Economy

Highlights So What? A 70% tax on Americans with income over $10 million is not far-fetched. Why? The median U.S. voter wants higher taxes on the wealthy; Both populism and geopolitics make it impossible to cut spending; The next recession, no matter how shallow, will elicit unconventional policy. Feature The New Year has brought a chill to the investment community. No, it is not the weather, but rather a proposal by U.S. Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) to create a new top-income bracket, starting at $10,000,000, that would be taxed at 70%. The reaction to the self-described Democratic Socialist has been swift. Her strategy of soaking the rich would not work, would cause an exodus of job-creators out of the U.S., and would slow down the pace of growth. A CNBC headline screamed: “The super rich at Davos are scared of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s proposal to hike taxes on the wealthy.”1 In these pages, we are not going to discuss the merits of the proposal, although it would not raise enough revenue to fund the Democrats’ other policy proposals. Instead, we are going to forecast that Representative Ocasio-Cortez will get what she wants. Within our investment horizon. Probably following the next recession, which is nigh. However, how she gets what she wants will ultimately matter more than what the tax rate is on every dollar over $10,000,000 of income. The Median American Voter Since before the 2016 U.S. election and the Brexit vote, we have argued that the Median Voter is moving to the Left, particularly in the laissez-faire economies of the U.S. and the U.K. These two Anglo-Saxon economies swerved most enthusiastically to the right of the economic spectrum during the 1980 supply-side revolutions. They embraced both neo-liberal economic policy and globalization. While these reforms allowed them to outperform their less enthusiastically capitalist peers on a number of measures of economic performance, they also produced higher income inequality and a slower pace of social mobility (Chart 1). Over time, and particularly following the 2008 Great Recession, this pernicious mix of factors produced a surge in populism. There has been plenty of evidence that our view is on track. Take for example the performance of the über-left leaning Labour Party in the U.K.’s 2017 election or the breakdown of the Washington Consensus on global trade. Still, many clients have resisted our thesis. This is because President Trump did manage to push a sweeping supply-side tax cut through Congress in 2017. Given that we forecast that Republicans would get their way on tax cuts, our clients were left wondering how our thesis of a shift to the left could coexist with a Reagan-esque lowering of tax rates? The answer is that the move of the Median Voter to the left is a structural geopolitical view. A tax cut policy in 2017 was a tactical/cyclical view that deviated from the long-term trend. Trump was a candidate who promised faster economic growth while the Republican Party was a political machine that sought a low tax regime as a matter of policy and ideology. We expected the GOP, and House leader Paul Ryan, to use the Trump presidency as a way to get one last tax cut while they had control. However, since the tax cuts were passed, much has gone awry for America’s center-right party. First, the Democrats campaigned enthusiastically against the tax cuts in the midterm elections. On the other side of the aisle, Republican members of Congress quickly found out that they got no applause from constituents for their signature piece of legislation. The tax cut therefore disappeared from GOP messaging ahead of the November 2018 election. Steve Bannon, Trump’s political strategist, had apparently predicted this outcome when he cautioned against cutting tax rates for the top income bracket. He suggested a hike on taxes for the wealthy to boost Trump’s populist credentials. (Bannon’s proposal was for a 44% rate on those who earn income over $5,000,000, mathematically on the path towards Ocasio-Cortez’s end-point!).2 Second, the Republicans went on to lose their majority in the House. Granted, presidents usually lose their first midterm. However, with unemployment at 3.7% last November and the economy clocking in at a 3% clip, the GOP had a clear upper hand on economic messaging. And yet it did not avert major losses. The commentary from the right is that the Democrats are going to dig their own grave with their increasingly “Socialist” talk. But will they? We present three reasons that suggest that Ocasio-Cortez (and, ironically, Steve Bannon) are going to get what they want. Income taxes in America will rise over the next decade. Reason #1: The Median Voter Wants Higher Taxes On The Wealthy There is nothing sacred in politics. A society’s volonté générale swings like a pendulum between thesis and antithesis. The idea that Americans embody the laissez-faire spirit, while the French are socialists, is simply a product of linear extrapolation based on the timeline of a single generation.3  Chart 2 suggests a different story. As recently as the early 1970s, the U.S. and France were like peas in a pod when it came to income distribution, while the U.K. – the epicenter of the supply-side revolution — was the most redistributive Western economy. Chart 2France Was Once Less Socialist Than America! Today, Americans are much more in line with AOC than with Paul Ryan, which is why only one of the two has a job in the U.S. Congress. Ryan knew when to take his winnings and go home. According to a poll published merely weeks after AOC’s proposal, 59% of Americans support the 70% marginal tax rate. Democrats support the idea at a 71% clip, which suggests that Ocasio-Cortez is not on the fringes of the party. Independents support it at 60% and even 45% of registered Republicans support the idea. One could argue that the much-cited poll above is merely a flash in the pan, that it signifies nothing. We disagree for two reasons. First, if 60% of Americans – including 45% of Republicans – support a 70% tax rate now, when the economy is firing on all cylinders, GDP growth is above potential, and unemployment is at 3.9%, what will they support 12-36 months from now, when the inevitable recession hits? Or when America’s indebted corporations begin to deleverage by shedding jobs because they took on massive debts in order to buy back equities and return value to shareholders (which, completely coincidentally, includes senior management)? Second, there is evidence that a majority of Americans has thought that “upper-income people” have not been paying their fair share for some time now. A Gallup poll run since the early 1990s shows that the sentiment for higher taxes on upper-income individuals is off its lows in 2010 (Chart 3). We are