Asset Allocation

Special Report

Highlights With inflation probably having bottomed, especially in the U.S., investors are starting to worry about inflation tail-risk and wonder whether inflation-linked bonds (ILBs) are an efficient way to hedge this risk. This Special Report explains how ILBs work in different countries and analyzes their performance characteristics over time. We find that ILBs, a rapid growing asset class, can be a beneficial addition to a balanced global portfolio even though recent history does not show as strong portfolio diversification benefits as a longer history. The lower nominal duration of ILBs is a useful feature for portfolio duration management. ILBs have proven to be a good inflation hedge in a rising inflationary environment, but they underperform nominal bonds in a disinflationary environment. As such, the balance between ILBs and nominal bonds should be managed tactically based on an investor's views on inflation dynamics and valuation. Overweight U.S. TIPS; avoid U.K. linkers. Australian TIBS are a cheap yield enhancer, but higher yielding Mexican Udibonos are a dangerous yield trap. Feature BCA's view is that the 35-year bull market in bonds is ending and that the path of least resistance for bond yields globally is up.1 Even though the level of inflation in the U.S. is still below the Fed's target of 2%, we think it's clear that U.S. inflation has bottomed for this cycle. Globally, loose monetary policy together with the likelihood of more fiscal stimulus, present the risk of higher inflation down the road. Global Asset Allocation has recommended investors to overweight U.S. TIPS (Treasury Inflation Protected Securities) relative to nominal U.S. government bonds throughout 2016. Many clients have asked for details on how TIPS work, whether there are similar securities in other countries, and how ILBs fit into a balanced global portfolio. In this Special Report, we take a detailed look at inflation-linked bond markets globally and recommend some strategies for asset allocators to use them to help navigate a world of low returns and possibly higher inflation. 1. What Are Inflation-Linked bonds (ILBs)? Inflation Protection: Inflation-linked bonds are designed to hedge inflation risk by indexing the bonds' principal to the official inflation index in the issuer country. While the methodology and what the bonds are called differ from country to country, the underlying concept is the same: the holders of ILBs will get the stated real return even in an inflationary environment since both the nominal face value and the nominal coupon payments change based on an official inflation measure. Deflation Floor: In the case of sustained deflation such that the final nominal face value falls below the initial face value, however, the repayment of principal at maturity is guaranteed in the majority of the countries, but not, for example, in the U.K., Canada, Brazil, or Mexico (Table 1). Table 1Basic Information Of Global ILB Markets Inflation Measure: ILBs are linked to actual inflation with a time lag. As shown in Table 1, the inflation measure used varies slightly by country: in the U.S. it's the non-seasonally adjusted CPI; in the U.K. it's the retail price index (RPI); while in the euro area, France and Italy both have ILBs linked to local CPI ex tobacco and EU HICP ex tobacco, with the former primarily for domestic retail investors. The time lag is three months in most countries, but can vary from one to eight months as shown in Table 1. A Rapidly Growing Asset Class: The earliest recorded ILBs were issued by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in 17802 during the Revolutionary War. Finland introduced indexed bonds in 1945, Israel and Iceland in 1955. Brazil introduced its indexed bonds in 1964 and has become the largest ILB market in the emerging markets and the third largest globally. When the U.K. issued its first "linkers", it originally used eight months of inflation lag to make sure the next coupon payment is known at the current coupon payment date. In 1991 Canada issued its first ILBs and the "Canadian Model", which uses a three-month lag to the inflation index and calculates a daily index ratio using linear extrapolation, has been adopted widely since; even the U.K. adopted it in 2005. The largest ILB market now is the U.S. TIPS with a market cap of USD 1.2 trillion. TIPS were first issued in 1997, using the Canadian model. Chart 1 shows the evolution of the ILB markets globally. Since the Bloomberg Barclays Universal Government Inflation-linked Bond Index was constructed in July 1997, the market cap has increased to over USD 3.2 trillion from a mere USD 145 million at the end of 1997. It's worth noting that the actual amount of ILBs outstanding globally is slightly larger than this because not all debts are included in the index.3 Even though many countries have issued ILBs, and emerging markets (EM) grew very fast in the 2000s, the global market is still dominated by the top three countries (the U.S., U.K., and Brazil) with a combined share of 70% of global market cap. Chart 1ILBs: A Fast Growing Asset Class Chart 2U.S. BEI Vs. Inflation Expectations Country Differentiation: Nominal government bonds come with different features in different countries, and the same is true with ILBs. Table 2 shows that even though the U.S. accounts for 43.6% of the developed markets (DM) index in terms of market cap, it contributes only 28.8% to overall duration while the U.K. accounts for 53% of the overall duration, because the U.K. linkers have much longer duration than the U.S. TIPS. The Canadian real return bonds (RRBs) have the second longest average duration at 16 years. Table 2Key Features of the Bloomberg Barclays Government ILB Indexes* 2. How Do ILBs Compare To Nominal Bonds? Break-Even Inflation (BEI) And Inflation Expectations: The difference between the yield on a nominal bond and the yield on a comparable ILB (a comparator) is defined as the BEI, the market-based inflation rate at which an investor is indifferent between holding a real or a nominal bond. If realized inflation over an ILB's life turns out to be higher than the BEI at purchase, then holding the ILB is better than holding its nominal counterpart. BEI on its own is not an accurate gauge of inflation expectations, because it is the sum of inflation expectations, the inflation risk premium, and the liquidity premium. One of the long-term inflation expectation measures that the U.S. Fed keeps track of is the five-year forward five-year inflation calculated using the Fed's own fitted yield curves.4 Even this measure, however, contains the inflation term premium and the relative supply/demand of 10-year BEI vs 5-year BEI. Three important observations from Chart 2 for investors to pay attention to when assessing the inflation outlook are: U.S. breakeven inflation rates have been consistently below the Fed's inflation target of 2% since 2014 (panel 4); The CPI swaps markets priced in a much higher inflation rate than the TIPS market and the Fed's measure derived from fitted curves (panels 2 & 3), largely caused by the supply and demand imbalance in the inflation swaps market: there is excess demand to receive inflation, but no natural regular payer of inflation other than the U.S. Treasury via TIPS, therefore a higher fixed rate has to be paid to receive inflation; The 10-year inflation expectation from the Cleveland Fed's model5 (panel 1), exhibits very different behavior from the other measures. It has been below the 2% target since 2011. This model attempts to combine survey-based inflation expectations and that derived from the CPI swaps market. It's intended to be a "superior" measure of inflation expectations from a monetary policy perspective.6 For investors, however, it's advisable to take into account all these measures when assessing inflation dynamics. Duration and Yield Beta: Duration is measured as the bond price change in relation to the yield change. Chart 3 shows that ILBs have higher duration than their nominal counterparts. These two durations, however, are not directly comparable because ILB duration is related to "real yield" while nominal bond duration is related to "nominal yield". The conversion from one to another is not straightforward because the relationship between real and nominal yields can be complex.7 In practice, however, we can run a simple regression to get ILB's yield beta to change in nominal yield.8 Some practitioners simply assume 0.5 in the emerging market.9 Our research shows that in the developed market the relationship between real yield and nominal yield can vary over different time periods and in different countries, but the moving 3-year and 5-year yield betas are always less than 1 and mostly above 0.5, which is the full sample average.(Chart 4). This is a useful feature for duration management and curve positioning. For example, everything else being equal, 1) replacing nominal government bonds with comparable ILBs can reduce portfolio duration, and 2) replacing a short-dated nominal bond with a longer-dated ILB could maintain the same duration. Chart 3Average Government Bond Duration Chart 4ILBs' Yield Beta Total Return: By design, ILBs should do well in an inflationary environment and they should outperform their nominal bonds when realized inflation is higher than the break-even inflation rate. How have ILBs performed in the real world? Unfortunately, we do not have a long enough data history to cover different inflation cycles. Chart 5 confirms that in nominal terms ILBs outperform their nominal counterparts when inflation rate trends higher. What's interesting, however, is that it is disinflation, rather than deflation, that hurts ILBs the most. Within the available data history, only 2009 experienced a brief deflation scare globally, yet the rebound in ILBs actually led economies out of the deflationary environment. Over the long run, U.K. linkers have underperformed nominal gilts since their first issuance in 1981 when inflation was running at 12%. Since 1997 when the Bloomberg/Barclays ILB indexes were constructed, however, ILBs have performed slightly better than their nominal comparable bonds in most countries, with the exception of the euro area where ILBs have fared slightly worse (Chart 5). Risk-Adjusted Return: On a risk-adjusted basis, the available data history shows that ILBs performed slightly better in the U.S. and Australia, and also the DM aggregate on a hedged basis, but slightly worse in the euro area, the U.K. and Canada. It's worth emphasizing, however, that in either case the difference is not significant (Table 3). Chart 5ILB Performance Vs Inflation Table 3ILBs Approximately Equal To Nominal Bonds 3. What's The Role Of ILBs In A Balanced Portfolio? Bridgewater Associate showed that adding ILBs to a balanced euro zone stock/bond portfolio significantly improved the efficient frontier over the very long run, from 1926 to 2010.10 Since there were no ILBs in the early part of that history, ILB returns were calculated based on inflation. Our research, based on data from the Bloomberg/Barclays Inflation-Linked Government Bond Index with a much shorter history, however, does not yield the same results, probably because the much shorter recent history does not include any highly inflationary periods from which ILBs benefit the most. Table 4 shows the statistics of replacing a certain portion of the nominal bonds with comparable ILBs in a DM 60/40 stocks/bonds portfolio. On a standalone basis, the hedged USD DM ILBs are less volatile and have the best risk-adjusted return of 1.3 in the sample period (Portfolio 8). When combined with equities, however, the nominal bonds are a slightly better diversifier than the ILBs. Why? The answer lies in the correlation. Chart 6 shows that the ILBs have much higher correlation with equities than the nominal bonds do with equities. This makes sense because equities could rise in an inflationary environment if the higher inflation were driven by stronger growth, while inflation is always bad for nominal bonds. Again, the differences in risk-adjusted returns are not significant, varying from 0.77 to 0.7 (Portfolios 2-6) in line with the findings in Section 2. Table 4Balanced Global Portfolio Statistics* Chart 6Global Stocks-Bonds Correlations 4. Inflation Has Bottomed BCA's Fixed Income Strategy team has written extensively about the outlook for U.S. and global inflation.11 We concur with their view that, even though inflation in most DM countries is still below the targets set by their central banks (Chart 7), in most countries it has probably bottomed (top three panels in Chart 7), and especially in the U.S., where all indicators point to rising wage pressures as labor market slack diminishes (Chart 8). Chart 7Inflation Still Below Target Chart 8Accelerating Wage Pressure 5. Investment Implications Overweight U.S. TIPS Over Nominal Treasuries: We have shown that ILBs outperform comparable nominal bonds in a rising inflation environment and have argued that inflation has bottomed in the U.S. These views support our recommendation to overweight U.S. TIPS relative to nominal U.S. Treasuries. In addition, our TIPS valuation models (Chart 9) show that breakeven inflation rates in the U.S. are still below fair values based on underlying economic and financial drivers. Being the largest ILB market with a market cap of over USD 1.2 trillion, TIPS are very easy to trade. Currently, only five-year TIPS have a negative yield, so there are plenty of opportunities for investors to preserve real purchasing power by holding longer maturity TIPS. Avoid U.K. Linkers: The U.K. linkers market is the second largest after the U.S., with a market cap of about USD 810 billion. Unfortunately, these linkers are among the most expensively priced real return bonds, with negative yields at all maturities (Chart 10, panel 3). For example, 10-year linkers are currently yielding -1.98%, which means that investors are guaranteed to lose 18% of real purchasing power in 10 years by holding the bonds to maturity. Granted, the U.K. linkers have always traded at a premium to U.S. TIPS and many other ILB markets due to the nature of the U.K. pension schemes which link pension liabilities to inflation (CPI or RPI). With insatiable appetite from pension funds, demand greatly exceeds what the linkers and inflation swaps markets can supply. U.K. real yields have been driven lower and lower, causing an increasing funding gap which in turns drives yield further down.12 In addition, our fair value model (Chart 10, panels 1 and 2) shows that the U.K. linkers' current breakeven rates are above fair value. The collapse in the linkers' yields after the Brexit vote is also consistent with a skyrocketing in the CPI swaps rate, indicating that the probable rise in inflation due to the collapse of the GBP has now largely been priced in (panel 4). Investors who are not constrained by U.K. pension regulations should avoid U.K. linkers. Chart 9Overweight U.S. TIPS Chart 10Avoid U.K. Linkers Yield Enhancement From Australia, Not From Mexico: The U.S. TIPS market is liquid but yields are low, albeit higher than U.K. linkers. Among the smaller markets with higher yields, we prefer Australian Treasury Indexed Bonds (TIBS) over Mexican Udibonos, even though the 10-year Udibonos have a higher yield of 2.8% compared to the 10-year TIBS yield of 0.62%. As shown in Chart 11 and Chart 12, the Australian TIBS are very cheap while the Mexican Udibonos are very expensive. The BEI in Mexico is above the central bank's target of 3% while in Australia it's still at the lower end of the target range of 2-3%. Chart 11 Australian TIBS: A Cheap Yield Enhancer Chart 12 Mexico ILBS: Too Expensive 6. ETFs Some of our clients always want to know if there are ETFs for the asset classes we cover. For ILBs, the most liquid ETF is the iShares TIPS Bond ETF with an AUM of USD 19 billion and an expense ratio (ER) of 20 bps. For non-U.S. global ILBs, the SPDR Citi International Government Inflation-Protected Bond ETF has an AUM of USD 620 million and an expense ratio of 50bps. The Appendix on page 14 gives a sample list of the exchange traded ILB funds. For more information about ETFs, please see BCA's newly launched Global ETF Strategy service. AppendixSample List Of ILB ETFs*** Xiaoli Tang Associate Vice President xiaolit@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "The End of the 35-year Bond Bull Market," July 5, 2016, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Robert Shiller, "The Invention of Inflation-Linked Bonds in Early America," NBER Working Paper 10183, December 2003. 3 Barclays Index Methodology, July 17, 2014. 4 Refet S. Gurkaynak et al., "The TIPS Yield Curve and Inflation Compensation," May 2008, Federal Reserve publication. 5 Joseph G Haubrich et al., "Inflation Expectations, Real Rates, and Risk Premia: Evidence from Inflation Swaps," Working Paper 11-07, March 2011, Federal Reserve Bank Of Cleveland. 6 Joseph G. Haubrich And Timothy Bianco, "Inflation: Nose, Risk, and Expectations," Economic Commentary, June 28, 2010, Federal Reserve Bank Of Cleveland. 7 Francis E. Laatsch and Daniel P. Klein, "The nominal duration of TIPS bonds," Review of Financial Economics 14 (2005). 8 Mattheu Gocci, "Understanding the TIPS Beta," University of Pennsylvania, 2013. 9 Thor Schultz Christensena and Eva Kobeja, "Inflation-Linked Bond from emerging markets provide attractive yield opportunities," Danske Capital, May 2015. 10 Werner Kramer, "Introduction to Inflation-Linked Bonds," Lazard Asset Management, 2012.

The Tactical Asset Allocation model can provide investment recommendations which diverge from those outlined in our regular weekly publications. The model has a much shorter investment horizon - namely, one month - and thus attempts to capture very tactical opportunities. Meanwhile, our regular recommendations have a longer expected life, anywhere from 3-months to a year (or longer). This difference explains why the recommendations between the two publications can deviate from each other from time to time. Highlights Chart 1Model Weights In October, the model outperformed global equities in USD and local-currency terms; it also outperformed the S&P 500 in local-currency terms, while performing in line with the S&P in USD terms. For November, the model trimmed its allocation to cash and stocks and boosted its weighting in bonds (Chart 1). The model increased its weighting in French, Dutch, and Swedish stocks at the expense of the U.S., Japan, Germany, Switzerland, New Zealand, and Emerging Asia. Within the bond portfolio, allocation to New Zealand and the U.K. was increased, while the allocation to U.S., Australian and Spanish paper was reduced. The risk index for stocks deteriorated in October, while the bond risk index improved noticeably. Feature Performance In October, the recommended balanced portfolio gained 0.6% in local-currency terms, and was down 1% in U.S. dollar terms (Chart 2). This compares with a loss of 1.4% for the global equity benchmark, and a 1% loss for the S&P 500 index. Given that the underlying model is structured in local-currency terms, we generally recommend that investors hedge their positions, though we do provide recommendations from time to time. The higher allocation to EM stocks in October was timely, but the boost to bonds was a drag on the model's performance. Weights The model cut its allocation to stocks from 67% to 66% and increased its bond weighting from 21% to 26%. The allocation to cash was decreased from 12% to 8%, while commodities remain excluded from the portfolio (Table 1). The model reduced its allocation to New Zealand equities by 3 points, Emerging Asia by 2 points and U.S., Japan, Germany and Switzerland by 1 point each. Meanwhile, it increased allocation to Dutch, French and Swedish stocks by 4 points, 3 points and 1 point, respectively. In the fixed-income space, the allocation to U.K. and New Zealand paper was increased by 6 points and 5 points respectively, while allocation to Australia, Spain and the U.S. was cut by 3 points, 2 points and 1 point, respectively. Chart 2Portfolio Total Returns Table 1Model Weights (As Of October 27, 2016) Currency Allocation Local currency-based indicators drive the construction of our model. As such, the performance of the model's portfolio should be compared with the local-currency global equity benchmark. The decision to hedge currency exposure should be made at the client's discretion, though from time to time, we do provide our recommendations. The dollar appreciated in October and investors should position for additional dollar strength. Our Dollar Capitulation Index seems to be breaking out to the upside following a pattern of lower highs. Since 2008, such breakouts have been followed by a significant rally in the broad trade-weighted dollar (Chart 3). Chart 3U.S. Trade-Weighted Dollar* And Capitulation Capital Market Indicators Our model continues to exclude commodities from the portfolio. The risk index for this asset class remains at the highest level in over two years (Chart 4). For the first time since June 2014, the risk index for global equities is above the neutral line (Chart 5). The higher overall risk reflects deteriorating liquidity and momentum readings. Our model cut its weighting in equities for the third month in a row. Chart 4Commodity Index And Risk Chart 5Global Stock Market And Risk The value component of the risk index for U.S. stocks improved in October, but this was overshadowed by worsening liquidity and momentum readings. The model slightly trimmed its allocation to U.S. equities (Chart 6). Even after the latest small uptick in the risk index for Dutch equities, it remains one of the lowest among the model's universe. The allocation to this bourse was increased. (Chart 7). Chart 6U.S. Stock Market And Risk Chart 7Netherlands Stock Market And Risk The risk index for U.K. stocks declined slightly in October, but remains firmly in high-risk territory both compared to its own history and its global peers. This asset class remains excluded from the portfolio (Chart 8). The model slightly upgraded Swedish equities, despite a worsening risk index. The continued favorable liquidity backdrop remains a boon for Swedish stocks (Chart 9). Chart 8U.K. Stock Market And Risk Chart 9Swedish Stock Market And Risk After declining for four consecutive months, the overall risk index for bonds is not at extreme high-risk levels anymore. The increase in yields has helped completely unwind overbought conditions, as per our momentum indicator. The model used the latest selloff to increase its allocation to bonds (Chart 10). The risk index for U.S. Treasurys declined markedly in October, but a few other markets also feature improved risk readings. As a result, the model downgraded U.S. Treasurys (Chart 11). Chart 10Global Bond Yields And Risk Chart 11U.S. Bond Yields And Risk The selloff in New Zealand bonds has pushed the momentum indicator into oversold territory, boosting the allocation to this asset class (Chart 12). The risk index for euro area bonds remains firmly in the high-risk zone even after a notable decline. However, there are select bond markets in the common-currency area that have relatively more favorable risk readings (Chart 13). Chart 12New Zealand Bond Yields And Risk Chart 13Euro Area Bond Yields And Risk Within the euro area, Italian bonds feature a risk reading that has fallen below the neutral line. While the cyclical indicator continues to move into more bond-negative territory, it is currently being offset by the oversold reading on the momentum indicator (Chart 14). U.K. gilt yields moved up as the post-Brexit inflation backdrop became gilt-unfriendly and growth surprised on the upside. Now, with momentum moving from overbought to oversold over just a couple of months, any negative economic surprises could potentially weigh on gilt yields. The model has added this asset class to the portfolio (Chart 15). Chart 14Italian Bond Yields and Risk Chart 15U.K. Bond Yields And Risk A more hawkish Fed could push the dollar higher. The 13-week momentum measure for the USD remains above, but close to the neutral line. The recovery of the 40-week rate of change from mildly negative levels which have represented a floor since 2012 would suggest that a new leg in the dollar bull market is in the offing (Chart 16). Both the 13-week and 40-week momentum measures for the euro are below the neutral line (Chart 17). Growing monetary divergences could continue weighing on EUR/USD before the technical indicators are pushed into more oversold territory. Fears of hard Brexit knocked down the pound. The 13-week rate of change is now close to its post-Brexit lows, while the 40-week rate of change measure is at the most oversold level since 2000 (excluding the great recession). At these technical levels the pound seems overdue to find a temporary bottom (Chart 18). Chart 16U.S. Trade-Weighted Dollar* Chart 17Euro Chart 18Sterling Miroslav Aradski, Senior Analyst miroslava@bcaresearch.com

Highlights Dear Client, The growth of the electric-vehicle market, particularly re its implications for hydrocarbons as the primary transportation fuel in the world, will remain a key issue for energy markets, particularly oil. The IEA estimates transportation accounted for 64.5% of oil demand in 2014, the latest data available, compared to natural gas's 7% share and electricity's 1.5% share.1 Last week, Fitch Ratings published a report concluding, "Widespread adoption of battery-powered vehicles is a serious threat to the oil industry." For example, the agency contends that "in an extreme scenario, where electric cars gained a 50 per cent market share over 10 years about a quarter of European gasoline demand could disappear." This is not a widespread view in the energy markets. IHS Energy published a report in 2014 finding, "Past energy transitions took decades to unfold and were driven by a combination of market factors: cost, scarcity of supply, utility and flexibility, technology development, geopolitical developments, consumer trends, and policy.2" While our view is more aligned with IHS's, it is undeniable electric vehicles are a growing market. For this reason, we are publishing an analysis by BCA Research's EM Equity Sector Strategy written by our colleague Oleg Babanov, which explores the lithium-battery supply chain and how investors can gain exposure to this critical element of the fast-growing global electric-vehicle market. Separately, we are downgrading our strategic zinc view from neutral to bearish, and recommending a Dec/17 short if it rallies. Robert P. Ryan Senior Vice President, Commodity & Energy Strategy Lithium is a rare metal with a costly production process and a high concentration in a small number of countries. Difficulty in production is comparable to deep-sea oil drilling. Lithium is the key element in lithium-ion batteries. Demand is rapidly increasing as more countries adopt environment-protection policies and electric-car production is on the rise. We recommend an overweight on the lithium battery supply chain (Table 1), on a long-term perspective (one year plus). We estimate demand for the raw material to rise by approximately 30% over the coming years, driven by the main electric vehicle production clusters in Asia and the U.S. Table 1Single Stock Statistics For Companies##br## In The Lithium Battery Supply Chain (Oct 2016)* What Is Powering Your Battery? Being a relatively rare and difficult to produce metal, lithium demand is rapidly increasing due to the metal's unique physical characteristics, which are utilized in long-life or rechargeable batteries. Rapidly rising demand from portable electronics manufacturers, and the push of the auto industry to develop new fuel-efficient technology, backed by the widespread support of many governments to reduce transportation costs and improve CO2 emissions, are driving prices for the metal higher. We believe that companies in the electric vehicle (EV) supply chain, from miners to battery producers and down to EV manufacturers, will benefit from the change in environmental policies and the growing need for more portable devices with larger energy storage. As the focus of the wider investment community remains tilted towards the U.S. (and Tesla in particular), many companies in the lithium battery supply chain, as well as EV producers, remain overlooked and undervalued. EV Production Expected To Surge We expect a continuation of the push towards energy-saving vehicles among car manufacturers, driven by government incentives and new tougher regulations (EU regulations for CO2 emissions in 2020 will be the strictest so far). Over one million EV vehicles of different types were sold in 2015. In countries such as Norway, the penetration of PEVs is reaching up to 23% (Chart 1). Based on the current growth rates (Chart 2), the compound annual growth rate of EV production is estimated at 30% to 35% over the next 10 years. Japan will remain in top spot in EV penetration (the current HEV rate is around 20% of the overall market). Japan's market (controlled by Toyota and Honda) is dominated by the HEV type of vehicles, and we expect it to remain this way. Chart 1PEV Penetration By Country Chart 2EV Sales By Country We expect the largest boost in market share gains to happen on the European market, based on very stringent CO2 emissions regulation (Chart 3) and ambitious EV targets set by the larger countries. EV market share is set to reach 20% (from the current 5%) in the coming seven to 10 years. The EU is closely followed by South Korea. The Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy (MOTIE) has developed an ambitious plan of growth, by which EV market share should reach 20% by 2020 and 30% by 2025. New EVs will receive special license plates, fuel incentives, and new charging stations. MOTIE wants the auto industry to be able to produce 920,000 NEVs per year, of which 70% should be exported. Among other large markets, the U.S. and China will remain the two countries with lowest EV penetration rates, although growth rates will be impressive. This will be due to low incentives from the government and cheap traditional fuel supply (in the U.S.), or a low base, some subsidy cuts, and infrastructure constraints (in China). Especially in China's case, the numbers remain striking (Chart 4). According to statistics published by the China Association of Automobile Manufacturers (CAAM), EV sales in 2015 grew 450% YOY. The market is estimated to grow at an average rate of 25% over the next 10 years. Chart 3EU CO2 Emission Targets Chart 4Monthly NEV Sales China In this report we will highlight companies from the raw material production stage: Albermarle (ALB US), Gangfeng Lithium (002460 CH), Tianqi Lithium Industries (002466 CH), and Orocobre (ORE AU); to added-value battery producers: BYD (1211 HK), LG Chem (051910 KS), and Samsung SDI (006400 KS); down to some electric vehicle companies: Geely Automobile Holdings (175 HK) and Zhengzhou Yutong Bus Company (600066 CH). The Supply Side Driven by demand from China and the U.S., the raw material base for lithium has shifted in the past 20 years from subsurface brines to more production-intensive hard-rock ores. Brine operations are mostly found in the so-called LatAm "triangle" - Argentina, Chile and Bolivia - while China and Australia produce lithium from spodumene (a mineral consisting of lithium aluminium inosilicate) and other minerals. The U.S. Geological Survey estimates world reserves at 14 million tonnes in 2015, with Bolivia and Chile on top of the table (Chart 5). The main lithium producing countries, according to the U.S. Geological Survey, are Australia, Chile, and Argentina (Chart 6). Chart 5Lithium Reserves Concentrated In LatAm Chart 6Lithium Production Dynamics By Country The lithium mining process starts with pumping lithium-containing brine to subsurface reservoirs and leaving the water to evaporate (from 12 to 24 months) until the brine reaches a 6% lithium content. From here there are three ways to process the concentrate, or the hard-rock in mineral form: Treatment with sulfuric acid (acidic method) Sintering with CaO or CaCO3 (alkali method) Treatment with K2SO4 (salt method) Further, lithium carbonate (Li2CO3), a poorly soluble solution, is isolated from the received concentrate and transferred into lithium chloride, which is purified in a vacuum distillation process. Storage is also difficult: as lithium is highly corrosive and can damage the mucous membrane, it is most commonly stored in a mineral oil lubricant. Due to the rare nature of the metal, lithium comes mainly as a by-product of other metals and comprises only a small part of the production portfolio. This is the reason why the underlying metal price and the share prices of the largest producers of lithium have low correlation (Chart 7). Albermarle, SQM, and FMC Corp currently control as much as three-quarters of global lithium production, but price performance is not keeping up with the price of the underlying metal. For best exposure to the metal, we concentrate on companies with a large degree of dedication to mining lithium and close ties to the end-users. We recommend one established market leader (by volume) - Albermarle (ALB US); one company that just started operations - Orocobre (ORE AU), whose assets are concentrated in Argentina; and two lithium miners from China - Jiangxi Ganfeng Lithium (002460 CH) and Tianqi Lithium (002466 CH). These companies display much higher correlation to the metal price (Chart 8). Chart 7FMC Corp., SQM And ##br##Albermarle Vs. Lithium Price Chart 8Orocorbe, Jiangxi Ganfeng And##br## Tianqi Lithium Vs. Lithium Price Albermarle (ALB US): U.S. company with EM exposure (Chart 9). After the acquisition of Rockwood Holdings in 2015, Albermarle became one of the largest producers of lithium and lithium derivatives. Lithium accounts for more than 35% of the company's revenue stream (+20% YOY), which compares favourably to the 20% of the Chilean producer SQM and the 8% of another large US producer FMC Corp. Chile comprises 31% of global production. Albermarle's 2Q16 results on 3 August came broadly in line with market expectations. Some deviation from expectations occurred because of discontinued operations in the Surface Treatment segment. Group sales contracted by 7%, due to divestures started in previous quarters (Chemetal). Positively, lithium sales grew 10% YOY due to both better pricing and higher volumes, and EBITDA in the segment improved by 20%. Group EBITDA (adjusted) grew by 5% YOY and the bottom-line (adjusted) expanded by 11% YOY. Management appears confident about FY16 operations, guiding 1% improvement in EBITDA, as well as 3% in FY EPS and aims to maintain EBITDA margins in the lithium segment at over 40%. We see high growth potential due to Albermarle's portfolio composition. The market is currently expecting an EPS CAGR of 9% over the next four years. Albermarle is trading at a forward P/E of 23.1x. Orocobre (ORE AU): An Australian company mining in Argentina (Chart 10). Orocobre is an Australian resource company, based in Brisbane. As in the case with Albermarle, the majority of operations are located in EM, so we see it as appropriate to include the company into our portfolio. Chart 9Performance Since October 2015: ##br##Albermarle vs MXEF Index Chart 10Performance Since October 2015: ##br##Orocobre vs MXEF Index Orocobre is at an initial stage in the lithium production process. The only division working at full capacity is Borax Argentina (acquired from Rio Tinto in 2012), an open-pit borate mining operation (producing 40 kilotonnes per annum (ktpa)). The flagship project (65% share), launched in a JV with Toyota Tsusho Corp, is the Olaroz lithium facility, a salt lake with an estimated 6.5 million tonnes of lithium carbonate (LCE) reserves. The planned capacity is at 17.5 ktpa. Due to the geological structure, it comes with one of the lowest operational costs ($3500 per tonne). The production ramp-up to 2,971 tonnes of lithium, reported on 19 July together with the 4Q16 results, came a notch below market expectations. The management lowered the production guidance, delaying full operational capacity by two months until November (realistically it might take even longer). Positive points in guidance included an LCE price exceeding $10,000/tonne in the upcoming quarter and confirmation that the company turned cash flow positive in the first half of this year.3 Orocobre is already planning capacity expansion at the Olaroz facility to 25 ktpa, with diversification into lithium hydroxide. Further exploration drilling is underway in the Cauchari facility, just south of Olaroz. The market forecasts the company to produce a positive bottom-line in FY17 and grow EPS by a CAGR of 25% for the next four years. Orocobre is currently trading at a forward P/E of 36.1x. Jiangxi Ganfeng Lithium (002460 CH): one of the largest lithium producers in China (Chart 11). Gangfeng is a unique company in the lithium space in the sense that it is a raw material producer with added processing capabilities. The main trigger for our OW recommendation was the acquisition of a 43% stake in the Mt Marion project in Australia. From 3Q16 onwards the bottleneck in raw material supply will be removed and the company can count on approximately 20 thousand tonnes (kt) of lithium spodumene. On the back of this news, the company announced a production expansion into lithium hydroxide (20 kt) from which 15 kt will be battery grade and 5 kt industry grade. This has the potential to lift Ganfeng to one of the top five producers in the world. Ganfeng reported stellar 2Q16 results on 22 August. The top-line grew two times YOY, while operating profit increased by 7.8x. Operating margin jumped from 9.8% to 35.9%, and the bottom-line expanded five-fold YOY. The profit margin also improved from 8.55% to 25.3%. We expect less strong, but still robust, YOY growth for the upcoming quarters. Market projects EPS CAGR of over 50% during the next four years, as the production run-up will continue. The company is currently trading at a forward P/E of 36.8x. Tianqi Lithium Industries (002466 CH): Making the move (Chart 12). Tianqi is the third largest producer in the world (18% of global capacity). Recently the company got into the news on rumors of its attempted expansion by taking a controlling stake in the world's largest lithium producer, Chile's SQM. Chart 11Performance Since October 2015:##br## Jiangxi Ganfeng Lithium vs MXEF Index Chart 12Performance Since October 2015: ##br##Tianqi Lithium vs MXEF Index SQM has an intricate shareholding structure, with the involvement of the Chilean government and a rule that no shareholder is currently allowed to own more than a 32% stake in the company (this rule can be changed only through an extraordinary shareholder meeting). At the moment the largest shareholder is Mr. Ponce Lerou (son-in-law of former President Augusto Pinochet), who owns just under 30% and has a strategic agreement with a Japanese company, Kowa, which makes the combined holding 32%. During the last week of September Tianqi acquired a 2% stake (for USD209 m) from US-based fund SailtingStone Capital Partners, which held a 9% stake, with the option to buy the remaining 7%. In a further step, Tianqi is trying to negotiate a deal with one of Mr. Ponce Lerou's companies which holds a 23% stake. It is said that Mr. Ponce Lerou has got into a political stalemate with the Chilean government on a production increase at one of its deposits and is looking to exit the company. Tianqi reported strong Q2 results on 22 August. Revenues grew by 2.4x YOY, and operating profit improved by 3.9x YOY. Operating margin grew from 42.99% in 2015 to 69.35% in 2Q16, and bottom-line increased twofold QOQ as production ramp-up continued. At the same time profit margin reached 48.9%, up from 2.8% a year ago. The company is currently trading at a forward P/E of 23.4x, and the market is forecasting an EPS CAGR of 13% over the next three years. The Demand Side4 Lithium is used in a wide range of products, from electronics to aluminium production and special alloys, down to ceramics and glass. But battery production takes the largest share of utilization (Charts 13A & 13B). Chart 13ALithium UsageChart 13BLithium Batteries Most Widely Used As confirmed by import statistics (from the U.S. Geological Survey), demand in many Asian countries, as well as the U.S., has been constantly rising. Among the main importers, South Korea is in fourth place with the largest number of new lithium-related projects started. In top position is the U.S., where we expect a strong demand increase, once the Tesla battery mega-factory in Nevada is completed, followed by Japan, which has the highest penetration of electric vehicles (EV), and China (Chart 14). Chart 14Composition Of Lithium Imports By Country Because of its low atomic mass, lithium has a high charge and power-to-mass ratio (a lithium battery generates up to 3V per cell, compared to 2.1V for lead-acid or 1.5V for zinc-carbon), which makes it the metal-of-choice for battery electrolytes and electrodes, and makes it difficult to replace with other metals, due to its unique physical features. Lithium is used in both disposable batteries (as an anode) and re-chargeable ones (Li-ion or LIB batteries, where lithium is used as an intercalated compound). Li-ion batteries are used in: Portable electronics, such as mobile phones (lithium cobalt oxide based); Power tools / household appliances (lithium iron phosphate or lithium manganese oxide); EVs (lithium nickel manganese cobalt oxide or NMC). The most produced battery is the cylindrical 18650 battery. Tesla's Model S uses over 7000 of these type of batteries for its 85 kWh battery pack (the largest on the market until mid-August, when Tesla announced a 100 kWh battery pack). The amount of lithium used in a battery pack depends on the kW output. Rockwood Lithium (now Albermarle), estimated in one of its annual presentations that: A hybrid electric vehicle (HEV) uses approximately 1.6kg of lithium A plug-in hybrid (PHEV) uses 12kg An electric vehicle (EV) uses more than 20kg (but all depends on make, model, and technology). An average car battery (PHEV/EV) would use over 10kg of lithium, assuming 450g per kWh (please note that real-life calculations suggest a usage of up to 800g per kWh of lithium. We have used the lower end of the range for our estimates), with Tesla's battery consuming around 70kg of lithium. Simple math suggests that with the completion of the mega-factory (estimated production of 35 GWh or 500k batteries p.a.), Tesla alone will be consuming at least half of world lithium production by 2020, and create a large overhang in demand. Among car battery producers, we like global players with dominant market positions and strong ties to end-users, such as LG Chem, Samsung SDI in Korea, and BYD in China. Those three companies together control more than half of global battery production (Chart 15) and will most likely maintain market share in the foreseeable future, as barriers to entry are high due the amount of investment required into technology and production facilities, and the end-product is difficult to differentiate on the market. BYD Corp (1211 HK): Build Your Dreams, it's in the name (Chart 16). Founded in 1995 and based in Shenzhen, BYD covers the whole value chain, from R&D and production of batteries (phone and car batteries) to automobile production and energy storage solutions. It is currently the largest battery and PHEV producer in China. The total revenues stream consists of 55% from auto and auto components sales, 33% portable electronics battery, and 12% car battery sales. Chart 15Largest Lithium ##br##Battery Producers Chart 16Performance Since October 2015: ##br##BYD Corp vs MXEF Index We believe the company is best positioned to reap multi-year rewards from the recent drive of the Chinese government to promote new electronic vehicle (NEV) growth through subsidies, support of charging infrastructure, and changes in legislation. The introduction of carbon trading in August (carbon credit will be measured on the number of gasoline-powered vehicles in the producer's fleet) will give BYD a benefit over other car manufacturers. BYD's model pipeline and battery manufacturing capacity (expected to reach 20 GWh by FY17), as well as favourable pricing ($200 kWh compared to over $400 kWh for Tesla) put the company into a leadership position. BYD reported 2Q16 results on 28 August, which came out very strong. Revenues grew by 52.5% YOY and 384% on a semi-annual perspective, driven by all three business segments and especially strong in EV sales (+29% YOY). This came with a significant beat of consensus estimates and later we saw a 68% upwards adjustment. As a result operating margin and profit margin improved from 3.8% and 2.2% in 2Q15 to 8.5% and 5.8% in 2Q16. Bottom-line was up 4x YOY. The market is currently pricing in an EPS CAGR of 12% over the next three years. BYD is trading at a forward P/E of 23.9x. LG Chem (051910 KS): Catering for the US market (Chart 17). LG Chem is the largest chemical company in South Korea, operating in three different divisions: petrochemicals (from basic distillates to polymers), which account for 71% of total revenues, information technology and electronics (displays, toners etc.), which represent 13% of total revenues, and energy solutions, 16% of total revenues. LG Chem is the third largest battery producer in the world, manufacturing a pallet from small watch and mobile phone batteries down to auto-packs. LG's North American operations in Holland, Michigan produce battery packs for the whole range of GM (Chevrolet, Cadillac) EVs (including the most popular Volt range), as well as for the Ford Focus. In Europe, customers include Renault; in Asia, LG is working with Hyundai, SAIC, and Chery. The company reported better-than-expected 2Q16 results on 21 July. Revenues grew by 3% YOY and operating profit by 8.5% YOY, driven solely by the petrochem division (up 10% YOY). Bottom-line expanded by a healthy 8% YOY. LG Chem trades at deeply discounted levels (forward P/E of 11.6x) due to the remaining negative profitability in the battery segment (partly due to licensing issues in China, which represents 32% of total revenues), but we estimate that the trend will turn in the following quarters, as Chevrolet is ramping up demand with new product lines and management is guiding for a resolution in China. Furthermore, plans released by the Korean government in June/July (renewable energy plan and EV expansion plan) will increase demand for batteries by more than 30% CAGR in the next five years. The market is forecasting an EPS CAGR of 9% over the upcoming four years. Samsung SDI (006400 KS): Investing into the future (Chart 18). In contrast to LG Chem, Samsung SDI is fully focused on Li-ion battery production, with 66.5% of total revenues coming from this division (BMW and Fiat among clients). The company also produces semiconductors and LCD displays, which account for 35.5% of total revenue. Chart 17Performance Since October 2015: ##br##LG Chem vs MXEF Index Chart 18Performance Since October 2015: ##br##Samsung SDI vs MXEF Index Samsung SDI is currently in a reorganization phase, as the company is spinning off "Samsung SDI Chemicals" and has announced it will invest $2.5 bn into further development of its car battery business. The proceeds from the sale of Samsung SDI Chemicals (taken over by Lotte Chemicals in April for around $2.6 bn) will also be directed towards the car battery segment. Samsung SDI reported weak 2Q16 results on 28 July, as expected. Revenues continued to contract on a YOY basis, although the rate of decline slowed compared to Q1 and even registered 2% QOQ growth. The bottom-line was positive due to a one-off gain (the sale of the chemical business). The main headwinds came from delays in licensing Chinese factory production and a strong Japanese yen. On the positive side, Li-ion batteries in portable devices performed well, due to better than expected Galaxy S7 sales, as well as OLED sales, due to increased demand and capacity constraints in the mobile phone and large panel spaces. Due to the high concentration of EV battery-related revenues in its portfolio, we believe that Samsung SDI will be the largest beneficiary of government's renewable energy and EV expansion plans. The company is also ideally positioned to take advantage of the fast-growing Chinese market (35% of revenues coming from China), once the issue with licensing is resolved (which management guided will happen in Q3). The recent problems with overheating or exploding batteries, reported by users of the new Samsung phones, have sent the share price lower. We believe that this offers an excellent entry point, as ultimately the company will replace/improve the technology, and, at the same time, there are no alternatives which could threaten Samsung SDI's leadership in the portable battery space. The temporary issue in China has weighted on valuations, as Samsung SDI is trading at a forward P/E of 27.7x, while the market expects EPS to increase fivefold in the coming four years. Accessing The Chinese EV Market Best access to the fast growing Chinese market is through local car manufacturers, such as Geely (Chart 19). The subsidy schemes, put in place by the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC), currently cover only domestic-made models (except the BMW i3). Furthermore, import duties are making foreign-made vehicles uncompetitive in terms of price. We recommend to overweight Geely (0175 HK) and electric bus producer Yutong Bus (600066 CH) on the 30% NEV rule for public transport procurement. Chart 19Accessing The Chinese EV Market Geely ("Lucky" in Mandarin) Automobile Holdings (175 HK): A company with large ambitions (Chart 20). Probably best known for its two foreign car holdings, Volvo and the London Taxi Company, Geely grew from a small appliances manufacturer to the second largest EV producer in China, with an ambitious goal to manufacture 2 mn units by 2020. We see the main positive driver in Geely's big push into the EV market. The goal set by management is to have 90% of its fleet powered by electricity by 2020. The so called "Blue Geely" initiative is based on a revamp of Geely's current fleet into HEVs/PHEVs (65% as per plan) and EVs (35%). In May the company raised $400 mn in "green bonds" in a first for a Chinese car company, to support its R&D and manufacturing project, Ansty, to produce the first zero-emission TX5 black cabs in the U.K. The company reported strong 1H16 results on 18 August. Revenues were up 30% YOY, driven by higher production volume (up 10% YOY) and a sales price hike of around 15% YOY. The co-operation with Volvo seems to be working well (Volvo's design, Geely's production capabilities). The average waiting time for new models in China is approximately two months. The bottom-line expanded by 37.5% YOY despite a high density of new model launches, and we expect to see some margin improvement in the coming quarters. The market forecasts an EPS growth CAGR of 25% over the coming four years. Geely is currently trading at a forward P/E of 15.6x. Zhengzhou Yutong Bus Company (600066 CH): An unusual bus manufacturer (Chart 21). Yutong Bus Company is the world's largest, and technologically most advanced, producer of medium and large-sized buses (over 75k units produced in FY15, 10% global market share), with its own R&D and servicing capabilities. Even more important, Yutong is one of the largest producers of electric-powered buses in China and globally. Chart 20Performance Since October 2015: ##br##Geely Automobile Holdings vs MXEF Index Chart 21Performance Since October 2015:##br## Yutong Bus Company vs MXEF Index Due to the 30% EV procurement rule for local governments, the number of electric buses produced in 2015 soared 15 times to 90,000, a quarter of which were produced by Yutong. We expect this number to grow further with the introduction of the new carbon emission trading scheme. We see Yutong as best positioned in the bus manufacturers' space to take advantage of the new trading rules. Yutong reported 2Q16 results on 23 August, which came in broadly in line with market expectations. Revenue expanded by 34% YOY, driven by volume growth (7400 NEV units sold, +100% YOY). The push into EVs came with higher cost-of-sales (warranty and servicing). This did not affect gross margin (up 1% to 25%). Bottom-line grew by 50% YOY. Management maintained an upbeat outlook, guiding 25,000 units of NEV sales in FY16, with an average sales price increase due to higher sales in the large-bus segment. Management also expects to receive the national subsidy for FY15 in 3Q16 and for 2016 in 1Q17. The market currently factors in an EPS CAGR growth of 8% over the next four years. Yutong is trading at a forward P/E of 12.3x. How To Trade? The EMES team recommends gaining exposure to the sector through a basket of the listed equities, which would consist of four mining companies, three car battery pack producers, and two EV manufacturers. The main goal is active alpha generation by excluding laggards and including out-of-benchmark plays, to avoid passive index hugging via an ETF. Direct: Equity access through the tickers (Bloomberg): Albermarle (ALB US), Gangfeng Lithium (002460 CH), Orocobre (ORE AU), Tianqi Lithium Industries (002466 CH), BYD (1211 HK), LG Chem (051910 KS), Samsung SDI (006400 KS), Geely Automobile Holdings (175 HK), Zhengzhou Yutong Bus Company (600066 CH). ETFs: Global X Lithium ETF (LIT US) Funds: There are currently no funds available, which invest directly into lithium or lithium-related stocks. Please note that the trade recommendation is long-term (1Y+) and based on an OW call. We don't see a need for specific market timing for this call (for technical indicators please refer to our website link). Trades can also be implemented through our recommendation versus MXEF index either directly through equities in the recommended list or through ETFs. For convenience, the performance of both the ETFs and market cap-weighted equity baskets will be tracked (please see upcoming updates as well as the website link to follow performance). Risks To Our Investment Case Because of the broad diversification, we see our portfolio exposed to idiosyncratic risk factors, which could affect single-stock performance, as well as the following macro factors: Mining: Falling lithium prices due to lower demand or a ramp-up in production on some of the Australian projects, could hurt profitability or delay new projects (especially in case of Orocobre). We also see some political risk stemming from the region of operations (Argentina, Chile), especially taking into account the weak performance of Chile's own lithium producer SQM and its role in a Brazil-like political scandal. Battery and EV production. We identify the main risk in drastic changes to governments' environmental and subsidy policies, which would hit the whole supply chain. A slowdown in economic development can make green or power-saving initiatives too expensive and governments will have to rethink their subsidy policies or production/penetration goals. This will hurt profitability through either a negative impact on sales or through smaller subsidies, which producers and end-users are receiving from their governments. One further risk is the dramatic increase in demand for lithium after the completion of Tesla's factory in Nevada, but may also come from other large players such as BYD. We currently see this risk as muted. As with all large Tesla initiatives, you have to take them with a pinch of salt, as the exact end numbers and the time the factory will be working at full capacity are unclear. Furthermore, Tesla, unlike many Chinese competitors, has no supply of lithium of its own, so there is little chance that it can protect supply or control prices. In any case, we see the overall portfolio as balanced, as the mining companies' performance should compensate for a negative impact on the end producers. Oleg Babanov, Editor/Strategist obabanov@bcaresearch.co.uk BASE METALS China Commodity Focus: Base Metals Zinc: Downgrade To Strategically Bearish We downgrade our strategic zinc view from neutral to bearish. We believe zinc supply (both ore and refined) will rise in response to current high prices, resulting in a 10-15% decline in zinc prices over next 9-12 months. Tactically, we still remain neutral on zinc prices as we believe the market will remain in supply deficit over the near term. Chinese zinc ore production will recover in 2017, while the country's zinc demand growth will slow. China is the world's biggest zinc ore miner, refined zinc producer, and zinc consumer. We recommend selling Dec/17 zinc if it rises to $2,400/MT (current: $2,373.5/MT). If the sell order gets filled, put on a stop-loss level at $2,500/MT. Zinc has been the best-performing metal in the base-metals complex, beating copper, aluminum and nickel this year. After bottoming at $1,456.50/MT on January 12, zinc prices have rallied 64.7% to $2,399/MT on October 3 (Chart 22, panel 1). The Rally The rally was supercharged by a widening supply deficit, which was mainly due to a record shortage of zinc ores globally (Chart 22, panels 2, 3 and 4). Late last October our research showed the output loss from the closure of Australia's Century mine, the closure of Ireland's Lisheen mine and Glencore's production cuts would reduce global zinc supply by 970 - 1,020 KT in 2016, which would be equivalent to a 7.1 - 7.5% drop in global zinc ore output.5 Moreover, a 16% price decline during the November-January period spurred additional production cut worldwide. According to the WBMS data, for the first seven months of 2016, global zinc ore production declined 11.9% versus the same period of last year, a reduction never before seen in the zinc market. In comparison, there was no decline in global zinc demand (Chart 22, panel 4). As a result, the global supply deficit reached 152-thousand-metric-tons (kt) for the first seven months of 2016, versus the 230kt supply surplus during the same period last year. What Now? Tactically, We Remain Neutral. On the supply side, we do not see much new ore supply coming on stream over the next three months. On the demand side, both monetary and fiscal stimulus in China has pushed Chinese zinc demand higher. For the first seven months of 2016, the country's zinc consumption increased 209 kt, the biggest consumption gain worldwide. Because of China, global zinc demand did not fall this year. China will continue lifting global zinc demand as its auto production, highway infrastructure investment, and overseas demand for galvanized steel sheet will likely remain elevated over the near term (Chart 23, panels 1, 2 and 3). Inventories at the LME are still hovering around the lowest level since August 2009, while SHFE inventories also have been falling (Chart 23, bottom panel). Speculators seem to be running out of steam, as the open interest has dropped from the multi-year high on futures exchanges. Chart 22Zinc: Strategically Bearish, Tactically Neutral Chart 23Positive Factors In The Near Term The aforementioned factors militate against zinc prices dropping sharply in the near term. However, with prices near the 2014 and 2015 highs, and facing strong technical resistance, we do not see much upside. Strategically, We Downgrade Our Strategic Zinc View From Neutral To Bearish We believe zinc supply (both ore and refined) will rise in response to current high prices, resulting in a 10-15% decline in zinc prices over next 9-12 months. Chart 24High Prices Will Boost Supply In 2017 Zinc prices at both LME and China's SHFE markets are high (Chart 24, panel 1). Last year, many miners and producers cut their ore and refined production due to extremely low prices. If zinc prices stay high over next three to six months, we expect to see an increasing amount of news stories on either production cutbacks coming back or new supply being added to the market, which will clearly be negative to zinc prices (Chart 24, panels 2 and 3). So far, even though Glencore, the world's biggest ore producing company, is still sticking firmly to its output reduction plan, there have been some news reports about other producers raising their output, all of which will increase zinc ore supply in 2017. The CEO of the Peruvian Antamina mine said on October 10 the mine operator will aim to double its zinc output in 2017 to 340 - 350 kt, up from an estimated 170 kt - 180 kt this year, as the open pit operation transitions into richer zinc areas. This alone will add 170 kt - 180 kt new zinc supply to the market. Vedanta said last week that its zinc ore output from its Hindustan Zinc mine located in India will be significantly higher over next two quarters versus the last two quarters. Nyrstar announced in late September that it is reactivating its Middle Tennessee mines in the U.S., expecting ore production to resume during 2017Q1 and to reach full capacity of 50 kt per year of zinc in concentrate by November 2017. Red River Resource is also restarting its Thalanga zinc project in Australia, and expects to resume producing ore in early 2017. Glencore may not produce more than its 2016 zinc production guidance over next three months. But it will likely set its 2017 guidance higher, if zinc prices stay elevated. After all, the company has massive mothballed zinc mines, which are available to bring back to the market quickly. In comparison to the high probability of more supply coming on stream, global demand growth is likely to stay anemic in 2017, as the stimulus in China, which was implemented in 2016H1, will eventually run out of steam. How Will China Affect The Global Zinc Market? Chart 25Look To Short Dec/17 Zinc China is the world's largest zinc ore producing country, the world's largest refined zinc producing country, and the world's largest zinc consuming country. Last year, the country produced 35.9% of global zinc ore, 43.8% of global refined zinc, and consumed 46.7% of global zinc. Over the near term, China is a positive factor to global zinc prices. Domestic refiners are currently willing to refining zinc ores as domestic zinc prices are near their highest levels since February 2011. With inventories running low and domestic ore output falling 7.8% during the first seven months of 2016, the country may increase its zinc ore imports in the near term, further tightening global zinc ore supply. Domestic zinc demand and overseas galvanized steel demand are likely to stay strong in the near term. However, over the longer term, China will become a negative factor to global zinc prices. China's ore output the first seven months of 2016 was 221 kt lower than the same period of last year as low prices in January-March forced widespread mine closures. The country's mine output may not increase much, as the government shut 26 lead and zinc mines in August in Hunan province (the 3rd largest zinc-producing province in China) due to safety and environmental concerns. The ban will be in place until June 2017. Looking forward, elevated zinc prices and a removal of the ban will boost Chinese zinc ore output in 2017. Regarding demand, we expect much weaker Chinese zinc demand growth next year as this year's stimulus should run out of steam by then. Risks If global zinc ore supply does not increase as much as we expect, or global demand still have a robust growth next year, global zinc supply-demand balance may be more tightened, resulting in further zinc price rallies. If Chinese authorities resume their reflationary policies next year during the lead-up to the 19th National Congress of the Communist Party of China in the fall, which may increase Chinese and global zinc demand considerably, we will re-evaluate our bearish strategic zinc view. Investment Ideas As we are strategically bearish zinc, we recommend selling Dec/17 zinc if it rises to $2,400/MT (current: $2,373.5/MT) (Chart 25). If the sell order gets filled, put on a stop-loss level at $2,500/MT. Ellen JingYuan He, Editor/Strategist ellenj@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see p. 32 of the 2016 edition of the International Energy Agency's "Key World Energy Statistics." The IEA reckons global oil demand in 2014 averaged just over 93mm b/d. 2 Please see the Financial Times, p. 12, "Warning on electric vehicle threat to oil industry," in the October 9, 2016, re the Fitch Ratings report, and IHS Energy's Special Report, "Deflating the 'Carbon Bubble,' Reality of oil and gas company valuation," published in September 2014. 3 Because of the early stage of the project, a conventional equity analysis is not yet applicable. 4 Please see Technology Sector Strategy Special Report "Electric Vehicle Batteries", dated September 20, 2016, available at tech.bcaresearch.com 5 Please see Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report for Base Metal section, "Global Oil Market Rebalancing Faster Than Expected", dated October 22, 2015, available at ces.bcaresearch.com Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Closed Trades

Special Report

Highlights ETFs marry the best features of mutual funds with the liquidity and ease of trading stocks. They are an important investing innovation that is here to stay. Market makers' ability to create or redeem shares in real time is essential to the smooth functioning of the ETF market, but the mechanism can sputter under extreme stress. ETFs are subject to different tax treatments based on their structure and the assets they hold. A basic awareness of ETF tax principles can help investors get the most out of ETFs' structural tax efficiency. ETFs' cost, transparency, tax-efficiency and tax-fairness advantages are embedded in their structure. Those marginal advantages could loom large in a subpar long-run return world, and a little knowledge and planning will help investors make the most of them. Feature ETFs' runaway success is well-deserved. At their best, they can be tremendously useful, expanding investment opportunities with minimal cost and complexity. The field is crowded, however, and subtle nuances are often all that distinguish the wheat from the chaff. An investor armed with a broad knowledge of the differentiating factors will have a leg up on the competition in constructing the most efficient portfolios at the lowest cost. This Special Report is meant to provide investors with that knowledge. In a simple and accessible Q&A format, it discusses the mechanics that make ETFs tick. It also considers tax issues and the events of August 24, 2015, when the market prices of several ETFs became unmoored from the value of their underlying assets. It is our summary of the key ETF issues with which all sophisticated investors should be conversant. What is an ETF? An ETF is a pooled investment vehicle with shares that trade throughout the day at negotiated prices, but it may best be summed up as a hybrid instrument that combines the best qualities of mutual funds and common stocks. Like mutual funds, ETFs afford investors the opportunity to own a proportional interest in a professionally selected pool of assets. Like common stocks, ETFs are continuously quoted and traded at market-determined prices. Investors see them as an appealing alternative to either one: ETFs have steadily gained share from mutual funds (Chart 1) and they consistently account for 25-30% of aggregate daily turnover on U.S. stock exchanges (Chart 2). Chart 1No Sign Of Slowing Down Chart 2A Big Part Of The Everyday Fabric Sounds like a closed-end fund with a new name. What's the big deal? ETFs and closed-end funds are both investment pools that trade like stocks, but ETFs are open-ended: they have the ability to expand or contract their share count on the fly. That ability is formally known as the creation/redemption feature, and it shields ETFs from closed-end funds' Achilles' heel: their often gaping divergence from net asset value (NAV). Investors approve; since ETF AUM caught up to closed-end fund AUM during 2005 (Chart 3, bottom panel), ETFs have grown assets at the rate of 21% a year while closed-end funds have shed them at a 0.6% pace (Chart 3, top panel). How does the creation/redemption feature work? Unlike other pooled investment vehicles, ETFs engage in primary transactions with no more than a select portion of their end investors.1 ETFs deal directly only with broker-dealers and other large institutions that have contracted to serve as authorized participants ("APs"). These primary transactions are limited to large blocks of around 50,000-100,000 shares or more, known as creation units, and typically involve an in-kind exchange of constituent shares for ETF shares (Figure 1). Chart 3Blowing The Old Model Away Figure 1The ETF Creation Process An AP initiates share creation and redemption at its discretion, typically in response to a mismatch in supply and demand. A broker-dealer may create/(redeem) units on behalf of a client seeking to buy/(sell) more shares than it could expect to find/(find takers for) in the secondary market without inducing a sizable price move. A broker-dealer may also act on its own behalf to capture arbitrage profits (Box 1) resulting from deviations between the market price of the ETF and its net asset value2 ("NAV"). Regardless of the AP's motivation, the creation/redemption feature allows supply to expand and contract in real time to align with demand, keeping ETF market prices fairly close to their NAVs. Box 1 ETF Arbitrage: Doing Well By Doing Good Like all market-makers, APs are expected to maintain order in their jurisdiction. A market-maker's eagerness to police a market, however, waxes and wanes in accordance with the reward it can earn along the way and the risks involved in securing that reward. The creation/redemption mechanism has several features that attempt to ensure an active market-maker role, and it has functioned well even as regulators have endeavored to keep trading desks on a tight leash. The daily composition of the underlying basket of securities is fixed and is communicated to APs the evening before the session. APs only have to commit capital for the duration of the session, obviating any distortions from post-crisis capital strictures. Cyclically, the malaise weighing on global investment banks helps offset regulatory disincentives to act, as the weak-profit backdrop makes even 25 basis points of sure profit an attractive proposition. Putting it all together, APs are ripe to seize even modest opportunities for sure profit and they eagerly intervene to narrow market value-NAV divergences.3 Sounds good in theory, but what if the authorized participants don't follow the script? Accidents can happen, as the open on August 24, 2015 demonstrated. That morning, when several blue-chip equity ETFs became completely disconnected from their NAVs and traded down more than 20% intraday, is a cautionary tale (Box 2). Empirical data overwhelmingly suggest that day was the exception that proves the rule, however. Funds with liquid underlying securities typically spend the vast majority of their trading lives within +/-50 basis points of NAV, testament to APs' and other market participants' eagerness to intervene when they detect a chance to pocket free money. Box 2 Preparing For Another Storm Runaway concern over the pace and potential impact of Chinese policy measures sent U.S. equities skidding at the opening of trading on Monday August 24, 2015. On the heels of stocks' worst week in four years, steep overnight declines in Asia and Europe, and circuit-breaker halts on the busiest U.S. equity futures contracts, New York trading opened with an onslaught of selling. Equities were hammered, with the S&P 500 off 5.2% in the first five minutes, and 1 in 20 stocks falling by at least 20%. The carnage was even worse in ETFs, with 4 in 20 declining as much as 20%.4 How could ETFs decouple so severely from their underlying NAVs? Where were their APs at the height of the frenzy? A full explanation of the day's events is beyond the scope of this review, but several factors seem to have hindered normal operations: Delayed openings and trading halts in underlying stocks obscured true NAVs. Delayed openings and trading halts in underlying stocks limited arbitrage opportunities. Short-selling restrictions constrained arbitrageurs' ability to short creation unit baskets. The tidal wave of selling occurred in the opening fifteen minutes, when spreads are widest, quotes are thinnest and volatility is highest. Even if its exact cause remains a mystery, August 24th's extreme ETF volatility offers two simple takeaways. First, do no harm: avoid market orders. Second, be greedy when others are fearful. If storm conditions appear to be coming together like they did last August, consider placing limit orders at significant discounts to NAV as a way to benefit from indiscriminate selling. What other advantages do ETFs have over traditional funds? As a group, ETFs are more tax-efficient, transparent and cheaper than mutual funds. Thanks to the predominance of in-kind redemptions,5 ETF shareholders rarely receive capital gains distributions. A review of iShares' annual capital gains distributions since 2013 shows just how rarely: less than 5% of ETFs paid them out at all, and just 1% of distributions amounted to as much as 2% of NAV (Table 1). As Table 1 shows, though, even these modest distributions were bloated by the roaring dollar's impact on currency-hedged equity funds in 2014 and 2015. After the currency-hedged equity funds are backed out, iShares ETFs distributed barely any capital gains to their shareholders. Mutual funds, on the other hand, are an endlessly renewing source of capital gains, as they typically raise the cash to meet ongoing redemptions by liquidating portions of their portfolio (Figure 2). Sales involving appreciated holdings trigger capital gains, and a majority of stock fund share classes have made capital gains distributions over the last three years, nearly 80% of which have exceeded 2% of fund NAV (Table 1). Incumbent shareholders to whom these gains accrue have to pay capital gains tax. The mechanism is neither efficient nor fair: mutual fund shareholders are repeatedly stuck with tax obligations because of others' actions. Table 1Comparison of Capital Gains Distributions Figure 2The Mutual Fund Redemption Process ETFs, which are required to publicly report their holdings every day, are vastly more transparent than mutual funds, which report on a quarterly basis with lags of up to 60 days. The transparency helps ETF shareholders protect themselves from style drift and assess the merits of different weighting schemes in real time. It also alerts them to duplicative, problematic or highly correlated positions across their portfolio, which they can act to offset as they see fit. The portfolio analysis that daily transparency makes possible can also alert investors to neglected exposures that they may choose to augment. ETFs cost less to operate than mutual funds pursuing identical strategies because ETFs have no direct interaction with their end shareholders. Mutual funds' exclusive primary-market interactions saddle them with onerous record-keeping, distribution and customer-service burdens. ETFs, which interact only with APs, live a footloose and fancy free existence that requires much less infrastructure and translates into reduced management fees. ETFs' cost edge over traditional funds is embedded in their structure as surely as their transparency and tax-efficiency advantages, and it will endure just the same. How are ETFs structured? A detailed discussion of the features of the varying ways ETFs can be structured is beyond the scope of this report and, almost assuredly, the patience and interest of its readers. The bottom line is that the investment industry is regulated by sweeping federal laws enacted from 1933 to 1940. Under those laws, and certain exceptions to them,6 ETFs are organized as registered investment companies (RICs), exchange-traded notes (ETNs), commodity pools, grantor trusts, unit investment trusts (UITs) or C-corporations.7 The distinctions mainly matter to investors from a tax perspective. What are the tax implications of the different fund structures? Table 2ETF Tax Treatments Tax issues concerning the various forms of ETF organization involve the tax treatment of gains (tax-preferred capital gains or ordinary income), the top marginal rate applied to them and the potential for imputed gains. Tax treatments depend on the types of assets a fund holds, as well as its structure, as indicated in Table 2. As currently organized, every equity and fixed income fund receives favorable tax treatment, with all long-term (held for at least a year) gains subject to a top marginal rate of 20%.8 The funds are not subject to annual marking to market or the taxes that can result. ETNs are the most tax-preferred commodity fund structure: long-term gains are taxed at a maximum rate of 20% and there is no marking to market. Shareholders of grantor trusts are deemed to own commodities directly, exposing them to the maximum 28% collectibles rate on precious metals. ETFs holding futures contracts are organized as limited partnerships, subject to a blended (60/40 long-term/short-term) maximum rate of 27.84%9 on gains. These funds issue K-1s to their shareholders annually and also mark their portfolios to market at year-end. Shareholders are liable for tax on any mark-to-market gains. Currency funds come in four flavors. Open-end RICs are treated most favorably, with a top 20% marginal long-term capital gains rate and no marking-to-market. Currency ETFs holding futures contracts are treated like their commodity brethren, with a 27.84% maximum rate, and exposure to mark-to-market gains. Holders of currency grantor trusts are treated as if they directly held a foreign deposit account with all gains and dividends treated as ordinary income subject to the top marginal rate of 39.6%. Currency ETNs receive the same ordinary income treatment as currency grantor trusts, but their holders are also subject to tax on any undistributed gains, a worst-of-both-worlds outcome. What's the difference between ETNs and ETFs? ETNs are exchange-traded notes that promise to pay at maturity a pattern of returns equal to the performance of a reference index, less a stated management fee. Unlike ETFs or other pooled investment vehicles, they do not represent a proportional interest in a portfolio of securities; they are simply an unsecured debt obligation of the bank that issued them. While our Risk Score model slightly handicaps ETNs to reflect the credit risk they bring to the ETF equation, they do have some positive attributes. Aside from being relatively tax-efficient,10 they make it possible for investors to gain tailored niche exposures that may otherwise be out of reach at a reasonable price and with a minimum of fuss. Are inverse and leveraged ETFs anything to worry about? Inverse ETFs aim to return one, two or three times the inverse of a reference index's daily return and leveraged ETFs typically aim to return two or three times the reference index's daily return. Because compounding effects can increasingly distort inverse/leveraged funds' relative performance the longer they're held, they are flatly unsuitable for buying and holding. Nor are they suitable for novice investors. They do not present any more systemic risk than run-of-the-mill margin accounts, however. Anything else I should know? How much more time do you have? There are many more nuances to ETFs that could affect portfolio exposures and prospective returns. They are beyond the scope of a broad overview, though, so we will consider them in more focused research pieces. As we have mentioned before, we especially look forward to exploring nuances in the context of evaluating similarly themed ETFs like the smart-beta funds that have been the most prominent new launches for the last several years. Putting It All Together Long-term projections are inherently uncertain, but we expect that the next five years will yield tepid investment returns. Bonds have been bid up to extremely demanding levels, the S&P 500 is not cheap and smaller segments of the equity markets are quite pricey. Abundant liquidity and the search for yield appear to have pulled several years of returns forward. Liquidity and yield-seeking helped cushion the blow of the crisis, but their impact on the intermediate term is unclear. If broad returns turn out to be as muted as we expect, every basis point will matter. ETF mechanics and taxation may be dry subjects, but familiarity with them could spell the difference between underperformance and outperformance in a low-return environment. Our readers are used to our look-under-the-hood counsel when comparing individual ETFs, but this report argues for performing due diligence at the macro level as well. Doug Peta, Vice President Global ETF Strategy dougp@bcaresearch.com 1 Primary-market transactions are direct transactions with a security issuer. All mutual fund transactions are primary because mutual fund shares can only be bought from, or sold to, the fund itself. 2 NAV is the aggregate value of the ETF's underlying constituents. 3 This is not to say that market value-NAV spreads are uniform across ETFs. Sure profit is the key to arbitrage mechanisms, and ETFs with liquid constituents and/or futures contracts that allow market-makers to hedge exposures securely and easily will consistently trade at tighter spreads to NAV. 4 SEC Research Note: Equity Market Volatility on August 24, 2015, Staff of the Office of Analytics and Research Division of Trading and Markets, December 2015. Data excludes leveraged/inverse ETFs. 5 The sale of stock for cash is a taxable event, but an in-kind exchange of securities to redeem an ETF is not. 6 ETFs could not exist without exemptions from some of the elements of these laws, which would otherwise preclude trading at prices other than NAV or operating without delivering prospectuses to shareholders. 7 There are just seven C-corp ETFs, all of which invest primarily in MLPs. 8 A Medicare surcharge for households in the highest tax bracket brings the all-in rate to 23.8%. 9 (60% x 20%) + (40% x 39.6%) = 12% + 15.84% = 27.84% 10 Many ETNs do not distribute cash to their holders, effectively converting ordinary income (interest and dividends) into more lightly-taxed capital gains.

Highlights ECB Monetary Policy: Euro Area inflation will likely remain below the European Central Bank (ECB) 2% target for the next few years due to persistent excess capacity in Europe. The ECB will signal this at the December monetary policy meeting, providing the justification to extend their quantitative easing (QE) asset purchase program beyond the current March 2017 expiration date. ECB QE Changes: The constraints imposed on the ECB's bond purchases are self-imposed, and can be easily altered in the event of potential "shortages" of available debt for the QE program. Fears of a potential taper of ECB buying because of those constraints, which have bearish implications for Euro Area bond yields, are overstated. Country Allocation: Move to an above-benchmark stance on core European government debt, which are a low-beta safe haven in the current environment of a cyclical rise in global bond yields. Feature After spending the past couple of months fretting over the next move by the U.S. Federal Reserve or the Bank of Japan, investors' attention shifted to Europe last week. With the current European Central Bank (ECB) government bond quantitative easing (QE) program set to expire in March of next year, the markets were seeking any sort of guidance on whether the ECB will end the program as scheduled, or extend the program beyond March - perhaps with a reduction ("taper") in the size of the bond buying. ECB President Mario Draghi provided no new information at the post-meeting press conference last Thursday, leaving bond investors in limbo until the December meeting when the results of the ECB's assessment of their QE program will be published. Some alterations of the program will likely be announced, but it is too soon for the ECB to consider ending their QE program. With regards to the title of this Weekly Report - the most likely outcome is that the ECB will extend the QE program past March 2017, but will tinker with the rules of QE in an effort to pretend that the central bank is still following a prudent logic for its purchases. Fears of an early taper are overstated, and this makes core European government debt a potential oasis of safety while global bond yields remain in a bear phase. Plenty Of Reasons For The ECB Not To Taper This talk of a tapering of ECB asset purchases following the scheduled end of the current QE program seems premature. After all, neither the ECB's own economic forecasts, nor those of its Survey of Professional Forecasters, are calling for inflation to get close to the 2% target until at least 2018 (Chart of the Week). The ECB staff will prepare a new set of forecasts for the December policy meeting that will include projections for 2019 - perhaps these new estimates will have inflation finally reaching the 2% goal. But in the absence of a credible forecast of inflation returning to target, the ECB will be hard pressed to signal any move to a less-accommodative monetary policy. Headline Euro Area inflation is currently only 0.4%, despite a recent increase in the oil price denominated in Euros, which has been a reliable directional indicator for Euro Area inflation (Chart 2). Chart of the WeekNo Need For An ECB Taper Chart 2European Inflation Is Stubbornly Low The steady decline in the Euro Area unemployment rate over the past three years has coincided with a move higher in overall labor compensation, but this has been purely a "volume" effect resulting from steadily increasing employment growth. With the entire region not yet at full employment, there has been minimal upward pressure on wages or inflation in domestically focused sectors like services (bottom panel). In other words, the lack of Euro Area inflation is a direct function of the excess capacity in Euro Area product and labor markets. According to the IMF, the Euro Area output gap will not close until 2020, which will limit any rise in inflation over the rest of the decade (Chart 3). It will take a more prolonged period of above-trend economic growth to close the output gap, reducing the Euro Area unemployment rate below the full employment NAIRU level, before any recovery in wages or core inflation can take place (bottom panel). This lack of realized inflation is weighing on Euro Area inflation expectations and creating some potential credibility problems for the ECB. As we have discussed in earlier Weekly Reports, inflation expectations in much of the developed economies seem to follow an "adaptive" process, where expectations are formed in lagged response to actual inflation.1 If central banks are fully credible in their ability to use monetary policy to fight inflation (and demand) shortfalls, then those forward-looking expectations should eventually gravitate towards the central bank inflation target. However, if there is a large and persistent shock to realized inflation, then inflation expectations can deviate from the central bank target for an extended period. Using a 5-year moving average of realized headline CPI inflation as a proxy for inflation expectations is a reasonably good (albeit simple) approximation of this adaptive process (Chart 4). The current 60-month moving average for Euro Area headline inflation is 0.6%, not far from the 5-year Euro Area CPI swap rate of 0.9%. However, if the ECB's inflation forecasts for the next two years come to fruition (1.2% in 2017, 1.6% in 2018), then the 5-year moving average will continue to decline, as those higher inflation figures would not offset the sharp fall in inflation witnessed over the past few years. Chart 3Excess Capacity Holding Inflation Down Chart 4Inflation Expectations Will Stay Low Simply put, the ECB's current projections are not consistent with inflation expectations hitting the 2% target by 2018, and likely even beyond that. The ECB will be presenting new projections in December, but it would take a significant upgrade of their growth and inflation forecasts to "move the needle" on longer-term inflation expectations. Perhaps a move away from fiscal austerity across the Euro Area could trigger an upgrade on growth expectations, as that would imply a faster pace of growth and a more rapidly narrowing output gap. However, while the topic of greater fiscal spending has been heating up in the halls of governments in Washington, London and Tokyo, there has been little sign that Euro Area governments are about to open the fiscal spigots anytime soon (and certainly not before elections in Germany and France in 2017). Chart 5European Banks Getting More Cautious? ECB Still Needs To Support Loan Growth The state of Euro Area banks, and what it means for future lending activity, is another factor for the ECB to consider before contemplating any move to a less-accommodative monetary policy. The current growth rates of money and credit are showing no signs of significant deceleration (Chart 5). The latest ECB Euro Area bank lending survey, released last week, did show a modest decline in the net number of banks reporting easier lending standards to businesses, as well as a reduction in the number of banks reporting increasing loan demand from firms. The ongoing hit to European bank profitability from the current negative interest rate environment could be playing a role in the banks moving to a less easy environment for lending. As can be seen in the bottom panel of Chart 5, there is a reliable leading relationship between Euro Area bank equity prices and the growth in bank lending to businesses. The downturn in Euro Area bank stocks in 2016, which has been driven by declining profit expectations, could pose a risk to credit growth in the months ahead. According to a special question asked within the ECB's bank lending survey, a net 82% of respondents reported that the ECB's negative deposit rate has damaged banks' net interest income over the past six months.2 In that same survey, a net 12% of banks reported a boost to loan demand from the ECB's negative interest rate policy, and a net 15% of banks reported that the additional liquidity provided by the ECB bond purchases went towards extending loans to businesses. So while negative interest rates may be hurting bank profit margins, the impact of the ECB's QE is helping offset that to some degree by providing banks with capital gains on their bond portfolios that can be used to finance lending. So without any sign that inflation will soon approach the ECB's target, thus requiring a potential tapering of QE or even a move away from negative interest rates, the prudent course for the ECB to take to support Euro Area credit demand, and economic growth, is to continue with the QE program beyond the March 2017 expiration date. That will require some changes to the ECB's rules of the program, but, in the end, these are only self-imposed constraints. Bottom Line: Euro Area inflation will likely remain below the ECB 2% target over the next few years due to persistent excess capacity in Europe. The ECB will signal this at the December monetary policy meeting, providing the justification to extend their quantitative easing asset purchase program beyond the current March 2017 expiration date. The ECB Has Some Policy Options To Avoid A Taper Tantrum Core European bond yields have been depressed by the ECB's QE program, which have acted to push down both the future expected path of interest rates and the term premium (Chart 6). This has helped anchor real bond yields in negative territory, even with inflation expectations at such low levels. But any signs of potential slowing of the pace of QE buying could quickly unwind this effect, which makes the ECB's next steps so critical for the path of global bond yields. In Chart 7, we show the level and growth rate for the ECB's monetary base, along with five potential future scenarios: The ECB ends their QE program in March 2017, as currently planned; The ECB extends QE for six months to September 2017, at the current pace of €80bn in bond buying per month; The ECB extends QE program for twelve months to March 2018, at a pace of €80bn per month; The ECB extends QE to September 2017, but reduces the pace of purchases to €60bn per month; The ECB extends QE to March 2018, but cuts to €60bn per month. Chart 6ECB QE Still Holding Down Yields Chart 7ECB Needs To Keep The Monetary Base Growing As can be seen in the bottom panel of Chart 7, the growth rate of the ECB's monetary base (and the asset side of their balance sheet) will decelerate sharply in 2017 & 2018 if the ECB does end the QE program as scheduled next March. Extending the program, however, does push out the rapid deceleration phase for monetary base into 2018. This is of critical importance for the Euro Area bond market, as both the outright level and term premium component of German Bund yields have been broadly correlated with the growth rate of the monetary base (Chart 8). In other words, extending the ECB QE program into the future is most important to prevent a "taper tantrum" in European bonds, by signalling to the markets that the ECB wishes to maintain low interest rates for longer. The ECB could even announce a reduction in the pace of purchases, along with an extension, and bond yields should remain well-behaved. This will also help prevent an unwanted appreciation of the Euro, the value of which currently reflects the far easier monetary stance in Europe (Chart 9). Chart 8An ECB Taper Would Be Bad For Bunds Chart 9An Easy-For-Longer ECB Will Weigh On The Euro Given the persistent debates within the ECB (and between the ECB and some Euro Area governments) about the long-run merits of QE, the combination of both an extension and reduction in QE purchases could be the compromise option that satisfies all parties. Alternatively, the ECB could choose to maintain the pace of bond purchases but alter the selection rules governing the program. Given the recent concerns in bond markets that the ECB is "running out of bonds to buy", changing the rules of the QE program is a sensible way for the central bank to free itself from the self-imposed shackles on its bond purchases. There are three options that the ECB can consider: Moving away from strictly allocating the bond purchases according to the ECB "capital key", which essentially weights the bond purchases by the size of each economy; Raising the issuer limits on QE, which limits the ECB to holding no more than 33% of any single issuer or individual bond issue; Reducing the current yield floor on QE, which prevents the ECB from buying any bonds with yields below the ECB deposit rate, which is currently -0.4%; We think option 1 is the least likely to occur, as this would imply buying a greater share of countries with more problematic debt profiles, like Italy or Portugal. There is little chance of such a strategy being well received by the governments in Berlin and Brussels, and the ECB would likely wish to avoid a major political confrontation by allowing larger deviations from the capital key Option 2 is an easier solution to implement. The 33% issuer constraint was always an arbitrary level that was aimed more at bonds with so-called "collective action clauses", where a majority of bondholders can force a decision on all bondholders in the event of a debt restructuring. It is understandable why the ECB would not want to become to decision-making counterparty in the event of a future messy bond restructuring in Europe. However, the ECB's ownership percentages within each Euro Area country are nowhere near the 33% limit at the moment (Chart 10) and, at the current pace and composition of buying, that 33% limit will not even be reached for Germany anytime soon.3 There is room for the ECB to raise the issuer limits, as it has already done for some other parts of its asset purchase programs, like bonds issued by European Union supranationals.4 Chart 10ECB Holdings Are Far From The 33% Issuer Limit Chart 11Lowering The Yield Floor For QE Makes Sense Option 3 is the most binding constraint of all on the ECB purchases, as very large shares of the European government bond market are now trading below the ECB's -0.4% deposit rate (Chart 11). In the case of Germany, nearly 70% of all QE-eligible debt is trading below the ECB's yield floor, which has raised investor concerns that the ECB will soon be unable to buy enough German debt at the current pace of purchases. However, that yield floor constraint is completely arbitrary - there is nothing stopping the ECB from buying bonds trading at a yield below the deposit rate, other than (we suspect) a desire to impose some sort of price discipline on the QE buying to make the ECB appear more credible with its purchases. Chart 12The QE Yield Floor Can Be Changed If the ECB decided to lower the yield floor below the current -0.4% deposit rate, this would open up a greater share of the core European bond markets to QE buying (Chart 12). This would also change the current market narrative that the ECB will soon run out of German bonds to buy. In the end, the most likely path the ECB will take following its December re-assessment of its QE program is a combination of lowering the yield floor on QE bond purchases below -0.4% and raising the issuer limits above 33%. There appears to be plenty of leeway for the ECB to alter their purchases, but without necessarily reducing the monthly pace of buying. Combined with an extension of the end-date of the QE program beyond March, this should alleviate any concerns that the ECB will soon hit a wall with its asset purchases. Bottom Line: The constraints imposed on the ECB's bond purchases are self-imposed, and can be easily altered in the event of potential "shortages" of available debt for the QE program. Fears of a potential taper of ECB buying because of those constraints are overstated. Investment Implications: Move To An Above-Benchmark Stance On Core European Bonds With the ECB having no need to end its QE program early, the case for moving to an overweight stance on core Europe is a strong one. As we noted in our last Weekly Report, favoring bond markets of countries with the lowest inflation rates is a logical investment strategy in the current environment of a modest cyclical upturn in global growth and inflation.5 That justifies our current below-benchmark recommendation on U.S. and U.K. government debt, as both realized inflation and expected inflation are rising in both countries. That leaves the Euro Area and Japan as possible candidates to move to above-benchmark weightings, given their defensive properties as low-beta bond markets. Although with the Bank of Japan now pegging the Japanese government bond (JGB) yield curve with a 10-year yield at 0%, we do not see a compelling investment case for overweighting JGBs as a defensive trade. If an investor wants safety at a 0% yield - with no chance of a capital gain from a decline in yields - than owning T-bills, or even gold, is just as viable as owning JGBs. We recently upgraded Japan to neutral in our recommended portfolio allocation, and we see no reason to move from that. Thus, core European bonds stand out as the candidate to upgrade as a defensive trade during the current bond bear phase, which we expect will continue until at least December when the Fed is expected to deliver another rate hike in the U.S. We see a case for moving to above-benchmark for both Germany and France, but especially so in the latter. The beta of bond returns between France and both the U.S. (Chart 13) & U.S.(Chart 14) is very low, making French bonds a good market to favor at the expense of U.S. Treasuries and U.K. Gilts in currency-hedged bond portfolios. Chart 13French Bonds Are Low Beta To USTs... Chart 14...And To U.K. Gilts Bottom Line: Move to an above-benchmark stance on core European government debt, which are a low-beta safe haven in the current environment of a cyclical rise in global bond yields. Robert Robis, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "Why Are Global Inflation Expectations Still So Low", dated March 1, 2016, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 2 The Q4 2016 ECB Euro Area Bank Lending Survey can be found at https://www.ecb.europa.eu/stats/pdf/blssurvey_201610.pdf. 3 Please note that the denominator in the percentages shown in Chart 10 include only bonds with maturities that are eligible for ECB QE purchases, omitting bonds that will mature in less than 2 year and more than 30 years. 4 For more details on that change to the supranational issuer limits, please see https://www.ecb.europa.eu/mopo/implement/omt/html/pspp-qa.en.html. 5 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "Return Of The Bond Vigilantes", dated October 18, 2016, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Recommendations Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Highlights Duration: Treasury yields will continue to rise as a December Fed rate hike is priced in. A surge in bullish dollar sentiment between now and December would cause us to back away from our below-benchmark duration stance. Spread Product: Maintain a neutral allocation to spread product, favoring convexity over credit risk. A surge in bullish dollar sentiment between now and December would cause us to downgrade spread product relative to Treasuries. TIPS: The increased sensitivity of TIPS breakevens to core inflation argues for a continued overweight position in TIPS relative to nominal Treasuries. Sovereign Debt: Continue to favor U.S. corporate credit over USD-denominated sovereign government debt within a neutral allocation to spread product. Feature About one month ago, we outlined how we expected our investment strategy to evolve over the remainder of this year and into 2017.1 Our continued expectation that the Fed will lift rates in December leads us to maintain below-benchmark portfolio duration and a neutral allocation to spread product2 until a December rate hike has been fully discounted by the market. Chart 1Dollar Sentiment: A Key Indicator Beyond December, our investment strategy will depend largely on how the dollar responds to an upward re-rating of rate expectations. Strong dollar appreciation would likely cause us to reverse our below-benchmark duration stance and become even more cautious on spread product. Conversely, a tame dollar could mean that the sell-off in bonds and rally in spreads have further to run. The dollar has appreciated by close to +2% since early September and bullish sentiment toward the dollar has also edged higher (Chart 1). However, so far the increases appear muted compared to the rapid dollar appreciation that occurred in the run-up to last December's rate hike. The reason we care about the dollar is that a stronger currency represents a tightening of financial conditions that acts to depress expectations of future economic growth. This can spell trouble for risk assets and also lower the market-implied odds of future rate hikes. For example, spread product was performing well last year until rate hike expectations started to move higher in late October. As the market began to anticipate a December Fed rate hike, it did not take long for the combination of higher rate expectations and increasingly bullish dollar sentiment to weigh on risk assets (Chart 2). The Market Vane survey of bullish sentiment toward the dollar surged above 80% last December, and this tightening of financial conditions is what prompted the sell-off in spread product and sharp decline in Treasury yields that kicked off 2016. Chart 2More Bullish Dollar Sentiment Is A Risk For Spread Product With last year's example in mind, the relevant question for current investment strategy is: How much dollar appreciation can the market tolerate before Treasury yields reverse their uptrend and credit spreads start to widen? To answer that question we make an assessment of U.S. and global growth relative to this time last year. All else equal, if U.S. growth is improved compared to last year, then it should require a greater dollar appreciation to have a similar impact on yields and spreads. Relatedly, if the growth outlook outside of the U.S. is improved, then it would mean that the dollar's reaction to rising U.S. rate expectations might not be as strong. On this note, there is some evidence pointing toward a more resilient U.S. and global economy than at this time last year. In the U.S., our preferred leading indicators suggest that growth contributions from capital spending, housing, net exports, government spending and inventories should all move higher in the coming quarters (Chart 3). This should act to offset a likely moderation in consumer spending growth (Chart 4). All in all, the domestic U.S. growth outlook appears similar to - if not slightly better than - what was seen at this time last year. There is more cause for optimism in the global growth indicators. The aggregate global PMI and LEI are tracking close to levels seen last year, but rising diffusion indexes suggest that further increases are likely (Chart 5). Already, manufacturing PMIs in all the major economic blocs have entered clear uptrends (Chart 5, bottom two panels). This suggests that the global growth outlook is actually much brighter than at this time last year, and improved diffusion indexes suggest that the global recovery has also become more synchronized. Chart 3U.S. Growth Outlook Improving... Chart 4...Outside Of Consumer Spending Chart 5Global Growth On The Upswing The implication of a U.S. economic outlook that is broadly similar to last year and an improved outlook for global growth is that the U.S. dollar may not react as strongly to rising Fed rate hike expectations in 2016 as it did in 2015. If this turns out to be the case, then the performance of spread product should also be more resilient and the uptrend in Treasury yields is less likely to reverse. Bottom Line: We continue to track the dollar and dollar sentiment closely to inform our near-term investment strategy. While dollar sentiment has edged higher, it has not yet reached the elevated levels seen last year. A more synchronized global growth recovery makes such a spike in bullish dollar sentiment less likely this time around. What Is A High Pressure Economy? Chart 6What A "High Pressure Economy" Looks Like Fed Chair Janet Yellen introduced a new buzzword to the market two weeks ago when she suggested in a speech3 that "it might be possible to reverse the adverse supply-side effects [of the financial crisis] by temporarily running a 'high-pressure economy' with robust aggregate demand and a tight labor market." Some investors took this to mean that the Fed would be increasingly tolerant of inflation overshooting its 2% target. We think this interpretation is incorrect, although we do think that Yellen's description of a "high pressure economy" provides a lot of information about the Fed's reaction function. More than anything, Yellen's speech was a response to recent trends in the labor market. The downtrend in the unemployment rate started to abate late last year, even though the economy has continued to add jobs at an average pace of just under +200k per month. A sharp rebound in the labor force participation rate has prevented the unemployment rate from falling, despite robust job growth (Chart 6). It is this dynamic that Yellen refers to when she talks about a "high pressure economy". Essentially, her theory suggests that, despite the low unemployment rate, the economy might be able to continue to add jobs without inflation spiking higher. Put differently, the unemployment rate might be less useful as an input to the Fed's forecast of future inflation than in past cycles. The key implication for investors is that if the Fed doesn't trust the unemployment rate to provide a signal about future inflation, then it is forced to rely on the actual inflation data for guidance. In our view, core PCE and core CPI inflation are now the two most important inputs to the Fed's reaction function. On that note, while last week's September core CPI release was soft, both core CPI and core PCE remain in uptrends that began in early 2015. Further, diffusion indexes suggest that these uptrends will persist (Chart 7). The Fed's increased focus on core inflation also has implications for our TIPS call. The sensitivity of TIPS breakevens to realized core inflation has shifted higher since the Great Recession (Chart 8). In our view, this has occurred because of how the zero-lower-bound on interest rates has constrained the Fed's ability to influence investor expectations. Chart 7The Inflation Uptrend Is Intact Chart 8TIPS Breakevens & Core Inflation When the fed funds rate was well above the zero-lower-bound, investors could reasonably assume that the Fed would act to offset any temporary price shocks. As such, long-maturity TIPS breakevens remained in a relatively narrow range and were mostly influenced by perceptions about the stance of Fed policy. In a zero-lower-bound world, investors can reasonably question whether the Fed has the ability to offset a deflationary price shock. As such, inflation expectations are increasingly driven by the actual inflation data rather than the Fed. With the Fed and the market both increasingly taking their cues from the actual inflation data, it means that the Fed will likely remain sufficiently accommodative for core PCE to return to target and also that TIPS breakevens will move higher alongside the trend in realized inflation. Bottom Line: The increased sensitivity of TIPS breakevens to core inflation argues for a continued overweight position in TIPS relative to nominal Treasuries. Sovereign Credit: A Dollar Story Chart 9Sovereign Debt & The Dollar As noted above, in the current environment the path of the U.S. dollar takes on increased importance for our entire portfolio strategy. However, there is one sector of the fixed income market where the dollar is always paramount - USD-denominated sovereign debt. Specifically, we refer to the Barclays Sovereign index which consists of the U.S. dollar denominated debt of foreign governments, mostly emerging markets.4 In the long-run, the performance of sovereign debt relative to equivalently-rated and duration-matched U.S. corporate credit tends to track movements in the dollar and bullish sentiment toward the dollar (Chart 9). When the dollar appreciates it makes USD-denominated debt more expensive to service from the perspective of a foreign issuer, and therefore causes sovereign debt to underperform domestic alternatives. As stated above, we do not anticipate a near-term spike in the dollar, like what was witnessed near the end of last year. However, given that the Fed is much further along in its tightening cycle than other major central banks, the long-run bull market in the U.S. dollar should remain intact. This will continue to be a major headwind for sovereign debt. Further, the recent performance of sovereign debt relative to U.S. credit has bucked its traditional correlations with the dollar. Notice that the beta between sovereign excess returns and the dollar has moved into positive territory (Chart 9, bottom two panels). Historically, the correlation does not remain at these levels for long and sovereign debt should underperform as the more typical negative correlation is re-established. At present, there is not even an attractive valuation argument for sovereign debt relative to U.S. credit. The spread differential between the Sovereign index and an equivalently-rated, duration-matched U.S. credit index is well below zero (Chart 10), and only the USD-debt of Hungary, South Africa, Colombia and Uruguay offer spreads that appear attractive relative to the U.S. Credit index (Chart 11). Chart 10No Spread Pick-Up In Sovereigns Chart 11USD-Denominated Sovereign Debt By Issuing Country Bottom Line: Continue to favor U.S. corporate credit over USD-denominated sovereign government debt within a neutral allocation to spread product. Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Dollar Watching", dated September 13, 2016, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 We favor negatively convex assets (MBS) over credit within a neutral allocation to spread product, on the view that negatively convex assets will outperform as yields head higher in advance of a December rate hike. In anticipation of a December Fed rate hike we are also maintain a short position in the December 2017 Eurodollar futures contract as well as positions in 2/10 and 10/30 curve flatteners. The three trades have returned: +20bps, -23bps and +4bps respectively. 3 http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/yellen20161014a.htm 4 The largest issuers in the Barclays Sovereign Index are: Mexico (22%), Philippines (14%) and Colombia (11%). Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

Highlights Our protector portfolio is a combination of assets that have a low or negative correlation with equities that give investors some downside protection. Replacing cash and/or Treasuries with our protector portfolio in 60-30-10 or 60-40 benchmark portfolios would have produced superior returns since 2011. We continue to advocate allocating investments to our protector portfolio in the near term as it represents an effective hedge against immediate risks such as a negative market reaction to the upcoming elections and/or disappointing third quarter profits. Feature Both equities and bonds are under pressure, as a higher likelihood of a December interest rate hike is beginning to be priced in at the same time as nervousness about Q3 earnings results has intensified. This confluence of factors - less liquidity and earnings disappointment - has been the central argument of our defensive portfolio stance for some time: any handoff from liquidity to growth would be shaky, and potentially premature. Indeed, as we wrote in the September 26 Weekly Report, liquidity conditions will largely remain favorable for risk assets for some time because even with a December rate hike, interest rates are well below equilibrium, i.e. are not restrictive. However, equity investors will suffer through bouts of earnings disappointments, similar to the chronic disappointment in GDP growth. As we show in Chart 1, throughout the economic recovery, expectations for economic growth have been revised lower and are only now finally in line with what we expect is close to reality. As highlighted in last week's report, investors' expectations about earnings are most likely to undergo the same fate because profit margins will remain a lasting headwind: investors have not yet adjusted to this new reality (Chart 2). That will hold equity gains to low single digits, at best. Chart 1Years Of One-Way (Down) Revisions Chart 2Earnings Set To Disappoint? Overall, our view is that the economic backdrop is stable as there are low odds of a recession-inducing monetary tightening occurring, and we do not see any other negative shocks that are concerning enough to trigger a recession. Still, above and beyond our worry about profit disappointments, many client queries are currently focused on U.S. election risks. On September 26, we warned of market volatility leading up to the election, since investors may continue to assign too low odds of a Trump Presidential win. However, we would expect markets to quickly recover - at least until Trump reveals his true policy colors. We took a page from the market reaction to Brexit as a possible guideline to the outcome of Trump winning the election, i.e. the election is ultimately won by a non-status quo candidate. Investors will recall that the post-vote U.K. equity market reaction to Brexit was short-lived but savage. However, the uncertainty around the upheaval of institutions and structures in the euro area and the U.K. are far greater than the election of a non-conformist U.S. President within an institutionally sound system with checks and balances. All of that said, we recognize that we could be wrong and that the U.S. election has taken over the pole position on investors' list of concerns. More specifically, investors are worried about negative financial market fallout from a Trump win.1 So, how should investors hedge the downside risk of these election results? And for that matter, what about other near-term risks? Protector Portfolio Explained This publication has been advocating for some time that investors hold some portion of their capital in a protector portfolio (currently a combination of TIPS, gold and the U.S. dollar). The goal is to find assets with a low or negative correlation to U.S. equities and offer a measure of protection against a steep selloff in stocks. As Chart 3 shows, a portfolio of 60/30/10, where 10% is placed in the protector portfolio, would have outperformed a traditional 60/30/10 allocation in which the 10% is held in straight cash since 2011 (in a ZIRP world). A 60/40 allocation where 40% is placed in the protector portfolio also beats a 60/40 stock/Treasury allocation since 2011. Chart 3Protector Portfolio Enhances Performance ##br## Since 2011 Chart 4Protector Components Are ##br## Negatively Correlated With S&P 500 The three assets included in our protector portfolio were chosen with specific risks in mind: USD: As the main global reserve currency, the U.S. dollar benefits when global risk aversion is on the rise. Admittedly, when fears have emanated from U.S. soil, the dollar has performed less well compared to other safe-haven assets, such as the Swiss franc and/or Swiss bonds. Nonetheless, for U.S. investors, investing in one's home currency can provide a natural hedge/advantage. In Chart 4, we show the one-year correlation between USD and S&P 500 equity returns. Since 2009, the correlation has been negative and the implication is that by holding USD, investors are already implicitly defensive. Gold: Gold traditionally does well in times of extreme geopolitical uncertainty and also as a hedge against inflation. More recently, gold has done less well as a hedge because the negative correlation between equity prices and gold broke down from 2011 until earlier this year (Chart 4). Gold has once again become negatively correlated with equity prices and we believe it will be an effective safe-haven asset should inflation become a concern. TIPS: Both 10-year TIPS and nominal Treasuries are negatively correlated with U.S. equity returns and both provide some measure of insurance in risk-off periods/phases of economic disappointment. Nonetheless, we prefer TIPS at the moment since they offer a measure of protection against a back-up in inflation expectations (also Chart 4). In sum, our protector portfolio is a combination of assets that are uncorrelated enough with equities to give investors some protection against a range of downside risks. Protector Portfolio: But Beware Buy And Hold Chart 5Protector Buy And Hold Will Not Work As Chart 2 has shown, our protector portfolio has outperformed both a 60-30-10 and 60-40 portfolio in recent years. However, longer -term performance has been less outstanding (Chart 5). Indeed, adding a constant proportion of safe-haven assets to a balanced portfolio over an extended period underperforms the balanced portfolio benchmark for long stretches of time: there are non-negligible costs associated with holding safe-haven assets over prolonged periods. The bottom line is that timing plays a critical part in investing in safe-haven assets. Owning a fixed share of protector portfolio assets over long horizons will not beat a traditional buy and hold strategy, although superior returns over cash offer a compelling case in a NIRP world. We continue to recommend that investors hedge against downside risk in the form of the protector portfolio - or simply by choosing the safe haven that most closely corresponds as a hedge to the specific risk at hand. However, it is important to know that safe-haven assets fall in and out of favor through time and the protector portfolio will at some point no longer be justified, and/or its components will need to be adjusted. For example, only after 2000 did Treasuries start providing a good hedge against equity corrections. The contrary is true for gold - it acted as one of the most secure investments during corrections until that time, but then became correlated with S&P 500 total returns from 2012-early 2016. That said, gold's coefficient has turned negative again, and it should be viewed as an all-weather safe haven, especially if deflation risks begin to dissipate. The Most Relevant Safe Haven In Case Of A Policy Mistake Chart 6Fed Policy Mistake? Buy Protector Portfolio As we wrote above, our base investment case is that the prospect of less liquidity and the risk of an earnings disappointment mean that investors should keep a defensive portfolio stance and be prepared for pullbacks in equities in the single digits. However, the Minutes of the latest FOMC meeting highlight that a fairly low threshold has been set for a December interest rate rise. If financial market participants interpret incoming economic information more bearishly than the Fed, then a December rate hike risks being perceived by investors as a policy mistake. Under this scenario, risk assets could be set for a much greater fall, buoying the case for further portfolio insurance. Which safe havens will outperform? We take our cue from the market reaction to the December, 2015 rate hike. In that episode, equity prices fell 12%. The protector portfolio in its current configuration2 increased 10%. The bulk of the appreciation was due to a strong run in gold prices (surely helped in part by massive woes in China) and TIPS (Chart 6). We believe that this basket of assets would once again offer an important buffer against equity losses associated with a policy mistake. The Most Relevant Safe Haven For A Trump Win If a Trump win triggers a correction in risk assets, we would expect the U.S. dollar to rally due to Trump policy uncertainty and heightened geopolitical risk. We noted above that USD does not always rally when a stress event occurs on U.S. soil. However, in the past several weeks, the performance of the dollar as well as Treasury yields has been linked to Trump's probability of winning the election. Whenever the odds of a Trump presidency rise, these risk-off assets have appreciated. And The Most Relevant Lessons From The Election Cycle This month's Geopolitical Strategy Special Report 3 provides a final forecast and implications for the elections. As we note above, we agree that a Trump win is a red herring in terms of the key issues investors face. But we also agree with our geopolitical strategists that there are several important lessons from the election cycle that may have long term ramifications for investors. Below, we highlight the most relevant for financial market participants: The median voter has moved to the left on economic policy. Trump's victory over an army of seasoned, relatively orthodox GOP contenders in the primary exposed the fact that the party's grassroots voters no longer care deeply about fiscal austerity and no longer wish to tolerate the corporate incentive for importing cheap labor. Similarly, demographic trends favoring millennials and minorities (who tend to vote left on economic policies), portends a shift by which the GOP attempts to capture left-leaning voters. Fiscal conservatism (and social conservatism, for that matter) will have less to show by way of official party machinery. The 2016 election campaign has amplified the notion that the news media works in narratives. These narratives work as a filter that preempts and distorts the presentation and, to some extent, reception of facts. This phenomenon was influential in Trump's rise - the first "Twitter" candidacy - as well as his recent decline. Investors cannot be too wary of what the mainstream press or financial "smart money" says about any particular political trend or event. It is essential to separate the wheat from the chaff by using empirics and looking at macro and structural factors to identify the constraints rather than the preferences of candidates or politicians. U.S. Economy: Neither Hot Nor Cold The NFIB survey of small business survey ranks as one of our preferred indicators of U.S. business confidence. The employment related indicators serve as a key input into our payroll model; questions about the pricing environment often provide a good leading/coincident gauge about inflation trends, and; as Chart 7 shows, the labor cost versus pricing series provides an excellent leading indicator for the profit margin outlook. The latter remains in a downtrend, reinforcing our message that profit margins will remain a headwind to earnings growth for still some time. Overall, small business optimism has been generally flat this year, after peaking in late 2014. It is somewhat discouraging that "demand" as a most important problem is no longer falling. Consumption has been one of the more robust areas of growth in the past several years and we expect consumption to continue to outshine other areas of the economy. However, even here, the data should be monitored closely. Chart 7Small Business Concerns (Part 1) Chart 8Small Business Concerns (Part 2) Retail sales (excluding gasoline and autos) growth has been slowing throughout 2016 and September data did not buck this trend (Chart 8). Results among retailers varied substantially, with growth strongest at building supply stores, sporting goods stores, vehicle dealers and furniture stores. Laggards include electronics and appliance stores - segments that are still under siege from falling prices. The bottom line is that in aggregate, consumption is holding up reasonably well and should continue to do so, as long as employment gains and modest wage growth remain intact. Stay tuned. Lenka Martinek Vice President, U.S. Investment Strategy lenka@bcaresearch.com 1 Our Geopolitical Strategy service concurs that a Trump win is a red herring, i.e. is unlikely to occur and is a distraction from more relevant issues. For more insight, please see Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report "King Dollar: The Agent Of Righteous Retribution", dated October, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com 2 At the time, the protector portfolio performed slightly less well, as 30-year government bonds were used instead of TIPS. 3 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Special Report "U.S. Election: Final Forecast & Implications", dated October 12, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com Market Calls

Highlights Recent U.S. economic data have surprised to the upside, raising the odds of a December rate hike. U.S. GDP growth is likely to accelerate further in 2017 on the back of stronger business capex, a turn in the inventory cycle, and a pickup in government spending. Faster wage growth should also support consumption. The real broad trade-weighted dollar will appreciate by 10% over the next 12 months, as the market prices in more Fed tightening. The stronger dollar will pose a headache for U.S. multinationals, as well as emerging markets and commodity producers. However, it will be a boon for Europe and Japan. Global equities are vulnerable to a near-term correction, but the longer-term outlook for developed market stocks outside the U.S. looks reasonably good. Investors should overweight euro area and Japanese equities in currency-hedged terms. Feature Why The Fed Hit The Pause Button When the FOMC decided to hike rates last December, it signaled to investors via its "dot plot" that rates would likely rise four times this year. Ten months later, the fed funds rate remains unchanged. What caused the Fed to stand down? External factors certainly played a role: Fears of a hard landing in China permeated the markets at the start of the year. And just as these worries were beginning to recede, the Brexit vote sent investors into a hurried panic. However, the more important reason for the Fed's decision to hit the pause button is that U.S. domestic activity slowed sharply, with real GDP growing by just 0.9% in Q4 of 2015 and by an average of 1.1% in the first half of 2016. Rays Of Light Fortunately, recent data suggest that the growth drought may be ending (Chart 1): Chart 1Some Bright Spots In the U.S. Data The ISM non-manufacturing index jumped 5.7 points in September, the largest monthly increase on record. The ISM manufacturing index also surprised to the upside, with the new orders index jumping six points to 55.1. Factory orders increased by 0.2% in August, against consensus expectations for a modest decline. Initial unemployment claims continue to decline, with the four-week average falling to a 42-year low this week. The Conference's Board's consumer confidence index hit a nine-year high in September. The University of Michigan's index also rose. The key question for investors is whether the recent spate of good data is just noise or the start of a more lasting improvement in underlying demand growth. We think it's the latter. As we expand upon below, the adverse lagged effects on growth from the dollar's appreciation between mid-2014 and early this year should dissipate, pushing aggregate demand higher. Energy sector capex appears to be stabilizing after plunging nearly 70% since its peak in 2014. Stronger wage growth should also keep consumption demand elevated, even as employment growth continues to decelerate. In addition, fiscal policy is likely to loosen somewhat regardless of who wins the presidential election. Lastly, the inventory cycle appears to be turning, following five straight quarters in which falling inventory investment subtracted from growth. To what extent will better U.S. growth translate into a stronger dollar? To answer this question, we proceed in three steps: First, we estimate the magnitude by which U.S. growth will exceed its trend rate if the Fed takes no action to tighten financial conditions. Our answer is "by around one percentage point in 2017," which we think is considerably above market expectations. Second, we assess the degree to which the Fed will need to tighten financial conditions - via higher interest rates and a stronger dollar - in order to keep inflation from significantly overshooting its target. Third, we consider how developments abroad will affect the dollar. Our conclusion is that the real trade-weighted dollar will likely rise by around 10% over the next 12 months. How Quickly Will Aggregate Demand Grow If The Fed Does Not Raise Rates? As detailed below, a bottom-up analysis of the various components of GDP suggests that real GDP growth could reach 2.5% in the second half of 2016 and accelerate to 2.8% in 2017 if financial conditions remain unchanged from current levels. This would represent a significant step up in growth from the average pace of 1.6% experienced between Q1 of 2015 and Q2 of 2016. While growth of 2.8% next year might sound implausibly high, keep in mind that real final sales to private domestic purchasers - the cleanest measure of underlying private-sector demand - has grown by an average of 3% since Q3 of 2014 and increased by 3.2% in Q2 of this year, the last quarter for which data is available. Consumption Assuming that interest rates and the dollar remain unchanged, we project that real personal consumption will grow by an average of 2.7% in Q4 of this year and over the course of 2017. This is equivalent to the average growth rate of real PCE between Q1 of 2015 and Q2 of 2016, but below the 3% pace recorded in the first half of this year. Granted, employment growth is likely to slow over the coming quarters, as labor market slack is absorbed. Nevertheless, real income growth should remain reasonably robust, as real wages accelerate in response to a tighter labor market. A rough rule of thumb is that a 1% increase in real wage growth boosts real household income by the equivalent of 120,000 extra jobs per month over one full year. Thus, it would not take much of a pickup in wage growth to ensure that consumption keeps rising at a fairly solid pace. In fact, one could see a virtuous circle emerging, where accelerating wage growth pushes up consumption, leading to a tighter labor market, and even faster wage growth. At some point the Fed would raise rates by enough to cool the economy, but not before the dollar had moved sharply higher. This may explain why there is such a strikingly strong correlation between the dollar and labor's share of national income (Chart 2). Households may also end up spending a bit more of their incomes. Faster wage growth, rising consumer confidence, continued home price appreciation, and negative real deposit rates have all given households even more incentive to spend freely. While we do not expect the savings rate to fall anywhere close to the rock-bottom levels seen before the financial crisis, even a 0.5 percentage point decline from the current level of 5.7%, spread out over six quarters, would add 0.4% to GDP growth. Residential Investment Real residential investment dropped 7.7% in Q2 after growing by an average of nearly 12% over the preceding six quarters. The Q2 dip was mainly due to the warm winter, which pulled forward home-improvement spending. Housing activity has recovered since then, with new home sales, single-family housing starts, and the NAHB homebuilders index all at or near post-crisis highs (Chart 3). Chart 2The Dollar Is Redistributing Income Chart 3U.S. Housing Remains Robust The underpinnings for housing continue to look good. The ratio of household debt-to-GDP has declined nearly 20 points from its 2008 high - the lowest figure since 2003 - while the debt- service ratio is back to where it was in the early 1980s (Chart 4). Excess inventories have also been absorbed. The homeowner vacancy rate has fallen to 1.7%, completely reversing the spike experienced during the Great Recession (Chart 5). With household formation picking up and housing starts still 20%-to-25% below most estimates of how much construction is necessary to keep up with population growth, it is likely that housing activity can increase at a reasonably brisk pace over the next two years. We assume that real residential investment will expand by 4% in both Q4 and 2017. Chart 4Household Debt Burdens Have Declined Chart 5The Excess Supply In Housing Has Cleared Business Capex Growth in business capital spending has been falling since mid-2014 and turned negative on a year-over-year basis in the first quarter of this year. Initially, the deceleration in capital spending was largely confined to the energy sector. Since late last year, however, non-energy capex has also weakened sharply (Chart 6). Chart 6Easing In Energy Sector Retrenchment The recent slowdown in business capex reflects three factors. First, the disaggregated data on corporate investment spending indicate that lower energy prices generated a second-round effect on businesses that are not officially classified as being part of the energy space, but that are nonetheless major suppliers to the sector. Second, the stronger dollar hurt the manufacturing sector more broadly, leading to a lagged decline in capital spending. Third, the backup in corporate borrowing spreads that began in May 2014 and the associated tightening in bank lending standards put further downward pressure on business capex. All three of these headwinds have waned over the past few months (Chart 7). The oil rig count has started to recover, suggesting that energy capex should stabilize and perhaps even improve. The dollar and corporate credit spreads have also come down, while loan growth remains robust (Chart 8). Reflecting these developments, core capital goods orders have risen for the past three months. Corporate capex intentions have also perked up (Chart 9). We project that real business capex will increase by 2.5% in Q4 and 3.5% in 2017 if the dollar and interest rates remain unchanged. Chart 7Borrowing Costs Have Fallen Chart 8Solid Loan Growth Chart 9Recent Signs Of Improving Corporate Capex Spending Intentions Inventories Lower inventory investment shaved 1.2 percentage points off Q2 growth. This marked the fifth consecutive quarter that inventories have been a drag on growth - the first time this has happened since 1956. Real inventory levels fell by $9.5 billion at a seasonally-adjusted annualized pace in the second quarter and are likely to be flat-to-slightly down again in Q3. However, since it is the change in inventory investment that affects growth, this should translate into a modestly positive contribution to Q3 GDP growth. Looking further out, firms are likely to start slowly rebuilding inventories as we head into 2017. The economy wide inventory-to-sales ratio is now back near its trend level (Chart 10). Durable goods inventories excluding the volatile aircraft component rose in the third quarter, as did the inventory component of the ISM manufacturing index (Chart 11). We expect inventory restocking to boost growth by 0.1 percentage points in Q4 and 2017, a big improvement over the drag of -0.6 percentage points between Q2 of 2015 and Q2 of 2016. Chart 10Room To Stock Up Chart 11Inventory Rebuilding Has Commenced Government Spending Real government consumption and investment declined by 1.7% in Q2 on the back of lower state and local spending and continued weakness in defense expenditures. The drop at the state and local levels should be reversed, given that tax revenues are trending higher. Federal government spending should also pick up regardless of who wins the presidency. There is now bipartisan support for removing the sequester and increasing infrastructure spending. We are penciling in growth in real government expenditures of 1.5% in Q4 and 2.5% in 2017. Net Exports Net exports shaved 0.8 percentage points off growth in the five quarters spanning Q4 of 2014 to Q4 of 2015. Net exports made a slight positive contribution to growth in the first half of this year. Unfortunately, this was mainly a consequence of sluggish import growth against a backdrop of decelerating domestic demand. Looking out, assuming no change in the dollar index, a rebound in import demand will lead to a modest widening in the trade deficit, which will translate into a 0.2 percentage-point drag from net exports over the remainder of this year and 2017. Putting It All Together The analysis above suggests that the U.S. economy will grow by around 2.5% in Q4 - close to the pace that Q3 growth is currently tracking at - with growth accelerating to 2.8% in 2017. This is a point above the Fed's estimate of long-term real potential GDP growth based on the latest Summary of Economic Projections. How Will The Fed React To Faster Growth? We tend to agree with most FOMC officials who think that the economy is now close to full employment. We also concur that the relationship between inflation and spare capacity is not linear. When spare capacity is high, even large declines in unemployment have little effect on inflation. In contrast, when the labor market becomes quite tight, modest declines in the unemployment rate can cause inflation to rise appreciably. As Chart 12 illustrates, the existence of such a "kinked" Phillips Curve is consistent with the data. Where this publication's view differs with the Fed's is over the question of how much of an inflation overshoot should be tolerated. Considering that the Fed has undershot its inflation target by a cumulative 4% since 2009, a strong case can be made that it should aim for a sizable overshoot in order to bring the price level back to its pre-crisis trend. Most FOMC members do not see it that way, however. This point was reinforced by Chair Yellen at her September press conference when she said that "We don't want the economy to overheat and significantly overshoot our 2 percent inflation objective."1 Chart 13 shows that many measures of core inflation are already above 2%. This suggests that the Fed is unlikely to stand pat if aggregate demand growth looks set to accelerate to nearly 3% next year, as our analysis suggests it will. Chart 12The Phillips Curve Appears To Be Non-Linear Chart 13Some Measures Of U.S. Core Inflation Are Already Above 2% How high will rates go? This is a tricky question to answer because it requires us to know the value of the so-called neutral rate - the short-term interest rate consistent with full employment. Complicating the matter is the fact that changes in interest rate expectations will affect the value of the dollar, and that changes in the value of the greenback, in turn, will affect the level of the neutral rate. This is because a stronger dollar means a larger trade deficit, which necessitates a lower interest rate to keep the economy at full employment. It is a "joint estimation" problem, as economists call it. One key point to keep in mind is that currencies tend to be more sensitive to changes in interest rate differentials when those differentials are expected to persist for a long time. Chart 14 makes this point using a visual example.2 The implication is that most of the tightening in financial conditions that the Fed will need to engineer is likely to occur through a stronger dollar rather than through higher interest rate expectations. Chart 14The Longer The Interest Rate Gap Persists, The Bigger The Exchange Rate Overshoot A back-of-the-envelope calculation suggests that the level of aggregate demand would exceed the economy's supply-side potential by 2% of GDP by end-2019 in the absence of any effort by the Fed to tighten financial conditions.3 We estimate that in order to keep the output gap at zero, the real trade-weighted dollar would need to appreciate by 10% and the fed funds rate would need to rise to 2% in nominal terms, or 0% in real terms. Despite this month's rally, the real broad trade-weighted dollar is still down more than 2% from its January high. Thus, a 10% appreciation would leave the dollar index less than 8% above where it was earlier this year, and well below past peaks (Chart 15). Chart 15Still Far From Past Peaks In terms of timing, a reasonable baseline is that the Fed will raise rates in December and twice more in 2017. This would represent a more rapid pace of rate hikes than what is currently discounted by markets, but would only be roughly half as fast as in past tightening cycles. How quickly the dollar strengthens will depend on how fast market expectations about the future path of short-term rates adjust. In past episodes such as the "taper tantrum," they have moved quite rapidly. This suggests that the dollar could also rise at a fairly fast clip. The Impact From Abroad Chart 16A Stronger Dollar Could Push Up EM Spreads Exchange rates are nothing more than relative prices. This means that developments abroad have just as much of an effect on currencies as developments at home. Given the size of the U.S. economy, better U.S. growth would likely benefit the rest of the world. Could this impart a tightening bias on other central banks that cancels out some of the upward pressure on the dollar? For the most part, the answer is no. Both the euro area and Japan have more of a problem with deflation than the U.S. The neutral rate is also lower in both economies. This implies that neither the ECB nor the BoJ are likely to raise rates anytime soon. Thus, to the extent that stronger U.S. growth buoys these economies, this will translate into somewhat higher inflation expectations and thus, lower real rates in the euro area and Japan. This is bearish for their currencies. The possibility that the ECB will start tapering asset purchases next March, as many have speculated, would not alter our bullish view on the dollar to any great degree. Granted, if the ECB did take such a step without introducing any offsetting measures to ease monetary policy, this would cause European bond yields to rise, putting upward pressure on the euro. However, anything that strengthens the euro would weaken the dollar, giving the U.S. a competitive boost. This, in turn, would prompt the Fed to raise rates even more than it otherwise would. The final outcome would be that the dollar would still appreciate, although not quite as much as if the ECB kept its asset purchases unchanged. As far as emerging markets are concerned, a hawkish Fed is generally bad news. Tighter U.S. monetary policy will reduce the pool of global liquidity that has pushed down EM borrowing costs (Chart 16). And given that 80% of EM foreign-currency debt is denominated in dollars, a stronger greenback could cause distress among some over-leveraged borrowers. To make matters worse, a stronger dollar has typically hurt commodities - the lifeblood for many emerging economies. All of this is likely to translate into weaker EM currencies, and hence, a stronger dollar. Investment Conclusions Today's market climate is similar to the one around this time last year. Back then, the Fed was also gearing up to hike rates. Initially, stocks held their ground even as bond yields edged higher. But then, shortly after the Fed raised rates, the floodgates opened and the S&P 500 fell 13% within the course of six weeks (Chart 17). We are nearing such a precipice again. And, in contrast to earlier this year when the 10-year Treasury yield fell by 70 basis points, there is less scope for the bond market to generate an easing in financial conditions in response to plunging equity prices. The 10-year Treasury yield stood at 2.30% on December 29, just before the stock market began to sell off. Today it stands at 1.74%. Investors should position for an equity correction that sends the S&P 500 down 10% from current levels. Looking out, if U.S. growth does begin to accelerate, that should provide some support to stocks. Nevertheless, a stronger dollar and faster wage growth will weigh on corporate earnings, while stretched valuation levels will limit any further expansion in P/E multiples (Chart 18). Investors should underweight U.S. stocks relative to their global peers, at least in local-currency terms. Chart 17Beware Of A Replay Of The Last Correction Chart 18U.S. P/E Ratios: High, Very High Turning to bonds, while an equity market correction would not cause Treasurys to rally as much as they did in January, the 10-year yield could still touch 1.5% if risk sentiment were to deteriorate. Once the dust settles, however, bond yields will resume their upward grind. Lastly, a stronger dollar will pose a significant headwind for commodities. That said, as we discussed in last week's Fourth Quarter Strategy Outlook, recent cuts to capital spending are likely to generate supply shortages in some corners of the commodity complex.4 BCA's commodity strategists prefer energy over metals and are particularly bullish on U.S. natural gas heading into 2017. Peter Berezin, Senior Vice President peterb@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see "Transcript of Chair Yellen's Press Conference September 21, 2016," Federal Reserve, September 21, 2016. 2 To understand this concept in words, consider two countries: Country A and Country B. Suppose rates in both countries are initially the same, but that Country A's central bank then proceeds to raise rates by one percentage point and pledges to keep them at this higher level for five years. Why would anyone buy Country B's short-term debt given that Country A's debt yields one percent more? The answer is that people would be indifferent between investing in Country A and Country B if they thought Country A's currency would depreciate by 1% per year over the next five years. To generate the expectation of a depreciation, however, Country A's currency would first have to appreciate by 5%. Now modify the example with the only difference being that Country A's central bank pledges to keep rates higher for ten years, rather than five. For interest rate parity to hold, Country A's currency would now have to overshoot its fair value by 10%. The implication is that the longer interest rates in Country A are expected to exceed those in Country B, the more "expensive" Country A's currency must first become. 3 For the purposes of this calculation, we assume that the output gap this year will be -0.5% of GDP and that aggregate demand growth will exceed potential GDP growth by 1% in both 2017 and 2018, with the gap between demand and supply growth falling to 0.5% in 2019 and stabilizing at zero thereafter. The New York Fed's trade model suggests that a 10% appreciation in the dollar would reduce the level of real GDP by a cumulative 1.2 percentage points over a two-year period. A slightly modified Taylor Rule equation implies that an 80 basis-point increase in interest rates on average across the yield curve would reduce the level of real GDP by 0.8 percentage points after several years. We assume that Fed tightening would lead to a flatter yield curve so that short-term rates rise more than long-term yields. 4 Please see Global Investment Strategy Strategy Outlook, "Fourth Quarter 2016: Supply Constraints Resurface," dated October 7, 2016, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. Strategy & Market Trends Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

Equities, bonds and commodities are becoming suddenly, unusually, and dangerously correlated. But it cannot last.

Special Report

We are pleased to share this <i>Special Report</i> rolling out our Global ETF Strategy (GETF) service's model ETF portfolios.
We are in the latter stages of developing the digital interface that will serve as the central nervous system for the GETF service and are excited to be rolling it out next month. In the meantime, the GETF team has embarked on its regular bi-weekly publication schedule. An ETF Primer <i>Special Report</i> will follow on October 26. It will discuss ETF architecture, operation and trading, and is meant to help investors determine how they can best deploy ETFs to accomplish their tactical and strategic goals.