Corporate Bonds

Mr. X and his daughter, Ms. X, are long-time BCA clients who visit our office toward the end of each year to discuss the economic and financial market outlook for the year ahead. This report is an edited transcript of our recent conversation. Mr. X: I have been eagerly looking forward to this meeting given my many concerns about the outlook. Our portfolio has done well in the past year thanks to the surge in bond prices and the outperformance of defensive equities. However, I am deeply troubled by the amount of monetary stimulus required to support risk assets, and by how expensive bonds and equities are. Moreover, the global economy remains engulfed in deflationary risks, and policymakers are running out of ammunition. As always, there is much to talk about. Ms. X: Let me add that I am also pleased to once again be here to discuss the major risks and opportunities in the global marketplace. A year ago, I held a more positive market view than my father. Directly after our meeting, the deep market correction gave me second thoughts, but ultimately, the rebound in stock prices vindicated my view. Clearly, your assertion that markets would be turbulent proved correct. Since I joined the family firm in early 2017, I have been pushing my father to keep a higher equity exposure than he was normally comfortable with. We agreed to still favor stocks last year, albeit, with a bias toward defensive sectors, and this strategy paid off. But after the past year’s powerful rally in both bonds and stocks, we are again left wondering how to position our portfolio. Ultimately, I do not believe a recession is imminent. Yes, stocks are expensive, but bonds are even more so. Since I expect economic growth to pick up, I am inclined to tilt the portfolio further into equities and move away from our preference for defensive sectors. As usual, I am very interested to hear your views. BCA: Our core theme for 2019 was that we would face classic late-cycle turbulence. Despite this volatility, a run-up in asset prices was likely. Soon after we met, the stock market plunged, hitting a low on December 26, 2018. We anticipated the Federal Reserve to be much more hawkish than what actually transpired. Wage growth and even core inflation have remained firm in the US, but the weakness in global inflation expectations drove central banks’ reaction functions more powerfully than we anticipated. Moreover, the rapid escalation of the Sino-US trade war added a layer of uncertainty that exacerbated the economic slowdown that had started in mid-2018, forcing global central banks to ease policy as an indemnity against recession. Looking ahead, central bankers are highly unlikely to tighten monetary policy as long as inflation expectations remain below their normal range consistent with a 2% inflation target. We agree that the odds of a US recession in the coming year are still low because financial conditions are set to remain accommodative, Chinese authorities are setting policy to shore up growth, and a trade truce is likely. Global economic activity will rebound in early 2020. Instead, the most probable timeframe for a broad based recession is late 2021/early 2022. As a result, we remain positive on risk assets, especially foreign stocks. We are also underweighting bonds as they offer extremely poor absolute and relative value. Mr. X: I can see we will have a lively discussion because I do not share your or my daughter’s optimism. My list of concerns is long, I hope we have time to get through them all. But first, let’s briefly review your predictions from last year. BCA: This exercise is always interesting and often humbling, too. A year ago, our key conclusions were that: Tensions between policy and markets would be an ongoing theme in 2019. With the US unemployment rate at a 48-year low, it would take a significant slowdown for the Fed to stop hiking rates. Ultimately, the Fed would deliver more hikes in 2019 than discounted in the markets. This would push up the dollar and keep the upward trend in Treasury yields intact. The dollar would peak in mid-2019. China would also become more aggressive in stimulating its economy, which would boost global growth. However, until both of these things happened, emerging markets would remain under pressure. We favored developed market equities over their EM peers. We also preferred defensive equity sectors such as healthcare and consumer staples over cyclical sectors such as industrials and materials. Within the developed market universe, the US would outperform Europe and Japan over the next few quarters, especially in dollar terms. Stabilization in global growth would ignite a blow off rally in global equities. If the Fed was raising rates in response to falling unemployment, it would be unlikely to derail the stock market. However, once supply-side constraints began to bite fully in early 2020 and inflation began to rise well above the Fed’s target of 2%, stocks would begin to buckle. This would mean that a window would exist in 2019 for stocks to outperform bonds. We would maintain a benchmark allocation to stocks, but increase exposure if global bourses were to fall significantly from then (late 2018) current levels without a corresponding deterioration in the economic outlook. Corporate credit would underperform stocks as government bond yields rise. A major increase in credit spreads was unlikely as long as the economy remained in expansion mode, but spreads could still widen modestly. US shale companies had been the marginal producers in the global oil sector. With breakeven costs in shale close to $50/bbl, crude prices would be unlikely to rise much from current levels over the long term. However, we expected production cuts in Saudi Arabia would push prices up, with Brent crude averaging around $82/bbl in 2019. A balanced portfolio was likely to generate average returns of only 2.8% a year in real terms over the next decade. This compares to average returns of around 6.6% a year between 1982 and 2018. As already noted, our forecast for more Fed rate hikes was wrong. This meant that we were offside in our duration call. Ultimately, 10-year Treasuries have generated returns of 10.8% so far this year, and German bunds and Japanese government bonds returns of 5.8% and 1.0% in EUR and JPY terms, or 2.5% and 2.0% in USD terms, respectively (Table 1). Nonetheless, our expectation of a run-up in risk asset prices was spot on. Equities outperformed bonds, with global stocks climbing 22.2% in USD terms. We missed the initial outperformance of corporate bonds relative to Treasuries, as investment grade credit rose by 13.9%. However, our bond team took a more constructive stance on corporates as the year progressed. Table 1Market Performance Chart 12019 Was A Good Year For Stocks In terms of regional allocation recommendations, we were correct to overweight US equities which beat non-US stocks by 13.4%, partly thanks to the dollar’s appreciation. We were also right to underweight EM equities, with Asia and Latin America generating dollar returns of only 12.6% and 6.9%. Overall, it was a good year for financial markets (Chart 1). Our growth forecasts were mixed. We predicted global growth would slow in the first half of 2019 but improve thereafter. Instead, the slowdown extended and intensified into the second half of the year as the Sino-US trade war escalated more than expected, and Chinese policymakers were more reluctant to reflate than anticipated. The IMF also revised down its growth forecasts. In the October 2019 World Economic Outlook report, growth in advanced economies for the year was cut to 1.7% from 2.1% compared to 2018 forecasts, led by a downward revision to 1.5% from 2% in Europe (Table 2). They also pared down 2019 EM growth estimates to 3.9% from 4.7%. Consequently, inflation was softer than originally predicted. These trends in economic activity meant that our dollar call was partially right. The currency did not peak in the middle of the year as we foresaw, but has been flat since the spring and today trades where it was in April. Meanwhile, the weaker-than-expected growth put our oil call offside, with Brent averaging $62/bbl this year, not $82/bbl. Table 2IMF Economic Forecasts The Cycle’s End Game Mr. X: You mentioned that you remain positive on risk assets and stocks for 2020. You will not be surprised that I am extremely skeptical of this view. The Fed could only raise rates to 2.5% before all hell broke loose, and it has now cut them back to 1.75%. The European Central Bank has lowered its deposit rate to -0.5% and is resuming its asset purchase program, while the Bank of Japan is clearly out of ammunition. Yet global growth remains weak. Despite this lack of economic traction, US stocks are at a record high and are unequivocally expensive. This situation seems untenable. If global growth weakens further, there is little more policymakers can do. I think the risk of a recession is a lot more elevated than you believe, especially as we cannot count on a lasting trade détente. Meanwhile, the US presidential election makes me uncomfortable, and I cannot see how business leaders will want to deploy capital to expand capacity given the risk that the regulatory and tax environment could become hostile to the corporate sector. If I’m wrong about growth – and I hope I am – then inflationary pressures will build and central banks will have to tighten policy suddenly. As bond yields rise, stocks will be sold and yet bonds will not offer any protection since they yield so little. Also, I have not even talked about negative interest rates. $12.1 trillion of debt yields less than zero percent. This is obviously preventing creative destruction from purging the system of rot. It is also promoting capital misallocation and undue risk-taking by financial institutions who cannot meet fiduciary liabilities. Ms. X: Based on this tirade, you can easily imagine what life at the office has been like in recent months. I do share some of my father’s concerns. Negative rates cannot be a good thing, especially from a long-term perspective. If growth weakens further, I’m also concerned that central banks have few options left. However, I do not see these risks as imminent. There are nascent signs that the global economy will stabilize soon; both President Trump and President Xi have strong incentives to reach a trade truce; and central banks are nowhere near removing the proverbial punch bowl. While US stocks are expensive, other risk assets offer value if global growth rebounds. The wall of worry is high, but stocks can and will climb that wall. BCA: Your debate is similar to our own internal discussions. It is undeniable that the investing landscape looks shaky at the moment, especially with the S&P 500 currently trading at 18-times forward earnings. However, the situation you are describing is a direct consequence of one BCA’s long running macro themes: The end of the debt supercycle. While the debt supercycle is dead in advanced economies, it remains very much alive in emerging markets, and China in particular. The private debt load in advanced economies has declined by 20% of GDP since 2009 (Chart 2A). Despite the burgeoning US federal government deficit, public debt accumulation has not been strong enough to cause total debt loads to increase. Instead, aggregate indebtedness has been stuck slightly above 260% of GDP for the past 10 years. Depressed, and in some cases, negative interest rates reflect weak demand for credit. Chart 2AThe Debt Supercycle Is Dead In DM... Chart 2B...But Not In EM   The end of the debt supercycle has both a negative and positive impact. Without increasing leverage, domestic demand cannot grow faster than trend GDP. Thus, it takes much more time for inflationary pressures to build. Concurrently, in the absence of inflationary pressure, more time passes before monetary policy reaches a restrictive level causing recession. The upshot is that the business cycle can last much longer. Moreover, a world less geared to credit accumulation reduces the fragility of the financial system, at the margin. While the debt supercycle is dead in advanced economies, it remains very much alive in emerging markets, and China in particular (Chart 2B), where the demand for credit is still very sensitive to changes in monetary settings. EM countries are the major source of volatility in the global business cycle. Chinese policymakers’ management of the tradeoff between growth and leverage will determine whether the global economy can avoid deflation. If they decide to tackle debt excesses head on, EM credit growth will contract and EM final demand will suffer. In this scenario, negative rates will persist in low-growth advanced economies, and the Fed will be incapable of raising rates because global deflationary forces will be too strong. Chart 3The World Is In The Midst Of A Deflationary Episode The second half of 2018 and the whole of 2019 gave us a taste of these forces. When China tightened credit conditions, the EM economies slowed first. Trade and manufacturing hubs like Europe, Australia and Japan quickly followed. A deflationary wave spread around the world, as evidenced by a drop in global producer prices (Chart 3). The US is a comparatively closed economy, but it could not avoid this gravitational pull. The ISM manufacturing survey ultimately started to contract in August 2018, converging to weakness in the rest of the world. The trade war’s hit to business confidence added insult to the injury of an already weak economic environment. Looking ahead, our optimism reflects an expectation that Chinese policymakers will adopt a more pro-growth policy stance because they too are spooked by the downtrend in their economy. While the Politburo Standing Committee has not abandoned its structural reform agenda, it realizes that aggressive deleveraging is dangerous. The Chinese economy is growing at its weakest pace in nearly 30 years and deflation is once again taking hold. In response to date, policymakers have lowered China’s reserve requirement ratio by 400 basis points, cut taxes by 2.8% of GDP, increased the issuance of local government bonds to finance public infrastructure projects, and boosted capex at state-owned enterprises. EM economies will respond to these stimulative measures. The Chinese credit and fiscal impulse has stabilized (Chart 4). Meanwhile, the Fed has pushed the real fed funds rate 74.4 basis points below the Holston-Laubach-Williams estimate of the neutral rate, and coordinated global policy easing points to a rebound in the global manufacturing sector (Chart 4, bottom panel). Moreover, the global inventory purge that magnified the industrial sector’s pain is getting exhausted and the auto sector is looking up. Finally, we agree with Ms. X that both President Trump and President Xi have their own incentives to deescalate trade policy uncertainty. We are entering the end game of this business cycle and bull market. Global borrowing rates will rise, but only to a limited extent. Rightly or wrongly, major central banks are terrified by the prospect of the Japanification of their economies. Practically speaking, this means that they want inflation expectations to move back up to normal levels (Chart 5). However, after undershooting their 2% targets for 11 years, achieving this objective will require central banks to let realized inflation overshoot these targets first. Thus, central banks are unlikely to tighten policy until late next year at the earliest, which will limit how far yields can climb in 2020. Chart 4…But Do Not Bet Against Reflation Chart 5Depressed Inflation Expectations   Equities and other risk assets should perform well if global growth re-accelerates but interest rates don’t rise much at first. Some benefit of this fertile backdrop is already priced in, but many pockets of value levered to stronger global growth still exist. We are entering the end game of this already long business cycle. While the general environment favors remaining invested in risk assets in 2020, this is likely the last window of opportunity to do so. Today’s accommodative monetary policy will revive inflationary pressures in 2021, and central banks will ultimately be forced to lift rates much more aggressively. China will continue to resist excessive leverage. Neither the business cycle nor the equity bull market will withstand these final assaults. Mr. X: Your benign outlook reminds me of when we met in December 2007. Do you remember? You told me that the housing slowdown and the credit market seizure were large risks, but central banks would put a floor under global growth. How did that turn out? I agree that in advanced economies, overall debt loads have been stable. But this belies major disparities. For example, US corporate debt has never represented a larger share of GDP than it does today. This must be a major vulnerability. While household balance sheets look healthy, I do not think consumption will save the day if companies are cutting capex and employment while they clean up their balance sheets. Countries like Canada and Australia are drowning in private sector debt. How can you ignore these vulnerabilities? BCA: A comparison with 2008 actually reveals why advanced economies, particularly the US, are not the powder keg that they once were. US corporate debt is elevated when compared to GDP, but profits also represent a much larger share of GDP than they did 10 or 20 years ago, and interest rates are close to historic lows. As a result, interest coverage ratios are still adequate (Chart 6). In 2007, household debt loads were large, but interest payments also accounted for 18.1% of disposable income, the highest proportion since 1972. Additionally, US firms’ debt-to-asset ratio is in line with the post-1970 average of 22.1%. Finally, US businesses have not used rising leverage to fund capital spending, as demonstrated by the elevated age of the capital stock. Thus, the US corporate sector continues to generate positive net savings. Ahead of recessions, US businesses typically generate negative net savings. The composition of the creditors is another important difference. In 2007, an extremely large share of the spurious borrowings resided on banks’ balance sheets. Moreover, the banking system was woefully undercapitalized with a leverage ratio of 17x. Weak banks had to absorb 2.2 trillion of losses after 2008. Consequently, the money creation mechanism broke down, and money multipliers collapsed (Chart 7). Today, US banks boast relatively stronger balance sheets, and they are still judicious about extending credit despite being less exposed to the corporate sector than they were to the mortgage market in 2008. Instead, most corporate debt is held by less levered entities such as ETFs, pension plans, and insurance companies. The leveraged losses that proved so debilitating in 2008 are less likely to be a source of systemic risk in this cycle. Chart 6US Businesses Can Still Service Their Debt Chart 72008 Heralded A Destruction Of Money   Countries like Australia and Canada have much more worrisome private sector debt dynamics, as their servicing costs are elevated (Chart 8). However, these economies are unlikely to collapse when global rates are low, as long as the global economy can avoid a recession, which would reduce export revenue in these trade-sensitive countries. You expect a moderate rebound in global growth next year, but not a sharp acceleration because Chinese stimulus will not be that aggressive. The bottom line is that both the US corporate sector and at-risk countries like Canada should avoid a day of reckoning until interest rates rise meaningfully. As we have already mentioned, central banks are very clear that they will allow inflation to overshoot before tightening policy anew. We monitor US inflation breakeven rates to gauge the likely timing of that outcome. At 1.6%, they remain well below the 2.3% to 2.5% range, which is historically consistent with central banks durably achieving their inflation target (Chart 9). Until inflation expectations are re-anchored back up in that range, we will not worry about an imminent tightening in monetary conditions. Chart 8Canada And Australia Are Close To Their Debt Walls Chart 9The Fed Is In No Rush To Tighten   Chart 10Inflation Is A Lagging Indicator It is true that inflationary pressures are building in the US. Historical evidence points to a kink in the Phillips curve, the link between wage growth and the unemployment rate. Since the labor market is tight, we are already seeing average hourly earnings growth accelerate. Moreover, the output gap is mostly closed. However, keep in mind that inflation is also a lagging economic indicator (Chart 10). Consequently, the recent global economic slowdown is likely to keep US inflation at bay for most of 2020. The sharp fall in US capacity utilization along with the decline in imported goods and core producer price inflation corroborate this picture. Mr. X: So you believe that as long as rates stay low, the day of reckoning will be delayed. But ultimately, that it is unavoidable. BCA: Correct. No matter what, we are entering the end game of this already long business cycle. The current period of easy policy will allow cyclical spending to rise as a share of output, and debt to build up again over the coming 18 months. Because slack is clearly limited, this latest wave of policy easing will generate inflationary pressures. Ultimately, the Fed will be forced to play catch up and tighten more aggressively than expected in 2021. Paradoxically, the longer the onset of recession is delayed, the deeper it is likely to be… Mr. X: Because imbalances and vulnerabilities will only grow larger! BCA: Absolutely! Mr. X: That is something we can agree on. Ms. X: The way you complete one another’s sentences is a testament to how many years you have been talking to each other. For me, the most concerning issue is political risk. While I am more positive on the outlook for trade policy than my father, I do worry about the impact of US election risk on capital spending. Chart 11If The 2012 Election Is Any Guide, Trump Can Still Win A Second Term BCA: On the trade war, we would like to address your father’s concerns. All politicians, even unconventional ones like President Trump, seek re-election. Yet, President Trump’s overall approval rating is low (Chart 11). If the election were held today, his odds of winning would be minimal. However, US presidential elections do ultimately favor the incumbent. If the re-election of President Obama in 2012 is any guide, President Trump has enough time to boost his approval rating over the coming 12 months to secure a second term through the Electoral College. In order to achieve this outcome, he must reverse the large slowdown in wage growth currently plaguing the swing states he won by only a small margin in 2016 (Chart 12). Workers in states like Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin are suffering disproportionately from the uncertainty created by the trade tensions. President Trump will have to pause the tariffs – and even cut tariff rates – to support the economy and reassure voters. Chart 12Trump's Fear Is Coming True China is willing to accept a trade truce. The Chinese economy is weak and producer prices are once again deflating. President Xi doesn’t want to preside over another massive surge in leverage or a 1930’s Irving Fisher-style deflationary spiral. Reviving private sector investment sentiment via a reduction in trade policy uncertainty would help stabilize spending and avoid a disorderly economic slump. Moreover, President Xi may not trust the current White House, but the prospect of a Democratic administration that will be tough on both environmental standards and human rights would offer little solace. This brings us to the US election. The recent Bank of America Merrill Lynch positioning survey shows that the investment community shares your concerns. This risk is hard to quantify. The Democratic nomination is wide open. Former Vice President Joe Biden leads the opinion polls, and is a known quantity. Meanwhile, the rising progressive wing of the party, embodied in Senator Elizabeth Warren, is hostile to business and likely to cause concerns in boardrooms across the US, especially in the tech, energy, financial services and healthcare sectors. This could dampen animal spirits. Biden’s and Warren’s odds of beating President Trump are overstated by current polls, especially if the President softens his stance on trade to allow for a growth pick-up. Moreover, to be competitive nationally, Senator Warren will have to abandon some of her more progressive plans and pivot toward the center. The recent upbeat equity market performance of sectors like managed healthcare suggests that markets are discounting this shift. Thus, we doubt the election is currently really weighing on business intentions. The recent pick up in capital spending intentions in various Fed Manufacturing surveys fades this risk. Chart 13A Structural Tailwind Has Vanished What is clear though is that if the economy were to weaken further, Senator Warren’s chances would improve and CEOs would genuinely begin to worry about re-regulation, potentially unleashing a vicious cycle. Thus, the end game is an unstable equilibrium. On a structural basis, whether one looks at the rise of populism or the geopolitical rivalry between China and the US, trade tensions will remain a pesky feature of the global economy. In effect, the trade truce will not be a permanent deal. The global economy has therefore lost the tailwind of deepening global integration achieved through trade (Chart 13). This will limit global potential GDP growth. Ms. X: Thank you. I think the time is right to explore your economic outlook in more detail. The Economic Outlook Chart 14China: Modest Reflation Is Underway Mr. X: From your arguments, it seems that the outlook for China and Emerging Markets is critical, so let’s start there. My impression is that President Xi is not abandoning his structural reform agenda. Avoiding the middle-income trap will require decreasing China’s dependence on credit as a growth driver. Can economic activity really stabilize under those circumstances? BCA: You are correct: Senior Chinese administrators are reluctant to allow another major phase of debt accumulation to take hold. However, as we already highlighted, policymakers are taking steps to end the most severe economic slowdown since the first half of the 1990s. China is currently implementing a middling stimulus program. The positive impact of the lower bank reserve requirement ratio, the tax cuts and increased public infrastructure spending is being mitigated by strong regulatory constraints on the shadow banking system and small financial institutions, by efforts to limit real estate speculation, and by the cash crunch facing real estate developers. These crosscurrents make it unlikely that the credit impulse will rise as sharply as it did following the reflationary campaigns of 2009, 2012 or 2016. Nonetheless, the Chinese economy is indeed exhibiting some mildly positive signals. Our monetary indicator and state-owned enterprise capital spending point to a rebound in overall Chinese economic activity (Chart 14). Moreover, household spending is trying to bottom. If China stabilizes, then the EM slowdown will end soon. Without a deepening drag from the Chinese economy, EM countries should be able to take advantage of the easing in global financial and liquidity conditions. But the end of the Chinese drag on EM growth does not mean a massive tailwind will be forthcoming. Additionally, deflationary forces remain stronger in the emerging world than in the US. As a result, EM real rates will remain stubbornly above the level that real economic activity warrants, posing a headwind for capital and durable goods spending. Generally speaking, EM and China are moving from a headwind for the world to a mild tailwind. Treasury yields are unlikely to move significantly higher than the 2.25% to 2.5% zone. Ms. X: I’m somewhat more positive than you on global growth next year. The policy easing around the world looks very promising for economic activity. How do you factor the impact of improving global liquidity conditions into your outlook for 2020? BCA: It is undeniable that global liquidity conditions have eased massively. As we already highlighted, the majority of global central banks cutting rates is a very positive dynamic for global growth. Trends in measures of liquidity ratify this message. Foreign exchange reserves are again growing and our BCA US Financial Liquidity index has rallied sharply over the past 12 months. Historically, this indicator forecasts the trend in the BCA Global Leading Economic Indicator, commodity prices and EM export prices by 18 months (Chart 15). Moreover, money aggregates are growing faster than credit across the major advanced economies. Such developments typically foretell an acceleration in global economic activity (Chart 16). Chart 15Liquidity Dynamics: Fueling A Global Growth Recovery Chart 16Rising Money Supply Is A Good Thing   The duration of the current slowdown also warrants optimism. We have often highlighted that since the early 1990s, the global manufacturing sector evolves over 36-month symmetric cycles (Chart 17). The current soft patch has lasted more than 18 months. In the context of easing liquidity and depleted inventories, pent-up demand can easily translate into actual spending. The recent surge in the new orders-to-inventories ratio confirms that global manufacturing activity should soon pick up (Chart 18). The auto sector’s weakness, which was exacerbated by previous inventory buildups, changing emission standards, and rising borrowing costs, is also ebbing. Chart 17The Mid-Cycle Slowdown Is Long In The Tooth Chart 18The New Order-To-Inventory Ratio Points To A Global Rebound     Various growth indicators are sniffing out this positive inflection point. The recent trough in the global ZEW survey is revealing (Chart 19). It materialized quickly after Sino-US trade tensions began to ease. Enough positive global economic momentum exists such that a minor decline in policy uncertainty could unleash a large improvement in growth expectations. The rebound in Taiwanese equities and European luxury stocks confirms that the global economy should soon bottom. There are two things we cannot emphasis enough. First, this is the end game of the business cycle, after which a recession will ensue. Second, investors should not expect the kind of strong synchronized growth rebound witnessed in 2017. Without a Chinese and EM boom, a crucial source of demand will be wanting. Mr. X: What about US growth? The yield curve inverted this summer and deteriorating consumer and business confidence raised the specter of an imminent recession. Moreover, the fiscal stimulus that helped the economy in the first half of 2019 is now over. In fact, with a $1 trillion federal deficit despite an unemployment rate of only 3.6%, we have run out of fiscal room to support activity if and when a recession materializes. BCA: The recent yield curve inversion most likely overstated the risk of an economic contraction. First, in the mid-1990s, if the term premium had been as low as it is today, the curve would have also inverted without any recession materializing from 1995 to 2000. Second, this summer, the curve inverted up to the 5-year tenor and steepened for longer maturities. Prior to recessions, the curve inverts across all maturities. Recessions are not born out of thin air. They are caused by imbalances and tight monetary policy. The large debt buildup and other investment imbalances that have preceded prior US recessions are not yet apparent. Prior to the 1991, 2001 and 2008 recessions, the private sector debt load had increased by 20.6%, 14.6% and 25.6% of GDP in the previous five years, not the current 1.4% run rate. The Fed’s policy is now clearly accommodative. Not only is the real fed funds rate 74.4 basis points below the Fed’s favored estimate of the neutral rate of interest, but also real estate, the most interest-rate sensitive economic sector, is rebounding. In 2018, real estate activity collapsed in response to mortgage rates rising to 4.9%. Today, the NAHB Homebuilding index has retraced 79% of its losses; mortgage demand has improved; and housing starts and building permits have recovered (Chart 20). When policy is tight, real estate activity never recovers this quickly, even as yields fall. Chart 19Positive Signals For Global Growth Chart 20The Housing Market Signals That Policy Is Accommodative   Chart 21Robust Household Financial Health A counterargument is that real estate price appreciation is weak. However, tight monetary policy is not the cause. Two forces are dampening house prices. First, the Jobs and Tax Act of 2017 lowered allowable mortgage interest and state and local tax deductions. High-end properties in high-tax states such as California, New York and Massachusetts have suffered from this adjustment. Second, the US housing market has an overhang of large, pricey homes relative to strong demand for smaller, starter homes. Median home prices outpacing average ones show this divergence. We also to need to gauge if consumer spending is likely to follow the manufacturing sector lower. If it does, a recession will be unavoidable. On this front, we are hopeful because: The outlook for household income is positive. As you noted, the unemployment rate is still extraordinarily low, and more Americans will be working by the end of 2020 than today. Additionally, the rising employment-to-population ratio for prime-age workers is tightly linked to stronger wages (Chart 21). Also, the recent pick up in productivity growth points to higher real wage growth. The household savings rate is elevated and has limited upside. Households already have a large cushion insulating them from unforeseen shocks. At 8.1% of disposable income, the savings rate is in the 65th percentile of its post-1980 distribution. It is especially lofty if we take into account robust American households’ net worth (Chart 21, bottom panel). Consumer credit demand is rising, according to the Fed’s Senior Loan officer survey. Since household liquid assets are quickly expanding and the household formation rate is robust, consumption of durable goods should pick up, especially in light of the large decrease in borrowing costs. This is particularly true since the household debt-to-assets ratio is at its lowest level since 1985 and debt-servicing costs only represent 9.7% of disposable income, the lowest share for nearly 40 years. The corporate sector outlook should brighten soon. The modest rise in productivity protects margins from higher wages, an effect that will linger given that capacity expansion is consistent with further productivity gains (Chart 22). Crucially, the combined fiscal and monetary easing in China should bolster capital-spending intentions around the world, including the US (Chart 23). Rising productivity will only consolidate these trends. Chart 22Capacity Growth Provides Some Support For Productivity Chart 23Chinese Reflation Will Revive US Capital Spending   The most positive development for the US corporate sector is our outlook for non-US growth. If the global manufacturing sector mends itself, so will the US. Ample liquidity is a positive for the world economy, as well as for US manufacturing conditions (Chart 24). On the fiscal front, we appreciate your worries, but they are not a story for 2020. The US fiscal thrust will not be as positive as it was in 2018 or 2019, but it is set to remain a small tailwind, not a drag. Furthermore, given that 2020 is an election year it is unlikely that politicians will tighten purse strings over the coming 12 months. Fiscal risks are undoubtedly greater in the long run. However, a sudden fiscal consolidation is a remote probability because fiscal austerity has gone out of style. Instead, the federal debt burden will be a major source of long-term inflation because there is no other easy way to address this gigantic pile of liabilities. The path of least resistance will be more spending and financial repression. In other words, real rates will stay too low and excess government spending will push prices higher, conveniently eroding the real value of that high federal debt burden. This was a big story in the 20th century and it will remain so in the 21st (Chart 25), especially since an aging population and the peak in globalization will weigh on global savings. Chart 24The US Manufacturing Slowdown Has Run Its Course Chart 25Inflation Is About Political Decisions   Ms. X: Your point about demographics makes me think of Europe and Japan. Brexit has not been resolved; populism remains a concern in Italy; and the European banking system is still fragile. Japan suffers from an even worse demographic profile and the recent VAT increase was ill-timed, economically. Given these headwinds, can these regions participate in the global recovery you foresee? BCA: The short answer is yes, albeit to varying degrees. The outlook for Europe is more promising than Japan. A No-Deal Brexit is now a very low probability event, even after next month’s UK election. The conservatives’ support for Prime Minister Johnson’s Brexit plan will ensure as much. A large source of uncertainty is being lifted, which will allow European businesses to resume investment planning. The situation in the European periphery is also improving. Non-performing loans in Spain and Italy are falling (Chart 26), which is allowing for a normalization of credit origination. The narrowing Italian and peripheral spreads to German bunds will be helped by easing financial conditions in the European economies that need it most. Higher Italian bond prices improve banks’ solvency and cut borrowing costs for the private sector. Finally, populism is alive and well in Europe, rejecting fiscal austerity, but not embracing euro-skepticism. More generous fiscal spending would be a positive for Europe. European liquidity conditions are also generous. Deposit growth has strengthened and financial conditions have benefited from lower German yields and a cheap euro, which trades 15% below fair-value estimates. Our model for European banks’ return on tangible equity is rising, which is a clear indication that easy financial and liquidity conditions should deliver stronger incremental economic activity (Chart 27). Chart 26Declining Non-Performing Loans Are A Positive For The European Periphery Chart 27European Banks' Return On Equity Will Improve In 2020   The fiscal outlook is murkier. European fiscal thrust was a positive 0.4% of GDP in 2019, but it will decline to 0.1% in 2020. However, fiscal policy affects economic activity with a lag. The impact of this year’s easing has yet to be fully felt. Since European rates are so low and the economy is not operating at full capacity, the fiscal multiplier is greater than one. Therefore, Europe can still reap a substantial fiscal dividend next year. Finally, Europe remains a very pro-cyclical economy. A large share of euro area GDP is connected to manufacturing and exports. As a result, Europe will be one of the prime beneficiaries of a pickup in global growth. Already, the sharp rebound in the German and euro area ZEW survey expectation components point to a brighter outlook for the region. Japan is also a very pro-cyclical economy, which will reap a dividend from a bottom in global manufacturing activity. However, the Land of the Rising Sun is still subject to idiosyncratic constraints. Japanese financial conditions have not improved as much as those in Europe. The yen has appreciated 2.6% in trade-weighted terms this year, while Japanese yields have not melted as much as European ones (because Italian and peripheral yields fell so much in 2019). Japan will also have to reckon with the impact of the October VAT increase. Ahead of the tax hike, retail sales spiked by 9.1% on a year-on-year basis, or 7.1% compared to the previous month, a script similar to 2014. 2015 was a payback year where consumption was depressed. This scenario will play out again, even if the Abe government has implemented some fiscal offsets. Ultimately, the Japanese economy will lag Europe’s in the first half of the year but should catch up in the second half. The impact of the tax hike will dissipate. Most importantly, rebounding global growth will hurt the yen, at least on a trade-weighted basis, providing a lift to export prospects and easing Japanese financial conditions relative to the rest of the world, which will produce a growth dividend later in 2020. Ms. X: To summarize, you expect a moderate rebound in global growth next year, but not a sharp acceleration because Chinese stimulus will not be that aggressive. EM activity will also pick up but will not generate fireworks. The US will be okay but Europe will probably deliver the largest positive growth surprise as external and domestic conditions align positively. Japan will also stabilize on the back of stronger global growth, but domestic headwinds mean that a true reacceleration won’t happen until the latter part of the year. This recovery constitutes the business cycle’s end game as inflation will become a concern in 2021, forcing the Fed to tighten then. BCA: Yes, this is correct. Ms. X: Thank you! Bond Market Prospects Chart 28Global Bonds Are Extremely Overvalued Ms. X: I do not like US Treasuries at current yields. They do not protect me against an inflation surprise and will do nothing for me in an economic recovery. However, my bearishness is tempered by the large stock of bonds with negative yields in Europe and Japan. As long as this strange situation persists, I doubt US yields will experience much upside. US paper is too attractive to foreign asset managers right now. BCA: We share your view and are recommending an underweight to global government bonds. Global yields offer little value and are vulnerable to a rebound in economic activity or a trade détente. Our Global Bond Valuation index is flashing a clear sell signal (Chart 28). As yields rise, global yield curves are bound to steepen. We also agree that the upside for Treasury yields is limited, but we disagree with the limiting factor. Foreign investors are not the major buyers of Treasuries. Indeed, the data shows that European and Japanese investors have not been aggressive purchasers of US government securities. The US yield curve is flat and US short rates tower above European and Japanese ones, hedging currency exposure when buying Treasuries is expensive. In euro or yen terms, a hedged Treasury yields -67 basis points and -60 basis points, less than 10-year bunds or JGBs, respectively. Meanwhile, EM central banks are diversifying their FX reserves away from the US dollar into gold. Instead, our view is governed by the concept we dub the “Golden Rule of Treasury Investing.” According to this principle, the outperformance of Treasuries relative to cash is a direct function of the Fed’s ability to surprise the market. If the Fed cuts rates more than the OIS curve anticipated 12 months prior, Treasuries outperform. The opposite happens if the Fed delivers a hawkish surprise (Chart 29). Chart 29The Golden Rule Of Treasury Investing Treasury yields are unlikely to move significantly higher than the 2.25% to 2.5% zone, because the OIS curve is now only pricing in 28 basis points of rate cuts over the next year. It is not just the US OIS curve that has priced out a large amount of rate cuts; this phenomenon has materialized around the world over the past five weeks. Chart 30The Term Premium Is Too Low Any upside risk to that 2.25% to 2.5% forecast for 2020 will come from the inflation expectations and term premium components of yields. Central banks, including the Fed, have telegraphed an intention to allow inflation expectations to rise, initially, in response to stronger global growth. Moreover, declining risk aversion should also allow the exceptionally depressed term premium to normalize (Chart 30). Only in late 2020 or early 2021 will Treasury yields durably move above this 2.25-2.5% zone. Punching above these levels will require core PCE inflation to have been above target long enough to re-anchor inflation expectations back up to their 2.3% to 2.5% target zone. Only then will the Fed give the all-clear signal to the bond market to lift yields higher. Mr. X: You still have not directly addressed the question of negative yields in Europe and Japan. This story will not end well. Do you worry about these bond markets over the next year? BCA: Our answer is an emphatic yes. But we assume you will not let us leave it at that. Mr. X: You know me too well. BCA: Over the course of the past 50 years, we have learned a thing or two about you. In all seriousness, let’s start with our simple but effective valuation ranking. It compares the current level of real yields for each country to their historical averages and standard deviations. You can see that the most unattractive bond markets right now are all in Europe (Chart 31). Chart 31European Bonds Are Too Dear Chart 32Swiss Bonds Are A Lose-Lose Proposition The lower bound of interest rates is another reason to avoid these markets. This floor seems to lie around -1% in nominal terms. Because of these constraints, in recent months, Swiss, Swedish, Dutch and German 10-year bonds have failed to rally as much as their higher-yielding US, Canadian or Australian counterparts when global yields are declining. However, they also underperform when yields are rising (Chart 32). They have become a lose-lose proposition. The only pockets of value left in DM bond markets are Greece, Portugal or Italy. Despite their apparent risks, we still like them. Support for the euro in Greece and Italy is 70% and 65%, respectively. Even populist governments in these nations are reluctant to attack euro membership anymore. Moreover, the ECB remains committed to the survival of the euro area in its current form. Christine Lagarde will not change that. For 2020 or 2021, the risk of euro breakup is practically zero. The same may not be true on a 5- to 10-year investment horizon, but for the coming year, these bonds offer an attractive risk-adjusted carry. Ms. X: Unsurprisingly, my father does not like corporate bonds because of highly levered corporate balance sheets. I think this is a long-term problem, but not a risk for 2020, so I’m looking to stay overweight spread product relative to Treasuries. Where do you stand on this market? BCA: On this issue, we sit somewhere between you both. Our Corporate Health Monitor continues to deteriorate (Chart 33). The high debt load of the US business sector coupled with the decline of the return on capital worries us. Furthermore, the covenant-lite trend in recent issuance suggests that corporate borrowers, not lenders, are getting the good deals. Essentially, too much cash is still chasing too little available yield pick-up. In this environment, capital is sure to be misallocated, and money ultimately lost. We find the reward-to-risk tradeoff more attractive in Europe and Japan than in emerging markets. On a short-term basis, the spreads will not widen much. An easy Fed, recovering global growth, and the gigantic pile of negative-yielding bonds around the world will make sure of that. We advocate a neutral stance on investment grade corporates because IG bonds have high modified duration such that breakeven spread compensation versus Treasuries is near the bottom of its historical distribution across the IG credit spectrum (Chart 34). This means that credit will generate poor returns if government bond yields rise. Chart 33Dangerous Long-Term Picture For US Corporates Chart 34No Value Left In IG   Chart 35EMs Still Experiencing Deflation Thankfully, they are ways around this problem: emphasizing exposure to high-yield (HY) bonds and agency mortgage-backed securities (MBS) instead. HY breakeven spreads remain much more attractive than in the IG space, and option-adjusted spreads will benefit if our growth and inflation forecasts materialize. Investors reluctant to commit capital to these products should look into high quality agency MBS. After the recent wave of mortgage refinancing, these securities’ duration has collapsed to 3.0 compared to 7.9 for IG corporates. These securities therefore offer much better protection in a rising-yield environment. Ms. X: Before we move on to equities, where do you stand on EM bonds? BCA: We need to differentiate between EM local-currency bonds and EM USD-denominated bonds. We do like some EM local currency bonds. Inflation in EM countries is low and dropping. Money and credit growth is slowing, which implies that the disinflationary trend will remain in place through 2020 (Chart 35). Weaker nominal growth means that central banks in EM will continue to cut rates, providing a nice tailwind for local-currency bond prices. This comes with a caveat. Lower policy rates will boost bond prices but hurt EM currencies, especially because most EM currencies are not cheap and are already over-owned. Next year, it will be preferable to garner exposure to those countries interest rate moves via the swap market rather than the cash bond market. Chart 36The Mexican Peso Is Cheap There are some exceptions, like Mexico. The MXN is already very cheap because of fears surrounding the economic policies of President Andres Manual Lopez Obrador (AMLO) (Chart 36). However, we doubt he will turn out to be as dangerous as feared. Hence, MXN Mexican bonds are attractive to foreign investors in unhedged terms. We are currently avoiding EM USD-denominated debt, corporate and sovereign. Since emerging markets sport $5.1 trillion of dollar-denominated debt, falling EM exchange rates will increase the cost of servicing this debt, which makes it riskier. Mr. X: I think we will continue to underweight corporate and EM bonds in our fixed income portfolio. Spread levels still make no sense in terms of providing compensation for credit risk. I must admit that I find your recommendation to overweight MBS intriguing. We will need to ponder this idea further. Ms. X: And please wish me luck trying to convince my father to buy some high-yield bonds. Equity Market Outlook Mr. X: US stocks are too expensive for my taste, with the S&P 500 trading at a forward P/E ratio of 18. I’m well aware of the argument that equities may be expensive but that they are actually cheap compared to bonds, which implies that I should favor stocks over bonds. However, you know that I emphasize capital preservation. With stocks this rich already, equities offer no margin of safety. If I own stocks, I am therefore exposed to any unexpected shocks. Because I do not share your optimism on the economy, I am more worried about downside risk. Moreover, even if the economy performs better than I fear, I suspect stocks will respond poorly to higher yields. Chart 37The S&P Is Very Expensive Ms. X: I agree with my father that stocks are expensive. Nonetheless, as Keynes famously quipped, “Markets can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent.” In today’s context, to me this means that stocks can ignore their overvaluation so long as liquidity is plentiful, rates are low, and a recession is avoided. BCA: On this question, we agree with Ms. X. We all agree that US equities are expensive. As you mentioned, their price-to-earnings ratio is 18. Only at the apex of the tech bubble and in early 2018 was the S&P 500 more expensive. Worryingly, the price-to-sales ratio is at 2.3, an even larger historical outlier than the P/E (Chart 37). Chart 38Low Yields And Plentiful Liquidity Are Still Fertile Ground For Stocks Ms. X is correct that we cannot look at stock valuations in isolation. Investing is about opportunity cost and the macroeconomic context. On this front, even US equities have their merit. Despite the S&P 500’s expensive multiples, our Composite Valuation Indicator is no more elevated than it was in 2013. Meanwhile, our Monetary Indicator has rarely been as supportive of stock prices as it is today, and our Speculation Indicator is in line with its January 2016 reading (Chart 38). Moreover, BCA’s Composite Sentiment indicator is still below its long-term historical average and margin debt has declined by $47.5 billion to the lowest share of US market capitalization since June 2005. These are hardly signs of irrational exuberance. Ultimately, bear markets and recessions travel together. A durable 20% drop in stock prices requires a significant and long-lasting decline in earnings. These developments happen during recessions (Chart 39). Our call is for a recession in the next 24 months or so. We must also remember that while equities perform poorly six months ahead of a recession, the end of a bull market, its last 12 to 18 months, tend to be very rewarding (Table 3). We are within this window. Chart 39Bear Markets And Recessions Travel Together Table 3The End Game Can Be Rewarding Based on our forecast for interest rates, we do not share the concerns that rising bond yields will topple stocks right away. Stock prices are an inverse function of risk-free rates, but a positive function of growth expectations. Higher yields will initially reflect stronger growth, not restrict it. But remember: the upside for yields is limited because central banks do not want to choke off the recovery. They will maintain accommodative policy. In other words, we expect real rates to lag behind growth expectations. Because long-term growth expectations, whether from sell-side analysts or extracted out of market prices using the Gordon Growth Model, are low, we are willing to make this bet (Chart 40). Equities will suffer if the global bond yield rises above 2.5%. This is more a story for 2021, and not our central scenario for 2020. It is nonetheless a reminder that we are entering the end game of the business cycle, so we are also entering the end-game of the bull market. Mr. X: I think you are playing with fire. Stocks are so expensive that if you are wrong on either the growth call or the yield call, they will suffer. I would rather miss the last melt-up in stocks than unnecessarily expose my portfolio to a meltdown. Additionally, you have not addressed the fact that S&P 500 margins have begun to soften but are still extremely elevated. Shouldn’t this dampen your optimism? BCA: Aggregate S&P 500 margins have some downside. Our Composite Margin Proxy, Operating Margins Diffusion index and Corporate Pricing Power indicator all remain weak (Chart 41). The deceleration in the crude PPI excluding food and energy and the past strength in the dollar confirm this insight, especially as the corporate wage bill climbs in a tight labor market. The biggest mitigating factor is that productivity is also on the mend, which curbs the negative impact of higher worker pay. Chart 40Growth Expectations Are Muted Chart 41US Margins Under Pressure   This danger must be put into perspective though. Margin expansion has been dominated by the tech sector (Chart 42). Excluding this industry, S&P 500 margins are roughly in line with their previous peak, and are not declining. The aggregate softness in margins is a reflection of the sharper decline in tech margins. Declining margins do not spell the imminent end of the bull market either. Table 4 shows that on average, the S&P 500 rises by 9.5% following the peak in margins. Equities can rise after margins crest because this is often an environment where wages are climbing, which boosts consumption. Consequently, top-line growth can accelerate and earnings can rise even if they represent a lower proportion of sales. This is the environment we foresee over 2020. Chart 42Tech Margins Have Likely Peaked Table 4Margin Peaks Do Not Spell S&P Doom   Chart 43Taiwanese Stocks Are Sniffing Out Better Global Growth Ms. X: You have talked about the tech sector being a drag on overall margins. How would you position a US stock portfolio? BCA: First, around the world, we prefer cyclical sectors to defensive ones. Cyclical stocks are depressed relative to defensive firms’ shares. Rebounding global growth and rising bond yields will favor cyclical sectors. Globally, the performance of cyclical equities relative to defensive ones correlates with Taiwanese equities, which are currently rallying smartly (Chart 43). This suggests that at the margin, the most cyclical asset markets are beginning to express optimism about global growth. Within the S&P 500, our favorite pair trade to express this bias is to overweight energy stocks at the expense of utilities. Utilities are bond proxies which will substantially underperform energy stocks when the rate of change of Treasury yields moves up (Chart 44). Moreover, based on our valuation indicators, energy stocks have never traded at such a deep discount to utilities, nor have they ever been as oversold. Chart 44Favor Energy Over Utilities Second, we are currently neutral on tech stocks but have put them on a downgrade alert. Tech equities are expensive, trading at a forward P/E ratio 21% above the other cyclicals. Moreover, since software spending has remained surprisingly resilient despite the global economic slowdown, it will likely lag investment in machinery and structures when industrial demand rebounds. Consequently, tech earnings will lag other traditional cyclical sectors. Tech multiples will also suffer when bond yields rise. As high-growth stocks, tech equities derive a large proportion of their intrinsic value from long-term deferred cash flows and their terminal value. Thus, tech multiples are highly sensitive to changes in the discount rate We implement this view by way of an underweight in tech and an overweight to industrials. Industrials have suffered disproportionately from the trade war. Any near term truce is unlikely to contain a grand bargain on intellectual property rights transfer that galvanizes tech exports, but it will remove some of the uncertainty weighing on industrials. Moreover, industrials are a much cheaper play on a global growth rebound. The global manufacturing slowdown has caused industrial equities to trade at their greatest discount to the tech sector since the financial crisis. Finally, the wage bill for the industrial sector is melting relative to tech, and our margin proxy is surging (Chart 45). This has created a very positive backdrop for this pair trade. We also like financials. They will be a key beneficiary of rising yields and a steepening yield curve. Additionally, household credit demand has picked up and overall credit growth should accelerate as central banks will maintain very accommodative monetary conditions. The yield impulse already points toward higher bank credit growth and companies are issuing an increasingly large stock of bonds (Chart 46). Chart 45Operating Metrics Will Boost Industrials Versus Tech Equities Chart 46Easing Financial Conditions Will Support Credit Creation   Ms. X: When combining valuation analysis with your fundamental sectoral slant, I am guessing that you must favor European, Japanese and EM stocks over the S&P 500? BCA: We do favor European and Japanese equities. Based on valuation alone, all the regions you mentioned offer higher expected long-term real rates of return than the US (Chart 47). Moreover, the dollar is expensive relative to advanced economies’ currencies. Hence, these markets are cheaper vehicles than the S&P 500 to bet on a global economic recovery. But valuation alone is not enough. US stocks are trading at unprecedented levels relative to global equities because of the FAANG craze (Chart 48). Looking at sector representation, our positive view on non-tech cyclicals also flatters exposure to Europe and Japan (Table 5). Chart 47Non US Equities Offer Better Value Chart 48FAANG-Driven US Outperformance   Table 5Equity Market Sector Composition Chart 49European Banks Are Cheap Europe is particularly attractive because of its large skew towards industrials and financials, which represent 32.3% of the market versus 22.3% in the US. Moreover, European financials are also a tantalizing bet because they trade at a 50% discount to US financials, according to their price-to-book ratio. Additionally, their return on tangible equity will benefit from higher German yields, easing financial conditions, declining non-performing loans in the periphery and rebounding global growth. Our RoE model for European banks already points to a resurgence in their stock prices (Chart 49). Of the major markets we track, Japan offers the highest prospective long-term real returns. Its strong cyclical slant and low share of tech stocks means it is another market investors should overweight to bet on a global recovery. The biggest problem for Japanese equities is the yen. When global yields climb higher, a weak JPY will clip some of the Nikkei’s gains for foreign investors. Finally, we are reluctant to overweight EM stocks just yet. In this space, median P/E ratios are much higher than on a market capitalization-weighted basis (Chart 50). State-owned companies explain this bifurcation, Chinese banks in particular. Since we expect Chinese banks to remain a conduit for policy, credit origination may flatter economic growth more than shareholders’ interests. Moreover, we have a negative outlook on EM currencies, and hedging this exposure is expensive. Finally, if China’s economic activity improves only modestly in 2020, the 2012 experience suggests that EM stocks can still underperform the global equity universe as global growth improves and yields rise (Chart 51). In other words, we find the reward-to-risk tradeoff more attractive in Europe and Japan than in emerging markets. Chart 50EM Stocks Are No Bargain Yet Chart 51EM Stocks Can Underperform When Global Growth Improves     Mr. X: Thank you. I am still not sure what share of our portfolio will be dedicated to stocks. However, I think that whatever this proportion will be, buying global equities makes more sense than US ones. Your valuation argument alone is swaying me, considering my more conservative instincts. Ms. X: I’m glad we will not have to argue on this point, but I know we will nonetheless battle on the stock/bond/gold split. Should we move on to your currency and commodity forecasts? BCA: It would be our pleasure. Currencies And Commodities Mr. X: You have often argued that the dollar is a countercyclical currency. Based on our discussion so far, you must expect the dollar to decline until we get closer to the next recession. I am not fully convinced. Specifically, I remember that in the back half of 2016 global growth was rebounding, but the dollar soared. Therefore, the growth/dollar relationship can be more complex than you argue. Meanwhile, with negative interest rates in Europe, Japan and Switzerland, why would I even consider divesting out of my positive yielding dollar assets? Chart 52The Dollar Is A Counter Cyclical Currency BCA: You raise interesting questions, and you are correct that we expect the dollar to depreciate if our constructive view on global growth pans out for 2020. The inverse relationship between global industrial production (excluding the US) and the trade-weighted dollar is unambiguous (Chart 52). As you also mentioned, the reality is a little bit more nuanced. To understand why, it is important to remember how currencies function. We can think of an exchange rate as an adjustment mechanism that solves for the gap in growth between any two countries. This is at the root of the dollar’s counter-cyclicality. When global growth is picking up, returns tend to be higher in cyclical markets, which are highly concentrated outside of the US. Flows then gravitate from the US to other markets and the dollar declines. After a while, the dollar becomes cheap enough that these flows reverse. In the second half of 2016, three factors drove the dollar rebound. First, US manufacturing was improving at a faster pace than that of the rest of the world. Second, the Fed resumed its interest rate hikes, so interest rate differentials suddenly flattered the dollar anew. Finally, the election of President Trump, who campaigned on large scale fiscal stimulus, elicited memories of the Reagan dollar bull market of the first half of the 1980s. These factors eventually faded as global growth rebounded. Today, the Fed’s policies are hurting the dollar. Aside from recent interest rate cuts, the Fed has been injecting liquidity into the banking system through repurchase agreements and renewed asset (T-Bills) purchases. Moreover, the rate cuts are also easing global funding conditions and promoting a re-steepening of the yield curve. This will incentivize banks to lend and boost the US money supply. As growth re-accelerates and demand for imports (machinery, commodities, and consumer goods) rises, the current account deficit will widen further. This process will increase the international supply of dollars. Historically, these dynamics usually hurt the dollar. What we have described is a tentative abatement in geopolitical risk at best – but it would be cavalier to get overly enthusiastic. Like you, we are deeply uncomfortable with negative interest rates. Thankfully, the nascent pickup in global economic activity is lifting global bond yields. So far, foreign bond markets have led this move. More specifically, countries that have suffered most from the global manufacturing slowdown are now seeing their bond yields rise the quickest (Chart 53). For example, yields in Germany, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland and Japan have risen by a lot more than those in the US since global yields troughed in September. Should the initial signals of stabilization in global growth morph into a synchronized recovery, the US yield advantage will evaporate. In a nutshell, interest rates might be negative in Europe and Switzerland, but the positive carry offered by US assets is rapidly fading. Chart 53AAre Interest Rate Differentials Flashing A Signal About Exchange Rates? Chart 53BAre Interest Rate Differentials Flashing A Signal About Exchange Rates?   Chart 54Foreigners Are Selling Treasuries For international investors, the currency risk inherent in owning US bonds is just too large at the current juncture. Remember, the trade-weighted dollar stands 25% above its long-term equilibrium and the US twin deficits are expanding. Markets priced in cheap currencies with some potential upside, such as Australia, Canada, Norway or even the European periphery, might be better bets. Flows highlight just how precarious the situation is for the US dollar. Since last August, overall flows into the US Treasury market have been negative. Net foreign purchases by private investors are still positive at an annualized US$180 billion, but they are clearly rolling over. Moreover, official net outflows are running at $350 billion, easily cancelling out the private sector’s inflows (Chart 54). Essentially, foreigners’ appetite for US fixed-income assets is waning exactly as interest rate differentials have started moving against the dollar. Ms. X: I share my father’s concerns, but how would you implement your negative dollar view. Which currencies should I be loading up on as we enter the business cycle’s end game? BCA: The more export-dependent economies (and currencies) should benefit the most from a rebound in global growth. Within the G-10, we particularly like the Swedish krona, the Norwegian krone and the British pound. Bond yields for these currencies are rising the fastest vis-à-vis the US. As a result, the currencies themselves should soon follow (previously mentioned Chart 53). We also expect commodity currencies to benefit, but only upon clearer signs that the resource-thirsty Chinese economy is improving. Until then, they are likely to lag the pro-cyclical European currencies, which are less directly dependent on Chinese stimulus. The euro could become the greatest beneficiary from a weaker dollar because a large headwind for European economic activity is disappearing for now. For the past ten years, European real interest rates have been too low for the most productive, competitive exporter – Germany – but too high for others such as Spain and Italy. Consequently, the euro has been caught in a tug-of-war between a rising neutral rate of interest for Germany and a very low one for the peripheral economies. Via its rate cuts, asset purchase programs, and aggressive TLTRO packages, the ECB may have now finally eased policy to the point where nearly all Eurozone countries enjoy an accommodative monetary environment. 10-year government bond yields in France, Spain, Portugal and even Italy now all sit close to the neutral rate of interest for the entire eurozone (Chart 55). Chart 55The ECB Has Eased Policy Enough Finally, the euro is likely to benefit from inflows into European equity markets. The euro’s drop since 2018 has eased financial conditions and made euro area businesses more competitive. This is an important tailwind for European corporate profits and thus stocks. Moreover, European equities, especially those in the periphery, remain unloved, as illustrated by their cheap valuations compared to other advanced economies. Additionally, analysts’ earnings expectations for eurozone equities are perking up relative to US stocks. If the sell-side is right, powerful inflows into the region will lift the euro in 2020. Mr. X: Thank you. I find it difficult to share your enthusiasm for the euro, a currency backed by such a flimsy edifice. While I would agree that it could rebound next year, I find currencies highly unpredictable on such a time horizon. I prefer to think about them on a long-term basis, and while the euro is cheap, its weak institutional underpinning is too concerning. Let’s move on to commodities. Following our meeting last year, we took your advice on oil and gold. Overall, these calls helped our portfolio. Going forward, these markets are extremely perplexing. There is so much risk in oil markets, such as the tensions in the Middle East and the uncertainty stemming from the trade war between the US and China. How would you recommend playing the oil market in 2020? Chart 56Inventory Drawdown Will Support Oil BCA: Your assessment of these markets is spot on. Yet, price risk is skewed to the upside because fiscal and monetary stimulus will revive commodity demand. The oil-producer coalition led by Saudi Arabia and Russia will continue to restrain production, and will probably extend its 1.2mm b/d production cut due to expire at the end of March to year-end 2020. In the US, market-imposed capital discipline will keep reducing the growth of US shale-oil supply. Additionally, US shale-oil supply growth is threatened by flaring of associated natural gas in the Bakken and Permian basins. Failure to limit the burn-off at oil-production sites could provide the environmental lobby an opening to challenge growth. Ms. X: What about the demand side of the oil markets? The fall in the growth rate of demand this year caught most participants off guard. What do you make of that? BCA: Demand data shows a lot of lingering weakness, much of which was caused by tight financial conditions last year in the US and China. But now, most global central banks are pursuing highly accommodative monetary policy and many governments are also easing fiscal policy. As a result, this demand weakness will fade next year. We think next year growth will clock in at 1.4mm b/d. Not as robust as 2017, but still respectable. This should stop the downward pressure on oil prices that has prevailed since May (Chart 56). Mr. X: You’re describing a fairly strong market for next year. What are the downside risks to your view? BCA: Global economic policy uncertainty remains elevated. Uncertainty is one of the key factors driving demand for USD, which is one of the most popular safe havens in the world (Chart 57). A strong dollar creates a headwind for commodity demand. It raises the local-currency costs of consumers in the EM economies that drive oil demand, and lowers production costs outside of the US, encouraging supply growth at the margin. Chart 57Elevated Global Economic Uncertainty Has Kept The USD Well Bid Chart 58Gold: A Valuable Portfolio Hedge Ms. X: So, pulling it all together, what is your call for 2020? BCA: The weaker 2019 demand data and the upward revisions to global oil inventories pushed our 2020 Brent Oil forecast to $67/bbl from $70/bbl. We still expect WTI to trade at a $4/bbl discount to Brent. As we mentioned earlier, the risk to our forecast is to the upside: a resolution of the US-China trade war, and lower global economic policy uncertainty could trigger a sharp rally in crude prices. Mr. X: Thank you for your insight on oil. I would like to hear your thoughts on gold. You can tell that I see little absolute value in stocks or bonds at the moment, so I have an outsized preference for the yellow metal this year. Also, how could the US dollar and gold both rally at the same time in 2019? BCA: Let’s start with your dollar/gold question. It is very rare to see gold and the dollar rally together. Normally a strong dollar hurts gold. As you know, we’ve been recommending an allocation to gold since 2017, mostly as a portfolio hedge. We like that gold strongly outperforms other safe havens in equity bear markets and can participate in the upside (even if to a limited extent) in bull markets. We think the safe-haven properties of gold and the US dollar really have come to the fore over the past couple of years (Chart 58). Economic policy uncertainty, and divisive politics globally have raised the level of uncertainty to record levels. In such an environment, the dollar and gold both provide a safe haven and a portfolio hedge. Hence, their joint popularity this past year. We should also remember that gold is a good inflation hedge, and is particularly negatively correlated with real interest rates. A Fed that is willing to let the economy overheat is a Fed that will limit how high real rates climb. Moreover, global liquidity is plentiful. Finally, EM central banks have been slowly divesting from Treasuries and diversifying into gold lately, buying most of the new supply in the process. This backdrop, along with our forecast of a weaker dollar, should support gold again in 2020. That being said, because gold is tactically overbought and could face temporary headwinds if global uncertainty recedes, we prefer silver, which is not as stretched. Furthermore, silver’s higher industrial use means that it should also benefit from a global manufacturing recovery. Geopolitics Chart 59Multipolarity Creates An Unstable Environment Mr. X: Let’s return to geopolitical and policy risks, both of which abound. Global economic policy uncertainty is the highest it has been since academics began measuring it. The world is fraught with populism, authoritarianism, war, immigration, technological disruption, inequality, and corruption. With so much chaos, and so little consensus, is there anything solid for an investor to grasp about the political backdrop next year? BCA: Geopolitics is the likeliest candidate to short circuit this long bull market, given that the Federal Reserve, the usual culprit, has paused its rate tightening campaign. On a secular basis, geopolitical risk is rising because the United States’ national power is declining relative to that of other world powers (Chart 59). China’s rise, in particular, is stirring conflict with the US and its allies in the western Pacific. Beijing’s technological and military advance is generating fear across the American political establishment. Russia and China continue to deepen their relationship in the face of an increasingly unpredictable United States. These strategic tensions will persist despite any tariff ceasefire with China. Chart 60Globalization Has Peaked Competition among the great powers makes for a world of contested authority. As the rules of the road have become less certain, the tailwind behind international trade and investment has weakened (Chart 60). Deglobalization is a headwind for the earnings of large cap global companies in the long run. Emerging markets, which are exposed to trade, face persistent unrest. Mr. X: Given the above, how can an investor take an optimistic view of the global economy and markets next year? BCA: We have a framework for analyzing politics: constraints over preferences. We cannot predict what the chief politicians will prefer at any given time, but we can try to identify and measure the constraints that will restrict their freedom of movement. With global growth slowing, world leaders have become more sensitive to their constraints. The Fed has reversed rate hikes; China is easing policy; President Trump has refrained from attacking Iran; and President Trump and President Xi are negotiating a ceasefire. The UK has avoided a “no deal” Brexit – not once but twice. In short, the risk of recession (or conflict) has been sufficient to alter the policy trajectory. As a result, there is a prospect for global geopolitical risks to abate somewhat in 2020. Both the American and Chinese administrations need to see growth stabilize despite their ongoing strategic conflict. Both the British and European governments need to avoid a disorderly Brexit despite their lack of clarity beyond that. Geopolitical risk is declining, albeit from an extremely elevated level. Mr. X: The US and China have already come close to a deal only to get cold feet and back away from it. The British Prime Minister is committed to leaving the EU with or without a deal. Surely you cannot believe that the Middle East, Russia, other emerging markets, or North Korea will be any bastion of stability. BCA: The US-China trade war is still the single greatest threat to the equity bull market. Brexit is not resolved and a new deadline for a trade deal looms at the end of 2020. Investors must remain vigilant and hedge their portfolios, particularly with gold. Nevertheless, one cannot ignore this year’s reaffirmation of the Fed put, the China put, and Trump’s “Art of the Deal.” The base case for next year should be constructive, albeit with vigilant attention to the major risks: President Trump, China and Iran. The other issues you mention have varying degrees of market relevance. Russia is focusing on pacifying domestic discontent. North Korea is on a diplomatic track with the United States. Emerging market unrest is particularly relevant where it can have a bearing on global stability: Iraq, Iran and Hong Kong in particular. Ms. X: If I may interject: It seems to me that the worst of the trade war has passed, that the risk of a no-deal Brexit is negligible, and that Iran is unlikely to outdo its attack against Saudi Arabia in September. Doesn’t this imply that geopolitical risk is overrated and that investors should rush to capture the risk premium in equities? BCA: What we have described is a tentative abatement in geopolitical risk at best – but it would be cavalier to get overly enthusiastic. After all, any fall in global risks will be amply made up for by the impending rise in US domestic political risk. Indeed, US politics are the chief source of global political risk in 2020. First, if President Trump becomes a “lame duck” then he could take actions that are hugely disruptive to global markets in a desperate attempt to win reelection as a “war president.” Chart 61European Political Risk Is Now Low Second, if President Trump is reelected, then his disruptive populism will have a new mandate and his “America First” foreign and trade policy will be unshackled. Third, if the opposition Democrats succeed in unseating an incumbent president, they will likely take the Senate too, removing the main hurdle to a dramatic policy change. That would mark the third 180-degree reversal in national policy in 12 years. Moreover, investors may find the country merely exchanged right-wing populism for left-wing populism, which has a more negative impact on corporate earnings prospects. Polarization and institutional erosion will continue. The election results may be razor thin; swing states may have to recount votes; and the outcome could hinge on rare or unprecedented developments in the Electoral College, the Supreme Court or cyberspace. A crisis of legitimacy could easily afflict the next administration. In short, there are few scenarios in which US political risk does not rise over the next 12-24 months. Rising American risk stands in stark contrast to Europe (Chart 61), where the will to integrate has overcome several challenges since the sovereign debt crisis. Substantial majority of voters support the euro and the European Union. Germany is on the brink of a major political succession but it is not turning its back on the European project. France is successfully pursuing structural reforms. Italy remains the weakest link, but even the populist Northern League accepts the euro. This leaves two remaining global risks: China and Iran. Chinese political risk is generally understated. President Xi Jinping, lacking President Trump’s electoral constraint, could overestimate his leverage. He could overreach in the trade talks, in his battle to prevent excessive debt growth, or in his handling of Hong Kong, Taiwan, North Korea, or Iran. The result could be a breakdown in the trade talks or a separate strategic crisis with the United States. Another cold war-style escalation in tensions could easily kill the green shoots in global growth. As for Iran, the regime is under crippling American sanctions and faces unrest both at home and within its regional sphere of influence. There is a non-negligible risk that it will lash out and cause an extended oil supply shock. Conclusions Mr. X: This is a good place to conclude our discussion. We have covered a lot of ground but I remain deeply concerned that staying invested in risk assets today is akin to picking-up pennies in front of a steamroller. I accept your opinion that a recession is unlikely in 2020, but valuations of both stocks and bonds are uncomfortably stretched for my taste. As a result, I believe stocks could suffer whether growth is good or bad next year. Finally, since so many things need to go right for the global economy to continue to defy gravity, a recession may hit faster than you envision. To me, there is simply not enough margin of safety in stocks to compensate me for the risk! Ms. X: I agree with my father that the risks are high because we are entering the end game of the cycle. But I also see pockets of value, some of which you have mentioned today. Moreover, I am sympathetic to your view that global growth will recover next year. Corporate earnings should therefore expand. Hence, I fear that being out of the market will be very painful, especially because policy is quite accommodative. While stocks may not perform as well as they did in 2019, I expect them to outperform bonds handily. I’m therefore willing to continue holding risk assets, even if I need to be more judicious in my sector and regional allocation. BCA: Your family debate mirrors our own internal discussions. There is always a trade-off between maximizing short-term returns and taking a longer-term approach. Valuations are the ultimate guidepost for long-term return prospects. Because so many assets have become more expensive this year, long-term returns are likely to be uninspiring compared to recent history. Table 6 shows our baseline calculations of what a balanced portfolio will earn over the coming decade. We estimate that such a portfolio will deliver average annual returns of 4.4% over the next ten years, or 2.4% after adjusting for inflation. That is a noticeable deterioration from our inflation-adjusted estimate of 2.8% from last year, and also still well below the 6.5% real return that a balanced portfolio earned between 1982 and 2019. Table 6Asset Market Return Projections Our outlook for next year hinges on global growth rebounding and policy uncertainty receding. Monetary policy is less of a threat to equities than it was last year because central banks have already eased considerably and have been very open about their willingness to let inflation run above target for a while before retightening the monetary screws. We propose the following list of easy-to-track milestones to monitor whether or not our central scenario for the global economy and asset markets is playing out, and how close we are to the end of the cycle: Chinese money and credit numbers. Chinese credit growth must stabilize for the economy to do so. If credit origination continues to decelerate, this will indicate that Beijing has decided to tolerate the slowdown and prioritize its reform and deleveraging agenda. In this case, the Chinese debt supercycle is over sooner and the global economy will pay the price. Our China Investment Strategy Activity Index. Global policy is accommodative and liquidity conditions have improved significantly. However, if the Chinese economy continues to deteriorate, global growth will not rebound. The China Activity Index must stabilize and even improve somewhat for our global growth view to come to fruition. Progress in the “phase one” deal. China and the US must agree to a trade détente. As long as uncertainty around immediate tariffs remain high and retaliation risks stay alive, global capital spending intentions and thus the global manufacturing sector will be hamstrung. Surveys of global growth. The Global manufacturing PMI and the global growth expectation component of the ZEW survey must both recover. If these variables cannot gain any traction, the global economy is sicker than we estimate and risk assets will suffer. Commodity prices and the dollar. In the first quarter, industrial commodity prices must rebound and the dollar must start to depreciate. These two developments will not only reflect an improvement in global growth. They will also alleviate deflationary pressures around the world, revive profits and sponsor a business spending recovery. Moreover, a weaker dollar will also ease global financial conditions by decreasing the global cost of capital. 10-year inflation breakeven rate. If US breakevens move above the 2.3% to 2.5% zone, the Fed will become more proactive about raising rates. This would provoke a quicker end to the business cycle. President Trump’s approval rating. If President Trump’s approval rating stabilizes below 42%, he could give up on the economy and instead bet on a “rally around the flag” as his best strategy for re-election. This would result in a much more hawkish and confrontational White House that would become an even greater source of uncertainty for the economy, and thus risk asset prices. Ms. X: Thank you for this comprehensive list of variables to monitor. As always, you have left us with much to think about. We look forward to these discussions every year. Before we conclude, it would be helpful to have a recap of your key views. BCA: It will be our pleasure. The key points are as follow: Global equities are entering the end game of their nearly 11-year bull market. Stocks are expensive, but bonds are even more so. As a result, if global growth can recover and the US can avoid a recession in 2020, earnings will not weaken significantly and stocks will again outperform bonds. Low rates reflect the end of the debt supercycle in the advanced economies. However, the debt supercycle is still alive in EM in general, and in China, in particular. The global economic slowdown that begun more than 18 months ago started when China tried to limit debt growth. If Beijing continues to push for more deleveraging, global growth will continue to suffer as the EM debt supercycle will end. Nonetheless, we expect China to try to mitigate domestic deflationary pressures in 2020. As a result, a small wave of Chinese reflation, coupled with the substantial easing in global monetary and liquidity conditions should promote a worldwide re-acceleration in economic activity. Policy uncertainty will recede next year. Domestic constraints are forcing China and the US toward a trade détente. The risk of a no-deal Brexit is now marginal, and President Trump is still the favorite in 2020. A decline in policy risk will foster a global economic rebound. That being said, some pockets of risk remain, such as in the Middle East. Global central banks are highly unlikely to remove the punch bowl anytime soon. Not only will it take some time before global deflationary forces recede, monetary authorities in the G10 want to avoid the Japanification of their economies. As a result, they are already announcing that they will allow inflation to overshoot their 2% target for a period of time. This will ultimately raise the need for higher rates in 2021, which will push the global economy into recession in late 2021, or early 2022. These dynamics are key to our categorization of 2020 as the end game. US growth will re-accelerate. The US consumer remains in good shape thanks to healthy balance sheets and robust employment and wage growth prospects. Meanwhile, corporate profits and capex should benefit from a decline in global uncertainty and a pick-up in global economic activity. China will continue to stimulate its economy but will not do so as aggressively as it did over the past 10 years. Consequently, EM growth will also bottom but is unlikely to boom. Europe and Japan will re-accelerate in 2020. Bond yields will grind higher in 2020. However, Treasury yields are unlikely to break above the 2.25% to 2.5% range until much later in the year. Inflationary pressures won’t resurface quickly, so the Fed is unlikely to signal its intention to raise interest rates until late 2020 or later. European bonds are particularly unattractive. Corporate bonds are a mixed offering. Investment grade credit is unattractive owing to low option-adjusted spreads and high duration, especially when corporate health is deteriorating. Agency mortgage-backed securities and high-yield bonds offer better risk-adjusted value. Global stocks will enjoy their last-gasp rally in 2020. As global growth recovers, favor the more cyclical sectors and regions which also happen to offer the best value. US stocks are the least attractive bourse; they are very expensive and loaded with defensive and tech-related exposure, two groups that could suffer from higher bond yields. We are neutral on EM equities. Investors should pare exposure to equities after inflation breakevens have moved back into their 2.3% to 2.5% normal range and the Fed funds rate has moved closer to neutral. We anticipate this to be a risk in 2021. The dollar is likely to decline because it is a countercyclical currency. Balance of payment dynamics and valuation considerations are also becoming headwinds. The pro-cyclical European currencies and the euro should be the main beneficiary of any dollar depreciation. Oil and gold will have upside next year. Crude will benefit from both supply-side discipline and a recovery in oil demand on the back of the improving growth outlook. Gold will strengthen as global central banks limit the upside to real rates by allowing inflation to run a bit hot. A weaker dollar will flatter both commodities. A balanced portfolio is likely to generate average returns of only 2.4% a year in real terms over the next decade. This compares to average returns of around 6.5% a year between 1982 and 2019. We would like to take this opportunity to wish you and all of our clients a very peaceful, healthy and prosperous New Year. The Editors November 22, 2019

Special Report

Highlights Investors’ perception of “fallen angels” – bonds downgraded from investment grade to high yield – is mostly negative, especially since many believe we are near the end of the economic and credit cycle. In this report, we show that fallen angels can provide investors with an opportunity to invest in relatively high-quality bonds at attractive valuations – bonds which on average outperform other corporate bonds. We find that a good entry-point into fallen angels is usually a week after the bonds are downgraded, after which selling pressures begin to fade. However, investors need to be aware that fallen angels are accompanied by some, less obvious, risks, particularly longer duration and sector skewness. Introduction Chart 1Baa-Rated Bonds Are Now 50% Of The IG Universe Elevated levels of US corporate debt, as well as declining credit quality in the investment-grade space, have raised investor worries that a large portion of bonds will be downgraded in the next recession and default cycle. The lowest tranche of investment-grade debt, Baa-rated, now constitutes over 50% of the investment-grade index (Chart 1). However, investors tend to dismiss the opportunities that this tranche of debt can provide when downgraded from investment grade to high yield – known as “fallen angels”. The change in the ownership structure of corporate bonds has contributed to the performance of fallen angels. Increasing demand for corporate-bond funds – both mutual funds and ETFs – has displaced direct ownership of corporate bonds by households and financial institutions over the past few years (Chart 2, panels 1 & 2). Chart 2Corporate Bond Ownership Active fund managers, constrained by their rules to hold only bonds with a certain (usually non-speculative grade) rating, are often forced to sell their holdings ahead of a potential downgrade. In addition, passive funds exacerbate the selling pressure, since they are forced to sell a bond in the event of a downgrade. Insurance companies and pensions funds, the biggest holders of corporate bonds, have increased their allocation to corporate bonds in the search for income in an environment of low yields. Estimates suggest that life insurance companies’ holdings of Baa-rated bonds comprise 34% of their total portfolios.1 However, high-yield bonds represented less than 5% as of the end of 2016.2 There is no regulation prohibiting them from owning sub-investment-grade bonds, but they face higher capital costs when they do. This could also fuel fire sales during the next downgrade cycle. Fallen angels therefore often enter the high-yield index at a much cheaper valuation than bonds that were originally issued as high yield. In fact, during the past two downgrade cycles, in 2007-2008 and 2015-2016, the average spread of fallen angels over an adjusted high-yield index (weighted so that it has the same credit rating as fallen angels) widened by 560 and 130 basis points, respectively (Chart 3). While this seems negative at a first glance, it also leaves more room for spread compression, once market conditions improve, for investors who correctly time their entry into this market. As the bottom panel of Chart 3 shows, investors almost always receive a higher yield for holding fallen angels compared to a similarly rated high-yield basket. Chart 3Fallen Angels Have Mostly Traded At A Discount... Chart 4...Despite Their Better Performance In this Special Report, we explain what fallen angels are, analyze their historical risk-return characteristics, and compare them to other major asset classes, particularly high-yield corporate bonds in general. We show that, once downgraded, fallen angels – due to oversold pressures – tend to outperform other asset classes as well as similarly-credit-rated high-yield bonds (Chart 4). We also assess their performance during periods of financial-market stress. Finally, we discuss the risks associated with owning fallen angels, and highlight the vehicles investors can use to access this asset class. What Are Fallen Angels? Fallen angels refer to bonds that have been downgraded from investment grade to junk (or speculative grade). Whereas different commercial indices can have slightly different classifications for the term (discussed below in the Historical Risk And Return section), the generic definition includes bonds previously classified as investment grade but later downgraded to high yield. These transitions can occur from and to any credit rating within both universes. However, the majority of downgrades occur between the lowest tranche of investment-grade bonds, rated Baa, and the highest tranche of high-yield bonds rated Ba (Chart 5). Generally, fallen angels have provided inves­tors with an opportunity to buy higher qual­ity, cheaper, and better performing corpo­rate bonds than those originally issued as high yield. Generally, fallen angels have provided investors with an opportunity to buy higher quality, cheaper, and better performing corporate bonds than those originally issued as high yield. So how do fallen angels differ? Higher quality: Over 73% of bonds within the fallen angels ETF fall into the Ba bucket – the highest tranche in the speculative space — versus 45% within the broader high-yield ETF (Chart 6). Chart 5The Downgrade Transition Chart 6Fallen Angels Have Better Credit Quality Than High Yield Cheaper: In anticipation of a downgrade, selling pressure from fund managers intensifies, causing prices of “potential” fallen angels to drop prior to their downgrade date. However, our US Bond Strategists report academic findings that show forced fire sales of fallen angels are usually short-lived.3 They conclude that, once Baa-rated securities are downgraded, there is no mechanism to force downward pressure on the price to continue. Chart 7Selling Pressures Intensify Even After The Bonds Are Downgraded Academic research corroborates this view: fallen angels exhibit ‘V-shaped’ price action,4 where their prices start falling ahead of a potential downgrade. This is the result of the reaction of active fund managers as discussed earlier. This trend persists for a short while even after the bonds are downgraded, as passive funds – index mutual funds and ETFs – offload the bonds. Selling pressures come to a halt shortly after the downgrade date (on average around seven trading days). This represents an entry-point for investors to add fallen angels to their portfolios. These conclusions are also supported by the price trajectory of a sample5 of fallen angels we tested (Chart 7). Note, however, that the trajectory shown in our results suggests that the attractiveness of fallen angels disappears quite quickly, since prices plateau about three to four months after the downgrade. Chart 8Fallen Angels Peform Better Than Similar High- Yield Bonds Better performance: The fallen angels index has outperformed a similarly credit-rated duration-matched high-yield basket in eight out of the 15 years since the index’s inception. In particular, fallen angels have tended to outperform in years when the Federal Reserve was on hold or cutting interest rates, due to their longer average duration of 5.5 years versus 2.9 years for high-yield bonds – as discussed below in the Risks section (Chart 8). Generally, fallen angels are concentrated in sectors that were subject to a recent shock. This was the case in the Telecommunications sector in 2001, the Financials sector in 2007-2008, and the Energy sector in 2014-2015. How Many Fallen Angels Will There Be In The Next Downturn? Over the past three decades, US Baa-rated debt – the lowest tranche in investment grade – has doubled from only 20% of total corporate debt to 40%. This coincided with an increase in nonfinancial corporate debt from 55% of GDP in the mid-1990s to nearly 75% by the end of 2018. Low interest rates over the past 10 years incentivized firms to take advantage of cheaper financing for capital expenditure, equity buybacks, M&A, and more (Chart 9). To a degree, this corporate behavior was rational since businesses understood that their optimal capital structure in a world of low interest rates required them to take on more debt. Simply put, firms found that targeting a Baa rating was more desirable. While rising leverage and weaker corporate health are concerns, we do not see these as imminent risks until the next recession and downgrade cycle hit – which we do not see happening in the next 12 months. For now, there is no worrying trend in downgrades. In fact, there are more “rising stars” – corporate bonds previously classified as high yield that have been upgraded to investment grade – than fallen angels (Chart 10). Nevertheless, it is important for investors to gauge the extent of potential downgrades during the next recession. Chart 9Debt Issuance: A Smart Corporate Decision Chart 10Rising Stars Versus Fallen Angels Several research papers use historical probabilities and downgrade rates to estimate a range for potential fallen angels. Given that investment-grade bonds currently amount to $5.3 trillion, and that the average peak in the one-year rate of investment-grade bond downgrades over the past four decades was 7.1%, that would imply the amount of new fallen angels in the next recession to be $376 billion. That is three times bigger than the current value of fallen angels, and represents nearly 30% of the entire junk-bond universe.6  Historical Risk And Return Chart 11Fallen Angels Provide Alpha To assess the performance of fallen angels versus other high-yield bonds, we adjust the indices to which we compare the fallen angels index in two ways. First, we remove the fallen angels from the overall high-yield index. However, that on its own would fail to consider the different credit qualities of the two indices – shown in Chart 6. It would also make it difficult to account for differences in duration. We therefore create a high-yield duration-matched basket with similar credit ratings to the fallen angels index in order to account for this. Fallen angels significantly outperformed both indices (Chart 11). In doing so, we were also able to distinguish between the extra performance due to duration– the gap between the jade and indigo lines – and the alpha created by fallen angels – the gap between the dark green and the jade lines. For the purpose of this report, we use the Bloomberg Barclays US High Yield Fallen Angel 3% Capped Bond Index, which is designed to track USD-denominated fallen angels. The index, based on the market value of the underlying bonds, includes securities that have a current high-yield rating, while having been assigned an investment-grade index rating at some point since issuance. The index relies on the average of three credit-rating agencies, Fitch, Moody’s, and S&P, to qualify bonds for inclusion. It is worth noting that there are other indices that track fallen angels, with different methodologies. For example, the FTSE Time-Weighted US Fallen Angel Index implements a time-weighted metric, assigning a larger weight to recently downgraded securities. It also adds a maximum inclusion period of 60 months. Since the index’s inception, fallen angels have outperformed other fixed-income assets on both an absolute and risk-adjusted return basis (Table 1). In absolute terms, fallen angels had the highest return of all the assets we compared them with. However, that came with an annualized volatility of 1.5 percentage points higher than the similarly rated high-yield basket – albeit not when compared to its duration-matched counterpart. Another explanation is that the extra volatility is a function of the swift fall and recovery in prices, as well as on going turbulence in the impacted sectors. Table 1Historical Risk-Return Characteristics Financial Market Stress Having established that fallen angels on average outperform other types of bonds, we now address the question: how do they perform during recessions and other periods of financial market stress? Given the index’s relatively short history, the only recession we are able to cover is the Global Financial Crisis (GFC) of 2007-2009. Nevertheless, we also look at other market crises dating back to 2005. During the GFC, fallen angels fell, similarly to their high-yield peers. However, coming out of the recession, fallen angels’ performance diverged from similarly rated high-yield bonds as well as from Treasurys and investment-grade bonds. Fallen angels have outperformed other similarly rated high-yield bonds after every market stress period over the past 14 years, except the Q4 2018 equity selloff caused by trade tensions (Chart 12). Fallen angels – even when credit and dura­tion are accounted for – have outperformed following periods of broad credit distress. They also seem to outperform during peri­ods of sector-specific distress. Fallen angels – even when credit and duration are accounted for – have outperformed following periods of broad credit distress. They also seem to outperform following periods of sector-specific distress. Chart 12Fallen Angels Outperform In Periods Of Credit- And Sector-Specific Distress Chart 13The Energy Sector: A Perfect Example This was evident in 2015-2017, when Brent crude oil fell from $120 to nearly $40, causing spreads of energy-rated junk bonds to widen dramatically. There was also a rise in corporate downgrades, particularly within the Energy sector. However, as the oil market stabilized and the Energy sector recovered, Energy corporate spreads quickly tightened and fallen angels outperformed a similarly credit-rated high-yield index. In the second half of 2016, the Energy sector comprised 28% of the fallen angels ETF, compared to 13% and 10% of the high-yield and investment grade ETFs respectively (Chart 13).7 Risks The arguments above should make fallen angels of interest to any investor. However, there are also risks, in particular the following: Sector skew: We have shown that fallen angels can be concentrated in sectors going through distress – the oil market in 2014-2015 being a perfect example. It is important to be aware of the sector skew of fallen angels compared to the high-yield and investment-grade bond universes. As of October 2019, the fallen angels universe was skewed towards the Energy, Technology, and the Industrials sectors compared to both high-yield and investment-grade bonds. It was notably underweight Consumer Non-cyclicals (Chart 14). Fallen angels also have a skew towards Banks – 12% as opposed to 2% in the high-yield universe. This might represent an opportunity rather than a risk. It could allow investors to exploit sectoral differences in the credit market. Longer Duration: Fallen angels also present greater duration risk. Given that they were once investment grade, they have a longer maturity of 9.8 years on average, versus 7.1 years for the credit-weighted high-yield basket. That would partially explain why fallen angels’ duration did not decline as much this year when long-term bond yields fell over 100 bps. We expect higher long-term interest rates over the next 12 months, which might hurt the performance of fallen angels (Chart 15). Chart 14Sector Skew: Risk And Opportunity Chart 15Fallen Angels: Characteristics Idiosyncratic Risks: The most obvious risk would be that the firm is incapable of fixing its balance sheet, and ultimately becomes subject to further downgrades. Catching Fallen Angels Investors now have access to vehicles that track fallen angels, though these ETFs are still new and rather small. ANGL and FALN were launched in 2012 and 2016 and track the BofA Merrill Lynch and Bloomberg Barclays fallen angles indices respectively (Table 2). Table 2ETFs Tracking Fallen Angels Chart 16Catching Fallen Angels Chart 16 shows the tracking error and tracking difference between the fallen angels index and the FALN ETF. The tracking error for FALN has been higher than the ETF tracking the overall high-yield index (HYG), but the tracking difference has been less volatile. Conclusion        Fallen angels allow investors to buy certain high-yield bonds at an attractive valuation for a period of time. Fallen angels have historically provided a pick-up in risk-adjusted performance over overall high-yield bonds, even when adjusting for quality differences. They have also outperformed investment-grade bonds on a risk-adjusted basis, as well as other asset classes. Investors need to time their entry-point into fallen angels. The ideal timing is usually about a week after the bond is downgraded. The sector weighting of the fallen-angels index tends to be related to a recent market or sector shock. Sector skew and long duration remain the principal risks that investors should be wary of.   Amr Hanafy Research Associate AmrH@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1    Please see Financial Times "Search for yield draws US life insurers to risky places", available at https://www.ft.com/ 2   Please see National Association Of Insurance Commissioners, Capital Markets Special Report Index, “U.S. Insurers’ High-Yield Bond Exposure On The Rise”, December 21st 2017. 3   Please see US Bond Strategy Special Report titled “The Risk From US Corporate Debt Part 2: Fund Flows, BBBs, And Leveraged Loans", available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 4   Please see Prof. Andrew Clare, Prof. Stephen Thomas, Dr Nick Motson “Fallen Angels: The investment opportunity”, dated September 2016, Cass Business School. 5   We looked at the 12-month price trajectory (six months before and after the downgrade date) of 60 corporate bonds in the FALN ETF. 6   Please see Moody’s Investors Service, Fallen angels: High-yield market buffers potential transitions amid wider risks, May 13, 2019. 7   We used the iShares Fallen Angels USD Bond ETF (FALN) as a proxy for fallen angels, the iShares iBoxx $ High Yield Corporate Bond ETF (HYG) as a proxy for high-yield bonds, and the iShares iBoxx $ Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF (LQD) as a proxy for investment-grade bonds.

Highlights Duration: A survey of the five factors that determine the path for Treasury yields suggests that further upside is likely. We see a clear path to 2.5% for long-maturity Treasury yields as recessionary risk moves to the back burner in the coming months. Credit Cycle: C&I lending standards tightened on net in the third quarter of 2019. But other indicators of monetary conditions point to continued accommodation. We expect lending standards will soon move back into “net easing” territory. Remain overweight Spread Product versus Treasuries. IG Valuation: Investment grade corporate bond spreads for all credit tiers are now below our fair value targets. We recommend only a neutral allocation to the sector. Investors should prefer high-yield bonds, where spreads are more attractive, and Agency MBS, which offer competitive expected returns and much less risk. Feature Chart 1Recession Risk Getting Priced Out The bond sell-off continued last week, driven by positive developments in US/China trade negotiations and tentative signs of stabilization in some global growth indicators. The renewed sense of economic optimism has reduced the recessionary risk priced into bond markets. The 2/10 Treasury slope has steepened 30 bps since it briefly inverted in late August. During that same period, the 2-year Treasury yield is up 15 bps, the 10-year yield is up 45 bps and the Bloomberg Barclays Treasury index has underperformed a position in cash by 2.7% (Chart 1). These recent developments raise two important questions. First, should investors chase or fade the back-up in Treasury yields? And second, if the sell-off does continue, how high can yields go? To answer these questions we turn to the five macro factors that drive trends in US bond yields. These factors were outlined in our “Bond Kitchen” report from last April, and are listed right here:1 Global growth Policy uncertainty The US dollar The output gap Sentiment Back In The Kitchen Global Growth Chart 2CRB Index Needs To Rebound Three global growth indicators are particularly relevant for US Treasury yields. They are the Global Manufacturing PMI, the US ISM Manufacturing PMI and the CRB Raw Industrials index. The latter is especially useful because it updates on a daily basis. Considering the CRB index, we notice that, while it is no longer in a steep downtrend, it has also not rebounded alongside the jump in bond yields (Chart 2). This should give us pause. Continued low readings from the CRB index make it more likely that bond yields will fall back in the coming weeks. We should also note that the ratio between the CRB index and Gold is more highly correlated with the 10-year Treasury yield than the CRB index itself.2 This ratio has bounced off its lows (Chart 2, top panel), but only because Gold has come under downward pressure. With the Fed committed to maintaining an accommodative policy stance until inflation expectations are re-anchored, we expect the Gold price to remain well bid. This means that raw industrials prices must rebound to keep the ratio trending higher. The CRB/Gold ratio has bounced off its lows, but only because Gold has come under downward pressure. More encouraging than the CRB index is the Global Manufacturing PMI, which has moved off its lows during the past three months (Chart 3). The increase has been partially driven by stronger US readings (Chart 3, panel 2), but principally by a significant jump in China’s PMI (Chart 3, bottom panel). Chart 3China Pulling The Global Manufacturing PMI Higher Somewhat stronger China PMI readings should be expected, given the rebound in our China Investment Strategy’s Li Keqiang Leading Indicator – a composite measure of monetary conditions, money and credit growth (Chart 4).3 We should also expect further modest policy stimulus from China, as long as the labor market remains under pressure (Chart 4, bottom panel). Turning to the US, we have seen three very positive developments in the economic data during the past month. First, the ISM Services PMI jumped from 52.6 to 54.7 in October (Chart 5). A drop in this index to 50 or below would be consistent with a US recession, while the combination of a strong service sector and a depressed manufacturing sector is consistent with our baseline 2015/16 roadmap. This roadmap leads to an eventual rebound in the manufacturing index. Second, the ISM Manufacturing PMI rose a tad in October, but the New Export Orders component jumped significantly from 41 to 50.4 (Chart 5, panel 2). Since the global slowdown began as a non-US phenomenon, a rebound in this export component sends a strong signal that we are at an inflection point. Finally, consumer confidence rose in October following a sharp decline in September. A year-over-year decline in the consumer confidence index is a reasonably strong recession signal, but recent data suggest that this signal is fading (Chart 5, bottom panel). Chart 4Modest Stimulus In China Chart 5Three Positive Developments All in all, the global growth data have turned more positive during the past month. US indicators, in particular, are no longer sending strong recessionary signals. A rebound in the CRB Raw Industrials index would give us more confidence in the durability of the recent rise in Treasury yields. Policy Uncertainty Uncertainty about the US/China trade conflict has eased considerably during the past few weeks, as the two sides appear to be working toward a “phase 1” deal that would prevent the imposition of new tariffs and roll back some that are already in place. Heightened uncertainty about the trade war played a large role in dragging bond yields lower in 2019. This becomes apparent when you notice that survey and sentiment (aka “soft”) data about the economic outlook have been significantly worse than the actual “hard” data on US economic activity.4 It is clear that negative sentiment about the trade war has held survey data and bond yields down, even as underlying US economic activity has been solid. Less bullish dollar sentiment supports a continued uptrend in Treasury yields.  We see a continued easing of trade tensions as we head into the first half of next year. President Trump has an incentive to support the economy in an election year, given the historical record of incumbent presidents being re-elected when the economy is strong. However, if this strategy doesn’t work and Trump finds himself behind in the polls by the end of next summer, then he could decide that ramping up the trade war again is the best course of action. In other words, another spike in policy uncertainty in the second half of 2020 is possible if President Trump is trailing in the polls. The US Dollar Chart 6Dollar Sentiment Points To Higher Yields The US dollar is important for the path of US Treasury yields because it signals whether US yields are decoupling from yields in the rest of the world. In other words, if the dollar appreciates significantly alongside rising Treasury yields, then we should view those yields as increasingly out of step with the rest of the world, and thus more likely to fall back down. So far, the dollar has been relatively flat as yields have risen and bullish sentiment toward the US dollar has declined significantly (Chart 6). Less bullish dollar sentiment supports a continued uptrend in Treasury yields. But if yields do in fact continue to rise, it will be important to watch the dollar’s reaction. The Output Gap Chart 7Wage Gains Hurting Margins, Not Raising Prices Some sense of the output gap is important for forecasting bond yields. This is because the same amount of global growth will lead to more inflationary pressure and higher bond yields when the output gap is small than when it is large. The fact that the output gap is smaller now than it was in 2016 is probably the reason why the 10-year Treasury yield bottomed 10 bps above its 2016 trough this year, and why the average Treasury index yield bottomed 47 bps above its 2016 trough. We have found wage growth to be an excellent indicator of the output gap, and noted in a recent report that wage growth should continue to accelerate.5 In this vein, another crucial variable to monitor is labor compensation as a percent of national income (Chart 7). The rise in this series indicates that wage gains during the past few years have come at the expense of corporate profit margins, and have not been passed through to higher consumer prices. If this series proves to have a lot more cyclical upside, then it could be some time before wage acceleration translates to higher inflation. Sentiment Chart 8Surprise Index Says Sentiment Is Neutral The final factor we consider when forecasting US Treasury yields is sentiment. We have found that the Economic Surprise Index is the single best measure of aggregate market sentiment. That is, when the Surprise index reaches a positive or negative extreme, it usually means that sentiment is too positive or too negative, and will mean-revert in the months ahead. Also, we have observed a strong correlation between the Surprise index and changes in Treasury yields (Chart 8). At present, the Surprise index is roughly neutral, and therefore does not send a strong signal about where sentiment might push bond yields during the next few months. Investment Conclusions To summarize, the outlook from our five macro factors suggests that Treasury yields will rise further in the coming months. Global growth indicators are showing tentative signs of bottoming, and should rise to levels more consistent with the “hard” economic data as policy uncertainty continues to wane. The fact that the US economic data look less recessionary than they did one month ago makes us more confident that our global indicators will rebound. Chart 9A Clear Path To 2.5% We would become concerned about a renewed downtick in yields if the CRB Raw Industrials index fails to rebound, or if the dollar strengthens significantly in the coming weeks. At the beginning of this report, we asked how high Treasury yields can go if the global growth rebound proves durable. To answer that question we refer to current estimates of the long-run neutral fed funds rate. The FOMC’s median estimate of the long-run neutral fed funds rate is 2.5% and the median estimate from the New York Fed’s Survey of Market Participants is 2.48%, with an interquartile range of 2.25% - 2.5%. If recessionary fears move to the back burner, it would be logical for long-dated yields to converge toward those levels. That is in fact what happened in recent years, with the 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yield peaking several times at levels close to the Fed’s median neutral rate estimate (Chart 9). With this in mind, we see a clear path to 2.5% on the 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yield, with the 10-year yield reaching similar levels since the 5/10 Treasury slope is likely to remain flat (Chart 9, bottom panel). For yields to eventually move above 2.5%, the market would have to re-consider its outlook for the long-run neutral fed funds rate. We discussed what factors to monitor in this regard in a recent report.6 Bottom Line: Treasury yields have moved significantly higher in recent weeks, but a survey of the five factors that determine the path for Treasury yields suggests that further upside is likely. We see a clear path to 2.5% for long-maturity Treasury yields as recessionary risk moves to the back burner in the coming months. Checking In On The Credit Cycle In previous reports, we mentioned that three factors drive our view of corporate bond spreads and the credit cycle: Balance sheet health Monetary conditions Valuation We last presented a detailed examination of these factors in a report from mid-September, concluding that accommodative monetary conditions will support corporate bond excess returns, despite deteriorating balance sheet health.7 Three factors drive our view of corporate bond spreads and the credit cycle: Balance sheet health, monetary conditions,and valuation. But since then, C&I lending standards – an important indicator of monetary conditions – moved into “net tightening” territory for the third quarter of 2019 (Chart 10). Tightening C&I lending standards, if they persist, would put significant upward pressure on corporate defaults and credit spreads. Chart 10Credit Cycle Checklist: Monetary Conditions While the recent move in lending standards is concerning, we expect it to reverse in the near future. The yield curve, another indicator of monetary conditions, has steepened in recent months, suggesting that conditions are becoming more accommodative. Also, loan officers reported that the terms on C&I loans continued to ease in Q3, even as overall standards tightened (Chart 10, panel 3). Most importantly, inflation expectations remain extremely low (Chart 10, bottom panel). This gives the Fed every incentive to maintain accommodative monetary conditions. This should give lenders the confidence to ease lending standards, leading to tight credit spreads and a low corporate default rate. Bottom Line: C&I lending standards tightened on net in the third quarter of 2019. But other indicators of monetary conditions point to continued accommodation. We expect lending standards will soon move back into “net easing” territory. Remain overweight Spread Product versus Treasuries. Downgrade Investment Grade Corporates To Neutral Last week, we downgraded our recommended allocation to investment grade corporate bonds from overweight to neutral.8 We maintain a positive view of the credit cycle, and expect that corporate bonds will continue to outperform Treasuries. However, investment grade corporate spreads no longer provide adequate compensation for their level of risk. We maintain an overweight allocation to high-yield corporates, where spreads remain attractive. Chart 11 shows that investment grade corporate spreads have tightened somewhat in recent months, but that they remain well above the tights seen in early 2018. However, the chart also shows that average index duration has increased considerably this year. All else equal, higher index duration justifies a wider spread. In contrast, notice that high-yield index duration fell this year (Chart 11, bottom panel). This is because high-yield bonds usually carry embedded call options, making them negatively convex. All else equal, lower index duration makes the spread offered by the high-yield index more attractive. Because changes in spread and duration are both important, we prefer to use the 12-month breakeven spread as our main valuation tool. This measure is the spread widening required on a 12-month investment horizon to underperform a duration-matched position in Treasuries. It can be approximated by dividing the option-adjusted spread by duration. Chart 12 shows investment grade 12-month breakeven spreads as a percentile rank since 1995. The overall message is that spreads have rarely been lower. Chart 11Higher Durations Makes IG Spreads Look Too Tight Chart 12Investment Grade Corporate Spreads Have Rarely Been Lower Finally, we can also recognize that spreads tend to be tight in the middle and late stages of the credit cycle. In the current environment, that means we should expect spreads to be near the bottom of their historical ranges. To control for this fact, we re-calculate our breakeven spread percentile ranks using only mid-cycle periods when the slope of the yield curve is between 0 bps and 50 bps. We can then back-out spread targets for each credit tier based on the median 12-month breakeven spreads seen in similar macro environments. Chart 13 shows that spreads for all investment grade credit tiers have moved below our targets. High-yield spreads are not shown, but they remain well above target levels.9 Chart 13Spreads For All IG Credit Tiers Are Below Target In place of investment grade corporates, which have become expensive, we recommend upgrading Agency MBS. MBS now offer expected returns that are comparable with corporate bonds rated A or higher, with considerably less risk.10 Bottom Line: Investment grade corporate bond spreads for all credit tiers are now below our fair value targets. We recommend only a neutral allocation to the sector. Investors should prefer high-yield bonds, where spreads are more attractive, and Agency MBS, which offer competitive expected returns and much less risk.   Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Bond Kitchen”, dated April 9, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 For details on why the ratio between the CRB Raw Industrials index and Gold tracks the 10-year Treasury yield please see US Bond Strategy Portfolio Allocation Summary, “The Sequence Of Reflation”, dated March 5, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see China Investment Strategy Special Report, “The Data Lab: Testing The Predictability Of China’s Business Cycle”, dated November 30, 2017, available at cis.bcaresearch.com 4 For more details on the divergence between “soft” and “hard” data please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Crisis Of Confidence”, dated October 22, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 5 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Position For Modest Curve Steepening”, dated October 29, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 6 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Position For Modest Curve Steepening”, dated October 29, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 7 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Corporate Bond Investors Should Not Fight The Fed”, dated September 17, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 8 Please see US Bond Strategy Portfolio Allocation Summary, “The Fed Will Stay Supportive”, dated November 5, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 9 For details on how we calculate our spread targets please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Value In Corporate Bonds”, dated February 19, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 10 For more details on the positive outlook for MBS please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Two Themes And Two Trades”, dated October 1, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

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

Highlights Global: Global growth momentum is bottoming out, leading indicators are improving, inflation is subdued, and central bankers are biased to maintain accommodative monetary policies. This is a bullish “sweet spot” for financial markets, suggesting further upside for global risk assets like equities and corporate credit, especially relative to government bonds. US: The overall US economy is weathering the storm from the global manufacturing slump, which is showing signs of bottoming out.  Stay below-benchmark on US Treasury duration, with an initial yield target of 2.25% for the benchmark 10-year. Canada: The Bank of Canada is hinting that “insurance” rate cuts may be needed, but with the Canadian economy and inflation both remaining resilient, the central bank is more likely to keep rates steady until global growth improves.  Stay neutral on Canadian government bonds, for now, but prepare to move to underweight in early 2020. Feature After knocking on the door several times in recent weeks, global equity markets are finally enjoying a true breakout.  In the U.S., the S&P 500 is setting new all-time highs on a daily basis, while equities in Europe and emerging markets (EM) are also registering solid gains. There is no conflicting signal from global corporate credit markets where spreads remain stable, or from the volatility space with measures like the US VIX index hovering near the 2019 lows. Chart Of The WeekThings Are Looking Up Despite this positive price action, many remain skeptical that this “risk rally” is sustainable.  Just last week, a headline in the Financial Times declared that the “U.S. stock market’s new highs baffles investors”. We find that reluctance to accept the equity market strength to be even more baffling, as the current macro backdrop is a perfect “sweet spot” for risk assets to do well.  Global economic momentum is bottoming out, with improving leading indicators suggesting better days lie ahead for growth.  A majority of central banks worldwide have eased monetary policy over the past several months, providing a more supportive liquidity backdrop for financial markets.  The world’s most important central bank, the Federal Reserve, has delivered a cumulative -75bps of rate cuts since July, helping to cool off the US dollar, which is now flat on a year-over-year basis in trade-weighted terms (Chart Of The Week).  A softening dollar is also often a signal that global growth is improving, as it indicates a shift in capital flows into more economically-sensitive non-U.S. markets like Europe and EM.  Thus, a weaker greenback combined with better global growth prospects should help lift global bond yields by raising depressed inflation expectations (middle panel).  The “sweet spot” of accelerating growth and easy money will support the continued outperformance of global equities and credit over government bonds, in an environment of gently rising bond yields. Yet with policymakers worldwide still playing the stimulus game, fearful of persistent negative impacts on growth from the U.S.-China trade dispute and other political uncertainties, it will take a large and sustained increase in inflation expectations before there is any shift to a more hawkish global policy bias.  This is critical for bond markets, as a much bigger move higher in global bond yields would require not just a pricing out of rate cut expectations, but the pricing in of future rate hikes. Such a repricing will not occur before there is clear evidence that global growth, broadly speaking, is accelerating for a sustained period and not just stabilizing in a few countries. The earliest we can envision such a hawkish shift for global monetary policy would be late in 2020, led by the Fed signaling a removal of some of the “insurance” rate cuts of 2019.  Until that happens, the “sweet spot” of accelerating growth and easy money will support the continued outperformance of global equities and credit over government bonds, in an environment of gently rising bond yields. The Art Of Analyzing Economic Data At Turning Points Typically, at turning points in the global growth cycle, there are always data available to support the arguments of both optimists and pessimists. That is certainly the case today, where so-called “hard” economic data that is reported with a lag (i.e. exports, durable goods orders) remains weak, but leading indicators are starting to improve. For example, the global manufacturing PMI data for October released last week shows the following (Chart 2): strong pickup in China, with the Caixin manufacturing PMI now up to 51.7; slight improvement in the US ISM manufacturing index, which rose from 47.8 to 48.3 in the month but remains below the 50 boom/bust line; bounce in the U.K. Markit manufacturing PMI index, rising from 48.3 to 49.6; the slightest of increases in the overall euro area Markit manufacturing PMI, from 45.7 to 45.9, still below the 50 line but showing marginal improvement in the critical German PMI; Continued weakness in the Japanese Markit manufacturing PMI, which fell to 48.4. The relative message from the PMIs fits with the signals sent from the OECD leading economic indicators (LEI) for those same countries, with the China LEI strengthening the most and the LEIs in Europe and Japan still struggling. The US is a mixed bag, with the ISM ticking up but the LEI languishing. There is, however, a sign of optimism in the export sub-index of the ISM manufacturing data. That measure surged nine points in October from 41.0 to 50.4, signaling a potential bottoming of the overall ISM index within the next three months (Chart 3).  While the ISM exports index is volatile, the modest improvement seen in the export order series from the China manufacturing PMI over the past few months (bottom panel) suggests that there may be a more significant improvement in global trade activity brewing – as signaled by the improvement in our global LEI index. Another possible explanation for the reduction in U.S. capital spending is slowing growth in corporate profits, which is related to a number of factors beyond the impact of tariffs and the trade war. Chart 2Global PMIs Are A Mixed Bag Chart 3Momentum Turning For The Trade Warriors? Bottom Line: Global growth momentum is bottoming out, leading indicators are improving, inflation is subdued, and central bankers are biased to maintain accommodative monetary policies. This is a bullish “sweet spot” for financial markets, suggesting further upside for global risk assets like equities and corporate credit, especially relative to government bonds. US Capital Spending Slowdown:  Only A Cautious Pause Chart 4Rising Uncertainty? Or Just Slowing Profit Growth? For growth pessimists in the US, a modest boost to “soft” data like the ISM does not allay their concerns about a broadening US economic slowdown. The trade war with China and the global manufacturing recession have had a clear negative impact on business confidence when looking at measures like the Conference Board CEO survey.  At the same time, US capital spending has contracted in real terms during the 2nd and 3rd quarter of 2019.  A logical inference would be to say that uncertainty over the trade war has led to a reduction in capex. Another possible explanation for the reduction in U.S. capital spending is slowing growth in corporate profits, which is related to a number of factors beyond the impact of tariffs and the trade war. Like the fading impact of the 2018 U.S. corporate tax cuts (that helped trigger a surge in after-tax earnings growth) and the squeeze on profit margins from higher labor costs. On a year-over-year basis, US profit growth has slowed from nearly 25% in 2018 to 1.8% in the 3rd quarter (a projection based on the 76% of S&P 500 companies that have already reported).  The real non-residential investment spending category from the US GDP accounts has slowed alongside profits, from 6.8% to 1.3% on a year-over-year basis (Chart 4). At the same time, annual growth in US non-farm payrolls has slowed only modestly from 1.91% to 1.4%, with average hourly earnings growth falling from a 2019 peak of 3.4% to 3.0% in October. Given the tightness of the US labor market, with firms continuing to report difficulties in finding quality labor, it should come as no surprise that employment and wages have not slowed as much as capital spending, despite the sharp downturn in profit growth.  Businesses that see their earnings getting squeezed will seek to protect profits by cutting back on investment and hiring activity. With a tight labor market, however, cutting capital spending is an easier and less costly decision than laying off workers, as it may be even harder to re-hire those employees if the economy starts to improve once again. With the US Treasury curve no longer inverted, after -75bps of Fed rate cuts and with longer-dated Treasury yields starting to increase, the US economy is stepping back from the recessionary abyss that worried investors during the summer. That can also be seen when breaking down the US non-residential investment data into its broad sub-components (Chart 5).  On a contribution-to-growth basis, the only part of US investment spending that is outright contracting year-over-year is Structures. There is still modest positive annual growth in Equipment investment, although that did contract on a quarter-on-quarter basis in Q3/2019. The Intellectual Property Products category (which includes Software, in addition to Research & Development) continues to expand at a steady pace. Chart 5Slowing US Capex Focused On Structures Chart 6The Fed Has Dis-Inverted The UST Curve So similar to signals from global PMIs and LEIs, the U.S. capital spending and employment data are sending a mixed message about U.S. growth. Yes, capital spending has slowed but the bulk of the deceleration has come in the component where canceling or delaying investment plans is easiest – buildings and construction. It is not necessarily an indication that a deeper economic downturn is unfolding. Similar cutbacks in Structures investment, without a broader decline in overall capital spending, occurred in 2013 and 2015/16.  During the past two U.S. recessions in 2001 and 2008, however, all categories of capital spending contracted. If we look at the breakdown of the contribution to US investment spending today, the backdrop looks more like those non-recessionary years. With the US Treasury curve no longer inverted, after -75bps of Fed rate cuts and with longer-dated Treasury yields starting to increase, the US economy is stepping back from the recessionary abyss that worried investors during the summer (Chart 6).  The trade détente between the US and China will help boost depressed business confidence, especially with global growth already showing signs of bottoming out. This, along with a softer US dollar and some easing of wage pressures, will help put a floor underneath US corporate profit growth. Treasury yields have more upside from here, as markets are still priced for -25bps of Fed rate cuts over the next year that is unlikely to happen if the US economy rebounds, as we expect.  Bottom Line:  The overall US economy is weathering the storm from the global manufacturing slump, which is showing signs of bottoming out.  Stay below-benchmark on US Treasury duration, with an initial yield target of 2.25% for the benchmark 10-year. The Bank Of Canada’s Newfound Caution Is Unwarranted Chart 7Canada Is A High-Beta Bond Market The Bank of Canada (BoC) has been one of the few central banks to resist the shift towards easier global monetary policy in 2019.  This has resulted in Canadian government bonds trading at relatively wide yield spreads to other countries in the developed world, even as global growth has slowed in 2019 (Chart 7).  With global growth now set to improve over the next 6-12 months, Canada’s historic status as a “high yield beta” bond market during periods of rising global yields suggests that Canadian government bonds should underperform in 2020. However, in the press conference following last week’s policy meeting, BoC Governor Stephen Poloz noted that the BoC was “mindful that the resilience of Canada’s economy will be increasingly tested as trade conflicts and uncertainty persist.” Poloz even revealed that an “insurance” rate cut was discussed at the policy meeting, although the BoC Governing Council decided against it.  This is similar language to that parroted by the more dovish global central bankers over the past several months, raising the risk that Canada could be a lower-beta bond market if the Canadian economy falters. That outcome seems unlikely, given the indications of improving growth momentum, occurring alongside tight labor markets and stable inflation: The RBC/Markit Canadian manufacturing PMI has climbed from a trough of 49 in May to 51 in October, indicating that real GDP growth accelerated in Q3 (Chart 8, top panel); The BoC’s Autumn 2019 Business Outlook Survey (BoS) showed that an increasing share of firms are reporting labor shortages, coinciding with a sharp pickup in the annual growth rate of average weekly earnings to just over 4% (middle panel); Core inflation measures remain right at the midpoint of the BoC’s 1-3% target range, although breakeven inflation rates from Canadian Real Return Bonds remain closer to the bottom end of that range (bottom panel); After a long period of adjustment, house prices and housing activity are showing some signs of recovery in response to easier financial conditions, rising household incomes and improved affordability (Chart 9); Chart 8Resilience In Canadian Growth & Inflation Chart 9Canadian Housing Showing Improvement Canadian investment spending is set to pick up, as the Autumn 2019 BoS reported a modest improvement in overall business sentiment and an increase in capital spending plans with a growing number of firms facing capacity pressures (Chart 10). Our bias is to downgrade Canadian government bonds to underweight heading into 2020, as we expect a return to their typical high-beta status during a period of accelerating global growth and rising bond yields. Chart 10Signs Of Life For Canadian Capex? Looking forward, reduced U.S.-China trade tensions should provide a boost to Canadian capex. Firms that had previously held off in the past few months due to the slowdown in the economy, caused partially by worries over global trade, will start to invest again. The BoC’s updated forecasts in the latest Monetary Policy Report released last week showed that the central bank expects Canadian exports to resume their expansion in 2020 – despite Governor Poloz’s stated concerns over global growth. Oil and gas exports are expected to improve as pipeline and rail capacity gradually expand, while consumer goods excluding automobiles should remain strong. Improvement in Chinese economic activity would provide a meaningful lift to Canadian exports, as Chinese imports from Canada are still contracting at a double-digit rate (Chart 11).  More importantly, Canadian exports to the country’s largest trade partner, the US, have already stabilized and should accelerate as the US economy gains momentum in the next 6-12 months. As Governor Poloz mentioned during the press conference, the BoC's decisions are not going to be directly influenced by political events such as Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s recent re-election. Yet the odds of Canadian fiscal stimulus have shot up after Trudeau could only secure a minority government in the Canadian Parliament. Any fiscal stimulus is starting from a healthier place with the budget deficit currently at only -1% of GDP and the net government debt-to-GDP ratio falling towards a low 40% level (Chart 12).  Expected fiscal stimulus will provide an incremental boost to Canadian growth in 2020. Chart 11The Global Trade Slump Has Hurt Canada Chart 12Canada Can Afford A Fiscal Stimulus Net-net, the Canadian economy appears to be in good shape, with momentum starting to improve.  Inflation remains close to the BoC target, with rising pressures stemming from a tight labor market. This is not a backdrop that would be conducive to an “insurance” rate cut in December or even in early 2020.  Only -18bps of rate cuts over the next twelve months are discounted in the Canadian Overnight Index Swap (OIS) curve. Yet there is only a 16% chance of a -25bp cut expected at the December 2019 meeting, according to Bloomberg.  In other words, the markets are not taking the threat of a BoC rate cut seriously – a view that we agree with. Chart 13Stay Neutral On Canadian Government Bonds We suspect that Governor Poloz’s comments about a potential BoC policy ease were more designed to take some steam out of the strengthening Canadian dollar (Chart 13), which was threatening a major breakout going into last week’s BoC meeting.  We would be surprised if a rate cut was delivered at the December 2019 BoC meeting, but the dovish message sent last week does raise the possibility that the BoC could shock us. For now, we are choosing to stick with our neutral recommendation on Canadian government bonds, but we will re-evaluate after the December 4 BoC meeting. Our bias is to downgrade Canadian government bonds to underweight heading into 2020, as we expect a return to their typical high-beta status during a period of accelerating global growth and rising bond yields. Bottom Line: The Bank of Canada is hinting that “insurance” rate cuts may be needed, but with the Canadian economy and inflation both remaining resilient, the central bank is more likely to keep rates steady until global growth improves.  Stay neutral on Canadian government bonds, for now, but prepare to move to underweight in early 2020. A Brief Follow Up To Our US MBS Versus IG Corporates Recommendation Chart 14Spread Targets Reached - Downgrade US IG To Neutral In last week’s report, we made the case for raising allocations to US Agency MBS while reducing exposure to higher-quality US investment grade (IG) corporate credit.1 We implemented the trade in our model bond portfolio, lowering our recommended allocation to US IG and increasing the weighting to US Agency MBS.  We now see a case for shifting to a formal strategic recommendation, upgrading US Agency MBS to overweight (a ranking of 4 out of 5 in the tables on page 14) and downgrading US IG to neutral (3 out of 5).  The rationale for the shift is based on valuation. Our colleagues at BCA Research US Bond Strategy calculate spread targets for each credit tier within US IG (Aaa, Aa, A and Baa). The targets are determined using a methodology that ranks the option-adjusted spread (OAS) of the Bloomberg Barclays index for each credit tier relative to its history, while controlling for the “phase” of the economic cycle as determined by the slope of the US Treasury yield curve.2 The latest rally in IG has driven the OAS for all tiers below those targets, with the Baa tier looking less expensive than the others (Chart 14).  As a result, we now advise only a neutral allocation to US IG corporates, with a preference for the Baa credit tier. Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com Ray Park, CFA Research Analyst ray@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1Please see BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, “Big Mo(mentum) Is Turning Positive”, dated Oct 29, 2019, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com 2For details on how those spread targets are determined, please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Value In Corporate Bonds”, dated February 19, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

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

Highlights Chart 1The Fed Must Remain Dovish Many were quick to label last week’s FOMC decision a “hawkish cut”. This is somewhat true in the near-term. The Fed lowered rates by 25 basis points while signaling that it doesn’t expect to have to cut more. But this focus on the near-term rate path misses the big picture. In the post-meeting press conference, Chairman Powell mentioned inflation expectations several different times. At one point, he called them “central” to the Fed’s framework and said “we need them to be anchored at a level that’s consistent with our symmetric 2 percent inflation goal.” As of today, the 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rate is 1.69%, well short of the 2.3%-2.5% range that is consistent with the Fed’s goal (Chart 1). The Fed will take care to maintain an accommodative policy stance until inflation expectations are re-anchored. This will provide strong support for risk assets, and we recommend overweight positions in spread product versus Treasuries. We also expect that global growth will improve enough in the coming months for the Fed to keep its promise to stand pat. With the market still priced for 29 bps of cuts during the next 12 months, investors should keep portfolio duration low. Investment Grade: Neutral Chart 2Investment Grade Market Overview Investment grade corporate bonds outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 60 basis points in October, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +429 bps. We consider three main factors in our credit cycle analysis: (i) corporate balance sheet health, (ii) monetary conditions and (iii) valuation.1 On balance sheets, our top-down measure of gross leverage is elevated and rising (Chart 2). In contrast, interest coverage ratios remain solid, propped up by the Fed’s accommodative stance. With inflation expectations still depressed, the Fed can maintain its “easy money” policy for some time yet. The Fed’s Senior Loan Officer survey shows that C&I lending standards tightened in Q3 (bottom panel). We expect the Fed’s accommodative stance to push standards back into “net easing” territory in Q4. But if standards continue to tighten, it could indicate that monetary conditions are not as accommodative as we think. For now, we see valuation as the main headwind for investment grade credit spreads. Spreads for all credit tiers are now below our targets, with the Baa tier looking less expensive than the others (panels 2 & 3).2 As a result, we advise only a neutral allocation to investment grade corporate bonds, with a preference for the Baa credit tier. We also recommend increasing exposure to Agency MBS in place of corporate bonds rated A or higher. Table 3ACorporate Sector Relative Valuation And Recommended Allocation* Table 3BCorporate Sector Risk Vs. Reward* High-Yield: Overweight Chart 3High-Yield Market Overview High-Yield performed in line with the duration-equivalent Treasury index in October, keeping year-to-date excess returns steady at +621 bps. The junk index’s option-adjusted spread (OAS) has been fairly stable for most of the year, but the sector has become increasingly attractive from a risk/reward perspective.3 This is because the index’s negatively convex nature has caused its average duration to fall alongside declining Treasury yields. Chart 3 shows that while the index OAS has been rangebound, the 12-month breakeven spread has widened considerably.4 In other words, while junk expected returns have been stable, those expected returns now come with considerably less risk. As a result, the junk index OAS looks increasingly attractive relative to our spread target.5 Specifically, we now view the junk index OAS as 141 bps cheap (panel 3). Falling index duration also explains the divergence between quality spreads and the index OAS. Many have observed that the spread differential between Caa and Ba-rated junk bonds has widened in recent months, while the overall index OAS has been stable (panel 4). However, the divergence evaporates when we look at 12-month breakeven spreads instead of OAS (bottom panel). MBS: Overweight Chart 4MBS Market Overview Mortgage-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 9 basis points in October, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +3 bps. The conventional 30-year zero-volatility spread widened 4 bps on the month, as a 5 bps widening of the option-adjusted spread (OAS) was partially offset by a 1 bp decline in option cost (i.e. the expected losses from prepayments). This week we recommend upgrading Agency MBS from neutral to overweight, and in particular, we recommend favoring Agency MBS over corporate bonds rated A or higher. We have three main reasons for this recommendation.6 First, expected compensation is competitive. The conventional 30-year MBS OAS is now 53 bps. This is above its pre-crisis average (Chart 4), and only 4 bps below the spread offered by a Aa-rated corporate bond. All investment grade corporate bond credit tiers also look expensive relative to our spread targets. Second, risk-adjusted compensation heavily favors MBS. The Excess Return Bond Map in Appendix C shows that Agency MBS plot well to the right of investment grade corporates. This means that the sector is less likely to see losses versus Treasuries on a 12-month horizon. Finally, the macro environment for MBS remains supportive. Mortgage lending standards have barely eased since the financial crisis (bottom panel), and most people have already had at least one opportunity to refinance their mortgages. This burnout will keep refi activity low, and MBS spreads tight (panel 2). Government-Related: Underweight Chart 5Government-Related Market Overview The Government-Related index outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 20 basis points in October, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +183 bps. Sovereign debt outperformed duration-equivalent Treasuries by 38 bps on the month, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +475 bps. Local Authorities outperformed the Treasury benchmark by 9 bps, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +220 bps. Meanwhile, Foreign Agencies outperformed by 63 bps, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +261 bps. Domestic Agencies underperformed by 2 bps in October, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to +40 bps. Supranationals underperformed by 8 bps on the month, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to +31 bps. We continue to recommend an underweight allocation to USD-denominated sovereign bonds, given that spreads remain expensive compared to U.S. corporate credit (Chart 5). However, we noted in a recent report that Mexican and Saudi Arabian sovereigns look attractive on a risk/reward basis.7 This is also true for Foreign Agencies and Local Authorities, as shown in the Bond Map in Appendix C. Our Emerging Markets Strategy service also thinks that worries about Mexico’s fiscal position are overblown, and that bond yields embed too high of a risk premium (bottom panel).8  Municipal Bonds: Overweight Chart 6Municipal Market Overview Municipal bonds underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 7 basis points in October, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to -64 bps (before adjusting for the tax advantage). The average Aaa-rated Municipal / Treasury (M/T) yield ratio fell almost 2% in October, and currently sits at 85% (Chart 6). We recently upgraded municipal bonds from neutral to overweight.9 The decision was based on the fact that yield ratios had jumped significantly. Yield ratios continue to look attractive relative to average pre-crisis levels, especially at the long-end of the Aaa curve (panel 2). Specifically, 2-year and 5-year M/T yield ratios are close to average pre-crisis levels at 73% and 77%, respectively. Meanwhile, M/T yield ratios for longer maturities are all above average pre-crisis levels. M/T yield ratios for 10-year, 20-year and 30-year maturities are 86%, 94% and 97%, respectively.   Fundamentally, state & local government balance sheets remain solid. Our Municipal Health Monitor remains in “improving health” territory and state & local government interest coverage has improved considerably in recent quarters (bottom panel). Both of these trends are consistent with muni ratings upgrades continuing to outnumber downgrades going forward. Treasury Curve: Maintain A Barbell Curve Positioning Chart 7Treasury Yield Curve Overview The Treasury curve steepened considerably in October, as short-dated yields came under downward pressure even as long-maturity yields edged higher. The 2/10 Treasury slope steepened 12 bps on the month, and currently sits at 17 bps. The 5/30 slope steepened 9 bps on the month, and currently sits at 66 bps (Chart 7). Last week’s report discussed the outlook for the 2/10 Treasury slope on a 6-12 month horizon.10 We considered the main macro factors that influence the slope of the yield curve: Fed policy, wage growth, inflation expectations and the neutral fed funds rate. We concluded that the 2/10 slope has room to steepen during the next few months, as the Fed holds down the front-end of the curve in an effort to re-anchor inflation expectations. However, we see the 2/10 slope remaining in a range between 0 bps and 50 bps, owing to strong wage growth and downbeat neutral rate expectations. Despite the outlook for modest curve steepening, we continue to recommend holding a barbelled Treasury portfolio. Specifically, we favor holding a 2/30 barbell versus the 5-year bullet, in duration-matched terms. This position offers strong positive carry (bottom panel), due to the extreme overvaluation of the 5-year note, and looks attractive on our yield curve models (see Appendix B). TIPS: Overweight Chart 8Inflation Compensation TIPS outperformed the duration-equivalent nominal Treasury index by 27 basis points in October, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to -64 bps. The 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate rose 1 bp on the month, and currently sits at 1.60%. The 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rate fell 8 bps on the month, and currently sits at 1.69%. Both rates remain well below the 2.3%-2.5% range consistent with the Fed’s target. The divergence between the actual inflation data and inflation expectations is becoming increasingly stark. Trimmed mean PCE inflation has been fluctuating around the Fed’s target for most of the year (Chart 8). However, long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates remain stubbornly low. As we have pointed out in prior research, it can take time for expectations to adapt to a changing macro environment.11 That being said, the 10-year TIPS breakeven rate is currently 32 bps too low according to our Adaptive Expectations Model, a model whose primary input is 10-year trailing core inflation (panel 4). It is highly likely that the Fed will have to tolerate some overshoot of its 2% inflation target in order to re-anchor inflation expectations near desired levels. We anticipate that the committee will do so, and maintain our view that long-dated TIPS breakevens will move above 2.3% before the end of the cycle. ABS: Underweight Chart 9ABS Market Overview Asset-Backed Securities underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 5 basis points in October, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to +67 bps. The index option-adjusted spread for Aaa-rated ABS widened 5 bps on the month. It currently sits at 39 bps, 5 bps above its minimum pre-crisis level (Chart 9). Our Excess Return Bond Map (see Appendix C) shows that Aaa-rated consumer ABS rank among the most defensive U.S. spread products and also offer more expected return than other low-risk sectors such as Domestic Agency bonds and Supranationals. However, we remain wary of allocating too much to consumer ABS because credit trends continue to shift in the wrong direction. The consumer credit delinquency rate is still low, but has put in a clear bottom. The same is true for the household interest expense ratio (panel 3). Senior loan officers also continue to tighten lending standards for both credit cards and auto loans. Tighter lending standards usually coincide with rising delinquencies (bottom panel). All in all, our favorable outlook for global growth causes us to shy away from defensive spread products, and deteriorating ABS credit metrics are also a cause for concern. Stay underweight. Non-Agency CMBS: Neutral Chart 10CMBS Market Overview Non-Agency Commercial Mortgage-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 6 basis points in October, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +233 bps. The index option-adjusted spread for non-agency Aaa-rated CMBS was flat on the month. It currently sits at 73 bps, below its average pre-crisis level but somewhat above levels seen in 2018 (Chart 10). The macro outlook for commercial real estate (CRE) is somewhat unfavorable, with lenders tightening loan standards (panel 4) in an environment of tepid demand. The Fed’s Senior Loan Officer survey shows that banks saw slightly stronger demand for nonfarm nonresidential CRE loans in Q3, after four consecutive quarters of falling demand (bottom panel). CRE prices have accelerated of late, but are still not keeping pace with CMBS spreads (panel 3). Despite the poor fundamental picture, our Excess Return Bond Map shows that CMBS offer a reasonably attractive risk/reward trade-off compared to other bond sectors (see Appendix C). Agency CMBS: Overweight Agency CMBS outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 10 basis points in October, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +100 bps. The index option-adjusted spread was flat on the month, and currently sits at 57 bps. The Excess Return Bond Map in Appendix C shows that Agency CMBS offer a compelling risk/reward trade-off. An overweight allocation to this high-rated sector remains appropriate. Appendix A: The Golden Rule Of Bond Investing We follow a two-step process to formulate recommendations for bond portfolio duration. First, we determine the change in the federal funds rate that is priced into the yield curve for the next 12 months. Second, we decide – based on our assessments of the economy and Fed policy – whether the change in the fed funds rate will exceed or fall short of what is priced into the curve. Most of the time, a correct answer to this question leads to the appropriate duration call. We call this framework the Golden Rule Of Bond Investing, and we demonstrated its effectiveness in the U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, “The Golden Rule Of Bond Investing”, dated July 24, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com. Chart 11 illustrates the Golden Rule’s track record by showing that the Bloomberg Barclays Treasury Master Index tends to outperform cash when rate hikes fall short of 12-month expectations, and vice-versa. Chart 11The Golden Rule's Track Record At present, the market is priced for 29 basis points of cuts during the next 12 months. We anticipate a flat fed funds rate over that time horizon, and therefore anticipate that below-benchmark portfolio duration positions will profit. We can also use our Golden Rule framework to make 12-month total return and excess return forecasts for the Bloomberg Barclays Treasury index under different scenarios for the fed funds rate. Excess returns are relative to the Bloomberg Barclays Cash index. To forecast total returns we first calculate the 12-month fed funds rate surprise in each scenario by comparing the assumed change in the fed funds rate to the current value of our 12-month discounter. This rate hike surprise is then mapped to an expected change in the Treasury index yield using a regression based on the historical relationship between those two variables. Finally, we apply the expected change in index yield to the current characteristics (yield, duration and convexity) of the Treasury index to estimate total returns on a 12-month horizon. The below tables present those results, along with 95% confidence intervals. Excess returns are calculated by subtracting assumed cash returns in each scenario from our total return projections. Appendix B: Butterfly Strategy Valuations The following tables present the current read-outs from our butterfly spread models. We use these models to identify opportunities to take duration-neutral positions across the Treasury curve. The following two Special Reports explain the models in more detail: U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, “Bullets, Barbells And Butterflies”, dated July 25, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, “More Bullets, Barbells And Butterflies”, dated May 15, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Table 4 shows the raw residuals from each model. A positive value indicates that the bullet is cheap relative to the duration-matched barbell. A negative value indicates that the barbell is cheap relative to the bullet. Table 4Butterfly Strategy Valuations: Raw Residuals In Basis Points (As Of November 1, 2019) Table 5 scales the raw residuals in Table 4 by their historical means and standard deviations. This facilitates comparison between the different butterfly spreads. Table 5Butterfly Strategy Valuation: Standardized Residuals (As Of November 1, 2019) Table 6 flips the models on their heads. It shows the change in the slope between the two barbell maturities that must be realized during the next six months to make returns between the bullet and barbell equal. For example, a reading of 48 bps in the 5 over 2/10 cell means that we would only expect the 5-year to outperform the 2/10 if the 2/10 slope steepens by more than 48 bps during the next six months. Otherwise, we would expect the 2/10 barbell to outperform the 5-year bullet. Table 6Discounted Slope Change During Next 6 Months (BPs) Appendix C: Excess Return Bond Map The Excess Return Bond Map is used to assess the relative risk/reward trade-off between different sectors of the U.S. bond market. It is a purely computational exercise and does not impose any macroeconomic view. The Map’s vertical axis shows 12-month expected excess returns. These are proxied by each sector’s option-adjusted spread. Sectors plotting further toward the top of the Map have higher expected returns and vice-versa. Our novel risk measure called the “Risk Of Losing 100 bps” is shown on the Map’s horizontal axis. To calculate it, we first compute the spread widening required on a 12-month horizon for each sector to lose 100 bps or more relative to a duration-matched position in Treasury securities. Then, we divide that amount of spread widening by each sector’s historical spread volatility. The end result is the number of standard deviations of 12-month spread widening required for each sector to lose 100 bps or more versus a position in Treasuries. Lower risk sectors plot further to the right of the Map, and higher risk sectors plot further to the left. Chart 12Excess Return Bond Map (As Of November 1, 2019) Ryan Swift U.S. Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Jeremie Peloso Research Analyst jeremiep@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Corporate Bond Investors Should Not Fight The Fed”, dated September 17, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 For details on how we arrive at our spread targets please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Value In Corporate Bonds”, dated February 19, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Crisis Of Confidence”, dated October 22, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 4 The 12-month breakeven spread is the spread widening required to break even with a duration-matched position in Treasuries on a 12-month horizon. It can be approximated by OAS divided by duration. 5 For details on how we arrive at our spread targets please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Value In Corporate Bonds”, dated February 19, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 6 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Two Themes And Two Trades”, dated October 1, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 7 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “A Perspective On Risk And Reward”, dated October 15, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 8 Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report, “Country Insights: Malaysia, Mexico & Central Europe”, dated October 31, 2019, available at ems.bcaresearch.com 9 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Two Themes and Two Trades”, dated October 1, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 10 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Position For Modest Curve Steepening”, dated October 29, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 11 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Adaptive Expectations In The TIPS Market”, dated November 20, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification Corporate Sector Relative Valuation And Recommended Allocation

Special Report

Highlights Rising recession risk, shaky economic fundamentals, and absence of positive yielding assets motivate us to reexamine which assets can be counted on to protect a portfolio in the future. We analyze 10 safe havens on four different dimensions: consistency, versatility, efficiency, and costs. Using this framework, we examine the historical performance of each safe haven and provide an outlook on their likely effectiveness over the next decade. We conclude that U.S. TIPS and farmland should provide the best portfolio protection. Cash, U.S. Treasuries and gold are other good alternatives. Meanwhile, U.S. investment-grade bonds, global ex-U.S. bonds, silver, and currency futures are likely to be poor protection choices. Feature For most investors, capital preservation is the most important goal when managing money. However, how to go about it remains a difficult question.  Investing in safe havens can be painful during bull markets, as their returns are usually lower than those of equities. Moreover, economic, political, and financial regimes change over time, which means that an asset that protected your portfolio in the past might not do so in the future. Therefore, it becomes good practice to review one’s safety measures periodically, even if one does not think that a crash is imminent. The current environment in particular, is a propitious time to review safe havens given that: Chart I-1A Great Time To Review Safety Measures A key recession signal is flashing red: The yield curve inverted in the United States in August (Chart I-1 – top panel). An inversion of the yield curve does not necessarily imply a recession, but historically it has been a very reliable signal of one, given that it indicates that monetary policy is too tight for the economy. Structural risks are rising: Rich equity valuations in the U.S. and high leverage levels elsewhere are signs that the pillars supporting this bull market might be fragile (Chart I-1 – middle panel). In addition, protectionism and populism, forces that BCA has long argued are here to stay, threaten to upend the regime of free trade that has benefited equities since the 1950s.1 Yields are near all-time lows: Historically, investors have been able to endure bear markets by hiding in safe assets with positive yield, as these assets will normally provide a reliable cash flow regardless of the economic situation. However, these type of assets are increasingly hard to find, particularly in the government bond space, where 50% of developed country bonds have negative yields (Chart I-1 – bottom panel). Considering these factors, how should investors protect their portfolios in the next decade? To answer this question, we analyze 10 safe havens divided into five broad asset classes: Nominal government bonds: U.S. Treasuries and global ex-U.S. government bonds. Other fixed income: U.S. investment-grade credit and U.S. TIPS.2 Currencies: yen futures and Swiss franc futures. Precious metals: gold futures and silver futures. Other assets: farmland and U.S. cash. We look at historical performance since 1973 for all safe havens except for global ex-U.S. bonds and farmland. For these assets, we look at performance since 1991 due to limited data availability. We mainly look at quarterly returns in order to compare illiquid assets to publicly traded ones. We do not consider each safe haven in isolation, but rather as an addition to equities within a portfolio. Specifically, we explore our safe haven universe relative to the MSCI All Country World equity index from the perspective of a U.S. investor. For our non-U.S. clients, we will release a report from the perspective of other countries if there is sufficient interest. Importantly, we do not look only at historical performance. We also examine whether there is a reason to believe that future returns will be different from past ones, by analyzing how the properties of each safe haven might have changed. When evaluating each safe haven, we focus on four properties: Consistency: a safe haven should generate consistent positive returns during periods of negative equity performance, with returns increasing with the severity of the equity drawdown. Versatility: safe havens should perform well across different types of crises. Efficiency: a safe haven should produce enough upside during crises, so only a small allocation to the safe haven is necessary to reduce losses. Costs: drag to portfolio overall performance (opportunity costs) should be as small as possible. Readers who wish to see just our overall conclusions should read our Summary Of Results section below. For our analysis of how safe havens have performed in the past, please see the Historical Performance section. Finally, for our analysis of how we expect the performance of safe havens to change, please see our Outlook section. Summary Of Results The Best Safe Havens U.S. TIPS should be an excellent safe haven to protect a portfolio in the next decade. While TIPS might not be as cheap to hold as they have been in the past, upside potential remains strong, which means that a moderate allocation can provide substantial protection to an equity portfolio. Moreover, U.S. TIPS are one of the best hedges against crises triggered by rising rates and inflation, which in our view are the biggest structural risks that asset allocators face. Farmland could also be a great safe haven for investors who have the ability to allocate to illiquid assets given that it is the cheapest safe haven in terms of portfolio drag. However, investors should be aware that the current low yield could potentially affect its performance during crises. Good Alternatives Cash can be a good alternative to protect an equity portfolio, given its outstanding performance during equity drawdowns caused by inflation. Moreover, its opportunity costs should decrease relative to the past. However, investors should take into account that the efficiency of cash at the current juncture is poor, which means that a relatively large allocation is needed in order to achieve meaningful portfolio protection. A portfolio with a 30% allocation to Treasuries historically provided the same downside protection as a portfolio with a 44% allocation to gold. We also like gold futures as a safe haven since they offer some of the most attractive opportunity costs. In addition, their upside is greater than that of most safe havens due to their negative correlations with real rates. However, gold’s volatility makes it an unreliable asset, which prevents us from placing it higher in the safe haven hierarchy. Historically, U.S. Treasuries have been one of the best safe havens to hedge an equity portfolio. Will this performance continue in the future? We do not think so. While yields are still high enough to provide plenty of upside potential, they have fallen to the point where they have increased the opportunity costs of U.S. Treasuries and reduced their consistency. The Rest Global ex-U.S. bonds have very limited upside due to their low yields. Meanwhile U.S. investment-grade credit remains at risk from poor corporate balance sheets, compounded by the fact that credit no longer has an attractive yield cushion. Currencies like the yen and the Swiss franc will continue to be unreliable and very expensive safe havens. Finally, while silver’s costs and reliability could improve, its high cyclicality relative to other safe havens will make silver a poor protection choice. Historical performance Consistency How did safe havens perform when equities lost money? To assess consistency, we plot the performance of each safe haven during all quarters when global equities had losses (Chart I-2). Cash and farmland were the only assets to have positive returns during every equity drawdown. U.S. Treasuries and U.S. TIPS were also very consistent, and had the additional advantage that their returns tended to increase as equity losses worsened. Global ex-U.S. bonds, while not as consistent, generated positive returns most of the time. Chart I-2Safe Haven Returns During Drawdowns In Global Equities On the other hand, investment-grade bonds, the yen, the Swiss franc, gold, and silver were much more inconsistent. In general, even though these assets had larger positive returns than other assets, they were prone to deep selloffs concurrent with equity drawdowns. Silver was the worst of all safe havens, being mostly a negative return asset during quarters of negative equity performance. Versatility How did the type of crisis affect the performance of safe havens? We classify crises according to their catalyst into the following four categories: bursts of U.S. asset bubbles (tech bubble, 2008 housing crisis), ex-U.S. crises (1998 EM crisis, European debt crisis), flash crashes/political events (1987 Black Monday, 9/11 terrorist attack),  rate/inflation shocks (1974 oil crisis, 1980 Fed shock) and others (every other equity drawdown we could not classify).3  We look at the performance of seven safe havens since 1973 (Chart I-3A) and of all 10 since 19914 (Chart I-3B): Chart I-3ASafe Haven Return During Different Type Of Crisis (1973 - Present) Chart I-3BSafe Haven Return During Different Type Of Crisis (1991 - Present)   During bursts of U.S. asset bubbles, U.S. Treasuries were the most effective hedge in both sample periods, followed by U.S. TIPS and farmland. Corporate bonds, cash, gold, and the Swiss franc also had positive returns, though they were small. Finally, the yen and silver had negative returns. During crises happening outside of the U.S., U.S. Treasuries were once again the best option. U.S. TIPS, yen futures, farmland, gold, and U.S. investment-grade bonds also provided strong returns.  Meanwhile, global ex-U.S. bonds and cash provided relatively weak returns, while both the Swiss franc and silver accrued losses. During flash crashes/political events, the Swiss franc had the best performance followed by global ex-U.S. bonds, though in general all safe havens but silver provided positive returns. Rate/inflation shocks were the most difficult type of crisis to hedge. Cash and U.S. TIPS were by far the best performers. Moreover, while U.S. Treasuries were able to eke out a small positive return, all other safe havens lost money during these crises. Efficiency How much allocation to each safe haven was needed to protect an equity portfolio? Chart I-4 show how adding incremental amounts of each safe haven5 to an equity portfolio reduced the overall portfolio’s 10% conditional VaR (the average of the bottom decile of returns).6 Since 1973, U.S. TIPS and U.S. nominal government bonds were the most efficient safe havens, providing the most protection per unit of allocation (Chart I-4 – top panel). Conditional VaR was reduced by almost half when allocating 40% to either Treasuries or TIPS. Cash, U.S. investment-grade, the yen, the Swiss franc, gold, and silver followed in that order. The difference between the safe havens was significant. As an example, a portfolio with a 30% allocation to U.S. Treasuries historically provided the same downside protection as a portfolio with a 36% allocation to U.S. IG credit, a 39% allocation to the yen or a 44% allocation to gold. Meanwhile, there was no allocation to silver which would have provided the same level of protection. When using a sample from 1991, the main difference was the reduced efficiency of cash – the result of lower average interest rates when using a more recent sample. Other than cash, the efficiency of most safe havens remained unchanged: U.S. Treasuries were the best option, followed by U.S. TIPS, farmland, U.S. investment-grade bonds, global ex-U.S. government bonds, cash, the yen, gold, the Swiss franc, and silver in that order (Chart I-4 – bottom panel). Chart I-4Historically, Fixed-Income Assets Were The Most Efficient Safe Havens Costs How do safe haven returns compare to equities? To evaluate opportunity costs, we compare the difference of the historical return of each safe haven versus global equities. Overall, hedging with currencies was extremely costly, as their return was well below that of equities in both samples (Chart I-5). Cash was also an expensive safe haven to hedge with, particularly in the most recent sample. On the other hand, fixed-income assets like U.S Treasuries, investment-grade credit, and U.S. TIPS had very low costs (global ex-U.S. bonds also had cost of around 2% in a limited sample).  Farmland had negative opportunity costs because it outperformed equities during the sample period.7 Chart I-5Historically Fixed Income Assets And Farmland Had The Lowest Opportunity Cost Outlook Chart I-6No More Yield Cushion Chart I-7Silver Has Become Less Cyclical For our outlook, we assess how the four traits under study have changed for all safe havens: Consistency: Will safe havens continue to be reliable in the absence of high coupons? Many of the safe havens in our sample were effective at hedging equities due to their high yield. Even if they had negative capital appreciation, total returns stayed positive thanks to the offsetting effect of the yield return. However, as rates have declined, yield return has also decreased substantially (Chart I-6). Therefore, safe havens, like cash, government bonds, and even farmland will not be as consistent as they were in the past. Credit could be even more vulnerable: the combination of a low yield, and unhealthy fundamentals will turn U.S. corporate bonds into a negative-return asset in the next crisis. Silver might be the lone safe haven to improve its consistency. Industrial use for silver has fallen substantially in the past 10 years, decreasing its cyclical nature (Chart I-7). Thus, while silver might still be an erratic safe haven, it should be more consistent in the future than its historical performance would suggest.   Versatility: What will the next crisis look like? Chart I-8Inflation and Political Crisis Will Plague The 2020s Determining what the next crisis will look like is crucial for safe haven selection. Below we rank the types of crises in order of how likely and severe we think they will be in the future: Inflation/rate shock: We expect inflation to be significantly higher over the next decade. This will be the highest risk for asset allocators in the future. As we explained in our May 2019 report, a change in monetary policy framework, procyclical fiscal policy, waning Fed independence, declining globalization, and demographic forces are all conspiring to lift inflation in the next decade.8 Importantly, we believe that the Fed will be dovish initially, as it cannot let inflation continue to underperform its target after missing the mark for the last 10 years (Chart I-8 – top panel). However, this will cause an inflationary cycle, which will eventually lead the Fed to raise rates significantly and trigger a recession. Political events/flash crashes: Political events will also pose a risk to the markets on a structural basis. The rise of China as a superpower has shifted the world into a paradigm of multipolarity, which historically has resulted in military conflict. Moreover, animus for conflict is not dependent on President Trump. The American public in general feels that the economic relationship with China is detrimental to the United States (Chart I-8 – bottom panel). This means that any president, Democrat or Republican will have a political incentive to jostle with China for economic and political supremacy for years to come. Ex-U.S. crises: We expect Emerging Markets in general, and China in particular, to be among the most vulnerable parts of the global economy as we enter the next decade. Over the last 10 years, China’s money supply has increased four-fold, becoming larger than the money supply of the U.S. and the euro area combined. In addition, corporate debt as a % of GDP stands at 155%, higher than Japan at the peak of its bubble and higher than any country in recorded history (Chart I-9). We rank this type of crisis slightly below the first two because Emerging Market assets are depressed already. Thus, while we believe that there is further downside to come for these economies, some weakness has already been priced in. U.S. asset bubble burst: We believe that there are no systemic excesses in the U.S. economy, making a U.S. asset bubble burst a lesser risk than other types of crises. Although it is true that U.S. corporate debt stands at all-time highs, it is still at a much lower level than in other countries. Moreover, weakness of corporate credit is not likely to have systemic consequences on the economy, given that leveraged institutions like banks and households hold only a small amount of outstanding corporate debt (Chart I-10). Chart I-9EM crises Are Also A Risk Chart I-10A U.S. Corporate Debt Deblacle Will Not Have Systemic Consequences What does this ranking mean in terms of safe haven performance? U.S. TIPS and cash should be held in high regard as they will be some of the only assets that will perform well during an inflation/rate shock. The Swiss franc and global ex-U.S. bonds should be best performers during political crises, although U.S. TIPS could also provide adequate protection. Efficiency: Is there any upside left for safe havens when interest rates are near zero? As yields go below the zero bound it becomes harder for bonds to generate large positive returns. European or Japanese government bonds in particular would need their yields to go deep into negative territory to counteract a large selloff in equities (Table I-1). But can interest rates go that low? We do not think so. The recent auction of German bunds, where a 0%-yielding 30-year bond attracted the weakest demand since 2011, suggests that interest rates in these countries might be close to their lower bound.  On the other hand, though U.S. yields are low, they are still high enough for U.S. Treasuries to provide high returns in case of a crisis. Table I-1No Room For Positive Returns In The Government Bond Space Outside Of The U.S. Low rates also have an effect on the efficiency of U.S. investment-grade bonds, cash, and farmland because their upside during crises does not come from capital appreciation but rather from their yield, (the price of IG credit actually declines during most crisis). As mentioned earlier, their yield has declined substantially compared to the past, which means that a larger allocation will be necessary to counteract a selloff. Chart I-11Switzerland Has A High Incentive To Prevent The Franc From Appreciating The upside of the yen could also be compromised. The Bank of Japan is likely to intervene aggressively in the currency market to prevent the Japanese economy from falling into a deflationary spiral, since it is very difficult for it to lower Japanese rates further. The Swiss franc is even more vulnerable. In contrast to Japan, Switzerland is a small open economy that has to import most of its products (Chart I-11). This means that the Swiss National Bank has a very high incentive to intervene in currency markets during a crisis, given that a rally in the franc could depress inflation severely. What about U.S. TIPS? In contrast to nominal government bond yields or even yields on corporate debt, U.S. real rates are not limited by the zero bound (Chart I-12).  This makes TIPS a more attractive option than other fixed-income assets, since real rates can have much more room for further downside than nominal ones. To be clear, this will only be the case if our forecast of an inflationary crisis materializes. Likewise, since gold is heavily influenced by real rates, it should also offer significant upside during the next crisis.9 Chart I-12Real Rates Have More Downside Potential Than Nominal Ones Costs: Can I afford to hold safe havens in a world of low returns? To provide an outlook for the expected cost of each safe haven, we use the return assumptions from our June Special Report.10 We subtract the expected return on global equities from the expected return for each safe haven to reach an expected cost value. However, three of the safe havens (global ex-U.S. government bonds, the Swiss franc and silver) did not have a return estimate. We compute their expected returns as follows: For the Swiss franc we use the methodology we used for all other currencies in our report. We base the expected return on the current divergence from the IMF PPP value, as well as the IMF inflation estimates. In addition, we add the relative cash rate assumed return for both our yen and Swiss franc estimates, as futures take into account carry return. For global ex-U.S. bonds we take the weighted average of the expected return of the euro area, Japan, U.K., Canada, and Australia government bonds. We weight the returns according to their market capitalization in the Bloomberg/Barclays government bond index. Due to silver’s dual role as an inflation hedge and industrial metal, silver prices are a function of both gold prices and global growth. To obtain a return estimate we run a regression on silver against these two variables and use our growth and gold return estimate to arrive at an assumed return for silver. Chart I-13 shows our results: while their cost will improve, currency futures remain the most expensive hedge. The opportunity cost of precious metals and cash will decrease, making them more attractive options than in the past. Meanwhile, low yields will increase the opportunity costs of most fixed-income assets. Finally, farmland will remain the cheapest safe haven, even with decreased performance. Chart I-13Oportunity Cost For Fixed Income Safe Havens Will Be Higher Than In The Past Juan Manuel Correa Ossa Senior Analyst juanc@bcaresearch.com Appendix A Footnotes 1 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "The Apex Of Globalization – All Downhill From Here, " dated November 12, 2014, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 We use a synthetic TIPS series for data prior to 1997. For details on the methodology, please see: Kothari, S.P. and Shanken, Jay A., “Asset Allocation with Inflation-Protected Bonds,” Financial Analysts Journal, Vol. 60, No. 1, pp. 54-70, January/February 2004. 3 For a detailed list of how we classified each equity drawdown, please see Appendix A. 4 The only crises caused by a rate/inflation shock occurred in 1974 and 1980. Thus we have this type of drawdown only in Chart 3A and not in Chart 3B. 5 For yen, Swiss franc, silver and gold futures we assume an allocation to an ETF which follows their performance. Since futures have zero initial costs they cannot be directly compared to traditional assets in terms of percentage allocation. 6 We prefer this measure over VaR given that it captures the properties of the left tail of returns more accurately. 7  While the farmland index subtracts management fees, we recognize that there are costs involved in holding these illiquid assets which are not necessarily captured by the return indices. Thus, the real historical cost of holding farmland was not negative but likely close to zero. 8 Please see Global Asset Allocation Strategy Special Report "Investors’ Guide To Inflation Hedging: How To Invest When Inflation Rises," dated May 22, 2019, available at gaa.bcaresearch.com. 9 Please see Commodity & Energy Strategy Special Report "All that Glitters…And Then Some" dated July 25, 2019, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 10 Please see Global Asset Allocation Strategy Special Report "Return Assumptions - Refreshed and Refined" dated June 25, 2019,  

Highlights Shifting Trends: The factors that have driven bond yields lower throughout 2019 – slowing growth, rising uncertainty, demand for safe assets and dovish monetary policy expectations – have all started to turn in a more bond-bearish direction. Duration & Country Allocation Strategy: Maintain a moderate below-benchmark stance on aggregate bond portfolio duration. Favor lower-beta countries with central banks that are more likely to stay relatively dovish as global yields drift higher, like core Europe, Australia and Japan. Credit Allocation Strategy: Stay overweight corporate bonds versus government debt in the U.S. and Europe, both for investment grade and high-yield. Maintain just a neutral stance on EM USD-denominated spread product, but look to upgrade if global growth improves further and the USD begins to weaken. Feature Chart of the WeekBond Yields Sniffing A Turn In Global Growth? It has been fifty days (and counting) since the 2019 low for the benchmark 10-year U.S. Treasury yield was reached on September 3. The year-to-date low for the benchmark 10-year German bund yield was seen six days before that on August 28. Yields have risen by a healthy amount since those dates, up +34bps and +37bps for the 10yr Treasury and Bund, respectively. This has occurred despite the significant degree of bond-bullish pessimism on global growth and inflation that can be found in financial media reporting and investor surveys. The fact that yields are now steadily moving away from the lows suggests that the 2019 narrative for financial markets – slowing global growth, triggered by political uncertainty and the lagged impact of previous Fed monetary tightening and China credit tightening, forcing central banks to turn increasingly more dovish – is no longer correct. If that is true, yields have more near-term upside as overbought government bond markets begin to “sniff out” a bottoming out of global growth momentum (Chart of the Week). In this Weekly Report, we take a look at the changing state of the factors that fueled the sharp decline in bond yields in 2019. We follow that up with a review of all our current recommended investment positions on duration, country allocation and spread product allocations in light of recent developments. We conclude that maintaining a below-benchmark duration exposure, while favoring lower-beta countries in sovereign debt and overweighting corporate debt in the U.S. and Europe, is the most appropriate fixed income strategy for the next 6-12 months. The timing of the bottoming of yields in the major developed markets (DM) should not be surprising, given the more bond-bearish turn of reliable leading directional yield indicators. Yields Are Rising At The Right Time, For The Right Reasons Chart 2Bond-Bullish Growth & Inflation Factors Are Turning The timing of the bottoming of yields in the major developed markets (DM) should not be surprising, given the more bond-bearish turn of reliable leading directional yield indicators. The diffusion index of our global leading economic indicator (LEI), which leads the real (ex-inflation expectations) component of DM bond yields by twelve months, is at an elevated level (Chart 2). At the same time, the slowing of the annual rate of growth in the trade-weighted U.S. dollar, which leads 10-year DM CPI swap rates by around six months, is signaling that bond yields have room to increase from the inflation expectations side. Finally, the rising trend of positive data surprises for the major DM countries is also pointing to higher yields. Breaking it down at the country level, the pickup in DM 10-year bond yields since the 2019 lows has been widespread (Charts 3 & 4). The range of yield increases is as low as +16bps in Japan, where the Bank of Japan (BoJ) is pursuing a yield target, to +46bps in Canada where the economy and inflation are both accelerating. Chart 3Pricing Out Some Expected Rate Cuts … Chart 4… Across All Developed Markets The increase in yields has also occurred alongside reduced expectations for easier monetary policy. Our 12-month discounters, which measure the expected change in short-term interest rates priced into Overnight Index Swap (OIS) curves, show that markets have partially priced out some (but not all) expected rate cuts in all major DM countries. The Three Things That Have Changed For Global Bond Markets So what has changed to trigger a reduction in rate cut expectations and an increase in global yields? The bond-bullish narrative that we refer to in the title of this report can be broken down into the following three elements, which have all turned recently: Slowing global growth (now potentially bottoming) Chart 5Global Growth Bottoming Out Current global growth is still trending lower, when looking at measures like manufacturing PMIs or sentiment surveys like the global ZEW index. Forward-looking measures like our global LEI, however, have been moving higher in recent months, suggesting that a bottom in the PMIs may soon unfold (Chart 5). We investigated that improvement in our global LEI in a recent report and concluded that the move higher was focused almost exclusively within the emerging market (EM) sub-components that are most sensitive to improving global growth.1 This fits with the improvement shown in the OECD LEI for China, a bottoming of the annual growth rate of world exports, and the general acceleration of global equity markets – the classic leading economic indicator. Rising political uncertainty (now potentially fading) The U.S.-China trade war (including the implications for the upcoming 2020 U.S. presidential election) and the U.K. Brexit saga have been the main sources of bond-bullish political uncertainty over the past several months. Yet recent developments have helped reduce the odds of the most negative tail risk outcomes, providing a bit of a boost to global bond yields. The U.S. and China have agreed (in principle) to a “phase one” trade deal that, at a minimum, lowers the chances of a further escalation of the trade dispute through higher tariffs. Meanwhile, the momentum has shifted towards a potential final Brexit agreement between the U.K. and European Union that can avoid an ugly no-deal outcome. Our colleagues at BCA Research Geopolitical Strategy believe that developments are likely to continue moving away from the worst-case scenarios, given the constraints faced by policymakers.2 U.S. President Donald Trump is now in full campaign mode for the 2020 elections and needs a deal (of any kind) to deflect criticism that his trade battle with China is dragging the U.S. economy into recession. Already, there has been a sharp decline in income growth for workers in swing states that could vote for either party’s candidate in next year’s election (Chart 6). Trump cannot afford to lose voters in those states, many of which are in the U.S. industrial heartland (i.e. Ohio, Michigan) that helped put him in the White House. In other words, he is highly incentivized to turn down the heat on the trade war or else face a potential loss next November. While these political uncertainties have not been fully resolved by these latest developments, the shift in momentum away from worst-case scenarios has likely been enough to reduce the safe-haven bid for DM government bonds, helping push yields higher. Meanwhile, China is facing a slowing economy and rising unemployment, but with reduced means to fight the downtrend given high private sector debt that has impaired the typical response between easier monetary conditions and economic activity (Chart 7). While the Chinese government does not want to be seen as caving in to U.S. pressure on trade policy, its desire to maintain social stability by preventing a further rise in unemployment from the trade war provides a powerful incentive to try and ratchet down tensions with the U.S. Chart 6Political Reasons For Trump To Retreat On Trade In the U.K., a no-deal Brexit is an economically painful and politically unpopular outcome that would severely damage the re-election chances of Prime Minister Boris Johnson and his Conservative party. Thus, even a hard-line Brexiteer like Johnson must respond to the political constraints forcing him to try and get a Brexit deal done (Chart 8). Chart 7Economic Reasons For China To Retreat On Trade Chart 8Political Reasons To Retreat On A No-Deal Brexit While these political uncertainties have not been fully resolved by these latest developments, the shift in momentum away from worst-case scenarios has likely been enough to reduce the safe-haven bid for DM government bonds, helping push yields higher. Bull-flattening pressure on yield curves (now turning into moderate bear-steepening) The final leg down in bond yields in August had a technical aspect to it, fueled by the demand for duration and convexity from asset-liability managers like European pension funds and insurance companies. Falling yields act to raise the value of liabilities for that group of investors, forcing them to rapidly increase the duration of their assets to match the duration of their liabilities (the technique used to limit the gap between the value of assets and liabilities). That duration increase is carried out by buying government bonds with longer maturities (and higher convexity), but also through the use of interest rate derivatives like long maturity swaps and swaptions. The end result is a bull flattening of yield curves (both for government bonds and swaps) and a rise in swaption volatility (i.e. the price of swaptions). Those dynamics were clearly in play in August after the shocking imposition of fresh U.S. tariffs on Chinese imports early in the month. Bond and swaption volatilities spiked, and bond/swap yield curves bull-flattened, in both Europe and the U.S. (Chart 9). That effect only lasted a few weeks, however, and volatilities have since declined and curves have steepened. This suggests that the “convexity-buying” effect has run its course and is now starting to work in the opposite direction, with asset-liability managers looking to reduce the duration of their assets as higher yields lower the value of their liabilities. This is putting some upward pressure on longer-maturity global bond yields. Chart 9Signs Of Reduced Convexity-Related Bond Buying Chart 10Bull-Flattening Yield Curve Pressures Easing Up A Bit Chart 11Fed & ECB Actions Should Help Steepen Up Curves The steepening seen so far must be put in context, however, as yield curves remain very flat across the DM world (Chart 10). Term premia on longer-term bonds remain very depressed, although those should start to increase as global growth stabilizes and the massive safe-haven demand for global government debt begins to dissipate. Some pickup in inflation expectations would also help impart additional bear-steepening momentum to yield curves – a more likely result now that the Fed and ECB have both cut interest rates and, more importantly, will start provide additional monetary easing by expanding their balance sheets (Chart 11). Bottom Line: The factors that have driven bond yields lower throughout 2019 – slowing growth, rising uncertainty, demand for safe assets and dovish monetary policy expectations – have all started to turn in a more bond-bearish direction. Reviewing Our Recommended Bond Allocations In light of these shifting global trends described above, the fixed income investment implications are fairly straightforward: Yields are rising around the world, suggesting that the current move is a shift higher driven by non-country-specific factors like more stable future global growth prospects. Duration: A moderate below-benchmark overall duration stance is warranted for global fixed income portfolios, with yields likely to continue drifting higher over at least the next six months. A big surge in yields is unlikely, as central banks will need to see decisive evidence that global growth is not only bottoming, but accelerating, before shifting away from the current dovish bias. Given the reporting lags in the economic data, such evidence is unlikely to appear until the first quarter of 2020 at the earliest. Yet given how flat yield curves are across the DM government bond markets, the trajectory of forward rates is quite stable relative to spot yield levels, making it much easier to beat the forwards by positioning for even a modest yield increase. Country Allocation: Yields are rising around the world, suggesting that the current move is a shift higher driven by non-country-specific factors like more stable future global growth prospects. In that case, using yield betas to the “global” bond yield is a good way to consider country allocation decisions within a fixed income portfolio. We looked at those yield betas in an August report, using Bloomberg Barclays government bond index data for the 7-10 year maturity buckets of individual countries and the Global Treasury aggregate (Chart 12).3 The rolling 3-year betas were highest in the U.S. and Canada, making them good countries to underweight within a global government bond portfolio in a rising yield environment. The yield betas were lowest in Japan, Germany and Australia, making them good overweight candidates. The U.K. was a unique case of having a relatively high historical yield beta prior to the 2016 Brexit referendum and a lower yield beta since then - making the U.K. allocation highly conditional on the resolution of the Brexit uncertainty. Spread Product Allocation: The backdrop described in this report, where global growth is bottoming out but where central banks maintain a dovish bias, is a perfect sweet spot for global spread product like corporate bonds and Peripheral European government debt. Thus, an overweight stance on overall global spread product versus governments is warranted. The backdrop described in this report, where global growth is bottoming out but where central banks maintain a dovish bias, is a perfect sweet spot for global spread product like corporate bonds and Peripheral European government debt. With regards to our current strategic fixed income recommendations and model bond portfolio allocations, we already have much of the positioning described above in place. We are below-benchmark on overall duration, underweight higher-beta U.S. Treasuries; overweight government bonds in lower-beta Germany, France, Japan and Australia (Chart 13); overweight investment grade corporate bonds in the U.S., euro area and U.K.; and overweight high-yield corporate bonds in the U.S. and euro area. Chart 12Favor Lower-Beta Government Bond Markets There are areas where our positioning could change, however. Chart 13Lower-Beta Laggards Should Start To Outperform In terms of government bonds, we are currently overweight the U.K. and neutral Canada. A final Brexit deal would justify a downgrade of Gilts to at least neutral, if not underweight, as the Bank of England has signaled that rate hikes would be justified if the Brexit uncertainty was resolved. A downgrade of higher-beta Canadian government debt to underweight could also be justified, although the Bank of Canada is not signaling that a change in monetary policy (in either direction) is warranted. For now, we will hold off on any change to our U.K. stance, as it is now likely that there will be another extension of the Brexit deadline beyond October 31. As for Canada, we remain neutral for now but will revisit that stance in an upcoming Weekly Report. With regards to spread product, we are only neutral EM USD-denominated sovereign and corporate debt, as well as Spanish sovereign bonds; and underweight Italian government debt. An EM upgrade to overweight would require two things that are not yet in place: a weaker U.S. dollar and accelerating Chinese economic growth. Chart 14Stay Overweight Corporates In The U.S. & Europe As for Peripheral governments, we have preferred to be overweight European corporate debt relative to sovereign bonds in Italy and Spain. The recent powerful rally in the Periphery, however, has driven the spreads over German bunds in those countries down to levels in line with corporate credit spreads (Chart 14). We will maintain these allocations for now, but will investigate the relative value proposition between euro area Peripheral sovereigns and corporates in an upcoming report. Bottom Line: Maintain a moderate below-benchmark stance on aggregate bond portfolio duration. Favor lower-beta countries with central banks that are more likely to stay relatively dovish as global yields drift higher, like core Europe, Australia and Japan. Stay overweight corporate bonds versus government debt in the U.S. and Europe, both for investment grade and high-yield. Maintain just a neutral stance on EM USD-denominated spread product, but look to upgrade if global growth improves further and the USD begins to weaken. Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1 Please see BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, “What Is Driving The Improvement In The BCA Global Leading Economic Indicator?”, dated October 2, 2019, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Research Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, “Five Constraints For The Fourth Quarter”, dated October 11, 2019, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Research U.S. Bond Strategy/Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, “Where’s The Positive Carry In Bond Markets?", dated August 20, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com and gfis.bcaresearch.com. Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns