Sectors

Overweight Household products stocks are in a V-shaped recovery since the early-2018 market peak and these safe haven stocks have more upside in times of tumult (middle panel) despite their pricey valuations (bottom panel). Demand for staples remains robust despite the growth slowdown and the current message from the latest PCE report calls for additional relative share price gains (second panel). Not only domestic demand is upbeat, but industry exports are also on a roll, in spite of the U.S. dollar’s recent appreciation (fourth panel). This suggests that non-discretionary items remain in high demand in the rest of the developed world and the emerging markets despite the loss of consumer pricing power. Bottom Line: We reiterate our overweight stance on the S&P household products index. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: PG, CL, CLX, KMB, CHD. ​​​​​​​  

Highlights A lot has changed in a week and a half, … : The FOMC meeting that we thought would mark the end of global market-moving news until September turned out to be a prelude for the real fireworks. … as U.S.-China trade tensions escalated, … : The imposition of tariffs on the only remaining subset of Chinese imports that had escaped duties so far inspired China to let the yuan fall below a key technical level. … and other countries braced for the fallout: China’s devaluation opened up a new front in the conflict, turning a bilateral tariff spat into a threat to other countries’ well-being and competitiveness. Asia-Pacific central banks swiftly followed with larger-than-expected rate cuts. Below-benchmark-duration positioning is no longer appropriate in the near term, and we recommend moving to benchmark duration: Interest rates will be hard-pressed to rise with global central banks squarely in easing mode. Although we still believe that inflation and the fed funds rate will surprise to the upside, it’s going to take a while. Feature Dear Client, There will be no U.S. Investment Strategy next week as we take our final summer break. U.S. Investment Strategy will return on Monday, August 26th. Best regards, Doug Peta So much for the idea that the July 30-31 FOMC meeting would be the last market-moving event before Labor Day. By lunchtime on August 1st, the S&P 500 was back to its July 30th close above 3,010; the 10-year Treasury yield had settled around 1.96%, ten basis points (“bps”) lower than its pre-meeting level; and gold had fallen by ten bucks, to $1,420, as markets digested the news that the Fed was less concerned about the economy than they were. Then the trade war reared its ugly head in the form of new tariffs on Chinese imports to the U.S., and the S&P slid to 2,822, the 10-year Treasury yield tumbled to 1.59%, and gold surged to $1,510. The new round would ensnare the subset of goods that had previously been spared from import duties, and Beijing promised to retaliate. It’s hard for rates to rise when every central bank has an easing bias as it nervously eyes the U.S.-China tilt.   Chart 1Beijing Plays The Currency Card The retaliation arrived Sunday night in the U.S., when Chinese officials allowed the renminbi to trade above 7 to the dollar for the first time since 2008 (Chart 1). The move provoked a global equity selloff, and the S&P 500 lost 3% in its worst session of the year. With the currency floodgates opened, the trade war morphed from a bilateral tariff spat into a global battle for competitiveness, and central banks in India, Thailand and New Zealand responded with larger-than-expected rate cuts. India is a comparatively closed economy battling a domestic downturn, but it is clear that countries with any reliance on exports are loath to be saddled with a strong currency that will hamstring their global competitiveness. It turns out that the Fed isn’t the only central bank that sees the appeal of taking out some insurance. That is an unfriendly backdrop for below-benchmark-duration positioning, and we are joining our fixed-income colleagues in raising our duration recommendation from underweight to neutral over the tactical timeframe (0-3 months). While we still believe that the fed funds rate and long yields will surprise to the upside, they cannot do so while bond investors are adamant that the Fed is going to have to adopt an easing bias over the near term. Our rates checklist, discussed in the rest of this report, supports the decision. The shift in the rates backdrop undermines our newly established agency mortgage REIT recommendation, and we are watching it closely. The Rates Checklist: The Fed Table 1Rates View Checklist Turning to our rates view checklist (Table 1), the first item is derived from our U.S. Bond Strategy service’s golden rule of bond investing.1 The golden rule asks one simple question to anchor views on Treasuries: Over the next 12 months, will the Fed move the fed funds rate by more or less than the bond market is currently discounting? Since 1990, when the Fed has surprised dovishly (the fed funds rate has turned out to be lower than the money market implied twelve months earlier), Treasuries have almost always generated positive excess returns over cash. Periods of negative excess returns have occurred nearly exclusively when the Fed has delivered a hawkish surprise. We still think inflation will become a problem, but it certainly isn’t one yet. Since we rolled out the checklist last year, we have consistently expected a hawkish surprise. Though we continue to believe that an extended cycle of rate cuts is not in the cards, markets disagree, and we concede that the Fed now has a near-term easing bias, despite Chair Powell’s demurrals at the post-meeting press conference. We are leaving the box unchecked because we believe that nearly four more 25-bps cuts over the next twelve months, equating to a target fed funds rate of 1.25-1.50% (Chart 2), are unlikely. The spread between our expectations and the market’s expectations is still wide enough to merit a below-benchmark-duration view over the next twelve months, even if benchmark duration makes more sense for the rest of the year. Chart 2Four More Rate Cuts Are A Stretch The yield curve’s inversion has become more pronounced in the wake of the re-escalation of the trade war (Chart 3), and we duly check the second box. As a reminder, we track the 3-month/10-year segment of the yield curve to define inversion because it is less susceptible to estimate error, and has been a timelier indicator of recessions, than the more frequently cited 2-year/10-year segment. We have argued before that the unprecedentedly large negative 10-year term premium makes the curve more prone to invert and makes it a less sensitive economic barometer, but part of the rationale of creating a checklist is to limit one’s discretion in interpreting events. Chart 3More Rate Cuts, Please The Rates Checklist: Inflation Inflation has gone AWOL around the globe. Although the U.S. no longer faces the negative output gaps that remain in other major economies, its main measures of consumer prices (Chart 4) do nothing to counteract the widespread view that the Fed has a free pass to devote its energies to shoring up growth. Inflation break-evens were making progress toward the 2.3-2.5% range consistent with the Fed’s 2% inflation target when we launched the checklist last year, but the plunge in oil prices stopped them in their tracks (Chart 5). Rather than encouraging the Fed to hike, soft inflation expectations helped drive the Fed’s dovish pivot. Chart 4Realized Inflation Is Below Target, ... Chart 5... And So Are Inflation Expectations Our view that the seeds of inflation pressures have been sown has not changed. After slowing on a real final domestic demand basis in the first quarter from the one-two punch of the government shutdown and the fourth quarter’s sharp tightening of financial conditions, the U.S. economy has resumed operating above capacity. Though we check the “sluggish-inflation” boxes, and acknowledge that inflation is not going to inspire a more restrictive turn in Fed policy any time soon, we do think it will become an issue down the road. The Rates Checklist: The Labor Market The labor market remains robust. The headline unemployment rate remains at a level last seen in 1969, and is well below the CBO’s estimate of NAIRU. NAIRU is the minimum structural unemployment rate, and wage gains quicken when the unemployment rate falls below it (Chart 6). The broader definition of unemployment, encompassing discouraged workers and involuntary part-time workers, fell to its lowest level since 2000 in July (Chart 7), and the job openings and job quits rates (Chart 8) indicate that demand for workers remains high. Chart 6Wage Gains Will Accelerate, ... Chart 7... As Slack Has Been Absorbed, ... Chart 8... And Demand Is Robust   3.2% year-over-year growth in average hourly earnings may not be thrilling, but wages do remain in an uptrend. The laws of supply and demand (Chart 9), and the Fed’s best efforts, suggest that the uptrend will continue. We do not check any of the labor market boxes, and expect that we will not over the rest of the year. The Rates Checklist: Instability At Home And Abroad Chart 10No Overheating Yet There continue to be no signs of cyclical overheating in the U.S. economy, as the most cyclical segments of the economy are nowhere near the red end of the tachometer (Chart 10). Financial imbalances have moved to the back burner, but they are part of the Fed’s post-crisis mandate, and we are leaving the imbalances box unticked to reflect that the “low spreads and loosening credit terms” Governor Brainard decried last September2 may stay the Fed from embarking on a full-on easing cycle. We are checking the international duress box, at least for the time being, given the potential for a self-reinforcing rate-cutting cycle that could hold down the entire term structure of rates around the world. Bottom Line: The inverted yield curve, a lack of consumer price inflation, and the cloud cast by the trade war all suggest that bond markets will require some convincing before they allow rates to rise much higher. We conclude that a neutral duration stance is appropriate in the near term. Keeping Score We have been staunch supporters of below-benchmark duration positioning since the end of last July,3 given that we thought the 10-year Treasury yield was too low relative to our assessment of the strength of the U.S. economy and the potential for inflation to begin to rise. It appears that our stronger-than-consensus economic view was correct, but we were myopic in failing to grasp how punk growth in the rest of the world would keep long-maturity Treasury yields from making a sustained move higher. We were way early on inflation’s ETA, and slow to grasp how sensitive the Fed would be to faltering global growth and escalating trade tensions in its absence. In short, both our model of the Fed’s reaction function and the inputs to our model turned out to be faulty. The duration call stings, but our asset allocation recommendations have worked out. The fix we are making is to wait until inflation is a clear and present danger before assuming that the Fed will respond to it. Although we got the duration call wrong, investment-grade and high-yield corporate bonds have outperformed Treasuries in the aggregate since we upgraded them to overweight versus Treasuries at the end of January (Chart 11). BCA as a house niftily sidestepped the fourth-quarter selloff in equities by downgrading them to equal weight, and raising cash to overweight, late last June. We upgraded equities to overweight versus cash and fixed income in our first publication of the year, and the S&P 500 has handily outperformed Treasuries since that date, despite the nasty selloff following the July FOMC meeting and the new round of tariffs (Chart 12). Chart 11Spread Product Has Modestly Outperformed Treasuries, ... Chart 12... But Equities Have Crushed Them Agency Mortgage REIT Implications We recommended agency mortgage REITs a day before the FOMC meeting, suggesting that investors allocate capital away from equities and high yield as a way to reduce equity beta and boost portfolio income away from the herd chasing lower and lower high-yield bond yields. Through Thursday’s close, the Bloomberg Mortgage REIT Index has gained about 35 bps on a total return basis, while the Barclays High Yield Index is off 70 bps and the S&P 500 is down 2.7%. Unfortunately, the agency mREITs we sought out for their yield curve exposure have lagged badly as the yield curve has relentlessly flattened. For now, only the one agency mREIT with a dedicated adjustable-rate mortgage portfolio faces immediate earnings pressure. The rest are subject to refinancing volumes, which are likely to be higher than we expected when we projected that the 10-year Treasury yield wouldn’t fall much below 2%. The specter of increased prepayments makes the agency mREITs a less attractive investment than we thought they would be two weeks ago. On the other hand, their exclusively domestic exposure, and low credit risk, increases their value as a haven from global turmoil. Net-net, we are sticking with them, though they are now on a far shorter leash than they were when we made the recommendation. We will not stick with a position to save face, or to avoid looking irresolute. Flexibility and a willingness to admit mistakes are essential characteristics of successful investors. When the facts change, we change our mind, without the faintest hint of embarrassment. Doug Peta, CFA Chief U.S. Investment Strategist dougp@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see the July 24, 2018 U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, “The Golden Rule Of Bond Investing,” available at usbs.bcaresearch.com. 2 Brainard, Lael (2018). “What Do We Mean by Neutral And What Role Does It Play in Monetary Policy,” speech delivered at the Detroit Economic Club, Detroit, Mich., September 12, 2018. 3 Please see the July 30, 2018 U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “The Rates Outlook,” available at usis.bcaresearch.com.

Special Report

Feature Introduction Chart 1Japanese Equities: ##br##Buying Opportunity Or Value Trap? Clients have recently been asking us a lot about Japan. The reason seems clear. With the consistent outperformance of U.S. equities over the past decade, and their rather high valuations now, asset allocators are looking for an alternative. Emerging Markets and the euro zone have major structural concerns which suggest they are unlikely to outperform over any prolonged period (even if they might have a short-lived cyclical pop). Maybe Japan – whose own structural problems are well known and so surely priced in by now – could be a candidate for outperformance and a structural rerating over the next three to five years. Indeed, since the Global Financial Crisis (GFC), Japanese equities have not performed as badly as you might have imagined: they have performed in line with all their global peers – except for the U.S. (Chart 1). In this Special Report, we answer the most common questions that clients have asked us about the long-term (three to five year) outlook for Japan, and try to address the key issue: Are Japanese equities now a buying opportunity, or still a value trap? Our conclusions are as follows: The Japanese economy is still weighed down by structural problems – stubborn disinflation, and a shrinking and aging population – which means consumption growth will remain weak over the coming years. Japan’s structural problems will not easily be solved, and will continue to dampen the economy’s growth. We think it is unlikely, therefore, that Japanese equities will outperform in the long run. In that sense, Japan probably is a value trap, not a buying opportunity. In the past, Japanese equities benefited from bouts of Chinese reflationary stimulus – which we expect will be ramped up in the coming months – but the effect was usually short-lived and muted. The clash between accommodative monetary policy and contractionary fiscal policy, particularly October’s tax hike, is likely to dampen any revival in the Japanese economy. Global Asset Allocation downgraded Japanese equities to underweight over a six-to-12 month investment horizon in our most recent Quarterly Outlook.1 We find it hard to make a strong “rerating” case for Japan, and so, do not expect Japanese equities to outperform other major developed markets in the long run. Why Isn’t Inflation Rising? Chart 2Domestic Drivers Muted Japanese Inflation The market clearly does not believe that Bank of Japan (BoJ) Governor Haruhiko Kuroda can raise inflation to the BoJ’s target of 2%, despite negative interest rates and massive quantitative easing. The 5-year/5-year forward CPI swap rate, a proxy for inflation expectations, is currently at 0.1% (Chart 2, panel 1). Japan’s ultra-accommodative monetary policy has failed to push recorded inflation higher, with the core and core core measures2 both at 0.6% as of June (Chart 2, panel 2). In its recent outlook, the BoJ revised down its inflation forecasts in fiscal years 2019, 2020, and 2021 to 1.0%, 1.3%, and 1.6% respectively, implying that it does not expect to get even close to 2% over the forecast horizon.3  Prior to the bursting of Japan’s bubble in 1990, a big percentage of Japanese inflation came from domestic factors: housing, culture and recreation, and health care. By contrast, prices of items manufactured overseas, mainly in China, and imported goods – especially furniture and clothing – did not rise much. The same was true for other developed economies such as the U.S. and the euro area. However, since the 1990s, domestically-produced items in Japan have failed to rise in price, unlike the situation in the U.S. This kept a lid on Japanese inflation. Housing in particular, which represents about 20% of the inflation basket, now contributes only 0.02% to Japanese core core inflation (Chart 2, panels 3 & 4). Chart 3Deregulation = Low Inflation There are three main reasons for this difference: Stagnant wages Unfavorable demographics Deregulation The first two causes are discussed in detail below. Gradual deregulation of various industries has also been disinflationary. In the 1980s, Japan remained a highly regulated economy, with the government fixing many prices and limiting entry into many sectors. Although change has been slow, deregulation and the introduction of competition have caused structural downward pressure on prices in a number of industries, notably telecommunications and utilities. For example, deregulation of electric power companies in 2016 allowed increased competition and new entrants into the market.4 As a result, electricity prices in Japan dropped from an average of 11.4 JPY/Kwh prior to full deregulation to 9.3 JPY/Kwh (Chart 3). But there are still many industries which are more tightly regulated in Japan than in other advanced economies (the near-ban on car-sharing services such as Uber, and tight restrictions on AirBnB are just the most newsworthy examples). This suggests that structural disinflationary pressures are likely to persist on any further deregulation. Why Is Wage Growth Stagnant, Despite A Tight Labor Market? Chart 4Wages Have Been Beaten Down... Japan’s labor market appears very tight. The unemployment rate is 2.3%, the lowest since the early 1990s, and the jobs-to-applications ratio is 1.61, the highest since the 1970s. And yet wage growth has remained stagnant, averaging only 0.5% over the past five years. (Chart 4).5  There are a number of structural reasons why wages have failed to respond to the tight labor market situation. One major contributory factor is the social norm of “lifetime employment,” whereby many employees, especially at large companies, tend to stay with their initial employer through their careers, being rotated from one department to another, without becoming specialists in any particular field. This means they have little pricing power – and few transferable skills – when it comes to seeking a mid-career change. This social norm is also reflected in Japan’s typical salary schemes, which are based on employment length (Chart 5, panel 1). Wages tend to rise with age, while in other developed economies they peak around the age of 50. Another factor is the big increase in recent years in part-time and temporary positions, which typically pay lower wages than full-time positions. Because employment law makes it hard (if not impossible) to fire workers, companies have tended to prefer hiring non-permanent staff, who are easier to replace. Part-time workers have increased by 11 million over the past three decades, compared to an increase of two million in full-time workers (Chart 5, panel 2). A substantial part of this increase in part-time employment came from both the elderly and women joining the labor market – groups that have little wage bargaining power (Chart 5, panel 3). Part-time wage growth has also turned negative this year (Chart 5, panel 4). Bonuses are a significant portion of wages, and tend to be rather volatile, moving in line with corporate profits, which have weakened this year (Chart 5, panel 5). Japan’s structural problems will not easily be solved, and will continue to dampen the economy’s growth. Nonetheless, there are some tentative signs of a change in this social norm. The number of employees changing jobs has been rising over the past few years. This is mostly evident among employees aged over 45, signaling the need for experienced personnel (Chart 6, panel 1). The percentage of unemployed who had voluntarily quit their jobs, rather than being let go, has also reached an all-time high (Chart 6, panel 2). This evidence suggests that employees are increasingly willing to leave their jobs in search of a more interesting or a better-paid one. Given such a tight labor market, it seems only a matter of time before there is some pressure on employers to increase salaries in order to attract talent. Chart 5...Mainy Due To Part-Time Employment Chart 6Changing The Norm   Is There An Answer To Japan’s Demographic Problem? Chart 7Japanese Population: Shrinking And Aging Deteriorating demographics is a key reason why inflation has remained subdued. The Japanese population peaked in 2009 and, over the past eight years, has shrunk on average by 0.2%, or 220,000 people, a year. Furthermore, the working-age population (25-64) has shrunk by 6 million, or 10%, since its peak in 2005. With marital rates continuing to fall, and fertility rates doing no more than stabilizing, there is no sign of a quick turnaround in this situation (Chart 7, panels 1 & 2). Prime Minister Abe has eased immigration laws to try to put a stop to the population decline. Late last year, the Diet passed a law that will allow more foreign workers into the country. The law will provide long-term work visas for immigrants in various blue-collar sectors, whereas the previous regulation allowed in only highly skilled workers. It will also enable foreign workers to upgrade to a higher-tier visa category, giving them a path to permanent residency, and allowing them to bring their families along.6  However, Japan’s closed culture raises the question of how successful Prime Minister Abe’s immigration reforms will be. The number of foreign residents has risen over the past few years, reaching a cumulative 2.73 million people, but this has been insufficient to reverse the decline in the population. In addition, without implementing effective measures to integrate new immigrants and support their efforts to become long-term residents, these reforms are likely to be minor in their impact (Chart 7, panel 3). Chart 8Aging Population = Slowing Productivity Japan’s population is not just shrinking but also aging. People aged 65 and older comprise 28% of the total population (Chart 7, panel 4). That figure is projected to reach 40% within the next 40 years. The dependency ratio – those younger than 15 years and older than 64, as a ratio of the working-age population – continues to rise rapidly (Chart 7, panel 5). Moreover, older people tend to be less productive. Because of this, Japan’s productivity may continue to decline from its current level, which is already low compared to other developed countries (Chart 8). The combination of a shrinking working-age population and poor productivity growth means that Japan’s trend real GDP growth over the next decade – absent an increase in capital expenditure or improvement in technology – is unlikely to be above zero.7   Some argue that Japan’s aging population could be the trigger to overcoming its disinflation problem. They argue that, as the share of the elderly-to-total-population increases, public expenditure on health care will balloon. The United Nations projects the median age in Japan to be 53 years, 10 and 5 years older than in the U.S. and China, respectively, by 2060 (Chart 9). This implies that the Japanese government, which currently pays about 80% of total health care expenditure, will face an increasing burden from medical spending, elderly care, and public pension payments. These expenditures are projected to increase from 19% to 25% of GDP (Chart 9, panel 2). The government, therefore, may have no alternative but to resort to monetizing its debt to pay these bills, which would ultimately prove to be inflationary. Chart 9Aging Population = Higher Fiscal Burden In some countries, BCA has argued, an aging population is inflationary because retirees’ incomes fall almost to zero after retirement, but expenditure rises, particularly towards at the end of life as they spend more on health care.8 The resulting dissaving, and disparity between the demand and supply of goods, should have inflationary effects. But this rationale does not hold for Japanese households. Older people in Japan tend to maintain their level of savings (Chart 10). This phenomenon might change as a new generation, keener on leisure activities and less culturally attuned to maximizing savings, retires. But to date, at least, Japan’s aging process has been disinflationary. It is likely, then, that a combination of subdued wage growth, decreased spending by the elderly, low demand for housing, and the ineffectiveness of an ultra-accommodative monetary policy is likely to keep inflation low. Moreover, to reduce the burden on its budget, the government will continue its efforts to keep down health care costs, which have a 5% weight in the core core inflation measure. We find it unlikely, therefore, that the BoJ will achieve its 2% inflation target over the next few years. So, What Else Could The BoJ Do? Chart 11The BoJ's Ammunition Is Running Out Over the past six years, since Kuroda became governor in 2013, the Bank of Japan has rolled out aggressive monetary easing. It has cut rates to -0.1% and introduced a policy of “yield curve control,” which aims to keep the yield on 10-year JGBs at 0%, plus or minus 20 basis points. As a result, it now holds JPY479 trillion of JGBs, or 46% of the total outstanding amount (and equivalent to 89% of Japan’s GDP). It has also bought an average of JPY6 trillion of equity ETFs a year over the past three years (Chart 11, panels 1 & 2), to bring its total equity ETF holdings to JPY28 trillion, almost 5% of Japan's equity market cap. However, as noted above, these policies have had little impact on inflation, or on inflation expectations. BCA’s Central Bank Monitor indicates that Japan needs to ease monetary conditions further (Chart 11, panel 3). What alternative tools could the BoJ use to spur inflation? The BoJ could cut rates further, and indeed the futures market is discounting a 10 basis points cut over the next 12 months (Chart 11, panel 4). In its July Monetary Policy Committee meeting, the bank committed to keeping policy easy “at least through around spring 2020.” But it seems reluctant to cut rates, given that this would further damage the profitability of Japan’s banks, particularly the rather fragile regional banks. Indeed, one can argue that a small rate cut would be unlikely to have much effect, given the impotence of previous such moves. The BoJ might be inclined to emulate the ECB and extend its asset purchase program. It owns only JPY3 trillion of corporate bonds, and has bought almost no new ones since 2013 (Chart 11, panel 5), although the small size of the Japanese corporate bond market would give it limited scope to increase these purchases. It could also increase its purchases of REITs, of which it currently owns JPY26 trillion. It could even consider buying foreign assets (as does the Swiss National Bank), though this would annoy the U.S. authorities, who would consider it currency manipulation. Some economists argue in favor of a Japanese equivalent of the ECB’s Targeted Long-Term Refinancing Operations (TLTRO). In other words, the BoJ should provide funds to banks at rates significantly below zero, provided they use the proceeds to give out loans to households and corporations.9 This would not only increase credit in the economy, but also bolster banks’ declining profitability. Some academics consider Japan, which appears stuck in a liquidity trap, as the perfect setting to try out Modern Monetary Theory (MMT).10,11 However, the Ministry of Finance remains fixated on reducing Japan’s excessive pile of outstanding government debt, which is currently 238% of GDP. When MMT was debated in the Japanese Diet this June, Finance Minister Taro Aso dismissed it, saying “I’m not sure I should even call it a theory, it’s a line of argument,” and insisted that tax hikes are necessary to secure Japan’s welfare system. The Ministry’s current plan is to close the primary budget deficit by 2027.  Moreover, the Bank of Japan Law bans the central bank from underwriting government debt, due to the abuses of this in the 1930s, when it funded Japan’s militarist expansion12 – though there are no limits on how much the BoJ can buy in the secondary market.  Our conclusion is that negative rates and quantitative easing have reached the limit of their effectiveness. Even if the BoJ ramps up the measures it has taken up until now, this will have little impact on inflation. It will be only when the government finally understands that a combination of easy fiscal and monetary policy is single effective tool left that the situation can change. There is little sign of this happening soon. It will probably take a crisis before this mindset shifts. Are There Any Signs Of Improvement In Japan’s Banking Sector? Japan’s financial sector is also one of its longstanding problems. After Japan’s 1980s bubble burst, the BoJ aggressively cut rates from 6% to 0.5% over the span of eight years. Long-term rates also fell. Falling interest rates reduced Japanese banks’ net interest margins. The banks spent the 1990s cleaning up their balance sheets and recapitalizing themselves. In the end, the banks’ cumulative losses (including write-offs and increased provisioning) during the 1992-2004 period reached the equivalent of 20% of Japanese GDP.13 Japanese bank stocks have consistently underperformed the aggregate index since the late 1980s (with the exception of a short period in the mid-2000s) – and by 75% since 1995 (Chart 12, panel 1). It now seems like banks' relative performance is bound by the policy rate. It is likely, then, that a combination of subdued wage growth, decreased spending by the elderly, low demand for housing, and the ineffectiveness of an ultra-accommodative monetary policy is likely to keep inflation low. Bank loan growth throughout the period of 1995-2006 was weak or negative, as banks became more risk averse and borrowers focused on repairing their balance sheets (Chart 12, panel 2). It has picked up a little over the past decade, but remains low at around 2%-4%. This has been a drag on economic activity since both Japan’s corporate and household sectors rely much more heavily on banks for funding compared to the U.S. or the euro area (Chart 12, panels 3 & 4). As a result of stagnant loan growth at home, Japanese banks have in recent years expanded their activities overseas, particularly in south-east Asia. Foreign lending for Japan’s three largest banks comprises 29.7% of total loans, 33% of which is to Asia.14 This represents a risk for future stability since these assets could easily become non-performing in the event of an Emerging Markets crisis in the next recession. Chart 12Bank Stocks Have Consistently Underperformed... Chart 13...Because Of Weak Loan Growth ##br##And Poor Profits By the mid-2000s, Japanese banks had finished cleaning up from the 1980s bubble and the non-performing loan ratio is now low. But measures of profitability such as return on assets and net interest margin remain poor by international standards (Chart 13). Japanese financial institutions’ capital adequacy ratios have also deteriorated moderately over the past five years, according to the BoJ’s Financial System Report, as risk-weighted assets have increased more quickly than profits. The core capital adequacy ratio of just above 10% is significantly lower than in other major developed economies.15 How Should Investors Be Positioned In The Short-Term? There are two factors that will determine how Japanese equities perform over the next 12 months: Chinese stimulus, and the impact of the consumption tax hike in October. Can Chinese Reflation Help Boost Japanese Economic Activity? Chart 14Chinese Stimulus Boosts Japan's Activity... Chart 15...Yet Its Impact Is Short-Lived And Muted While Japan is not a particularly open economy – exports represent only 15% of GDP – its manufacturing sector is very exposed to global trade, and the swings in this sector (which is a lofty 20% of GDP) have a disproportionately large marginal impact on the overall economy. China accounts for 20% of Japan’s exports, roughly 3% of Japan’s GDP (Chart 14). China’s economic slowdown since 2017 has clearly weighed heavily on Japanese exports and the manufacturing sector. Japanese machine tool orders have contracted for nine months, in June reaching the lowest growth since the GFC, -38% year-on-year. Vehicle production growth has also been weak, rising only 1.8% year-to-date compared to 2018, and overall industrial production growth has turned negative, falling by 4.1% YoY in June. It seems that global growth data has not yet bottomed. The German manufacturing PMI remains well below the boom/bust line at 43.2. Korean export growth is also contracting at a double-digit rate. Nevertheless, we expect the global manufacturing downturn – which typically lasts about 18 months from peak-to-trough – to bottom towards the end of this year.16 This will be supported by the Chinese authorities accelerating their monetary and fiscal stimulus, although the magnitude of this might not be as big as it was in 2012 and 2015.17 Japanese economic activity has historically been closely correlated with Chinese credit growth, with a lag of six-to-nine months (Chart 15). What Will Be The Impact Of The Consumption Tax Hike? Japanese consumer demand has been sluggish for some time, mainly as a result of low wage growth. The planned rise in the consumption tax from 8% to 10% in October is likely to dampen consumption further. With the economy currently so weak, there seems little justification for a tax rise. But, having postponed it twice, it seems highly unlikely that Prime Minister Abe will do so again, particularly after his victory in last month’s Upper House election, which was a de facto referendum on the tax hike. Chart 16Previous Tax Hikes Hurt Sales Badly The OECD, based on Japanese government data, estimates the impact on households of the tax hike will be 5.7 trillion yen (about 1% of GDP).18 Consumers did not take previous tax rate hikes well. Spending was brought forward to the two to three months immediately before the hike. However, following the hike, not only did sales fall back, they also trended down for some time (Chart 16). The risk to the economy is that the same happens again.  The government, however, is planning several measures to mitigate the tax burden (Table 1). It will not apply the tax increase to food and beverages, which will stay at 8%. The government will implement a fiscal package including free early childhood education, support for low-income earners, and tax breaks on certain consumer durable goods, such as automobiles and housing. It will also introduce a rebate program, to encourage consumer spending at small retailers using non-cash payments (partly to reduce tax avoidance by these businesses).19 Based on the government’s estimates, these measures will be enough to fully offset the impact of the tax hike. However, the IMF’s Fiscal Monitor sees fiscal policy tightening due to the tax rate hike, although by less than in 2014. Its estimate is a drag of 0.6% of potential GDP in 2020 (Chart 17). Table 1Easing The Tax Hike Burden Chart 17Clash Of Policies: Fiscal Vs. Monetary   Previous sales tax hikes caused a short-lived jump in inflation, which trended lower afterwards. Assuming a full pass-through rate of price increases to consumers, the BoJ expects the hike to raise core inflation by +0.2% and +0.1% in fiscal years 2019 and 2020 respectively.20 Consumers did not take previous tax rate hikes well. As such, over the next 12 months, Global Asset Allocation recommends an underweight on Japanese equities. While a bottoming of the global manufacturing cycle and the impact of Chinese stimulus are positive factors, there are better markets in which to play this, given the risks surrounding Japanese consumption caused by the consumption tax rise. Are Improvements In Corporate Governance Enough To Make Japanese Equities A Long-Term Buy? Chart 18Corporate Governance Not Improving Enough Many investors believe that improved corporate governance could be the catalyst the stock market needs to outperform. It is true that there have been some improvements in recent years. Japanese companies have increased the share of independent directors on their boards, although this remains low by international standards (Chart 18, panel 1). Share buybacks have increased, and are on track to hit all-time high this year (Chart 18, panel 2). However, the improvements are still somewhat superficial. Cash holdings of Japanese companies are about 50% of GDP and 100% of market capitalization. The dividend payout ratio, at 30%, is significantly lower than in other developed markets, for example 40% in the U.S. and 50% in the euro area (Chart 18, panels 3 & 4). Why haven’t Japanese corporations returned their excess cash to shareholders? The answer is that many companies simply do not believe that they hold excess cash (Chart 19). The lack of a vibrant market for corporate control, and the general failure of activist foreign investment funds in Japan, means there is also less pressure on companies to use cash efficiently, and to raise leverage to improve their return on equity. The growing presence of the BoJ in the stock market is also a concern. The BoJ now holds over 70% of outstanding ETF equity assets, and is on track to become the single largest owner of Japanese stocks within a couple of years. With the BoJ not taking an active role as a shareholder, this risks undermining corporate governance reforms.21 It also suggests that, without the BoJ’s equity purchases over the past few years, Japanese equities might have performed even worse. Foreign investors have been the main buyers of Japanese equities over the past two decades, offsetting net selling by domestic households and most types of financial institutions. But foreign purchases have recently started to roll over, a trend that could be another catalyst for downward pressures on the stock market, if it were to continue (Chart 20). Chart 20Who Will Buy If Foreigners Don't?   We conclude, therefore, that signs of improvement in corporate governance are still sporadic and not sufficient to justify a major rerating of the Japanese corporate sector.   Bottom Line GAA recommends an underweight on Japan over a 12-month time horizon, since the drag on consumption from the tax hike will override any positive impact from a rebound in global growth caused by Chinese stimulus. In the longer term, a stubborn refusal to use fiscal policy as well as monetary easing, the limited improvement in corporate governance, and Japan’s intractable structural problems such as demographics, mean it is hard to make a strong rerating case for Japanese equities.   Amr Hanafy, Research Associate amrh@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1      Please see Global Asset Allocation Quarterly Portfolio Outlook, “Precautionary Dovishness – Or Looming Recession?” dated July 1, 2019, available on gaa.bcaresearch.com. 2      The BoJ calculates core inflation as headline inflation less fresh food, and core core inflation as headline inflation less fresh food and energy. 3      Please see “Outlook for Economic Activity and Prices (July 2019),” Bank Of Japan, July 2019. 4      Please see “Energy transition Japan: 'We have to disrupt ourselves,' says TEPCO,” Engerati, April 24, 2017.   5      Wage growth is total cash earnings, which includes regular/scheduled earnings plus overtime pay plus special earnings/bonuses. 6      Menju Toshihiro, “Japan’s Historic Immigration Reform: A Work in Progress,” nippon.com, February 6,2019. 7      Please see Global Asset Allocation Special Report, “Return Assumptions – Refreshed And Refined,” dated June 25, 2019, available at gaa.bcaresearch.com. 8      Please see Global Asset Allocation Special Report, “Investor’s Guide To Inflation Hedging: How To Invest When Inflation Rises,” dated May 22, 2019 available at gaa.bcaresearch.com. 9      Takuji Okubo, “Japan’s dormant central bank may have to rouse itself once more,” Financial Times, May 27, 2019. 10     The core idea of MMT is that, since governments can print as much of their own currency as they require, they do not need to raise money in order to spend money. Japan could increase its fiscal spending and, as long as the BoJ bought the increased bond issuance, this would not raise interest rates. 11     Please see Global Investment Strategy Special Report, “MMT And Me,” dated May 31 2019, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 12     Please see Global Asset Allocation Special Report, “The Emperor’s Act Of Grace,” dated 8 June 2016, available at gaa.bcaresearch.com. 13     Mariko Fujii and Masahiro Kawai, “Lessons from Japan’s Banking Crisis 1991-2005,” ADB Institute Working Paper, No. 222, June 2010. 14     Mizuho, Mitsubishi UFJ and Sumitomo Mitsui. Data from March 2019 annual reports. 15     Please see “Financial System Report,” Bank of Japan, April 2019. 16       Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “Three Cycles,” dated July 26, 2019, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 17       Please see GAA’s latest Monthly Portfolio Update, “Manufacturing Recession, Consumer Resilience, Dovish Central Banks,” dated 1 August 2019, available at gaa.bcaresearch.com. 18     Please see “OECD Economic Surveys: Japan,” OECDiLibrary, April 15, 2019. 19     Please see “Government plans 5% rebates for some cashless payments after 2019 tax hike,”The Japan Times, November 22, 2018. 20     Please see “Outlook For Economic Activity And Price (July 2019),” Bank Of Japan, July 30, 2019. 21     Andrew Whiffin, “BoJ’s dominance over ETFs raises concern on distorting influence,” Financial Times, March 31, 2019.

Highlights Chart 1Keep Tracking The CRB / Gold Ratio The Fed cut rates by 25 basis points last week, a move that Chairman Powell described as an “insurance” cut meant to counter the risks from trade tensions and global growth weakness. Powell also described the move as a “mid-cycle adjustment to policy” and not “the beginning of a lengthy cutting cycle”. We agree with the Fed’s “mid-cycle” view of the U.S. economy and think an extended cutting cycle is unwarranted, but the market clearly disagrees. Long-end yields fell on Powell’s remarks and fell further as U.S. / China trade tensions re-escalated during the past few days. The 2015/16 period continues to be a good roadmap for the current environment, and we expect the next big move in Treasury yields will be higher. The timing of that move, however, is highly uncertain. Our political strategists expect an increase in saber-rattling between the U.S. and China in the coming months, and bond yields will not rise until either trade tensions ease and/or the global growth data recover. We recommend a tactical neutral allocation to portfolio duration, but expect to switch back to below-benchmark when those conditions are met. The CRB / Gold ratio will continue to be a good guide for the 10-year yield (Chart 1). Feature Investment Grade: Overweight Chart 2Investment Grade Market Overview Investment grade corporate bonds outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 63 basis points in July, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +432 bps. Corporate spreads widened somewhat following Jerome Powell’s perceived hawkishness at last week’s FOMC meeting, but that spread widening will prove fleeting. The Fed remains committed to keeping monetary policy accommodative and that means doing everything it can to prevent a significant tightening of financial conditions.1 The soaring price of gold is the strongest indicator of the Fed’s dovishness, and it is also a buy signal for corporate credit (Chart 2). In terms of valuation, Baa-rated securities offer the most value in investment grade corporate bond space. Baa spreads remain 7 bps above our cyclical target.2 Conversely, Aa and A-rated spreads are 3 bps and 4 bps below target, respectively (panel 4). Aaa spreads are 16 bps below target (not shown). The Fed’s Senior Loan Officer Survey for Q2, released yesterday, showed that commercial & industrial (C&I) lending standards eased for the second consecutive quarter. C&I loan demand continued to contract, but less aggressively than its recent pace (bottom panel). Easing lending standards usually coincide with spread tightening, and vice-versa.  High-Yield: Overweight Chart 3High-Yield Market Overview High-Yield outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 66 basis points in July, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +673 bps. The average index option-adjusted spread tightened 6 bps in July, then widened 26 bps in the first two days of August. At 397 bps, it is currently well above the cycle-low of 303 bps. We see more potential for spread tightening in high-yield than in investment grade. Within investment grade, only Baa-rated spreads appear cheap. However, in high-yield, Ba-rated spreads are 71 bps above our target (Chart 3), B-rated spreads are 142 bps above our target (panel 3) and Caa-rated spreads are 298 bps above our target (not shown).3 Junk spreads also offer reasonable value relative to expected default losses. The current Moody’s baseline forecast calls for a default rate of 2.9% over the next 12 months, not far from our own projection.4 This would translate into 238 bps of excess spread in the High-Yield index, after adjusting for default losses (panel 4). This is comfortably above zero, and only just below the historical average of 250 bps. As noted on page 3, C&I lending standards have now eased for two consecutive quarters and job cut announcements are off their highs (bottom panel). Both trends are supportive of lower default expectations in the future. MBS: Neutral Chart 4MBS Market Overview Mortgage-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 43 basis points in July, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +32 bps. The conventional 30-year zero-volatility spread tightened 10 bps on the month, consisting of a 9 bps tightening in the option-adjusted spread (OAS) and a 1 bp decline in the compensation for prepayment risk (option cost). Falling mortgage rates hurt MBS in the first half of this year, as lower rates led to an increase in refi activity that drove MBS spreads wider (Chart 4). In fact, the conventional 30-year index OAS moved all the way back to its pre-crisis mean, before tightening last month (panel 3). However, as we noted in a recent report, the nominal 30-year MBS spread remains very tight, at close to one standard deviation below its historical mean.5 The mixed valuation picture means we are not yet inclined to augment MBS exposure, especially given the recent downleg in Treasury yields that could spur another small jump in refis. However, we are equally disinclined to downgrade MBS, given our view that Treasury yields are close to a trough. All in all, we expect the next big move in the MBS/Treasury basis will be a tightening, as global growth improves and mortgage rates rise. However, valuation is not sufficiently attractive to warrant more than a neutral allocation.   Government-Related: Underweight Chart 5Government-Related Market Overview The Government-Related index outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 30 basis points in July, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +164 bps. Sovereign debt outperformed duration-equivalent Treasuries by 68 bps on the month, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +490 bps. Local Authorities outperformed the Treasury benchmark by 31 bps, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +244 bps. Meanwhile, Foreign Agencies outperformed by 49 bps, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +153 bps. Domestic Agencies outperformed by 6 bps in July, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +31 bps. Supranationals outperformed by 7 bps on the month, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +36 bps. Sovereign debt remains very expensive relative to equivalently rated U.S. corporate credit (Chart 5). While the sector would benefit if the Fed’s dovish pivot eventually results in a weaker dollar, U.S. corporate bonds would still outperform in that scenario given the more attractive starting point for spreads. We continue to recommend an underweight allocation to Sovereigns. Unlike the debt of most other countries, Mexican sovereign bonds continue to trade cheap relative to U.S. corporates (bottom panel). While this remains an attractive option from a valuation perspective, the President’s on again/off again tariff threats make it a risky near-term proposition. Municipal Bonds: Neutral Chart 6Municipal Market Overview Municipal bonds outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 102 basis points in July, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +58 bps (before adjusting for the tax advantage). The average Aaa-rated Municipal / Treasury yield ratio fell 8% in July, and currently sits at 78% (Chart 6). The ratio is more than one standard deviation below its post-crisis mean, and even below the 81% average that prevailed in the late stages of the previous cycle, between mid-2006 and mid-2007. We noted the strong outperformance of municipal bonds in our report two weeks ago, and recommended cutting exposure from overweight to neutral, based on how expensive the bonds have become.6 In that report we noted that Aaa-rated Municipal / Treasury yield ratios for 2-year, 5-year and 10-year maturities were all more than one standard deviation below average pre-crisis levels. Only 20-year and 30-year Aaa-rated municipal bonds continue to look cheap, and we recommend that investors focus muni exposure on that segment of the market. Fundamentally, state & local government balance sheets remain in decent shape and a material increase in ratings downgrades is unlikely any time soon (bottom panel). Our shift to a more cautious stance is driven purely by valuation, and not any immediate concern for municipal bond credit quality. Treasury Curve: Maintain A Barbell Curve Positioning Chart 7Treasury Yield Curve Overview The Treasury curve bear-flattened in July, before undergoing a roughly parallel shift down of about 30 bps in the first two days of August, following the FOMC meeting and news about the escalation of the U.S./China trade war. As we go to press, the 2/10 Treasury slope stands at 16 bps, 9 bps flatter than at the end of June. The 5/30 slope is currently 76 bps, exactly equal to its end-of-June level. Our 12-month Fed Funds Discounter is currently -78 bps (Chart 7). This means that the market is priced for roughly three more 25 basis point rate cuts during the next year. While we have shifted to a tactically neutral duration stance because of the uncertainty surrounding the timing of the next move higher in yields, three rate cuts on a 12-month horizon still seems excessive given the underlying strength of the U.S. economy. For this reason we are inclined to maintain a barbelled position across the Treasury curve, and also to stay short the February 2020 fed funds futures contract. The February 2020 contract is priced for three rate cuts spread over the next four FOMC meetings. A short position continues to make sense. On the yield curve, our butterfly spread models continue to show that barbells look cheap relative to bullets (see Appendix B). Further, the 5-year and 7-year yields will rise the most when the market prices-in a more hawkish path for the policy rate. Investors should favor the long-end and short-end of the curve, while avoiding the belly (5-year and 7-year). TIPS: Overweight Chart 8Inflation Compensation TIPS outperformed the duration-equivalent nominal Treasury index by 43 basis points in July, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +71 bps. The 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate rose 8 bps in July to reach 1.77%, before falling back to 1.67% in the first few days of August (Chart 8). The 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rate followed a similar path and currently sits at 1.88%. As we have noted in recent research, FOMC members are monitoring long-dated inflation expectations and are committed to keeping policy easy enough to “re-anchor” them at levels consistent with the Fed’s 2% target.7 In the long-run, this will support a return of long-dated TIPS breakeven inflation rates (both 10-year and 5-year/5-year forward) to our 2.3% - 2.5% target range. However, for breakevens to move higher, investors will also need to see evidence that realized inflation can be sustained near 2%. On that note, the core PCE deflator grew at an annualized rate of 2.48% during the past three months. However, the 12-month rate of change remains at 1.5%. The 12-month trimmed mean PCE inflation rate is currently running at 2%, exactly equal to the Fed’s target. In a recent report we noted that 12-month core PCE inflation has a track record of converging toward the trimmed mean.8 We see continued upside in core inflation over the remainder of the year, and therefore recommend an overweight allocation to TIPS versus nominal Treasuries.  ABS: Underweight Chart 9ABS Market Overview Asset-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 8 basis points in July, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +59 bps. The index option-adjusted spread for Aaa-rated ABS tightened 3 bps on the month. It currently sits at 31 bps, well below the pre-crisis mean of 64 bps (Chart 9). In addition to poor valuation, the sector’s credit fundamentals are shifting in a negative direction. Household interest payments continue to trend up, suggesting a higher delinquency rate going forward (panel 3). Meanwhile, the Fed’s Senior Loan Officer Survey for Q2, released yesterday, showed a continued tightening in lending standards for both credit cards and auto loans. Tighter lending standards usually coincide with rising delinquencies (bottom panel). On the bright side, stronger demand for both credit cards and auto loans was reported for the first time since the fourth quarter of 2016. All in all, the combination of poor value and deteriorating credit quality leads us to recommend an underweight allocation to consumer ABS.       Non-Agency CMBS: Neutral     Chart 10CMBS Market Overview Non-Agency Commercial Mortgage-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 42 basis points in July, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +234 bps. The index option-adjusted spread for non-agency Aaa-rated CMBS tightened 6 bps on the month. It currently sits at 64 bps, below average pre-crisis levels but above levels seen in 2018 (Chart 10). The macro outlook for commercial real estate looks somewhat unfavorable, with lenders tightening standards (panel 4) amidst falling demand (bottom panel). However, on a positive note, commercial real estate prices recently accelerated and are now much more consistent with current CMBS spreads (panel 3). Despite the mixed fundamental picture, CMBS still offer excellent compensation compared to other similarly-rated fixed income sectors.9 Agency CMBS: Overweight   Agency CMBS outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 26 bps in July, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +119 bps. The index option-adjusted spread tightened 3 bps on the month and currently sits at 47 bps. The Excess Return Bond Map in Appendix C shows that Agency CMBS offer high potential return compared to other low-risk spread products. An overweight allocation to this defensive 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 U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, “The Golden Rule Of Bond Investing”, dated July 24, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com. Chart 11 illustrates the Golden Rule’s track record by showing that the Bloomberg Barclays Treasury Master Index tends to outperform cash when rate hikes fall short of 12-month expectations, and vice-versa. Chart 11The Golden Rule's Track Record At present, the market is priced for 78 basis points of cuts during the next 12 months. We anticipate fewer rate cuts over that time horizon, and therefore anticipate that below-benchmark portfolio duration positions will profit. We can also use our Golden Rule framework to make 12-month total return and excess return forecasts for the Bloomberg Barclays Treasury index under different scenarios for the fed funds rate. Excess returns are relative to the Bloomberg Barclays Cash index. To forecast total returns we first calculate the 12-month fed funds rate surprise in each scenario by comparing the assumed change in the fed funds rate to the current value of our 12-month discounter. This rate hike surprise is then mapped to an expected change in the Treasury index yield using a regression based on the historical relationship between those two variables. Finally, we apply the expected change in index yield to the current characteristics (yield, duration and convexity) of the Treasury index to estimate total returns on a 12-month horizon. The below tables present those results, along with 95% confidence intervals. Excess returns are calculated by subtracting assumed cash returns in each scenario from our total return projections. Appendix B - Butterfly Strategy Valuation The following tables present the current read-outs from our butterfly spread models. We use these models to identify opportunities to take duration-neutral positions across the Treasury curve. The following two Special Reports explain the models in more detail: U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, “Bullets, Barbells And Butterflies”, dated July 25, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, “More Bullets, Barbells And Butterflies”, dated May 15, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Table 4 shows the raw residuals from each model. A positive value indicates that the bullet is cheap relative to the duration-matched barbell. A negative value indicates that the barbell is cheap relative to the bullet. Table 4Butterfly Strategy Valuation: Raw Residuals In Basis Points (As of August 2, 2019) Table 5 scales the raw residuals in Table 4 by their historical means and standard deviations. This facilitates comparison between the different butterfly spreads. Table 5Butterfly Strategy Valuation: Standardized Residuals (As of August 2, 2019) Table 6 flips the models on their heads. It shows the change in the slope between the two barbell maturities that must be realized during the next six months to make returns between the bullet and barbell equal. For example, a reading of +55 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 55 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 U.S. fixed income market. The Map employs volatility-adjusted breakeven spread analysis to show how likely it is that a given sector will earn/lose money during the subsequent 12 months. The Map does not incorporate any macroeconomic view. The horizontal axis of the Map shows the number of days of average spread widening required for each sector to lose 100 bps versus a position in duration-matched Treasuries. Sectors plotting further to the left require more days of average spread widening and are therefore less likely to see losses. The vertical axis shows the number of days of average spread tightening required for each sector to earn 100 bps in excess of duration-matched Treasuries. Sectors plotting further toward the top require fewer days of spread tightening and are therefore more likely to earn 100 bps of excess return.   Ryan Swift, U.S. Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Jeremie Peloso, Research Analyst jeremiep@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy / Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, “The Fed’s Got Your Back”, dated June 25, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 For more details on how we arrive at our spread targets please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Value In Corporate Bonds”, dated February 19, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 3 For more details on how we arrive at our spread targets please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Value In Corporate Bonds”, dated February 19, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, “Assessing Corporate Default Risk”, dated March 19, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 5 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Long Awkward Middle Phase”, dated July 2, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 6 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “A Message To The TIPS Market”, dated July 23, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 7 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “A Message To The TIPS Market”, dated July 23, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 8 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Hedge Near-Term Credit Exposure”, dated May 28, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 9 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Search For Aaa Spread”, dated March 12, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification Corporate Sector Relative Valuation And Recommended Allocation

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

S&P Materials (Neutral) Downgraded from Overweight S&P Chemicals (Underweight) Downgraded from Neutral Besides being exposed to the toxic U.S. manufacturing data, S&P chemicals are also taking a hit from the global economic slowdown as nearly 60% of sector revenues are coming from abroad. Falling U.S. chemical exports and the resulting buildup in inventories spell trouble for the industry (second & third panels). Consequently, we warranted a below benchmark allocation to the S&P chemicals index in our May 21st  Weekly Report as global macro headwinds will continue to weigh on this deep cyclical sub-index. Given that chemicals have a 74% market cap weight in the S&P materials index, our move to go underweight on the sub-index level also pushed the entire S&P materials index from overweight to neutral. Bottom Line: Continue avoiding deep cyclical sectors and remain defensive. For the full summary of our recent moves, please see this Monday’s Weekly Report.  

S&P Hypermarkets (Overweight) Upgraded from Neutral S&P Soft Drinks (Neutral) Upgraded from Underweight As a follow up to our yesterday’s Insight where we outlined some of our reasons to go underweight the S&P technology sector, today we focus on two defensive sub-sectors that will benefit from the spreading cracks in the U.S. economy: S&P hypermarkets and S&P soft drinks. Both sub-sectors enjoy deteriorating macroeconomic conditions, which are currently reflected in the steep fall in U.S. economic data surprises, the drubbing of the 10-year U.S. treasury yield, melting inflation and rapidly contracting ISM PMI numbers (see chart) Bottom Line: Stick with defensive consumer stocks. For a more detailed discussion on S&P hypermarkets and S&P soft drinks, please see our July 15 Weekly Report and “Bubbling Up” Insights,1 respectively. For the complete list of our recent moves, please see our Monday’s Weekly Report. ​​​​​​​   1      Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Insight Reports, “Bubbling Up (Part I)” and “Bubbling Up (Part II)”, dated July 24, 2019 available at uses.bcaresearch.com.

Special Report

Highlights China’s infrastructure investment growth rate could rebound moderately from its current nominal 3% pace, but will remain well below the double-digit rate it has registered for most of the past decade.  A lack of funding for local governments and their financing vehicles will somewhat cap the upside in infrastructure fixed-asset investment (FAI) in the next six to nine months. Special bond issuance will be insufficient to ensuring a major recovery in infrastructure spending. Investors should tread cautiously on infrastructure plays in financial markets. Feature Chart I-1Chinese Infrastructure Investment: Double-Digit Growth Again? Nominal infrastructure investment growth in China has slowed from over 15% in 2017 to 3% currently (Chart I-1). This is the weakest growth rate since 2005 excluding the late 2011-early 2012 period. Over the past decade, each time the Chinese economy experienced a considerable slowdown, infrastructure construction was ramped up to revive growth. Infrastructure spending growth skyrocketed in 2009 and was also boosted in 2012. In 2015-2016, it was not allowed to decelerate with the issuance of nearly RMB 2 trillion of special infrastructure bonds. This time the government has also reacted. Since mid-2018, the Chinese authorities have dramatically raised local governments’ special bonds balance limits, prompted local governments to front-load their issuance this year, and also encouraged the private sector to participate in public-private partnership (PPP) infrastructure projects. Will Chinese infrastructure FAI growth accelerate over the next six to nine months from its current nominal 3% pace to double digits? The short answer is no. We believe Chinese infrastructure investment growth could rebound moderately in the next six to nine months, but will still remain below the double-digit growth seen in the past and well below the 18% average growth of the past 15 years. For purposes of this report, the composition of “infrastructure” includes three categories – (1) Transport, Storage and Postal Service, (2) Water Conservancy, Environment & Utility Management, and (3) Electricity, Gas & Water Production and Supply. Chart I-2 presents the breakdown of the nominal infrastructure FAI by category. Funding Constraint Preceding both the 2011-2012 and 2018 infrastructure investment slumps, the Chinese central government increased its scrutiny on local government debt and tightened funding conditions for infrastructure projects. As a result, all three categories of infrastructure spending experienced a sharp deceleration (Chart I-3). Overall, financing and qualitative limitations that Beijing imposes on local government infrastructure spending hold the key to the outlook. We believe Chinese infrastructure investment growth could rebound moderately in the next six to nine months, but will still remain below the double-digit growth seen in the past and well below the 18% average growth of the past 15 years. Looking forward, without a considerable recovery in available financing, there will be no meaningful rebound in Chinese infrastructure investment and construction activity. For now, we are not very optimistic on financing. Chart I-4 shows the breakdown of the major funding sources of Chinese infrastructure investment. All of them are likely to face considerable funding constraints over the next six to nine months. Chart I-3Chinese Infrastructure Investment Growth Has Decelerated Across The Board   1. Self-Raised Funds Self-raised funds contribute nearly 60% of overall infrastructure funding. They include net local government special bond issuance, PPP financing and government-managed funds’ (GMFs) revenues excluding proceeds from special bond issuance. A. Local government special bond issuance, which is exclusively used to fund infrastructure projects, has been the major source of financing for local governments in the past 12 months. The authorities significantly boosted net local government bond issuance to RMB 1.2 trillion in the first six months of this year from only RMB 361 billion in the same period in 2018. However, the amount of special bond issuance in the second half of this year will unlikely be significant enough to boost infrastructure FAI greatly. First, the central government has not only set a limit on the aggregate local government special bond balance, but it also set limits for each of the 31 provinces/provincial-level cities.1 In the past three years, nearly all provinces did not use up their special bond issuance quotas. This resulted in an outstanding aggregate amount of special bonds of only about 85% of the limit.2 In both 2017 and 2018, local governments were left with RMB 1.1 trillion special bond issuance quota unused for that year. Second, based on the limit on outstanding amount special bonds set by the central government for the end of 2019, local governments could issue another RMB 0.8-1 trillion of special bonds in the second half of this year. In comparison, in 2018, the issuance was heavily concentrated in the second half of the year with RMB 1.6 trillion. Our estimate shows there will be only RMB 400-600 billion increase in net total special bond issuance in 2019 versus 2018.3 This will translate into a merely 2-3% growth in Chinese infrastructure investment. Third, net local government special bond issuance made up only 15% of overall infrastructure FAI over the past 12 months. Hence, there is still a huge financing gap to be filled (Chart I-5). B. Public-private partnerships (PPP) are unlikely to meet the financing shortage either. PPPs have become an important financing model for Chinese local governments to fund infrastructure investments since 2014. Nevertheless, to control rising local government debt risks, the central government has tightened regulations on PPP projects since early last year. A series of tightened rules have resulted in a sharp deceleration in both PPP investment and overall infrastructure investment growth. Consequently, PPPs contributions to total infrastructure FAI have plunged from over 30% in 2017 to 10% currently (Chart I-6). Chart I-5Special Bond Issuance Accounted For Only 15% Of Infrastructure FAI Chart I-6Public-Private Partnerships: Too Small To Meet The Financing Shortage   So far, the rules on PPP projects on local governments remain tight. In March, the central government tightened its rule on local government participation in PPP projects. The new rule states that, if a local government has already spent more than 5% of its overall general expenditures on PPP projects excluding sewage and waste disposal PPP projects, it will not be allowed to invest in any new PPP projects. Before March, the threshold was over 10%. In early July, the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) demanded all PPP projects undertake a thorough feasibility study. The NDRC emphasized that PPP projects that do not follow standard procedures will not be allowed. Chart I-7Government-Managed Funds: Headwinds From Falling Land Sales C. Government-managed funds (GMF) excluding special bond issuance accounts, which contribute about 15% of overall infrastructure financing, are also facing constraints. According to the country’s Budget Law, the GMF budget refers to the budget for revenues and expenditures of the funds raised for specific developmental objectives. In brief, GMFs constitute de-facto off-balance-sheet government revenues and spending. Land sales by local governments are one major revenue source for GMFs. Contracting property floor space sold is likely to depress real estate developers’ land purchases, further reducing local governments’ revenues from selling land (Chart I-7). This will curb local governments’ ability to finance their infrastructure projects through GMFs. 2. Domestic Loans Domestic loans contribute to about 15% of overall infrastructure financing. Infrastructure projects are generally long term in nature. Presently, the impulse of non-household medium- and long-term (MLT) lending has stabilized but has not yet improved (Chart I-8). While not all of MLT loans are used for infrastructure, sluggish MLT lending reflects commercial banks’ reluctance to finance infrastructure projects. We believe a decelerating economy, mounting local government debt, and often-low returns on infrastructure projects will continue to constrain loan funding of infrastructure projects from both banks and the private sector. 3. General Government Budget The general government budget (which includes central and local governments) accounts for about 15% of overall infrastructure financing. The general budget is also facing headwinds from declining revenue due to recent tax cuts and lower corporate profit growth (Chart I-9). Chart I-8Sluggish Medium/Long-Term Bank Lending Chart I-9Government General Budget: Large Deficit   Bottom Line: Funding constraints will likely linger, making any recovery in Chinese infrastructure investment growth moderate over the next six to nine months. Local government special bonds will not be a game-changer. Their net issuance accounted for only 15% of overall infrastructure FAI over the past 12 months. While local governments could issue another RMB 0.8-1 trillion of special bonds in the second half of 2019, it would be well below the RMB 1.4 trillion of special bond issuance that was rolled out in the second half of 2018. FAI In Transportation: In Nominal Terms… The transportation sector accounts for about 31% of total Chinese infrastructure investment. It includes railway, highway, urban public transit, air and water transport. Table I-1 shows the 13th five-year (2016-2020) transportation investment plan released by the government in February 2017,4 which excludes urban public transit. The authorities planned to invest RMB 15 trillion in the transportation sector over the five-year period between 2016 and 2020, with highways accounting for over half of the investment, followed by railways (23%), air transportation (4.3%) and water transportation (3.3%). The table also shows our calculation of the realized investment amount in these four sub-sectors for the period of January 2016 to June 2019. Local government special bonds will not be a game-changer. Their net issuance accounted for only 15% of overall infrastructure FAI over the past 12 months. Table I-1 suggests the remaining FAI for the transportation sector for the July 2019 to December 2020 period will be considerably smaller than the FAI amount over the past 18 months. This entails a major drag on infrastructure investment at least over the next 18 months. It is important to emphasize that this is conditional on the central planners in Beijing sticking to their five-year plan for infrastructure FAI. As of now, there has been no announcement of revisions to these five-year FAI targets. Bottom Line: China has already completed the overwhelming majority of its planned transportation FAI for 2016-2020. Consequently, without revisions to the targets and budgets by central planners in Beijing, transportation investment will likely contract year-on-year over the next 18 months. …And Real Terms Table I-2 summarizes the 2020 targets for major Chinese infrastructure development (urban rail transit, railway, highway and airport) in real terms. Chart I-10Transportation 2020 Targets: Not Far Away In real terms, the annual growth of transportation infrastructure will likely be 4.2% in both 2019 and 2020. We illustrated in the previous section that the five-year budget plan had been front-loaded, leaving a very small budget for transportation investment over the next 18 months. This may suggest that without considerably exceeding the budget, transportation infrastructure will fail to achieve the 4.2% annual growth in real terms both this year and next. In brief, more funding should be dispatched/allowed by the central planners in Beijing for infrastructure FAI not to shrink. Second, urban rail transit, high-speed railways, highways and airports will reach their respective 2020 targets, while non-high-speed railway construction will likely be a little bit off its 2020 target. Third, based on the 2020 targets, urban rail transit will enjoy very fast growth over the next one and a half years. Fourth, the growth of high-speed railways and highways will be very low, at around 1-2% in real terms (Chart I-10). Finally, while the number of airports will increase at a faster pace, their contribution to overall infrastructure investment will remain insignificant as they only account for about 1.4% of overall infrastructure investment. Bottom Line: In real terms, transport infrastructure growth will likely be only about 4% over the next six to nine months. Future Infrastructure Investment Focus Urban rail transit, environmental management and public utility management will likely be the major driving forces for Chinese infrastructure investment over the next 18 months. Urban rail transit line length will likely register fast growth of around 10% over the next six to nine months. As the central government enforces increasingly stringent rules on environmental protection, investment in environmental management will likely experience continued growth acceleration (Chart I-11). China has already completed the overwhelming majority of its planned transportation FAI for 2016-2020. Consequently, without revisions to the targets and budgets by central planners in Beijing, transportation investment will likely contract year-on-year over the next 18 months. Meanwhile, as the country’s urbanization continues and more townships and city suburbs become urbanized,5 public utility management investment will also grow moderately. Public utility management investment, contributing a massive 45% of overall infrastructure investment, includes sewer systems, sewer treatment facilities, waste treatment and disposal, streetlights, city roads construction, parks, bridges and tunnels in the city. Investment Implications Investors should not hold their breath expecting a major upswing in infrastructure FAI and a major rally in related financial markets. Chinese steel demand is sensitive to construction of railways and urban rail transit lines (Chart I-12, top panel). In turn, mainland cement demand is dependent on highway construction (Chart I-12, bottom panel). Chart I-11Environment Management: Will Continue Booming Chart I-12Chinese Infrastructure Spending Will Moderately Boost Steel & Cement Demand...   Chart I-13...And Steel & Cement Prices At The Margin The infrastructure sector accounts for about 10-15% of total Chinese steel use, and about 30-40% of Chinese cement consumption. Nevertheless, given that we believe Chinese infrastructure spending will only have a moderate recovery, the positive effect on steel and cement prices will be muted as well (Chart I-13). The same holds true for spending on industrial machinery, equipment, chemicals and various materials. Notably, risks to this baseline scenario of a muted recovery are to the downside because of the lack of funding. Barring a substantial increase in the special bond issuance quota this year or a major credit binge, infrastructure FAI growth could in fact stall. Ellen JingYuan He, Associate Vice President ellenj@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1  Please note that the central government only set the special bond balance limit (not the quota) for local governments. The often-cited “quota” in the news is derived by calculating the difference between the current limit and the previous year’s limit. The “quota” used in this report is the difference between the current special bond balance limit and the actual special bond balance of the previous year end. 2  At the end of 2018, Chinese special bond balance was RMB 7.4 trillion, only 85.8% of the special bond balance limit of RMB 8.6 trillion. This ratio was 84.6% in 2017 and 85.5% in 2016. On average, the ratio was 85.3% in the past three years. 3  Given that the central government is aiming to somewhat stimulate infrastructure spending by increasing special bond issuance, we assume special bond balance at the end of 2019 to reach 88%-90% of the limit (RMB 10.8 trillion) that it has set for 2019. This will be higher than the 85% average of the past three years. In turn, this means that the special bond balance at the end of this year will likely be RMB 9.5-9.7 trillion. Since the balance at the end of last year was RMB 7.4 trillion, this results that net special bond issuance will be around RMB 2.1-2.3 trillion in 2019. Given the net special bond issuance last year was RMB 1.7 trillion, it follows that there will only be a RMB 400-600 billion increase in total special bond issuance in 2019 versus 2018. 4  Please see www.gov.cn/xinwen/2017-02/28/content_5171576.htm, published February 28, 2017, by the Chinese central government website. 5  Please see Emerging Markets Strategy/China Investment Strategy Special Report “Industrialization-Driven Urbanization In China Is Losing Steam,” dated January 2, 2019, available on ems.bcaresearch.com

Feature GAA DM Equity Country Allocation Model Update Chart 1GAA DM Model Vs. MSCI World The GAA DM Equity Country Allocation model is updated as of July 31, 2019.  The quant model reversed its abnormal upgrade of Sweden in the previous model update. In hindsight, the model’s behavior when a bond yield moves close to zero needs to be watched closely. Currently, the model still favors Spain, Italy, Germany, Netherland and Australia at the expenses of U.S., Japan, U.K., France and Canada, as shown in Table 1.  As shown in Table 2 and Charts 1, 2 and 3, the overall model underperformed the MSCI World benchmark by 94 bps in July, largely driven by 146 bps of underperformance from the Level 2 model, and 26 bps of underperformance from the Level 1. Directionally, 7 out of the 12 choices generated positive alpha. However, the overweight in Sweden and Spain generated outsized underperformance. Since going live, the overall model has outperformed by 94 bps, with 297 bps of outperformance by the Level 2 model, offset by 42 bps of underperformance from the Level 1. Table 1Model Allocation Vs. Benchmark Weights Table 2Performance (Total Returns In USD %) Chart 2GAA U.S. Vs. Non U.S. Model (Level 1) Chart 3GAA Non U.S. Model (Level 2)   Please see also the website http://gaa.bcaresearch.com/trades/allocation_performance. For more details on the models, please see Special Report, “Global Equity Allocation: Introducing The Developed Markets Country Allocation Model,” dated January 29, 2016, available at https://gaa.bcaresearch.com. Please note that the overall country and sector recommendations published in our Monthly Portfolio Update and Quarterly Portfolio Outlook use the results of these quantitative models as one input, but do not stick slavishly to them. We believe that models are a useful check, but structural changes and unquantifiable factors need to be considered too in making overall recommendations. GAA Equity Sector Selection Model The GAA Equity Sector Model (Chart 4) is updated as of July 31, 2019. Chart 4Overall Model Performance The model’s tilts between cyclicals and defensives have changed compared to last month. Following the Fed’s decision to cut interest rates yesterday, the liquidity component shifted its inputs to phase 4 – a period in which the central bank is cutting rates, while simulative monetary conditions persist. Although this should favor most cyclical sectors, the lack of evidence of global growth bottoming is tilting the model to favor a mixed bag of sectors. The valuation component continues to remain muted across all sectors. The model is now overweight 4 sectors in total, 2 cyclical and 2 defensive sectors. These are Consumer Discretionary, Information Technology, Consumer Staples, and Healthcare. Table 3Model’s Performance (March 1, 2019 - Current) Table 4Current Model Allocations   For more details on the model, please see the Special Report “Introducing the GAA Equity Sector Selection Model,” dated July 27, 2016, as well as the Sector Selection Model section in the Special Alert “GAA Quant Model Updates,” dated March 1, 2019 available at https://gaa.bcaresearch.com. Xiaoli Tang, Associate Vice President xiaoliT@bcaresearch.com Amr Hanafy, Research Associate amrh@bcaresearch.com Footnotes

Neutral Downgrade Alert This Monday we published a summary of our portfolio allocation changes that we made over the past couple of months. They key underlying theme running through most of our recent moves was to reduce our cyclical exposure and pocket in some profits. Today we highlight one of the major moves we are preparing to make: downgrade the S&P technology sector. The downgrade will be executed via the S&P software index. As a reminder, we have a stop at the 27% relative return mark and once it’s triggered, we will go neutral on software pushing the overall tech sector to a below benchmark allocation. Our EPS model for the overall tech sector is on the verge of contraction on the back of sinking capex and a seemingly invincible U.S. dollar (middle panel). The San Francisco Fed’s Tech Pulse Index is also closing in on the expansion/contraction line warning that tech stocks are in for a rough ride (bottom panel). Bottom Line: We reiterate our defensive stance on the U.S. equity market as the risk/reward remains to the downside. For the full summary of our recent moves, please see this Monday’s Weekly Report.