Market Returns

Special Report

Highlights We update the long-term structural themes that we expect will be key drivers of financial market performance over the next one to five years, drawing investment conclusions from each. Debt Supercycle. The final stage of a debt supercycle is often marked by an increase in public debt, which we may now see in the U.S. Meanwhile, the eurozone and emerging markets are still at an early stage of post-debt deleveraging. Technological Disruption. The IT revolution has reached the mature phase, and behind it is a new wave of technologies including artificial intelligence and biotech. The first and last stages of tech waves are the only times where investors typically make profits. Emerging Market Deleveraging. EM assets will continue to underperform until these countries complete structural reforms and deal with the consequences of a decade of credit excesses. Multipolar Geopolitics. The end of American hegemony raises the risk of military conflicts and will make the world less globalized. End Of The Bond Bull Market. Interest rates have been in structural decline since the early 1980s. With a rotation to fiscal policy and (eventually) higher inflation, the path of least resistance for yields is upwards. Subpar Long-Run Returns. With bond yields low and equities expensive, investors will find it hard to achieve the returns they have become accustomed to over the past 30 years. Substantially more risk will be required to achieve the same level of return. Bear Market In Commodities. Weak demand growth (as China reengineers its economy), excess resource capacity, and an appreciating dollar make this a very different environment to the 2000s. Mal-Distribution Of Income. The backlash from stagnant incomes in Anglo-Saxon economies will continue. Populism is likely to cause the labor share of GDP to rise, hurting profits and lowering investment returns. Feature I. Introduction Chart 1Major Market Cycles The key views in Global Asset Allocation (GAA), as in other BCA services, center on the cyclical time-horizon, six to 12 months. This means analyzing principally where we are in the business cycle, the impact of liquidity and monetary conditions, and the current outlook for economic and earnings growth. But it is also important to understand the long-term picture: the structural trends in asset prices, debt, demographics, technology, and other "long wave" factors that have profound and protracted impacts on investment performance. Specifically, investors need to get right long-term shifts in things such as economic growth, the U.S. dollar, commodity prices, interest rates, and the relative performance of stocks and bonds (Chart 1). Such long-term themes, therefore, represent the road-map around which GAA develops its cyclical views. Ever since the service began in 2011 (and indeed in its predecessor, the BCA Premium Service), we have published a list of Major Themes, that "should be key drivers of financial market performance over the next 1-5 years." This Special Report updates and fleshes out these major themes. We have retained five of our current themes: The End of The Debt Supercycle The End of The 35-Year Global Bond Bull Market Subpar Long-Run Returns Bear Market in Commodities The Mal-Distribution of Income &Social Unrest And have added three new themes: Technological Disruption EM in A Multi-Year Deleveraging Multipolar Geopolitics In the report we describe each of these themes and draw investment conclusions from them. The descriptions are relatively brief (since most of these themes will be familiar to BCA clients), but we spend more time on analyzing the new themes and on the Debt Supercycle, which is central to our world view. We have dropped two of our earlier themes: Financial Sector Re-Regulation: Bank regulation has indeed been drastically tightened in the years since the Global Financial Crisis. As a result, banks have deleveraged significantly in most regions (Chart 2), their profitability has declined (Chart 3), and share price performance has been poor. But this phase may be over. Bank loan growth has recovered in the U.S. and the new Trump administration may both boost demand for borrowing and ease regulation. In Europe and Japan, bank stock performance will henceforth be driven more by shifts in loan demand and the shape of the yield curve than by regulation. Chart 2Banks Have Deleveraged... Chart 3... And Become Much Less Profitable Chart 4The Lowest Interest Rates Ever A Generational Shift: Our concept was that Millennials (usually defined as those who came of age after 2000 - so born between 1977 and 1994) would behave differently: they would own less (preferring to Uber and couch-surf), depend on social media, and be less focused on their careers. Arguably, this has not been the case. Like previous generations, Millennials have started to acquire possessions. In the U.S. last year, one-half of homebuyers were under 36; Millennials bought 4 million cars (making them the second largest group of purchasers behind baby-boomers). Moreover, this is a hard theme to draw investment conclusions from. Every generation is slightly different - but how concretely does this affect asset prices? One final thought. A common thread running through our themes is that there is little new under the sun. Most phenomena in economics and markets are cyclical. Many of the charts in this report show that the same environment comes round time and again, after five, 10 or 50 years. Much analysis in investment theory is based on this (think of Kontratiev waves, "the fourth turning," Dow Theory etc.) But what is fascinating about today's world is that there are trends we are experiencing for the first time in history: Zero or negative interest rates: never in history have governments, companies, and individuals been able to borrow so cheaply (Chart 4), sometimes even being paid for the privilege. Demographics: The world population has grown continuously since the Black Death in 1350. Indeed the fastest population growth on record was as recent as the 1960s (Chart 5). But growth has slowed sharply since, and is expected to be only 0.1% a year by the end of the century. As a result, we are seeing an unprecedented slowdown - and even decline - in the size of the workforce in many countries (Chart 6). Chart 5Population Growth Has Slowed Drastically Chart 6The Workforce In Some Countries Is Shrinking The impacts of these two trends will be profound - but they won't be found by looking at historical precedents. II. Debt Supercycles One of the key ways in which BCA has long looked at the world is through the concept of debt supercycles. Our founder, Hamilton Bolton, wrote in 1967 of "the possibilities inherent in an intensive study of changes in bank credit as a major cyclical and supercyclical investment tool....History shows period after period of excessive bank credit inflation. It also shows a number of periods in which bank credit deflation has been allowed to erode the whole economic and investment structure."1 Simply put, when credit in the economy expands (and these days one needs to look more broadly than at just bank credit) it tends to boost growth, raise asset prices, and underpin the effectiveness of monetary policy. At some point, the level of credit becomes unsustainable and the subsequent deleveraging causes financial conservatism as borrowers focus on repairing their balance-sheets. This makes monetary policy relatively ineffective, and has negative effects on growth and asset prices. The two biggest debt supercycles over the past 50 years were in Japan from 1970 to 1990, and in the U.S. and parts of Europe starting in the early 1980s and culminating with the Global Financial Crisis in 2007 (Chart 7). The fallout from the end of Japan's debt supercycle has been stark: since 1990, Japanese nominal GDP has grown by only 0.4% a year (compared to 6% a year over the previous 10 years) and even today the Nikkei index is 55% below its peak. In the U.S., the early 1980s' financial deregulation and the fiscal policies of the Reagan government caused both private and government debt to begin to rise as a percentage of GDP (Chart 8). From the late 1990s, monetary policy was kept too easy, which culminated in the housing bubble of 2004-7. After that bubble burst, households reduced debt (partly through defaults) and government spending rose sharply for a few years to cushion the recession. Chart 7Debt Supercycles Everywhere Chart 8U.S. Debt Started To Rise From 1980 Since 2009, BCA has been talking about a "post debt supercycle" in the U.S.2 The household savings rate rose (Chart 9), as consumers became cautious, preferring to save rather than spend (Chart 10). This has meant that consumption growth has been lower than wage growth, whereas the opposite was the case up to 2007. Monetary policy also became ineffective since, in such a weak growth environment, companies were not inclined to spend on capital investment despite ultra-low interest rates (Chart 11). Chart 9Household Savings Rate Has Risen Since The Crisis Chart 10Consumers Prefer To Save Than Spend Chart 11Companies Not Spending Despite Low Rates There are two competing theories to explain the sub-trend growth of the current expansion. Larry Summers' theory of secular stagnation3 describes a world in which, even with ultra-low interest rates, desired levels of saving exceed desired levels of investment, leading to chronic shortfall in demand. BCA's debt supercycle explanation is closer to that of economists such as Kenneth Rogoff, who argues that once deleveraging and borrowing headwinds subside, growth trends might rise again.4But the two theories may not be so incompatible: secular factors, such as demographics, play a role in both. The final stage of a debt supercycle is often an increase in public debt. That has certainly been the case in Japan: while the private sector has deleveraged aggressively since 1990, government debt to GDP has risen from 67% to 250% - without having much discernible effect on boosting growth. In the U.S., government debt has stabilized as a percentage of GDP over the past two years, and the baseline projection made by the Congressional Budget Office in March this year forecasts it to increase by only 10 percentage points over the next decade. But the election of President Trump might change that. His campaign promised tax cuts and infrastructure spending amounting to about USD6 Trn which, all else being equal, would increase government debt/GDP by another 30 percentage points over a decade. There are two other regions where we see the debt supercycle being an important factor over the coming years: the Eurozone and emerging markets. In Europe, some of the most indebted countries, notably the U.K. and Spain, have made progress in deleveraging since the Global Financial Crisis - although the balance-sheet repair is likely to remain a drag on the economy for a while longer. But France and Italy have hardly delevered at all, and some smaller countries such as Belgium have seen a substantial increase in private debt/GDP (Chart 12). The Eurozone remains generally a very heavily bank-dependent economy, with total bank credit almost back to a historical peak (Chart 13). Germany, by contrast, has long had an aversion to debt: private sector debt/GDP has never been above 130% and is currently only around 100%. This unwillingness to borrow and spend by the world's fourth largest economy has been a drag on European growth. Chart 12Deleveraging In Europe Has Been Patchy Chart 13Eurozone Bank Loans Have Not Declined Emerging markets delevered after the Asian crisis in 1997-8 but the wave of global liquidity created in 2009-12 flowed into EMs, triggering excessively high credit growth. Private-sector EM debt has reached an average of 140% of GDP (Chart 14), and a higher percentage of global GDP than was U.S. debt at the peak of the housing bubble in 2006. Although the debt buildup is most extreme in China, where private-sector debt/GDP has risen by 70 percentage points over the past seven years, the same phenomenon is apparent in many other emerging markets, notably Brazil, Turkey, Russia and Malaysia (Chart 15). Chart 14The EM Debt Supercycle May Be Ending Chart 15And It's Not Just About China BCA's Emerging Markets Strategy has argued for a while that this is unsustainable and that a period of deleveraging will cause growth to slow in many emerging markets and that the strains from the excessive lending, such as rising NPL ratios, will become apparent.5 The deleveraging has already started to happen, with loan growth in Brazil, Malaysia and Turkey - but not yet China - slowing sharply (Charts 16 & 17). Chart 16EM Bank Lending Now Slowing... Chart 17...Almost Everywhere We draw a number of conclusions for long-term asset allocation from this analysis. The post debt supercycle is likely to remain a drag on global growth, and therefore on returns from risk assets, for some years to come. But the U.S. is likely to be less affected than the eurozone since the household sector there has already substantially deleveraged and the Trump administration is more likely to use government spending to fill the gap. Emerging markets will underperform for some years to come as they too go through a period of deleveraging. III. Disruptive Technology Technological change is a key driving force of economies and markets. As Joseph Schumpeter said, capitalism is a "process of industrial mutation...that incessantly revolutionizes the economic structure from within, incessantly destroying the old one, incessantly creating a new one." Nikolai Kondratiev described 45-60 year waves that were triggered by "the irruption of a technological revolution and the absorption of its effects." Understanding where we are in the technological cycle, then, is very important for investors wanting to catch deep trends. But it is particularly hard at the moment because, at the same time as the world is still seeing ramifications coming through from personal computing (which began as long ago as 1971, with Intel's announcement of the first microprocessor) and from the internet (which started as Arpanet in 1969), there is a new wave of revolutionary technologies still mainly on the drawing-board, including robotics, artificial intelligence, and genetic engineering. The best framework for thinking about technological cycles is provided by economist Carlota Perez.6 She describes five "surges of development" starting with the Industrial Revolution, which she dates from the opening of Arkwright's cotton spinning mill in Cromford in 1771 (Table 1). Her key argument is that these revolutionary technologies have powerful and long drawn-out effects on the financial, social, institutional, and organizational framework and therefore tend to move through a similar pattern of four phases (Chart 18) lasting around 50 years in all. The fifth wave, Information Technology, for example, started in its installation phase with development of the microprocessor, PCs, and mobile phones in the 1970s and 1980s, reached frenzy in the 1990s, hit a turning-point (which often triggers a stock market crash) in 2000-2, before reaching the deployment phase in the 2000s, and may now be at maturity (growth in computers and smart phones is slowing). Table 1The Five Historic Technology ##br##'Surges Of Development' Chart 18The Four Stages Of Technology Waves But Perez wrote her book in 2002, and we could now be close to the beginning of the sixth wave. Think about the situation 30 years ago, in 1986. It would not have been hard to extrapolate how technology might develop over the coming years since some people already used PCs, mobile phones, and the internet but, as William Gibson said at the time, "the future is already, here - it's just not very evenly distributed." Today there are still a few further developments to come in these fifth-wave technologies (we've listed some in Table 2). But there is a whole further set of technologies (self-driving cars, graphene, distributed energy generation) which almost nobody uses now, but which could become important. Many of these build on the developments of the fifth wave (ubiquitous connectivity, cheap and powerful computing) in the same way that previous revolutions grew from their predecessors (cars wouldn't have been possible without steel, for example). Table 2Fifth And Sixth Wave Technologies Still To Come The implications of these new technologies are hard to predict, and many have undoubtedly been over-hyped. As Bill Gates said: "We always overestimate the change that will occur in the next two years and underestimate the change that will occur in the next ten." So how should investors deal with this? The macro implications are enormous. Every new wave of technologies has a large impact on employment, as jobs in dying industries disappear. U.S. farm workers, for example, fell from over half of the labor force in 1880 to only 12% by 1950 (Chart 19). But perhaps more relevant - given that self-driving vehicles may replace taxi, truck, and delivery drivers - is that the number of horses in the U.S. fell from 26 million to 4 million over the 50 years starting in 1915 (Chart 20). These jobs, of course, were replaced by new opportunities in manufacturing or services. And the number of drivers in the U.S. is only 3.8 million currently, or less than 3% of the workforce. Nonetheless, in the maturity phase of the technology wave (where we are now for the IT revolution), Perez points out, there is often popular unrest as "workers organize and demand...the benefits that have been promised and not delivered." Chart 19Farm Workers Were Disrupted ##br##In The Late 19th Century Chart 20...And So ##br##Were Horses Investing in new technologies is naturally appealing to investors, but often tricky to get right. Alastair Nairn7 identifies five similar phases for investing in technology but concludes that investors can usually make money only in the first stage, when initial skepticism reigns, and in the final stage, when the technology has matured and the surviving handful of leading players can now make good profit. Analysis by economists at the Atlanta Fed showed (Table 3) that, of the 24 U.S. PC manufacturers listed on the U.S. stock market between 1983 and 2006, only 10 made a positive return for shareholders.8 Of these, only five beat the overall index. The picture is similar for other technology waves, except perhaps for the nascent auto industry when 12 of 23 listed manufacturers outperformed the index in 1912-1928. Table 3Investments In New Technology Companies Rarely Beat The Market Nairn also argues that it is easier to spot losers than winners: "The winners take many years to emerge and...it is well-nigh impossible to identify them early. ...Conversely, the losers tend to be more obvious, and more obvious at an early stage." Think back to the early days of the internet. Investors would have struggled to pick the eventual winners (Apple, Amazon, Google - but many might have guessed Yahoo or even Pets.com) but should have understood that the media, travel, retailing, and film-camera industries would all be disrupted. Chart 21IT And Healthcare Sectors ##br##Are Likely To Continue To Outperform So how should investors apply these conclusions? If we are in the mature phase of the Fifth Wave and the skepticism phase of the Sixth, this is a time when investors can benefit from tilts towards sectors where technological changes are taking place, most notably IT and Healthcare, which are likely to continue to outperform over the long run (Chart 21). Exposure to what our colleague Peter Berezin calls BRAIN stocks - biotech, robotics, artificial intelligence, nanotech - makes sense.9 This can be captured through venture capital funds. Potential losers might include energy companies and utilities, as improvements in solar energy lead to more distributed power. Even oil company BP reckons that renewables will provide 16% of power generation in 2035 - and 35% in the EU - up from 4% today, with the cost of solar power expected to fall by 40% over the time. Other sectors that could be disrupted include automakers, which could be challenged by developments in electric vehicles, and financial institutions, whose business model could be under threat from peer-to-peer lending, robo-advisers and other developments in fintech. IV. Emerging Markets In A Multi-Year Deleveraging BCA has recommended a structural underweight on emerging market (EM) equities relative to developed markets (DM) since 2010.10 This call worked well until the end of last year. So far this year, however, EM equities have outperformed DM by 5%, despite their sharp selloff (Chart 22) after the U.S. election. Our view is that emerging markets remain structurally challenged and that their long-run underperformance is likely to continue. We view the outperformance this year as simply a counter-trend move driven largely by two factors: a) the extreme relative undervaluation of EM vs. DM at the beginning of the year; and b) unconventional quantitative easing from the ECB and BoJ, and massive back-door liquidity injections (Chart 23) by EM central banks, such as in China and Turkey. Chart 22Counter-Trend Rally Largley Driven By... Chart 23QE / Massive Liquidity Injection By PBoC After the bounce, however, EM equities are no longer especially cheap relative to their DM counterparts, with the relative forward PE ratio now at its five-year average. Going forward, the poor profit outlook - due to persistent structural problems in the EM economies - will continue to weigh on the relative performance of EM assets. We maintain our structural underweight call on EM equities in a global portfolio. First, the factors that drove the massive outperformance of emerging markets in 2002-2010 have disappeared: the once-in-a-generation debt-fueled consumption binge in DM, and the investment-fueled double-digit growth in China which triggered a bull market in commodities (Chart 24). But EM countries did not take full advantage of these exogenous forces to reform their economies: to foster domestic demand, and optimize resource allocation and industrial structure. When China slowed and U.S. consumers went through a much-needed deleveraging after the Great Recession, exports to DM slowed and even contracted, and commodities prices declined sharply. As a result, the export-driven economic model of EM countries has broken down. The structural drivers of economic growth in the EM, both productivity and capital efficiency (Chart 25), have been in a downtrend, while debt (Chart 26) has continued to soar. Chart 24Regime Has Shifted Chart 25Structural Drivers Have Weakened Chart 26Debt Has Soared Structural problems require structural solutions. These solutions vary by country, but in general require less state intervention in the economy, flexible labor markets, and better incentive structures to encourage innovation and entrepreneurship. But structural reforms are a painful process and take strong political will to implement. A case in point is China, which delayed its announced supply-side reforms and reverted to monetary and fiscal stimulus when growth slowed. Second, history shows that no credit boom can last forever. Chart 27 shows private non-financial credit-to-GDP ratios in major developed economies. They have experienced periods of deleveraging of various magnitudes and durations, even though these nations have deep and sophisticated banking, credit, and financial markets, and some have plenty of domestic savings. Similar patterns have been observed in EM economies, although their deleveraging episodes have tended to be more frequent and of larger magnitude (Chart 28). Chart 27No Credit Boom Lasts ##br##Forever In DM Economies Chart 28Asian Economies: Many Interruptions During Structural Leveraging Process The main reason for these boom-bust credit cycles is the burden of debt servicing. As the private credit-to-GDP ratio rises, if interest rates are held constant, a larger share of income needs to be allocated to paying interest. At some point, debt service eats too much into debtors' incomes, causing debtors to default and creditors to reduce credit provision. This causes the economy to slow, followed by a painful but necessary restructuring to work off the excess leverage before a new cycle can start. We see no reason see why EM countries, China in particular, can sustain their current high and rising leverage levels. Deleveraging is inevitable. Third, this deleveraging in EM is at a very early stage, since credit in most EM countries continues to grow faster than nominal GDP (Chart 29). After years of booming corporate and household debt, a period of consolidation is inevitable. Hence, credit growth is set to slow to at least the level of nominal GDP growth. The credit impulse - the change in the rate of credit growth - is a key factor influencing GDP and profit growth. Chart 30 shows that if credit growth converges to nominal GDP growth within the next 12-24 months, the credit impulse will turn negative, ensuring a slowdown in the EM economies and a further contraction in corporate earnings, thus putting downside pressure on asset prices. Chart 29A Break In LEveraging Cycle Is Overdue Chart 30Negative Credit Impulse Bodes Ill For Profit And Equities Prices Chart 31Dismal Return on Equity Bottom Line: EM economies are at a very early stage of a multi-year deleveraging to work off credit excesses. Despite their year-to-date outperformance, we expect EM equities will continue to underperform their DM counterparts over the long run until their return on equity (Chart 31) improves significantly. V. Geopolitical Multipolarity Since the end of the Cold War, geopolitics has mostly remained in the background for investors. This is because the collapse of the Soviet Union ushered in an era of American hegemony that lasted for roughly two decades. During this period, the global concentration of economic, trade, and military power increased as the U.S. became the only true superpower (Chart 32). The world entered a period of "hegemonic stability," an era during which regional powers dared not pursue an independent foreign policy for fear of U.S. retaliation and during which the "Washington consensus" of laissez-faire capitalism and free trade was adopted by policymakers in both developed and emerging markets. Chart 32The End Of American Hegemony A central thesis of BCA's Geopolitical Strategy is that the world has entered a multipolar phase.11 Multipolarity implies that the number of states powerful enough to pursue an independent and globally-relevant foreign policy is greater than one (unipolarity) or two (bipolarity). Today, multipolarity is the product of America's decaying unipolar moment. The U.S. remains, by far, the most powerful country in the absolute sense, but it is experiencing a relative decline as regional powers become more capable on both the economic and geopolitical fronts (Chart 33). Multipolarity is not a popular theme with investors. It augurs uncertainty, rising risk premia, and unanticipated "Black Swan" events. In addition, some of our clients take issue with the thesis that the U.S. is in "decline." Although we can measure hard power and illustrate the relative decline of the U.S. empirically, perhaps the greatest evidence of global multipolarity are recent events that were unimaginable just five or ten years ago: Russia's annexation of Crimea; China's military expansion in South China Sea; Turkey's disregard for U.S. interests in Syria; U.S.