Economy

Highlights The COVID-19-induced demand shock in China – and a stronger USD – will reduce growth in global crude oil consumption to just over 1mm b/d this year, vs. earlier expectations of ~ 1.4mm b/d. Significant fiscal and monetary stimulus from China will be required to put economic growth back on track over the critical 2020-21 interval. An accommodative monetary-policy backdrop globally also will support demand. On the supply side, OPEC 2.0 likely will cut output by an additional 600k b/d in 2Q20, which will remove 2.3mm b/d off member states’ official quotas. For 2H20, we expect the coalition to revert to its 1.7mm b/d in cuts to keep markets balanced. US shale-oil output growth will continue to slow under market-imposed capital discipline. We are revising our baseline price forecasts in 2020 lower to $62/bbl and $58/bbl for Brent and WTI, respectively (Chart of the Week). This is down $5/bbl vs our previous forecast. Price risk is to the upside, however. 2021 Brent and WTI forecasts remain at $70/bbl and $66/bbl, respectively, as we do not expect long-lived demand destruction from the COVID-19 outbreak. A growing consensus around policy stimulus and production cuts makes us leery. Feature Chart of the WeekCOVID-19 Knocks Oil Forecasts Lower COVID-19 continues to hammer Chinese oil demand, forcing refiners there to drastically reduce output. This crude oil is ending up in inventories, but, so far at least, overall storage capacity in China is not being maxed out by the unintended accumulations of crude and product inventories. Data are difficult to come by, but there are a few observations that provide some insight into the state of the refining market in China as the COVID-19 episode unfolds. Platt’s reported independent refiners in Shandong Province, which has ~ 3.4mm b/d of refining capacity, cut runs to a four-year low of ~ 40% of capacity this month, down from a January rate of 63.5%. Shandong refiners represent 50%-60% of China’s independent refining capacity.1 We estimate EM demand – led by downward revisions in China – will fall by ~900k b/d in 1Q20 – when most of the damage to the economy likely will occur – and by an average 300k b/d for the year vs. our previous estimates. Ursa Space Systems’ radar satellite monitoring of inventories close to coastal refineries indicated Chinese oil storage at the beginning of the month was at 60% of capacity.2 This figure likely is higher, given refinery runs remain low, but it does not yet suggest storage capacity in China will be exhausted in the near future. In our modeling of the COVID-19 impact on oil demand, we estimate EM demand – led by downward revisions in China – will fall by ~900k b/d in 1Q20 – when most of the damage to the economy likely will occur – and by an average 300k b/d for the year vs. our previous estimates. This leads us to believe EM oil demand will increase by 1mm b/d this year, down from our earlier expectation of 1.26mm b/d pre-COVID-19. For DM economies, demand growth also will disappoint, revised down by 100k b/d on the back of a warmer-than-expected winter and stop-and-go growth in manufacturing induced by COVID-19. Policy Stimulus Will Revive Chinese Demand The COVID-19 outbreak will result in a significant hit to China’s GDP, which will require substantial stimulus to put growth back on a 6% p.a. track this year. This growth rate is required for the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) to deliver on its pledge to double GDP and per-capita income over 2010-20, a pledge that was memorialized in writing following the Party’s 2012 Congress. In addition, next year marks the 100th anniversary of the founding of the CCP, and, we believe, it is an all-but-foregone conclusion the Party’s leadership will not want a faltering economy on display as it celebrates this important milestone. Given these considerations, the possibility policymakers will over-stimulate the economy to get it back on track is a non-trivial upside risk.3 We do not think it is unreasonable to expect policymakers to lean into reviving growth this year and next with policy stimulus. Our baseline 2020 forecast envisions prices will falter somewhat versus our previous expectation – with Brent averaging $62/bbl this year, and WTI trading $4/bbl below that, vs. $67/bbl and $63/bbl previously. We are mindful of the impact Chinese policy stimulus can have on the global oil markets. The effects on GDP growth following demand shocks of past stimulus can be seen in the response of China’s GDP following the 2003 SARS outbreak; the 2008-09 GFC; the 2011-12 eurozone debt crisis; and even in China’s 2015-16 slowdown (Chart 2). For this reason, we do not think it is unreasonable to expect policymakers to lean into reviving growth this year and next with policy stimulus. And it is for this reason that we believe price risk tilts to the upside this year. Our updated Ensemble price forecast includes two additional demand-side simulations to assess its sensitivity to changes in EM oil demand: Chart 2Chinese Stimulus Will Support Oil Demand Higher EM demand scenario (20% weight): We model the impact of the coronavirus as short-lived, with only a temporary impact on China’s economy. Consumer demand and industrial production in China converge to pre-COVID-19 levels rapidly in 2H20. Chinese policymakers overstimulate in 2Q20, over fears the virus could have severe long-term consequences on the economy. This scenario assumes EM demand increases by 100k b/d vs. our base case in 2020 and 2021. Lower EM demand scenario (10% weight): We model the impact of the coronavirus as a severe and long-lasting event. This triggers a negative feedback loop for EM oil demand; collapsing demand forces production lower, which reduces employment and pushes demand further down. This reverberates to other EM economies and affects global supply chains. This scenario assumes EM demand decreases by 240k b/d in 2020 and returns to our base case in 2021, supported by China stimulus. Oil-Demand Reduction (Not Destruction) The outbreak also is contributing to greater global economic uncertainty, which continues to support the USD broad trade-weighted index (TWIB). The COVID-19 outbreak in China caused us to reduce our expectation for global oil demand growth by ~ 360k b/d, taking 2020 year-on-year growth to ~ 1.04mm b/d, versus our earlier expectation of 1.4mm b/d. The outbreak also is contributing to greater global economic uncertainty, which continues to support the USD broad trade-weighted index (TWIB). Dollar strength produces a headwind for EM GDP growth, which suppresses oil-demand growth. The combination of the COVID-19-induced demand reduction and the stronger USD TWIB likely will compel OPEC 2.0 to maintain its production discipline until the global policy uncertainty abates and the USD TWIB retreats. Such a reversal in trend would become a tailwind for commodity demand (Chart 3). Chart 3Global Economic Uncertainty Keeps A Bid Under USD TWIB Global supply growth will continue to be constrained by demands from investors to return capital to shareholders. We expect the hit to global demand to be offset by increased production cuts from OPEC 2.0, which will be agreed next month. OPEC 2.0 production also will be impacted by continued output losses in Iran and Venezuela, which have seen y/y production fall by ~ 1.8mm b/d in 2019. Global supply growth will continue to be constrained by demands from investors to return capital to shareholders – via stock buybacks – and for steady and increasing dividends to make their equity competitive with alternative sectors (e.g., tech). These capital-market pressures – in addition to growing pressure from Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) investors – will continue to have a profound effect on capital availability for oil and gas E+P companies for decades to come. This is a theme we will return to often in future research. We summarize these supply-demand dynamics in Chart 4. For OPEC 2.0, the 1.7mm b/d reduction in output the coalition agreed for 1Q20 remains in place, as do losses from Iran and Venezuela. For 2Q20, we assume the coalition adds another 600k b/d of production cuts. After that, we assume OPEC 2.0 reverts to its earlier production cuts of 1.7mm b/d for 2H20. In 2021, we assume OPEC 2.0 takes production cuts back down to 1.2mm b/d in January 2021, then gradually increases its production over 1H21 to balance the market and to avoid spiking prices. We also expect the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) to remove 300k b/d of overcompliance next year, as markets tighten. In 2H21, we see OPEC 2.0 production levels remaining flat at ~ 44.8mm b/d (Table 1). Table 1BCA Global Oil Supply - Demand Balances (MMb/d, Base Case Balances) Chart 4Supply-Demand Balances Chart 5Global Oil Inventories Will Resume Drawing For 2021, we are leaving our Brent forecast unchanged at $70/bbl, and WTI at $66/bbl. For the US, we reduced our Lower 48 production assumptions, and now have 740k b/d growth in 2020 and 300k b/d in 2021. Shales account for almost all of this increase. We also include a scenario in which US production comes in lower in our ensemble forecast. These fundamentals combine to put global oil inventories back on a downward trajectory in 2H20 (Chart 5). That said, there is an important caveat going into 2H20: If the US Economic Policy Uncertainty Index starts rising in 2H20 on the back of US election risks, markets will continue to price in a stronger USD in 2020 vs. what we now expect. For 2021, we are leaving our Brent forecast unchanged at $70/bbl, and WTI at $66/bbl. Odds favor a return to the pre-COVID-19 price trajectory for oil next year, with continued upside risk from Chinese fiscal and monetary stimulus, and a globally accommodative monetary-policy backdrop. Higher Spare Capacity Reduces Risk Premium The market remains partly balanced by OPEC 2.0’s production cuts. This means that the group’s spare capacity is increasing, reducing the risk premium the market typically includes in crude oil prices to reflect sudden output losses. The risk premium in oil prices evaporated following the drop in demand and the increase in spare capacity due to the large OPEC 2.0 cuts. When China’s economy resumes its normal activity, demand will pick up and the market will balance, increasing the impact of possible supply disruptions. However, the market remains partly balanced by OPEC 2.0’s production cuts. This means that the group’s spare capacity is increasing, reducing the risk premium the market typically includes in crude oil prices to reflect sudden output losses. In addition, if production capacity of ~ 300k-500k b/d in the Neutral Zone shared by KSA and Kuwait is restored, the risk premium could drop even lower, given this production is expected to be retained as spare capacity. If this is the case we could have lower prices in 2020 vs. our current forecast (down to ~ $60/bbl). We will be exploring the changes in OPEC 2.0 spare capacity and the consequences for overall production in future research. Bottom Line: Assisted by Chinese policy stimulus, oil demand will recover this year from the COVID-19-induced demand shock. On the supply side, the combination of deeper OPEC 2.0 production cuts – which we expect will be settled at the upcoming March meeting – and capital-market-imposed reduction in US oil production will push oil markets to a supply deficit. The ongoing demand shock forces us to reduce our 2020 Brent price forecast to $62/bbl from $67/bbl previously. For 2021, we maintain our $70/bbl target. Risks to our view are mounting. Three crucial pieces to our 2020 and 2021 expectations remain uncertain: The duration and magnitude of the impact of the coronavirus shock, The level of production cuts by OPEC 2.0 and the degree of compliance by all members, and The trajectory of the US dollar – if global economic policy uncertainty remains elevated the USD could remain well bid, which would continue to pressure EM GDP growth – and commodity demand – at the margin. Our base case remains that prices will rise from here, but our conviction level is slightly lower. One reason for this is the apparent consensus emerging around the likelihood of Chinese stimulus and OPEC 2.0 production cuts. If either of these assumptions prove wrong, oil prices likely would move lower.   