Global

Highlights Q3/2018 Performance Breakdown: The Global Fixed Income Strategy (GFIS) recommended model bond portfolio outperformed its custom benchmark in the third quarter of 2018 by +9bps. This raised the overall 2018 year-to-date performance to +6bps. Winners & Losers: The outperformance came mostly from our defensive duration positioning, which benefitted as global bond yields rose during the quarter, but also from successful country selection (overweight Australia & New Zealand, underweight the U.S., Canada & Italy). Our underweight tilts on EM credit were the largest drag on performance after the sharp EM rally in September. Scenario Analysis: The combination of defensive overall duration positioning and underweight allocations to EM and European credit should allow the model bond portfolio to outperform its custom benchmark index over the next year. Feature This week, we present the performance numbers of the BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy (GFIS) model bond portfolio for the 3rd quarter of 2018. We also update our scenario analysis of the future expected performance of the portfolio based on the risk-factor based return forecasting framework we introduced earlier this year. As a reminder to existing readers (and for new clients), the portfolio is a part of our service that is meant to complement the usual macro analysis of global fixed income markets. The model portfolio is how we communicate our opinion on the relative attractiveness between government bond and spread product sectors, by applying actual percentage weightings to each of our recommendations within a fully invested hypothetical bond portfolio. Broadly speaking, the portfolio did slightly outperform its benchmark index over the past three months, driven mostly by defensive duration positioning during a period of rising developed market bond yields. The portfolio would have done considerably better if not for a September rally in emerging market (EM) credit that flew in the face of our maximum underweight position in EM. We still have strong conviction in those two main themes - higher global bond yields and EM underperformance - and we fully expect our model portfolio to generate larger outperformance over the next year. Q3/2018 Model Portfolio Performance Breakdown: Duration Underweights Pay Off The total return of the GFIS model bond portfolio was +0.12% (hedged into U.S. dollars) in the third quarter of the year, which outperformed the custom benchmark index by +9bps (Chart of the Week).1 The main driver of the outperformance was our structural below-benchmark portfolio duration stance, which benefited as the overall Bloomberg Barclays Global Treasury Index yield rose to 1.54% - the highest level since April 2014. The portfolio's excess return got as high as +19bps on September 4th, before seeing some pullback in recent weeks as our main spread product tilt - underweight EM hard currency sovereign and corporate debt - enjoyed a counter-trend rally in September from the bearish spread widening seen since the start of 2018. Chart of the WeekDefensive Duration Stance = Q3 Outperformance Table 1GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q3/2018 Overall Return Attribution In terms of the specific breakdown between the government bond and spread product allocations in our model portfolio, the former generated +17bps of outperformance versus our custom benchmark index while the latter lagged the benchmark by -8bps (Table 1). The bar charts showing the total and relative returns for each individual government bond market and spread product sector are presented in Charts 2 and 3. Chart 2GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q3/2018 Government##BR##Bond Performance Attribution By Country Chart 3GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q3/2018 Spread##BR##Product Performance Attribution By Sector The main individual sectors of the portfolio that drove the excess returns were the following: Biggest outperformers Underweight Japanese government bonds (JGBs) with maturities beyond 10 years (+7bps) Underweight U.S. Treasuries with maturities beyond 7 years (+6bps) Underweight French government bonds with maturities beyond 7 years (+2bps) Underweight Italian government bonds (+2bps) Overweight JGBs with maturities up to 10 years (+1bp) Biggest underperformers Underweight EM USD-denominated sovereign debt (-3bps) Underweight EM USD-denominated corporate debt (-3bps) Underweight euro area investment grade corporate debt (-2bps) Underweight euro area high-yield corporate debt (-1bp) Chart 4 presents the ranked benchmark index returns of the individual countries and spread product sectors in the GFIS model bond portfolio. The returns are hedged into U.S. dollars (we do not take active currency risk in this portfolio) and also adjusted to reflect duration differences between each country/sector and the overall custom benchmark index for the model portfolio. We have also color coded the bars in each chart to reflect our recommended investment stance for each market during the third quarter (red for underweight, blue for overweight, gray for neutral weight). Chart 4Ranking The Winners & Losers From The Model Portfolio In Q3/2018 Spread product sectors dominate the left half of that chart, as credit spreads have tightened across the board since the early September peak. The best performing sector during Q3 in our model portfolio universe was EM hard currency sovereign debt, which has delivered a total return of +2.8% since September 4th (with spreads tightening by 50bps) after losing -0.7% in July and August. Similar performance stories occurred in corporate debt in the U.S. and Europe during the quarter. That credit outperformance comes after the sustained spread widening seen in virtually all global credit markets (excluding U.S. high-yield) since January of this year. The main drivers that prompted that widening - Fed tightening, a stronger U.S. dollar, diminishing asset purchases from the European Central Bank (ECB) and Bank of Japan (BoJ), some cyclical slowing of non-U.S. growth - are still in place. With our geopolitical strategists continuing to highlight the additional risks of U.S.-China and U.S.-Iran tensions intensifying after next month's U.S. Midterm elections, a cautious stance on global spread product - as we have maintained since downgrading our recommended overall credit exposure to neutral in late June - is still warranted.2 Outside of spread product, our model portfolio tilts generally lined up with the sector returns shown in Chart 4. We have overweights on two of the best performing government bond markets (Australia and New Zealand) and underweights on three of the worst performers (U.S., Canada, Italy). Interestingly, despite having overweights on two of the worst performing government bond markets - Japan and the U.K. - the excess return contribution from those countries did not hurt the model bond portfolio return in Q3 (+8bps and 0bps, respectively). This was due to the curve steepening bias embedded within our overweight country tilts (i.e. more duration allocated to shorter-maturity buckets, see the model portfolio details on Page 14), which benefitted as yield curves in those countries bear-steepened. Net-net, we are satisfied with the modest portfolio outperformance seen in Q3, given that the rally in global credit markets went against our more defensive posture on spread product exposure. Bottom Line: The GFIS recommended model bond portfolio outperformed its custom benchmark in the third quarter of 2018 by +9bps. This put the overall 2018 year-to-date performance into positive territory (+6bps). The outperformance came entirely from our defensive duration positioning, which benefitted as global bond yields rose during the quarter, and from successful country selection. Our underweight tilts on EM credit were the largest drag on performance after the sharp EM rally in September. Future Drivers Of Portfolio Returns Looking ahead, the performance of the model bond portfolio will continue to benefit from two primary trends: rising global bond yields and growth divergences that continue to favor the U.S. In terms of the specific weightings in the GFIS model bond portfolio, we still prefer owning U.S. corporate debt versus equivalents in Europe and EM. When we downgraded our recommended allocation to U.S. and investment grade corporates to neutral from overweight back in July, we also cut the portfolio exposure to euro area corporates, as well as to all EM hard currency debt, to underweight. The latter changes were necessary to maintain our desired higher exposure to U.S. corporate debt versus non-U.S. corporates, although it did leave the model portfolio with a small overall underweight stance on global spread product (Chart 5). Importantly, we are maintaining a below-benchmark stance on overall portfolio duration, which is now one full year shorter than our benchmark index duration (Chart 6), even as we have grown more cautious on credit exposure. This is because we still see potential medium-term upward pressure on bond yields coming from tightening monetary policies (Fed rate hikes, ECB tapering of bond purchases) and increasing inflation expectations. The majority of global central bankers are dealing with tight labor markets and slowly rising inflation rates. While global growth has cooled a bit from the rapid pace seen in 2017, it has not been by enough to force policymakers to shift to a more dovish bias. Chart 5Spread Product Allocation:##BR##Neutral U.S., Underweight Non-U.S. Chart 6Maintaining##BR##Below-Benchnmark Duration Our underweights on EM and euro area spread product have left the portfolio in a "negative carry" position where it yields 34bps less than the benchmark index (Chart 7). In a backdrop of stable markets and low volatility, being short carry will be a drag on the model bond portfolio performance as we saw over the past month. Yet we do not see the recent market calm as being sustainable, with all plausible outcomes pointing to more volatile markets, largely driven by U.S.-centric events (more Fed tightening, a stronger dollar, U.S. growth convergence to slower non-U.S. growth, increased trade protectionism, higher oil prices due to U.S.-Iran tensions). We continue to suggest a cautious allocation of investor risk budgets against this backdrop. We have been targeting a tracking error (relative volatility versus the benchmark) for our model bond portfolio in the 40-60bp range, well below our 100bps maximum. Our current allocations give us a tracking error right at the bottom of that range (Chart 8).3 Chart 7The Cost Of Being More Defensive On Credit Chart 8Maintaining A Cautious Allocation Of The Risk Budget Scenario Analysis & Return Forecasts Back in April of this year, we introduced a framework for estimating total returns for all government bond markets and spread product sectors, based on common risk factors.4 For credit, returns are estimated as a function of changes in the U.S. dollar, the Fed funds rate, oil prices and market volatility as proxied by the VIX index (Table 2A). For government bonds, non-U.S. yield changes are estimated using historical betas to changes in U.S. Treasury yields (Table 2B). This framework allows us to conduct scenario analysis based on projected returns for each asset class in the model bond portfolio universe by making assumptions on those individual risk factors. Table 2AFactor Regressions Used To Estimate##BR##Spread Product Yield Changes Table 2BEstimated Government Bond##BR##Yield Betas To U.S. Treasuries With these tools, we than can attempt to forecast returns for each bond sector under different scenarios. We can then use those forecasts to predict the expected return for our model bond portfolio under those same scenarios. In Tables 3A & 3B. we show three differing scenarios, with all the following changes occurring over a one-year horizon. Table 3AScenario Analysis For The GFIS Model Portfolio Table 3BU.S. Treasury Yield Assumptions For The Scenario Analysis Our Base Case: the Fed delivers another 100bps of rate hikes, the U.S. dollar rises +5%, oil prices rise by +10%, the VIX index increases by five points from current levels, and U.S. Treasury yields rise by 40bps across the curve. A Very Hawkish Fed: the Fed delivers 150bps of rate hikes, the U.S. dollar rises by +10%, oil prices rise by +10%, the VIX index increases by ten points from current levels and there is a sharp bear flattening of the U.S. Treasury curve (2yr yield +75bps, 10yr yield +40bps). A Very Dovish Fed: the Fed only hikes rates by 25bps, the U.S. dollar falls by -5%, oil prices fall by -20%, the VIX index increases by fifteen points from current levels and there is a modest bull steepening of the U.S. Treasury curve. In this scenario, the Fed puts the rate hiking cycle on hold in response to a sharp tightening of U.S. financial conditions. Table 3A shows the expected returns for all three scenarios based on our risk-factor framework. The model bond portfolio is expected to outperform the custom benchmark index in all three scenarios we have laid out. This occurs even with the negative carry coming from the credit underweights in EM and Europe, with losses from credit spread widening projected to be larger than the yield give-up from being underweight. The excess returns are modest, however, with only 6bps of outperformance expected in our base case scenario and 13bps expected in the "Very Hawkish Fed" and "Very Dovish Fed" scenarios. This return distribution, with better outcomes occurring in the "tails", is a desirable property to have as it relates to the VIX/volatility forecasts embedded in the scenarios. Both of the non-base case scenarios have a higher VIX (Chart 9), even in the case of the "Very Dovish Fed" outcome where a severe U.S. financial market selloff (coming complete with a higher VIX) would be the necessary trigger for the Fed to reverse course and begin cutting interest rates (Chart 10). Such a backdrop would obviously hurt our below-benchmark duration stance, but would help our underweight EM/Europe spread product recommendations. Chart 9Risk Factors For Scenario Analysis Chart 10UST Yield Moves For Scenario Analysis Of course, our recommendations will not be static at current levels throughout the next twelve months. We increasingly expect that our next major allocation move will be downgrade U.S. spread product exposure and raise U.S. Treasury allocations, especially after the Fed delivers a few more 25bps-per-quarter rate hikes and the U.S. dollar rises further. This will provide a boost to the portfolio's expected returns through renewed spread widening and, potentially, a reduction of our below-benchmark overall duration stance as Treasury yields reach likely cyclical peaks. Bottom Line: The combination of defensive overall duration positioning and underweight allocations to EM and European credit should allow the model bond portfolio to outperform its custom benchmark index over the next year. Robert Robis, CFA, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com 1 The GFIS model bond portfolio custom benchmark index is the Bloomberg Barclays Global Aggregate Index, but with allocations to global high-yield corporate debt replacing very high quality spread product (i.e. AA-rated). We believe this to be more indicative of the typical internal benchmark used by global multi-sector fixed income managers. 2 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "Time To Take Some Chips Off The Table: Downgrade Global Spread Product Exposure To Neutral", dated June 26th 2018, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 3 In general, we aim to target a tracking error no greater than 100bps. We think this is reasonable for a portfolio where currency exposure is fully hedged and less than 5% of the portfolio benchmark is in bonds with ratings below investment grade. 4 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q1/2018 Performance Review: A Rough Start", dated April 10th 2018, available at gfis.bcareseach.com. Recommendations Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Highlights Recommended Allocation We don't see any change over the next six to 12 months to the current trends of strong U.S. growth, continuing Fed hikes, rising long-term interest rates, and an appreciating dollar. We stay neutral on global equities and continue to favor the U.S. and, to a degree, Japan. Given rising rates, a strengthening dollar, ongoing trade war and moderate slowdown in China, we expect EM assets to sell off further. We forecast the 10-year U.S. Treasuries yield to rise to 3.5% by H1 2019, and so we stay underweight fixed income, short duration, and continue to prefer TIPs. We are only neutral on credit within the (underweight) fixed-income bucket. We shift our equity sector weightings to reflect the GICS recategorization. We recommend a neutral on the new internet-heavy Communication sector, and underweight on Real Estate. We have a somewhat defensive sector bias, with overweights in Consumer Staples and Healthcare. Alternative risk assets, such as private equity and real estate, look increasingly overheated. We prefer hedge funds and farmland at this stage of the cycle. Overview More Of The Same When there's been a strong trend, it's always tempting to be contrarian and argue for a reversal. Tempting but, at the moment, we think wrong. This year has been characterized by a strong U.S. economy but slowing growth elsewhere, the outperformance of U.S. equities (up 10% year-to-date, compared to a 4% decline in the rest of the world), rising U.S. interest rates, dollar appreciation, and a big sell-off in emerging markets. While a short-term correction is always possible, we don't see a fundamental end to these trends over the next 6 to 12 months. Chart 1U.S. Growth Still Looks Strong Chart 2Growth In Europe And Japan Has Slipped U.S. growth is likely to remain strong. Consumer and business sentiment are both close to record highs; wage growth is beginning (finally) to accelerate; capex intentions are buoyant; and fiscal stimulus will add 0.7% to GDP growth this year and 0.8% next, as the budget deficit widens to close to 6% of GDP (Chart 1). Europe and Japan, by contrast, have slowed this year: both are more exposed to emerging markets than is the U.S.; fiscal policy in neither is particularly accommodative; and European banks suffer from weak loan growth and their EM exposure (Chart 2). The one trigger that would cause global ex-U.S. growth to accelerate relative to U.S. growth is a massive stimulus in China similar to 2009 and 2015. We think this unlikely because the authorities have reiterated their commitment to deleveraging and structural reform. Chinese credit growth and money supply data have as yet shown no signs of picking up, but they should be monitored carefully (Chart 3). Chart 3Chinese Stimilus, What Stimilus? Chart 4Republicans Like Trump's Tough Trade Talk An end to the trade war might also reverse the trends. U.S. markets have shrugged off the risk of escalating retaliatory tariffs on the (reasonable) grounds that trade has relatively little impact on the U.S. It is hard to see an end-game to the tariff war. President Trump's popularity has risen since he got tough on trade (Chart 4). He has changed his mind on many areas of policy during his career, but he's always consistently argued that the U.S. deficit shows that its trading partners treat it unfairly. The probability is high that the 10% tariff on $200 billion of Chinese goods will rise to 25% in January, and is eventually extended to all Chinese imports. It is equally unlikely that Xi Jinping will make concessions, since he can't be seen to bend to U.S. pressure and won't put at risk the crucial "Made in China 2025" plan. Chart 5Phillips Curve Working Again Although tariffs may not hurt U.S. growth much, they could be inflationary. The price of washing machines, the subject of the earliest tariffs in January, rose by 18% over the next four months. This is just another reason why it's unlikely that the Fed will slow its pace of rate hikes. With the labor market now clearly tight, there are signs that the Phillips curve is beginning to reassert itself (Chart 5), and wage growth is accelerating. With core PCE inflation at its 2% target and the impact of fiscal stimulus still coming through, the Fed will feel comfortable about maintaining its current schedule of one 25 basis point hike a quarter until there are signs that the economy is slowing.1 Could the sell-off in emerging markets cause the Fed to move to hold? In the 1990s Asia Crisis, only when the fall in Asian stocks started to affect the U.S. economy (with, for example, the manufacturing ISM going below 50) and the U.S. stock market, did the Fed ease policy (Chart 6). Eventually, the slowdown in the rest of the world might start to hurt the U.S. In the past, when the global ex-U.S. Leading Economic Indicator has fallen below zero, it has usually been followed by U.S. growth also faltering (Chart 7). Chart 6In 1998, Fed Cut Only When EM Hurt The U.S. Chart 7When The World Slows, Often U.S. Does Too Table 1What To Watch For Having in June lowered our recommendation on global equities to neutral (but keeping our overweight on U.S. stocks), we continue to monitor the factors that would make us turn negative on risk assets (Table 1 and Chart 8). None of them is yet flashing a warning signal, but it seems likely that we will need to move to an outright defensive stance sometime in H1 2019. One final key thing to watch: any signs that U.S. earnings growth is slipping. Much of the outperformance of U.S. equities this year is simply explained by better earnings growth, partly due to the tax