BCA Indicators/Model

Highlights 2018 Performance Breakdown: Our recommended model bond portfolio generated a modest outperformance versus the custom benchmark index of +6bps for all of 2018. Winners & Losers: The outperformance of our model bond portfolio in 2018 mostly came from country selection on our government bond portfolio (underweight U.S. Treasuries, overweight the U.K. and Australia). However, our below-benchmark overall duration stance, as well as our bias favoring U.S. credit over non-U.S. corporates, were drags on performance during the risk-off moves at the end of 2018. Scenario Analysis For 2019: The tactical upgrade to global corporates that we initiated last week is projected to generate outperformance versus the model portfolio benchmark index in the next six months - both from below-benchmark duration positioning and higher exposure to U.S. corporates. Feature 2019 has gotten off to a very busy start, with significant news and market moves forcing us to devote our first two Weekly Reports of the year to analysis and even changes to our views. This week, we belatedly take care of one final piece of housekeeping for 2018 – reporting the performance of the BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy (GFIS) model bond portfolio for the fourth quarter and for the entire calendar year. We also present an updated scenario return analysis for the next six months after the tactical upgrade to global corporate bonds that we initiated last week.1 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. A Quick Summary Of The Full Year Performance For 2018 The 2018 performance of the model portfolio can really be broken up into two periods: the first ten months of the year and November/December. This is an unsurprising consequence of the severe market moves around year-end that went contrary to our two most significant recommendations – maintaining a below-benchmark stance on overall portfolio duration and overweighting U.S. investment grade corporate debt versus non-U.S. equivalents in Europe and emerging markets (EM). The overall portfolio return in 2018 was +1.10% (hedged into USD), which outperformed our custom benchmark index by +6bps (Chart of the Week).2 That outperformance was considerably higher before the year-end plunge in global bond yields, reaching a peak of +32bps on November 20. In terms of the breakdown of outperformance, our recommended positioning on government bonds (duration and country allocation) contributed +22bps, while our credit tilts (by country and broadly defined credit sectors) were a drag on performance to the tune of -16bps. Chart of the WeekA Small Gain For 2018 After A Q4 Round-Trip A Small Gain For 2018 After A Q4 Round-Trip A Small Gain For 2018 After A Q4 Round-Trip The full breakdown of the full-year 2018 performance can be found in the Appendix tables and charts on Pages 14-16. For the government bond portion of the portfolio the full-year outperformers by country were the U.S. (+18bps), Germany (+10bps), Australia (+4bps) and the U.K. (+3bps). These are in line with our long-standing underweight position on the U.S. versus Germany, and our recommended overweights on Australia and the U.K. The laggards were relatively modest, led by our overweight stance on Japan (-4bps) and underweights on France (-3bps) and Italy (-3bps). For the credit portion of the portfolio, the winners were EM USD-denominated corporates (+7bps), U.S. B-rated high-yield (HY) corporates (+3bps) and U.S. Caa-rated high-yield (HY) corporates (+2bps). This was in line with our long-standing bias to favor U.S. junk bonds over EM credit. The losers were our overweights on U.S. investment grade (IG) financials (-15bps), U.S. IG industrials (-8bps), U.S. Ba-rated HY (-4bps), and euro area IG corporates (-2bps). Our overweight tilts on U.S. IG were the issue here. Q4/2018 Model Portfolio Performance Breakdown: A “Risk-Off” Hit To Our Core Recommendations The detailed data on our model bond performance for Q4/2018 only can be found in Table 1. Table 1GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q4/2018 Overall Return Attribution 2018 GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Performance Review: Fading At The Finish Line 2018 GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Performance Review: Fading At The Finish Line The total return of the GFIS model bond portfolio was +1.5% (hedged into USD) in Q4, which underperformed the custom benchmark index by a mere -1bp. The main cause for the slight underperformance is from our below-benchmark duration positioning with the Bloomberg Barclays Global Treasury Index yield falling by 20bps over the full quarter. In terms of the specific breakdown between the government bond and spread product allocations in our model portfolio, the former generated -2bps of underperformance versus our custom benchmark index while the latter outperformed by just +1bp. 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 Underweight U.S. government bonds with maturities between 5-7 years (+12bps) Overweight Japanese government bonds (JGBs) with maturities between 7-10 years (+5bps) Underweight Germany government bonds with maturities between 7-10 years (+3bps) Overweight U.K. government bonds with maturities between 5-7 years (+2bps) Biggest underperformers Overweight Japanese government bonds (JGBs) with maturities beyond 10 years (-15bps) Underweight U.S. government bonds with maturities beyond 10 years (-8bps) Underweight Italy government bonds with maturities beyond 10 years (-3bps) Underweight France government bonds with maturities beyond 10 years (-2bps) Chart 4 presents the ranked benchmark index returns of the individual countries and spread product sectors in the GFIS model bond portfolio for Q4/2018. 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 Q4/2018 (red for underweight, blue for overweight, gray for neutral). Chart 4 Government bonds are dominating the left half of the chart, as yields declined in the final months of 2018. This was a drag on our model portfolio performance. However, the best performing sector was U.K. government bonds, generating a total return of 4.7% in Q4/2018 (on a currency-hedged and duration-matched basis). The GFIS model portfolio benefited from this move, given our long-standing overweight bias for U.K. Gilts. The right side of Chart 4 is occupied by global spread product, where currency-hedged returns were flat-to-negative in Q4. This was due to credit spread widening as investors feared both slower global growth and additional Fed tightening. The riskier parts of the corporate bond universe – high-yield, EM corporates – suffered the largest losses. The total return of Bloomberg Barclays U.S. High-Yield Index (currency-hedged into USD) for Q4 was -2.7%, as the option-adjusted spread (OAS) widened by +206bps. Unfortunately for our model portfolio, our preference for U.S. corporate bonds over European and EM credit hurt performance, although not by as much as the below-benchmark duration stance. We are disappointed by the final result for the year, although we are still pleased to generate even a small positive outperformance given the ferocity of the market moves seen at the end of 2018. We can attribute that to lingering gains from good calls made earlier in 2018, but also from our recommended cautious stance on overall portfolio risk (i.e. tracking error) in a more-volatile investment environment. Bottom Line: The outperformance of our model bond portfolio in 2018 mostly came from country selection on our government bond portfolio (underweight U.S. Treasuries, overweight the U.K. and Australia). However, our below-benchmark overall duration stance, as well as our bias favoring U.S. credit over non-U.S. corporates, were drags on performance during the risk-off moves at the end of 2018. Future Drivers Of Portfolio Returns Looking ahead, the performance of the model bond portfolio will benefit from two main factors: our below-benchmark duration bias and our underweight stance on global government bonds versus corporate debt. In terms of specific weighting in the GFIS model bond portfolio, we now have a tactical bias favoring global corporate debt over government debt coming on top of our below-benchmark duration stance (Chart 5). We are sticking with the latter position, about one full year short of the duration of our benchmark index, with global yield curves priced for inflation expectations that are too low and with no rate hikes discounted for 2019 in all major developed markets. Chart 5Portfolio Duration: Staying Below-Benchmark Portfolio Duration: Staying Below-Benchmark Portfolio Duration: Staying Below-Benchmark However, we are also keeping our current country allocations on the government bond side of the model portfolio, even after our tactical credit upgrade. That means staying underweight countries where policymakers are only pausing on rate hiking cycles (U.S. and Canada), while overweighting countries that are likely to keep rates on hold for all of 2019 (Japan, U.K., Australia). Our decision to upgrade global credit exposure helps boost the yield of our model portfolio (Chart 6). However, the portfolio is still yielding less than the benchmark thanks to our bear-steepening bias on government yield curves that involves underweights to longer-maturity bonds with higher yields. Chart 6Portfolio Yield: Credit Upgrade Helps Offset Defensive Duration Tilt Portfolio Yield: Credit Upgrade Helps Offset Defensive Duration Tilt Portfolio Yield: Credit Upgrade Helps Offset Defensive Duration Tilt Importantly, all the changes that were made to our portfolio allocations last week – raising weights on all global corporate bond markets, cutting exposure to government debt in the U.S., Germany and France – did not materially change the tracking error (relative volatility versus the benchmark) of the model portfolio. We do not see the current backdrop as being conducive to taking high levels of overall portfolio risk, even given our tactical view that the U.S. monetary policy will be on hold for the next 3-6 months. We prefer to recommend more relative value positioning via country and credit allocations that help dampen overall portfolio risk and reduce exposure to the kind of volatility spikes that became more frequent in 2018. Thus, we will continue to target a tracking error for the model portfolio of 40-60bps, well below our self-imposed 100bps ceiling (Chart 7). Chart 7Portfolio Risk Budget Usage: Staying Cautious Portfolio Risk Budget Usage: Staying Cautious Portfolio Risk Budget Usage: Staying Cautious Scenario Analysis & Return Forecasts In April 2018, we introduced a framework for estimating total returns for all government bond markets and spread product sectors, based on common risk factors.3 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. Chart   Chart In Tables 3A & 3B, we present three differing scenarios, with all the following changes occurring over a six-month horizon. Note that this differs from how we have typically presented these scenario analyses, with projections over the subsequent twelve months. Given that the changes to our recommended allocations introduced last week were tactical in nature (i.e. up to six months), we are shortening our forecast window for this particular scenario analysis to line up with that shorter investment horizon. Chart   Chart The scenarios are all driven by what we believe will be the most important driver of market returns in 2019 – the path of U.S. monetary policy. Our Base Case: the Fed stays on hold, the U.S. dollar remain flat, oil prices rise by +10%, the VIX index falls to 15, and there is a bear-steepening of the U.S. Treasury curve. This scenario is the one we laid out in last week’s report, with the Fed taking a pause through at least the March FOMC meeting, allowing market volatility to drift lower as U.S. monetary and financial conditions ease. A Very Hawkish Fed: the Fed does a surprise +25bps rate hike in March, the U.S. dollar rises by +5%, oil prices increase +20%, the VIX index climbs to 25 and there is a sharp bear-flattening of the U.S. Treasury curve. This would be the case if the U.S. economy maintains firm growth, the global growth downturn stabilizes, U.S. inflation expectations increase 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 -5%, oil prices decline -20%, 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 slows rapidly from the current pace and the Fed has no choice but to ease monetary policy as market volatility surges alongside elevated recession risks. The model bond portfolio is expected to outperform the custom benchmark index by +19bps in our Base Case scenario. This comes from the relative outperformance of credit versus government bonds in an environment of rising bond yields (which also benefits our below-benchmark duration stance), and tighter credit spreads. In the Very Hawkish Fed scenario, our model portfolio is expected to outperform the benchmark by +29bps. This is not only due to our duration tilt and our corporates-versus-governments bias. As in the Base Case, the relative stance favoring U.S. corporates over EM credit would benefit from a backdrop of tightening U.S. monetary conditions and rising market volatility (Chart 8) – both of which are worse for EM credit. Chart 8Risk Factors Assumptions For The Scenario Analysis Risk Factors Assumptions For The Scenario Analysis Risk Factors Assumptions For The Scenario Analysis In the Very Dovish Fed scenario, our portfolio is projected to underperform the benchmark index by -26bps, with falling bond yields (Chart 9) hitting both our defensive duration bias and the overweight on corporates relative to governments. Chart 9UST Yield Assumptions For The Scenario Analysis UST Yield Assumptions For The Scenario Analysis UST Yield Assumptions For The Scenario Analysis In all three scenarios, there is a drag on expected performance from the relative carry of the model portfolio versus the benchmark (-17bps). This comes mostly from the below-benchmark overall duration stance that involves reduced exposure to longer-maturity government bonds with higher yields. The drag on carry also comes from the underweight positioning on high-yielding EM debt. We are maintaining that tilt given our concerns that China’s policymakers will be unable to provide enough stimulus to benefit EM economies through greater Chinese demand. Importantly, our recommended allocations win in scenarios that do not involve Fed rate cuts, a very low probability outcome in 2019, in our view. Thus, we expect our current allocations to generate alpha in the first half of the year, even if the Fed returns to a hawkish bias faster than we currently anticipate. Bottom Line: The tactical upgrade to global corporates that we initiated last week is projected to generate outperformance versus the model portfolio benchmark index in the next six months - both from below-benchmark duration positioning and higher exposure to U.S. corporates.   Robert Robis, CFA, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com Ray Park, CFA, Research Analyst ray@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, “Enough With The Gloom: Upgrade Global Corporates On A Tactical Basis”, dated January 15th 2019, available at gfis.bcareseach.com. 2 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. 3 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. Appendix Image   Image   Image Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index 2018 GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Performance Review: Fading At The Finish Line 2018 GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Performance Review: Fading At The Finish Line Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Highlights Our leading indicator for China’s old economy continues to point to slower growth over the coming months, which is consistent with the bearish message from China’s housing market and forward-looking export indicators. We would caution investors against interpreting the recent relative outperformance of Chinese stocks as a basis to become cyclically bullish, as it has largely reflected a “catchup” selloff in global stocks. We remain tactically overweight, in recognition of the fact that investors may bid up Chinese stocks on positive signs that a trade deal may be in sight. Onshore corporate bond spreads remain wide relative to pre-2017 levels, suggesting that it is too early to expect easier liquidity conditions to significantly improve domestic economic conditions. Feature Tables 1 and 2 on pages 2 and 3 highlight key developments in China’s economy and its financial markets over the past month. On the growth front, the primary trend for China’s old economy remains down, although measures of freight remain supported by trade front-running activity (which will wane over the coming months). Our Li Keqiang leading indicator continues to suggest that economic activity will slow from current levels, a conclusion that is reinforced by recent developments in the housing market and December’s PMI release. Table 1The Trend In Domestic Demand, And The Outlook For Trade, Remains Negative Monitoring The (Weak) Pulse Of The Data Monitoring The (Weak) Pulse Of The Data   Table 2Financial Market Performance Summary Monitoring The (Weak) Pulse Of The Data Monitoring The (Weak) Pulse Of The Data From an investment strategy perspective, we remain tactically overweight Chinese investable stocks versus the global benchmark in recognition of the fact that investors may bid up Chinese stocks on positive signs that a trade deal may be in sight. However, China’s recent outperformance has been passive in nature (i.e. reflecting declining global stocks), suggesting that Chinese stocks have simply been the winner of an “ugly contest” over the past few months. This is hardly a basis to be cyclically long, and we continue to recommend that investors remain neutral for now. In reference to Tables 1 and 2, we provide several detailed observations concerning developments in China’s macro and financial market data below: Bloomberg’s measure of the Li Keqiang index (LKI) fell in November for the third month in a row, although our Alternative LKI has risen due to a pickup in freight transport turnover. We showed in our December 5 Weekly Report that trade front-running has clearly boosted economic activity since Q1 of 2018,1 implying that freight volume growth is set to decelerate in the months ahead. Our Li Keqiang leading indicator ticked lower in December, after having risen non-trivially in the third quarter of 2018 (Chart 1). The December decline was caused by a pullback in the monetary conditions components of the indicator, which in turn was caused by the recent rise in CNY-USD. This echoes a point that we have made in previous reports, that the improvement in our leading indicator last year was not broad-based and that it does not yet herald a positive turning point for China’s old economy. Chart 1The Q3 Rise In Our Leading Indicator Was Not Broad-Based The Q3 Rise In Our Leading Indicator Was Not Broad-Based The Q3 Rise In Our Leading Indicator Was Not Broad-Based The October housing market slowdown that we highlighted in our November 21 Weekly Report continued into December,2 with floor space started and sold decelerating further (Chart 2). The latter, which typically leads the former, has returned to negative territory which, in conjunction with weaker Pledged Supplementary Lending from the PBOC, does not bode well for housing over the coming few months. House price appreciation remains strong outside of tier 1 cities, but a peak in our price diffusion indexes signals slower price gains are likely over the coming months. Chart 2China's Housing Market Activity Continues To Weaken China's Housing Market Activity Continues To Weaken China's Housing Market Activity Continues To Weaken On the trade front, nominal Chinese US$ import and export growth is now trending lower, confirming the negative signal provided by China’s manufacturing PMIs over the past few months. Notably, the new export orders components of both the official and Caixin PMIs declined in December, despite the tariff ceasefire that emerged during the G20 meeting at the end of November, suggesting that export growth is set to slow further in the first quarter of 2019. In relative US$ terms, Chinese investable stocks rose nearly 10% versus the global benchmark from mid-October until the end of 2018. However, as Chart 3 shows, this outperformance was entirely passive in nature, as Chinese stocks have not been trending higher in absolute terms. Chart 3Recent Equity Outperformance Has Been Passive, Not Active Recent Equity Outperformance Has Been Passive, Not Active Recent Equity Outperformance Has Been Passive, Not Active We remain tactically overweight Chinese investable stocks; the Chinese market remains deeply oversold in absolute terms, and signs of a potential trade deal over the coming few weeks may significantly improve global investor sentiment towards the country’s bourse. However, we would caution investors against interpreting the recent relative outperformance as a basis to become cyclically bullish, as it has largely reflected a “catchup” selloff in global stocks. The underperformance of Chinese health care stocks over the past two months has been stunning, with investable health care having fallen nearly 30% in relative terms since mid-November (Chart 4). However, this decline appears to have been caused by a sector-specific event (a massive profit margin squeeze due to a new government generic drug procurement program), and does not seem to imply anything about the outlook for Chinese consumers. Chart 4A Stunning, Idiosyncratic, Collapse In Health Care Stocks A Stunning, Idiosyncratic, Collapse In Health Care Stocks A Stunning, Idiosyncratic, Collapse In Health Care Stocks Despite the recent collapse in the health care sector, Chinese consumer discretionary (CD) stocks remain the largest losers within the investable universe, having declined over 40% in US$ terms over the past 12 months. The next twelve months may look quite different for CD, especially if China’s efforts to stimulate consumer spending succeed. The recent changes to the global industrial classification system (GICS) mean that Alibaba (China’s largest e-commerce retailer) is now included in the sector with a significant weight, overwhelming the heavy influence that auto producers used to wield. Auto stocks have struggled in the past due to China’s pollution controls, weak auto sales, and pledges to open up the auto sector (which would be negative for the market share of domestic firms). We will be watching over the coming several months for a pickup in retail goods spending combined with a technical breakout in relative performance as a sign to overweight Chinese consumer discretionary stocks relative to the investable index. Chinese interbank rates have fallen substantially over the past month (Chart 5), in response to additional efforts by the PBOC to boost liquidity in the financial system. Whether the additional liquidity (and lower borrowing rates) will feed into materially stronger credit growth remains to be seen, as we have presented evidence in past reports showing that China’s monetary policy transmission mechanism is impaired.2 Chart 5More Liquidity Has Lowered Interbank Rates More Liquidity Has Lowered Interbank Rates More Liquidity Has Lowered Interbank Rates Chinese onshore corporate bond spreads have creeped modestly higher since early-November, although by a small magnitude. While we remain optimistic that onshore defaults over the coming year will be less intense than many investors believe, onshore corporate bond spreads have been one of the more successful leading indicators of economic growth in China over the past two years, and remain wide by historical standards. This suggests that it is too early to expect easier liquidity conditions to significantly improve domestic economic conditions. While it is too early to call a durable bottom, the gap between CNY-USD and its 200-day moving average is steadily closing (Chart 6). The recent (modest) uptrend has been caused by two factors: 1) cautious optimism about the possibility of a durable trade deal with the U.S., and 2) retreating U.S. interest rate expectations. We would expect further weakness if the trade ceasefire collapses and President Trump moves forward with the previously-announced tariffs, but also a sizeable rally if a deal is negotiated. Chart 6A Tentative, But Noteworthy Improvement A Tentative, But Noteworthy Improvement A Tentative, But Noteworthy Improvement   Jonathan LaBerge, CFA, Vice President Special Reports jonathanl@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1      Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report “2019 Key Views: Four Themes For China In The Coming Year”, dated December 5, 2018, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 2      Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report “Trade Is Not China's Only Problem”, dated November 21, 2018, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations

GAA DM Equity Country Allocation Model Update The GAA DM Equity Country Allocation model is updated as of December 31, 2018.  The quant model reduced Spain’s large overweight to a slight overweight, and further downgraded the U.S. allocation. As a result, the model now has assigned overweight allocations to Germany, Switzerland, the Netherlands, Canada and Italy, with underweight allocations to the U.S., Japan, France and U.K.  Australia and Sweden are now in the neutral zone, 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 Chart 1, Chart 2 and Chart 3, the overall model outperformed the MSCI world benchmark by 38 bps in December, with a 48 bps of outperformance from Level 1 model offset by a 21 bps of underperformance from Level 2. Since going live, the overall model has outperformed by 96 bps, with Level 2 outperforming by 120 bps and level 1 outperforming by 57 bps. 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)   Chart 3GAA Non U.S. Model (Level 2) GAA Non U.S. Model (Level 2) GAA Non U.S. Model (Level 2)     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.     GAA Equity Sector Selection Model Dear Client, As advised in our October 2018 Special Alert, we have suspended the GAA Equity Sector Selection Model due to the significant changes in the GICS sector classifications, implemented at the end of September. We will rebuild the model using the newly constituted sectors once full back data is available from MSCI, which we understood would be in December but which we have not received yet. We thank you for your understanding.   Xiaoli Tang, Associate Vice President xiaoliT@bcaresearch.com Amr Hanafy, Research Associate amrh@bcaresearch.com

Highlights Dear Client, This is the final Global Fixed Income Strategy report for 2018. We will return with our first report of the new year on January 8th, 2019. Our entire team wishes you a very happy holiday season and a prosperous new year. Best regards, Rob Robis, Chief Strategist 2019 Model Bond Portfolio Positioning: Translating our 2019 key global fixed income views into recommended overall positioning within our model bond portfolio yields the following: target a modest level of active portfolio risk, with below-benchmark duration and only neutral exposure to corporate credit. Country Allocation: Government bond allocation should continue to reflect relative expectations for monetary policy changes. That means an overweight in countries where central banks will have little scope to increase rates (core Europe, Japan, the U.K., Australia, New Zealand) and an underweight where central banks are likely to tighten more than markets currently discount (U.S., Canada, Sweden). Corporate Credit: We currently prefer U.S. corporate bonds to European and EM equivalents based on better U.S. profit prospects, which enhances debt serviceability. However, we will look to pare U.S. exposure as the Fed shifts to a more restrictive stance later in 2019. Feature Last week, we published our 2019 “Key Views” report, outlining the thematic implications of the 2019 BCA Outlook for global bond markets.1 In this follow-up report, we translate those themes into specific investment recommendations for next year. We also recommend changes to the allocations in the Global Fixed Income Strategy model bond portfolio to reflect our 2019 themes. The main takeaway is that 2019 will be another year of poor returns, with increased volatility, for most global fixed income markets. The greater pressures should come in the latter half of the year, after the U.S. Federal Reserve delivers additional rate hikes and decisive signs of a slowing U.S. economy unfold. Investors should maintain a defensive strategic posture on fixed income markets throughout the year, both for interest rate duration and credit exposure. Selling into market rallies, rather than chasing them, will prove to be the prudent strategy. Top-Down Bond Market Implications Of Our Key Views As a reminder, the main fixed income investment themes from last week’s Key Views report were the following: Late-cycle pressures will keep bond yields elevated. Global growth will remain above trend in 2019, keeping unemployment rates low and preventing central banks from turning dovish. The unwind of crisis-era global monetary policies will continue. Slowing central bank asset purchases will worsen the supply/demand balance for both government bonds, resulting in gentle upward pressure on yields via higher term premia. It is too early to worry about inverted yield curves. The time to be concerned about the recessionary implications of an inverted U.S. Treasury curve will come after the Fed has lifted real interest rates to above neutral (R*), which should occur in the latter half of 2019. Expect poor corporate bond returns from an aging credit cycle. While default risk is likely to stay modest in 2019, the greater risk for corporates could come from concerns over future credit downgrades, as well as diminished inflows in a “post-QE” world. We now present the specific fixed income investment recommendations that flow from those themes in the following categories: overall portfolio risk, overall duration exposure, country allocations within government bonds, yield curve allocations within countries, and corporate credit allocations by country and credit rating. Overall Portfolio Risk: DEFENSIVE Government bond yields enter 2019 at very low (i.e. expensive) levels across the major developed markets, even after the cumulative rise in U.S. Treasury yields seen over the past twelve months. Real yields remain below trend real GDP growth rates, a consequence of central banks keeping policy rates below neutral levels as measured by concepts like the Taylor Rule (Chart of the Week). In addition, credit spreads remain near the low end of long-run historical ranges in all markets. Without the initial starting point of cheap valuations, fixed income return expectations in 2019 should be severely tempered (Charts 2& 3). Chart 1   Chart 2Low Yields = Low Expected Returns For U.S. Corporates … Low Yields = Low Expected Returns For U.S. Corporates... Low Yields = Low Expected Returns For U.S. Corporates...   Chart 3… And European Corporates ...and European Corporates ...and European Corporates Volatility measures like the VIX index will remain elevated until markets begin to sniff out a bottoming of global growth. Much will depend on developments in China, but our expectation is that policymakers there will only act to stabilize the economy rather than provide large, 2016-scale stimulus. That may be enough to create a tactical “risk-on” trading opportunity by mid-year but we recommend using any such rally to reduce credit exposure given the risk of a more lasting global economic downturn in 2020. Importantly, cross-asset correlations should continue to drift lower without broad support from coordinated global economic growth or expanding monetary liquidity via central bank asset purchases (Chart 4). Without those rising tides lifting all boats, more active security selection by country, sector and credit rating should help portfolio managers outperform their benchmarks in what is likely to be another down year for absolute returns. Chart 4High Volatilities With Low Correlations High Volatilities With Low Correlations High Volatilities With Low Correlations That combination of diminished return prospects and elevated volatility means investors should maintain a defensive bias in fixed income portfolios heading into 2019. Within our own GFIS recommended model bond portfolio, this means keeping our tracking error (the relative expected volatility versus our custom benchmark performance index) well below our maximum target level of 100bps (Chart 5). Chart 5Maintain Moderate Overall Portfolio Risk Maintain Moderate Overall Portfolio Risk Maintain Moderate Overall Portfolio Risk Overall Duration Stance: BELOW BENCHMARK We do not think that global bond yields have peaked for this business cycle. The current period of softening global economic momentum will not turn into a prolonged period of sub-trend growth that would push up unemployment rates in the major developed economies. With the global output gap nearly closed, and monetary policymakers firmly believing in the Phillips Curve framework (lower unemployment leads to higher inflation) to forecast inflation, a more dovish stance from the major central banks seems unlikely. As we discussed in last week’s report, global bond yields are in a process of normalization away from the depressed levels seen after the 2008-09 global financial crisis and recession (Chart 6). Term premia, inflation expectations and real yields all have upside potential as central banks slowly back away from quantitative easing and low interest rate policies. Thus, we continue to recommend a defensive, below-benchmark strategic stance on overall portfolio duration exposure (Chart 7). Chart 6Bond Yields Will Continue To Normalize In 2019 Bond Yields Will Continue To Normalize In 2019 Bond Yields Will Continue To Normalize In 2019   Chart 7Stay Below-Benchmark On Duration Risk Stay Below-Benchmark On Duration Risk Stay Below-Benchmark On Duration Risk Government Bond Country Allocation: Underweight U.S., Canada, Sweden, Italy. Overweight Germany, France, U.K., Japan, Australia, New Zealand At the country level, we recommend underweighting government bond markets where central banks will be more likely to raise interest rates (because of firm domestic economic growth and building inflation pressures), but where too few rate hikes are currently discounted in money market yield curves. The U.S., Canada and Sweden fit that description (Chart 8). The U.K. would also be part of this group, but the Brexit uncertainty leads us to maintain an overweight stance on U.K. Gilts entering 2019. Chart 8Monetary Policy Expectations Drive Country Allocations Monetary Policy Expectations Drive Country Allocations Monetary Policy Expectations Drive Country Allocations By the same token, we are recommending overweights in countries where rate hikes are unlikely to occur in 2019 because of underwhelming inflation, like core Europe, Japan and New Zealand. We are currently overweight Australian government bonds, but we expect to cut that exposure in 2019 as pressure builds for a rate hike in the latter half of the year as inflation picks up. Italian government bonds represent a special case of a developed market trading off sovereign credit risk rather than interest rate or inflation risk. We continue to treat Italian government bonds the same way we view corporate debt, as a growth-sensitive asset. On that basis, we will remain underweight Italian government bonds until Italy’s leading economic indicator bottoms out, mollifying concerns about debt sustainability. The Fed is still the one central bank that is most likely to hike rates multiple times in 2019, which will sustain wide differentials between Treasuries and non-U.S. bond yields (Chart 9). Chart 9ECB, BoE, BoJ Resisting Pressure From Tight Labor Markets ECB, BoE, BoJ Resisting Pressure From Tight Labor Markets ECB, BoE, BoJ Resisting Pressure From Tight Labor Markets The greatest potential for spread widening will be for Treasuries versus JGBs, with no changes in the Bank of Japan’s monetary policy expected due to stubbornly low inflation. The 10-year Treasury-Gilt spread could also widen if the Bank of England stays on the sidelines for longer until Brexit uncertainty is resolved. The 10-year U.S.-New Zealand spread should also widen with the Reserve Bank of New Zealand staying on hold for a while due to underwhelming growth and inflation momentum. The U.S.-Canada spread will be rangebound, with the Bank of Canada likely to match, but not exceed, Fed tightening in 2019. There are some markets, though, where yields could rise a bit more than Treasury yields due to shifting monetary policies. While the ECB will refrain from raising rates next year, there is a potential for the U.S. Treasury-German Bund spread to narrow marginally if the end of ECB new asset purchases lifts Bund yields via a recovery in the German term premium. There is more (albeit still modest) scope for a narrowing in the 10-year U.S.-Australia and U.S.-Sweden spreads. After keeping monetary policy very loose for a long time, the beginning of rate hikes next year by the Reserve Bank of Australia and Riksbank could put meaningful upward pressure on deeply depressed longer-maturity Australian and Swedish yields. Yield Curve Positioning: Favor Bearish Steepeners Everywhere In The First Half Of 2019, Then Switch To Bearish Flatteners In The U.S., Canada, Australia And Sweden We expect some bearish steepening pressures to appear in most countries in the first quarter of 2019 with inflation breakevens likely to rebound if the bullish oil forecast of BCA’s Commodity & Energy Strategy team comes to fruition (Charts 10 & 11). The end of the net new buying phase of the ECB’s Asset Purchase Program in January will also put upward pressure on longer-dated European yields through a worsening supply/demand balance for European government bonds and a wider term premium, helping keep European yield curves steep. Chart 10Inflation Expectations & Bond Yields Will Rebound In 2019 … Inflation Expectations & Bond Yields Will Rebound In 2019... Inflation Expectations & Bond Yields Will Rebound In 2019...   Chart 11… As BCA’s Bullish Oil View Comes To Fruition ...As BCA's Bullish Oil View Comes To Fruition ...As BCA's Bullish Oil View Comes To Fruition Importantly, it is too soon to worry about an inversion of the U.S. Treasury curve, as we discussed in last week’s report, with the fed funds rate not yet at a restrictive level (i.e. real rates above measures of neutral like R-star). That outcome should occur by the end of 2019, when we expect the Treasury curve to move towards a true monetary policy-induced inversion. Similar patterns – steepening first from rising inflation expectations, flattening later from more hawkish central banks delivering rate hikes – should unfold in Canada, Australia and Sweden. Applying Our Global Golden Rule To Government Bond Allocations Back in September, we published a Special Report introducing a government bond return forecasting methodology called the “Global Golden Rule.”2 This is an extension of a framework introduced by our sister service, U.S. Bond Strategy, that links U.S. Treasury returns to changes in the fed funds rate that are not discounted in money markets (using our 12-month Discounters derived from Overnight Index Swap curves). In Table 1, we show the expected returns generated by the Global Golden Rule (shown hedged into U.S. dollars) for the countries in our model bond portfolio custom benchmark, based on monetary policy scenarios that we deem to be most plausible for 2019. In Table 2, we show the returns on a duration-adjusted basis (expected total return divided by duration). We then rank the return scenarios for overall country indices, aggregating the returns of the individual yield curve maturity buckets shown in those two tables, in Table 3. Table 1Global Golden Rule Return Forecasts For 2019 2019 Key Views, Part II: Time To Play Defense 2019 Key Views, Part II: Time To Play Defense   Table 2Global Golden Rule Duration-Adjusted Return Forecasts For 2019 2019 Key Views, Part II: Time To Play Defense 2019 Key Views, Part II: Time To Play Defense The shaded cells in Table 3 represent our base case forecasts for policy rate changes in each country. On this basis, the better return prospects for 2019 will be in markets where central banks will stand pat throughout the year (Germany, Japan). Conversely, the weaker returns will occur where we expect more rate hikes than currently discounted by markets (U.S., Canada). These returns fit with our recommended country allocation outlined above. Table 3Ranking The 2019 Return Scenarios 2019 Key Views, Part II: Time To Play Defense 2019 Key Views, Part II: Time To Play Defense Corporate Credit Allocation: Neutral Overall, But Overweight In U.S. Investment Grade And High-Yield Relative To European And Emerging Market Equivalents. Look To Cut The U.S. To Underweight In The Latter Half Of 2019. We enter 2019 maintaining our recommended overall neutral exposure to corporate debt. As discussed earlier, we expect to see some stabilization of global growth in the first half of 2019. This will create a playable “risk-on” rally for growth sensitive assets like corporates, but we anticipate selling into that rally by downgrading our recommended U.S. credit allocations to underweight. Within U.S. credit markets, we are recommending a less aggressive medium-term stance, staying up in quality within investment grade debt (single-B and single-A rated names versus BBBs) and high-yield (BB-rated vs CCC-rated). With 50% of the investment grade benchmark index now rated just above junk, there is a growing risk of “fallen angel” downgrades to junk status in the event of a material slowing of U.S. economic growth. At the same time, default-adjusted spreads on U.S. high-yield debt only appear attractive if the current exceptionally low default rate backdrop persists (Chart 12). In other words, both U.S. investment grade and high-yield corporate debt are vulnerable to any major slowing of U.S. economic growth and slump in corporate profits. Chart 12U.S. Corporates Vulnerable To Slower Growth U.S. Corporates Vulnerable To Slower Growth U.S. Corporates Vulnerable To Slower Growth The confluence of above-trend U.S. growth and still pro-cyclical Fed policy will support U.S. credit in the near-term, but that will all change later in 2019. We expect the Fed to deliver at least 75bps of rate hikes in 2019 – perhaps only pausing from the current 25bps per quarter pace at the March meeting – which will push the funds rate into restrictive territory and invert the Treasury curve sometime in the 4th quarter of the year. This will cause investors to start to discount a deep growth slowdown in 2020, which will trigger systemic credit spread widening (Chart 13). We expect our next move on U.S. corporate debt to be a downgrade to underweight, likely sometime around mid-year. Chart 13Growth Differentials Continue To Favor U.S. Growth Differentials Continue To Favor U.S. Growth Differentials Continue To Favor U.S. We still prefer U.S. corporates to European or Emerging Market (EM) equivalents, however, thanks to the likelihood of better near-term growth prospects in the U.S. We are concerned about how the European corporate bond market will perform without the support of ECB asset purchases, which leads us to underweight both investment grade and high-yield European corporates (Chart 14).3 Chart 14Stay Overweight U.S. Corporates Vs European Corporates Stay Overweight U.S. Corporates Vs European Corporates Stay Overweight U.S. Corporates Vs European Corporates EM corporates will continue to suffer from the toxic combination of rising U.S. interest rates, a stronger dollar and global growth concerns. Our political strategists remain skeptical on the prospects for a permanent deal on thorny U.S.-China trade issues, leaving EM assets exposed to slowing momentum in China’s economy. We continue to prefer owning U.S. credit, given how the relative performance of EM and U.S. credit has not yet converged to levels implied by U.S./EM growth differentials (Chart 15). Chart 15Stay Overweight U.S. Corporates Vs EM Corporates Stay Overweight U.S. Corporates Vs EM Corporates Stay Overweight U.S. Corporates Vs EM Corporates Model Portfolio Adjustments To Begin 2019 In terms of our model bond portfolio, we recommend a few changes to our current allocations to reflect our 2019 outlook and key views (see the table below). We make a few adjustments to our individual country duration allocations, given our expectations of some re-steepening of global yield curves. We also bump up our allocation to core European debt given our expectation that the ECB will keep policy rates on hold throughout 2019. We fund that increase in European exposure from U.S. Treasuries, where too few Fed rate hikes are now discounted. Finally, we make a modest adjustment to our U.S. high-yield allocations, cutting CCC-rated exposure and upgrading B-rated credit.   Robert Robis, CFA, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, “2019 Key Views: Normalization Is The “New Normal””, dated December 12th 2018, available at gfis.bcarsearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report, “The Global Golden Rule Of Bond Investing”, dated September 25th 2018, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, “Stubbornly Resilient Bond Yields”, dated November 13th 2018, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index 2019 Key Views, Part II: Time To Play Defense 2019 Key Views, Part II: Time To Play Defense Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

GAA DM Equity Country Allocation Model Update The GAA DM Equity Country Allocation model is updated as of November 30, 2018.  The quant model further downgraded U.S. in favor of the non-U.S. block, especially Germany, the Netherlands, Swiss, Spain and Canada 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 -  3, the overall model outperformed the MSCI world benchmark by 1 bp in November, with a 27 bps of outperformance from Level 2 model offset by a 10 bps of underperformance from Level 1. Since going live, the overall model has outperformed by 46 bps, with Level 2 outperforming by 156 bps and level 1 underperforming by 12 bps. 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)   Chart 3GAA Non U.S. Model (Level 2) GAA Non U.S. Model (Level 2) GAA Non U.S. Model (Level 2)   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.   GAA Equity Sector Selection Model   Dear Client, As advised in our October 2018 Special Alert, we have suspended the GAA Equity Sector Selection Model due to the significant changes in the GICS sector classifications, implemented at the end of September. We will rebuild the model using the newly constituted sectors once full back data is available from MSCI, which we understand will be in December. We thank you for your understanding.   Xiaoli Tang, Associate Vice President xiaoliT@bcaresearch.com Amr Hanafy, Research Associate amrh@bcaresearch.com  

Highlights Credit: Credit spreads are widening due to the combination of weakening global growth and perceptions of restrictive Fed policy. Investors should monitor the indicators of global growth and Fed policy outlined in this report to call the peak in spreads. Duration: Financial conditions have not yet tightened enough for the Fed to take a significant dovish turn. Meanwhile, the housing market indicators with the best track records at signaling restrictive monetary policy remain benign. Maintain below-benchmark duration. MBS: Negative excess MBS returns during the past two months are the result of wider option-adjusted spreads, but continued easing in bank lending standards should prevent OAS from widening dramatically. Maintain a neutral allocation to MBS for now, but look to upgrade at the expense of corporate bonds as the credit cycle progresses. Feature The sell-off in credit markets continues to worsen. The average spread of the Bloomberg Barclays High-Yield index is now above 400 bps and the investment grade spread is at its widest level in two years (Chart 1). Chart 1Risk Off In Credit Markets Risk Off In Credit Markets Risk Off In Credit Markets Just like when credit markets sold off in 2014/15, the catalyst for wider spreads is the combination of weakening global economic growth and tight Fed policy. While indicators of global economic growth are sending negative signals, the Fed continues to focus on the sturdier domestic economy. Once again, the end result is a stronger dollar and a sell-off in risk assets.1 In the midst of a downturn, the relevant investment question becomes when to step back into the market. In this case, the question is: How should we go about calling the peak in credit spreads? In this week’s report we identify several catalysts that could signal a peak in credit spreads in the coming months. The catalysts fall into two categories: Signals of rebounding global growth Signals of Fed capitulation We consider each category in turn. Catalyst 1: Global Growth Rebound Chart 2 shows three indicators of global growth that investors should watch closely in the current environment. All three indicators are highly levered to global demand, signaled the peak in credit spreads in early 2016, and most importantly, are updated daily making it possible to track them in real time. Chart 2Signals Of Rebounding Global Growth Signals Of Rebounding Global Growth Signals Of Rebounding Global Growth The first indicator is the CRB Raw Industrials index (Chart 2, panel 2). This index troughed several weeks before the early-2016 peak in credit spreads. It is also currently in an uptrend, albeit a very modest one. The second indicator is the BCA Market-Based China Growth Indicator (Chart 2, panel 3). This indicator was created by our China Investment Strategy team as a broad proxy of investor expectations for Chinese growth.2 It includes 17 different market prices, spanning equity, commodity, fixed income and currency markets. Just like the CRB Raw Industrials index, it also signaled the early-2016 peak in credit spreads and is currently in a shallow uptrend. The third indicator is the price of Global Industrials stocks (Chart 2, bottom panel). These stocks also bottomed in early-2016, and they are currently trending down. On balance, we do not see sufficient evidence from these three indicators to call the peak in credit spreads. Global industrial stocks are collapsing, while the Raw Industrials and China Growth indexes have only put in tentative bottoms. Further, our assessment of economic trends suggests that these indicators may have more near-term downside. Weakness in global demand has largely been a function of slowing growth in China (Chart 3). The Chinese Manufacturing PMI has already collapsed to the 50 boom/bust line and we are still waiting to see the full impact of tariffs in the economic data. It’s true that Chinese policymakers have begun to ease monetary policy: interest rates are lower (Chart 3, panel 3) and the trade-weighted RMB has depreciated (Chart 3, bottom panel). But so far, easier monetary conditions have not passed through to the money and credit growth indicators that tend to lead Chinese economic activity. Our China Investment Strategy team’s Li Keqiang Leading Indicator is an index designed to lead the Li Keqiang index – a widely followed indicator of Chinese economic activity. The leading index is primarily composed of money and credit growth data, and it remains well below the zero line, pointing to further economic weakness ahead (Chart 3, panel 2). Chart 3Keep An Eye On China Keep An Eye On China Keep An Eye On China Catalyst 2: Fed Capitulation If global demand does not improve, then eventually financial conditions will tighten so much that the Fed will downgrade its assessment of future U.S. economic growth and adopt a more dovish policy stance. This is what happened in early 2016, and the Fed’s capitulation signaled the peak in credit spreads at that time (Chart 4). Chart 4Signals Of Fed Capitulation Signals Of Fed Capitulation Signals Of Fed Capitulation Our 12-month Fed Funds discounter tracks the market’s expectation for changes in the fed funds rate during the next 12 months. The discounter plunged sharply in early 2016 from a peak of 75 bps to a trough of 4 bps, signaling the peak in credit spreads (Chart 4, panel 2). At present, the discounter has fallen somewhat during the past few weeks, but hardly by enough to signal capitulation from the Fed on its “gradual” rate hike cycle. The minutes from the November FOMC meeting will be released this week and we will read closely to get a sense for how the Fed is thinking about the current state of financial conditions. However, at this point we view a December rate hike as a done deal. If credit spreads continue to widen between now and the December 19 FOMC meeting, then Chairman Powell’s post-meeting press conference will become critical for markets. Another useful indicator for the perceived stance of monetary policy is the price of gold (Chart 4, panel 3). In prior research we discussed why a higher gold price correlates with perceptions of easier monetary policy, and vice-versa.3 So it should not be surprising that gold rose sharply as the Fed capitulated in early 2016, signaling the peak in credit spreads. Gold has been range-bound during the past few weeks, but a significant upside break-out would signal a potential buying opportunity in credit. Finally, the trade-weighted U.S. dollar will likely be another useful indicator for calling the peak in credit spreads (Chart 4, bottom panel). The dollar is not a pure indicator of the stance of Fed policy like our 12-month discounter or the gold price. Rather, the dollar’s value is determined jointly by the outlooks for the U.S. economy and the rest of the world. However, a peak in the dollar would signal that either the Fed has become more dovish, or that non-U.S. growth has recovered significantly. Credit spreads would benefit in either case. The dollar did in fact roll over prior to the peak in credit spreads in early 2016, and we expect it would do the same again. Thus far we have focused on what to monitor to call the peak in credit spreads. One of the catalysts is an easing of Fed policy that would obviously be accompanied by lower Treasury yields. Therefore, it is worth thinking about how the outlook for credit spreads influences our portfolio duration call, and vice-versa. Chart 5 provides a useful illustration to help us think about the relationship. The chart shows our 12-month Fed Funds Discounter, our BCA Fed Monitor and each its three components lined up with the 2014/15 period. Specifically, this year’s trough in the dollar is lined up with the 2014 dollar trough, denoted in the chart by a vertical line. Chart 5BCA Fed Monitor: Today Vs. 2014/2015 BCA Fed Monitor: Today Vs. 2014/2015 BCA Fed Monitor: Today Vs. 2014/2015 The first key takeaway is that the market expects roughly the same number of rate hikes during the next 12 months as it did this far into the 2014/15 episode of dollar strength (Chart 5, top panel). However, our Fed Monitor is currently well above the zero line, suggesting that further rate hikes are warranted. This far into the 2014/15 dollar uptrend, our Fed Monitor had already dipped below zero (Chart 5, panel 2). The reason for today’s higher Fed Monitor is that U.S. economic growth and inflation are both on much firmer footing than during 2014/15 (Chart 5, panels 3 & 4). In fact, financial conditions have tightened more severely than at a similar stage of the 2014/15 episode, but the impact on the overall Monitor has been offset by stronger economic growth and inflation. What does this all mean? It very likely means that the Fed will need to see tighter financial conditions (i.e. wider credit spreads) before taking a significant dovish turn. In other words, the near-term path of least resistance for credit spreads is probably wider, while Treasury yields may remain close to current levels. Bottom Line: Credit spreads are widening due to the combination of weakening global growth and perceptions of restrictive Fed policy. Investors should monitor the indicators of global growth and Fed policy outlined in this report to call the peak in spreads. Housing Update In prior research we stressed the importance of housing as the most important channel through which monetary policy impacts the real economy.4 This makes the U.S. housing market critical for the portfolio duration call. If the housing market has peaked for the cycle, then it likely means that monetary policy has become overly restrictive and that interest rates have also peaked. Chart 6 shows the three most important indicators of the housing market in this regard. Residential investment as a share of potential GDP, the 12-month moving average in single family housing starts and the 12-month moving average in new home sales. At the moment, only residential investment has flattened off, while the other two indicators have maintained their uptrends. While there’s no denying that the housing data have softened in recent months, the bigger picture suggests it is too soon to sound the alarm. Chart 6Housing: The Three Most Important Indicators Housing: The Three Most Important Indicators Housing: The Three Most Important Indicators Rising rates have taken most of the blame for weaker housing data, best exemplified by these comments from the National Association of Realtors’ Chief Economist Lawrence Yun that accompanied last week’s release of October’s existing home sales data: Rising interest rates and increasing home prices continue to suppress the rate of first-time homebuyers. Home sales could further decline before stabilizing. The Federal Reserve should, therefore, re-evaluate its monetary policy of tightening credit, especially in light of softening inflationary pressures to help ease the financial burden on potential first-time buyers and assure a slump in the market causes no lasting damage to the economy.5 There are certainly structural impediments to first-time homeownership, most notably the lack of supply at the low-end of the market. The most recent annual report from the Joint Center For Housing Studies noted that of 88 metropolitan areas with available data, “virtually all” had more homes for sale in the top third of the market by price than in the bottom third.6 However, we do not see the level of interest rates as the major problem for first-time homebuyers or indeed the overall market. In fact, it is very difficult to see how the level of interest rates could be a large drag on the housing market when the household mortgage debt service ratio is as low as it has been since 1980 (Chart 6, bottom panel). So what exactly is going on with housing? It is likely that the recent slow-down in housing activity is not function of the level of mortgage rates, but of the recent sharp increase in mortgage rates. Chart 7 shows that there have been three periods since the financial crisis when mortgage rates jumped sharply: 2013, late-2016 and 2018. All three episodes were followed by a contraction in residential investment about six months later. The recent contraction fits this pattern nicely, which suggests that it should reverse if mortgage rates simply flatten-off for a time. Chart 7The Culprit: Large Rate Spikes The Culprit: Large Rate Spikes The Culprit: Large Rate Spikes Bottom Line: The housing market indicators with the best track records at signaling restrictive monetary policy remain benign, suggesting it is too soon to fret about the end of the Fed’s rate hike cycle. We suspect that recent housing weakness is a function of the large jump in mortgage rates, and that housing activity will recover once mortgage rates moderate their uptrend. Agency MBS On Upgrade Watch Agency MBS have underperformed duration-matched Treasuries so far this year. While they have outperformed corporate credit, they have also lagged other Aaa-rated securitizations (Chart 8). As the cycle progresses, we think Agency MBS spreads will remain relatively tight even after the credit cycle turns and corporate bond defaults rise. We maintain a neutral allocation to MBS for now, but will likely upgrade the sector when it comes time to downgrade corporate bonds from neutral to underweight. Chart 8Agency MBS: Outperforming Corporate Credit But Lagging Other Aaa-Rated Securitizations Agency MBS: Outperforming Corporate Credit But Lagging Other Aaa-Rated Securitizations Agency MBS: Outperforming Corporate Credit But Lagging Other Aaa-Rated Securitizations We like to model excess MBS returns using the following formula: Monthly Excess Returns = a * (1-month lag in OAS) - b * (change in OAS) + c * (change in yields) - d * (squared change in yields) In the above formula, the change in yields proxies for mortgage refinancing risk. Refinancings tend to increase when yields fall and decline when they rise. The squared change in yields proxies for extension risk, and the lagged OAS approximates the carry in the security. The final risk factor is the change in MBS OAS itself.7 Chart 9 shows a performance attribution of monthly MBS excess returns to each of the risk factors listed above. The model coefficients are estimated using only 2018 data, and the November figures are month-to-date. The message from Chart 9 is that while the squared change in yields was a drag on returns early in the year, widening OAS has been the reason for negative excess returns during the past two months. Refinancing risk has been muted all year, and this will likely continue as the Fed tightens policy. Chart 9Agency MBS Performance Attribution A Checklist For Peak Credit Spreads A Checklist For Peak Credit Spreads While a wider OAS has dragged down MBS returns during the past two months, we do not see this becoming a long-term issue for the sector. The OAS tends to widen when banks are tightening lending standards on residential mortgage loans, and at present, lending standards are already quite restrictive compared to history. The median FICO score for new mortgages is a lofty 758 (Chart 10). This suggests that the most likely way forward is continued gradual easing in bank mortgage lending standards (Chart 10, bottom panel). Chart 10Lending Standards Will Continue To Ease Lending Standards Will Continue To Ease Lending Standards Will Continue To Ease Bottom Line: Negative excess MBS returns during the past two months are the result of wider option-adjusted spreads, but continued easing in bank lending standards should prevent OAS from widening dramatically. Maintain a neutral allocation to MBS for now, but look to upgrade at the expense of corporate bonds as the credit cycle progresses.   Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “An Oasis Of Prosperity?”, dated August 21, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “Trade Is Not China’s Only Problem”, dated November 21, 2018, available at cis.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “A Signal From Gold?”, dated May 1, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “More Than One Reason To Own Steepeners”, dated September 25, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 5 https://www.nar.realtor/newsroom/existing-home-sales-increase-for-the-first-time-in-six-months 6 http://www.jchs.harvard.edu/state-nations-housing-2018 7 For further details on the model please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “On The MOVE”, dated February 13, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification Corporate Sector Relative Valuation And Recommended Allocation