Monetary

Mr. X is a long-time BCA client who visits our offices toward the end of each year to discuss the economic and financial market outlook. This year, Mr. X introduced us to his daughter, who we shall identify as Ms. X. She has many years of experience as a portfolio manager, initially in a wealth management firm, and subsequently in two major hedge funds. In 2017, she joined her father to help him run the family office portfolio. She took an active role in our recent discussion and this report is an edited transcript of our conversation. Mr. X: As always, it is a great pleasure to sit down with you to discuss the economic and investment outlook. And I am thrilled to bring my daughter to the meeting. She and I do not always agree on the market outlook and appropriate investment strategy, but even in her first year working with me she has added tremendous value to our decisions and performance. As you know, I have a very conservative bias in my approach and this means I sometimes miss out on opportunities. My daughter is more willing than me to take risks, so we make a good team. I am happy that our investment portfolio has performed well over the past year, but am puzzled by the high level of investor complacency. I can't understand why investors do not share my concerns about by sky-high valuations, a volatile geopolitical environment and the considerable potential for financial instability. Over the years, you have made me appreciate the power of easy money to create financial bubbles and also that market overshoots can last for a surprisingly long time. Thus, I am fully aware that we could easily have another year of strong gains, but were that to happen, I would worry about the potential for a sudden 1987-style crash. I remember that event well and it was an unpleasant experience. My inclination is to move right now to an underweight equity position. Ms. X: Let me add that I am delighted to finally attend the annual BCA meeting with my father. Over the years, he has talked to me at length about your discussions, making me very jealous that I was not there. He and I do frequently disagree about the outlook so it will be good to have BCA's independent and objective perspective. As my father noted, I do not always share his cautious bias. When I joined the family firm in early 2017, I persuaded him to raise our equity exposure and that was the right decision. I have been in the business long enough to know that it is dangerous to get more bullish as the market rises and I agree there probably is too much complacency. However, I do not see an early end to the conditions that are driving the bull market and I am inclined to stay overweight equities for a while longer. Thus, the big debate between us is whether or not we should now book profits from the past year's strong performance and move to an underweight stance in risk assets. Hopefully, this meeting will help us make the right decision. Chart 1An Impressive Bull Market BCA: First of all, we are delighted to see you both and look forward to getting to know Ms. X in the years to come. It is not a surprise that you are debating whether to cut exposure to risk assets because that question is on the mind of many of our clients. We share your surprise about complacency - investors have been seduced by the relentless upward drift of prices since early 2016. The global equity index has not suffered any setback above 2% during the past year, and that has to be close to a record (Chart 1). The conditions that have underpinned this remarkable performance are indeed still in place but we expect that to change during the coming year. Thus, if equity prices continue to rise, it would make sense to reduce exposure to risk assets to a neutral position over the next few months. A blow-off phase with a final spike in prices cannot be ruled out, but trying to catch those moves is a very high-risk strategy. We are not yet recommending underweight positions in risk assets, but if our economic and policy views pan out, we likely will shift in that direction in the second half of 2018. Ms. X: It seems that you are siding with my father in terms of wanting to scale back exposure to risk assets. That would be premature in my view and I look forward to discussing this in more detail. But first, I would be interested in reviewing your forecasts from last year. BCA: Of course. A year ago, our key conclusions were that: A number of important regime shifts will impact the economic and investment outlook over the next few years. These include the end of the era of falling inflation and interest rates, a move away from fiscal conservatism, a policy pushback against globalization, and a rise in the labor share of income at the expense of profit margins. Together with an earlier regime shift when the Debt Supercycle ended, these trends are consistent with very modest returns from financial assets over the next decade. The failure of low interest rates to trigger a vigorous rebound in private credit growth is consistent with our end-of-Debt Supercycle thesis. The end point for dealing with high debt levels may ultimately be sharply higher inflation, but only after the next downturn triggers a new deflationary scare. The potential for trade restrictions by the incoming U.S. administration poses a threat to the outlook, but the odds of a global trade war are low. Time lags in implementing policy mean that the fiscal plans of President-elect Trump will boost U.S. growth in 2018 more than 2017. This raises the risk of an overheated economy in 2018 leading to a monetary squeeze and recession in 2019. The key issue will be whether the supply side of the economy expands alongside increased demand and it will be critical to monitor business capital spending. Lingering structural problems will prevent any growth acceleration outside the U.S. The euro area and emerging economies are still in the midst of a deleveraging cycle and demographics remain a headwind for Japan. Not many countries will follow the U.S. example of fiscal stimulus. Nevertheless, for the first time since the recovery began, global growth forecasts are likely avoid a downgrade over the next couple of years. China remains an unbalanced and fragile economy but the authorities have enough policy flexibility to avoid a hard landing, at least over the year or two. The longer-run outlook is more bearish unless the government moves away from its stop-go policy approach and pursues more supply-side reforms. Inflation has bottomed in the U.S., but the upturn will be gradual in 2017 and it will stay subdued in the euro area and Japan. Divergences in monetary policy between the U.S. and other developed economies will continue to build in 2017 as the Fed tightens and other central banks stay on hold. Unlike a year ago, the Fed's rate expectations look reasonable. Bond yields in the U.S. may fall in the near run after their recent sharp rise, but the cyclical trend is up against a backdrop of monetary tightening, fiscal stimulus and rising inflation. Yields in the euro area will be held down by ongoing QE, while the 10-year yield will stay capped at zero in Japan. The secular bull market in bonds is over although yields could retest their recent lows in the next downturn. The search for yield will remain an important investment theme, but rich valuations dictate only a neutral weighting in investment-grade corporate bonds and a modest underweight in high-yielders. The U.S. equity market is modestly overvalued but the conditions are ripe for an overshoot in 2017 given optimism about a boost to profits from the new administration's policies. Earnings expectations are far too high and ignore the likelihood that rising labor costs will squeeze margins. Nevertheless, that need not preclude equity prices moving higher. There is a good chance of a sell-off in early 2017 and that would be a buying opportunity. Valuations are better in Japan and several European markets than in the U.S. and relative monetary conditions also favor these markets. We expect the U.S. to underperform in 2017. We expect emerging markets to underperform developed markets. The oil price should average around $55 a barrel over the next one or two years, with some risk to the upside. Although shale production should increase, the cutbacks in oil industry capital spending and planned production cuts by OPEC and some other producers will ensure that inventories will have to be drawn down in the second half of 2017. Non-oil commodity prices will stay in a trading range after healthy gains in 2016, but the long-run outlook is still bearish. The dollar bull market should stay intact over the coming year with the trade-weighted index rising by around 5%. Relative policy stances and economic trends should all stay supportive of the dollar. The outlook for the yen is especially gloomy. A stabilization in resource prices will keep commodity prices in a range. We remain bearish on EM currencies. The biggest geopolitical risks relate to U.S.-China relations, especially given President-elect Trump's inclination to engage in China-bashing. Meanwhile, the defeat of ISIS could create a power vacuum in the Middle East that could draw Turkey into a disastrous conflict with the Kurds and Iran/Russia. The coming year is important for elections in Europe but we do not expect any serious threat to the EU or single currency to emerge. The most important prediction that we got right was our view that conditions were ripe for an overshoot in equity prices. The MSCI all-country index has delivered an impressive total return of around 20% in dollar terms since the end of 2016, one of the best calendar year performances of the current cycle (Table 1). So it was good that your daughter persuaded you to keep a healthy equity exposure. It is all the more impressive that the market powered ahead in the face of all the concerns that you noted earlier. Our preference for European markets over the U.S. worked out well in common currency terms, but only because the dollar declined. Emerging markets did much better than we expected, with significant outperformance relative to their developed counterparts. Table 1Market Performance With regard to the overall economic environment, we were correct in forecasting a modest improvement in 2017 global economic activity and that growth would not fall short of the IMF's predictions for the first time in the current expansion. However, one big surprise, not only for us, but also for policymakers, was that inflation drifted lower in the major economies. Latest data show the core inflation rate for the G7 economies is running at only 1.4%, down from 1.6% at the end of 2016. We will return to this critical issue later as the trend in inflation outlook will be a key determinant of the market outlook for the coming year and beyond. Regionally, the Euro area and Japanese economies registered the biggest upside surprises relative to our forecast and those of the IMF (Table 2). That goes a long way to explaining why the U.S. dollar was weaker than we expected. In addition, the dollar was not helped by a market downgrading of the scale and timing of U.S. fiscal stimulus. Nonetheless, it is worth noting that the dollar has merely unwound the 2016 Trump rally and recently has shown some renewed strength. Table 2IMF Economic Forecasts A year ago, there were major concerns about potential political turmoil from important elections in Europe, the risk of U.S.-led trade wars and a credit bust-up in China. We downplayed these issues as near-term threats to the markets and that turned out to be appropriate. Nevertheless, there are many lingering risks to the outlook and market complacency is a much bigger concern now than it was a year ago. Mr. X: As you just noted, a key theme of your Outlook last year was "Shifting Regimes" such as the end of disinflation and fiscal conservatism, a retreat from globalization, and the start of a rebalancing in income shares away from profits toward labor. And of course, you talked about the End of the Debt Supercycle a few years ago. Do you still have confidence that these regime shifts are underway? BCA: Absolutely! These are all trends that we expect to play out over a number of years and thus can't be judged by short-term developments. There have been particularly important shifts in the policy environment. The 2007-09 economic and financial meltdown led central banks to fight deflation rather than inflation and we would not bet against them in this battle. Inflation has been lower than expected, but there has been a clear turning point. On fiscal policy, governments have largely given up on austerity against a background of a disappointingly slow economic recovery in recent years and rising populist pressures (Chart 2). The U.S. budget deficit could rise particularly sharply over the next few years. In the U.S., the relative income shares going to profits and labor have started to shift direction, but there is a long way to go. Finally, the same forces driving government to loosen fiscal purse strings have also undermined support for globalization with the U.S. even threatening to abandon NAFTA. The ratio of global trade to output has trended sideways for several years and is unlikely to turn higher any time soon. All these trends are part of our Regime Shift thesis. Chart 2Regime Shifts The remarkable macro backdrop of low inflation, easy money and healthy profits has been incredibly positive for financial markets in recent years. You would have to be an extreme optimist to believe that such an environment will persist. Our big concern for the coming year is that we are setting up for a collision between the markets and looming changes in economic policy. The Coming Collision Between Policy And The Markets BCA: As you mentioned earlier, we attach enormous importance to the role of easy money in supporting asset prices and it is hard to imagine that we could have had a more stimulative monetary environment than has existed in recent years. Central banks have been in panic mode since the 2007-09 downturn with an unprecedented period of negative real interest rates in the advanced economies, coupled with an extraordinary expansion of central bank balance sheets (Chart 3). Initially, the fear was for another Great Depression and as that threat receded, the focus switched to getting inflation back to the 2% target favored by most developed countries. In a post-Debt Supercycle world, negative real rates have failed to trigger the typical rebound in credit demand that was so characteristic of the pre-downturn era. Central banks have expanded base money in the form of bank reserves, but this has not translated into markedly faster growth in broad money or nominal GDP. This is highlighted by the collapse in money multipliers (the ratio of broad to base money) and in velocity (the ratio of GDP to broad money). This has been a double whammy: there is less broad money generated for each dollar of base money and less GDP for every dollar of broad money (Chart 4). Chart 3An Extraordinary Period Of Easy Money Chart 4Monetary Policy: Pushing On A String Historically, monetary policy acted primarily through the credit channel with lower rates making households and companies more willing to borrow, and lenders more willing to supply funds. In the post-Debt Supercycle world, the credit channel has become partly blocked, forcing policymakers to rely more on the other channels of monetary transmission, the main one being boosting asset prices. However, there is a limit to how far this can go because the end result is massively overvalued assets and building financial excesses. The Fed and many other central banks now realize that this strategy cannot be pushed much further. The economic recovery in the U.S. and other developed economies has been the weakest of the post-WWII period. But potential growth rates also have slowed which means that spare capacity has gradually been absorbed. According to the IMF, the U.S. output gap closed in 2015 having been as high as 2% of potential GDP in 2013. The IMF estimates that the economy was operating slightly above potential in 2017 with a further rise forecast in 2018 (Chart 5). According to IMF estimates, the median output gap for 20 advanced economies will shift from -0.1% in 2017 to +0.3% in 2018 (i.e. they will be operating above potential). This makes it hard to justify the maintenance of hyper-stimulative monetary policies. Chart 5No More Output Gaps The low U.S. inflation rate is giving the Fed the luxury of moving cautiously and that is keeping the markets buoyant. Indeed, the markets don't even believe the Fed will be able to raise rates as much they expect. The most recent FOMC projections show a median federal funds rate of 2.1% by the end of 2018 but the markets are discounting a move to only 1.8%. The markets probably have this wrong because inflation is likely to wake up from its slumber in the second half of the year. Ms. X: This is another area where my father and I disagree. I view the world as essentially deflationary. We all know that technological innovations have opened up competition in a lot of markets, driving down prices. Two obvious examples are Uber and Airbnb, but these are just the tip of the iceberg. Amazon's purchase of Whole Foods is another example of how increased competitive pressures will continue to sweep through previously relatively stable industries. And such changes have an important impact on employee psychology and thus bargaining power. These days, people are glad to just keep their jobs and this means companies hold the upper hand when it comes to wage negotiations. So I don't see a pickup in inflation being a threat to the markets any time soon. Mr. X: I have a different perspective. First of all, I do not even believe the official inflation data because most of the things I buy have risen a lot in price over the past couple of years. Secondly, given the extremely stimulative stance of monetary policy in recent years, a pickup in inflation would not surprise me at all. So I am sympathetic to the BCA view. But, even if the data is correct, why have inflation forecasts proved so wrong and what underpins your view that it will increase in the coming year? BCA: There is an interesting disconnect between the official data and the inflation views of many consumers and economic/statistics experts. According to the Conference Board, U.S. consumers' one-year ahead inflation expectations have persistently exceeded the published data and the latest reading is close to 5% (Chart 6). That ties in with your perception. Consumer surveys by the New York Fed and University of Michigan have year-ahead inflation expectations at a more reasonable 2.5%. At the same time, many "experts" believe the official data is overstated because it fails to take enough account of technological changes and new lower-priced goods and services. The markets also have a moderately optimistic view with the five-year CPI swap rate at 2%. This is optimistic because it is consistent with inflation below the Fed's 2% target, if one allows for an inflation risk premium built in to the swap price. We are prepared to take the inflation data broadly at face value. Low inflation is consistent with an ongoing tough competitive environment in most sectors, boosted by the disruptive impact of technological changes that Ms. X described. The inflation rate for core goods (ex-food and energy) has been in negative territory for several years while that for services ex-shelter is at the low end of its historical range (Chart 7). Chart 6Differing Perspectives Of Inflation Chart 7Not Much Inflation Here There is no simple explanation of why inflation has fallen short of forecasts. Economic theory assumes that price pressures build as an economy moves closer to full employment and the U.S. is at that point. This raises several possibilities: There is more slack in the economy than suggested by the low unemployment rate. The lags are unusually long in the current cycle. Technological disruption is having a greater impact than expected. The link between economic slack and inflationary pressures is typically captured by the Phillips Curve which shows the relationship between the unemployment rate and inflation. In the U.S., the current unemployment rate of 4.1% is believed to be very close to a full-employment level. Yet, inflation recently has trended lower and while wage growth is in an uptrend, it has remained softer than expected (Chart 8). Chart 8Inflationary Pressures Are Turning We agree with Ms. X that employee bargaining power has been undermined over the years by globalization and technological change and by the impact of the 2007-09 economic downturn. That would certainly explain a weakened relationship between the unemployment rate and wage growth, but does not completely negate the theory. The historical evidence still suggests that once the labor market becomes tight, inflation eventually does accelerate. A broad range of data indicates that the U.S. labor market is indeed tight and the Atlanta Fed's wage tracker is in an uptrend, albeit modestly. Two other factors consistent with an end to disinflation are the lagged effects of dollar weakness and a firming in oil prices. Non-oil prices have now moved decisively out of deflationary territory while oil prices in 2017 have averaged more than 20% above year-ago levels. As far as the impact of technology is concerned, there is no doubt that innovations like Uber and Airbnb are deflationary. However, our analysis suggests that the growth in online spending has not had a major impact on the inflation numbers. E-commerce still represents a small fraction of total U.S. consumer spending, depressing overall consumer inflation by only 0.1 to 0.2 percentage points. The deceleration of inflation since the global financial crisis has been in areas largely unaffected by online sales, such as energy and rent. Moreover, today's creative destruction in the retail sector is no more deflationary than the earlier shift to 'big box' stores. We are not looking for a dramatic acceleration in either wage growth or inflation - just enough to convince the Fed that it needs to carry on with its plan to raise interest rates. And the pressure to do this will increase if the Administration is able to deliver on its planned tax cuts. Ms. X: You make it sound as if cutting taxes would be a bad thing. Surely the U.S. would benefit from the Administration's tax plan? A reduction in the corporate tax rate would be very bullish for equities. BCA: The U.S. tax system is desperately in need of reform via eliminating loopholes and distortions and using the savings to lower marginal rates. That would make it more efficient and hopefully boost the supply side of the economy without undermining revenues. However, the economy does not need stimulus from net tax giveaways given that it is operating close to potential. That would simply boost demand relative to supply, create overheating, and give the Fed more reason to get aggressive. The Republican's initial tax plan has some good elements of reform such as cutting back the personal mortgage interest deduction, eliminating some other deductions and making it less attractive for companies to shift operations overseas. However, many of these proposals are unlikely to survive the lobbying efforts of special interest groups. The net result probably will be tax giveaways without much actual reform. Importantly, there is not a strong case for personal tax cuts given that a married worker on the average wage and with two children paid an average income tax rate of only 14% in 2016, according to OECD calculations. There inevitably will be contentious negotiations in Congress but we assume that the Republicans will eventually come together to pass some tax cuts by early next year. The combination of easier fiscal policy and Fed rate hikes will be bullish for the dollar and this will contribute to tighter overall financial conditions. That is why we see a coming collision between economic policy and the markets. The narrative for the so-called Trump rally in markets was based on the assumption that the Administration's platform of increased spending, tax cuts and reduced regulations would be bullish for the economy and thus risk assets. That was always a misplaced notion. The perfect environment for markets has been moderate economic growth, low inflation and easy money. The Trump agenda would be appropriate for an economy that had a lot of spare capacity and needed a big boost in demand. It is less suited for an economy with little spare capacity. Reduced regulations and lower corporate tax rates are good for the supply side of the economy and could boost the potential growth rate. However, if a key move is large personal tax cuts then the boost to demand will dominate. Mr. X: It seems that you are making the case for a serious policy error in the U.S. in the coming year - both on fiscal and monetary policy. I can't argue against that because everything that has happened over the past few years tells me that policymakers don't have a good grip on either the economy or the implications of their actions. I never believed that printing money and creating financial bubbles was a sensible approach to an over-indebted economy. I always expected it to end badly. BCA: Major tightening cycles frequently end in recession because monetary policy is a very blunt tool. Central banks would like to raise rates by just enough to cool things down but that is hard to achieve. The problem with fiscal policy is that implementation lags mean that it often is pro-cyclical. In other words, there is pressure for fiscal stimulus in a downturn, but by the time legislation is passed, the economy typically has already recovered and does not really need a big fiscal boost. And that certainly applies to the current environment. The other area of potential policy error is on trade. Having already pulled the U.S. out of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the Trump Administration is taking a hardline attitude toward a renegotiation of NAFTA. This could even end up with the deal being scrapped and that would add another element of risk to the North American economies. Ms. X: Your scenario assumes that the Fed will be quite hawkish. However, everything I have read about Jerome Powell, the new Fed chair, suggests that he will err on the side of caution when it comes to raising rates. So monetary policy may not collide with markets at all over the coming year. BCA: It is certainly true that Powell does not have any particular bias when it comes to the conduct of monetary policy. That would not have been the case if either John Taylor or Kevin Warsh had been given the job - they both have a hawkish bias. Powell is not an economist so will likely follow a middle path and be heavily influenced by the Fed's staff forecasts and by the opinions of other FOMC members. There are still several vacancies on the Fed's Board so much will depend on who is appointed to those positions. The latest FOMC forecasts are for growth and inflation of only 2% in 2018 and these numbers seem too low. Meanwhile, the prediction that unemployment will still be at 4.1% at end-2018 is too high. We expect projections of growth and inflation to be revised up and unemployment to be revised down. That will embolden the Fed to keep raising rates. So, even with Powell at the helm, monetary policy is set to get tighter than the market currently expects. Ms. X: So far, we have talked mainly about the U.S. What about other central banks? I can't believe that inflation will be much of a problem in the euro area or in Japan any time soon. Does that not mean that the overall global monetary environment will stay favorable for risk assets? BCA: The Fed is at the leading edge of the shift away from extreme monetary ease by hiking interest rates and starting the process of balance sheet reduction. But the Bank of Canada also has raised rates and the ECB has announced that it will cut its asset purchases in half beginning January 2018, as a first step in normalizing policy. Even the Bank of England has raised rates despite Brexit-related downside risks for the economy. The BoJ will keep an accommodative stance for the foreseeable future. You are correct that financial conditions will be tightening more in the U.S. than in other developed economies. Moreover, equity valuations are more stretched in the U.S. than elsewhere leaving that market especially vulnerable. Yet, market correlations are such that any sell-off in U.S. risk assets is likely to become a global affair. Another key issue relates to the potential for financial shocks. Long periods of extreme monetary ease always fuel excesses and sometimes these remain hidden until they blow up. We know that companies have taken on a lot of debt, largely to fund financial transactions such as share buybacks and merger and acquisitions activity. That is unlikely to be the direct cause of a financial accident but might well become a problem in the next downturn. It typically is increased leverage within the financial sector itself that poses the greatest risk and that is very opaque. The banking system is much better capitalized than before the 2007-09 downturn so the risks lie elsewhere. As would be expected, margin debt has climbed higher with the equity market, and is at a historically high level relative to market capitalization (Chart 9). We don't have good data on the degree of leverage among non-bank financial institutions such as hedge funds but that is where leverage surprises are likely to occur. And the level of interest rates that causes financial stress is almost certainly to be a lot lower than in the past. Chart 9Financial Leverage Has Risen Mr. X: That is the perfect lead-in to my perennial concern - the high level of debt in the major economies. I realize high debt levels are not a problem when interest rates are close to zero, but that will change if your view on the Fed is correct. Ms. X: I would just add that this is one area where I share my father's concerns, but with an important caveat. I wholeheartedly agree that high debt levels pose a threat to economic and financial stability, but I see this as a long-term issue. Even with rising interest rates, debt servicing costs will stay low for at least the next year. It seems to me that rates will have to rise a lot before debt levels in the major economies pose a serious threat to the system. Even if the Fed tightens policy in line with its plans, real short rates will still stay low by historical standards. This will not only keep debt financing manageable but will also sustain the search for yield and support equity prices. BCA: We would be disappointed if you both had not raised the issue of debt. Debt levels do indeed remain very elevated among advanced and emerging economies (Chart 10). The growth in private debt remains far below pre-crisis levels in the advanced countries, but this has been offset by the continued high level of government borrowing. As a result, the total debt-to-GDP ratio has stayed close to a peak. And both private and public debt ratios have climbed to new highs in the emerging economies, with China leading the charge. Chart 10ADebt Levels Remain Elevated Chart 10BDebt Levels Remain Elevated As we have discussed in the past, there is not an inconsistency between our End of Debt Supercycle thesis and the continued high levels of debt in most countries. As noted earlier, record-low interest rates have not triggered the kind of private credit resurgence that occurred in the pre-crisis period. For example, household borrowing has remained far below historical levels as a percent of income in the U.S., despite low borrowing costs (Chart 11). At the same time, it is not a surprise that debt-to-income ratios are high given the modest growth in nominal incomes in most countries. Chart 11Low Rates Have Not Triggered ##br##A Borrowing Surge In U.S. Debt growth is not benign everywhere. In the developed world, Canada's debt growth is worryingly high, both in the household and corporate sectors. As is also the case with Australia, Canada's overheated housing market has fueled rapid growth in mortgage debt. These are accidents waiting to happen when borrowing costs increase. In the emerging word, China has yet to see the end of its Debt Supercycle. Fortunately, with most banks under state control, the authorities should be able to contain any systemic risks, at least in the near run. With regard to timing, we agree that debt levels are not likely to pose an economic or financial problem in next year. It is right to point out that debt-servicing costs are very low by historical standards and it will take time for rising rates to have an impact given that a lot of debt is locked in at low rates. For example, in the U.S., the ratio of household debt-servicing to income and the non-financial business sector's ratio of interest payments to EBITD are at relatively benign levels (Chart 12). However, changes occur at the margin and the example of the Bernanke taper tantrum highlighted investor sensitivity to even modest changes in the monetary environment. You may well be right Ms. X that risk assets will continue to climb higher in the face of a tighter financial conditions. But given elevated valuations, we lean toward a cautious rather than aggressive approach to strategy. We would rather leave some money on the table than risk being caught in a sudden downdraft. Other investors, including yourself, might prefer to wait for clearer signals that a turning point is imminent. Returning to the issue of indebtedness, the end-game for high debt levels continues to be a topic of intense interest. There really are only three options: to grow out of it, to write it off, or to try and inflate it away. The first option obviously would be best - to have fast enough growth in real incomes that allowed debtors to start paying down their debt. Unfortunately, that is the least likely prospect given adverse demographic trends throughout the developed world and disappointing productivity growth (Chart 13). Chart 12Borrowing Costs Are Benign Chart 13It's Hard To Grow Out Of Debt ##br##With These Structural Headwinds Writing the debt off - i.e. defaulting - is a desperate measure that would be the very last resort after all other approaches had failed. In this case, we are talking mainly about government debt, because private debt always has to be written off when borrowers become bankrupt. Japan is the one developed country where government debt probably will be written off eventually. Given that the Bank of Japan owns around 45% of outstanding government debt, those holdings can be neutralized by converting them to perpetuals - securities that are never redeemed. If the first two options are not viable, then inflation becomes the preferred solution to over-indebtedness. To make a big impact, inflation would need to rise far above the 2% level currently favored by central banks, and it would have to stay elevated for quite some time. Central banks are not yet ready to allow such an environment, but that could change after the next economic downturn. Central banks have made it clear that they are prepared to pursue radical policies in order to prevent deflation. This sets the scene for increasingly aggressive actions after the next recession and the end result could be a period of significantly higher inflation. Mr. X: I don't disagree with that view which is why I always like to hold some physical gold in my portfolio. It is interesting that you are worried about a looming setback for risk assets because you are positive on the near-run economic outlook. That is contrary to the typical view that sees a decent economy as supporting higher equity prices. Let's spend a bit more time on your view of the economic outlook. Ms. X: Before we do that, I would just emphasize that it is far too early to worry about debt end games and the potential for sharply rising inflation. I don't disagree that monetary policy could be forced to embrace massive reflation during the next downturn and perhaps that will make me change my view of the inflation outlook. But the sequencing is important because we would first have to deal with a recession that could be a very deflationary episode. And before the next recession we could have period of continued decent growth, which would be positive for risk assets. So I agree that the near-term view of the economic outlook is important. The Economic Outlook BCA: This recovery cycle has been characterized by a series of shocks and headwinds that constrained growth in various regions. In no particular order, these included fiscal austerity, the euro crisis, a brief U.S. government shutdown, the Japanese earthquake, and a spike in oil prices above $100. As we discussed a year ago, in the absence of any new shocks, we expected global growth to improve and that is what occurred in 2017. A broad range of indicators shows that activity has picked up steam in most areas. Purchasing managers' indexes are in an uptrend, business and consumer confidence are at cyclical highs and leading indicators have turned up (Chart 14). This is hardly a surprise given easy monetary conditions and a more relaxed fiscal stance almost everywhere. Chart 14Global Activity On An Uptrend The outlook for 2018 is positive and the IMF's projections for growth is probably too low (see Table 2). So, for the second year in a row, the next set of updates due in the spring are likely to be revised up. Ms. X: Let's talk about the U.S. economy. You are concerned that tax cuts could contribute to overheating, tighter monetary policy and an eventual collision with the markets. But there are two alternative scenarios, both quite optimistic for risk assets. On the one hand, a cut in the corporate tax rate could trigger a further improvement in business confidence and thus acceleration in capital spending. This would boost the supply side of the economy and mean that faster growth need not lead to higher inflation. It would be the perfect world of a low inflation boom. At the other extreme, if political gridlock prevents any meaningful tax cuts, we will be left with the status quo of moderate growth and low inflation that has been very positive for markets during the past several years. Mr. X: You can always rely on my daughter to emphasize the potential for optimistic outcomes. I would suggest another entirely different scenario. The cycle is very mature and I fear it would not take much to tip the economy into recession, even if we get some tax relief. So I am more concerned with near-term downside risks to the U.S. economy. A recession in the coming year would be catastrophic for the stock market in my view. BCA: Before we get to the outlook, let's agree on where we are right now. As we already noted, the U.S. economy currently is operating very close to its potential level. The Congressional Budget Office estimates potential growth to be only 1.6% a year at present, which explains why the unemployment rate has dropped even though growth has averaged a modest 2% pace in recent years. The consumer sector has generally been a source of stability with real spending growing at a 2¾% pace over the past several years (Chart 15). And, encouragingly, business investment has recently picked up from its earlier disappointing level. On the negative side, the recovery in housing has lost steam and government spending has been a source of drag. Looking ahead, the pattern of growth may change a bit. With regard to consumer spending, the pace of employment growth is more likely to slow than accelerate given the tight market and growing lack of available skilled employees. According to the National Federation of Independent Business survey, 88% of small companies hiring or trying to hire reported "few or no qualified applicants for the positions they were trying to fill". Companies in manufacturing and construction say that the difficulty in finding qualified workers is their single biggest problem, beating taxes and regulations. In addition, we should not assume that the personal saving rate will keep falling given that it has hit a recovery low of 3.1% (Chart 16). On the other hand, wage growth should continue to firm and there is the prospect of tax cuts. Overall, this suggests that consumer spending should continue to grow by at least a 2% pace in 2018. Chart 15Trends In U.S. Growth Chart 16Personal Saving At A Recovery Low Survey data suggests that business investment spending should remain strong in the coming year, even without any additional boost from corporate tax cuts. Meanwhile, rebuilding and renovations in the wake of Hurricanes Harvey and Irma should provide a short-term boost to housing investment and a more lasting improvement will occur if the millennial generation finally moves out of their parents' basements. On that note, it is encouraging that the 10-year slide in the homeownership rate appears to have run its course (Chart 17). And although housing affordability is down from its peak, it remains at an attractive level from a historical perspective. Chart 17A Weak Housing Recovery Last, but not least, government spending will face countervailing forces. The Administration plans to increase spending on defense and infrastructure but there could be some offsetting cutbacks in other areas. Overall, government spending should make a positive contribution to 2018 after being a drag in 2017. Putting all this together, the U.S. economy should manage to sustain a growth rate of around 2.5% in 2018, putting GDP further above its potential level. And it could rise above that if tax cuts are at the higher end of the range. You suggested three alternative scenarios to our base case: a supply-side boom, continued moderate growth and a near-term recession. A supply-side revival that leads to strong growth and continued low inflation would be extremely bullish, but we are skeptical about that possibility. The revival in capital spending is good news, but this will take time to feed into faster productivity growth. Overall, any tax cuts will have a greater impact on demand than supply, putting even greater pressure on an already tight labor market. The second scenario of a continuation of the recent status quo is more possible, especially if we end up with a very watered-down tax package. However, growth would actually have to drop below 2% in order to prevent GDP from rising above potential. We will closely monitor leading indicators for signs that growth is about to lose momentum. The bearish scenario of a near-term recession cannot be completely discounted, but there currently is no compelling evidence of such a development. Recessions can arrive with little warning if there is an unanticipated shock, but that is rare. Historically, a flat or inverted yield curve has provided a warning sign ahead of most recessions and the curve currently is still positively sloped (Chart 18). Another leading indicator is when cyclical spending1 falls as a share of GDP, reflecting the increased sensitivity of those items to changes in financial conditions. Cyclical spending is still at a historically low level relative to GDP and we expect this to rise rather than fall over the coming quarters. While a near-term recession does not seem likely, the odds will change during the course of 2018. By late year, there is a good chance that the yield curve will be flat or inverted, giving a warning signal for a recession in 2019. Our base case view is for a U.S. recession to start in the second half of 2019, making the current expansion the longest on record. At this stage, it is too early to predict whether it would be a mild recession along the lines of 1990-91 and 2000-01 or a deeper downturn. Chart 18No Recession Signals For The U.S. ...Yet Mr. X: I hope that you are right that a U.S. recession is more than a year away. I am not entirely convinced but will keep an open mind, and my daughter will no doubt keep me fully informed of any positive trends. Ms. X: You can be sure of that. Although I lean toward the optimistic side on the U.S. economy, I have been rather surprised at how well the euro area economy has done in the past year. Latest data show that the euro area's real GDP increased by 2.5% in the year to 2017 Q3 compared to 2.3% for the U.S. Can that be sustained? BCA: The relative performance of the euro area economy has been even better if you allow for the fact that the region's population growth is 0.5% a year below that of the U.S. So the economic growth gap is even greater on a per capita basis. The euro area economy performed poorly during their sovereign debt crisis years of 2011-13, but the subsequent improvement has meant that the region's real per capita GDP has matched that of the U.S. over the past four years. And even Japan's GDP has not lagged much behind on a per capita basis (Chart 19). Chart 19No Clear Winner On Growth The recovery in the euro area has been broadly based but the big change was the end of a fiscal squeeze in the periphery countries. Between 2010 and 2013, fiscal drag (the change in the structural primary deficit) was equivalent to around 10% of GDP in Greece and Portugal and 7% of GDP in Ireland and Spain. There was little fiscal tightening in the subsequent three years, allowing those economies to recover lost ground. Meanwhile, Germany's economy has continued to power ahead, benefiting from much easier financial conditions than the economy has warranted. That has been the inevitable consequence of a one size fits all monetary policy that has had to accommodate the weakest members of the region. The French and Italian economies have disappointed, but there are hopes that the new French government will pursue pro-growth policies. And Italy should also pick up given signs that it is finally starting to deal with its fragile banking system. Both Spain and Italy faced a sharp rise in non-performing bank loans during the great recession, but Italy lagged Spain in dealing with the problem (Chart 20). That goes a long way to explaining why the Italian economic recovery has been so poor relative to Spain. With Italian banks raising capital and writing off non-performing loans more aggressively, the Italian economy should start to improve, finally catching up with the rest of the region. Overall, the euro area economy should manage to sustain growth above the 2.1% forecast by the IMF for 2018. Overall financial conditions are likely to stay favorable for at least another year and we do not anticipate any major changes in fiscal policy. If, as we fear, the U.S. moves into recession in 2019, there will be negative fallout for Europe, largely via the impact on financial markets. However, in relative terms, the euro area should outperform the U.S. during the next downturn. Mr. X: A year ago, you said that Brexit posed downside risks for the U.K. economy. For a while, that seemed too pessimistic as the economy performed quite well, but recent data show things have taken a turn for the worse. How do you see things playing out with this issue? BCA: It was apparent a year ago that the U.K. government had no concrete plans to deal with Brexit and little has changed since then. The negotiations with the EU are not going particularly well and the odds of a "hard" exit have risen. This means withdrawing from the EU without any agreement on a new regime for trade, labor movements or financial transactions. A growing number of firms are taking the precaution of shifting some operations from the U.K. to other EU countries. As you noted, there are signs that Brexit is starting to undermine the U.K. economy. For example, London house prices have turned down and the leading economic index has softened (Chart 21). The poor performance of U.K. consumer service and real estate equities relative to those of Germany suggest investors are becoming more wary of the U.K. outlook. Of course, a lot will depend on the nature of any deal between the U.K. and the EU and that remains a source of great uncertainty. Chart 20A Turning Point For Italian Banks? Chart 21U.K. Consumer Services Equities Are ##br##Underperforming Brexit Effects Show Up At the moment, there are no real grounds for optimism. The U.K. holds few cards in the bargaining process and the country's strong antipathy toward the free movement of people within the EU will be a big obstacle to an amicable separation agreement. Ms. X: I think the U.K. made the right decision to leave the EU and am more optimistic than you about the outlook. There may be some short-term disruption but the long-term outlook for the U.K. will be good once the country is freed from the stifling bureaucratic constraints of EU membership. The U.K. has a more dynamic economy than most EU members and it will be able to attract plenty of overseas capital if the government pursues appropriate policies toward taxes and regulations. It will take a few years to find out who is correct about this. In the meantime, given the uncertainties, I am inclined to have limited exposure to sterling and the U.K. equity market. Let's now talk about China, another country facing complex challenges. This is a topic where my father and I again have a lot of debates. As you might guess, I have been on the more optimistic side while he has sided with those who have feared a hard landing. And I know that similar debates have occurred in BCA. BCA: It is not a surprise that there are lots of debates about the China outlook. The country's impressive economic growth has been accompanied by an unprecedented build-up of debt and supply excesses in several sectors. The large imbalances would have led to a collapse by now in any other economy. However, China has benefited from the heavy state involvement in the economy and, in particular, the banking sector. The big question is whether the government has enough control over economic developments to avoid an economic and financial crisis. The good news is that China's government debt is relatively low, giving them the fiscal flexibility to write-off bad debts from zombie state-owned enterprises (SOEs). The problems of excessive leverage and over-capacity are particularly acute in SOEs that still comprise a large share of economic activity. The government is well aware of the need to reform SOEs and various measures have been announced, but progress has been relatively limited thus far. The IMF projects that the ratio of total non-financial debt to GDP will remain in an uptrend over the next several years, rising from 236% in 2016 to 298% by 2022 (Chart 22). Yet, growth is expected to slow only modestly over the period. Of course, one would not expect the IMF to build a crisis into their forecast. Some investors have been concerned that a peak in China's mini-cycle of the past two years may herald a return to the economic conditions that prevailed in 2015, when the industrial sector grew at a slower pace than during the acute phase of the global financial crisis. These conditions occurred due to the combination of excessively tight monetary conditions and weak global growth. While China's export growth may slow over the coming year, monetary policy remains accommodative. Monetary conditions appear to have peaked early this year but are still considerably easier than in mid-2015. Shifts in the monetary conditions index have done a good job of leading economic activity and they paint a reasonably positive picture (Chart 23). The industrial sector has finally moved out of deflation, with producer prices rising 6.9% in the year ended October. This has been accompanied by a solid revival in profits. Chart 22China: Debt-Fueled Growth To Continue Chart 23China Leaves Deflation Behind On balance, we assume that the Chinese economy will be able to muddle through for the foreseeable future. President Xi Jinping has strengthened his grip on power and he will go to great lengths to ensure that his reign is not sullied with an economic crisis. The longer-term outlook will depend on how far the government goes with reforms and deleveraging and we are keeping an open mind at this point. In sum, for the moment, we are siding with Ms. X on this issue. Mr. X: I have been too bearish on China for the past several years, but I still worry about the downside risks given the massive imbalances and excesses. I can't think of any example of a country achieving a soft landing after such a massive rise in debt. I will give you and my daughter the benefit of the doubt, but am not totally convinced that you will be right. BCA has been cautious on emerging economies in general: has that changed? BCA: The emerging world went through a tough time in 2015-16 with median growth of only 2.6% for the 23 constituent countries of the MSCI EM index (Chart 24). This recovered to 3% in 2017 according to IMF estimates, but that is still far below the average 5% pace of the period 2000-07. Chart 24Emerging Economy Growth: ##br##The Boom Years Are Over It is always dangerous to generalize about the emerging world because the group comprises economies with very different characteristics and growth drivers. Two of the largest countries - Brazil and Russia - went through particularly bad downturns in the past couple of years and those economies are now in a modest recovery. In contrast, India has continued to grow at a healthy albeit slowing pace, while Korea and the ASEAN region have not suffered much of a slowdown. If, as seems likely, Chinese growth holds above a 6% pace over the next year, then those countries with strong links to China should do fine. And it also points to reasonably steady commodity prices, supporting resource-dependent economies. Longer-run, there are reasons to be cautious about many emerging economies, particularly if the U.S. goes into recession 2019, as we fear. That would be associated with renewed weakness in commodity prices, and capital flight from those economies with high external debt such as Turkey and South Africa. As we stated a year ago, the heady days of emerging economy growth are in the past. Mr. X: It seems that both my daughter and I can find some areas of agreement with your views about the economic outlook. You share her expectation that the global growth outlook will stay healthy over the coming year, but you worry about a U.S.-led recession in 2019, something that I certainly sympathize with. But we differ on timing: I fear the downturn could occur even sooner and I know my daughter believes in a longer-lasting upturn. Let's now move onto what this all means for financial markets, starting with bonds. Bond Market Prospects Ms. X: I expect this to be a short discussion as I can see little attraction in bonds at current yields. Even though I expect inflation to stay muted, bonds offer no prospect of capital gains in the year ahead and even the running yield offers little advantage over the equity dividend yield. BCA: As you know, we have believed for some time that the secular bull market in bonds has ended. We expect yields to be under upward pressure in most major markets during 2018 and thus share your view that equities offer better return prospects. By late 2018, it might well be appropriate to switch back into bonds against a backdrop of higher yields and a likely bear market in equities. For the moment, we recommend underweight bond exposure. It is hard to like government bonds when the yield on 10-year U.S. Treasuries is less than 50 basis points above the dividend yield of the S&P 500 while the euro area bond yield is 260 basis points below divided yields (Chart 25). Real yields, using the 10-year CPI swap rate as a measure of inflation expectations, are less than 20 basis points in the U.S. and a negative 113 basis points in the euro area. Even if we did not expect inflation to rise, it would be difficult to recommend an overweight position in any developed country government bonds. One measure of valuation is to compare the level of real yields to their historical average, adjusted by the standard deviation of the gap. On this basis, the most overvalued markets are the core euro area countries, where real yields are 1.5 to 2 standard deviations below their historical average (Chart 26). There are only two developed bond markets where real 10-year government yields currently are above their historical average: Greece and Portugal. This is warranted in Greece where there needs to be a risk premium in case the country is forced to leave the single currency at some point. This is less of a risk for Portugal, making it a more interesting market. Real yields in New Zealand are broadly in line with their historical average, also making it one of the more attractive markets. Chart 25Bonds Yields Offer Little Appeal Chart 26Valuation Ranking Of Developed Bond Markets Mr. X: Given your expectation of higher inflation, would you recommend inflation-protected Treasuries? BCA: Yes, in the sense that they should outperform conventional Treasuries. The 10-year TIPS are discounting average inflation of 1.85% and we would expect this to be revised up during the coming year. However, the caveat is that absolute returns will still be mediocre. Ms. X: You showed earlier that corporate bonds had a reasonable year in 2017, albeit falling far short of the returns from equities. A year ago, you recommended only neutral weighting in investment-grade bonds and an underweight in high yield. But you became more optimistic toward both early in 2017, shifting to an overweight position. Are you thinking of scaling back exposure once again, given the tight level of spreads? BCA: Yes, we were cautious on U.S. corporates a year ago because valuation was insufficient to compensate for the deterioration in corporate balance sheet health. Nonetheless, value improved enough early in 2017 to warrant an upgrade to overweight given our constructive macro and default rate outlook. The cyclical sweet spot for carry trades should continue to support spread product for a while longer. Moreover, value is better than it appears at first glance. The dotted line in Chart 27 shows the expected 12-month option-adjusted spread for U.S. junk bonds after adjusting for our base case forecast for net default losses. At 260 basis points, this excess spread is in line with the historical average. In the absence of any further spread narrowing, speculative-grade bonds would return 230 basis points more than Treasurys in 2018. If high-yield spreads were to tighten by another 150 basis points, then valuations would be at a historical extreme, and that seems unwarranted. An optimistic scenario would have another 100 basis point spread tightening, delivering excess returns of 5%. Of course, if spreads widen, then corporates will underperform. If financial conditions tighten in 2018 as we expect then it will be appropriate to lower exposure to corporates. In the meantime, you should favor U.S. and U.K. corporate bonds to issues in the Eurozone because ECB tapering is likely to spark some spread widening in that market. Mr. X: What about EM hard-currency bonds? BCA: The global economic background is indeed positive for EM assets. However, EM debt is expensive relative to DM investment-grade bonds which, historically, has heralded a period of underperformance (Chart 28). We expect that relative growth dynamics will be more supportive of U.S. corporates because EM growth will lag. Any commodity price weakness and/or a stronger U.S. dollar would also weigh on EM bonds and currencies. Chart 27Not Much Value In U.S. Corporates Chart 28Emerging Market Bonds Are Expensive Mr. X: We have not been excited about the bond market outlook for some time and nothing you have said changes my mind. I am inclined to keep our bond exposure to the bare minimum. Ms. X: I agree. So let's talk about the stock market which is much more interesting. As I mentioned before, I am inclined to remain fully invested in equities for a while longer, while my father wants to start cutting exposure. Equity Market Outlook BCA: This is one of those times when it is important to draw a distinction between one's forecast of where markets are likely to go and the appropriate investment strategy. We fully agree that the conditions that have driven this impressive equity bull market are likely to stay in place for much of the next year. Interest rates in the U.S. and some other countries are headed higher, but they will remain at historically low levels for some time. Meanwhile, in the absence of recession, corporate earnings still have upside, albeit not as much as analysts project. However, we have a conservative streak at BCA that makes us reluctant to chase markets into the stratosphere. For long-term investors, our recommended strategy is to gradually lower equity exposure to neutral. However, those who are trying to maximize short-term returns should stay overweight and wait for clearer signs that tighter financial conditions are starting to bite on economic activity. Chart 29Reasons For Caution On U.S. Stocks Getting down to specifics, here are the trends that give us cause for concern and they are all highlighted in Chart 29. Valuation: Relative to both earnings and book value, the U.S. equity market is more expensive than at any time since the late 1990s tech bubble. The price-earnings ratio (PER) for the S&P 500 is around 30% above its 60-year average on the basis of both trailing operating earnings and a 10-year average of earnings. The market is not expensive on a relative yield basis because interest rates are so low, but that will change as rates inevitably move higher. Other developed markets are not as overvalued as the U.S., but neither are they cheap. Earnings expectations: The performance of corporate earnings throughout this cycle - particularly in the U.S. - has been extremely impressive give the weaker-than-normal pace of economic growth. However, current expectations are ridiculously high. According to IBES data, analysts expect long-run earnings growth of around 14% a year in both the U.S. and Europe. Even allowing for analysts' normal optimistic bias, the sharp upward revision to growth expectations over the past year makes no sense and is bound to be disappointed. Investor complacency: We all know that the VIX index is at a historical low, indicating that investors see little need to protect themselves against market turmoil. Our composite sentiment indicator for the U.S. is at a high extreme, further evidence of investor complacency. These are classic contrarian signs of a vulnerable market. Most bear markets are associated with recessions, with the stock market typically leading the economy by 6 to 12 months (Chart 30). The lead in 2007 was an unusually short three months. As discussed earlier, we do not anticipate a U.S. recession before 2019. If a recession were to start in mid-2019, it would imply the U.S. market would be at risk from the middle of 2018, but the rally could persist all year. Of course, the timing of a recession and market is uncertain. So it boils down to potential upside gains over the next year versus the downside risks, plus your confidence in being able to time the top. Chart 30Bear Markets And Recessions Usually Overlap We are not yet ready to recommend that you shift to an underweight position in equities. A prudent course of action would be to move to a broadly neutral position over the next few months, but we realize that Ms. X has a higher risk tolerance than Mr. X so we will leave you to fight over that decision. The timing of when we move to an underweight will depend on our various economic, monetary and market indicators and our assessment of the risks. It could well happen in the second half of the year. Mr. X: My daughter was more right than me regarding our equity strategy during the past year, so maybe I should give her the benefit of the doubt and wait for clearer signs of a market top. Thus far, you have focused on the U.S. market. Last year you preferred developed markets outside the U.S. on the grounds of relative valuations and relative monetary conditions. Is that still your stance? BCA: Yes it is. The economic cycle and thus the monetary cycle is far less advanced in Europe and Japan than in the U.S. This will provide extra support to these markets. At the same time, profit margins are less vulnerable outside the U.S. and, as you noted, valuations are less of a problem. In Chart 31, we show a valuation ranking of developed equity markets, based on the deviation of cyclically-adjusted PERs from their historical averages. The chart is not meant to measure the extent to which Portugal is cheap relative to the U.S., but it indicates that Portugal is trading at a PER far below its historical average while that of the U.S. is above. You can see that the "cheaper" markets tend to be outside the U.S. Japan's reading is flattered by the fact that its historical valuation was extremely high during the bubble years of the 1980s, but it still is a relatively attractive market. Chart 31Valuation Ranking Of Developed Equity Markets From a cyclical standpoint, we are still recommending overweight positions in European and Japanese stocks relative to the U.S., on a currency-hedged basis. Nevertheless, market correlations are such that a sell-off in the U.S. will be transmitted around the world (Chart 32). Chart 32When the U.S. Market Sneezes, The World Catches A Cold Ms. X: I would like to turn the focus to emerging equity markets. You have been cautious on these for several years and that worked out extremely well until 2017. I note from your regular EM reports that you have not changed your stance. Why are you staying bearish given that you see an improvement in global growth and further potential upside in developed equity prices? BCA: The emerging world did extremely well over many years when global trade was expanding rapidly, China was booming, commodity prices were in a powerful bull market and capital inflows were strong. Those trends fostered a rapid expansion in credit-fueled growth across the EM universe and meant that there was little pressure to pursue structural reforms. However, the 2007-09 economic and financial crisis marked a major turning point in the supports to EM outperformance. As we noted earlier, the era of rapid globalization has ended, marking an important regime shift. Meanwhile, China's growth rate has moderated and the secular bull market in commodities ended several years ago. We do not view the past year's rebound in commodities as the start of a major new uptrend. Many emerging equity markets remain highly leveraged to the Chinese economy and to commodity prices (Chart 33). Although we expect the Chinese economy to hold up, growth is becoming less commodity intensive. Finally, the rise in U.S. interest rates is a problem for those countries that have taken on a marked increase in foreign currency debt. This will be made even worse if the dollar appreciates. Obviously, the very term "emerging" implies that this group of countries has a lot of upside potential. However, the key to success is pursuing market-friendly reforms, rooting out corruption and investing in productive assets. Many countries pay only lip service to these issues. India is a case in point where there is growing skepticism about the Modi government's ability to deliver on major reforms. The overall EM index does not appear expensive, with the PER trading broadly in line with its historical average (Chart 34). However, as we have noted in the past, the picture is less compelling when the PER is calculated using equally-weighted sectors. The financials and materials components are trading at historically low multiples, dragging down the overall index PER. Emerging market equities will continue to rise as long as the bull market in developed markets persists, but we expect them to underperform on a relative basis. Chart 33Drivers Of EM Performance Chart 34Emerging Markets Fundamentals Mr. X: One last question on equities from me: do you have any high conviction calls on sectors? BCA: A key theme of our sector view is that cyclical stocks should outperform defensives given the mature stage of the economic cycle. We are seeing the typical late-cycle improvement in capital spending and that will benefit industrials, and we recommend an overweight stance in that sector. Technology also is a beneficiary of higher capex but of course those stocks have already risen a lot, pushing valuations to extreme levels. Thus, that sector warrants only a neutral weighting. Our two other overweights are financials and energy. The former should benefit from rising rates and a steeper yield curve while the latter will benefit from firm oil prices. If, as we fear, a recession takes hold in 2019, then obviously that would warrant a major shift back into defensive stocks. For the moment, the positive growth outlook will dominate sector performance. Ms. X: I agree that the bull market in equities, particularly in the U.S., is very mature and there are worrying signs of complacency. However, the final stages of a market cycle can sometimes be very rewarding and I would hate to miss out on what could be an exciting blow-off phase in 2018. As I mentioned earlier, my inclination is to stay heavily invested in equities for a while longer and I have confidence that BCA will give me enough of a warning when risks become unacceptably high. Of course, I will have to persuade my father and that may not be easy. Mr. X: You can say that again, but we won't bother our BCA friends with that conversation now. It's time to shift the focus to commodities and currencies and I would start by commending you on your oil call. You were far out of consensus a year ago when you said the risks to crude prices were in the upside and you stuck to your guns even as the market weakened in the first half. We made a lot of money following your energy recommendations. What is your latest thinking? Commodities And Currencies BCA: We had a lot of conviction in our analysis that the oil market would tighten during 2017 against a backdrop of rising demand and OPEC production cuts, and that view turned out to be correct. As we entered the year, the big reason to be bearish on oil prices was the bloated level of inventories. We forecast that inventories would drop to their five-year average by late 2017, and although that turned out to be a bit too optimistic, the market tightened by enough to push prices higher (Chart 35). Chart 35Oil Market Trends The forces that have pushed prices up will remain in force over the next year. Specifically, our economic view implies that demand will continue to expand, and we expect OPEC 2.0 - the producer coalition of OPEC and non-OPEC states, led by Saudi Arabia and Russia - to extend its 1.8 million b/d production cuts to at least end-June. On that basis, OECD inventories should fall below their five-year average by the end of 2018. We recently raised our 2018 oil price target to an average of $65 in 2018. Of course, the spot market is already close to that level, but the futures curve is backwardated and that is likely to change. We continue to see upside risks to prices, not least because of potential production shortfalls from Venezuela, Nigeria, Iraq and Libya. Mr. X: The big disruptor in the oil market in recent years was the dramatic expansion in U.S. shale production. Given the rise in prices, could we not see a rapid rebound in shale output that, once again, undermines prices? BCA: Our modeling indicates that U.S. shale output will increase from 5.1 mb/d to 6.0 mb/d over the next year, in response to higher prices. This is significant, but will not be enough to materially change the global oil demand/supply balance. Longer run, the expansion of U.S. shale output will certainly be enough to prevent any sustained price rise, assuming no large-scale production losses elsewhere. A recent report by the International Energy Agency projected that the U.S. is destined to become the global leader in oil and gas production for decades to come, accounting for 80% of the rise in global oil and gas supply between 2010 and 2025. Ms. X: You have suggested that China's economic growth is becoming less commodity intensive. Also, you have shown in the past that real commodity prices tend to fall over time, largely because of technological innovations. What does all this imply for base metals prices over the coming year? BCA: The base metals story will continue to be highly dependent on developments in China. While the government is attempting to engineer a shift toward less commodity-intensive growth, it also wants to reduce excess capacity in commodity-producing sectors such as coal and steel. Base metals are likely to move sideways until we get a clearer reading on the nature and speed of economic reforms. We model base metals as a function of China's PMIs and this supports our broadly neutral stance on these commodities (Chart 36). Chart 36China Drives Metals Prices Mr. X: As usual, I must end our commodity discussion by asking about gold. Last year, you agreed that an uncertain geopolitical environment coupled with continued low interest rates should support bullion prices, and that was the case with a respectable 12% gain since the end of 2016. You also suggested that I should not have more than 5% of my portfolio in gold which is less than I am inclined to own. It still looks like a gold-friendly environment to me. Ms. X: Let me just add that this is one area where my father and I agree. I do not consider myself to be a gold bug, but I think bullion does provide a good hedge against shocks in a very uncertain economic and political world. I would also be inclined to hold more than 5% of our portfolio in gold. BCA: There will be opposing forces on gold during the coming year. On the positive side, it is safe to assume that geopolitical uncertainties will persist and may even intensify, and there also is the potential for an increase in inflation expectations that would support bullion. On the negative side, rising interest rates are not normally good for gold and there likely will be an added headwind from a firmer U.S. dollar. Gold appears to be at an important point from a technical perspective (Chart 37). It currently is perched just above its 200-day average and a key trend line. A decisive drop below these levels would be bearish. At the same time, there is overhead resistance at around 1350-1360 and prices would have to break above that level to indicate a bullish breakout. Traders' sentiment is at a broadly neutral level, consistent with no clear conviction about which way prices will break. There is no science behind our recommendation of keeping gold exposure below 5%. That just seems appropriate for an asset that delivers no income and where the risk/reward balance is fairly balanced. Ms. X: You referred to the likelihood of a firmer dollar as a depressant on the gold price. You also were bullish on the dollar a year ago, but that did not work out too well. How confident are you that your forecast will fare better in 2018? BCA: We did anticipate that the dollar would experience a correction at the beginning of 2017, but we underestimated how profound this move would be. A combination of factors explains this miscalculation. Chart 37Gold At A Key Level It first began with positioning. We should have paid more attention to that fact that investors were massively bullish and long the dollar at the end of 2016, making the market vulnerable to disappointments. And disappointment did come with U.S. inflation weakening and accelerating in the euro area. Additionally, there were positive political surprises in Europe, especially the presidential victory of Emmanuel Macron in France. In the U.S., the government's failure to repeal Obamacare forced investors to lower expectations about fiscal stimulus. As a result, while investors were able to price in an earlier first hike by the ECB, they cut down the number of rate hikes they anticipated out of the Fed over the next 24 months. In terms of the current environment, positioning could not be more different because investors are aggressively shorting the dollar (Chart 38). The hurdle for the dollar to deliver positive surprises is thus much lower than a year ago. Also, we remain confident that tax cuts will be passed in the U.S. by early 2018. As we discussed earlier, U.S. GDP will remain above potential, causing inflation pressures to build. This will give the Fed the leeway to implement its planned rate hikes, and thus beat what is currently priced in the market. This development should support the dollar in 2018. Ms. X: A bullish view on the U.S. dollar necessarily implies a negative view on the euro. However, the European economy seems to have a lot of momentum, and inflation has picked up, while U.S. prices have been decelerating. To me, this suggests that the ECB also could surprise by being more hawkish than anticipated, arguing against any major weakness in the euro. BCA: The European economy has indeed done better than generally expected in the past year. Also, geopolitical risks were overstated by market participants at the beginning of 2017, leaving less reason to hide in the dollar. However, the good news in Europe is now well known and largely discounted in the market. Investors are very long the euro, by both buying EUR/USD and shorting the dollar index (Chart 39). In that sense, the euro today is where the dollar stood at the end of 2016. Chart 38Too Much Pessimism On The Dollar Chart 39Positioning Risk In EUR/USD Valuations show a similar picture. The euro might appear cheap on a long-term basis, but not so much so that its purchasing power parity estimate - which only works at extremes and over long-time periods - screams a buy. Moreover, the euro has moved out of line with historical interest rate parity relationships, warning that the currency is at risk if the economy disappoints. Overall, we expect EUR/USD to trade around 1.10 in 2018. Long-run, the picture is different because a U.S. recession in 2019 would trigger renewed broad-based weakness in the dollar. Mr. X: I have been perplexed by the yen's firmness in the past year, with the currency still above its end-2016 level versus the dollar. I expected a lot more weakness with the central bank capping bond yields at zero and more or less monetizing the government deficit. A year ago you also predicted a weak yen. Will it finally drop in 2018? BCA: We were not completely wrong on the yen as it has weakened over the past year on a trade-weighted basis and currently is about 2% below its end-2016 level. But it has risen slightly against the U.S. dollar. In the past couple of years, the yen/dollar rate has been highly correlated with real bond yield differentials (Chart 40). These did not move against the yen as much as we expected because U.S. yields drifted lower and there was no major change in relative inflation expectations. Chart 40Bond Yield Differentials Drive The Yen The real yield gap is likely to move in the dollar's favor over the next year, putting some downward pressure on the yen. Meanwhile, the Bank of Japan will continue to pursue a hyper-easy monetary stance, in contrast to the Fed's normalization policy. However, it is not all negative: the yen is cheap on a long-term basis, and Japan is an international net creditor to the tune of more than 60% of GDP. Investors are also quite short the yen as it remains a key funding currency for carry trades. Thus, it will continue to benefit each time global markets are gripped with bouts of volatility. It remains a good portfolio hedge. Ms. X: Are any other currency views worth noting? BCA: The outlook for sterling obviously will be tied to the Brexit negotiations. Having fallen sharply after the Brexit vote, sterling looks cheap relative to its history. This has allowed it to hold in a broad trading range over the past 18 months, even though the negotiations with the EU have not been going well. At this stage, it is hard to know what kind of deal, if any, will emerge regarding Brexit so we would hedge exposure to sterling. Our optimism toward the oil price is consistent with a firm Canadian dollar, but developments in the NAFTA negotiations represent a significant risk. At the moment, we are overweight the Canadian dollar, but that could change if the NAFTA talks end badly. We still can't get enthusiastic about emerging market currencies even though some now offer reasonable value after falling sharply over the past few years. Mr. X: We can't leave currencies without talking about Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies in general. I like the idea of a currency that cannot be printed at will by governments. There are too many examples of currency debasement under a fiat money system and the actions of central banks in recent years have only served to increase my mistrust of the current monetary system. But I can't profess to fully understand how these cryptocurrencies work and that makes me nervous about investing in them. What are your thoughts? BCA: You are right to be nervous. There have been numerous cases of hackers stealing Bitcoins and other cryptocurrencies. Also, while there is a limit to the number of Bitcoins that can be issued, there is no constraint on the number of possible cryptocurrencies that can be created. Thus, currency debasement is still possible if developers continue creating currencies that are only cosmetically different from the ones already in existence. Moreover, we doubt that governments will sit idly by and allow these upstart digital currencies to become increasingly prevalent. The U.S. Treasury derives $70 billion a year in seigniorage revenue from its ability to issue currency which it can then redeem for goods and services. At some point, governments could simply criminalize the use of cryptocurrencies. This does not mean that Bitcoin prices cannot rise further, but the price trend is following the path of other manias making it a highly speculative play (Chart 41). If you want more detail about our thoughts on this complex topic then you can read the report we published last September.2 Chart 41Bitcoin Looks Like Other Bubbles Ms. X: I don't fear bubbles and manias as much as my father and have made a lot of money during such episodes in the past. But I am inclined to agree that Bitcoin is best avoided. The topic of manic events presents a nice segue into the geopolitical environment which seems as volatile as ever. Geopolitics Ms. X: Which geopolitical events do you think will have the biggest impact on the markets over the coming year? BCA: Domestic politics in the U.S. and China will be very much in focus in 2018. In the U.S., as we discussed, the Republicans will pass tax cuts but it is unclear whether this will help the GOP in the November midterm elections. At this point, all of our data and modeling suggests that Democrats have a good chance of picking up the House of Representatives, setting a stage for epic battles with President Trump about everything under the sun. In China, we are watching carefully for any sign that Beijing is willing to stomach economic pain in the pursuit of economic reforms. The two reforms that would matter the most are increased financial regulation and more aggressive purging of excess capacity in the industrial sector. The 19th Party Congress marked a serious reduction in political constraints impeding President Xi's domestic agenda. This means he could launch ambitious reforms, akin to what President Jiang Zemin did in the late 1990s. While this is a low-conviction view, and requires constant monitoring of the news and data flow out of China, it would be a considerable risk to global growth. Reforms would be good for China's long-term outlook, but could put a significant damper on short-term growth. The jury is out, but the next several months will be crucial. Three other issues that could become market-relevant are the ongoing North Korean nuclear crisis, trade protectionism, and tensions between the Trump administration and Iran. The first two are connected because a calming of tensions with North Korea would give the U.S. greater maneuvering room against China. The ongoing economic détente between the U.S. and China is merely a function of President Trump needing President Xi's cooperation on pressuring North Korea. But if President Trump no longer needs China's help with Kim Jong-Un, he may be encouraged to go after China on trade. As for Iran, it is not yet clear if the administration is serious about ratcheting up tensions or whether it is playing domestic politics. We suspect it is the latter implying that the market impact of any brinkmanship will be minor. But our conviction view is low. Mr. X: We seem to be getting mixed messages regarding populist pressures in Europe. The far right did not do as well as expected in the Netherlands or France, but did well in Austria. Also, Merkel is under some pressure in Germany. BCA: We don't see much in the way of mixed messages, at least when it comes to support for European integration. In Austria, the populists learned a valuable lesson from the defeats of their peers in the Netherlands and France: stay clear of the euro. Thus the Freedom Party committed itself to calling a referendum on Austria's EU membership if Turkey was invited to join the bloc. As the probability of that is literally zero, the right-wing in Austria signaled to the wider public that it was not anti-establishment on the issue of European integration. In Germany, the Alternative for Germany only gained 12.6%, but it too focused on an anti-immigration platform. The bottom line for investors is that the European anti-establishment right is falling over itself to de-emphasize its Euroskepticism and focus instead on anti-immigration policies. For investors, the former is far more relevant than the latter, meaning that the market relevance of European politics has declined. One potential risk in 2018 is the Italian election, likely to be held by the end of the first quarter. However, as with Austria, the anti-establishment parties have all moved away from overt Euroskepticism. At some point over the next five years, Italy will be a source of market risk, but in this electoral cycle and not with economic growth improving. Ms. X: The tensions between the U.S. and North Korea, fueled by two unpredictable leaders, have me very concerned. I worry that name-calling may slide into something more serious. How serious is the threat? BCA: The U.S.-Iran nuclear negotiations are a good analog for the North Korean crisis. The U.S. had to establish a "credible threat" of war in order to move Iran towards negotiations. As such, the Obama administration ramped up the war rhetoric - using Israel as a proxy - in 2011-2012. The negotiations with Iran did not end until mid-2015, almost four years later. We likely have seen the peak in "credible threat" display this summer between the U.S. and North Korea. The next two-to-three months could revisit those highs as North Korea responds to President Trump's visit to the region, as well as to the deployment of the three U.S. aircraft carriers off the coast of the Korean Peninsula. However, we believe that we have entered the period of "negotiations." It is too early to tell how the North Korean crisis will end. We do not see a full out war between either of the main actors. We also do not see North Korea ever giving up its nuclear arsenal, although limiting its ballistic technology and toning down its "fire and brimstone' rhetoric is a must. The bottom line is that this issue will remain a source of concern and uncertainty for a while longer. Conclusions Mr. X: This seems a good place to end our discussion. We have covered a lot of ground and your views have reinforced my belief that it would make good sense to start lowering the risk in our portfolio. I know that such a policy could leave money on the table as there is a reasonable chance that equity prices may rise further. But that is a risk I am prepared to take. Ms. X: I foresee some interesting discussions with my father when we get back to our office. At the risk of sounding reckless, I remain inclined to stay overweight equities for a while longer. I am sympathetic to the view that the era of hyper-easy money is ending and at some point that may cause a problem for risk assets. However, timing is important because, in my experience, the final stages of a bull market can deliver strong gains. BCA: Good luck with those discussions! We have similar debates within BCA between those who want to maximize short-run returns and those who take a longer-term view. Historically, BCA has had a conservative bias toward investment strategy and the bulk of evidence suggests that this is one of these times when long-run investors should focus on preservation of capital rather than stretching for gains. Our thinking also is influenced by our view that long-run returns will be very poor from current market levels. Our estimates indicate that a balanced portfolio will deliver average returns of only 3.3% a year over the coming decade, or 1.3% after inflation (Table 3). That is down from the 4% and 1.9% nominal and real annual returns that we estimated a year ago, reflecting the current more adverse starting point for valuations. There is a negligible equity risk premium on offer, implying that stock prices have to fall at some point to establish higher prospective returns. Table 310-Year Asset Return Projections The return calculations for equities assume profit margins decline modestly over the period and that multiples mean revert to their historical average. These assumptions may turn out to be too pessimistic if there is no redistribution of income shares from the corporate sector back to labor and/or PERs stay at historically high levels. In that case, equities obviously would do better than our estimates. In terms of the outlook for the coming year, a lot will depend on the pace of economic growth. We are assuming that growth is strong enough to encourage central banks to keep moving away from hyper-easy policies, setting up for a collision with markets. If growth slows enough that recession fears spike, then that also would be bad for risk assets. Sustaining the bull market requires a goldilocks growth outcome of not too hot and not too cold. That is possible, but we would not make it our base case scenario. Ms. X: You have left us with much to think about and I am so glad to have finally attended one of these meetings. My father has always looked forward to these discussions every year and I am very happy to be joining him. Many thanks for taking the time to talk to us. Before we go, it would be helpful to have a recap of your key views. BCA: That will be our pleasure. The key points are as follows: The environment of easy money, low inflation and healthy profit growth that has been so bullish for risk assets will start to change during the coming year. Financial conditions, especially in the U.S., will gradually tighten as decent growth leads to building inflation pressures, encouraging central banks to withdraw stimulus. With U.S. equities at an overvalued extreme and investor sentiment overly optimistic, this will set the scene for an eventual collision between policy and the markets. The conditions underpinning the bull market will erode only slowly which means that risk asset prices should continue to rise for at least the next six months. However, long-run investors should start shifting to a neutral exposure. Given our economic and policy views, there is a good chance that we will move to an underweight position in risk assets during the second half of 2018. The U.S. economy is already operating above potential and thus does not need any boost from easier fiscal policy. Any major tax cuts risk overheating the economy, encouraging the Federal Reserve to hike interest rates and boosting the odds of a recession in 2019. This is at odds with the popular view that tax cuts will be good for the equity market. A U.S. move to scrap NAFTA would add to downside risks. For the second year in a row, the IMF forecasts of economic growth for the coming year are likely to prove too pessimistic. The end of fiscal austerity has allowed the euro area economy to gather steam and this should be sustained in 2018. However, the slow progress in negotiating a Brexit deal with the EU poses a threat to the U.K. economy. China's economy is saddled with excessive debt and excess capacity in a number of areas. Any other economy would have collapsed by now, but the government has enough control over banking and other sectors to prevent a crisis. Growth should hold above 6% in the next year or two, although much will depend on how aggressively President Xi pursues painful reforms. The market is too optimistic in assuming that the Fed will not raise interest rates by as much as indicated in their "dots" projections. There is a good chance that the U.S. yield curve will become flat or inverted by late 2018. Bonds are not an attractive investment at current yields. Only Greece and Portugal currently have 10-year government bond real yields above their historical average. Corporate bonds should outperform governments, but a tightening in financial conditions will put these at risk in the second half of 2018. The euro area and Japanese equity markets should outperform the U.S. over the next year reflecting their better valuations and more favorable financial conditions. Developed markets should outperform the emerging market index. Historically, the U.S. equity market has led recessions by between 3 and 12 months. If, as we fear, a U.S. recession starts in the second half of 2019, then the stock market would be at risk from the middle of 2018. The improving trend in capital spending should favor industrial stocks. Our other two overweight sectors are energy and financials. The oil price will be well supported by strong demand and output restraint by OPEC and Russia. The Brent price should average $65 a barrel over the coming year, with risks to the upside. We expect base metals prices to trade broadly sideways but will remain highly dependent on developments in China. Modest positions in gold are warranted. Relative economic and policy trends will favor a firm dollar in 2018. Unlike at the start of 2017, investors are significantly short the dollar which is bullish from a contrary perspective. Sterling is quite cheap but Brexit poses downside risks. The key market-relevant geopolitical events to monitor will be fiscal policy and mid-term elections in the U.S., and reform policies in China. With the former, the Democrats have a good chance of winning back control of the House of Representatives, creating a scenario of complete policy gridlock. A balanced portfolio is likely to generate average returns of only 3.3% a year in nominal terms over the next decade. This compares to average returns of around 10% a year between 1982 and 2017. Let us take this opportunity to wish you and all of our clients a very peaceful, healthy and prosperous New Year. The Editors November 20, 2017 1 This comprises consumer spending on durables, housing and business investment in equipment and software. 2 Please see 'Bitcoin's Macro Impact', BCA Global Investment Strategy Special Report, September 15, 2017.

Highlights Question 1: Why is U.S. inflation still so low? Question 2: How important is the upcoming change in Fed leadership? Question 3: What are the implications of the U.S. tax cuts? Question 4: What is the outlook for the ECB next year, and how will this impact the U.S. dollar versus the euro? Question 5: Are markets underestimating the potential impact from slower growth of central bank balance sheets? Question 6: How much longer can this powerful rally in Emerging Markets continue? Question 7: What are other investors worried about? Feature I have just returned from an extended two-week trip visiting clients in the Asia-Pacific region. The meetings were all very well attended, with even many non-dedicated fixed income investors turning up to ask tough questions about global bond markets. My impression was that given the powerful returns earned in virtually all risk assets this year (equities, credit, Emerging Markets), our clients are growing more concerned about the potential risks from tighter global monetary policy and rising interest rates than they have been for some time. Oddly enough, this is despite not fearing either a serious rise in inflation or a major growth slowdown next year. If such a thing as "nervous complacency" can exist, it seemed widely evident in most of my meetings. This week, I am taking a more personal tone than in a typical Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report to summarize the key client questions from ten days of meetings, spread across six cities in five countries on two continents. Why is U.S. inflation still so low? Chart 1Tightest Global Labor Market##BR##Since The Mid-2000s Almost all of the meetings began with a discussion of the current situation in the U.S., particularly the lack of inflation. The current BCA view that U.S. inflation will accelerate in 2018 was met with some skepticism, particularly when framed in the context of the uncertain unemployment/inflation trade-off. In one meeting, outright laughter actually broke out when the term "Phillips Curve" was mentioned! Clearly, the burden of proof is on the inflation data itself. On that note, I presented several of the best BCA charts from recent months that show how the backdrop is ripe for a turnaround in global inflation. Clients were impressed when shown that nearly ¾ of the countries in the OECD had unemployment rates below the full-employment NAIRU, a level not seen since the period of strong coordinated global growth and rising inflation in the mid-2000s (Chart 1). Yet when I then presented a chart showing the actual inflation/unemployment data in the U.S. over the past 20 years, with a clear "kinked" Phillips Curve and the latest data point well on the steeper portion of that curve (Chart 2), the majority of clients were less convinced. The most cited reason was that the U.S. inflation data simply did not accelerate in 2017 when it was supposed to given the steady fall in unemployment over the preceding few years. Perhaps most surprising was that, rather than believe that the NAIRU rate may simply be lower now than in past business cycles, so many people that I met were willing to discard the entire Phillips Curve concept as a useful framework to forecast inflation. When presented with charts showing non-Phillips Curve reasons to expect higher inflation, however, there was far less skepticism. Perhaps the most compelling chart showed the typical 18-month lag between U.S. economic growth and the "momentum" of U.S. inflation (Chart 3). Upon seeing this, clients were more convinced that inflation would pick up next year in response to the current U.S. growth upturn. Chart 2U.S. Economy Has Moved Into##BR##The "Steep" Part Of The Phillips Curve Chart 3Inflation Typically Follows Economic Growth With A Long Lag I was also able to break down some of the skepticism on the U.S. inflation outlook even more after discussing the bullish oil forecast from our colleagues at Commodity & Energy Strategy. Admittedly, their view that the benchmark Brent oil price will average $65/bbl in 2018 sounds far less dramatic given that the current spot price has risen to nearly that level in the aftermath of the recent political turmoil in Saudi Arabia. Yet clients did appreciate that our bullish oil call was driven more by a view of improving global oil demand and continued production discipline by oil producers (especially for the so-called "OPEC 2.0" nations of Russia and Saudi Arabia). When shown our chart describing how oil prices persistently in the mid-$60s next would put some upward pressure on the inflation expectations component of global bond yields (Chart 4), there was virtually no disagreement from any clients that I met. There was a bit more pushback on the view that, if the BCA forecast of higher U.S. inflation and rising oil prices in 2018 comes to fruition, there is room for a substantial rise in U.S. Treasury yields from current levels. When presented a chart showing that market-based inflation expectations (both using TIPS breakevens and CPI swaps) could rise by 50-60bps just to get back to levels consistent with the Fed's inflation target (Chart 5), most clients politely nodded and basically said "show me the actual inflation first." Although there was widespread agreement with our view that it would take that kind of move in inflation expectations to prompt the Fed to fully deliver on the 100bps of rate hikes it is currently projecting to occur over the next year. Chart 4A Boost To Inflation Expectations##BR##From Higher Oil In 2018 Chart 5The Normalization Of U.S. Inflation##BR##Expectations Will Continue How important is the upcoming change in Fed leadership? The vast majority of clients that I met asked about the BCA view on the nomination of Jerome Powell as the new Fed Chair, replacing Janet Yellen. My impression was that there was not a lot of concern over the potential for serious alterations to the future path of U.S. monetary policy under new leadership. Yet it was still potentially a big enough change to ask questions about it. Most clients agreed with the BCA view that a Fed Chair Powell will not act much differently than Yellen. His voting history has aligned with hers and, by his own admission, he is a very data dependent central banker given that he is not a formally-trained economist. Only by knowing the ins and outs of the data has he been able to debate successfully with the Ph.D economists on the FOMC. Powell will likely be a data-driven Fed Chair that would not look to hike rates without higher inflation (and vice versa). Chart 6A Communications Problem##BR##For Jerome Powell? One point that I raised in all the meetings was that the Fed's communication strategy on future rate increases is the more worrisome issue for financial markets at the moment. The U.S. money market curve is still priced for only 50bps of rate increases over the next year, while the Fed "dots" are signaling 100bps of hikes. We think the Fed will deliver on its projections, which is one of the reasons we are recommending a below-benchmark duration stance in the U.S. (the upside in inflation expectations is the other reason). More importantly, the Fed's so-called "terminal rate" projection is at 2.75%, while our proxy for the market pricing of that rate - the 5-year U.S. Overnight Index Swap rate, 5-years forward - is hovering just above 2% (Chart 6). The persistent disagreement between the market and the Fed over the appropriate level of the terminal rate will become a problem later in 2018 if the Fed does indeed raise the funds rate to over 2% and continues to signal that more rate hikes will come to get the funds rate up to "neutral" (the terminal rate). If the Fed is not able to change the market's mind about the appropriate neutral level of the funds rate, then a move to the Fed's estimated terminal rate of 2.75% would push U.S. monetary policy into what will would be perceived a restrictive stance. This would have implications for the shape of the U.S. Treasury curve (a lot flatter) and for future growth expectations (a lot slower) heading into 2019. My impression from my meetings was that this possibility - that the Fed could engineer what would look to the markets like a policy mistake simply by sticking to its forecasts - was not at the forefront of clients' thinking at the moment. Yet there was no disagreement with the logic of how that could play out. The new Fed leadership under Jerome Powell may have its hands full clearly explaining their policy decisions in 2018, which could create some turbulence in global financial markets later in the year. What are the implications of the U.S. tax cuts? The details of the tax plans from the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate were a very hot topic in all of my client meetings. Considering all the ideas being proposed, from cuts in corporate tax rates to changes in the tax treatment of debt interest costs to removing the disincentive to repatriate profits earned abroad, it is no surprise that both equity and fixed income clients had a lot of questions on future U.S. tax policy. It is difficult right now to judge the net impact of the tax changes, as not all of the proposals in the two Congressional tax plans will likely be implemented. There will be plenty of horse trading between the Republicans and Democrats (and between the Republicans themselves) before the final tax deal is done. Yet there was a lot of concern among clients in my meetings over the likelihood that the tax cuts will be implemented at all. After seeing President Trump lose the battle on health care reform earlier this year, many clients were worried that a repeat could happen for the Trump tax cut agenda. This would have negative implications for U.S. equity markets, the U.S. dollar and future Fed policy moves. I explained the views from our colleagues at Geopolitical Strategy, who strongly believe that a tax cut will eventually pass (likely in early 2018) given the need for Congressional Republicans to have something positive to present to voters heading into the 2018 U.S. midterm elections. The tax cuts will have a moderate stimulative effect on the U.S. economy that the markets were not yet fully discounting. I also presented the chart from Global Fixed Income Strategy showing that wider U.S. budget deficits usually coincide with a steeper U.S. Treasury curve, almost always because the U.S. economy is slowing down, prompting looser fiscal policy and also Fed rate cuts (Chart 7). This time is different, however, since the Trump tax cuts will be stimulating an economy currently at full employment (middle panel). This has the potential to trigger more inflation through faster economic growth and even tighter labor markets which could prompt the Fed to move more aggressively on interest rate increases next year and eventually flatten the UST curve (bottom panel). Chart 7A Full-Employment Fiscal Stimulus Will Bear-Steepen The UST Curve The idea of a "steeper, then flatter" Treasury yield curve in response to U.S. fiscal policy stimulus generated a lot of discussion in my meetings. Some even noted that the recent flattening of the curve was a sign that the markets were discounting a lower probability of a tax deal being reached in D.C. I described the flat curve as a consequence of inflation expectations remaining too low, as the Treasury curve was much flatter than implied by the low level of the real fed funds rate, which is one of the most reliable relationships in the bond markets (higher real rates = a flatter curve, and vice versa). My conclusion from these meetings (and from the current market pricing) is that clients are a bit skeptical that a tax deal will be reached. This suggests there is room for bond yields to rise, and the Treasury curve to bear-steepen, if our political strategists are right and the tax cuts will happen. What is the outlook for the ECB next year, and how will this impact the U.S. dollar versus the euro? While most of the questions in my meetings focused on the U.S. outlook, several clients asked about the next move from the European Central Bank (ECB). This was both from a fixed income perspective and, perhaps even more importantly, with an eye on the future direction of the euro versus the U.S. dollar. I made the straightforward argument that with Euro Area economic growth showing strong momentum that is unlikely to slow much in 2018, and with headline Euro Area inflation likely to surprise to the upside based on our bullish oil call (Chart 8), the ECB would likely be forced to signal a tapering of its asset purchase program to zero by the end of next year. The oil view was especially important, as the ECB is expecting a slowing of headline Euro Area inflation to 1% in early 2018 based on the base effects from comparisons to the rise in oil prices seen in early 2017. If our house view on oil prices plays out, then there is potential for inflation to catch the ECB by surprise in 2018. The key will be how core inflation plays out as oil prices rise further. Core Euro Area inflation has dipped lower in recent months, even as wage growth has accelerated (bottom panel). Given tightening Euro Area labor markets, and robust domestic demand, the recent dip in core inflation is likely to bottom out sometime in the first few months of 2018. But until that happens, there is more potential for higher U.S. bond yields through faster increases in inflation expectations and Fed rate hikes (Chart 9). This will support a higher U.S. dollar versus the euro through wider interest rate differentials (bottom panel). Chart 8ECB Will Fully Taper##BR##By The End Of 2018 Chart 9UST-Bund Spread Will Widen Next Year,##BR##Supporting The USD Clients were generally in agreement with that view on relative interest rates, but the views on the direction of EUR/USD were far more mixed. My impression is that if the Fed delivers the rate hikes that we expect in 2018, EUR/USD has room to move lower as investors were not prepared for this. Are markets underestimating the potential impact from slower growth of central bank balance sheets? I received many questions on the potential impact of central banks either shrinking balance sheets (the Fed) or slowing their expansion (the ECB and Bank of Japan). The chart showing how the growth in central bank money printing since 2015 (when the ECB began buying bonds) has correlated strongly with the bull markets in virtually all global risk assets garnered a lot of attention (Chart 10). This was especially true when I showed the chart that converted the level of the major central bank balance sheets to a growth rate and plotted that versus the returns on global equities and credit markets (Chart 11). The implication - expect lower returns on global equity markets, and MUCH lower returns from corporate bond markets next year. Chart 10CB Liquidity Has Supported Risk Assets... Chart 11...But That Tailwind Will Fade Next Year On this point, there was almost no disagreement from clients. There is widespread awareness that this era of puny interest rates, spurred on by central banks buying up huge quantities of government bonds and other financial assets, was forcing investors to take on far more risk in their portfolios to achieve acceptable returns. The key is when this will all turn around. Clients were generally in agreement with my view that the final leg of this liquidity-driven global bull market in risk assets will best be played through equity markets over corporate credit. These stable, earnings-driven rallies seen in global equity markets have not yet reached a "blowoff" phase that would suggest a larger correction is imminent. Perhaps it will take a final asset allocation decision to move more money out of bonds into equities to trigger that final run-up in equity prices before tighter monetary policies and slower growth expectations begin to damage returns later in 2018 into 2019. How much longer can this powerful rally in Emerging Markets continue? This is a topic that generated a healthy amount of debate in my meetings, particularly given the bearish views on Emerging Market (EM) assets from my colleagues at Emerging Markets Strategy. Here again, clients were generally looking at EM as a way to achieve acceptable returns in their portfolios while also participating in the global economic upturn through growth-sensitive assets. The previous chart showing the impact of diminished central bank liquidity on EM credit markets got some clients a bit nervous about the outlook for EM markets. What also spooked them were the charts from our EM strategists showing accelerating Chinese inflation (Chart 12) and slowing Chinese money growth. There is obviously a connection between the two, as China's policymakers are being forced to tighten monetary policy, and clamp down on excess credit creation, in response to accelerating inflation and very high debt levels. The chart showing how our "China M3 Impulse" had turned negative this year and was pointing to slower growth in industrial metals prices and China capital goods imports (Chart 13) was particularly unnerving for even the most bullish of EM clients. Chart 12This Is Why China Is Tightening Monetary Policy Chart 13Prepare For Slower Chinese Growth In 2018 My impression is that the clients I met were fully loaded up on EM assets but were comfortable holding those positions based on expectations of solid Chinese economic growth and continued inflows into EM assets from yield-starved global investors. If BCA's view that Chinese growth will slow next year comes to fruition, combined with rising U.S. interest rates and a stronger U.S. dollar as the Fed tightens more than currently discounted by the markets, then there is potential for outflows from EM markets to accelerate, to the detriment of EM returns. What are other investors worried about? This is a question that comes up a lot at BCA meetings, as clients are always curious as to what we are hearing from other investors. Perhaps this can be chalked up to a version of "confirmation bias", where investors like to hear that their own views are shared by others in the markets. In my meetings over the past two weeks, however, I got the sense that clients are heavily exposed to risk assets, which have performed beyond their expectations, and are growing more worried about how things can go wrong. Like an end to the current low volatility regime, for example. Given the BCA views on the likelihood of global inflation increasing next year, triggering a more hawkish response from policymakers, I noted that I did not believe that clients were prepared for that outcome. This suggests that the beginning of the end of the current low volatility regime, which is seen across all asset classes (Chart 14), will occur through a pickup in bond volatility. This will take place from a rise in inflation expectations first, and a rise in policy rate expectations later. My advice to clients was that if realized bond volatility picks up, this is the signal to reduce exposure to credit and equity markets. We anticipate making such a recommendation sometime during 2018. Chart 14The Low Market Volatility Backdrop Will End When Bond Volatility Rises Robert Robis, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Recommendations Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Dear Client, Next week on November 20th instead of our regular weekly publication you will receive our flagship publication "The Bank Credit Analyst" with our annual investment outlook. Our regular publication service will resume on November 27th with our high-conviction trades for 2018. Kind Regards, Anastasios Avgeriou Highlights Portfolio Strategy Melting medical care input costs, sustainable enrollment gains and even modest tax relief would augment managed health care profits. Stay long health care insurers. Pharma and biotech stocks suffer from declining pricing power. Continue to avoid both. As a result, the S&P health care index remains in the underweight column. Recent Changes There are no changes to our portfolio this week. Table 1 Feature Equities consolidated recent gains as earnings season drew to a close last week. Recent election results coupled with the revealing of the Senate tax bill raised fresh concerns, unwarranted according to our geopolitical strategists, about the likelihood of a bill passage. While such heightened fiscal policy uncertainty is disquieting, solid EPS growth on the back of synchronized global economic and capex growth should sustain the overshoot phase in stocks. Q3 EPS vaulted to a fresh all-time high (Chart 1) and, were it not for two financials sector sub-indexes - reinsurers and multi-line insurers that were severely hit by the one off hurricane catastrophes - financials EPS growth would have been nil from -7.3%, pushing the overall SPX EPS number to 9.2% from 8.1%. Chart 2 shows that the positive EPS surprise factor remained close to the recent average. Going into earnings season, Q3 EPS growth forecasts collapsed to 4.1%, but actual results ended up 400bps higher. Chart 1Earnings-Led Advance Continues Chart 2Surprise Factor In Line With Recent Average While EPS growth cannot stay in the high teens forever, settling down close to 10%/annum EPS growth rate is possible in the near run. The softness in the U.S. dollar along with the basic resource sector commodity-related comeback, synchronized global economic and capex growth and financials contributing more than sell side analysts expect to overall EPS, suggest that such profit growth is attainable in 2018. Tack on the possibility of fiscal easing and sustained lift in animal spirits (bottom panel, Chart 1), and the odds of low double-digit EPS growth increase further. Meanwhile on the monetary policy front, news of Powell's nomination to take the helm at the Fed barely budged the equity market, but some cracks are appearing in the bond market (Chart 3). Keep in mind that going back to Volcker's late-1970s nomination, Fed Chair transitions have been volatile. In fact, the market has tested the resolve of all four previous Fed leaders (Chart 4). As soon as Volcker come into power he had to deal with the early-1980s recession (and the LatAm crisis in 1982) that saw the market fall by 17% from peak to trough. When Greenspan was confirmed Chairman in August of 1987, two months into his tenure Black Monday happened and he had to step in and reiterate the Fed's function as a lender of last resort. In 2006 Bernanke took over from the Maestro, and a recession hit by the end of 2007 that morphed into the Great Recession. Finally in early-2014, Yellen become the Fed Chairwoman and in late-2015 a global manufacturing recession had taken hold resulting in a 14% drawdown in the SPX. Chart 3Watching The Bond Market Chart 4Testing Times Inevitably, the market will test the new Fed Chairman. This expansion has been long in the tooth and given BCA's 2019 recession view, this testing time is at least a year away. This week we reiterate our underweight stance in a defensive sector and highlight its key sub-components. Stick With Managed Health Care Exposure Following a two year hiatus, managed health care stocks broke out in 2017 and the juggernaut has now resumed (Chart 5). While the recent unsuccessful intra-industry M&A attempts (breakdown of both AET/HUM and ANTM/CI deals) were a mild setback, CVS's latest announcement, to take over AET and further vertically integrate, has brought euphoria back to this health care subgroup. We have added alpha to our portfolio as relative performance is up smartly, roughly 24% since our early-April 2016 overweight recommendation, begging the question: Is the time ripe to lock in impressive profits and move to the sidelines or is there more upside left? Leading profit indicators suggest that more gains are in store for the relative share price ratio. After petering out in 2016, our managed care cost proxy (comprising physician and hospital services and medical care commodity inflation) has plummeted by over 350bps from the recent peak (shown inverted, second panel, Chart 5). Given that premiums are set on a trailing cost basis, profit margins should surprise to the upside, i.e. the industry's medical loss ratio has room to fall. Not only is our medical care input cost proxy melting, but the latest employment cost index release revealed that managed health care wage inflation is also steadily decelerating (third & bottom panels, Chart 6). Taken together, these two cost categories are heralding a solid industry EPS growth backdrop in the coming months (total cost proxy shown inverted, second panel, Chart 6). Chart 5Melting Costs Are A Boon To Margins... Chart 6...And EPS Importantly, health care insurers are also set to benefit from the Trump administration's push toward lowering drug prices and the proliferation of generic drugs. While drug inflation is positive for the pharma/biotech space, it is an expense incurred by managed care providers and vice versa. The upshot is that the pharmaceutical sector's pain will be the managed health care industry's gain (bottom panel, Chart 5). On the legislative front, the failed attempts to repeal and replace the ACA is positive as the newly enrolled will likely remain insured and underpin recurring industry revenues. As long as costs stay in check, the implication is ongoing earnings improvement. Tack on any relief related to a tax bill passage (the managed care index has a 47% effective tax rate or 24% higher than the overall S&P health care sector, see Table 2) and the path of least resistance is higher for profits. Table 2Tax Relief Potential Despite all of these positives, relative valuation remains muted, hovering near the neutral zone. On a forward P/E basis the S&P managed care index is trading on a par with the S&P 500 (Chart 7). If our thesis of sustained earnings outperformance materializes in the coming quarters, then a valuation re-rating phase looms. In sum, melting input costs, sustainable enrollment gains and even modest tax relief would augment managed health care profits. This is a recipe for a durable valuation expansion phase. Bottom Line: While we are underweight the broad health care index, our sole overweight remains the S&P managed health care index. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5MANH - UNH, AET, ANTM, CI, HUM, CNC. Ailing Pharma We downgraded pharma to an underweight stance on July 31 on the back of weak pricing power fundamentals, soft spending backdrop, a depreciating U.S. dollar and deteriorating industry operating metrics. The S&P pharmaceuticals index relative performance is down 5% since then as our bearish profit thesis is validated. Our dual synchronized global economic and capex growth themes bode ill for defensive pharmaceutical stocks. Nondiscretionary health care outlays jump in times of duress and underwhelm during expansions. Currently, the soaring ISM manufacturing index is signaling that pharma profits will remain under pressure in the coming months as the most cyclical parts of the economy flex their muscles (the ISM survey is shown inverted, middle panel, Chart 8). A depreciating currency is also synonymous with pharma profit ails (bottom panel, Chart 8). Historically, a soft U.S. dollar has been closely correlated with global growth, whereas greenback strength tends to slowdown the global economy. In that context, pharma exports should at least provide some top line growth relief during depreciating U.S. dollar phases. However, pharma exports are contracting at an accelerating pace (top panel, Chart 8) despite the U.S. dollar's year-to-date softness, warning that global pharma demand is sick. Importantly, the news on the pricing power front is disconcerting. Both in absolute terms and relative to overall PPI, pharma selling prices are steadily losing steam. In the context of a bloated industry workforce, the profit margin outlook darkens significantly (Chart 9). If the Trump administration also manages to clamp down on the secular growth of pharma selling price inflation, then industry margins will remain under chronic pressure. Worrisomely, were pharma prices to continue to trail overall corporate sector price inflation, as we expect, then the de-rating phase in the S&P pharmaceuticals index has a long ways to go (bottom panel, Chart 9). Finally, even on the operating metric front, the news is mostly grim. Pharma industrial production is nil and our pharma productivity proxy remains muted, warning that profits will likely underwhelm. Industry retail sales growth is also flirting with the zero line and pharma inventories have resumed growing on a short-term rate of change basis across the supply channel. Pharma shipments offer the only ray of hope. But the recent acceleration in the latter may be the result of the hurricane-related catastrophes (Chart 10). Chart 8Counter Cyclical With##br## No Export Relief Chart 9Weak Pricing Power And Bloated##br## Cost Structure Weighs On Margins Chart 10Operating Metrics ##br##Are Also Feeble Netting it out, pharma profit growth is on track to continue to disappoint as the confluence of synchronized global growth, softening U.S. dollar, pricing power losses and deteriorating operating metrics are all profit headwinds. Bottom Line: We reiterate our late-July downgrade in the S&P pharma index to underweight. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5PHAR - JNJ, PFE, MRK, BMY, AGN, LLY, ZTS, MYL, PRGO. A Few Words On Biotech Biotech stocks are another casualty of weakening pharmaceutical wholesale price inflation, and given that the industry's profits move neck-and-neck with their pharma siblings, revenue and EPS growth are bound to continue to surprise to the downside (Chart 11). We expect such profit woes will weigh on the S&P biotech index relative performance, and re-iterate our high-conviction underweight status. Chart 11Biotech Equities Hate Higher Rates Chart 12Technicals Say Sell Not only are biotech firms modestly concealed Big Pharma, i.e. they manufacture multi-billion dollar blockbuster drugs, and the Trump administration's scrutiny of drug price inflation is a profit negative, but also a rising interest rate backdrop is working against this health care sub-index. Historically, rising interest rates have been inversely correlated with biotech stocks. High flying valuations tend to gravitate back to earth when the Fed embarks on a tightening cycle. The opposite is also true. BCA's U.S. Bond Strategy view remains that in the coming 12 months interest rates will be higher, moving closer to the 3% mark on the 10-year Treasury yield front. If such a selloff materializes in the bond market, then investors will abandon biotech stocks in a heartbeat (Chart 11). Chart 13Heed The EPS Growth Model Signal Meanwhile, according to empirical evidence since the mid-1990s, relative momentum in biotech stocks is nearly perfectly inversely correlated with the global credit impulse (Chart 11). This negative correlation has become more pronounced in the past decade underscoring the non-discretionary/defensive nature of large biotech outfits. In other words biotech stocks behave like counter-cyclicals similar to their pharma brethren. Given BCA's view of a recession hitting some time in 2019, we recommend investors still avoid biotech stocks. Finally, technicals are also waving a red flag. Chart 12 shows that a head-and-shoulders formation has taken root and were the neckline to give way in the coming weeks, relative performance would suffer a substantial setback. Bottom Line: Biotech stocks remain a high-conviction underweight. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5BIOTX - ABBV, AMGN, GILD, CELG, BIIB, VRTX, REGN, ALXN, INCY. Health Care Sector Implications What does all this mean for the broad S&P health care sector? Our relative profit growth model best encapsulates these forces and is signaling that profits will remain downbeat into 2018 (Chart 13). Managed health care stocks (overweight) comprise 13% of the index, while pharma (underweight) and biotech (underweight) market capitalization weights both add up to 54% of the total. As a result of our intra-sector positioning and given our neutral weightings in the remaining health care sub-indexes, we continue to recommend a below benchmark allocation in the S&P health care index. Bottom Line: Stay underweight the S&P health care sector. Anastasios Avgeriou, Vice President U.S. Equity Strategy anastasios@bcaresearch.com Current Recommendations Current Trades Size And Style Views Favor small over large caps and stay neutral growth over value.

Highlights China's mini-cycle has peaked, which has raised concerns among global investors that China may return to below-trend growth over the coming year, similar to what occurred in 2015. In our view, the severe slowdown in the Chinese economy in 2015 was due to overly tight monetary policy coupled with a severely weak external demand environment. A monetary conditions approach has done an excellent job of predicting industrial activity in China over the past several years. While monetary policy has tightened somewhat since the beginning of the year, none of the monetary conditions indexes that we track have come close to returning to 2015 levels. In short, an uncontrolled and sharp deceleration in the Chinese economy is not in the cards. This favors the performance of Chinese stocks, both in absolute and relative terms. Stay overweight. Feature Last week's report was replaced by a Special Report prepared by my colleague Matt Gertken, Associate Vice President of our Geopolitical Strategy team.1 The report presented a full "postmortem" on the Party Congress, and outlined how stepped up reform efforts in China are likely over the coming year, and beyond. By "reforms", our geopolitical team specifically means deleveraging in the financial sector accompanied by a more intense anti-corruption campaign focused on the shadow-banking sector, as well as ongoing restructuring in the industrial sector. The implications of the "reform reboot" scenario presented in last week's report are negative for emerging markets (EM) and other plays on China's industrial sector (such as industrial metals). We agree that a "status quo" scenario of no significant reforms is highly unlikely given that President Xi has succeeded in amassing tremendous political capital and that he has an agenda for reform. But the intensity of reforms pursued over the coming year will have to be closely monitored by policymakers, to avoid a repeat of the significant slowdown that occurred in 2014/2015. As such, the view of BCA's China Investment Strategy service is that the reform efforts over the coming year will be structured at a pace that is sufficient to avoid a meaningful deceleration in China's industrial sector, even though the momentum of China's "mini" economic cycle of the past two years has very likely peaked. However, the potential for a brisk pace of reforms to cause a more acute decline in industrial activity is a risk to our view that the slowdown in China's economy is likely to be benign and controlled. Monitoring reform progress is likely to be a key theme for this publication over the coming year. Over the nearer term, the potential impact of reform efforts is not the only risk to the economy, as many market participants appear to be worried that the peak in China's mini-cycle presages a destabilizing decline in economic activity. This week's report is the second of two parts examining the key differences facing China today from what prevailed in mid-2015,2 when the Chinese economy operated below what investors and market participants considered to be a "stable" pace of growth. In Part II we focus on monetary policy, and outline how the monetary environment remains stimulative despite a significant rise in corporate bond yields over the past year. China's Monetary Policy Stance: A Brief Review Chart 1 presents the one-year policy lending rate over the past decade, and highlights the four distinct phases that have prevailed since the global financial crisis in 2008: Chart 1A Brief Review Of China's Monetary Policy Stance A long period of significant easing that began during the Great Recession and lasted until late-2010 A material rate tightening cycle that began in late-2010 and ended in mid-2012 A half-reversal of the 2011/2012 rate cycle, which happened quickly in the summer of 2012 and was followed by a long pause until late-2014, and A significant series of rate cuts over the course of 2015, followed by a 2-year pause at current levels. We contend that policymakers were too timid in responding to economic weakness in China at the end of the third monetary policy phase highlighted in Chart 1, and that this hesitation magnified the impact of the serious deterioration in China's external demand environment that we discussed in Part I of this report. Chart 2Monetary Conditions Predict ##br##Chinese Industrial Activity Of course, in a large, trade-sensitive, economy like that of China, interest rates are not the only determinant of the degree of monetary accommodation. In order to capture the effects of the exchange rate and other factors affecting the efficacy of monetary policy, we have tended to show a Monetary Conditions Index (MCI) as a stand-in for the policy stance. As shown in Chart 2, the Bloomberg MCI has done an excellent job of leading industrial activity in China over the past several years, particularly during the mini-cycle of the past two years. While the MCI appears to have peaked early this year, it remains well above (i.e. more accommodative) the levels reached in mid-2015 when policymakers finally became serious about easing monetary conditions. Looking Forward Chart 3 presents a few alternative MCIs for China alongside Bloomberg's measure. Analysts tend to employ a variety of approaches when calculating monetary conditions indexes, but the real interest rate and the real effective exchange rate almost always feature prominently. Of the three alternative measures, Citigroup's MCI is the most bearish, as it includes the year-over-year growth rate of M2 which has recently languished. The remaining two measures are BCA calculations, one that deflates interest rates using producer prices, and one that uses core consumer prices. Both of our measures employ an equal split between the real interest rate and the exchange rate. Chart 3 highlights that all four MCIs have either peaked or are now falling, suggesting that a tightening in financial conditions earlier this year has somewhat reduced the degree of monetary accommodation to the economy. However, there are three key points to consider when judging the likely impact of monetary tightening on China's economy over the coming 6-12 months: None of the MCIs shown in Chart 3 have returned to their 2015 low, implying that the policy tightening that has occurred over the past year is not likely to cause Chinese industrial activity to crash in over the coming 6-12 months. Most of the appreciation in the RMB this year has occurred versus the dollar, not against the euro or in trade-weighted terms (Chart 4). In fact, in trade-weighted the RMB remains 6.5% below where it was in August 2015 prior to the currency devaluation. This highlights that the recent appreciation largely reflects dollar weakness, rather than policy-induced strength in the RMB. Chart 3Monetary Conditions Have Not Returned##br## To 2015 Levels Chart 4Recent RMB Appreciation##br## Reflects Dollar Weakness Average lending rates have only increased approximately 40 bps over the past year, in comparison to the 200 bps of easing that occurred from 2014 to 2016 (Chart 5). In real terms (when deflated by core consumer prices), average interest rate have barely risen at all this year. The still modest rise in average lending rates is an important consideration, because it contrasts with the rise in Chinese bond yields, both in the government and corporate sectors. For example, Chart 6 shows that corporate bond yields have risen by 160 bps since late-2016 and are 25 bps higher than they were in early-2015. Chart 5Average Lending Rates ##br##Have Risen Only Modestly Chart 6Corporate Bond Yields##br## Have Tightened Materially But our view is that average lending rates are a more important driver of debt service payments for China's non-financial sector. In fact, Table 1 highlights that while corporate bond financing is a growing component of Chinese private social financing, it is still quite small. The table presents a breakdown of adjusted social financing, which highlights that the sum of local currency loans, foreign currency loans in RMB, trust and entrusted loans equals roughly 85% of total social financial excluding equity issuance. Corporate bonds, by contrast, account for only about 10%, suggesting that the economic impact of the rise in bond yields this year will be relatively small. Table 1Corporate Bonds Account For A Small Percent Of China's Social Financing Investment Implications We noted in our October 12 Weekly Report that the acceleration in the Chinese economy that began in mid-2015 has likely peaked (Chart 7), ending the upswing of this "mini" economic cycle. Chart 7A Stylized View Of China's Recent The framework illustrated in Chart 7 presented three distinct scenarios for China over the coming 6-12 months: A re-acceleration of the economy and a continuation of the V-shaped rebound profile, A benign, controlled deceleration and settling of growth into the "stable" growth range, and An uncontrolled and sharp deceleration in the economy that threatens a return to the conditions that prevailed in early-2015 (or worse). In our view, the Chinese economy in early-2015 began to operate below the "stable" growth range shown in Chart 7, owing to a "double whammy" of excessively tight monetary conditions and a synchronized global downturn. While our research suggests that China's export growth will moderate over the coming year and that monetary conditions have tightened somewhat, the magnitude of these changes are not sufficiently large to return the Chinese economy back to 2015-like conditions. To us, this is consistent with the second scenario presented above. From an absolute equity perspective, this conclusion is positive for Chinese stock prices. Chart 8 highlights that the Li Keqiang index correlates fairly well with the growth in earnings for the MSCI China index ex technology; a moderate decline in the pace of growth in China's industrial sector would blunt the earnings growth of these firms, but not enough to cause an outright contraction. The combination of positive ex-tech earnings growth and very cheap valuation (Chart 9) suggests that the absolute uptrend in Chinese ex-technology stocks that began at the beginning of 2016 is likely to continue. Chart 8Ex-Tech EPS Growth Will Moderate, ##br##But Not Contract Chart 9Excluding Technology, ##br##China Is Extraordinarily Cheap In relative terms, the picture is somewhat cloudier, although for now we would continue to favor the China MSCI index versus global and emerging market stocks. Chart 10 highlights that Chinese equities have outperformed global stocks even when excluding tech companies, although it is clear that most of the recent outperformance is due to the IT sector. On the earnings front, while we expect Chinese ex-tech earnings growth to moderate over the coming year, this is also true of overall U.S. equities (Chart 11). Finally, Chart 12 highlights that while Chinese technology firms are richly priced vs their global counterparts, the multi-year relative outperformance trend has been fundamentally-driven, a situation that does not appear to be threatened by a slowdown in China's industrial sector (given the largely domestic & consumer orientation of Chinese technology firms). Chart 10China Is Beating Global,##br## Even Excluding Technology Chart 11U.S. Earnings Growth##br## Is Set To Moderate Chart 12China's Tech Rally Is ##br##Fundamentally-Driven Bottom Line: The economic momentum of China's 2-year mini-cycle has probably peaked, but an uncontrolled and sharp deceleration in the economy is not in the cards. This favors the performance of Chinese stocks, both in absolute and relative terms. Stay overweight. Jonathan LaBerge, CFA, Vice President Special Reports jonathanl@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Report, "China: Party Congress Ends ... So What?", dated November 2, 2017, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "China's Economy - 2015 Vs Today (Part I): Trade", dated October 26, 2017, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations

Highlights Powell's nomination will not change the Fed's gradual rate hike path, but open Board seats are a worry. Household debt growth is slower than usual, but auto debt levels are a concern. Stocks will beat bonds and oil will rise after EPS growth peaks next year. Funding liquidity should remain adequate as the Fed unwinds its balance sheet. Feature Last week was an extraordinarily busy week for U.S. financial markets, but BCA's view on the economy, the Fed and asset class returns remains the same. President Trump named Jerome Powell to replace Janet Yellen as Fed Chair and the GOP released additional details of their tax plan. The October readings on employment, manufacturing, and wage growth fell short of expectations. However, data on consumer confidence, non-manufacturing ISM and vehicle sales for October exceeded expectations. The Q3 Employment Cost Index will give Fed policymakers confidence that the Phillips curve is not dead, but the persistent weakness in unit labor costs (the Q3 data was released last week) will concern the FOMC. The Fed remains on track to raise rates by 0.25% in December and three more times in 2018, matching their dot plot. While average hourly earnings disappointed in October, the impacts of Hurricanes Harvey and Irma make the data difficult to interpret. Nonetheless, the year-over-year growth in the 3-month moving average of average hourly earnings was 2.6% in October, up from 2.5% in July, before Harvey made landfall in Texas. Moreover, real GDP is growing faster than the economy's long term potential (1.8% per the Fed), and at 4.1%, the unemployment rate is well below the Fed's measure of full employment (4.6%) (Chart 1). Jerome Powell will continue to pursue the gradual rate hikes preferred by his predecessor. However, Powell is the first Fed Chair since G. William Miller (1978-79) to not have a PhD in economics. He is not known as a policy hawk or a dove, and this lack of conviction in his own policy suggests that he will rely on more on his Board colleagues for direction than recent chairs. The potential power shift from the chair to the committee may make FOMC communications more difficult to interpret. After Yellen departs the Fed early next year, the seven-member board will be down to just four, providing Trump the opportunity to further shape monetary policy. Table 1 provides Powell's comments on key aspects of the economy, monetary and regulatory policy. Chart 1Labor Market Conditions Tightening##BR##And Support More Rate Hikes Table 1Powell On Monetary Policy, The Economy And Regulation BCA expects that Powell, a Republican, will be confirmed by the Senate and preside over the FOMC meeting in March 2018. Powell already sits on the Fed Board. In 2012 President Obama appointed Powell to the Fed to fill an unexpired term. The Senate voted 74-21 to confirm. Two years later, Powell was confirmed 67-21 for a full term (14 years) as a governor. Fifty-one votes are required for confirmation. BCA's Chief Economist, Martin Barnes, wrote about the potential for change at Federal Reserve Board earlier this year.1 The bottom line is that looming changes in the composition of the Fed's Board of Governors are important, but we doubt that the overall integrity of the Fed will be seriously compromised by bad appointments. However, at this stage, it is futile to guess who the Administration will choose. Regardless of who controls the Fed, there always will be the potential for errors because their economic models (along with everybody else's) are imprecise, data can be unreliable, and the policy tools are crude. Some uptick in inflation is likely and would even be desirable, but it will not be allowed to get out of control. The bigger uncertainty is what will happen after the next economic downturn because even the most hawkish policymakers may be forced to embrace inflationary policies that will make the past cycle's actions pale by comparison. Subprime Auto Sector Signals Household deleveraging has ended, but consumers are reticent to take on new debt despite an improving labor market and record household net worth. Household debt is growing at under 2% a year, less than half the pre-crisis pace. Moreover, household debt relative to disposable income remains well below a decade ago, but the household indebtedness profile is not uniform. While the debt-to-disposable income ratio of mortgage and revolving consumer credit has moved lower, the ratio of non-revolving credit (which includes both auto and student loan debt) has moved up since 2010 and surpassed the 15.8% pre-crisis peak in 2012 (Chart 2). Chart 2Household Debt By Sector In 2016, 34% of U.S. families had vehicle loans, up from a low of 30% in 2010. In 2004-2007, more than one-third of U.S. families carried auto debt (Chart 3). The median value of households' auto loans is $13,000 (in 2016 dollars), up from $11,000 in 2010, but still below the 2004-2007 peak of $14,000 (Chart 4). However, delinquency rates are on the rise in those areas where consumers have been adding debt (credit cards, auto loans and student loans) (Chart 5). Chart 3Rise In % Of Families With Auto Loan Debt... Chart 4...But Auto Debt Levels Are Manageable In particular, default rates in auto and student loans are above their mid-2000s readings, but are below their 2010-2012 zenith. Lending standards for vehicle loans were easy at the start of the decade, became less so recently and then turned restrictive in mid-2016. In the mid-2000s, borrowing guidelines for student loans and credit cards (data on bank lending standards for auto loans began in 2011) were easy in 2004-2007. Banks are taking a cautious approach to consumer lending in this cycle. The gradual tightening of lending criteria between 2010 and 2016 led to a drop in the average FICO score for new auto loans. However, as standards tightened in 2016 and into the first quarter of 2017, the average FICO escalated. FICO scores for new vehicle loans moved sharply lower in Q2; it may be a new trend or perhaps a blip in the data. Even with the latest dip, the FICO for new auto loans (698) is well above the 675-685 range that prevailed in 2004-2006 (Chart 6, bottom panel). Chart 5Consumer Loan Metrics Chart 6ABS Market Overview Subprime auto loans as a percentage of all auto loans remain well below pre-crisis levels and should limit a wave of subprime auto defaults in the years ahead. Only 22% of the $148 billion in new vehicle loans recorded in Q2 2017 were issued to borrowers with FICO scores below 620. The latest reading is in the middle of the range that has been in effect since 2010 (18-25%). Between 2004 and 2007, the share of auto loans issued to subprime borrowers was as high as 32% in 2006 and averaged 28%. The FOMC has elevated financial stability in its recent deliberations2 and is watching for imbalances. The September 20-21 FOMC meeting minutes noted that "Subprime auto loan balances have declined so far this year, partly reflecting the tighter lending standards, and the average credit score of all borrowers who obtained an auto loan in the second quarter remained near the upper end of its range of the past few years." We expect the Fed to remain vigilant on this issue. Bottom Line: Household debt ratios are well below the pre-2007 peak, but consumers are piling on more auto debt. While delinquency rates for auto debt are rising, banks are tightening lending requirements and have not extended auto credit to subprime borrowers outside of historical norms. If household incomes, the stock market and housing prices rise, and banks and regulators remain vigilant, then the subprime auto sector would not pose a systemic risk to the U.S. economy or financial system.3 BCA's U.S. Bond Strategy service prefers Aaa-rated credit card ABS over Aaa-rated auto loan ABS (Chart 6). Investment Direction After EPS Peak Chart 7Strong EPS Growth Ahead,##BR##Will Start To Slow Soon The BCA earnings model shows that S&P 500 EPS growth is peaking and should slow through 2018 toward a level commensurate with 3½-4% nominal GDP growth (Chart 7). Accordingly, BCA believes that the earnings backdrop will remain a tailwind for the equity market, albeit a smaller force. This forecast excludes any positive effects on growth from tax cuts that would encourage EPS and the S&P 500 index in the short term, although this would also bring forward Fed rate hikes. We will provide an update on the Q3 earnings reporting season in next week's report. Investors are questioning what will happen to risk assets after earnings growth peaks, but before it slips below zero (Table 2). BCA has identified seven episodes between 1973 and 2015 when S&P 500 EPS growth reached a top and subsequently dipped below zero. Four of the seven periods (1973-75, 1976-80, 1988-1991, and 1993-2001) partially overlapped with recessions. The U.S. economy was in recession during the entire 1973-75 period but the recession occurred at or near the end in the other three occurrences. U.S. stocks, Treasuries and oil behave consistently during these periods. The performance of gold, the dollar, small caps (relative to large) and high yield (relative to Treasuries) is not consistent, and investment-grade corporate debt underperformed Treasuries in six of the seven intervals. On average, stocks beat bonds by 3,000 bps after earnings decelerate, but before they turn negative. Oil (+8,310 basis points) and gold (+6,950 bps) are the standouts; both commodities beat stocks) as earnings growth fades. Small caps barely outperform large, and the dollar, on average, is flat across all seven periods. Investment-grade corporate debt underperforms Treasuries by an average of 50 bps during these episodes. Table 2U.S. Asset Class Performance As EPS Growth Slows The three occasions when EPS growth crested and then slowed to zero, but the economy avoided a recession, were in the mid-1980s, the mid-2000s and the early part of the current decade. These mid-cycle slowdowns were triggered by Fed rate hikes in the mid-1990s and mid-2000s; in the early 2010s, there were similar fears of a rate increase, coupled with a stronger dollar and a collapse in oil prices. The performance of risk assets during these mid-cycle earnings corrections was similar to the entire sample, although the magnitude of the asset class performances shifted. Oil (+12,560 bps) and gold (+8,400 bps) were standouts; equity and Treasury prices both rose, but equities beat Treasuries by nearly 10,000 bps, easily surpassing the 3,000 bps outperformance in all periods. Small caps underperformed large caps and the dollar climbed (Chart 8). Chart 8U.S. Asset Class Performance As EPS Growth Slows Bottom Line: S&P 500 earnings growth will peak in 2018. Stocks will outperform bonds as profit growth slows, which matches BCA's stance for the next 12 months. Gold and oil have both outpaced equities as earnings abate; this supports BCA's bullish position and above-consensus view of oil for 2018. BCA's modestly bullish stance on the dollar in the next 12-18 months aligns with the historical achievements of the dollar as earnings moderate, but BCA's bullish view on small caps runs counter to history after EPS growth crests. The Great Balance Sheet Unwind Given that the era of quantitative easing has been a positive one for risk assets, it is unsurprising that investors are concerned about the looming unwind of the Fed's massive balance sheet. For example, Chart 9 demonstrates the correlation between the change in G4 balances sheets and both the stock market and excess returns in the U.S. high-yield market. In an October 2017 Special Report,4 the Bank Credit Analyst outlines how the pending shrinkage of the Fed's balance sheet could affect overall liquidity conditions. Liquidity falls into four categories: monetary, balance sheet, financial market transaction liquidity, and funding liquidity. Overall liquidity conditions are reasonably constructive for risk assets at the moment. Financial market and balance sheet liquidity are adequate. Monetary policy is extremely easy, although the low level of money and credit growth underscores that the credit channel of monetary policy is still somewhat impaired and/or constrained relative to the pre-Lehman years. Funding liquidity is as important as monetary liquidity for financial markets. It has recovered from the Great Financial Crisis (GFC) lows, but it is far from frothy. More intense regulation means that funding liquidity will probably never again be as favorable for risk assets as it was before the crisis. But, hopefully, efforts by the authorities to reduce perceived systemic risk mean that funding liquidity may not be as quick to dry up as was the case in 2008, in the event of another negative shock. Unwinding the Fed's balance sheet represents a risk to investors because QE played such an important role in reducing risk premia in financial markets. The unwind should not affect transactions liquidity or balance sheet liquidity. It should not affect the broad monetary aggregates either. Chart 10 presents our forecast for how quickly the Fed's balance sheet will contract. Following the September 19-20 FOMC meeting we learned that balance sheet reduction will begin October 1. For the first three months the Fed will allow a maximum of $6 billion in Treasuries and $4 billion in MBS to run off each month. Those caps will increase in steps of $6 billion and $4 billion, respectively, every three months until they level off at $30 billion per month for Treasuries and $20 billion per month for MBS. Chart 9G4 Central Bank Balance Sheets Chart 10Fed Balance Sheet We have received no official guidance on the level of bank reserves the Fed will target for the end of the run-off process. However, New York Fed President William Dudley recently recommended that this level should be higher than during the pre-QE period, and should probably fall in the $400 billion to $1 trillion range.5 In our forecasts we assume that bank reserves will level-off once they reach $650 billion. In that scenario, the Fed's balance sheet will shrink by roughly $1.4 trillion by 2021. The level of excess reserves in the banking system will decline by a somewhat larger amount ($1.75 trillion). The technical impact of balance sheet unwind on the inner workings of the credit market is very complicated and difficult to forecast. Asset sales could lead to a shortage of short-term high quality assets. However, this is more a problem in terms of the Fed's ability to raise interest rates than for funding liquidity. A smaller balance sheet could, in fact, improve funding liquidity to the extent that it frees up space on banks' balance sheets. In terms of asset prices, some investors believe that when the excess reserves were created, a portion of it found its way out of the banking system and was used to buy assets directly. That is not the case. The excess reserves were left idle, sitting on deposit at the Fed. They did not "leak" out and were not used to purchase assets. Thus, fewer excess bank reserves do not imply any forced selling. Nonetheless, the QE program certainly affected asset prices indirectly via the portfolio balance effect. The risk is that the portfolio balance effect goes into reverse as the Fed unwinds the asset purchases. The negative impact on risk assets will depend importantly on the bond market's response. The bond market's reaction will be far more important than balance sheet shrinkage. Empirical estimates suggest that the Fed's shedding of Treasuries could boost the 10-year yield by about 80 basis points because the private sector will require a higher term premium to absorb the higher flow of bonds. However, the impact on yields is likely to be tempered by two factors: Banks are required by regulators to hold more high-quality assets than they did in the pre-Lehman years in order to meet the new Liquidity Coverage Ratio; As the FOMC dials back monetary stimulus it will be concerned with overall monetary conditions, including short-term rates, long-term rates and the dollar. If long-term rates and/or the dollar rise too quickly, policymakers will moderate the pace of rate hikes and use forward guidance to talk down the long end of the curve so as to avoid allowing financial conditions to tighten too quickly. The bottom line is that the impact on monetary liquidity of a smaller Fed balance sheet should be minimal, although long-term bond yields will be marginally higher as a result. As long as the Fed can limit the bond market damage via forward guidance, then funding liquidity should remain adequate and risk assets should take the Fed's unwind in stride. However, it will be a whole different story if inflation lurches higher. If the core PCE inflation rate were to suddenly shift up to the 2% target or above, then bond prices will be hit hard, the VIX will surge and risk assets will sustain some damage. The prospect of a more aggressive pace of monetary tightening would undermine funding liquidity, compounding the negative impact on risk assets. John Canally, CFA, Senior Vice President U.S. Investment Strategy johnc@bcaresearch.com Mark McClellan, Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst markm@bcaresearch.com Jizel Georges, Senior Analyst jizelg@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst Special Report, "Should You Fear Looming Changes At The Federal Reserve?", September 21, 2017. Available at bca.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA's U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "The Fed's Third Mandate," July 24, 2017. Available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA's U.S. Bond Strategy Portfolio Allocation Summary, "Return Of The Trump Trade," October 3, 2017. Available at usbs.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst Special Report, "Liquidity And The Great Balance Sheet Unwind," In the October Monthly Report. Available at bca.bcaresearch.com. 5 William C. Dudley, "The U.S. Economic Outlook and the Implications for Monetary Policy," Federal Reserve Bank of New York (September 07, 2017).

Highlights Jerome Powell takes the helm of the Federal Reserve at a time when both sides of the Fed's dual mandate are in conflict. The lagging nature of inflation explains why it has failed to rise even though the unemployment rate has fallen below NAIRU. U.S. growth should surprise on the upside over the coming quarters, with or without the passage of tax legislation. This should enable the Fed to raise rates four times by end-2018, which should give the dollar a boost. Higher oil prices will prop up the Canadian dollar. Brexit uncertainty will continue to weigh on the U.K. economy, but the pound has already priced in much of the bad news. Feature Chart 1The Dual Mandate Headache Jay Powell: You're Hired! Jerome Powell takes the helm of the Federal Reserve at a pivotal time. Under Janet Yellen's leadership, the Fed began running down its balance sheet. For all intents and purposes, that part of the normalization process has been put on autopilot. In contrast, the question of how much higher interest rates need to go remains up in the air. In normal times, the Fed would be guided by its dual mandate, which calls for maximum sustainable employment and low inflation. The Fed's predicament is that the two sides of this mandate are currently in conflict: While the unemployment rate has fallen more than the FOMC anticipated at the start of the year and is below the Fed's estimate of full employment, inflation has dipped further below the Fed's 2% target (Chart 1). Why Has Inflation Been So Low? There are four competing explanations for why inflation remains stubbornly low. The first is that the headline unemployment rate understates the true amount of labor market slack. There was considerable merit to this argument a few years ago, but it seems less plausible today. While some auxiliary measures of slack, such as involuntary part-time employment and the share of the working-age population that is out of the labor force but wants a job, are still elevated relative to pre-recession levels, others such as the job openings rate and household perceptions of job availability have reached levels consistent with an overheated economy (Table 1). Taken together, the U.S. labor market appears to be close to full employment. Table 1Comparing Current Labor Market Slack With Past Cycles The second explanation for why higher inflation has failed to materialize accepts the centrality of the unemployment rate as an accurate summary measure of labor market slack, but posits that NAIRU - the so-called Non-Accelerating Inflation Rate of Unemployment - is lower than widely believed. NAIRU cannot be observed directly, so in principal this argument could be true. That said, it is worth noting that official estimates of NAIRU are already well below their long-term average (Chart 2). While certain factors such as the aging of the workforce have reduced NAIRU - older people tend to change jobs less frequently, which reduces frictional unemployment - other factors have likely raised it. These include automation, globalization, and the opioid crisis, all of which have probably led to higher structural unemployment. The third explanation for why inflation has failed to rise in the face of falling unemployment is that the Phillips curve has broken down. Whether they realize it or not, people who make this argument are implicitly assuming that NAIRU no longer matters - that central banks can drive the unemployment rate down as far as they wish and not worry about runaway inflation. If true, this would seemingly revoke the law of supply and demand because it would imply that an economy can stay perpetually overheated without wages or prices ever having to rise. Alas, no such free lunch exists. Chart 3 shows that the relationship between wage growth and unemployment remains intact. The so-called "wage-Phillips curve" tends to steepen sharply once unemployment falls below 5%. The recent acceleration in average hourly wages, median weekly earnings, and the Employment Cost Index all suggest that we have reached the steep part of the Phillips curve (Chart 4). Chart 2NAIRU Estimates Are Historically Low Chart 3U.S. Economy Has Moved Into ##br##The 'Steep' Part Of The Phillips Curve Chart 4U.S. Wage Growth Is Accelerating Higher wage growth will push up real household disposable income, leading to more consumer spending. With the output gap now effectively closed, firms will find themselves running into more supply-side constraints, forcing them to raise prices. Just as in the past, "this time is different" explanations for why inflation will stay depressed, such as the overhyped "Amazon effect," will be proven wrong.1 This leads us to the fourth - and in our view, most cogent - explanation for why inflation has been low, which is that the Phillips curve has simply been dormant. History suggests that inflation is a highly lagging indicator (Chart 5). A variety of technical factors - ranging from a steep drop in cell phone data charges to a dip in prescription drug prices - have depressed inflation this year. As these wear off, inflation will slowly pick up. The recent increase in the ISM prices-paid component, along with producer price indices around the world, suggest that both domestic and external inflationary pressures are intensifying. Consistent with this, the NY Fed's "underlying inflation gauge" has reached an 11-year high of 2.8% (Chart 6). Chart 5Inflation Is A Lagging Indicator Chart 6Fed Sees Underlying Inflation Gathering Steam The Cost Of Waiting Admittedly, there is a lot of uncertainty about the degree to which inflation will accelerate over the next few years. With that in mind, many commentators have argued for a go-slow approach. "Wait to see the whites of inflation's eyes" as Larry Summers has colorfully stated. This perspective is not unreasonable, but we think most FOMC members will ultimately reject it. This is mainly because inflation is a highly lagging indicator. By the time it is obvious that inflation is getting out of hand, it is often too late to react. The unemployment rate is already half a percentage point below the Fed's estimate of NAIRU. If the labor market continues to firm up, the Fed will eventually have no choice but to tighten monetary policy by enough to bring the unemployment rate back up to NAIRU. This means that rates may have to rise above their neutral level for a considerable period of time. Such an outcome could lead to a significant re-rating of risk asset prices. It would also damage the economy. The U.S. has never avoided a recession in the post-war period whenever the three-month average level of the unemployment rate has risen by more than 0.3 percentage points (Chart 7). Chart 7What Goes Down Must Come Up? Already Behind The Curve The Fed has arguably already fallen behind the curve in normalizing monetary policy. As our models predicted, the easing in U.S. financial conditions earlier this year is helping to turbocharge growth (Chart 8). Real GDP rose by 3.0% in the third quarter. Growth would have been even higher had residential investment not fallen by 6% in the wake of the hurricanes. The Atlanta Fed's GDPNow model is pointing to growth of 4.5% in Q4. Chart 8U.S.: Easier Financial Conditions Are Boosting Growth Core capital goods orders are increasing at a solid pace. The Conference Board's index of consumer confidence rose to a 17-year high in October. Initial jobless claims have fallen to a four-decade low. Citi's economic surprise index has spiked into positive territory and Goldman's is nearing record highs (Chart 9). Given the recent acceleration in growth, the unemployment rate is likely to fall to 3.5% by the end of next year - well below the Fed's current end-2018 projection of 4.1%. If Congress delivers on its pledge to reduce corporate and personal income taxes, this would represent a further modest upward surprise to near-term growth prospects. Fiscal policy remains a wildcard. The "Tax Cut and Jobs Act" released by the House of Representatives yesterday seeks to reduce taxes by about $1.5 trillion over the next ten years, with two-thirds of that amount consisting of lower business taxes (Table 2). Negotiations with the Senate are likely to result in a scaling back of the magnitude of the cuts and a shifting of more of the benefits towards middle-class earners. Among other things, this probably means the proposed phase-out of the estate tax will be scrapped. Most empirical estimates suggest that the growth benefits from the legislation will be modest. Nevertheless, if taxes are cut early next year, as we think is likely, this will put a greater impetus for the Fed to raise rates. Chart 9U.S. Economy Surprising On The Upside Table 2U.S.: How Much Will The Tax Plan Cost? Aging Bull Stocks are likely to weather the impact of Fed hikes as long as rates are rising in an environment of stronger GDP growth. Chart 10 shows that equities tend to do well when the ISM manufacturing index is elevated. This leads us to think the cyclical bull market in stocks will continue for the next 12 months. Chart 10Stocks Fare Well When The ISM Is Strong Once inflation begins to rise in earnest in 2019, equities will buckle. Given that the United States accounts for over half of global stock market capitalization, a selloff in the U.S. will be quickly transmitted to the rest of the world. Short-term oriented investors should remain overweight global equities for now, but look to turn more defensive late next year. Long-term investors should consider paring back exposure already. U.S. Dollar: Stronger For Now, Weaker in 2019 Once the U.S. falls into a recession in late 2019 and the Fed starts cutting rates, the dollar will crumble. But until then, the odds are that the greenback strengthens. Our model suggests that the dollar is undervalued against the euro based on today's level of spreads (Chart 11). Hence, even if spreads remain unchanged, we would expect the dollar to strengthen somewhat. Keep in mind that 10-year German bunds yield nearly two percentage points less than U.S. Treasurys. The euro would have to strengthen to 1.42 against the dollar over the next ten years just to compensate for the lower interest rates that bunds offer. Granted, if spreads between Treasurys and bunds were to narrow significantly, the euro would appreciate. Such an outcome is probable in 2019, by which time investors will begin fretting about a looming U.S. recession and pricing in Fed rate cuts. However, it is not likely to occur over the next 12 months, given the prospect that U.S. growth will accelerate over this period. Chart 12 shows the market's expectation of where one-month OIS rates will be in the U.S. and euro area over the next ten years. The one-month transatlantic rate spread currently stands at 151 basis points and is expected to peak in February 2019 at 210 basis points. It then declines gradually, falling to 164 basis points in five years and 107 basis points in ten years. Chart 11Dollar Is Undervalued Based On Current Spreads Chart 12Rates Will Diverge More In 2018 Than Is Priced In Relative to current market expectations, the interest rate spread one-year out is likely to widen further over the coming months. The market is currently pricing in 54 basis points of Fed rate hikes between now and end-2018, well below the "dot" forecast of 100 basis points. For his part, Mario Draghi made it clear last week that the ECB's bond buying program will continue until September 2018, and that the central bank will not raise rates until "well past the horizon of our asset purchases." Chart 13The Euro Has Overshot Interest Rate Spreads There is less scope for spreads to widen if one looks at expected interest rates more than one year into the future. However, we don't see much room for spread compression in the near term, so long as U.S. growth continues to surprise on the upside. Long-term inflation expectations are about 55 basis points lower in the euro area than they are in the U.S. As such, the expected spread in real short-term rates ten years out stands at about 50 basis points (Chart 13). This is not much different from Laubach and Williams' estimate of the gap in the real neutral rate between the U.S. and the euro area. Moreover, as we noted two weeks ago, the actual gap in expected interest rates should be larger than what is implied by neutral rate estimates since unemployment is likely to be above NAIRU more often in the euro area than in the United States.2 On balance, we remain comfortable with our year-end target for EUR/USD of 1.15 and see further upside for the dollar against the euro in 2018. Bank Of Japan: Nowhere Near The Exit Door The yen should also continue to trade down against the greenback. Governor Kuroda dismissed speculation that the BoJ is considering dialing back monetary accommodation during his press conference following this week's Monetary Policy Meeting. The BoJ lowered its inflation outlook for both FY2017 and FY2018, but maintained its projection of reaching its 2% inflation target in FY2019. In perhaps a sign of the times, newly selected board member Goushi Kataoka cast a dissenting vote, arguing that monetary policy should be even more accommodative. Kataoka suggested that the BoJ consider extending its yield curve targeting regime to government bonds with maturities of up to 15 years. Currently, the government seeks to cap yields for maturities of up to ten years. As bond yields elsewhere in the world drift higher, JGBs will become increasingly unattractive. This will weigh on the yen. CAD: Fade The Recent Weakness The Canadian dollar has been on the back foot lately. Last week Governor Poloz mentioned that "a lot of things have to come together" for the Bank of Canada to raise rates in December. This week brought news that the economy shrank by 0.1% in August due to a decline in manufacturing output. The market has gone from fully pricing in a hike in December to only assigning a one-in-five chance that rates will rise. Worries that the Trump administration will pull out of NAFTA have also weighed on rate expectations. Still, one should keep things in perspective. Real GDP is up 3.5% year-over-year - well in excess of the BoC's estimate of trend growth - while the output gap has been fully closed. Canadian GDP growth has historically been closely correlated with U.S. growth, so it would be very surprising if Canada's economy were to flounder just as America's is gaining steam (Chart 14). Chart 14Canada Remains Linked To The U.S. Canadian And U.S. Growth Are Correlated Chart 15The Pound Is Cheap And while the risk of a NAFTA pullout is real, most of Trump's wrath has been focused on Mexico. If NAFTA were to fall apart, Canada would still be covered by preexisting Canada-U.S. trade agreements. We will discuss this and other trade-related issues in a Special Report to be published next week. Perhaps most critically for the loonie, crude prices remain in an uptrend. BCA's energy strategists now see Brent averaging $65.2/bbl and WTI averaging $62.9/bbl in 2018, which is $6.2/bbl and $8.9/bbl, respectively, above current market expectations. Stick with it. Bank Of England Delivers A Dovish Hike In a split 7-to-2 decision, the Bank of England's Monetary Policy Committee voted to raise rates by 25 basis points for the first time in ten years yesterday. In a nod to the concerns that some board members had about raising rates, the MPC noted that "any future increases in the Bank Rate would be expected to be at a gradual pace and to a limited extent." The Committee also removed language suggesting that future rate hikes would have to be in excess of what the market has been pricing in. The MPC's reluctance to sound hawkish is understandable. While the unemployment rate has fallen to a four-decade low, growth has lagged behind the rest of Europe. Consumer confidence has weakened and the CBI retailers survey suggests that British households are tightening their purse strings. House prices in London have fallen 7% since the U.K. government started the formal process of Brexit seven months ago. Inflation is running at 3%, but this mainly reflects the lagged effects from the depreciation in the currency. Still, with the market pricing in only two additional hikes through to mid-2020, it is doubtful that rate expectations will fall much from current levels. There is also a reasonably high probability that Brexit will not occur. At some point over the next few years, the U.K. government will call a new referendum to affirm whatever deal it reaches with the EU. Given that the contours of the deal will be less favorable than what many pro-Brexit voters had been promised, it is likely that a majority of the populace will decide that life inside the EU is better after all. As such, the odds are good that the pound - which is very cheap based on our valuation measures - will strengthen over the long haul (Chart 15). Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst Special Report, "Did Amazon Kill The Phillips Curve?" dated September 1, 2017 and Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Is The Phillips Curve Dead Or Dormant?" dated September 22, 2017. 2 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "China, The Fed, And The Transatlantic Interest Rate Spread," dated October 20, 2017. Strategy & Market Trends Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

Highlights The three deflationary anchors of the global economy have abated: The U.S. private sector deleveraging is over, the euro area economy is escaping its post crisis hangover, and the destruction of excess capacity in China is advanced. This means that global central banks are in a better position than at any point this cycle to normalize policy, pointing to higher real rates. As a result, gold prices will suffer significant downside. The populist wave in New Zealand is based on inequalities and is here to stay. This will hurt the long-term outlook for the Kiwi. However, short-term NZD has upside, especially against the AUD. The BoE hiked rates, but upside surprises to policy is unlikely now. The pound remains at risk from Brexit negotiations. Feature Chart I-1Gold Is Setting Up For A Big Move Gold is at an interesting juncture. Gold prices, once adjusted for the trend in the U.S. dollar, have been forming a giant tapering wedge since 2011 (Chart I-1). This type of chart formation does not necessarily get resolved by an up-move, nor does it indicate a clear bearish pattern either. Instead, it points toward a potential big move in either direction. For investors, the key to assess whether this wedge will be resolved with a rally or a rout is the trend in global monetary conditions and real rates. In our view, the global economic improvement witnessed in 2017 suggests the world needs less accommodation than at any point since the onset of the great financial crisis. Thus, global accommodation will continue to recede, global real rates will rise and gold will suffer. The Exit Of The Great Deflationary Forces Since the financial crisis, in order to generate any modicum of growth, global monetary authorities have been forced to maintain an incredible degree of monetary accommodation in the global financial system. Central banks' balance sheets have expanded massively, with the Federal Reserve, the European Central Bank, the Bank of Japan, the Bank of England and the Swiss National Bank all increasing their asset holdings by 16% of GDP, 26% of GDP, 70% of GDP, 17% of GDP and 97% of GDP respectively. Real rates too have been left at unfathomable levels, with average real policy rates in the U.S., the euro area, Japan and the U.K. standing at 0.13%, -1.15%, -0.19%, and -2.12%, respectively. Despite all this easing, core inflation in the OECD has only averaged 1.68% since 2010, and real growth 2.05% - well below the averages of 2.3% and 2.44%, respectively, from 2001 to 2007. Explaining this extraordinary situation have been three key anchors that have conspired to create strong deflationary forces that have necessitated all this stimulus: the first was U.S. private sector deleveraging, with at its epicenter the rebuilding of household balance sheets. The second was the euro area crisis, which also caused a forced deleveraging in the Spanish and Irish private sector as well as in the Greek and Portuguese public sectors. The third was China's purging of excess capacity in the steel and coal sectors, as well as various heavy industries. These three deflationary anchors seem to have finally passed. In the U.S., nonfinancial private credit is slowly showing signs of recovering. Households have curtailed their savings rate, suggesting a lower level of risk aversion. Even more importantly, the growth in savings deposits is sharply decelerating, which historically tends to be associated with a re-leveraging of the household sector and increasing consumption (Chart I-2). Strong new home sales point toward these developments. The corporate sector is also displaying an important change in behavior. Share buybacks are declining, and both capex intentions and actual capex are recovering smartly - powered by strong profit growth (Chart I-3). This is crucial as it suggests firms are not recycling the liquidity they generate through their operations or their borrowings in the financial markets. Thus, with banks easing their lending standards, additional debt accumulation by firms is likely to support aggregate demand, eliminating a key deflationary force in the global economy. Chart I-2Household Deleveraging Is Over Chart I-3Companies Are Borrowing To Invest Moreover, Jay Powell's nomination to helm the Fed is also important. He is a proponent of decreasing bank regulation, especially for small banks that greatly rely on loan formation for their earnings. A softening in regulatory stance on these institutions could contribute to higher credit growth in the U.S. With aggregate liquidity conditions of the private sector - shown by the ratio of liquid assets to liabilities - having already improved, and indicating that a turning point in U.S. inflation will soon be reached, more credit growth could further stoke inflation (Chart I-4). Europe as well is also escaping its own morose state. ECB President Mario Draghi's fateful words in July 2012 resulted in a compression of peripheral spreads as investors priced away the risk of a breakup of the euro area (Chart I-5). As a result, the massive policy easing associated with negative rates and the ECB's expanded asset purchase program was transmitted to the parts of the euro area that really needed that easing: the periphery. Now, Europe is booming: Monetary aggregates have regained traction, real GDP growth is growing at a 2.3% annual pace, PMIs are growing vigorously, and even the unemployment rate has fallen back below 9%. European inflation remains low, but nonetheless the nadir of -0.6% hit in 2015 has also passed (Chart I-6). Chart I-4Liquid Private Balance Sheet Point To Inflation Chart I-5Draghi Held The Key To Help Europe Chart I-6Europe Past The Worst In China too we have seen important progress. Curtailment to excess capacity in the steel and coal sectors as well as across a wide swath of industries are bearing fruit (Chart I-7). China is not the source of deflation that it was as recently as 2015. Industrial profits have stopped contracting, industrial price deflation is over, and even core consumer prices are showing signs of vigor, growing at a 2.28% pace, the highest since the 2010 to 2011 period (Chart I-8). Thanks to these developments, global export prices have stopped deflating and are now growing at a 4.64% annual pace. With the three deflationary anchors having been slain, global growth is now able to escape its lethargy, with industrial activity at its strongest since 2003, while global capacity utilization has improved (Chart I-9). This is giving global central banks room to remove their easing. The Fed has already hiked rates four times and is embarking on decreasing its balance sheet; the Bank of Canada has followed suit two times, and the BoE, one time. Even the ECB is now beginning to taper its own asset purchases. We do anticipate this trend to continue with more and more central banks, with potentially the exception of the BoJ, joining the fray as the global environment remains clement. Even the People's Bank of China is likely to keep tightening policy due to the increasingly inflationary environment being experienced. Chart I-7Chinese Excess Capacity Purge Chart I-8China Doesn't Export Deflation Anymore Chart I-9Central Banks Can Normalize Bottom Line: The three anchors of global deflation have been slain. Private sector deleveraging in the U.S. is over, the euro area has healed and Chinese excess capacity has declined. As a result, global economic activity is at its strongest level in 14 years, and deflationary forces are becoming more muted. This is giving global central banks an opportunity to normalize policy without yet killing the business cycle. Implications For Gold Gold is likely to fare very poorly in this environment. Gold can be thought of as a zero coupon, extremely long-maturity inflation-indexed bond. This means that gold is a function of both inflation and real rates. Currently, gold offers little protection against outright inflation, having moved out of line with prices by a very large margin (Chart I-10). This leaves gold extremely vulnerable to development in real rates and liquidity. Saying that central banks can begin to normalize policy is akin to saying that central banks are in a position where letting real rate rise is feasible. As Chart I-11 illustrates, there has been a strong negative relationship between TIPS yields and gold prices. Moreover, when one looks beyond the price of gold in U.S. dollars, one can see that gold has been negatively affected by higher bond yields (Chart I-11, bottom panel). BCA currently recommends an underweight stance on duration, one that is synonymous with lower gold prices.1 Chart I-10Gold Is Expensive Chart I-11Higher Interest Rates Equal Lower Gold Moreover, the Fed's own research suggests that its asset purchases have curtailed the term premium by 85 basis points. The balance sheet run-off that the U.S. central bank is engineering will weaken that impact to a more meager 60 basis points by 2024. This also points to lower gold prices, as gold prices have displayed a negative relationship with the term premium (Chart I-12). An outperformance of financials in general but banks in particular is also associated with poor returns for gold (Chart I-13). Strong financials are associated with growing loan volumes, which mean a lesser need for policy easing, which puts upward pressure on the cost of money. Anastasios Avgeriou, who heads BCA's sectoral research, has an overweight on banks both globally and in the U.S. on the basis of the stronger loan growth we are beginning to see around the world.2 This represents a dangerous environment for gold. Chart I-12Normalizing Term Premium ##br##Is Dangerous For Gold Chart I-13Bullish Banks Equals ##br##Bearish Gold Finally, there is an interesting relationship between real stock prices and real gold prices. When stocks are in a secular bull market, gold prices are typically in a secular bear market (Chart I-14). A secular bull market in stocks tends to happen in an environment where there is more confidence that growth is becoming more durable, where there is less fear that currencies will have to be debased to support economic activity, or where inflation is not a destructive force like it was in the 1970s. These are environments where real rates tend to have upside. The continued strength in global equity prices, which are again in a secular bull market, would thus contribute to an increase in currently still-depressed global real yields, and thus, create downside in gold. One key risk to our view is that the Fed falls meaningfully behind the curve and lets inflation rise violently, which would put downward pressure on real rates and cause a violent correction in global equity prices - prompting investors to price in an easing in monetary policy. Geopolitics are another key risk, particularly a ratcheting up in North Korea tensions. With our bullish stance on the dollar, we are inclined to short the yellow metal versus the greenback. Moreover, for the past eight years, when net speculative positions in gold have been as elevated as they are today relative to net wagers on the DXY, gold in U.S. dollar terms has tended to weaken (Chart I-15). However, the analysis above suggests that gold could weaken against G10 currencies in aggregate. Thus investors with a more negative dollar view than ours could elect to sell gold against the euro. Agnostic players should short gold equally against the USD and the EUR. Chart I-14Gold And Stocks Don't Like Each Other Chart I-15Tactical Risk To Gold Bottom Line: The outlook for gold is negative. As the global economy escapes its deflationary funk and global central banks begin abandoning emergency easing measures, real interest rates will rise and term premia will normalize, which will put downward pressure on gold prices. Additionally, BCA's positive stance on banks is corollary with a negative outlook on gold. The continued bull market in stocks is an additional hurdle for gold. New Zealand: A New Hot Spot Of Populism The formation of the Labour/NZ First/Green coalition has sent ripples through the kiwi. The reaction of investors is fully rational, as the Adern government is carrying a very populist torch, sporting a program of limiting foreign investments in housing, limiting immigration, increasing the minimum wage and creating a dual mandate for the Reserve Bank of New Zealand. The key question is whether this is a fad, or whether something more profound is at play in New Zealand. We worry it is the latter. New Zealand has suffered from a profound increase in inequality since pro-market reforms were implemented in the 1980s. New Zealand's gini coefficient is very elevated, but even more worrisome has been the deteriorating trend. As Chart I-16 illustrates, the ratio of income of the top 20% of households relative to the bottom 20% has been in a steady uptrend. Additionally, this trend is sharper once the cost of housing is incorporated into the equation. Moreover, as Chart I-17 shows, New Zealand has experienced one of the most pronounced increases in housing costs among the G10. Chart I-16Growing Inequalities In New Zealand Chart I-17Kiwi Housing Is Expensive It is undeniable that the impact of immigration has been real. Net migration has averaged 24 thousand a year since 2000, on a population of 4.8 million. Moreover, the labor participation rate of immigrants has been higher than that of the general population, reinforcing the perception that immigration has contributed to keeping wage growth low (Chart I-18). The effect of low wage growth - whether caused or not caused by the increase in the foreign-born population - has been to boost household credit demand, pushing the national savings rate into negative territory, something that was required if households were to keep spending. These developments suggest that kiwi populism is not a fad, and is in fact a factor that will remain present in New Zealand politics. It also implies that policies designed to limit foreign investments into housing as well as immigration are indeed popular and will be implemented. What are the economic implications of these developments? Immigration was a key source of growth for New Zealand. As Chart I-19 shows, the growth of the kiwi economy since 1985 has been driven by an increase in the labor force. In fact, over the past five years, 86% of growth has been caused by labor force growth, with a very limited contribution from productivity gains. More concerning, as Chart I-20 shows, 44% of the increase in the population growth since 2012 has been related to immigration. Chart I-18The Narrative: Foreigners Steal Our Jobs Chart I-19Kiwi Growth: Labor Force Is Key Chart I-20Labor Force Growth Could Halve Additionally, according to the IMF's Article IV consultation for New Zealand, immigration has boosted output significantly, contributing to total hours worked as well as forcing an increase in the capital stock, which has boosted capex (Table I-1). Hence, lower intakes of foreign-born workers is likely to push down the country's potential growth rate. Limiting immigration in New Zealand could therefore have a significantly negative impact on the country’s neutral rate. As Chart 21 demonstrates, the real neutral rate for New Zealand, as estimated using a Hodrick-Prescott filter, is around 2%. A falling potential growth rate would push down the equilibrium policy rate in New Zealand, limiting how high the RBNZ's terminal policy rate will rise in the future. This points toward downward pressure on the NZD on a long-term basis. Shorting NZD/CAD structurally makes sense at current levels, especially as Canada remains open to immigration and immune to populism, as income inequalities are much more controlled there (Chart I-22). Table I-1Impact Of Immigration On Growth Chart I-21Kiwi Neutral Rate Has Downside Chart I-22NZD/CAD: Long-Term Heavy Limiting immigration in New Zealand could therefore have a significantly negative impact on the country's neutral rate. As Chart I-21 demonstrates, the real neutral rate for New Zealand, as estimated using a Hodrick-Prescott filter, is around 2%. A falling potential Shorter-term, the picture is slightly brighter for the NZD. Credit growth is strong, and is pointing toward an increase in the cash rate next year. Additionally, consumer confidence is high, and the labor market is showing signs of tightness, especially as the output gap stands at 0.87% of GDP (Chart I-23). This tightness in the labor market could easily be catalyzed into higher wage growth, especially as the new government is tabulating a 4.76% increase in the minimum wage in the coming quarters. Thus, BCA continues to expect an uptick in kiwi inflation and higher kiwi rates, even if a dual mandate for the RBNZ is implemented. Our favored way to play this strength in the kiwi remains going short the AUD/NZD. Our valuation model points to a strong sell signal in this cross (Chart I-24). Moreover, speculators are very long the AUD relative to the NZD, which historically has provided a contrarian signal to short it. Additionally, the concentration of power around Chinese President Xi Jinping points towards more reform implementations in China - reforms that we estimate will be targeted at decreasing the reliance of growth on debt-fueled investment while increasing the welfare of households, which should help Chinese consumption. As a result, metals could suffer relative to consumer goods. With New Zealand being a big exporter of foodstuffs and dairy products, this should represent a positive terms-of-trade shock for the kiwi relative to the Aussie. Chart I-23Short-Term Positives In New Zealand Chart I-24Downside Risk To AUD/NZD Bottom Line: The increase in populism in New Zealand is being fueled by a sharp increase in inequalities and rising housing costs. Immigration, rightly or wrongly, has been blamed in the public narrative for these ills. The measures announced by the Adern government target these issues head on, and we expect they will be implemented. This hurts New Zealand's long-term growth profile, and thus the terminal rate hit by the RBNZ this cycle. This could hurt the NZD on a structural basis. Tactically, it still makes sense to be short AUD/NZD. A Word On The BoE The BoE increased rates this week for the first time in a decade, but now acknowledges that current SONIA pricing is correct, removing its mention that risks are skewed toward higher rates than anticipated by the market. The pound sold off sharply on the news. Consumer confidence and retailer orders point to further slowdown in consumption. Thus, we think the British OIS curve is currently well priced, limiting any potential rebound in the GBP. Brexit continues to spook markets, rightfully. The political theater is far from over, and the continued uncertainty is likely to weigh further on the U.K. economy. This is likely to generate additional downside risk in the pound over the coming months. Thus, on balance, our current assessment is that the risks are too high to make a bullish bet on the GBP for now. A progress in the negotiations between the U.K. and the EU is needed before investors can buy the GBP, a currency that is cheap on a long-term basis. Mathieu Savary, Vice President Foreign Exchange Strategy mathieu@bcaresearch.com Haaris Aziz, Research Assistant haarisa@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, titled "Follow The Fed, Ignore The Bank Of England" dated September 19, 2017, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see Global Alpha Sector Strategy Weekly Report, titled "Buy The Breakout" dated May 5, 2017, available at gss.bcaresearch.com and U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report, titled "Girding For A Breakout?" dated May 1, 2017, available at uses.bcaresearch.com Currencies U.S. Dollar Chart II-1USD Technicals 1 Chart II-2USD Technicals 2 U.S. data was mixed: Core PCE was unchanged at 1.3%, and in line with expectations; Headline PCE was also unchanged at 1.6%; ISM Prices Paid came in at 68.5, beating expectations of 68; ISM Manufacturing came in weaker than expected. In other news, Jerome Powell is President Trump's pick as the next Fed chairman to replace Janet Yellen. Market reaction was muted as Powell is expected to continue in Yellen's footsteps and hike rates at a similar pace. While the Fed decided to leave rates unchanged this month, the probability of a December rate hike went up to 98%. We expect the USD bull market to strengthen next year when inflation re-emerges. Report Links: It's Not My Cross To Bear - October 27, 2017 Currency Hedging: Dynamic Or Static? - A Practical Guide For Global Investors - September 29, 2017 Updating Our Long-Term Fair Value Models - September 15, 2017 The Euro Chart II-3EUR Technicals 1 Chart II-4EUR Technicals 2 Data out of Europe was mixed: German and Italian inflation underperformed expectations and weakened compared to last month, while French inflation beat expectations; Overall European headline and core inflation also mixed expectations, coming in at 1.4% and 1.1% respectively; European preliminary GDP, however, beat expectations of 2.4%, coming in at 2.5%; The unemployment rate dropped to 8.9% for the euro area; The euro was up on Thursday after the nomination of Jerome Powell as Fed chair. His nomination represents a continuity of monetary policy. Despite this, we believe the re-emergence of inflation will cause the Fed to continue hiking after the December hike, deepening downward pressure on the euro next year. Report Links: Market Update - October 27, 2017 Currency Hedging: Dynamic Or Static? - A Practical Guide For Global Investors - September 29, 2017 Updating Our Long-Term Fair Value Models - September 15, 2017 The Yen Chart II-5JPY Technicals 1 Chart II-6JPY Technicals 2 Recent Japanese data has been mixed: Housing starts yearly growth came above expectations, coming in at -2.9%. However, housing starts did accelerate their contraction from August, when they were falling by 2% year-on-year. Industrial Production yearly growth came in above expectations, at 2.5%. However the jobs-to-applicants ratio came below expectations, staying put at 1.52. On Tuesday the BoJ left rates unchanged. Additionally the committee vowed to keep 10-year government bond yield around 0% and to continue their ETF purchases. More importantly, however, was the Bank of Japan's change to its outlook for inflation, which was decreased for this year. We continue to believe that deflation is too entrenched in Japan for the BoJ to change its policy stand. Thus, we expect USD/JPY to keep grinding higher, as U.S. monetary policy becomes more hawkish vis-à-vis Japan. Report Links: Currency Hedging: Dynamic Or Static? - A Practical Guide For Global Investors - September 29, 2017 Updating Our Long-Term Fair Value Models - September 15, 2017 10 Charts For A Late-August Day - August 25, 2017 British Pound Chart II-7GBP Technicals 1 Chart II-8GBP Technicals 2 Recent data in the U.K. has surprised to the upside: Mortgage Approvals also outperformed expectations, coming in at 66.232 thousand. Moreover Nationwide house price yearly growth also outperformed, coming at 2.5% Both Markit Manufacturing PMI and Construction PMI outperformed, coming in at 56.3 and 50.8 respectively. The BoE hiked rates yesterday by 25 basis points as expected. Moreover, the committee also voted unanimously to maintain the stock of UK government bond purchases. However, the committee also acknowledged that inflation was not be the only effect of Brexit on the economy. They highlighted that uncertainty about the exit from the European Union was hurting activity despite a positive global growth backdrop. Overall, we think that the BoE will not deviate from the interest rate path priced into the OIS curve. Report Links: Currency Hedging: Dynamic Or Static? - A Practical Guide For Global Investors - September 29, 2017 Updating Our Long-Term Fair Value Models - September 15, 2017 Balance Of Payments Across The G10 - August 4, 2017 Australian Dollar Chart II-9AUD Technicals 1 Chart II-10AUD Technicals 2 Australian data was mixed: HIA New Home Sales contracted by 6.1%; AiG Performance of Manufacturing Index came in at 51.1, less than the previous 54.2; Exports increased by 3%, while imports stayed flat at 0%; The trade balance increased to AUD 1.745 bn, compared to the expected AUD 1.2 bn, and above the previous AUD 873 mn. The AUD was up on the release of the trade balance. But underlying slack in the economy, which worries RBA officials, points to a low fair value for the AUD. The AUD will be the poorest performer out of the commodity currencies, due to the relative strength of those economies and of oil relative to metals. Report Links: Currency Hedging: Dynamic Or Static? - A Practical Guide For Global Investors - September 29, 2017 Updating Our Long-Term Fair Value Models - September 15, 2017 10 Charts For A Late-August Day - August 25, 2017 New Zealand Dollar Chart II-11NZD Technicals 1 Chart II-12NZD Technicals 2 Recent data in New Zealand has been positive: The unemployment rate came below expectations at 4.6%, it also decreased from last quarter's 4.8% reading. The participation rate came above expectations, at 71.1%. It also increased from 70% on the previous quarter. The Labour cost Index came in line with expectations at 1.9% yearly growth. However it increased from 1.6% in the previous quarter. Overall the New Zealand economy looks very strong. This should warrant a hike by the RBNZ. However the new government create a new set of long-term risks. The elected government is a response to the high inequality and high migration that the country had experienced in the recent years. Overall the plans to reduce immigration and install a double mandate to the RBNZ are bearish for the NZD, as the neutral rate of New Zealand would be structurally lowered. Report Links: Updating Our Long-Term Fair Value Models - September 15, 2017 Balance Of Payments Across The G10 - August 4, 2017 Bad Breadth - July 7, 2017 Canadian Dollar Chart II-13CAD Technicals 1 Chart II-14CAD Technicals 2 Canadian data has been weak recently: The raw material price index contracted by 0.1%; Industrial product prices contracted at a 0.3% monthly rate; GDP also contracted at a 0.1% monthly pace; Manufacturing PMI came out at 54.3, lower than the previous 55. In addition to this, Poloz identified several issues with the Canadian economy in his speech on Tuesday. These included the deflationary effects of e-commerce, slack in the labor market, subdued wage growth, and the elevated level of household debt. The probability of a rate hike has fallen to 22% for December, and it only rises above 50% in March next year. The CAD has lost a lot of its value since the BoC began hiking, but we believe it will resume hiking next year. Increasing oil prices will also mean that that CAD will outperform other G10 currencies. Report Links: Market Update - October 27, 2017 Currency Hedging: Dynamic Or Static? - A Practical Guide For Global Investors - September 29, 2017 Updating Our Long-Term Fair Value Models - September 15, 2017 Swiss Franc Chart II-15CHF Technicals 1 Chart II-16CHF Technicals 2 Recent data in Switzerland has been positive: The SVME Purchasing Manager's Index came above expectations at 62 in October. It also increased from the September reading. The KOF leading indicator also outperformed expectations significantly, coming at 109.1. EUR/CHF continues to climb unabated and is now only 3% from where it was before the SNB let the franc appreciate in January of 2015. Overall we see little indication that the SNB would let the franc appreciate again in the near future. On Wednesday, SNB Vice President Zurbruegg continued to talk down the franc by stating that a stronger CHF would cause a growth slowdown and that the CHF is still highly valued. Thus we expect downside in EUR/CHF to be limited for the time being. Report Links: Updating Our Long-Term Fair Value Models - September 15, 2017 Balance Of Payments Across The G10 - August 4, 2017 Who Hikes Next? - June 30, 2017 Norwegian Krone Chart II-17NOK Technicals 1 Chart II-18NOK Technicals 2 Recent data in Norway has been mixed: Retail sales growth underperformed expectations, as they contracted by 0.8% in September. However Norway's credit indicator surprised to the upside, coming in at 5.8%. Since September USD/NOK has appreciated by nearly 6%. This has been in an environment where oil has rallied by nearly 20%. Although this divergence might seem counterintuitive, it confirms our previous findings: USD/NOK is much more sensitive to real rate differentials than to oil prices. Inflationary pressures are still very tepid in Norway, while inflation is set to go higher in the U.S. These factors will further amplify the monetary policy divergences between these 2 countries, and consequently propel USD/NOK higher. Report Links: Updating Our Long-Term Fair Value Models - September 15, 2017 10 Charts For A Late-August Day - August 25, 2017 Balance Of Payments Across The G10 - August 4, 2017 Swedish Krona Chart II-19SEK Technicals 1 Chart II-20SEK Technicals 2 Swedish Manufacturing PMI decreased to 59.3 from 63.7, below the expected 62. EUR/SEK has appreciated to June levels, implying that markets have priced out any potential hawkishness by the Riksbank. Similarly, USD/SEK has risen by 6.2% from September lows. This is due to the re-chairing of Stefan Ingves, known for negative rates and quantitative easing. On the opposite side of the trade, President Trump elected Jerome Powell as the next Fed chair who will most likely continue the rate hike path highlighted by Janet Yellen. This will add further upward pressure on USD/SEK. Report Links: Updating Our Long-Term Fair Value Models - September 15, 2017 Balance Of Payments Across The G10 - August 4, 2017 Who Hikes Next? - June 30, 2017 Trades & Forecasts Forecast Summary Core Portfolio Closed Trades

Highlights London house prices have dropped 7% since the U.K. Government started the formal process of Brexit seven months ago. Stay underweight U.K. real estate and consumer services versus German real estate and consumer services. The global bond yield mini-cycle is driving asset allocation, sector allocation, value/growth allocation and country allocation. We are more than half way through the current mini-upswing in global bond yields. Look for opportunities to cut back overall portfolio cyclicality towards the end of the year. Feature London house prices have dropped 7% since the U.K. Government started the formal process of Brexit seven months ago (Chart of the Week). The average London home is now worth £584,000,1 down from £628,000. Moreover, our leading indicator for London house prices which compares the number of new viewings (demand) with the number of new listings (supply) suggests no imminent end to the sharpest price decline since the 2008 financial crisis (Chart I-2). Chart I-1Brexit Begins To Bite In London Chart I-2The Sharpest Decline In London House Prices Since 2008... Unsurprisingly, the many uncertainties surrounding the unfolding Brexit process are having a much greater impact on the London housing market than on the U.K. housing market as a whole. Outside London, the housing market is broadly flat-lining (Chart I-3). The average U.K. home outside London is now worth £256,500, modestly down from £260,000. Chart I-3 ...But Outside London, Prices Are Flat-Lining U.K. Households Squeezed We are writing ahead of the Bank of England monetary policy meeting, at which the BoE may deliver its first interest rate hike since July 2007. But hike or no hike, we can confidently say one thing: U.K. households will be squeezed. If the BoE does hike the base rate in an attempt to counter overshooting inflation, it could tip the precariously flat-lining housing market outside London into a downturn - as this market is much more exposed to mortgage affordability than it is to Brexit uncertainties. Alternatively, if the BoE does not hike the base rate, the boost to sterling from recent hawkish rhetoric will be priced out, and the pound will come under renewed downward pressure. This would keep U.K. inflation elevated, and further choke U.K. households' real incomes. Absent the post Brexit vote slump in the pound, U.K. inflation would be substantially lower than it is (Chart I-4 and Chart I-5). So the pound's weakness explains why the U.K. is one of the few major economies where inflation is running well north of 2%. Unfortunately for U.K. households, nominal wage inflation has not followed price inflation higher. And as we explained in Why Robots Will Kill Middle Incomes,2 nor is it likely to in the near future. Chart I-4The Weaker Pound Lifted U.K. Headline Inflation... Chart I-5...And U.K. Core Inflation But doesn't textbook economic theory say that the pound's weakness should make U.K. exports more competitive - thereby boosting the net export contribution to economic growth? Yes, the theory does say that a currency devaluation should allow firms to trade in markets that were previously unprofitable to them. However, to trade in these newly profitable markets, firms first need to invest - for example, in marketing and distribution. The trouble is that, post-Brexit, many of the newly profitable markets may be unavailable, or come with heavy tariffs. So firms will hold off making the necessary investments, unless the currency devaluation is massive. But in this case, the corresponding surge in inflation and choke on households' real incomes would also be massive. In summary, U.K. consumer spending faces a continued squeeze. If the BoE delivers a rate hike, household borrowing is likely to fade as a driver of spending. But if the BoE does not deliver the rate hike, the pound will once again weaken, keeping inflation elevated and weighing on real incomes. Stay underweight U.K. consumer services versus German consumer services (Chart I-6). And stay underweight U.K. real estate versus German real estate - expressed either through direct real estate exposure or through real estate equities (Chart I-7). Chart I-6U.K. Consumer Services Equities Are Underperforming Chart I-7U.K. Real Estate Equities Are Underperforming Investment Reductionism Illustrated Turning to markets more generally, it is crucial to understand that most of the moves in most financial markets reduce to a very small number of over-arching macro drivers. We call this very important principle Investment Reductionism. Investment Reductionism emerges from two guiding philosophies: Occam's Razor - which says that when there are competing explanations for the same effect, the simplest explanation is usually the best; and the Pareto Principle (the 80:20 rule) - which says that a small minority of causes usually explain a large majority of effects. The upshot of Investment Reductionism is that the seeming complexity of asset allocation, sector selection, the choice between value or growth, and country allocation usually reduces to something much simpler. Let's illustrate this. The global 6-month credit impulse leads the cyclical direction of the global bond yield, and thereby determines asset allocation (Chart I-8). The direction of the global bond yield drives sector selection: for example Banks versus Healthcare. This is because higher bond yields imply higher net interest margins for banks as well as an improving growth outlook, favouring cyclicals over defensives. And vice-versa (Chart I-9). Chart I-8Investment Reductionism Step 1: ##br##The Global Credit Impulse Leads The Bond Yield Cycle Chart I-9Step 2: The Bond Yield Drives ##br##Sector Performance Banks versus Healthcare determines the European Value versus Growth decision. This is because in Europe, Banks and Healthcare are the dominant value sector and growth sector respectively (Chart I-10). Banks versus Healthcare also determines the country allocation between, say, Italy's MIB - which is bank heavy - and Denmark's OMX - which is healthcare heavy (Chart I-11). Chart I-10Step 3: Sector Performance Drives Value ##br##Vs. Growth Chart I-11Step 4: Sector Performance Drives ##br##Country Performance Therefore, the important lesson from Investment Reductionism is to ignore the hundreds of things that matter little, and to focus on the very small number of things that matter a lot. And one of the things that matters a lot is the global bond yield mini-cycle. Where Are We In The Bond Yield Mini-Cycle? Empirically, the acceleration and deceleration of global bank credit flows - as measured in the global credit impulse - exhibits a remarkably regular wave like pattern, with each half-cycle lasting about 8 months (Chart I-12). The global bond yield shows a similarly regular wave like pattern with each half-cycle also averaging about 8 months (Chart I-13). Chart I-12The Global Credit Impulse Has Also Shown A Regular Wave Like Pattern Chart I-13The Global Bond Yield Has Shown A Regular Wave Like Pattern It is not a coincidence that the bank credit impulse and bond yield exhibit near identical half-cycle lengths. The global credit impulse and global bond yield are inextricably embraced in a perpetual mini-cycle. A stronger credit impulse boosts economic growth. In response to the stronger economic data, the bond yield rises, which slows credit growth. A weaker credit impulse weighs down economic growth. In response to the weaker economic data, the bond yield declines, which re-accelerates credit growth. Go back to step 1 and repeat ad perpetuam. At this moment, from an investment perspective, there are three points worth making: first, bond yield mini-upswings tend to occur mostly within the credit impulse upswing; second, credit impulse mini-upswings have a consistent duration lasting about 8 months; and third, the current mini-upswing started in May. What does this mean for investment strategy? It means that we are more than half-way through the current mini-upswing which we would expect to end around January/February. And at some point early next year we are likely to enter a mini-downswing. So it is slightly premature to cut back cyclical exposure right now. But we would certainly consider opportunities as we move to the end of the year - especially if our now tried and tested fractal timing indicators signal that the price action in specific investments has reached a technical tipping point. Stay tuned. Dhaval Joshi, Senior Vice President Chief European Investment Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com 1 Source: LSL Acadata 2 Please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report "Why Robots Will Kill Middle Incomes", dated August 10 2017 available at eis.bcaresearch.com. Fractal Trading Model* This week, our model suggests that the New Zealand dollar is oversold and ripe for a technical rebound. The recommended trade is long NZD/USD with a profit target/stop loss set at 3%. In other trades, long Canada 10-year bond/short German 10-year bund achieved its profit target while short Norway/long Switzerland hit its stop loss. This leaves five open trades. For any investment, excessive trend following and groupthink can reach a natural point of instability, at which point the established trend is highly likely to break down with or without an external catalyst. An early warning sign is the investment's fractal dimension approaching its natural lower bound. Encouragingly, this trigger has consistently identified countertrend moves of various magnitudes across all asset classes. Chart I-14 * For more details please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report "Fractals, Liquidity & A Trading Model," dated December 11, 2014, available at eis.bcaresearch.com. Recommendations Equities Bond & Interest Rates Currency & Other Positions Closed Fractal Trades Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Interest Rate Chart II-5Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations

Special Report

Highlights Emerging Market (EM) hard currency debt, both sovereign and corporate, has consistently outperformed the broad global bond index. However, investors should steer clear of always maintaining maximum overweights to EM given its weak volatility reduction benefits and a much higher-than normal tendency of experiencing outsized, negative returns. Our long-term analysis suggests a structural 5% allocation offers the best risk/reward potential. The Fed is still in the early stages of rate normalization. At this point in the Fed policy cycle, where the Fed is hiking rates but monetary conditions are still stimulative, EM hard currency debt has historically performed well both on a relative and absolute basis. Looking ahead, EM returns should begin to suffer in latter half of 2018 as the Fed moves to more restrictive policy stance. While global growth will remain supportive of EM credit next year, renewed U.S. dollar strength and a re-convergence to the downside with commodity prices present considerable headwinds. Maintain an underweight stance on EM hard currency debt. Favor DM spread product due to more supportive relative growth trends and valuations. Feature Emerging market (EM) sovereign and corporate debt returns have surged in 2017, returning 9.4% and 7.5%, respectively (Chart 1). Investor interest has been renewed, with the latest IMF Financial Stability Report indicating that non-resident inflows of portfolio capital to EM countries have recovered since early 2016 and reached $205 billion for 2017 through August. Against a backdrop of above-trend global economic growth, monetary policy settings from the major central banks that are still accommodative, and some diminished risks from the world's geopolitical hotspots, the current uptrend for EM debt performance could continue. Nevertheless, we urge caution. We moved to a moderate underweight stance on EM hard currency debt back in August, while at the same time increasing our current recommended overweight to U.S. investment grade (IG) corporate debt on the other side of the trade.1 Even with synchronized global growth boosting both EM export demand and industrial commodity prices, we prefer U.S. credit exposure over EM at this point in the cycle, for several reasons: The massive flow-driven EM rally has resulted in not only outsized returns but stretched valuations, with EM debt spreads now back to post-2008-crisis low (or even through those levels for EM hard currency corporates) without any major improvement in EM fundamentals; The previously reliable correlation between EM debt and commodity prices, a long-time driver of EM performance, has broken down, bullishly, for EM - potentially another sign of flow-driven overvaluation; Growing uncertainty over the near-term China growth outlook raises risks on further gains in industrial commodity demand and EM exports; The USD will appreciate once again on the back of additional Fed interest rate hikes beyond levels currently discounted by markets, which could trigger some reversal of the sharp inflows into EM seen this year. Over a strategic horizon, however, it remains difficult to argue against owning a core structural allocation of EM hard currency debt within global fixed income portfolios, given the higher yields that are typically on offer and the fairly consistent historical outperformance over Developed Market (DM) debt. Although the benefits of EM in a portfolio context are slightly overstated given its skewed risk profile (i.e. fat negative tails) and high correlation with DM spread product, specifically U.S. high-yield corporates (Chart 2). Chart 1How Much Longer Can This Rally Last? Chart 2EM Debt Offers Little Diversification Benefits In this Special Report, we examine the long-term role of EM hard currency debt within a fixed-income portfolio, and re-iterate our case for being underweight EM debt on a cyclical basis. The Long-Run Case For Owning EM Debt: A Moderate Core Allocation Makes Sense It is not a stretch to say that EM debt has become the most important part of global bond portfolios in the 21st century. Having a significant EM allocation at the right time can make a bond manager's year, while having it at the wrong time can end a bond manager's career. But what is the "right" allocation to optimize the long-run contribution to returns in a global fixed income portfolio? To answer this question, we took a look at the historical performance of a global bond portfolio that consisted of both DM and EM debt (sovereign and corporate), looking for the combination that would maximize the risk-adjusted return of the portfolio. In our analysis, we ran calculations for two different time periods as the available index data for EM sovereign debt goes back to 1994, while EM corporate debt indices begin in 2002. For DM debt, we used a single index - the Bloomberg Barclays Global Aggregate - as this has a long history and is a common benchmark used by global bond managers that includes both DM sovereign and corporate debt. Though the sample size of our combined global portfolio is limited due to the shorter history of the EM corporates asset class, the findings generally align with our intuition. On a standalone basis, modern portfolio theory proposes that an individual asset should be included within a portfolio if its excess return divided by its standard deviation is higher than the excess return of the portfolio divided by the portfolio's standard deviation, multiplied by the correlation between the portfolio and the asset. Though the correlation to the DM portfolio from 2004 was fairly high for both assets at over 0.6, when we applied this formula, both EM sovereign and corporate debt warranted an allocation in a standard global fixed-income portfolio. EM sovereign debt scored higher, by offering a considerably better Sharpe ratio with only a minimally higher correlation to DM fixed income. While EM hard currency debt has fairly consistently outperformed the DM benchmark on a 12-month rolling basis, investors must be careful not to simply maintain large positions at all times. Obviously, the majority of fixed-income investors have volatility constraints that impose limits on credit allocations. Additionally, apart from simple volatility measures, EM debt has a "hidden" risk profile when looking at the higher moments of return distributions. Table 1EM Debt Returns Are##BR##Negatively Skewed Both EM sovereign and corporate credit historical returns have exhibited significant negative skewness and excess kurtosis, indicating a much higher-than-normal tendency of experiencing outsized, negative returns (Table 1). This is confirmed through Historical Value-at-Risk (VaR) analysis, where the 5% worst returns far eclipsed those of DM investment grade and government debt. Nevertheless, it is important to view EM from a holistic perspective. For example, an asset with a high standard deviation may be less desirable as a standalone investment, but can be highly beneficial if it enhances overall the returns of a portfolio while also reducing its volatility. We tested these "portfolio effects" of EM debt by creating 21 hypothetical portfolios. We began with a DM-only portfolio (consisting of the Global Aggregate index) and increased the weighting toward EM debt by one percentage point in each portfolio, with the last portfolio having a 20% weighting toward EM. The breakdown within EM was 62% corporates and 38% sovereigns based on the market capitalizations of the relevant benchmark indices. Our calculations indicate that the highest portfolio Sharpe ratio was achieved with a 5% EM debt allocation, which also happens to be the "neutral" weighting of EM debt in the BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy model portfolio benchmark index (Chart 3).2 Global bond investors should hover around this weighting on EM hard currency debt, absent a high conviction view on EM. Chart 3The Optimal EM Hard Currency Debt Allocation Is 5% So while the data suggests that EM hard currency debt warrants a long-term allocation, its beneficial impact on a fixed-income portfolio is at least slightly exaggerated. Portfolio managers are typically seeking out assets that can both improve return and decrease overall volatility, thereby increasing the efficiency of their portfolios. This was not the case with EM debt. In our study, increasing the EM allocation consistently raised both returns and volatility. Chart 4EM/DM Correlations Should Decline In 2018 This lack of diversification benefit is a result of the high correlation between EM hard currency debt and DM fixed income. Currently, the correlation between EM and DM (the Global Aggregate) is 0.90, near the upper end of its range, indicating that diversification benefits over the last year were essentially non-existent (Chart 4). Nevertheless, this relationship clearly exhibits a mean reversion tendency. That EM/DM correlation in recent years has been itself correlated to global growth and monetary policy changes. As we show in Chart 4, our diffusion index of OECD Leading Economic Indicators (LEI) - the number of countries with a rising LEI relative to those with a declining LEI - does tend to lead the EM/DM correlation and is currently pointing to a lower correlation as global growth becomes a little less synchronized in 2018. The same goes for the growth rate of major central bank balance sheets which is already slowing and will decelerate even more in 2018 on the back of a diminished pace of bond buying by the ECB and the Fed runoff of maturing bonds on its balance sheet. The conclusion is this - the EM/DM correlation should decline in 2018 but, as we discuss below, we think that happens through relative underperformance of EM credit. Bottom Line: EM hard currency debt, both sovereign and corporate, has consistently outperformed the broad global index. However, investors should steer clear of always maintaining maximum overweights given its weak volatility reduction benefits and a much higher-than normal tendency of experiencing outsized, negative returns. Our long-term analysis suggests a structural 5% allocation offers the best risk/reward potential. The Shorter-Run Case For Owning EM Debt: Will Macro Drivers Remain Supportive? So far in 2017, EM sovereign and corporate debt have been beneficiaries of robust global growth, a declining USD and a decoupling from a broader index of commodity prices. While we expect global growth will remain strong over the medium term, our outlook for the USD is still bullish and there is a risk that commodity prices and EM debt performance re-converge to the downside. Global growth will remain strong. Outside of a major global growth slowdown, which we currently view as a low probability event, a mass flight out of EM assets anytime soon is highly unlikely. Indicators such as the global PMI index, industrial production growth and the OECD leading economic indicator are all booming (Chart 5). Inflation will head higher on the back of rising oil prices, but the increase is likely to be gradual. Importantly, this is happening alongside global monetary conditions that remain generally accommodative, even with the Fed in a tightening cycle. Credit, both DM & EM, has historically performed well against this backdrop, as we discuss in the next section of this report. A renewed upleg in the USD bull market is already underway. The correlation between EM currencies and EM debt performance has recovered after breaking down during 2013-15 (Chart 6). Year-to-date, EM currency strength - the flipside of the weaker U.S. dollar - has been a major driver of EM relative performance. Using the IMF's measure real effective exchange rates based on unit labor costs, the U.S. dollar is fairly valued.3 Neutral valuations suggest that directional market indicators are driving currency movements. As the EM business cycle slows and the Fed ramps up its rate hikes in response to rising inflation, the USD cyclical bull market should resume. Chart 5Robust Global Growth##BR##Is Supportive For EM Chart 6Can EM Ignore Another##BR##Round Of USD Strength? The de-coupling between EM debt and commodity price movements is unsustainable. EM debt has experienced a strong rally since 2016 with only a moderate rise in commodity prices compared to past periods of EM strength. We view this decoupling to be temporary (Chart 7). Many sovereign EM issuers are commodity producers, suggesting that this divergence is unsustainable. EM sovereign and corporate debt will not be able to continue their massive rallies if commodity prices relapse. We maintain a bullish view on oil prices, but there are signals that base metal prices are at risk over the next 6-12 months. Chinese monetary authorities have tightened policy and the resulting sharp slowdown in money supply growth is a worrisome sign for Chinese demand for commodities (Chart 8).4 Chart 7EM-Commodity Divergence##BR##Is Unsustainable Chart 8China Downside Risks For##BR##Industrial Commodity Prices Bottom Line: While global growth will remain supportive of EM credit, currency weakness and a re-convergence with commodity prices present considerable headwinds. EM Debt Performance & The Fed Policy Cycle Chart 9The Fed Policy Cycle As more central banks are shifting to a tightening bias, investors are becoming increasingly concerned over policy normalization and its potential impact on credit market performance. Given the strong historical linkages between EM debt performance and Fed policy changes, the current U.S. tightening cycle looms as a major potential problem for EM assets. We have found it most useful to think about changes in Fed monetary policy and asset market performance in terms of breaking up the Fed policy into four distinct phases (Chart 9).5 These are characterized by both the level of interest rates (whether they are above or below "equilibrium") and the direction of policy changes (whether the Fed is raising or cutting rates):6 Phase 1 - the Fed is hiking while the fed funds rate is below equilibrium (i.e. monetary conditions are stimulative). Phase 2 - the Fed is hiking or keeping policy on hold while the fed funds rate is above equilibrium (i.e. monetary conditions are restrictive). Phase 3 - the Fed is cutting while the fed funds rate is above equilibrium (i.e. monetary conditions are restrictive). Phase 4 - the Fed is cutting rates while the fed funds rate is below equilibrium (i.e. monetary conditions are stimulative). For EM sovereign debt where we have index data going back to 1994, there have been four episodes of Phase 1 and three episodes of the other phases. For EM corporate debt, where the index data begins in 2002, there have been two episodes of Phases 1 and 4 and only one occurrence of Phases 2 and 3. We present the excess returns of EM debt relative to other major fixed income classes by phase in Table 2. In the limited sample, EM sovereign debt and corporate debt consistently outperformed the Global Aggregate index and most individual bond classes. However, relative to DM high-yield debt, which has the most comparable risk profile, EM sovereign bonds underperformed in Phase 1 and EM corporate debt underperformed in all phases. Table 2Relative EM Debt Performance Worsens As Fed Policy Tightens Excess returns for both EM debt classes were highest in Phase 4, where the central bank is easing while conditions are stimulative. Similar to other risk assets, EM debt also outperformed in Phase 1, where the central bank is tightening while rates are below equilibrium. This makes sense, as the early stages of monetary tightening typically occur in conjunction with stable, above-trend growth. Liquidity conditions are still stimulative in Phase 1, which provides a substantial tailwind for spread product performance. On the other end of the spectrum, EM debt excess returns were relatively low during Phase 2 and Phase 3, and even negative in the case of EM corporate debt for Phase 3. Surprisingly, EM debt has been less affected by the direction of U.S. interest rates than what we would have expected. Monetary easing in Phase 3 was not enough to substantially boost EM relative returns and tightening in Phase 1 did not derail growth or lift the USD enough for EM debt to underperform. In fact, because EM debt still offers robust excess returns during Phase 1 when the central bank is tightening, while also suffering during Phase 3 during central bank easing, we can conclude that the level of policy rates relative to equilibrium has a greater impact on returns than the direction of rates. The severity of the Global Financial Crisis and the relatively subdued pace of recovery for both growth and inflation led to one of the longest Phase 4s in history. Given the low level of starting yields, indicating a large gap to equilibrium, and the 'gradual' pace of normalization, the current Phase 1 should also last longer than it typically has. This bodes well for all credit sectors, including EM sovereign and corporate debt, if history is any guide. However, there are still reasons to be concerned about the impact of U.S. monetary policy on EM assets next year. If the Fed follows through with the interest rate hikes it is currently projecting - another 100bps in total by the end of 2018 - the funds rate will be much closer to equilibrium. If the U.S. dollar rallies alongside that Fed tightening, as we expect, overall U.S. monetary conditions could end up being much closer to a restrictive level than implied by strictly looking at our Fed Policy Cycle (which only looks at the funds rate to determine monetary conditions). Also, the equilibrium funds rate may now be lower than the levels we are assuming in the Fed Policy Cycle framework, suggesting that policy could turn restrictive more quickly in the current tightening cycle. Bottom Line: The Fed is still in the early stages of rate normalization. At this point in the Fed policy cycle, where the Fed is hiking rates but monetary conditions are still stimulative, EM hard currency debt has historically performed well both on a relative and absolute basis. Looking ahead, EM returns should begin to suffer in latter half of 2018 as the Fed moves to more restrictive policy stance. Another Reason For Caution: Our EM Corporate Health Monitor The BCA EM Corporate Health Monitor (CHM) is a directional indicator aimed at modeling the path of EM corporate spread movements. Financial data from 220 emerging market companies in over 30 countries is aggregated. Only firms that issue USD-denominated bonds are included, with banks and other financials also omitted in a similar fashion to the CHMs we have constructed for DM corporates. The indicator is made up of four financial ratios: profit margins, free cash flow to total debt, liquidity and leverage. Unlike the DM CHMs, the ratios are not equally weighted in the construction of the EM CHM. Profit margins and free cash flow to debt combined represent 75% of the EM CHM. The latest available reading is from Q2 2017, showing a large decrease, with the indicator now only barely in 'Improving Health' territory (Chart 10). This has occurred in tandem with EM corporate spreads narrowing to post-crisis lows, leaving EM debt at potentially overvalued levels on a fundamental basis. While this slowdown in the EM CHM is not yet a cause for concern, if this became an extended trend of financial health deterioration, the divergence with EM corporate debt performance would be unsustainable and leave EM corporates highly vulnerable to a correction. Chart 10The BCA EM Corporate Health Monitor Has Rolled Over EM Corporate Health Monitor Is Sending A 'Sell' Signal Bottom Line: Our EM Corporate Health Monitor has declined drastically and is barely in 'Improving Health' territory. This alone is not cause for concern yet, but further deterioration in our Monitor combined with additional credit spread narrowing would be a worrisome divergence. Investment Implications Emerging market debt is facing conflicting forces. While continued robust global growth and accommodative monetary policy provide a substantial tailwind for credit performance, extended valuations, the turn in the USD and a potentially worsening commodities outlook present difficult hurdles for EM to overcome. Given the mixed messages, we prefer owning cyclical credit exposure through DM corporate debt, particularly U.S. investment grade. EM debt yields have collapsed and are expensive relative to DM investment grade debt (Chart 11). Combined with a higher risk profile in EM, elevated valuations indicate that EM sovereign and corporate debt are vulnerable to larger corrections. From a return perspective, the difference in the corporate option-adjusted spreads (OAS) has been an excellent leading indicator for relative total returns (Chart 12). This differential indicates that there is considerable relative upside potential for U.S. investment grade over EM hard currency debt. Additionally, while global growth should support credit-related plays, relative growth dynamics are more supportive of U.S. investment grade because the next phase of the global growth upturn will be driven by DM countries and not EM. The difference between the manufacturing PMIs in the U.S. and EM has historically been a good directional indicator for the spread between U.S. corporate bond spreads and EM debt spreads (Chart 13). The gap between the relative manufacturing PMI readings is at a post-crisis high, and could widen further if EM economies suffer on the back of any pullback in Chinese growth in 2018. Chart 11EM Yields & Spreads Look Full Valued Chart 12Favor U.S. IG Over EM Corporates... Chart 13...Because Of Stronger U.S. Growth What are the risks to our view? Our recommended position would suffer in the event that inflation in the U.S. slows, keeping the Fed on hold and maintaining this year's USD downtrend. Also, if China were to ease up on its policy tightening, industrial commodity prices could strengthen once again. Under these scenarios, EM hard currency debt would likely outperform DM spread product. Bottom Line: Maintain moderate underweight positions in EM hard currency debt. Favor DM spread product (especially U.S. investment grade corporates) due to more supportive relative valuations and growth trends. Patrick Trinh, Associate Editor Global Fixed Income Strategy patrick@bcaresearch.com Robert Robis, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com 1 This “EM versus IG” trade was implemented in both our Emerging Markets Strategy and Global Fixed Income Strategy services. Please see BCA Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report, “EM: The Focus Is On Profits”, dated August 16th 2017, available at ems.bcaresearch.com, as well as the BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, “A Lack Of Leadership”, dated August 22nd 2017, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 2 The weighting to EM debt in the Global Fixed Income Strategy model bond portfolio benchmark is based on market capitalizations of all the fixed income sectors we wanted to have in the benchmark, which includes non-investment grade debt like global high-yield corporates. It is reassuring to see that our benchmark weighting is also the desired weighting from a long-run portfolio optimization perspective. 3 Please see BCA Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report, "Is The Dollar Expensive, And Are EM Currencies Cheap?", dated October 11th, 2017, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see the joint BCA Global Asset Allocation/Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, "Global Equity Allocation: The Underwhelming Case For EM", dated August 9th 2017, available at ems.bcaresearch.com & gaa.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see BCA U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, "Bonds And The Fed Funds Rate Cycle", dated May 27th 2014, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com. 6 The equilibrium policy rate is a BCA calculation based on long-run real potential GDP growth and long run inflation expectations.

Special Report

Highlights Emerging Market (EM) hard currency debt, both sovereign and corporate, has consistently outperformed the broad global bond index. However, investors should steer clear of always maintaining maximum overweights to EM given its weak volatility reduction benefits and a much higher-than normal tendency of experiencing outsized, negative returns. Our long-term analysis suggests a structural 5% allocation offers the best risk/reward potential. The Fed is still in the early stages of rate normalization. At this point in the Fed policy cycle, where the Fed is hiking rates but monetary conditions are still stimulative, EM hard currency debt has historically performed well both on a relative and absolute basis. Looking ahead, EM returns should begin to suffer in latter half of 2018 as the Fed moves to more restrictive policy stance. While global growth will remain supportive of EM credit next year, renewed U.S. dollar strength and a re-convergence to the downside with commodity prices present considerable headwinds. Maintain an underweight stance on EM hard currency debt. Favor DM spread product due to more supportive relative growth trends and valuations. Feature Emerging market (EM) sovereign and corporate debt returns have surged in 2017, returning 9.4% and 7.5%, respectively (Chart 1). Investor interest has been renewed, with the latest IMF Financial Stability Report indicating that non-resident inflows of portfolio capital to EM countries have recovered since early 2016 and reached $205 billion for 2017 through August. Against a backdrop of above-trend global economic growth, monetary policy settings from the major central banks that are still accommodative, and some diminished risks from the world's geopolitical hotspots, the current uptrend for EM debt performance could continue. Nevertheless, we urge caution. We moved to a moderate underweight stance on EM hard currency debt back in August, while at the same time increasing our current recommended overweight to U.S. investment grade (IG) corporate debt on the other side of the trade.1 Even with synchronized global growth boosting both EM export demand and industrial commodity prices, we prefer U.S. credit exposure over EM at this point in the cycle, for several reasons: The massive flow-driven EM rally has resulted in not only outsized returns but stretched valuations, with EM debt spreads now back to post-2008-crisis low (or even through those levels for EM hard currency corporates) without any major improvement in EM fundamentals; The previously reliable correlation between EM debt and commodity prices, a long-time driver of EM performance, has broken down, bullishly, for EM - potentially another sign of flow-driven overvaluation; Growing uncertainty over the near-term China growth outlook raises risks on further gains in industrial commodity demand and EM exports; The USD will appreciate once again on the back of additional Fed interest rate hikes beyond levels currently discounted by markets, which could trigger some reversal of the sharp inflows into EM seen this year. Over a strategic horizon, however, it remains difficult to argue against owning a core structural allocation of EM hard currency debt within global fixed income portfolios, given the higher yields that are typically on offer and the fairly consistent historical outperformance over Developed Market (DM) debt. Although the benefits of EM in a portfolio context are slightly overstated given its skewed risk profile (i.e. fat negative tails) and high correlation with DM spread product, specifically U.S. high-yield corporates (Chart 2). Chart 1How Much Longer Can This Rally Last? Chart 2EM Debt Offers Little Diversification Benefits In this Special Report, we examine the long-term role of EM hard currency debt within a fixed-income portfolio, and re-iterate our case for being underweight EM debt on a cyclical basis. The Long-Run Case For Owning EM Debt: A Moderate Core Allocation Makes Sense It is not a stretch to say that EM debt has become the most important part of global bond portfolios in the 21st century. Having a significant EM allocation at the right time can make a bond manager's year, while having it at the wrong time can end a bond manager's career. But what is the "right" allocation to optimize the long-run contribution to returns in a global fixed income portfolio? To answer this question, we took a look at the historical performance of a global bond portfolio that consisted of both DM and EM debt (sovereign and corporate), looking for the combination that would maximize the risk-adjusted return of the portfolio. In our analysis, we ran calculations for two different time periods as the available index data for EM sovereign debt goes back to 1994, while EM corporate debt indices begin in 2002. For DM debt, we used a single index - the Bloomberg Barclays Global Aggregate - as this has a long history and is a common benchmark used by global bond managers that includes both DM sovereign and corporate debt. Though the sample size of our combined global portfolio is limited due to the shorter history of the EM corporates asset class, the findings generally align with our intuition. On a standalone basis, modern portfolio theory proposes that an individual asset should be included within a portfolio if its excess return divided by its standard deviation is higher than the excess return of the portfolio divided by the portfolio's standard deviation, multiplied by the correlation between the portfolio and the asset. Though the correlation to the DM portfolio from 2004 was fairly high for both assets at over 0.6, when we applied this formula, both EM sovereign and corporate debt warranted an allocation in a standard global fixed-income portfolio. EM sovereign debt scored higher, by offering a considerably better Sharpe ratio with only a minimally higher correlation to DM fixed income. While EM hard currency debt has fairly consistently outperformed the DM benchmark on a 12-month rolling basis, investors must be careful not to simply maintain large positions at all times. Obviously, the majority of fixed-income investors have volatility constraints that impose limits on credit allocations. Additionally, apart from simple volatility measures, EM debt has a "hidden" risk profile when looking at the higher moments of return distributions. Table 1EM Debt Returns Are##BR##Negatively Skewed Both EM sovereign and corporate credit historical returns have exhibited significant negative skewness and excess kurtosis, indicating a much higher-than-normal tendency of experiencing outsized, negative returns (Table 1). This is confirmed through Historical Value-at-Risk (VaR) analysis, where the 5% worst returns far eclipsed those of DM investment grade and government debt. Nevertheless, it is important to view EM from a holistic perspective. For example, an asset with a high standard deviation may be less desirable as a standalone investment, but can be highly beneficial if it enhances overall the returns of a portfolio while also reducing its volatility. We tested these "portfolio effects" of EM debt by creating 21 hypothetical portfolios. We began with a DM-only portfolio (consisting of the Global Aggregate index) and increased the weighting toward EM debt by one percentage point in each portfolio, with the last portfolio having a 20% weighting toward EM. The breakdown within EM was 62% corporates and 38% sovereigns based on the market capitalizations of the relevant benchmark indices. Our calculations indicate that the highest portfolio Sharpe ratio was achieved with a 5% EM debt allocation, which also happens to be the "neutral" weighting of EM debt in the BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy model portfolio benchmark index (Chart 3).2 Global bond investors should hover around this weighting on EM hard currency debt, absent a high conviction view on EM. Chart 3The Optimal EM Hard Currency Debt Allocation Is 5% So while the data suggests that EM hard currency debt warrants a long-term allocation, its beneficial impact on a fixed-income portfolio is at least slightly exaggerated. Portfolio managers are typically seeking out assets that can both improve return and decrease overall volatility, thereby increasing the efficiency of their portfolios. This was not the case with EM debt. In our study, increasing the EM allocation consistently raised both returns and volatility. Chart 4EM/DM Correlations Should Decline In 2018 This lack of diversification benefit is a result of the high correlation between EM hard currency debt and DM fixed income. Currently, the correlation between EM and DM (the Global Aggregate) is 0.90, near the upper end of its range, indicating that diversification benefits over the last year were essentially non-existent (Chart 4). Nevertheless, this relationship clearly exhibits a mean reversion tendency. That EM/DM correlation in recent years has been itself correlated to global growth and monetary policy changes. As we show in Chart 4, our diffusion index of OECD Leading Economic Indicators (LEI) - the number of countries with a rising LEI relative to those with a declining LEI - does tend to lead the EM/DM correlation and is currently pointing to a lower correlation as global growth becomes a little less synchronized in 2018. The same goes for the growth rate of major central bank balance sheets which is already slowing and will decelerate even more in 2018 on the back of a diminished pace of bond buying by the ECB and the Fed runoff of maturing bonds on its balance sheet. The conclusion is this - the EM/DM correlation should decline in 2018 but, as we discuss below, we think that happens through relative underperformance of EM credit. Bottom Line: EM hard currency debt, both sovereign and corporate, has consistently outperformed the broad global index. However, investors should steer clear of always maintaining maximum overweights given its weak volatility reduction benefits and a much higher-than normal tendency of experiencing outsized, negative returns. Our long-term analysis suggests a structural 5% allocation offers the best risk/reward potential. The Shorter-Run Case For Owning EM Debt: Will Macro Drivers Remain Supportive? So far in 2017, EM sovereign and corporate debt have been beneficiaries of robust global growth, a declining USD and a decoupling from a broader index of commodity prices. While we expect global growth will remain strong over the medium term, our outlook for the USD is still bullish and there is a risk that commodity prices and EM debt performance re-converge to the downside. Global growth will remain strong. Outside of a major global growth slowdown, which we currently view as a low probability event, a mass flight out of EM assets anytime soon is highly unlikely. Indicators such as the global PMI index, industrial production growth and the OECD leading economic indicator are all booming (Chart 5). Inflation will head higher on the back of rising oil prices, but the increase is likely to be gradual. Importantly, this is happening alongside global monetary conditions that remain generally accommodative, even with the Fed in a tightening cycle. Credit, both DM & EM, has historically performed well against this backdrop, as we discuss in the next section of this report. A renewed upleg in the USD bull market is already underway. The correlation between EM currencies and EM debt performance has recovered after breaking down during 2013-15 (Chart 6). Year-to-date, EM currency strength - the flipside of the weaker U.S. dollar - has been a major driver of EM relative performance. Using the IMF's measure real effective exchange rates based on unit labor costs, the U.S. dollar is fairly valued.3 Neutral valuations suggest that directional market indicators are driving currency movements. As the EM business cycle slows and the Fed ramps up its rate hikes in response to rising inflation, the USD cyclical bull market should resume. Chart 5Robust Global Growth##BR##Is Supportive For EM Chart 6Can EM Ignore Another##BR##Round Of USD Strength? The de-coupling between EM debt and commodity price movements is unsustainable. EM debt has experienced a strong rally since 2016 with only a moderate rise in commodity prices compared to past periods of EM strength. We view this decoupling to be temporary (Chart 7). Many sovereign EM issuers are commodity producers, suggesting that this divergence is unsustainable. EM sovereign and corporate debt will not be able to continue their massive rallies if commodity prices relapse. We maintain a bullish view on oil prices, but there are signals that base metal prices are at risk over the next 6-12 months. Chinese monetary authorities have tightened policy and the resulting sharp slowdown in money supply growth is a worrisome sign for Chinese demand for commodities (Chart 8).4 Chart 7EM-Commodity Divergence##BR##Is Unsustainable Chart 8China Downside Risks For##BR##Industrial Commodity Prices Bottom Line: While global growth will remain supportive of EM credit, currency weakness and a re-convergence with commodity prices present considerable headwinds. EM Debt Performance & The Fed Policy Cycle Chart 9The Fed Policy Cycle As more central banks are shifting to a tightening bias, investors are becoming increasingly concerned over policy normalization and its potential impact on credit market performance. Given the strong historical linkages between EM debt performance and Fed policy changes, the current U.S. tightening cycle looms as a major potential problem for EM assets. We have found it most useful to think about changes in Fed monetary policy and asset market performance in terms of breaking up the Fed policy into four distinct phases (Chart 9).5 These are characterized by both the level of interest rates (whether they are above or below "equilibrium") and the direction of policy changes (whether the Fed is raising or cutting rates):6 Phase 1 - the Fed is hiking while the fed funds rate is below equilibrium (i.e. monetary conditions are stimulative). Phase 2 - the Fed is hiking or keeping policy on hold while the fed funds rate is above equilibrium (i.e. monetary conditions are restrictive). Phase 3 - the Fed is cutting while the fed funds rate is above equilibrium (i.e. monetary conditions are restrictive). Phase 4 - the Fed is cutting rates while the fed funds rate is below equilibrium (i.e. monetary conditions are stimulative). For EM sovereign debt where we have index data going back to 1994, there have been four episodes of Phase 1 and three episodes of the other phases. For EM corporate debt, where the index data begins in 2002, there have been two episodes of Phases 1 and 4 and only one occurrence of Phases 2 and 3. We present the excess returns of EM debt relative to other major fixed income classes by phase in Table 2. In the limited sample, EM sovereign debt and corporate debt consistently outperformed the Global Aggregate index and most individual bond classes. However, relative to DM high-yield debt, which has the most comparable risk profile, EM sovereign bonds underperformed in Phase 1 and EM corporate debt underperformed in all phases. Table 2Relative EM Debt Performance Worsens As Fed Policy Tightens Excess returns for both EM debt classes were highest in Phase 4, where the central bank is easing while conditions are stimulative. Similar to other risk assets, EM debt also outperformed in Phase 1, where the central bank is tightening while rates are below equilibrium. This makes sense, as the early stages of monetary tightening typically occur in conjunction with stable, above-trend growth. Liquidity conditions are still stimulative in Phase 1, which provides a substantial tailwind for spread product performance. On the other end of the spectrum, EM debt excess returns were relatively low during Phase 2 and Phase 3, and even negative in the case of EM corporate debt for Phase 3. Surprisingly, EM debt has been less affected by the direction of U.S. interest rates than what we would have expected. Monetary easing in Phase 3 was not enough to substantially boost EM relative returns and tightening in Phase 1 did not derail growth or lift the USD enough for EM debt to underperform. In fact, because EM debt still offers robust excess returns during Phase 1 when the central bank is tightening, while also suffering during Phase 3 during central bank easing, we can conclude that the level of policy rates relative to equilibrium has a greater impact on returns than the direction of rates. The severity of the Global Financial Crisis and the relatively subdued pace of recovery for both growth and inflation led to one of the longest Phase 4s in history. Given the low level of starting yields, indicating a large gap to equilibrium, and the 'gradual' pace of normalization, the current Phase 1 should also last longer than it typically has. This bodes well for all credit sectors, including EM sovereign and corporate debt, if history is any guide. However, there are still reasons to be concerned about the impact of U.S. monetary policy on EM assets next year. If the Fed follows through with the interest rate hikes it is currently projecting - another 100bps in total by the end of 2018 - the funds rate will be much closer to equilibrium. If the U.S. dollar rallies alongside that Fed tightening, as we expect, overall U.S. monetary conditions could end up being much closer to a restrictive level than implied by strictly looking at our Fed Policy Cycle (which only looks at the funds rate to determine monetary conditions). Also, the equilibrium funds rate may now be lower than the levels we are assuming in the Fed Policy Cycle framework, suggesting that policy could turn restrictive more quickly in the current tightening cycle. Bottom Line: The Fed is still in the early stages of rate normalization. At this point in the Fed policy cycle, where the Fed is hiking rates but monetary conditions are still stimulative, EM hard currency debt has historically performed well both on a relative and absolute basis. Looking ahead, EM returns should begin to suffer in latter half of 2018 as the Fed moves to more restrictive policy stance. Another Reason For Caution: Our EM Corporate Health Monitor The BCA EM Corporate Health Monitor (CHM) is a directional indicator aimed at modeling the path of EM corporate spread movements. Financial data from 220 emerging market companies in over 30 countries is aggregated. Only firms that issue USD-denominated bonds are included, with banks and other financials also omitted in a similar fashion to the CHMs we have constructed for DM corporates. The indicator is made up of four financial ratios: profit margins, free cash flow to total debt, liquidity and leverage. Unlike the DM CHMs, the ratios are not equally weighted in the construction of the EM CHM. Profit margins and free cash flow to debt combined represent 75% of the EM CHM. The latest available reading is from Q2 2017, showing a large decrease, with the indicator now only barely in 'Improving Health' territory (Chart 10). This has occurred in tandem with EM corporate spreads narrowing to post-crisis lows, leaving EM debt at potentially overvalued levels on a fundamental basis. While this slowdown in the EM CHM is not yet a cause for concern, if this became an extended trend of financial health deterioration, the divergence with EM corporate debt performance would be unsustainable and leave EM corporates highly vulnerable to a correction. Chart 10The BCA EM Corporate Health Monitor Has Rolled Over EM Corporate Health Monitor Is Sending A 'Sell' Signal Bottom Line: Our EM Corporate Health Monitor has declined drastically and is barely in 'Improving Health' territory. This alone is not cause for concern yet, but further deterioration in our Monitor combined with additional credit spread narrowing would be a worrisome divergence. Investment Implications Emerging market debt is facing conflicting forces. While continued robust global growth and accommodative monetary policy provide a substantial tailwind for credit performance, extended valuations, the turn in the USD and a potentially worsening commodities outlook present difficult hurdles for EM to overcome. Given the mixed messages, we prefer owning cyclical credit exposure through DM corporate debt, particularly U.S. investment grade. EM debt yields have collapsed and are expensive relative to DM investment grade debt (Chart 11). Combined with a higher risk profile in EM, elevated valuations indicate that EM sovereign and corporate debt are vulnerable to larger corrections. From a return perspective, the difference in the corporate option-adjusted spreads (OAS) has been an excellent leading indicator for relative total returns (Chart 12). This differential indicates that there is considerable relative upside potential for U.S. investment grade over EM hard currency debt. Additionally, while global growth should support credit-related plays, relative growth dynamics are more supportive of U.S. investment grade because the next phase of the global growth upturn will be driven by DM countries and not EM. The difference between the manufacturing PMIs in the U.S. and EM has historically been a good directional indicator for the spread between U.S. corporate bond spreads and EM debt spreads (Chart 13). The gap between the relative manufacturing PMI readings is at a post-crisis high, and could widen further if EM economies suffer on the back of any pullback in Chinese growth in 2018. Chart 11EM Yields & Spreads Look Full Valued Chart 12Favor U.S. IG Over EM Corporates... Chart 13...Because Of Stronger U.S. Growth What are the risks to our view? Our recommended position would suffer in the event that inflation in the U.S. slows, keeping the Fed on hold and maintaining this year's USD downtrend. Also, if China were to ease up on its policy tightening, industrial commodity prices could strengthen once again. Under these scenarios, EM hard currency debt would likely outperform DM spread product. Bottom Line: Maintain moderate underweight positions in EM hard currency debt. Favor DM spread product (especially U.S. investment grade corporates) due to more supportive relative valuations and growth trends. Patrick Trinh, Associate Editor Global Fixed Income Strategy patrick@bcaresearch.com Robert Robis, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com 1 This “EM versus IG” trade was implemented in both our Emerging Markets Strategy and Global Fixed Income Strategy services. Please see BCA Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report, “EM: The Focus Is On Profits”, dated August 16th 2017, available at ems.bcaresearch.com, as well as the BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, “A Lack Of Leadership”, dated August 22nd 2017, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 2 The weighting to EM debt in the Global Fixed Income Strategy model bond portfolio benchmark is based on market capitalizations of all the fixed income sectors we wanted to have in the benchmark, which includes non-investment grade debt like global high-yield corporates. It is reassuring to see that our benchmark weighting is also the desired weighting from a long-run portfolio optimization perspective. 3 Please see BCA Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report, "Is The Dollar Expensive, And Are EM Currencies Cheap?", dated October 11th, 2017, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see the joint BCA Global Asset Allocation/Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, "Global Equity Allocation: The Underwhelming Case For EM", dated August 9th 2017, available at ems.bcaresearch.com & gaa.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see BCA U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, "Bonds And The Fed Funds Rate Cycle", dated May 27th 2014, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com. 6 The equilibrium policy rate is a BCA calculation based on long-run real potential GDP growth and long run inflation expectations.