Financial Markets

Recommended Allocation Central Banks Still In The Driving Seat Markets continue to obsess about every move from the three major DM central banks. With two of them (the Fed and the ECB) likely to withdraw accommodation cautiously over the coming 12 months, the upside for risk assets is limited. The Fed is signaling that it will probably hike in December and the futures market is pricing in a 70% probability of that happening (roughly the probability one month before the rate rise in December last year). Inflation expectations have picked up recently (Chart 1) and core PCE inflation ticked up to 1.7% in August, within "hailing distance", as Fed vice-chair Stanley Fischer put it, of the Fed's 2% target. There is a political angle, too: having forecast four rate rises for the year, the Fed would endanger its credibility (and risk an audit from Congress) if it failed to deliver even one. At the same time, with growth in the Eurozone running a little above trend, the ECB is likely to announce in December an extension to its asset purchase program beyond March 2017 but eventually at a slower pace (a "tapering"). Reflecting these factors, government bond yields have moved up in recent months (Chart 2), and the trade-weighted dollar has strengthened by 4% since mid-August. None of these moves are good for risk assets, which have consequently moved sideways since August. But neither do they presage a big selloff since central banks will err on the side of caution. Inflation in the U.S. is unlikely to jump: wage growth will be kept under control by a gradual rise in the participation rate, which will prevent unemployment falling much further (Chart 3). The Fed's leaders continue to sound dovish. Janet Yellen even raised the question in a recent speech of "whether it might be possible to reverse these adverse supply-side effects [from the 2007-9 Global Financial Crisis] by temporarily running a 'high-pressure economy'", though she emphasized this was a suggestion for further economic research not her view. More practically, the FOMC will have a more dovish tilt in 2017, as the three regional Fed presidents who voted for a hike in September rotate out. Chart 1Have Inflation Expectations Bottomed? Chart 2Bond Yields Moving Higher Chart 3Core Workers Reentering The Labor Force Meanwhile, economic data remain somewhat sluggish. The U.S. manufacturing and non-manufacturing ISMs both rebounded sharply in September, suggesting that the very weak August prints were, as we suggested, an anomaly. Q3 U.S. real GDP growth come in at 2.9%, but the New York Fed's NowCast points to a slowdown to 1.4% in Q4. The Citi Economic Surprise Index (Chart 4) has also turned down again recently, with notable weakness in consumer spending and housebuilding. We expect this sluggish pace to continue through 2017: consumption should hold up as wage rises come through, but it is hard to forecast a strong recovery in capex, given the low capacity utilization rate (Chart 5), even if investment in the mining and energy sectors bottoms out next year. Eurozone growth could stutter too. It is driven substantially by credit growth, but historically European banks have tended to curtail lending after their share prices have fallen, as has been the case recently (Chart 6). Chinese growth has stabilized (at least in the GDP data, which seems to come in regularly at 6.7%, bang in the middle of the government's target range), thanks to the government's reflation policy from earlier this year. While the Chinese authorities have now reined back a little on stimulus, given their worries about the run-up in house prices,1 they offer an option since they would undoubtedly reflate again should growth slow. Chart 4Data Surprising Negatively Again Chart 5Hard To See More CAPEX Indeed Chart 6Share Prices Influence Lending All this suggests that returns from investment assets will be low, but positive, over the coming 12 months. With economic growth anemic but stable, bond yields prone to drift up, and equities expensive (but not as expensive as bonds), we expect risk-adjusted returns from the major asset classes to be broadly similar. We continue to recommend therefore a neutral weighting between bonds and equities, and suggest that investors look to pick up extra return through tilts to investment-grade corporate credit, inflation-linked over nominal bonds, and alternative assets such as real estate and private equity. Equities: Our preference remains for U.S. equities over European ones in USD terms. The dollar is likely to strengthen further, and the worst is not over for Eurozone banks - the time to buy into them will be at the point of maximum pain, which may come if German or Italian banks have to be bailed out by their governments. We continue to recommend a small (currency-hedged) overweight on Japan. The Bank of Japan's new policy to cap 10-year government bond yields at 0% has worked so far: the yen has weakened to JPY 104 to the dollar and equities have risen moderately. We expect further fiscal or wage-control measures from the government to give inflation an extra push. We remain wary of EM equities: earnings growth is negative, loan growth has started to slow (with the credit impulse having a high correlation with earnings and economic growth), and there is still little sign of structural reform. Some sectors in EM - notably IT and Healthcare - are attractive, however. Fixed Income: U.S. Treasury bond yields are likely to rise further - our model suggests fair value is a little below 2% (Chart 7) - and so we remain underweight duration. A moderate pickup in inflation suggests that TIPs will outperform nominal bonds (as described in detail in our recent Special Report).2 We lowered our recommendation in high-yield corporate debt to neutral last month because, at 65 BPs, the default-adjusted spread no longer offers sufficient return to justify the risk. At the start of the year it was 400 BPs (Chart 8). We continue to like investment-grade debt, where the spread over government bonds is 120 BPs in the U.S. and 100 BPs in the Eurozone, higher than at any point in 2005-2006 during the last expansion. Chart 7Treasury Yields Could Rise Further Chart 8Junk No Longer Offers Enough Return Currencies: We expect the U.S. dollar to continue to appreciate given the differential in growth and monetary conditions between the U.S. and other developed economies. The dollar looks expensive, but is nowhere near the over-bought levels it got to at the peak of previous rallies in 1985 and 2002 (Chart 9). China seems likely to allow a further weakness of the RMB against the dollar, repegging it to a trade-weighted currency basket. This could push down other emerging market currencies too particularly if, like Brazil recently, they try to cut rates to boost growth. Chart 9USD Not As Overvalued As In The Past Commodities: Oil has probably overshot in the short-term on expectations that Saudi Arabia and Russia will cap, or even cut, production. We think this talk has been overhyped and that the OPEC meeting in November could prove a disappointment. Nonetheless, we still see the equilibrium level for crude over the next two years at USD 50 a barrel, the marginal cost for U.S. shale producers. Industrial commodities are likely to fall further (they peaked in June) if we are right that the dollar appreciates. We continue to like gold as an inflation hedge, but short-term are nervous because it, too, is negatively correlated with the dollar. Garry Evans, Senior Vice President Global Asset Allocation garry@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see China Investment Strategy "Housing Tightening: Now And 2010" dated October 13, 2016, available at cis.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see Global Asset Allocation Special Report "TIPS For Inflation-Linked Bonds," dated October 28, 2016, available at gaa.bcaresearch.com Recommended Asset Allocation Model Portfolio (USD Terms)

Special Report

"That as the only possible policy in our day for a conqueror to pursue is to leave the wealth of a territory in the complete possession of the individuals inhabiting that territory, it is a logical fallacy and an optical illusion in Europe to regard a nation as increasing its wealth when it increases its territory, because when a province or state is annexed, the population, who are the real and only owners of the wealth therein, are also annexed, and the conqueror gets nothing." 1 Norman Angell's "The Great Illusion" posited in the early 1910s that war would be futile for developed nations, especially given the rising importance of economic and financial ties. Nevertheless, the arms race from the late-1800s gained momentum and eventually led to the Great War, dealing a devastating blow to his arguments. The European armament dynamics of the late-19th century/early 20th century are eerily reminiscent of the current post-Great Recession global arms race. Back then Germany, Austria-Hungary and Italy on one side, and Britain, France and Russia on the other, were fiercely trying to outpace each other in military expenditures. The crumbling Ottoman Empire along with the newly created smaller states in Greece, Serbia, Bulgaria and Romania were also eager weapons purchasers. Today, a fresh military expenditure-related development pops up almost daily. Not only are the U.S. and China boosting military spending, but also Japan, Australia, India, Vietnam, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Russia, etc (Chart 1).2 The list goes on and on. The driving factor is "multipolarity," i.e. the emergence of multiple competing great powers, which BCA's Geopolitical Strategy service has shown to be a key investment theme.3 Chart 1U.S. Defense Spending Is More Than The Rest Of The World Combined While we are not arguing that WWIII will erupt in the coming years, the purpose of this Special Report is to identify the winning global equity sectors from the intensifying global arms race (Chart 2): global defense stocks come atop of our list, but also global space-related equities and cyber security firms would be beneficiaries of the secular increase in military outlays. On a regional basis, the U.S. defense stocks are the only game in town, but undiscovered Chinese, and to a lesser extent Russian, defense stocks are intriguing as are Israeli defense and tech stocks (please refer to the Appendix below for ticker symbols). Chart 2Intensifying Global Arms Race Late 19th/Early 20th Century: Militarism, Globalization & Finance Back in the late-1800s, the ascendancy of Germany was challenging the hegemony of Britain, fueling a European-wide arms race. Smaller newly formed states were also on the hunt for the latest and greatest weaponry. During the Balkan Wars of 1912-13 airplanes were deployed in combat for the very first time, highlighting the importance of new technology. Behind this explosive European rearmament were a few large British companies (Vickers Sons & Maxim Ltd, Armstrong and Whitworth, and Coventry Ordnance Works). "By 1905, its capital of £7.4 million ranked Vickers sixth amongst British companies; Armstrong Whitworth, with 5.3 million pounds capital was eleventh".4 Basil Zaharoff, who acted as general representative for business abroad for Vickers,5 was reputedly one of the richest men in the world.6 Moreover, globalization was on the rise in the late 19th century, as evidenced by global imports as a percentage of GDP (Chart 3). Industrialization coupled with imperialism and the colonization of Asia and sub-Saharan Africa along with population growth and rising demand for commodities were key drivers behind the jump in 19th century globalization. Finally, all of this was made possible by cross-boarder finance. Trade finance and credit growth skyrocketed in the late-1800s and the rising interconnectedness of global financial centers was most evident in the 1907 stock market panic that originated in the U.S., but spread like wildfire to the rest of the world. Chart 3Twin Peaks Of Globalization? Chart 4Heeding The Early 1960s Parallel What About The 1960s? The idea of militarily outspending opponents was very evident in the early-1960s when U.S. defense spending surged by 20% on a year-over-year basis (Chart 4), bolstering demand once again for military contractors. The mutually assured destruction (MAD) doctrine of military strategy and national security policy declared overtly in the early-1960s by U.S. defense secretary Robert McNamara and the Space Race competition between the Cold War rivals also have striking similarities with today, as far as investment implications are concerned. Parallels With Today China's ascendency to a world power large enough to challenge the hegemony of the U.S. is a sea change.7 The rearmament of East Asia is reminiscent of late 19th and early 20th century Europe and involves Japan, Australia, South Korea, Vietnam and India. All of the Middle East, along with Turkey and Russia, are on a structural military spending spree. European NATO fringe states are also arming furiously (Chart 5), trying to thwart Russia's regional ambitions. In the U.S., despite the Budget Control Act of 2011 (sequestration), the CBO projects that defense spending will rise gradually from $586 billion in 2015 to $739 billion by 2026 (Chart 6). This is before any push for a fiscal spending thrust that both presidential candidates have proposed, which would include increased defense outlays. While as a percentage of GDP defense spending may drift sideways, in absolute terms it will likely rise, and thus boost demand for defense contractors. Chart 5Stealthy Rise In Defense Outlays Chart 6CBO Estimates New Defense Spending Highs Globalization has hit an apex recently (Chart 3).8 The world is still licking its wounds from the recent GFC, where U.S. financials stocks were so intertwined with their global peers that the crisis effectively brought down to its knees the global financial system and gave birth to unorthodox monetary policy that Central Banks are still currently deploying. Global Rearmament Beneficiaries If our hypothesis that a global arms race will continue to heat up in coming years pans out, then owning global defense stocks as a structural bet will pay handsome dividends. The global push away from austerity and toward more fiscal spending should also support aggregate defense demand. Thus, there are high odds that global defense stocks are primed to deliver absolute positive returns, irrespective of where the broad global equity market drifts in the next five years. Similar to Vickers and Armstrong and Whitworth making impressive stock market strides early last century, global defense stocks should continue to be high flyers. The early-1960s U.S. aerospace & defense (A&D) stocks are the only close stock market parallel we have come across in our analysis (given data constraints) and comparing this index's available metrics of that era with today is in order. A big pushback to the U.S. Equity Strategy service's constructive view on the U.S. defense index (since the late-2015 inception) has been that the valuations of these stocks are already full, leaving no valuation cushion for any mishaps (Chart 7). True, defense stocks are on the expensive side, but not if they manage to grow into their valuations, as we expect. Relative performance was up over 100% in a span of four years in the 1960s (Chart 8), as U.S. aerospace & defense industrial production (IP) swelled to a 20% per annum clip with utilization rates running at 95% (Chart 8). A&D factories were humming, racing to fulfill orders as U.S. military expenditures were thriving (Chart 4). Chart 7Buy Global Defense Stocks Chart 8In The 1960s A&D Factories Were Humming... This demand surge translated into a jump in sector sales momentum (Chart 4), and given the industry's high operating leverage, earnings and book values soared. From trough to peak, sector EPS rose more than 400%, margins expanded from sub 2% to nearly 8%, and book value doubled (Chart 9). That stellar performance justified initial valuation premiums at the time. Using that period as a guide would imply that there is ample upside left for relative performance of the global defense index (that is a pure play on global defense spending). For comparison consistency, we use U.S. A&D figures. Currently, U.S. A&D IP is contracting, with resource utilization running at 80%. U.S. A&D relative performance has risen a mere 30% since the Great Recession (Chart 10). Chart 9...Boosting The Allure Of ##br## A&D Stocks Chart 10If History At Least Rhymes, ##br## There Is Still Ample Upside... Likely, the advance is still in the early innings, and analysts have been very slow to upgrade their EPS estimates accentuating the apparent overvaluation. Importantly, 5-year forward relative EPS growth estimates are deep in negative territory which is very perplexing given the upward trajectory of industry demand (Chart 11). Given that we only have access to data for MSCI All-Country World aerospace & defense long-term EPS expectations the caveat is that some of the poor expectations and performance could be because of the waning aerospace delivery cycle. Unlike the deteriorating health of the broad corporate sector, profit margins are expanding and net debt-to-EBITDA is a comfortable 1.2x. Similarly, interest coverage ratio is near an all-time high of 8x (Chart 12), while the overall markets EBIT/interest expense ratio is half that. Chart 11...Especially ##br## Given Depressed Analysts' Expectations Chart 12Defense ##br## Wins Championships Global defense sector return on equity (ROE) is almost 30% and rising (Chart 13), whereas global non-financial corporate (NFC) ROE is hitting multi-year lows, with the U.S. NFC ROE plumbing all-time lows (Chart 14). Free cash flow is also growing briskly and the industry is making greenfield investments, with capex growing 9.5% year-over-year, the mirror image of the global NFC sector that is pruning capital outlays (middle and bottom panels, Chart 13). Chart 13Defense Flexing ##br## Its Muscles... Chart 14...Vs. The Atrophy In The U.S. ##br## Non-Financial Corporate Sector On the valuation front, modest overvaluation exists, as portrayed by the high relative price-to-cash flow and price-to-book multiples. However, the global defense stocks forward P/E ratio and EV/EBITDA multiple are on an even keel with the broad market (Chart 15), and if our thesis that a secular uptrend in defense-related demand looms proves accurate, then these stocks are not expensive, but on the contrary still represent a buying opportunity. Chart 15Mixed Signals On The Relative Valuation Front Chart 16Defense Is The Best Offense The Rise In Terrorism, Global Space Race And Cyber Security Threat The unfortunate structural increase in terrorist activity will also embolden governments around the world to step up defense spending (top panel, Chart 16).9 The latter tends to move in long cycles. U.S. defense industry revenues have already begun to outpace those of the overall S&P 50010, and a prolonged upturn lies ahead, based on the message from the previous upcycle. From a cyclical perspective, the defense capital goods shipments-to-inventories ratio is outpacing the overall manufacturing sector (second panel. Chart 16), reinforcing the case for ongoing earnings outperformance. The same also holds true in Europe. Western European terrorist attacks have increased, heralding further relative gains for the euro area aerospace & defense index (bottom panel, Chart 16). Beyond the disastrous spike in terrorism, the global space race is also gaining traction, with China spearheading the charge. There is a good chance that China will attain geosynchronous orbit satellites (residing more than 20,000 miles above the earth), challenging U.S. space dominance. India's space aspirations are grand and it is slowly and stealthily rising up the ranks on the space race. Moreover, as more countries aim to have manned space missions, that translates into higher space budgets and thus firming demand for space-related expenditures (Chart 17). Chart 17Space, The Final Frontier Finally, the number of cyber-attacks is also on the rise globally. Defending against attacks is a challenge. Not only does the cyber space domain definition remain elusive, but tracking hackers down is also increasingly difficult given the vastest of the internet, lack of global uniform policing methods and physical country borders. Crudely put, it is a lot easier for a Chinese or Russian hacker to deal a blow, for example, to U.S. nuclear infrastructure rather than physically deliver an attack. All of this suggests that investment in anti-hacking and counter cyber-attack capabilities is necessary around the globe in order to thwart cyber-terrorism. Risks To Our View While there is conceivably a risk that China will abruptly halt its intense militarization and make a U turn in its long-term strategy of becoming a military superpower, we assign a very low probability to such a turn of events. The global push for more fiscal spending may not materialize, which would be a risk to our sanguine global defense spending view. As Paul Volcker and Peter Peterson recently opined in a NY Times article11 - offering a different view from the always-articulate Larry Summers - prudent and fiscally responsible spending is in order given the excessive debt-to-GDP ratio that is probing war-like levels (Chart 18). This excessive debt overhang is not only a U.S. phenomenon, but also a global one spanning both advanced and emerging economies. Chart 18Excessive Debt Is A Risk To Bullish View On Global Defense Stocks One final risk is that the world will enter a prolonged peace phase and global terrorism will get quashed, with conflicts dying down in the Middle East, Russia reining in its imperialistic ambitions and China ceasing to stir the waters in the South and East China Seas. We would also assign low odds to this optimistic "no conflict phase" scenario, but it would indeed be welcome. Investment Conclusion Factors are falling into place for a structural outperformance period in the global defense index. The early-1900s and early-1960s parallels, coupled with the trifecta of terrorism, space race and cyber security all point to upbeat demand for defense-related goods and services. Expressing this buoyant view can be done from a bottom up perspective. The Appendix below highlights all the companies in the global defense index we track from Datastream and the alternative one from Bloomberg. An investable proxy is the U.S. aerospace & defense index as the U.S. dominates global A&D indexes and aerospace outfits also sport significant defense corporate segments (please see the Appendix below for relevant tickers). There are also three fairly liquid ETFs mimicking the U.S. A&D index: ITA:US, PPA:US & XAR:US. Moreover, below are a few more speculative investment ideas. Given China's dominance of global defense spending (ex-U.S.) we are confident that Chinese A&D stocks will also be eagerly sought after and deliver alpha in the coming years (please refer to the Appendix below for a list of China plays). If one has the resilience and the stomach to invest in Russian equities given high political and currency risk, then Russian A&D stocks may be a desirable vehicle. Russia remains a massive weapons exporter with a large sphere of influence. We would not underestimate the returns in local currency of some Russian A&D stocks (the Appendix below lists some Russian A&D listed firms). Finally, Israel A&D and IT companies either listed on NASDAQ or domestically in Tel Aviv offer some great opportunities for investors that can handle riskier investments. Not only Israel's geography, but also its intense IT/military focus and entrepreneurial culture imply that a number of these companies will be long-term winners (please see the Appendix below for relevant tickers). While most of the drones, space-related, and highly specialized IT companies are private, there is a drone and an anti-hacking ETF (IFLY:US & HACK:US). On the space front, we are tracking an index that comprises a number of space-related constituents that we show in the Appendix below. Nevertheless, most of these companies are categorized under A&D. Bottom Line: We are initiating a structural overweight in the global defense index with a longer-than-usual five year secular investment horizon. The re-rating phase in this index is still in the early innings. The re-rating phase in this index is still in the early innings. We also reiterate our overweight in the BCA U.S. defense index (LMT, GD, RTN, NOC, LLL). Anastasios Avgeriou, Vice President Global Alpha Sector Strategy anastasios@bcaresearch.com 1 Angell, Norman (1911), The Great Illusion: A Study of the Relation of Military Power in Nations to their Economic and Social Advantage, (3 ed.), New York and London: G.P. Putnam’s & Sons. 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, “The Great Risk Rotation,” dated December 11, 2013, available at gps.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, “Multipolarity And Investing,” dated April 9, 2014, available at gps.bcaresearch.com 4 Angell, Warren, Kenneth (1989), Armstrongs of Elswick: Growth In Engineering And Armaments To The Merger with Vickers, London, The Macmillan Press Ltd. 5 http://www.oxforddnb.com/index/38/101038270/ 6 https://www.britannica.com/biography/Basil-Zaharoff 7 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, “Sino-American Conflict: More Likely Than You Think, Part II,” dated November 6, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com 8 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy, “The Apex Of Globalization - All Downhill From Here,” in Monthly Report, “Winter Is Coming,” dated November 12, 2014, available at gps.bcaresearch.com 9 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, “A Bull Market For Terror,” dated August 5, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com 10 Please see U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report, “Wobbling,” dated December 7, 2015, available at uses.bcaresearch.com 11 http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/22/opinion/ignoring-the-debt-problem.html?_r=0 Appendix Table A1BI Global Defense Primes Competitive Peers Table A2World Defense Index (DS: DEFENWD) Table A3S&P 500 Aerospace & Defense Index ##br## (S5AERO Index) Table A4China ##br## Aerospace & Defense Table A5Russia & Israel Aerospace & Defense Table A6Kensho Space Index

Special Report

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

Dear Client, This week, I am currently on the road visiting clients across Europe. We are sending you an abbreviated weekly report as well as a Special Report from our Geopolitical Strategy team entitled “U.S. Election: Final Forecast & Implications”. Not only does this report encompass a detailed analysis of the upcoming U.S. presidential election and its implications for the future of U.S. politics, it also introduces GPS’s poll-plus model, a model which currently forecasts a Clinton victory. I trust you will find this piece very informative. Best regards, Mathieu Savary, Vice President Foreign Exchange Strategy Highlights The U.S. dollar is consolidating its recent gains, but it offers more upside in the months ahead A Trump victory would supercharge any dollar strength, but is likely to hurt the dollar in the long-term. In Japan, no more fiscal drag and a tightening in the labor market will ultimately result in a lower yen, courtesy of higher inflation expectations and falling real rates. The Australian labor market points to weaknesses in the domestic economy. Any EM turmoil could launch an AUD bear phase. Feature The U.S. dollar continues to consolidate its recent gains. While the dollar is expensive, it still offers upside potential. Monetary divergences remain in favor of the U.S. economy. U.S. labor market slack is disappearing and the rising share of salaries and wages in the national income pie is likely to further support consumption. Shifting the distribution of economic gains toward workers signifies that the middle class is gaining ground relative to households at the summit of the income ladder. This process should help consumption because the middle class has a much higher marginal propensity to consume than the top 1% (Chart I-1). If consumption growth remains healthy, job creation is likely to fan additional wage pressures, creating a virtuous circle for U.S. households and consumption. This virtuous cycle is likely to help the Fed increase rates over the next two years, providing a source of support for the dollar (Chart I-2). Chart I-1Shifting Income To The Middle Class Will Support Consumption Chart I-2A Virtuous Cycle For The Dollar In terms of the presidential election outcome, the shift of the median voter to the left signifies that redistributionist policies are likely to become an ever growing part of the U.S. political discourse. This reality is likely to provide another source of support for the U.S. dollar, at least for now. While a Clinton victory will not halt these trends, a Trump victory would likely supercharge any dollar bull market. While vague in details, Trump's economic plan involves much more infrastructure spending financed with debt issuance, i.e. a large amount of fiscal stimulus that would remove the need for any dovish tilt to the Fed's stance. Moreover, by raising the specter of protectionism, a Trump victory could revive inflationary forces in the U.S. economy. Protectionism, while negative for profits, would decrease the trade deficit, temporarily lifting U.S. GDP. Since the supply side of the economy has been hampered by tepid levels of investment (Chart I-3), we could see a situation where demand is in excess of supply. This would prompt an even more hawkish Fed. However, although a Trump victory would be a dream for dollar bulls, caution is warranted. In the long-term, a Trump administration implies a falling fair value for the dollar. For one, by lifting inflation, a Trump victory would hurt the PPP value of the greenback. Second, a Trump victory would also ultimately lead to a degradation of the USD's role as the global reserve currency, making the -40% of GDP net international investment position of the U.S. more difficult to sustain (Chart I-4). Finally, by shielding the economy from the competitive pressures of globalization, a Trump victory would likely result in a deterioration of U.S. productivity vis-à-vis the rest of the world. Chart I-3Low Capital Stock Growth Would Crystalize The##br## Inflationary Effect Of A Trump Presidency Chart I-4The Dollar Needs Its ##br##Reserve-Currency Status Yen Signs pointing toward a strong wave of yen weakness are slowly coming together. In recent years, the yen has closely followed real rates differentials (Chart I-5). With the BoJ guaranteeing a limit on the upside for nominal rates, any improvement in the economy is likely to cause inflation expectations to increase, and thus real rates, to fall. What are the signals pointing toward higher inflation expectations and a lower yen? First, the labor market is tightening. The job-opening-to-applicants ratio is at a 15 year high and employment growth remains healthy (Chart I-6). Meanwhile, the participation rate of women in the labor force is at all-time highs, and at 73.5%, the employment-to-population ratio for prime-age women is already above U.S. levels. In fact, it is at similar levels to those experienced in the U.S. during the boom years of the late 1990s. Thus, the declining likelihood that more women will enter the labor force eliminates a wage-suppressing factor. Chart I-5USD/JPY: A Function Of##br## Real Rate Differentials Chart I-6Japan: Female Labor Participation Now Exceeds ##br##The U.S. Japanese Wages Can Now Rise Second, the Japanese shipment-to-inventory ratio is improving. Thanks to lean-inventory techniques, this ratio tends to be most elevated at the bottom of economic slowdowns, reflecting depressed sales rather than bloated inventories. Historically, growing shipments relative to inventories are associated with rising inflation expectations (Chart I-7). Third, the drag from fiscal policy is dissipating. Budget tightening is leveling off, lifting a big brake on domestic demand (Chart I-8). Moreover, we expect fiscal stimulus to gather momentum in 2017, especially in the form of wage policy. This provides an additional support for Japanese inflation expectations. If no further fiscal stimulus comes to fruition in Japan, we expect USD/JPY to rally toward 110-115 in the next 18-months. If aggressive fiscal stimulus and a wage policy are implemented, the upside for USD/JPY could be much greater, in the order of 120 or more. Chart I-7Japanese Shipment-To-Inventory##br## Ratio And CPI Expectations Chart I-8The Dissipating Japanese ##br##Fiscal Drag Yet, while the cyclical outlook for the yen is bearish, the shorter-term outlook is more nuanced. Any EM-selloff triggered by tightening global liquidity conditions could prompt downward pressures on Japanese inflation expectations. This would mechanically lift Japanese real rates and the yen. Hence, we recommend investors sell the yen on a long-term basis but hedge this position by buying JPY volatility over the next 3-6 months. Australian Dollar The Australian dollar is at a tricky spot. Technically, the AUD has been forming a tapering wedge, a pattern that often heralds a large move in this currency. How will this pattern resolve itself? We expect a bearish outcome. The domestic economy is displaying some worrying signs. Not only is full-time employment contracting, but so are total hours worked (Chart I-9). This is likely to weigh on household income and on consumption. This is especially problematic as Australian gross fixed capital formation continues to contract at a 4.5% annual pace. The result is that inflationary pressures in Australia will be kept at bay. In the process, the RBA could adopt a more dovish bias. Chart I-9Australian Domestic Conditions ##br##Are Deteriorating Chart I-10Australian Exports To ##br##China Are Still Falling... Additionally, despite a stabilization in Chinese growth, Chinese imports from Australia continue to contract (Chart I-10). Not only has this happened as iron ore prices have rebounded, but also, as economic conditions have improved in EMs that are highly levered to the Chinese cycle (Chart I-11). Our expectation is that the Chinese industrial sector is likely to experience a slowdown in the months ahead, courtesy of a falling fiscal impulse (Chart I-12), which begs a question: What does the future hold for Australian exports? Chart I-11...Despite Rising Taiwanese##br## Industrial Production Chart I-12Tightening Global Liquidity Is A Headwind##br## For EM Financial Conditions And Growth Finally, our bullish U.S. dollar stance is a tough hurdle for commodity prices to overcome (Chart I-13). Weakness in commodities would represent a negative terms-of-trade shock for Australia and the AUD. Moreover, the PBOC continues to use a lower RMB as an engine of reflation, and we stand by our bearish JPY forecast. Because of these two developments KRW, SGD, and TWD, are very likely to experience further downside. Historically, Asian currency weakness correlates closely with a weak AUD (Chart I-14). Chart I-13Commodities And The Dollar:##br## Joined At The Hip Chart I-14AUD Performs Poorly When ##br##Asian Currencies Sell Off We are already shorting AUD/USD in the context of a short commodity currencies trade. We are considering buying EUR/AUD, as the euro is less sensitive to the dollar, EM spreads, and commodity prices versus the AUD. Also, EUR/AUD is more attractive from a valuation perspective, trading 5% below its PPP fair value. This cross is also supported by a favorable balance-of-payments backdrop, with the euro area registering a 7.7% of GDP current-account differential relative to Australia. Buying EUR/AUD represents a way for investors to bet on a weaker AUD while decreasing their exposure to the U.S. dollar risk factor. Mathieu Savary, Vice President Foreign Exchange Strategy mathieu@bcaresearch.com Currencies U.S. Dollar Chart II-1USD Technicals 1 Chart II-2USD Technicals 2 Policy Commentary: "There are risks of hanging around zero too long. And if the economy can withstand [a hike], I think it's appropriate to move" - Philadelphia Fed President Patrick Harker (October 26, 2016) Report Links: Relative Pressures And Monetary Divergences - October 21, 2016 The Pound Falls To The Conquering Dollar - October 14, 2016 The Dollar: The Great Redistributor - October 7, 2016 The Euro Chart II-3EUR Technicals 1 Chart II-4EUR Technicals 2 Policy Commentary: "In the euro area, we have a long way to go before we exhaust the productivity improvements that have already taken place in the U.S" - ECB President Mario Draghi (October 25, 2016) Report Links: Relative Pressures And Monetary Divergences - October 21, 2016 The Pound Falls To The Conquering Dollar - October 14, 2016 The Dollar: The Great Redistributor - October 7, 2016 The Yen Chart II-5JPY Technicals 1 Chart II-6JPY Technicals 2 Policy Commentary: "Since the employment situation has continued to improve, no further easing of monetary policy may be necessary... at any rate, I would like to discuss this thoroughly with other board members at our monetary policy meeting" - BoJ Board Member Yutaka Harada (October 12, 2016) Report Links: The Pound Falls To The Conquering Dollar - October 14, 2016 The Dollar: The Great Redistributor - October 7, 2016 Long-Term FX Valuation Models: Updates And New Coverages - September 30, 2016 British Pound Chart II-7GBP Technicals 1 Chart II-8GBP Technicals 2 Policy Commentary: "Our judgment in the summer was that we could have seen another 400,000-500,000 people unemployed over the course of the next few years...So we're willing to tolerate a bit of overshoot in inflation over the course of the next few years in order to avoid that situation, to cushion the blow" - BOE Governor Mark Carney (October 14, 2016) Report Links: The Pound Falls To The Conquering Dollar - October 14, 2016 The Dollar: The Great Redistributor - October 7, 2016 Long-Term FX Valuation Models: Updates And New Coverages - September 30, 2016 Australian Dollar Chart II-9AUD Technicals 1 Chart II-10AUD Technicals 2 Policy Commentary: "We have never thought of our job as keeping the year-ended rate of inflation between 2 and 3 percent at all times...Given the uncertainties in the world, something more prescriptive and mechanical is neither possible nor desirable" - RBA Governor Philip Lowe (October 17, 2016) Report Links: The Pound Falls To The Conquering Dollar - October 14, 2016 Long-Term FX Valuation Models: Updates And New Coverages - September 30, 2016 Global Perspective On Currencies: A PCA Approach For The FX Market - September 16, 2016 New Zealand Dollar Chart II-11NZD Technicals 1 Chart II-12NZD Technicals 2 Policy Commentary: "There are several reasons for low inflation - both here and abroad. In New Zealand, tradable inflation, which accounts for almost half of the CPI regimen, has been negative for the past four years. Much of the weakness in inflation can be attributed to global developments that have been reflected in the high New Zealand dollar and low inflation in our import prices" - RBNZ Assistant Governor John McDermott (October 11, 2016) Report Links: Long-Term FX Valuation Models: Updates And New Coverages - September 30, 2016 Global Perspective On Currencies: A PCA Approach For The FX Market - September 16, 2016 The Fed is Trapped Under Ice - September 9, 2016 Canadian Dollar Chart II-13CAD Technicals 1 Chart II-14CAD Technicals 2 Policy Commentary: ""Given the downgrade to our outlook, Governing Council actively discussed the possibility of adding more monetary stimulus at this time, in order to speed up the return of the economy to full capacity" - BoC Governor Stephen Poloz (October 19, 2016) Report Links: Relative Pressures And Monetary Divergences - October 21, 2016 The Pound Falls To The Conquering Dollar - October 14, 2016 The Dollar: The Great Redistributor - October 7, 2016 Swiss Franc Chart II-15CHF Technicals 1 Chart II-16CHF Technicals 2 Policy Commentary: "We don't have a fixed limit for growing the balance sheet; it's a corollary of our foreign exchange market interventions - which we conduct to fulfill our price stability mandate" - SNB Vice-President Fritz Zurbruegg (October 25, 2016) Report Links: Long-Term FX Valuation Models: Updates And New Coverages - September 30, 2016 Global Perspective On Currencies: A PCA Approach For The FX Market - September 16, 2016 Clashing Forces - July 29, 2016 Norwegian Krone Chart II-17NOK Technicals 1 Chart II-18NOK Technicals 2 Policy Commentary: "A period of low interest rates can engender financial imbalances. The risk that growth in property prices and debt will become unsustainably high over time is increasing. With high debt ratios, households are more vulnerable to cyclical downturns" - Norges Bank Governor Oystein Olsen (October 11, 2016) Report Links: The Pound Falls To The Conquering Dollar - October 14, 2016 The Dollar: The Great Redistributor - October 7, 2016 Long-Term FX Valuation Models: Updates And New Coverages - September 30, 2016 Swedish Krona Chart II-19SEK Technicals 1 Chart II-20SEK Technicals 2 Policy Commentary: "[On Sweden's financial stability]...it remains an issue because we are mismanaging out housing market. Our housing market isn't under control in my view" - Riksbank Governor Stefan Ingves (October 17, 2016) Report Links: The Pound Falls To The Conquering Dollar - October 14, 2016 Long-Term FX Valuation Models: Updates And New Coverages - September 30, 2016 Dazed And Confused - July 1, 2016 Trades & Forecasts Forecast Summary Core Portfolio Tactical Trades Closed Trades

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

Highlights We expect the U.S. House of Representatives to remain in GOP hands, but the Democrats could take razor-thin control of the Senate if Clinton wins the Presidency. The current, market-bullish status quo of divided government will continue. The chances of cooperation between a Clinton Administration and the House is actually quite good on some issues. We would expect House Republicans to give in to a modest infrastructure spending plan from Clinton, in exchange for corporate tax reform. There is now bipartisan support in the U.S. for removing the sequester, opening the door to some fiscal stimulus. A shift in focus from monetary to fiscal policy will be quite bullish for the dollar, which could rise by 10% in trade-weighted terms. The Japanese government appears to be preparing another shot of fiscal stimulus, which would be quite bearish for the yen and bullish for Japanese stocks when combined with the Bank of Japan's new yield curve policy. A number of headwinds that have held back U.S. growth this year will give way, generating 2½-3% real GDP growth in 2017. Positive growth surprises will encourage the FOMC to tighten in December and another five times over 2017/18. However, the speed of rate hikes will depend on how quickly the dollar appreciates. Dollar appreciation will undermine U.S. EPS growth next year. We view this as a headwind for stocks, but not something that will prevent modest gains in the S&P 500 next year. A key risk is that a surging dollar and a more hawkish FOMC sparks a correction in EM assets in the near term, spilling over into developed market bourses. Given elevated valuations, the risk/reward balance still favors a defensive strategy, with no more than a benchmark allocation to stocks. Several trends support our recommendation to maintain slightly below-benchmark duration within fixed- income portfolios. Among them, the annual growth rate in total central bank assets for the U.S., Euro Area, the U.K. and Japan is on the verge of peaking even assuming the ECB extends, which means that the period of maximum downward pressure on global term premia is over. Continue to overweight indexed bonds versus conventional issues. Oil prices should be able to hold up in the face of dollar strength given that we expect the tightening oil market will dominate. However, base metals will struggle. Feature As we go to press, Hillary Clinton is poised to win the Presidency of the United States following a tumultuous and divisive campaign. The key question now is the Senate race, where less controversial Republicans are contesting close elections. The GOP is at high risk of losing four Senate seats, with another three in play. Democrats need only four seats to take the Senate because, assuming that Clinton wins the presidency, Vice-President Tim Kaine would then cast the tie-breaking vote in that body. We expect the GOP to hold onto the House. This means that the current, market-bullish status quo of a divided government will continue. With the House remaining in Republican hands, and Democrats clinging to a potential razor-thin control of the Senate, the Clinton White House would be constrained on some of its most left-leaning policies. Unlike Obama, Clinton's victory will not be a popular sweep. She will likely receive less than 50% of the popular vote and will be the first candidate ever elected that has more voters saying they dislike her than like her (Chart I-1). Therefore, the odds are slim that Clinton will come to power with the same level of confidence and agenda-setting mandate as Obama did in 2008. Chart I-1Clinton And Trump: The Least Charismatic Candidates Ever Nonetheless, BCA's Geopolitical Strategy service believes that the chances of cooperation between a Clinton Administration and the House is actually quite good on some issues. On corporate tax reform, it is difficult to see a reduction in effective tax rates, but a deal could be struck to broaden the tax base by closing various loopholes. This would be negative for some S&P 500 multinational corporations, but would benefit America's small and medium-sized enterprises. Paul Ryan and moderate Republicans understand that there has been a paradigm shift in America and that the median voter has moved to the left. As such, we would expect House Republicans to give in to a modest infrastructure spending plan from Clinton, in exchange for corporate tax reform. There is now bipartisan support for removing the sequester. Even a modest infrastructure plan could make a substantive difference for the economy given the high fiscal multipliers of government spending in an economy with low interest rates. The political shift to the left means that a Clinton-Ryan coalition will care less about the concerns of America's large corporations than previous governments, leading to policies that will result in higher effective tax rates on major corporations, a dollar bull market (in conjunction with tighter Fed policy, see below), and rising wages over the next four years. The election outcome will also be positive for bombed-out U.S. health care stocks. Even if the Democrats take the Senate, a Republican-held House will make it difficult for Clinton to push through legislation that does serious damage to the sector's pricing power. Health care stocks are oversold and cheap, at a time when consumer demand is solid and our pricing power proxy is rising much more quickly than overall corporate sector pricing. In terms of the macro implications, a shift in focus from monetary to fiscal stimulus will be quite bullish for the dollar. Below we discuss the important changes coming in the global investment landscape stemming from a renewed dollar bull phase. U.S. Growth: Expect Upside Surprises Any boost to U.S. infrastructure spending is unlikely to show up in GDP until the second half of next year. Nonetheless, there are other reasons to be more upbeat than the consensus on growth prospects for the first half as well. It is important to note that U.S. real final sales to private domestic purchasers, a good measure of underlying demand growth, has grown at almost 2½% over the past year, and was up 3.2% in the second quarter sequentially. A number of headwinds conspired to hold back the headline GDP growth figures, but these headwinds should moderate next year (Chart I-2): The five-quarter inventory correction is almost unprecedented in its length, but there are some high-frequency indicators (i.e. durable goods inventories and the inventory component of the ISM manufacturing index) that suggest that the correction is coming to an end (Chart I-3). Inventory destocking only needs to stabilize to boost GDP growth, since it is the change of the change in inventories that affects GDP growth. Chart I-2U.S. 2016 Growth Headwinds To Fade Chart I-3Inventory Rebuilding Has Commenced Some of this year's slowdown reflects a pullback in the contribution of federal and state & local government spending. Nonetheless, this will not last long because state and local government revenues are trending higher and this sector spends all it takes in. As noted above, we also expect a boost from infrastructure spending at the federal level. Housing starts and residential investment hit a soft patch this year. The second quarter dip was mainly due to a warm winter, which pulled forward home-improvement spending. The NAHB homebuilders index heralds a rebound in housing activity in the coming months, in line with the improvement in household formation. Indeed, housing starts are still 20-25% below estimates of the amount of construction necessary to keep up with population growth. We also expect a little more capital spending once the election is out of the way, profits begin to expand again and industrial production growth improves early in the New Year. Moreover, the oil rig count has started to recover, suggesting that energy capex should stabilize and perhaps even improve. Overall corporate capital spending intentions have perked up (Chart I-4). The trade sector will be a drag on growth, especially if the dollar appreciates as we expect. Nonetheless, we believe that the unwinding of the other headwinds that have dogged the economy this year could provide real GDP growth of 2½-3% in 2017. Stronger-than-expected growth will have a positive impact on America's trading partners via import demand, but it is the response of the dollar that could really shake up global financial assets. The reasoning behind our strong dollar view is straightforward: interest rates differentials are the strongest predictor of currency trends on a 12-18 month horizon. Relative economic performance between the U.S. and the rest of the world suggests that interest rate differentials will move even further in favor the U.S. dollar. Chart I-5 highlights that the dollar tends to appreciate when U.S. interest rates are in the upper half of the interest rate distribution of the G10. With few central banks outside of the U.S. in a position to be able to lift interest rates, gently rising U.S. rates will keep the U.S. among the global developed market (DM) high-yielders for many years. Chart I-4Capex Plans Have Improved Chart I-5U.S. Sitting Atop The Global Interest Rate Distribution Buoys The Dollar Real interest rate differentials may shift even more than nominal rates in favor the dollar. Inflation expectations should rise in Europe and Japan to the extent that their respective currencies weaken and their economies receive a boost from improved U.S. import demand. But since neither central bank will allow much of an increase in local bond yields, rising inflation expectations will translate into lower real yields in the Eurozone and Japan. This will reinforce the dollar's bias to appreciate. The ECB could upset this forecast by announcing that it will taper the asset purchase program beginning in March of next year, but we believe it is more likely the central bank will extend the QE program for another six months. In Japan's case, the nominal yield curve is now fixed by the Bank of Japan out to 10-years. How Much Will The Dollar Appreciate? This is a difficult question. A central bank can tighten monetary conditions, but does not have control over how much of the tightening comes via interest rates and how much through currency appreciation. Our sense is that over the next couple of years the fed funds rate will need to rise to 2% in nominal terms (0% in real terms) and the dollar will appreciate by 10% in trade-weighted terms, to avoid an economic overheating and an overshoot of the inflation target. We expect the Fed to tighten in December, followed by two more quarter-point hikes in 2017. But, of course, an outsized dollar response to the initial rate hikes would temper the speed of Fed tightening. A 10% rise seems aggressive, but it would still leave the broad trade-weighted dollar index well below previous peaks. Wouldn't Such A Dollar Surge Kill Any Hopes Of A Recovery In U.S. Profits? Undoubtedly, dollar strength presents a direct and non-trivial risk to the earnings outlook. Our U.S. EPS model foresees a return to positive earnings growth early next year, and a full-year expansion of 5-6% (Chart I-6). This is based on three important assumptions: (1) industrial production returns to modest but positive growth next year; (2) oil prices are roughly unchanged from current levels, allowing profits in the energy patch to recover with a lag; and (3) nominal GDP growth accelerates modestly relative to labor compensation. Chart I-6The U.S. Profit Outlook However, we assumed in the base case scenario presented in May that the dollar is unchanged. Re-running the model with a 10% dollar appreciation over the next year would shave about 2-3 percentage points off of EPS growth next year (Chart I-6). In other words, EPS would rise next year, but only modestly. Can The S&P 500 Rally In The Context Of Dollar Strength? Chart I-7Stocks Can Appreciate With The Dollar An appreciating dollar is clearly a headwind, but it is the case that the S&P 500 rallied along with the dollar in the last three major dollar bull markets: 1978-1985, 1994-2002, and 2011 to today (Chart I-7). One could point to special factors in each episode. Nonetheless, our point is that if the dollar is appreciating because growth outside the U.S. is deteriorating, then the backdrop is negative for U.S. equities. But if the dollar is appreciating because the U.S. economic growth backdrop has brightened (with no deterioration elsewhere), then U.S. stocks can rally despite the negative impact of the dollar on profits. Indeed, the direction of causation reverses at times: it is the rally in U.S. risk assets (along with higher rates) that attracts foreign capital and pushes the dollar higher. A tax holiday on foreign retained earnings would also be positive for the dollar and risk assets. That said, the currency shifts we expect over the next year will favor Eurozone and Japanese stocks to the U.S. market in local currency terms. This is particularly so for Japan if more aggressive monetary and fiscal policies manage to sharply devalue the yen (see below). According to our models, a 5% depreciation of the euro and a 10% drop in the yen in trade-weighted terms would boost EPS growth next year by 3 and 5 percentage points, respectively, in the Eurozone and Japan (Chart I-8). Monetary policy divergence and relative valuation also support our recommendation to favor Japanese and Eurozone stocks versus the U.S. Chart I-8The Eurozone Profit Outlook What Does Our Dollar Outlook Mean For EM Assets? Continuing liquidity injections from the ECB and BoJ are positive for emerging market (EM) assets. Unfortunately, this will not shield emerging markets from a 10% dollar rise, especially if it is accompanied by another downleg in commodity prices (Chart I-9). A stronger greenback is likely to cause distress among over-leveraged EM borrowers given that 80% of EM foreign-currency debt is denominated in dollars. Chart I-10 illustrates that there have been no periods when EM share prices rallied amid strength in the trade-weighted U.S. dollar since the early 1980s. Meanwhile, the gap between EM and U.S. nonfinancials' return on equity (RoE) remains deeply negative, which historically has been associated with EM currency depreciation. Chart I-9Dollar Strength Is Negative For Commodities... Chart I-10...And Emerging Markets The implication is that the recent rally in EM risk assets and currencies will not last. Investors should avoid this space. A dollar rally would also be a headache for the People's Bank of China (PBoC). Allowing the RMB to depreciate aggressively versus the dollar to avoid an appreciation in trade-weighted terms could ruffle political feathers in the U.S. and spark capital flight. The PBoC will likely manage the RMB's decline versus the dollar and allow it to appreciate in trade-weighted terms, while tightening capital account controls to prevent capital from fleeing the country. This outcome is slightly negative for the economy and could generate some financial market volatility as the process unfolds. We believe that China will be able to maintain GDP growth of around 6½% next year and that there will be no financial crisis related to China's high debt levels. Nonetheless, China's transition away from an investment-led to a consumer-led expansion means that the tailwind for commodity demand and EM exports will not return. FOMC: Some Like It Hot The probability of a Fed rate hike in December eased a little in recent days due to some disappointing economic data, such as the September readings on retail sales and the CPI, along with comments from Fed Chair Yellen on the benefits of allowing the economy to "run hot". Some others on the FOMC share her views, but many do not. As we highlighted in last month's Special Report,1 Yellen will not overrule the consensus on the FOMC. The appetite to test the limits of the supply side of the economy is simply not broad enough, as visions of the inflationary 1970s still loom large in some policymakers' minds. The Fed may end up being too slow in tightening policy and generate an overheated economy by accident, but the idea of purposefully engineering a temporary inflation overshoot is off the table. The hawkish shift in the consensus can be observed in the latest FOMC minutes. Not only did three members vote for a rate hike in September, but "several" members felt that a rate hike was a "close call". The remaining doves often point out that the Fed's preferred measure of inflation, core PCE, is still below the 2% target. However, this measure is an outlier; all other popular measures of underlying inflation are near or above 2% and are in a clear uptrend. Wage growth, although somewhat mixed across the various measures, is also trending up (Chart I-11). The doves already lost two members this year (Williams and Rosengren). More will jump ship if core PCE moves up in the coming months as we expect, although a 10% dollar appreciation by itself could shave almost a half point off of inflation next year (Chart I-12). Chart I-11U.S. Wage Pressure Is Growing Chart I-12The Inflation Impact Of Dollar Strength Recent data disappointments are a concern, but the bounce in both the ISM manufacturing and nonmanufacturing surveys in September, especially in the new orders components, is a sign that the soft patch will not endure. It would require a significant disappointment in the October and November payroll reports for the FOMC to stand pat at the December meeting. Beyond this year, our base-case outlook calls for five quarter-point rate hikes over 2017 and 2018, compared to only two rate hikes currently discounted in money markets. This forecast is uncertain because an even larger portion of the overall tightening in monetary conditions than we expect could come via the dollar. Indeed, there is a significant risk that dollar strength and Fed tightening sparks a correction in risk assets. The TINA phenomenon (There Is No Alternative) has forced many investors to take more risk they are comfortable holding. Valuations are also rich. This is the main reason why our investment recommendation is cautious, including only a benchmark allocation to equities in a balanced portfolio. We maintain that stocks will outperform bonds and cash on a 1-2 year horizon, although total returns will be depressed by historical standards. Moreover, we would not be surprised to see a 10% correction in the major equity bourses in the coming months. Investors with a short-term horizon should consider buying some insurance against this risk. What would it take for us to upgrade stocks to overweight? We would like to see significant fiscal stimulus in some combination of the U.S., Eurozone and Japan. It would be particularly bullish if the stimulus occurs outside the U.S., because a pickup in global growth would allow the Fed to tighten without driving the dollar significantly higher. This scenario would improve the outlook for equities inside and outside of the U.S. Finally, a 10% equity correction would create enough value that we would be quite tempted to upgrade the sector. Japan Prepares For The Next Step The dollar's ascent will be particularly acute versus the yen if we are right that more aggressive policy action looms in Japan. We argued in last month's Overview that fiscal stimulus will be particularly powerful in the context of the Bank of Japan's (BoJ) new policy framework. Instead of targeting a pace of asset purchases, the central bank is effectively fixing the yield curve by promising to hold the 10-year yield near to zero. By fixing the yield curve and by committing to maintain this policy until Japanese inflation moves above the 2% target, the BoJ is hoping to raise inflation expectations and drive down real bond yields. Fiscal stimulus in this environment would be quite effective because nominal yields would not be allowed to rise in response. Any increase in inflation expectations would flow directly into lower real yields and weaken the yen, thus reinforcing the initial thrust of fiscal policy. The timing and amount of additional fiscal spending is not clear, but the Japanese Diet is currently deliberating the third revision to the second supplementary budget. Government officials have signaled that there will be more coordination between monetary and fiscal policy in the future. The government is also debating ways to boost household income, including raising government wages, lifting the minimum wage and providing tax incentives for the private sector to be more generous on the wage front. Any efforts to boost income will add to upward pressure on actual inflation and inflation expectations. Given that the market is discounting inflation of only 0.26% per year on average over the next 20 years, the balance of risks favors an inflation rate that surprises to the upside. The resulting downward pressure on real interest rates, at a time when U.S. real rates will be rising, will depress the yen. Our currency experts expect the yen to weaken to 125 versus the dollar, representing a decline of roughly 10% in trade-weighted terms. We estimate that this would add about a half point to Japanese headline consumer price inflation next year (Chart I-12). A successful policy push would ultimately be quite bearish for JGBs. However, a critical element in the plan is that the BoJ prevents a premature rise in nominal yields. We do not expect any JGB selloff for at least a year. This means that, while total returns for JGBs will be poor (or negative for some maturities), the market will outperform the other major government bond markets in currency hedged terms if global yields rise in the coming months as we expect. The implication is that investors should favor JGBs over Bunds and, especially, Treasuries within global hedged bond portfolios. Also, stay long inflation protection in Japan, overweight the Nikkei and underweight the yen. Reason To Be Bond Bearish Chart I-13Reasons To Keep Duration Short Our fairly hawkish view on the Fed is a key factor behind our recommendation to keep duration slightly short of benchmark within bond portfolios. More broadly, the global deflation beast is far from tamed, but the firming in selected commodity prices is reducing some of the downward pressure on inflation in the advanced economies. Oil prices have breached $50/bbl on hopes that OPEC-Russia talks will result in production cuts. Our commodity strategists do not expect any agreement to have much of a lasting impact on oil prices. Indeed, there is a risk that oil prices correct if the talks ultimately fail. However, we still expect WTI to trade between $40 and $65/bbl until 2020. The annual growth rate for the continuous commodity index has reached positive territory for the first time since 2014, which is translating into a more positive pricing environment for manufactured goods and overall headline inflation rates for both developed and emerging economies (Chart I-13, bottom panel). This has given inflation expectations a boost in the major markets, at a time when output gaps in developed countries are narrowing (the gap is near to being fully closed in the U.S.). Several other factors favor a below-benchmark duration stance at least for the near term (Chart I-13): Global growth is improving slowly. The global leading economic indicator (LEI) is rising and our diffusion index shows that 10 of 15 countries have rising LEIs. We expect the U.S. economy, in particular, to surprise to the upside. The prospect of even a little fiscal stimulus is bond bearish, following years of austerity in the major developed countries. The downward pressure on global term premia is dissipating as the BoJ has switched away from quantitative targets for asset purchases to fixing the yield curve. The ECB is likely to extend the QE program by another six months, but the central bank is unlikely to lift the pace of purchases from the current level. The annual percent change in total central bank assets for the U.S., Euro Area, the U.K. and Japan is on the verge of peaking even assuming the ECB extends, which means that the period of maximum downward pressure on global term premia is over (Chart I-14). Chart I-14Liquidity Growth Peaking Out The market expects that real short-term interest rates will stay in negative territory until at least the middle of the next decade, even in the U.S. There is plenty of room for the forward yield curve to reprice higher if growth turns out to be better than expected. This is particularly the case in the U.K., where fears of a post-Brexit economic bust and a fresh shot of stimulus from Bank of England sent the pound and gilt yields to extremely low levels. Our global bond and currency services recommend taking profits on overweight gilt/underweight sterling positions, and shifting in the opposite direction. Finally, bond sentiment indicators are still bullish, particularly in the U.S. Treasury market. Nonetheless, we are far from frothing bond bears. We do not believe that the fixed income market has moved into a secular bear phase, and would likely shift to benchmark or even above-benchmark duration if the 10-year Treasury yield reached 2%. Yields could eventually re-test the year's lows if there is a sharp equity correction. This is a market to be traded for now. Conclusions A more upbeat view on global and, especially, U.S. growth prospects is positive for risk assets, but the adjustment process could be painful as investors come to grips with what this means for the Fed. Extremely low Treasury yields imply that the consensus has "bought into" the Secular Stagnation thesis for the U.S., or at least to the view that America will never again be able to grow above 2%. The pickup in growth we expect will arrive at a time when there is accumulating evidence of an acceleration in wages, signaling that the labor market has reached full employment. A shift in focus away from monetary and toward fiscal stimulus, both inside and outside the U.S., is also bond-bearish. The bond market appears to be ignoring these trends so far, although rising inflation expectations suggest that we may be at the edge of a change in market expectations for growth, inflation and the Fed outlook. A significant shift up in the dollar would limit the bond market selloff, and it would be positive for the major economies outside of the U.S. Nonetheless, a 10% dollar appreciation would carry its own risks, including a hit to the U.S. profit outlook. On its own, dollar strength would not prevent the S&P 500 from rising, but there is a non-trivial risk that it wreaks havoc in the EM and commodity space for a time, reverberating back into developed markets. The bottom line is that investors should remain focused on capital preservation, with no more than an overall benchmark weighting in equities with a bias toward defensive sectors. Within bond portfolios, keep duration on the short side and favor high-quality spread product to government bonds in the major countries. High-yield bonds would benefit from stronger-than-expected economic growth in the U.S., but value is poor and balance sheets are deteriorating; the risk/reward balance is unattractive. European investment-grade bonds issued by domestic issuers are more attractive than the U.S. market because of improving balance sheet health. Favor real-return bonds to conventional issues in the major countries and add exposure to floating-rate notes. Our dollar view means that base metals should be avoided, despite the fact that we expect that China will be able to stabilize growth at around 6-7%. Oil should be able to hold up in the face of dollar strength given that we expect a tightening oil supply/demand backdrop. Both gold and silver would weaken if the dollar continues to appreciate and real bond yields rise in the near term. Nonetheless, rising inflation should overwhelm these negatives in the medium term. This implies that precious metals deserve a strategic place in investors' portfolios, although the near-term could be rough. Finally, we have received many questions on the risks posed by mushrooming U.S. student debt. This month's Special Report, beginning on page 19, takes an in-depth look. We conclude that student debt is a modest economic drag, but is not a source of risk to the government's finances and does not represent the next "subprime" crisis. Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst October 27, 2016 Next Report: November 24, 2016 1 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst, "Herding Cats at the Fed," October 2016, available at bca.bcaresearch.com II. Student Loan Blues: Can't Repay What I Borrowed Incentives ingrained in the U.S. higher-education system have contributed to an alarming escalation in student debt over the last 15 years. About 43 million Americans owe a total of almost $1.2 trillion for their education, making student loans the second largest category of consumer debt next to mortgages. Some are comparing this trend to the housing subprime crisis, arguing that student debt is a major drag on growth at a minimum, and the source of another financial crisis at worst. Delinquency rates have surged and the 5-year cumulative default rate on student debt has reached almost 30%. Thankfully for the taxpayer, the recovery rate on defaulted student loans is extremely high, at around 80%. Sticker prices at most institutions have mushroomed, although few students pay the full fare. Rising tuition fees only explain about half of the surge in student debt. Education still pays, although the benefits have waned versus the costs. Moreover, students with debt lag significantly those with no debt in terms of wealth accumulation and home ownership after graduation. The rise in default rates have been due to the influx of non-traditional student borrowers after 2007, who come from lower income families and have had poorer educational and employment outcomes. However, the wave of such borrowers has faded, which means that overall delinquency and default rates will decline in the coming years. Debt service payments, while onerous for many families, are not a major drag on overall real GDP growth. The increased propensity of 18-35 year-olds to live with their parents has trimmed annual real GDP growth by 0.14% per year since 2007, although student debt is only one of many underlying causes. The student loan program is at worst only a minor drain on the Federal government's coffer because of the high recovery rate. The bottom line is that student debt is a social issue, and to a lesser extent, a macro issue. But it is not a financial stability issue. Student debt is not the next subprime. "We are not doing these young people any favors by giving them loans that they cannot afford, that they cannot discharge in bankruptcy, and that could be a drag on their financial well-being even into retirement". - Sheila Bair, former FDIC chief, Bloomberg interview, September 26, 2016 Ms. Bair was one of the first to warn about the risks posed by the U.S. subprime MBS market, well before Lehman went bust. Few were listening then, but more are listening now as she sounds the alarm bell regarding student loans. About 43 million Americans owe a total of almost $1.2 trillion for their education, making student loans the second largest category of consumer debt next to mortgages (Chart II-1). Ms. Bair notes that, like the MBS market before 2007, cheap and freely available credit is fueling prices (tuition in this case). Banks handed out mortgage loans to many who could not afford them in the 2000s, just as the Department of Education (DoE) is doing today with student loans. It is difficult to assess borrowers' ability to repay student loans. Some argue that the DoE is not even trying. The trajectory of student debt is indeed alarming (Chart II-2). In inflation-adjusted terms, the total value of loans outstanding has quadrupled since 2000, representing an annual average compound rate of 9.4%. The rise reflects both an increase in the number of borrowers and more borrowing per person. Average debt/person has jumped from $17,300 in 2007 to almost $28,000 in 2015 (amounts vary across data sources). Rising debt levels occurred across the family income distribution. Chart II-1Student Debt: The Next Subprime? Chart II-2Student Loan Statistics These figures understate the true debt levels because they include only loans that are made under the federal loan program, representing 81% of the total. The remainder are private loans, mostly originated by banks. Private loans do not enjoy the same borrower protection afforded to federal loans, and carry a significantly higher interest rate (average of almost 14% in 2016, compared to federal loan rates of 3.76%). The data on private loans are sparse due to limited reporting, but a study based on 2012 data showed that the average amount of debt for students with private loans was almost $40,000 at that time.1 Sticker Shock It is easy to blame rising tuition fees given soaring "sticker prices" at most institutions. The average posted fee for tuition and room & board has increased by 30% in inflation-adjusted terms since 2007 at public universities, and by 23% at private non-profit institutions (Charts II-3A & II-3B). However, due to grants, tuition discounts and tax credits for education, only a small fraction of students pay the posted rate. For the 2015/16 school year, the net price that the average student paid at a private non-profit institution was $26,400, far less than the almost $44,000 sticker price. Chart II-3ATuition & Fees: Public Institutions Chart II-3BTuition & Fees: Private Institutions Chart II-4The Distribution Of Student Debt The Brookings Institute estimates that only about 50% of the escalation in student debt in the past two decades can be explained by rising tuition costs.2 Another quarter reflects rising educational attainment; kids are staying in school longer to get a leg up in the highly competitive workplace. The remainder of the total rise in debt was left unexplained in the study. Other possible contributing factors include policy changes that expanded eligibility for federal loans programs, and the housing bust that made it more difficult for families to borrow against the value of their homes for education purposes. There was also a change in the background characteristics of borrowers after the Great Financial Crisis (see below). The share of students suffering with an extraordinary amount of debt is growing, although they still represent a small portion of the total for federal loans (Chart II-4). Five percent of student debtors owe more than $100,000 each, up from 2% in 2007. Another 10% hold between $50,000 and $100,000. About two-thirds of student borrowers owe less than $25,000. A Student Debt Crisis? Another Brookings paper provides estimates for the debt service burden associated with federal student loans. The burden is calculated as the median debt service payment divided by median earnings of employed borrowers for two years after entering the repayment period (Chart II-5).3 This ratio rose from about 4½% in 2004 to 7.1% in 2013. Unfortunately, more recent data are not available. The average interest rate on the outstanding loans has moderated since 2011, although not nearly as quickly as the drop in market interest rates.4 Nonetheless, the continued escalation in the stock of debt per person in recent years means that the debt service-to-income ratio has likely continued to escalate since 2013, despite the moderation in the average interest rate paid. The jump in student loan delinquencies has raised red flags regarding the number of borrowers in financial distress, feeding concerns that a student loan debt crisis is on the horizon. The 90-day delinquency rate for student loans has increased from about 7% in 2007 to 11% in 2012, where it has hovered ever since according to the Federal Reserve Bank of NY data (Chart II-1). However, since only about 55% of all loans are in the repayment period, the actual delinquency rate among those in repayment is almost double the official figures. Loans are considered to be in default when they are more than 270 days past due. Brookings estimates that the 5-year default rate for student loans entering the repayment period five years earlier reached 28% in 2014, up from 16% for the five-year period ending in 2007 (Chart II-6).5 Perhaps surprisingly, the default rate is still far below the peak rate of more than 40% in the late 1990s. Chart II-5Debt Service Burden Is Rising Chart II-6Defaults Are Rising Thankfully for the taxpayer, the recovery rate on defaulted student loans is extremely high, at around 80%.6 This is because borrowers are not able to discharge federal student debts during bankruptcy. Congress has passed legislation making it very difficult for borrowers to avoid repaying. The DoE has the authority to use a number of extraordinary collection means. These include garnishing a portion of borrower's wages or seizing any payment a borrower may receive from the federal government. Education Still Pays, But Not For Everyone Chart II-7Debt And Wages For 20-40 Year Olds The good news is that education still pays for the average or median borrower. Chart II-7 shows that, while the average amount of student loans has escalated, it is still well below the average wage for those borrowers in the 20 to 40-year age group.7 The gap between wages and debt has narrowed over the past 15 years, but the increase in lifetime earnings potential still far exceeds the rise in accumulated debt for the average or median student. Of course, student loans have not paid off for everyone. News reports have highlighted plenty of examples of students that have graduated with crushing debt burdens and poor job prospects. Nonetheless, the Brookings study found that, for the vast majority, "the increase in borrowing would be made up for relatively early in the career of a worker with mean earnings".8 The Digest of Education Statistics show that, in 2013, the median annual earnings for full-time workers with a Bachelor's degree in the 25 to 34 age group was $48,530, compared with $30,000 for workers with just a high-school diploma. The bad news is that it is taking much longer to repay these debts. The mean term of repayment has increased from 7½% in 1992 to about 13½ years in 2010.9 Extended repayment and income-driven repayment plans can increase the loan term to 20, 25 or even 30 years. In some cases, borrowers will still be paying for their education when their children enter college!10 There is also evidence that the debt burden is causing some young adults to delay marriage and live with their parents for longer than they otherwise would. More Debt And Less Wealth Young student debtors also lag significantly relative to their peers in terms of wealth accumulation. A Pew Research Center study found that households headed by a young, college-educated adult without any student debt obligations have about seven times the typical net worth ($64,700) of households headed by a young, college-educated adult with student debt ($8,700; Chart II-8).11 Net worth is lower for those with student loans not just because their overall debt levels are higher; the value of their assets trailed as well. This gap is despite the fact that those households with a degree had almost double the annual income of those in the study that did not. Even comparing only households headed by young adults that did not attain a degree, accumulated wealth for those with student debt fell far short of those who avoided debt. One explanation is that money being absorbed by student debt repayment is unavailable to accumulate assets. A Federal Reserve Bank (FRB) of Boston study12 estimated that a 10% increase in student loan debt per household is associated with a 0.9% decline in the value of total wealth. Student loan burdens also mean that households end up relying more on other types of debt, such as auto loans and credit cards, according to the Pew study. Chart II-8Higher Debt, Lower Wealth... Table II-1...And Lower Homeownership Student debtors are also less likely to own a home after 2009 (Table II-1). Before 2009, the FRB of Boston study found that 30-year olds with a history of student loans had a higher homeownership rate than those without student debt. This makes sense because the boost to household income from obtaining more education should make it easier to quality for a mortgage. However, the relationship between student debt and homeownership switched after the Great Recession. The economy-wide homeownership rate has fallen sharply since home prices peaked in 2006, but the drop was more severe for those with student loans. This is probably due to the erosion in future income expectations following the recession for those with student debt, as well as more limited access to additional credit based on these individuals' existing debt loads (i.e. lower credit scores). Alternatively, student debtors may simply be reluctant to add to their overall leverage in light of the more uncertain economic outlook. A Fed study estimated that every 10% increase in student debt per person now results in a 1 percentage point drop in the homeownership rate for the first five years after graduation.13 Non-Traditional Borrowers Led The Surge In Delinquencies... While student debt burdens are unlikely to ameliorate anytime soon, the default rate should moderate in the coming years. Brookings (2015) conducted a detailed assessment of the characteristics of student loan borrowers and how they changed after 2007, by matching administrative data on federal student borrowers with earnings data from tax records. The study split the sample into "traditional" and "non-traditional" borrowers. Traditional borrowers are defined to be those attending 4-year public and private institutions because they tend to be typical in nature; they start college in their late teens, soon after completing high school, are dependent on their parents for aid purposes, pursue 4-year degrees and, frequently, head on to graduate study. This group historically represented the majority of federal borrowers and loan amounts. Non-traditional borrowers historically made up only a small portion of the total. These are defined to be those borrowing for 2-year programs (primarily community college) or to attend for-profit schools. The study found that non-traditional borrowers have largely come from lower-income families, tended to be older (i.e. not supported by parents), attended institutions with relatively low completion rates and faced poor labor market outcomes after leaving school (Chart II-9). Lower median wages and higher rates of unemployment meant that non-traditional borrowers tended to default on their student loans at a higher rate than traditional students. Student borrowing is counter cyclical; it tends to accelerate during recessions as unfavorable labor market conditions encourage people to return to school or to stay in school longer. The flow of new borrowers accelerated particularly sharply during the Great Recession, as intense pressure on State budgets led to cuts in scholarships by public institutions. Access to alternative credit markets was also curtailed during and after the Great Financial Crisis. Chart II-9Non-Traditional Students Had Poor Labor Market Experience Chart II-10Surge In Non-Traditional ##br##Borrowers After 2007 Student loan inflows (i.e. the number of new borrowers) and outflows (the number paying off loans) are shown in Chart II-10. Inflows trended higher from 2000 to 2007, while outflows were fairly flat, leading to an upward trend in the net inflows. Inflows subsequently surged during the recession, reaching a peak in 2010. The jump in new borrowers was concentrated among non-traditional students. The number of non-traditional borrowers grew to represent almost half of all new borrowers soon after the recession. The wave of students who had begun to borrow during the recession entered the repayment period in increasingly large numbers from 2011 to 2014. The early years of repayment are the most precarious because debtors are just starting their careers and their earnings are the most variable. The rise in the share of non-traditional borrowers largely explains the surge in the overall default rate since 2011. In contrast, the majority of traditional borrowers have experienced strong labor market outcomes and relatively low rates of default. Of all the students who left school, started to repay federal loans in 2011, and had fallen into default by 2013, about 70% were non-traditional borrowers. ...But The Worst Is Over The situation has since begun to reverse. Inflows and the net change in the number of borrowers has declined since 2012, particularly at 2-year and for-profit institutions. The moderation of the pace of inflows, the change in the composition of borrowers (less non-traditional), and efforts by the DoE to expand the use of income-based repayment programs will put downward pressure on delinquency and default rates in the coming years. Economic Impact Of Student Debt There are several channels through which rising student debt can affect overall economic growth. Spending by households with student debt will be curtailed both by the need to service the loans and by the fact that these households have lower levels of net worth. They are also less likely to own a home or form a small business. (1)Debt Service Burden And The Wealth Effect Table II-2 presents estimates of the value of aggregate debt service payments as a percent of GDP. This is based on the median debt service-to-earnings estimates from the Brookings Institute and median income for households where the head is less than 35 years of age in the Survey of Consumer Finances. If we assume that every dollar paid to service student loans is a dollar not spent on goods and services, then Table II-2 implies that the resulting drag on the level of real GDP has doubled from 0.17% of GDP in 2004 to 0.34% in 2013 (latest year available). However, it is the increase over time that matters for GDP growth, not the level. The rise of 0.17% was spread over nine years, suggesting that the drag on GDP growth was minimal. Moreover, this represents an overestimate of the actual drag, because households with student debt have leaned more heavily on other types of debt in an attempt to maintain their living standards. Table II-2The Debt Service Drag On GDP Lower levels of asset accumulation and net worth will also undermine consumer spending. However, we believe that accounting for both the "wealth effect" and the debt-service effect on GDP would be double counting. Chart II-11Spending On Education ##br##Not A Growth Driver Education spending also provides a possible offset to the negative impact of debt service on GDP growth. However, in terms of household spending on education, in inflation-adjusted terms there has been virtually no growth in consumer spending on higher education over the past 15 years despite all the extra spending in nominal dollars (Chart II-11). Data on government spending specifically on higher education is not available, but spending on all levels of education including primary and secondary schools has declined as a fraction of real GDP since the early 2000's. The implication is that total spending on higher education by households and governments has not provided any offset to the drag on GDP growth from student debt since 2007. (2)Housing Market Earlier, we cited Fed estimates that every 10% increase in student debt per person results in a 1 percentage point drop in the homeownership rate for the first five years after graduation. The economy-wide homeownership rate has fallen by 5.5 percentage points since the beginning of 2007, reaching 62.9% in the second quarter of 2016. We estimate that rising student indebtedness could account for as much as 1½ percentage points of the total 5½ percentage point drop. This is based on the Fed's estimates, the rise in the share of student loan borrowers among the total number of households and the increase in student debt-per-person. Again, this estimate likely overstates the impact because we are implicitly assuming that every new student borrower since 2007 ultimately forms a new household upon graduation. Undoubtedly, a portion of student borrowers formed a household with other student borrowers. Even if this estimate is close to the truth, it is not clear that there is a large impact on GDP growth. The formation of new households will result in an expansion in the housing stock one-for-one (assuming no change in inventories). Whether they decide to rent or buy, this will boost the residential investment portion of GDP. Buying a home or condo often results in home renovation and purchases of new furnishings, thus providing the economy with a larger boost compared to new households that rent. Nonetheless, the difference is difficult to estimate and is probably small enough to ignore. Another way to approach the issue is to gauge the impact on the housing market of the greater propensity of 18-35 year olds to live with their parents. Those living at home jumped from 19.2 million in 2007 to 23.0 million in 2015. The proportion of those living at home of the total population of 18-35 year olds rose from 28% to 32%. If the ratio had not increased over the period, it would have resulted in an extra 2½ million young people leaving home. If we assume that one-quarter of them move in with someone else who is also leaving home, then it would result in an increase in the housing stock of more than 1.8 million units since 2007 (condos or single family homes). We estimate that the resulting boost to residential construction growth would have added an average 0.14 percentage points to real GDP growth each year since 2007. Of course, it is not clear how much of the "living at home" trend is due to student loans as opposed to low earnings or poor job prospects. This estimate thus overstates the direct impact of student loans on the housing market. Nonetheless, it is instructive that the living-at-home phenomenon has been a non-trivial drag on economic growth via new home construction. (3) New Business Creation Academic research has also linked rising student indebtedness to a slower pace of new business creation. Research by the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia points out that approximately 60% of new jobs in the private sector are created by small business.14 The U.S. Small Business Administration states that small firms receive approximately three-quarters of their capital needs in the form of loans, credit cards and lines of credit, which often have a personal liability attached. Having student loans reduces one's debt capacity and thus the ability to obtain small business loans. The Fed study compared student loan data and new business formation across U.S. counties. The Fed estimates that an increase of one standard deviation in student debt results in a decrease of 70 in the annual pace of new small business creation, representing a decline of approximately 14½%. Chart II-12 shows the inverse correlation between student debt and new business formation across U.S. states. Chart II-12Student Debt Hinders Small Business Creation The impact of a slower pace of new business creation on overall economic growth is unclear. A student that does not create a new business for whatever reason will likely end up working for an already existing company that is growing, expanding the supply side of the economy anyway. True, small businesses create a lot of jobs, but they lose a lot too because the failure rate for these firms is high in the early years. Some claim that the less vibrant new business environment since 2007 reflects a less dynamic economy, helping to explain the dismal productivity record since that time. However, this flies in the face of the fact that the small business sector is less productive overall than large businesses. Chart II-13 demonstrates that there is a rough correlation between the new firm creation rate and real GDP growth per capita at the state level. However, it is not clear which one is driving the other. Our sense is that, while a less vibrant new business backdrop likely contributed to the poor post-Lehman economic record, it is far from the major driving factor. Chart II-13GDP Growth And Small Business Creation: Which One Is The Driver? (4) The Federal Budget Could the surge in delinquency rates wind up costing the taxpayer a bundle? Eighty percent of all student loans are either made directly by or are backed by the federal government, generating a potentially large contingent liability. Fortunately for the taxpayer, the recovery rate on student loans is extremely high. Moreover, the Federal government makes money on the spread between the student loan rate and the rate at which it finances these loans (Treasury yields). Congress sets the loan rates and they are kept well above Treasury yields. Under Congressional accounting rules, the cost of a student loan is recorded in the federal budget during the year the loan is disbursed, taking into account the amount of the loan, expected payments to the government over the life of the loan, and other cash flows, all discounted to the present value using interest rates on U.S. Treasury securities. By this accounting rule, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that the Federal government will make a net profit of almost $200 billion over the 2013-2023 period.15 However, a more reasonable "fair value" accounting method, which includes the costs of collection and other items, shows that the student loan program will cost the taxpayer roughly $100 billion over the same period. Either way, the bottom line is that the student loan program is at worst only a minor drain on the Federal government's coffer. Delinquency and default rates are likely to moderate in the coming years. But even if default rates were to surge to new highs for some reason, the recovery rate is so elevated that the impact on the Federal budget balance would be lost in the rounding. Conclusion It seems clear that incentives ingrained in the U.S. higher-education system have contributed to an alarming escalation in student debt over the last 15 years. There has been a vicious circle in which increased federal loan limits supported institutions' ability to raise tuition fees, resulting in a greater need for federal loans. Some for-profit institutions have been criticized for offering shoddy education, for graduating too many students in disciplines for which job prospects are poor, and for encouraging students to load up on high-cost debt. The U.S. spends almost 80% more per pupil on higher education than the OECD average, and yet some argue that this has not resulted in better educational outcomes. The social impact of student leveraging is clearly negative. The benefits of education have narrowed relative to the costs. Financial stress has increased along with debt service burdens, especially for non-traditional borrowers, and repayment periods have been extended to an average of over 13 years. These trends have caused young people to delay marriage and home purchases. This is a serious political and social issue that needs to be addressed. That said, we do not agree with Ms. Bair that student debt is the next "subprime" crisis. Delinquency and default rates are likely to fall in the coming years. These loans have not been packaged into opaque financial instruments and distributed throughout the investment world. The vast majority of the loans are federally backed and the recovery rate is very high. Even if there is a wave of mass defaults, the federal deficit might rise slightly but there is no channel through which the shock can propagate through the financial system. The bottom line is that student debt is a social issue, and to a lesser extent, a macro issue. But it is not a financial stability issue. Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst 1 "Student Debt and the Class of 2015," Annual Report of the Institute for College Access & Success, October 2016. 2 Beth Akers and Matthew Chingos, "Is a Student Loan Crisis on the Horizon?" Brown Center on Education Policy at Brookings, June 2014. 3 Adam Looney and Constantine Yannelis, "A Crisis in Student Loans? How Changes in the Characteristics of Borrowers and in the Institutions They Attended Contributed to Rising Loan Defaults," Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, Fall 2015. 4 Most federal student loans are at a fixed rate set by Congress. 5 Brookings (2015). 6 http://www.edcentral.org/edcyclopedia/federal-student-loan-default-rate… 7 The data are only available to 2010, but we have estimated figures to 2013. 8 Brookings (2014). 9 Brookings (2014). 10 Student loans generally have a 10-year term, but loans consolidated with the federal government are eligible for extended repayment terms based on the outstanding balance, with larger debts eligible for longer repayment terms. 11 "Young Adults, Student Debt and Economic Well-Being," Pew Research Center, May 14, 2014. 12 Daniel Cooper and J.Christina Wang, "Student Loan Debt and Economic Outcomes," Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, October 2014. 13 Alvaro Mezza, Daniel Ringo, Shane Sherlund and Kamila Sommer, "On the Effect of Student Loans on Access to Homeownership," Finance and Economic Discussion Series of the Federal Reserve Board. 2016-2010. 14 Brent Ambrose, Larry Cordell, and Shuwei Ma, "The Impact of Student Loan Debt on Small Business Formation," Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia Working Paper, July 2015. III. Indicators And Reference Charts Equity markets ended the month slightly lower as investors come to grips with the economic and profit implications of the pending Fed rate hike and Brexit. While TINA is still in play, caution abounds, as highlighted by waning investor sentiment and continued weakness in our Equity Technical indictor. Rising bond yields and a stronger dollar contributed to a weakening in our Monetary Indictor, trends that no doubt contributed to the overall diminished appetite for risk over the month. Our Equity Valuation Indicators have improved somewhat, but still remain in overvalued territory. Net earnings revisions have become constructive and positive earnings surprises increasingly outpaced negative ones. Despite this, we would need to see a close to 10% price depreciation for U.S. equities to appear attractive, as outlined in Section 1. Our Willingness-to-Pay (WTP) indicators continue to send a positive message for stock markets. These indicators track flows, and thus provide information on what investors are actually doing, as opposed to sentiment indexes that track how investors are feeling. Investors often say they are bullish but remain conservative in their asset allocation. At the moment, the low levels of the WTP indicators suggest that flows have been stronger into bonds than into stocks. From a contrary perspective, this means that there is "dry powder" available if investors decide to move more aggressively into equity markets. The U.S. and Eurozone indicators appear to have bottomed out last month and continue their ascent. This should be bullish for both U.S. and Eurozone equities. The U.S. dollar notched a strong month with a gain of more than 3%. This has tightened financial conditions as can be seen in the decline of our Financial Conditions Index. The deviation from its 12-month moving average is even more pronounced, turning negative after several months of treading water in "easing" territory. Our Dollar Composite Technical indicator displayed a violent move higher, but has yet to breach a level consistent with previous episodes of overextension; the USD can rally further. The yen is showing signs of entering an extended period of depreciation. Net speculative positions are extremely elevated and the 40-week rate of change appears to have formed a trough, rebounding from all-time lows. In a similar vein, the euro is also displaying weakness as its 40-week rate of change is crossing into negative territory. As outlined in Section 1, we expect a 10% appreciation in the U.S. dollar, a 10% depreciation in the yen and a 5% depreciation of the euro in trade-weighted terms. The commodity complex ended the month flat, with a more robust global growth backdrop offsetting the negative impact of a strong U.S. dollar and higher rates. While the advance/decline line ticked up, a positive sign for a potential broad-based gain across currencies, gold had a less than stellar month. The outsized impact of financial variables (U.S. dollar strength and higher real rates) on the yellow metal led to a more than 5% price decline. Our Commodity Composite Technical Indicator surged deeper into overbought territory, indicating that it might be time to take some risk off the table. The balance of risks for commodities excluding oil is to the downside. As mentioned in Section 1, an appreciating U.S. dollar and elevated yields will eventually feed through to weakness in the space. EQUITIES: Chart III-1U.S. Equity Indicators Chart III-2Willingness To Pay For Risk Chart III-3U.S. Equity Sentiment Indicators Chart III-4U.S. Stock Market Valuation Chart III-5U.S. Earnings Chart III-6Global Stock Market ##br##And Earnings: Relative Performance Chart III-7Global Stock Market ##br##And Earnings: Relative Performance FIXED INCOME: Chart III-8U.S. Treasurys And Valuations Chart III-9U.S. Treasury Indicators Chart III-10Selected U.S. Bond Yields Chart III-1110-Year Treasury Yield ComponentsChart III-12U.S. Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor Chart III-13Global Bonds: Developed Markets Chart III-14Global Bonds: Emerging Markets CURRENCIES: Chart III-15U.S. Dollar And PPP Chart III-16U.S. Dollar And Indicator Chart III-17U.S. Dollar Fundamentals Chart III-18Japanese Yen TechnicalsChart III-19Euro Technicals Chart III-20Euro/Yen Technicals Chart III-21Euro/Pound Technicals COMMODITIES: Chart III-22Broad Commodity Indicators Chart III-23Commodity Prices Chart III-24Commodity Prices Chart III-25Commodity Sentiment Chart III-26Speculative Positioning ECONOMY: Chart III-27U.S. And Global Macro Backdrop Chart III-28U.S. Macro Snapshot Chart III-29U.S. Growth Outlook Chart III-30U.S. Cyclical Spending Chart III-31U.S. Labor Market Chart III-32U.S. Consumption Chart III-33U.S. Housing Chart III-34U.S. Debt And Deleveraging Chart III-35U.S. Financial Conditions Chart III-36Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Chart III-37Global Economic Snapshot: China

Highlights The perceived shape of Brexit is the single most important driver of the pound and most U.K. assets. The U.K. Courts are due to deliver landmark legal rulings, which have huge implications for the perceived shape of Brexit. Expect an eventual soft Brexit if the Courts decide against the U.K. government and deem that triggering Article 50 requires parliamentary approval. Expect a much harder Brexit if the Courts decide in favour of the U.K. government. Tactical investors should consider owning some very short-term call options on pound/dollar or a combination of call and put options. Feature Within the next two weeks, the U.K. High Court will deliver a landmark legal ruling which will have huge implications for the future of the U.K. and Europe. Chart of the WeekDifferent Levels Of Brexit Mean Different Levels Of The Pound The U.K. High Court will rule whether Prime Minister Theresa May can start the legal process to exit the EU using the so-called 'royal prerogative' - the power granted to governments to make decisions without a vote from parliament. If May cannot use the royal prerogative, she will require an Act of Parliament to trigger Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty. The High Court judgement hinges on a fundamental issue. Triggering Article 50 necessarily means that the current government will overturn previous parliamentary decisions - the European Communities Act (1972) and European Union Act (2011). Does the constitution permit a government to overturn parliamentary decisions, take away treaties, and remove the population's legal rights without obtaining parliamentary approval? Although we are not legal experts, the court could regard that as overstretching government authority. If the High Court's judgement does go against the U.K. government, expect pound/dollar to rally immediately by about 4-5 cents. Conversely, a judgement in favour of the government could see the pound sell off by about 1-2 cents. Given the possibility of this gapping, tactical investors should consider owning some very short-term call options on pound/dollar, or a combination of call and put options. Nevertheless, the story will not end with the High Court. Whichever side loses will appeal the decision and take the case to the Supreme Court, which is expected to respond by the end of the year. This ultimate pronouncement of law will have a landmark bearing on the shape of Brexit and, thereby, the future of the U.K. and the other EU 27. Where Is The Pound Headed Longer-Term? For investors, the spectrum of Brexit possibilities - no Brexit, 'soft' Brexit, 'hard' Brexit, or 'very hard' Brexit - will be the single-most important driver of the pound, and by extension, other U.K. assets. Of course, U.K. asset prices ultimately depend on economic and financial fundamentals. But Chart I-2, Chart I-3, Chart I-4, Chart I-5, Chart I-6, Chart I-7 illustrate that by far the most important fundamental for all U.K. assets right now is the perceived hardness of Brexit, as captured in the pound's value. Chart I-2Harder Brexit Means The Eurostoxx600 ##br##Underperforms The FTSE100... Chart I-3...And The FTSE250 ##br##Underperforms The FTSE100 Chart I-4Harder Brexit Means U.K. ##br##Goods Exporters Outperform... Chart I-5Harder Brexit Means ##br##Retailers Underperform... Chart I-6...Travel And Leisure Underperforms... Chart I-7...And Real Estate Underperforms Pound/dollar has (so far) traded at three distinct levels, based on three distinct levels of perceived Brexit severity: near 1.50 before the Brexit vote; near 1.30 after the Brexit vote but perceiving a soft Brexit; and near 1.20 after Theresa May announced that she would trigger Article 50 by next March and was contemplating a hard Brexit (Chart of the Week). Hence the (post-appeal) outcome of the legal case against the government carries great significance. If the government loses, and requires a parliamentary vote to trigger Article 50, several consequences follow. Theresa May's end-March deadline for firing the Brexit starting gun would become very difficult to meet, severely delaying the whole process. Would the government even win a parliamentary majority? If in doubt, would the government call a snap General Election to try and beef up its majority? The current batch of parliamentarians has a strong bias for staying in the EU, but it would be difficult to fly in the face of the referendum result. On the other hand, the checks and balances of parliament are there precisely to stop the country walking over the cliff-edge that a very hard Brexit would be. All the while, with investment slowing and higher inflation from the weaker pound squeezing household real incomes, the economic headwinds from the U.K.s limbo status would be becoming more apparent. Given the high stakes and likely irreversibility of the formal legal process, parliamentarians would rightfully want to examine and approve the U.K.'s negotiating hand. It seems that Parliament would almost certainly water down or delay Brexit before voting it through. Hence, if the government loses its legal case after appeal, Brexit will likely end up in a soft form. And pound/dollar will ultimately elevate to 1.35. Conversely, if the government wins its legal case after appeal, Theresa May will be on course to trigger Article 50 early next year, as promised. At which point, the EU 27's optimal game-theoretical first play is to be very aggressive - effectively opening with a very hard Brexit offer as described in the next section. Whereupon, pound/dollar would find its fourth, even lower, new level: near 1.10. Two Myths About Brexit It is important to debunk a couple of common myths about Brexit. First, that the U.K.'s current position as the EU 28's second largest economy will force the remaining EU 27 to give the U.K. a special status - allowing access to the three freedoms of goods, services, and capital but with controls on the fourth freedom of movement: people. This belief is misplaced. The biggest worry for the EU 27 is that a special status for Britain could catalyse other countries, under populist pressure, to ask for equivalent deals. The EU 27 does not want to give Marine Le Pen the opportunity to say "let's follow the Brits, they've negotiated a great deal." Hence, the U.K. will not get special treatment. Quite the contrary, it must be seen to be paying a substantial price for Brexit. Even for Anglophile Angela Merkel, protecting the indivisibility of the four freedoms and the integrity of the EU is the overriding priority. If the U.K. restricts free movement of people, it almost certainly means a hard Brexit: substantially restricted access to the single market. The U.K. would then have to negotiate a free trade agreement (FTA) with the EU. Given the current difficulty that Canada is experiencing in negotiating a FTA, this might not be a straightforward process for the U.K either. Furthermore, as a FTA does not usually cover services, it would handicap the services-heavy U.K. economy, while perfectly suiting the goods-heavy German economy. A second common belief is that the pound will act as an automatic economic stabilizer. That irrespective of a very tough deal from the EU 27, a weaker sterling will soothe the pain of a very hard Brexit by making British exports more competitive. Granted, the weaker pound will boost the demand for the U.K.'s goods exports. But total U.K exports are much less sensitive to devaluations compared to when the pound tumbled out of the Exchange Rate Mechanism in 1992. Then, just a quarter of the U.K's exports were services; today that proportion is approaching a half (Chart I-8) With the exception of tourism, these services tend to be high value-added financial and business services. Cutting their price will not significantly boost the demand for them. Chart I-8Almost Half Of U.K. Exports Are Services Meanwhile, U.K. consumers will feel distinctly poorer as the sterling prices of food and energy rise (Chart I-9), squeezing real household incomes and spending. In turn, this will leave the Bank of England with a major headache. How best to support real spending: defend the plunging pound to keep a lid on food and energy prices, or cut interest rates? Chart I-9Higher Sterling Prices For Food And Energy Will Squeeze Real Incomes Investment Reductionism For U.K. Assets The charts throughout this report show that the strategy for many U.K. investments reduces to an overriding question. Will the U.K largely retain access to the single market, defining a soft Brexit? Or will the U.K. largely lose access to the single market, defining a hard Brexit? In a soft Brexit: Sterling would rally 10%, taking pound/dollar to 1.35. The Eurostoxx600 and S&P500 would outperform the FTSE100. Within U.K. equities, sterling earners would outperform dollar earners, favouring small and mid-cap over large cap. The FTSE250 would outperform the FTSE100. The heavily domestic-focused retailers, travel and leisure, and real estate sectors would outperform the market. Goods exporters, such as the apparel sector would become less competitive and underperform the market. In a hard Brexit, expect the exact opposite of the above. Pound/dollar would slump 10% to 1.10, and so on. To determine which strategy to follow, await the post-appeal Supreme Court judgement on how Article 50 must be triggered, due at the end of the year. If Article 50 requires parliamentary approval, expect a soft Brexit. If it doesn't require parliamentary approval, expect the Brexit game theory to become hard and aggressive. Right now this is a coin toss, but forced to choose, we expect events may eventually prevent a damaging hard Brexit. Dhaval Joshi, Senior Vice President European Investment Strategy dhaval@bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading Model* This week's trade is another commodity pair trade: long copper / short tin. For any investment, excessive trend following and groupthink can reach a natural point of instability, at which point the established trend is highly likely to break down with or without an external catalyst. An early warning sign is the investment's fractal dimension approaching its natural lower bound. Encouragingly, this trigger has consistently identified countertrend moves of various magnitudes across all asset classes. Chart 10 * For more details please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report "Fractals, Liquidity & A Trading Model," dated December 11, 2014, available at eis.bcaresearch.com The post-June 9, 2016 fractal trading model rules are: When the fractal dimension approaches the lower limit after an investment has been in an established trend it is a potential trigger for a liquidity-triggered trend reversal. Therefore, open a countertrend position. The profit target is a one-third reversal of the preceding 13-week move. Apply a symmetrical stop-loss. Close the position at the profit target or stop-loss. Otherwise close the position after 13 weeks. Use the position size multiple to control risk. The position size will be smaller for more risky positions. Fractal Trading Model Recommendations Equities Bond & Interest Rates Currency & Other Positions Closed Fractal Trades Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Interest Rate Chart II-5Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations

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

Special Report

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