Financial Markets

Dear Client, This Wednesday January 9th 2019, we are publishing a joint report co-written with BCA’s Geopolitical Strategy team. There will be no report on Friday. Best Regards, Mathieu Savary, Vice President Foreign Exchange Strategy mathieu@bcaresearch.com Highlights So What? U.S. President Donald Trump is not solely focusing on stock prices, but he does not want an entrenched bear market to develop under his watch. Why? Entrenched bear markets often herald recessions. A recession would seriously endanger Trump’s re-election chances. The Federal Reserve will not alter its course to please Trump, but it will pause in order to safeguard the economy. While at first the dollar will weaken in response to a Fed pause, economic fundamentals argue that the greenback will enjoy a last hurrah before a true bear market can begin. Feature Despite U.S. President Donald Trump’s legendary concern for the stock market, the S&P 500 is nonetheless down 6.7% since his G-20 truce with Chinese President Xi Jinping. We mark that date as notable on Chart I-1 – not because we think it caused the markets to plunge, but because many investors thought it would buoy equities into a Santa Claus rally. Further, many investors predicted that the G-20 truce would come about specifically because Trump wanted stocks to do well. Chart I-1Santa Did Not Show Up After The Buenos Aires Meeting There are so many methodological problems with this train of thought that it could be the main thrust of a PhD dissertation. But, for starters, the assertion that Trump is obsessed with stocks embeds causality into a dependent variable. In simple terms, it posits that the stock market’s performance is an end in of itself for President Trump, and thus he will do whatever it takes to prolong the bull market. Here’s a hint for the collective investment community: If something sounds too good to be true, it is almost definitely not true. The idea that the President of the United States, no matter how unorthodox… …Exclusively cares about the stock market… … And has the extraordinary power… ... and mental acumen… …to keep the stock market perpetually rising, is indeed too good to be true. First, President Trump has clearly shown that he does not exclusively care about the stock market, by shutting down the government midway through a bear market. Now, it is not clear to us how a federal government shutdown directly impacts the earnings of U.S. companies, but it is clear that it does not instill confidence among investors that Trump and the incoming Democrat-held House will be able to play nice together, or at least nice enough, to avert a potentially recession-inducing 2020 stimulus cliff (Chart I-2). Chart I-2Can Trump And The Democrats Play Nice Enough To Dodge The Cliff? BCA’s Geopolitical Strategy noted the danger of the government shutdown by calling it “the one true midterm-related risk.” The reasoning was that, “A lame duck Congress, or worse a Democratic Congress, will give President Trump all the reason he needs to grind things to a halt over his wall, with a view to 2020.” Further to this point, Trump has not exactly been a boon to the stock market since passing his signature legislation – the tax reform bill – at the end of 2017. Throughout 2018, he has focused his policy on a trade war with China, and we would also argue with a view towards the 2020 election. Now admittedly, the stock market completely and utterly ignored all bad news on the trade front (Chart I-3) – ironically, until a truce was called! – but the fact remains that President Trump did not listen to the almost-certain advice from his “globalist” advisors that a trade war could, at some point, hurt the S&P 500. Chart I-3The Market's Schizophrenic Relationship With The Trade War Second, the President of the United States of America is not a medieval king. He is not even the president of China nor even the prime minister of Canada (both policymakers with far more power inside their own political systems than the American president).1 The president is massively constrained in terms of economic policy by the Congress, a branch of government he only nominally has influence over. Further, his regulatory policy can be impeded by the bureaucracy and the courts. In addition, steering an economy as massive and multifaceted as that of the U.S. is not a one-man job. It is not a “job” at all. The best a president can do is set the conditions in place – through regulation, tax policy, and rhetoric – which stokes animal spirits in a positive direction. For much of 2017 and early 2018, President Trump did this. But the stock market, and the economy by extension, always wants more. More pro-business regulation and more reassuring rhetoric. President Trump generally gets an A on the former, but an F on the latter. Not only is the trade war a concern to investors, but so are a slew of other confidence-deflating comments by the president on FAANG regulation, the government shutdown, the White House staffing, the Fed’s independence, and foreign policy writ large. As for the question of mental acumen, President Trump may be a “stable genius,” but no single policymaker is able to influence equities. As an aside, we are shocked by how much the investment community has changed in the past eight years. When we began taking politics seriously in our investment strategy, back in 2011, it took a lot of convincing that systemic political analysis had a role to play with respect to one’s asset allocation. Now, investors are willing to bet their shirt on the actions of one politician. It is as if the investment community is trying to overcorrect for decades of ignoring politics as a valuable input in one single presidential term. So, what does this mean for U.S. equities from here on out? We agree with our clients that the one thing President Trump wanted to avoid was a bear market. We staunchly disagreed that equities could not correct significantly under his watch, and we shorted the S&P 500 outright in September, but we begrudgingly agreed that President Trump, as with all other presidents before him, would rather not deal with a bear market. Those tend to foreshadow a recession, and recessions tend to end re-election bids (Chart I-4). For much of 2019, we expect that President Trump will focus on ensuring that a recession does not occur ahead of his 2020 election bid. This is likely to become a defining motivating factor in all policy, whether domestic, foreign or trade. Can he be successful? It is not up to the U.S. President to determine when a recession hits, but the point is that he is likely to put his re-election bid above all other considerations. As such, we would expect that: The government shutdown will be resolved in January. A compromise will emerge to end the shutdown that falls short of president Trump’s demands. Ultimately, Trump needs Democrats to play ball with the White House and the Republican Senate in order to avert the stimulus cliff in 2020. Trade negotiations may produce a truce. There is a combined, subjective, probability of 70-75% that the ongoing trade negotiations produce either an outright deal (45-50%) or an extension of the talks with no further tariffs (25%). Trump is likely to back off from further trade antagonism, at least until the run-up to the 2020 election. There will be a parallel process where a China-U.S. tech war continues. Attacks on the Fed will cease. At least until the 2020 election, or until the recession actually hits. But with the Fed itself already signalling that it won’t be dogmatic, the reasons to go after the central bank will recede. Bottom Line: President Trump does not care about stock prices any more than other presidents have in the past. What matters to him is to avoid a protracted bear market in equity prices, as it would severely raise the probability of an upcoming recession, endangering his chances of re-election. This means the government shutdown will likely end this month, that the trade negotiations have a solid chance of producing a protracted truce, and that attacks on the Fed will ebb. Can The Dollar Rally Further? Is a U.S. president focused on avoiding a recession in order to get re-elected a good thing or a bad thing for the dollar? While stronger U.S. growth is inherently a positive for the dollar, the current juncture muddies the waters. To begin with, the risk of a correction in the U.S. dollar has risen considerably in recent weeks. The dollar is historically a momentum currency, implying that as much as strength begets further strength, weakness begets additional weakness.2 As a result, the fall in the DXY from 97.5 in December to 96 raises a red flag. This red flag is even more worrisome when looking at the dollar’s technical picture (Chart I-5). The 13-month rate-of-change has been forming a bearish divergence with prices, and both sentiment and net speculative positioning are holding at lofty levels. Not only does this confirm that on a tactical basis, the dollar is losing momentum, but it also highlights that if momentum deteriorates further, a large pool of potential sellers exist. Chart I-5Tactical Risks For The Greenback Policy too constitutes a risk. President Trump could relent on his attacks on the Fed, but as we mentioned, the Fed seems to also be relenting on its own hard-nosed approach to monetary policy. Last Friday, Fed Chairman Jerome Powell highlighted that policy was not on autopilot, and that monetary policy is ultimately data dependent. In fact, the Federal Open Market Committee is not antagonistic to a pause in its hiking campaign, nor to tweaking its balance-sheet policy if economic and financial conditions deteriorate further. The Fed moving away from hiking once every quarter should provide ammunition to sellers of the greenback. However, the interest rate market already has very muted expectations for the Fed, anticipating 6 basis points and 17 basis points of cuts over the next 12 and 24 months, respectively (Chart I-6). Thus, to be a durable headwind to the dollar, the Fed needs to be more dovish than what is already priced in. We doubt this will be the case: Chart I-6Scope For A Hawkish Fed Surprise In 2019 The ISM may have been weak, but the U.S. continues to generate a healthy level of job growth, and wages continue to accelerate (Chart I-7). Down the road, this will be inflationary. Consumption, or 68% of GDP, remains healthy. Real retail sales excluding motor vehicle and part dealers are still growing at a 4.3% pace. Robust job and wage growth will continue to support the ultimate driver of household spending: disposable income. Moreover, the household savings rate stands at 6% of disposable income, debt-servicing costs at 9.9%, and overall household debt has fallen to 100%, a level not seen since the turn of the century. The financial health of households insulates them against the negative impact of the tightening in financial conditions recorded this past fall.  Despite the recent deterioration in the ISM and the rise in credit costs, commercial and industrial loan growth continues to accelerate, with both the annual and the quarterly-annualized growth rates of this series rising the most in more than two years (Chart I-8). Chart I-7U.S. Wages Are Still Accelerating Chart I-8Positive Developments On The U.S. Credit Front Based on this combination, we would anticipate the Fed pausing in its hiking campaign for one to two quarters. This would nonetheless represent a more hawkish outcome than the one expected by the market, and thus would not be a dollar-bearish configuration. In our view, the biggest domestic risk for the Fed remains the housing market, which for most of this cycle has been the principal vehicle through which monetary policy has been transmitted to the economy. Housing has indubitably slowed, but the recent pick-up in the purchases component of the Mortgage Bankers Association index gives hope that this sector is making a trough as we write. What about tighter financial conditions: could they also threaten the dollar? After all, the tightening in FCI in the second half of 2018 is acting as a break on growth, diminishing the need for Fed hikes. If stocks and high-yield bonds sell off further, the Fed will likely hike less than we anticipate. However, a Fed pause and the more attractive valuations created by the recent selloff suggest that FCI should not deteriorate much more. Indeed, the 64-basis-point contraction in high-yield spreads since January 3rd shows that financial conditions have begun to ease. Our Global Investment Strategy team thinks that stocks are a buy, a view also consistent with an easing in U.S. FCI.3 As a result, we do not believe that U.S. financial conditions will force the Fed to cut rates, and thus will not create a handicap for the dollar. Finally, the most important factor for the dollar remains global growth. The dollar historically performs best when both global growth and inflation are decelerating (Chart I-9). Because the U.S. economy has a low exposure to both manufacturing and exports, it is a low-beta economy, relatively insulated from the global industrial cycle. Hence, when global growth decelerates, the U.S. suffers less than the rest. As a result, the U.S. syphons funds from the rest of the world, lifting the dollar in the process. Currently, the outlook for global growth remains poor. At the epicenter of it all lies China. Chinese manufacturing PMIs have fallen below 50. There are plenty of reasons to worry that the slowdown will not end here. Chinese consumers too are feeling the pinch, despite having been the recipient of much governmental support, including tax cuts (Chart I-10). Moreover, the fall in the combined fiscal and credit impulse also suggests that Chinese imports could suffer more in the coming months, creating a greater drag on the trading nations of the world (Chart I-11). Finally, China’s rising marginal propensity to save confirms these insights, pointing to slowing Chinese industrial activity and imports as well as deteriorating global export growth and industrial activity (Chart I-12).4 Chart I-10The Chinese Consumer Is Also Hungover   Chart I-11Chinese Credit Trends Point To Weaker Imports...   Chart I-12...And China's Rising Marginal Propensity To Save Corroborates This Risk Ultimately, these developments suggest that China needs to ease policy a lot more before growth can be revived. The reserve-requirement-ratio cuts announced last week are not enough to do the trick and may in fact only alleviate the traditional liquidity crunch associated with the Chinese New Year celebration – nothing more. Instead, we expect Chinese interest rates to continue to lag behind U.S. rates, a development historically associated with a strong dollar (Chart I-13). A tangible symptom that China’s reflation is positively affecting the global growth outlook will be when Chinese rates rise relative to U.S. ones. This is what is needed for the dollar to peak this cycle. We are not there yet. Continued weakness in the global PMI and German factory orders only gives more weight to this view. Chart I-13Rising U.S.-China Spreads Point To A Stronger Dollar Practically, we think a move in DXY to 94 or EUR/USD to 1.17 is likely in the coming weeks. However, the combined realization that the U.S. economy will not go into recession – and that therefore the Fed will not pause for the whole of 2019 – and that global growth has yet to bottom, means at those levels the dollar will be a buy. The yen is likely to suffer most in this context. If the markets begin pricing in a stronger U.S. economy than what is currently anticipated, U.S. 10-year yields will rise and the U.S. yield curve will steepen, hurting the JPY in the process. EUR/JPY is an attractive buy right now (Chart I-14). Chart I-14EUR/JPY Set To Rebound Bottom Line: As the market begins digesting the reality of a Fed pause, the dollar could experience some short-term vulnerability, pushing DXY toward 94 and EUR/USD toward 1.17. However, we would anticipate the dollar’s weakness to end at those levels. Interest rate markets are already pricing in Fed rate cuts, something we believe is not warranted. Moreover, financial conditions are set to ease, which will give comfort to the Fed that it can resume hiking. Finally, Chinese growth has more downside, which normally leads to a dollar-bullish environment.   Mathieu Savary, Vice President Foreign Exchange Strategy mathieu@bcaresearch.com   Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com ​​ Footnotes 1 The comparison may not entirely be apt since not even the President of China was able to avert the stock market collapse in China in 2015. 2 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Special Report, titled “Riding The Wave: Momentum Strategies in Foreign Exchange Markets”, dated December 8, 2017, available at fes.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see Global Investment Strategy Special Report, titled “Market Alert: The Correction Cometh, The Correction Came: Upgrade Global Equities To Overweight”, dated December 19, 2018, available at gis.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report, titled “Fade The Green Shoots”, dated December 14, 2018, available at fes.bcaresearch.com

Highlights Chart 1Checklist To Buy Credit The sell-off in spread product continued through the holiday season, but with spreads now looking more attractive, it is time to consider increasing exposure to corporate credit. Much like in 2015/16, spread widening is being driven by the combination of weaker global growth and the perception of restrictive monetary policy. With that in mind, we are monitoring a checklist of global growth and monetary policy indicators to help us decide when to step back in.1 With the market now pricing-in rate cuts for the next 12 months, monetary policy indicators already signal a buying opportunity (Chart 1). However, before increasing spread product exposure from neutral to overweight we are waiting for a signal from our high frequency global growth indicators. The CRB Raw Industrials index has so far only flattened off (Chart 1, top panel). It started to rise prior to the early-2016 peak in credit spreads. Investors should maintain below-benchmark portfolio duration on a 6-12 month investment horizon, and a neutral allocation to spread product for now. We expect to upgrade spread product in the near future as global growth indicators stabilize. Stay tuned. Feature Investment Grade: Neutral Investment grade corporate bonds underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 106 basis points in December. The index option-adjusted spread widened 16 bps on the month to reach 153 bps. Corporate bonds underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 320 bps in 2018, making it the worst year for corporate bond performance since 2011. Recent poor performance has restored some value to the corporate bond sector. The 12-month breakeven spread for Baa-rated debt has only been wider 37% of the time since 1988 (Chart 2). As a result, we are actively looking for an opportunity to increase exposure to corporate bonds. Chart 2Investment Grade Market Overview To assess when to raise exposure from neutral to overweight, we are monitoring a checklist of indicators related to global growth and monetary policy.2 While current spread levels present an attractive tactical entry point, spreads may not re-tighten all the way back to their post-crisis lows. Corporate profit growth far outpaced debt growth during the past year causing our measure of gross leverage to fall (panel 4), but a stronger dollar and rising wage bill will weigh on profit growth in 2019. We expect gross corporate leverage to rise in 2019.   High-Yield: Neutral High-Yield underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 366 basis points in December. The average index option-adjusted spread widened 108 bps, and currently sits at 498 bps. High-Yield underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 363 bps in 2018, making it the worst year for high-yield excess returns since 2015. Our measure of the excess spread available in the High-Yield index after accounting for expected default losses is currently 394 bps, well above average historical levels (Chart 3). In other words, if corporate defaults match the Moody’s baseline forecast for the next 12 months, high-yield bonds will return 394 bps in excess of duration-matched Treasuries, assuming no change in spreads. If we factor in enough spread compression to bring the default-adjusted spread back to its historical average, then we get a 12-month expected excess return of 814 bps. Chart 3High-Yield Market Overview For a different perspective on valuation, we can also calculate the default rate necessary for High-Yield to deliver 12-month excess returns in line with the historical average. As of today, this spread-implied default rate is 4.58%, well above the 2.64% default rate anticipated by Moody’s (panel 4). Junk bond value is definitely attractive, and as stated on the front page of this report, we are looking for an opportunity to tactically upgrade the sector. That being said, the uptrend in job cut announcements makes it likely that default rate forecasts will be revised higher in 2019 (bottom panel). At present, spreads appear to offer enough of a buffer to absorb these upward revisions. MBS: Neutral Mortgage-Backed Securities underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 15 basis points in December. The conventional 30-year zero-volatility spread widened 8 bps on the month, driven by a 7 bps increase in the compensation for prepayment risk (option cost) and a 1 bp widening in the option-adjusted spread (OAS). MBS underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 59 bps in 2018. The zero-volatility spread widened 12 bps on the year, split between a 10 bps widening in the OAS and a 2 bps increase in the option cost. Lower mortgage rates during the past two months spurred a small jump in refinancings, but this increase will prove fleeting. Interest rates are poised to move higher in 2019, and higher rates will limit mortgage refi activity and keep a lid on MBS spreads (Chart 4). Chart 4MBS Market Overview All in all, with higher interest rates likely to limit refinancings, and with mortgage lending standards still easing from restrictive levels (bottom panel), the macro back-drop for MBS remains supportive. Elevated corporate bond spreads currently offer a better opportunity than those in the MBS space, but the supportive macro back-drop means that there is very low risk of significant MBS spread widening during the next 12 months. We maintain a neutral allocation to MBS for now, and will only look to upgrade the sector as the credit cycle matures and it becomes time to adopt an underweight allocation to corporate credit. For the time being, corporate bonds are the more attractive play. Government-Related: Underweight The Government-Related index underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 31 basis points in December, and by 80 bps in 2018. Sovereign debt underperformed the Treasury benchmark by 77 bps in December and by 263 bps in 2018. Sovereign spreads still appear unattractive compared to similarly-rated U.S. corporate spreads (Chart 5). Chart 5Government-Related Market Overview Foreign Agencies underperformed by 24 bps in December and by 152 bps in 2018. Local Authorities underperformed by 86 bps in December and by 75 bps in 2018. Domestic Agencies underperformed by 7 bps in December and by 6 bps in 2018. Supranationals outperformed by 3 bps in December and by 22 bps in 2018. In a recent report we looked at USD-denominated Emerging Market Sovereign debt by country and found that only a few nations offer excess spread compared to equivalently-rated U.S. corporates.3 Those countries are Argentina, Turkey, Lebanon and Ukraine at the low-end of the credit spectrum and Saudi Arabia, Qatar and UAE at the upper-end. We continue to view the Local Authority sector as very attractive. The sector offers similar value to Aa/A-rated corporate debt on a breakeven spread basis (bottom panel), and it is also dominated by taxable municipal securities that are insulated from weak foreign economic growth. Municipal Bonds: Overweight Municipal bonds underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 114 basis points in December, and by 17 bps in 2018 (before adjusting for the tax advantage). The average Aaa-rated Municipal / Treasury (M/T) yield ratio rose 2% in December, and currently sits at 87% (Chart 6). This is about one standard deviation below its post-crisis mean but above the average of 81% that prevailed in the late stages of the previous cycle, between mid-2006 and mid-2007. Chart 6Municipal Market Overview In our research into the phases of the credit cycle, we often divide the cycle based on the slope of the yield curve. Since 1983, in the middle phase of the credit cycle when the 3/10 Treasury slope is between 0 bps and +50 bps (where it stands today), investment grade corporate bonds have delivered annualized excess returns of -49 bps. In contrast, municipal bonds have delivered annualized excess returns of +45 bps before adjusting for the tax advantage.4 We attribute the pattern of mid-cycle outperformance to the fact that state & local government balance sheet health tends to lag the health of the corporate sector. At present, our Municipal Health Monitor remains in “improving health” territory, consistent with an environment where ratings upgrades will outpace downgrades (bottom panel). Meanwhile, corporations are already deep into the releveraging process. Treasury Curve: Favor The 2-Year Bullet Over The 1/5 Barbell Treasury yields fell sharply in December, but with only minor changes to the slope beyond the 2-year maturity point. The 2/10 slope was unchanged on the month and currently sits at 17 bps. The 5/30 slope steepened 5 bps on the month and currently sits at 49 bps. The biggest changes in slope occurred for maturities less than 2 years, as a result of Fed rate hikes being completely priced out of the curve (Chart 7). Our 12-month Fed Funds Discounter fell from +44 bps at the beginning of the month to -11 bps currently. Meanwhile, our 24-month discounter fell from +41 bps to -23 bps. Chart 7Treasury Yield Curve Overview As a result of the sharp 1/2 flattening, the 2-year note no longer appears cheap relative to the 1/5 barbell (panel 4). Alternatively, we could say that the 1/2/5 butterfly spread is now priced for 15 bps of 1/5 steepening during the next six months (bottom panel). In fact, our yield curve models now point to bullets being expensive relative to barbells for almost every butterfly spread combination (see Tables 4 and 5). This means it is currently less attractive to initiate curve steeper trades than flattener trades. Despite the relatively low yield pick-up in steepener trades, we think they still make sense at the moment given that the Treasury market is discounting an economic outlook that is far too grim. As we discussed in our Key Views report for 2019, sustainable yield curve inversion is unlikely until later in the year, after inflation expectations are re-anchored around pre-crisis levels.5 As such, we maintain our recommendation to favor the 2-year bullet over the duration-matched 1/5 barbell.  TIPS: Overweight TIPS underperformed the duration-equivalent nominal Treasury index by 196 basis points in December, and by 175 bps in 2018. The 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate fell 26 bps on the month and currently sits at 1.71%. The 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rate also fell 26 bps on the month and currently sits at 1.91%. Long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates have fallen sharply alongside the prices of oil and other commodities during the past two months, as they continue to grapple with two competing forces: Falling commodity prices on the one hand, and U.S. core inflation that continues to print close to the Fed’s target on the other. Eventually, the decisive factor in the TIPS market will be core U.S. inflation continuing to print close to the Fed’s 2% target. This will drive both the 10-year and 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rates back into a range between 2.3% and 2.5%, once the headwind from weakening commodity prices has passed. This is reinforced by the fact that the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate is now well below the fair value from our Adaptive Expectations Model (Chart 8).6 This model is based on a combination of long-run and short-run inflation measures and is premised on the idea that investors’ expectations take time to adjust to changing macro environments. In other words, the market will need to see core inflation print close to the Fed’s target for some time before deciding that it will remain there on a sustained basis. Chart 8Inflation Compensation ABS: Neutral Asset-Backed Securities underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 8 basis points in December, but outperformed by 13 bps in 2018. The index option-adjusted spread for Aaa-rated ABS widened by 6 bps on the month and now stands at 48 bps, 14 bps above its pre-crisis low. The excess return Bond Map on page 15 shows that consumer ABS offer greater expected returns than Domestic Agencies and Supranationals, though with a commensurate increase in risk. The Map also shows that Agency CMBS offer very similar return potential with much less risk. The New York Fed’s most recent SCE Credit Access Survey showed a decline in consumer credit applications during the past year, as well as an increase in rejection rates. This is consistent with the observed uptrends in household interest expense and the consumer credit delinquency rate (Chart 9). Chart 9ABS Market Overview Going forward, consumer credit delinquencies will continue to rise from very low levels, but are unlikely to spike without a significant deterioration in labor market conditions. As such, we maintain a neutral allocation to consumer ABS for now, but our next move will likely be a reduction to underweight as consumer credit delinquencies rise further. Non-Agency CMBS: Underweight Non-Agency Commercial Mortgage-Backed Securities underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 62 basis points in December, but outperformed by 20 bps in 2018. The index option-adjusted spread for non-agency Aaa-rated CMBS widened 14 bps on the month and currently sits at 92 bps (Chart 10). A typical negative environment for CMBS is characterized by tightening bank lending standards on commercial real estate loans as well as falling demand. The Fed’s Q3 Senior Loan Officer Survey showed that lending standards were close to unchanged and that demand deteriorated. All in all, a slightly negative macro picture for CMBS that will bear close monitoring in the coming quarters. Agency CMBS: Overweight Agency CMBS underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 15 bps in December, and by 2 bps in 2018. The index option-adjusted spread widened 4 bps on the month and currently sits at 60 bps. The Bond Maps on page 15 show that Agency CMBS offer high potential return compared to other low-risk spread products. An overweight allocation to this sector continues to make sense. Chart 10CMBS Market Overview The BCA Bond Maps The following page presents excess return and total return Bond Maps that we use to assess the relative risk/reward trade-off between different sectors of the U.S. fixed income market. The Maps employ volatility-adjusted breakeven spread/yield analysis to show how likely it is that a given sector will earn/lose money during the subsequent 12 months. The Maps do not impose any macroeconomic view. The Excess Return Bond Map The horizontal axis of the excess return Bond Map shows the number of days of average spread widening required for each sector to lose 100 bps versus a position in duration-matched Treasuries. Sectors plotting further to the left require more days of average spread widening and are therefore less likely to see losses. The vertical axis shows the number of days of average spread tightening required for each sector to earn 100 bps in excess of duration-matched Treasuries. Sectors plotting further toward the top require fewer days of spread tightening and are therefore more likely to earn 100 bps in excess of Treasuries. The Total Return Bond Map The horizontal axis of the total return Bond Map shows the number of days of average yield increase required for each sector to lose 5% in total return terms. Sectors plotting further to the left require more days of yield increases and are therefore less likely to lose 5%. The vertical axis shows the number of days of average yield decline required for each sector to earn 5% in total return terms. Sectors plotting further toward the top require fewer days of yield decline and are therefore more likely to earn 5%.     Table 4Butterfly Strategy Valuation (As Of January 4, 2019)   Table 5Discounted Slope Change During Next 6 Months (BPs)   Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com Jeremie Peloso, Research Analyst JeremieP@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see Charts 2A and 2B in U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Fed In 2019”, dated December 18, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 For the full checklist please see Charts 2A and 2B from the U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Fed In 2019”, dated December 18, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Oil Supply Shock Is A Risk For Junk”, dated October 9, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 4 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 5 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 6 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Adaptive Expectations In The TIPS Market”, dated November 20, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification Corporate Sector Relative Valuation And Recommended Allocation Total Return Comparison: 7-Year Bullet Versus 2-20 Barbell (6-Month Investment Horizon)

Highlights Risk assets have had a rough go of it since we last published on December 17th: Equities have been through the wringer, spreads have widened sharply, and the 10-year Treasury yield has tumbled to an 11-month low. We don’t put much stock in the talk that the Fed is about to go too far, … : We still judge that the fed funds rate is comfortably shy of its equilibrium level. The economy will decelerate this year, but fiscal stimulus will keep it growing above trend. … and even if market-unfriendly policies merit a lower equity multiple, … : A bull market in Washington uncertainty is a recipe for a lower multiple, and there are no signs that policy uncertainty will ebb any time soon. … we think the time has come to put our cash overweight to work: Equities priced in a lot of bad news when the forward multiple fell below 14. If earnings hold up like we think they will, a recovery to the mid-15s would deliver a double-digit gain, and that merits an equity overweight relative to cash and bonds. Feature Thanks to Christmas Eve and New Year’s Eve falling on Mondays, we haven’t published since December 17th. A lot has happened in those three weeks, starting with the FOMC’s final 2018 meeting. As we’ve gathered our bearings and tried to set a course forward through the volatility, we’ve asked ourselves several questions about markets, policy and the economy. This week’s report reviews those questions, including the ones the clients we met three weeks ago might want to ask now. Is the expansion coming to an end? Not just yet; we still think it has at least a year to run. Following several uninspiring releases, the Atlanta Fed’s GDPNow forecast of real final domestic demand has slipped to 3.3% from 3.8%, but it’s still 3.3%. That may seem too good to be true this late in the cycle, but that’s what 100 basis points of fiscal stimulus can do when injected into an economy already operating at full capacity. The IMF estimates there’s still another 40 basis points of stimulus coming in 2019, and we expect that that infusion will be enough to stave off the next recession until 2020 or beyond. Is the Fed about to make a policy mistake? We do not think so. Although the neutral, or equilibrium, policy rate is only observable after the fact, research from the head of the New York Fed holds that the FOMC is not on the verge of breaching the neutral threshold. The widely-followed Laubach-Williams model estimates that the real neutral rate is between 0.75 and 0.875%, or 2.75-2.875% in nominal terms.1 Our internal equilibrium fed funds rate model sees even more breathing room – it estimates that the (nominal) equilibrium rate is around 3%, and that it will rise to around 3⅜% by the end of the year. U.S. equities have been hypersensitive to perceived inflection points in monetary policy throughout the sell-off, which began roughly after Jay Powell said in an October 3rd interview that interest rates were “a long way from neutral.” Interestingly, though, the money market’s expectations never really budged. At the time of the Powell interview, it was pricing in a December hike to 2.50%, and a 40% chance of one more hike to 2.75%. It would take the probability of a 2.75% terminal rate up to 80% in early November, but it was again calling for a 40% chance of 2.75% when we were on the road during the two-day December meeting. It now puts the odds of an additional hike at just 4%, and says the Fed will have cut rates once by the middle of next year (Chart 1). Chart 1According To The Money Market, The Fed's Done We do not know what is behind the money market’s obstinacy, but we see an economy that has far more accommodation than it needs. While we think it’s inevitable that the Fed will tighten into a recession – that’s life with a blunt monetary policy instrument that works with long and uncertain lags – we don’t think it is on the verge of doing so. Fiscal stimulus will ensure that the U.S. economy grows above trend again this year, and there are no imbalances in housing2 or the other cyclical segments of the economy that would make the expansion particularly vulnerable (Chart 2). Elevated rates of job openings (Chart 3, middle panel) and job quits (Chart 3, bottom panel) indicate that the labor market will continue drawing in workers (Chart 3, top panel), supporting consumption and growth. Chart 2No Signs Of Overheating, ...   Chart 3... And The Jobs Outlook Is Strong You aren’t still calling for four rate hikes this year, are you? Let’s call it three, now that the market-driven tightening in financial conditions (Chart 4) has already done some of the work of cooling off the economy. We take the Fed at its word when it says its actions are data-driven, and we don’t think that it will pile on when credit spreads have shot up to their 2015 oil-collapse/shale-patch-distress levels (Chart 5) and equity prices have swooned. If credit spreads retraced meaningfully, and equities went back to making new highs, four hikes might come back into play. Conversely, if spreads continued to widen and took aim at their 2016 peaks, two hikes might become more likely than three. Given our expectations for spreads (they will not approach 2015-6’s quasi-recession levels, but corporate leverage is too high to support material narrowing), and equities (the S&P 500 will be hard-pressed to eclipse September’s high), our base case is three hikes. Chart 4Tighter, Yes; Tight, No   Chart 5Spreads Say It's 2015-6, ... Have the economic fundamentals really deteriorated that much over the last three months? Not that we can tell. There have been some high-profile data disappointments here and there, like the punk manufacturing ISM release last Thursday, but the overall message has been positive, and Friday’s jobs report was consistent with an economy growing above trend. The economic surprise indexes have been declining since November, but they’re not at levels that are anywhere out of the ordinary (Chart 6). Our earnings-per-share model still sees robust growth for corporate earnings (Chart 7). Chart 6... But The Data Beg To Differ   Chart 7Earnings Will Decelerate, But They Won't Contract We are as discomfited by the prospect of new trade barriers as any other economists, and we have eyed the divergence between U.S. acceleration and rest-of-the-world deceleration with increasing wariness. Even for an economy as comparatively closed as the U.S., decoupling is only a temporary phenomenon. We tend to equate global activity with global trade, and generally view developing economies as especially dependent on trade. It is still early days, but we have found it mildly encouraging that EM activity and EM equities have been outpacing their DM equivalents. The growth backdrop can’t be that bad if the emerging markets are perking up. Do you still think the S&P 500 has yet to make its highs? Maybe, but we wouldn’t bet on it. We view stock prices, P, as the product of expected earnings, E, and the multiple investors are willing to pay for those earnings, P/E. If our confidence in the expansion is not misplaced, and corporate earnings match analysts’ consensus bottom-up expectations of $174, topping September 20th’s 2,930.75 closing high will require a multiple approaching 17. If analysts project year-over-year EPS gains across all of 2020’s quarters, E will rise over the course of the year, reducing the P/E expansion needed to make a new high, but an assault on the peak cannot succeed without a meaningful re-rating from today’s multiple in the 14s. Although multiple expansion has played second fiddle to earnings growth (Chart 8, middle panel) across the nine-and-a-half year bull market, it declined nearly 30% peak-to-trough in 2018, and was entirely responsible for the fourth-quarter sell-off (Chart 8, bottom panel). While we think the de-rating has gone too far, the last three months have persuaded us that a return to the 18.8 peak is too much to ask. Our working hypothesis is that the equity market has decided that Washington has become enough of an impediment that the market multiple has to come off a couple of points. Markets hate uncertainty, and the policy climate is flat-out unsettled: the principal architect and guarantor of the international postwar order repeatedly threatens to topple that order; the U.S.-China showdown does not appear to be nearing a resolution; and both political parties seem willing to sacrifice the economy to gain an advantage in 2020. In the absence of new deregulatory initiatives or tax cuts to balance out the broadly investment-unfriendly instincts of several of D.C.’s power players, a poisonous partisan climate and a dysfunctional administration can no longer be ignored. Chart 8Earnings Built The Bull Market; De-Rating Almost Wrecked It Okay, so what do you do now? We upgrade equities to overweight with the cash we raised in mid-June when we downgraded them from overweight to neutral. Although we wouldn’t bet on the S&P 500 topping 2,931, it doesn’t have to do so to generate alluring prospective returns. From a 2,500 starting point, a target of 2,750, or $174 earnings at a 15.75 multiple, would generate a 10% capital gain. If the economy holds up in line with our base-case expectation, it’s hard not to like U.S. equities at current levels. We were eager to put our cash overweight to work as we watched equities gyrate in October and November, but the combination of December’s valuation reset and the improved equity outlook from our Global Investment Strategy colleagues’ MacroQuant model encourages us to pull the trigger now. More money is made when conditions, or perceptions, go from terrible to bad than when they go from good to great. As the approaching earnings season redirects attention to the solid fundamental outlook, and the Treasury secretary stops taking actions that make investors wonder if conditions are far worse than they feared, there is a path for perceptions to improve. Chart 9Spreads Have Overreacted We continue to hold to our view that markets are underestimating the potential for inflation, making Treasuries vulnerable, especially at longer maturities. We reiterate our recommendation to underweight bonds via an underweight in Treasuries, and to hold interest-rate duration below benchmark in all fixed-income categories. We continue to recommend a neutral weighting in credit-sensitive fixed income, as the spread widening is incompatible with projected defaults (Chart 9), but we are not counting on meaningful spread compression this late in the cycle.   Doug Peta, Senior Vice President U.S. Investment Strategy dougp@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1 From the spreadsheet containing updated estimates of the baseline model described in “Measuring the Natural Rate of Interest,” by Thomas Laubach and John C. Williams, published in the November 2003 Review of Economics and Statistics, located at https://www.newyorkfed.org/research/policy/rstar, and accessed January 3, 2019. 2 We discussed housing at length in the November 19 and December 3, 2018 U.S. Investment Strategy Special Reports, “Housing: Past, Present And (Near) Future,” and “Housing Seminar,” respectively, available at usis.bcaresearch.com.