Gov Sovereigns/Treasurys

Highlights Emerging Market (EM) hard currency debt, both sovereign and corporate, has consistently outperformed the broad global bond index. However, investors should steer clear of always maintaining maximum overweights to EM given its weak volatility reduction benefits and a much higher-than normal tendency of experiencing outsized, negative returns. Our long-term analysis suggests a structural 5% allocation offers the best risk/reward potential. The Fed is still in the early stages of rate normalization. At this point in the Fed policy cycle, where the Fed is hiking rates but monetary conditions are still stimulative, EM hard currency debt has historically performed well both on a relative and absolute basis. Looking ahead, EM returns should begin to suffer in latter half of 2018 as the Fed moves to more restrictive policy stance. While global growth will remain supportive of EM credit next year, renewed U.S. dollar strength and a re-convergence to the downside with commodity prices present considerable headwinds. Maintain an underweight stance on EM hard currency debt. Favor DM spread product due to more supportive relative growth trends and valuations. Feature Emerging market (EM) sovereign and corporate debt returns have surged in 2017, returning 9.4% and 7.5%, respectively (Chart 1). Investor interest has been renewed, with the latest IMF Financial Stability Report indicating that non-resident inflows of portfolio capital to EM countries have recovered since early 2016 and reached $205 billion for 2017 through August. Against a backdrop of above-trend global economic growth, monetary policy settings from the major central banks that are still accommodative, and some diminished risks from the world's geopolitical hotspots, the current uptrend for EM debt performance could continue. Nevertheless, we urge caution. We moved to a moderate underweight stance on EM hard currency debt back in August, while at the same time increasing our current recommended overweight to U.S. investment grade (IG) corporate debt on the other side of the trade.1 Even with synchronized global growth boosting both EM export demand and industrial commodity prices, we prefer U.S. credit exposure over EM at this point in the cycle, for several reasons: The massive flow-driven EM rally has resulted in not only outsized returns but stretched valuations, with EM debt spreads now back to post-2008-crisis low (or even through those levels for EM hard currency corporates) without any major improvement in EM fundamentals; The previously reliable correlation between EM debt and commodity prices, a long-time driver of EM performance, has broken down, bullishly, for EM - potentially another sign of flow-driven overvaluation; Growing uncertainty over the near-term China growth outlook raises risks on further gains in industrial commodity demand and EM exports; The USD will appreciate once again on the back of additional Fed interest rate hikes beyond levels currently discounted by markets, which could trigger some reversal of the sharp inflows into EM seen this year. Over a strategic horizon, however, it remains difficult to argue against owning a core structural allocation of EM hard currency debt within global fixed income portfolios, given the higher yields that are typically on offer and the fairly consistent historical outperformance over Developed Market (DM) debt. Although the benefits of EM in a portfolio context are slightly overstated given its skewed risk profile (i.e. fat negative tails) and high correlation with DM spread product, specifically U.S. high-yield corporates (Chart 2). Chart 1How Much Longer Can This Rally Last? How Much Longer Can This Rally Last? How Much Longer Can This Rally Last? Chart 2EM Debt Offers Little Diversification Benefits EM Debt Offers Little Diversification Benefits EM Debt Offers Little Diversification Benefits In this Special Report, we examine the long-term role of EM hard currency debt within a fixed-income portfolio, and re-iterate our case for being underweight EM debt on a cyclical basis. The Long-Run Case For Owning EM Debt: A Moderate Core Allocation Makes Sense It is not a stretch to say that EM debt has become the most important part of global bond portfolios in the 21st century. Having a significant EM allocation at the right time can make a bond manager's year, while having it at the wrong time can end a bond manager's career. But what is the "right" allocation to optimize the long-run contribution to returns in a global fixed income portfolio? To answer this question, we took a look at the historical performance of a global bond portfolio that consisted of both DM and EM debt (sovereign and corporate), looking for the combination that would maximize the risk-adjusted return of the portfolio. In our analysis, we ran calculations for two different time periods as the available index data for EM sovereign debt goes back to 1994, while EM corporate debt indices begin in 2002. For DM debt, we used a single index - the Bloomberg Barclays Global Aggregate - as this has a long history and is a common benchmark used by global bond managers that includes both DM sovereign and corporate debt. Though the sample size of our combined global portfolio is limited due to the shorter history of the EM corporates asset class, the findings generally align with our intuition. On a standalone basis, modern portfolio theory proposes that an individual asset should be included within a portfolio if its excess return divided by its standard deviation is higher than the excess return of the portfolio divided by the portfolio's standard deviation, multiplied by the correlation between the portfolio and the asset. Examining The Role Of EM Hard Currency Debt In Global Bond Portfolios Examining The Role Of EM Hard Currency Debt In Global Bond Portfolios Though the correlation to the DM portfolio from 2004 was fairly high for both assets at over 0.6, when we applied this formula, both EM sovereign and corporate debt warranted an allocation in a standard global fixed-income portfolio. EM sovereign debt scored higher, by offering a considerably better Sharpe ratio with only a minimally higher correlation to DM fixed income. While EM hard currency debt has fairly consistently outperformed the DM benchmark on a 12-month rolling basis, investors must be careful not to simply maintain large positions at all times. Obviously, the majority of fixed-income investors have volatility constraints that impose limits on credit allocations. Additionally, apart from simple volatility measures, EM debt has a "hidden" risk profile when looking at the higher moments of return distributions. Table 1EM Debt Returns Are##BR##Negatively Skewed Examining The Role Of EM Hard Currency Debt In Global Bond Portfolios Examining The Role Of EM Hard Currency Debt In Global Bond Portfolios Both EM sovereign and corporate credit historical returns have exhibited significant negative skewness and excess kurtosis, indicating a much higher-than-normal tendency of experiencing outsized, negative returns (Table 1). This is confirmed through Historical Value-at-Risk (VaR) analysis, where the 5% worst returns far eclipsed those of DM investment grade and government debt. Nevertheless, it is important to view EM from a holistic perspective. For example, an asset with a high standard deviation may be less desirable as a standalone investment, but can be highly beneficial if it enhances overall the returns of a portfolio while also reducing its volatility. We tested these "portfolio effects" of EM debt by creating 21 hypothetical portfolios. We began with a DM-only portfolio (consisting of the Global Aggregate index) and increased the weighting toward EM debt by one percentage point in each portfolio, with the last portfolio having a 20% weighting toward EM. The breakdown within EM was 62% corporates and 38% sovereigns based on the market capitalizations of the relevant benchmark indices. Our calculations indicate that the highest portfolio Sharpe ratio was achieved with a 5% EM debt allocation, which also happens to be the "neutral" weighting of EM debt in the BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy model portfolio benchmark index (Chart 3).2 Global bond investors should hover around this weighting on EM hard currency debt, absent a high conviction view on EM. Chart 3The Optimal EM Hard Currency Debt Allocation Is 5% Examining The Role Of EM Hard Currency Debt In Global Bond Portfolios Examining The Role Of EM Hard Currency Debt In Global Bond Portfolios So while the data suggests that EM hard currency debt warrants a long-term allocation, its beneficial impact on a fixed-income portfolio is at least slightly exaggerated. Portfolio managers are typically seeking out assets that can both improve return and decrease overall volatility, thereby increasing the efficiency of their portfolios. This was not the case with EM debt. In our study, increasing the EM allocation consistently raised both returns and volatility. Chart 4EM/DM Correlations Should Decline In 2018 EM/DM Correlations Should Decline In 2018 EM/DM Correlations Should Decline In 2018 This lack of diversification benefit is a result of the high correlation between EM hard currency debt and DM fixed income. Currently, the correlation between EM and DM (the Global Aggregate) is 0.90, near the upper end of its range, indicating that diversification benefits over the last year were essentially non-existent (Chart 4). Nevertheless, this relationship clearly exhibits a mean reversion tendency. That EM/DM correlation in recent years has been itself correlated to global growth and monetary policy changes. As we show in Chart 4, our diffusion index of OECD Leading Economic Indicators (LEI) - the number of countries with a rising LEI relative to those with a declining LEI - does tend to lead the EM/DM correlation and is currently pointing to a lower correlation as global growth becomes a little less synchronized in 2018. The same goes for the growth rate of major central bank balance sheets which is already slowing and will decelerate even more in 2018 on the back of a diminished pace of bond buying by the ECB and the Fed runoff of maturing bonds on its balance sheet. The conclusion is this - the EM/DM correlation should decline in 2018 but, as we discuss below, we think that happens through relative underperformance of EM credit. Bottom Line: EM hard currency debt, both sovereign and corporate, has consistently outperformed the broad global index. However, investors should steer clear of always maintaining maximum overweights given its weak volatility reduction benefits and a much higher-than normal tendency of experiencing outsized, negative returns. Our long-term analysis suggests a structural 5% allocation offers the best risk/reward potential. The Shorter-Run Case For Owning EM Debt: Will Macro Drivers Remain Supportive? So far in 2017, EM sovereign and corporate debt have been beneficiaries of robust global growth, a declining USD and a decoupling from a broader index of commodity prices. While we expect global growth will remain strong over the medium term, our outlook for the USD is still bullish and there is a risk that commodity prices and EM debt performance re-converge to the downside. Global growth will remain strong. Outside of a major global growth slowdown, which we currently view as a low probability event, a mass flight out of EM assets anytime soon is highly unlikely. Indicators such as the global PMI index, industrial production growth and the OECD leading economic indicator are all booming (Chart 5). Inflation will head higher on the back of rising oil prices, but the increase is likely to be gradual. Importantly, this is happening alongside global monetary conditions that remain generally accommodative, even with the Fed in a tightening cycle. Credit, both DM & EM, has historically performed well against this backdrop, as we discuss in the next section of this report. A renewed upleg in the USD bull market is already underway. The correlation between EM currencies and EM debt performance has recovered after breaking down during 2013-15 (Chart 6). Year-to-date, EM currency strength - the flipside of the weaker U.S. dollar - has been a major driver of EM relative performance. Using the IMF's measure real effective exchange rates based on unit labor costs, the U.S. dollar is fairly valued.3 Neutral valuations suggest that directional market indicators are driving currency movements. As the EM business cycle slows and the Fed ramps up its rate hikes in response to rising inflation, the USD cyclical bull market should resume. Chart 5Robust Global Growth##BR##Is Supportive For EM bca.gfis_sr_2017_11_01_c5 bca.gfis_sr_2017_11_01_c5 Chart 6Can EM Ignore Another##BR##Round Of USD Strength? Can EM Ignore Another Round Of USD Strength? Can EM Ignore Another Round Of USD Strength? The de-coupling between EM debt and commodity price movements is unsustainable. EM debt has experienced a strong rally since 2016 with only a moderate rise in commodity prices compared to past periods of EM strength. We view this decoupling to be temporary (Chart 7). Many sovereign EM issuers are commodity producers, suggesting that this divergence is unsustainable. EM sovereign and corporate debt will not be able to continue their massive rallies if commodity prices relapse. We maintain a bullish view on oil prices, but there are signals that base metal prices are at risk over the next 6-12 months. Chinese monetary authorities have tightened policy and the resulting sharp slowdown in money supply growth is a worrisome sign for Chinese demand for commodities (Chart 8).4 Chart 7EM-Commodity Divergence##BR##Is Unsustainable EM-Commodity Divergence Is Unsustainable EM-Commodity Divergence Is Unsustainable Chart 8China Downside Risks For##BR##Industrial Commodity Prices bca.gfis_sr_2017_11_01_c8 bca.gfis_sr_2017_11_01_c8 Bottom Line: While global growth will remain supportive of EM credit, currency weakness and a re-convergence with commodity prices present considerable headwinds. EM Debt Performance & The Fed Policy Cycle Chart 9The Fed Policy Cycle Examining The Role Of EM Hard Currency Debt In Global Bond Portfolios Examining The Role Of EM Hard Currency Debt In Global Bond Portfolios As more central banks are shifting to a tightening bias, investors are becoming increasingly concerned over policy normalization and its potential impact on credit market performance. Given the strong historical linkages between EM debt performance and Fed policy changes, the current U.S. tightening cycle looms as a major potential problem for EM assets. We have found it most useful to think about changes in Fed monetary policy and asset market performance in terms of breaking up the Fed policy into four distinct phases (Chart 9).5 These are characterized by both the level of interest rates (whether they are above or below "equilibrium") and the direction of policy changes (whether the Fed is raising or cutting rates):6 Phase 1 - the Fed is hiking while the fed funds rate is below equilibrium (i.e. monetary conditions are stimulative). Phase 2 - the Fed is hiking or keeping policy on hold while the fed funds rate is above equilibrium (i.e. monetary conditions are restrictive). Phase 3 - the Fed is cutting while the fed funds rate is above equilibrium (i.e. monetary conditions are restrictive). Phase 4 - the Fed is cutting rates while the fed funds rate is below equilibrium (i.e. monetary conditions are stimulative). For EM sovereign debt where we have index data going back to 1994, there have been four episodes of Phase 1 and three episodes of the other phases. For EM corporate debt, where the index data begins in 2002, there have been two episodes of Phases 1 and 4 and only one occurrence of Phases 2 and 3. We present the excess returns of EM debt relative to other major fixed income classes by phase in Table 2. In the limited sample, EM sovereign debt and corporate debt consistently outperformed the Global Aggregate index and most individual bond classes. However, relative to DM high-yield debt, which has the most comparable risk profile, EM sovereign bonds underperformed in Phase 1 and EM corporate debt underperformed in all phases. Table 2Relative EM Debt Performance Worsens As Fed Policy Tightens Examining The Role Of EM Hard Currency Debt In Global Bond Portfolios Examining The Role Of EM Hard Currency Debt In Global Bond Portfolios Excess returns for both EM debt classes were highest in Phase 4, where the central bank is easing while conditions are stimulative. Similar to other risk assets, EM debt also outperformed in Phase 1, where the central bank is tightening while rates are below equilibrium. This makes sense, as the early stages of monetary tightening typically occur in conjunction with stable, above-trend growth. Liquidity conditions are still stimulative in Phase 1, which provides a substantial tailwind for spread product performance. On the other end of the spectrum, EM debt excess returns were relatively low during Phase 2 and Phase 3, and even negative in the case of EM corporate debt for Phase 3. Surprisingly, EM debt has been less affected by the direction of U.S. interest rates than what we would have expected. Monetary easing in Phase 3 was not enough to substantially boost EM relative returns and tightening in Phase 1 did not derail growth or lift the USD enough for EM debt to underperform. In fact, because EM debt still offers robust excess returns during Phase 1 when the central bank is tightening, while also suffering during Phase 3 during central bank easing, we can conclude that the level of policy rates relative to equilibrium has a greater impact on returns than the direction of rates. The severity of the Global Financial Crisis and the relatively subdued pace of recovery for both growth and inflation led to one of the longest Phase 4s in history. Given the low level of starting yields, indicating a large gap to equilibrium, and the 'gradual' pace of normalization, the current Phase 1 should also last longer than it typically has. This bodes well for all credit sectors, including EM sovereign and corporate debt, if history is any guide. However, there are still reasons to be concerned about the impact of U.S. monetary policy on EM assets next year. If the Fed follows through with the interest rate hikes it is currently projecting - another 100bps in total by the end of 2018 - the funds rate will be much closer to equilibrium. If the U.S. dollar rallies alongside that Fed tightening, as we expect, overall U.S. monetary conditions could end up being much closer to a restrictive level than implied by strictly looking at our Fed Policy Cycle (which only looks at the funds rate to determine monetary conditions). Also, the equilibrium funds rate may now be lower than the levels we are assuming in the Fed Policy Cycle framework, suggesting that policy could turn restrictive more quickly in the current tightening cycle. Bottom Line: The Fed is still in the early stages of rate normalization. At this point in the Fed policy cycle, where the Fed is hiking rates but monetary conditions are still stimulative, EM hard currency debt has historically performed well both on a relative and absolute basis. Looking ahead, EM returns should begin to suffer in latter half of 2018 as the Fed moves to more restrictive policy stance. Another Reason For Caution: Our EM Corporate Health Monitor The BCA EM Corporate Health Monitor (CHM) is a directional indicator aimed at modeling the path of EM corporate spread movements. Financial data from 220 emerging market companies in over 30 countries is aggregated. Only firms that issue USD-denominated bonds are included, with banks and other financials also omitted in a similar fashion to the CHMs we have constructed for DM corporates. The indicator is made up of four financial ratios: profit margins, free cash flow to total debt, liquidity and leverage. Unlike the DM CHMs, the ratios are not equally weighted in the construction of the EM CHM. Profit margins and free cash flow to debt combined represent 75% of the EM CHM. The latest available reading is from Q2 2017, showing a large decrease, with the indicator now only barely in 'Improving Health' territory (Chart 10). This has occurred in tandem with EM corporate spreads narrowing to post-crisis lows, leaving EM debt at potentially overvalued levels on a fundamental basis. While this slowdown in the EM CHM is not yet a cause for concern, if this became an extended trend of financial health deterioration, the divergence with EM corporate debt performance would be unsustainable and leave EM corporates highly vulnerable to a correction. Chart 10The BCA EM Corporate Health Monitor Has Rolled Over EM Corporate Health Monitor Is Sending A 'Sell' Signal The BCA EM Corporate Health Monitor Has Rolled Over EM Corporate Health Monitor Is Sending A 'Sell' Signal The BCA EM Corporate Health Monitor Has Rolled Over EM Corporate Health Monitor Is Sending A 'Sell' Signal Bottom Line: Our EM Corporate Health Monitor has declined drastically and is barely in 'Improving Health' territory. This alone is not cause for concern yet, but further deterioration in our Monitor combined with additional credit spread narrowing would be a worrisome divergence. Investment Implications Emerging market debt is facing conflicting forces. While continued robust global growth and accommodative monetary policy provide a substantial tailwind for credit performance, extended valuations, the turn in the USD and a potentially worsening commodities outlook present difficult hurdles for EM to overcome. Given the mixed messages, we prefer owning cyclical credit exposure through DM corporate debt, particularly U.S. investment grade. EM debt yields have collapsed and are expensive relative to DM investment grade debt (Chart 11). Combined with a higher risk profile in EM, elevated valuations indicate that EM sovereign and corporate debt are vulnerable to larger corrections. From a return perspective, the difference in the corporate option-adjusted spreads (OAS) has been an excellent leading indicator for relative total returns (Chart 12). This differential indicates that there is considerable relative upside potential for U.S. investment grade over EM hard currency debt. Additionally, while global growth should support credit-related plays, relative growth dynamics are more supportive of U.S. investment grade because the next phase of the global growth upturn will be driven by DM countries and not EM. The difference between the manufacturing PMIs in the U.S. and EM has historically been a good directional indicator for the spread between U.S. corporate bond spreads and EM debt spreads (Chart 13). The gap between the relative manufacturing PMI readings is at a post-crisis high, and could widen further if EM economies suffer on the back of any pullback in Chinese growth in 2018. Chart 11EM Yields & Spreads Look Full Valued EM Yields & Spreads Look Full Valued EM Yields & Spreads Look Full Valued Chart 12Favor U.S. IG Over EM Corporates... Favor U.S. IG Over EM Corporates... Favor U.S. IG Over EM Corporates... Chart 13...Because Of Stronger U.S. Growth ...Because Of Stronger U.S. Growth ...Because Of Stronger U.S. Growth What are the risks to our view? Our recommended position would suffer in the event that inflation in the U.S. slows, keeping the Fed on hold and maintaining this year's USD downtrend. Also, if China were to ease up on its policy tightening, industrial commodity prices could strengthen once again. Under these scenarios, EM hard currency debt would likely outperform DM spread product. Bottom Line: Maintain moderate underweight positions in EM hard currency debt. Favor DM spread product (especially U.S. investment grade corporates) due to more supportive relative valuations and growth trends. Patrick Trinh, Associate Editor Global Fixed Income Strategy patrick@bcaresearch.com Robert Robis, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com 1 This “EM versus IG” trade was implemented in both our Emerging Markets Strategy and Global Fixed Income Strategy services. Please see BCA Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report, “EM: The Focus Is On Profits”, dated August 16th 2017, available at ems.bcaresearch.com, as well as the BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, “A Lack Of Leadership”, dated August 22nd 2017, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 2 The weighting to EM debt in the Global Fixed Income Strategy model bond portfolio benchmark is based on market capitalizations of all the fixed income sectors we wanted to have in the benchmark, which includes non-investment grade debt like global high-yield corporates. It is reassuring to see that our benchmark weighting is also the desired weighting from a long-run portfolio optimization perspective. 3 Please see BCA Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report, "Is The Dollar Expensive, And Are EM Currencies Cheap?", dated October 11th, 2017, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see the joint BCA Global Asset Allocation/Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, "Global Equity Allocation: The Underwhelming Case For EM", dated August 9th 2017, available at ems.bcaresearch.com & gaa.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see BCA U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, "Bonds And The Fed Funds Rate Cycle", dated May 27th 2014, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com. 6 The equilibrium policy rate is a BCA calculation based on long-run real potential GDP growth and long run inflation expectations.

Highlights Emerging Market (EM) hard currency debt, both sovereign and corporate, has consistently outperformed the broad global bond index. However, investors should steer clear of always maintaining maximum overweights to EM given its weak volatility reduction benefits and a much higher-than normal tendency of experiencing outsized, negative returns. Our long-term analysis suggests a structural 5% allocation offers the best risk/reward potential. The Fed is still in the early stages of rate normalization. At this point in the Fed policy cycle, where the Fed is hiking rates but monetary conditions are still stimulative, EM hard currency debt has historically performed well both on a relative and absolute basis. Looking ahead, EM returns should begin to suffer in latter half of 2018 as the Fed moves to more restrictive policy stance. While global growth will remain supportive of EM credit next year, renewed U.S. dollar strength and a re-convergence to the downside with commodity prices present considerable headwinds. Maintain an underweight stance on EM hard currency debt. Favor DM spread product due to more supportive relative growth trends and valuations. Feature Emerging market (EM) sovereign and corporate debt returns have surged in 2017, returning 9.4% and 7.5%, respectively (Chart 1). Investor interest has been renewed, with the latest IMF Financial Stability Report indicating that non-resident inflows of portfolio capital to EM countries have recovered since early 2016 and reached $205 billion for 2017 through August. Against a backdrop of above-trend global economic growth, monetary policy settings from the major central banks that are still accommodative, and some diminished risks from the world's geopolitical hotspots, the current uptrend for EM debt performance could continue. Nevertheless, we urge caution. We moved to a moderate underweight stance on EM hard currency debt back in August, while at the same time increasing our current recommended overweight to U.S. investment grade (IG) corporate debt on the other side of the trade.1 Even with synchronized global growth boosting both EM export demand and industrial commodity prices, we prefer U.S. credit exposure over EM at this point in the cycle, for several reasons: The massive flow-driven EM rally has resulted in not only outsized returns but stretched valuations, with EM debt spreads now back to post-2008-crisis low (or even through those levels for EM hard currency corporates) without any major improvement in EM fundamentals; The previously reliable correlation between EM debt and commodity prices, a long-time driver of EM performance, has broken down, bullishly, for EM - potentially another sign of flow-driven overvaluation; Growing uncertainty over the near-term China growth outlook raises risks on further gains in industrial commodity demand and EM exports; The USD will appreciate once again on the back of additional Fed interest rate hikes beyond levels currently discounted by markets, which could trigger some reversal of the sharp inflows into EM seen this year. Over a strategic horizon, however, it remains difficult to argue against owning a core structural allocation of EM hard currency debt within global fixed income portfolios, given the higher yields that are typically on offer and the fairly consistent historical outperformance over Developed Market (DM) debt. Although the benefits of EM in a portfolio context are slightly overstated given its skewed risk profile (i.e. fat negative tails) and high correlation with DM spread product, specifically U.S. high-yield corporates (Chart 2). Chart 1How Much Longer Can This Rally Last? How Much Longer Can This Rally Last? How Much Longer Can This Rally Last? Chart 2EM Debt Offers Little Diversification Benefits EM Debt Offers Little Diversification Benefits EM Debt Offers Little Diversification Benefits In this Special Report, we examine the long-term role of EM hard currency debt within a fixed-income portfolio, and re-iterate our case for being underweight EM debt on a cyclical basis. The Long-Run Case For Owning EM Debt: A Moderate Core Allocation Makes Sense It is not a stretch to say that EM debt has become the most important part of global bond portfolios in the 21st century. Having a significant EM allocation at the right time can make a bond manager's year, while having it at the wrong time can end a bond manager's career. But what is the "right" allocation to optimize the long-run contribution to returns in a global fixed income portfolio? To answer this question, we took a look at the historical performance of a global bond portfolio that consisted of both DM and EM debt (sovereign and corporate), looking for the combination that would maximize the risk-adjusted return of the portfolio. In our analysis, we ran calculations for two different time periods as the available index data for EM sovereign debt goes back to 1994, while EM corporate debt indices begin in 2002. For DM debt, we used a single index - the Bloomberg Barclays Global Aggregate - as this has a long history and is a common benchmark used by global bond managers that includes both DM sovereign and corporate debt. Though the sample size of our combined global portfolio is limited due to the shorter history of the EM corporates asset class, the findings generally align with our intuition. On a standalone basis, modern portfolio theory proposes that an individual asset should be included within a portfolio if its excess return divided by its standard deviation is higher than the excess return of the portfolio divided by the portfolio's standard deviation, multiplied by the correlation between the portfolio and the asset. Examining The Role Of EM Hard Currency Debt In Global Bond Portfolios Examining The Role Of EM Hard Currency Debt In Global Bond Portfolios Though the correlation to the DM portfolio from 2004 was fairly high for both assets at over 0.6, when we applied this formula, both EM sovereign and corporate debt warranted an allocation in a standard global fixed-income portfolio. EM sovereign debt scored higher, by offering a considerably better Sharpe ratio with only a minimally higher correlation to DM fixed income. While EM hard currency debt has fairly consistently outperformed the DM benchmark on a 12-month rolling basis, investors must be careful not to simply maintain large positions at all times. Obviously, the majority of fixed-income investors have volatility constraints that impose limits on credit allocations. Additionally, apart from simple volatility measures, EM debt has a "hidden" risk profile when looking at the higher moments of return distributions. Table 1EM Debt Returns Are##BR##Negatively Skewed Examining The Role Of EM Hard Currency Debt In Global Bond Portfolios Examining The Role Of EM Hard Currency Debt In Global Bond Portfolios Both EM sovereign and corporate credit historical returns have exhibited significant negative skewness and excess kurtosis, indicating a much higher-than-normal tendency of experiencing outsized, negative returns (Table 1). This is confirmed through Historical Value-at-Risk (VaR) analysis, where the 5% worst returns far eclipsed those of DM investment grade and government debt. Nevertheless, it is important to view EM from a holistic perspective. For example, an asset with a high standard deviation may be less desirable as a standalone investment, but can be highly beneficial if it enhances overall the returns of a portfolio while also reducing its volatility. We tested these "portfolio effects" of EM debt by creating 21 hypothetical portfolios. We began with a DM-only portfolio (consisting of the Global Aggregate index) and increased the weighting toward EM debt by one percentage point in each portfolio, with the last portfolio having a 20% weighting toward EM. The breakdown within EM was 62% corporates and 38% sovereigns based on the market capitalizations of the relevant benchmark indices. Our calculations indicate that the highest portfolio Sharpe ratio was achieved with a 5% EM debt allocation, which also happens to be the "neutral" weighting of EM debt in the BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy model portfolio benchmark index (Chart 3).2 Global bond investors should hover around this weighting on EM hard currency debt, absent a high conviction view on EM. Chart 3The Optimal EM Hard Currency Debt Allocation Is 5% Examining The Role Of EM Hard Currency Debt In Global Bond Portfolios Examining The Role Of EM Hard Currency Debt In Global Bond Portfolios So while the data suggests that EM hard currency debt warrants a long-term allocation, its beneficial impact on a fixed-income portfolio is at least slightly exaggerated. Portfolio managers are typically seeking out assets that can both improve return and decrease overall volatility, thereby increasing the efficiency of their portfolios. This was not the case with EM debt. In our study, increasing the EM allocation consistently raised both returns and volatility. Chart 4EM/DM Correlations Should Decline In 2018 EM/DM Correlations Should Decline In 2018 EM/DM Correlations Should Decline In 2018 This lack of diversification benefit is a result of the high correlation between EM hard currency debt and DM fixed income. Currently, the correlation between EM and DM (the Global Aggregate) is 0.90, near the upper end of its range, indicating that diversification benefits over the last year were essentially non-existent (Chart 4). Nevertheless, this relationship clearly exhibits a mean reversion tendency. That EM/DM correlation in recent years has been itself correlated to global growth and monetary policy changes. As we show in Chart 4, our diffusion index of OECD Leading Economic Indicators (LEI) - the number of countries with a rising LEI relative to those with a declining LEI - does tend to lead the EM/DM correlation and is currently pointing to a lower correlation as global growth becomes a little less synchronized in 2018. The same goes for the growth rate of major central bank balance sheets which is already slowing and will decelerate even more in 2018 on the back of a diminished pace of bond buying by the ECB and the Fed runoff of maturing bonds on its balance sheet. The conclusion is this - the EM/DM correlation should decline in 2018 but, as we discuss below, we think that happens through relative underperformance of EM credit. Bottom Line: EM hard currency debt, both sovereign and corporate, has consistently outperformed the broad global index. However, investors should steer clear of always maintaining maximum overweights given its weak volatility reduction benefits and a much higher-than normal tendency of experiencing outsized, negative returns. Our long-term analysis suggests a structural 5% allocation offers the best risk/reward potential. The Shorter-Run Case For Owning EM Debt: Will Macro Drivers Remain Supportive? So far in 2017, EM sovereign and corporate debt have been beneficiaries of robust global growth, a declining USD and a decoupling from a broader index of commodity prices. While we expect global growth will remain strong over the medium term, our outlook for the USD is still bullish and there is a risk that commodity prices and EM debt performance re-converge to the downside. Global growth will remain strong. Outside of a major global growth slowdown, which we currently view as a low probability event, a mass flight out of EM assets anytime soon is highly unlikely. Indicators such as the global PMI index, industrial production growth and the OECD leading economic indicator are all booming (Chart 5). Inflation will head higher on the back of rising oil prices, but the increase is likely to be gradual. Importantly, this is happening alongside global monetary conditions that remain generally accommodative, even with the Fed in a tightening cycle. Credit, both DM & EM, has historically performed well against this backdrop, as we discuss in the next section of this report. A renewed upleg in the USD bull market is already underway. The correlation between EM currencies and EM debt performance has recovered after breaking down during 2013-15 (Chart 6). Year-to-date, EM currency strength - the flipside of the weaker U.S. dollar - has been a major driver of EM relative performance. Using the IMF's measure real effective exchange rates based on unit labor costs, the U.S. dollar is fairly valued.3 Neutral valuations suggest that directional market indicators are driving currency movements. As the EM business cycle slows and the Fed ramps up its rate hikes in response to rising inflation, the USD cyclical bull market should resume. Chart 5Robust Global Growth##BR##Is Supportive For EM bca.gfis_sr_2017_11_01_c5 bca.gfis_sr_2017_11_01_c5 Chart 6Can EM Ignore Another##BR##Round Of USD Strength? Can EM Ignore Another Round Of USD Strength? Can EM Ignore Another Round Of USD Strength? The de-coupling between EM debt and commodity price movements is unsustainable. EM debt has experienced a strong rally since 2016 with only a moderate rise in commodity prices compared to past periods of EM strength. We view this decoupling to be temporary (Chart 7). Many sovereign EM issuers are commodity producers, suggesting that this divergence is unsustainable. EM sovereign and corporate debt will not be able to continue their massive rallies if commodity prices relapse. We maintain a bullish view on oil prices, but there are signals that base metal prices are at risk over the next 6-12 months. Chinese monetary authorities have tightened policy and the resulting sharp slowdown in money supply growth is a worrisome sign for Chinese demand for commodities (Chart 8).4 Chart 7EM-Commodity Divergence##BR##Is Unsustainable EM-Commodity Divergence Is Unsustainable EM-Commodity Divergence Is Unsustainable Chart 8China Downside Risks For##BR##Industrial Commodity Prices bca.gfis_sr_2017_11_01_c8 bca.gfis_sr_2017_11_01_c8 Bottom Line: While global growth will remain supportive of EM credit, currency weakness and a re-convergence with commodity prices present considerable headwinds. EM Debt Performance & The Fed Policy Cycle Chart 9The Fed Policy Cycle Examining The Role Of EM Hard Currency Debt In Global Bond Portfolios Examining The Role Of EM Hard Currency Debt In Global Bond Portfolios As more central banks are shifting to a tightening bias, investors are becoming increasingly concerned over policy normalization and its potential impact on credit market performance. Given the strong historical linkages between EM debt performance and Fed policy changes, the current U.S. tightening cycle looms as a major potential problem for EM assets. We have found it most useful to think about changes in Fed monetary policy and asset market performance in terms of breaking up the Fed policy into four distinct phases (Chart 9).5 These are characterized by both the level of interest rates (whether they are above or below "equilibrium") and the direction of policy changes (whether the Fed is raising or cutting rates):6 Phase 1 - the Fed is hiking while the fed funds rate is below equilibrium (i.e. monetary conditions are stimulative). Phase 2 - the Fed is hiking or keeping policy on hold while the fed funds rate is above equilibrium (i.e. monetary conditions are restrictive). Phase 3 - the Fed is cutting while the fed funds rate is above equilibrium (i.e. monetary conditions are restrictive). Phase 4 - the Fed is cutting rates while the fed funds rate is below equilibrium (i.e. monetary conditions are stimulative). For EM sovereign debt where we have index data going back to 1994, there have been four episodes of Phase 1 and three episodes of the other phases. For EM corporate debt, where the index data begins in 2002, there have been two episodes of Phases 1 and 4 and only one occurrence of Phases 2 and 3. We present the excess returns of EM debt relative to other major fixed income classes by phase in Table 2. In the limited sample, EM sovereign debt and corporate debt consistently outperformed the Global Aggregate index and most individual bond classes. However, relative to DM high-yield debt, which has the most comparable risk profile, EM sovereign bonds underperformed in Phase 1 and EM corporate debt underperformed in all phases. Table 2Relative EM Debt Performance Worsens As Fed Policy Tightens Examining The Role Of EM Hard Currency Debt In Global Bond Portfolios Examining The Role Of EM Hard Currency Debt In Global Bond Portfolios Excess returns for both EM debt classes were highest in Phase 4, where the central bank is easing while conditions are stimulative. Similar to other risk assets, EM debt also outperformed in Phase 1, where the central bank is tightening while rates are below equilibrium. This makes sense, as the early stages of monetary tightening typically occur in conjunction with stable, above-trend growth. Liquidity conditions are still stimulative in Phase 1, which provides a substantial tailwind for spread product performance. On the other end of the spectrum, EM debt excess returns were relatively low during Phase 2 and Phase 3, and even negative in the case of EM corporate debt for Phase 3. Surprisingly, EM debt has been less affected by the direction of U.S. interest rates than what we would have expected. Monetary easing in Phase 3 was not enough to substantially boost EM relative returns and tightening in Phase 1 did not derail growth or lift the USD enough for EM debt to underperform. In fact, because EM debt still offers robust excess returns during Phase 1 when the central bank is tightening, while also suffering during Phase 3 during central bank easing, we can conclude that the level of policy rates relative to equilibrium has a greater impact on returns than the direction of rates. The severity of the Global Financial Crisis and the relatively subdued pace of recovery for both growth and inflation led to one of the longest Phase 4s in history. Given the low level of starting yields, indicating a large gap to equilibrium, and the 'gradual' pace of normalization, the current Phase 1 should also last longer than it typically has. This bodes well for all credit sectors, including EM sovereign and corporate debt, if history is any guide. However, there are still reasons to be concerned about the impact of U.S. monetary policy on EM assets next year. If the Fed follows through with the interest rate hikes it is currently projecting - another 100bps in total by the end of 2018 - the funds rate will be much closer to equilibrium. If the U.S. dollar rallies alongside that Fed tightening, as we expect, overall U.S. monetary conditions could end up being much closer to a restrictive level than implied by strictly looking at our Fed Policy Cycle (which only looks at the funds rate to determine monetary conditions). Also, the equilibrium funds rate may now be lower than the levels we are assuming in the Fed Policy Cycle framework, suggesting that policy could turn restrictive more quickly in the current tightening cycle. Bottom Line: The Fed is still in the early stages of rate normalization. At this point in the Fed policy cycle, where the Fed is hiking rates but monetary conditions are still stimulative, EM hard currency debt has historically performed well both on a relative and absolute basis. Looking ahead, EM returns should begin to suffer in latter half of 2018 as the Fed moves to more restrictive policy stance. Another Reason For Caution: Our EM Corporate Health Monitor The BCA EM Corporate Health Monitor (CHM) is a directional indicator aimed at modeling the path of EM corporate spread movements. Financial data from 220 emerging market companies in over 30 countries is aggregated. Only firms that issue USD-denominated bonds are included, with banks and other financials also omitted in a similar fashion to the CHMs we have constructed for DM corporates. The indicator is made up of four financial ratios: profit margins, free cash flow to total debt, liquidity and leverage. Unlike the DM CHMs, the ratios are not equally weighted in the construction of the EM CHM. Profit margins and free cash flow to debt combined represent 75% of the EM CHM. The latest available reading is from Q2 2017, showing a large decrease, with the indicator now only barely in 'Improving Health' territory (Chart 10). This has occurred in tandem with EM corporate spreads narrowing to post-crisis lows, leaving EM debt at potentially overvalued levels on a fundamental basis. While this slowdown in the EM CHM is not yet a cause for concern, if this became an extended trend of financial health deterioration, the divergence with EM corporate debt performance would be unsustainable and leave EM corporates highly vulnerable to a correction. Chart 10The BCA EM Corporate Health Monitor Has Rolled Over EM Corporate Health Monitor Is Sending A 'Sell' Signal The BCA EM Corporate Health Monitor Has Rolled Over EM Corporate Health Monitor Is Sending A 'Sell' Signal The BCA EM Corporate Health Monitor Has Rolled Over EM Corporate Health Monitor Is Sending A 'Sell' Signal Bottom Line: Our EM Corporate Health Monitor has declined drastically and is barely in 'Improving Health' territory. This alone is not cause for concern yet, but further deterioration in our Monitor combined with additional credit spread narrowing would be a worrisome divergence. Investment Implications Emerging market debt is facing conflicting forces. While continued robust global growth and accommodative monetary policy provide a substantial tailwind for credit performance, extended valuations, the turn in the USD and a potentially worsening commodities outlook present difficult hurdles for EM to overcome. Given the mixed messages, we prefer owning cyclical credit exposure through DM corporate debt, particularly U.S. investment grade. EM debt yields have collapsed and are expensive relative to DM investment grade debt (Chart 11). Combined with a higher risk profile in EM, elevated valuations indicate that EM sovereign and corporate debt are vulnerable to larger corrections. From a return perspective, the difference in the corporate option-adjusted spreads (OAS) has been an excellent leading indicator for relative total returns (Chart 12). This differential indicates that there is considerable relative upside potential for U.S. investment grade over EM hard currency debt. Additionally, while global growth should support credit-related plays, relative growth dynamics are more supportive of U.S. investment grade because the next phase of the global growth upturn will be driven by DM countries and not EM. The difference between the manufacturing PMIs in the U.S. and EM has historically been a good directional indicator for the spread between U.S. corporate bond spreads and EM debt spreads (Chart 13). The gap between the relative manufacturing PMI readings is at a post-crisis high, and could widen further if EM economies suffer on the back of any pullback in Chinese growth in 2018. Chart 11EM Yields & Spreads Look Full Valued EM Yields & Spreads Look Full Valued EM Yields & Spreads Look Full Valued Chart 12Favor U.S. IG Over EM Corporates... Favor U.S. IG Over EM Corporates... Favor U.S. IG Over EM Corporates... Chart 13...Because Of Stronger U.S. Growth ...Because Of Stronger U.S. Growth ...Because Of Stronger U.S. Growth What are the risks to our view? Our recommended position would suffer in the event that inflation in the U.S. slows, keeping the Fed on hold and maintaining this year's USD downtrend. Also, if China were to ease up on its policy tightening, industrial commodity prices could strengthen once again. Under these scenarios, EM hard currency debt would likely outperform DM spread product. Bottom Line: Maintain moderate underweight positions in EM hard currency debt. Favor DM spread product (especially U.S. investment grade corporates) due to more supportive relative valuations and growth trends. Patrick Trinh, Associate Editor Global Fixed Income Strategy patrick@bcaresearch.com Robert Robis, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com 1 This “EM versus IG” trade was implemented in both our Emerging Markets Strategy and Global Fixed Income Strategy services. Please see BCA Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report, “EM: The Focus Is On Profits”, dated August 16th 2017, available at ems.bcaresearch.com, as well as the BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, “A Lack Of Leadership”, dated August 22nd 2017, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 2 The weighting to EM debt in the Global Fixed Income Strategy model bond portfolio benchmark is based on market capitalizations of all the fixed income sectors we wanted to have in the benchmark, which includes non-investment grade debt like global high-yield corporates. It is reassuring to see that our benchmark weighting is also the desired weighting from a long-run portfolio optimization perspective. 3 Please see BCA Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report, "Is The Dollar Expensive, And Are EM Currencies Cheap?", dated October 11th, 2017, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see the joint BCA Global Asset Allocation/Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, "Global Equity Allocation: The Underwhelming Case For EM", dated August 9th 2017, available at ems.bcaresearch.com & gaa.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see BCA U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, "Bonds And The Fed Funds Rate Cycle", dated May 27th 2014, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com. 6 The equilibrium policy rate is a BCA calculation based on long-run real potential GDP growth and long run inflation expectations.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Highlights Year One Performance: The GFIS recommended model bond portfolio returned 1.1% (hedged into USD) in its first year of existence, slightly underperforming the custom benchmark index by -2bps. Our bearish duration tilts were a drag on performance, while our overweights to U.S. corporate debt were a major contributor. Risk Management Lessons: The maximum overweight to low-beta, but low-yielding, Japanese Government Bonds was a drag on performance by reducing the portfolio yield. This highlights the classic bond management trade-off between controlling portfolio risks, like duration or tracking error, and maximizing sources of return, like interest income. Future Drivers Of Returns: Over the next 6-12 months, we expect the model portfolio returns to again benefit mostly from our below-benchmark duration stance (as global bond yields grind higher) and from our overweight stance on U.S. corporates (as the U.S. economy maintains a solid pace of growth). Feature In September of 2016, we introduced a new element to the BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy (GFIS) service - our recommended model bond portfolio.1 This represented a bit of a departure from the usual macroeconomic analysis and forecasting of financial markets that has been the hallmark of BCA. Yet we felt that it was important to add an actual portfolio, with specific allocations and weightings, given the needs and constraints faced by our readers. With so many of our clients being traditional fixed income managers (or multi-asset managers) who measure investment performance versus benchmark indices, we felt that it was important to have a way to communicate our views within a framework akin to what they deal with each day. Even for clients who are not professional bond managers, the model portfolio can be useful as a way to express how much we prefer one bond market (or sector) versus others. It also gives us a forum to discuss portfolio management issues as an addition to the macro analysis. So far, the reception from clients to this new addition to the GFIS service has been a warm one, and we look forward to additional feedback in the months and years ahead. With the model portfolio just passing its first birthday, we are dedicating this Weekly Report to an overview of the final Year One performance numbers. We will evaluate our winning and losing recommendations, look back at the lessons learned as the model portfolio framework has evolved, and identify what we expect will be the biggest drivers of performance in Year Two based on our current views. Year One Model Portfolio Performance: Winners & Losers Chart 1GFIS Model Portfolio Performance GFIS Model Portfolio Performance GFIS 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 Year One Of The GFIS Model Bond Portfolio: Winners, Losers & Lessons Learned Year One Of The GFIS Model Bond Portfolio: Winners, Losers & Lessons Learned 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 Year One Of The GFIS Model Bond Portfolio: Winners, Losers & Lessons Learned Year One Of The GFIS Model Bond Portfolio: Winners, Losers & Lessons Learned 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 Year One Of The GFIS Model Bond Portfolio: Winners, Losers & Lessons Learned Year One Of The GFIS Model Bond Portfolio: Winners, Losers & Lessons Learned 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 Tracking Error Of The Model Portfolio Tracking Error Of The Model Portfolio Chart 5Allocations Between##BR##Government Bonds & Spread Product Year One Of The GFIS Model Bond Portfolio: Winners, Losers & Lessons Learned Year One Of The GFIS Model Bond Portfolio: Winners, Losers & Lessons Learned Chart 6Are JGBs The##BR##Optimal Duration Hedge? Are JGBs The Optimal Duration Hedge? Are JGBs The 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 ... Too Much Japan In The Portfolio... Too Much Japan In The Portfolio... Chart 8... Offsetting The Yield Pick-Up##BR##From Spread Product ...Offsetting The Yield Pick-Up From Spread Product ...Offsetting The Yield Pick-Up From Spread Product Chart 9There Is Not Enough Yield##BR##In The Model Portfolio There Is Not Enough Yield In The Model Portfolio There Is Not Enough Yield 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 Future Drivers Of Performance: u/w Duration Future Drivers Of Performance: u/w Duration Chart 11An Unexpected##BR##Bull Flattening This Year An Unexpected Bull Flattening This Year An Unexpected 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 Future Drivers Of Performance: o/w U.S. Corporates Future Drivers Of Performance: o/w U.S. Corporates Chart 13Upgrade U.S. MBS##BR##To Neutral Upgrade U.S. MBS To Neutral Upgrade U.S. MBS 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 Year One Of The GFIS Model Bond Portfolio: Winners, Losers & Lessons Learned Year One Of The GFIS Model Bond Portfolio: Winners, Losers & Lessons Learned Appendix - Selected Sectors From The GFIS Model Portfolio Appendix 1 Appendix 1 Appendix 2 Appendix 2 Appendix 3 Appendix 3 Appendix 4 Appendix 4 Appendix 5 Appendix 5 Appendix 6 Appendix 6 Appendix 7 Appendix 7 Appendix 8 Appendix 8 Recommendations Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Highlights Expect Spain's strong growth to fade somewhat as its credit impulse appears to have peaked. The Catalan independence debate is an inconvenience but not a long term tail-risk. Expect Italy's growth to pick up as the Italian banking system is repaired. Brave investors could go long Italian bonds versus Spanish bonds now. More cautious investors might wait until after the Italian election in the first half of next year. France's CAC40 is our preferred mainstream euro area equity market right now. Feature Recent history teaches us that to leave the European Union is inconvenient, but to leave the euro is disastrous. To leave the EU means redefining laws, institutions and trading relationships, but to leave the euro means redenominating the entire banking system's assets and liabilities into different currencies - leading to bank runs and chaotic insolvencies. For this reason, even tiny Greece chose to suffer an extended depression rather than to leave the euro. Chart of the WeekSpain Fixed Its Banks In 2013, Italy Is Fixing Its Banks Now Spain Fixed Its Banks In 2013, Italy Is Fixing Its Banks Now Spain Fixed Its Banks In 2013, Italy Is Fixing Its Banks Now Leaving The EU Is Inconvenient, Leaving The Euro Is Disastrous To leave the EU, there is a broadly defined process but the process is inconvenient and protracted, as the United Kingdom is now discovering. The U.K. will technically leave the EU on March 31 2019, but Prime Minister May has proposed a further transition period of "around two years." Therefore the U.K. will remain in the European single market and customs union - and fully subject to EU laws and regulations - until at least 2021, five years after the U.K. voted to leave the EU. This protraction of the exit process creates a tasty irony. Not long after the U.K. fully leaves in 2021, the Leave vote's 1.25 million majority will have disappeared - counting those who voted in 2016 who are still alive. This is because out of the 0.625 million deaths in the U.K. in each of the coming years, there is a very heavy skew to Leave's much older voters1 (Chart I-2). As the U.K is not in the euro there is no secondary issue of whether to leave the single currency. But this does raise an interesting hypothetical question. If a euro area country - or region like Catalonia - inconveniently left or was ejected from the EU, does it follow that it must also crash out of the euro? No. Several non-EU countries already use the euro. There are the European microstates of Andorra, Monaco, San Marino and Vatican City. More significantly, Montenegro and Kosovo have adopted the euro as their de facto currency. To be clear, we do not expect Catalonia to secede. Polls consistently show a significant majority in Catalonia do not want full independence (Chart I-3). The unionists mostly boycotted the independence referendum because Madrid deemed it illegal. Given the low turnout, the 89% vote for independence equalled just 37% of eligible voters. Chart I-2The Vote For Brexit Was ##br##Driven By Older Voters The Spain/Italy Conundrum The Spain/Italy Conundrum Chart I-3A Significant Minority In Catalonia##br## Do Not Want Full Independence A Significant Minority In Catalonia Do Not Want Full Independence A Significant Minority In Catalonia Do Not Want Full Independence But even if Catalonia did become independent, this hypothetical eventuality would not involve a catastrophic exit from the euro. Catalonia, in its economic interest, would want to keep the euro, and the EU would let it. The Spain/Italy Conundrum The much bigger threat would be if a major euro area country felt that the single currency was not in its economic interest, and decided to jettison the euro. In this regard, the problem - at first sight - appears to be Italy. Through the 19 years of the euro, Italy's real GDP per head has grown by just 6%, substantially less than any other major economy. If the single currency is to blame for the significant underperformance of its third largest economy with 60 million people, then the euro's long-term viability has to be in question. But it is hard to blame the euro per se for Italy's painful underperformance. For the first half of the euro's life, 1999-2007, Italian real GDP per head performed more or less in line with the United States, Canada and France (Chart I-4) - even without a substantial tailwind from a credit-fuelled boom which the other economies had. Then, in the post-2007 years, there was little to distinguish the economic performances of Italy and Spain until 2013 (Chart I-5). At which point, Spain took off, with real GDP per head subsequently expanding by 15%. Whereas Italy struggled to grow. The conundrum is: what explains this stark recent difference between Spain and Italy? Chart I-4Through 1999-2007, Italy Grew In Line ##br##With Other Major Economies Through 1999-2007, Italy Grew In Line With Other Major Economies Through 1999-2007, Italy Grew In Line With Other Major Economies Chart I-5Post-Crisis, There Was Little To Distinguish##br## Italy and Spain Until 2013 Post-Crisis, There Was Little To Distinguish Italy and Spain Until 2013 Post-Crisis, There Was Little To Distinguish Italy and Spain Until 2013 The start of Italy's underperformance in 2008 and the start of Spain's strong recovery in 2013 provide the solution to the conundrum. Following the global financial crisis in 2008, Italy has still to repair its banking system. Whereas Spain fixed its banks in 2013. Significantly, Spain ring-fenced bad assets within a bad bank while recapitalising good banks. In effect, it finally did what other economies - most notably the U.S., U.K. and Ireland - had done several years earlier in response to their own housing-related banking crises. Therefore in 2013, Spanish banks' aggressive deleveraging ended. The result was that Spain's credit impulse - which measures the change in bank credit flows - rebounded very sharply and has remained positive for four years. This explains Spain's remarkably strong recovery (Chart I-6). In contrast, Italy's still dysfunctional banking system means that its own credit impulse has been much more muted and barely positive over the past four years (Chart I-7). Begging the question: why has Italy been so slow to fix its dysfunctional banking system? One reason is that Italy's banking malaise has built up stealthily, generating frequent financial tremors but without an outright crisis. In contrast, the credit booms in the U.S., U.K., Ireland and Spain did eventually cause housing busts and full-blown banking crises, requiring urgent policymaker response. A second reason is that the Italian government is more highly indebted than other governments, making it more difficult to raise public funds to fix the banking system. The good news is that the Italian government, the EU and the ECB are now on the same page and finally progressing to repair the banking system. Italian banks' equity capital is rising (Chart I-8), their solvency is improving, and the share of non-performing loans has fallen sharply this year (Chart of the Week). Chart I-6Spain's Credit Impulse Rebounded Sharply Spain"s Credit Impulse Rebounded Sharply Spain"s Credit Impulse Rebounded Sharply Chart I-7Italy's Credit Impulse Has Been More Muted Italy"s Credit Impulse Has Been More Muted Italy"s Credit Impulse Has Been More Muted Chart I-8Italian Banks Are Raising Equity Capital Italian Banks Are Raising Equity Capital Italian Banks Are Raising Equity Capital Moreover, the recent smooth winding down of the failing Banca Popolare di Vicenza and Veneto Bank showed that the EU's new rules for resolving failing banks is working. Admittedly, the rules mean that institutional investors could still suffer losses. But a pragmatic solution will permit public funds to protect 'widows and orphans' retail investors. Some Investment Thoughts As the Italian banking system is repaired, there will be a pickup in Italy's growth just as there was in Spain. However, the strong tailwind to Spain's growth that started in 2013 is now fading given that Spain's credit impulse has peaked. This suggests that the yield spread between Italian BTPs and Spanish Bonos - which measures the extra risk premium in Italy - is at a cyclical peak from which it is likely to compress (Chart I-9). Brave investors could go long Italian bonds versus Spanish bonds now. More cautious investors might wait until after the Italian election in the first half of next year. On the face of it, a fading risk of euro breakup should also boost euro area equity relative performance. The trouble is that the relative performance of the broad Eurostoxx50 index is entirely at the mercy of its major sector skews - specifically, a huge underweighting to Technology and an overweighting to Banks (Chart I-10). The way around this dilemma - to like euro area equities but to dislike the overall sector skew - is to steer towards mainstream indexes which have less of a distorting skew. On this basis, the mainstream euro area equity market we would pick right now is France's CAC40 (Chart I-11). Chart I-9The Yield Spread Between Italian And ##br##Spanish Bonds Is At A Cyclical Peak The Yield Spread Between Italian And Spanish Bonds Is At A Cyclical Peak The Yield Spread Between Italian And Spanish Bonds Is At A Cyclical Peak Chart I-10Eurostoxx50 Relative Performance Is ##br##At The Mercy Of Its Sector Skews Eurostoxx50 Relative Performance Is At The Mercy Of Its Sector Skews Eurostoxx50 Relative Performance Is At The Mercy Of Its Sector Skews Chart I-11Prefer the CAC40 To##br## The Eurostoxx50 Prefer the CAC40 To The Eurostoxx50 Prefer the CAC40 To The Eurostoxx50 Dhaval Joshi, Senior Vice President Chief European Investment Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com 1 In the U.K. around 625,000 people die every year and the vast majority of these are aged over 65. But in this older age cohort, 64% voted Leave (source: YouGov). So we can infer that of the 625,000 deaths, about 400,000 voted Leave and 225,000 voted Remain, eroding the Leave majority who are still alive by 175,000 every year. Fractal Trading Model This week, we note that the Canadian 10-year government bond is oversold and due a trend reversal. We prefer to express this as a new relative trade: long Canadian 10-year bond / short 10-year German bund with a profit target / stop-loss of 1% and double position size. In other trades, long USD/CAD hit its 2.5% profit target - the second success in this specific trade in the last three months. We now have three open positions. For any investment, excessive trend following and groupthink can reach a natural point of instability, at which point the established trend is highly likely to break down with or without an external catalyst. An early warning sign is the investment's fractal dimension approaching its natural lower bound. Encouragingly, this trigger has consistently identified countertrend moves of various magnitudes across all asset classes. Chart I-12 Long Canadian 10-Year Government Bond Long Canadian 10-Year Government Bond The post-June 9, 2016 fractal trading model rules are: When the fractal dimension approaches the lower limit after an investment has been in an established trend it is a potential trigger for a liquidity-triggered trend reversal. Therefore, open a countertrend position. The profit target is a one-third reversal of the preceding 13-week move. Apply a symmetrical stop-loss. Close the position at the profit target or stop-loss. Otherwise close the position after 13 weeks. Use the position size multiple to control risk. The position size will be smaller for more risky positions. * For more details please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report "Fractals, Liquidity & A Trading Model," dated December 11, 2014, available at eis.bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading Model Recommendations Equities Bond & Interest Rates Currency & Other Positions Closed Fractal Trades Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Interest Rate Chart II-5Indicators To Watch ##br##- Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch ##br##- Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations