Gov Sovereigns/Treasurys

Highlights GFIS Portfolio: Our GFIS model fixed income portfolio has essentially matched the benchmark in the six months since inception. Our strategic below-benchmark duration stance has given up much of the strong Q4/2016 excess return performance over the past couple of months as bond yields have drifted lower. Corporate bonds contributed positively to performance, particularly after our upgrade of U.S. Investment Grade and High-Yield in late January. Upsizing Positions: The weightings in our model portfolio appear to have been too small versus our benchmark index to generate any meaningful outperformance. This week, we increase our positions for our highest conviction views: staying below-benchmark portfolio duration, underweighting U.S. Treasuries, overweighting U.S. corporate debt and underweighting Italian government debt. Tactical Overlay: Our current Tactical Overlay trades have been very successful over the life of the model bond portfolio, with 9 of 12 positions currently in the money with an average return of 0.45%. We are maintaining these positions for now, even as we alter the model portfolio. Feature Last September, we introduced a new element into our global bond strategy framework - a model portfolio that allows us to track the combined performance of our individual recommendations. The first piece of this process was the introduction of our custom benchmark index that defined our investment universe, which is similar to the Barclays Global Aggregate but with a dedicated allocation to global high-yield corporate debt.1 The next component is presented in this Special Report, where we take an initial look at measuring the performance of our model portfolio. The final element (to be presented in another upcoming report) will be introducing a formal risk management system into our process to help guide the relative sizes of our suggested portfolio tilts. We intend to show the portfolio returns on a quarterly basis going forward, in line with the types of reporting mandates that a typical bond manager might face. However, our recommendations are meant to play out over a more strategic investment horizon of one full year, in line with our proven strength in analyzing medium-term macroeconomic and investment trends. Each individual quarterly report should be interpreted in that context as only a partial reflection of the full expected return from our portfolio if our market calls come to fruition. Overall Portfolio Performance Attribution: Winners & Losers Chart 1GFIS Model Portfolio Performance Our model portfolio has delivered a total return of -0.41% (hedged into U.S. dollars) since inception on September 20, 2016. This slightly underperformed our Global Fixed Income Strategy (GFIS) custom benchmark index by -2bps, but did outperform the Barclays Global Aggregate index that returned -0.85%. In terms of the main drivers of our returns, the government bond portion of our portfolio added +3bps of excess return versus our GFIS benchmark, while the spread product component subtracted -5bps (Chart 1). These are admittedly small numbers, essentially delivering a benchmark return in six months. In terms of our major asset allocation decisions, our below-benchmark overall duration stance served us well in the final quarter of 2016, adding +20bps of excess return during the run-up in global bond yields following the election victory of President Trump in November. After shifting to a neutral posture in early December, however, our decision to cut duration again in late January has hurt the performance of our model portfolio, as global bond yields have since fallen and eliminated much of our gains from duration positioning from Q4/2016. On the other hand, that same choice to lower duration exposure in late January coincided with our decision to raise exposure to U.S. corporate bonds (both investment grade and high-yield) and cut the allocations to U.S. Treasuries and Euro Area investment grade corporates. U.S. corporates have performed relatively well since then, helping pull the excess return from our overall spread product exposure, excluding U.S. Mortgage Backed Securities (MBS), into positive territory (Chart 1, bottom panel). Unfortunately, our underweight tilt on U.S. MBS - a sector that represents a hefty 14% of our benchmark index - has acted as a drag on our overall returns from spread product. However, MBS performance has started to lag both U.S. Treasuries and corporates of late, justifying our underweight stance. A more detailed performance attribution is presented in Table 1, which shows the excess returns broken down by the same government bond duration buckets and credit sectors that we regularly present in the model portfolio table in our Weekly Reports. We also show the average deviation from our GFIS benchmark index weightings (our "active" positions) over the period in question to give a sense of the bias of our tilts. Table 1A Detailed Breakdown Of The GFIS Model Performance Within the government bond portion of our model portfolio, there were positive excess return contributions from the U.S. and Japan (Chart 2), largely coming from underweights at the very long end of the yield curves that reflect our bias for curve steepening in those markets. The 10+ year duration buckets in the U.S. and Japan added +8bps and +7bps of excess return, respectively. Also, our underweight position in Italy helped generate a small positive excess return of +3bps. Chart 2GFIS Model Portfolio Performance Attribution By Country Within Government At the same time, our exposures in Europe proved to be an almost equivalent drag on returns, as we maintained an underweight in U.K. Gilts, and overweights in German and French sovereign debt, for a bit too long before the trends in those markets turned late last year (more bullishly for the U.K. and bearishly for core Europe). Within the spread product segment of the portfolio (Chart 3), our steady overweight to U.S. Investment Grade Financials and our large underweight to U.S. Investment Grade industrials late last year (which we reduced substantially in December) helped those segments deliver excess returns of +5bps and +2bps, respectively. Our decision to upgrade High-Yield in late January also added positively to our performance within the Ba-rated and B-rated credit tiers. Emerging market debt, where we have maintained only a neutral weighting, was the largest contributor to absolute returns within our portfolio and our benchmark, adding +30bps to both. Chart 3GFIS Model Portfolio Performance Attribution By Sector Within Spread Product Detailed charts showing the total returns, yields, portfolio weights and excess returns for some of our best and worst performing sectors are presented in the Appendix on page 11. Bottom Line: Our GFIS model fixed income portfolio has essentially matched the benchmark in the six months since inception. Our strategic below-benchmark duration stance has given up much of the strong Q4/2016 excess return performance over the past couple of months as bond yields have drifted lower. Corporate bonds contributed positively to performance, particularly after our upgrade of U.S. Investment Grade and High-Yield in late January. Increasing The Sizes Of Our Highest Conviction Portfolio Recommendations Delivering only a benchmark-like return is hardly the goal we are aiming to achieve with our model portfolio. However, given how much our weightings have, in aggregate, mirrored those of our benchmark index so far, the results should not be a surprise. The average (mean) allocations to government debt and spread product over the six-month life our model portfolio are shown in Chart 4, alongside the average (mean) benchmark weightings. It is clear from that chart that our overall exposures have been far too similar to those of our GFIS benchmark index. In the parlance of portfolio management, we have been taking far too little tracking error versus our benchmark, so far, to generate any meaningful alpha. Or, more simply put, our recommended positions have been too small and, in many cases, have been offsetting each other. Chart 4Bigger Tilts Are Needed In The Model Portfolio The absence of a true risk management system, incorporating sector correlations and volatilities, has clearly been an issue so far. Our initial (and, admittedly, simple) attempt at sizing our recommendations was based on translating our "1 to 5" rankings from our traditional portfolio allocation tables into a factor that would scale up/down the individual country or sector weightings versus our benchmark.2 Clearly, this approach has not created portfolio weightings large enough to move the needle on performance. We will look to complete that final piece of our GFIS model portfolio framework - appropriate trade sizing and risk management - in the next couple of months. This will allow us to more properly size our relative positions going forward while maintaining enough overall deviation from the GFIS benchmark index (i.e. tracking error) to have a chance to generate meaningful outperformance. For now, however, we feel that we can comfortably increase the sizes of our current recommended tilts for our highest conviction views, which we discussed in our most recent Weekly Report.3 We are reducing our overall portfolio duration from the current 6.34 years (-0.64 years versus our GFIS benchmark index duration) to 5.75 years. After the recent decline in bond yields on the back of rising global geopolitical tensions and a modest soft patch of "hard" U.S. economic data, the entry point for reducing duration exposure even further is attractive. We are cutting our allocation to U.S. Treasuries from the current 14.6% (-3% versus the benchmark) to 10%, and placing the proceeds equally into U.S. Investment Grade and High-Yield corporate debt. This is to capitalize on the cyclical uptrend in U.S. growth and corporate profits, and additional Fed rate hikes, which we still see unfolding this year. We are cutting our allocation to Italian government debt from the current 3.5% (-0.8% versus the benchmark) to 1%, and placing the proceeds equally into Germany and Spain. This is to reduce exposure to the weakest link in the Euro Area, particularly as political risks will remain elevated in Italy leading up to the parliamentary elections that are due in 2018. We are maintaining the current sizes of the medium conviction views that we discussed last week - specifically, the overweight stance on Japanese government bonds (a low-beta market in a rising yield environment) and an underweight tilt on U.S. MBS (where valuations are stretched). The new weightings within our portfolio are shown in the model portfolio table on page 10. Bottom Line: The weightings in our model portfolio appear to have been too small versus our benchmark index to generate any meaningful outperformance. This week, we increase our positions for our highest conviction views: staying below-benchmark portfolio duration, underweight U.S. Treasuries, overweight U.S. corporate debt and underweight Italian government debt. Don't Forget About Our Tactical Overlays Our model portfolio is intended to be a reflection of the more medium-term, strategic fixed income investment views that stem from our regular analysis of trends in the global economy, inflation, monetary policy, etc. In other words, the positions in the portfolio are not intended to be changed too frequently. We also have chosen to stick with what we believe are more liquid markets in the portfolio, and without any use of derivatives of leverage to amplify returns beyond what the "fundamentals" suggest. Our recommendations that are shorter-term in nature (i.e. 0-3 months), or that may be in less liquid markets (i.e. New Zealand government bonds or U.S. TIPS), or that involve derivatives (i.e. Japanese CPI swaps or Sweden Overnight Index Swaps) are placed in our "Tactical Overlay Trades" list that appears in every Weekly Report. These recommendations have been performing extremely well since the inception of our model portfolio, as shown in Table 2.4 Table 2GFIS Tactical Overlay Trades Are Doing Well 9 of the current 12 trades are making money, with an average total return of 0.45%. The most successful are the long U.S. TIPS/short U.S. Treasuries trade (+3.4%) and the short 10-year Portugal government bond versus German Bunds trade (+1.0%). While we have not made any attempt to put any position sizes on those trade ideas, in contrast to our model portfolio, it is clear that even a modest allocation to each of these trades would have generated a meaningful positive return "overlay" on top of what was generated by our model portfolio. Bottom Line: Our current Tactical Overlay trades have been very successful over the life of the model bond portfolio, with 9 of 12 positions currently in the money with an average return of 0.45%. We are maintaining these positions for now, even as we alter the model portfolio. Robert Robis, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com Ray Park, Research Analyst ray@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report, "Introducing Our Recommended Global Fixed Income Portfolio", dated September 20, 2016, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com 2 For example, a "5 of 5" ranking would generate a portfolio allocation that was 1.75x the benchmark index weight, while a "1 of 5" ranking would apply a 0.5x factor to the index weight. 3 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "The Song Remains The Same", dated April 11, 2017, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com 4 Please note that in Table 2, the returns on the trades that were initiated before the inception of our model portfolio on September 20th, 2016 are shown from that date and not from the date that the trade was initiated. This is to allow an "apples-to-apples" comparison to our model portfolio performance. The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Appendix - Selected Sectors From The GFIS Model Portfolio

I am honored to join BCA Research as Senior Vice President of the U.S. Investment Strategy service. I have been researching and writing about the economy and financial markets for more than 30 years. I joined BCA Research from LPL Financial in Boston, MA where I served as the firm’s Chief Economic Strategist. At LPL I helped to manage more than $120 billion in client assets and provided more than 14,000 financial advisors and 700+ financial institutions with insights on asset allocation, global financial markets and economics. Prior to LPL, I served in similar functions at PNC Advisors, Stone & McCarthy Research, Prudential Securities, and the Congressional Budget Office in Washington, DC. I look forward to meeting you and providing quality research in the years to come. John Canally, Senior Vice President U.S. Investment Strategy Highlights We are not changing our view on Treasury markets or our stocks over bonds call despite the news that the Fed will begin shrinking its balance sheet later this year. The Fed's action is marginally dollar positive. For the major industrialized economies, the so-called "hard" data are moving in line with the "soft" survey data for the most part. Retail sales and industrial production have accelerated, although "hard" data on business capital spending remains weak. We introduce our Bond Duration checklist this week. These are the key economic and market indicators that we are watching to assess whether we should maintain our current below-benchmark portfolio stance. We continue to favor U.S. equites over bonds in 2017 and recommend keeping duration short of benchmark. Despite outsized performance from high-yield corporate bonds in 2016, investors should favor stocks over high-yield over the coming year. We introduce the BCA Beige Book Monitor this week. This metric provides a quantitative look at the qualitative, or "soft" data in the Fed's Beige Book. The Beige Book is due out Wednesday, April 19. Feature Chart 1Weak Data And More Weighed ##br##On Risk Assets U.S. stocks stumbled and Treasury yields slumped last week with the 10-year Treasury yield hitting a 2017 low. The drop in yields came despite news from the FOMC that the Fed is prepared to shrink its balance sheet later this year, a bit sooner than the market expected. Comments from Fed Chair Yellen - who expressed concern that the Fed's independence is "under threat"- should have jolted the bond market, but didn't. Not yet at least. Geopolitics played a role in the week's market action as well, the main culprits being upcoming French elections, the aftermath of President Trump's missile attack on Syria and ongoing tensions in North Korea. The looming Q1 earnings reporting season weighed on risk assets as well. The dollar ended lower last week. Trump told the Wall Street Journal he prefers a weak dollar. Those comments and the tepid data helped to offset the safe-haven bid generated by the geopolitical events of the week (Chart 1). The "hard" vs "soft" data debate will continue this week and likely for some time thereafter. "Hard" data on housing and manufacturing for March as well as the U.S. leading indicator are due out this week. Of course, the ultimate set of "hard" data is the corporate earnings data. Nearly 70 S&P 500 firms will report Q1 results and provide guidance for Q2 and beyond this week. "Soft" data on the PMI, Philly Fed and Empire State manufacturing sector for April will undoubtedly keep the debate going. Our view is that the hard data will catch up with the upbeat surveys in the U.S. This week we review the key economic indicators for the major advanced economies, which highlight that the global growth acceleration remains on track. We also introduce a Duration Checklist designed to help separate "signal from noise" in the bond market. Most of the items on the Checklist remain bond-bearish. Fed plans to shrink its balance sheet is not particularly negative for bond prices, but it certainly won't be supportive. The main risk to our bond-bearish view remains geopolitics, including the first round voting and results in the French election due on Sunday, April 23. Balance Sheet Bedlam? Maybe Not The release of Minutes from the FOMC's March meeting contained a robust discussion of the Fed's balance sheet. Until recently, most market participants had assumed that the Fed would maintain the size of its balance sheet via reinvesting through at least late 2017/early 2018. The latest FOMC minutes suggest that, assuming the economy continues to track the Fed's forecast, the FOMC will allow its balance sheet to shrink this year. The FOMC will achieve this by ceasing reinvestment of both its MBS and Treasury holdings at the same time. No decision has been made about whether the reinvestments will end all at once or will be phased out over time (tapered). Chart 2 shows that when QE1 ended in 2010 and QE2 ended in 2011, U.S. equities underperformed bonds. It's important to note, however, that underperformance didn't occur in a vacuum. The European debt crisis, the U.S. rating downgrade and debt ceiling debates all weighed on risk assets after QE1 and QE2 ended. Other factors played a role as well, such as weak economic growth and policy uncertainty. Amid QE3, U.S. equities surged in 2013, returning 32.4%, while bonds fell 8.5%. But in late 2013, the Fed announced that purchases would be tapered over the course of 2014. QE3 finally ended in late 2014. Stocks and bonds battled it out over 2014 and 2015, with stocks beating bonds by 3%. Chart 2Reminder What Happened When QE1, QE2 & QE3 Ended Bottom Line: Our view remains that Fed balance sheet run-off won't have a big impact on Treasury yields, although may lead to a widening of MBS spreads. What matters more for Treasury yields than the size of the balance sheet is the expected path of short rates. As for equities, while geopolitical risks are ever-present, the U.S. economy is in far better shape today than it was when QE1, QE2 and QE3 ended. U.S. corporate earnings are pointing higher as well. While we've clearly entered a new part in the Fed cycle, the news on the Fed's balance sheet does not change our view that U.S. stocks will outperform bonds this year. All else equal, the dollar should get a small boost from a shrinking Fed balance sheet, supporting our view that the dollar will rise 10% this year. Overplaying The Soft Data And Underplaying Geopolitics...In 2018 Chart 3Global Pick-Up On Track Traders and investors have been giving up on the global reflation story of late, sending the 10-year Treasury yield down to the bottom end of this year's trading range. Missile strikes, upcoming French elections and U.S. saber rattling regarding North Korea have lifted the allure of safe havens such as government bonds. At the same time, the Fed was unwilling to revise up the 'dot plot', doubts are growing over the ability of the Trump Administration to deliver any stimulus and a few recent U.S. data releases have disappointed. It is difficult to forecast the ebb and flow of safe-haven demand for bonds, especially related to North Korea and Syria. However, our geopolitical team holds a high-conviction view that angst over Eurozone elections this year are overblown. The Italian election in 2018 is more of a threat. While we cannot rule out an even stronger safe-haven bid from developing in the coming weeks, the global cyclical economic backdrop remains negative for government bond markets. For the major industrialized economies, the so-called "hard" data are moving in line with the "soft" survey data for the most part. For example, retail sales growth continues to accelerate, reaching 4.7% in February on a year-over-year basis (Chart 3). This follows the sharp improvement in consumer confidence. Manufacturing production growth is also accelerating to the upside, in line with the PMIs. The global manufacturing sector is rebounding smartly after last year's recession, which was driven by the collapse in oil prices and a global inventory correction. Readers may be excused for jumping to the conclusion that the rebound is largely in the energy space, but this is not true. Production growth in the energy sector is close to zero on a year-over-year basis, and is negative on a 3-month rate of change basis (Chart 4). The growth pickup has been in the other major sectors, including consumer-related goods, capital goods and technology. In the U.S., non-energy production has boomed over the three months, rising 5.2% at annual rates (Chart 5). The weak spot has been in capital goods orders (Chart 3). We only have data for the big three economies - the U.S., Japan and the Eurozone - but growth is near to zero or slightly negative for all three. These data are perplexing because they are at odds with an acceleration in the production of capital goods (noted above) and a pickup in capital goods imports for 20 economies (Chart 3, third panel). Nonetheless, improving CEO sentiment, strengthening profit growth and activity surveys all suggest that capital goods orders will "catch up" in the coming months. Chart 4Manufacturing Rebound Is Not About Energy Chart 5U.S.: Non-Energy Production Surging That said, one risk to our positive capex outlook in the U.S. is that the Republicans could fail to deliver on their promises to cut taxes and boost infrastructure spending. This is not our base case, but current capex plans could be cancelled or put on indefinite hold were there to be no corporate tax cuts or immediate expensing of capital expenditures. Duration Checklist: What We're Watching BCA's Global Fixed Income Strategy service recently introduced a "Duration Checklist" designed to keep us focused on the most relevant factors while trying to sift out the signal from the noise (Table 1).1 These are the key economic and market indicators that we are watching to assess whether we should maintain our current below-benchmark portfolio stance. Naturally, leading and coincident indicators for global growth feature prominently in the top section of the Checklist (Chart 6). All four of these indicators appear to have topped out except the Global Leading Economic Indicator (GLEI), suggesting that the period of maximum growth acceleration has past. Nonetheless, all four are still consistent with robust growth for at least the near term. Table 1Stay Bearish On Treasuries & Bunds Chart 6Some Warning From Leading Indicators The rapid decline in the diffusion index, based on the 22 countries that comprise our GLEI, is concerning. The LEIs for two major economies and two emerging economies dipped slightly in February, such that roughly half of the country LEIs rose and half fell in the month. While it is too early to hit the panic button, the diffusion index is worth watching closely; a decline below 50 for several months would indicate that a peak in the GLEI is approaching. The remainder of the items on the checklist are related to growth, inflation pressure, central bank stance, investor risk-taking behavior and bond market technicals. We are focusing on the U.S. and Eurozone at the moment because we believe these two economies will be the main driver of global yields over the next 12 months. In the U.S., the Fed is tightening and market expectations are overly benign on the pace of rate hikes in the coming years. Upside pressure on global yields should intensify later this year, when the ECB announces the next "tapering" of its asset purchase program. All of the economic growth, inflation pressure and risk-seeking indicators on the Checklist warrant a check mark for the U.S., although this is not the case for the Eurozone inflation indicators. From a technical perspective, the Treasury and bund markets no longer appear as oversold as they did after the rapid run-up in yields following last November's U.S. elections. Large short positions have largely unwound. This removes one of the largest impediments to a renewed decline in global bond prices. For the U.S., we expect that the 10-year yield to rise to the upper end of the recent 2.3%-2.6% trading range in the next couple of months, before eventually breaking out on the way to the 2.8%-3% area by year-end. Bottom Line: A number of political pressure points and some modest U.S. data disappointments have triggered an unwinding of short bond positions. Nonetheless, the global manufacturing revival and growth impulse remain in place, and the majority of items on our Checklist suggest that the recent bond rally represents a consolidation phase rather than a trend reversal. Keep duration short of benchmark within fixed-income portfolios. Favor Stocks Over Junk Bonds Table 2A New Trend In Junk Vs. Stocks? We continue to favor U.S. equities over bonds in 2017 and recommend keeping duration short of benchmark. But what about U.S. equities versus high-yield bonds? As a reminder, favoring corporate bonds over equities was a long-running BCA theme during the early stages of the economic recovery.We noted that corporate bonds were likely to outperform equities in a prescient Special Report published in late-2008,2 and we continued to favor corporate bonds until late-2012 when we shifted towards strong dividend-paying stocks. Table 2 highlights that our corporate bond vs equity recommendations have worked out well over the past several years. The table presents the annual total return for the S&P 500 and high-yield corporate bonds (as well as the difference between the two), and it shows that the former underperformed the latter from 2008 to 2011 (and again in 2012 in risk-adjusted terms). However, stocks materially outperformed high-yield bonds from 2013-2015, which followed our recommendation to favor the S&P Dividend Aristocrats index over corporate bonds in our November 2012 Special Report.3 But Table 2 also shows that the trend of stock outperformance reversed last year, with high-yield bonds having somewhat outpaced the S&P 500 in total return terms. Does this imply that investors are witnessing the beginning of a new uptrend in corporate bond outperformance versus equities? In our view, the answer is 'no'. Chart 7 presents our simple framework for the relative performance of stocks vs high-yield corporate bonds, which suggests that investors should favor the former over the latter. Panel 1 highlights that the trend in stocks vs high-yield is generally the same as that vs 10-year Treasuries, with a few notable exceptions of sustained difference. The first exception was from 2002 to 2004, when stocks significantly outperformed government bonds but were flat vs high-yield. The second exception occurred during the early part of this expansion, which again saw high-yield corporate bonds post equity-like returns. Chart 7Major Valuation Advantage Needed For High-Yield To Outperform Stocks Panel 2 suggests that both of these circumstances were fueled by a substantial high-yield valuation advantage over stocks. The panel illustrates the gap between the speculative-grade corporate bond yield-to-worst and the S&P 500 12-month forward earnings yield, which was elevated and fell materially in both of the cases of sustained divergence shown in panel 1. The key point for investors is that last year's outperformance of junk bonds is unlikely to continue. While the compression of the junk/stock yield gap did lead the former to outperform last year, the gap was not high to begin with and is currently not that far away from its historical lows. This suggests that there is no reason to expect the stock/junk relative performance trend to deviate from the overall stock/government bond trend, which we expect to rise further over the coming 6-12 months. Bottom Line: Despite outsized performance from high-yield corporate bonds in 2016, investors should continue to favor stocks over high-yield over the coming year (but favor both over Treasuries and cash). Introducing The BCA Beige Book Monitor Chart 8BCA Beige Book Monitor: ##br##A "Hard" Look At "Soft" Data The Fed's Beige Book is released eight times a year, two weeks ahead of each FOMC meeting. It was first released in 1983. The Beige Book's predecessor was the Red Book, first produced in 1970. The Beige Book itself got a makeover from the Fed in early 2017. The Fed changed the way the information was presented across the 12 Fed districts, but, according to the Fed, the Beige Book will continue to provide "an up-to-date depiction of regional economic conditions based on anecdotal information gathered from a diverse range of business and community contacts." In addition to the Beige Book, FOMC officials also review what is now known as the "Teal Book" at each meeting. The Teal Book combined the "Green Book" - a review of current economic and financial conditions - and the "Blue Book"- which provided context for FOMC members on monetary policy actions. As noted in the Fed's own description, the Beige Book is "soft data". In discussing the Beige Book, the financial press often notes the number of districts where growth is expanding and contracting or describes the pace of overall activity (modest, moderate etc). The BCA Beige Book Monitor takes a more quantitative approach to all the qualitative data in the Beige Book. We began by searching the document for all the words we could think of that signify strength: Strong, strength, rise, increase, accelerate, fast, expand, advance, positive, robust, optimistic, up, etc. We then counted up all the words that denote weakness: Weak, fell, slow, decelerate, decrease, decline, soft, negative, pessimistic, down, contract, etc. Next, we subtracted the number of weak words from the strong words to calculate the BCA Beige Book Monitor. The Monitor begins in 2005, so it covers the time period from the middle of the 2001-2007 expansion, through the Great Recession (2007-2009) and the recovery since 2009. A more streamlined approach, using the words "strong" and "strength" (and their derivatives like stronger, strengthened, etc) as proxy for all the strong words and the word "weak" as a proxy for all the weak words, showed the same results. We adopted this simpler approach. Chart 8, panels 1 and 2, shows the BCA Beige Book Monitor versus real GDP and CEO Confidence. The BCA Beige Book monitor does a good job explaining GDP, but it is more timely. The Monitor leads CEO confidence, especially around turning points. We intend to do more work with the Beige Book Monitor and present it to you in future editions of this publication. We also track mentions of other key words in the Beige Book. For example changes in mentions of "inflation" words in the Beige book track, and sometimes lead, core inflation (Panel 3). Mentions of the "strong dollar" track the dollar itself, although tends to be lagging (Panel 4). We'll be watching for those inflation words and mentions of the dollar in the Beige Book this week. The Beige Book will also help to shed some qualitative light on the recent weakness in capital spending and C&I loans. Has the uncertainty about the timing, scope and scale of Trump's legislative agenda (taxes, infrastructure and the repeal of Obamacare, etc) had an impact on corporate spending or borrowing? We'll find out this week. Bottom Line: Although technically it is "soft" data, the Beige Book is a major input on monetary policy decision making for the FOMC. As we showed last week, the rise in "inflation" words in the Beige Book has certainly captured the Fed's attention, and confirms the "hard" we've seen on inflation. The next FOMC meeting is on May 2-3, and neither we nor the consensus expects a hike at that meeting. Despite the apparent flare-up in geopolitics last week and the run of disappointing economic data, we continue to expect the Fed to raise rates 2 more times in 2017. John Canally, CFA, Senior Vice President U.S. Investment Strategy johnc@bcaresearch.com Mark McClellan, Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst markm@bcaresearch.com Jonathan LaBerge Vice President, Special Reports jonathanl@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report, "A Duration Checklist For U.S. Treasurys And German Bunds," dated February 15, 2017, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "Value And The Cycle Favor Corporate Debt Over Equities," dated November 14, 2008, available at gis.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see U.S. Investment Strategy Special Report, "The Search For Yield Continues: Aristocrats Or High Yield?" dated November 5, 2012, available at usis.bcaresearch.com

Highlights Despite President Trump's consternation, the dollar bull market will persist. The euro will reach parity against the greenback by the end of this year. The Fed will deliver more tightening over the next 12 months than the market is expecting, while the ECB will deliver less. The fact that U.S. Treasury-German bund spreads are near record-high levels will not prevent the euro from weakening further. About half of the Treasury-bund spread can be explained by two factors: 1) lower inflation expectations in the euro area; and 2) the hedge that bunds provide against redenomination risk in the event of a breakup of the common currency. The rest can be mostly explained by the fact that the euro area is still well behind the U.S. in its cyclical recovery. It is not the absolute level of interest rate spreads that matters for investors, but how spreads evolve relative to market expectations. The market is already pricing in a substantial amount of spread narrowing over the coming years. Investors expect real rates to be only 17 basis points higher in the U.S. than in the euro area in five years' time. This seems too low to us. Feature Can't Trump The Dollar After an impressive rally from its late-March lows, the dollar hit a roadblock on Wednesday following Trump's remarks on the currency. "I think our dollar is getting too strong," the President said, adding in typical Trumpian style, "and partially that's my fault because people have confidence in me." He went on to say that he prefers that the Fed keep interest rates low. We doubt that Trump will get his wish. If anything, with the Federal Reserve's independence under fire from Republicans in Congress, Fed officials could subconsciously react to Trump's rhetoric by accelerating the pace of rate hikes. Janet Yellen turned 70 last year and she would rather go out in style after serving one term as Fed chair than be perceived as doing Trump's bidding. Soft Versus Hard Data Chart 1U.S. Growth: Broader 'Nowcasts' ##br##Painting A More Flattering Picture Of course, the Fed's ability to keep hiking rates is contingent on growth holding up. As discussed in our Q2 Strategy Outlook, while we are worried that growth may disappoint towards the end of 2018, the next 12 months still look reasonably solid.1 Granted, the Atlanta Fed's widely-watched GDP model is pointing to growth of only 0.6% in Q1. However, we would discount this and other narrow tracking estimates, given that the so-called "nowcasts" - which use a broader array of data - paint a much more flattering picture (Chart 1). Some commentators have expressed concern that the nowcasts are being contaminated by "soft data" derived from surveys, which are sending much more bullish signals than the "hard data" published by government statistical agencies. We are less worried about this issue. For one thing, the soft data generally leads the hard data, so some divergence during periods of accelerating growth is not unusual. Second, survey data tends not to be revised, whereas the hard data often is. This is especially important at present because of question marks over seasonal adjustments to Q1 data, which by some calculations are biasing down growth by around one percentage point. Third, the soft data is more consistent with what we are seeing in the labor market. Despite a weak weather-distorted March payrolls report, the overall tone of the labor market data has been positive, as evidenced by near record-low levels of unemployment claims, a rising job openings rate, and ongoing improvement in the Conference Board's perception of job availability measure. Aggregate hours worked still managed to increase by 1.5% at an annualized rate in Q1. If GDP growth was barely above zero as the Atlanta Fed's model suggests, this would imply an outright decline in the level of labor productivity. Even in a world where structural productivity growth is lower than it was in the past, this strikes us as rather implausible. ECB: Doves Are Still In Control There is no denying that economic data from the euro area has been strong this year (Chart 2). The composite PMI stood just shy of a 6-year high in March. Capital goods orders are in a clear uptrend, which bodes well for investment spending over the coming months. Private-sector credit growth reached 2.5% earlier this year, the fastest pace since July 2009. A further acceleration is probable over the coming months, given rising business confidence, firm loan demand, and declining nonperforming loans (Chart 3). Chart 2The Euro Area Economy Will Continue To Recover Chart 3Euro Area: Credit Growth Should Accelerate Despite the bevy of good news, the ECB is in no rush to tighten monetary policy. Yes, the central bank did announce a one-off decrease in the size of its asset purchases in December, and will likely do so again in early 2018. However, Mario Draghi has made it clear that he will not raise rates until well after all asset purchases have been completed, which probably won't be until late 2019 at the earliest. The ECB's dovish bias is understandable. While the regionwide unemployment rate is falling, it is still 2% above pre-crisis lows (Chart 4). In Spain and Italy, the unemployment rate stands at 18% and 11.5%, respectively, up from 7.9% and 5.7%. Meanwhile, core inflation is still squarely below the ECB's 2% target and sluggish wage growth across most of the region suggests that this will remain the case for the foreseeable future (Chart 5). Chart 4The ECB's Dovishness Is Merited... Chart 5...Especially Given The Muted Inflation Backdrop Peering Through The Treasury-Bund Spread The usual rejoinder is that all this has been priced into the market. We disagree. The market is currently pricing in less than two Fed rate hikes over the next 12 months. In contrast, we expect the Fed to raise rates three or four times over this period. The FOMC is also likely to announce in December that it will allow the size of its balance sheet to shrink as maturing assets roll off. This could put some upward pressure on the term premium. On the flipside, the months-to-hike measure for the ECB has fallen from 60 last summer to only 30 today. We doubt it will go much lower. What about the fact that Treasury-bund spreads stand close to record-high levels? Doesn't that severely limit the downside for EUR/USD? The answer is no. First, one should ideally compare the U.S. Treasury yield with the composite euro area bond yield rather than the bund yield, since the former is what the ECB ultimately cares most about. Chart 6 shows that the GDP-weighted average of 5-year bond yields in Germany, France, the Netherlands, Belgium, Austria, Italy, and Spain currently stands 55 basis points above comparable bund yields. Second, it is not the absolute level of interest rate spreads that matters for investors, but how spreads evolve relative to market expectations. The euro area is still well behind the U.S. in its cyclical recovery. As such, the 5-year U.S.-euro area spread is currently 173 basis points. However, the 5-year, 5-year forward spread - the spread that investors expect to see in five years' time - is only 92 basis points (Chart 7). This means that investors expect the 5-year spread to fall by 81 basis points over the next half-decade as the business cycles in the two regions converge. Chart 6Bund Yields Remain Below Euro Area Peers Chart 7The Vanishing Transatlantic Bond Spread Third, both theory and evidence say that real interest rate differentials are what drive currencies. Investors have long believed that inflation is likely to be structurally lower in the euro area than the U.S. This is underscored by the fact that the CPI swaps market is signaling that inflation will be 0.8% points higher in the latter five years from now. If inflation evolves the way the market expects, U.S. real 5-year yields will be a mere 17 basis points higher than in the euro area in 2022 (Chart 8). This gap does not strike us as being particularly large. Chart 8AU.S. And Euro Area Bond Yields: A Nuanced Picture Chart 8BU.S. And Euro Area Bond Yields: A Nuanced Picture We can debate how low the neutral real rate is in the U.S., but whatever it is there, it is likely that it is even lower in the euro area, given the region's worse demographics and higher debt burdens. The anti-growth features of the common currency - namely, the inability to devalue one's currency in response to an adverse economic shock, as well as the austerity bias that comes from not having a central bank that can act as a lender of last resort to solvent but illiquid governments - also imply a lower neutral rate. This brings us back to Trump's rhetoric. If the neutral rate is lower in the euro area than it is in the U.S., any effort to weaken the dollar is bound to backfire. If the Fed raises rates too slowly, the economy could overheat, leading to higher inflation and the need for a sharp increase in rates later on. On the flipside, if the ECB raises rates too quickly, deflationary forces could set in, forcing it to reverse course. Central banks have firm control over many things, but the neutral rate of interest is not one of them.2 As such, we expect real U.S.-euro area spreads to widen over the coming months, which should help push EUR/USD to parity by the end of this year. Peter Berezin, Senior Vice President Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Global Investment Strategy, "Strategy Outlook: Second Quarter 2017: A Three-Act Play," dated March 31, 2017, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Plaza Accord 2.0: Unnecessary, Unfeasible, And Unlikely," dated February 10, 2017, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. Strategy & Market Trends Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

Highlights An investment's long-term attractiveness depends on the trade-off between its expected long-term return and its risk of suffering an intermediate loss. On this risk-adjusted basis: Bonds are now less ugly than equities. U.S. T-bonds are more attractive than the average euro area government bond. European equities and U.S. equities are fairly valued against each other... ...but European equities can outperform when euro breakup risk eventually fades. Feature The English poet Samuel Taylor Coleridge coined the term "willing suspension of disbelief" in his Biographia Literaria published in 1817. It describes the sacrifice of reason and logic to believe the unbelievable. Coleridge suggested that if he could instil a "semblance of truth" into a fantastic tale, the reader would suspend judgement about the implausibility of the narrative in order to enjoy it. Today, it feels like financial market prices are relying on the willing suspension of disbelief. At our client meetings, almost everybody disbelieves that current valuations allow developed market equities to generate attractive long-term returns. Yet many investors are willing to suspend this disbelief, at least for the time being. Our own return forecasts justify the disbelief (Chart I-2). In Outlook 2017, Shifting Regimes,1 my colleague and BCA Chief Economist, Martin Barnes, published our long-term nominal return forecasts for the major asset classes. Allowing for market moves since publication, four of those 10-year annualised total returns2 now stand at: Chart I-2Valuation Drives Long-Term Returns European equities3 5.0% U.S. equities4 3.2% U.S. 10-year T-bond 2.3% Euro area 10-year sovereign bond5 1.2% With annual inflation expected at 2%, these numbers imply paltry real returns from mainstream investments over the coming decade. Still, in terms of ranking relative attractiveness, it might appear reasonable to follow the sequence of returns:6 European equities; U.S. equities; the U.S. 10-year T-bond; and then the euro area 10-year sovereign bond. But that sequence would be wrong - at least in the medium term. The key point is that the four investments are not equally risky. For a riskier asset, investors should expect today's price to generate a higher long-term return as compensation for the extra risk of intermediate loss. Put another way, a risky asset must offer a higher long-term return than a less risky asset for an investor to be indifferent between them. If it doesn't, the danger is that the price will adjust (down) at some point until it does. European Equity Valuations Must Allow For Euro Breakup Risk Consider European equities versus U.S. equities. The sovereign bond market is discounting a 5% annual risk of euro break-up (Chart I-3). This shows up as a discount on German bund yields, because in that tail-event a new deutschmark would rise; and a symmetrical premium on Italian BTP yields, because a new lira would fall. But for the aggregate euro area bond, the risk largely cancels out because intra-euro currency redenomination would be zero sum (Chart I-4). Unfortunately, for the aggregate European stock market, the risk does not cancel out. If the euro broke up, European equities would suffer a much greater drawdown than other markets. Recall that at the peak of the euro debt crisis in 2011, the Eurostoxx600 underperformed the S&P500 by 25% in one year (Chart I-5). In an outright break-up, the underperformance would almost certainly be worse, let's conservatively say 30%. So assuming a 5% annual risk, European equities must compensate with a valuation discount which allows a 1.5% excess annual return over U.S. equities. Chart I-3The Bond Market Is Discounting##br## A 5% Risk Of Euro Breakup... Chart I-4...Based On The Sovereign Yield Spread##br## Between Italy And Germany Chart I-5In The Euro Crisis, The Eurostoxx ##br##Underperformed By 25% There is also the issue of the post-2016 bailout rules for European banks. At a stroke, the Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive (BRRD) has made European bank equity investment more risky. In the event of a bank failure, investors must now suffer the first losses - including full wipe-out - before governments can step in. Combining this with the risk of euro breakup, the 1.8% excess annual return that we expect from the Eurostoxx600 versus the S&P500 makes European equity valuations look fair, rather than attractive, on a relative risk-adjusted basis. That said, the good news is that if the risk of euro area breakup gradually fades, it would permit a healthy re-rating of the Eurostoxx600 versus the S&P500. For example, if the annual risk of breakup declined from 5% to 1%, it would equate to a 12% outperformance. But as the greatest political risk to the euro now emanates from Italy - and not the upcoming French Presidential Election - we recommend playing this re-rating opportunity closer to, or after, Italy's next general election.7 Equity Valuations Reliant On "Willing Suspension Of Disbelief" Now consider equities versus bonds. An expected 3.2% annual return from the S&P500 versus a 2.3% 10-year T-bond yield implies an ex-ante 10-year equity risk premium (ERP) of just 0.9% (Chart I-6). This is significantly lower than the 135-year average of 5% and even the post war average of 2.5%8 (Chart of the Week). Chart of the WeekThe Ex-Ante Equity Risk Premium Is Close To Zero Chart I-6In The U.S., The Expected 10-Year Return From Equities And Bonds Is Now Almost The Same What can justify the "willing suspension of disbelief" that permits today's abnormally low ERP? There are three arguments. All have Coleridge's "semblance of truth" but are ultimately flawed. Chart I-7In The 1970s Inflation Scare, Equities##br## Suffered Much More Than Bonds First, it is argued that the ERP should be low because bonds have become more risky. With 10-year bond yields so low, bond prices have limited upside but substantial downside. The problem with this argument is that equities are a much longer duration asset than a 10-year bond, so if inflation did take hold, equities would suffer the much greater drawdown - as they did in the 1970s (Chart I-7). Another counterargument is that bond yields have been this low on previous occasions in the past 135 years, but on those previous occasions the ex-ante ERP was not as depressed as it is today. Second, it is argued that the ERP should be low because central banks now have a tried and tested weapon - QE - which they can pull out at the slightest sign of trouble. Empirically, it might be true that QE did compress the ERP. But theoretically, it shouldn't. Even Ben Bernanke told us at our 2015 New York Conference that QE is nothing more than a signalling mechanism for interest rate policy. So it works by compressing bond yields rather than the ERP. In this sense, justifying a low ERP with QE is a worry rather than a hope. Third, and most recently, it is argued that the surprise arrival of the Trump administration is a game changer for investments - structurally positive for equities, structurally negative for bonds. The jury is out on this. But given the speed of market moves, our sense is that is the hope of fast-moving momentum traders. Slow-moving value investors are still on the side lines, waiting to see what - if anything - will really change. Mr. Market Is Little Short Of Silly In his 1949 seminal work, The Intelligent Investor Benjamin Graham, the grandfather of value investing, introduced us to a whimsical character called Mr. Market. Every day, Mr. Market quotes a price for your investments, at which you can buy or sell. Sometimes, Mr. Market's idea of value seems plausible. At other times: "Mr. Market lets his enthusiasm or his fears run away with him, and the value he proposes seems to you little short of silly." The point of Graham's allegory is that investors should not cheerlead the market come what may. Mr. Market will not always quote you an attractive price; sometimes he will quote you a very unattractive price (Chart I-8). Chart I-8Mr. Market Will Not Always Quote You An Attractive Price "At which the long-term investor certainly should refrain from buying and probably would be wise to sell." Today, when we see the ugly long-term returns offered by Mr. Market and we risk-adjust for potential drawdowns, we conclude: Bonds are now less ugly than equities. U.S. T-bonds are more attractive than the average euro area government bond. European equities and U.S. equities are fairly valued against each other, but European equities can outperform when euro breakup risk eventually fades. Dhaval Joshi, Senior Vice President European Investment Strategy dhaval@bcaresearch.com 1 Published on December 20, 2016 and available at www.bcaresearch.com 2 Nominal local currency returns including income. 3 Outlook 2017 showed "Other (non-U.S.) developed equities" but this aligns with our forecast for European equities. 4 Since Outlook 2017 was published, equity markets are up around 5%. So 10-year return forecasts have been reduced by around (5/10) = 0.5%. 5 Euro area weighted average 10-year yield weighted by sovereign issue size. 6 This assumes investors can cheaply hedge currency exposure, as is the case now. 7 Please see the Geopolitical Strategy Service Weekly Report titled "Political Risks Are Understated In 2018", dated April 12, 2017 and available at gps.bcaresearch.com 8 In this report we define the ex-ante ERP at any point in time as the Shiller P/E's implied prospective 10-year equity return (see Chart 8) less the 10-year bond yield. Fractal Trading Model* This week's trade is to go long the sugar number 11 futures contract on the NYB-ICE exchange, with a profit target of 7%. Alternatively, a more hedged position is long sugar / short aluminium with a profit target of 10%. 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-9 Chart I-10 * For more details please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report "Fractals, Liquidity & A Trading Model," dated December 11, 2014, available at eis.bcaresearch.com The post-June 9, 2016 fractal trading model rules are: When the fractal dimension approaches the lower limit after an investment has been in an established trend it is a potential trigger for a liquidity-triggered trend reversal. Therefore, open a countertrend position. The profit target is a one-third reversal of the preceding 13-week move. Apply a symmetrical stop-loss. Close the position at the profit target or stop-loss. Otherwise close the position after 13 weeks. Use the position size multiple to control risk. The position size will be smaller for more risky positions. Fractal Trading Model Recommendations Equities Bond & Interest Rates Currency & Other Positions Closed Fractal Trades Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Interest Rate Chart II-5Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations

Highlights High Conviction Views: The global cyclical backdrop remains negative for government bond markets, and the recent declines in yields will not be sustained. We continue to recommend a below-benchmark overall duration stance, favoring U.S. corporate debt with underweight exposures to U.S. Treasuries and Italian government debt, as our highest conviction views. Medium Conviction Views: Staying overweight global inflation protection, French government bonds versus Germany, and Japanese Government Bonds (JGBs) versus the rest of the developed bond markets, while remaining underweight U.S. Mortgage Backed Securities, are recommendations that we hold with a more moderate conviction level. Euro Area Bond Distortions: The ECB's negative interest rate and asset purchase programs have created significant distortions in the German bond yield curve that are not as evident in the Euro Area swap rate curve, especially at shorter maturities. ECB tapering will be the trigger for a reversal of these trends. Feature Chart of the WeekWhy Are Yields Falling? After publishing two Special Reports in the past two weeks, this Weekly Report is our first opportunity to comment on the markets in April. We find it somewhat surprising that government bonds in the developed world have rallied as much as they have since the most recent peak last month, with the benchmark 10-year U.S. Treasury and German Bund seeing yield declines of -29bps and -22bps, respectively. Most of the move in Treasuries has been in the real yield component, while Bunds have seen a more even split between declines in real yields and inflation expectations. This has occurred despite minimal changes in actual growth or inflation pressures in either the U.S. or Europe (Chart of the Week). The price action in the Treasury market after last week's U.S. Payrolls report is a sign that the bond backdrop remains bearish. Yields initially fell all the way to 2.26% after the March increase in jobs fell short of expectations, before subsequently rebounding sharply to end the day at 2.38%. While intraday yield reversals on Payrolls Fridays are as typical as the sun setting in the west, a 12bp swing is one of the larger ones in recent memory (perhaps because investors eventually noticed the weather-related distortions in the data or, more importantly, that the U.S. unemployment rate had fallen to 4.5%). We continue to favor a pro-growth bias for bond investors, staying below-benchmark on overall duration and selectively overweight on corporate credit (favoring the U.S.). Ranking Our Current Market Views, By Conviction We have seen little in the economic data over the past few weeks to change our main strategic market views and portfolio recommendations. We summarize our main opinions below, ranked in order of our conviction level: Highest conviction views: Below-benchmark on overall portfolio duration exposure (for dedicated bond investors). Global bond yields have more room to rise alongside solid economic growth, tightening labor markets, inflation expectations drifting higher and central banks moving to slightly less accommodative monetary policies, on the margin. While the sharp upward momentum in coincident bond indicators like the global ZEW sentiment index has cooled of late, the solid upturn in the BCA Global Leading Economic Indicator continues to point to future upward pressure on real yields (Chart 2). The recent pullback in yields also appears to have run too far versus the trend in global data surprises, which remain elevated (bottom panel). One factor that we see having a potentially huge negative impact on global bond markets is the European Central Bank (ECB) announcing a move to a less accommodative policy stance later this year. A taper of asset purchases starting in 2018 is the more likely outcome than any hike in policy interest rates, which we see as more of a story for 2019. This should help push longer-dated bond yields higher within the Euro Area, and drag up global bond yields more generally. Underweight U.S. Treasuries. We still expect the Fed to deliver at least two more hikes this year, and there is still room for U.S. inflation expectations to rise further and put bear-steepening pressure on the Treasury curve. Our two-factor model for the benchmark 10-year Treasury yield, which uses the global purchasing managers index (PMI) and investor sentiment towards the U.S. dollar as the explanatory variables, indicates that yields are now about 18bps below fair value. From a technical perspective, the Treasury market no longer appears as oversold as it did after the rapid run-up in yields following last November's U.S. elections. The large short positions indicated by the J.P. Morgan duration survey and the Commitment of Traders report for Treasury futures have largely been unwound, while price momentum has flipped into positive territory (Chart 3). This removes one of the largest impediments to a renewed decline in Treasury prices, and we expect that the 10-year yield to rise to the upper end of the recent 2.30%-2.60% trading range in the next couple of months, before eventually breaking out on the way to the 2.80%-3% area by year-end. Chart 2Maintain A Defensive Duration Posture Chart 3Stay Underweight U.S. Treasuries Underweight Italian government bonds, versus both Germany and Spain. Italian government debt continues to suffer from the toxic combination of sluggish growth and weak domestic banks. The OECD leading economic indicator for Italy is declining, in contrast to the stable-to-rising trends in Germany and Spain (Chart 4). Meanwhile, the 5-year credit default swaps (CDS) for the major banks in Italy remain elevated around 400bps, in sharp contrast to the declining CDS in Germany and Spain which are now at 100bps. It is no coincidence that the widening trend in Italy-Germany and Italy-Spain spreads began around the same time last year that Italian bank CDS started to disengage from the rest of Europe (bottom panel). Markets understand that the undercapitalized Italian banking system will need government assistance at some point, which will add to the Italian government's already huge debt/GDP ratio of 133%. Political uncertainty in Italy, with parliamentary elections due by the spring of 2018 and populist parties like the anti-euro Five-Star Alliance holding up well in the polls, will also ensure that the risk premium on Italian bonds stays wide both in absolute terms and relative to other Peripheral European markets. Overweight U.S. corporate bonds, versus both U.S. Treasuries and Euro Area equivalents. The positive case for U.S. corporate debt is built upon two factors - the cyclical decline in default risk and the marginal improvement in balance sheet metrics. The latest estimates from Moody's are calling for a decline in the U.S. speculative grade corporate default rate to 3.1% this year. This leaves our measure of default-adjusted spreads in U.S. high-yield at levels that our colleagues at our sister publication, U.S. Bond Strategy, have shown to have a high probability of delivering positive excess returns over Treasuries in the next 12 months.1 Add to that the recent change in trend of our U.S. Corporate Health Monitor (CHM), which appears largely driven by some more positive numbers coming from lower-rated issuers in the Energy space given the recovery in oil prices, and the optimistic case for U.S. corporate debt is compelling. This is in contrast to our Euro Area CHM, which shows that the improving trend in balance sheet metrics has stalled of late (Chart 5, top panel). Chart 4Stay Underweight Italy Chart 5Stay Overweight U.S. Corporates vs Europe The difference between the U.S. and European CHMs has proven to be a good directional indicator for the relative return performance between the two markets, and is currently pointing to continued outperformance of both U.S. investment grade and high-yield debt versus European equivalents (bottom two panels). The threat of an ECB taper also hangs over the Euro Area investment grade corporate bond market, given the large buying of that debt by the central bank over the past year that has helped dampen both yields and spreads. Chart 6Stay Overweight Inflation Protection Medium-conviction views: Overweight inflation protection (both inflation-linked bonds and CPI swaps) in the U.S., Euro Area and Japan. In the U.S., the breakeven inflation rate on 10-year TIPS looks a bit too wide relative to our shorter-term model based on financial variables. However, underlying U.S. inflation pressures remain strong (Chart 6, top panel), particularly given the evidence that conditions in the labor market are getting progressively tighter. We expect inflation expectations to eventually rise back to levels consistent with the Fed's 2% inflation target on headline PCE inflation (which is around 2.5% on 10-year TIPS breakevens that are priced off the CPI index). The reflation story is somewhat less compelling in Europe and Japan, although CPI swaps are now at levels consistent with the underlying trends in realized inflation in both regions (bottom two panels). We continue to view long positions in CPI swaps in Europe and Japan as having a positive risk/reward skew given the tightening labor market in the former and the yen-negative monetary policies in the latter. Long France government bonds (10yr OATs) versus Germany (10yr Bunds). This is purely a call on the upcoming French election, which our political strategists believe will not end in a victory for the populist Marine Le Pen. While Le Pen has seen a recent bump in support heading into the first round of voting on April 23rd, her strong anti-euro position will eventually prove to be her undoing in the run-off election on May 7th (Chart 7). We first made this recommendation back in early February, and even though France-Germany spreads have been volatile since then as both Le Pen and the far-left candidate Jean-Luc Melenchon have seen a pickup in their poll numbers, the yield differentials are essentially at the same levels.2 We take this as a sign that the market believes current spreads are enough to compensate for the likely probability that either candidate could win the French presidency. Overweight JGBs Vs. the Global Treasury index. The argument here is a simple one - in an environment where there is cyclical upward pressure on global bond yields, favor the lowest-beta bond market (Chart 8). Persistently low inflation will prevent the Bank of Japan (BoJ) from making any changes to its current hyper-accommodative policies this year, especially the 0% cap on the benchmark 10-year JGB yield.3 The lack of yield limits the prospects for JGBs on a total return basis, but relative to other government bond markets, JGBs should outperform over the next 6-12 months as non-Japanese yields rise further. Chart 7Stay Overweight France Vs Germany Chart 8Stay Overweight Low-Beta JGBs Underweight U.S. Agency Mortgage-Backed Securities (MBS). Investors should remain underweight U.S. MBS, as spreads remain tight by historical standards. Our colleagues at U.S. Bond Strategy note that nominal MBS spreads have been flat in recent weeks as the option cost, which is the compensation for expected prepayments, has tightened to offset a widening in the option-adjusted spread (OAS).4 Chart 9Stay Underweight U.S. MBS We tend to think of the OAS as being influenced by trends in net issuance while the option cost is linked to mortgage prepayments (Chart 9). Looking ahead, the supply of MBS should increase further when the Fed starts to shrink its balance sheet later this year (as was mentioned in the minutes of the March FOMC meeting that were released last week), leading to a wider OAS. At the same time, refinancing applications should stay low as Treasury yields and mortgage rates rise. This will keep downward pressure on the option cost component of spreads. But with the option cost already near its historical lows, it is unlikely to completely offset the widening in OAS going forward. We see little value in U.S. MBS at current spread levels. Bottom Line: The global cyclical backdrop remains negative for government bond markets, and the recent declines in yields will not be sustained. We continue to recommend a below-benchmark overall duration stance, favoring U.S. corporate debt with underweight exposures to U.S. Treasuries and Italian government debt, as our highest conviction views. Staying overweight global inflation protection, French government bonds versus Germany, and Japanese Government Bonds (JGBs) versus the rest of the developed bond markets, while remaining underweight U.S. Mortgage Backed Securities, are recommendations that we hold with a more moderate conviction level. How Much Has The ECB Distorted The European Bond Market? Last week, Benoit Coeure of the ECB Executive Board gave a speech entitled "Bond Scarcity and the ECB Asset Purchase Program."5 That title piqued our interest, as that exact topic has come up in several of our conversations with clients this year. In his speech, Coeure discussed how the huge rally at the short-end of the German government bond curve over the past year has been at odds with what has occurred in the Euro swap curve, where interest rates are much higher for shorter-maturity swaps. Typically, German yields and Euro swap rates move in tandem, with the only differences being a function of technical factors like fixed-rate corporate debt issuance or government bond repo rates - and, on occasion, shifts in the perceived health of Euro Area banks that are the counterparties to any interest rate swap. The latter has become much less of an issue in recent years given the regulatory changes to the swap market, where trading has moved to centralized exchanges to reduce counterparty risks. In this environment, the difference between German bond yields and Euro swap rates, a.k.a the swap spread, should be relatively modest. Yet as can be seen in Chart 10, there has been a notable divergence at the shorter-maturity portions of the respective yield curves, where swap rates are rising but bond yields remain subdued. We can also see the divergences in the slopes of the relative yield curves, with the Euro Area swap curve much flatter than the German bond curve, particularly at longer maturities (Chart 11). Chart 10Large Distortions At The Front End Of The German Curve Chart 11Euro Area Swap Curves Are Generally Flatter Coeure argued that part of this distortion can be attributed to ECB asset purchases, especially after the decision taken last December to allow bond buying at yields below the -0.4% ECB deposit rate. This created a more favorable demand/supply balance for German debt, especially given the dearth of short-dated issuance. In addition, Coeure noted that there have been substantial safe-haven flows into shorter-dated German bonds (including treasury bills) by non-Euro Area entities. Some of this demand comes from large institutional investors like sovereign wealth funds and currency reserve managers, who are worried about political risks in France and Italy, and about the general rising trend in global bond yields, and are thus seeking the safety of low duration German debt. But some of the demand for short-dated German paper also comes from non-Euro Area banks, who have excess liquidity that needs to be parked in Euros but do not have access to the ECB deposit facility for the excess reserves of Euro Area banks. We can see this in Chart 12, which shows ECB data for the relative government bond ownership trends for Germany, France and Italy. The data is broken into holdings for bonds with maturities of one year or less (short-term) and bonds with maturities greater than one year (long-term). It is clear that the non-Euro area buyers own a much larger share of short-term German paper, around 90%, than in France and Italy, while Euro Area entities own nearly 80% of long-term bonds in all three countries. Coeure is correct in pointing out that there is an excess demand condition for short-dated core European debt, exacerbated by foreigners who need Euro-denominated safe assets - particularly GERMAN safe assets, if those investors are at all worried about redenomination risks given the rise of anti-euro populist parties in Europe.6 It is clear that the economic messages sent by looking at the German bond and Euro swap curves are very different. The flatter swap curve is more consistent with a steadily growing Euro Area economy where economic slack is being steadily absorbed and inflation pressures are building (albeit slowly). Also, the sovereign spread differentials within Europe do not look as problematic using swaps as the reference rate rather than German bonds. That is the case in France, where spreads versus swaps look in line with the averages of the past few years (Chart 13). This contrasts with the yield differentials versus Germany, which have reportedly gone up as investors have priced in a higher sovereign risk premium before the French presidential election. Chart 12French Bond Valuations Look More Subdued vs Swaps Chart 13French Bond Valuations Look More Subdued vs Swaps The story is a little different for Italy, where bond spreads versus both German bonds and Euro Area swaps have risen for all but the shortest maturities (Chart 14). This could be consistent with an interpretation that Italy's banking sector woes will add to the nation's longer-term fiscal stresses (as discussed earlier in this report), but not in a way that raises immediate default risks (which is why the 2-year Italy vs swap spread is well-behaved). Regardless of the "bias of interpretation", one thing that is clear is that the ECB's extraordinary monetary policies have created distortions in Euro Area bond markets. These may start to unwind, though, if the ECB begins to signal a shift towards a tapering of asset purchases next year, as we expect. The distortions in Euro area government bond yields (and, by association, swap spreads) have occurred alongside both the cuts in ECB policy rates into negative territory and the expansion of its balance sheet to purchase government bonds (Chart 15). As the ECB moves incrementally towards less accommodative monetary policy, we would expect to see front-end Euro swap spreads narrow in absolute terms and relative to longer-tenor spreads, and the German bond curve to flatten toward levels seen in the swap curve. Chart 14Only Short-Dated Italian Bond Valuations Look More Subdued vs Swaps Chart 15ECB Policies Have Caused The Distortions In Euro Swap Spreads Bottom Line: The ECB's negative interest rate and asset purchase programs have created significant distortions in the German bond yield curve that are not as evident in the Euro Area swap rate curve, especially at shorter maturities. ECB tapering will be the trigger for a reversal of these trends. Robert Robis, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Buy The Back-Up In Junk Spreads", dated March 14, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report, "Our Views On French Government Bonds", dated February 7, 2017, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "Staying Behind The Curve, For Now", dated March 21, 2017, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see BCA U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "The Payback Period In Corporate Bonds", dated April 11, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 5 http://www.ecb.europa.eu/press/key/date/2017/html/sp170403_1.en.html 6 Coeure noted that, at the time that the ECB began its asset purchase program in March 2015, the share of German bonds of less than TWO years maturity held by foreigners was 70%, but that rose to 90% by the 3rd quarter of 2016. The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Recommendations Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Highlights Duration: Bond market positioning is no longer at a bearish extreme and the economy is quickly approaching full employment. We expect Treasury yields will soon break through the upside of their post-election trading range. Maintain below-benchmark duration. Fed's Balance Sheet: The unwinding of the Fed's balance sheet is only important for Treasury yields if it impacts the market's rate hike expectations. However, the extra supply of MBS should lead to wider MBS spreads. Credit Cycle: Corporate spreads are in a "payback period" from 2014's energy shock that will allow them to tighten as corporate profits rebound, even though corporate leverage continues to trend higher. The weakening state of corporate balance sheets means spreads are at risk once monetary policy turns less accommodative. Feature The bond bear market has been on pause for the past few months, with Treasury yields confined to a trading range since last November's post-election sell off. While yields have not moved meaningfully higher during this time, firm floors have also formed beneath both the 5-year and 10-year yields (Chart 1). Even after last Friday's disappointing payrolls number, the 10-year did not move below 2.3% and the 5-year did not move below 1.8%. Trading Range About To Break? Our sense is that the current consolidation phase in Treasuries is approaching its end and yields will soon head higher. Global growth indicators have continued to improve during the past few months, and as we noted in last week's report,1 our 2-factor Treasury model, based on Global PMI and U.S. dollar sentiment, pegs fair value for the 10-year yield at 2.54%. We attribute the recent leveling-off in yields to technical shifts in bond positioning and sentiment. Earlier this year, net positions in Treasury futures and asset manager duration allocations were deep in "net short" territory (Chart 2). Extreme short positioning usually leads to a period of bond market strength until short positions are washed out. Now that bond market positioning is closer to neutral, a key impediment to further yield increases has been removed. Chart 1Poised For A Breakout? Chart 2Positioning Has Normalized The elevated level of economic surprises has also been flagged as a potential roadblock to the bond bear market. Extended readings from the economic surprise index tend to mean revert as investor expectations are revised higher in the face of improving data. However, our research suggests that the change in Treasury yields tends to lead the economic surprise index by 1-2 months (Chart 2, bottom panel). Given this relationship, we suspect that the bond market has already discounted a lot of mean reversion in the economic surprise index. Chart 3Approaching Full Employment Finally, last week's employment report should not be taken as a signal that U.S. economic growth is weakening. Bad weather in the northeast played a key role in the low March payrolls number - only 98k jobs added. But more importantly, at this stage of the cycle we should expect payroll growth to slow and wage pressures to increase as we approach full employment. As can be seen in Chart 3, the late cycle trends of slowing payroll growth and rising wages are very much in place. Further, even broad measures of labor market tightness, such as the U6 unemployment rate,2 are quickly approaching levels that suggest the economy is operating at full employment. Increasingly it is measures of labor market utilization, wage growth and inflation that will guide the Fed's decision making, and these measures continue to improve. It was even noted in the minutes from the March FOMC meeting that "tight labor markets [are] increasingly a factor in businesses' planning". The minutes also reported that: Business contacts in many Districts reported difficulty recruiting workers and indicated that they had to either offer higher wages or hire workers with lower qualifications than desired Accordingly, surveys show that households are increasingly describing jobs as "plentiful" (Chart 3, panel 3) and small businesses are indeed ramping up their compensation plans (Chart 3, bottom panel). At this stage of the cycle, continued progress on measures of labor market utilization, wage growth and inflation will be sufficient for the Fed to continue lifting rates, pushing Treasury yields higher. Bottom Line: Bond market positioning is no longer at a bearish extreme and the economy is quickly approaching full employment. We expect Treasury yields will soon break through the upside of their post-election trading range. Maintain below-benchmark duration. The Fed Will Shrink Its Balance Sheet This Year Last week's release of the minutes from the March FOMC meeting also contained some new information about how the Fed plans to deal with its large balance sheet. To summarize, we learned that: The Fed intends to start shrinking its balance sheet later this year (assuming growth maintains its current pace). The Fed will shrink its balance sheet by ceasing the reinvestment of both its MBS and Treasury holdings at the same time. Still no decision has been made about whether reinvestments will stop entirely or whether they will be phased out over time ("tapered"). On February 28, we published a detailed report about the Fed's balance sheet policy.3 In that report we explained why the winding down of the balance sheet will not have much of an impact on Treasury yields, but could lead to a material widening in MBS spreads. The new information received last week does not change either of these conclusions. The minutes did make clear that the Fed favors what Governor Lael Brainard recently called a "subordination strategy" for dealing with its balance sheet.4 [A subordination strategy] would prioritize the federal funds rate as the sole active tool away from the effective lower bound, effectively subordinating the balance sheet. Once federal funds normalization meets the test of being well under way, triggering an end to the current reinvestment policy, the balance sheet would be set on autopilot, shrinking in a gradual, predictable way until a "new normal" has been reached, and then increasing in line with trend increases in the demand for currency thereafter. Under this strategy, the balance sheet might be used as an active tool only if adverse shocks push the economy back to the effective lower bound. Essentially, the Fed is trying to de-emphasize the size of the balance sheet and would rather investors focus on the fed funds rate to assess the stance of monetary policy. For our part, we think it would be unwise to "fight the Fed" on this issue. For Treasury yields, we observe that the real 10-year Treasury yield closely tracks changes in the expected number of rate hikes during the next 12 months, while the inflation component of the 10-year yield tracks changes in realized inflation (Chart 4). These two relationships will continue to determine trends in bond yields going forward, and Fed balance sheet shrinkage is only important if it impacts the expected pace of rate hikes or inflation. The Fed's "subordination strategy" should ensure that the act of winding down the balance sheet does not have much of an impact on the expected pace of rate hikes. Ironically, if Treasury yields were to rise sharply following the announcement of balance sheet runoff, then the ensuing tightening of financial conditions would probably lower the expected pace of rate hikes and bring Treasury yields back down again. The story for MBS is somewhat different. Nominal MBS spreads remain tight by historical standards and closely track implied interest rate volatility (Chart 5). But we can also think of nominal MBS spreads as being split between the option cost, which is the compensation for expected prepayments, and the option-adjusted spread (OAS), which tends to correlate with net supply (Chart 5, panel 2). Chart 4Focus On Rate Expectations Chart 5Stay Underweight MBS In recent weeks, the OAS has widened alongside rising net issuance, but this has been offset by a sharp decline in the option cost. This is generally the pattern we would expect to play out as the Fed lifts rates and removes itself from the MBS market. The increased supply of MBS should lead to wider OAS, but refinancing applications should also stay low as Treasury yields and mortgage rates rise (Chart 5, bottom panel). However, netting it all out, the option cost component of MBS spreads is already near its historical lows and the OAS could move materially wider just to catch up to net issuance. In prior reports,5 we have also made the case that rate volatility should rise as the fed funds rate moves further away from the zero-lower-bound. Investors should stay underweight MBS. Bottom Line: The unwinding of the Fed's balance sheet is only important for Treasury yields if it impacts the market's rate hike expectations. However, the extra supply of MBS should lead to wider MBS spreads. Checking In On The Credit Cycle We continue to recommend overweight allocations to both investment grade and high-yield corporate bonds. This optimistic outlook is predicated on low inflation and a Fed that will support risk assets by remaining sufficiently accommodative until inflationary pressures are more pronounced. We think this "reflationary window" will stay open at least until core PCE inflation is firmly anchored around 2% and long-maturity TIPS breakevens reach the 2.4% to 2.5% range.6 Behind the scenes, however, leverage is building in the nonfinancial corporate sector. In this week's report we take a look at several different indicators of corporate credit quality and conclude that once the support from low inflation and accommodative monetary policy vanishes, it is very likely that corporate defaults will start to increase and corporate spreads will widen. If our anticipated timeline plays out, we will be looking to scale back on credit risk in 2018. Corporate Health Vs. The Yield Curve Our Corporate Health Monitor (CHM, see Appendix for further details) has been signaling deteriorating nonfinancial corporate health since late 2013 (Chart 6), and moved even deeper into 'deteriorating health' territory in Q4 of last year. Chart 6Corporate Health Is Deteriorating, But Monetary Policy Remains Supportive Periods when the CHM is in 'deteriorating health' territory are marked by shaded regions in Chart 6. We see that these regions usually correspond with periods when corporate spreads are widening. Even in the current episode, corporate spreads have yet to regain their mid-2014 tights. However, the bottom panel of Chart 6 shows that periods of deteriorating corporate health and wider corporate spreads are typically preceded by a very flat (often inverted) yield curve. This makes sense because a flat yield curve usually signals that interest rates are high and monetary policy is tight. Tight policy and elevated rates lead to more stringent bank lending standards and increase firms' interest burdens. With the curve still quite steep, we think the risk of sustained spread widening is minimal. However, if the CHM is still above zero when the yield curve is flatter, no support will remain for excess corporate bond returns. Net Leverage & The Payback Period We would further argue that the CHM will almost certainly be in 'deteriorating health' territory once the yield curve is close to flat. In Chart 7 we see that net leverage (defined as: total debt minus cash, as a percent of EBITD) is not only positively correlated with spreads, but also has never reversed its uptrend unless prompted by a recession. In other words, the corporate sector never voluntarily undertakes deleveraging, it only starts to pay down debt when forced by a severe economic contraction. Chart 7The Uptrend In Leverage Will Only Be Broken By Recession Closer inspection of Chart 7 reveals that the period between 1986 and 1989 is the only period when corporate spreads tightened even though leverage remained in an uptrend. In the late 1980s, leverage and corporate spreads both shot higher as a collapse in the energy sector caused overall corporate earnings to contract (Chart 7, bottom panel). But then the energy sector recovered just as quickly, and earnings growth bounced back. This caused spreads to tighten for a couple of years, even though the trend in net leverage only ever managed to flatten-off. Debt growth stayed robust during this time, despite the wild fluctuations in earnings. If any of this sounds familiar, it should. The energy sector collapse of 2014 caused net leverage and spreads to shoot higher, and now spreads have started to tighten again as earnings have rebounded. Notice that just like in the late-1980s, net leverage has not reversed its uptrend. We believe that corporate spreads have entered a "payback period" very similar to the late 1980s. Spreads can tighten as earnings rebound, but because the economy is not in recession, debt growth will remain solid and leverage will continue to trend higher. Once inflationary pressures start to bite and Fed policy becomes less accommodative, the payback period will end and spreads will head wider. Debt Growth Chart 8Bond Issuance Is Back Although we have made the case that the corporate sector does not delever unless prompted by a recession, it is notable that net corporate bond issuance was negative in Q4 of last year and the growth rate in bank lending to the corporate sector has slowed sharply. We do not think this cycle is different, and expect corporate debt growth (both bonds and loans) to rebound in the coming months. We chalk up weak corporate bond issuance in 2016Q4 to uncertainty surrounding the U.S. election. In fact, we see that gross corporate bond issuance has already rebounded strongly in January and February of this year (Chart 8). Turning to bank loans, we observe that the outright level of outstanding bank loans only contracts following a recession, and that the rate of increase follows bank lending standards with a lag (Chart 9). In other words, Commercial & Industrial (C&I) loan growth is still responding to the surge in defaults that resulted from the energy sector's 2014 collapse. Now that defaults have waned, this process will soon be thrown into reverse. In fact, our model of the 6-month rate of change in C&I lending - based on private non-residential fixed investment, small business optimism and corporate defaults - points to an imminent bottoming in C&I loan growth (Chart 10). Chart 9Loan Growth Follows Lending Standards Chart 10BCA C&I Loan Growth Model Bottom Line: Corporate spreads are in a "payback period" from 2014's energy shock that will allow them to tighten as corporate profits rebound, even though corporate leverage continues to trend higher. The weakening state of corporate balance sheets means spreads are at risk once monetary policy turns less accommodative. Ratings Trends & Shareholder Friendly Activities Chart 11Shareholder Friendly Activity Has Ebbed Our assessment of the cyclical back-drop for corporate spreads is primarily based on the combination of balance sheet quality - as determined by our Corporate Health Monitor and its underlying components - and the stance of monetary policy - as determined by the slope of the yield curve and C&I lending standards (among other factors). However, ratings migration and "shareholder friendly" activities have also historically provided advance notice of turns in the credit cycle. Net transfers to shareholders, i.e. payments to shareholders in the form of dividends and buybacks, are a direct transfer of capital from bondholders to equityholders. These transfers tend to rise late in the cycle, just before defaults start to increase and spreads start to widen (Chart 11). Net transfers to shareholders had been moving higher, but have recently rolled over. Similarly, ratings downgrades related to shareholder transfers have also moderated (Chart 11, panel 2). Historically, ratings migration related to "shareholder friendly" activities has been a more reliable indicator of the credit cycle than overall ratings migration. It has tended to move into "net downgrade" territory later in the cycle, closer to the onset of recession (Chart 11, panel 3). Ratings trends and transfers to shareholders are not flagging any imminent risk of spread widening. However, there is the additional risk that downgrades have simply not kept pace with the actual deterioration in credit quality of the nonfinancial corporate sector. Using firm-level data, we calculated the percent of high-yield rated companies with net debt-to-EBITDA ratios above 5. We see that actual ratings migration is too low relative to the number of highly-levered firms (Chart 11, bottom panel). It is possible that ratings agencies have already incorporated the rebound in energy prices and profit growth into their assessments while the actual debt-to-EBITDA data are lagging, but this is still a risk that bears monitoring. Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Portfolio Allocation Summary, "Reflation Window Still Open", dated April 4, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 The U6 unemployment rate is a broader measure than the headline (U3) unemployment rate. It also includes those "marginally attached" to the labor force and those working part-time for economic reasons. 3 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy / Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report, "The Way Forward For The Fed's Balance Sheet", dated February 28, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 4 https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/brainard20170301a.htm 5 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "The Road To Higher Vol Is Paved With Uncertainty", dated February 14, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 6 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Keep Buying Dips", dated March 28, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Appendix Chart 12Corporate Health Monitor Components Box 1: Corporate Health Monitor Components The BCA Corporate Health Monitor is a normalized composite of six financial ratios, calculated for the non-financial corporate sector as a whole (Chart 12). These six ratios are defined as follows: Profit Margins: After-tax cash flow as a percent of corporate sales Return on Capital: After-tax earnings plus interest expense, as a percent of capital stock Debt Coverage: After-tax cash flow less capital expenditures, as a percent of all interest bearing debt Interest Coverage: EBITDA (Earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation & amortization) divided by the sum of interest expense and dividends Leverage: Total debt as a percent of market value of equity Liquidity: Working Capital, excluding inventories, as a percent of market value of assets Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

Highlights The rally in risk assets appears to have stalled, raising fears that the misnamed "Trump Trade" has ended. Investors are attaching too much importance to the reality show in Washington and not enough to the fundamentals underpinning the acceleration in global growth and corporate earnings. For now, these fundamentals are strong, and should remain so for the next 12 months. Beyond then, the impulse from easier financial conditions will dissipate and policy will turn less friendly, setting the stage for a major slowdown - and possibly a recession - in 2019. Stay overweight global equities and high-yield credit, but be prepared to reduce exposure next spring. Feature Risk Assets Hit The Pause Button After rallying nearly non-stop following the U.S. presidential election, risk assets have stalled since early March (Chart 1). The S&P 500 has fallen by 1.8% after hitting a record high on March 1st. Treasury yields have also backed off their highs and credit spreads have widened modestly. Globally, the picture has been much the same (Chart 2). The yen - a traditionally "risk off" currency - has strengthened, while "risk on" currencies such as the AUD and NZD have faltered. EM currencies have dipped, as have most commodity prices. Only gold has found a bid. Chart 1A Pause In Risk Assets In The U.S.... Chart 2...And Globally The key question for investors is whether all this merely represents a correction in a cyclical bull market for global risk assets, or the start of a more sinister trend. We think it is the former. Global Growth Still Solid For one thing, it would be a mistake to attach too much significance to the unfolding reality show in Washington. As we discussed in last week's Q2 Strategy Outlook,1 the recovery in global growth and corporate earnings began a few months before last year's election and would have likely continued regardless of who won the White House (Chart 3). For now, the global growth picture still looks reasonably bright. Our global Leading Economic Indicator remains in a solid uptrend. Burgeoning animal spirits are powering a recovery in business spending, as evidenced by the jump in factory orders and capex intentions (Chart 4). Consumer confidence is also soaring. If history is any guide, this will translate into stronger consumption growth in the months ahead (Chart 5). Chart 3Recovery Predates President Trump Chart 4Global Growth Backdrop Remains Solid Chart 5Rising Consumer Confidence Will Provide A Boost To Consumption The lagged effects from the easing in financial conditions over the past 12 months should help support activity. Chart 6 shows that the 12-month change in our U.S. Financial Conditions Index leads the business cycle by 6-to-9 months. The current message from the index is that U.S. growth will stay sturdy for the remainder of 2017. Stronger global growth should continue to power an acceleration in corporate earnings over the remainder of the year. Global EPS is expected to expand by 12.5% over the next 12 months. Analysts are usually too bullish when it comes to making earnings forecasts. This time around they may be too bearish. Chart 7 shows that the global earnings revisions ratio has turned positive for the first time in six years, implying that analysts have been behind the curve in revising up profit projections. Chart 6Easing Financial Conditions Will Support Activity In 2017 Chart 7Global Earnings Picture Looking Brighter Gridlock In Washington? As far as developments in Washington are concerned, it is certainly true that the failure to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act has cast doubt on the ability of Congress to implement other parts of President Trump's agenda. Despite reassurances from Trump that a new health care bill will pass, we doubt that the GOP can cobble together any legislation that jointly satisfies the hardline views of the Freedom Caucus and the more moderate views of the Republicans in the Senate. Ironically, the failure to jettison Obamacare may turn out to be a blessing in disguise for Trump and the Republican Party. Opinion polls suggest that the GOP would have gone down in flames if the American Health Care Act had been signed into law (Table 1). According to the Congressional Budget Office, the proposed legislation would have caused 24 million fewer Americans to have health insurance in 2026 compared with the status quo. The bill would have also reduced federal government spending on health care by $1.2 trillion over ten years. Sixty-four year-olds with incomes of $26,500 would have seen their annual premiums soar from $1,700 to $14,600. Even if one includes the tax cuts in the proposed bill, the net effect would have been a major tightening in fiscal policy. Now, that would have warranted lower bond yields and a weaker dollar. Table 1Passing The American Health Care Act Could Have Cost The Republicans Dearly Granted, the political fireworks over the past month serve as a reminder that comprehensive tax reform will be more difficult to achieve than many had hoped. However, even if Republicans are unable to overhaul the tax code, this will not prevent them from simply cutting corporate and personal taxes. Worries that tax cuts will lead to larger budget deficits will be brushed aside on the grounds that they will "pay for themselves" through faster growth (dynamic scoring!). Throw some infrastructure spending into the mix, and it will not take much for the "Trump Trade" to return with a vengeance. Trump's Fiscal Fantasy This is not to say that the "Trump Trade" won't fizzle out. It will. But that will be a story for 2018 rather than this year. This is because the disappointment for investors will stem not from the failure to cut taxes, but from the underwhelming effect that tax cuts end up having on the economy. The highly profitable companies that will benefit the most from lower corporate taxes are the ones who least need them. In many cases, these companies have plenty of cash and easy access to external financing. As a consequence, much of the tax cuts will simply be hoarded or used to finance equity buybacks or dividend payments. A large share of personal tax cuts will also be saved, given that they will mostly accrue to higher income earners. Chart 8From Unrealistic To Even More Unrealistic The amount of infrastructure spending that actually takes place will likely be a tiny fraction of the headline amount. This is not just because of the dearth of "shovel ready" projects. It is also because the public-private partnership structure the GOP is touting will severely limit the universe of projects that can be considered. Most of America's infrastructure needs consist of basic maintenance, rather than the sort of marquee projects that the private sector would be keen to invest in. Indeed, the bill could turn out to be little more than a boondoggle for privatizing existing public infrastructure projects, rather than investing in new ones. Meanwhile, the Trump administration is proposing large cuts to nondefense discretionary expenditures that go above and beyond the draconian ones that are already enshrined into current law (Chart 8). In his Special Report on U.S. fiscal policy, my colleague Martin Barnes argues that "it is a FALLACY to describe overall non-defense discretionary spending as massively bloated and out-of-control."2 As such, the risk to the economy beyond the next 12 months is that markets push up the dollar and long-term interest rates in anticipation of continued strong growth and major fiscal stimulus but end up getting neither. Investment Conclusions Risk assets have enjoyed a strong rally since late last year, and a modest correction is long overdue. Still, as long as the global economy continues to grow at a robust pace, the cyclical outlook for risk assets will remain bullish. As such, investors should stay overweight global equities and high-yield credit at the expense of government bonds and cash. We prefer European and Japanese equities over the U.S., currency-hedged (See Appendix). As we discussed in detail last week, global growth is likely to slow in the second half of 2018, with the deceleration intensifying into 2019, possibly culminating in a recession in a number of countries. To what extent markets "sniff out" an economic slowdown before it happens is a matter of debate. U.S. equities did not peak until October 2007, only slightly before the Great Recession began. Commodity prices did not top out until the summer of 2008. Thus, the market's track record for predicting recessions is far from an envious one. Nevertheless, investors should err on the side of safety and start scaling back risk exposure next spring. The 2019 recession will last 6-to-12 months. By historic standards, it will probably be a mild one. However, with memories of the Great Recession still fresh in most people's minds and President Trump up for re-election in 2020, the response could be dramatic. This will set the stage for a period of stagflation in the 2020s. Chart 9 presents a visual representation of how the main asset markets are likely to evolve over the next seven years. Chart 9Market Outlook For Major Asset Classes Peter Berezin, Senior Vice President Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Global Investment Strategy Outlook, "Second Quarter 2017: A Three-Act Play," dated March 31, 2017, available at gis.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see BCA Special Report, "U.S. Fiscal Policy: Facts, Fallacies And Fantasies," dated April 5, 2017, available at bca.bcaresearch.com. Appendix Tactical Global Asset Allocation Monthly Update We announced last week that we are making major upgrades to our Tactical Asset Allocation Model. In the meantime, we will send you a concise update of our recommendations every month based on a combination of BCA's proprietary indicators as well as our own seasoned judgement (Appendix Table 1). Appendix Table 2Global Asset Allocation Recommendations (Percent) In a Special Report published last year, we laid out the quantitative factors that have historically predicted stock market returns. Appendix Chart 1 updates the output of that model for the U.S. It currently shows a slightly above-average return profile for the S&P 500 over the next three months. Appendix Chart 1S&P 500: Above Average Returns Over The Next 3 Months Applying this model to the rest of the world yields a somewhat more positive picture for Europe and Japan, given more favorable valuations and easier monetary conditions in those regions. The technical picture has also improved in Europe and Japan. This is especially true with respect to price momentum: After a long period of underperformance, euro area equities have outpaced the U.S. by 11.5% in local-currency terms since last summer’s lows. Japanese stocks have suffered over the past few months, but are still up 12.5% against the U.S. over the same period (Appendix Chart 2). Turning to government bonds, the extreme bearish sentiment and positioning that prevailed in February and early March has been largely reversed, suggesting that the most recent rally in bonds could run out of steam (Appendix Chart 3). Looking ahead, yields are likely to rise anew on the back of strong economic growth and rising inflation. Thus, an underweight allocation to government bonds is warranted, particularly in the U.S. Appendix Chart 2Relative Performance Of Euro Area ##br##And Japanese Equities Troughed Last Summer Appendix Chart 3Rally In Bonds Could Soon Peter Out Clients should consult our Q2 Strategy Outlook for a more detailed discussion of the global investment outlook. Strategy & Market Trends Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

Highlights There are a number of market signals and indicators that are denoting opening cracks in the reflation trade in general and EM risk assets in particular. EM/China narrow money (M1) growth points to relapse in their growth and profits in the second half this year. In this vein, we recommend reinstating a short EM stocks / long 30-year U.S. Treasurys trade. The South African rand has considerable downside and local bond yields will rise further. Stay short ZAR versus the U.S. dollar and MXN. Downgrade this bourse from neutral to underweight. Stay long MXN on crosses versus ZAR and BRL. Continue overweighting Mexican local currency bonds and sovereign credit within their respective EM universes. Feature Chart I-1EM Narrow Money Growth ##br##Signals Trouble Ahead Emerging market (EM) assets have been the beneficiary of large inflows this year and have delivered solid gains in the first quarter, causing our defensive strategy to miss the mark. In retrospect, it was a mistake not to chase the market higher last year. At the current juncture, however, with investor sentiment on risk assets very bullish, valuations rather expensive or at least not cheap1 and investor expectations for global growth elevated, the question is whether being contrarian or chasing momentum is the best strategy. Weighing the pros and cons, our view is that investors who now adopt a contrarian stance will be rewarded greatly in the next six to nine months. In this vein, we recommend reinstating a short EM stocks / long 30-year U.S. Treasurys trade. Review Of Market Indicators Following is a review of some specific EM market indicators: EM narrow money (M1) impulse - change in M1 growth - points to a potential major top in EM share prices (Chart I-1, top panel). In fact, M1 growth leads EM EPS growth by nine months and heralds a reversal in the months ahead (Chart I-1, bottom panel). We use equity market cap-weighted M1 growth to ensure that the country weights in the M1 aggregate are identical to those in the EM equity benchmark. The M1 impulse has rolled over decisively, not only in China as shown in Chart I-9 on page 6 but also in Taiwan, heralding a major top in the latter's stock market (Chart I-2). The Taiwanese bourse is heavy in technology stocks that have been on fire in the past year. We continue to hold the view that tech stocks will do better than commodity plays or banks. In short, we continue to recommend overweighting tech stocks within the EM universe. However, if tech stocks roll over as per Chart I-2, the EM equity universe will be at major risk. Global mining stocks have lately been struggling while EM share prices have been well bid (Chart I-3). Historically, these two correlate strongly. In this context, the latest rift between the two is unsustainable. Our bet is that EM stocks will converge to the downside with global mining stocks. Chart I-2Taiwan: Narrow Money ##br##Points To Top In Share Prices Chart I-3A Rift Between Global ##br##Mining And EM Stocks We are well aware that technology and internet stocks now account for 25% of the EM MSCI benchmark, thereby reducing the importance of commodities prices to EM. However, technology stocks are much overbought and could be at risk of a selloff too, as per Chart I-2 on page 2. On a more general level, we expect that if commodities prices relapse EM risk assets will sell off as well. Consistently, commodities currencies seem to be topping out, which also raises a red flag for EM stocks (Chart I-4). Various commodities prices trading in China are also exhibiting weakness, likely signaling a reversal in the mainland's growth revival (Chart I-5). Finally, all of these factors are occurring at a time when investor sentiment toward U.S. stocks is elevated relative to their sentiment on U.S. Treasurys, and the U.S. equity-to-bonds relative risk index is also at a level that has historically heralded stocks underperforming Treasurys (Chart I-6). Chart I-4An Unsustainable Gap Chart I-5Commodities Prices In China Chart I-6U.S. Stocks-To-Bonds: ##br##Relative Sentiment And Risk Profile Bottom Line: While global economic surveys and data still allude to firm growth conditions, there are a number of market signals and indicators that are denoting opening cracks in the reflation trade in general and EM risk assets in particular. It is important to note that this is the view of BCA's Emerging Markets Strategy team, which differs from BCA's house view. EM/China Growth Outlook Global and EM manufacturing PMIs are elevated and they will roll over in the months ahead. Yet, a top in economic and business surveys at high levels does not always warrant turning bearish. Our negative stance on EM/China growth stems from our fundamental assessment that these economies have not yet gone through deleveraging, i.e., credit excesses of the boom years have not been worked out. This is the reason why we believe the EM/China growth rebound of the last 12 months is unsustainable and sets the stage for another major downleg. There are preliminary indications that the one-off boost from last year's fiscal and credit push in China is waning. In particular, the number and value of newly started capital spending projects have relapsed dramatically (Chart I-7). This is consistent with our view that the 2016 fiscal push that boosted Chinese growth is passing. Meanwhile, private sector investment expenditures remain weak (Chart I-7, bottom panel). A renewed slump in capital spending will have negative ramifications for mainland imports of commodities. With the monetary authorities tightening liquidity and interest rates rising (Chart I-8), odds are that credit and money growth will decelerate, thwarting the recent amelioration in economic growth. Chart I-7China: 2016 Fiscal Stimulus Is Waning Chart I-8Beware Of Rising Rates In China We continue to emphasize that even marginal policy tightening amid lingering credit and property bubbles could have a disproportionately dampening impact on growth. Notably, China's narrow money (M1) impulse - the change in M1 growth rate - reliably leads industrial profits. It is now indicating a relapse in industrial profit growth in the months ahead (Chart I-9). There are also some early clues that global trade volumes may soon weaken, as evidenced by the recent drop in China's container shipment freight index (Chart I-10, top panel). Chart I-9China: Industrial Profits And Narrow Money Chart I-10Global Trade Volumes To Roll Over This is further corroborated by the most recent survey of 5000 industrial enterprises in China, which portends a top in overseas new orders (Chart I-10, bottom panel). Finally, Taiwan's M1 impulse leads the country's export volume growth, and currently alludes to potential deceleration in export shipments (Chart I-11). We are not suggesting that U.S. or euro area growth is at major risk. On the contrary, our sense is that the main risk to EM and global stocks from the U.S. and the euro area is higher bond yields in these regions in the near term. Importantly, the recent strength in EM trade has largely been due to Chinese imports, not the U.S. or Europe, as evidenced in Chart I-12. Korea's shipments to U.S. and Europe are rather weak, while sales to China have been very robust. In a nutshell, 27% of Korean exports go to China, while only 13% go to the U.S. and 12% to the EU. Chart I-11Taiwan: Narrow Money And Export Volumes Chart I-12Korea's Exports By Regions Furthermore, combined exports to the U.S. and Europe make up 35% of China's total exports and 7% of its GDP. In turn, China's capital spending amounts to 40-45% of GDP. Hence, investment expenditures are much more important for China than exports to the U.S. and Europe combined. In the meantime, the largest export destination for Asian and South American countries is China rather than the U.S. or Europe. Therefore, as China's growth slumps, its imports from Asian/EM as well as commodities prices will decline. Bottom Line: Risks to EM/China growth are to the downside, regardless of growth conditions in the advanced economies. Reinstate Short EM Stocks / Long 30-Year Treasurys Trade We took a 24% profits on this trade on July 13, 2016 and now believe the risk-reward is conducive to re-establish this position. Back in July2 we argued that EM stocks might be supported in the near term while DM bond yields would rise, justifying booking profits on this trade. Looking forward, the basis for reinstating this trade is as follows: Fundamentally, both market indicators as well as the rising odds of a relapse in EM/China growth per our discussion above support this trade. The relative total return on this position is facing a formidable technical support, and we believe it will hold (Chart I-13). The difference between the EM equity dividend yield and the 30-year Treasury yield is one standard deviation from its time-trend (Chart I-14). At similar levels in the past, this indicator heralded significant EM share price underperformance versus U.S. bonds. Chart I-13Reinstate Short EM Stocks-Long ##br##30-year U.S. Treasurys Chart I-14Relative Value Favors ##br##U.S. Bonds Versus EM Equities Chart I-6 on page 4 reveals that sentiment on stocks versus bonds is bullish. From a contrarian perspective, this invites a bet on stocks underperforming bonds in the months ahead. This trade will pan out regardless of whether a potential selloff in EM share prices is accompanied by rising or falling U.S. bond yields. Even if U.S. bond yields rise (bond prices decline), EM stocks will likely drop more than U.S. Treasury prices. Our base case remains that there is likely more upside in U.S. bond yields in the near term, but this trade is poised to deliver solid gains so long as EM share prices drop. That said, we believe that U.S. bond yields will likely be at current levels or lower by the end of this year when EM/China growth slowdown unleash new deflationary forces in the global economy. Bottom Line: Reinstate a short EM stocks / long 30-year Treasurys trade with a six-nine month time horizon. Arthur Budaghyan, Senior Vice President Emerging Markets Strategy arthurb@bcaresearch.com 1 Please refer to the Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report, titled "EM Equity Valuations Revisited", dated March 29, 2017, link available on page 18. 2 Please refer to the Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report, titled "Risks To Our Negative EM View", dated July 13, 2016, link available on page 18. South Africa: Back To Reality Political risks have not risen in South Africa with the dismissal of Finance Minister Pravin Gordhan. They had never declined in the first place. The markets have, however, ignored them in the past 12 months. Investors have failed to recognize the fundamental problem underpinning the disarray in the ruling African National Congress (ANC): growing public discontent with persistently high unemployment and income inequality. Despite a growing body of evidence that political stability has been declining for a decade, strong foreign portfolio flows have papered over the reality on the ground and allowed domestic markets to continue "whistling in the dark." Investors even cheered the poor performance of the ANC in municipal elections in August 2016, despite the fact that by far the biggest winners of the election were the left-wing Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF), not the centrist Democratic Alliance. This confirms BCA's Geopolitical Strategy's forecast that the main risk to President Jacob Zuma's rule is from his left flank, led by the upstart EFF of Julius Malema, and by the Youth and Women's Leagues of his own ANC.3 As such, it was absolutely nonsensical to expect Zuma to pivot towards pro-market reforms. Unsurprisingly, he has not. But could the Gordhan firing set the stage for an internal ANC dust-up that gives birth to a pro-reform, centrist party? This is the hopeful narrative in the press today. We doubt it. First, if the ANC splits along left-right lines, it is not clear that the reformers would end up in the majority. Therefore, the hope of the investment community that Deputy President Cyril Ramaphosa takes charge and enacts painful reforms is grossly misplaced. Second, Zuma may no longer be popular, but his populist policies are. While both the Communist Party (a partner of the Tripartite Alliance with the ANC) and the EFF now officially oppose his rule, they do not support pro-market reforms. Third, ethnic tensions are rising, particularly between the Zulu and other groups. These boiled over in social unrest last summer in Pretoria when the ruling ANC nominated a Zulu as the candidate for mayor of the Tshwane municipality (which includes the capital city). As such, we see the market's reaction as a belated acceptance of the reality in South Africa, which is that the country's consensus on market reforms is weakening, not strengthening. It is not clear to us that a change at the top of the ANC, or even a vote of non-confidence in Zuma, would significantly change the country's trajectory. In addition, the political tensions are growing at a time when budget revenue growth is dwindling and the fiscal deficit is widening (Chart II-1). To placate investor anxiety over the long-term fiscal outlook, the government should ideally cut its spending. However, it is impossible to do so when there are escalating backlashes from populist parties and from within the ruling Tripartite Alliance. Odds are that the current and future governments will resort to more populist and unorthodox policies. That will jeopardize the public debt outlook and erode the currency's value. Needless to say, the nation's fundamentals are extremely poor -- outright decline in productivity being one of the major causes (Chart II-2). Chart II-1South Africa: Fiscal Stress Is Building Up Chart II-2Underlying Cause Of Economic Malaise We believe the rand has made a major top and local currency bond yields reached a major low (Chart II-3). We continue to recommend shorting the ZAR versus both the U.S. dollar and Mexican peso. Traders, who are not short, should consider initiating these trades at current levels. Investors who hold local bonds should reduce their exposure. Dedicated EM equity investors should downgrade this bourse from neutral to underweight (Chart II-4). Chart II-3South Africa: Short ##br##The Rand And Sell Bonds Chart II-4Downgrade South African ##br##Equities To Underweight Finally, EM credit investors should continue underweighting the nation's sovereign credit within the EM universe and relative value trades should stay with buy South African CDS / sell Russian CDS protection. 3 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, "The Coming Bloodbath In Emerging Markets," dated August 2, 2015, and Strategic Outlook, "Strategic Outlook 206: Multipolarity & Markets," dated December 9, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. Mexico: Stay Long MXN On Crosses And Overweight Fixed-Income Mexico's central bank could still hike interest rates by another 50 basis points or so because inflation is above the target and the recent raise in minimum wage could keep inflation/wage expectations elevated (Chart III-1). Even if further rate hikes do not materialize, the cumulative monetary tightening will depress domestic demand but support the peso, especially versus other EM currencies. We continue recommending long positions in MXN versus ZAR and BRL. Higher borrowing costs will squeeze consumer and investment spending in Mexico. Notably, household expenditures have so far remained very robust. We suspect consumers have brought forward their future demand due to expectations of higher consumer prices. In short, consumer spending will tank as there is very little pent-up demand remaining and higher borrowing costs will start biting very soon (Chart III-2). Chart III-1Inflation Expectations To Stay Elevated For Now Chart III-2Mexico: Domestic Demand To Buckle As household spending and investment expenditure relapse and exports to the U.S. revive, Mexico's current account will improve considerably. In the meantime, Brazil's current account deficit will widen as the economy recovers. Chart III-3 illustrates that the relative current account dynamics are turning in favor of the peso versus the real. The economic recovery that will eventually happen in Brazil this year will come too late and be too weak to stabilize the nation's public debt. We remain concerned about Brazil's public debt dynamics. In contrast, we are not concerned about Mexico's fiscal situation. Mexican policymakers have been very orthodox and we do not expect that to change much. In regard to valuation, the peso is cheap versus the U.S. dollar and is extremely cheap against the BRL and ZAR (Chart III-4). Chart III-3Mexico Versus Brazil: ##br##Current Account And Exchange Rate Chart III-4Mexican Peso Is Cheap Finally, investors have flocked from Mexico to Brazil last year amid the deteriorating political outlook in Mexico and stabilization in Brazilian politics. We believe such a positioning swing is overdone and our bet is that Mexico will be getting more investor flows this year compared with Brazil. Investment Conclusions Chart III-5Mexican local Bonds Offer Value Maintain long positions in MXN versus BRL and ZAR. The outlook for the latter is discussed in a section above. We are reluctant to initiate a long MXN/short U.S. dollar trade because we are negative on the outlook for EM exchange rates. It is not impossible but it will be hard for the peso to appreciate against the U.S. dollar if most EM currencies depreciate and oil prices drop, as we expect. Fixed-income investors should continue overweighting Mexican local currency and sovereign credit within their respective EM benchmarks. Mexico's fixed-income assets offer good value (Chart III-5). Relative value traders should consider the following trade: sell Mexican CDS / buy Indonesia CDS protection. Finally, dedicated EM equity portfolios should maintain a neutral allocation to Mexican stocks. The currency will outperform but share prices in local currency terms will underperform their EM peers. The Mexican bourse is tilted toward consumer stocks that are expensive and at risk of a major downturn in household spending as discussed above. Arthur Budaghyan, Senior Vice President Emerging Markets Strategy arthurb@bcaresearch.com Stephan Gabillard, Research Analyst stephang@bcaresearch.com Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations

Highlights Dusting Off The BCA Bond Model: As central bankers moving away from the hyper-easy monetary policies of the post-crisis era, reverting back to more traditional bond investing tools, like our BCA Bond Model - which focuses on cyclical economic pressures, valuation and momentum - can be useful. GFIS Composite Bond Indicators: After adding a new element to our classic Bond Model, carry, we come up with a new measure to assess government bond markets - the GFIS Composite Bond Indicators. Current Signals: Our new indicators point to Australia, Canada and the U.K. as looking more attractive on a relative basis than Germany or France. Feature For global fixed income investors, four key questions matter most in selecting which government bond markets to prioritize at the country level: Where each country stands in its economic cycle? Which bonds offer the best value? Which bonds exhibit the strongest price momentum? Which bonds benefit from the best carry? To answer those questions, BCA has built specific macro indicators over the years. The ones related to the cycle, value and momentum form the building blocks of the BCA Bond Model. We have not spent as much time discussing these indicators in recent years. This is because the performance of bond markets has been dominated by extraordinarily easy monetary policies (quantitative easing, negative interest rates) in the major economies since the Great Recession. As more central banks start to question the need for maintaining those crisis-era policy settings, however, the utility of referring back to our classic bond indicators is growing. In this Special Report, we re-examine our bond indicators, explain briefly how they were built, evaluate quantitatively if they still provide a consistent signal and elaborate on the best way to utilize them. To enhance the existing model, we add a "carry" component to it, which is a vital part of bond investing. Since the cyclical, value, momentum and carry indicators often give different asset allocation signals at any given point in time, we propose a way to aggregate the information into one single indicator for each country, i.e. the BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy (GFIS) Bond Composite Indicators. We then test these indicators to see if they help bond portfolio managers outperform. The report concludes by comparing the latest message from the GFIS Bond Composite Indicators versus our current recommended portfolio positioning. Specifically, we explain why we are choosing to deviate from our indicators and assess how we could shift our tilts in the future. Evaluating The BCA Cyclical Bond Indicators The most important aspect of bond investing is to understand where each country stands in its current economic cycle. As a way to quickly assess this, we developed our Cyclical Bond Indicators many years ago. Tailored for each country, the Indicators are composed of economic data such as: the unemployment rate private sector credit growth the slope of the government bond yield curve commodity prices denominated in local currency terms realized inflation rates Since economies do not always exhibit the same sensitivity to common macro drivers, we created country-specific Cyclical Bond Indicators that each use a different set of variables. After transforming the data, using de-trending and standardizing techniques, the variables are aggregated to form a single indicator for each country.1 Although Developed Market (DM) countries typically appear to be in the same phase of their economic cycle simultaneously, there are always some slight differences between them. These are crucial to identify and can make a huge difference in the government bond asset allocation process. First and foremost, knowing where a country is in its business cycle should impact expected returns on fixed income. Theoretically, bonds should underperform as the economic cycle becomes more advanced and outperform as the economic cycle deteriorates. Statistical Observations To verify that last statement, we separated the cycle for each country in our DM bond universe into seven distinct phases for the economic cycle: Euphoria End of upturn Upturn Downturn End of downturn Crisis Mega Crisis The phases of the cycle are defined by how much the Cyclical Bond Indicator diverges from its mean, which is always zero since the Indicators are standardized (i.e. removing the mean and dividing by the standard deviation). Chart 1 illustrates how our four core countries (U.S., Germany, Japan, U.K.) have gone through those cycles since 1967. At the positive end of the spectrum, the Euphoria state represents instances where economic variables have been especially upbeat (i.e. the Cyclical Bond Indicator is more than two standard deviations above the mean). At the negative end, the Crisis and Mega Crisis periods are when the Cyclical Bond Indicator is more than two and three standard deviations below the mean, respectively. Chart 1The BCA Cyclical Bond Indicators For The 'Core Four' Markets To evaluate the usefulness of the Cyclical Bond Indicator as an investment tool, we have calculated the average monthly return during each phase of the cycle for the major DM countries with a one-month lag (i.e. the March 2017 returns are based on the signals given by the February 2017 readings of the Indicators - this is done throughout the rest of this report when testing other bond indicators). The results are shown in Table 1. Table 1Bond Market Performance, Seen Through Our Cyclical Bond Indicator As expected, the average monthly performance tends to increase as an economy enters a downturn. Conversely, as an economic upturn gathers momentum, the performance of the bond market tends to decline.2 In Table 1, we highlighted the current phase for each country. Australia and U.K. are the only countries in Downturn territory right now; compared to their peers, those two countries would have the largest expected return3 of this group. On the other hand, the U.S. economy might be at the End of Upturn phase, when Treasuries should be expected to post the worst return, if history is any guide. In Table 2, we broke out the monthly results into 10-year periods to test the consistency of the indicator performance over time. Unsurprisingly, the End of Upturn phase has been quite detrimental for the DM bond markets during all eras, while the End of Downturn episodes have been good for bond investors in every decade. Table 2Bond Market Returns During ##br##The Various Stages Of Our Cyclical Bond Indicator Are Consistent Across Time Chart 2The Gains From Bond Investing##br## According To The Economic Cycle Finally, we looked into the usefulness of the Cyclical Bond Indicators in helping construct simple bond portfolios by using them as a ranking tool using the steps described in Box 1. The big picture takeaway is this: the countries with the three highest ranking Cyclical Bond Indicators (i.e. those with the slowest economic growth) outperform by roughly +6 basis points (bps) per month, on average. Similarly, the countries with the lowest-ranked cyclical indicators would underperform by -6bps, on average (Chart 2). Box 1 Ranking Bond Returns Using The BCA Cyclical Bond Indicators We calculated the average monthly excess return by buckets using the following steps: We ranked the ten countries in our bond universe by the level of their Cyclical Bond Indicators, from lowest (ranked #1) to highest (ranked #10). We then calculated the monthly currency-hedged excess return of each country versus the average of all the countries in our DM bond universe We then aggregated all the monthly results to have an average excess return for all ten of our ranking buckets We then separated them further into three buckets (the top three, middle four and bottom three ranks) and averaged the monthly excess returns for those groupings. Comments There is nothing particularly out of the ordinary with those findings - the countries with the weakest economies have the best performing government bond markets. However, the results of these statistical exercises confirm that the BCA Cyclical Bond Indicators are reliable and can confidently be used to support our qualitative analysis for each country. Importantly, following those indicators brings a dose of discipline to our bond allocation framework. For example, if our initial qualitative macro analysis diverges markedly from what the Cyclical Bond Indicator is telling us, this would represent a red flag that prompts us to question our initial conclusions. We will highlight situations like this later in this report. Evaluating The BCA Bond Value Indicators To assess the richness or cheapness of DM government bonds, BCA developed a Bond Value Indicator for each country. It is composed of several measures that have a fundamental macroeconomic relationship to bond yields, such as: Central bank policy rate expectations Trend inflation The deviation of the exchange rate from Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) The 10-year U.S. Treasury yield (as a proxy for the global bond yield) The variables are transformed using regressions, then combined to form a single measure of how far bond yields are from a theoretical fair value. Similar to other components of the BCA Bond Model, the power of these country indicators arises when comparing them amongst each other. Bond markets with yields below fair value should outperform those with yields above fair value. Just like all other asset classes, valuation is a poor tactical timing tool for fixed income. Our Bond Value Indicator is more useful in the long term; value can remain cheap/expensive for an extended period of time. For example, Germany has been the most, or second-most, expensive bond market in our bond universe since June 2013. Due to this shortcoming, the Bond Value Indicator will be given a smaller weighting in our composite indicator laid out later in this report. Statistical Observations To test this indicator, we looked at the hedged excess monthly returns generated using the same ranking procedure laid out in Box 1. The results show that investors can expect to earn about +12bps per month in excess hedged return from countries with the three cheapest valuations according to the Bond Value Indicators, and can expect to lose -6bps/month in countries that are ranked most expensive (Chart 3). Moreover, betting on countries with the cheapest ranked valuations skews favorably the odds of outperforming, from about 46% to 53% (Chart 4). Chart 3The Gains From Bond Investing ##br##According To Value Chart 4Favor The Cheaper Bond Markets Comments Currently, the U.S. bond market offers the best value (Chart 5). This contrasts unfavorably with our recommended underweight exposure to U.S. Treasuries. Nonetheless, we remain comfortable with this exposure since the U.S. economy is currently in the strongest economic cycle, and its bond market is technically less oversold than its peers (see the next section). Chart 5Bunds Look Rich, Treasuries Look A Bit Cheap Also, note that German and Japanese yields look quite expensive, although this is no surprise given the extremely easy monetary policy settings (negative rates, central bank asset purchases) in place from the European Central Bank (ECB) and Bank of Japan (BoJ). As we have discussed in recent Weekly Reports, we see far greater risks for the ECB moving to a less accommodative monetary bias in the months ahead than the BoJ, and we shifted our country allocations to reflect that view (moving to overweight Japan and cutting Germany to neutral).4 In other words, Japanese bonds will likely stay expensive for longer, unlike German debt. As we mentioned earlier, the value component warrants lesser importance in our tactical and strategic bond allocation framework since it is more long term in nature. In a nutshell, value is something good to have on your side when the macro backdrop shifts, but is not absolutely crucial to generate returns on a month-to-month basis. Evaluating The BCA Bond Momentum Indicator So far, the BCA Bond Cyclical Indicator informed us where the macroeconomic forces were the strongest and the BCA Bond Value Indicator helped us find bargains. This is all great, but bond investors could still underperform if their timing is off. The BCA Bond Momentum Indicator helps in finding the appropriate short-term timing. It has been built simply by looking at how far bond yields are relative to their primary medium-term trend. In theory, bond markets where yields are too stretched to the upside (oversold) should outperform versus countries where yields are too stretched to the downside (overbought). Statistical Observations Using the same ranking methodology explained in Box 1, investors can expect to earn roughly +11bps/month in excess return versus DM peers where conditions are the most oversold and should expect to lose -6bps/month from bond markets with the most overbought conditions (Chart 6). Comments While we do consider technical analysis as part of the tactical component in our bond allocation framework, we put less emphasis on it relative to other more fundamental factors that sustainably drive bond returns over time. Nonetheless, our ranked findings show that choosing markets based on price/yield momentum does generate fairly reliable outperformance. What About Carry? As seen so far, our traditional bond indicators encompass typical variables that would be expected to influence bond returns. Our framework would be incomplete, however, without incorporating the notion of "carry" - the investment return generated by the interest income on bonds. Having instruments that earn too little carry can be very harmful to the returns of a bond portfolio over prolonged periods. A simple observation of the long-term performance of higher-yielding credit markets (i.e. corporate debt or Emerging Market sovereigns) proves that point (Chart 7), especially in the current era where investors continue to stretch for yield given puny risk-free interest rates in so many countries. Chart 6The Gains From Bond Investing ##br##According To Momentum Chart 7Carry Plays A Huge Role ##br##For Long-Run Bond Returns Of course, most of the major carry gaps between DM sovereign bond yields disappear after currency hedging. However, even on a hedged basis, the carry differentials remain important. Currently, Italian debt carries the highest hedged yield in our DM bond universe, at 3.95%, versus 1.54% for Japan. The 241bp differential between the two is significant, especially in the current global low yield environment. However, some of that additional yield is compensation for the greater riskiness of Italian debt, given the many structural problems in that country (high debt levels, low productivity, political instability, fragile banks). In other words, a better way to evaluate carry is on a risk-adjusted basis. In Chart 8, we show the hedged 10-year government bond yields of the ten DM countries shown throughout this report, both in absolute terms (top panel) and adjusted for volatility (bottom panel). Note that Italy's ranking moves down two notches after accounting for the greater return volatility of Italian debt, while Spain offers the most attractive yield on a risk-adjusted basis. At the other end of the spectrum, Australia and Canada have less attractive yields relative to their volatilities than Japan - home of the 0% bond yield. Of course, as the old investment saying goes, "you can't eat risk-adjusted returns." As a general rule, bond markets with higher yields should be expected to outperform markets with lower yields over time. Statistical Observations An historical analysis of our DM universe using the methodology laid out in Box 1 confirms that observation. The bond markets with better ranked carry have a tendency to generate positive excess returns (on a currency-hedged basis) and, on average, produce more winning months than losing ones (Chart 9). This is true even though the higher-yielding markets are often those with higher inflation, or greater government debt levels, or more active central banks that create interest rate volatility. Chart 8Peripheral European Carry##br## Is Still The Most Attractive Chart 9The Gains From Bond Investing##br## According To Carry Comments Currently, the carry factor would favor overweighting Italy, Spain and France, while underweighting Japan, Australia and the U.K. Those relative rankings still generally hold up even after adjusting for volatility. Pulling It All Together: Introducing The GFIS Bond Composite Indicators Now that we have outlined the four elements of our proposed composite bond indicator, the question becomes: how do we aggregate those pieces? The components of our original BCA Bond Model rarely give the same message simultaneously, even after adding a new factor (carry) to the mix. Moreover, as discussed above, some elements (Cyclical and Carry) are more important than others (Value and Momentum) in delivering consistent outperformance of bond returns. Hence, to build a new composite indicator, we need to make a judgment call as to which component should be given more weight. Cyclical (50%). Here at BCA, we spend a fair amount of time trying to deeply understand economic cycles, which are a major driver of financial markets. Bonds are no exception, with changes in growth and inflation expectations forming the fundamental building blocks of yields. As such, we allocate a substantial 50% weight to the cyclical component of our GFIS Bond Composite Indicators. Value (15%). Value moves much more slowly than the other indicators and yields often diverge from fair value for long periods of time. As such, we are giving a smaller weighting of 15% to the value piece of the GFIS Bond Composite Indicators that we are designing to provide a timely signal for country allocation. Momentum (15%). Although technical analysis should be a meaningful part of any investment process, markets can often trend for extended periods before any consolidation, or even reversal, takes place. To reflect that, our momentum indicator will also carry only a 15% weighting in our composite indicator, the same as the weight given to value. Carry (20%). Carry should play an important part in a bond allocation framework. To use a sporting analogy - favoring higher-yielding bonds means starting the game with the score already in your favor. For that reason, we will give carry a 20% weight in our overall bond indicators. After combining our individual bond indicator rankings (from 1 to 10) using the weightings described above, we come up with an overall score for each country which becomes the GFIS Composite Bond Indicator (Table 3). Ranking the countries according to their respective scores gives a new indication as to which bond markets we might want to overweight or underweight. Table 3Combining The BCA Bond Indicators Statistical Observations Chart 10Our Composite Bond Indicator ##br##Adds Value At The Extremes To test the investment performance of our new GFIS Composite Bond Indicators, we created an equally-weighted index using the monthly hedged returns of the ten countries in our DM bond universe. We then created two portfolios: One composed of the countries with the three best composite scores; The other composed of the countries with the three worst composite scores. In both cases, those sample portfolios out-/under-performed the equally-weighted index as expected, proving that value can be extracted by following the recommendations of the GFIS Composite Indicators (Chart 10). Comments This automatic/quantitative ranking of the countries is designed as a guideline only. The goal here is to quickly find what could be the most appealing bond markets on a relative basis. Judgment on whether to apply the findings should and will always take precedence when we make our investment recommendations. Also note, in attributing weightings across the components, we have not used any optimization techniques to find the perfect balance. We simply relied on our judgment for a simple reason: optimization gives the best fit according to a set of historical market volatilities and correlations. During periods when volatilities change, or correlations become less stable, the historically-optimal weightings may produce sub-optimal investment results. We prefer to use a constant set of weights across our individual indicators, derived from our own investment intuition and preferences. What Could Be Our Next Portfolio Tweaks? We compare the latest rankings from our GFIS Composite Bond Indicators to our current fixed income country allocations in Table 4. Deviations between the two can provide some ideas for possible changes to our recommendations. Table 4The GFIS Composite Bond Indicator##br## Vs. Our Current Recommendations From this table, two observations arise: The three countries that rank the highest, Australia, Canada and U.K. are at neutral in our recommended portfolio (Chart 11). Should we move them to overweight? Among the three countries that rank the worst, we are still only at neutral Germany and France (Chart 12). Should we move to an underweight stance given the signal from our new Composite Bond Indicator? On the first point, we have turned decidedly less negative on Australia and U.K. bonds of late.5 In the next few months, if more signs of cyclical deterioration emerge, we will be tempted to align ourselves with our composite indicators and overweight those markets. Although as we discussed in a recent Special Report, another set of our in-house indicators, the Central Bank Monitors, are pointing to pressures to tighten monetary policy in Australia, Canada and the U.K., perhaps providing some justification for only being neutral on those markets.6 On the second point, we recently downgraded core Europe to neutral from overweight, given our growing concern that the ECB will be forced to announce a tapering of its asset purchases, likely starting in early 2018.7 We anticipate that our next move will be to a full-blown underweight position on both Germany and France, although we prefer to wait until after the upcoming French elections before making that shift. Given our view that the populist Marine Le Pen will not win the presidency, we expect to be cutting Germany before France, as there is still a wide political uncertainty premium built into French-German bond spreads.8 Chart 11Bond Upgrade Candidates Chart 12Bond Downgrade Candidates Going forward, we will continue to monitor our GFIS's Composite Bond Indicators to supplement/confirm our macro analyses and to discover some potential portfolio moves/trades. Additionally, we will look to further test and refine the Composite Bond Indicators by looking at different weighting schemes among the component indicators, how the correlations between the components shift over time (and if there is any information from those changes), and other considerations. Now that we've "dusted off" our classic bond indicators, there is plenty of additional research that can be done to build on the initial results shown in this report. Jean-Laurent Gagnon, Editor/Strategist jeang@bcaresearch.com Robert Robis, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com 1 We have built the Cyclical Bond Indicators using data going back to 1967 for most DM countries, allowing for a robust historical analysis across the different bond markets. 2 Since global bonds have experienced a powerful secular bull market over the past 35 years, the majority of monthly returns in the history of the Cyclical Bond Indicator have been positive. As such, shorting bonds in absolute terms has seldom proved to be a value-added proposition. The only exceptions are when the macro landscape has entered the Euphoria state, which has been quite rare. 3 In local currency terms 4 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "Staying Behind The Curve, For Now", dated March 21, 2017, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com 5 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Reports, "Will The Hawks Walk The Talk?", dated March 7, 2017 (on the U.K.), and "It's Real Growth, Not Fake News", dated February 21, 2017 (on Australia), both available at gfis.bcaresearch.com 6 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report, "BCA Central Bank Monitor Chartbook", dated March 28, 2017, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com 7 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "March Madness", dated March 14, 2017, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com 8 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report "Our Views On French Government Bonds", dated February 7, 2017, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com

Highlights Chart 1Is Inflation Heating Up? In past reports we have argued that as long as inflation (and inflation expectations) are below the Fed's target, then the "reflation trade" will remain in vogue. In other words, with inflation still too low, the Fed has an incentive to back away from its hawkish rhetoric whenever risk assets sell off and financial conditions tighten. But with inflation heating up - the last two monthly increases in core PCE are close to the highest seen in this recovery (Chart 1) - will the Fed become less responsive? Not yet! Year-over-year core PCE is still only 1.75% (the Fed's target is 2%) and the cost of inflation protection embedded in long-dated TIPS remains too low (panel 2). In fact, the uptrend in TIPS breakevens lost some of its momentum last month alongside wider credit spreads and the S&P 500's first monthly decline since October. In this environment, we are inclined to add credit risk as spreads widen and believe a "buy the dips" strategy will work until inflation pressures are more pronounced. On a 6-12 month horizon we continue to recommend: below-benchmark duration, overweight spread product, curve steepeners and TIPS breakeven wideners. Feature Investment Grade: Overweight Chart 2Investment Grade Market Overview Investment grade corporate bonds underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 15 basis points in March. The index option-adjusted spread widened 3 bps on the month and, at 118 bps, it remains well below its historical average (134 bps). While supportive monetary policy will ensure excess returns consistent with carry, investors should not bank on further spread compression as spreads have already discounted a substantial improvement in leverage (Chart 2). In fact, leverage showed a marked increase in Q4 2016 even though spreads moved tighter. The measure of gross leverage (total debt divided by EBITD) shown in Chart 2 increased in the fourth quarter even though total debt grew at an annualized rate of only 0.3%. However, EBITD actually contracted at an annualized rate of 7% in Q4 causing leverage to rise. The quarterly decline in EBITD looks anomalous, and the year-over-year trend is improving (panel 4). In fact, we would not be surprised to see leverage stabilize this year as profits rebound.1 But similarly, we also expect that the recent plunge in debt growth will reverse. Historically, it has been very rare for leverage to fall unless prompted by a recession. We will take up this issue in more detail in next week's report. Energy related sectors still appear cheap after adjusting for differences in credit rating and duration (Table 3), and we remain overweight. This week we also downgrade the Retailers and Packaging sectors, which have become expensive, and upgrade Cable & Satellite, which appears cheap. Table 3A Table 3B High-Yield: Overweight Chart 3High-Yield Market Overview High-Yield underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 25 basis points in March. The index option-adjusted spread widened 20 bps on the month and, at 383 bps, it is currently 136 bps below its historical average. Given the favorable policy back-drop described on page 1, we view the recent widening in junk spreads (Chart 3) as an opportunity to increase exposure to the sector. In fact, in a recent report2 we tested a strategy of "buying dips" in the junk bond market in different inflationary regimes. The strategy involved buying the High-Yield index whenever spreads widened by 20 bps or more in a month and then holding that position for 3 months. We defined the different inflationary regimes based on the St. Louis Fed's Price Pressures Measure (PPM).3 We found that our "buy the dips" strategy yielded positive excess returns 65% of the time in a very low inflation regime (PPM < 15%), 59% of the time in a low inflation regime (15% < PPM < 30%), 44% of the time in a moderate inflation regime (30% < PPM < 50%) and only 25% of the time in a high inflation regime (50% < PPM < 70%). Currently, the reading from the PPM is 13%. MBS: Underweight Chart 4MBS Market Overview Mortgage-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 4 basis points in March. The conventional 30-year MBS yield rose 6 bps on the month, driven entirely by a 6 bps increase in the rate component. The compensation for prepayment risk (option cost) declined by 6 bps, but this was exactly offset by a 6 bps widening in the option-adjusted spread. As a result, the zero-volatility spread was flat on the month. The option-adjusted spread represents expected excess returns to MBS assuming that prepayments fall in line with expectations. On this basis, MBS look more attractive than they have for some time (Chart 4). However, net MBS issuance also surged in Q4 2016 (panel 4) and should remain robust this year despite higher mortgage rates.4 Interest rates have not been a deterrent to mortgage demand since the financial crisis. The limiting factors have been a lack of household savings and restrictive bank lending standards. Both of these headwinds continue to gradually fade. The option-adjusted spread still appears too low relative to issuance. Nominal MBS spreads are linked to rate volatility (bottom panel), and volatility should increase as the fed funds rate moves further off its zero-bound.5 The wind-down of the Fed's MBS portfolio - which we expect will begin in 2018 - should also pressure implied volatility higher as the private sector is forced to absorb the increased supply, some of which will be convexity-hedged. Government-Related: Underweight Chart 5Government-Related Market Overview The Government-Related index outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 22 basis points in March. The high-beta Sovereign and Foreign Agency sectors outperformed by 71 bps and 41 bps, respectively. Meanwhile, the low-beta Domestic Agency and Supranational sectors outperformed by 9 bps and 15 bps, respectively. Local Authorities underperformed the Treasury benchmark by 17 bps. The performance of Sovereigns has been stellar this year, as the sector has benefited from a 3% depreciation in the trade-weighted dollar (Chart 5). However, the downtrend in the dollar looks more like a temporary reversal than an end to the bull market. With U.S. growth on a strong footing, there is still scope for global interest rate differentials to move in favor of the dollar. Potential fiscal policy measures - such as lower tax rates and a border-adjusted corporate tax - would also lead to a stronger dollar, if enacted. As such, we do not believe the current outperformance of Sovereigns can be sustained. We continue to recommend overweight allocations to Foreign Agencies and Local Authorities, alongside underweight allocations to the rest of the Government-Related index. Municipal Bonds: Neutral Chart 6Municipal Market Overview Municipal bonds outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 24 basis points in March (before adjusting for the tax advantage). The average Municipal / Treasury (M/T) yield ratio declined 2% on the month and remains firmly anchored below its post-crisis average. This year's decline in M/T yield ratios has been concentrated at the short-end of the curve (Chart 6), and long maturities now offer a significant valuation advantage. This week we recommend favoring the long-end of the Aaa Muni curve (10-year maturities and beyond) versus the short-end (maturities up to 5 years). Overall, M/T yield ratios appear fairly valued on a tactical basis. While fund inflows have ebbed in recent weeks (panel 4), this has occurred alongside a plunge in gross issuance (bottom panel). The more concerning near-term risk for Munis is that yield ratios have already discounted a substantial improvement in state & local government net borrowing (panel 3). However, we expect net borrowing to decline during the next couple of quarters on the back of rising tax revenues. State & local government tax receipts decelerated throughout most of 2015 and 2016 alongside falling personal income growth and disappointing retail sales. However, both income growth and retail sales have moved higher in recent months, and this should soon translate into accelerating tax receipts and lower net borrowing. Longer term, significant risks remain for the Muni market.6 Chief among them is that state & local government budgets now finally look healthy enough to increase investment spending. Not to mention the significant uncertainty surrounding the potential for lower federal tax rates and plans to invest in infrastructure. Treasury Curve: Favor 5-Year Bullet Over 2/10 Barbell Chart 7Treasury Yield Curve Overview The Treasury curve underwent a small parallel shift upward in March, roughly split between a bear-steepening leading up to the FOMC meeting on March 15 and a bull-flattening from the meeting until the end of the month. Overall, the 2/10 Treasury slope flattened 1 basis point on the month and the 5/30 slope ended the month 1 bp steeper. Our recommended position long the 5-year bullet and short the 2/10 barbell - designed to profit from a steeper yield curve - returned +3 bps in March and is up 7 bps since inception on December 20. In addition, we also entered a short January 2018 fed funds futures trade on March 21.7 The performance of this trade has so far been flat. In a recent report,7 we identified the main cyclical drivers of the slope of the yield curve as: The fed funds rate (higher fed funds rate = flatter curve) Inflation expectations (higher inflation expectations = steeper curve) Interest rate volatility (higher volatility = steeper curve) Unit labor costs (higher unit labor costs = flatter curve) We concluded that even though the Fed is in the process of lifting the funds rate, the yield curve likely has room to steepen as long-maturity TIPS breakevens recover to levels more consistent with the Fed's inflation target (Chart 7). In addition, interest rate volatility has likely bottomed for the cycle and the uptrend in unit labor costs could level-off if productivity growth continues to rebound. The recent decline in bullish sentiment toward the dollar has also not yet been matched by a steeper 5/30 slope (bottom panel). TIPS: Overweight Chart 8TIPS Market Overview TIPS outperformed the duration-equivalent nominal Treasury index by 6 basis points in March. The 10-year TIPS breakeven rate declined 5 bps on the month and, at 1.97%, it remains well below its pre-crisis trading range of 2.4% to 2.5%. While the catalyst for the recent softening in TIPS outperformance seems to be the hawkish re-rating of Fed rate hike expectations, the uptrend in TIPS breakevens was probably due for a pause in any case. Breakevens had become stretched relative to our TIPS Financial Model - based on the dollar, oil prices and the stock-to-bond total return ratio. However, measures of pipeline inflation pressure - such as the ISM prices paid survey (Chart 8) - still point toward wider breakevens and, as was noted on the front page of this report, recent core inflation prints have been quite strong. All in all, growth appears strong enough that core inflation should continue its gradual uptrend and, more importantly, the Fed will be keen to accommodate an increase in both realized core inflation and TIPS breakevens, which remain below target. This means that in the absence of a material growth slowdown, long-maturity TIPS breakevens should continue to trend higher until they reach the 2.4% to 2.5% range that historically has been consistent with the Fed's inflation target. In a baseline scenario where the unemployment rate is 4.7% at the end of the year and the dollar remains flat, our Phillips curve model8 predicts that year-over-year core PCE inflation will be 2.02% at the end of this year. ABS: Maximum Overweight Overweight Chart 9ABS Market Overview Asset-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 17 basis points in March, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +22 bps. Aaa-rated issues outperformed the Treasury benchmark by 16 bps on the month, and non-Aaa issues outperformed by 26 bps. The index option-adjusted spread for Aaa-rated ABS tightened 5 bps on the month. At 48 bps, the spread remains well below its average pre-crisis level (Chart 9). Banks are now tightening lending standards on both auto loans and credit cards. While we do not expect this recent development to have much of an impact on consumer spending, it is usually an indication that there is growing concern about ABS collateral credit quality. As such, this week we scale back our recommended allocation to ABS from maximum overweight (5 out of 5) to overweight (4 out of 5). While credit card charge-offs remain well below pre-crisis levels, net losses on auto loans have started to trend higher (bottom panel). We continue to favor Aaa-rated credit cards over Aaa-rated auto loans, despite the modest spread advantage in autos (panel 3). Further, the spread advantage in Aaa consumer ABS relative to other high-quality spread product is becoming less compelling. Aaa ABS now only provide a 12 bps option-adjusted spread cushion relative to conventional 30-year Agency MBS and offer a slightly lower spread than Agency CMBS. Non-Agency CMBS: Underweight Chart 10CMBS Market Overview Non-agency commercial mortgage-backed securities underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 10 basis points in March, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to +16 bps. The index option-adjusted spread for non-agency Aaa-rated CMBS widened 4 bps on the month, but remains below its average pre-crisis level. Commercial real estate prices are still growing strongly, and prices in both major and non-major markets have re-gained their pre-crisis peaks (Chart 10). However, lending standards are tightening and, more recently, loan demand has rolled over (panel 4). This suggests that credit risk is starting to increase in commercial real estate, as do CMBS delinquencies which have put in a bottom (panel 5). Agency CMBS: Overweight Agency CMBS outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 14 basis points in March, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +16 bps. The index option-adjusted spread for Agency CMBS tightened 2 bps on the month, and currently sits at 53 bps. The option-adjusted spread on Agency CMBS looks attractive compared to other high-quality spread product: Agency MBS = 36 bps, Aaa consumer ABS = 48 bps, Agency bonds = 18 bps and Supranationals = 22 bps. We continue to recommend an overweight position in Agency CMBS. Treasury Valuation Chart 11Treasury Fair Value Models The current reading from our 2-factor Treasury model (which is based on Global PMI and dollar sentiment) places fair value for the 10-year Treasury yield at 2.54% (Chart 11). Our 3-factor version of the model, which also incorporates the Global Economic Policy Uncertainty Index, places fair value at 2.28%. The lower fair value results from the large spike in the uncertainty index last November, which has only been partially unwound (bottom panel). Large spikes in uncertainty that do not coincide with deterioration in other economic indicators tend to mean revert fairly quickly. So we are inclined to view the fair value reading from our 2-factor model as more indicative of true fair value at the moment. For further details on our Treasury models please refer to the U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "The Message From Our Treasury Model", dated October 11, 2016, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com At the time of publication the 10-year Treasury yield was 2.35%. 1 For further detail on the medium-term profit outlook please see The Bank Credit Analyst, February 207, dated January 26, 2017, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Keep Buying Dips", dated March 8, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 3 A composite of 104 economic indicators designed to capture the probability of PCE inflation exceeding 2.5% during the subsequent 12 months. https://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/economic-synopses/2015/11/06/introducing-the-st-louis-fed-price-pressures-measure 4 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Keep Buying Dips", dated March 28, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 5 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "The Road To Higher Vol Is Paved With Uncertainty", dated February 14, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 6 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, "Trading The Municipal Credit Cycle", dated October 18, 2016, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 7 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "The Yield Curve On A Cyclical Horizon", dated March 21, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 8 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "The Odds Of March", dated February 21, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification Corporate Sector Relative Valuation And Recommended Allocation Total Return Comparison: 7-Year Bullet Versus 2-20 Barbell (6-Month Investment Horizon)