still far from the early 1990s highs, but the trajectory of the public opinion is clearly going in the Left’s direction and has always hovered around the 60% mark. Bottom Line: It seems like ages ago that Grover Norquist, the anti-tax advocate, dominated the hallways of Congress, prodding legislators into pledging to “oppose any and all efforts to increase the marginal tax rate for individuals and businesses.” As recently as the 2012 election, 238 out of 242 House Republicans and 41 out of 47 Senate Republicans signed Norquist’s “Taxpayer Protection Pledge.” We subscribe to the theory that the median voter is the price maker in the political marketplace, the politician is the price taker. Trump and Ocasio-Cortez are merely vessels for the expression of the volonté générale, the median voter’s policy preference. And that preference runs counter to Norquist’s activism and the GOP’s tax cut policy in 2017. Reason #2: History Is On Ocasio-Cortez’s Side Chart 4 has already made the rounds, suggesting that Ocasio-Cortez is not making a ludicrous proposal given that the U.S. already had much higher marginal tax rates on top incomes in the past. Critics accuse her of simplifying history without considering context. This is an important point. First, defense spending as a percent of GDP was at 37.5% in 1945 and still at an elevated 7.4% in 1965, twenty years later. The U.S. exited World War II and then almost immediately stumbled into two major conflicts, one on the Korean Peninsula and one in Vietnam. Meanwhile, the Cold War competition with the Soviet Union created an existential threat that had to be resisted on land, sea, and space, justifying higher tax rates. Second, while the U.S. did indeed cut its top marginal rates throughout the second half of the century, so did everyone else! Chart 5 shows that the rest of the Western world was largely in lock-step with the U.S. In fact, it was the U.S. that came down to French levels of taxation (!!!) throughout 1960s and 1970s (again, remember Chart 2). As such, Chart 4 by itself is not a reason to excuse higher marginal rates. Of course we are completely disinterested in the merits of the policy. We are merely trying to forecast it. And Chart 4 does help us do so for two reasons. First, the key achievement of the Tax Cuts And Jobs Act of 2017 was the corporate tax cut to 21%. There is some bipartisan support for this policy, at least in the center of the Democratic Party (President Obama tried to cut the corporate tax rate from 35% to 28% in 2012). The last time corporate tax rates were this low, however, the top marginal income tax rate was at 79%. As such, we think that a bipartisan consensus could emerge on keeping corporate tax cuts at or below the OECD average of 24%, but at the cost of higher marginal tax rates for high-income earners. Second, it has been a key structural view of BCA’s Geopolitical Strategy, since inception, that the defining geopolitical feature of the twenty-first century will be the Sino-American conflict. If we are right on this issue, then perhaps an “existential conflict” to justify higher taxes on elites is already here. In other words, it is a fact that global challenges have required the U.S. to tax households and corporations at a higher rate in the past. It is also a fact that the U.S. faces greater global challenges today, specifically with China and Russia, than at anytime since the Cold War. Thus, while AOC may not be motivated by geopolitics, she may represent one aspect of a growing public policy consensus nonetheless. Simply put, with the U.S. facing both populism and geopolitical multipolarity, there is simply no political option for cutting either defense or non-defense spending. The only question is whether the U.S. will simultaneously shore up its ability to service its debts and maintain a reliable currency. AOC may find unlikely allies as geopolitical competition heats up. Reason #3: Policymakers Will Overreact To The Next Recession  President Trump was elected in November 2016, with the recession having ended 88 months prior, with the unemployment rate down 5.6%, and the economy on the path to recovery. But his economic populist message resonated with a lot of voters who did not participate in that recovery. Our concern is that the next recession is close at hand. BCA’s House View is that the next recession will be relatively shallow in the U.S., in part because there aren’t any obvious bubbles. For one, cyclical spending as a percent of GDP is at mid-cycle levels (Chart 6). Corporate debt is elevated, but not by international standards (Chart 7). U.S. banks are in a much sounder position than in 2007. So, from a macroeconomic perspective, the next recession is nothing to fear. Chart 6Are We Even Mid-Cycle Yet?   Chart 7Corporate Debt Load Is Not Excessive Policymakers, however, don’t care about macroeconomics. They care about the policy preferences of the Median Voter. And if that Median Voter elected an anti-establishment populist during relatively good times, who will he or she support when unemployment is high? Whoever is running the U.S. when the next recession happens, they will not wait around to find out. Unorthodox monetary, fiscal, and yes tax policy will overshoot norms and conventions regardless of how shallow the recession is. All bets are off at that point since policymakers will have a “recency bias” due to the trauma of 2008. While the recession may be shallow, the budget deficit will likely be at an elevated level. The U.S. is currently engaged in the first pro-cyclical economic stimulus since the late 1960s (Chart 8). This means that the recession will likely hit with the budget deficit already at around 5%-6% of GDP, compared to just 3%-4% when the last recession occurred. Given that the last four recessions raised the U.S. budget deficit by an average of 5% of GDP, it is safe to say that the U.S. budget deficit may rise to 2010 levels after the next downturn, regardless of how shallow the recession is. Chart 8Budget Deficits Will Be Very High In The Next Recession As with the  Great Recession, the public will demand that the government deals with the deficit. Unlike in the post-2008 environment, however, we think that the Median Voter will abandon the Norquist and Tea Party thesis of cutting spending and adopt the view that higher income brackets should see their taxes increased. That said, extremely high marginal rates at $10,000,000 will impact very few individuals and thus have a negligible revenue impact. What about higher marginal rates across the board? Chart 9 illustrates the evolution of marginal tax rates, using 2012 dollars for income brackets, across decades. The 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s saw multiple tax brackets, all with progressively higher marginal tax rates. In the 1970s, the 70% tax rate started at $460,000 in 2012 dollars, but a 50% rate began at $100,000 in 2012 dollars. The question for investors is whether Ocasio-Cortez’s proposal is merely a branding exercise. A 70% tax rate that begins at $10,000,000 – Option 1 on Diagram 1 – is largely irrelevant, macroeconomically and politically. But if that is an end point of a curve, that is something that investors will want to know. This is because policymakers could draw those curves either by cutting lower-class and middle-class marginal rates – such as in Option 2 – or by simply replicating the 1970s curve, such as in Option 3. The impact of new taxes on the part of society with a higher marginal propensity to consume is an important consideration for policymakers recovering from a recession. Diagram 1Is Ocasio-Cortez’s Proposal An End Point Of A Curve Or Just A Branding Exercise? At the moment, investors are probably not overly concerned about these issues. Options 2 and 3 look unlikely in the current political environment. But, again, they have been acceptable policy options in the past and could be revived if the Democratic Party decides to make income inequality the central issue of the 2020 election. Which makes the 2020 election the most significant U.S. election in a generation. Will Trump-style populism succeed or will Democratic Socialism emerge in the United States? At the moment, most of our clients would likely guess that trade and immigration – policy issues from 2016 – will dominate the debate again in 2020. This is likely incorrect linear extrapolation. Rarely do the same issues carry over from one election to another. As such, a left-leaning presidential candidate could push the Trump administration on its tax reform package and the continued growing income inequality, despite a falling unemployment rate. Throw in a potential recession and you have a witch’s brew. Not only would the rhetoric alarm the markets, but so would the electoral math. Democrats have a solid House majority while Republicans are clinging to a small Senate majority in a year when the electoral math clearly works in Democrats’ favor (20 out of 33 Senate seats up for reelection are held by the GOP). We are not ready to give a high conviction forecast on the presidential election – other than to say that a recession will virtually ensure Trump’s loss – but we do have a high conviction that whoever wins the White House in 2020 will also carry the Senate. As such, a Democratic sweep of both the White House and Congress is a possible scenario. At that point, the Options from Diagram 1 will no longer be an academic question. Finally, even if Trump emerges victorious, he may still have to agree with a Democratic Congress to modify his tax cuts in order to pay for his border wall, immigration reform, and a national infrastructure package. In that case, the median voter would have established the long-term bottom of U.S. tax rates even without a change in political parties. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1      Please see CNBC Markets, “The super rich at Davos are scared of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s proposal to hike taxes on the wealthy,” dated January 22, 2018, available at cnbc.com. 2       Please see “Steve Bannon’s Plan to Raise Taxes on the Rich? Not Happening,” Fortune, dated July 31, 2017, available at fortune.com. 3      Also known as stereotyping.

Highlights We recently upgraded our recommended investment stance on global corporate bonds to overweight on a tactical (3 to 6 months) basis.1 Feature That change was mostly based on our view that global financial conditions had tightened enough in late 2018 – both through lower equity prices and wider corporate credit spreads – to force central banks (most notably, the Fed) to shift to a less hawkish policy bias. Our opinion that global growth expectations had grown too pessimistic, particularly in the U.S., also played a role in the upgrade (Chart 1). Chart 1Global Corporates: Too Much Bad News Now Discounted One other supporting factor for the upgrade to corporates: the prior bout of spread widening was not justified by a significant worsening of the underlying financial health of companies. With that in mind, this week we are presenting our latest update of the BCA Corporate Health Monitor (CHM) Chartbook. The CHMs are composite indicators of balance sheet and income statement ratios (using both top-down and bottom-up data) that are designed to assess the financial well-being of the overall non-financial corporate sectors in the major developed economies. A brief overview of the methodology is presented in Appendix 1 on Pages 15-16. The broad conclusion from the latest readings on our CHMs is that global credit quality has been enjoying a cyclical improvement, but with divergences starting to open up among individual regions. The U.S. has delivered the biggest improvement in corporate health, thanks largely to the boost to profitability from the Trump corporate tax cuts. Euro area corporates still appear to be in decent health, but are now exposed to the sharp slowing of European growth and the end of the ECB’s buying of corporates through its Asset Purchase Program. Meanwhile, corporate health in the U.K. and Japan is showing some strain from weaker growth in both countries. Given those regional divergences, we continue to prefer U.S. corporates over non-U.S. equivalents, even within that tactical overweight recommendation on global corporate exposure. Beyond that tactical timeframe, however, there are growing risks for corporate bond performance. Our base case scenario is that resilient U.S. growth and inflation will prompt the Fed to restart the rate hike cycle later in the year, creating a more challenging backdrop for corporates from U.S. growth uncertainty and rising volatility. Yet if the U.S. (and global) economy surprises to the downside, that is even worse for corporate bond returns given how the only real improvements in our global CHMs have come from cyclical variables like profit margins and interest coverage. U.S. Corporate Health Monitors: Strong Profits “Trump” High Leverage Our top-down CHM for the U.S. has ever so slightly flipped into the “improving health” zone, after flashing “deteriorating health” since mid-2014 (Chart 2). The resilience of the U.S. economy, combined with the positive impact on U.S. profitability from the Trump corporate cuts, has put U.S. companies in a cyclically healthier position, even with relatively high leverage. Chart 2Top-Down U.S. CHM: Supported By Cyclically Strong Profits There are clear uptrends in the ratios that go into the top-down CHM that are directly related to corporate profits – return on capital, profit margins, interest coverage and debt coverage. From a fundamental perspective, the top-down U.S. CHM suggests that the U.S. credit cycle is being extended by the stubborn endurance of the U.S. business cycle. In other words, there are no immediate domestic pressures on U.S. corporate finances that should require significantly wider credit spreads to compensate for rising downgrade/default risk. The bottom-up versions of the U.S. CHMs for IG corporates (Chart 3) and HY companies (Chart 4) have also shown meaningful cyclical progress, with the HY indicator now firmly in “improving health” territory. This confirms that the signal from our top-down CHM is being reflected in both higher rated and lower quality companies. Yet the longer-term issues related to high leverage and low interest/debt coverage are not going away, suggesting that potential problems are being stored up for the next U.S. economic downturn. Chart 3Bottom-Up U.S. IG CHM: Steady, But Have Margins Peaked?   Chart 4Bottom-Up U.S. High-Yield CHM: Only A Cyclical Improvement Interest coverage remains the key ratio to watch in both the IG and HY bottom-up U.S. CHMs. For IG, the fact that interest coverage has fallen in recent years, despite high profit margins and historically low corporate borrowing rates, is worrisome. This indicates that the stock of U.S. corporate debt is now so large that the interest expense required to service that debt is eating up a greater share of corporate revenues, even at a time when profit growth is still quite strong. This will raise downgrade risk if corporate borrowing rates were to increase significantly or if U.S. earnings growth slows sharply – likely from rising labor costs eroding high profit margins. For HY, interest coverage remains depressed by historical standards, with the liquidity ratio down to levels last seen prior to the 2009 recession. This suggests that U.S. HY companies are at risk of a severe default cycle when the current U.S. economic expansion ends, with fewer liquid assets available to meet current liabilities. Given these more medium-term fundamental concerns, we do not plan on overstaying our current tactical overweight stance on U.S. IG and HY corporates versus both U.S. Treasuries and non-U.S. corporates (Chart 5). We anticipate cutting our recommended exposure once the Fed begins signaling a need to restart the rate hikes, likely around mid-year. For those with an investment horizon beyond the next six months, the more prudent decision may be to sell into the corporate bond outperformance that we are expecting. The medium-term outlook for U.S. corporates is far more challenging given the advanced age of the U.S. monetary, business and credit cycles. Chart 5U.S. Corporates: Stay Tactically Overweight IG & HY Euro Corporate Health Monitors: Stable, But Slowing Growth Is A Problem The CHMs remain a core part of our suite of bond market indicators, reliably proving their usefulness in helping evaluate the fundamental risks in owning corporate bonds. That does not, however, mean that there is no room for improvement in the CHM methodology from time to time. This is the case for our top-down CHM for the euro area, which has been behaving in a manner inconsistent with our bottom-up CHMs for the region – which are based on actual reported financial data from publicly traded companies – for some time. This is not the case in the U.S., where our bottom-up and top-down CHMs continue to move broadly in lockstep. Thus, we are taking our top-down euro area CHM “into the garage” for repairs. We will revisit all aspects of the methodology, from calculations to data sources, to try and improve the signal from the top-down euro area CHM. We plan on introducing a new and (hopefully) improved indicator sometime in the next few months. The message from our bottom-up CHMs for euro area IG and HY is still generally positive for overall European corporate health. Yet there are noticeable divergences within the sub-components of those individual CHMs that paint a more worrisome picture. For IG, the gap between domestic and foreign issuers in the euro area corporate bond market continues to widen, with the former worsening on the margin (Chart 6). While interest/debt coverage has improved for domestic issuers, operating margins and return on capital remain low and leverage has been inching higher. These trends have not been matched by foreign issuers. Perhaps most ominously, the short-term liquidity ratio has fallen quite sharply for domestic IG issuers in the euro area. Chart 6Bottom-Up Euro Area IG CHMs: Stable, But Watch Liquidity Ratios For HY, the signal from the bottom-up CHM is more consistently positive between domestic and foreign issuers (Chart 7). Leverage has declined and operating margins have improved for both sets of issuers, but interest/debt coverage and liquidity are worse for domestic issuers. Chart 7Bottom-Up Euro Area High-Yield CHMs: Cyclically Healthier Within the euro area, our bottom-up IG CHMs for Core and Periphery countries show that both remain in the “improving health” zone (Chart 8). Yet the CHM for the Core now sits on the edge of the “deteriorating health” zone, led by higher leverage, lower debt coverage and a sharply falling liquidity ratio. Notably, there is no gap between the profitability metrics of the Core and Peripheral companies used in our bottom-up CHMs. Chart 8Bottom-Up Euro Area IG CHMs: Trending In Wrong Direction Peripheral European issuers continue to have much higher leverage and much lower interest coverage, the latter suggesting that Core issuers have benefitted more from the ECB’s super-easy monetary policies that have lowered borrowing costs (negative short-term interest rates, liquidity programs designed to prompt low-cost bank lending, and asset purchase programs that include buying of corporate bonds). Despite the lack of a major negative signal from the CHMs, we are concerned that the combination of slowing euro area economic growth and the end of ECB corporate bond buying will negatively impact the performance of euro area corporates (Chart 9). We are only maintaining a neutral allocation to euro area corporates, even within our current overweight stance on overall global corporates. In addition, we are sticking with our preference to favor U.S. corporates – both IG and HY – over euro area equivalents for two important reasons: stronger U.S. growth and better U.S. corporate health. Chart 9Euro Area Corporates: Stay Tactically Neutral IG & HY Euro area corporates have not enjoyed the same rally that U.S. corporates have seen so far in 2019, and for good reasons. In Chart 10, we show an overall bottom-up CHM for the U.S. and euro area, combining both IG and HY are combined into a single measure for each region.2 The obvious visible trend is that U.S. corporate health has been steadily improving, while it is starting to worsen in the euro area. The gap between those two CHMs is strongly correlated to the difference in credit spreads between European and U.S. issuers (middle panel), suggesting that relative corporate health is favoring U.S. names. At the same time, the relatively stronger U.S. economy continues to support U.S. corporate performance versus euro area equivalents (bottom panel). Chart 10Relative Bottom-Up CHMs: Continue To Favor U.S. Over Europe U.K. Corporate Health Monitor: A Brexit-Fueled Deterioration Our top-down U.K. CHM indicates that U.K. companies remain in the “improving health” zone, but just barely as the indicator has been drifting towards “deteriorating health” over the past two years. All the components of the U.K. CHM have contributed to this worsening trend (Chart 11). Even short-term liquidity, which has been in a powerful uptrend for almost a decade, has started to roll over. Chart 11U.K. Top-Down CHM: Cyclical Hit From Brexit Worries The cause for this deterioration can be reduced to six letters: B-R-E-X-I-T. Two years of political uncertainty over the details of the U.K.’s future relationship with the European Union have eroded confidence among U.K. businesses and consumers. The result is slowing economic growth and diminished corporate profitability that has hit all earnings-related ratios in the U.K. CHM. Perhaps most disturbingly for U.K. credit performance, even the interest coverage ratio has rolled over – at a historically low level – despite the Bank of England keeping U.K. interest rates at deeply depressed levels. The toxic combination of political uncertainty and weaker economic growth has resulted in a substantial widening of U.K. credit spreads. The spread on U.K. HY corporates has widened by 293bps since September 2017 and now sits at the widest level since September 2012. U.K. IG has not seen the same degree of spread widening, but has underperformed even more on an excess return basis versus duration-matched U.K. Gilts (Chart 12). Chart 12U.K. Corporates: Brexit Uncertainty = Stay Underweight We are currently recommending an underweight stance on U.K. corporates, even as we have become more tactically positive on overall global corporate exposure. While credit spreads have widened to levels that appear to offer value, U.K. economic momentum is fading steadily and leading economic indicators are pointing to even slower growth in 2019. With Conservative Prime Minster Theresa May now in a dramatically weakened position after losing the recent vote on her Brexit deal with the EU, there are no immediate options that will solve the Brexit uncertainty in a way that will provide a lasting boost to U.K. business confidence. In fact, the only realistic options – postponing Brexit, fresh U.K. elections, even a second Brexit referendum – all involve a period of even more uncertainty that will weigh on the performance of U.K. corporate debt.  Japan Corporate Health Monitor: A Negative Signal Our bottom-up Japan CHM3 has consistently stayed in the “Improving health” zone since 2010; however, the most recent data shows that the health of Japanese corporates has started to deteriorate as the last data point from Q3/2018 is just above the zero line (Chart 13). The overall Japanese economy has generally performed well (by Japanese standards) over the past few years, boosted by “Abenomics” economic stimulus combined with the extraordinarily easy monetary policies of the Bank of Japan. Yet the slowing of global growth momentum seen in 2018 has weighed on the performance of the Japanese corporate sector, which is still heavily geared to exports and global growth. Chart 13Japan Bottom-Up CHM: Cyclical Deterioration Looking at the components of the CHM, there was a modest deterioration of all the ratios last year, except for profit margins which have been virtually unchanged since 2015. On an absolute basis, the CHM components do not suggest any major problems with Japanese credit quality. Japanese companies are not highly levered and liquidity remains near the highest level seen since at least the mid-2000s. Interest coverage is still high on a historical basis and is much higher than the ratios seen in the other major developed markets. Yet at the same time, return on capital and profit margins remain very low compared to those same other major economies. Japanese companies remain cash-rich with low debt levels – a sharp contrast to the other countries show in this report. There are many potential cyclical risks for Japanese corporates in 2019: even weaker demand for Japanese exports, the drag on Japanese capital spending from firms worried about slowing global growth and the spillover effects from the U.S.-China trade war, even a possible hike in the consumption tax that the Abe government is still considering for October of this year. Yet these all would prevent any adjustment of the interest rate policy of the Bank of Japan, which remains the biggest factor to consider when looking at the investment prospects of Japanese corporate bonds. Japanese corporate spreads did not widen much compared to other countries’ corporate spreads in the 2018 selloff, due to their relative illiquidity and the extreme low level of interest rates in Japan. As the central bank is under no pressure to move off its current hyper-easy monetary policy settings, government bond yields and corporate spreads will remain low, even if the Japanese economy continues to slow. Therefore, for those investors who have access to the relatively small Japanese corporate debt market, we continue to recommend an overweight stance on Japanese corporates vs Japanese government bonds (Chart 14). Chart 14Japan Corporates: Stay Overweight Vs JGBs Canada Corporate Health Monitor: Now Even Healthier Both our top-down and bottom-up Canadian CHMs indicate an improving trend in Canadian corporate health (Chart 15). Steady above-trend economic growth, combined with some increases in realized inflation, have helped boost the profitability and interest/debt coverage ratios. Yet not all the news is good - leverage is high and rising, while the absolute levels of return on capital and debt/interest coverage are low. This may be building up risks for the next Canadian economic downturn but, for now, Canadian companies look in decent shape. Chart 15Canada CHMs: Supported By Solid Growth With so much of Canada’s economy (and its financial markets) geared to the performance of the energy sector, the recent recovery in global oil prices is a significant boost for the overall Canadian corporate market. Our commodity strategists see additional upside in oil prices over the next 6-9 months, which will further underpin the health of Canadian oil companies. Canadian corporates were not immune to the period of global spread widening seen at end of 2018, but the magnitude of the move was modest (Chart 16). This is a function of the still-low interest rate environment in Canada, where the Bank of Canada has not yet lifted policy rates to its own estimate of neutral (2.5-3.5%). Easy monetary conditions and relatively low Canadian interest rates will continue to make Canadian corporates relatively attractive, in an environment of decent growth and firm corporate health. Chart 16Canadian Corporates: Stay Overweight Vs Canadian Govt. Debt We continue recommending an overweight position in Canadian corporate debt relative to Canadian government bonds on a tactical basis. Spreads have been in a very stable range since the 2009 recession, ranging between 100-200bps even during periods when our CHMs were indicating worsening corporate health. To break out of that range to the upside, we would need to see a sharp deterioration of Canadian economic growth or several more rate hikes from the Bank of Canada – neither outcome is likely over at least the next six months. Yet given how closely the Bank of Canada has been tracking the Fed’s current tightening cycle, we anticipate downgrading Canadian corporates at the same time do the same for U.S. corporates, likely around mid-2019.   Robert Robis, CFA, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com Ray Park, CFA, Research Analyst ray@bcaresearch.com   Appendix 1: An Overview Of The BCA Corporate Health Monitors The BCA Corporate Health Monitor (CHM) is a composite indicator designed to assess the underlying financial strength of the corporate sector for a country. The Monitor is an average of six financial ratios inspired by those used by credit rating agencies to evaluate individual companies. However, we calculate our ratios using top-down (national accounts) data for profits, interest expense, debt levels, etc. The idea is to treat the entire corporate sector as if it were one big company, and then look at the credit metrics that would be used to assign a credit rating to it. Importantly, only data for the non-financial corporate sector is used in the CHM, as the measures that would be used to measure the underlying health of banks and other financial firms are different than those for the typical company. The six ratios used in the CHM are shown in Table 1 below. To construct the CHM, the individual ratios are standardized, added together, and then shown as a deviation from the medium-term trend. That last part is important, as it introduces more cyclicality into the CHM and allows it to better capture major turning points in corporate well-being. Largely because of this construction, the CHM has a very good track record at heralding trend changes in corporate credit spreads (both for Investment Grade and High-Yield) over many cycles. Table 1Definitions Of Ratios That Go Into The CHMs Top-down CHMs are now available for the U.S., euro area, the U.K. and Canada. The CHM methodology was extended in 2016 to look at corporate health by industry and by credit quality.4 The financial data of a broad set of individual U.S. and euro area companies was used to construct individual “bottom-up” CHMs using the same procedure as the more familiar top-down CHM. Some of the ratios differ from those used in the top-down CHM (see Table 1), largely due to definitional differences in data presented in national income accounts versus those from actual individual company financial statements. The bottom-up CHMs analyze the health of individual sectors, and can be aggregated up into broad CHMs for Investment Grade and High-Yield groupings to compare with credit spreads. In 2018, we introduced bottom-up CHMs for Japan and Canada. With the country expansion of our CHM universe, we now have coverage for 92% of the Bloomberg Barclays Global Aggregate Corporate Bond Index (Appendix Chart 1). Appendix 2: U.S. Bottom-Up CHMs For Selected Sectors Footnotes 1 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, “Enough With The Gloom: Upgrade Global Corporates On A Tactical Basis”, dated January 15th, 2019, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 2 We only use the CHMs for euro area domestic issuers in this aggregate bottom-up CHM, as this is most reflective of uniquely European corporate credits. This also eliminates double-counting from U.S. companies that issue in the euro area market that are part of our U.S. CHMs. 3 We do not currently have a top-down CHM for Japan given the lack of consistent government data sources for all the necessary components. 4 Please see Section II of The Bank Credit Analyst, “U.S. Corporate Health Gets A Failing Grade”, dated February 2016, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 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 Duration: The U.S. economic data show few signs of restrictive monetary policy, despite the fact that the market is now priced for an end to the Fed’s rate hike cycle. Investors should position for further rate hikes this year. Practically, this means keeping portfolio duration low and avoiding the 5-year/7-year part of the Treasury curve. Corporate Spreads: Corporate breakeven spreads are too wide for this phase of the cycle, especially for the Baa and junk credit tiers. Our default-adjusted spread shows that high-yield bonds offer adequate compensation for default losses, in line with the historical average. Corporate Defaults: A simple model using gross nonfinancial corporate leverage pegs fair value for the 12-month speculative grade default rate at 4.1%. This fair value estimate should decline slightly in the months ahead, as long as pre-tax profit growth stays above 7%, the approximate rate of debt growth. Feature Fed rate hikes have been completely priced out of the curve. As of last Friday’s close, the overnight index swap market was priced for 2 basis points of rate hikes during the next 12 months and 9 bps of cuts during the next 24 months (Chart 1). The sharp drop in rate hike expectations is an overreaction, and investors should position for a near-term rise in rate expectations. The Fed’s rate hike cycle still has room to run before interest rates peak. Chart 1Market Says "No More Hikes" In this week’s report we survey the recent economic data, searching for any signal that interest rates are high enough to choke off the recovery. We conclude that monetary conditions remain accommodative, and that the Fed’s rate hike cycle will re-start in the second half of this year. Searching For Signs Of Tight Money Policymakers frequently talk about the concept of the neutral (or equilibrium) fed funds rate. In essence, the neutral rate is the interest rate that is consistent with trend economic growth and stable inflation. If the fed funds rate is set above neutral, then we should expect growth to slow and inflation to fall. Conversely, if the fed funds rate is set below neutral, we should expect growth to accelerate and inflation to rise. The slope of the yield curve can help distill this concept for bond investors. An inverted yield curve signals that the market is priced for interest rate cuts in the future. This is what we would expect to see in an environment where the fed funds rate is above neutral and monetary conditions are restrictive. Conversely, a very steep yield curve means that investors expect rate hikes in the future. This is usually consistent with accommodative monetary policy and an interest rate well below neutral. We find the neutral rate to be a useful concept, though like Fed Chairman Powell we think it is unwise to place too much stock in point estimates of its level.1 Such estimates are very difficult to make in real time, and tend to be heavily revised with hindsight.2 For investors, a wiser strategy is to look for signs in the economic data that interest rates are too high, and to use those signs to decide when interest rates have peaked for the cycle. We review a few of those potential signs below. Nominal GDP Growth One simple signal of restrictive monetary policy is when interest rates rise above the year-over-year growth rate in nominal GDP. In the last cycle, Treasury returns versus cash didn’t move materially higher until after year-over-year nominal GDP growth was below both the 10-year Treasury yield and the 3-month T-bill rate (Chart 2). At present, year-over-year nominal GDP growth is running at 5.5%. Though it is very likely to slow during the next few quarters, it still has a long way to go before it falls below 2.76%, the current 10-year Treasury yield. Chart 2GDP Growth Suggests That Monetary Policy Remains Accommodative Verdict: An assessment of nominal GDP growth shows that monetary policy remains accommodative. The Housing Market Given that the mortgage market provides the most direct link between interest rates and real economic activity, it makes sense that signs of tight money might show up first in the housing data. Empirical investigation backs up this claim. As was observed by Edward Leamer in his 2007 paper, of the ten post-WWII U.S. recessions, eight were preceded by a significant slowdown in residential investment.3 Our own reading of the data is consistent with this message. Downtrends in the 12-month moving averages of both single-family housing starts and new home sales preceded inflection points higher in excess Treasury returns in each of the past two cycles (Chart 3). Chart 3No Signal From Housing While these housing metrics certainly deteriorated during the past nine months, it appears that the worst is now behind us. The recent moderation in mortgage rates has already led to a significant bounce in mortgage purchase applications and a pop in homebuilder confidence (Chart 4). This will translate into increased housing starts and new home sales during the next few months. Chart 4Housing Rebound Underway Verdict: The housing data are most likely consistent with still-accommodative monetary policy. However, if single-family housing starts and new home sales do not respond as expected to the recent drop in the mortgage rate, then we will be forced to re-visit this view. The Labor Market Of all the available labor market statistics, initial unemployment claims tend to be the most leading and have historically provided the best signal of tight monetary conditions. In each of the past two cycles a significant increase in jobless claims has coincided with the inflection point higher in Treasury excess returns (Chart 5). While there was some concern toward the end of last year that claims were trending up, this has now been dashed and claims actually fell below 200k last week. Notice in Chart 5 that the 13-week change in claims remains negative. In prior cycles it rose above zero around the same time that Treasury returns started to improve.. Chart 5No Signal From Labor Market Verdict: The labor market data remain consistent with accommodative monetary policy. Bottom Line: It seems very likely that U.S. monetary policy remains accommodative. Nominal GDP growth and the labor market both strongly support this claim. The housing data have been weaker, but are already showing signs of rebounding. The implication for bond investors is that the Fed is not done lifting interest rates, even though the market is priced for exactly that outcome. Investors should maintain below-benchmark portfolio duration on the view that rate hikes will re-start in the second half of this year. The 5-year/7-year part of the Treasury curve is especially vulnerable to an increase in rate hike expectations. Investors should avoid this part of the curve, focusing on the very long and short maturities.4 The Weakness Is Global The analysis in the above section begs the question: If the economic data do not suggest that monetary policy is restrictive, then why is the market priced for an end to the Fed’s rate hike cycle? The answer is that everything is not rosy in the economic outlook. Specifically, we have already seen a significant slowdown in non-U.S. economic growth that weighed significantly on financial markets near the end of last year and is starting to impact the most externally-exposed segments of the U.S. economy. Chart 6 shows that a slowdown in the Global ex. U.S. Leading Economic Indicator (LEI) is now dragging the U.S. LEI down with it. Chart 6Global Weakness Infects U.S. Not surprisingly, the components of the U.S. LEI that have weakened are those related to financial markets and the corporate sector. Given that corporate profits are determined globally, a slowdown in global growth often shows up first in downward revisions to investors’ corporate profit expectations. This weighs on equity prices and causes business owners to re-assess their future investment plans. Consistent with this narrative, we have seen significant downward moves in ISM New Orders and NFIB Capital Spending Plans, shown averaged together in the top panel of Chart 7. Capital spending plans as reported in regional Fed surveys have also moderated (Chart 7, panel 2), and CEO confidence has plunged (Chart 7, bottom panel). All of these indicators suggest that weaker global growth will weigh on the nonresidential investment component of U.S. GDP during the next few quarters. Chart 7Weaker Nonresidential Investment... But while corporate investment is poised to weaken, the U.S. consumer is in rude health (Chart 8). Core retail sales are growing strongly, though the most recent data only extend through November. For more timely data we can look at the Johnson Redbook measure of same-store sales which has accelerated into the New Year (Chart 8, top panel). The University of Michigan survey of consumers shows that expectations dipped last month (Chart 8, panel 2), but also that consumers still view current conditions as extremely positive (Chart 8, bottom panel). Chart 8...And Resilient Consumer Spending The overall picture is reminiscent of 2015/16. The U.S. consumer and labor market are in good shape, but slowing foreign growth and a strong U.S. dollar are weighing on the corporate profit outlook and U.S. corporate investment spending. As in 2016, the solution is for the Fed to temporarily pause its rate hike cycle. This will allow the dollar’s uptrend to moderate and will take some pressure off the corporate profit and investment outlooks. With a Fed pause discounted in the market, the conditions are already in place for renewed optimism on the corporate sector. It is for this reason that we upgraded our recommended allocation to corporate bonds two weeks ago.5 We expect this optimism will cause financial conditions to ease during the next few months, allowing the Fed to resume its rate hike cycle in the second half of this year. Corporate Bond Valuation Update As mentioned above, we increased our recommended exposure to corporate credit (both investment grade and junk) two weeks ago, partly due to valuations that had become too attractive to pass up. The Breakeven Spread One of our preferred valuation techniques is to look at 12-month breakeven spreads for each corporate credit tier as a percentile rank versus history.6 We like this method for three reasons: First, focusing on each individual credit tier controls for the fact that the average credit rating of bond indexes can change over time. Second, using the breakeven spread instead of the average index option-adjusted spread allows us to control for the changing average duration of the bond indexes. Finally, we find that the percentile rank is often a better representation of credit spreads than the spread itself. This is because credit spreads often tighten to very low levels and then remain tight for an extended period of time. By showing us the percentage of time that a given spread has been tighter than its current level, the percentile rank gives a better sense of this pattern than the actual spread. At present, Baa-rated debt and all junk credit tiers have 12-month breakeven spreads at or above their historical medians. Aa and A rated bonds have breakeven spreads that rank near the 40th percentile, and Aaa-rated debt remains expensive with a 12-month breakeven spread below the 10th percentile since 1989. To appreciate how cheap these spreads are, especially for Baa-rated and junk credits, consider that the current 12-month breakeven spread for a Baa-rated corporate bond is 24 bps (Chart 9). In our analysis of the different phases of the economic cycle, we determined that in an environment where the slope of the 3/10 Treasury curve is between 0 bps and 50 bps (it is 18 bps today), the 12-month Baa-rated breakeven spread averages 18 bps.7 Chart 9Attractive Baa Valuation Given current index duration, if the 12-month Baa-rated breakeven spread returned to the 18 bps level that is typical for this stage of the cycle, it would imply a tightening in the option-adjusted spread from 169 bps to 129 bps – a 40 bps tightening! Default-Adjusted Spread Another valuation measure to consider is our high-yield default-adjusted spread. This is the excess spread available in the high-yield index after subtracting expected default losses. To determine expected default losses we use Moody’s baseline forecast for the 12-month default rate and our own forecast for the 12-month recovery rate. At present, this gives us a default-adjusted spread of 237 bps, right in line with the historical average (Chart 10). In other words, if default losses during the next 12 months match those embedded in our calculation, then investors should expect an excess return that is in line with the historical average, assuming also no capital gains/losses from spread tightening/widening. Chart 10In Line With Historical Average But how likely is it that default losses fall in line with that expectation? In its last Monthly Default Report, Moody’s revised its baseline 12-month default rate forecast up to 3.4%, from 2.6% previously. The new 3.4% forecast seems reasonable to us. A simple model of the 12-month trailing default rate based only on our measure of gross leverage for the nonfinancial corporate sector puts fair value for the 12-month default rate at 4.1% (Chart 11). Our measure of gross leverage is simply total debt divided by pre-tax profits. This measure fell during the past year because pre-tax profits grew by 17% and total debt grew by only 7%. Chart 11Default Expectations Going forward, profit growth will almost certainly moderate during the next 12 months, driven by the combination of weaker global growth and rising wage pressures. However, it needs to fall a long way, to below 7%, before our measure of leverage starts to rise. In other words, a further slight decline in our measure of gross leverage is a reasonable expectation at the current juncture, which would bring the fair value from our simple default rate model close to the current Moody’s projection. All in all, our default-adjusted spread tells us that high-yield bonds offer historically average compensation given reasonable default expectations. Bottom Line: Corporate breakeven spreads are too wide for this phase of the cycle, especially for the Baa and junk credit tiers. Our default-adjusted spread shows that high-yield valuation is in line with the historical average, given a reasonable expectation for default losses. Overall, we conclude that corporate spreads are attractive at current levels and we recommend an overweight allocation to both investment grade and high-yield corporate debt in a U.S. bond portfolio.   Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Powell Doctrine Emerges”, dated September 4, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 Chairman Powell cites a few examples of this in his Jackson Hole address from last fall. https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/powell20180824a.htm 3 http://www.nber.org/papers/w13428  4 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Don’t Position For Curve Inversion”, dated January 22, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 5 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Buy Corporate Credit”, dated January 15, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 6 The 12-month breakeven spread is the spread widening required on a 12-month investment horizon for a corporate bond to break even with a duration-matched position in Treasury securities. It can be quickly approximated by dividing the bond’s option-adjusted spread by its duration. 7 For a more complete analysis of the economic cycle based on the slope of the yield curve please see U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, “2019 Key Views: Implications For U.S. Fixed Income”, dated December 11, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification