Inflation Protected

Highlights Chart 1Softer PMIs In December A bond bear market looked to be underway in December, with the 10-year Treasury yield reaching as high as 1.93% just before Christmas. But two developments during the past week drove it back down to 1.80%, and could prevent yields from rising during the next month or two. Five macro factors are important for US bond yields (global growth, the output gap, the US dollar, policy uncertainty and sentiment). Two of those factors flipped from sending bond-bearish to bond-bullish signals during the past week. First, policy uncertainty had been ebbing due to the US/China phase 1 trade deal, but it ramped up again due to US military conflict with Iran. Second, our preferred global growth indicators had been showing tentative signs of bottoming, but reversed course in December. The Global Manufacturing PMI fell from 50.3 to 50.1 in December, and the US ISM Manufacturing PMI fell from 48.1 to 47.2 (Chart 1). We continue to forecast higher bond yields in 2020, but recent events have likely postponed any significant sell-off. Stay tuned. Feature Investment Grade: Neutral Chart 2Investment Grade Market Overview Investment grade corporate bonds outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 119 basis points in December and by 619 bps in 2019. In our 2020 Key Views report, we argued that the credit cycle will remain supportive for corporate bonds this year, but that we prefer to take credit risk in the high-yield space where valuation is more attractive.1 With inflation expectations still depressed, the Fed can maintain its “easy money” policy for some time yet. This accommodative stance will encourage banks to keep the credit taps running, leading to tight spreads. The third quarter’s tightening of C&I lending standards is a risk to our view (Chart 2), especially if this month’s survey reveals that the tightening continued into Q4. We don’t think that will be the case, given that the yield curve – another indicator of monetary conditions – steepened sharply in the fourth quarter. As stated above, valuation is the main hurdle for investment grade corporates. Spreads for all credit tiers are below our targets (panels 2 & 3).2 As a result, we advise only a neutral allocation to investment grade corporate bonds. We also recommend increasing exposure to Agency MBS in place of corporate bonds rated A or higher.  Table 3ACorporate Sector Relative Valuation And Recommended Allocation* Table 3BCorporate Sector Risk Vs. Reward* High-Yield Overweight Chart 3High-Yield Market Overview High-Yield outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 202 basis points in December, and by 886 bps in 2019. The index option-adjusted spread tightened 34 bps on the month and currently sits at 335 bps, 102 bps above our target (Chart 3). With attractive valuation, accommodative monetary conditions and a looming recovery in global economic growth, we expect junk spreads to tighten during the next 6-12 months. One notable development from last year is that the Ba and B credit tiers outperformed the Caa credit tier. This is unusual in an environment of positive excess junk returns. We analyzed the divergence between Caa and the rest of the junk index in a recent report and came to two conclusions.3 First, the historical data show that 12-month periods of overall junk bond outperformance are more likely to be followed by underperformance if Caa is the worst performing credit tier. Second, we can identify several reasons for 2019’s Caa spread widening that make us inclined to downplay any negative signal. Specifically, we note that the Caa credit tier’s exposure to the shale oil sector is responsible for the bulk of 2019’s underperformance (bottom panel). The conflict between the US and Iran should boost oil prices during the next few months, benefiting the US shale sector and causing some of this divergence to unwind. MBS: Overweight Chart 4MBS Market Overview Mortgage-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 34 basis points in December, and by 56 basis points in 2019. The conventional 30-year zero-volatility spread tightened 10 bps on the month, driven by an 8 bps tightening of the option-adjusted spread (OAS) and a 2 bps decline in expected prepayment losses (aka option cost). We recommend an overweight allocation to Agency MBS, particularly relative to corporate bonds rated A or higher, for three reasons.4 First, expected compensation is competitive. The conventional 30-year MBS OAS is 45 bps (Chart 4). This is only 7 bps below the spread offered by Aa-rated corporate bonds (panel 4). Also, spreads for all investment grade corporate bond credit tiers are below our targets. Second, risk-adjusted compensation heavily favors MBS. The Excess Return Bond Map in Appendix C shows that Agency MBS plot well to the right of investment grade corporates. This means that the sector is less likely to see losses versus Treasuries on a 12-month horizon. Finally, the macro environment for MBS remains supportive. Mortgage lending standards have barely eased since the financial crisis (bottom panel), and most homeowners have already had at least one opportunity to refinance. This burnout will keep refi activity low, and MBS spreads tight. Government-Related: Underweight Chart 5Government-Related Market Overview The Government-Related index outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 54 basis points in December, and by 252 bps in 2019. Sovereign debt outperformed duration-equivalent Treasuries by 175 bps on the month, and by 697 bps in 2019. Local Authority and Foreign Agency bonds outperformed the Treasury benchmark by 41 bps and 73 bps, respectively, in December, and by 287 bps and 341 bps, respectively, in 2019. Domestic Agency bonds and Supranationals both performed in line with Treasuries in December, but outperformed by 51 bps and 36 bps, respectively, in 2019. We continue to recommend an underweight allocation to USD-denominated sovereign bonds, given that spreads remain expensive compared to US corporate credit (Chart 5). However, we noted in a recent report that Mexican and Saudi Arabian sovereigns look attractive on a risk/reward basis.5 This is also true for Local Authorities and Foreign Agencies, as shown in the Bond Map in Appendix C. Our Emerging Markets Strategy service also thinks that worries about Mexico’s fiscal position are overblown, and that bond yields embed too high of a risk premium (bottom panel).6 Municipal Bonds: Overweight Chart 6Municipal Market Overview Municipal bonds outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 51 basis points in December, and by 57 bps in 2019 (before adjusting for the tax advantage). The average Aaa-rated Municipal / Treasury (M/T) yield ratio fell 6% in December, and currently sits at 78% (Chart 6). We upgraded municipal bonds in early October, as yield ratios had become significantly more attractive, especially at the long-end of the Aaa curve (panel 2).7 Yield ratios have tightened a lot since then, but value remains at long maturities. Specifically, 2-year, 5-year and 10-year M/T yield ratios are all below average pre-crisis levels at 66%, 68% and 78%, respectively. But 20-year and 30-year yield ratios stand at 87% and 91%, respectively, above average pre-crisis levels. Fundamentally, state and local government balance sheets remain solid. Our Municipal Health Monitor remains in “improving health” territory and state & local government interest coverage has improved considerably in recent quarters (bottom panel). Both of these trends are consistent with muni ratings upgrades continuing to outpace downgrades going forward. Treasury Curve: Maintain A Barbell Curve Positioning Chart 7Treasury Yield Curve Overview Long-dated Treasury yields rose in December, while the Fed’s forward guidance kept short-maturity yields low. The result is that the 2/10 slope steepened 17 bps in December and the 5/30 slope steepened 11 bps (Chart 7). Looking back on 2019 we find that, despite August’s curve inversion scare, the 2/10 slope steepened 13 bps on the year and the 5/30 slope steepened 19 bps. In our 2020 Key Views report, we argued that the 2/10 Treasury slope will stay positive in 2020, in a range between 0 bps and 50 bps.8 We also expect further modest steepening during the next few months as the Fed continues to hold down the front-end of the curve in an effort to re-anchor inflation expectations, even as improving global growth pushes long-dated yields higher. Despite our outlook for modest curve steepening, we continue to recommend holding a barbelled Treasury portfolio. Specifically, we favor holding a 2/30 barbell versus the 5-year bullet, in duration-matched terms. This position offers positive carry (bottom panel), due to the extreme overvaluation of the 5-year note. It also looks attractive on our yield curve models (see Appendix B). TIPS: Overweight Chart 8Inflation Compensation TIPS outperformed the duration-equivalent nominal Treasury index by 112 basis points in December, and by 42 bps in 2019. The 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate rose 16 bps on the month and currently sits at 1.78%. The 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rate rose 14 bps on the month and currently sits at 1.86%. Both rates remain well below the 2.3%-2.5% range consistent with the Fed’s target. The divergence between the actual inflation data and inflation expectations remains stark. Trimmed mean PCE inflation has been fluctuating around the Fed’s target since mid-2018 (Chart 8). However, long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates remain stubbornly low. It takes time for expectations to adapt to a changing macro environment, but even accounting for those long lags, our Adaptive Expectations Model pegs the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate as 16 bps too low (panel 4).9 It is highly likely that the Fed will have to tolerate some overshoot of its 2% inflation target in order to re-anchor long-term inflation expectations. As a result, the actual inflation data will lead expectations higher, causing the TIPS breakeven inflation curve to flatten.10 Any politically-driven increase in oil prices will only exacerbate TIPS breakeven curve flattening. ABS: Underweight Chart 9ABS Market Overview Asset-Backed Securities underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 5 basis points in December, but outperformed the benchmark by 69 bps in 2019. The index option-adjusted spread for Aaa-rated ABS widened 6 bps on the month. It currently sits at 37 bps, 3 bps above its minimum pre-crisis level (Chart 9). Our Excess Return Bond Map (see Appendix C) shows that Aaa-rated consumer ABS ranks among the most defensive US spread products, and also offers more expected return than other low-risk sectors such as Domestic Agency bonds and Supranationals. However, we remain wary of allocating too much to consumer ABS because credit trends continue to shift in the wrong direction. The consumer credit delinquency rate remains low, but has put in a clear bottom. This is also true for the household interest expense ratio (panel 3). Senior Loan Officers also continue to tighten lending standards for both credit cards and auto loans. Tighter lending standards usually coincide with rising delinquencies (bottom panel). All in all, our favorable outlook for global growth causes us to shy away from defensive spread products, and deteriorating credit metrics make consumer ABS even less appealing. Stay underweight. Non-Agency CMBS: Neutral Chart 10CMBS Market Overview Non-Agency Commercial Mortgage-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 11 basis points in December, and by 233 bps in 2019. The index option-adjusted spread for non-agency Aaa-rated CMBS widened 1 bp on the month. It currently sits at 71 bps, below its average pre-crisis level but somewhat above levels seen during the past two years (Chart 10). The macro outlook for commercial real estate (CRE) is somewhat unfavorable, with lenders tightening loan standards (panel 4) in an environment of tepid demand. The Fed’s Senior Loan Officer Survey shows that banks saw slightly stronger demand for nonfarm nonresidential CRE loans in Q3, after four consecutive quarters of falling demand (bottom panel). Despite the poor fundamental picture, our Excess Return Bond Map shows that CMBS offer a reasonably attractive risk/reward trade-off compared to other bond sectors (see Appendix C). Agency CMBS: Overweight Agency CMBS underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 16 basis points in December, but outperformed the benchmark by 91 bps in 2019. The index option-adjusted spread widened 4 bps on the month, and currently sits at 57 bps. The Excess Return Bond Map in Appendix C shows that Agency CMBS offer a compelling risk/reward trade-off. An overweight allocation to this high-rated sector remains appropriate. Appendix A: The Golden Rule Of Bond Investing We follow a two-step process to formulate recommendations for bond portfolio duration. First, we determine the change in the federal funds rate that is priced into the yield curve for the next 12 months. Second, we decide – based on our assessments of the economy and Fed policy – whether the change in the fed funds rate will exceed or fall short of what is priced into the curve. Most of the time, a correct answer to this question leads to the appropriate duration call. We call this framework the Golden Rule Of Bond Investing, and we demonstrated its effectiveness in the US Bond Strategy Special Report, “The Golden Rule Of Bond Investing”, dated July 24, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com. Chart 11 illustrates the Golden Rule’s track record by showing that the Bloomberg Barclays Treasury Master Index tends to outperform cash when rate hikes fall short of 12-month expectations, and vice-versa. Chart 11The Golden Rule's Track Record At present, the market is priced for 22 basis points of cuts during the next 12 months. We anticipate a flat fed funds rate over that time horizon, and therefore anticipate that below-benchmark portfolio duration positions will profit. We can also use our Golden Rule framework to make 12-month total return and excess return forecasts for the Bloomberg Barclays Treasury index under different scenarios for the fed funds rate. Excess returns are relative to the Bloomberg Barclays Cash index. To forecast total returns we first calculate the 12-month fed funds rate surprise in each scenario by comparing the assumed change in the fed funds rate to the current value of our 12-month discounter. This rate hike surprise is then mapped to an expected change in the Treasury index yield using a regression based on the historical relationship between those two variables. Finally, we apply the expected change in index yield to the current characteristics (yield, duration and convexity) of the Treasury index to estimate total returns on a 12-month horizon. The below tables present those results, along with 95% confidence intervals. Excess returns are calculated by subtracting assumed cash returns in each scenario from our total return projections. Appendix B: Butterfly Strategy Valuations The following tables present the current read-outs from our butterfly spread models. We use these models to identify opportunities to take duration-neutral positions across the Treasury curve. The following two Special Reports explain the models in more detail: US Bond Strategy Special Report, “Bullets, Barbells And Butterflies”, dated July 25, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com US Bond Strategy Special Report, “More Bullets, Barbells And Butterflies”, dated May 15, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Table 4 shows the raw residuals from each model. A positive value indicates that the bullet is cheap relative to the duration-matched barbell. A negative value indicates that the barbell is cheap relative to the bullet. Table 4Butterfly Strategy Valuation: Raw Residuals In Basis Points (As Of January 3, 2020) Table 5 scales the raw residuals in Table 4 by their historical means and standard deviations. This facilitates comparison between the different butterfly spreads. Table 5Butterfly Strategy Valuation: Standardized Residuals (As Of January 3, 2020) Table 6 flips the models on their heads. It shows the change in the slope between the two barbell maturities that must be realized during the next six months to make returns between the bullet and barbell equal. For example, a reading of 33 bps in the 5 over 2/10 cell means that we would only expect the 5-year to outperform the 2/10 if the 2/10 slope steepens by more than 33 bps during the next six months. Otherwise, we would expect the 2/10 barbell to outperform the 5-year bullet. Table 6Discounted Slope Change During Next 6 Months (BPs) Appendix C: Excess Return Bond Map The Excess Return Bond Map is used to assess the relative risk/reward trade-off between different sectors of the US bond market. It is a purely computational exercise and does not impose any macroeconomic view. The Map’s vertical axis shows 12-month expected excess returns. These are proxied by each sector’s option-adjusted spread. Sectors plotting further toward the top of the Map have higher expected returns and vice-versa. Our novel risk measure called the “Risk Of Losing 100 bps” is shown on the Map’s horizontal axis. To calculate it, we first compute the spread widening required on a 12-month horizon for each sector to lose 100 bps or more relative to a duration-matched position in Treasury securities. Then, we divide that amount of spread widening by each sector’s historical spread volatility. The end result is the number of standard deviations of 12-month spread widening required for each sector to lose 100 bps or more versus a position in Treasuries. Lower risk sectors plot further to the right of the Map, and higher risk sectors plot further to the left. Chart 12Excess Return Bond Map (As Of January 3, 2020) Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see US Bond Strategy Special Report, “2020 Key Views: US Fixed Income”, dated December 10, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 For details on how we arrive at our spread targets please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Value In Corporate Bonds”, dated February 19, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Caa-Rated Bonds: Warning Sign Or Buying Opportunity?”, dated November 26, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Two Themes And Two Trades”, dated October 1, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 5 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “A Perspective On Risk And Reward”, dated October 15, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 6 Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report, “Country Insights: Malaysia, Mexico & Central Europe”, dated October 31, 2019, available at ems.bcaresearch.com 7 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Two Themes And Two Trades”, dated October 1, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 8 Please see US Bond Strategy Special Report, “2020 Key Views: US Fixed Income”, dated December 10, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 9 For further details on our Adaptive Expectations Model please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Adaptive Expectations In The TIPS Market”, dated November 20, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 10 Please see US Bond Strategy Special Report, “2020 Key Views: US Fixed Income”, dated December 10, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification Corporate Sector Relative Valuation And Recommended Allocation

Special Report

Highlights Below-Benchmark Duration In 2020 H1. Improving global growth and the de-escalation of US/China trade tensions will put upward pressure on bond yields in the first half of 2020, making below-benchmark portfolio duration appropriate. US political risks could re-assert themselves as we head into 2020 H2, leading to a risk-off environment that causes bond yields to fall. We will likely recommend increasing portfolio duration in mid-2020 if the political situation plays out as we expect, or if the 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yield and 12-month Fed Funds Discounter reach our targets. Barbell Your Treasury Portfolio. The 2/10 Treasury slope will steepen modestly in the coming months, but will remain in a range between 0 bps and 50 bps in 2020. Any steepening will be concentrated in the real yield curve. The TIPS breakeven inflation curve is likely to flatten. Our valuation models suggest that a barbelled Treasury portfolio is the best way to position for this environment. Specifically, we recommend shorting the 5-year bullet and buying a duration-matched barbell consisting of the 2-year note and 30-year bond. Overweight Spread Product. Low inflation expectations will keep the Fed on hold in 2020. This accommodative monetary environment will keep defaults low and credit spreads tight. Spread product will outperform Treasuries in duration-matched terms. Favor High-Yield Versus Investment Grade. Appropriate valuation measures show that high-yield corporate spreads are very attractive in the current environment, while investment grade corporate spreads are tight compared to our fair value estimates. Overweight Mortgage-Backed Securities. Agency MBS look attractive compared to investment grade corporate bonds, especially in risk-adjusted terms. The risk of a refinancing surge in 2020 is minimal and mortgage lending standards are more likely to ease than tighten. MBS spreads have room to tighten in 2020. Overweight TIPS Versus Nominal Treasuries. TIPS breakeven inflation rates are well below our target range of 2.3%-2.5%. It will take some time, and likely an overshoot of the Fed’s 2% inflation target, for them to reach that range as expectations adapt only slowly to rising core inflation. But even if they don’t make it back to target, breakevens should still grind higher as the economy recovers in 2020. Feature BCA published its 2020 Outlook on November 22. That report lays out the main macroeconomic themes that our strategists see driving markets next year. This Special Report explains how investors can profit from those themes in US fixed income markets. Specifically, we offer six key US fixed income views for 2020. This report is limited to the six key investment views listed on page 1, and only discusses Fed policy in the context of how it influences those views. Next week we will publish a more comprehensive “Fed In 2020” report that will delve into our outlook for the Fed next year. Outlook Summary First, a brief summary of the main economic views presented in BCA’s 2020 outlook:1 The global manufacturing downturn that persisted throughout 2019 is quickly coming to an end. The following factors will cause global growth to rebound in early 2020: China eased economic policy significantly in 2019. Policymakers cut the reserve requirement ratio by 400 basis points, cut taxes by 2.8% of GDP, increased issuance of local government bonds to finance public infrastructure projects, and boosted capex at state-owned enterprises. The Fed cut rates by 75 bps, and other central banks also eased monetary policy in 2019. The global inventory purge that magnified the industrial sector’s pain in 2019 is exhausted. Both the US and China have incentives to de-escalate the trade war in the first half of 2020. Investors should remain invested in risk assets to take advantage of this favorable global macro environment. But 2020 is likely to be the last year of risk asset outperformance. Today’s accommodative monetary policy will revive inflationary pressures in 2021, and central banks will then be forced to lift rates much more aggressively. China will also continue to resist excess leverage. Neither the business cycle nor the equity bull market will withstand those final assaults in 2021. Key View #1: Below-Benchmark Duration In 2020 H1 Improving global growth and the de-escalation of US/China trade tensions will put upward pressure on bond yields in the first half of 2020, making below-benchmark portfolio duration appropriate. US political risks could re-assert themselves as we head into 2020 H2, leading to a risk-off environment that causes bond yields to fall. We will likely recommend increasing portfolio duration in mid-2020 if the political situation plays out as we expect, or if the 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yield and 12-month Fed Funds Discounter reach our targets. In prior research we identified the five macroeconomic factors that determine trends in US bond yields.2 They are: (i) global growth, (ii) the output gap, (iii) the US dollar, (iv) policy uncertainty and (v) sentiment. On global growth, the three measures that correlate most strongly with the 10-year Treasury yield are the Global Manufacturing PMI, the US ISM Manufacturing PMI and the CRB Raw Industrials index. As mentioned above, we expect all three of these indicators to move higher in the first half of 2020, but so far we have seen only tentative signs of a rebound. The Global PMI is back above 50 after bottoming at 49.3 in July, but the US ISM remains in contractionary territory and the CRB Raw Industrials index is in a downtrend (Chart 1). All three of these indicators will have to increase for our call to play out. The global manufacturing downturn that persisted throughout 2019 is quickly coming to an end. The same amount of economic growth is more inflationary when the output gap is small than when it is wide. For this reason, we also need some sense of the output gap to make a call on Treasury yields. We have found wage growth to be a useful indicator of the output gap, as evidenced by its strong correlation with the fed funds rate (Chart 2). As long as recession is avoided, strong wage growth will make it difficult for the Fed to aggressively cut rates. The upshot is that Treasury yields will not re-visit their mid-2016 lows until the next recession hits and wage pressures wane. For now, all leading wage growth indicators continue to point up (Chart 2, bottom 2 panels). Chart 1Factor 1: Global Growth Chart 2Factor 2: The Output Gap   The US dollar is the third important macro factor we consider. A strengthening dollar signals that US yields are de-coupling too far from yields in the rest of the world, making them more likely to fall back down. Conversely, an uptrend in US bond yields is likely to last longer in an environment of dollar weakness. The trade-weighted dollar has been rangebound during the past few months and bullish sentiment toward the dollar has declined significantly (Chart 3). This suggests that US yields have room to move higher. However, we will watch the dollar closely as bond yields rise in 2020 H1. A rapidly appreciating dollar would make us more inclined to fade any increase in US bond yields. The fourth factor we consider is policy uncertainty. It’s no secret that US Treasury securities benefit from flight to safety flows in times of heightened political stress. The tight correlation between the 10-year Treasury yield and the Global Economic Policy Uncertainty index demonstrates this nicely (Chart 4). In fact, it is now clear that uncertainty about the US/China trade war caused US yields to reach lower levels this year than was implied by the economic fundamentals alone. Chart 3Factor 3: The US Dollar Chart 4Factor 4: Policy Uncertainty   We see trade tensions continuing to die down as we head into the New Year. President Trump faces an election in November 2020, and he no doubt realizes that an incumbent President with a strong economy has a good chance of winning re-election. He therefore has a strong incentive to support economic growth. However, by the second half of next year, we see two potential political risks that could flare, causing bond yields to fall. First, if Trump finds himself behind in the polls by mid-summer, then he may change his strategy and re-escalate tensions with China or some other foreign policy target. Second, if one of the progressive candidates – Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders – secures the Democratic nomination, stocks will likely sell off, precipitating a flight-to-quality into US bonds. All in all, we see the ebbing of policy uncertainty in the first half of 2020 helping to push bond yields higher. But risks could flare again in the 2020 H2, sending yields back down. Chart 5Factor 5: Sentiment The final factor we consider when forecasting bond yields is sentiment, and we find the Economic Surprise Index to be the most useful sentiment measure. Chart 5 shows that positive data surprises tend to coincide with rising Treasury yields and vice-versa. We also know that long periods of positive data surprises are more likely to be followed by disappointments, and vice-versa. Though the Surprise Index’s message can change quickly, it is currently close to neutral, sending no strong signal for bond yields. Considering our five macro factors together, we conclude that a rebound in global growth and waning political uncertainty will send bond yields higher in the first half of 2020. Investors should keep portfolio duration low in this environment. We may recommend increasing portfolio duration as we approach mid-year if political uncertainty looks set to rise, or if the dollar is appreciating strongly, or if yields reach the targets outlined below. Yield Target #1: The Golden Rule Of Bond Investing Our Golden Rule of Bond Investing asserts that you should keep portfolio duration low if you expect the Fed to be more hawkish than market expectations, and high if you expect the Fed to be more dovish.3 At present, the overnight index swap (OIS) curve is priced for 22 basis points of rate cuts over the next 12 months. While economic growth is poised to improve in 2020, the Fed is in no rush to tighten monetary policy with inflation expectations still low. We therefore expect the fed funds rate to stay flat next year. With the market still priced for cuts, this forecast implies that we should maintain below-benchmark portfolio duration, at least until our 12-month Fed Funds Discounter – the change in the fed funds rate priced into the OIS curve for the next 12 months – rises to zero or above. A rebound in global growth and waning political uncertainty will send bond yields higher in the first half of 2020. Investors should keep portfolio duration low in this environment. Table 1 uses our Golden Rule framework to forecast Treasury index returns in different monetary policy scenarios. Our base case of a flat fed funds rate is consistent with Treasury index total returns of +0.67% to +0.88% in 2020, and excess returns versus cash of between -0.91% and -0.70%. The Appendix at the end of this report discusses how our Golden Rule framework performed in 2019 and in years past. Table 1Treasury Return Projections Yield Target #2: Long-Run Fed Funds Rate Expectations Chart 6Target 2.25% To 2.5% A second catalyst for increasing portfolio duration would be if the 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yield converged with estimates of the longer-run neutral fed funds rate. Once recessionary risks move to the backburner, it would be logical for long-dated forward rates to converge to levels that are consistent with market expectations for the long-run neutral fed funds rate. Indeed, this is precisely what happened in 2014 and 2017/18, the last two periods of strong global growth (Chart 6). At present, the Fed’s median long-run neutral rate estimate is 2.5%. The New York Fed’s Survey of Market Participants estimates a range of 2.19% to 2.50% and its Survey of Primary Dealers estimates a range of 2.25% to 2.56%. A 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yield in the range of 2.25% to 2.5% would be a second catalyst for us to increase recommended portfolio duration. For Treasury yields to move sustainably above 2.5% in this cycle, it will be necessary for investors to revise their long-run neutral rate estimates higher. This could very well occur, but probably not within the next six months. Nonetheless, investors should pay close attention to the price of gold and the US housing market for signals that neutral rate estimates might undergo upward revisions. The gold price tends to rise when investors view monetary policy as becoming increasingly accommodative. This can occur because the Fed is cutting rates while neutral rate estimates are unchanged, or because neutral rate estimates are rising and the fed funds rate is unchanged. Chart 7 shows that a drop in the gold price foreshadowed downward revisions to the neutral rate in 2013. A further breakout in gold in 2020 could signal that the neutral rate needs to be revised higher again. The housing market will also provide important clues about the neutral fed funds rate. Last year, housing activity slowed considerably once the 30-year mortgage rate rose about 4% (Chart 8). Activity bounced back this year after rates fell, but it will be important to see what happens to housing once the mortgage rate rises back to 4% and above. If an above-4% mortgage rate leads to another downdraft in housing, it would send a strong signal that current neutral rate estimates are roughly correct. However, if housing activity continues to improve with a mortgage rate above 4%, it would suggest that upward neutral rate revisions are required. Chart 7Gold Leads The Neutral Rate... Chart 8...And So Does Housing   There is at least one good reason to think that housing activity might not slow once the mortgage rate rises above 4%. There is currently an excess of supply at the upper-end of the housing market, and a lack of supply at the low-end. This has resulted in price deceleration for new homes, as homebuilders shift construction to the lower-end of the market where demand is stronger (Chart 8, bottom panel). This supply side re-adjustment could make the housing market more resilient to higher mortgage rates in 2020. Key View #2: Barbell Your Treasury Portfolio The 2/10 Treasury slope will steepen modestly in the coming months, but will remain in a range between 0 bps and 50 bps in 2020. Any steepening will be concentrated in the real yield curve. The TIPS breakeven inflation curve is likely to flatten. Our valuation models suggest that a barbelled Treasury portfolio is the best way to position for this environment. Specifically, we recommend shorting the 5-year bullet and buying a duration-matched barbell consisting of the 2-year note and 30-year bond. In thinking about how the slope of the Treasury curve will respond as global growth improves in 2020, it’s useful to look at what happened in two recent episodes of strengthening global growth – 2012/13 and 2016/17. Charts 9A, 9B and 9C illustrate how the 2/10 slope responded in those periods, and show the breakdown between changes in the real and inflation components of yields. The actual slope changes are provided in Table 2. In 2012/13, the 2/10 slope steepened dramatically as global growth rebounded, with almost all of the steepening coming from the real yield curve. It’s not difficult to understand why. The economic outlook was improving, but the Fed was still two years away from lifting interest rates. As such, the Fed’s dovish forward guidance kept a firm lid on short-maturity yields even as long-dated yields rose. In contrast, we can look at the 2016/17 episode. The 2/10 slope steepened somewhat early in the 2016/17 global growth recovery, but ended up 45 bps flatter by the time that the Global PMI peaked. This time, both the real and inflation components contributed to curve flattening. The key difference in this episode was that the Fed was quick to turn more hawkish as growth improved. It lifted the funds rate four times, and short-dated yields rose more quickly than those at the long-end. If housing activity continues to improve with a mortgage rate above 4%, it would suggest that upward neutral rate revisions are required. What can be applied from these two episodes to today? One thing that’s clear is that the Fed will not be as quick to tighten policy as it was in 2016/17. As will be discussed in more detail in next week’s report, the Fed wants to keep policy accommodative until inflation expectations are firmly re-anchored around its target. We think the 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rate needs to rise from its current 1.8% to above 2.3% before that goal is met. However, it’s also conceivable that inflationary pressures will emerge as soon as late-2020, necessitating rate hikes in 2021. If that’s the case, then short-dated yields will sniff that out in advance, imparting some flattening pressure to the curve. All in all, we’re looking for modest curve steepening in the first half of 2020. But with the Fed not completely out of the picture – as was the case in 2012/13 – the 2/10 slope will not rise above 50 bps. We would also recommend positioning for curve steepening via real yields. The cost of 2-year inflation protection is currently below the cost of 10-year inflation protection (Chart 9C), but will probably lead the 10-year higher as inflation expectations slowly adapt to the incoming data. We recommend TIPS breakeven curve flatteners. Chart 9ANominal 2/10 Slope Chart 9BReal 2/10 Slope Chart 9CInflation Compensation: 2/10 Slope Table 22/10 Slope Changes During Two Recent Global Growth Upturns Interestingly, we also do not recommend the typical 2/10 steepening trade of going long the 5-year bullet against a duration-matched 2/10 barbell. This is because the 2/5/10 butterfly already discounts a huge amount of 2/10 steepening. The 5-year bullet appears 6 bps expensive on our model, meaning that the 2/10 slope needs to steepen by 26 bps during the next six months for a long 5-year, short 2/10 trade to profit (Chart 10).4 Chart 102/5/10 Butterfly Valuation Model Against this valuation backdrop, we recommend owning a duration-matched barbell consisting of the 2-year note and the 30-year bond, while shorting the 5-year note. This heavily barbelled Treasury allocation adds positive carry to a bond portfolio, and will earn positive returns as long as the 5/30 slope steepens by less than 61 bps during the next six months.5 Further, recent correlations suggest that the 5-year yield will rise by more than either the 2-year or 30-year yields if the market starts to price-in fewer Fed rate cuts, as we expect. Table 3 shows that there has been a positive correlation between changes in the 2/5 Treasury slope and our 12-month discounter during the past six months, and a negative correlation between our discounter and the 5/30 slope. Table 3Correlation Of Monthly Changes In 12-Month Discounter With Monthly Changes In Treasury Curve Slopes Key View #3: Overweight Spread Product Low inflation expectations will keep the Fed on hold in 2020. This accommodative monetary environment will keep defaults low and credit spreads tight. Spread product will outperform Treasuries in duration-matched terms. In last year’s Key Views report, we presented a method for splitting the economic cycle into three phases based on the slope of the yield curve.6 We observed that spread product excess returns versus Treasuries tend to be highest in Phase 1 of the cycle, when the 3-year/10-year Treasury slope is above 50 bps. Spread product excess returns tend to be low, but still positive, in Phase 2 of the cycle when the slope is between 0 bps and 50 bps, and only turn negative in Phase 3 after the 3-year/10-year slope inverts. By our criteria, we remained in Phase 2 of the cycle throughout all of 2019 and spread product did in fact deliver small, but positive, excess returns relative to Treasuries. We expect to remain in Phase 2 throughout most (if not all) of 2020, and therefore advise investors to maintain overweight allocations to spread product versus duration-matched Treasuries. We are looking for modest curve steepening in the first half of 2020. The principal rationale for our call is that accommodative Fed policy will keep the yield curve positively sloped in 2020. It will also give banks the confidence to continue extending credit. And as long as lending standards are sufficiently easy, defaults will remain low and spreads will stay tight. Yes, there are some early indications that we might be transitioning into a Phase 3 environment, an environment that would merit a more defensive stance. For one thing, some parts of the Treasury curve inverted in August, though the specific measure we use in our credit cycle analysis – the monthly average of daily closes of the 3-year/10-year Treasury slope – remained above zero (Chart 11). Also, commercial & industrial (C&I) lending standards tightened in the third quarter. Chart 11Still In Phase 2 However, we expect both of these warning signs to dissipate in the near future. The yield curve has already re-steepened, and while loan officers indicated that they had tightened overall standards on C&I loans in Q3, they continued to loosen the terms on those loans (Chart 11, panel 3). But most importantly, we continue to observe inflation expectations that are far below the Fed’s comfort zone (Chart 11, bottom panel). As long as this is the case, the Fed will do its best to keep interest rates low and monetary conditions accommodative. In that environment, the yield curve should stay upward sloping and banks will keep the credit taps open. Phase 2 will stay in place and spread product will outperform Treasuries. The poor health of nonfinancial corporate balance sheets is another risk to our positive spread product view. We track corporate balance sheet health using both aggregate top-down data from the US Financial Accounts (Chart 12A) and by looking at the median firm in our own bottom-up sample of high-yield issuers (Chart 12B). In both cases, we see that debt-to-profit and debt-to-asset ratios are elevated, indicating that firms are carrying a lot of debt on their balance sheets relative to history. However, both samples also show that interest coverage ratios are strong. Solid interest coverage is the result of low interest rates and the Fed’s accommodative monetary policy. It tells us that defaults won’t occur until inflation expectations rise and the Fed turns more restrictive. That may not happen until 2021. Chart 12ACorporate Health: Top-Down Chart 12BCorporate Health: Bottom-Up   The downside is that an extended period of accommodative monetary policy and few defaults means that firms will continue to build up debt and whittle away the equity cushion in corporate capital structures. The end result will be greater losses during the next default cycle. Our Preferred Spread Sectors Within US spread product, we recommend an overweight allocation to high-yield corporate bonds to take advantage of the favorable macro environment. Within investment grade sectors, we advise only a neutral allocation to corporate bonds (see Key View #4), but recommend overweighting Agency Mortgage-Backed Securities (see Key View #5), Agency Commercial Mortgage-Backed Securities, Local Authority and Foreign Agency debt. Chart 13 shows a snapshot of the risk/reward trade-off between investment grade spread products. The vertical axis displays the option-adjusted spread as a simple proxy for 12-month expected excess returns. The horizontal axis displays our own risk measure called the Risk Of Losing 100 bps.7 This measure calculates the spread widening required for each sector to lose 100 bps or more versus duration-matched Treasuries, then adjusts for each sector’s historical spread volatility. Chart 13Excess Return Bond Map: Main Investment Grade Sectors Chart 13 imposes no macro view, but it does reveal that Foreign Agency debt offers an attractive expected return for its level of risk. Agency CMBS and Agency MBS also offer attractive expected returns for their respective risk levels. USD-denominated Sovereign bonds offer high expected returns, but are also the riskiest of the sectors in Chart 13. We recommend an underweight allocation to USD-denominated Sovereigns with the exception of Mexican and Saudi Arabian bonds, which look attractive on a risk/reward basis. Chart 14 replicates Chart 13 but with the USD-denominated Sovereign bonds of different countries. Only Mexico and Saudi Arabia stand out as being attractively priced. Chart 14Excess Return Bond Map: USD-Denominated EM Sovereigns Chart 15Favor Long-Maturity Munis We also maintain a positive outlook on Municipal bonds, particularly at the long-end of the Aaa-rated curve. Municipal / Treasury yield ratios look attractive compared to history, especially at long maturities (Chart 15). While many state and local governments face long-run problems related to underfunded pensions, these issues won’t be exposed until revenue growth falters in the next downturn. For now, state & local government balance sheets are healthy enough to keep muni upgrades outpacing downgrades (Chart 15, bottom 2 panels). Key View #4: Favor High-Yield Over Investment Grade Appropriate valuation measures show that high-yield corporate spreads are very attractive in the current environment, while investment grade corporate spreads are tight compared to our fair value estimates. We noted above that, despite the favorable macro environment for spread product, we recommend an overweight allocation to high-yield corporate bonds but only a neutral allocation to investment grade corporates. The reason for the disparity is valuation. Our preferred valuation measure is the 12-month breakeven spread. This is the spread widening required for the sector to lose money versus Treasuries on a 12-month horizon. This measure is superior to the simple index option-adjusted spread because it controls for time-varying index duration. We also re-calculate the investment grade and high-yield bond indexes so that they have constant distribution between the different credit tiers over time. Charts 16A and 16Bshow 12-month breakeven spreads for our re-constituted investment grade and high-yield indexes as percentile ranks versus history. The investment grade spread has been tighter only 11% of the time since 1995, while the high-yield spread has been tighter 67% of the time. Chart 16AIG Valuation Chart 16BHY Valuation   From our analysis of the three phases of the cycle, we also know that spreads tend to tighter in Phase 2 of the cycle than in Phases 1 or 3. Since we are currently in Phase 2, we would expect spreads to be near the bottom of their historical distributions. With this knowledge, we derive spread targets for each corporate credit tier based on the median breakeven spreads witnessed in prior Phase 2 periods. We then use current index duration to calculate option-adjusted spread targets for each credit tier and the overall investment grade and high-yield indexes (Charts 17A and 17B). Notice that all investment grade spreads are below their Phase 2 targets, while high-yield spreads are well above. Chart 17AIG Spread Targets Chart 17BHY Spread Targets   We also observe that Caa-rated spreads are extremely cheap relative to target, and have been widening rapidly. We are more inclined to view this as an opportunity to buy Caa-rated bonds than as a warning sign for overall corporate bond performance, as we discussed in a recent report.8 Key View #5: Overweight Mortgage-Backed Securities Agency MBS look attractive compared to investment grade corporate bonds, especially in risk-adjusted terms. The risk of a refinancing surge in 2020 is minimal and mortgage lending standards are more likely to ease than tighten. MBS spreads have room to tighten in 2020. We noted above that Agency MBS offer an attractive trade-off between risk and expected return. Specifically, Chart 13 shows that MBS offer expected returns that are similar to Aa and Aaa corporates, but with less risk of losing 100 bps versus Treasuries. For further evidence of the attractiveness of MBS spreads, we note that while the zero-volatility spread for conventional 30-year Agency MBS is not all that elevated compared to history, it is being held down by very low expected prepayment losses (aka option costs) (Chart 18). The OAS, the best proxy for MBS expected return, stands at 48 bps. This is reasonably elevated compared to history and very close to the spread offered by Aa-rated corporate bonds. Past periods when the MBS OAS was close to the Aa-rated corporate bond spread were followed by MBS outperformance (Chart 18, bottom panel). We recommend an overweight allocation to high-yield corporate bonds but only a neutral allocation to investment grade corporates. The reason for the disparity is valuation. We noted that expected prepayment losses are low, and this is for good reason. Mortgage refinancing activity will remain depressed throughout 2020. First, with the Fed likely to go on hold for 2020 and then lift rates in 2021, the mortgage rate is more likely to rise than fall. Higher mortgage rates will keep refis down. Second, most homeowners have already had multiple opportunities to refinance their mortgages during the past few years, as evidenced by the fact that the MBA Refinance Index didn’t rise that much in 2019, even as the mortgage rate declined 106 bps (Chart 19). Chart 18MBS Spreads Chart 19Refi Risk Is Minimal   Tightening bank lending standards for residential mortgages can also lead to wider MBS spreads, but lending standards are more likely to ease than tighten in 2020. FICO scores for approved mortgages have not come down at all since the financial crisis (Chart 19, panel 3), and loan officers consistently claim that lending standards are tighter than the average since 2005 (Chart 19, bottom panel). With standards already so tight, modest easing is more likely than rapid tightening. Key View #6: Overweight TIPS Versus Nominal Treasuries TIPS breakeven inflation rates are well below our target range of 2.3%-2.5%. It will take some time, and likely an overshoot of the Fed’s 2% inflation target, for them to reach that range as expectations adapt only slowly to rising core inflation. But even if they don’t make it back to target, breakevens should still grind higher as the economy recovers in 2020. Our target range for both the 10-year and 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rates remains 2.3%-2.5%. But it could take quite some time for that target to be met. The reason is that inflation expectations adapt only slowly to changes in the actual inflation data. We explained this dynamic in a report from last year, and also created a fair value model for the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate based on long-run trends in the actual inflation data.9 At present, our Adaptive Expectations Model pegs fair value for the 10-year breakeven rate at 1.9%, 20 bps above the current level of 1.7%, but well short of our end-of-cycle 2.3%-2.5% target (Chart 20). We could see the 10-year breakeven reaching 1.9% in the coming months as global growth recovers, but it will take a more sustained uptrend in the actual inflation data to move higher than that. A more sustained uptrend in actual inflation could take some time to develop. This year’s increase in core CPI inflation has been concentrated in the core goods component (Chart 21). This component of core inflation tracks import prices with a lag, and it is very likely to fall back down in 2020. Any sustained breakout in core inflation will require more strength from the core services (ex. Shelter and medical care) component (Chart 21, panel 3), something that hasn’t happened yet this cycle. Chart 20Adaptive Expectations Model Chart 21The Components Of Core CPI   Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Appendix: The Golden Rule Of Bond Investing Our Golden Rule of Bond Investing says that we should determine what change in the fed funds rate is priced into the overnight index swap curve for the next 12 months, and then decide whether the Fed will deliver a hawkish or dovish surprise relative to that expectation. We contend that if the Fed delivers a hawkish surprise, then a below-benchmark portfolio duration positioning will pay off. Conversely, if the Fed delivers a dovish surprise, then an above-benchmark portfolio duration positioning will profit. Chart A1 shows how the Golden Rule has performed in every calendar year going back to 1990. We include year-to-date performance for 2019. In 30 years of historical data, our Golden Rule performed well in 22. It provided the wrong recommendation in 8 years, though 3 of those years were during the zero-lower-bound period between 2009 and 2015 when 12-month rate expectations were essentially pinned at zero.10 At the beginning of this year, the market was priced for 7 bps of rate cuts in 2019. The funds rate actually fell by 84 bps, leading to a dovish surprise of 77 bps. Based on a historical regression, we would expect a dovish surprise of 77 bps to coincide with a Treasury index yield that falls by 52 bps. In actuality, the index yield fell by 81 bps, more than our Golden Rule predicted. Chart A2 shows how close changes in the Treasury index yield have been to our Golden Rule’s prediction in each of the past 30 years. This regression between the change in Treasury index yield and the monetary policy surprise is the main source of error in our Treasury return forecasts. Based on our expected -52 bps index yield change, we would have expected the Treasury index to deliver 5.9% of total return in 2019 and to outperform cash by 3.4%. In actuality, the index earned 7.9% of total return and outperformed cash by 5.6%. Charts A3 and A4 show how index total and excess returns have performed relative to our Golden Rule’s expectations in each of the past 30 years. Chart A1The Golden Rule’s Track Record Chart A2Treasury Index Yield Changes Versus Fed Funds Surprises Chart A3Treasury Index Total Returns Versus The Golden Rule’s Predictions Chart A4Treasury Index Excess Returns Versus The Golden Rule’s Predictions   Footnotes 1    Please see The Bank Credit Analyst, “Outlook 2020: Heading Into The End Game”, dated November 22, 2019, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 2   Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Bond Kitchen”, dated April 9, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 3   Please see US Bond Strategy Special Report, “The Golden Rule Of Bond Investing”, dated July 24, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 4   For more details on our butterfly spread valuation models please see US Bond Strategy Special Report, “Bullets, Barbells And Butterflies”, dated July 25, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 5   The 2/5/30 valuation model is not shown in this report. Please see US Bond Strategy Portfolio Allocation Summary, “Mixed Messages”, dated December 3, 2019, for a recent update of all our yield curve models. 6   Please see US Bond Strategy Special Report, “2019 Key Views: Implications For US Fixed Income”, dated December 11, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 7   For further details on how this measure is calculated please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “A Perspective On Risk And Reward”, dated October 15, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 8   Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Caa-Rated Bonds: Warning Sign Or Buying Opportunity?”, dated November 26, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 9   For further details on our Adaptive Expectations Model please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Adaptive Expectations In The TIPS Market”, dated November 20, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 10  We say the Golden Rule “worked” if a dovish surprise coincided with positive Treasury index excess returns versus cash, or if a hawkish surprise coincided with negative Treasury excess returns versus cash.

Highlights Our take on the key macro drivers of financial markets is quite similar to last year’s, … : Monetary policy is still accommodative; lenders are ready, willing and able; and the expansion remains intact. ... because the Fed and other central banks have reset the monetary policy clock, … : At this time last year, we projected that the Fed would be on the cusp of tightening monetary policy enough to induce a recession by the middle of 2020. Three rate cuts later, we now expect that policy won’t become restrictive until 2021. … pushing the inflection points investors care about further out into the future: The next recession won’t begin before monetary policy settings are tight, and stocks won’t peak until about six months before the recession starts. We are keeping close tabs on the trade negotiations and potential election outcomes, but we expect that 2020 will be another rewarding year for riskier assets: The equity bull market is likely to last for all of next year, and spread product will keep cranking out excess returns over Treasuries and cash for a while longer, too. Overweight equities and spread product. Feature Mr. and Ms. X made their annual visit to BCA last month, giving us an opportunity to gather our thoughts for 2020, while reviewing how our calls turned out in 2019. Both BCA and US Investment Strategy got the asset allocation conclusion right – overweight equities and spread product, while underweighting Treasuries – but the Fed did the opposite of what we expected heading into 2019, putting us on the wrong side of the Treasury duration call for most of the year. We still think investors are overly complacent about the potential for future inflation, but we concede that the future remains further off than we initially expected. Monetary policy settings got more accommodative nearly everywhere in the world in 2019, ... Our Outlook 2020 theme, as detailed in the year-end edition of The Bank Credit Analyst, is Heading into the End Game,1 and it is clear that the expansion is in its latter stages. We do not think that the end of the expansion, the equity bull market, or credit’s extended stretch of positive excess returns is at hand, however. The full-employment/low-inflation sweet spot is still in place, and the Fed has no plans to get in the expansion’s way, even if inflation begins to gain some traction. Its biggest policy priority is trying to get inflation expectations back to the 2.3 – 2.5% range consistent with its inflation target. Chart 1Globalization Hits A Wall Central banks around the world followed the Fed’s lead this year, cutting their policy rates in an attempt to shield their economies from potentially worsening trade tensions. Though no central banker would say it out loud, joining the rate-cutting parade also helped to defend against currency appreciation, as no one wants a strong currency when growth is in such short supply. The upshot is that global central banks are deliberately promoting reflation. That’s a supportive policy backdrop for risk assets, and while it may well lead to a bigger hangover down the road, it will ramp up the party now. Exogenous challenges remain. Trade tensions are a thorn in businesses’, consumers’ and investors’ sides. Even if US-China tensions die down, a belligerent US administration appears bent on using tariffs and other trade barriers as a cudgel to force concessions from other nations. The trade tailwind that boosted economic growth and investment returns across the last two decades has been stilled (Chart 1). Saber rattling by the US, or mischief from the usual rogue-state and non-state suspects, could also keep markets on edge. The looming election could give investors heartburn, and clients around the world remain anxious about the prospects of a Warren administration. Exogenous risks abound, but it is not our base case that a critical mass will coalesce to disrupt our view that generous-to-indulgent monetary policy settings will delay the day of reckoning, and keep the bull market going all the way through the coming year. As The Cycles Turn From our perspective, the practice of investment strategy is properly founded on the study of cycles. The key cycles – the business cycle, the credit cycle, and the monetary policy cycle – determine how receptive the macroeconomic backdrop is for taking investment risk. Investments made when the backdrop supports risk taking have a much better likelihood of generating excess returns over Treasuries and cash than investments made against an unfriendly macro backdrop. We therefore start every investment decision with an assessment of the key cycles. Determining whether the economy is expanding or contracting may seem like an academic debate with little practical application when the official business cycle arbiters don’t even determine the beginning and ending dates of recessions until well after the fact.2 Equity bear markets reliably coincide with recessions, however, and over the last 50 years, they have begun an average of six months before their onset (Chart 2). An investor who recognizes that a recession is at hand has a good chance of outperforming his/her competitors as long as s/he aggressively adjusts portfolio allocations in line with that recognition. Chart 2Bear Markets Rarely Occur Outside Of Recessions, ... Our key view, then, is that the start of the next recession is at least 18 to 24 months away. Tight monetary policy is a necessary, albeit not sufficient, condition for a recession (Chart 3), and we consider the Fed’s current monetary policy settings to be easy, especially after this year’s three rate cuts. A recession can’t begin until the Fed reverses those three cuts and, per our estimate of the equilibrium rate, tacks on at least three additional hikes. Tightening along those lines is decidedly not on the Fed’s 2020 agenda. Chart 3... And Recessions Only Occur When Monetary Conditions Are Tight Our recession judgment compels us to be overweight equities. Even if the next recession begins exactly halfway through 2021, history suggests that 2020 returns will be robust. Over the last 50 years, the S&P 500 has peaked an average of six months before the start of a recession, and returns heading into the peak have been quite strong, especially in the last four expansions (Table 1). Those results are consistent with bull markets’ tendency to sprint to the finish line (Chart 4). Table 1Stocks Don't Quit Until A Recession Is Near Chart 4Bull Markets End In Stampedes The Fed Funds Rate Cycle We estimate that the equilibrium fed funds rate is currently around 3¼%, and project it will approach 3½% by the end of next year. If we are correct that the Fed’s main policy aim is to prod inflation expectations higher, it follows that it will remain on hold at 1.75% well into 2020. A desire to avoid even the appearance of meddling in the election may well keep the FOMC sidelined until its November and December meetings. The implication is that monetary policy will have no chance to cross into restrictive territory before the first half of 2021. The bottom line for investors is that the day when the economy and markets will have to confront tight monetary conditions has been indefinitely postponed. The Fed has effectively deferred the inflections in the business cycle and the equity market to some point beyond 2020. A longer stretch of accommodation would also continue to fuel the equity bull market, as Phases I and IV of the fed funds rate cycle, in which the fed funds rate is below our estimate of equilibrium (Chart 5), have been equities’ historical sweet spot. Over the last 60 years, the S&P 500 has accrued all of its real returns when policy was easy (Table 2), while Treasuries have shined when it’s tight (Table 3). Chart 5The Fed Funds Rate Cycle Table 2Equities Love Easy Policy, … Table 3… When They Leave Treasuries Far Behind The Credit Cycle Our 30,000-foot view of the credit cycle is based on the banking mantra that bad loans are made in good times. When an expansion has been going on for a while, loan officers focus more on maintaining market share than lending standards, while managers of credit funds attract more assets, pushing them to find a home for their new inflows. Banks and bond managers are thereby pro-cyclical at the margin, keeping the good times going by lending to increasingly marginal borrowers and/or relaxing the terms on which they will lend. (They’re conversely stingy when real-time conditions are bad.) Lenders’ lagging/coincident focus keeps lending standards and borrower performance closely aligned in real time (Chart 6). Chart 6Standards Are Coincident In Real Time, ... Standards are a contrarian indicator over longer periods, though, because shoddily underwritten loans eventually show their true colors. We find a solid fit between corporate bond default rates and lending standards in the preceding 20 quarters (Chart 7). Lending standards tightened slightly in 2015, but were still quite easy in an absolute sense. A majority of banks tightened standards in 2016 amidst the oil rout, which could point to marginally better 2020-21 performance, but post-2010 standards have hardly been stringent. Chart 7... And Leading Over Five-Year Periods The stock of outstanding loans and bonds is therefore vulnerable. The relaxation of corporate bond covenants so soon after the financial crisis has not escaped the notice of bearish investors and reporters. It is not enough for an investor to identify a vulnerability, however; s/he also has to identify the catalyst that is going to cause a rupture. The challenge is that ultra-accommodative monetary policy delays the formation of negative catalysts. To the utter torment of an observer with an attraction to the Austrian School of Economics’ survival-of-the-fittest ethic, it is not at all easy to default in a ZIRP/NIRP world. The stock of $12 trillion of bonds with negative nominal yields (down from August’s $17 trillion peak) has ginned up a fervent search for yield among large institutional investor constituencies that have to meet a fixed distribution schedule, like life insurers and pension funds. These income-starved investors help explain why nearly any borrower, no matter how sketchy, can draw a crowd of would-be lenders simply by offering an incremental 50 or 75 basis points of yield. Borrowers default when no one is willing to roll over their maturing obligations; they get even more leveraged when lenders are climbing over each other to lend to them. It is also hard to default when central banks are deliberately pursuing reflation. Inflation makes debt service easier, and central banks are all-in for reflation as a means to bolster inflation expectations, defend against further trade tensions, and to ensure currency strength doesn’t undermine exports. The credit cycle is well advanced, and the Austrians may be at least partially vindicated when the ensuing selloff is worse than it would otherwise have been for having been delayed, but it looks to us like it has more room to run. The rapture remains out of reach for Austrian School devotees, who slot between Tantalus and New York Knicks fans on the cosmic persecution scale. Bonds We remain bearish on Treasuries and reiterate our below-benchmark duration recommendation, though we recognize that the 10-year Treasury yield is unlikely to rise beyond the 2.25-2.5% range in the next year. There’s only one more rate cut to price out of the OIS curve, and neither inflation expectations nor the term premium will return to normal levels quickly. The intermediate- and long-term outlook for the Federal budget is grim, given the size of the deficit while unemployment is at a 50-year low (Chart 8), but Dick Cheney will maintain the upper hand over deficit hawks for 2020 and several years beyond. We do think investors are complacent about inflation’s eventual return, though, and continue to advocate for TIPS over nominal Treasuries. It is tough to default in a ZIRP/NIRP world, when several institutional investor constituencies have a voracious appetite for yield. Chart 8The Budget Outlook Is Grim Chart 9IG Spreads Are Wafer Thin Our benign near-term view of the credit cycle makes us comfortable continuing to overweight spread product, subject to our US Bond Strategy colleagues’ preferences. They are only neutral on investment-grade corporates, given their scant duration-adjusted spread over Treasuries (Chart 9). They recommend overweighting high-yield corporate bonds instead, given that high-yield spreads still offer ample positive carry. They also recommend agency mortgage-backed securities as a high-quality alternative to investment-grade corporates, noting that their low duration (three years versus nearly eight for corporates) offers better protection against rising rates. Equities With monetary policy still accommodative, and the expansion still intact, the cyclical backdrop is equity-friendly. If we’re correct that policy won’t turn restrictive until early to mid-2021 at the earliest, the bull market should be able to continue through all of 2020. We do not foresee a return to double-digit earnings growth, but the upward turn in leading indicators across a wide swath of countries outside of the US suggests that a revival in the rest of the world could help S&P 500 constituents grow earnings by mid-single digits, via a pickup in non-US demand and some softening in the dollar. Net share retirements could even nudge earnings growth into the high single digits. If earnings multiples hold up (they’ve expanded at a 5.5% annual rate in Phase IV of the fed funds rate cycle, and don’t typically contract until Phase II), S&P 500 total returns could reach the high single digits, easily putting them ahead of prospective Treasury returns. Multiple expansion isn’t required to support an overweight equities recommendation, but we would not be at all surprised if it occurred. Bull markets often get silly as they sprint to the finish line, and it would be unusual if some froth didn’t bubble up before this bull market, the longest of the postwar era, calls it quits. The Dollar We expect the dollar to weaken against other major currencies in 2020. As the rest of the world finds its footing and begins to accelerate, the growth differential between the US and other major economies will narrow. The dollar will attract less safe-haven flows as the rest of the world’s major economies escape stall speed. Though we expect the countercyclical dollar will rally again when the next recession hits, weakening in 2020 is consistent with our constructive global growth view. Putting It All Together We are sanguine about the US economy, which continued to trundle along at a trend pace in 2019 despite a series of headwinds. It withstood 4Q18’s sharp equity selloff and bond-spread blowout that tightened financial conditions and made corporate and investor confidence wobble. It withstood the 35-day federal government shutdown that lasted nearly all of January. It kept marching forward despite the trade war with China, and it overcame, at least for now, the angst over the inverted yield curve. If the economy continued to expand at roughly its trend pace despite those obstacles, it may not really have needed 25-basis-point rate cuts in July, September and October. The thread connecting our macro views and investment recommendations is the idea that monetary policy settings are highly accommodative and are likely to stay that way until the 2020 election. We expect that risk assets will outperform against an accommodating monetary backdrop. The naysayers are as likely to be confounded by central banks in 2020 as they have been throughout the entire ZIRP/NIRP era. The scolds scouring the data to try to find signs of excesses, and the Chicken Littles who have been frightened by clickbait headlines and strategists deliberately pursuing pessimistic outlier strategies, get one thing right. The market selloffs when the equity and credit bull markets end will be worse than they would have been if the Fed and other central banks were not deliberately attempting to reflate their economies. But their timing is likely to be as bad now as it has been all throughout 2019 (and for the entire post-crisis period for card-carrying, sandwich-board-wearing Austrians). You can’t fight the Fed, much less the ECB, the Bank of Japan, the Bank of England, the Swiss National Bank, the Reserve Banks of Australia and New Zealand, and a broad swath of all of the rest of the world’s central banks.   Doug Peta, CFA Chief US Investment Strategist dougp@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see the December 2019 Bank Credit Analyst, “Outlook 2020: Heading Into The End Game,” available at www.bcaresearch.com. 2 The NBER’s Business Cycle Dating Committee announced in December 2008 that the last recession began in December 2007. It announced in September 2010 that it had ended in June 2009.

Highlights Chart 1Manufacturing PMIs Track Bond Yields November’s manufacturing PMI data were released yesterday, giving us an update for two of our preferred global growth indicators: the Global Manufacturing PMI and the US ISM Manufacturing PMI (Chart 1). Unfortunately, the two indicators sent conflicting signals, providing us with very little clarity on the global growth outlook. On the positive side, the Global Manufacturing PMI jumped back above 50 for the first time since April. China is the largest weighting in the global index, and its PMI rose for the fifth consecutive month. Conversely, the US ISM Manufacturing PMI dipped further into contractionary territory in November – from 48.3 to 48.1. Optimistically, the index’s inventory component contracted by more than the new orders component, meaning that the difference between new orders and inventories rose to its highest level since May. The difference between new orders and inventories often leads the overall ISM index by several months. All in all, we continue to see tentative signs of stabilization in our preferred global growth indicators. But a more significant rebound will be necessary to push bond yields higher in the first half of next year, as we expect. Stay tuned. Investment Grade: Neutral Chart 2Investment Grade Market Overview Investment grade corporate bonds outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 63 basis points in November, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +494 bps. We consider three main factors in our credit cycle analysis: (i) corporate balance sheet health, (ii) monetary conditions and (iii) valuation.1 On balance sheets, our top-down measure of gross leverage is high and rising (Chart 2). In contrast, interest coverage ratios remain solid, propped up by the Fed’s accommodative stance. With inflation expectations still depressed, the Fed can maintain its “easy money” policy for some time yet. The third quarter’s tightening of C&I lending standards is a concern, because it suggests that monetary conditions may not be sufficiently stimulative for banks to keep the credit taps running (bottom panel). But the yield curve, another indicator of monetary conditions, has steepened significantly since Q3, suggesting that lending standards will soon move back into “net easing” territory. For now, we see valuation as the main headwind for investment grade credit spreads. Spreads for all credit tiers are below our targets, with the Baa tier looking less expensive than the others (panels 2 & 3).2 As a result, we advise only a neutral allocation to investment grade corporate bonds, with a preference for the Baa credit tier. We also recommend increasing exposure to Agency MBS in place of corporate bonds rated A or higher (see page 7). Table 3ACorporate Sector Relative Valuation And Recommended Allocation* Table 3BCorporate Sector Risk Vs. Reward* High-Yield Overweight Chart 3High-Yield Market Overview High-Yield outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 47 basis points in November, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +671 bps. The index option-adjusted spread tightened 22 bps on the month and currently sits at 370 bps, 131 bps above our target (Chart 3). Ba and B rated junk bonds outperformed the Treasury benchmark by 79 bps and 76 bps, respectively, in November. But Caa-rated credit underperformed Treasuries by 89 bps. This continues the trend of Caa underperformance that has been in place since late last year (panel 3). We analyzed the divergence between Caa and the rest of the junk bond universe in last week’s report and came to two conclusions.3 First, the historical data show that 12-month periods of overall junk bond outperformance are more likely to be followed by underperformance if Caa is the worst performing credit tier. Second, we can identify several reasons for this year’s Caa underperformance that make us inclined to downplay any potential negative signal. Specifically, we note that the Caa credit tier’s exposure to the shale oil sector is responsible for the bulk of this year’s underperformance (bottom panel). With elevated spreads, accommodative monetary conditions and a looming recovery in global economic growth, we expect junk spreads to tighten during the next 6-12 months.    MBS: Overweight Chart 4MBS Market Overview Mortgage-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 19 basis points in November, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +22 bps. The conventional 30-year zero-volatility spread tightened 3 bps on the month, as a 5 bps tightening of the option-adjusted spread (OAS) was offset by a 2 bps increase in expected prepayment losses (aka option cost). We recommend an overweight allocation to Agency MBS, particularly relative to corporate bonds rated A or higher, for three reasons.4 First, expected compensation is competitive. The conventional 30-year MBS OAS is now 50 bps (Chart 4). This is very close to its pre-crisis average and only 3 bps below the spread offered by Aa-rated corporate bonds (panel 4). Also, spreads for all investment grade corporate bond credit tiers trade below our targets. Second, risk-adjusted compensation heavily favors MBS. The Excess Return Bond Map in Appendix C shows that Agency MBS plot well to the right of investment grade corporates. This means that the sector is less likely to see losses versus Treasuries on a 12-month horizon. Finally, the macro environment for MBS remains supportive. Mortgage lending standards have barely eased since the financial crisis (bottom panel), and most homeowners have already had at least one opportunity to refinance their mortgages. This burnout will keep refi activity low, and MBS spreads tight (panel 2). Government-Related: Underweight Chart 5Government-Related Market Overview The Government-Related index outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 14 basis points in November, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +197 bps. Sovereign debt outperformed duration-equivalent Treasuries by 36 bps on the month, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +513 bps. Local Authorities outperformed the Treasury benchmark by 24 bps, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +245 bps. Meanwhile, Foreign Agencies outperformed by 4 bps, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +266 bps. Domestic Agencies outperformed by 11 bps in November, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +51 bps. Supranationals outperformed by 5 bps on the month, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +36 bps. We continue to recommend an underweight allocation to USD-denominated sovereign bonds, given that spreads remain expensive compared to US corporate credit (Chart 5). However, we noted in a recent report that Mexican and Saudi Arabian sovereigns look attractive on a risk/reward basis.5 This is also true for Foreign Agencies and Local Authorities, as shown in the Bond Map in Appendix C. Our Emerging Markets Strategy service also thinks that worries about Mexico’s fiscal position are overblown, and that bond yields embed too high of a risk premium (bottom panel).6 Municipal Bonds: Overweight Chart 6Municipal Market Overview Municipal bonds outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 70 basis points in November, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +6bps (before adjusting for the tax advantage). The average Aaa-rated Municipal / Treasury (M/T) yield ratio fell 4% in November, and currently sits at 83% (Chart 6). We upgraded municipal bonds in early October, as yield ratios had become significantly more attractive, especially at the long-end of the Aaa curve (panel 2).7 Specifically, 2-year and 5-year M/T yield ratios are somewhat below average pre-crisis levels at 68% and 72%, respectively. However, M/T yield ratios for longer maturities (10 years and higher) are all above average pre-crisis levels. M/T yield ratios for 10-year, 20-year and 30-year maturities are 84%, 93% and 97%, respectively. Fundamentally, state & local government balance sheets remain solid. Our Municipal Health Monitor remains in “improving health” territory and state & local government interest coverage has improved considerably in recent quarters (bottom panel). Both of these trends are consistent with muni ratings upgrades continuing to outnumber downgrades going forward. Treasury Curve: Maintain A Barbell Curve Positioning Chart 7Treasury Yield Curve Overview The Treasury curve shifted higher in November, steepening out to the 7-year maturity and flattening beyond that. The 2/10 Treasury slope was unchanged on the month. It currently sits at 17 bps. The 5/30 slope flattened 7 bps to end the month at 59 bps (Chart 7). In a recent report we discussed the 6-12 month outlook for the 2/10 Treasury slope.8 We considered the main macro factors that influence the slope of the yield curve: Fed policy, wage growth, inflation expectations and the neutral fed funds rate. We concluded that the 2/10 slope has room to steepen during the next few months, as the Fed holds down the front-end of the curve in an effort to re-anchor inflation expectations. However, we see the 2/10 slope remaining in a range between 0 bps and 50 bps, owing to strong wage growth and downbeat neutral rate expectations. Despite the outlook for modest curve steepening, we continue to recommend holding a barbelled Treasury portfolio. Specifically, we favor holding a 2/30 barbell versus the 5-year bullet, in duration-matched terms. This position offers strong positive carry (bottom panel), due to the extreme overvaluation of the 5-year note, and looks attractive on our yield curve models (see Appendix B). TIPS: Overweight   Chart 8TIPS Market Overview TIPS outperformed the duration-equivalent nominal Treasury index by 47 basis points in November, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to -70 bps.The 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate rose 8 bps on the month and currently sits at 1.62%. The 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rate rose 9 bps on the month and currently sits at 1.73%. Both rates remain well below the 2.3%-2.5% range consistent with the Fed’s target. The divergence between the actual inflation data and inflation expectations remains stark. Trimmed mean PCE inflation has been fluctuating around the Fed’s target for most of the year (Chart 8). However, long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates remain stubbornly low. As we have pointed out in prior research, it can take time for expectations to adapt to a changing macro environment.9 That being said, the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate is currently 29 bps too low according to our Adaptive Expectations Model, a model whose primary input is 10-year trailing core inflation (panel 4). It is highly likely that the Fed will have to tolerate some overshoot of its 2% inflation target in order to re-anchor inflation expectations near desired levels. We anticipate that the committee will do so, and maintain our view that long-dated TIPS breakevens will move above 2.3% before the end of the cycle. ABS: Underweight Asset-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 7 basis points in November, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +74 bps. Chart 9ABS Market Overview The index option-adjusted spread for Aaa-rated ABS widened 2 bps on the month. It currently sits at 34 bps; its minimum pre-crisis level (Chart 9). Our Excess Return Bond Map (see Appendix C) shows that Aaa-rated consumer ABS rank among the most defensive US spread products and also offer more expected return than other low-risk sectors such as Domestic Agency bonds and Supranationals. However, we remain wary of allocating too much to consumer ABS because credit trends continue to shift in the wrong direction. The consumer credit delinquency rate is still low, but has put in a clear bottom. The is true for the household interest expense ratio (panel 3). Senior Loan Officers also continue to tighten lending standards for both credit cards and auto loans. Tighter lending standards usually coincide with rising delinquencies (bottom panel). All in all, our favorable outlook for global growth causes us to shy away from defensive spread products, and deteriorating ABS credit metrics are also a cause for concern. Stay underweight. Non-Agency CMBS: Neutral Chart 10CMBS Market Overview Non-Agency Commercial Mortgage-Backed Securities underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 12 basis points in November, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to +221 bps. The index option-adjusted spread for non-agency Aaa-rated CMBS widened 1 bp on the month. It currently sits at 72 bps, below its average pre-crisis level but somewhat above levels seen in 2018 (Chart 10). The macro outlook for commercial real estate (CRE) is somewhat unfavorable, with lenders tightening loan standards (panel 4) in an environment of tepid demand. The Fed’s Senior Loan Officer Survey shows that banks saw slightly stronger demand for nonfarm nonresidential CRE loans in Q3, after four consecutive quarters of falling demand (bottom panel). CRE prices are still not keeping pace with CMBS spreads (panel 3). Despite the poor fundamental picture, our Excess Return Bond Map shows that CMBS offer a reasonably attractive risk/reward trade-off compared to other bond sectors (see Appendix C). Agency CMBS: Overweight Agency CMBS outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 7 basis points in November, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +107 bps. The index option-adjusted spread tightened 2 bps on the month, and currently sits at 54 bps. The Excess Return Bond Map in Appendix C shows that Agency CMBS offer a compelling risk/reward trade-off. An overweight allocation to this high-rated sector remains appropriate. Appendix A: The Golden Rule Of Bond Investing We follow a two-step process to formulate recommendations for bond portfolio duration. First, we determine the change in the federal funds rate that is priced into the yield curve for the next 12 months. Second, we decide – based on our assessments of the economy and Fed policy – whether the change in the fed funds rate will exceed or fall short of what is priced into the curve. Most of the time, a correct answer to this question leads to the appropriate duration call. We call this framework the Golden Rule Of Bond Investing, and we demonstrated its effectiveness in the US Bond Strategy Special Report, “The Golden Rule Of Bond Investing”, dated July 24, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com. Chart 11 illustrates the Golden Rule’s track record by showing that the Bloomberg Barclays Treasury Master Index tends to outperform cash when rate hikes fall short of 12-month expectations, and vice-versa. Chart 11The Golden Rule's Track Record At present, the market is priced for 26 basis points of cuts during the next 12 months. We anticipate a flat fed funds rate over that time horizon, and therefore anticipate that below-benchmark portfolio duration positions will profit. We can also use our Golden Rule framework to make 12-month total return and excess return forecasts for the Bloomberg Barclays Treasury index under different scenarios for the fed funds rate. Excess returns are relative to the Bloomberg Barclays Cash index.   To forecast total returns we first calculate the 12-month fed funds rate surprise in each scenario by comparing the assumed change in the fed funds rate to the current value of our 12-month discounter. This rate hike surprise is then mapped to an expected change in the Treasury index yield using a regression based on the historical relationship between those two variables. Finally, we apply the expected change in index yield to the current characteristics (yield, duration and convexity) of the Treasury index to estimate total returns on a 12-month horizon. The below tables present those results, along with 95% confidence intervals. Excess returns are calculated by subtracting assumed cash returns in each scenario from our total return projections. Appendix B: Butterfly Strategy Valuations The following tables present the current read-outs from our butterfly spread models. We use these models to identify opportunities to take duration-neutral positions across the Treasury curve. The following two Special Reports explain the models in more detail: US Bond Strategy Special Report, “Bullets, Barbells And Butterflies”, dated July 25, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com US Bond Strategy Special Report, “More Bullets, Barbells And Butterflies”, dated May 15, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Table 4 shows the raw residuals from each model. A positive value indicates that the bullet is cheap relative to the duration-matched barbell. A negative value indicates that the barbell is cheap relative to the bullet. Table 4Butterfly Strategy Valuation: Raw Residuals In Basis Points (As Of November 29 2019) Table 5 scales the raw residuals in Table 4 by their historical means and standard deviations. This facilitates comparison between the different butterfly spreads. Table 5Butterfly Strategy Valuation: Standardized Residuals (As Of November 29, 2019) Table 6 flips the models on their heads. It shows the change in the slope between the two barbell maturities that must be realized during the next six months to make returns between the bullet and barbell equal. For example, a reading of 45 bps in the 5 over 2/10 cell means that we would only expect the 5-year to outperform the 2/10 if the 2/10 slope steepens by more than 45 bps during the next six months. Otherwise, we would expect the 2/10 barbell to outperform the 5-year bullet. Table 6Discounted Slope Change During Next 6 Months (BPs) Appendix C: Excess Return Bond Map The Excess Return Bond Map is used to assess the relative risk/reward trade-off between different sectors of the US bond market. It is a purely computational exercise and does not impose any macroeconomic view. The Map’s vertical axis shows 12-month expected excess returns. These are proxied by each sector’s option-adjusted spread. Sectors plotting further toward the top of the Map have higher expected returns and vice-versa. Our novel risk measure called the “Risk Of Losing 100 bps” is shown on the Map’s horizontal axis. To calculate it, we first compute the spread widening required on a 12-month horizon for each sector to lose 100 bps or more relative to a duration-matched position in Treasury securities. Then, we divide that amount of spread widening by each sector’s historical spread volatility. The end result is the number of standard deviations of 12-month spread widening required for each sector to lose 100 bps or more versus a position in Treasuries. Lower risk sectors plot further to the right of the Map, and higher risk sectors plot further to the left. Chart 12Excess Return Bond Map (As Of November 29, 2019) Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1  Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Corporate Bond Investors Should Not Fight The Fed”, dated September 17, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2   For details on how we arrive at our spread targets please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Value In Corporate Bonds”, dated February 19, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 3  Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Caa-Rated Bonds: Warning Sign Or Buying Opportunity?”, dated November 26, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 4  Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Two Themes And Two Trades”, dated October 1, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 5  Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “A Perspective On Risk And Reward”, dated October 15, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 6  Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report, “Country Insights: Malaysia, Mexico & Central Europe”, dated October 31, 2019, available at ems.bcaresearch.com 7  Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Two Themes And Two Trades”, dated October 1, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 8  Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Position For Modest Curve Steepening”, dated October 29, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 9  Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Adaptive Expectations In The TIPS Market”, dated November 20, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com   Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification Corporate Sector Relative Valuation And Recommended Allocation

Highlights Duration: The bond market’s bearish trend remains intact, but suffered a hiccup last week as some economic data disappointed. Our sense is that the worst of the global growth slowdown is over, but a rebound in our preferred global growth indicators – Global Manufacturing PMI, US ISM Manufacturing PMI and CRB Raw Industrials index – is necessary to push bond yields higher. We expect that such a rebound will transpire in the coming months. The Credit Cycle & Inflation: Low inflation expectations will keep monetary policy accommodative for the next 6-12 months. This justifies a positive outlook for spread product excess returns. Eventually, inflation will return and force the Fed to adopt a more restrictive stance. This will lead to the end of the credit cycle. We will get more defensive on spread product when long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates move above 2.3%. Municipal Bonds: The main issues facing municipal bonds are long-run in nature, mostly related to underfunded state & local government pensions. These concerns are propping up yield ratios at the long-end of the muni curve, but aren’t likely to cause a wave of ratings downgrades until revenue growth slows during the next downturn. For the time being, investors can grab an attractive after-tax yield premium in long-maturity munis. Hiccups Judging by the bond market, recession fears appear to have peaked in late August. Since then, the Treasury index has lost 2.1% versus a position in cash and the 2/10 yield curve is 23 bps steeper (Chart 1). Curve steepening has also occurred via the real yield curve, while the breakeven inflation curve is moderately flatter, consistent with our expectations.1 However, this bearish bond market trend suffered a set-back last week. The 10-year yield fell 10 bps, back down to 1.84%, and the 2-year yield fell 7 bps to 1.61%. The move was driven by an increase in skepticism about the US and China’s “phase 1” trade deal and some mixed economic data. Both industrial production growth and capacity utilization remain well above their 2016 lows, consistent with stronger PMIs.  October’s Industrial Production report was the worst of last week’s data releases. Production declined 0.8% on the month and capacity utilization fell from 77.5% to 76.7% (Chart 2). The data were significantly influenced by the General Motors strike, but the index still fell 0.5% with motor vehicles and parts stripped out. In our prior discussions of the divergence between “hard” and “soft” economic data, we pointed to relatively strong industrial production as a reason to expect a snapback in depressed manufacturing PMIs.2 This month’s weak print challenges that view, though both industrial production growth and capacity utilization remain well above their 2016 lows, consistent with stronger PMIs. The New York Fed’s Manufacturing PMI also came in roughly flat last week, and continues to point to a rebound in the national index (Chart 2, bottom panel). Chart 1Bumps On The Road ##br##To Higher Yields Chart 2Disappointing Data, But Well ##br##Above 2016 Lows October’s retail sales were also released last week, and we continue to observe a wide divergence between strong consumer spending growth and falling consumer confidence (Chart 3). As with the divergence between industrial production and the manufacturing PMI, we suspect that negative sentiment about the US/China trade war has unduly depressed consumer and business sentiment. Sentiment should rebound if trade tensions ease in the coming months, as we expect. Finally, we note that the CRB Raw Industrials index remains downbeat (Chart 4). We should continue to view the recent increase in bond yields as tenuous until it is confirmed by a rebound in this global growth bellwether. Chart 3Retail Sales Still Strong Chart 4Waiting On The CRB Index To Rebound Bottom Line: The bond market’s bearish trend remains intact, but suffered a hiccup last week as some economic data disappointed. Our sense is that the worst of the global growth slowdown is over, but a rebound in our preferred global growth indicators – Global Manufacturing PMI, US ISM Manufacturing PMI and CRB Raw Industrials index – is necessary to push bond yields higher. We expect that such a rebound will transpire in the coming months.   Inflation Will End The Cycle … But Not Anytime Soon As global growth improves during the next few months and recession fears fade into the background, discussion will once again turn toward questions about how much longer the credit cycle can run, and what will ultimately bring it to an end. On the first question, we find the slope of the yield curve to be an excellent indicator of the age of the cycle. Specifically, we like to split each cycle into three phases based on the slope of the 3-year/10-year yield curve: 3 Phase 1 starts at the end of the last recession and ends when the 3/10 slope flattens to below 50 bps. Phase 2 encompasses the period when the slope is between 0 bps and 50 bps. Phase 3 begins when the 3/10 slope inverts and ends at the start of the next recession. We expect Phase 2 to persist for some time given that inflation expectations remain downbeat. Table 1 shows that corporate bond excess returns are highest in Phase 1, when the yield curve is steep and spreads are tightening quickly. Excess returns tend to remain positive in Phase 2, but are much lower. Excess returns don’t usually turn negative until after the yield curve inverts and we enter Phase 3. Table 1Corporate Bond Performance During The Three Phases Of The Yield Curve Cycle Though some segments of the yield curve inverted in August, we do not think that the cycle has transitioned into Phase 3. The inversion was quite brief, and the measure we employ in our analysis – the monthly average of daily closing values of the 3-year/10-year slope – never broke below zero. The 3-year/10-year slope is currently +23 bps. We expect the current Phase 2 environment to persist for some time, and consequently, corporate bonds will deliver small positive excess returns relative to Treasuries. The reason why we expect Phase 2 to persist for some time is that inflation expectations remain downbeat (Chart 5). Both the 10-year and 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rates are well below the 2.3%-2.5% range that is consistent with the Fed’s target. This means that the Fed has every incentive to maintain an accommodative monetary policy until inflation expectations are re-anchored. An accommodative policy stance will prevent the yield curve from inverting for any sustained period of time. Chart 5The Re-Anchoring Process Will Take Time The upshot is that a re-anchoring of TIPS breakeven inflation rates will be an important signal for us to get more defensive on corporate credit. When the 10-year and 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rates move above 2.3%, the Fed will have less incentive to maintain an accommodative stance. The pace of tightening will likely quicken, leading to a sustained curve inversion and a transition into Phase 3 of the cycle. How Long Until Inflation Expectations Are Re-Anchored? Given our framework for thinking about the age of the cycle, the big question for our corporate credit call is: How long until inflation expectations are re-anchored? We have previously demonstrated that inflation expectations adapt to changes in the actual inflation data, and that this adaptive process occurs very slowly.4 Note that our Adaptive Expectations Model puts fair value for the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate at 1.9%. This is above the current rate of 1.63%, but still well below our 2.3%-2.5% target range (Chart 5, bottom panel). The gradual nature of the adaptive process means that actual core inflation will probably have to overshoot the Fed’s 2% target for a period of time before long-dated expectations are firmly re-anchored. With that in mind, we are still a long way away from inflation posing a problem for the credit cycle. Core CPI and core PCE inflation are running at year-over-year rates of 2.3% and 1.7%, respectively, both slightly below levels consistent with the Fed’s target (Chart 6).5 Trimmed mean measures are slightly higher and less volatile. They currently suggest that core inflation will remain in a slow and steady uptrend going forward. Any durable increase in core inflation will likely occur via the Core Services (ex. shelter and medical care) component.  Looking at the main components of core inflation, we see some reason to expect consumer price acceleration to cool in the coming months. Recent inflation gains have come mostly via the Core Goods component (Chart 7). This component tracks non-oil import prices with a long lag, and import prices have already rolled over. Meanwhile, shelter is the largest component of core inflation and we expect it will remain well supported in the coming months. The National Multifamily Housing Council’s Apartment Market Tightness Index has been in “net tightening” territory for two consecutive quarters (Chart 7, bottom panel). An above-50% reading from this index tends to coincide with rising shelter inflation. Chart 6Expect Core Inflation To Rise Slowly Chart 7A Closer Look At The Core CPI Components Ultimately, any durable increase in core inflation will likely occur via the Core Services (ex. shelter and medical care) component. This component has been relatively stable during the past few months (Chart 7, panel 3). Another interesting dynamic to monitor when assessing how long it will take for inflation to return is the labor share of national income. Chart 8 shows that the wage acceleration seen during the past few years has come mostly at the expense of corporate profit margins, and has not yet been significantly passed through to higher consumer prices. This is typical late-cycle behavior, and at some point firms will need to start raising prices in order to protect margins. Chart 8Where Will The Labor Share Peak? If we use the past few cycles as a guide, we see that the labor share of income peaked at above 70%. If this is an accurate road-map for the current cycle, then it means that firms can stomach quite a bit more margin compression, and it could be a long time before inflation pressures emerge. However, some recent research suggests that the labor share of income might peak at a lower level this cycle than in the past.6  This research documents that many industries are increasingly dominated by a small number of “superstar firms”. These firms have greater pricing power and might be able to sustain higher profit margins indefinitely. This would mean that inflationary pressures could re-emerge at a lower labor share of national income than in previous cycles. Bottom Line: Low inflation expectations will keep monetary policy accommodative for the next 6-12 months. This justifies a positive outlook for spread product excess returns. Eventually, inflation will return and force the Fed to adopt a more restrictive stance. This will lead to the end of the credit cycle. We will get more defensive on spread product when long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates move above 2.3%. Strong Revenue Growth Supports Munis We continue to recommend an overweight allocation to municipal bonds due to attractive yield ratios, particularly for long maturities, and steady state & local government revenue growth. Chart 9 shows that Aaa Municipal / Treasury yield ratios were quite low earlier this year, but have increased significantly during the past few months. Yield ratios are above average pre-crisis levels for maturities of 10-years and greater. Against that back-drop of attractive valuations, credit quality trends are also supportive. Municipal bond ratings upgrades are outpacing downgrades (Chart 10), and history suggests that will continue until state & local government revenue growth slows. On that front, the three main sources of state & local government revenue are all growing at strong rates, a trend that should continue as long as the economic recovery is maintained. Municipal bond ratings upgrades are outpacing downgrades, and history suggests that will continue until state & local government revenue growth slows.  Of course, many state & local governments face long-run credit constraints, mostly related to underfunded pension obligations. This is almost certainly the reason why yield ratios for long-maturity bonds are so attractive. Crucially, these long-run issues will not be exposed until revenue growth slows during the next economic downturn, and investors have an opportunity to capture the attractive yield premium in the meantime. Chart 9Great Value At The Long End Chart 10Revenue Growth Will Remain Strong State governments have also made progress shoring up their balance sheets during the past few years. The National Association of State Budget Officers calculates that the overall state & local government total balance has returned back to 2006 levels, while rainy day funds have been built up considerably (Chart 11). Chart 11States Are Growing Rainy Day Funds Bottom Line: The main issues facing municipal bonds are long-run in nature, mostly related to underfunded state & local government pensions. These concerns are propping up yield ratios at the long-end of the muni curve, but aren’t likely to cause a wave of ratings downgrades until revenue growth slows during the next downturn. For the time being, investors can grab an attractive after-tax yield premium in long-maturity munis.   Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Position For Modest Curve Steepening”, dated October 29, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Crisis Of Confidence”, dated October 22, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 3 For more details on our analysis of the phases of the cycle based on the slope of the yield curve please see US Bond Strategy Special Report, “2019 Key Views: Implications For US Fixed Income”, dated December 11, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Adaptive Expectations In The TIPS Market”, dated November 20, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 5 The Fed targets 2% PCE inflation, which is historically consistent with CPI inflation between 2.4% and 2.5%. 6 https://economics.mit.edu/files/12979 Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

Special Report

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

Highlights Chart 1Contagion? Until last week, global growth weakness had been wholly confined to the manufacturing sector. But the drop to 52.6 in September’s Non-Manufacturing PMI (from 56.4 in August) raises the specter of contagion from manufacturing into the broader U.S. economy. A further drop would be consistent with an economy headed toward recession, and run contrary to the 2015/16 roadmap that has been our base case (Chart 1). We think it is still premature to abandon the 2015/16 episode as an appropriate comparable for the current period. For one thing, the hard economic data paint a rosier picture than the PMI surveys. Industrial production and core durable goods new orders are up 2.5% and 2.3% (annualized), respectively, during the past 3 months. These data have helped drive the economic surprise index above zero, an event that usually coincides with rising yields (bottom panel). The divergence between soft and hard data makes it clear that trade uncertainties are so far having a greater impact on business sentiment than on actual production, but history tells us that these divergences don’t last long. Some positive news on the trade front will be required during the next few months to raise business sentiment and push bond yields higher. Stay tuned. Feature Investment Grade: Overweight Chart 2Investment Grade Market Overview Investment grade corporate bonds outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 42 basis points in September, before giving back 37 bps in the first week of October. We consider three main factors in our credit cycle analysis: (i) corporate balance sheet health, (ii) monetary conditions, and (iii) valuation. At present, the chief conundrum for investors is that while corporate balance sheet health is weak, the monetary environment is extraordinarily accommodative.1 On balance sheets, our top-down measure of gross leverage is elevated and rising (Chart 2). In contrast, interest coverage ratios remain solid, propped up by the Fed’s accommodative stance. With inflation expectations still very low, the Fed can maintain its “easy money” policy for some time yet. This will ensure that interest coverage stays solid and that bank lending standards continue to ease (bottom panel). This is an environment where corporate bond spreads should tighten. How low can spreads go? Our assessment of reasonable spread targets for the current environment suggests that Aaa, Aa and A-rated spreads are already fully valued, while Baa-rated spreads are 13 bps cheap (panels 2 & 3).2 We recommend focusing investment grade corporate bond exposure on the Baa credit tier, and subbing some Agency MBS into your portfolio in place of corporate bonds rated A or higher. Table 3ACorporate Sector Relative Valuation And Recommended Allocation* Table 3BCorporate Sector Risk Vs. Reward* High-Yield: Overweight Chart 3High-Yield Market Overview High-Yield outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 66 basis points in September, before giving back 117 bps in the first week of October. The junk index’s option-adjusted spread (OAS) has been fairly stable for most of the year, but the sector has become increasingly attractive from a risk/reward perspective.3 This is because the index’s negatively convex nature has caused its average duration to fall alongside declining Treasury yields. Chart 3 shows that while the index OAS has been rangebound, the 12-month breakeven spread has widened considerably.4 In other words, while junk expected returns have been stable, those expected returns now come with considerably less risk. As a result, the junk index OAS looks increasingly attractive relative to our spread target.5 Specifically, we now view the junk index OAS as 171 bps cheap (panel 3). Falling index duration also explains the divergence between quality spreads and the index OAS. Many have observed that the spread differential between Caa and Ba-rated junk bonds has widened in recent months, while the overall index OAS has been stable (panel 4). However, the divergence evaporates when we look at 12-month breakeven spreads instead of OAS (bottom panel). MBS: Neutral Chart 4MBS Market Overview Mortgage-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 24 basis points in September, before giving back 25 bps in the first week of October. MBS have underperformed Treasuries by 31 bps, year-to-date. The conventional 30-year zero volatility spread held flat at 82 bps in September, as a 3 bps increase in expected prepayment losses (option cost) was offset by a 3 bps tightening in the option-adjusted spread (OAS). In last week’s report, we recommended favoring Agency MBS over Aaa, Aa and A-rated corporate bonds.6 We have three main reasons for this recommendation. First, expected compensation is competitive. The conventional 30-year MBS OAS is now 57 bps. This is above the pre-crisis average (Chart 4), and only 4 bps below the spread offered by a Aa-rated corporate bond. Aaa, Aa and A-rated corporate bond spreads also all look expensive relative to our targets. Second, risk-adjusted compensation heavily favors MBS. The 12-month breakeven spread for a conventional 30-year MBS is 21 bps. This compares to 6 bps, 8 bps and 12 bps for Aaa, Aa and A-rated corporates, respectively. Finally, the macro environment for MBS remains supportive. Mortgage lending standards have barely eased since the financial crisis (bottom panel), and most people have already had at least one opportunity to refinance their mortgage. This burnout will keep refi activity low, and MBS spreads tight (panel 2), going forward. Government-Related: Underweight Chart 5Government-Related Market Overview The Government-Related index outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 10 basis points in September, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +163 bps. September returns were concentrated in the Foreign Agency sub-sector. These securities outperformed the Treasury benchmark by 55 bps on the month, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +197 bps. Sovereign bonds underperformed duration-equivalent Treasuries by 6 bps in September, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to +436 bps. Local Authority and Domestic Agency debt underperformed by 1 bp and 2 bps on the month, respectively. Meanwhile, Supranationals bested the Treasury benchmark by a single basis point. Sovereign debt remains very expensive relative to equivalently-rated U.S. corporate credit (Chart 5). While the sector would benefit if the Fed’s dovish pivot eventually results in a weaker dollar, U.S. corporate bonds would also perform well in such an environment. Given the much more attractive starting point for U.S. corporate bond spreads, we find it difficult to recommend sovereign debt as an alternative. While sovereign debt in general looks expensive. USD-denominated Mexican sovereign bonds continue to look attractive relative to U.S. corporates (bottom panel). Investors should favor Mexican sovereigns within an otherwise underweight allocation to the sector as a whole. Municipal Bonds: Overweight Chart 6Municipal Market Overview Municipal bonds underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 10 basis points in September, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to -57 bps (before adjusting for the tax advantage). We recommended upgrading municipal bonds from neutral to overweight in last week’s report.7  We based the decision on the increasing attractiveness of yield ratios, despite an underlying credit environment that remains supportive for munis. Municipal bond yields failed to keep pace with falling Treasury yields in recent months, and now look quite attractive as a result (Chart 6). The average Aaa-rated Municipal / Treasury (M/T) yield ratio rose 4% in September and is now back above 90%. This is well above the 81% average that prevailed in the late stages of the previous cycle, between mid-2006 and mid-2007. In fact, Aaa M/T yield ratios for every maturity are now above average pre-crisis levels. Though yield ratios still look best at the long-end of the Aaa curve (panel 2), we now recommend owning munis in place of Treasuries across the entire maturity spectrum. Fundamentally, state & local government balance sheets remain solid. We showed in last week’s report that our Municipal Health Monitor is in “improving health” territory, and noted that state & local government interest coverage is positive (bottom panel). Both of those trends are consistent with muni ratings upgrades continuing to outnumber downgrades going forward. Treasury Curve: Maintain A Barbell Curve Positioning Chart 7Treasury Yield Curve Overview The Treasury curve bear-steepened in September, and then bull-steepened sharply last week. All in all, the 2/10 Treasury slope is +12 bps, 12 bps steeper than it was at the end of August. The 5/30 slope is +67 bps, 10 bps steeper than at the end of August. Our fair value models (see Appendix B) continue to show that bullets are expensive relative to barbells across the entire Treasury curve. In particular, 5-year and 7-year maturities look very expensive compared to the short and long ends of the curve. Notice that the 2/5/10 butterfly spread, the spread between the 5-year bullet and a duration-matched 2/10 barbell, remains negative despite the recent 2/10 steepening (Chart 7). We have shown in prior research that the 5-year and 7-year maturities are the most highly correlated with our 12-month Fed Funds Discounter. Our discounter is currently at -74 bps, meaning that the market is priced for nearly three more Fed rate cuts during the next 12 months (top panel). We expect fewer cuts than that, and as such, think the Discounter is more likely to rise. 5-year and 7-year maturities would underperform the rest of the curve in that scenario. We also continue to hold our short position in the February 2020 fed funds futures contract. That contract is currently priced for 2 more rate cuts during the next 3 FOMC meetings. That outcome is possible, but our base case economic outlook is more consistent with 1 further cut, likely occurring this month. TIPS: Overweight Chart 8Inflation Compensation TIPS underperformed the duration-equivalent nominal Treasury index by 38 basis points in September, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to -142 bps. The 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate fell 3 bps in September, and then another 2 bps last week. It currently sits at 1.51%, well below levels consistent with the Fed’s target. The divergence between the actual inflation data and inflation expectations is becoming increasingly stark. Trimmed mean PCE inflation has been fluctuating around the Fed’s target for most of the year (Chart 8). However, long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates remain stubbornly low, nowhere near the 2.3% - 2.5% range that is consistent with the Fed’s target. As we have pointed out in prior research, it can take time for expectations to adapt to a changing macro environment.8 That being said, the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate is currently 43 bps too low according to our Adaptive Expectations Model, a model whose primary input is 10-year trailing core inflation (panel 4). It is highly likely that the Fed will have to tolerate some overshoot of its 2% inflation target in order to re-anchor inflation expectations near desired levels. We anticipate that the committee will do so, and we maintain our view that long-dated TIPS breakevens will move above 2.3% before the end of the cycle. ABS: Underweight Chart 9ABS Market Overview Asset-Backed Securities underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 2 basis points in September, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to +72 bps. The index option-adjusted spread for Aaa-rated ABS widened 2 bps on the month. It currently sits at 36 bps, very close to its minimum pre-crisis level (Chart 9). ABS also appear unattractive on a risk/reward basis, as both Aaa-rated auto loans and credit cards have moved into the “Avoid” quadrant of our Excess Return Bond Map (Appendix C). The Map uses each bond sector’s spread, duration and volatility to calculate the likelihood of earning or losing 100 bps of excess return versus Treasuries on a 12-month horizon. At present, the Map shows that ABS offer poor expected return for their level of risk. In addition to poor valuation, the ABS sector’s credit fundamentals are shifting in a negative direction. Household interest payments continue to trend up, suggesting a higher delinquency rate in the future (panel 3). Meanwhile, senior loan officers continue to tighten lending standards for both credit cards and auto loans. Tighter lending standards usually coincide with rising delinquencies (bottom panel). All in all, the combination of poor value and deteriorating credit quality leads us to recommend an underweight allocation to consumer ABS. Non-Agency CMBS: Neutral Chart 10CMBS Market Overview Non-Agency Commercial Mortgage-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 9 basis points in September, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +227 bps. The index option-adjusted spread for non-agency Aaa-rated CMBS held flat on the month, before widening 4 bps last week. It currently sits at 75 bps, below average pre-crisis levels but above levels seen in 2018 (Chart 10). The macro outlook for commercial real estate is somewhat unfavorable, with lenders tightening loan standards (panel 4) amidst falling demand (bottom panel). Commercial real estate prices have accelerated of late, but are still not keeping pace with CMBS spreads (panel 3). Despite the poor fundamental picture, our Excess Return Bond Map shows that CMBS offer a reasonably attractive risk/reward trade-off compared to other bond sectors (see Appendix C). Agency CMBS: Overweight Agency CMBS outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 2 basis points in September, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +90 bps. The index option-adjusted spread held flat on the month, before widening by 5 bps last week. It currently sits at 61 bps. The Excess Return Bond Map in Appendix C shows that Agency CMBS offer high potential return compared to other low-risk spread products. Appendix A - The Golden Rule Of Bond Investing We follow a two-step process to formulate recommendations for bond portfolio duration. First, we determine the change in the federal funds rate that is priced into the yield curve for the next 12 months. Second, we decide – based on our assessments of the economy and Fed policy – whether the change in the fed funds rate will exceed or fall short of what is priced into the curve. Most of the time, a correct answer to this question leads to the appropriate duration call. We call this framework the Golden Rule Of Bond Investing, and we demonstrated its effectiveness in the U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, “The Golden Rule Of Bond Investing”, dated July 24, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com. Chart 11 illustrates the Golden Rule’s track record by showing that the Bloomberg Barclays Treasury Master Index tends to outperform cash when rate hikes fall short of 12-month expectations, and vice-versa. Chart 11The Golden Rule's Track Record At present, the market is priced for 74 basis points of cuts during the next 12 months. We anticipate fewer rate cuts over that time horizon, and therefore anticipate that below-benchmark portfolio duration positions will profit. We can also use our Golden Rule framework to make 12-month total return and excess return forecasts for the Bloomberg Barclays Treasury index under different scenarios for the fed funds rate. Excess returns are relative to the Bloomberg Barclays Cash index. To forecast total returns we first calculate the 12-month fed funds rate surprise in each scenario by comparing the assumed change in the fed funds rate to the current value of our 12-month discounter. This rate hike surprise is then mapped to an expected change in the Treasury index yield using a regression based on the historical relationship between those two variables. Finally, we apply the expected change in index yield to the current characteristics (yield, duration and convexity) of the Treasury index to estimate total returns on a 12-month horizon. The below tables present those results, along with 95% confidence intervals. Excess returns are calculated by subtracting assumed cash returns in each scenario from our total return projections. Appendix B - Butterfly Strategy Valuation The following tables present the current read-outs from our butterfly spread models. We use these models to identify opportunities to take duration-neutral positions across the Treasury curve. The following two Special Reports explain the models in more detail: U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, “Bullets, Barbells And Butterflies”, dated July 25, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, “More Bullets, Barbells And Butterflies”, dated May 15, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Table 4 shows the raw residuals from each model. A positive value indicates that the bullet is cheap relative to the duration-matched barbell. A negative value indicates that the barbell is cheap relative to the bullet. Table 5 scales the raw residuals in Table 4 by their historical means and standard deviations. This facilitates comparison between the different butterfly spreads. Table 6 flips the models on their heads. It shows the change in the slope between the two barbell maturities that must be realized during the next six months to make returns between the bullet and barbell equal. For example, a reading of +48 bps in the 5 over 2/10 cell means that we would only expect the 5-year to outperform the 2/10 if the 2/10 slope steepens by more than 48 bps during the next six months. Otherwise, we would expect the 2/10 barbell to outperform the 5-year bullet. Table 4Butterfly Strategy Valuation: Raw Residuals In Basis Points (As of October 4, 2019) Table 5Butterfly Strategy Valuation: Standardized Residuals (As of October 4, 2019) Table 6 Appendix C - Excess Return Bond Map The Excess Return Bond Map is used to assess the relative risk/reward trade-off between different sectors of the U.S. fixed income market. The Map employs volatility-adjusted breakeven spread analysis to show how likely it is that a given sector will earn/lose money during the subsequent 12 months. The Map does not incorporate any macroeconomic view. The horizontal axis of the Map shows the number of days of average spread widening required for each sector to lose 100 bps versus a position in duration-matched Treasuries. Sectors plotting further to the left require more days of average spread widening and are therefore less likely to see losses. The vertical axis shows the number of days of average spread tightening required for each sector to earn 100 bps in excess of duration-matched Treasuries. Sectors plotting further toward the top require fewer days of spread tightening and are therefore more likely to earn 100 bps of excess return. Chart 12Excess Return Bond Map (As Of October 4, 2019) Ryan Swift, U.S. Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Corporate Bond Investors Should Not Fight The Fed”, dated September 17, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 For 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 3 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Corporate Bond Investors Should Not Fight The Fed”, dated September 17, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 4 The 12-month breakeven spread is the spread widening required to break even with a duration-matched position in Treasuries on a 12-month horizon. It can be approximated by OAS divided by duration. 5 For 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 6 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Two Themes And Two Trades”, dated October 1, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 7 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Two Themes And Two Trades”, dated October 1, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 8 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Adaptive Expectations In The TIPS Market”, dated November 20, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification Corporate Sector Relative Valuation And Recommended Allocation

Highlights The global manufacturing cycle is likely to bottom soon, and consumption and services remain robust. The risk of recession over the next 12 months is low. This suggests that equities will continue to outperform bonds. But the risks to this optimistic scenario are rising. A denting of consumer confidence and worsening of geopolitical tensions could hurt risk assets. We hedge this by overweighting cash. China remains reluctant for now to use aggressive monetary easing. Until it does, the less cyclical U.S. equity market should outperform. We may shift into EM and European equities when China ramps up stimulus and the manufacturing cycle clearly bottoms. To hedge against this upside risk, we go tactically overweight Financials, and reiterate our overweight on Industrials and neutral on Australia. Bond yields should continue their rebound. We recommend an underweight on duration and favor TIPS. Credit should outperform on the cyclical horizon, but high corporate debt is a risk – we recommend a neutral position. Recommendations   Feature Overview Hedges All Around This is a particularly uncertain time for the global economy – and so a tricky one for asset allocators. Will manufacturing activity bottom soon, or will it drag down the services sector and consumption with it? Will bond yields continue their strong rebound? Is the Fed done cutting rates? Will China now ramp up monetary stimulus? Will Iran escalate a confrontation with Saudi Arabia? What will President Trump tweet about next? This is the sort of environment in which portfolio construction comes into its own. We have our view on all these questions, but our level of conviction is somewhat lower than usual. The way for investors to react is to plan asset allocation in such a way that a portfolio is robust in all the most probable scenarios. We expect the global manufacturing cycle to bottom soon. The Global Leading Economic Indicator is already picking up, and the Global PMI shows some signs of bottoming (Chart 1). The shortest-term lead indicator, the Citigroup Economic Surprise Index, has recently jumped in every region except Europe (Chart 2). (See also What Our Clients Are Asking on page 7 for some more esoteric indicators of cycle bottoms.) The bottoming-out is due to easier financial conditions over the past nine months, a stabilization in Chinese growth, and simply time – the down-leg in manufacturing cycles typically last 18 months, and this one peaked in H1 2018. Chart 1First Signs Of Bottoming Chart 2Surprisingly Strong Surprises     At the same time, government bond yields should have further to rise. The Fed may cut rates once more but, given the resilient U.S. economy, no more than that. This is less than the 59 basis points of cuts over the next 12 months priced in by the Fed Fund futures. The recent pick-up in economic surprises suggests that the 10-year U.S. Treasury yield should return at least to where it was six months ago, 2.3-2.4% (Chart 3). This might be delayed, however, if there is an increase in political tensions, for example a break-up of the U.S./China trade talks (Chart 4). Chart 3Long-Term Rates To Rebound Further... Chart 4...But Geopolitical Tensions Remain A Risk This implies that equities are likely to continue to outperform bonds over the next few quarters, and so we remain overweight global equities and underweight global bonds on the 12-month investment horizon. However, the risks to this rosy scenario are rising. We remain concerned about the inverted yield curve, which has accurately forecast every recession since World War II, usually about 18 months in advance (Chart 5). The 3-month/10-year curve inverted in the middle of this year. We also worry that the weakness in the manufacturing sector may dent consumer confidence. There are some signs of this in Europe and Japan – but none significant yet in the U.S. (Chart 6). Accordingly last month, as a hedge against an economic downturn, we went overweight cash, which we see as a more attractive hedge, from a risk/reward point-of-view, than bonds. Chart 5Can We Ignore The Message From The Yield Curve? Chart 6Some Signs Of Weaker Consumer Confidence     We also remain overweight U.S. equities, which are lower-beta and have fewer structural headwinds than equities in other regions. However, we continue to look for an entry point into the more cyclical equity markets which would also be beneficiaries of bolder China stimulus. China’s monetary easing remains more tepid than in previous stimulus episodes. It has probably been enough to stabilize domestic activity (Chart 7) but not to trigger a rally in industrial commodity prices, EM assets, and euro area equities, as it did in 2016. A pick-up in global PMIs and signs of stronger Chinese credit growth would clearly help EM and Europe (Chart 8) but we need higher conviction that these things are indeed happening before making that move. In the meantime, we are hedging the upside risk by raising the global Financials sector tactically to overweight, since it would likely do well if euro area stocks started to outperform. Earlier this year, we raised the Industrials sector to overweight and Australian equities to neutral, also to hedge against the upside risk from more aggressive Chinese stimulus. Chart 7Chinese Stimulus Has Merely Stabilized Growth Chart 8Europe And EM Are The Most Cyclical Markets     Chart 9Oil Price Spikes Often Precede Recessions The biggest geopolitical risk to our sanguine scenario is the situation in the Middle East, after the attacks on Saudi oil refineries. Every recession in the past 50 years has been preceded by a 100% year-on-year spike in the crude oil price (though note that Brent would need to rise to over $100 a barrel by year-end, from $61 today, for that to eventuate (Chart 9)). A short-term oil shortage is not the problem since strategic reserves are ample. But the attack demonstrates the vulnerability of the Saudi installations. And a reprisal attack on Iran could lead it to block the Strait of Hormuz, through which more than 20% of global oil passes. We have an overweight on the Energy sector, partly as a hedge against these risks. BCA’s oil strategists expected Brent crude to rise to $70 this year, and average $74 in 2020, even before the recent attack. They argue that the risk premium in the oil price (the residual in Chart 10) is too low, given not only tensions with Iran, but also other potential supply disruptions in Iraq, Libya, Venezuela and elsewhere.   Chart 10Is The Oil Risk Premium Too Low?   Garry Evans, Senior Vice President Chief Global Asset Allocation Strategist garry@bcaresearch.com     What Our Clients Are Asking Which Leading Indicators Should Investors Watch To Time The Rebound In Global Growth? Chart 11Positive Signals For Global Growth During 2019, the global growth decline was a key driver of the bond rally and the outperformance of defensive assets. Thus, timing when this decline will reverse will be crucial, since it would also result in a change of leadership from defensive to cyclical assets. But how can this be done? Below we list three of our favorite indicators that have provided reliable leading signals on the global economy in the past: Carry-trade performance: The performance of EM currencies with very high carry versus the yen tends to be a leading indicator for global growth (Chart 11, panel 1). In general, carry trades distribute liquidity from countries where funds are plentiful but rates of return are low (like Japan), to places with savings shortfalls and high risk, but where prospective returns are high. Positive performance of these currencies tends to signal a positive shift in global liquidity, which usually fuels global growth. Swedish inventory cycle: The Swedish new-orders-to-inventories ratio is a leading indicator of the global manufacturing cycle (panel 2). Why? Sweden is a small open economy that is very sensitive to global growth dynamics. Moreover, Swedish exports are weighted towards intermediate goods, which sit early in the global supply chain. This makes the Swedish inventory cycle a good early barometer of the health of the global manufacturing cycle. G3 monetary trends: G3 excess money supply – measured as the difference between money supply growth and loan growth – is a leading indicator of global industrial production (panel 3). As base money and deposits become more plentiful in the banking system relative to the pool of existing loans, the liquidity position of commercial banks improves. This provides banks with the necessary fuel to generate more loan growth, a development which eventually provides a boon to economic activity. Importantly, all these leading indicators are sending a positive signal on the global economy. This confirms our view that rates should go up as global growth strengthens. Therefore, investors should remain overweight equities and underweight bonds in their portfolios.   Is It Time To Buy Euro Area Banks? In a Special Report on euro area banks in December 2018, we noted that “Historically, when the relative P/B discount hits the lower band and the relative dividend yield hits the upper band, a rebound in relative return performance could be expected”.1 Our recommendation back then was that “long-term investors should avoid banks in the region, but investors with a more tactical mandate and much nimbler style could use the valuation indicators to ‘time’ their entry into and exit out of banks as a short-term trade.” Since then, banks have continued to underperform the overall market by over 10%, further pushing down relative valuation metrics. Currently, both relative P/B and relative dividend yield are at extreme levels that have historically heralded at least a short-term bounce. The euro area PMI is still below 50, but there are signs that the euro area economy could rebound later this year, which should be positive for banks’ relative earnings. Already, forward EPS growth has been stabilizing relative to the broad market (Chart 12, panel 4). In addition, two of the key concerns back in December 2018 were Italian government debt and the unwinding of QE. Now Italian debt is no longer in crisis and the ECB has relaunched QE. As such, investors with a tactical mandate and a nimble style should buy (overweight) banks in the euro area. Long-term investors should still avoid such a short-term trade because structural issues remain. Chart 12Tactically Upgrade Euro Area Banks   Is The Gold Rally Over? Spot gold prices have increased 17% year-to-date, on the back of global growth weakness, dovish central banks, and rising political tensions. Should investors now pare back their gold exposure? Common sense would suggest they should. However, these are not ordinary times. In the short term, gold prices might suffer from some profit-taking due to overbought technicals and excessively positive sentiment (Chart 13, panel 1). Moreover, gold prices have moved this year due to increased market expectations of central bank easing (panel 2). We expect that markets will be disappointed going forward by only limited rate cuts, which could put downward pressure on gold. On the other hand, with approximately 27%, or $14.9 trillion, of global debt with negative yields at the moment, investors will continue to shift to the next best asset – zero-yielding gold (panel 3). This is clear from the rise in holdings of gold over the past few years by both central banks and investors (panels 4 & 5). We expect this trend to persist as investors continue their search to avoid negative yields and focus on capital preservation. Geopolitical tensions have intensified since the beginning of the year: ongoing yet inconclusive trade negotiations between the U.S. and China, implementation of further tariffs, Brexit uncertainty, and the recent military attacks in the Middle East (panel 6). This environment should also continue to push gold prices higher. We continue to recommend gold as a hedge against inflation – which we see picking up over the next 12 months – as well as against any further deterioration in global growth and the geopolitical situation. Chart 13Gold: Sell Or Hold? Risks to the rosy scenario are rising. We remain concerned about the inverted yield curve, which has accurately forecast every recession since World War II. How Low Can Rates Go? The zero lower bound is a thing of the past. Last month, Denmark’s central bank cut rates to -0.75%, and 10-year government bonds in Switzerland hit a historic low for any major country, -1.12%. In the next recession, how much further could interest rates theoretically fall? For individuals, cash rates might be limited by the cost of storing paper currency, which has a zero yield (unless governments find a way to ban cash or charge an annual fee on it). A bank safety deposit box costs about $300 a year, and a professional-quality safe big enough to store $1 million (which would be a pile of $100 bills 31 x 55 cms, weighing 10 kg) costs $2,000 with installation costs. Amortize the latter over 10 years, and the cost of storing $1 million is about 0.2%-0.3% a year. Swiss franc bills – maximum denomination CHF1,000 – would cost less to store. But storage costs for physical gold are around 2% a year. Since rates have fallen below this, there must be other constraints. Individuals would find storing money in cash possibly dangerous and certainly very inconvenient (imagine having to transport the cash to a bank to pay a tax bill). And the cost for a rich individual or company of storing, say, $1 billion (weighing 10 tonnes) would be much higher. Given the history in even low-rate countries (Chart 14, panel 1), we suspect around -1% is the level at which cashholders would seek alternatives to bank deposits of government bills. Chart 14How Low Can They Go? Chart 15Yield Curves When Rates Are At Zero Or Below   At the long end, the yield curve does not typically invert much when short-term rates are zero or negative (Chart 15). The biggest 3-month/10-year inversion was in Switzerland earlier this year, -0.05%. This points then to the absolute lowest level for 10-year bonds anywhere, even in the middle of a nasty recession, at around -1.1%. That is a worry for asset allocators. It means that the maximum mathematical upside for Swiss government bonds from their current level (-0.8%) is 3% while it is 5% for German bonds (currently -0.5%). This is not much of a hedge. Only the U.S. looks better: if the 10-year Treasury yield falls to 0%, the total return is 18%.   Global Economy Chart 16U.S. Growth Remains Solid Overview: Industrial-sector growth globally has been weak, with the manufacturing PMI in most countries falling below 50. But consumption and services almost everywhere have remained resilient, even in the manufacturing-heavy euro area. And there are tentative signs of a bottoming-out in manufacturing. However, a full-scale rebound will depend on further monetary stimulus in China, where the authorities still seem cautious about rolling out easing on the scale of what was done in 2016. U.S.: U.S. manufacturing has now followed the rest of the world into contraction, with the ISM manufacturing index slipping below 50 in August (Chart 16, panel 2). However, consumption and services are holding up well. Employment continues to expand (albeit at a slightly slower pace than last year, perhaps because of a lack of jobseekers), there is no sign of a rise in layoffs, and consumer confidence remains close to a historical high (though it slipped slightly in September). Housing has recovered after last year’s slowdown, and the recent congressional budgetary agreement means fiscal policy will be mildly expansionary over the coming 12 months. Only capex (panel 5) has slowed, as companies postpone investment decisions due to uncertainty surrounding the trade war. The consensus expects U.S. real GDP growth of 2.2% this year, above most estimates of trend growth. Euro Area: Given its higher concentration in manufacturing, European growth is weaker than in the U.S. The manufacturing PMI has been below 50 since February, and fell further to 45.6 in August. Industrial production is shrinking by 2% year-on-year. Italy has experienced two negative quarters of growth, and Germany may also enter a technical recession in Q3 (GDP shrank by 0.1% in Q2). However, there are some tentative signs that manufacturing is bottoming: the ZEW survey in September, for example, surprised on the upside. And, like the U.S., consumption remains strong. Even in manufacturing-heavy Germany, employment continues to grow, and retail sales in July were up 4.4% year-on-year. In the U.K., however, uncertainty surrounding Brexit has damaged business investment, though employment has been strong.2 Chart 17First Signs Of A Rebound In The Rest Of The World? Japan: Consumption has already slipped, even before the consumption tax hike scheduled in October. Retail sales in July fell 2% year-on-year, due to negative wage growth and consumer sentiment falling to a five-year low. Manufacturing continues to suffer from China’s slowdown and the strong yen (up 6% over the past 12 months), with exports falling 6% and industrial production down 2% year-on-year over the past three months. The effect of the consumption tax hike may be cushioned by government measures (lowering taxes on autos and making high-school education free, for example). And a pickup in Chinese growth would boost exports. But there are scant signs yet of a bottoming in activity. Emerging Markets: China’s growth appears to have stabilized, with both manufacturing and non-manufacturing PMIs above 50 (Chart 17, panel 3). But confidence remains fragile, with retail sales growth slowing to a 20-year low and car sales down 7% in August, despite the introduction of cars compliant with new emissions standards. The authorities have responded with further easing measures (including a further cut in the reserve requirement in September) but seem reluctant to launch a full-scale monetary stimulus, similar to what they did in 2016. Elsewhere in EM, growth has slowed in countries with structural issues (latest year-on-year real GDP growth in Argentina is -5.7%, in Turkey -1.5% and in Mexico -0.8%) but remains fairly resilient elsewhere (India 5%, Indonesia 5%, Poland 4.2%, Colombia 3.4%). Interest Rates: Central banks almost everywhere have turned dovish, with the Fed cutting rates for a second time, the ECB restarting asset purchases, and the Bank of Japan signaling it will ease in October. But further monetary accommodation will probably be less than the market expects. The Fed signaled that its cuts were just a mid-cycle correction and that further easing is unlikely. And the ECB and BoJ have little ammunition left. With signs of growth bottoming, and the market understanding that central banks’ dovish turn is reaching its end, long-term rates, which have already risen in the U.S. from 1.45% to 1.72% in September, are likely to move higher. Investors should also carefully watch U.S. inflation, which is showing signs of underlying strength, with core CPI inflation rising 2.4% year-on-year in August (and as much as 3.4% annualized over the past three months).   Global Equities Chart 18Has Earnings Growth Bottomed? Still Cautious, But Adding An Upside Hedge: Global equities registered a small loss of 8 basis points in Q3 (Chart 18) despite all the headline risks from geopolitics and weakening economic data. Overall, our defensive country allocation worked well in Q3, since DM equities outperformed EM by 4.5%, and the U.S. outperformed the euro area by 2.8%. Our sector positioning did not do as well since underweights in Utilities and Consumer Staples and overweights in Industrials, Energy and Health Care all went in the wrong direction, even though the underweight in Materials did help to offset the loss. During the quarter, however, both sector and country rotations were evident within the global equity universe, in line with the wild swings in bond yields. September saw some reversals in DM/EM, U.S./euro area and cyclical/defensives. Going forward, BCA’s House View remains that global economic growth will begin to recover over the coming months, albeit a little later than we previously expected. As such, our defensive country allocation remains appropriate. We did put euro area and EM equities on upgrade watch in April,3 but the delay in the global recovery also implies that it is still not the time to trigger this call. With our view that bond yields have hit bottom,4 we are making one adjustment in our global sector allocation by upgrading Financials to overweight from neutral. We are financing this by cutting in half the double overweight in Health Care to overweight (see next page for more details). This adjustment also acts as a hedge against two possible outcomes: 1) that the euro area outperforms the U.S., and 2) that Elizabeth Warren wins in the upcoming U.S. presidential election.5   Upgrade Global Financials To Overweight From Neutral Chart 19Upgrade Global Financials The relative performance of global Financials to the overall equity market has been hugely affected by the movements in global bond yields (Chart 19, panel 1). As bond yields made a sharp reversal in September, so did the relative performance of Financials, even though it is barely evident on the chart given how much Financials have underperformed the broad market over recent years. It’s not clear how sustainable the sharp reversal in bond yields will be, but BCA’s House View is that bond yields will move higher over the next 9-12 months. As such, we are upgrading Financials to overweight from neutral, for the following additional reasons: Valuations are extremely attractive as shown in panel 2. More importantly, the relative valuation is now at an extreme level that historically heralded a bounce in Financials’ relative performance. Loan quality has improved. The U.S. non-performing loan (NPL) ratio is nearing the lows reached before the Global Financial Crisis (GFC). Even in Spain and Italy, NPL ratios have fallen significantly, though they remain higher than they were prior to the GFC (panel 3). U.S. consumption has been strong, housing has rebounded, and demand for loans is getting stronger (panel 4), in line with data such as the Citi Economic Surprise Index, suggesting that economic data may have hit bottom. To finance this upgrade, we cut the double overweight of Health Care to overweight, as a hedge against Elizabeth Warren winning next year’s U.S. presidential election and tightening rules on drug pricing. Government Bonds Maintain Slight Underweight On Duration. Our below-benchmark duration call was severely challenged by the global bond markets in the first two months of the third quarter. The U.S. 10-year Treasury yield hit 1.43% on September 3 in response to the weaker-than-expected ISM manufacturing index in the U.S., 57 bps lower than the level at the end of previous quarter, and just a touch higher than the historical low of 1.32% reached on July 6, 2016. The rebound in bond yields since September 5, however, was driven not only by the ebb and flow in the U.S./China trade policy dynamics, but also by the positive surprises in economic data releases, as shown in Chart 20. BCA’s Global Duration Indicator, constructed by our Global Fixed Income Strategy team using various leading economic indicators, is also pointing to higher yields globally going forward. Investors should maintain a slight underweight on duration over the next 9-12 months. Favor Linkers Vs. Nominal Bonds. Global inflation expectations have also rebounded after continuing their downtrend in the first two months of the quarter. This largely reflects the acceleration in August in realized inflation measures such as core CPI, core PCE, and average hourly earnings. In addition, historically, the change in the crude oil price tends to have a good correlation with inflation expectations. The oil price jumped initially by 20% following the attack on the Saudi Arabian oil production facilities. While it’s not clear how the geopolitical tensions will evolve in the Middle East, a conservative assumption of a flat oil price until the end of the year still points to much higher inflation expectations, supporting our preference for inflation-linked bonds over nominal bonds. We also favor linkers in Japan and Australia over their respective nominal bonds (Chart 21). Chart 20Bond Yields Have Hit Bottom Chart 21Favor Inflation Linkers We continue to look for an entry point into more cyclical markets which would benefit from a bolder Chinese stimulus. Corporate Bonds Since we turned cyclically overweight on credit within a fixed-income portfolio, investment-grade bonds and high-yield bonds have produced 220 and 73 basis points, respectively, of excess return over duration-matched government bonds. We remain bullish on the outlook for credit over the next 12 months, as we expect global growth to accelerate before the end of the year. Historically, improving global growth has resulted in sustained outperformance of credit over government bonds. Moreover, default rates should remain subdued over the next year given that lending standards continue to ease (Chart 22, panel 1). How long will we remain overweight credit? High levels of leverage, declining interest coverage ratios, and the high share of Baa-rated debt in the U.S. corporate debt market continue to make credit a risky proposition on a structural basis. However, with inflation expectations still very low, the Fed has a strong incentive to keep monetary policy easy. This dovish monetary policy should keep interest costs at bay, helping credit outperform over the next year. That said, we believe that there are some credit categories that are more attractive than others. Specifically, we recommend investors favor Baa-rated and high yield securities, given that there is still room for further credit compression in these credit buckets (panel 2 and panel 3). On the other hand, investors should stay away from the highest credit categories, as they no longer offer value (panel 4). Chart 22Baa-rated And High-Yield Credit Offer The Most Value   Commodities Chart 23No Supply Shock In The Oil Market Energy (Overweight): September’s drone attack on Saudi crude facilities sent oil prices soaring as much as 20% in the days following, before falling back to pre-attack levels. Initial estimates estimated the supply disruption at 5.7 million barrels a day – approximately 5.5% of global supply – making it the largest crude supply outage in history. However, assuming the Saudis can return 70% of the lost output back online as they claim, OPEC’s spare capacity, approximately 1.8 million barrels a day, should be able to balance the market and cover the remaining lost production.6,7 In the longer-term, a pick-up in global oil demand, as economic growth rebounds, plus supply tightness should keep oil price elevated, with Brent reaching $70 this year and averaging $74 in 2020 (Chart 23, panels 1 & 2). Industrial Metals (Neutral): A combination of half-hearted year-to-date stimulus by Chinese authorities and a stronger USD in the second and third quarters of 2019 have driven industrial metals spot prices lower. However, the Chinese government announced additional stimulus in September, with further bond issuance to finance infrastructure projects and an easing of monetary policy (panel 3). This should give some upside for industrial metal prices over the coming six-to-12 months. Precious Metals (Neutral): We remain positive on gold, despite its strong performance year-to-date, since we see it as a good hedge against recession, inflation, and geopolitical risks. We discuss gold in detail in the What Our Clients Are Asking section on page 9. Silver also looks attractive in the short term. The nature of the use of silver has changed over the past two decades, from being mostly a base metal for industrial fabrication to becoming more of a precious metal viewed as a safe haven. The correlation between gold and silver prices has increased since the Global Financial Crisis from an average of 0.5 pre-crisis to 0.8 post-crisis (panels 4 & 5). Global growth and political uncertainty should support silver prices in the coming months. Currencies U.S. Dollar: The trade-weighted dollar has appreciated by 2.5% since we turned neutral in April. We expect that the steep drop in yields will continue to ease financial conditions and help global growth in the last quarter of the year. Given that the dollar is a counter-cyclical currency, an environment where global growth rallies have historically been negative for the greenback. Euro: Since we turned bullish in April, EUR/USD has depreciated by 2.7%. Overall, we continue to be positive on EUR/USD on a cyclical timeframe. After the ECB cut rates by 10 basis points and announced further rounds of quantitative easing, there is not much room left for the euro area to keep easing relative to the U.S. (Chart 24, panel 1). Moreover, improving expectations of profit growth in the euro area vis-à-vis the U.S. will drive money flows towards Europe, pushing EUR/USD up in the process (panel 2). Emerging Market Currencies: We remain bearish on emerging market currencies for the time being. That being said, they remain on upgrade watch for the end of the year. There are multiple signs that global growth is turning up, a consequence of the easy financial conditions caused by some of the lowest bond yields on record. Moreover, the marginal propensity to spend (proxied by M1 growth relative to M2 growth) in China, the main engine of EM growth, continues to point to further appreciation in emerging market currencies (panel 3). Chart 24Interest Rate And Profit Expectation Differentials Favor The Euro     Alternatives Chart 25Favor Hedge Funds Untill Global Growth Bottoms Return Enhancers: Over the past 12 months, we have recommended investors pare back on private equity and increase allocations to hedge funds – macro hedge funds in particular. This was due to our judgement that we are late in the economic cycle. While we expect growth to pick up over the coming months, this is not yet clear in the data (Chart 25, panel 1). This uncertain macro outlook will prove tough for private equity funds, especially given an environment of rising multiples and increasing competition for deals. We continue to see global macro hedge funds as the best hedge ahead of the next recession and would advise investors to allocate funds now, given the time it takes to move allocations in the illiquid space. Inflation Hedges: In the current environment, TIPS are likely a better inflation hedge than illiquid alternative assets. Our May 2019 Special Report 8 showed that TIPS produce a particularly attractive risk-adjusted return during times when inflation is rising, but still fairly low (below 2.3%). TIPS should do well, therefore, in the environment we expect over the next few months, where the Fed remains dovish, cutting rates perhaps once more, while condoning a moderate acceleration of inflation (panel 2). Volatility Dampeners: Structured products – mostly Mortgage-Backed Securities (MBS) – have had an excellent record of reducing portfolio volatility (panel 3). Despite that, we do not recommend more than a neutral allocation to MBS currently due to a less-than-attractive valuation picture. Despite Treasury yields falling by more than 100 basis points this year and refinancing activity picking up, nominal MBS spreads remained near their all-time lows. However, as Treasury yields bottom, we expect refinancing to slow, putting downward pressure on spreads. Risks To Our View The most likely upside risk comes from the Fed being too dovish and falling behind the curve. Underlying inflation pressures in the U.S. remain strong (with core CPI up 3.4% annualized over the past three months). After two rate cuts, the Fed Funds rate is now comfortably below the neutral rate: 0.1% in real terms compared to a Laubach-Williams r* of 0.8% (Chart 26). Tightness in the money markets have pushed the Fed to start expanding its balance sheet again. If manufacturing growth accelerates next year, and wages and profits begin to rise, a stock market melt-up, similar to that in 1999, would be possible. Eventually, though, the Fed would need to raise rates (perhaps sharply) to kill inflation, which could usher in the next recession. There are a broader range of possible downside risks. As argued throughout this Quarterly, there are various possible triggers of recession: failure of China to stimulate, and a loss of confidence by consumers, in particular. Some models of recession put the risk over the next 12 months as high as 30% (Chart 27). Structurally, the biggest risk is probably the high level of corporate debt in the U.S. (Chart 28). A breakdown in the junk bond market, as seen briefly last December, could lead to companies failing to refinance the large amount of debt maturing over the next 18 months. Geopolitical risks also remain elevated and are, by nature, hard to forecast. The outcome of Brexit remains highly uncertain – though we see low risk of a no-deal exit. We expect trade talks between the U.S. and China to drag on, without a comprehensive deal, while a clear breakdown would be negative. Impeachment of President Trump is probably not a significant market event, but might hurt market sentiment briefly (particularly if it makes the election of Elizabeth Warren more likely). The Iran/Saudi conflict could escalate. Risk premiums may need to rise to take into account these threats. Chart 26Is The Fed Turning Too Dovish? Chart 27What Risk Of Recession? Chart 28Is Corporate Debt The Biggest Risk?   Footnotes 1Please see Global Asset Allocation Special Report, titled "Euro Area Banks: Value Play Or Value Trap?" dated December 14, 2018, available at gaa.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Special Report, “United Kingdom: Cyclical Slowdown Or Structural Malaise?”, dated 20 September 2019, available at fes.bcaresearch.com. 3Please see Global Asset Allocation Quarterly, titled "Quarterly - April 2019" dated April 1, 2019, available at gaa.bcaresearch.com. 4Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, titled "Bond Yields Have Hit Bottom," dated September 6, 2019, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 5Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, titled "Elizabeth Warren And The Markets," dated September 13, 2019, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 6Dmitry Zhdannikov and Alex Lawler “Exclusive: Saudi oil output to return faster than first thought - sources,” Reuters, dated Sepetmber 17, 2019. 7Please see Geopolitical Strategy Special Alert titled, “Attacks On Critical Infrastructure In KSA Raises Questions About U.S. Response,” dated September 16, 2019, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 8Please see Global Asset Allocation Special Report, titled “Investors’ Guide To Inflation Hedging: How To Invest When Inflation Rises,” dated May 22, 2019, available at gaa.bcaresearch.com GAA Asset Allocation

Highlights Corporate Bonds: High corporate debt levels will be a problem for corporate bond investors during the next downturn, but spreads will not respond to them until inflationary pressures mount and monetary policy turns restrictive. Maintain an overweight allocation to corporate bonds versus Treasuries, with a preference for the Baa and high-yield credit tiers. MBS: Agency MBS spreads are competitive with high-rated (Aaa, Aa, A) corporate bonds, and look even more attractive on a risk-adjusted basis. We recommend that investors swap the Aaa, Aa and A-rated corporate bonds in their portfolios for agency MBS. Municipal Bonds: Investors should upgrade municipal bonds from neutral to overweight, given the recent back-up in Municipal / Treasury yield ratios. Within munis, investors should retain a preference for long-maturity Aaa-rated bonds, where yields are most compelling. Feature We attended BCA’s annual Investment Conference last week. The event always provides a good opportunity to hear from some expert panelists and find out what issues are front and center in our clients’ minds. More than anything else, two themes kept popping up in the different presentations and in conversations with attendees: Large corporate debt balances Under-priced inflation risk We can’t help but see a strong connection between the two. On Corporate Debt The consensus among panelists and attendees was very much in line with our own view: Highly levered balance sheets will be a problem for corporate bond investors during the next default cycle, but don’t help us determine when that default cycle will occur. Chart 1 shows that, despite the persistent increase in the debt-to-profits ratio, corporate bankruptcies are well contained. We examined the reasons for this divergence in a recent report, concluding that accommodative monetary policy is holding down the default rate by keeping interest costs low and giving banks the confidence to roll over maturing debt.1 Essentially, banks will look through signs of deteriorating corporate balance sheet health until the Fed shifts to a more restrictive policy stance. Chart 1Corporate Balance Sheets Are In Bad Shape, But Defaults Are Low On Inflation This is where inflation becomes important. The Fed is currently running an accommodative monetary policy because many years of low prices have convinced investors that inflation might never return. As a result, the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate is only 1.53%, well below the 2.3% - 2.5% range consistent with the Fed’s target. The Fed must maintain an accommodative policy stance until it achieves its goal of re-anchoring inflation expectations. Only then will monetary policy turn restrictive, raising the risk of a corporate default cycle. We have long held the view that a 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate above 2.3% would cause us to turn much more cautious on corporate credit. It might take many months of core inflation printing near the Fed’s target before investors start to believe that it will stay there indefinitely. Many conference panelists thought that inflation risks are currently under-priced, and while we tend to agree that it is premature to declare the death of the Phillips curve, we expect it will still take some time before inflation expectations hit our 2.3% - 2.5% target range. We have shown in prior research that inflation expectations adapt only slowly to changes in the actual inflation data.2  At present, the fair value reading from our Adaptive Expectations Model of the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate is only 1.94% (Chart 2). This fair value will move higher if inflation continues to print near current levels, but that process will take some time. In other words, it might take many months of core inflation printing near the Fed’s target before investors start to believe that it will stay there indefinitely. Chart 2Adaptive Expectations Model Chart 3Inflation Not Far From Target While the adaptive process might take a long time, it’s important to note that inflation is already quite close to the Fed’s target. Trailing 12-month trimmed mean PCE inflation came in at 1.96% in August, while year-over-year core PCE hit 1.77% (Chart 3). Trimmed mean inflation has been more stable than other inflation measures since the financial crisis, and core PCE has tended to drift toward the trimmed mean over time.      On Corporate Debt & Inflation In our view, the two themes of high corporate debt and under-priced inflation risk are tightly linked. It has taken a very long time for the economy to recover from the financial crisis. As a result, inflation has been low for a prolonged period and the Fed has been forced to maintain an accommodative policy stance. That accommodative policy stance encourages banks to extend credit, and encourages firms to issue debt. Eventually, inflation pressures will mount, the Fed’s policy will turn restrictive and weak corporate balance sheets will be exposed. Only then, will corporate spreads widen significantly. Until that time, the pertinent question is whether corporate spreads offer adequate compensation for the risk that inflationary pressures emerge earlier than anticipated. For now, our answer is yes, with the caveat that the risk/reward trade-off is more attractive in the lower credit tiers. The 12-month high-yield breakeven spread is very attractive, well above its historical median (Chart 4). But within investment grade, we view only the Baa-rated credit tier as offering adequate compensation (Chart 4, bottom panel). There are better alternatives to owning Aaa, Aa and A-rated corporate bonds, as discussed in the next section. Chart 4Corporate Bond Valuation Favor Agency MBS Over High-Rated Corporate Credit Chart 5MBS More Attractive Than High-Rated Corporate Bonds As noted above, investment grade corporate bonds rated A or higher don’t offer much expected compensation at current spread levels. In fact, our prior research notes that their spreads are already below our cyclical targets.3 But on the plus side, the average option-adjusted spread (OAS) for conventional 30-year agency MBS has widened in recent months and now looks like an attractive alternative to high-rated corporate credit. We recommend that investors shift out of Aaa, Aa and A-rated corporate credit and into agency MBS for three reasons. 1) Expected Compensation Is Competitive The average OAS for conventional 30-year agency MBS now stands at 52 bps. This is only 6 bps below the average OAS offered by a Aa-rated corporate bond, and 37 bps less than that offered by an A-rated credit (Chart 5). That’s not bad for a Aaa-rated bond with agency backing. 2) Risk-Adjusted Compensation Is Stellar MBS spreads look much more attractive when we consider the risk profile. Specifically, when we consider that the average duration of the MBS index has fallen sharply this year, while the average duration of the investment grade corporate bond index has risen (Chart 5, panel 2). In fact, the average duration of the MBS index is only 2.9, compared to 7.8 for an A-rated corporate bond. This means that the MBS spread needs to widen by 18 bps over the next 12 months for an investor to see losses, while the A-rated spread needs to widen by only 11 bps (Chart 5, bottom panel). We recommend that investors shift out of Aaa, Aa and A-rated corporate credit and into agency MBS. Because MBS exhibit negative convexity, their duration declines when yields fall. By contrast, non-callable investment grade corporate bonds have positive convexity and have seen their durations rise. This means that, all else equal, negatively convex securities start to look more attractive on a risk-adjusted basis after a large decline in bond yields. This is also the main reason why negatively convex high-yield corporate bonds currently look much more attractive than investment grade corporate bonds.4 Interestingly, MBS did not look so attractive relative to corporate bonds in 2015/16, the last time that MBS index duration fell sharply. That’s because corporate bond spreads also widened during that period. This time around, corporate bond spreads have been stable as MBS index duration has plunged. Unless you think that Treasury yields have further downside, which we do not,5 agency MBS look like a good buy. 3) Macro Risks Are Lower While, as discussed above, we are not yet sounding the alarm about the macro risks to corporate bonds, we are even less concerned about the macro risks surrounding agency MBS. Mortgage refinancing activity is the most important macro driver of MBS spreads, and it should stay relatively low for a very long time. At such low mortgage rates, most homeowners have already had an opportunity to refinance, so refi burnout is currently very high. This is obvious when we observe that there was only a small spike in refi activity this year, despite a very large decline in mortgage rates (Chart 6). Chart 6Muted Refi Activity Will Keep Nominal Spreads Low Chart 6 also shows that the nominal MBS spread is highly correlated with refi activity, and that it remains near its historical tights. This spread contains both the OAS – which is a proxy for an MBS investor’s expected return – and the portion of the spread that is expected to be lost as a result of prepayment activity. The fact that the OAS is reasonably elevated compared to history while the overall nominal spread remains low means that MBS are pricing-in very little buffer for prepayment losses. Given the macro back-drop, this seems appropriate. Beyond refi risk, we also note that the credit quality of outstanding mortgages remains very high. The median FICO score on new mortgages has barely come down since the financial crisis (Chart 7). Further, while mortgage lending standards have been easing for the bulk of the post-crisis period, the Fed’s July Senior Loan Officer survey reported that the banks that view lending standards as tighter than the post-2005 average outnumber those that view standards as easier. Stronger housing activity data generally lead to higher mortgage rates, which in turn limit refi activity. Finally, there is very little reason to be concerned about significant weakness in housing activity. Of the six major housing activity data series that we track, all have rebounded sharply since this year’s drop in mortgage rates (Chart 8). Stronger housing activity data generally lead to higher mortgage rates, which in turn limit refi activity. Chart 7Mortgage Lending Standards Are Tight Chart 8Housing Activity Hooking Up   Bottom Line: Agency MBS spreads are competitive with high-rated (Aaa, Aa, A) corporate bonds, and look even more attractive on a risk-adjusted basis. We recommend that investors swap the Aaa, Aa and A-rated corporate bonds in their portfolios for agency MBS. Upgrade Municipal Bonds On July 23, we advised investors to reduce municipal bond exposure from overweight to neutral.6 The rationale was purely valuation driven. We saw no immediate signs of municipal credit distress, but noted that yields were simply too low relative to the alternatives. Today, we similarly see no signs of immediate credit distress. In fact, municipal bond ratings upgrades continue to outpace downgrades, our Municipal Health Monitor remains in “improving health” territory and state & local government interest coverage is strong (Chart 9).7 Chart 9Muni Credit Quality Is Not A Concern The difference, however, is that yield ratios have rebounded dramatically since early August, and municipal bonds have once again become attractive (Chart 10). Chart 10Munis Attractive Once Again Bottom Line: Investors should upgrade municipal bonds from neutral to overweight, given the recent back-up in Municipal / Treasury yield ratios. Within munis, investors should retain a preference for long-maturity Aaa-rated bonds, where yields are most compelling.   Ryan Swift, U.S. Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Corporate Bond Investors Should Not Fight The Fed”, dated September 17, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Adaptive Expectations In The TIPS Market”, dated November 20, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Corporate Bond Investors Should Not Fight The Fed”, dated September 17, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 4 The high-yield bond index is negatively convex because most high-yield credits carry embedded call options. Investment grade corporate bonds tend to be non-callable. 5 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “What’s Up In U.S. Money Markets?”, dated September 24, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 6 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “A Message To The TIPS Market”, dated July 23, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 7 For further details on our Municipal Health Monitor please see U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, “Trading The Municipal Credit Cycle”, dated October 18, 2016, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification