Real Estate

Highlights Markets expressed disappointment over last week’s FOMC meeting, … : Equities sold off, Treasury yields slid, and the curve flattened. … but we didn’t think there was all that much to get excited about, … : Data dependence remains the Fed’s mantra, and it was never likely that the FOMC would signal that policy through September has been pre-programmed. … though the specter of escalating trade tensions was a bummer: We have followed our repeated exogenous-shock caveat with an acknowledgement of the gravity of trade barriers. Our geopolitical strategists don’t expect a resolution any time soon, though, and White House tweets are here to stay. Marginally easier monetary policy is not likely to have all that much of an effect on the economy: A reduction in the fed funds rate from 2.5% to 2% isn’t likely to turbo-charge housing or corporate investment, but we do expect that the major central banks’ easing bias will support risk assets. Feature The FOMC delivered the result we expected at the conclusion of its meeting last week: a 25-basis-point cut and a dovish adjustment to its balance sheet runoff plans. Markets acted as if they’d been blindsided. Apparently it really isn’t what you say, it’s how you say it. Or maybe, as our colleague Martin Barnes has long contended, press conferences and all the other assorted communications strategies do more harm than good. We have nearly reached the point of Fed fatigue ourselves, but there’s no ignoring the elephant in the room. The Fed is squarely in the center of every investor’s mind and may well remain there for the rest of what was shaping up as a slow-news month before the latest tariff move. American and Chinese negotiators have called it quits until September; lawmakers have left the building in London and Brussels; the ECB’s Governing Council will be idle until mid-September; and the winnowing of the Democratic field is so far off that even Bill de Blasio remains a presidential candidate. We devote this week’s report to an examination of increased accommodation’s implications for financial markets and the U.S. economy. What did the FOMC do on Wednesday? Chart 1An Adjustment, Not A New Direction The FOMC cut the fed funds rate by 25 basis points, to a range of 2-2.25%, and terminated its modest balance sheet reduction effort two months ahead of time. It studiously kept its options open with regard to future policy rate adjustments, with Chair Powell describing the cut as a “mid-cycle adjustment,” rather than a transition to full-on policy easing. The mid-cycle reference kiboshed hopes that the cut was meant to bring the curtain down on the tightening cycle that began at the end of 2015 (Chart 1). The hawkish surprise concerning the future direction of the fed funds rate overwhelmed the modestly dovish news that the Fed is immediately ending small-scale quantitative tightening. How did markets take the developments? Not so well, especially over the two hours of Wednesday afternoon trading following the decision. The S&P 500 sold off by close to 2% during the press conference, the dollar surged against the euro, and the yield curve flattened as long-dated Treasuries surged while the 2-year note sold off sharply. Equities recovered their losses in Thursday morning’s trading, though bonds and the dollar held much of their gains, before the latest salvo in the U.S.-China dispute sent investors in all markets scurrying for cover. Overall, financial markets were disappointed that they didn’t get a clearer signal that additional accommodation is on the way. Did markets overreact? In retrospect, it looks like they’d gotten their hopes up too high. The Fed wants to avoid surprises by keeping markets apprised of future developments, but it’s hard to envision it deliberately boxing itself in. It wants to preserve the flexibility to act as it sees fit, so data dependence remains the order of the day, just as it has for the last several years. We continue to take the Fed at its word that policy is not on a pre-set course. Markets seemed to be looking for a little more solicitousness from the Fed. Central bankers will presumably always attempt to guard their discretion, but the monetary policy path is far from clear, given elevated economic uncertainty. Between the stop-and-start trade hostilities with China and the Whack-a-Mole emergence of tariff threats against long-standing allies and trade partners, global manufacturing is reeling and corporate managers have every reason to hold back on capex. The differences of opinion within BCA reflect the lack of an obvious economic direction. Dissention within the Fed – Boston’s Rosengren and Kansas City’s George voted against last week’s cut, while Minneapolis’ Kashkari surely wanted it to be larger – shows that the way forward is not so clear-cut. So is it a good thing or a bad thing that the Fed cut rates? We view easier policy as a market positive over the one-year timeframe that drives most investors. There will come a point of diminishing returns, when risk assets no longer respond to incremental accommodation, but we don’t think we’re there yet. Equity multiples have room to expand before they become silly and the ECB is apparently preparing a new round of asset purchases. Given that it’s exhausted the supply of Eurozone sovereigns, it will have to proceed to evicting incumbent holders from their positions somewhat further out the risk curve, prodding them to venture out still further to redeploy the proceeds, putting downward pressure on spreads globally. How will a lower fed funds rate impact the economy? How much time do you have? The textbook answer is that a lower fed funds rate directly reduces the cost of financing big-ticket consumer purchases and corporate initiatives while indirectly nudging households and corporate managers to make them by boosting their confidence. Unconventional measures like asset purchases (QE) push investors further out the risk curve, lifting the prices of risky assets, lowering lending spreads and increasing asset holders’ wealth. They also promote a broader sense of well-being (the CNBC screen is framed in green, print headlines are cheerful, and jobs are increasingly easier to find), fueling confidence that helps reinforce the direct effects of easier policy. As Chair Powell put it in January, “Our policy works through changing financial conditions[,] … it’s … the essence of what we do.” The logic behind the textbook answer is undeniably sound, and it’s displayed in the simple six-channel model in Figure 1. People respond to incentives, and when the cost of consumption and investment falls, they are likely to save less and consume and invest more (Interest Rates/Substitution Effect). Increasing numbers of observers are becoming restless, however, as events on the ground don’t seem to jibe with the theory. Ten years of a negative real fed funds rate has failed to generate much oomph, and markets sputtered on cue once it tiptoed into positive territory (Chart 2), coinciding with the current global economic softness. Chart 2Real Rates Are Still Low Relative To History Martin Barnes, our resident grumpy economist, scoffs at how little extraordinary accommodation has been able to achieve. (Don’t get him started on the communication strategies.) Even after adjusting for how a half-century of Scotland and Montreal weather has colored his perspective, he has a point. “Do you really want to buy equities and riskier bonds in an economy that needs this much help just to grow at 2%?” he might ask. For the time being, yes, we still do. Although the channels promoting economic activity are not functioning as reliably as they have in the past, the channels boosting asset prices – Portfolio Balance, Confidence/Risk Taking, and Interest Rates/Substitution – are still A-Okay (Figure 1). The initial reaction to the FOMC meeting suggests that it will be very hard for the Fed to surprise dovishly in a relative sense, blocking the Currency channel for the time being. The Credit channel is still hindered by post-crisis regulations from Basel to Capitol Hill, at least in terms of the official banking system. Trade tensions have roiled net exports via retaliatory tariffs and suppressed global aggregate demand.1 Shouldn’t housing be at the forefront of any pickup in activity? Chart 3Lower Rates Haven't Helped Much Yet Housing is the classic proxy for tracing the effects of easier policy on the domestic economy, since nearly all of its end consumers finance their purchases, and its domestic concentration insulates it from trade effects. It has failed to respond much to the monetary policy shifts that have brought 30-year fixed mortgage rates down nearly 100 basis points year to date (Chart 3). Fed skeptics suggest that the muted response is evidence of the declining efficacy of easy policy, though we have been inclined to read the data as an indication that homebuilders aren’t building enough starter and move-up homes to bring homeownership within reach of first-time homebuyers and median-income households. Housing should exhibit a high sensitivity to changes in monetary policy, but an abundance of other debt burdens and a lack of affordable supply may be holding it back.   One should have expected that the housing pickup would be muted, and slower to take hold in this expansion, given the severity of the recession and its mortgage-lending roots. Adjusted for inflation, private residential investment, which has declined slightly for four straight quarters, is just over two-thirds of its 2005 peak (Chart 4, middle panel). In the past, residential investment has been more sensitive to the level of the fed funds rate than its direction. Since 1961, the Fed has hiked rates in as many quarters as it has cut them, and the difference in annualized growth has been relatively modest: 2.8% when the Fed has been cutting rates, and 1.6% when it’s been raising them. Chart 4Residential Investment Responds To The Monetary Policy Backdrop... Per our equilibrium fed funds rate framework, we deem monetary policy to be accommodative when the fed funds rate is below our estimate of equilibrium, and restrictive when the funds rate exceeds it (Chart 4, top panel). Despite the fact that the Fed has hiked as often as it has cut since 1961, we estimate that policy has been easy for two-thirds of the time, and the difference in residential investment growth in the two policy states has been dramatic: 6.8% when policy is easy and -6.6% when policy is tight (Chart 4, bottom panel). With the Fed keeping policy easy for longer, housing will have the wind at its back, though it isn’t much more than a breeze at the moment. The same goes for construction employment, which has grown more rapidly under accommodative monetary policy (2.1% versus 0.7% when policy is tight), but has merely treaded water over the last 11 years of easy policy (Chart 5). Chart 5... And So Does Construction Employment The bottom line is that the jury is still out on housing activity. Low mortgage rates will help renters buy homes (and fill them with furniture and appliances), and put more cash in the pockets of homeowners who refinance their existing loans, but the market remains soft. Though it can’t be captured by the aggregate data, it does seem possible that median-income households may be burdened by too much student loan, automobile and/or credit card debt to save the required down payment.2 Disparities between households may well be holding the economy back, but they have a silver lining if they encourage the Fed to pursue accommodative policies for longer than it otherwise would. Will rate cuts give the economy a tangible lift? We don’t know for sure, but no one else does, either. We are convinced that easier monetary conditions will help the economy at the margin. Ten years into the expansion, though, it is not clear if the economy has pent-up demand that easier conditions will help release. Externally, worsening trade tensions could exacerbate the global manufacturing slowdown, further squeezing global aggregate demand, and exporting recession pressures to the U.S. Our mandate is not to forecast the economy in itself, though. We and our clients are investors, not government officials or public-policy professors, and we focus on the economy only to the extent that it impacts financial markets. In the near term, incremental accommodation should boost risk asset prices, provided that trade tensions don’t ratchet up enough to undermine investor, consumer and business confidence. Animal spirits matter, and if they shift decisively from greed and toward fear, they can become a self-fulfilling prophecy that sweeps monetary policy efforts before them. Ex-a significantly negative exogenous event, we remain constructive on the U.S. economy, and continue to look for a global revival outside of the U.S. Investment Implications The incremental information received this week – an FOMC meeting that mostly went off as we expected, a modest escalation in U.S. pressure on China in line with our geopolitical strategists’ warnings that a final deal is not at hand, mixed global manufacturing PMIs, a surge in U.S. consumer confidence, a straight-down-the-middle employment situation report, and an upward inflection in S&P 500 earnings growth that has 2Q EPS now tracking to a 2.7% year-over-year gain – did not change our perspective. We see U.S. economic growth decelerating from its 2018 pace, but remaining above trend, and an absence of imbalances that would make the economy more vulnerable. We have made our peace with recurring flare-ups of hostilities between the U.S. and China, and trade tensions will only change our investment outlook if they worsen materially. The Fed is not magic, but it is doing the best it can to keep the expansion going for the purpose of spreading its gains as broadly as possible, and the easing bias among major central banks is gathering force. On balance, the new information received last week didn’t do anything to change our overall take. We remain constructive, and think investment portfolios should as well. We recognize that the climate is uncertain, and that we should accordingly dial back our conviction. Part of the reason the agency mortgage REITs appeal to us at this juncture is that they offer the opportunity to reduce equity beta and enhance a balanced portfolio’s capacity to absorb shocks. We watched the flattening in the yield curve with dismay, but we continue to expect that incremental monetary accommodation will promote a steeper curve. Easier monetary conditions promote growth, boosting the real component of interest rates, and can stoke inflation pressures when an economy is operating at or above capacity, as the U.S. has been for over a year. We remain vigilant, but our base-case constructive take is unchanged.   Doug Peta, CFA Chief U.S. Investment Strategist dougp@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 As we were preparing to go to press on Thursday, the U.S. announced the imposition of new tariff levies on the subset of Chinese imports that hadn’t yet been subjected to tariffs. The move supported our geopolitical strategists’ view that the trade war is unlikely to be settled soon. 2 Andriotis, AnnaMaria; Brown, Ken; and Shifflett, Shane, “Families Go Deep in Debt to Stay in the Middle Class,” Wall Street Journal, August 1, 2019.