-Iran détente (with little evidence that Tehran has actually curbed its nuclear capabilities); Dramatic withdrawal of U.S. troops in the Middle East. The point of a multipolar world is not that Russia, China, Turkey, Iran, and other powers seek to challenge America's global reach, but rather that each is more than capable of pursuing an independent foreign policy within their own spheres of influence. As the number of "veto players" in the global "Great Game" increases, however, equilibrium becomes more difficult to achieve. Uncertainty rises and conflicts emerge where none were expected. So what does multipolarity mean for investors? First, we know from formal modeling in political science, and from history, that a multipolar world is unstable and more likely to produce military conflict (Chart 34).12 There are three reasons: Chart 33U.S. Experiencing Relative Decline Chart 34Geopolitical Risk Is The Outcome Of Global Multipolarity During periods of multipolarity, more states can effectively pursue foreign policies that lead to war, thus creating more potential "conflict dyads" in the parlance of International Relations theory. In fact, evidence shows that this has already happened (and continues to happen), with the number of international or internationalized conflicts rising since 2010 dramatically (Chart 35). Power imbalances between states are more likely if there are more states that matter geopolitically. And power imbalances invite conflict as they are more likely to produce a situation in which one country's rising capabilities threaten another. During the Cold War, it didn't matter that Iran was more powerful than Saudi Arabia because the U.S. was present in the Middle East and willing to balance against Tehran. In a multipolar world, the weaker states are on their own. The probability of miscalculation rises due to the number of relevant states making geopolitical decisions simultaneously. For example, last year's shooting down of a Russian jet by the Turkish air force over Syria is an example of an incident that is mathematically more likely in a multipolar world. During the Cold War, the chances that Turkey would independently make the decision to shoot down a Soviet jet was far smaller as its foreign policy was closely aligned with that of its NATO ally the U.S. Chart 35Multipolarity Increases ##br##The Frequency Of Conflict There are a number of derivatives from the multipolarity thesis that will be relevant for investors. For example, despite Brexit, a multipolar world will support European integration.13 With geopolitical uncertainty rising in Europe's neighborhood - particularly in the Middle East and with Russia reasserting itself - Europe's core countries will not follow down the "exit" path that the U.K. pursued. On the other hand, the geopolitical disequilibrium in East Asia is deepening, with China's pursuit of a sphere of influence in the South and East China Seas likely to continue to raise tensions in the region. But the overarching concern for investors should be how multipolarity impacts the global economy. Global macroeconomic imbalances - such as the current combination of insufficient demand and excessive capacity - can be overcome either by unilateral policy from the hegemon or through coordination among the major economic and political powers. A multipolar world, however, lacks such coordination. Globalization is therefore at risk from multipolarity.14 Not only are regional powers pursuing spheres of influence, which is by definition incompatible with a globalized world, but the world lacks the hegemon that normally provides the expensive, and hard to come by, global public goods: namely economic coordination and geopolitical stability. History teaches us that the ebb and flow of trade globalization has been closely associated in the past with the shifting global balance of power (Chart 36). Trade globalization collapsed right around 1880, when the rise of a unified Germany and the ascendant U.S. undermined the century-old Pax Britannica. This trend ushered in a rise of competitive tariffs as the laggards of industrialization attempted to catch up with the established powers. Trade globalization recovered and began to grown again in the early twentieth century and immediately after the First World War, but both attempts were aborted by the lack of a clear hegemon willing to undertake the coordinating role necessary for globalization to take root and persevere. Chart 36Back To The 1930's? The lack of a clear hegemon and the diffusion of geopolitical power amongst multiple states can act as a headwind to global coordination. In the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, the U.K. was too weak to enforce global rules and norms, and the surging U.S. was unwilling to do so. Today, the U.S. is (relatively) too weak and unwilling to do the job of a hegemon, while China is understandably unwilling to coordinate its economic policy with a strategic rival. The investment implications of multipolarity center on three broad themes: Apex globalization: Going forward, the world is going to be less, not more, globalized. This will favor domestic over global sectors and consumer-oriented economies over the export-oriented ones. Globalization is also a major deflationary force, which would suggest that, on the margin, a world that is less globalized should be more inflationary. DM over EM: Multipolarity is more likely to produce a number of conflicts, some of which lay dormant throughout the Cold War and subsequent era of American hegemony. These conflicts tend to be in emerging or frontier markets. Safe Havens: With the frequency of geopolitical conflict on the rise, safe haven assets like the U.S. Treasurys, U.S. dollar, gold, and Swiss and Japanese government bonds, should continue to hold an important place in investors' asset allocation. VI. End Of The 35-Year Global Bond Bull Market Since the early 1980s, interest rates have been in a structural decline on the back of falling inflation expectations. Thirty-five years later, the global bond bull market has reached its end (Chart 37). Importantly, this is not to suggest that a secular bear market in bonds is beginning. The global economy is still suffering from significant spare capacity and markets usually go through a volatile bottoming process before a new secular trend is established. Nevertheless, the path of least resistance for yields is upwards. Chart 37Long-Term Yields Have Bottomed The most significant shift regarding sovereign yields is the global transition from monetary to fiscal stimulus. Over the next few years, central bank asset purchases will be negligible at best, with normalization in central bank balance sheets being far more likely, albeit at a muted pace. From the fiscal perspective, the rotation has already occurred in several regions, with the liberal government in Canada promising to increase infrastructure spending, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe postponing next year's planned VAT tax hike, and incoming U.S. President Donald Trump expected to ramp up fiscal spending. Sovereign bond yields have been weighed down by the rise in inequality. IMF studies found that this increase in inequality has had substantial negative effects on real GDP growth and therefore the real component. Populism is growing, as evidenced by the surprising outcome of the Brexit vote, the rise of anti-establishment parties in Europe, and the highly polarizing candidates in the U.S. elections. However, as populism continues to mount, policymakers will be further pressured to take on additional reflationary measures, inevitably leading to higher inflation. Anemic productivity growth has dampened aggregate demand and applied downward pressure to bond yields. Initially, weak productivity gains are deflationary as they reduce the incentive for firms to invest and consumers to reduce their spending. The longer term effect however, is that the supply side catches up, causing the economy to overheat and inflation to rise (Chart 38). This was the case in low productivity economies in Africa and Latin America. Chart 38A Decline In Productivity Growth Is Deflationary In The Short Run, But Inflationary In The Long Run Nevertheless, not all factors are pointing to higher yields. Demographic trends have been unfavorable, as working age population growth in the major countries has decelerated sharply since 2007. Conditions will likely worsen, with the UN forecasting growth to reach zero in the latter half of the next decade. The effect is further compression in the real component of bond yields as slower labor force growth reduces the incentive for firms to build new factories, shopping malls and office towers. Overall, while the global economy has been plagued by deflation, these signs suggest that the tide is finally turning. Higher consumer prices will not only lead to an increase in the inflation expectations component, but also the inflation risk premium, which compensates investors over the inflation outlook. As the majority of the rise in bond yields will come via the inflation component and not the real component, we advocate a long-term allocation to TIPS. VII. Subpar Long-Run Returns Asset prices have surged following the global financial crisis and have reached fairly expensive valuations. While this not to say that a bear market is imminent, it certainly makes financial assets more vulnerable to correction and it does suggest that long-term return prospects are bleak. Lower future returns will shift the efficient frontier inward, requiring substantially more risk to achieve the same level of returns. Investors will find it far more difficult to achieve returns they have become accustomed to over the past 30 years. Sovereign Bonds: After 35 years, the structural decline in interest rates is at an end. While we do not expect an outright bond bear market, the path of least resistance for yields is up (Chart 39). Across all major countries and regions, starting long-term real yields have been an excellent predictor for future five-year returns. Given that yields are at multi-century lows, and even negative in some regions, future returns will be meager. Investors should reduce their long-term allocation to sovereign debt. Chart 39Yields: The Path Of Least Resistance Is Up Corporate Bonds: Corporate debt is also priced expensively relative to its long-term history. The credit cycle is in its late stages, and while accommodative monetary policy will extend this phase, defaults will eventually grind higher and low starting yields will limit long-term returns. Investment grade real returns can be mostly explained by their starting real yields. In fact, real yields have been an even better predictor for investment grade returns than they have for sovereigns. Investment grade spreads are less important as they have historically been stable, and defaults are fairly rare in this space. For high yield, while starting real yields are important, spreads and defaults are also crucial determinants for performance. All valuation metrics suggest that both future investment grade and high-yield returns will fall far short of investors' ingrained expectations (Chart 40). Equities: The relationship between cyclically-adjusted price-to-earnings ratios (CAPEs) and real returns is well established, as a simple regression generates a high r-squared (Chart 41). Current valuations are expensive, suggesting low to mid single digit returns. However, there is reason to believe that this scenario is overly optimistic. First, global equities have benefitted from the structural decline in interest rates. Going forward however, the end of the bond bull market removes a substantial tailwind. Secondly, the Debt Supercycle, in which each cycle begins with more indebtedness than the one that preceded it, is played out in the developed world. The implication is that household credit demand will be weak and businesses are less likely to spend on capex, thereby dampening economic growth. Chart 40Low Starting Yields = Low Future Returns Chart 41Shiller P/E Suggests Below-Average Long-Run Equity Returns In order for investors to reach their return targets, we recommend several options. The end of the structural decline in interest rates does not bode well for sovereign bond returns. Instead, allocators should increase their structural exposure to equities. Investors should also focus more on bottom-up analysis and differentiating at lower levels, i.e. industry groups (GICS level 2). Finally, we advocate a long-term allocation to alternative assets. Alternatives provide downside protection through volatility reduction and substantial return enhancement potential given their active management and an illiquidity premium. VIII. Structural Bull Market In Resources Is Over Commodities experienced an unusually strong bull market in the 2000s, driven by very supportive global economic and financial conditions (Chart 42): 1) the U.S. dollar spent the decade in decline; 2) investment in mining capacity was depressed following the bear market of the 1990s; 3) rapid industrialization and double-digit growth in China. The bull market of 2000s lasted longer than its predecessors and was driven more by demand growth than by supply shortages. Commodities have never been a long-term buy. While there have been cyclical bull markets, the commodity complex in real terms has been in a structural downtrend for the past two centuries (Chart 43). This is despite a 20-fold increase in real GDP, a sign that rapid economic growth and weaker commodity prices can go hand in hand. The simple reason is that humans constantly find ways to extract commodities from the ground more cheaply and use them more efficiently. The current cyclical downturn is likely to continue for some years. Demand: A number cyclical and structural factors (Chart 44) will weigh on marginal demand for commodities in the long run: Chart 42Very SUpportive Backdrop In The 1990s Chart 43Not A Good Long-Term Investment Chart 44Shaky Demand Outlook Anemic Global Growth: Despite rising incomes, per capita consumption of base metals has been flat in most developed nations. With growth in the working age population slowing to 0.7% in 2010 - 2050, down from 1.7% in 1970 - 2010, the long-term outlook for consumer demand is poor. China: China consumes more zinc, aluminium and copper than the U.S., Japan, and Europe combined. It comprises more than 40% of global base metal demand, while it has only a 15% share of global GDP. With China's plans to transition into a consumer-driven services economy, this magnitude of incremental demand is highly unlikely in the future. Alternatives & Technological Advancements: Improved energy efficiency, the transition to renewable sources, and growth in electric-hybrid vehicles will weigh on demand for traditional sources of energy. A large-scale push towards nuclear energy, led by China's plans for 80GW of installed capacity by 2020, will pose a serious threat to marginal demand. Supply: Coordinated production cuts are a thing of the past. Underutilization (Chart 45) and market share-wars by countries that need to finance rising fiscal deficits have changed supply dynamics: Excess Capacity: Following the Global Financial Crisis, completion of projects which had been previously committed to, led to enormous capacity expansion when global growth was struggling. Both mining and oil & gas extraction capacity have reached new highs led by the U.S. This will continue to put downward pressure on both metals and energy prices until excess capacity has been removed. Proven Reserves: Known reserves of most metals have risen over the past decade and reached new highs: for example, in the case of copper, nearly three tons have been added to reserves for every ton consumed. In the crude oil market, technological progress has led to discovery of unconventional deposits, the best-known being Canadian oil sands, which by some estimates contain more than twice Saudi Arabia's crude oil reserves. Price Elasticity: The shale revolution brought with it leaner drilling operations which have a much shorter supply response time. The key to the price of crude is how quickly U.S. shale oil producers respond once the oil price rises above their current average cash cost of $50. This will limit the upside potential to crude oil for the next few years. U.S. Dollar & Real Rates: The dollar (Chart 46) has much more explanatory power for commodity prices than Chinese demand does. Given monetary policy and growth divergence between the U.S. and the rest of the world, the U.S. dollar will continue to appreciate. When real rates are low, the opportunity cost of keeping resources in the ground is also low. As growth starts to stabilize, rising real rates will add downward pressure on prices. Chart 45Relentless Supply Response Chart 46U.S. Dollar Vs Chinese Growth We remain structurally bearish on the overall commodity complex, but expect short-lived divergences within the group. As more nations agree on production cuts in oil, we expect energy markets to outperform metals. Precious metals will continue to stage mini-rallies on the back of heightened equity market volatility. Agricultural commodities will continue to bear the brunt of poor global demographics. IX. Mal-Distribution Of Income And Social Unrest The decision by the U.K. in June's referendum to leave the EU and Donald Trump's victory in the U.S. presidential election suggest a high degree of dissatisfaction with the status quo in Anglo-Saxon economies. This is hardly surprising given the stagnation of median wages in developed economies since the early 1980s, especially among the less educated (Chart 47), and growing inequality. The middle class (defined as those with disposable income between 25% below and 25% above the median) in the U.S. has fallen to 27% of the population from 33% in the early 1980s, and in the U.K. to 33% from 40% (Chart 48). Note that the decline in the middle class is much less prominent in continental Europe and Canada. Chart 47Wages For Less Educated Have Stagnated Chart 48Middle Class Has Shrunk In U.S. And U.K. But Not In Continental Europe The Gini coefficient in the U.S. has risen to as high a level as during the 1920s (Chart 49). Branko Milanovic, the leading academic working on global inequality, explains the reasons are follows: "The forces that pushed U.S. inequality up in the roaring twenties were, in many ways, similar to the forces that pushed it up in the 1990s: downward pressure on wages (from immigration and/or increased trade), capital-based technological change (Taylorism and the Internet), monopolization of the economy (Standard Oil and large banks), suppression or decreasing attractiveness of trade unions, and a shift toward plutocracy in government."15 Chart 49U.S. Inequality Back To 1920's Level The backlash has begun. BCA's Geopolitical Strategy service has described how the median voter in the Anglo-Saxon world is shifting to the left.16 Around the world governments are abandoning austerity and moving to fiscal stimulus and spending to improve infrastructure. Many, for example, are raising the minimum wage. In the U.K., it is due to go up from GBP7.20 to 60% of the median wage (about GBP9.35) by 2020, and in California from $10 to $15 by 2022. The 40 years of a falling labor share of GDP and rising capital share have started to reverse in the U.S. over the past two or three years (Chart 50). These shifts also threaten growth of global trade. Trump opposes the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade agreement and says he will renegotiate or scrap the North America Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Global trade, after continuous growth as a percentage of GDP since World War Two, has slowed since the Great Recession (Chart 51). The WTO reports an increase in trade-restrictive measures and a fall in trade-facilitating measures over the past 12 months (Chart 52). Chart 50Fall In Labor Share ##br##Of GDP Starting To Reverse Chart 51Trade Globalization* Chart 52Trade Measures Are Getting ##br##Increasingly Restrictive Chart 53Populism Could Cause ##br##Profit Margins To Mean Revert These trends have significant implications for investors. The shift to populist politics is likely to be inflationary, as governments increasingly fall back on stimulative fiscal policy. A faster rise in wages will hurt corporate profit margins which, in the U.S., are likely to mean-revert from their current near-record highs (Chart 53). The popular discontent (and the growing unreliability of opinion polls) will make election results more unpredictable, as witnessed in the Brexit vote and the U.S. presidential election. A further pullback in global trade will hurt exporting sectors and export-dependent countries. All these factors lead to the conclusion that returns from investment assets over coming years are likely to be lower, and volatility higher, than has been the case over the past 40 years. Garry Evans, Senior Vice President Global Asset Allocation garry@bcaresearch.com Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Geopolitical Strategy marko@bcaresearch.com Xiaoli Tang, Associate Vice President xiaoli@bcaresearch.com Patrick Trinh, Senior Analyst patrick@bcaresearch.com Aditya Kurian, Research Analyst adityak@bcaresearch.com 1 Money And Investment Profits, A. Hamilton Bolton, Dow-Jones-Irwin Inc, 1967, pp74, 304. 2 For our most recent detailed analysis of this, please see BCA Special Report, "The End Of The Debt Supercycle, An Update," dated May 11, 2016, available at reports.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see, for example, Summers' article in Foreign Affairs, "The Age of Secular Stagnation," dated February 15, 2016. 4 Please see, for example, Rogoff's article, "Debt Supercycle, not secular stagnation," Centre for Economic Policy Research, dated April 22, 2015. 5 Please see, for example, Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, "Gauging EM/China Credit Impulses," dated August 31, 2016, available at ems.bcaresearch.com 6 Please see, for example, her book Technological Revolutions and Financial Capital, published in 2002. 7 Please see Alasdair Nairn, "Engines That Move Markets," Wiley, dated January 4, 2002. 8 Measured either over the whole period, or between the dates that they were listed during the period. 9 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst, "Human Intelligence And Economic Growth," March 2013, available at bca.bcaresearch.com. 10 Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report, "EM Equities: Downgrade To Underweight," dated April 20, 2010, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. 11 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "Multipolarity And Investing," dated April 9, 2014, and Geopolitical Strategy Strategic Outlook, "Stay The Course: EM Risk - DM Reward," dated January 23, 2014, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 12 Please see Mearsheimer, John "The Tragedy Of Great Power Politics," New York: W.W. Norton & Company (2001). 13 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "After BREXIT, N-Exit?," dated July 13, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com, and BCA The Bank Credit Analyst, "Europe's Geopolitical Gambit: Relevance Through Integration," dated November 2011, available at bca.bcaresearch.com. 14 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "The Apex Of Globalization: All Downhill From Here," dated November 12, 2014. 15 Please see Branco Milanovic, "Global Inequality: A New Approach for the Age of Globalization," Harvard University Press, 2016. 16 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "Introducing: The Median Voter Theory," dated June 8, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com.

GAA DM Equity Country Allocation Model Update The GAA DM Equity Country Allocation model is updated as of November 30, 2016. The model further augmented the overweight to the U.S. despite the fact that the U.S. had already been the largest overweight, at the expenses of the Euro Area. Japan's underweight is reduced again, albeit slightly. The model continues to dislike Canada and Australia even though the two countries have outperformed year to date. U.K. remains the largest underweight (Table 1). Table 1Model Allocation Vs. Benchmark Weights As shown in Table 2 and Chart 1, Chart 2 and Chart 3, the large overweight of the U.S. versus the non-U.S. (Level 1 model) worked well in November with 49 bps of outperformance versus the MSCI World benchmark, the level 2 (allocation within the 11 non-U.S. countries), however, underperformed significantly, resulting the overall model to underperform by 16 bps. Please see also on the website http://gaa.bcaresearch.com/trades/allocation_performance. Table 2Performance (Total Returns In USD) Chart 1GAA DM Model Vs. MSCI World Chart 2GAA U.S. Vs. Non U.S. Model (Level1) Chart 3GAA Non U.S. Model (Level 2) For more details on the models, please see the January 29th, 2016 Special Report "Global Equity Allocation: Introducing the Developed Markets Country Allocation Model." http://gaa.bcaresearch.com/articles/view_report/18850. GAA Equity Sector Selection Model The GAA Equity Sector Selection Model (Chart 4) is updated as of November 30, 2016. Table 3AllocationsTable 4Performance Since Going Live Chart 4Overall Model Performance The momentum component has shifted Consumer Discretionary from underweight to overweight. For mode details on the model, please see the Special Report "Introducing The GAA Equity Sector Selection Model," July 27, 2016 available at https://gaa.bcaresearch.com. Xiaoli Tang, Associate Vice President xiaoli@bcaresearch.com Patrick Trinh, Senior Analyst patrick@bcaresearch.com Aditya Kurian, Research Analyst adityak@bcaresearch.com

Highlights Dear Client, This issue of BCA's Commodity & Energy Strategy features our 2017 Outlook for Bulks and Base Metals. The evolution of China's economy will, as always, be critical to these markets, given that country's outsized role in iron ore, steel and base metals. We are broadly neutral the complex, and, with the exception of the nickel market, see supply and demand relatively balanced. That said, the potential for price spikes - e.g., copper, where spare capacity is shrinking - and for monetary and fiscal policy errors to spill into these markets keeps downside price risk elevated. Next week, we will publish our 2017 Outlook for Energy Markets, with special attention to the oil market. As expected, OPEC and Russia agreed to cut production. As we went to press, WTI and Brent crude oil prices were up ~ 8.5% on the news. We will take profits today on our Long February 2017 Brent $50/bbl Calls vs. Short February 2017 $55/bbl Calls, which was up 73.6% basis Wednesday's close when we went to press. We remain long August 2017 WTI vs. Short November 2017 WTI futures in anticipation of a backwardated forward curve in 2017H2; as of Wednesday's close, this position returned 76.39% since November 3, when we recommended the exposure. Our 2017 Precious Metals and Agricultural outlooks will be published in the following weeks. We will finish with an outlook for commodities as an asset class in 2017 at year-end. We trust you will find these reports informative and useful for your investing and year-ahead planning. Kindest regards, Robert P. Ryan, Senior Vice President The monetary and fiscal stimulus that massively boosted China's housing market this year will wind down, bringing an end to the run-up in iron ore, steel and base metals prices. While we expect "reflationary" policies to continue going into the Communist Party Congress next fall, when new leadership roles will be announced, we do not expect anything along the lines of the surge in policy stimulus seen earlier this year: Unwinding and controlling property-market excesses and high debt levels will limit policymakers' desire to turbo-charge the housing market again, limiting the boost such policies provide. We are downgrading our tactically bullish view on iron ore to neutral. Our out-of-consensus bullish call was proven correct with a 43% rally in iron ore prices within the past eight weeks.1 Strategically, we retain a bearish bias, as rising iron ore supply may overwhelm the market again in 2017H2. We remain tactically neutral and strategically bearish steel. Low steel inventories and production disruptions caused by China's recently launched environmental inspection program likely will continue to support steel prices in the near term. However, persistently high steel output and falling demand from the Chinese property sector should eventually knock down prices in 2017H2. We remain neutral copper going into 2017, expecting Chinese reflationary stimulus to continue along with a concerted effort to slow the housing boom in that country. This will still support real demand for copper, but will reduce demand from new construction. Manufacturing will play a larger role on the demand side next year, while a stronger USD could limit price appreciation. We still believe nickel will outperform zinc over a one-year time horizon. We are bullish nickel prices, both tactically and strategically, as we expect a supply deficit to widen on rising stainless steel demand and falling nickel ore supply in 2017. For zinc, we remain tactically neutral and strategically bearish. We expect zinc supply to rise considerably in response to current high prices. For the global aluminum market, we remain tactically bullish and strategically neutral. Supply shortages will likely persist ex-China over the next three to six months. We have three investment strategies, including long iron ore/short steel futures, long nickel/short zinc futures, and buying aluminum on weaknesses. Feature Iron Ore & Steel: Limited Upside In 2017 A Quick Recap Back in early October, we wrote an in-depth report on global iron ore and steel markets in which we made an out-of-consensus tactically bullish call on iron ore, expecting the price to reach the April high of $68.70/MT in 2016Q4. Our prediction was realized, with iron ore prices surging 43% to a two-year high of $79.81/MT on November 11 (Chart 1, panel 1). Although the steel market has been much stronger than the assessment driving our tactically neutral stance indicated earlier in the quarter, our call that iron ore would outperform steel in the near term was correct: Steel prices rose 21% during the same period of time - only half of the iron ore price rally (Chart 1, panel 1). Over the past two months, the rally occurred in both futures and spot markets, and in the markets globally (Chart 1, panels 2 and 3). Chart 1Iron Ore: Downgrade To Tactically Neutral Chart 2Steel: Remain Tactically Neutral The 2017 Outlook First, we downgrade our tactically bullish view on iron ore to neutral, as China likely will import less iron ore in 2017Q1 (Chart 2, panel 1). China has imposed stricter environmental regulations on its domestic metals industry since 2014 to control pollution. The government currently is sending environmental inspection teams to major steel-producing provinces to check how well the steel producers are complying with state environment rules. Many steel-producing factories were closed this year, due to environmental violations. This will constrain growth in Chinese steel output in the near term (Chart 2, panel 2). Between 2011 - 15, the state-owned Xinhua news agency states Chinese steel capacity has been reduced by 90 million MT; authorities want to cut as much as 150 million MT by 2020, including 45 million MT this year.2 Chinese steel production generally falls in January and February as workers are celebrating the Chinese Spring Festival - the most important festival for the Chinese. Iron ore inventories at major Chinese ports are still high (Chart 2, panel 3). Given iron ore prices have already rallied more than 100% since last December and steel demand outlook remains uncertain next year, most steel producers likely will choose to push off purchases into 2017Q2 or later. While China may slow its iron ore purchases next year, global iron ore supply is set to increase in 2017 as many projects will come on stream. The world's biggest iron ore project, Vale's S11D, which has a capacity of 90 million metric tons (mmt) per year, is expected to ship its first ore in January 2017. Moreover, with iron ore prices above $70/MT, global top iron ore companies with low production costs can be expected to sell as much as they can to maximize their profit, given their all-in production costs for high-quality iron ore (62% Fe) typically are between $30 and $35/MT.3 That said, we are not bearish on iron ore prices in the near term. We prefer to be neutral. Iron ore prices will have pullbacks, but the downside may be also limited in 2017H1. Chinese domestic iron ore production is still in a deep contraction (Chart 2, panel 4). Plus, most steel producing companies prefer high-quality ore from overseas over the domestic low-quality ore. In addition, almost all steel companies in China are profitable at present, which means Chinese steel production will rise after the Spring Festival holidays. All of these factors will support iron ore prices. Chart 3Iron Ore & Steel: Strategically Bearish Second, we retain our tactically neutral view on steel. Chinese steel demand was lifted by China's expansionary monetary and fiscal policies this year - which we have dubbed China's "reflationary" policy - which included reductions in its central bank's policy rate and reserve requirement ratio, and implementation of additional infrastructure projects (Chart 3). This was the driving force for the sharp steel price rally this year. The big question is how sustainable Chinese steel demand growth will be? This will be highly dependent on the Chinese government's decisions and actions. More than a third of steel demand is accounted for by the property market, of which some 70% is residential property.4 Mortgages accounted for approximately 71% of all new loans in August of this year, down from 90% in July, according to Reuters.5 This loan growth powered the iron ore and steel markets this past 12 - 18 months and China's credit-to-GDP ratio to extremely high levels. The OECD recently observed, "The high pace of debt accumulation was sustained despite weaker domestic demand growth. This raises concerns about the underlying quality of new credit, disorderly corporate defaults and the possible extent to which it has been used to support financial asset prices. Residential property prices in some of the largest cities have risen by over 30% year-on-year, although price growth in smaller cities has been much more modest. The price gains have been partly driven by loose monetary policy and ample credit availability as well as reduced land supply."6 Based on our calculations, Chinese steel demand started showing positive yoy growth in July and, so far, had posted four consecutive months of positive yoy growth from July to October. In September and October, the growth was accelerated to 8.3% and 6.6%, respectively, a clear improvement from the 0.8% yoy growth registered in July. The growth may last another three to six months but could peak sooner, if there are no new stimulus plans announced by the government. In addition to the housing sector, China's auto industry also saw significant demand growth. As China cut the sale taxes on small passenger vehicles from 10% to 5% this year, Chinese car sales jumped 13.6% yoy for the first 10 months of 2016, a significant improvement from a 5.7% yoy contraction in the same period of last year. If the government lets the tax cut expire at year-end, Chinese auto production may decline in 2017, which will weaken Chinese steel demand. In the meantime, Chinese steel producers will keep boosting production next year, which likely will limit the upside for steel prices. That said, current steel inventories in China are still low. According to the China Iron and Steel Association (CISA), steel inventories at large and medium steel enterprises fell 9% from mid-September to late October. This probably will limit the downside for steel prices. Third, we retain a strategic bearish view on both iron ore and steel. If there is no additional reflationary stimulus deployed in 2017, we expect Chinese steel demand to weaken. In the meantime, Chinese steel producers will keep boosting their production. Let these two factors run nine to 12 months, and we believe they will be sufficient to knock down both steel and iron ore prices. Our research last year concluded the Chinese property sector is structurally down-trending.7 Given that the property market is the biggest end user of steel in China, accounting for about 35% of total steel demand, we are strategically bearish on steel and iron ore prices. How To Make Money In The Iron Ore & Steel Market? Chart 4Take Profit On Long ##br##Iron Ore/ShortSteel Rebar Trade We went long May/17 iron ore futures in Dalian Futures Exchange in China and short May/17 steel rebar futures in Shanghai Futures Exchange on October 6 (Chart 4). Both contracts are denominated in RMB. The relative trade gives us a return of 18.1% in two months. We are taking profits with this publication, but we may re-initiate this pair trade on pullbacks. Risks If China deploys additional fiscal and monetary stimulus next year, similar in scope to this year's stimulus, we will re-evaluate our view accordingly. If global iron ore production is less than the market expects we could see further rallies in iron ore prices. Should this occur, we will re-examine our market call, as well. Copper: Market Is Balanced; Little Flex On Supply Side The reflationary stimulus that powered China's property markets - and drove demand for iron ore and steel higher - also propelled copper prices to dizzying heights in 2016H2. We do not expect this juggernaut to continue, and instead expect copper to trade sideways next year as global supply and demand stay relatively balanced (Chart 5). China accounts for roughly half of global refined copper demand (Chart 6). Manufacturing activity has the greatest impact on prices: A 1% increase in China's PMI translates to a 1.8% increase in LME copper prices (Chart 7). Chart 5Copper Market Is In Balance Chart 6World Copper Markets Are Balanced Chart 7China Demand Will Remain Key For Copper China's property market accounts for about a third of global copper demand in used in construction, according to the CME Group, which trades copper on its COMEX exchange. A 1% increase floor-space started in China leads to a 0.3% increase in LME copper prices (Chart 8). The surge in demand from the housing market lifted China's copper demand over the past 12 - 18 months, as credit creation in the form of home-mortgage loans expanded at a rapid clip (Chart 9). We expect the Chinese government to continue to try to rein in a booming property market, which has seen mortgage-loan growth of 90% p.a. recently. If the government is successful, this will limit price gains for copper next year. If not, the bubble will continue to expand in large tier-1 and -2 cities in China, making the copper rally's fundamental support tenous to say the least. Chart 8China PMIs and USD TWI Drive LME Prices Chart 9Mortgage Growth Likely Slows in 2017 This drives our expectation that the real economic activity in China - chiefly manufacturing - will be the dominant fundamental on the demand side for copper next year. On the supply side, we expect 2.65% yoy growth in refined copper production, just slightly above the International Copper Study Group's 2% estimate. Company and press reports cite a reduced mine capacity additions, lower ore content in mined output, and labor unrest as reasons supply side growth is slowing. Our balances reflect a convergence of supply and demand for next year, and also highlight the reduced flexibility in the system to respond to unplanned outages. For this reason, the global copper market could be prone to upside price risk in the event of a major unplanned production outage. Watch Out For USD Strength Copper, like all of the base metals, is sensitive to the path taken by the USD. We continue to expect the Fed to lift rates next month and a couple of times next year. This most likely will lift the USD 10% or so over the next 12 months. This would be bearish for base metals, particularly copper, since 92% of global demand for the red metal occurs outside the U.S. Our modeling indicates a 1% increase in the broad USD trade-weighted index leads to a 3.5% decrease in LME copper prices. A stronger USD will raise the local-currency cost of commodities ex-U.S. EM demand would suffer, which would slow the principal source of growth for base metals. Metals producers' ex-U.S. with little or no exposure to USD debt-service obligations would see local-currency operating costs fall. At the margin, this will lead to increased supply. These effects would combine to push commodity prices lower, producing a deflationary blowback to the U.S. Nickel & Zinc: Going Different Ways In 2017? Zinc has outperformed nickel significantly for the past six years. This year alone, zinc prices have shot up over 90% since January, almost doubling the 50% rally in nickel prices for the same period of time (Chart 10, panel 1). The nickel/zinc price ratio has declined to its lowest level since 1998 (Chart 10, panel 2). Will nickel continue underperforming zinc into 2017? Or will the trend reverse next year? We believe the latter has a higher probability. Tactically, we are bullish nickel and neutral zinc. Strategically, we are bullish nickel and bearish zinc.8 Zinc's bull story has been well-known for the past several years, and nickel's oversupplied bear story also has been commented on in the news. However, both markets' fundamentals are changing. Based on World Bureau of Metal Statistics (WBMS) data, for the first nine months of this year, the supply deficit in the global nickel market was at its highest level since 1996. Meanwhile, the global zinc market was already in balance (Chart 10, panels 3 and 4). Chart 10Nickel Likely To Outperform Zinc In 2017 Chart 11Nickel Has More Positive Fundamentals Than Zinc Both nickel and zinc markets are experiencing ore shortages (Chart 11, panels 1 and 2). For the nickel market, the ore shortage was mainly due to the Indonesian ore export ban, and Philippines' suspension of nickel miners for violating that country's environmental laws. For the zinc market, the ore shortage arose because of several big mines' depletion, years of underinvestment, and mine suspensions due to low prices late last year. The nickel ore shortage will become acute as the Indonesian ban remains in place and the Philippines' government becomes stricter on domestic mining operations. However, for zinc, most of the output loss occurred last year, and actually may be restored to the market in the near future. Zinc prices reached $2,811/MT last year as the market was adjusting to lost supply - the highest level since March 2008. In terms of demand, nickel exhibits much stronger demand growth versus zinc (Chart 11, panels 3 and 4). In addition, China's auto sales tax-cut policy will expire at year-end, which may cause Chinese auto production to fall in 2017. This will affect zinc much more than nickel, as less galvanized steel will be needed next year if Chinese car production falls. Investment Strategies We sold Dec/17 zinc at $2,400/MT on November 3, and the trade was stopped out at $2,500/MT with a 4% loss (Chart 12, panel 1). Zinc prices jumped 11.5% in four trading days in late November, which we believe was mainly driven by speculative buying. Nonetheless, in the near term, global zinc supply is still on the tight side, and zinc inventories are low (Chart 12, panel 2). Zinc prices could rally more in the near term. We were looking to go Long Dec/17 LME nickel vs. Short Dec/17 LME zinc if the ratio drops to 4.3 since mid-November (Chart 13, panel 1). We also suggested that if the order gets filled, put a stop-loss for the ratio at 4.15. Chart 12Zinc: Stay Tactically Neutral Chart 13Risks To Long Nickel/Short Zinc On November 25, the order was filled at the closing price ratio of 4.17. But unfortunately the ratio declined to 4.08 on the next trading day (November 28), based on the closing price ratio, which triggered our predefined stop-loss level with a 2.2% loss. The ratio was trading at 4.17 again as of November 29. As the market is so volatile, we recommend initiating this relative trade if it drops below 4.05 to compensate the risk. If the order gets filled, we suggest putting a 5% stop-loss level for the relative trade. After all, nickel prices could still have pullbacks, as global nickel inventories still are elevated (Chart 13, panel 2). Risks Our strategically bearish view on zinc will be wrong if global zinc ore supply does not increase as much as we expect, or global zinc demand still has robust growth in 2017. Our strategically bullish view on nickel will be wrong if Indonesian refined nickel output increases quickly, resulting in a smaller supply deficit than the market expects. However, due to power shortages, poor infrastructure and funding problems, development on many of the smelters and stainless steel plants once envisioned for the nickel market have been delayed. We believe these problems will continue to be headwinds for Indonesian nickel output growth, and will continue to restrict supply growth going forward. Aluminum: Cautiously Bullish In 2017 Chart 14Aluminum: Remain Tactically Bullish ##br## And Strategically Neutral Sharp supply cuts combined with tight inventories have pushed aluminum prices higher this year. Prices in China have rallied more than 50% so far this year, which was more than double the 20% rise in the global aluminum market (Chart 14, panel 1). This probably indicates a tighter Chinese domestic market than the global (ex-China) market. Looking forward, we remain tactically bullish on LME aluminum prices and neutral on SHFE aluminum prices.9 The supply shortage will likely persist ex-China over next three to six months. Global aluminum production has declined faster than demand so far this year. Based on the WBMS data, global aluminum output was still in a deep contraction in September (Chart 14, panel 2). Even though China's operating capacity has been rising every month so far this year, Chinese total aluminum output for the first 10 months was still 1.1% less than the same period last year. In addition, considering the possible output loss due to the Spring Festival in late January, we believe it will take another three to six months for China to meet its own domestic demand and inventory restocking. Extremely tight domestic inventories should limit the downside of SHFE aluminum prices (Chart 14, panel 3) as the market adjusts on the supply side. We think there is more upside for LME aluminum prices, as the supply shortage will likely persist ex-China over next three to six months. Currently, Chinese aluminum prices are about 18% higher than the LME prices (both are in USD terms), which will likely limit the supply coming from China's exports to the rest of world. Strategically, we are neutral LME aluminum prices and bearish on SHFE aluminum prices. Currently, about 85% of the China's aluminum operating capacity is making money. With new low-cost capacity and more idled capacity coming back on line, profitable Chinese smelters will continue boosting their aluminum production to maximize profits. This, over a longer term like nine months to one year, should eventually spill over to the global market. Investment strategy Chart 15Still Look To Buy Aluminum We recommended buying the Mar/17 LME aluminum contract (Chart 15) if it falls to $1,640/MT (current: $1,721/MT). We expect the contract price to rise to $1,900/MT over the next three to five months. If our order is filled, we suggest a 5% stop-loss. Risks Prices at both the SHFE and LME may come under intense pressure if aluminum producers in China increases their output quickly, even at a small loss, in order to create jobs and revenue for local governments. If global aluminum demand falters in 2017 while supply is rising, we will revisit our strategically neutral view on LME aluminum prices. Ellen JingYuan He, Editor/Strategist ellenj@bcaresearch.com Robert P. Ryan, Senior Vice President rryan@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Commodity & Energy Strategy Special Report for iron ore and steel "Global Iron Ore And Steel Markets: Is The Rally Over?," dated October 6, 2016, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. In this report, we are using Metal Bulletin iron ore price delivered to Qingdao port in China as our iron ore reference price. 2 Please see "N. China city cuts 32 mln tonnes of steel capacity" published October 30, 2016, by Xinhua's online service, xinhuanet.com. 3 Please see "CHART: The breakeven iron ore prices for major miners in 2016," published June 7, 2016, by Business Insider Australia. 4 Please see "China Resources Quarterly, Southern spring ~ Northern autumn 2016," published by the Australian Department of Industry, Innovation and Science and Westpac, particularly this discussion on p. 4, "The real estate sector." 5 Please see "China August new loans well above expectations on mortgage boom," published by Reuters September 14, 2016. 6 Please see the OECD Economic Outlook, Volume 2016 Issue 2, Chapter 1, entitled "General Assessment of the Macroeconomic Situation," p. 44, under the sub-head "Rapid debt accumulation risks instability in EMEs." The IMF also expressed concern over rising debt levels supporting the real-estate boom in China, particularly in the larger cities, noting, "Credit and financial sector leverage continue to rise faster than GDP, and state-owned enterprises in sectors with excess capacity and real estate continue to absorb a major share of credit flow. The deviation of credit growth from its long-term trend, the so-called credit overhang--a key cross-country indicator of potential crisis--is estimated somewhere in the range of 22-27 percent of GDP..., which is very high by international comparison." Please see the IMF's Global Financial Stability Report for October 2016, "Fostering Stability in a Low-Growth, Low-Rate Era," p. 35, under the sub-heading "China: Growing Credit and Complexities." 7 Please see Commodity & Energy Strategy Special Report "Chinese Property Market: A Structural Downtrend Just Started," dated June 4, 2015 and "China Property Market Q&As," dated July 2, 2015, available at ces.bcaresearch.com 8 Please see Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report "Oil Production Cut, Trump Election Will Stoke Inflation Expectations," dated November 17, 2016 and "The Lithium Battery Supply Chain: Efficient Exposure To Electric-Vehicle Market," dated October 27, 2016, available at ces.bcaresearch.com 9 Please see Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report "Market Saturation Likely In Asia, If KSA - Russia Fail To Curb Oil Production," dated November 10, 2016, available at ces.bcaresearch.com Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Closed Trades

Recommended Allocation The Meaning Of Trump Sudden large shocks in markets are rare. But the election of Donald Trump as U.S. President is one such. After a shock of this magnitude, markets tend initially to overreact, then correct, before settling on a new course. Market action since November 9th has caused many asset prices to overshoot short term. It is likely that U.S. bond yields, inflation expectations, the performance of bank and materials stocks, and the U.S. dollar (Chart 1) will correct over the next month or so, perhaps triggered by the Fed's likely rate hike on December 14th or simply by shifting expectations for Trump's economic policies. But what is the likely long-term course, which should set our asset allocation for the next 6 to 12 months? We think investors should take Trump at least partly at his word when he says he will enact tax cuts and increase infrastructure investment. BCA's Geopolitical Strategy service sees few constraints on Trump from Congress in the short term.1 The OECD in its latest Economic Outlook has given its imprimatur, arguing that "a stronger fiscal policy response is needed," and estimating that U.S. fiscal stimulus could add 0.1 percentage point to global growth next year and 0.3 points in 2018.2 If such a policy boosted growth and inflation, it would be negative for bonds. The only question, with 10-year U.S. Treasury bond yields having already risen by almost 100 bps since July, is how much of this is priced in. In the long run, government bond yields are broadly correlated with nominal GDP growth (Chart 2). In H1 2016, U.S. nominal GDP growth was 2.7%, and for 2016 as a whole probably about 3.2%. If it picks up to 4-5% in 2017 (2.5-3% real, plus inflation of 1.5-2%), an additional rise of 50-100 bps in the 10-year yield would not be surprising (though ECB and BoJ asset purchases might somewhat limit the rise in yields). Moreover, growth was already accelerating before Trump's victory. The effects of 2015's commodity shock and industrial and profits recessions have passed, with U.S. Q3 GDP growth revised up to 3.2% and the Fed's NowCasting models suggesting 2.5%-3.6% for Q4. The Citi Economic Surprise Index has surprised on the upside in recent weeks both in the U.S. and Europe - though not in emerging markets (Chart 3). And the Q3 earnings season in the U.S. was well above expectations, with EPS coming in at +3.3% YoY (compared to a consensus forecast pre-results of -2.2%). Analysts' forecasts for 2017 EPS growth are a comparatively modest 11%. Chart 1Some Short-Term Overshoots Chart 2Bond Yields Relate To Nominal Growth Chart 3Growth Was Already Surprising On The Upside But whether this new world will be positive for equities is harder to answer. Trump's unpredictability raises policy uncertainty: how much emphasis, for example, will he put on trade protectionism or confrontational foreign policy? This should raise the risk premium. The Fed's response will also be key. Futures have now priced in the rate hike in December and (almost) the two further rate hikes in the Fed's dots for 2017 (Chart 4). But the market still sees the long-term equilibrium rate (as expressed in five-year five-year forwards) as only just over 2%, compared to the Fed's 2.9%. And, although Janet Yellen has suggested that the Fed will act only after Trump's policies take effect ("We will be watching the decisions that Congress makes and updating our economic outlook as the policy landscape becomes clearer," she said), if core PCE inflation continues to pick up in 2017 beyond the current 1.7% and a strong stimulus package is implemented, the Fed might accelerate its rate hikes. More worryingly, Trump's fundamental views on monetary policy are unknown: does he, as a businessman, like low rates, or will he listen to his "hard money" advisers who believe the Fed has been too lax? Since he can appoint six FOMC governors in his first year in office, he will be able to influence monetary policy. Too fast a rise in Fed rates would be negative for equities. On balance, in this environment we see equities outperforming bonds over the next 12 months. It is unusual for the stock-to-bond ratio to decline outside of a global recession (Chart 5) - and, with the extra boost from fiscal policy (with Trump possibly joined by Japan, the U.K., China and others), a recession is unlikely over our forecast horizon. Chart 4Market Has Priced In 2017 Fed Hikes - ##br##But Not The Long-Term Chart 5Stocks Don't Often ##br##Underperform Outside Recession Accordingly, we are raising our recommendation for global equities to overweight, and lowering bonds to underweight. The problem is timing: we recognize that there may be a better entry point over the next couple of months. Some investors may, therefore, want to implement the change gradually. In addition, some recent market moves are not fundamentally justified: for example, we cannot see how the materials sector would be a significant beneficiary from a Trump fiscal stimulus. We plan to make further detailed adjustments to our equity country and sector recommendations and bond-class recommendations in the next Quarterly Portfolio Update, to be published on December 15th. Currencies: Stronger U.S. growth and tighter monetary policy suggest that the USD will continue to appreciate. The dollar looks somewhat expensive but is still well below the peak of overvaluation at the end of previous bouts of strength in 1985 and 2002. The Bank of Japan's policy of capping the 10-year JGB yield at 0% has worked well (pushing the yen down by 12% against the dollar in the past two months) and, as rates elsewhere rise, this implies further long-run yen weakness. The euro is likely to weaken less, with eurozone growth recently surprising on the upside and the ECB therefore likely to reconsider the amount of asset purchases at some point next year, though probably not at its meeting on December 8th. Emerging market currencies continue to look particularly vulnerable. Equities: In common currency terms, U.S. equities are more attractive than European ones. In local currency terms, however, the call is closer since the strong dollar will depress U.S. earnings relative to those in Europe, and an acceleration of global economic growth should help the more cyclical eurozone stock market. On the other hand, Europe faces structural issues, such as the chronically poor profitability of its banking system, and political risk from a series of upcoming elections (starting with the Italian referendum on December 4th). We continue to like Japan (on a currency hedged basis) and expect that the BoJ's policy will be bolstered by government fiscal and employment policies. We remain underweight on emerging markets. They have always been vulnerable during periods of dollar strength, and political side-effects from their bout of economic weakness in 2011-5 are starting to spread, recently to Turkey, Malaysia, India, Brazil, Korea and South Africa. Fixed Income: The risk of tighter Fed policy and higher yields suggest investors should remain underweight duration. We have liked U.S. TIPS over nominal bonds all year and, with 10-year breakeven inflation still only at 1.8%, they remain attractive in the current environment. We reduced high-yield bonds to neutral on September 30th, on the grounds that investors were no longer being sufficiently compensated for default risk: they have subsequently given -3% return, while equities rallied. We recommend investment grade credits for those investors who need to pick up yield (Chart 6). Commodities: After the OPEC agreement on production cuts, we expect the oil price to move towards $55 in the first few months of 2017 as inventories are drawn down. Over the longer run the risk is to the upside as a dearth of new projects, following cancellations last year, will tighten the supply/demand balance. Metals prices have strengthened since Trump's victory, with the CRB Raw Industrials Index up sharply (Chart 7). This makes little sense. Trump's stimulus will be centered on tax, not infrastructure. China remains a far more important factor: the U.S. represented only 7% of global steel consumption in 2015, for example, compared to 43% for China. And China's recent stimulus is running out of steam. Chart 6Yield On Investment Grade Credits ##br##Still Attractive Chart 7Trump Shouldn't Have ##br##This Much Effect On Metals Prices Garry Evans, Senior Vice President Global Asset Allocation garry@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Special Report,"U.S. Election: Outcomes and Investment Implications," dated November 9, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see OECD Global Economic Outlook, November 2016, available at http://www.oecd.org/economy/outlook/economicoutlook.htm. Recommended Asset Allocation

Highlights U.S. bond yields and the U.S. dollar will rise further. Consistently, EM currencies and local bonds will continue selling off. There is meaningful downside in EM exchange rates. We recommend short positions in the following basket of EM currencies versus the U.S. dollar: KOR, MYR, IDR, TRY, ZAR, BRL, COP and CLP. Within domestic bond portfolios, overweight low-beta defensive markets as well as Russia and Mexico. Our underweights are Turkey, South Africa, Malaysia and Indonesia. The latest exponential rise in commodities prices on Chinese exchanges is an unsustainable speculative frenzy. Feature Emerging market (EM) risk assets will likely continue to be driven by both rising U.S. bond yields and a strong U.S. dollar over the next two months or so. Beyond the next couple of months, the focus of the markets will likely switch to China: renewed weakness in growth and possible instability in its financial markets, with negative implications for China plays globally and for commodities prices in particular. The combination of these two negative forces will lead to a considerable drop in EM currencies in the next six months or so. In turn, EM currency depreciation will trigger broad liquidation of EM risk assets. BCA's Emerging Markets Strategy service believes that EM risk assets will continue to sell off in absolute terms, and underperform their DM/U.S. peers. EM Local Bonds The total return (including carry) index of JPM GBI-EM1 local currency bonds in U.S. dollar terms has rolled over at a critical resistance level (Chart I-1). The total return index of EM local bonds has also relapsed relative to the total return of 5-year U.S. Treasurys, failing to break above its long-term moving average (Chart I-1, bottom panel). Consistently, domestic bond yields have troughed at important technical levels in several key countries such as Brazil, Turkey, Colombia, Russia, South Africa and Malaysia (Chart I-2A and Chart I-2B). Chart I-1EM Local Bonds' Total ##br##Return In US$: Failed Breakout Chart I-2AHave EM Domestic ##br##Bond Yields Bottomed? Chart I-2BHave EM Domestic ##br##Bond Yields Bottomed? In short, EM local bonds are exhibiting negative technical dynamics that corroborate our downbeat fundamental analysis. Consequently, we believe the total return JPM GBI-EM index in U.S. dollar terms will drop to new lows for the following reasons: Currency swings are responsible for most of the fluctuations in EM local bond total returns. As we have elaborated numerous times and re-assert in this report, the outlook for EM exchange rates remains gloomy. Foreign holdings of EM local currency bonds are substantial (Table I-1). Even though there have been improvements in a few countries, current account and fiscal deficits generally remain wide in the majority of developing nations (Chart I-3A and Chart I-3B). In other words, a number of EM economies are still at risk from a slowdown in foreign funding. Table I-1Foreign Holdings Of EM Local Bonds Chart I-3ACurrent Accounts And Fiscal Deficits Chart I-3BCurrent Accounts And Fiscal Deficits Chart I-4U.S. And EM Local Yields Notably, the bar for exchange rate depreciation is very low in EM economies with current account deficits. It takes only a reduction in net capital and financial inflows - i.e., net outflows are not necessary - for these countries' currencies to depreciate significantly. As net foreign funding diminishes, exchange rates of countries with current account deficits should weaken and interest rates should rise in order to compress domestic demand, which in turn would equalize the current account deficit to net inflows in capital and financial accounts. Finally, the spread of EM local bonds (the yield for GBI-EM global diversified index) over duration-matched (5-year) U.S. Treasury yields has not risen much (Chart I-4). Heightened risks in EM currencies warrant higher local bond yield spreads over U.S. Treasurys. Bottom Line: Absolute return investors should stay away from EM local currency bonds. U.S. Bond Yields And The Dollar: More Upside We expect U.S./DM bond yields to keep rising as re-pricing in global fixed income markets continues. The decline in DM bond yields in recent years until the latest selloff was enormous, and some sort of mean reversion should not come as a surprise. Our bias is that this selloff will likely continue until sometime in January, when U.S. President-elect Donald Trump takes office. This riot in the bond market could, in retrospect, resemble a typical "sell the rumor, buy the news" pattern. In other words, by the time President-elect Trump takes office, a lot of bad news will already be priced into the U.S. bond markets, creating a buying opportunity. In our July 13 Weekly Report,2 we argued that: "In the U.S., the combination of a healthy labor market and a heavily overbought fixed-income market have created the backdrop for a material rise in U.S. interest rate expectations/bond yields. As U.S. rate expectations climb, the U.S. dollar should gain support. This in turn will create headwinds for EM currencies and other EM risk assets." Then, we reiterated this view in our July 27 Weekly Report: "Nowadays, there is little talk in the investment community about a bond bubble and the potential for much higher bond yields. Indeed, "lower for longer" has begun to dominate the investor lexicon. This is a sign that many G7 bond bears have likely capitulated. Investor consensus on bonds has become quite bullish, and many investors are long duration. When many bears capitulate, the odds of a market selloff inevitably rise. "Importantly, the increase in G7 bond yields might not be gradual as many expect because of the following: with yields at such low levels, bonds' duration is high and price changes become very sensitive to changes in yield... Such (large) price changes (drops) would amount to large losses for bond investors, and forced selling could intensify. As a result, the unwinding of long positions could be abrupt and volatile." For now, odds are that U.S. bond yields will rise further. Given global bond funds have seen massive inflows in recent years, the latest drop in prices of various bonds has been substantial and will likely trigger withdrawals and redemptions from bond funds, prompting forced selling. This is true for all types of bond portfolios, including DM government and corporates, EM credit (U.S. dollar bonds) and EM local currency bonds. U.S. bond yields are still low, even from the perspective of the past several years, and the market-implied terminal fed funds rate is still 80 basis points below the median projection of the Federal Open Market Committee's longer-run rate (Chart I-5). Given that U.S. interest rate expectations are not high at all, they will rise further (Chart I-6) as the uptrend in U.S. wages persists - driven by an already reasonably tight labor market (Chart I-7). Chart I-5U.S. Interest Rate Expectations Are Still Low Chart I-6U.S. Wage Growth Is Accelerating Chart I-7More Upside In U.S. Treasurys Yields Finally, the U.S. dollar will continue to be buoyed by rising U.S. interest rate expectations. Our composite momentum indicator for the broad trade-weighted U.S. dollar has bounced off the zero line (Chart I-8). This constitutes a strong technical confirmation of the durable bullish market trend in the dollar. Bottom Line: Odds are that the rise in U.S. bond yields is not over. As U.S. bond yields rise further, EM currencies and bonds will sell off. Long-Term EM Currency Trends We have several observations on the long-term performance of EM currencies and financial markets: In the long run, there is no guarantee that the majority of EM currencies will appreciate in real terms (adjusted for inflation differentials). In fact, even countries such as Korea and Taiwan - which have been very successful in their economic development and have tremendously grown their income per capita - have seen their real (inflation-adjusted) exchange rates depreciate over the past several decades (Chart I-9). The case for long-term appreciation in real terms is even weaker for exchange rates in countries that exhibit chronically high inflation rates and/or current account deficits. This has been true for many non-Asian EM currencies (Chart I-10). Chart I-8The U.S. Dollar Is ##br##In A Genuine Bull Market Chart I-9Long-Term Currency ##br##Downtrends In Korea And Taiwan Chart I-10EM Currency Trends: ##br##A Long-Term Perspective Importantly, most losses to foreign investors in EM financial markets often occur via currency depreciation. This is even truer in the current bear market downtrend. The JPM ELMI+ currency total return index (including cost of carry) seems to be about to break down (Chart I-11). In EM ex-China, the real effective exchange rate is still elevated (Chart I-12). Given their poor productivity growth outlook, the real effective exchange rates will be inclined to depreciate. Chart I-11EM Currency Return With Cost ##br##Of Carry Versus U.S. Dollar Chart I-12Weak Productivity Means ##br##Further Currency Depreciation To limit the upside in domestic interest rates - both in bond yields and interbank rates - many developing nations' central banks will inject more local currency liquidity into their respective systems.3 This might help cap local interest rates, but is bearish for their currencies. The Turkish central bank has been among the most aggressive in this disguised money printing, and not surprisingly the value of its currency has collapsed (Chart I-13). There is no long-term history for EM currencies, as before 1998 most developing nations' exchange rates were pegged. Yet when one examines EM equities' relative performance against the S&P 500, it emerges that there is no single EM bourse that has outperformed U.S. stocks on a consistent basis in the very long run. Chart I-14A and Chart I-14B demonstrate that among 11 EM equity markets that have a long-term history, none have outperformed the S&P 500 over the past 30-35 years. Chart I-13Turkey's Central Bank Has Been ##br##Pumping Local Currency Into The System Chart I-14AEM Equities Versus The S&P 500: ##br##A Long-Term Perspective Chart I-14BEM Equities Versus The S&P 500: ##br##A Long-Term Perspective This goes to reveal that the starting point of underdevelopment and the mark "emerging" does not guarantee consistent outperformance even in the long run. In fact, EM's relative performance against the U.S. has followed multi-year cycles, and we believe the current bear market and underperformance is not yet over. While EM underperformance is long in duration, economic and financial adjustments remain incomplete. DM QE programs and China's still-growing credit bubble have delayed the adjustment. As a rule, the longer a financial or economic imbalance/excess lingers, the more protracted the adjustment will be. Bottom Line: EM exchange rates will continue depreciating. We recommend short positions in the following basket of EM currencies versus the U.S. dollar: KRW, MYR, IDR, TRY, ZAR, BRL, COP and CLP. For a complete list of our open currency and fixed-income trades please refer to page 18. Country Allocation For EM Local Bond Portfolios Chart I-15 demonstrates the relationship between developing countries' foreign funding requirements and their real (inflation-adjusted) local bond yields. The foreign funding requirement is calculated as the sum of the current account deficit and foreign debt service obligations over the next 12 months. We use inflation-linked (real) bond yields for markets where they are available. In other cases, we subtract the headline inflation rate from nominal bond yields to derive the real one. Chart I-15Real Bond Yields And Foreign Funding Requirements: A Cross Country Comparison The higher the foreign funding requirement, the higher the real yield must be to attract foreign capital, all else equal. On this diagram, the value pockets are Brazil (its real yield of 6.3% offers the best value by far), Indonesia, Russia and India. Domestic real yields in these countries are relatively high compared to their foreign funding requirements, which is a proxy for exchange rate risk. In contrast, Turkey, Chile, Colombia, Hungary and Malaysia have low real yields relative to their large foreign funding requirements. However, there are other factors that are shaping local yields. For example, Brazilian real yields look very attractive on this matrix because the latter does not account for public debt dynamics. The fiscal dynamics in Brazil are dreadful.4 On the contrary, Chilean local bonds appear expensive, but the country's fiscal outlook is very healthy. After considering all factors that affect local bond yields as well as incorporating the currency outlook, we recommend the following allocations: Overweight Korea, Thailand, Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Russia and Mexico (Chart I-16). For investors who can invest in Chinese, Taiwanese and Indian local bonds, we also recommend overweighting these markets within an EM domestic bond portfolio. Underweight Turkish, South African, Malaysian and Indonesian local currency bonds (Chart I-17). We will publish our analysis on Indonesia soon. Stay neutral on domestic bonds' total return in U.S. dollar terms in Brazil (with a negative bias because of the considerable currency risk), Chile and Colombia (Chart I-18). Chart I-16Our Recommended ##br##Overweights In Local Bonds Chart I-17Our Recommended ##br##Underweights In Local Bonds Chart I-18Local Bonds ##br##Warranting A Neutral Allocation A Word On China's Commodities Frenzy Speculative fever is running high in Chinese commodities exchanges. Frenetic commodities trading in China has seen prices skyrocket of late (Chart I-19). Prices often rise a limit during a day. We have the following observations: This stampede into commodities is a reflection of rotating bubbles in China. Mania forces rotated from property to stocks, then to corporate bonds, and then back to housing, again. It seems to be shifting into commodities now. While the mainland's industrial sector and real demand for commodities have registered gradual improvement in recent months, the sharp spike in commodities prices largely reflects speculative activity much more than real demand. In fact, net imports of base metals have been flat for the past six years (zero growth in six years), and all swings have most likely been related to inventory cycles (Chart I-20). Chart I-19The Spike In Commodities ##br##Prices Trading In China Chart I-20China: Net Import Of Base Metals Like any speculative frenzy, this is momentum-driven and will one day crash. Timing the reversal is impossible. A lot depends on policymakers' willingness to confront this speculative bubble and investor psychology. Notably, onshore corporate bond yields and swap rates have recently begun rising. As in DM bonds, the rise in yields from very low levels is causing large price drops. As and if yields rise further, losses in corporate bonds will become considerable and investors (especially ones managing retail investors' money) will head for the exits, triggering liquidation. This, along with the eventual unraveling of commodities speculation poses substantial potential risk to global, or at least EM, financial markets. Bottom Line: The latest exponential rise in commodities prices on Chinese exchanges is an unsustainable speculative frenzy that will end badly. Arthur Budaghyan, Senior Vice President Emerging Markets Strategy & Frontier Markets Strategy arthurb@bcaresearch.com 1 The JPMorgan Government Bond Index-Emerging Markets (GBI-EM) indices are emerging market debt benchmarks that track local currency bonds issued by Emerging Market governments. 2 Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report, titled "Risks To Our Negative EM View," dated July 13, 2016. 3 Please see "EM: Is The Liquidity Upturn Genuine And Sustainable?" Parts I & II, dated November 25, 2015 and December 2, 2015, respectively. 4 Please refer to the Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, "Brazil: The Honeymoon Is Over," dated August 3, 2016. Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations

Highlights Portfolio Strategy The rise in Treasury yields is approaching a threshold that has often caused equity market indigestion. Stay focused on current monetary conditions rather than fiscal unknowns. The bear market in lodging stocks has played itself out: take profits on an underweight position. The sell-off in home improvement retail shares is overdone, and a contrarian long position should pay off despite the backup in mortgage rates. Recent Changes S&P Hotels Index - Take profits of 3% and raise to neutral. Table 1Sector Performance Returns (%) Feature Momentum may carry the market higher in the short run, but from current valuation levels, stocks, the dollar and bond yields can only climb sustainably in tandem if a non-inflationary economic boom is taking hold. In that sense, equities appear to be taking their cue solely from the anticipated U.S. political shift while ignoring the tightening in monetary conditions and hints of emerging market financial strains. The equity market outlook hinges on a judgement call as to whether the action in the currency and Treasury yields is reflective or restrictive? There are no easy answers, but below we discuss some of the variables that influence this decision. Chart 1 shows that the 10-year Treasury yield has climbed above fair value. Equity bulls may rejoice because yields have sauntered much deeper into undervalued territory before stocks have run into trouble. The big difference this time is that the greenback is also climbing. Parallel powerful rises in both the currency and yields are rare, and typically culminate in steep market pullbacks. Importantly, most of the recent yield rise reflects an increase in inflation expectations. The real component, i.e. economic growth expectations, has been far more muted (Chart 2). Chart 1Stocks, Yields, And The Dollar##br## Can't Climb Together For Long Chart 2Inflation Expectations ##br##Are Driving Up Yields Equities shrugged off the surge in yields during the 2013 taper tantrum. However, yields never rose above fair value then, and the increase was almost entirely due to the real component rather than a rise in inflation expectations, i.e. it was more reflective than restrictive (Chart 2). Meanwhile, equities had just been through a difficult stretch in 2012 on fears the euro was going to break apart, and sovereign yields in the periphery were in the early stages of a long descent (Chart 3). In other words, there was a structural tailwind for equities. In addition, the U.S. dollar was range-bound during that period, overall profit growth was strong, business lending was picking up and corporate bond spreads stayed tight (Chart 3). The outlook today is much different. Euro area periphery yields are up sharply, EM bond spreads are flaring out, profit growth is much weaker and the U.S. is importing deflation through U.S. dollar strength (Chart 3), particularly against China and other developing market currencies. Thus, we are uncomfortable making comparisons between today and 2013 broad market resilience. The speed of upward adjustment in Treasury yields also influences equity prices. At the moment, yields are rising faster than profit growth. The overall market has typically become more volatile and often corrects when the growth in yields outpaces profit growth (Chart 4). Chart 3The 2013 Taper Tantrum##br## Is Not A Good Guide Chart 4Too Far,##br## Too Fast? The most painful equity corrections have occurred when this gauge drops below -10%, as the latter suggests that inflation expectations are increasing rapidly, warning of valuation and monetary tightening ahead. This threshold is in danger of being breached on any further rise in yields. However, if the currency continues climbing, yields are unlikely to rise much further, if at all, underscoring that the next big tactical sub-surface market move may be a recovery in yield-dependent sectors as investors begin to fret about the deflationary and profit-sapping impact of a strong dollar. Against this backdrop, we caution against getting too comfortable extrapolating market momentum, because recent gains could be erased just as quickly as they accrued if monetary conditions keep tightening. On a sub-surface basis, value is being created in interest rate-sensitive sectors and destroyed in cyclical sectors, primarily industrials, as discussed last week. Meanwhile, we maintain a domestic vs. global focus, and recommend buying into the pullback in housing stocks. Buy Home Improvement Retailers Like many other interest rate-sensitive groups, home improvement retailers (HIR) have lagged recently, fueled by the surge in bond yields, and hence, mortgage rates. We doubt this is sustainable. U.S. currency strength will refocus attention on the lack of top-line growth in global-oriented industries, which will reverse recent countertrend intra-sector capital flows, and ensure that bond yields are capped. The housing market slowed this year by most metrics (housing starts, permits, sales growth), which undermined remodeling activity. In response, building supply store sales cooled (Chart 5, bottom panel). Recent earnings reports from housing-geared industries such as appliances and furniture vendors have also disappointed. Analysts have been quick to slash both sales and earnings growth estimates (Chart 5). However, as often happens, an overreaction appears to be occurring. There is little indication of a return to punitively deflationary industry conditions. In fact, the producer price index for appliance and furniture makers has shot up in recent months, heralding stronger HIR pricing power (Chart 6, second panel). Lumber prices are also up sharply, despite U.S. dollar strength, which will boost the top-line and profit margins (Chart 6). At a fixed spread over lumber prices, the higher the latter go, the more profit earned at a constant volume sold. We continue to be encouraged by the long-term outlook. Household formation is accelerating now that the unemployment rate is below 5%. Building permits are below average levels, even excluding the housing bubble period (Chart 7). Chart 5Housing Slowdown Already Reflected Chart 6No Sign Of Deflationary Stress Chart 7Still Early In The Mortgage Cycle Consumers have only recently become comfortable taking on mortgage debt, and first time buyers represent a rising share of total home sales. Banks are ready and willing to extend mortgage credit (Chart 7, bottom panel), unlike most other credit. Ergo, housing activity still has legs. While the backup in Treasury yields will no doubt make housing somewhat less affordable, Chart 8 shows that even a 100 basis point rise would not push affordability back to average levels. Mortgage payments would still be well below the long-term average as a share of income, and effective mortgage rates are still extremely low. Therefore, we would not be surprised to see stable housing metrics in the coming months, despite the yield back up. Existing house prices are flirting with new highs (Chart 7), despite the early stage of mortgage re-leveraging, which bodes well for future house price increases. If homeowners are confident that house prices will stay solid, they will be more inclined to make home improvement investments. These factors are represented in our HIR model. The model is climbing steadily, exhibiting a rare positive divergence from relative share prices (Chart 9). Our inclination is to side with the objective message from the model. The valuation case for the group has improved markedly. The forward P/E is well below the average of the last decade and the dividend yield is now on a par with that of the broad market. Typically, a positive yield differential has been a bullish relative performance signal (Chart 10). Chart 8Higher Yields Are Not A Game Changer Chart 9Our Model Remains Firm Chart 10Discounting A Weak Housing Market Most importantly, the industry continues to generate sky-high return on equity, and free cash flow is booming. The implication is that shareholder-friendly stock buybacks and dividend increases should continue apace, especially compared with the overall corporate sector. At current valuation levels, there is room for a playable recovery in relative performance, especially if Treasury yields level off on the back of relentless U.S. dollar strength. Bottom Line: Home improvement retail (BLBG: S5HOMI - HD, LOW) stock price weakness is a buying opportunity. We recommend an above-benchmark allocation. End Of The Bear Market In Hotel Stocks The S&P hotels index has been in a relative performance bear market since late last year when we reduced it to underweight, but downside risks have diminished even though a number of players have lowered 2017 guidance and revenue per room (REVPAR) expectations. Relative value has been created by the past year of underperformance. A variety of valuation metrics show that the price ratio is plumbing recessionary-type levels (Chart 11). Most notably, the relative price/sales ratio is almost on a par with the lows during the Great Recession, when a steep contraction was anticipated for the foreseeable future. Such a dire forecast is not in the cards, even if economic growth disappoints an increasingly optimistic consensus. The plunge in net earnings revisions has not been confirmed by a downturn in hours worked. Typically, these two series move hand-in-hand (Chart 12). Instead, hours worked continue to trend higher suggesting that reduced profit guidance is bringing analyst expectations to more attainable levels rather than signaling impending doom. After all, persistent hotel construction growth means that demand needs to run hot in order to keep deflationary pressures at bay. This has been a tall order in the past year, as tight business budgets and lackluster discretionary consumer spending have kept REVPAR under wraps (Chart 13). Occupancy rates remain below previous expansionary run rates, leaving revenue per room more exposed than normal to demand soft spots. Chart 11End Of Bear Market Chart 12An Undershoot In Estimates Chart 13Slow, But Steady, Growth REVPAR could be supported by decent consumer spending. Wage growth, and thus aggregate income, are perking up, job security has risen and income expectations are on the upswing. Consumers are behaving as if income gains will be permanent, given the increase in consumer loan demand. Low fuel prices and the surge in vehicle miles driven are consistent with solid lodging outlays. The latter have recently reaccelerated, and are supporting better than market hotel pricing power (Chart 13). Importantly, hotel profit margins are no longer under extreme duress. Decent pricing power gains and an easing in the industry's total wage bill inflation have combined to support an increase in our profit margin proxy (Chart 14). All of this implies that profit conditions are stabilizing, just as valuations have been squeezed, warranting an upgrade to neutral. Why not a full shift to overweight? There are a number of factors to consider. The lodging industry is battling secular crosscurrents. On the positive side, the lodging industry has consistently managed to increase its share of total consumer spending, in real terms (Chart 15), with periodic underperformance phases, typically during recessions. This likely reflects well-timed capacity investments and strong brands. As a result, hotel pricing power has also been in a structural uptrend (Chart 15). This cycle, pricing power has lagged, consistent with subdued REVPAR gains, but hotels have still managed to aggressively grow earnings per share. While buybacks have undoubtedly played a role in this advance, EPS is following a typical pattern. In the last four decades, hotels have suffered four major recession-related earnings contractions. After each contraction, profits ultimately surpassed their previous peak by more than 75%, on average. The duration of the upcycle averaged five years. This cycle the recovery has already lasted more than six years, but hotel profits have only increased 30% from the 2007 peak. That implies substantial profit upside ahead just to reach the average, albeit pricing power will need to kick in as it has in past cycles. On the downside, consumers are still showing a penchant for spending more on essentials compared with non-essentials. The ratio of retail sales at cyclical stores to non-discretionary stores has been highly correlated with relative performance (Chart 16, top panel). Chart 14The Margin Squeeze Is Over Chart 15Structural Tailwinds... Chart 16... And Headwinds That raises some question about the latest burst of strength in lodging outlays, especially in view of the pruning in business travel budgets, as confirmed by anecdotes from recent earnings reports. BCA's capital spending model is not forecasting any improvement (Chart 16, bottom panel). Lingering in the background has been the relentless increase in lodging construction. Capacity growth represents a long-term threat to pricing power (Chart 16), over and above the threat from new entrants such as AirBnB. Expansion explains why real hotel consumer prices have not come close to hitting new highs even though real hotel spending has. Hotel capacity expansion heralds intensifying deflationary pressure. Meanwhile, hotels have sizeable global operations, exposing profitability to risks of incremental U.S. dollar strength. Consequently, we would prefer to await signs of an impending improvement in capital spending, and thus, business travel, and/or a sharp downturn in hotel construction spending, before lifting positions all the way to overweight. Bottom Line: Lift the S&P hotels index (BLBG: S5HOTL - MAR, CCL, RCL, WYN) to neutral, locking in an 3% relative performance profit since our initial underweight call nearly a year ago. A further upgrade is tempting, but awaits relief from pricing power constraints. Current Recommendations Current Trades Size And Style Views Favor small over large caps and growth over value.

The Tactical Asset Allocation model can provide investment recommendations which diverge from those outlined in our regular weekly publications. The model has a much shorter investment horizon - namely, one month - and thus attempts to capture very tactical opportunities. Meanwhile, our regular recommendations have a longer expected life, anywhere from 3-months to a year (or longer). This difference explains why the recommendations between the two publications can deviate from each other from time to time. Highlights In November, the model underperformed global equities and the S&P in USD and in local-currency terms. For December, the model reduced its allocation to cash and stocks and boosted its weighting in bonds (Chart 1). Within the equity portfolio, most of the decrease in allocation came at the expense of EM, Sweden, Netherlands, U.S., and New Zealand. The model increased its weighting in Swedish, French, U.K., and Canadian bonds. The risk index for stocks deteriorated in November, while the bond risk index improved significantly. Chart 1Model Weights Feature Performance In November, the recommended balanced portfolio lost 1.5% in local-currency terms and was down 3.4% in U.S. dollar terms (Chart 2). This compares with a gain of 1.3% for the global equity benchmark, and a 3.7% gain for the S&P 500 index. Given that the underlying model is structured in local-currency terms, we generally recommend that investors hedge their positions, though we do provide recommendations from time to time. The sharp bond selloff and weakness in EM equity markets both took a toll on the model's performance in November. Weights The model cut its allocation to stocks from 66% to 53%, and increased its bond weighting from 26% to 47%. The allocation to cash was brought down to zero from 8%, while commodities remain excluded from the portfolio (Table 1). The model trimmed its allocation to Latin American equities by 4 points, Sweden by 3 points, and the Netherlands by 3 points. Also, weightings were reduced in U.S., New Zealand, Spanish, and Emerging Asian stocks. In the fixed-income space, the allocation to Swedish paper was boosted by 12 points, France by 7 points, Canada by 5 points, the U.K. by 3 points, and Italy by 1 point. Allocation to New Zealand bonds was decreased by 6 points and U.S. Treasurys by 1 point. Chart 2Portfolio Total Returns Table 1Model Weights (As Of November 24, 2016) Currency Allocation Local currency-based indicators drive the construction of our model. As such, the performance of the model's portfolio should be compared with the local-currency global equity benchmark. The decision to hedge currency exposure should be made at the client's discretion, though from time to time, we do provide our recommendations. The dollar appreciated significantly in November following the U.S. presidential election. Our Dollar Capitulation Index spiked and is currently at levels that suggest the rally in the broad trade-weighted dollar could pause (Chart 3). Chart 3U.S. Trade-Weighted Dollar* And Capitulation Capital Market Indicators The momentum indicator for commodities has moved further into overbought territory, pushing up the overall risk index. This asset class remains excluded from the portfolio (Chart 4). The deterioration in the liquidity and momentum indicators has lifted the risk index for global equities to the highest level in over 2 years. Our model cut its weighting in equities for the fourth month in a row (Chart 5). Chart 4Commodity Index And Risk Chart 5Global Stock Market And Risk The risk index for U.S. stocks increased sharply in November. With stocks reaching new highs, the model trimmed its allocation to this bourse. The markets took note of the growth-positive aspects of Trump's policies, but seem complacent about the stronger dollar, higher interest rates, and the potential for trade protectionist policies (Chart 6). The risk index for euro area equities has ticked up slightly in November. However, unlike its U.S. peers, it remains in the low-risk zone. Above-trend growth could provide support for euro area equities. (Chart 7). Chart 6U.S. Stock Market And Risk Chart 7Euro Area Stock Market And Risk The risk index for Dutch equities ticked up slightly and the model has downgraded this asset. That said, the weighting in Dutch equities remains the highest among its euro area counterparts (Chart 8). Improvements in the value and momentum measures for Latin American stocks have been largely offset by a deteriorating liquidity reading. As a result, the risk index did not decline much after the selloff. The model decreased its allocation to this asset (Chart 9). Chart 8Dutch Stock Market And Risk Chart 9Latin American Stock Market And Risk Over the course of only a few months, the risk index for bonds has swung from an extremely high risk level to the low-risk zone. Momentum has been the primary driving force behind this move and currently suggests that yields could pull back in the near term (Chart 10). The risk index for U.S. Treasurys declined significantly in November. While the model used the latest selloff to boost its allocation to bonds, it preferred to add allocation to bond markets outside of Treasurys. (Chart 11). Chart 10Global Bond Yields And Risk Chart 11U.S. Bond Yields And Risk After the rise in yields, Canadian bonds are massively oversold based on our momentum measure. The extremely low-risk reading has prompted the model to allocate to this asset (Chart 12). German bonds are oversold, but the reading on the cyclical measure has become considerably more bund-unfriendly. The model opted not to include bunds in the overall boost to its bond allocation. (Chart 13). Chart 12Canadian Bond Yields And Risk Chart 13German Bond Yields And Risk The risk reading in French bonds is more favorable than for bunds. Apart from oversold momentum, the value reading has also improved. The model increased its allocation to French bonds (Chart 14). The cyclical component of the risk index for Swedish bonds keeps moving in a bond-bearish direction. But that is completely overshadowed by extremely oversold conditions. In fact, the overall risk index for Swedish bonds is the lowest within our bond universe. Much of the increase in overall bond allocation ended up in Swedish paper (Chart 15). Chart 14French Bond Yields And Risk Chart 15Swedish Bond Yields And Risk Following sharp gains, the 13-week momentum measure for the U.S. dollar has reached levels at which some consolidation may take place. But the recovery in the 40-week rate of change measure indicates that it would probably be a pause in the dollar bull market rather than a trend change. With the December rate hike baked in, the Fed's communication about the policy next year holds the key to the path of the dollar - in addition to the fiscal policy of the next administration (Chart 16). The Japanese yen has been a major victim of the dollar rally. The 13-week momentum measure is approaching levels that halted the yen weakening trend in 2013 and 2015. However, this time around, it is not coupled with the same signal from the 40-week rate of change measure. The BoJ is sticking to its easy monetary policy, and some additional support on the fiscal front could drag the yen lower, notwithstanding a possible hiatus in the short term. Short term the yen could benefit from an EM pullback (Chart 17). After the latest bout of depreciation, the euro seems poised for another attempt to break below 1.05. The 13-week and 40-week momentum measures do not preclude this from happening. However, it would probably take the ECB to reaffirm its dovish message to push EUR/USD technical indicators into more oversold territory (Chart 18). Chart 16U.S. Trade-Weighted Dollar* Chart 17Yen Chart 18Euro Miroslav Aradski, Senior Analyst miroslava@bcaresearch.com

Feature Happy Thanksgiving to all our U.S. clients. We wish you the best the holiday has to offer, as you share blessings with friends and family. In this holiday-shortened week, we are publishing a joint report with our colleagues at BCA's Energy Sector Strategy (NRG) service. We succinctly examine the pros and cons of the debate over whether OPEC will or will not agree to and uphold a *real* production cut, as it has promised, at its much-anticipated meeting on November 30. Disagreement on the likely outcome of the meeting runs high. In late September, OPEC announced an agreement in principle to cut oil production at the formal November meeting to a level of 32.5-33.0 MMb/d. This would represent a 500,000-750,000 b/d reduction from August production levels, and an 830,000-1,330,000 b/d reduction from the IEA's latest OPEC production estimate for October of 33.83 MMb/d. In addition, non-OPEC behemoth Russia has signaled a potential willingness to contribute its own production freeze or cut to the agreement in an effort to support higher oil prices. Chart 1With A 1 MMb/d Cut, ##br##Draws Would Be Greater There are compelling arguments to be made both supporting the likelihood of a production cut as well as for being skeptical that such an agreement will be reached and adhered to. Even within BCA, there is disagreement. This service, the Commodity & Energy Strategy (CES), which sets the BCA house view on oil prices, pegs the odds at greater than 50% that there will be a meaningful cut of 1 MMb/d+, anchored by large cut pledges from OPEC's leader, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA), and Russia. The NRG team, dissents; they think it is more likely that no deal is reached, and if a deal is announced, it will not be adhered to. Regardless of whether there is an announced agreement to cut production or not, both CES and NRG expect KSA's production to decline by 400,000-500,000 b/d between August and December according to KSA's normal seasonal management of production levels; we would not include this expected seasonal reduction in the calculation of a *real* cut. In our analysis on Chart 1, we include a *real* cut of 1MMB/d below the normal seasonality of KSA's production, which lasts for six months. In H2 2017, we assume the cut is dissolved and the market also receives an extra 200,000 b/d of price-incentivized production from the U.S. shales. How To Bet On A Cut, The Out-Of-Consensus Call Chart 2Without A Cut,##br## Inventories Still Will Be Drawn In 2017 CES's view for a cut (established November 3) was significantly out-of-consensus until recent chatter from OPEC increased the perception that an agreement could be reached. Still, there remains significant doubt a freeze or cut can be accomplished. Without a cut, NRG and CES share a constructive outlook for oil markets heading towards steepening deficits during 2017 (Chart 2). Note: BCA's estimates show a tighter oil market than the EIA's estimates: Our Q3 2016 production estimates are lower than the EIA's by ~300,000 b/d due to differences in our assessments in Brazilian, Russian and Chinese production; our Q3 2016 consumption estimate is higher than the EIA due to our higher assessment of U.S. summer-time demand (the EIA has consistently underestimated U.S. demand over the past few years). A production cut coupled with a natural tightening in the market brought about by the price-induced supply destruction over the past 18 months would make 2017 inventory draws even greater, lifting oil prices higher, and providing even greater upward support to our favorite investment recommendations (Chart 1). Below we outline the investment recommendations that would benefit from an OPEC cut, spanning individual equities, ETFs, and commodity calls: Direct Commodity Investment: CES recommends two pair trades on oil contracts and call options. Long February 2017 $50/bbl Brent Calls vs. short February 2017 $55/bbl Brent Calls to play the spike in oil prices that would come from a successful OPEC cut, which was recommended November 3 and was up 50.41% as of Tuesday's close. Long August 2017 WTI contract vs. short November 2017 WTI contract to play an expected flattening of the forward curve, which also was recommended November 3 and it up 48.61% as of Tuesday's close. Oil Producers: NRG recommends overweight-rated Permian oil producers EOG, PXD, FANG and PE, which will be leaders in expanding production into an improving oil price market. Service Companies: NRG recommends overweight-rated completion-oriented services companies HAL, SLB and SLCA, which will benefit most from increased U.S. shale spending. Equity-Backed ETFs: NRG recommends overweight-rated ETFs XLE, FRAK, and OIH as vehicles that provide more diversified investment exposure to higher oil prices and oilfield service activity than individual equities. Oil-Backed ETF. Tactically buying the U.S. Oil Fund ETF (USO) would provide good direct exposure to a quick oil price surge. However, USO should not be held as a longer-term investment because the inherent cost of continually rolling contracts consistently erodes USO's value versus the equity-backed ETFs XLE and OIH. This longer-term underperformance informs NRG's underweight rating on USO. Risks To Our Views: Oil and natural gas prices that differ materially from our forecasts, possibly due to slower-than-expected global economic growth and/or greater than expected supply growth. Poor operational execution and/or changes to regulatory restrictions could negatively impact the financial and stock performance of our recommendations. A week ahead of the OPEC meeting, in the wake of recently recovering production in Libya and Nigeria, and amid campaigning by Iran and Iraq to be excluded from participation in the cuts, it is impossible to know for certain how the complicated politics of OPEC and Russia will play out. Below we outline the competing objectives and risks that will be in play. Case Against A Cut Undeniably, a cut in production, particularly a coordinated cut where several countries share the burden of restricting production, would raise oil prices and enhance 2017 oil export revenues for all OPEC producers. However, that near-term benefit for pricing and revenue has been obvious for the past two years, and yet neither KSA nor Russia has been willing to cut production, feeling the potential to lose longer-term market share outweighed the immediate revenue benefits of a cut. The hazard of a price-increasing production cut, is that the higher oil price would essentially subsidize non-OPEC competitors with higher cash flows, and would simultaneously bolster the confidence of capital markets that OPEC will support prices at a floor of $50, reducing the risk of future investments. These two effects would jointly encourage increased capital investment into establishing new production, especially by the fast-acting U.S. shale producers, whose rampant investment and production growth from 2010-2015 was, by far, the leading contributor to the 2015-2016 oversupply of oil. Encouraging a resurgence of drilling and production would certainly lead to faster production growth from the U.S. shales in 2017-2018, allowing those producers to grow market share under the umbrella of OPEC's production sacrifices that created the higher prices. OPEC has just endured a lot of economic pain through the oil price decline. The economic purpose of this pain was to starve global producers of operational cash flow and dissuade the inflow of new capital, thus choking off the reinvestment required to continue to grow oil production. By and large, this goal has been achieved, with U.S. shale producers slashing capital expenditures by 65% from 2014 to 2016, and the International Oil Companies (IOCs) cutting capital expenditures by 40% over the same period. As a result, after the substantial surge in global oil production in 2014-2015 that created the current over-supply, the capital starvation caused by low oil prices will result in essentially no global production growth in either 2017 or 2018, allowing for demand growth to erode the oversupply of production during 2016, and to eat into the overstocked inventories of crude during 2017-2018. KSA has created fear and uncertainty throughout global producers and capital markets by steadfastly refusing to use its production-management powers to support a floor under oil prices. We are skeptical that KSA will ultimately agree to reverse this strategy, by now establishing a price floor. Such a reversal would undermine the profound market-share message KSA has delivered to competitors (at the cost of great financial pain), and weaken its perceived resolve to allow oil prices to be set by the market. As such, the NRG team believes KSA will not agree to cut production beyond the already-expected seasonal reduction in production, and that this position will scuttle September's tacit agreement to cut production at the official meeting next week. Such a scenario would be fairly similar to how KSA undermined the production-freeze discussions in Doha in April, by insisting other OPEC members - Iran, in particular - share in the production limitations in order to engender KSA's support; a condition that other members were unwilling to accept. The Case For A Cut The case to expect a cut agreement acknowledges that such a cut would subsidize competitors and diminish the impression of KSA's resolve and/or ability to out-last competitors through an oil price down-cycle. The case for a cut concludes that the benefits of higher 2017 oil prices simply outweigh these market share and reputational costs. The benefits that OPEC and Russia would receive are: Critical Need For Higher Revenue. If KSA and Russia each cut 2017 production by 500,000 below current expectations, and oil prices jumped $10/bbl as a result, KSA's 2017 oil export revenues would increase by close to $17.5 billion, and Russia's would increase by almost $8.25 billion. If the financial pain endured by these countries is substantially greater than NRG has estimated, this near-term revenue lift could be more critical than we appreciate, overwhelming the reputational and longer-term market-share losses resulting from the reversal of policy. Borrowing capacity for each country also would increase, as a result of higher revenues. With both states seeking to tap international debt and equity markets, this increased revenue would increase their borrowing capacity. Higher Value For Asset Sales. KSA is preparing to IPO Saudi Aramco. Bolstering the spirits of capital markets with higher oil prices would be expected to increase the proceeds received from this equity sale, increase the market value of the company, reduce debt-service costs, and improve access to debt markets, which KSA and Saudi Aramco are both likely to tap more frequently in the future as the country tries to diversify the economy away from oil. Similarly, two weeks ago, Russia signed a decree to sell a 19.5% stake in Rosneft by the end of 2016. An immediate oil price strengthening and messaging that KSA and Russia would support a pricing floor would inflate the value of this sale, given the high correlation between Brent crude oil prices and Rosneft's equity price. Production Stability Not As Strong As It Seems. Russia's production levels in 2016 have been surprisingly strong, exceeding our expectations. The collapse of the Russian Ruble has allowed for continued internal investment despite the substantial reduction to dollar-denominated oil revenues. Still, it is likely that Russian producers are pulling very hard on their fields, over-producing the optimal level in an effort to scratch out higher revenues. Such over-production is not sustainable ad infinitum, and Russia may know that its fields need a rest in 2017 anyhow, so a 4-5% production cut is ultimately not much of a sacrifice. Make Room For Libya & Nigeria. Both Libya and Nigeria are trying to overcome substantial civil obstacles to allow production to increase back towards oilfield capabilities. If these problems were solved, we estimate Libya could increase production by 400,000-600,000 b/d while Nigeria could add 200,000-300,000 b/d. If KSA, OPEC, and Russia believe these countries will be able to re-establish shut-in production, they may conclude a production cut is necessary to make room for the growth, and to keep prices from collapsing. Entrenching U.S. Shale As The Marginal Barrel: If KSA and Russia can agree to a 1 MMb/d cut, U.S. shale-oil producers would be the first to take advantage of expected higher prices, given the fast-response nature of this production. This actually would work to the advantage of KSA and Russia and other low-cost producers in and outside OPEC, by firmly entrenching U.S. shale oil as the marginal barrel for the world market. On the global cost curve, shale sits in the middle some $30 to $40/bbl above KSA and Russia, which means that, as long as the global market is pricing to shale economics at the margin, these mega-producers earn economic rents on their production. In order to retain those rents, KSA and Russia will have to find a way to keep shale on the margin - i.e., regulate their production so that prices do not rise too quickly and encourage more expensive output to come on line. For KSA and Russia, it is better to climb the shale cost curve than to encourage the next tranche of production - such as Canadian oil sands - to come on to the market too quickly, or to further incentivize electric vehicles and conservation with run-away price increases, with too-sharp a production cut. Allowing prices to trade through a $65 - $75/bbl range or higher would no doubt produce a short-term revenue jump for cash-strapped producers - particularly those OPEC members outside the GCC. But it also would make most of the U.S. shales economic to develop, and incentivize other "lumpy," expensive production that does not turn off quickly once it is developed (e.g., oil sands and deepwater). This ultimately would crash prices over the longer term, making it difficult for the industry to attract capital. This is not an ideal outcome for KSA's planned IPO of Aramco, or Russia's sale of 19.5% of Rosneft, or their investors. Global Reinvestment Needs To Be Re-Stimulated. Stimulating non-OPEC reinvestment with higher oil prices and increased price-floor confidence may actually be needed in the not-too-distant future. IOCs have barely started to show the negative production ramifications of their 40% cuts to capex; cuts which will grow deeper in 2018. We expect these production declines to show up increasingly over the next four years, and there is not much the IOCs can do to stop it, since their mega-project investments generally require 3-5 years from the time that spending decisions are made until first oil is produced. With such huge cuts to future expenditures, and enormous amounts of debt incurred by the IOCs to pay for the completion of legacy mega-projects that will need to be repaid ($130B in debt added in the past two years), OPEC could see a looming shortage of oil developing later this decade if IOC-sponsored offshore production falls into steep declines, as we think is likely. To orchestrate a softer landing, to prevent oil prices from spiking too high due to a shortage of production, to head-off an acceleration in the pursuit of alternative fuels and/or the recessionary impact of an oil price spike, KSA may actually want to accelerate the re-start of global investment. Bottom Line: There are strongly credible and well-reasoned arguments that support the expectations for a successful establishment of a production cut from OPEC and Russia, as well as to doubt that such an agreement will be achieved (and adhered to) amid the political and economic competition between OPEC members and against non-OPEC producers. A successful agreement to cut production in excess of 1 MMb/d, as CES believes is likely, would be the more out-of-consensus call, with substantially bullish implications for oil prices and for our oil-levered investment strategy and stock recommendations. Even without a production cut, the NRG service remains strongly constructive on the investment strengths of high-quality Permian oil producers and the completion-oriented service companies that will benefit from increased U.S. shale spending. If a production cut is achieved, our investment cases become even stronger, as the U.S. shale producers and service companies would be the greatest beneficiaries of an upward step-change in oil prices. Matt Conlan, Vice President Energy Sector Strategy mattconlan@bcaresearchny.com Robert P. Ryan, Senior Vice President Commodity & Energy Strategy rryan@bcaresearch.com SOFTS Dairy: Moderate Upside In 2017H1 Dairy prices may have another 5%-10% upside over next three to six months, based on tightening supply in the global dairy market. China will become more important in the global dairy market. The country's dairy imports will continue heading north. Downside risks include elevated global dairy product inventory, a supply boost from major exporters, and a continuing strengthening dollar. We have been cautiously bullish on global dairy market since last October.1 Since then, the Global Dairy Trade (GDT) All-Products Price Index, which is widely used as a benchmark price for the market, has rallied over 50% in the past seven months off its November - March lows (Chart 3, panel 1). Chart 3Dairy: Tactically Bullish Now the question is: will the rally continue? A review of what had happened in 2015 and so far this year may be a good start of our analysis. A Terrible 2015 The GDT index tumbled to the lowest level on record in early August 2015. A sharply drop in Chinese dairy imports; the Russian import ban on dairy products; robust supply growth across major dairy producing countries; and the EU's decision to scrap its production quotas created a perfect storm for the global dairy market last year - resulting in an extremely oversupplied market, stock builds and depressed dairy prices (Chart 3, panels 2, 3 and 4). An Improving 2016 Fundamentals have improved since April, as major dairy exporting countries responded to low dairy prices, while Chinese dairy imports revived. Fonterra, the world's biggest dairy exporter, and Murray Goulburn, Australian's biggest dairy company, both announced retrospective price cuts in April to dairy farmers in New Zealand and Australia, which hit both countries' dairy industries hard. Many farmers exited the dairy business, given their production costs were well above farm-gate milk prices. As a result, dairy farmers In New Zealand have cut the national dairy cow herd size by 3.3% yoy in 2015 and then a further 1.5% in 2016, based on USDA data. In Australia, dairy farmers have sent more cows into slaughterhouse as well. According to Dairy Australia, in the past 12 months to August 2016, 109,102 head were sold, an increase of 33% on the previous year. New Zealand and Australia are the world's largest and the fourth largest dairy exporters, respectively. In June, one month before the start of the new season (July 2016 to June 2017), farm-gate milk prices set by major dairy processors in Australia were still much lower than most dairy farmers' production costs, further damaging the country's dairy production outlook for the 2016/17 season. In July, August and September, Australian milk production fell sharply for three consecutive months, with a yoy contraction of 10.3%, 9.3%, and 10.2%, respectively. In July, the European Commission funded a €150 million program to pay farmers to cut their milk production. At the same time, the region also intervened with a stock purchase program and a private-storage aid scheme to help remove excess supply from the market. The EU region is the world's second biggest exporter. Its production increase due to the removal of its quota system was one main reason for last year's price drop. The recent supportive policy has worked well - the region's milk volumes decreased in September for the third consecutive month. In the meantime, Chinese dairy imports have rebounded 9.7% yoy for the first nine months of this year, a significant improvement from last year's 44.4% contraction over the same period. China is the world biggest dairy importer, accounting for 51% of global fluid milk imports, and 40% of dry, whole-milk powder imports (Chart 4, panel 1). Chart 4China Needs More Dairy Imports In comparison, the number of Chinese cow herds only accounts for 6% of global total cows for milk production, which is clearly far from meeting its domestic demand (Chart 4, panel 2). Early this year the country loosened up the "one-child" policy, and now allows "two-kids" in a family, starting this year. This will increase the country's baby formula's demand. The country's dairy product intake per capita is still far below Asian peers like Japan and Korea. Growing family wealth and increasing demand for healthy dairy food will continue boosting the dairy consumption in China. Due to the limited pasture land in the country for raising cows, we expect China's dairy imports will continue heading north. What about the price outlook in the remainder of 2016 and 2017? Most of the positive factors aforementioned are still in place. In the near term, we do not see significant supply increase. Despite the 61% price rally in the GDT price index over the past seven months, most of the price increase still has not passed to farm-gate milk prices in major producing countries (except New Zealand). Hence, for the remainder of 2016 and 2017H1, we expect prices will be prone to the upside. Pullbacks are always possible. But overall we still expect another 5% to 10% upside over next three to six months for the GDT price index. Beyond 2017H1, the price outlook is less clear. If prices either go sideways or up, milk production in major producing countries should eventually recover. For now, we hold a neutral view for dairy prices in 2017H2. Downside Risks Chart 5Downside Risks First, global dairy stockpiles are much higher than previous years (Chart 5, panel 1). According to the European Commission, at the end of September, around 428 thousand metric tons (kt) of skimmed-milk powder (SMP) was in public intervention stocks, while another 73 kt SMP was in private storage. In addition, there also is about 90 kt butter and 19 kt cheese stored privately. As the EU still is aiming to cut milk production to boost dairy prices, we believe the odds of an unexpected release from storage in a fast and massive manner is low. The release will likely be gradual. Second, much of New Zealand's milk production is dependent on weather conditions, which have improved from mid-August. Moreover, Fonterra increased its farm-gate milk price to $6 per kgMS (kilogram milk solid) from $5.25 per kgMS last week, which was the third increase over the past four months. Since August, farm-gate milk price in New Zealand has already been up 41% and well above the country's production cost. A combination of both factors may boost the country's milk production more than the market expected. In this case, prices could decline in 2017H1. Third, if the U.S. dollar continues strengthening versus the RMB and other major exporters' currencies, this will tend to discourage purchases from China and encourage sales from New Zealand, the EU and Australia, which will be negative to dairy prices (Chart 5, panel 2). We will monitor these risks closely. Ellen JingYuan He, Editor/Strategist ellenj@bcaresearch.com 1 please see Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report for softs section "Oil Markets Pricing In $20/Bbl Downside," dated October 1, 2015, available at ces.bcaresearch.com Investment Views And Themes Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices And Plays Reference Table Closed Trades

Highlights Sweden Yield Curve: The drivers behind our Sweden 5-year/10-year curve flattener trade - a Riksbank stance that appeared too dovish, a cautious global risk landscape and the strength of Sweden's economic expansion - have become less compelling. We advocate closing that trade, at a profit of +84bps. Swedish Rates: The Riksbank rate liftoff will start earlier than priced in the market. We recommend entering a new trade, paying the 18-month Sweden Overnight Index Swap rate. NZ Rates: New Zealand's inflation will surprise to the upside in 2017 and put upward pressure on short-term interest rates. To position for this, pay 12-month rates on the New Zealand Overnight Index Swap curve. Korea vs. Japan: The rationale behind our recommended trade favoring 5-year Korean government debt versus 5-year Japanese government bonds has changed. We are closing the trade at a profit of +260bps. Feature The surprising U.S. election victory of President-elect Trump, on a policy platform that is both reflationary and protectionist, has shaken up the global macro landscape. The shock has been even more acute for small, open and export-oriented economies like Sweden, New Zealand and Korea. This triggers a necessary re-assessment of our positions. In this Weekly Report, we revisit three previously recommended trades included in our "Overlay Trades Portfolio" that are most exposed to the changing global backdrop. Sweden: Closing Our Flattener Trade... Last year, we were of the view that the Riksbank would shift to a more hawkish policy stance during 2016.1 Fast forward to today, and this has not panned out as we expected with the Riksbank persistently sticking with its dovish bias. We are no longer comfortable facing the stiff resolve of the Riksbank and, therefore, we are closing our recommended Swedish 5-year/10-year yield curve flattener trade (Chart 1). Chart 1Closing Our Sweden Flattener Chart 2The Dovish Rhetoric Is Paying Off The message has been clear - Sweden's central bank will stay accommodative as long as it takes to get inflation back on a sustainable upward trajectory. In a unified fashion, the most senior Riksbank officials have communicated the following: 2 Monetary policy is set to escape low inflation as fast as possible. Currency intervention to weaken the Krona cannot be ruled out. There is no problem in extending the Riksbank's asset purchase program, since it has worked well so far in keeping government bond yields at accommodative levels and helping depress the Krona. The exchange rate is now notably weaker throughout the entire Riksbank forecast period than previously assumed, but this has not been sufficient to counteract the lower underlying inflationary pressures in Sweden.3 In a nutshell, the Riksbank wants to bring about higher inflation through a depreciation of the currency. The strategy has started to work of late (Chart 2). A very accommodative monetary policy, combined with rising inflation pressures from a cheapening Krona, now points to a prolonged period of low real policy rates that will keep the Swedish yield curve under steepening pressure. Aside from the monetary policy rhetoric, the global political landscape is no longer favorable for a yield curve flattening trade either, even in Sweden. In June, when Brexit surprised the planet, our Sweden flattener trade performed well, as global uncertainty spiked and a risk-off environment supported lower longer-term bond yields. Donald Trump's upset election earlier this month had the exact opposite effect, however, triggering a massive curve steepening in most bond markets, including Sweden (Chart 3).4 Going forward, if the effects of Trump's proposed policies - such as a decent fiscal impulse and protectionist trade measures - linger, as we expect, a Swedish flattener will likely underperform. Global bond markets will continue to be heavily influenced by a steepening U.S. Treasury curve. Moreover, our optimism on Swedish growth has dimmed recently, with certain parts of the economy slowing down. At the business level, weakening new orders data signal lower industrial production growth ahead. In addition, exporter order books have rolled over, resulting in a build-up of inventories (Chart 4). Chart 3Same Populism, Different Outcome Chart 4Dimming Optimism In turn, Swedish households are feeling the pinch. Slower wages and employment growth are reducing consumption. Growth in retail sales and car registrations has decelerated and private bankruptcies have started to rise (Chart 5). Since household consumption is a vital part of Sweden's economy, the recent robust expansion will moderate in the next few quarters. Consequently, the gap between the Riksbank's dovish monetary stance and the economic backdrop can no longer be deemed unsustainable, as we have described it in the past. This reality has been well depicted in the latest Riksbank Monetary Policy Report (MPR), where 2016 GDP growth is now forecasted to be only 1.8%. This seems reasonable considering the decline in actual demand - observable through the slowing growth of Swedish imports - and the Riksbank's own forward-looking economic activity index (Chart 6). The Riksbank is now projecting only a modest growth rebound to 2.5% in 2017, but this implies a meaningful reacceleration in growth to an above-trend pace later on in the year. Chart 5Swedish Households: Feeling The Pinch Chart 6Swedish GDP Growth Will Slow Further Bottom Line: The drivers behind our Sweden 5-year/10-year curve flattener trade - a Riksbank stance that appeared too dovish, a cautious global risk landscape and the strength of Sweden's economic expansion - have become less compelling. We advocate closing that trade, at a profit of +84bps. ...And Placing A New Bet On Rising Swedish Inflation Currently, the Swedish Overnight Index Swap (OIS) curve is expecting monetary policy stability in the first half of next year, pricing in only a 10% probability of a rate cut and a mere 2% chance of a rate hike by July 2017. Of the two, a rate hike is most likely, in our view, given the growing risks of upside inflation surprises stemming from a weaker Krona and rising energy prices. With such a low probability of a hike currently priced into the curve, the risk/reward potential for a trade is compelling. Today, we enter into a new position: paying 18-month Swedish OIS rates (Chart 7). Chart 7Pay 18-Month Sweden OIS Rates Chart 8Energy Prices Are Crucial For Swedish Inflation In the Riksbank's October MPR, the first rate increase was pushed forward from the second quarter of 2017 to the first quarter of 2018.5 At that point, the central bank's forecast becomes slightly lower than the interest rate expectation now priced in the OIS market. Even with our more sober view of the Swedish economy, the next rate hike is now expected to occur too far into the future. It will likely happen beforehand as upside surprises on inflation will force the Riksbank to begin tightening sooner than planned. Sweden's inflation path is mainly influenced by two factors: the Krona and energy prices. If the Krona's weakness accelerates and energy prices resume their uptrend, inflation will jump. In turn, if inflation reaches its target earlier, the central bank will start normalizing rates sooner than expected. Chart 9Can Sweden Still Overheat? As stated above, the Riksbank members' dovish rhetoric has been successful in pushing the Krona lower. Much to our astonishment, they seem ready to continue moving in that direction, despite the potential negative spillovers. The bubbly Swedish housing market - fueled by low interest rates and lacking the macro-prudential measures to stop its expansion - does not appear to be a major concern of the Riskbank for the time being. In addition to the exchange rate, the path of energy prices is crucial for inflation; it represents the bulk of the deflationary pressure over the last few years (Chart 8). Although this situation has changed recently, with a positive contribution to inflation in the last four months, energy prices will need to appreciate again to keep consumer price advances on track. This is likely to happen. Our Commodity strategists believe that the markets are understating the odds of Brent exceeding $50/bbl by the end of this year, given their expectation that Saudi Arabia and Russia will announce production cuts of 500k b/d each at the OPEC meeting scheduled for November 30th in Vienna.6 If such meaningful production cuts come to fruition, energy prices will rise and add to Sweden's inflationary pressure. Moreover, the bigger structural picture in Sweden remains very inflationary, despite the short term cyclical weakness stated earlier. GDP, employment and hours worked are all expanding faster than the Riksbank's assessment of the long-run trend growth rates. Plus, according to the Economic Tendency Survey, companies are reporting labor shortages in all major business sectors.7 In sum, with resource utilization already stretched, keeping real interest rates low for longer can only prolong the steadfast Swedish credit expansion, potentially overheating the economy and creating additional inflation surprises (Chart 9). This will set the stage for an eventual shift by the Riksbank to a more hawkish posture. Bottom Line: The Riksbank rate liftoff will start earlier than priced in the market. We recommend entering a new trade, paying the 18-month Sweden Overnight Index Swap rate. New Zealand: Inflation To Re-Surface Here, As Well Chart 10Global Output Gaps Have Narrowed On November 9th, the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (RBNZ) cut its overnight rate to 1.75% and signaled that it would probably be on hold for the foreseeable future. From here, things could go both ways; another rate cut is not inconceivable in 2017. Yet the market is expecting a stable rate backdrop, pricing in only a 5% chance of a rate cut and a 6% probability of a rate hike by June 2017. Such an "undecided" market is not surprising. On one hand, inflation remains below target. On the other hand, the economy has been humming along with no signs of any major slowdown on the horizon. In our view, monetary policy risks are tilted towards rate hikes. Similar to Sweden's case, inflation has the potential to surprise on the upside in 2017. Several factors have contributed to the current stubbornly low inflation environment. However, going forward, those forces will abate and push inflation and, eventually, short term interest rates higher. 1.A more inflationary global backdrop New Zealand's low inflation problem comes from the tradable components. Simply put, because of the global deflationary environment of the last few years, and because of the Kiwi's strength, New Zealand has imported lower prices from abroad. But this phenomenon will move in the other direction going forward. The global inflationary backdrop has slowly changed. As noted by our Chief Global Investment Strategist, Peter Berezin, spare capacity within the developed economies has shrunk substantially over the last few years (Chart 10).8 Unemployment rates are lower than the non-accelerating inflation rates of unemployment (NAIRU) in most major countries, with the exception of France and Italy. Looking ahead, the current cyclical upswing in global growth, coming at a time of narrowing output gaps and increasing supply-side constraints, will put upward pressure on global inflation. This will eventually trigger a rise in New Zealand's import price inflation, although the impact might not be felt in the very short term. 2.A continued boost from China Closer to home for New Zealand, China's backdrop has become less deflationary. As we pointed out in a recent Special Report, China has turned into a cyclical tailwind for the global economy, putting upward pressure on inflation and bond yields in the near-term.9 Our "GFIS China Check List", composed of our favored indicators, highlights that China is in the expansionary phase of its economic cycle (Table 1). Table 1The GFIS China Checklist Most striking is that Chinese final goods producer prices have turned positive. This could prove to be a major development for New Zealand tradable goods prices, if it lasts; the correlation between Chinese PPI inflation and the tradable goods contribution to New Zealand's headline CPI has historically been elevated (Chart 11). 3.A weaker kiwi dollar Donald Trump's U.S. election victory could help raise New Zealand inflation through the exchange rate. If his ambitious fiscal plan and protectionist inclinations gain traction, the Fed might have to raise rates more aggressively than expected, putting upward pressure on the U.S. dollar. Under such a scenario, the Kiwi will re-price lower, potentially reversing the prior dampening effect on import prices from a strengthening currency. This would relieve policymakers on the RBNZ, who have consistently pointed to the currency's strength as the main reason inflation has missed the target (Chart 12). Chart 11China: A New Tailwind For Prices Chart 12The Kiwi Is Problematic 4.A stronger dairy sector Over the past couple of years, the Achilles heel for New Zealand has been its dairy sector, with plunging prices eroding confidence throughout the economy. Fortunately, this bad predicament is about to change as well. The exogenous factors depressing dairy prices are abating and prices are surging anew (Chart 13). The Global Dairy Trade price index has advanced in seven out of the last eight dairy auctions.10 If this impulse is prolonged, both New Zealand's export prices and domestic wages will begin to reflate. 5.A reversal of migration inflows The massive flow of migration into New Zealand since 2013 has been the main factor capping wage growth by increasing the supply of labor (Chart 14). The bulk of this inflow has been composed of young workers, aged between 15 & 29 years old.11 It is unclear if this migration will become permanent or prove to be transitory. Chart 13NZ Dairy Prices Have Rebounded Chart 14NZ Inward Migration To Stabilize... Much of this inflow can be explained by the weakness in the Australian economy, which has triggered migration back into New Zealand from those who left for work in Australia. As such, if the Aussie economy improves, the migration flow could conceivably reverse, at least to some extent. As a result, the domestic supply of workers would recede and the invisible ceiling on New Zealand wages would progressively disappear. This scenario is highly plausible. The latest surge in Australia's terms of trade could be an early signal of a commodity sector revival. Much of this is due to China's growth upturn this year. However, the wave of optimism towards a potential fiscal stimulus in the U.S. - especially through longer-term infrastructure projects - is a possible boost to demand that could support higher global commodity prices higher over the next few years.12 If this proves correct, New Zealand migration towards Australia could be renewed, shrinking the domestic pool of skilled labor, and pushing wages higher (Chart 15). An unwind of these disinflationary forces would coincide with improving cyclical growth prospects. A mix of strong credit growth, decent construction sector activity and robust corporate earnings should support job creation and wages in the short term (Chart 16). In this environment, consumption will accelerate. Since the output gap is already closed, faster spending will cause inflationary pressures to build (Chart 17). Chart 15...If Australian Mining Revives Chart 16An Inflationary Backdrop Chart 17Inflation Surprises Ahead Traders can benefit from a turnaround in New Zealand inflation prospects by playing the Overnight Index Swap market. Since April 12th of this year, we have recommended payer positions in 6-month New Zealand Overnight Index Swap (OIS) rates.13 This trade has not worked as planned, due to the stubbornly low trend of New Zealand inflation, and today we are closing that trade recommendation at a loss of -30bps. The market is currently pricing in a 23% chance of a rate hike by the September 28, 2017 RBNZ meeting. Due to the inflation risks cited above, the probability should be higher than that, in our view. As such, we are entering a 12-month OIS payer. This trade offers modest downside risk versus for a decent potential gain, i.e. a risk/reward ratio of about 3:1. Bottom Line: New Zealand's inflation will surprise to the upside in 2017 and put upward pressure on short-term interest rates. To position for this, pay 12-month rates on the New Zealand Overnight Index Swap curve. Closing Our Japan/Korea Relative Value Trade This week, we are unwinding our Japan/Korea relative value trade, where we were long 5-year Korean government bonds versus 5-year Japanese Government Bonds (JGBs) on a currency-unhedged basis. While the currency leg did allow for a profitable trade, the Korea/Japan yield differential widened by +52bps. Several unpredictable events have negatively impacted Korean bonds since the trade was initiated. Chart 18Political Scandal = Higher Risk Premium Chart 19Trump: Catastrophic For Korean Bonds Too First, a scandal surrounding the Korean president, a.k.a. Choi-Gate, has erupted. As more details of the affair have been revealed, the president's approval rating has plunged - standing now at 5% - and the Government has become dysfunctional (Chart 18). In the near future, the geopolitical risks surrounding Korean assets should remain elevated as the prosecutors will continue the process of investigating the president and her associates; the risk premium on Korean bond yields might increase further. Chart 20The Korea 5-Year Bond Model Second, Trump's victory has been catastrophic for bond markets across the globe, including those related to open and export-oriented economies linked to the emerging markets, like Korea (Chart 19). Yet the impact on JGBs has been more contained since the Bank of Japan (BoJ) moved to a yield curve targeting framework back in September. The BoJ surprised many by adopting that policy of anchoring longer-term JGB yields. This has substantially reduced the volatility of JGBs, even during the recent backup in global yields. In turn, this has lowered the payoff potential of shorting JGBs, both in absolute terms and versus Korean bonds. Finally, the appeal of our Korea vs Japan trade has decreased from a valuation perspective. A simple model that we have developed for the Korean 5-year government bond yield now points towards rising yields in 2017 (Chart 20).14 With all of these factors now working against our trade, we are choosing to close it out. The trade has generated a profit from the currency exposure, which we decided not to hedge. However, when events move against the original reasons for putting on a trade, the prudent strategy is to unwind that position and look for other opportunities. Bottom Line: The rationale behind our recommended trade favoring 5-year Korean government debt versus 5-year Japanese government bonds has changed. We are closing the trade at a profit of +260bps. Jean-Laurent Gagnon, Editor/Strategist jeang@bcaresearch.com 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, "Riksbank: Close To An Inflection Point", dated September 22, 2015, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com 2 Source: Bloomberg Finance L.P. NSN OG2NHA6JIJUO GO. NSN OGD9GRSYF01S GO. NSN OGFQO26S972O GO 3 http://www.riksbank.se/Documents/Protokoll/Penningpolitiskt/2016/pro_penningpolitiskt_161026_eng.pdf 4 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "U.S. Election: Outcomes & Investment Implications", dated November 9, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com 5 For details, please see http://www.riksbank.se/en/Press-and-published/Published-from-the-Riksbank/Monetary-policy/Monetary-Policy-Report/ 6 Please see BCA Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, "Raising The Odds Of A KSA-Russia Oil-Production Cut", dated November 3, 2016, available at ces.bcaresearch.com 7 Private services, retail trade, construction and manufacturing 8 Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Slack Around The World", dated November 4, 2016, available at gis.bcaresearch.com 9 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report, "How To Assess The 'China Factor' For Global Bonds", dated November 8, 2016, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com 10 https://www.globaldairytrade.info/en/product-results/ 11 For details, please see "Understanding low inflation in New Zealand", Dr, John McDermott, October 11, 2016 available at http://www.rbnz.govt.nz/news/2016/10/understanding-low-inflation-in-new-zealand 12 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "U.S. Election: Outcomes & Investment Implications", dated November 9, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com 13 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report, "New Zealand: More Than Just Dairy", dated April 12, 2016, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com 14 This model is based upon a regression of Korean yields on U.S. 5-year treasury yield, Korean Trade-weighted currency, Brent crude price in USD, and Korea's headline CPI. Forecasts are based on financial market futures data and the ministry of finance's inflation forecast. Recommendations Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Highlights Treasury Yields: The uptrend in Treasury yields has run into extreme technical resistance and is likely to abate during the next few weeks. Beyond that, a cyclical sweet spot of improving growth and accommodative monetary policy will open up during the first half of 2017 that will cause the Treasury curve to bear-steepen. Spread Product: Poor valuations and a probable Fed rate hike next month keep us cautious on spread product in the near term. But the environment for credit markets will turn more positive in the first half of 2017. Leveraged Loans: The combination of Fed rate hikes and elevated defaults should allow leveraged loans to outperform fixed rate junk bonds on a 12-month horizon. High-Yield Munis: An examination of spreads alone suggests that high-yield munis are attractive compared to high-yield corporate debt, but the attractiveness is not sufficient to compensate for lower tax rates under President Trump. Avoid high-yield municipal debt. Feature Several Fed speakers last week, including Fed Chair Janet Yellen, affirmed the case for a December rate hike, and the market has taken full notice of that message. We calculate that the market-implied odds of a rate hike next month rose to 84% as of the close of business on Friday.1 But just as critical for the path of Treasury yields is that the Fed will be taking a "wait and see" approach when it comes to the prospect of increased fiscal stimulus under the Donald Trump administration. Right now there is so much uncertainty about what the Congress will pass or not pass, what the president will propose. As a baseline, assuming a continuation of current fiscal policy has probably as good a chance as any other forecast that we are going to make up. Minneapolis Fed President Neel Kashkari2 This leads us to believe that the Fed will lift rates next month, but will also not revise its fed funds rate forecasts (dots) higher. We also expect that the Fed will be slow to respond to any pick-up in growth expectations as we head into 2017. This sets up a two-phase outlook for Treasury yields. During the next month, the uptrend in yields will meet resistance as both the market and Fed turn a more skeptical eye toward Trump's fiscal promises. But if growth picks up in early 2017, as we expect, and the Fed maintains its dovish bias, then we could enter a sweet spot where the Treasury curve resumes its bear-steepening and risk assets rally. Near-Term Pull-Back Two factors make us think it is likely that Treasury yields will at least level-off, and perhaps decline a bit, during the next month. First, market pricing has already mostly converged with the Fed's rate expectations, especially at the short-end of the curve (Chart 1). Our sense is that the Fed's dots provide a reasonable valuation anchor for yields in the absence of more concrete evidence that growth is accelerating. Second, technical measures and positioning data suggest that the rapid rise in yields is due for a pause. The fractal dimension for long-maturity Treasuries, a measure of groupthink developed by our Chief European Strategist Dhaval Joshi rests at 1.25, a level at which a trend reversal - even if only a temporary one - tends to emerge (Chart 2).3 Additionally, our composite sentiment indicator, based on the 13-week rate of change in prices, investor sentiment, and net speculative positions, is deeply oversold, highlighting the risk of a near-term reversal (Chart 3). Chart 1The Market & Dots Converge Chart 2Treasuries Face Technical Resistance Chart 3Bond Sentiment At A Bearish Extreme Cyclical Sweet Spot Once the December FOMC meeting has passed, we expect investor attention will turn toward U.S. economic growth, which should accelerate as we head into 2017 (Chart 4). Chart 4U.S. Growth: Poised To Accelerate Consumer confidence has been resilient at high levels, which supports continued strong consumer spending (Chart 4, panel 1). According to trends in public sector employment, government spending is poised to increase, even in the absence of new fiscal stimulus (Chart 4, panel 2). Inventories were an unusually large drag on growth in 2016. This drag will continue to unwind (Chart 4, panel 3). Survey measures suggest that non-residential investment will reverse its downtrend (Chart 4, panel 4). The supply of new residential housing remains tight, which will support increased construction even in the face of higher rates (Chart 4, bottom panel). On top of this, we can potentially tack on any newly enacted fiscal stimulus once Trump takes office in January. Our political strategists expect that the Trump administration will not face meaningful opposition from the Republican-controlled Congress, and will be able to enact - in relatively short order - a more stimulative fiscal policy in the form of lower taxes and increased spending for infrastructure and defense.4 A quicker pace of Fed tightening would be a powerful offset to this rosy growth outlook. In fact, Chair Yellen alluded to the notion that a large fiscal impulse would probably be counteracted by tighter monetary policy in her Congressional testimony last week: "The economy is operating relatively close to full employment at this point, so in contrast to where the economy was after the financial crisis when a large demand boost was needed to lower unemployment, we're no longer in that state."5 In essence, with the economy close to full employment it is more likely that a sufficiently large growth impulse will result in rising inflation, which the Fed will lean against. However, we believe this is a story for the second half of 2017. At least initially, the Fed will be in no rush to deviate from the dovish bias embedded in its current forecasts. Market-based measures of inflation compensation have increased strongly in the past few weeks, but remain below levels that are consistent with the Fed hitting its 2% PCE inflation target (Chart 5). The 5-year, 5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rate is currently 2.06%, and needs to rise another 34bps before it is consistent with its average pre-crisis level. The Fed will be extremely cautious about tightening monetary policy until TIPS breakevens are more firmly anchored around pre-crisis levels. This opens a window in the first half of 2017 when improving economic growth will be met with still-accommodative monetary policy. In this environment we would expect the Treasury curve to bear-steepen and spread product to outperform. All else equal, we are likely to shift our recommended portfolio allocation in that direction (initiate curve steepeners, increase allocation to spread product) once the near-term risk of a Fed rate hike is behind us. The major risk to the view that a cyclical sweet spot opens up in the first half of 2017 is that any improvement in growth might be quickly cut-off by overly restrictive financial conditions, specifically in the form of a much stronger dollar (Chart 6). The pace of dollar appreciation has increased since the election and overall indexes of financial conditions have tightened, but so far the tightening has not been as sharp as that which occurred around the time of last year's Fed rate hike. We anticipate that this time around, due to the improved trajectory of growth outside of the U.S., tightening of overall financial conditions will not be as severe. A second related risk is that the recent surge in bond yields will harm cyclical sectors of the economy such as housing and consumer spending on durable goods (Chart 7). This is undoubtedly true, but it is important to recall that this process is self-limiting. If yields rise too far, then growth will decelerate and yields will reverse course. Then lower yields will cause growth to re-accelerate, leading to higher yields. As long as the Fed is perceived to be "behind the curve" on inflation then the underlying trend will be one of improving growth and a bear-steepening of the Treasury curve. Chart 5Breakevens Still Too Low Chart 6A Strong Dollar Is The #1 Risk Chart 7Higher Yields Also A Drag On Growth Bottom Line: The uptrend in Treasury yields has run into extreme technical resistance and is likely to abate during the next few weeks. Beyond that, a cyclical sweet spot of improving growth and accommodative monetary policy will open up during the first half of 2017. This will cause the Treasury curve to bear-steepen and will be positive for spread product. Leveraged Loans: Still A Buy We recommended that investors favor leveraged loans over fixed-rate junk bonds on July 19.6 In large part, this recommendation was predicated on a high conviction view that Treasury yields were poised to increase, thus benefitting floating rate loans over fixed rate bonds. Since July 19, the S&P/LSTA Leveraged Loan 100 index has returned +196bps, compared to +176bps of total return from the Bloomberg Barclays High-Yield bond index, and flows into the largest leveraged loan ETF (BKLN) have outpaced flows into the largest junk bond ETF (HYG) since August (Chart 8). Historically, there are two reasons that leveraged loans might be expected to outperform fixed rate junk bonds (Chart 9). The first is that 3-month LIBOR is rising, causing loan coupons to reset higher. The second is that the default rate is elevated. Loans tend to benefit relative to bonds when the default rate is elevated because their senior position in the capital structure means they earn a higher recovery rate (Chart 10). Chart 8Loan Performance Is Lagging Fund Flows Chart 9Leveraged Loans Will Outperform Chart 10Loans Benefit From Higher Recoveries Taking a closer look at Chart 9 we can see that the above two factors have only led to two periods of sustained leveraged loan outperformance since 1991 (denoted by shaded regions). In 1994, loans outperformed bonds because the pace of Fed tightening surprised markets to the upside and 3-month LIBOR moved sharply higher. In this instance higher coupons were sufficient for loans to outperform even though corporate defaults were low. Loans also outperformed bonds between 1997 and 2002. In this case it was a prolonged uptrend in corporate defaults that drove the outperformance. Loans benefitted from higher LIBOR in the early stages of this period, but then the Fed began cutting rates in 2001. Loans did not outperform bonds during the 2004-2006 rate hike cycle, as defaults were very low and the rate hikes were well telegraphed - meaning that asset prices already reflected the up-move in 3-month LIBOR before it occurred. Likewise, loans did not outperform bonds during the 2008 default episode because the Fed was cutting rates sharply and, unlike in the 1990s, the spike and reversal in the default rate occurred over a relatively short period of time. The good news for loans is that the current environment very much resembles the early part of the 1997-2002 period insofar as the Fed is in the early stages of a rate hike cycle - so 3-month LIBOR can be expected to move higher - and corporate defaults have already started to increase. So far loans have only benefitted marginally from the rise in 3-month LIBOR because most have LIBOR floors. This means that the loan's coupon is only reset higher once 3-month LIBOR is increased above the stated floor. Bloomberg calculates that $221 billion of outstanding leveraged loans have LIBOR floors of 75bps and $690 billion of outstanding loans have LIBOR floors of 100bps. With 3-month LIBOR at 91bps currently, it will only take one more Fed rate hike before the floors on most loans are breached. Bottom Line: The combination of Fed rate hikes and elevated defaults should allow leveraged loans to outperform fixed rate junk bonds on a 12-month horizon. High-Yield Munis: Stay Away We detailed our longer-term outlook for municipal bonds in a recent Special Report,7 and then downgraded our muni allocation to underweight (2 out of 5) following Trump's surprise election win. Our expectation is that the combination of lower tax rates and increased infrastructure spending will be toxic for municipal debt. That analysis, however, focused on investment grade municipal debt. This week we investigate the relative value in high-yield municipal bonds relative to high-yield corporates. The starting point of our analysis is an examination of the spread differential between high-yield munis and high-yield corporates (Chart 11). The second panel of Chart 11 shows that, compared to history, munis offer a sizeable spread advantage over similarly-rated corporate debt. However, this comparison does not adjust for differences in duration and convexity between the two indexes. In the bottom panel of Chart 11 we show the residual from a model where the spread differential between high-yield munis and high-yield corporates has been regressed against differences in duration and convexity. We see that high-yield munis look even more attractive after making these adjustments. These simple adjustments reveal that high-yield munis are attractive relative to high-yield corporates, but they do not consider the impact of a macro environment that is about to turn extremely negative for municipal debt. To control for this we created an augmented model of the spread differential between high-yield munis and corporates, adjusting for duration, convexity, the effective personal tax rate, relative ratings migration and several other factors (Chart 12). Chart 11High-Yield Muni Valuation I Chart 12High-Yield Muni Valuation II High-yield munis still appear quite attractive based on this model, but if we assume that the effective personal income tax rate reverts even to 2011 levels, then the a good chunk of the spread advantage vanishes (Chart 12, panel 2). This is an extremely conservative assumption. In reality, we expect the effective personal tax rate will fall much below 2011 levels under the new administration. Bottom Line: An examination of spreads alone suggests that high-yield munis are attractive compared to high-yield corporate debt, but the attractiveness is not sufficient to compensate for lower tax rates under President Trump. Avoid high-yield municipal debt. Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com 1 Our internal calculation differs somewhat from the widely reported probability that is available on Bloomberg terminals. The reason is that the Bloomberg calculation assumes a baseline fed funds rate of 37.5 bps (the midpoint of the Fed's current target range), while we use the current effective fed funds rate which has recently been stable at 41 bps. 2 http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-11-16/fed-s-kashkari-says-election-hasn-t-changed-economic-outlook-yet 3 Please see European Investment Strategy Special Report, "Fractals, Liquidity & A Trading Model", dated December 11, 2014, available at eis.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see BCA Special Report, "U.S. Elections: Outcomes And Investment Implications", dated November 9, 2016, available at www.bcaresearch.com 5 https://www.c-span.org/organization/?63944 6 Please see Global Fixed Income Strategy / U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Six Reasons To Tactically Reduce Duration Exposure Now", dated July 19, 2016, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification