainable. As things stand now, the public debt dynamic in Brazil is precarious. Two prerequisites for public debt sustainability are (1) for interest rates to be below nominal GDP growth or (2) continuous robust primary fiscal surpluses. Hence, a government can stabilize its debt-to-GDP ratio by either having nominal GDP above its borrowing costs, or by running persistent and sizable primary fiscal surpluses. Neither of these two stipulations are presently satisfied in Brazil. The gap between government local currency bond yields and nominal GDP growth is still very wide (Chart III-1). Meanwhile, the primary fiscal deficit is 1.5% of GDP (Chart III-2). Chart III-1Brazil: An Unsustainable Gap Brazil: An Unsustainable Gap Brazil: An Unsustainable Gap Chart III-2Brazil: Public Debt Dynamics Are Precarious Brazil: Public Debt Dynamics Are Precarious Brazil: Public Debt Dynamics Are Precarious     In the early 2000s, the government stabilized its public debt dynamics by running persistent primary surpluses of about 4% of GDP (Chart III-2, top panel). Will Brazil achieve primary fiscal surpluses in the coming years assuming some form of the pension reform is adopted? It is doubtful. According to the government’s own forecasts, the submitted draft of social security reforms, including the one for the army, will save only BRL190 billion in next four years or 0.7% of GDP per year. The current primary deficit is 1.5% of GDP (Chart III-2). Unless nominal GDP growth and government revenue growth shoot up, the primary deficit will not be eliminated or the primary surplus will be very small. Overall, it seems unlikely that the government’s proposed pension reforms will be sufficient to turn around Brazil’s public debt dynamics in the next several years - barring very strong economic growth that will fill in government coffers. Bottom Line: We are downgrading Brazil from overweight to underweight within EM equity, local currency bonds and sovereign credit benchmarks. Andrija Vesic, Research Analyst andrijav@bcaresearch.com Footnotes Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations