Sectors

Special Report

Feature At no time in recent history have China's foreign reserves been under such tight scrutiny by global investors as they are now. The country's multi-trillion-dollar official reserve assets, long viewed by both Chinese officials and the global investment community as an unproductive use of resources, have suddenly became a lifeline for China's exchange rate stability. The latest numbers released last week show China's official reserves currently stand at US$3.05 trillion, a massive drawdown from the US$3.99 trillion all-time peak reached in 2014. Over the years, we have been running a series of Special Reports tracking the composition of China's foreign asset holdings.1 This year's update has become all the more relevant. The monthly headline figures on China's official reserves have been eagerly anticipated for clues of domestic capital outflows and the RMB outlook. Meanwhile, as the largest foreign holder of American government paper, changes in China's official reserves are also being scrutinized to assess any impact on U.S. interest rates. Moreover, Chinese outward direct investment (ODI), which had already accelerated strongly in the past few years, has skyrocketed this year - partially driven by expectations of further RMB depreciation. The Chinese authorities have recently tightened scrutiny on large overseas investments by domestic firms, which will likely lead to a notable slowdown in Chinese ODI in the near term.2 This week we take a closer look at the U.S. Treasury International Capital (TIC) system data and various other sources to check the evolution of China's official reserves and foreign assets. There are some important caveats. First, Chinese holdings of U.S. assets reported by the TIC are not entirely held by the People's Bank of China in its official reserves. Some assets, particularly corporate bonds and equities, may be held by Chinese institutional investors. Meanwhile, it is well known that in recent years China has been using offshore custodians in some European countries, the usual suspects being Belgium, Luxembourg and the U.K., which disguises the true situation of the country's official reserve holdings. Finally, China's large conglomerates owned by the central government also hold vast amounts of foreign assets, or "shadow reserves" that could be utilized to support the RMB if needed. Recently these state-owned giants were reportedly required by the government to repatriate some of their foreign cash sitting idle overseas to counter capital outflows. All of this suggests the resources available to the government are larger than the official reserve figures. With these caveats, this week's update reveals some important developments in the past year: Chinese foreign reserves have dropped by around US$400 billion since the end of 2015 to US$3.05 trillion, a level last seen in 2005 when the RMB was de-pegged from the dollar followed by a multi-year ascendance (Chart 1). China still holds the largest amount of foreign reserves in the world, but its global share has dropped to about 40%, down from a peak of over 50% in 2014. TIC data show Chinese holdings of U.S. assets declined by a mere US$100 billion in the past year, leading to a sharp increase in U.S. assets as a share of the country's total foreign reserves (Table 1). This could be attributable to mark-to-market "paper losses" of Chinese holdings in non-dollar denominated foreign assets, due to the broad strength of the greenback. It is also possible that China may have intentionally increased its allocations to U.S. assets due to heightened risks in other countries, particularly in Europe. Chinese holdings of Japanese government bonds also increased significantly this past year. Table 1Chinese Foreign Exchange Reserves Chinese holdings of U.S. Treasurys have dropped by about US$100 billion in recent months, but holdings of some other countries suspected as China's overseas custodians have continued to rise (Chart 2). This could mean that Chinese holdings of U.S. assets could be larger than reflected in the TIC data. Chinese outward direct investments have continued to power ahead. Previously Chinese investments were heavily concentrated in commodities sectors and resource-rich countries. This year the U.S. has turned out to be the clear winner in attracting Chinese capital. Moreover, recent investment deals have been concentrated in consumer related sectors such as tourism, entertainment and technology industries. Chart 1Chinese Foreign Reserves##br## Have Continued To Decline Chart 2U.S. Treasurys: How Much ##br##Does China Really Hold? Yan Wang, Senior Vice President China Investment Strategy yanw@bcaresearch.com Qingyun Xu, Senior Analyst qingyun@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see China Investment Strategy Special Report, "Demystifying China's Foreign Assets", dated September 30, 2015, available at cis.bcaresearch.com Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “How Will China Manage The Impossible Trinity”, dated December 8, 2015, available at cis.bcaresearch.com China's official data shows that the country's total holdings of international assets have stayed flat at around US$6.2 trillion since 2014, including foreign exchange reserves, direct investment, overseas lending and holdings of bonds and equities. Official reserves have declined in recent years, but other holdings have jumped sharply. Reserves assets still account for over half of total foreign assets, but their share has continued to drop. In contrast, outward direct investment and overseas loans have gained significantly both in value terms and as a share of the country's total foreign assets. Chart 3 Chart 4 Despite the sharp decline, international investment positions by Chinese nationals, public and private combined, are still much more heavily concentrated in official reserve assets compared with other major economies. In other major creditor countries, outward direct investments and portfolio investments account for much larger shares than reserve assets. Official reserves in the U.S. are negligible. Chinese official reserves give the PBoC resources to maintain exchange rate stability, but they also lower the expected returns of the country's foreign assets. Encouraging domestic entities to acquire overseas assets directly has been a long-run policy. More recently, however, the authorities have been alarmed by the pace of Chinese nationals' overseas investment and have been taking restrictive measures. Chart 5 Our calculations shows that Chinese total holdings of U.S. assets reached US$1.74 trillion at the end of September 2016, including Treasurys, government agency bonds, corporate bonds, stocks and non-Treasury short-term custody liabilities of U.S. banks to Chinese official institutions, based on the TIC data (Table 1, on page 2). Treasurys still account for the majority of the country's total holdings of U.S. assets, while bonds and stocks are relatively insignificant. China's holdings of U.S. assets as a share of total reserves declined between the global financial crisis and 2014, since when the trend has reversed. The share of U.S. asset holdings currently accounts for 55% of Chinese official reserves, compared with a peak of over 70% in the early 2000s and a trough of 46% in 2014. This could also be attributable to the sharp appreciation of the U.S. dollar against other majors. The U.S. dollar carries a 42% weight in the SDR (Special Drawing Rights of the International Monetary Fund), and it accounts for about 60% of total foreign reserves managed by global central banks. These could be two relevant benchmarks to gauge China's desired level of holdings of U.S. dollar-denominated assets in its official reserves. Chart 6 Chart 7 In terms of duration, the major part of Chinese holdings of U.S. assets is long-term (with maturity more than one year), mainly in the form of government and agency bonds, corporate bonds and stocks. Chinese holdings of short-term U.S. assets were minimal in recent years but picked up notably in the past few months, while longer term assets declined. During the global financial crisis in 2008/09, China massively increased its holdings of short-term U.S. assets, amid a global drive of "flight to liquidity" at the height of the crisis. Chart 8 Chart 9 In terms of risk classification, the majority of Chinese holdings of U.S. assets are risk-free assets, including Treasurys and government agency bonds. China's holdings of these assets have plateaued in recent years. As a share of China's total reserves, U.S. risk-free assets currently account for about 45%, down from about 65% in 2003. Meanwhile, its accumulation of U.S. risky assets, including stocks and corporate bonds, has increased sharply in the past year. Chart 10 Chart 11 China currently holds US$1.16 trillion of Treasurys, which account for over 80% of total Chinese holdings of U.S. risk-free assets, or 37% of total Chinese foreign reserves. Notably, Treasurys as a share of Chinese foreign reserves have been relatively stable, ranging between 30% and 40% over the past decade. This may be the comfort zone for the Chinese authorities' asset allocation to the U.S. government paper. China's holdings of U.S. government agency bonds have picked up in the past year, but are still significantly lower than at its peak prior to the U.S. subprime debacle. Its share in Chinese foreign reserves has declined to 8% from a peak of close to 30% in 2008. Chart 12 Chart 13 Almost the entire Chinese holding of Treasurys is parked in long-term paper (with duration of more than one year). China's possession of short-term Treasurys has been negligible in recent years, but picked up notably of late. It is possible that the Chinese central bank may be increasing cash holdings to deal with capital outflows. Chart 14 Chart 15 Chinese holdings of risky U.S. assets - corporate bonds and equities - account for over 10% of China's total foreign reserves, up sharply since 2008 after China established its sovereign wealth fund. China's holdings of risky assets are predominately equities, currently standing at about USD 325 billion, little changed in recent years. Its possessions of corporate bonds are very low. Chart 16 Chart 17 China remains the largest foreign creditor to the U.S. government. Chinese holdings of U.S. Treasurys account for about 11% of total outstanding U.S. government bonds, or around 20% of total foreign holdings of U.S. Treasurys, according to our calculation. About 55% of outstanding U.S. Treasurys are held by foreigners. China is also one of the largest foreign holders of U.S. of agency bonds. While its holdings only accounts for 3% of total outstanding agency bonds, they account for around 25% of the total held by foreigners. About 12% of agency and GSE-backed securities are currently held by foreigners. Chart 18 Chart 19 Chinese outward direct investments have continued to march higher in the past year, reaching yet another record high in 2015, and will likely set a new record in 2016. Total overseas direct investments amount to USD 1.4 trillion, equivalent to about half of China's official reserves. China's overseas investments have been heavily concentrated in resources-rich regions and industries. Cumulatively, the energy sector alone accounts for almost half of China's total overseas investments, followed by transportation infrastructure and base metals, which clearly underscores China's demand for commodities. China's outbound investment was originally led by state-owned enterprises. More recently, private Chinese enterprises have become more active in overseas investments and acquisitions. Chart 20 Chart 21 Chart 22 Corporate China's interest in global resource space has waned in the past year. Total investment in energy space has plateaued in recent years. There has been a dramatic increase in investment in some consumer-related sectors, particularly in tourism, entertainment and technology. These investment deals are mainly driven by private enterprises, and also reflect the changing dynamics of the Chinese economy. The U.S. received by far the largest share of Chinese investment in 2016. Total U.S.-bound Chinese investment in the first half of the year already dramatically outpaced the total amount of 2015. Chinese investments in resource rich countries, such as Australia, Canada and Brazil have been much less robust. Chinese net purchase of Japanese government bonds (JGBs) increased sharply this year. In the eight months of 2016 China's net purchases of JGBs reached $86.6 billion, more than tripling the amount during the same period last year. Chinese cumulative net purchases of JGBs since 2014 reached JPY 14.5 trillion, or USD 140 billion. This amounts to 2% of total outstanding JGBs and 4% of Chinese official reserves. Chart 23 Chart 24 Chart 25 Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations

The previous Insight showed that businesses remain a weak link for the banking sector, as C&I loan demand has cooled and the corporate sector is the primary source of credit quality concerns following the multi-year credit binge. As such, our preference to play rising interest rates and a modest steepening in the yield curve is through the consumer finance group. Valuations remain dirt cheap, and have not discounted the widening in credit card net interest margins close to historic peaks. That is a far cry from banks, where net interest margins have improved, but only slightly and from still razor thin levels. Importantly, consumers have room to re-leverage after years of de-leveraging, an outcome predicted by the improvement in consumer income expectations. The bottom line is that the consumer finance group provides a cleaner play than banks on the sudden bullish sentiment shift in the overall financial sector. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5CFINX-AXP, COF, DFS, SYF, NAVI.

The scope of the revaluation in banks stocks on hopes for reduced regulatory constraints and the modest yield curve steepening has surprised us, but it would be dangerous to equate share price strength with the perception that underlying activity has reaccelerated. Indeed, the chart shows that overall bank loan growth is steadily decelerating, led by a cooling in C&I credit creation to its lowest rate since the great recession. While credit growth is far from recessionary levels, it is diverging negatively from what bank stocks might suggest. Importantly, banks have been adding to cost structures in recent months, and our gauge of bank sector productivity (bank loans/bank employment) is receding on a growth rate basis. This suggests that there could be a setback if fourth quarter profits do not validate the share price move. Rather than chase the bank group, our preference to play strength in the financial sector is through the asset manager and consumer finance groups, see the next Insight. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5BANKX-JPM, WFC, BAC, C, USB, PNC, BBT, STI, MTB, FITB, KEY, CFG, RF, HBAN, CMA, ZION, PBCT.

Communications equipment stocks broke out of a long-term downward sloping trend-line on the back of productivity improvement this summer, powered by a marked productivity improvement. Indeed, our productivity proxy, defined as sales/employment, is growing rapidly. These trends were supportive of profit margins, and at least a modest valuation re-rating from washed out levels. Nevertheless, our confidence that a major bullish trend change has occurred after years of underperformance has been shaken. The budding reacceleration in top-line growth has hit a snag. New orders for communications equipment have rolled over relative to inventories. Investment in communications equipment has dipped. The telecom services sector has scaled back capital spending (third panel), suggesting that final demand will continue to soften. It will be difficult for companies to maintain high productivity if revenue growth stagnates. Consequently, the most likely scenario is that relative performance is entering a base-building phase rather than a new bull market, warranting a reduction to benchmark weightings. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5COMM - CSCO, MSI, HRS, JNPR, FFIV.

As a long duration sector, technology has struggled since Treasury yields began to surge. This likely marks the onset of a major trend change. Tech pricing power has nosedived and domestic deflationary pressures are likely to intensify as the U.S. dollar appreciates, particularly against the manufacturing and tech-sensitive emerging Asian currencies. While the tech sector and the U.S. dollar have typically been positively correlated during the initial stages of a currency bull market, history shows that this relationship becomes untenable the longer currency appreciation persists. In the final phase of the past two U.S. dollar bull markets, tech stocks have abruptly reversed course, rapidly ceding the previously accrued gains. Apart from a loss of competitiveness from currency strength, the new anti-globalization trend is bad for tech as it has the highest foreign sales exposure. Tech sales growth is already sliding rapidly toward negative territory, with no reprieve in sight based on the contraction in emerging market exports, as well as U.S. consumer and capital goods import prices. The bottom line is that there is no rush to lift underweight tech sector allocations.

Highlights Duration: An easing of financial conditions is likely necessary for recent improvements in U.S. economic growth to continue. As such, the uptrend in Treasury yields will pause in the near-term before resuming early next year. Corporate Bonds: The macro back-drop is turning marginally more positive for corporate spreads. C&I lending standards are no longer tightening and bank stocks have rallied significantly. Corporate Bonds: Spreads are too tight at the moment, even for an improving economic environment. Remain neutral (3 out of 5) on investment grade and underweight (2 out of 5) on high-yield for now. We are actively looking to add exposure to corporate credit from more attractive levels. Feature There is no question that the U.S. economy is on a firm footing heading into the New Year. Third quarter real GDP growth came in at a robust 3.2%, and the Atlanta and New York Fed tracking models currently forecast fourth quarter growth of 2.6% and 2.7%, respectively. This represents a marked acceleration from the average growth rate of 1.1% witnessed during the first two quarters of 2016. Forward-looking survey data are also pointing in the right direction. The ISM non-manufacturing survey reached 57.2 in November, its highest level since October 2015, while the expectations component of the University of Michigan Consumer Sentiment survey reached 88.9 in December, its highest level since January 2015 (Chart 1). The question for bond investors is how much of this good news is already reflected in Treasury yields. Higher Treasury yields and a stronger dollar have already led to a material tightening in some broad indexes of financial conditions, enough to exert a meaningful drag on U.S. growth (Chart 2). In fact, according to the Fed's FRB/US model, the recent interest rate and dollar moves could be expected to shave 1% from GDP over the next eight quarters. Chart 1Economic Tailwinds Chart 2Financial Conditions Must Ease The natural conclusion is that while some upside in Treasury yields is justified by an improving economic outlook, the bond selloff has proceeded too quickly and must pause in the near-term to prevent financial conditions from exerting an excessive drag on growth. Sentiment and positioning indicators also confirm that the uptrend in yields appears stretched (Chart 2, bottom two panels). As such, last week we tactically shifted our recommended portfolio duration allocation from 'below benchmark' to 'at benchmark'.1 We expect Treasury yields will grind higher next year, reaching a range of 2.8% to 3% by the end of 2017, but the selloff will proceed more gradually, in line with the acceleration in economic growth. A More Uncertain World The premise that the bond selloff has proceeded too quickly is confirmed by our Global PMI models of the 10-year Treasury yield. We track two versions of our Global PMI model. One is a 2-factor model based only on the Global PMI index and a survey of bullish sentiment toward the U.S. dollar. The intuition behind this model is that improving global growth contributes to a higher fair value Treasury yield. However, for a given level of global growth, increasingly bullish dollar sentiment applies downward pressure to yields. This is because a stronger dollar represents a tightening of monetary conditions, so that all else equal, a stronger dollar means we should expect fewer Fed rate hikes. The current fair value reading from this 2-factor model is 2.26%, meaning that the 10-year Treasury yield at 2.49% appears somewhat cheap (Chart 3). The second version of our Global PMI model is a 3-factor model which adds the Global Economic Policy Uncertainty Index (EPUI) as a third independent variable. All else equal, an increase in uncertainty about the economic outlook should depress the term premium in long-dated Treasury yields. The data appear to back-up this assertion, as the EPUI is negatively correlated with the 10-year Treasury yield over time. With the addition of the EPUI, our 3-factor model explains 84% of the variation in the 10-year Treasury yield since 2010, compared to 80% from our 2-factor model. The EPUI spiked last month, and as such, this version of the model suggests that fair value for the 10-year Treasury yield is only 1.82% (Chart 4). Chart 32-Factor Global PMI Model Chart 43-Factor Global PMI Model There are probably good reasons to overlook last month's spike in policy uncertainty. For one, the EPUI, created by Baker, Bloom and Davis,2 is largely constructed from algorithms that scan newspaper articles for keywords. They do not attempt to distinguish between economic news with bond-bearish or bond-bullish implications. Second, we have found that large spikes in uncertainty that do not coincide with deterioration in economic growth tend to mean-revert fairly quickly. This past summer's Brexit vote being a prime example. As a counterpoint, however, the negative correlation between the EPUI and the 10-year Treasury yield is quite robust (Chart 5), and historically, incidents of spiking policy uncertainty and rising Treasury yields have been few and far between. Since 1991, there have been 42 instances when the monthly increase in the EPUI exceeded one standard deviation. In those 42 months, the 10-year Treasury yield increased only 36% of the time, with last month's 53 basis point rise being by far the largest on record. We tend to view the reading from the 2-factor model as the more reasonable assessment of fair value in the current environment. But the spike in policy uncertainty does underscore why we should view the recent bond selloff skeptically. The recent selloff has, to a large extent, been predicated upon promises of fiscal stimulus that have yet to be delivered, from a President-elect who has shown himself to be highly unpredictable. In this environment, near-term caution is clearly warranted. Of course, this week the market's focus will at least temporarily turn away from fiscal policy and toward the Fed. We expect that the Fed will announce a 25 basis point increase in the fed funds rate tomorrow, but also that participants' interest rate projections will not change meaningfully. The FOMC will likely be much slower to react to promises of fiscal stimulus than the market. With the Fed's projected near-term path for interest rates already mostly discounted by the market (Chart 6), we could see a "dovish hike" from the Fed tomorrow coinciding with the near-term top in Treasury yields. Chart 5Economic Policy Uncertainty & Treasury Yields Chart 6A "Dovish Hike" Is In The Price Bottom Line: An easing of financial conditions is likely necessary for recent improvements in U.S. economic growth to continue. As such, the uptrend in Treasury yields will pause in the near-term before resuming early next year. A More Favorable Environment For Credit We frequently point to three main indicators that we use to assess the current stage of the credit cycle: Our Corporate Health Monitor (CHM) Monetary conditions relative to equilibrium C&I bank lending standards In a report3 published earlier this year we found that the performance of bank stocks relative to the overall market is another useful indicator (Chart 7). While the credit cycle is still very much in its late stages, recently, our indicators have been sending marginally more positive signals. The CHM remains deep in 'deteriorating health' territory and non-financial corporate balance sheets continue to lever-up aggressively. However, the indicator did inch slightly closer to 'improving health' territory in the third quarter due to an improvement in all six of its components (Chart 8). Make no mistake, trends in corporate balance sheet leverage are not supportive for corporate spreads. In fact, as we will explore in a future report, the recent divergence between rising leverage and tightening spreads is nearly unprecedented during the past 40 years. But at the margin, recent trends are less worrisome. Chart 7Credit Cycle Indicators Chart 8Corporate Health Monitor Components Box1: 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. 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 Second, although monetary conditions appear very close to our estimate of equilibrium, the recent steepening of the yield curve suggests that the market is revising its estimate of monetary equilibrium higher, leading to a de-facto easing of monetary conditions. In the long-run, with the Fed in the midst of a hiking cycle, this sort of easing is unlikely to persist. But, as we argued in a recent report,4 the bear steepening curve environment could continue in the first half of next year as the Fed is slow to respond to an improving economy. Third, C&I bank lending standards have fallen back to unchanged after having tightened for four consecutive quarters. This likely reflects less stress in the energy sector now that oil prices have rebounded. Fourth, bank stocks have rallied strongly alongside the steepening yield curve. To the extent that higher bank stock prices reflect lower future commercial loan delinquencies, then this trend should be viewed positively from the perspective of credit investors. To test the idea that bank stock performance might help us trade the corporate bond market, we take a look at the past six credit cycles, going back to 1975 (Chart 9). The bottom panel of Chart 9 shows the percent drawdown in relative bank equity performance from its peak during the most recent credit cycle. We define credit cycles as the periods between when the CHM crosses into 'improving health' territory. For example, we define the most recent credit cycle as beginning when the CHM fell into 'improving health' territory in 2002 and ending when it fell into 'improving health' territory in 2009. Shaded regions in Chart 9 show periods when the CHM is in 'deteriorating health' territory. Chart 9Bank Equity Drawdown & Corporate Bond Performance If we construct a trading strategy using the CHM alone, we can get fairly good results. We find that investment grade corporate bonds underperform duration-equivalent Treasury securities in 3 out of 6 instances, over a 12-month investment horizon, following the time when the CHM first crosses into deteriorating health territory, for an average excess return of -1.2% (Table 1). Table 1Corporate Bond Trading Rules: 12-Month Investment Horizon However, we find that this result can be improved if we also incorporate bank stock price performance. If we were to only reduce corporate bond exposure when the CHM was in deteriorating health territory and after the drawdown in bank equities exceeded 20%, then the position is still profitable in 3 out of 6 instances, but for a more negative average return of -1.9%. Further, if we were to wait for the drawdown in bank equities to surpass 30%, then the hit rate on our position improves to 3 out of 5 and the average return falls to -4.6%. We find similar results if we use a 6-month investment horizon (Table 2). In the current cycle, the drawdown in bank stocks breached 25% in February but has since reversed course, and it has not yet reached the 30% threshold. Our analysis suggests that corporate bond underperformance tends to persist for some time even after the drawdown in bank stocks exceeds 30%. Table 2Corporate Bond Trading Rules: 6-Month Investment Horizon Chart 10Corporate Spreads Are Too Low Bottom Line: The macro back-drop is turning marginally more positive for corporate spreads. We remain neutral (3 out of 5) on investment grade and underweight (2 out of 5) on high-yield for now, due to poor starting valuation (Chart 10). But we are looking for an opportunity to upgrade from more attractive spread levels in the next couple of months. Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Portfolio Allocation Summary, "Too Far Too Fast, But The Bond Bear Is Still Intact", dated December 6, 2016, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 For further details on the construction of this index please see www.policyuncertainty.com 3 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Lighten Up On Duration", dated February 16, 2016, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Toward A Cyclical Sweet Spot?", dated November 22, 2016, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

Highlights Portfolio Strategy If the Fed is about to begin interest rate re-normalization in earnest, then investors should heed the message from historic sector performance during tightening cycles. The tech sector remains vulnerable to tighter monetary conditions. Downshift communications equipment to neutral and stay clear of software. The OPEC supply agreement reinforces our current energy sector bias, overweight oil services and underweight refiners. Recent Changes S&P Communications Equipment - Reduce to neutral. Table 1 Feature Chart 1Why Is Equity Vol So Low? The equity market has been in a remarkably low volatility uptrend in recent weeks, powered by hopes that political regime shifts will invigorate growth. Signs of economic life have also played a role. The risk is that investors have pulled forward profit growth expectations on the basis of anticipated fiscal stimulus that may disappoint. In the meantime, the tighter domestic monetary conditions get, the less likely equity resilience can persist, especially in the face of rising instability in other financial markets. Volatility has jumped across asset classes, with the bond market leading the charge. The MOVE index of Treasury bond volatility has spiked. Typically, the MOVE leads the VIX index of implied equity market volatility (Chart 1, second panel). Currency and commodity price volatility has also picked up. It would be dangerous to assume that the equity market can remain so sedate. If the economy is about to grow in line with analysts double-digit profit growth expectations and/or what the surge in some cyclical sectors would suggest, then a re-pricing of Fed interest rate hike expectations is likely to persist. Against this backdrop, it is instructive to revisit historic sector performance during past Fed tightening cycles. If one views the next interest rate hike as the start of a sustained trend based on the steep trajectory of expected profit growth embedded in valuations and forecasts, then it is useful to use that as a starting point rather than last year's token 'one and done' interest rate hike. Charts 2 and 3 show the one-year and two-year average sector relative returns after Fed tightening cycles have commenced. A clear pattern is evident: defensive sectors have been the best performers by a wide margin, followed by financials, while cyclical sectors have underperformed over both time horizons. To be sure, every cycle is different, but this is a useful frame of reference for investors that have ramped up growth and cyclical sector earnings expectations in recent months. There has already been considerable tightening based on the Shadow Fed Funds Rate, a bond market-derived fed funds rate not bound by zero percent (Chart 4, shown inverted, top panel). The latter foreshadows a much tougher slog for the broad market. The point is that tighter monetary conditions can overwhelm valuation multiples and growth expectations. Chart 212-Month Performance After Fed Hikes Chart 324-Month Performance After Fed Hikes Chart 4A Blow-Off Top? The violent sub-surface equity rotation has presented a number of rebalancing opportunities. The defensive health care and consumer staples sectors have been shunned in recent weeks, with capital rotating into financials and industrials. As discussed previously, the industrials and materials sectors cannot rise in tandem for long with the U.S. dollar. These sectors should be used as a source of funds to take advantage of value creation in consumer discretionary, staples and health care where value has reappeared. Chart 5It's Not A ''Growth'' Trade Indeed, the abrupt jump in the cyclical vs. defensive share price ratio appears to have been driven solely by external forces, i.e. the sell-off in the bond market, rather than a shift in underlying operating profit drivers. For instance, emerging market (EM) equities and the cyclical vs. defensive share price ratio have tended to move hand-in-hand (Chart 5). The former are pro-cyclical, and outperform when economic growth prospects are perceived to be improving. Recent sharp EM underperformance has created a large negative divergence with the U.S. cyclical vs. defensive share price ratio. The surging U.S. dollar is a growth impediment for many developing countries with large foreign debt liabilities, and the lack of EM equity participation reinforces that the recent rise in industrials is not a one way bet. As a result, our preferred cyclical sector exposure lies in the consumer discretionary sector, and not in capital spending-geared deep cyclical sectors. A market weight in financials, utilities and energy is warranted, as discussed below, while the tech sector is vulnerable. A Roundtrip For The Tech Sector? After a semiconductor M&A-driven spurt of strength, the S&P technology sector has stumbled. As a long duration sector, technology has borne a disproportionate share of the backlash from a higher discount rate, similar to the taper-tantrum period in 2013. Then, bond yields soared as the Fed floated trial balloons about tapering QE. Tech stocks did not trough until yields peaked (Chart 6). In addition, a recovery in tech new orders confirmed that the sales outlook had brightened. Now, the capital spending outlook remains shaky, and tech new order growth is nil (Chart 6). Meanwhile, tech pricing power has nosedived (Chart 6). Domestic deflationary pressures are likely to intensify as the U.S. dollar appreciates, particularly against the manufacturing and tech-sensitive emerging Asian currencies. Tech sales growth is already sliding rapidly toward negative territory (Chart 7), with no reprieve in sight based on the contraction in emerging market exports, as well as U.S. consumer and capital goods import prices. Chart 6Tech Doesn't Like Rising Bond Yields Chart 7No Sales Growth True, tech stocks have a solid relative performance track record when the U.S. dollar initially embarks on a long-term bull market (Chart 8). Why? Because tech business models incorporate deflationary conditions, investors have been comfortable bidding up valuations in excess of the negative sales impact from a stronger U.S. dollar. Nevertheless, history shows that this relationship becomes untenable the longer currency appreciation persists. Chart 8 shows that in the final phase of the past two U.S. dollar bull markets, tech stocks have abruptly reversed course, rapidly ceding the previously accrued gains. Apart from a loss of competitiveness from currency strength, the new anti-globalization trend is bad for tech as it has the highest foreign sales exposure. The bottom line is that there is no rush to lift underweight tech sector allocations. In fact, we are further tweaking weightings to reduce exposure. For instance, software companies are worth another look through a bearish lens. Software sales growth is at risk from pricing power slippage amidst cooling final demand (Chart 9). Chart 8Beware Phase II Of Dollar Bull Markets Chart 9Sell Software... The financial sector is an influential technology sector end market. On the margin, financial companies are likely to reduce capital spending on the back of deteriorating credit quality. Chart 9 demonstrates that when financial sector corporate bond ratings start to trend negatively, it is a sign that software investment will stumble. A similar message is emanating from the decline in overall CEO confidence (Chart 10), which mirrors the relentless narrowing in the gap between the return on and cost of capital (Chart 8, bottom panel). Even C&I bank loans, previously an economic bright spot, are signaling that corporate sector demand for external funds and working capital are softening, consistent with slower capital spending. Against a backdrop of fading software M&A activity, we are skeptical that the S&P software index can maintain its premium valuation (Chart 11). Chart 10... Before Sales Erode Chart 11Not Worth A Premium Elsewhere, the communications equipment industry will have trouble sustaining this summer's outperformance. Communications equipment stocks broke out of a long-term downward sloping trend-line on the back of productivity improvement. Chart 12 shows that after a period of intense cost cutting, wage inflation was negative. Our productivity proxy, defined as sales/employment, is growing rapidly. These trends are supportive of profit margins, and at least a modest valuation re-rating from washed out levels. Nevertheless, our confidence that a major bullish trend change has occurred after years of underperformance has been shaken. The budding reacceleration in top-line growth has hit a snag. New orders for communications equipment have rolled over relative to inventories. Investment in communications equipment has dipped (Chart 13). The telecom services sector has scaled back capital spending (Chart 13, third panel), suggesting that final demand will continue to soften. It will be difficult for companies to maintain high productivity if revenue growth stagnates. Chart 12Productivity Strength... Chart 13... May Be Pressured Consequently, the most likely scenario is that relative performance is entering a base-building phase rather than a new bull market, warranting benchmark weightings. Bottom Line: Reduce the S&P communications equipment index (BLBG: S5COMM - CSCO, MSI, HRS, JNPR, FFIV) to neutral, in a move to further reduce underweight tech sector exposure. Stay underweight software (BLBG: S5SOFT - MSFT, ORCL, ADBE, CRM, INTU, ATVI, EA, ADSK, SYMC, RHT, CTXS, CA). Energy Strategy Post-OPEC Production Cut Chart 14Energy Stocks Need Rising Oil Prices The energy sector continues to mark time relative to the broad market, but that has masked furious sub-surface movement. We have maintained a benchmark exposure to the broad sector since the spring, but shifted our sub-industry exposure in October to favor oil field services over producers, while underemphasizing refiners. OPEC's recent agreement to trim flatters this positioning. Whether OPEC's announcement actually feeds through into meaningfully lower production next year and higher oil prices remains to be seen, but at a minimum, supply discipline should put a floor under prices. Rather than expecting the overall energy sector to break out of its lateral move relative to the broad market, we continue to recommend a targeted approach. The energy sector requires sustained higher commodity prices to outperform, and our concern is that a trading range is more likely (Chart 14). OPEC producers suffered considerable pain over the last two years as they overproduced in order to starve marginal producers of the capital needed for reinvestment. U.S. shale producers slashed capital expenditures by 65% from 2014 to 2016, and the International Oil Companies (IOCs) cut capital expenditures by 40% over the same period. Chart 15 shows that only OPEC has been expanding production. That has set the stage for limited global production growth, allowing for demand growth to eat into overstocked crude inventories in the coming years. OPEC's decision to trim output should mitigate downside commodity price risks, providing debt and equity markets with confidence to increase capital availability to the sector. With a lower cost and easier access to capital, producers, especially shale, will be able to accelerate drilling programs. The rig count has already troughed. The growth in OECD oil inventories has crested, which is consistent with a gradual rise in the number of active drilling rigs. As oversupply is absorbed, investment in oil field services will accelerate, unlocking relative value in the energy services space (Chart 16). Chart 15OPEC Cuts Would Help... Chart 16... Erode Excess Oil Supply This overweight position is still high risk, because it will take time to absorb the excesses from the previous drilling cycle. There is still considerable overcapacity in the oil field services industry, as measured by our idle rig proxy. Pricing power does not typically return until the latter rises above 1 (Chart 17). Companies will be eager to put crews to work and better cover overhead, and may accept suboptimal pricing, at least initially. Meanwhile, if EM currencies continue to weaken, confidence in EM oil demand growth may be shaken, eroding valuations. Still, we are willing to accept these risks, but will keep this overweight position on a tight leash and will take profits if OPEC does not follow through with plans to limit production. On the flipside, refiners will not receive any relief in feedstock prices, which should ensure that the gap between Brent and WTI prices remains non-existent (Chart 18). That is a strain on refining margins. Our model warns that there is little profit upside ahead. That is confirmed by both domestic and global trends. Chart 17Risks To A Sustained Rally Chart 18Sell Refiners Chart 19Global Capacity Growth Refiners have continued to produce flat out, even as domestic crude production has dropped (Chart 18). As a result, inventories of gasoline and distillates have surged, despite solid consumption growth. In fact, refined product output is about to eclipse the rate of consumption growth, which implies persistently swelling inventories. There is no export outlet to relieve excess supply. U.S. exports are becoming much less competitive on the back of U.S. dollar strength and the elimination of the gap between WTI and Brent input costs (Chart 19). Moreover, rising capacity abroad has trigged an acceleration of refined product exports in a number of low cost producer countries, including India, China and Saudi Arabia (Chart 19). Increased global refining capacity is a structural trend, and will keep valuation multiples lower than otherwise would be the case. The relative price/sales ratio is testing cyclical peaks, warning that downside risks remain acute. Bottom Line: Maintain a neutral overall sector weighting, with outsized exposure to the oil & gas field services industry (BLBG: S5ENRE - SLB, HAL, BHI, NOV, HP, FTI, RIG), and undersized allocations to the refining group (BLBG: S5OILR - PSX, VLO, MPC, TSO). Current Recommendations Current Trades Size And Style Views Favor small over large caps and growth over value.

Special Report

Highlights The brief history of our model portfolios is a tale of two regions: our global portfolios are beating their benchmarks by an aggregate 350 basis points ("bps"), while our U.S. portfolios lag by 55 bps. Defensive sector tilts weighed on all four portfolios, but market-cap tilts gave the U.S. portfolios a big boost, and currency-hedged country and fixed-income positions turbocharged global portfolio performance. We expect to see bond yields, the dollar and DM equity prices higher at year-end 2017 and our portfolio positioning will continue to reflect these broad themes. True inflection points are few and far between, but the U.S. will at least experience a sugar rush, and we are adding some credit risk while walking back some of our defensive equity positioning to prepare for it. Table 1Summary Portfolio Performance Feature This report presents the first review of our model portfolios, which have now been live for seven weeks. Going forward, we will review them in our first publication of every month. The reviews will have two components: an ex-post examination of portfolio performance and an ex-ante discussion of our outlook. Both components are meant to foster transparency, with the ex-post component opening a window on our ongoing efforts to improve our process, and the ex-ante component shining a light on how our views are evolving in real time. Results To Date Our model portfolios have outperformed, on balance, over their first two months, but the aggregate results cover over a fault line between U.S. and global portfolio performance. The U.S. Long-Only portfolio is just even with its benchmark and the Long/Short lags by 55 bps, (Table 1). The disparity highlights the way dollar moves can create international opportunities. Being on the right side of the greenback helped us generate alpha despite dreadful sector positioning. Portfolio Performance Attribution We track portfolio attribution on up to six applicable dimensions. For all the portfolios, we consider Asset Allocation, Equity Sector Allocation and Fixed Income Category Allocation. If the Equity portion of the portfolios has any mid- or small-cap exposures, we track Market Cap Allocation; if it has multi-country exposures, we track Country Allocation; and if it has short positions, we track Long/Short Allocation based on the contribution from its long/short pairs. Since all of the portfolios were initially set to match our benchmark asset allocations (60% Equity/37.5% Fixed Income/2.5% Cash), we have no Asset Allocation attribution to report in this update (Table 2). Table 2Applicable Attribution Sources U.S. Long-Only Our U.S. Long-Only portfolio (Table 3) outperformed its benchmark by 1 basis point through November 30.1 Market cap allocation paved the way to the outperformance, as small- and mid-cap stocks zoomed higher following the election (Table 4). Our fixed-income category allocations helped, as well, with the outperformance of our income hybrids bucket and our sizable underweight in lagging investment-grade corporates more than making up for our zero weight in outperforming high yield (Table 5, bottom panel). The gains were consumed by equity sector underperformance, which labored mightily under an inopportune defensive bias (Table 5, top panel). Table 3U.S. Long-Only Model Portfolio: Absolute Performance By Position Table 4U.S. Relative Performance Contribution From Market-Cap PositioningTable 5U.S. Relative Performance Contribution From Sector Positioning U.S. Long/Short Our U.S. Long/Short portfolio (Table 6) underperformed its benchmark by 55 basis points through November 30.2 Larger defensive sector tilts weighed on the long/short portfolio relative to its long-only counterpart, compounded by short positions in cyclical sectors (Table 7, bottom panel). Our fixed-income pairs fared better: while the HYG short/LQD long detracted from performance, the IEF short/TIP long was able to offset it (Table 7, top panel). The former, an anti-credit risk (and duration-extending) play, was poorly positioned on both counts, but the latter was well positioned to reap the benefit of the pickup in inflation expectations. Table 6U.S. Long/Short Model Portfolio: Absolute Performance By Position Table 7U.S. Relative Performance Contribution From Long/Short Pairs Global Long-Only Our Global Long-Only portfolio (Table 8) outperformed its benchmark by 188 basis points through November 30.3 Successful country positioning contributed to the sizable outperformance, as the (currency-hedged) Japan overweight was a rousing success (Table 9). Fixed-income category allocations were also big winners, driven by the currency-hedged non-U.S. aggregate exposure (BNDX) and the U.S. aggregate (AGG) and corporate holdings (LQD), which more than offset the drag from the unhedged international sovereign exposure (BWX) (Table 10, bottom panel). Only equity sector allocations weighed on the portfolio, as both Staples and Health Care were drubbed by the benchmark index (Table 10, top panel). Table 8Global Long-Only Model Portfolio: Absolute Performance By Position Table 9Global Relative Performance Contribution From Country PositioningTable 10Global Relative Performance Contribution From Sector Positioning Global Long/Short Our Global Long/Short portfolio (Table 11) outperformed its benchmark by 166 basis points through November 30.4 Just like its U.S. counterpart, the global Long/Short portfolio was weighed down by its wrong-footed long defensives/short cyclicals pairs (Table 12). Country long/short pairs paid off nicely, however, especially in November, as emerging markets with sizable current account deficits, like Turkey and Brazil, underperformed their less dollar-vulnerable peers. Our fixed-income long/short pairs also outperformed, albeit by a smaller margin. Table 11Global Long/Short Model Portfolio: Absolute Performance By Position Table 12Global Relative Performance Contribution From Long/Short Pairs How Our Views Fared Rates, Inflation And Credit Markets rewarded two of the four components of our fixed-income view. U.S. inflation expectations surged (Chart 1) and developed-world sovereigns proved to be an especially poor value, as the aggregate G7 economies' 10-year bond yield spiked faster than at any point since the taper tantrum in 2013 (Chart 2). These views, expressed as portfolio tilts - underweight fixed income, own TIPS and hold duration at or below benchmark duration - worked well when translated to portfolio positions, as noted above. Chart 1Inflation Expectations Spiked... Chart 2...And So Did Nominal Yields The bear-flattening call turned out to be a dud, as the Treasury yield curve steepened despite the looming Fed tightening cycle. Overwhelmed by our anti-duration call, though, it had no meaningful portfolio impact. Our credit-bearish call was a central fixed-income pillar in all four of our portfolios, and it did constrain performance as high yield outperformed at home and abroad. Yields may well be due to pull back following their November surge, but we see them ending 2017 higher, making credit's positive carry an attractive buffer against rising rates. Economic Growth And Corporate Earnings Our concerns that the equity rally has become uncomfortably stretched, and that U.S. corporate margins face downward pressure, did not amount to anything over the last two months. Since we maintained benchmark equity weightings across all of our portfolios, however, our too-early views did not affect performance. We expressed our defensives-over-cyclicals view in every portfolio's sector allocations to the detriment of performance across the board. Thanks to currency-hedged Japanese equities' surge, the global portfolios benefitted slightly from our view that European and Japanese multinationals would find the going easier than their U.S. counterparts, and we remain optimistic about the potential for a relative European profit inflection. New And Revised Views Rates, Inflation And Credit There are still too many unknowns about the details of policy proposals to assess whether or not the U.S. is on the cusp of sustained growth acceleration, but the incoming administration, supported by a compliant Congress, can unquestionably bestow a sugar rush. The credit upshot is that it will be harder to default if both growth and inflation get a fillip in 2017. The curve is likely to steepen on the grounds that our bond strategists expect the Fed to allow inflation expectations to gather momentum before it signals an increased pace of hikes and a higher terminal rate. The bond vigilantes could add to the upward pressure on long rates if they ever stir from their long hibernation. It would be entirely reasonable for yields to retrace at least a portion of their sudden and sizable move, and our U.S. Bond Strategy service has moved to benchmark duration to position for near-term consolidation. It still sees long rates higher a year from now, though, and we are not going to wait to add some carry to the portfolio. We are replacing our U.S. REIT exposure with business development company exposure via the BIZD ETF, which will add some beta along with credit exposure. We are going to add bank loans in the form of the BKLN ETF, providing some rate protection (bank loans carry floating rates) and allowing us to dip our toe into the most senior tranche of the high-yield space. BKLN will push our Treasuries exposure to below benchmark,5 but we will maintain Treasury duration near benchmark in line with our bond strategists' tactical guidance. We will look to exit our TLT position on a 10-year rally back to the 2-2.2% range. Chart 3Pigs Get Slaughtered Cyclicals Versus Defensives The uncertainty around the impact of the incoming administration's proposed policies keeps us from fully reversing course on our cyclicals/defensives positioning. But our conviction about higher rates increases our remorse at overstaying our welcome in Staples and Telcos (Chart 3). As an analogue to positioning for near-term economic acceleration by taking on some credit risk, we're shifting capital away from rate-driven Staples and Telecom to Discretionaries and Energy. Our exit from Swiss equities in the global portfolios furthers our move to more neutral intra-equity settings. We are adding Energy exposure to all of the portfolios to reflect our strategists' bullish take on crude oil. The recently agreed OPEC-Russia production cuts will fuel inventory drawdowns that will keep crude prices from falling below $50. Our Energy Sector Strategy service argues that U.S. shale producers will reap the greatest benefits, as $50+ crude will allow them to accelerate oilfield reinvestment and grow production in 2017. We are therefore adding FRAK, an ETF dominated by U.S. shale oil and natural gas producers, to our U.S. portfolios.6 Other Portfolio Changes Aside from dialing back our defensive equity positioning and embracing some credit risk, our biggest change has been to pull in our horns on the sector tilts across all of our portfolios. We are chastened by being off-sides with our sector calls and are pulling back until we have a better sense of direction. We are waiting in all portfolios for an opportune time to shorten duration. We expect to maintain our sizable income hybrids sleeve as the nascent bond bear market grinds along. Table 13 shows our revised U.S. Long-Only portfolio. As mentioned above, it no longer shuns cyclical sector or credit exposures and will continue to evolve with the anticipated direction of the economy. We have chosen not to rebalance our mid- and small-cap exposures and we would be happy to increase them if they retrace some of their relative gains in the near term. The U.S. Long/Short portfolio (Table 14) is effectively an amplified version of the Long-Only portfolio but its sector tilts are being trimmed considerably as well. Table 13Revised U.S. Long-Only Model Portfolio Table 14Revised U.S. Long/Short Model Portfolio The changes to our Global Long-Only portfolio mute its defensive bias and attempt to simplify it by removing standalone currency-hedging positions (Table 15). We substitute HEWU, the currency-hedged version of EWU, for our existing EWU/FXB pair, giving up some liquidity to save on ETF and borrow fees. We clean up the other currency short by exiting our Swiss equity position, which is no longer needed now that we are dialing back the portfolio's defensive cast. We exit BWX and reallocate its proceeds to BNDX and AGG to simplify the portfolio and remove incremental sovereign and currency exposure. We replace LQD with JNK to introduce a modest high-yield exposure to the portfolio. Table 15Revised Global Long-Only Model Portfolio Like its U.S. counterpart, our Global Long/Short portfolio is significantly dialing back its sector tilts (Table 16). The Staples, Telco and Utilities overweights are being eliminated, along with the Financials short. The Health Care overweight and the corresponding Industrials and Tech shorts have been reduced. As in the Long-Only portfolio, we are exiting Switzerland and redeploying the proceeds in Energy, Discretionaries and a slightly reduced U.S. underweight. We are replacing the incremental exposure to U.S. Investment Grade (LQD) with High Yield (JNK), reflecting our U.S. rates and credit view. With the addition of JNK, we are taking the opportunity to do a little housecleaning by replacing the U.S. leg of our EM junk spread-widening pair, formerly HYG, with JNK, which better aligns with our portfolio benchmark and is 10 bps cheaper per annum. Table 16Revised Global Long/Short Model Portfolio Doug Peta, Vice President Global ETF Strategy dougp@bcaresearch.com 1 Through December 5th, the U.S. Long-Only portfolio is in line with its benchmark. 2 Through December 5th, the U.S. Long/Short portfolio has underperformed by 65 basis points. 3 Through December 5th, the Global Long-Only portfolio has outperformed by 184 basis points. 4 Through December 5th, the Global Long/Short portfolio has outperformed by 160 basis points. 5 In our October 12th Special Report introducing the model portfolios, we referred to outdated Aggregate/High Yield proportions in our U.S. and global fixed income benchmarks. Based on the outstanding value of the bonds in the indexes, the correct U.S. breakdown is 90/10 AGG/HY and the correct global breakdown is 93/7 AGG/HY, not 95/5 as originally stated. Our performance attribution calculations reflect the correct benchmarks. 6 For more information on the shale producers and the effects of the OPEC cuts, please see the following Energy Sector Strategy reports, available at nrg.bcaresearch.com: Constructive On U.S. Shale Producers And Select Service Companies, published July 6, 2016; The OPEC Debate, published November 23, 2016; and Recommendation Additions & Changes Following OPEC's Cut, published December 7, 2016.

We downshifted our view on the S&P health care facilities index at mid-year, because consumer spending on health care was decelerating, which favored moving into equities that paid for medical services (managed care) vs. those that provided them. While this trend remains intact, health care facilities stocks appear to be discounting an extreme scenario. The current concern is that the Affordable Care Act (ACA) will be repealed, leaving hospitals to foot the bill for uninsured patients. While such a scenario would potentially reverse the decline in the provision for doubtful accounts (PDA), a major profit margin support, the ACA is more likely to be reworked than repealed especially in the absence of a replacement plan. Importantly, there are other offsets. PDA follows the unemployment rate, which is signaling that the former will decline further. Hospital cost inflation is beginning to recede, led by drug costs. It would take massive earnings downgrades to validate the pessimism embedded in current valuations. We will look to buy this group opportunistically in the coming months.

After the Trump election victory, we immediately upgraded our financial sector view to neutral to protect against the benefit of rising interest rates and the potential for a clear asset preference shift in favor of stocks over bonds. Trump's inflationist policy rumblings have kickstarted a steep advance in the total return of equity vs. bonds (E/B). BCA's strategists believe that this trend has long-term staying power. The E/B ratio has an excellent track record in heralding the relative performance of the S&P asset manager & custody bank (AMCB) index. If investors shift assets from bond products and into equity mutual funds and ETFs, from the current extremely depressed skew (bottom panel), then there is scope for cyclical profit margin upside at asset management firms. Current valuations do not fully discount such a shift, and we recommend an overweight position in the S&P AMCB index. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5AMGT - BK, BLK, STT, TROW, AMP, NTRS, BEN, IVZ, AMG.