Market Returns

Special Report

Highlights Historically, the stocks with the lowest volatility have outperformed the stocks with the highest volatility, a trend that defies some of the most fundamental theories in finance. The low-volatility factor has outperformed the market in absolute return terms, with a substantial reduction in downside risk, in every major equity market. Compensation structure, benchmarking, analyst bias, and the preference for lottery-like stocks are all plausible explanations for why the low-volatility anomaly persists. Shifting some exposure from bonds to minimum-volatility equities might be an attractive way to keep returns high while remaining hedged against downside risk in a world of low interest rates. Feature Chart 1The Low-Volatility Anomaly Conventional wisdom suggests that achieving the right mix between risk and return requires a tradeoff: Take on too little risk, and returns will be subpar, but take on too much, and a large loss becomes likely. However, the empirical evidence shows that no such tradeoff exists in the equity market: Historically, the return of stocks with the lowest volatility has been better than the return of stocks with the highest volatility (Chart 1, top panel). Even when using a measure of systematic risk such as beta, there appears to be very little relationship between risk and return – a result that emphatically contradicts what is predicted by the CAPM (Chart 1, bottom panel). The success of low risk stocks – a well-documented phenomenon known as the low-volatility anomaly1  – challenges some of the most fundamental premises of finance and economics. After all, how could taking on less risk result in better returns? In this report, we dive into this anomaly, with the intent of answering the following questions: What kind of portfolios can exploit this anomaly? What are the risk/return characteristics to this factor and what sectors is it exposed to? Why does this factor work? How can investors use the low-volatility factor in their asset allocation process? To answer these questions we explore the historical performance of the MSCI minimum-volatility index. Additionally, we explore the academic research surrounding the low-volatility anomaly. Finally, we look into how low-volatility equities have performed as a hedge for a global equity portfolio when compared to government bonds. Low Volatility Vs. Minimum Volatility There are two types of portfolios that are generally used to exploit the low-volatility anomaly: Low-volatility portfolios are built first by sorting the stock universe according to the stocks' trailing standard deviation, and then by buying the stocks with the lowest standard deviation. Usually the index buys the bottom quintile of stocks ranked by volatility. Minimum-volatility portfolios are built through an optimization procedure, by which funds are allocated to the stock mix that would have minimized the historical volatility of a portfolio (subject to certain constraints). Chart 2No Dramatic Difference Between Low Vol And Min Vol The main advantage of minimum-volatility portfolios over low-volatility portfolios is that they do not consider only low-volatility stocks but also stocks with low covariance between each other. However, the construction of these portfolios also requires estimating large covariance matrices, which are prone to a significant degree of noise, and thus often have to be adjusted by statistical methods.2 That being said, there is little performance difference between these two methodologies in practice, though minimum-volatility portfolios do tend to be much more constrained than low-volatility portfolios (Chart 2). In this report we will focus on the more popular MSCI minimum-volatility portfolios, given that their historical data is more readily available.   Risk-Return Characteristics Of Minimum Volatility At the global level, minimum volatility has outperformed not only the market since 1990, but also the most popular equity factors, with the exception of momentum (Chart 3, top panel). The outperformance relative to the benchmark has proved to be robust, as minimum volatility has beaten the returns for the benchmark in the biggest developed markets as well as emerging markets for almost two decades (Chart 3, bottom panel). The most attractive feature of minimum volatility is the significant reduction in risk it provides. Since 1988, the annualized volatility of minimum volatility has been 10%, a considerable improvement vis-à-vis the market and relative to other popular equity factors (Chart 4, top panel). Meanwhile, even though return skew of minimum volatility has been more negative than the benchmark, minimum volatility achieved a substantial reduction in tail risk with a 10% conditional VaR of only 5% (Chart 4, middle and bottom panel). Chart 3Min Vol Outperformance Is Broad-Based Chart 4Min Vol Provides A Substantial Reduction In Risk In addition to its risk reduction, minimum volatility also has a countercyclical relative return profile, outperforming during bear markets, and underperforming slightly during bull markets (Chart 5, top panel). This return profile occurs partly due to the sector skew of this factor, which overweights defensive sectors such as Utilities and Consumer Staples relative to the global benchmark3 (Chart 5, middle panel). At the global level, this defensive tilt exposes minimum volatility to significant duration risk, given that the stocks in this index tend to have bond-like properties (Chart 5, bottom panel). The negative relationship between interest rates and the low-volatility factor has been well documented by the academic literature: Some studies estimate that up to 80% of the outperformance of low-volatility equities can be explained by exposure to duration risk.4 Chart 5Global Min Vol Is Sensitive To Interest Rates Chart 6Min Vol Is Expensive     On average, minimum volatility also tends to overweight stocks with a higher dividend yield than the market (Chart 6, panel 1). This yield difference accounts for roughly a quarter of the return difference between minimum volatility and the benchmark since 1990. However, high dividend yield and minimum volatility are not synonymous: Over the past decade, minimum volatility has selected stocks that are more expensive than the benchmark, a stark difference from high dividend yield portfolios, which exclusively select very cheap stocks (Chart 6, panel 2). The current high overvaluation of minimum volatility relative to the market could spell bad news for this factor in the near future: While valuation and returns do not have a straightforward relationship, extreme levels of valuation relative to the benchmark have historically resulted in subsequent underperformance of this factor relative to the market (Chart 6, panels 3 and 4). Why Does The Low-Volatility Factor Work? Analyst Forecasts It has been shown empirically that equity analysts tend to have an optimistic bias, due to the need of the analyst to maintain good relationships with the companies they cover. Moreover, investors do not adjust for this bias, meaning that the stocks of companies that receive an overly optimistic forecast tend to rise initially when the forecast is released, but then mean-revert once the forecast does not materialize. Chart 7Analyst Bias Is Larger In High-Vol Stocks It seems that this dynamic might be more pervasive in high-volatility stocks. In their paper “When Sell-Side Analysts Meet High-Volatility Stocks: An Alternative Explanation for the Low-Volatility Puzzle,” Hsu et al. show that analysts’ positive bias is larger for more volatile stocks, even when adjusting for confounding variables like size, sector and country5 (Chart 7).  It is easy to see why this might be the case: An extremely optimistic bias on a low variance stock would look unrealistic to most investors. Thus, analysts are more prone to express a large positive bias on high variance stocks, where bias is harder to detect. Ultimately, this bias causes these stocks to become chronically overvalued. Salary Structure of Managers Chart 8Institutions Favor High Vol The payoff structure of fund managers has also been suggested as a possible cause of the low-volatility anomaly.6 The structure of compensation for fund managers often resembles an option: A bonus is granted if the portfolio returns are higher than a certain threshold. In such a structure, the compensation of portfolio managers resembles a call option: The probability of a payoff increases with volatility, creating an incentive to invest in high-volatility stocks.  However, this preference for high-volatility stocks will overbid them, causing them to underperform. There is some evidence that this is in fact the case. Once the effect of size is neutralized, stocks with high institutional ownership tend to be more volatile than stocks with low institutional ownership (Chart 8). Moreover, a study on the exposure of hedge funds to popular risk factors from 2000 to 2016, showed that hedge funds have a large short exposure to the anomaly, indicating that they favor high-volatility over low-volatility stocks.7   Lottery Stocks Chart 9The Low-Volatility Anomaly Is Most Prevalent In Lottery-Like Stocks Not all high-volatility stocks are chronic underperformers. In the paper “The Low Volatility Anomaly and the Preference for Gambling,” Hsu et al. identify that the low-volatility anomaly is largest in stocks with strong lottery-like characteristics (the authors define lottery-like as the stocks that had the highest maximum daily return the previous month)8 (Chart 9). Meanwhile, other high-volatility stocks are much more likely to have higher or equal returns than their low-volatility counterparts. Why is this the case? Investors tend to have a preference for “home-run” stocks, which have a large probability of a small loss, but a small probability of a large gain – a well-documented behavioral bias known as the long-shot bias.9 This bias might cause investors to overbid for lottery-like stocks, causing them to underperform as a cohort. This phenomenon might be related to the incentives in the money management industry. Flows to equity funds tend to be very skewed to the very best performing funds. This means that fund managers have a high incentive to invest in stocks that have the potential of an extremely high payoff. Benchmarking Chart 10Benchmarking Could Be To Blame For The Low-Vol Anomaly While the low-volatility anomaly has been found in other asset classes,10 it is interesting to note that the anomaly occurs only within asset classes and not across asset classes. Indeed, the traditional risk-return relationship is conserved when looking at a multi-asset universe (Chart 10, top panel). One possible solution to this puzzle might be the effect of benchmarking. Within an asset class, benchmarked managers are not only measured according to their return relative to their benchmark but also to their tracking risk (volatility of return difference). Under this structure, investors do not have a large incentive to exploit the alpha from low-volatility or low-beta stocks, since such a strategy would result in a relatively high tracking error.11 This high tracking error will make the excess return of low-volatility stocks relatively less attractive for benchmarked managers, even if these stocks are clearly superior in terms of raw risk-adjusted returns (Chart 10, bottom panel). How Can Minimum Volatility Be Used In Asset Allocation? Chart 11Sensitivity Of Min Vol To Interest Rates Has Increased In The Last Decade The interest rate sensitivity of low-volatility stocks has been a topic of significant interest for academic researchers. A study that attempted to measure this sensitivity found that equities in the lowest volatility decile have an interest-rate exposure equivalent to a 66% equity/34% bond portfolio.12 Moreover, this sensitivity has increased in recent years: Factor analysis shows that while the beta of the excess returns of minimum volatility to the equity market has remained constant, the beta to the bond market has increased significantly over the last decade13 (Chart 11, top panel). Interestingly this process seems to have accelerated as bond yields fell below dividend yields – a result which might arise because the market starts perceiving bonds, and low-volatility equities as close substitutes when they provide a similar cash flow (Chart 11, bottom panel). At first glance, this relatively high duration risk appears to be a red flag, particularly if you share our view that interest rates have reached a multi-year bottom. After all, an environment where interest rates rise would imply that minimum volatility would underperform global equities on a structural basis.  However, the sensitivity of minimum volatility to interest rates can be used to the advantage of an asset allocator. Specifically, in a world of low bond yields, it could be attractive for an investor to shift some of the exposure he or she has from bonds to minimum-volatility equities. Why would an investor do this? As we discussed in our October 2019 report, low bond yields will cause bonds to generate returns that are much lower than their historical averages. This means that using government bonds as a hedge for an equity portfolio is likely to result in a severe drag on performance.14 On the other hand, while minimum-volatility equities do not have the same hedging potency as bonds, their returns are much higher, which suggests that at the right allocation they could prove to be a better hedge. In a world of low bond yields, it could be attractive for an investor to shift some of the exposure he or she has from bonds to minimum-volatility equities. How has such a strategy worked historically? Chart 12 shows how allocating incremental amounts of global minimum-volatility equities to an equity portfolio compares to adding incremental amounts of global government bonds. Overall, allocating an additional 3% of minimum-volatility equities to a portfolio had the same effect as adding 1% of government bonds in terms of downside protection and volatility reduction, but with a much higher return. This effect was robust throughout the sample period. Consider a portfolio with 30% government bonds, 30% minimum volatility and 40% global equities. With the exception of the 1990-1994 period, this portfolio had roughly the same 10% conditional VaR in all sub periods as a portfolio with 40% government bonds and 60% equities, but a significantly higher return (Chart 13). Moreover, the volatility of the portfolio that includes minimum volatility has also been lower than the 60/40 portfolio since 2000. Chart 12Min Vol Provides Protection With A Relatively High Return Chart 13Min-Vol Protection Has Been Robust Bottom Line The low-volatility anomaly contradicts what is perhaps the most fundamental pillar in finance: The tradeoff between risk and return. As such, this anomaly might be the most puzzling inefficiency in markets. But will it persist? The evidence suggests that the anomaly is caused by strong institutional incentives, which are likely to continue. Thus, investors should strongly consider investing in low-volatility stocks in the future. However, the following points should be taken into account: Investors who are evaluated according to their information ratio should avoid low/minimum-volatility stocks, given that their large volatility difference with the benchmark will result in a relatively high tracking error. Relatively high valuations and an uptrend in interest rates may hurt the performance of low/minimum-volatility stocks relative to the broad equity market in the near future. However, the interest-rate exposure of low/minimum-volatility stocks might prove attractive to multi-asset investors. Specifically, investing in minimum-volatility equities and reducing bond exposure might be a way to boost returns while remaining hedged.   Juan Correa Ossa, CFA Senior Analyst juanc@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1  The discovery of the low-volatility anomaly predates the discovery of both the size and value anomalies. For more details, please see Michael C. Jensen, Fischer Black, and Myron S. Scholes, “The Capital Asset Pricing Model: Some Empirical Tests,” Studies in the Theory Of Capital Markets, Praeger Publishers Inc., 1972. 2 For more details on the construction of minimum-volatility portfolios, please see Tzee-man Chow, Jason C. Hsu,Li-Lan Kuo, and Feifei Li, “A Study of Low Volatility Portfolio Construction Methods,” The Journal of Portfolio Management, Vol. 40, No. 4, 2014. 3 However, research has shown that the low-volatility anomaly still holds within sectors, suggesting that its outperformance is not only a result of sector bias. For more details, please see Raul Leote de Carvalho, Majdouline Zakaria, Lu Xiao, and Pierre Moulin, “Low Risk Anomaly Everywhere - Evidence from Equity Sectors,” (November 19, 2014). 4 Please see Joost Driessen, Ivo Kuiper, Korhan Nazliben, and Robbert Beilo, “Does Interest Rate Exposure Explain the Low-Volatility Anomaly?” Journal of Banking and Finance, Vol. 103, 2019. 5 Please see Jason C. Hsu, Hideaki Kudoh and Toru Yamada, “When Sell-Side Analysts Meet High-Volatility Stocks: An Alternative Explanation for the Low-Volatility Puzzle,”  Journal Of Investment Management (JOIM), Second Quarter 2013. 6 Please see Nardin L. Baker and Robert A. Haugen, “Low Risk Stocks Outperform within All Observable Markets of the World,” (April 27, 2012). 7 Please see David Blitz, “Are Hedge Funds on the Other Side of the Low-Volatility Trade?”  The Journal of Alternatives Investments, Vol. 21, No. 1, Summer 2018. 8 Please see Jason C. Hsu and Vivek Viswanathan, “The Low Volatility Anomaly and the Preference for Gambling,” Risk-Based and Factor Investing, pages 291-303; (2015). 9 There is some debate as to whether the long-shot bias is truly irrational in financial markets, where payoffs and probabilities are not known with precision. 10 Researchers have found that the low-volatility anomaly exists in the government and corporate bond market. For more details please see, Raul Leote de Carvalho, Patrick Dugnolle, Lu Xiao, and Pierre Moulin, “Low-Risk Anomalies in Global Fixed Income: Evidence from Major Broad Markets,” The Journal of Fixed Income, vol. 23, No. 4, Spring 2014. 11 Please see Malcolm Baker, and Brendan Bradley, and Jeffrey Wurgler, “Benchmarks as Limits to Arbitrage: Understanding the Low-Volatility Anomaly,” Financial Analysts Journal, Vol. 67, No. 1, 2011. 12 Please see Joost Driessen, Ivo Kuiper, and Korhan Nazliben, and Robbert Beilo, “Does Interest Rate Exposure Explain the Low-Volatility Anomaly?” Journal of Banking and Finance, Vol. 103, 2019. 13 We calculate sensitivity for US stocks instead of global stocks due to the effects of currency returns. 14 Please see Global Asset Allocation Strategy Report “Safe Haven Review: A Guide To Portfolio Protection In The 2020s,” dated October 29 2019, available at gaa.bcaresearch.com.

Highlights The Wuhan coronavirus outbreak in China is now being priced into commodity markets, with comparisons to the 2003 SARS outbreak serving as an early benchmark.1 If it follows the SARS trajectory its impact likely will be limited, although oil demand could fall at the margin as global travel falls. The IMF expects growth in EM economies, the engine for commodity demand, to come in at 4.4% and 4.6% this year and next, respectively, down two-tenths of a percent from its previous forecast, but still up from 2019’s 3.7% rate. The Fund’s risk assessment tilts slightly to the upside, nonetheless, in the wake of global monetary and fiscal stimulus. We introduce our 2021 oil balances and price forecasts this week. We expect Brent crude oil to average $70/bbl next year, and for WTI to average $4/bbl below that. We are maintaining our $67/bbl Brent and $63/bbl WTI 2020 forecasts (Chart of the Week). Chart of the WeekCrude Oil Price Forecasts For 2020, 2021 Feature In its latest World Economic Outlook – Tentative Stabilization, Sluggish Recovery? – the IMF flags key risks to EM growth, which will continue to feed the economic policy uncertainty that dogs commodity demand.2 The Fund’s “downward revision primarily reflects negative surprises to economic activity in a few emerging market economies, notably India, which led to a reassessment of growth prospects over the next two years. In a few cases, this reassessment also reflects the impact of increased social unrest.” That said, the Fund sees the balance of risk slightly tilted to the upside versus its earlier assessment in October, in the wake of global monetary and fiscal stimulus. This is in line with our view that the effects of monetary stimulus – deployed over the better part of last year and still expected to remain accommodative this year – will boost growth this year. Our view remains tempered by risks we’ve been highlighting that keep political and economic policy uncertainty elevated – e.g., trade tensions, civil unrest, and the still-underappreciated risks to oil markets arising from US-Iran tensions and social unrest in Iraq, which remains high (Chart 2). The loss of 800k b/d from Libya is significant, but the world does not lack spare light-sweet crude oil production capacity – the US shales, in particular, abound in this type of crude oil. Chart 2Policy Uncertainty Will Trend Lower, But Continues To Dog Commodities Oil Fundamentals Improving As is typically the case, we expect global oil-demand growth this year will be led by EM economies. Crude oil fundamentals continue to favor higher prices: Production management and capital discipline will constrain the rate of growth of oil supplies, and, as discussed above, demand will benefit from policy stimulus globally (Chart 3). Oil demand growth will recover this year, following a lower-than-normal rate of just 830k b/d last year, based on the US EIA’s most recent estimates of historical consumption. We continue to expect demand to grow 1.4mm b/d this year.  For 2021, we expect growth of just under 1.5mm b/d, reaching 103.65mm b/d globally. For its part, the EIA’s estimating growth of 1.34mm and 1.37mm b/d for 2020 and 2021, respectively. As is typically the case, we expect global oil-demand growth this year will be led by EM economies, proxied by non-OECD oil consumption, of 1.26mm b/d. For next year, we expect EM demand growth to come in at 1.34mm b/d, or just over 90% of global oil consumption growth in 2021. On the supply side, we continue to expect OPEC 2.0 output to increase slightly in 2Q20 and return to levels consistent with its previous agreement to cut 1.2mm b/d of production. Our modeling also assumes this level of production remains flat for the rest of 2020. Chart 3Fundamental Supply-Demand Balances Support Higher Crude Oil Prices Next year, we assume the producer coalition led by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) and Russia to increase production by 350k b/d in 1H21. In addition, we gradually remove 300k b/d of KSA’s overcompliance of 400k b/d next year, which moves its crude oil output in 2021 to 9.94mm b/d vs 9.76mm b/d this year. For Russia, we anticipate an increase in its condensate production, which it lobbied for last year. This will put our estimate of Russia’s crude and condensate production at 11.4mm b/d in 2020 and 11.64mm b/d in 2021.3 Most of the production cuts realized by OPEC 2.0 – ~ 2mm b/d – come at the expense of Venezuela and Iran, both of which are under sanctions limiting their production imposed by the US. We are holding Venezuela’s production at ~ 700k b/d in 2021, and will be monitoring this closely for any indication it is significantly changing. For Iran, we are keeping its production at 2.10mm b/d this year and next, assuming US sanctions remain in place. Oil production in both countries could be impacted by the outcome of US elections in November, and right now this is a near-impossible call to make. US Shales: No Longer A Growth Story? We continue to see slower production growth in the US than the EIA, particularly in the shales, as we expect capital markets to continue to discipline shale producers by only funding those firms that are able to return capital to shareholders or to deliver steady and increasing dividends. In our modeling, total US onshore production this year and next is expected to rise 800k b/d, and 310k b/d for 2021. We also continue to expect drilled-but-uncompleted (DUC) wells to continue to make significant contributions to overall shale-oil production in the US. Indeed, we expect DUCs to continue to offset part of the decline implied by lower rig counts, as they require less capex than drilling and completing new wells. We add ~ 500k b/d of production from DUCs completion over 2020 and 2021. Future production will depend heavily on the Majors and on productivity and lateral length. Our US crude and condensate production estimates for 2020 and 2021 reflect these constraints, and the slowing rate of growth being imposed by capital markets. For 2020, we expect total US crude and condensate production of 13.16mm b/d, of which 9.20mm b/d will come from the main shale basins led by the Permian.4 Tighter Fundamentals, Steeper Backwardations Our fundamental supply-demand balances are tighter than those assumed by the US EIA and the Paris-based IEA (Table 1). We expect US crude and liquids production to grow 1.6mm b/d this year, and only 500k b/d next year. We see global production growing 1.15mm b/d and 1.39mm b/d in 2020 and 2021, respectively. With demand growing 1.4mm b/d and close to 1.5mm b/d in 2020 and 2021, respectively, against this supply backdrop, our balances point to a deficit this year vs. the surplus expected by the IEA  (Table 2 and Chart 4). Table 1Fundamentals Comparison Table 2BCA Global Oil Supply - Demand Balances (MMb/d, Base Case Balances) Chart 4BCA Research's Balances Estimates Point To Falling Inventories Chart 5Tighter Storage, Steeper Backwardation For this reason, we continue to anticipate a steepening in the Brent and WTI forward curves – i.e., more backwardation – which will support our long 2H20 Brent vs. short 2H21 Brent curve trade (Chart 5). As a result of the steeper backwardation, we expect higher volatility, and will be getting long 4Q20 Brent $65/bbl calls vs. short 4Q20 Brent $70/bbl calls (Chart 6). Bottom Line: We continue to expect crude oil markets to tighten, given persistent production restraint by OPEC 2.0, capital-market-imposed restraint on US shale-oil producers, and revived global demand growth in 2020 and 2021. The IMF’s assessment re the balance of risk being tilted to the upside, in the wake of global monetary stimulus, is broadly consistent with our maintained view. While we expect global policy uncertainty to fall following the so-called phase-one US-China trade deal and a definitive Brexit vote in the UK, geopolitical tension remains high, particularly in the Persian Gulf. Chart 6Steeper Backwardation To Higher Implied Volatility We will be getting long 4Q20 Brent $65/bbl calls vs. short 4Q20 Brent $70/bbl calls, in anticipation of higher volatility in the wake of lower inventories. As a result, we are keeping our 2020 Brent forecast at $67/bbl, and are expecting 2021 Brent to trade at $70/bbl; WTI is expected to trade $4/bbl below Brent this year and next, on average. At tonight’s close, we will be getting long 4Q20 Brent $65/bbl calls vs. short 4Q20 Brent $70/bbl calls, in anticipation of higher volatility in the wake of lower inventories.   Robert P. Ryan Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist rryan@bcaresearch.com Hugo Bélanger Senior Analyst Commodity & Energy Strategy HugoB@bcaresearch.com   Commodities Round-Up Energy: Overweight Brent prices traded sideways ~ $64/bbl since last Tuesday, dismissing the US and China phase-one agreement and disruptions to Libyan production and exports which could total as much as 800k b/d.  Over the weekend, concerns re the Wuhan coronavirus outbreak in China started being priced into commodities, particularly oil.  Separately, the US Treasury Department renewed Chevron’s waiver to operate in Venezuela for another three months.  The company is scheduled to export 1mm barrels of oil produced by PDVSA via a joint-venture, partially dodging US sanctions on Venezuelan oil.5  We expect the country’s output to stabilize close to its current level of 710 kb/d this year. Base Metals: Neutral On Tuesday Beijing reported more than 400 people had been infected with the Wuhan coronavirus, confirming person-to-person transmission of the virus. Concerns that a wider spread over the lunar New Year holidays starting this weekend will impact economic growth in the world’s top metal consumer brought copper prices down 1.8% on Tuesday.  Zinc reached two-month highs this week amidst concerns of low LME warehouses stocks, now close to their 20-year lows at 50,900 MT (Chart 7).  Supply concerns stemming from low iron ore stocked in China’s ports, along with good Chinese macro data, lifted iron-ore prices. Precious Metals: Neutral The US dollar is a key missing piece needed to propel gold prices higher from current levels. The 2.4% decline in the trade-weighted dollar index supported gold’s 5% increase since October 1, 2019 (Chart 8).  We expect the dollar to continue depreciating in 2020, as global growth rebounds and the Fed remains accommodative, keeping gold prices well bid.  Most precious metals have followed gold’s lead this year; palladium and platinum are up 17.63% and 3.15%, respectively. Chart 7 Chart 8 Ags/Softs:  Underweight CBOT Corn and soybeans futures traded lower on Tuesday as markets awaited evidence of China purchasing additional U.S. agricultural goods, fulfilling its commitment to buy $32 billion of agricultural goods over two years per the phase-one deal negotiated between China and the US earlier this month.  Corn traded lower, as US grain elevators have yet to confirm any Chinese buying.  Soybeans, further weakened by expectations of a massive harvest in rival exporter Brazil.  Wheat was the only ag posting gains early in the week on the back of strong Black Sea export demand.     Footnotes 1     Please see CDC SARS Response Timeline, published by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.  The SARS outbreak was identified in February 2003 and lasted six months.  The CDC noted: “Globally, WHO received reports of SARS from 29 countries and regions; 8,096 persons with probable SARS resulting in 774 deaths. In the United States, eight SARS infections were documented by laboratory testing and an additional 19 probable SARS infections were reported.”  According to Chinese officials, there were 440 confirmed cases of the new coronavirus as of Wednesday; nine people were reported to have died thus far.  The World Health Organization met Wednesday to assess the Wuhan coronavirus outbreak.  The 2003 coronavirus outbreak was minor compared to the typical influenza outbreak: by way of comparison, every year there are an estimated one billion cases of influenza, resulting in 290,000 to 650,000 deaths, according to the International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers & Associations in Switzerland. 2               Economic policy uncertainty is a recurrent theme in our research.  It has been driving safe-haven demand for the USD and gold for months, as we recently discussed in Iran Responds To US Strike; Oil Markets Remain Taut.  It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 3     We use World Bank growth estimates to drive our EM demand forecasts.  Earlier this month, the Bank forecast EM GDP growth of 4.1% for 2020 and 4.3% for next year.  This will outpace last year’s growth rate of 3.5%. 4     US production growth, particularly in the Permian and Bakken basins, could be constrained by environmental restrictions, if state regulators crack down on the massive flaring occurring in both states.  Please see Lingering Oil-Demand Weakness Will Fade, published November 21, 2019, where we discuss this risk in more depth. 5     Please see Exclusive: PDVSA's partners act as traders of Venezuelan oil amid sanctions - documents, published by reuters.com January 13, 2020.   Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades TRADE RECOMMENDATION PERFORMANCE IN 2019 Q4 Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed in 2019 Summary of Closed Trades

Highlights 2019 Performance Breakdown: Our recommended model bond portfolio underperformed the custom benchmark index by -38bps for all of 2019. Winners & Losers: The underperformance of our model bond portfolio in 2019 was concentrated in the government bond side of the portfolio (-103bps), a result of below-benchmark duration positioning and underweights to US Treasuries and Italian government bonds. On the other side was a solid outperformance from spread product allocations (+65bps), mostly driven by an overweight to US high-yield corporate bonds. Q4/2019 Performance: The year ended strongly, however, as the portfolio outperformed by +28bps in Q4, split equally between government bonds and spread product. Scenario Analysis For The Next Six Months: We are targeting a moderately aggressive level of overall portfolio risk, with below-benchmark duration exposure alongside meaningful overweight allocations to global corporate credit. In our base case scenario, global growth will continue to recover supported by accommodative monetary policies, thus opening a window for another year of global corporates outperforming sovereign bonds in 2020. Feature Last week, we published the Global Fixed Income Strategy (GFIS) model bond portfolio strategy for the coming year, in which we translated our 2020 global fixed income Key Views into recommended investment positioning for the next 6-12 months.1 In this week’s report, take a final look back to review the performance of the model portfolio for both the fourth quarter of 2019 and the entire calendar year. We also present our updated scenario analysis, and return projections, for the portfolio over the next six months, incorporating the new recommended allocations introduced last week. As a reminder to existing readers (and to new clients), the model portfolio is a part of our service that complements the usual macro analysis of global fixed income markets. The portfolio is how we communicate our opinion on the relative attractiveness between government bond and spread product sectors. This is done by applying actual percentage weightings to each of our recommendations within a fully invested hypothetical bond portfolio. 2019 Performance: A Short Summary Of A Long Year Chart of the Week2019 Performance: Credit Good, Duration Bad, But A Solid Q4 The 2019 performance of the model portfolio can be summarized by duration dominating credit. Government bond yields rapidly fell in the first three quarters of the year due to weakening global growth and growing political uncertainty, to the detriment of our below-benchmark stance on overall portfolio duration. At the same time, global credit markets performed strongly in 2019, even as risk-free government bond yields plunged, which benefited our overweight stance on global spread product. The 2019 performance of the model portfolio can be summarized by duration dominating credit.  All in all, the overall portfolio return in 2019 was +7.9% (hedged into USD), underperforming our custom benchmark index by -38bps (Chart of the Week).2 That underperformance was more pronounced before the strong rebound in global bond yields witnessed at the beginning of the fourth quarter, at which point the portfolio was underperforming the custom benchmark by -68bps (Table 1). Table 1GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q4/2019 Overall Return Attribution Looking at the breakdown of underperformance in 2019, our recommended positioning on government bonds (duration and country allocation) dragged the overall performance by -104bps, while our credit tilts (by country and broadly defined credit sectors) provided a partial offset, contributing +65bps. The details of the full year 2019 performance can be found in the Appendix on pages 14-16. In terms of specifics, the biggest sources of underperformance were underweights in US Treasuries (-66bps) and Italian government bonds (-28bps). Those positions, however, were used to “fund” corporate bond overweights in US investment grade (+28bps) and US high-yield (+46bps), as well as euro area corporate debt (+6bps) – allocations that performed well and helped offset the underperformance in US and Italian sovereign debt. More generally across the government bond portion of the portfolio, the drag on returns was concentrated in the 10+ year maturity buckets. This was a consequence of combining our below-benchmark duration stance with a curve-steepening bias that was hurt severely by the bullish flattening of global yield curves in the first three quarters of the year. The drag on returns from curve positioning was particularly acute in Japan and France, where the 10+ year maturity buckets underperformed by -27bps and -13bps, respectively. On a more positive note with regards to country selection, three of our favorite overweights for 2020 – Germany (+10bps), Australia (+7bps) and the UK (+5bps) – all outperformed versus the model portfolio benchmark. Q4/2019 Model Portfolio Performance Breakdown: Winning On Both Sides The GFIS model bond portfolio performed well at the end of 2019, as fixed income markets began to discount stabilizing global growth and reduced central bank easing expectations. The total return for the GFIS model portfolio (hedged into US dollars) in Q4/2019 was only +0.1%, but this managed to outperform the custom benchmark index by a solid +28bps. The GFIS model bond portfolio performed well at the end of 2019, as fixed income markets began to discount stabilizing global growth and reduced central bank easing expectations.  In terms of the specific breakdown between the government bond and spread product allocations in our model portfolio, the former generated +14bps of outperformance versus our custom benchmark index while the latter outperformed by +15bps. The bar charts showing the total and relative returns for each individual government bond market and spread product sector are presented in Charts 2 and 3. Chart 2GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q4/2019 Government Bond Performance Attribution Chart 3GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q4/2019 Spread Product Performance Attribution By Sector The most significant movers were: Biggest outperformers Underweight US government bonds with maturity beyond 10+ years (+8bps) Overweight US Ba-rated high-yield corporates (+5bps) Overweight US B-rated high-yield corporates (+5bps) Underweight Italian government bonds with maturity beyond 10+ years (+4bps) Underweight German government bonds with maturity beyond 10+ years (+3bps) Biggest underperformers Underweight US government bonds with maturity of 1-3 years (-2bps) Overweight Japanese government bonds with maturity of 5-7 years (-2bps) Overweight Japanese government bonds with maturity of 7-10 years (-1bp) Overweight UK government bonds with maturity of 5-7 years (-1bp) Underweight German government bonds with maturity of 7-10 years (-1bp) Chart 4 presents the ranked benchmark index returns of the individual countries and spread product sectors in the GFIS model bond portfolio for Q4/2019. The returns are hedged into US dollars (we do not take active currency risk in this portfolio) and are adjusted to reflect duration differences between each country/sector and the overall custom benchmark index for the model portfolio. We have also color-coded the bars in each chart to reflect our recommended investment stance for each market during Q4/2019 (red for underweight, green for overweight, gray for neutral).3 Ideally, we would look to see more green bars on the left side of the chart where market returns are highest, and more red bars on the right side of the chart were returns are lowest. Chart 4Ranking The Winners & Losers From The Model Bond Portfolio In Q4/2019 Global spread product dominates the left half of the chart. EM corporates and EM sovereigns denominated in US dollars turned to be the best performers in Q4, followed by US and European corporate bonds. This was a boon for our model portfolio performance, given our overweight stances on global corporate bonds. This was due to credit spread narrowing, supported by accommodative monetary policy and fading fears of slower global growth. On the other hand, the right side of Chart 4 is predominantly occupied by government bonds. The worst performers in Q4 were German, New Zealand and UK governments bonds – three markets where we have been overweight, although we did take profits on our long-held bullish view on New Zealand in mid-November.4 Bottom Line: Our recommended model bond portfolio outperformed the custom benchmark index during the fourth quarter of the year. The outperformance came both from the government and spread product sides of the portfolio, driven by a smaller exposure to the long-ends of government bond yield curves and our recommended overweight position on US high-yield corporate bonds. Future Drivers Of Portfolio Returns Chart 5Overall Portfolio Allocation: Significantly Overweight Credit Looking ahead, the performance of the model bond portfolio will be driven by three main factors: our below-benchmark duration bias, our overweight stance on corporate debt versus global government bonds, and last week’s upgrade of EM USD-denominated sovereigns and corporates to overweight. In terms of specific weightings in the GFIS model bond portfolio, we now have a more pronounced bias favoring global spread product over government debt, with a relative overweight of fifteen percentage points versus the benchmark index (Chart 5). We also remain modestly below-benchmark on duration, with an overall exposure equal to 0.5 years short of the benchmark (Chart 6). While we do not expect a major surge in bond yields this year, global yield curves discount inflation expectations that are too low and monetary policy easing in 2020 that is unlikely to be delivered (especially in the US). With global growth showing signs of bottoming out, and leading indicators pointing to continued improvement in the next 6-12 months, the risk/reward bias is tilted in favor of global yields moving higher, justifying reduced duration exposure. Looking ahead, the performance of the model bond portfolio will be driven by three main factors: our below-benchmark duration bias, our overweight stance on corporate debt versus global government bonds, and last week’s upgrade of EM USD-denominated sovereigns and corporates to overweight. Chart 6Overall Portfolio Duration: Moderately Below Benchmark Chart 7Portfolio Yield: Significant Positive Carry From Credit Chart 8Portfolio Risk Budget Usage: Moderately Aggressive To better position the model bond portfolio to this backdrop of slowly rising global yields, we adjusted our government bond country allocations last week in favor of lower-beta markets such as Japan, Germany, France, Spain, Australia and the UK, while maintaining underweight positions in higher-beta markets such as the US, Canada and Italy.5 Our decision to upgrade global credit exposure helps boost the yield of our model portfolio to around 3%, or +43bps in excess of the benchmark index yield (Chart 7). Further, these changes represent an increase in the usage of the “risk budget” of our model bond portfolio, which is now running a tracking error (or excess volatility versus that of the benchmark) of 73bps (Chart 8). This is slightly higher than the 58bps prior to last week’s changes, but is still below the maximum allowable tracking error of 100bps that we have imposed on the model portfolio since its inception. More importantly, this is consistent with our view that investors should maintain a “moderately aggressive” level of risk in fixed income portfolios in 2020. Scenario Analysis & Return Forecasts To help provide some insight as to the potential excess returns from our model bond portfolio tilts, we use a framework for estimating total returns for all government bond markets and spread product sectors, based on common risk factors. For credit, returns are estimated as a function of changes in the US dollar, the Fed funds rate, oil prices and market volatility as proxied by the VIX index (Table 2A). For government bonds, non-US yield changes are estimated using historical betas to changes in US Treasury yields (Table 2B). We take yield forecasts for US Treasuries that are translated to shifts in non-US yields using these yield betas.6 Table 2AFactor Regressions Used To Estimate Spread Product Yield Changes Table 2BEstimated Government Bond Yield Betas To US Treasuries In Tables 3A and 3B, we present our three main scenarios for the next six months, defined by changes in the risk factors, and the expected performance of the model bond portfolio in each case. The scenarios, described below, all revolve around our expectation that the most important drivers of future market returns will continue to be the momentum of global growth and the path of US monetary policy. Base Case (Global Growth Recovery): The Fed stays on hold, the US dollar weakens by -2%, oil prices rise by +10%, the VIX hovers around 13, and there is a bear-steepening of the UST curve. This is a scenario where global growth keeps recovering, alongside a US dollar which slightly weakens. The model bond portfolio is expected to beat the benchmark index by +90bps in this case. Global Growth Accelerates: The Fed stays on hold, the US dollar weakens by -5%, oil prices rise by +15%, the VIX declines to 10, and there is a more pronounced bear-steepening of the UST curve. Under this scenario, the pickup in global growth is faster than anticipated, causing the US dollar to weaken substantially as global capital flows move into more growth-sensitive markets outside the US. Both of these forces support EM economies and support oil prices. The model bond portfolio is expected to beat the benchmark index by +125bps in this case. Global Growth Upturn Fails: The Fed cuts rates by -25bps, the US dollar appreciates by +3%, oil prices fall by -20%, the VIX rises to 25; there is a parallel shift down in the UST curve. This is a scenario where global growth merely stabilizes at weak levels but fails to rebound. The Fed finds itself delivering one more rate cut in order to support the US economy. Meantime, the US dollar appreciates as capital flows out of growth-sensitive regions into the safe-haven greenback, particularly as global recession fears result in increased financial market volatility. The model portfolio will underperform the benchmark by -38bps in this scenario. Table 3AScenario Analysis For The GFIS Model Bond Portfolio For The Next Six Months Table 3BUS Treasury Yield Assumptions For The 6-Month Forward Scenario Analysis The scenario inputs for the four main risk factors (the fed funds rate, the price of oil, the US dollar and the VIX index) are shown visually in Chart 9, while the US Treasury yield scenarios are in Chart 10. Chart 9Risk Factor Assumptions For The Scenario Analysis Chart 10US Treasury Yield Assumptions For The Scenario Analysis In terms of our conviction level among the main drivers of the model portfolio returns – duration allocation (across yield curves and countries) and asset allocation (credit versus government bonds) – we are confident that global growth is much more likely to rebound than decelerate further over the course of 2020. This will allow our increased spread product allocation to be the main driver of the portfolio returns. Thus, the overall expected excess return of our model bond portfolio over the benchmark is positive, given that the scenario analysis produces positive excess returns in the Base Case and “Global Growth Accelerates” outcomes. We are confident that global growth is much more likely to rebound than decelerate further over the course of 2020. This will allow our increased spread product allocation to be the main driver of the portfolio returns. Bottom Line: We are targeting a moderately aggressive level of overall portfolio risk, with below-benchmark duration exposure alongside meaningful overweight allocations to global corporate credit. In our base case scenario, global growth will continue to recover supported by accommodative global monetary policy, thus opening a window for another year of global corporates outperforming sovereign bonds in 2020.   Jeremie Peloso Research Analyst jeremiep@bcaresearch.com Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, “Our Model Bond Portfolio Strategy For 2020: Selectively Aggressive”, dated January 7, 2020, available at gfis.bcarsearch.com. 2 The GFIS model bond portfolio custom benchmark index is the Bloomberg Barclays Global Aggregate Index, but with allocations to global high-yield corporate debt replacing very high quality spread product (i.e. AA-rated). We believe this to be more indicative of the typical internal benchmark used by global multi-sector fixed income managers. 3 Note that sectors where we made changes to our recommended weightings during Q4/2019 will have multiple colors in the respective bars in Chart 4. 4 Please see BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, “When In Doubt, Trust The Leading Indicators”, dated November 19, 2019, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 5 We are defining “beta” here in terms of yield beta, or the sensitivity to changes in an individual country's bond yield to changes the overall level of global bond yields. 6 We are making a change in the betas used in our scenario analysis this week, using trailing 3-year yield betas to US Treasuries in place of the longer-term post-crisis yield betas that were measured over a full 10 years. Appendix Appendix Table 1GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Full Year 2019 Overall Return Attribution Appendix Chart 1GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Full Year 2019 Government Bond Performance Attribution Appendix Chart 2GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Full Year 2019 Spread Product Performance Attribution By Sector   Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Highlights Incoming economic data suggests that China’s economy is in the process of bottoming, but also that the intensity of a recovery is likely to be more muted than it has been during past economic cycles. Recent Chinese equity market performance is consistent with a bottoming in the economy: cyclicals are outperforming defensives, and both the investable and domestic markets have broken above their respective 200-day moving averages versus global stocks. We continue to recommend that investors cyclically overweight Chinese domestic and investable stocks relative to the global benchmark. However, there is more potential upside for investable than domestic stocks, and the gains in both markets may be front loaded in the first half of the year. Feature Tables 1 and 2 on pages 2 and 3 highlight key developments in China’s economy and its financial markets over the past month. On the growth front, several indicators now suggest that China’s economy is in the process of bottoming, but these indicators also imply that the intensity of a recovery in economic activity is likely to be more muted than it has been during past economic cycles. We see this as consistent with the views presented in our December 11 Weekly Report,1 which laid out four key themes for China and its financial markets for 2020. Table 1China Macro Data Summary Table 2China Financial Market Performance Summary Within financial markets, recent developments are also consistent with the view that Chinese economic activity will modestly accelerate and that a Sino-American trade truce will last until the US presidential election in November 2020. Chinese stocks have rallied both in absolute terms and relative to global equities over the past month, and cyclical stocks are clearly outperforming defensives on an equally-weighted basis in both markets. The RMB has also appreciated modestly, with USD-CNY having now durably fallen back below the 7 mark. We continue to recommend that investors cyclically overweight Chinese domestic and investable stocks relative to the global benchmark, with the caveat that we expect more potential upside for investable than domestic stocks and the gains in both markets may be front loaded in the first half of the year. We expect modest further gains in the RMB over the coming few months, as we see the PBoC is unwilling to allow rapid appreciation. In reference to Tables 1 and 2, we provide several detailed observations below concerning developments in China’s macro and financial market data: Chart 1A Bottoming In China's Economic Growth Is Now Likely Underway On a smoothed basis, the Bloomberg Li Keqiang index (LKI) rose in November, driven largely by an improvement in electricity output (Chart 1). While our alternative LKI is weaker than Bloomberg’s measure, we see the improvement in the latter as a sign of a bottoming process for growth that is now underway (Bottom panel, Chart 1). Our leading indicator for the Li Keqiang index was essentially flat in November, with the large gap that has persisted between the degree of monetary accommodation and money & credit growth still present. There was a notable improvement in the Bloomberg Monetary Conditions Index (MCI) in November, but this can be attributed to a surge in headline inflation (which depressed real interest rates). This underscores that the ongoing uptrend in our LKI leading indicator is modest, and that an improvement in economic activity this year is thus unlikely to be sharp or intense. With the pace of pledged supplementary lending (PSL) injections and Tier 1 housing price appreciation as exceptions, all of the housing market data series that we track in Table 1 deteriorated in November. On a smoothed basis, residential housing sales rose at a slower pace and the previous surge in housing construction waned, in line with our expectation (Chart 2). House prices have continued to deviate from housing sales; deteriorating affordability and tight housing regulations have contributed to this divergence. Although funding from the PBoC’s PSL program improved in November, even further funding assistance is likely necessary in order to expect a strong uptrend in housing sales given the affordability and regulatory headwinds (Bottom panel, Chart 2). Both China’s Caixin and official manufacturing PMIs continue to signal positive signs for Chinese economic activity. While the Caixin PMI fell slightly in December, it stayed in expansionary territory for the fifth consecutive month. The official PMI also provided positive signs: the overall index remained above 50 for the second month, the production component rose further into expansionary territory, and the new export orders moved above the 50 mark. All told, China’s PMI data now clearly suggests that a bottoming in China’s economic growth is underway. Although the overall PMI data is sending a positive signal, Chart 3 highlights two series that are somewhat less positive. First, while the import component of the official PMI is rising, it is lagging other key sub-components and remains below 50. In addition, the PMI for small enterprises, which led the early phase of the 2016 recovery in the official PMI, has not meaningfully changed over the past few months. For now, these series suggest that a recovery in growth is likely to be muted compared with previous episodes over the past decade. Chart 2More Accommodative Funding Is Needed For Stronger Housing Sales Chart 3Weaker PMI Sub-Components Suggest A More Muted Recovery In USD terms, China’s equity markets (both investable and domestic) have rallied more than 8%-9% in absolute terms over the past month. In relative terms, both investable and A-share markets have also outperformed the global benchmark. It is notable that the relative performance trend of Chinese investable stocks has broken clearly above its 200-day moving average, which is the first time since the trade talks collapsed in May of last year (Chart 4A). The strong rally in China’s stock prices over the past month, particularly in the investable market, largely reflect the likely signing of a trade truce between the US and China. In our view, more accommodative monetary and fiscal support in 2020, as well as an ongoing truce, provide a sound basis to overweight China’s stocks within a global equity portfolio over both a tactical and cyclical horizon. However, we expect that China’s investable market has more upside potential than its domestic peer, given how much further the former fell in 2019.    From an equity sector perspective, the most notable development over the past month is that cyclical sectors have outperformed defensives in both the investable and domestic markets and have broken above their respective 200-day moving averages (Chart 4B). Among cyclical sectors, industrials, energy, consumer discretionary, especially materials and telecommunication services, have all contributed to cyclical outperformance over the past month. The outperformance of cyclical sectors is strongly consistent with continued outperformance of Chinese stocks versus the global average, and strengthens our conviction that investors should be overweight Chinese markets within a regional equity portfolio. China’s 3-month repo rate fell meaningfully over the past week, in response to a 50 bps cut in the reserve requirement ratio (RRR). The decline has merely returned the repo rate back to the level that prevailed on average in 2019, but it does underscore the PBoC’s desire to modestly ease liquidity on a net basis. We will be presenting a Special Report on China’s government bond market later this month, but for now, our view remains that easier monetary policy is unlikely to materially impact Chinese government bond yields this year, unless the PBoC decides to target sharply lower interbank repo rates (which is not our expectation). Chart 4AThe Meaningful Rally In China's Equity Markets Sends A Positive Signal Chart 4BThe Outperformance Of Cyclicals Over Defensives Is Consistent With An Economic Recovery China’s onshore corporate bond spread has risen slightly over the past month alongside falling corporate yields. Despite persistent concerns of rising defaults on China’s onshore corporate bonds, the overall default rate remains quite low compared with those in developed economies, and China’s corporate bond market will benefit from even a modest improvement in economic growth this year. As such, we expect a continued uptrend in China’s onshore corporate bond total return index, and would favor onshore corporate over duration-matched Chinese government bonds. Chart 5A Modest Further Downtrend In USD-CNY This Year Is Likely The RMB has gained more than 1.35% versus the U.S. dollar over the last month, which caused USD-CNY to durably break below 7 (Chart 5). The rise was clearly in response to news that the US and China will agree to a trade truce, and we expect a further modest downtrend in USD-CNY as China’s economy continues to improve. Investors should note that we are likely to close our long USD-CNH trade (currently registering a gain of 1%) following the signing of the Phase One deal on Jan 15, given that we opened the trade as a currency hedge for our overweight towards Chinese stocks (denominated in USD terms). As such, upon the signing of the deal, we would recommend that investors favor Chinese stocks versus the global benchmark in unhedged terms.   Qingyun Xu, CFA Senior Analyst qingyunx@bcaresearch.com Jing Sima China Strategist jings@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1    Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report "2020 Key Views: Four Themes For China In The Coming Year," dated December 11, 2019, available at cis.bcaresearch.com Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations

Highlights 2020 Model Bond Portfolio Positioning: Translating our 2020 global fixed income Key Views into recommended positioning within our model bond portfolio comes up with the following conclusions: target a moderately aggressive level of overall portfolio risk, with below-benchmark duration exposure alongside meaningful overweight allocations to global corporate credit. Country Allocations: The cyclical improvement in global growth heralded by leading indicators should put upward pressure on overall global bond yields in 2020. With central banks likely to maintain accommodative policy settings to try and boost depressed inflation expectations, government bond allocations should reflect each country’s “beta” to global yield changes. That means favoring lower-beta countries (Japan, Germany, Spain, Australia, the UK) over higher-beta countries (the US, Canada, Italy). Spread Product: Better global growth, combined with stimulative monetary conditions, will provide an ideal backdrop for growth-sensitive spread product like corporate bonds to outperform government debt this year. We are maintaining an overweight stance on US high-yield credit, while increasing overweights to euro area corporates (both investment grade and high-yield). With the US dollar likely to soften as 2020 evolves, emerging market hard currency debt, both sovereign and corporate, is poised to outperform – we are upgrading both to overweight. Feature Welcome to our first report of the New Year. Just before our holiday break last month, we published our 2020 “Key Views” report, outlining the thematic implications of the BCA 2020 Outlook for global bond markets.1 In this follow-up report, we turn those themes into specific investment recommendations for the next twelve months. We will also make any necessary changes to the allocations in the Global Fixed Income Strategy (GFIS) model bond portfolio to reflect our themes. The main takeaway is that 2020 will be a much different year than 2019, when virtually all global fixed income classes delivered solid absolute returns. The unusual combination of rapidly falling government bond yields and stable-to-narrowing spreads on the majority of credit products – especially in developed market corporate debt – will not be repeated in 2020. Absolute returns from fixed income will be far lower than in 2019, forcing bond investors to focus on relative returns across maturities, countries and credit sectors to generate outperformance. With global monetary policy to remain stimulative, alongside improved global growth, market volatility should remain subdued over the next 6-12 months. Being more aggressive on overall levels of portfolio risk, particularly through higher allocations to markets like high-yield corporates and emerging market (EM) credit, is a solid strategy in a world of low risk-free interest rates and tame volatility. Top-Down Bond Market Implications Of Our Key Views As a reminder, the main fixed income investment themes from our 2020 Key Views report were the following: Global growth will rebound in 2020, led by the US and China, putting upward pressure on global bond yields. Central banks will stay dovish until policy reflation has clearly turned into inflation, limiting how high bond yields can climb in 2020 but sowing the seeds for a far more bond-bearish backdrop in 2021. Accommodative monetary policy and faster growth will delay the peak in the aging global credit cycle. Returns on global fixed income will be far lower in 2020 than in 2019, given rich valuation starting points. Country and sector selection will be more important in driving fixed income outperformance. We now present the specific fixed income investment recommendations that derive from those themes, described along the following lines: overall portfolio risk, overall duration exposure, country allocations within government bonds, yield curve allocations within countries, and corporate credit allocations by country and credit rating. Overall Portfolio Risk: MODERATELY AGGRESSIVE Global growth is in the process of bottoming out after the sharp manufacturing-driven slowdown in 2019. The cumulative lagged impact of monetary easing by central banks last year, led by the US Federal Reserve cutting rates and the European Central Bank (ECB) restarting its Asset Purchase Program, is a main reason why growth is set to rebound. Reduced trade uncertainty between the US and China should augment the impact of easier monetary policy through improved business confidence. Our global leading economic indicator (LEI), which has increased for nine consecutive months, is already heralding this improvement in the global economy. Our global LEI diffusion index – which measures the number of countries with a rising LEI and is itself a leading indicator of the LEI – suggests more gains ahead as 2020 progresses. The LEI diffusion index is also a reliable leading indicator of bond market volatility, with the former signaling that the latter will remain quiescent in 2020 (Chart 1). At the same time, cross-asset correlations across fixed income sectors should drift a bit higher alongside a more broad-based upturn in global economic growth and expanding monetary liquidity via central bank asset purchases (Chart 2). This pickup in correlations suggests that there is scope for markets that lagged the 2019 global credit rally, like EM USD-denominated sovereign debt, to make up for that underperformance in 2020. Chart 1Improving Global Growth Will Keep Volatility Subdued Chart 2Cross-Asset Correlations Should Increase In 2020 The combination of better growth, stable volatility – but with only a mild rise in correlations – is a good backdrop to take a somewhat more aggressive investment stance in fixed income portfolios in 2020.  The combination of better growth, stable volatility – but with only a mild rise in correlations – is a good backdrop to take a somewhat more aggressive investment stance in fixed income portfolios in 2020. We prefer to take that additional risk by adding to our recommended overweight to global credit, rather than further reducing our below-benchmark overall duration exposure. Overall Portfolio Duration Exposure: BELOW BENCHMARK Chart 3Global Bond Yields Poised To Move Higher The improvement in global growth that we are anticipating in 2020 would normally be expected to put upward pressure on the real component of global government bond yields (Chart 3, top panel). This would initially manifest itself through asset allocation shifts out of bonds into equities and, later, through expectations of rate hikes and tighter monetary policy. However, with all major developed market central banks now expressing a desire to keep policy as easy as possible to try and boost inflation expectations, the cyclical move higher in real yields is likely to be more muted in 2020. However, given our expectation that the US dollar is likely to see a moderate decline, as global capital flows move into more growth-sensitive markets in EM and Europe, there is scope for global bond yields to rise via higher inflation expectations – especially with global oil prices likely to move a bit higher, as our commodity strategists expect (bottom two panels). We recommend only a moderate below-benchmark overall duration exposure in global fixed income portfolios in 2020, given that real yields will likely stay relatively muted. Investors should maintain core allocations to inflation-linked bonds, however, to benefit from the pickup in inflation expectations that is likely to occur this year. We recommend only a moderate below-benchmark overall duration exposure in global fixed income portfolios in 2020, given that real yields will likely stay relatively muted. Investors should maintain core allocations to inflation-linked bonds, however, to benefit from the pickup in inflation expectations that is likely to occur this year. Government Bond Country Allocation: UNDERWEIGHT HIGHER-BETA MARKETS, OVERWEIGHT LOWER-BETA MARKETS At the country level, we would typically let our expectations of monetary policy changes guide our recommended allocations. Yet in 2020, we see very little potential for any change in monetary policy outside of Australia (where rate cuts can happen early in the year) and Canada (where a rate hike may be possible later in the year). Thus, we think that a more useful framework for making fixed income country allocation decisions in 2020 is to rely on the “yield betas” of each country to changes in the overall level of global bond yields. Chart 4 shows the three-year trailing yield betas for 10-year government bonds of the major developed markets. Changes in the 10-year yields are compared to the yield of the 7-10 year maturity bucket of the Bloomberg Barclays Global Treasury Index (as a proxy for the unobservable “global bond yield”). On that basis, the higher-beta markets are the US, Canada and Italy, while the lower-beta markets are Japan, Germany, France, Spain, Australia and the UK. Thus, we want to maintain underweight positions in the former group and overweight positions in the latter group. At the moment, we already have most of those tilts within our model bond portfolio, with two exceptions: we are currently neutral (benchmark index weight) in the UK and Canada. For the UK, Brexit uncertainty has made it difficult to take a strong view on the direction of Gilt yields - a problem now compounded further with Andrew Bailey set to take over from Mark Carney as the new Governor of the Bank of England. Staying neutral, for now, still seems like the best strategy until all the policy uncertainties are fully resolved. Canadian bond yields are more likely to maintain their “higher-beta” status as global yields rise, as we discussed in a recent report.2 Thus, this week, we move our recommended allocation for Canadian government bonds to underweight from neutral. For Canada, the growth and inflation data continue to print strong enough to keep the Bank of Canada on a relatively more hawkish path than the other developed market central banks. This suggests that Canadian bond yields are more likely to maintain their “higher-beta” status as global yields rise, as we discussed in a recent report.2 Thus, this week, we move our recommended allocation for Canadian government bonds to underweight from neutral. Applying Our Global Golden Rule To Government Bond Allocations In September 2018, we published a Special Report introducing a government bond return forecasting methodology called the “Global Golden Rule.”3 This is an extension of a framework introduced by our sister service, US Bond Strategy, that links US Treasury returns (versus cash) to changes in the fed funds rate not already discounted in the US Overnight Index Swap (OIS) curve. That relationship also holds in other developed market countries, where there is a clear correlation between the level of bond yields and our 12-month discounters, which measure the change in policy rates over the next year priced into OIS curves (Chart 5). Chart 4Favor Lower-Beta Government Bond Markets In 2020 In Table 1, we show the expected returns generated by the Global Golden Rule (shown hedged into US dollars) for the countries in our model bond portfolio universe, based on monetary policy scenarios that we deem to be most plausible for 2020. Chart 5Monetary Policy Expectations Will Remain Critical For Bond Yields In Table 2, we show the returns on a duration-adjusted basis (expected total return divided by duration). We then rank the return scenarios for overall country indices, aggregating the returns of the individual yield curve maturity buckets shown in those two tables, in Table 3. Table 1Global Golden Rule Forecasts For 2020 The results in Table 1 show that expected returns are still expected to be positive across most countries, although this is largely due to the gains from hedging into higher-yielding US dollars. The duration-adjusted returns shown in Table 2 look most attractive at the front-end of yield curves across all the countries. This is somewhat consistent with our view, discussed in the 2020 Key Views report, that investors should expect some “bear-steepening” of global yield curves over the course of this year as inflation expectations drift higher (Chart 6). Table 2Global Golden Rule Duration-Adjusted Forecasts For 2020   Chart 6Expect A Mild Reflationary Bear Steepening Of Global Yield Curves Table 3Ranking The 2020 Return Scenarios The results in Table 3 show that the best expected returns would come in rate cutting scenarios – an unsurprising outcome given that there is very little change in policy rates currently discounted in OIS curves in all countries in our model bond portfolio universe. We see rates more likely to remain stable across all countries, however, making the “rates flat” scenarios in the middle of Table 3 more likely in 2020. After our downgrade of Canada this week, our recommended country allocations now reflect both yield betas and the results of our Global Golden Rule. Spread Product Allocation: OVERWEIGHT GLOBAL CORPORATES VERSUS GOVERNMENT BONDS, IN THE US, EURO AREA AND EM Chart 7Stay Overweight US High-Yield Turning to credit markets, the shift of global central banks to a more accommodative stance – with global growth improving – has opened a window for another year of outperformance versus sovereign bonds in 2020. With market volatility likely to remain low, as discussed earlier, there is a strong case to increase credit allocations relative to government debt as 2020 begins. Turning to credit markets, the shift of global central banks to a more accommodative stance – with global growth improving – has opened a window for another year of outperformance versus sovereign bonds in 2020. We already have a recommended overweight allocation to US high-yield corporate debt within our model bond portfolio. As we discussed in a recent report, the conditions that would lead us to become more cautious on US junk bonds – deteriorating corporate health, restrictive Fed policy and tightening bank lending standards – are currently not in place (Chart 7).4 If US economic growth starts to rebound in the first half of 2020, as we expect, then the case for US junk bond outperformance is even stronger. We are maintaining only a neutral allocation to US investment grade corporates, however, but this is part of a relative value view versus US Agency mortgage backed securities, which look more attractive on a volatility-adjusted basis.5 We are comfortable with our US credit views, but we are making the following changes this week to raise the credit allocation in our model bond portfolio: Upgrade EM USD-denominated sovereign and corporate debt to overweight. The two conditions that typically must be in place before EM hard currency debt can outperform – a softer US dollar and improving global growth – are now both in place. The two conditions that typically must be in place before EM hard currency debt can outperform – a softer US dollar and improving global growth – are now both in place (Chart 8). The momentum in the US dollar has clearly rolled over and even in level terms, the trade-weighted dollar is peaking. Add in the improvement in both our global LEI and the global manufacturing PMI (and the China PMI, most importantly) and the case for upgrading EM hard currency debt for 2020 is a strong one. Increase the size of overweights to euro area investment grade and high-yield corporate debt. We already have a modest overweight stance on euro area corporate bonds in our model bond portfolio, based on our expectations that the ECB will maintain a highly-accommodative stance – which could include buying more corporate debt in its Asset Purchase Program. Yet with an increasing body of evidence highlighting that the sharp downturn in European growth seen in 2019 is bottoming out, the argument for raising euro area corporate bond allocations for this year is compelling. This is especially true for euro area high-yield, where the backdrop looks even more constructive (Chart 9) compared to US junk bonds using the same metrics described above – corporate health (not deteriorating), monetary policy (not restrictive) and lending standards (not tightening). Chart 8Upgrade EM Credit To Overweight Chart 9Increase Overweights To European Credit Summing It All Up: Our Model Bond Portfolio Adjustments To Begin 2019 The outlook described in our 2020 Key Views report, and in this week’s report, lead us to make several adjustments to our model bond portfolio weightings seen in the table on Pages 15 and 16. The results of those changes are the following: Duration: We are maintaining an overall portfolio duration of 6.5 years, which is 0.5 years below that of our custom benchmark portfolio index (Chart 10). Credit Allocation: We are increasing the allocation to EM USD-denominated debt, funded by reducing exposure to US Treasuries. We are also increasing the size of the overweight positions in euro area investment grade and high-yield corporate debt, funded by cutting allocations to German and French government bonds. The net effect of these changes is to increase our total spread product weighting to 57% of the portfolio (Chart 11), which represents an overweight tilt versus the benchmark of +15% (versus a +8% overweight prior to this week’s changes). Chart 10Stay Below-Benchmark On Duration Exposure Chart 11A Larger Recommended Allocation To Spread Product For 2020 Country Allocation: We are cutting the Canadian government bond allocation to underweight, while making additional modest adjustments to yield curve positioning in the US, Japan, and the UK to reflect the output from our Global Golden Rule. The net result of these changes, combined with the increased allocation to corporate bonds, is to boost the overall portfolio yield to 3%, which represents a positive carry of +43bps versus our benchmark index (Chart 12). Chart 12Greater Portfolio Yield To Begin 2020 Chart 13Move To A Moderately Aggressive Level Of Portfolio Risk Overall Portfolio Risk: All of the above changes represent an increase in the usage of the “risk budget” of our model bond portfolio, which is now running a tracking error (or excess volatility versus that of the benchmark) of 73bps (Chart 13). This is higher than the 58bps prior to this week’s changes, but is still below the maximum allowable tracking error of 100bps that we have imposed on the model portfolio since its inception. This is consistent with our view that investors should maintain a “moderately aggressive” level of risk in fixed income portfolios in 2020.   Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, “2020 Key Views: Delay Of Reckoning”, dated December 12th 2019, available at gfis.bcarsearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, “How Sweet It Is”, dated November 6, 2019, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report, “The Global Golden Rule Of Bond Investing”, dated September 25th 2018, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, “The Lowdown On Low-Rated High-Yield”, dated November 27, 2019, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, “Big Mo(mentum) Is Turning Positive”, dated October 29, 2019, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Highlights 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

Feature The purpose of this Special Report is to identify and provoke a healthy debate on the prevailing investment themes for the 2020s and to speculate on what the key US sector beneficiaries and likely losers may be. Every decade a dominant theme captures investors’ imaginations and morphs into a bubble. Massive speculation typically propels the relevant asset class into the stratosphere as investors extrapolate the good times far into the future and go on a buying frenzy. Chart 1 shows previous manic markets starting with the Nifty Fifty, gold bullion, the Nikkei 225, the NASDAQ 100, crude oil and most recently the FAANGs. Chart 1Manias: An Historical Roadmap What will be the dominant themes of the next decade? How should investors capitalize on some of these big trends? The purpose of this Special Report is to identify and provoke a healthy debate on the prevailing investment themes for the 2020s and to speculate on what the key US sector beneficiaries and likely losers may be. Theme #1: De-Globalization Picks Up Steam The first investment theme for the upcoming decade is the “apex of globalization” or “de-globalization”. We have written about this theme extensively at BCA Research and it is the mega-theme of our sister Geopolitical Strategy (GPS) service. Odds are high that countries will continue looking inward as the US adopts a more aggressive trade policy, China’s trend growth slows, and US-China strategic tensions intensify. The three pillars of globalization are the free movement of goods, capital, and people across national borders. We expect to see marginally less of each in the future. Chart 2 shows that we are at the conclusion of a period of tranquility. Pax Americana underpinned globalization as much as Pax Britannica before it. The US is in a relative decline after decades of geopolitical stability allowed countries like China to rise to “great power” status and rivals like Russia to recover from the chaos of the 1990s. Chart 2De-globalization Has Commenced De-globalization has become the consensus since the election of Donald Trump. But Trump is not the prophet of de-globalization; he is its acolyte. Globalization is ending because of structural factors, not cyclical ones. And its decline was pre-written into its “source code.” Three factors stand at the center of this assessment, outlined in our 2014 Special Report, “The Apex Of Globalization – All Downhill From Here”: multipolarity, populism and protectionism. Events have since confirmed this view. The three pillars of globalization are the free movement of goods, capital, and people across national borders. We expect to see marginally less of each in the future. Investment Implication #1: Profit Margin Peak The most profound and provocative investment implication from de-globalization is that SPX profit margins have peaked and will likely come under intense pressure, especially for US conglomerates that – on a relative basis to international peers – most enthusiastically embraced globalization. Reconstructed S&P 500 profits and sales data date back to the late-1920s. Historically, corporate profit margins and globalization (depicted as global trade as a percentage of GDP) have been positively correlated (Chart 3). Chart 3Profit Margin Trouble As countries are more outward looking, trade flourishes and openness to trade allows the free flow of capital to take advantage of profit-maximizing projects. Following the Great Recession and similar to the Great Depression, trade has suffered and trade barriers have risen. The Sino-American trade war has accelerated the inward movement of countries, including Korea and Japan, and has had negative knock-on effects on trade as evidenced by the now two-year old global growth deceleration. China’s response to President Trump’s election was to redouble its pursuit of economic self-sufficiency, which meant a crackdown on corporate debt and a fiscal boost to household consumption. Trump’s tariffs then damaged sentiment and trade between the two countries. Any deal reached prior to the 2020 US election will remain in doubt among global investors. The longer the trade war remains unresolved, the deeper the cracks will be in the foundations of the global trading system. Such a backdrop is negative for profit margins, as inward looking countries prevent capital from being allocated most efficiently. Moreover, the uprooting of supply chains due to the trade war hurts margins and the redeployment of equipment in different jurisdictions will do the same at a time when final demand is suffering a setback. In addition, rising profit margins are synonymous with wealth accruing to the top 1% of US families and vice versa. This relationship dates back to the late-1920s, as far back as our dataset goes. Using Piketty and Saez data, which exclude capital gains, it is clear that profit margin expansion exacerbates income inequality (top panel, Chart 4). Chart 4Heightened Risk Of Wealth Re-distribution Expanding margins lead to higher profits. Because families at the top of the income distribution are more often than not business owners, income disparities are the widest when margins are in overshoot territory. Eventually this income chasm comes to a head and generates political discontent. Populism has emerged on both the right and left wings of the US political spectrum – and since the rise of Trump, even Republicans complain about inequality and the excesses of “corporate welfare” and laissez-faire capitalism. Because inequality is extreme – relative to America’s developed peers – and political forces are mobilizing against it, the probability of wealth re-distribution is rising in the coming decades (middle panel, Chart 4). Labor’s share of national income has nowhere to go but higher in coming years and that is negative for profit margins, ceteris paribus (bottom panel, Chart 4). Drilling beneath the surface, the three secular US equity sector/factor implications of the apex of globalization paradigm shift are: prefer small caps over large caps prefer value over growth overweight the pure-play BCA Defense Index Investment Implication #2: Small Is Beautiful While a small cap bias is contrary to the cyclical US Equity Strategy view of preferring large caps to small caps, the issue is timing: the small cap preference is a secular view with a time horizon that spans the next decade. The small versus large cap share price ratio’s ebbs and flows persist over long cycles. Small caps outshined large caps uninterruptedly from 1999 to 2010. Since then large caps have had the upper hand (Chart 5). Were the apex of globalization theme to gain traction in the 2020s, small caps should reclaim the lead from large caps, especially in the wake of the next US recession. Similar to the death of the global banking model, companies with global footprints will suffer the most, especially compared with domestically focused outfits. One way to explore this theme is via domestic versus global sector preference. But a more investable way to position for this sea change, is to buy small caps (or microcaps) at the expense of large caps (or mega caps). Small caps are traditionally domestically geared compared with large caps that have significantly more foreign sales exposure. Chart 5It’s A Small World After All The closest ETF ticker symbols resembling this trade is long IWM:US/short SPY:US. Investment Implication #3: Buy Value At The Expense Of Growth Similar to the size bias, the style bias also moves in secular ways. Value outperformed growth from the dot com bust until the GFC. Since then growth has crushed value, even temporarily breaking below the year 2000 relative trough. This breakneck pace of appreciation for growth stocks is clearly unsustainable and offers long-term oriented investors a compelling entry point near two standard deviations below the historical mean (Chart 6). Chart 6Value Has The Upper Hand Versus Growth Financials populate value indexes, a similarity with small cap outfits. Traditionally, financials are a domestically focused sector with export exposure registering at half of the S&P’s average 40% level of internationally sourced revenues. On the flip side, tech stocks sit atop the growth table and they garner 60% of their revenue from abroad. This value over growth style preference will pay handsome dividends if the de-globalization theme becomes more main stream as countries become more hawkish on trade and the Sino-American war continues to erect barriers to trade that took decades to lift. The caveat? If President Trump strikes a short-term deal with China ahead of the 2020 election, the de-globalization theme will suffer a setback. But our geopolitical strategists expect a ceasefire at best, not a durable deal, and also expect the trade war to resume in some way, shape or form in 2021-22, regardless of the outcome of the US election. The closest ETF ticker symbols resembling this trade is long IVE:US/short IVW:US.  Investment Implication #4: Defense Fortress One final long-term playable investment idea from the apex of globalization is a structural bull market in defense stocks (Chart 7). Our October 2016 “Brothers In Arms” Special Report drew parallels with the late nineteenth century period of European rearmament, and the American and Soviet arms race of the 1960s. These movements were greatly beneficial to the aerospace and defense industry. Currently, the move by several countries to adopt more independent foreign policies, i.e. to move away from collaboration and cooperation toward isolationism and self-sufficiency, entails an accompanying arms race. Chart 7Stick With Pure-play Defense Stocks Table 1 China’s challenge to the regional political status quo motivates a boost to defense spending globally. In fact SIPRI data on global military spending by 2030 (Table 1) increases our conviction that this trade will succeed on a five-to-ten year horizon. Beyond the global arms race, two additional forces are at work underpinning pure-play defense contractors. A global space race with China, India and the US wanting to have manned missions to the moon, and the rise of global cybersecurity breaches. Defense companies are levered to both of these secular forces and should be prime sales and profit beneficiaries to rising space budgets and increasing cybersecurity combat budgets. The ticker symbols for the stocks in the pure-play BCA defense index are: LMT, RTN, NOC, GD, HII, AJRD, BWXT, CW, MRCY. Theme #2: Tech Sector Regulation, US Enacts Privacy Laws The second long-term geopolitical theme that we are exploring is the regulatory or “stroke of pen” risk that is rising on FAANG stocks – Facebook, Apple, Amazon, Netflix, and Google. These companies were this decade’s undisputed stock market winners. The US anti-trust regulatory framework was designed to curb broad anti-competitive actions of trusts. As Lina Khan discusses in her seminal article, these actions “include not only cost but also product quality, variety, and innovation.” However, through subsequent regulatory evolution, the Chicago School has focused the US anti-trust process on consumer welfare and prices. If President Reagan and the courts could change how anti-trust laws were administered in the 1980s, so too can future administrations and courts. Today the US Congress, on both sides of the aisle, is looking into regulatory tightening, while the judicial system will take longer to change its approach. Moreover, the impetus for tougher anti-trust policy is here. It comes from a long period of slow growth, income inequality, and economic volatility – such as in the 1870s-80s. This was certainly the case for Standard Oil in 1911, which became a nation-wide boogeyman despite most of its transgressions occurring in the farm belt states. Today, income inequality is a prominent political theme and source of consumer discontent. A narrative is emerging – which will be super-charged during the next recession – that growth has been unequally distributed between the old economy and the twenty-first century technology leaders. With regard to privacy, the news is equally grim for large tech outfits. The EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), which came into force on May 2018, imposes compliance burdens on any company handling user data. In the US, California has signed its own version of the law – the Consumer Privacy Act – which will go into effect in January 2020. These laws give consumers the right to know what information companies are collecting about them and what companies that data is being shared with. They also allow consumers to ask technology companies to delete their data or not to sell it. While tech companies are likely to fight the new California law, and the US court system is a source of uncertainty, we believe the writing is on the wall. The EU is by some measures the largest consumer market on the planet. California is certainly the largest US market of the states. It is unlikely that the momentum behind consumer protection will change, especially with the EU and California taking the lead. The odds of a federal privacy law, following in the footsteps of the Consumer Privacy Act, are also rising. Investment Implication #5: Shun Interactive Media & Services Stocks These risks introduce a severe overhang for FAANG stocks. We are especially worried for the S&P interactive media & services index that includes GOOGL and FB. Tack on the threat of federal regulation and this represents another major headwind for profits and net profit margins that are extremely elevated for these near monopolies. Given that advertising revenue is crucial to the business model of social media companies (GOOGL and FB included), a significant uptick in privacy regulation will likely hurt their bottom line. With regard to profit margins, tech stocks in general command a profit margin twice as high as the SPX. Specifically, FB and GOOGL enjoy margins that are 500 basis points higher than the broad tech sector (Chart 8)! This is unsustainable and will likely serve as easy prey for policymakers. Our view does not necessarily call for breaking up these monopolies. The US will have to weigh the economic consequences of anti-trust policy in a context of multipolarity in which China’s national tech champions are emerging to compete with American companies for global market share. Nevertheless increased regulation is inevitable and some forced sales of crown jewel assets may take place. Moreover, the threat of a breakup will lurk in the background, creating uncertainty until key legislative and judicial battles have already been fought. That will take years. Finally, we doubt the tech sector will be left alone to “self-regulate” its incumbents and negotiate a price on consumers’ privacy. More likely, a new privacy law will loom overhead, serving as a negative catalyst for profit growth. Uncertainty will weigh on the S&P interactive media & services relative performance. Chart 8Regulation Will Squeeze Tech Margins The ticker symbols to short/underweight the S&P interactive media & services index are an equally weighted basket of GOOGL and FB (they command a 98% market cap weight in the index). Theme #3: SaaS, Artificial Intelligence, Augmented Reality And Autonomous Driving Are Not Fads The third big theme that will even outlive the upcoming decade is the proliferation of software as a service (SaaS). The move to cloud computing and SaaS, the wider adoption of artificial intelligence, machine learning, autonomous driving and augmented reality are not fads, but enjoy a secular growth profile. In the grander scheme of things today’s world is surrounded by software. Millions of lines of code go even into gasoline powered automobiles, let alone electric vehicles. Autonomous driving is synonymous with software, the Internet of Things (IoT) needs software, the space race depends on software, modern manufacturing and software are closely intertwined, phone calls for quite some time have been a software solution, and the list goes on and on. This tidal effect is hard to reverse and is already embedded in workflows across industries. Opportunities to penetrate health care and financial services more deeply remain unexplored and it is difficult to envision another competing industry unseating “king software”. These secular trends are not only productivity enhancing, but will also most likely prove recession-proof. When growth is scarce investors flock to any source of growth they can come by and we are foreseeing that when the next recession arrives, investors will likely seek shelter in pure play SaaS firms. Investment Implication #6: Software Is Eating The World Buying software stocks for the long haul seems like a bulletproof investment idea. But the recent stellar performance of software stocks that has moved valuations to overshoot territory. Our recommended strategy is to buy or add software stock exposure on any weakness with a 10-year investment time horizon. All of these secular trends have pushed capital outlays on software into a structural uptrend. Software related capex is not only garnering a larger slice of the tech spending budgets but also of the overall capex pie. If it were not for software capex, the contraction in non-residential investment in recent quarters would have been more severe (Chart 9). Private sector software capex is near all-time highs as a share of total outlays. Government investment in software is also reaccelerating at the fastest pace since the tech bubble. When productivity gains are anemic, both the business and government sectors resort to software upgrades in order to boost productivity. Cyber security is another more recent source of software related demand as governments around the globe are taking such risks extremely seriously (bottom panel, Chart 9). Given this upbeat demand backdrop and ongoing equity retirement, software stocks are primed to grow into their pricey valuations. Chart 9Software Is Eating The World Finally, this long-term trade will also serve as a hedge to the short/underweight position we recommend in the S&P interactive media & services index. The closest ETF ticker symbol resembling the S&P software index is IGV:US. Theme #4: Millennials Already Are The Largest Cohort And Will Dominate Spending The fourth long-term theme we anticipate will gain traction in the 2020s is the demographic rise of the Millennial generation. Much has been made of preparing for the arrival of the Millennial generation, accompanied by well-worn stereotypes of general "failure to launch" as they reach adulthood. However, "arrival" is a misnomer as this age cohort is already the largest and "failure" is simply untrue. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, Millennials are the US’s largest living generation. Millennials (or Echo Boomers) defined as people aged 18 to 37 (born 1982 to 2000), now number more than 80mn and represent more than one quarter of the US’s population. Baby Boomers (born 1946 to 1964) number about 75mn. Stealthily becoming the largest age group in the US over the last few years, Millennials per-year-birth-rate peaked at 4.3mn in 1990. Surprisingly, the pace matched that of the post-war Baby Boom peak-per-year-birth-rate in 1957 - the per-year average over the period was higher for the Baby Boomers (Chart 10). Chart 10Millennials Are The Largest Cohort This gap is now set to grow rapidly as the death rate of Baby Boomers accelerates. What is more, the largest one-year age cohort is only 25 years old, thus, Millennials will be the dominant generation for many years. It is unclear how these “kids” will impact the market as they become the most important consumers, borrowers and investors, but make no mistake: this is a seismic shift in economic power and it is here to stay. The Echo Boom is a big, generational demographic wave. A difficult and painful delay has not tempered its looming importance. Finally, this wave of echo-boomers is educated, relatively unburdened by debt (please see BOX in the June 11, 2018 Special Report on demystifying the student debt load as it pertains to Millennials), and as they inevitably “grow up”, form new households and have kids. They will borrow, spend, earn, but not necessarily save and invest to the same extent as the Boomers. And this will be an important long-term theme going forward. Near term we might already be seeing signs of their arrival and firms have begun to pivot accordingly. Investment Implication #7: Buy The BCA Millennials Equity Basket Millennials will boost consumption spending in a number of different ways. The relatively unburdened Millennial cohort will be entering prime home acquisition age soon and this should underpin the long-term prospects of the US housing market and derivative industries. Further, Millennials consume differently from their parents; social media, online shopping and smart phones are not the consumption categories of the Baby Boomers. With this in mind, we have created a basket of ten stocks that we think will be driven over the long term by the demographic rise of the Millennial. We note that these stocks are heavily weighted to the technology and consumer discretionary sectors, which is logical as Millennial consumption habits tend to be discretionary focused and technology-based. Beginning with consumer discretionary, we are highlighting AMZN, NFLX and SPOT as core holdings in our Millennials basket. AMZN’s heft dwarfs consumer discretionary indexes but it could fall in several categories; the acquisition of Whole Foods makes it a Millennials-focused consumer staples retailer and its cloud computing web services segment is a tech leader. NFLX and SPOT represent the means by which Millennials consume media, by streaming movies and music over the internet. The idea of owning physical media is rapidly becoming an anachronism. The home ownership themes noted in the report above lead us to add HD and LEN to the basket. Millennials are “doers” and are set to be the dominant DIYers in the next few years, making HD a logical choice. LEN, as the nation’s largest home builder, should benefit from the Millennials coming of age into home buyers. We are also adding TSLA to our basket as a lone clean tech-oriented equity. TSLA capitalizes on the increasing shift to clean energy of Millennials (the key reason why no traditional energy companies have a spot in our basket). The technology stocks in our Millennials basket are AAPL, UBER (which replaces FB as of today) and MSFT, together representing more than 9% of the total value of the S&P 500. AAPL’s inclusion in the list is predictable as the leading domestic purveyor of devices on which Millennials consume media content. FB is a predictable holding, with more than half of all Americans being monthly active users, dominated by the Millennial cohort. It has served our basket well since inception, but today we are compelled to remove it and replace it with UBER. UBER is a Millennial favorite and the epitome of the sharing economy. In reality UBER is a logistics company and while it is losing money it is eerily reminiscent of AMZN in its early days. Maybe UBER will dominate all means of transportation and its ease of use will propel it to a mega cap in the coming decade. Our inclusion of MSFT is based on its leadership in cloud computing, a rapidly growing industry. We expect the connectivity and mobile computing demands of Millennials will accelerate. The last stock we are adding to our basket is also the only financial services equity. Though avid consumers, Millennials have shown an aversion to cash, preferring card payment systems, including both debit and credit-based. Accordingly, we are adding the leader in both of these, V, to our Millennials basket (Chart 11). Chart 11Buy BCA’s Millennial Equity Basket Investors seeking long term exposure to stocks lifted by the supremacy of the Millennial generation should own our Millennial basket (AAPL, AMZN, UBER, HD, LEN, MSFT, NFLX, SPOT, TSLA, V). We would not hesitate to add other sharing economy stocks, including Airbnb, to this basket should they become investable in the near future. Theme #5: ESG Becomes Mainstream Investors are increasingly looking at allocating assets based on environmental, social, and governance (ESG) considerations, and this mini-theme has the potential to become a big trend in the 2020s. There are a number of factors that underpin ESG investing. First, Millennials are climate conscious and given that they already are the largest cohort in the US they will not only dominate spending, but also influence election results. Moreover, via social media Millennials can sway public opinion and participate in the ESG conversation. Second, ECB President Christine Lagarde recent speech to the Economic and Monetary Affairs Committee of the European Parliament is a must read.1 If the ECB were to explicitly focus on climate change policy as part of its monetary policy operations then this is a game changer. Green investment financing including “green bonds” could become mainstream. Keep in mind the as reported in the FT “the European Parliament has declared a climate emergency; the new European Commission (EC) has taken office on a promise of an imminent “green new deal”, and Commission president Ursula von der Leyen has vowed to accelerate emissions cuts.” Last Wednesday, the EC released “The European Green Deal” with a pretty aggressive time table. The EC president said “The green deal is Europe’s man on the moon moment” and presented 50 policies slated to get rolled by 2022 to meet revamped climate goals. The implication is that once ESG takes center stage at a number of these institutions it will be easier to become mainstream and propagate the world over. Third, large institutional investors are starting to adopt an ESG mindset, especially pension plans. These investors with trillions of dollars at their disposal can not only disfavor fossil fuel investment, but also undertake investments in “green projects” via private and public equity markets. Banks are also moving in the “greening of finance” direction and given that they are the pipelines of the global plumbing system, swift adoption will go a long way in taking ESG mainstream. Finally, the electric vehicle (EV) proliferation is another key driver on how the ESG theme will play out in the 2020s. As a reminder, in the US 50% of all energy consumption is gasoline related linked to automobiles. While battery technology still has limitations, EV is no longer a fad as the German and Japanese automakers are starting to make inroads on TSLA. These car manufacturers do not want to be left out, especially if this shift toward EV becomes mainstream in the 2020s. The Chinese are not far behind on the EV manufacturing front, however government policy can really become a game changer. If a number of countries and/or California mandate a large share of all new vehicles sold be EV, then the investment implications will be massive. Investment Implication #8: Avoid Fossil Fuels, Gambling, Alcohol And Tobacco… While there are a few ESG related ETFs, we would rather explore this theme’s investment implications of sectors to avoid in the coming decade. We are believers that ESG criteria will continue to gain in importance in institutional investment management decisions. Accordingly, we would tend to avoid ‘sin stocks’, including gambling, tobacco and alcohol; demand for their services is unlikely to decline but investment weightings should mean that share prices will underperform. Further, we think a clean energy shift will mean energy stocks will likely continue to be long-term underperformers (Chart 12). Chart 12Areas To Avoid As ESG Becomes Mainstream Final Thoughts On The US Dollar In this report, we tried to focus on the upcoming decade’s big themes that we deem will play out, and centered recommendations on US equities/sectors. We do not want to neglect some macroeconomic variables that tend to mean revert over time. Specifically, the US dollar, interest rates and most importantly US indebtedness, will also be key drivers of investment theses in the 2020s. Currently, debt is rising faster than nominal GDP growth with the government and non-financial business debt-to-GDP profiles on an unsustainable path (second panel, Chart 13). Granted, the saving grace has been generationally low interest rates as the debt service ratios have fallen (top panel, Chart 13). However, if the four decade bull market in Treasury bonds is over, or may end definitively with the next US recession sometime in the early 2020s, then rising interest rates are the only mechanism to concentrate CEOs’ and politicians’ minds. On the dollar front, Chart 14 highlights the ebbs and flows of the trade-weighted US dollar since it floated in the early-1970s. The DXY index has moved in six-to-ten year bull and bear markets. The most recent trough was during the depths of the Great Recession, while the (tentative?) peak was in late-2016. If history repeats, eventually the dollar will mean revert lower in the 2020s, especially given the fiscal profligacy of the current administration that may continue into 2024, assuming President Trump gets re-elected next November. Chart 13Unsustainable Debt Profiles Chart 14Greenback’s Historical Ebbs And Flows The US dollar remains the reserve currency of the world today, but that exorbitant privilege is clearly fraying on the edges as the balance-of-payments dynamics are heading in the wrong direction. Over the next five years, the US Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that the US budget deficit will swell to 4.8% of GDP. Assuming the current account deficit widens a bit then stabilizes (usually happens when global growth improves), this will pin the twin deficits at 8% of GDP. This assumes no recession, which would have the potential to swell the deficit even further. The US saw its twin deficits swell to almost 13% of GDP following the financial crisis, but the difference then was that in the wake of the commodity boom the dollar was cheap (and commodity currencies overvalued). The subsequent shale revolution also greatly cushioned the US trade deficit. Shale productivity remains robust and US output will continue to rise, but the low-hanging fruit has already been plucked.   Another dollar-negative force is its expensiveness. By rising 35% since its trough, the USD has sapped the competitiveness of the US manufacturing sector, which is accentuating the American trade deficit outside of the commodity sector (Chart 14). If the ESG trend ends up hurting oil prices, the US current account will follow the widening deficit in manufactured products. Moreover, the US is lagging Europe on the green revolution. Either the US will have to import green technologies, or the US government will have to provide more subsidies to the private sector. Either way, both of these dynamics will hurt the US current account deficit further. Historically, the currency market is the main vehicle to correct such imbalances. Chart 15Twin Deficits Will Weigh On The US Dollar The apex of globalization will also hurt the greenback. In a world where all the markets are integrated, borrowers in EM nations often use the reserve currency to issue liabilities at a lower cost. This boosts the demand by EM central banks for US dollar reserves to protect domestic banking systems funded in USD. Moreover, some countries like China implement pegs (both official and unofficial) to the US dollar in order to maintain their competitiveness and export their production surpluses to the US. To do so they buy US assets. If the global economy becomes more fragmented and the Sino-US relationship continues to deteriorate structurally as we expect, then these sources of demand for the dollar will recede. Overlay the widening US current account deficit, and you have the perfect recipe for a depreciating trade-weighted US dollar. Finally, the US is likely to experience more inflation than the rest of the world following the next recession. The US economy has a smaller capital stock as a share of GDP than Europe or Japan, and American demographics are much more robust. This means that the neutral rate of interest is higher in the US than in other advanced economies. As a result, the Fed will have an easier time generating inflation by cutting real rates than both the ECB and the BoJ. Higher inflation will ultimately erode the purchasing power of the dollar and prove to be a structurally negative force for the USD.   Anastasios Avgeriou US Equity Strategist anastasios@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com Marko Papic Chief Strategist, Clocktower Group marko@clocktowergroup.com Chester Ntonifor Foreign Exchange Strategist chestern@bcaresearch.com Mathieu Savary The Bank Credit Analyst mathieu@bcaresearch.com   References Please click on the links below to view reports: Peak Margins - October 7, 2019 The Polybius Solution - July 5, 2019 War! What Is It Good For? Global Defense Stocks! - October 31, 2018 The Dollar: Will The U.S. Invoke A "Nuclear" Option? - August 30, 2018 Is The Stock Rally Long In The FAANG? - August 1, 2018 Millennials Are Not Coming Of Age; They Are Already Here - June 11, 2018 Brothers In Arms - October 31, 2016 The End Of The Anglo-Saxon Economy?  - April 13, 2016 Apex of Globalization  - November 12, 2014 Footnotes 1           https://www.imf.org/en/News/Articles/2019/09/04/sp090419-Opening-Statement-by-Christine-Lagarde-to-ECON-Committee-of-European-Parliament

Special Report

Every decade a dominant theme captures investors’ imaginations and morphs into a bubble. Massive speculation typically propels the relevant asset class into the stratosphere as investors extrapolate the good times far into the future and go on a buying frenzy. Chart II-1 shows previous manic markets starting with the Nifty Fifty, gold bullion, the Nikkei 225, the NASDAQ 100, crude oil and most recently the FAANGs. Chart II-1Manias: An Historical Roadmap What will be the dominant themes of the next decade? How should investors capitalize on some of these big trends? The purpose of this Special Report is to identify and provoke a healthy debate on the prevailing investment themes for the 2020s and to speculate on what the key US sector beneficiaries and likely losers may be. Theme #1: De-Globalization Picks Up Steam The first investment theme for the upcoming decade is the “apex of globalization” or “de-globalization”. We have written about this theme extensively at BCA Research and it is the mega-theme of our sister Geopolitical Strategy (GPS) service. Odds are high that countries will continue looking inward as the US adopts a more aggressive trade policy, China’s trend growth slows, and US-China strategic tensions intensify. The small cap preference is a secular view with a time horizon that spans the next decade. Chart II-2 shows that we are at the conclusion of a period of tranquility. Pax Americana underpinned globalization as much as Pax Britannica before it. The US is in a relative decline after decades of geopolitical stability allowed countries like China to rise to “great power” status and rivals like Russia to recover from the chaos of the 1990s. Chart II-2De-globalization Has Commenced De-globalization has become the consensus since the election of Donald Trump. But Trump is not the prophet of de-globalization; he is its acolyte. Globalization is ending because of structural factors, not cyclical ones. Three factors stand at the center of this assessment, outlined in our 2014 Special Report, “The Apex Of Globalization – All Downhill From Here”: multipolarity, populism and protectionism. Events have since confirmed this view. One final long-term playable investment idea from the apex of globalization is a structural bull market in defense stocks. The three pillars of globalization are the free movement of goods, capital, and people across national borders. We expect to see marginally less of each in the future. Investment Implication #1: Profit Margin Peak The most profound and provocative investment implication from de-globalization is that SPX profit margins have peaked and will likely come under intense pressure, especially for US conglomerates that – on a relative basis to international peers – most enthusiastically embraced globalization. Chart II-3 shows reconstructed S&P 500 profits and sales data back to the late-1920s. Historically, corporate profit margins and globalization (depicted as global trade as a percentage of GDP) have been positively correlated. Chart II-3Profit Margin Trouble As countries are more outward looking, trade flourishes and openness to trade allows the free flow of capital to take advantage of profit-maximizing projects. Following the Great Recession and similar to the Great Depression, trade has suffered and trade barriers have risen. The Sino-American trade war has accelerated the inward movement of countries, including Korea and Japan, and has had negative knock-on effects on trade as evidenced by the now two-year old global growth deceleration. China’s response to President Trump’s election was to redouble its pursuit of economic self-sufficiency, which meant a crackdown on corporate debt and a fiscal boost to household consumption. Trump’s tariffs then damaged sentiment and trade between the two countries. Any deal reached prior to the 2020 US election will remain in doubt among global investors. The longer the trade war remains unresolved, the deeper the cracks will be in the foundations of the global trading system. We are especially worried for the S&P interactive media & services index that includes GOOGL and FB. Such a backdrop is negative for profit margins, as inward looking countries prevent capital from being allocated most efficiently. Moreover, the uprooting of supply chains due to the trade war hurts margins and the redeployment of equipment in different jurisdictions will do the same at a time when final demand is suffering a setback. In addition, rising profit margins are synonymous with wealth accruing to the top 1% of US families and vice versa. This relationship dates back to the late-1920s, as far back as our dataset goes. Using Piketty and Saez data, which exclude capital gains, it is clear that profit margin expansion exacerbates income inequality (top panel, Chart II-4). Chart II-4Heightened Risk Of Wealth Re-distribution Expanding margins lead to higher profits. Because families at the top of the income distribution are often business owners, income disparities are the widest when margins are in overshoot territory. Eventually this income chasm comes to a head and generates political discontent. Populism has emerged on both the right and left wings of the US political spectrum – and since the rise of Trump, even Republicans complain about inequality and the excesses of “corporate welfare” and laissez-faire capitalism. Because inequality is extreme – relative to America’s developed peers – and political forces are mobilizing against it, the probability of wealth re-distribution is rising in the coming decades (middle panel, Chart II-4). Labor’s share of national income has nowhere to go but higher in coming years and that is negative for profit margins, ceteris paribus (bottom panel, Chart II-4). Buy or add software stock exposure on any weakness with a 10-year investment time horizon. Drilling beneath the surface, the three secular US equity sector/factor implications of the apex of globalization paradigm shift are: prefer small caps over large caps prefer value over growth overweight the pure-play BCA Defense Index Investment Implication #2: Small Is Beautiful Chart II-5It's A Small World After All While a small cap bias is contrary to the cyclical US Equity Strategy view of preferring large caps to small caps, the issue is timing: the small cap preference is a secular view with a time horizon that spans the next decade. The small versus large cap share price ratio’s ebbs and flows persist over long cycles. Small caps outshined large caps uninterruptedly from 1999 to 2010. Since then large caps have had the upper hand (Chart II-5). Were the apex of globalization theme to gain traction in the 2020s, small caps should reclaim the lead from large caps, especially in the wake of the next US recession. Similar to the death of the global banking model, companies with global footprints will suffer the most, especially compared with domestically focused outfits. One way to explore this theme is via domestic versus global sector preference. But a more investable way to position for this sea change, is to buy small caps (or microcaps) at the expense of large caps (or mega caps). Small caps are traditionally domestically geared compared with large caps that have significantly more foreign sales exposure. The closest ETF ticker symbols resembling this trade is long IWM:US/short SPY:US. Investment Implication #3: Buy Value At The Expense Of Growth Similar to the size bias, the style bias also moves in secular ways. Value outperformed growth from the dot com bust until the GFC. Since then growth has crushed value, even temporarily breaking below the year 2000 relative trough. This breakneck pace of appreciation for growth stocks is clearly unsustainable and offers long-term oriented investors a compelling entry point near two standard deviations below the historical mean (Chart II-6). Chart II-6Value Has The Upper Hand Versus Growth Financials populate value indexes, a similarity with small cap outfits. Traditionally, financials are a domestically focused sector with export exposure registering at half of the S&P’s average 40% level of internationally sourced revenues. On the flip side, tech stocks sit atop the growth table and they garner 60% of their revenue from abroad. This value over growth style preference will pay handsome dividends if the de-globalization theme becomes more mainstream as countries become more hawkish on trade and the Sino-American war continues to erect barriers to trade that took decades to lift. We have created a basket of ten stocks that we think will be driven over the long term by the demographic rise of the Millennial. The caveat? President Trump's recent short-term deal with China could set back the de-globalization theme. But our geopolitical strategists do not anticipate it to be a durable deal, and they also expect the trade war to resume in some way, shape or form in 2021-22, regardless of the outcome of the US election. The closest ETF ticker symbols resembling this trade is long IVE:US/short IVW:US. Investment Implication #4: Defense Fortress Chart II-7Stick With Pure-play Defense Stocks One final long-term playable investment idea from the apex of globalization is a structural bull market in defense stocks (Chart II-7). The US Equity Sector service's October 2016 “Brothers In Arms” Special Report drew parallels with the late nineteenth century period of European rearmament, and the American and Soviet arms race of the 1960s.1 These movements were greatly beneficial to the aerospace and defense industry. Currently, the move by several countries to adopt more independent foreign policies, i.e. to move away from collaboration and cooperation toward isolationism and self-sufficiency, entails an accompanying arms race. Table II-1 China’s challenge to the regional political status quo motivates a boost to defense spending globally. In fact, SIPRI data on global military spending by 2030 (Table II-1) increases our conviction that this trade will succeed on a five-to-ten year horizon. Beyond the global arms race, two additional forces are at work underpinning pure-play defense contractors. A global space race with China, India and the US wanting to have manned missions to the moon, and the rise of global cybersecurity breaches. Defense companies are levered to both of these secular forces and should be prime sales and profit beneficiaries of rising space budgets and increasing cybersecurity combat budgets. The ticker symbols for the stocks in the pure-play BCA defense index are: LMT, RTN, NOC, GD, HII, AJRD, BWXT, CW, MRCY. Theme #2: Tech Sector Regulation, US Enacts Privacy Laws The second long-term geopolitical theme that we are exploring is the regulatory or “stroke of pen” risk that is rising on FAANG stocks – Facebook, Apple, Amazon, Netflix, and Google. These companies were this decade’s undisputed stock market winners. The US anti-trust regulatory framework was designed to curb broad anti-competitive actions of trusts. As Lina Khan discusses in her seminal article, these actions “include not only cost but also product quality, variety, and innovation.” However, through subsequent regulatory evolution, the Chicago School has focused the US anti-trust process on consumer welfare and prices. If President Reagan and the courts could change how anti-trust laws were administered in the 1980s, so too can future administrations and courts. Today the US Congress, on both sides of the aisle, is looking into regulatory tightening, while the judicial system will take longer to change its approach. Moreover, the impetus for tougher anti-trust policy is here. It comes from a long period of slow growth, income inequality, and economic volatility – such as in the 1870s-80s. This was certainly the case for Standard Oil in 1911, which became a nation-wide boogeyman despite most of its transgressions occurring in the farm belt states. Today, income inequality is a prominent political theme and source of consumer discontent. A narrative is emerging – which will be super-charged during the next recession – that growth has been unequally distributed between the old economy and the twenty-first century technology leaders. While there are a few ESG related ETFs, we would rather explore this theme’s investment implications of sectors to avoid in the coming decade. With regard to privacy, the news is equally grim for large tech outfits. The EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), which came into force on May 2018, imposes compliance burdens on any company handling user data. In the US, California has signed its own version of the law – the Consumer Privacy Act – which will go into effect in January 2020. These laws give consumers the right to know what information companies are collecting about them and who that data is shared with. They also allow consumers to ask technology companies to delete their data or not to sell it. While tech companies are likely to fight the new California law, and the US court system is a source of uncertainty, we believe the writing is on the wall. The EU is by some measures the largest consumer market on the planet. California is certainly the largest US market. It is unlikely that the momentum behind consumer protection will change, especially with the EU and California taking the lead. The odds of a federal privacy law, following in the footsteps of the Consumer Privacy Act, are also rising. Investment Implication #5: Shun Interactive Media & Services Stocks These risks introduce a severe overhang for FAANG stocks. We are especially worried for the S&P interactive media & services index that includes GOOGL and FB. Chart II-8Regulation Will Squeeze Tech Margins Tack on the threat of federal regulation and this represents another major headwind for profits and margins that are extremely elevated for these near monopolies. Given that advertising revenue is crucial to the business model of social media companies (GOOGL and FB included), a significant uptick in privacy regulation will likely hurt their bottom line. With regard to profit margins, tech stocks in general command a profit margin twice as high as the SPX. Specifically, FB and GOOGL enjoy margins that are 500 basis points higher than the broad tech sector (Chart II-8)! This is unsustainable and they will likely serve as easy prey for policymakers. Our view does not necessarily call for breaking up these monopolies. The US will have to weigh the economic consequences of anti-trust policy in a context of multipolarity in which China’s national tech champions are emerging to compete with American companies for global market share. Nevertheless, increased regulation is inevitable and some forced sales of crown jewel assets may take place. Moreover, the threat of a breakup will lurk in the background, creating uncertainty until key legislative and judicial battles have already been fought. That will take years. Finally, we doubt the tech sector will be left alone to “self-regulate” its incumbents and negotiate a price on consumers’ privacy. More likely, a new privacy law will loom, serving as a negative catalyst for profit growth. Uncertainty will weigh on the S&P interactive media & services relative performance. The ticker symbols to short/underweight the S&P interactive media & services index are an equally weighted basket of GOOGL and FB (they command a 98% market cap weight in the index). Theme #3: SaaS, Artificial Intelligence, Augmented Reality And Autonomous Driving Are Not Fads The third big theme that will even outlive the upcoming decade is the proliferation of software as a service (SaaS). The move to cloud computing and SaaS, the wider adoption of artificial intelligence, machine learning, autonomous driving and augmented reality are not fads, but enjoy a secular growth profile. In the grander scheme of things today’s world is surrounded by software. Millions of lines of code go even into gasoline powered automobiles, let alone electric vehicles. Autonomous driving is synonymous with software, the Internet of Things (IoT) needs software, the space race depends on software, modern manufacturing and software are closely intertwined, phone calls for quite some time have been a software solution, and the list goes on and on. This tidal effect is hard to reverse and is already embedded in workflows across industries. Opportunities to penetrate health care and financial services more deeply remain unexplored and it is difficult to envision another competing industry unseating “king software”. These secular trends are not only productivity enhancing, but will also most likely prove recession-proof. When growth is scarce investors flock to any source of growth they can come by and we are foreseeing that when the next recession arrives, investors will likely seek shelter in pure play SaaS firms. Investment Implication #6: Software Is Eating The World Chart II-9Software Is Eating The World Buying software stocks for the long haul seems like a bulletproof investment idea. But the recent stellar performance of software stocks has moved valuations to overshoot territory. Our recommended strategy is to buy or add software stock exposure on any weakness with a 10-year investment time horizon. All of these secular trends have pushed capital outlays on software into a structural uptrend. Software related capex is not only garnering a larger slice of the tech spending budgets but also of the overall capex pie. If it were not for software capex, the contraction in non-residential investment in recent quarters would have been more severe (Chart II-9). Private sector software capex is near all-time highs as a share of total outlays. Government investment in software is also reaccelerating at the fastest pace since the tech bubble. When productivity gains are anemic, both the business and government sectors resort to software upgrades in order to boost productivity. Cyber security is another more recent source of software related demand as governments around the globe are taking such risks extremely seriously (bottom panel, Chart II-9). Given this upbeat demand backdrop and ongoing equity retirement, software stocks are primed to grow into their pricey valuations. Finally, this long-term trade will also serve as a hedge to the short/underweight position we recommend in the S&P interactive media & services index. The closest ETF ticker symbol resembling the S&P software index is IGV:US. Theme #4: Millennials Already Are The Largest Cohort And Will Dominate Spending The fourth long-term theme we anticipate to gain traction in the 2020s is the demographic rise of the Millennial generation. Much has been made of preparing for the arrival of the Millennial generation, accompanied by well-worn stereotypes of general "failure to launch" as they reach adulthood. However, "arrival" is a misnomer as this age cohort is already the largest and "failure" is simply untrue. According to the US Census Bureau, Millennials are the US’s largest living generation. Millennials (or Echo Boomers) defined as people aged 18 to 37 (born 1982 to 2000), now number more than 80mn and represent more than one quarter of the US’s population. Baby Boomers (born 1946 to 1964) number about 75mn. Stealthily becoming the largest age group in the US over the last few years, Millennials per-year-birth-rate peaked at 4.3mn in 1990. Surprisingly, the pace matched that of the post-war Baby Boom peak-per-year-birth-rate in 1957 - the per-year average over the period was higher for the Baby Boomers (Chart II-10). Chart II-10Millennials Are The Largest Cohort This gap is now set to grow rapidly as the death rate of Baby Boomers accelerates. What is more, the largest one-year age cohort is only 25 years old, thus, Millennials will be the dominant generation for many years. It is unclear how these “kids” will impact the market as they become the most important consumers, borrowers and investors, but make no mistake: this is a seismic shift in economic power and it is here to stay. The Echo Boom is a big, generational demographic wave. A difficult and painful delay has not tempered its looming importance. Finally, this wave of echo-boomers is educated, relatively unburdened by debt (please see BOX in the June 11, 2018 Special Report on demystifying the student debt load as it pertains to Millennials), and as they inevitably “grow up”, form new households and have kids. They will borrow, spend, earn, but not necessarily save and invest to the same extent as the Boomers. And this will be an important long-term theme going forward. Near term, we might already be seeing signs of their arrival and firms have begun to pivot accordingly. Investment Implication #7: Buy The BCA Millennials Equity Basket Millennials will boost consumption spending in a number of different ways. The relatively unburdened Millennial cohort will be entering prime home acquisition age soon and this should underpin the long-term prospects of the US housing market and related industries. Furthermore, Millennials consume differently from their parents; social media, online shopping and smart phones are not the consumption categories of the Baby Boomers. With this in mind, we have created a basket of ten stocks that we think will be driven over the long term by the demographic rise of the Millennial. We note that these stocks are heavily weighted to the technology and consumer discretionary sectors, which is logical as Millennial consumption habits tend to be discretionary focused and technology-based. Beginning with consumer discretionary, we are highlighting AMZN, NFLX and SPOT as core holdings in our Millennials basket. AMZN’s heft dwarfs consumer discretionary indexes but it could fall in several categories; the acquisition of Whole Foods makes it a Millennials-focused consumer staples retailer and its cloud computing web services segment is a tech leader. NFLX and SPOT represent the means by which Millennials consume media, by streaming movies and music over the internet. The idea of owning physical media is rapidly becoming an anachronism. The home ownership theme noted in this report leads us to add HD and LEN to the basket. Millennials are “doers” and are set to be the dominant DIYers in the next few years, making HD a logical choice. LEN, as the nation’s largest home builder, should benefit from the Millennials coming of age into home buyers. We are also adding TSLA to our basket as a lone clean tech-oriented equity. TSLA capitalizes on the increasing shift to clean energy of Millennials (the key reason why no traditional energy companies have a spot in our basket). Chart II-11Buy BCA's Millennial Equity Basket The technology stocks in our Millennials basket are AAPL, UBER (which replaces FB as of today) and MSFT, together representing more than 9% of the total value of the S&P 500. AAPL’s inclusion in the list is predictable as the leading domestic purveyor of devices on which Millennials consume media content. FB is a predictable holding, with more than half of all Americans being monthly active users, dominated by the Millennial cohort. It has served our basket well since inception, but today we are compelled to remove it and replace it with UBER. UBER is a Millennial favorite and the epitome of the sharing economy. In reality UBER is a logistics company and while it is losing money, it is eerily reminiscent of AMZN in its early days. Maybe UBER will dominate all means of transportation and its ease of use will propel it to a mega cap in the coming decade. Our inclusion of MSFT is based on its leadership in cloud computing, a rapidly growing industry. We expect the connectivity and mobile computing demands of Millennials will accelerate. The last stock we are adding to our basket is also the only financial services equity. Though avid consumers, Millennials have shown an aversion to cash, preferring card payment systems, including both debit and credit-based. Accordingly, we are adding the leader in both of these, V, to our Millennials basket (Chart II-11). Investors seeking long-term exposure to stocks lifted by the supremacy of the Millennial generation should own our Millennial basket (AAPL, AMZN, UBER, HD, LEN, MSFT, NFLX, SPOT, TSLA, V). We would not hesitate to add other sharing economy stocks, including Airbnb, to this basket should they become investable in the near future. Theme #5: ESG Becomes Mainstream Investors are increasingly looking at allocating assets based on environmental, social, and governance (ESG) considerations, and this mini-theme has the potential to become a big trend in the 2020s. There are a number of factors that underpin ESG investing. First, Millennials are climate conscious and given that they already are the largest cohort in the US they will not only dominate spending, but also influence election results. Moreover, via social media Millennials can sway public opinion and participate in the ESG conversation. Second, ECB President Christine Lagarde recent speech to the Economic and Monetary Affairs Committee of the European Parliament is a must read.2 If the ECB were to explicitly focus on climate change policy as part of its monetary policy operations then this is a game changer. Green investment financing including “green bonds” could become mainstream. Keep in mind that as reported in the FT, “the European Parliament has declared a climate emergency; the new European Commission (EC) has taken office on a promise of an imminent “green new deal”, and Commission president Ursula von der Leyen has vowed to accelerate emissions cuts.” Last week, the EC released “The European Green Deal” with a pretty aggressive time table. The EC president said “The green deal is Europe’s man on the moon moment” and presented 50 policies slated to get rolled by 2022 to meet revamped climate goals. The implication is that once ESG takes center stage at a number of these institutions, it will be easier to become mainstream and propagate the world over. Third, large institutional investors are starting to adopt an ESG mindset, especially pension plans. These investors with trillions of dollars at their disposal can not only disfavor fossil fuel investment, but also undertake investments in “green projects” via private and public equity markets. Banks are also moving in the “greening of finance” direction and given that they are the pipelines of the global plumbing system, swift adoption will go a long way in taking ESG mainstream. Finally, the electric vehicle (EV) proliferation is another key driver on how the ESG theme will play out in the 2020s. As a reminder, in the US 50% of all energy consumption is gasoline related linked to automobiles. While battery technology still has limitations, EV is no longer a fad as the German and Japanese automakers are starting to make inroads on TSLA. These car manufacturers do not want to be left out, especially if this shift toward EV becomes mainstream in the 2020s. The Chinese are not far behind on the EV manufacturing front, however government policy can really become a game changer. If a number of countries and/or California mandate a large share of all new vehicles sold be EV, then the investment implications will be massive. Investment Implication #8: Avoid Fossil Fuels, Gambling, Alcohol And Tobacco… While there are a few ESG related ETFs, we would rather explore this theme’s investment implications of sectors to avoid in the coming decade. We are believers that ESG criteria will continue to gain in importance in institutional investment management decisions. Accordingly, we would tend to avoid ‘sin stocks’, including gambling, tobacco and alcohol; demand for their services is unlikely to decline but investment weightings should mean that share prices will underperform. Further, we think a clean energy shift will mean energy stocks will likely continue to be long-term underperformers (Chart II-12). Final Thoughts On The US Dollar In this report, we tried to focus on the upcoming decade’s big themes that we expect to play out, and centered our recommendations on US equities/sectors. We do not want to neglect some macroeconomic variables that tend to mean revert over time. Specifically, the US dollar, interest rates and most importantly US indebtedness, will also be key drivers of investment theses in the 2020s. Currently, debt is rising faster than nominal GDP growth with the government and non-financial business debt-to-GDP profiles on an unsustainable path (second panel, Chart II-13). Chart II-12Areas To Avoid As ESG Becomes Mainstream Chart II-13Unsustainable Debt Profiles   Granted, the saving grace has been generationally low interest rates as the debt service ratios have fallen (top panel, Chart II-13). However, if the four decade bull market in Treasurys is over, or may end definitively with the next US recession sometime in the early 2020s, then rising interest rates are the only mechanism to concentrate CEOs’ and politicians’ minds. On the dollar front, Chart II-14 highlights the ebbs and flows of the trade-weighted US dollar since it floated in the early-1970s. The DXY index has moved in six-to-ten year bull and bear markets. The most recent trough was during the depths of the Great Recession, while the (tentative?) peak was in late-2016. If history repeats, eventually the dollar will mean revert lower in the 2020s, especially given the fiscal profligacy of the current administration that may continue into 2024, assuming President Trump gets re-elected next November. Chart II-14Greenback's Historical Ebbs And Flows The US dollar remains the reserve currency of the world today, but that exorbitant privilege is clearly fraying on the edges as the balance-of-payments dynamics are heading in the wrong direction. Over the next five years, the US Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that the US budget deficit will swell to 4.8% of GDP. Assuming the current account deficit widens a bit then stabilizes (usually happens when global growth improves), this will pin the twin deficits at 8% of GDP. This assumes no recession, which would have the potential to swell the deficit even further. The US saw its twin deficits swell to almost 13% of GDP following the financial crisis, but the difference then was that in the wake of the commodity boom the dollar was cheap (and commodity currencies overvalued). The subsequent shale revolution also greatly cushioned the US trade deficit. Shale productivity remains robust and US output will continue to rise, but the low-hanging fruit has already been plucked. Chart II-15Twin Deficits Will Weigh On The US Dollar For one reason or another, foreign central banks are diversifying out of dollars. If due to the changing landscape in trade, this is set to continue. If it is an excuse to shy away from the rapidly rising US twin deficits, this will continue as well. In a nutshell, there has been hardly a time in recent history when the twin deficits in the US were rising and the dollar was in a secular uptrend (Chart II-15). Another dollar-negative force is its expensiveness. By rising 35% since its trough, the USD has sapped the competitiveness of the US manufacturing sector, which is accentuating the American trade deficit outside of the commodity sector. If the ESG trend ends up hurting oil prices, the US current account will follow the widening deficit in manufactured products. Moreover, the US is lagging Europe on the green revolution. Either the US will have to import green technologies, or the US government will have to provide more subsidies to the private sector. Either way, both of these dynamics will hurt the US current account deficit further. Historically, the currency market is the main vehicle to correct such imbalances. The apex of globalization will also hurt the greenback. In a world where all the markets are integrated, borrowers in EM nations often use the reserve currency to issue liabilities at a lower cost. This boosts the demand by EM central banks for US dollar reserves to protect domestic banking systems funded in USD. Moreover, some countries like China implement pegs (both official and unofficial) to the US dollar in order to maintain their competitiveness and export their production surpluses to the US. To do so they buy US assets. If the global economy becomes more fragmented and the Sino-US relationship continues to deteriorate structurally as we expect, then these sources of demand for the dollar will recede. Overlay the widening US current account deficit, and you have the perfect recipe for a depreciating trade-weighted US dollar. Finally, the US is likely to experience more inflation than the rest of the world following the next recession. The US economy has a smaller capital stock as a share of GDP than Europe or Japan, and American demographics are much more robust. This means that the neutral rate of interest is higher in the US than in other advanced economies. As a result, the Fed will have an easier time generating inflation by cutting real rates than both the ECB and the BoJ. Higher inflation will ultimately erode the purchasing power of the dollar and prove to be a structurally negative force for the USD.   Anastasios Avgeriou US Equity Strategist Matt Gertken Geopolitical Strategist Marko Papic Chief Strategist, Clocktower Group Chester Ntonifor Foreign Exchange Strategist Mathieu Savary Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst Footnotes 1 Please see US Equity Strategy Special Report "Brothers In Arms," dated October 31, 2016, available at uses.bcaresearch.com 2 https://www.imf.org/en/News/Articles/2019/09/04/sp090419-Opening-Statement-by-Christine-Lagarde-to-ECON-Committee-of-European-Parliament

An analysis on Ukraine is available below.   Highlights A number of liquidity and technical reasons have led us to give benefit of the doubt to the bullish market action and chase this EM rally. We still doubt that the US-China trade truce alone is sufficient to propel a cyclical recovery in global trade and manufacturing. However, it seems the market is operating on a “buy now, ask questions later” principle. Therefore, we are initiating a long position in the EM equity index as of today. Despite the potential for higher EM share prices in absolute terms, we are still reluctant to upgrade EM versus DM stocks. The basis is that EM corporate profits will continue lagging those in DM. Feature We could be in for a replay of the 2012-2014 DM equity rally, where EM stocks rebounded in absolute terms but massively underperformed DM on a relative basis. Chart I-1EM Share Prices: In Absolute Terms And Relative To DM EM share prices have spiked on the announcement of a trade truce between the US and China. As a result, our buy stop at 1075 on the EM MSCI Equity Index has been triggered, and we are initiating a long position in EM stocks as of today (Chart I-1, top panel). That said, we are still reluctant to upgrade EM versus DM stocks. Regardless of the direction of the market (bull, bear or sideways), EM share prices will likely underperform the global equity benchmark. As we discussed in our report, the primary risk to our view has been that EM share prices get pulled higher as a result of rallying DM markets. Nevertheless, our fundamental assessment remains that EM corporate profits will lag those in DM, heralding EM relative equity underperformance. In fact, we could be in a replay of the 2012-2014 DM equity rally where EM stocks massively underperformed (Chart I-1, bottom panel), as we elaborated in our November 28 report. In this report, we review the indicators that support a bullish stance, the ones that are inconclusive and those that are not confirming the current rally in China-plays in general and EM risk assets in particular. Bullish Liquidity And Technical Settings The following points have led us to give benefit of the doubt to recent market action and to chase this rally: The global liquidity backdrop appears to be conducive for higher share prices. Global narrow and broad money growth have accelerated (Chart I-2). That said, a caveat is in order: These money measures do not always strongly correlate with both global share prices and the global business cycle. There are numerous times when they gave a false signal or were too early or late at turning points. Chart I-2Global Narrow And Broad Money: A Useful But Not Always Reliable Indicator   The technical profile of EM equities is rather bullish. As shown on the top panel of Chart I-1 on page 1, EM share prices have found a support at their six-year moving average. When a market fails to break down below its long-term technical support line, odds are that a major bottom has been reached, and the path of the least resistance is up. The reason we look at these long-term (multi-year) moving averages is because they have historically worked very well for key markets like the S&P 500 and 10-year US Treasury bond yields (Chart I-3A & I-3B). Chart I-3AThe Reason Why We Use Multi-Year Moving Averages Chart I-3BThe Reason Why We Use Multi-Year Moving Averages   As another positive development, both EM share prices in local currency terms and the EM equity total return index in US dollar terms have bounced from their three-year moving averages (Chart I-4). Chart I-4A Bullish Chart Formation For EM Equities In addition, when a market does not drop below its previous top, this creates a bullish chart configuration (Chart I-4). This seems to be the case with EM share prices currently. Bottom Line: A number of liquidity and technical reasons have led us to give benefit of the doubt to the bullish market action and to chase this rally. Inconclusive Indicators It is rare that all types of indicators – directional market, business cycle, valuation and technical – all line up together to convey the same investment recommendation. Below we present the market indicators and signals that we have been watching to get confirmation of sustainability in the bull market in EM risk assets, commodities and global cyclical equity sectors. They are still inconclusive: The US broad trade-weighted dollar has recently sold off, but it has not broken down technically (Chart I-5). A decisive relapse below its 200-day moving average will signify that the greenback has entered a major bear market. The latter would be consistent with a sustainable and extended bull market in EM risk assets, commodities and global cyclical equity sectors.  Chart I-5The US Dollar Has Fallen But Not Broken Down Chart I-6Indecisive Signals From Commodities And Commodity Currencies   Even though copper prices have recently rebounded, they have not yet broken above their three-year moving average (Chart I-6, top panel). The latter can be viewed as the neckline of the head-and-shoulders pattern that has formed in recent years. The same holds true for the overall London Metals Exchange Industrial Metals Price Index, as well as our Risk-On/Safe-Haven currency ratio1 (Chart I-6, middle and bottom panels). Barring a decisive break above their three-year moving averages, the jury is still out on the durability of the rally in commodities prices and EM/China plays.   Finally, global industrial share prices and US high-beta stocks have advanced to their 2018 highs, but have not yet broken out (Chart I-7). The same is true for the euro area aggregate stock index in local currency terms (Chart I-8). A decisive breakout above these levels will confirm that global equities in general and cyclical segments in particular are in an enduring bull market. Chart I-7Decisive Breakouts Here Are Needed To Confirm The EM Rally Chart I-8European Share Prices Are At A Critical Juncture   Bottom Line: Several cyclical and high-beta segments of global financial markets are at a critical juncture. A decisive breakout from these key technical levels is required for us to uphold that EM risk assets and global cyclical plays are in a medium-term bull market. The Eye Of The Storm? There are a number of leading indicators and market signals that do not corroborate the common narrative of a sustainable improvement in global manufacturing/trade in general and China’s industrial cycle in particular: First, China’s narrow and broad money growth appear to be rolling over (Chart I-9). Notably, the money impulses lead the credit impulse, as illustrated in Chart I-10. Consequently, we expect the credit impulse – which is the main indicator currently portraying a revival in the Chinese economy as well as in the global business cycle – to roll over in early 2020. Chart I-9China: Narrow And Broad Money Growth Are Rolling Over Chart I-10China: Money Impulses Are Coincident Or Lead Credit Impulse   This entails that the recent tentative improvements in China’s manufacturing, its imports and global trade will not be sustained going forward. Crucially, China’s narrow money (M1) growth point to the lack of a cyclical upturn in EM corporate profits in H1 2020 (Chart I-11). In short, EM listed companies’ profit growth rate stabilizing at around -10% is not a recovery. Second, government bond yields in both China and Korea are not corroborating a revival in their respective business cycles (Chart I-12). Chart I-11EM Corporate Profit Growth To Remain Negative In H1 2020 Chart I-12Asian Rates Are Not Confirming A Recovery   Chinese onshore interest rates have been a reliable compass for both its business cycle as well as EM share prices and currencies as we illustrated in Chart 15 of the November 28 report. For now, the mainland fixed-income market is not predicting an upturn in China’s industrial economy (Chart I-12, top panel). In Korea, exports account for 40% of GDP. Hence, without a considerable export recovery, there cannot be a business cycle revival in Korea. In brief, the latest relapse in local bond yields could be sending a downbeat signal for global trade (Chart I-12, bottom panel). Third, the four-month rise in the Chinese Caixin manufacturing PMI can be partially explained by front-running production and shipments of smartphones, laptops, computers and other electronics ahead of the December 15 round of US tariffs on imports from China. Right after President Trump announced these tariffs in the summer, businesses likely did not take a chance to wait and see. In fact, whether or not these tariffs would have come into effect was unknown till December 13. Manufacturers and US importers of these electronic goods initiated orders, produced and shipped these goods to the US ahead of December 15. Chart I-13Caixin And Taiwanese PMIs Benefited From Front Running Given the focus on that particular round of tariffs was electronics, producers of these goods got a temporary but notable boost from such front-running. Smartphone and electronics manufacturers and their suppliers are predominantly located in Shenzhen and Taiwan. The Caixin manufacturing PMI is a survey of 500 companies, many of which are private enterprises located in Shenzhen. Not surprisingly, the Caixin manufacturing PMI index often fluctuates with Taiwan’s electronics and optical PMI (Chart I-13). In brief, there has been meaningful improvement in China’s and Taiwan’s tech manufacturing. Yet it can be attributed to front-running of production and shipments of electronic products to the US ahead of the December 15 tariff deadline as well as stockpiling of semiconductors by China. The odds are that these measures of manufacturing will slump in early 2020 as the front-running ends. Chart I-14Commodities Prices In China Finally, several commodities prices in China, that troughed in late 2015 ahead of the bottom in global and EM/Chinese equities in early 2016, continue to drift lower or exhibit only a mild uptick. Specifically, these include prices of nickel, steel, iron ore, thermal coal, coke, polyethylene and rubber (Chart I-14). They corroborate that there has been no broad-based amelioration in the mainland’s industrial sector. Bottom Line: In China, narrow and broad money growth has rolled over, onshore interest rates are subsiding and many commodities prices are weak. All of these signify the lack of sustainable growth revival in China in the coming months.  Putting It All Together EM risk assets have rallied on the consensus market narrative that the temporary truce between the US and China will lift global growth. We have written at length that China’s domestic demand – not its exports – has been the epicenter of and basis for the global slowdown over the past two years. Without Chinese domestic demand and imports, not exports, staging a material amelioration, global trade and manufacturing are unlikely to experience a cyclical upturn.   In short, we doubt that the US-China trade truce is alone sufficient to propel a cyclical recovery in global trade and manufacturing. Yet, when the majority of investors perceive things the same way and act on these perceptions, asset prices can move a lot. We continue to believe that China’s industrial sector, global trade, EM ex-China domestic demand and consequently EM corporate profits will continue to disappoint in the first half of 2020. Nevertheless, we presently concede that we need to give benefit of the doubt to markets. We still doubt that the US-China trade truce alone is sufficient to propel a cyclical recovery in global trade and manufacturing. It could be that the EM equity and currency market rallies are not driven by their fundamentals – i.e., corporate profits/exports do not matter. However, it is rather possible that this rally is only stoked by the worst-kept secret in the investment industry: the search for yield. If that is the case, then there is no dichotomy between our fundamental thesis – that EM/China profits/growth will disappoint in H1 2020 – and the rally in EM markets. It seems the market is operating on a “buy now, ask questions later” principle. We had thought that the ongoing and enduring contraction in EM corporate profits (please refer to Chart I-11 on page 8) amid various structural malaises would overwhelm the impact of the global search for yield. However, it seems the market is operating on a “buy now, ask questions later” principle. Overall, we are initiating a long position in the EM equity index as of today. Provided the high uncertainty over the outlook, we are also instituting a stop point at 1050 for the MSCI EM equity index, 5% below its current level. For global equity investors, we continue recommending favoring DM over EM stocks. Finally, our country equity overweights are Korea, Thailand, Russia, central Europe, Pakistan, Vietnam and Mexico. A basket of these bourses is likely to outperform the EM equity benchmark in any market scenario in terms of EM absolute share price performance. We have been and remain neutral on Chinese, Indian, Taiwanese and Brazilian equities. As always, our list of overweight, underweight and market weight recommendations for EM equities, local and US dollar government bonds and currencies are available at the end of our report on pages 17-18 and on our website.   Arthur Budaghyan Chief Emerging Markets Strategist arthurb@bcaresearch.com     Ukraine: Buy Local Currency Bonds EM fixed-income investors should buy Ukraine local currency government bonds as well as overweight Ukraine sovereign credit within an EM credit portfolio. The exchange rate is the key for EM fixed-income investors. The Ukrainian hryvnia will be supported by high real interest rates, improving public debt and balance of payment dynamics, as well as abating geopolitical risks. In turn, a stable currency will keep inflation at bay. In such an environment, investors should favor local currency government bonds, as local interest rates will continue falling.  Chart II-1Inflation Will Fall Further In turn, a stable currency will keep inflation at bay (Chart II-1). In such an environment, investors should favor local currency government bonds, as local interest rates will continue falling. The primary risk of owning Ukrainian domestic bonds is a major depreciation in the hryvnia stemming from a risk-off phase in EM. However, as a periphery country, Ukraine’s financial markets might not correlate with their EM peers. Besides, these bonds offer high carry, which protects them against moderate currency depreciation. Overall, the case for buying Ukraine local currency government bonds is based on the following: First, Ukraine satisfies the two prerequisites for public debt sustainability, namely (1) it runs a robust primary fiscal surplus and/or (2) the government’s borrowing costs are below nominal GDP growth. The public debt-to-GDP ratio stands at 56% and will continue to fall so long as the above two conditions are satisfied. The primary consolidated fiscal surplus currently amounts to 1.8% of GDP (Chart II-2). The recently approved 2020 budget projects the primary surplus to be above 1% of GDP and the overall fiscal deficit to be close to 2% of GDP.  Local currency interest rates are below nominal GDP growth (Chart II-3). In addition, public debt servicing is at 3.2% and 9% as a share of GDP and total government expenditures, respectively. According to the new budget, the government plans to use close to 12% of total spending for debt repayments in 2020. This will further help reduce the public debt load. Chart II-2A Healthy Fiscal Position Chart II-3Interest Rates Are Below Nominal GDP Growth And Are Falling Second, the central bank has more scope to cut interest rates because various measures of inflation will continue falling. Real (adjusted for inflation) interest rates are still very elevated. In particular, the prime lending rate is at 17% for companies and 35% for households, both in nominal terms. Provided core inflation is running at 6%, lending rates are extremely high in real terms. Not surprisingly, narrow and broad money growth are sluggish (Chart II-4). Commercial banks are undergoing major balance sheet deleveraging: their asset growth is in the low single digits in nominal terms, while their value is dropping relative to nominal GDP (Chart II-5). Chart II-4Money Growth Is Sluggish Chart II-5Deleveraging In The Banking Sector Meanwhile, tighter regulations are forcing banks to recognize bad assets and boost their capital. This has led to a sharp drop in the number of registered banks. Such a structural overhaul of the banking system is cyclically deflationary and warrants lower interest rates. Critically, these reforms are a positive for the exchange rate in the long run. Third, receding foreign funding pressures are helping the balance of payments dynamics and are supportive for the currency. Ukrainian exports have been outperforming global exports since 2017 (Chart II-6). Agricultural exports – which represent 40% of total exports – are an important source of foreign currency revenue for the country. Chart II-6Ukraine Exports Are Outperforming Global Trade Chart II-7Tight Fiscal And Monetary Policies Are Good For The Current Account Balance The current account deficit has been narrowing due to slowing domestic demand, arising from tight fiscal and monetary policies (Chart II-7). Foreign ownership of local currency government bonds is $4.6 billion and it makes only 12% of total outstanding amount. Consequently, risk of major foreign portfolio capital outflows due to a risk-off phase in global markets is low. Lastly, Ukraine’s foreign debt obligations – the sum of short-term claims, interest payment and amortization – have been declining and are presently well covered by exports. They comprise 34% of total exports. Finally, geopolitical risks will continue to subside over the coming months. Peace talks between Ukraine and Russia will continue. Importantly, two sets of constraints could force Ukraine and Russia towards resolving the conflict. Specifically: Russia is constrained by its commitment to be a reliable gas supplier to the EU. Half of its gas export capacity passes through Ukraine. European demand for Russian gas is falling and Gazprom gas revenues are decelerating. Cutting transit of gas through Ukraine could now severely jeopardize Russia’s relations with Europe. Therefore, as much as Europe is dependent on Russian gas, Russia is as dependent on European demand for its natural gas.   The EU’s support for Ukraine is contingent on reliable transits of Russian gas into EU countries. As such, President Zelensky is under pressure from Europe to assure transmission of Russian gas to Europe. This has led Zelensky into opening a dialogue with Russia and motivated him to seek a new gas transit deal with Gazprom. Given President Zelensky’s high popularity at home, he has political capital to pursue a rapprochement with Russia and attempt to find a resolution to end the conflict in the Donbass. All of these developments have been, and will continue to be, positively perceived by international investors, sustaining the recent stampede into Ukraine’s fixed-income markets. Investment Recommendation We recommend investors purchase 5-year local currency government bonds currently yielding 12%. EM fixed-income investors should also consider overweighting US dollar sovereign bonds in an EM credit portfolio on the back of improving public debt and balance of payments dynamics.   Andrija Vesic Research Analyst andrijav@bcaresearch.com     Footnotes 1    The Risk-On/Safe-Haven currency ratio is the average of high-beta commodity currencies such as the CAD, AUD, NZD, BRL, CLP and ZAR total return (including carry) indices relative to the average of JPY and CHF total returns (including carry). This ratio is dollar-agnostic. Equities Recommendations Currencies, Credit And Fixed-Income Recommendations

Highlights OPEC 2.0 production discipline and the capital markets’ parsimony in re funding US shale-oil producers will restrain oil supply growth. Monetary and fiscal stimulus will revive EM demand. These fundamentals will push inventories lower, further backwardating forward curves. Base metals demand will pick up as EM income growth revives. Demand also will get a boost from the ceasefire in the Sino-US trade war. Gold will remain range-bound for most of next year: A weaker USD and rising inflation expectations are bullish, but rising bond yields and reduced trade tensions will be headwinds. Grain markets will drift, although dry conditions in Argentina and the trade-war ceasefire could provide short-term price support, along with a weaker USD. Risk to our view: Continued elevated global policy uncertainty would support a stronger USD and stymie central bank efforts to revive global growth in 2020. Feature Dear Client, We present our key views for 2020 in this issue of Commodity & Energy Strategy. This will be our last publication of 2019, and we would like to take the opportunity to thank you for your on-going interest in the commodity markets and in our publication. It has been our privilege to serve you. We wish you and your loved ones all the best of this beautiful Christmas season and a prosperous New Year in 2020! Robert Ryan Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist Going into 2020, policy uncertainty again will be a key driver of commodity demand, the Sino-US trade-war ceasefire and UK election results notwithstanding.1 As uncertainty has increased, demand for safe havens like the USD and gold have increased. The principal impact of this uncertainty shows up in FX markets. As uncertainty has increased, demand for safe havens like the USD and gold has increased. Indeed, the Fed’s Broad Trade-Weighted USD index for goods (TWIBG) has become highly correlated with the Global Economic Policy Uncertainty index (GEPU). The three-year rolling correlation between these indexes reached a record high in November 2019 (Chart of the Week).2 Individually, the record for the TWIBG was posted in September 2019, while the GEPU record was hit in August 2019. Chart of the WeekGlobal Economic Policy Uncertainty Highly Correlated With USD A strong USD affects commodity demand directly, because it slows income growth in EM economies – the engine-house of commodity demand. A stronger USD raises the local-currency cost of consuming commodities – an important driver of EM demand – and reduces the local-currency cost of producing commodities. So, at the margin, demand is pressured lower and supply growth is incentivized – together, these effects combine to push prices lower. Economic policy uncertainty likely will diminish in early 2020, following the Sino-US trade-war ceasefire, the decisive UK election results and continued central-bank signaling – particularly from the Fed – that rates policy will remain accommodative for the foreseeable future. That said, the ceasefire does not mark the end of the Sino-US trade war, and many issues – ongoing US-China tensions, US election uncertainty, global populism and nationalism, rising geopolitical tensions in the Persian Gulf, ad hoc monetary policy globally – still are to be resolved. Terra Incognita The GEPU index does not measure uncertainty per se, as uncertainty per se cannot be measured.3 The index picks up word usage connected with the word “uncertainty.” So, it is more the perception of uncertainty that is being reported by Economic Policy Uncertainty in its data. Nonetheless, this is a good way to measure such sentiment, as research from the St. Louis Fed found: “Increases in the economic uncertainty index tend to be associated with declines (or slower growth) in real GDP and in real business fixed investment.” In past three years, increased policy uncertainty also has been fueling demand for safe havens, chiefly the USD and gold. This is a highly unusual coincidence – i.e., a rising USD accompanied by a rising gold price. Typically, a weaker USD puts a bid under gold prices. Indeed, this relationship is one of the primary drivers of our gold model, which suggests the effect of the heightened policy uncertainty dominates the USD impact on gold prices in the current environment (Chart 2). Chart 2Gold Typically Rallies When the USD Weakens The flip-side of the deleterious effects of higher economic policy uncertainty is its resolution: Growing cash balances and a higher capacity to lever balance sheets of households, firms and investor accounts means there is a lot of dry powder available to recharge growth in the real and financial economies globally.4 Chart 3BCA's Grwowth Gauges Indicate Global Economy Rebounding Our commodity-driven economic activity gauges are picking up growth impulses, most likely in response to the global monetary stimulus that has been deployed this year (Chart 3). In addition, systemically important central banks have given no indication they are going to be reversing this stimulus. A meaningful reduction in uncertainty could turbo-charge global growth prospects. Below, we provide our key views for each of the commodity complexes we cover. Oil Outlook Energy: Overweight. The oil market is poised to move higher on the back of OPEC 2.0’s deepening of production cuts to 1.7mm b/d, mostly because of actions by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) to cut output deeper, to a total of close to 900k b/d vs. its October 2018 production levels.5 Combined with the loss of ~ 1.9mm b/d of production in Iran and Venezuela due to US sanctions, the supply side can be expected to tighten next year (Chart 4). The Vienna meeting – which ended December 6, 2019 – demonstrated commitment to OPEC 2.0’s production-restraint strategy, and we expect member states will deliver. At least they will reduce the incidence of free riding at KSA’s expense – there were subtle hints from the Saudis they will not tolerate such behavior. KSA’s threats in this regard are credible, given its follow-through in 1986 when they surged production and briefly drove WTI prices below $10/bbl to send a message to free riders in the OPEC cartel. The Saudis acted similarly during the 2014 – 2016 market share war. US shale-oil production growth will slow next year to 800k b/d y/y, vs. the 1.35mm b/d we expect for this year. US lower 48 crude production will increase to 10.7mm b/d in 2020, taking total US production to 13.1mm b/d, a ~ 850k b/d increase y/y. On the demand side, we lowered our expectation for 2019 growth to 1.0mm b/d, given the continued downgrades of historical consumption estimates this year from the EIA, IEA and OPEC. Nonetheless, we continue to expect 2020 growth of 1.4mm b/d, on the back of continued easing of global financial conditions, led by central-bank accommodation. Given our view, we remain long oil exposures in several ways. First, we remain long WTI futures outright going into 2020; this position is up 30% from January 3, 2019 when it was initiated. Second, we recommended getting long 2H20 vs. short 2H21 Brent futures, expecting crude oil forward curves to backwardate further as tighter supply and stronger demand force refiners to draw inventories harder next year (Chart 5). Chart 4Markets Will Tighten In 2020 Chart 5Oil Inventories Will Draw Harder In 2020 We expect Brent crude oil to average $67/bbl next year, given the fundamentals outlined above. We also expect a weaker dollar to be supportive of demand ex-US. WTI will trade at a $4/bbl discount to Brent next year, based on our modeling (Chart 6). Chart 6Brent, WTI Will Trade Higher We remain overweight energy, crude oil in particular, given our expectation markets will tighten on the supply side and demand growth, particularly in EM economies, will revive. Bottom Line: We remain overweight energy, crude oil in particular, given our expectation markets will tighten on the supply side and demand growth, particularly in EM economies, will revive. This expectation will be challenged by continued economic policy uncertainty. On the flip side, however, a meaningful resolution to this uncertainty could turbo-charge growth as real economic activity picks up and the USD weakens. Base Metals Outlook Base Metals: Neutral. We remain strategically neutral base metals going into 2020, but tactically bullish, carrying a long LMEX and iron-ore spread position into the new year.6 The behavior of base metals prices – used by economists as proxies for EM growth – is indicating industrial demand is picking up (Chart 7). This aligns well with our proprietary indicators of commodity demand and global industrial activity (Chart 8). Base metals prices are more sensitive to changes in global growth than other commodities. For this reason, we use these prices to confirm the signals coming from the proprietary models we use to gauge EM growth. Chart 7Base Metals Prices Signaling EM Growth Revival The so-called phase-one agreement to reduce tariffs in the Sino-US trade war will support global demand at the margin for base metals. This is a ceasefire in the trade war not a resolution, so we are not expecting a surge in demand. Chart 8BCA Proprietary Indicators Also Signaling Growth Revival That said, base metals – aluminum and copper, in particular – have a tailwind in the form of global monetary accommodation by central banks. This was undertaken to reverse the negative effect on global financial conditions brought about by the Fed’s rates normalization policy last year and China’s 2017-18 deleveraging campaign. In addition, our China strategists expect modest fiscal and monetary stimulus from Beijing, which also will be supportive of demand.7 Aluminium and copper comprise 75% of the LMEX index. These are primary industrial markets, in which China accounts for ~ 50% of global demand, and EM ex-China demand remains stout. Even with a trade war raging for most of 2019, the supply and demand of aluminum and copper – the largest components of the LMEX index – was diverging: Consumption outpaced production – a multi-year trend – which forced inventories to draw hard (Charts 9A and 9B). Chart 9AGlobal Aluminum Markets Getting Tighter … Chart 9B… As Are Copper Markets Bottom Line: Inventories in industrial-metals markets have been drawing hard for years – particularly in aluminum – as metals' demand remained above supply. Given this, we are long the LMEX index: Even a marginal growth pick-up could rally prices. Precious Metals Outlook Precious Metals: Neutral. Going into 2020, gold’s outlook could be volatile – especially in 1H20 – as the metal’s key drivers will send conflicting signals (Table 1). Table 1Fundamental And Technical Gold-Price Drivers Gold prices are holding up above $1,450/oz. Our latest fair-value estimate indicates gold will hover around $1,475/Oz over the short-term (Chart 10). We break next year’s gold forecast into two parts: Phase 1: Growth revival and uncertainty respite. These two factors are closely intertwined; the magnitude of global growth’s rebound is conditional on a reduction of global economic policy uncertainty. We expect this relief will come from a ceasefire in the US-China trade war. Combined, accelerating economic activity – mainly driven by EM economies – and falling uncertainty will push the US dollar lower.8 For gold prices, this phase will be characterized by two contrasting forces: A falling USD (bullish gold) vs. lower safe-haven demand and rising US interest rates (bearish gold). US rates will increase early next year as global uncertainty is reduced and bond markets price-out Fed rates cuts. The current unusually high correlation between gold and US rates implies gold will face selling pressures during this period (Chart 11). Nonetheless, we expect the Fed will stay on hold and not start raising rates next year, which will cap price risks to gold. Chart 10High USD Correlation Throws Off Fair-Value Model Gold Prices Will Rise 4Q20 Chart 11US Rates Could Hurt Gold Prices In 1H20 Phase 2: EM wealth effect and inflation rebound. As income growth accelerates, EM households will slowly accumulate jewelry, coins, and bars – of which China and India are the largest consumers. Demand pressure from these consumers will manifest itself in 2H20, adding to buoyant central-banks purchases of gold. The upside in bond yields will be limited by major central banks’ dovish stance until inflation is well-established above target. Closely monitoring the evolution of inflation will become increasingly important in 2020, given inflation pressures are building in the US and globally (Chart 12). A lower USD – supporting stronger commodity demand – will magnify global inflation trends (Chart 13). There is a very real risk inflation shoots up in 4Q20, keeping real rates low. This differs from our BCA House view, which does not see inflation pressures building until 2021. Chart 12Inflationary Pressures Are Building Up In The US And Globally Political uncertainty likely will return ahead of the 2020 US election. A resurgence in popular support for one of the progressive Democratic candidates – Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders – could disrupt US stock markets. Gold would advance in such an environment. Chart 13No Inflation Without A Weaker USD Progressive populists would lead to domestic policy uncertainty and larger budget deficits, yet would not remove the threat of trade protectionism. We expect the Fed will stay on hold and not start raising rates next year, which will cap price risks to gold. Bottom Line: Gold prices will move sideways in 1H20 and will drift higher in 4Q20 supported by depressed real rates, a lower dollar, and US election uncertainty. Silver Market Chart 14Silver Prices Will Move Higher With Gold Prices Silver prices have traded closely with gold since the Global Financial Crisis (GFC), moreso than with industrial metals (Chart 14). Prior to the GFC, silver traded like a base metal, owing to the high growth rates in EM economies undergoing rapid industrialization. Post-GFC, the evolution of silver’s price more closely tracked gold prices, following the massive injections of money and credit by central banks globally. Thus, we expect it will continue to follow the evolution of gold prices outlined above. Nonetheless, industrial applications still represent ~ 50% of silver’s physical demand and its supply-demand balance is estimated to have been tight this year. Silver likely will outperform gold next year as global growth and industrial activity rebound. PGM Markets The palladium market will remain tight in 2020. According to Johnson Matthey, the 10-year-long supply deficit is expected to widen massively this year, when all’s said and done. Prices surpassed $1,900/oz in December, forcing inventory liquidation (Chart 15). We believe the platinum-to-palladium ratio is at a level that would incentivize substitution in the pollution-control technology in gasoline-powered engines, and supports higher platinum content in diesel catalyzers (Chart 16).9 Nonetheless, swapping palladium for platinum is complex and requires a redesign of the production process. A lot will depend on how much the added cost of the more expensive palladium affects new-car buyers’ demand.10 To date, there are no signs car makers have already – or are willing to – initiate this process on a significant scale. Chart 15Palladium Inventories Are Depleted A few factors need to align to incentivize substitution of palladium for platinum. The price ratio between the two metals should reach extreme levels; the price divergence should be expected to last for a prolonged period of time, and concerns over supply security of platinum should be low. Chart 16Relative Inventory levels Drive The Palladium To Platinum Price Ratio In today’s context, this last condition could slow substitution. South African platinum supply – which represents close to 73% of the world primary supply – is projected to fall by close to 3% next year. Automakers need stable platinum supplies as they increase their demand for the metal and with persistent power-supply issues in South Africa – exacerbated by recent flooding – this condition will be hard to meet. No market has been harder hit by the Sino-US trade war than grains and ags generally. Thus, palladium holds an advantage over platinum on that front. Its supply sources are more diversified, and with 15% comes from stable North American countries and 40% comes from Russia. We believe substitution will commence, but this is a gradual process and will only slowly affect the metals’ price ratio.11 For 2020, we expect palladium prices to continue increasing due to stricter pollution regulation in China, India, and Europe.12 Ag Outlook Chart 17Sino-US Trade War, USD Hammer Grain Prices Ags/Softs: Underweight. The final form of the ceasefire in the Sino-US trade war – i.e., the “phase one” deal between China and the US to roll back tariffs – has yet to show itself. Last Friday, US Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer stated China has agreed to buy $32 billion – over the next two years – of US ag products as part of a “phase one” deal. This news moved corn, wheat and beans prices up 6.3%, 3.2%, and 3.4% respectively as of Tuesday’s close. Another positive news for US farmers was an announcement from the USDA that the final $3.6 billion of the $14.5 billion budgeted for farm subsidies this year to offset the trade war impact on US farmers most likely would be made in the near future by the Trump administration.13 No market has been harder hit by the Sino-US trade war than grains and ags generally. Severe weather across much of the US Midwest should have produced a rally, as offshore demand competed for available supply, which likely would have been lower at the margin last year absent a trade war. Instead, corn, wheat and beans are going into 2020 pretty much at the same price levels they went into 2019. In addition to the deleterious effect of the US-China trade war, ag markets have been particularly hard hit by the strong USD, which makes exports from the US expensive relative to alternative suppliers – e.g., Argentina and Brazil, which are posing serious challenges to US farmers (Chart 17).   Global inventories are, nonetheless, being whittled away, which is good news for farmers generally (Chart 18). And, this likely will continue in 2020, given the physical deficits expected this year (Chart 19). Chart 18GLOBAL GRAIN STOCKS BEING WHITTLED DOWN ... Chart 19... Physical Deficits Will Whittle Stocks Further Next Year Markets are still awaiting final details of the ceasefire in the Sino-US trade war. The deal is expected to be signed in the first week of January. 2020 could be the year the global ag markets come more into balance, with stocks-to-use levels falling and normal trade resuming. We are not inclined to take a view on this possibility and are therefore remaining underweight the ag complex. Robert P. Ryan Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist rryan@bcaresearch.com Hugo Bélanger Senior Analyst Commodity & Energy Strategy HugoB@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1 Our outlook last year was entitled 2019 Key Views: Policy-Induced Volatility Will Drive Markets. It was published December 13, 2018, and is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. This year’s outlook again reflects our House view, which was published in the Bank Credit Analyst on November 28, 2019, entitled OUTLOOK 2020: Heading Into The End Game. It was sent to all clients last month and is available at bca.bcaresearch.com. 2 Uncertainty is measured using the Baker-Bloom-Davis Global Economic Policy Uncertainty (GEPU) index. GEPU is a monthly GDP-weighted index of newspaper headlines containing a list of words related to three categories – “economy,” “policy” and “uncertainty.” Newspapers from 20 countries representing almost 80% of global GDP (on an exchange rates-weighted basis) are scoured monthly to create the index. Please see Economic Policy Uncertainty for additional information. We use the Fed's USD broad trade-weighted index for goods (TWIBG) reported by the St. Louis Fed to track the USD. Please see the St. Louis Fed’s FRED website at Trade Weighted U.S. Dollar Index: Broad, Goods. 3In a June 2011 interview with the Minneapolis Fed, Ricardo Caballero, a professor of economics at MIT, provided a succinct description of risk and uncertainty, paraphrasing former US Defense Secretary under President George W. Bush Donald Rumsfeld: “(W)hen he talked about the difference between known unknowns and unknown unknowns. The former is risk; the latter is uncertainty. Risk has a more or less well-defined set of outcomes and probabilities associated with them. Uncertainty does not—things are much less clear.” Kevin L. Kliesen of the St. Louis Fed explores the link between rising uncertainty and slower economic growth in Uncertainty and the Economy (April 2013), observing, “If the business and financial community believes the near-term outlook is murkier than usual, then the pace of hiring and outlays for capital spending projects may be unnecessarily constrained, thereby slowing the overall pace of economic activity.” 4The Wall Street Journal reported investors have accumulated a $3.4 trillion cash position, a decade-high level; this is consistent with the risk aversion that can be expected when economic uncertainty is high. Please see Ready to Boost Stocks: Investors’ Multitrillion Cash Hoard, published by The Wall Street Journal November 5, 2019. 5 Accounting for Saudi Arabia's 400k b/d of additional voluntary cuts. 6 The LMEX no long trades on the LME, but we are using the index as a proxy for a position. In iron ore, we are long December 2020 65% Fe futures vs. short 62% Fe futures on the Singapore Exchange, expecting steelmakers will favor the high-grade material in the new mills they’ve brought on line. 7 Our China strategists expect “Chinese policymakers will roll out more stimulus to secure an economic recovery in 2020, and external demand will improve. But we expect growth in both the domestic economy and exports to only modestly accelerate.” Please see 2020 Key Views: Four Themes For China In The Coming Year, published by BCA Research’s China Investment Strategy December 11, 2019. It is available at cis.bcareserach.com. 8 The US dollar is a countercyclical – i.e. it is inversely correlated with the global business cycle – due to the fact that the US economy is driven more by services than manufacturing. 9 Palladium is used mostly in pollution-abatement catalysts in gasoline-powered cars, while Platinum is favored in diesel-engine cars (along with a small amount of palladium). Catalysts production represents close to 80% and 45% of palladium's and platinum's total demand. 10 Considering there’s ~ 3.5g of palladium in a new car and palladium trades at ~ $1,900/oz, close to $240 is added to the cost of a new gasoline-powered car by using this metal in pollution-abatement technology. 11 Please see South African Mines Grind To Halt As Floods Deepen Power Crisis, published by reuters.com on December 10, 2019. 12 Stricter emissions standards in the car industry – mainly in China where China 6 emissions legislation is taking effect – are increasing the PGMs loadings in each car, supporting demand growth. 13 Please see China May Agree to Buy U.S. Ag Exports, But a Final Tranche of Cash to Farmers is Still Likely, published by agriculture.com’s Successful Farming news service. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades TRADE RECOMMENDATION PERFORMANCE IN 2019 Q3 Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed in 2019 Summary of Trades Closed