Robert P. Ryan Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist rryan@bcaresearch.com Hugo Bélanger Associate Editor Commodity & Energy Strategy HugoB@bcaresearch.com     Commodities Round-Up Energy: Overweight As of Tuesday’s close, Brent prices were up 8% from their Feb 10 low of $53.27/bbl, supported by receding COVID-19 fears and rising expectations OPEC 2.0 will deepen its production cuts at its March meeting. Earlier this week, oil prices received an additional lift from the newly-imposed US sanctions on Rosneft Trading SA – a subsidiary of Russia’s state-own company – for its activities with Venezuela’s PDVSA. Rosneft Trading intensified its involvement in Venezuela’s oil sector and now handles the majority of the country’s crude exports, providing vital support to the Maduro government. The US restrictions include a 90-day wind-down period for companies to end their activities with Rosneft Trading. Base Metals: Neutral Chinese steel consumption – which accounts for ~50% of global demand – has been hit hard by the coronavirus outbreak. Steel and iron ore prices in China plunged 11% and 3% YTD (Chart 6). Steel mills’ inventories increased to record levels, reaching full capacity. Mills are now forced to export their surplus at reduced prices – flooding seaborne steel markets – or to cut output. Accordingly, more than 33% of steel mills are considering cutting steel production, according to a recent Platts survey. Margins at producing mills are declining and could harm high-grade iron ore prices. This is a short-term risk to our view. Precious Metals: Neutral Gold prices surged past $1,600/oz on Tuesday – overlooking positive manufacturing data in the US. Silver shadowed gold’s movement, closing at $18.13/oz. Precious metals are bought as insurance against risks of a wider-than-expected spread of the coronavirus and should remain well bid until uncertainty dissipates. Gold is somewhat overbought based on sentiment, momentum and technical indicators (Chart 7). If, as we expect, the daily increase in confirmed cases ex-Hubei slows meaningfully over the coming months, gold and silver prices will lose some steam. Ags/Softs:  Underweight CBOT March wheat futures surged 4.4% on Tuesday after Australia’s government sharply lowered its estimate of the country’s wheat harvest as severe drought affected crops. The Australian agricultural agency said the crop totaled 15.17 mm MT, the lowest since 2008, paving the way for stronger US exports. Corn also moved higher, with the prompt contract gaining 1.26% on the back of a new round of Chinese tariff exemptions on US goods. A USDA report showed US soybean export inspections bound for China were still half of last year's volumes. Soybeans futures closed 1.25 cents lower at $8.915/bu as markets await large Chinese purchases of US soybeans. Chart 6Increasing Inventories Pressure Steel and Iron ore Prices Chart 7Gold Technical Indicators Signal Overbought Market     footnotes 1     Please see China's Shandong independent refiners cut run rates to 4-year low of 40% in Feb, published by S&P Global Platts February 13, 2020. 2     Please see Oil demand falls on coronavirus: how much will inventories rise? posted by Ursa Space Systems February 7, 2020. 3     Please see Iron Ore, Steel Poised For Rally, published January 13, 2020, for a discussion of the significance of 2020 vis-à-vis the Communist Party’s pledge to double GDP and per-capita income vs. 2010 levels, memorialized by the CCP at its 2012 Peoples Congress.  We also discuss the 100th anniversary of the Party’s founding next year, which also will be a significant milestone for the CCP – and another reason the Party will not want the Chinese economy faltering as it is celebrated.   Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades TRADE RECOMMENDATION PERFORMANCE IN 2019 Q4 Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed in 2020 Summary of Closed Trades

Highlights Analyses on Asian semis, Argentina and Russia are available on pages 7, 12 and 14, respectively. The most likely trajectory for Chinese growth will be as follows: the initial plunge in business activity will be succeeded by a rather sharp snap-back due to pent-up demand. However, that quick rebound will probably be followed by weaker growth. Financial markets will soon focus on growth beyond the temporary rebound. In our opinion, it will be weaker than markets are currently pricing. Thus, risks for EM risk assets and currencies are skewed to the downside. A major and lasting selloff in EM stocks will only occur if EM corporate bond yields rise. In this week’s report we discuss what it will take for EM corporate credit spreads to widen. Feature The downside risks to EM risk assets and currencies are growing. We continue to recommend underweighting EM equities, credit and currencies versus their DM counterparts. Today we are initiating a short position in EM stocks in absolute terms. Chart I-1 illustrates that the total return index (including carry) of EM ex-China currencies versus the US dollar has failed to break above its 2019 highs, and has rolled over decisively.  In contrast, the trade-weighted US dollar has exhibited a bullish technical configuration by rebounding from its 200-day moving average (Chart I-2). Odds are the dollar will make new highs. An upleg in the greenback will foreshadow a relapse in EM financial markets. Chart I-1EM Ex-China Currencies Have Been Struggling Despite Low US Rates Chart I-2The US Dollar Remains In A Bull Market   Growth Trajectory After The Dust Settles The evolution of the coronavirus remains highly uncertain and unpredictable. As with any pandemic or virus outbreak, its evolution will be complex with non-trivial odds of a second wave. Even under the assumption that the epidemic will be fully contained by the end of March, its economic impact on the Chinese and Asian economies will likely be greater than global financial markets are currently pricing. As investors come to the realization that this initial pick-up in economic activity after the virus outbreak will be followed by weaker growth, the odds of a selloff in equities and credit markets will rise. In our January 30 report titled Coronavirus Versus SARS: Mind The Economic Differences, we argued that using the framework from the SARS outbreak to analyze the current epidemic is inappropriate. First, only a small portion of the Chinese economy was shut down in 2003, and for a brief period of time. The current closures and limited operations are much more widespread and likely more prolonged. Table I-1China’s Importance Now And In 2003 Second, China accounts for a substantially larger share of the global economy today than it did in 2003 (Table I-1). Hence, the global business cycle is presently much more sensitive to demand and production in the mainland than it was during the SARS outbreak. Global financial markets have rebounded following the initial selloff in late January on expectations that the Chinese and global economies will experience a V-shaped recovery. In last week’s report, we discussed why the odds favor a tepid recovery for the Chinese business cycle and global trade. The main point of last week’s report was as follows: with the median company and household in China being overleveraged, any reduction in cash flow or income will undermine their ability to service their debt and will dent their confidence for some time. Hence, consumption, investment and hiring over the next several months will be negatively affected, even after the outbreak is contained. This in turn will diminish the multiplier effect of policy stimulus in China. Chart I-3Our Expectations Of China’s Business Cycle The most likely pattern for Chinese growth will likely resemble the trajectory demonstrated in Chart I-3. It assumes the plunge in business activity will be succeeded by a rather sharp snap-back due to pent-up demand. However, that snap-back will likely be followed by weaker growth, for reasons discussed in last week’s report. Equity and credit markets in Asia and worldwide have been sanguine because they have so far focused exclusively on expectations of a sharp rebound. As investors come to the realization that this initial pick-up in economic activity will be followed by weaker growth, the odds of a selloff in equities and credit markets will rise. Bottom Line: The most likely trajectory for Chinese and Asian growth will be as follows: the initial plunge in business activity will be succeeded by a rather sharp snap-back due to pent-up demand. However, that quick rebound will probably be followed by weaker growth. Financial markets are not pricing in this scenario. Thus, risks are skewed to the downside for EM risk assets and currencies. The Missing Ingredient For An Equity Selloff The missing ingredient for a selloff in EM equities is rising EM corporate bond yields. Chart I-4 illustrates that bear markets in EM stocks typically occur when EM US dollar corporate bond yields are rising. Hence, what matters for the direction of EM share prices is not risk-free rates/yields but EM corporate borrowing costs. Chart I-4The Destiny Of EM Equities Is DependEnt On EM Corporate Bond Yields EM (and US) corporate bond yields can rise under the following circumstances: (1) when US Treasury yields are ascending more than corporate credit spreads are tightening; (2) when credit spreads are widening more than Treasury yields are falling; or (3) when both government bond yields and corporate credit spreads are increasing simultaneously. Provided the backdrop of weaker growth is bullish for government bonds, presently corporate bond yields can only rise if credit spreads widen by more than the drop in Treasury yields. In short, the destiny of EM equities currently relies on corporate spreads. A major and lasting selloff in EM stocks will only occur if their respective corporate bond yields rise. From a historical perspective, EM and US corporate credit spreads are currently extremely tight (Chart I-5). A China-related growth scare could trigger a widening in EM corporate credit spreads. As this occurs, corporate bond yields will climb, causing share prices to plummet. EM corporate spreads have historically been correlated with EM exchange rates, the global/Chinese business cycle, and commodities prices (Chart I-6). The Chinese property market plays an especially pivotal role for the outlook of EM corporate spreads. Chart I-5EM And US Corporate Spread Remain Tame Chart I-6EM Corporate Spreads Inversely Correlate With EM Currencies And Commodities Prices   First, offshore bonds issued by mainland property developers account for a large share of the EM corporate bond index. Chart I-7China Property Market Will Continue Disappointing Second, swings in China’s property markets often drive the mainland’s business cycle and its demand for resources, chemicals and industrial machinery. In turn, Chinese imports of commodities affect both economic growth and exchange rates of EM ex-China. Finally, the latter two determine the direction of EM ex-China corporate spreads. China’s construction activity and property developers were struggling before the coronavirus outbreak (Chart I-7). Given their high debt burden, the ongoing plunge in new property sales and their cash flow will not only weigh on their debt sustainability but also force them to curtail construction activity. The latter will continue suppressing commodities prices. The sensitivity of EM corporate spreads to these variables have in recent years diminished because of the unrelenting search for yield by global investors. As QE policies by DM central banks have removed some $9 trillion of high-quality securities from circulation, the volume of securities available in the markets has shrunk. This has distorted historical correlations of EM corporate spreads with their fundamental drivers – namely, China’s construction activity, commodities prices, EM exchange rates and the global trade cycle. Nonetheless, EM corporate credit spreads’ sensitivity to these variables has diminished, but has not vanished outright. If EM currencies depreciate meaningfully, commodities prices plunge and China’s growth and the global trade cycle disappoint, odds are that EM corporate spreads will widen. Given that credit markets are already in overbought territory, any selloff could trigger a cascading effect, resulting in meaningful credit-spread widening. Bottom Line: A major and lasting selloff in EM stocks will only occur if their respective corporate bond yields rise. The timing is uncertain, but the odds of EM corporate credit spreads widening are mounting as Chinese growth underwhelms, commodities prices drop and EM currencies depreciate. If these trends persist, they will push EM shares prices over the cliff. As to today’s recommendation to short the EM stock index, we anticipate at least a 10% selloff in EM stocks in US-dollar terms. For currency investors, we are maintaining our shorts in a basket of EM currencies versus the dollar. This basket includes the BRL, CLP, COP, ZAR, KRW, IDR and PHP. Arthur Budaghyan Chief Emerging Markets Strategist arthurb@bcaresearch.com   Are Semiconductor Stocks Facing An Air Pocket? Global semiconductor share prices have continued to hit new highs, even though there has not been any recovery (positive growth) in global semiconductor sales or in their corporate earnings (EPS). The coronavirus outbreak and the resulting delay in 5G phone sales in China in the first half of 2020 will trigger a pullback in semiconductor equities. Global semiconductor sales bottomed on a rate-of-change basis in June, but their annual growth rate was still negative in December. In the meantime, global semi share prices have been rallying since January 2019. This divergence between stock prices and revenue of global semiconductor stocks is unprecedented (Chart II-1). Chart II-1Over-Hyped Global Semi Share Prices Odds are that global semi stocks in general, and Asian ones in particular, will experience a pullback in the coming weeks. The coronavirus outbreak will likely dampen expectations related to the speed of 5G adoption and penetration in China. Critically, China accounted for 35% of global semiconductor sales in 2019, versus 19% for the US and 10% for the whole of Europe. In brief, semiconductor demand from China is now greater than the US and European demand combined. Furthermore, the latest news that the US administration is considering changing its regulations to prevent shipments of semiconductor chips to China’s Huawei Technologies from global companies - including Taiwan's TSMC - could hurt chip stocks further. Since Huawei Technologies is the global leader in 5G networks and smartphones, the ban, if implemented, will instigate a sizable setback to 5G adoption in China and elsewhere. Table II-1Industry Forecasts Of The 2020 Global 5G- Smartphone Shipments Our updated estimate of global 5G smartphone shipments is between 160 million and 180 million units in 2020, which is below the median of industry expectations of 210 million units (Table II-1). The key reasons why the industry’s expectations are unreasonably high, in our opinion, are as follows: Chinese demand for new smartphones will likely stay weak (Chart II-2). The mainland smartphone market has become extremely saturated, with 1.3 billion units having been sold in just the past three years – nearly equaling the entire Chinese population. Chinese official data show that each Chinese household owned 2.5 phones on average in 2018, and that the average household size was about three persons (Chart II-3). This suggests that going forward nearly all potential phone demand in China is for replacement phones, and that there is no urgent need for households to buy new phones. Chart II-2Chinese Smartphone Demand: Further Decline In 2020 Chart II-3Chinese Households: No Urgent Need For A New Phone   The Chinese government’s boost to 5G infrastructure investment will likely increase annual installed 5G base stations from 130,000 units last year to about 600,000 to 800,000 this year. However, the total number of 5G base stations will still only account for about 7-9% of total base stations in China in 2020. Hence, geographical coverage will not be sufficiently wide enough to warrant a very high rate of 5G smartphone adoption and penetration. From Chinese consumers’ perspectives, a 5G phone in 2020 will be a ‘nice-to-have,’ but not a ‘must-have.’ Given increasing economic uncertainty and many concerns related to the use of 5G phones, mainland consumers may delay their purchases into 2021 when 5G phone networks will have more geographic coverage.  The number of 5G phone models on the market is expanding, but not that quickly. Consumers may take their time to wait for more models to hit the market before making a 5G phone purchase. For example, Apple will release four 5G phone models, but only in September 2020. Moreover, the price competition between 5G and 4G phones is getting increasingly intense. Smartphone producers have already started to cut prices of their 4G phones aggressively. For example, the price of Apple’s iPhone XS, released in September 2018, has already dropped by about 50% in China. Outside of China, 5G infrastructure development will be much slower. The majority of developed countries will likely give in to pressure from the US and limit their use of Huawei 5G equipment. This will delay infrastructure installation and adoption of 5G throughout the rest of the world because Huawei has the leading and cheapest 5G technology. In 2019, China accounted for about 70% of worldwide 5G smartphone shipments. We reckon that in 2020 Chinese 5G smartphone shipments will be between 120 million and 130 million units. Assuming this accounts for about 70-75% of the world shipment of 5G phones this year, we arrive at our estimate of global 5G smartphone shipments of between 160 million and 180 million units. We agree that 5G technology is revolutionary. Nevertheless, we still believe global semi share prices are presently overhyped by unreasonably optimistic 2020 projections. Overall, investors are pricing global semi stocks using the pace and trajectory of 4G smartphones adoption. However, in 2020 the number and speed of 5G phone penetration will continue lagging that of 4G ones when the latter were introduced in December 2013 (Chart II-4). We agree that 5G technology is revolutionary, and its adoption and penetration will surge in the coming years. Nevertheless, we still believe global semi share prices are presently overhyped by unreasonably optimistic 2020 projections (Chart II-5).  Chart II-4China 5G-Adoption Pace: Slower Than The Case With 4G Chart II-5Net Earnings Of Global Semi Sector: Too Optimistic?   Investment Implications Global semi stocks’ valuations are very elevated, as shown in Chart II-6 and Chart II-7. Besides, semi stocks are overbought, suggesting they could correct meaningfully if lofty growth expectations currently baked into their prices do not materialize in the first half of this year. Chart II-6Global Semi Stocks Valuations: Very Elevated Chart II-7Global Semi Stocks’ Valuations: Very Elevated   The coronavirus outbreak and the resulting delay in 5G phone sales in China in the first half of 2020, along with US pressure on global semi producers not to sell to Huawei, will likely trigger a pullback in semiconductor equities. We recommend patiently waiting for a better entry point for absolute return investors. Within the EM equity universe, we have not been underweight Asian semi stocks because of our negative outlook for the overall EM equity benchmark. The Argentine government will drag out foreign debt negotiations with the IMF and foreign private creditors to secure a more favorable settlement. We remain neutral on Taiwan and overweight Korea. The reason is that DRAM makers such as Samsung and Hynix have rallied much less than TSMC. Besides, geopolitical risks in relation to Taiwan in general and TSMC in particular are rising, warranting a more defensive stance on Taiwanese stocks relative to Korean equities. Ellen JingYuan He Associate Vice President ellenj@bcaresearch.com Argentina’s Eternal Tango With Foreign Creditors Chart III-1Downside Risks To Bond Prices Our view remains that debt negotiations will be drawn-out because the Argentine government is both unwilling and lacks the financial capacity to service public foreign debt. The administration’s recent attitude toward foreign creditors and the IMF have startled markets: sovereign Eurobond bond prices have tanked (Chart III-1). The reasons why the Fernandez administration will play tough ball with creditors and the IMF are as follows: The country’s foreign funding and the public sector debt situations are precarious. Hence, the lower the recovery rate they negotiate with creditors, the more funds will be available to expand social programs and secure domestic political support. Given Fernandez’s and Peronist’s voter base, the government is inclined to please the population at expense of foreign creditors. Moreover, Alberto Fernandez is facing increasing scrutiny from radical Peronists, who want to dissolve the debt altogether. Vice-president Fernandez de Kirchner stated that Argentina should not pay international agents until the economy escapes a recession. To further add to creditors’ frustration, the government has yet to announce a comprehensive economic plan to revive the economy and service outstanding debt. The public foreign currency debt burden is unsustainable – its level stands at $250 billion, about 4 times larger than exports. The country is still in a recession, and economic indicators do not show much improvement. Committing to fiscal austerity to service foreign debt would entail further economic suffering for Argentine businesses and households, something Fernandez rejected throughout his campaign. The authorities are singularly focused on reviving the economy: government expenditures have grown by over 50% annually under the current administration (Chart III-2). Crucially, Argentina has already achieved a large trade surplus and its current account balance is approaching zero (Chart III-3). Assuming exports stay flat, the economy can afford to maintain its current level of imports. This makes the authorities less willing to compromise and more inclined to adopt a tough stance in debt negotiations. Chart III-2Peronist Government Has Again Boosted Fiscal Spending Chart III-3Argentina: Current Account Is Almost Balanced   The risk of this negotiation strategy is that the nation will not be able to raise foreign funding for a while. Nevertheless, the country is currently de facto not receiving any external financing. Hence, this risk is less pressing. Moreover, the administration has already delayed all US$ bond payments until August. This allows them to extend negotiations with creditors over the next six months, thereby increasing uncertainty and further pushing down bond prices. A lower market price on Argentine bonds is beneficial for the government’s negotiation strategy as it implies lower expectations for foreign creditors. Thus, the Fernandez administration’s strategy will be to play hardball and draw-out negotiations as long as possible. We expect Argentina to reach a settlement with creditors no earlier than in the third quarter of this year and at recovery rates below current prices of the nation’s Eurobonds. Russian financial assets will be supported due to improving public sector governance, accelerating domestic demand growth and healthy macro fundamentals. Bottom Line: The government will drag out foreign debt negotiations with the IMF and foreign private creditors to secure a more favorable settlement. Continue to underweight Argentine financial assets over the next several months. Juan Egaña Research Associate juane@bcaresearch.com Russia: Harvesting The Benefits Of Macro Orthodoxy Russian financial markets have shown resilience in face of falling oil prices. This has been the upshot of the nation’s prudent macro policies in recent years. We have been positive on Russia and overweight Russian markets over the past two years and this stance remains intact. Going forward, Russian financial assets will be supported due to improving public sector governance, accelerating domestic demand growth and healthy macro fundamentals: Fiscal policy will be relaxed substantially – both infrastructure and social spending will rise. Specifically, the Kremlin is eager to ramp up the national projects program. This is bullish for domestic demand. Russia’s public finances are currently in a very healthy state. Public debt (14% of GDP) is minimal and foreign public debt (4% of GDP) is tiny. The overall fiscal balance is in large surplus (2.7% of GDP). The current account is also in surplus. Hence, a major boost in fiscal spending will not undermine Russia’s macro stability for some time. As a major sign of policy change, President Putin has sidelined or reduced the authority of policymakers who have been advocating tight fiscal policy. This policy change has been overdue as fiscal policy has been unreasonably tight for longer than required (Chart IV-1). Chart IV-1Russia: Government Spending Has Been Extremely Weak Importantly, the recent changes at the highest levels of government are also positive for governance and productivity. The new Prime Minister Mishustin has earned this appointment for his achievements as the head of the federal tax authority. He has restructured and reorganized the tax department in a way that has boosted its efficiency/productivity substantially and increased tax collection. By promoting him to the head of government, Putin has boosted Mishustin’s authority to reform the entire federal governance system. Given his record of accomplishment, odds are that the new prime minister will succeed in implementing some reforms and restructuring. Thereby, productivity growth that has been stagnant in Russia for a decade could revive modestly. Also, Putin was reluctant to boost infrastructure spending as he was afraid of money being misappropriated without a proper monitoring system. Putin now hopes Mishustin can introduce an efficient governance system of fiscal spending to assure infrastructure projects can be realized with reasonably minimal losses. As to monetary policy, real interest rates are still very high. The prime lending rate is 10%, the policy rate is 6% and nominal GDP growth is 3.3% (Chart IV-2). Weak growth (Chart IV-3) and low inflation will encourage the central bank to continue cutting interest rates. Chart IV-2Russia: Interest Rates Remain Excessively High Chart IV-3Russia's Growth Is Very Sluggish   Finally, the economy does not have any structural excesses and imbalances. The central bank has done a good job in cleansing the banking system and the latter is in healthy shape. Bottom Line: The ruble will be supported by improving productivity, cyclical growth acceleration and a healthy fiscal position. We continue recommending overweighting Russian stocks, local currency bonds and sovereign credit relative to their respective EM benchmarks. Last week, we also recommended a new trade: Short Turkish bank stocks / long Russian bank stocks. The main risk to the absolute performance of Russian markets is another plunge in oil prices and a broad selloff in EM. On November 14, 2019 we recommended absolute return investors to go long Russian local currency bonds and short oil. This strategy remains intact. Finally, we have been recommending the long ruble / short Colombian peso trade since May 31, 2018. This position has generated large gains and we are reiterating it. Arthur Budaghyan Chief Emerging Markets Strategist arthurb@bcaresearch.com Footnotes Equities Recommendations Currencies, Credit And Fixed-Income Recommendations

Highlights The elevated uncertainty about global growth stemming from the COVID-19 virus in China has not only made investors more anxious, but central bankers as well. This means that, only six weeks into the year, policymakers may already be having to rethink their expected strategies for 2020 - which were, for the most part, sitting on hold after the monetary easing in 2019. This has important implications for the direction of global bond yields, which were starting to see a cyclical increase before the viral outbreak. In this report, we present what we see as the most important data for investors to focus on in the major developed markets to get the central bank call correct. This is based on our interpretation of recent speeches, press conferences and published research. We also provide our own suggested data series to watch for each country – which do not always line up with what central bankers are saying they are most worried about. We conclude that it is still not clear that the global growth backdrop has turned sustainably more bond bullish, but there is no pressure on any of the major central banks to move away from extremely accommodative policy settings. Feature Over the past four weeks, all of the major central banks have had the opportunity to formally communicate their current views to financial markets. Whether it was through post-policy- meeting press conferences or published monetary policy reports, central bankers have tried to signal their intentions about future changes in the direction of interest rates, given the heightened uncertainties about the momentum of global growth. At the moment, our global leading economic indicator (LEI) is still signaling that 2020 should see some rebound in global growth – and bond yields – after the sharp 2019 manufacturing-led slowdown (Chart 1). Unfortunately, the latest read on the global LEI uses data as of December, so it does not include what is almost certainly to be a very severe slowdown in the Chinese (and global) economy in the first quarter of 2020 due to the COVID-19 virus outbreak. Underlying stories within each developed market economy – on growth, inflation and potential financial imbalances – suggest that the additional interest rate cuts now discounted globally may not come to fruition if the China shock is contained to the first quarter of the year.  Central bankers are in the same spot as investors, trying to ascertain the extent of the hit to global growth from the virus, both in terms of size and, more importantly, duration. This comes at a time when many central banks were already formally rethinking how to meet their own individual inflation-targeting mandates given the persistence of low global inflation alongside tight labor markets (Chart 2). Chart 1Global Bond Yields: Think Globally, Act Locally Chart 2Common Worries For All CBs: China & Global Inflation That all sounds potentially very bond-bullish, but a lot of bad economic news is already discounted in the current low level of global bond yields. More importantly, the underlying stories within each developed market economy – on growth, inflation and potential financial imbalances – suggest that the additional interest rate cuts now discounted globally may not come to fruition if the China shock is contained to the first quarter of the year. In this Weekly Report, we provide a brief synopsis of what we believe are the biggest concerns for each of the major developed economy central banks. This is based on our read of recent policy decisions and central banker statements, as well as our own understanding of the current reaction function of policymakers. Our intention is to provide a short list of indicators to watch for each central bank, to help cut through the noise of data and news during this current period of unusual uncertainty, as well as our own assessment of what policymakers should be focusing on more. We conclude that it is still too soon to expect a new wave of bond-bullish global monetary policy easings in 2020. It will take evidence pointing to an extended shock to global growth from the COVID-19 virus to reverse the bond-bearish signal from other indicators like our global LEI. Federal Reserve Chart 3Federal Reserve: Focus On Financial Conditions & Inflation Expectations Currently, the Fed’s commentary suggests a policy bias that can be described as “neutral-to-dovish”, but it is giving no indication that additional rate cuts are likely in 2020 after the 75bps of cuts last year. Markets remain skeptical, however, with -42bps of cuts over the next twelve months now priced into the USD overnight index swap (OIS) curve according to our Fed Discounter (Chart 3). What the Fed seems most focused on: Fed officials seem focused on measures of market-based inflation expectations, like TIPS breakevens, as the best indication that current policy settings are appropriate (or not) relative to the growth outlook of investors. While FOMC members have expressed concern about TIPS breakevens being persistently below the 2% inflation target, they would not necessarily respond to a further decline in breakevens with more rate cuts without first seeing the US Treasury curve becoming inverted for a prolonged period, just like in 2019 (middle panel). Right now, with the 10-year TIPS breakeven at 1.67% and the 10-year/3-month US Treasury curve now at only -1bp, another decline in longer-term inflation expectations will likely invert the Treasury curve. What the Fed should be more focused on: US financial conditions are highly stimulative, with equity indices back near all-time highs and corporate credit spreads remaining well-contained at tight levels. Given the usual lead times of financial conditions indices to US cyclical growth indicators like the ISM manufacturing index (bottom panel), a continuation of the most recent bounce in the ISM is still the most likely result – even allowing for a near-term hit to global growth from China. While FOMC members have expressed concern about TIPS breakevens being persistently below the 2% inflation target, they would not necessarily respond to a further decline in breakevens with more rate cuts without first seeing the US Treasury curve becoming inverted for a prolonged period, just like in 2019. Bottom Line: The incoming US growth data is critical to determine the Fed’s next move. If there is no follow through from easy financial conditions into faster growth momentum, the odds increase that the Treasury curve will become more deeply inverted for a longer period of time – an outcome that would likely prompt more rate cuts, especially if equity and credit markets also begin to sell off as growth disappoints. European Central Bank Chart 4ECB: Focus On Manufacturing & Inflation Expectations The ECB has been clearly signaling that it still has a dovish bias, although central bank officials have acknowledged that the options available to them to ease further are limited with policy rates already in negative territory. The market agrees, as there are only -7bps of cuts over the next twelve months now priced into the EUR OIS curve according to our ECB Discounter (Chart 4). What the ECB seems most focused on: The ECB has been paying the most attention to the contractions in euro area manufacturing data (like PMIs) and exports seen in 2019. Rightly so, as nearly all of the two percentage point decline in year-over-year euro area real GDP growth since the late-2017 peak has come from weaker net exports. The central bank has also been concerned about the depressed level of inflation expectations, with the 5-year EUR CPI swap rate, 5-years forward, now at only 1.23% - far below the ECB’s inflation target of “at or just below” 2%. What the ECB should be more focused on: We agree that the focus for the ECB should be most concerned about the weakness in manufacturing/exports and low inflation expectations – the latter having not yet responded to extremely stimulative euro area financial conditions (most notably, the weak euro). The euro area economy is highly leveraged to Chinese demand, with exports to China representing 11% of total euro area exports. This makes leading indicators of Chinese economic activity, like the OECD China LEI and the China credit impulse, critically important indicators in determining the future path of European export demand. The COVID-19 outbreak in China could not have come at a worse time for the ECB, as there have been tentative signs of stabilization in cyclical euro area indicators like manufacturing PMIs in recent months. Bottom Line: The COVID-19 outbreak in China could not have come at a worse time for the ECB, as there have been tentative signs of stabilization in cyclical euro area indicators like manufacturing PMIs in recent months. If the China demand shock to euro area exports is large enough, the ECB will likely be forced to deliver a modest interest rate cut – or an expansion of the size of its monthly asset purchases – to try and boost growth. Bank Of England Chart 5Bank Of England: Focus On Business Sentiment & Labor Costs The Bank of England (BoE) has a well-deserved reputation as having an unpredictable policy bias under outgoing Governor Mark Carney, but the central bank does appear to be currently leaning on the moderately dovish side of neutral. Short-term interest rate markets also feel the same way, with -19ps of easing over the next twelve months priced into the GBP OIS curve according to our BoE Discounter (Chart 5). What the BoE seems most focused on: The BoE has been paying a lot of attention to indicators of UK business sentiment, which had been negatively impacted by both Brexit uncertainty and global trade tensions in 2019. The BoE has focused on the link from depressed business sentiment to weak investment spending and anemic productivity growth as an important reason why UK potential GDP growth has been so low and why UK inflation expectations have been relatively high. What the BoE should be more focused on: We agree that business sentiment should be the BoE’s greatest area of focus. Sentiment has shown a solid improvement of late, after the signing of the “phase one” US-China trade deal in December and the formal exit of the UK from the EU on January 31. The CBI Business Optimism survey (measuring the net balance of optimists versus pessimists) soared from -44 in October to +23 in January – the biggest quarterly jump ever recorded in the series. It remains to be seen if this improvement in confidence can be sustained and begin to arrest the steady decline in UK capital spending and productivity growth, and the associated surge in unit labor costs and inflation expectations, that has taken place since the 2016 Brexit vote. Bottom Line: The BoE’s next move, under the new leadership of incoming Governor Andrew Bailey, is not clear. Inflation expectations remain elevated but the recovery in business sentiment is still fragile. One potential risk to watch: UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson may choose to take a bolder stand on trade negotiations with the EU after his resounding election victory in December, risking an outcome closer to the “no-deal Brexit” scenario that was most feared by UK businesses. Bank Of Japan Chart 6Bank of Japan: Focus On Exports & The Yen The Bank of Japan (BoJ) seems to have had a perpetually dovish bias since the 1990s. Yet the current group of policymakers under Governor Haruhiko Kuroda, realizing that they have run out of realistic policy options after years of extreme stimulus, has not been signaling that fresh easing measures are on the horizon, even with economic growth and inflation remaining very weak in Japan. Markets have taken the hint, with only -6bps of rate cuts over the next twelve months priced into the JPY OIS curve according to our BoJ Discounter (Chart 6). What the BoJ seems most focused on: The BoJ has been vocally concerned about the recent slump in Japanese consumer spending, which declined -2.9% (in real terms) in Q4 after the sales tax hike last October. That blow to consumption was expected, but could not have come at a worse time for a central bank that was already worried about plunging Japanese manufacturing activity and exports – the latter declining by -8% in nominal terms as of December 2019. There is little hope for a near-term rebound given the certain hit to global growth and export demand from virus-stricken China. What the BoJ should be more focused on: Given that Japan is still an economy with a large manufacturing sector that is levered to global growth, the BoJ should remain focused on the path for Japanese exports. A bigger risk, however, comes from the Japanese yen, which has remained very stable over the past year. It has proven very difficult to generate any rise in Japanese inflation without some yen weakness, and with headline CPI inflation now only at +0.2%, a burst of yen strength would likely tip Japan back into outright deflation. Bottom Line: The BoJ is now stuck in a very bad spot, with no real ability to provide a major monetary policy stimulus for the stagnant Japanese economy. At best, all the central bank could do is deliver a small interest rate cut and hope for a quick rebound in global manufacturing activity and/or some yen weakness to boost flagging inflation. Bank Of Canada Chart 7Bank of Canada: Focus On Housing & Capital Spending The Bank of Canada (BoC) surprised many observers by keeping policy on hold last year, even as central banks worldwide engaged in various forms of monetary easing to offset the effects of the global manufacturing downturn. The BoC’s recent messaging has been relatively neutral, in our view, although Governor Stephen Poloz has not completely dismissed the possibility of rate cuts in his speeches. The markets are strongly convinced that the BoC will need to belatedly join the global easing party, with -32bps of rate cuts now priced into the CAD OIS curve according to our BoC Discounter (Chart 7) What the BoC seems most focused on: The BoC remains highly concerned over the high level of Canadian household debt, especially given how Canadian consumer spending has been highly geared towards trends in house price inflation over the past few years. This is likely why the BoC has been reluctant to cut policy rates as “insurance” against the effects of a prolonged global growth slump, to avoid stoking a new Canadian housing bubble. Interestingly, the commentary from BoC officials has taken on a bit more dovish tone whenever USD/CAD has threatened to break down below 1.30, suggesting some fears of unwanted currency appreciation. What the BoC should be more focused: The BoC should continue to monitor developments in the Canadian housing market, given the implications for consumer spending and, potentially, financial stability if there is another boom in house prices. The central bank should also pay even greater attention than usual to the subdued level of oil prices, which has triggered a deep slump in the oil-rich Alberta province that has weighed on the overall level of Canadian business investment spending. Persistently soft oil prices would also force the BoC to continue resisting strength in the Canadian dollar. It would likely take a breakdown in oil prices, or an outright decline in house prices, for the rate cut expectations currently discounted in the CAD OIS curve to come to fruition. Bottom Line: The BoC appears under no pressure to make any near-term interest rate adjustments, especially with realized inflation now sitting at the midpoint of the BoC’s 1-3% target band. It would likely take a breakdown in oil prices, or an outright decline in house prices, for the rate cut expectations currently discounted in the CAD OIS curve to come to fruition. Reserve Bank Of Australia Chart 8Reserve Bank Of Australia: Focus On Underemployment & Housing The Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) has been very transparent over the past year, loudly signaling a dovish bias and following through with 75bps of rate cuts that took the Cash Rate to a record low of 0.75%. The latest messaging has been a bit more balanced, while still leaving the door to additional rate cuts if the economy worsens. Markets are expecting at least one more easing, with -24bps of rate cuts over the next twelve months priced into the AUD OIS curve, according to our RBA Discounter (Chart 8). What the RBA seems most focused on: The RBA’s main concerns have centered around the persistent undershoot of Australian inflation, with core inflation remaining below the central bank’s 2-3% target band since the beginning of 2016. The central bank has attributed this to persistent excess capacity in the Australian labor market, as evidenced by the elevated underemployment rate. The RBA is also paying close attention to the Australian housing market and its links to consumer spending, with house prices already responding positively to last year’s RBA rate cuts. The outlook for exports is also on the RBA radar, particularly after the recent surge that lifted the Australia trade balance into surplus but is now at risk from a plunge in Chinese demand. What the RBA should be more focused on: We agree that the labor market should be the main focus for the RBA, particularly the underemployment rate which is still high at 8.3%, signaling that core CPI inflation should remain subdued (bottom panel). We also see the RBA as potentially being more sanguine about the risks of a renewed upturn in the housing market than many observers expect, since that would provide a potential offset to a likely pullback in exports which are now a record 25% of GDP (middle panel). Bottom Line: The RBA still has a clear dovish bias, even though they are currently on hold to assess the impact of last year’s easing. RBA Governor Philip Lowe noted in a recent speech that more cuts may be necessary “if the unemployment rate deteriorates”, suggesting that the labor market is the main area of focus for the central bank. Reserve Bank Of New Zealand Chart 9Reserve Bank Of New Zealand: Focus On The Terms Of Trade & Non-Tradeables Inflation The Reserve Bank of New Zealand (RBNZ) was one of the more dovish central banks in 2019, cutting the Cash Rate by 75bps to a record low of 1%. The overall tone of the central bank’s recent commentary remains cautious, but has taken on a more balanced tone. Markets are priced appropriately, with only -13bps of rate cuts over the next twelve months discounted in the NZD OIS curve according to our RBNZ Discounter (Chart 9). What the RBNZ seems most focused on: The latest messaging from the RBNZ has highlighted the downside risks to New Zealand from weak global growth, but those are now more manageable since the central bank estimates the economy is operating at full employment. In its latest Monetary Policy Statement (MPS), the RBNZ noted that the economy has been able to weather the weakness in global growth thanks to the positive terms of trade effect from elevated New Zealand export prices – a trend that the central bank expects will persist in 2020 even if external demand remains sluggish (middle panel). The central bank has also expressed some concern over the recent pickup in domestically-driven inflation measures, with core CPI inflation back above 2% (bottom panel). What the RBNZ should be more focused on: The RBNZ is right to focus on global growth, particularly given the coming demand shock from virus-stricken China. While the New Zealand dollar has always been a critical variable for the RBNZ in its policy decisions, the currency now takes on added importance given the central bank’s expectation that export prices and the terms of trade will remain elevated. If the latter turns out to be wrong, the RBNZ will be far more likely to take actions to ensure that the Kiwi dollar stays undervalued. Bottom Line: The RBNZ still has a dovish policy bias, but the hurdle to deliver additional rate cuts after last year’s easing seems a bit higher now. It would likely take a major downturn in global growth, combined with a decline in New Zealand export prices and some cooling of domestic inflation, to get the RBNZ to cut again in 2020. Investment Conclusions Based on our “whirlwind tour” of the major developed market central banks in this report, we can make the following conclusions regarding the expected path of interest rates, and bond yields, in these countries: There are no central banks with anything resembling a hawkish bias – not surprising in the current slow global growth environment with heightened uncertainty. The least dovish central banks are the BoC and the RBNZ, which are not signaling any urgency to cut rates. The most dovish central bank is the RBA, which is indicating a clear willingness to cut again if domestic growth deteriorates. The Fed and the BoE are somewhere in the middle of the “dovishness” spectrum, with both likely willing to ease policy but only under a specific set of circumstances. The ECB and BoJ are clearly boxed in having policy rates already below the zero bound, limiting their ability to ease further if needed. In our view, the rate cut probabilities in the US and Canada seem a bit too aggressive, as we are not anticipating major growth slowdowns in either country over the next 6-12 months.  Looking back at our Central Bank Discounters, the largest amount of rate cuts over the next year are now discounted in the US (-42bps), Canada (-32bps), Australia (-24bps) and the UK (-19bps). At the same time, the fewest cuts are priced in Japan (-6bps), the euro area (-7bps) and New Zealand (-13bps). In our view, the rate cut probabilities in the US and Canada seem a bit too aggressive, as we are not anticipating major growth slowdowns in either country over the next 6-12 months. The odds seem more “fair” in the other countries, in terms of the size of rate cut expectations versus the probability of those cuts actually being delivered because of domestic economic considerations. What does this all mean for global bond investing this year? For that we can turn to our Global Golden Rule framework, which links expected returns of government bonds versus cash to the difference between actual and expected rate cuts.1 US Treasuries and Canadian government bond yields are most at risk of underperforming their global peers in 2020 as the Fed and BoC disappoint the current dovish rate cut expectations discounted in interest rate markets.   Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report, "The Global Golden Rule Of Bond Investing", dated September 25th 2018, available at 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

Highlights Chinese policymakers will deliver more growth-supporting measures in the coming months, but Chinese government bond yields have already priced in a much weaker economic slowdown and a more aggressive policy response. While we think monetary policy may get even looser in the very near term, there is limited potential for the short-end of the Chinese government bond yield curve to remain at such low levels. The PBoC’s recent liquidity injections are mostly a preventive measure to avoid an acute cash crunch in the real economy, and the historical path following the 2003 SARS outbreak suggests the additional monetary easing action is unlikely to be sustained over the coming 6-12 months. As such, Chinese government bond yields will rebound in expectation of better economic conditions and more restrictive monetary conditions. On a cyclical basis, we continue to overweight Chinese equities over government bonds. Feature Chinese bond yields have declined sharply over the past two weeks, as investors weighed both the economic consequences of the Covid-19 outbreak and the likelihood of more accommodative monetary policy. Following the extended Chinese New Year holiday, China’s central bank (PBoC) has carried out five cash injections, pumping nearly 3 trillion yuan into the interbank market (Chart 1). It also lowered the de jure policy rate - the 7-day reverse repo rate - by 10bps to cut the cost of funding for commercial banks. The 3-month SHIBOR (which trades very closely to the 3-month repo rate), which we have long viewed as China’s de facto short-term policy rate, quickly reversed its January rise and fell back to its July-2018 low (Chart 2). Chart 1Large And Frequent Liquidity Injections Since The Onset Of The Virus Outbreak Chart 2Monetary Conditions Turned Much Easier In Just Three Weeks The PBoC’s aggressive easing measures of late have sparked market speculation that China is entering another major monetary and credit easing cycle, and that a government bond rally is well underway with even lower yields to come. Chart 3Extremely Tight Relationship Between Interbank Lending Rate And Government Bond Yields In our January 29 Special Report1 on China’s government bond market, we discussed how there has been a strong relationship in the past decade between unexpected changes in the 3-month SHIBOR and the long-end of China’s government bond yields. In order for the current rally in government securities to be sustained, investors need to believe that the PBoC’s easing measures are here to stay and that there will be additional policy rate cuts in the months to come (Chart 3). There are indications that Chinese policymakers are looking to deliver more growth-supporting measures over the coming months. However, it is likely that the current bond rally will be a near-term event rather than a cyclical (6-12 months) trend. Therefore, on a cyclical time horizon, we continue to recommend overweighting Chinese stocks versus Chinese government bonds and would advise against an aggressively long duration stance. Has The Covid-19 Epidemic Peaked? The fact that the number of new suspected cases is also in decline sends a signal that the outbreak outside Hubei may have largely been contained.  Chart 4Financial Market Shakes Off Some Of The "Fear Element" From The Outbreak Investors appear to concur with our view that the Covid-19 outbreak has largely become a Hubei-specific crisis.2 Chinese stocks in the onshore and offshore markets have recovered more than half of the losses from their bottom on February 3, when the number of new cases outside of the Hubei epicenter reached a tentative peak. The 12-month change in the yields of Chinese 3 and 10-year government bonds also inched up since then (Chart 4). While the Chinese government’s rollout of supportive measures, including liquidity injections and policy rate cuts since early February might have helped improve market sentiment, the fact the epidemic outside Hubei province seems to be contained also helps explain the bottom in equity prices and bond yields. In addition, the number of new suspected cases outside Hubei province has trended down since February 9 (Chart 5). The diagnosis methodology was recently revised to include suspects with clinical symptoms, regardless of whether they had a history of contact with infected cases from Wuhan. This new methodology has lowered the bar for registering newly suspected cases. While the situation surrounding the Covid-19 outbreak is still fluid, the fact that the number of new suspected cases is also in decline sends a signal that the outbreak outside Hubei may have largely been contained. Bottom Line: Outside of the epicenter, the Covid-19 outbreak may have peaked. This means the fear element driving down Chinese government bond yields may soon end. Chart 5The Situation Continues To Get Better Outside Of The Epicenter Current Bond Rally Unlikely A Cyclical Play Bond yields now appear to have largely priced in a delayed economic recovery and more aggressive policy response. We think the current rally in Chinese government bonds will thus only be a short-term event rather than a cyclical (6-12 month) play. The rally in China’s government bond market since mid-2018 was largely driven by market expectations of a significant slowdown in the Chinese economy, and a much easier monetary policy in responding to a slowing Chinese domestic demand and a protracted Sino-US trade war. Bond market is pricing in a 2015-2016-style economic slowdown and a policy response that is more aggressive than four years ago. Cyclically, we think both of these factors are absent from the current situation, and a normalization back to the pre-outbreak monetary stance may come earlier than the market expects. In the last two weeks, Chinese government bond markets have discounted a sharp slowdown in economic activity; 10-year Chinese government bond yields are back below 3.0% for the first time since 2016 and the 3-month SHIBOR is now 25bps lower than the bottom in 2015-2016 (Chart 6). This suggests the market is pricing in a 2015-2016-style economic slowdown and a policy response that is more aggressive than four years ago. The nature of the current situation, as we pointed out in our previous reports,3 represents a temporary delay rather than a derailing of an economic recovery in China.  The Covid-19 outbreak and the unprecedented containment measures paused the Chinese economy in the first quarter, just as it was coming off of a two-year soft patch. But domestic demand was not nearly as weak as in 2015-2016 before the outbreak (Chart 7). Chart 6Bond Market Is Pricing In A 2015-2016-Style Economic Slowdown Chart 7A Chinese Economic Recovery Was Budding Pre-Outbreak Chart 8The PBoC Is Generally A Reactive Central Bank, But A Proactive Central Bank In Reversing Crisis Easing If the virus is contained outside of the epicenter in the next couple of weeks and the hit to China’s overall economy is limited to Q1, then the PBoC will likely normalize policy back to its pre-outbreak stance. While the PBoC is generally a reactive central bank and has historically lagged a pickup in economic activity, it was proactive in normalizing its monetary policy following short-term shocks. Chart 8 shows the historical path of 3-month SHIBOR in the year following a bottom in economic activity in 2009, 2012, and 2015.  In all three economic slowdowns, there has not been a significant rise in interbank rates in the first nine months of an economic recovery. Following the SARS outbreak, however, the PBoC reversed its easy stance and significantly tightened liquidity conditions in the banking system only four months after the peak of the SARS outbreak. While we do not expect the PBoC to shift into a tightening mode this year, a shift back to the pre-outbreak policy trajectory sometime in Q2 is highly likely, provided the Covid-19 outbreak is contained outside of Hubei province.  In turn, Chinese government bond yields will rebound in expectation of better economic conditions and more restrictive monetary conditions. PBoC is also unlikely to open a liquidity floodgate. Despite large liquidity injections in the past two weeks, we are not convinced that the PBoC intends to fully open the liquidity tap in the interbank market.  So far, most of the financial support measures have been a combination of targeted low-cost funding to non-financial corporations and fiscal subsidies to local governments and businesses. This differs from 2015-2016 when the PBoC aggressively cut interbank rates and the 1-year benchmark lending rate, and kept excessive liquidity in the interbank system for a prolonged period (Chart 9). As Chart 9 (bottom panel) shows, PBoC’s net fund injections have been extremely volatile since Covid-19 erupted in January. This suggests that while the PBoC has added large doses of liquidity into the interbank market, demand for financial support in the banking system has mostly matched or even outstripped supply. In other words, the PBoC is not flooding the interbank system with cash, rather it is preventing an outbreak-induced illiquidity issue from turning into a widespread insolvency problem.  The PBoC is trying to prevent an outbreak-induced illiquidity issue from turning into a widespread insolvency problem.  Chart 9Monetary Policy Not Turning Back To A 2015-2016-Style "Floodgate Irrigation" Chart 10Private Sector Highly Leveraged... This approach is warranted. Small businesses have been disproportionally hit by the outbreak and are reporting a severe shortage of cash. China’s private sector is particularly vulnerable to cash flow restrictions because many businesses are highly leveraged (Chart 10).  A joint survey of 995 small and mid-size companies by Tsinghua and Peking universities showed that more than 60% of respondents said they can survive for only one to two months with their current savings (Chart 11).   Chart 11…Making Small Businesses Especially Vulnerable To Cash-Flow Constraints Additionally, there is a risk that the PBoC is underestimating the demand for cash in the banking system, particularly from small- and medium-sized banks. This underestimation could lead to a rise in the interbank lending rate. This occurred in 2017 when the crackdown of shadow bank lending caused a funding squeeze for China’s small and mid-sized banks, which led to a material rise in interbank lending rates and government bond yields (shown in Chart 6). It is also the reason that we primarily track the 3-month SHIBOR over the 7-day rate, as the former tends to capture the effects of these funding squeezes whereas the latter does not. The demand for cash in the interbank market in the current quarter will be higher than in the same period last year. The government has announced an additional debt quota of 848 billion yuan, on top of the previously authorized quota of 1 trillion yuan worth of local government bonds that would be frontloaded in Q1. This is a 32% increase from a total of 1400 billion yuan of bonds that local government frontloaded in Q1 2019. This implies the demand for cash in the interbank market will remain high as commercial banks account for about 80% of local government bond purchases.4 A temporary spike in corporate bond defaults leading to a jump in the interbank rate could also push up government bond yields. Additionally, the delayed resumption of work, the loss of production and the cash crunch facing small companies raise the risk of a surge in overdue bank loans and defaults. This could also escalate the demand for cash from smaller banks, because large commercial banks may be unwilling to lend to riskier borrowers in the interbank market. The 3-month SHIBOR has inched up since the takeover of Baoshang Bank in May 2019. Chart 12Average Lending Rates Lag Short-Term Bond Yields We expect the PBoC to lower the loan prime rate (LPR), following the 10bps cut in the medium lending facility rate (MLF) on February 17. As we pointed out in our January 29 Special Report, this easing by the PBoC will reduce corporate lending rates, but not necessarily interbank rates. Chart 12 shows that the change in average lending rates lags the change in Chinese government bond yields. Therefore, the upcoming cuts in the LPR are a result of lowered interbank rates and bond yields, not a cause for changes in government bond yields going forward. Bottom Line: Monetary policy will remain relatively loose this year, but we think the PBoC’s recent aggressive easing will be a temporary event. Any additional easing by the PBoC this year will likely be through providing short-term cash relief and temporarily lowered funding costs to non-financial corporations. There are also near-term risks that interbank rates may be pushed up due to a liquidity crunch.  Hence, yields at the short-end will likely be volatile in the near term whereas yields at the long-end are unlikely to stay at their current low levels. Investment Conclusions While we think monetary policy may get even looser in the very near term, there is limited potential for the short-end of the Chinese government bond yield curve to remain at such low levels. Barring a lasting economic slowdown from the Covid-19 outbreak, the long-end of the curve has the potential to move moderately higher in the second half of the year, as China’s economy recovers from the outbreak-induced shock. Bond yields at the short-end will likely be volatile in the near term whereas yields at the long-end are unlikely to stay at their current low levels. Given this, we continue to expect Chinese domestic and investable equities to outperform government bonds in the next 6-12 months, and we would advise Chinese fixed-income investors against an aggressively long duration stance. Onshore corporate bonds, while risking a higher default rate in the near term, shares a similar outlook on a cyclical basis: onshore spreads are pricing in (massively) higher default losses than we believe are warranted. This means that onshore corporate bonds will still outperform duration-matched government bonds without any changes in yield, underpinning another year of Chinese corporate bond market outperformance versus government bonds.   Jing Sima China Strategist jings@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1    Please see China Investment Strategy Special Report "How To Analyze And Position Towards Chinese Government Bonds," dated January 29, 2020, available at cis.bcaresearch.com 2   Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report "The Evolving Crisis," dated February 13, 2020, available at cis.bcaresearch.com 3   Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report "Recovery, Temporarily Interrupted," dated February 5, 2020, available at cis.bcaresearch.com 4   ChinaBond, as of 2019 Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations

Highlights Duration: Bond yields will stay low until the daily number of new COVID-19 cases falls to zero, at which point a sell-off is likely. We therefore recommend maintaining below-benchmark portfolio duration on a 6-12 month horizon. Rising odds of a Bernie Sanders presidential win could prevent bond yields from rising at all this year. We may adjust our recommendations in the coming months if this risk increases. Spread Product: Investors should maintain an overweight allocation to spread product versus Treasuries, with a preference for high-yield. Accommodative monetary conditions will ensure that the supply of credit remains ample for some time yet. This will keep defaults low and spreads tight. Monetary Policy: The Fed is in no rush to tighten policy, but has also set a high bar for further cuts. Investors should short August 2020 fed funds futures.  Yields Will Move Higher … But Not Yet Chart 1A Peak In New Cases? Uncertainty about the economic impact of the coronavirus – now officially called COVID-19 – is the cloud that continues to hang over financial markets. Last week, bond yields fell when a change in the definition of what constitutes a confirmed infection caused the number of reported cases to spike. However, even after revisions, the daily number of new cases looks like it may have peaked (Chart 1). The end result is that the 10-year Treasury yield sits at 1.58%, not far from where it was last week (Chart 2). Notably, the 10-year yield continues to shrug off the notable improvement in US economic data (Chart 2, bottom panel), taking its cues instead from COVID-19 headline risk. Even if the downtrend in new COVID-19 cases continues, it is too soon to be looking for higher bond yields. For one thing, the most up-to-date economic data releases were collected during January, before the outbreak. Weaker readings during the next 1-2 months are assured, and investors may not look through the weakness given that many were already skeptical about the prospects for global economic recovery. Our read of the data is that global growth was in the process of bottoming when COVID-19 struck. We therefore expect global growth to move higher once the virus’ impact abates. In terms of timing, using the 2003 SARS outbreak as a comparable, we expect bonds to remain bid until the daily number of new cases falls to zero, at which point a sell-off is likely. Yields continue to shrug off improvements in economic data. It’s not just the long-end of the curve that has responded to COVID-19. The front-end has also moved to price-in high odds of a rate cut in the coming months. Specifically, the overnight index swap curve is priced for a 42 bps decline in the fed funds rate during the next 12 months (Chart 2, panel 2), and the fed funds futures market is pricing a 74% chance of a rate cut by the end of the summer. As we discussed last week, given that any economic impact from COVID-19 will be temporary, we think the bar for a Fed rate cut this year is quite high.1 As such, our Golden Rule of Bond Investing dictates that investors should keep portfolio duration low on a 12-month horizon.2 We also recommend shorting August 2020 fed funds futures, a trade that will earn 23 bps of unlevered return if the Fed stands pat between now and August (Chart 2, panel 3). Turning to corporate credit, we see that, so far, COVID-19’s impact on spreads has been minor. The investment grade corporate bond index spread is only 3 bps wider than at the start of the year, and the junk index spread is only 8 bps wider (Chart 3). Value remains stretched in the investment grade space, but high-yield spreads look quite attractive. The sell-off in the energy sector has boosted the high-yield index spread considerably (Chart 3, bottom 2 panels). We view this as a medium-term buying opportunity for junk. Once the COVID outbreak abates and global growth ticks higher, the oil price is bound to increase, leading to some tightening in energy spreads. Chart 2Bond Yields Driven By COVID Chart 3HY More Attractive Than IG Will Bonds Feel The Bern? Beyond COVID-19, there is one more risk on the horizon this year. Specifically, the risk that Bernie Sanders is elected President in November. This outcome is far from certain. Sanders is currently leading all other candidates in the Democratic Primary, but fivethirtyeight.com’s model puts the odds of a brokered convention at 38%.3 This means that the race is still wide open and might only be settled at the convention in July. But given Sanders’ lead, it is worth considering the bond market implications if he were to become the next President. The most obvious implication is that risk assets (equities and corporate spreads) would respond to Sanders’ agenda of wealth redistribution by selling off. This could spur a flight-to-quality into government bonds, causing Treasury yields to fall. However, that flight-to-quality won’t occur if markets also start to price-in the long-run implications of Sanders’ agenda. I.e. the fact that the redistribution of wealth from capital to labor would lower the economy’s marginal propensity to save, and likely raise inflation expectations, leading to higher interest rates. It’s important to note that there are a lot of hurdles to overcome before Sanders’ full policy agenda is implemented. First he must secure the Democratic nomination, then defeat Donald Trump in the general election. Even after that, he will still need to convince the House and Senate to pass non-watered down versions of his proposals. With such a long road ahead, we don’t think Sanders’ momentum will push bond yields higher in 2020. Rather, the risk is that Sanders’ rise keeps bond yields low in 2020 as risk assets sell off. If Bernie Sanders looks poised to win the nomination, we will consider reducing our 6-12 month allocation to spread product and increasing our recommended portfolio duration. The outlook for the Democratic Primary should become clearer after Super Tuesday on March 3. If Sanders looks poised to win the nomination we will consider reducing our recommended 6-12 month allocation to spread product and increasing our recommended portfolio duration. Bottom Line: Bond yields will stay low until the daily number of new COVID-19 cases falls to zero, at which point a sell-off is likely. We therefore recommend maintaining below-benchmark portfolio duration on a 6-12 month horizon. Rising odds of a Bernie Sanders presidential win could prevent bond yields from rising at all this year. We may adjust our recommendations in the coming months if this risk increases. Investors should maintain an overweight allocation to spread product versus Treasuries, with a preference for junk. Though the credit cycle is far from over (see next section), we may reduce our recommended allocation to spread product versus Treasuries if Sanders’ election chances rise.  Bank Lending Standards Won’t Push Credit Spreads Wider In 2020 The net change in commercial & industrial (C&I) bank lending standards, as reported in the Fed’s quarterly Senior Loan Officer Survey, is a vitally important indicator for the credit cycle. Easing lending standards tend to coincide with a low default rate and falling credit spreads, while tightening lending standards usually coincide with spread widening and a rising default rate. With that in mind, it is mildly concerning that bank lending standards have been fluctuating around neutral levels for quite some time, and have in fact tightened in two of the past five quarters (Chart 4). In this week’s report we consider whether tighter bank lending standards could pose a risk to our overweight spread product view in 2020. Chart 4Bank Lending Standards And Monetary Variables Bank lending standards are such an important credit cycle variable because they tell us about the supply of credit. A corporate default only occurs when credit supply is lower than the amount required for that firm’s survival. On a macro scale, we can think of two main reasons why lenders might restrict the credit supply: They perceive the monetary environment as restrictive. That is, they worry about higher interest rates and slower growth in the future. They perceive corporate balance sheets as being in poor health. That is, they worry that firms won’t be sufficiently profitable to make good on their debts. We find that monetary indicators do a very good job of predicting when lending standards will tighten. Looking back at the past two cycles, lending standards didn’t tighten until after: The yield curve inverted (Chart 4, panel 2). The real fed funds rate was above its estimated equilibrium level (Chart 4, panel 3). Inflation expectations were at or above target levels (Chart 4, bottom panel). Presently, all three of these monetary indicators are supportive. Some portions of the yield curve have been inverted at various times during the past year. But in general, the inversion signal from the yield curve has not been as strong as it was when lending standards tightened in prior cycles. For instance, the 3-year/10-year Treasury slope has not inverted this cycle, and it currently sits at +20 bps (Chart 4, panel 2). Further, the real fed funds rate is below most estimates of its neutral level and the Fed is signaling that it will keep it there for a long time yet. This dovish posture is justified by inflation expectations that remain well below target. It is conceivable that, despite the accommodative monetary environment, banks might be so concerned about poor balance sheet health that they are becoming more cautious with their lending. However, a survey of corporate health metrics doesn’t point to an imminent tightening of bank lending standards either (Chart 5). Chart 5Bank Lending Standards And Corporate Balance Sheet Variables In past cycles, tighter bank lending standards were preceded by: A trough in gross leverage (pre-tax profits over total debt) (Chart 5, panel 2). A peak in interest coverage (Chart 5, panel 3). Negative pre-tax profit growth (Chart 5, panel 4). A peak in profit margins (Chart 5, bottom panel). Currently, gross leverage is the only one of the above four variables that is clearly sending a negative signal. As for the other three, interest coverage and profit margins are barely off their cyclical highs, and profit growth has been fluctuating around zero for three years. If global growth rebounds during the next 12 months, as we expect, then profit growth will also move modestly higher. Bottom Line: Neither monetary nor balance sheet variables point to an imminent tightening of bank lending standards. We expect that the supply of credit will remain ample in 2020, keeping the default rate low and credit spreads tight. A Note On Falling C&I Loan Demand In addition to questions about lending standards, the Fed’s Senior Loan Officer Survey also asks banks to report whether they are seeing stronger or weaker demand for C&I loans. In response, banks have reported weaker C&I loan demand for six consecutive quarters, ending in Q4 2019. Historically, it is unusual for C&I loan demand to fall without a concurrent tightening in lending standards (Chart 6). Chart 6Explaining Weakening Loan Demand We also see the impact of weaker loan demand in the hard data. C&I loan growth has been falling since early 2019 (Chart 6, panel 2) and net corporate bond issuance had been on a sharp downtrend since 2015, before moving higher last year (Chart 6, bottom panel). So what’s going on with C&I loan demand? We can think of two reasons why firms might seek out less credit. First, they may face a dearth of investment opportunities, or alternatively, they might perceive some benefit from carrying less debt on their balance sheets. On the first point, we find that new orders for core capital goods do a very good job explaining the swings in C&I lending (Chart 7). Specifically, we see that the global growth slowdown of 2015/16 drove both investment spending and C&I lending lower. Then, both series recovered in 2017/18 before moving down again during last year’s slowdown. Surveys about firms’ capital spending plans also dropped last year, consistent with the deceleration in C&I lending, but remain at high levels (Chart 7, bottom three panels). All of this suggests that C&I loan growth will recover this year as global growth improves and the investment landscape brightens. Capital goods new orders do a good job explaining C&I lending. Corporate bond issuance has followed a different path from C&I lending during the past few years. Specifically, bond issuance slowed in 2015/16 as investment spending dried up. But it did not recover in 2017/18 the way that investment spending and C&I lending did. This appears to be a result of the 2018 corporate tax cuts and repatriation holiday. Chart 8 shows that the Financing Gap – the difference between capex spending and retained earnings – plunged in 2018 because firms suddenly received a huge influx of retained earnings. The influx came in part from the lower tax rate, but mostly from repatriated cash that had been stranded overseas. Simply, firms didn’t need to issue bonds to finance their investment plans in 2018 because they had a lot more cash on hand. Chart 7C&I Lending Follows ##br##Investment Chart 8A Negative Financing Gap Limits The Need For Debt What about the possibility that firms are demanding less debt because they are trying to clean up their balance sheets? Beyond a few anecdotes, we don’t see much support for this idea. In fact, an equity index of firms with low debt/asset ratios has been underperforming an index of firms with high debt/asset ratios (Chart 9). This suggests that there is currently little reward for firms that are paying down debt. Chart 9Firms Not Rewarded For Healthy Balance Sheets Bottom Line: Weaker demand for C&I loans is a result of the recent global growth downturn and decline in investment spending. It is not a harbinger of the end of the credit cycle. Loan demand should improve as global growth rebounds this year. Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “How Are Inflation Expectations Adapting?”, dated February 11, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 For further details on our Golden Rule of Bond Investing please see US Bond Strategy Special Report, “The Golden Rule of Bond Investing”, dated July 24, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 3 https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-primary-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification