Financial Markets

Special Report

Dear Client, Next week, I am on the road in the Middle East visiting clients and teaching the BCA Academy Principles of Global Macro course. There will be no regular Weekly Report on November 9th. Instead, we will be sending you a Special Report on November 6th written by my colleague Rob Robis, who runs BCA's Global Fixed Income Strategy service. In this piece, Rob will be discussing the outlook for Euro Area monetary policy and its implications for rate markets and the euro. This is an especially relevant topic as the end of the ECB's Asset Purchase Program is scheduled to soon materialize. I trust you will find this report both interesting and informative. Best regards, Mathieu Savary, Vice President Foreign Exchange Strategy 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 global risk appetite, as approximated by corporate spreads and commodity prices. Based on our timing models, the dollar is now fairly valued on short-term basis. However, slowing global growth and robust U.S. activity suggest that the dollar has room to rally further, with our models pointing to a move in the greenback's favor. These conflicting forces suggest the dollar's easy gains are behind us, and any further dollar rally will prove much more volatile. Feature In July 2016, in a Special Report titled, "In Search Of A Lost 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. Additionally, these models can help global equity investors manage their currency exposure, thanks to their ability to increase the Sharpe ratio of global equity portfolios vis-Ã -vis other hedging strategies, and also for a host of base-currencies.2 In this report, we review the logic underpinning these intermediate-term models and provide commentary on their most recent readings for the G10 currencies vis-Ã -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 what 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. There has long been debate as to whether investors should focus on short rates or long rates when looking at exchange rates through the prism of UIP. This debate has regained vigor in the past six months as the dollar has greatly lagged the levels implied by 2-year rate differentials (Chart 1). Research by the Federal Reserve and the IMF suggests that incorporating longer-term rates to UIP models increase their accuracy.3 This informational advantage works whether policy rates are or aren't close to their lower bound.4 Chart 1Interest Rate Parity: Generally Helpful, But... Incorporating long-term rates as an explanatory variable increases the performance of UIP models because exchange rate movements 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 indifference among investors 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 a 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.5 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 one another. Chart 2Real Rates Work Better Over The Long Run 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 immediately comes to 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 3Real And Nominal Rate Spreads Can Differ 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 Global risk appetite is also a key factor in trying to model exchange rates. Risk-aversion shocks tend to lead to appreciation in the U.S. dollar, which benefits from its status as the global reserve currency.6 Much literature has focused on the use of the VIX as a gauge for global risk appetite. Our exercise shows stronger explanatory power with options-adjusted spreads on junk bonds (Chart 4). Chart 4The Dollar Benefits From Global Stresses Commodity prices, too, play a key role. Historically, commodity prices have displayed a very strong negative correlation with the dollar.7 This correlation is obviously at its strongest for commodity-producing nations, as rising natural resources prices constitute a terms-of-trade shock for them. However, this relationship holds up for the euro as well, something already documented by the European Central Bank.8 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 approximated 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. The 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 three- to nine-month basis, as their error terms revert to zero much faster. We refer to these as Intermediate-Term Timing Models (ITTM). Mathieu Savary, Vice President Foreign Exchange Strategy mathieu@bcaresearch.com The U.S. Dollar 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. Currently, there is no evident mispricing in the USD, as it trades near fair value when compared to both the FITM (Chart 5) and ITTM. While this means that the easy part of the dollar rally is behind us, it does not imply that the rally is over. As Chart 6 illustrates, periods of dollar strength tend to end when the dollar trades at a 5% premium to the ITTM. This would imply that a move to 102 on the DXY is likely over the coming months. Moreover, the widening interest rate differential between the U.S. and the rest of the world, as well the bout of rising volatility the world is experiencing, should continue to push the fair values of both the FITM and ITTM higher. Chart 5Fundamentals Continue To Help The Dollar Chart 6More Upside Is Possible The Euro As a mirror image to the DXY, there is no evident mispricing in EUR/USD. Currently, based on both the FITM and the ITTM, the euro trades at a small premium to fair value (Chart 7). However, the sell signal generated by the deviation from the ITTM in 2017 is still in place, as periods of overvaluation tend to be followed by periods of undervaluation (Chart 8). This indicator will only generate a buy signal for the euro once EUR/USD falls 5% below equilibrium, or to a level of 1.06. Moreover, this target is a moving one. European growth and inflation continue to disappoint, as the euro area feels the drag of a slowing China and decelerating global growth. This means that interest rate differentials are likely to continue to move in a euro-bearish fashion in the coming months. Hence, the flattening in the FITM that materialized in 2018 is at risk of becoming an outright deterioration. Chart 7Fundamentals For The Euro Are Deteriorating Chart 8EUR/USD Is Not Cheap The Yen In an environment of rising global bond yields, the FITM for the yen continues to trend south, as Japanese rates lag well behind U.S. interest rates (Chart 9). This means the yen is once again trading at a small premium to its FITM, implying that even if global risk assets sell off further, the upside for the yen against the dollar may prove limited. However, the picture for the yen against the ITTM is more benign. The yen is at equilibrium on this basis (Chart 10). However, due to the design of the ITTM, previous periods of overvaluations tend to be followed by periods of undervaluation. As a result, on the basis of this model, the yen could continue to experience downside against the dollar over the coming three to six months. This will be even truer if U.S. bond yields can continue to rise. Chart 9Rate Differentials Continue To Hurt The Yen Chart 10More Downside Ahead If U.S. Yields Keep Rising The British Pound The GBP/USD has deteriorated in recent weeks, a move that was mimicked by cable itself. As a result, the pound does not show any evident mispricing on this basis against the USD (Chart 11). The ITTM corroborates this message, as GBP/USD trades at a marginal 1% discount to this indicator (Chart 12). This upholds our analysis of September 7, which showed there was little risk premium embedded in the pound to compensate investors for the risks associated with the Brexit negotiations and the cloudy British political climate.9 Since British politics remain a minefield, this lack of valuation cushion suggests that the GBP is likely to continue to swing widely. As a result, a strategy to be long volatility in the pound, or to bet on the reversal of both large upside and downside weekly moves in the GBP, remains our preferred approach. Chart 11Cable Is At Equilibrium Chart 12Small Valuation Cushion Could Be Problem If Political Risk Increases The Canadian Dollar Despite the softening evident in the Loonie's FITM, the Canadian dollar continues to trade at a substantial discount to this fair value model (Chart 13). However, the FITM for the CAD is at risk of weakening further as oil prices have begun to be engulfed in the weakness that has gripped EM and risk assets globally. Mitigating this message, on the eve of the announcement of the USMCA trade deal, which essentially kept in place the trade relationships that existed between the U.S. and Canada under NAFTA, the Loonie was trading at a 1.5 sigma discount to the ITTM, a level normally constituting a buy signal (Chart 14). As a result, we expect the Canadian dollar to not be as sensitive to commodity price weakness as would have been the case had the CAD traded at a premium to its ITTM. This is one factor explaining why the Canadian dollar remains one of our favorite currencies outside the USD for the coming three to six months. The second favorable factor for the CAD is that the Bank of Canada is likely to hike interest rates at the same pace as the Fed. Hence, unlike with other currencies, interest rate differentials are unlikely to move against the CAD. Chart 13Loonie Trades At A Big Discount To Fundamentals... Chart 14...Which Will Help The CAD Mitigate A Fall In Oil Prices The Swiss Franc Like the euro, the Swiss franc trades in line with both its FITM and ITTM fair values (Chart 15). Moreover, the CHF has been hovering around its fair value for nearly a year now, which means there is less of a case for an undershoot of the ITTM fair value than for currencies that have experienced recent overshoot (Chart 16). Moreover, if volatility in financial markets remains elevated, and volatility within the bond market picks up, the fair value of the Swissie could experience some upside. However, this is where the positives for the Swiss franc end. The Swiss economy remains mired by underlying deflationary weaknesses, reflecting the lack of Swiss pricing power as well as the tepid growth of Swiss wages. As a result, the interest rate differential components of the models are likely to continue to represent a headwind for the CHF, especially as the Swiss National Bank remains firmly dovish and wants to keep real interest rates at low levels in order to weigh on the franc and also stimulate domestic demand. Based on these bifurcated influences, while we remain negative on the CHF against both the dollar and the euro on a cyclical basis, EUR/CHF may remain under downward pressure over the coming three to six months. Chart 15No Valuation Mismatch... Chart 16...Implies That The CHF Will Be At The Mercy Of Central Banks The Australian Dollar While the Australian dollar continues to trade at a significant premium against long-term models, it now trades at an important discount against both its FITM and ITTM equilibria (Chart 17). However, the problem for the AUD is that the FITM estimates continue to trend lower as Australian interest rates are lagging U.S. rates, especially in real terms. This is a direct consequence of the Reserve Bank of Australia maintaining the cash rate at multi-generational lows, while the Fed keeps hiking its own policy benchmark. With real estate prices sagging in both Melbourne and Sydney, as well as with a lack of wage growth and inflationary pressures, this down-under dichotomy is likely to remain in place and further weigh on the AUD. Meanwhile, while it is true that the AUD is also trading at a discount to its ITTM, historically, the Aussie has bottomed at slightly deeper levels of undervaluation (Chart 18). When all these factors are taken in aggregate, they suggest that for the AUD to fall meaningfully from current levels, we need to see more EM pain, more Chinese economic weaknesses, and commodity prices following these two variables lower. While this remains BCA's central scenario for the coming three to six months, if this scenario does not pan out the AUD could experience a sharp rebound over that timeframe. Chart 17Discount In AUD Emerging... Chart 18...But Not Yet Large Enough The New Zealand Dollar The NZD now trades at an even greater discount to both its FITM and ITTM equilibria than the AUD (Chart 19). In fact, so large is this discount that the ITTM is flashing a buy signal for the kiwi (Chart 20). This further confirms the view that we espoused 3 weeks ago that the NZD was set to rebound. As a result, we remain comfortable with our tactical recommendation of buying NZD/USD and selling GBP/NZD. The long NZD/USD position is definitely the riskier one of the two, as the NZD's upside may be limited if EM markets sell off further. In fact, NZD/USD traded at an even greater discount to its ITTM fair value when EM markets were extremely weak in late 2015 and early 2016. However, EM spreads are narrower and EM equities today trade well above the levels that prevail in those days, implying a margin of safety exists for the NZD. Meanwhile, short GBP/NZD is less likely to be challenged by weak EM asset prices, especially as in a post-Brexit environment the U.K. needs global risk aversion to stay low and global liquidity to remain ample in order to finance its large current account deficit of 3.3% of GDP. Chart 19NZD Is Now So Cheap... Chart 20...That It Is A Buy The Norwegian Krone The Norwegian krone continues to trade at a large discount to its FITM. However, this pair often experiences large and persistent deviations from this model (Chart 21). Nonetheless, it is important to note that as real interest rate differentials between the U.S. and Norway continue to widen, the fundamental drivers of the NOK are set to deteriorate further. By construction, the ITTM has proven to be a more reliable indicator for the Norwegian krone. While the NOK is currently at fair value on this metric, it is concerning that the upward trend in the ITTM has ended and that the equilibrium value for this currency has begun to deteriorate (Chart 22). As such, if oil prices are not able to find a floor at current levels, USD/NOK is likely to experience additional upside. This is because on a three- to six-month basis, there is not enough of a valuation cushion embedded in the NOK at current levels to prevent the Norwegian krone from experiencing deleterious effects in a weak energy price environment. Chart 21The NOK Fundmentals's Are Still Pointing South Chart 22...And The NOK Remains Vulnerable Versus The USD The Swedish Krona The very easy monetary policy conducted by the Riksbank is the key factor explaining why the Swedish krona remains so weak. Indeed, despite a robust economy, Swedish real interest rates are lagging well behind U.S. rates, which is putting strong downward pressure on the SEK's FITM (Chart 23). Meanwhile, despite the SEK's prodigious weakness, this currency only trades at a modest, statistically insignificant discount to its ITTM (Chart 24). This picture suggests that for the SEK to appreciate, the Riksbank needs to become much more aggressive. It is true that the Swedish central bank has flagged an imminent rise in interest rates, but the pace of increase will continue to lag far behind the Fed's own tightening. Moreover, the weakness in global trade is likely to hamper Swedish growth as Sweden is a small, open economy very influenced by gyrations in global industrial activity. As a result, the current slowdown in global trade may well give the Riksbank yet another excuse to only timidly remove monetary accommodation. This suggests that both the FITM and ITTM for the SEK have downward potential. Chart 23The Riskbank Still Hurts The SEK Chart 24...And The Krona Needs To Build A Greater Valuation Cushion 1 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy / Global Investment Strategy Special Report titled, "Assessing Fair Value In FX Markets", dated February 26, 2016, available at fes.bcaresearch.com and gis.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy / Global Asset Allocation Special Reports titled, "Currency Hedging: Dynamic Or Static? - A Practical Guide For Global Equity Investors", dated September 29, 2017, and "Currency Hedging: Dynamic Or Static? - A Practical Guide For Global Equity Investors (Part II)", dated October 13, 2017, available at fes.bcaresearch.com and gaa.bcaresearch.com 3 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). 4 Michael T. Kiley (January 2013). 5 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. 6 Ravi Balakrishnan, Stefan Laseen, and Andrea Pescatori (July 2016) 7 Ravi Balakrishnan, Stefan Laseen, and Andrea Pescatori (July 2016) 8 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). 9 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Special Report, titled "Assesing The Geopolitical Risk Premium In the Pound", dated September 7, 2018, available at fes.bcaresearch.com Trades & Forecasts Forecast Summary Core Portfolio Tactical Trades Closed Trades

Special Report

Highlights Investors looking for equity upside, along with fixed-income-like downside protection, coupled with a hedge against rising rates, should consider convertible bonds. As we near the end of the business cycle, the attractions of convertibles are becoming clearer: investors will benefit from more upside capture in case of a last run-up in stocks, but at the same time suffer less downside in a recession. Moreover, in periods of rising rates, convertible bonds perform well compared to other traditional fixed-income securities. However, multi-asset portfolio managers should note that the risk-return profile of convertible bonds is more like equities than bonds, and so convertibles have no place in a conservative fixed-income portfolio. Investors have a number of options to choose from when customizing equity-versus-fixed-income exposure in their convertible allocations. Feature Introduction An ideal financial instrument would have large equity exposure in an equity bull market, and increased fixed-income exposure in a bear market. Financial engineering can create synthetic positions using derivatives to replicate just this sort of hybrid exposure - or an investor can just buy convertible bonds. In this current, late, phase of the business cycle - with increased volatility, rising interest rates, and a pickup in inflation - where can investors find shelter, but without sacrificing returns in the event of a last blow-out run-up in stocks? In this report, we discuss how convertible bonds - despite their somewhat complex structure1 - could be the answer. Issuers prefer convertibles to traditional corporate bonds because of: 1) a lower coupon rate and fewer covenants, 2) the opportunity to sell equity at a premium to the current price, 3) a faster process for raising capital, compared to a secondary equity issue, and 4) easier access to capital markets for non-investment grade firms. On the demand side, the composition of convertible investors has evolved over time. Prior to the 2007-9 Global Financial Crisis (GFC), proprietary trading desks and leveraged hedge funds were the most important players, since convertible arbitrage2 was very profitable. But the liquidity freeze in 2008 and 2009 forced these short-term investors out of the market and brought back long-term buy-and-hold investors. Currently 65% of U.S. convertible bonds are held by long-only investors. This change in market structure has had important implications for arbitrage opportunities (Chart 1). Chart 1Fewer Short-Term Investors In the first half of 2018, issuance of global convertible securities topped $57 billion, the largest amount for a six-month period since 2008. The U.S. led the way, with issuance of $34 billion (Chart 2), followed by Asia ex-Japan at $12 billion, and Europe, $10 billion. The U.S. total includes $13.4 billion in convertible bond issuance by tech companies, the highest amount in the post-GFC period (Chart 2, panel 2). Bank of America Merrill Lynch estimates that full-year global issuance could be the highest in 12 years. The macro-backdrop for convertibles remains favorable: Chart 2Issuance Similar To Pre-Crisis Levels The hybrid equity/fixed-income exposure offers protection against rising rates because of its shorter duration; The new U.S. tax code limits interest deductibility, which strengthens the relative appeal of issuing a convertible security instead of a traditional bond; The return of volatility means investors benefit from holding a security with an embedded option; The flexibility of the asset class gives investors room to customize their exposure in terms of coupon rate, premium, and maturity. In this report, we start with the market structure and mechanics of convertible bonds. Next, we look at the four types of convertible bonds, which provide different risk-return profiles. In the following section, we analyze historical returns and performance in different market environments. Finally, we discuss the key asset allocation decisions involved in investing in convertible bonds. Our main findings are: Investors can customize their risk-return profile by choosing between high-volatility equity exposure (equity-sensitive convertibles), or more stable fixed-income exposure (credit-sensitive convertibles); Convertible bonds historically have generated an annualized return of 9.5% compared to 9.8% from equities, but with 2% lower volatility; Convertible bonds have a risk-return profile more like that of equities and junk bonds than that of investment-grade credit; In periods of rising rates and inflation, convertible bonds have outperformed their traditional fixed-income counterparts; In comparison to equities, convertibles capture more upside in bull markets than downside in bear markets; Investing in convertible bonds requires active management because of their varying degree of equity- and fixed-income sensitivity that changes over time. The Convertibles Market Convertible securities can be broken into three key groups: 1) convertible bonds (cash-pay3 and zero-coupon), 2) convertible preferred shares, and 3) mandatory convertibles. Cash-pay convertible bonds make up almost 80% of the outstanding market (Chart 3), while zero-coupon convertible bonds are almost non-existent. Mandatories and convertible preferred equities make up 15% and 7% respectively. Chart 3Convertibles Bonds Are 80% Of Convertibles Market... Before we delve deeper into the convertible bond markets, here are few key characteristics (Chart 4) of the other two groups: Chart 4...And Have The Best Risk-Adjusted Returns Convertible Preferred Equities are issued with a specific dividend rate that is generally higher than the dividend on common shares. They include an embedded option to convert to a specified number of common shares. Additionally, preferred dividends usually accumulate in arrears should the firm be unable to make a payment. The conversion rate increases with any increase in the common-share dividend. After the call protection expires, the company has the option of redeeming the issue at the stated par value. Mandatory Convertibles. These bonds automatically convert to common shares at a specified time. However, they do not offer downside protection since conversion can be into shares worth less than the original issue price. Rating agencies view these securities more as equities than bonds, giving firms an incentive to issue them from a balance-sheet perspective. Table 1 shows us that cash-pay (coupon paying convertible bonds) generated the highest return with the lowest volatility, thereby providing investors with the best risk-adjusted returns. Mandatory convertibles have a large excess kurtosis - driven by the forced conversion into equities at inopportune times. In bull and bear markets, it is clear convertible bonds did not enjoy the full upside provided by preferred shares and mandatories, but had 50% less downside in bear markets. Also, in periods of rising rates convertible bonds produced positive returns, but lagged both preferred shares and mandatory convertibles. Table 1Convertible Bonds' Risk-Return Profile A niche market exists for contingent convertibles (CoCos) - or, as they are sometimes called, anti-convertibles. Banks in the euro area issue CoCos to meet capital requirements and provide a cushion should they find themselves in a serious predicament. These typically pay a higher coupon than the bank's straight bonds to compensate for the possibility of a complete wipeout. In short, if all goes well you receive your fixed coupons and principal back at maturity. But, if things turn sour, the bonds convert to equity and the investor potentially loses everything. Mechanics Of Convertible Bonds Convertible bonds are a hybrid security issued as a senior unsecured bond with a fixed maturity (normally five years) with optionality to convert to a fixed number of shares. In exchange for the equity kicker, these bonds typically yield less and carry a lower coupon rate (Chart 5) than the issuer's comparable non-convertible debt. We describe the basics of convertible bonds in the Appendix. Chart 5The Cost Of An Embedded Option An investor considering an allocation to convertibles has four groups to choose from depending on his or her risk-return tolerance. The trade-off is between high volatility equity exposure versus more stable credit exposure. If the underlying stock does well, the convertible increases in value even without the investor exercising the option to convert into shares. If the stock does not appreciate, the investor retains the bond and collects regular coupons and par value at maturity. The interaction of market price with investment value and conversion price creates convertible bonds with different risk-return profiles: Credit Sensitive: A large decrease in the stock price has pushed the convertibles to trade close to their investment value (bond floor). These are out-of-the money convertibles, with a delta ranging from 10% to 40%, and also with large premium over investment value. The main factors affecting the pricing of such instruments are the level of interest rates and credit spreads. An investor has a small probability of generating large unexpected gains from underlying stock appreciation. Balanced: The stock price is close to the conversion price, making these at-the-money convertibles. They have a moderate premium to conversion value, and deltas in the range of 40-80%. Rising stock prices make the embedded call option more valuable, pushing the convertible price closer to the stock price. Long-term buy-and-hold investors looking to maintain a core allocation to convertibles should invest in balanced convertibles. Equity Sensitive: Convertibles that are deep in-the-money, trading near parity, with high deltas of over 80%, and generating returns that closely track equities. They still retain some downside protection due to seniority and par value at maturity even if they have most of the common share's upside potential. Distressed: As a company threatens to default or goes bankrupt, the value of the straight bond component declines to trade significantly below par. These bonds tend to have high degree of price volatility and low probability of return of capital. Risk & Return Convertible bond returns are driven by: 1) the bond component that is a function of rates, credit spreads, and curve effects; 2) the equity component, supported by the delta to the underlying stock price; and 3) the option component, that is a function of the underlying stock price and time to maturity. Convertibles combine characteristics of stocks and bonds (Chart 6), so they represent either lower-volatility equity exposure or enhanced fixed-income exposure. Over the past 24 years (Table 2), U.S. convertible bonds generated returns similar to U.S. equities, but with a lower volatility. However, relative to traditional corporate bonds, convertibles outperformed massively, but with much higher volatility. Looking at risk-adjusted returns, we see that convertible bonds have more similarity to equities and high-yield credit than to investment-grade credit (Chart 7). However, defaults in the convertible bond space have been close to 1%, which is significantly lower than the 4% in the high-yield credit market (Chart 8). This is because convertible bonds include a smaller proportion of issuers with high operating leverage, such as energy producers, and have a high representation of mature healthcare and technology companies. Chart 6Convertibles Vs. Traditional Table 2Better Than Equities, But More Volatile Than Traditional Bonds Chart 7Close To Equities & Junk Chart 8Lower Defaults Than Junk Bonds Short-term performance of the convertible bond market is driven by the composition of issuers, but long-term performance is driven by the performance of the different variables described above. In 1Q 2018, convertible bonds outperformed equities, largely due to technology and consumer staples convertibles. Technology convertibles saw a 11% gain, while the S&P technology sector was up only 3.5%. This was because technology convertible issuers were concentrated in the mid-cap growth segment, whereas the large-cap equity names are more heavily weighted in semiconductors. BCA has for two or three years been warning about the return of inflation and rising interest rates. Convertible bonds outperform traditional fixed income in periods of rising interest rates because: 1) rising rates are often coupled with periods of positive equity momentum, which benefits convertibles; 2) convertibles have lower duration than straight bonds. Since 1994, there have been 10 instances when the 10-year U.S. Treasury yield rose by more than 100 bps: convertible bonds outperformed in every instance. Additionally, convertible bonds enjoy a yield advantage: the average income return (coupon rate) on a convertible is greater than the dividend yield on the underlying stock. When investors allocate to convertible bonds from either their equity or fixed-income portfolio, the key consideration is upside versus downside exposure. When the underlying stock price rises, convertibles will capture a portion of the capital appreciation but, on the downside, convertibles continue to provide a consistent income flow and principal repayment at maturity. History tells us that convertibles capture more upside in bull markets than downside in bear markets. If the share price falls sharply below the conversion price, the convertible will react less and less to fluctuations in the underlying stock price. In short, convertible bonds provide more downside protection than stocks as market value will not drop below the investment value (bond floor). Convertibles also have a mechanism to offset rising equity volatility and rising rates. The embedded equity option in a convertible bond rises in value when volatility rises, providing a meaningful offset in contrast to equities that may suffer a drawdown. Over the long-run, convexity enables this asset to make the most of favorable stock market conditions, whilst suffering less in difficult conditions. As mentioned earlier, the risk-return profile of convertible bonds tends to have a closer relation with equities than with fixed income. Within fixed income, high-yield credit, which tends to have a return profile closely aligned with equities, has a strong correlation with convertible bonds. The greatest diversification potential is when convertible bonds are added to a portfolio of government bonds. However, investors should realize the risk-return profiles for convertibles and government bonds are very different, and an allocation to the former is only a possibility for an investor with a higher risk tolerance. What To Choose From? Equity Sensitive Versus Credit Sensitive Investors need to choose the right type of convertible bond depending on their risk tolerance. Equity-sensitive convertibles made up over 60% of the market prior to the GFC, but this proportion fell to around 20% during the recession (Chart 9). As stock prices tumble, the market price of convertibles get closer to the investment value (bond floor), and convertibles start behaving more like pure credit-sensitive bonds. Looking at total returns (Chart 10 & Table 3), it is clear that aggressive investors with a higher risk tolerance should invest exclusively in equity-sensitive convertibles. But investors looking to maintain a core long-term allocation to convertibles should focus on the balanced group. Despite being a small piece of the market, distressed convertibles are attractive return enhancers immediately after a recession. Investors looking for income return should prefer credit-sensitive or distressed convertibles over equity-sensitive ones. Equity-sensitive convertibles have the highest delta, making them the most vulnerable to underperformance in a downturn. Balanced convertibles have the highest vega, which means they are most impacted by increasing volatility - driven by both equity and rate volatility. In times of rising interest rates, equity-sensitive convertibles provide their best protection given their short duration. Credit- and rate-sensitive convertibles have almost double the duration, making them more vulnerable to rising rates. Chart 9Equity Vs. Fixed Income Exposure Chart 10Massive Outperformance By Equity Sensitive Table 3Equity Sensitive For The Aggressive, Credit Sensitive For The Conservative, Balanced For Everyone Small Cap Versus Large Cap Issues Investors can choose between convertible issues from companies of different size. Since the middle of the financial crisis, large-cap issues have grown to over 50% of the market (Chart 11), up from below 30%. The increase in market share was taken from small-cap issues, with mid-cap issues stable at 20% of the market. In terms of total returns (Chart 12 & Table 4), small cap outperformed both mid and, particularly, large caps. Part of this outperformance was due to the higher yield offered by small-cap issuers compared to their larger counterparts. In terms of equity sensitivity, small-cap issues currently have significantly lower delta than large caps. However, in times of rising volatility, small-cap issues lose more, driven by their higher vega. In terms of interest-rate sensitivity, all three sizes are roughly equally exposed given similar durations. Chart 11Bigger Is Not Always Better Chart 12Small Cap Outperforms Table 4Small Cap Provides The Best Value Investment Grade Versus The Rest A credit investor has one particularly important call: investment-grade versus high-yield. The situation is trickier for convertibles as over 60% of the bonds are unrated (Chart 13), thereby giving managers amply opportunity for alpha generation. Historical performance (Chart 14 & Table 5) shows that non-rated convertible bonds have a close relationship with non-investment-grade issues. Moreover, the relative performance of non-investment-grade and non-rated issues with investment grade issues follows a similar path. From an income-return perspective, both non-rated and non-investment-grade issues have lost their yield advantage since 2016. Investors are not receiving adequate yield for the additional risk they are taking with riskier issues. The return of volatility will have a smaller impact on investment-grade issues compared to the rest of the market because the former have a lower effective duration. Additionally, implied volatility is lower for investment-grade issues. Chart 13Over 60% Has No Credit Rating Chart 14Similar Return, But Different Risk Table 5No Rating = Source Of Alpha The Asset Allocation Decision The key question here is: are investors looking at convertible bonds (Chart 15) as part of an equity or a fixed-income allocation? Investors considering convertibles as part of their equity allocation are looking for a more defensive exposure and yield pick-up, and so should focus on balanced convertibles and not equity-sensitive ones. On the other hand, considering convertibles as part of fixed-income allocation will deliver equity exposure, and so investors should focus on credit-sensitive or balanced convertibles. Chart 15Somewhere Between Equities & Junk Another major factor is the investment horizon of the convertible allocation. A core strategic allocation to convertibles will require a hybrid exposure, providing lower-volatility equity exposure over multiple full market cycles. Such investors are looking for long-term equity upside, but are concerned about shorter-term downside equity volatility and should consider balanced convertibles. On the other hand, investors using convertibles as part of a tactical allocation, to make a short-term bet in order to diversify away from traditional fixed-income or equity exposure, should consider either equity-sensitive or credit-sensitive convertibles. The bottom-line is that convertible investing requires active management because these securities have varying degrees of equity and fixed-income sensitivity that change over time. In periods of rising equity markets, an investor with passive exposure to convertibles would automatically have a large holding in equity-sensitive convertibles with a high delta, thereby increasing his or her exposure to equity downside risk. For example, in February 2009, when markets troughed after the GFC, more than two-thirds of convertibles were trading as credit-sensitive instruments. An investor following a passive index in this situation would have had minimal exposure to equity-sensitive convertibles, and would thereby have had limited participation in the equity upside. Finally, the convertible universe is constantly evolving. The typical convertible bond is issued with a five-year life by a company in the early to mid stage of its corporate life cycle, seeking capital to grow. As time passes, the issuer matures to a point where it no longer needs convertibles in its capital structure. Nearly two-thirds of the current issuers of convertible were not in the market 10 years ago, while two-thirds of the S&P 500 members remain unchanged over this time. Aditya Kurian, Senior Analyst Global Asset Allocation adityak@bcaresearch.com 1 Despite the complexities, the first convertible bond was issued as long ago as 1874 by Rome, Watertown and Ogdensburg Railroad to finance a project. The bond was never converted since the underlying shares failed to rise enough and the company refinanced the bond in 1904. 2 For an explanation of convertible arbitrage, please see A Note On Convertible Arbitrage at the end of this report. 3 Convertible bonds that make regular coupon payments. A Note On Convertible Arbitrage A market-neutral hedge fund strategy where the manager goes long the convertible bond and short the underlying stock. The short position in the underlying stock creates a delta-neutral position, but maintaining this position requires dynamic hedging which is expensive. There is a possibility of large mispricing because of the over-the-counter nature of the market and uncertainty regarding call or redemption features of convertibles. Often, the embedded equity option is a source of cheap volatility compared to the underlying stock's listed options. A quick measure for convertible valuations is comparing the volatility of options in the market to the volatility priced in the embedded option in the convertible. If market volatility rises, but the price of convertible stays the same, the security could be cheap and attractive. Looking at historical performance (Table 6), convertible arbitrage generated almost 3% less than equities, but with less than half the volatility. However, all of the outperformance was during recessions or equity bear markets. Additionally, convertible arbitrage funds have large negative skew and kurtosis relative to both equities and the hedge-fund composite. We recommend investors allocate to convertible arbitrage hedge funds in preparation for a downturn. Table 6Convertible Arbitrage Versus Traditionals Appendix: The Basics Of Convertible Bonds Investment Value (Bond Floor): The fixed-income component of the convertible bond, or in other words, the value of the bond without the conversion feature (equity kicker). This remains stable over a wide range of stock prices but, when creditworthiness deteriorates, consequent stock price movements will have an impact on the investment value (IV). Holding creditworthiness constant, the IV provides the bond floor, below which the convertible should not trade. The IV fluctuates in tandem with the price of a straight corporate bond of similar quality. A convertible that is trading close to its IV will be more affected by changes in rates than one that is well above it. Investment Premium: The market price minus IV expressed as a percentage of IV. Premium over IV indicates the level of downside risk. A higher premium means the bond price is more sensitive to the price of underlying stock, which means less downside protection because the bond market price would have to decline significantly before reaching the IV. Higher premium is a result of rising underlying stock value, whereas a smaller premium is when the convertible is more interest-rate sensitive and behaves like a pure bond. Conversion Value (CV): The equity portion of the convertible bond. Conversion ratio is set at the time of issuance and it is the number of shares a bondholder will receive upon conversion. Conversion price is the price at which the number of converted shares is equal to the par value of the bond. At issuance, the underlying stock price is usually below conversion price. Conversion Premium: The market price minus CV expressed as a percentage of CV. As market price rises above CV, fixed-income attributes are lost and equity features take over, consequently decreasing conversion premium. Declining stock prices mean convertible market price approaches fixed-income value (bond floor) and conversion premium increases. Appendix Chart 1Preferred Shares & Mandatory Convertibles Have Higher Income Returns Appendix Chart 2Convertible Bonds' Delta & Vega Reduces In A Recession Appendix Chart 3Conversion Premium Far From Recessionary Levels Appendix Chart 4Average Duration Less Than 2.5 Appendix Chart 5U.S. Is 60% Of Global Appendix Chart 6U.S. Is Clearly The Best Performer Appendix Chart 7U.S. Also Provides The Best Income Return Appendix Chart 8But, U.S. Is The Most Equity Sensitive Appendix Chart 9U.S. Has A Higher Implied Volatility Appendix Chart 10Distressed Is The Best Solution Immediately After A Recession Appendix Chart 11Balanced Has The Lowest Coupon Appendix Chart 12Balanced Has Moderate Delta, But Highest Vega Appendix Chart 13Equity Sensitive Are The Best Rate Hedge Appendix Chart 14Premiums Are Stable Appendix Chart 15Mid-Cap Provides Low Income Return Appendix Chart 16Massive Delta & Vega Divergence Appendix Chart 17Large Cap Premium Has Risen The Most Appendix Chart 18Implied Volatility Is Similar Across The Board Appendix Chart 19ALl Coupon Rates Have Fallen Appendix Chart 20Investment Grade Has The Highest Delta Appendix Chart 21Underweight Duration = Investment Grade Convertibles Appendix Chart 22Premiums Stable

GAA DM Equity Country Allocation Model Update The GAA DM Equity Country Allocation model is updated as of October 31, 2018. The quant model downgraded U.S. and Italy to underweight from overweight while upgrading Canada to a slight overweight from underweight, largely due to changes in technical and valuation conditions. Now the model is overweight 5 countries (Netherland, Germany, Spain, Switzerland and Canada) and underweight 7 countries (Japan, U.S., U.K., France, Australia, Sweden and Italy), as shown in Table 1. Table 1Model Allocation Vs. Benchmark Weights As shown in Table 2 and Chart 1, Chart 2 and Chart 3, both Level 1 and Level 2 of the model system outperformed in October by 6bps and 57 bps, respectively, resulting in an outperformance of 24 bps from the overall model. Since going live, the overall model has outperformed its benchmarks by 44 bps, driven by Level 2 outperformance of 121 bps and Level 1 outperformance of 2bps. Table 2Performance (Total Returns In USD %) Chart 1GAA DM Model Vs. MSCI World Chart 2GAA U.S. Vs. Non U.S. Model (Level 1) Chart 3GAA Non U.S. Model (Level 2) Please see also the website http://gaa.bcaresearch.com/trades/allocation_performance. For more details on the models, please see Special Report, "Global Equity Allocation: Introducing The Developed Markets Country Allocation Model," dated January 29, 2016, available at https://gaa.bcaresearch.com. Please note that the overall country and sector recommendations published in our Monthly Portfolio Update and Quarterly Portfolio Outlook use the results of these quantitative models as one input, but do not stick slavishly to them. We believe that models are a useful check, but structural changes and unquantifiable factors need to be considered too in making overall recommendations. GAA Equity Sector Selection Model Dear Client, As advised last month, we have suspended the GAA Equity Sector Selection Model due to the significant changes in the GICS sector classifications, implemented at the end of September. We will rebuild the model using the newly constituted sectors once full back data is available from MSCI, which we understand will be in December. We thank you for your understanding.

Dear Client, You will see in this Monthly Portfolio Update that we have expanded our table of Recommendations to include a wider range of the views that Global Asset Allocation (GAA) regularly discusses in its publications. Please see our most recent Quarterly Portfolio Outlook1 for a detailed explanation of those recommendations that we do not specifically touch on in this Monthly. A note on our publication schedule. We will not publish a Monthly for December, or a Q1 2019 Quarterly in mid-December. Instead, we will send you in late November the BCA 2019 Outlook (BCA's annual discussion with Mr. and Ms. X). This will be accompanied by a short GAA note, updating our recommendation tables with a brief commentary. Best Regards, Garry Evans A Correction, Not A Bear Market Investors have a tendency to forget that corrections are common in bull markets. The current equity run-up, which began in March 2009, has seen five corrections (defined as a 10-20% decline in the S&P500). We may now be experiencing the sixth, with the index already down 9.9% from its peak on September 20. Recommendations But we think the evidence is fairly strong that this is just a correction and not the beginning of a new bear market (using the common definition of a 20% or greater fall). It is highly unusual for bear markets to occur - and for bonds to outperform equities - except in the run-up to, and during, recessions (Chart 1). We see little to suggest that a recession in on the horizon over the next 12 months. Chart 1Corrections Are Not At All Rare What caused the correction? The immediate trigger was a seemingly concerted series of statements in early October from FOMC officials, including even doves such as Lael Brainard, that economic circumstances are "remarkably positive" and that rates remain "a long way from neutral" (to quote Fed Chair Jay Powell). In particular, New York Fed President John Williams argued that the neutral rate of interest (the r*) is very uncertain - even though he was joint creator of the main model that estimates it. The implication is that the Fed will keep on raising rates until the economy clearly slows. This pushed the 10-year Treasury yield above 3.2%. Markets are starting to worry that the Fed will make a policy mistake and that certain segments of the economy (housing, emerging markets?) may be too weak to withstand tighter monetary policy. Moreover, this is in a context in which global growth has been weakening (Chart 2), China appears to be slowing quite sharply (Chart 3), the trade war is escalating (with the U.S. now threatening to impose tariffs on all Chinese imports), and valuations for most assets are stretched. Chart 2Outside The U.S., Growth Is Slowing Chart 3Sharp Slowdown Ahead For China? So how worried should investors be? Most of the usual indicators of generalized risk aversion have not flashed strong warning signals during the equity market sell-off (Chart 4). The move up in bond yields came mostly from a rise in real yields, not inflation expectations, and the yield curve steepened, suggesting that markets are pricing in stronger growth not excessive Fed action. Safe haven assets, such as gold and the Swiss franc, did not perform particularly strongly. Credit spreads rose a little, by around 70 basis points, but do not yet signal stress. Chart 4No Signals Of Strong Risk Aversion Moreover U.S. growth, in particular, remains robust. Though the r* may be tricky to estimate, monetary policy is still clearly accommodative and is likely to remain so until at least mid-2019, even if the Fed hikes by 25bp a quarter (Chart 5). Fiscal policy will be stimulative until the end of 2019, adding 1.1 percentage points to growth this year and 0.5 next, according to IMF estimates. Earnings growth will slow from its current lick - Q3 U.S. earnings look like coming in at 23% year-on-year, compared to a forecast of 19% before the results season - but our models suggest that 2019 bottom-up estimates are about right, with growth slowing to around 10% in the U.S. and to somewhat less in the euro area and Japan (Chart 6).2 Chart 5Fed Policy Still Accomodative Chart 6Earnings Growth To Continue, Albeit More Slowly If we have a concern, it is that a few interest-rate sensitive elements of the U.S. economy are showing signs of softness. Housing starts have been weak for a while, but higher mortgage rates may now be having an effect, with residential investment subtracting from GDP growth in all three quarters so far this year (Chart 7). However, mortgage rates are unlikely to continue to rise at the same pace and so the effect should weaken in further quarters. Capex intentions and durable orders have also slipped, perhaps suggesting that corporations have reined back investment plans due to global uncertainties (Chart 8). But these signs point to slower growth next year, not recession, with the U.S. likely to continue to grow above trend. Historically, higher long-term rates have proved a drag on the economy only when they have risen above trend nominal GDP growth, currently around 3.8% (Chart 9). We have some way to go before we reach that tipping-point. Chart 7Housing Is Hurting Chart 8...And Capex Is Getting Cautious Chart 9Rates Matter When They Exceed Nominal Growth We moved to neutral on risk assets, including equities, at the beginning of July. Many of the worries we flagged then have come about. This is late in the cycle, and so volatility will probably remain elevated. However, we do not expect the next recession to come until 2020 at the earliest. Moreover, none of the warning signals on our bear market checklist (which includes the shape of the yield curve, profit margins, a peak in cyclical spending as a percentage of GDP, Fed policy becoming restrictive etc.) are yet flashing, though several may do by mid next year. Equity market valuations are no longer expensive after the recent sell-off (Chart 10). If the current correction were to continue and the drop in the S&P 500 extend to 15% and in global equities to 20% from their most recent peaks, we might be inclined tactically to move back overweight on risk assets. Chart 10Stocks Are No Longer Expensive Currencies: We expect further U.S. dollar appreciation. Divergences in growth and monetary policy between the U.S. and other developed markets will continue. While we expect the Fed to continue to hike once a quarter until end-2019, we could imagine the ECB turning more dovish if euro zone growth continues to slow and Italian BTP 10-year bond yields rise above 4%. The Bank of Japan will stick to its Yield Curve Control policy, which will prevent the yen rising. Emerging market currencies look vulnerable as their economies slow as a result of central bank rate hikes earlier in the year. Asian currencies might undertake competitive devaluations if the renminbi falls below 7, as a result of a worsening trade war. Fixed Income: Long-term rates are unlikely to have peaked for this cycle. Core inflation will stay at around 2% for a few more months because of a favorable base effect, but underlying inflation pressures (the result of rising wages and increases in import tariffs) will push up U.S. inflation by mid next year (Chart 11). A combination of higher inflation, steady Fed hikes, and deteriorating supply/demand conditions (which will raise the term premium) will move 10-year rates above 3.5% by mid-2019 (Chart 12). We accordingly recommend being short duration and overweight TIPs. U.S. high-yield bonds look somewhat attractive, with a default-adjusted spread of 270 bps, after their recent modest sell-off (Chart 13). But this is dependent on our assumption (based on Moody's model) of credit defaults of only 1.04% over the next 12 months.3 Given where we are in the cycle, and considering the elevated corporate leverage in the U.S., we do not consider this a risk worth taking, and so maintain our moderate underweight in credit. Chart 11Underlying Inflation Pressures Are Strong Chart 12Indicators Point To Treasury Yields Above 3.5% Chart 13Are Junk Bonds Attractive Again? Equities: We prefer DM equities over EM, and favor the U.S. and, to a degree, Japan. Emerging markets continue their deleveraging process and will be hurt by rising U.S. rates, a stronger dollar, and slowdown in China. Valuations for EM equities, though one standard deviation cheap relative to global equities, are not yet sufficiently attractively valued to permit investors to buy EM stocks irrespective of their poor fundamentals. Moreover, analysts are still far too optimistic on the outlook for EM earnings, flattering the valuation metric (Chart 14). Stronger growth and an appreciating currency point to an overweight in U.S. equities which, moreover, would be likely to outperform in the event of a deeper correction, given their low beta. Chart 14EM Equities Aren't As Cheap As They Seem Commodities: The crude oil price has fallen back a little in recent weeks, as a result of increases in OPEC production, a modest slowing of demand, and releases of the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Our energy strategists have slightly lowered their 2019 Brent forecast to $92 a barrel, from $95 (Chart 15). However, they warn that geopolitical risks, such as widespread application of sanctions on Iran and a collapse in Venezuela, and limits to capacity in Saudi Arabia and U.S. shale production could easily cause spikes above $100.4 A 100% year-on-year rise in oil prices has historically been a clear warning of recession. That would equal Brent at $120 in 1H 2019. Metal prices will continue to be driven by China. At the moment we see no sign of China implementing a major stimulus, which would boost infrastructure spending and therefore demand for commodities (Chart 16), and so we expect further falls in industrial commodities prices. Chart 15Oil Prices Can Rise Further Chart 16No Sings Of Big China Stimilus Garry Evans, Senior Vice President Global Asset Allocation garry@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see GAA Quarterly Portfolio Outlook - October 2018, available at gaa.bcaresearch.com 2 For details of these models and the assumptions behind them, please see The Bank Credit Analyst November 2018, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 3 For details please see BCA U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "What Kind Of Correction Is This?", dated October 30, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 4 For details please see BCA Commodity & Energy Strategy & Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Risk Premium In Oil Prices Rising; KSA Lifts West Coast Export Capacity", dated October 25, 2018, available at ces.bcaresearch.com GAA Asset Allocation

Highlights After tumbling more than 20% between June and August, copper prices have remained largely static. This reflects the tug-of-war between the near-term bullish physical market fundamentals, and the cloudier macro headwinds ahead, arising from a stronger U.S. dollar. Furthermore, Chinese policymakers are unlikely to abandon their reform agenda and stimulate massively, which will put downside pressure on copper prices further down the road. Despite our negative 12-month outlook, we do not rule out the potential for some upside going into year-end, on the back of falling inventories. Energy: Overweight. News leaked earlier this week indicates the Trump administration is divided over whether to grant waivers on Iranian crude oil imports to big importers like China, India and Turkey, following the re-imposition of sanctions on November 4.1 The U.S. State Department, in particular, appears worried the sanctions will produce a price spike that could derail growth in the U.S. and its allies. This suggests the Administration will be less determined to enforce its Iranian export sanctions, until it has been assured Saudi Arabia and Russia will be able to bring enough production on line in 1H19 to cover the lost Iranian exports, and possible deeper Venezuelan losses. Markets will remain focused on actual export losses from Iran - if they come in at the high end of expectations (i.e., greater than 1.5mm b/d), we expect higher prices; if it becomes apparent the U.S. will go soft on enforcing sanctions, prices would fall. Expect higher volatility. Base Metals: Neutral. Copper prices could rally over the short term, on the back of lower inventories. However, longer term, we see no catalysts to push prices toward recent highs of ~ $3.30/lb on the COMEX. Precious Metals: Neutral. Gold's break above $1,200/oz is holding, but it continues to grind in a $1,210 to $1,240/oz range. Ags/Softs: Underweight. The USDA will report on export sales of grains and oil seeds today. Soybean exports were down 21% y/y for the current crop year, based on the Department's October 18 report. Feature Tight Market Conditions Suggest A Brief Upswing ... After remaining in the $2.90-$3.30/lb trading range for the better part of 1H18, copper prices plunged ~20% since their June peak. The trigger? The escalation of the U.S.-China trade war. The increasingly acrimonious trade relationship acted as a reality check. Investors betting on strike-induced mine supply shortfalls earlier this year were forced to adjust expectations regarding the resilience of the global, and, more specifically, the Chinese business cycles.2 The negative impact of the trade war is clear: copper prices moved to the downside with each escalation in the dispute (Chart of the Week). While current market fundamentals do not necessarily warrant such drastic declines, we see these developments as a wake-up call to market participants. Copper sentiment - previously buoyed by expectations of mine strikes (which failed to materialize) - has come crashing down (Chart 2). Chart of the WeekCopper Down On Trade War Chart 2Sentiment Has Come Crashing Down However, the outlook in the very near term is not so bleak. The evidence below suggests tight physical conditions, indicating copper's next move could be to the upside: Chinese copper imports came in strong in September (Chart 3). While unwrought copper imports reached a 2.5-year high, ores and concentrates forged new record highs. Chart 3Chinese Imports Came In Strong The resilience of Chinese purchases comes on the back of restrictions on scrap imports, which account for a significant share global copper supply (Chart 4). As we have been highlighting, Chinese restrictions on the purity of scrap imports require other forms of the metal to fill the supply gap.3 At the same time, the 25% tariff imposed on Chinese imports of U.S. scrap since August also manifests itself in greater demand for other forms of the metal. This is evident in weak scrap copper imports (Chart 5). Chart 4A Dependable Secondary Market Is Essential For Global Supply Chart 5Scrap Import Restrictions Raise Need For Other Forms Of Copper Copper inventories at the three major global exchange warehouses have been declining steadily and together now stand at half their late April peak (Chart 6). This is their lowest level since late 2016. Chart 6Exchange Inventories At Two Year Low The above evidence of a tight market is in line with copper's futures curve, which is recently pricing a premium for physical delivery (Chart 7). Chart 7Markets Pricing A Premium For Physical Delivery Going into the winter, smelter disruptions may lend further upside support amid these tight conditions: The Vedanta copper smelter in the Indian state of Tamil Nadu was forced to shut down in May due to violent protests. The smelter has an annual production of over 400k MT. In Chile, Codelco gave notice to the market that two of its four smelters will undergo weeks-long outages, in order to comply with tightening of emissions rules - requiring smelters to capture 95% of emissions - due to take effect in December. This will halt production from smelters at the Chuquicamata and Salvador mines for 75 days and 45 days, respectively. Furthermore, in mid-October BHP Billiton reduced its 2018 copper production forecast by 3% to between 1.62mm MT and 1.7mm MT, due to shutdowns at its Olympic Dam facility in Australia and Spence in Chile. Bottom Line: Dynamics at the scrap level in China and disruptions at major smelters in India, Chile and Australia justify tight copper market conditions. This offers potential for a minor rebound in copper prices in the very near term. ... Ahead Of Macro Headwinds In the medium term, macro headwinds will dominate the physical market, capping gains in copper prices. Most notably, fall-out from the U.S.-China trade war in absence of aggressive traditional forms of stimulus, will weigh on demand there. Furthermore, U.S. dollar strength on the back of economic and monetary policy divergences, will make the red metal more expensive for global consumers. Ex-U.S. Growth Unpromising Given the stimulative fiscal policies in the U.S., our House View still does not expect a recession before late-2020. However in the meantime, the global economy will be characterized by divergence in favor of the U.S. (Chart 8). Chart 8Global Economic Divergence Favors U.S. Of utmost importance is, of course, China - where roughly half of global refined copper is consumed. The trade dispute with the U.S. has raised concerns over the resilience of the Chinese economy. Recent data releases have done little to ease fears of a manufacturing slowdown. The Li Keqiang Index and our China construction proxy - both of which are strongly correlated with copper prices - are on a slight downtrend (Chart 9). Chart 9Ominous Signs From China China's 3Q18 GDP data indicate the Chinese economy grew by the slowest pace in nearly a decade (Chart 10). At the same time, PMI's have fallen to or near the 50 level - the boom-bust line - reflecting pessimism in the manufacturing sector. The real estate market - where 45% of China's copper is consumed - also looks gloomy. Home sales rolled over, boding ill for future housing starts. Chart 10Weak Q3 GDP Mirrors Manufacturing And Property Sectors What's more, we are not betting on a flood of stimulus to rescue China's ailing economy. As our colleagues at BCA's Geopolitical Strategy service have been highlighting, the drive to combat vulnerabilities in financial markets raised the pain threshold of Chinese policymakers.4 As such, they are not likely to abandon their reform agenda at the first sign of weakness, as they traditionally have. Although some measures have already been implemented to ease policy, the current response is not yet as promising for commodity markets as has historically been the case. For one, credit growth is constrained by China's de-leveraging campaign. Although there is some evidence that the clampdown on shadow financing is easing, it is not yet at simulative levels (Chart 11). And while the money impulse is rebounding thanks to Reserve Requirement Ratio cuts, the credit impulse is still falling deeper into negative territory. Chart 11Shadow Banking Restrained By Reform Agenda Additionally, as Peter Berezin who heads BCA's Global Investment Strategy highlights, China's more recent forms of (consumption-based) stimulus such as income tax reforms do not boost commodity demand. The same goes for the other way in which Chinese authorities are trying to stabilize their economy: by depreciating the RMB. This is in clear contrast to traditional measures such as fixed asset investment, which stimulate demand for raw materials and capital goods.5 Overall, the current level of stimulus is not sufficient to boost the Chinese economy. Nor, by extension, is it enough to lift EMs, and commodity prices in the process. In fact, copper markets have been oblivious to various announcements by Chinese authorities that they are easing policy (Chart 12). Chart 12Copper Markets Oblivious To Chinese Stimulus Our Geopolitical Strategists warn that the U.S.-China trade war could get worse before it improves. Thus, while policymakers are not yet compelled to throw in the towel with their reform agenda, they are pragmatic and will likely intensify their response if conditions deteriorate further. If authorities were to deploy massively stimulative fiscal and monetary policy by propping up infrastructure and the real estate sector - as they traditionally have done - chances are that we would be able to escape further price weakness in copper markets. For now, the evidence points at a more modest policy approach. Green Dollar, Red Metal As a counter-cyclical currency, the U.S. dollar will shine in the current weaker ex-U.S. growth environment. What's more, limited spare capacity in the U.S. and a strong labor market foreshadow rising U.S. inflation readings. This will justify continued tightening by the Fed. Economic divergences favoring the U.S. economy will amplify the impact. Rising U.S. borrowing costs will be painful for debt-laden EM economies. Their Central Banks will struggle to keep the pace with the Fed. Similarly, the European Central Bank - conscious of turmoil in Italy - will be forced to maintain a more dovish stance. This will weigh down on the EUR/USD. A stronger dollar generally dents demand by making commodities - priced in U.S. dollars - more expensive for foreign consumers. While energy markets dominated by supply risks remain disconnected from their long-term negative correlation with the U.S. dollar, the relationship with metals has re-converged (Chart 13).6 This leaves copper more vulnerable to the downside amid dollar strengthening. The impact will be magnified for Chinese consumers as the RMB weakens further, forcing the top consumer to cut down on imports of the red metal. Chart 13USD-Copper Relationship Re-converged Bottom Line: Headwinds from weakness in China and a stronger dollar will be a drag on demand next year. Unless Chinese policymakers temporarily abandon their reform agenda and stimulate massively, medium term copper prices will face pressures to the downside. Model Updates Given the macro headwinds outlined above, we revised our copper demand forecast. Our balances now point to a slight surplus in 2019 (Chart 14). In the context of 24mm MT of consumption p.a., a 100k MT surplus can be characterized as a balanced market. This makes prices vulnerable to upside or downside surprises, which can easily tip the scale. Chart 14Broadly Balanced Market In line with our market assessment, we simulated forecasts for copper prices based on a 5% and 10% appreciation in the USD over the coming 12 months (Chart 15). Chart 15Macro Headwinds In 2019   Roukaya Ibrahim, Editor/Strategist Commodity & Energy Strategy RoukayaI@bcaresearch.com 1 Reuters published an interesting analysis containing the apparently leaked information re the internal disputes in the Trump administration entitled "Trump's sanctions on Iran tested by oil-thirsty China, India" on October 29, 2018. 2 In the Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report published January 25, 2018, we highlighted the risk to mine supply in 2018 on the back of an unusually large number of labor contract renegotiations taking place this year - representing ~ 5 mm MT worth of mined copper. Most noteworthy was the risk of a strike at the Escondida copper mine in Chile. These have been largely resolved with minimal impact on supply. Please see "Stronger USD, Slower China Growth Threaten Copper," available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Research Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report titled "Copper: A Break Out, Or A Break Down?" dated May 17, 2018. Available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA Research Geopolitical Strategy Special Report titled "China Sticks To The Three Battles," dated October 24, 2018. Available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see BCA Research Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report "Chinese Stimulus: Not So Stimulating" dated October 26, 2018, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see BCA Research Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report titled "Correlations Vs. USD Weaken," dated June 14, 2018. Available at ces.bcaresearch.com. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed in 2018 Summary of Trades Closed in 2017

Highlights Economic data and policy announcements over the past month reflect the view that policymakers are serious about restraining credit growth, and that they will attempt to combat any weakness in external demand by boosting domestic consumption. A review of historical episodes of "outsized" investment intensity shows that policymakers have good reason to try and shift the composition of China's economy towards consumption, as it suggests that China's current experience probably cannot be sustained. A shift even somewhat away from heavy investment-led growth means that the "strike price" of the China put option has fallen relative to past economic slowdowns, implying that it will take more pain before investors can cash in. It is too soon to move towards an outright long position favoring domestic stocks, even though considerable bad news has been priced in. CNY-USD likely has further downside, and investors allocating among Chinese stocks should only favor domestic over investable equities in currency-hedged terms. Feature September's total social financing data, released earlier this month, provided important evidence supporting our view that Chinese policymakers are not aiming for a significant acceleration in private sector credit growth. Chart 1 highlights that the year-over-year growth rate of adjusted total social financing (TSF) actually ticked modestly lower in September, in clear contrast to the bet of many investors that China is following its "old stimulus rulebook". Chart 1Chinese Policymakers Are Not Pumping The Credit Taps Some market participants have pointed to the fact that adjusted TSF is rising sharply on a 3-month annualized basis after adjusting for seasonality (Chart 2), and have concluded from this fact that a sustained expansion in credit growth is forthcoming. However, Chart 3 illustrates that the pickup shown in Chart 2 is due to a surge in special local government bond issuance, which reflects front-loading of fiscal spending. Financial news outlets have reported that "provincial authorities had by the end of September already raised 92 percent of the 1.35 trillion yuan ($195 billion) worth of special infrastructure bonds that the central government has targeted for the entire year",1 implying that local government bond issuance in Q4 will drop off significantly relative to the past three months. Chart 2A Near-Term Pickup... Chart 3...Caused By Front-Loaded Fiscal Spending The September credit data aside, we acknowledge that there have been several small-scale stimulus announcements from the Chinese government over the past month. But the bottom line for now is that developments over this period reflect the view that policymakers are serious about restraining credit growth, and that they will attempt to combat any weakness in external demand by boosting domestic consumption.2 Restraining Credit Growth: Wisdom Or Folly? China's unwillingness to resort to a significant acceleration in credit growth to help stabilize its economy has surprised some investors, and raised criticism in some corners that the country is making a policy mistake. A recurring argument in this vein, particularly among perennial China bulls, is that policymakers should not be concerned about China's elevated levels of private sector debt because it is the natural and inevitable result of a high savings rate. According to this view, restraining credit growth and attempting to boost consumption merely dooms China's ability to escape the middle-income trap, because higher per capita income can only be achieved by further growth in the stock of capital. BCA's China Investment Strategy service does not dispute the notion that a high savings rate can lead to a high leverage ratio, particularly among small, fast-growing economies. But in the case of China, the sharp rise in private sector debt that has occurred since 2010 was not natural, and certainly was not inevitable. Instead, our view is that it was the result of an explicit "least-bad" choice made by policymakers to weather the reality of poor external demand following the global financial crisis. Chart 4 presents, in a nutshell, the theoretical support for the "keep investing" view. The chart depicts real per capita GDP for 80 countries in 2014 as a function of the average share of gross capital formation to GDP from 1960 to 2014. The chart clearly shows that richer countries today have tended to invest more on average in the past, which is entirely consistent with textbook economic theory. Chart 4Higher Investment Has Led To Higher Per Capita GDP Growth... However, there are two reasons why the simple inference from Chart 4 that China should just "keep investing" is deeply flawed. First, while investment as a share of GDP in China has recently declined from its 2011-2014 peak, it remains close to 45%. This is a massive rate of investment, and a historical review points to the conclusion that it probably cannot be sustained: 45% is nearly off the x-axis scale shown in Chart 4, suggesting that China's current rate of investment is not achievable over extended periods of time. In fact, the chart suggests that 30% is the highest realistic rate of investment as a share of GDP that a country can maintain over an extended period. In 2014, based on the definition of the data from the Penn World Table (GDP share of gross capital formation at current purchasing power parity), China had maintained its investment share above 30% for 12 years. At first blush, there appears to be some precedent suggesting that China's outsized investment run can go on for longer: among the 80 countries included in Chart 4, 14 of them have experienced a longer continuous run of investment as a share of GDP. However, Chart 5 shows that most of these experiences occurred in the 1960s and 1970s, when global exports as a share of GDP were rising from a very low base. This implies that historical examples of outsized investment runs have largely reflected export-driven catch-up stories, which bodes poorly for China's ability to continue to invest at its recent massive scale given that global exports to GDP appear to have peaked. Chart 5...But Very High Rates Of Investment Have Driven By Exports Second, the relationship shown in Chart 4 captures the potential gains of profitable and rational investment, or in other words the accumulation of a "useful" stock of capital. But an unfortunate reality facing savers is that while one can choose to save or invest, one cannot necessarily choose the accompanying rate of return. If China invests heavily at very low or negative rates of return, the idea that investment will lead China out of the middle-income trap is very likely wrong. As we have discussed in previous reports, there is good evidence to suggest that the marginal gains from investment in China have been falling. The private sector debt-to-GDP ratio features prominently in the case against profitable investment in China: despite a massive rise in investment and debt from 2002-2007, the private sector debt-to-GDP ratio barely rose, because this debt was used to accumulate capital that verifiably delivered nominal GDP growth. Yet following 2010 the ratio rose sharply, implying that the returns from the investment that has taken place over the past decade have been (at least so far) considerably lower than those of the prior decade. Also, we noted in our August 29 Special Report that state-owned enterprises (SOEs) have accounted for a sizeable portion of the private sector leveraging that occurred after 2010,3 and that the marginal operating gain from debt for SOEs has become negative (Chart 6). A gap between the cost/return on borrowed funds strongly implies that the investment channeled through SOEs over the past several years does not represent, on balance, the accumulation of useful capital. Chart 6Strong Evidence Against Productive SOE Investment In our view, a cohesive story emerges from the above analysis, one that counters the view that China is making a policy mistake by trying to avoid another significant episode of private sector leveraging. China's enormous catchup in per capita GDP over the past 20 years was initially export-led, but was sustained after 2010 by quasi-fiscal spending in the form of a material leveraging of state-owned enterprises. This shadow government spending was aimed at preventing large-scale job losses, but proved to be considerably less productive than the private, export-driven investment-boom that preceded it. This suggests that China is simply investing too much for an economy that needs to accumulate capital for the purposes of domestic production, and that any further, aggressive leveraging of the private sector will simply raise the odds or the cost of the eventual bailout. While investors who are hoping to profit from China's credit excesses may wish for a different outcome, the bottom line is that Chinese policymakers will act in the best interests of their country, and they have good reason to try and shift China's economy away from extremely high rates of investment towards more consumption. Implications For Investment Strategy As would be the case in any other major country, we have no doubt that Chinese policymakers will eventually move to a maximum reflationary stance (which would imply a significant reacceleration in credit growth) if they feel that the existing slowdown will lead to deep, threatening economic instability. The key point for investors is that a desire of policymakers to shift even somewhat away from heavy investment-led growth means that the "strike price" of the China put option has fallen relative to past economic slowdowns, implying that it will take more pain before investors can cash in. Within the universe of Chinese financial assets, there are three pertinent investment strategy questions that arise from this reality: Even if there is more pain to come, Chinese domestic stocks have fallen 30% in local currency terms, and close to 40% in U.S. dollar terms (Chart 7). Is it time to go outright long? Should investors allocating among Chinese stocks favor domestic or investable equities? What is the outlook for CNY-USD? For now, our answers are as follows: 1) not yet, 2) domestic over investable in currency-hedged terms, and 3) weaker (possibly significantly so). Chart 7The Bear Market In A-Shares Is Advanced... We agree that 30% is a reasonable estimate of the likely decline in domestic earnings over the coming year, which normally would suggest that A-shares have fully priced the bad news and that investors should consider buying. However, there are two key reasons why we think this conclusion is premature: We noted in our September 19 Weekly Report that the lesson of 2014/2015 was Chinese stocks needed both policy stimulus and earnings clarity before bottoming.4 For now, China's stimulative response has been measured, and we have yet to see any decline in domestic 12-month forward earnings (Chart 8). While it is not the only factor contributing to the decline, the escalation in the trade war with the U.S. acted as a clear negative catalyst for the Chinese stock market. We have argued that the evolution of the trade positions of both sides suggests that the imposition of a third and final round of import tariffs covering all Chinese exports to the U.S. is likely, which would further reduce Chinese earnings visibility for investors. News reports this week suggested that an announcement to this effect could occur in early-December, if a meeting between Presidents Trump and Xi is called off or fails (as we expect). Chart 8...But Forward EPS Have Yet To Start Falling Chart 9 presents our framework for forecasting CNY-USD as a function of various U.S. import tariff scenarios, which we used to argue that a break above the psychologically-important level of 7 for USD-CNY appeared likely barring strong action from the PBOC4. The RMB has weakened in line with our view over the past month, and Chart 9 shows that it stands to weaken further, potentially significantly, if the U.S. does move ahead with a 25% import tariff on all imports from China. Chart 9Further Downside In CNY-USD Is Likely Finally, our negative outlook for the currency informs our view that a relative position favoring domestic over investable stocks should be currency-hedged. Chart 10 shows that an uptrend in relative performance does appear to be forming in local currency terms, but not in U.S. dollar terms (due to the recent renewed weakness in CNY-USD). Chart 10Relative To Investable Stocks, Only Favor A-Shares In Hedged Terms We opened a shadow trade in our July 5 Weekly Report of being long the MSCI China A Onshore index / short MSCI China index,5 which we said we would consider implementing in response to a 5% rally in relative performance. Our intention was to structure this trade in unhedged terms (consistent with most of the trades in our trade book), and our judgement is that it is simply too early to do so despite the fact that a 5% relative rise in U.S. dollar terms has indeed occurred. Signs of a durable bottom in CNY-USD, or an assessment of minimal further downside coupled with strong outperformance of domestic stocks in local currency terms, are likely catalysts for a green light. Jonathan LaBerge, CFA, Vice President Special Reports jonathanl@bcaresearch.com 1 "China Is Struggling To Find Projects To Spend Bond Splurge On", Bloomberg News, October 22, 2018. 2 Pease see China Investment Strategy Special Reports "China: How Stimulating Is The Stimulus?", dated August 8, 2018, and "China: How Stimulating Is The Stimulus? Part Two", dated August 15, 2018, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 3 Pease see China Investment Strategy Special Report "Chinese Policymakers: Facing A Trade-Off Between Growth And Leveraging", dated August 29, 2018, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 4 Pease see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report "Investing In The Middle Of A Trade War", dated September 19, 2018, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 5 Pease see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report "Standing On One Leg", dated July 5, 2018, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations

Special Report

Highlights So What? Chancellor Angela Merkel's decision to step down as party chairperson is positive for European political evolution and thus not a risk to the market. Why? The Christian Democratic Union (CDU) is unlikely to turn Euroskeptic, the median German voter is not. Europhile Green Party is surging, throwing shade at the narrative that Germans are souring on Europe. New elections are unlikely in the next 12 months, neither main centrist party would benefit. Chancellor Merkel's stabilizing role in the Euro Area crisis is overstated. Infusion of new blood is precisely what Germany, and Europe, needs. Also... 2019 will be a big year for Europe with multiple decisions to be taken on governance reforms. New leadership in Berlin is exactly what the doctor ordered. Feature German Chancellor Angela Merkel's Christian Democratic Union (CDU) suffered a deep loss in the Hesse election on October 28. Germany's main centrist parties - the center-right CDU and center-left Social Democratic Party (SPD) - suffered deep losses in Hesse, mirroring the results in Bavaria from October 14 (Chart 1). The results have prompted Angela Merkel to confirm that she will not stand for re-election as chair of the CDU at the Hamburg party convention and that she will not seek any political posts after her current term as chancellor ends in 2021. Chart 1Winners And Losers In Bavaria And Hesse In this Client Note, we examine what Chancellor Merkel's decision means for Germany and Europe. Are Euroskeptics Taking Over Germany? The most important question for global investors is whether Merkel's fall from grace is related to a growing trend of populism in Europe. In part, yes. However, Merkel's problem is deeper. Merkel-fatigue in Germany has deeper roots than her decision on immigration in 2015. Polling suggests that Merkel recovered from that crisis and reached a 70% approval rating in mid-2017, only to see a precipitous decline since (Chart 2). Chart 2Merkel's Political Capital Is Spent That said, German Euroskeptic sentiment is not on the rise (Chart 3). In fact, Germans support the currency union at one of the highest clips in Europe. Furthermore, Germans continue to "feel" European (Chart 4). Chart 3Germans Are Europhile... Chart 4...And Feel Quite European In the last two Lander elections in Bavaria and Hesse, the right-wing, Euroskeptic party Alternative for Germany (AfD) underperformed its national polling. Its support in opinion polls, at 16%, appears to be limited by the number of Germans who identify as Euroskeptic, similarly around 14%. In fact, it was the Green Party that surprised in both Bavaria and Hesse, gaining 8.9% and 8.7% respectively. Bottom Line: The short answer is no, Germany is not being taken over by Euroskeptics. True, the 2015 migration crisis has given the AfD a tailwind, allowing it to become entrenched in the political system. Yet just as impressive is the rise of the Europhile Green party (Chart 5). Chart 5Grand Coalition Parties Would Be Crazy To Call A New Election OK, But Will The CDU Move To The Right? The previous question was purposely hyperbolic. The more nuanced question is whether the CDU will swing to the right in the face of AfD's rise? The answer depends on the issue. The two key issues are immigration and EU integration. On immigration, it is simply good politics for Germany's center-right party to steal from the AfD platform. The only downside of adopting a right-leaning immigrant policy is that it will make forming coalitions with the surging Green Party more difficult. It was immigration policy that ultimately prevented the so-called Jamaica Coalition - the CDU, the Green Party, and the pro-business and mildly Euroskeptic Free Democratic Party (FDP) - from becoming a fully-fledged ruling coalition in November 2017. This forced Merkel to re-establish the uninspiring Grand Coalition with the SPD.1 On European integration, it is possible that the CDU will adopt more Euroskeptic rhetoric, but such a move could backfire. First, data suggests that Germans continue to support the euro at a high clip. Second, AfD has already captured the "hard Euroskeptic" voters, whereas FDP has captured "soft Euroskeptics." It is unclear if the CDU has any chance of getting any of those voters back by crowding the "Euroskeptic corner." In fact, data from Bavaria and Hesse indicate that the CDU has been losing voters equally to the Green Party and the AfD. From the perspective of the Median Voter Theory, the CDU has a clear path forward. By remaining Europhile and pro-EU, it can ensure that it does not abandon the 83% of Germans who continue to support the currency union. The German median voter clearly does not want to abandon European institutions. But by ditching Merkel's liberal, pro-immigrant policy, the CDU can ensure that it withstands the AfD's attack on its right flank. Bottom Line: Germany's main center-right party has the luxury of picking its battles with the right-wing AfD. We suspect that the CDU will adopt some of the AfD's anti-immigrant rhetoric and policy, but retain its centrism on other issues. Who Will Replace Merkel As The Head Of The CDU? After months of speculation, Chancellor Merkel has confirmed that she will not pursue the CDU chairmanship at the upcoming December 7-8 party conference in Hamburg. Instead, Germany's ruling party will select a new chairperson, one who will be groomed as Merkel's successor for the 2021 election. The process for selecting the CDU chairperson is largely closed and dominated by party elites. The Federal Executive Board of the CDU - which is made up of the chairperson and 39 other members - sits down with the CDU parliamentary faction to approve the candidates, ensuring that a rogue candidate cannot stage a surprise in the delegate vote. It is highly likely that Merkel will be able to hand-pick a successor. Table 1 is our attempt to collate the likeliest candidates to replace Merkel as the head of the CDU. The list includes only one Euroskeptic candidate - former party whip Friedrich Merz who has not sat in the Bundestag since 2009 - and quite a few outright Europhiles. Merkel's preferred candidate is Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer - often referred to by German media by her acronym AKK - a centrist who is to the left of Merkel on economic policy, EU matters, and social issues. Table 1Potential Merkel Successors Given the short period of time between now and the Hamburg conference, it is highly unlikely that a surprise candidate - such as the Euroskeptic Merz - will emerge victorious. Merkel, for instance, spent months grooming the party rank-and-file prior to her nomination. Bottom Line: Merkel's successor is likely to be hand-picked. Will Merkel Survive Until 2021? Merkel's chances of staying in power until the end of the current government's term will increase if her favored successor - Kramp-Karrenbauer - emerges victorious in December. A win for an outsider, or someone highly critical of Merkel (such as Jens Spahn, who has disagreed with Merkel on immigration), might hasten Merkel's demise. How would such an outcome play out? If Merkel resigns, the Bundestag would have to elect a new chancellor with a simple majority. Given that the CDU currently governs in a coalition with the SPD, the latter party would have to support the election of a new chancellor. Kramp-Karrenbauer would be acceptable to the SPD, but one of the more contentious candidates may not. A new election would require the chancellor - Merkel or her successor - to lose a confidence vote that he or she has called. However, this is a controversial matter constitutionally as the government must claim that it has reached a legislative impasse on a particular issue. (Chancellor Gerhard Schroder argued in 2005 that his economic agenda was stalled.) The other question is why would either of the ruling parties want new elections at this point? Both centrist parties are tanking in the polls, as both Bavarian and Hesse elections signal and as overall polling indicates (see Chart 5). As such, we suspect that a new election will not take place over the next 12 months, at the very least. Bottom Line: Early elections are not easy to arrange and neither of the two ruling parties want one at the moment. Merkel has at least one more year in power. Investment Implications: Does Any Of This Matter? Chancellor Merkel has lost all of her political capital: that much is clear. As such, her decision to begin the process of finding a successor is a positive development, one that political leaders rarely take willingly. Given the election of a Europhile Emanuel Macron in France in 2017, Berlin needs to find a comparable partner that can carry on reforms. Otherwise, Germany risks wasting the window of opportunity afforded by the Macron presidency to make critical changes to Euro Area governance. On the agenda over the next year or two are several important issues. First, the European Stability Mechanism (ESM) is supposed to be granted new powers, evolving it into a kind of European replacement for the IMF. Some argue - including the ESM's leadership - that this expanded role will necessitate a greater injection of capital, for which obviously Berlin must be on board. Second, the stalled Banking Union project requires Berlin's intimate involvement. A deposit insurance union would go a long way toward stabilizing the Euro Area amid future financial crises. Under Merkel, Berlin has been reticent to greenlight such developments. Third, Berlin must agree with EU peers on several important positions after the European Parliament elections in May 2019. These will include staffing the European Commission. According to press reports this summer, Merkel was focused on ensuring that the next president of the European Commission would be a German. To get her way, Chancellor Merkel supposedly indicated that she would not fight to get a German to replace Mario Draghi, whose term at the ECB is set to expire in October 2019. A change at the top in Berlin, particularly if a Euroskeptic takes over the CDU, may signal a reversal of this strategy. That said, what Berlin wants is not necessarily what Berlin will get, no matter who is in charge. Finally, there is the philosophical question of whether Merkel has been a factor of stability for Europe over the past decade. We believe the answer is no. Not for any normative reason but rather because she has been an intently domestic chancellor. Investors have been overstating Merkel's role as the "anchor" of Euro Area stability. She has, in fact, dithered multiple times throughout the crisis. In 2011, for example, Merkel delayed the decision on whether to set up a permanent Euro Area fiscal backstop mechanism due to the upcoming Lander elections in Rhineland-Palatinate and Baden Württemberg. Such delays and hesitations have cost Europe considerable momentum throughout the crisis and since. As such, we believe that Chancellor Merkel's decision presents considerable upside for European politics and limited downside. Infusion of new blood in Berlin is the only way for Europe to restart the stalled governance reforms. However, much will depend on whether the CDU takes a significant turn towards a "softer Euroskeptic" position or maintains its traditional pro-European outlook. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com 1 The name references the colors of the three parties (black for CDU, green for the Green Party, and yellow for the FDP).

Highlights Growth Scare: Despite the recent pickup in global equity market volatility, bond volatility remains subdued. Until there is more decisive evidence of a deeper pullback in global growth that is impacting the mighty U.S. economy, yields on government bonds - which remain overvalued in all major developed economies - will have difficulty falling much more even if equity markets continue to correct. Stay below benchmark on global duration exposure, while maintaining only a neutral allocation to global credit. Canada: The Bank of Canada remains on a hawkish path to a more neutral policy rate, even with the lingering concerns over household debt and global trade tensions. Stay underweight Canadian government bonds in hedged global bond portfolios. Feature Just like that other great October tradition, Halloween, market volatility has returned to spook investors. Both the MSCI All-Country World Index and S&P 500 index are officially in correction territory, down -10% from the highs reached in September. The causes for the pullback range from high-profile third quarter U.S. earnings disappointments to increased evidence that the U.S.-China tariff war is negatively impacting U.S. investment spending. Yet the reaction from global bond markets has been relatively muted for such a large pullback in stocks. Benchmark 10-year government bond yields for the major developed markets are down from their peaks, but the declines have been smaller in countries where central banks are in a rate hiking cycle (U.S. -14bps, Canada -19bps) relative to countries where central banks are on hold (Germany -20bps, U.K. -31bps). One possible reason for this discrepancy is that the downtrend in data surprises appears to have stabilized in the U.S. and, even more importantly, China, while European data continues to disappoint relative to expectations (Chart of the Week). Chart of the WeekNoisy Equities, Calm Bonds We still do not believe that global bond yields have peaked for the cycle. We continue to recommend a below-benchmark strategic bias on overall duration exposure, but with only a neutral allocation to global corporate bonds that favors U.S. credit. On a more shorter-term tactical basis, there is a risk that yields could decline further, with more credit spread widening than seen during the current risk-off episode, if economic data starts to disappoint in the U.S. where growth has so far been resilient. Staying up in credit quality within an allocation to U.S. corporates is one way to hedge against such an outcome. Bond Yields Are Normalizing, Bond Volatility Is Not The selloff in risk assets has resulted in a pickup in widely-followed market volatility measures like the U.S. VIX index. Yet when looking at the level of realized total return volatility across all major asset classes, the current bout of turbulence has been unimpressive outside of global equities. In Chart 2, we present an update of a chart from our 2018 global bond outlook report, showing the current levels of realized volatility across different asset class benchmarks compared to their historical ranges. The vertical lines in each chart represent the range between 1999 and 2017 of annualized monthly volatilities for global government bonds, credit, equities, currencies and commodities. The red triangles represent the most recent 13-week annualized volatilities for those same asset classes. What stands out in the chart is that volatilities are off the historical lows for global equities, Italian government bonds and industrial commodities, yet volatilities remain subdued for developed market government bonds, global corporate debt and currencies. Chart 2Bond Volatility Remains Subdued, Despite More Volatile Equities We have long argued that the shift to a structurally higher level of volatility across all asset classes will show up first with a rise in bond volatility. In the U.S., in particular, sustained periods of elevated volatility for both Treasuries (as measured by the MOVE index) and stocks (as measured by the VIX index) have occurred alongside episodes of greater variance in nominal GDP growth (Chart 3). When the latter rises, that also triggers more uncertainty about the future path of monetary policy which feeds into a rise in expected bond volatility. That, in turn, impacts volatility in growth sensitive assets like equities, credit and commodities. Chart 3Equity Vol Responding To Growth Uncertainty Right now, nominal GDP volatility has picked up in the U.S. but still remains low by historical standards (middle panel). Some of that increased growth volatility can be attributed to the Trump fiscal stimulus coming at a time of full employment, which has helped boost both real GDP growth and U.S. inflation. Interest rate markets have moved to discount more Fed hikes in response, but the Fed's steady pace of well-telegraphed, 25bps-per-quarter rate increases is likely acting to dampen Treasury market volatility. As we have written about extensively throughout the course of 2018, the hurdle for central banks (not just the Fed) to shift to a less hawkish or more dovish policy stance is much higher when unemployment is low and inflation is closer to central bank targets. In such an environment, the correlation between equity and bond returns should be weaker than during periods of excess capacity and low inflation when central banks can stay dovish. That can be seen in Chart 4, which plots the trailing 52-week correlation of total returns for equities and government bonds for the major developed markets (top panel), along with the 10-year market-based inflation expectations for each country (bottom panel). For almost all countries shown, the stock/bond correlation has risen to zero away from the negative correlations that dominated the post-crisis years. That move in correlations has occurred alongside a more stable backdrop for inflation expectations, which are much closer to central bank targets. The lone exception is, of course, Japan, where inflation remains disappointingly low and the Bank of Japan continues to keep a tight lid on interest rates. Chart 4More Stable Inflation Means Less Correlated Stock & Bond Returns Besides more stable inflation, another factor preventing yields from falling as much as implied by the declines in equity markets is that global bond yields remain overvalued relative to trend economic growth. One way to assess this is to look at the level of real bond yields relative to a moving average of actual GDP growth. We show this for the major developed economies in Charts 5 & 6, which plot rolling 3-year moving averages of real GDP growth (a proxy for "trend" or potential growth) versus real 5-year government bond yields, 5-years forward. For the latter, we take the nominal 5-year/5-year forward yield and subtract a five-year moving average of realized headline inflation for each country, rather than market-based inflation-linked instruments like CPI swaps or TIPS, to allow for a longer history of real yields in the charts. Chart 5Real Bond Yields Are Still Too Low ... Chart 6... Compared To Real Economic Growth For all countries show, real bond yields remain below the level of real growth. The gap between the two is smallest in the U.S. and Canada - unsurprising, as central bankers have been tightening monetary policy, and helping push up real interest rates, in both countries. Bonds look most overvalued in core Europe, Japan and Sweden where policymakers have been using negative interest rates and quantitative easing (QE) to hold down bond yields. Real yields in those countries are between 200-300bps below our proxy for trend real growth. With such a large gap between actual growth and interest rates, it becomes harder for policymakers to consider easing monetary policy, or at least slow the pace of policy normalization, in response to more volatile financial markets. It should not be a surprise that last week, during a period of global market turmoil, the European Central Bank and Sweden's Riksbank both signaled that they remain on pace to end QE and begin hiking interest rates within the next 6-12 months, while the Bank of Canada delivered another 25bp rate hike. In the absence of a VERY large global growth shock, global real yields should be expected to increase over at least the next year, and a defensive posture on global duration exposure should be maintained. One such shock could come from a deeper downturn in China than has already occurred in 2018, which would feed into a bigger slowdown in non-U.S. growth. Another shock could come from the U.S. if the recent pullback in core durable goods orders (Chart 7) is a sign that a) U.S. companies are becoming more worried about the impact of U.S.-China trade tariffs on global growth; and/or b) the impact of the Trump fiscal stimulus is already starting to fade. Such a move could be exacerbated by a larger downturn in housing activity than seen already in response to rising mortgage rates. Chart 7Treasuries Are Exposed To A U.S. Growth Scare These shocks, if large enough, could trigger a short-covering rally in U.S. Treasuries, where sentiment remains very depressed (bottom panel). However, with leading economic indicators still pointing to above trend U.S. growth, and with U.S. consumer spending holding firm alongside a tight labor market and faster wage growth, such a pullback in yields would likely be short-lived and difficult for investors to time successfully. Bottom Line: Despite the recent pickup in global equity market volatility, bond volatility remains subdued. Until there is more decisive evidence of a deeper pullback in global growth that is impacting the mighty U.S. economy, yields on government bonds - which remain overvalued in all major developed economies - will have difficulty falling much more even if equity markets continue to correct. Stay below benchmark on global duration exposure, while maintaining only a neutral allocation to global credit. Canada Update: The BoC Stays Hawkish The Bank of Canada (BoC) delivered another rate hike last week, lifting the policy rate by 25bps to 1.75%. The language used to explain the hike was surprisingly hawkish. In the press conference following the BoC meeting, Senior Deputy Governor Carolyn Wilkins noted that the policy rate remains negative in real terms and is still below the central bank's estimate of neutral (between 2.5% and 3.5%). She also noted that the term "gradual" was no longer used to describe the pace of monetary tightening, so as not to give the impression that policy was following a steady predetermined path similar to the Fed's tightening cycle - potentially, a sign that more hawkish surprises could be in the offing. The BoC also sounded more optimistic on the outlook for the Canadian economy, while sounding less concerned about the two factors that should cause the most worry - high consumer debt levels and uncertainty over global trade. The more upbeat tone is at odds with the current pace of economic growth in Canada, which has slowed. GDP growth has decelerated to 1.9% from 3.0% at the end of 2017, while the OECD's leading economic indicator for Canada is also in a downtrend (Chart 8). In the Monetary Policy Report (MPR) that was also released last week, the latest BoC forecasts for Canadian real GDP growth for 2019 and 2020 were essentially left unchanged. Chart 8Is The BoC's Growth Optimism Justified? The BoC noted that the composition of demand within the Canadian economy was shifting away from consumption and housing towards business investment and exports. That can be seen in the most recent data that shows sluggish consumer spending (middle panel) and rebounding export growth (bottom panel). The central bank attributes the softer path for consumption to its own interest rate increases and changes to housing market policies, both of which have forced households to adjust their spending patterns. That is evident in the sharp decline in house price growth, deceleration of household credit growth and the softening trends in housing starts and residential investment spending (Chart 9) Chart 9Canadian Housing Has Cooled Off The BoC is of the view, however, that consumer spending will rebound (but not overheat) on the back of strong household income growth and a pickup in net immigration inflows that is boosting population growth. The other area of diminished concern for the central bank is investment spending, which has been negatively impacted by the uncertainty over the renegotiation of the North America Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). That smooth acronym is now gone, to be replaced by the more awkward "USMCA", or United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement. That new trade deal has reduced the immediate uncertainty over the impact of U.S. trade policy on Canada, although the BoC did note in the MPR that there was still the potential for lingering uncertainty based on previous U.S. trade actions (i.e. on steel and aluminum imports to the U.S.) and because the USMCA has not yet been ratified. The BoC did make an upward adjustment to its assumptions regarding the hit to Canadian growth from U.S. trade policy compared to the July MPR. The level of exports is now only expected to fall by -0.3% over the next two years (vs -0.7% in the July MPR) and business investment is expected to decline by -0.7% over the same period (vs -1.4% in the July MPR). The reduction in trade uncertainty should be expected to free up demand for capex in Canada. The Q3/2018 BoC Senior Loan Officers' Survey reported a further easing of lending standards from the Q2 survey (Chart 10). The central bank's Q3 Business Outlook Survey also noted that firms' investment intentions continued to strengthen to the highest level in eight years (middle panel). This was primarily due to increased expectations for future sales growth, coming at a time of high reported capacity pressures (bottom panel). Importantly, the Business Outlook Survey took place before the USMCA deal was reached, suggesting that the data may actually understate sales expectations. This bodes well for future gains to overall GDP growth from business investment spending. Chart 10Canadian Companies Need To Invest & Hire That same Business Outlook Survey also reported that firms are continuing to experience labor shortages, most notably in sectors such as construction, transportation and information technology. This is a sign that employment growth should remain firm in Canada. Coming at a time when the unemployment rate at 5.9% remains well below estimates of full employment, this suggests that there could be some upward pressure on inflation. Canadian headline CPI inflation currently sits at 2.2%, while core CPI inflation is at 1.8% (Chart 11). That is a sharp decline from the 3% inflation seen in July, which was the result of an unexpected surge in airline fares. Yet at current levels, Canadian inflation sits right at the midpoint of the BoC's 1-3% target range. Furthermore, the BoC's own assessment is that the output gap is in a range of -0.5% to +0.5%, in line with the estimates from the IMF and OECD (middle panel). Although headline wage growth has cooled in recent months, the BoC's preferred measure that incorporates several wage measures ("Wage-Common"), has been stable near the same 2% levels as seen for CPI inflation. Chart 11Canadian Inflation At BoC Target Expect More BoC Hikes With the Canadian economy operating at full employment and with inflation at target, the BoC seems determined to push the policy rate back up towards their estimated 2.5%-3.5% range for the neutral rate. This means another 75-175bps of additional rate increases. At the moment, there are only 49bps of hikes over the next year discounted in the Canadian Overnight Index Swap (OIS) curve (Chart 12). This leaves Canadian bond yields exposed to additional rate increases. This is especially true given our forecast of continued Fed interest rate increases in 2019, as the BoC has been playing a game of "Follow the Leader" with the Fed during the current tightening cycle (top panel). Chart 12Stay Underweight Canadian Government Bonds In terms of our recommended fixed income investment strategy, we continue to favor: an underweight stance on Canadian government bonds for global bond investors a below-benchmark duration stance within dedicated Canadian bond portfolios long positions in Canadian inflation protection (CPI swaps or inflation-linked bonds) While we expect the Canadian yield curve to flatten as the BoC delivers more rate hikes than currently discounted over the next year, we do not see the 2-year/10-year curve flattening by more than is currently priced in the forwards. This is not the case for an outright duration bet, where the forwards are currently priced for very little upward movement in Canadian bond yields over the next year. Therefore, we prefer to stick with directional bets on Canadian yields (higher) and Canadian relative bond performance versus global peers (worse). Bottom Line: The Bank of Canada remains on a hawkish path to a more neutral policy rate, even with the lingering concerns over household debt and global trade tensions. Stay underweight Canadian government bonds in hedged global bond portfolios. Robert Robis, CFA, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com Ray Park, CFA, Research Analyst ray@bcaresearch.com Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns