Asset Allocation

Special Report

Highlights The beta of Chinese stocks has been steadily increasing over the past few years, versus both emerging markets and global stocks. Rising relative currency volatility has likely durably increased the cyclicality of Chinese stock prices. The high-beta nature of Chinese investable stocks suggests that they should be favored when the EM and global stock benchmarks are rising. This supports our current overweight stance. A portfolio strategy that favors equity sectors with high alpha significance has outperformed the broad investable market by a non-trivial amount over time, without adding to portfolio risk. Barring a few exceptions, the model's current allocation is generally consistent with our theme of a benign slowdown in Chinese economic growth. Feature Chart 1Beta Matters, But So Does Alpha While concepts such as alpha, beta, and correlation are frequently applied by investment managers at the security or sector level, they are less commonly employed from a top-down regional equity perspective and are rarely examined as a time series. In addition, the concept of alpha persistence (i.e. alpha that is persistently positive or negative) is also frequently ignored by investors, despite it having significant implications for portfolio returns. This is vividly illustrated by the relative performance of developed commodity markets during the last economic expansion: these countries resoundingly outperformed a rising global benchmark from 2000 to 2007, despite having a market beta that averaged one over the period (Chart 1). This seeming inconsistency is explained by persistent volatility-adjusted outperformance throughout the period (panel 3), underscoring the importance of tracking this measure from a top-down perspective. In this report we examine the recent evolution of MSCI China's alpha and beta versus both the emerging market (EM) and global benchmarks. We conclude that China is no longer a low-beta market (supporting an overweight stance), and also present a simple alpha-based sector model for Chinese investable stocks that has generated impressive outperformance over time without adding to portfolio risk. The Evolution Of China's Alpha & Beta Chart 2 presents the evolution of alpha and beta for Chinese investable stocks since 2010, versus the emerging market and global index. Given the significant outperformance of the technology sector over the past year, we also present this analysis in ex-tech terms. The values shown in Chart 2 are calculated using a standard single-factor model approach to estimating alpha and beta, namely a regression of weekly stock price returns in US$ terms in excess of the return from U.S. short-term Treasury bills on excess returns of the benchmark index.1 The chart yields the following observations: The beta of Chinese stocks has been steadily increasing over the past few years, versus both emerging markets and global stocks, regardless of whether the tech sector is removed from the picture. Chinese stocks had a beta of 1.4 versus their global peers in 2017, placing it in the 80th percentile of all country equity market betas for the year. Chinese stocks earned a modestly negative alpha vs global stocks in 2016, which was even larger when compared to the EM benchmark. This likely occurred because of lower exposure to resource-oriented sectors, given the significant rebound in commodity prices in 2016. Chinese stocks experienced a surge in alpha in 2017, even excluding technology stocks. In 2017, in all cases (vs EM and global, including or excluding tech) Chinese equities moved into the top right alpha/beta quadrant, which is the quadrant that offers the highest return to investors when the benchmark is rising. This is a remarkable development given that there were indications of a peak in Chinese economic momentum in the first half of the year, and suggests that investors do not view the ongoing slowdown as being problematic for investable equity performance. Chart 2 raises the obvious question of why China has become a higher beta market. We have two theories, but only the second one appears to fit the data. The first theory is that the establishment of the stock connect in late-2014 caused a volatility spillover from China's domestic stock market into the investable market. But while it is true that A-shares were considerably riskier than investable stocks in late-2015 / early-2016, Chart 3 makes it clear that A-shares have not historically been much more volatile than investable stocks. In addition, Chart 2 underscores that the rise in China's market beta since 2014 has been persistent, whereas A-shares in 2017 recorded their lowest share price volatility in over 15 years. So to us, this does not appear to be the most probable explanation. Chart 2China Has Become A High-Beta Market The second theory, which seems much more likely, is that the rising currency volatility has increased the cyclicality of Chinese stock prices. China's decision to devalue the RMB in August 2015 clearly led to a period of significantly increased capital controls, but Chart 4 highlights that the CNY/USD exchange rate has steadily become more volatile. This is especially true when compared with a basket of emerging market currencies, with CNY/USD actually being more volatile than the basket over the past year. Chart 3The Stock Connect Does Not Explain##br## The Rise In China's Beta Chart 4Rising Relative Currency Volatility ##br##= Higher Beta While it is certainly true that Chinese policymakers have stepped up their management of the currency by tightening capital controls over the past year, the PBOC's decision to pursue its "partial" version of the impossible trinity still implies, in our view, that RMB volatility will now be structurally higher than what prevailed on average prior to August 2015.2 This suggests that China's equity market beta will be durably higher than before, absent a presently negative correlation between CNY/USD and EM or global stock prices. Bottom Line: The beta of Chinese stocks has been steadily increasing over the past few years, versus both emerging markets and global stocks. Rising relative currency volatility has likely durably increased the cyclicality of Chinese stock prices. Investment Implications Of China's Recent Relative Performance There are two clear investment strategy implications from Chinese equities becoming a high-beta asset. The first is that Chinese investable stocks are now a pro-risk asset to be favored when the EM and global stock benchmarks are rising. Chart 5 shows that both are currently well above their 200-day moving averages, which supports our overweight stance towards China. The second is that when comparing the performance of China's overall investable index versus that excluding technology, it is clear that a non-trivial amount of the alpha earned by China's overall index in 2017 came from the tech sector. This suggests that a reversal of the high-flying performance of Chinese technology stocks is a material risk to our overweight stance towards Chinese equities. For now, this high-alpha outperformance appears to be fundamentally-based: Chart 6 highlights that forward earnings for Chinese tech shares have risen enormously relative to the investable benchmark over the past three years, a trend that we have noted appears to be driven by Chinese consumer demand (and thus unlikely to decline over the coming year).3 In addition, the relatively modest but positive alpha earned by Chinese ex-tech stocks in 2017 was likely driven by extremely cheap valuation, and these multiples remain quite low relative to other countries. We highlighted in our December 7 Weekly Report that the relative re-rating of Chinese investable ex-tech stocks was a key theme for 2018,4 suggesting that there is room for further re-rating/alpha if China's economic slowdown remains benign (as we expect). Chart 5Investors Should Overweight ##br##Chinese Stocks In This Environment Chart 6Tech's Recent Alpha Appears ##br##Fundamentally-Based Bottom Line: The now high-beta nature of Chinese investable stocks suggests that they are a pro-risk asset to be favored when the EM and global stock benchmarks are rising. This supports our current overweight stance. Alpha, Applied: A Simple Sector Model For Chinese Investable Stocks We noted earlier that the concept of alpha has had significant implications for regional equity portfolio returns in the past. In order to test the predictive power of alpha within the context of a Chinese equity portfolio, we evaluate the returns of an investment strategy that allocates to China's investable equity sectors based on the significance of alpha. Table 1 presents statistics summarizing the performance of this sector alpha portfolio relative to the overall investable market, Table 2 shows the portfolio's current sector allocation, and Chart 7 illustrates the cyclical behavior of the portfolio's relative performance trend since 2004. Several important conclusions emerge: Table 1An Alpha-Based Sector Model Has Historically Outperformed ##br##China's Investable Stock Market Table 2Sector Alpha Portfolio Weights Are Generally Consistent With ##br##A Benign Growth Slowdown The model has outperformed the broad investable market by an impressive 235 bps per year without appearing to take on any additional risk. Measured either as volatility or drawdown, the riskiness of the portfolio appears to be the same as that of the overall investable market. The outperformance of the model occurs in spurts, but sustained periods of underperformance are not common. The 2007-2009 period served as an exception to this rule, but even in this case the cumulative underperformance of the model vs the investable index was not large (roughly 6%). Chart 7Impressive Outperformance Over Time The model is currently underweight financials (significantly), energy, industrials, telecoms, and utilities. Overweights are concentrated in the tech sector, real estate, health care, and consumer stocks. For now, these weights are generally consistent with our benign slowdown scenario, although there are some potential exceptions to monitor (such as the overweight stance towards real estate and materials). Bottom Line: A portfolio strategy that favors equity sectors with high alpha significance has outperformed the broad investable market by a non-trivial amount over time, without adding to portfolio risk. Barring a few exceptions, the model's current allocation is generally consistent with our theme of a benign slowdown in Chinese economic growth. Jonathan LaBerge, CFA, Vice President Special Reports jonathanl@bcaresearch.com 1 2 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "How Will China Manage The Impossible Trinity", dated December 8, 2016, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see China Investment Strategy Special Report, "The Data Lab: Testing The Predictability of China's Business Cycle", dated November 30, 2017, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Three Themes For China In The Coming Year", dated December 7, 2017, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations

Highlights Chart 1Bond Bear On Pause? The start of a new year often brings optimism and nowhere is this more evident than in economic projections. In three of the past four years (2017 being the exception) Bloomberg consensus GDP growth expectations ended the year lower than where they began. A related pattern played itself out in the Treasury market. At the turn of each of the past four years the average yield on the Bloomberg Barclays Treasury Index increased in December only to fall back in January. In two of those instances the January decline exceeded the December increase. Should we expect a similar January bond rally this year? Our favorite short-term indicators are not sending a strong signal (Chart 1). Net speculative futures positions weakly suggest that the 10-year yield will be lower in three months, but our auto regressive model suggests the Economic Surprise Index will still be in positive territory at the end of the month. In a recent report we showed that yields tend to rise in months where the Surprise Index is above zero.1 Perhaps most importantly, our 2-factor Treasury model shows that yields are significantly lower than is suggested by global economic fundamentals. Maintain below-benchmark duration. Feature Investment Grade: Overweight Chart 2Investment Grade Market Overview Investment grade corporate bonds outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 49 basis points in December and by 335 bps in 2017. At 94 bps, the average index spread is 28 bps tighter than at the beginning of 2017 and investment grade corporate spreads are extremely expensive compared to history (Chart 2). After adjusting for changes in the average duration of the index over time, we calculate that A-rated corporate spreads have only been tighter 5% of the time since 1989 (panel 2), and Baa-rated spreads have only been tighter 7% of the time (panel 3). Essentially, at this stage of the credit cycle we should expect excess returns no greater than carry. As for the credit cycle itself, we noted in our last report that with corporate balance sheets deteriorating, low inflation and still-accommodative monetary policy are the sole supports for corporate spreads.2 We expect spreads will start to widen later this year once inflation rises and policy becomes more restrictive. With excess returns likely to be lower in 2018 than in 2017, we should also expect a lower marginal return from increasing the riskiness within credit portfolios.3 For investors looking to scale back on credit risk, our model shows that Financials and Technology are the most attractive low-risk sectors. Energy, Basic Industry and Communications are all attractive high-risk sectors (Table 3). Table 3ACorporate Sector Relative Valuation And Recommended Allocation* Table 3BCorporate Sector Risk Vs. Reward* High-Yield: Overweight Chart 3High-Yield Market Overview High-Yield outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 23 basis points in December and by 602 bps in 2017. The average index option-adjusted spread tightened 1 bp on the month and 66 bps in 2017. Though spreads appear somewhat more attractive than for investment grade corporates, there is still not much room for spread compression in high-yield. In fact, we calculate that if the high-yield index spread tightens another 117 bps, junk bonds will be the most expensive they have been since 1995. In an optimistic scenario where the index spread tightens 100 bps, bringing it close to all-time expensive levels, then we would expect junk excess returns to be in the range of 600 bps (annualized). Given trends in corporate leverage, another 100 bps of spread tightening should be viewed as unlikely. More realistically, we expect excess returns in the range of 200 bps to 500 bps (annualized) between now and the end of the credit cycle (Chart 3). Given our forecast for default losses, flat spreads translate to a 12-month excess return of 213 bps. An additional warning sign for junk spreads is that the slope of the 2/10 Treasury curve is hovering around 50 bps. We showed in a recent report that when the 2/10 slope is between 0 bps and 50 bps, junk bonds underperform Treasuries in 48% of months, and average monthly excess returns (though still positive) are much lower than when the curve is steeper.4 MBS: Neutral Chart 4MBS Market Overview Mortgage-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 16 basis points in December and by 51 bps in 2017. The conventional 30-year zero-volatility MBS spread narrowed 2 bps in December, the combination of a flat option-adjusted spread (OAS) and a 2 bps decline in the compensation for prepayment risk (option cost). The Z-spread widened 2 bps in 2017, as an 8 bps OAS widening was offset by a decline of 6 bps in the compensation for prepayment risk. The substantial OAS widening in early 2017 was almost certainly caused by investors pricing-in the eventual run-off of the securities on the Fed's balance sheet. Now that run-off has begun we see no obvious catalyst for further OAS widening in the months ahead. Turning to the compensation for prepayment risk, with Treasury yields biased higher as the Fed continues to lift rates, we see little risk of a material increase in refinancing activity. This will ensure that overall MBS spreads stay capped near historically low levels (Chart 4). All in all, with MBS OAS looking more attractive relative to Aaa-rated credit than at any time since 2015 (panel 3), we think this is an opportune time for investors looking to de-risk their portfolios to shift some of their spread product allocation away from corporate bonds and into MBS. We already upgraded our recommended allocation to MBS from underweight to neutral in October, and will likely further increase exposure as we advance toward the end of the credit cycle. Government-Related: Underweight Chart 5Government-Related Market Overview The Government-Related index underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 5 basis points in December, but outperformed by 216 bps in 2017. Sovereign bonds underperformed the Treasury benchmark by 36 bps in December, Foreign Agencies and Domestic Agencies underperformed by 8 bps and 1 bp, respectively. Local Authorities outperformed the benchmark by 17 bps, and Supranationals underperformed by 1 bp. Sovereign bonds were the best performers within the Government-Related index in 2017, delivering excess returns of 538 bps relative to duration-matched U.S. Treasuries. This outperformance was concentrated early in the year and was driven by the sharp depreciation of the U.S. dollar (Chart 5). With the market still priced for a relatively modest 63 bps of Fed rate hikes during the next 12 months, further sharp dollar depreciation appears unlikely. We recommend an underweight allocation to Sovereign debt. We remain overweight Local Authority and Foreign Agency bonds, sectors that delivered excess returns of 420 bps and 248 bps, respectively in 2017. Despite the outperformance, both of these sectors still offer attractive spreads after adjusting for credit rating and duration. We remain underweight Domestic Agency and Supranational bonds. Though both sectors offer low risk and high credit quality, they also only offer 15 bps and 17 bps of option-adjusted spread, respectively. We much prefer Agency-backed MBS and CMBS which are also relatively low risk and offer option-adjusted spreads of 28 bps and 42 bps, respectively. Municipal Bonds: Underweight Chart 6Municipal Market Overview Municipal bonds outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 99 bps in December and by 332 bps in 2017 (before adjusting for the tax advantage). The average Aaa Municipal / Treasury (M/T) yield ratio fell 5% in December, and is 12% below where it began 2017 (Chart 6). The recent decline follows a sharp increase that was driven by fluctuating supply trends related to the passage of U.S. tax legislation. The final tax bill ends the practice of advance refunding municipal bonds. As a result, December set a new high of $55.6 billion for municipal issuance as issuers rushed to get their advance refunding deals to market before the bill was passed (panel 3). Now that the bill has passed, visible supply has evaporated and the average M/T yield ratio has fallen back to one standard deviation below its post-crisis mean. The absence of advance refunding will bias municipal bond issuance lower in 2018, thus removing one potential risk for yield ratios. The M/T yield ratio for short maturity debt has risen considerably relative to the yield ratio for long maturity debt in recent months (panel 2), and the risk/reward trade-off now appears more balanced. We close our recommendation to favor long maturities versus short maturities on the Aaa Muni curve. The third quarter update of our Muni Health Monitor showed a slight improvement (panel 5), but still no clear reversal of trend. Although health remains supportive for now - and consistent with municipal upgrades outpacing downgrades - with yield ratios close to their lows we maintain an underweight allocation to Municipal bonds.  Treasury Curve: Favor 5-Year Bullet Over 2/10 Barbell Chart 7Treasury Yield Curve Overview The Treasury curve bear-flattened in December. The 2/10 Treasury slope flattened 13 bps on the month, and the 5/30 Treasury slope flattened 15 bps. The evolution of the Treasury curve in 2018 will come down to a trade-off between how quickly inflation rises versus how quickly the Fed lifts rates. For example, in a recent report we showed that the 10-year Treasury yield will likely settle into a range between 2.80% and 3.25% by the time that core PCE inflation reaches the Fed's 2% target.5 That same report shows that if that adjustment occurs relatively quickly, and the Fed has only lifted rates once or twice between now and then, then the 2/10 Treasury slope is much more likely to steepen than to flatten. Conversely, if the Fed lifts rates three or four more times between now and the time that inflation returns to target, then the curve is more likely to flatten. For our part, we think it is wise to maintain a position long the 5-year bullet and short a duration-neutral 2/10 barbell. Such a position profits from a steeper curve, and our model shows that the butterfly spread is currently priced for significant curve flattening (Chart 7). According to our model, the 2/5/10 butterfly spread is discounting 27 bps of 2/10 flattening during the next six months.6 In other words, if the 2/10 slope steepens or flattens by less than 27 bps, then our recommended position will profit. TIPS: Overweight Chart 8TIPS Market Overview TIPS outperformed the duration-equivalent nominal Treasury index by 41 basis points in December, but underperformed by 43 bps in 2017. The 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate went on a wild ride last year. It started 2017 at 1.95% and, driven by strong inflation prints and continued post-election euphoria, reached as high as 2.09% in January. The breakeven dropped to a low of 1.66% in June, as inflation started to disappoint in the second quarter, but has rebounded during the past couple of months and just recently broke back above 2%. The 10-year TIPS breakeven rate is currently 2.02%, above where it began 2017. According to our TIPS Financial Model, the recent widening in breakevens is in line with the message from other related financial market instruments (Chart 8). Specifically, oil prices, the trade-weighted dollar and the stock-to-bond total return ratio. Further, measures of pipeline inflation pressure continue to signal an increase in inflationary pressures (panels 3 and 4), and the trimmed mean PCE shows that the realized inflation data are forming a tentative bottom (bottom panel). The annualized 6-month rate of change in the trimmed mean PCE ticked up to 1.68% in November, higher than the 12-month rate of change (1.67%). The 1-month rate of change is higher still at 2.19%, annualized. We continue to see signs that inflation will start to rebound in the coming months, and this will cause long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates to reach a range between 2.4% and 2.5% by the time that inflation returns to the Fed's target. Remain overweight TIPS versus nominal Treasury securities. ABS: Neutral Chart 9ABS Market Overview Asset-Backed Securities performed in line with the duration-equivalent Treasury index in December and outperformed by 92 basis points in 2017. In 2017, Aaa-rated ABS outperformed the Treasury benchmark by 79 bps and non-Aaa ABS outperformed by 217 bps. The index option-adjusted spread for Aaa-rated ABS widened 1 bp in December, but tightened 21 bps in 2017. It now sits at 31 bps, only 4 bps above its all-time low (Chart 9). At 31 bps, Aaa-rated ABS now offer only a 3 bps spread advantage over Agency-backed MBS, and offer 11 bps less spread than Agency-backed CMBS. With consumer lending standards tightening and delinquency rates rising, we view no more than a neutral allocation to ABS as appropriate. On lending standards, the Fed's October Senior Loan Officer's Survey showed a continued tightening in lending standards on both credit cards and auto loans (panel 4), and also that demand for credit card and auto loans was essentially unchanged from the prior quarter. It also included a set of special questions regarding the reasons for changes in the supply and demand for consumer credit. Banks cited a less favorable or more uncertain economic outlook, a deterioration in existing loan quality and a general reduced risk tolerance as reasons for tightening the supply of credit. The hard data confirm that banks are seeing a deterioration in the quality of their consumer loan books (bottom panel). Although delinquencies remain depressed compared to history, with ABS spreads near all-time tights, rising delinquencies and tightening lending standards make for a poor risk/reward trade-off in the sector. Non-Agency CMBS: Underweight Chart 10CMBS Market Overview Non-Agency Commercial Mortgage-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 20 basis points in December and by 201 bps in 2017. The index option-adjusted spread for non-agency Aaa-rated CMBS tightened 2 bps in December and 13 bps in 2017. At its current level of 64 bps, the index spread is about one standard deviation below its pre-crisis mean, and only 13 bps above its all-time low reached in 2004 (Chart 10). With spreads at such low levels in an environment of tightening commercial real estate (CRE) lending standards and falling CRE loan demand, we continue to view the risk/reward trade-off in non-Agency CMBS as unfavorable. Agency CMBS: Overweight Agency CMBS outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 21 basis points in December and by 133 bps in 2017. The index option-adjusted spread for Agency CMBS tightened 3 bps in December and 13 bps in 2017. At its current level of 42 bps, the sector offers greater option-adjusted compensation than a position in Agency-backed MBS (28 bps) and Aaa-rated consumer ABS (31 bps). Such an attractive spread pick-up in a sector that benefits from Agency backing is surely worth grabbing.   Treasury Valuation Chart 11Treasury Fair Value Models The current reading from our 2-factor Treasury model (based on Global PMI and dollar sentiment) pegs fair value for the 10-year Treasury yield at 2.94% (Chart 11). Our 3-factor version of the model (not shown), which also incorporates the Global Economic Policy Uncertainty Index, places fair value at 2.92%. PMIs across the world continue to surge. December PMI data show increases in the four largest economic blocs (U.S., Eurozone, China, Japan), and more broadly show that 86% of the 36 countries with available data currently have PMIs above the 50 boom/bust line. Meanwhile, bullish sentiment toward the U.S. dollar continues to trend lower in response to strong growth in the rest of the world (bottom panel). This is also a bearish development for U.S. bonds. For further details on our Treasury models please refer to U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "The Message From Our Treasury Models", dated October 11, 2016, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com. At the time of publication the 10-year Treasury yield was 2.48%. Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com Alex Wang, Research Analyst alexw@bcaresearch.com Jeremie Peloso, Research Assistant jeremiep@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "How Much Higher For Yields?", dated October 31, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Ill Placed Trust?", dated December 19, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Proactive, Reactive Or Right?", dated December 12, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Proactive, Reactive Or Right?", dated December 12, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 5 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Ill Placed Trust?", dated December 19, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 6 For further details on the model please see U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, "Bullets, Barbells And Butterflies", dated July 25, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification Corporate Sector Relative Valuation And Recommended Allocation Total Return Comparison: 7-Year Bullet Versus 2-20 Barbell (6-Month Investment Horizon)

Highlights Upbeat economic reports for December set the stage for a solid 2018. The FOMC minutes acknowledged the flatter curve and only a minority of members discounted the signal from the curve. A majority thought that a tighter labor market would lead to higher inflation. The Citi Economic Surprise Index is peaking, but risk assets should hold up as the Index rolls over. Feature The first week of 2018 brought more good news for risk assets. U.S. stocks beat bonds, oil prices rose, and credit spreads narrowed amid a solid set of economic data. Several high-profile U.S. companies announced share buybacks, and/or one-time bonuses or wage increases linked to the tax cut plan passed by Congress at the end of 2017. Moreover, there were hints of further economic stimulus as lawmakers from both sides of the aisle discussed relaxing the sequester rules that would lift federal spending this year. Markets shrugged off a fresh round of saber rattling between the U.S. and North Korea. Gold prices nudged higher and the U.S. dollar fell despite the upbeat economic news. December's reports on manufacturing and service sector ISM, vehicle sales and the labor market, along with November's numbers on construction spending, trade and factory orders, all lifted estimates for Q4 GDP and boosted the prospects for corporate earnings in Q4 2017 and beyond. Chart 1 shows that the elevated ISM figures provide a favorable backdrop for earnings and sales in 2018. Moreover, Chart 2 indicates that IP, a proxy for S&P 500 sales, is poised to advance in 2018 and provide a lift to corporate profits. We will preview the S&P 500's Q4 2017 earnings reports in next week's U.S. Investment Strategy. Chart 1Favorable Macro Backdrop For Earnings And Sales Chart 2ISM Components Suggest IP Poised To Accelerate The Atlanta Fed GDP Now estimate stood at 2.7% on January 5, while the New York Fed's Nowcast for Q4 GDP was a healthy 4% (Chart 3). Both soundings are well above the FOMC's assessment of the economy's long-term potential growth rate (1.8%) and puts GDP growth in 2017 above the Fed's forecast. The implication is that the output gap pushed deeper into positive territory as 2017 ended, setting the stage for higher inflation in 2018. The December 2017 jobs report, released last Friday, January 5, does not change BCA's outlook for the U.S. economy or the Fed. The U.S. economy added a lower than expected 148,000 new jobs in December, which left the unemployment rate unchanged at 4.1%. Despite the softer than anticipated data, the 3-month average of payrolls growth is still a very healthy 204,000. The monthly increase in wages quickened to 0.3% m/m in December, up from 0.1% m/m last month. However, annual wage inflation remains modest at just 2.5% (Chart 4). Chart 3U.S. Economic Growth Well##BR##Ahead Of Potential In Q4 Chart 4Labor Market Still Tightening Despite##BR##Soft December Report The indications for Q4 GDP growth are solid. Aggregate hours worked rose 2.5% at an annualized rate in Q4 2017. Assuming modest growth in productivity, the payrolls data are consistent with over 3% GDP growth in Q4. There is nothing in the December payroll data to suggest that the underlying trajectory in the U.S. economy has changed. The economy continues to grow above trend. Wage gains are modest at the moment, but should accelerate as the labor market keeps tightening with above-trend GDP growth. This upbeat economic outlook is also supported the December 2017 non-manufacturing ISM survey, also released last Friday. While the overall index fell from 57.4 to 55.9, it is still consistent with solid GDP growth. Moreover, the employment index rose from 55.3 to 56.3, which signals firm job gains, and the prices paid index held steady at a fairly elevated level of 60.8. Bottom Line: It's been solid start to 2018 and it's steady as she goes for the U.S. economy and the Fed. FOMC Minutes: A Rubric BCA's U.S. Bond Strategy service expects that the 2/10 yield curve will languish between 0 and 50 bps in 2018. The curve will steepen from 51 bps at the end of 2017 through mid-year 2018, and then flatten into year-end (Chart 5). Which asset classes would benefit if our curve call is accurate? BCA's "The Bucket List"1 explains our view of the curve in 2018 and details the past performance of various U.S. assets in differing yield curve environments. Chart 5A Flat Yield Curve Is OK For Most Risk Assets BCA expects that the yield curve will first steepen in 2018, then become flatter, ultimately spending most of the year between 0 and 50 bps. A flat curve is the ideal environment for the S&P 500 and the stock-to-bond ratio. However, small cap stocks struggle when the curve is flat; BCA's view is that small caps will outperform large caps in 2018. A flat yield curve raises the risk of a sell-off in high yield, but provides a favorable grounding for oil, which is in line with BCA's fundamental view. BCA expects EPS growth will be positive this year; earnings growth is higher 75% of the time when the curve is flat. The yield curve's slope was a focus of debate at the FOMC's December 12-13, 2017 meeting. Participants cited several reasons for the flat curve2: recent increases in the target range for the federal funds rate; reductions in investors' estimates of the longer-run, neutral real interest rate; lower longer-term inflation expectations; lower term premiums Fed economists recently updated their quantitative assessments of the FOMC's minutes. The note provides a guide (Table 1 in the Fed paper3 and Tables 1 and 2 below) to the number of quantitative descriptors in the minutes (one, a couple, a few, etc.). We use this rubric to assess the committee's latest views on the yield curve and inflation. Table 1FOMC Assessment Of The Yield Curve Table 2FOMC Assessment Of Inflation In short, the FOMC acknowledged the flatter curve and only a minority of members discounted the signal from the curve. Moreover, a majority thought that a tighter labor market would lead to higher inflation. Only one participant held the view that secular trends were muting inflation. Bottom Line: BCA expects the Fed to deliver 3 to 4 rate hikes in 2018, which is still not fully priced in by the market. Investors should maintain below-benchmark duration in fixed income portfolios. Asset allocators should remain overweight stocks versus bonds. Growth is strong and the yield curve is not inverted yet. Therefore, it is still early to de-risk portfolios. Is Economic Surprise Peaking? The Citigroup (Citi) Economic Surprise Index is elevated relative to its recent history, but it may have further to run. Economic prospects were cheery following the 2016 presidential election and the economic data exceeded those lofty projections, aided by a warmer than usual winter. However, the temperate conditions borrowed activity from the spring, which was cooler and wetter than normal, and the combination of lofty expectations and seasonal distortions sent the Citi Economic Surprise Index spiraling lower through mid-year 2017. Since its bottom in June 2017 at -78.6%, the index climbed for 135 days before its peak in late December 2017 (Chart 6, panel 1). On average since 2010, the Citi Index moved from trough-to-peak in 96 days, which means the recent run-up was much longer than usual. However, that phenomenon may have been due to the raised economic expectations and variable weather patterns at the start of 2017. Chart 6Economic Surprise Index Has Surged, But Expectations Remain Muted At 80.7%, the Index has been above zero for 68 days (Chart 6, panel 1). It typically takes 46 days for it to climb from zero to its zenith. Table 3 shows the performance of financial markets and other assets after the Index moves from zero to the peak. The most recent episode (October through December 2017) matched historical averages across most asset classes, although the underperformance of small caps versus large ran counter to the past as the Surprise Index climbed from zero. Table 3Risk Assets Perform Well As Surprise Index Climbs Since 2010, the Index has stayed above 40 for an average of 51 days (Chart 6, panel 1). The Index has been over 40 since November 16, 2017, or 35 days. This suggests that it can remain elevated for another month or so before it again moves lower. However, the Index is mean reverting and investors wonder what will happen to risk assets after economic surprise rolls over. Table 4 and Chart 7 shows the performance of key financial markets and commodities when the Citi Index returned to zero from 40-plus. There have been six such intervals since 2010. On average, gold and oil perform well as the surprise index dips to zero. Stocks and credit outperform Treasuries during these episodes, and small caps beat large caps. Rising economic surprise (Table 3) is a more favorable environment for stocks, credit and oil than when the surprise index is rolling over. However, the performance of gold and small caps is better after the Citi Surprise Index peaks (Table 4). Table 4Risk Assets Hold Up When Citi Surprise Index Rolls Over Chart 7U.S. Assets As Economic Surprise Rolls Over Nonetheless, muted economic expectations will limit the downside in the Index in the coming months. Panel 3 of Chart 6 shows that the outlook for both hard and soft economic data remained muted through the end of November 2017, especially when compared with the significant improvement in economic prospects in late 2016 and early 2017. Bottom Line: Risk assets outperformed as the Citi Economic Surprise Index climbed in the second half of 2017. The Index can stay near recent peaks for several more months thanks to subdued economic forecasts, but it will roll over eventually. However, the elevated level of the Index suggests that there are near-term risks for equities and credit because a lot of good economic news is already priced in. Still, we recommend that investors ride out the volatility given our view that stocks will outperform bonds in the next 6-12 months. John Canally, CFA, Senior Vice President U.S. Investment Strategy johnc@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Research's U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report "The Bucket List", published December 18, 2017. Available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 2 https://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/fomcminutes20171213.htm 3 https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/notes/feds-notes/the-fomc-meeting-minutes-an-update-of-counting-words-20170803.htm

GAA DM Equity Country Allocation Model Update The GAA DM Equity Country Allocation model is updated as of December 31, 2017. The model's allocation to Australia has proven to be quite volatile as evidenced by the large increase to Australia this month to 7% from 1.7% in last month. As a result, the other commodity country, Canada, is now back to underweight from neutral last month. There are no significant large adjustments in other countries, as shown in Table 1. Table 1Model Allocation Vs. Benchmark Weights As shown in Table 2 and Chart 1, Chart 2 and Chart 3, the overall model underperformed its benchmark by 80 bps in December as the model was underweight the U.K. versus EMU, yet the U.K. was the best performer in the month while EMU underperformed. Since going live in January 2016, the overall model has outperformed the benchmark by 47 bps, largely from the allocation among the 11 non-U.S. countries, which has outperformed its benchmark by 265 bps. The Level 1 model outperformed the MSCI World benchmark by 19 bps. Table 2Performance (Total Returns In USD) Chart 1GAA DM Model Vs. MSCI World Chart 2GAA U.S. Vs. Non U.S. Model (Level1) Chart 3GAA Non U.S. Model (Level 2) Please see also on the website http://gaa.bcaresearch.com/trades/allocation_performance. For more details on the models, please see the January 29, 2016 Special Report, "Global Equity Allocation: Introducing the Developed Markets Country Allocation Model." http://gaa.bcaresearch.com/articles/view_report/18850. Please note that the overall country and sector recommendations published in our Monthly Portfolio Update and Quarterly Portfolio Outlook use the results of these quantitative models as one input, but do not stick slavishly to them. We believe that models are a useful check, but structural changes and unquantifiable factors need to be considered too in making overall recommendations. GAA Equity Sector Selection Model The GAA Equity Sector Selection Model (Chart 4) is updated as of January 2, 2018. Chart 4Overall Model Performance Table 3Allocations Table 4Performance Since Going Live The model has turned more bullish on global growth as seen by a 2% increase in aggregate cyclical overweight. However, the model continues to reduce its overweight in the resources-based sectors, and has upgraded financials to overweight on the back of improving momentum. Finally, both utilities and telecom stocks have been moved further into underweight territory. For more details on the model, please see the Special Report "Introducing The GAA Equity Sector Selection Model," July 27, 2016 available at https://gaa.bcaresearch.com.

Highlights Global bourses celebrated solid earnings growth and the passage of U.S. tax cuts heading into year-end. The direct effect of the tax cuts will likely boost U.S. real GDP growth in 2018 by 0.2 to 0.3 percentage points. It could be more, depending on the impact on animal spirits in the business sector and any fresh infrastructure spending. The good news on global growth continue to roll in. Real GDP growth is accelerating in the major advanced economies, driven in part by a surge in capital spending. Nonetheless, record low volatility and a flat yield curve in the U.S. highlight our major theme for 2018; policy is on a collision course with risk assets because output gaps are closing and monetary policy is moving away from "pedal to the metal" stimulus. We expect inflation to finally begin moving higher in the U.S. and some of the other advanced economies. This will challenge the consensus view that "inflation is dead forever", and that central banks will respond quickly to any turbulence in financial markets with an easier policy stance. The S&P 500 would suffer only a 3-5% correction if the VIX were to simply mean-revert. But the pain would likely be more intense if there is a complete unwinding of 'low-vol' trading strategies. We will be watching inflation expectations and our S&P Scorecard for signs to de-risk. Government yield curves should bear steepen, before flattening again later in 2018. Stay below benchmark in duration for now and favor bonds in Japan, Italy, the U.K. and Australia versus the U.S. and Canada (currency hedged). Interest rate differentials in the first half of the year should modestly benefit the U.S. dollar versus the other major currencies. Investors should remain exposed to oil and related assets, and bet on rising inflation expectations in the major bond markets. The intensity of forthcoming Chinese reforms will have to be monitored carefully for signs they have reached an economic 'pain threshold'. We do not view China as a risk to DM risk assets, but even a soft landing scenario could be painful for base metals and the EM complex. Bitcoin is not a systemic threat to global financial markets. Feature Chart I-1Policy Collision Course? Global bourses celebrated solid earnings growth and the passage of U.S. tax cuts heading into year-end. Ominously, though, a flatter U.S. yield curve and extraordinarily low measures of volatility hover like dark clouds over the equity bull market (Chart I-1). The flatter curve could be a sign that the Fed is at risk of tightening too far, which seems incompatible with depressed asset market volatility. This combination underscores the major theme of the BCA Outlook 2018 that was sent to clients in November; policy is on a collision course with risk assets because output gaps are closing and monetary policy is moving away from "pedal to the metal" stimulus. Analysts are debating how much of the decline in volatility is due to technical factors and how much can be pinned on the macro backdrop. For us, they are two sides of the same coin. Betting that volatility will remain depressed has reportedly become a yield play, via technical trading strategies and ETFs. Trading models encourage more risk taking as volatility declines, such that lower volatility enters a self-reinforcing feedback loop. The danger is that this virtuous circle turns vicious. On the macro front, many investors appear to believe that the structure of the advanced economies has changed in a fundamental and permanent way. Deflationary forces, such as Uber, Amazon and robotics are so strong that inflation cannot rise even if labor becomes very scarce. If true, this implies that central banks will proceed slowly in tightening, and that the peak in rates is not far away. Moreover, below-target inflation allows central banks to respond to any economic weakness or unwanted tightening in financial conditions by adopting a more accommodative policy stance. In other words, investors appear to believe in the "Fed Put". Implied volatility is a mean-reverting series. It can remain at depressed levels for extended periods, especially when global growth is robust and synchronized. Nonetheless, we believe that the "outdated Phillips curve" and the "Fed Put" consensus views will be challenged later in 2018, leading to an unwinding of low-vol yield plays. For now, though, it is too early to scale back on risk assets. Global Growth Shifts Up A Gear... The good news on global growth continue to roll in. Easy financial conditions and the end of fiscal austerity provide a supportive growth backdrop. A measure of fiscal thrust for the G20 advanced economies shifted from a headwind to a slight tailwind in 2016 (Chart I-2). Our short-term models for real GDP growth in the major countries continue to rise, in line with extremely elevated purchasing managers' survey data (Chart I-3). The major exception is the U.K., where our GDP growth model is rolling over as the Brexit negotiations take a toll. Chart I-2Fiscal Austerity Is Over Chart I-3GDP Growth Models Are Upbeat Much of the acceleration in our GDP models is driven by the capital spending components. Animal spirits appear to be taking off and it is a theme across most of the advanced economies. G3 capital goods orders pulled back a bit in late 2017, but this is more likely due to noise in the data than to a peak in the capex cycle (Chart I-4). Industrial production, the PMI diffusion index and advanced-economy capital goods imports confirm strong underlying momentum in investment spending. Chart I-4Capital Spending Helping To Drive Growth In the U.S., tax cuts will give business outlays and overall U.S. GDP growth a modest lift in 2018. The House and Senate hammered out a compromise on tax cuts that is similar to the original Senate version. The new legislation will cut individual taxes by about $680 billion over ten years, trim small business taxes by just under $400 billion, and reduce corporate taxes by roughly the same amount (including the offsetting tax on currently untaxed foreign profits). The direct effect of the tax cuts will likely boost U.S. real GDP growth in 2018 by 0.2 to 0.3 percentage points. However, much depends on the ability that the tax changes and immediate capital expensing to further lift animal spirits in the business sector and bring forward investment spending. Any infrastructure program would also augment the fiscal stimulus. The total impact is difficult to estimate given the lack of details, but it is clearly growth-positive. ...But The U.S. Yield Curve Flattens... Bond investors are unimpressed so far with the upbeat global economic data. It appears that long-term yields are almost impervious as long as inflation is stuck at low levels. In the U.S., a rising 2-year yield and a range-trading 10-year yield have resulted in a substantial flattening of the 2/10 yield slope (although some of the flattening has unwound as we go to press). Investors view a flattening yield curve with trepidation because it smells of a Fed policy mistake. It appears that the bond market is discounting that the Fed can only deliver another few rate hikes before the economy starts to struggle, at which point inflation will still be below target according to market expectations. We would not be as dismissive of an inverted yield curve as Fed Chair Yellen was during her December press conference. There are indeed reasons for the curve to be structurally flatter today than in the past, suggesting that it will invert more easily. Nonetheless, the fact that the yield curve has called all of the last seven recessions is impressive (with one false positive). The good news is that, in the seven episodes in which the curve correctly called a recession, the signal was confirmed by warning signs from our Global Leading Economic Indicator and our monetary conditions index. At the moment, these confirming indicators are not even flashing yellow.1 Our fixed-income strategists believe that the curve is more likely to steepen than invert over the next six months. If inflation edges higher as we expect, then long-term yields will finally break out to the upside and the curve will steepen until the Fed's tightening cycle is further advanced. If we are wrong and inflation remains stuck near current levels or declines, then the FOMC will have to revise the 'dot plot' lower and the curve will bull-steepen. In other words, we do not think the FOMC will make a policy mistake by sticking to the dot plot if inflation remains quiescent. Rising inflation is a larger risk for stocks and bonds than a policy mistake. A clear uptrend in inflation would shake investors' confidence in the "Fed Put" and thereby trigger an unwinding of the low-vol investment strategies. A sharp selloff at the long end of the curve in the major markets would send a chill through the investment world because it would suggest that the Phillips curve is not dead, and that central banks might have fallen behind the curve. ...As Inflation Languishes For now there is little evidence of building inflation pressure in either the CPI or the Fed's preferred measure, the core PCE price index. The latter edged up a little in October to 1.4% year-over-year, but the November core CPI rate slipped slightly to 1.7%. For perspective, core CPI inflation of 2.4-2.5% is consistent with the Fed's 2% target for the core PCE index. The Fed has made no progress in returning inflation to target since the FOMC started the tightening cycle. A risk to our view is that the expected inflation upturn takes longer to materialize. The annual core CPI inflation rate fell from 2.3 in January 2017 to 1.7 in November, a total decline of 0.55 percentage points. The drop was mostly accounted for by negative contributions from rent of shelter (-0.31), medical care services (-0.13) and wireless telephone services (-0.1). These categories are not closely related to the amount of slack in the economy, and thus might continue to depress the headline inflation rate in the coming months even as the labor market tightens further. Recent regulatory changes, for example, suggest that there is more downside potential in health care services inflation. We have highlighted in past research that it is not unusual for inflation to respond to a tight labor market with an extended lag, especially at the end of extremely long expansion phases. Chart I-5 updates the four indicators that heralded inflection points in inflation at the end of the 1980s and 1990s. All four leading inflation indicators are on the rise, as is the New York Fed's Underlying Inflation Indicator (not shown). Importantly, economic slack is disappearing at the global level. The OECD as a group will be operating above potential in 2018 for the first time since the Great Recession (Chart I-6). Finally, oil prices have further upside potential. Higher energy prices will add to headline inflation and boost inflation expectations in the U.S. and the other major economies. Chart I-5U.S. Inflation: Indicators Point Up Chart I-6Vanishing Economic Slack The bottom line is that we are sticking with the view that U.S. inflation will grind higher in the coming months, allowing the FOMC to deliver the three rate hikes implied by the 'dot plot' for 2018. In December, the FOMC revised up its economic growth forecast to 2.5% in 2018, up from 2.1%. The projections for 2019 and 2020 were also revised higher. Growth is seen remaining above the 1.8% trend rate for the next three years. The FOMC expects that the jobless rate will dip to 3.9% in 2018 and 2019, before ticking up to 4.0% in 2020. With the estimate for long-run unemployment unchanged at 4.6%, this means that the labor market is expected to shift even further into 'excess demand' territory. If anything, these forecasts look too conservative. It is unreasonable to expect the unemployment rate to stabilize in 2019 and tick up in 2020 if the economy is growing above-trend. This forecast highlights the risk that the FOMC will suddenly feel 'behind the curve' if inflation re-bounds more quickly than expected, at a time when the labor market is so deep in 'excess demand' territory. The consensus among investors would also be caught off guard in this scenario, resulting in a rise in bond volatility from rock-bottom levels. How Vulnerable Are Stocks? How large a correction in risk assets should we expect? One way to gauge this risk is to estimate the historical 'beta' of risk asset prices to mean-reversions in the VIX. The VIX is currently a long way below its median. Major spikes to well above the median are associated with recessions and/or financial crises. However, as a starting point, we are interested in the downside potential for risk asset prices if the VIX simply moves back to the median. Table I-1 presents data corresponding to periods since 1990 when the VIX mean-reverted from a low level over a short period of time. We chose periods in which the VIX surged at least to its median level (17.2) from a starting point that was below 13. The choice of 13 as the lower threshold is arbitrary, but this level filters out insignificant noise in the data and still provides a reasonable number of episodes to analyze.2 Table I-1Episodes Of VIX 'Mean Reversion' The episodes are presented in ascending order with respect to the starting point for the 12-month forward P/E ratio. This was done to see whether the valuation starting point matters for the size of the equity correction. The "VIX Beta" column shows the ratio of the percent decline in the S&P 500 to the change in the VIX. The average beta over the 15 episodes suggests that stocks fall by almost a half of a percent for every one percent increase in the VIX. Today, the VIX would have to rise by about 7½% to reach the median value, implying that the S&P 500 would correct by roughly 3½%. Investment- and speculative-grade corporate bonds would underperform Treasurys by 22 and 46 basis points, respectively, in this scenario. Interestingly, the equity market reaction to a given jump in the VIX does not appear to intensify when stocks are expensive heading into the shock. The implication is that a shock that simply returns the VIX to "normal" would not be devastating for risk assets. The shock would have to be worse. Chart I-7Market Reaction To 1994 Fed Shock The episodes of VIX "mean reversion" shown in Table I-1 are a mixture of those caused by financial crises and by monetary tightening (and sometimes both). The U.S. 1994 bond market blood bath is a good example of a pure monetary policy shock. It was partly responsible for the "tequila crisis", but that did not occur until late that year. Chart I-7 highlights that the U.S. equity market reacted more violently to Fed rate hikes in 1994 than the average VIX beta would suggest. The VIX jumped by about 14% early in the year, coinciding with a 9% correction in the S&P 500. Investors had misread the Fed's intension in late 1993, expecting little in the way of rate hikes over the subsequent year. A dramatic re-rating of the Fed outlook caused a violent bond selloff that unnerved equity investors. We are not expecting a replay of the 1994 bond market turmoil because the Fed is far more transparent today. Nonetheless, the equity correction could be quite painful to the extent that the VIX overshoots the median as the large volume of low-volatility trades are unwound. A 10% equity correction in the U.S. this year would not be a surprise given the late stage of the bull market and current market positioning. Yield Curves To Bear Steepen Upward pressure on inflation, bond yields and volatility will not only come from the U.S. We expect inflation to edge higher in the Eurozone, Canada, and even Japan, given tight labor markets and diminished levels of global spare capacity. The European economy has been a star performer this year and this should continue through 2018. Even the periphery countries are participating. The key driving factors include the end of the fiscal squeeze in the periphery and the recapitalization of troubled banks. The latter has opened the door to bank lending, the weakness of which has been a major growth headwind in this expansion. Taken at face value, recent survey data are consistent with about 3% GDP growth (Chart I-3). We would dis-count that a bit, but even continued 2.0-2.5% GDP growth in the euro area would compare well to the 1% potential growth rate. This means that the output gap is shrinking and the labor market will continue tightening. Despite impressive economic momentum, the ECB is sticking to the policy path it laid out in October. Starting in January, asset purchases will continue at a reduced rate of €30bn per month until September 2018 or beyond. Meanwhile, interest rates will remain steady "for an extended period of time, and well past the horizon of the net asset purchases." If asset purchases come to an end next September, then the first rate hike may not come until 2019 Q1 at the earliest. Thus, rate hikes are a long way off, but the deceleration of growth in the Eurozone monetary base will likely place upward pressure on the long end of the bund curve (shown inverted in Chart I-8). Chart I-8ECB Tapering Will Be Bond-Bearish Canada is another economy with ultra-low interest rates and rapidly diminishing labor market slack. The Bank of Canada will be forced to follow the Fed in hiking rates in the coming quarters. In Japan, strong PMI and capital goods orders are hopeful signs that domestic capital spending is picking up, consistent with our upbeat real GDP model (Chart I-3). Recent data on industrial production and retail sales were weak, but this was likely due to heavy storm activity; we expect those readings to bounce back. Nonetheless, it is still not clear that the Japanese economy has moved away from a complete dependency on the global growth engine. We would like to see stronger wage gains to signal that the economy is finally transitioning to a more self-reinforcing stage. It is hopeful that various measures of core inflation are slightly positive, but this is tentative at best. That said, the BoJ may be forced to alter its current "yield curve control" strategy by modestly lifting the target on longer-term JGB yields later in 2018, in response to pressures from robust growth and rising global bond yields. Thus, the pressure for higher bond yields should rotate away from the U.S. in the latter half of 2018 towards Europe, Canada and possibly Japan. This could eventually see the U.S. dollar head lower, but we still foresee a window in the first half of 2018 in which the dollar will appreciate on the back of widening interest rate differentials. We are less bullish than we were in mid-2017, expecting only about a 5% dollar appreciation. China: Long-Term Gain Or Short-Term Pain? The Chinese cyclical outlook remains a key risk to our upbeat view on risk assets. Significant structural reforms are on the way, now that President Xi has amassed significant political support for his reform agenda. These include deleveraging in the financial sector, a more intense anti-corruption campaign focused on the shadow-banking sector, and an ongoing restructuring in the industrial sector. The reforms will likely be positive for long-term growth, but only to the extent that they are accompanied by economic reforms. This month's Special Report, beginning on page 19, highlights that 2018 will be pivotal for China's long-term investment outlook. In the short term, reforms could be a net negative for growth depending on how deftly the authorities handle the monetary and fiscal policy dials. We witnessed this tension between growth and reform in the early years of President Xi's term, when the drive to curtail excessive credit growth and overcapacity caused an abrupt slowdown in 2015. Managing the tradeoff means that China's economy will evolve in a series of growth mini cycles. China is in the down-phase of a mini cycle at the moment, as highlighted by the Li Keqiang Index (LKI; Chart I-9). The LKI is a good proxy for the business cycle. BCA's China Strategy service recently combined the data with the best leading properties for the LKI into a single indicator.3 This indicator suggests that the LKI will end up retracing about 50% of its late 2015 to early 2017 rise before the current slowdown is complete. The good news is that broad money growth, which is a part of the LKI leading indicator, has re-accelerated in recent months. This suggests that the current economic slowdown phase will not be protracted, consistent with our 'soft landing' view. The intensity of forthcoming reforms will have to be monitored carefully for signs they have reached an economic pain threshold. We will be watching our LKI leading indicator and a basket of relevant equity sectors for warning signs. We do not view China as a risk to DM risk assets, but even a soft landing scenario could be painful for base metals and the EM complex (Chart I-10). Chart I-9China: Where Is The Bottom? Chart I-10Metals At Risk Of China Soft Landing Equity Country Allocation For now we continue to recommend overweight positions in stocks versus bonds and cash within balanced portfolios. We also still prefer Japanese stocks to the U.S., reflecting our expectation for rising bond yields in the latter and an earnings outlook that favors the former. Chart I-11 updates our earnings-per-share growth forecast for the U.S., Japan and the Eurozone. We expect U.S. EPS growth to decelerate more quickly in 2018 than in Japan, since the U.S. is further ahead in the earning cycle and is more exposed to wage and margin pressure. European earnings growth will also be solid in 2018, but this year's euro appreciation will be a headwind for Q4 2017 and Q1 2018 earnings. European and Japanese stocks are also a little on the cheap side versus the U.S., although not by enough to justify overweight positions on valuation grounds alone. We have extended our valuation work to a broader range of countries, shown in Chart I-12. All are expressed relative to the U.S. market. These metric exclude the Financials sector, and adjust for both differing sector weights and structural shifts in relative valuation. Mexico is the only one that is more than one standard deviation cheap relative to the U.S. Nonetheless, our EM team is reluctant to recommend this market given uncertainty regarding the NAFTA negotiations. Russia is not as cheap, but is in the early stages of recovery. Our EM team is overweight. Chart I-11Top-Down EPS Projection Chart I-12Valuation Ranking Of Nonfinancial Equity Markets Relative To The U.S. A Note On Bitcoin Finally, we have received a lot of client questions regarding bitcoin. The incredible surge in the price of the cryptocurrency dwarfs previous asset price bubbles by a wide margin (Chart I-13). As is usually the case with bubble, supporters argue that "this time is different." We doubt it. Chart I-13Bitcoin Bubble Dwarfs All The Rest BCA's Technology Sector Strategy weighed into this debate in a recent Special Report.4 In theory, blockchain technology, including cyber currencies, can be used as a highly secure, low cost, means of transfer value from one person to the next without an intermediary. However, the report highlights that bitcoin is highly subject to fraud and manipulation because it is unregulated. Liquidity and accurate market quotes are questionable on the "fly by night" exchanges. Its use as a medium of exchange is very limited, and governments are bound to regulate it because cryptocurrencies are a tool for money laundering, tax evasion and other criminal activities. Another fact to keep in mind is that, although the supply of new bitcoins is restricted, the creation of other cryptocurrencies is unlimited. Would the bursting of the bitcoin bubble represent a risk to the economy? The market cap of all cryptocurrencies is estimated to be roughly US$400 billion (US$250 billion for bitcoin alone). This is tiny compared to global GDP or the market cap of the main asset classes such as stocks and bonds. The amount of leverage associated with bitcoin is unknown, but it is hard to see that it would be large enough to generate a significant wealth effect on spending and/or a marked impact on overall credit conditions. The links to other financial markets appear limited. Investment Conclusions Our recommended asset allocation is "steady as she goes" as we move into 2018. The policy and corporate earnings backdrop will remain supportive of risk assets at least for the first half of the year. In the U.S., the recently passed tax reform package will boost after-tax corporate cash flows by roughly 3-5%. Cyclical stocks should outperform defensives in the near term. Nonetheless, we expect 2018 to be a transition year. Stretched valuations and extremely low volatility imply that risk assets are vulnerable to the consensus macro view that central banks will not be able to reach their inflation targets even in the long term. The consensus could be in for a rude awakening. We expect equity markets to begin discounting the next U.S. recession sometime in early 2019, but markets will be vulnerable in 2018 to a bond bear phase and escalating uncertainty regarding the economic outlook. If risk assets have indeed entered the late innings, then we must watch closely for signs to de-risk. One item to watch is the 10-year U.S. CPI swap rate; a shift above 2.3% would be consistent with the Fed's 2% target for the PCE measure of inflation. This would be a signal that the FOMC will have to step-up the pace of rate hikes and aggressively slow economic growth. We will also use our S&P Scorecard Indicator to help time the exit from our overweight equity position (Chart I-14). The Scorecard is based on seven indicators that have a good track record of heralding equity bear markets.5 These include measures of monetary conditions, financial conditions, value, momentum, and economic activity. The more of these indicators in "bullish" territory, the higher the score. Currently, four of the indicators are flashing a bullish signal (financial conditions, U.S. unemployment claims, ISM new orders minus inventories, and momentum). We demonstrated in previous research that a Scorecard reading of three or above was historically associated with positive equity total returns in the subsequent months. A drop below three this year would signal the time to de-risk. Our thoughts on the risks facing equities carry over to the corporate bonds space. Our Global Fixed Income Strategy service notes that uncertainty about future growth has the potential to increase interest rate volatility that can also push corporate credit spreads wider (Chart I-15).6 Elevated leverage in the corporate sector adds to the risk of a re-rating of implied volatility. For now, however, investors should continue to favor corporate bonds relative to governments for the (albeit modest) yield pickup. Chart I-14Watch Our Scorecard To Time The Exit Chart I-15Higher Uncertainty & ##br##Vol To Hit Corporate Bonds Overall bond portfolio duration should be kept short of benchmark. We may recommend taking profits and switching to benchmark duration after global yields have increased and are beginning to negatively affect risk assets. While yields are rising, investors should favor bonds in Japan, Italy, the U.K. and Australia within fixed-income portfolios (on a currency-hedged basis). Underweight the U.S. and Canada. German and French bonds should be close to benchmark. Yield curves should steepen, before flattening later in the year. Interest rate differentials in the first half of the year should modestly benefit the U.S. dollar versus the other major currencies. Finally, investors should remain exposed to oil and related assets, and bet on rising inflation expectations in the major bond markets. Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst December 28, 2017 Next Report: January 25, 2018 1 Please see BCA Global ETF Strategy service, "A Guide to Spotting And Weathering Bear Markets," August 16, 2017, available at etf.bcaresearch.com 2 Note that we are not saying that a rise in the VIX "causes" stocks to correct. Rather, we are assuming that a shock occurs that causes stocks to correct and the VIX to rise simultaneously. 3 Please see China Investment Strategy Special Report, "The Data Lab: Testing The Predictability Of China's Business Cycle," November 30, 2017, available at cis.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see BCA Technology Sector Strategy Special Report, "Cyber Currencies: Actual Currencies Or Just Speculative Assets?" December 12, 2017, available at tech.bcaresearch.com 5 Market Timing: Holy Grail Or Fool's Gold? The Bank Credit Analyst, May 26, 2016. 6 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy service, "Our Model Bond Portfolio Allocation In 2018: A Tail Of Two Halves," December 19, 2017, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com II. A Long View Of China 2018 is a pivotal year for China, as it will set the trajectory for President Xi Jinping's second term ... and he may not step down in 2022. Poverty, inequality, and middle-class angst are structural and persistent threats to China's political stability. The new wave of the anti-corruption campaign is part of Xi's attempt to improve governance and mitigate political risks. Yet without institutional checks and balances, Xi's governance agenda will fail. Without pro-market reforms, investors will face a China that is both more authoritarian and less productive. Hearts rectified, persons were cultivated; persons cultivated, families were regulated; families regulated, states were rightly governed; states rightly governed, the whole world was made tranquil and happy. - Confucius, The Great Learning Comparisons of modern Chinese politics with Confucian notions of political order have become cliché. Nevertheless, there is a distinctly Confucian element to Chinese President Xi Jinping's strategy. Xi's sweeping anti-corruption campaign, which will enter "phase two" in 2018, is essentially an attempt to rectify the hearts and regulate the families of Communist Party officials and civil servants. The same could be said for his use of censorship and strict ideological controls to ensure that the general public remains in line with the regime. Yet Xi is also using positive measures - like pollution curbs, social welfare, and other reforms - to win over hearts and minds. His purpose is ultimately the preservation of the Chinese state - namely, the prevention of a Soviet-style collapse. Only if the regime is stable at home can Xi hope to enhance the state's international security and erode American hegemony in East Asia. This would, from Beijing's vantage, make the whole world more tranquil and happy. Thus, for investors seeking a better understanding of China in the long run, it is necessary to look at what is happening to its governance as well as to its macroeconomic fundamentals and foreign relations.1 China's greatest vulnerability over the long run is its political system. Because Xi Jinping's willingness to relinquish power is now uncertain, his governance and reform agenda in his second term will have an outsized impact on China's long-run investment outlook. The Danger From Within From 1978-2008, the Communist Party's legitimacy rested on its ability to deliver rising incomes. Since the Great Recession, however, China has entered a "New Normal" of declining potential GDP growth as the society ages and productivity growth converges toward the emerging market average (Chart II-1). In this context, Chinese policymakers are deathly afraid of getting caught in the "middle income trap," a loose concept used to explain why some middle-income economies get bogged down in slower growth rates that prevent them from reaching high-income status (Chart II-2).2 Chart II-1The New Normal Chart II-2Will China Get Caught In The Middle-Income Trap? Such a negative economic outcome would likely prompt a wave of popular discontent, which, in turn, could eventually jeopardize Communist Party rule. The quid pro quo between the Chinese government and its population is that the former delivers rising incomes in exchange for the latter's compliance with authoritarian rule. The party is not blind to the fate of other authoritarian states whose growth trajectory stalled. The threat of popular unrest in China may seem remote today. The Communist Party is rallying around its leader, Xi Jinping; the economy rebounded from the turmoil of 2015 and its cyclical slowdown in recent months is so far benign; consumer sentiment is extremely buoyant; and the global economic backdrop is bright (Chart II-3). Yet these positive political and economic developments are cyclical, whereas the underlying political risks are structural and persistent. China has made massive gains in lifting its population out of poverty, but it is still home to 559 million people, around 40% of the population, living on less than $6 per day, the living standard of Uzbekistan. It will be harder to continue improving these workers' quality of life as trend growth slows and the prospects for export-oriented manufacturing dry up. This is why the Xi administration has recently renewed its attention to poverty alleviation. The government is on target in lifting rural incomes, but behind target in lifting urban incomes, and urban-dwellers are now the majority of the nation (Chart II-4). The plight of China's 200-250 million urban migrants, in particular, poses the risk of social discontent. Chart II-3China's Slowdown So Far Benign Chart II-4Urban Income Targets At Risk Moreover, while China knows how to alleviate poverty, it has less experiencing coping with the greatest threat to the regime: the rapid growth of the middle class, with its high expectations, demands for meritocracy and social mobility, and potential for unrest if those expectations are spoiled (Chart II-5). Democracy is not necessarily a condition for reaching high-income status, but all of Asia's high-income countries are democracies. A higher level of wealth encourages household autonomy vis-à-vis the state. Today, China has reached the $8,000 GDP per capita range that often accompanies the overthrow of authoritarian regimes.3 The Chinese are above the level of income at which the Taiwanese replaced their military dictatorship in 1987; China's poorest provinces are now above South Korea's level in that same year, when it too cast off the yoke of authoritarianism (Chart II-6). Chart II-5The Communist Party's Greatest Challenge Chart II-6China's Development Beyond Point At Which Taiwan And Korea Overthrew Dictatorship This is not an argument for democracy in China. We are agnostic about whether China will become democratic in our lifetime. We are making a far more humble point: that political risk will mount as wealth is accumulated by the country's growing middle class. Several emerging markets - including Thailand, Malaysia, Turkey and Brazil - have witnessed substantial political tumult after their middle class reached half of the population and stalled (Chart II-7). China is approaching this point and will eventually face similar challenges. Chart II-7Middle Class Growth Troubles Other EMs The comparison reveals that an inflection point exists for a society where the country's political establishment faces difficulties in negotiating the growing demands of a wealthier population. As political scientists have shown empirically, the very norms of society evolve as wealth erodes the pull of Malthusian and traditional cultural variables.4 Political transformation can follow this process, often quite unexpectedly and radically.5 Clearly the Chinese public shows no sign of large-scale, revolutionary sentiment at the moment. And political opposition does not necessarily result in regime change. Nevertheless, it is empirically false that the Chinese people are naturally opposed to democracy or representative government. After all, Sun Yat Sen founded a Republic of China in 1912, well before many western democratic transformations! And more to the point, the best survey evidence shows that the Chinese are culturally most similar to their East Asian neighbors (as well as, surprisingly, the Baltic and eastern European states): this is not a neighborhood that inherently eschews democracy. Remarkably, recent surveys suggest that China's millennial generation, while not wildly enthusiastic about democracy, is nevertheless more enthusiastic than its peers in the western world's liberal democracies (Chart II-8)! Chart II-8Chinese People Not Less Fond Of Democracy Than Others China is also home to one of the most reliable predictors of political change: inequality. China's economic boom is coincident with the rise of extreme inequalities in income, wealth, region, and social status. True, judging by average household wealth, everyone appears to be a winner; but the average is misleading because it is pulled upward by very high net worth individuals - and China has created 528 billionaires in the past decade alone. A better measure is the mean-to-median wealth ratio, as it demonstrates the gap that opens up between the average and the typical household. As Chart II-9 demonstrates, China is witnessing a sharp increase in inequality relative to its neighbors and peers. More standard measures of inequality, such as the Gini coefficient, also show very high readings in China. And this trend has combined with social immobility: China has a very high degree of generational earnings elasticity, which is a measure of the responsiveness of one's income to one's parent's income. If elasticity is high, then social outcomes are largely predetermined by family and social mobility is low. On this measure, China is an extreme outlier - comparable to the U.S. and the U.K., which, while very different economies, have suffered recent political shocks as a result of this very predicament (Chart II-10). Chart II-9Inequality: A Severe Problem In China Chart II-10China An Outlier In Inequality And Social Immobility "China does not have voters" unlike the U.S. and U.K., is the instant reply. Yet that statement entails that China has no pressure valve for releasing pent-up frustrations. Any political shock may be more, not less, destabilizing. In the U.S. and the U.K., voters could release their frustrations by electing an anti-establishment president or abrogating a trade relationship with Europe. In China, the only option may be to demand an "exit" from the political system altogether. Note that there is already substantial evidence of social unrest in China over the past decade. From 2003 to 2007, China faced a worrisome increase in "mass incidents," at which point the National Bureau of Statistics stopped keeping track. The longer data on "public incidents" suggests that the level of unrest remains elevated, despite improvements under the Xi administration (Chart II-11). Broader measures tell a similar story of a country facing severe tensions under the surface. For instance, China's public security spending outstrips its national defense spending (Chart II-12). Chart II-11Chinese Social Unrest Is Real Chart II-12China Spends More On ##br##Domestic Security Than Defense In essence, Chinese political risk is understated. This conclusion may seem counterintuitive, given Xi's remarkable consolidation of power. But is ultimately structural factors, not individual leaders, that will carry the day. The Communist Party is in a good position now, but its leaders are all-too-aware of the volcanic frustrations that could be unleashed should they fail to deliver the "China Dream." This is why so much depends upon Xi's policy agenda in the second half of his term. To that question we will now turn. Bottom Line: The Communist Party is at a cyclical high point of above-trend economic growth and political consolidation under a strongman leader. However, political risk is understated: poverty, inequality, and middle-class angst are structural and persistent and the long-term potential growth rate is slowing. If we assume that China is not unique in its historical trajectory, then we can conclude that it is approaching one of the most politically volatile periods in its development. Chart II-13Xi's Anti-Corruption Campaign The Governance And Reform Agenda Since coming to office in 2012-13, President Xi has spearheaded an extraordinary anti-corruption campaign and purge of the Communist Party (Chart II-13). The campaign has understandably drawn comparisons to Chairman Mao Zedong's Cultural Revolution (1966-76). Yet these are not entirely fair, as Xi has tried to improve governance as well as eradicate his enemies. As Xi prepares for his "re-election" in March 2018, he has declared that he will expand the anti-corruption campaign further in his second term in office: details are scant, but the gist is that the campaign will branch out from the ruling party to the entire state bureaucracy, on a permanent basis, in the form of a new National Supervision Commission.6 There are three ways in which this agenda could prove positive for China's long-term outlook. First, the regime clearly hopes to convince the public that it is addressing the most burning social grievances. Corruption persistently ranks at the top of the list, insofar as public opinion can be known (Chart II-14). Public opinion is hard to measure, but it is clear that consumer sentiment is soaring in the wake of the October party congress (see Chart II-3 above). It is also worth noting that the Chinese public's optimism perked up in Xi's first year in office, when the policy agenda on offer was substantially the same and the economy had just experienced a sharp drop in growth rates (Chart II-15). Reassuring the public over corruption will improve trust in the regime. Second, the anti-corruption campaign feeds into Xi's broader economic reform agenda. Productivity growth is harder to generate as a country's industrialization process matures. With the bulk of the big increases in labor, capital, and land supply now complete in China, the need to improve total factor productivity becomes more pressing (Chart II-16). Unlike the early stages of growth, this requires reaching the hard-to-get economic conditions, such as property rights, human capital, financial deepening, entrepreneurship, innovation, education, technology, and social welfare. Chart II-14Chinese Public Grievances Chart II-15Anti-Corruption Is Popular Chart II-16Productivity Requires Institutional Change On this count, the Xi administration's anti-corruption campaign has been a net positive. The most widely accepted corruption indicators suggest that it has made a notable improvement to the country's governance. Yet the country remains far below its competitors in the absolute rankings, notably its most similar neighbor Taiwan (Chart II-17 A&B). The institutionalization of the campaign could thus further improve the institutional framework and business environment. Chart II-17AAnti-Corruption Campaign Is A Plus... Chart II-17B...But There's A Long Way To Go Third, the anti-corruption campaign can serve as a central government tool in enforcing other economic reforms. Pro-productivity reforms are harder to execute in the context of slowing growth because political resistance increases among established actors fighting to preserve their existing advantages. If the ruling party is to break through these vested interests, it needs a powerful set of tools. Recently, the central government in Beijing has been able to implement policy more effectively on the local level by paving the way through corruption probes that remove personnel and sharpen compliance. Case in point: the use of anti-corruption officials this year gave teeth to environmental inspection teams tasked with trimming overcapacity in the industrial sector (Chart II-18). And there are already clear signs that this method will be replicated as financial regulators tackle the shadow banking sector.7 Chart II-18Reforms Cut Steel Capacity, ##br##Reduced Need For Scrap These last examples - financial and environmental regulatory tightening - are policy priorities in 2018. The coercive aspect of the corruption probes should ensure that they are more effective than they would otherwise be. And reining in asset bubbles and reducing pollution are clear long-term positives for the regime. Ideally, then, Xi's anti-corruption campaign will deliver three substantial improvements to China's long-term outlook: greater public trust in the government, higher total factor productivity, and reduced systemic risks. The administration hopes that it can mitigate its governance deficit while improving economic sustainability. In this way it can buy both public support and precious time to continue adjusting to the new normal. The danger is that these policies will combine to increase downside risks to growth in the short term.8 Bottom Line: Xi's anti-corruption campaign is being expanded and institutionalized to cover the entire Chinese administrative state. This is a consequential campaign that will take up a large part of Xi's second term. It is the administration's major attempt to mitigate the socio-political challenges that await China as it rises up the income ladder. Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely? The problem, however, is that Xi may merely use the anti-corruption campaign to accrue more power into his hands. As is clear from the above, Xi's governance agenda is far from impartial and professional. The anti-corruption campaign is being used not only to punish corrupt officials but also to achieve various other goals. Xi has even publicly linked the campaign to the downfall of his political rivals.9 In essence, the campaign highlights the core contradiction of the Xi administration: can Xi genuinely improve China's governance by means of the centralization and personalization of power? Chart II-19China's Governance Still Falls Far Behind Over the long haul, the fundamental problem is the absence of checks and balances, i.e. accountability, from Xi's agenda. For instance, the National Supervision Commission will be granted immense powers to investigate and punish malefactors within the state - but who will inspect the inspectors? Xi's other governance reforms suffer the same problem. His attempt to create "rule of law" is lacking the critical ingredients of judicial independence and oversight. The courts are not likely to be able to bring cases against the party, central government, or powerful state-owned firms, and they will not be able to repeal government decisions. Thus, as many commentators have noted, Xi's notion of rule of law is more accurately described as "rule by law": the reformed legal system will in all probability remain an instrument in the hands of the Communist Party. Likewise, Xi's attempt to grant the People's Bank of China greater powers of oversight in order to combat systemic financial risk suffers from the fact that the central bank is not independent, and will remain subordinate to the State Council, and hence to the Politburo Standing Committee. This is not even to mention the lamentable fact that Xi's campaign for better governance has so far coincided with extensive repression of civil society, which does not mesh well with the desire to improve human capital and innovation.10 Thus it is of immense importance whether Xi sets up relatively durable anti-corruption, legal, and financial institutions that will maintain their legitimate functions beyond his term and political purposes. Otherwise, his actions will simply illustrate why China's governance indicators lag so far behind its peers in absolute terms. Corruption perceptions may improve further, but there will be virtually no progress in areas like "voice and accountability," "political stability and absence of violence," "rule of law," and "regulatory quality," each of which touches on the Communist Party's weak spots in various ways (Chart II-19). Analysis of the Communist Party's shifting leadership characteristics reinforces a pessimistic view of the long run if Xi misses his current opportunity.11 The party's top leadership increasingly consists of career politicians from the poor, heavily populated interior provinces - i.e. the home base of the party. Their educational backgrounds are less scientific, i.e. more susceptible to party ideology. (Indeed, Xi Jinping's top young protégé, Chen Miner, is a propaganda chief.) And their work experience largely consists of ruling China's provinces, where they earned their spurs by crushing rebellions and redistributing funds to placate various interest groups (Chart II-20). While one should be careful in drawing conclusions from such general statistics, the contrast with the leadership that oversaw China's boldest reforms in the 1990s is plain. Chart II-20China's Leaders Becoming More 'Communist' Over Time Bottom Line: Xi's reform agenda is contradictory in its attempt to create better governance through centralizing and personalizing power. Unless he creates checks and balances in his reform of China's institutions, he is likely to fall short of long-lasting improvements. The character profiles of China's political elite do not suggest that the party will become more likely to pursue pro-market reforms in Xi's wake. Xi Jinping's Choice Xi is the pivotal player because of his rare consolidation of power, and 2018 is the pivotal year. It is pivotal because it will establish the policy trajectory of Xi's second term - which may or may not extend into additional terms after 2022. So far, the world has gained a few key takeaways from Xi's policy blueprint, which he delivered at the nineteenth National Party Congress on October 18: Xi has consolidated power: He and his faction reign supreme both within the Communist Party and the broader Chinese state; Xi's policy agenda is broadly continuous: Xi's speech built on his administration's stated aims in the first five years as well as the inherited long-term aims of previous administrations; China is coming out of its shell: In the international realm, Xi sees China "moving closer to center stage and making greater contributions to mankind"; The 2022 succession is in doubt: Xi refrained from promoting a successor to the Politburo Standing Committee, the unwritten norm since 1992. Markets have not reacted overly negatively to these developments (Chart II-21), as the latter do not pose an immediate threat to the global rally in risk assets. The reasons are several: Chart II-21Market Not Too Worried About ##br##Party Congress Outcomes Maoism is overrated: While the Communist Party constitution now treats Xi Jinping as the sole peer of the disastrous ruler Mao Zedong, the market does not buy the Maoist rhetoric. Instead, it sees policy continuity, yet with more effective central leadership, which is a plus. Reforms are making gradual progress: Xi is treading carefully, but is still publicly committed to a reform agenda of rebalancing China's economic model toward consumption and services, improving governance and productivity, and maintaining trade openness. Whatever the shortcomings of the first five years, this agenda is at least reformist in intention. China's tactic of "seeking progress while maintaining stability" is certainly more reassuring than "progress at any cost" or "no progress at all"! Trump and Xi are getting along so far: Xi's promises to move China toward center stage threaten to increase geopolitical tensions with the United States in the long run, yet markets are not overly alarmed. China is imposing sanctions on North Korea to help resolve the nuclear missile standoff, negotiating a "Code of Conduct" in the South China Sea, and promoting the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), which will marginally add to global development and growth. Trump is hurling threatening words rather than concrete tariffs. 2022 is a long way away: Markets are unconcerned with Xi's decision not to put a clear successor on the Politburo Standing Committee, even though it implies that Xi will not step down at the end of his term in five years. Investors are implicitly approving Xi's strongman behavior while blissfully ignoring the implication that the peaceful transition of power in China could become less secure. Are investors right to be so sanguine? Cyclically, BCA's China Investment Strategy is overweight Chinese investible equities relative to EM and global stocks. Geopolitical Strategy also recommends that clients follow this view and overweight China relative to EM. Beyond this 6-12 month period, it depends on how Xi uses his political capital. If Xi is serious about governance and economic reform, then long-term investors should tolerate the other political risks, and the volatility of reforms, and overweight China within their EM portfolio. After all, China's two greatest pro-market reformers, Deng Xiaoping and Jiang Zemin, were also heavy-handed authoritarians who crushed domestic dissent, clashed with the United States from time to time, and hesitated to relinquish control to their successors. However, if Xi is not serious, then investors with a long time horizon should downgrade China/EM assets - as not only China but the world will have a serious problem on its hands. For Deng Xiaoping and Jiang Zemin always reaffirmed China's pro-market orientation and desire to integrate into the global economic order. If Xi turns his back on this orientation, while imprisoning his rivals for corruption, concentrating power exclusively in his own person, and contesting U.S. leadership in the Asia Pacific, then the long-run outlook for China and the region should darken rather quickly. Domestic institutions will decay and trade and foreign investment will suffer. How and when will investors know the difference? As mentioned, we think 2018 is critical. Xi is flush with political capital and has a positive global economic backdrop. If he does not frontload serious efforts this year then it will become harder to gain traction as time goes by.12 If he demurs, the Chinese political system will not afford another opportunity like this for years to come. The country will approach the 2020s with additional layers of bureaucracy loyal to Xi, but no significant macro adjustments to its governance or productivity. It is not clear how long China's growth rate is sustainable without pro-productivity reforms. It is also not clear that the world will wait five years before responding to a China that, without a new reform push, will appear unabashedly mercantilist, neo-communist, and revisionist. Bottom Line: The long-run investment outlook for China hinges on Xi Jinping's willingness to use his immense personal authority and concentration of power for the purposes of good governance and market-oriented economic reform. Without concrete progress, investors will have to decide whether they want to invest in a China that is becoming less economically vibrant as well as more authoritarian. We think this would be a bad bet. Matt Gertken Associate Vice President Geopolitical Strategy Marko Papic Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist Geopolitical Strategy 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Taking Stock Of China's Reforms," dated May 13, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Chinese policymakers are expressly concerned about the middle-income trap. Please see the World Bank and China's Development Research Center of the State Council, "China 2030: Building A Modern, Harmonious, And Creative Society," 2013, available at www.worldbank.org. Liu He, who is perhaps Xi Jinping's top economic adviser, had a hand in drafting this report and is now a member of the Politburo and shortlisted to take charge of the newly established Financial Stability and Development Commission at the People's Bank of China. 3 Please see Indermit S. Gill and Homi Kharas, "The Middle-Income Trap Turns Ten," World Bank, Policy Research Working Paper 7403 (August, 2015), available at www.worldbank.org 4 Please see Ronald Inglehart and Christian Welzel, Modernization, Cultural Change and Democracy: the Human Development Sequence (Cambridge: CUP, 2005). 5 For example, the collapse of the Soviet Union and the Arab Spring, as well as the downfall of communist regimes writ large, were completely unanticipated. 6 Specifically, Xi is creating a National Supervision Commission that will group a range of existing anti-graft watchdogs under its roof at the local, provincial, and central levels of administration, while coordinating with the Communist Party's top anti-graft watchdog. More details are likely to be revealed at the March legislative session, but what matters is that the initiative is a significant attempt to institutionalize the anti-corruption campaign. Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "China's Party Congress Ends ... So What?" dated November 1, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 7 China has recently drafted top anti-graft officials, such as Zhou Liang, from the powerful Central Discipline and Inspection Commission and placed them in the China Banking Regulatory Commission, which is in charge of overseeing banks. Authorities have already imposed fines in nearly 3,000 cases in 2017 affecting various kinds of banks, including state-owned banks. On the broader use of anti-corruption teams for economic policy, please see Barry Naughton, "The General Secretary's Extended Reach: Xi Jinping Combines Economics And Politics," China Leadership Monitor 54 (Fall 2017), available at www.hoover.org. 8 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Three Questions For 2018," dated December 13, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 9 Please see Gao Shan et al, "China's President Xi Jinping Hits Out at 'Political Conspiracies' in Keynote Speech," Radio Free Asia, January 3, 2017, available at www.rfa.org 10 Xi has cranked up the state's propaganda organs, censorship of the media, public surveillance, and broader ideological and security controls (including an aggressive push for "cyber-sovereignty") to warn the public that there is no alternative to Communist Party rule. This tendency has raised alarms among civil rights defenders, lawyers, NGOs, and the western world to the effect that China's governance is actually regressing despite nominal improvement in standard indicators. This is the opposite of Confucius's bottom-up notion of order. 11 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "China: Looking Beyond The Party Congress," dated July 19, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 12 Xi faces politically sensitive deadlines in the 2020-22 period: the economic targets in the thirteenth Five Year Plan; the hundredth anniversary of the Communist Party in 2021; and Xi's possible retirement at the twentieth National Party Congress in 2022. At that point he will need to focus on demonstrating the Communist Party's all-around excellence and make careful preparations either to step down or cling to power. III. Indicators And Reference Charts Global equity indexes remained on a tear heading into year-end on the back of robust earnings growth in the major countries and U.S. tax cuts. There are some dark clouds hanging over this rally, as discussed in the Overview section. The technicals are stretched, but none of our fundamental indicators are warning of a market top. Implied equity volatility is very low, which can be interpreted in a contrary fashion. Investor sentiment is frothy and our Speculation Indicator is very elevated. Moreover, our equity valuation indicator has finally reached one standard deviation, which is our threshold of overvaluation. Valuation does not tell us anything about timing, but it does highlight the downside risks. Our monetary indicator also deteriorated a little more in December, although not by enough on its own to justify downgrading risk assets. On a positive note, earnings surprises and the net revisions ratio are not sending any warning signs for profit growth (although net revisions have edged lower recently). Moreover, our new Revealed Preference Indicator (RPI) continued on its bullish equity signal in November for the fifth consecutive month. The RPI combines the idea of market momentum with valuation and policy measures. It provides a powerful bullish signal if positive market momentum lines up with constructive signals from the policy and valuation measures. Conversely, if constructive market momentum is not supported by valuation and policy, investors should lean against the market trend. Our Willingness-to-Pay (WTP) indicators are also bullish on stocks in the U.S., Europe and Japan. These indicators track flows, and thus provide information on what investors are actually doing, as opposed to sentiment indexes that track how investors are feeling. The small dip in the Japanese WTP in December is a little worrying, but we need to see more weakness to confirm that flows no longer favor Japanese equities. In contrast, Europe's WTP rose sharply in December, suggesting that investors are allocating more to their European equity holdings. We are overweight both Europe and (especially) Japan relative to the U.S. (currency hedged). U.S. Treasury valuation is still very close to neutral, even following December's backup in yields. There is plenty of upside potential for yields before they hit "inexpensive" territory. Similarly, our technical bond indicator suggests that technical factors will not be headwind to a further bond selloff in 2018. Little has change for the dollar. The technicals are neutral. Value is expensive based on PPP, but less so by other valuation metrics. We see modest upside for the greenback in 2018. EQUITIES: Chart III-1U.S. Equity Indicators Chart III-2Willingness To Pay For Risk Chart III-3U.S. Equity Sentiment Indicators Chart III-4Revealed Preference Indicator Chart III-5U.S. Stock Market Valuation Chart III-6U.S. Earnings Chart III-7Global Stock Market And ##br##Earnings: Relative Performance Chart III-8Global Stock Market And ##br##Earnings: Relative Performance FIXED INCOME: Chart II-9U.S. Treasurys And Valuations Chart II-10U.S. Treasury Indicators Chart II-11Selected U.S. Bond Yields Chart II-1210-Year Treasury Yield ComponentsChart II-13U.S. Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor Chart II-14Global Bonds: Developed Markets Chart II-15Global Bonds: Emerging Markets CURRENCIES: Chart II-16U.S. Dollar And PPP Chart II-17U.S. Dollar And Indicator Chart II-18U.S. Dollar Fundamentals Chart II-19Japanese Yen Technicals Chart II-20Euro Technicals Chart II-21Euro/Yen Technicals Chart II-22Euro/Pound Technicals COMMODITIES: Chart II-23Broad Commodity Indicators Chart II-24Commodity Prices Chart II-25Commodity Prices Chart II-26Commodity Sentiment Chart II-27Speculative Positioning ECONOMY: Chart II-28U.S. And Global Macro Backdrop Chart II-29U.S. Macro Snapshot Chart II-30U.S. Growth Outlook Chart II-31U.S. Cyclical Spending Chart II-32U.S. Labor Market Chart II-33U.S. Consumption Chart II-34U.S. Housing Chart II-35U.S. Debt And Deleveraging Chart II-36U.S. Financial Conditions Chart II-37Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Chart II-38Global Economic Snapshot: China

Highlights 2018 Model Bond Portfolio Positioning: Translating our 2018 key global fixed income views into recommended positioning within our model bond portfolio comes up with the following: target a moderate level of portfolio risk, with below-benchmark duration and overweights on corporate credit versus government debt. These allocations will shift later in the year as central banks shift to a more restrictive monetary policy stance and growth expectations for 2018 become more uncertain. Country Allocations: Divergences in likely central bank policy moves in 2018 will lead to more cross-country bond market investment opportunities. In our model portfolio, we are maintaining underweight positions in the U.S., Canada and the Euro Area, keeping a moderate overweight in low-beta Japan, and adding small overweights in the U.K. and Australia (where rate hikes are unlikely). Spread Product: Slower bond buying by central banks will result in a more volatile bond backdrop later in 2018, which will impact credit spreads. Stay overweight in the first half of the year, however, until higher inflation forces the hand of central banks. Feature Two weeks ago, we published our "Key Views" report, outlining the main fixed income investment implications deriving from the 2018 BCA Outlook.1 In this, our final report of 2017, we translate those Key Views into direct allocations in the Global Fixed Income Strategy (GFIS) model bond portfolio. As we always remind our clients, our model portfolio is intended as a vehicle to communicate our opinions on the relative attractiveness and trade-offs between fixed income countries and sectors. That is to say, the portfolio not only includes our traditional individual country and sector recommendations, but attaches actual weightings to those views within a fully invested hypothetical bond portfolio. The main takeaway from our Key Views is that bond market performance, and ideal asset allocation, is likely to look very different as the year progresses (Table 1). The first half of the year will see continued strong global growth and slowly rising inflation, but with central banks only slowing shifting to a less accommodative policy stance. This will create an environment where global bond yields will rise but with credit markets outperforming government bonds. The story will play out differently in the latter half, however, as worries over global growth expectations for 2018 will create more market volatility - albeit with lower cross-asset correlations as central banks act in a less-coordinated fashion than in recent years. Table 1A Pro-Risk Recommended Portfolio In H1/2018, Looking To Get Defensive Later In The Year Top-Down Bond Portfolio Implications Of Our Key Views The main predictions for 2018 in our Key Views report from December 5th were the following: A more bearish backdrop for bonds, led by the U.S.: Faster global growth, with rebounding inflation expectations, will trigger tighter overall global monetary policy. This will be led by Fed rate hikes and, later in 2018, ECB tapering. Global bond yields will rise in response, primarily due to higher inflation expectations. Growth & policy divergences will create cross-market bond investment opportunities: Global growth in 2018 will become less synchronized compared to 2016 & 2017, as will individual country monetary policies. Government bonds in the U.S. and Canada, where rate hikes will happen, will underperform, while bonds in the U.K. and Australia, where rates will likely be held steady, will outperform. The most dovish central banks will be forced to turn less dovish: The ECB and BoJ will both slow the pace of their asset purchases in 2018, in response to strong domestic economies and rising inflation. This will lead to bear-steepening of yield curves in Europe, mostly in the latter half of 2018. The BoJ could raise its target on JGB yields, but only modestly, in response to an overall higher level of global bond yields. The low market volatility backdrop will end through higher bond volatility: Incremental tightening by central banks, in response to faster inflation, will raise the volatility of global interest rates. This will eventually weigh on global growth expectations over the course of 2018, and create a more volatile backdrop for risk assets in the latter half of the year. The first step in translating these themes into allocations into our model bond portfolio is to determining the ideal top-down asset allocation parameters for the start of the 2018: Maintain a moderate overall level of portfolio risk. Both bond yields (Chart 1) and credit spreads (Chart 2) are at the low end of their historical ranges since 2000. This suggests that bond market returns will be much lower than in recent years, simply because initial valuations are not cheap. Coming at a time when bond volatility is also at historically depressed levels, and with central banks starting to slowly take away the monetary punch bowl, keeping overall portfolio risk at modest levels is prudent. Within the GFIS model bond portfolio, that means keeping our tracking error versus our custom benchmark performance index well below our maximum target level of 100bps (Chart 3). Chart 1Historical Range Of Bond Yields For Various Fixed Income Markets, 2000-2017 Chart 2Historical Range Of Global Credit Spreads, 2000-2017 Maintain a below-benchmark overall portfolio duration. The combination of solid global growth, rising inflation and a slower pace of bond buying by the major central banks all suggest that bond yields will move higher in 2018. We will continue to target a recommended portfolio duration that is one year short versus our benchmark index (Chart 4). Chart 3Maintain Moderate Overall Portfolio Risk Chart 4Stay Cautious On Duration Risk Maintain an overweight stance on corporate credit over government bonds, focusing on the U.S. Although spreads are tight in so many asset classes, the global growth and monetary backdrop remains supportive for the outperformance of credit over government bonds. We recommended focusing on U.S. corporate credit, both Investment Grade (IG) and High-Yield (HY), where growth momentum remains solid and Fed policy is not yet restrictive. After setting those broad portfolio parameters, our recommendations get more interesting in terms of country allocations. Bond yields within the developed markets have become highly correlated to inflation expectations in the past few years (Chart 5). This is no surprise given how strongly central banks have tied their monetary policy decisions to their own inflation forecasts, and to market-based and survey-based inflation expectations. Inflation is likely to move higher next year alongside tight global labor markets and higher oil prices. If the bullish views on oil from BCA's commodity strategists comes to fruition, this implies that both market-based inflation expectations can rise and yield curves can bear-steepen. The key to the latter will be how fast central banks respond to faster rates of inflation. Yield curve steepness remains highly correlated to the level of REAL interest rates. Curves steepen when real interest rates decline and vice versa. Lower real rates can happen in two ways - bullishly, if central banks cut policy rates faster than inflation is falling; or bearishly, if central banks do not hike rates as fast as inflation is rising. We see the latter as being the likely story in 2018, which will lead to steeper government bond yield curves but through higher yields and rising inflation expectations. In Chart 6, where we plot the level of real central bank policy rates (deflated by 10-year CPI swaps as a measure of inflation expectations) vs. the 2-year/10-year bond yield curves. If global inflation expectations merely follow the path implied by our bullish oil forecast (Brent crude average $65/bbl in 2018), and central banks did not respond with rate hikes, then this would generate lower real interest rates (the "x" in each panel of the chart) and steepening pressure on yield curves. Chart 5Bond Yields In 2018 Will Be Driven More##BR##By Inflation Expectations Chart 6Steepening Pressure On Yield Curves##BR##From Inflation In 2018 We don't see all central banks responding the same way to an oil-driven move higher in inflation. Lower unemployment rates, and other measures of diminished economic slack, will be needed to give policymakers confidence that their economies can tolerate higher interest rates. Judging central banks along these lines will create more interesting country bond allocation decisions in 2018 (Chart 7). Specifically, we see a greater likelihood that the Fed and Bank of Canada (BoC) can actually raise interest rates next year. It will be much harder for the Bank of England (BoE) to raise rates given sluggish domestic economic growth, lingering Brexit uncertainty and the fact that market-based inflation expectations have already peaked. The Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) will also be unable to hike rates next year given the lack of core inflation pressures and with an unemployment rate that is still much higher than previous cyclical troughs. This leads us to add moderate portfolio overweights in the U.K. and Australia to the government bond portion of our model bond portfolio, while maintaining our current underweight stances for the U.S. and Canada (Chart 8). The ECB and Bank of Japan (BoJ) will be nowhere near a point where interest rate hikes would be considered, although the decisions those banks make with their asset purchase programs will be a bigger issue for their bond markets in 2018. Chart 7Tight Labor Markets Will##BR##Influence Bond Returns Chart 8Monetary Policy Divergences##BR##Will Drive Country Allocation Bottom Line: Translating our 2018 key global fixed income views into recommended positioning within our model bond portfolio comes up with the following: target a moderate level of portfolio risk, with below-benchmark duration and overweights on corporate credit versus government debt. These allocations will shift later in the year as central banks shift to a more restrictive monetary policy stance and growth expectations for 2018 become more uncertain. The Asset Allocation Implications Of Slower Central Bank Asset Purchases The big risk factor for global bonds in 2018 will be how markets respond to less buying from the Fed, ECB and BoJ. As the growth rate of the expansion of the major balance sheets slows, bond yields have the potential to rise through two channels: higher term premia on longer maturity bonds and the market pulling forward the expected future path of interest rates. This will become a major issue for Euro Area bond markets in the 2nd half of 2018, as the ECB will be forced by strong domestic growth and rising inflation pressures to announce a full taper of its asset purchase program by the end of 2018. This will come on top of a slower pace of buying by the BoJ (who is now targeting a price target on bond yields rather than a quantity target), and the Fed allowing some run off of its massive balance sheet. The result is that the growth rate of the major developed market central bank balance sheets is likely to slow to a low single-digit pace in 2018 (Chart 9), creating upside potential for global yields. The case for significant underweights in Euro Area fixed income will be much stronger later next year when the ECB will be forced to prepare the market for a taper. But in the first half of 2018, the impact of the ECB's purchases will continue to dampen Euro Area bond yields. At the same time, Japanese yields will remain pegged near 0% by BoJ buying. In terms of our model bond portfolio, we are maintaining an overweight stance on low-beta Japan given our views on rising global bond yields, while keeping aggregate Euro Area bond weightings close to neutral (and looking to go more aggressively underweight later in the year as the ECB taper talk ramps up). Bond markets that are less propped up by ultra-accommodative central banks will create a more volatile market backdrop for global fixed income as the year progresses. That is hardly a provocative statement, of course, given the starting point of utterly low realized bond market volatility (Chart 10). As discussed earlier, our views for 2018 lead us to recommend a more moderate portfolio risk level in 2018. The potential for higher central-bank driven market volatility fits with that expectation. Chart 9Global Yields Will Rise As##BR##Central Banks Buy Fewer Bonds Chart 10The Low Bond Vol Regime##BR##Looks Stretched A slower pace of central bank bond buying also has another implication for portfolio construction. With the wave of central bank liquidity becoming a less dominant factor, cross-asset correlations should diminish. We can see that by looking at the average correlation between sectors within our model bond portfolio benchmark index (Chart 11). We have found that the correlation is itself highly correlated to the breadth of global economic growth, as measured by our leading economic indicator diffusion index (top panel). But the average correlation is also linked to the growth rate of central bank balance sheets (bottom panel), which is a by-product of massive asset purchases reducing global macroeconomic risks and forcing investors to plow into similar asset classes to chase acceptable returns. Slightly less coordinated global growth, and less active central banks, should result in lower market correlations in 2018. At the same time, as central banks shift to a less accommodative stance - especially in the U.S. - the uncertainty about future growth has the potential to increase interest rate volatility that can also push corporate credit spreads wider (Chart 12). This will likely lead us to cut our recommended overweight allocations to U.S. IG and HY corporate debt in our model portfolio later in 2018. To begin the year, however, we are keeping an overweight stance until the Fed is forced to signal a shift to a more hawkish stance because of rising U.S. inflation. Chart 11Expect Lower Global Bond##BR##Correlations In 2018 Chart 12The Link Between U.S. Growth,##BR##Bond Vol & Credit Spreads Bottom Line: Slower bond buying by central banks will result in a more volatile bond backdrop later in 2018, which will impact credit spreads. Stay overweight in the first half of the year, however, until higher inflation forces the hand of central banks. Summing It All Up Chart 13Aiming For Moderate Carry##BR##In Our Model Portfolio On Page 12, we show our model bond portfolio allocations after making some changes to reflect our key views for 2018. We are doing some tweaks to our existing recommendations: modestly increasing our overweight U.S. IG corporates allocation at the expense of U.S. Treasuries; reducing our underweight in the Euro Area by reducing the large Italy underweight; adding exposure to the U.K. and Australia; while cutting our large overweight in Japan. The latter was there as a desire to get more defensive on the portfolio's duration stance, but having such a large allocation has left our portfolio with no yield advantage versus the custom benchmark index (Chart 13). With the changes we are making this week, the model bond portfolio will have a yield that is 12bps over that of our custom index. Robert Robis, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "2018 Key Views: BCA's Outlook & What It Means For Global Fixed Income Markets", dated December 5th 2017, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Highlights Portfolio Strategy The easy money has already been made in the liquidity-to-growth theme-levered long S&P energy/short global gold miners pair trade. Lock in profits and move to the sidelines, for now. Similarly, book gains in the long S&P materials/short S&P utilities market-neutral trade. A stealthy macro shift, at the margin, suggests that a more challenging phase lies ahead for this relative share price ratio. Recent Changes Book 18.3% profits in the long S&P energy/short global gold miners pair trade today. Take profits in excess of 8.6% in the long materials/short utilities pair trade today. Table 1 Feature Equities continued to defy gravity last week, vaulting to fresh all-time highs. Seasonality (or the pending Santa rally) appears to have trumped any "buy on rumor sell the tax news" jitters, at a time when macro data continue to surprise to the upside. Heading into 2018, easier fiscal policy will likely offset some of the uneasiness of the Fed's ongoing tightening cycle as we postulated in early October.1 Synchronized global economic and capex growth remain the key macro themes that dominate markets. The latest GDP revisions in the G3 confirm our global capex upcycle bias: U.S., euro area and, especially, Japanese gross fixed capital formation are on fire (Chart 1). Importantly, once the tax bill related dust settles, profits will come back to the forefront as a key stock market driver. In that regard, the news on the EPS front is ebullient and, along with the forward multiple, all that matters. Table 2 shows annual SPX returns going back to 1979, and breaks down the composition of the capital (not total) return into two components: forward earnings growth and the forward P/E multiple (January 1979 is the first IBES data point for forward EPS SPX estimates). Chart 1Synchronized Global Capex Table 2Disentangling SPX Returns Currently, sell side analysts expect 11% EPS growth for 2018, and our sense is that 8-12% EPS growth is achievable next year, a message that our SPX EPS macro model corroborates (Chart 2). Keep in mind that there is no tax cut penciled into our EPS model's numbers. Chart 2SPX EPS Macro Model Flashing Green What is interesting from the multiple/EPS analysis is that over the last four decades when forward profit growth was in this high single-digit / low double-digit range (ten iterations), the multiple expanded modestly (on average, adding 2.6 percentage points to the market's return) and EPS did the heavy lifting (explaining, on average, roughly 80% of the S&P 500's 12.9% average annual return, Table 3). If we consider periods when EPS growth was positive but below 8% (eleven iterations), SPX returns are close to 10%, on average, with EPS and the multiple contributing almost equally to the market's return. One caveat is that two recessionary years and the dot com bust are part of this segment skewing the results to the downside (Table 3).2 Table 3Disentangling SPX Returns Continued Nevertheless, if history at least rhymes, were EPS growth to stay positive next year and hit the 8-12% mark, then a profit driven low double-digit broad equity market return is likely. If profits disappoint and grow between 0-8%, barring recession, empirical evidence suggests that equity returns will still prove healthy. Adding it up, the path of least resistance is higher for equities on a cyclical 9-12 month horizon. Granted, since Brexit the SPX has rallied in a near straight line up and a healthy and temporary pause for breath is likely in Q1/2018. As a result, this week we are booking impressive gains in two tactical market-neutral trades we initiated in late-August and mildly de-risking our portfolio. Lock In Profits In The Long Energy/Short Gold Producers Trade In late-August we initiated a liquidity-to-growth handoff levered market-neutral trade: long S&P energy/short global gold miners. Over the past four months this trade is up 18.3%. It also sports a positive annual dividend carry of 200bps. With the equity market overshoot phase likely going on hiatus sometime in early 2018 is it still prudent to hold this high-octane intra-commodity and market-neutral trade? The short answer is no. Nothing in terms of macro data has changed to trip up this pair trade. If anything, the handoff of global liquidity to economic growth has gained steam in the past few months. Global GDP, IP, manufacturing PMIs, global trade (Chart 3) and gross capital formation are all growing simultaneously across all of the G7 and most of the EMs. Even China's economy seems to have stabilized. The Fed announced its plans to wind down its balance sheet as expected in September and the BoE and BoC have both tightened monetary policy. Even the ECB announced a halving of the size of its monthly purchases in late-October (but extended it for nine months). All these central bank (CB) moves suggest that, at the margin, the global liquidity injection is reversing, with CBs actually mopping up liquidity. This is de facto negative for the shiny metal and gold mining equities as interest rates are headed higher (Chart 4). Chart 3Brisk Global Growth... Chart 4...Higher Rates... Moreover, geopolitical uncertainty is steadily receding, especially now that the Senate also passed a tax bill, and a final bill will likely soon be signed into law.3 Historically in times of duress, safe haven assets are bid up and vice versa, and the current low policy uncertainty backdrop is conducive to additional gains in the relative share price ratio (policy uncertainty shown inverted, Chart 5). Meanwhile, on the relative operating front, energy stocks have the upper hand versus gold miners. The oil and gas rig count has resumed its advance and remains 150% clear of the lows hit during the depths of the global manufacturing recession of late-2015/early-2016. Anecdotes of global oil majors comfortably registering positive EPS, in the new era of $50/bbl oil, and reinstating stock buybacks and eliminating scrip dividends (RDS, BP & ENI) suggest that the worst is behind the industry. In contrast, safe haven asset demand is in retreat and will continue to weigh on global gold ETF flows. Anecdotally, the BITCOIN/ICO/cryptocurrency mania may also steal some of bullion's thunder, as this mania is capturing investor's imagination. Either a flare up in global geopolitical risk or a global growth scare could cause investors to start shifting capital into gold ETFs. Our relative EPS models do an excellent job in capturing this energy positive/gold negative backdrop and continue to suggest that energy profits will outpace gold mining EPS (Chart 6). Chart 5...And Diminishing Uncertainty##br## Still Bode Well For The Trade Chart 6But We Do Not Want To##br## Overstay Our Welcome If these different macro and operational forces all emit an unambiguously bullish signal for S&P energy shares compared with global gold miners, why book profits? Our sense is that there are high odds of a pullback in Q1/2018 and from a portfolio management and risk perspective it is prudent to lock in handsome profits in excess of 18.3% in a four month period. There are high odds that most of these key drivers are reflected in relative share prices versus late-August. Relative valuations are pricier today and technicals are also flashing yellow (bottom panel, Chart 4). We deem that the easy money has already been made in this market-neutral trade, despite the still favorable relative macro backdrop. This was a tactical three-to-six month pair trade that has mostly played out and we would not like to overstay our welcome. Were the broad market pullback to occur in the upcoming quarter, and the ratio to trade significantly lower, we would not hesitate to reinstate this pair trade. Our cyclical strategy is to "buy the broad market dip" and remain opportunistic on a tactical basis. Bottom Line: Lock in 18.3% profits in the long S&P energy/short global gold miners pair trade and move to the sidelines for now. Take Profits In Materials Vs. Utilities Similar to booking gains in the liquidity-to-growth levered market-neutral long S&P energy/short global gold miners pair trade, we also recommend taking profits in the reflation levered long S&P materials/short S&P utilities pair trade. Since its late-August inception this market-neutral trade has generated returns in excess of 8.6% and added alpha to our portfolio. While overall macro conditions continue to underpin the relative share price ratio, some cracks are appearing on the surface. Global reflation has matured and synchronized global growth is as good as it gets. The ISM manufacturing and services surveys have ticked down in sympathy recently, warning that the easy gains are behind this market neutral trade (Chart 7). Worrisomely, our relative sector Cyclical Macro Indicators are sniffing out this marginal shift in the macro backdrop and suggest that a more challenging phase lies ahead for the relative share price ratio (Chart 8). BCA's view remains that a sizable selloff in the bond markets is the most likely scenario in 2018. This is one of our key themes for next year, and given that this trade typically moves in lockstep with interest rates, the path of least resistance is higher. Nevertheless, the fact that this ratio has not kept up with the slingshot recovery in the stock-to-bond (S/B) ratio is slightly disconcerting. The top panel of Chart 9 shows that the gap between the S/B and the materials/utilities ratios has widened further since late-August. Chart 7As Good As It Gets? Chart 8Fatigue Signs Chart 9More Balanced Backdrop=Move To The Sidelines On the operating front, our relative EPS models are also showing signs of fatigue. Materials profits cannot expand indefinitely at the breakneck pace observed since the 2016 trough, at a time when utilities EPS have stabilized. Currently, the relative earnings models suggest that materials are on an even keel with utilities (Chart 9). Tack on rising odds of a healthy broad market pullback in Q1/2018, and from a risk management perspective we would rather de-risk the portfolio a notch by locking in near double-digit gains since inception in this volatile pair trade. Bottom Line: Book gains of 8.6% in the long S&P materials/short S&P utilities pair trade. Anastasios Avgeriou, Vice President U.S. Equity Strategy anastasios@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report, "Can Easy Fiscal Offset Tighter Monetary Policy?" dated October 9, 2017, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 2 For reference and completion purposes Table 3 also tabulates the results during EPS contractions (nine iterations) and in profit boom times, i.e. forward EPS growth north of 12% (nine iterations). 3 Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy & Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Tax Cuts Are Here - Equity Sector Implications," dated December 11, 2017, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. Current Recommendations Current Trades Size And Style Views Favor small over large caps and stay neutral growth over value.

Recommended Allocation Highlights We are late cycle. Strong growth could turn in 2018 from a positive for risk assets into a negative. More risk-averse investors may thus want to turn cautious. But the last year of a bull run can be profitable, and we don't expect a recession until late 2019. For now, therefore, our recommendations remain pro-risk and pro-cyclical. We may turn more defensive in 2H 2018 if the Fed tightens above equilibrium. We expect inflation to pick up in 2018, which will lead the Fed to hike maybe four times. This will push long rates to 3%, and strengthen the U.S. dollar. Equities should outperform bonds in this environment. We prefer euro zone and Japanese equities over U.S., and remain underweight EM. Late-cycle sectors such as Financials and Industrials, should do well. We also favor corporate bonds and private equity. Feature Overview Fin de cycle Global economic growth in 2017 was robust for the first time since the Global Financial Crisis (Chart 1). Forecasts for 2018 put growth slightly lower, but are likely to be revised up. However, as the year rolls on, the strong economic momentum may turn from being a positive for risk assets into a negative. U.S. output is now above potential, according to IMF estimates. As Chart 2 shows, historically recessions - and consequently equity bear markets - have usually come within a year or two of the output gap turning positive. With the economy operating above capacity, inflation pressures force the Fed to tighten monetary policy, which eventually causes a slowdown. Chart 1Growth Finally On A Firm Footing Global Growth Has Accelerated Chart 2Recessions Follow Output Gap Closing That is exactly how BCA sees the next couple of years panning out, leading to a recession perhaps in the second half of 2019. U.S. inflation was soft in 2017, but underlying inflation pressures are picking up, with core CPI inflation having bottomed, and small companies saying they are raising prices (Chart 3). Add to that wage pressures (with unemployment heading below 4% in 2018), tax cuts (which might boost growth by 0.2-0.3% points in their first year) and a higher oil price (we expect Brent to average $67 a barrel during the year), and core PCE inflation is likely to rise to 2%, in line with the Fed's expectations. This means the market is too sanguine about the risk of monetary tightening in the U.S. It has priced in less than two rates hikes in 2018, compared to the Fed's three dots, and almost nothing after that (Chart 4). If inflation picks up as we expect, four rate hikes in 2018 could be on the cards. Chart 3Inflation Pressures Picking Up Chart 4Market Still Underpricing Fed Hikes The consequences of this are that bond yields are likely to rise. Despite a significant market repricing since September of Fed behavior, long-term rates have not risen much, leading to a flattening yield curve (Chart 5). The market has essentially priced in that inflation will not rebound and that, consequently, the Fed will be making a policy mistake by hiking further. If, therefore, we are correct that inflation does reach 2%, the yield curve would be likely to steepen over the next six months, with the 10-year U.S. Treasury yield reaching 3% by mid-year. Other developed economies, however, have less urgency to tighten monetary policy and we, therefore, see the U.S. dollar appreciating. The only other major economy with a positive output gap currently is Germany (Chart 6). However, the ECB will continue to set policy for the weaker members of the euro area, and output gaps in France (-1.8% of GDP), Italy (-1.6%) and Spain (-0.7%) remain significantly negative. In the absence of inflation pressures, the ECB won't raise rates until late 2019. Japan, too, continues to struggle to bring inflation up the BOJ's 2% target and the Yield Curve Control policy will therefore stay in place, meaning that a rise in global rates will weaken the yen. Chart 5Is Fed Making A Policy Mistake? Chart 6Still A Lot Of Negative Output Gaps This sort of late-cycle environment is a tricky one for investors. The catalysts for strong performance in equities that we foresaw a few months ago - U.S. tax cuts and upside surprises in earnings - have now largely played out. Global earnings will probably rise next year by around 10-12%, in line with analysts' forecasts. With multiples likely to slip a little as the Fed tightens, high single-digit performance is the best that investors should expect from equities. The macro environment which we expect, would be more negative for bonds than positive for equities. That argues for the stock-to-bond ratio to continue to rise until closer to the next recession (Chart 7). And, for now, none of the recession indicators we have been consistently monitoring over the past months is flashing a warning signal (Chart 8). Chart 7Stock-To-Bond Ratio Likely To Rise Further Chart 8Recession Warning Signals Still Not Flashing More risk-averse investors might chose to reduce their exposure to risk assets now, given how close we are to the end of the cycle. But this would be at the risk of leaving some money on the table, since the last year of a bull run can often be the most profitable (remember 1999?). We, therefore, maintain our recommendation for pro-cyclical and pro-risk tilts: overweight equities versus bonds, overweight credit, overweight higher-beta equity markets and sectors, and a preference towards riskier alternative assets. We may move towards a more defensive stance in mid to late 2018, when we see clearer signs that the Fed has tightened above equilibrium or that the risk of recession is rising. Garry Evans, Senior Vice President Global Asset Allocation garry@bcaresearch.com What Our Clients Are Asking What Will Be The Impact Of The U.S. Tax Cuts? It is not a done deal, but it still seems likely (notwithstanding the Democratic victory in Alabama) that the U.S. House and Senate will agree a joint tax bill to pass before the end of the year. Since the two current bills have only minor differences, it is possible to make some estimates of the macro and sector impacts of the tax reform. The Joint Committee on Taxation estimates that the cuts will reduce government revenue by $1.4 trillion over 10 years - or $1 trillion (5% of GDP) once positive effects on growth are accounted for. The Treasury argues that tax reform (plus deregulation and infrastructure development) will push GDP growth to 2.9% and therefore government revenues will increase by $300 billion. BCA's estimate is that GDP growth will be boosted by 0.2-0.3% in 2018 and 2019.1 For businesses, the key tax changes are: 1) a reduction in the headline corporate rate from 35% to 21%; 2) immediate expensing of capital investment; 3) a limit to deduction of interest expenses to 30% of taxable income; 4) a move to a territorial tax system from a worldwide one, with a 10% tax on repatriation of past profits held overseas; 5) curbs for some deductions, such as R&D, domestic production and tax-loss carry-forwards. Corporate tax cuts will give a one-off boost to earnings, since the effective tax rate is currently over 25% (Chart 9, panel 1), with telecoms, utilities and industrials likely to be the biggest beneficiaries. This is not fully priced into stocks, since companies with high tax rates have seen their stock prices rise only moderately (Chart 9, panel 2). BCA's sector strategists expect that capex will especially be boosted: they estimate that the one-year depreciation increases net present value by 14% (Table 1).2 This should be positive for the Industrials sector (supplying the capital goods) and for Financials (which will see increased demand for loans). We are overweight both. Chart 9Tax Cuts Should Boost Earnings Table 1 Is Bitcoin A Bubble, And What Happens When It Bursts? The recent surge in prices (Chart 10) of virtual currencies has pushed Bitcoin and aggregate cryptocurrency market cap to $275 billion and $500 billion respectively. The recent violent run-up certainly bears a close resemblance to classic bubbles, but the impact of a sharp correction should be minimal on the real economy and traditional capital markets. As mentioned above, the market cap of cryptocurrencies has reached $500 billion. Globally, there is about $6 trillion in currency3 outstanding, so the value of virtual currencies is now 8% that of traditional fiat currency. Additionally, an estimated 1000 people own about 40% of the world's total bitcoin, for an average of about $105 million per person. At the moment, the macro impact has been constrained by the fact that most people are buying bitcoins as a store of value (Chart 11) or vehicle for speculation, rather than as a medium of exchange. However, when the public begins to regard them as legitimate substitutes for traditional fiat currencies, their impact will be felt on the real economy. Chart 10A Classic Bubble Chart 11Bitcoin Trading Volume By Top Three Currencies That would raise the issue of regulation. The U.S. government generates close to $70 billion per year as "seigniorage revenue." Governments across the world have no intention of losing this revenue, and would most likely introduce their own competitors to bitcoin. Until then, the biggest potential impact of these private currencies might be to spur inflation in the fiat currencies in which their prices are measured. That would be bad for government bonds, but potentially good for stocks. A further risk - and a similarity with the real estate bubble of 2007 - is the use of leverage. The news of a Tokyo-based exchange (BitFyler) offering up to 15x leverage for the purchase of bitcoins has spooked investors. However, the U.S. housing market is valued at $29.6 trillion, almost 60 times that of cryptocurrencies. Finally, the 19th century free banking era in the U.S., which at one point saw 8000 different currencies in circulation, experienced multiple banking crises. A world with myriad private currencies all competing with one another would be similarly unstable. Why Did The U.S. Dollar Weaken In 2017, And Where Will It Go In 2018? Chart 12Positioning And Relative Rates Supportive For USD We were wrong to be bullish on U.S. dollar at the start of 2017. We think the dollar weakness during most of the year can be attributed to the fact that investors were massively long the dollar at the end of 2016 (Chart 12, panel 2), which made the market particularly vulnerable to surprises. Several surprises did come: inflation softened in the U.S. but strengthened in the euro area. There were also positive geopolitical surprises in Europe - for example the victory of Emmanuel Macron in the French presidential election - while the failure to repeal Obamacare in the U.S. raised investors' concerns on the administration's ability to undertake fiscal stimulus. As a result, the U.S. dollar depreciated against euro despite widening interest rate differentials (Chart 12 panel 4) in 2017. Chart 13late Cycle Outperformance Since investors are now aggressively short the dollar, the hurdle for the greenback to deliver positive surprises is much lower than a year ago. Since the Senate passed the Republican tax bill in early December, we have already seen some recovery in the dollar (Chart 12, panel 1). As the labor market continues to firm, with GDP running above potential, U.S. inflation should finally start to pick up in 2018, which will allow the Fed to hike rates, possibly as many as four times during the year. This will contrast with the macro situation overseas: Japan and Europe are likely to continue loose monetary policy to maintain the momentum in their economies. All this should be supportive of the dollar. Are Convertible Bonds Attractive Over The Next 12 Months? With valuations for traditional assets expensive and investors' thirst for yield continuing, the market is in need of alternative sources of return. Convertible bonds offer a hybrid credit/equity exposure, giving investors the option to participate in rising equity markets but with less risk. An allocation to convertibles could prove attractive for the following reasons: Convertible bonds typically outperform high-yield debt in the late stages of bull markets, because of their relatively lower exposure to credit spreads. Junk spreads have a history of starting to widen before equity bear markets begin. Fifty percent of the convertibles index comprises issuance from small-cap and mid-cap firms. Although equity valuations are expensive, prices should continue to rise as long as inflation stays low. Additionally, our U.S. Investment Strategy service thinks that small-cap equities will outperform large caps in the coming months, partly because the likely cuts in U.S. corporate taxes will disproportionately benefit smaller companies. Convertible bonds do appear somewhat cheap relative to equities (Chart 13, panel 3) but, on balance, there is not a strong valuation case for the asset class. Equities appear fairly valued relative to junk bonds, and convertibles are trading at an elevated investment premium. However, valuation is not likely to be a significant headwind to the typical late-cycle outperformance of convertibles versus high yield. biggest near-term risk for convertibles relative to high yield stems from the technology sector, which makes up 35% of the convertibles index. Technology convertible bonds have strongly outperformed their high-yield counterparts in recent months (Chart 13, panel 4), and are possibly due for a period of underperformance. We recommend investors stay cautious on technology convertibles. Other Than U.S. Tips, What Other Inflation-Linked Bonds Do You Like? Our research shows that inflation-linked bonds (ILBs) are a good inflation hedge in a rising inflationary environment.4 With our house view of rising inflation in 2018, we have been overweight U.S. Tips over nominal Treasury bonds as the U.S. is the most liquid market for inflation-linked bonds, with a market cap of over US$ 1.2 trillion. Outside the U.S., we favor ILBs in Japan and Australia, while we suggest investors to avoid ILBs in the U.K. and Germany (even though the U.K. linkers' market is the second largest after the U.S.), for the following two key reasons: First, even though inflation is below target in Japan, Australia and the euro area, while above target in the U.K., in all of these markets, inflation has bottomed, as shown in Chart 14. Second, our breakeven fair-value models, which are based on trade-weighted currencies, the Brent oil price in local currencies, and stock-to-bond total-return ratios, indicate that ILBs are undervalued in Japan and Australia, while overvalued in the U.K. and Germany, as shown in Chart 15. Chart 14Inflation Dynamics Chart 15Where to Buy Inflation? The shorter duration (in real terms) of ILBs are an added bonus which fits well with our overall underweight duration positioning in the government bond universe. Global Economy Overview: Growth in developed economies remains strong and there is little in the data to suggest it will slow. This is likely to push up inflation and interest rates, especially in the U.S., over the next six to 12 months. Prospects for emerging markets, however, are less encouraging given that China is likely to slow moderately as it pushes ahead with reforms. U.S.: U.S. growth momentum remains very strong. GDP growth in the past two quarters has come in over 3%, and NowCasts for Q4 point to 2.9-3.9%. The Citigroup Economic Surprise Index (Chart 16, panel 1) has surged since June, and the Manufacturing ISM is at 53.9 and the Non-Manufacturing at 57.4 (panel 2). The worst that can be said is that momentum will be unable to continue at this rate but, with business confidence high, wage growth likely to pick up in 2018, and some positive impacts from tax cuts, no significant slowdown is in sight. Euro Area: Given its stronger cyclicality and ties to the global trade cycle, euro zone growth has surprised on the upside even more strongly than in the U.S. The Manufacturing PMI reached 60.6 in December (its highest level since 2000), and GDP growth in Q3 accelerated to 2.6% QoQ annualized. The euro's strength in 2017 seems to have done little to dent growth, and even weaker members of the euro zone such as Italy have seen improving GDP growth (1.7% in Q3). With the ECB reining back monetary easing only slightly, and banking problems shelved for now, growth should remain resilient in early 2018. Japan: Retail sales saw some weakness in October (-0.2% YoY), probably because of bad weather, but elsewhere data looks robust. Q3 GDP came in at 1.3% QoQ annualized and export growth remains strong at 14% YoY. There are even some signs of life in the domestic economy, with wages finally picking up a little (+0.9% YoY), driven by labor shortages among part-time workers, and consumer confidence at a four-year high. Inflation has been slow to rise, but at least core core inflation (the Bank of Japan's favorite measure) is now in positive territory at +0.2%. Emerging Markets: Chinese credit and monetary series, historically good lead indicators for the real economy, continue to decline (M2 growth in October of 8.8% was the lowest since data started in 1996). But, for now, economic growth has held up, with the Manufacturing and Non-Manufacturing PMIs both stably above 50 (Chart 17, panel 3). Key will be how much the government's moves to deleverage the financial system and implement structural reform in 2018 will slow growth. Elsewhere in emerging markets, economic growth remains sluggish, with GDP growth in Brazil barely rebounding to 1.4% YoY, Russia to 1.8%, and India slowing to 6.3% (down from over 9% in early 2016). Chart 16Growth Momentum Very Strong Chart 17Will China And EM Slow in 2018? Interest rates: We expect U.S. inflation to pick up in 2018, as the lagged effects of 2017's stronger growth and the weak dollar start to come through, amid higher oil prices and rising wages. We, along with the Fed, expect core PCE inflation to rise to 2% during the year. This means the Fed is likely to raise rates four times, compared to market expectations of twice. Consequently, we see the 10-year Treasury yield over 3% by mid-year. In the euro zone, the still-large output gap means inflation is less likely to surprise on the upside, allowing the ECB to keep negative rates until well into 2019. The Bank of Japan is unlikely to alter its Yield Curve Control, given the signal this would send to the market when inflation expectations are still well below its 2% target (Chart 17, panel 4). Chart 18Equities: Priced for Perfection Global Equities Still Cautiously Optimistic: Our pro-cyclical equity positioning in 2017 worked very well in terms of country allocation (overweight euro zone and Japan in the DM universe) and global sector allocation (favoring cyclicals vs defensives). The two calls that did not pan out were underweight EM equities vs. DM equities, which was partially offset by our positive stance on China within the EM universe, and the overweight of Energy, which was the worst performing sector of the year. The stellar equity performance in 2017 was largely driven by strong earnings growth. Margins improved in both DM and EM; earnings grew in all sectors, and analysts remained upbeat (Chart 18). Another important contributor to 2017 performance was the extraordinary performance of the Tech sector, especially in China: globally, tech returned 41.9%, outperforming the MSCI all country index by 18.9%. GAA's philosophy is to take risk where it is mostly likely be rewarded. In July, we took profits in our Tech overweight and used the funds to upgrade Financials to overweight from neutral. Then in October we started to reduce tracking risk by scaling down our active country bets, closing our overweight in the U.S. to reduce the underweight in EM. BCA's house view is for synchronized global growth to continue in 2018, but a possible recession in late 2019. We are a little concerned that equity markets are priced for perfection, given that our earnings model indicates a deceleration in the coming months mostly due to a base effect. As such, our combination of "close to shore" country allocation and "pro-cyclical" sector allocation is appropriate for the next 9-12 months. Country Allocation: Still Favor DM Over EM Chart 19China: From Tailwind to Headwind for EM ? Our longstanding call of underweight EM vs. DM since December 2013 was gradually reduced in scale, first in March 2016 (to -5 percentage points from -9) and then in October 2017 (further to -2 points). Going forward, investors should continue to maintain this slight underweight position in EM vs. DM. First, our positive stance on China proved to be timely as shown in Chart 19, panel 4, with China outperforming EM by 54.1% since March 2016, and by 18.8% in 2017. Back then our positive stance on China was supported by attractive valuations (bottom panel) and our view that Chinese politics would be supportive for global growth in the run up to the 19th Party Congress. Now BCA's Geopolitical Strategists think that "China politics are shifting from a tailwind to a headwind for global growth and EM assets".5 In addition, Chinese equities are no longer valued at a discount to the EM average (bottom panel). Second, BCA's currency view is for continued strength in the USD, especially against emerging market currencies. This does not bode well for EM/DM performance in US dollar terms (Chart 19, panel 1). Third, EM money growth leads profit growth by about three months (Chart 19, panel 2). The rolling over in money growth indicates that the currently strong earnings growth may lose steam going forward, while relative valuation is in the fair-value zone (Chart 19, panel 3). Sector Allocation: Stay Overweight Energy Our pro-cyclical sector positioning has worked well in aggregate as the market-cap-weighted cyclical index significantly outperformed the defensive index in 2017. This positioning is also in line with BCA's house view of synchronized global growth and higher inflation expectations, which translates into two major sector themes: capex recovery and rising interest rates. (Please see detailed sector positioning on page 24.) Within the cyclical space, however, the Energy sector did not perform as expected in 2017 (Chart 20). It returned only 3.4%, underperforming the global aggregate by 19.6%. For the next 9-12 months, we recommend investors to stay overweight this underdog of 2017. Chart 20Energy Stocks Lagging Oil Price First, the energy sector is a major beneficiary from a capex recovery. There are already signs of a recovery in basic resources investment in the U.S.6 Second, the energy sector's relative return lagged oil price performance in 2017. Given the generally close correlation between earnings and the oil price, and between analyst earnings revisions and OECD oil inventory growth, earnings in the sector should outpace the broad market. Third, based on price-to-cash earnings, the energy sector is still trading at about a 30% discount to the broad market, and offers a much higher dividend yield (about 1.2 points higher) than the broad market. Even though these discounts are in line with historical averages, they are still supportive of an overweight. Government Bonds Maintain Slight Underweight Duration. One important theme for 2018 will be a resumption of the cyclical uptrend in inflation.7 The implications are that both nominal bond yields and break-even inflation rates will be higher in 2018. We have been underweight duration in government bonds since July 2016. Now with the U.S. 10-year Treasury yield at 2.35%, much lower than its fair value of 2.81%, there is considerable upside risk for global bond yields from current low levels. Investors should continue to underweight duration in global government bonds Maintain Overweight Tips Vs. Treasuries. The base-case forecast from our U.S. bond strategists is that the Tips breakeven rate will rise to 2.4-2.5% as U.S. core PCE reaches the Fed's 2% target, probably sometime in the middle of 2018. Compared to the current level of 1.87%, 10-yr Tips would have upside of 33-38 bps, an important source of return in the low-return fixed-income space (Chart 21, bottom panel). In terms of relative value, Tips are now slightly cheaper than nominal bonds, also supportive of the overweight stance. Underweight Canadian Government Bonds. BCA's Global Fixed Income Strategy has taken profits in their short Canada vs. U.S. and U.K. tactical position, as the market has become too aggressive in pricing in more rate hikes in Canada. Strategically, however, the underweight of Canada (Chart 22) in a hedged global portfolio is still appropriate because: 1) the output gap has closed in Canada, according to Bank of Canada estimates, and so any additional growth will translate into higher inflation; and 2) the rising CAD will not deter the BoC from more rate hikes if the oil prices remain strong. Chart 21U.S. Bond Yields Have Further To Rise Chart 22Strategic Underweight Canadian Bonds Corporate Bonds Our overweights through most of 2017 on spread product worked well: U.S. investment grade (IG) bonds returned around 290 bps over Treasuries in the year to end-November, and high-yield bonds almost 600 bps. Returns over the next 12 months are unlikely to be as attractive. Spreads (Chart 24) are now close to historic lows: the U.S. IG bond spread, at 90 bps, is only about 30 bps above its all-time record. High-yield valuations look a little more attractive: based on our model of probable defaults over the next 12 months, the default-adjusted spread over U.S. Treasuries is likely to be around 240 bps (Chart 25). In both cases, however, investors should expect little further spread contraction, meaning that credit is now no more than a carry trade. However, in an environment where rates remain fairly low and investors continue to stretch for yield, that pick-up will remain attractive in the absence of a significant turn-down in the economic cycle. The key to watch is the shape of the yield curve. An inverted yield curve in history has been an excellent indictor of the end of the credit cycle. We expect the yield curve to steepen somewhat in H1 2018, before flattening again and then inverting late in the year. Spread product is likely, therefore, to produce decent returns until that point. Thereafter, however, the deterioration of U.S. corporate health over the past three years (Chart 23) could mean a sharp sell-off in corporate bonds. This might be exacerbated by the recent popularity of open-ended mutual funds and ETFs: a small widening of spreads could be magnified by a panicked sell-off in such funds. Chart 23Rising Leverage May Worsen Sell-Off Chart 24Credit Spreads Close To Record Lows Chart 25But Default - Adjusted, Junk Still Looks Attractive Commodities Energy: Bullish Energy prices performed strongly in H2 2017, and we expect bullish sentiment to continue. OPEC 2.0 is likely to maintain production discipline, and will maintain its promised 1.8mm b/d production cuts through the end of 2018. Our estimates for global demand growth are higher than those of other forecasters. This, along with potential unplanned production outages in Iraq, Libya and Venezuela (together accounting for 7.4mm b/d of production at present), drives our above-consensus price forecast of $67 a barrel for Brent crude during 2018. Industrial Metals: Neutral Since China accounts for more than 50% of world base-metal consumption, prices will continue to be highly dependent on developments there. (Chart 26, panel 4). Since the government is trying to accelerate environmental and supply-side reforms, domestic production capacity for base metals will shrink, which will be a positive for global metals prices. However, a focus on deleveraging in the financial sector and restructuring certain industries could slow Chinese GDP growth, reducing base-metal demand. Precious Metals: Neutral Gold has risen by 12% in 2017, supported by an uncertain geopolitical environment coupled with low interest rates. We believe that geopolitical uncertainties will persist and may even intensify, and that inflation may rise in the U.S., which would be positives for gold (Chart 26, panel 3). Based on BCA's view that stock market could be at risk from the middle of 2018,8 a moderate gold holding is warranted as a safe-haven asset. However, rising interest rate and a potentially stronger U.S. dollar are likely to limit the upside for gold. Currencies USD: The currency is down over 6% on a trade-weighted basis over the past 12 months (Chart 27). Looking into 2018, the USD is likely to perform well in the first half. U.S. inflation should gather steam in the first two to three quarters, and the Fed will be able at least to follow its dot plot - something interest rate markets are not ready for. As investors remain short the USD, upside risk to U.S. interest rates should result in a higher dollar. Chart 26Bullish Oil, Neutral Metals Chart 27Dollar Likely To Appreciate EM/JPY: Carry trades are a key mechanism for redistributing global liquidity, and they have recently begun to lose steam. A crucial reason for this has been the policy tightening in China which has been the key driver of growth in EM economies. Additionally, Japanese flows have been chasing momentum into EM assets. Further tightening in EM could reverse the flows and initiate a flight to safety, favoring the yen relative to EM currencies. CHF: The currency continues to trade at a 5% premium to its PPP fair value against the euro. However, after considering Switzerland's net international investment position at 130% of GDP, the trade-weighted CHF trades in line with fair value. The CHF will continue to behave as a risk-off currency, and so long as global volatility remains well contained, EUR/CHF will experience appreciating pressure. GBP: Sterling continues to look cheap, trading at an 18% discount to PPP against the USD. However, Brexit remains a key problem. If future immigration is limited, the U.K. will see lower trend growth relative to its neighbors, forcing its equilibrium real neutral rate downward. Consequently, it will be more difficult to finance the current account deficit of 5% of GDP. Until negotiations with the EU come closer to completion, the pound will continue to offer limited reward and plenty of volatility. Alternatives Chart 28Favor Private Equity and Farmland Alternative assets under management (AUM) have reached a record $7.7 trillion in 2017. Lower fees and a broader range of investment types have helped attract more capital. Private equity remains the most popular choice,9 driven by its strong performance and transparency. Many investors have also shifted part of their allocations toward potentially higher-return private debt programs. Return Enhancers: Favor Private Equity Vs. Hedge Funds In 2017 so far, private equity has returned 12.1%, whereas hedge funds have managed only a 5.9% return (Chart 28). We expect private-equity fund-raising to continue into 2018, but with a larger focus on niche strategies with more favorable valuations. Additionally, deploying capital gradually not only provides for vintage-year diversification, but also creates opportunities for investors to benefit from potential market corrections. We continue to favor private equity over hedge funds outside of recessions. During a recession, we recommend investors take shelter in hedge funds with a macro mandate. Inflation Hedges: Favor Direct Real Estate Vs. Commodity Futures In 2017 to date, direct real estate has returned 5.1%, whereas commodity futures are down over 3.7%. Direct real estate as an asset class continues to provide valuable diversification, lower volatility, steady yields and an illiquidity premium. However, a slowdown in U.S. commercial real estate (CRE) has made us more cautious on the overall asset class. With regards to the commodity complex, the long-term transition of the global economy to a more renewables-focused energy base will continue the structural decline in commodity demand. We continue to stress the structural and long-term nature of our negative recommendation on commodities. Volatility Dampeners: Favor Farmland & Timberland Vs. Structured Products In 2017 to date, farmland and timberland have returned 3.2% and 2.1% respectively, whereas structured products are up 3.7%. Farmland continues to outperform timberland. The slow U.S. housing recovery has added downward pressure to timberland returns. Investors can reduce the volatility of a traditional multi-asset portfolio with inclusion of farm and timber assets. For structured products, low spreads in an environment of tightening commercial real estate lending standards and falling CRE loan demand, warrant an underweight. Risks To Our View We think upside and downside risks to our central scenario for 2018 - slowing but robust economic growth, and continuing moderate outperformance of risk assets - are roughly evenly balanced. On the negative side, perhaps the biggest risk is China, where the slowdown already suggested in the monetary data (Chart 29) could be exacerbated if the government pushes ahead aggressively with structural reforms. Geopolitical risks, which the market over-emphasized in 2017, seem under-estimated now.10 U.S. trade policy, Italian elections, and North Korea all have potential to derail markets. Also, when the U.S. yield curve is as flat as it is currently, small risks can be blown up into big sell-offs. This is particularly so given over-stretched valuations for almost all asset classes. Chart 29China Monetary Conditions Suggest A Slowdown Table 2How Will Trump Try To Influence The Fed? The most likely positive surprise could come from a dovish Fed. New Fed chair Jay Powell is something of an unknown quantity, and the White House could use the three remaining Fed vacancies to push the Fed to keep rates low, so as not to offset the positive effect of the tax cuts. Without these new appointees, the Fed would have a slightly more hawkish bias in 2018 (Table 2). The intellectual argument for hiking only slowly would be, as Janet Yellen said last month: "It can be quite dangerous to allow inflation to drift down and not to achieve over time a central bank's inflation target." The Fed has missed its 2% target for five years. It is possible to imagine a situation where the Fed increasingly makes excuses to keep monetary policy easy (encouraged, for example, by a short-lived sell-off in markets or a slowdown in China) and this causes a late-cycle blow-out, similar to 1999. 1 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "When To Get Out," dated December 8, 2017 available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see U.S. Equity Strategy Insight Report, "Tax Cuts Are Here - Sector Implications," dated December 12, 2017, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 3 CBNK Survey: Monetary Base, Currency in Circulation. Source: IMF - International Financial Statistics. 4 Please see Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "Two Virtuous Dollar Circles," dated October 28, 2016, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "China: Party Congress Ends ... So What?" dated November 1, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report, "High-Conviction Calls," dated November 27, 2017, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 7 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst, "Outlook 2018 - Policy And The Markets: On A Collision Course," dated 20 November 2017, available at bca.bcaresearch.com. 8 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst, "Outlook 2018 - Policy And The Markets: On A Collision Course," dated November 20, 2017, available at bca.bcaresearch.com. 9 Source: BNY Mellon - The Race For Assets; Alternative Investments Surge Ahead. 10 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "From Overstated To Understated Risks," dated November 22, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. GAA Asset Allocation

Special Report

Dear Client, I am currently traveling in Europe visiting clients. This week, in lieu of a regular report, I am sending along a research report written by my colleague at BCA Global Asset Allocation. The topic covers one of the more fascinating "alternative" parts of the fixed income universe - catastrophe bonds. I trust that you will find this report insightful and useful. Best regards, Robert Robis, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy Highlights Catastrophe bonds ("cat bonds") have recently been receiving a lot of investor attention because, after this summer's large hurricanes, they are now attractively priced. We explain the mechanics of this market, and analyze cat bonds' historic risk-return characteristics. Cat bonds have historical annualized returns of 7.4%, with volatility of only 3.0%, making them an attractive risk-adjusted investment. However, they are exposed to "cliff risk", creating a return distribution with negative skew and large excess kurtosis. But cat bonds offer interesting portfolio diversification benefits, since financial and economic shocks have minimal impact on cat bond returns. The reinsurance market tends to be cyclical, with premiums rising following a catastrophe and decreasing during a period of calm. Feature Introduction In 1992, Hurricane Andrew caused $17 billion in losses, more than twice the value of the insured property, and forced many insurers into bankruptcy. As the global economy has grown in size since then, the monetary value of insured events has risen steadily. However, increasing regulatory hurdles in the form of higher reserve requirements have led to capacity constraints (Chart 1) in the traditional insurance industry. In 2005, Hurricane Katrina, which caused $108 billion in losses, strengthened the case for the introduction of catastrophe bonds and other insurance-linked securities that helped ease financial burdens in the insurance industry, for several reasons. First, catastrophe bonds give access to the deepest, most liquid, and efficient sources of capital. Second, the securitization of reinsurance capital has created a secondary market where risk exposures can be transferred within the investor community. Third, insurance firms have the ability to move some exposures off their books, thereby allowing them to underwrite larger risks that they would otherwise lack the capacity to cover. According to S&P Global Ratings, the market for cat bonds and other insurance-linked securities is estimated to be about $86 billion. Other insurance-linked securities include industry loss warranties (ILW), collateralized reinsurance contracts, and reinsurance sidecars. Cat bonds are the only insurance-linked securities that publicly trade on a secondary market. The recent increase in natural catastrophes has led to surging supply in the cat bond market. Record issuance in the first and second quarters of 2017 has pushed the size of the outstanding cat bond market to over $30 billion (Chart 2) for the first time. This comes after a period prior to this year with fewer catastrophes and where bond pricing has been stable, which led to increased deal sizes. In this Special Report, we run through the mechanics of the cat bond structure and market. We analyze historical risk-return characteristics (Chart 3) and compare them to other major asset classes. Since insurance-linked securities are known to have very low correlation with other assets, we test their potential diversification benefits within a traditional portfolio. Finally, we analyze their historical performance in periods of financial market stress and rising interest rate environments, which are two of the biggest worries for investors. Our conclusions are that: Chart 1Capacity Constraints Chart 2Record Issuance In 2017 Chart 3Risk-Return Profile The reinsurance market is cyclical, with premiums increasing following a catastrophe and decreasing following a period of calm. Realized volatility in the cat bond market is low. However, returns have a negative skew with an extremely fat-tailed distribution relative to other traditional assets. The addition of cat bonds to a traditional multi-asset portfolio has tremendous diversification benefits. The largest improvement to risk-adjusted returns comes from substituting equities with cat bonds. Financial crises have minimal impact on cat bond returns. However, depending on the magnitude of catastrophe losses, there could be varied regional impacts. Investors can customize the risk-return profile by altering the attachment and exhaustion points, and also by diversifying across trigger types. Mechanics Of Cat Bonds Despite the increasing popularity of cat bonds, their non-conventional structure is understood by only a limited number of investors. A better understanding of the characteristics of this financial instrument makes analyzing risk and return more straightforward. The key features (Chart 4) of a catastrophe bond are as follows. An insurer looking to reduce certain exposures will create a special purpose vehicle (SPV), also known as the issuer, to assist with the transaction. The issuer/SPV sells reinsurance protection to the sponsoring firms and simultaneously issues a cat bond to the investor. The proceeds from the bond sale are managed in a segregated collateral account to generate the floating-rate component of the coupon payable to investors. The fixed component of the coupon is financed through reinsurance premiums paid by the sponsoring firm to the issuer or SPV. Traditionally, cat bonds used a total return swap where a counterparty guaranteed the liquidity and performance of a collateral account. This forced investors and sponsors to rely on the creditworthiness of the swap provider. In 2007, two cat bonds that used Lehman Brothers as a swap counterparty were forced into default because of illiquid collateral assets and mismatched maturities. Nowadays, the assets managed in the collateral account are invested only in U.S. Treasury money market funds or structured notes from the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD). The final settlement of the bond is binary: 1) if no trigger event occurs before the bond maturity, the SPV returns the principal to investors along with the final coupon; 2) if a catastrophe hits and the bond is triggered, the principal in the collateral account is used to settle the claims of the sponsoring firms. Cat bonds are typically used to cover a piece of risk exposure in the sponsor's book. For example, a cat bond could cover indemnities exceeding $1 billion up to $1.2 billion, making the bond issue size equal to $200 million. The $1 billion is called the attachment point, and the $1.2 billion is called the exhaustion point, at which point the principal is exhausted and investors are not liable for any further claims. The tranche with the higher attachment point will be of higher quality, but with a lower rate of return. The reinsurance industry is cyclical, which makes contract pricing more volatile than investors might expect. The Rate on Line (Chart 5) index can be seen as a yield on the insurance contracts underwritten in the industry. Market conditions can be split into two phases: Chart 4Mechanics Of Cat Bonds Chart 5Cyclical Reinsurance Premiums Soft Market: Following many years of limited or minor catastrophes, reinsurance premiums are pressured downward and bond prices rise. In these circumstances, demand for cat bonds will be limited as coupon income will be less attractive. Hard Market: A major catastrophe will significantly erode the capital available in the insurance industry, thereby creating a supply shortage that pushes up reinsurance premiums. In these conditions, cat bond issuance will rise, driven by attractive coupon income. Investors can manage the premium cycle by slightly increasing risk at the portfolio level in a softening market (falling premiums) and reducing risk in hardening market (rising premiums). The recent catastrophes should drive up reinsurance premiums, but the sheer weight of money searching for yields in the current environment might make the uplift surprisingly modest compared to the past. Given that cat bonds have a binary payout feature, investors need to understand the trigger type (Table 1) used in the contract. In the early days, most bonds were issued with an indemnity trigger, but the type of trigger (Chart 6) has become more varied over time. The type of trigger used in the cat bond has the following impacts: If the trigger used in the bond takes longer to settle, the investor can be involved in a long drawn-out legal battle with the sponsoring firm looking to settle claims. This could in turn force the bond beyond maturity and keep investor funds locked up at significantly lower rates of return. Table 1Understanding Trigger Types Chart 6Choosing The Right Trigger Type Investors also need to understand the level of basis risk sponsoring firms are exposed to with different trigger types. In the context of cat bonds, basis risk is when the settlement payout from cat bonds differs from the actual portfolio losses incurred by sponsoring firms. If they have basis risk, investors will have to deal with moral hazard, where sponsoring firms will have incentive to underwrite excessive risks. Historical Risk & Return Investing in catastrophe bonds is essentially a "short gamma" strategy, where investors are selling insurance and collecting premium with the hope of options not being triggered during the maturity of the bond. Attractive historical returns (Table 2) have been the result of lower-than-expected principal write-downs given limited catastrophes. In the early years, cat bonds as an asset class were not fully understood by the broader market, creating a "novelty premium" up until 2010. Subsequently, low interest rates have had a profound impact on all traditional assets, making cat bond yields relatively attractive. Realized volatility has been extremely low since the investor collects regular coupons in the absence of a catastrophe that triggers a payout. This makes risk-adjusted returns very attractive compared to other major assets. However, because of the extreme tail risk, there exists a big negative skew along with high excess kurtosis. Cat bonds are exposed to "cliff risk" - the likelihood that the tranche's notional value will be exhausted once settlement claims reach the attachment point. The two main sources of risk that investors need to be mainly concerned about, however, are: 1) insurance risk that cat bonds assume, and 2) credit risk associated with the collateral account. An attractive feature of cat bonds is that poor performance tends to be self-correcting, as seen in the reinsurance cycle. Following a particularly destructive natural disaster, a number of factors such as increased insurance demand, the reduced capacity of insurance firms, and upward revisions to probability models serve to increase insurance premiums and potential returns to insurance-linked securities. For example, after the 2011 Japanese Tohoku earthquake and tsunami, insurance premiums were pushed up by around 50% for earthquake risk and 20% for other catastrophe risk. The likelihood of incurring negative returns is far lower than the chance of benefitting from positive returns. Cat bonds have achieved positive monthly returns 92% of the time (Table 3). The recent hurricane season in the U.S. was the first time returns turned negative on a 12-month basis. Table 2Historical Risk-Return Analysis (January 2002 - November 2017) Table 3Only Fifteen Months Of Negative Returns Finally, there have been many comparisons between cat bonds and high-yield credit. While high-yield debt performance is tied to market and economic cycles lasting about 10 years, that of cat bonds is tied to low probability catastrophes. Frequency of loss in junk bonds is greater than it is for cat bonds. However, the potential principal loss is greater for cat bonds, because they have almost zero recovery value. Diversification & Portfolio Impact Cat bonds' performance is linked to factors such as natural disasters, longevity risk, or life insurance mortality, and not to broader financial market risks. However, in periods of economic stress, markets experience a flight to quality and correlations between risk assets increase. Therefore, the benefits of portfolio diversification dissolve when they are needed most. This is not the case with cat bonds, however, as correlations with other assets (Table 4) have remained stable over time. This makes them a potentially useful diversification instrument in multi-asset portfolios. Table 4Cross-Asset Correlation (January 2002 - November 2017) To test this, we perform a typical portfolio analysis whereby we add cat bonds to a conventional portfolio and investigate the impact on the return and risk of the portfolio (Chart 7). Starting with the most traditional allocation of 60% equities and 40% bonds, we augment the portfolio with a 10% allocation to cat bonds and come up with the following results: Replacing equities with cat bonds leads to the largest reduction in portfolio volatility, and a small decrease in annualized returns. This new portfolio generates equity-like returns, but with a smaller correlation with stocks. Replacing traditional fixed income with cat bonds leads to a large increase to annualized returns, while the impact on volatility is virtually non-existent. The largest positive impact on risk-adjusted returns occurs when cat bonds replace equities, because the reduction in volatility is substantially greater than the increase in returns when cat bonds replace traditional bonds. We also ranked the MSCI All-Country World equity and Bloomberg Barclays Global Aggregate Bond indices from worst to best monthly returns and then overlaid the corresponding cat bond returns for each ranked month (Chart 8). This technique removes randomness from the time series in order to view the relative randomness of the other. We have the following findings: Cat bonds have had only three months that delivered a return less than -2%. These were -2.1% in September 2005 during Hurricane Katrina, -3.6% in March 2011 during the Tohoku earthquake and tsunami in Japan, and -5.8% in September 2017 after the severe hurricanes in Texas, Florida and the Caribbean. Other than catastrophe-related events, cat bond returns have been stable. Cat bonds displayed no reaction when equities had their most negative months. But they tend to have relatively stronger returns when equities also have positive months. Cat bonds performed well in both good and bad months for traditional fixed income. This shows that causes of traditional bond market losses and cat bond principal loss have little or no bearing on one another. Since cat bonds have a large negative skew and high excess kurtosis, investors can potentially lose all their capital if the bonds are triggered. When allocating to cat bonds, investors need to maintain a well-diversified position in order to minimize the risk of complete capital wipeout. This can be done by carefully picking bonds covering different perils (i.e. earthquakes, wind, extreme mortality), regions and trigger types (Chart 9). As a broader range of perils come to the market, investors will find increasing avenues for diversification within the asset class. Investors can also benefit from very low correlations within the cat bond universe, where returns from cat bonds covering a specific peril have no bearing on returns from cat bonds covering another peril. Chart 7Portfolio Diversification Chart 8Attractive Monthly Returns Chart 9Diversifying Across Perils, Coupon Rate And Expected Loss Financial Market Stress Having established that underlying market developments have no bearing on cat bond performance, we want to address two further important questions: 1) do financial crises affect cat bond returns? 2) do natural catastrophes trigger financial crises? Looking at previous global market crisis scenarios dating back to 2008 (Chart 10), we see that cat bonds had positive absolute returns during all crisis periods. The only period with negative cat bond returns was during the 2008 Lehman Brothers' collapse, when the bank was the swap counterparty for two bonds that defaulted. Large natural catastrophes do not affect broader capital markets, but do tend to have a large local impact. In August 2005, Hurricane Katrina, with damages totaling $108 billion, became the costliest hurricane to date in the U.S. The hurricane triggered a cat bond, and the index was down 2.1%, but there was no noticeable lingering impact on the U.S. economy. On the other hand, the earthquake and tsunami in Tohoku on March 11, 2011 had devastating effects. With damages exceeding $300 billion (approximately 5% of Japanese GDP), the cat bond index dropped 3.6%, and Japanese equities collapsed 7.3%. Moreover, a big earthquake in a major city or region such as Tokyo or California could have the capacity to trigger a global recession. Finally, looking at past major catastrophes (Chart 11), we see that existing cat bond prices do not fully recover to their pre-catastrophe levels. Accordingly, picking up bonds at a discount may not generate the expected return as price levels struggle to fully recover. Chart 10Outperformance Across The Board Chart 11Not A Full Recovery Interest Rate & Inflation Hedge Traditional bonds with fixed coupon payments underperform in a rising rate environment. Since cat bonds receive a floating-rate coupon along with the fixed premium, they are largely immune to rising rates. When central banks hike rates, the principal of the bonds invested in money market assets will produce a higher return, thereby offering investors a powerful shield against possible inflation, as well. Since the total coupon received by investors includes a fixed and floating component, cat bonds have a lower modified duration relative to similar maturity traditional bonds. Conclusion Despite their abnormal return distributions, we recommend investors allocate capital from their "alternatives" bucket toward cat bonds. Against a backdrop of low yields and investor complacency, cat bonds are highly attractive given their potential for consistently robust returns and, perhaps most importantly, tremendous diversification benefits. Still, allocations should be relatively small given the illiquid nature of the cat bond market, and diversification among bonds and issuers is critical due to the potential for large losses in the event that a cat bond is triggered. Aditya Kurian, Research Analyst Global Asset Allocation adityak@bcaresearch.com

Special Report

Highlights Catastrophe bonds ("cat bonds") have recently been receiving a lot of investor attention because, after this summer's large hurricanes, they are now attractively priced. We explain the mechanics of this market, and analyze cat bonds' historic risk-return characteristics. Cat bonds have historical annualized returns of 7.4%, with volatility of only 3.0%, making them an attractive risk-adjusted investment. However, they are exposed to "cliff risk", creating a return distribution with negative skew and large excess kurtosis. But cat bonds offer interesting portfolio diversification benefits, since financial and economic shocks have minimal impact on cat bond returns. The reinsurance market tends to be cyclical, with premiums rising following a catastrophe and decreasing during a period of calm. Feature Introduction In 1992, Hurricane Andrew caused $17 billion in losses, more than twice the value of the insured property, and forced many insurers into bankruptcy. As the global economy has grown in size since then, the monetary value of insured events has risen steadily. However, increasing regulatory hurdles in the form of higher reserve requirements have led to capacity constraints (Chart 1) in the traditional insurance industry. In 2005, Hurricane Katrina, which caused $108 billion in losses, strengthened the case for the introduction of catastrophe bonds and other insurance-linked securities that helped ease financial burdens in the insurance industry, for several reasons. First, catastrophe bonds give access to the deepest, most liquid, and efficient sources of capital. Second, the securitization of reinsurance capital has created a secondary market where risk exposures can be transferred within the investor community. Third, insurance firms have the ability to move some exposures off their books, thereby allowing them to underwrite larger risks that they would otherwise lack the capacity to cover. According to S&P Global Ratings, the market for cat bonds and other insurance-linked securities is estimated to be about $86 billion. Other insurance-linked securities include industry loss warranties (ILW), collateralized reinsurance contracts, and reinsurance sidecars. Cat bonds are the only insurance-linked securities that publicly trade on a secondary market. The recent increase in natural catastrophes has led to surging supply in the cat bond market. Record issuance in the first and second quarters of 2017 has pushed the size of the outstanding cat bond market to over $30 billion (Chart 2) for the first time. This comes after a period prior to this year with fewer catastrophes and where bond pricing has been stable, which led to increased deal sizes. In this Special Report, we run through the mechanics of the cat bond structure and market. We analyze historical risk-return characteristics (Chart 3) and compare them to other major asset classes. Since insurance-linked securities are known to have very low correlation with other assets, we test their potential diversification benefits within a traditional portfolio. Finally, we analyze their historical performance in periods of financial market stress and rising interest rate environments, which are two of the biggest worries for investors. Our conclusions are that: Chart 1Capacity Constraints Chart 2Record Issuance In 2017 Chart 3Risk-Return Profile The reinsurance market is cyclical, with premiums increasing following a catastrophe and decreasing following a period of calm. Realized volatility in the cat bond market is low. However, returns have a negative skew with an extremely fat-tailed distribution relative to other traditional assets. The addition of cat bonds to a traditional multi-asset portfolio has tremendous diversification benefits. The largest improvement to risk-adjusted returns comes from substituting equities with cat bonds. Financial crises have minimal impact on cat bond returns. However, depending on the magnitude of catastrophe losses, there could be varied regional impacts. Investors can customize the risk-return profile by altering the attachment and exhaustion points, and also by diversifying across trigger types. Mechanics Of Cat Bonds Despite the increasing popularity of cat bonds, their non-conventional structure is understood by only a limited number of investors. A better understanding of the characteristics of this financial instrument makes analyzing risk and return more straightforward. The key features (Chart 4) of a catastrophe bond are as follows. An insurer looking to reduce certain exposures will create a special purpose vehicle (SPV), also known as the issuer, to assist with the transaction. The issuer/SPV sells reinsurance protection to the sponsoring firms and simultaneously issues a cat bond to the investor. The proceeds from the bond sale are managed in a segregated collateral account to generate the floating-rate component of the coupon payable to investors. The fixed component of the coupon is financed through reinsurance premiums paid by the sponsoring firm to the issuer or SPV. Traditionally, cat bonds used a total return swap where a counterparty guaranteed the liquidity and performance of a collateral account. This forced investors and sponsors to rely on the creditworthiness of the swap provider. In 2007, two cat bonds that used Lehman Brothers as a swap counterparty were forced into default because of illiquid collateral assets and mismatched maturities. Nowadays, the assets managed in the collateral account are invested only in U.S. Treasury money market funds or structured notes from the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD). The final settlement of the bond is binary: 1) if no trigger event occurs before the bond maturity, the SPV returns the principal to investors along with the final coupon; 2) if a catastrophe hits and the bond is triggered, the principal in the collateral account is used to settle the claims of the sponsoring firms. Cat bonds are typically used to cover a piece of risk exposure in the sponsor's book. For example, a cat bond could cover indemnities exceeding $1 billion up to $1.2 billion, making the bond issue size equal to $200 million. The $1 billion is called the attachment point, and the $1.2 billion is called the exhaustion point, at which point the principal is exhausted and investors are not liable for any further claims. The tranche with the higher attachment point will be of higher quality, but with a lower rate of return. The reinsurance industry is cyclical, which makes contract pricing more volatile than investors might expect. The Rate on Line (Chart 5) index can be seen as a yield on the insurance contracts underwritten in the industry. Market conditions can be split into two phases: Chart 4Mechanics Of Cat Bonds Chart 5Cyclical Reinsurance Premiums Soft Market: Following many years of limited or minor catastrophes, reinsurance premiums are pressured downward and bond prices rise. In these circumstances, demand for cat bonds will be limited as coupon income will be less attractive. Hard Market: A major catastrophe will significantly erode the capital available in the insurance industry, thereby creating a supply shortage that pushes up reinsurance premiums. In these conditions, cat bond issuance will rise, driven by attractive coupon income. Investors can manage the premium cycle by slightly increasing risk at the portfolio level in a softening market (falling premiums) and reducing risk in hardening market (rising premiums). The recent catastrophes should drive up reinsurance premiums, but the sheer weight of money searching for yields in the current environment might make the uplift surprisingly modest compared to the past. Given that cat bonds have a binary payout feature, investors need to understand the trigger type (Table 1) used in the contract. In the early days, most bonds were issued with an indemnity trigger, but the type of trigger (Chart 6) has become more varied over time. The type of trigger used in the cat bond has the following impacts: If the trigger used in the bond takes longer to settle, the investor can be involved in a long drawn-out legal battle with the sponsoring firm looking to settle claims. This could in turn force the bond beyond maturity and keep investor funds locked up at significantly lower rates of return. Table 1Understanding Trigger Types Chart 6Choosing The Right Trigger Type Investors also need to understand the level of basis risk sponsoring firms are exposed to with different trigger types. In the context of cat bonds, basis risk is when the settlement payout from cat bonds differs from the actual portfolio losses incurred by sponsoring firms. If they have basis risk, investors will have to deal with moral hazard, where sponsoring firms will have incentive to underwrite excessive risks. Historical Risk & Return Investing in catastrophe bonds is essentially a "short gamma" strategy, where investors are selling insurance and collecting premium with the hope of options not being triggered during the maturity of the bond. Attractive historical returns (Table 2) have been the result of lower-than-expected principal write-downs given limited catastrophes. In the early years, cat bonds as an asset class were not fully understood by the broader market, creating a "novelty premium" up until 2010. Subsequently, low interest rates have had a profound impact on all traditional assets, making cat bond yields relatively attractive. Realized volatility has been extremely low since the investor collects regular coupons in the absence of a catastrophe that triggers a payout. This makes risk-adjusted returns very attractive compared to other major assets. However, because of the extreme tail risk, there exists a big negative skew along with high excess kurtosis. Cat bonds are exposed to "cliff risk" - the likelihood that the tranche's notional value will be exhausted once settlement claims reach the attachment point. The two main sources of risk that investors need to be mainly concerned about, however, are: 1) insurance risk that cat bonds assume, and 2) credit risk associated with the collateral account. An attractive feature of cat bonds is that poor performance tends to be self-correcting, as seen in the reinsurance cycle. Following a particularly destructive natural disaster, a number of factors such as increased insurance demand, the reduced capacity of insurance firms, and upward revisions to probability models serve to increase insurance premiums and potential returns to insurance-linked securities. For example, after the 2011 Japanese Tohoku earthquake and tsunami, insurance premiums were pushed up by around 50% for earthquake risk and 20% for other catastrophe risk. The likelihood of incurring negative returns is far lower than the chance of benefitting from positive returns. Cat bonds have achieved positive monthly returns 92% of the time (Table 3). The recent hurricane season in the U.S. was the first time returns turned negative on a 12-month basis. Table 2Historical Risk-Return Analysis (January 2002 - November 2017) Table 3Only Fifteen Months Of Negative Returns Finally, there have been many comparisons between cat bonds and high-yield credit. While high-yield debt performance is tied to market and economic cycles lasting about 10 years, that of cat bonds is tied to low probability catastrophes. Frequency of loss in junk bonds is greater than it is for cat bonds. However, the potential principal loss is greater for cat bonds, because they have almost zero recovery value. Diversification & Portfolio Impact Cat bonds' performance is linked to factors such as natural disasters, longevity risk, or life insurance mortality, and not to broader financial market risks. However, in periods of economic stress, markets experience a flight to quality and correlations between risk assets increase. Therefore, the benefits of portfolio diversification dissolve when they are needed most. This is not the case with cat bonds, however, as correlations with other assets (Table 4) have remained stable over time. This makes them a potentially useful diversification instrument in multi-asset portfolios. Table 4Cross-Asset Correlation (January 2002 - November 2017) To test this, we perform a typical portfolio analysis whereby we add cat bonds to a conventional portfolio and investigate the impact on the return and risk of the portfolio (Chart 7). Starting with the most traditional allocation of 60% equities and 40% bonds, we augment the portfolio with a 10% allocation to cat bonds and come up with the following results: Replacing equities with cat bonds leads to the largest reduction in portfolio volatility, and a small decrease in annualized returns. This new portfolio generates equity-like returns, but with a smaller correlation with stocks. Replacing traditional fixed income with cat bonds leads to a large increase to annualized returns, while the impact on volatility is virtually non-existent. The largest positive impact on risk-adjusted returns occurs when cat bonds replace equities, because the reduction in volatility is substantially greater than the increase in returns when cat bonds replace traditional bonds. We also ranked the MSCI All-Country World equity and Bloomberg Barclays Global Aggregate Bond indices from worst to best monthly returns and then overlaid the corresponding cat bond returns for each ranked month (Chart 8). This technique removes randomness from the time series in order to view the relative randomness of the other. We have the following findings: Cat bonds have had only three months that delivered a return less than -2%. These were -2.1% in September 2005 during Hurricane Katrina, -3.6% in March 2011 during the Tohoku earthquake and tsunami in Japan, and -5.8% in September 2017 after the severe hurricanes in Texas, Florida and the Caribbean. Other than catastrophe-related events, cat bond returns have been stable. Cat bonds displayed no reaction when equities had their most negative months. But they tend to have relatively stronger returns when equities also have positive months. Cat bonds performed well in both good and bad months for traditional fixed income. This shows that causes of traditional bond market losses and cat bond principal loss have little or no bearing on one another. Since cat bonds have a large negative skew and high excess kurtosis, investors can potentially lose all their capital if the bonds are triggered. When allocating to cat bonds, investors need to maintain a well-diversified position in order to minimize the risk of complete capital wipeout. This can be done by carefully picking bonds covering different perils (i.e. earthquakes, wind, extreme mortality), regions and trigger types (Chart 9). As a broader range of perils come to the market, investors will find increasing avenues for diversification within the asset class. Investors can also benefit from very low correlations within the cat bond universe, where returns from cat bonds covering a specific peril have no bearing on returns from cat bonds covering another peril. Chart 7Portfolio Diversification Chart 8Attractive Monthly Returns Chart 9Diversifying Across Perils, Coupon Rate And Expected Loss Financial Market Stress Having established that underlying market developments have no bearing on cat bond performance, we want to address two further important questions: 1) do financial crises affect cat bond returns? 2) do natural catastrophes trigger financial crises? Looking at previous global market crisis scenarios dating back to 2008 (Chart 10), we see that cat bonds had positive absolute returns during all crisis periods. The only period with negative cat bond returns was during the 2008 Lehman Brothers' collapse, when the bank was the swap counterparty for two bonds that defaulted. Large natural catastrophes do not affect broader capital markets, but do tend to have a large local impact. In August 2005, Hurricane Katrina, with damages totaling $108 billion, became the costliest hurricane to date in the U.S. The hurricane triggered a cat bond, and the index was down 2.1%, but there was no noticeable lingering impact on the U.S. economy. On the other hand, the earthquake and tsunami in Tohoku on March 11, 2011 had devastating effects. With damages exceeding $300 billion (approximately 5% of Japanese GDP), the cat bond index dropped 3.6%, and Japanese equities collapsed 7.3%. Moreover, a big earthquake in a major city or region such as Tokyo or California could have the capacity to trigger a global recession. Finally, looking at past major catastrophes (Chart 11), we see that existing cat bond prices do not fully recover to their pre-catastrophe levels. Accordingly, picking up bonds at a discount may not generate the expected return as price levels struggle to fully recover. Chart 10Outperformance Across The Board Chart 11Not A Full Recovery Interest Rate & Inflation Hedge Traditional bonds with fixed coupon payments underperform in a rising rate environment. Since cat bonds receive a floating-rate coupon along with the fixed premium, they are largely immune to rising rates. When central banks hike rates, the principal of the bonds invested in money market assets will produce a higher return, thereby offering investors a powerful shield against possible inflation, as well. Since the total coupon received by investors includes a fixed and floating component, cat bonds have a lower modified duration relative to similar maturity traditional bonds. Conclusion Despite their abnormal return distributions, we recommend investors allocate capital from their "alternatives" bucket toward cat bonds. Against a backdrop of low yields and investor complacency, cat bonds are highly attractive given their potential for consistently robust returns and, perhaps most importantly, tremendous diversification benefits. Still, allocations should be relatively small given the illiquid nature of the cat bond market, and diversification among bonds and issuers is critical due to the potential for large losses in the event that a cat bond is triggered. Aditya Kurian, Research Analyst Global Asset Allocation adityak@bcaresearch.com