Monetary

Highlights Ongoing monetary tightening in China poses a substantial threat to EM risk assets. Yet financial markets remain highly complacent. Mind the gap between EM risk assets and commodities currencies/various commodities prices. Business conditions in EM ex-China will diverge from the U.S. and European economies and recouple to the downside with China's growth. The pillars of the EM business cycle are China, commodities, and their own domestic credit cycle, rather than the U.S. and Europe. Continue shorting/underweighting the Malaysian currency, stocks and sovereign credit. Feature Chart I-1China: Ongoing Liquidity Tightening There is one major underappreciated risk in global financial markets: China's gradual yet unrelenting monetary tightening. Though slow and measured, this policy tightening constitutes a significant risk, particularly for emerging markets. The basis is that it could trigger a disproportionally large negative effect on Chinese growth because it is taking place amid a lingering credit bubble in China.1 Mainland interbank rates and onshore corporate bond yields have risen as the People's Bank of China (PBoC) has reduced its net liquidity injections via open market operations (Chart I-1, top panel). The PBoC's monetary tightening is bound to reduce money/credit growth in China. The bottom panel of Chart I-1 demonstrates that changes in the central bank's claims on commercial banks lead by 3 months asset growth at commercial banks. Diminished liquidity injections by the PBoC will soon push commercial banks to reduce the pace of their balance sheet expansion. Asset growth/loan origination among policy banks2 has already slowed (Chart I-2). On top of this, China's regulatory tightening aimed at curbing speculative (high-risk) financial activity will also curtail commercial banks' loan origination. For example, bank regulators are forcing banks to bring off-balance-sheet assets onto their balance sheets. As a result, money/credit growth is set to decelerate meaningfully. This, in turn, will cause another slump in this credit-addicted economy. It is very probable that the mini-business cycle in China has already reached its peak - our credit and fiscal impulse heralds further drop in the manufacturing PMI (Chart I-3). Chart I-2Commercial Banks And Policy ##br##Banks' Loan Growth To Slow Further Chart I-3China's Growth Has Rolled Over While China's monetary tightening is not a direct risk to domestic demand in the U.S. or Europe, it poses an imminent risk to commodities prices and EM risk assets. Consistent with slowing Chinese manufacturing output growth, commodities prices trading in mainland China have lately tanked. Bottom Line: BCA's Emerging Markets Strategy team maintains that ongoing monetary tightening in China poses substantial risks to EM risk assets and commodities. Yet financial markets remain complacent. Perplexing Complacency It is very perplexing that EM risk assets have so far ignored the risks stemming from China's tightening and renewed relapse in commodities prices. It seems portfolio allocation into risk assets, including those in the EM universe, is pushing prices higher irrespective of a major relapse in forward-looking indicators for both China and EM growth. EM stocks, currencies and credit spreads have decoupled from a number of indicators with which they historically had a high correlation: In recent weeks, we have brought to investors' attention that an unsustainable gap has been opening between the commodities currencies index - an equal-weighted average of AUD, NZD and CAD - and both EM exchange rates and EM share prices in local currency terms (Chart I-4A & Chart I-4B). Chart I-4AHeed The Message From Commodities Currencies Chart I-4BHeed The Message From ##br##Commodities Currencies Not only have commodities currencies decisively rolled over, but also commodities prices have begun sliding. Historically, EM risk assets in general and the sovereign credit market in particular have always sold off when commodities prices have drifted lower (Chart I-5). EM equity volatility is back to its lows (Chart I-6). This corroborates reigning complacency in the marketplace. Chart I-5Commodities Prices And ##br##EM Sovereign Spreads Chart I-6A Sign Of Complacency EM sovereign and corporate spreads have also fallen to their narrowest levels in recent years (Chart I-7). Notably, our valuation model for EM corporate bonds - which is constructed based on our EM Corporate Financial Health Index - posits that EM corporate credit is very expensive (Chart I-8). Chart I-7EM Sovereign And Corporate Spreads Chart I-8EM Corporate Credit Is Expensive Finally, EM local currency bond yield spreads over U.S. Treasurys have also dropped a lot, signifying complacency on the part of EM investors (Chart I-9). Chart I-9EM Local Bond Yield Spreads ##br##Over U.S. Treasurys Are Low Bottom Line: EM financial markets are not cheap, and investors are highly complacent. Mind the gap between EM risk assets and commodities currencies/various commodities prices. Can EM Decouple From China? An oft-asked and relevant question is whether EM ex-China can decouple from China itself. Not for the time being, in our view. On the contrary, as we argued in last week's report titled Toward A Desynchronized World,3 China's slowdown will weigh on the majority of the EM investable equity, currency and credit markets. As a result, growth conditions in EM ex-China will diverge from the U.S. and European economies and recouple to the downside with China's growth. The three pillars of EM ex-China growth are commodities, China and their domestic credit cycles. The primary link is via commodities. As China's growth decelerates and its imports relapse, commodities prices will plunge (Chart I-10). Latin America, Africa, the Middle East, Russia, Malaysia and Indonesia are set to experience negative terms-of-trade shocks as commodities prices deflate. As a result, their currencies will depreciate and growth will suffer. Although Mexico is leveraged to the U.S., oil prices still matter for it. This leaves non-commodities producing economies in Asia and central Europe. The latter is too small to matter for EM benchmarks. Central Europe correlates with Europe's business cycle rather than EM. In emerging Asia, Korea and Taiwan - the largest equity market cap weights after China in the MSCI EM index - sell much more to China than to the U.S. and Europe combined. Korea's shipments to China account for 25% of total exports while those to the U.S. and Europe combined make up 22%. For Taiwan the numbers are 27% and 20%, respectively. Thailand sells to China as much as it does to the U.S. This by and large leaves only three mainstream EM economies that are not substantially exposed to China: India, the Philippines and Turkey (Table I-1). Indian and Philippine stocks are expensive, and these nations confront their own unique problems. Turkey in turn is facing major political, economic and financial predicaments. Chart I-10Industrial Metals Prices To head Lower Table I-1Export To China And U.S. In short, among mainstream EM countries, there are very few plays not exposed to China or commodities and offer a reasonable risk/return profile. Investors also often ask if commodities importing economies in Asia can rally in absolute terms when and as commodities prices drop. Chart I-11 illustrates the Korean and Taiwanese equity indexes have historically (in the past 20 years) been strongly correlated with oil and industrial metals prices. The reason is that commodity price swings partially reflect global growth conditions. Being heavily dependent on exports, Korea and Taiwan are highly sensitive to fluctuations in global growth. We expect global trade to slow down anew, driven by weakness in China/EM imports, even if U.S. and European demand remains resilient. We elaborated on this theme in last week's report.4 Therefore, Korean and Taiwanese export shipments are set to slow as well. We are not bearish on Korean and Taiwanese domestic demand - we are in fact overweight these bourses within the EM equity universe, with a focus on technology and domestic sectors. That said, consumer and business spending in these economies is relatively small in a global context to make a difference for other EM markets. In addition, given these economies' mature phase of development, the pace of their income and domestic demand growth will be moderate. Many EM countries have experienced excessive credit growth in the past 15 years, but their banking systems have not restructured - i.e. banks have not sufficiently provisioned for non-performing loans. Until they do so, domestic loan growth remains at risk of weakening. There has been modest deleveraging in Brazil, Russia and India (Chart I-12). However, there is no evidence that these economies have embarked on a new credit cycle. Chart I-11Korean And Taiwanese Stocks ##br##Correlate With Commodities Chart I-12Some Moderate Deleveraging ##br##In Brazil, Russia And India Case in point are Indian state-owned banks: their experience shows that deleveraging can be more protracted and painful than one might initially expect. The reason is that it takes time for banks to acknowledge non-performing loans, be recapitalized and get ready to boost loan growth again. In addition, Brazil and Russia are still commodities plays at the mercy of commodities price dynamics. Besides, Brazil needs to undergo painful fiscal adjustment/reforms. In other developing countries, bank loan growth remains elevated and bank loan-to-GDP ratios continue to rise (Chart I-13). In these economies, credit retrenchment and even a mild deleveraging has not yet occurred. Prominently, as EM currencies come under downward pressure, interest rates in many economies running current account deficits will be pressured higher. This will lead to a slowdown in bank credit growth and will depress demand. Finally, if it were not for the pick-up in Chinese imports, the EM ex-China business cycle and commodities prices would not have ameliorated in the past 12 months. Notably, excluding China, Korea and Taiwan, developing nations' retail sales volumes and new vehicle sales remain dormant (Chart I-14). Similarly, there has not been much recovery in capital spending and, consistently, imports of capital goods in EM ex-China, Korea and Taiwan (Chart I-15). Chart I-13No Deleveraging In Many EMs Chart I-14EM Ex-China, Korea And Taiwan: ##br##Stabilization But No Revival Chart I-15EM Ex-China, Korea And Taiwan: ##br##Not Much Of Recovery As credit growth slows or fails to pick up in these economies, domestic demand recovery will be tepid, and will certainly disappoint market expectations. Bottom Line: Given budding divergence between U.S./Europe and Chinese growth, EM ex-China growth will fail to recover and will surprise to the downside. The basis is that the pillars of the EM's business cycle are China, commodities and their own domestic credit cycle, rather than the U.S. and Europe. Arthur Budaghyan, Senior Vice President Emerging Markets Strategy arthurb@bcaresearch.com 1 Please refer to the Emerging Markets Strategy Special Reports from October 26, 2016, November, 23 2016, and January 18, 2017, the links are available on page 16. 2 Policy banks are China Development Bank, Agricultural Development Bank and Export-Import Bank of China. 3 Please refer to the Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report titled, "Toward A Desynchronized World", dated April 26, 2017, link available on page 16. 4 Please refer to the Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report titled, "Toward A Desynchronized World", dated April 26, 2017, link available on page 16. Malaysia: Not Out Of The Woods Arenewed relapse in Chinese growth later this year coupled with lower commodities prices will once again expose Malaysia's vulnerabilities. Notably, 26% of Malaysia's exports are related to commodities - mainly crude oil, natural gas, petroleum products and palm oil. Another downleg in the ringgit's value along with lower commodities prices will cause domestic interest rates to rise. However, Malaysia is in no position to tolerate higher interest rates. Leverage has risen considerably in the past ten years in Malaysia, and is very high (Chart II-1A). Indeed, the country has one of the highest debt-servicing costs in the EM universe, according to BIS data (Chart II-1B). Chart II-1A...And Debt Servicing Costs Chart II-1BHigh Leverage... If the Malaysian central bank attempts to cap interest rates by injecting local currency liquidity into the system, the ringgit will plunge even further. Chart II-2 shows that in recent years local interbank rates have tended to rise when the central bank curtailed its net liquidity injection. If on the other hand the Bank Negara of Malaysia (BNM) does not inject liquidity into the banking/financial system, interest rates will rise as the currency depreciates. Interestingly, despite strong inflows into EM generally, the BNM has continued to inject local liquidity into the economy - albeit at a slower pace than in recent years - to keep local rates tame (Chart II-2). Additionally, despite the significant growth slowdown that has occurred in the past two years in Malaysia, banks' NPLs have not risen much (Chart II-3). As banks start acknowledging loan losses and setting provisions for them, their profitability will decline, capital will be eroded, and loan origination will fall. Chart II-2BNM Has Been Injecting Liquidity ##br##To Control Interest Rates Chart II-3Malaysian Banks Haven't ##br##Acknowledged Enough Losses Yet Meanwhile, even though global trade and commodities prices have picked in the past 15 months, Malaysia's economy has failed to recover. This reflects the country's underlying economic vulnerability as the borrowing/credit spree of the past decade has come to a halt: Commercial and passenger vehicle sales are shrinking. Retail trade and employment are also still anemic. Property sales volumes and housing construction approvals are collapsing (Chart II-4). Capital expenditures are depressed (Chart II-4, bottom panel). On the external side, the semiconductor/electronics sector has boomed in Asia since early 2016, but Malaysia has failed to benefit much. Indeed, the recovery in Malaysia's electronics sector has been weak compared to other technology hubs such as Taiwan and Korea. This confirms why Malaysia has been losing market share in electronics products to Korea, Taiwan and the Philippines (Chart II-5). Chart II-4Cyclical Growth Remains Anemic Chart II-5Malaysia Is Losing Tech Market ##br##Share To Its Asian Competitors Bottom Line: Continue shorting MYR versus the U.S. dollar and the Russian ruble. Equity investors should continue to underweight Malaysian stocks within an EM equity portfolio. Relative value traders should maintain our long Russian / short Malaysia equity trade. Buy/hold Malaysian CDS or underweight this sovereign credit market within an EM credit portfolio. Ayman Kawtharani, Associate Editor aymank@bcaresearch.com Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations

Highlights ECB: The ECB is still on track to move to a less accommodative policy stance over the next year. Hints of this will be given at the June policy meeting, while a 2018 asset purchase taper announcement will be made at the September meeting. Rate hikes will follow the taper, unless core inflation surges faster than expected. Position for steeper core Euro Area government curves now, and a narrowing of the U.S. Treasury-German Bund spread in the second half of this year. France-Germany Spreads: France-Germany bond spreads are now too narrow relative to the probability-weighted outcomes of this Sunday's final round of the French presidential election. Even with a Macron victory highly likely, we do not recommend long positions in French OATs versus German Bunds. Feature Investors have navigated a minefield of political headline risks over the past few weeks. From French politics to North Korean missile launches, from Donald Trump's tax cuts to Theresa May's snap U.K election, uncertainty abounds. Yet risk assets remain unscathed. That can be mostly be chalked up to the strength of the global cyclical economic upturn, which has boosted corporate profits in the developed world and lifted equity and credit market valuations. The continued accommodative monetary stance of the major central banks is also helping investors see through the political noise, although the winds there are shifting (Chart of the Week). Chart of the WeekCyclical Upturn Remains Intact In the U.S., financial conditions have eased since the Fed's "dovish hike" in March, and too few rate increases are now discounted with leading indicators pointing to a reacceleration of growth after the soft Q1 print. Across the Atlantic, the European Central Bank (ECB) is having an increasingly open debate about the ongoing need for an exceptionally dovish policy stance given the robust (by European standards) economic expansion. A lack of inflation will keep the Bank of Japan in hyper-easy mode for longer, but the data is presenting a more mixed message for other developed economy central banks like the Bank of Canada and the Bank of England. We continue to see the current level of global bond yields as priced too low given the ongoing cyclical growth and inflation pressures. A pro-growth fixed income investment stance, with below-benchmark portfolio duration and overweight allocations to corporate credit versus sovereign debt (favoring the U.S.), is still appropriate. ECB Outlook: Language Change Coming In June, Policy Change Coming In September Last week's ECB meeting offered few surprises, on the surface. The official statement sounded a cautious note, discussing downside risks to the Euro Area economy from global factors (i.e. trade policy vis-à-vis the U.S. and U.K., geopolitical uncertainty), and that there is still not enough evidence suggesting that inflation was sustainably on course to return to the ECB's 2% target. In the post-meeting press conference, however, the questions aimed at ECB President Mario Draghi turned into an almost farcical dissection of every word in the official statement. Like this exchange, taken directly from the press conference transcript:1 Question: If I got it right, there's one sentence missing in the statement, and this is the sentence, "There are no signs yet of a convincing upward trend in underlying inflation." What is the reason? No? Have I got it wrong? Draghi: No, you're right in a sense that there is one sentence less, but this one is there. On page 2 you have: "Moreover, the ongoing volatility in headline inflation underlines the need..." Constâncio: "...yet to show a convincing upward trend." Draghi: "...convincing upward trend." If you read the end of page 1, beginning of page 2... Question: So there is no change in your assessment of the underlying inflation trend? That was finally the question. Draghi: That is there. No, the one that is not equal exactly like in the last statement is the balance of risks sentence, which repeated twice that the risks remained tilted on the downside in the last statement, and you can find it only once on the second page. That's the difference. Chart 2ECB Policies Are Working... It is clear that the ECB Governing Council is now stuck in a very difficult position. The domestic Euro Area economic data continues to show a very solid pace of expansion that is soaking up spare capacity, supported by the highly accommodative ECB monetary policies of large-scale asset purchases and rock-bottom interest rates (Chart 2). Yet both wage growth and core inflation remain subdued, suggesting that there is no rush to send any signal that a shift in monetary policy settings is on the horizon - even though the market is aware that the current ECB asset purchase program is set to expire at year-end. The political calendar is playing a role here, as the ECB has not wanted to create additional market volatility by discussing any potential tapering of asset purchases or interest rate hikes during the French election campaign. But with the pro-euro candidate now well-placed to win the French Presidency this Sunday, the market's focus will shift away from ''President Le Pen" disaster scenarios towards timing the ECB's next policy move. The latest round of Euro Area inflation data, released last Friday, showed that the sharp drop in inflation in March was a statistical aberration. Headline HICP inflation (on a year-over-year basis) rose to 1.9% in April from 1.5%, while core inflation jumped to 1.2% from 0.7% - the highest level in almost four years. An acceleration in core inflation now would be consistent with the evidence seen in the Euro Area jobs data, with the unemployment rate steadily falling towards the "full employment" level of 8% (Chart 3). This also fits with the ECB's latest projections that show core inflation returning to just under 2% by 2019. Already, markets are starting to get more jittery about a potential change in the ECB's policy stance in the coming months. Realized bond volatility at the front-end of the German yield curve has risen to the highest level since 2013, although our "months-to-hike" measure is still at 25 months, suggesting that the next ECB rate hike will not occur until 2019 (Chart 4). That pricing makes sense, in our view, as the ECB is likely to taper its asset purchases before considering any interest rate increase. Chart 3...Perhaps Now Too Well? Chart 4Tightening Pressures Building Draghi and other senior members of the ECB (like Chief Economist Peter Praet) have reiterated that exact forward guidance of sequencing - tapering before rate hikes - in recent weeks, citing a desire to not cause an unwanted tightening of financial conditions too soon. That sounds to us like code language for "we do not want to hike rates and cause the euro to appreciate sharply", which is more likely to happen, with greater magnitude, after an increase in policy rates than a taper of bond purchases. We continue to expect that the ECB will move toward a less accommodative monetary stance over the next year, starting with a tapering of asset purchases followed by rate hikes. The initial signal for that will come at the June meeting where a new set of ECB staff economic projections will be prepared, followed by an announcement in September that tapering will begin in early 2018. Rate hikes will not begin until after the tapering ends, likely not until late 2018 or early 2019. This sequencing could change, however, if core inflation was to rise more rapidly than the ECB currently projects, with a rate hike happening sooner in that case. In terms of bond strategy, we recommend curve steepeners in core European government bond markets as an initial way to position for a less accommodative ECB. We anticipate moving to an underweight allocation stance to core Europe (both Germany and France) at some point before the June ECB meeting. We would like to see higher U.S. Treasury yields before making that change, as we expect Treasury-Bund spreads to narrow as the ECB tapers. With the market not pricing in enough rate hikes into the U.S. curve, in our view, we see the Treasury-Bund spread moving wider first as Treasuries reprice, before narrowing after the ECB taper is announced. Bottom Line: The ECB is still on track to move to a less accommodative policy stance over the next year. Hints of this will be given at the June policy meeting, while a 2018 asset purchase taper announcement will be made at the September meeting. Rate hikes will follow the taper, unless core inflation surges faster than expected. Position for steeper core Euro Area government curves now, and a narrowing of the U.S. Treasury-German Bund spread in the second half of this year. OAT-Bund Spreads Are Now Fairly Valued Last week, we closed our recommended long 10-year French OAT vs. 10-year German Bund Tactical Overlay trade following the first round of the French presidential election, at a profit of 1.3%.2 While we view the chances of Marine Le Pen winning this Sunday's run-off vote versus Emmanuel Macron as remote, betting on additional spread tightening from the current level of 53bps does not offer an attractive risk/reward opportunity. To judge this, we performed a scenario analysis to determine a probability-adjusted level of the OAT-Bund spread under the two tail events of a Macron or Le Pen victory. In the first scenario, we assigned a 15% probability to Le Pen winning the election, as currently indicated by online betting markets (Chart 5). In the second, we increased the probability to a more pessimistic 40%, which is Le Pen's current level of support in head-to-head opinion polls. We then came up with OAT-Bund spread projections for a victory by either candidate. If Le Pen were to pull off the upset and win the presidency, this would re-ignite fears of a potential Eurozone breakup given her anti-euro stance. Fears of a "Frexit" would likely push the OAT-Bund spread up to at least the same level (around 190bps) reached during the peak of the Euro debt crisis in late 2011 when euro breakup risk was at extreme levels. Even that spread level, however, may not adequately compensate for France's worsening fiscal backdrop, with France's debt/GDP ratio now 40% larger, relative to Germany's, than during the Euro debt crisis (Chart 6). Chart 5Macron Is The Favorite To Win Chart 6No Value In Staying Long France Vs Germany As a simple way to account for this, we increased the spread target for a Le Pen victory scenario by 1.4 times to account for the increased stock of French sovereign debt, which is all denominated in euros, that would be at risk of default if France was to pull out of the euro. This gives an upside spread target for a Le Pen victory of 266bps. In the event that the poll numbers prove correct, as they did in the first round of the election, and Macron wins as expected, this market-friendly result would prompt the OAT-Bund spread to decline further. Our estimate for a downside spread target after a Macron win is 36bps, which is the average level during 2015-2016 before the rise in uncertainty surrounding the elections. Again, this is adjusted upward in order to reflect changes in the relative debt-to-GDP ratios for France and Germany, with the former nearly 10% higher versus the latter over the past two years. Table 1Probability-Weighted OAT-Bund ##br## Spread Scenarios Using these spread targets and our base case election odds (85% chance of a Macron victory), we come up with a probability-adjusted spread of 71bps (Table 1). Using the head-to-head probabilities from the polling data (60% chance of a Macron win), the expected spread is 128bps. With the current OAT-Bund spread at 53bps, well below either projection, we conclude that the potential reward of holding onto a long OAT/short Bund position for a Macron victory does not adequately compensate for the non-zero probability that Le Pen pulls out the win this Sunday. Bottom Line: France-Germany bond spreads are now too narrow relative to the probability-weighted outcomes of this Sunday's final round of the French presidential election. Even with a Macron victory highly likely, we do not recommend long positions in French OATs versus German Bunds. Robert Robis, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com Patrick Trinh, Associate Editor Global Fixed Income Strategy patrick@bcaresearch.com 1 https://www.ecb.europa.eu/press/pressconf/2017/html/ecb.is170427.en.html 2 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report "Global Bond Yields On The Move, Higher", dated April 25, 2017, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Recommendations Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Highlights Geopolitical tensions eased last week, but there are still a few near term hurdles to clear. Domestic policy uncertainty remains. Investors still can't seem to reconcile the disconnect between weak "hard" data and solid "soft" data. A gradual Fed may be the right response to the recent run of mixed economic data. Housing and housing-related investments led the global economy into the last recession. Housing is still on the mend. The housing sector will contribute about 0.2 percentage points and 0.5 percentage points to real GDP growth in 2017 and 2018, respectively. Investors should look to housing-related assets as a source of potential outperformance over the coming 6-12 months. Feature U.S. equity prices neared record highs and Treasury yields bounced off of their late-March low last week as near term international and domestic political risk melted away in the minds of investors. We continue to expect U.S. equities to beat bonds this year. Oil prices continue to trade near $50/bbl, and the dollar held steady amid all the news-good and bad. Both have upside over the remainder of 2017. In today's report, we examine the following key issues for investors: Since the end of the Great Recession, geopolitical risks have ebbed and flowed, and 2017 has proven to be no different. Are political risks over, or just over for now? How does the recent run of mixed U.S. data influence the Fed, and what does this mean for risky asset prices? Housing and housing-related investments led the global economy into the last recession. Where do we stand now? Are Geopolitical Concerns Over? North Korea failed to test another nuke after a nerve rattling Easter Weekend. The leadup to the presidential election in South Korea on May 9 may have motivated a part (or most) of the uptick in belligerence that we are seeing from North Korea. All leading candidates are more likely to try diplomacy and economic engagement with North Korea than to maintain the past ten years of conservative efforts to strengthen military deterrence via stronger alliances with the U.S. and Japan. In the euro area, the good news is that the polls in the first round of the French election (April 23) were correct. The bad news is that there is still another election. Macron and Le Pen face off on this Sunday (May 7), and markets are betting that the polls will be correct again given Macron's 20 point lead over Le Pen. The June parliamentary elections in France should be a non-event for U.S. financial markets; we still see Italy - where most voters favor Eurosceptic parties - as the biggest risk on the geopolitical scene in the next year or so. In the U.K., the ruling Tories look to add to their majority in June's parliamentary election, which will provide British Prime Minister Theresa May with a stronger hand to negotiate with Europe and increases the odds of a less extreme Brexit outcome (Chart 1). Chart ICGeopolitical Risk Is Ebbing...For Now Chart 1BGeopolitical Risk Is Ebbing...For Now Chart 1AGeopolitical Risk Is Ebbing...For Now There was good news and bad news on the domestic policy front last week as well. The release of the long awaited Trump tax plan and the passage of a spending bill by Congress to avert a government shutdown (at least until later this week) helped to remove some domestic political uncertainty. The bad news is that the plan was more tax cut than tax reform. The one page plan lacked detail and still has to pass muster with the House GOP. The Trump Administration may have started a trade war with Canada (over lumber) and sent trial balloons about pulling out of NAFTA (despite walking back from this position soon after). Is this "negotiator" Trump or something worse? The bad news is that tax reform, trade wars, dynamic scoring, and yes, even Obamacare will be with us until late Summer/early Fall. The good news is that the border adjustment tax may not be. The takeaway for investors is that while geopolitical concerns have not disappeared, they have ebbed, and this will support the relative performance of U.S. equities over 10-year government bonds over the coming year. Italy (not North Korea, France, or Germany) remains the biggest geopolitical risk on the horizon, but the next election there isn't until early-2018. Domestically, Trump's pro-growth agenda is advancing at a pace that is slower than many investors would prefer, but it is advancing, which we believe will continue to support a pro-cyclical asset allocation stance. Bottom Line: Geopolitical concerns have not disappeared, but they have ebbed materially to the benefit of risky asset prices. Investors should stay overweight U.S. stocks vs 10-year government bonds within a multi-asset portfolio. Mixed Data Warrants A Gradual Fed Investors still can't seem to reconcile the disconnect between weak "hard" data and solid "soft" data. The recent uptick in initial claims and the soft Q1 GDP data are the most recent examples. Investors should recall that claims are inherently noisy; a rise in claims of more than 75,000 over a 6-month period is typically needed to signal a recession. Chart 2 makes it clear that the latest wiggles on claims are not sending a recessionary signal. Chart 2Claims Are Not Even Close To Sending A Recession Signal Friday's GDP report highlighted that growth in Q1 was soft again. As we noted in last week's report, GDP growth in Q1 averaged -0.1% over the last 10 years. Q2 growth has averaged more than 2%. Q1 growth has been below Q2 in 8 of the last 10 years. 2017 is shaping up to be a repeat performance. Defense spending - identified by the Cleveland Fed as a key culprit in the unwanted seasonal weakness in Q1 GDP - fell 4% in Q1, subtracting 0.2% from growth. Inventories were also singled out by the Cleveland Fed, and they shaved 0.9% off of GDP in Q1. We expect to see a snapback in all three components of growth (GDP, defense spending and inventories) in Q2. Business capital spending, and housing were bright spots in Q1 (Chart 3). Corporate earnings are the ultimate piece of hard data. Equity prices track earnings growth over the long term. With 288 members of the S&P 500 reporting, 77% have beaten expectations on the bottom line. Healthcare, financials and technology lead the way. Weakness was evident in defensives. More impressive is the 7.1% gain in revenues in Q1 so far (Table 1). But overall, corporations appear to have pricing power. The ECI accelerated in Q1 to +2.4% year-over-year from +2.2%, but remain relatively subdued. This implies that margins will hold up, which will continue to support our view that stocks will beat bonds this year. With no Fed Chair Yellen press conference, a new set of dot plots or a new economic forecast, markets will have to be content with just the FOMC statement this week. A speech by Fed Vice Chair Fischer will be closely watched for signals about the June FOMC meeting. The market has been too quick to price out rate hikes in 2017. Expectations for rate hikes in 2018 have all but disappeared (Chart 4). We expect this gap will close - in favor of the Fed for both 2017 and 2018. We expect Treasury yields and inflation to head higher this year, despite recent soft readings on March CPI. The March PCE deflator - also due this week-is key. Chart 3Markets Shouldn't Be Surprised By Weak##br## Q1 GDP, Or What Caused It Table 1S&P 500: ##br##Q1 2017 Results* Chart 4Still Plenty Of Disagreement Between Fed ##br##And Market; Both Expect Gradual Hikes Though Bottom Line: We continue to expect the hard data to catch up to the soft data in the coming months. Financial markets have overreacted to the weak data and have been too quick to price out Fed rate hikes this year and next. The Fed is taking a gradual approach to rate hikes for a reason; the data-hard or soft-doesn't warrant an aggressive Fed. But a gradual Fed and solid profit growth strongly favor an allocation towards stocks over bonds this year. Housing: Set To Keep A "Slow-Burn" Expansion Burning Housing is one sector of the economy that stands to look relatively good over the coming few years, with some important implications for housing-related asset performance. The monthly Bank Credit Analyst recently published some research in which we split U.S. post-1950 economic cycles into three sets based on the length of the expansion phase: short (about 2 years), medium (4-6 years) and long (8-10 years). What distinguishes short from medium and long expansions is the speed at which the most cyclical parts of the economy accelerated, and the time it took unemployment to reach a full employment level. Long expansions were characterized by a drawn-out rise in the cyclical parts of the economy and a very slow return to full employment in the labor market, similar to what has occurred since the Great Recession. Chart 5 compares the current cycle (dotted lines) with the average of the 1980s and 1990s long expansions (solid lines). The cycles are all lined up with the beginning of the expansion, indicated by the first vertical line. These long "slow burn" recoveries also extended well beyond the point at which the economy first reached full employment (called late-cycle phases, shaded in Chart 5). Inflation pressures were slower to emerge in these types of recoveries, allowing the Fed to proceed cautiously when normalizing interest rates. Interestingly, earnings-per-share for S&P 500 companies expanded by an average of 18% in inflation-adjusted terms during the two late-cycle phases, despite the twin headwinds of narrowing profit margins and a strengthening dollar (the dollar appreciated by an average of 23% in trade-weighted terms). The stock market provided an impressive average real return of 25%. We are not making the case that returns will be anywhere near this level in the coming years. The starting point for valuation, for example, is much more extended than it was in previous long cycles. There are also plenty of possible sources of shocks that could end the expansion abruptly. Nonetheless, it is not going to die simply of old age. In the absence of any major shocks, this expansion may continue for a while yet. One reason is that there are no major areas of overspending that would make the economy highly vulnerable. This includes the housing sector, where investment has lagged previous slow-burn recoveries by a wide margin. A lagging housing market is not surprising given the bloated inventory of vacant homes that had to be absorbed in this cycle. The good news is that overhang appears to now be gone. The stock of unsold new and existing homes has returned to low levels by historical standards (inventories of new homes are in fact now rising, after plunging between 2006 and 2012; Chart 6). Chart 5The Current Cycle Is ##br##A "Slow Burn" Expansion Chart 6The Overhang From Housing##br## Inventories Is Gone Other positive factors include the following: Lending standards haven't eased much, but FICO scores have increased sharply, meaning that more renters now qualify for loans and thus might move from rental unit to a single family home (which generates more GDP per unit). This factor was highlighted in a recent Special Report on housing.1 Affordability is favorable, and the cost of owning is cheap relative to the cost of renting. The home-ownership rate has returned to its long-term average (Chart 6, bottom panel). If the pre-Lehman bubble in the homeownership rate has been unwound, it removes a headwind for construction activity because renting favors multi-family construction that produces less GDP per unit than single family homes. The supply of foreclosed homes onto the market has withered along with the foreclosure rate. This might not affect construction activity because it represents families simply swapping homes for other ones, but it supports home prices. Importantly, household formation is still recovering from a period in which young adults stayed with their parents for longer than normal for economic reasons. The tightening in the labor market and cyclical rebound in real disposable income growth is allowing millennials to finally move out, boosting the demand for new housing stock (Chart 7). Chart 8 presents a simple way of estimating the remaining pent-up demand for housing, based on the deviation from its 1990-2007 trend in the ratio of the number of households to the total population. A closing of the remaining gap implies an extra 540,000 housing units. Chart 7Income Growth Is Helping Young Americans To Leave The Nest Chart 8A Catch-Up Housing Construction Will Occur If This Gap Closes The equilibrium number of housing starts that cover underlying population growth plus the units lost to scrappage is estimated to be about 1.4 million annually. If the household formation 'catch up' occurs over the next two years, adding another 250,000 units per year, total demand could be 1.6 to 1.7 million in each of the next two years. This compares to the just-released March housing starts level of 1.2 million. If starts rise smoothly from today's level to 1.7 million at the end of 2018, then the housing sector will contribute about 0.2 percentage points and 0.5 percentage point to real GDP growth in 2017 and 2018, respectively (Chart 9). Chart 9A Housing Catch-Up Will Boost GDP Growth For the economy, the implication is that this already-aged expansion phase could persist for a couple of more years as long as it is not hit by a negative shock and inflationary pressures remain quiescent, allowing the Fed to proceed slowly. Bottom Line: Housing starts remain well below the equilibrium level implied by underlying household formation, and a "catch up" phase could help keep the current "slow burn" expansion burning over the coming years. Favor Housing-Related Assets The above analysis also has some favorable implications for housing-related financial assets. We originally examined the implications of a rebound in home construction in 2012, during the early phase of the recovery in housing starts.2 Our approach was to test the historical excess return performance of several financial assets as a function of key housing market variables, and concluded that housing-related financial assets were set to outperform their respective benchmarks in a bullish housing scenario over the following year (and beyond). We have updated our original analysis in this report, with a few modifications. First, we examine the relationship between key housing market variables and excess returns of housing-related assets since the onset of the U.S. economic expansion in June 2009, given the structural change in the housing market that occurred following the Great Recession. Second, our analysis is based on a more focused set of housing market indicators, given the relatively poor predictive power of new home sales and the months' supply of homes following the crisis period on housing-related asset returns. Table 2 presents the list of housing-related assets that we examined,3 along with the key housing market variables used to forecast excess returns (and whether they were significant predictors in the post-crisis era). The table highlights that most of the variables do contain useful information, with the exception of the two noted above. The rightmost column presents the share of excess returns explained by a composite model of the factors noted as significant for each asset, which varies from a low of 13% to a high of 20%. Table 2Important Predictors Of Housing-Related Asset Excess Returns* (June 2009-December 2016) Charts 10 and 11 present a set of relatively conservative assumptions for the key housing market variables shown in Table 2, based on a rise in housing starts modestly above the scrappage rate that we noted in the previous section. We assume that house price appreciation and housing affordability moderate due to further rate hikes from the Fed, that the already-elevated homebuilders' confidence index stays flat, that refi applications remain low due to the uptrend in mortgage rates, and that purchase applications rise in lockstep with housing starts. Chart 10A Set Of Conservative Assumptions... Chart 11...For Key Housing Market Variables Finally, Table 3 illustrates the predicted excess returns over the coming 12-months of the housing-related assets that we examined, along with the annualized excess returns in 2016 and over the entire sample period for the purposes of comparison. It is important to note that excess returns of corporate bonds are presented relative to duration-matched government bonds, not a speculative- or investment-grade corporate bond aggregate. Table 3Excess Returns Of Housing-Related Assets* (%) The analysis presented above highlights several important conclusions for investors: The predictive power of key housing market variables has been smaller over the course of this economic expansion than in the past economic cycle (including the recession of 2008-2009), suggesting that housing market developments were more important during the downturn than they have been during the recovery. Still, housing market data is an important driver of excess returns for housing-related assets. All of the housing-related assets that we examined are expected to outperform their respective benchmarks over the coming year, even given the relatively conservative assumptions that we have made about the pace of gains in the housing market. For the three corporate bond assets shown in Tables 2 and 3, our model predicts outperformance even relative to their respective corporate bond benchmarks, albeit only marginally in the case of investment-grade banks. With the exception of S&P 500 homebuilders and banks, the model's predicted excess returns are lower over the coming year than they have been on an annualized basis since the onset of the recovery, highlighting that housing-related assets have front-run at least some of the expected normalization in the housing market over the coming few years. However, a full rise to our equilibrium estimate of 1.7 million starts over the coming two years could potentially lead to even larger outperformance than the model would predict. Charts 12 and 13 do not suggest that valuation will be an impediment to the outperformance of housing-related assets. Chart 12Valuation Won't Be An Impediment... Chart 13...For Housing Related Assets Bottom Line: Investors should look to housing-related assets as a source of potential outperformance over the coming 6-12 months. The historical relationship between key housing market variables and the excess returns of these assets implies the latter is set to outperform even given conservative assumptions about the former. John Canally, CFA, Senior Vice President U.S. Investment Strategy johnc@bcaresearch.com Mark McClellan, Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst markm@bcaresearch.com Jonathan LaBerge Vice President, Special Reports jonathanl@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see U.S. Investment Strategy Special Report "U.S. Housing: What Comes Next?", dated March 27, 2017, available at usis.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report U-3 Or U-6?", dated February 13, 2012, available at usis.bcaresearch.com 3 Note that we have excluded fixed and floating rate home equity loan ABS from our list of housing-related assets owing to a lack of data, as well as investment-grade REITs because of a very low degree of return predictability from key indicators of the housing market

Highlights Lean against depressed and euphoric interest rate expectations. The ECB will remove or fade the negative deposit rate, with an outside chance that it happens this year. The U.K. economy will determine the nature of Brexit - not the other way round. The snap General Election doesn't change anything. Expect an ongoing narrowing in the U.S. T-bond/German bund yield spread and U.S. T-bond/U.K. gilt yield spread. Expect the following order of currency performance: euro first, pound second, dollar third. Expect the FTSE100 to outperform the Eurostoxx50. Feature The interplay between interest rate expectations - in the U.K., U.S. and euro area - is one of the most important factors in explaining what has happened, what is happening, and what will happen, to financial markets. Chart of the WeekBrexit Depression Has Unwound; ##br##Trump Euphoria Hasn't... Yet Interest rate expectations convincingly explain the movements in the U.S. T-bond/German bund yield spread, the U.S. T-bond/U.K. gilt yield spread, euro/dollar, and pound/dollar. Thereby, they also explain FTSE100/Eurostoxx50 relative performance which is just an (inverse) currency play. Chart I-2, Chart I-3, Chart I-4, Chart I-5 and Chart I-6 should leave readers in absolutely no doubt. Chart I-2Interest Rate Expectations Explain The ##br##T-Bond/German Bund Yield Spread Chart I-3Interest Rate Expectations Explain The##br## T-Bond/U.K. Gilt Yield Spread Chart I-4Interest Rate Expectations ##br##Explain Euro/Dollar Chart I-5Interest Rate Expectations##br## Explain Pound/Dollar Chart I-6Pound/Euro (Inversely) Explains ##br##FTSE100/Eurostoxx50 Lean Against Depressed And Euphoric Interest Rate Expectations Last year's shock victories for Brexit and Trump dramatically swung the market mood towards the U.K. and U.S. economies. After Brexit, the knee-jerk response was depression; after Trump, the knee-jerk response was euphoria. But extreme mood swings to depression and euphoria are rarely justified, and ultimately tend to unwind. Responding to last year's dramatic mood swings, U.K. and U.S. interest rate policy - both actual and expected - moved very sharply in opposite directions. Following the Brexit vote, the BoE cut the base rate by a quarter percent, and the rate expected two years out plunged by three quarters of a percent. In contrast, following the Trump victory, the Federal Reserve twice hiked the Fed funds rate by a quarter percent, and the rate expected two years out surged by more than a percent. Meanwhile, throughout all this activity, the ECB repo rate and deposit rate were anchored at zero and -0.4% respectively, and the interest rate expected two years out remained in negative territory. Fast forward to today, and the U.K. interest rate expected two years out has fully unwound the Brexit vote depression - the expected BoE policy rate two years out stands exactly where it stood before the EU Referendum. In contrast, the expected Fed policy rate two years out retains its Trump euphoria (Chart of the Week). Meanwhile, the expected ECB policy rate two years out remains anchored close to the realistic limit of negativity. To reiterate, the extreme market moods of depression and euphoria are rarely justified, and tend to unwind. On this basis, we can say that policy rate expectations in relative terms now have the scope to: Get less depressed in the euro area. Remain broadly unchanged in the U.K. Get less euphoric in the U.S.1 Hence, on a 12-month horizon, expect a continued narrowing in the U.S. T-bond/German bund yield spread and U.S. T-bond/U.K. gilt yield spread. For currencies, expect the following order of performance: euro first, pound second, dollar third. And therefore, expect the FTSE100 to outperform the Eurostoxx50. Brexit: A Reductionist View Many millions of words have been written about Brexit, and we suspect that many millions more will be written. But true to our reductionist philosophy, we can reduce those millions of words to a single sentence. Brexit was, is, and always will be, about the trade-off between national sovereignty and access to the European single market. Irrespective of the vote to leave the EU and the start of the divorce proceedings, the full spectrum of possibilities in this trade-off is still open to the U.K. At one extreme the U.K. could get a full divorce, and thereby regain absolute national sovereignty in all areas including law and immigration. But in this full divorce, the EU27 would regard the U.K. as a complete outsider whose status is little different to say, Russia. At the other extreme, the U.K. could near enough replicate its current economic and political relationship with the EU27 in a 'pseudo-marriage'. Technically, the U.K. would be divorced, but practically, there would be only minor differences to being married. Although the U.K. would lose its official place at the EU top table, in all likelihood the EU27 would still listen to the British voice given the U.K.'s size and global standing. But in this pseudo-marriage the EU27 would exact a cost: the U.K. could not regain any national sovereignty. All points on the spectrum between a full divorce and a pseudo-marriage are now available to the U.K. The relationship that the U.K. ends up with depends on the trade-off that the British public - and therefore its political representatives in the government and parliament - will accept. In turn, this will depend on the evolution of the economy and standards of living. A strong economy will embolden the British public to want something close to a full divorce. Conversely, a weakening economy might be blamed, rightly or wrongly, on Brexit. In which case, public opinion would shift towards something closer to a pseudo-marriage. Therefore, the causality runs from the economy to Brexit, not from Brexit to the economy. The U.K. economy will determine where the U.K. ends up on the Brexit spectrum - at least, in terms of the initial deal. The snap General Election doesn't change anything. Nor is the General Election a game changer for the pound. The preceding section demonstrated that relative interest rate expectations - rather than Brexit per se - are driving the pound. We expect the BoE to remain relatively inactive because empirically, U.K. real consumption is hyper-sensitive (inversely) to inflation. When inflation is too high, real consumption growth is undermined, making it difficult to hike rates; and when inflation is too low, real consumption tends to grow strongly, making it difficult to cut rates (Chart I-7). This ties the hands of the BoE, and explains why the post EU Referendum emergency rate cut has been the BoE's only interest rate change since early 2009! Chart I-7Why The Bank Of England's Hands Are Tied While rate expectations can get less depressed in the euro area, and less euphoric in the U.S., they are likely to change least in the U.K. Hence, we like the pound less than the euro; but we like the pound more than the dollar. Role Playing On The ECB Governing Council We are writing ahead of the ECB policy meeting, but we do not anticipate any substantive announcements - given that we are only half way through the French Presidential Election. In the absence of major developments, the euro's strong recent advance might take a tactical breather. But what then? Some people argue that ECB policy should be based not on the aggregate euro area economy, but instead on the weaker links in the euro area economy. These arguments have some merit, as the ECB - unlike other central banks - has to contend with a permanent existential threat. On this basis, let's finish this week with a role playing exercise. Imagine you're on the ECB Governing Council, and the weak link that worries you is euro area bank fragility, particularly in some of the southern member states. Your own (ECB) analysis, illustrated in Chart I-8, shows that extreme accommodative monetary policy has had a negligible net impact on bank profitability. The QE component has probably been a mild net positive - admittedly, a flatter yield has dragged down banks' net interest margins; but it has also generated profits in banks' bond portfolios; and in so far as QE has boosted economic growth, it has reduced bank charge-offs. Chart I-8What Is The Point Of The ECB's Negative Deposit Rate? But the negative deposit rate - charging banks for excess liquidity - has been a clear drag on bank profitability. And there is little evidence that it has encouraged lending. What would you do? Even if the ECB is setting policy for the euro area weak links, the central bank's own analysis suggests that it should remove, or at least fade, the negative deposit rate. Our central expectation is for this to happen early next year, with an outside chance that it is even sooner. With expectations for ECB policy rates still anchored close to the realistic limit of negativity, the euro exchange rate has cyclical upside. Dhaval Joshi, Senior Vice President European Investment Strategy dhaval@bcaresearch.com 1 Assuming that the U.S. government does not approve inappropriate fiscal stimulus. Fractal Trading Model* This week's trade is to go long the FTSE100 versus the IBEX35 with a profit target and stop loss of 4%. For any investment, excessive trend following and groupthink can reach a natural point of instability, at which point the established trend is highly likely to break down with or without an external catalyst. An early warning sign is the investment's fractal dimension approaching its natural lower bound. Encouragingly, this trigger has consistently identified countertrend moves of various magnitudes across all asset classes. Chart I-9 * For more details please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report "Fractals, Liquidity & A Trading Model," dated December 11, 2014, available at eis.bcaresearch.com The post-June 9, 2016 fractal trading model rules are: When the fractal dimension approaches the lower limit after an investment has been in an established trend it is a potential trigger for a liquidity-triggered trend reversal. Therefore, open a countertrend position. The profit target is a one-third reversal of the preceding 13-week move. Apply a symmetrical stop-loss. Close the position at the profit target or stop-loss. Otherwise close the position after 13 weeks. Use the position size multiple to control risk. The position size will be smaller for more risky positions. Fractal Trading Model Recommendations Equities Bond & Interest Rates Currency & Other Positions Closed Fractal Trades Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Interest Rate Chart II-5Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch ##br##- Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations

Highlights Duration: The market is now priced for only 30 bps of rate hikes between now and the end of the year, despite little evidence that growth is actually slowing. Stay at below-benchmark duration and remain short the January 2018 Fed Funds Futures contract. TIPS: Although we still expect TIPS breakevens to widen as inflation rises, this week we review possible arguments for why breakevens might have shifted to a permanently lower post-crisis equilibrium. Remain overweight TIPS versus nominal Treasuries. Corporate Valuation: Our Default-Adjusted Spread remains at reasonably attractive levels, suggesting that corporate spreads will tighten in the coming months if the economic recovery remains on track. Remain overweight corporate bonds within U.S. fixed income portfolios. Feature Chart 1Yields Lower Since March FOMC In last week's report we argued that recent bond market strength was caused by a politically-induced flight-to-quality. In particular, we noted that the term structure of implied equity volatility had inverted - investors were paying more to hedge equity positions over a 1-month horizon than over a 3-month horizon. But political tensions have eased somewhat during the past week. President Trump promised to unveil his administration's tax reform plan this Wednesday, and the first round of the French election resulted in centrist candidate Emmanuel Macron securing a significant advantage over far-right candidate Marine Le Pen. As a consequence, 1-month implied equity vol fell back below 3-month vol, and the bond rally ebbed with the 10-year Treasury yield edging up to 2.29% from 2.17% at this time last week. Nonetheless, bond yields are still far below the levels seen following the last FOMC meeting in mid-March. Since that meeting, the 10-year Treasury yield has fallen 27 bps, split between a 12 bps decline in the real yield and a 15 bps drop in the cost of inflation compensation (Chart 1). Real Yields Are Too Low As shown in the top panel of Chart 1, the 10-year real yield is tightly linked to the number of rate hikes discounted in the overnight index swap curve during the next 12 months. Further, the drop in both of these series since mid-March occurred alongside a string of economic data disappointments, as evidenced by the sharp fall in the Economic Surprise Index (Chart 2). Our assessment, however, is that the mean reversion in the surprise index represents excessively optimistic expectations rather than a trend change in the pace of U.S. growth. Chart 2Disappointments Are Discounted To test this theory, we looked at the New York Fed's Nowcast for Q1 GDP growth and noted that it has been revised lower from 2.96% (as of March 24) to 2.65% (as of April 20). We observed that the data releases responsible for the bulk of the downward revision were: Real consumer spending Retail sales and food services Import & Export growth Housing starts As can be seen in Chart 3, with the exception of real consumer spending, all of the other data disappointments represent small corrections from elevated levels. As for real consumer spending, we noted last week that the recent weakness is probably explained by problems with Q1 seasonal adjustments.1 Taking a step back, U.S. growth still appears to be on solid footing. The BCA Beige Book Monitor, introduced last week by our U.S. Investment Strategy service,2 scans the Federal Reserve's Beige Book3 for the words "strong" and "weak" (and their derivatives like stronger, weakened, etc...). The Monitor is the number of "strong" words less the number of "weak" words, and it has been an excellent coincident indicator of GDP growth since the mid-1990s (Chart 4). At present, the Beige Book Monitor is sending a robust signal for U.S. growth. Similarly, despite supposed weakness in housing starts and trade data, our preferred leading indicators point to continued strength in both the residential investment and net export components of GDP (Chart 4, bottom 2 panels). Chart 3What Weak Data? Chart 4Growth Still Looks Strong Bottom Line: The market is now priced for only 30 bps of rate hikes between now and the end of the year, despite little evidence that growth is actually slowing. We still expect the Fed will lift rates by at least 50 bps between now and the end of the year. Stay at below-benchmark duration and remain short the January 2018 Fed Funds Futures contract. TIPS Breakevens: How Far From Fair Value? As was mentioned above, the cost of 10-year inflation compensation has also declined since mid-March alongside some weakness in the headline non-seasonally adjusted Consumer Price Index (see Chart 1). Our Financial Model of TIPS Breakevens - which models the 10-year TIPS breakeven rate using the stock-to-bond total return ratio, the price of oil and the trade-weighted dollar - attributes the recent decline to weakness in the stock-to-bond ratio and the fact that the 10-year breakeven rate was already quite elevated compared to our model's fair value (Chart 5). The 10-year breakeven rate is still somewhat wide compared to our model's fair value, but much less so. We remain overweight TIPS versus nominal Treasuries on the view that growth will be strong enough to keep measures of core inflation on a steady upward trajectory, eventually converging with the Fed's 2% inflation target. The fair value reading from our TIPS Financial Model should also trend gradually higher in this environment. Historically, core PCE inflation anchored around the Fed's 2% inflation target has corresponded with a 5y5y TIPS breakeven inflation rate in the range of 2.4% to 2.5% (current value 1.89%) and a 5y5y CPI swap rate between 2.8% and 2.9% (current value = 2.31%) (Chart 6). These remain our target levels for TIPS breakevens and CPI swaps, respectively. Chart 5TIPS Financial Model Chart 6Still Below Target However, we must also consider the possibility that these target ranges, based on the mid-2000s, may no longer be applicable. Put differently, it is possible that the market for inflation protection underwent a structural shift following the financial crisis and the appropriate level for long-maturity TIPS breakeven rates when core PCE is anchored around 2% might now be lower. A Structurally Lower Inflation Risk Premium? It is common to think of the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate as: TIPS Breakeven Inflation = Inflation Expectations + Inflation Risk Premium The inflation risk premium is the extra return required by nominal bond investors to bear the risk that future inflation will differ from expected inflation. In theory, this premium can be influenced by uncertainty about the inflation outlook, but also by structural factors that make it more or less attractive to include TIPS in a portfolio. For example, any asset that is negatively correlated with equities is more valuable as a hedge in the context of an overall portfolio and investors should demand less of a risk premium to hold that asset. As one recent Fed paper4 noted, the correlation between long-maturity TIPS breakeven rates and equities has shifted from being negative in the 1980s to being sharply positive in recent years. This means that TIPS have become less valuable as a hedge against equity positions. All else equal, this should increase the yield that investors demand to hold TIPS and thus lower the TIPS breakeven inflation rate. We acknowledge the strong positive correlation between equities and TIPS breakevens, but are inclined to view it as more of a cyclical phenomenon. Chart 7 shows that the correlation between inflation expectations5 and equities was negative when inflation was above the Fed's 2% target in the 1980s and also that the correlation becomes more positive when the Fed eases and more negative when the Fed tightens (Chart 7, bottom panel). Chart 7Correlation Between Breakevens & Equities Is Cyclical In other words, when inflation is low the Fed has an incentive to maintain an accommodative monetary policy. It does not react strongly when inflation rises, and this supports increases in both inflation expectations and equity prices. However, when inflation becomes too high, the correlation between inflation expectations and equity prices shifts because higher inflation now signals a more rapid pace of Fed tightening which tends to depress equities. It therefore seems likely that the correlation between TIPS breakevens and equity prices will weaken as inflation rises and the Fed tightens policy. So we do not view this as a compelling reason for why TIPS breakevens might be permanently lower. Structural Limits To Arbitrage? A potentially more interesting line of argument comes from a 2010 paper by Fleckenstein, Longstaff and Lustig.6 In this paper, the authors document a persistent arbitrage opportunity between TIPS and nominal Treasury bonds. Investors can earn risk-free returns using inflation swaps and TIPS to replicate the cash flows from a nominal Treasury bond. The authors also find that this arbitrage opportunity biases TIPS breakeven rates lower, and that this bias worsens in times of increased financial market volatility. Chart 8Repo Market Less Efficient Specifically, the authors demonstrate that the size of the downward bias in TIPS breakevens increases as repo market fails trend higher. The rationale being that repo fails occur when market participants are unable to acquire specific Treasury collateral. This is taken as a signal that the supply of government bonds is constrained, which makes it more difficult to take advantage of the arbitrage between TIPS and nominal Treasuries. Interestingly, repo fails have been trending higher since the financial crisis as repo market activity has been reduced by strict post-crisis regulations (Chart 8). The case has been made that new regulations - specifically the Supplementary Leverage Ratio which forces dealer banks to set aside a fixed amount of capital for any assets they hold, regardless of riskiness - have caused dealers to shy away from low margin businesses such as making markets in repo.7 It is conceivable that reduced activity in the repo market has resulted in less available collateral and increased fails. If this is the new state of affairs, then it is possible that TIPS breakevens will be permanently lower in the post-crisis world because lack of liquidity in the repo market has reduced the attractiveness of arbitraging the difference between nominal and real yields. So far, we are reluctant to draw any sweeping conclusions from this analysis. In fact, if the Fed believes that the fair value for long-maturity TIPS breakevens is between 2.4% and 2.5%, then does the "limits to arbitrage" argument even matter? Also, Manmohan Singh of the IMF has argued that the act of the Fed unwinding its balance sheet would free up balance sheet space for dealer banks, mitigating some of the regulatory burden and leading to a more efficient repo market.8 If this is correct, then repo fails could decline as the Fed starts to let its balance sheet run down, a process that is likely to start later this year. For now, we consider the theory of a permanently lower equilibrium for TIPS breakevens a risk to our view that merits further research in the coming weeks. Corporate Bond Valuation Update With the release of the Moody's Default Report for March we were able to update our High-Yield Default-Adjusted Spread (Chart 9). Our Default-Adjusted Spread is equal to the average option-adjusted spread from the Bloomberg Barclays High-Yield index less a 12-month forecast of default losses. That 12-month forecast is based on Moody's baseline forecast for the speculative grade default rate and our own forecast of the recovery rate. Chart 9Default-Adjusted Spread Moody's data show that the speculative grade default rate was 4.7% for the 12 months ending in March, and the baseline forecast calls for it to fall to 3% during the next 12 months. Using this forecast we calculate that the current Default-Adjusted Spread is 228 bps. Our analysis shows that excess returns for both Investment Grade and High-Yield corporate bonds are usually positive unless the Default-Adjusted Spread is below 100 bps. The relationship between excess returns and the Default-Adjusted Spread for both Investment Grade and High-Yield corporates is shown graphically in Charts 10 & 11 and also in Tables 1 & 2. Chart 1012-Month Excess Investment Grade Returns ##br##Vs. Ex-Ante Default-Adjusted Spread (2003 - Present) Chart 1112-Month Excess High-Yield Returns Versus Ex-Ante ##br##Default-Adjusted Spread (2003-Present) Table 112-Month Investment Grade Excess Returns & Ex-Ante Default-Adjusted Spread Table 212-Month High-Yield Excess Returns & Ex-Ante Default-Adjusted Spread Given our relatively optimistic outlook for U.S. growth, we tend to view current valuation levels as attractive and see scope for spread tightening during the next few months. However, the weakening state of corporate balance sheets means spreads are at risk once inflation starts to bite and monetary policy turns less accommodative, possibly as early as next year.9 Bottom Line: Our Default-Adjusted Spread remains at reasonably attractive levels, suggesting that corporate spreads will tighten in the coming months if the economic recovery remains on track. Remain overweight corporate bonds within U.S. fixed income portfolios. Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Fade The Flight To Safety", dated April 18, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "The Great Debate Continues", dated April 17, 2017, available at usis.bcaresearch.com 3 According to the Fed, the Beige Book provides "an up-to-date depiction of regional economic conditions based on anecdotal information gathered from a diverse range of business and community contacts." 4 Chen, Andrew Y., Eric C. Engstrom, and Olesya V. Grishchenko (2016). "Has the inflation risk premium fallen? Is it now negative?," FEDS Notes. Washington: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, April 4, 2016, http://dx.doi.org/10.17016/2380-7172.1720 5 In order to benefit from more back-data, in Chart 7 we use the Cleveland Fed's measure of inflation expectations rather than TIPS breakeven rates. Details about the Cleveland Fed's methodology can be found here: https://www.clevelandfed.org/en/our-research/indicators-and-data/inflation-expectations.aspx 6 Fleckenstein, Matthias, Francis A. Longstaff, and Hanno Lustig (2010). "Why Does the Treasury Issue TIPS? The TIPS-Treasury Bond Puzzle", NBER Working Paper No. 16358. September 2010. JEL No. E6,G12,G14. http://www.nber.org/papers/w16358 7 https://www.forbes.com/sites/lbsbusinessstrategyreview/2016/03/11/why-are-big-banks-offering-less-liquidity-to-bond-markets/#64286f5729de 8 https://ftalphaville.ft.com/2017/04/24/2187716/guest-post-why-shrinking-the-fed-balance-sheet-may-have-an-easing-effect/ 9 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "The Payback Period In Corporate Bonds", dated April 11, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

Special Report

Dear Client, I am travelling in Asia talking to investors and doing some field research. As such, there will be no CIS report next week. The next report will be sent to you on May 5th. Best regards, Yan Wang, Senior Vice President China Investment Strategy Feature A special report I co-authored with my colleagues Arthur Budaghyan and Peter Berezin, and the webcast we all participated in with Caroline Miller late last month, focused on China's debt situation - a critical global macro issue that has been heatedly debated around the globe as well as within BCA.1 Economists rarely agree with one another, and financial markets are constant battles between buyers and sellers with diametrically opposed views. Similarly, it is not possible for senior research staff within BCA to always have uniform opinions. Our intention was to bring an internal debate on a critical global macro issue in front of clients in a straightforward and comprehensive way, which hopefully can enhance clients' own understanding of the topic. Our report and webcast received higher-than-normal questions and feedback. This week's report serves as a follow-up to clarify some of the more common questions we received. But It Is The Rapid Pace Of Increase In China's Debt-To-GDP Ratio That Is Alarming!! Even for clients that agree with Peter and myself and view Chinese debt from the savings investment identity perspective, a common pushback is that the pace of increase in China's debt-to-GDP ratio is alarmingly rapid, which is bound to create misallocations and financial risks (Chart 1). My arguments emphasizing the micro debt situation within the corporate sector and cross-country comparisons of efficiency ratios were reassuring, but not enough to alleviate all the concerns on the apparently rapid increase in debt relative to economic output in recent years. A few further points are in order: Chart 1The GDP Factor In China's Rising ##br##Debt-To-GDP Ratio First, the rapid increase in debt reflects the rapid increase in capital spending, which means the economy has become more capital intensive compared with before - i.e. it takes more capital to produce one unit of GDP. This could indicate declining efficiency in capital spending in terms of generating "growth." It could also mean the Chinese economy may have arrived at a much more capital intensive phase in its economic development curve. Dramatic improvement in the country's transportation infrastructure and urban development in recent years are tell-tale signs. Accumulating capital stock is the ultimate way for a developing country to improve productivity and lift living standards. China's growth path should be viewed as a norm rather than an anomaly. Second, the Chinese economy has directed massive financial resources toward infrastructure investment post the global financial crisis, largely undertaken by state-owned corporate entities such as state-owned enterprises and local government financing vehicles. These investments are not much different from the massive increase in fiscal deficits in other countries to finance social spending programs and welfare expenditures, as both were designed to support domestic demand during an economic downturn. The difference is that China's social welfare system is poorly developed and not large enough to make a meaningful contribution in supporting aggregate demand- and therefore the state sector must explicitly ramp up capex. Another important difference is that government expenditures on social benefit programs distributed to households in most other countries are ultimately consumed, whereas in China, state investment in infrastructure occurs on an accumulated physical asset. This is a key reason why I believe focusing only on the liabilities side of the balance sheet misses an important big-picture point. Finally, the apparently alarming increase in China's debt-to-GDP ratio is also partially attributable to how this ratio itself is calculated, in which the slowdown of China's nominal GDP growth rather than its increase in debt has played a much bigger role. Chinese nominal GDP growth dropped from almost 20% in 2010-'11 to close to 6% in 2015-early 2016. In a division calculation in mathematics, a falling denominator (nominal GDP) increases the result exponentially, while a rising numerator (debt) increases the result linearly. If nominal GDP growth had stayed stable, the pace would have been a lot less alarming. This also suggests that the best way to bring down the "debt-to-GDP" ratio is to increase the denominator - i.e. boosting growth either in real or nominal terms. In fact, Chinese nominal GDP expanded by 11.8% in the first quarter from a year ago, as reported early this week - the gap between credit growth and nominal GDP growth has already narrowed significantly. Has China Ever Delevered, And How To Delever Going Forward? In our joint report, Arthur cautioned that China in the past has had periods of deleveraging, and warned that a similar episode would be inevitable going forward, in which the Chinese authorities would have to rein in credit growth below nominal GDP growth, leading to a lower credit-to-GDP ratio (Chart 2). In my view, this diagnosis is misguided, and the policy prescription is dangerous. Chart 2Deleveraging Versus Inflation First, it is worth noting that China's credit-to-GDP ratio has been on an ever-rising trend ever since the data became available, which in my view reflects the accumulation of capital stock through savings and investments. There have indeed been a few short-lived periods when the ratio has declined, as Arthur pointed out, or the economy appeared to "delever," such as in the late 1980, early 1990s, early 2000s and prior to the global financial crisis. However, it is immediately clear that the periods of "deleveraging" in the 1980s and 1990s were both mainly due to massive increases in inflation, which artificially boosted nominal GDP growth. An inflation outbreak is hardly an ideal way to delever that policymakers should aim for. Inflation also picked up between 2003 and 2008, but not nearly as much as the previous two episodes, and the Chinese economy was characterized as experiencing "low inflation boom". However, it is important to note that the country's current account surplus jumped from 2% in 2003 to as high as 10% in 2007. This means Chinese savers collectively did not lend to domestic companies, and therefore debt was not accumulated within the country and shown in the debt-to-GDP ratio. Rather, they lent to foreign entities, such as the U.S. government, in the form of increased holdings of U.S. Treasurys. By the same token, after the global financial crisis, China's current account surplus tumbled back to 2% of GDP, which indicated a significant reduction in the pace of increase in foreign lending but simultaneously a sharp increase in domestic investment and credit. This is precisely what one would expect from the savings-investment identity in conceptualizing China's debt dynamics. In fact, the only period in which China's corporate sector indeed "delevered" in the "classic" textbook sense was the early 2000s, amid aggressive reforms of state-owned enterprises and the banking system. Mass bankruptcies of state-owned firms unleashed by the SOE reform efforts led to mounting losses in the banking sector. The government set up state-owned asset management companies as "bad banks" to take over the non-performing loans of commercial banks - financed by the issuance of special-purpose government bonds. Therefore, the government essentially engineered a "debt swap" in which corporate sector debt was exchanged for government debt - but the country's overall total outstanding debt hardly dropped. It is also noteworthy that the overall economy remained reasonably resilient throughout the "deleveraging" process, even though it was also hit by multiple severe external shocks such as the tech-bubble bust, terrorist attacks in New York City and the SARS crisis. In other words, the playbook of the early 2000s suggests that "deleveraging" will not necessarily hurt growth. In my view, "deleveraging" solely for the purpose of it is not only ineffective, but also counterproductive. Aggressive credit constraint intensifies deflationary pressures, creating a double-whammy on nominal GDP growth through both lower real growth and a falling GDP deflator - which makes it a lot harder to achieve a lower credit-to-GDP ratio. It goes without saying that irresponsible lending and investment behavior should be punished by market forces. However, as shown by "too big to fail" dilemma policymakers in the west had to deal with at the height of the global financial crisis, it is always a delicate balancing act, and it is overly dogmatic to suggest or expect Chinese policymakers to do otherwise. In fact, I have repeatedly argued that the much-touted "Likonomics"2 efforts named after the incumbent Chinese premier a few years ago that appeared to favor harsh "deleveraging" was one of the key reasons behind China's sharp growth slowdown in previous years. Chinese policymakers have since taken a more realistic approach in dealing with the corporate sector debt issue. The government embarked on a new debt-swap program in 2015 to deal with the existing debt load of local government financing vehicles.3 Some provincial "bad bank" asset management companies have been established to absorb regional banks' loan losses - both of which were taken from the early 2000s playbook. Furthermore, policy reflation has significantly eased deflationary pressures and lifted nominal GDP growth, which has narrowed the gap with the pace of credit expansion. In addition, the pace of IPOs in the domestic equity market has quickened notably - i.e. more domestic savings are being channeled into the economy via equity financing as opposed to bank loans. All of these measures in my view are the correct steps to lower the corporate debt-to-GDP ratio, rather than some "short term gain, long term pain" myopic fixes. China's Interbank Rate And The PBoC Liquidity Management Arthur argued in our report that the People's Bank of China (PBoC) in recent years has moved away from controlling money growth (the quantity of money) to targeting interest rates (the price of money), which effectively accommodates commercial banks' credit creation binge by injecting massive amounts of liquidity, as evidenced by the much-lowered volatility in China's interbank market since 2016 - with an explosion of PBoC direct lending to financial institutions (Chart 3). I doubt there is a connection between this point and China's loan growth. The PBoC's direct lending to commercial banks only began to increase in earnest starting in early 2016, while bank loan growth peaked six years before that. If anything, the recent change reflects the PBoC's more flexible and sophisticated management of the country's interbank liquidity compared with previously primitive and blunt measures. It is easy to spot the dramatic volatility in China's interbank rates before 2016 compared with other major economies. Chinese interbank rates routinely had sharp spikes, underscoring dramatic changes in interbank liquidity, which were both extremely rare and potentially damaging in other countries. Hong Kong's interbank rates showed similar spikes during the Asian Crisis in the late 1990s, when its currency peg was under furious speculative attack (Chart 4). U.S. interbank rates spiked amid the "Lehman shock" that marked a dramatic escalation of the global financial crisis. In "normal times" interbank rates closely track the policy interest rates of respective monetary authorities in major economies. Sharp spikes in interbank rates could easily tilt a country's financial institutions into a liquidity crisis, even without any solvency issues, and a central bank should seek all means to avoid such an event as the lender of last resort. Chart 3No Connection Between The PBoC Lending ##br##And Commercial Bank Loan Growth Chart 4Interbank Rates: Experiences In Other Countries In other words, the PBoC was effectively playing with fire in the past by allowing extreme swings in interbank liquidity. The impact on the country's banking system was not as dramatic as one would have expected, mainly because Chinese banks are heavily reliant on retail deposits for their loanable funds rather than on wholesale funding through the interbank market, as in other countries. Meanwhile, most Chinese banks are state-owned, which also reduces "perceived" counterparty risks. There were episodes in which some banks failed to honor their liquidity obligations during periods of extreme liquidity crunch, or technically defaulted, which in the west could well have triggered bankruptcies and a massive chain reaction. In China, these features, ironically, have made its banking sector more "resilient" to what effectively are central bank failures. Chart 5RRR Is Still Elevated The key reason was that the PBoC mainly relied on reserve requirement ratio (RRR) adjustments to manage interbank liquidity, which are by definition blunt and hard to adjust in a timely manner - the very reasons why other central banks have mostly abandoned it. More recently, the PBoC has been utilizing new liquidity tools, such as various lending facilities and open market operations. This is the sole reason behind the apparently steep increase in the PBoC's claims on commercial banks, shown in Chart 3. In fact, rather than providing massive liquidity relief, the PBoC still keeps the RRR at near historically high levels (Chart 5). Therefore, all the items on the PBoC's balance sheet should be cross-checked to assess its liquidity operations, rather than focusing on one item. In my view, what's happening is that PBoC has more recently been learning and experimenting with modern central banking, rather than accommodating/encouraging commercial banks' lending behavior. All in all, the debate on China's debt situation will likely stay, and its evolvement over time will be closely studied by policymakers and academia, which is probably irrelevant to most investors. From investors' point of view, the important point is that the market has been focusing on China's debt and leverage for many years, which means it is likely already priced in. Moreover, from a macro point of view, it is highly unlikely that such a well-known issue will cause a major risk event - black swans, by definition, are unheard of and unpredictable. Yan Wang, Senior Vice President China Investment Strategy yanw@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see China Investment Strategy Special Report, "The Great Debate: Does China Have Too Much Debt Or Too Much Savings?" dated March 23, 2017, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, ""Likonomics": Off To A Rocky Start," dated July 10, 2013, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "A Game Changer?" dated March 11, 2015, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations

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

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

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

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