BCA Indicators/Model

Highlights The global credit impulse is 4 months into a mini-downswing, and it is too soon to position for the next mini-upswing. The euro area economy will remain one of the better performers in a global growth pause. Underweight German bunds in a global bond portfolio. Stay long the euro, especially euro/yuan. Go long euro area Financials versus U.S. Financials, currency unhedged, as a first foray into a beaten-up sector. Feature First the good news: the ECB's latest bank lending data indicate that the euro area 6-month bank credit impulse is stabilizing after a modest but clear decline in recent months (Chart I-2). Now the bad news: the global bank credit impulse continues to weaken. The upshot is that the euro area economy - even with 1.5% growth - will remain one of the better performers in what is now a very clear global growth pause. Chart of the WeekThe Global Bond Yield Has Shown ##br##A Regular Wave Like Pattern The Global Bond Yield Has Shown A Regular Wave Like Pattern The Global Bond Yield Has Shown A Regular Wave Like Pattern Chart I-2The 6-Month Credit Impulse Has Stabilized In The ##br##Euro Area... But Not In The U.S. Or China The 6-Month Credit Impulse Has Stabilized In The Euro Area... But Not In The U.S. Or China The 6-Month Credit Impulse Has Stabilized In The Euro Area... But Not In The U.S. Or China How To Play The Euro Area's Economic Outperformance In a global growth pause, the best way to play euro area economic outperformance is through relative positions in the bond markets and through currencies. Specifically, underweight German bunds in a global bond portfolio but stay long the euro, especially euro/yuan. The implication for euro area equities is more ambiguous. The Eurostoxx50 has a very low exposure to Technology, which tends to perform defensively in a growth pause. Conversely, the Eurostoxx50 has a high exposure to Financials, whose relative performance reduces to a play on the bond yield (Chart I-3). Given that the global credit impulse is still weakening, it is premature to expect a sustained absolute rally in Financials anywhere. Therefore, the strong knee-jerk absolute rally in European banks after the French election first round is unlikely to last. That said, with the euro area economy likely to outperform in a global growth pause, and euro area Financials still near a 50-year relative low versus U.S. Financials, euro area bank equities can now outperform banks in other markets (Chart I-4). Chart I-3Global Bond Yield = ##br##Financials Vs. Market Global Bond Yield = Financials Vs. Market Global Bond Yield = Financials Vs. Market Chart I-4T-Bond/German Bond Spread Compression =##br## Euro Area Financials Outperform U.S. Financials T-Bond/German Bond Spread Compression = Euro Area Financials Outperform U.S. Financials T-Bond/German Bond Spread Compression = Euro Area Financials Outperform U.S. Financials As a first foray into a beaten-up sector, go long euro area Financials versus U.S. Financials, currency unhedged. (Caveat: all of this assumes that Emanuel Macron beats Marine Le Pen to the French Presidency on Sunday, as we expect.) Don't Rely On Year On Year Comparisons Nature provides many of our units of time. The earth's orbit around the sun gives us a year; the moon's orbit around the earth gives us a month; the earth's rotation on its axis gives us a day. But there is absolutely no reason why economic and financial cycles should follow nature's cycles. Yet most analysts persist at looking for patterns and cycles in economic and financial data using yearly, monthly, or daily rates of change. Unfortunately, by focusing on years, months and days, they risk completely missing some of the strongest patterns and cycles in the economy and markets. Think about a clock pendulum. If you look at it once a second, it will always seem to be in the same position, motionless. You will miss the cycle. Likewise, if an economy regularly accelerates for 6 months and then symmetrically decelerates for 6 months, the yearly rate of change will be a constant, giving the false appearance that nothing is happening. It will miss the cycle. It turns out that the global economy does indeed regularly accelerate and decelerate - and that each half-cycle averages about 8 months. The strongest evidence of this very clear oscillation comes from the remarkably regular wave like pattern in the global bond yield, illustrated in the Chart of the Week and Chart I-5 and Chart I-6. Chart I-5The Global Bond Yield Has Shown A ##br##Regular Wave Like Pattern... The Global Bond Yield Has Shown A Regular Wave Like Pattern... The Global Bond Yield Has Shown A Regular Wave Like Pattern... Chart I-6...Which Is Easier To See ##br##When Detrended ...Which Is Easier To See When Detrended ...Which Is Easier To See When Detrended Furthermore, the acceleration and deceleration of bank credit flows - as measured in the global credit impulse - also exhibits a remarkably regular wave like pattern, with each half-cycle lasting about 8 months. But crucially, a half-cycle length of less than a year means that a year on year analysis would miss this very clear oscillation. Hence, our analysis always uses the 6-month credit impulse (Chart I-7). Chart I-7The Global Credit Impulse Has Also Shown A Regular Wave Like Pattern The Global Credit Impulse Has Also Shown A Regular Wave Like Pattern The Global Credit Impulse Has Also Shown A Regular Wave Like Pattern Mini Half-Cycles Average Eight Months It is not a coincidence that the bond yield and bank credit impulse exhibit near identical half-cycle lengths. The bond yield and credit impulse cycles are inextricably embraced in a perpetual feedback loop. A higher bond yield will initiate a mini down cycle. All else being equal, the higher cost of credit will weigh on credit flows. This will slow economic growth, which will then show up in GDP (and other hard) data. The bond yield will respond by readjusting down. In turn, a lower bond yield will then initiate a mini up cycle. And so on... But each stage in the sequence comes with a delay. For a change in the cost of credit to register with households and firms and fully impact credit flows, it clearly takes time. The credit flows do not generate instantaneous economic activity either. Fully spending the credit flows also takes time. Once you accept these assumptions of internal regulating feedback combined with delays in economic response, the economy has to be a naturally-oscillating system whose half-cycle length depends on the delays in economic response. And the important point is that these delays have little connection with nature's cycles. For those who are mathematically inclined, Box I-1 shows the differential equations which define the economic mini-cycle and its half-cycle length. Box 1The Mathematics Of Mini-Cycles Why Europe's 1.5% Growth Will Look Stellar Why Europe's 1.5% Growth Will Look Stellar Still, some commentators counter that credit flows don't just depend on the cost of credit. They also depend on so-called "animal spirits" - optimism or pessimism about the future. These commentators point to sentiment and survey data which show that animal spirits have soared. Our response is yes, for credit flows, heightened animal spirits in isolation are indeed a tailwind. But any rise in the cost of credit is a headwind. It follows that the net impact on credit flows depends on the relative strengths of the tailwind from heightened animal spirits and the headwind from the higher cost of credit. It is the net effect on the 6-month credit impulse - rather than heightened animal spirits per se - that determines the cyclical direction of the economy. We would suggest that the tailwind from heightened animal spirits has been countered by an even stronger headwind - the sharpest proportional rise in borrowing costs for at least 70 years (Chart I-8). Chart I-8The Sharpest Proportional Rise In Borrowing Costs For At Least 70 Years! The Sharpest Proportional Rise In Borrowing Costs For At Least 70 Years! The Sharpest Proportional Rise In Borrowing Costs For At Least 70 Years! As anticipated in our 16th February report The Contrarian Case For Bonds, incoming GDP data from the world's largest economies - the U.S., U.K. and France - now confirm this. First quarter growth (at annualised rates) sharply decelerated to 0.7%, 1.2% and 1.0% respectively. And this is not just about so-called first quarter "residual seasonality" as 6-month growth rates have also lost momentum. The global credit impulse is 4 months into a mini-downswing; the global bond yield is 2 months into a mini-downswing. Previous half-cycles have averaged 8 months, with the shortest at around 5 months. Hence, we feel it is somewhat premature to position for the next mini-upswing. Dhaval Joshi, Senior Vice President European Investment Strategy dhaval@bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading Model* The rally in Portuguese sovereign bonds appears technically overextended. Go short Portuguese sovereign 10-year bonds versus Spanish sovereign 10-year bonds with a profit target and stop loss of 2.5% . For any investment, excessive trend following and groupthink can reach a natural point of instability, at which point the established trend is highly likely to break down with or without an external catalyst. An early warning sign is the investment's fractal dimension approaching its natural lower bound. Encouragingly, this trigger has consistently identified countertrend moves of various magnitudes across all asset classes. Chart I-9 10-Year Bonds: Short Portugal / Long Spain 10-Year Bonds: Short Portugal / Long Spain * For more details please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report "Fractals, Liquidity & A Trading Model," dated December 11, 2014, available at eis.bcaresearch.com The post-June 9, 2016 fractal trading model rules are: When the fractal dimension approaches the lower limit after an investment has been in an established trend it is a potential trigger for a liquidity-triggered trend reversal. Therefore, open a countertrend position. The profit target is a one-third reversal of the preceding 13-week move. Apply a symmetrical stop-loss. Close the position at the profit target or stop-loss. Otherwise close the position after 13 weeks. Use the position size multiple to control risk. The position size will be smaller for more risky positions. Fractal Trading Model Recommendations Equities Bond & Interest Rates Currency & Other Positions Closed Fractal Trades Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Interest Rate Chart II-5Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch ##br##- Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations

GAA DM Equity Country Allocation Model Update The GAA DM Equity Country Allocation model is updated as of April 30, 2017. The model has increased its allocation to Spain at the expenses of Germany largely driven by changes in the value and technical indicators, compared to previous month as shown in Table 1. As shown in Table 2 and Charts 1, 2 and 3, Level 2 model (the allocation among the 11 non-U.S. DM countries) outperformed its benchmark by 99 basis points (bps) in April, largely a result from the overweight of the euro area versus the underweight in Japan, Canada and Australia. Level 1 model, the allocation between U.S. and non-U.S., underperformed by 13 bps in April due to the large overweight in the U.S. Overall, the aggregate GAA model outperformed its MSCI World benchmark by 15 bps in April and by 138 bps since going live. Please see also on the website http://gaa.bcaresearch.com/trades/allocation_performance. For more details on the models, please see the January 29th, 2016 Special Report "Global Equity Allocation: Introducing the Developed Markets Country Allocation Model". http://gaa.bcaresearch.com/articles/view_report/18850. Table 1Model Allocation Vs. Benchmark Weights GAA Model Updates GAA Model Updates Table 2Performance (Total Returns In USD) GAA Model Updates GAA Model Updates Chart 1GAA DM Model Vs. MSCI World GAA DM Model Vs. MSCI World GAA DM Model Vs. MSCI World Chart 2GAA U.S. Vs. Non U.S. Model (Level 1) GAA U.S. Vs. Non U.S. Model (Level1) GAA U.S. Vs. Non U.S. Model (Level1) Chart 3GAA Non U.S. Model (Level 2) GAA Non U.S. Model (Level 2) GAA Non U.S. Model (Level 2) GAA Equity Sector Selection Model The GAA Equity Sector Selection Model (Chart 4) is updated as of April 30, 2017. Chart 4Overall Model Performance Overall Model Performance Overall Model Performance Table 3Allocations GAA Model Updates GAA Model Updates Table 4Performance Since Going Live GAA Model Updates GAA Model Updates The growth component has become more bullish on global growth. The model has now turned overweight on materials & consumer discretionary, and underweight on utilities & healthcare. For more details on the model, please see the Special Report "Introducing The GAA Equity Sector Selection Model," July 27, 2016 available at https://gaa.bcaresearch.com. Xiaoli Tang, Associate Vice President xiaoli@bcaresearch.com Patrick Trinh, Associate Editor patrick@bcaresearch.com Aditya Kurian, Research Analyst adityak@bcaresearch.com

Highlights Uncovered Interest Rate Parity still works for currencies. However, it needs to be based on a combination of short- and long-term real rates. Currencies are also affected by the global risk appetite, as approximated by corporate spreads, and commodity prices. Based on our timing model­s, the countertrend correction in the dollar is toward its tailend. Any additional weakness should be used to buy the greenback. The euro is now expensive based on our timing model. However, it could become slightly more expensive as markets continue to price in the euro area-friendly outcome of the first round of the French election. Feature In July 2016, in a Special Report titled "In Search Of A Timing Model," we introduced a set of intermediate-term models to complement our long-term fair value models for various currencies.1 These groups of models provide additional discipline, a sanity check if you will, to our regular analysis. In this report, we review the logic underpinning these intermediate-term models and provide a commentary on their most recent readings for the G10 currencies vis-à-vis the USD. UIP, Revisited The uncovered interest rate parity (UIP) relationship is at the core of this modeling exercise. This theory suggests that an equilibrium exchange rate is the one that will make an investor indifferent between holding the bonds of country A or country B. This means that as interest rates rise in country A relative to country B, the currency of country B will fall today in order to appreciate in the future. These higher expected returns are what will drive investors to hold the lower-yielding bonds of country B (Chart 1). Chart 1Interest Rate Differentials Remain Useful ##br##Gauges For XR Determination Interest Rate Differentials Remain Useful Gauges For XR Determination Interest Rate Differentials Remain Useful Gauges For XR Determination There has long been a debate as to whether investors should focus on short rates or long rates when looking at exchange rates through the prism of UIP. Research by the Fed and the IMF suggest that incorporating longer-term rates to UIP models increases their accuracy.2 This informational advantage works whether policy rates are or aren't close to their lower bound.3 Incorporating long-term rates as an explanatory variable increases the performance of UIP models because exchange rate movements do not only reflect current interest rate conditions, but currency market investors also try to anticipate the path of interest rates over many periods. By definition, long-term bonds do just that as they are based on the expected path of short rates over their maturity - as well as a term premium, which compensates for the uncertain nature of future interest rates. There is another reason why long-term rate differential changes improve the power of UIP models. Since UIP models are based on the concept of investor indifference between assets in two countries, changes in the spreads between 10-year bonds in these two countries will create more volatility in the currency pair than changes in the spreads between 3-month rates. This is because an equivalent delta in the 10-year spread will have much greater impact on the relative prices of the bonds than on the short-term paper, courtesy of their much more elevated duration. To compensate for these greater changes in prices, the currency does have to overshoot its long-term PPP to a much greater extent to entice investors trading the long end of the curve. Bottom Line: The interest rate parity relationship still constitutes the bedrock of any shorter-term currency fair value model. However, to increase its accuracy, both long-term and short-term rates should be used. Real Rates Really Count Another perennial question regarding exchange rate determination is whether to use nominal or real rate differentials. At a theoretical level, real rates are what matter. Investors can look through the loss of purchasing power created by inflation. Therefore, exchange rates overshoot around real rate differentials, not nominal ones. On a practical level, there are additional reasons to believe that real rates should matter, especially when trying to explain currency moves beyond a few weeks. Indeed, various surveys and studies on models used by forecasters and traders show that FX professionals use purchasing power parity as well as productivity differential concepts when setting their forex forecasts.4 Indeed, as Chart 2 illustrates, real rate differentials have withstood the test of time as an explanatory variable for exchange rate dynamics, albeit with periods where rate differentials and the currency can deviate from each other. It is true that very often, nominal rate differentials can be used as a shorthand for real rate differentials as both interest rate gaps tend to move together. However, regularly enough, they do not. In countries with very depressed inflation expectations (Japan comes to the front of the mind), nominal and real rate differentials can in fact look very different (Chart 3). With the informational cost of incorporating market-based inflation expectations being very low, we find the shorthand unnecessary when building UIP-based models. Chart 2Over The Long Run, Real Rate ##br##Differentials Work Best Over The Long Run, Real Rate Differentials Work Best Over The Long Run, Real Rate Differentials Work Best Chart 3Real And Nominal Rates ##br##Can Be Different Real And Nominal Rates Can Be Different Real And Nominal Rates Can Be Different Finally, it is important to remark that in environments of high inflation, inflation differentials dominate any other factor when it comes to exchange rate determination. However, the currencies discussed in this report currently are not like Zimbabwe or Latin America in the early 1980s. Bottom Line: When considering an intermediate-term fair value model for exchange rates, investors should focus on real, not nominal long-term rate differentials. Global Risk Aversion And Commodity Prices Chart 4The Dollar Benefits From Global Woes The Dollar Benefits From Global Woes The Dollar Benefits From Global Woes Global risk appetite is also a key factor to consider when trying to model exchange rates. Risk aversion shocks tend to lead to an appreciation in the dollar, which benefits from its status as the global reserve currency.5 Much literature has often focused on the use of the VIX as a gauge for global risk appetite. Our exercise shows stronger explanatory power for the option-adjusted spreads on junk bonds (Chart 4). Commodity prices, too, play a key role. Historically, commodity prices have displayed a very strong negative correlation with the dollar.6 This correlation is obviously at its strongest for commodity-producing nations, as rising natural resource prices constitute a terms-of-trade-shock for them. However, this relationship holds up for the euro as well, something already documented by the ECB.7 The Models The models for each cross rate are built to reflect the insight gleaned above. Each cross is modeled on three variables, with the model computed on a weekly timeframe: Real rates differentials: We use the average of 2-year and 10-year real rates. The rates are deflated using inflation expectations. Global risk appetite: Proxied by junk OAS. Commodity prices: We use the Bloomberg Continuous Commodity Index. For all countries, the variables are statistically highly significant and of the expected signs. These models help us understand in which direction the fundamentals are pushing the currency. We refer to these as Fundamental Intermediate-Term Models (FITM). We created a second set of models, based on the variables above, which also include a 52-week moving average for each cross. Real rates differentials, junk spreads, and commodity prices remain statistically very significant and of the correct sign. They are therefore trend- and risk-appetite adjusted UIP-deviation models. These models are more useful as timing indicators on a 3-9 month basis, as their error terms revert to zero much faster. We refer to these as Intermediate-Term Timing Models (ITTM). The U.S. Dollar Chart 5Dollar Fundamentals Strengthening... Dollar Fundamentals Strengthening... Dollar Fundamentals Strengthening... Chart 6...But Timing Could Be Better To Buy DXY ...But Timing Could Be Better To Buy DXY ...But Timing Could Be Better To Buy DXY To model the dollar index (DXY), we used two approaches. In the first one, we took all the deviation from fair value for the pairs constituting the index, based on their weights in the DXY. In the second approach, we ran the model specifically for the DXY, using the three variables described above. U.S. real rates were compared to an average of euro area, Japanese, Canadian, British, Swiss, and Swedish real rates weighted by their contribution to the DXY. We then averaged both approaches, which gave us very similar results to begin with. The FITM for the DXY has stabilized and is now slowly moving upward (Chart 5). The ITTM itself is even pointing upward, arguing that the dollar is at a neutral level and that its previous overshoot has now been corrected. However, historically, the DXY rarely stabilizes at its fair value, overshooting the mark instead. Based on historical behavior, the DXY is likely to undershoot its ITTM by another two percent or so before an ideal entry point to buy the USD emerges (Chart 6). Longer term, we continue to expect the dollar to stay on an upward trend. The U.S. neutral rate remains above that of Europe and Japan. Moreover, U.S. economic slack is dissipating much faster than in Europe, and the U.S. may already be in the process of hitting its own capacity constraints. This suggests that the Fed has much greater scope to normalize policy than the ECB. With the OIS curve pricing in a 25 basis point hike in the U.S. over the next 12 months, this will support the USD versus the euro. Japan, too, exhibits increasing signs of limited slack in its economy. However, with the BoJ committed to an inflation overshoot in order to upwardly shock moribund Japanese inflation expectations, we think that Japanese real rates will lag U.S. ones, putting significant upside on USD/JPY. The Euro Chart 7Euro Fundamentals Are Deteriorating Euro Fundamentals Are Deteriorating Euro Fundamentals Are Deteriorating Chart 8The Euro Is No Longer Cheap The Euro Is No Longer Cheap The Euro Is No Longer Cheap The FITM for EUR/USD has rolled over and is now pointing south, suggesting that fundamentals are moving against the euro (Chart 7). This reflects large rate differentials between the U.S. and the euro area, but also, the recent softness in some corners of the commodity complex. Last spring, the FITM did a good job forecasting the rebound in the euro, and the fact that it is flagging impeding euro weakness deserves to be highlighted. In terms of entering a short EUR/USD tactical bet, at the current juncture, the ITTM suggests an entry point is soon to emerge (Chart 8). Now that the dueling pair of the second round of the French election has been determined - Macron vs Le Pen - the euro was able to price out nightmare scenarios involving two Eurosceptic candidates. In fact, with the realization that Macron holds a 20% lead over Le Pen in second round polling, the market has begun to completely price out any euro-endangering outcome for the French election. This means that the euro is likely to move toward its historical premium to the ITTM before reverting toward its cyclical downtrend. Practically, this means that EUR/USD could run toward 1.11-1.12 before rolling over, something that may happen by May 8th. On a 12- to 18-months basis, we are comfortable with the current message from the FITM. The European economy may be growing above trend, but there remains enough slack in Europe that wage and core inflation dynamics are still very muted. This contrasts with the U.S. economy, where most indicators we track argue that wages and core inflation should gain some upward momentum this year. This means that rate differentials between the euro area and the U.S. are likely to underperform even what is priced into the relative interest rate curves. This should weigh on EUR/USD as the euro is not cheap enough to compensate for these economic dynamics. The Yen Chart 9A Dovish BoJ Will Weigh ##br##On Yen Fundamentals A Dovish BoJ Will Weigh On Yen Fundamentals A Dovish BoJ Will Weigh On Yen Fundamentals Chart 10The Yen Is No Longer ##br##Tactically Cheap The Yen Is No Longer Tactically Cheap The Yen Is No Longer Tactically Cheap The FITM model shows that the post-election rally in USD/JPY was overdone as the yen's fundamentals have stopped deteriorating after October 2016 (Chart 9). As we see the growing likelihood of a decreasing deflationary impulse in Japan, the strong dovish commitment of the Bank of Japan should pull Japanese real rates lower vis-à-vis their U.S. counterparts. This underpins why we remain cyclical bears on the yen. Tactically, based on the ITTM, it will soon be time to close our short USD/JPY trade. While the yen had massively undershot any rational anchor in the wake of the Trump electoral victory, this undervaluation appears to have vanished after the yen's sharp rebound (Chart 10). A small overshoot in the yen is likely, but unless one is already short USD/JPY, this move should not be chased. In fact, USD/JPY below 108 should be used as an opportunity to reverse yen longs and play what may prove to be a powerful USD/JPY rally. The British Pound Chart 11GBP: A Long-Term Bargain... GBP: A Long-Term Bargain... GBP: A Long-Term Bargain... Chart 12...But Upside Against USD Is Limited ...But Upside Against USD Is Limited ...But Upside Against USD Is Limited According to the FITM, the pound's fair value has been stable post-Brexit, but it is now beginning to point lower. However, despite this turn of events, GBP/USD is currently trading at such an exceptional discount to the FITM - courtesy of a heightened geopolitical risk premium - that this deterioration in fair value is unlikely to matter much (Chart 11). Nonetheless, the fact that fundamentals have a negative directional bias for cable is prompting us to express our tempered optimism toward the pound by shorting EUR/GBP instead of buying GBP/USD. At a tactical level, the ITTM suggests that GBP/USD could have a bit more upside. GBP/USD is at equilibrium based on our timing model, but undershoots tend to be compensated by subsequent overshoots (Chart 12). That being said, with the ITTM still pointing south - in line with the FITM - any further rebound in GBP/USD is likely to prove to be limited. GBP/USD beyond 1.33 should be used as an opportunity to sell cable. On a multi-year basis, GBP is quite cheap, not only on a PPP basis, but also when incorporating relative productivity dynamics. This means that while we have a positive dollar-bias over the next 12-18 months, our favorite non-USD currency is currently the GBP. The June 8th general election is likely to give Theresa May the parliamentary majority she needs to have a more comfortable negotiating position with the EU, helping her obtain more advantageous terms for the U.K., re-enforcing our positive long-term bias on the GBP. The Canadian Dollar Chart 13Oil And Spreads Are Working##br##Against The Loonie... Oil And Spreads Are Working Against The Loonie... Oil And Spreads Are Working Against The Loonie... Chart 14...And So Is##br## Wilbur Ross ...And So Is Wilbur Ross ...And So Is Wilbur Ross According to the FITM, the aggregate fundamentals have rolled over and are beginning to point directionally south for the loonie: Oil has lost momentum, and rate differentials are not particularly flattering for the CAD (Chart 13). That being said, the CAD has greatly lagged these same fundamentals, probably as investors have been pondering the potential negative implications for NAFTA and Canada of the Trump administration. Our ITTM suggests that with this handicap taken into account, the CAD may not be a short after all (Chart 14). However, because the CAD is more sensitive to the trend in the broad U.S. dollar and general commodity prices than anything else, we prefer to express a positive bias on the loonie by buying it against the AUD, a commodity currency that does not trade at the same discount to its ITTM. The Swiss Franc Chart 15Inflationary Dynamics Should##br## Continue To Weigh On The Franc Inflationary Dynamics Should Continue To Weigh On The Franc Inflationary Dynamics Should Continue To Weigh On The Franc Chart 16No Clear Timing##br## Signals Yet No Clear Timing Signals Yet No Clear Timing Signals Yet Even if flat for the past year or so, the directional fundamentals on the Swiss franc vis-à-vis the USD still seems to be in a long-term bear market (Chart 15). This simply highlights the fact that with the U.S. economy able to generate some inflationary dynamics while Switzerland continues to suffer from pronounced deflationary anchors, U.S. real rates have more room to move upward than Swiss ones. In terms of timing, the ITTM is in the neutral zone, suggesting that there is no particularly compelling reason to buy or short USD/CHF at the current juncture (Chart 16). The SNB is unofficially targeting a floor under EUR/CHF around 1.06 to tame the deflationary impulse in Switzerland. While the Swiss economy is improving, it is not yet strong enough to handle a removal of this policy. In all likelihood, this means that for the rest of 2017, USD/CHF will remain a near-perfect mirror image of EUR/USD. The Australian Dollar Chart 17Iron Ore Prices: From Friend To Foe Iron Ore Prices: From Friend To Foe Iron Ore Prices: From Friend To Foe Chart 18No Valuation Cushion For AUD No Valuation Cushion For AUD No Valuation Cushion For AUD AUD/USD has not been able to break above 0.77, and the reason simply is that the forces embedded in the FITM have sharply rolled over (Chart 17). Not only have commodity prices stopped appreciating - with iron prices, the most crucial determinant of Australia's terms of trade down 21% - but U.S. short rates and long rates have been going up relative to Australia. Most disturbing for Australia, unlike the CAD it does not possess any cushion when analyzed through the prism of our ITTM (Chart 18). This suggests that the deteriorating Australian fundamentals are likely to be directly translated into a lower AUD/USD. Moreover, historically, previous undershoots in the AUD were followed by an overshoot. We do not think this time is any different; but the dovish slant of the RBA and the drubbing received by iron ore prices suggest that if the AUD overshoots, it will be because it may not fall as fast as its fundamentals at first. If that is the case, we do expect a catch-up later this year. As previously mentioned, the relative dynamics between the Canadian and Australian ITTM suggest that investors in commodity currencies should short AUD/CAD. Moreover, on a longer-term basis, we also favor oil producers over metal ones. The supply dynamics in the oil market are much more favorable than for metals. Not only have many global oil producers cut down their output, our sister publication Commodity And Energy strategy expects the OPEC + Russia agreement to be extended for the rest of 2017.8 Meanwhile, metal production cutbacks have been much more timid. The New Zealand Dollar Chart 19NZD Suffers From ##br##Similar Ills As AUD... NZD Suffers From Similar Ills As AUD... NZD Suffers From Similar Ills As AUD... Chart 20...However Inflationary Backdrop##br## Is More Favorable ...However Inflationary Backdrop Is More Favorable ...However Inflationary Backdrop Is More Favorable The fundamentals for the New Zealand dollar have also rolled over after having pointed to a strong Kiwi since February 2016 (Chart 19). Interestingly, the rollover in the NZD FITM has not been as sharp as the rollover in the Australian Dollar's FITM. The ITTM does argue that as with the CAD, the NZD does have a healthy margin of maneuver before the deteriorating fundamentals become a bidding constraint (Chart 20). In fact, the recent NZD weakness may have exaggerated the underlying deterioration in NZ data. The recent stronger-than-expected inflation data may prompt investors to reconsider their very dovish take on the RBNZ. Our preferred fashion to take advantage of the NZD's discount to its ITTM is also against the AUD. Both currencies are very exposed to EM and China shocks, and both currencies display a similar beta to the USD. As such, it is very rare for the NZD to trade at a discount to the ITTM while the AUD is at equilibrium. With the New Zealand domestic economy in better shape than that of Australia, our bet is that both currencies will have to converge, which should weigh on AUD/NZD. The Norwegian Krone Chart 21NOK Fundamentals Have Worsened ##br##Even With Firm Oil Prices NOK Fundamentals Have Worsened Even With Firm Oil Prices NOK Fundamentals Have Worsened Even With Firm Oil Prices Chart 22Not A Good Time To##br## Buy The Krone Yet Not A Good Time To Buy The Krone Yet Not A Good Time To Buy The Krone Yet Like other currencies, the fundamentals for the Norwegian krone have begun to roll over. The sharpness of that turnaround is particularly striking when one considers that oil prices have remained resilient, despite their recent weakness (Chart 21). NOK has taken the cue from the FITM and has weakened in line with fundamentals. Is it time to lean against this weakness and buy the NOK now? We doubt it. The NOK may benefit against the USD if the euro overshoots in the wake of the French election. However, the NOK has yet to correct previous overshoots, and the fact that it currently trades in line with the ITTM suggests that it provides very little insulation against any further deterioration in its own fundamentals (Chart 22). In the longer term, we are more positive on the NOK. It is cheap based on long-term models that take into account Norway's stunning net international position of 203% of GDP. Moreover, the high inflation registered between 2015 and 2016 is now over as the pass-through from the weak trade-weighted krone between 2014 and 2015 is gone. This means that the PPP fair value of the NOK has stopped deteriorating. The Swedish Krona Chart 23Dollar Strength Has Dislodged ##br##The SEK From Fundamentals Dollar Strength Has Dislodged The SEK From Fundamentals Dollar Strength Has Dislodged The SEK From Fundamentals Chart 24Taking Momentum Into Account##br## The SEK Is Not Cheap Taking Momentum Into Account The SEK Is Not Cheap Taking Momentum Into Account The SEK Is Not Cheap The SEK continues to display one of the highest beta to the USD of all the G10 currencies. As a result, when the USD is strong, even if fundamentals do not warrant it, the SEK is especially weak. The rally in the USD in the second half of 2016 took an especially brutal toll on the krona, which has dissociated itself from its pure fundamentals. If the dollar follows the recent improvement in its own FITM, then SEK too will weaken despite its apparent undershoot (Chart 23). Now, however, the SEK's weakness will follow the deterioration in directional fundamentals. The timing model corroborates this picture. The ITTM takes into account the trend of USD/SEK, and when this is done, the undervaluation of the SEK disappears (Chart 24). Over the next three to nine months, we expect U.S. rates to have more upside relative to European ones than is currently priced in by markets. Therefore, we anticipate the USD to strengthen further, and as a corollary, the SEK will suffer especially strongly under these circumstances. Mathieu Savary, Vice President Foreign Exchange Strategy mathieu@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy / Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "Assessing Fair Value In FX Markets," dated February 26, 206, available at fes.bcaresearch.com and gis.bcaresearch.com 2 Ravi Balakrishnan, Stefan Laseen, and Andrea Pescatori, "U.S. Dollar Dynamics: How Important Are Policy Divergence And FX Risk Premiums?" IMF Working Paper No.16/125 (July 2016); and Michael T. Kiley, "Exchange Rates, Monetary Policy Statements, And Uncovered Interest Parity: Before And After The Zero Lower Bound," Finance and Economics Discussion Series 2013-17, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (January 2013). 3 Michael T. Kiley (January 2013). 4 Please see Yin-Wong Cheung, and Menzie David Chinn, "Currency Traders and Exchange Rate Dynamics: A Survey of the U.S. Market," CESifo Working Paper Series No. 251 (February 2000); and David Hauner, Jaewoo Lee, and Hajime Takizawa, "In which exchange rate models do forecasters trust?" IMF Working Paper No.11/116 (May 2010) for revealed preference approach based on published forecasts from Consensus Economics. 5 Ravi Balakrishnan, Stefan Laseen, and Andrea Pescatori (July 2016). 6 Ravi Balakrishnan, Stefan Laseen, and Andrea Pescatori (July 2016). 7 Francisco Maeso-Fernandez, Chiara Osbat, and Bernd Schnatz, "Determinants Of The Euro Real Effective Exchange Rate: A BEER/PEER Approach," Working Paper No.85, European Central Bank (November 2001). 8 Please see Commodity And Energy Strategy Weekly Report, "OPEC 2.0 Cuts Will Be Extended Into 2017H2; Fade The Skew And Get Long Calls Vs. Short Puts," dated April 20, 2017, available at ces.bcaresearch.com Trades & Forecasts Forecast Summary Core Portfolio Tactical Trades Closed Trades

Highlights Overall Duration: The factors that have driven global bond yields lower over the past month are not sustainable. Maintain a below-benchmark duration exposure, with current yield levels looking attractive to add to underweight/short positions as we did last week. French Election: We got the market-friendly outcome in the French election that we were expecting. We are closing our recommended long 10-year France vs 10-year Germany Tactical Overlay trade after the post-election spread tightening, at a profit of 1.3%. Feature Investors breathed a sigh of relief yesterday, after the French presidential election produced the most market-friendly result - a Macron-Le Pen matchup in the May 7 run-off. Pre-election polling showed that the pro-Europe reformer Macron and his En Marche ("On The Move") party would easily trounce the anti-Europe populist Le Pen in a head-to-head showdown. That outcome would eliminate the possibility of a confidence-shattering "Frexit" along the lines of last year's U.K. vote that could stall the current global economic expansion. Elevated political risks in Europe, and geopolitical risks in Syria and North Korea, have been a factor driving volatility higher, and bond yields lower, in recent weeks. There have also been some data disappointments in the U.S. that have occurred at the same time (Chart of the Week). It is difficult to tell which factor has been more important for government bond markets. The fact that yields jumped worldwide yesterday after the French election result and, more importantly, the lack of any serious repricing in global equity and credit markets alongside the recent pop in volatility, suggests that bond markets are likely not sniffing out a sustained growth slowdown. Government bond yields remain too low relative to underlying economic and inflation trends, and we continue to recommend below-benchmark duration exposure and above-benchmark allocations to corporate credit versus government bonds (especially in the U.S.). Falling Bond Yields: Some Shifting Expectations, But Not A Change In Trend The recent decline in global bond yields began in mid-March. The move in most of the major markets was largely driven by falling inflation expectations, with real yields staying relatively stable, although in the U.S. the split was more 50/50. Importantly, both the nominal 10-year U.S. Treasury and German Bund yield are bouncing off the bottom of their upward sloping trend channels that started in early 2016 (Chart 2). Chart of the WeekA Series Of Unfortunate Events A Series Of Unfortunate Events A Series Of Unfortunate Events Chart 2Upward Trend In Yields Still Intact Upward Trend In Yields Still Intact Upward Trend In Yields Still Intact We see those upward trending channels as being the primary medium-term trend for bond yields. The recent pullback in yields has been the result of several individual factors that have occurred at the same time that are likely to reverse in the months ahead: Slower U.S. growth & inflation: The latest soft readings on U.S. retail sales and core CPI inflation are not consistent with the robust readings on business confidence and manufacturing activity, as well as the accelerating trend in U.S. corporate profit growth that our models expect will continue in the coming quarters (Chart 3). The latter is being driven by significant improvements in corporate pricing power that are helping boost profit margins, according to our equity strategists (bottom panel).1 We find it hard to believe that there can be a prolonged slowdown in the U.S. economy if earnings growth is accelerating and firms are not forced to cut back on hiring and investment to preserve profitability. The U.S. Overnight Index Swap (OIS) curve is now only discounting 38bps of rate increases over the next year, Treasuries look expensive as the Fed is likely to deliver at least 50bps worth of hikes by year-end and the large short positions in the Treasury market have been unwound (Chart 4). Chart 3The U.S. Economy Is Not Rolling Over The U.S. Economy Is Not Rolling Over The U.S. Economy Is Not Rolling Over Chart 4Treasuries Are Expensive & Positioning Is Now Long Treasuries Are Expensive & Positioning Is Now Long Treasuries Are Expensive & Positioning Is Now Long Softer U.S. wage inflation: Some of that boost to U.S. profit margins is also due to the recent slower pace of wage growth, which we do not expect to continue given the tightness in the U.S. labor market and the continued robust readings on labor demand indicators (Chart 5). We expect wage growth to begin ticking higher in the months ahead, as will overall U.S. inflation expectations which still appear too low. The Cleveland Fed Median CPI has been steady around 2.5%, which is where we expect headline CPI inflation to be if the Fed's inflation target of 2% on the PCE deflator is met.2 We see TIPS breakevens gravitating towards those levels in the coming months, driving longer-term U.S. Treasury yields higher. Setbacks on the Trump economic agenda: President Trump's failure to get health care reform passed in Congress was interpreted as a sign that the more pro-growth parts of his agenda, like tax reform and infrastructure spending, would also have difficulties getting implemented. We are not strong believers in the idea of a significant "Trump trade" impact on growth and bond yields, as the U.S. economy was already showing improvement before Trump won the presidency. Nonetheless, any delay in the fiscal easing that Trump promised during the campaign would act to dampen expectations for U.S. growth and Fed rate hikes on the margin, to the benefit of U.S. Treasuries. Trump announced that he will unveil his tax reform proposals this week, with Congressional hearings on the subject also set to begin. Our colleagues at BCA Geopolitical Strategy expect Trump to try and move quickly to get a deal done, especially after the initial failure on health care reform. The political risks for the Republicans are very real in next year's mid-term elections, with current polling pointing to large losses of seats that could return the House of Representatives to Democrat control. If the Republicans want to push through their reform agenda and try and boost growth heading into the 2018 midterms to try and avert a loss of the House, they cannot delay on tax reform this year. While the U.S. political situation is always a wild card, we do not think that "Trump trade" disappointment will be a factor weighing on Treasury yields over the rest of 2017. Lower oil prices: Some of the decline in the inflation expectations component of global bond yields can be attributed to the pullback in oil prices since late February. Our colleagues at BCA Commodity & Energy Strategy continue to have a bullish outlook on global oil prices, however, and view the recent dip as a buying opportunity.3 They expect Russia and Saudi Arabia to honor their agreement to remove 1.8mm barrels/day of production from the global oil market our by mid-2017, as visible inventory levels remain too high. Combined with stronger expected demand, our strategists expect oil prices to move toward the $60/bbl level by year-end (Chart 6). That move would boost help to raise inflation expectations, and bond yields, in the months ahead. Chart 5U.S. Inflation Expectations Still Too Low U.S. Inflation Expectations Still Too Low U.S. Inflation Expectations Still Too Low Chart 6Oil Prices Set To Move Higher Oil Prices Set To Move Higher Visible Inventories Barely Budge In 2017Q1, As Supply Surge And Lower Demand Collide Oil Prices Set To Move Higher Visible Inventories Barely Budge In 2017Q1, As Supply Surge And Lower Demand Collide Slower Euro Area inflation: Just like in the U.S., there was a pullback in Euro Area inflation expectations after the dip in realized inflation readings in March. While some cooling was expected simply from base effects related to swings in oil prices and the Euro, our headline CPI diffusion index indicates that an increasing majority of sectors are seeing accelerating price growth (Chart 7). If our commodity strategists are correct on the call for higher oil prices, we would expect to see some re-acceleration of Euro Area inflation, and more bear-steepening of Euro Area government bond yield curves, in the coming months. Especially if the European Central Bank (ECB) begins to send a signal about a tapering of its asset purchases - an outcome that is more likely if the polling data proves correct and Macron wins the French Presidency in two weeks, thus reducing the near-term political uncertainty in Europe. The ECB meets this week, and while we still think any shift in the ECB's tone is more likely at the June meeting (when a new set of economic projections will be produced), this will be the first opportunity for comments after the French election result. French Election Uncertainty: The pre-election rise in French risk premia fully unwound yesterday in a matter of hours (Chart 8). Implied volatilities on Euro Area equities and the EUR/USD exchange rate plunged, as did France sovereign CDS spreads. France-Germany government bond spreads tightened sharply as well, with the benchmark 10-year OAT-Bund spread declining -19bps from last Friday's closing levels. With Macron having a 20 point lead on Le Pen in a two-way race according to the latest opinion polls - which proved to be very accurate in the first round of voting - we think that current spread levels are consistent with a Macron victory on May 7. Chart 7Only A Brief Setback##br## In Euro Area Inflation Only A Brief Setback In Euro Area Inflation Only A Brief Setback In Euro Area Inflation Chart 8Taking Profit On Our Long France/Short ##br##Germany Spread Trade Taking Profit On Our Long France/Short Germany Spread Trade Taking Profit On Our Long France/Short Germany Spread Trade We do not expect much additional spread tightening if Macron does indeed win, especially if the ECB does begin to signal a tapering of bond purchases in 2018. That would result in wider risk premia across all European bond markets as valuations start to return to levels more in line with fundamentals. Given France's high sovereign debt levels and low productivity growth vis-à-vis Germany, we do not see the OAT-Bund spread returning to the pre-election lows if the ECB slows its bond buying. Thus, we are taking profits on the long France/Short Germany 10-year bond trade in our Tactical Overlay Portfolio, which we established back in early February when the spread was 76bps; 26bps higher than yesterday's close.4 Bottom Line: The factors that have driven global bond yields lower over the past month are not sustainable. Maintain a below-benchmark duration exposure, with current yield levels looking attractive to add to underweight/short positions as we did last week. We got the market-friendly outcome in the French election that we were expecting. We are closing our recommended long 10-year France vs 10-year Germany Tactical Overlay trade after the post-election spread tightening, at a profit of 1.3%. Robert Robis, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report, "Pricing Power Comeback," dated April 24 2017, available at uses.bcaresearch.com 2 That assumes a difference between headline CPI and PCE deflator inflation in line with its historical average of around 50bps. 3 Please see BCA Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, "OPEC 2.0 Cuts Will Be Extended Into 2017/H2; Fade The Skew And Get Long Calls Vs. Short Puts," dated April 20 2017, available at ces.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report, "Our Views On French Government Bonds," dated February 7 2017, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Global Bond Yields On The Move, Higher Global Bond Yields On The Move, Higher Recommendations Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Highlights The sequential improvement in global trade is less pronounced than the annual growth rates in the Asian trade data imply. China has been instrumental to the recovery in global trade but mainland's credit and fiscal spending impulse has rolled over decisively pointing to a relapse its growth in general and imports in particular. This will hurt meaningfully countries and sectors selling to China. Commodities prices are set to tumble. In Turkey, reinstate the short TRY versus U.S. dollar and short bank stocks trades. Feature Economic data from China and Asian trade data have been strong of late. However, when one looks ahead, China's growth and imports are set to roll over decisively in the second half of the year, based on the credit and fiscal spending impulse (Chart I-1). This will hurt countries and industries that sell to China. This is why we believe commodities prices are in a broad topping-out phase. Commodities producers and Asian economies will again suffer materially. Any possible strength in U.S. and European growth will not offset the drag on EM growth emanating from China and lower commodities prices. As a result, having priced in a lot of good news, EM risk assets are at major risk of a selloff in absolute terms and are poised to underperform their DM counterparts over the next six months. Beware Of The Low Base Effect Asian trade data have been strong, but the magnitude of recovery has not been as large as implied by annual growth rates: Annual growth rates of export values in U.S. dollar terms have surged everywhere - in Korea, Taiwan, Japan and China (Chart I-2A). Chart I-1China's Growth To Decelerate Again China's Growth To Decelerate Again China's Growth To Decelerate Again Chart I-2AHigh Annual Growth Rates Are Due To... High Annual Growth Rates Are Due To... High Annual Growth Rates Are Due To... Chart I-2B...Low Base In Early 2016 ...Low Base In Early 2016 ...Low Base In Early 2016 Chart I-2B depicts the level of export values in U.S. dollar terms. It is clear that dollar values of shipments remain well below their peak of several years ago. Looking at the annual rate of change is reasonable since it removes seasonality from the series. However, investors should be aware of the low base effect of late 2015 and early 2016 that has made these annual growth rates extraordinarily elevated in recent months. As for export volumes, Chart I-3 illustrates that volumes held up better than U.S. dollar values in late 2015, which is why they are now expanding at a moderate rate (i.e. they are not surging). In short, in the past 12 months there has been a major discrepancy between dollar values and volumes of Asian exports. Indeed, the V-shaped profile of Asian export growth rates has been partially due to price swings in tradable goods. Prices for steel and other metals as well as for petrochemical products and semiconductors dropped substantially in late 2015 and early 2016, and have rebounded materially from that low base since. Correspondingly, Asian export prices have rebounded considerably in percentage terms (Chart I-4). Chart I-3Export Volume Recovery Has Been Moderate Export Volume Recovery Has Been Moderate Export Volume Recovery Has Been Moderate Chart I-4Export Values Are Inflated By Rising Prices Export Values Are Inflated By Rising Prices Export Values Are Inflated By Rising Prices In the U.S., the low base effect from a year ago is also present in manufacturing and railroad shipments. Both intermodal (container) and carload shipment volumes excluding petroleum and coal plunged in early 2016 and recovered considerably on an annual rate-of-change basis, from a low base (Chart I-5). Chart I-5U.S. Railroad Shipments ##br##Also Had Low Base In Early 2016 U.S. Railroad Shipments Also Had Low Base In Early 2016 U.S. Railroad Shipments Also Had Low Base In Early 2016 All told, the skyrocketing annual rate of change of Asian export values and other global trade series is exaggerated by the fact that global trade volume was sluggish and various tradable goods/commodities prices fell precipitously in the last quarter of 2015 and first quarter of 2016, thereby creating a base effect. We are not implying that there has been no genuine recovery in global trade. Indeed, there has been reasonable sequential recovery in global demand and trade. The point is that the sequential improvement in global trade is less pronounced than the annual growth rates in the trade data imply. Importantly, China has been instrumental to the recovery in global trade and the rebound in commodities prices. Hence, the outlook for China holds the key. Looking Ahead Looking forward, there are few reasons to worry about U.S. growth. Consumer spending is robust and core capital goods orders are recovering following a multi-year slump (Chart I-6). Nevertheless, BCA's Emerging Markets Strategy team's view is that global trade growth will decelerate again because China's one-off stimulus-driven recovery will soon reverse, causing the rest of EM to also suffer: In particular, the credit and fiscal spending impulse has rolled over decisively; the indicator typically leads nominal GDP growth and mainland imports by six months, as exhibited in Chart I-1 on page 1. As Chinese import volume relapses again, economies and sectors selling to China will suffer. Chart I-7 demonstrates China's credit and fiscal spending impulses separately. Chart I-6U.S. Final Demand: No Major Risk U.S. Final Demand: No Major Risk U.S. Final Demand: No Major Risk Chart I-7China: Fiscal And Credit Impulses China: Fiscal And Credit Impulses China: Fiscal And Credit Impulses The credit impulse is the second derivative of outstanding corporate and household credit.1 It does not take much of a slowdown in credit growth for the second derivative, credit impulse, to roll over and then turn negative. Remarkably, narrow (M1) and broad (M2) money as well as banks' RMB loan growth have all slowed in recent months (Chart I-8). Non-bank (shadow banking) credit growth remains stable (Chart I-8, bottom panel). Yet given that the PBoC's recent tightening has targeted shadow banking activities, it is a matter of time before shadow banking credit also decelerates meaningfully. To assess real-time strength in China's economic activity, we monitor prices of various commodities trading in China. Chart I-9 demonstrates that these commodities prices have lately plunged. Chart I-8China: Money/Credit Growth Is Slowing China: Money/Credit Growth Is Slowing China: Money/Credit Growth Is Slowing Chart I-9Plunging Commodities Prices Plunging Commodities Prices Plunging Commodities Prices To be sure, commodities prices are influenced not only by final demand but also by other factors such as supply, inventory swings and investor/trader positioning. We use these data as one among many inputs in our analysis. Bottom Line: Money/credit growth has rolled over and will continue to downshift, causing the current recovery underway in China to falter. This will hurt meaningfully countries and sectors selling to China. Commodities prices are set to tumble. Market-Based Indicators Financial asset prices often lead economic data. Therefore, one cannot rely on economic data releases to time turning points in financial markets. We watch and bring to investors' attention price signals from various segments of financial markets to corroborate our investment themes and economic analysis. Presently, there are several indicators flashing warning signals for EM risk assets: The plunge in iron ore prices warrants attention as it has historically correlated with EM equities and industrial metals prices (the LMEX index) (Chart I-10). The commodities currencies index - an equal-weighted average of CAD, AUD and NZD - also points to an end of the rally in EM share prices (Chart I-11). Chart I-10Is Iron Ore A Canary In A Coal Mine? Is Iron Ore A Canary In A Coal Mine? Is Iron Ore A Canary In A Coal Mine? Chart I-11EM Stocks Have Defied ##br##Rollover In Commodities Currencies EM Stocks Have Defied Rollover In Commodities Currencies EM Stocks Have Defied Rollover In Commodities Currencies It appears these long-term correlations have broken down in the past several weeks. We suspect this is due to hefty fund flows into EM. In the short term, the flows could overwhelm fundamentals and prompt financial variables that have historically been correlated to temporarily diverge. However, flows can refute fundamentals for a time, but not forever. It is impossible to time a reversal or magnitude of flows as there is no comprehensive set of data on global investor positioning across various financial markets. The message of a potential relapse in Chinese imports is being reinforced by commodities currencies that lead global export volume growth, and are pointing to weakness in global trade in the second half of this year (Chart I-12). The latest erosion in the commodities currencies has occurred even though the U.S. dollar has been soft and U.S. TIPS yields have not risen at all. This makes this price signal even more important. Oil prices have recovered to their recent highs, but share prices of global oil companies have not confirmed the rebound (Chart I-13). When such a divergence occurs between spot commodities prices and respective equity sectors, the spot prices typically converge toward the equity market. This leads us to argue that oil prices will head south pretty soon. Chart I-12Commodities Currencies ##br##Lead Global Trade Cycles Commodities Currencies Lead Global Trade Cycles Commodities Currencies Lead Global Trade Cycles Chart I-13Oil Stocks Have Not Confirmed ##br##The Latest Rebound In Oil Prices Oil Stocks Have Not Confirmed The Latest Rebound In Oil Prices Oil Stocks Have Not Confirmed The Latest Rebound In Oil Prices The average stock (an equally-weighted equity index) is underperforming the market cap-weighted index in both the EM universe and the U.S. equity market (Chart I-14). Chart I-14Narrowing Breadth Of Equity Rally Narrowing Breadth Of Equity Rally Narrowing Breadth Of Equity Rally This usually occurs in two instances: (1) the rally is losing steam and narrowing to large market-cap stocks; and/or (2) the rally is being fueled by flows into ETFs that must allocate money based on market cap. Narrowing breadth of the rally is a warning signal of a top, albeit the precise timing is tricky. Bottom Line: There are several market-based indicators that herald an imminent top in EM share prices, commodities prices and other risk assets. Stay put. Arthur Budaghyan, Senior Vice President Emerging Markets Strategy arthurb@bcaresearch.com Turkey: Deceitful Stability Turkey held a constitutional referendum that dramatically expands the powers of the presidency on April 16. The proposed 18 amendments passed with a 51.41% majority and a high turnout of 85%. As with all recent Turkish referenda and elections, the results reveal a sharply divided country between the Aegean coastal regions and the Anatolian heartland, the latter being a stronghold of President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Is Turkey Now A Dictatorship? First, some facts. Turkey has not become a dictatorship, as some Western press alleged. Yes, presidential powers have expanded. In particular, we note that: The president is now both a head of state and government and has the power to appoint government ministers; The president can issue decrees, however, the parliament has the ability to abrogate them through the legislative process; The president can call for new elections, however, they need three-fifths of the parliament to agree to the new election; The president has wide powers to appoint judges. What the media is not reporting is that the parliament can remove or modify any state of emergency enacted by the president. In addition, removing a presidential veto appears to be exceedingly easy, with only an absolute majority (not a super-majority) of votes needed. As such, our review of the constitutional changes is that Turkey is most definitely not a dictatorship. Yes, President Erdogan has bestowed upon the presidency much wider powers than the current ceremonial position possesses. However, the amendments also create a trap for future presidents. If the president should face a parliament ruled by an opposition party, they would lose much of their ability to govern. The changes therefore approximate the current French constitution, which is a semi-presidential system. Under the French system, the president has to cohabitate with the parliament. This appears to be the case with the Turkish constitution as well. Bottom Line: Turkish constitutional referendum has expanded the powers of the presidency, but considerable checks remain. If the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) were ever to lose parliamentary control, President Erdogan would become entrapped by the very constitution he just passed. Is Turkey Now Stable? The market reacted to the results of the referendum with a muted cheer. First, we disagree with the market consensus that President Erdogan will feel empowered and confident following the constitutional referendum. This is for several reasons. For one, the referendum passed with a slim majority. Even if we assume (generously) that it was a clean win for the government, the fact remains that the AKP has struggled to win over 50% of the vote in any election it has contested since coming to power in 2002 (Chart II-1). Turkey is a deeply divided country and a narrow win in a constitutional referendum is not going to change this. Chart II-1AKP Versus Other Parties In Turkish Elections EM: The Beginning Of The End EM: The Beginning Of The End Second, Erdogan is making a strategic mistake by giving himself more power. It will also focus the criticism of the public on the presidency and himself if the economy and geopolitical situation surrounding Turkey gets worse. If the buck now stops with Erdogan, it also means that all the blame will go to him as well. We therefore do not expect Erdogan to push away from populist economic and monetary policies. In fact, we could see him double down on unorthodox fiscal and monetary policies as protests mount against his rule. While he has expanded control over the army, judiciary, and police, he has not won over support of the major cities on the Aegean coast, which not only voted against his constitutional referendum but also consistently vote against AKP rule. That said, opposition to AKP remains in disarray. As such, there is no political avenue for opposition to Erdogan. The problem is that such an arrangement raises the probability that the opposition takes the form of a social movement and protest. We would therefore caution investors that a repeat of the Gezi Park protests from 2013 could be likely, especially if the economy takes a stumble. Bottom Line: The referendum has not changed the facts on the ground. Turkey remains a deeply divided country. Erdogan will continue to feel threatened by the general sentiment on the ground and thus continue to avoid taking any painful structural reforms. We believe that economic populism will remain the name of the game. What To Watch? We would first and foremost watch for any sign of protest over the next several weeks. Gezi Park style unrest would hurt Erdogan's credibility. Given his penchant to equate any dissent with terrorism, President Erdogan is very likely to overreact to any sign of a social movement rising in Turkey to oppose him. It is not our baseline case that the constitutional referendum will motivate protests, but it is a risk investors should be concerned with. Next election is set for November 2019 and the constitutional changes will only become effective at that point (save for provisions on the judiciary). Investors should watch for any sign that Erdogan or AKP's popularity is waning in the interim. A failure to secure a majority in parliament could entrap Erdogan in an institutional fight with the legislature that creates a constitutional crisis. Chart II-2Turkey Depends On Europe Turkey ##br##Is Very Reliant On Europe Economically Turkey Depends On Europe Turkey Is Very Reliant On Europe Economically Turkey Depends On Europe Turkey Is Very Reliant On Europe Economically Relations with the EU remain an issue as well. Erdogan will likely further deepen divisions in the country if he goes ahead and makes a formal break with the EU, either by reinstituting the death penalty or holding a referendum on EU accession process. Erdogan's hostile position towards the EU should be seen from the perspective of his own insecurity as a leader: he needs an external enemy in order to rally support around his leadership. We would recommend that clients ignore the rhetoric. Turkey depends on Europe far more than any other trade or investment partner (Chart II-2). If Turkey were to lash out at the EU by encouraging migration into Europe, for example, the subsequent economic sanctions would devastate the Turkish economy and collapse its currency. Nonetheless, Ankara's brinkmanship and anti-EU rhetoric will likely continue. It is further evidence of the regime's insecurity at home. Bottom Line: The more that Erdogan captures power within the institutions he controls, the greater his insecurities will become. This is for two reasons. First, he will increase the risk of a return of social movement protests like the Gezi Park event in 2013. Second, he will become solely responsible for everything that happens in Turkey, closing off the possibility to "pass the buck" to the parliament or the opposition when the economy slows down or a geopolitical crisis emerges. As such, we see no opening for genuine structural reform or orthodox policymaking. Turkey will continue to be run along a populist paradigm. Investment Strategy On January 25th 2017, we recommended that clients take profits on the short positions in Turkish financial assets. Today, we recommend re-instating these short positions, specifically going short TRY versus the U.S. dollar and shorting Turkish bank stocks. The central bank's net liquidity injections into the banking system have recently been expanded again (Chart II-3). As we have argued in past,2 this is a form of quantitative easing and warrants a weaker currency. To be more specific, even though the overnight liquidity injections have tumbled, the use of the late liquidity money market window has gone vertical. This is largely attributed to the fact that the late liquidity window is the only money market facility that has not been capped by the authorities in their attempt to tighten liquidity when the lira was collapsing in January. The fact remains that Turkish commercial banks are requiring continuous liquidity and the Central Bank of Turkey (CBT) is supplying it. Commercial banks demand liquidity because they continue growing their loan books rapidly. Bank loan and money growth remains very strong at 18-20% (Chart II-4). Such extremely strong loan growth means that credit excesses continue to be built. Chart II-3Turkey: Central Bank ##br##Renewed Liquidity Injections Turkey: Central Bank Renewed Liquidity Injections Turkey: Central Bank Renewed Liquidity Injections Chart II-4Turkey: Money/Credit ##br##Growth Is Too Strong Turkey: Money/Credit Growth Is Too Strong Turkey: Money/Credit Growth Is Too Strong Besides, wages are growing briskly - wages in manufacturing and service sector are rising at 18-20% from a year ago (Chart II-5, top panel). Meanwhile, productivity growth has been very muted. This entails that unit labor costs are mushrooming and inflationary pressures are more entrenched than suggested by headline and core consumer price inflation. It seems Turkey is suffering from outright stagflation: rampant inflationary pressures with a skyrocketing unemployment rate (Chart II-5, bottom panel) The upshot of strong credit/money and wage growth as well as higher inflationary pressures is currency depreciation. Excessive credit and income/wage growth are supporting import demand at a time when the current account deficit is already wide. This will maintain downward pressure on the exchange rate. The currency has been mostly flat year-to-date despite the CBT intervening in the market to support the lira by selling U.S. dollars (Chart II-6). Without this support from the CBT, the lira would be much weaker than it currently is. Chart II-5Turkey: Stagflation? TURKEY: UNEMPLOYMENT RATE Turkey: Stagflation? TURKEY: UNEMPLOYMENT RATE Turkey: Stagflation? Chart II-6Turkey: Central Bank's Net FX ##br##Reserves Are Being Depleted Turkey: Central Bank's Net FX Reserves Are Being Depleted Turkey: Central Bank's Net FX Reserves Are Being Depleted That said, the CBT's net foreign exchange rates (excluding commercial banks' foreign currency deposits at the CBT) are very low - they stand at US$ 12 billion and are equal to 1 month of imports. Therefore, the central bank has little capacity to defend the lira by selling its own U.S. dollar. Chart II-7Short Turkish Bank Stocks Short Turkish Bank Stocks Short Turkish Bank Stocks We also believe there is an opportunity to short Turkish banks outright. The currency depreciation will force interbank rates higher (Chart II-7, top panel). Historically, this has always been negative for banks' stock prices as net interest margins will shrink (Chart II-7, bottom panel). Surprisingly, bank share prices in local currency terms have lately rallied despite the headwinds from higher interbank rates and the rollover in net interest rate margin. This creates an attractive opportunity to go short again. Bottom Line: Re-instate a short position in the currency. In addition, short Turkish bank stocks. Dedicated EM equity as well as fixed-income and credit portfolios should continue underweighting Turkish assets within their respective EM universes. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Geopolitical Strategy marko@bcaresearch.com Stephan Gabillard, Senior Analyst stephang@bcaresearch.com 1 Please refer to the Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report titled, "Gauging EM/China Credit Impulses", dated August 30, 2016, link available on page 19. 2 Please refer to the Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report titled, "Turkey's Monetary Demagoguery", dated June 1, 2016, link available on page 19. Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations

Highlights GFIS Portfolio: Our GFIS model fixed income portfolio has essentially matched the benchmark in the six months since inception. Our strategic below-benchmark duration stance has given up much of the strong Q4/2016 excess return performance over the past couple of months as bond yields have drifted lower. Corporate bonds contributed positively to performance, particularly after our upgrade of U.S. Investment Grade and High-Yield in late January. Upsizing Positions: The weightings in our model portfolio appear to have been too small versus our benchmark index to generate any meaningful outperformance. This week, we increase our positions for our highest conviction views: staying below-benchmark portfolio duration, underweighting U.S. Treasuries, overweighting U.S. corporate debt and underweighting Italian government debt. Tactical Overlay: Our current Tactical Overlay trades have been very successful over the life of the model bond portfolio, with 9 of 12 positions currently in the money with an average return of 0.45%. We are maintaining these positions for now, even as we alter the model portfolio. Feature Last September, we introduced a new element into our global bond strategy framework - a model portfolio that allows us to track the combined performance of our individual recommendations. The first piece of this process was the introduction of our custom benchmark index that defined our investment universe, which is similar to the Barclays Global Aggregate but with a dedicated allocation to global high-yield corporate debt.1 The next component is presented in this Special Report, where we take an initial look at measuring the performance of our model portfolio. The final element (to be presented in another upcoming report) will be introducing a formal risk management system into our process to help guide the relative sizes of our suggested portfolio tilts. We intend to show the portfolio returns on a quarterly basis going forward, in line with the types of reporting mandates that a typical bond manager might face. However, our recommendations are meant to play out over a more strategic investment horizon of one full year, in line with our proven strength in analyzing medium-term macroeconomic and investment trends. Each individual quarterly report should be interpreted in that context as only a partial reflection of the full expected return from our portfolio if our market calls come to fruition. Overall Portfolio Performance Attribution: Winners & Losers Chart 1GFIS Model Portfolio Performance GFIS Model Portfolio Performance GFIS Model Portfolio Performance Our model portfolio has delivered a total return of -0.41% (hedged into U.S. dollars) since inception on September 20, 2016. This slightly underperformed our Global Fixed Income Strategy (GFIS) custom benchmark index by -2bps, but did outperform the Barclays Global Aggregate index that returned -0.85%. In terms of the main drivers of our returns, the government bond portion of our portfolio added +3bps of excess return versus our GFIS benchmark, while the spread product component subtracted -5bps (Chart 1). These are admittedly small numbers, essentially delivering a benchmark return in six months. In terms of our major asset allocation decisions, our below-benchmark overall duration stance served us well in the final quarter of 2016, adding +20bps of excess return during the run-up in global bond yields following the election victory of President Trump in November. After shifting to a neutral posture in early December, however, our decision to cut duration again in late January has hurt the performance of our model portfolio, as global bond yields have since fallen and eliminated much of our gains from duration positioning from Q4/2016. On the other hand, that same choice to lower duration exposure in late January coincided with our decision to raise exposure to U.S. corporate bonds (both investment grade and high-yield) and cut the allocations to U.S. Treasuries and Euro Area investment grade corporates. U.S. corporates have performed relatively well since then, helping pull the excess return from our overall spread product exposure, excluding U.S. Mortgage Backed Securities (MBS), into positive territory (Chart 1, bottom panel). Unfortunately, our underweight tilt on U.S. MBS - a sector that represents a hefty 14% of our benchmark index - has acted as a drag on our overall returns from spread product. However, MBS performance has started to lag both U.S. Treasuries and corporates of late, justifying our underweight stance. A more detailed performance attribution is presented in Table 1, which shows the excess returns broken down by the same government bond duration buckets and credit sectors that we regularly present in the model portfolio table in our Weekly Reports. We also show the average deviation from our GFIS benchmark index weightings (our "active" positions) over the period in question to give a sense of the bias of our tilts. Table 1A Detailed Breakdown Of The GFIS Model Performance An Initial Look At The Performance Of Our Model Bond Portfolio An Initial Look At The Performance Of Our Model Bond Portfolio Within the government bond portion of our model portfolio, there were positive excess return contributions from the U.S. and Japan (Chart 2), largely coming from underweights at the very long end of the yield curves that reflect our bias for curve steepening in those markets. The 10+ year duration buckets in the U.S. and Japan added +8bps and +7bps of excess return, respectively. Also, our underweight position in Italy helped generate a small positive excess return of +3bps. Chart 2GFIS Model Portfolio Performance Attribution By Country Within Government An Initial Look At The Performance Of Our Model Bond Portfolio An Initial Look At The Performance Of Our Model Bond Portfolio At the same time, our exposures in Europe proved to be an almost equivalent drag on returns, as we maintained an underweight in U.K. Gilts, and overweights in German and French sovereign debt, for a bit too long before the trends in those markets turned late last year (more bullishly for the U.K. and bearishly for core Europe). Within the spread product segment of the portfolio (Chart 3), our steady overweight to U.S. Investment Grade Financials and our large underweight to U.S. Investment Grade industrials late last year (which we reduced substantially in December) helped those segments deliver excess returns of +5bps and +2bps, respectively. Our decision to upgrade High-Yield in late January also added positively to our performance within the Ba-rated and B-rated credit tiers. Emerging market debt, where we have maintained only a neutral weighting, was the largest contributor to absolute returns within our portfolio and our benchmark, adding +30bps to both. Chart 3GFIS Model Portfolio Performance Attribution By Sector Within Spread Product An Initial Look At The Performance Of Our Model Bond Portfolio An Initial Look At The Performance Of Our Model Bond Portfolio Detailed charts showing the total returns, yields, portfolio weights and excess returns for some of our best and worst performing sectors are presented in the Appendix on page 11. Bottom Line: Our GFIS model fixed income portfolio has essentially matched the benchmark in the six months since inception. Our strategic below-benchmark duration stance has given up much of the strong Q4/2016 excess return performance over the past couple of months as bond yields have drifted lower. Corporate bonds contributed positively to performance, particularly after our upgrade of U.S. Investment Grade and High-Yield in late January. Increasing The Sizes Of Our Highest Conviction Portfolio Recommendations Delivering only a benchmark-like return is hardly the goal we are aiming to achieve with our model portfolio. However, given how much our weightings have, in aggregate, mirrored those of our benchmark index so far, the results should not be a surprise. The average (mean) allocations to government debt and spread product over the six-month life our model portfolio are shown in Chart 4, alongside the average (mean) benchmark weightings. It is clear from that chart that our overall exposures have been far too similar to those of our GFIS benchmark index. In the parlance of portfolio management, we have been taking far too little tracking error versus our benchmark, so far, to generate any meaningful alpha. Or, more simply put, our recommended positions have been too small and, in many cases, have been offsetting each other. Chart 4Bigger Tilts Are Needed In The Model Portfolio An Initial Look At The Performance Of Our Model Bond Portfolio An Initial Look At The Performance Of Our Model Bond Portfolio The absence of a true risk management system, incorporating sector correlations and volatilities, has clearly been an issue so far. Our initial (and, admittedly, simple) attempt at sizing our recommendations was based on translating our "1 to 5" rankings from our traditional portfolio allocation tables into a factor that would scale up/down the individual country or sector weightings versus our benchmark.2 Clearly, this approach has not created portfolio weightings large enough to move the needle on performance. We will look to complete that final piece of our GFIS model portfolio framework - appropriate trade sizing and risk management - in the next couple of months. This will allow us to more properly size our relative positions going forward while maintaining enough overall deviation from the GFIS benchmark index (i.e. tracking error) to have a chance to generate meaningful outperformance. For now, however, we feel that we can comfortably increase the sizes of our current recommended tilts for our highest conviction views, which we discussed in our most recent Weekly Report.3 We are reducing our overall portfolio duration from the current 6.34 years (-0.64 years versus our GFIS benchmark index duration) to 5.75 years. After the recent decline in bond yields on the back of rising global geopolitical tensions and a modest soft patch of "hard" U.S. economic data, the entry point for reducing duration exposure even further is attractive. We are cutting our allocation to U.S. Treasuries from the current 14.6% (-3% versus the benchmark) to 10%, and placing the proceeds equally into U.S. Investment Grade and High-Yield corporate debt. This is to capitalize on the cyclical uptrend in U.S. growth and corporate profits, and additional Fed rate hikes, which we still see unfolding this year. We are cutting our allocation to Italian government debt from the current 3.5% (-0.8% versus the benchmark) to 1%, and placing the proceeds equally into Germany and Spain. This is to reduce exposure to the weakest link in the Euro Area, particularly as political risks will remain elevated in Italy leading up to the parliamentary elections that are due in 2018. We are maintaining the current sizes of the medium conviction views that we discussed last week - specifically, the overweight stance on Japanese government bonds (a low-beta market in a rising yield environment) and an underweight tilt on U.S. MBS (where valuations are stretched). The new weightings within our portfolio are shown in the model portfolio table on page 10. Bottom Line: The weightings in our model portfolio appear to have been too small versus our benchmark index to generate any meaningful outperformance. This week, we increase our positions for our highest conviction views: staying below-benchmark portfolio duration, underweight U.S. Treasuries, overweight U.S. corporate debt and underweight Italian government debt. Don't Forget About Our Tactical Overlays Our model portfolio is intended to be a reflection of the more medium-term, strategic fixed income investment views that stem from our regular analysis of trends in the global economy, inflation, monetary policy, etc. In other words, the positions in the portfolio are not intended to be changed too frequently. We also have chosen to stick with what we believe are more liquid markets in the portfolio, and without any use of derivatives of leverage to amplify returns beyond what the "fundamentals" suggest. Our recommendations that are shorter-term in nature (i.e. 0-3 months), or that may be in less liquid markets (i.e. New Zealand government bonds or U.S. TIPS), or that involve derivatives (i.e. Japanese CPI swaps or Sweden Overnight Index Swaps) are placed in our "Tactical Overlay Trades" list that appears in every Weekly Report. These recommendations have been performing extremely well since the inception of our model portfolio, as shown in Table 2.4 Table 2GFIS Tactical Overlay Trades Are Doing Well An Initial Look At The Performance Of Our Model Bond Portfolio An Initial Look At The Performance Of Our Model Bond Portfolio 9 of the current 12 trades are making money, with an average total return of 0.45%. The most successful are the long U.S. TIPS/short U.S. Treasuries trade (+3.4%) and the short 10-year Portugal government bond versus German Bunds trade (+1.0%). While we have not made any attempt to put any position sizes on those trade ideas, in contrast to our model portfolio, it is clear that even a modest allocation to each of these trades would have generated a meaningful positive return "overlay" on top of what was generated by our model portfolio. Bottom Line: Our current Tactical Overlay trades have been very successful over the life of the model bond portfolio, with 9 of 12 positions currently in the money with an average return of 0.45%. We are maintaining these positions for now, even as we alter the model portfolio. Robert Robis, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com Ray Park, Research Analyst ray@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report, "Introducing Our Recommended Global Fixed Income Portfolio", dated September 20, 2016, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com 2 For example, a "5 of 5" ranking would generate a portfolio allocation that was 1.75x the benchmark index weight, while a "1 of 5" ranking would apply a 0.5x factor to the index weight. 3 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "The Song Remains The Same", dated April 11, 2017, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com 4 Please note that in Table 2, the returns on the trades that were initiated before the inception of our model portfolio on September 20th, 2016 are shown from that date and not from the date that the trade was initiated. This is to allow an "apples-to-apples" comparison to our model portfolio performance. The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index An Initial Look At The Performance Of Our Model Bond Portfolio An Initial Look At The Performance Of Our Model Bond Portfolio Appendix - Selected Sectors From The GFIS Model Portfolio Appendix 1 Appendix 1 Appendix 2 Appendix 2 Appendix 3 Appendix 3 Appendix 4 Appendix 4 Appendix 5 Appendix 5 Appendix 6 Appendix 6 Appendix 7 Appendix 7 Appendix 8 Appendix 8

I am honored to join BCA Research as Senior Vice President of the U.S. Investment Strategy service. I have been researching and writing about the economy and financial markets for more than 30 years. I joined BCA Research from LPL Financial in Boston, MA where I served as the firm’s Chief Economic Strategist. At LPL I helped to manage more than $120 billion in client assets and provided more than 14,000 financial advisors and 700+ financial institutions with insights on asset allocation, global financial markets and economics. Prior to LPL, I served in similar functions at PNC Advisors, Stone & McCarthy Research, Prudential Securities, and the Congressional Budget Office in Washington, DC. I look forward to meeting you and providing quality research in the years to come. John Canally, Senior Vice President U.S. Investment Strategy Highlights We are not changing our view on Treasury markets or our stocks over bonds call despite the news that the Fed will begin shrinking its balance sheet later this year. The Fed's action is marginally dollar positive. For the major industrialized economies, the so-called "hard" data are moving in line with the "soft" survey data for the most part. Retail sales and industrial production have accelerated, although "hard" data on business capital spending remains weak. We introduce our Bond Duration checklist this week. These are the key economic and market indicators that we are watching to assess whether we should maintain our current below-benchmark portfolio stance. We continue to favor U.S. equites over bonds in 2017 and recommend keeping duration short of benchmark. Despite outsized performance from high-yield corporate bonds in 2016, investors should favor stocks over high-yield over the coming year. We introduce the BCA Beige Book Monitor this week. This metric provides a quantitative look at the qualitative, or "soft" data in the Fed's Beige Book. The Beige Book is due out Wednesday, April 19. Feature Chart 1Weak Data And More Weighed ##br##On Risk Assets Weak Data And More Weighed On Risk Assets Weak Data And More Weighed On Risk Assets U.S. stocks stumbled and Treasury yields slumped last week with the 10-year Treasury yield hitting a 2017 low. The drop in yields came despite news from the FOMC that the Fed is prepared to shrink its balance sheet later this year, a bit sooner than the market expected. Comments from Fed Chair Yellen - who expressed concern that the Fed's independence is "under threat"- should have jolted the bond market, but didn't. Not yet at least. Geopolitics played a role in the week's market action as well, the main culprits being upcoming French elections, the aftermath of President Trump's missile attack on Syria and ongoing tensions in North Korea. The looming Q1 earnings reporting season weighed on risk assets as well. The dollar ended lower last week. Trump told the Wall Street Journal he prefers a weak dollar. Those comments and the tepid data helped to offset the safe-haven bid generated by the geopolitical events of the week (Chart 1). The "hard" vs "soft" data debate will continue this week and likely for some time thereafter. "Hard" data on housing and manufacturing for March as well as the U.S. leading indicator are due out this week. Of course, the ultimate set of "hard" data is the corporate earnings data. Nearly 70 S&P 500 firms will report Q1 results and provide guidance for Q2 and beyond this week. "Soft" data on the PMI, Philly Fed and Empire State manufacturing sector for April will undoubtedly keep the debate going. Our view is that the hard data will catch up with the upbeat surveys in the U.S. This week we review the key economic indicators for the major advanced economies, which highlight that the global growth acceleration remains on track. We also introduce a Duration Checklist designed to help separate "signal from noise" in the bond market. Most of the items on the Checklist remain bond-bearish. Fed plans to shrink its balance sheet is not particularly negative for bond prices, but it certainly won't be supportive. The main risk to our bond-bearish view remains geopolitics, including the first round voting and results in the French election due on Sunday, April 23. Balance Sheet Bedlam? Maybe Not The release of Minutes from the FOMC's March meeting contained a robust discussion of the Fed's balance sheet. Until recently, most market participants had assumed that the Fed would maintain the size of its balance sheet via reinvesting through at least late 2017/early 2018. The latest FOMC minutes suggest that, assuming the economy continues to track the Fed's forecast, the FOMC will allow its balance sheet to shrink this year. The FOMC will achieve this by ceasing reinvestment of both its MBS and Treasury holdings at the same time. No decision has been made about whether the reinvestments will end all at once or will be phased out over time (tapered). Chart 2 shows that when QE1 ended in 2010 and QE2 ended in 2011, U.S. equities underperformed bonds. It's important to note, however, that underperformance didn't occur in a vacuum. The European debt crisis, the U.S. rating downgrade and debt ceiling debates all weighed on risk assets after QE1 and QE2 ended. Other factors played a role as well, such as weak economic growth and policy uncertainty. Amid QE3, U.S. equities surged in 2013, returning 32.4%, while bonds fell 8.5%. But in late 2013, the Fed announced that purchases would be tapered over the course of 2014. QE3 finally ended in late 2014. Stocks and bonds battled it out over 2014 and 2015, with stocks beating bonds by 3%. Chart 2Reminder What Happened When QE1, QE2 & QE3 Ended Reminder What Happened When QE1, QE2 & QE3 Ended Reminder What Happened When QE1, QE2 & QE3 Ended Bottom Line: Our view remains that Fed balance sheet run-off won't have a big impact on Treasury yields, although may lead to a widening of MBS spreads. What matters more for Treasury yields than the size of the balance sheet is the expected path of short rates. As for equities, while geopolitical risks are ever-present, the U.S. economy is in far better shape today than it was when QE1, QE2 and QE3 ended. U.S. corporate earnings are pointing higher as well. While we've clearly entered a new part in the Fed cycle, the news on the Fed's balance sheet does not change our view that U.S. stocks will outperform bonds this year. All else equal, the dollar should get a small boost from a shrinking Fed balance sheet, supporting our view that the dollar will rise 10% this year. Overplaying The Soft Data And Underplaying Geopolitics...In 2018 Chart 3Global Pick-Up On Track Global Pick-Up On Track Global Pick-Up On Track Traders and investors have been giving up on the global reflation story of late, sending the 10-year Treasury yield down to the bottom end of this year's trading range. Missile strikes, upcoming French elections and U.S. saber rattling regarding North Korea have lifted the allure of safe havens such as government bonds. At the same time, the Fed was unwilling to revise up the 'dot plot', doubts are growing over the ability of the Trump Administration to deliver any stimulus and a few recent U.S. data releases have disappointed. It is difficult to forecast the ebb and flow of safe-haven demand for bonds, especially related to North Korea and Syria. However, our geopolitical team holds a high-conviction view that angst over Eurozone elections this year are overblown. The Italian election in 2018 is more of a threat. While we cannot rule out an even stronger safe-haven bid from developing in the coming weeks, the global cyclical economic backdrop remains negative for government bond markets. For the major industrialized economies, the so-called "hard" data are moving in line with the "soft" survey data for the most part. For example, retail sales growth continues to accelerate, reaching 4.7% in February on a year-over-year basis (Chart 3). This follows the sharp improvement in consumer confidence. Manufacturing production growth is also accelerating to the upside, in line with the PMIs. The global manufacturing sector is rebounding smartly after last year's recession, which was driven by the collapse in oil prices and a global inventory correction. Readers may be excused for jumping to the conclusion that the rebound is largely in the energy space, but this is not true. Production growth in the energy sector is close to zero on a year-over-year basis, and is negative on a 3-month rate of change basis (Chart 4). The growth pickup has been in the other major sectors, including consumer-related goods, capital goods and technology. In the U.S., non-energy production has boomed over the three months, rising 5.2% at annual rates (Chart 5). The weak spot has been in capital goods orders (Chart 3). We only have data for the big three economies - the U.S., Japan and the Eurozone - but growth is near to zero or slightly negative for all three. These data are perplexing because they are at odds with an acceleration in the production of capital goods (noted above) and a pickup in capital goods imports for 20 economies (Chart 3, third panel). Nonetheless, improving CEO sentiment, strengthening profit growth and activity surveys all suggest that capital goods orders will "catch up" in the coming months. Chart 4Manufacturing Rebound Is Not About Energy Manufacturing Rebound Is Not About Energy Manufacturing Rebound Is Not About Energy Chart 5U.S.: Non-Energy Production Surging U.S.: Non-Energy Production Surging U.S.: Non-Energy Production Surging That said, one risk to our positive capex outlook in the U.S. is that the Republicans could fail to deliver on their promises to cut taxes and boost infrastructure spending. This is not our base case, but current capex plans could be cancelled or put on indefinite hold were there to be no corporate tax cuts or immediate expensing of capital expenditures. Duration Checklist: What We're Watching BCA's Global Fixed Income Strategy service recently introduced a "Duration Checklist" designed to keep us focused on the most relevant factors while trying to sift out the signal from the noise (Table 1).1 These are the key economic and market indicators that we are watching to assess whether we should maintain our current below-benchmark portfolio stance. Naturally, leading and coincident indicators for global growth feature prominently in the top section of the Checklist (Chart 6). All four of these indicators appear to have topped out except the Global Leading Economic Indicator (GLEI), suggesting that the period of maximum growth acceleration has past. Nonetheless, all four are still consistent with robust growth for at least the near term. Table 1Stay Bearish On Treasuries & Bunds The Great Debate Continues The Great Debate Continues Chart 6Some Warning From Leading Indicators Some Warning From Leading Indicators Some Warning From Leading Indicators The rapid decline in the diffusion index, based on the 22 countries that comprise our GLEI, is concerning. The LEIs for two major economies and two emerging economies dipped slightly in February, such that roughly half of the country LEIs rose and half fell in the month. While it is too early to hit the panic button, the diffusion index is worth watching closely; a decline below 50 for several months would indicate that a peak in the GLEI is approaching. The remainder of the items on the checklist are related to growth, inflation pressure, central bank stance, investor risk-taking behavior and bond market technicals. We are focusing on the U.S. and Eurozone at the moment because we believe these two economies will be the main driver of global yields over the next 12 months. In the U.S., the Fed is tightening and market expectations are overly benign on the pace of rate hikes in the coming years. Upside pressure on global yields should intensify later this year, when the ECB announces the next "tapering" of its asset purchase program. All of the economic growth, inflation pressure and risk-seeking indicators on the Checklist warrant a check mark for the U.S., although this is not the case for the Eurozone inflation indicators. From a technical perspective, the Treasury and bund markets no longer appear as oversold as they did after the rapid run-up in yields following last November's U.S. elections. Large short positions have largely unwound. This removes one of the largest impediments to a renewed decline in global bond prices. For the U.S., we expect that the 10-year yield to rise to the upper end of the recent 2.3%-2.6% trading range in the next couple of months, before eventually breaking out on the way to the 2.8%-3% area by year-end. Bottom Line: A number of political pressure points and some modest U.S. data disappointments have triggered an unwinding of short bond positions. Nonetheless, the global manufacturing revival and growth impulse remain in place, and the majority of items on our Checklist suggest that the recent bond rally represents a consolidation phase rather than a trend reversal. Keep duration short of benchmark within fixed-income portfolios. Favor Stocks Over Junk Bonds Table 2A New Trend In Junk Vs. Stocks? The Great Debate Continues The Great Debate Continues We continue to favor U.S. equities over bonds in 2017 and recommend keeping duration short of benchmark. But what about U.S. equities versus high-yield bonds? As a reminder, favoring corporate bonds over equities was a long-running BCA theme during the early stages of the economic recovery.We noted that corporate bonds were likely to outperform equities in a prescient Special Report published in late-2008,2 and we continued to favor corporate bonds until late-2012 when we shifted towards strong dividend-paying stocks. Table 2 highlights that our corporate bond vs equity recommendations have worked out well over the past several years. The table presents the annual total return for the S&P 500 and high-yield corporate bonds (as well as the difference between the two), and it shows that the former underperformed the latter from 2008 to 2011 (and again in 2012 in risk-adjusted terms). However, stocks materially outperformed high-yield bonds from 2013-2015, which followed our recommendation to favor the S&P Dividend Aristocrats index over corporate bonds in our November 2012 Special Report.3 But Table 2 also shows that the trend of stock outperformance reversed last year, with high-yield bonds having somewhat outpaced the S&P 500 in total return terms. Does this imply that investors are witnessing the beginning of a new uptrend in corporate bond outperformance versus equities? In our view, the answer is 'no'. Chart 7 presents our simple framework for the relative performance of stocks vs high-yield corporate bonds, which suggests that investors should favor the former over the latter. Panel 1 highlights that the trend in stocks vs high-yield is generally the same as that vs 10-year Treasuries, with a few notable exceptions of sustained difference. The first exception was from 2002 to 2004, when stocks significantly outperformed government bonds but were flat vs high-yield. The second exception occurred during the early part of this expansion, which again saw high-yield corporate bonds post equity-like returns. Chart 7Major Valuation Advantage Needed For High-Yield To Outperform Stocks Major Valuation Advantage Needed For High-Yield To Outperform Stocks Major Valuation Advantage Needed For High-Yield To Outperform Stocks Panel 2 suggests that both of these circumstances were fueled by a substantial high-yield valuation advantage over stocks. The panel illustrates the gap between the speculative-grade corporate bond yield-to-worst and the S&P 500 12-month forward earnings yield, which was elevated and fell materially in both of the cases of sustained divergence shown in panel 1. The key point for investors is that last year's outperformance of junk bonds is unlikely to continue. While the compression of the junk/stock yield gap did lead the former to outperform last year, the gap was not high to begin with and is currently not that far away from its historical lows. This suggests that there is no reason to expect the stock/junk relative performance trend to deviate from the overall stock/government bond trend, which we expect to rise further over the coming 6-12 months. Bottom Line: Despite outsized performance from high-yield corporate bonds in 2016, investors should continue to favor stocks over high-yield over the coming year (but favor both over Treasuries and cash). Introducing The BCA Beige Book Monitor Chart 8BCA Beige Book Monitor: ##br##A "Hard" Look At "Soft" Data BCA Beige Book Monitor: A "Hard" Look At "Soft" Data BCA Beige Book Monitor: A "Hard" Look At "Soft" Data The Fed's Beige Book is released eight times a year, two weeks ahead of each FOMC meeting. It was first released in 1983. The Beige Book's predecessor was the Red Book, first produced in 1970. The Beige Book itself got a makeover from the Fed in early 2017. The Fed changed the way the information was presented across the 12 Fed districts, but, according to the Fed, the Beige Book will continue to provide "an up-to-date depiction of regional economic conditions based on anecdotal information gathered from a diverse range of business and community contacts." In addition to the Beige Book, FOMC officials also review what is now known as the "Teal Book" at each meeting. The Teal Book combined the "Green Book" - a review of current economic and financial conditions - and the "Blue Book"- which provided context for FOMC members on monetary policy actions. As noted in the Fed's own description, the Beige Book is "soft data". In discussing the Beige Book, the financial press often notes the number of districts where growth is expanding and contracting or describes the pace of overall activity (modest, moderate etc). The BCA Beige Book Monitor takes a more quantitative approach to all the qualitative data in the Beige Book. We began by searching the document for all the words we could think of that signify strength: Strong, strength, rise, increase, accelerate, fast, expand, advance, positive, robust, optimistic, up, etc. We then counted up all the words that denote weakness: Weak, fell, slow, decelerate, decrease, decline, soft, negative, pessimistic, down, contract, etc. Next, we subtracted the number of weak words from the strong words to calculate the BCA Beige Book Monitor. The Monitor begins in 2005, so it covers the time period from the middle of the 2001-2007 expansion, through the Great Recession (2007-2009) and the recovery since 2009. A more streamlined approach, using the words "strong" and "strength" (and their derivatives like stronger, strengthened, etc) as proxy for all the strong words and the word "weak" as a proxy for all the weak words, showed the same results. We adopted this simpler approach. Chart 8, panels 1 and 2, shows the BCA Beige Book Monitor versus real GDP and CEO Confidence. The BCA Beige Book monitor does a good job explaining GDP, but it is more timely. The Monitor leads CEO confidence, especially around turning points. We intend to do more work with the Beige Book Monitor and present it to you in future editions of this publication. We also track mentions of other key words in the Beige Book. For example changes in mentions of "inflation" words in the Beige book track, and sometimes lead, core inflation (Panel 3). Mentions of the "strong dollar" track the dollar itself, although tends to be lagging (Panel 4). We'll be watching for those inflation words and mentions of the dollar in the Beige Book this week. The Beige Book will also help to shed some qualitative light on the recent weakness in capital spending and C&I loans. Has the uncertainty about the timing, scope and scale of Trump's legislative agenda (taxes, infrastructure and the repeal of Obamacare, etc) had an impact on corporate spending or borrowing? We'll find out this week. Bottom Line: Although technically it is "soft" data, the Beige Book is a major input on monetary policy decision making for the FOMC. As we showed last week, the rise in "inflation" words in the Beige Book has certainly captured the Fed's attention, and confirms the "hard" we've seen on inflation. The next FOMC meeting is on May 2-3, and neither we nor the consensus expects a hike at that meeting. Despite the apparent flare-up in geopolitics last week and the run of disappointing economic data, we continue to expect the Fed to raise rates 2 more times in 2017. John Canally, CFA, Senior Vice President U.S. Investment Strategy johnc@bcaresearch.com Mark McClellan, Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst markm@bcaresearch.com Jonathan LaBerge Vice President, Special Reports jonathanl@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report, "A Duration Checklist For U.S. Treasurys And German Bunds," dated February 15, 2017, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "Value And The Cycle Favor Corporate Debt Over Equities," dated November 14, 2008, available at gis.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see U.S. Investment Strategy Special Report, "The Search For Yield Continues: Aristocrats Or High Yield?" dated November 5, 2012, available at usis.bcaresearch.com

Highlights Small caps have not consistently outperformed large caps. However, the cyclical nature of small-cap relative performance may provide tactical timing opportunities. Index methodology plays a very important role in the behavior of small-cap performance. Currently, we recommend being neutral on size in a balanced global equity portfolio because risk/reward between small and large caps is balanced, and because GAA is overweight cyclicals versus defensives, a similar play but with a better risk/reward profile. Feature The Academic Evidence On Size Premium In academic research, the size premium, or the outperformance of small-cap common stocks relative to large-cap common stocks, has been calculated mostly based on the difference between the return of the smallest cap portfolio and that of the largest cap portfolio. Since the first academic paper that "discovered" the "size premium" in 1981, by Rolf Banz of the University of Chicago,1 a great deal of research has been devoted to this subject, both for and against the validity of the size premium.2 Table 1 comes from Asness et al.3 It summarizes the statistics of monthly size premium over time using the two most widely used zero-cost portfolio approaches to capture the returns to size. 1) The "small minus big" (SMB) stock factor return of Fama and French:4 the average return of three small portfolios minus the average return of three large portfolios obtained from Ken French's website;5 and 2) the return spread between size-sorted and market cap-weighted decile portfolios. The universe is all the stocks listed on the NYSE, AMEX and NASDAQ, including delisted securities from the CRSP (Center for Research in Security Prices) database. Table 1Size Premium Over Time* Small Cap Outperformance: Fact Or Myth? Small Cap Outperformance: Fact Or Myth? The size premium is statistically significant at the 5% level with a t-stat of 2.27 for SMB and 2.32 for D1-D10 for the full sample period from 19266 to 2012;7 However, most of the size premium comes from January, while in the rest of the year the size return is economically and statistically not different from zero; The size premium was not always positive over time, as evidenced during the period 1980-1999 when small cap suffered a 20-year underperformance right after the size premium was "discovered" in 1981. Compared to SMB, the more extreme approach, Decile 1 minus Decile 10, has produced a larger positive size premium (as well as a larger negative size premium in periods of underperformance), suggesting that micro caps, the most volatile segment of the market, may have a significant impact on the overall size premium. However, for non-quant practitioners, especially asset allocators, the portfolio approaches used in academic research may not be practical. In this report, we will study a series of small cap and large cap benchmark indexes in the U.S. and globally that are commonly used by practitioners to shed some light on the size premium and how it can be harvested, if it indeed exists. Not All Small-Cap Indexes Are Created Equal, Even In The U.S. There is no definitive definition of small cap. The general consensus is that it refers to companies with market value between US$300 and US$2 billion in the U.S., while in other markets this may vary. In the U.S., the first small-cap index, the Russell 2000 (R2K), was created in 1984, after the size premium was discovered in 1981 by Rolf Banz. While Banz was not sure if size per se was responsible for the effect or if size was just a proxy for one or more true unknown factors correlated with size, Fama and French published their ground breaking work in 19926 and 19934 confirming the existence of size and value factors. Then in 1994 the S&P launched its own small-cap index, the S&P 600. Chart 1U.S. Small Cap Performance Divergence U.S. Small Cap Performance Divergence U.S. Small Cap Performance Divergence Chart 1 shows that the performance of these two indexes has been quite different even though they have been highly correlated. Since December 1994, the S&P 600 has outperformed the R2K by about 50%-about 2% per year on a compound basis. From 1980 to 1994, however, the back-calculated8 S&P 600 significantly underperformed the R2K. So what has contributed to such significant performance difference between these two U.S. small-cap indexes? The answer may lie in the different methodologies used in constructing them. Different Universe And Size Distribution: FTSE Russell9 and S&P Dow Jones10 use different eligibilitFy conditions to define their respective universes for the U.S. equity market. Russell 3000 (R3K) contains the 3000 largest publicly traded companies in the U.S. by market cap. The smallest 2000 names go into the R2K, which currently accounts for about 8% of the R3K by market cap weight.11 The S&P 1500 contains the 1500 largest names, also by market cap, with the S&P 600 being the smallest 600 of these names, which account for less than 3.5% of the S&P 1500. Even though the stated target market-cap range is US$30 million to US$2 billion for the R2K, and US$450 million to US$2.1 billion for the S&P 600, respectively, currently about 50% and 40% of the companies in the R2K and the S&P 600 respectively have a market cap over US$2 billion, as shown in Chart 2. The R2K even has 25% over US$3 billion, about 15% more than the S&P 600. Different Sector Compositions: Both indexes' sector composition has evolved over the years due to changes in the economy and financial markets. Their current sector compositions are shown in Table 2. Most notably, the S&P 600 has higher weights in industrials and consumer discretionary, while R2K has higher weights in technology, financials, real estate and utilities. Chart 2U.S. Small-Cap Index Market Cap Distribution Small Cap Outperformance: Fact Or Myth? Small Cap Outperformance: Fact Or Myth? Table 2Canadian Small-Cap Index Sector Composition Small Cap Outperformance: Fact Or Myth? Small Cap Outperformance: Fact Or Myth? Global Small Caps Have Not Consistently Outperformed Large Caps MSCI also produces small-cap indexes for each country. According to the MSCI Global Investable Markets Index methodology,12 the size cut-off for each size segment needs to be a balance between the minimum size requirement and the target coverage range, in addition to other requirements such as liquidity and free float. As shown in Table 3, large caps comprise the top 70% of the investable universe, mid caps the next 15%, and small caps a further 14%. As of October 2016, the market-cap range for the DM small-cap index is from US$527 million to US$5 billion, and about half that for the EM small-cap index. Table 3MSCI Size Cut-Offs* Small Cap Outperformance: Fact Or Myth? Small Cap Outperformance: Fact Or Myth? MSCI indexes apply the same rules to all markets, which aids the global comparison analysis. Unfortunately, MSCI indexes have very short histories. Chart 3 shows the relative performance of small caps vs. large caps based on the MSCI indexes, and also local exchange indexes (where available). All panels are rebased to 1 as of March 2009 when the S&P 500 reached its low during the most recent financial crisis. The shaded areas are U.S. recession periods as defined by NBER. Several observations from Chart 3: U.S., U.K. and Japan have relatively long histories for the small-cap indexes. Based on the three countries' local indexes, small caps have barely outperformed large caps over the full history available; From the index inceptions until 1999, small-cap indexes broadly underperformed large caps in the U.S., U.K. and Japan, in line with the findings of the academic research shown in Table 1; Since 2000, however, small caps have outperformed large caps in most countries (in line with the academic findings shown in Table 1) with the exception of Canada and Australia, which both have extremely skewed sector composition. As shown in Table 4, a bet on Canadian small caps vs. large caps is essentially a bet on materials, real estate and industrials versus financials and telecoms; In the most recent cycle from March 2009, small-cap outperformance has been most prominent outside the U.S., especially in the U.K. and euro area. This might be due to the fact that the U.S. is the most academically researched market and that most small-cap funds are U.S. oriented. In the U.S., the MSCI and the S&P small-cap indexes have performed better than the Russell indexes, which is likely due to the fact that Russell does not have a midcap segment, with both the R2K and R1K including stocks that would elsewhere be classified as mid caps. Table 4Canadian Small-Cap Index Sector Composition Small Cap Outperformance: Fact Or Myth? Small Cap Outperformance: Fact Or Myth? Drivers Of Small/Large Cap Performance Even though small-cap stocks have not consistently outperformed large-cap stocks over the long run, Chart 3 indicates that the relative performance does have cycles, which may provide tactical opportunities for investors. In line with our investment approach across all asset classes, we try to identify the key factors that drive the relative performance of small caps versus large caps based on economic fundamentals, valuation metrics, and technical conditions. Economic Conditions: Compared to large-cap companies, small-cap firms are usually smaller-scale enterprises with a more domestic focus and less tried-and-tested business models. On average, they have less predictable cash flows, lower profit margins and lower credit ratings. As such, their ability to withstand hard times is lower, while their likelihood to prosper in good times is higher. Chart 4 (panel 1) shows that the rate of change in the small/large cap performance ratio has a good correlation with the PMI, indicating that stronger economic growth is indeed better for the more cyclically-oriented small-cap firms. Other factors such as credit spreads and small enterprise confidence also have good correlations with small/large cap performance in the most recent cycle, but historical correlations were much looser (panels 2 and 3). Chart 3Small Vs. Large Cap Performance Small Vs. Large Cap Performance Small Vs. Large Cap Performance Chart 4What Drives Size Performance? What Drives Size Performance? What Drives Size Performance? Valuation Metrics: Asness et al4 labelled 2000-2012 as the "resurrection" period for small-cap outperformance. Chart 4 (panel 4), shows that the first uninterrupted outperformance from 2000 to 2006 started at an extremely cheap valuation in 2000 when small caps were trading at a 36% discount to large caps, two standard deviations below the five-year average discount of 8%. The six-year uninterrupted outperformance was largely driven by relative valuation expansion such that by 2006, when the outperformance peaked, small caps were trading at a 20% premium, two standard deviations above the five-year average, which was a discount of 4%. The unwinding of the excessive valuation over the next two years brought the valuation metrics back to an extremely cheap level again in 2008, which kick-started another strong period of outperformance for small caps. However, since 2012 valuation has failed to expand even though small caps continued to outperform, albeit at a slower pace. This might be due to the fact that, on an absolute basis, small caps have been trading at a premium to large caps, and because valuation expansion became more difficult given how low small-cap profit margins have been (panel 5). Technically, based on our factor studies on momentum, a simple 12-month rate of change has generated positive alpha in a statistically significant way. We use the standardized 12-month rate of change of the relative performance ratio to gauge the relative momentum (panel 6) Portfolio Recommendation: Neutral On Size Over The Next 9-12 Months Chart 5There Is A Better Alternative There Is A Better Alternative There Is A Better Alternative The top panel of Chart 5 shows that the relative performance of global small caps versus large caps had a close correlation with cyclicals/defensives from 1995 to 2011, but that the two have diverged over the past five years, during which time small caps have outperformed large caps by 7%, but cyclicals have underperformed defensives by 4%, despite a strong reversal in 2016. This divergence could be explained by relative earnings growth, as shown in panel 2: small-cap earnings outpaced large-cap over the past five years, while cyclicals' earnings growth lagged defensives' until 2016 when a reversal occurred. Given our view on global growth and the historical correlation shown in panel 3, it's likely that cyclical earnings growth will further outpace the defensive earnings growth over the next 12 months. GAA's portfolio approach is to take risk where risk is most likely to be rewarded. We already have overweights on equities versus bonds at the asset class level, and on cyclicals versus defensives in our global equity sector positioning, on a 12-month investment horizon. As such, we do not feel comfortable adding a similar, but less rewarding, risk into our recommended global equity portfolio. In addition, current readings on the key performance drivers also support a neutral rating: as shown in Chart 4, both valuation and technical indicators are at the neutral level. The Global PMI is strong, but credit spreads are tight and small enterprise surveys in the U.S. and Japan are already at extremely optimistic levels. Xiaoli Tang, Associate Vice President xiaolit@bcaresearch.com 1 Banz, Rolf (1981), "The relationship between Return and Market Value of Common Stocks," Journal of Financial Economics, vol.6, 103-126 2 Van Dijk, Mathijs A, (2011), "Is size dead? A review of the size effect in equity returns," Journal of Banking and Finance, 35, 3263-3274. 3 Asness, Clifford S., Andrea Frazzini, Ronen Israel, Tobias Moskowitz and Lasse H. Pedersen, "Size Matters, If You Control Your Junk", AQR Working Paper, 2015. 4 Fama, Eugene F. and Kenneth R. French (1993), "Common Risk Factors in the Returns to Stocks and Bonds", The Journal of Financial Economics, vol 33, pp.3-56. 5 Kenneth R. French website: http://mba.tuck.dartmouth.edu/pages/faculty/ken.french/Data_Library/f-f_bench_factor.html 6 Fama, Eugene F. and Kenneth R. French (1992), "The Cross Section of Expected Stock Returns," Journal of Finance 47, 427-465 7 Fama, Eugene F. and Kenneth R. French (1993), "Common Risk Factors in the Returns to Stocks and Bonds," The Journal of Financial Economics, vol 33, pp.3-56. 8 S&P600 history before October 1994 was back calculated by Datastream, Russell 2000 history before 1984 was back calculated by FTSE Russell. 9 Please see "Construction and Methodology : Russell U.S. Equity Indexes, v.2.4," FTSE Russell, March 2017. 10 Please see "S&P U.S. Indices Methodology," S&P Dow Jones, March 2017. 11 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell_2000_Index 12 Please see "MSCI Global Investable Market Indexes Methodology," MSCI, Feb 2017.

Highlights Dusting Off The BCA Bond Model: As central bankers moving away from the hyper-easy monetary policies of the post-crisis era, reverting back to more traditional bond investing tools, like our BCA Bond Model - which focuses on cyclical economic pressures, valuation and momentum - can be useful. GFIS Composite Bond Indicators: After adding a new element to our classic Bond Model, carry, we come up with a new measure to assess government bond markets - the GFIS Composite Bond Indicators. Current Signals: Our new indicators point to Australia, Canada and the U.K. as looking more attractive on a relative basis than Germany or France. Feature For global fixed income investors, four key questions matter most in selecting which government bond markets to prioritize at the country level: Where each country stands in its economic cycle? Which bonds offer the best value? Which bonds exhibit the strongest price momentum? Which bonds benefit from the best carry? To answer those questions, BCA has built specific macro indicators over the years. The ones related to the cycle, value and momentum form the building blocks of the BCA Bond Model. We have not spent as much time discussing these indicators in recent years. This is because the performance of bond markets has been dominated by extraordinarily easy monetary policies (quantitative easing, negative interest rates) in the major economies since the Great Recession. As more central banks start to question the need for maintaining those crisis-era policy settings, however, the utility of referring back to our classic bond indicators is growing. In this Special Report, we re-examine our bond indicators, explain briefly how they were built, evaluate quantitatively if they still provide a consistent signal and elaborate on the best way to utilize them. To enhance the existing model, we add a "carry" component to it, which is a vital part of bond investing. Since the cyclical, value, momentum and carry indicators often give different asset allocation signals at any given point in time, we propose a way to aggregate the information into one single indicator for each country, i.e. the BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy (GFIS) Bond Composite Indicators. We then test these indicators to see if they help bond portfolio managers outperform. The report concludes by comparing the latest message from the GFIS Bond Composite Indicators versus our current recommended portfolio positioning. Specifically, we explain why we are choosing to deviate from our indicators and assess how we could shift our tilts in the future. Evaluating The BCA Cyclical Bond Indicators The most important aspect of bond investing is to understand where each country stands in its current economic cycle. As a way to quickly assess this, we developed our Cyclical Bond Indicators many years ago. Tailored for each country, the Indicators are composed of economic data such as: the unemployment rate private sector credit growth the slope of the government bond yield curve commodity prices denominated in local currency terms realized inflation rates Since economies do not always exhibit the same sensitivity to common macro drivers, we created country-specific Cyclical Bond Indicators that each use a different set of variables. After transforming the data, using de-trending and standardizing techniques, the variables are aggregated to form a single indicator for each country.1 Although Developed Market (DM) countries typically appear to be in the same phase of their economic cycle simultaneously, there are always some slight differences between them. These are crucial to identify and can make a huge difference in the government bond asset allocation process. First and foremost, knowing where a country is in its business cycle should impact expected returns on fixed income. Theoretically, bonds should underperform as the economic cycle becomes more advanced and outperform as the economic cycle deteriorates. Statistical Observations To verify that last statement, we separated the cycle for each country in our DM bond universe into seven distinct phases for the economic cycle: Euphoria End of upturn Upturn Downturn End of downturn Crisis Mega Crisis The phases of the cycle are defined by how much the Cyclical Bond Indicator diverges from its mean, which is always zero since the Indicators are standardized (i.e. removing the mean and dividing by the standard deviation). Chart 1 illustrates how our four core countries (U.S., Germany, Japan, U.K.) have gone through those cycles since 1967. At the positive end of the spectrum, the Euphoria state represents instances where economic variables have been especially upbeat (i.e. the Cyclical Bond Indicator is more than two standard deviations above the mean). At the negative end, the Crisis and Mega Crisis periods are when the Cyclical Bond Indicator is more than two and three standard deviations below the mean, respectively. Chart 1The BCA Cyclical Bond Indicators For The 'Core Four' Markets The BCA Cyclical Bond Indicators For The 'Core Four' Markets The BCA Cyclical Bond Indicators For The 'Core Four' Markets To evaluate the usefulness of the Cyclical Bond Indicator as an investment tool, we have calculated the average monthly return during each phase of the cycle for the major DM countries with a one-month lag (i.e. the March 2017 returns are based on the signals given by the February 2017 readings of the Indicators - this is done throughout the rest of this report when testing other bond indicators). The results are shown in Table 1. Table 1Bond Market Performance, Seen Through Our Cyclical Bond Indicator Revisiting The BCA Bond Model Revisiting The BCA Bond Model As expected, the average monthly performance tends to increase as an economy enters a downturn. Conversely, as an economic upturn gathers momentum, the performance of the bond market tends to decline.2 In Table 1, we highlighted the current phase for each country. Australia and U.K. are the only countries in Downturn territory right now; compared to their peers, those two countries would have the largest expected return3 of this group. On the other hand, the U.S. economy might be at the End of Upturn phase, when Treasuries should be expected to post the worst return, if history is any guide. In Table 2, we broke out the monthly results into 10-year periods to test the consistency of the indicator performance over time. Unsurprisingly, the End of Upturn phase has been quite detrimental for the DM bond markets during all eras, while the End of Downturn episodes have been good for bond investors in every decade. Table 2Bond Market Returns During ##br##The Various Stages Of Our Cyclical Bond Indicator Are Consistent Across Time Revisiting The BCA Bond Model Revisiting The BCA Bond Model Chart 2The Gains From Bond Investing##br## According To The Economic Cycle Revisiting The BCA Bond Model Revisiting The BCA Bond Model Finally, we looked into the usefulness of the Cyclical Bond Indicators in helping construct simple bond portfolios by using them as a ranking tool using the steps described in Box 1. The big picture takeaway is this: the countries with the three highest ranking Cyclical Bond Indicators (i.e. those with the slowest economic growth) outperform by roughly +6 basis points (bps) per month, on average. Similarly, the countries with the lowest-ranked cyclical indicators would underperform by -6bps, on average (Chart 2). Box 1 Ranking Bond Returns Using The BCA Cyclical Bond Indicators We calculated the average monthly excess return by buckets using the following steps: We ranked the ten countries in our bond universe by the level of their Cyclical Bond Indicators, from lowest (ranked #1) to highest (ranked #10). We then calculated the monthly currency-hedged excess return of each country versus the average of all the countries in our DM bond universe We then aggregated all the monthly results to have an average excess return for all ten of our ranking buckets We then separated them further into three buckets (the top three, middle four and bottom three ranks) and averaged the monthly excess returns for those groupings. Comments There is nothing particularly out of the ordinary with those findings - the countries with the weakest economies have the best performing government bond markets. However, the results of these statistical exercises confirm that the BCA Cyclical Bond Indicators are reliable and can confidently be used to support our qualitative analysis for each country. Importantly, following those indicators brings a dose of discipline to our bond allocation framework. For example, if our initial qualitative macro analysis diverges markedly from what the Cyclical Bond Indicator is telling us, this would represent a red flag that prompts us to question our initial conclusions. We will highlight situations like this later in this report. Evaluating The BCA Bond Value Indicators To assess the richness or cheapness of DM government bonds, BCA developed a Bond Value Indicator for each country. It is composed of several measures that have a fundamental macroeconomic relationship to bond yields, such as: Central bank policy rate expectations Trend inflation The deviation of the exchange rate from Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) The 10-year U.S. Treasury yield (as a proxy for the global bond yield) The variables are transformed using regressions, then combined to form a single measure of how far bond yields are from a theoretical fair value. Similar to other components of the BCA Bond Model, the power of these country indicators arises when comparing them amongst each other. Bond markets with yields below fair value should outperform those with yields above fair value. Just like all other asset classes, valuation is a poor tactical timing tool for fixed income. Our Bond Value Indicator is more useful in the long term; value can remain cheap/expensive for an extended period of time. For example, Germany has been the most, or second-most, expensive bond market in our bond universe since June 2013. Due to this shortcoming, the Bond Value Indicator will be given a smaller weighting in our composite indicator laid out later in this report. Statistical Observations To test this indicator, we looked at the hedged excess monthly returns generated using the same ranking procedure laid out in Box 1. The results show that investors can expect to earn about +12bps per month in excess hedged return from countries with the three cheapest valuations according to the Bond Value Indicators, and can expect to lose -6bps/month in countries that are ranked most expensive (Chart 3). Moreover, betting on countries with the cheapest ranked valuations skews favorably the odds of outperforming, from about 46% to 53% (Chart 4). Chart 3The Gains From Bond Investing ##br##According To Value Revisiting The BCA Bond Model Revisiting The BCA Bond Model Chart 4Favor The Cheaper Bond Markets Revisiting The BCA Bond Model Revisiting The BCA Bond Model Comments Currently, the U.S. bond market offers the best value (Chart 5). This contrasts unfavorably with our recommended underweight exposure to U.S. Treasuries. Nonetheless, we remain comfortable with this exposure since the U.S. economy is currently in the strongest economic cycle, and its bond market is technically less oversold than its peers (see the next section). Chart 5Bunds Look Rich, Treasuries Look A Bit Cheap Bunds Look Rich, Treasuries Look A Bit Cheap Bunds Look Rich, Treasuries Look A Bit Cheap Also, note that German and Japanese yields look quite expensive, although this is no surprise given the extremely easy monetary policy settings (negative rates, central bank asset purchases) in place from the European Central Bank (ECB) and Bank of Japan (BoJ). As we have discussed in recent Weekly Reports, we see far greater risks for the ECB moving to a less accommodative monetary bias in the months ahead than the BoJ, and we shifted our country allocations to reflect that view (moving to overweight Japan and cutting Germany to neutral).4 In other words, Japanese bonds will likely stay expensive for longer, unlike German debt. As we mentioned earlier, the value component warrants lesser importance in our tactical and strategic bond allocation framework since it is more long term in nature. In a nutshell, value is something good to have on your side when the macro backdrop shifts, but is not absolutely crucial to generate returns on a month-to-month basis. Evaluating The BCA Bond Momentum Indicator So far, the BCA Bond Cyclical Indicator informed us where the macroeconomic forces were the strongest and the BCA Bond Value Indicator helped us find bargains. This is all great, but bond investors could still underperform if their timing is off. The BCA Bond Momentum Indicator helps in finding the appropriate short-term timing. It has been built simply by looking at how far bond yields are relative to their primary medium-term trend. In theory, bond markets where yields are too stretched to the upside (oversold) should outperform versus countries where yields are too stretched to the downside (overbought). Statistical Observations Using the same ranking methodology explained in Box 1, investors can expect to earn roughly +11bps/month in excess return versus DM peers where conditions are the most oversold and should expect to lose -6bps/month from bond markets with the most overbought conditions (Chart 6). Comments While we do consider technical analysis as part of the tactical component in our bond allocation framework, we put less emphasis on it relative to other more fundamental factors that sustainably drive bond returns over time. Nonetheless, our ranked findings show that choosing markets based on price/yield momentum does generate fairly reliable outperformance. What About Carry? As seen so far, our traditional bond indicators encompass typical variables that would be expected to influence bond returns. Our framework would be incomplete, however, without incorporating the notion of "carry" - the investment return generated by the interest income on bonds. Having instruments that earn too little carry can be very harmful to the returns of a bond portfolio over prolonged periods. A simple observation of the long-term performance of higher-yielding credit markets (i.e. corporate debt or Emerging Market sovereigns) proves that point (Chart 7), especially in the current era where investors continue to stretch for yield given puny risk-free interest rates in so many countries. Chart 6The Gains From Bond Investing ##br##According To Momentum Revisiting The BCA Bond Model Revisiting The BCA Bond Model Chart 7Carry Plays A Huge Role ##br##For Long-Run Bond Returns Carry Plays A Huge Role For Long-Run Bond Returns Carry Plays A Huge Role For Long-Run Bond Returns Of course, most of the major carry gaps between DM sovereign bond yields disappear after currency hedging. However, even on a hedged basis, the carry differentials remain important. Currently, Italian debt carries the highest hedged yield in our DM bond universe, at 3.95%, versus 1.54% for Japan. The 241bp differential between the two is significant, especially in the current global low yield environment. However, some of that additional yield is compensation for the greater riskiness of Italian debt, given the many structural problems in that country (high debt levels, low productivity, political instability, fragile banks). In other words, a better way to evaluate carry is on a risk-adjusted basis. In Chart 8, we show the hedged 10-year government bond yields of the ten DM countries shown throughout this report, both in absolute terms (top panel) and adjusted for volatility (bottom panel). Note that Italy's ranking moves down two notches after accounting for the greater return volatility of Italian debt, while Spain offers the most attractive yield on a risk-adjusted basis. At the other end of the spectrum, Australia and Canada have less attractive yields relative to their volatilities than Japan - home of the 0% bond yield. Of course, as the old investment saying goes, "you can't eat risk-adjusted returns." As a general rule, bond markets with higher yields should be expected to outperform markets with lower yields over time. Statistical Observations An historical analysis of our DM universe using the methodology laid out in Box 1 confirms that observation. The bond markets with better ranked carry have a tendency to generate positive excess returns (on a currency-hedged basis) and, on average, produce more winning months than losing ones (Chart 9). This is true even though the higher-yielding markets are often those with higher inflation, or greater government debt levels, or more active central banks that create interest rate volatility. Chart 8Peripheral European Carry##br## Is Still The Most Attractive Revisiting The BCA Bond Model Revisiting The BCA Bond Model Chart 9The Gains From Bond Investing##br## According To Carry Revisiting The BCA Bond Model Revisiting The BCA Bond Model Comments Currently, the carry factor would favor overweighting Italy, Spain and France, while underweighting Japan, Australia and the U.K. Those relative rankings still generally hold up even after adjusting for volatility. Pulling It All Together: Introducing The GFIS Bond Composite Indicators Now that we have outlined the four elements of our proposed composite bond indicator, the question becomes: how do we aggregate those pieces? The components of our original BCA Bond Model rarely give the same message simultaneously, even after adding a new factor (carry) to the mix. Moreover, as discussed above, some elements (Cyclical and Carry) are more important than others (Value and Momentum) in delivering consistent outperformance of bond returns. Hence, to build a new composite indicator, we need to make a judgment call as to which component should be given more weight. Cyclical (50%). Here at BCA, we spend a fair amount of time trying to deeply understand economic cycles, which are a major driver of financial markets. Bonds are no exception, with changes in growth and inflation expectations forming the fundamental building blocks of yields. As such, we allocate a substantial 50% weight to the cyclical component of our GFIS Bond Composite Indicators. Value (15%). Value moves much more slowly than the other indicators and yields often diverge from fair value for long periods of time. As such, we are giving a smaller weighting of 15% to the value piece of the GFIS Bond Composite Indicators that we are designing to provide a timely signal for country allocation. Momentum (15%). Although technical analysis should be a meaningful part of any investment process, markets can often trend for extended periods before any consolidation, or even reversal, takes place. To reflect that, our momentum indicator will also carry only a 15% weighting in our composite indicator, the same as the weight given to value. Carry (20%). Carry should play an important part in a bond allocation framework. To use a sporting analogy - favoring higher-yielding bonds means starting the game with the score already in your favor. For that reason, we will give carry a 20% weight in our overall bond indicators. After combining our individual bond indicator rankings (from 1 to 10) using the weightings described above, we come up with an overall score for each country which becomes the GFIS Composite Bond Indicator (Table 3). Ranking the countries according to their respective scores gives a new indication as to which bond markets we might want to overweight or underweight. Table 3Combining The BCA Bond Indicators Revisiting The BCA Bond Model Revisiting The BCA Bond Model Statistical Observations Chart 10Our Composite Bond Indicator ##br##Adds Value At The Extremes Our Composite Bond Indicator Adds Value At The Extremes Our Composite Bond Indicator Adds Value At The Extremes To test the investment performance of our new GFIS Composite Bond Indicators, we created an equally-weighted index using the monthly hedged returns of the ten countries in our DM bond universe. We then created two portfolios: One composed of the countries with the three best composite scores; The other composed of the countries with the three worst composite scores. In both cases, those sample portfolios out-/under-performed the equally-weighted index as expected, proving that value can be extracted by following the recommendations of the GFIS Composite Indicators (Chart 10). Comments This automatic/quantitative ranking of the countries is designed as a guideline only. The goal here is to quickly find what could be the most appealing bond markets on a relative basis. Judgment on whether to apply the findings should and will always take precedence when we make our investment recommendations. Also note, in attributing weightings across the components, we have not used any optimization techniques to find the perfect balance. We simply relied on our judgment for a simple reason: optimization gives the best fit according to a set of historical market volatilities and correlations. During periods when volatilities change, or correlations become less stable, the historically-optimal weightings may produce sub-optimal investment results. We prefer to use a constant set of weights across our individual indicators, derived from our own investment intuition and preferences. What Could Be Our Next Portfolio Tweaks? We compare the latest rankings from our GFIS Composite Bond Indicators to our current fixed income country allocations in Table 4. Deviations between the two can provide some ideas for possible changes to our recommendations. Table 4The GFIS Composite Bond Indicator##br## Vs. Our Current Recommendations Revisiting The BCA Bond Model Revisiting The BCA Bond Model From this table, two observations arise: The three countries that rank the highest, Australia, Canada and U.K. are at neutral in our recommended portfolio (Chart 11). Should we move them to overweight? Among the three countries that rank the worst, we are still only at neutral Germany and France (Chart 12). Should we move to an underweight stance given the signal from our new Composite Bond Indicator? On the first point, we have turned decidedly less negative on Australia and U.K. bonds of late.5 In the next few months, if more signs of cyclical deterioration emerge, we will be tempted to align ourselves with our composite indicators and overweight those markets. Although as we discussed in a recent Special Report, another set of our in-house indicators, the Central Bank Monitors, are pointing to pressures to tighten monetary policy in Australia, Canada and the U.K., perhaps providing some justification for only being neutral on those markets.6 On the second point, we recently downgraded core Europe to neutral from overweight, given our growing concern that the ECB will be forced to announce a tapering of its asset purchases, likely starting in early 2018.7 We anticipate that our next move will be to a full-blown underweight position on both Germany and France, although we prefer to wait until after the upcoming French elections before making that shift. Given our view that the populist Marine Le Pen will not win the presidency, we expect to be cutting Germany before France, as there is still a wide political uncertainty premium built into French-German bond spreads.8 Chart 11Bond Upgrade Candidates Bond Upgrade Candidates Bond Upgrade Candidates Chart 12Bond Downgrade Candidates Bond Downgrade Candidates Bond Downgrade Candidates Going forward, we will continue to monitor our GFIS's Composite Bond Indicators to supplement/confirm our macro analyses and to discover some potential portfolio moves/trades. Additionally, we will look to further test and refine the Composite Bond Indicators by looking at different weighting schemes among the component indicators, how the correlations between the components shift over time (and if there is any information from those changes), and other considerations. Now that we've "dusted off" our classic bond indicators, there is plenty of additional research that can be done to build on the initial results shown in this report. Jean-Laurent Gagnon, Editor/Strategist jeang@bcaresearch.com Robert Robis, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com 1 We have built the Cyclical Bond Indicators using data going back to 1967 for most DM countries, allowing for a robust historical analysis across the different bond markets. 2 Since global bonds have experienced a powerful secular bull market over the past 35 years, the majority of monthly returns in the history of the Cyclical Bond Indicator have been positive. As such, shorting bonds in absolute terms has seldom proved to be a value-added proposition. The only exceptions are when the macro landscape has entered the Euphoria state, which has been quite rare. 3 In local currency terms 4 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "Staying Behind The Curve, For Now", dated March 21, 2017, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com 5 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Reports, "Will The Hawks Walk The Talk?", dated March 7, 2017 (on the U.K.), and "It's Real Growth, Not Fake News", dated February 21, 2017 (on Australia), both available at gfis.bcaresearch.com 6 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report, "BCA Central Bank Monitor Chartbook", dated March 28, 2017, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com 7 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "March Madness", dated March 14, 2017, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com 8 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report "Our Views On French Government Bonds", dated February 7, 2017, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com

GAA DM Equity Country Allocation Model Update The GAA DM Equity Country Allocation model is updated as of March 31, 2017. The model has not made significant changes compared to previous month as shown in Table 1. As shown in Table 2 and Charts 1, 2 and 3, Level 2 model ( the allocation among the 11 non-U.S. DM countries) sharply outperformed its benchmark by 338 basis points (bps) in March, largely a result from the overweight of Spain and Italy versus underweight in Japan and Canada. Level 1 model, the allocation between U.S. and non-U.S., underperformed by 27 bps in March due to the large overweight in the U.S. Overall, the aggregate GAA model outperformed its MSCI World benchmark by 71 bps in March and by 117 bps since going live. Table 1Model Allocation Vs. Benchmark Weights GAA Model Updates GAA Model Updates Table 2Performance (Total Returns In USD) GAA Model Updates GAA Model Updates Chart 1GAA DM Model Vs. MSCI World GAA DM Model Vs. MSCI World GAA DM Model Vs. MSCI World Chart 2GAA U.S. Vs. Non U.S. Model (Level 1) GAA U.S. Vs. Non U.S. Model (Level1) GAA U.S. Vs. Non U.S. Model (Level1) Chart 3GAA Non U.S. Model (Level 2) GAA Non U.S. Model (Level 2) GAA Non U.S. Model (Level 2) Please see also on the website http://gaa.bcaresearch.com/trades/allocation_performance. For more details on the models, please see the January 29th, 2016 Special Report "Global Equity Allocation: Introducing the Developed Markets Country Allocation Model". http://gaa.bcaresearch.com/articles/view_report/18850. GAA Equity Sector Selection Model The GAA Equity Sector Selection Model (Chart 4) is updated as of March 31, 2017. Table 3Allocations GAA Model Updates GAA Model Updates Table 4Performance Since Going Live GAA Model Updates GAA Model Updates Chart 4Overall Model Performance Overall Model Performance Overall Model Performance The momentum component has shifted Materials from overweight to underweight and Consumer Discretionary from underweight to overweight. The growth component has become less optimistic on global growth given the weakness in metals prices. For mode details on the model, please see the Special Report "Introducing The GAA Equity Sector Selection Model," July 27, 2016 available at https://gaa.bcaresearch.com. Xiaoli Tang, Associate Vice President xiaoli@bcaresearch.com Patrick Trinh, Associate Editor patrick@bcaresearch.com Aditya Kurian, Research Analyst adityak@bcaresearch.com