cuts. Analysts' forecasts for 2019 have so far been very stable. If they start to be revised down, perhaps because of higher wages and export sales being dampened by the strong dollar, that would also be a signal to switch out of U.S. equities (Chart 9). Chart 8What To Watch For? Chart 9Will Analysts Revise Down EPS Forecasts? Garry Evans, Senior Vice President Global Asset Allocation garry@bcaresearch.com What Our Clients Are Asking Is The Fed Turning Dovish? Chart 10Fed Policy Still Accomodative Many investors interpreted Fed Chair Powell's speech at Jackson Hole in August dovishly. Powell questioned whether "policymakers should navigate by [the] stars": r* (the neutral rate of interest) and u* (the natural rate of unemployment), since these are uncertain. He emphasized that policy will be data dependent. We read it differently. Powell also pointed out that "inflation is near our 2 percent objective, and most people who want a job are finding one", and concluded that a "gradual process of normalization remains appropriate". A speech in September by Lael Brainard, a dovish FOMC member, reinforced this. She separated the long-run neutral rate (the terminal rate in the Fed dot plot) from the short-term neutral rate (Chart 10, panel 1). Her conclusion was that "with fiscal stimulus in the pipeline and financial conditions supportive of growth, the shorter-run neutral interest rate is likely to move up somewhat further, and it may well surpass the long-run equilibrium rate." In other words, the Fed needs to continue its gradual pace of hikes. The market does not see it that way. Futures markets have priced in that the Fed will raise rates until June (when the Fed Funds Rate will be 2.75-3% in nominal terms) and then stop (panel 2). But this implies that the Fed will halt once the FFR is at the (current estimate of the) neutral rate. But inflation is likely to pick up further over the next 12 months. And the Fed is worried that, despite rate hikes, financial conditions haven't tightened much (panel 3). So we expect the Fed to keep tightening until there are signs that growth is slowing. Is The Worst Over For Emerging Markets? Chart 11Excess Debt Is Underlying Cause Of EM Sell-Off Since the plunge in the Argentinian peso and Turkish lira, currencies in most emerging markets have fallen sharply. Does this present a buying opportunity for investors, or is there more contagion to come? While a short-term rebound is not impossible, we remain very negative on the outlook for most emerging market assets. Fed policy and rising U.S. interest rates can be seen as the trigger for, but not the underlying cause of, the recent sell-off. Since 1980 (Chart 11), there have been only two instances where EM stock prices collapsed amid rising U.S. rates: the 1982 Latin American debt crisis and the 1994 Mexican Tequila crisis. But both occurred because of poor EM fundamentals. We see similar underlying problems today. EM dollar-denominated debt as a share of GDP and exports is as high as it was during the Asia Crisis in the late 1990s. In addition, the EM business cycle will continue to decelerate in the medium term, as evidenced by falling manufacturing PMIs. Consequently, EM corporate earnings growth is slowing, and we expect it to fall meaningfully in this downturn. EM economies have become increasingly dependent on Chinese growth for their export demand. China is slowing, but we expect limited credit and fiscal stimulus from the authorities given their shift in focus towards de-leveraging and reforming the financial sector. Additionally, global trade is also weakening as seen by falling Asian exports and sluggish container freight movements. EM central banks have responded to currency weakness by raising rates, which in turn will lead to rising local currency bond yields and tightening financial conditions. A tightening of liquidity will slow money and credit creation, ultimately weighing on domestic demand. Moreover, with an accelerating U.S. economy, the U.S. dollar will continue to strengthen, eventually tightening global liquidity. We continue to advocate an underweight position in EM assets. Share prices will not bottom until EM interest rates fall on a sustainable basis, or until valuations reach clearly over-sold levels, which they have not yet. Chart 12The New Sectors Look Very Different What Just Happened To GICS? Following Real Estate's 2016 separation from Financials to become the 11th sector within GICS, September 28 2018 marked an even more disruptive change to equity classification. The change, aimed at keeping up with innovation and the current market structure, affects three of the 11 sectors: Telecommunication Services, Consumer Discretionary, and Information Technology (Chart 12). In short, the Telecommunication Services sector, once a value, low-weight, low-beta, high-yield, defensive sector is broadened and renamed Communication Services, offering broad-based coverage of content on various internet and media platforms. It includes the Media group, as well as selected companies from Internet & Direct Marketing Retail, taken out of Consumer Discretionary. Additionally, selected companies from the Internet Software & Services, as well as Application and Home Entertainment Software move into the new sector from IT. The E-commerce group also grows, with selected companies moving out of IT into Consumer Discretionary. Telecom/Communication, which previously behaved like Utilities, has turned into a high-growth, low-dividend sector. It is also a cyclical rather than defensive. It should trade at much higher multiples than its previous incarnation. IT is also no longer be the same. The sector, which once represented nearly 20% of the ACWI index, has shrunk to 13%, now mostly comprises hardware and software companies, after losing constituents such as Alphabet, Facebook, and Tencent. Chart 13Three Ideas To Enhance Risk-Adjusted Return Where To Find Yield In A Low-Return Environment? BCA's House View in June downgraded equities to neutral and moved cash to overweight. For U.S. investors, holding cash is quite attractive, as the yield on three-month Treasury bills is above 2%, higher than the 1.8% dividend yield on equities. But investors in Europe and Japan face negative yields on cash. Our recent Special Report analyzed three investment instruments that could enhance a balanced portfolio's risk-adjusted returns (Chart 13).2 Floating-Rate Notes. FRNs tend to be issued by government-sponsored enterprises and investment-grade corporations. They offer a nice yield pick-up over short-term U.S. Treasuries with significantly shorter duration. However, they do carry credit risk and so performed poorly in the 2007-9 recession. We, therefore, recommend investors fund these positions from their high-yield bucket. Leveraged Loans. These are floating-rate senior-secured bank loans. However, secured does not mean safe. Most are sub-investment grade and can be very illiquid, because physical delivery is often needed. They tend to be positively correlated with junk bonds but negatively correlated with the aggregate bond index. This suggests that adding bank loans to a portfolio can add diversification, and that replacing some high-yield holdings with bank loans can generate a sub-investment grade basket with a better risk/reward profile. Danish Mortgage Bonds. DMBs are covered mortgage bonds, with an average duration of five years and offering a yield to maturity of around 2% in Danish Krone. They have a strong track record: not a single bond has defaulted in the 200-year history of the market. This makes the market very attractive to euro zone and Japanese investors struggling with low bond yields. We find that adding DMBs to a standard bond portfolio significantly improves its risk/return profile. The main snags are that this is a fairly small market with a total outstanding market value of DKR2.7 trillion (around USD400 billion) - and is already 23% owned by foreigners. Global Economy Overview: The global economy will continue to be characterized by significant divergences. U.S. growth remains robust, pushing up inflation to the Fed's 2% target. By contrast, European and Japanese growth has weakened so far this year, meaning that central banks there remain cautious about tightening. Meanwhile, emerging markets will continue to deteriorate, faced with an appreciating dollar, rising U.S. interest rates, and lack of a big stimulus in China. U.S.: The ISM manufacturing index hit a 14-year high, above 60, in September before falling back slightly, to 59.8, in October. Core PCE inflation has reached 2%, the Fed's target. Wage growth, as measured by average hourly earnings, has finally begun to accelerate, reaching 2.9% YoY. With consumption and capex likely to remain robust, and the effect of fiscal stimulus not peaking until early next year, the U.S. economy will continue to grow strongly through 2019 (Chart 14). Only the recent slowdown in housing (probably caused by higher interest rates) remains a concern, but the sector is probably too small to derail overall economic growth. Chart 14Divergences Continue: U.S. Strong... Chart 15...Rest Of The World Weakening Euro Area: The decline in growth momentum seen since the start of the year has probably now bottomed. Both the PMI and ZEW indexes appear to have stabilized at a moderately positive level (Chart 15, panel 1). Core CPI inflation remains stable at about 1%, though headline inflation has been pushed up by higher oil prices. In this environment the ECB will be slow to raise rates, probably waiting until September next year and then hiking by only 10 basis points. Japan: The external sector has weakened, as shown by the industrial production data and leading economic indicators, probably because of slowing growth in China. However the domestic sector is showing signs of life, with corporate profits growing by more than 20% year-on-year, and capex rising at a rapid pace (6.4% YoY in Q2). However core inflation remains barely above zero, and therefore the Bank of Japan will continue its Yield Curve Control policy for the foreseeable future. Emerging Markets: Chinese growth continues to slow moderately, with the Caixin manufacturing PMI exactly at 50 (Chart 15, panel 3). The key question now is whether the authorities will implement massive stimulus, as they did in 2009 and 2015. The PBOC has cut rates and the government announced that it is bringing forward some fiscal spending. But the priority remains to deleverage and push ahead with structural reform. We do not expect, therefore, to see a significant acceleration of credit growth. Elsewhere in EM, central banks have significantly raised interest rates to defend their currencies, and this is likely to trigger recession in many countries within the next six months. Interest rates: Monetary policy divergences are likely to continue. The Fed will hike by 25 basis points a quarter until there are signs that growth is slowing and that tightness in the labor market is easing. Inflation is not showing signs of dramatic acceleration but, with the labor market so tight, the Fed will want to take out insurance against a future sharp rise. By contrast, the ECB and BOJ have no need to tighten (Chart 15, panel 4). Accordingly, we expect to see US long-term interest rates rise, with the 10-year Treasury bond yield reaching 3.5% in the first half of 2019. Chart 16When Will Earnings Turn Down? Global Equities Stay Cautious: We turned cautious on equities in the previous Quarterly Strategy Outlook,3 by upgrading the low-beta U.S. equity market to overweight at the expense of the high-beta euro area, by taking profit in our pro-cyclical tilt and moving to more defensive sectors, and by maintaining our core position of overweight DM relative to EM. Those moves proved to be effective as DM outperformed EM by 6%, the U.S. outperformed the euro area by 7.5%, and defensives outperformed cyclicals by 1.2%. Because of the sharp underperformance of EM equities relative to DM peers, it's tempting to bottom-fish EM equities. However, we suggest investors refrain from such an urge because we think it's too early to take such risk (see nexts section below). We therefore maintain our defensive tilts in both regional and country allocation and global sector allocation (see table at the end of the report). Equity valuations are less stretched than at the beginning of the year, due to strong earnings growth. However, BCA's global earnings model shows that earnings growth will slow significantly next year (Chart 16, panels 1 & 2). With earnings growth for every sector in positive territory, and the DM profit margin near a historical high, it would not take much for analysts to revise down earnings expectations (bottom 3 panels). Reflecting the GICS sector reclassification, we have initiated a neutral on the Communication sector and an underweight on the Real Estate sector. Chart 17EM Underperformance To Continue Continue To Underweight EM Vs. DM Equities Underweight EM equities vs. the DM counterparts has been a core position in GAA's global equity portfolio (in U.S. dollars and unhedged) this year. Despite the significant performance divergence over the past few months, we recommend investors continue to underweight EM equities, for the following reasons: First, BCA's House View is for the U.S. dollar to strengthen further, especially against EM currencies. This does not bode well for the EM equity performance relative to DM equities, given the close correlation of this with EM currencies (Chart 17, panel 1); Second, Chinese economic growth plays an important role in the EM economy. China's large weight in the EM equity index also makes the link prominent. With increasing concern from the trade war with the U.S., Chinese imports are likely to deteriorate, implying the sell-off in EM shares may have further to go (panel 2); Third, EM earnings growth is closely correlated with money supply as shown in panel 3. Forward earnings growth will have to be revised down given the slowing in money growth. Finally, even though EM equity valuations are now cheap on an absolute basis, EM equities have mostly traded in history at a discount to DM. Currently, the discount is still in line with historical averages (panel 4). Chart 18Real Estate Sector Looks Vulnerable Sector Allocation: Underweight on Real Estate and Neutral on Communication With the recently implemented GICS reclassification, involving the creation of a new Communication Services Sector by moving the media component in Consumer Discretionary and the internet companies in IT to the old Telecom Services sector (see section below for more details), we are reviewing our global sector allocations. Since we were already neutral on IT and Telecom Services, and since the new Communication sector is dominated by internet companies, it's natural to be neutral on the new Communication sector. Real Estate was lifted out of the Financials sector in 2016 to be a separate sector. But we did not include this sector previously in our recommendations because it mostly consists of commercial real estate (CRE) investment trusts. In our alternative asset coverage, we had preferred direct real estate due to its lower correlation with equities in general. In July this year, however, we downgraded exposure to direct real estate.4 It's much easier to reduce REITS holdings than direct CREs. As such, we take this opportunity to initiate an underweight on the Real Estate sector, mainly because of the less favorable conditions in both the macro backdrop and industry fundamentals. From a macro perspective, the tailwind from declining interest rates has turned into a headwind as interest rates rise. Over the past few years, the relative performance of Real Estate to the overall equity index has been closely correlated with the rise and fall of the long-term interest rates. BCA expects 10-year interest rates to trend higher. This does not bode well for the sector's equity performance going forward (Chart 18, panel 1). Industry fundamentals look vulnerable as well. The occupancy rate has already started to decline (panel 2). CRE prices have been making new highs on an inflation-adjusted basis, fueled by a historically high level of CRE loans and low level of loan delinquencies (Chart 18, panels 3 and 4). All these make the CRE sector extremely vulnerable. Government Bonds Maintain Slight Underweight On Duration. The U.S. 10-year government bond yield traded in a tight range in Q3 between 2.8% and 3.1%. With the current yield at 3.07% and the most recent inflation reading below expectations, it's tempting to take a less bearish view on duration, especially given the weakness in EM economies and EM asset prices. We agree that the spillover from weak global growth into the U.S. might cause the Fed to pause its gradual 25bps-per-quarter rate hike cycle at some point in 2019; however, markets currently have priced in only two rate hikes in the entire year of 2019, which means the risk is already priced in. With increasing pressure from rising supply, we still see rates rising over the next 9-12 months and so our short duration recommendation for government bonds is unchanged (Chart 19). Chart 19Rising Supply Will Push Up Rates Chart 20TIPS Breakevens Have A Little Further To Go Favor Linkers Vs. Nominal Bonds. BCA's U.S. Bond Strategy still believes that the U.S. TIPS break-evens will reach to our target range of 2.3%-2.5% because core inflation should remain close to the Fed's 2% target going forward. The latest NFIB survey supports this view as wage pressure is still on the rise, with reports of compensation increases near a record high (Chart 20). Compared to the current breakeven level of 2.1%, this means 10-year TIPS have upside of 20-40bp, an important source of return in the low-return fixed-income space. Maintain overweight TIPS vs. nominal bonds. However, TIPS are no longer cheap. For those who have not already moved to overweight TIPS, we suggest "buying TIPS on dips". Inflation-linked bonds (ILBs) in Australia and Japan are also still very attractive vs. their respective nominal bonds. Overweighting ILBs in those two markets also fits well with our macro themes. Corporate Bonds Chart 21Spreads Not Attractive After being overweight for over two years, last quarter we turned neutral on corporates, including high-yield credits, within a global bond portfolio. Developed market corporate bonds have performed poorly in 2018 led by weak returns in the Financials sector and steepening credit curves.5 On the positive side, global corporate health (Chart 21) has been improving, led by the resilience of the U.S. economy and tax cuts that have put corporations in a cyclically healthier position. However, this may not be sustainable as the tightening labor market is pushing up wage growth, which will pressure margins. Interest coverage has fallen in recent years despite strong profitability and low borrowing costs. The risk of downgrades will rise when the earnings outlook weakens or borrowing costs start to rise. An additional concern is that weaker global ex-U.S. growth and a stronger dollar will weigh on U.S. corporate revenues. In the euro area, interest coverage and liquidity continue to improve, supported by easy monetary policies that have lowered borrowing costs. However, with the ECB set to end its corporate bond purchase program along with purchases of sovereign bonds at the end of the year, euro area corporate bonds will lose a major support. In Japan, leverage has been steadily falling and return on capital rising, pushing up the interest coverage multiple to 9.6x, the highest in developed markets. With Japanese corporate profits at an all-time high, default risk is low. The BoJ's forward guidance suggests no tightening until 2020, giving corporates a low cost of borrowing and probably a weak currency. Excess spread from U.S. high-yield bonds after adjusting for expected default losses is 226 bps, slightly below the long-run mean of 247 bps. Most indicators suggest that default losses will remain low for the next 12 months, but it will be critical to track real-time indicators such as job cuts to see if there is any deterioration in growth which might start to push up default rates. With a global corporate bond portfolio, we prefer Japanese and U.S. credits to euro area corporates. Chart 22Prefer Oil Over Metals Commodities Energy (Overweight): Oil prices will continue to be driven by demand/supply fundamentals. We believe that that supply shocks will have more influence on the crude oil price over the coming months than will lower demand from EM (Chart 22, panel 2). U.S. sanctions on Iranian oil exports are estimated to take 800K-1M barrels a day out of global supply. We also factor in the risk of political collapse in Venezuela and outages in Iraqi and Libyan production, which would push oil prices higher. BCA's energy team forecasts that Brent crude will average $80 until year-end, and $95 by the end of the first half of next year.6 Industrial Metals (Neutral): An appreciating dollar along with weaker consumption of base metals in China, the world's largest consumer, are likely to keep industrial metals' prices depressed and to increase volatility over the next few months (panel 3). Additionally, the easing of U.S. sanctions on some Russian oligarchs connected with aluminum producer Rusal is likely to keep a lid on aluminum prices for now. Precious Metals (Neutral): Gold has been weak despite global uncertainties and political tensions arising from the U.S.-China trade spat, Middle East politics, and EM weakness. Since we see further upside in inflation in the coming months and remain concerned about global risk, gold remains an attractive hedge. However, rising real interest rates and the strong dollar will limit the upside (panel 4). Chart 23Further Upside For The Dollar Currencies U.S. Dollar: The dollar has continued its appreciation over the past couple of months, propelled by a moderately hawkish Fed and strong economic data. We see further upside to inflation, though the latest print fell short of expectations. Tighter financial conditions in the U.S. will add further upside to the currency on a broad trade-weighted basis, as well as against other majors (Chart 23, panels 1 and 2). EM Currencies: Dollar appreciation, higher interest rates, increasing trade tensions, and a slowdown in China, have put pressure on EM currencies. We expect these conditions to continue. Sharp interest rate hikes in Argentina and Turkey have not stopped the fall, probably because markets anticipate that the hikes will trigger recessions in these countries. Euro: Weak European economic data and downward growth revisions have put downward pressure on the currency. Additionally, looming political uncertainty in Italy, Europe's large exposure to EM, and continuing trade-war tensions make it likely that the euro will decline further (panel 4). The ECB confirmed its plan to end asset purchases by year-end, but is likely to raise rates only in late 2019. We maintain our view that EUR/USD will weaken to at least 1.12. GBP: Brexit issues continue to affect the pound: the only driver that could push GBP higher would be if both the European Union and the U.K. parliament agree to Theresa May's "Chequers plan". However, with strong opposition from both pro-Brexit Conservative MPs and the Labour Party, the chance of approval seem low. We remain bearish on the pound until there is more clarity on how Brexit will pan out and expect increasing volatility until then. Chart 24Signs Of Overheating In Alts? Alternatives Alternative assets under management continue to grow to record highs, driven by positive sentiment, the global search for yield, and the need for uncorrelated returns. However, there are increasing signs of overheating in the core areas of this market. We analyze our allocation recommendations using a framework of three buckets: 1) return enhancers, 2) inflation hedges, 3) volatility dampeners. Return Enhancers: In H1 2018, private equity (PE) outperformed hedge funds by 6.4% (Chart 24). However, last quarter we recommended investors pare back on their PE allocations and increase hedge funds. Rising competition in PE has pushed deal valuations to new highs, and we expect to see funds raised in 2018-2019 produce poor long-term returns because of higher entry valuations.7 Within the hedge fund space, we recommend investors shift to macro hedge funds, as the end of the business cycle approaches. Inflation Hedges: In H1 2018, commodity futures outperformed direct real estate by over 7%. We remain cautious on commercial real estate (CRE). Loans to CRE have reached a record $4.3 trillion, 11% higher than at the pre-crisis peak. As central banks tighten monetary policy, financial stress is likely to appear in CRE. CRE prices peaked in late 2016 and have subsequently moved sideways, partly due to the downturn in shopping malls and retail. Commodity futures, on the other hand, have performed well on the back of rising energy prices. However, we expect increased volatility in commodities due to supply disruptions in oil, and a further slowdown in EM demand. Volatility Dampeners: In H2 2018, farmland and timberland outperformed structured products by 3%. Timberland has a stronger correlation with economic growth via the U.S. housing market. This year, lumber prices have fallen from over $600 to $340, mostly due to speculative action in the futures market. However, this will ultimately impact income from timber sales. Farmland is more insulated from the economy since food demand is autonomous consumption. Structured products face pressures as rising rates push lower-quality tranches closer to default. Investors should favor farmland over timberland, and maintain only a minimum allocation to structured products. Risks To Our View Our main scenario, as outlined in the Overview, is that this year's trends will continue. What might cause them to change? Chart 25China Has Cut Rates A Bit Chart 26...But Fiscal Spending Not Yet Picking Up The biggest risk is Chinese policy. A big stimulus, in line with those in 2009 and 2015, would boost growth in emerging markets, Europe and Japan, push up commodity prices, and weaken the dollar. The PBoC has cut rates (Chart 25) and lowered the reserve requirement. The government has said it will bring this year's budget plans forward, though for now fiscal spending is slowing compared to last year (Chart 26). Faced with a major slowdown and devastating trade war, the Chinese authorities would doubtless throw everything at the problem. But, up until that point, their priority remains deleverage and reform, and so we expect them to do no more than moderately cushion the downside. Chart 27Are Speculators Too Long The Dollar? As always, a major factor is the U.S. dollar, which we expect to appreciate further, as the Fed tightens more than the market expects, and U.S. growth outpaces the rest of the world. What's the most likely reason we're wrong? Probably a situation like 2017, when speculators were very long the dollar just as growth in Europe started to accelerate relative to the U.S. Today, speculative positions are moderately long the dollar, but against the euro and yen not as much as in early 2017 (Chart 27). Aside from a Chinese reflation, it is hard to see what would propel an ex-U.S. growth spurt. True, Japanese capex and wages are showing some signs of life. But Japan worryingly intends to raise VAT in late 2019. And Europe faces considerable political risks - Brexit, Italy, troubled banks, contagion from Turkey - that make it unlikely that confidence will rebound. 1 For more details on this, please see section “What Our Clients Are Asking: Is The Fed Turning Dovish?” in this report. 2 Please see Global Asset Allocation Special Report, "Searching For Yield In A Low Return Environment," dated September 14, 2018 available at gaa.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see Global Asset Allocation "Quarterly - July 2018," dated July 2, 2018 available at gaa.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see Global Asset Allocation "Quarterly - July 2018," dated July 2, 2018 available at gaa.bcaresearch.com 5 Please see Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report titled "A Performance Update On Global Corporate Bond Sectors," dated September 4, 2018 available at gfis.bcaresearch.com 6 Please see Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, "Odds of Oil-Price Spike in 1H19 Rise; 2019 Brent Forecast Lifted $15 To $95/bbl," dated September 20, 2018. 7 Please see Global Asset Allocation Special Report on private equity, "Private Equity: Have We Reached The Top?," dated September 26, 2018 available at gaa.bcaresearch.com GAA Asset Allocation

Highlights Macro outlook: Global growth will continue to decelerate into early next year on the back of brewing EM stresses and an underwhelming policy response from China. Equities: Stay neutral for now, while underweighting EM relative to DM stocks. Within DM, overweight the U.S. in dollar terms. Bonds: Global bond yields may dip in the near term, but the longer-term path is firmly higher. Currencies: The dollar is working off overbought conditions, but will rebound into year-end. EM currencies will suffer the most. Commodities: Favor oil over industrial metals. Precious metals will also remain under pressure until the dollar peaks next year, before beginning a major bull run as inflation accelerates. Feature I. Economic Outlook The Fed Can Hike A Lot More If 2017 was the year of a synchronized global growth recovery, 2018 is turning out to be a year where desynchronization is once again the name of the game. The U.S. economy continues to fire on all cylinders, while much of the rest of the world is struggling to stay afloat. The divergence in economic outcomes has been mirrored in central bank policy. The Fed is now hiking rates once per quarter whereas most other major central banks are still sitting on their hands. How high can U.S. rates go? The answer is a lot higher than investors anticipate. Market participants currently expect the Fed funds rate to rise to 2.37% by the end of this year and 2.84% by the end of 2019. No rate hikes are priced in for 2020 and beyond. The Fed dots are somewhat higher than market expectations (Chart 1). The median dot rises to about 3.4% in 2020-21, but then falls back to 3% over the Fed's longer-run horizon. Both investors and the Fed have apparently bought into Larry Summers' secular stagnation thesis. They seem convinced that rates will not be able to rise above 3% without triggering a recession. While we have a lot of sympathy for Summers' thesis, it must be acknowledged that it is a theory about the long-term determinants of the neutral rate of interest. Over a shorter-term cyclical horizon, many factors can influence the neutral rate. Critically, as discussed last week, most of these factors are pushing it higher: Fiscal policy is extremely stimulative. The IMF estimates that the U.S. cyclically-adjusted budget deficit will reach 6.8% of GDP in 2019. In contrast, the euro area is projected to run a deficit of only 0.8% of GDP (Chart 2). The relatively more expansionary nature of U.S. fiscal policy is one key reason why the Fed can raise rates while the ECB cannot. Chart 1Markets Expect No Fed ##br##Hikes Beyond Next Year Chart 2Fiscal Policy Is More Expansionary ##br##In The U.S. Than In The Euro Area Credit growth has picked up. After a prolonged deleveraging cycle, private-sector nonfinancial debt is increasing faster than GDP (Chart 3). The recent easing in The Conference Board's Leading Credit Index suggests that this trend will continue (Chart 4). Chart 3U.S. Private-Sector Nonfinancial Debt Is Rising At Close To Its Historic Trend Chart 4U.S. Credit Growth Will Remain Strong Wage growth is accelerating. Average hourly earnings surprised on the upside in August, with the year-over-year change rising to a cycle high of 2.9%. This followed a stronger reading in the Employment Cost Index in the second quarter. A simple correlation with the quits rate suggests that there is plenty of upside for wage growth (Chart 5). Faster wage growth will put more money into workers' pockets who will then spend it. The savings rate has scope to fall. The personal savings rate currently stands at 6.7%, more than two percentage points higher than what one would expect based on the current level of household net worth (Chart 6). If the savings rate were to fall by two points over the next two years, it would add 1.5% of GDP to aggregate demand. Chart 5The Quits Rate Is Signaling Upside For Wage Growth Chart 6The Personal Savings Rate Has Room To Fall A back-of-the-envelope calculation suggests that these cyclical factors will permit the Fed to raise rates to 5% by 2020, almost double what the market is discounting.1 An Absence Of Major Financial Imbalances Will Allow The Fed To Keep Raising Rates The past three recessions were all caused by financial market overheating rather than economic overheating. The 1991 recession was mainly the consequence of the Savings and Loan crisis, compounded by the spike in oil prices leading up to the Gulf War. The 2001 recession stemmed from the dotcom bust. The Great Recession was triggered by the housing bust. Today, it is difficult to point to any clear imbalances in the economy. True, housing activity has been weak for much of the year. However, unlike in 2006, the home vacancy rate stands near record-low levels (Chart 7). Tight supply will limit downside risks to both construction and home prices. On the demand side, low unemployment, high consumer confidence, and a rebound in the rate of new household formation should help the sector. Despite elevated home prices in some markets, the average monthly payment that homeowners must make to service their mortgage is quite low by historic standards (Chart 8). The quality of mortgage lending has also been very high over the past decade, which reduces the risk of a sudden credit crunch (Chart 9). Chart 7Low Housing Inventories Will Support Home Prices And Construction Chart 8Housing Affordabiity Is Not Yet Stretched Chart 9Mortgage Lenders Are Being Prudent Unlike housing debt, there are more reasons to be concerned about corporate debt. The ratio of corporate debt-to-GDP has risen to record-high levels. So-called "covenant-lite" loans now make up the bulk of corporate leveraged loan issuance. While there is no doubt that the corporate debt market is the weakest link in the U.S. financial sector, some perspective is in order. U.S. corporate debt levels are quite low by global standards. Corporate debt in the euro area is more than 30 points higher as a percent of GDP than in the United States (Chart 10). Moreover, the interest coverage ratio - EBIT divided by interest expense - for U.S. corporates is still above its historic average (Chart 11). While this ratio will fall as interest rates rise, this will not happen very quickly. Most U.S. corporate debt is at fixed rates and average maturities have been rising. This reduces both rollover risk and the sensitivity of debt-servicing costs to higher short-term rates. An increasing share of U.S. corporate debt is held by non-leveraged investors. Bank loans account for only 18% of nonfinancial corporate sector debt, down from 40% in 1980 (Chart 12). This is important, because what makes a spike in corporate defaults so damaging is not the direct impact this has on the economy, but the second-round effects rising defaults have on financial sector stability. Chart 10U.S. Corporate Debt Not That High By Global Standards Chart 11Interest Coverage Ratio Is Above Its Historic Average Chart 12Banks Have Been Reducing Their Exposure To The Corporate Sector In any case, we already had a dress rehearsal for what a corporate debt scare might look like. Credit spreads spiked in 2015. Default rates rose, but the knock-on effects to the financial system were minimal. This suggests that corporate America could handle a fair bit of monetary tightening without buckling under the pressure. The Fed And The Dollar If the Fed is able to raise rates substantially more than the market is discounting while most central banks cannot, the short-term interest rate spread between the U.S. and its trading partners is likely to widen. History suggests that this will produce a stronger dollar (Chart 13). Chart 13Historically, The Dollar Has Moved In Line With Interest Rate Differentials Some have speculated that the Trump administration will intervene in the foreign-exchange market in order to drive down the value of the greenback. We doubt this will happen, but even if such interventions were to occur, they would not be successful. Presumably, currency interventions would take the form of purchases of foreign exchange, financed through the issuance of Treasurys. The purchase of foreign currency would release U.S. dollars into the financial system, but the sale of Treasury securities would suck those dollars back out of the system. The net result would be no change in the volume of U.S. dollars in circulation - what economists call a "sterilized" intervention. Both economic theory and years of history show that sterilized interventions do not have lasting effects on currency values. The Fed could, of course, provide funding for the Treasury's purchases of foreign exchange, leading to an increase in the monetary base. This would be tantamount to an unsterilized intervention. However, such a deliberate attempt to weaken the dollar by expanding the money supply would fly in the face of the Fed's efforts to cool growth by tightening financial conditions. We highly doubt the Fed's current leadership would go along with this. Emerging Markets In The Crosshairs The combination of rising U.S. rates and a stronger dollar is bad news for emerging markets. Eighty percent of EM foreign-currency debt is denominated in dollars. Outside of China, EM dollar debt is now back to late-1990s levels, both as a share of GDP and exports (Chart 14). The wave of EM local-currency debt issued in recent years only complicates matters. If EM central banks raise rates to defend their currencies, this could imperil economic growth and make it difficult for local-currency borrowers to pay back their loans. Rather than hiking rates, some EM central banks may simply choose to inflate away debt. Consider the case of Brazil. The fiscal deficit stands at nearly 8% of GDP and government debt has soared from 60% of GDP in 2013 to 84% of GDP at present (Chart 15). Ninety percent of Brazilian sovereign debt is denominated in reais. The Brazilian government won't default on its debt per se. However, if push comes to shove, Brazil's central bank can always step in to buy government bonds, effectively monetizing the fiscal deficit. This could cause the real to weaken much more than it already has. Chart 14EM Dollar Debt Is High Chart 15Brazil's Perilous Fiscal Position Chinese Stimulus To The Rescue? When emerging markets last succumbed to pressure in 2015, China saved the day by stepping in with massive stimulus. Fiscal spending and credit growth accelerated to over 15% year-over-year. The government's actions boosted demand for all sorts of industrial commodities. The stimulus measures in 2015 followed an even greater wave of stimulus in 2009. While these stimulus measures invigorated China's economy and helped put a floor under global growth, they came at a price: China's debt-to-GDP ratio has swollen from 140% in 2008 to over 250% at present, which has endangered financial stability (Chart 16). Excess capacity has also increased. This can be seen in the dramatic rise in the capital-to-output ratio. It can also be seen in the fact that the rate of return on assets within the Chinese state-owned enterprise sector, which has been the main source of rising corporate leverage, has fallen below borrowing costs (Chart 17). Chart 16China: Debt And Capital Accumulation Went Hand In Hand Chart 17China: Rate Of Return On Assets Below Borrowing Costs For SOEs Chinese banks are being told that they must lend more money to support the economy, while ensuring that their loans do not turn sour. Unfortunately, that is becoming an impossible feat. The Chinese economy produces too much and spends too little. The result is excess savings, epitomized most clearly in a national savings rate of 46% (Chart 18). As a matter of arithmetic, national savings must be transformed either into domestic investment or exported abroad via a current account surplus. Now that the former strategy has run into diminishing returns, the Chinese authorities will need to concentrate on the latter. This will require a larger current account surplus which, in turn, will necessitate a relatively cheap currency. Above-average productivity growth has pushed up the fair value of China's real exchange rate over time. However, the currency still looks expensive relative to its long-term trend line (Chart 19). Pushing down the value of the yuan against the dollar will not be that difficult. Chart 20 shows that USD/CNY has moved broadly in line with the one-year swap spread between the U.S. and China. The spread was about 3% earlier this year. Today, it stands at only 0.6%. As the Fed continues to raise rates, the spread will narrow further, taking the yuan down with it. Chart 18China Saves A Lot Chart 19The RMB Is Still Quite Strong Chart 20USD/CNY Has Tracked China-U.S. Interest Rate Differentials Unlike standard Chinese fiscal/credit easing, a stimulus strategy focused on weakening the yuan would hurt other emerging markets by undermining their competitiveness in relation to China. A weaker yuan would also make it more expensive for Chinese companies to import natural resources, thus putting downward pressure on commodity prices. The Euro Area: Back In The Slow Lane After putting in a strong performance in 2017, the economy in the euro area has struggled to maintain momentum this year. Growth is still above trend, but the overall tone of the data has been lackluster at best, with the risks to growth increasingly tilted to the downside. Weaker growth in China and other emerging markets certainly has not helped. However, much of the problem lies closer to home. Bank credit remains the lifeblood of the euro area economy. The 12-month credit impulse - defined as the change in credit growth from one 12-month period to the next - tends to track GDP growth (Chart 21).2 Euro area credit growth accelerated over the course of 2017, but has been broadly stable this year. As a result, the credit impulse has fallen, taking GDP growth down with it. It will be difficult for euro area GDP growth to increase unless credit growth starts rising again. So far, there is little sign that this is about to happen. According to the latest euro area bank lending survey, while banks continue to ease standards for business loans, they are doing so at a slower pace than in the past. A net 3% of banks eased lending standards in the second quarter, compared to 8% in the first quarter. Loan demand growth has been fairly stable. This suggests that loan growth will remain positive, but is unlikely to increase much from current levels. Worries about the health of European banks will further constrain credit growth. European banks in general, and Spanish banks in particular, have significant exposure to the most vulnerable emerging markets (Chart 22). Chart 21Euro Area Credit Growth Has Flatlined Chart 22Spain Most Exposed To Vulnerable EMs Concerns about the ability of the Italian government to service its debt obligations will also restrain bank lending. Investors breathed a sigh of relief last month when the Italian government signaled a greater willingness to pare back next year's proposed budget deficit, in accordance with the dictates of the European Commission. Tensions remain, however, as evidenced by the fact that the ten-year spread between BTPs and German bunds is still 120 basis points higher than in April (Chart 23). The European political establishment is terrified of the rise in populism across the region and would love nothing more than to see Italy's populist parties implode. This means that any help from the ECB and the European Commission will only arrive once a full-fledged crisis is underway. Anyway, it is far from clear that a smaller budget deficit would actually translate into a lower government debt-to-GDP ratio. Like China, Italy also has a private sector that saves too much and spends too little. A shrinking population has reduced the need for firms to invest in new capacity. The prior government's pension cuts have also incentivized people to save more for their retirement. The result is a private sector savings-investment surplus that stood at 5% of GDP in 2017 compared to close to breakeven a decade ago (Chart 24). Chart 23Italian/Bund Spreads Signal Lingering Fiscal Strain Chart 24Italy: Private Sector Saves Too Much And Spends Too Little Unlike Germany, Italy cannot export its excess production because it does not have a hypercompetitive economy. Nor does it have the ability to devalue its currency to gain a quick competitiveness boost. This means that the Italian government has to absorb excess private-sector savings with its own dissavings - a fancy way of saying that it has to run a large budget deficit. This has effectively been Japan's strategy for over two decades. However, unlike Japan, Italy does not have a lender of last resort that can unconditionally buy government debt. This raises the risk that Italy's debt woes will resurface, either because the government abandons austerity measures, or because the lack of fiscal support causes nominal GDP to stagnate, making it all but impossible for the country to outgrow its debt burden. Receding Policy Puts The discussion above suggests that many of the "policy puts" that investors have relied on are in the process of having their strike price marked down to deeper out-of-the-money levels. Yes, the Fed will ease off on rate hikes if U.S. growth is at risk of stalling out completely. However, now that the labor market has reached full employment, the Fed will welcome modestly slower growth. Remember that there has never been a case in the post-war era where the three-month average of the unemployment rate has risen by more than a third of a percentage point without a recession taking place (Chart 25). The further the unemployment rate falls below NAIRU, the more difficult it will be for the Fed to achieve the proverbial soft landing. Chart 25Even A Small Uptick In The Unemployment Rate Is Bad News For The Business Cycle Likewise, the "China stimulus put" - the presumption that most investors have that the Chinese authorities will launch a barrage of fiscal and credit easing at the first sign of slower growth - has become less reliable in light of the government's competing objectives namely reducing debt growth and excess capacity. The same goes for the "ECB put." Yes, the ECB will bail out Italy if the entire European project appears at risk. But spreads may need to blow out before the cavalry arrives. Meanwhile, just as the aforementioned policy puts are receding, new policy risks are rising to the fore, chief among them protectionism. We expect the trade war to heat up, with the Trump administration increasingly directing its ire at China. Trump's macroeconomic policies are completely at odds with his trade agenda. Fiscal stimulus will boost aggregate demand, which will suck in more imports. An overheated economy will prompt the Fed to raise rates more aggressively than it otherwise would, leading to a stronger dollar. All this will result in a wider trade deficit. What will Trump tell voters two years from now when he is campaigning in Michigan and Ohio about why the trade deficit has widened rather than narrowed under his watch? Will he blame himself or Beijing? No trophy for getting that answer right. II. Financial Markets Global Equities The combination of slower global growth, rising economic vulnerabilities outside the U.S., and a more challenging policy environment caused us to downgrade our view on global equities from overweight to neutral in June,3 while reiterating our preference for developed market equities relative to EM stocks. For now, we are comfortable with our bearish view towards emerging market stocks. While EM equities have cheapened, they are not yet at washed out levels (Chart 26). Bottom fishers still abound, as evidenced by the fact that the number of shares outstanding in the MSCI iShares Turkish ETF has almost tripled since early April (Chart 27). Chart 26EM Assets: Valuations Not Yet At Washed Out Levels Chart 27EM Bottom Fishers Still Abound At some point - probably in the first half of next year - investors will liquidate their remaining bullish EM bets. At that point, EM stocks will rebound. European and Japanese equities should also start to outperform the U.S., given their more cyclical nature. As far as the absolute direction of the S&P 500 is concerned, the next few months could be challenging. U.S. stocks have been able to decouple from those in the rest of the world, but this state of affairs may not last. Recall that the S&P 500 fell by 22% peak-to-trough between July 20 and October 8, 1998, in what otherwise was a massive bull market. We do not know if there is another Long-Term Capital Management lurking around the corner, but if there is, a temporary selloff in U.S. stocks may be hard to avoid. Such a selloff would present a buying opportunity over a horizon of 12-to-18 months. If we are correct that cyclical forces have lifted the neutral rate of interest, it will take a while for monetary policy to reach restrictive territory. This means that both fiscal and monetary policy will stay accommodative at least for the next 18 months. As such, the S&P 500 may not peak until 2020. Appendix A - Chart I presents a stylized diagram of where we think global equities are going. It incapsulates three phases: 1) a challenging period over the next six months, driven by EM weakness; 2) a blow-off rally in equities starting in the middle of next year; 3) and finally, a recession-induced bear market beginning in late-2020. Appendix B also presents our valuation charts, which highlight that long-term return prospects are better outside the United States. Fixed Income After advocating for a long duration strategy for much of the post-crisis recovery, BCA declared "The End Of The 35-Year Bond Bull Market" on July 5, 2016, the very same day that the 10-year U.S. Treasury yield hit a record closing low of 1.37%. Cyclically and structurally, we continue to expect U.S. bond yields to rise more than the market is discounting. As noted above, the Fed is underestimating how high rates will need to go before they reach restrictive territory. This means that the Fed will end up behind the curve in normalizing monetary policy, causing the economy to overheat and inflation to rise above the Fed's comfort zone. Chart 28Bond Sentiment Is Extremely Bearish Granted, the Fed is willing to tolerate a modest inflation overshoot. However, a core PCE reading above 2.3%, which is at the top end of the range of the Fed's own forecast, would prompt the Fed to expedite the pace of rate hikes. A bear flattening of the yield curve - a situation where long-term yields rise, but short-term rates go up even more - would be highly likely in that environment. Over a shorter-term horizon spanning the next six months, the outlook for yields is more benign. The combination of a stronger dollar, slower global growth, and flight-to-quality flows into the Treasury market from vulnerable emerging markets can cap yields. Add to this the fact that sentiment towards bonds is currently extremely bearish (Chart 28), and a temporary countertrend decline in yields becomes quite probable. Developed market bond yields in general are likely to follow the direction of U.S. yields, both on the upside and the downside, but in a more muted manner. Outside the periphery, euro area yields have less scope to fall in the near term given that they are already so low. European yields also have less room to rise once global growth bottoms next year because the neutral rate of interest is much lower in the euro area than in the United States. Ironically, a more dovish ECB would help reduce Italian bond yields, as higher inflation is critical for increasing Italian nominal GDP. Since labor market slack is still elevated in Italy, continued monetary stimulus would also lift wages in core Europe more than in Italy, helping to boost Italy's competitiveness relative to the rest of the euro area. Japanese yields have plenty of scope to rise over the long haul. An aging population is pushing more people into retirement, which will cause the national savings rate to fall further. A decline in the savings pool will increase the neutral rate of interest in Japan. Instead of raising the policy rate, the Japanese authorities will let the economy overheat, generating inflation in the process. This will cause the yield curve to steepen, particularly at the very long end (e.g., beyond 10 years) which is the part of the yield curve that is the least susceptible to the BoJ's yield curve control regime. We are positioned for this outcome through our short 20-year JGB/long 5-year JGB trade recommendation. Appendix A - Chart II shows our expectations for the major government bond markets over the coming years. Turning to credit markets, high-yield credit typically underperforms in the latter innings of business-cycle expansions, a period when the Fed is raising rates. Thus, while we do not think that U.S. corporate debt levels will be a major source of systemic financial risk for the broader economy, this is hardly a reason to be overweight spread-product. A more cautious stance towards credit outside the U.S. is also warranted. Currencies And Commodities The dollar is working off overbought conditions, but will rebound into year-end, as EM tensions intensify and hopes of a massive credit/fiscal-fueled Chinese stimulus package fizzle. EM currencies will weaken the most against the dollar over the next three-to-six months, but the euro and, to a lesser extent, the yen, will also come under pressure. Granted, the dollar is no longer a cheap currency, but if long-term interest rate differentials stay anywhere close to current levels, the greenback will remain well supported. Consider the dollar's value against the euro. Thirty-year U.S. Treasurys currently yield 3.20% while 30-year German bunds yield 1.12%, a difference of 208 basis points. Even if one allows for the fact that investors expect euro area inflation to be lower than in the U.S. over the next 30 years, EUR/USD would need to trade at a measly 82 cents today in order to compensate German bund holders for the inferior yield they will receive.4 We do not expect EUR/USD to get down to that level, but a descent into the $1.10-to-$1.12 range over the next six months is probable. Sterling will remain hostage to Brexit negotiations. It is impossible to know how talks will evolve, but our bias is to take a somewhat pound-positive view. The main reason is that support for Brexit has faded (Chart 29). Opinion polls suggest that if a referendum were held again, the "bremain" side would almost certainly prevail. Lacking public support for leaving the EU, it is unlikely that British negotiators could simply walk away from the table. This reduces the odds of a "hard Brexit" outcome. Indeed, a second referendum that leads to a "no-Brexit" verdict remains a distinct possibility. The combination of slower global growth and a resurgent dollar is likely to hurt commodity prices. Industrial metals are more vulnerable than oil. China consumes around half of all the copper, nickel, aluminum, zinc, and iron ore produced around the world (Chart 30). In contrast, China represents less than 15% of global oil demand. Chart 29When Bremorse Sets In Chart 30China Is A More Dominant Consumer Of Metals Than Oil The supply backdrop for oil is also more favorable than for metals. Not only are Saudi Arabia and Russia maintaining production discipline, but U.S. sanctions against Iran threaten to weigh on global crude supply. Further reduction in Venezuela's oil output, as well as potential disruptions to Libyan or Iraqi exports, could also boost oil prices. The superior outlook for oil over metals means we prefer the Canadian dollar relative to the Aussie dollar. While AUD/CAD has weakened in recent months, the Aussie dollar is still somewhat expensive against the loonie based on our long-term valuation model (Chart 31). We also see an increasing chance that Canada will negotiate a revamped trade deal with the U.S., as Trump focuses his attention more on China. Should this happen, it will remove the NAFTA break-up risk discount embedded in the Canadian dollar. Finally, a few words on precious metals. Precious metals typically struggle during periods when the dollar is appreciating (Chart 32). Consequently, we would not be eager buyers of gold or other precious metals until the dollar peaks, most likely around the middle of next year. As inflation starts to accelerate in late-2019 and in 2020, gold will finally move decisively higher. Chart 31Canadian Dollar Still Somewhat Cheap Versus The Aussie Dollar Chart 32Gold Won't Shine Until The Dollar Peaks Appendix A - Chart III and Chart IV present an illustration of where the major currencies and commodities are heading. Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com 1 Depending on which specification of the Taylor rule one uses, a one percent of GDP increase in aggregate demand will increase the neutral rate of interest by half a point (John Taylor's original specification) or by a full point (Janet Yellen's preferred specification). Fiscal policy is currently about 3% of GDP too stimulative compared to a baseline where government debt-to-GDP is stable over time. Assuming a fiscal multiplier of 0.5, fiscal policy is thus boosting aggregate demand by 1.5% of GDP. Nonfinancial private credit has increased by an average of 1.5 percentage points of GDP per year since 2016. Assuming that every additional one dollar of credit increases aggregate demand by 50 cents, the revival in credit growth is raising aggregate demand by 0.75% of GDP, compared to a baseline where credit-to-GDP is flat. The labor share of income has increased by 1.25% of GDP from its lows in 2015. Assuming that every one dollar shift in income from capital to labor boosts overall spending on net by 20 cents, this would have raised aggregate demand by 0.25% of GDP. Lastly, if the personal savings rate falls by two points over the next two years, this would raise aggregate demand by 1.5% of GDP. Taken together, these factors are boosting the neutral rate by anywhere from 2% (Taylor's specification) to 4% (Yellen's specification). This is obviously a lot, and easily overwhelms other factors such as a stronger dollar that may be weighing on the neutral rate. 2 Recall that GDP is a flow variable (how much production takes place every period), whereas credit is a stock variable (how much debt there is outstanding). By definition, a flow is a change in a stock. Thus, credit growth affects GDP and the change in credit growth affects GDP growth. Euro area private-sector credit growth accelerated from -2.6% in May 2014 to 3.1% in March 2017, but has been broadly flat ever since. Hence, the credit impulse has dropped. 3 Please see Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "Three Policy Puts Go Kaput: Downgrade Global Equities To Neutral," dated June 20, 2018. 4 For this calculation, we assume that the fair value for EUR/USD is 1.32, which is close to the IMF's Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) estimate. The annual inflation differential of 0.47% is based on 30-year CPI swaps. This implies that the fair value for EUR/USD will rise to 1.52 after 30 years. If one assumes that the euro reaches that level by then, the common currency would need to trade at 1.52/(1.0208)^30=0.82 today. Appendix A Appendix A Chart IMarket Outlook: Equities Appendix A Chart IIMarket Outlook: Bonds Appendix A Chart IIIMarket Outlook: Currencies Appendix A Chart IVMarket Outlook: Commodities Appendix B Appendix B Chart 1Long-Term Return Prospects Are Slightly Better Outside The U.S. Appendix B Chart 1Long-Term Return Prospects Are Slightly Better Outside The U.S. Appendix B Chart 1Long-Term Return Prospects Are Slightly Better Outside The U.S. Appendix B Chart 1Long-Term Return Prospects Are Slightly Better Outside The U.S. Strategy & Market Trends Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

Highlights Macro outlook: Global growth will continue to decelerate into early next year on the back of brewing EM stresses and an underwhelming policy response from China. Equities: Stay neutral for now, while underweighting EM relative to DM stocks. Within DM, overweight the U.S. in dollar terms. Bonds: Global bond yields may dip in the near term, but the longer-term path is firmly higher. Currencies: The dollar is working off overbought conditions, but will rebound into year-end. EM currencies will suffer the most. Commodities: Favor oil over industrial metals. Precious metals will also remain under pressure until the dollar peaks next year, before beginning a major bull run as inflation accelerates. Feature I. Economic Outlook The Fed Can Hike A Lot More If 2017 was the year of a synchronized global growth recovery, 2018 is turning out to be a year where desynchronization is once again the name of the game. The U.S. economy continues to fire on all cylinders, while much of the rest of the world is struggling to stay afloat. The divergence in economic outcomes has been mirrored in central bank policy. The Fed is now hiking rates once per quarter whereas most other major central banks are still sitting on their hands. How high can U.S. rates go? The answer is a lot higher than investors anticipate. Market participants currently expect the Fed funds rate to rise to 2.37% by the end of this year and 2.84% by the end of 2019. No rate hikes are priced in for 2020 and beyond. The Fed dots are somewhat higher than market expectations (Chart I-1). The median dot rises to about 3.4% in 2020-21, but then falls back to 3% over the Fed's longer-run horizon. Both investors and the Fed have apparently bought into Larry Summers' secular stagnation thesis. They seem convinced that rates will not be able to rise above 3% without triggering a recession. While we have a lot of sympathy for Summers' thesis, it must be acknowledged that it is a theory about the long-term determinants of the neutral rate of interest. Over a shorter-term cyclical horizon, many factors can influence the neutral rate. Critically, most of these factors are pushing it higher: Fiscal policy is extremely stimulative. The IMF estimates that the U.S. cyclically-adjusted budget deficit will reach 6.8% of GDP in 2019. In contrast, the euro area is projected to run a deficit of only 0.8% of GDP (Chart I-2). The relatively more expansionary nature of U.S. fiscal policy is one key reason why the Fed can raise rates while the ECB cannot. Chart I-1Markets Expect No Fed Hikes Beyond Next Year Chart I-2Fiscal Policy Is More Expansionary In ##br##The U.S. Than In The Euro Area Credit growth has picked up. After a prolonged deleveraging cycle, private-sector nonfinancial debt is increasing faster than GDP (Chart I-3). The recent easing in The Conference Board's Leading Credit Index suggests that this trend will continue (Chart I-4). Chart I-3U.S. Private-Sector Nonfinancial Debt Is ##br##Rising At Close To Its Historic Trend Chart I-4U.S. Credit Growth Will Remain Strong Wage growth is accelerating. Average hourly earnings surprised on the upside in August, with the year-over-year change rising to a cycle high of 2.9%. This followed a stronger reading in the Employment Cost Index in the second quarter. A simple correlation with the quits rate suggests that there is plenty of upside for wage growth (Chart I-5). Faster wage growth will put more money into workers' pockets who will then spend it. The savings rate has scope to fall. The personal savings rate currently stands at 6.7%, more than two percentage points higher than what one would expect based on the current level of household net worth (Chart I-6). If the savings rate were to fall by two points over the next two years, it would add 1.5% of GDP to aggregate demand. Chart I-5The Quits Rate Is Signaling Upside For Wage Growth Chart I-6The Personal Savings Rate Has Room To Fall A back-of-the-envelope calculation suggests that these cyclical factors will permit the Fed to raise rates to 5% by 2020, almost double what the market is discounting.1 An Absence Of Major Financial Imbalances Will Allow The Fed To Keep Raising Rates The past three recessions were all caused by financial market overheating rather than economic overheating. The 1991 recession was mainly the consequence of the Savings and Loan crisis, compounded by the spike in oil prices leading up to the Gulf War. The 2001 recession stemmed from the dotcom bust. The Great Recession was triggered by the housing bust. Today, it is difficult to point to any clear imbalances in the economy. True, housing activity has been weak for much of the year. However, unlike in 2006, the home vacancy rate stands near record-low levels (Chart I-7). Tight supply will limit downside risks to both construction and home prices. On the demand side, low unemployment, high consumer confidence, and a rebound in the rate of new household formation should help the sector. Despite elevated home prices in some markets, the average monthly payment that homeowners must make to service their mortgage is quite low by historic standards (Chart I-8). The quality of mortgage lending has also been very high over the past decade, which reduces the risk of a sudden credit crunch (Chart I-9). Chart I-7Low Housing Inventories Will Support ##br##Home Prices And Construction Chart I-8Housing Affordabiity Is Not Yet Stretched Chart I-9Mortgage Lenders Are Being Prudent Unlike housing debt, there are more reasons to be concerned about corporate debt. The ratio of corporate debt-to-GDP has risen to record-high levels. So-called "covenant-lite" loans now make up the bulk of corporate leveraged loan issuance. While there is no doubt that the corporate debt market is the weakest link in the U.S. financial sector, some perspective is in order. U.S. corporate debt levels are quite low by global standards. Corporate debt in the euro area is more than 30 points higher as a percent of GDP than in the United States (Chart I-10). Moreover, the interest coverage ratio - EBIT divided by interest expense - for U.S. corporates is still above its historic average (Chart I-11). While this ratio will fall as interest rates rise, this will not happen very quickly. Most U.S. corporate debt is at fixed rates and average maturities have been rising. This reduces both rollover risk and the sensitivity of debt-servicing costs to higher short-term rates. Chart I-10U.S. Corporate Debt Not That High By Global Standards Chart I-11Interest Coverage Ratio Is Above Its Historic Average An increasing share of U.S. corporate debt is held by non-leveraged investors. Bank loans account for only 18% of nonfinancial corporate sector debt, down from 40% in 1980 (Chart I-12). This is important, because what makes a spike in corporate defaults so damaging is not the direct impact this has on the economy, but the second-round effects rising defaults have on financial sector stability. In any case, we already had a dress rehearsal for what a corporate debt scare might look like. Credit spreads spiked in 2015. Default rates rose, but the knock-on effects to the financial system were minimal. This suggests that corporate America could handle a fair bit of monetary tightening without buckling under the pressure. The Fed And The Dollar If the Fed is able to raise rates substantially more than the market is discounting while most central banks cannot, the short-term interest rate spread between the U.S. and its trading partners is likely to widen. History suggests that this will produce a stronger dollar (Chart I-13). Chart I-12Banks Have Been Reducing Their ##br##Exposure To The Corporate Sector Chart I-13Historically, The Dollar Has Moved ##br##In Line With Interest Rate Differentials Some have speculated that the Trump administration will intervene in the foreign-exchange market in order to drive down the value of the greenback. We doubt this will happen, but even if such interventions were to occur, they would not be successful. Presumably, currency interventions would take the form of purchases of foreign exchange, financed through the issuance of Treasurys. The purchase of foreign currency would release U.S. dollars into the financial system, but the sale of Treasury securities would suck those dollars back out of the system. The net result would be no change in the volume of U.S. dollars in circulation - what economists call a "sterilized" intervention. Both economic theory and years of history show that sterilized interventions do not have lasting effects on currency values. The Fed could, of course, provide funding for the Treasury's purchases of foreign exchange, leading to an increase in the monetary base. This would be tantamount to an unsterilized intervention. However, such a deliberate attempt to weaken the dollar by expanding the money supply would fly in the face of the Fed's efforts to cool growth by tightening financial conditions. We highly doubt the Fed's current leadership would go along with this. Emerging Markets In The Crosshairs The combination of rising U.S. rates and a stronger dollar is bad news for emerging markets. Eighty percent of EM foreign-currency debt is denominated in dollars. Outside of China, EM dollar debt is now back to late-1990s levels, both as a share of GDP and exports (Chart I-14). The wave of EM local-currency debt issued in recent years only complicates matters. If EM central banks raise rates to defend their currencies, this could imperil economic growth and make it difficult for local-currency borrowers to pay back their loans. Rather than hiking rates, some EM central banks may simply choose to inflate away debt. Consider the case of Brazil. The fiscal deficit stands at nearly 8% of GDP and government debt has soared from 60% of GDP in 2013 to 84% of GDP at present (Chart I-15). Ninety percent of Brazilian sovereign debt is denominated in reais. The Brazilian government won't default on its debt per se. However, if push comes to shove, Brazil's central bank can always step in to buy government bonds, effectively monetizing the fiscal deficit. This could cause the real to weaken much more than it already has. Chart I-14EM Dollar Debt Is High Chart I-15Brazil's Perilous Fiscal Position Chinese Stimulus To The Rescue? When emerging markets last succumbed to pressure in 2015, China saved the day by stepping in with massive stimulus. Fiscal spending and credit growth accelerated to over 15% year-over-year. The government's actions boosted demand for all sorts of industrial commodities. The stimulus measures in 2015 followed an even greater wave of stimulus in 2009. While these stimulus measures invigorated China's economy and helped put a floor under global growth, they came at a price: China's debt-to-GDP ratio has swollen from 140% in 2008 to over 250% at present, which has endangered financial stability (Chart I-16). Excess capacity has also increased. This can be seen in the dramatic rise in the capital-to-output ratio. It can also be seen in the fact that the rate of return on assets within the Chinese state-owned enterprise sector, which has been the main source of rising corporate leverage, has fallen below borrowing costs (Chart I-17). Chart I-16China: Debt And Capital ##br##Accumulation Went Hand In Hand Chart I-17China: Rate Of Return On Assets ##br##Below Borrowing Costs For SOEs Chinese banks are being told that they must lend more money to support the economy, while ensuring that their loans do not turn sour. Unfortunately, that is becoming an impossible feat. Chart I-18China Saves A Lot The Chinese economy produces too much and spends too little. The result is excess savings, epitomized most clearly in a national savings rate of 46% (Chart I-18). As a matter of arithmetic, national savings must be transformed either into domestic investment or exported abroad via a current account surplus. Now that the former strategy has run into diminishing returns, the Chinese authorities will need to concentrate on the latter. This will require a larger current account surplus which, in turn, will necessitate a relatively cheap currency. Above-average productivity growth has pushed up the fair value of China's real exchange rate over time. However, the currency still looks expensive relative to its long-term trend line (Chart I-19). Pushing down the value of the yuan against the dollar will not be that difficult. Chart I-20 shows that USD/CNY has moved broadly in line with the one-year swap spread between the U.S. and China. The spread was about 3% earlier this year. Today, it stands at only 0.6%. As the Fed continues to raise rates, the spread will narrow further, taking the yuan down with it. Chart I-19The RMB Is Still Quite Strong Chart I-20USD/CNY Has Tracked China-U.S. Interest Rate Differentials Unlike standard Chinese fiscal/credit easing, a stimulus strategy focused on weakening the yuan would hurt other emerging markets by undermining their competitiveness in relation to China. A weaker yuan would also make it more expensive for Chinese companies to import natural resources, thus putting downward pressure on commodity prices. The Euro Area: Back In The Slow Lane After putting in a strong performance in 2017, the economy in the euro area has struggled to maintain momentum this year. Growth is still above trend, but the overall tone of the data has been lackluster at best, with the risks to growth increasingly tilted to the downside. Weaker growth in China and other emerging markets certainly has not helped. However, much of the problem lies closer to home. Bank credit remains the lifeblood of the euro area economy. The 12-month credit impulse - defined as the change in credit growth from one 12-month period to the next - tends to track GDP growth (Chart I-21).2 Euro area credit growth accelerated over the course of 2017, but has been broadly stable this year. As a result, the credit impulse has fallen, taking GDP growth down with it. It will be difficult for euro area GDP growth to increase unless credit growth starts rising again. So far, there is little sign that this is about to happen. According to the latest euro area bank lending survey, while banks continue to ease standards for business loans, they are doing so at a slower pace than in the past. A net 3% of banks eased lending standards in the second quarter, compared to 8% in the first quarter. Loan demand growth has been fairly stable. This suggests that loan growth will remain positive, but is unlikely to increase much from current levels. Worries about the health of European banks will further constrain credit growth. European banks in general, and Spanish banks in particular, have significant exposure to the most vulnerable emerging markets (Chart I-22). Chart I-21Euro Area Credit Growth Has Flatlined Chart I-22Spain Most Exposed To Vulnerable EMs Concerns about the ability of the Italian government to service its debt obligations will also restrain bank lending. Investors breathed a sigh of relief last month when the Italian government signaled a greater willingness to pare back next year's proposed budget deficit, in accordance with the dictates of the European Commission. Tensions remain, however, as evidenced by the fact that the ten-year spread between BTPs and German bunds is still 120 basis points higher than in April (Chart I-23). The European political establishment is terrified of the rise in populism across the region and would love nothing more than to see Italy's populist parties implode. This means that any help from the ECB and the European Commission will only arrive once a full-fledged crisis is underway. Anyway, it is far from clear that a smaller budget deficit would actually translate into a lower government debt-to-GDP ratio. Like China, Italy also has a private sector that saves too much and spends too little. A shrinking population has reduced the need for firms to invest in new capacity. The prior government's pension cuts have also incentivized people to save more for their retirement. The result is a private sector savings-investment surplus that stood at 5% of GDP in 2017 compared to close to breakeven a decade ago (Chart I-24). Chart I-23Italian/Bund Spreads Signal Lingering Fiscal Strain Chart I-24Italy: Private Sector Saves Too Much And Spends Too Little Unlike Germany, Italy cannot export its excess production because it does not have a hypercompetitive economy. Nor does it have the ability to devalue its currency to gain a quick competitiveness boost. This means that the Italian government has to absorb excess private-sector savings with its own dissavings - a fancy way of saying that it has to run a large budget deficit. This has effectively been Japan's strategy for over two decades. However, unlike Japan, Italy does not have a lender of last resort that can unconditionally buy government debt. This raises the risk that Italy's debt woes will resurface, either because the government abandons austerity measures, or because the lack of fiscal support causes nominal GDP to stagnate, making it all but impossible for the country to outgrow its debt burden. Receding Policy Puts The discussion above suggests that many of the "policy puts" that investors have relied on are in the process of having their strike price marked down to deeper out-of-the-money levels. Yes, the Fed will ease off on rate hikes if U.S. growth is at risk of stalling out completely. However, now that the labor market has reached full employment, the Fed will welcome modestly slower growth. Remember that there has never been a case in the post-war era where the three-month average of the unemployment rate has risen by more than a third of a percentage point without a recession taking place (Chart I-25). The further the unemployment rate falls below NAIRU, the more difficult it will be for the Fed to achieve the proverbial soft landing. Chart I-25Even A Small Uptick In The Unemployment Rate Is Bad News For The Business Cycle Likewise, the "China stimulus put" - the presumption that most investors have that the Chinese authorities will launch a barrage of fiscal and credit easing at the first sign of slower growth - has become less reliable in light of the government's competing objectives namely reducing debt growth and excess capacity. The same goes for the "ECB put." Yes, the ECB will bail out Italy if the entire European project appears at risk. But spreads may need to blow out before the cavalry arrives. Meanwhile, just as the aforementioned policy puts are receding, new policy risks are rising to the fore, chief among them protectionism. We expect the trade war to heat up, with the Trump administration increasingly directing its ire at China. Trump's macroeconomic policies are completely at odds with his trade agenda. Fiscal stimulus will boost aggregate demand, which will suck in more imports. An overheated economy will prompt the Fed to raise rates more aggressively than it otherwise would, leading to a stronger dollar. All this will result in a wider trade deficit. What will Trump tell voters two years from now when he is campaigning in Michigan and Ohio about why the trade deficit has widened rather than narrowed under his watch? Will he blame himself or Beijing? No trophy for getting that answer right. II. Financial Markets Global Equities The combination of slower global growth, rising economic vulnerabilities outside the U.S., and a more challenging policy environment caused us to downgrade our view on global equities from overweight to neutral in June,3 while reiterating our preference for developed market equities relative to EM stocks. For now, we are comfortable with our bearish view towards emerging market stocks. While EM equities have cheapened, they are not yet at washed out levels (Chart I-26). Bottom fishers still abound, as evidenced by the fact that the number of shares outstanding in the MSCI iShares Turkish ETF has almost tripled since early April (Chart I-27). Chart I-26EM Assets: Valuations Not Yet At Washed Out Levels Chart I-27EM Bottom Fishers Still Abound At some point - probably in the first half of next year - investors will liquidate their remaining bullish EM bets. At that point, EM stocks will rebound. European and Japanese equities should also start to outperform the U.S., given their more cyclical nature. As far as the absolute direction of the S&P 500 is concerned, the next few months could be challenging. U.S. stocks have been able to decouple from those in the rest of the world, but this state of affairs may not last. Recall that the S&P 500 fell by 22% peak-to-trough between July 20 and October 8, 1998, in what otherwise was a massive bull market. We do not know if there is another Long-Term Capital Management lurking around the corner, but if there is, a temporary selloff in U.S. stocks may be hard to avoid. Such a selloff would present a buying opportunity over a horizon of 12-to-18 months. If we are correct that cyclical forces have lifted the neutral rate of interest, it will take a while for monetary policy to reach restrictive territory. This means that both fiscal and monetary policy will stay accommodative at least for the next 18 months. As such, the S&P 500 may not peak until 2020. Appendix A - Chart I presents a stylized diagram of where we think global equities are going. It incapsulates three phases: 1) a challenging period over the next six months, driven by EM weakness; 2) a blow-off rally in equities starting in the middle of next year; 3) and finally, a recession-induced bear market beginning in late-2020. Appendix B also presents our valuation charts, which highlight that long-term return prospects are better outside the United States. Fixed Income After advocating for a long duration strategy for much of the post-crisis recovery, BCA declared "The End Of The 35-Year Bond Bull Market" on July 5, 2016, the very same day that the 10-year U.S. Treasury yield hit a record closing low of 1.37%. Cyclically and structurally, we continue to expect U.S. bond yields to rise more than the market is discounting. As noted above, the Fed is underestimating how high rates will need to go before they reach restrictive territory. This means that the Fed will end up behind the curve in normalizing monetary policy, causing the economy to overheat and inflation to rise above the Fed's comfort zone. Granted, the Fed is willing to tolerate a modest inflation overshoot. However, a core PCE reading above 2.3%, which is at the top end of the range of the Fed's own forecast, would prompt the Fed to expedite the pace of rate hikes. A bear flattening of the yield curve - a situation where long-term yields rise, but short-term rates go up even more - would be highly likely in that environment. Over a shorter-term horizon spanning the next six months, the outlook for yields is more benign. The combination of a stronger dollar, slower global growth, and flight-to-quality flows into the Treasury market from vulnerable emerging markets can cap yields. Add to this the fact that sentiment towards bonds is currently extremely bearish (Chart I-28), and a temporary countertrend decline in yields becomes quite probable. Chart I-28Bond Sentiment Is Extremely Bearish Developed market bond yields in general are likely to follow the direction of U.S. yields, both on the upside and the downside, but in a more muted manner. Outside the periphery, euro area yields have less scope to fall in the near term given that they are already so low. European yields also have less room to rise once global growth bottoms next year because the neutral rate of interest is much lower in the euro area than in the United States. Ironically, a more dovish ECB would help reduce Italian bond yields, as higher inflation is critical for increasing Italian nominal GDP. Since labor market slack is still elevated in Italy, continued monetary stimulus would also lift wages in core Europe more than in Italy, helping to boost Italy's competitiveness relative to the rest of the euro area. Japanese yields have plenty of scope to rise over the long haul. An aging population is pushing more people into retirement, which will cause the national savings rate to fall further. A decline in the savings pool will increase the neutral rate of interest in Japan. Instead of raising the policy rate, the Japanese authorities will let the economy overheat, generating inflation in the process. This will cause the yield curve to steepen, particularly at the very long end (e.g., beyond 10 years) which is the part of the yield curve that is the least susceptible to the BoJ's yield curve control regime. Appendix A - Chart II shows our expectations for the major government bond markets over the coming years. Turning to credit markets, high-yield credit typically underperforms in the latter innings of business-cycle expansions, a period when the Fed is raising rates. Thus, while we do not think that U.S. corporate debt levels will be a major source of systemic financial risk for the broader economy, this is hardly a reason to be overweight spread-product. A more cautious stance towards credit outside the U.S. is also warranted. Currencies And Commodities The dollar is working off overbought conditions, but will rebound into year-end, as EM tensions intensify and hopes of a massive credit/fiscal-fueled Chinese stimulus package fizzle. EM currencies will weaken the most against the dollar over the next three-to-six months, but the euro and, to a lesser extent, the yen, will also come under pressure. Granted, the dollar is no longer a cheap currency, but if long-term interest rate differentials stay anywhere close to current levels, the greenback will remain well supported. Consider the dollar's value against the euro. Thirty-year U.S. Treasurys currently yield 3.20% while 30-year German bunds yield 1.12%, a difference of 208 basis points. Even if one allows for the fact that investors expect euro area inflation to be lower than in the U.S. over the next 30 years, EUR/USD would need to trade at a measly 82 cents today in order to compensate German bund holders for the inferior yield they will receive.4 We do not expect EUR/USD to get down to that level, but a descent into the $1.10-to-$1.12 range over the next six months is probable. Sterling will remain hostage to Brexit negotiations. It is impossible to know how talks will evolve, but our bias is to take a somewhat pound-positive view. The main reason is that support for Brexit has faded (Chart I-29). Opinion polls suggest that if a referendum were held again, the "bremain" side would almost certainly prevail. Lacking public support for leaving the EU, it is unlikely that British negotiators could simply walk away from the table. This reduces the odds of a "hard Brexit" outcome. Indeed, a second referendum that leads to a "no-Brexit" verdict remains a distinct possibility. The combination of slower global growth and a resurgent dollar is likely to hurt commodity prices. Industrial metals are more vulnerable than oil. China consumes around half of all the copper, nickel, aluminum, zinc, and iron ore produced around the world (Chart I-30). In contrast, China represents less than 15% of global oil demand. Chart I-29When Bremorse Sets In Chart I-30China Is A More Dominant Consumer Of Metals Than Oil The supply backdrop for oil is also more favorable than for metals. Not only are Saudi Arabia and Russia maintaining production discipline, but U.S. sanctions against Iran threaten to weigh on global crude supply. Further reduction in Venezuela's oil output, as well as potential disruptions to Libyan or Iraqi exports, could also boost oil prices. The superior outlook for oil over metals means we prefer the Canadian dollar relative to the Aussie dollar. While AUD/CAD has weakened in recent months, the Aussie dollar is still somewhat expensive against the loonie based on our long-term valuation model (Chart I-31). We also see an increasing chance that Canada will negotiate a revamped trade deal with the U.S., as Trump focuses his attention more on China. Should this happen, it will remove the NAFTA break-up risk discount embedded in the Canadian dollar. Finally, a few words on precious metals. Precious metals typically struggle during periods when the dollar is appreciating (Chart I-32). Consequently, we would not be eager buyers of gold or other precious metals until the dollar peaks, most likely around the middle of next year. As inflation starts to accelerate in late-2019 and in 2020, gold will finally move decisively higher. Chart I-31Canadian Dollar Still Somewhat ##br##Cheap Versus The Aussie Dollar Chart I-32Gold Won't Shine Until The Dollar Peaks Appendix A - Chart III and Chart IV present an illustration of where the major currencies and commodities are heading. Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy September 28, 2018 Next Report: October 25, 2018 1 Depending on which specification of the Taylor rule one uses, a one percent of GDP increase in aggregate demand will increase the neutral rate of interest by half a point (John Taylor's original specification) or by a full point (Janet Yellen's preferred specification). Fiscal policy is currently about 3% of GDP too stimulative compared to a baseline where government debt-to-GDP is stable over time. Assuming a fiscal multiplier of 0.5, fiscal policy is thus boosting aggregate demand by 1.5% of GDP. Nonfinancial private credit has increased by an average of 1.5 percentage points of GDP per year since 2016. Assuming that every additional one dollar of credit increases aggregate demand by 50 cents, the revival in credit growth is raising aggregate demand by 0.75% of GDP, compared to a baseline where credit-to-GDP is flat. The labor share of income has increased by 1.25% of GDP from its lows in 2015. Assuming that every one dollar shift in income from capital to labor boosts overall spending on net by 20 cents, this would have raised aggregate demand by 0.25% of GDP. Lastly, if the personal savings rate falls by two points over the next two years, this would raise aggregate demand by 1.5% of GDP. Taken together, these factors are boosting the neutral rate by anywhere from 2% (Taylor's specification) to 4% (Yellen's specification). This is obviously a lot, and easily overwhelms other factors such as a stronger dollar that may be weighing on the neutral rate. 2 Recall that GDP is a flow variable (how much production takes place every period), whereas credit is a stock variable (how much debt there is outstanding). By definition, a flow is a change in a stock. Thus, credit growth affects GDP and the change in credit growth affects GDP growth. Euro area private-sector credit growth accelerated from -2.6% in May 2014 to 3.1% in March 2017, but has been broadly flat ever since. Hence, the credit impulse has dropped. 3 Please see Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "Three Policy Puts Go Kaput: Downgrade Global Equities To Neutral," dated June 20, 2018. 4 For this calculation, we assume that the fair value for EUR/USD is 1.32, which is close to the IMF's Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) estimate. The annual inflation differential of 0.47% is based on 30-year CPI swaps. This implies that the fair value for EUR/USD will rise to 1.52 after 30 years. If one assumes that the euro reaches that level by then, the common currency would need to trade at 1.52/(1.0208)^30=0.82 today. APPENDIX A APPENDIX A CHART IMarket Outlook: Equities APPENDIX A CHART IIMarket Outlook: Bonds APPENDIX A CHART IIIMarket Outlook: Currencies APPENDIX A CHART IVMarket Outlook: Commodities APPENDIX B Long-Term Return Prospects Are Slightly Better Outside The U.S. Long-Term Return Prospects Are Slightly Better Outside The U.S. Long-Term Return Prospects Are Slightly Better Outside The U.S. Long-Term Return Prospects Are Slightly Better Outside The U.S. II. Is It Time To Buy Value Stocks? Per the most commonly referenced growth and value indexes, growth has been outperforming value for over 11 years, the longest stretch in the history of the series. Growth's extended winning streak has split investors into two camps: those who believe that value is finished because of overexposure and shortened investor timeframes, and those who are trying to identify the point at which reversion to the mean will ensue. In this Special Report, we argue that the traditional off-the-shelf indexes are poor proxies for true value. Their methodology strays quite far from the principles enumerated by Benjamin Graham, the father of value investing, and Fama and French, the researchers who demonstrated that lower-priced stocks have outperformed over time. The headline S&P 500 indexes currently differentiate between growth and value stocks using simplistic metrics that introduce considerable sector bias, reducing the difference between growth and value to a binary choice between Tech and Financials. Using tools developed by BCA's Equity Trading Strategy service, we create sector-neutral U.S. value and growth indexes that correct for the off-the-shelf indexes' flaws, and broaden the range of metrics Fama and French employed to make style distinctions. The ETS-derived indexes appear to better distinguish between value and growth stocks. The ETS value-versus-growth portfolio beat its Fama and French counterpart by four percentage points annually over its 22-year life. We join our custom value and growth indexes to Fama and French's to study the impact of macro variables on relative style performance over time for the purpose of gaining insight into the most opportune points to shift between styles. Relative style performance has not corresponded consistently or robustly enough with the business cycle, inflation, interest rates, or broad market direction to support reliable style-decision rules. We find that monetary policy settings, as defined by our stylized fed funds rate cycle, are a consistently reliable predictor of relative style performance. Per the fed funds rate cycle, tight policy is most conducive to value outperformance. From this perspective, value's decade-long slump is not a surprise, given that the ultra-accommodative tide has been lifting all boats. There is no rush to increase value exposure while policy remains easy, but investors should look to load up on value once policy becomes tight, using the metrics in our ETS model to identify true value stocks. We expect that the policy inflection will occur sometime in the second half of 2019, or the first half of 2020. Growth stocks have been on a tear for the longest stretch in the history of the series, based on the most commonly referenced growth and value indexes, even if their gains haven't yet matched the magnitude of the 1990s (Chart II-1). It is no surprise, then, that growth stocks are as expensive as they have ever been, outside of the tech-bubble era in the late 1990s. Many investors are thus wondering if the next "big trade" is to bet on an extended reversion to the mean during which value regains the ground it has given up. Chart II-1A Lost Decade For Value Stocks In this Special Report, we argue that the traditional off-the-shelf indexes are not very good at differentiating growth from value stocks. Trends in relative performance have much more to do with sector performance than intrinsic value, making the indexes a poor proxy for investors who are truly interested in selecting stocks based on their value and growth profiles. We create U.S. value and growth indexes that are unaffected by sector performance, using stock selection software provided by BCA's Equity Trading Strategy service. The results will surprise readers who are used to dealing with canned measures of value and growth. What Is Value Investing? Value investing principles have been around at least since the days when Benjamin Graham was a money manager himself. Style investing has been a part of the asset-management lexicon for four decades. Yet there is no universally agreed-upon definition of a value stock versus a growth stock. Based on our reading of Graham's Intelligent Investor, we submit that an essential element of value investing is the identification of stocks that are temporarily trading below their intrinsic value. The temporary drag may persist for a while - stock markets can remain oblivious to fundamentals for extended stretches - but it is ultimately expected to dissipate. Value investing is a play on negative overreaction or neglect, and dedicated value investors have to be contrarians, not to mention contrarians with strong stomachs. The temporary nature of undervaluation is a recurring theme in Graham's book. The stock market's ever-present proclivity toward overreaction ensures a steady supply of value opportunities: "The market is always making mountains out of molehills and exaggerating ordinary vicissitudes into major setbacks.1" "[W]hen an individual company ... begins to lose ground in the economy, Wall Street is quick to assume that its future is entirely hopeless and it should be avoided at any price.2" "[T]he outstanding characteristic of the stock market is its tendency to react excessively to favorable and unfavorable influences.3" Graham viewed security analysis as the comparison of an issue's market price to its intrinsic value. He advised buying stocks only when they trade at a discount to intrinsic value, offering an investor a "margin of safety" that should guard against significant declines. His favorite measure for assessing intrinsic value was a sober, objective estimate of average future earnings, grossed-up by an appropriate multiple. A low price-to-average-earnings ratio was the linchpin of his margin-of-safety mantra. Decades after Graham's heyday, University of Chicago professors Eugene Fama and Kenneth French bestowed the academy's seal of approval on value investing. Their landmark 1992 paper found that low price-to-book ("P/B") stocks consistently and convincingly outperformed high P/B stocks.4 Several "growth" and "value" indexes have been developed over the years, but they bear no more than a passing resemblance to Graham's, and Fama and French's, work. It is important to realize that the off-the-shelf indexes are far from an ideal proxy for the value factor that Fama & French tried to isolate. Traditional Growth And Value Indexes Are Wanting The off-the-shelf growth and value indexes shown in Chart II-1 all share similar cyclical profiles, with only small differences in long-term returns. Given the similarity of the indexes, we will focus on Standard & Poor's/Citigroup methodology for the purposes of this report.5 The headline S&P 500 indexes currently differentiate between growth and value stocks using the following metrics: 3-year growth rates in EPS, 3-year growth rates in sales-per-share, and 12-month price momentum; along with valuation yardsticks including price-to-book, price-to-earnings, and price-to-sales. Companies with higher growth rates in earnings and sales, and better price momentum, are classified as growth stocks, while those with lower valuation multiples are considered value stocks. Several stocks are cross-listed in both indexes, which is baffling and counterproductive for an investor seeking to implement a rigorous style tilt.6 Table II-1 contains a summary of the current sector breakdowns for the S&P 500 Growth and Value indexes. Table II-2 sheds light on each index's aggregate geographical and U.S. business cycle exposure, the former of which is based on our U.S. Equity Strategy service's judgment. Table II-1Current S&P 500 Style Index Exposures Table II-2The Value Index Has Less Global ##br##And Late Cyclical Exposure Growth is currently heavily weighted in Health Care, Technology and Consumer Discretionary sectors, while value has a high concentration of Financials, Energy and Consumer Staples (Table II-1). Table II-2 shows that the growth index has a clear current bias toward sectors with global economic exposure that typically outperform the broad equity market late in the business cycle. The value benchmark flips growth's global/domestic exposure, and has slightly more exposure to defensive sectors, while splitting its cyclical exposure evenly between early and late cyclicals. Sector Dominance Unfortunately, the reigning methodology creates a major problem - shifts in the relative performance of growth and value indexes are dominated by sector performance. Financials' higher debt loads, and banks' low-margin operations, depress their multiples relative to nonfinancial firms. Thus, Financials hold permanent residency in the off-the-shelf value indexes. Conversely, Tech stocks perennially account for an outsized proportion of most growth indexes' market cap. Value-versus-growth boils down to a binary choice between Financials and Tech.7 The growth/value price ratio has closely tracked the Technology/Financials price ratio since the late 1990s (Chart II-2, top panel). The correlation was much less evident before 1995, when Tech stocks accounted for a much smaller share of market capitalization. Chart II-3 demonstrates that the positive correlation between growth/value and Tech has steadily climbed over the decades to almost 1, while the correlation with Financials has become increasingly negative (currently at -0.75). Chart II-2The S&P 500 Style Indexes Merely Mimic Relative Sector Performance Chart II-3Style Capture In contrast, the Fama/French approach, which focuses exclusively on price-to-book while ensuring equal representation for large- and small-market-cap stocks, appears much less affected by sector skews; the growth/value index created from their data has not tracked the Tech/Financials ratio, even after 1995 (Chart II-2, second panel). Moreover, note that the extended downward trend in the Fama/French growth/value ratio is consistent with other academic research that shows that value stocks outperform growth over the long-term. The off-the-shelf indexes show the opposite, but that is because they are merely tracking the long-term outperformance of Tech relative to Financials. The bottom line is that the standard indexes incorporate flawed measures of growth and value that limit their usefulness for true style investing. Conventional Wisdom With respect to style investing and the economic cycle, the prevailing conventional wisdom holds that: Inflation - Growth stocks perform best during times of disinflation and persistently low inflation, whereas value stocks perform best during periods of accelerating inflation; Interest Rates - Periods of high and rising interest rates favor value stocks at the expense of growth; and Business Cycle - It is believed that growth stocks outperform value during recessions, because the latter tend to be more highly leveraged to the economic cycle than their growth counterparts. According to the conventional view, value stocks shine in the early and middle phases of a business cycle expansion. Growth stocks return to favor again in the late states of an expansion, when investors begin to worry about the pending end to the business cycle and are looking for reliable and consistent earnings growth. Do the traditional measures of growth and value corroborate this conventional wisdom? Chart II-4 shows that the S&P value/growth index and headline CPI inflation have both trended lower since the early 1980s, but there has been no tendency for value to outperform when inflation rises. Value has shown some tendency to outperform during rising-rate phases since the mid-1980s, but the relationship with the level of the fed funds rate is stronger than its direction, as we discuss below. The growth-over-value relationship with the business cycle is complicated by the tech bubble in the late 1990s, which heavily distorted relative sector performance. The Citigroup measure of growth began to outperform very late in the cycle and through the subsequent recession in some business cycles (1979-1981, 1989-1991, and 2007-2009; Chart II-5). The early and middle parts of the cycles, however, were a mixed bag. Chart II-4Spiting The Conventional Wisdom Chart II-5No Consistent Relationship With The Business Cycle The bottom line is that there appears to be some rough correspondence between the Citigroup index and the interest rate and growth cycles, but it is too variable to point to reliable rules for shifting between styles. Ultimately, determining the direction of the growth and value indexes is more about forecasting relative Tech and Financials performance than it is about identifying cheap stocks. A Better Value Approach We identify four broad shortcomings of off-the-shelf value indexes: They exclusively use trailing multiples, a rear-view mirror metric. They rely on simple price-to-book multiples, which flatter serial acquirers. They rely entirely on reported earnings, which are an imperfect proxy for cash flow. A share of stock ultimately represents a claim on its issuer's future cash flows. They make no attempt to place relative metrics into historical context. Without a mechanism to compare a particular segment's valuation relative to its history, structurally low-multiple stocks will be over-represented and structurally high-multiple stocks will be under-represented. BCA's Equity Trading Strategy (ETS) platform provides a way of differentiating value from growth stocks that avoids these problems. The web-based platform uses 24 quantitative factors to rank approximately 10,000 individual stocks in 23 countries. Users can rank and score individual equities to support a broad set of investment strategies and apply macro and sector views to single-name investments. The ETS approach has an impressive track record. Historically, the top decile of stocks ranked using the "BCA Score" methodology has outperformed stocks in the bottom decile by over 25% a year. The overall BCA Score includes all 24 factors when ranking stocks, but to develop our custom value index, we use only the five valuation measures in the ETS database: trailing P/E, forward P/E, price-to-tangible-book, price-to-sales and price-to-cash flow. Every quarter we rank the stocks within each of the 11 sectors based on an equally-weighted composite of the five valuation measures. Note that we are using the data to rank stocks only against other stocks in the same sector. We calculate the total return from owning the top 30% of stocks by value in each sector. We do the same with the bottom 30% and refer to this as our "growth" index.8 We then compute an equally-weighted average of the total returns for the growth indexes across the 11 sectors. We do the same for the value indexes. By comparing stock valuation only to other stocks in the same sector, this approach avoids the sector composition problem suffered by the off-the-shelf measures. Chart II-6 compares the ETS value/growth total return index to the Fama/French value/growth index. Data limitations preclude comparing the two measures before 1996, but the ETS index confirms the Fama/French result that value trumps growth over the long term. The ETS index follows a similar cyclical profile to the Fama/French index from 1997 to 2009, rising and falling in tandem. The two series subsequently diverge: per the criteria ETS uses to identify value and construct an index, lower-priced stocks have outperformed higher-priced ones for most of this expansion, while the Fama/French methodology suggests the reverse. Chart II-6The ETS Model Builds On Fama And French's Work By avoiding sector composition problems and using a wider variety of value measures, the ETS approach appears to be a superior measure of value. An investor that consistently over-weighted value stocks according to the ETS approach would have outperformed someone who did the same using the Fama methodology by an annual average of four percentage points from 1996 to 2018. The history of our ETS index only covers two recessions, limiting our ability to gauge its performance vis-Ã -vis a variety of macro factors, so we extend the ETS index back to 1926 using the Fama/French index. While joining two indexes with different methodologies is less than ideal, we feel the drawbacks are outweighed by the benefit of observing growth and value relative performance across more business cycles. The top panel of Chart II-7 shows U.S. real GDP growth, shaded for recessions. The bottom panel presents our extended ETS value/growth index, shaded for declines of more than 10%. The shaded periods overlap in many, but not all, cycles (indicated by circles in the chart). That is, growth stocks have tended to outperform during economic downturns, although this is not a hard-and-fast rule. Chart II-7No Hard-And-Fast Relationship With The Business Cycle... Value-over-growth relative returns exhibit some directionality with the overall equity market when looking at corrections (peak-to-trough declines of at least 10%, as shaded in the top panel of Chart II-8), though it should be noted that it is nearly impossible to flag a correction in advance. The relationship weakens when considering bear markets, i.e. peak-to-trough declines of at least 20%, which can be forecast with at least some reliability.9 The bottom panel is the same as in Chart II-7; the extended ETS index, shaded for periods of significant value stock underperformance. The correspondence between the shaded periods is hardly perfect, and there does not appear to be a practical style exposure message, even if an investor could call corrections in advance. Chart II-8...And Market Directionality Has Been An Imperfect Guide Over The Last 50 Years Valuation Relative valuation also provides some useful information on positioning, though it is not always timely. Chart II-9 presents an aggregate valuation measure for the stocks in our value index relative to that of the stocks in our growth index. Value stocks are expensive relative to growth when the valuation indicator is above +1 standard deviation, and value is cheap when the indicator is less than -1 standard deviation. Historically, investors would have profited if they had over-weighted value stocks when the valuation indicator reached the threshold of undervaluation, although subsequent outperformance was delayed by as much as a year in two episodes. In contrast, the valuation indicator is not useful as a 'sell' signal for value stocks because they can remain overvalued for long periods. Value was overvalued relative to growth for much of the time between 2009 and 2016. Value stocks have cheapened since then, although they have yet to reach the undervaluation threshold. The Fed Funds Rate Cycle While relative style performance may generally lean in one direction or another in conjunction with the business cycle, inflation, interest rates, or broad equity-market performance, there are no hard-and-fast rules. It is difficult to formulate any sort of rotation view between styles, and history does not inspire confidence that any such rule would generate material outperformance. The monetary policy backdrop offers a path forward. We have found the fed funds rate cycle offers a consistent guide to equity and bond returns in other contexts, and our Global ETF Strategy service has found a robust link between the policy cycle and equity factor performance.10 We segment the fed funds rate cycle into four phases, based on whether or not the Fed is hiking or cutting rates, and whether policy is accommodative or restrictive (Chart II-10). Our judgment of the state of policy is derived from comparing the fed funds rate to our estimate of the equilibrium fed funds rate, the policy rate that neither encourages nor discourages economic activity. Chart II-9Sizeable Undervaluation Flags Turning ##br##Points, But You May Have To Wait A While Chart II-10The Fed Funds Rate Cycle As defined by Fama and French, value stocks outperform growth stocks by a considerable margin when monetary policy is restrictive (Table II-3 and Chart II-11, top panel). Considering value and growth stocks separately, both perform extremely well when policy is easy (Chart II-11, second panel), but growth stocks barely advance when policy is tight, falling far behind their value counterparts. A strategy for generalist investors may be to seek out value exposure when policy is tight, while investing without regard to styles when it is easy. Table II-3The State Of Monetary Policy Is The ##br##Best Guide To Style Performance Chart II-11The State Of Monetary Policy Drives Style Performance Investment Conclusions: U.S. equity sectors that have traditionally been considered "growth" have outperformed value sectors for an extended period. The long slump has led some investors to argue that value investing is finished, killed by a combination of overexposure and short-term performance imperatives. Other investors see value's long drought as an anomaly, and are looking for the opportune time to bet on a reversal. We are in the latter camp. The difficulty lies in finding an indicator that reliably leads value stocks' outperformance. Most macro measures are unhelpful, though broad market direction offers some insight, as stocks with low price-to-book multiples have outperformed their high-priced peers by a wide margin during bear markets. Bear markets aren't the most useful timing guide, however, because one only knows in retrospect when they begin and end. The monetary policy backdrop holds the most promise as a practical guide. Although our determination of easy or tight policy turns on the modeled estimate of a concept and should not be looked to for absolute precision, it has provided a timely, reliable guide to value outperformance. We expect the relationship will persist because of the cushion provided by less demanding multiples. Earnings and multiples surge when policy is easy, lifting all boats. It is only when policy is tight, and the tide is going out, that the margin of safety offered by lower-priced stocks yields the greatest benefit. Per our estimate of the equilibrium fed funds rate, we are still firmly ensconced within Phase I of the policy rate cycle, and expect that we will remain there until sometime in the second half of 2019. We therefore expect that value, in Fama and French terms, will continue to underperform growth for another year. The clock is ticking for growth, though, as the expansion is in its latter stages and building inflation pressures will likely force the Fed to take a fairly hard line in this rate-hiking cycle. Once monetary policy turns restrictive, investors should hunt for value candidates using a range of valuation metrics, and combine them in a sector-neutral way, as we have via our Equity Trading Strategy service's model. Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst Doug Peta Senior Vice President U.S. Investment Strategy 1 Graham, Benjamin, The Intelligent Investor, Harper Collins: New York, 2005, p. 97. 2 Ibid, p. 15. 3 Ibid, p. 189. 4 Fama, Eugene F. and French, Kenneth R., "The Cross-Section of Expected Stock Market Returns," The Journal of Finance, Volume 47, Issue 2 (June 1992), pp. 427-465. 5 S&P currently brands its Growth and Value Indexes as S&P 500 Dow Jones Indexes, but Citigroup has the longest history of compiling S&P 500 Growth and Value Indexes, beginning in 1975, so we join the Citigroup S&P 500 style indexes to the Standard & Poor's series to obtain the maximum style-index history. We use the terms Citigroup and S&P interchangeably. 6 The Pure Value and Pure Growth indexes include only the top quartile of value and growth stocks, respectively, with no overlap between indexes, and are therefore better gauges of true style investing. 7 The Tech-versus-Financials cast of the indexes endures because all of the other sectors, ex-regulated Telecoms and Utilities, which account for too little market cap to make a difference, regularly move between the indexes as their fundamental fortunes, and investor appetites, wax and wane. The current Early Cyclical/Late Cyclical/Defensive profiles are not etched in stone and should be expected to shift, perhaps considerably, over time. 8 We created a second growth index by taking the top 30% of stocks ranked by earnings momentum. However, it made little difference to the results, so we will use the bottom 30% of stocks by value as our measure of "growth" for the purposes of this report, consistent with Fama/French methodology. 9 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst. September 2017, available on bca.bcaresearch.com 10 Please see the May 17, 2017 Global ETF Strategy Special Report, "Equity Factors And The Fed Funds Rate Cycle," available at getf.bcaresearch.com. III. Indicators And Reference Charts Our equity indicators continue to signal that caution is warranted, but U.S. profits remain potent enough to drown out scattered negative messages. Our Monetary Indicator remains at the low end of a multi-year range, suggesting that liquidity conditions have tightened. Our Composite Technical Indicator is in no-man's land, not far above the zero line that marks a sell signal, but coming close to issuing a buy signal by crossing above its 9-month moving average. Our Composite Sentiment Indicator is in a healthy position that suggests that the current level of investor optimism is sustainable. On the other hand, not one of our Willingness-to-Pay (WTP) Indicators is moving in the right direction. The U.S. version is still weak and slowly getting weaker; the European one has flat-lined; and our Japanese WTP extended its decline, albeit from a high level. Our Revealed Preference Indicator (RPI) for stocks continues to issue a sell signal. The RPI 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. Momentum remains out of sync with valuation and policy, underlining the idea that caution is warranted. On balance, our indicators continue to suggest that the underlying supports of the U.S. equity bull market are eroding. Surging U.S. profits are papering over the cracks, and may still have some legs. Earnings surprises are at an all-time high, and the net revisions ratio remains elevated. The 10-year Treasury yield's march higher is due to run out of steam. Valuation (slightly cheap) and technicals (oversold by almost 2 standard deviations) imply that a countertrend pullback is not too far around the corner. Beyond a near-term correction, though, complacency about inflation and the Fed's ability to hike rates to at least the level of the FOMC voters' median projection points to looming capital losses. The dollar is quite expensive on a purchasing power parity basis, and its long-term outlook is not constructive, but policy and growth divergences with other major economies will likely keep the wind at its back in the near term. 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 And Earnings: ##br##Relative Performance Chart III-8Global Stock Market And Earnings: ##br##Relative Performance FIXED INCOME: Chart III-9U.S. Treasurys And Valuations Chart III-10Yield Curve Slopes 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 Doug Peta Senior Vice President U.S. Investment Strategy

Special Report

Highlights Investors have piled into private equity (PE) in recent years, pushing assets under management (AUM) up to an all-time high of $3 trillion. However, there are increasing concerns about the outlook for the asset class over the next few years. In this report, we look at the fundraising and deal environment for PE, analyze historical risk-adjusted returns in comparison to traditional assets, and suggest how investors can optimize their PE allocation. Private equity and its two major sub-categories, buyouts and growth capital, have generated annualized returns of 13.4%, 13.7%, and 15.0% respectively over the past 32 years, significantly beating the returns from global equities and small-cap stocks of 8.4% and 9.1%. But the current environment is tougher. Dry powder (funds raised but not yet invested) exceeds $1 trillion. PE managers face increased competition from other investors and from companies with large cash balances looking to make acquisitions. Funds raised at the peak of bull markets have a higher probability of underperforming. The next two vintage years (2018 and 2019) face headwinds to making good returns, because of high entry valuations and a rising cost of borrowing. Manager selection is critical for a successful private-equity program. Top-quartile PE funds have outperformed second-quartile funds by as much as 8% a year over the past two decades. Feature Introduction The private equity (PE) market has grown more than five-fold since 2000, lifting assets under management from $577 billion to $2.97 trillion. However, its share of the private investment market has declined from 82% to 58% (Chart 1). Private equity and venture capital investing is said to date back to 1901 when J.P. Morgan purchased Carnegie Steel Co from Andrew Carnegie and Henry Philips for $480 million. The industry has evolved significantly over the years, and now encompasses a wide range of sub-strategies, offering investors a spectrum of exposures with very different risk/return profiles. Chart 1Private Equity Is A $3 Trillion Market Compared to public equity, private equity investing is harder because of: 1) long-term illiquidity, whereas public equities can be bought and sold quickly, 2) limited information on target companies, 3) the lack of a clear price discovery function, meaning that pricing in private markets depends heavily on negotiations, 4) less separation between ownership and control - finance providers in PE tend to be managers too. The PE space has matured over the years, and this is clearly seen in the compression of returns. However, many investors remain bullish on this asset class because of its historically attractive risk-adjusted return, and ability to diversify traditional portfolios. As of mid-2017, the median net return of the PE holdings of public pensions globally over the previous 10 years was 8.5% compared to 4.2% for public equities, 4.5% for real estate, and 5.2% for fixed income.1 In this report, we analyze in detail the PE market, with an overview of the fundraising cycle, deal environment, and exit channels. We include in-depth analysis of historical returns from the private equity market in aggregate, and from its two largest sub-categories, buyouts and growth capital. We end by listing the key risks for limited partners (LPs - the investors in PE funds), and include a brief note on private-equity secondary investing. Our key conclusions are: Private equity, including buyouts and growth capital, has had exceptionally good returns over the past three decades, but has been on a structural downtrend as competition has increased. Buyout funds generate a negative skew and moderate kurtosis, whereas growth capital tends to have a larger kurtosis and positive skew. Funds raised at the peak of bull markets have a greater probability of underperforming given their higher entry valuations. This is likely to be the case for funds raised over the next 18 months. The current economic cycle has produced fewer home-run deals - in 2002-2005, 35% of deals produced returns of 3x invested capital, but this fell to 20% in the 2010-2013 period. Megacap buyout funds produce the best returns, but this comes with significantly higher volatility pushing down the risk-adjusted return. These larger funds experience larger negative skew and kurtosis driven by greater use of leverage. Entry valuations of investments made by PE funds have been steadily rising, and so has leverage: the median debt/EBITDA has reached 5.5x. As multiples keep rising, general partners (GPs - the fund managers) have to make up the difference with equity infusion. Top-quartile managers have significantly outperformed. Third-quartile managers struggled even to outperform global equities, and fourth quartile managers failed to preserve their initial capital. The secondary PE market is growing. It provides access to mature portfolio assets deeper into their distributions phase, which reduces the duration of the LP's investment. Fundraising, Deals, And Exits Private equity investing consists of many different sub-categories (Chart 2) that differ in value creation techniques and the maturity of target companies. Buyouts and growth capital are over 90% of the total. Buyouts2 invest in established companies, usually with the intention of improving operations and financials. There is usually substantial use of leverage. Growth capital3 takes significant minority positions in profitable yet still maturing companies mostly without the use of leverage. Secondary funds acquire stakes in PE funds from other LPs. Co-investment funds make minority investments alongside a buyout, recapitalization, or any other non-controlling investment. Turnaround funds aim to revitalize companies that face operational difficulties. Chart 2Buyouts & Growth Capital Are 90% Of PE Private-equity firms raised $701 billion in 2017, making the past five years the strongest period for fundraising in history, with a total of $3.2 trillion (Chart 3). Additionally, more than two-thirds of the funds which closed in 2017 met or exceeded their target amounts, and 39% took less than a year to close. The last time fundraising peaked was in 2008, right in the middle of the last recession. However, since 2009, fundraising for buyouts has dropped from 85% to 70% of the aggregate for private equity, with growth capital picking up the slack, rising from 8% to 21%. As fundraising has gotten stronger, PE firms have been raising larger funds.4 These megafunds (with AUM greater than $5 billion) raised $174 billion in 2017, or 58% of that year's total buyout volume, a steep increase from $90 billion in 2016. For investment institutions with large amounts of capital to deploy, megafunds are an attractive and efficient outlet. Another reason for the very strong fundraising environment has been quick follow-up funds, where GPs race to launch new funds before predecessor funds have matured. Historically GPs have waited an average of 62 months between closing one fund and starting the next, but this has come down to 40 months in the past five years. With fundraising so strong, GPs are under pressure to deploy this capital wisely. Global PE deal volume increased by 14% in 2017, surpassing $1.2 trillion (Chart 4). But global deal count has been on the decline since 2015. Along with larger funds being raised, the average deal size in the private market has been rising steadily since the Global Financial Crisis (GFC). Despite increasing deal activity, the sheer volume of fundraising in recent years has led to massive accumulation of dry powder,5 which currently stands at $1.03 trillion. After 2008, dry powder as a percentage of AUM (Chart 5) was on a downward trend because of increased acquisition activity due to attractive valuations following the GFC. But this bottomed in 2012 at 29% and had risen to 35% at the end of 2017. If this level of dry powder accumulation continues, GPs will be forced to reduce hurdle rates and deploy capital into less attractive deals. Chart 3$3.2 Trillion Raised in 5 Years Chart 4Rising Deal Size Chart 5Harder To Find Attractive Deals Another reason for dry powder accumulation is increasing competition for deals both within the private equity market, and from external sources. The number of private equity funds is at an all-time high of 7,775.6 The external competition comes largely from corporate buyers with large cash balances looking for inorganic growth. Corporations have two advantages over PE firms: 1) potential built-in synergies when it comes to integrating the target, giving them the ability to pay a higher price, and 2) a lower cost of capital. An increasing number of corporations have been setting up corporate venture-capital units (Chart 6) to focus on acquisition-led growth. In 2017, there were 38,479 companies bought and sold globally for a total value of $3.3 trillion. But, private equity's share of this market was just 13% by deal value and 8% by deal count (Chart 7). Looking forward, PE funds are likely to act more aggressively and take a larger share of the market, as they did in 2006-2007. In order to increase their share of global deal activity, private-equity funds need to look at more strategic ways to pick up assets: Chart 6Corporations Setting Up VCs Chart 7Buyouts Only A Tiny Player In Global M&A Zombie Assets: Assets (portfolio companies) belonging to funds that last raised initial capital between 2003 and 2008 but have not executed a deal since 2015. Currently there are over 100 such companies that are possible targets for takeover in 2018-2019. Carve-Outs: Over the past few years, one in five deals in the U.S. has come from corporations disposing of non-core assets.7 This provides a steady deal flow for buyout and turnaround funds. Public To Private: As multiples in private markets converge with those in public markets, more and more publicly listed companies are being taken private, and this market has doubled since 2016 (Chart 8). Additionally, lenders have become more comfortable about financing these high-value transactions. Buy & Build/Add-Ons: Purchasing cheaper small assets and adding them to existing large established platform companies. This in turn transforms a group of smaller companies at lesser multiples into a larger corporation with a premium valuation. Add-ons made up one-third of deals a decade ago, but that has now reached 50%. But, since such deals are smaller in terms of dollar value, they make up less than 25% of the total deal volume. Finally, PE firms have also been increasing the holding period of the assets in their portfolio. The median holding period before the GFC was four years, and this has now increased to over five years (Chart 9). Additionally, private equity firms exited 40% of all deals in fewer than three years, but now these quick-flips have fallen to only 20%. This is partly a response to increased competition: GPs are skeptical about finding new attractive deals, and this forces them to hold onto assets for as long as possible. Additionally, the new U.S. tax code has increased from one to three years the threshold period for carry to be treated as capital gain with a lower tax rate, rather than taxed as ordinary income. With fundraising on fire but deal activity struggling to keep pace, the final pillar for a successful private equity program is the exit environment. Global PE-backed exits have been flat for the past two years at around $500 billion, with the deal count between 2,500 and 3,000 (Chart 10). The rise in exit activity in 2015 was fuelled by PE firms looking to exit portfolio companies acquired before the financial crisis. By 2017, the dynamic had changed since more than 80% of exits that year were companies acquired in 2009 or later. Finally, dividend recapitalizations8 reached $42 billion in 2017, but these are heavily dependent on an accommodative debt market and positive environment for high-yield bonds. With rising rates, dividend recapitalization, and other forms of special dividends or distributions that require borrowing, become harder to execute. Chart 8Public-To-Private Activity Chart 9Longer Holding Periods Chart 10Global PE Exits Are Healthy Historical Returns Before we look at the past risk-return profile of investing in this asset class, a note on the data used in this report. All return data are based on the Cambridge Associates Private Investment Benchmarks.9 We are satisfied with the methodology used and the format in which the returns are presented. The provider has taken sufficient steps to minimize survivorship bias. For more details on the data methodology, please see the Appendix. What can investors expect in terms of risk-return exposure from this asset class? Looking at Table 1, private equity and its sub-strategies have comfortably outperformed global equities, with lower volatility, over the past 32 years. Even after statistically adjusting returns for stale pricing,10 volatility for aggregate private equity and buyouts remains lower than for global equities and small-cap stocks. On the other hand, growth capital has had realized volatility greater than that of global equities, but with a significantly higher return; it is still the more attractive investment on a risk-adjusted basis. However, the significantly lower realized volatility of PE in aggregate, and buyout funds in particular, compared to growth capital makes them more attractive investments. Additionally, venture capital experienced volatility of close to 42%, more than double that of small-cap stocks, making it very unattractive from a risk-adjusted perspective. Table 1Risk-Return Spectrum However, comparing the performance of PE with that of publicly traded assets could be misleading given the uncertain timing of cash inflows and outflows from private equity programs. Therefore, we also show the Public Market Equivalent11 (PME) to adjust public-market indices for uncertain cash flow streams. Looking at Tables 2-4, we can see that private equity still outperforms equity indices on a PME basis over different time frames. Table 2Private Equity PME Analysis Table 3Buyout PME Analysis Table 4Growth Capital PME Analysis Another unique characteristic of private-market returns is the J-curve effect where investments in private markets take time to bear fruit, and fees are initially based on committed capital rather than invested capital. In addition, the biggest cash flows will be received towards the end, so the returns for the first few years can be misleading. IRR will remain negative until the point when distributions at least match contributions (the payback point). Given the non-linear return distribution of alternative assets such as PE and venture capital, risk analysis is not complete without skewness and kurtosis. Investing in buyout funds generates a negative skew and a moderate level of kurtosis, which means that investors can expect more stable, predictable returns, closer to a normal distribution. However, growth capital tends to have larger kurtosis and positive skew, thereby a higher probability of large upside gains. Since buyout capital structures tend to be more heavily geared, there is a higher skew towards negative returns driven by the leverage effect. Venture capital exhibits a return distribution similar to growth capital, where a few portfolio companies produce large positive returns given the start-up nature of its targets. PE returns remain attractive but, as with other alternative asset classes, performance has been on a downward trend (Chart 11) driven by increased competition. In the 1980s and 1990s, buyout firms exploited the poor performance of large U.S. conglomerates by acquiring underperforming divisions and using leverage. In the early 2000s, funds took advantage of the stock market rise, fuelled by low rates and levered returns. Within the structural downtrend in returns, PE has had a cyclical profile just like public equities. During bull markets there are more exits at higher valuations, and larger distributions to LPs. However, funds raised in bull markets have a higher probability of underperforming given their higher entry valuations. Looking forward, funds from recent vintages that are halfway through their life are likely to be able to take advantage of current tailwinds to build value and exit at the top. However, funds raised in the next two years will have to deal with high entry valuations and a possible increase in the cost of borrowing. There have been fewer write-offs and deals with capital impairments in the post-2009 period than in the years after the 2001 recession. However, the current economic cycle has produced fewer of the home-run deals that really drive PE performance. For example, in 2002-2005, 35% of deals produced returns of 3x invested capital or better, and more than 50% generated multiples of 2x or better. For the period 2010-2013, the equivalent percentages were 20% and 42% respectively. Looking at Chart 12, we can see that PE, buyout, and growth capital funds outperformed global equities and small-cap equities during recessions and equity bear markets. Chart 11Private Vs. Public Equity Chart 12Recession & Bear Markets Return persistence is the ability of top-performing manager to repeat the strong performance in their follow-up funds. In the PE industry, some large firms have proved able to repeat top-ranked performance time after time across multiple funds. We believe this is likely a function of their network of contacts that gives them access to proprietary deal flows. However, there are three factors that may be creating a spurious correlation here: 1) GPs tend to raise new funds 2-5 years into the life of an existing fund, thus creating overlapping structures of successive funds that are exposed to similar market environments, 2) investments in some portfolio companies are split between successive funds which induces a spurious patterns of performance persistence, 3) much of the top-quartile performance persistence came during periods of low competition. There is also a relationship between holding period and performance, whereby funds that hold onto portfolio companies for longer have lower performance, while quick-flips perform better. Funds have an incentive to exit successful investments earlier to show a good track record, and to extend the holding period of unsuccessful ones hoping for a better outcome. There is an intrinsic cyclicality in this relationship: in bear markets when valuations are low, funds will hold off from selling their assets in the hope of a better time to sell. Table 5 show the average returns LPs can expect from investing in companies with a specific sector focus. But, this comes with a large amount of idiosyncratic firm- and sector-specific risk; this tends to have a larger impact on buyouts than on venture capital which is already very industry focused. Geographic diversification gives investors access to different economic cycles and levels of market maturity across the globe. In the last recession, PE performance was very poor in some regions, while not that bad in others. There has been a clear cyclical pattern for U.S. versus ex-U.S. performance over the past 30 years, closely linked to the relative growth rates in the underlying economies (Chart 13). Table 5Returns By Sector Exposure Chart 14 shows that from Q3 1998 to Q4 2000 relative performance between buyout and growth capital funds tended to move along with the interest-rate trajectory - the former benefits from falling rates which lower the cost of borrowing. Additionally, looking at median net IRR for funds by vintage year, we see that buyouts outperformed growth capital in 17 out of the 21 years (Chart 15). This was driven by stronger distributions to buyout fund LPs. Additionally; it was achieved with a fairly similar standard deviation of fund performance across vintage years. Within the buyout space, the median U.S.-focused buyout fund outperformed its ex-U.S. counterpart only in 2004-2012. Chart 13U.S. Vs. Rest Of The World Chart 14Impact Of Rising Rates Chart 15Buyouts Vs Growth Capital Finally, when allocating to private-equity and especially buyout funds, investors have a choice between different deal sizes (small to megacap). Looking at Table 6, it is clear that megacap buyout funds have been able to produce the best returns, but this came with significantly higher volatility, pushing down risk-adjusted returns. Additionally, these megacap deals have a larger negative skew and kurtosis - investors should expect a higher probability of large negative returns. Looking at performance in recessions, one can find a relationship between the nature of the downturn and the performance of different buyout deal sizes. For example, during the 2001 recession, the smallest deal sizes produced the worst performance because smaller-cap tech stocks suffered in the aftermath of the dotcom bust. During the 2007-2009 recession, the worst hit were larger buyout deals because of the damage done to the credit market. An analysis of PE would not be complete without a discussion of valuations. The average deal size has risen by 25% since 2009: two-thirds of this increase is due to rising multiples, and the remaining one-third is organic (Chart 16). Median EV/EBITDA has risen from 5.6x in 2009 to 10.7x in 2017. Leverage levels have been rising alongside multiples, and so lenders will be more hesitant to offer debt financing for deals. GPs will have to to make up the funding shortage with equity infusion, and this leads to a decrease in IRR. Additionally, covenant-lite loans have been increasing since 2012 and are now 75% of overall loan volume in the U.S. The percentage of listed companies globally valued at more than 11x EV/EBITDA rose from 20% in 2012 to 54% in 2016. Table 6Size Matters Chart 16Private Equity Is Expensive Lastly, return dispersion is much larger for private-market investments compared to public markets, because of the more active nature of the investment process. If an LP had consistently picked only top-quartile managers from 2000, they would have outperformed second-quartile managers by an impressive 7.7% (Chart 17) a year. Top-quartile managers generated these higher returns with only a trivial increase in volatility, thereby producing far superior risk-adjusted returns. Additionally, skewness and kurtosis measures show no significant deterioration (Table 7). Third-quartile managers struggled even to outperform global equities, and fourth-quartile managers failed even to preserve initial capital. Therefore, manager selection is critical to building a successful private-equity program. Over the past decade, there has been clear compression in fees charged by private equity firms (Chart 18). Management fees tend to differ significantly between the smallest and largest funds; but they are fairly consistent at about 1.975% for funds with AUM between $100 million and $1.9 billion. Chart 17Manager Selection Is Critical Table 7Large Dispersion Chart 18Fee Compression? Risks In Private Equity Chart 19Strong Distributions The long-term investment horizon, illiquid nature, and unique structure of PE bring logistical challenges and unique risks. Given the erratic nature of capital draw-downs by GPs, some LPs might be unable to service capital calls which leads to their defaulting on their obligations. In this case, investors are exposed to funding risk and could lose their entire investment in the fund and all the capital already paid in. LPs tend to use distributions from a mature fund to finance capital calls of younger funds. But this may not be feasible in a slowdown when exits dry up and distributions slow, forcing LPs to raise additional capital from external sources12 for commitments. Many investors run an over-commitment strategy to avoid being under-exposed to their strategic allocation. The strong equity bull market has increased overall portfolio values, meaning that LPs have received large distributions, which have been double contributions since 2013 (Chart 19). Therefore, the net asset value (NAV) of PE holdings has not grown, and allocations even contracted in 2017, forcing LPs to keep plowing gains back into their programs to maintain the target allocation. Investors also face significant liquidity risk. GPs could be forced to sell portfolio companies in the secondary market at a discount to NAV, given the illiquid nature of the market. The secondary market tends to be very cyclical and is likely to experience a deal drought, as seen during the last financial crisis. Market risk is the impact of volatile markets on the quarterly changes in NAV of the portfolio. Capital risk relates to the realization value of the private-equity investments. There is a risk of a private-equity investment going bust and losing all its value. Holding a portfolio of funds exposed to many different companies can reduce this risk and generate a statistical distribution skewed towards positive returns. Additionally, diversification over multiple vintage years should create a right-skewed distribution that minimizes long-term capital risk. A Note On Private Equity Secondaries Chart 20Secondaries: Faster Return But Smaller Upside The secondary market for LPs' private-equity investments is growing. Direct secondaries are the sale of an interest in a direct PE investment or portfolio of direct PE investments to a new third-party investor. A secondaries fund is a PE fund raised by a fund-of-funds manager to acquire limited partnership interests in private equity from the original LPs. Secondary investing is no longer looked at as a source of liquidity for distressed investors, but as a differentiated investment strategy and a regular portfolio management tool to rebalance fund exposures and lock in realized gains. The secondary penetration rate (the percentage of total NAV across all PE strategies that trades in the secondary market) is still less than 2%13 but, as the secondary market continues to expand, investors may see a broader spectrum of assets on sale. Many investors look at the secondary market solely for opportunistic investments, making commitments only during or immediately following periods of market distress. Intuitively this makes sense, as secondary buyers should be able to negotiate steeper discounts during periods of elevated uncertainty and tight liquidity. However, there are many reasons to have a dedicated allocation: It Mitigates The J-Curve: Mature secondary investments cut off several years from the typical term of a PE fund because a good portion of the investment period is already completed. This generates immediate returns from the mature private-equity program. Many fund-of-funds managers will combine secondary interests with their primary portfolios to mitigate the J-curve. Less Blind Pool Risk: In private equity, LPs commit capital to a portfolio that is yet to be built. Secondary investing significantly reduces this risk because portfolios acquired are generally more than 50% invested and have less unfunded commitments. This provides investors with an actual portfolio of companies to evaluate. It Diversifies A Private-Equity Program: An allocation to secondaries can provide instant exposure to a highly diversified portfolio of mature private-equity interests. Lower Probability Of Poor Performance: The potential upside for secondary funds is not as high as that of primary funds, but the former produce poor returns much less frequently (Chart 20). Aditya Kurian, Senior Analyst Global Asset Allocation adityak@bcaresearch.com 1 Source: Bain Global Private Equity Report 2018. 2 Buyouts refers to deals in which a PE fund borrows a significant amount to acquire a target company or companies, which tend to be larger-cap private or publicly listed corporations. 3 Investments in mature companies with proven business models that are looking for capital to expand or restructure operations, enter new markets, or finance a major acquisition. 4 Apollo Investment Fund IX with an AUM of $24.7 billion raised in 2016-2017 is the largest buyout fund raised in history. 5 The amount of capital that has been committed to a private equity fund, but not yet deployed. 6 Source: Pitchbook. 7 The largest global buyout was the $17.9 billion carve-out of Toshiba Memory Corp in 2018. 8 Whereby a company owned by a private-equity fund issues debt in order to pay a dividend to the fund. 9https://www.cambridgeassociates.com/private-investment-benchmarks/ 10 To de-smooth returns, we used a first-order autoregressive model as shown by Rt = A0 + At Rt-1 + e, where At is the auto-regressive coefficient, and A0 is the intercept term. However, statistical methods do not always satisfactorily solve the problem of underestimated volatility for appraised asset values. 11 PME replicates the timing and size of private equity cash flows (purchases and sales) as if they had been invested in public equities. It is the dollar-weighted return that could have been achieved if funds had been invested in the index whenever a capital contribution was made and divested when the GP paid out a distribution. 12 In the Global Financial Crisis, Harvard Management Co issued a bond of more than $1 billion and considered selling a private equity stake of $1.5 billion at a 40%-50% discount to fund its capital calls. 13 Source: Preqin Ltd. Appendix: A Note On Data Sources And Definitions The performance indices all use quarterly unaudited, and annual audited fund financial statements produced by the GPs for their LPs. Partnership financial statements and narratives are the primary source of information concerning cash flows and ending residual/net asset values for both partnerships and portfolio company investments. The data providers' goal is to have a complete record of the quarterly cash flows and NAVs for all funds in the benchmark. All performance is calculated net of fees, expenses, and carried interest. Cambridge Associates (CA) uses two types of return calculation in its indices: Since Inception IRR: This calculates a discount rate which makes the NPV of an investment equal to zero. It is based on cash-on-cash returns over equal periods modified for the residual value of the partnership's equity or portfolio company's NAV. The residual value attributed to each respective group being measured is incorporated as its ending value. Transactions are accounted for on a quarterly basis, and annualized values are used for reporting purposes. End-To-End/Horizon IRR: A money-weighted return similar to the Since Inception IRR, except that it measures performance between two points in time. The calculation incorporates the beginning NAV, interim cash flows, and the ending NAV. All interim cash flows are recorded on the mid-period date of the quarter. With regards to avoiding survivorship bias, CA requires the complete set of financial statements from the fund's inception to the most current reporting date. When an active fund stops providing financial statements, CA reaches out to the manager to encourage them to continue to submit data. CA may, during this communication period, roll forward the fund's last reported quarter's NAV for several quarters. When CA is convinced that the manager will not resume reporting, the fund's entire performance history is removed from the database. Survivorship bias can affect all investment manager databases, including those of public asset managers. But the illiquid nature of private investments can actually help limit this impact, since the private investment partnerships owning illiquid assets will continue to exist and be legally required to report to the LPs even after the original manager ceases to exit. Over the past nine years the number of fund managers that stopped reporting to the database before liquidation averaged per year 0.7% of the total number of funds, and 0.6% of total NAV in the database. During that period the overall number of funds in the database increased by an average of 8% per year. Public Market Equivalent (PME): A private-to-public comparison that seeks to replicate private-investment performance under public-market conditions. The public index is recalculated as if shares were purchased and sold according to the private fund's cash flow schedule, with distributions calculated in the same proportion as the private fund. The PME NAV is a function of PME cash flows and public index returns. The PME attempts to evaluate the return that would have been earned had the dollars been deployed in the public markets instead of in private investments.