Fixed Income

Highlights Duration: Treasury yields likely have another 50-60 basis points of upside during this cycle, and at least for now their uptrend should not be constrained by unreasonably elevated economic expectations. Stay at below-benchmark duration. Economy & Inflation: GDP growth remains firmly entrenched above levels necessary to ensure that the unemployment rate continues to fall and inflation is pressured higher. Weakness in residential investment presents a risk to the view that above-trend growth will persist, but leading housing indicators suggest it will bounce back in the coming quarters. Municipal Bonds: State & Local government net borrowing declined in the third quarter, but the improvement is already reflected in historically tight Muni / Treasury yield ratios. Remain underweight municipal bonds. Feature Chart 1Discounting An Inflation Rebound In last week's report we pointed out that a flat yield curve is incompatible with core inflation so far below the Fed's target and that the bond market is fast approaching a day of reckoning where either inflation will rise quickly enough to justify the Fed's rate hike expectations, or those expectations will be revised lower.1 Meantime, the Treasury curve has been bear-steepening since early September, and the 37 basis point increase in the 10-year yield has been driven both by higher real yields and a higher cost of inflation compensation (Chart 1). This suggests that the market is pricing-in a rebound in inflation rather than a capitulation from the Fed. Yesterday's PCE inflation report didn't do much to justify those expectations, coming in at only 1.33% year-over-year, not far above the 1.30% reading from August. However, we have previously noted mounting evidence that we are past the worst of the inflation downtrend.2 This raises the question of how much higher Treasury yields can rise, and this is the question we tackle in this week's report. Data Surprises & Playing The Odds Longer run, the 10-year cost of inflation compensation (currently 1.88%) will likely settle into a range between 2.4% and 2.5% by the time that core inflation returns to the Fed's 2% target. Assuming that inflationary pressures are sufficiently strong for that outcome to be achieved with the Fed lifting rates at a pace of about 50 bps per year, then long-dated real yields should stay roughly flat. This means that the nominal 10-year Treasury yield can move another 50-60 bps higher before the end of the cycle. But in the meantime, depending on swings in the macroeconomic data, bonds could experience several playable rallies and sell-offs. Is there a way for us to get a handle on when those might occur? One way might be to examine the economic surprise index (ESI). This index tracks whether economic data are over- or under-shooting consensus expectations. In this way it is very much like a financial market price. It moves higher when the incoming data suggest a rosier outlook than is currently anticipated, but then falls once expectations become so bullish they can no longer be surpassed. This is exactly what happened at the beginning of the year when the 10-year Treasury yield peaked at 2.62% following an extended period of elevated data surprises (Chart 2). Chart 2Economic Surprises Are Mean Reverting More specifically, we observe that when the ESI ends a month above (below) the zero line, it is very likely that the 10-year Treasury yield increased (decreased) during that month (Chart 3). The same is also true for 3-month and 6-month investment horizons, although the correlation is less robust, particularly for values close to zero (Charts 4 & 5). It follows that if we know whether the economic data will surprise on the upside or on the downside in a given month, then we can predict whether Treasury yields will rise or fall. Chart 3Economic Surprise Index & ##br##1-Month Change In Yields Chart 4Economic Surprise Index & ##br##3-Month Change In Yields Chart 5Economic Surprise Index & ##br##6-Month Change In Yields Unfortunately that is not a very profound statement. It is similarly easy to decide how much to bet on a hand of blackjack if you already know what cards will be dealt. But while it is obviously impossible to predict whether data surprises will be positive or negative in a given month, much like a card counter in blackjack, a study of events that have just occurred can help us make inferences that tilt the odds in our favor. In other words, we know that the ESI is mean reverting. A long sequence of elevated readings means it is more likely to fall, and a long sequence of depressed readings means it is more likely to rise. We can even use an AR(3) model to quantify the extent of mean reversion in the index. Using monthly data we run a regression of the ESI on its three most recent lags and get the following result which explains 55% of the variation since 2003: Notice that the index is positively correlated to its reading from the prior month, but negatively correlated with its readings from two and three months ago. Let's now consider that the most recent reading from the ESI is 38.2. One month ago it was -7.9 and two months ago it was -23.1. Using our formula, our best prediction for where the surprise index will be next month is 39. This is still deep in positive territory, meaning that if the model is correct, Treasury yields will remain under upward pressure. More decisively, we conclude from our model that it is unlikely that investor expectations have become so elevated that markets are set up for disappointment. The Appendix to this report provides a reference table for different ranges of the surprise index based on the above formula. It can be used as a quick reference guide for predicting where the ESI is likely to fall next month based on its readings from the prior three months. Bottom Line: Treasury yields likely have another 50-60 basis points of upside during this cycle, and at least for now their uptrend should not be constrained by unreasonably elevated economic expectations. Stay at below-benchmark duration. Economy & Inflation No Signs Of A Slowdown Last week we learned that GDP grew at an annualized rate of 3.0% in the third quarter, well above the Fed's 1.8% estimate of trend. The number was boosted by strong contributions from inventory accumulation (+0.73%) and net exports (+0.41%), but even stripping out those more volatile components to focus on real final sales to domestic purchasers reveals that growth is firmly above trend (Chart 6). Above-trend GDP growth will ensure that the unemployment rate continues to decline, which in turn will ensure that inflation moves higher. The unemployment rate had come close to flattening off late last year as growth decelerated toward 1.8%, but has since started to fall more rapidly alongside the re-acceleration in GDP (Chart 6, bottom panel). In fact, we attribute this year's decline in inflation to last year's growth deceleration and expect inflation will soon follow GDP growth higher (Chart 7). Chart 6Growth Is Steady, And Well Above Trend Chart 7Inflation Lags Growth Considering the contributions from the more stable sources of growth, we observe the following (Chart 8): Consumer spending remains firm, still above its post-2010 average. Nonresidential investment is accelerating back toward its post-2010 average, following a period of weakness that was driven by the mid-2014 commodity price collapse. Leading capex indicators, such as new orders surveys, suggest the acceleration will continue. Residential investment is a source of concern. It had already decelerated to well below its post-2010 average even prior to the hurricanes that depressed its contribution to growth in Q3. We are not yet concerned that the weakness in residential investment will morph into a broader slowdown. In fact, it appears quite likely that residential investment will bounce back in the coming quarters. Growth in residential investment is correlated with changes in the inventory of outstanding homes (Chart 9). Typically, large slowdowns in residential investment are preceded by a big run-up in supply. But at the moment, supply continues to contract, whether or not we include the shadow inventory from properties that were foreclosed upon during the housing bust. This shadow inventory has mostly evaporated in any case (Chart 9, panel 3). Chart 8Housing Not Keeping Pace Chart 9Inventories Still Falling Further support for residential investment comes from homebuilder sentiment which remains very strong (Chart 9, bottom panel). Bottom Line: GDP growth remains firmly entrenched above levels necessary to ensure that the unemployment rate continues to fall and inflation is pressured higher. Weakness in residential investment presents a risk to the view that above-trend growth will persist, but leading housing indicators suggest it will bounce back in the coming quarters. An Improvement In State & Local Government Balance Sheets Assuming that corporate tax revenues were the same in Q3 as in Q2, we can estimate that state & local government net borrowing declined to $163 billion in the third quarter. This represents a substantial improvement from prior quarters, but one that has already been discounted in Municipal / Treasury (M/T) yield ratios (Chart 10). M/T yield ratios are extremely tight, even compared to average pre-crisis levels (Chart 11), and the unattractive valuation underscores our negative stance on the sector. However, at least for now, there are no signs of an imminent surge in state & local government net borrowing that could cause a credit premium to get priced into muni yields. Chart 10Less Borrowing Is In The Price Chart 11Muni / Treasury Yield Ratios Until last quarter, growth in state & local current expenditures had been running consistently above growth in current revenues (Chart 12). However, the weakness in current revenues was mostly attributable to a slowdown in transfers from the federal government. When we look at growth in state & local government tax revenues only, we find that it is substantially outpacing expenditure growth (Chart 12, panel 2). Chart 12Tax Revenue Growth Greater Than Expenditure Growth The acceleration in transfers from the federal government that started in mid-2014 reflected the expansion of Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act. Now that most eligible individuals have signed up, we would expect growth in federal transfer payments to level-off. Unless legislation is passed to further curb transfers from the federal government, state & local borrowing should continue its decline in the coming quarters. Bottom Line: State & Local government net borrowing declined in the third quarter, but the improvement is already reflected in historically tight Muni / Treasury yield ratios. Remain underweight municipal bonds. Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "The Fed Must Fall Behind The Curve", dated October 24, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Living With The Carry Trade", dated October 17, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com. Appendix Table 1 Table 2 Table 3 Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

Highlights Risk assets are responding well to better data and rising rates. Q3 EPS results beating lowered expectations, but growth earnings will peak soon. The conditions are in place for robust capital spending. Financial assets are adhering to the post-Hurricane playbook, with a few notable exceptions. Feature Chart 1Risk Assets Higher Despite Higher Rates Risk assets rose last week for the 6th week in a row (Chart 1). A solid start to Q3 earnings season, more legislative progress on the GOP's tax plan and a narrowing of President Trump's choice for Fed Chair (Jerome Powell, John Taylor and incumbent Janet Yellen) all added to the positive backdrop. The 4 bps rise in the 10 year Treasury yield last week (and 37 bps since early September) was not an impediment to higher equity and oil prices, and gains for small caps and high yield bonds. The positive reaction likely reflected the fact that yields rose more because of increased growth expectations than higher inflation expectations. Despite the impact of Hurricanes Harvey and Irma, Q3 GDP posted an impressive 3% gain. The composition of the Q3 readings suggests an even stronger report in Q4 (Chart 2). At 2.3%, the year-over-year change in real GDP is close to the Fed's 2017 forecast (2.4%) and above the long run forecast (1.8%). The implication for investors is that because U.S. economic growth is faster than its long-term potential, the labor market is tightening and inflation is poised to move higher. Accordingly, market odds for a Fed hike in December are near 90% and participants expect 51 bps more hikes in the next 12 months (Chart 1, panel 3). BCA's view is that U.S. economic growth is set to accelerate in the coming quarters aided by a post hurricane rebound in housing. The Fed will raise rates in December and three more times next year as inflation returns to 2% and perhaps beyond. Corporate profit growth will peak in the next few quarters, but remain supportive of higher stock prices for now. The rise in the Economic Surprise Index will continue for another few months, and provide another lift for risk assets. A surge in capital spending adds to the upbeat tone. Chart 2GDP Growth Remains Below Average, But Above Fed's Long Run Target Capital Spending Blasts Off Business capital spending is on the upswing. The robust readings in September on core durable goods orders (7.8% year-over-year) and shipments reported last week were paybacks for the Hurricane-weakened August report. Nonetheless, the impressive soundings on the three -month change in both orders and shipments were not distorted by the storms. Moreover, the durable goods report was one of the latest in a series of data points brightening capex's outlook (Chart 3). Both BCA's real and nominal capex models, driven by surging capital goods orders along with elevated ISM readings and soaring sentiment on business spending, indicate strong investment in plant and equipment in the next few quarters. CEO confidence soared to a 13-year high in Q1 according to the latest Duke University/CFO Magazine Business Outlook, but retreated modestly in Q2 and Q3 (Chart 4). Surveys by the Conference Board and Business Roundtable show a similar pattern. Notably, readings on all three surveys have climbed since Trump's election in November 2016, but then retreated as his pro-business agenda stalled. The drop in sentiment reflects the lack of legislative progress in Washington (Chart 5). The dip in CEO sentiment in Q2 and Q3 is in sharp contrast with the easing of policy concerns in the Beige Book. Chart 3Bright Outlook For Capital Spending Chart 4Capital Spending Plans Upbeat Chart 5Managements Remain Upbeat The upbeat numbers in the regional Federal Reserve Banks' surveys of capital spending intentions further support rising capex spending in the next few quarters. The average readings from the New York, Philadelphia and Richmond Feds' capex survey plans are close to cycle highs, despite a modest pullback in the summer months. Moreover, the regional Feds' capex spending plans diffusion index hit an eight-year high in October (Chart 5, panel 3). Bottom Line: Stay overweight stocks versus bonds, and underweight duration. Rising capex will drive up GDP, employment and EPS in the coming quarters. Q3 Earnings Beating Lowered Expectations The Q3 earnings reporting season is off to a strong start, with both EPS and sales growth well ahead of consensus expectations as we forecast in our October 2 preview. Moreover, the counter-trend rally in profit margins is still in place. Just under 55% of companies have reported results so far, with 74% beating consensus EPS projections just above the long-term average of 55%. Furthermore, 67% have posted Q3 revenues that topped expectations, which exceeded the LT average of 69%. The surprise factor for Q3 stands at 5% for EPS and 2% for sales. These compare favorably with the average EPS (4.2%) and sales (1.2%) in the past five years. We anticipate the secular mean-reversion of margins to re-assert itself in the S&P data, perhaps beginning early in 2018. Nonetheless, initial results imply that Q2 will be another quarter of margin expansion. Average earnings growth (Q3 2017 versus Q3 2016) is solid at 7% with revenue growth at 5%. Strength in earnings and revenues is broad based (Table 1). Earnings per share increased in Q3 2017 versus Q3 2016 in eight of the 11 sectors. The 7.3% year-over-year drop in the financial sector is linked to the impact of the hurricanes on the insurance and reinsurance industries. Excluding those industries, financial EPS is up 4.7% from a year ago. EPS results are particularly stout in energy (164%), technology (18%) and healthcare (7%). Those sectors likewise experienced significant sales gains (16%, 9% and 5% respectively). Corporate managements are more focused on the message in Washington than on the President (Chart 6). Trump's name was mentioned just once in the Q3 earnings calls held through October 27, matching Q2's reporting period. CEOs and CFOs have cited Trump's name at least once in each earnings season since Q2 2016. The peak in mentions occurred immediately after Trump took office in early 2017. Table 1S&P 500:##BR##Q3 2017 Results* Chart 6Managements Focused On##BR##The Message Out Of DC In contrast, the words "tax" and "reform" have appeared 39 times thus far in Q3 conference calls, most often in a positive light. There were only five mentions in Q2, when there was skepticism that a tax plan would pass this year. In the Q4 2016 reporting season following the November election, tax and reform were cited 16 times. BCA's Geopolitical Strategy service has consistently expected a tax package to pass by the end of Q1 2018.1 We are encouraged by the upward trajectory of EPS estimates for 2017 and 2018 (Chart 7). It is odd that the recent downtick in 2017 EPS is mirrored by an uptick in the 2018 figure. That said, the divergence can be explained by the impact of the hurricanes on the financial sector's earnings in 2017 and probable snapback in early 2018. Analysts expect 2019 EPS growth to slow from 2018's clip, which matches BCA's view. However, unlike estimates for 2017 and 2018, we anticipate that EPS estimates for 2019 will move lower throughout 2018 and 2019, ahead of a recession in late 2019.2 Bottom Line: The BCA earnings model shows that S&P 500 EPS growth is peaking and should decelerate through 2018 toward a level commensurate with 3 ½-4% nominal GDP growth (Chart 8). Accordingly, BCA believes that the earnings backdrop will remain a tailwind for the equity market, albeit a smaller tailwind. This forecast excludes any positive effect on growth from tax cuts, which would be positive for EPS and the S&P 500 price index in the short term, although this would also bring forward Fed rate hikes. The entire Treasury curve has readjusted to reflect this view. Chart 7Stability In '17 & '18 EPS Estimates,##BR##But '19 Likely To Move Lower Chart 8Strong EPS Growth Ahead,##BR##Will Start To Slow Soon 10-Year Treasury Update BCA's view is that the 10-year Treasury yield will head higher in the coming months. However, is the move from 2.03% in early September to 2.43% last week sustainable? BCA's fair value model for the 10-year Treasury yield (based on Global PMI and dollar sentiment) places fair value at 2.65% (Chart 9, panel 1). Moreover, BCA's three-factor version of the model (that includes the Global Economic Policy Uncertainty Index), puts fair value slightly higher at 2.63% (Chart 9, panel 3). Investors should continue to position for a steeper curve by favoring the 5-year bullet versus a duration-matched 2/10 barbell. Chart 9Treasury Fair Value Models BCA's U.S. Bond Strategy service will publish updated fair models after the November 1 release of October's global PMI data. The latest readings on Citi's Economic Surprise index also support BCA's stance on rates. How Long Can The Economic Surprise Index Stay Positive? The Citi Economic Surprise Index crossed into positive territory on October 2nd, remaining above zero for 20 business days, and risk assets are responding (Chart 10). Since 2010, once the Index turns positive, it continues to rise for 46 days. The implication for investors is that the economic data will continue to be remarkable for another two months. Table 2 shows that risk assets outperform as the economic surprise index rises from zero toward its zenith. Risk assets have also outperformed since the June bottom in economic surprises, matching the historical performance.3 Oil (+17%), small caps and investment grade corporates are all standouts and the gains may not be over. The track record of risk assets as the Economic Surprise Index climbs suggests that additional increases are in prospect for risk assets. On average, equities (relative to treasuries) and oil are the best performers during these intervals. Chart 10May Still Be Room To Run On Economic Surprise Table 2Risk Assets Perform Well As Economic Surprise Rises Post-Hurricane Macro Backdrop The strength of the Citi Economic Surprise Index following the hurricanes duplicates the historical trend and supports the rise in risk assets. The Index moves higher for the first month post-storm, and then remains above zero for an additional three weeks (Chart 11, panel 4). This bolsters BCA's stance that the direction of the Index will continue to lift risk assets in the next few months. Financial assets are also adhering to the post-Hurricane playbook,4 with a few notable exceptions (Chart 12). The stock-to-bond ratio moved higher and the VIX has declined since Hurricane Harvey, matching the typical post-storm performance. However, the 10-year Treasury yield, the S&P 500 and the Fed funds rate, all have bucked historical trends. The S&P 500 rose by 5.6% since late August; stocks typically drift lower in the first few months after a major storm. In addition, the 10-year Treasury yield climbed but it usually moves down in the two months following a hurricane. Post- storm, the Fed typically continues to do whatever it was doing prior to the storm. Accordingly, we expect the Fed to hike rates at its December meeting. Chart 11Major Hurricane Impact##BR##On Activity Data Chart 12Major Hurricane Impact On##BR##Financial Markets And The Fed The economic, inflation and sentiment data are also mixed. Housing data frequently lags in the wake of a storm, but both new and existing home sales moved up in the month after Harvey and Irma; housing starts declined in recent months which is counter to the historical pattern (Chart 13). Both IP and employment plunged after the storms, however, these indicators tend to rise after major weather. Initial claims for unemployment insurance were typically volatile in the six weeks since Harvey hit Texas, but have resumed their downtrend. Average hourly earnings in inflation climbed after Harvey and Irma, while consumer confidence dipped, matching history. However, the bump in gasoline prices since late August runs counter to historical precedent. Gasoline prices tend to decline after major storms (Chart 14). Chart 13Major Hurricane Impact##BR##On Housing Data Chart 14Major Hurricane Impact On##BR##Sentiment And Inflation Data Investment Conclusions: The macro backdrop remains bullish for risk assets, especially since synchronized growth has reduced fears of secular stagnation. Bond yields will rise, but won't be a headwind for stocks yet.5 Rising bond yields because of growth, without rising inflation, are bullish for risk assets, but this will change as inflation reaches 2% and inflation expectations start to rise. At that point, the Fed will be behind the curve. This will lead to faster Fed rate hikes, historically a headwind for equities. John Canally, CFA, Senior Vice President U.S. Investment Strategy johnc@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA's Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Xi Jinping: Chairman Of Everything," October 25, 2017. Available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA's Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Strategy Outlook Fourth Quarter 2017: Goldilocks And The Recession Bear," October 4, 2017. Available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA's U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Global Monetary Policy Recalibration," April 17, 2017. Available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA's U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Shelter From The Storm," September 5, 2017. Available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see BCA's U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Still In The Sweet Spot" June 19, 2017. Available at usis.bcaresearch.com.

Highlights The macro environment remains positive for risk assets. Nonetheless, the shadow of the '87 stock market crash is a reminder that major market corrections can occur even when the earnings and economic growth backdrop is upbeat. Our base case remains that global growth will stay reasonably firm in 2018, although the composition of that growth will shift towards the U.S. thanks to the lagged effects of easier financial conditions and the likelihood of some fiscal stimulus next year. Positive U.S. economic growth surprises and the disappearing output gap will allow the Fed to raise rates more than is discounted by the markets, providing a lift to the dollar and widening U.S. yield spreads relative to its trading partners. The momentum in profit growth, however, will favor Japan relative to the U.S. and Europe. Investors should overweight Japanese equities and hedge the currency risk. There is still more upside for oil prices, but we are not playing the rally in base metals. The Chinese economy is performing well at the moment, but ample base metal supply and a rising dollar argue against a substantial price rise from current levels. Emerging market equities should underperform the developed markets due to a rising U.S. dollar and the largely sideways path for base metals. Our macro and profit views are consistent with cyclicals outperforming defensive stocks. Investors should also continue to bet on higher inflation expectations and be overweight corporate bonds (relative to governments). High-yield relative value is decent after accounting for the favorable default outlook. It is too early to fully retreat from risk assets and prepare for the next recession. Nonetheless, the market has entered a late cycle phase. Investors appear to have shed fears of secular stagnation, and have embraced a return to a lackluster-growth version of the Great Moderation. The risk of disappointment is therefore elevated. Low levels of market correlation and implied volatility can perhaps be justified, but only if there are no financial accidents on the horizon and any rise in inflation is gradual enough to keep the bond vigilantes at bay. Investors with less tolerance for risk should maintain an extra cash buffer to protect against swoons and provide dry powder to boost exposure after the correction. Feature The October anniversary of the '87 stock market crash was a reminder to investors that major market corrections can arrive out of the blue. With hindsight, there were some warning signs evident before the crash. Nonetheless, the speed and viciousness of the correction caught the vast majority of investors by surprise, in large part because the economy was performing well (outside of some yawning imbalances such as the U.S. current account deficit). Many worried that the 20% drop in the S&P 500 would trigger a recession, but the economy did not skip a beat and it was not long before the equity market recouped the losses. We view the '87 crash as a correction rather than a bear market. BCA's definition of a bear market is a combination of magnitude (at least a 15% decline) and duration (lasting at least for six months). Bear markets are usually associated with economic recessions. Corrections tend to be short-lived because they are not associated with an economic downturn. None of our forward-looking indicators suggest that a recession is in the cards in the near term for any of the major economies. Even the risk of a financial accident or economic pothole in China has diminished in our view. As discussed below, the global economy is firing on almost all cylinders. Chart I-1Valuation Today Is Very Stretched Vs. 1987 Nonetheless, there are some parallels today with the mid-1980s. A Special Report sent to all BCA clients in October provides a retrospective on the '87 crash.1 One concern is that the proliferation of financial computer algorithms and derivatives is a parallel to the popularity of portfolio insurance in the 1980s, which was blamed for turbocharging the selling pressure when the market downturn gathered pace in October. My colleague Doug Peta downplays the risks inherent in the ETF market in the Special Report, but argues that automatic selling will again reinforce the fall in prices once it starts. It is also worrying that equity valuation is much more stretched than was the case in the summer of 1987 based on the cyclically-adjusted P/E ratio (CAPE, Chart I-1). The CAPE is currently at levels only previously reached ahead of the 1929 and 2000 peaks. In contrast, the CAPE was close to its long-term average in 1987. Quantitative easing and extremely low interest rates have pulled forward much of the bond and stock markets' future returns. It has also contributed to today's extremely low readings on implied volatility. The fact that the Fed is slowly taking away the punchbowl and that the ECB is dialing back its asset purchase program only add to the risk of a sharp correction. The Good News For now though, investors are focusing on the improving global growth backdrop and the still-solid earnings picture. While the S&P 500 again made new highs in October, it was the Nikkei that stole the show among the major countries. Impressively, the surge in the Japanese stock market was not on the back of a significantly weaker yen. As we highlighted last month, risk assets are being supported by the three legged stool of robust earnings growth, low volatility and yield levels in government bonds, and the view that inflation will remain quiescent for the foreseeable future. The fact that the global growth impulse is broadly-based is icing on the cake because it reduces lingering fears of secular stagnation. Even emerging economies have joined the growth party, while a weak U.S. dollar has tempered fears of a financial accident in this space. Our forward-looking growth indicators are upbeat (Chart I-2). Our demand indicators in the major economies remain quite bullish, especially for capital spending (not shown). Animal spirits are beginning to stir. Moreover, financial conditions remain growth-friendly, especially in the U.S., and subdued inflation is allowing central banks to proceed cautiously for those that are tightening or tapering. The global PMI broke to a new high in October, and the economic surprise index for the major economies has surged in recent months. Our global LEI remains in a strong uptrend and its diffusion index shifted back into positive territory, having experiencing a worrisome dip into negative territory earlier this year. We expect the global growth upturn will persist for at least the next year. The U.S. will be the first major economy to enter the next recession, although this should not occur until 2019. It is thus too early to expect the equity market to begin to anticipate the associated downturn in profit growth. Earnings: Japan A Star Performer It is still early days in the Q3 earnings season, but the mini cyclical rebound from the 2015/16 profit recession in the major economies is still playing out. The bright spots at the global level outside of energy are industrials, materials, technology and consumer staples (Chart I-3). All four are benefitting from strengthening top line growth and rising operating margins. Chart I-2Upbeat Global Economic Indicators Chart I-3Global Earnings By Sector The U.S. is further advanced in the mini-cycle and EPS growth is near its peak on a 4-quarter moving total basis. The expected topping out in profit growth is more a reflection of challenging year-on-year comparisons than a deterioration in the underlying fundamentals. The hurricanes will take a bite out of third quarter earnings, but this effect will be temporary. Moreover, oil prices are turbocharging earnings in the energy patch and we expect this to continue. Our commodity strategists recently lifted their 2018 target price for both Brent and WTI to $65/bbl and $63/bbl, respectively. The global uptick in GDP growth, along with continued production discipline from OPEC 2.0 are the principal drivers of our revised outlook. We expect the fortuitous combination of fundamentals to accelerate the drawdown in oil inventories globally, which also will be supportive for prices. While U.S. financials stocks have cheered the prospects that Congress may pass a tax bill sometime in early 2018, sell-side analysts have been brutally downgrading financial sector EPS estimates. This has dealt a blow to net earnings revisions in the sector. Expected hurricane-related losses are probably the main culprit, especially in the insurance sector. Nonetheless, our equity sector strategists argue that such indiscriminate downgrades are unwarranted, and we would lean against such pessimism.2 Recent profit results corroborate our positive sector bias, although we are still early in the earnings season. European profits will suffer to some extent in the third quarter due to the lagged effects of previous euro strength. The same will be true in the fourth quarter, although we expect this headwind to diminish early in 2018. That leaves Japan as the star profit performer among the majors in the near term. The recent surge in foreign flows into the Japanese market suggests that global investors are beginning to embrace the upbeat EPS story. Abe's election win in October means that the current monetary stance will remain in place. The ruling LDP's shift away from austerity (e.g. abandoning the primary balance target) may also be lifting growth expectations. A Return To The Great Moderation? Chart I-4Market Correlation And The ERP A lot of the good news is already discounted in equity prices. The depressed level of the VIX and the drop in risk asset correlations this year signal significant complacency. Large institutional investors are reportedly selling volatility and thus dampening vol across asset classes. But there is surely more to it. It appears that investors believe we have returned to the pre-Lehman period between 1995 and 2006 when the Great Moderation in macro volatility contributed to low correlations among stocks within the equity market (Chart I-4). The idea is that low perceived macroeconomic volatility during that period had diminished the dispersion of growth and inflation forecasts, thereby trimming the variance of interest rate projections. This allowed equity investors to focus on alpha rather than beta, given less uncertainty about the macro outlook. Of course, the Great Recession and financial market crisis brought the Great Moderation to a crashing end. Correlations rocketed up and investors demanded a higher equity risk premium to hold stocks. Today, dispersion in the outlooks for growth and interest rates have fallen back to pre-Lehman levels, helping to explain the low levels of implied volatility and correlation in the equity market (Chart I-5). Some of this can be justified by fundamentals. The onset of a broadly-based global expansion phase has likely calmed lingering fears that the global economy is constantly teetering on the edge of the abyss. Investor uncertainty regarding economic policy has moderated as well (bottom panel). Historically, implied volatility tended to fall during previous periods when global industrial production was strong and global earnings were rising across a broad swath of countries (Chart I-6). Our U.S. Equity Sector Strategy service points out that, during the later stages of the cycle, equity sector correlations tend to fall as earnings fundamentals become more important performance drivers and sector differentiation generates alpha, as the broad market enters the last stage of the bull market. Similarly, the VIX can fluctuate at low levels for an extended period when global growth is broadly based. Chart I-5A Less Uncertain Macro Outlook? Chart I-6Broad-Based Growth Lower Implied Volatility Still, current levels of equity market correlation and the VIX are unnerving given a plethora of potential geopolitical crises and the pending unwinding of the Fed's balance sheet. Moreover, any meaningful pickup in inflation would upset the 'low vol' applecart. Table I-1 shows the drop in the S&P 500 index during non-recession periods when the VIX surges by more than 10% in a 13-week period. The equity price index fell by an average of 7% during the nine episodes, with a range of -3.6 to -18.1%. Table I-1Episodes When VIX Spiked The Equity Risk Premium Chart I-7Still Some Value In High-Yield On a positive note, the equity risk premium (ERP) is not overly depressed. There are many ways to define the ERP, but we present it as the 12-month forward earnings yield minus the 10-year Treasury yield in Chart I-4. It has fallen from about 760 basis points in 2011 to 310 basis points today. We do not believe that the ERP can return to the extremely low levels of 1990-2000. At best, the ERP may converge with the level that prevailed during the last equity bull market, from 2003-2007 (about 200 basis points). The current forward earnings yield is 550 basis points and the 10-year Treasury yield is 2.4%. The ERP would need to fall by 110 basis points to get back to the 2% equilibrium. This convergence can occur through some combination of a lower earnings yield or higher bond yield. If the 10-year yield is assumed to peak in this cycle at about 3% (our base case), then this leaves room for the earnings yield to fall by 50 basis points. This would boost the forward earnings multiple from 18 to 20. However, a rise in the 10-year yield to 3½% would leave no room for multiple expansion. We are not betting on any further multiple expansion but the point is that stocks at least have some padding in the event that bond yields adjust higher in a gradual way. It is the same story for speculative-grade bonds, which are not as expensive as they seem on the surface. The average index OAS is currently 326 bps, only about 100 bps above its all-time low. However, junk value appears much more attractive once the low default rate is taken into account. Chart I-7 presents the ex-post default-adjusted spreads, along with our forecast based on unchanged spreads and our projection for net default losses over the next year. The spread padding offered by the high-yield sector is actually reasonably good by historical standards, assuming there is no recession over the next year. We are not banking on much spread tightening from here, which means that high-yield is largely a carry trade now. Nonetheless, given a forecast for the default and recovery rate, we expect U.S. high-yield excess returns to be in the range of 2% and 5% (annualized) over the next 6-12 months. The bottom line is that the positive growth backdrop does not rule out a correction in risk assets, especially given rich valuations. But at least the profit, default and growth figures will remain a tailwind in the near term. The main risk is a breakout in inflation, which financial markets are not priced for. Inflation And Hidden Slack The September CPI report did little to buttress the FOMC's view that this year's inflation pullback is temporary. The report disappointed expectations again with core CPI rising only 0.13% month-over-month. For context, an environment where inflation is well anchored around the Fed's target would be consistent with core CPI prints of 0.2% every month, roughly 2.4% annualized. The inflation debate continues to rage inside and outside the Fed as to whether the previous relationship between inflation and growth have permanently changed, whether low inflation simply reflects long lags, or whether it will require tighter labor markets in this business cycle to fuel wage and price pressures. We back the latter two of these three explanations but, admittedly, predicting exactly when inflation will pick up is extremely difficult and we must keep an open mind. A Special Report in the October IMF World Economic Outlook sheds some light on this vexing issue.3 Their work suggests that the deceleration in wage growth in the post-Lehman period in the OECD countries can largely be explained by traditional macro factors: weak productivity growth, lower inflation expectations and labor market slack. The disappointing productivity figures alone account for two-thirds of the drop in wage growth. However, a key point of the research is that the headline unemployment figures are not as good a measure of labor market slack as they once were. This is because declining unemployment rates partly reflect workers that have been forced into part-time jobs, referred to as involuntary part-time employment (IPT). The rise in IPT employment could be associated with automation, the growing importance of the service sector, and a diminished and more uncertain growth outlook that is keeping firms cautious. The IMF's statistical analysis suggests that the number of involuntary part-time workers as a share of total employment (IPT ratio) is an important measure of slack that adds information when explaining the decline in wage growth. Historically, each one percentage point rise in the IPT ratio trimmed wage growth by 0.3 percentage points. Chart I-8 and Chart I-9 compare the unemployment rate gap (unemployment rate less the full-employment estimate) with the deviation in the IPT ratio from its 2007 level. The fact that the IPT ratio has had an upward trend since 2000 in many countries makes it difficult to identify a level that is consistent with full employment. Nonetheless, the change in this ratio since 2007 provides a sense of how much "hidden slack" the Great Recession generated due to forced part-time employment. Chart I-8Measures Of Labor Market Slack (I) Chart I-9Measures Of Labor Market Slack (II) For the OECD as a whole, labor market slack has been fully absorbed based on the unemployment gap. However, the IPT ratio was still elevated at the end of 2016 (latest data available), helping to explain why wage growth has remained so depressed across most countries. The IPT ratio is still above its 2007 level in three-quarters of the OECD countries. Of course, there is dispersion across countries. Japan has no labor market slack by either measure. In the U.S., the unemployment gap has fallen into negative territory, but only about half of the post-2007 rise in the IPT ratio has been unwound. For the Eurozone, the U.K. and Canada, the unemployment gap is close to zero (or well into negative territory in the U.K.). Nonetheless, little of the under-employment problem in these economies has been absorbed based on the IPT ratio. Our discussion in last month's report highlighted the importance of the global output gap in driving inflation in individual countries. Consistent with this, the IMF finds that there have been important spillover effects related to labor market slack, especially since 2007. This means that wage growth can be held down even in countries where slack has disappeared because of the existence of a surplus of available labor in their trading partners. Phillips Curve Is Not Dead That said, we still believe that the U.S. is at a point in the cycle when inflationary pressures should begin to build, even in the face of persisting labor market slack at the global level. Chart I-10 shows the ECI and the Atlanta Fed wage tracker, which are the best measures of wages because they are less affected by composition effects. Both have moved higher along with measures of labor market tightness. Wage and consumer price inflation have ebbed this year, but when we step back and look at it over a longer timeframe, the Phillips curve still appears to be broadly operating. Moreover, inflation is a lagging indicator. Table I-2 splits the post-war U.S. business cycles into short, medium, and long buckets based on the length of the expansion phase. It presents the number of months from when full employment was reached to the turning point for consumer price inflation in each expansion. There was a wide variation in this lag in the short- and medium-length expansions, but the lags were short on average. Chart I-10Phillips Curve Still (Weakly) Operating Table I-2Inflation Reacts With A Lag It is a different story for long expansions, where the lag averaged more than two years. We have pointed out in the past that it takes longer for inflation pressures to reveal themselves when the economy approaches full employment gradually, in contrast to shorter expansions when momentum is so strong the demand crashes into supply constraints. The fact that U.S. unemployment rate has only been below the estimate of full employment for eight months in this expansion suggests that perhaps we and the Fed are just being too impatient in waiting for the inflection point. Turning to Europe, the IPT ratio confirms the ECB's view that there is an abundance of under-employment, despite the relatively low unemployment rate. This suggests that the Eurozone remains behind the U.S. in the economic cycle. As expected, the ECB announced a tapering in its asset purchase program to take place next year. While policymakers are backing away from QE in the face of healthy growth and a shrinking pool of bonds to purchase, they will continue to emphasize that rate hikes are a long way off in order to avoid a surge in the euro and an associated tightening in financial conditions. U.S./Eurozone bond yield spreads are still quite wide by historical standards and thus it is popular to bet on spread narrowing and a stronger euro/weaker dollar. However, some narrowing in short-term rate spreads is already discounted based on the OIS forward curve (Chart I-11). The real 5-year, 5-year forward OIS spread - the market's expectation of how much higher U.S. real 5-year rates will be in five years' time relative to the euro area - stands at about 70 basis points. This spread is not wide by historical standards, and thus has room to widen again if market expectations for the fed funds rate moves up toward the Fed's 'dot plot' over the next 6-12 months. While market pricing for the ECB policy rate path appears about right in our view, market expectations for rate hikes in the U.S. are too complacent. This implies that long-term spreads could widen in favor of the U.S. dollar over the coming months, especially if U.S. growth accelerates while euro area growth cools off a bit. The fact the U.S. economic surprise index has turned positive is early evidence that this process may have already begun. Moreover, the starting point is that the dollar has been weaker than interest rate differentials warrant, such that there is some room for the dollar to 'catch up', even if interest rate differentials do not move (Chart I-12). We see EUR/USD falling to 1.15 by the end of the year. Chart I-11Room For U.S./Eurozone Spreads To Widen... Chart I-12...Giving The Dollar A Lift A New Fed Chair? Our forecast for yield spreads and currencies is not overly affected by the choice of Fed Chair for next year. President Trump's meeting with academic John Taylor reportedly went well, but we think the President will prefer someone with a less hawkish bent. Keeping Chair Yellen is an option, but she has strong views on financial sector regulation that Trump does not like. The prevailing wisdom is that Jerome Powell is a moderate who is only slightly more hawkish than Yellen. But the truth is that we don't really know where he stands because he has no academic publication record and has generally steered clear of taking bold views on monetary policy. In any event, the organizational structure of the Fed makes it impossible for the chair to run roughshod over other FOMC members. This suggests that no matter who is selected, the general thrust of monetary policy will not change radically next year. As discussed above, uncertainty is elevated, but our base case sees inflation rising enough in the coming months for the Fed to maintain their 'dot plot' forecast. The market and the Fed are correct to 'look through' the near-term growth hit from the hurricanes, to the rebound that always follows the destruction. The U.S. housing sector is a little more worrying because some softness was evident even before the hurricanes hit. Since the early 1960s, a crest in housing led the broader economic downturn by an average of seven quarters. Nonetheless, we continue to expect that the housing soft patch does not represent a peak for this cycle. Residential investment should provide fuel to the economy for at least the next two years as pent up demand is worked off, related to depressed household formation since the 2008 financial crisis. Affordability will still be favorable even if mortgage rates were to rise by another 100 basis points (Chart I-13). Robust sentiment in the homebuilder sector in October confirms that the hurricane setback in housing starts is temporary. China And Base Metals Turning to China, economic momentum is on the upswing. Real-time measures of economic activity such as electricity production, excavator sales, and railway freight traffic are all growing at double-digit rates, albeit down from recent peak levels (Chart I-14). Various price indexes also reveal a fairly broadly-based inflation pickup to levels that will unnerve the authorities. Growth will likely slow in 2018 as policymakers continue to pare back stimulus. We do not foresee a substantial growth dip next year, but it could be hard on base metals prices. Chart I-13Housing Affordability Outlook Housing ##br##Affordability Under Various Rate Assumptions Chart I-14China: Healthy ##br##Growth Indicators Policy shifts discussed in Chinese President Xi's speech in October to the Party Congress are also negative for metals prices in the medium term. The speech provided a broad outline of goals to be followed by concrete policy initiatives at the National People's Congress (NPC) in March 2018. He emphasized that policy will tackle inequality, high debt levels, overcapacity and pollution. Globalization will also remain a priority of the government. The supply side reforms required to meet these goals will be positive in the long run, but negative for growth in the short run. Restructuring industry, deleveraging the financial sector and fighting smog will all have growth ramifications. The government could use fiscal stimulus to offset the short-term hit to growth. However, while overall growth may not slow much, the shift away from an investment-heavy, deeply polluting growth model, will undermine the demand for base metals. Our commodity strategists also highlight the supply backdrop for most base metals is not supportive of an extended rally in prices. The implication is that investors who are long base metals should treat it as a trade rather than a strategic position. Despite our expectation that policy will continue to tighten, we believe that investors should overweight Chinese stocks relative to other EM markets. Investment Conclusions: Our base case remains that global growth will stay reasonably firm in 2018, although the composition of that growth will shift towards the U.S. thanks to the lagged effects of the easing in U.S. financial conditions that has taken place this year and the likelihood of some fiscal stimulus next year. The U.S. Congress has drawn closer to approving a budget resolution for fiscal 2018 that would pave the way for tax legislation to reach President Donald Trump's desk by the end of the first quarter of next year. Surveys show that investors have all but given up on the prospect of tax cuts, which means that it will be a positive surprise if it finally arrives (as we expect). Positive U.S. economic growth surprises and the disappearing output gap will allow the Fed to raise rates more than is discounted by the markets, providing a lift to the dollar and widening U.S. yield spreads relative to its trading partners. The momentum in profit growth, however, will favor Japan relative to the U.S. and Europe. Investors should favor Japanese equities and hedge the currency risk. There is still more upside for oil prices, but we are not playing the rally in base metals. The Chinese economy is performing well at the moment, but ample base metal supply and a rising dollar argue against a substantial price rise from current levels. Emerging market equities should underperform the developed markets due to a rising U.S. dollar and the largely sideways path for base metals. Our macro and profit views are consistent with cyclicals outperforming defensive stocks. Investors should also continue to bet on higher inflation expectations and be overweight corporate bonds (relative to governments) in the major developed fixed-income markets. Our base-case outlook implies that it is too early to fully retreat from risk assets and prepare for the next recession. Nonetheless, the market has entered a late-cycle phase. Calm macro readings and still-easy monetary policy have generated signs of froth. Investors appear to have shed fears of secular stagnation, and have embraced a return to a lackluster-growth version of the Great Moderation. Low levels of market correlation and implied volatility can perhaps be justified, but only if there are no financial accidents on the horizon and any rise in inflation is gradual enough to keep the bond vigilantes at bay. Upside inflation surprises would destabilize the three-legged stool supporting risk assets, especially at a time when the Fed is shrinking its balance sheet. Black Monday is a reminder that major market pullbacks can occur even when the economic outlook is bright. Thus, investors with less tolerance for risk should maintain an extra cash buffer to protect against swoons, and to ensure that they have dry powder to exploit them when they materialize. Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst October 26, 2017 Next Report: November 20, 2017 1 Please see BCA Special Report, "Black Monday, Thirty Years On: Revisiting The First Modern Global Financial Crisis," October 19, 2017, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report, "Banks Hold The Key," October 24, 2017, available at uses.bcaresearch.com 3 Recent Wage Dynamics In Advanced Economies: Drivers And Implications. Chapter 2, IMF World Economic Outlook. October 2017. II. Three Demographic Megatrends Dear Client, This month's Special Report is written by my colleague, Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist. Peter highlights three key demographic trends that will shape financial markets in the coming decades. His non-consensus conclusions include the idea that demographic trends will be negative for both bonds and equities over the long haul, in part because the trends are inflationary. Moreover, continuing social fragmentation will not be good for business. Mark McClellan Megatrend #1: Population Aging. Aging has been deflationary over the past few decades, but will become inflationary over the coming years. Megatrend #2: Global Migration. International migration has the potential to lift millions out of poverty while boosting global productivity. However, if left unmanaged, it poses serious risks to economic stability. Megatrend #3: Social Fragmentation. Rising inequality, cultural self-segregation, and political polarization are imperilling democracy and threatening free-market institutions. On balance, these trends are likely to be negative for both bonds and equities over the long haul. In today's increasingly short-term oriented world, it is easy to lose track of megatrends that are slowly shifting the ground under investors' feet. In this report, we tackle three key social/demographic trends. Chart II-1Our Aging World Megatrend #1: Population Aging Fertility rates have fallen below replacement levels across much of the planet. This has resulted in aging populations and slower labor force growth (Chart II-1). In the standard neoclassical growth model, a decline in labor force growth pushes down the real neutral rate of interest, r*. This happens because slower labor force growth causes the capital stock to increase relative to the number of workers, resulting in a lower rate of return on capital.1 The problem with this model is that it treats the saving rate as fixed.2 In reality, the saving rate is likely to adjust to changes in the age composition of the workforce. Initially, as the median age of the population rises, aggregate savings will increase as more people move into their peak saving years (ages 30 to 50). This will put even further downward pressure on the neutral rate of interest. Eventually, however, savings will fall as these very same people enter retirement. This, in turn, will lead to a higher neutral rate of interest. If central banks drag their feet in raising policy rates in response to an increase in r*, monetary policy will end up being too stimulative. As economies overheat, inflation will pick up, leading to higher long-term nominal bond yields. Contrary to popular belief, spending actually increases later in life once health care costs are included in the tally (Chart II-2). And despite all the happy talk about how people will work much longer in the future, the unfortunate fact is that the percentage of American 65 year-olds who are unable to lead active lives because of health care problems has risen from 8.8% to 12.5% over the past 10 years (Chart II-3). Cognitive skills among 65 year-olds have also declined over this period. We are approaching the inflection point where demographic trends will morph from being deflationary to being inflationary. Globally, the ratio of workers-to-consumers - the so-called "support ratio" - has peaked after a forty-year ascent (Chart II-4). As the support ratio declines, global savings will fall. To say that global saving rates will decline is the same as saying that there will be more spending for every dollar of income. Since global income must sum to global GDP, this implies that global spending will rise relative to production. That is likely to be inflationary. Chart II-2Savings Over The Life Cycle Chart II-3Climbing Those Stairs Is ##br##Getting More And More Difficult Chart II-4The Ratio Of Workers To ##br##Consumers Has Peaked The projected evolution of support ratios varies across countries. The most dramatic change will happen in China. China's support ratio peaked a few years ago and will fall sharply during the coming decade. Nearly one billion Chinese workers entered the global labor force during the 1980s and 1990s as the country opened up to the rest of the world. According to the UN, China will lose over 400 million workers over the remainder of the century (Chart II-5). If the addition of millions of Chinese workers to the global labor force was deflationary in the past, their withdrawal will be inflationary in the future. The fabled "Chinese savings glut" will eventually dry up. Chart II-5China On Course To Lose More ##br##Than 400 Million Workers Rising female labor force participation rates have blunted the effect of population aging in Europe and Japan. This has allowed the share of the population that is employed to increase over the past few decades. However, as female participation stabilizes and more people enter retirement, both regions will also see a rapid decline in saving rates. This could lead to a deterioration in their current account balances, with potential negative implications for the yen and the euro. Population aging is generally bad news for equities. The slower expansion in the labor force will reduce the trend GDP growth. This will curb revenue growth, and by extension, earnings growth. To make matter worse, to the extent that lower savings rates lead to higher real interest rates, population aging could reduce the price-earnings multiple at which stocks trade. This could be further exacerbated by the need for households to run down their wealth as they age, which presumably would include the sale of equities. Megatrend #2: Global Migration Economist Michael Clemens once characterized the free movement of people across national boundaries as a "trillion-dollar bill" just waiting to be picked up from the sidewalk.3 Millions of workers toil away in poor countries where corruption is rife and opportunities for gainful employment are limited. Global productivity levels would rise if they could move to rich countries where they could better utilize their talents. Academic studies suggest that less restrictive immigration policies would do much more to raise global output than freer trade policies. In fact, several studies have concluded that the removal of all barriers to labor mobility would more than double global GDP (Table II-1). The problem is that many migrants today are poorly skilled. While they can produce more in rich countries than they can back home, they still tend to be less productive than the average native-born worker. This can be especially detrimental to less-skilled workers in rich countries who have to face greater competition - and ultimately, lower wages - for their labor. Chart II-6 shows that the share of U.S. income accruing to the top one percent of households has closely tracked the foreign-born share of the population. Table II-1Economic Benefits Of Open Borders Chart II-6Immigration Versus Income Distribution Low-skilled migration can also place significant strains on social safety nets. These concerns are especially pronounced in Europe. The employment rate among immigrants in a number of European countries is substantially lower than for the native-born population (Chart II-7). For example, in Sweden, the employment rate for immigrant men is about 10 percentage points lower than for native-born men. For women, the gap is 17 points. The OECD reckons that a typical 21-year old immigrant to Europe will contribute €87,000 less to public coffers in the form of lower taxes and higher welfare benefits than a non-immigrant of the same age (Chart II-8). Chart II-7Low Levels Of Immigrant Labor Participation In Parts Of Europe Chart II-8Immigration Is Straining Generous ##br##European Welfare States All of this would matter little if the children of today's immigrants converged towards the national average in terms of income and educational attainment, as has usually occurred with past immigration waves. However, the evidence that this is happening is mixed. While there is a huge amount of variation within specific immigrant communities, on average, some groups have fared better than others. The children of Asian immigrants to the U.S. have tended to excel in school, whereas college completion rates among third-generation-and-higher, self-identified Hispanics are still only half that of native-born non-Hispanic whites (Chart II-9). Across the OECD, second generation immigrant children tend to lag behind non-immigrant students, often by substantial margins (Chart II-10). Chart II-9Hispanic Educational Attainment Lags Behind Chart II-10Worries About Immigrant Assimilation Immigration policies that place emphasis on attracting skilled migrants would mitigate these concerns. While such policies have been adopted in a number of countries, they have often been opposed by right-leaning business groups that benefit from cheap and abundant labor and left-leaning political parties that want the votes that immigrants and their descendants provide. Humanitarian concerns also make it difficult to curtail migration, especially when it is coming from war-torn regions. Chart II-11The Projected Expansion ##br##In Sub-Saharan Population Europe's migration crisis has ebbed in recent months but could flare up at any time. In 2004, the United Nations estimated that sub-Saharan Africa's population will increase to 2 billion by the end of the century, up from one billion at present. In its 2017 revision, the UN doubled its projection to 4 billion. Nigeria's population is expected to rise to nearly 800 million by 2100; Congo's will soar to 370 million; Ethiopia's will hit 250 million (Chart II-11). And even that may be too conservative because the UN assumes that the average number of births per woman in sub-Saharan Africa will fall from 5.1 to 2.2 over this period. For investors, the possibility that migration flows could become disorderly raises significant risks. For one, low-skill migration could also cause fiscal balances to deteriorate, leading to higher interest rates. Moreover, as we discuss in greater detail below, it could propel more populist parties into power. This is a particularly significant worry for Europe, where populist parties have often pursued business-sceptic, anti-EU agendas. Megatrend #3: Social Fragmentation In his book "Bowling Alone," Harvard sociologist Robert Putnam documented the breakdown of social capital across America, famously exemplified by the decline in bowling leagues.4 There is no single explanation for why communal ties appear to be fraying. Those on the left cite rising income and wealth inequality. Those on the right blame the welfare state and government policies that prioritize multiculturalism over assimilation. Conservative commentators also argue that today's cultural elites are no longer interested in instilling the rest of society with middle-class values. As a result, behaviours that were once only associated with the underclass have gone mainstream.5 Technological trends are exacerbating social fragmentation. Instead of bringing people together, the internet has allowed like-minded people to self-segregate into echo chambers where members of the community simply reinforce what others already believe. It is thus no surprise that political polarization has grown by leaps and bounds (Chart II-12). When people can no longer see eye to eye, established institutions lose legitimacy. Chart II-13 shows that trust in the media has collapsed, especially among right-leaning voters. Perhaps most worrying, support for democracy itself has dwindled around the world (Chart II-14). Chart II-12U.S. Political Polarization: Growing Apart Chart II-13The Erosion Of Trust In Media It would be naïve to think that the public's rejection of the political establishment will not be mirrored in a loss of support for the business establishment. The Democrats "Better Deal" moves the party to the left on many economic issues. Nearly three-quarters of Democratic voters believe that corporations make "too much profit," up from about 60% in the 1990s (Chart II-15). Chart II-14Who Needs Democracy When You Have Tinder? Chart II-15People Versus Companies The share of Republican voters who think corporations are undertaxed has stayed stable in the low-40s, but this may not last much longer. Wall Street, Silicon Valley, and the rest of the corporate establishment tend to lean liberal on social issues and conservative on economic ones - the exact opposite of a typical Trump voter. If Trump voters abandon corporate America, this will leave the U.S. without any major party actively pushing a pro-business agenda. That can't be good for profit margins. The fact that social fragmentation is on the rise casts doubt on much of the boilerplate, feel-good commentary written about the "sharing economy." For starters, the term is absurd. Uber drivers are not sharing their vehicles. They are using them to make money. Both passengers and drivers can see one another's ratings before they meet. This reduces the need for trust. As trust falls, crime rises. The U.S. homicide rate surged by 20% between 2014 and 2016 according to a recent FBI report.6 In Chicago, the murder rate jumped by 86%. In Baltimore, it spiked by 52%. Chart II-16 shows that violent crime in Baltimore has remained elevated ever since riots gripped the city in April 2015. The number of homicides in New York, whose residents tend to support more liberal policing standards for cities other than their own, has remained flat, but that is unlikely to stay the case if crime is rising elsewhere. The multi-century decline in European homicide rates also appears to have ended (Table II-2). Much has been written about how millennials are flocking to cities to enjoy the benefits of urban life. But this trend emerged during a period when urban crime rates were falling. If that era has ended, urban real estate prices could suffer tremendously. It is perhaps not surprising that the increase in crime rates starting in the 1960s was mirrored in rising inflation (Chart II-17). If governments cannot even maintain law and order, how can they be trusted to do what it takes to preserve the value of fiat money? The implication is that greater social instability in the future is likely to lead to lower bond prices and a higher equity risk premium. Chart II-16Do You Still Want To Move Downtown? Table II-2Crime Rates Are Creeping Higher In Europe Chart II-17Homicides And Inflation Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy 2 Another problem with the neoclassical model is that it assumes perfectly flexible wages and prices. This ensures that the economy is always at full employment. Thus, if the saving rate rises, investment is assumed to increase to fully fill the void left by the decline in consumption. In the real world, the opposite tends to happen: When households reduce consumption, firms invest less, not more, in new capacity. One of the advantages of the traditional Keynesian framework is that it captures this reality. And interestingly, it also predicts that aging will be deflationary at first, but will eventually become inflationary. Initially, slower population growth reduces the need for firm to expand capacity, causing investment demand to fall. Aggregate savings also rises, as more people move into their peak saving years. Globally, savings must equal investment. If desired investment falls and desired savings rises, real rates will increase. At the margin, higher real rates will discourage investment and encourage saving, thus ensuring that the global savings-investment identity is satisfied. As savings ultimately begins to decline as more people retire, the equilibrium real rate of interest will rise again. 3 Michael A. Clemens, "Economics and Emigration: Trillion-Dollar Bills on the Sidewalk?" Journal of Economic Perspectives Vol. 25, no.3, pp. 83-106 (Summer 2011). 4 Robert D. Putnam, "Bowling Alone: The Collapse And Revival Of American Community," Simon and Schuster, 2001. 5 Charles Murray has been a leading proponent of this argument. Please see "Coming Apart: The State Of White America, 1960-2010," Three Rivers Press, 2013. 6 Federal Bureau of Investigation, "Crime In The United States 2016" (Accessed October 25, 2017). III. Indicators And Reference Charts Global equity markets partied in October on solid earnings and economic growth figures, and the rising chances of a tax cut in the U.S. among other bullish developments. The Nikkei has been particularly strong in local currency terms following the re-election of Abe. Our equity indicators remain upbeat on the whole, although the rally is looking stretched by some measures. The BCA monetary indicator is hovering at a benign level. Implied equity volatility is very low, investor sentiment is frothy and our Speculation Indicator is elevated. These suggest that a lot of good news is already discounted. Our valuation indicator is also closing in on the threshold of overvaluation at one standard deviation. Our technical indicator is rolling over, although it needs to fall below the zero line to send a 'sell' signal. On a constructive note, the solid rise in earnings-per-share is likely to continue in the near term, based on positive earnings surprises and the net revisions ratio. Moreover, our new Revealed Preference Indicator (RPI) continued on its bullish equity signal in September for the third consecutive month. We introduced the RPI in the July report. It combines the idea of market momentum with valuation and policy measures. It provides a powerful bullish signal if positive market momentum lines up with constructive signals from the policy and valuation measures. Conversely, if constructive market momentum is not supported by valuation and policy, investors should lean against the market trend. Our Willingness-to-Pay (WTP) indicators are also bullish on stocks in the U.S., Europe and Japan. 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. The U.S. and European WTPs rose in October after a brief sideways move in previous months, suggesting that equity flows have turned more constructive. But the Japanese WTP is outshining the others. Given that the Japanese WTP is rising from a low level, it suggests that there is more 'dry powder' available to purchase Japanese stocks, especially relative to the U.S. market. We favor Japanese stocks relative to the other two markets in local currency terms, as highlighted in the Overview section. Oversold conditions for the U.S. dollar have now been absorbed based on our technical indicator, but there is plenty of upside for the currency before technical headwinds begin to bite. The greenback looks expensive based on PPP, but is less so on other measures. We are positive in the near term. Our composite technical indicator for U.S. Treasurys has moved above the zero line, but has not reached oversold territory. Bond valuation is close to fair value based on our long-standing valuation model. These factors suggest that yields have more upside potential before meeting resistance. Other models that specifically incorporate global economic factors suggest that the 10-year Treasury is still about 20 basis points on the expensive side. Stay below benchmark in duration. EQUITIES: Chart III-1U.S. Equity Indicators Chart III-2Willingness To Pay For Risk Chart III-3U.S. Equity Sentiment Indicators Chart III-4Revealed Preference Indicator Chart III-5U.S. Stock Market Valuation Chart III-6U.S. Earnings Chart III-7Global Stock Market ##br##And Earnings: Relative Performance Chart III-8Global Stock Market ##br##And Earnings: Relative Performance FIXED INCOME: Chart III-9U.S. Treasurys And Valuations Chart III-10U.S. Treasury Indicators Chart III-11Selected U.S. Bond Yields Chart III-1210-Year Treasury Yield ComponentsChart III-13U.S. Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor Chart III-14Global Bonds: Developed Markets Chart III-15Global Bonds: Emerging Markets CURRENCIES: Chart III-16U.S. Dollar And PPP Chart III-17U.S. Dollar And Indicator Chart III-18U.S. Dollar Fundamentals Chart III-19Japanese Yen Technicals Chart III-20Euro Technicals Chart III-21Euro/Yen Technicals Chart III-22Euro/Pound Technicals COMMODITIES: Chart III-23Broad Commodity Indicators Chart III-24Commodity Prices Chart III-25Commodity Prices Chart III-26Commodity Sentiment Chart III-27Speculative Positioning ECONOMY: Chart III-28U.S. And Global Macro Backdrop Chart III-29U.S. Macro Snapshot Chart III-30U.S. Growth Outlook Chart III-31U.S. Cyclical Spending Chart III-32U.S. Labor Market Chart III-33U.S. Consumption Chart III-34U.S. Housing Chart III-35U.S. Debt And Deleveraging Chart III-36U.S. Financial Conditions Chart III-37Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Chart III-38Global Economic Snapshot: China Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst

Please note that in addition to today's abbreviated Weekly Bulletin, we are also publishing a Special Report on Argentina. Feature Regarding recent financial market dynamics, it appears that the high-yielding EM currencies are breaking down as U.S. bond yields march higher. Several EM exchange rates have formed a tapering wedge pattern, as shown in Chart I-1. Such patterns eventually lead a major break out or break down. Our bias remains that we are witnessing a major breakdown in several EM high-yielding currencies. If this transpires, it would be a precursor for a wider selloff in EM risk assets. Below we discuss interesting dynamics that have emerged in India's onshore fixed-income market lately, and their implications for the nation's equity market. India Several signals tentatively indicate that the price of liquidity has risen at the margin in India. Onshore BBB corporate bond yields have increased and their respective credit spreads have widened (Chart I-2). In addition, the yield curve has steepened modestly. Chart I-1A Tapering Wedge: ##br##A Breakout Or Breakdown? Chart I-2India: Onshore BBB Corporate Bond ##br##Yields And Spreads Have Spiked Rising corporate bond yields and widening corporate credit spreads have been negative for share prices in the past (Chart I-3). Similarly, steepening yield curves have been associated with a pullback in equity prices in recent years (Chart I-4). Note that yields, spreads and the yield curve are shown inverted on Charts I-3 and I-4. Chart I-3India: Corporate Bond Yields ##br##And Spreads Versus Stocks Chart I-4India: Yield Curve ##br##And Share Prices Why has the market price of liquidity risen in India? In our opinion, it has to do with both the domestic and external environments. On the domestic side, the fiscal deficit has widened, implying that borrowing requirements by central and state governments have risen (Chart I-5). Increased demand for credit from the government would not have been a problem had the commercial banks accommodated for it by creating enough new money. Yet, broad money supply growth remains depressed (Chart I-6). Chart I-5India: Ballooning Fiscal Deficits ##br##And Weak Money Creation Chart I-6Indian Money Growth: ##br##New Record Low As a result, the diminished amount of new money relative to demand for money, among other reasons, pushed marginal borrowing costs higher. Chart I-7 shows our proxy for new money available to the private sector has dipped into negative territory. On the external side, the recent rise in U.S. bond yields and the rebound in the U.S. dollar against several EM currencies might have also contributed to higher borrowing costs in India. We expect this U.S. dollar rebound versus EM currencies to persist and U.S. Treasury yields to continue drifting higher. Hence, the global backdrop heralds marginally higher bond yields in India. Although the onshore corporate bond market - and its BBB segment - is not very large, investors should heed to its signals because it reflects the cost of borrowing for the marginal corporate borrower. Besides, its signals have worked quite well in the past as shown in previous Chart I-3 on page 2. Some commentators might argue that the mild rise in government bond yields has been driven by a rise in inflation and growth expectations. We will not disagree with that, but both economic growth and inflation variables are still muted. Chart I-8 shows economic activity is lukewarm at best. Chart I-7India: Proxy For New Money ##br##Available To Private Sector Chart I-8India's Growth Is ##br##Lukewarm At Best On the inflation outlook, the picture is mixed as well. Consumer price inflation, especially core measures, might have bottomed (Chart I-9). Critically, the government approved a draft bill in July that allows the central government to set minimum wages across all sectors and states. The central government is currently reviewing the formula used to set minimum wage and the new formula might lead to significant increases in minimum wages. These policy changes come on top of the pay raises that public sector workers saw earlier this year. Importantly, if consumer demand accelerates while capital spending remains in the doldrums, inflationary pressures will mount. Chart I-10 shows that since 2012 consumer spending has outpaced investment by a large margin. Chart I-9India: Consumer Inflation ##br##Might Be Bottoming Chart I-10India: Consumer Spending ##br##Has Outpaced Investment Provided India has been, and remains, an underinvested economy, if this gap persists, it will produce either inflation or a widening current account deficit. Rising consumption without an equal increase in the supply of goods and services will either lead to higher prices or mushrooming consumer goods imports. Both scenarios bode ill for the macro dynamics, the currency, and ultimately equity multiples. As to financial markets, the Indian bourse is one of the most expensive in the EM space, so it is not very surprising that share prices could react negatively to marginally higher interest rates. For dedicated EM equity investors, we downgraded India from overweight to neutral on August 23, and this stance remains intact. While near-term underperformance cannot be ruled out, the medium-term outlook for relative performance warrants a neutral stance. Bottom Line: There are signals that liquidity is tightening on the margin in India's fixed-income markets due to domestic and external reasons. This will likely hurt share prices. Dedicated EM equity investors should keep a neutral allocation on India's bourse. Mexico: Close Currency, Rates, And Credit Overweights NAFTA risks to Mexico are escalating again. According to our Geopolitical Strategy team, there is non-trivial probability that the NAFTA negotiations will become negative for Mexican financial markets. The recent relapse in Mexico's financial markets will likely endure. We are closing the following positions: long MXN / short BRL; long MXN / short ZAR; receive Mexican 2-year / pay 2-year swap rates as well as overweight positions in Mexican sovereign credit versus Colombia and Indonesia. Dedicated equity investors should stay neutral on this bourse. Arthur Budaghyan, Senior Vice President Emerging Markets Strategy arthurb@bcaresearch.com Ayman Kawtharani, Associate Editor ayman@bcaresearch.com Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations

Highlights Global "Low-flation" Vs. Oil Reflation: Investors who believe that inflation is dead will be surprised by the breakout of global oil prices in 2018 toward the mid-$60 level anticipated by our commodity strategists. This will help drag both realized and expected inflation higher across the developed world. Fed Tightening Vs. Trump Easing: The trade-off between a full-employment Trump fiscal stimulus and a slowly tightening Federal Reserve next year will first result in higher inflation expectations and a bear-steepening Treasury curve, and eventually lead to more aggressive rate hikes and a bear-flattening curve later in 2018 Strong Growth Vs. Modest Inflation In Europe: The ECB will signal a reduction in the pace of its asset purchases this week, in response to the continued strength of the Euro Area economy. Current moderate rates of inflation will not derail a "taper", but will be enough to push off any ECB interest rate hike until late 2019. Feature The bull market in global risk assets continued last week, with the S&P 500 hitting yet another all-time record and other major bourses in both Developed Markets and Emerging Markets hitting multi-year highs. This is a sensible reflection of the strength and persistence of the current coordinated global economic upturn, which is boosting corporate profit growth worldwide. At the same time, the health of the current expansion has dampened risk-aversion among investors. This is helping to keep market volatility at depressed levels with only modest changes expected for both inflation and monetary policy. Yet there are storms brewing on the horizon that have the potential to shake up this low-volatility, risk-seeking backdrop. Specifically, a potentially less stable outlook for global inflation, amidst uncertainty over the direction of fiscal policy in the U.S. and monetary policy at the Fed and European Central Bank (ECB), could pose a threat to the current Goldilocks environment for risk assets (Chart of the Week). In this Weekly Report, we discuss some macroeconomic "trade-offs" that investors will have to grapple with over the next 6-12 months, and how to position bond portfolios accordingly. Chart of the WeekMarkets Not Worried About The Fed Or ECB Trade-Off #1: "Low-flation" Vs. Rising Oil Prices Chart 2Global Inflation Pressures Are Slowly Building Realized inflation data across the major developed economies is showing no imminent threat of breaching, or even just reaching, central bank targets. This is occurring despite a robust, coordinated global economic expansion that is generating some of the fastest growth rates seen since the Great Recession. With nearly ¾ of the countries in the OECD now with unemployment rates below the estimates of the full employment NAIRU, subdued inflation readings remain a puzzle for both investors and policymakers (Chart 2). The term "low-flation" has been used to describe this backdrop of inflation rates remaining low seemingly regardless of what is happening with growth. Bond investors have reacted to this by keeping market-based inflation expectations at levels below central bank inflation targets, suggesting a potential problem with the credibility of policymakers. Yet a fresh challenge to the low-flation thesis will soon come from the global oil markets. Last week, our colleagues at BCA Commodity & Energy Strategy upgraded their oil price targets for the fourth quarter of 2017 and all of 2018.1 Their estimates for global oil demand were revised upward based on the improving economic momentum, as evidenced by the IMF recently boosting its own forecasts for world GDP growth to 3.6% for all of 2017 and 3.7% for 2018. Combined with continued discipline on output from the so-called "OPEC 2.0" coalition of Russia & Saudi Arabia - currently responsible for 22% of the world's oil production - the global oil market is expected to see demand exceeding supply until late 2018 (Chart 3). The positive demand/supply balance should lead the Brent oil price benchmark to average just over $65/bbl in 2018 (Table 1), which would be a 13% increase from current levels. This is a move that global bond markets are likely to notice, given the strong correlation that still exists between market-based inflation expectations and oil prices in the developed economies. Chart 3A Positive Fundamental Backdrop For Oil Table 1Upgrading The BCA Oil Price Forecasts In Charts 4 & 5, we show the market-based pricing on inflation expectations at the 10-year maturity for the U.S. (using TIPS breakevens), the U.K., Germany, Japan, Canada and Australia (using CPI swaps). For each country, we also show the Brent oil price denominated in local currency terms. We add one additional data point to the charts, shown as an asterisk, incorporating the 2018 average Brent oil price expectation converted at current exchange rates versus the U.S. dollar. As can be seen, the higher oil price that our commodity strategists are expecting should act to put upward pressure on the inflation expectations component of government bond yields in the major developed markets. Chart 4Upward Pressure On Inflation Expectations ... Chart 5... From Higher Oil Prices In 2018 Of course, the unchanged currency assumption made in Charts 4 & 5 is unrealistic. Yet given the significant increase in oil prices that we are expecting next year (+13%), it is also unrealistic to expect enough currency appreciation in any country to fully offset the inflationary impact from oil. In fact, given the BCA view that the U.S. dollar should enjoy one last cyclical boost next year as the Fed delivers more rate hikes than the market is currently discounting, inflation expectations may actually rise by more than we are showing in our charts in non-U.S. countries (given that oil is priced in U.S. dollars). In Table 2, we show the forecast for the local-currency Brent oil price for 2018 and the date that oil prices were last at that level in each country (all in 2015 after the cyclical peak in oil prices that began in 2014). We also present the data on 10-year government bond yields, the 2-year/10-year slope of yield curves, market-based inflation expectations, and realized headline and core inflation rates for the major developed economies. We show the current levels for all those variables, plus the levels that prevailed the last time oil was at the levels we are forecasting. The major differences that stand out are: Table 2Bond Markets Now Vs. The Last Time Oil Prices Were In The Mid-$60s Yield levels are not dramatically different than where they were in 2015 in the U.S., Canada and Australia, but are lower now in the U.K., Euro Area and Japan thanks to central bank asset purchase programs. Yield curves are much flatter now in the U.S., U.K., Canada and Japan, but are steeper in the Euro Area and Australia. Market-based inflation expectations now are very close to the levels that prevailed in 2015, except in Japan where they are much lower. Headline inflation rates are much higher now everywhere except Australia, while core inflation rates are a lot higher in the U.K., a touch higher in the U.S. and Euro Area, and lower everywhere else. The conclusion from Table 2 is that there is potential for bond yields to rise as oil prices head higher in the U.S., U.K. and Euro Area given that inflation expectations are at the same levels as 2015 but realized inflation rates are higher. This would suggest that owning inflation protection in these countries is a sensible way to play the "low-flation vs. oil reflation" trade-off - trades that we already have in place in our Tactical Trade Overlay by being long Euro Area CPI swaps and owning U.S. TIPS versus nominal U.S. Treasuries and (see table on page 16). We are reluctant to add U.K. inflation protection to this list, however, and may even look to go the other way given the likelihood that the currency-fueled surge in U.K. inflation is in the process of peaking out. In sum, bond markets will be unable to ignore a combination of strong global growth (still called for by rising global leading economic indicators), tightening labor markets and rising oil prices in 2018. As investors come to grips with oil trading with a 60-handle for the first time since 2015, inflation expectations should widen out in all developed market countries that are at, or beyond, full employment. This should put upward pressure on nominal bond yields as well, and potentially trigger bear-steepening of yield curves if central banks do not respond to higher oil-driven inflation with a faster tightening of monetary policy. Bottom Line: Investors who believe that inflation is dead will be surprised by the breakout of global oil prices in 2018 toward the mid-$60 level anticipated by our commodity strategists. This will help drag both realized and expected inflation higher across the developed world. Trade-Off #2: Fed Tightening Vs. Trump Easing Last Friday, the U.S. Senate passed President Trump's budget plan by the slimmest of margins (51 to 49), allowing for an increase in federal deficits of up to $1.5 trillion over the next decade. Trump immediately put pressure on the U.S. House of Representatives to also pass the Senate plan, and the initial comments from House Republican leadership was that they would also endorse the Senate budget proposal which included significant tax cuts for corporations and some households. This is unsurprising given that the Republicans need a major, economy-boosting legislative victory to present to voters in next year's U.S. Midterm elections. The U.S. Treasury market responded to this news on Friday in a fashion that we believe to be sensible - the curve bear-steepened, with the 2-year/30-year spread widening 4bps on the day. We have written about the interaction between budget deficits, Fed policy and the slope of the Treasury curve in past Weekly Reports this year, most recently at the beginning of this month.2 Chart 6 is taken from that most recent report, and we feel that it is important to go through our logic once again after last week's events. Chart 6UST Curve: Bear-Steepener First, Bear-Flattener Later The Treasury curve typically steepens during periods when the U.S. federal budget deficit is widening (top panel). The Treasury curve is typically negatively correlated to the real fed funds rate, steepening when the real rate is falling and vice versa. Budget deficits usually are widening during periods of soft economic growth, when tax receipts are slowing and counter-cyclical fiscal spending is increasing. This is also typically correlated to periods when spare capacity in the U.S. economy is opening up and inflation pressures are diminishing (middle panel), hence giving the Fed cover to lower interest rates and putting steepening pressure on the Treasury curve. The current backdrop is atypical, as a fiscal stimulus is being proposed at a time when the economy is already at full employment with little sign of slowing. At the same time, the Fed is in a tightening cycle - albeit a slow one because of relatively subdued inflation - which usually does not occur during periods of widening budget deficits. This represents another difficult "trade-off" for investors to process. A so-called "full employment" fiscal stimulus should be inflationary at the margin, by definition, if it boosts economic growth to an above-potential pace. That would steepen the Treasury curve as longer-term inflation expectations rise, until the Fed steps in with rate hikes to offset the impact of the fiscal stimulus. If the Fed felt that the greater fiscal deficit was becoming a problem for medium-term inflation stability, then there could be a faster pace of rate hikes that would boost the real funds rate and put flattening pressure on the Treasury curve. A more straightforward way to describe that would be a scenario where the Trump tax cuts end up boosting U.S. real GDP growth to something close to 3% next year, which results in the U.S. unemployment rate falling to a "3-handle". This would likely put upward pressure on U.S. realized inflation and steepen the Treasury curve as the market prices in higher inflation - IF the Fed is slow to respond to that inflation pickup. When inflation rises by enough to threaten the Fed's 2% inflation target, perhaps even rising above that level, then the Fed would step in with more rate hikes. The result: a higher real fed funds rate and a flatter Treasury curve. That scenario is how we envision the next year playing out. Various FOMC members have already noted that they cannot account for any fiscal stimulus in their economic projections until they see the details. Furthermore, many members of the FOMC are expressing concern that the downdraft in inflation was enough of a surprise to raise questions about the Fed's understanding of the underlying inflation process. This suggests that the Fed will want to see inflation, both realized and expected, rise first before increasing the pace of rate hikes beyond current projections. Net-net, we see the Trump fiscal stimulus steepening the Treasury curve in 2018 before the Fed flattens it with tighter monetary policy. One caveat for the latter is the upcoming decision on the next Fed Chair. President Trump, ever the reality game show host, noted last week that the finalists for this season's episode for "The Apprentice: FOMC" are now down to Jerome Powell, John Taylor and current Chair Janet Yellen. Both Powell and, of course, Yellen would represent a continuation of the current cautious FOMC framework, while Taylor would likely be more hawkish given his public comments on Fed policy decisions (and the output of his own Taylor Rule!). If Taylor were to be appointed by Trump as the new Fed Chair, the Treasury curve may not steepen much on the back of fiscal easing if the markets begin to discount a more aggressive Fed. Bottom Line: The trade-off between a full-employment Trump fiscal stimulus and a slowly tightening Federal Reserve next year will first result in higher inflation expectations and a bear-steepening Treasury curve, and eventually lead to more aggressive rate hikes and a bear-flattening curve later in 2018. Trade-Off #3: Strong European Growth Vs. Mild Inflation The ECB meets later this week, and is expected to make a decision on the size and scope of its asset purchase program for next year and beyond. The latest Bloomberg survey of economists is calling for a cut in the monthly pace of asset purchases from €60bn/month to €30bn/month, but with an extension of the program until September 2018.3 The same survey calls for the ECB to deliver a hike in the deposit rate in Q1/2019, with a hike in the benchmark interest rate in Q2/2019. We agree with the former, although we think there will be no rate hikes of any kind until the 4th quarter of 2019, at the earliest. Chart 7Why Would The ECB NOT Taper? The trade-off between robust European growth and still modest rates of core inflation are the reason we expect the ECB to be very late to begin hiking policy rates after the asset purchase program is completed. It is clear from a variety of data, from almost all countries in the Euro Area, that the economy is expanding at a robust, above-potential pace (Chart 7). Headline inflation has increased steadily off the 2015 lows and now sits at 1.5%, still below the ECB's target of "just below 2%". The ECB has played down this pickup in inflation, given that is has largely been driven by the rise in oil prices since the 2015 lows. There is certainly a strong correlation between the annual change of oil prices (denominated in euros) and Euro Area headline inflation (middle panel), and the ECB expects fading oil price momentum to result in Euro Area headline inflation drifting back to 1% in early 2018. Yet the oil price increase that our commodity strategists are calling for next year would boost the year-over-year growth rate to a pace around 40%, which has in the past been consistent with 2% headline inflation outcomes. A rising euro would help mitigate the impact from oil, but as mentioned earlier, we see more potential for some modest depreciation of the euro versus the U.S. dollar after the run-up seen in 2017. Despite the pickup in headline inflation already underway, core inflation in Europe remains benign at 1.1%. Our measure of the "breadth" of the rise in core inflation across 75 individual subsectors - the Euro Area core inflation diffusion index - sits right around the "50 line" suggesting that just as many components of Euro Area core inflation are rising as are falling. Yet with broad Euro Area unemployment approaching 8%, and with some measures of wage inflation starting to awake as a result, the odds are increasing that continued strong growth will result in additional upward momentum in core inflation. The ECB is already forecasting a return of core inflation to 1.9% in 2019, which is why some reduction in the pace of asset purchases will be announced this week. The entire asset purchase program was only put in place in 2015 to fight a deflation threat after oil prices collapsed in 2014, and that has now passed with inflation steadily grinding higher. So the "trade-off" for investors in Europe, between strong growth and moderate inflation, will be resolved by the ECB shifting to a less-accommodative monetary policy stance. In terms of the impact on Euro Area bond yields, however, the change in the pace of bond buying matters even more than the size of the asset purchases. In Chart 8, we show the ECB's monetary base and three scenarios for how it will evolve through asset purchases until the end of 2018: Base Case: The ECB slows the pace of bond buying to €30bn/month starting in January 2018 until September 2018, then cuts that down to €15bn/month for the remainder of 2018 and stops the program completely at year-end. Dovish Scenario: The pace of bond buying is maintained at €60bn/month until the end of 2018, with no commitment to end the program then. Hawkish Scenario: The ECB tapers its purchases by €10bn/month for the first six months of next year, then ends the program in July 2018. In the bottom two panels of Chart 8, we show the year-over-year growth rate of the ECB's balance sheet, with those three scenarios, and compare them to the benchmark 10-year German Bund yield and our estimate of the German term premium. In all three scenarios, even the dovish one where the ECB keeps on buying at the current pace, the growth rate of the monetary base will decelerate in 2018. As can be seen in the chart, that growth rate has been highly correlated to yields and the term premium during the life of the ECB's asset purchase program. The conclusion here is that central bank asset purchase programs need to increase in size versus previous years to maintain the same impact on bond yields over time. Put another way, asset purchases represent a signaling mechanism ("forward guidance") from a central bank to the markets about future changes in interest rates when they are already at the zero bound. Increasing the size of the purchases sends a more powerful message than simply keeping the pace of buying unchanged. This is especially true if the underlying economy is growing and inflation is rising, which would typically cause investors to price in a higher expected path of interest rates into the government bond yield curve. So, unless the ECB takes the highly unlikely step of increasing the size of its asset purchases for next year, then there are no outcomes from this week's ECB meeting that should be expected to be sustainably bullish for longer-dated European government bonds. At the same time, there will be no signals given on future changes in short-term interest rates, as the ECB has maintained for some time that rates will not be touched until "some time" after the asset purchase program has ended (Q4/2019, in our view). Hence, Euro Area yield curves are likely to eventually see some bear-steepening pressure on the back of this week's ECB meeting. The story is similar for Peripheral European government bonds and Euro Area investment grade corporate credit. In Chart 9, we show the same growth rates of the ECB monetary base with our scenario projections versus the 10-year Italy-Germany spread, 10-year Spain-Germany spread, 10-year Portugal-Germany spread and the Barclays Bloomberg Euro Area Investment Grade corporate spread. While the correlations are not as clear as that for German yields, a slower pace of ECB asset purchases would be consistent with some spread widening in Peripheral European and in corporate credit. Chart 8ECB Bond Buying:##BR##Watch The Pace, Not The Level Chart 9European Credit Spreads##BR##Set To Widen Post-ECB? Bottom Line: The ECB will signal a reduction in the pace of its asset purchases this week, in response to the continued strength of the Euro Area economy. Current moderate rates of inflation will not derail a "taper", but will be enough to push off any ECB interest rate hike until late 2019. Robert Robis, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, "Oil Forecast Lifted As Markets Tighten", dated October 19th 2017, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "The Case For Steeper Yield Curves", dated October 3rd 2017, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 3 https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-10-22/draghi-seen-going-for-ecb-bond-buying-limit-in-qe-s-last-hurrah The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Recommendations Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Highlights Yield Curve & TIPS: To avoid policy failure the Fed must allow inflation to reach its 2% target before the onset of the next recession. This means it will soon fall behind the inflation curve. Treasury curve steepeners and TIPS breakeven wideners will benefit. Inflation: The current cycle looks very similar to the cycle of the late 1990s. In both cases the unemployment rate fell far below its natural level before inflation started to accelerate. Almost all of the indicators that predicted the 1999 increase in inflation are currently sending strong positive signals. Credit Spreads: Spreads are tight across the entire credit spectrum, but risk-adjusted value is most attractive in the Caa, B and Baa credit tiers. Feature Chart 1Low Inflation + Flat Curve = Policy Mistake In the 12 months leading up to August, headline PCE inflation came in at 1.43% and core PCE inflation was a mere 1.29%. Both readings are well short of the Fed's 2% target. At the same time, the 2/10 Treasury curve is only 79 basis points away from inversion (Chart 1). The combination of low inflation and a flat yield curve suggests that, despite below-target inflation, the market views Fed policy as relatively restrictive. This situation is not sustainable. The Fed must, and will, fall behind the curve. An inverted yield curve represents the market's expectation that the Fed will be forced to cut interest rates in the future. As such, it has an excellent track record as a recession indicator. Now consider a situation where the yield curve inverts with inflation never having re-gained the Fed's target. The Fed would have tightened the yield curve into inversion, and the economy into recession, without having achieved its inflation goal. This is the most striking example of monetary policy failure that we can dream up, and unless we witness a trend change in either inflation or the slope of the curve, it is an outcome we are likely to face. Of course we do not think the above scenario will actually come to pass. In fact, our investment strategy hinges on the premise that the Fed would never abide such an outcome. This means that one of two things will occur in the coming months: Inflation will rebound and the Fed will be able to fall behind the curve while still delivering a pace of rate hikes similar to its median expectation - one more hike this year and three more next year. Inflation will remain low and the Fed will be forced to fall behind the curve by reneging on its forecasted rate hike path. These two possibilities are illustrated by looking at the real fed funds rate (deflated by core PCE inflation) alongside the popular Laubach-Williams estimate of its equilibrium level (Chart 2). In the Fed's policy framework the real interest rate must stay below equilibrium for inflation to rise. Likewise, if the Fed lifts the real interest rate above equilibrium it is because it wants inflation to fall. What is clear from Chart 2 is that one more rate hike with no improvement in inflation will move monetary policy into restrictive territory. Our contention is that the Fed will ensure that monetary policy remains accommodative (i.e. it will remain behind the curve) until inflation returns to the 2% target. Chart 2Too Close To Neutral Investment Implications Chart 3Yield Curve & Breakevens Move Together The first corollary of the above proposition is that the Fed will need strong conviction that inflation is poised to move higher before it delivers another rate hike. Chair Yellen is clinging to this notion for now: My best guess is that these soft readings will not persist, and with the ongoing strengthening of labor markets, I expect inflation to move higher next year. Most of my colleagues on the FOMC agree.1 We would also agree that inflation will be strong enough going forward for the Fed to justify a rate increase in December and several more next year (see section titled "Party Like It's 1999?" below). This is the main reason we continue to advocate a below-benchmark duration stance. But while our duration call will suffer if inflation does not rise as we expect, our recommendations to position for a steeper yield curve and wider long-maturity TIPS breakeven rates will pan out as long as the Fed falls behind the curve. If we accept the premise that the Fed must hit its inflation target before inverting the yield curve, then it will keep rates low enough for long enough to achieve that goal. This means that long-dated TIPS breakevens will necessarily return to their target range between 2.4% and 2.5% by the time that core inflation returns to target, and that the yield curve will steepen alongside the widening in breakevens (Chart 3). If the deflationary pressure in the economy turns out to be stronger than we anticipate, then it simply means that a slower pace of rate hikes will be required to get inflation back to target. The way to position for this outcome on a medium-term horizon is via lower real yields (Chart 3, panel 2), not tighter TIPS breakevens or a flatter yield curve. A Fed that is behind the curve is also a key support for our overweight allocation to investment grade and high-yield corporate bonds. Even though valuations have become very expensive (see section titled "Risk-Adjusted Value In Corporate Credit" below), a sustained period of spread widening would likely require a more restrictive monetary policy, one more concerned with dragging inflation lower than with propping it up. Chart 4Tax Cuts Would Steepen The Curve Political Risk There are two looming political decisions that will impact both our view on how quickly inflation will trend higher and our view on whether the Fed will indeed fall behind the curve. On the inflation front, if President Trump's tax cut plan becomes law, then the resulting fiscal stimulus will almost certainly speed up the return of inflation to target. The market has figured this out and already we observe a correlation between the slope of the yield curve, long-maturity TIPS breakevens and the relative performance of a basket of highly-taxed stocks (Chart 4). Our geopolitical strategists remain optimistic that stimulative tax legislation will be passed early next year, but note that if the Democratic party wins the upcoming Alabama senate election (to be held December 12), then there may not be enough votes in the Senate to push a tax plan through.2 The second important political decision will be the appointment of a new Fed Chair. President Trump will announce his pick within the next two weeks, and the President has suggested that the race has been winnowed down to three candidates - current Fed Chair Janet Yellen, current Fed Governor Jerome Powell and Stanford University economist John Taylor. Ex-Fed Governor Kevin Warsh could also still be in the running, although he was not specifically named by the President last week (Table 1). Table 1Top 4 Fed Chair Candidates Of those four candidates, both Yellen and Powell would maintain the status quo at the Fed. Neither would threaten our view that the Fed will fall behind the curve on inflation. Taylor or Warsh, on the other hand, could both push for a faster pace of tightening. As Fed Chairman, Professor Taylor - of Taylor Rule fame - would certainly look to adopt a more rules-based monetary policy. In all likelihood this would involve structuring policy decisions around a chosen policy rule, with the Fed justifying any deviations from that rule. His views on the current speed of Fed tightening are not as well known, but he has been critical of the Fed's zero interest rate policy in the past and has spoken favorably about several policy rules that all suggest higher interest rates than are currently observed. Similarly, Kevin Warsh has suggested that the Fed should target inflation between 1% and 2%, rather than the current symmetric 2% target. Taken at face value, this change in target would suggest a more hawkish reaction function. A John Taylor or Kevin Warsh chairmanship would call into question our key premise that the Fed will fall behind the curve, and would likely cause the Treasury curve to bear-flatten in the immediate aftermath of the appointment. Bottom Line: To avoid policy failure the Fed must allow inflation to reach its 2% target before the onset of the next recession. This means it will soon fall behind the inflation curve. Treasury curve steepeners and TIPS breakeven wideners will benefit. Party Like It's 1999? This year's downtrend in core inflation has caused many to question whether it will ever rise again. Many are questioning whether the Phillips curve relationship between tighter labor markets and rising wage growth still holds, and even Janet Yellen is starting to wonder if the Fed is missing something: [O]ur framework for understanding inflation dynamics could be misspecified in some way. For example, global developments - perhaps technological in nature, such as the tremendous growth of online shopping - could be helping to hold down inflation in a persistent way in many countries.3 We would note, however, that this is not the first time it has taken longer than expected for cyclical inflation pressures to emerge despite a tight labor market. Consider that in the late 1990s the unemployment rate fell below its natural rate in April 1997, but inflation did not move meaningfully higher until mid-1999 (Chart 5). Chart 5The Current Cycle Looks Very Much Like The 1990s A strong dollar and negative import price shock certainly contributed to low inflation in the late 1990s, and this has also been true in the current cycle. The de-synchronized nature of the global recovery caused the dollar to surge in 2014 and 2015, much like in 1997 (Chart 6). In the late 1990s, it was only after the global recovery became more synchronized in 1999 that U.S. inflation started to respond to tight labor markets. In the current cycle, the synchronized global recovery only started in the middle of last year. Chart 6An Import Price Shock Kept Inflation Low In The 1990s And Today We identified several variables that led inflation higher in 1999. Chart 7 shows these variables from the late 1990s lined up with their readings from the current cycle. The cycles are aligned to when the unemployment rate fell below its natural level, and the vertical line shows when prices started to accelerate in 1999. The variables that led inflation higher in the 1990s were: Chart 7Pipeline Measures Led Inflation In 1999 PPI Finished Goods inflation BCA Pipeline Inflation Indicator The New York Fed's Underlying Inflation Gauge4 Corporate Price Deflator With the possible exception of the corporate price deflator, all of these variables are currently sending a strong signal that inflation is poised to rebound. Similar to 1999, we would expect the initial move higher in inflation to be met with wider long-maturity TIPS breakevens and a steeper yield curve. Notice that the 2/10 Treasury slope troughed at -5 bps in 1998, but steepened to +40 bps in early 1999 before starting to flatten again as the Fed ramped up its pace of tightening (Chart 5, panel 3). In the current cycle, we await that final steepening surge before the Fed gets more aggressive and flattens the curve once more. Bottom Line: The current cycle looks very similar to the cycle of the late 1990s. In both cases the unemployment rate fell far below its natural level before inflation started to accelerate. Almost all of the indicators that predicted the 1999 increase in inflation are currently sending strong positive signals. Risk-Adjusted Value In Corporate Credit In a recent report we noted that high-yield bond valuations were approaching all-time expensive levels.5 We concluded that with limited room for spread compression, but equally with no obvious catalyst for sustained spread widening, the high-yield market has essentially become a carry trade. This week we extend that analysis to consider each credit tier in both investment grade and high-yield bonds. Our goal is to see if any credit tiers have room for spread compression, or alternatively, which credit tiers offer the best risk-adjusted value. Unfortunately, the quick answer is that no credit tiers look cheap. In Chart 8 and Chart 9 we show 12-month breakeven spreads for each credit tier, scaled by their percentile rank relative to history. In other words, each chart shows the percentage of time that breakeven spreads for each credit tier have been lower than they are currently. The Aa-rated breakeven spread has been lower than it is today 15% of the time (Chart 8, panel 2), while the Aaa-rated breakeven spread has been lower than it is today only 1% of the time (Chart 8, panel 1). We use the breakeven spread - the spread widening required to earn zero excess return on a 12-month horizon - because it adjusts for the changing average duration of each bond index.6 For example, the average duration of the investment grade corporate bond index has increased during the past fifteen years. This means that a given spread level today looks less attractive than when the duration risk was lower. Chart 8 shows that there is very little room for investment grade spread compression. At the 15th percentile the Aa credit tier looks most attractive, while all other credit tiers rank below the 10th percentile. In Chart 9 we see that valuations get somewhat more compelling as we move down in quality. Ba-rated breakeven spreads have been lower 19% of the time, B-rated spreads have been lower 32% of the time and Caa-rated spreads have been lower 43% of the time. Chart 8Investment Grade Breakeven Spreads Chart 9High-Yield Breakeven Spreads The results in Table 2 generally confirm that the lowest credit tiers offer the best risk-adjusted value. That table shows a measure we call Days-To-Breakeven. This is a measure of the number of days of average spread widening required for each credit tier to earn zero excess return on a 12-month horizon. It is calculated as the 12-month breakeven spread divided by each sector's historical average daily spread change. It is an attempt to measure each sector's value after adjusting for differences in both duration and spread volatility. According to this measure, Caa-rated and B-rated junk offer the best risk-adjusted value, while Baa-rated corporates offer slightly better value than Ba-rated junk bonds. Table 2 also shows the amount of option-adjusted-spread (OAS) tightening required by each credit tier (at current duration levels) to reach all-time expensive valuations. For example, the Baa-rated index can undergo another 35 bps of OAS tightening before it reaches all-time lows according to its 12-month breakeven spread. We also scale this measure by each sector's historical average daily spread change to calculate a Days-To-Minimum measure, and once again the message is the same. The Caa-rated, B-rated and Baa-rated credit tiers offer the most compelling risk-adjusted value. Table 2Risk-Adjusted Value By Credit Tier It is unfortunate, though not surprising, that low quality sectors offer the best risk-adjusted value at this late stage of the credit cycle. Most fund managers have probably already started to scale back credit risk in preparation for the next recession. This is probably a prudent strategy given that even in the lower credit tiers excess returns will not be exceptional. We forecast excess returns between 2% and 5% for the overall High-Yield index. However, we also think that investors are relatively safe taking credit risk until inflationary pressures start to mount and the Fed's reaction function becomes less supportive. If inflation recovers as we expect, then we will likely start scaling back the credit risk in our recommended portfolio sometime next year in preparation for a recession in 2019. Bottom Line: Spreads are tight across the entire credit spectrum, but risk-adjusted value is most attractive in the Caa, B and Baa credit tiers. Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com 1 Speech by Janet Yellen delivered October 15, 2017. https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/yellen20171015a.htm 2 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Why So Serious?", dated October 11, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com 3 Speech by Janet Yellen delivered October 15, 2017. https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/yellen20171015a.htm 4 The Underlying Inflation Gauge captures sustained movements in inflation from information contained in a broad set of price, real activity, and financial data. https://www.newyorkfed.org/research/policy/underlying-inflation-gauge 5 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Living With The Carry Trade", dated October 17, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 6 We calculate the breakeven spread as option-adjusted spread divided by duration. For simplicity we ignore the impact of convexity. Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

Special Report

Feature It was an honour and privilege to welcome Professor Daniel Kahneman to our New York Conference this year. Professor Kahneman was the 2002 winner of the Nobel Prize in Economics, though the great irony is that he hasn't taken a single economics class in his life! That said, he did have a great informal mentor in the form of Richard Thaler who, coincidentally, has just become the 2017 winner of the Nobel Prize in Economics. Professor Kahneman's lifetime work demonstrates that our economic and financial decisions are often highly irrational - flying in the face of most mainstream economic models which assume fully rational behaviour. His research culminated in a school of thought called Prospect Theory, for which he ultimately won the Nobel Prize. Feature ChartBonds Become Much More Risky At Ultra-Low Yields Over lunch, Professor Kahneman summarised Prospect Theory to us. And as he spoke, the penny suddenly dropped. Prospect Theory's rich findings may have solved some of the most pressing mysteries of finance. Why do equities typically outperform bonds? Why has QE boosted equity prices so much? What happens next to financial markets? Why Do Equities Typically Outperform Bonds? Let's begin by debunking a popular myth. Many people believe that equities typically outperform bonds because equity income streams grow in line with the economy whereas bond income streams are fixed and do not grow. This reasoning is false. Any income stream can be made to generate any return depending on the price you pay for the income stream upfront. A rapidly growing income stream can still generate a deeply negative return if you overpay for it. And a fixed, or shrinking, income stream can still generate a strongly positive return if you underpay for it. It follows that equities generate a higher return than bonds simply because the financial markets typically price them to deliver this higher return. The question is: why? Prospect Theory provides an answer. One of its great insights is that we significantly overestimate the probabilities of rare but sizeable gains and losses. Indeed, this overestimation of rare events provides the entire foundation of the lottery and insurance industries. We overpay for a lottery ticket to buy the tiny possibility of a large gain, which is called positive skew. And we overpay for insurance to remove the tiny possibility of a large loss, which is called negative skew. We do this because creating the tiny possibility of immense wealth lets us dream pleasant thoughts. While removing the tiny possibility of losing our home lets us sleep soundly. The upshot from Prospect Theory is that income streams with positive skew tend to be overvalued, and so generate poor returns - like the lottery ticket. Whereas income streams with negative skew tend to be undervalued, and so generate high returns. This brings us to the first key point. Equity returns possess negative skew (Chart I-2). On rare occasions, they suffer deep losses. Because of this negative skew, it is our contention that the markets price equities to generate an excess return - a risk premium - over investments that do not have a negative skew. Chart I-2Equity Markets Have Negative Skew: "Equity Markets Walk Up The Stairs But Jump Out Of The Window" To illustrate the point, bear with us as we do some simple maths. Say an equity price could end up at 102 with probability 90%, but could plunge to 82 in a rare event with probability 10%. This makes its expected value 100 (because 102*0.9 + 82*0.1 = 100). But if, as Professor Kahneman suggests, the market overestimates the rare event probability to, say, 20%, it will underprice the equity at 98 (because 102*0.8 + 82*0.2 = 98). Clearly, this pricing will generate an excess return - a risk premium of 2% - because the correct expected value is 100. Next consider a bond price which could end up at 101 or 99 with equal probability, giving it an expected value also at 100. As it does not have negative skew, the market will just price it at 100. Observe that the equity price and bond price have exactly the same expected value of 100, but the financial markets have underpriced the equity at 98 to generate an excess return over the bond - because the equity has negative skew while the bond does not. Why Has QE Boosted Equity Prices So Much? When bond yields fall to very low levels, things get more complicated. Bond returns also exhibit extreme negative skew (Chart I-3 and Chart I-4). And the reasons are obvious. At very low bond yields, the prospects for capital appreciation rapidly disappear, while the prospects for large-scale capital losses suddenly increase ( Feature Chart). Chart I-3When Bond Yields Are Ultra-Low Bond Markets Have Negative Skew Too Chart I-4When Bond Yields Are Ultra-Low Bond Markets Have Negative Skew Too One simple way to quantify an investment's negative skew is to pick an extended period of time - say several years - when the price has gone sideways, and then to calculate the worst 3-month loss as a multiple of the best 3-month gain.1 On this metric, equities typically show a negative skew of around 1.5. Meaning that the worst loss is about 1.5 times the size of the best gain. But for bonds, negative skew varies with the bond yield. At yields above 2.5%, bonds show no skew. Worst losses broadly equal best gains. However, when yields drop below 2%, the negative skew approaches the same level as for equities. And at yields around 1%, the negative skew can even exceed that on equities (Table 1 and Chart I-5). Table 1At Low Bond Yields, ##br##Bonds Have Extreme Negative Skew Chart I-5Bonds Become Much More Risky##br## At Ultra-Low Yields This brings us to a crucial conclusion. At very low bond yields, the equity risk premium must compress, and potentially disappear, because both bonds and equities now have the same undesirable negative skew. Is there any empirical evidence for this? The prospective equity risk premium is hard to capture as it requires an accurate forecast of the prospective excess return from equities over bonds. But the realised equity risk premium is easy to measure as it is just the annualised outperformance of equities over bonds. This shows a clear downtrend in Germany, the U.K. and the U.S. Meanwhile, in Japan where bond yields have been near zero for years, the realised equity risk premium is non-existent (Charts I-6, Chart I-7, Chart I-8, Chart I-9). Chart I-6The Equity Risk Premium ##br##Has Trended Lower In Germany... Chart I-7...And In The U.K. Chart I-8The Equity Risk Premium ##br##Has Trended Lower In The U.S. Chart I-9The Equity Risk Premium Is Non-Existent ##br##In Japan One important takeaway is that central banks, perhaps unwittingly, have driven up equity valuations exponentially. This is because QE has simultaneously compressed both the bond yield and the equity risk premium, giving equity valuations a double shot in the arm. Let's reasonably say that central bank policy depressed the 10-year bond yield by 2%. The resulting increased negative skew on bonds might then reasonably depress the 10-year equity risk premium by 2%. In combination, this would reduce the 10-year required return from equities by 4% a year for ten years. Under these assumptions, central bank policy might well have boosted equity valuations by 50%.2 What Happens Next To Financial Markets? The double shot in the arm to developed market equity valuations may have boosted them by 50%, but they are broadly in the right ballpark as long as bond yields remain ultra-low. However, the conditionality on bond yields is crucial. This is because the process that exponentially boosted equity valuations can also work viciously in reverse. To reiterate, the negative skew on bond returns starts to fade when the bond yield is at 2% and completely disappears at 3%, at which point the equity risk premium must fully re-emerge. Given the tendency of equities to exhibit negative skew and to move en masse in the developed markets, we can infer that the current valuation of equities would be in jeopardy if a mainstream bond yield broke well north of 2.5%. Whereupon the reassessment of equity valuations is likely to catalyse a correction, at the very least. Chart I-10Bond Yields Can Rise More In Europe ##br##Than In The U.S. But one important investment implication is that the subsequent flight to investment havens means that no mainstream bond yield can realistically rise beyond 3% in the foreseeable future. We can also infer that European 10-year bond yields have the potential to rise more than their equivalents in the U.S., given that European yields are much further from the 2.5%-3% 'red zone'(Chart I-10). So an excellent structural position is to underweight European government bonds versus U.S. T-bonds. Dhaval Joshi, Senior Vice President Chief European Investment Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com 1 Using log returns. 2 Because 1.04^10 = 1.48 Fractal Trading Model* This week we observe that Norwegian equities are technically overbought. A market neutral trade is to go short Norway/long Switzerland with a profit target/stop loss of 2%. We now have five open trades. For any investment, excessive trend following and groupthink can reach a natural point of instability, at which point the established trend is highly likely to break down with or without an external catalyst. An early warning sign is the investment's fractal dimension approaching its natural lower bound. Encouragingly, this trigger has consistently identified countertrend moves of various magnitudes across all asset classes. Chart I-11 Fractal Trading Model 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. 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 - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations

Highlights This week, we are reviewing all our current active trades in our Tactical Overlay. As a reminder, these positions (Table 1) are meant to complement our strategic GFIS Model Fixed Income Portfolio, typically with shorter holding periods and occasionally in smaller or less liquid markets outside our usual core bond market coverage (i.e. U.S. TIPS or Swedish interest rate swaps). This report includes a short summary of the rationale behind each position, as well as a decision on whether to continue holding the trade, close it out or switch to a new position that may more efficiently express our view. The trades are grouped together by the country/region that is most relevant for the performance of each trade. Table 1GFIS Tactical Overlay Trades Feature U.S. Short July 2018 Fed Funds futures (HOLD). Long 5-year U.S. Treasury (UST) bullet vs. 2-year/10-year duration-matched UST barbell (HOLD). Long U.S. TIPS vs. nominal USTs (HOLD). Short 10-year USTs vs. 10-year German Bunds (HOLD). The tactical trades that we have been recommending within U.S. markets all have a common theme - positioning for an expected rebound in U.S. inflation that will push up U.S. bond yields. We are maintaining all of them. The drift lower in realized inflation rates since the spring has been a surprise given the backdrop of above-potential growth, low unemployment and a weakening U.S. dollar. On the back of this, markets have priced out several of the Fed rates hikes that had been expected over the next year, leaving U.S. Treasury yields at overly-depressed levels. Back on July 11th, we initiated a recommendation to short the July 2018 fed funds futures contract (Chart 1). This was a position that would turn a profit if the market moved to once again discount multiple Fed rate hikes by mid-2018. The trade has a modest profit of 9bps, but with scope for additional gains if the market moves to discount 2-3 hikes by the middle of next year. Our base case scenario is that the Fed will lift rates again this December, and deliver additional increases next year amid healthy growth and with inflation likely to grind higher towards the Fed's 2% target. With the market discounting 46bps of rate hikes over the next year, there is scope for additional profits in our fed funds futures trade. Another tactical position that we've been recommending is a butterfly trade within the U.S. Treasury (UST) curve, long a 5-year UST bullet versus a duration-matched 2-year/10-year UST barbell. This is a position that would benefit from a bearish steepening of the UST curve as the market priced in higher longer-term inflation expectations (Chart 2). We have held that trade for a much longer period than a typical tactical trade, going back nearly a full year to December 20th, 2016. Yet while the UST curve has flattened since that date, our trade has delivered a return of +18bps. This outperformance can be attributed to the undervalued level of the 5-year bullet at the initiation of the trade. Chart 1Stay Short July 2018##BR##Fed Funds Futures Chart 2Stay Long The 5yr UST Bullet Vs.##BR##The 2yr/10yr UST Barbell While that valuation cushion no longer exists (bottom panel), longer-term TIPS breakevens are back to the levels seen last December (middle panel), thanks in no small part to much higher energy prices (top panel). This leaves the UST curve at risk of a bearish re-steepening on the back of rising inflation expectations. Add in a U.S. dollar that is -2.5% weaker from year-ago levels (Chart 3, middle panel), and a solid U.S. economic expansion that should eventually translate into rising core inflation momentum (bottom panel), and the case for a steeper UST curve over the next 3-6 months is a strong one. The above logic also supports our trade recommendation to go long U.S. TIPS vs. nominal USTs, which is up +248bps since inception on August 23, 2016. We have been holding this trade for much longer than our usual tactical recommendations, but we will not look to take profits until we see the 10-year breakeven (now at 186bps) return back to levels consistent with the Fed's 2% PCE inflation target (i.e. headline U.S. CPI inflation back to 2.5%). One final tactical trade that will benefit from higher UST yields is our recommendation to position for a wider spread between 10-year USTs and 10-year German Bunds. This trade was initiated on August 9th of this year, and has delivered a profit of +9bps. Yet the UST-Bund spread still looks too low relative to shorter-term interest rate differentials that favor the U.S. (Chart 4, top panel). With U.S. data starting to surprise more on the upside than Euro Area data (middle panel), and with UST positioning still quite long (bottom panel), there is potential for additional near-term UST-Bund spread widening. The upcoming decision by the European Central Bank (ECB) on potential tapering of its asset purchases next year represents a potential risk for the long Bund leg of our recommended trade. Any hawkish surprises on that front would be a likely catalyst for us to close out this position. Chart 3Stay Long U.S. TIPS Vs. Nominal USTs Chart 4Stay Short 10yr USTs Vs. German Bunds Euro Area Long 10yr Euro Area CPI swaps (HOLD). Long 5-year Spain vs. 5-year Italy in government bonds (HOLD). We have two recommended tactical trades that are specifically focused on developments in the Euro Area. We are maintaining both of them. As a way to position for an eventual pickup in European inflation, we entered a long position in 10-year Euro Area CPI swaps back on December 20th, 2016. That trade is now estimated to have a profit of +29bps, as market-based inflation expectations have drifted higher in the Euro Area. The simple reason for that increase is that realized inflation has moved higher on the back of rising energy costs, as there is a very robust correlation between the annual growth rate of oil prices (denominated in euros) and headline Euro Area inflation (Chart 5). More importantly, the booming Euro Area economy, which has eaten up much of the spare capacity in the Europe, has boosted wage growth and core inflation to levels seen prior to the disinflation shock from the 2014/15 collapse in oil prices (bottom panel). With no signs of any imminent slowing of Euro Area growth that could raise unemployment and slow underlying inflation pressures, the trend for inflation expectations in Europe is still upward. The current 10-year Euro Area CPI swap at 1.5% is still well beneath the ECB's inflation target of "just below" 2% on headline CPI, so there is room for inflation expectations to continue drifting higher. ECB tapering of asset purchases is not an immediate threat to this trade, as the central bank is still likely to keep buying bonds next year (at a slower pace), while holding off on any interest rate increases until late 2019. In other words, the ECB will not be looking to act to slow economic growth to bring down Euro Area inflation anytime soon. Our other tactical trade recommendation in Europe is a relative value spread trade, long 5-year Spanish government debt versus 5-year Italian bonds. This trade was initiated on December 13th, 2016 and currently has only a modest gain of +9bps, although the profits were much larger earlier this year. Italian bonds have been outperforming on the back of improving Italian economic growth (Chart 6, top panel) and, recently, a generalized sell-off in Spanish financial assets on the back of the political uncertainty in Catalonia. Chart 5Stay Long 10yr##BR##Euro Area CPI Swaps Chart 6Stay Long 5yr Spanish Government Bonds Vs.##BR##5-Year Italian Debt Our colleagues at BCA Geopolitical Strategy have been downplaying the threat to Spanish political stability from the Catalonian independence movement, given that the polling data shows only 35% for outright independence from Spain. At the same time, the poll numbers in Italy for the upcoming parliamentary elections are much closer, with parties favoring less integration with Europe holding a slight lead over more "establishment" parties (bottom two panels). With the bulk of the cyclical convergence between Italian and Spanish growth now largely completed, and with a greater potential for future political instability in Italy compared to Spain, we expect that Spain-Italy spreads will tighten further back to the lows seen at the beginning of 2017 (-64bps on the 5-year spread). That is a level we are targeting on our current tactical trade recommendation. Canada Short 10-year Canadian government bonds vs. 10-year USTs (TAKE PROFITS). Long Canada/U.K. 2-year/10-year government bond yield curve box, positioning for a relatively flatter Canadian curve (TAKE PROFITS). Short 5-year Canada government bond versus a duration-matched 2-year/10-year barbell (TAKE PROFITS). We have three different Canadian fixed income trades in our Tactical Overlay, all of which were biased towards tighter monetary policy in Canada: a Canada-U.S. bond spread widener, a yield curve box trade versus the U.K. and a curve flattener expressed as a barbell trade (Chart 7) All three positions are in the money, but we now recommend taking profits. We had initiated these recommendations in a very timely fashion earlier in the year at a time when the Bank of Canada (BoC) was sending a relative dovish message. In our view, the Canadian economy was building significant upward momentum that would eventually force the central bank to shift its policy bias. This would especially be true with the Fed also in a tightening cycle, given the typical tendency for the BoC to follow the Fed's policy actions. Several members of the BoC monetary policy committee began to sing a more hawkish tune over the summer, particularly after the release of the Q2 BoC Business Outlook Survey. That robust report, which was confirmed by a 2nd quarter GDP growth rate of nearly 4% (Chart 8), led the BoC to deliver not one by two unexpected interest rate hikes in July and September. Markets reacted accordingly, driving Canadian bond yields higher and flattening the yield curve. Chart 7Take Profits On Bearish Canadian Bond Trades Chart 8Canadian Growth Set To Cool Off A Bit Now, we see the market pricing as having gone a bit too far, too quickly. The Q3 Business Outlook Survey, released yesterday, was still positive but with readings softer than the booming Q2 report. Meanwhile, the commentary from the BoC has become more balanced, with BoC Governor (and BCA alumnus) Stephen Poloz describing the central bank as being more "data dependent" after the recent rate hikes. Markets are now pricing in another 72bps of rate hikes over the next year, even with our own BoC Monitor off the peak (Chart 9). Chart 9Our BoC Monitor Is Peaking From a tactical perspective, the repricing of the BoC that we expected earlier this year is now largely complete. Thus, we are taking profits on all three Canadian trades: Canada-U.S. spread trade: initiated on January 17th, profit of +43bps. Canada/U.K. box trade: initiated on May 16th, profit of +67bps. Canada 2yr/5yr/10yr butterfly trade: initiated on December 6th, 2016, profit of +95bps. From a strategic perspective, we still see a case where the BoC can deliver additional rate hikes and keep upward pressure on Canadian bond yields. The output gap in Canada is now closed, according to BoC estimates, and additional strength in the economy now has a greater chance in translating to higher inflation. Strong global growth, especially in the U.S., will also support Canadian export growth and feed into rising capital spending. While the rate hikes have help boost the value of the Canadian dollar (CAD), the exchange rate (on a trade-weighted basis) also largely reflects a rising value of energy prices and is, therefore, should provide an additional boost to growth via stronger terms-of-trade (bottom panel). In other words, the rising CAD will not prevent additional BoC rate hikes if oil prices remain strong. Thus, we are maintaining our underweight recommendation on Canadian government bonds in our strategic model bond portfolio, even as we take profits on our bearish Canadian tactical trades. Australia Long a 2-year/10-year Australia government bond curve flattener (SELL AND SWITCH TO NEW TRADE). On July 25th of this year, we entered into a 2-year/10-year curve flattener trade for Australia. Though employment was improving and house prices were booming in Australia, the wide output gap, high level of consumer indebtedness and lack of real wage growth was keeping the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) inactive. In our view, nothing has changed since then; the RBA remains in a very difficult position. While the yield curve flattened substantially following the initiation of our trade, the global rise in long-term yields since mid-September lifted Australian longer-maturity yields, and the yield curve with it (Chart 10). Now, Australian long-term yields are not reflecting domestic fundamentals but are instead driven by improving global growth. As such, we are closing the trade and initiating a new position - long Dec 2018 Australian Bank Bill futures - as a more focused way to express the view that the RBA will stay on hold for longer than markets expect. Markets are currently pricing in 30bps of RBA rate hikes over the next twelve months. We believe this will be unlikely, for several reasons. Macroprudential measures on the Australian housing market will continue to dampen credit growth. Core inflation is slowly rising but still far below the central bank's target. Additionally, there is plenty of slack in the labor market despite the spike in employment growth. This is evidenced in anemic real wage growth, stubbornly high underemployment rate, low hours worked and high percentage of part-time to full-time workers (Chart 11). Chart 10Close Australian Government##BR##Bond 2yr/10yr Flattener Chart 11RBA Unlikely To Deliver##BR##Discounted Rate Hikes The biggest risk to our new trade would if signs of a tighter Australian labor market started to feed through into faster wage growth, which would likely coincide with faster underlying price inflation and a more hawkish turn by the RBA. New Zealand Long 5-year NZ government bonds vs. 5-year USTs (currency hedged). Long 5-year NZ government bonds vs. 5-year Germany (currency unhedged). Chart 12Stay Long 5yr NZ Government Bonds##BR##Vs. U.S, & Germany We entered two New Zealand (NZ) tactical bond trades on May 30th, going long 5-year government bonds vs. U.S. and Germany (Chart 12). We expected NZ spreads to tighten faster than the forwards based on our more hawkish views on the Fed and, to a lesser extent, the ECB relative to the more dovish view on the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (RBNZ). The outright bond spreads have tightened and, on a currency-hedged basis, both trades are in the money. Our dovish view on the RBNZ came from the central bank's own forecasts, which called for slowing headline inflation on the back of softer "tradeables" inflation and a sharp cooling of domestic "non-tradeables" inflation through a slowing housing market (Chart 13, bottom two panels). Our own RBNZ Monitor has been calling for the need for higher interest rates in NZ, mostly from the strength in the labor market. Yet we have been ignoring that signal, as has the market which has priced out one full expected RBNZ rate hike since the beginning of the year. With business confidence rolling over, and with the trade-weighted NZ dollar still staying at stubbornly strong levels, the case for the RBNZ to deliver even a single rate hike is not a strong one - especially given the soft inflation forecasts of the central bank. Thus, we are sticking with our tactical spread trades for NZ versus the U.S. and Germany. We are maintaining the currency hedge on the U.S. version of the trade, as we typically do for the vast majority of our cross-country spread trade recommendations. Occasionally, however, we will make an active decision to do a spread trade UN-hedged if we felt very strongly about a currency move. We did that for our NZ-Germany spread trade and this has cost us in the performance of the trade, which is down -3.4%. This is because of a surprisingly large decline in the New Zealand dollar (NZD) versus the euro since the inception of our trade. Yet a review of the technical indicators on the NZD/EUR currency cross shows that the currency pair is now very stretched versus its medium-term trend (the 40-week moving average), with price momentum also at some of the most negative levels of the past decade (Chart 14). These measures suggest that the worst of the downturn in the currency is likely over. The relative positioning on the two individual currencies is now neutral, as long positions on the NZD have been reduced (bottom panel). Chart 13RBNZ Dovishness Is Justified Chart 14Keep NZ/Germany Position Currency Unhedged Given these technical indicators, and from these current levels, we see greater upside potential for NZD/EUR in the months ahead. This leads us to maintain our unhedged currency position on the NZ-Germany spread trade so as not to realize the current mark-to-market losses on the trade. Sweden Pay 18-month Sweden Overnight Index Swap (OIS) rate (TAKE PROFITS). We entered into a bearish Swedish rates position back on November 22nd, 2016, paying Sweden 18-month Overnight Index swap rates (Chart 15). At the time, we expected the Riksbank to begin hiking interest rates earlier than what was priced in the markets IF inflation reached the central bank target faster due to a weaker Swedish krona. We also believed that the economy would continue to expand at a robust pace when the economy had no spare capacity, creating additional upside inflation surprises. According to the Riksbank's latest Monetary Policy Statement (MPS), the central bank will likely keep the repo rate at -0.5% until mid-2018, while continuing its asset purchase program until the end of this year - even with an overheating economy. This is because realized inflation has remained below the Riksbank target for a long period of time and, although current inflation is above target, it was not necessary to immediately tighten conditions. More likely, the Riskbank is worried about the potential for the krona to appreciate - especially versus the euro - if rate hikes are delivered. It will only be a matter of time before the central bank is forced to tighten policy with the economy likely to strengthen further, led by solid domestic demand, strong productivity growth, and improving exports. Consumption is also expected to increase as households have scope to cut back their high level of savings. Combining the Riksbank's easing policy with the current strength of the economy and the tightness of the labor market, inflation is very likely to return to the 2% target in the next year or two (Chart 16). Chart 15Close Sweden OIS Trade Chart 16Riksbank More Worried About SEK Than Inflation However, if the Riskbank remains too concerned about the currency versus the euro, as we suspect, then this will prevent any shift to a more hawkish stance before any change from the ECB. That is unlikely to happen over the next year, at least, even if the ECB slows the pace of asset purchases as we expect. Thus, we are closing out our Sweden 18-month Overnight Index Swap position at a small profit of 12bps. We have already kept this trade for longer than the typical investment horizon for one of our tactical overlay trades. We will investigate the potential for more profitable trade opportunities in the Swedish fixed income markets in a future report. Korea Long a 2-year/10-year Korean government bond yield curve steepener (HOLD). We recommended entering into a 2-year/10-year steepening trade in the Korean government bond yield curve on May 30th, 2017. Since then, the yield curve has flattened by 7bps, which was mainly caused by an unexpected rise in the 2-year yield, rather than a decline in 10-year yield (Chart 17). Korea is currently enjoying a solid business cycle upturn. Leading economic indicators are rising, the year-over-year growth in exports has risen to a 7-year high and previously sluggish private consumption has also rebounded recently. The Bank of Korea (BoK) is of the view that the recovery will continue and consumer price inflation will stabilize at the target level over the medium-term. This recovery should cause the 2/10 curve to steepen as longer-term inflation expectations rise. Based on South Korean President Moon's aggressive fiscal plans to increase welfare spending and create jobs in the public sector, at a time when the economy is good shape, we still believe that long-end of the curve (10-year) will rise. In addition, as shown in Chart 18, the 26-week rolling beta of changes in the 10-year UST yield and Korean 10-year bond is very high, nearly 1. Given our bearish view on USTs, this implies Korean yields can follow suit. On the other hand, the correlation between the 2-year UST yield and equivalent maturity Korean yields is much lower (4th panel), as Korean rate expectations have not been following those of the U.S. higher - even with a stronger Korean economy. Most likely, this is due to investors downplaying the potential for the BoK to match Fed rate hikes tick-for-tick given the heightened tensions between the U.S. and North Korea. Chart 17Stay In Korea 2yr/10yr##BR##Government Bond Steepener Chart 18Long-Term Korean##BR##Yields Are Too Low We still believe the Korean curve can steepen as longer-term yields rise, although we will be monitoring the behavior of shorter-dated Korean yield as the situation between D.C. and Pyongyang evolves. If investors begin to demand a higher risk premium on Korean assets, particularly the Korean won, then 2-year Korean yields may rise much faster and our curve trade may not go our way. Robert Robis, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com Patrick Trinh, Associate Editor Patrick@bcaresearch.com Ray Park, Research Analyst ray@bcaresearch.com The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Recommendations Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Highlights High-Yield: High-Yield spreads are 149 bps away from being more expensive than they have ever been. But in the absence of inflation it is difficult to pinpoint a catalyst for sharp spread widening. We expect excess high-yield returns between 2% and 5% (annualized) during the next 6-12 months. EM Sovereigns: There is no compelling valuation argument in favor of hard currency EM Sovereign debt versus U.S. corporate bonds. We will look to shift into EM once the pace of Fed rate hikes starts to slow later in the cycle. Economy & Inflation: Core inflation disappointed expectations in September, but the details of the report showed some silver linings. Inflation looks to be past the worst of its downtrend and should be strong enough during the next two months for the Fed to lift rates in December. Feature Chart 110-Year Treasury Yield Breakdown Just past the three quarter mark of 2017 and stubbornly low inflation remains the story of the year in U.S. bond markets. Quite simply, if inflation rebounds during the next two-and-a-half months, as the Federal Reserve expects, then Treasury yields will move sharply higher and Treasury total returns for 2017 will be close to zero. Otherwise, yields are likely to remain near current levels and 2017 Treasury total returns will approximate carry, in the range of 2.5%. Our valuation framework for the 10-year Treasury yield underscores the importance of inflation for the duration call. The real 10-year Treasury yield (currently 0.43%) is consistent with market expectations for just under two Fed rate hikes during the next 12 months (Chart 1). With the median Fed member calling for 3-4 hikes during that period, the potential remains for somewhat higher real yields in the near-term. But with all but one Fed member forecasting a terminal fed funds rate of 3% or below (1% or below in real terms), the long-run upside in real yields appears limited. On the other hand, the compensation for inflation embedded in 10-year bond yields is still far too low. At 1.85%, the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate is well below the 2.4% to 2.5% range consistent with the Fed hitting its inflation target. This continues to be the case even as our Pipeline Inflation Indicator has accelerated in recent weeks (Chart 1, bottom panel). Bond investors are waiting for inflation to show up in the core CPI and PCE data before liquidating their positions. We retain our below-benchmark duration bias on a 6-12 month horizon on the view that inflation will soon resume its cyclical uptrend. 10-year inflation compensation has 55-65 bps of upside in this scenario, while 10-year real yields will probably stay close to current levels. The outlook for core inflation is discussed in more detail in the Economy & Inflation section below. High-Yield: Just A Carry Trade At this late stage of the credit cycle, low inflation is also the key support for excess returns in both investment grade and high-yield corporate bonds. We see limited scope for further spread tightening but think it's likely that the carry trade will continue until inflation turns the corner and long-maturity TIPS breakevens settle into the 2.4% to 2.5% range consistent with the Fed's target.1 In this week's report we explore what this carry trade means for excess high-yield returns, and put those returns into context with what the asset class has typically delivered for bond investors. Table 1 shows historical annual excess returns for the Bloomberg Barclays High-Yield index since 1995.2 On average High-Yield has returned 3.42% over Treasuries each year, but with significant variation. Most of that variation results from years when the default rate is either rising quickly during a recession or falling fast in the early stages of economic recovery. Since neither of those scenarios is likely during the next 6-12 months we filter out those periods by looking at years when the average index option-adjusted spread (OAS): Widened by more than 100 bps Tightened by more than 100 bps Was range bound between -100 bps and +100 bps The average excess return is 4.9% in years when the spread is confined to a -100 bps to +100 bps range. High-Yield has returned 5.46% in excess of Treasuries so far this year, and the OAS has tightened 61 bps. It is unlikely that junk spreads will tighten by 100 bps or more during the next 12 months. The average index OAS is currently 348 bps, only 115 bps above its all-time low (Chart 2). However, to properly assess current spread levels we also need to consider that the average index duration has declined during the past fifteen years. All else equal, the same spread level is more attractive today because index duration is lower. Table 1Historical Annual High-Yield##br## Excess Returns* (%) Chart 2Junk Spreads Not Far ##br##From All-Time Tights We adjust for index duration by looking at the 12-month breakeven spread.3 At 93 bps, the breakeven spread is currently 40 bps above its all-time low (Chart 2, bottom panel). In other words, at current duration levels, the junk OAS can tighten another 149 bps before the sector is more expensive than it has ever been. Either way, what's clear from Chart 2 is that we should probably not expect much more than 100 bps of further tightening this cycle. Or, put differently, it would definitely make sense to reduce high-yield exposure as we approach all-time expensive valuations. But we can get even more specific about our expectations for high-yield excess returns. Excess junk returns can be approximated using the following formula: Excess return = Starting OAS - Default Losses - Duration*(Change in OAS) The expected return from carry during the next 12 months can be thought of as today's index spread less our expectation for default losses. Capital gains and losses can be approximated using today's index duration and the expected change in spreads. For simplicity we ignore convexity effects. This excess return approximation is shown in the second panel of Chart 3, where the dashed line assumes a base case scenario where default losses fall in line with our expectation and the OAS remains flat. Table 2 shows what 12-month excess returns would be in this base case scenario, as well as in several other scenarios. Chart 3High-Yield ##br##Expected Returns Table 2High-Yield 12-Month Excess ##br##Return* Projections In a base case scenario, where default losses are 1.09% and the OAS is flat, we would expect excess junk returns of 2.39% during the next 12 months. In a more bullish scenario where the OAS tightens by another 100 bps - bringing it to within striking distance of all-time tights - we would expect excess returns of 6.15%. We also consider scenarios where default losses differ from our forecast of 1.09%. For context, that 1.09% forecast is derived from Moody's baseline default rate forecast of 2.26% and our own model-based recovery rate forecast of 51%. For example, in a scenario where default losses are somewhat higher than expected (2%) but where the OAS stays flat, we would expect excess returns of only 1.48%. We should note that 12-month high-yield default losses have never been lower than 0.5%. So we present that optimistic scenario as an upper-bound on potential excess returns to junk. Notice that even in the most optimistic scenario we can envision, default losses reaching all-time lows and spreads contracting to within a hair of all-time tights, expected excess high-yield returns still only reach 6.74%. We would view that as the absolute best case scenario for high-yield. Realistically, default losses will probably fall into a range between 1% and 2% during the next 12 months. Assuming also that spreads come under neither strong upward nor downward pressure, we would expect excess high-yield returns between 2% and 5% (annualized) during the next 6-12 months. Bottom Line: High-Yield spreads are 149 bps away from being more expensive than they have ever been. But in the absence of inflation it is difficult to pinpoint a catalyst for sharp spread widening. We expect excess high-yield returns between 2% and 5% (annualized) during the next 6-12 months. Is Hard Currency EM Debt A Substitute For Junk? Chart 4Favor U.S. Corporates Over EM Sovereigns With relatively feeble expected returns from U.S. high-yield bonds, it's logical to explore whether there are any more attractively valued alternatives in the U.S. bond universe. One potential candidate is the U.S. dollar denominated debt of Emerging Market governments. Unfortunately, valuation in that space does not look much better than in U.S. corporates. In an effort to control for differences in both credit rating and index duration, we compare 12-month breakeven spreads between the Bloomberg Barclays EM USD Sovereign Index and a credit rating matched benchmark consisting of a combination of U.S. investment grade and high-yield corporate bond indexes. We notice that hard currency EM Sovereigns and similarly rated U.S. corporate bonds offer almost exactly the same breakeven spread, and also that EM Sovereigns have been getting comparatively cheaper since early last year (Chart 4). At the moment there is no compelling argument to favor one sector over the other on pure valuation grounds. We therefore also consider the main macro drivers of relative excess returns between EM Sovereigns and U.S. corporates (Chart 4, bottom 2 panels). The last two significant periods of EM outperformance coincided with falling U.S. rate hike expectations - as evidenced by our declining fed funds discounter - and a weaker U.S. dollar. With our 24-month fed funds discounter at only 62 bps - meaning the market expects less than three rate hikes during the next 24 months - we think it is likely to move higher from here. This should lead to one more bout of EM cheapening relative to U.S. corporates. At that point, once we are past peak rate hike expectations for the cycle, we will likely get a more attractive entry point to move into EM. Interestingly, an examination of country level spreads also does not identify any clear pockets of cheapness in EM (Chart 5). Mexico and Turkey both offer similar breakeven spreads to equivalently rated U.S. corporates, but our Emerging Markets Strategy service has a dim view of both the Turkish Lira and Mexican peso versus the U.S. dollar.4 The higher-rated EM countries: Saudi Arabia, UAE and Qatar offer the most attractive relative spreads. But, at least for Qatar, that elevated spread is most likely compensation for a highly volatile currency (Chart 6).5 Chart 5Breakeven Spreads: USD EM Sovereign Vs. U.S. Corporates Chart 6USD EM Sovereign Breakeven Spread Differentials Vs. Exchange Rate Volatility Bottom Line: There is no compelling valuation argument in favor of hard currency EM Sovereign debt versus U.S. corporate bonds. We will look to shift into EM once the pace of Fed rate hikes starts to slow later in the cycle. Economy & Inflation Some Silver Linings In September's CPI The September CPI report was released last week and it disappointed expectations with core CPI rising only 0.13% month-over-month. For context, an environment where inflation is well anchored around the Fed's target would be consistent with core CPI prints of 0.2% every month, roughly 2.4% annualized. However, despite the disappointing month-over-month figure, we continue to see evidence that inflation is past the worst of its recent downtrend. First, while year-over-year core CPI was roughly flat in September, the 3-month rate of change increased for the fourth consecutive month. The year-over-year rate of change tends to converge toward the 3-month rate of change (Chart 7). Second, a look at the underlying components of core CPI shows the following (Chart 8): Chart 7CPI Inflation Chart 8Core CPI Components Shelter inflation fell from 3.30% to 3.24% year-over-year in September. This mild deceleration is consistent with the reading from our model, and will persist going forward (Chart 8, panel 1). Chart 9Wireless No Longer A Drag Core goods inflation also fell in September, but should soon start to rise as the weaker dollar and rising import prices pass through to overall core goods prices (Chart 8, panel 2). Core services inflation, excluding shelter and medical care, increased for the third consecutive month (Chart 8, panel 3). This component of inflation is most sensitive to wage growth, and it is where we would expect most of the inflation to come from going forward. Medical care inflation continues to decelerate sharply (Chart 8, bottom panel), but as we have discussed previously, this mostly reflects a convergence between CPI and PCE inflation.6 The Fed's 2% target refers to PCE inflation. The acceleration in core services inflation (excluding shelter and medical care) is particularly important as it is yet another signal that tight labor markets are starting to pressure wages higher. This is the dynamic that must continue to play out if inflation is to return to the Fed's target, and we would tend to view increases in inflation as more sustainable if they are driven by this component. Additionally, the critical core services inflation (excluding shelter and medical care) component has been depressed in recent months by an incredibly sharp decline in cellular service (aka wireless) inflation (Chart 9). The decline occurred when both Verizon and AT&T unveiled unlimited data plans in the same month, but that drop has since reversed. When we exclude wireless from core services inflation, in addition to shelter and medical care, we see that the resulting series tracks wage growth much more closely in recent months. This underscores our conviction that core services inflation will respond to tightening labor markets and mounting wage pressure going forward. Consumer Sentiment Is Sky High There was one other notable datapoint released last week, and that was the University of Michigan's Consumer Sentiment survey which surged to its highest level since 2004 (Chart 10)! This should lend support to consumer spending (and hence GDP growth) in Q3 and Q4 and is consistent with the message from the New York Fed's GDP tracking estimate which projects GDP growth to average 2.3% in the second half of 2017. This is well above the Fed's 1.8% estimate of trend. Chart 10Consumer Spending & Sentiment With growth coming in solidly above trend, it is unlikely that September's disappointing month-over-month CPI print will be enough to prevent the Fed from lifting rates in December. As long as inflation is flat or higher during the next two months, then another rate hike this year is probably in the cards. Bottom Line: Core inflation disappointed expectations in September, but the details of the report showed some silver linings. Inflation looks to be past the worst of its downtrend and should be strong enough during the next two months for the Fed to lift rates in December. Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Risk Rally Extended", dated June 27, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 Excess returns are calculated relative to a duration-matched position in Treasury securities. 3 The 12-month breakeven spread is the spread widening required on a 12-month investment horizon to deliver zero excess returns. For simplicity we ignore convexity effects and calculate the breakeven spread as OAS divided by duration. 4 For Turkey please see Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report, "Is The Dollar Expensive, And Are EM Currencies Cheap?" dated October 11, 2017. For Mexico please see Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report, "Questions From The Road", dated September 20, 2017. Both available at ems.bcaresearch.com 5 Both Saudi Arabia and UAE have pegged exchange rates and are not shown in Chart 6. 6 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "The Great Unwind", dated September 19, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

Highlights Year One Performance: The GFIS recommended model bond portfolio returned 1.1% (hedged into USD) in its first year of existence, slightly underperforming the custom benchmark index by -2bps. Our bearish duration tilts were a drag on performance, while our overweights to U.S. corporate debt were a major contributor. Risk Management Lessons: The maximum overweight to low-beta, but low-yielding, Japanese Government Bonds was a drag on performance by reducing the portfolio yield. This highlights the classic bond management trade-off between controlling portfolio risks, like duration or tracking error, and maximizing sources of return, like interest income. Future Drivers Of Returns: Over the next 6-12 months, we expect the model portfolio returns to again benefit mostly from our below-benchmark duration stance (as global bond yields grind higher) and from our overweight stance on U.S. corporates (as the U.S. economy maintains a solid pace of growth). Feature In September of 2016, we introduced a new element to the BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy (GFIS) service - our recommended model bond portfolio.1 This represented a bit of a departure from the usual macroeconomic analysis and forecasting of financial markets that has been the hallmark of BCA. Yet we felt that it was important to add an actual portfolio, with specific allocations and weightings, given the needs and constraints faced by our readers. With so many of our clients being traditional fixed income managers (or multi-asset managers) who measure investment performance versus benchmark indices, we felt that it was important to have a way to communicate our views within a framework akin to what they deal with each day. Even for clients who are not professional bond managers, the model portfolio can be useful as a way to express how much we prefer one bond market (or sector) versus others. It also gives us a forum to discuss portfolio management issues as an addition to the macro analysis. So far, the reception from clients to this new addition to the GFIS service has been a warm one, and we look forward to additional feedback in the months and years ahead. With the model portfolio just passing its first birthday, we are dedicating this Weekly Report to an overview of the final Year One performance numbers. We will evaluate our winning and losing recommendations, look back at the lessons learned as the model portfolio framework has evolved, and identify what we expect will be the biggest drivers of performance in Year Two based on our current views. Year One Model Portfolio Performance: Winners & Losers Chart 1GFIS Model Portfolio Performance The GFIS model portfolio produced a total return of 1.09% (hedged into U.S. dollars) over first full year since inception on September 20, 2016 (Chart 1). This essentially matched the performance of our custom benchmark index, with the model portfolio lagging by a mere -2bps.2 In terms of the breakdown between government bonds and credit (spread product), the former underperformed the benchmark by -18bps while the latter outperformed by +16bps. A more traditional period to evaluate investment performance is on a calendar year-to-date basis. We also show the 2017 year-to-date (YTD) numbers in Chart 1, measured from January 1st to October 3rd. Over that time period, the total returns are much higher - the model portfolio has returned 2.78%, lagging the index by -6bps. This higher absolute return is mostly due to the strong outperformance of corporate bond markets and the decline in government bond yields seen since March. Broadly speaking, that breakdown of returns lines up with what were our largest strategic market calls: to be underweight overall portfolio duration and overweight U.S. corporate bond exposure (bottom panel). This is obviously a welcome property to see in our returns, which we hope will always line up with our desired tilts! When looking at the detailed decomposition of the returns on the government bond side of the portfolio (Table 1), however, a few points stand out: Table 1A Detailed Breakdown Of The GFIS Model Portfolio The underperformance on the government bond side of the portfolio (Chart 2) came from underweight positions at the long-end (maturities beyond seven years) of yield curves in the U.S. (-4bps), U.K. (-5bps), Germany (-5bps) and, most notably, France (-18bps). Chart 2GFIS Model Portfolio Government Bond Performance Attribution By Country The underweight position in Italy, across the curve, generated another -7bps of underperformance, although this was paired against an overweight to Spanish government bonds that positively contributed to returns (+3bps). Overweights to bonds in the middle and shorter ends of yields curves (maturities less than seven years) positively contributed to returns in the U.S. (+6bps), Germany (+2bps) and France (+2bps). Our significant overweight to Japanese government bonds, intended as a way to reduce portfolio duration by increasing exposure to a market with a low beta to global bond yields, also helped boost performance (+8bps). The conclusion? By concentrating our recommended duration underweights on longer-maturity bonds, and raising the weightings on shorter-maturity government debt, we imparted a bearish curve steepening bias on top of the reduced duration exposure. It is no surprise that our recommended government bond allocations underperformed during the bull-flattening move in global yield curves seen earlier this year. By contrast, the returns on the credit (spread) product allocations within the GFIS model portfolio tell a more positive story (Chart 3): Chart 3GFIS Model Portfolio Spread Product Performance Attribution The outperformance came from our overweight allocations to U.S. Investment Grade (IG) corporate debt, focused on Financials (+14bps) and Industrials (+4bps), and U.S. High-Yield (HY), concentrated on Ba-rated (+13bps) and B-rated (+8bps) bonds. U.S. Mortgage-Backed Securities (MBS) were a laggard during the first year of the model bond portfolio (-12bps), which largely came from an ill-timed tactical move to overweight in the 4th quarter of 2016. More recently, our underweight stance on MBS has been only a modest drag on the total return of the portfolio since the peak in U.S. bond yields back in March. Our decisions to reduce exposure to Euro Area IG (-5bps) and HY (-2bps) corporate debt earlier in the year, and our more recent decision to downgrade Emerging Market (EM) sovereign (-1bp) and corporate debt (-4bps), were both small negative contributors to performance. Summing it all up, our spread product allocations performed well because of the overweight to U.S. IG and HY corporates. The underweights in Euro Area and EM credit were set up as relative value allocations versus U.S. equivalents, so the underperformance versus the benchmark should be viewed against the substantial outperformance from U.S. corporates. The MBS underperformance was small on a YTD basis, but we see an opportunity for that to soon turn around, as we discuss later. Bottom Line: The GFIS recommended model bond portfolio returned 1.1% (hedged into USD) in its first year of existence, slightly underperforming the custom benchmark index by -2bps. Our bearish duration tilts were a drag on performance, while our overweights to U.S. corporate debt were a major contributor. Lessons Learned On Risk Management As the first year of the GFIS model portfolio progressed, we added elements to the framework to help us manage the overall risk of the portfolio. Specifically, we began to include a tracking error calculation to show the relative volatility of the portfolio to its benchmark.3 When we first introduced that tracking error back in April, we were running far too little risk in the portfolio given the relatively modest position sizes (Chart 4). Rather than be an "index hugger", we decided to increase the sizes of all our relative tilts (Chart 5), and the tracking error rose accordingly from a mere 25bps to over 60bps. This is still below the 100bps limit that we decided to impose on the relative volatility of the model portfolio, but we were comfortable not running less-than-maximum risk given that valuations on many spread products were not extraordinarily cheap. The time to max out a risk budget is early in the credit cycle when spreads are wide, not when the cycle is far advanced and spreads are relatively tight. Yet one lesson that was learned in Year One was that too much focus on tracking error can result in lost opportunities to boost the performance of the portfolio. As part of our strategic call to maintain a below-benchmark overall duration stance, we upgraded Japan to maximum overweight in the model portfolio back on July 4th.4 With Japanese Government Bonds (JGBs) having such a low beta to yield changes in the overall Developed Markets (Chart 6), adding more Japan exposure was a way to get more defensive on duration in a way that would also boost our desired tracking error (since we were adding more of an asset less correlated to the other government bonds in the portfolio). Chart 4Tracking Error Of##BR##The Model Portfolio Chart 5Allocations Between##BR##Government Bonds & Spread Product Chart 6Are JGBs The##BR##Optimal Duration Hedge? Yet by increasing the allocation to low-beta JGBs, we were also adding exposure to "no-yield" JGBs. The overall yield of the model portfolio suffered as a result, fully offsetting the bump to the portfolio yield from the increase in allocations to spread product in April (Charts 7 & 8). With the benefit of hindsight, increasing the allocation even more to something like U.S. HY corporate bonds would have a been a more prudent way to redirect government bond exposure to a low-beta market that would have boosted the overall portfolio yield (Chart 9). Chart 7Too Much Japan##BR##In The Portfolio ... Chart 8... Offsetting The Yield Pick-Up##BR##From Spread Product Chart 9There Is Not Enough Yield##BR##In The Model Portfolio Going forward, we will pay more attention to managing the portfolio yield more actively as another piece of our model bond portfolio framework that can help boost expected returns. Bottom Line: The maximum overweight to low-beta, but low-yielding, Japanese Government Bonds was a drag on performance by reducing the portfolio yield. This highlights the classic bond management trade-off between controlling portfolio risks, like duration or tracking error, and maximizing sources of return, like interest income. The Outlook For The Next Year Looking towards the next twelve months, the biggest expected drivers of returns in our model bond portfolio are expected to come from the following allocations: Below-benchmark overall duration exposure: We are sticking to our guns on the future direction of global bond yields, which have more room to rise over the next 6-12 months. The coordinated global economic upturn is showing little sign of slowing, with leading indicators still rising and pointing to upward pressure on real bond yields (Chart 10). At the same time, inflation expectations in the developed economies remain too low relative to current levels of inflation (bottom panel). Thus, we expect government bond yield curves to bear-steepen as central banks will respond slowly to the rise in inflation. This will benefit the steepening bias we have in the model portfolio from the underweights in longer maturity buckets in the U.S., Europe and the U.K. (Chart 11). Chart 10Future Drivers Of Performance:##BR##Below-Benchmark Duration Chart 11An Unexpected##BR##Bull Flattening This Year Overweight U.S. corporate bonds (both IG and HY): Looking over the indicators from our U.S. Corporate Bond Checklist, the backdrop is not yet pointing to a period of expected underperformance for U.S. corporates (Chart 12). While balance sheet fundamentals do appear stretched, as indicated by our Corporate Health Monitor (2nd panel), the overall stance of U.S. monetary conditions is neutral (3rd panel), while bank lending standards are not yet restrictive (4th panel). We expect the Fed to deliver another 25bp rate hike in December, and at least another 2-3 hikes in 2018, which will shift monetary conditions into more restrictive territory. A very rapid rise in the U.S. dollar would worsen this trend, but we expect only a moderate grind higher in the greenback as the Fed slowly delivers additional rate hikes and non-U.S. growth remains robust. While the solid global economic backdrop should benefit all growth-sensitive assets like corporate debt, we see more attractive relative valuations on U.S. corporates versus Euro Area or EM equivalents. The upcoming tapering of asset purchases by the European Central Bank (ECB) also represents a major risk to Euro Area corporate debt, as the ECB will be slowing the pace of its corporate bond buying. One other sector that can potentially boost the portfolio performance in Year Two versus Year One is U.S. MBS. Our colleagues at our sister service, U.S. Bond Strategy, now see MBS valuations as looking attractive to other U.S. spread product like IG corporates (Chart 13).5 The relative option-adjusted spreads (OAS) on MBS and U.S. IG are a good leading indicator of the relative performance of the two asset classes and current spread levels should lead to a better return profile for MBS over IG. Another factor benefitting MBS is the continued rising trend in U.S. bond yields (and mortgage rates) that we expect over the next 6-12 months, which will reduce mortgage prepayments that would weigh on MBS returns (bottom panel). Chart 12Future Drivers Of Performance:##BR##Overweight U.S. Corporates Chart 13Upgrade U.S. MBS##BR##To Neutral This week, we are upgrading our MBS allocation to neutral from underweight in our model portfolio. However, given that our allocations to U.S. corporates are already fairly significant, we are choosing to "fund" the MBS upgrade by lowering our weighting on U.S. Treasuries (see the model portfolio allocations on Page 14). Bottom Line: Over the next 6-12 months, we expect the model portfolio returns to again benefit mostly from our below-benchmark duration stance (as global bond yields grind higher) and from our overweight stance on U.S. corporates (as the U.S. economy maintains a solid pace of growth). We are also now more constructive on valuations on U.S. MBS, thus we are upgrading our allocation to neutral at the expense of U.S. Treasuries. Robert Robis, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Model Special Report, "Introducing Our Recommended Global Fixed Income Portfolio", dated September 20th, 2016, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 2 The GFIS model portfolio custom benchmark index can most simply be described as the Barclays Global Aggregate Index, but with allocations to global high-yield corporate debt replacing very highly-rated spread product. We believe this to be more indicative of the typical internal benchmark used by global multi-sector fixed income managers. 3 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report, "Adding A Risk Management Framework To Our Model Bond Portfolio", dated June 20th 2017, available at gfis.bcareseach.com. 4 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "Central Banks Are Now Playing Catch-Up", dated July 4th 2017, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see BCA U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Dollar Watching: Yet Another Debate", dated October 10th 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com. The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Appendix - Selected Sectors From The GFIS Model Portfolio Recommendations Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns