Global

Highlights The uptick in world oil demand in the wake of a strengthening global upturn - the first since the Global Financial Crisis (GFC) - coupled with continued production discipline by OPEC 2.0, will accelerate inventory draws, and lift prices above our previous expectation. Even though we expect - and model for - U.S. shale producers to step up drilling as a result, we are lifting our base case forecast for 2018 Brent and WTI to $65.15/bbl and $62.95/bbl, respectively. These estimates are up $5.51 and $5.98/bbl from our forecast last month.1 Energy: Overweight. Given our view (discussed below), we are taking profits on the long Dec/17 WTI call spread we recommended June 15 - long $50/bbl calls vs. short $55/bbl calls - on the close tonight. This position was up 116% Tuesday. We will replace this spread with long $55/bbl WTI calls vs. short $60/bbl WTI calls in Jul/18 and Dec/18. Base Metals: Neutral. We closed our short Dec 2016 copper trade last week, after our trailing-stop of $3.10/lb was elected, with a 0.75% return. Our trade was up 6% by the end of September, however bullish data in October - including an earthquake in Chile and worries over a potential metal shortage in China - lifted prices back up. Chinese copper import data showed a 26.5% year-on-year (yoy) jump in September. Even so, we expect copper imports to end 2017 with a yoy decline. Precious Metals: Neutral. Palladium continues to trade premium to platinum following its breakout at the end of September. We expect this to continue, given the supply-demand fundamentals we highlighted in June.2 Ags/Softs: Neutral. The USDA's latest World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates (WASDE) is supportive of our grains view - projections for 2017/18 wheat ending inventories were revised upward, while corn and soybeans stock estimates were lowered. Our long corn vs. short wheat position recommended October 5 is up 1.5% (please see p. 8 for further discussion.) Feature The global uptick in GDP growth noted this month by the IMF, along with continued production discipline from OPEC 2.0 - the producer coalition led by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) and Russia - will lift 2018 average Brent and WTI prices to $65.15/bbl and $62.95/bbl, respectively. These estimates are up $5.51 and $5.98/bbl from our forecast last month (Chart of the Week). Chart of the WeekHigher Demand, Lower Supply,##BR##Tighter Inventories Lift Prices We expect the fortuitous combination of fundamentals - for oil producers, that is - to accelerate the drawdown in oil inventories globally, which also will be supportive for prices (Chart 2). This, in turn, will set off a new round of U.S. shale-oil production, which will temper the price rise we expect, but still force inventories to draw harder than expected (Chart 3). Our base case calls for OPEC 2.0 to extend its 1.8mm b/d production cutting deal to end-June 2018, and for compliance within the KSA-Russia-led coalition to remain strong. OPEC 2.0 member states compliance with self-imposed quotas stood at 106% of agreed cuts, according to a state-by-state tally published by S&P's Global Platts earlier this month.3 Iraq continues to flaunt its OPEC 2.0 production quota, at 4.54mm b/d by our estimate, or 153k b/d over its quota. OPEC as a whole is producing 32.74mm b/d of crude oil, by our reckoning, vs. Platts' estimate of 32.66mm b/d. We have Libya and Nigeria, which are not parties to the OPEC 2.0 Agreement, producing 930k b/d and 1.71mm b/d last month, vs. Platts' estimates of 910k b/d and 1.84mm b/d, respectively (Table 1). KSA and Russia continue to lead OPEC 2.0 by example, with the former's crude oil production coming in at 9.97mm b/d in September, vs. 9.95mm b/d in August; the latter's total liquids production was 11.12mm b/d, vs. 11.13mm in August (Chart 4). Chart 2Market Will Get##BR##Tighter Sooner Chart 3BCA Expects Sharper##BR##Inventory Draw Than EIA Chart 4KSA And Russia Continue##BR##Providing Leadership To OPEC 2.0 Global GDP, Oil Demand Growth Strengthens The IMF earlier this month raised its forecast for global GDP growth this year to 3.6% and to 3.7% for next year, up 0.1% for each year vs. previous forecasts. In its analysis, the Fund drew attention to: Notable pickups in investment, trade, and industrial production, coupled with strengthening business and consumer confidence, are supporting the recovery. With growth outcomes in the first half of 2017 generally stronger than expected, upward revisions to growth are broad based, including for the euro area, Japan, China, emerging Europe, and Russia. These more than offset downward revisions for the United States, the United Kingdom, and India.4 On the back of the IMF's revised global growth estimates, we lifted our 2017 and 2018 oil demand expectation to just under 47.5mm b/d on average for the OECD and to just under 52mm b/d for non-OECD economies (Table 1). This translates into global demand growth of 1.65mm b/d in 2017 and 1.69mm b/d in 2018. Notably, we expect global demand to exceed 100mm b/d on average next year in our base case. Table 1BCA Global Oil Supply - Demand Balances (mm b/d) Our estimated demand is driven by global growth projections, particularly for EM economies, which make up the bulk of demand and growth in our balances estimates (Table 1). And, as before, our estimates remain above the EIA's (Chart 5). The indicators we look at to confirm or refute our demand assessment - global trade, particularly EM imports, and manufacturing - remain strong. Global trade continues to expand, particularly in EM ex-Middle East and Africa, as does manufacturing globally, both of which supports the IMF's assessment of growth generally (Charts 6 and 7). Rising incomes lead to rising trade, and also to increased oil and base metals consumption in EM economies. Chart 5We Continue To##BR##Estimate Higher Demand Than The EIA Chart 6Rising Trade Volumes##BR##Support Growth Story ... Chart 7... Expanding Manufacturing##BR##Does, Too Higher Prices, Greater USD Risk Expected In 2018 Given the upward revisions to global growth and our expectation OPEC 2.0 compliance will remain fairly stout, our baseline forecast now calls for WTI prices to average $56.40/bbl in 4Q17 and $62.95/bbl in 2018. Brent is expected to average $58.40/bbl in 4Q17 and $65.15/bbl next year (Chart 1 and Table 2). These estimates are up from last month's averages of $54.89 and $57.44/bbl for 4Q17 and 2018 WTI, and $56.67 and $59.17/bbl for 4Q17 and 2018 Brent.5 Our increasing bullishness is tempered by the risk of a stronger USD, particularly the broad trade-weighted USD index, which captures EM currency weakness. With the Fed set on a course to lift rates - our House view anticipates a Dec/17 rate hike and two or three hikes next year - and the oil market getting fundamentally tighter, we have seen the oil-USD linkage being re-established recently (Chart 8). Table 2Upgrading Our##BR##Price Forecasts Chart 8Expect The USD To Be Less##BR##Determinant For Oil Prices The persistent negative correlation between oil prices and the USD broke down following the global asset sell-off in 1Q16. However, this relationship converged to its long-term equilibrium in recent months. In our view, this reflects market participants' increasing conviction - expressed in market-cleared prices - that OPEC 2.0 will maintain its supply-management accord for an extended period, and that supply is now stabilizing. With demand remaining robust as the global synchronized upturn continues, the fundamental side of price determination has stabilized, and financial variables once again will strongly influence oil prices at the margin. Given our view the USD will trade off interest-rate differentials going forward, and our expectation that U.S. rates are set to increase relative to other systemically important rates, the USD likely will appreciate over the next 12 months. This will be a headwind for oil prices, and may be an additional factor OPEC 2.0 member states have to account for in 2018. Bottom Line: We are raising our price forecast for 4Q17 and 2018 in line with our expectation for stronger global growth and continued strong compliance from OPEC 2.0. With markets getting tighter, we expect the USD to become more important to the evolution of oil prices in 2018. Ag Update: Stay Long Corn, Short Wheat Global grain fundamentals continue to be supportive to our long corn vs. short wheat position, recommended October 5. The USDA's latest WASDE are projecting higher 2017/18 ending wheat inventories, while corn and soybeans stock estimates were lowered (Chart 9).6 Chart 9Fundamentals Support Long Corn##BR##Vs. Short Wheat Trade The USDA lowered its expected global corn stocks-to-use ratio, and increased its wheat stocks-to-use ratio for the current crop year. Revisions to the estimates for the 2016/17 crop year also reflect similar dynamics. We expected this going into the WASDE report at the beginning of the month when we published our Special Report on the Ag markets, and got long corn vs. short wheat. December 2017 corn futures traded on CME are up 0.14% since October 5, while wheat futures are down 1.36%. This brings the return on our long corn/short wheat trade to 1.5%, to date. Highlights from the current WASDE include: Upward revisions to wheat production from India, the EU, Russia, Australia, and Canada more than offset greater projected global demand, most notably from India and the EU. Overall, global ending stocks were revised up by 4.99mm MT, and are projected to stand at 268mm MT by the end of the 2017/18 marketing year. Greater projected corn demand, most notably from the U.S. and China, more than offset the ~ 6mm MT upward revision to global production in the USDA's estimates. Higher projected Chinese demand reflects greater food and seed demand, and higher expected industrial use. Corn stocks are expected to end 2017/18 at 200.96mm MT - 1.51mm MT below September projections. Similarly, in its October Chinese Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates, China's Agriculture Ministry increased its forecast for the 2017/18 corn deficit to 4.31mm MT from 0.89mm MT projected last month. The Ministry expects lower output and greater consumption on the back of stronger demand from ethanol plants.7 Furthermore, in a move towards market pricing, Heilongjiang - China's top corn province - will be reducing the subsidy it gives corn farmers from 153.92 yuan/mu last year to 133.46 yuan/mu. The province will reorient its subsidies to incentivize more soybean production.8 In soybean markets, USDA projections for ending stocks were reduced by 1.48mm MT to 96.05mm MT by end-2017/18, largely on the back of lower expected U.S. and Brazilian inventories in 2016/17. Robert P. Ryan, Senior Vice President Commodity & Energy Strategy rryan@bcaresearch.com Roukaya Ibrahim, Associate Editor Commodity & Energy Strategy RoukayaI@bcaresearch.com Hugo Bélanger, Research Assistant HugoB@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report "OPEC 2.0 Will Extend Cuts To June 2018," published September 21, 2017. It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see "Precious Metals Update," in the June 29, 2017 issue of BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report "EM Trade Volumes Continue Trending Higher, Supporting Metals". It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see S&P Global Platts OPEC Guide published October 6, 2017. 4 Please see Chapter 1 of the IMF's World Economic Outlook for October 2017, which is available online at https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WEO/Issues/2017/09/19/world-economic-outlook-october-2017. 5 Our base case continues to call for an end-June 2018 extension of the OPEC 2.0 production deal. Should the deal be extended to end-December 2018, we estimate 2018 WTI prices would average $67.35/bbl, while Brent prices would average just under $70.00/bbl. We are becoming increasingly confident OPEC 2.0 will become a durable production-management coalition, given the increasing cooperation and mutual investment between KSA and Russia. We will be exploring this further in future research. Please see "King Salman Goes To Moscow, Bolsters OPEC 2.0," published October 11, 2017, by BCA Research's Energy Sector Strategy. It is available at nrg.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see Commodity & Energy Strategy Special Report titled "Ags In 2017/18: Move To Neutral," dated October 5, 2017, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 7 Please see "China Raises Forecast For 2017/18 Corn Deficit On Lower Output," dated October 12, 2017, available at reuters.com. 8 Please see "Top China Corn Province Cuts Subsidy For Farmers Growing the Grain," dated October 16, 2017, available at reuters.com. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed in 2017 Summary of Trades Closed in 2016

Special Report

Dear Client, There is no regular report this week. Instead, I am sending you a Special Report written by colleague Mark McClellan, who examines global equity valuations from a bottom-up perspective using our Equity Trading Strategy (ETS) platform. I discussed the intellectual underpinnings for the ETS model in 2015. In addition, if you haven't done so already, please take a moment to listen to our latest webcast, where I survey the global macro landscape, drawing on the material published in our Quarterly Strategy Outlook. Best regards, Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Highlights The performance of Japanese stocks relative to the U.S. has been dismal over the past couple of decades, and the same is true for Europe in the post-Lehman period. However, both the Japanese and European economies are performing impressively this year, profit growth is accelerating and margins are rising. This suggests that there could be some "catch up" for both markets, at least in local-currency terms. Standard valuation measures based on index data also suggest that Eurozone and Japanese stocks are cheap compared to the U.S. Nonetheless, these markets almost always trade at a discount, due to a persistent lackluster profit performance. In this Special Report, we approach the issue from a bottom-up perspective, utilizing the powerful analytics provided by BCA's exciting new Equity Trading Strategy (ETS) platform. The ETS software allows us to compare companies across markets on a head-to-head basis and rank them based on a wide range of characteristics. The bottom-up approach adjusts for structural valuation gaps between these markets and avoids the problems of index construction. Investors can have greater confidence that they will make money on a 12-month horizon by taking a position when the new bottom-up indicators reach +/-1 standard deviations over- or under-valued, although technical information should be taken on board to sharpen the timing. The +/-2 sigma level gives clear buy/sell signals irrespective of fundamental or technical factors. The bottom-up valuation indicators will not replace our top-down versions that are based on index data, but rather will be considered together when evaluating relative value. European stocks are near fair value relative to the U.S. at the moment, while Japan is modestly cheap. We favor the European and, especially, Japanese markets over the U.S., due to policy divergence and the view that EPS has more room to expand in the former two economies. Feature Chart 1European And Japanese Stocks Have Lagged... Japanese equities have been perennial underperformers versus the U.S. for most of the past 2-3 decades in both local- and common-currency terms (Chart 1). The simultaneous bursting of the equity and land bubbles in the 1990s ushered in a prolonged period of deflation in wages and consumer prices. There was a ray of light in the early years of Abenomics, when the aggressive three-arrow approach appeared to be finally lifting the Japanese economy out of a Secular Stagnation. Yen weakness contributed to a surge in earnings-per-share (EPS) in absolute terms and relative to the U.S. Equity multiples rose between 2012 and 2015. Unfortunately, Abe's honeymoon with equity markets faded in 2016 (Chart 2). A bout of yen strength, collapsing inflation expectations, weakening business confidence and a lack of progress on structural reforms caused investors to question the upside potential for Japanese corporate top-line growth. While European indexes have fared better than Japanese stocks relative to the U.S. over the past 25 years as a whole, the post-Lehman period has been particularly tough for European corporate profitability and relative equity market performance. The U.S. total return index has more than doubled its pre-recession peak according to Thomson Reuters/Datastream data, while the Eurozone total return index is only 10% above the previous high-water mark when expressed in U.S. dollars (Chart 2). The yawning return gap between the two equity markets was almost entirely due to earnings as market multiples have moved largely in sync. Earnings-per-share generated by U.S. companies now exceed the pre-recession peak by about 23%. In contrast, earnings produced by their Eurozone peers are a whopping 42% below their peak (common-currency). That said, the earnings backdrop now appears to be shifting. The strengthening global recovery is turbocharging EPS growth in Europe and Japan, where the corporate sector is more leveraged to global growth than is the case in the U.S. Eurozone domestic demand is also hot. Japan is still struggling with deflation, but the economy is performing well and the corporate sector is benefiting from this year's yen pullback. Japanese EPS is surging in both yen and dollar terms. Finally, both Europe and Japan appear cheap versus the U.S. by traditional valuation metrics. Based on index data, these two markets trade at a hefty discount across most of the main valuation measures (Chart 3). This is the case even for normalized measures such as price-to-book. However, these two markets have almost always traded at a discount to the U.S. Chart 2...Due To Depressed Fundamentals Chart 3Europe And Japan Trade At A Discount There are many possible explanations for the persistent valuation gap, including differences in accounting standards, discount rates and sector weights. The wider use of stock buybacks in the U.S. also favors American equity valuations. But most important are historical differences in underlying corporate fundamentals. U.S. companies on the whole have been significantly more profitable over the years based on return on equity and operating margins (Charts 4 and 5). Until recently, U.S. companies have also tended to have lower leverage relative to Europe and Japan, and a higher interest coverage ratio than Europe. Better profitability metrics in the U.S. are not solely an artifact of sector weighting either. Operating margins are lower in Europe and Japan even after applying U.S. sector weights to the other two markets (Chart 6). Chart 4RoE Is Consistently Lower In Japan And Europe Chart 5U.S./Europe/Japan Comparison Chart 6U.S./Europe/Japan Comparison (U.S. Sector Weights) Why the European and Japanese corporate sectors have been profit underachievers is beyond the scope of this paper. U.S. companies reaped most of the benefit from productivity gains over the past 25 years, with the result that the capital share of income soared while the labor share collapsed. European and Japanese companies were less successful in squeezing down labor costs. This raises the question of whether European and Japanese stocks are, in fact, cheap relative to the U.S. Measuring Value Our monthly Bank Credit Analyst publication developed top-down valuation indicators that adjust for different sector weights and persistent differences in the underlying profit fundamentals. These indicators are based on index data, and have a good track record for providing profitable buy/sell signals.1 In this Special Report, we take a bottom-up approach that utilizes the powerful analytics provided by BCA's Equity Trading Strategy (ETS) platform.2 The software allows us to compare companies on a head-to-head basis and rank them based on a wide range of characteristics. The bottom-up approach avoids the problems of index construction when trying to gauge valuation across countries. The web-based platform uses over 27 quantitative factors to rank approximately 10,000 individual stocks in 23 countries, allowing clients to find stocks with winning characteristics at the global level. 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.3 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 BCA Score includes 27 factors when ranking stocks, including sentiment and momentum. However, since we are interested in developing a valuation metric in this paper, we focus on five valuation measures in the ETS database: trailing P/E, forward P/E, price-to-book, price-to-sales and price-to-cash flow. We combined all of the Eurozone and U.S. companies that have total assets of greater than $1 billion into one dataset. The ETS platform then ranked the stocks from best to worst on a daily basis (i.e., cheapest to most expensive), using an equally-weighted average of the five valuation measures. The average score for U.S. stocks is subtracted from the average score for European stocks, and then divided by the standard deviation of the series. This provides a valuation metric that fluctuates roughly between +/- 2 standard deviations. This approach inherently adjusts for structural valuation gaps. We then used the same methodology to construct bottom-up valuation indicators for Japan relative to the U.S. Chart 7 presents the resulting bottom-up indicators for Europe and Japan, along with our top-down valuation measure. A high reading indicates that European or Japanese stocks are cheap relative to the U.S., while the opposite is true for low readings. Chart 7Top-Down And Bottom-Up Valuation Indicators The underlying bottom-up data extend back to 2000. However, the bursting of the tech bubble in the early 2000's caused major shifts in relative valuation among sectors that skew the indicator when constructed using the entire data set. A cleaner indicator emerges when using only the data from 2005. As with any valuation indicator, it is only useful when it reaches extremes. We calculated the historical track record for a trading rule that is based on critical levels of over- and under-valuation. For example, we calculated the (local-currency basis) excess returns over 3-, 6-, 12- and 24-month horizons generated by (1) overweighting European or Japanese stocks when that market was one and two standard deviations cheap versus the U.S. market, and (2) overweighting the U.S. when the European or Japanese market was one and two standard deviations expensive (Tables 1 and 2). Table 1Eurozone Vs. U.S. Value Indicator: Trading Rule Returns And Batting Average Table 2Japan Vs. U.S. Value Indicator: Trading Rule Returns And Batting Average The trading rule returns are best in the case of Europe when the indicator reached two standard deviations cheap or expensive, providing average returns of almost 11 percent over 12 months. The trading rule returns when the indicator reached +/-1 standard deviation are lower, but still respectable at roughly 3% on 12- and 24-month horizons. The results are even better for the Japan trading rule (Table 2). Excess returns are 14% and 35%, respectively, over 12 and 24-month horizons after the indicator reaches +/-2 standard deviations. The results are very impressive even when using +/-1 standard deviation as the trigger point. Tables 1 and 2 also present the trading rules' batting average. That is, the number of positive excess returns generated by the trading rule as a percent of the total number of signals. For the European indicator, the batting average ranged from 50% on a 3-month horizon to 68% over 12 months when buy/sell signals are triggered at +/- 1 standard deviation. The batting average is much higher (80-100%) using +/- 2 standard deviations as a trigger point, although there were only five months over the entire sample when the indicator reached this level. The batting average is even better for the Japanese indicator. Sharpening The Buy/Sell Signals We then augmented the valuation analysis by adding information on company fundamentals, such as EPS growth and profit margins, among others. The ETS software ranked the companies after equally-weighting the valuation and fundamental factors. However, this approach yielded poor results in terms of the trading rule. This is because, for example, when European stocks reached undervalued levels relative to the U.S., it is usually because the European earnings fundamentals have underperformed those of the U.S. companies. Thus, favorable value is offset by poor fundamentals when scored by the ETS model, muddying the message provided by valuation alone. We also tried including some technical indicators to see if they could add information on timing. Chart 8 compares the valuation indicator discussed above to an enhanced indicator that includes both value and technical factors. Tables 3 and 4 provide the excess returns and batting averages for a trading rule based on the enhanced indicator. Chart 8Bottom-Up Indicators: Value, And Value Plus Technical Table 3Eurozone Vs. U.S. Value And Technical Indicator: Trading Rule Returns And Batting Average Table 4Japan Vs. U.S. Value And Technical Indicator: Trading Rule Returns And Batting Average It turns out that including some technical information does add value, but only in the case of Europe when using +/-1 standard deviation as the trigger point for trades. Both the excess returns and batting average to the trading rule improve. However, this is not the case when using +/-2 sigma. In the case of Japan, including technical information detracts from excess returns for both trigger points. Investment Conclusions Our new ETS platform provides investors with a unique way of picking stocks by combining top-down macro themes with company-specific information. It also allows us to develop valuation tools that avoid some of the pitfalls of index data by comparing stocks on a head-to-head basis. Investors can be fairly confident that they will make money on a 12-month horizon by taking a position when the bottom-up valuation indicators reach +/-1 sigma over- or under-valued. The +/-2 sigma valuation level gives clear buy/sell signals irrespective of fundamental or technical factors for both Europe and Japan. The bottom-up valuation indicators will not replace our top-down versions, but rather will be considered together when evaluating relative value. At the moment, both the top-down and bottom-up versions suggest that European stocks are roughly fairly valued relative to the U.S. market. Japanese stocks are on the cheap side based on both indicators, but neither one exceeds +1 sigma. This means that investors cannot make the allocation decision based on value alone. Valuation indicators need to be at extremes to have any predictive power. Our global equity strategists recommend overweighting Eurozone stocks versus the U.S. on a currency-hedged basis, although not because of valuation. On the plus side, the economy is flying high and there are no warning signs that this is about to end. There is hope for structural reform in France after Macron's election win this year. We give Macron's proposed labor market reforms high marks. Many doubt that these reforms will see the light of day, but our geopolitical team believes that investors are underestimating the chances. The German election in September poured cold water on recent enthusiasm regarding accelerated European integration. This is because Merkel will likely have to deal with a larger contingent of Euroskeptics in the grand coalition that emerges in the coming months. However, we do not expect political developments in Germany to be a headwind for the Eurozone stock market. On the negative side, this year's euro bull phase will take a bite out of earnings. Euro strength so far this year will lop three to four percentage points off of EPS growth by the middle of next year. Our model suggests that this will be overwhelmed by the robust economic expansion at home and abroad, but profit growth will diminish heading into year-end and will likely trail that in the U.S. and Japan over the next six months (local-currency basis). Still, a lot of the negative impact of the currency on profits may already be discounted. The bullish case versus the U.S. is more compelling for the Nikkei, at least in local-currency terms. Valuation is modestly attractive and Japanese earnings are highly geared to economic growth at home and abroad. Japanese EPS is in an uptrend versus the U.S. in both local and common currencies. We do not expect to see a peak in EPS growth until mid-2018, a good six months after the expected top in the U.S. Moreover, an Abe win in the October 22 election would mean that policy will remain highly reflationary in absolute terms and relative to the U.S. However, overweight positions in both the European and Japanese bourses should be currency hedged because the dollar is likely to appreciate over the next 6-12 months due to monetary policy divergences. Mark McClellan, Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst markm@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst Special Report, "Are Eurozone Stocks Really That Cheap?" dated July 2016. 2 Please see Equity Trading Strategy Special Report, "Introducing ETS: A Top Down Approach To Bottom-Up Stock Picking," dated December 2, 2015. 3 For more information, please see Equity Trading Strategy Special Report, "Making Money with ETS," dated January 20, 2016 Strategy & Market Trends Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

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

Highlights Duration: The global economic recovery is more synchronized than at any time since 2011. This suggests that foreign demand will be less of an impediment to the bond bear market and that Treasury yields will rise once U.S. data start to surprise on the upside. Stay at below-benchmark duration. MBS: Agency MBS option-adjusted spreads have widened significantly and no longer look expensive. With Treasury yields moving higher and mortgage refinancings likely to stay depressed, we advise upgrading MBS from underweight to neutral. Economy & Inflation: The U.S. economic data are starting to outperform beaten-down expectations. Survey data point to further GDP acceleration in the second half of this year and we expect inflation will soon follow growth higher. Feature Chart 12-Factor Treasury Model The relationship between the global breadth of economic growth, the value of the dollar and the outlook for Treasury yields has been a running theme in this publication.1 To summarize, stronger global growth pressures bond yields higher (and vice-versa). But how that growth is distributed across different countries matters as well. For example, if global growth is mostly concentrated in the U.S., then yield spreads will widen between the U.S. and the rest of the world and the dollar will appreciate as money pours in from overseas. Investors then respond to a stronger dollar by downgrading their U.S. growth and rate hike expectations. This caps the upside in long-dated U.S. Treasury yields. Conversely, if global growth is more evenly spread out throughout the world, then the dollar will come under less upward pressure when U.S. growth accelerates and Treasury yields can rise further. We developed a simple two-factor model to show how the trade-off between global growth and the exchange rate impacts the U.S. 10-year Treasury yield (Chart 1). The model uses the Global Manufacturing PMI as its proxy for global growth and a survey of bullish sentiment toward the dollar as its proxy for growth synchronization. So far this year, the Global PMI has moved higher and sentiment toward the dollar has become less bullish. Both developments have bond-bearish implications and our model now pegs fair value for the 10-year Treasury yield at 2.65%, 28 bps above the current 10-year yield. In Sync The Global PMI came in at 53.2 in September, the same as in August, but still a strong reading compared to recent history (Chart 2). But the most stunning detail of the September PMI releases is that 33 out of the 36 countries we track had PMIs above the 50 boom/bust line. As a result, our Global PMI Diffusion Index hit 90% for only the second time since 2011 (Chart 2, panel 1). The elevated reading of our diffusion index leads us to two market related observations. First, stronger growth outside of the U.S. explains why the 10-year Treasury yield is only 8 bps lower than at the start of the year despite U.S. economic data that have severely undershot expectations (Chart 2, bottom panel). Second, it suggests that when U.S. economic data inevitably start to surprise on the upside - a process which is only now beginning (see Economy & Inflation section below) - the dollar will appreciate by less than it would have when our PMI diffusion index was near 50. This removes a huge impediment from the bond bear market. In Chart 3 we see that the recent peak in 7-10 year U.S. bond yields occurred at 2.54% on Dec 16th. On that same date the spread between 7-10 year U.S. bond yields and average 7-10 year yields in the rest of the world was 178 bps, and bullish sentiment toward the dollar was above 80%. With the global recovery now more synchronized than it was last year, we anticipate that by the time U.S. yields take out that prior peak, the yield spread and dollar bullish sentiment will still be lower than they were last December. This means that less foreign capital will be encouraged into the U.S. and yields will rise even further. Chart 2Broad Based Recovery Chart 3Spreads Less Of A Constraint Where Is Growth Coming From? Considering the major economic blocs, the biggest change during the past year has been the surging Eurozone PMI (Chart 4). The U.S. PMI is still firmly above the 50 boom/bust line but has actually moderated in 2017. The Japanese PMI is similarly entrenched above 50 and while the Chinese PMI was weak earlier this year, it has rebounded during the past four months. At roughly 20%, China carries the largest weight in the Global PMI. The outlook for the Chinese economy is therefore crucial for the path of bond yields. On that note, while the Chinese PMI has been strong in recent months, a couple of warning signs are beginning to flash (Chart 5). Chart 4Global Manufacturing PMIs Chart 5Chinese Monetary Conditions Commodity prices - which correlate strongly with Chinese PMI - have declined since early September, although they remain above levels seen last year and do not yet pose a major risk. What's more important is that monetary conditions are starting to tighten (Chart 5, panel 2). If tighter monetary conditions persist, then we should expect growth to slow. The mild tightening in monetary conditions that has already occurred will probably lead to some near-term moderation in Chinese growth. But our China Investment Strategy service thinks it's unlikely that monetary conditions will tighten enough to cause a meaningful slowdown.2 Our China strategists note that with GDP growth within the government's target range, inflation exceedingly low and signs that financial excesses have been reigned in, there should not be much appetite for draconian policy tightening. We would also add that the causes of this year's tightening in monetary conditions have been relatively benign. The monetary conditions index shown in Chart 5 has fallen because the trade-weighted RMB is no longer depreciating and because real interest rates have moved a tad higher. Crucially, the RMB has only stabilized, it is not appreciating in trade-weighted terms. Also, the nominal policy rate remains flat at a low level. The increase in real interest rates resulted purely from weaker consumer price inflation. Bottom Line: The global economic recovery is more synchronized than at any time since 2011. This suggests that foreign demand will be less of an impediment to the bond bear market and that Treasury yields will rise once U.S. data start to surprise on the upside. Stay at below-benchmark duration. Buy The News In MBS Last week we upgraded our allocation to Agency MBS from underweight to neutral, noting that spreads had become more attractive during the past few months. In all likelihood this is the result of the market pricing in the wind-down of the Fed's balance sheet.3 With the Fed's plans now well known (and unlikely to change), there is an opportunity to increase MBS exposure from a more attractive starting point. After having sold the rumor, we think it's time to buy the news. The Value Proposition Chart 6OAS Look Attractive To be clear, we are not forecasting stellar excess returns from Agency MBS. But with spreads compressed across the entire U.S. fixed income universe, we would note that the option-adjusted spread (OAS) differential between conventional 30-year Agency MBS and investment grade corporate bonds (in duration-matched terms) has risen back to levels last seen in 2014 (Chart 6). The lagged OAS differential is a decent predictor of relative returns between MBS and corporate credit, and at current levels it suggests that MBS could even outperform corporate bonds at some point during the next 12 months (Chart 6, panel 2). This year's decline in Treasury yields has also biased OAS differentials between MBS and corporate bonds wider. Because of negative convexity, MBS duration is positively correlated with yields (Chart 6, bottom panel). If yields rise from here, as we expect they will, then MBS duration will also extend. This means that MBS OAS will start to appear less and less attractive relative to duration-matched comparables. In other words, MBS are less likely to cheapen relative to other spread product in an environment of rising Treasury yields. The Drivers Of MBS Spreads A simplified formula for excess MBS returns, relative to duration-matched Treasuries, could be written as follows: Excess Return = Starting OAS - Duration*(Change in nominal spread) + 0.5*Convexity*(Change in yield) 2 That is, OAS is the correct measure of MBS carry because it adjusts for expected losses due to prepayments. However, it is the change in the nominal spread (not the OAS) that will determine capital gains and losses during the investment horizon. On that note, we observe that nominal MBS spreads have rarely been tighter during the past 30 years (Chart 7). However, it is also hard for us to see a catalyst for significantly wider nominal spreads during the next 6-12 months. The two factors that correlate most closely with nominal MBS spreads are credit spreads and mortgage refinancings. Chart 7Nominal MBS Spreads Are Driven By Credit Spreads And Refinancings On credit spreads, we have repeatedly outlined why they are unlikely to widen materially in the absence of more significant inflationary pressure.4 As for refis, we are also hard pressed to see much upside for three main reasons: First, changes in mortgage rates are the number one driver of refinancings (Chart 8). Refis only increase when mortgage rates fall, making the proposition of refinancing more attractive. As yields rise during the next 6-12 months, refis will stay low. Second, the distribution of outstanding mortgages across the coupon stack impacts how sensitive refis are to changes in rates. The second panel of Chart 8 shows our measure of "moneyness", aka the dispersion of outstanding mortgages around the current coupon rate.5 Given today's dispersion levels we can calculate that even if the current coupon mortgage rate falls back to its recent low of 2.24%, our measure of moneyness would not get back to its late-2016 peak. For our moneyness indicator to rise back to 2013 levels the current coupon mortgage rate would have to fall all the way to 1.68%. Needless to say, we would characterize that risk as low. Third, the final factor that can impact the pace of mortgage refinancing is the seasoning of outstanding mortgages. Typically, we think of mortgages between 30 and 60 months old as being the most likely to refinance. Given that net mortgage origination was close to zero between 30 and 60 months ago and that mortgage purchase applications were at multi-year lows (Chart 9), most of the outstanding mortgage universe probably falls outside of this zone. Chart 8Refis Will Stay Low Chart 9Most Mortgages Are Not Yet Seasoned Bottom Line: Agency MBS option-adjusted spreads have widened significantly and no longer look expensive. With Treasury yields moving higher and mortgage refinancings likely to stay depressed, we advise upgrading MBS from underweight to neutral. Economy & Inflation Bring On The Upside Surprises As was alluded to in the opening section of this report, after have disappointed expectations year-to-date, we are just now starting to see U.S. economic data surprise to the upside (see Chart 2). The most recent datapoints that caught our eye were the ISM manufacturing and non-manufacturing PMIs.6 Our inclination is to mostly ignore last Friday's employment report as an outlier due to the recent hurricanes.7 The ISM non-manufacturing survey jumped to 59.8 in September, its highest level since 2005. Taken together with other survey indicators that tend to track GDP growth - the BCA Beige Book Indicator and the BCA Composite New Orders Indicator - the case is quite strong for further GDP acceleration in the third and fourth quarters (Chart 10). Of course the pressing issue for bond markets is whether that growth acceleration translates into higher inflation. On that note, we would suggest that the weak inflation we have seen during the past six months was a reaction to the growth slowdown witnessed in 2015 and the first half of 2016. The stronger ISM manufacturing index, in particular, sends a powerful signal that inflation is poised to put in a bottom (Chart 11). Chart 10Survey Indicators Of U.S. Growth Chart 11Inflation Lags Growth Bottom Line: The U.S. economic data are starting to outperform beaten-down expectations. Survey data point to further GDP acceleration in the second half of this year and we expect inflation will soon follow growth higher. Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Dollar Watching: Another Update", dated January 31, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see China Investment Strategy Special Report, "On A Higher Note", dated October 5, 2017, available at cis.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Portfolio Allocation Summary, "Return Of The Trump Trade", dated October 3, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Won't Back Down", dated September 26, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 5 For each coupon bucket in the Bloomberg Barclays Conventional 30-year Agency MBS index we calculate the squared deviation between its coupon and the current coupon rate. We then weight those squared differences by the market capitalization of each coupon bucket. 6 These are different than the Markit PMI that is included in our 2-factor Treasury model. 7 Please see BCA Daily Insights, "U.S. Jobs Report: All Noise, No Signal", dated October 6, 2017, available at din.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

Highlights Slowing global money growth, export orders, and a downgrade in earnings revisions of cyclical relative to defensive equities points to a mild slowdown in non-U.S. growth. This slowdown is not worrisome, but could become so if the U.S. dollar rallies significantly. This risk should be kept in mind by investors. Short AUD/USD at 0.79 ¢. EUR/USD is trading at a premium and is over-owned. Conditions are emerging for investors to upgrade their view of the Fed relative to the ECB. EUR/USD has downside risk. Feature Chart I-1Global Growth Is Booming The world economy is on a roll. Nearly all of the world's PMI indexes are in expansionary territory, suggesting we are experiencing a rare global synchronized expansion. A key bellwether of global trade, Korean exports, are surging at a 35% annual rate, confirming that the global economy is very strong (Chart I-1). When all looks great, it is the ideal time to wonder what could go wrong. At this point, the greatest risk to this global expansion may be the dollar. A strengthening dollar would tighten global financial conditions, especially for EM borrowers, and exacerbate the impact of yellow flags that have already emerged. Yellow Flags Investors are in an ebullient mood these days, and for good reason: global growth is strong, and global policy is still very accommodative, even if some central banks have begun removing support for their economies. However, three yellow flags have emerged that in our view warrant some caution. To be clear, these are not grave signs and we do not foresee either a U.S. or a global recession until late 2019 at the earliest. With this in mind, what are the worrying signs that investors should monitor right now? The first yellow flag comes from global money supply growth. Narrow money has decelerated from a 12% annual growth rate to 9% today. Historically, this has been a leading indicator of global industrial production, global export growth and commodity prices (Chart I-2). While the surge in money growth in 2016 and 2017 was a key reason behind the rebound in global economic activity, especially outside the U.S., its recent slowdown points to an end of the economic upswing, though admittedly not toward a cataclysm. The second yellow flag comes from the U.S. ISM release. While the general tone of the report remains extremely positive, the export component has been in a downtrend since June. The key determinant of export growth for any country tends to be the vigor of its trading partners. Hence, it is not surprising that softness in the export component of the U.S. ISM manufacturing survey tends to be associated with weakening global trade and industrial activity (Chart I-3). The third yellow flag comes from earnings revisions. The earnings revision ratios of cyclical relative to defensive equities in the U.S. and globally have sharply rolled over. While still in positive territory, this development has historically been an early signal that improvements in global growth metrics are ebbing, a signal being flashed today (Chart I-4). Chart I-2Money And Global Growth: ##br##From Tailwind To Headwind Chart I-3A Blemish In An Otherwise##br## Bright Picture Chart I-4EPS Revisions: Cyclicals Have Turned ##br##Vis-A-Vis Defensives Bottom Line: The global economy is experiencing a synchronized upswing, which has left investors in an ebullient mood. However, slowing global money growth, ebbing export sentiment and weakening earnings revisions for cyclical relative to defensive equities suggest this broad-based upswing has reached its zenith. While a mild deceleration is likely to materialize soon, these indicators constitute yellow flags, not red ones. Conditions are still not in place to expect a major global growth slowdown. The Dollar Holds The Key While the factors above point to a mild slowdown, they do not yet indicate a dearth of growth that could prompt panic among investors, especially in the EM space. For this scenario to become reality, another ingredient is needed. In our view, this ingredient is a strong dollar. To begin with, the relationship between global growth and the dollar is well known in the investor community. When global growth is strong and broad-based, the dollar depreciates; when global growth is weak, the dollar appreciates (Chart I-5). The U.S. is a relatively closed economy, and is less exposed to global growth developments than the euro area, Japan or commodities producers (Chart I-6). Thus, when the global economy is in an upswing, the U.S. garners a smaller dividend than the rest of the world. Conversely, when the global economy hits a soft patch, the U.S. suffers less. Chart I-5Strong Global Growth Coincident ##br##With A Weak Dollar Chart I-6The U.S. Is Less Exposed ##br##To Global Growth Factors But the chain of causation is not only from growth to the dollar. The trend in the dollar also affects the trend in global growth. This is because in aggregate, the world remains short the dollar. According to the BIS, there is $27 trillion dollars of foreign-currency liabilities in the world, $14 trillion of which is denominated in U.S. dollars, with an extremely large proportion issued by EM borrowers. When the dollar weakens, the cost of borrowing among companies and banks that finance themselves in USD decreases, incentivizing further borrowing. This eases global liquidity conditions and decreases the cost of financing global trade, leading to increased economic activity and profits as well as expanding global capex. Meanwhile, when the dollar rises, the balance sheet of those foreign firms and governments that have borrowed in U.S. dollars becomes increasingly illiquid, resulting in strong headwinds for additional borrowing, curtailing economic activity, profits and capex. This explains why the dollar and commodities prices, the latter being extremely sensitive to growth and global capex, have displayed such a strong negative relationship over different time periods (Chart I-7). Chart I-7Rising USD Equals Declining Liquidity And Declining Commodity Prices Thanks to these dynamics, the weakness in the dollar this year has been a major boost to growth for the global economy. As Chart I-8 illustrates, the large easing in EM financial conditions was indeed related to the U.S. dollar's weakness. Therefore, as growth momentum could be peaking, a period of renewed strength in the greenback might inflict further damage to a key buttress of EM growth. Moreover, this time around, Chinese policymakers are unlikely to come to the rescue of the global economy as they did in 2015 and 2016. Back then, China was experiencing a deflationary spiral: producer prices were contracting at a 6% annual pace, profits were in free fall and outflows were growing exponentially. The People's bank of China and the central government pulled all the stops, increasing lending and fiscal expenditures and tightening capital controls. Monetary conditions eased massively (Chart I-9). Chart I-8The Falling Dollar Supported Global Growth Chart I-9Tightening Chinese Monetary Conditions Last weekend, the PBoC announced targeted cuts to reserve requirement ratios for banks extending lending to small companies. According to our China Investment Strategy sister publication, this is not a major easing.1 Instead, these are targeted measures aimed at helping small firms that are currently dependent on the predatory lending rates available in the shadow banking sector. Meanwhile, access to credit by large state-owned enterprises and the real estate sector will continue to be slowly curtailed. The mutation of deflation into inflation and the recovery of profit growth imply that China does not currently need the same shot to the arm that it did in 2015 and 2016. Thus, it is unlikely the country will initiate another round of massive credit easing that will boost investment by SOEs and the construction sector, the two main sources of capex and commodities demand. In an environment where global money growth has rolled over and where China is unlikely to press on the gas pedal as hard as it did two years ago, a strong dollar would thus have a nefarious impact on global financial conditions, global growth, and, in turn, EM currencies and commodities currencies. While we remain very negative on the yen for now, the Japanese currency could benefit from a meaningful slowdown in international growth, as such a slowdown would likely exert downward pressure on global bond yields, including in the U.S. Obviously, the rally in the USD will have to be much more pronounced than what has been experienced in the past month before its negative impact on growth begins to be felt in bond yields and the yen. Thus, we remain long USD/JPY for now. The AUD could prove to be a key victim of the developments highlighted above. The AUD is highly levered to global growth and EM financial conditions. Moreover, it is now very expensive on a long-term basis, having overshot terms of trade by a very significant margin (Chart I-10). Adding to the vulnerability in the Aussie, the Australian economy has been incapable of generating any inflationary pressures. The output gap remains very deep, the level of underemployment is still at a 37-year high, and wages continue to hover near record lows, limiting the capacity of the Reserve Bank of Australia to tilt to a hawkish stance (Chart I-11). Yet, investors expect rates to be 42 basis points higher 12 months from now. Finally, speculators are currently very long the AUD. Thus, we will use any rebound above 0.79 to short the AUD/USD, setting a limit-sell at this level with a target at 0.73. Chart I-10The AUD Is Vulnerable Chart I-11Litle Inflationary Pressures In Australia Bottom Line: While the three yellow flags highlighted do not represent a terminal danger to global growth, a stronger dollar at the hands of tightening global financial conditions, especially in EM economies, would be a much bigger threat to the global economy. We do anticipate the dollar to strengthen over the coming 12 months, but it will take a significant move before the USD puts enough of a brake on global growth to hurt global yields. We therefore remain positive on the USD/JPY. However, with this risk lurking in the background, we are implementing a short position on the AUD, a currency that is both expensive and over-owned, and underpinned by an economy full of slack. An Update On EUR/USD We continue to expect some downside to EUR/USD over the remainder of the year. As we have already highlighted, the euro has greatly overshot its implied interest rate parity (IRP) relationships. Our intermediate-term time model - an enhanced IRP model accounting for short- and long-term real rate differentials, global risk aversion, commodities prices and the trend in the pair - shows that EUR/USD remains near its largest premium to fair value since 2009. Confirming this assessment, the euro has also overshot its equilibrium implied by the level of interest rates five years out (Chart I-12). Valuations offer some insight on the potential size of the euro move, but they offer very little information in terms of timing. Instead, we should rely on technical and macro considerations. On this front, we have already highlighted that speculators are currently net long the euro by the largest margin since 2011. Philosophically, we often look at the euro as the anti-dollar, a highly liquid inverse bet on the dollar. Since EUR/USD constitutes 57.6% of the DXY, a short bet on this dollar index and a long bet on the euro are similar wagers. Currently, the sum of both bets is at a level normally followed by sharp drops in EUR/USD, suggesting that euro buying is hitting exhaustion levels (Chart 13). Meanwhile, with investors having very few short bets on the euro, especially when compared to the large stock of short bets on the DXY, a short squeeze in favor of the USD could emerge if European data disappoints relative to the U.S. (Chart I-13, bottom panel). Chart I-12Downside In EUR/USD Chart I-13Tactical Risk To EUR/USD On the macro front, a few developments have caught our eye. We are entering the window where based on historical lags, the euro area's industrial production is likely to start feeling the pain of the common currency's previous strength (Chart I-14). Compounding this worry for euro longs, euro area earnings revisions are lagging those in the U.S. by the greatest margin since 2014, suggesting the euro's strength has sapped some of the euro area's vigor and is in the process of redistributing it to the U.S. economy. Historically, this has led to a period of weakness in EUR/USD (Chart I-15). Chart I-14The Strong Euro ##br##Will Soon Be Felt Chart I-15Falling Relative EPS Revisions ##br##Equals A Weaker EUR/USD Confirming this insight are relative financial conditions. Euro area financial conditions have been tightening relative to the U.S. since the beginning of 2016 - a move that has become especially pronounced this year. The euro area's inflation outperformance vis-à-vis the U.S. this year was first and foremost a reflection of the previous easing in relative European financial conditions (Chart I-16). Thanks to these strong relative inflation dynamics, investors have brought forward the first rate hike expected from the ECB, while simultaneously removing interest rate hikes out of the U.S. OIS curve. This move has been wildly euro bullish. However, the window of opportunity for this bet is closing; the tightening in European financial conditions now points to a reversal in relative inflation, with U.S. prices set to now take the lead over the euro area. This could force a repricing of the Fed relative to the ECB, implying that monetary divergences could once again play against EUR/USD. Catalonia is not a reason to be bearish on the euro. Marko Papic, BCA's Chief Political Strategist, argues that the northeastern region is unlikely to leave Spain.2 The vast majority of Catalonia still favors remaining part of Spain (Chart I-17). Moreover, the region has received immigrants from the rest of the country for many decades, reflecting its superior economic performance. As a result, only 31% of the population speaks Catalan as a first language. In aggregate, the independentists' victory last weekend only reflects a low turnout rate, as individuals who opposed leaving Spain stayed at home, like they did in 2014. Chart I-16The Fed Will Be Repriced ##br##Against The ECB Chart I-17Will Of The People: ##br##Catalonia Will Stay In Spain Bottom Line: The euro will exhibit downside risk in the coming months. EUR/USD is trading well above its fair value implied by its IRP relationship. Additionally, euro buying has hit nosebleed levels, and the dollar is unloved. Moreover, the euro's recent strength could begin to negatively affect growth, especially as European earnings revisions have collapsed versus the U.S. Finally, financial conditions point to a fall in euro area inflation relative to the U.S., highlighting the risk that the policy path for the Fed could be upgraded against that of the ECB. Mathieu Savary, Vice President Foreign Exchange Strategy mathieu@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see China Investment Strategy Special Report, titled "On A Higher Note", dated October 5, 2017, available at cis.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, titled "Is King Dollar Back?", dated October 4, 2017, and Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, titled "The Geopolitical Risks For The Equity Bull Market", dated May 14, 2014 at gps.bcaresearch.com Currencies U.S. Dollar Chart II-1USD Technicals 1 Chart II-2USD Technicals 2 U.S data has been strong this week: Markit and ISM Manufacturing PMIs beat expectations at 53.1 and 60.8 respectively; ISM Prices Paid rose sharply to 71.5 from 64.0; Markit Services and ISM Non-Manufacturing PMIs also beat expectations at 55.3 and 59.8 respectively; ADP employment change and continuing and initial jobless claims also came out better than expected; The DXY has rebounded meaningfully after a string of stronger data and growing hopes on the fiscal policy front recently. Bond markets have picked up on these developments, with the 10-year yield rising 30 basis points from its bottom last month. However, stronger U.S. inflation is needed in order for the greenback to meaningfully rally. Report Links: Currency Hedging: Dynamic Or Static? - A Practical Guide For Global Investors - September 29, 2017 Updating Our Long-Term Fair Value Models - September 15, 2017 10 Charts For A Late-August Day - August 25, 2017 The Euro Chart II-3EUR Technicals 1 Chart II-4EUR Technicals 2 European data has been mixed: The latest headline and core inflation readings for the euro area were weaker than expected, at 1.5% and 1.1% respectively; German retail sales also underperformed expectations, however, German unemployment rate decreased; Euro area manufacturing PMI also underperformed, while the services PMI outperformed; Euro area producer prices beat expectations, coming in at 2.5%. With U.S. data outperforming, the euro has softened versus the greenback, but has not displayed similar movements against other currencies. While it is true that European inflation is higher than a year ago, it is still not near the ECB's target. A stronger euro would further restrict inflationary pressures, which would be a cause for concern for ECB officials. Report Links: Currency Hedging: Dynamic Or Static? - A Practical Guide For Global Investors - September 29, 2017 Updating Our Long-Term Fair Value Models - September 15, 2017 10 Charts For A Late-August Day - August 25, 2017 The Yen Chart II-5JPY Technicals 1 Chart II-6JPY Technicals 2 Japanese data has been mixed the past weeks: The jobs/applicants ratio came in at 1.52, underperforming expectations and decreasing from the previous month. Additionally, retail trade and overall housing spending yearly growth both disappointed, coming in at 1.7% and 0.6% respectively. However, on the bright side, Nikkei Manufacturing PMI outperformed expectations, coming in at 52.9. Overall, we continue to be bullish on USD/JPY, as yields in the U.S. will continue to rise vis-à-vis Japanese ones. Economic data has been tepid, and wages continue to contract or remain flat, even if some underlying pressures are slowly emerging. Furthermore we expect that the BoJ will continues its extreme measures of yield curve targeting in order to spur inflation expectations. Nevertheless, the yen could appreciate against carry currencies like the AUD or NZD if Chinese monetary conditions become tight enough. Report Links: Currency Hedging: Dynamic Or Static? - A Practical Guide For Global Investors - September 29, 2017 Updating Our Long-Term Fair Value Models - September 15, 2017 10 Charts For A Late-August Day - August 25, 2017 British Pound Chart II-7GBP Technicals 1 Chart II-8GBP Technicals 2 Recent data in the U.K. has been mixed: Markit services PMI outperformed expectations coming in at 53.6, and increasing from last month's reading However, Markit manufacturing PMI came in under expectations at 55.9, and decreased from last month. Moreover Construction PMI unperformed, coming in at 48.1, the lowest level since July 2016. We would lean against any further strength of the pound against the U.S. dollar. The risks associated with Brexit still looms in the background, while data has been mixed, particularly when it comes to consumption and the housing market. Additionally, the market has already fully priced a rate hike by December. Thus, it seems that any good news for the pound are already in the price, as the BoE certainly has little incentives to follow a hawkish policy beyond removing its post-Brexit emergency measures. Report Links: Currency Hedging: Dynamic Or Static? - A Practical Guide For Global Investors - September 29, 2017 Updating Our Long-Term Fair Value Models - September 15, 2017 Balance Of Payments Across The G10 - August 4, 2017 Australian Dollar Chart II-9AUD Technicals 1 Chart II-10AUD Technicals 2 Australian data was mixed: AiG Performance of Manufacturing Index decreased to 54.2 from 59.8; TD Securities Inflation came in at 2.5%, down from 2.6%; HIA New Home Sales increased by 9.1% MoM in August, up from the 15.4% contraction in July; Building permits are still contracting 15.5% annually, but better than the expected 16.2% contraction. This week, the RBA decided to leave rates unchanged at 1.5%. The monetary policy statement focused on the lack of wage pressures in the Australian economy and on the higher exchange rate, which is "expected to contribute to continued subdued price pressures in the economy", as well as "weighing on the outlook for output and employment", stating further that "an appreciating exchange rate would be expected to result in a slower pick-up in economic activity and inflation than currently forecast." Report Links: Currency Hedging: Dynamic Or Static? - A Practical Guide For Global Investors - September 29, 2017 Updating Our Long-Term Fair Value Models - September 15, 2017 10 Charts For A Late-August Day - August 25, 2017 New Zealand Dollar Chart II-11NZD Technicals 1 Chart II-12NZD Technicals 2 Last week the RBNZ decided to leave rates unchanged at 1.75%. The RBNZ continued with its dovish slant, arguing that monetary policy will remain accommodative for a considerable period. An important development, however, is that the central bank toned down its cautious tone about the kiwi. In previous instances, the RBNZ had been very aggressive in stating that the NZD was too expensive and an adjustment was needed. However, in its most recent statement the RBNZ was much less aggressive in its rhetoric, highlighting the fall in the NZD. Overall, we believe that the NZD will continue to have upside against the AUD, as domestic inflationary pressures are much stronger in New Zealand than in Australia. Meanwhile, global developments, such as a downturn in the Chinese industrial cycle would affect Australia much more than New Zealand. Report Links: Updating Our Long-Term Fair Value Models - September 15, 2017 Balance Of Payments Across The G10 - August 4, 2017 Bad Breadth - July 7, 2017 Canadian Dollar Chart II-13CAD Technicals 1 Chart II-14CAD Technicals 2 Canadian data was mixed: Industrial product price grew at a 0.3% monthly pace, less than the expected 0.5%; Raw materials increased by 1%, above the expected 0.3%; GDP stagnated in July on a monthly basis, below the expected 0.1% growth; Merchandise trade slipped even further into a deficit from CAD 2.6 bn to CAD 3.41 bn. Furthermore, Governor Poloz's September 27 speech sent the CAD tumbling, stating that "monetary policy will be particularly data dependent" and that it could be "surprised in either direction". Probability of a hike in October and December declined from 48% to 23%, and 75% to 63%, respectively. While growth is robust, inflation has been declining since January, which may be a cautious sign for the BoC. Report Links: Currency Hedging: Dynamic Or Static? - A Practical Guide For Global Investors - September 29, 2017 Updating Our Long-Term Fair Value Models - September 15, 2017 10 Charts For A Late-August Day - August 25, 2017 Swiss Franc Chart II-15CHF Technicals 1 Chart II-16CHF Technicals 2 Data in Switzerland has outperformed to the upside: The KOF Leading Indicator outperformed expectations, coming in at 105.8 and increasing from last month's reading. The SVME Purchasing Manager's Index also outperformed, coming in at 61.7 Finally, headline inflation also outperformed expectations, with a reading of 0.7%, increasing from 0.5% on August. This recent strength in the Swiss economy is most likely reflective of the sharp appreciation that EUR/CHF has experienced in recent months. However, despite the increase in inflation, the Swiss economy is still too weak for the SNB to stop intervening in the foreign exchange market or to remove their ultra-dovish monetary measures. Once we see both headline and core inflation climb closer to their historical averages, we will reassess this view. Report Links: Updating Our Long-Term Fair Value Models - September 15, 2017 Balance Of Payments Across The G10 - August 4, 2017 Who Hikes Next? - June 30, 2017 Norwegian Krone Chart II-17NOK Technicals 1 Chart II-18NOK Technicals 2 Data in Norway has been mixed: Register unemployment came in line with expectations at 2.5%, decreasing from last month's 2.7% reading. However the credit growth issued by national institutions in Norway, decreased since last month, coming in at 5.6%. Finally, both retail sales and real retail sales yearly growth came below expectations, coming in at -0.6% and 0.2% respectively. These few data points are interesting given that both retail and real retail sales growth dipped into contractionary territory. This shows that the Norwegian economy is still too weak to sustain a higher krone and higher rates. For this reason we continue to be bullish on USD/NOK. This cross is more correlated with rate differentials than with oil. Thus even if oil continues to rise, rising rates in the U.S. will still put upward pressure on USD/NOK. Report Links: Updating Our Long-Term Fair Value Models - September 15, 2017 10 Charts For A Late-August Day - August 25, 2017 Balance Of Payments Across The G10 - August 4, 2017 Swedish Krona Chart II-19SEK Technicals 1 Chart II-20SEK Technicals 2 The 11-year ruling governor of the world's oldest central bank, Stefan Ingves, will now sit at the helm of the Riksbank for five more years, until 31 December 2022. While Sweden's economy is still performing above par with CPIF at 2.3%, our bullish case for the SEK is under threat by the extension of the governor's term, who introduced negative interest rates to Sweden and who is consistently vigilant over the SEK's appreciation, even threatening intervention if needed. EUR/SEK appreciated 0.6% on the news, but has since given up some those gains as economic data in Sweden rebounded sharply. The Riksbank will still likely hike, but the timing is now in question. It is likely that the tightening cycle will now coincide with the ECB's tapering program, which will limit the SEK's appreciation for now. Report Links: Updating Our Long-Term Fair Value Models - September 15, 2017 Balance Of Payments Across The G10 - August 4, 2017 Who Hikes Next? - June 30, 2017 Trades & Forecasts Forecast Summary Core Portfolio Closed Trades

Highlights Oil Breakout: Bond markets have been slow to discount the impact of higher oil prices on global inflation, which should lead to steeper yield curves and additional increases in inflation expectations. Trump Trade: The proposed U.S. tax cut plan will result in wider budget deficits and, potentially, faster U.S. inflation with the U.S. economy already near full employment. The Fed is likely to respond to this with even tighter monetary policy, although not by enough to flatten the Treasury curve by as much as is currently discounted. ECB Taper: The ECB will announce a slower pace of asset purchases at the policy meeting later this month, which should bear-steepen European yield curves via widening term premia on longer-dated debt. Feature A More "Normal" Bond Market Chart of the WeekLike Deja Vu All Over Again Global bond yields have bounced very sharply off the September lows. The benchmark 10-year U.S. Treasury yield hit a 3-month intraday high of 2.37% yesterday, while the 10-year German Bund yield touched 0.5% last week. Bond markets have returned to focusing on traditional fundamentals, like growth and inflation, after spending a few weeks worrying about nuclear tensions with North Korea and other political matters. On that note, the global economic news continues to point towards continued solid growth, rising inflation pressures and, in response, less accommodative monetary policy. There is scope for additional increases in bond yields, as markets are still pricing in too much pessimism on inflation and too little hawkishness from central bankers. The latter is especially true in the U.S. where the Federal Reserve is sticking with its plans to deliver another 100bps of rate hikes by the end of 2018 if its growth and inflation forecasts are realized. The odds of that happening would increase substantially if the Trump Administration can successfully deliver tax cuts, which would represent a very rare occurrence of a fiscal stimulus coming at a time of full employment in the U.S. The announcement last week of the Trump tax cut proposals did send a whiff of the old "Trump trade" dynamic through financial markets. The U.S. Treasury curve bear-steepened, the U.S. dollar rallied, inflation expectations rose and the S&P 500 blasted through the 2500 level to hit a new all-time high. Stocks of companies that pay higher tax rates outperformed, just like they did after the election of President Trump nearly one year ago (Chart of the Week). Add in some additional reflationary pressure from Brent oil prices approaching $60/bbl, and it is no surprise that yield curves in most Developed Markets (not just the U.S.) steepened. With this reflationary backdrop, amid tight labor markets and a solid pace of coordinated global growth, we continue to recommend fixed income investors maintain a defensive duration posture, while favoring spread product over government bonds. Yields will continue to rise in the next 6-12 months, but led more by the long-end initially. In particular, we expect government bond yield curves to extend the recent trend of bear-steepening, for three reasons: rising inflation expectations, increased optimism on U.S. fiscal policy and what it means for the Fed, and the upcoming announcement of a tapering of bond purchases by the European Central Bank (ECB). Are Bond Investors Too Complacent On The Inflationary Impact Of Higher Oil Prices? We have received a surprisingly small amount of criticism from the BCA client base about our bearish strategic view on global government bonds in recent months. Perhaps that is because our clients also have a negative opinion on duration risk. At our annual investment conference in New York last week, we conducted polls which showed that a majority of the attendees expect the 10-year U.S. Treasury yield to rise to between 2.5% & 3% by this time next year. At the same time, only 1 in 4 respondents felt that being short duration in U.S. Treasuries was the "contrarian" trade that was most likely to succeed over next 12 months - perhaps because betting on higher yields is not really a contrarian opinion right now! Yet we wonder how aggressively investors in aggregate, and not just BCA clients, are positioned for a rising yield environment. The market is only discounting 40bps of Fed rate hikes over the next twelve months, even as the U.S. economic data flow continues to improve and the Trump Trade is coming back in style (Chart 2). Survey data shows that professional bond managers are running only small duration underweights, yet speculators are still running very net long positions in Treasury futures. In other Developed Markets, there are not a lot of rate hikes priced outside of Canada - where the central bank actually is tightening policy - despite our Central Bank Monitors all calling for policymakers to become less dovish, if not more outright hawkish, as we discussed last week.1 In their defense, bond investors have had a lot of non-economic factors to digest in the past couple of months - not the least of which is judging how much of an "apocalypse premium" to price into bond yields given the nuclear saber rattling between D.C. and Pyongyang. Yet when stepping back away from the headlines and tweets, bond markets have been noting the implications of rising oil prices in a typical manner - higher inflation expectations and steeper yield curves. Oil prices have risen over $10/bbl since the June lows, led by a combination of rising demand on the back of an expanding global economy and a diminished supply response that has seen excessive inventories start to be wound down (Chart 3). BCA's commodity strategists have been expecting such a move to unfold, and prices have already risen into the $55-60/bbl range (on Brent crude) that they were calling for towards year-end. While a move beyond $60/bbl is not currently expected, any additional upside surprises in global growth can only tighten the supply/demand balance in an oil-bullish direction. At a minimum, oil prices can consolidate recent gains, providing a floor to inflation expectations. Already, the breakeven rate on 10-year TIPS in the U.S. have risen 18bps off the June lows, which has prevented the slope of the Treasury curve from flattening even as the 2-year Treasury yield hit an 9-year high last week (Chart 4). We expect to see more bear-steepening of the Treasury curve in the next few months as realized inflation rates begin to grind higher and the Fed will be relatively slow to respond - they'll need to see the inflation pick up first before delivering more rate hikes. This will result in higher market-based inflation expectations (i.e. wider TIPS breakevens) as investors price in a greater chance that inflation will sustainably return to the Fed's 2% target. While oil is not the only factor that matters for U.S. inflation, it is a lot harder for investors to believe that core PCE inflation can rise to 2% without higher oil prices. Chart 2A Revival Of The Trump Trade? Chart 3A Bullish Supply/Demand Backdrop For Oil Chart 4Oil Vs. The U.S. Yield Curve A similar dynamic is taking place in other countries. Inflation expectations (linkers or CPI swaps) are rising alongside rising energy prices in the Euro Area (Chart 5), U.K. (Chart 6), Canada (Chart 7) and Australia (Chart 8). The moves in expectations are largest in countries experiencing stronger growth (the Euro Area and Canada), and more modest where growth is mixed (the U.K.) and where realized inflation is still very low (Australia). Yield curves have generally steepened in response to the reflationary rise in oil prices except for Canada, where the central bank has already delivered two surprise rate hikes over the summer and markets have priced in nearly three more hikes over the next year. Yet even there, global reflation will put steepening pressure on the Canadian yield curve without additional hawkishness from the Bank of Canada. Chart 5Oil Vs. The German Yield Curve Chart 6Oil Vs. The U.K. Yield Curve Chart 7Oil Vs. The Canada Yield Curve Chart 8Oil Vs. The Australia Yield Curve Japan, as always, remains the outlier to global trends. While oil prices have been rising even in yen terms, inflation expectations have remained subdued and the JGB yield curve has stayed flat (Chart 9). With the Bank of Japan targeting a 0% yield on the benchmark 10-year JGB as part of its current monetary policy framework, the link between energy prices, inflation expectations and the slope of the yield curve will remain broken in Japan. This makes JGBs a very low-beta government bond market, and we continue to recommend an overweight stance on Japan given our bias toward a defensive portfolio duration posture. Chart 9Oil Vs. The Japan Yield Curve Net-net, we see oil as continuing to provide a steepening, reflationary bias to global bond yields in the next few months, as the impact of the rise in energy prices feeds through into faster rates of headline inflation. How central banks respond will determine what curves do beyond that but, for now, the bias is towards steeper curves. Bottom Line: Bond markets have been slow to discount the impact of higher oil prices on global inflation, which should lead to steeper yield curves and additional increases in inflation expectations. How Will The Trump Tax Plan Impact The Treasury Curve? Ask The Fed Another factor that will put steepening pressure on global yield curves, especially in the U.S., is the likelihood of the Trump fiscal stimulus coming to fruition. The White House has chosen to refocus its policy efforts on getting aggressive tax cuts implemented. This is low-hanging fruit for a president that needs a legislative victory after fighting a losing battle on health care reform. Last week, the latest Trump tax plan was unveiled, which is centered on delivering large cuts on corporate taxes, reducing the number of personal income tax brackets, eliminating many large tax deductions, allowing companies to fully expense investment spending at an accelerated rate, and introducing a territorial tax system that would exempt U.S. corporate taxes on the foreign earnings of U.S. companies. The Tax Policy Center unveiled its initial assessment of the Trump tax plan last Friday, which is expected to reduce U.S. federal tax revenue by $2.4 trillion over the next ten years and another $3.2 trillion in the following decade.2 The White House is betting on so-called "dynamic scoring" of the tax plan to recoup some of that lost revenue via higher economic growth, although that is filled with unrealistic expectations to prevent an unwanted surge in federal deficits. More likely, the Trump plan would result in a major increase in federal budget deficits over the next decade, similar to the levels estimated by Moody's last year in its own analysis of the Trump fiscal platform.3 In Chart 10, we show how periods of widening federal budget deficits typically coincide with periods of U.S. Treasury curve steepening. Usually, this is merely the business cycle at work, with deficits widening during economic downturns as tax revenues plunge and counter-cyclical government expenditure increases. What is also at work is the monetary policy cycle, with the Fed delivering rate cuts during recessions when the output gap is widening and inflation pressures are diminishing, thus bull-steepening the yield curve. Chart 10Forwards Pricing Too Much UST Curve Flattening Yet the current Trump tax proposal comes at a time when the U.S. economy is operating close to full employment with the output gap essentially closed (middle panel). This means that any impetus to U.S. economic growth from the fiscal easing can cause inflation pressures to build up in a manner different than typical periods of widening budget deficits. This should initially impart steepening pressures on the Treasury curve, but in a bearish fashion via higher longer-term inflation expectations. However, the eventual path for the Treasury curve will be determined by how much the Fed responds to the fiscal easing via tighter monetary policy. Typically, the slope of the Treasury curve is highly negatively correlated to the real fed funds rate (adjusted by headline inflation), with a higher real rate coinciding with a flatter curve and vice versa (bottom panel). Right now, the market is discounting only a modest rise in real U.S. policy rates, looking at the difference between forward Overnight Index Swap (OIS) rates and forward CPI swap rates. That market-implied "real rate" is expected to stay in a modest range between 0% and 1% until well into the next decade. The Fed is also forecasting a rise in the real funds rate to 0.75%, but over a much faster time horizon - within two years - than the market. This is in the context of U.S. core inflation sustainably returning to the Fed's 2% target, which will allow the Fed to eventually raise rates to its current "terminal" rate projection of 2.75%. Thus, when simply eyeballing the relationship between real rates and the slope of the curve in Chart 10, the risk is that real rates will be higher than the market expects over time, and the Treasury curve will be flatter, all else equal. Yet when looking at the slope of the Treasury curve that is currently priced into the forwards, as shown in the bottom panel of Chart 10, a substantial flattening is already discounted over the next decade. Admittedly, the correlation between the real funds rate and the slope of the curve has changed over past decades, and the curve can likely be flatter for a lower level of real yields than in years past. Yet, even allowing for that, the market does seem to be discounting a very aggressive rise in real interest rates over the coming decade - one that is unlikely to be realized unless the Fed delivers a much higher path of interest rates then they are currently projecting. Which brings us back to the Trump fiscal stimulus. If the corporate tax cuts do provide a boost to economic growth next year via increased investment spending and hiring activity, in a way that also overheats the U.S. economy and boosts core inflation, then the Fed may be forced to raise rates at a faster pace than planned. This would result in a much flatter yield curve and would raise the risks of a recession in 2019, which is a scenario we think is highly plausible, especially if there is a change at the top of the FOMC. Late last week, it was revealed that President Trump had interviewed several candidates for the position of Fed Chair. Former Fed governor Kevin Warsh and current governor Jerome Powell were the names that caught the market's attention. Warsh has been a vocal critic of the Fed's slow unwind from the unusual post-crisis monetary policies, and is thus considered a monetary hawk who would want to raise rates higher, and faster, than the current FOMC. Powell is more pragmatic and would likely maintain the status quo at the Fed. The possibility of a more hawkish Fed chair has shown up in online prediction markets, where the "prices" of candidates that are perceived to be more hawkish (Warsh, John Taylor) rose while the prices of the more dovish candidates (Janet Yellen, Gary Cohn) fell (Chart 11). Right now, the online punters have Warsh in the lead, but the intraday "trading" has been volatile. The intersection of U.S. fiscal policy and monetary policy will be critical to determine the future path of U.S. bond yields over the next year. Right now, it appears that there is too much flattening priced into the Treasury curve relative to the expected path of the funds rate and inflation, as the Fed is unlikely to raise real rates much beyond their current projections. That could change if the Trump tax cuts can deliver a faster pace of productivity growth and higher equilibrium real interest rates. Although the post-war history of the U.S. shows that tax cuts by themselves do not raise the potential growth rate of the economy unless they lead to a major increase in investment spending, and even then the impact takes years to be seen (Chart 12). Chart 11Will The Next Fed Chair Be A Hawk? Chart 12Tax Cuts Do Not Always Boost Growth For now, we think it makes more sense to bet against the substantial flattening in the forwards by positioning for a steeper Treasury curve. Bottom Line: The proposed U.S. tax cut plan will result in wider budget deficits and, potentially, faster U.S. inflation with the U.S. economy already near full employment. The Fed is likely to respond to this with even tighter monetary policy, although not by enough to flatten the Treasury curve by as much as is currently discounted. ECB Tapering: Steepening Yield Curves Through The Term Premium The other major factor that should steepen global yield curves in the next several months is the expectation of a change in policy from the ECB. The central bank has been gently preparing the market since the early summer for a shift to a less accommodative policy stance, in response to robust economic growth and slowly rising core inflation (Chart 13). A decision on the changes to the asset purchase program will take place at the October 26th ECB policy meeting. This will involve a reduction in the monthly pace of bond buying and, likely, some guidance as to when the asset purchase program will end. A change in short-term interest rates is highly unlikely before the bond purchases have been fully tapered, as this would go against the current forward guidance from the ECB that states that interest rates will remain at low levels well after the purchases have stopped. As we have discussed throughout this year, we see the ECB having no choice but to begin tapering its asset purchase program. The deflationary tail risks from 2014/15 have faded and, perhaps more importantly, the ECB is running into operational constraints on which bonds it can continue to buy. A likely outcome will be an announcement that the pace of bond buying will slow from the current €60bn/month to least ½ of that pace starting in January 2018. At mid-year, the policy will likely be reevaluated and, if the economy has not slowed materially and/or inflation rolled over, a full tapering of the bond buying would be announced, ending at the end of 2018 or in the first quarter of 2019. A rate hike would not take place until late 2019, which is where the market is currently priced. In the absence of rate hikes, most of the impact on Euro Area bond yields from the tapering will come from a widening of the term premium on longer-maturity bonds. If the pace of growth slows to zero, this could result in the benchmark 10-year German Bund yield returning all the way back to 1% (bottom two panels). This would still be a very low yield by historical standards, in line with structurally lower growth rates and high government debt levels in Europe. But the path to that 1% yield would be very damaging for bond returns as Euro Area yield curves bear-steepen. While the link between our estimates of the term premiums in the major developed markets is not airtight, there has been a loose correlation between them during the post-crisis "quantitative easing" era (Chart 14). If recent history is any guide, a slower pace of ECB bond buying should coincide with steeper global yield curves, all else equal. All else is likely NOT equal, as an unruly response of risk assets and currency markets to a tapering could alter the likely path of growth and inflation expectations and, eventually, interest rates. But, at this moment, an ECB taper is more likely to result in steeper global yield curves. Chart 13An ECB Taper Will Result In##BR##Higher Term Premia In Europe... Chart 14...And Perhaps In Other##BR##Bond Markets, As Well Bottom Line: The ECB will announce a slower pace of asset purchases at the policy meeting later this month, which should bear-steepen European yield curves via widening term premia on longer-dated debt. Robert Robis, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "BCA Central Bank Monitor Chartbook: The Less Dovish Rhetoric Is Justified", dated September 26th 2017, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 2 http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/sites/default/files/publication/144971/a_preliminary_analysis_of_the_unified_framework_0.pdf 3 https://www.economy.com/mark-zandi/documents/2016-06-17-Trumps-Economic-Policies.pdf Recommendations Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

GAA DM Equity Country Allocation Model Update The GAA DM Equity Country Allocation model is updated as of September 29th, 2017. The model sharply reduced its allocation to the U.K. to a bare minimum in response to the tightening in liquidity condition as the Bank of England warned of a rate hike in "coming months." The funds are reallocated to the Spain and Germany. Other smaller changes are the reductions in Italy and Australia in favor of Sweden and Switzerland, as shown in Table 1. As shown in Table 2 and Charts 1, 2 and 3, the overall model outperformed its benchmark by 44 bps in September. Both level 1 and level 2 models performed well, with level 2 outperforming its benchmark by 63 bps and level 1 outperforming its benchmark by 9 bps, as the underweight in Australia, U.S. and Japan versus the overweight in Italy, Germany and Netherland worked very well. Since going live in January 2016, the overall model has outperformed the benchmark by 341 bps, largely from the allocation among the 11 non-U.S. countries, which has outperformed its benchmark by 743 bps. Chart 1GAA DM Model Vs. MSCI World Chart 2GAA U.S. Vs. Non U.S. Model (Level1) Chart 3GAA Non U.S. Model (Level 2) Table 1Model Allocation Vs. Benchmark Weights Table 2Performance (Total Returns In USD) Please see also on the website http://gaa.bcaresearch.com/trades/allocation_performance. For more details on the models, please see the January 29th, 2016 Special Report, "Global Equity Allocation: Introducing the Developed Markets Country Allocation Model." http://gaa.bcaresearch.com/articles/view_report/18850. Please note that the overall country and sector recommendations published in our Monthly Portfolio Update and Quarterly Portfolio Outlook use the results of these quantitative models as one input, but do not stick slavishly to them. We believe that models are a useful check, but structural changes and unquantifiable factors need to be considered too in making overall recommendations. GAA Equity Sector Selection Model The GAA Equity Sector Selection Model (Chart 4) is updated as of September 30, 2017. Chart 4Overall Model Performance Table 3Allocations Table 4Performance Since Going Live The model continues to be optimistic on global growth as seen by an increasing allocation to cyclical sectors. Additionally, the model has also reduced its underweight on consumer discretionary stocks, which is currently the only cyclical sector to have a below-benchmark allocation. Finally, the biggest shift was a downgrade in utilities from overweight to underweight. This was primarily driven by momentum. For more details on the model, please see the Special Report "Introducing The GAA Equity Sector Selection Model," July 27, 2016 available at https://gaa.bcaresearch.com. Xiaoli Tang, Associate Vice President xiaoli@bcaresearch.com Aditya Kurian, Research Analyst adityak@bcaresearch.com

Highlights Recommendation Allocation The global growth outlook remains strong, with corporate earnings likely to beat expectations for a couple more quarters. Inflation and Fed policy are key to asset allocation. We expect inflation to recover, which will push up interest rates and the dollar. But uncertainty is rising too: for example the composition of the FOMC next year, Chinese policy post the Party Congress, Geopolitics. We keep our pro-risk tilts, particularly overweights in euro area and Japanese equities, U.S. high-yield bonds, private equity, and cyclical sectors. But we reduce portfolio risk by bringing some allocations closer to benchmark, for example downgrading U.S. equities to neutral and reducing the underweight in EM. Feature Overview Growth Is Picking Up - But So Is Uncertainty The outlook for global economic growth remains almost unarguably positive (Chart 1). The key for asset allocation, then, comes down to whether inflation in the U.S. will rebound, and whether therefore the Fed will continue to tighten monetary policy in line with its current projections. This would likely cause long-term interest rates to rise and the dollar to appreciate, which would be positive for developed market equities and credit, but negative for government bonds, emerging market equities and commodities. This scenario has been our expectation - and the basis of our recommendations - for some time, and it remains so. In September, the market started coming around to our view - after months of pricing in that inflation would stay sluggish (which, therefore, had caused the euro and yen, government bonds, EM equities and commodities to perform well). In just a couple of weeks, the futures-market-priced probability of a December Fed hike has moved from 31% to 75%. This was triggered by little more than stabilization of core CPI (Chart 2), due mainly to shelter inflation, which anyway has a low weight in the core PCE inflation data that the Fed most closely watches. To us, this demonstrates just how sensitive the market is to any slight pickup in inflation, due to the fact that its expectations of Fed rate hikes over the next 12 months are so far below what the FOMC is signaling (Chart 3). Chart 1Lead Indicators Looking Good Chart 2Is The Softness In Inflation Over? Chart 3The Market Still Doesn't Believe The Fed However, a risk to BCA's view is that the Fed turns dovish. Even Janet Yellen, in the press conference after the FOMC meeting on 20 September, admitted that the Fed needs "to figure out whether the factors that have lowered inflation are likely to prove persistent". If they do, she said, "it would require an alteration of monetary policy." FOMC member (and notable dove) Lael Brainard, in an important speech earlier in September, laid out the argument that, since inflation has missed the Fed's 2% target for five years, inflation expectations have been damaged (Chart 4) and that only a period during which inflation overshot could repair them. With Yellen's term due to expire next February and four other vacancies on the FOMC, personnel changes could significantly change the Fed's direction. Online prediction sites give a somewhat high probability to President Trump's replacing Yellen, with (the rather more hawkish) Kevin Warsh, a Fed governor in 2006-11 (Chart 5). However, presidents tend to like loose monetary policy - President Trump has said as much himself - which raises the possibility of his trying to steer the Fed in a direction that is more tolerant of rising inflation. A possible scenario, then, is of an accommodative Fed which allows equities markets to have a final meltup for this cycle, similar to 1999. Chart 4Have Inflation Expectations Been Damaged? Chart 5Who Will Trump Choose To Lead The Fed? Another current source of uncertainty is China. Money supply growth there has slowed sharply this year, after being pushed upwards by the government's reflationary policies in late 2015. This historically has been a good lead indicator of growth and, indeed, many cyclical indicators have surprised to the downside recently (Chart 6). It is also hard to predict whether, after October's five-yearly Communist Party congress, newly re-elected President Xi Jinping will move ahead with implementing structural reforms, even at the expense of a short-term slowdown of growth.1 We continue to think that risk assets have further upside for this cycle. Growth is likely to remain strong, the probability of a U.S. tax cut is rising, and corporate earnings should surprise to the upside for another couple of quarters (Q3 S&P500 EPS consensus forecasts remain cautious at 5% YoY, versus our model which suggests double-digit growth). Nonetheless, the cycle is now mature, global equities have already produced a total return of almost 40% since their recent bottom in February last year, and valuations in almost every asset class are stretched (Chart 7). Moreover, geopolitical risks - such as that from North Korean missiles - will not disappear quickly. We continue to pencil in the possibility of a recession in 2019 or 2020, caused by a sharp rise in inflation, especially in the U.S., which the Fed - whoever is running it - would have to stamp on by raising rates above the equilibrium level. Chart 6Is A Downturn Coming In China? Chart 7Nothing Looks Cheap Therefore, on the 12-month horizon we continue to recommend pro-risk and pro-cyclical positioning, for example an overweight in equities versus fixed income. However, given the rising uncertainty, we are reducing the scale of our bets a little and so, for example among our equity country and regional recommendations, move a little closer to benchmark by lowering the U.S. to neutral and reducing the degree of our underweight in EM. Garry Evans, Senior Vice President Global Asset Allocation garry@bcaresearch.com What Our Clients Are Asking How worried should we be about North Korea? Chart 8Threats - But Eventually A Diplomatic Solution President Obama reportedly warned President Trump just prior to inauguration that North Korea would be his biggest headache. After 15 missile launches and a nuclear test this year (Chart 8, panel 1), investors are beginning to think the same. How big is the risk that the tension turns into warfare? BCA's Geopolitical strategists have written about the subject extensively.2 They conclude that military action is unlikely. An U.S. attack on North Korean missile or nuclear sites would simply provoke an attack with conventional weapons on Seoul, which is only 50 km from the border. Kim Jong-un undoubtedly knows that if he were to attack Guam or Japan, his country would be wiped out. In the end, then, a diplomatic solution is likely - but this will only be achieved after tension has risen sufficiently to force the two sides to the negotiating table. The analogy is Iran in 2012-15, where sanctions finally forced it to agree to a 10-year freeze in its nuclear plans. For the moment, sanctions seem unlikely to bite. North Korea's trade with China is not yet notably slowing (Chart 8, panel 2) and its GDP growth actually accelerated last year, albeit from stagnating levels, according to estimates from the Bank of Korea (Chart 8, panel 3). So the cycle of new threats and tougher sanctions will continue for a while. Historically, North Korean provocations caused related markets (such as South Korea stocks) to fall sharply for a few days, but this always represented a buying opportunity (Chart 8, panel 4). Given the likelihood of a diplomatic outcome, we think this remains a good rule of thumb. What will happen after China's 19th Party Congress, and will there be a slowdown in the economy? China's twice-a-decade National Party Congress will be held October 18-25. The outcome of the meeting could have important economic and market consequences. The key purpose of the Congress is to rotate China's political leaders. The 19th Party Congress is crucial because it marks the passing of a generation: President Xi Jinping will receive a second five-year term, but is predicted to consolidate his power by placing a younger generation of leaders who support his structural reforms into key positions. When Xi came to power, his reform agenda included de-emphasizing GDP targets; injecting private capital, competition and market discipline into the state-owned corporate sector; and fighting pollution. This agenda has since been compromised, with Xi reverting to infrastructure spending and credit growth to avoid painful adjustments. However, recently, there have been signs of a pullback in reflationary policies (Chart 9). Financial tightening is a key to reviving reform. Tighter controls on banks and leverage will translate into greater market discipline, and will put pressure on the sector most in need of change: SOEs. During the twice-a-decade National Financial Work Conference In late July, Yang Weimin, a key economic policymaker who is close to Xi, said, "The nation can't let leverage rise for the purpose of boosting economic expansion," signaling that the administration is willing to tackle difficult reform issues. He also mentioned the potential risks in the economy such as shadow banking, property bubbles, high leverage in SOEs, and local government debt, adding that the nation should set out its priorities and tackle them. Though it is impossible to predict the precise outcome of the Congress, the leadership reshuffle is likely to benefit Xi's reform agenda. The new leadership is likely to work on rebalancing growth toward consumption and services while encouraging private entrepreneurship and cutting back state-owned enterprises and, most importantly, deleveraging corporate debt. If China's credit impulse rolls over, the recent improvement in industrial profits and domestic demand will come under threat (Chart 9). As a result, China's cyclical growth is set to slow in 2018 as Xi reboots reform. Although economic risks will rise as the reform takes place, we still believe China H shares are attractive relative to other EM markets. In the long run, Xi's renewed reform drive should help China to get out of the "middle income trap'', which could help Chinese stocks to outperform EMs such as South Africa, Turkey and Brazil, where reforms are absent.3 Are Indian equities still a buy? In the three years since Prime Minister Narendra Modi's election, Indian stock prices have outperformed their emerging market peers by more than 20%. But the underlying growth dynamics do not justify this performance. We are turning cautious on India and downgrade Indian equities to neutral for the following reasons. India's GDP growth rate fell to a three-year low of 5.7% yoy in the April-June quarter. The administration's "Make In India" campaign is having limited impact, as seen in the near-zero growth of the manufacturing sector. Capital spending by firms has been dismal, further weighing on the outlook for productivity. Increasing layoffs and business shutdowns have produced considerable slack in the economy. Non-performing loans in the banking system have reached 11.8% of assets. As a result, credit growth to business has fallen almost to zero. This has slowed infrastructure development, as seen in the high level of stalled capital projects. The Reserve Bank of India has only just started the process of pushing banks to raise provisioning for distressed assets. The negative impact of last year's demonetization program is finally showing through. Less than 10% of Indians have ever used non-cash payment methods, and so demand for cyclical goods is slowing. Finally, Indian stocks have risen significantly in recent years, making them expensive relative to EM peers. In addition, profit growth has slowed, and return on equity converged with the EM average. Indian equities have been riding on expectations of reforms from the Modi administration. But, with the exception of the Goods & Services Tax (GST), the reform progress has been disappointing. We are turning cautious on Indian equities until we see improvements in the macro backdrop (Chart 10). Chart 9Sign of slowdown in Chinese Economy Chart 10India: Loosing Steam? How should global equity investors hedge foreign currency exposures? Chart 11Dynamic Hedging Outperforms Static Hedging There have been many conflicting views on how to hedge foreign currency exposures in a global equity portfolio. Full hedge,4 no hedge,5 or simply 50% hedge?6 Or should all investors hold the reserve currencies (USD, euro and Swiss Franc), avoid commodities currencies (AUD and CAD) while being neutral on GBP and JPY?7 As published in a Special Report 8 on September 29, 2017, our research has found that not only should investors with different home currencies manage their foreign currency exposures differently, but also a dynamic hedging framework based on the indicators from BCA's Foreign Exchange Strategy service's Intermediate Timing Model (ITTM)9 outperforms all the static hedging strategies for all investors with six different home currencies (USD, EUR, JPY, GBP, AUD and CAD) (Chart 11). A few key observations from Chart 11 Static hedges reduces risk with little impact on returns for the USD and JPY investors only. Unlike the CAD investors, the AUD investors are much better off to hedge than not to, on a risk adjusted basis, even though AUD is also a commodity currencies, like the CAD. The 50% "least regret" hedge ratio has lived up to its reputation as it reduced risk by more than 50% without severely jeopardizing returns. And for the USD based investors, the 50% static hedge has a similar risk/return profile as the dynamic hedge. For all other five home currencies, however, the 50% static hedge underperforms the dynamic hedge. Global Economy Overview: Globally growth has accelerated, with inflation quiescent. We expect growth to continue to be strong, but U.S. inflation will start to normalize, which should trigger further Fed hikes and a rise in long-term rates. Japanese and euro zone growth will be less inflationary, given continued slack in these economies. U.S.: Growth has rebounded sharply after the seasonally weak Q1 and excessive expectations following the presidential election. The Citi Economic Surprise Index (Chart 12, panel 1) shows strong upward surprises. First-half GDP growth came in at 2.2% (above trend, which is estimated at 1.8%), and the manufacturing ISM reached 57.7 in September. The two big hurricanes will probably knock around 0.5 points off Q3 growth but the lesson from previous disasters is that this will be more than made up over the following three quarters. Rebounding capex, and consumption aided by a probable acceleration in wages, should keep GDP growth strong. Euro Area: Due to Europe's greater cyclicality and dependence on the global cycle, growth momentum is unsurprisingly even stronger than in the U.S., with Q2 GDP growth 2.3% YoY and the manufacturing PMI at 57.4. German growth has been particularly robust with the IFO index at 115.9, close to an all-time high, and German manufacturing wages growing by 2.9% YoY. The credit impulse suggests that the strong growth should continue, although the euro appreciation this year (and consequent tightening of financial conditions) might dampen it a little. Japan: Growth continues to be good in the external sector (with exports rising 18% YOY and industrial production 5%), but weak in the domestic economy, where household spending and core inflation continue to flatline. We do, though, see some first tentative signs of inflation: the Bank of Japan's estimate suggests the output gap has now closed, and the tight labor market is showing through in part-time hourly wages, which are rising 2.9%. Emerging Markets: China's PMI has oscillated around 50 all year (Chart 13, panel 3), as the authorities tried to stabilize growth ahead of October's Party Congress. But money supply and credit growth have been slowing all year, and this is now showing through in downside surprises in fixed asset investment and retail sales data. Especially if the congress moves towards structural reform and short-term pain, growth may slow further. This would be negative for other emerging markets, which depend on China for growth. Bank loan growth and domestic consumption generally remain weak throughout EM ex China. Chart 12Global Growth Is Accelerating... Chart 13...Propelling Europe And Japan Interest Rates: Inflation has been soft this year in the U.S. but is likely to pick up in coming months reflecting stronger economic growth and dollar depreciation. We expect the Fed to raise rates in December and confirm its three hikes next year. That should be enough to push the 10-year Treasury yield up to close to 3%. In Japan and the euro area, however, underlying inflationary pressures are much weaker. So we expect the Bank of Japan to stick to its yield curve control policy, and for the ECB to emphasize, when it announces in October next year's (reduced) asset purchase program, that it will be cautious about raising rates. Global Equities Chart 14Earnings Have Been Strong... Q3 2017 was the second quarter in a row when the price appreciation in global equities was driven entirely by earnings growth, since the forward price-to-earnings ratio contracted by 2% compared to Q2 (Chart 14). Chart 15No Compelling Reasons To Make Large Bets The scope of the improvement in earnings so far in 2017 has been wide. Not only are forward earnings being revised up, but 12-month trailing earnings growth has also been very strong, with all 10 top-level sectors registering positive earnings growth. Margins have steadily improved globally from the lows in early 2016. Despite the slight multiple compression in Q3, equity valuations are not cheap by historical standards. As an asset class, however, equities are still attractively valued compared to bonds, especially after the recent safe-haven buying drove global bond yields to very depressed levels. We remain overweight equities versus bonds on the 9-12 month horizon. Within equities, however, we think it's prudent to reduce portfolio risk by bringing allocations closer to benchmark weighting because 1) equities are not cheap, 2) volatility is low, 3) geopolitical tension is rising, and 4) year-on-year earnings growth over coming quarters may not be as strong as it has been so far this year because earnings in the first half of the 2016 were very depressed. As such, we downgrade the U.S. to neutral from overweight (+3 percentage points), and reduce the underweight in EM (to -2 from -5). We remain overweight the euro area and Japan (but hedge the yen exposure). Within EM, we have been more positive on China and remain so on a 6-9 month horizon. Sector-wise, we maintain our pro-cyclical tilt. Country Allocations: Downgrade U.S. To Neutral We started the year being "cautiously optimistic" with a maximum overweight (+6 ppts) in U.S. equities.10 We added risk at the end of the first quarter by reducing by half the U.S. overweight in order to upgrade the higher-beta euro area to overweight (+3) from neutral.11 The change has worked well, as the euro area outperformed the U.S. by 542 basis points (bps) in Q2 and then by 370 bps in Q3 in unhedged USD terms. Our DM-only quant model also started the year with a maximum overweight in the U.S., but the overweight was gradually reduced each month until July when the model indicated a benchmark weight for the U.S. The model continued its shift away from the U.S. in August and September, and now the U.S. is the largest underweight in the model. As we have previously stated, we use the quant model as one key input into our decision-making process, but we do not follow it slavishly because 1) no model can capture all the ever-changing driving forces in the market, and 2) the model moves more often than we prefer. In light of the rising geopolitical risks and low levels of volatility in all asset classes, we conclude that there are no longer compelling reasons to make large bets among the countries (Chart 15). Valuation in the U.S. is stretched, but neither is it cheap in EM anymore; both trailing and forward earnings growth in the U.S. are below the global average. Forward earnings in the EM look likely to outpace the global average, but EM trailing earnings growth seems to be losing steam. As such, we recommend investors to be neutral in the U.S. and use the funds to reduce the underweight in EM. Sector Allocation: Stay Underweight Global Utilities Overall, our sector positioning retains its tilt towards cyclicals and against defensives (see Table 1). Our global sector quant model, however, in September reduced its underweight in defensives by upgrading utilities to overweight from underweight, mainly due to the momentum factor. We have decided to overwrite the model result and maintain our underweight recommendation for the following reasons. In October, the model again downgraded utilities to underweight. In the most recent cycle post the Global Financial Crisis (GFC), the relative performance of utilities has been closely correlated with the performance of bonds vs. equities (Chart 16, top panel). This is not surprising given the bond-like nature of the sector. The sector enjoys a higher dividend yield than the global average: other than during the GFC, the excess yield has been in the range of 1-2%. In a low bond-yield environment, this yield pick-up is no doubt attractive. However, our house view is for global bond yields to rise over the next 9-12 months and we maintain our overweight on equities vs. bonds. As such, underweight utilities is in line with our overall risk/return assessment. In addition, even though the utilities sector has a higher dividend yield, the current reading is not particularly attractive compared to the five-year average (panel 4); valuation measures such as price to book (panel 3) show a neutral reading as well. The other sector where we override our quant model is Healthcare, which we favor as a long-term play because of favorable demographic trends, while the quant model points to an underweight due to short-term factors such as momentum and valuation. Smart Beta Update Year-to-date, the equal-weighted multi-factor portfolio has outperformed the global benchmark by 54 basis point (bps). (Table 1 and Chart 17) Among the five most enduring factors - size, value, quality, minimum volatility, and momentum - momentum is the only factor that has prevailed in both DM and EM universes, while quality has outperformed in the DM, but underperformed in EM. (Table 1) Chart 16Maintain Underweight Utilities Chart 17MSCI ACW: Factor Relative Performance Value has underperformed growth across the board (Table 1). The size performance, however, has large regional divergences in both value and growth spaces. Small cap has outperformed large cap consistently in both the value and growth spaces in the higher-beta euro area, Japan and U.K., while underperforming in the lower-beta U.S. (Table 2) We maintain our neutral view on styles and prefer to use sector positioning to implement the underlying factors given the historically close correlation between styles and cyclicals versus defensives (Chart 17, bottom two panels). Year-to-date cyclicals have outperformed defensives (Table 1). Table 1YTD Relative Performance* Table 2YTD Total Returns* (%) Small Cap - Large Cap Government Bonds Maintain Slight Underweight Duration. U.S. bond yields declined significantly in Q3 to below fair-value levels in response to heightened geopolitical risks and hurricanes (Chart 18, top panel). This safe-haven buying spread globally, despite ample evidence of faster global growth (middle panel) and less accommodative monetary policies from the major central banks. There is now considerable upside risk for global bond yields from these current low levels. Maintain Overweight TIPS Vs. Treasuries. The fall in nominal U.S. Treasury yields, however, was concentrated in the real yields, as 10-year break-even inflation widened in Q3 (Chart 18, panel 3). In terms of relative value, TIPS are now fairly valued vs. nominal bonds. However, our U.S. Bond Strategy's core PCE model, which closely tracks the 10-year TIPS breakeven rate (Chart 18, panel 3), is sending the message that inflationary pressures are building in the economy and that core PCE should reach the Fed's 2% target by the end of this year. This suggests that the bond markets are not providing adequate compensation for the inflationary economic backdrop. Underweight Canadian Government Bonds. The Bank of Canada (BOC) delivered another surprise 25 bps rate hike in September, due to "the impressive strength of the Canadian economy" and "the more synchronized global expansion that was supporting higher industrial commodity prices." BCA's Global Fixed Income Strategy has been underweight Canada in its hedged global portfolio and recommends investors not to fight the BOC despite little inflation pressure in the Canadian economy (Chart 19). Chart 18Poor Value in Nominal Government Bonds Chart 19Bank of Canada: Shock Hawks Corporate Bonds As inflation recovers and the Fed moves ahead with rate hikes, we expect long-term risk-free rates to rise moderately. Fair value for the 10-year U.S. Treasury yield is currently close to 2.7%. In the context of rising rates and continued economic expansion, we continue to prefer spread product over government bonds. Investment grade bonds in the U.S. trade at an average option-adjusted spread over Treasuries of 110 bps. While Aaa corporate spreads are expensive, other investment grade credit tiers appear fairly valued. Given the deterioration in our U.S. Corporate Health Monitor (Chart 20), amid a rise in leverage, over the past two years (Chart 21) we do not expect the spread to contract further or fall back close to historic lows. However, investors should still be moderately attracted by the carry in a low interest rate environment. Our preference is for U.S. investment-grade corporate bonds over European ones, since the latter could be negatively impacted when the ECB announces its tapering of asset purchases in October. High-yield bonds look attractive after a small rise in spreads and an improvement in the cyclical outlook over the past quarter. The current spread of U.S. high-yield, 360 bps, translates into a default-adjusted yield (assuming a 2.6% default rate and 49% recovery rate over the next 12 months) of 250 bps - close to the long-run average (Chart 22). European junk debt looks less attractive from a valuation perspective. Chart 20Corporate Health Is A Worry In The U.S. Chart 21IG Spreads Unlikely To Contract Further Chart 22High-Yield Debt Valuations Look Attractive Commodities Chart 23Mixed View Towards Commodities Secular perspective: Bearish We hold a bearish secular outlook for commodities, mainly due to our view on China's slowing economic growth and the increasing shift from traditional energy sources to alternatives. Cyclical perspective: Neutral Our short-term commodities view remains neutral since oil inventory drawdowns will push up the crude oil price further, and because low real interest rates will keep gold from falling this year. But industrial metals are likely to react negatively to the winding down of China's reflation after the Party Congress in mid-October. Precious metal: Short-term bullish, long-term bearish. We expect the Fed to tighten rates only slowly which, over time, will mean the central bank finds itself behind the curve on inflation. Real rates are expected to remain relatively low for the foreseeable future, which will be supportive of gold. Rising tension between North Korea and the U.S. could also give gold a lift. Industrial metals: Bearish The copper price has rallied by 10% during Q3 2017, thanks to supply-side disruptions at some of the world's largest copper mines, along with better-than-expected performance of the Chinese economy. However, mine interruptions will be transitory, and the world copper market is already back in balance (Chart 23, panel 3). Although the rebound in the Chinese PMI is keeping metal prices up, we believe China after the Party Congress will try to reengineer its economy towards being more consumption and services-led, which will temper demand for industrial metals. Energy: Bullish We believe that market has been overly pessimistic on oil, and that this will change due to declining inventories and better demand and supply dynamics. (Chart 23) The U.S. Energy Information Administration revised down its shale production forecast for 2H 2017 by 200,000 barrels/day, which should lower investors' concerns over shale overproduction. Libyan oil production, the biggest threat to our bullish oil view, faltered by 300,000/day in August, keeping OPEC in compliance with its promised cuts. Currencies U.S. Dollar: Year to date, the dollar is down by 8% on a trade-weighted basis (Chart 24). However, after a period of underperformance, the U.S. economy is improving relative to its G10 peers, as seen by the strong rebound in the U.S. ISM manufacturing index. Additionally, the pick-up in money velocity points to a recovery in core inflation. As inflation starts to pick up again, markets will discount additional Fed rate hikes. Stay bullish U.S. dollar over the next 12 months. Chart 24U.S. Dollar Recovery? Pound: After a weak start to the year, sterling has recovered all its losses. Strong net FDI inflows have pushed the basic balance back into positive territory. However, Brexit negotiations will impact the financial sector, the largest target for FDI. Additionally, the recent sharp increase in inflation came from the pass-through effect of the weaker currency, and is not reflective of domestic economic activity. We expect increased political uncertainty to weigh down on future growth, forcing the Bank of England to maintain a dovish stance. Stay bearish over the next 12 months. Dollar: On a trade-weighted basis the currency is up 4% year to date, primarily driven by the rally in select metal prices. OECD's measure of output gap still points to substantial slack in the domestic economy, as seen in the downtrend in core inflation and nominal retail sales. However, despite improvements in global trade and domestic real estate activity, the Reserve Bank of Australia will keep policy easy in response to volatile commodity markets. Stay bearish over the next 12 months. Canadian Dollar: Driven by net portfolio inflows near record highs, the currency is up 6% on a trade-weighted basis so far this year. With improving economic activity, as seen in strong retail sales, the Bank of Canada expects the output gap to close in 2018. However, going forward, oil prices are unlikely to double again, and the combination of elevated indebtedness, bubby house prices and rising rates will create headwinds for the household sector. Stay bearish over the next 12 months. Alternatives Chart 25Favor PE, Real Assets Return Enhancers: Favor private equity vs. hedge funds In 2017 so far, private equity has returned 9%, whereas hedge funds have managed only a 3.5% return (Chart 25). Given their strong performance, private equity firms are raising near-record amounts of capital from investors starved for yield. By contrast, hedge funds continue to underperform both global equities and private equity, as is typical outside of recessions or bear markets. However, increasing concerns about valuations in private markets have pushed private equity dry powder to new highs of $963 billion. We continue to favor private equity over hedge funds, albeit with a more cautious outlook. Within the hedge fund space, we favor event-driven funds over the cycle, and macro funds heading into a recession. Inflation Hedges: Favor direct real estate vs. commodity futures In 2017 to date, direct real estate has returned 3.3%, whereas commodity futures are down over 10%. With energy markets likely to continue to recover lost ground over the coming months, we stress the structural nature of our negative recommendation on commodities. Depressed interest rates will keep financing cheap, making the spread between real estate and fixed income yields attractive. However, the slowdown in commercial real estate has made us more cautious on the overall real estate space. With regards to the commodity complex, the long term transition of China to a service-based economy will continue the structural decline in commodity demand. Continue to favor direct real estate vs. commodity futures. Volatility Dampeners: Favor farmland & timberland vs. structured products In 2017 to date, farmland and timberland have returned 2.2% and 1.5% respectively, whereas structured products have returned 1.4%. Farmland continues to outperform timberland given the latter's lower correlation with growth. Timberland returns have also lagged farmland given the weak recovery in the U.S. housing market. Investors can reduce the volatility of a multi-asset portfolio with the inclusion of farmland and timberland. With regards to structured products, rising rates and deteriorating credit quality in the auto loan market will weigh on returns. Given the Fed's plans to start unwinding its balance sheet this year, increased supply will put upward pressure on spreads. Risks To Our View Our pro-risk positioning would be incorrect if global growth were to slow sharply. But we see little sign that this is a significant risk over the next six to 12 months. Of our three favorite indicators of recession risk, global PMIs remain strong, and the U.S. 10-minus-2 year yield curve is still solidly positive at around 80 BP. Only a small blip up in junk bond spreads in August (Chart 26) is of any concern, and it was probably caused just by geopolitical tensions. With U.S. and European consumption and capex looking strong, probably the biggest risk to global growth would come from China, similar to 2015, if October's Party Congress signals a shift to short-term pain to achieve structural reforms. Perhaps more likely is an upside surprise to growth, with BCA's models - based on consumer and business sentiment - pointing to around 3% real GDP growth in the U.S. and 2½% in the euro area over the coming couple of quarters (Chart 27). Such an acceleration of growth would raise the risk of upside surprises to inflation, which could cause a bigger sell off in bond markets than we currently anticipate. Chart 26Any Need To Worry About Credit Spreads? Chart 27Could Growth Surprise On The Upside? Chart 28Suppose Inflation Stays Stubbornly Low Our positioning is not based on inflation remaining chronically low. But structural changes in the economy could cause this. While the Philips curve has not broken down completely, wage growth in the U.S. is 1-1½% lower than in previous expansions when the unemployment gap was at its current level (Chart 28). Could the Nairu be lower than the Fed's estimate of 4.6%? Has the gig economy somehow changed worker and employer behavior? 1 Please see What Our Clients Are Asking: "What Will Happen After China's 19th Party Congress, And Will There Be A Slowdown In The Economy?" of this report. 2 For their most comprehensive analysis, please see Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "North Korea: Beyond Satire," dated April 19, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Special Report "China: Looking Beyond The Party Congress'' dated July 19, 2017. available at gps.bcaresearch.com). 4 Perold, A and E. Schulman, 1988, "The free lunch in currency hedging: Implications for investment policy and performance standards," Financial Analyst Journal 44, 45-50. 5 Froot K., 1993, "Currency hedging over long horizons," NBER working paper 4355. 6 Michenaud, S., and B., Solnik, 2008, "Applying Regret Theory to Investment Choices: Currency Hedging Decisions," Journal of International Money and Finance 27, 677-694. 7 Campbell, J., K. de Medeiros and L. Viceira, 2010, "Global Currency Hedging," Journal of Finance LXV, 87-122. 8 Please see Global Asset Allocation Special Report, "Currency Hedging: Dynamic Or Static? - A Practical Guide For Global Equity Investors," dated September 29, 2017, available at gaa.bcaresearch.com. 9 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy "In Search of A Timing Model," dated July 22, 2016, available at fes.bcaresearch.com. 10 Please see Global Asset Allocation, "Quarterly - December 2016," dated December 15, 2016. 11 Please see Global Asset Allocation, "Quarterly - April 2017," dated April 3, 2017. GAA Asset Allocation

Special Report

Highlights In this report, we analyze both static and dynamic hedging strategies to hedge an identical global equity portfolio to six home currencies: the U.S. dollar, the British pound, the euro, the Japanese yen, the Canadian dollar and the Australian dollar. We propose an easy to implement dynamic hedging framework based on the proprietary currency indicators from BCA's Foreign Exchange Strategy (FES) service. It has outperformed all the static hedging strategies since 2001 on a risk-adjusted return basis. In addition, it levels out the playing field for all investors as the hedged returns are quite similar, no matter what their home currencies are. Among the static hedging strategies, the "least-regret" hedge ratio of 50% has lived up to its reputation, as it has reduced risk by more than 50% without severely jeopardizing returns. Over a four-year moving performance cycle (in line with how most portfolio managers are evaluated), the proposed dynamic hedging adds little career risk to portfolio managers compared to the "least regret" 50% static hedging, while provides superior returns most of the time. A global equity portfolio's currency exposure should be managed in a centralized currency overlay under the supervision of the Chief Investment Officer, so that equity and currency managers can both fully utilize their expertise in their respective field, and the organization can manage currency risk more efficiently at the total portfolio level. Feature Dynamic Hedging Outperforms Static Hedging We have received many client requests asking about currency hedging in global equity portfolios with different home currencies. This is not surprising given how currency movements have overwhelmed global equity portfolio returns of late. For example, this year the U.S. dollar's weakness against the major currencies has beefed up returns for U.S. investors who did not hedge their foreign exposure (Table I-1). Table I-1Year-To-Date Currency Movements Have Overwhelmed Equity Returns GAA's equity country allocation recommendations are by default unhedged on USD basis. When a hedge is required we make the recommendation explicit. There have been many conflicting views on whether global equity investors should hedge foreign currency exposure, and if so, what proportion of the exposure should be hedged. Perold and Schulman (1988) suggest fully hedging foreign currency exposure, because significant risk reduction can be achieved without a significant loss of return.1 This is based on their famous "free lunch" claim that average currency returns are zero over the long-term. At the other extreme, Froot (1993) suggests that foreign currencies should not be hedged at all for long-term investors, because purchasing power parity holds in the long term and exchange rates are mean reverting.2 There are many other views in between, including the universal hedge ratio proposed by Black (1989), which is estimated to be 77%.3 Campbell et al (2010) classify currencies into reserve currencies (USD, EUR and CHF), commodity currencies (AUD and CAD) and neutral currencies (JPY and GBP), and suggest that risk-minimizing investors should hold reserve currencies while hedging out commodity currencies, based on the correlations between the currencies and equity markets.4 Realizing the limitations of "static hedging," which assumes constant correlation, mean and variance, many academic researchers have explored "dynamic hedging models" that allow the mean and covariance to be time-varying by using complex econometric modelling techniques.5,6,7 These academic dynamic hedging strategies have shown improvement over the 50% static hedge, but it's very difficult for investors without a strong quantitative background to understand these very complex approaches. In fact, with all these confusing academic recommendations floating around, the "least regret" hedge ratio of 50% has been quite popular among practitioners.8 To help our clients better understand the role of currency management in global equity portfolios, we have joined forces with BCA's Foreign Exchange Strategy (FES) service to de-mystify the currency hedging process, and to propose a simple framework for clients with six different home currencies to dynamically hedge their foreign currency exposure based on the FES team's proprietary Intermediate-Term Timing Model (ITTM) indicators.9 These indicators have been used in their regular weekly publications. The ITTM-based dynamic hedging strategy is back-tested from 2001 because the ITTM indicators only date back to 2001 (See methodology). We have also back-tested a simple trend-following momentum-based dynamic strategy to see how a dynamic hedging methodology works in a longer period from 1976. For comparison we have back-tested ten different static hedging strategies that employ fixed hedge ratios across currencies and time. The test results not only clarify much of the confusion about static hedging, they also demonstrate that on a risk-adjusted return basis, BCA's ITTM-based dynamic hedging strategy has outperformed all static hedging strategies for all investors with six different home currencies since 2001 (Chart I-1). Even in the very long run of 41 years from August 1976, the simple momentum-based dynamic hedging outperforms the static strategies for investors with five home currencies, with only the AUD portfolio being worse off (Chart I-2). Chart I-1Identical Investment, But Different Risk/Return Profiles (3/2001-8/2017) Chart I-2Identical Investment, But Different Risk/Return Profiles (8/1976-8/2017) Now let's clarify some of the confusion: Does static hedging reduce portfolio risk at little expense of lowering returns? The answer is yes only for USD and JPY portfolios. For both the 41-year period from 1976 and the shorter 16-year period from 2001, a higher hedge ratio results in lower risk with slightly lower return. So fully hedged would be the "optimal" strategy for risk-minimizing investors with USD and JPY as home currencies (Panel 1 and 2 on left side in both Chart I-1 and Chart I-2). For the U.K. portfolio, the answer is a partial yes, because the "optimal hedge ratio" for risk-minizing investors, around 60%-80%, does produce the lowest risk, but the paths to that "optimal" point are totally opposite when different time periods are chosen. In the short period (Chart I-1, bottom left panel), it follows the same pattern as that for U.S. and Japanese investors up to the optimal point. As the hedge ratio increases, however, return drops and risk increases! In the longer period from 1976, as the hedge ratio increases, return increases and risk decreases until the "optimal point," after which risk and returns both increase (Chart I-2, bottom left panel). In the period from 2001, the AUD, CAD and EUR portfolios share a similar pattern to that of the GBP portfolio in the period from 1976. The AUD portfolio behaved the same in both the shorter period (Chart I-1, top right) and the longer period (Chart 2, top right), while the EUR and CAD portfolios behaved differently in the longer-term period from the shorter period. Overall, the CAD portfolio's "optimal" hedge ratio is around 0-30%, the AUD portfolio around 30-60% while the EUR portfolio is around 40% in the shorter period but around 90% in the longer period (Chart I-1 and Chart I-2). It is also worth noting that even though both the CAD and AUD are commodity currencies, AUD investors benefit significantly from hedging, while CAD investors' risk/return profile does not change much. This is because 1) currency returns for AUD investors do not average to zero in the long term due to positive carry, and 2) correlations between foreign currencies, foreign equities and domestic equities are not constant over time or across currencies (Appendix 2, Chart II-1 and Chart II-4) How does the "least regret" 50% static hedge do? The 50% hedge ratio fares quite well compared to the "optimal" static hedge ratio in terms of risk reduction for all portfolios in both periods, because more than half of the total risk reduction (the highest minus the lowest) occurs around the 50% hedge (Chart I-1 and Chart I-2). How does BCA's ITTM-based dynamic hedge do in terms of risk reduction? The ITTM produces better risk-adjusted returns for each portfolio than all the static hedges. In terms of risk, it generates the lowest risk for the EUR and GBP portfolios and is comparable to the 50% static hedge for other portfolios, while it generates a much higher return than all static hedges (Chart I-1 and Chart I-2). How does the BCA Dynamic Hedge (ITTM) compare to the 50% static hedge over time? Chart I-3 shows that the dynamic hedge consistently outperformed the 50% static hedge for all six home currencies since 2001 without significantly increasing hedging transactions, compared to the fixed 50% hedge ratio for all currency pairs. The dash line in each panel of Chart I-3 corresponds to the market cap-weighted aggregate of hedge ratios of foreign currencies for each home currency. On average, they are comparable to 50%. Most portfolio managers are measured on a moving four-year performance cycle. Chart I-4 shows that the ITTM-based dynamic hedging strategy has outperformed the 50% static hedging most of the time on a moving four-year basis, with only CAD, USD and JPY managers suffering brief drawdowns. Chart I-3BCA Dynamic Hedging Adds ##br##Value For All Investors Chart I-4Little Career Risk For ##br##Portfolio Managers In theory, if hedges were effective, then an identical global equity portfolio should have similar returns for all investors, no matter what home currency they hold. While neither the static hedging strategies nor the momentum-based dynamic hedging approach could pass this criteria, BCA's ITTM-based dynamic hedging approach does. It levels out the playing field for all investors globally. As shown in Chart I-5, in the period from March 2001 to August 2017, if left unhedged, the same global investment exhibits very different annualized returns for investors in different home currencies, with AUD investors at the low end at around 3.2%, and GBP investors at the high end at around 7%. With BCA's ITTM-based dynamic hedge, however, returns for all investors are very similar, no matter which currency is their home currency. Chart I-5BCA Dynamic Hedging Strategy Levels Out The Playing Field The BCA Dynamic Hedging Methodology To back-test all the hedging strategies, we use an identical global equity portfolio that is a market cap-weighted aggregate of nine countries/regions based on MSCI U.S., Japan, the euro area, U.K., Canada, Australia, Switzerland, Sweden and Norway. This universe accounts for about 97% of the current MSCI World index (Chart I-6). The history of the euro area before 1987 (when MSCI data were available) is calculated as a market cap-weighted aggregate of MSCI Germany, France, Spain, Italy, Austria, Belgium and the Netherlands. Chart I-6GAA Global Equity Universe We evaluate the same global portfolio for investors with six different home currencies: USD, JPY, GBP, EUR, CAD and AUD. The Measurement for Hedging Efficacy: All the academically claimed "optimal" hedge ratios, static or dynamic, are based on risk-minimizing in a mean-variance optimization framework. For practitioners, however, "not meeting return objectives" is a much higher risk priority than minimizing portfolio risk. This is why we advocate risk-adjusted return as our measurement for hedge efficacy. The Objective: We aim to find the hedging strategies that outperform the widely used 50% static hedging strategy on a risk-adjusted return basis. At BCA, our philosophy has always been not to strive to find the optimal solution, but to try our best to find a feasible solution that best meets the stated objective. Interestingly, this approach has produced superior results for the GBP and EUR portfolios, achieving the combination of "highest return - lowest risk." It also levels out the playing field for all investors by generating similar hedged returns for all investors, no matter what home currency they hold (Chart I-1 and Chart I-5). The Proprietary Currency Indicators: The indicators from Foreign Exchange Strategy service's Intermediate Term Timing Model (ITTM) are built under the assumptions that the uncovered interest rate parity (UIP) holds, and the fair value of a currency pair is a function of the real rate differential (using an average of two-year and 10-year real rates), Junk OAS (a proxy for global risk appetite), commodity prices and past-year trends (52-week moving average). When a currency pair deviates from its fair value to an extreme, then the likelihood for a trend reversal is high.9 The Simple Rule-Based Dynamic Hedging: For each home currency, we evaluate the other eight foreign currencies individually based on each pair's ITTM indicator. When a foreign currency overshoots fair value above the upper band of its historical range, then the currency is a short, and the short position is kept until the foreign currency value touches the lower band of its historical range that's below the fair value. The Implementation: We use one-month forward contracts and re-balance on a monthly basis. The gain or loss of the underlying equity index during the month is not hedged, but converted back to the home currency at the month-end spot rate. For history before 2001, we use one-month interest rates to calculate hedged returns (Please see Appendix 1 hedged return calculations using forwards and also interest rates). Example: Chart I-7 illustrates how a Canadian investor uses the ITTM indicator to decide when to hedge JPY exposure when they invest in the MSCI Japan equity index. Chart I-7Canadian Investor: Japanese Index Dynamically Hedged The top panel shows the hedging signal for JPY (solid line) versus our proprietary ITTM indicator for JPY/CAD exchange rate (dash line). The upper and lower band are set as 7% above fair value and 9% below fair value; the bottom panel shows the relative performance of the MSCI Japan hedged in CAD versus the MSCI Japan unhedged in CAD. Currently CAD investors should hedge their JPY exposure based on the ITTM indicator. Some Suggestions For Asset Allocators Use a centralized currency overlay portfolio to manage foreign currency exposure. The overlay portfolio should be managed by currency specialists (either in-house or using external managers) under the supervision of the CIO. The objective of the overlay portfolio is to manage currency exposure based on the underlying assets of the organization's Total Portfolio, such that the risk/return profile of the total portfolio is improved against its benchmark. Global equity portfolio manager performance should be measured on an unhedged basis in their respective home currency. Some have argued that a fully hedged benchmark such as the MSCI All Country Total Return Index in local currencies should be used to measure the performance of a global equity portfolio manager. We strongly disagree, even though in theory it does not really matter what benchmark is used. MSCI's "total return indexes in local currencies" for global equity aggregates are theoretical in nature. They cannot be replicated in the real world because they are calculated on a daily basis using the previous closing day's exchange rate to calculate foreign equity return10 - such that the "local return" for each foreign equity index is perfectly hedged. Unfortunately this "perfect hedge" is humanly impossible, because as shown in Formula (1) in Appendix 1, only when both the spot rate and forward rate at the time t are equal to the spot rate at time t+1, can the local returns be fully captured! Xiaoli Tang, Associate Vice President xiaolit@bcaresearch.com 1 Perold, A and E. Schulman, 1988, "The free lunch in currency hedging: Implications for investment policy and performance standards", Financial Analyst Journal 44, 45-50. 2 Froot K., 1993, "Currency hedging over long horizons", NBER working paper 4355 3 Black, F., 1989, "Universal hedging: optimizing currency risk and reward in international equity portfolios", Financial Analyst Journal 45, 16-22 4 Campbell, J., K. de Medeiros and L. Viceira, 2010, "Global currency hedging", Journal of Finance LXV, 87-122 5 Gagnon, L., T., McCurdy, and G., Lypny, 1998, " Hedging foreign currency portfolios", Journal of Empirical Finance 5, 197-220 6 Hautsch, N., and J. Inkmann, 2003, "Optimal hedging of the currency exchange risk exposure of dynamically balanced strategic asset allocations", Journal of Asset Management 4, 173-189 7 Brown, C., J., Dark, and W., Zhang, "Dynamic currency hedging for international stock portfolios", 2012, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Melbourn 8 Michenaud, S., and B., Solnik, 2008, "Applying regret theory to investment choices: Currency hedging decisions", Journal of International Money and Finance 27, 677-694 9 Please see BCA Foreign Exchange Strategy Special Report titled "In Search Of A Timing Model", June 22, 2016 available at fes.bcaresearch.com 10 "Note on index calculation in local currency", MSCI Bara Index Calculation Methodologies, p19, May 2010 11 MSCI uses 2 business days as described in "MSCI Index Methodology: MSCI Hedged Indexes", July 2013 Appendix 1 We use one-month forward contracts and re-balance on a monthly basis. The gain or loss of the underlying equity index during the month is not hedged, but converted back to the home currency at the month-end spot rate. Before reliable forward contract rates were available (Jan 2001), we use one-month interest rates instead to calculate hedged returns. Please note that for simplification we have ignored the bid-ask spread in all the quotations, and we do not take into account the time lag required to implement a hedge.11 In practice, however, these are valid considerations. Appendix 2: Dynamics Hedging For Six Home Currencies 2.1 The Australian Perspective Correlations: For Aussie investors, foreign currencies in aggregate have a negative correlation with the domestic equity index (especially in the period from 2001), and a mostly positive but low correlation to the unhedged foreign equities. (Chart II-1). So hedging away foreign currency exposure would increase total risk of the global portfolio. This is why a fully hedged portfolio has the highest risk (Chart II-2, Table II-1). Historical Performance: Since 2001, ITTM-based dynamic hedging has produced the highest risk-adjusted return for the global portfolio in AUD. The return profile looks similar to the fully hedged portfolio, but risk is much lower (Table II-1). Over the longer period, the optimal static hedge ratio is about 70%, which is actually quite close to the 50% hedge, as shown in Table II-2. On a five-year rolling basis, as shown in Chart II-2, the ITTM-based dynamic risk/return profile also prevails. Current State: Currently AUD investors should only be hedging their exposure in Swiss francs and U.S. dollars, the two "safe haven" currencies. Actually, our indicators show a close to 100% hedge of the Swiss franc, as shown in Chart II-3, which did hurt the risk/return profile during the GFC period despite an outstanding full-period performance. Table II-1Risk/Return Profile For Global Equity In AUD (2001-2017) Table II-2Risk/Return Profile For Global Equity In AUD (1976-2017) Chart II-1Australian Perspective: Domestic And Unhedged Foreign Equities Vs. Foreign Currencies Chart II-2Australian Perespective: Dynamic Vs. Static Hedging Chart II-3Australian Perspective: Swiss Index Dynamically Hedged 2.2 The Canadian Perspective Correlations: For Canadian investors, foreign currencies on aggregate have a negative correlation with the country's domestic equity index, but the correlation with unhedged foreign equities has oscillated in both positive and negative territory. The correlation between Canadian equities and unhedged foreign equities has been always positive, in the range of 0.4-0.8 (Chart II-4). So hedging away foreign currency exposure will increase total risk within a global portfolio. This is why a fully hedged portfolio has the highest risk (Chart II-5, Table II-3 and Table II-4). Historical Performance: Since 2001, the ITTM-based dynamic hedging has produced the highest annualized return for the global portfolio in CAD without significantly increasing volatility from the unhedged scenario. In terms of risk-adjusted return, dynamic hedging has outperformed the best static hedging scenario (40% hedged) by about 46% (Table II-3). On a five-year rolling basis, as shown in Chart II-5, the dynamic risk/return profile also prevails. Current State: Currently Canadian investors should be hedging all foreign currencies except for the Australian dollar. Chart II-6 shows how CAD investors dynamically hedge their exposure to the Swedish krona. Table II-3Risk/Return Profile For Global Equity In CAD (2001-2017) Table II-4Risk/Return Profile For Global Equity In CAD (1976-2017) Chart II-4Canadian Perspective: Domestic And Unhedged Foreign Equities Vs. Foreign Currencies Chart II-5Canadian Perspective: Dynamic Vs. Static Hedging Chart II-6Canadian Perspective: Swedish Index Dynamically Hedged 2.3 The Japanese Perspective Correlations: For Japanese investors, correlations among foreign currencies, foreign equities and domestic equities seem to have gone through regime changes since the GFC, as shown in Chart II-7. These regime changes in correlations explain the evolving risk/return profile of the static hedges in Chart II-8. Before the GFC, full hedge and 50% hedge had similar risk profiles, but after the GFC full hedge reduced total risk significantly due to the sharp increase in correlations. Historical Performance: Since 2001, the ITTM-based dynamic hedging has produced the highest risk-adjusted return for the global portfolio in JPY, with a much higher return and slightly higher risk (Table II-5). Fully hedged has the lowest risk in both periods, and 50% is close to the "optimal" static hedge in both periods as well (Table II-5 and II-6). On a five-year rolling basis, as shown in Chart II-8, the ITTM-based dynamic risk/return profile. The 50% static hedge has similar risk profile to the ITTM-based dynamic hedge, but with lower returns. Current State: Currently JPY investors should be only hedging their exposure in Swiss francs and U.S. dollars. Chart II-9 shows how Japanese investors should have hedged CAD exposure. Table II-5Risk/Return Profile For Global Equity In JPY (2001-2017) Table II-6Risk/Return Profile For Global Equity In JPY (1976-2017) Chart II-7Japanese Perspective: Domestic And Unhedged Foreign Equities Vs. Foreign Currencies Chart II-8Japanese Perspective: Dynamic Vs. Static Hedging Chart II-9Japanese Perspective: Canadian Index Dynamically Hedged 2.4 The U.S. Perspective Correlations: For U.S. investors, correlations among foreign currencies, foreign equities and domestic equities seem to have gone through regime changes since the GFC, as shown in Chart II-10. These regime changes in correlation explain the evolving risk/return profile of the static hedges in Chart II-11. Before the GFC, full hedge and 50% hedge had similar risk profiles, but after the GFC full hedge exhibited significantly reduced total risk due to the sharp increase in correlations. Historical Performance: Since 2001, the ITTM-based dynamic hedging has produced the highest risk-adjusted return for the global portfolio in USD, with a much higher return and slightly lower risk compared to the 50%, which is the best static hedge for the period (Table II-7). Fully hedged had the lowest risk in both periods, but the return profiles of the static hedges were very similar, supporting the widely held belief that in the long run currency returns are close to zero (Table II-7 and II-8). On a five-year rolling basis, as shown in Chart II-11, the dynamic risk/return profile is close to that of the 50%. Current State: Currently U.S. investors should only be hedging their exposure in euros (Chart II-12). Table II-7Risk/Return Profile For Global Equity In USD (2001-2017) Table II-8Risk/Return Profile For Global Equity In JPY (1976-2017) Chart II-10U.S. Perspective: Domestic And Unhedged Foreign Equities Vs. Foreign Currencies Chart II-11U.S. Perspective: Dynamic Vs. Static Hedging Chart II-12U.S. Perspective: EMU Index Dynamically Hedged 2.5 The Euro Perspective Correlations: For investors that call the euro home currency, the correlation and foreign equities has been positive. The correlation between foreign currencies and domestic equity index, however, has been changing signs over time, currently sitting at near zero! (Chart II-13). This explains the shape of the risk/return profile in Chart II-14 and Table II-9. Historical Performance: Since 2001, the ITTM-based dynamic hedging has produced the highest risk-adjusted return for the global portfolio in euros, which has a higher return and lower risk than the best static hedge of 80% (Table II-9). Over the longer period, the optimal hedge ratio is about 50% hedge, which is actually quite close to those between 40-70%, as shown in Table II-10. On a five-year rolling basis, as shown in Chart II-14, the dynamic risk/return profile definitely prevails. Current State: Currently euro investors should not be hedging any foreign exposure, based on our indicators. Chart II-15 shows how euro investors should have hedged JPY exposure over time since 2001. Table II-9Risk/Return Profile For Global Equity In Euro (2001-2017) Table II-10Risk/Return Profile For Global Equity In Euro (1976-2017) Chart II-13Domestic And Unhedged Foreign Equities Vs. Foreign Currencies Chart II-14Euro Area Perspective: Dynamic Vs. Static Hedging Chart II-15Euro area Perspective: Japanese Index Dynamically Hedged 2.6 The British Perspective Correlations: For British investors, correlations between foreign currencies and domestic equities have gone through several regime changes over time in both positive and negative territory, as shown in Chart II-16. The positive correlation between foreign and domestic equities has also increased over time. This would definitely make static hedging worse off (Table II-11 and II-12). Historical Performance: Not surprisingly, since 2001, dynamic hedging has produced the highest risk-adjusted return for the global portfolio in pounds, which has a higher return and lower risk than the best static hedge of 20% (Table II-11). Over the longer period, the optimal hedge ratio is about 90% hedge, Table II-12. On a five-year rolling basis, as shown in Chart II-17, the dynamic risk/return profile prevails, as it shares similar risk as the 50% hedge but with a higher return. Current State: Currently the British investors should not be hedging CAD and Swedish krona, while all six other currencies should be hedged. Chart II-18 shows how U.K. investors should have hedged their AUD exposure over time since 2001. Table II-11Risk/Return Profile For Global Equity In GBP (2001-2017) Table II-12Risk/Return Profile For Global Equity In GBP (1976-2017) Chart II-16Domestic And Unhedged Foreign Equities Vs. Foreign Currencies Chart II-17Dynamic Vs. Static Hedging Chart II-18U.K. Perspective: Australian Index Dynamically Hedged

Special Report

Dear client, I am on the road this week, attending BCA's New York Conference and teaching the BCA Academy. In lieu of a regular report, we are sending you a Special Report, a cooperation with our Global Asset Allocation service. In this piece, my colleague Xiaoli Tang tests the benefits of various currency hedging strategies for global equity portfolios. In addition to traditional hedging rules, Xiaoli deploys the Intermediate-Term Timing Models developed by the Foreign Exchange Strategy team to build dynamic hedging strategies, which result in superior risk/reward profiles. I trust you will find this report interesting and informative. Best regards, Mathieu Savary Highlights In this report, we analyze both static and dynamic hedging strategies to hedge an identical global equity portfolio to six home currencies: the U.S. dollar, the British pound, the euro, the Japanese yen, the Canadian dollar and the Australian dollar. We propose an easy to implement dynamic hedging framework based on the proprietary currency indicators from BCA's Foreign Exchange Strategy (FES) service. It has outperformed all the static hedging strategies since 2001 on a risk-adjusted return basis. In addition, it levels out the playing field for all investors as the hedged returns are quite similar, no matter what their home currencies are. Among the static hedging strategies, the "least-regret" hedge ratio of 50% has lived up to its reputation, as it has reduced risk by more than 50% without severely jeopardizing returns. Over a four-year moving performance cycle (in line with how most portfolio managers are evaluated), the proposed dynamic hedging adds little career risk to portfolio managers compared to the "least regret" 50% static hedging, while provides superior returns most of the time. A global equity portfolio's currency exposure should be managed in a centralized currency overlay under the supervision of the Chief Investment Officer, so that equity and currency managers can both fully utilize their expertise in their respective field, and the organization can manage currency risk more efficiently at the total portfolio level. Feature Dynamic Hedging Outperforms Static Hedging We have received many client requests asking about currency hedging in global equity portfolios with different home currencies. This is not surprising given how currency movements have overwhelmed global equity portfolio returns of late. For example, this year the U.S. dollar's weakness against the major currencies has beefed up returns for U.S. investors who did not hedge their foreign exposure (Table I-1). Table I-1Year-To-Date Currency Movements Have Overwhelmed Equity Returns GAA's equity country allocation recommendations are by default unhedged on USD basis. When a hedge is required we make the recommendation explicit. There have been many conflicting views on whether global equity investors should hedge foreign currency exposure, and if so, what proportion of the exposure should be hedged. Perold and Schulman (1988) suggest fully hedging foreign currency exposure, because significant risk reduction can be achieved without a significant loss of return.1 This is based on their famous "free lunch" claim that average currency returns are zero over the long-term. At the other extreme, Froot (1993) suggests that foreign currencies should not be hedged at all for long-term investors, because purchasing power parity holds in the long term and exchange rates are mean reverting.2 There are many other views in between, including the universal hedge ratio proposed by Black (1989), which is estimated to be 77%.3 Campbell et al (2010) classify currencies into reserve currencies (USD, EUR and CHF), commodity currencies (AUD and CAD) and neutral currencies (JPY and GBP), and suggest that risk-minimizing investors should hold reserve currencies while hedging out commodity currencies, based on the correlations between the currencies and equity markets.4 Realizing the limitations of "static hedging," which assumes constant correlation, mean and variance, many academic researchers have explored "dynamic hedging models" that allow the mean and covariance to be time-varying by using complex econometric modelling techniques.5,6,7 These academic dynamic hedging strategies have shown improvement over the 50% static hedge, but it's very difficult for investors without a strong quantitative background to understand these very complex approaches. In fact, with all these confusing academic recommendations floating around, the "least regret" hedge ratio of 50% has been quite popular among practitioners.8 To help our clients better understand the role of currency management in global equity portfolios, we have joined forces with BCA's Foreign Exchange Strategy (FES) service to de-mystify the currency hedging process, and to propose a simple framework for clients with six different home currencies to dynamically hedge their foreign currency exposure based on the FES team's proprietary Intermediate-Term Timing Model (ITTM) indicators.9 These indicators have been used in their regular weekly publications. The ITTM-based dynamic hedging strategy is back-tested from 2001 because the ITTM indicators only date back to 2001 (See methodology). We have also back-tested a simple trend-following momentum-based dynamic strategy to see how a dynamic hedging methodology works in a longer period from 1976. For comparison we have back-tested ten different static hedging strategies that employ fixed hedge ratios across currencies and time. The test results not only clarify much of the confusion about static hedging, they also demonstrate that on a risk-adjusted return basis, BCA's ITTM-based dynamic hedging strategy has outperformed all static hedging strategies for all investors with six different home currencies since 2001 (Chart I-1). Even in the very long run of 41 years from August 1976, the simple momentum-based dynamic hedging outperforms the static strategies for investors with five home currencies, with only the AUD portfolio being worse off (Chart I-2). Chart I-1Identical Investment, But Different Risk/Return Profiles (3/2001-8/2017) Chart I-2Identical Investment, But Different Risk/Return Profiles (8/1976-8/2017) Now let's clarify some of the confusion: Does static hedging reduce portfolio risk at little expense of lowering returns? The answer is yes only for USD and JPY portfolios. For both the 41-year period from 1976 and the shorter 16-year period from 2001, a higher hedge ratio results in lower risk with slightly lower return. So fully hedged would be the "optimal" strategy for risk-minimizing investors with USD and JPY as home currencies (Panel 1 and 2 on left side in both Chart I-1 and Chart I-2). For the U.K. portfolio, the answer is a partial yes, because the "optimal hedge ratio" for risk-minizing investors, around 60%-80%, does produce the lowest risk, but the paths to that "optimal" point are totally opposite when different time periods are chosen. In the short period (Chart I-1, bottom left panel), it follows the same pattern as that for U.S. and Japanese investors up to the optimal point. As the hedge ratio increases, however, return drops and risk increases! In the longer period from 1976, as the hedge ratio increases, return increases and risk decreases until the "optimal point," after which risk and returns both increase (Chart I-2, bottom left panel). In the period from 2001, the AUD, CAD and EUR portfolios share a similar pattern to that of the GBP portfolio in the period from 1976. The AUD portfolio behaved the same in both the shorter period (Chart I-1, top right) and the longer period (Chart 2, top right), while the EUR and CAD portfolios behaved differently in the longer-term period from the shorter period. Overall, the CAD portfolio's "optimal" hedge ratio is around 0-30%, the AUD portfolio around 30-60% while the EUR portfolio is around 40% in the shorter period but around 90% in the longer period (Chart I-1 and Chart I-2). It is also worth noting that even though both the CAD and AUD are commodity currencies, AUD investors benefit significantly from hedging, while CAD investors' risk/return profile does not change much. This is because 1) currency returns for AUD investors do not average to zero in the long term due to positive carry, and 2) correlations between foreign currencies, foreign equities and domestic equities are not constant over time or across currencies (Appendix 2, Chart II-1 and Chart II-4) How does the "least regret" 50% static hedge do? The 50% hedge ratio fares quite well compared to the "optimal" static hedge ratio in terms of risk reduction for all portfolios in both periods, because more than half of the total risk reduction (the highest minus the lowest) occurs around the 50% hedge (Chart I-1 and Chart I-2). How does BCA's ITTM-based dynamic hedge do in terms of risk reduction? The ITTM produces better risk-adjusted returns for each portfolio than all the static hedges. In terms of risk, it generates the lowest risk for the EUR and GBP portfolios and is comparable to the 50% static hedge for other portfolios, while it generates a much higher return than all static hedges (Chart I-1 and Chart I-2). How does the BCA Dynamic Hedge (ITTM) compare to the 50% static hedge over time? Chart I-3 shows that the dynamic hedge consistently outperformed the 50% static hedge for all six home currencies since 2001 without significantly increasing hedging transactions, compared to the fixed 50% hedge ratio for all currency pairs. The dash line in each panel of Chart I-3 corresponds to the market cap-weighted aggregate of hedge ratios of foreign currencies for each home currency. On average, they are comparable to 50%. Most portfolio managers are measured on a moving four-year performance cycle. Chart I-4 shows that the ITTM-based dynamic hedging strategy has outperformed the 50% static hedging most of the time on a moving four-year basis, with only CAD, USD and JPY managers suffering brief drawdowns. Chart I-3BCA Dynamic Hedging Adds ##br##Value For All Investors Chart I-4Little Career Risk For ##br##Portfolio Managers In theory, if hedges were effective, then an identical global equity portfolio should have similar returns for all investors, no matter what home currency they hold. While neither the static hedging strategies nor the momentum-based dynamic hedging approach could pass this criteria, BCA's ITTM-based dynamic hedging approach does. It levels out the playing field for all investors globally. As shown in Chart I-5, in the period from March 2001 to August 2017, if left unhedged, the same global investment exhibits very different annualized returns for investors in different home currencies, with AUD investors at the low end at around 3.2%, and GBP investors at the high end at around 7%. With BCA's ITTM-based dynamic hedge, however, returns for all investors are very similar, no matter which currency is their home currency. Chart I-5BCA Dynamic Hedging Strategy Levels Out The Playing Field The BCA Dynamic Hedging Methodology To back-test all the hedging strategies, we use an identical global equity portfolio that is a market cap-weighted aggregate of nine countries/regions based on MSCI U.S., Japan, the euro area, U.K., Canada, Australia, Switzerland, Sweden and Norway. This universe accounts for about 97% of the current MSCI World index (Chart I-6). The history of the euro area before 1987 (when MSCI data were available) is calculated as a market cap-weighted aggregate of MSCI Germany, France, Spain, Italy, Austria, Belgium and the Netherlands. Chart I-6GAA Global Equity Universe We evaluate the same global portfolio for investors with six different home currencies: USD, JPY, GBP, EUR, CAD and AUD. The Measurement for Hedging Efficacy: All the academically claimed "optimal" hedge ratios, static or dynamic, are based on risk-minimizing in a mean-variance optimization framework. For practitioners, however, "not meeting return objectives" is a much higher risk priority than minimizing portfolio risk. This is why we advocate risk-adjusted return as our measurement for hedge efficacy. The Objective: We aim to find the hedging strategies that outperform the widely used 50% static hedging strategy on a risk-adjusted return basis. At BCA, our philosophy has always been not to strive to find the optimal solution, but to try our best to find a feasible solution that best meets the stated objective. Interestingly, this approach has produced superior results for the GBP and EUR portfolios, achieving the combination of "highest return - lowest risk." It also levels out the playing field for all investors by generating similar hedged returns for all investors, no matter what home currency they hold (Chart I-1 and Chart I-5). The Proprietary Currency Indicators: The indicators from Foreign Exchange Strategy service's Intermediate Term Timing Model (ITTM) are built under the assumptions that the uncovered interest rate parity (UIP) holds, and the fair value of a currency pair is a function of the real rate differential (using an average of two-year and 10-year real rates), Junk OAS (a proxy for global risk appetite), commodity prices and past-year trends (52-week moving average). When a currency pair deviates from its fair value to an extreme, then the likelihood for a trend reversal is high.9 The Simple Rule-Based Dynamic Hedging: For each home currency, we evaluate the other eight foreign currencies individually based on each pair's ITTM indicator. When a foreign currency overshoots fair value above the upper band of its historical range, then the currency is a short, and the short position is kept until the foreign currency value touches the lower band of its historical range that's below the fair value. The Implementation: We use one-month forward contracts and re-balance on a monthly basis. The gain or loss of the underlying equity index during the month is not hedged, but converted back to the home currency at the month-end spot rate. For history before 2001, we use one-month interest rates to calculate hedged returns (Please see Appendix 1 hedged return calculations using forwards and also interest rates). Example: Chart I-7 illustrates how a Canadian investor uses the ITTM indicator to decide when to hedge JPY exposure when they invest in the MSCI Japan equity index. Chart I-7Canadian Investor: Japanese Index Dynamically Hedged The top panel shows the hedging signal for JPY (solid line) versus our proprietary ITTM indicator for JPY/CAD exchange rate (dash line). The upper and lower band are set as 7% above fair value and 9% below fair value; the bottom panel shows the relative performance of the MSCI Japan hedged in CAD versus the MSCI Japan unhedged in CAD. Currently CAD investors should hedge their JPY exposure based on the ITTM indicator. Some Suggestions For Asset Allocators Use a centralized currency overlay portfolio to manage foreign currency exposure. The overlay portfolio should be managed by currency specialists (either in-house or using external managers) under the supervision of the CIO. The objective of the overlay portfolio is to manage currency exposure based on the underlying assets of the organization's Total Portfolio, such that the risk/return profile of the total portfolio is improved against its benchmark. Global equity portfolio manager performance should be measured on an unhedged basis in their respective home currency. Some have argued that a fully hedged benchmark such as the MSCI All Country Total Return Index in local currencies should be used to measure the performance of a global equity portfolio manager. We strongly disagree, even though in theory it does not really matter what benchmark is used. MSCI's "total return indexes in local currencies" for global equity aggregates are theoretical in nature. They cannot be replicated in the real world because they are calculated on a daily basis using the previous closing day's exchange rate to calculate foreign equity return10 - such that the "local return" for each foreign equity index is perfectly hedged. Unfortunately this "perfect hedge" is humanly impossible, because as shown in Formula (1) in Appendix 1, only when both the spot rate and forward rate at the time t are equal to the spot rate at time t+1, can the local returns be fully captured! Xiaoli Tang, Associate Vice President xiaolit@bcaresearch.com 1 Perold, A and E. Schulman, 1988, "The free lunch in currency hedging: Implications for investment policy and performance standards", Financial Analyst Journal 44, 45-50. 2 Froot K., 1993, "Currency hedging over long horizons", NBER working paper 4355 3 Black, F., 1989, "Universal hedging: optimizing currency risk and reward in international equity portfolios", Financial Analyst Journal 45, 16-22 4 Campbell, J., K. de Medeiros and L. Viceira, 2010, "Global currency hedging", Journal of Finance LXV, 87-122 5 Gagnon, L., T., McCurdy, and G., Lypny, 1998, " Hedging foreign currency portfolios", Journal of Empirical Finance 5, 197-220 6 Hautsch, N., and J. Inkmann, 2003, "Optimal hedging of the currency exchange risk exposure of dynamically balanced strategic asset allocations", Journal of Asset Management 4, 173-189 7 Brown, C., J., Dark, and W., Zhang, "Dynamic currency hedging for international stock portfolios", 2012, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Melbourn 8 Michenaud, S., and B., Solnik, 2008, "Applying regret theory to investment choices: Currency hedging decisions", Journal of International Money and Finance 27, 677-694 9 Please see BCA Foreign Exchange Strategy Special Report titled "In Search Of A Timing Model", June 22, 2016 available at fes.bcaresearch.com 10 "Note on index calculation in local currency", MSCI Bara Index Calculation Methodologies, p19, May 2010 11 MSCI uses 2 business days as described in "MSCI Index Methodology: MSCI Hedged Indexes", July 2013 Appendix 1 We use one-month forward contracts and re-balance on a monthly basis. The gain or loss of the underlying equity index during the month is not hedged, but converted back to the home currency at the month-end spot rate. Before reliable forward contract rates were available (Jan 2001), we use one-month interest rates instead to calculate hedged returns. Please note that for simplification we have ignored the bid-ask spread in all the quotations, and we do not take into account the time lag required to implement a hedge.11 In practice, however, these are valid considerations. Appendix 2: Dynamics Hedging For Six Home Currencies 2.1 The Australian Perspective Correlations: For Aussie investors, foreign currencies in aggregate have a negative correlation with the domestic equity index (especially in the period from 2001), and a mostly positive but low correlation to the unhedged foreign equities. (Chart II-1). So hedging away foreign currency exposure would increase total risk of the global portfolio. This is why a fully hedged portfolio has the highest risk (Chart II-2, Table II-1). Historical Performance: Since 2001, ITTM-based dynamic hedging has produced the highest risk-adjusted return for the global portfolio in AUD. The return profile looks similar to the fully hedged portfolio, but risk is much lower (Table II-1). Over the longer period, the optimal static hedge ratio is about 70%, which is actually quite close to the 50% hedge, as shown in Table II-2. On a five-year rolling basis, as shown in Chart II-2, the ITTM-based dynamic risk/return profile also prevails. Current State: Currently AUD investors should only be hedging their exposure in Swiss francs and U.S. dollars, the two "safe haven" currencies. Actually, our indicators show a close to 100% hedge of the Swiss franc, as shown in Chart II-3, which did hurt the risk/return profile during the GFC period despite an outstanding full-period performance. Table II-1Risk/Return Profile For Global Equity In AUD (2001-2017) Table II-2Risk/Return Profile For Global Equity In AUD (1976-2017) Chart II-1Australian Perspective: Domestic And Unhedged Foreign Equities Vs. Foreign Currencies Chart II-2Australian Perespective: Dynamic Vs. Static Hedging Chart II-3Australian Perspective: Swiss Index Dynamically Hedged 2.2 The Canadian Perspective Correlations: For Canadian investors, foreign currencies on aggregate have a negative correlation with the country's domestic equity index, but the correlation with unhedged foreign equities has oscillated in both positive and negative territory. The correlation between Canadian equities and unhedged foreign equities has been always positive, in the range of 0.4-0.8 (Chart II-4). So hedging away foreign currency exposure will increase total risk within a global portfolio. This is why a fully hedged portfolio has the highest risk (Chart II-5, Table II-3 and Table II-4). Historical Performance: Since 2001, the ITTM-based dynamic hedging has produced the highest annualized return for the global portfolio in CAD without significantly increasing volatility from the unhedged scenario. In terms of risk-adjusted return, dynamic hedging has outperformed the best static hedging scenario (40% hedged) by about 46% (Table II-3). On a five-year rolling basis, as shown in Chart II-5, the dynamic risk/return profile also prevails. Current State: Currently Canadian investors should be hedging all foreign currencies except for the Australian dollar. Chart II-6 shows how CAD investors dynamically hedge their exposure to the Swedish krona. Table II-3Risk/Return Profile For Global Equity In CAD (2001-2017) Table II-4Risk/Return Profile For Global Equity In CAD (1976-2017) Chart II-4Canadian Perspective: Domestic And Unhedged Foreign Equities Vs. Foreign Currencies Chart II-5Canadian Perspective: Dynamic Vs. Static Hedging Chart II-6Canadian Perspective: Swedish Index Dynamically Hedged 2.3 The Japanese Perspective Correlations: For Japanese investors, correlations among foreign currencies, foreign equities and domestic equities seem to have gone through regime changes since the GFC, as shown in Chart II-7. These regime changes in correlations explain the evolving risk/return profile of the static hedges in Chart II-8. Before the GFC, full hedge and 50% hedge had similar risk profiles, but after the GFC full hedge reduced total risk significantly due to the sharp increase in correlations. Historical Performance: Since 2001, the ITTM-based dynamic hedging has produced the highest risk-adjusted return for the global portfolio in JPY, with a much higher return and slightly higher risk (Table II-5). Fully hedged has the lowest risk in both periods, and 50% is close to the "optimal" static hedge in both periods as well (Table II-5 and II-6). On a five-year rolling basis, as shown in Chart II-8, the ITTM-based dynamic risk/return profile. The 50% static hedge has similar risk profile to the ITTM-based dynamic hedge, but with lower returns. Current State: Currently JPY investors should be only hedging their exposure in Swiss francs and U.S. dollars. Chart II-9 shows how Japanese investors should have hedged CAD exposure. Table II-5Risk/Return Profile For Global Equity In JPY (2001-2017) Table II-6Risk/Return Profile For Global Equity In JPY (1976-2017) Chart II-7Japanese Perspective: Domestic And Unhedged Foreign Equities Vs. Foreign Currencies Chart II-8Japanese Perspective: Dynamic Vs. Static Hedging Chart II-9Japanese Perspective: Canadian Index Dynamically Hedged 2.4 The U.S. Perspective Correlations: For U.S. investors, correlations among foreign currencies, foreign equities and domestic equities seem to have gone through regime changes since the GFC, as shown in Chart II-10. These regime changes in correlation explain the evolving risk/return profile of the static hedges in Chart II-11. Before the GFC, full hedge and 50% hedge had similar risk profiles, but after the GFC full hedge exhibited significantly reduced total risk due to the sharp increase in correlations. Historical Performance: Since 2001, the ITTM-based dynamic hedging has produced the highest risk-adjusted return for the global portfolio in USD, with a much higher return and slightly lower risk compared to the 50%, which is the best static hedge for the period (Table II-7). Fully hedged had the lowest risk in both periods, but the return profiles of the static hedges were very similar, supporting the widely held belief that in the long run currency returns are close to zero (Table II-7 and II-8). On a five-year rolling basis, as shown in Chart II-11, the dynamic risk/return profile is close to that of the 50%. Current State: Currently U.S. investors should only be hedging their exposure in euros (Chart II-12). Table II-7Risk/Return Profile For Global Equity In USD (2001-2017) Table II-8Risk/Return Profile For Global Equity In JPY (1976-2017) Chart II-10U.S. Perspective: Domestic And Unhedged Foreign Equities Vs. Foreign Currencies Chart II-11U.S. Perspective: Dynamic Vs. Static Hedging Chart II-12U.S. Perspective: EMU Index Dynamically Hedged 2.5 The Euro Perspective Correlations: For investors that call the euro home currency, the correlation and foreign equities has been positive. The correlation between foreign currencies and domestic equity index, however, has been changing signs over time, currently sitting at near zero! (Chart II-13). This explains the shape of the risk/return profile in Chart II-14 and Table II-9. Historical Performance: Since 2001, the ITTM-based dynamic hedging has produced the highest risk-adjusted return for the global portfolio in euros, which has a higher return and lower risk than the best static hedge of 80% (Table II-9). Over the longer period, the optimal hedge ratio is about 50% hedge, which is actually quite close to those between 40-70%, as shown in Table II-10. On a five-year rolling basis, as shown in Chart II-14, the dynamic risk/return profile definitely prevails. Current State: Currently euro investors should not be hedging any foreign exposure, based on our indicators. Chart II-15 shows how euro investors should have hedged JPY exposure over time since 2001. Table II-9Risk/Return Profile For Global Equity In Euro (2001-2017) Table II-10Risk/Return Profile For Global Equity In Euro (1976-2017) Chart II-13Domestic And Unhedged Foreign Equities Vs. Foreign Currencies Chart II-14Euro Area Perspective: Dynamic Vs. Static Hedging Chart II-15Euro area Perspective: Japanese Index Dynamically Hedged 2.6 The British Perspective Correlations: For British investors, correlations between foreign currencies and domestic equities have gone through several regime changes over time in both positive and negative territory, as shown in Chart II-16. The positive correlation between foreign and domestic equities has also increased over time. This would definitely make static hedging worse off (Table II-11 and II-12). Historical Performance: Not surprisingly, since 2001, dynamic hedging has produced the highest risk-adjusted return for the global portfolio in pounds, which has a higher return and lower risk than the best static hedge of 20% (Table II-11). Over the longer period, the optimal hedge ratio is about 90% hedge, Table II-12. On a five-year rolling basis, as shown in Chart II-17, the dynamic risk/return profile prevails, as it shares similar risk as the 50% hedge but with a higher return. Current State: Currently the British investors should not be hedging CAD and Swedish krona, while all six other currencies should be hedged. Chart II-18 shows how U.K. investors should have hedged their AUD exposure over time since 2001. Table II-11Risk/Return Profile For Global Equity In GBP (2001-2017) Table II-12Risk/Return Profile For Global Equity In GBP (1976-2017) Chart II-16Domestic And Unhedged Foreign Equities Vs. Foreign Currencies Chart II-17Dynamic Vs. Static Hedging Chart II-18U.K. Perspective: Australian Index Dynamically Hedged Trades & Forecasts Forecast Summary Core Portfolio Closed Trades