Special Report

Highlights A decade after the financial crisis, yield remains scarce: The global count of bonds trading at negative yields seems to grow every week, squeezing a broad swath of investors who are desperate for coupon income. Increasingly accommodative monetary policy is not on income investors’ side, … : Dovish pivots from the Fed and the ECB ensure that low-to-negative yields won’t go away soon. … but it is quite friendly for maturity transformation strategies in the near term: Borrowing short to lend long is far from a fail-safe strategy, but it should dovetail nicely with reflationary Fed policy for at least the rest of the year. The time is ripe for returning to the agency mortgage REITs: Among public securities, agency mortgage REITs offer the most direct exposure to maturity transformation. Feature Economic data and corporate earnings releases remain mixed enough to provide both bulls and bears with ample support for their leanings. The debate within BCA remains spirited, and is emblematic of the debate among investors. Per the financial media, it seems as if the scolds are getting the most attention,1 even as the S&P 500 keeps setting new highs. One thing that both camps agree on, however, is that nothing is cheap. Equities are not terribly expensive, but bonds appear to have little chance of matching their historical return profile. Investors seeking income, from individuals and advisors, to pension funds, life insurers and endowments needing to meet a fixed schedule of liabilities, are under siege a decade into ZIRP and NIRP. With rate cuts on the horizon in the U.S., and the ECB preparing to ramp up accommodation, the pressure on income-seeking investors to throw caution to the wind and ignore credit quality shows no sign of abating. Maturity transformation – borrowing short to lend long – fits the Fed’s reflationary goals like a glove, and offers an alternative to abandoning credit standards. Contrary to popular belief, banks no longer pursue maturity transformation. Chastened by the savings-and-loans’ demise in the ‘80s, they make heavy use of swaps to keep a tight rein on asset-liability mismatches. Maturity transformation is agency mortgage REITs’ raison d’être, however, and aside from some hedging to ensure survival in the face of adverse interest-rate moves, they actively embrace it. The Agency mREIT Formula Mortgage REITs (“mREITs”) finance real estate investment, either by lending directly to property owners or by purchasing mortgages and/or mortgage-backed securities (“MBS”). Agency mREITs invest solely or predominantly in instruments issued or guaranteed by Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac or Ginnie Mae. MBS issued by these entities are explicitly backed by the full faith and credit of the United States and bear little to no credit risk. The agency mortgage REITs stumbled ahead of all four of the yield curve inversions they’ve experienced, and six years of flattening has ground down their share prices. Despite the negligible credit risk in their investment portfolios, agency mREITs themselves are far from riskless – leveraged carry trading strategies are not for the faint of heart – but they have performed much better than non-agency mREITs, some of which go bust in every cycle. The agency mREITs are a much purer play on the term structure of rates than their non-agency peers. Their borrow-short-to-lend-long model is intentionally designed to exploit the yield curve’s typical upward slope. Though they stumble ahead of inversions (Chart 1), they are an attractive portfolio component when the fed funds rate outlook is benign and the curve is poised to steepen. Chart 1The Steeper The Better Banks are happy to lend against pristine collateral for short timeframes, allowing agency mREITs to build RMBS portfolios 10 times the size of their equity capital. Figure 1 illustrates the mechanics of building an agency mREIT portfolio. A new mREIT first raises equity in a public offering and uses the proceeds to purchase a portfolio of agency-backed residential MBS (“agency RMBS”). It then uses the portfolio as collateral for a secured repurchase (“repo”) loan, typically with a 30-, 60- or 90-day term, the proceeds of which it recycles into more agency RMBS.  With banks and brokers lending 95 cents on the dollar against agency collateral, an agency mREIT can easily amass asset portfolios several times the value of its equity capital. As long as portfolio income exceeds the sum of repo interest and operating expenses, it will be profitable. Table 1 lists all of the constituents of our Agency Mortgage REIT Index since its 1998 inception, along with the current constituents’ price-to-book multiples, dividend yields, betas versus the S&P 500 and leverage ratios. As a group, the agency mREITs have high dividend yields, low equity betas and considerable leverage. Table 1Agency Mortgage REIT Index Constituents Low beta and high leverage could be a nice mix when the economy is mushy and the Fed and other major central banks are ramping up accommodation. Then And Now The last time we recommended the agency mREITs (June 2011 through September 2012), they handily outperformed the S&P 500 and the Bloomberg Barclays High Yield Index on a total return basis (Chart 2). Uninspiring growth and easy monetary policy proved to be a potent mix for agency mREIT outperformance. The backdrop looks similar to us now, and we expect that the agency mREITs will outdistance high-yield corporate bonds over the rest of the year. They may be hard-pressed to top the S&P 500 under more constructive economic and market scenarios, but they should help protect other equity exposures in the event that economic growth and equities slump. Chart 2The Agency Mortgage REITs Boosted Our Returns In 2011-12, ... The Incredible Shrinking Stock Price Agency mREITs trade on their price-to-book multiples, but REIT rules leave the companies with little chance to grow book value. REITs have to distribute 90% of their annual income to shareholders to maintain their tax-preferred status, and they pay no income tax at the corporate level if they distribute all of it. The upshot is that mREITs have no retained earnings, which stymies them from growing book value.   In exchange for optimal tax efficiency, REITs give up the potential to compound their way to growth. Chart 3...But They've Run Into Headwinds Since Price-to-book multiples swung wildly in the group’s first decade, but have settled into a tight post-crisis range (Chart 3). If book value can’t grow, and multiples are capped around 1, stock price appreciation is unlikely to contribute to total returns. History suggests that investors should actually expect some modest drag from capital losses; all but one of the stocks in our Agency mREIT Index have declined since their inclusion2 (Chart 4). The drag follows from the constraints of the REIT rules; companies that can’t retain earnings and have already reached their borrowing capacity can only grow by issuing stock, but companies only receive about 95% of the proceeds from offerings after underwriting fees.3 The practical takeaway is that the agency mREITs are not a through-the-cycle play, and investors should only add them to their portfolios when they are comfortable that price declines are not likely to undermine dividend distributions. Honey, I Shrunk The Share Price. Agency mREIT Vulnerabilities The agency mREIT model has three inherent vulnerabilities: it relies on maturity transformation, it employs copious amounts of leverage, and it has convexity working against it. None is likely to prove fatal for entities that are reasonably prudent about hedging rate exposures, limiting leverage, and guarding against prepayments, but double-digit annual returns are not pre-ordained. Each management team makes its own hedging choices, but all agency mREITs maintain considerable duration mismatches. Unexpected changes in the term structure of rates have the potential to upend shareholder returns. Chart 5Repo Funding Is Reliable Our index constituents have a considerable amount of leverage. With 5-cent haircuts on agency repo financing, mREITs can theoretically build an agency MBS portfolio equivalent to 20 times the value of its equity capital. Maximal leverage would leave very little room to maneuver under duress, but leverage around ten times has not historically posed a problem. Given that agency MBS is gilt-edged collateral, we expect that the agency mREITs will be able to roll over their repo financings in a stress scenario, just as they were able to amidst the crisis (Chart 5). Interest rate volatility is also a headwind, independent of the level of rates. Under standard U.S. mortgage terms, MBS investors implicitly grant options to borrowers by allowing them the unlimited right to prepay their obligations without penalty (see Box). Options increase in value as the volatility of their underlying reference asset increases, so MBS values move inversely with changes in interest rate volatility. The good news for the mREITs is that increasingly accommodative Fed and ECB policy should act to tamp down rate volatility in the near term. The agency mREIT model proved its resiliency at the height of the crisis. Even in times of peak stress, it’s possible to borrow against the best collateral.   Box An Equity Investor’s Guide To Negative Convexity Even for fixed income lifers, mortgages can be a dauntingly complex product, largely because of borrowers’ ability to prepay their loans, without penalty, at any time.  This prepayment option gives mortgages and MBS what fixed income professionals call “negative convexity.” Long-duration, non-callable bonds are said to be positively convex.  That is, their value increases at an increasing rate as interest rates fall and decreases at a decreasing rate as interest rates rise.  Mortgage borrowers’ prepayment option prevents mortgage lenders from enjoying the full effect of convexity because the more the present value of a mortgage’s future payment stream rises as rates fall, the less likely lenders will realize it as savvy borrowers refinance into one offering a lower interest rate. This effect is called negative convexity and it is why mortgage investors must be compensated with higher yields.  Fannie, Freddie and Ginnie securities therefore yield more than Treasuries, even though both are backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. Treasury.   With the exception of 2018’s backup, mortgage rates are where they’ve been since late 2014. There may not be many more loans worth refinancing. An unexpected rash of refinancings (“refis”) would squeeze agency mREIT income via mark-to-market losses and unwelcome exposure to reinvestment risk. More borrowers refi when rates decline, squeezing earnings, and cutting into, or even potentially wiping out, the benefit of lower funding costs. Although refi application activity has not always exhibited a tight correlation with agency mREIT returns, refis are a threat to agency mREIT earnings. Although we expect rates to remain in a fairly narrow range consistent with mushy growth and quiescent inflation expectations, it is our sense that they have bottomed and that refi activity, in turn, has already peaked (Chart 6). Chart 6Prepayments May Be Ready To Taper Off   Why Now? An equally-weighted basket of agency mREITs has outperformed both the S&P 500 and the Bloomberg Barclays High Yield Corporate Bond Index by two-and-a-half percentage points (“ppt”) on an annualized total return basis over its 21-plus-year history (Chart 7). They do not always outperform, however, and since we closed our position at the beginning of October 2012, the agency mREITs have lagged large-cap equities and high-yield bonds by ten-and-a-half and three ppt, respectively, on an annualized total return basis. Chart 7The Agency REITs Have Had A Strong Career, But The Last Seven Years Have Been Rough Rising rates and curve-flattening normally spell the end of agency mREIT outperformance, but we feared in the fall of 2012 that the Fed was killing the group with kindness. Ultra-accommodative policy encouraged refis while the Fed itself was actively bidding up agency MBS prices with QE3. Refis impaired the value of the legacy portfolios because they triggered losses on positions that had been marked-to-market above par. Higher prices helped the legacy portfolio holdings but forced the mREITs – in the midst of an epic three-year run of capital raising via secondary equity offerings – to put new capital to work at the top of the market. The policy backdrop appears more conducive to relative agency mREIT outperformance now. Faced with sluggish global growth and stubbornly low inflation expectations, the Fed is poised to cut rates for the first time since 2008. We expect the Fed will deliver a 25-basis-point cut at the conclusion of tomorrow’s FOMC meeting, and another one in September, and then refrain from hiking again until at least the first quarter. Nothing outperforms forever. The agency mREITs make a much better cyclical investment than a structural investment. Reflationary monetary policy should produce a steeper curve as growth and inflation expectations revive (Chart 8). A steeper curve will boost agency mREITs’ earnings by widening their net interest margins, allowing for increased dividend payments and fatter total returns. Given that we expect curve steepening, we do not worry that rate cuts will spark a wave of prepayments. As Chart 6 showed, 2018-vintage mortgages would seem to be the only ones issued over the last five years that are worth refinancing. Chart 8Rate Cuts Typically Promote A Steeper Curve Investment Implications Reflationary policy is a good backdrop for agency mREIT performance because it’s likely to promote a steeper curve. A steeper curve is manna from heaven for maturity transformation strategies, and it would boost mREIT income while reducing the potential for the capital losses that eat away at double-digit dividend yields. We are not counting on capital gains, but if peak inversion is behind us, the group’s multiple has a chance to expand. The bottom line is that several factors may have come together to bring the curtain down on the agency mREITs’ extended underperformance. We recommend that investors stick to the constituents in our index basket if they choose to add agency mREIT exposure to their portfolios. The leading mREIT ETFs, REM and MORT, provide one-stop access to the mREIT universe, but they come with considerable non-agency and commercial exposure. We are constructive on credit performance, but we think the best opportunities reside in the pure-play maturity transformation offered by the agency mREITs. We recommend funding agency mREIT exposure in balanced portfolios by diverting allocations from equities and high-yield positions. We plan on holding the mREITs for six months for now, but we’re open to staying with them longer. We expect that agency mREITs will boost risk-adjusted returns at least until the Fed first hikes again, and possibly even longer if inflation expectations revive. We therefore intend to maintain agency mREIT exposure through the end of the year, and are open to holding onto it for longer if conditions remain supportive. Our initial six-month recommendation in June 2011 remained in place for sixteen months, and we’d be pleased if this one had similar staying power.   Doug Peta, CFA Chief U.S. Investment Strategist dougp@bcaresearch.com     Footnotes 1      De Aenlle, Conrad, “Is It Time to Fight the Fed?” New York Times, July 14, 2019, p. BU13. The experts quoted in the lead article in the Times’ latest quarterly mutual fund and ETF section were uniformly bearish on U.S. equities, in keeping with the author’s “iffy-to-awful” characterization of the economic backdrop. 2      Dynex (DX) is only included in our index from the beginning of 2001, when it switched to a pure agency strategy after nearly capsizing. Since its 1988 IPO, DX’s stock price has shrunk at an annualized rate of 3.9%. 3      The built-in drag from issuance is exacerbated by the lamentably common industry practice of issuing stock at a discount to book value, which dilutes incumbent shareholders’ investments.

Highlights Corporate Spreads: The Fed’s dovish pivot prolongs the period of time before the yield curve inverts, thus extending the window for corporate bond outperformance. Investors should remain overweight corporate bonds, with a preference for securities rated Baa and below, where spreads remain wide relative to our fair value estimates. Yield Curve: Investors should barbell their U.S. bond portfolios, favoring long-maturity (> 10 years) and short-maturity (< 2 years) securities while avoiding the 5-year and 7-year notes. This positioning will boost average portfolio yield and will benefit from any future hawkish re-assessment of Fed policy. MBS: Lower mortgage rates have led to a jump in mortgage refinancings and wider MBS spreads. However, MBS spreads remain quite low compared to history. Maintain a neutral allocation to MBS in U.S. bond portfolios. Feature Last December, we laid out our key fixed income themes for 2019 in a Special Report.1 In that report we also introduced a framework for splitting the economic cycle into three phases based on the slope of the yield curve. Specifically, we use the 3-year/10-year Treasury slope to divide each cycle into the following three phases:2 Phase 1 runs from the end of the last recession until the 3/10 slope flattens to below 50 bps. Phase 2 encompasses the period when the 3/10 slope is between 0 bps and 50 bps. Phase 3 begins after the 3/10 slope inverts and ends at the start of the next recession. Clearly, as is illustrated in Chart 1, we are smack dab in the middle of a Phase 2 environment. This has implications for how we should think about positioning a U.S. bond portfolio. Chart 1Firmly In Phase 2 What Makes The Middle Phase Awkward? Table 1 shows annualized excess returns for Treasuries and corporate bonds (both investment grade and high-yield) in each phase of every cycle stretching back to the mid-1970s. Treasury excess returns are calculated relative to cash, as a proxy for the returns from taking duration risk. Corporate excess returns are relative to a duration-matched position in Treasury securities. Table 1Bond Performance In Different Yield Curve Regimes A look at Table 1 reveals why we call Phase 2 the “awkward” middle phase of the cycle. The excess returns earned from taking both duration and corporate spread risk tend to be underwhelming. On duration, we observe that in three of the four complete cycles in our sample, Treasury excess returns are lowest in Phase 2. This lines up well with intuition. The flatter yield curve means that Treasuries offer a lower term premium in Phase 2 than in Phase 1. Meanwhile, Phase 3 periods tend to coincide with rapid Fed rate cuts, and thus large capital gains. Phase 2 periods, in contrast, often contain Fed tightening cycles. On corporate credit, we observe that excess returns tend to be lower in Phase 2 than in Phase 1, but are usually still positive. Returns tend not to turn consistently negative until after the 3/10 slope inverts and we enter Phase 3. Overall, if we know nothing other than that we are in Phase 2 of the cycle, our results suggest that we should take less duration risk in our portfolio than in Phases 1 or 3. Overall, if we know nothing other than that we are in Phase 2 of the cycle, our results suggest that we should take less duration risk in our portfolio than in Phases 1 or 3. The results also suggest that we should prefer corporate credit over Treasuries, though to a lesser extent than in Phase 1. What Makes The Middle Phase Long? In last December’s Special Report, we argued that the U.S. economy would remain in a Phase 2 environment for a long time, at least until late 2019. Our reasoning was that, in the absence of inflationary pressures, the Fed would be reluctant to tighten policy enough to invert the 3/10 curve. The Fed’s recent dovish pivot, and the resultant steepening of the curve (see Chart 1), only prolongs the current Phase 2 environment. We now think it will be well into 2020, and possibly later, before the 3/10 slope inverts and the economy enters Phase 3. One obvious investment implication of an extended Phase 2 environment is that we should remain overweight corporate bonds relative to duration-matched Treasuries. However, we also need to consider valuation before drawing too firm of a conclusion. Charts 2A and 2B show spreads for each corporate credit tier, encompassing both investment grade and high-yield, along with our spread targets. The spread targets are the median levels observed in prior Phase 2 environments, adjusted for changes in the average duration of the bond indexes over time.3 The charts reveal that Aaa-rated bonds already look expensive, while Aa and A-rated bonds are close to fairly valued. Baa-rated bonds are 13 bps cheap relative to our target, while the high-yield credit tiers offer significantly more value. Chart 2AInvestment Grade Spread Targets Chart 2BHigh-Yield Spread Targets As discussed in last week’s report, the Fed’s dovish pivot will cause corporate spreads to tighten in the near-term, but it will take longer before Treasury yields respond by moving higher.4 For Treasury yields to move higher, investors must first become convinced that the Fed’s reflationary efforts are translating into stronger global economic growth. Ultimately, we expect this will occur in the second half of this year and Treasury yields will be higher 12 months from now, as the Fed will fail to deliver the 92 bps of rate cuts that are currently priced. The flat yield curve means that the yield give-up is small, and we expect global growth to improve in the second half of the year. Bottom Line: The Fed’s dovish pivot prolongs the period of time before the yield curve inverts, thus extending the window for corporate bond outperformance. Investors should remain overweight corporate bonds, with a preference for securities rated Baa and below, where spreads remain wide relative to our fair value estimates. Investors should also keep portfolio duration low. The flat yield curve means that the yield give-up is small, and we expect global growth to improve in the second half of the year. Barbell Your Portfolio Chart 3Barbell Your Portfolio For those unwilling or unable to deviate portfolio duration significantly from benchmark, there is another way to bet on the Fed delivering fewer cuts than are currently priced into the market. Investors can run a barbelled portfolio, favoring short-maturity (< 2 years) and long-maturity (> 10 years) securities, while avoiding the belly (5-year/7-year) of the curve. This sort of positioning has a few advantages. First, since the financial crisis, the yield curve has tended to steepen out to the 5-year/7-year point and flatten beyond that point whenever our 12-month Fed Funds Discounter rises (Chart 3). Conversely, whenever the market prices in more cuts/fewer hikes and our discounter falls, the yield curve has flattened out to the 5-year/7-year maturity point and steepened beyond that point. This correlation has been very consistent during the past few years, and continued to hold during the most recent decline in rate expectations. Notice that the 5-year yield has fallen by more than either the 2-year or 10-year yields since our Discounter's early-November peak (Table 2). Table 2The Belly Of The Curve Is Most Sensitive To Rate Expectations The upshot is that, if rate expectations rise during the next 12 months, as we expect, the 5-year and 7-year notes will endure the most damage. The second reason why a barbelled portfolio makes sense is that valuation is very attractive. Chart 4 shows that the 5-year yield is below the yield on a duration-matched 2/10 barbell. It also shows that this 2/5/10 butterfly spread is very low relative to our model’s fair value.5  Chart 42/10 Barbell Is Attractive Versus 5-Year Bullet We run similar fair value models for every possible bullet/barbell combination along the yield curve, and barbells appear universally cheap (see Appendix). Bottom Line: Investors should barbell their U.S. bond portfolios, favoring long-maturity (> 10 years) and short-maturity (< 2 years) securities while avoiding the 5-year and 7-year notes. This positioning will boost average portfolio yield and will benefit from any future hawkish re-assessment of Fed policy.   MBS & Housing: The Implications Of Lower Mortgage Rates Alongside bond yields, mortgage rates have fallen sharply during the past few months, a trend that has important implications for both MBS spreads and future housing data. We consider the outlook for both. MBS Spreads Lower mortgage rates encourage homeowners to refinance their loans, and any increase in refinancing activity puts upward pressure on MBS spreads. Not surprisingly, as mortgage rates have declined we have seen a jump in the MBA Refinance Index and a widening of nominal MBS spreads (Chart 5). Chart 5MBS Spreads Still Historically Tight While spreads have widened somewhat, they remain low compared to history (Chart 5, top panel). As such, we do not see a compelling buying opportunity in MBS. This is especially true relative to corporate credit where spreads are more attractive. Chart 6Limited Upside For Refis With the mortgage rate now below 4%, our rough calculation suggests that approximately 44% of the Bloomberg Barclays Conventional 30-year MBS index is refinanceable. A regression of the MBA Refi Index versus the refinanceable share suggests a fair value of 2014 for the Refi Index, slightly above its actual level of 1950 (Chart 6). We also calculate that a further drop in the mortgage rate to below 3.5%, where it troughed in mid-2016, would increase the refinanceable share to 77%. Our regression translates this 77% share to a level of 3309 on the Refi Index. It should be noted that when the refinanceable share rose to 77% in 2016, the MBA Refi Index peaked at 2870. This means that our simple regression analysis probably overstates the surge in refis that would occur if mortgage rates fell another 50 bps. In addition, we think it’s unlikely that mortgage rates will actually fall back to 3.5%, as they did in 2016, and as such, we are hesitant to position for further MBS spread widening. The improvement in housing actitivty is not uniform across all indicators. We recommend maintaining a neutral allocation to MBS for now. If mortgage rates drop and spreads widen further in the near-term, then a buying opportunity may present itself. Housing Activity Chart 7Housing Activity: A Mixed Picture The drop in mortgage rates will also have a significant impact on housing activity data. This is important because, as we have demonstrated in prior reports, housing activity data – particularly single-family housing starts and new homes sales – are reliable indicators of U.S. recessions and interest rates.6 By all measures, housing activity weakened significantly as mortgage rates surged in 2018. But it has improved somewhat now that mortgage rates have declined. However, the improvement is not uniform across all indicators (Chart 7): New home sales jumped sharply early this year, then fell back more recently. The current trend is neutral, with the latest monthly print very close to the 12-month moving average (Chart 7, top panel). Housing starts and permits are both trending below their respective 12-month moving averages, though by less than in 2018 (Chart 7, panel 2 & 3). Existing home sales have popped, and are now exerting upward pressure on the 12-month average (Chart 7, panel 4). Likewise for mortgage purchase applications (Chart 7, panel 5). Homebuilders also report that lower mortgage rates have led to a jump in sales activity (Chart 7, bottom panel).  With mortgage rates still low, the tentative rebound in housing activity data should continue in the coming months. Looking further out, we see significantly more upside in single-family housing starts and new home sales as builders shift construction toward lower-priced properties. The Bifurcated Housing Market Beyond the large swings in mortgage rates, another trend has significantly influenced housing activity in recent years. For the past few years, homebuilders have focused their attention on higher priced homes, and that segment of the market now looks oversupplied. Data from the American Enterprise Institute Housing Center show that the recent deceleration in home prices has been driven by falling prices for the most expensive homes. Homes in the lowest price tier have seen prices accelerate (Chart 8).7 The divergence is also evident in the supply data. New home inventories are roughly consistent with average historical levels, while existing home inventories are incredibly low (Chart 9). In fact, new home inventories now represent 6.4 months of demand while existing home inventories represent 4.3 months of demand (Chart 9, panel 3). Such a wide divergence is historically rare. Chart 8An Oversupply Of High ##br##Priced Homes... Chart 9...And An Undersupply Of Low Priced Homes   The divergence between an oversupply of new homes and an undersupply of existing homes is a result of new construction having focused on higher priced homes in recent years. The median price for a new home used to be only slightly above the median price for an existing home, but the difference shot up to above 75k during the past few years (Chart 9, bottom panel). More recently, the price differential between new and existing homes has started to fall, as builders are starting to recognize that the greater growth opportunity lies at the low-end of the market where demand is strong relative to supply. As this supply-side adjustment plays out, it will provide an additional boost to new homes sales and housing starts going forward. Appendix The following tables present the current read-outs from our butterfly spread models. We use these models to identify opportunities to take duration-neutral positions across the Treasury curve. The following two Special Reports explain the models in more detail: U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, “Bullets, Barbells And Butterflies”, dated July 25, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, “More Bullets, Barbells And Butterflies”, dated May 15, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Table 3 shows the raw residuals from each model. A positive value indicates that the bullet is cheap relative to the duration-matched barbell. A negative value indicates that the barbell is cheap relative to the bullet. Table 3Butterfly Strategy Valuation: Raw Residuals In Basis Points (As of June 27, 2019) Table 4 scales the raw residuals in Table 3 by their historical means and standard deviations. This facilitates comparison between the different butterfly spreads. Table 4Butterfly Strategy Valuation: Standardized Residuals (As of June 27 2019) Ryan Swift, U.S. Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 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 2 We use the 3/10 Treasury slope in place of the more commonly referenced 2/10 slope because it is a close proxy that provides an additional 14 years of historical data. 3 For more details on how we arrive at our spread targets please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Value In Corporate Bonds”, dated February 19, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy / Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, “The Fed’s Got Your Back”, dated June 25, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 5 For more details on our yield curve models please see U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, “Bullets, Barbells And Butterflies”, dated July 25, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 6 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “More Than One Reason To Own Steepeners”, dated September 25, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 7 Low-tier homes are those in the bottom 40% of the price distribution in each metro area. High-tier homes are those that are both in the top 20% of the price distribution and exceed the GSE loan limit by more than 25%. For further details: http://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/HPA_market_conditions_report_June_2019.pdf Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

Special Report

Highlights Like in any currency board, Hong Kong dollar money supply is not fully backed by foreign currency (FX) reserves. Yet, the Hong Kong authorities have large FX reserves to defend the currency peg for now. Regardless, mounting capital outflows and the ensuing currency defense will lead to higher interest rates. Contrary to Hong Kong, Singapore has a flexible exchange rate regime and will begin easing monetary policy soon. Interest rates in Singapore will drop relative to Hong Kong. We are therefore reiterating our short Hong Kong / long Singaporean property stocks strategy. Feature The recent popular protests in Hong Kong against the extradition bill will likely mark a regime shift – not only in the territory’s socio-political dynamics but also in its financial outlook. It seems the local authorities are still considering an adoption of the extradition bill. For now, the bill has been suspended, but it has not been withdrawn outright. In light of elevated political uncertainty over the one-country, two-systems model, it is reasonable to assume that capital outflows from Hong Kong will rise in the coming year or so.  In light of elevated political uncertainty over the one-country, two-systems model, it is reasonable to assume that capital outflows from Hong Kong will rise in the coming year or so. The question therefore becomes whether or not the Hong Kong Monetary Authority (HKMA) has sufficient foreign currency (FX) reserves to defend the Hong Kong dollar’s peg. Even though Hong Kong's broad money supply is not fully backed by FX reserves, we see no major risk to the currency peg at the moment. That said, mounting capital outflows will necessitate higher interest rates, as least relative to U.S. ones, to defend the peg. This is negative for Hong Kong’s property market and share prices. Are Hong Kong Dollars Fully Backed By FX Reserves? Hong Kong operates a linked-exchange rate system, which stipulates that its monetary base must be fully backed by FX reserves. The monetary base includes (Table I-1): The balance of the clearing accounts of banks kept with the HKMA (called the Aggregate Balance, which represents commercial banks’ excess reserves). Exchange Fund bills and notes – securities issued by the Exchange Fund to manage excess reserves/liquidity in the interbank market. Certificates of Indebtedness which are equivalent to currency in circulation. These certificates are held by note-issuing banks in exchange for their FX deposits at the Exchange Fund. The Exchange Fund is a balance sheet vehicle of the HKMA. Government-issued coins in circulation. Presently, Hong Kong’s FX reserves-to-monetary base ratio is 2.2 (Chart I-1on page 1). This ratio is well above the stipulated currency board rule of one: a unit of monetary base can be issued only when it is backed by an equivalent foreign currency asset. Chart I-1HK: FX Coverage Of Monetary Base Is Well Above 1 The reason the ratio is currently more than double where it technically should be is because the HKMA’s foreign exchange reserves also include the fiscal authorities’ foreign currency deposits at the Exchange Fund. Hence, the large pool of fiscal assets converted into foreign currency and sitting in the Exchange Fund has pushed the monetary base’s coverage ratio above two. As of December 31, 2018, the Exchange Fund’s foreign currency assets consisted of HK$743 billion of its own foreign currency reserves (net FX reserves), HK$1.17 trillion of the fiscal authorities’ foreign currency deposits, and HK$485 billion of foreign currency deposits by money issuing commercial banks (Table I-1). However, broad money supply in Hong Kong is not fully backed by foreign currency reserves (Chart I-2). At 0.45, this coverage ratio entails that each HK dollar of broad money supply is backed by 0.45 USD foreign currency reserves within the Exchange Fund. Broad money supply includes currency in circulation, demand, savings and time deposits, and negotiable certificates of deposits (NCDs) issued by licensed banks. Chart I-2HK: FX Coverage Of HK Dollars Is Only 0.45 Crucially, broad money supply does not include commercial banks’ reserves at the central bank in any economy, including Hong Kong. The pertinent measure of any exchange rate backing is the ratio of FX reserves to broad money supply (all local currency deposits plus cash in circulation). The motive is that households and companies can use not only cash in circulation but also their deposits to acquire foreign currency. With the ratio standing at 0.45, the Hong Kong monetary authorities do not have sufficient amounts of U.S. dollars to guarantee the exchange of each unit of local currency (cash in circulation and all deposits) into U.S. dollars in the event of a full-blown flight out of HK dollars. It is essential to clarify that the monetary authorities in Hong Kong have not deviated from the original framework of the currency board. This exchange rate mechanism was devised in 1983 in such a way that only the monetary base – not broad money supply – was supposed to be backed by foreign currency. In short, any currency board entails that only the monetary base – not broad money supply - is backed by FX reserves. Hong Kong is not an exception. Nevertheless, there is widespread perception in the financial community and among economists that all Hong Kong dollars are backed by foreign currency reserves, which is incorrect. Like in any banking system, when commercial banks in Hong Kong grant loans or buy assets from non-banks, they create local currency deposits “out of thin air.” These deposits are not backed by foreign currency, and commercial banks that create these deposits are not obliged to deposit FX reserves at the Exchange Fund. The credit boom in Hong Kong has accelerated since 2009 (Chart I-3, top panel). Consistently, since that time, the amount of local currency deposits has mushroomed – these deposits are not backed by foreign currency (Chart I-3, bottom panel).  Chart I-3Banks' Loans And Deposit Growth Go Hand-In-Hand On the whole, the currency board system in Hong Kong and elsewhere cannot guarantee full convertibility of broad money supply (all types of deposits). Therefore, these currency regimes are ultimately based on confidence. If and when confidence in the exchange rate plummets and economic agents rush to exchange a large share of their local currency cash in circulation and deposits into foreign currency, the monetary authorities’ FX reserves will not be sufficient. That said, there is presently no basis to argue that close to 45% of Hong Kong broad money supply (cash and coins in circulation and deposits of all types) is poised to panic-flood the currency market. Hence, we do not foresee a de-pegging of the HKD exchange rate for now. The currency will continue to trade within its HKD/USD 7.75-7.85 band. Bottom Line: Like in any currency board, the Hong Kong dollars are not fully backed by its FX reserves. However, the Hong Kong authorities have large FX reserves to defend the currency peg for some time. Liquidity Strains? According to the Impossible Trinity thesis, in an economy with an open capital account, the monetary authorities can control either interest rates or the exchange rate, but not both simultaneously. Provided Hong Kong has both an open capital account and a fixed exchange rate, the monetary authorities have little control over interest rates. Balance-of-payment (BoP) dynamics determine whether the HKMA has to buy or sell foreign currency to preserve the exchange rate peg. When the BoP is in surplus, the HKMA accumulates FX reserves, and vice versa.  The odds are rising that Hong Kong will begin experiencing capital outflows due to heightening political uncertainty over the one-country, two-systems model. Consistently, the BoP will swing from recurring surpluses to deficits and the HKMA will have to finance them by selling FX reserves (Chart I-4). By doing so, the monetary authorities will drain banks’ excess reserves, thereby tightening interbank liquidity. Chart I-4Balance Of Payments And FX Reserves Chart I-5Falling Excess Reserves = Higher Interbank Rates Notably, the HKMA’s FX reserves have plateaued, commercial banks’ excess reserves (the Aggregate Balance at the HKMA) have shrunk and money market rates have risen since 2016 (Chart I-5). Importantly, the latter has continued, even as U.S. interest rates have dropped over the past six months (Chart I-5, bottom panel). These dynamics are set to continue. To defend the HKD’s fixed exchange rate, interest rates in Hong Kong should rise and stay above those in the U.S. This will be the equivalent of pricing in a risk premium in Hong Kong rates due to higher political uncertainty in domestic politics as well as the ongoing U.S.-China trade confrontation. To defend the HKD’s fixed exchange rate, interest rates in Hong Kong should rise and stay above those in the U.S. On a positive note, the HKMA has ample room to mitigate liquidity strains resulting from FX interventions. In years when the BoP was in surplus, to prevent HKD appreciation the authorities purchased substantial amounts of U.S. dollars. As a result, the aggregate balance/excess reserves swelled, and Exchange Fund bills and notes were issued to absorb excess reserves (Chart I-6). Chart I-6HK Authorities Have Large Liquidity Firepower Going forward, with capital outflows causing tightening liquidity, the HKMA can redeem its own bills and notes to replenish the Aggregate Balance. This will ease interbank liquidity and preclude interest rates from shooting up dramatically. The HKMA’s liquidity firepower is sizable: the amount of Exchange Fund bills and notes is more than HK$1 trillion. This compares with aggregate balance (excess reserves) of HK$55 billion. Hence, potential interbank liquidity is HK$1.1 trillion (the Aggregate Balance plus the Exchange Fund’s bills and notes) (Chart I-6, top panel). There is no way to guesstimate potential capital outflows from Hong Kong. Hence, it is difficult to know what the equilibrium level of the interest rate spread over U.S. rates will be. The market will be re-balancing continuously, and the interest rate differential will fluctuate – i.e., it will be a moving target that ensures the fixed value of the currency. Bottom Line: Odds are that market-based interest rates in Hong Kong have to rise and stay above the U.S. ones for now. Heading Into Recession? With non-financial private sector debt close to 300% of GDP (Chart I-7) and property/construction and financial services sectors accounting for a large share of the economy, the Hong Kong economy is extremely sensitive to interest rates. Chart I-7Hong Kong: Leverage And Debt Servicing Chart I-8HK Economy Is In A Cyclical Downtrend Economic conditions have already been worsening, and any further rise in interest rates will escalate the economic downtrend: Private credit growth has decelerated and is probably heading into contraction (Chart I-8, top panel). The property market is one of the most expensive in the world. Property transactions have plunged and real estate prices will likely deflate (Chart I-8, middle panels). China’s weakening economy and subsiding Hong Kong business and investor confidence will hurt domestic demand. Retail sales volumes are already contracting (Chart I-8, bottom panel). Investment Implications The interest rate differential between Hong Kong and the U.S. has recently become positive after two and a half years of lingering below zero (Chart I-9). Odds are that it will remain positive at least over the next couple years. Therefore, even if U.S. interest rates decline further, Hong Kong rates will not. This has major investment ramifications: Hong Kong stocks will likely underperform U.S. and EM equity benchmarks, as its interest rate differential with the U.S. stays on the positive side and widens further (Chart I-10).  Chart I-9HK Interest Rate Spread Over U.S. Will Rise And Stay Positive Chart I-10Higher HK Interest Rates Herald HK Equity Underperformance The MSCI Hong Kong stock index is composed of financials (36% of market cap) and property stocks (26% of market cap). Therefore, domestic stocks are very sensitive to interest rates. Hong Kong companies are also very exposed to mainland growth. A recovery in the latter is not yet imminent. As a market neutral trade, we are reiterating our short Hong Kong property / long Singapore property stocks strategy. Chart I-11Favor Singapore Stocks Versus Hong Kong Ones All of this leads us to maintain our underweight stance on Hong Kong domestic stocks versus U.S. and EM equity indexes (Chart I-10). As a market neutral trade, we are reiterating our short Hong Kong property / long Singapore property stocks strategy. Hong Kong interest rates will rise above Singapore’s, leading to the former’s equity underperformance versus the latter across property, banks and probably the overall stock index (Chart I-11). For a more detailed discussion of Singapore, please see below.   Arthur Budaghyan Chief Emerging Markets Strategist arthurb@bcaresearch.com Lin Xiang, Research Analyst linx@bcaresearch.com           Singapore: Monetary Easing Is Imminent Singapore’s stock market is at risk of selling off in absolute terms. However, the monetary authorities (MAS) will soon commence policy easing. This will differentiate Singapore from Hong Kong. While both Singapore and Hong Kong suffer from property and credit excesses and are facing a cyclical downtrend, the former – unlike the latter – can and will lower interest rates and allow its currency to depreciate to reflate the system. As a result, we are reiterating our short Hong Kong / long Singaporean property stocks strategy. Cyclical Headwinds Persist While both Singapore and Hong Kong suffer from property and credit excesses and are facing a cyclical downtrend, the former – unlike the latter – can and will lower interest rates and allow its currency to depreciate to reflate the system. Singapore’s cyclical growth outlook is worsening: Chart II-1 shows that the narrow money impulse is in deep contraction and the private domestic banks loans impulse is dipping into negative territory anew. The property sector – which is an important driver of Singapore’s economy – is depressed. Residential units sold has dipped, the high-end condominium market is virtually frozen and housing mortgage growth has stalled. These create formidable risks for Singapore’s real estate stocks’ absolute performance (Chart II-2). The latter account for 15% of the Singaporean stock market. Chart II-1Singapore: Money / Credit Impulses Chart II-2Singapore: Real Estate Stocks Are At Risk Meanwhile, there has been no signs of improvement in both domestic demand and exports. The top panel of Chart II-3 shows that the marginal propensity to spend among both consumers and non-financial businesses is diminishing. Specifically, the impulse for overall consumer loans is negative, while retail sales are contracting (Chart II-3, bottom panel). As for the business sector, it is also slowing down. Manufacturing PMI and new orders are in a contraction zone (Chart II-4). Chart II-3Private Consumption Is Weakening Chart II-4Business Sector Is Hit Hard Finally, corporate profitability of listed non-financial and non-property firms has massively deteriorated in the last decade. Chart II-5 illustrates that both return on assets (ROA) and return-on-equity (ROE) have been in a downward trend and have lately plunged. Shrinking profit margins have been the result of escalating unit labor costs (Chart II-6). In other words, productivity gains among listed non-financial companies have lagged behind wage increases. Chart II-5Corporate Profitability Is At 20-Year Low Chart II-6Rising Unit Labor Costs = Shrinking Profit Margins Monetary Policy Will Be Relaxed Chart II-7The Central Bank Has Been Withdrawing Liquidity The Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) conducts monetary policy by controlling the currency and by default allowing domestic interest rates to find their own equilibrium. Currently, the MAS’s monetary policy setting is restrictive – i.e. it is aiming to gradually appreciate the trade-weighted Singaporean dollar by withdrawing excess reserve from the banking system (Chart II-7, top panel). This in turn, is causing commercial banks to bid interbank rates higher (Chart II-7, bottom panel). Nevertheless, with the domestic growth deceleration intensifying and the private sector highly leveraged, the MAS will soon opt for policy easing. It will guide the trade-weighted exchange rate lower by injecting liquidity into the banking system and lowering interest rates. Bottom Line: The Singaporean economy needs lower rates and the MAS is not constrained by the currency peg as the HKMA is. Consequently, interest rates in Singapore will decline both in absolute terms and relative to Hong Kong ones. Investment Conclusion The cyclical downturn will deepen and Singapore share prices will drop in absolute U.S. dollar terms. Relative to the EM or the Asian benchmarks, we continue to recommend a neutral position on overall Singaporean equities for now. Importantly, Singapore is better positioned than Hong Kong because the former’s monetary authorities can lower interest rates and allow the currency to depreciate. Hong Kong monetary authorities cannot tolerate lower interest rates due to their peg to the U.S. dollar and budding capital outflows. Interest rates in Singapore will drop relative to Hong Kong. We are therefore reiterating our short Hong Kong / long Singaporean property stocks strategy (Chart I-11 on page 10).   Ayman Kawtharani, Editor/Strategist ayman@bcaresearch.com Footnotes Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations Equity Recommendations  

Special Report

Highlights We update our long-range forecasts of returns from a range of asset classes – equities, bonds, alternatives, and currencies – and make some refinements to the methodologies we used in our last report in November 2017. We add coverage of U.K., Australian, and Canadian assets, and include Emerging Markets debt, gold, and global Real Estate in our analysis for the first time. Generally, our forecasts are slightly higher than 18 months ago: we expect an annual return in nominal terms over the next 10-year years of 1.7% from global bonds, and 5.9% from global equities – up from 1.5% and 4.6% respectively in the last edition. Cheaper valuations in a number of equity markets, especially Japan, the euro zone, and Emerging Markets explain the higher return assumptions. Nonetheless, a balanced global portfolio is likely to return only 4.7% a year in the long run, compared to 6.3% over the past 20 years. That is lower than many investors are banking on. Feature Since we published our first attempt at projecting long-term returns for a range of asset classes in November 2017, clients have shown enormous interest in this work. They have also made numerous suggestions on how we could improve our methodologies and asked us to include additional asset classes. This Special Report updates the data, refines some of our assumptions, and adds coverage of U.K., Australian, and Canadian assets, as well as gold, global Real Estate, and global REITs. Our basic philosophy has not changed. Many of the methodologies are carried over from the November 2017 edition, and clients interested in more detailed explanations should also refer to that report.1 Our forecast time horizon is 10-15 years. We deliberately keep this vague, and avoid trying to forecast over a 3-7 year time horizon, as is common in many capital market assumptions reports. The reason is that we want to avoid predicting the timing and gravity of the next recession, but rather aim to forecast long-term trend growth irrespective of cycles. This type of analysis is, by nature, as much art as science. We start from the basis that historical returns, at least those from the past 10 or 20 years, are not very useful. Asset allocators should not use historical returns data in mean variance optimizers and other portfolio-construction models. For example, over the past 20 years global bonds have returned 5.3% a year. With many long-term government bonds currently yielding zero or less, it is mathematically almost impossible that returns will be this high over the coming decade or so. Our analysis points to a likely annual return from global bonds of only 1.7%. Our approach is based on building-blocks. There are some factors we know with a high degree of certainly: such as the return on U.S. 10-year Treasury yields over the next 10 years (to all intents and purposes, it is the current yield). Many fundamental drivers of return (credit spreads, the small-cap premium, the shape of the yield curve, profit margins, stock price multiples etc.) are either steady on average over the cycle, or mean revert. For less certain factors, such as economic growth, inflation, or equilibrium short-term interest rates, we can make sensible assumptions. Most of the analysis in this report is based on the 20-year history of these factors. We used 20 years because data is available for almost all the asset classes we cover for this length of time (there are some exceptions, for example corporate bond data for Australia and Emerging Markets go back only to 2004-5, and global REITs start only in 2008). The period from May 1999 to April 2019 is also reasonable since it covers two recessions and two expansions, and started at a point in the cycle that is arguably similar to where we are today. Some will argue that it includes the Technology bubble of 1999-2000, when stock valuations were high, and that we should use a longer period. But the lack of data for many assets classes before the 1990s (though admittedly not for equities) makes this problematic. Also, note that the historical returns data for the 20 years starting in May 1999 are quite low – 5.8% for U.S. equities, for example. This is because the starting-point was quite late in the cycle, as we probably also are now.   We make the following additions and refinements to our analysis: Add coverage of the U.K., Australia, and Canada for both fixed income and equities. Add coverage of Emerging Markets debt: U.S. dollar and local-currency sovereign bonds, and dollar-denominated corporate credit. Among alternative assets, add coverage of gold, global Direct Real Estate, and global REITs. Improve the methodology for many alt asset classes, shifting from reliance on historical returns to an approach based on building blocks – for example, current yield plus an estimation of future capital appreciation – similar to our analysis of other asset classes. In our discussion of currencies, add for easy reference of readers a table of assumed returns for all the main asset classes expressed in USD, EUR, JPY, GBP, AUD, and CAD (using our forecasts of long-run movements in these currencies). Added Sharpe ratios to our main table of assumptions. The summary of our results is shown in Table 1. The results are all average annual nominal total returns, in local currency terms (except for global indexes, which are in U.S. dollars). Table 1BCA Assumed Returns Unsurprisingly, given the long-term nature of this exercise, our return projections have in general not moved much compared to those in November 2017. Indeed, markets look rather similar today to 18 months ago: the U.S. 10-year Treasury yield was 2.4% at end-April (our data cut-off point), compared to 2.3%, and the trailing PE for U.S. stocks 21.0, compared to 21.6. If anything, the overall assumption for a balanced portfolio (of 50% equities, 30% bonds, and 20% equal-weighted alts) has risen slightly compared to the 2017 edition: to 4.7% from 4.1% for a global portfolio, and to 4.9% from 4.6% for a purely U.S. one. That is partly because we include specific forecasts for the U.K., Australia, and Canada, where returns are expected to be slightly higher than for the markets we limited our forecasts to previously, the U.S, euro zone, Japan, and Emerging Markets (EM). Equity returns are also forecast to be higher than 18 months ago, mainly because several markets now are cheaper: trailing PE for Japan has fallen to 13.1x from 17.6x, for the euro zone to 15.5x from 18.0x, and for Emerging Markets to 13.6x from 15.4x (and more sophisticated valuation measures show the same trend). The long-term picture for global growth remains poor, based on our analysis, but valuation at the starting-point, as we have often argued, is a powerful indicator of future returns. We include Sharpe ratios in Table 1 for the first time. We calculate them as expected return/expected volatility to allow for comparison between different asset classes, rather than as excess return over cash/volatility as is strictly correct, and as should be used in mean variance optimizers. Chart 1Volatility Is Easier To Forecast Than Returns For volatility assumptions, we mostly use the 20-year average volatility of each asset class. As discussed above, historical returns should not be used to forecast future returns. But volatility does not trend much over the long-term (Chart 1). We looked carefully at volatility trends for all the asset classes we cover, but did not find a strong example of a trend decline or rise in any. We do, however, adjust the historic volatility of the illiquid, appraisal-based alternative assets, such as Private Equity, Real Estate, and Farmland. The reported volatility is too low, for example 2.6% in the case of U.S. Direct Real Estate. Even using statistical techniques to desmooth the return produces a volatility of only around 7%. We choose, therefore, to be conservative, and use the historic volatility on REITs (21%) and apply this to Direct Real Estate too. For Private Equity (historic volatility 5.9%), we use the volatility on U.S. listed small-cap stocks (18.6%). Looking at the forecast Sharpe ratios, the risk-adjusted return on global bonds (0.55) is somewhat higher than that of global equities (0.33). Credit continues to look better than equities: Sharpe ratio of 0.70 for U.S. investment grade debt and 0.62 for high-yield bonds. Nonetheless, our overall conclusion is that future returns are still likely to be below those of the past decade or two, and below many investors’ expectations. Over the past 20 years a global balanced portfolio (defined as above) returned 6.3% and a similar U.S. portfolio 7.0%. We expect 4.7% and 4.9% respectively in future. Investors working on the assumption of a 7-8% nominal return – as is typical among U.S. pension funds, for example – need to become realistic. Below follow detailed descriptions of how we came up with our assumptions for each asset class (fixed income, equities, and alternatives), followed by our forecasts of long-term currency movements, and a brief discussion of correlations. 1. Fixed Income We carry over from the previous edition our building-block approach to estimating returns from fixed income. One element we know with a relatively high degree of certainty is the return over the next 10 years from 10-year government bonds in developed economies: one can safely assume that it will be the same as the current 10-year yield. It is not mathematical identical, of course, since this calculation does not take into account reinvestment of coupons, or default risk, but it is a fair assumption. We can make some reasonable assumptions for returns from cash, based on likely inflation and the real equilibrium cash rate in different countries. After this, our methodology is to assume that other historic relationships (corporate bond spreads, default and recovery rates, the shape of the yield curve etc.) hold over the long run and that, therefore, the current level reverts to its historic mean. The results of our analysis, and the assumptions we use, are shown in Table 2. Full details of the methodology follow below. Table 2Fixed Income Return Calculations Projected returns have not changed significantly from the 2017 edition of this report. In the U.S., for the current 10-year Treasury bond yield we used 2.4% (the three-month average to end-April), very similar to the 2.3% on which we based our analysis in 2017. In the euro zone and Japan, yields have fallen a little since then, with the 10-year German Bund now yielding roughly 0%, compared to 0.5% in 2017, and the Japanese Government Bond -0.1% compared to zero. Overall, we expect the Bloomberg Barclays Global Index to give an annual nominal return of 1.7% over the coming 10-15 years, slightly up from the assumption of 1.5% in the previous edition. This small rise is due to the slight increase in the U.S. long-term risk-free rate, and to the inclusion for the first time of specific estimates for returns in the U.K., Australia, and Canada. Fixed Income Methodologies Cash. We forecast the long-run rate on 3-month government bills by generating assumptions for inflation and the real equilibrium cash rate. For inflation, in most countries we use the 20-year average of CPI inflation, for example 2.2% in the U.S. and 1.7% in the euro zone. This suggests that both the Fed and the ECB will slightly miss their inflation targets on the downside over the coming decade (the Fed targets 2% PCE inflation, but the PCE measure is on average about 0.5% below CPI inflation). Of course, this assumes that the current inflation environment will continue. BCA’s view is that inflation risks are significantly higher than this, driven by structural factors such as demographics, populism, and the advent of ultra-unorthodox monetary policy.2 But we see this as an alternative scenario rather than one that we should use in our return assumptions for now. Japan’s inflation has averaged 0.1% over the past 20 years, but we used 1% on the grounds that the Bank of Japan (BoJ) should eventually see some success from its quantitative easing. For the equilibrium real rate we use the New York Fed’s calculation based on the Laubach-Williams model for the U.S., euro zone, U.K., and Canada. For Japan, we use the BoJ’s estimate, and for Australia (in the absence of an official forecast of the equilibrium rate) we take the average real cash rate over the past 20 years. Finally, we assume that the cash yield will move from its current level to the equilibrium over 10 years. Government Bonds. Using the 10-year bond yield as an anchor, we calculate the return for the government bond index by assuming that the spread between 7- and 10-year bonds, and between 3-month bills and 10-year bonds will average the same over the next 10 years as over the past 20. While the shape of the yield curve swings around significantly over the cycle, there is no sign that is has trended in either direction (Chart 2). The average maturity of government bonds included in the index varies between countries: we use the five-year historic average for each, for example, 5.8 years for the U.S., and 10.2 years for Japan. Spread Product. Like government bonds, spreads and default rates are highly cyclical, but fairly stable in the long run (Chart 3). We use the 20-year average of these to derive the returns for investment-grade bonds, high-yield (HY) bonds, government-related securities (e.g. bonds issued by state-owned entities, or provincial governments), and securitized bonds (e.g. asset-backed or mortgage-backed securities). For example, for U.S. high-yield we use the average spread of 550 basis points over Treasuries, default rate of 3.8%, and recovery rate of 45%. For many countries, default and recovery rates are not available and so we, for example, use the data from the U.S. (but local spreads) to calculate the return for high-yield bonds in the euro zone and the U.K. Inflation-Linked Bonds. We use the average yield over the past 10 years (not 20, since for many countries data does not go back that far and, moreover, TIPs and their equivalents have been widely used for only a relatively short period.) We calculate the return as the average real yield plus forecast inflation. Chart 2Yield Curves Chart 3Credit Spreads & Default Rates     Bloomberg Barclays Aggregate Bond Indexes. We use the weights of each category and country (from among those we forecast) to derive the likely return from the index. The composition of each country’s index varies widely: for example, in the euro zone (27% of the global bond index), government bonds comprise 66% of the index, but in the U.S. only 37%. Only the U.S. and Canada have significant weightings in corporate bonds: 29% and 50% respectively. This can influence the overall return for each country’s index. Table 3Emerging Market Debt Emerging Market Debt. We add coverage of EMD: sovereign bonds in both local currency and U.S. dollars, and USD-denominated EM corporate debt. Again, we take the 20-year average spread over 10-year U.S. Treasuries for each category. A detailed history of default and recovery is not available, so for EM corporate debt we assume similar rates to those for U.S. HY bonds. For sovereign bonds, we make a simple assumption of 0.5% of losses per year – although in practice this is likely to be very lumpy, with few defaults for years, followed by a rush during an EM crisis. For EM local currency debt, we assume that EM currencies will depreciate on average each year in line with the difference between U.S. inflation and EM inflation (using the IMF forecast for both – please see the Currency section below for further discussion on this). After these calculations, we conclude that EM USD sovereign bonds will produce an annual return of 4.7%, and EM USD corporate bonds 4.5% – in both cases a little below the 5.6% return assumption we have for U.S. high-yield debt (Table 3).   2. Equities Our equity methodologies are largely unchanged from the previous edition. We continue to use the return forecast from six different methodologies to produce an average assumed return. Table 4 shows the results and a summary of the calculation for each methodology. The explanation for the six methodologies follows below. Table 4Equity Return Calculations The results suggest slightly higher returns than our projections in 2017. We forecast global equities to produce a nominal annual total return in USD of 5.9%, compared to 4.6% previously. The difference is partly due to the inclusion for the first time of specific forecasts for the U.K., Australia and Canada, which are projected to see 8.0%, 7.4% and 6.0% returns respectively. The projection for the U.S. is fairly similar to 2017, rising slightly to 5.6% from 5.0% (mainly due to a slightly higher assumption for productivity growth in future, which boosts the nominal GDP growth assumption). Japan, however, does come out looking significantly more attractive than previously, with an assumed return of 6.2%, compared to 3.5% previously. This is mostly due to cheaper valuations, since the growth outlook has not improved meaningfully. Japan now trades on a trailing PE of 13.1x, compared to 17.6x in 2017. This helps improve the return indicated by a number of the methodologies, including earnings yield and Shiller PE. The forecast for euro zone equities remains stable at 4.7%. EM assumptions range more widely, depending on the methodology used, than do those for DM. On valuation-based measures (Shiller PE, earnings yield etc.), EM generally shows strong return assumptions. However, on a growth-based model it looks less attractive. We continue to use two different assumptions for GDP growth in EM. Growth Model (1) is based on structural reform taking place in Emerging Markets, which would allow productivity growth to rebound from its current level of 3.2% to the 20-year average of 4.1%; Growth Model (2) assumes no reform and that productivity growth will continue to decline, converging with the DM average, 1.1%, over the next 10 years. In both cases, the return assumption is dragged down by net issuance, which we assume will continue at the 10-year average of 4.9% a year. Our composite projection for EM equity returns (in local currencies) comes out at 6.6%, a touch higher than 6.0% in 2017. Equity Methodologies Equity Risk Premium (ERP). This is the simplest methodology, based on the concept that equities in the long run outperform the long-term risk-free rate (we use the 10-year U.S. Treasury yield) by a margin that is fairly stable over time. We continue to use 3.5% as the ERP for the U.S., based on analysis by Dimson, Marsh and Staunton of the average ERP for developed markets since 1900. We have, however, tweaked the methodology this time to take into account the differing volatility of equity markets, which should translate into higher returns over time. Thus we use a beta of 1.2 for the euro zone, 0.8 for Japan, 0.9 for the U.K., 1.1 for both Australia and Canada, and 1.3 for Emerging Markets. The long-term picture for global growth remains poor, but valuation at the starting-point, as we have often argued, is a powerful indicator of future returns. Growth Model. This is based on a Gordon growth model framework that postulates that equity returns are a function of dividend yield at the starting point, plus the growth of earnings in future (we assume that the dividend payout ratio stays constant). We base earnings growth off assumptions of nominal GDP growth (see Box 1 for how we calculate these). But historically there is strong evidence that large listed company earnings underperform nominal GDP growth by around 1 percentage point a year (largely because small, unlisted companies tend to show stronger growth than the mature companies that dominate the index) and so we deduct this 1% to reach the earnings growth forecast. We also need to adjust dividend yield for share buybacks which in the U.S., for tax reasons, have added 0.5% to shareholder returns over the past 10 years (net of new share issuance). In other countries, however, equity issuance is significantly larger than buybacks; this directly impacts shareholders’ returns via dilution. For developed markets, the impact of net equity issuance deducts 0.7%-2.7% from shareholder returns annually. But the impact is much bigger in Emerging Markets, where dilution has reduced returns by an average of 4.9% over the past 10 years. Table 5 shows that China is by far the biggest culprit, especially Chinese banks. Table 5Dilution In Emerging Markets BOX 1 Estimating GDP Growth We estimate nominal GDP growth for the countries and regions in our analysis as the sum of: annual growth in the working-age population, productivity growth, and inflation (we assume that capital deepening remains stable over the period). Results are shown in Table 6. Table 6Calculations Of Trend GDP Growth For population growth, we use the United Nations’ median scenario for annual growth in the population aged 25-64 between 2015 and 2030. This shows that the euro zone and Japan will see significant declines in the working population. The U.S. and U.K. look slightly better, with the working population projected to grow by 0.3% and 0.1% respectively. There are some uncertainties in these estimates. Stricter immigration policies would reduce the growth. Conversely, greater female participation, a later retirement age, longer working hours, or a rise in the participation rate would increase it. For emerging markets we used the UN estimate for “less developed regions, excluding least developed countries”. These countries have, on average, better demographics. However, the average number hides the decline in the working-age population in a number of important EM countries, for example China (where the working-age population is set to shrink by 0.2% a year), Korea (-0.4%), and Russia (-1.1%). By contrast, working population will grow by 1.7% a year in Mexico and 1.6% in India. For productivity growth, we assume – perhaps somewhat optimistically – that the decline in productivity since the Global Financial Crisis will reverse and that each country will return to the average annual productivity growth of the past 20 years (Chart 4). Our argument is that the cyclical factors that depressed productivity since the GFC (for example, companies’ reluctance to spend on capex, and shareholders’ preference for companies to pay out profits rather than to invest) should eventually fade, and that structural and technical factors (tight labor markets, increasing automation, technological breakthroughs in fields such as artificial intelligence, big data, and robotics) should boost productivity. Based on this assumption, U.S. productivity growth would average 2.0% over the next 10-15 years, compared to 0.5% since 1999. Note that this is a little higher than the Congressional Budgetary Office’s assumption for labor productivity growth of 1.8% a year. Chart 4AProductivity Growth (I) Chart 4BProductivity Growth (II) Our assumptions for inflation are as described above in the section on Fixed Income. The overall results suggest that Japan will see the lowest nominal GDP growth, at 0.9% a year, with the U.S. growing at 4.4%. The U.K. and Australia come out only a little lower than the U.S. For emerging markets, as described in the main text, we use two scenarios: one where productivity grow continues to slow in the absence of reforms, especially in China, from the current 3.2% to converge with the average in DM (1.1%) over the next 10-15 years; and an alternative scenario where reforms boost productivity back to the 20-year average of 4.1%.   Growth Plus Reversion To Mean For Margins And Profits. There is logic in arguing that profit margins and multiples tend to revert to the mean over the long term. If margins are particularly high currently, profit growth will be significantly lower than the above methodology would suggest; multiple contraction would also lower returns. Here we add to the Growth Model above an assumption that net profit margin and trailing PE will steadily revert to the 20-year average for each country over the 10-15 years. For most countries, margins are quite high currently compared to history: 9.2% in the U.S., for example, compared to a 20-year average of 7.7%. Multiples, however, are not especially high. Even in the U.S. the trailing PE of 21.0x, compares to a 20-year average of 20.8x (although that admittedly is skewed by the ultra-high valuations in 1999-2000, and coming out of the 2007-9 recession – we would get a rather lower number if we used the 40-year average). Indeed, in all the other countries and regions, the PE is currently lower than the 20-year average. Note that for Japan, we assumed that the PE would revert to the 20-year average of the U.S. and the euro zone (19.2), rather than that of Japan itself (distorted by long periods of negative earnings, and periods of PE above 50x in the 1990s and 2000s).  Earnings Yield. This is intuitively a neat way of thinking about future returns. Investors are rewarded for owning equity, either by the company paying a dividend, or by reinvesting its earnings and paying a dividend in future. If one assumes that future return on capital will be similar to ROC today (admittedly a rash assumption in the case of fast-growing companies which might be tempted to invest too aggressively in the belief that they can continue to generate rapid growth) it should be immaterial to the investor which the company chooses. Historically, there has been a strong correlation between the earnings yield (the inverse of the trailing PE) and subsequent equity returns, although in the past two decades the return has been somewhat higher that the EY suggested, and so in future might be somewhat lower. This methodology produces an assumed return for U.S. equities of 4.8% a year. Shiller PE. BCA’s longstanding view is that valuation is not a good timing tool for equity investment, but that it is crucial to forecasting long-term returns. Chart 5 shows that there is a good correlation in most markets between the Shiller PE (current share price divided by 10-year average inflation-adjusted earnings) and subsequent 10-year equity returns. We use a regression of these two series to derive the assumptions. This points to returns ranging from 5.4% in the case of the U.S. to 12.5% for the U.K. Composite Valuation Indicator. There are some issues that make the Shiller PE problematical. It uses a fixed 10-year period, whereas cycles vary in length. It tends to make countries look cheap when they have experienced a trend decline in earnings (which may continue, and not mean revert) and vice versa. So we also use a proprietary valuation indicator comprising a range of standard parameters (including price/book, price/cash, market cap/GDP, Tobin’s Q etc.), and regress this against 10-year returns. The results are generally similar to those using the Shiller PE, except that Japan shows significantly higher assumed returns, and the U.K. and EM significantly lower ones (Chart 6). Chart 5Shiller PE Vs. 10-Year Return Chart 6Composite Valuation Vs. 10-Year Return     3. Alternative Investments We continue to forecast each illiquid alternative investment separately, but we have made a number of changes to our methodologies. Mostly these involve moving away from using historical returns as a basis for our forecasts, and shifting to an approach based on current yield plus projected future capital appreciation. In direct real estate, for example, in 2017 we relied on a regression of historical returns against U.S. nominal GDP growth. We move in this edition to an approach based on the current cap rate, plus capital appreciation (based on forecasts of nominal GDP growth), and taking into account maintenance costs (details below). We also add coverage of some additional asset classes: global ex-U.S. direct real estate, global ex-U.S. REITs, and gold. Table 7 summarizes our assumptions, and provides details of historic returns and volatility. Table 7Alternatives Return Calculations It is worth emphasizing here that manager selection is far more important for many alternative investment classes than it is for public securities (Chart 7). There is likely to be, therefore, much greater dispersion of returns around our assumptions than would be the case for, say, large-cap U.S. equities. Chart 7For Alts, Manager Selection Is Key Hedge Funds Chart 8Hedge Fund Return Over Cash Hedge fund returns have trended down over time (Chart 8). Long gone is the period when hedge funds returned over 20% per year (as they did in the early 1990s). Over the past 10 years, the Composite Hedge Fund Index has returned annually 3.3% more than 3-month U.S. Treasury bills. But that was entirely during an economic expansion and so we think it is prudent to cut last edition’s assumption of future returns of cash-plus-3.5%, to cash-plus-3% going forward. Direct Real Estate Our new methodology for real estate breaks down the return, in a similar way to equities, into the current cash yield (cap rate) plus an assumption of future capital growth. For the cap rate, we use the average, weighted by transaction volumes, of the cap rates for apartments, office buildings, retail, industrial real estate, and hotels in major cities (for example, Chicago, Los Angeles, Manhattan, and San Francisco for the U.S., or Osaka and Tokyo for Japan). We assume that capital values grow in line with each’s country’s nominal GDP growth (using the IMF’s five-year forecasts for this). We deduct a 0.5% annual charge for maintenance, in line with industry practice. Results are shown in Table 8. Our assumptions point to better returns from real estate in the U.S. than in the rest of the world. Not only is the cap rate in the U.S. higher, but nominal GDP growth is projected to be higher too. Table 8Direct Real Estate Return Calculations REITs We switch to a similar approach for REITs. Previously we used a regression of REITs against U.S. equity returns (since REITs tend to be more closely correlated with equities than with direct real estate). This produced a rather high assumption for U.S. REITs of 10.1%. We now use the current dividend yield on REITs plus an assumption that capital values will grow in line with nominal GDP growth forecasts. REITs’ dividend yields range fairly narrowly from 2.9% in Japan to 4.7% in Canada. We do not exclude maintenance costs since these should already be subtracted from dividends. The result of using this methodology is that the assumed return for U.S. REITs falls to a more plausible 8.5%, and for global REITs is 6.2%. Private Equity & Venture Capital Chart 9Private Equity Premium Has Shrunk Around It makes sense that Private Equity returns are correlated with returns from listed equities. Most academic studies have shown a premium over time for PE of 5-6 percentage points (due to leverage, a tilt towards small-cap stocks, management intervention, and other factors). However, this premium has swung around dramatically over time (Chart 9). Over the past 10 years, for example, annual returns from Private Equity and listed U.S. equities have been identical: 12%. However, there appears to be no constant downtrend and so we think it advisable to use the 30-year average premium: 3.4%. This produces a return assumption for U.S. Private Equity of 8.9% per year. Over the same period, Venture Capital has returned around 0.5% more than PE (albeit with much higher volatility) and we assume the same will happen going forward.   Structured Products In the context of alternative asset classes, Structured Products refers to mortgage-backed and other asset-backed securities. We use the projected return on U.S. Treasuries plus the average 20-year spread of 60 basis points. Assumed return is 2.7%. Farmland & Timberland Chart 10Farm Prices Grow More Slowly Than GDP As with Real Estate and REITs, we move to a methodology using current cash yield (after costs) plus an assumption for capital appreciation linked to nominal GDP forecasts. The yield on U.S. Farmland is currently 4.4% and on Timberland 3.2%. Both have seen long-run prices grow significantly more slowly than nominal GDP growth. Since 1980, for example, farm prices have risen at a compound rate of 3.9% per acre, compared to U.S. nominal GDP growth of 5.2% and global GDP growth of 5.5% (Chart 10). We assume that this trend will continue, and so project farm prices to grow 1.5 percentage points a year more slowly than global GDP (using global, not U.S., economic growth makes sense since demand for food is driven by global factors). This produces a total return assumption of 6%. For timberland, we did not find a consistent relationship with nominal GDP growth and so assumed that prices would continue to grow at their historic rate over the past 20 years (the longest period for which data is available). We project timberland to produce an annual return of 4.8%. Commodities & Gold For commodities we use a very different methodology (which we also used in the previous edition): the concept that commodities prices consistently over time have gone through supercycles, lasting around 10 years, followed by bear markets that have lasted an average of 17 years (Chart 11). The most recent super-cycle was 2002-2012. In the period since the supercycle ended, the CRB Index has fallen by 42%. Comparing that to the average drop in the past three bear markets, we conclude that there is about 8% left to fall over the next nine years, implying an annual decline of about 1%. Our overall conclusion is that future returns are still likely to be below those of the past decade or two, and below many investors’ expectations. We add gold to our assumptions, since it is an asset often held by investors. However, it is not easy to project long-term returns for the metal. Since the U.S. dollar was depegged from gold in 1968, gold too has gone through supercycles, in the 1970s and 2002-11 (Chart 12). We find that change in real long-term interest rates negatively affects gold (logically since higher rates increase the opportunity cost of owning a non-income-generating asset). We use, therefore, a regression incorporating global nominal GDP growth and a projection of the annual change in real 10-year U.S. Treasury yields (based on the equilibrium cash rate plus the average spread between 10-year yields and cash). This produces an assumption of an annual return from gold of 4.7% a year. We continue to see this asset class more as a hedge in a portfolio (it has historically had a correlation of only 0.1 with global equities and 0.24 with global bonds) rather than a source of return per se.  Chart 11Commodities Still In A Bear Market Chart 12Gold Also Has Supercycles   4. Currencies Chart 13Currencies Tend To Revert To PPP All the return projections in this report are in local currency terms. That is a problem for investors who need an assumption for returns in their home currency. It is also close to impossible to hedge FX exposure over as long a period as 10-15 years. Even for investors capable of putting in place rolling currency hedges, GAA has shown previously that the optimal hedge ratio varies enormously depending on the home currency, and that dynamic hedges (i.e. using a simple currency forecasting model) produce better risk-adjust returns than a static hedge.3  Fortunately, there is an answer: it turns out that long-term currency forecasting is relatively easy due to the consistent tendency of currencies, in developed economies at least, to revert to Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) over the long-run, even though they can diverge from it for periods as long as five years or more (Chart 13). We calculate likely currency movements relative to the U.S. dollar based on: 1) the current divergence of the currency from PPP, using IMF estimates of the latter; 2) the likely change in PPP over the next 10 years, based on inflation differentials between the country and the U.S. going forward (using IMF estimates of average CPI inflation for 2019-2024 and assuming the same for the rest of the period). The results are shown in Table 9. All DM currencies, except the Australian dollar, look cheap relative to the U.S. dollar, and all of them, again excluding Australia, are forecast to run lower inflation that the U.S. implying that their PPPs will rise further. This means that both the euro and Japanese yen would be expected to appreciate by a little more than 1% a year against the U.S. dollar over the next 10 years or so. Table 9Currency Return Calculations PPP does not work, however, for EM currencies. They are all very cheap relative to PPP, but show no clear trend of moving towards it. The example of Japan in the 1970s and 1980s suggests that reversion to PPP happens only when an economy becomes fully developed (and is pressured by trading partners to allow its currency to appreciate). One could imagine that happening to China over the next 10-20 years, but the RMB is currently 48% undervalued relative to PPP, not so different from its undervaluation 15 years ago. For EM currencies, therefore, we use a different methodology: a regression of inflation relative to the U.S. against historic currency movements. This implies that EM currencies are driven by the relative inflation, but that they do not trend towards PPP. Based on IMF inflation forecasts, many Emerging Markets are expected to experience higher inflation than the U.S. (Table 10). On this basis, the Turkish lira would be expected to decline by 7% a year against the U.S. dollar and the Brazilian real by 2% a year. However, the average for EM, which we calculated based on weights in the MSCI EM equity index, is pulled down by China (29% of that index), Korea (15%) and Taiwan (12%). China’s inflation is forecast to be barely above that in the U.S, and Korean and Taiwanese inflation significantly below it. MSCI-weighted EM currencies, consequently, are forecast to move roughly in line with the USD over the forecast horizon. One warning, though: the IMF’s inflation forecasts in some Emerging Markets look rather optimistic compared to history: will Mexico, for example, see only 3.2% inflation in future, compared to an average of 5.7% over the past 20 years? Higher inflation than the IMF forecasts would translate into weaker currency performance. Table 10EM Currencies In Table 11, we have restated the main return assumptions from this report in USD, EUR, JPY, GBP, AUD, and CAD terms for the convenience of clients with different home currencies. As one would expect from covered interest-rate parity theory, the returns cluster more closely together when expressed in the individual currencies. For example, U.S. government bonds are expected to return only 0.8% a year in EUR terms (versus 2.1% in USD terms) bringing their return closer to that expected from euro zone government bonds, -0.4%. Convergence to PPP does not, however, explain all the difference between the yields in different countries. Table 11Returns In Different Base Currencies 5. Correlations Chart 14Correlations Are Hard To Forecast We have not tried to forecast correlations in this Special Report. As discussed, historical returns from different asset classes are not a reliable guide to future returns, but it is possible to come up with sensible assumptions about the likely long-run returns going forward. Volatility does not trend much over the long term, so we think it is not unreasonable to use historic volatility data in an optimizer. But correlation is a different matter. As is well known, the correlation of equities and bonds has moved from positive to negative over the past 40 years (mainly driven by a shift in the inflation environment). But the correlation between major equity markets has also swung around (Chart 14). Asset allocators should preferably use rough, conservative assumptions for correlations – for example, 0.1 or 0.2 for the equity/bond correlation, rather than the average -0.1 of the past 20 years. We plan to do further work to forecast correlations in a future edition of this report.  But for readers who would like to see – and perhaps use – historic correlation data, we publish below a simplified correlation matrix of the main asset classes that we cover in this report (Table 12). We would be happy to provide any client with the full spreadsheet of all asset classes . Table 12Correlation Matrix Garry Evans Chief Global Asset Allocation Strategist garry@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1      Please see Global Asset Allocation Special Report, “What Returns Can You Expect?”, dated 15 November 2017, available at gaa.bcaresearch.com 2      Please see Global Asset Allocation Special Report, “Investors’ Guide To Inflation Hedging: How To Invest When Inflation Rises,” dated 22 May 2019, available at gaa.bcaresearch.com 3      Please see GAA Special Report, “Currency Hedging: Dynamic Or Static? A Practical Guide For Global Equity Investors,” dated 29 September 2017, available at gaa.bcaresearch.com  

Special Report

Highlights The report reviews our framework for predicting broad market earnings in China based on the experience of the past decade, and documents the relationship between sector earnings and broad market earnings for both the investable and domestic market. We also review the cyclicality of earnings in each sector, and highlight the sectors where relative earnings have been successful at predicting relative performance. Energy and consumer discretionary in both markets, along with real estate and financials in the domestic market, have historically been the best candidates for a classic top-down fundamental “sector rotation” strategy. Compared with these sectors, investable telecom stocks have exhibited a weaker link between sector and index earnings, but this has occurred because of relatively steady, low volatility earnings growth. As such, telecom stocks are reliably defensive, but only in the investable market. We conclude by noting the extreme nature of long-term de/re-rating trends that have occurred for several of China’s equity sectors, and argue that the strength of the relationship between earnings and stock prices for these sectors is set to rise over a secular time horizon. Over the coming few years, investors should focus nearly exclusively on the earnings outlook for high flying and beaten down sectors, as further multiple expansion/contraction is unlikely to drive future returns (without an earnings catalyst). Feature Last week’s joint report with our Geopolitical Strategy service provided investors with an update on the trade war in the lead up to the G20 meeting in Osaka.1 While a new tariff ceasefire may emerge from the meeting, the report underscored why the odds are skewed against a positive outcome over the coming 18 months. Our bet is that investors are unlikely to assume that a deal will occur merely in response to a new timetable for talks, implying that any near-term boost to stock prices will be minimal until negotiators provide market participants with evidence (rather than hope) that a deal is achievable. This means that a financial market riot point remains likely over the coming few months, and that a cyclically bullish stance towards Chinese stocks rests on the likelihood of a major policy response in China to counter the likely shock to its export sector. During times of high policy uncertainty, we often take the opportunity to review and update our framework for key asset drivers. In today’s report we review our framework for predicting broad market earnings in China based on the experience of the past decade, and then document the relationship between sector earnings and broad market earnings for both the investable and domestic market. We review the cyclicality of earnings in each sector, and highlight the sectors where relative earnings have been successful at predicting relative performance. We conclude with a summary of what our results would imply over the tactical and cyclical investment horizons given our view of China’s likely growth trajectory, and highlight why several sectors may see a stronger relationship between their earnings and stock prices over the secular horizon. The report illustrates our key conclusions in the body of the text, but reference charts for each sector/industry group in both the investable and domestic market are provided as a convenience on pages 12 - 23. Predicting Chinese Equity Index Earnings Our framework for predicting index EPS is straightforward but reliable. Chart 1Stronger Economic Activity = Stronger Investable Earnings Chart 1 presents the first element of our framework for predicting Chinese investable earnings per share (EPS) growth. The chart illustrates the strong leading relationship between our BCA China Activity Indicator and the year-over-year growth rate of investable EPS, which underscores that the fundamental performance of Chinese equities is still predominantly driven by China’s “old economy”. The leading nature of our activity index partly reflects the fact that earnings per share are measured on a trailing basis; the key point for investors is that indicators such as our Activity Index have been more successful at capturing the coincident trend in China’s economy than, for example, real GDP growth has over the past several years. Chart 2illustrates that the earnings cycle for the investable and domestic equity markets is the same, with the magnitude of a given cycle accounting for the difference between the two markets. This means that investors exposed to the Chinese equity market should be focused heavily on predicting the coincident trend in the economy, as doing so will lead investors to the same conclusion about the trend in H- and A-share EPS growth. Chart 2Same Earnings Cycle In The Investable And Domestic Markets Chart 3Our Leading Indicator Reliably Predicts Economic Activity In turn, Chart 3 presents our framework for predicting Chinese economic activity, which we originally laid out in our November 30, 2017 Special Report.2 The chart shows that our leading activity indicator has reliably predicted inflection points in actual activity over the past several years, including the slowdown of the past two years (the leading indicator peaked in Q1 2017). As detailed in the report, our indicator is based on monetary conditions and money & credit growth. Panel 2 of Chart 3 shows that monetary conditions are very easy and credit growth is picking up, though it needs to continue to improve alongside a forceful pickup in money growth in order for the economy to strengthen. The key takeaway for investors is that the overall earnings cycle in China is strongly linked to “old economy” economic activity, which in turn appears to reliably predicted by our indicator. This provides us with a stable platform from which we can examine (and ultimately predict) equity sector EPS. Sector Earnings: Predictability And Cyclicality Given the strong link between Chinese economic activity and equity market EPS that we noted above, the question for equity-oriented investors is then to identify the relationship between sector and overall index EPS. In other words, to what degree are sector EPS in China linked to the overall earnings trend (versus being driven by idiosyncratic factors), and is this relationship pro- or counter-cyclical in nature? Charts 4 and 5 present the answers to these questions, based on the 2011 – 2018 period.3 The charts present the highest R-squared value resulting from a regression of detrended sector EPS versus broad market EPS for both the investable and domestic markets, after accounting for any leading/lagging relationships. The color/shading of each bar denotes whether the beta of the relationship for each sector or industry group is above or below 1. The charts present a mix of surprising and unsurprising results. Among the latter in the investable market, the cyclicality of typically high-beta sectors such as energy, materials, industrials, consumer discretionary, and technology would be readily accepted by most investors, as would the defensive characteristics of financials, telecom services, health care, utilities, and consumer staples. Investable consumer staples, health care, and utilities EPS are driven by either bottom-up/industry-specific factors or macro factors that are not fully captured by the trend in China’s business cycle. However, there were several less-intuitive results that emerged from our analysis, related to both the investable and domestic markets: Within the investable market, the low predictability of health care, utilities, and consumer staples EPS is somewhat difficult to explain. A weak relationship would easily be explained if EPS growth for these sectors were somewhat constant in the face of fluctuations in overall index EPS, but Chart 6 shows that the volatility in EPS growth for these sectors are not bottom-ranked (see also pages 16, 17 and 22). In fact, utilities EPS growth vol has been relatively high, and it is higher for health care and consumer staples than it is for financials and banks, whose EPS growth are highly linked to the overall earnings cycle. This result suggests that the determinants of earnings for these sectors are driven by either bottom-up/industry-specific factors or macro factors that are not fully captured by the trend in China’s business cycle. The low predictability of consumer staples and utilities EPS observed in the investable market is also evident in the domestic market, suggesting that this finding is not the result of quirky data. We noted earlier that overall index earnings are highly correlated with our BCA China Activity Index, and we have noted in past reports that China’s business cycle continues to be subject to its “old” growth model centered on investment and exports rather than the services and consumer sectors.4 This may explain the relatively idiosyncratic EPS profile for consumer staples, although it still fails to explain the low predictability and relatively high volatility of utilities earnings. Telecom services and technology earnings also have a very low correlation with overall earnings in the domestic market, which is similar to the investable market but more extreme. On the tech front, this is explained by the fact that Alibaba and Tencent, China’s tech giants, are not listed in the domestic market, underscoring that investable tech and domestic tech should be considered by investors to be distinctly separate sectors. In the investable market the low predictability and defensive characteristic of telecom services EPS can be explained by stable, low-volatility growth, but this is not true in the domestic market. In fact, over the past several years the volatility of domestic telecom EPS growth has been among the highest of any of China’s domestic equity sectors, and it has been cyclical rather than defensive in nature. These findings are difficult to explain from a top-down perspective. Finally, while Charts 4 and 5 show a difference in the cyclicality of real estate earnings between the investable and domestic markets, the difference is not substantial: the beta of the former is 1.03 versus 0.94 for the latter. The truly surprising result from real estate stocks is that their EPS growth is not considerably high-beta, given the boom & bust nature of Chinese property prices and the enormous amount of activity that has occurred in Chinese real estate over the past decade. Given that beta is determined relative to the overall index, this is emblematic (and an important reminder) of the underlying cyclicality of China’s economy and its financial markets relative to its global counterparts. Sector Earnings: Relevance For Stock Prices Following our review of the predictability and cyclicality of Chinese sector EPS, Charts 7 and 8 illustrate the relationship between relative EPS and relative stock price performance for these sectors. The charts highlight several notable points: In both the investable and domestic markets, the relative performance of energy and consumer discretionary stocks have been highly explained by the trend in relative EPS. Both of these sectors have also shown reasonably high EPS predictability (based on overall index EPS), suggesting that these two sectors have historically been the best candidates for a classic top-down fundamental “sector rotation” strategy. The relative re-rating of consumer staples and de-rating of banks reflects the existence of a long consumer economy / short industrial economy trade. Chart 9Multiples Have Been More Important In Driving The Returns Of These Sectors Within the investable market, relative EPS has not been successful at predicting relative stock price performance for financials/banks, health care, consumer staples, and industrials. This means that multiple expansion/contraction has been a relatively more important factor in driving returns, which can clearly be seen in Chart 9. The chart shows that investable banks, health care, and industrials have been meaningfully de-rated over the past several years, whereas the relative P/E ratio for consumer staples stocks has risen (albeit in a choppy fashion). Domestic consumer staples have also benefited from re-rating, although it has occurred entirely within the past three years and has merely made up for the substantial de-rating that took place in 2012 (Chart 9, panel 2). Taken together, the relative re-rating of consumer staples and de-rating of banks and industrials reflects, at least in part, the existence of a long consumer economy / short industrial economy trade. The relative EPS trend of utilities in both markets and that of telecom services stocks in the investable market have done a decent-to-good job of predicting relative stock price performance. We noted earlier that investable telecom services earnings appear to have a weak relationship with overall index earnings because of their low variability, meaning that they have also been a good top-down rotation candidate on the defensive side of the spectrum. The high responsiveness of the relative equity performance of Chinese utilities to relative EPS raises the importance of predicting the latter, which is likely to be a topic of future reports for BCA’s China Investment Strategy service. Finally, Chart 7 shows that the most important sector trend in the investable market over the past several years, the outperformance of information technology, has been strongly explained by the trend in relative EPS. This is good news for investors, as it suggests that relative tech returns can be reasonably predicted by accurate earnings analysis. From a top-down perspective, we noted earlier that the relationship between tech and overall index EPS has not been extremely high, which raises the bar for investors to understand the idiosyncratic drivers of earnings for the BAT (Baidu, Alibaba, and Tencent) stocks. Chinese consumer spending remains the most important macro factor for these stocks, but our understanding of this relationship is not complete and is an area of ongoing research at BCA. Investment Conclusions Chart 10 summarizes the results of Charts 4-5 and 7-8, by grouping investable and domestic equity sectors into four quadrants based on top-down EPS predictability (x-axis) and the impact of the trend in relative EPS on relative stock price performance (y-axis): Over a multi-year time horizon, the relationship between relative earnings and relative stock prices is likely to rise for several sectors. As we noted above, energy and consumer discretionary in both markets along with real estate and financials in the domestic market have had the strongest relationship across both dimensions (top-right quadrant). The EPS relationship is cyclical in both markets in the case of energy and consumer discretionary, whereas it is modestly cyclical for domestic real estate and defensive for domestic financials. Sectors in the top-left quadrant have shown a strong link between earnings and stock price performance, but a weaker link between sector and index earnings. This is the case for telecom services because of relatively steady, low volatility earnings growth, meaning that telecom stocks are reliably defensive. Fluctuations in the growth of index EPS do not explain the majority of changes in investable tech EPS, but it is an important driver in a cyclical relationship. Sectors in the bottom-right quadrant have a predominantly strong and defensive relationship with index earnings growth (with the exception of domestic industrials), but have experienced significant changes in multiples over the past several years that have materially impacted their relative stock price performance. We showed in Chart 9 that banks have been meaningfully de-rated over the past several years; this process appears to have halted at the end of 2017, suggesting that the relationship between relative earnings and relative stock prices may be stronger going forward. Chart 11Investable Real Estate And Materials Stocks Trade At A Huge Discount Finally, sectors in the bottom left quadrant have had relatively idiosyncratic earnings trends, and relative EPS have not explained a majority of the trend in relative performance. We would draw a distinction between investable industrials, real estate, and materials and the rest of the sectors shown, as they are on the cusp of being in the top-right or bottom-right quadrants, and all three appear to have suffered from meaningful de-rating. Investable real estate and materials now trade at over a 40% discount to the overall index (Chart 11), raising a serious question as to whether relative P/Es can continue to compress and explain the majority of relative equity performance. However, investable consumer staples and health care, along with domestic technology and telecom services stocks, do appear to be legitimately idiosyncratic, suggesting that an equity beta approach (regressing sector returns against index returns) is the best top-down method available to investors when allocating to these sectors. For investable staples and health care their equity return betas are clearly defensive, whereas domestic tech and telecom services stocks are market neutral. What does this all mean for investors? Our findings above lead us to some specific conclusions over the tactical (0-3 months), cyclical (6-12 months), and secular (multi-year) horizons: Over the cyclical horizon, we expect Chinese co-incident economic activity to pick up and for overall index EPS to improve, suggesting that global investors have a fundamental basis to be overweight investable energy, consumer discretionary, materials, media & entertainment (within the new communication services sector) and industrial stocks, at the expense of telecom services and financials.5 Investable health care, consumer staples, and utilities stocks are also likely to underperform, although this view is based on a statistical/empirical relationship rather than a fundamental one. In the domestic market, our findings support substituting real estate for technology in comparison to the investable sectors we listed above, but we are concerned that policymakers may crack down more heavily on the property sector if they allow overall credit growth to rise meaningfully as part of a stimulative response. For now, we would not recommend aggressive bets in favor of the domestic real estate sector. Chart 12Flagging Earnings Growth Heightens Tactical Risks To Chinese Stocks Over the tactical horizon, however, we would advise either the opposite stance, or a benchmark sector allocation. In addition to our view that a financial market riot point remains likely over the coming few months to force policymakers to address the economic weakness that an escalated tariff scenario would entail, broad-market Chinese EPS growth continues to decelerate (Chart 12). We see this continued slowdown as a lagged response to past economic weakness, which we expect will be reversed over the coming year due to stronger money & credit growth. However, sectors with pro-cyclical earnings growth may fare poorly in the near term until investors gain confidence that the (inevitable) policy response will stabilize the earnings outlook. Over the secular horizon, the most important conclusion is that there have been several long-term sectoral de/re-rating trends within China’s equity market. In the investable market, health care, consumer staples, and consumer discretionary (of which Alibaba is heavily represented) trade at 100-200% of a premium relative to the broad equity market on a trailing earnings basis, whereas financials, materials, and real estate stocks trade at a 40-60% discount. These divergences also exist in the domestic market, although the range is somewhat less extreme. A simple contrarian instinct might be to strategically overweight/underweight expensive/cheap sectors, but to us the simpler conclusion is that the extreme nature of these trends means that the strength of the relationship between EPS and stock prices for these sectors is set to rise. Over the coming few years, investors should focus nearly exclusively on the earnings outlook for high flying and beaten down sectors, a question that is very likely to be the topic of additional China Investment Strategy reports this year. Stay tuned!   Jonathan LaBerge, CFA, Vice President Special Reports jonathanl@bcaresearch.com     Reference Charts Energy Chart 13 Chart 14 Materials Chart 15 Chart 16   Industrials Chart 17 Chart 18   Consumer Discretionary Chart 19 Chart 20   Consumer Staples Chart 21 Chart 22   Health Care Chart 23 Chart 24   Financials Chart 25 Chart 26   Banking Chart 27 Chart 28   Information Technology Chart 29 Chart 30   Telecom Services Chart 31 Chart 32   Utilities Chart 33 Chart 34   Real Estate Chart 35 Chart 36   Footnotes 1      Please see Geopolitical Strategy and China Investment Strategy Special Report, “Another Phony G20? And A Word On Hong Kong”, dated June 14, 2019, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 2      Please see China Investment Strategy Special Report, “The Data Lab: Testing The Predictability Of China’s Business Cycle”, dated November 30, 2017, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 3      S&P Dow Jones and MSCI Inc. implemented major structural changes to the Global Industry Classification Standard (GICS) in Q4 2018 that substantially altered the sector composition of the MSCI China Investable index. The weight of the information technology sector in the investable index dropped dramatically after the GICS changes occurred. Investors should note that we used Q3 2018 as the end date of our analysis in order to remove any impact from the GICS sector change; the reference charts shown on pages 12 – 23 provide all data since 2011. 4     Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “The Three Pillars Of China’s Economy”, dated May 16, 2018, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 5      Due to the changes to the GICS classification structure noted in footnote 3, the tech sector relationships that we highlighted above now apply to the consumer discretionary sector (level 1) and media & entertainment industry-group (level 2, within the new level 1 communication services sector. Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations

Highlights A resurfacing of trade tensions could weigh on risk sentiment in the near term. A somewhat less dovish tone from the FOMC this month could further rattle risk assets. While we would not exclude the possibility of an “insurance cut,” the Fed is probably uncomfortable with the amount of easing that markets now expect. That being said, a trade truce is still more likely than not, and while the Fed will resist cutting rates this year, it will not raise them either. The neutral rate of interest in the U.S. is higher than widely believed, which means that monetary policy will remain accommodative. That’s good news for global equities. Investors should maintain a somewhat cautious stance over the next month or so. However, they should overweight stocks, while underweighting bonds, over a 12-month horizon. The equity bull market will only end when U.S. inflation rises to a level that forces the Fed to pick up the pace of rate hikes. That is unlikely to occur until late-2020 at the earliest. Feature Stocks Bounce Back We turned positive on global equities in late December after a six-month period on the sidelines. While we have remained structurally bullish over the course of this year, we initiated a tactical hedge to short the S&P 500 on May 10th following what we regarded as an overly complacent reaction by investors to President Trump’s decision to increase tariffs on Chinese imports. Our reasoning at the time was that a period of market pressure would likely be necessary to forge an agreement between the two sides. Our thesis was looking prescient for a while. However, the rebound in stocks since last week has brought the S&P 500 close to the level where we initiated the trade. Is it time to drop the hedge? Not yet. First, market internals do not inspire much confidence. Even though the S&P 500 is just below its year-to-date (and all-time) high, the Russell 2000 is 5.1% below its May highs, and 11.8% below where it was last August (Chart 1). The S&P mid cap and small cap indexes are 6.8% and 16.2%, respectively, below their highs reached last August. Such weak breadth is disconcerting. Chart 1U.S. Stocks: Not As Strong As They Appear Second, President Trump’s decision to suspend raising the tariffs on Mexican imports may have had less to do with his desire to seek a more conciliatory tone, and more to do with pressure from Congressional Republicans. Various news reports suggested that Mitch McConnell and other Republican leaders opposed the action, and threatened to revoke the President’s authority to unilaterally impose tariffs.1 In the end, the deal with Mexico contained many of the same measures that the Mexicans had already agreed to implement months earlier. Our geopolitical team remains skeptical of a grand bargain in trade talks with China.2 In the United States, protectionist sentiment is politically more popular towards China than it is towards other countries (Chart 2). A breakthrough is still probable, but again, it may take a stock market selloff to produce a trade truce.   Third, we have become increasingly concerned that the market has gotten ahead of itself in pricing in Fed easing. While we would not rule out the possibility that the Fed takes out an “insurance cut” to guard against downside risks to the economy, the 80 basis points of easing that the market has priced in over the next 12 months seems excessive to us. Chart 3Financial Conditions Have Not Tightened Much Unlike late last year, U.S. financial conditions have tightened only modestly over the past nine weeks (Chart 3). The economy is also performing reasonably well. According to the Atlanta Fed GDPNow model, real final sales to domestic purchasers3 are set to grow by 2.5% in the second quarter, up from 1.5% in Q1 (Chart 4). Real personal consumption expenditures are on track to rise by 3.2%. Gasoline futures have tumbled, which will support discretionary spending over the next few quarters (Chart 5).   Chart 5Lower Gasoline Prices Should Bode Well For Discretionary Spending Granted, the labor market has cooled down. Payrolls increased by only 75K in May. However, the Council of Economic Advisers estimated that flooding in the Midwest shaved 40K from payrolls. And even with this adverse impact, the three-month average for payroll growth still stands at 151K, well above the 90K-to-100K or so that is needed to keep up with labor force growth. Meanwhile, initial unemployment claims remain muted and the employment component of the nonmanufacturing ISM hit a seven-month high in May. Chart 6Trimmed Mean PCE Inflation Back To 2% Inflation expectations are on the low side, but actual inflation is proving to be reasonably sturdy. The core PCE index rose by 0.25% month-over-month in April. Trimmed mean PCE inflation increased above 2% on a year-over-year basis for the first time in seven years (Chart 6). According to a recent Fed study, the trimmed mean calculation is superior to the core PCE index as a summary measure of underlying inflationary trends.4 Ultimately, the fact that the U.S. economy is holding up well is a positive sign for equity returns over the next 12 months. In the short term, however, it does create the risk that the Fed will sound less dovish than investors are anticipating, leading to a temporary selloff in stocks. Hence our view: near-term cautious, longer-term bullish. Who Determines Interest Rates? Central banks decide where rates will go in the short run, but it is the economy that determines where interest rates will go in the long run. The neutral rate of interest is the rate that corresponds to full employment and stable inflation. One can also think of it as the rate that aligns the level of aggregate demand with the maximum potential output the economy is capable of achieving without overheating. Both the Fed dots and the widely-used Laubach Williams model suggest that rates are close to neutral. But are they really? If a central bank keeps rates below their neutral level for too long, inflation will eventually break out, forcing the central bank to raise rates. Conversely, if a central bank raises rates above their neutral level, growth will slow, inflation will decline, and the central bank will be forced to cut rates. The problem is that changes in monetary policy typically affect the economy with a lag of 12-to-18 months. Inflation is also a highly lagging indicator. It usually peaks well after a recession has begun and troughs long after the recovery is under way (Chart 7). Thus, central banks have to make an educated guess as to where the neutral rate lies and try to steer the economy towards that rate in a way that achieves a soft landing. Needless to say, this is easier said than done. Today, both the Fed dots and the widely-used Laubach Williams model suggest that rates are close to neutral (Chart 8). Chart 8The Fed Thinks Rates Are Close To Neutral But are they really? That’s the million dollar question. Not only will the answer determine the medium-term path of interest rates, it will also determine how long the current U.S. economic expansion will last. Recessions rarely occur when monetary policy is accommodative, and equity bear markets almost never happen outside of recessionary periods (Chart 9). Thus, if rates are currently well below neutral, investors should maintain a bullish equity tilt. Chart 9Recessions And Bear Markets Usually Overlap Chart 10U.S.: Federal Fiscal Policy Has Been Expansionary Where Is Neutral? The neutral rate of interest is a function of many variables, most of which are not in the Laubach Williams model. Let us consider a few: Fiscal Policy A larger budget deficit boosts aggregate demand, while higher interest rates lower demand. Thus, once an economy has achieved full employment, an easing of fiscal policy must be counterbalanced by an increase in interest rates, which is another way of saying that looser fiscal policy raises the neutral rate of interest. The U.S. cyclically-adjusted budget deficit has risen by about 3% of GDP since 2015. Both tax cuts and increased federal discretionary spending have contributed to the deterioration in the fiscal balance (Chart 10). Standard “Taylor Rule” equations suggest that a 1% of GDP increase in aggregate demand will raise the appropriate level of the fed funds rate by 0.5-to-1 percentage points.5 This implies that easier fiscal policy has lifted the neutral rate of interest by 1.5-to-3 percentage points over the past five years. Labor Market Developments A tight labor market tends to increase the share of national income accruing to workers (Chart 11). Workers generally spend more of every dollar of income than businesses. Thus, a shift of income from businesses to workers raises the neutral rate of interest. The fact that a tight labor market usually generates the biggest gains for workers at the bottom of the income distribution – who have the highest marginal propensity to spend – further amplifies the positive effect on aggregate spending. Chart 11Workers Garner A Larger Piece Of The Income Pie When The Labor Market Is Tight The labor share of income has rebounded since reaching a record low in 2014. The lowest-paid workers have also seen the largest wage increases during the past 12 months (Chart 12). Neither of these nascent developments have come close to unwinding the beating that labor has suffered in relation to capital over the past four decades, but if the unemployment rate keeps falling, workers are going to start gaining the upper hand. Thus, one would expect the neutral rate of interest to rise further as the labor market continues to tighten. Credit Growth The Great Recession ushered in a painful deleveraging cycle. Household debt fell from 86% of GDP in 2009 to 70% of GDP in 2012. The household debt-to-GDP ratio has edged slightly lower since then due to continued declines in mortgage debt and home equity lines of credit. A return to the rapid pace of credit growth seen before the financial crisis is unlikely. Nevertheless, a modest releveraging of household balance sheets would not be surprising. Some categories such as student and auto loans have seen fairly robust debt growth (Chart 13). Housing-related debt could also stage a modest comeback due to rising home prices and buoyant consumer confidence. Conceptually, the rate of credit growth determines the level of aggregate demand.6 Thus, if household credit growth picks up at the margin, this would push up the neutral rate of interest. Corporate debt levels also have scope to rise further. Net corporate debt is only modestly higher than it was in the late 1980s, a period when the fed funds rate averaged nearly 10% (Chart 14). Chart 13U.S. Housing Deleveraging Has Slowed Chart 14U.S. Corporate Debt (I): No Cause For Alarm   Thanks to low interest rates and rapid asset accumulation, the economy-wide interest coverage ratio is above, while the ratio of debt-to-assets is below, their respective long-term averages (Chart 15). The corporate sector financial balance – the difference between what businesses earn and spend – is still in surplus. Almost every recession in the post-war era has begun when the corporate sector financial balance was in deficit (Chart 16). Chart 15U.S. Corporate Debt (II): No Cause For Alarm Chart 16U.S. Corporate Debt (III): No Cause For Alarm     The Value Of The U.S. Dollar A stronger dollar reduces net exports. This drains demand from the economy, which lowers the neutral rate of interest. The real broad trade-weighted dollar index has risen 10% since 2014. According to the New York Fed’s econometric model, this would be expected to reduce the level of real GDP by 0.5% in the first year and by a further 0.2% in the second year, for a cumulative decline of 0.7%, equivalent to a decrease in the neutral rate of 0.35%-to-0.7%. The New York Fed model assumes an “all things equal” environment. All things have not been quite equal, however. The U.S. has benefited from a modest improvement in its terms of trade7 over the past five years (Chart 17). The shale boom has also significantly cut into oil imports. As a result, the trade deficit has fallen from 5.9% of GDP in 2005 to 2.9% of GDP at present. Chart 17The Dollar Has Appreciated Since 2014 Chart 18The Savings Rate Has (A Lot Of) Room To Drop, Judging From The Historical Relationship With Wealth Asset Prices An increase in asset values – whether they be equities, bonds, or homes – makes people and businesses feel wealthier, which leads to more consumption and investment spending. As such, higher asset prices raise the neutral rate of interest. Today, U.S. household net worth stands near a record high as a percent of disposable income (Chart 18). The personal savings rate, in contrast, still stands at an elevated 6.4%. If the savings rate falls over the coming months, this would further boost aggregate demand. Demographics Slower labor force growth has led to a decline in trend GDP growth in the U.S. and most other economies. Slower economic growth tends to reduce the neutral rate of interest. The Bureau of Labor Statistics expects labor force growth to be broadly stable over the next 5-to-10 years, with immigration compensating for the withdrawal of baby boomers from employment (Chart 19). Chart 20Savings Over The Life Cycle In the current political climate, there is quite a bit of uncertainty over how many immigrants will settle in the United States. On the one hand, less immigration would reduce labor force growth, thus lowering the neutral rate. On the other hand, a decline in immigration would lead to an even tighter labor market, thus potentially raising the neutral rate. An additional question is how population aging, which will continue even if immigration remains elevated, will affect the neutral rate. Older people work less, but consume more than younger people, once health care spending is accounted for (Chart 20). If overall national output falls in relation to consumption, national savings will go down. This will raise the neutral rate of interest. The Shift To A Capital-Lite Economy Firms increasingly need less physical capital to carry out their activities. Larry Summers has labeled this the “demassification” of the economy. Lower investment spending would translate into a lower neutral rate. While plausible, it is not clear how important this phenomenon is. Companies may need less physical capital, but they need more human capital. Instead of more lending to businesses to finance purchases of machinery, we get additional lending to students. If our thesis that the neutral rate of interest is higher than widely believed turns out to be correct, this means that the Fed will eventually need to start hiking rates again. The question is when. The share of R&D and other intangibles in business investment has risen from around 14% in the 1960s to 33% today (Chart 21). Importantly, the depreciation rate for intangible investment is much higher than for other forms of capital spending. As intangible investment has increased, the overall depreciation rate for the economy has risen (Chart 22). Conceptually, an increase in the depreciation rate should lead to a higher neutral rate of interest.8 Chart 21A Larger Share Of Business Investment Is Intangible... Chart 22...And That Puts Upward Pressure On The Depreciation Rate   Watch Housing And Business Capex The discussion above suggests that the neutral rate of interest is probably higher than widely believed. That said, there is significant uncertainty around any estimate of the neutral rate. As such, we recommend that investors track the more interest-rate sensitive sectors of the economy to gauge whether monetary policy is becoming restrictive. Housing, and to a lesser extent, business capital expenditures are the key indicators to watch. As a long-lived asset, housing is very sensitive to mortgage rates. Chart 23 shows that changes in mortgage rates tend to lead residential investment and home sales by about six months. Chart 23Housing Is Interest-Rate Sensitive If the decline in mortgage rates since last fall fails to spur housing, this would support the claim that monetary policy turned restrictive last year. Fortunately, the jump in homebuilder confidence, the outperformance of homebuilder stocks, and the surge in mortgage applications for purchases all suggest that the housing sector remains on firm ground (Chart 24). Despite the broad-based weakness in the global manufacturing sector, U.S. capex intentions remain reasonably buoyant (Chart 25). This week’s release of the May NFIB small business survey, which showed that the share of firms citing “now is a good time to expand” jumped five points to a seven-month high, provides further evidence in support of this view. Chart 24Some Positives For U.S. Housing Chart 25U.S. Capex Intentions Remain Solid   A Two-Stage Fed Cycle Chart 26Inflation Expectations Are Not Where The Fed Wants Them To Be If our thesis that the neutral rate of interest is higher than widely believed turns out to be correct, this means that the Fed will eventually need to start hiking rates again. The question is when. Right now, the Fed has the luxury of time on its side. Even though some measures of core inflation such as the trimmed mean calculation discussed above have reached the Fed’s 2% target, this follows a prolonged period of below-target inflation. A few years of above-trend inflation would hardly be the worst thing in the world. The Fed’s failure to reach its inflation target has pushed long-term inflation expectations below the central bank’s comfort zone (Chart 26). Given the asymmetric risks created by the zero lower bound on interest rates - if inflation rises too fast, the Fed can always hike rates; but if inflation falls too much, it may be impossible to ease monetary policy by enough to avert a recession - the Fed can afford to remain patient. Thus, while the Fed is unlikely to cut rates as much as investors currently expect, it is also unlikely to raise them this year. Thanks to a cyclical revival in productivity growth, unit labor cost inflation has actually declined over the past 12 months (Chart 27). However, as we get into late next year and 2021, circumstances may change. If an increasingly tight jobs market continues to push up wage growth, unit labor costs will start to reaccelerate. Cost-push inflation will kick in. At that point, the Fed may have no choice but to pick up the pace of monetary tightening. All this suggests that Fed policy will evolve in two stages: an initial stage lasting for the next 12-to-18 months where the Fed is doing little-to-no tightening (and could even cut rates if the trade war heats up), followed by a second stage where the central bank is scrambling to raise rates to cool an overheated economy. U.S. Treasury yields are likely to rise modestly during the first stage in response to stronger-than-expected economic growth. We see the 10-year yield clawing its way back to the high-2% range by early next year. Yields could rise more precipitously, to around 4%, in the second stage once inflation begins to move decisively higher. The dollar is unlikely to strengthen during the first stage. Indeed, our baseline forecast calls for a period of modest dollar weakness stretching into late next year driven by a reacceleration in European and Chinese/EM growth. The sharp rebound in Chinese real estate equipment purchases from -18% on a six-month basis late last year to +30% in April suggests that the government’s stimulus efforts are working (Chart 28). Chart 27No Imminent Threat Of A Wage-Price Inflationary Spiral Chart 28China: A Sign That Stimulus Is Finding Its Way Into The Economy   The greenback will likely appreciate, perhaps significantly so, once the Fed picks up the pace of rate hikes in late 2020. The accompanying tightening in global financial conditions is likely to sow the seeds for a worldwide downturn in 2021. The combination of faster global growth and a weaker dollar will support global equities over the next 12 months. European and EM bourses will benefit the most. Investors should begin derisking in the second half of next year. Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1      Patricia Zengerle, “U.S. Lawmakers Seek To Block Trump On Tariffs,” Reuters, June 5, 2019. 2      Please see Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, “Is Trump Ready For The New Long March?” dated May 24, 2019. 3      Final sales to domestic purchasers is equal to gross domestic product (GDP) excluding net exports of goods and services, less the change in private inventories. 4      Jim Dolmas and Evan F. Koenig, “Two Measures Of Core Inflation: A Comparison,” Federal Reserve Bank Of Dallas, Working Paper 1903, February 25, 2019. 5      Depending on which specification of the Taylor Rule one uses, a one percent of GDP increase in aggregate demand will increase the neutral rate of interest by half a point (John Taylor’s original specification) or by a full point (Janet Yellen’s preferred specification). John B. Taylor's 1993 specification is based on the following equation: rt = 2 + pt + 0.5(pt - 2) + 0.5yt. Janet Yellen's preferred specification is based on the following equation: rt = 2 + pt+ 0.5(pt - 2) + 1.0yt. Please note: For both specifications above, rt is the federal funds rate; pt is core PCE expressed as a year-over-year percent change; and yt is the output gap (as approximated using the unemployment gap and Okun's law). For further discussion, please see Janet L. Yellen, "The Economic Outlook And Monetary Policy," April 11, 2012. 6      Recall that GDP is a flow variable (how much production takes place every period), whereas credit is a stock variable (how much debt there is outstanding). By definition, a flow is a change in a stock. Thus, credit growth affects GDP and the change in credit growth affects GDP growth. 7      Ratio (multiplied by 100) of the price index for exports of goods and services to the price index for imports of goods and services. 8      The higher the depreciation rate, the more investment is necessary to maintain the existing capital stock. More investment demand for any given level of savings implies a higher interest rate. One can see this in the Solow growth model, which posits that the neutral rate of interest (r*) should be equal to: Where a is the output elasticity of capital, s is the savings rate, n is labor force growth, g is the growth in total factor productivity, and d is the depreciation rate. The equation implies that the neutral rate of interest will increase if capital intensity increases, the savings rate declines, the rate of labor force growth picks up, technological progress accelerates, or the depreciation rate increases.     Strategy & Market Trends MacroQuant Model And Current Subjective Scores Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

Special Report

Highlights U.S. inflation is on a structural uptrend. Monetary and fiscal policy, populism, and demographics will tend to push inflation higher over the coming decade. How can investors protect portfolios against inflation risk? We look at periods of rising inflation to determine which assets were the best inflation hedge. We find that the level of inflation is very important in determining which assets work best. When inflation is rising and high, or very high, the best inflation hedges at the asset class level are commodities and U.S. TIPS. When inflation is very high, gold is the best commodity to hold and defensive sectors will minimize losses in an equity portfolio. However, hedges have a cost. Allocating a large percentage of a portfolio to inflation hedges will be a drag on returns. Investors should opt for a low allocation to hedges now, and increase to a medium level when inflation rises further. Feature Some 38 years have passed since the last time the U.S. suffered from double-digit inflation. The Federal Reserve reform of 1979, championed by Paul Volcker, changed the way the Fed approached monetary policy by putting a focus on controlling money growth.1 The reform gave way to almost four decades of relatively controlled inflation, which persists today. But times are changing. While most of today’s investors have never experienced anything other than periods of tame inflation, BCA expects that rising inflation will be a major driving force of asset returns over the coming decade.2 The main reasons behind this view are the following: 1. A rethink in the monetary policy framework: At its most recent meeting, the FOMC openly discussed the idea of a price-level target, implying that it would be open to the economy running hot to compensate for the past 10 years of below-target inflation (Chart II-1.1A, top panel). Chart II-1.1AStructural Forces Point To Higher Inflation In The Coming Decade (I) Chart II-1.1BStructural Forces Point To Higher Inflation In The Coming Decade (I)   2. Procyclical fiscal policy: The U.S. is conducting expansionary fiscal policy while the economy is at near-full employment (Chart II-1.1A, middle panel). The last time this happened in the U.S., during the 1960s, high inflation followed, as the fiscal boost made the economy run substantially above capacity. 3. Waning Fed independence: President Trump has openly questioned the hiking campaign undertaken by the Fed. Moreover, he has tried to nominate Fed governors with dovish tendencies. Historically around the world, a lack of central bank independence has often led to higher inflation rates (Chart II-1.1A, bottom panel). 4. Peak in globalization: Globalization accelerated significantly in the 1990s and 2000s, flooding the global economy with cheap labor (Chart II-1.1B, top panel). However, we believe that globalization has peaked. Instead, populism and protectionism will be the dominant paradigms for years to come, reducing the cheap pool of workers and goods previously available. 5. Demographics: The population in the U.S. is set to age in coming years (Chart II-1.1B, middle panel). As the percentage of U.S. retirees increases, the number of spenders relative to savers will begin to rise (Chart II-1.1B, bottom panel). Higher spending and lower savings in the economy should create upward pressure on inflation. If our view is correct, how should investors allocate their money? We attempt to answer this question by evaluating the performance of five major asset classes during periods when inflation was rising. Furthermore, we look into sub-asset class performance to determine how investors should position themselves within each asset class to take advantage of an inflationary environment. In our asset-class analysis, we use a data sample starting in 1973 and we limit ourselves to five publicly traded assets that have adequate history: global equities, U.S. Treasuries, U.S. real estate (REITs), U.S. inflation-linked bonds,3 and commodities. We compare asset classes according to their Sharpe ratios: average annualized excess returns divided by annualized volatilities.4  BCA expects that rising inflation will be a major driving force of asset returns over the coming decade. In our sub-asset class analysis, we analyze global equity sectors, international vs U.S. equities, and individual commodities. In some of the sections in our sub-asset class analysis, our sample is slightly reduced due to lack of historical data. Moreover, since in some instances all sectors have negative returns, we compare sub-asset classes according to their excess returns only. We base our analysis on the U.S. Consumer Price Index, given that most of the assets in our sample are U.S. based. We opt for this measure because it tends to track the living expenses for most U.S. citizens and it is the preferred measure to index defined-benefit payments. Finally, we decompose the periods of rising inflation into four quartiles in order to examine whether the level of inflation has any impact on the performance of each asset. Chart II-1.2 and Table II-1.1 show the different ranges we use for our analysis as well as a description of the typical economic and monetary policy environments in each of them. Summary Of Results Table II-1.2 shows the summary of our results. For a detailed explanation on how each asset class and sub-asset class behaves as inflation rises, please see the Asset Class section and the Sub-Asset Class section below. Which assets perform best when inflation is rising? Rising inflation affects assets very differently, and is especially dependent on how high inflation is. Global equities performed positively when inflation was rising and low or mild, but they were one of the worst-performing assets when inflation was rising and high or very high. Importantly, equities underperformed U.S. Treasuries in periods of both high and very high inflation. Commodities and U.S. TIPS were the best performers when inflation was high or very high. U.S. REITs were not a good inflation hedge. Which global equity sectors perform best when inflation is rising? Energy and materials outperformed when inflation was high. Every single sector had negative excess returns when inflation was very high, but defensive sectors such as utilities, healthcare, and telecommunications5 minimized losses. Which commodities perform best when inflation is rising? With the exception of energy, most commodities had subpar excess returns when inflation was in the first two quartiles. Industrial metals outperformed when inflation was high. Gold and silver outperformed when inflation was very high. Additionally, gold had consistent returns and low volatility. What is the cost of inflation hedging? To answer this question, we construct four portfolios with different levels of inflation hedging: 1. Benchmark (no inflation hedging): 60% equities/40% bonds. 2. Low Inflation Hedging: 50% equities/40% bonds/5% TIPS/5% commodities 3. Medium Inflation Hedging: 40% equities/30% bonds/15% TIPS/15 % commodities 4. Pure Inflation Hedging: 50% TIPS/50% commodities. While increased inflation hedging provides better performance when inflation is high and rising, these hedges are costly to hold when inflation is at lower ranges or when it is falling (Chart II-1.3, panels 1 & 2). However, adding moderate inflation hedging (low or medium) to a portfolio achieved the right balance between cost and protection, and ultimately improved risk-adjusted returns over the whole sample (Chart II-1.3, panel 3). What about absolute returns? The benchmark outperformed over the whole sample. However, the low and medium inflation hedging did not lag far behind, while avoiding the big drawdowns of high inflation periods (Chart II-1.3, panel 4). Investment Implications High inflation may return to the U.S. over the next decade. Therefore, inflation hedging should be a key consideration when constructing a portfolio. Based on our results, our recommendations are the following: 1. At the asset-class level, investors should allocate to commodities and U.S. TIPS to hedge inflation. 2.  However, these hedges are costly to hold as they will create a drag on returns in periods when inflation is not high or very high. Therefore, a low allocation to inflation hedges is warranted now. 3.   Inflation will probably start to pick up in the 2020s. A medium allocation to inflation hedges will then be appropriate. 4.   When inflation is high (3.3%-4.9%), investors should overweight energy and materials in their equity portfolios. Likewise, they should overweight industrial metals and energy within a commodity portfolio. 5.   When inflation is very high (4.9% or more), investors should overweight defensive sectors in their equity portfolio to minimize losses. Moreover, investors should overweight gold within a commodity portfolio. At the asset-class level, investors should allocate to commodities and U.S. TIPS to hedge inflation. Asset Classes Global Equities The relationship between equity returns and rising inflation depends on how high inflation is, with outstanding performance when inflation is rising but low or mild, and poor performance as it gets higher (Chart II-2.1, top panel). This relationship can be explained by the interaction between interest rates, inflation, earnings, and valuations: Earnings growth was usually slightly negative when inflation was recovering from low levels. However, given that interest rates were very low in this environment and growth expectations were high, multiple expansion boosted equity returns (Chart II-2.1, bottom panel). When inflation was mild, the Fed typically started to raise rates, resulting in a declining multiple. However, equities had the best performance in this range thanks to very high earnings growth – a result of the economy growing strongly due to a healthy level of inflation. When inflation climbed into the high or very high range, earnings growth was usually positive but beginning to slow, as high inflation weighed on growth. Meanwhile the multiple started to decline rapidly due to rising interest rates and declining growth expectations. With the exception of the mild inflation range, the return profile of equities during inflationary periods was similar to its normal profile: negative skew and excess kurtosis (Table II-2.1). However, the consistency of returns decreased at higher levels of inflation, with only 45% of months with positive returns when inflation was rising and in its highest quartile. U.S. Treasuries U.S. Treasuries reacted in a similar fashion to equities when inflation was rising (Chart II-2.2). However, while Treasuries underperformed equities when inflation was low or mild, they actually outperformed equities when inflation was high or very high. This was in part due to the fact that at higher inflation ranges, U.S. Treasuries offer a higher coupon return when rates are high, at least partially counteracting losses from falling prices. The steady stream of cash flows from the coupons helped Treasuries achieve positive returns roughly two-thirds of the time at the highest levels of inflation (Table II-2.2). However, this consistency in returns came at a cost: very high inflation resulted in negative skew and high excess kurtosis. Therefore, while Treasuries provided frequent positive returns when inflation was very high, they were prone to violent selloffs. U.S. REITs While REITs had high risk-adjusted returns when inflation was rising but mild, much like equities they had subpar performance in every other quartile and particularly poor performance when inflation was high or very high (Chart II-2.3). These results confirm our previous research showing that REITs performance is very similar to that of equities.6 The return consistency for REITs was generally poor in inflationary periods, with the second-lowest percentage of positive return of any asset class (Table II-2.3). Moreover, REIT returns had excess kurtosis and negative skew throughout all inflation quartiles. Commodity Futures Commodities performed positively in every quartile, and did particularly well when inflation was mild (Chart II-2.4, top panel). However, total return and price return were very different due to the behavior of the roll and collateral return: Total risk-adjusted returns were lower than spot risk-adjusted returns when inflation was low and rising. This happened because during these periods, commodity supply was high relative to demand, as the economy was recovering from a deflationary shock. Thus, there was an incentive for producers to conserve inventories, making the futures curve upward-sloping (contango). Thus, roll return was negative (Chart II-2.4, bottom panel). When inflation was in the upper two quartiles, total risk-adjusted returns were much higher than risk-adjusted spot returns. This was because high inflation was the product of supply shocks. These supply shocks resulted in a downward-sloping futures curve (backwardation), which, in turn, resulted in a positive roll return. Additionally, high rates during these regimes contributed to a high collateral return. Commodities provided good return consistency during inflationary periods, with roughly 60% of positive return months in the upper two inflation quartiles (Table II-2.4). The skew of returns was neutral or positive in the top two quartiles. This means that although volatility was high for commodities, extreme return movements were normally positive. U.S. Inflation-Protected Bonds While inflation-protected bonds provided meager returns when inflation was rising but in the mild range, they provided excellent performance at the highest levels of inflation (Chart II-2.5). Moreover, this high Sharpe ratio was not just simply the result of low volatility, since U.S. TIPS had excess returns of 4.6% when inflation was high and 5.7% when inflation was very high.7 The return profile of inflation-protected bonds during inflationary periods was also attractive in our testing period. Average skew was positive, while kurtosis was relatively low (Table II-2.5). The percentage of positive months across all quartiles was also the highest of all asset classes, with a particularly high share of positive returns in the periods of highest inflation. Sub-Asset Classes Global Equity Sectors For the sector analysis, we looked at information technology, financials, energy, materials, utilities, healthcare, and telecommunications. We excluded industrials, consumer discretionary, and consumer staples given that they do not have adequate back data. Once again, we separate rising inflation periods into four quartiles, arriving at the following results: When inflation was low, information technology had the best excess returns while utilities had the worst (Chart II-3.1, panel 1). This matches our observations at the asset class level, as IT is highly responsive to changes in the valuation multiple. When inflation was mild, energy had the best performance, followed by information technology (Chart II-3.1, panel 2). Meanwhile, financials had the worst performance, as rates were normally rising in these periods. When inflation was high, sectors highly correlated with commodity prices such as energy and materials outperformed. Meanwhile, IT was the worst performer (Chart II-3.1, panel 3). When inflation was very high, every sector had negative excess returns. Overall, investing in energy minimized losses (Chart II-3.1, panel 4). However, this performance was in part attributable to the oil spikes of the 1970s. Alternatively, defensive sectors such as utilities, telecommunications, and healthcare also minimized losses. International vs U.S. Equities How do equities outside of the U.S. behave when inflation is rising? While the high share of U.S. equities in the global index causes U.S. equities to be the main driver of global stock prices, is it possible to improve returns in inflationary environments by overweighting international equities? The answer once again depends on the level of inflation. When inflation was rising but low, U.S. stocks outperformed global ex-U.S. equities in both common currency and local currency terms (Chart II-3.2, panel 1). This was in part due to the inherent tech bias in U.S. stocks. Additionally, the low level of inflation was often accompanied by slowing global growth in our sample, helping the U.S. dollar. When inflation was mild, U.S. stocks once again outperformed international stocks in both local and common currency terms, though to a lesser degree (Chart II-3.2, panel 2). The dollar was roughly flat in this environment. U.S. stocks started to have negative excess returns when inflation was high (Chart II-3.2, panel 3). On the other hand international equities had positive excess returns in dollar terms, partly because of their energy and material bias and partly because the dollar was generally weak in this period. U.S. equities outperformed global ex-U.S. equities by a small margin when inflation was very high, given that defensive sectors such as telecommunication were over-represented in the U.S. index (Chart II-3.2, panel 4). The dollar was roughly flat in this period. Individual Commodities Our analysis above confirmed that commodities were one of the best assets to hold when inflation was rising. However, which commodity performed best?8 Total return for every commodity was lower than spot return when inflation was low (Chart II-3.3, panel 1). This was due to the upward-sloping term structure of the futures curve (contango), resulting in a negative roll yield. In this range, energy had the best performance, followed by industrial metals. Precious metals had negative excess returns. When inflation was mild, energy had the best performance of any commodity by far (Chart II-3.3, panel 2). Precious and industrial metals had low but positive excess returns in this period. When inflation was high, industrial metals had the highest excess returns, followed by energy (Chart II-3.3, panel 3). We omit energy for the last quartile since there is not enough data available. Overall, when inflation was very high, both gold and silver had the highest excess returns (Chart II-3.3, panel 4). However, gold’s return volatility was much lower, while it also had positive returns 64% of the time compared to 52% for silver. Other Assets U.S. Direct Real Estate Our asset-class analysis confirmed that public real estate (REITs) as an asset class offered poor risk-adjusted returns during inflationary periods. But how did direct real estate perform? We analyzed direct real estate separately from all other assets because of a couple of issues: Our return dataset is available only on a quarterly basis, versus a monthly basis for the rest of the assets in our sample. Even when annualized, volatility is not directly comparable when using data with different frequencies. The NCREIF Real Estate Index that we used is a broad aggregate, which is not investable. Individual property prices might differ from this aggregate. Finally, real estate returns are measured on an appraisal basis. Appraisal-based indices are not reflective of real transactions. Moreover, prices tend to be sticky. To attenuate this issue we unsmoothed the capital returns by removing return autocorrelation. Overall, the Sharpe ratio of direct real estate was solid throughout the first three quartiles of rising inflation (Chart II-4.1, top panel). There is not enough data available for the fourth quartile. However, judging by the performance of U.S. housing in the 1970s from OECD, risk-adjusted returns when inflation was very high was likely positive (Chart II-4.1, bottom panel).   Cash Cash (investing in a 3-month U.S. Treasury bill) outperformed inflation over our sample (Chart II-4.2, top panel). Moreover, cash provided positive real returns when inflation was mild, or high, or when it was decreasing (Chart II-4.2, bottom panel). However, cash was not a good inflation hedge at the highest inflation quartile, with an average annualized real loss of almost 2%. Juan Manuel Correa Ossa Senior Analyst Global Asset Allocation Footnotes 1       Please see Carl E. Walsh, “October 6, 1979,” FRSBF Economic Letter, 2004:35, (December 3, 2004). 2       Please see Global Investment Strategy Special Report, “1970s-Style Inflation: Could it Happen Again? (Part 1), ” dated August 10, 2018, and “1970s-Style Inflation: Could it Happen Again? (Part 2),” dated August 24, 2018, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 3       We use a synthetic TIPS series for data prior to 1997. For details on the methodology, please see: Kothari, S.P. and Shanken, Jay A., “Asset Allocation with Inflation-Protected Bonds,” Financial Analysts Journal, Vol. 60, No. 1, pp. 54-70, January/February 2004. 4       Excess returns are defined as asset return relative to a 3-month Treasury bill. 5       Sector classification does not take into account GICS changes prior to December 2018.  6       Please see Global Asset Allocation Strategy Special Report "REITS Vs Direct: How To Get Exposure To Real Estate," dated September 15, 2016, available at gaa.bcaresearch.com. 7       It is important to note that the synthetic TIPS series does not completely match actual TIPS series for the periods where they overlap. Specifically, volatility is significantly higher in the synthetic series. Thus, results should be taken as approximations. 8       We decompose the returns into the same 4 quartiles to answer this question. However, due to lower data availability, we start our sample in 1978 instead of 1973. Moreover, our sample for energy is smaller beginning in 1983. This mainly reduces the amount of data available at the upper quartile.