Alternative Investments

Highlights Private debt raised a record $115 billion through 158 funds in 2017. Aggregate AUM has grown from $244 billion in 2007 to $664 billion in 2017. Private debt enjoys a higher yield and return, along with lower defaults, than traditional corporate bonds. This is driven by stronger covenants and collateral structures. Unlike traditional corporate debt with fixed coupons, most private debt has floating-rate coupons making it an attractive interest-rate hedge. Direct lending and mezzanine debt are low risk-low return capital-preserving strategies. Distressed and venture debt are more aggressive plays on operationally troubled firms and start-ups. Investors should allocate to private-debt funds with global exposure, to diversify away from U.S. corporate cash flow risk and increase exposure to different credit cycles. Business Development Companies (BDCs) are a liquid alternative to direct lending that provide impressive yield, but at the cost of higher volatility. Feature Introduction Private debt involves lending by institutional investors to middle-market companies in the form of investment-grade senior-secured debt, or subordinated debt. This space has experienced explosive growth: assets under management (AUM) have increased to $664 Bn in 2017 from $244 Bn in 2007. The key supply and demand factors driving this growth are: Chart 1Banking Sector Consolidation Banking Sector Consolidation Banking Sector Consolidation Bank Consolidation: For a couple of decades the U.S. banking industry has been consolidating, creating fewer but larger (Chart 1) commercial banks. These larger banks prefer to lend to larger rather than mid-market companies. Regulation: Following the financial crisis, increased regulation (for example, Dodd Frank and the Basel capital adequacy rules) forced commercial banks to reduce lending to the mid-market segment. This led to the rise of non-bank institutional lending. Search For Yield: With global bond yields depressed, institutional investors with target returns turned to alternate sources of income. This has created a new source of demand for private debt. Liquidity: The Volcker Rule, which banned proprietary trading in bond markets, reduced liquidity. ICG, a specialist asset manager, estimated that it took seven times as long for investors to liquidate bond portfolios in 2015 as it did in 2008. This made private debt's illiquidity relative to public markets less clear than previously.1 In this report, we run through the basics of private debt, and analyze past performance and fundraising cycles. In the following sections, we analyze different private-debt strategies and explain how investors can benefit from allocating to these. We close with a brief word on Business Development Companies (BDCs). Our conclusions are that: Private debt has returned an average net IRR of 13.0% from 1989-2015. This compares to an annualized total return of 7.0% and 7.2% for equities and corporate bonds respectively. Direct lending and mezzanine debt are intended to be capital preservation strategies that offer more stable returns while minimizing downside. Investors should allocate to these strategies from their alternative credit bucket. Distressed debt and venture debt are intended to be return-maximizing strategies that offer larger gains, but with a higher probability of losses. Investors should allocate to these strategies from their private equity bucket. In the late stages of an economic cycle, investors should deploy capital defensively through first-lien and other senior debt positions. In contrast, a recession would create opportunities for distressed strategies and within deeper parts of the capital structure. Unlike private equity and other private investments, private debt investors start receiving positive cash flow immediately and are charged management fees only on invested capital. This reduces the "J curve" effect. A note on the data we use in this report. All the returns and fund data are based on the private debt online platform from Preqin Ltd. Given the uncertainty around the investment horizon and cash flows of a private debt fund, it is hard to create a traditional total return index. Instead, we use the concept of internal rate of return (IRR) to understand past realized returns. (See Appendix for more detail on how the data is collected). The Private Debt Market Private debt funds raised a record $115 billion through 158 funds in 2017, surpassing the previous high of $100 billion in 2015. Total assets under management (AUM) have reached $664 Bn (Chart 2). There has been a trend towards the creation of larger funds, just as in private equity. Additionally, it took managers only 14 months to close fund-raising in 2017 versus 19 months in 2016, another testament to investors' strong appetite for this asset class. Finally, 58% of funds exceeded their target size. Below we describe key characteristics of this asset class. (In the Appendix, we explain in detail the key terms, and methodologies used to measure performance.) Chart 2Strong Investor Demand Private Debt: An Investment Primer Private Debt: An Investment Primer Chart 3Private Debt Market Private Debt: An Investment Primer Private Debt: An Investment Primer Return And Risk: Table 1 shows the past realized return for each private debt strategy and the range of outcomes that investors can expect from allocating to them. Distressed and venture debt produce a higher average IRR, but with greater dispersion in returns. Compared to traditional corporate credit, private debt enjoys a higher yield and return, along with lower default rates and credit loss.2 This is because public bonds are mostly unsecured obligations with standard indentures, whereas private debt investors have more control over terms and conditions such as covenants and collateral structures. Additionally, private debt can improve performance (Chart 3) by diversifying the sources of risk and return,3 and gives access to more esoteric exposures such as illiquidity and manager skill. Illiquidity premia are generated from both asymmetric information flow about target companies and also the low frequency of transactions. Another attractive feature is the ability to customize deals with favorable security packages and cash flow patterns to meet unique liability and payment schedules. Finally, many of the more aggressive private debt strategies provide investors with the option to convert to equity ownership, thereby further improving risk-return dynamics with an equity upside. Table 1Capital Preservation Vs. Return Maximizing Private Debt: An Investment Primer Private Debt: An Investment Primer Unlike most traditional corporate bonds with fixed coupon payments, most private debt investments have floating-rate coupons making them attractive hedges in rising-rate environments. Additionally, cash distributions to investors include both interest and principal repayments, and are mostly quarterly. Unlike traditional bullet repayment structures, periodic principal repayments reduce the average effective duration of the investment, and reduce refinancing risk. Finally, risk levels in the private debt space are highly dependent on the investment strategy; we address this issue in the next section. Diversification: Another important aspect of private debt is its ability to provide uncorrelated returns. Cross-asset class correlations have been rising since the start of easy monetary policy early this decade. The core risk exposure in a private-debt investment comes from idiosyncratic firm-specific sources, which is not the case with publicly traded corporate credit. Investors can gain exposure to different industries and customized duration horizons in the private space. Since deal origination is highly dependent on manager skills and relationships, private debt gives access to firms or projects that are not available via any index. Finally, private debt was the only group in the private space that did not experience a contraction in AUM during the financial crisis. Fund managers also had no challenges deploying capital - as seen by falling dry powder during the period. Chart 4Europe Will Be The Growth Engine Europe Will Be The Growth Engine Europe Will Be The Growth Engine Global Allocation: Investors looking to build a durable private-debt mandate will benefit tremendously from global allocation. This helps diversify away from the key risk factor of U.S. corporate cash flow, and also exposes returns to multiple credit cycles. Currently, North America is the largest and most developed private-debt market with issuance almost 4-5 times that of Europe. But looking forward, given the low level of non-bank penetration (Chart 4) in the lending market, Europe is likely to be the next growth engine. Investing in Europe versus the U.S. will have a few different characteristics: 1) lower leverage at the fund level; 2) a larger PIK4 (pay in kind) and smaller cash-pay5 component; 3) origination fees making up a greater portion of overall return. There has also been growth in the emerging markets/Asian private-debt space. Investors can expect an additional return of 4-6% relative to the U.S. and Europe for similar risk. A high level of idiosyncratic risk make these credits very attractive from a diversification perspective. For example, Australian and Korean authorities have very strict regulations on banks, thereby opening the door for alternative lenders. Moreover, the onshore and offshore markets created by capital controls in China increase the need for mezzanine and bridge financing. Deal Origination: For middle-market lending, there are three channels for sourcing deals: 1) sponsored, 2) direct (non-sponsored), and 3) capital markets. In the sponsored channel, private-debt funds can benefit by investing alongside control-focused private equity investors which also provide equity capital injections. In the non-sponsored or direct channel, private-debt funds have to maintain continuous communication and relationships with management teams, and this requires more involvement in terms of due diligence and portfolio monitoring. The capital markets channel involves participation in a third-party investment and comes with terms that have already been negotiated. Chart 5Compressing Fee Structures Private Debt: An Investment Primer Private Debt: An Investment Primer Chart 6Manager Selection Is Key Manager Selection Is Key Manager Selection Is Key Fee Structure: Fees (Chart 5) and administrative costs are important for an asset class where up to 25% of gross returns can be swallowed by costs. Compared to private equity, direct lending helps mitigate the effect of the "J-curve", as these funds typically charge management fees on invested capital, and carry over a hurdle rate. Increasing competition and rising dry powder have pushed management fees to the lowest level in 10 years. Finally, fees for direct-lending funds are much lower than other strategies because of the lack of equity components and a lower risk-return profile. Manager Selection: The heterogeneity in private debt means that picking the right general partner (GP) can have a big impact on returns (Chart 6). Like the entire private capital space, there is great dispersion between top-quartile managers and the rest. Additionally, there has also been a performance differential between first-time and returning managers. It is critical to conduct extensive due diligence. The private debt space consists of multiple strategies with different risk-return implications for a portfolio. Looking back at Table 1, these strategies can be split into the following two groups: Capital Preservation Strategies: These strategies offer more stable returns while minimizing downside. A more conservative risk-return profile means investors should allocate to these strategies from their alternative credit bucket. Direct lending and mezzanine debt fall under this group. Return Maximizing Strategies: These strategies offer larger gains but with a higher probability of deals going bust. A more aggressive risk-return profile means investors should allocate to these strategies from their private equity bucket. Distressed debt and venture debt fall under this group. Private Debt Strategies Direct Lending Chart 7Direct Lending Private Debt: An Investment Primer Private Debt: An Investment Primer Loans are made to middle-market companies without an intermediary bank or broker (Chart 7). This is done by going directly to private-equity sponsors or owner-operators of middle-market firms. Institutional lenders are more actively involved than commercial banks, offering customized financing solutions. The loans are mostly structured as term loans with 5-7 years maturity, and an emphasis on smaller loan sizes.6 These investors are sold with the intention of generating high current income with low volatility and losses. Most are senior secured loans underwritten as a multiple of EBITDA.7 Prospective investors compare direct lending to its public-market equivalent: syndicated leveraged loans. Direct lending offers a yield premium along with lower leverage levels, higher coverage ratios, and more conservative deal terms. Banking regulations such as Basel III and the new Federal Reserve loan guidelines will reduce banks' willingness to refinance the $180 Bn - $240 Bn of existing mid-market loans, which will give direct lenders a larger market to service. Additionally, with North American private equity dry powder at $530 Bn,8 there will be increased demand for direct lending to fund leveraged buyouts (LBOs). However, the direct lending space has grown 10-fold, from being an $18 Bn market in 2007 to $180 bn at the end of 2017. Investors looking to deploy capital in current market conditions may be skeptical. A recent development in the direct lending space, following the financial crisis, has been the creation of unitranche loans. This structure combines a senior and junior credit position into one blended loan and interest rate. The risk profile is a single lien that is often a senior first-lien position. Investors can benefit from advantageous pricing: the interest rate received falls between the rate of senior debt and subordinated debt. Deals originated through the private-equity sponsored channel have become very competitive. Investors should look at non-sponsored channel deals which are less crowded and make up a smaller fraction of the mid-market space. These are normally smaller and require more active due diligence, but potentially offer higher risk-adjusted returns compared to sponsored deals. Mezzanine Debt Chart 8Mezzanine Debt Private Debt: An Investment Primer Private Debt: An Investment Primer Directly originated loans that are subordinate to senior secured notes but senior to equity (Chart 8). These loans are secured by assets and are used to finance leveraged buyouts, recapitalize the balance-sheet, and for corporate acquisitions. They generally fill a funding gap due to insufficient capital from other sources. Most mezzanine loans are evaluated and structured based on the ongoing cash flow and enterprise value of the company, as opposed to asset-based lending which focuses on the liquidation value of assets. An added advantage is the ability to customize debt terms to match the cash flow profile of each company by changing the timing and amounts of current and deferred payments. This includes incurrence9 and maintenance10 covenants, unlike covenant-lite large-cap corporate issues. Given their subordinate position in the capital structure, investors can expect higher returns compared to direct lending (but at a higher risk, since these are highly leveraged situations). Coupon income is generally fixed-rate and paid in cash, and investors also enjoy call protection. Investors in this group mostly focus on total return versus income return in direct lending. This is because there exists an additional upside with the equity kicker,11 which means mezzanine holders enjoy features of both debt and equity. Additionally, not only do investors benefit from current payments in the form of cash interest and principal repayments, but also deferred payments through payment in kind (PIK) and bonus exit payments.12 The key risk with this investment is its junior position in the capital structure, putting the lender in first-loss position after the value of company drops by more than equity value. These investments tend to underperform when distressed managers outperform: environments of rising defaults, higher corporate leverage, and economic slowdown. Such events are bad for junior bondholders and reduce possible equity upside. Distressed Debt Chart 9Distressed Debt Private Debt: An Investment Primer Private Debt: An Investment Primer Investing in this group (Chart 9) can take a number of different forms depending on the manager's return and risk target and investment horizon. Investors are usually less familiar with the process and require fund managers with legal expertise to handle possible bankruptcy proceedings. In 2016, global non-performing loans reached 4%13 of total gross loans. The distressed market has changed substantially. In the early 2000s, funds could make attractive returns by effectively trading in and out of debt. Recently, fund managers have had to focus on restructuring and operational turnarounds which require private-equity like exposure. Since attractive opportunities in this space come less frequently, investors need to look for managers that are good at sourcing deals. What differentiates performance between different distressed managers is what they do with the securities after purchase. Most large returns will be generated through negotiation and restructuring, and only a smaller portion from "pull-to-par"14 investing. A key driver of returns is the accurate assessment of a borrower's enterprise value. Investors will have access to both a contractual coupon yield and also substantial capital appreciation driven by pull-to-par from a refinancing or settlement. Loan-to-own strategy. Taking an activist role with a target company will involve the possibility of converting to equity during bankruptcy proceedings. This also gives investors access to restricted information about the target and considerable leverage at the negotiating table. At the other end of the spectrum, managers target non-control15 transactions and acquire their debt at a discount to par with the hope of par refinancing driven by positive improvements at the firm. Investors should commit capital to distressed assets when fundamentals are solid and defaults are relatively low before the onset of the upturn in the economic cycle. Additionally, investors should analyze current political and economic trends to pinpoint where the next distressed opportunity will arise. Fund managers that keep ample dry powder waiting to be deployed will benefit from picking assets at beaten-down valuations. A classic example was following the 2014 oil bear market, when distressed managers with sufficient dry powder were able to source attractive deals. Additionally, investors looking to further customize risk-return dynamics can look to deploy capital to the growing distressed market in Asia. Along with years of rapid growth in China, there is a growing problem of bad corporate debt. However, investing in these new markets with different legislative mechanisms may require partnering with a local asset manager. Venture Debt CHart 10Venture Debt Private Debt: An Investment Primer Private Debt: An Investment Primer These are loans (Chart 10) to early-stage firms backed by venture capital. Family businesses seeking capital, but not willing to surrender control and ownership, will opt for venture debt. The loan is usually secured by intellectual property, receivables, and other intangible assets such as trademarks and copyrights. Venture debt is typically raised immediately after an equity round in order to minimize borrowing costs. For every four-to-seven venture equity dollars, one dollar will be financed by venture debt. The core function of venture debt is to extend the "cash runway",16 thereby achieving the next milestone/valuation driver. There are two structures of venture debt financing: 1) receivables financing - a firm will borrow against its receivables (at a 15-20% discount) to meet cash flow needs; and 2) equipment financing - structured as a lease for the purchase of equipment. In the first case, investors can expect a higher risk-return profile compared to the second given the more unpredictable nature of cash flows. Return stream consists of cash interest, PIK income, and equity warrants. The equity kicker is generally 10-25% of the loan value which gives investors an option to participate in subsequent equity rounds. Another interesting feature is that capital distributions are reinvested and recycled, maximizing IRR over the fund's life. In short, investors can expect some private equity-like upside with a baseline return from a debt component. With private-equity upside comes similar downside. The business of venture lending is very cyclical since it involves young businesses. During tough times, additional rounds of equity injection might be required to reduce cash burn. Additionally, there exists tremendous variability across vintage years, therefore it is important for investors to pick the right time to enter this space. Special Situations Chart 11Special Situations Private Debt: An Investment Primer Private Debt: An Investment Primer Managers in this space do not have a specific mandate and can cover a wide range of complex strategies targeting specific industry or geographic opportunities (Chart 11). Deal sourcing is harder since most opportunities are event-driven. The more popular types include rescue financing, balance-sheet restructuring, and non-performing loans (NPLs). Generally, most attractive opportunities for special situations arise at the beginning of a distressed cycle. Special-situation funds can be thought of as liquidity providers in situations of both micro and macro dislocations. In the case of the recent energy crisis in 2015, managers provided bespoke restructuring solutions for oil producers' capital structures as their debt matured. On the other hand, managers could also acquire a diversified portfolio of NPLs across sectors. Given that deal flow is highly dependent on firm specific or aggregate industry dislocations, investors need to pick managers with strong performance across multiple economic cycles and across the entire capital structure. Key risks depends on the type of mandate. For a manager with a niche focus, investors need to be wary about the strategy attracting increased attention, eventually decreasing the range of opportunities. For managers with a broad mandate, the risk lies with miscalculating a new and unfamiliar opportunity. Business Development Companies (BDCs) - A Liquid Alternative To Direct Lending Chart 12BDCs: Higher Yield, Higher Volatility BDCs: Higher Yield, Higher Volatility BDCs: Higher Yield, Higher Volatility BDCs are U.S. closed-end exchange-traded investment vehicles with an aggregate market cap of $33 billion17 specialising in private non-syndicated secured and unsecured middle-market corporate debt with daily liquidity (Chart 12). These structures were created by the U.S. Congress in 1980 to stimulate private investment in middle-market firms which had suffered during the stagflation that followed the 1973-1974 recession. These entities have legal and tax similarities with real-estate investment trusts (REITs) and master limited partnerships (MLPs): 1) annual distribution of 90% of income to shareholders, and 2) preferential tax treatment. Underlying assets are mostly directly originated middle-market loans with an increased use of covenants. They tend to have an average maturity of five years with a floating-rate coupon and origination fees which give 0.25% in additional income. Additionally, the maximum debt-to-equity leverage allowed is 1:1. Finally, investors can expect a fee structure of 1.5%/20%, with an 8% hurdle rate. One of the biggest attractiveness of BDCs is the high dividend yield relative even to other high-yielding assets such as REITs and MLPs. Additionally, BDCs have a positive yield spread versus high-yield bonds despite holding higher quality assets. This in turn leads to lower loss rates for BDCs compared to high-yield credit. However the annualized volatility of BDCs is far greater than equities, corporate and junk bonds. Conclusion Creating a well-balanced private-debt program requires deploying capital across the credit/economic cycle. Investors should strategically deploy capital to generate a meaningful yield over cash, while retaining agility to be able to move into higher risk/return assets when market sentiment recovers and opportunities arise. In a late-cycle phase, investors should deploy capital to senior debt direct lending with attractive asset coverage and strong current income. In a recessionary phase, investors should move into distressed assets and into deeper parts of the capital structure which will benefit from future expansion as the cycle improves. In an early cycle phase, investors should move into mezzanine debt and other equity-linked strategies with the potential to deliver strong performance through capital appreciation. Aditya Kurian Senior Analyst Global Asset Allocation adityak@bcaresearch.com Appendix Private Debt: An Investment Primer Private Debt: An Investment Primer 1 http://www.icgam.com/SiteCollectionDocuments/Rise of Private Debt as an institutional asset class Amin Rajan GENERIC.pdf 2 American Society of Actuaries. 3 From 2012 to 2017, the middle market exhibited stronger revenue and employment growth than the S&P 500. In 2017, the average revenue growth rate for middle-market companies was 8% compared to 5.3% for the S&P 500. Source: National Center for the Middle Market. 4 Under PIK, interest is paid by increasing the principal amount through capitalization of interest when it is due. 5 "Cash pay component" is the part of the quarterly payments received by private debt investors that are in the form of cash. 6 Average loan size for middle-market direct lending is $20M - $30M. 7 Direct lending funding is provided in terms of either Debt/EBITDA or Net Debt/EBITDA so that investors can better analyze a borrower's repayment capacity. 8 With dry powder of $530 Bn, and assuming a 60% debt, 40% equity capital structure, this implies over $750 Bn of future financing opportunities in sponsored buyouts. Source: S&P Global Market Intelligence. 9 If a borrower takes an action (dividend payment, acquisition), the resulting position would need to remain in compliance with the loan agreement. 10 The borrower needs to meet certain financial tests every reporting period in order to remain qualified for the loan. 11 Mezzanine debt providers often have the option to convert to equity at a future date, thereby participating in any upside. 12 A variable payment calculated as a percent of the change in the value of the company over the duration of the mezzanine facility. 13 Source: The World Bank. 14 Investors buying distressed debt trading at a discount in the hope of selling it at par when the company recovers and its bonds return to face value. 15 When the total position in the firm is too small to gain board or management representation. 16 When funding each round, venture capitalists look at how much cash the company is expected to burn to reach the next milestone, with each round typically designed to fund 12 to 14 months. If this expected cash burn phase extends beyond that period and the firm runs out of cash, venture debt could be used as a cash runway until the next round of venture capital funding. 17 Source: http://cefdata.com/bdc/

Highlights Recommended Allocation Quarterly - April 2018 Quarterly - April 2018 Due to the boost from U.S. fiscal stimulus, we do not expect recession until 2020. Despite some signs that growth is peaking, global economic fundamentals remain robust. Markets have wobbled because of the risk of trade war and rising inflation. We think neither likely to derail growth. Not one of our recession indicators is yet sending a warning signal. We are late cycle and volatility is likely to remain high (particularly if the trade war intensifies). But, given strong earnings growth and three further Fed rate hikes this year, we expect global equities to beat bonds over the next 12 months. Except for particularly risk-averse investors, who care mostly about capital preservation, we continue to recommend overweights in risk assets. We are overweight equities (especially euro area and Japan), cyclical equity sectors such as financials and industrials, credit (especially cross-overs and high-yield), and return-enhancing alternative assets such as private equity. Feature Overview Stimulus Trumps Tariffs Risk assets have been choppy so far this year, with global equities flat in the first quarter and the stock-to-bond ratio turning down (Chart 1). Markets were battered by worries about a trade war, signs of growth peaking, a rise in inflation, and bad news from the tech sector. This late in the cycle, with stock market valuations stretched and investors skittish about what might go wrong, we expect volatility to stay high. But the global economy remains robust - and will be boosted by U.S. fiscal stimulus - earnings are growing strongly, and the usual signs of recession and equity bear markets are absent. Though the going will be bumpy over coming quarters, we continue to expect risk assets to outperform at least through the end of this year. U.S. tariffs on steel and aluminum and the threat of $50 billion of tariffs on Chinese imports so far represent a trade skirmish, not a trade war. The amounts pale by comparison with the positive impact coming though from U.S. tax cuts, increased fiscal spending, and repatriation (Chart 2). In history, fights over trade have rarely had a serious impact on growth. They flared up frequently in the 1980s, which was a period of strong economic growth. Even the infamous Smoot-Hawley tariff increase of 1930 is now viewed by most economic historians as having played only a minor role in the collapse of trade during the Great Depression.1 Of course, trade war could escalate. China, as the biggest part of the U.S. trade deficit, is the White House's clear target (Chart 3). Japan in the 1980s, an ally of the U.S., agreed to voluntary exports restraints and to relocate production to the U.S. But China is a global rival.2 Chart 1A Tricky Quarter A Tricky Quarter A Tricky Quarter Chart 2Stimulus Tops Tariffs Quarterly - April 2018 Quarterly - April 2018 Chart 3China Is The Target China Is The Target China Is The Target For now, we expect the impact to be limited since some degree of compromise is the most likely outcome. President Trump sees the stock market as his Key Performance Indicator and would be likely to back off if stocks fell sharply. China knows that it has the most to lose in a prolonged fight. It might suit Xi Jinping's reformist agenda to boost consumption, cut excess capacity, and allow the RMB to appreciate modestly. While the U.S. has some justification for arguing that China's investment rules are unfair, China can also argue that it has made significant progress in recent years in reducing its dependence on exports, its current account surplus, and the undervaluation of its currency (Chart 4). But jitters will continue for a while. May could be a particularly tricky month, with the Iran sanctions waiver expiring on May 12, and the 60-day consultation period for China tariffs ending on May 21. Investors should expect that volatility, which in early January was remarkably low in all asset classes, should stay significantly higher until the end of this cycle (Chart 5). Chart 4...But Has Reduced Dependence On Exports ...But Has Reduced Dependence On Exports ...But Has Reduced Dependence On Exports Chart 5Volatility Likely To Stay High? Volatility Likely To Stay High? Volatility Likely To Stay High? Meanwhile, economic fundamentals generally remain strong. The Global Manufacturing PMI has dipped slightly from its cycle-high level in December, with recent currency strength causing some softness in the euro area and Japan (Chart 6). But the diffusion index shows that only three out of the 48 countries currently have PMIs below 50 (Egypt, Indonesia and South Africa). Consensus forecasts expect 2018 global GDP growth to come in at around 3.3%, similar to last year, and as yet show no signs of faltering (Chart 7). On the back of this, BCA's models suggest that global earnings growth will continue to grow at a double-digit pace for at least the rest of this year (Chart 8). Despite the strong growth, we see U.S. inflation picking up only steadily towards the Fed's 2% target.3 Jerome Powell in his first congressional testimony and press conference as Fed Chair showed no rush to accelerate the pace of rate hikes. We think the Fed is likely to hike four times, not three, but the market should not find this unduly hard to digest, as long as it is against a background of robust growth. Chart 6Dip In Growth Momentum? Dip In Growth Momentum? Dip In Growth Momentum? Chart 7Economists' Forecasts Not Faltering Economists' Forecasts Not Faltering Economists' Forecasts Not Faltering Chart 8Earnings Still Growing Strongly Earnings Still Growing Strongly Earnings Still Growing Strongly For the past year, we have highlighted a number of simple indicators we are watching carefully that have previously been reliable indicators of recessions and equity bear markets. Several have started to move in the wrong direction, but none is yet flashing a warning signal (Table 1, Chart 9). Table 1What To Watch For Quarterly - April 2018 Quarterly - April 2018 Chart 9No Warnings Flashing Here No Warnings Flashing Here No Warnings Flashing Here In February, BCA pushed out its forecast of the next recession to 2020, on the back of the U.S. fiscal stimulus. That would suggest turning more cautious on risk assets towards the end of this year - at which time some of these indicators may be flashing. But, until then we continue to recommend - except for the most risk-averse investors who care mainly about capital preservation and not about maximizing quarterly performance - an overweight allocation to risk assets. Garry Evans, Senior Vice President garry@bcaresearch.com Chart 10Not A Full Blown Trade War... For Now! Not A Full Blown Trade War.... For Now! Not A Full Blown Trade War.... For Now! What Our Clients Are Asking What Are The Implications Of U.S. Tariffs? Following recent announcements of tariffs on steel and aluminum and possible broad-based tariffs on Chinese imports, investors have started to worry about the future of global trade. But these moves should be no surprise since President Trump is merely delivering on electoral promises. From a macro-perspective, here are the key implications of rising trade barriers: An all-out trade war would certainly hurt U.S. growth, but a minor skirmish would have little impact. The U.S. is the advanced economy least exposed to global trade, which makes it harder for nations to retaliate. Running a large trade deficit, with imports from China representing 2.7% of GDP whereas exports to China are just 1.0% of U.S. GDP, gives the U.S. considerable leverage in negotiations. Additionally, the majority of Chinese imports from the U.S. are agricultural products, making it harder for China to retaliate with tariffs since these would raise prices for Chinese consumers (Chart 10). On the other hand, U.S. trade partners also have a case. With trade growth trailing output growth, other nations will be less willing to give in to U.S. threats. Additionally, unlike the Cold War era, when the U.S. had a greater influence on Europe and Japan, the world is moving toward a more multipolar structure. However, we do not believe nations will retaliate by dumping U.S. Treasuries, as that would deliver the U.S.'s desired end result of a weaker dollar. Chart 11Rising Wages Are The Missing Factor Rising Wages Are The Missing Factor Rising Wages Are The Missing Factor Finally, if tariffs lead to a smaller trade deficit and firms start to move production back to the U.S., aggregate demand will increase. And, given a positive output gap in the U.S., the Fed would be forced to turn more hawkish, ultimately forcing the dollar up. Equity markets do not like tariffs, and bonds will follow the path that real growth and inflation take. How the situation will develop depends on whether Trump embraces America's traditional transatlantic alliance with Europe and harnesses it for the trade war against China. If he does so, the combined forces of the U.S. and Europe will likely force China to concede. But if Trump goes it alone, a prolonged U.S.-China trade war could turn into a significant risk to global growth. How Quickly Will U.S. Inflation Rise? The equity sell-off in early February was triggered by a slightly higher-than-expected average hourly earnings number. In recent meetings, we find that clients, who last year argued that the structural pressures would keep inflation depressed ("the Philips Curve is dead"), now worry that it will quickly exceed 2%. And it is true that the three-month rate of change of core CPI has jumped recently (Chart 11, panel 1). Investors are clearly skittish about the risk of higher inflation, which would push the Fed to accelerate the pace of rate hikes. We continue to argue that core PCE inflation (the Fed's main measure) will rise slowly to 2% over the next 12 months, but we do not see it accelerating dramatically. Inflation tends to lag GDP growth by around 18 months and the pickup in growth from Q2 last year should start to feed through. This will be magnified by the 8% weakness in the US dollar over the past 12 months, which has already pushed up import prices by 2% YoY. What is missing, however, is wage pressure. Average hourly earnings are growing only at 2.6% YoY. We find that wage growth tends to lag profits by around 24 months (panel 2) and, since profits moved sideways for close to two years until Q2 last year, it may be a few quarters yet before companies feel confident enough to raise wages. Note, too, that wages have been weak compared to profits in this cycle. This is likely partly because of automation, but also because the participation rate for the core working population continues to recover towards its 2007 level, indicating there is more slack in the labor market than the headline unemployment data suggest (panel 3). Should Investors Still Own Junk Bonds? Chart 12Credit Cycle Still On Credit Cycle Still On Credit Cycle Still On The current late stage of the economic cycle has investors worried about the credit cycle and the outlook for corporate credit, in particular high-yield bonds. The number-one concern is stretched valuations. Spreads are close to all-time lows, which means investors should not expect significant capital gain. However, spreads can stay low for extended periods, especially in the late stages of the credit cycle. Junk bonds are a carry trade at this point, and investors can continue to pick up carry before a sustained period of spread widening sets in (Chart 12). A flattening yield curve is bad for junk returns, as it signals monetary policy is too restrictive. But, as inflation continues to trend higher, the curve is likely to steepen while allowing the Fed to deliver rate hikes close to its median projection. The key risk is a scenario in which inflation falters, but the Fed continues to hike. In this case a risk-off episode in credit markets would be likely, but this would be a buying opportunity and not the end of the cycle. Corporate balance-sheets have weakened, and logically investors should demand greater compensation to hold high-yield bonds. But spreads have diverged from this measure since early 2016. However, we expect improvements in corporate health since the outlook for profit growth is strong. However, a great deal of bond issuance has been used for share buybacks. If capital structures have less of an equity cushion, then recovery rates are likely to be lower when defaults do start to rise. Cross-asset volatility has returned. But credit spreads have remained calm thanks to accommodative monetary policy and easing bank lending standards. Also, stricter post-crisis bank capital regulations have mitigated the risk. Finally, the growing presence of open-ended junk bond funds and ETFs increases the risk that, once spreads start to widen, they will widen much more quickly than they would have otherwise. Who Should Invest In Hedged Foreign Government Bonds? In a recently published Special Report,4 we found that hedged foreign government bonds are a good source of diversification for bond portfolios. Hedging not only reduces the volatility of the foreign bonds, it reduces it so much that the risk-adjusted return ratio has significantly improved for investors with home currency in USD, GBP, AUD, NZD, CAD and EUR (Table 2). This is true across different time periods for most fixed income investors other than those in Japan, as shown in Chart 13. Table 2Domestic And Foreign Government Risk Return Profile (December 1999 - January 2018) Quarterly - April 2018 Quarterly - April 2018 Chart 13Domestic Vs. Foreign Treasury Bonds: Consistent Performance Across Time Quarterly - April 2018 Quarterly - April 2018 So the answer depends on investors' objectives and constraints: If investors are comfortable with the volatility in their local aggregate bond indexes, which are already a lot lower than equities, then investors in the U.S., the U.K., Canada and the euro area are better off staying home for higher returns without dealing with hedging operations. For Aussie, kiwi and Japanese investors, however, going abroad enhances returns. If investors focus on lower volatility, then all investors should invest a large portion of their portfolios overseas, with the exception of Japanese investors. If investors focus on risk-adjusted returns, then investors in Australia, New Zealand, the U.S., the U.K. and Canada are better off investing a large portion overseas. Global Economy Overview: Global growth remains robust, though momentum has slowed slightly in recent weeks. No recession is likely before 2020 at the earliest due to strong U.S. fiscal stimulus. Inflation will slowly rise towards central bank targets but there is little reason to expect it to accelerate dramatically, and so we see no need for aggressive monetary tightening. U.S.: Short-term, growth looks to have softened, with the Citigroup Economic Surprise Index turning down (Chart 14, top panel), and the regional Fed NowCasts for Q1 GDP growth pointing to 2.4%-2.7%. However, growth over the next two years should be boosted by the recent tax cuts and government spending increases, which we estimate will push up GDP growth by 0.8% in 2018 and 1.3% in 2019. Wages should start to rise from their current sluggish levels (average hourly earnings only up 2.6% YoY) given the tight labor market, which should boost consumption. Capex (panel 5) is likely to continue to recover due to tax cuts and a high level of businesses confidence. Euro Area: Growth has been steady in recent quarters, with Q4 GDP rising 2.5% QoQ annualized. However, lead indicators such as the PMI (Chart 15, top panel) have rolled over, probably because of the strong euro (up 6.2% in trade-weighted terms over the past 12 months). The effect has yet to be seen in exports, which continue to grow strongly, 6.2% YoY in February, but earnings results for Q4 surprised much less on the upside in the euro area than in the U.S. Chart 14Growth Robust, But Momentum Slowing Growth Robust, But Momentum Slowing Growth Robust, But Momentum Slowing Chart 15Strong Currencies Denting EU And Japanese Growth Strong Currencies Denting EU And Japanese Growth Strong Currencies Denting EU And Japanese Growth Japan: As an export-oriented, cyclical economy, Japan has also benefitted from better global conditions, with GDP rising by 1.6% QoQ annualized in Q4. However, like Europe, the stronger currency has begun to dent the external sector, with industrial production and the leading index slowing (Chart 15, panel 2). However, more encouraging signs are appearing domestically: retail sales rose by 2.5% YoY in January and part-time wages are up 2.0% YoY. As a result, inflation is finally emerging, with CPI (excluding food and energy) up 0.3% YoY. Emerging Markets: China's growth remains steady, with the Caixin PMI at 51 (panel 3). However, credit and money supply growth continue to point to a slowdown in coming months. This may be evident when March data (unaffected by the shifting timing of Chinese New Year) becomes available. Elsewhere in EM, growth has picked up moderately: Q4 GDP growth came in at an annualized rate of 7.2% in India, 3.0% in Korea, and even 2.1% in Brazil and 1.8% in Russia. Interest rates: A modest rise in inflation expectations (panel 4) has led to a rise in long-term rates, with the U.S. 10-year yield rising from 2.5% to almost 3% during Q1 before slipping back a little. We expect the Fed to hike four times this year, and think this will push up the 10-year Treasury yield to 3.3-3.5% by year-end. The ECB continues to emphasize that it will move only slowly to raise rates after halting asset purchases later this year, and we think the market has correctly priced the timing of the first hike for Q4 2019. We see no reason why the BoJ will end its Yield Curve Control policy, with inflation still well below the 2% target. Chart 16Cautiously Optimistic Cautiously Optimistic Cautiously Optimistic Global Equities Tip-Toeing Through The Late Cycle. Global equities experienced widespread corrections in the first quarter after a very strong start in January gave way to fear of rising inflation in the U.S., fear of slowing growth in China, and fear of rising geopolitical tensions globally. The return of macro volatility was so violent that it pushed the VIX to high readings not seen since 2015. Granted, a background of stretched valuations, complacency, and the "fear of missing out" also contributed to the market correction. The healthy correction of global equities from the high in late January has seen valuations contracting as earnings continued to grow at strong pace (Chart 16). BCA's house view is that global growth may be peaking, but should remain strong and above trend, underpinning decent earnings growth for the next 9-12 months. As such, we retain our pro-cyclical tilts in global equity allocations, overweight cyclical sectors and underweight defensive sectors; overweight high-beta DM markets (Japan and euro area); neutral on the U.S. and Canada; and underweight EM and Australia, the markets that would suffer most from a deceleration in Chinese growth. However, we are late in the cycle and valuations remain stretched by historical standards despite the recent correction. With macro volatility returning, investors should be very conscious of potential risks that could derail the uptrend in equities. For investors with higher aversion to risk, we suggest raising cash by selling into strength or dialing down the overweight of cyclicals vs defensives. Anatomy Of EM/DM Outperformance Since their low in early 2016, EM equities have outperformed DM in total return terms by more than 20%, of which 262 bps came in the first quarter of 2018, despite the rising volatility in all asset classes recently. As show in Chart 17, the outperformance of EM over DM has been dominated by three sectors: Technology, Financials and Energy. In the two-year period ending December 2017, over half of the EM outperformance came from the Tech sector, followed by Financials and Energy, accounting for 32% and 14% respectively. In Q1 2018, however, Tech's contribution dropped sharply to 0.3%, while Financials and Energy shot up to 51% and 33% respectively. Even though Energy is a relatively small sector, accounting for 6-7% of benchmark weights in both EM and DM, the diverging performance between EM and DM Energy sectors has played an important role in the EM outperformance. In the two years ending December 2017, EM Energy outperformed its DM counterpart by 32%, the same magnitude as the Tech sector (Table 3). In Q1 2018, EM Energy gained 7.6% while DM Energy suffered a 5.2% decline, resulting in a staggering 13% outperformance (Table 4). Chart 17Sector Contributions To EM/DM Outperformance Quarterly - April 2018 Quarterly - April 2018 Table 3Two-Year Performance Attribution* (December 2015 - December 2017) Quarterly - April 2018 Quarterly - April 2018 Table 4Q1/2018 Attribution* (December 2015 - December 2017) Quarterly - April 2018 Quarterly - April 2018 Country-wise, Brazil and China led the outperformance, helped by the Brazilian real's 30% appreciation against the U.S. dollar. BCA's EM Strategy believes that Brazilian equities and the real will both weaken given the country's weak governance and poor fiscal profile. Chart 18Style Performance Style Performance Style Performance We are neutral on Tech globally, and the general reliance of EM equities on Chinese growth, and the high leverage in EM do not bode well for EM equities. Remain underweight EM vs. DM. A Sector Approach To Style Year to date, the equal-weighted multi-factor portfolio has outperformed the global benchmark slightly, largely driven by the strong outperformance of Momentum and Quality, while Value and Minimum Volatility (MinVol) have underperformed (Chart 18, top three panels). This is in line with our previous regime analysis that indicated rising growth and inflation is a good environment for Momentum and Quality, but a bad one for Min Vol.5 As we have argued before, we prefer sector positioning to style positioning because 1) the major style tilts such as Value/Growth, Min Vol and Small Cap/Large Cap have seen significant sector shifts over time, and 2) sector selection offers more flexibility. As shown in Chart 18 (bottom three panels), the relative performance of Min Vol is a mirror image of Cyclicals vs Defensives, while Value/Growth is highly correlated with Cyclicals/Defensives. In a Special Report,6 we elaborated in-depth that sector selection is a better alternative to size selection, especially in the U.S. We maintain our neutral view on styles, and continue to favor Cyclicals versus Defensives. Given that we are at the late stage of the business cycle, investors with lower risk tolerance may consider gradually dialing down exposure to cyclical tilts. For stock pickers, this would mean favoring stocks with low volatility, high quality and strong momentum. Government Bonds Maintain Slight Underweight On Duration. Despite rising volatility due to changes in inflation expectations and uncertain developments in geopolitics, the investment backdrop has been evolving in line with our 2018 Strategy Outlook. Global growth continues at a strong pace (Chart 19) and our U.S. Bond Strategy has increased its yield forecast to the range of 3.3-3.6%, from 2.80-3.25% previously, reflecting both a higher real yield and higher inflation expectations. The U.S. 10-year Treasury yield increased by 34 bps in Q1 to 2.74%, still lower than our fair value estimate, implying that there is still upside risk for global bond yields. As such, investors should continue to underweight duration in global government bonds. Favor Linkers Vs. Nominal Bonds. The base case forecast from our U.S. Bond Strategy is that the U.S. TIPS breakeven will rise to 2.3-2.5% around the time that U.S. core PCE reaches the Fed's 2% target rate, likely sometime in 2H 2018. Compared to the current level of 2.05, this means the 10-year TIPS has upside of 25-45 bps, an important source of relative return in the low-return fixed income space (Chart 20). Maintain overweight TIPS vs. nominal bonds. In terms of relative value, however, TIPS are no longer cheap. For those who have not moved to overweight TIPS, we suggest "buying TIPS on dips". In addition, inflation-linked bonds (ILBs) in Australia and Japan are still very attractive vs. their respective nominal bonds (Chart 20, bottom panel). Overweight ILBs in those two markets also fits well with our macro themes. Chart 19Further Upside In Bond Yields Further Upside In Bond Yields Further Upside In Bond Yields Chart 20Favor Inflation linkers Favor Inflation linkers Favor Inflation linkers Corporate Bonds We continue to favor both investment grade and high-yield corporate bonds within the fixed-income category. High-yield spreads barely reacted to the sell-offs in equities in February and March (Chart 21). We see credit spreads as a useful indicator of recessions and equity bear markets and so the fact that they did not rise suggests no broad-based risk aversion. Moreover, this resilience comes despite significant outflows from high-yield ETFs, $4.4 billion year-to-date, almost completely reversing the inflows over the previous three quarters. We still find spreads in this space attractive. BCA estimates the default-adjusted spread is still around 250 basis points (assuming default losses of 1.3% over the coming 12 months) which, while not cheap, is less overvalued than other fixed-income categories (Chart 22). Investment grade spreads, however, have widened in recent weeks (Chart 21), with the rise concentrated in the highest-quality credits. This is most likely because investors see little value in these securities. We keep our overweight but we focus on cross-over credits and sectors where valuations are still reasonable, for example energy, airlines and insurance companies. Excessive leverage remains a concern for corporate bond losses in the next recession. BCA's Corporate Health Monitor (Chart 23) has improved in recent quarters, mostly due to stronger profitability. But the deterioration in interest coverage ratios in recent years makes companies vulnerable to higher rates. We estimate that a 100 basis point increase in interest rates across the corporate curve would lead to a drop in the ratio of EBITDA to interest expenses from 4.0 to 2.5.7 Sectors such as Materials, Technology, Consumer Discretionary and Energy appear especially at risk.8 Chart 21IG Spreads Have Widened, But Not HY IG Spreads Have Widened, But Not HY IG Spreads Have Widened, But Not HY Chart 22Junk Bonds Still Offer Some Value Junk Bonds Still Offer Some Value Junk Bonds Still Offer Some Value Chart 23Leverage Is A Worry For The Next Recession Leverage Is A Worry For The Next Recession Leverage Is A Worry For The Next Recession Commodities Chart 24OPEC Agreements Hold The Key OPEC Agreements Hold The Key OPEC Agreements Hold The Key Energy (Overweight): Demand/supply fundamentals have been driving prices in crude oil markets (Chart 24). Fundamentals remain favorable as strong global demand is keeping the market in physical deficit. However, the outlook for demand has turned cloudy as the market may start to price in the possibility of a trade war which would dent growth. Also, threats of renewed sanctions against Iran and deeper ones against Venezuela could potentially disrupt supply sufficiently to push up the crude price. Given rising uncertainties with the demand and supply outlook, we expect increased volatility in the crude price. We maintain our forecasts for the average 2018 prices for Brent and WTI at $74 and $70 respectively. Industrial Metals (Neutral): As President Trump moves ahead with protectionist policies, markets are being spooked by the possibility of a trade war. Looking past the noise, since China remains the largest source of demand, price action will follow domestic Chinese market fundamentals which are a function of how authorities handle a possible growth slowdown. The possibility of global trade disruptions, coupled with a recovery in the U.S. dollar, suggests increased price volatility. We are particularly negative on zinc. Spanish zinc has been flooding into China, depressing physical premiums and causing inventory accumulation (Chart 24, panel 3). Precious Metals (Neutral): Rising trade protectionism, geopolitical tensions, and diverging monetary policy will be sources of increased market volatility for the rest of the year. When equity markets went through a minor correction earlier this year, gold outperformed global equities by 6%. However, rising interest rates and a potentially stronger U.S. dollar are two headwinds for the gold price. We continue to recommend gold as a safe haven asset against unexpected market volatility and inflation surprises (Chart 24, panel 4). Currencies Chart 25Dollar Will Stage A Recovery Rally Dollar Will Stage A Recovery Rally Dollar Will Stage A Recovery Rally U.S. Dollar: Following its 7% depreciation last year, the greenback is flat year to date. A positive output gap and strong inflation readings are giving the Fed enough reasons not to fall behind the curve. Secondly, the proposed fiscal stimulus is likely to increase the U.S.'s twin deficits which has historically been bullish for the currency, as long as it is accompanied by rising real rates. Finally, speculative positions in the dollar are net short, which means any positive surprises will be bullish for the currency. We expect the U.S. dollar to stage a recovery rally in the coming months (Chart 25, panel 1). Carry Trades: Cross-asset class volatility is making a strong comeback. Carry trades fare poorly in volatile FX markets. High-yielding EM currencies like the BRL, TRY, and ZAR will underperform, whereas low yielding safe-haven funding currencies like the Swiss franc and Japanese yen, in countries with outsized net international investment positions, will be the winners. Finally, the return of volatility could hurt global economic sentiment and possibly weigh on growth-sensitive currencies like the KRW, AUD and NZD (Chart 25, panel 2). Euro: Analyzing the euro's strength, we see a 9% divergence in performance between the EUR/USD pair and the trade-weighted euro. Global synchronized growth was driven predominantly by a recovery in manufacturing which benefited the euro area more than the U.S. Also looking at history, the euro tends to appreciate relative to USD in the last two years of economic upswings driven by strong growth. Finally, the recent divergence in relative interest rates is a clear sign that other fundamental factors, such as the current account balance, have been exerting pressure. Sentiment and positioning remain extremely euro bullish, hence any disappointment with economic data will force a correction (Chart 25, panel 3). GBP: Since 2017, the pound has strengthened by over 16% vs. USD. An appreciating currency has dented inflation readings, thereby limiting the pass-through effects via the Bank of England hiking rates. A hurdle to further appreciation is negative growth in real disposable income and declining household confidence. Finally, weak FDI inflows will hurt the U.K.'s basic balance. Since the BoE will find it difficult to tighten policy much, we expect a correction in the next few months (Chart 25, panel 4). Alternatives Investors have been increasing their allocation to alternatives, pushing AUM to a record $7.7 trillion. We continue to recommend allocations through three different buckets: 1) among return enhancers, we favor private equity vs hedge funds; 2) favor direct real estate vs. commodity futures in inflation hedges; 3) favor farmland & timberland vs. structured products as volatility dampeners. But alternatives have a few challenges that require special consideration. Private Equity: Key drivers of returns have changed. In the past, managers were able to succeed by "buying low/selling high". But today, investors need to pick general partners (GPs) who can identify attractive targets and effect strategic and operational improvements. $1.7 trillion of dry powder. Global buyout value grew by 19% in 2017, but deal count grew by only 2%. High valuations multiples, stiff competition, and an uncertain macro outlook will force funds to be selective. Competition from corporate buyers. GPs are fighting with large corporations looking for growth through acquisition. Private equity's share of overall M&A activity globally declined in 2017 for the fourth year running. Competition for targets is boosting entry multiples in the middle-market segment. Hedge Funds: Net exposure for long/short managers has remained static over market cycles, which means investors pay too much for market exposure. But if we see market rotation or increased dispersion of single stock returns, this hedge fund group will benefit. Discretionary macro will benefit from differing growth outlooks, idiosyncratic events, and local rate cycles. Also, potential for more dispersion in the large-cap space and at the index level will benefit systematic macro. Event-driven funds have been hurt by deal-spread volatility as shareholder opposition, anti-trust concerns and political issues led to deal delays. But we continue to favor short-term special situations in less-followed markets such as Asia. Real Estate: After strong growth in capital values, driven by low rates and cap rate compression, investors need to focus on income-driven total returns. Additionally, income returns do not vary across markets nearly as much as capital value growth. Increase focus on core strategies. Look for properties in prime locations with long and stable lease contracts. Investors can also consider loans made to high-quality borrowers which are secured against properties with stable cash flows. Private Debt: With ultra-low yields, private debt offers attractive risk-adjusted return, diversification, and a potential cash flow profile ideal for institutional investors. However, it is critical to source a differentiated pipeline of opportunities. Infrastructure debt, with a long expected useful life, can provide effective duration for liability matching. Risk-adjusted returns can be enhanced by directly sourcing and structuring. Risks To Our View We see the risks to our main scenario (strong growth continuing through 2019, moderate inflation, late cycle volatility, and rising geopolitical risks) as balanced. There are a number of obvious downside risks, including an escalating trade war, a sharp upside surprise to inflation, and the Fed turning more hawkish (perhaps in an attempt to demonstrate its independence if President Trump pressures it not to raise rates). Among the risks less appreciated by investors is a slowdown in China. Leading indicators of the Chinese economy, particularly money supply and credit growth, continue to slow (Chart 26). Xi Jinping's recent senior appointments suggests he is serious about structural reform, which would mean accepting slower growth in the short-term to put China on a sounder long-term growth path. Linked to this, we also think investors are insufficiently concerned about the impact of rising rates on emerging market borrowers. If, as we expect, U.S. long rates rise to close to 3.5% over the next year and the dollar strengthens, the $3.5 trillion of foreign-currency borrowing by EM borrowers could become a burden (Chart 27). Chart 26What If China Slows? bca.gaa_qpo_2018_04_03_c26 bca.gaa_qpo_2018_04_03_c26 Chart 27Highed Indebted EM Borrowers Are A Risk Highed Indebted EM Borrowers Are A Risk Highed Indebted EM Borrowers Are A Risk Chart 28Presidents Like Markets To Rise Quarterly - April 2018 Quarterly - April 2018 Upside risk centers on a continuation of strong growth and dovish central banks. We may be underestimating the impact of U.S. fiscal policy. Our assumption that it will peter out in 2020 may be wrong, if President Trump goes for further stimulus ahead of the presidential election - the third and fourth years of presidential cycles are usually the best for stocks (Chart 28). Wages may stay low because of automation. In the face of this the Fed may stay dovish: it already shows some signs of allowing an overshoot of its 2% inflation target, to balance the six years that it missed it to the downside. All this could produce a stock market meltup, similar to 1999. 1 See, for example, Clashing Over Commerce: A History of U.S. Trade Policy, Douglas J, Irwin, Chicago 2017, chapter 8. 2 For an analysis of the geopolitical implications, please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "We Are All Geopolitical Strategists Now," dated March 27, 2018. 3 Please see the What Our Clients Are Asking: How Quickly Will U.S. Inflation Rise? on page 8 of this Quarterly Portfolio Outlook for the reasons why this is our view. 4 Please see Global Asset Allocation Special Report, "Why Invest In Foreign Government Bonds?" dated March 12, 2018 available at gaa.bcaresearch.com 5 Please see Global Asset Allocation Special Report, "Is Smart Beta A Useful Tool In Global Asset Allocation?" dated July 8, 2016, available at gaa.bcaresearch.com 6 Please see Global Asset Allocation Special Report, "Small Cap Outperformance: Fact Or Myth?" dated April 7, 2017, available at gaa.bcaresearch.com 7 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst, "Leverage And Sensitivity To Rising Rates: The U.S. Corporate Sector," dated February 22, 2018. 8 Please see also What Our Clients Are Asking: Should Investors Still Own Junk Bonds, on page 9 of this Quarterly Update, for more analysis of this asset class. GAA Asset Allocation

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

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

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

Highlights Clients frequently ask us what long-term returns they should assume when constructing strategic portfolios. In this report, we use a range of methodologies to arrive at reasonable return assumptions for bonds, equities, alternative assets, and currencies on a 10-15 year investment horizon. We conclude that global bonds are likely to return around 1.5% in nominal terms (compared to 5.3% over the past 20 years), and global equities 4.6% (compared to 6.1%). Alternative assets look rather more attractive with, for example, private equity projected to return 9% and real estate 7.1%. Nonetheless, the typical pension fund portfolio, consisting of 50% equities, 30% fixed income, and 20% alts, will be unable to achieve its return target (still typically 7% or higher). Feature Pension plan sponsors and wealth managers need realistic assumptions about the likely returns from different assets in order to construct strategic portfolios, for example when calculating the efficient frontier using a mean-variance optimizer (MVO). Using historical data is the simplest way to do this, but can be very misleading: for example, global bonds have delivered an annual nominal return of 5.3% over the past 20 years but, with bond yields currently so low, it is almost mathematically impossible for them to return anything close to that over coming years (our estimate for future returns is 1.5%). This Special Report is our attempt to produce long-run return assumptions for strategic portfolios, something that GAA clients frequently ask us for. We want to emphasize that these are reasonable assumptions, not forecasts. The value of forecasting the world economy over the next decade or more is questionable. Consider if we had carried out this exercise in 2002: how likely is it that we would have predicted the rise and fall of emerging markets, the U.S. housing crisis, and the subsequent "secular stagnation"? Our analysis, therefore, is mostly based on the philosophy that long-run historical relationships (for example, credit spreads, or the excess return of small cap stocks) are fairly constant, and that most variables (profit margins, valuation, productivity) mean revert over the long term. Our time horizon is 10-15 years. We chose this - rather than the five or seven years that is perhaps more common in such analyses - because it is closer to the investment horizon of pension funds and most individual investors. It also allows us to avoid making a call on where we are currently in the cycle, and how long the next recession and expansion will last. It is likely we are close to the peak of the current economic expansion and equity bull market (the "X" on Chart 1): choosing a shorter time horizon would mean making judgements about the timing of the cycle. Conceptually, we prefer to forecast the trend line on the chart. Chart 1Stylized Trend Versus Cyclical Movements What Returns Can You Expect? What Returns Can You Expect? Our assumptions are inevitably approximate. In many cases (particularly for equity returns), we use multiple methodologies and take the average result. Does it matter that the estimation error of our assumptions is likely to be large? Most academic evidence finds not.1 The reason is that, for closely correlated assets, errors in the return estimates (and therefore the optimal weights in a portfolio) will not greatly affect a portfolio's risk and return; while, for assets that are very different, errors in the estimates will not have much effect on the optimal portfolio weights. Rough estimates, therefore, are sufficient for portfolio construction purposes. In any case, using common-sense projections is better than unrealistic historical averages, and investors do need some assumptions to work with when constructing portfolios. How To Forecast Economic Growth A key input (especially when considering earnings growth, which is one factor driving equity returns) is the likely rate of economic growth in various countries and regions over our time horizon. Our simplified way of deriving this is to assume that GDP growth is a factor of (1) demographics (specifically, the growth in the population of working age), and (2) productivity growth. (We assume that capital intensity is steady.) For the demographic assumptions, we use the United Nations' median forecast of the annual growth in population aged 25-64 between 2015 and 2030 (Table 1). Productivity growth is harder to estimate. Productivity has been poor in recent years compared to history (Chart 2). There is significant uncertainty about whether this is caused by cyclical factors (the Great Recession, for example) or structural factors (the end of positive effects from the IT revolution etc.), and whether a potential new wave of technology (artificial intelligence, self-driving vehicles) will raise productivity in future. Table 1Demographic Assumptions What Returns Can You Expect? What Returns Can You Expect? Chart 2Productivity Growth Productivity Growth Productivity Growth Our approach is to assume that productivity in the U.S. will return to its 40-year average, and that productivity growth in the main European economies will be 50 bp lower than the U.S. and in Japan 80 bp lower (in line with recent averages). The estimate is harder for emerging markets, so we use two scenarios: one in which structural reforms, particularly in China, bring productivity growth back up to the average of the past 10 years, 3.5%; and a second scenario in which governments fail to reform, and therefore productivity growth continues to fall to only 1%. For inflation, we assume that central banks over the long-term largely achieve their current inflation goals. The results of our assumptions for GDP growth are shown in Table 2. Table 3 shows the summary of our results: the 10-15 year return assumptions for all the assets in our analysis. We also show historic returns and volatility for comparison (for the past 20 years, where data is available). Below, we describe in detail how we arrived at these numbers. Table 2GDP Growth Assumptions What Returns Can You Expect? What Returns Can You Expect? Table 3BCA Assumed Returns What Returns Can You Expect? What Returns Can You Expect? All our results are shown in nominal terms and in local currencies. While strictly speaking, it might be theoretically better to estimate real returns, in practice most investors and advisers tend to work on a nominal basis. Moreover, since we have made assumptions for inflation in each region, it is simple to translate our nominal returns into real ones. There is also a trade-off between inflation and currency movements (and interest rates). At the end of the report, we consider the impact of relative inflation rates on currency returns, allowing investors to work the returns back into their own currencies. 1. Fixed income We start from a base that is known: the return on long-term government bonds. If an investor today buys a 10-year U.S. Treasury bond, his or her annual nominal return over the next 10 years will almost certainly be 2.3% (today's yield). The only uncertainties come from (1) reinvesting coupons at the future rate of interest, but the impact of this is small, and (2) the (presumably minimal) risk of a U.S. government default. Of course, investors do not own just 10-year bonds, and indeed the average duration of U.S. Treasuries is currently 5.7 years. But changes in interest rates make relatively little difference to future returns: a rise in interest rates causes a capital loss but a higher yield on rolled-over positions after bonds mature (though, admittedly, the convexity effect is greater when rates are low, as they are now). Even if interest rates were to double over the next decade, the return from U.S. Treasuries would fall only to around 1.5% and, if interest rates fell to 0%, the return would be only about 3%. Moreover, the effect diminishes over time as more bonds are redeemed at par. Empirically, we can see that there is a strong correlation between starting yield on 10-year bonds and long-term returns from U.S. Treasuries (Chart 3). Chart 3Government Bond Returns Driven By The Starting Yield What Returns Can You Expect? What Returns Can You Expect? For our cash assumption, we first calculate a proxy for the current cash yield using the average spread between 10-year government bonds and three-month bills over a long-run history (using data from Dimson, Marsh and Staunton which goes back to 1900 and covers a range of countries, Table 4).2 While it is true that the yield curve steepens and flatten along with the cycle, the average yield curve shape should be a good proxy for long-term future expected returns. Of course, this assumes that the term premium comes back. It may not if bonds now are a good hedge against recession risk. However, we also need to take into account that interest rates and inflation are likely to change over the next 10-15 years. We assume that both will rise to an equilibrium level over that time. Our assumption is that central banks will get close to hitting their inflation targets (in the U.S., 2% on PCE inflation, which translates into 2.5% on CPI; in Europe, "around but below 2%"; and in Japan, 2%). For the equilibrium real rate, we take BCA's current estimate (Chart 4) and assume a small rise over the next decade as some of the after-effects of the Great Recession and secular stagnation wear off: to 0.4% in the U.S., -0.1% in the euro area, and -0.2% in Japan. Table 4Historic Spread Government Bonds To Bills (1900-2016) What Returns Can You Expect? What Returns Can You Expect? Chart 4Current Equilibrium Real Rates Current Equilibrium Real Rates Current Equilibrium Real Rates Our calculation of the return from cash over the 10-15 year horizon is based on a steady rise from the current cash return to that implied by the inflation and equilibrium real rate assumptions (Table 5). Table 5Calculation Of Assumption For Cash Return What Returns Can You Expect? What Returns Can You Expect? For other fixed-income instruments, we make the following assumptions: Government bonds. We assume that the spread between 10-year and 7-year bonds and 3-month bills will be similar to the historical average (Chart 5), and calculate the return from the government bond index based on this and our estimate for 10-year returns, adjusted by the duration of outstanding bonds in the index: 5.7 years for the U.S., 7.1 for Europe and 8.6 for Japan. For U.S. investment-grade and high-yield corporate bonds, we take the average spread, default rate, and recovery rate in history (Table 6). Obviously, spreads and default rates, especially for high-yield bonds, also jump around massively over the cycle (Chart 6), but we think it is reasonable to assume in our long-term projections that they revert to the mean. Reliable data for European and Japanese credit has a short history but, over the past 10 years, spreads and default rates have been similar to the U.S., so we use the U.S. assumptions for these markets too. Chart 5Yield Curves Yield Curves Yield Curves Table 6U.S. Corporate Credit Assumptions What Returns Can You Expect? What Returns Can You Expect? Chart 6Credit Spreads And Default Rates Move With The Cycle Credit Spreads And Default Rates Move With The Cycle Credit Spreads And Default Rates Move With The Cycle Government-related bonds and securitized bonds (MBS, ABS etc.) are an important part of the Barclay's Aggregate Bond indexes: in the U.S., for example, securitized bonds comprise 31% of the index, and government-related ones 7%; in Europe, the weights are 8% and 17% respectively. For our projections of government-related bonds, we assume historic average spreads will continue (Table 7). For securitized bonds, we assume that the historic average spread in the U.S. will continue, and will be the same in Europe and Japan (where historic data is less readily available). Inflation-linked bonds. We assume that the average real yield of the past 10 years, 0%, will continue in future (Chart 7). Table 7Spreads Over Government Bonds What Returns Can You Expect? What Returns Can You Expect? Chart 7Real Yield On U.S. TIPs Real Yield On U.S. TIPs Real Yield On U.S. TIPs 2. Equities There are a number of ways to think about forward equity returns, all with a high degree of uncertainty. These could be based on starting valuations (but which valuation measure to use?); related to likely earnings growth in future years (hard to forecast); or based on a reversion to the mean of valuations and profits. We decided to take a range of different measures, and average the results. In practice, the results are similar, except for emerging markets (see below for more on EM). Table 8 summarizes the equity return calculations. Table 8Equity Return Calculations AVERAGE EQUITY What Returns Can You Expect? What Returns Can You Expect? The thinking behind the six measures we use is as follows. Equity risk premium (ERP). The most obvious methodology: historically, over the long run equities have returned more than government bonds. But which risk premium to use? Dimson, Marsh and Staunton's work includes the excess performance of equities over bonds since 1900 for a range of countries (Table 9). We decided not to choose a different ERP for each developed region, as the historical data would suggest, since it is difficult to argue that the U.S. is likely to be riskier in future than Europe and since, for parts of this history, Japan and the U.S. were essentially emerging markets. We, therefore, take a rounded average of world ERP over the past 116 years, 3.5%. For emerging markets, we multiply this by the average beta of EM relative to global equities over the past 30 years, 1.2, to give an ERP of 4.2%. Growth model. Think of a Gordon Growth Model, which defines the return from equities as the starting dividend yield plus future earnings growth (strictly speaking, dividend growth; we are assuming that the payout ratio will stay constant). We need to make a couple of adjustments to this. First, earnings growth has historically been correlated to nominal GDP growth but has lagged it - in the U.S. by 1.5 percentage points in the period 1918-2016 - although, since 1981, earnings have grown significantly faster than GDP (Chart 8). For the future, we assume that the long-run lag returns. Second, we need to add share buybacks to the dividend yield since, in some countries, such as the U.S., for tax reasons companies prefer to buy back shares rather than increase dividends. However, we should do this on a net basis since equity holders are penalized by companies that issue new shares. In the U.S. net equity withdrawal has been 0.3% over the past 10 years, but in both Europe and Japan, annual net new equity issuance has averaged 1.6% (Chart 9). In EM, the dilution has been even more extreme, averaging 6% over the past 10 years (and much more over the past 25 years). We subtract this dilution from future returns. Table 9Equity Excess Return Over Bonds What Returns Can You Expect? What Returns Can You Expect? Chart 8U.S. EPS Growth Versus Nominal GDP Growth What Returns Can You Expect? What Returns Can You Expect? Chart 9Net Equity Issuance Net Equity Issuance Net Equity Issuance Growth plus reversion to the mean. This takes the Gordon Growth Model but adds to it an assumption that PE multiples and profit margins revert to the historical mean. We again use dividend yield adjusted by net equity issuance. We assume that the current trailing PE and profit margin revert to the average since 1980 (see Table 8 above for the data) over the next 10 years. In the U.S., PE and margins are currently somewhat higher than history, but this is less the case in Europe or Japan (Charts 10 and 11). Additionally, assuming that the mean reversion happens over 10 years means that the effect on annual returns is not especially large, even for the U.S. Chart 10Net Profit Margin Net Profit Margin Net Profit Margin Chart 11Trailing PE History Trailing PE History Trailing PE History Earnings yield (EY). The simplest of the three valuation measures we use, the assumption is that companies reward shareholders either by paying them a dividend this year, or by reinvesting retained earnings to pay dividends in future. If you assume (admittedly a rash assumption) that the future return on investment will be similar to the current return on investment, it should be immaterial how the company pays out to shareholders. Therefore, the trailing earnings yield (1/PE ratio) should be a good proxy for future returns. Empirically, the relationship between earnings yield and 10-year future returns has been quite strong (Chart 12). However, returns have been somewhat higher on average than the EY would indicate (between 1900 and 2006, 9.7% versus an average EY of 7.5%) mainly because of rising PE multiples since 1980 (Chart 13). We think it unlikely that valuations will continue to rise, and so the EY should be a reasonable guide to future returns. Chart 12Earnings Yield And 10-Year Future Returns What Returns Can You Expect? What Returns Can You Expect? Chart 13Trailing Price/Earnings Multiple S&P500 What Returns Can You Expect? What Returns Can You Expect? Shiller PE. The cyclically-adjusted price/earnings ratio (CAPE, or Shiller PE) - the current share price divided by the 10 year average of historic inflation-adjusted earnings - has historically had a good correlation with future long-term returns (Chart 14). A regression model of this indicates that the current Shiller PE points to long-run forward returns for the U.S. of 4.9%, for Japan 3.6%, Europe 8.5% and EM 10.8%. Valuation composite. The Shiller PE has some flaws, for example in using a fixed 10-year period for earnings when the length of cycles varies. It has not necessarily mean-reverted in history (perhaps because of long-term trends in interest rates, which it doesn't take into account). It may be more reasonable, then, to use a mixture of different valuation metrics. BCA's Composite Valuation Indicator has had a good correlation with long-run future returns (Chart 15).3 A regression model of this indicator against 15-year returns currently points to returns from the U.S. of 5.2%, Europe of 4.1%, Japan 5.1% and EM 11.0%. Small-cap stocks. We take the 2.4% excess annual return of small cap stocks over large caps in the U.S. for 1926-2016, as calculated by Dimson, Marsh & Staunton. Chart 14Shiller PE Versus ##br##15-Year Equity Return Shiller PE Versus 15-Year Equity Return Shiller PE Versus 15-Year Equity Return Chart 15Composite Valuation Measure Versus ##br##Long-Run Future Returns Composite Valuation Measure Versus Long-Run Future Returns Composite Valuation Measure Versus Long-Run Future Returns Emerging Markets The return assumption for emerging market equity returns has a much higher degree of uncertainty. On our three valuation measures, EM equities look attractive: the average return expectation of the three valuation indicators points to an annual return of 9.4%. However, the growth outlook is murky: as described above, a wave of structural reform in emerging markets, especially China, would be necessary to keep productivity - and, therefore, earnings growth - up, in order for returns to be as good as the current valuation level suggests. Another worry is the degree of equity dilution: it has averaged 6% a year over the past 10 years, and is unlikely to fall much unless corporate governance improves significantly. The range of expected returns derived from our various methodologies, therefore, varies from -1% to +11% a year. Moreover, as described in the currency section below, investors should expect a depreciation in some EM currencies over the next decade, which will also eat into returns. However, due to the influence of China, where the currency is projected to appreciate almost 2% a year against the USD, the EM equity index will see an overall boost to USD-based returns due to the currency effect. 3. Alternative Assets We consider the likely future returns for nine of the 10 alternative assets that Global Asset Allocation regularly covers (we omit wine, which is hard to value on the basis of fundamental macro factors and, anyway, is owned by few institutional investors).4 Alts are harder to forecast than public securities since data is less easily available (and may be only quarterly and based on estimated values), and since some alternative assets have not existed in their current form for very long (venture capital, for example). Moreover, alternative assets tend to have non-normal returns with skewed distributions. Table 10 shows the historical returns and volatility of the nine alternative asset classes both over the longest period for which we have data, and since 1997, when we have data for all of them. Table 10Returns And Volatility For Alternative Assets What Returns Can You Expect? What Returns Can You Expect? We, therefore, take a more ad hoc approach, projecting each asset class differently. Generally, we assume that future returns will look similar to historical ones. Specifically, the assumptions we use are as follows. Hedge funds. We assume a return of cash + 3.5%. Hedge fund returns have trended down over time (Chart 16), as more entrants have arbitraged away alpha. We choose to use the average return over cash of the past 10 years, 3.5% (net of fees). It is unlikely that hedge funds returns will rise back anywhere close to earlier levels, for example that of the 1990s when they returned cash +14%. Chart 16Hedge Fund Historic Returns Hedge Fund Historic Returns Hedge Fund Historic Returns U.S. Direct real estate. We find reasonably good results (R2 = 24%) from regressing U.S. nominal GDP growth against real estate returns. The regression equation is 1.25 x nominal GDP growth + 1.9%. Conceptually, this probably represents a cap rate plus growth of capital values slightly higher than economic growth due to supply shortages in certain key locations. We project real estate to return 7.2% annually. One risk to this assumption, however, is that commercial real estate prices are already above the previous peak from 2007; high valuations may dampen future returns. U.S. REITs. We find only weak correlations with direct real estate investment, although REITs have outperformed real estate over time (perhaps because of the inbuilt leverage of REITs). Over time, REITs have become increasingly correlated with equities. We, therefore, use a regression against U.S. equity returns (R2 = 42%), with REIT returns 0.49 x equity returns + 7.7%. This indicates 10.1% annual return from REITs in the long run. U.S. Private equity (PE). In the past, returns from private equity have been 5 or 6 percentage points higher than from public equities. This is most likely due to their higher leverage, bias towards small-cap companies, and stronger shareholder control over the companies they invest in; it can also be thought of as an illiquidity premium. However, it seems likely that excess returns will be lower in future given the bigger size of the PE industry now and relatively high valuations currently. Moreover, the PE industry currently has almost USD 1 Trn in dry power (uninvested capital), a sign that investment opportunities are limited. We assume, therefore, a slightly lower premium over public equities in future of 4 ppts. This results in a total annual return of 9.5%. U.S. Venture capital (VC). Historically (using data since 1986) VC returns have been 0.6 ppts higher than for PE (probably representing a premium for greater risk and smaller size of the companies invested in). We assume 0.5 ppt higher return in future. This leads to a return assumption of 10%. U.S. Structured products. As discussed in the fixed income section above, we use the 20-year average spread over the aggregate bond index of 0.7 ppt. Total assumed return, therefore, is 3.3%. U.S. Farmland. The value of farmland has risen by an average of 4.4% a year since 1920, a period which included five agricultural cycles. We assume that the value of land will continue to rise at the same rate. We think this is a reasonable assumption since, although nominal GDP growth in the U.S. may be lower in future than in the past, global demand for food is likely to continue to grow rapidly. The total return from investment in farm land, using a regression, produces: growth of farm land value x 1.81 + 0.64% = 8.6%. Chart 17Long-Term Commodity Prices Long-Term Commodity Prices Long-Term Commodity Prices U.S. Timberland is more defensive than farmland since trees can be stored "on the stump" and don't need to be harvested each year in the way that crops do even when prices are unattractive. Historically, timberland has returned about 1 ppt less a year than farmland, and we assume that this will continue. Commodities move in long-run cycles, with a commodity super-cycle of around 10 years, in which prices rise by 3-4x, followed by a bear market of 20 or 30 years in which they fall or stagnate (Chart 17). This is driven by a build-up of excess supply, because of the capex done during the super-cycle, and often by a structural shift on the demand side too. We see no reason why this pattern should change, with China's re-engineering of its economy away from dependence on infrastructure spending likely to be a particularly important factor over the next decade. We assume that commodity prices will, over the current bear market (now about five years old), fall by the same amount and over the same number of years as the average of previous bear markets since the 19th century. This means they have 16% further to fall over 200 months, giving a return of -1% a year. 4. Currencies Most investors are unable or unwilling to fully hedge currency exposure over very long periods. So, a consideration of how returns from different countries' assets might be affected by relative currency movements over the next 10-15 years is an important element in calculating likely returns. Fortunately, for developed market currencies at least, there is a simple, and historically fairly reliable, way to make assumptions of currency movements: reversion to purchasing power parity. As shown in Chart 18, major currencies have fairly consistently reverted to their PPP over the long run. So we can forecast likely future currency movements as a combination of 1) how far away the currency is currently from PPP against the U.S. dollar, and 2) the likely change in the PPP over the period. The latter we calculate from the IMF's forecasts of relative consumer inflation between each country and the U.S. (the IMF makes this forecast only for the next five years, but we assume that the differential continues at the same rate after 2022). Table 11 shows that most major currencies are expected to rise against the U.S. dollar over the coming decade or so. Except for Australia, they are likely to have slightly lower inflation. And - again with the exception of Australia - they all look a little undervalued currently relative to the USD. Table 11Assumed Annual Change Versus U.S. Dollar Over Next 10-15 Years What Returns Can You Expect? What Returns Can You Expect? Unfortunately, this approach does not work for EM currencies. They have historically traded at a level consistently well below PPP. This is mainly because, while tradable goods prices tend to be driven by international prices movements and relative unit labor costs, local services prices (which cannot be arbitraged across borders) do not. Also, inflation in emerging markets has historically been much higher than in the U.S. (Chart 19), meaning that their PPP has shifted significantly lower over time. However, China's inflation is now not dissimilar to that of the U.S. (the IMF forecasts it will be only 50 basis points a year higher over the coming five years). And China has shown some tendency for the currency to move towards PPP - 20 years ago the RMB was 190% below PPP; now it is "only" 97% below. Chart 18Reversion To PPP Reversion To PPP Reversion To PPP Chart 19U.S. And Emerging Market Inflation U.S. And Emerging Market Inflation U.S. And Emerging Market Inflation We, therefore, take an alternative approach to estimating currency returns for EM economies. We run a regression analysis of the annual change in each country's exchange rate versus the U.S. dollar against its CPI inflation relative to the U.S. We find mostly acceptable r-squared scores (ranging from 57% for Turkey to 1% for Taiwan). For most countries, the intercept is positive (suggesting the currency is trending over time towards PPP) and the coefficient for CPI is, as expected, negative (Table 12). Table 12Calculations For EM Currency Moves What Returns Can You Expect? What Returns Can You Expect? A number of EM currencies, on this analysis, would be expected to depreciate against the U.S. dollar over coming years, including Indonesia, Mexico and Turkey. But, weighting the countries by their weights in the MSCI ACWI index, on average the EM universe would be expected to see a currency appreciation against the U.S. dollar of around 2% a year. This is largely due to the influence of China, which has a 29% weight in the EM index. This would be a much better result than the past 10 years when, for example, the Brazilian real has depreciated by 12% a year, the Indonesian rupiah by 16% and the Turkish lira by 37%. This could be because the IMF forecasts of future inflation (4.9% for India, 4.5% for Brazil and 4.1% for Russia), are too optimistic. They are certainly much better than these countries have achieved in the past 10 years (8.0% in India, 6.2% in Brazil, and 9.2% in Russia). Conclusion Arriving at assumptions for future returns is as much an art as a science. Our analysis is based principally on the concept that the future will be similar to long-term history (but not necessarily to the history of the past 30 years, which in many ways were abnormal for financial markets with, for example, a continuous decline in interest rates and inflation). Obviously, therefore, a very different macro environment over the next 10-15 years (for example, one in which inflation spiked, or secular stagnation deepened) would produce a very different results for economic growth and interest rates. However, it will be clear from our analysis that a great deal of the long-term return for equities and bonds is derived from the valuation at the start. Given that current valuations in almost all asset classes are expensive relative to history, this implies that future portfolio returns will be poor compared to recent, and long-term, history. Based on our return assumptions, a typical global portfolio (with 50% equities, 30% bonds, and 20% alternatives) will produce a nominal return of only 4.1% a year over the next decade or so, and a similar U.S. portfolio only 4.6%. This compares to 6.3% and 7.0% over the past 20 years. For pension funds which assume an 7.5% or 8% annual return (as many in the U.S. do), or individual investors planning their retirement on the basis of, say, a 5% annual real return, that outcome would come as a nasty shock. Garry Evans, Senior Vice President Global Asset Allocation garry@bcaresearch.com 1 For the best summary of the evidence on this, please see A Practitioner's Guide To Asset Allocation, by William Kinlaw, Mark Kritzman and David Turkington, Wiley 2017. 2 Please see Credit Suisse Global Investment Returns Yearbook 2017 by Elroy Dimson, Paul Marsh and Mike Staunton, February 2017 3 BCA's Composite Valuation Indicator comprises, for the U.S.: market value of equities / non-financial gross value added adjusted for foreign revenues, trailing PE, Shiller PE, and price to sales. And for other regions: divided yield, market Cap/GDP, trailing PE, price to book, forward PE, price to cash flow, price to sales, and enterprise value/total assets. 4 Please see Global Asset Allocation Special Report, "Alternative Assets: More Important Than Ever", dated 11 March 2016, available at gaa.bcaresearch.com Appendix Correlation Matrix What Returns Can You Expect? What Returns Can You Expect?

Highlights Real assets, particularly farmland and timberland, are known to be particularly complex investments. In this report, we discuss their benefits to a multi-asset portfolio and also their pitfalls due to the large capital lock-in. Farmland performance is less sensitive to underlying growth cycle. Timberland is more closely correlated with economic growth through the U.S. housing market. Timberland is a superior inflation hedge and has shown stronger correlations with price increases over longer time periods. Farmland is a superior hedge against recessions and equity bear markets given its lower correlation with the economic cycle. Public market investments in farmland and timberland give investors greater exposure to systematic beta and daily commodity price volatility. Farmland valuations remain attractive, in both absolute terms and relative to timberland and bond yields. Feature Buy land, they're not making it anymore - Mark Twain Why Invest In Farmland & Timberland Very few investors hold an allocation1 to farmland and timberland even in their alternative asset portfolios. However, as we enter the ninth year of an equity bull market, and as the biggest tailwind in the form of monetary accommodation starts to unwind amid elevated levels of uncertainty, investors need assets that simultaneously generate attractive risk-adjusted returns (Chart 1), hedge inflation, and increase portfolio diversification. In this report, we run through the key decisions which investors have to make with regards to farmland and timberland investment. We analyze historical risk-return characteristics, inflation hedging, recession hedging and portfolio diversification potential. We conclude by comparing public versus private market investments in these two assets. Our conclusion is that farmland and timberland (Chart 2) are an efficient way to diversify a traditional multi-asset portfolio. The key difference between farmland and timberland returns is their sensitivity to the underlying growth cycle. Farmland returns have a lower correlation with economic growth since demand for food is relatively inelastic. On the other hand, most demand for timber comes from the U.S. housing market, so there is a strong correlation with the U.S. economy. Moreover, we find that: Chart 1Superior Risk-Adjusted Returns Superior Risk-Adjusted Returns Superior Risk-Adjusted Returns Chart 2Real Assets Vs Traditional Assets Real Assets Vs Traditional Assets Real Assets Vs Traditional Assets Timberland is the better hedge for expected inflation. However, both assets perform well in response to inflation surprises. Farmland is the more attractive hedge against recession and equity bear markets. Both assets outperformed even global bonds in the last recession. Investors can maximize risk-adjusted returns from these assets through direct investment in private markets. Public market investments have higher volatility due to commodity price fluctuations. All the return data in this report is sourced from the National Council of Real Estate Investment Fiduciaries2 (NCREIF). Both farmland3 and timberland4 returns are based on quarterly value-weighted indices measuring the investment performance of a large pool of individual properties acquired in the private market for investment purposes only. While there may be properties in the index that are leveraged, return indices are reported on a non-leveraged basis. Additionally, all returns are reported before the deduction of portfolio-level management fees, but inclusive of property-level management fees. NCREIF makes significant efforts to avoid survivorship basis. When a property is removed from the index, for example, all historical data remain in the database and index. Likewise, when a new property is added to the index, its performance is included in the first full quarter it qualifies (properties are excluded in the acquisition quarter). Due to data limitations, this report focuses only on the U.S. farmland and timberland market. Basics Of Farmland & Timberland Investment Managing private market assets such as farmland and timberland is more complex than publicly traded equities and bonds. Farmland and timberland give investors two sources of return: 1) income return from the sale of crops or timber, and 2) appreciation return from rising land values (Chart 3). The former tends to have a more volatile and cyclical profile given its dependence on prevailing commodity prices. Investors in farm and timber assets can customize their risk-return profile through crop type diversification, geographic allocation, and management style. Chart 3Return Composition: Farmland And Timberland U.S. Farmland & Timberland: An Investment Primer U.S. Farmland & Timberland: An Investment Primer For farmland investors, two major decisions can alter the risk-return profile of their portfolio: Crop Type Allocation Annual Cropland: This group includes rotational crops such as corn, soybeans, cotton, wheat and rice. Since these are widely traded in both physical and financial markets, pricing tends to be more competitive and efficient, making income return a smaller contributor to total return. Investors allocating to this group can expect stable but modest returns (Chart 4). Permanent Cropland: This group includes perennial crops such as fruits and nuts. Since these crops are not widely traded in institutional markets, pricing inefficiencies exist. In the recent agriculture bear market, permanent crop prices were resilient, generating a strong source of income returns. However, given their greater dependence on income returns, volatility of total returns is elevated. Additionally, on a risk-adjusted basis annual cropland is more attractive that permanent cropland (Chart 5).This is because 91% of permanent cropland returns are driven by the more volatile income earned from crop sales. Chart 4Risk-Return Profile Risk-Return Profile Risk-Return Profile Chart 5Relative Risk-Adjusted Returns Relative Risk-Adjusted Returns Relative Risk-Adjusted Returns 2. Management Style Leasing: Farmland owners lease the land to farm operators for a fixed or variable rent. Since most contracts involve a larger proportion of fixed rent, such returns have low volatility and low yields. Rental payments are generally received before farmers move into the field, limiting commodity price risk for the farmland owners. Direct Operation: Farmland owners take a more active approach and appoint professional farm managers to cultivate and harvest crops. Investors can expect a higher risk-return profile since they assume both price and yield risk. Since more than 75% of returns come from income earned from crop sales, investors should expect higher volatility. For timberland investors, two major decisions can alter the risk-return profile of their portfolio: 1) geographic allocation, and 2) plantation type. 1. Geographic Allocation U.S. North-West: Income return in the form of timber price appreciation has been the leading source of return for this region. The value of standing timber is generally two to three times higher than in Southern regions as trees in the U.S. North-West grow much larger. Since income return contributes a larger proportion to total return, investors should expect higher return and volatility (Chart 6). U.S. South: Appreciation from rising land values has been the main source of return. Given the higher commercial value of Southern pine plantations, the land in these regions is more valuable when it is able to grow quickly more productive and higher quality trees. Investors can expect a more stable but modest level of returns. Another interesting point about this region is its heavy reliance on the U.S. housing market for lumber demand. However, on a risk-adjusted basis, the lower volatility from capital appreciation (Chart 7) makes the U.S. South a more attractive bet. 2. Plantation Type Natural Plantations: These are generally at higher altitudes with colder temperatures, and therefore tend to have slower growth rates. Investors can expect lower return volatility. Managed Plantations: Mostly located at lower altitudes with warmer climate and higher rainfall. These plantations have scalability, which allows intensive forestry, generating higher returns but higher volatility for investors. Most institutional investors focus on managed plantations to meet their return targets and cash flow patterns. Chart 6Risk-Return Profile Risk-Return Profile Risk-Return Profile Chart 7Return Composition U.S. Farmland & Timberland: An Investment Primer U.S. Farmland & Timberland: An Investment Primer Impacts On A Multi-Asset Portfolio Real assets have unique investment characteristics making them an attractive addition to traditional asset portfolios. In this section, we test farmland and timberland for these properties and conclude with recommendations to allow investors to meet their portfolio needs. Risk-Adjusted Returns: Since real assets' return drivers are mostly long-term and structural, investors can expect a very different risk-return profile (Table 1 & Table 2) to equities and bonds. Looking at historical results, farmland has outperformed even global bonds on a risk-adjusted basis. Timberland has lagged farmland since 1992, given its higher sensitivity to underlying growth dynamics. Table 1Historical Performance (Q1 1992 - Q1 2017) U.S. Farmland & Timberland: An Investment Primer U.S. Farmland & Timberland: An Investment Primer Table 2Rolling Five Year Analysis U.S. Farmland & Timberland: An Investment Primer U.S. Farmland & Timberland: An Investment Primer Both assets enjoy lower volatility relative to equities since only a small fraction of land changes hands every year. However, given the non-normality of alternative asset returns, an investor needs to assess third and fourth degrees of central tendency to get a better understanding of risk exposures. Farmland and timberland, along with venture capital, are the only assets to generate a positive skew. But the impressive characteristic of both assets is their ability to generate positive skew with less than half the volatility of venture capital. Additionally, a positive skew coupled with a positive kurtosis means that investors can expect a higher probability of more extreme positive returns. Since farmland and timberland returns are calculated on quarterly basis, they are exposed to stale price bias. After de-smoothing5 returns, we find that annualized volatility for direct real estate increases from 4.4% to 11.5%, bringing down the risk-adjusted returns to 0.76. On the other hand, farmland and timberland volatility remains pretty much unchanged, making them more attractive investments on a risk-adjusted basis. Inflation Hedge: BCA's view is that inflation will return over the structural horizon.6 Institutional investors with liability-matching mandates will need to protect the real value of their portfolios. Between the two assets, timberland is clearly the superior investment to hedge expected inflation (Chart 8). Additionally, inflation hedging abilities strengthen for longer investment periods. On the other hand, farmland is a relatively poor inflation hedge. This performance difference in inflationary environments can be explained by their respective sensitivity to underlying growth. Timberland is more sensitive to the economic cycle, whereas farmland is rather inelastic to growth because food consumption is relatively stable. However, both farmland and timberland are good hedges for unexpected inflation (Chart 9), something that investors may face in the coming years. Portfolio Diversification: One major difference between real assets and financial assets is that the former derive value from their utility. This generates income streams and capital appreciation patterns that are uncorrelated with traditional assets (Table 3). Both farmland and timberland have low correlations with all major assets, making them attractive for portfolio diversification. However, the relatively strong correlation with private equity can be explained by the "J-Curve" effect. Similar to the early cash-burn phase of private equity funds, both timberland and farmland investments require 1-2 years for trees and crops to grow before their harvesting period. Hence cash flow streams are similar to private equity funds, producing a relatively high correlation. Chart 8Timberland Is The Better Inflation Hedge U.S. Farmland & Timberland: An Investment Primer U.S. Farmland & Timberland: An Investment Primer Chart 9Hedge Unexpected Inflation Hedge Unexpected Inflation Hedge Unexpected Inflation Recession & Bear Market Hedge: Historically, both farmland and timberland returns have proved attractive when traditional markets had a major setback. Apart from attractive relative returns, they were also able to generate positive absolute returns in both recessions and equity bear markets (Chart 10). However, between the two assets, farmland's lower correlation with underlying growth has made it a more attractive pick to hedge market downturns. Farmland and timberland have also shown negative correlation with other alternative assets during market downturns, making them a strong candidate to reduce volatility within an alternative asset portfolio. Table 3Impressive Diversification Potential U.S. Farmland & Timberland: An Investment Primer U.S. Farmland & Timberland: An Investment Primer Chart 10Farmland Is The Better Recession Hedge U.S. Farmland & Timberland: An Investment Primer U.S. Farmland & Timberland: An Investment Primer Public Versus Private Exposure Chart 11Private Vs Public Exposure Private Vs Public Exposure Private Vs Public Exposure Real assets such as farmland and timberland have generally been thought of as investments for large institutional players with patient capital. While there is some truth to this, smaller institutional and retail investors can access these assets through public market alternatives. Investors looking to decide between public vs private market exposure need to consider the following: The tradeoff between liquidity of marketable securities and volatility of returns. Private market exposure come with lower liquidity and lower volatility. Most listed firms in the farm and timber space are vertically integrated, creating exposures different from pure cultivation of crops and timber. Investments in public indices in the agriculture and forestry sector tend to track the more volatile daily moves in commodity prices (Chart 11). Private Market & Direct Exposure: Assets are highly illiquid and can take months to transact. This alternative is better suited for larger investors with a longer-time horizon. Most institutional asset managers place their real asset holdings with specialized managers for a 5-7 year investment period. Additionally, investors with a larger capital allocation can choose greater involvement in strategy development and exposure customization by choosing Separate Managed Accounts (SMA). Investors with less capital, but still looking for a well-diversified allocation should consider a Commingled Fund. Public Market & Indirect Exposure: Assets are highly liquid with considerably higher volatility driven by public market systematic risk. The pitfall is that investors will have no say in the management of their investments. For smaller retail and institutional investors, listed equities7 provide greater accessibility, but at the cost of increased idiosyncratic firm-specific risk. REITs8 and ETFs are structured as open-ended funds making them easy to transact, but at the cost of limited regional and strategy diversification. Valuations & Farm Sector Update Since 2010, farmland and timberland annualized returns have been 12.6% and 5.1% respectively. Timberland's underperformance can be attributed to the weak recovery in U.S. housing since the Global Financial Crisis. Farmland returns have shown resilience during the fall in soft commodity prices. From 2011 to 2016 (Chart 12), while the agricultural price index fell by 50%, farmland outperformed global equities by over 50%. This outperformance can be attributed to the divergence in performance between permanent cropland and annual cropland. The latter is more closely correlated with agricultural commodity indices, making the former a more attractive option during agricultural price shocks. For example, during the same period, permanent cropland returned 160%, whereas annual cropland and global equities generated 70% and 32% respectively. This run-up in farmland prices has made investors skeptical about valuations. Looking at capitalization rates (Chart 13), we can see that timberland valuations have a close relationship with U.S. treasury yields, another validation for its stronger sensitivity to underlying growth. However, with farmland valuations, we see no signs of extreme valuations despite the strong outperformance. Chart 12Demystifying The Farmland Outperformance Demystifying The Farmland Outperformance Demystifying The Farmland Outperformance Chart 13Farmland Is Not Expensive Farmland Is Not Expensive Farmland Is Not Expensive Finally, a few comments on the fundamentals of the U.S. farm sector, and some comparisons with the 1980s farm crisis: A snapshot of the farm sector's balance sheet (Chart 14) shows no excesses. The run-up in farmland prices has taken place with little increase in leverage. This is in contrast to the real estate boom and its subsequent correction during the Global Financial Crisis. However, in real terms the balance sheet looks similar to the peak during the farm crisis in the 1980s. While the level of assets and equity is above the peak of 1980, total debt in real terms is still 20% below the peak. Net farm income (Chart 15) grew at an annualized rate of 5.1% from 1970 to 2013. Since then, however, there has been a significant contraction from $123.7 billion in 2013 to $80.9 billion in 2015. The estimated numbers for 2016 and 2017 are $68.3 billion and $62.3 billion respectively. Chart 14Limited Leverage In Farm Sector Limited Leverage In Farm Sector Limited Leverage In Farm Sector Chart 15Farm Sector Income Statement Farm Sector Income Statement Farm Sector Income Statement Interest coverage has been on a decline since 2013, primarily due to the slowdown in income growth. Average farmland values have risen in line with cash receipts until recently. However, this changed in 2015, where farmland prices diverged from cash receipts. Aditya Kurian, Research Analyst Global Asset allocation adityak@bcaresearch.com 1 https://www.willistowerswatson.com/en-IE/insights/2017/07/Global-Alternatives-Survey-2017 2 www.ncreif.org 3 Farmland Property Index https://www.ncreif.org/data-products/farmland/ 4 Timberland Property Index https://www.ncreif.org/data-products/timberland/ 5 To de-smooth returns, we used a first-order autoregressive model as shown by Rt = A0 + A1 Rt-1 + e, where A1 is the autoregressive coefficient, and A0 is the intercept term. 6 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst Monthly Report titled, "October 2017" dated September 28, 2017, available at bcaresearch.com. 7 Public alternatives for farmland: Farmland Partners (FPI), Gladstone Land Corp (LAND), American Farmland (AFCO), Fresh Del Monte Produce. (FDP), Market Vectors Agribusiness ETF (MOO), PowerShares DB Agriculture ETF (DBA), iPath Bloomberg Grains SubTR ETN (JJG). 8 Public alternatives for timberland: Weyerhaeuser (WY), Rayonier (RYN), Potlatch Corporation (PCH), Guggenheim Timber ETF (CUT), iShares S&P Global Timber & Forestry Index ETF (WOOD).

Highlights Recommendation Allocation Quarterly - October 2017 Quarterly - October 2017 The global growth outlook remains strong, with corporate earnings likely to beat expectations for a couple more quarters. Inflation and Fed policy are key to asset allocation. We expect inflation to recover, which will push up interest rates and the dollar. But uncertainty is rising too: for example the composition of the FOMC next year, Chinese policy post the Party Congress, Geopolitics. We keep our pro-risk tilts, particularly overweights in euro area and Japanese equities, U.S. high-yield bonds, private equity, and cyclical sectors. But we reduce portfolio risk by bringing some allocations closer to benchmark, for example downgrading U.S. equities to neutral and reducing the underweight in EM. Feature Overview Growth Is Picking Up - But So Is Uncertainty The outlook for global economic growth remains almost unarguably positive (Chart 1). The key for asset allocation, then, comes down to whether inflation in the U.S. will rebound, and whether therefore the Fed will continue to tighten monetary policy in line with its current projections. This would likely cause long-term interest rates to rise and the dollar to appreciate, which would be positive for developed market equities and credit, but negative for government bonds, emerging market equities and commodities. This scenario has been our expectation - and the basis of our recommendations - for some time, and it remains so. In September, the market started coming around to our view - after months of pricing in that inflation would stay sluggish (which, therefore, had caused the euro and yen, government bonds, EM equities and commodities to perform well). In just a couple of weeks, the futures-market-priced probability of a December Fed hike has moved from 31% to 75%. This was triggered by little more than stabilization of core CPI (Chart 2), due mainly to shelter inflation, which anyway has a low weight in the core PCE inflation data that the Fed most closely watches. To us, this demonstrates just how sensitive the market is to any slight pickup in inflation, due to the fact that its expectations of Fed rate hikes over the next 12 months are so far below what the FOMC is signaling (Chart 3). Chart 1Lead Indicators Looking Good Lead Indicators Looking Good Lead Indicators Looking Good Chart 2Is The Softness In Inflation Over? Is The Softness In Inflation Over? Is The Softness In Inflation Over? Chart 3The Market Still Doesn't Believe The Fed The Market Still Doesn't Believe The Fed The Market Still Doesn't Believe The Fed However, a risk to BCA's view is that the Fed turns dovish. Even Janet Yellen, in the press conference after the FOMC meeting on 20 September, admitted that the Fed needs "to figure out whether the factors that have lowered inflation are likely to prove persistent". If they do, she said, "it would require an alteration of monetary policy." FOMC member (and notable dove) Lael Brainard, in an important speech earlier in September, laid out the argument that, since inflation has missed the Fed's 2% target for five years, inflation expectations have been damaged (Chart 4) and that only a period during which inflation overshot could repair them. With Yellen's term due to expire next February and four other vacancies on the FOMC, personnel changes could significantly change the Fed's direction. Online prediction sites give a somewhat high probability to President Trump's replacing Yellen, with (the rather more hawkish) Kevin Warsh, a Fed governor in 2006-11 (Chart 5). However, presidents tend to like loose monetary policy - President Trump has said as much himself - which raises the possibility of his trying to steer the Fed in a direction that is more tolerant of rising inflation. A possible scenario, then, is of an accommodative Fed which allows equities markets to have a final meltup for this cycle, similar to 1999. Chart 4Have Inflation Expectations Been Damaged? Have Inflation Expectations Been Damaged? Have Inflation Expectations Been Damaged? Chart 5Who Will Trump Choose To Lead The Fed? Quarterly - October 2017 Quarterly - October 2017 Another current source of uncertainty is China. Money supply growth there has slowed sharply this year, after being pushed upwards by the government's reflationary policies in late 2015. This historically has been a good lead indicator of growth and, indeed, many cyclical indicators have surprised to the downside recently (Chart 6). It is also hard to predict whether, after October's five-yearly Communist Party congress, newly re-elected President Xi Jinping will move ahead with implementing structural reforms, even at the expense of a short-term slowdown of growth.1 We continue to think that risk assets have further upside for this cycle. Growth is likely to remain strong, the probability of a U.S. tax cut is rising, and corporate earnings should surprise to the upside for another couple of quarters (Q3 S&P500 EPS consensus forecasts remain cautious at 5% YoY, versus our model which suggests double-digit growth). Nonetheless, the cycle is now mature, global equities have already produced a total return of almost 40% since their recent bottom in February last year, and valuations in almost every asset class are stretched (Chart 7). Moreover, geopolitical risks - such as that from North Korean missiles - will not disappear quickly. We continue to pencil in the possibility of a recession in 2019 or 2020, caused by a sharp rise in inflation, especially in the U.S., which the Fed - whoever is running it - would have to stamp on by raising rates above the equilibrium level. Chart 6Is A Downturn Coming In China? bca.gaa_qpo_2017_10_02_c6 bca.gaa_qpo_2017_10_02_c6 Chart 7Nothing Looks Cheap Nothing Looks Cheap Nothing Looks Cheap Therefore, on the 12-month horizon we continue to recommend pro-risk and pro-cyclical positioning, for example an overweight in equities versus fixed income. However, given the rising uncertainty, we are reducing the scale of our bets a little and so, for example among our equity country and regional recommendations, move a little closer to benchmark by lowering the U.S. to neutral and reducing the degree of our underweight in EM. Garry Evans, Senior Vice President Global Asset Allocation garry@bcaresearch.com What Our Clients Are Asking How worried should we be about North Korea? Chart 8Threats - But Eventually A Diplomatic Solution Threats - But Eventually A Diplomatic Solution Threats - But Eventually A Diplomatic Solution President Obama reportedly warned President Trump just prior to inauguration that North Korea would be his biggest headache. After 15 missile launches and a nuclear test this year (Chart 8, panel 1), investors are beginning to think the same. How big is the risk that the tension turns into warfare? BCA's Geopolitical strategists have written about the subject extensively.2 They conclude that military action is unlikely. An U.S. attack on North Korean missile or nuclear sites would simply provoke an attack with conventional weapons on Seoul, which is only 50 km from the border. Kim Jong-un undoubtedly knows that if he were to attack Guam or Japan, his country would be wiped out. In the end, then, a diplomatic solution is likely - but this will only be achieved after tension has risen sufficiently to force the two sides to the negotiating table. The analogy is Iran in 2012-15, where sanctions finally forced it to agree to a 10-year freeze in its nuclear plans. For the moment, sanctions seem unlikely to bite. North Korea's trade with China is not yet notably slowing (Chart 8, panel 2) and its GDP growth actually accelerated last year, albeit from stagnating levels, according to estimates from the Bank of Korea (Chart 8, panel 3). So the cycle of new threats and tougher sanctions will continue for a while. Historically, North Korean provocations caused related markets (such as South Korea stocks) to fall sharply for a few days, but this always represented a buying opportunity (Chart 8, panel 4). Given the likelihood of a diplomatic outcome, we think this remains a good rule of thumb. What will happen after China's 19th Party Congress, and will there be a slowdown in the economy? China's twice-a-decade National Party Congress will be held October 18-25. The outcome of the meeting could have important economic and market consequences. The key purpose of the Congress is to rotate China's political leaders. The 19th Party Congress is crucial because it marks the passing of a generation: President Xi Jinping will receive a second five-year term, but is predicted to consolidate his power by placing a younger generation of leaders who support his structural reforms into key positions. When Xi came to power, his reform agenda included de-emphasizing GDP targets; injecting private capital, competition and market discipline into the state-owned corporate sector; and fighting pollution. This agenda has since been compromised, with Xi reverting to infrastructure spending and credit growth to avoid painful adjustments. However, recently, there have been signs of a pullback in reflationary policies (Chart 9). Financial tightening is a key to reviving reform. Tighter controls on banks and leverage will translate into greater market discipline, and will put pressure on the sector most in need of change: SOEs. During the twice-a-decade National Financial Work Conference In late July, Yang Weimin, a key economic policymaker who is close to Xi, said, "The nation can't let leverage rise for the purpose of boosting economic expansion," signaling that the administration is willing to tackle difficult reform issues. He also mentioned the potential risks in the economy such as shadow banking, property bubbles, high leverage in SOEs, and local government debt, adding that the nation should set out its priorities and tackle them. Though it is impossible to predict the precise outcome of the Congress, the leadership reshuffle is likely to benefit Xi's reform agenda. The new leadership is likely to work on rebalancing growth toward consumption and services while encouraging private entrepreneurship and cutting back state-owned enterprises and, most importantly, deleveraging corporate debt. If China's credit impulse rolls over, the recent improvement in industrial profits and domestic demand will come under threat (Chart 9). As a result, China's cyclical growth is set to slow in 2018 as Xi reboots reform. Although economic risks will rise as the reform takes place, we still believe China H shares are attractive relative to other EM markets. In the long run, Xi's renewed reform drive should help China to get out of the "middle income trap'', which could help Chinese stocks to outperform EMs such as South Africa, Turkey and Brazil, where reforms are absent.3 Are Indian equities still a buy? In the three years since Prime Minister Narendra Modi's election, Indian stock prices have outperformed their emerging market peers by more than 20%. But the underlying growth dynamics do not justify this performance. We are turning cautious on India and downgrade Indian equities to neutral for the following reasons. India's GDP growth rate fell to a three-year low of 5.7% yoy in the April-June quarter. The administration's "Make In India" campaign is having limited impact, as seen in the near-zero growth of the manufacturing sector. Capital spending by firms has been dismal, further weighing on the outlook for productivity. Increasing layoffs and business shutdowns have produced considerable slack in the economy. Non-performing loans in the banking system have reached 11.8% of assets. As a result, credit growth to business has fallen almost to zero. This has slowed infrastructure development, as seen in the high level of stalled capital projects. The Reserve Bank of India has only just started the process of pushing banks to raise provisioning for distressed assets. The negative impact of last year's demonetization program is finally showing through. Less than 10% of Indians have ever used non-cash payment methods, and so demand for cyclical goods is slowing. Finally, Indian stocks have risen significantly in recent years, making them expensive relative to EM peers. In addition, profit growth has slowed, and return on equity converged with the EM average. Indian equities have been riding on expectations of reforms from the Modi administration. But, with the exception of the Goods & Services Tax (GST), the reform progress has been disappointing. We are turning cautious on Indian equities until we see improvements in the macro backdrop (Chart 10). Chart 9Sign of slowdown in Chinese Economy Sign of slowdown in Chinese Economy Sign of slowdown in Chinese Economy Chart 10India: Loosing Steam? India: Loosing Steam? India: Loosing Steam? How should global equity investors hedge foreign currency exposures? Chart 11Dynamic Hedging Outperforms Static Hedging Quarterly - October 2017 Quarterly - October 2017 There have been many conflicting views on how to hedge foreign currency exposures in a global equity portfolio. Full hedge,4 no hedge,5 or simply 50% hedge?6 Or should all investors hold the reserve currencies (USD, euro and Swiss Franc), avoid commodities currencies (AUD and CAD) while being neutral on GBP and JPY?7 As published in a Special Report 8 on September 29, 2017, our research has found that not only should investors with different home currencies manage their foreign currency exposures differently, but also a dynamic hedging framework based on the indicators from BCA's Foreign Exchange Strategy service's Intermediate Timing Model (ITTM)9 outperforms all the static hedging strategies for all investors with six different home currencies (USD, EUR, JPY, GBP, AUD and CAD) (Chart 11). A few key observations from Chart 11 Static hedges reduces risk with little impact on returns for the USD and JPY investors only. Unlike the CAD investors, the AUD investors are much better off to hedge than not to, on a risk adjusted basis, even though AUD is also a commodity currencies, like the CAD. The 50% "least regret" hedge ratio has lived up to its reputation as it reduced risk by more than 50% without severely jeopardizing returns. And for the USD based investors, the 50% static hedge has a similar risk/return profile as the dynamic hedge. For all other five home currencies, however, the 50% static hedge underperforms the dynamic hedge. Global Economy Overview: Globally growth has accelerated, with inflation quiescent. We expect growth to continue to be strong, but U.S. inflation will start to normalize, which should trigger further Fed hikes and a rise in long-term rates. Japanese and euro zone growth will be less inflationary, given continued slack in these economies. U.S.: Growth has rebounded sharply after the seasonally weak Q1 and excessive expectations following the presidential election. The Citi Economic Surprise Index (Chart 12, panel 1) shows strong upward surprises. First-half GDP growth came in at 2.2% (above trend, which is estimated at 1.8%), and the manufacturing ISM reached 57.7 in September. The two big hurricanes will probably knock around 0.5 points off Q3 growth but the lesson from previous disasters is that this will be more than made up over the following three quarters. Rebounding capex, and consumption aided by a probable acceleration in wages, should keep GDP growth strong. Euro Area: Due to Europe's greater cyclicality and dependence on the global cycle, growth momentum is unsurprisingly even stronger than in the U.S., with Q2 GDP growth 2.3% YoY and the manufacturing PMI at 57.4. German growth has been particularly robust with the IFO index at 115.9, close to an all-time high, and German manufacturing wages growing by 2.9% YoY. The credit impulse suggests that the strong growth should continue, although the euro appreciation this year (and consequent tightening of financial conditions) might dampen it a little. Japan: Growth continues to be good in the external sector (with exports rising 18% YOY and industrial production 5%), but weak in the domestic economy, where household spending and core inflation continue to flatline. We do, though, see some first tentative signs of inflation: the Bank of Japan's estimate suggests the output gap has now closed, and the tight labor market is showing through in part-time hourly wages, which are rising 2.9%. Emerging Markets: China's PMI has oscillated around 50 all year (Chart 13, panel 3), as the authorities tried to stabilize growth ahead of October's Party Congress. But money supply and credit growth have been slowing all year, and this is now showing through in downside surprises in fixed asset investment and retail sales data. Especially if the congress moves towards structural reform and short-term pain, growth may slow further. This would be negative for other emerging markets, which depend on China for growth. Bank loan growth and domestic consumption generally remain weak throughout EM ex China. Chart 12Global Growth Is Accelerating... Global Growth Is Accelerating... Global Growth Is Accelerating... Chart 13...Propelling Europe And Japan ...Propelling Europe And Japan ...Propelling Europe And Japan Interest Rates: Inflation has been soft this year in the U.S. but is likely to pick up in coming months reflecting stronger economic growth and dollar depreciation. We expect the Fed to raise rates in December and confirm its three hikes next year. That should be enough to push the 10-year Treasury yield up to close to 3%. In Japan and the euro area, however, underlying inflationary pressures are much weaker. So we expect the Bank of Japan to stick to its yield curve control policy, and for the ECB to emphasize, when it announces in October next year's (reduced) asset purchase program, that it will be cautious about raising rates. Global Equities Chart 14Earnings Have Been Strong... Earnings Have Been Strong... Earnings Have Been Strong... Q3 2017 was the second quarter in a row when the price appreciation in global equities was driven entirely by earnings growth, since the forward price-to-earnings ratio contracted by 2% compared to Q2 (Chart 14). Chart 15No Compelling Reasons To Make Large Bets No Compelling Reasons To Make Large Bets No Compelling Reasons To Make Large Bets The scope of the improvement in earnings so far in 2017 has been wide. Not only are forward earnings being revised up, but 12-month trailing earnings growth has also been very strong, with all 10 top-level sectors registering positive earnings growth. Margins have steadily improved globally from the lows in early 2016. Despite the slight multiple compression in Q3, equity valuations are not cheap by historical standards. As an asset class, however, equities are still attractively valued compared to bonds, especially after the recent safe-haven buying drove global bond yields to very depressed levels. We remain overweight equities versus bonds on the 9-12 month horizon. Within equities, however, we think it's prudent to reduce portfolio risk by bringing allocations closer to benchmark weighting because 1) equities are not cheap, 2) volatility is low, 3) geopolitical tension is rising, and 4) year-on-year earnings growth over coming quarters may not be as strong as it has been so far this year because earnings in the first half of the 2016 were very depressed. As such, we downgrade the U.S. to neutral from overweight (+3 percentage points), and reduce the underweight in EM (to -2 from -5). We remain overweight the euro area and Japan (but hedge the yen exposure). Within EM, we have been more positive on China and remain so on a 6-9 month horizon. Sector-wise, we maintain our pro-cyclical tilt. Country Allocations: Downgrade U.S. To Neutral We started the year being "cautiously optimistic" with a maximum overweight (+6 ppts) in U.S. equities.10 We added risk at the end of the first quarter by reducing by half the U.S. overweight in order to upgrade the higher-beta euro area to overweight (+3) from neutral.11 The change has worked well, as the euro area outperformed the U.S. by 542 basis points (bps) in Q2 and then by 370 bps in Q3 in unhedged USD terms. Our DM-only quant model also started the year with a maximum overweight in the U.S., but the overweight was gradually reduced each month until July when the model indicated a benchmark weight for the U.S. The model continued its shift away from the U.S. in August and September, and now the U.S. is the largest underweight in the model. As we have previously stated, we use the quant model as one key input into our decision-making process, but we do not follow it slavishly because 1) no model can capture all the ever-changing driving forces in the market, and 2) the model moves more often than we prefer. In light of the rising geopolitical risks and low levels of volatility in all asset classes, we conclude that there are no longer compelling reasons to make large bets among the countries (Chart 15). Valuation in the U.S. is stretched, but neither is it cheap in EM anymore; both trailing and forward earnings growth in the U.S. are below the global average. Forward earnings in the EM look likely to outpace the global average, but EM trailing earnings growth seems to be losing steam. As such, we recommend investors to be neutral in the U.S. and use the funds to reduce the underweight in EM. Sector Allocation: Stay Underweight Global Utilities Overall, our sector positioning retains its tilt towards cyclicals and against defensives (see Table 1). Our global sector quant model, however, in September reduced its underweight in defensives by upgrading utilities to overweight from underweight, mainly due to the momentum factor. We have decided to overwrite the model result and maintain our underweight recommendation for the following reasons. In October, the model again downgraded utilities to underweight. In the most recent cycle post the Global Financial Crisis (GFC), the relative performance of utilities has been closely correlated with the performance of bonds vs. equities (Chart 16, top panel). This is not surprising given the bond-like nature of the sector. The sector enjoys a higher dividend yield than the global average: other than during the GFC, the excess yield has been in the range of 1-2%. In a low bond-yield environment, this yield pick-up is no doubt attractive. However, our house view is for global bond yields to rise over the next 9-12 months and we maintain our overweight on equities vs. bonds. As such, underweight utilities is in line with our overall risk/return assessment. In addition, even though the utilities sector has a higher dividend yield, the current reading is not particularly attractive compared to the five-year average (panel 4); valuation measures such as price to book (panel 3) show a neutral reading as well. The other sector where we override our quant model is Healthcare, which we favor as a long-term play because of favorable demographic trends, while the quant model points to an underweight due to short-term factors such as momentum and valuation. Smart Beta Update Year-to-date, the equal-weighted multi-factor portfolio has outperformed the global benchmark by 54 basis point (bps). (Table 1 and Chart 17) Among the five most enduring factors - size, value, quality, minimum volatility, and momentum - momentum is the only factor that has prevailed in both DM and EM universes, while quality has outperformed in the DM, but underperformed in EM. (Table 1) Chart 16Maintain Underweight Utilities Maintain Underweight Utilities Maintain Underweight Utilities Chart 17MSCI ACW: Factor Relative Performance MSCI ACW: Factor Relative Performance MSCI ACW: Factor Relative Performance Value has underperformed growth across the board (Table 1). The size performance, however, has large regional divergences in both value and growth spaces. Small cap has outperformed large cap consistently in both the value and growth spaces in the higher-beta euro area, Japan and U.K., while underperforming in the lower-beta U.S. (Table 2) We maintain our neutral view on styles and prefer to use sector positioning to implement the underlying factors given the historically close correlation between styles and cyclicals versus defensives (Chart 17, bottom two panels). Year-to-date cyclicals have outperformed defensives (Table 1). Table 1YTD Relative Performance* Quarterly - October 2017 Quarterly - October 2017 Table 2YTD Total Returns* (%) Small Cap - Large Cap Quarterly - October 2017 Quarterly - October 2017 Government Bonds Maintain Slight Underweight Duration. U.S. bond yields declined significantly in Q3 to below fair-value levels in response to heightened geopolitical risks and hurricanes (Chart 18, top panel). This safe-haven buying spread globally, despite ample evidence of faster global growth (middle panel) and less accommodative monetary policies from the major central banks. There is now considerable upside risk for global bond yields from these current low levels. Maintain Overweight TIPS Vs. Treasuries. The fall in nominal U.S. Treasury yields, however, was concentrated in the real yields, as 10-year break-even inflation widened in Q3 (Chart 18, panel 3). In terms of relative value, TIPS are now fairly valued vs. nominal bonds. However, our U.S. Bond Strategy's core PCE model, which closely tracks the 10-year TIPS breakeven rate (Chart 18, panel 3), is sending the message that inflationary pressures are building in the economy and that core PCE should reach the Fed's 2% target by the end of this year. This suggests that the bond markets are not providing adequate compensation for the inflationary economic backdrop. Underweight Canadian Government Bonds. The Bank of Canada (BOC) delivered another surprise 25 bps rate hike in September, due to "the impressive strength of the Canadian economy" and "the more synchronized global expansion that was supporting higher industrial commodity prices." BCA's Global Fixed Income Strategy has been underweight Canada in its hedged global portfolio and recommends investors not to fight the BOC despite little inflation pressure in the Canadian economy (Chart 19). Chart 18Poor Value in Nominal Government Bonds Poor Value in Nominal Government Bonds Poor Value in Nominal Government Bonds Chart 19Bank of Canada: Shock Hawks Bank of Canada: Shock Hawks Bank of Canada: Shock Hawks Corporate Bonds As inflation recovers and the Fed moves ahead with rate hikes, we expect long-term risk-free rates to rise moderately. Fair value for the 10-year U.S. Treasury yield is currently close to 2.7%. In the context of rising rates and continued economic expansion, we continue to prefer spread product over government bonds. Investment grade bonds in the U.S. trade at an average option-adjusted spread over Treasuries of 110 bps. While Aaa corporate spreads are expensive, other investment grade credit tiers appear fairly valued. Given the deterioration in our U.S. Corporate Health Monitor (Chart 20), amid a rise in leverage, over the past two years (Chart 21) we do not expect the spread to contract further or fall back close to historic lows. However, investors should still be moderately attracted by the carry in a low interest rate environment. Our preference is for U.S. investment-grade corporate bonds over European ones, since the latter could be negatively impacted when the ECB announces its tapering of asset purchases in October. High-yield bonds look attractive after a small rise in spreads and an improvement in the cyclical outlook over the past quarter. The current spread of U.S. high-yield, 360 bps, translates into a default-adjusted yield (assuming a 2.6% default rate and 49% recovery rate over the next 12 months) of 250 bps - close to the long-run average (Chart 22). European junk debt looks less attractive from a valuation perspective. Chart 20Corporate Health Is A Worry In The U.S. Corporate Health Is A Worry In The U.S. Corporate Health Is A Worry In The U.S. Chart 21IG Spreads Unlikely To Contract Further IG Spreads Unlikely To Contract Further IG Spreads Unlikely To Contract Further Chart 22High-Yield Debt Valuations Look Attractive High-Yield Debt Valuations Look Attractive High-Yield Debt Valuations Look Attractive Commodities Chart 23Mixed View Towards Commodities Mixed View Towards Commodities Mixed View Towards Commodities Secular perspective: Bearish We hold a bearish secular outlook for commodities, mainly due to our view on China's slowing economic growth and the increasing shift from traditional energy sources to alternatives. Cyclical perspective: Neutral Our short-term commodities view remains neutral since oil inventory drawdowns will push up the crude oil price further, and because low real interest rates will keep gold from falling this year. But industrial metals are likely to react negatively to the winding down of China's reflation after the Party Congress in mid-October. Precious metal: Short-term bullish, long-term bearish. We expect the Fed to tighten rates only slowly which, over time, will mean the central bank finds itself behind the curve on inflation. Real rates are expected to remain relatively low for the foreseeable future, which will be supportive of gold. Rising tension between North Korea and the U.S. could also give gold a lift. Industrial metals: Bearish The copper price has rallied by 10% during Q3 2017, thanks to supply-side disruptions at some of the world's largest copper mines, along with better-than-expected performance of the Chinese economy. However, mine interruptions will be transitory, and the world copper market is already back in balance (Chart 23, panel 3). Although the rebound in the Chinese PMI is keeping metal prices up, we believe China after the Party Congress will try to reengineer its economy towards being more consumption and services-led, which will temper demand for industrial metals. Energy: Bullish We believe that market has been overly pessimistic on oil, and that this will change due to declining inventories and better demand and supply dynamics. (Chart 23) The U.S. Energy Information Administration revised down its shale production forecast for 2H 2017 by 200,000 barrels/day, which should lower investors' concerns over shale overproduction. Libyan oil production, the biggest threat to our bullish oil view, faltered by 300,000/day in August, keeping OPEC in compliance with its promised cuts. Currencies U.S. Dollar: Year to date, the dollar is down by 8% on a trade-weighted basis (Chart 24). However, after a period of underperformance, the U.S. economy is improving relative to its G10 peers, as seen by the strong rebound in the U.S. ISM manufacturing index. Additionally, the pick-up in money velocity points to a recovery in core inflation. As inflation starts to pick up again, markets will discount additional Fed rate hikes. Stay bullish U.S. dollar over the next 12 months. Chart 24U.S. Dollar Recovery? U.S. Dollar Recovery? U.S. Dollar Recovery? Pound: After a weak start to the year, sterling has recovered all its losses. Strong net FDI inflows have pushed the basic balance back into positive territory. However, Brexit negotiations will impact the financial sector, the largest target for FDI. Additionally, the recent sharp increase in inflation came from the pass-through effect of the weaker currency, and is not reflective of domestic economic activity. We expect increased political uncertainty to weigh down on future growth, forcing the Bank of England to maintain a dovish stance. Stay bearish over the next 12 months. Dollar: On a trade-weighted basis the currency is up 4% year to date, primarily driven by the rally in select metal prices. OECD's measure of output gap still points to substantial slack in the domestic economy, as seen in the downtrend in core inflation and nominal retail sales. However, despite improvements in global trade and domestic real estate activity, the Reserve Bank of Australia will keep policy easy in response to volatile commodity markets. Stay bearish over the next 12 months. Canadian Dollar: Driven by net portfolio inflows near record highs, the currency is up 6% on a trade-weighted basis so far this year. With improving economic activity, as seen in strong retail sales, the Bank of Canada expects the output gap to close in 2018. However, going forward, oil prices are unlikely to double again, and the combination of elevated indebtedness, bubby house prices and rising rates will create headwinds for the household sector. Stay bearish over the next 12 months. Alternatives Chart 25Favor PE, Real Assets Favor PE, Real Assets Favor PE, Real Assets Return Enhancers: Favor private equity vs. hedge funds In 2017 so far, private equity has returned 9%, whereas hedge funds have managed only a 3.5% return (Chart 25). Given their strong performance, private equity firms are raising near-record amounts of capital from investors starved for yield. By contrast, hedge funds continue to underperform both global equities and private equity, as is typical outside of recessions or bear markets. However, increasing concerns about valuations in private markets have pushed private equity dry powder to new highs of $963 billion. We continue to favor private equity over hedge funds, albeit with a more cautious outlook. Within the hedge fund space, we favor event-driven funds over the cycle, and macro funds heading into a recession. Inflation Hedges: Favor direct real estate vs. commodity futures In 2017 to date, direct real estate has returned 3.3%, whereas commodity futures are down over 10%. With energy markets likely to continue to recover lost ground over the coming months, we stress the structural nature of our negative recommendation on commodities. Depressed interest rates will keep financing cheap, making the spread between real estate and fixed income yields attractive. However, the slowdown in commercial real estate has made us more cautious on the overall real estate space. With regards to the commodity complex, the long term transition of China to a service-based economy will continue the structural decline in commodity demand. Continue to favor direct real estate vs. commodity futures. Volatility Dampeners: Favor farmland & timberland vs. structured products In 2017 to date, farmland and timberland have returned 2.2% and 1.5% respectively, whereas structured products have returned 1.4%. Farmland continues to outperform timberland given the latter's lower correlation with growth. Timberland returns have also lagged farmland given the weak recovery in the U.S. housing market. Investors can reduce the volatility of a multi-asset portfolio with the inclusion of farmland and timberland. With regards to structured products, rising rates and deteriorating credit quality in the auto loan market will weigh on returns. Given the Fed's plans to start unwinding its balance sheet this year, increased supply will put upward pressure on spreads. Risks To Our View Our pro-risk positioning would be incorrect if global growth were to slow sharply. But we see little sign that this is a significant risk over the next six to 12 months. Of our three favorite indicators of recession risk, global PMIs remain strong, and the U.S. 10-minus-2 year yield curve is still solidly positive at around 80 BP. Only a small blip up in junk bond spreads in August (Chart 26) is of any concern, and it was probably caused just by geopolitical tensions. With U.S. and European consumption and capex looking strong, probably the biggest risk to global growth would come from China, similar to 2015, if October's Party Congress signals a shift to short-term pain to achieve structural reforms. Perhaps more likely is an upside surprise to growth, with BCA's models - based on consumer and business sentiment - pointing to around 3% real GDP growth in the U.S. and 2½% in the euro area over the coming couple of quarters (Chart 27). Such an acceleration of growth would raise the risk of upside surprises to inflation, which could cause a bigger sell off in bond markets than we currently anticipate. Chart 26Any Need To Worry About Credit Spreads? Any Need To Worry About Credit Spreads? Any Need To Worry About Credit Spreads? Chart 27Could Growth Surprise On The Upside? Could Growth Surprise On The Upside? Could Growth Surprise On The Upside? Chart 28Suppose Inflation Stays Stubbornly Low Suppose Inflation Stays Stubbornly Low Suppose Inflation Stays Stubbornly Low Our positioning is not based on inflation remaining chronically low. But structural changes in the economy could cause this. While the Philips curve has not broken down completely, wage growth in the U.S. is 1-1½% lower than in previous expansions when the unemployment gap was at its current level (Chart 28). Could the Nairu be lower than the Fed's estimate of 4.6%? Has the gig economy somehow changed worker and employer behavior? 1 Please see What Our Clients Are Asking: "What Will Happen After China's 19th Party Congress, And Will There Be A Slowdown In The Economy?" of this report. 2 For their most comprehensive analysis, please see Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "North Korea: Beyond Satire," dated April 19, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Special Report "China: Looking Beyond The Party Congress'' dated July 19, 2017. available at gps.bcaresearch.com). 4 Perold, A and E. Schulman, 1988, "The free lunch in currency hedging: Implications for investment policy and performance standards," Financial Analyst Journal 44, 45-50. 5 Froot K., 1993, "Currency hedging over long horizons," NBER working paper 4355. 6 Michenaud, S., and B., Solnik, 2008, "Applying Regret Theory to Investment Choices: Currency Hedging Decisions," Journal of International Money and Finance 27, 677-694. 7 Campbell, J., K. de Medeiros and L. Viceira, 2010, "Global Currency Hedging," Journal of Finance LXV, 87-122. 8 Please see Global Asset Allocation Special Report, "Currency Hedging: Dynamic Or Static? - A Practical Guide For Global Equity Investors," dated September 29, 2017, available at gaa.bcaresearch.com. 9 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy "In Search of A Timing Model," dated July 22, 2016, available at fes.bcaresearch.com. 10 Please see Global Asset Allocation, "Quarterly - December 2016," dated December 15, 2016. 11 Please see Global Asset Allocation, "Quarterly - April 2017," dated April 3, 2017. GAA Asset Allocation

Highlights Investors have soured on hedge funds, withdrawing US$ 70 billion net last year. This is unsurprising because hedge funds have greatly underperformed global equities since the Global Financial Crisis, and have struggled to achieve a return of even cash plus 4% because of low volatility and high cross-asset correlation. But hedge funds still have a place in a balanced multi-asset portfolio. They have a good track record of outperforming equities in recessions. We favor macro funds as a recession hedge. This strategy has outperformed even bonds in the past three recessions, and is the only hedge fund class with positive skew and low kurtosis. Outside of a recession, we favor event-driven funds for their lower-beta equity exposure and idiosyncratic return profile. Feature Chart 1 The hedge fund industry has received a considerable amount of bad press over the past couple of years due to its poor performance and high fees. Since 2010, the average annual return from hedge funds has been just 4%, while global equities have returned almost 9% a year. Fees have been trimmed back from the traditional 2/20, but still average 1.5% of assets and 17% of performance.1 As a result, investors last year withdrew a net US$ 70.1 billion from hedge funds, the first year ever of net withdrawals, apart from the Global Financial Crisis years of 2008-9 (Feature Chart). According to a survey by Preqin, 84%2 of investors cited unfavorable terms and conditions as the reason for withdrawing their money. But are investors right to have turned sour on hedge funds? Does the asset class no longer have a place in a diversified multi-asset portfolio? Can hedge funds still provide a useful hedge against the sharp drawdown in risk assets likely in the next recession? As so often, the general picture obscures the details. Hedge funds invest using wildly different strategies. In this report, we analyze the historical risk and return characteristics of different categories of hedge funds, and test their resilience during historical recessions and equity bear markets. We also examine the characteristics of each main hedge fund strategy individually, and asses its usefulness in asset allocation. Our conclusions are that, in general, hedge funds represent an expensive way to generate a return that in recent times has failed to beat a target of cash plus 4%. Hedge funds suffer from style drift (tending to take on increasing risk as an equity bull market continues), and therefore do not always provide acceptable returns in downturns. Moreover, manager selection is difficult, especially for smaller funds without the manpower or expertise to handle it well. However, we find that: Event-driven funds (for example, activist and M&A arbitrage strategies) do have a good long-term track record of generating alpha; Macro funds have historically provided attractive downside protection in recessions. Investors, therefore, should not abandon their allocations in hedge funds. In a world where valuations for most asset classes (equities, bonds, private equity, real estate etc.) are stretched, and where the probability of a global recession in the next two to three years is relatively high, a thoughtful and well-scaled investment in hedge funds still makes sense. A note on the data we used in this report. All the hedge fund returns are based on the equally-weighted monthly indices (HFRI)3 produced by Hedge Fund Research, Inc. Funds included in these indices must (1) report returns net of all fees, and (2) have at least $50 million under management or have been actively trading for at least 12 months. HFR makes significant efforts to avoid survivor bias. When a fund is removed from the index, the performance remains in the index until the point of liquidation or when the manager requests removal from the database. HFR makes stringent efforts to receive data of a fund's performance right up until the point of liquidation. Likewise, when a new fund is added to the index, its performance up to that date does not affect the historical performance of the index. Finally, if a non-liquidated fund does not report to the HFR database for three consecutive months, the fund is subject to removal from the HFRI, but its historical data remains. Analyzing Historical Returns Hedge funds have produced an impressive return of 10.1% a year since 1990, when reliable data starts. This compares to 6.9% for global equities and 6.2% for global bonds over the same period (Table 1). But all of this outperformance came before 2010. Over the past seven years, hedge funds have returned only 4% a year, compared to 8.5% for equities and 3.8% for bonds. Table 1Risk And Return Analysis Hedge Funds: Still Worth Investing In? Hedge Funds: Still Worth Investing In? There has clearly been a structural decline in hedge fund returns over time. Each five-year period since 1990 has seen a lower return than the previous five years, and the trend decline in returns is seen across all the major categories of hedge fund strategy (Table 2 and Chart 2). This is probably because the rapid growth in the hedge fund industry caused arbitrage opportunities to dry up and because, as individual funds got larger, they had less flexibility to invest. Table 2Risk And Return Analysis - By Period Hedge Funds: Still Worth Investing In? Hedge Funds: Still Worth Investing In? Chart 2Structural Or Cyclical? Structural Or Cyclical? Structural Or Cyclical? Hedge funds are supposed to be vehicles that "hedge" downside risk in periods of market stress and so can consequently generate a consistent return in excess of the risk-free rate. As one would expect, their performance, therefore, tends to be closer to that of bonds than of equities and, unsurprisingly, they have a close correlation with the performance of bonds over equities (Chart 3). But they have struggled in recent years to beat even their generally accepted benchmark of Libor + 4% (Chart 2 panel 1). Chart 3Are Hedge Funds Just 2/20 Bonds? Are Hedge Funds Just 2/20 Bonds? Are Hedge Funds Just 2/20 Bonds? From a risk perspective, all hedge fund strategies have a volatility somewhere between that of equities and bonds. Hedge fund return distribution is non-normal. Three of the four hedge fund strategies have exhibited negative skew, i.e. a higher-than-normal probability of negative returns. However, relative value is the only strategy with a large excess kurtosis, meaning that investors should expect extreme returns in periods of market stress. Macro has been the only strategy with a positive skew and a lower excess kurtosis than global equities. What Happened In Recessions? Hedge funds are, in theory, designed to give positive returns even during recessions and equity bear markets. Indeed they did so during the recessions of July 1990-March 1991 and March-November 2000. But, with the exception of global macro funds, they failed dismally to achieve a positive return in the December 2007-June 2009 recession (Table 3). Note, however, that all categories of hedge funds did outperform equities in the most recent recession. Table 3Recession Performance Hedge Funds: Still Worth Investing In? Hedge Funds: Still Worth Investing In? Global macro has clearly been the best hedge fund strategy at giving downside protection during recessions. It was the only category to outperform bonds during all three recessions in our analysis (Chart 4). The strategy's global cross-asset mandate and extensive use of derivatives enables it to achieve an option-like return distribution. Its nimbleness at switching exposures depending on the macro environment is clear from its sharp change of correlation with bonds and equities between recessions and expansions (Chart 5). This phenomenon is also seen to a lesser extent for event-driven and relative-value strategies. On the other hand, equity-hedge strategies have rising correlations with equities during recessions, mainly because of their net long bias. The cause of each equity bear market also has an impact on which hedge fund strategies perform the best (Chart 6). For example, relative-value strategies did well in the 1990-91 bear market, which was not accompanied by a deep economic recession. Conversely, event-driven funds severely underperformed during the 2007-2009 bear market because M&A deal activity dried up. Accordingly, investors looking to preserve capital in the next equity bear market need to pick a strategy after careful consideration of the likely cause of the next turndown. Chart 4 Chart 5 Chart 6 Hedge Fund Strategies Hedge funds encompass a wide range of investment styles, with managers using a myriad of different strategies to try to generate alpha. Below, we analyze the four main hedge fund strategies, explain the dynamics of their sub-categories and the relative attractions of their styles, and draw some conclusions about which are likely to be most appropriate in which environments. We also touch on whether using a fund of funds ever makes sense. Equity Hedge This strategy (Table 4) takes a long-short approach in equities, working under dedicated mandates with regard to capitalization, style and sector. The core strength of the group is superior bottom-up stock-picking coupled with long-short systematic risk hedging. Alpha generation is greater in less efficient, segmented markets with barriers to the free flow of information. Relative performance of this category (Chart 7) tends to be strongest when: There is significant dispersion of performance between sectors and stocks, giving hedge funds increasing opportunities for long-short trades; Value stocks outperform, since many long-short funds tend to be long cheap stocks and short expensive ones; Small caps outperform large caps. Many relative-value funds focus their long positions in smaller firms and their short positions in larger ones since small-cap stocks are less covered by sell-side analysts, resulting in more pricing inefficiencies. As a result of these biases and their generally net long positions, long-short equity hedge funds tend to have the strongest correlations with global equity markets and to perform worst in equity bear markets. Table 4Equity Hedge Strategies Hedge Funds: Still Worth Investing In? Hedge Funds: Still Worth Investing In? Chart 7Equity Hedge: High Beta Equity Exposure Equity Hedge: High Beta Equity Exposure Equity Hedge: High Beta Equity Exposure Event Driven This strategy (Table 5) pursues more opportunistic mandates and its returns are usually contingent on the successful completion of a specific corporate event. These funds tend to have a shorter investment horizon and use hedging techniques to isolate the event's impact on returns by reducing systematic risk. Alpha generation is dependent on the manager's ability to predict the outcome of corporate events. Activist and distressed funds focus more on value creation through operational turnarounds and hence have a longer investment period. The health of the M&A market (Chart 8) is the single biggest factor determining relative performance versus the hedge fund composite since it dictates exit valuations for most of the sub-strategies. We do not expect a recession until 2019 at the earliest, so deal volumes are likely to remain buoyant, which should help merger arbitrage funds generate good returns. Table 5Event Driven Strategies Hedge Funds: Still Worth Investing In? Hedge Funds: Still Worth Investing In? Chart 8Event Driven: Dependent On M&A Health Event Driven: Dependent On M&A Health Event Driven: Dependent On M&A Health The strategy also has a close correlation with credit spreads. This is partly because M&A deals tend to increase as the cost of funding the acquisition declines in an economic expansion. But it is also because distressed and restructuring funds have become more prominent over the years and their performance is linked to improving credit conditions. Macro This group (Table 6) utilizes a wide range of strategies taking exposure to movements in macroeconomic factors and their impact on asset classes. These funds tend to use leverage extensively and also dynamic risk-management techniques. Macro funds try to structure tactical positions to anticipate inflection points, and have a track record of generating significant outperformance in periods of stress. This means that this category has low kurtosis and skew, and has proved to be the best strategy for downside protection in recessions. Apart from in recessions, macro funds tend to outperform (Chart 9) only in times of credit-market stress (high-yield spread widening). But their recession-hedging properties are attractive, as seen by their negative correlation with equities and positive correlation with bonds during downturns. These tactical shifts in correlation led it to be the best strategy in three out of past four equity bear markets. Table 6Macro Strategies Hedge Funds: Still Worth Investing In? Hedge Funds: Still Worth Investing In? Chart 9Macro: Best Recession Hedge Macro: Best Recession Hedge Macro: Best Recession Hedge We generally prefer systematic rules-based funds over actively managed discretionary funds, as systematic funds offer better downside protection in recessions. However, systematic funds tend to underperform in trendless sideways-moving markets. Relative Value This group (Table 7) predominantly takes long/short positions in the rates and credit space. Most of the trades are arbitrage driven and depend on long-run mean reversion, thereby profiting from short-term deviations from fair value. Individual trades tend to have small profits, and so managers rely on leverage to magnify returns. With leverage comes the potential for extreme swings, as seen in this strategy's extremely high kurtosis. A famous example is the failure of Long Term Capital Management,4 which, at its peak, had an AUM of US$ 125 billion but just US$ 5 billion in equity capital. During 1995 and 1996 returns averaged 40% a year after fees. But, in the Asian financial crisis and the Russian default of 1997-1998, assets shrank to less than $1 billion in a matter of months. Relative-value funds have outperformed the hedge fund composite since the Global Financial Crisis largely as a result of low interest rates, which have reduced the cost of gearing up their positions (Chart 10). A rise in interest rates would represent a major headwind for this strategy. Table 7Relative Value Strategies Hedge Funds: Still Worth Investing In? Hedge Funds: Still Worth Investing In? Chart 10Relative Value: Rising Rates Are A Headwind Relative Value: Rising Rates Are A Headwind Relative Value: Rising Rates Are A Headwind Equity and interest rate volatility are also bad for relative-value fixed-income funds. Spikes in volatility render risk management models less effective. Additionally, relative value funds have exposures to the corporate credit space within their convertible arbitrage and corporate arbitrage sub-strategies. Hence, this group tends to underperform when high-yield spreads widen. Funds Of Funds Chart 11FOFs: Underperforming All The Way FOFs: Underperforming All The Way FOFs: Underperforming All The Way This group has seen a secular decline in AUM from USD$ 1.2 trillion to US$ 340 billion over the past 10 years.5 Returns have been poor relative to hedge funds as a whole (Chart 11), mainly because of their double layer of fees. However, funds of funds continue to have some attractions for smaller investors that are unable to meet minimum subscriptions for hedge funds or do not have the ability to handle their own manager selection. Funds of funds typically charge 1-1.5% on top of the underlying hedge funds' fees (and sometimes also a 10% performance fee). However they can often use their size to negotiate with hedge funds for a better deal on fees and innovative fee structures: for example, a larger proportion of the fee based on performance coupled with a high hurdle rate. This way they can partly reduce the aggregate fee burden (Chart 11, Panel 3). For larger investors such as pension plans and university endowments there is a choice between using a fund of funds and running their own in-house multi-strategy program. If we assume that the average fund of funds charges 1% in management fees, an investor looking to allocate $100 million should prefer to do this via a fund of funds if the cost of running an in-house program would be more than $1 million a year. Investment Implications In theory, given their focus on absolute return, hedge funds should underperform somewhat in an expansion and outperform significantly in a recession. They will tend to perform relatively poorly when volatility is low and cross-asset correlations high, as has been the case over the past eight years. However, as intervention by global central banks fades over the coming years - and with the risk of a recession on the horizon - volatility is likely to mean-revert closer to historical averages, which should create more opportunities for alpha. The hedge fund industry could come into its own again. But picking the right managers and strategy is crucial. There is a large dispersion between the performance of top and bottom decile hedge fund managers: in 2016, for example, top-decile funds made an average return of +32.7%, bottom-decile managers -15.5%.6 Intra-correlation between hedge fund strategies has recently fallen to a new low (Chart 12), so it is also important to choose the right strategy. Investors should have a preference for smaller hedge funds. These can be more nimble, allowing them to liquidate assets more readily in a downturn, and to have easier access to smaller, more inefficiently priced markets. They are likely to continue their recent outperformance (Chart 13) in an environment more dependent on security selection. We have two broad strategy recommendations contingent on the market environment (Chart 14): In a recession. Overweight macro funds, given their track record of impressive downside protection in recessions and equity bear markets. Now should be an attractive entry point given that the group has underperformed the hedge fund composite by 35% since the financial crisis. Over the cycle. Overweight event-driven funds, which have historically been an effective equity play with idiosyncratic exposures and lower beta risk. Deal activity is likely to remain strong thanks to companies' large cash balances and, for U.S. companies, prospective corporate tax reforms which will allow them to repatriate retained earnings held overseas. Chart 12Strategy Picking Is Crucial Strategy Picking Is Crucial Strategy Picking Is Crucial Chart 13 Chart 14Overweight Event Driven And Macro Overweight Event Driven And Macro Overweight Event Driven And Macro Aditya Kurian, Research Analyst Global Asset Allocation adityak@bcaresearch.com 1 Source: Hedge Fund Research. 2 Source: Preqin Investor Outlook: Alternative Assets H1 2017. 3 Source: HFRI Hedge Fund Indices, Defined Formulaic Methodology. 4 Source: http://www.investmentreview.com/print-archives/winter-1999/the-story-of-long-term-capital-management-752/ 5 Source: BarclayHedge. 6 Source: Hedge Fund Research.

Highlights Recommended Allocation Quarterly - April 2017 Quarterly - April 2017 The sweet spot of non-inflationary accelerating growth is likely to continue. European politics will fade as a risk, and Trump should still be able to get tax cuts through. We continue to be positive on risk assets on a one-year horizon, though returns are unlikely to be as good as in the past 12 months and there is a risk of the next recession arriving in 2019. Our portfolio tilts are generally pro-risk and pro-cyclical. We are overweight equities versus fixed income. We move overweight euro area equities, which should benefit from inexpensive valuations, higher beta and a falling political risk premium. Within fixed income, we prefer credit over government bonds, and raise high-yield debt to overweight on improved valuations. We expect the dollar to appreciate further, which makes us cautious on emerging market assets and industrial commodities. Feature Overview No Reasons To Turn Cautious Markets have paused for breath following the reflation trade that began a year ago and that was given an extra boost by the election of Donald Trump in November. Since the turn of the year, the dollar, U.S. 10-year Treasury yields, credit spreads and (to a degree) equities have all eased back a little (Chart 1). We don't think the risk-on rally is over, but the going will undoubtedly get tougher from here. The momentum of global growth cannot continue to rise at the same pace, with the Global PMI already at its highest level since 2011 (Chart 2). Global equities, therefore, are unlikely to return the 16% over the next 12 months, that they have over the past 12. Chart 1A Pause For Breath A Pause For Breath A Pause For Breath Chart 2Growth Momentum Must Slow From Here Growth Momentum Must Slow From Here Growth Momentum Must Slow From Here Nonetheless, we see nothing that is likely to stop risk assets continuing to outperform over the one-year horizon: Growth is likely to rise further. While the initial pick-up was in "soft" data such as consumer sentiment and business confidence, signs are emerging that "hard" data such as household spending and production are now also improving (Chart 3). Models developed by our colleagues on The Bank Credit Analyst indicate that real GDP growth in the U.S. this year will come in above 3% and in the euro area above 2% (Chart 4),1 compared to consensus forecasts of 2.2% and 1.6% respectively. Chart 3Hard Data Also Not Picking Up Hard Data Also Not Picking Up Hard Data Also Not Picking Up Chart 4GDP Growth Could Beat Consensus GDP Growth Could Beat Consensus GDP Growth Could Beat Consensus For now, this growth is unlikely to prove inflationary. In the U.S. the diffusion index for PCE inflation shows more prices in the basket falling than rising; in the eurozone, the rise to 2% in headline inflation in January was temporary, mainly because of higher oil prices, and core inflation remains at only 0.7%. The U.S. output gap will close soon, but the eurozone's is still deeply negative (Chart 5). We see the Fed raising rates twice more this year, in line with its dots, though it may have to accelerate the pace next year if the Trump administration succeeds in passing fiscal stimulus. The ECB, however, is unlikely to raise rates until 2019 and will taper asset purchases only slowly.2 Misplaced worries that it will tighten more quickly than this have recently dragged on European equities and strengthened the euro. We think the market is wrong to price out the probability of a tax cut in the U.S. just because of the Trump administration's failure to reform healthcare. Our Geopolitical strategists argue that Republicans in Congress (even the Freedom Caucus) are united behind the idea of cutting taxes, even if these are not funded by tax reforms or spending cuts (they can be justified on the grounds of "dynamic scoring").3 We see a cut in corporate and personal taxes passing before year-end to take effect in 2018. And Trump has not abandoned the idea of infrastructure spending. The market no longer expects any of this: the prices of stocks that would most benefit from lower corporate taxes or from government spending have reverted to their pre-election levels. European political risk is likely to wane. The market continues to worry about the possibility of Marine Le Pen winning the French Presidential election, as shown in the spread of OATs over Bunds (which has widened to 60-80 bp from 20 bp last summer). We think this very unlikely: polls show her consistently at least 20 points behind Emmanuel Macron in the second round of voting (Chart 6). While Italian politics remain a risk, the parliamentary election there is unlikely to take place until March 2018. Brexit is a threat to the U.K., but should have minimal impact on the eurozone. We retain, therefore, our pro-cyclical and pro-risk tilts on a 12-month time horizon. We have even added a little more beta to our recommended portfolio by raising high-yield bonds to overweight (since their valuations now look more attractive after a recent sell-off) and by going overweight eurozone stocks (paid for by notching down our double-overweight in U.S. stocks). The eurozone has consistently been a higher beta (Chart 7), more cyclical equity market than the U.S. and, once the political risks (at least temporarily) subside, should be able to outperform for a while. Chart 5Eurozone Output Gap Still Very Negative Eurozone Output Gap Still Very Negative Eurozone Output Gap Still Very Negative Chart 6Can Le Pen Really Win From Here? Can Le Pen Really Win From Here? Can Le Pen Really Win From Here? Chart 7Eurozone Is A High Beta Stock Market Eurozone Is A High Beta Stock Market Eurozone Is A High Beta Stock Market But we warn that the good times may not last for long. Tax cuts in the U.S. would add stimulus to an economy already at full capacity. The Fed might have to raise rates sharply next year (although the timing might depend on how President Trump tries to affect monetary policy, for example whom he appoints as Fed chair to replace Janet Yellen next February). U.S. recessions have typically come two or three years after the output gap turns positive (Chart 5). As Martin Barnes, BCA's chief economist, recently wrote,4 that may point to next recession arriving as soon as 2019. Garry Evans, Senior Vice President Global Asset Allocation garry@bcaresearch.com What Our Clients Are Asking Chart 8Expensive, But Not At An Extreme Expensive, But Not At An Extreme Expensive, But Not At An Extreme Aren't You Worried About U.S. Equity Valuations? Valuation is a poor timing tool in the short term but, when it reaches extremes, it has historically added value. The valuation metrics we watch show that U.S. equities are expensive, but not at the extreme levels that have historically warranted an outright sell or underweight. First, according to MSCI, U.S. equities are currently trading at 24.4 times 12-month trailing earnings, and 25.7 times 10-year cyclically-adjusted earnings; both measures are about one standard deviation from their 10-year averages. Second, U.S. equities are trading at a premium to global equities, but the premium to the developed markets is in line with the 10-year average (Chart 8, panel 1), while the premium to emerging markets is about 1.5 standard deviations from the 10-year average (panel 2). Third, equities are cheap compared to fixed income: the earnings yield is still higher than the yields on both 10-year government bonds and investment grade corporate bonds, and the yield gaps are currently only slightly lower (more expensive) than their respective 10-year averages (panels 3 and 4). In the long run, the 10-year cyclically-adjusted PE (CAPE) has had relatively good forecasting power for 10 year forward returns. Currently, the regression indicates 143% (9.3% annualized) total returns over the next 10 years. This could be on the optimistic side given that we are no longer in an environment of declining bond yields and margins are elevated compared to the 1990s. That said, we have cut our U.S. equity overweight by half, partly due to valuation concerns. Is EM Debt Attractive? Chart 9Avoid EM Debt Avoid EM Debt Avoid EM Debt Emerging market debt has continued its run from last year, with sovereign and local currency debt providing YTD returns of 3% and 2% respectively. Over long periods, EM debt has displayed the ability to provide substantial returns while also providing robust diversification benefits to a 50/50 DM equity/bond portfolio, even more so than EM equities.5 However, over the cyclical horizon, we remain bearish on EM debt both in absolute terms and relative to global equities. EM fixed income markets have been able to defy deteriorating fundamentals for some time, but this is unsustainable. After years of leveraging, credit excesses will need to be unwound. Decelerating credit growth will be enough to dampen economic growth and damage emerging markets' ability to service their debt. Risks in EM sovereign debt markets are high. Historical returns have shown negative skewness and fat tails, suggesting high vulnerability to large downswings. This is particularly concerning given that yields are one standard deviation lower than their long-term average (Chart 9). While EM local currency debt is more fairly priced and has a more favorable risk/return profile than its sovereign debt counterpart, local currency debt returns are even more heavily influenced by their currencies. Above-trend growth in the U.S. leading to additional rate hikes, as well as rising U.S. bond yields and softer commodity prices will add further downward pressure to EM currencies. For EM dedicated investors, we suggest overweight positions in low beta/defensive markets. Regions that are less susceptible to currency weakness with high yields and low foreign funding requirements include Russia, India and Indonesia. How Will The Fed Shrink Its Balance Sheet, And Does It Matter? After the Fed's third rate hike, attention is turning to when it will begin to reduce its balance sheet. This has grown to $4.5 trillion, up from $900 billion before the Global Financial Crisis. Assets currently include $2.5 trillion of Treasury securities and $1.8 trillion of mortgage-related securities. Since asset purchases ended in October 2014, the Fed has rolled over maturing bonds to maintain the size of the balance sheet. The FOMC statement last December committed to maintaining this policy "until normalization of the level of the federal funds rate is well under way". The market takes this to mean 1-1.5%, a level likely to be reached by year-end. The view of BCA's fixed income team6 is that the Fed will start by ceasing reinvestment of Agency bonds and mortgage-backed securities (MBS) in 2018, at the same time reducing excess bank reserves on the liability side of the balance sheet (Chart 10). This will worry markets to a degree and the Fed will need to be careful how it communicates the policy: for example what size it thinks its balance sheet should ultimately be. It may also need to skip a rate hike or two in the first months of the shrinkage. The MBS market is likely to suffer from the increased supply. But the only historical precedent - the BoJ's unwinding of its 2000-3 QE - is reassuring: this had no discernible effect on rates or the yen (Chart 11). Chart 10Fed Will Cut MBSs First Fed Will Cut MBSs First Fed Will Cut MBSs First Chart 11Nobody Noticed The BoJ Taper Nobody Noticed The BoJ Taper Nobody Noticed The BoJ Taper When Will ECB Taper? Chart 12Recovery Not Permanent Recovery Not Permanent Recovery Not Permanent Euro area growth is recovering and headline inflation has hit the ECB's 2% target (Chart 12). Investors are wondering how rapidly the ECB will taper its asset purchases and when it will raise rates. Our view is that the ECB will move only slowly. The pickup in inflation is mostly driven by the base effect and by the rise in energy prices. The failure of core inflation, which remains below 1%, to pick up appreciably suggests that underlying price pressures are weak. The current program has the ECB purchasing EUR 60 Bn of assets each month until December 2017. Markets have recently become more hawkish with regards to the likely path of policy: currently futures are pricing in the first hike only 19 months away versus an expectations in January of 44 months. We expect the ECB to remain more dovish than that, given weak underlying inflation, political uncertainty, and banking system troubles. We think the ECB will announce around September this year a taper of its asset purchases in 2018. However, it is not clear whether it will cut them to, say EUR 30 Bn a month, or whether it will reduce the amount steadily each month or quarter. But we don't see an interest rate hike soon, since the euro area economy is not expected to reach full employment until 2019. Ewald Novotny, president of the Austrian central bank, spooked markets by suggesting a hike before complete withdrawal of asset purchases but, in our view, that would will send a confusing signal to investors. Nowotny has long been hawkish and we think his view is untypical of ECB council members. If our analysis is correct, ECB policy should be positive for euro area equities and bearish for the euro over the next 12 months. Will REIT Underperformance Continue? Chart 13Underweight REITs Underweight REITs Underweight REITs Relative REIT performance has continued its downtrend, underperforming the broad index by 5% YTD. While valuations have become more attractive and rental income is still robust, we expect the decline to continue given unsupportive macro factors. We previously argued that real estate is in a sweet spot, where economic growth was sufficient to generate sustainable tenant demand without triggering a new supply cycle.7 This is no longer the case. Office completions increased substantially over the past quarter and apartment completions remain in an uptrend. As we expect growth to remain robust in the U.S., the likelihood is that these two trends remain in place. REIT relative performance peaked at the beginning of August, shortly after long-term interest rates bottomed. REITs have historically outperformed when yields are falling and inflation is low (Chart 13). However, long-term rates should continue to rise over the cyclical horizon, primarily due to higher inflation expectations. Additionally, REITs typically benefit from increasing central bank asset purchases, as increased liquidity and lower interest rates boost real estate values. With the Fed clearly in tightening mode and the strong likelihood of ECB tapering next year, slowing asset purchases will be a considerable headwind to REIT performance. Within REITs, we maintain our sector tilts. Continue to favor Industrials, which will benefit in a rising USD environment and provide considerable income. Maintain underweight position in Apartments, due to rising completions and a low absorption ratio. Additionally, we continue to favor trophy over non-trophy markets given more stable rent growth as well as geopolitical risks in Europe and potential Washington disappointments. Global Economy Overview: The global economy has continued to recover from its intra-cycle slowdown in late 2015 and early 2016. Economic surprise indexes have everywhere surprised significantly on the upside since mid-2016 (Chart 14, panel 1). Although "hard" data (consumption, production etc.) have lagged "soft" data (consumer sentiment, business confidence), the former also have begun to recover recently. Although there are few negative indicators, it will get harder to beat expectations. U.S.: Lead indicators continue to improve, with the manufacturing ISM at 57.7 and new orders at 65.1. Sentiment quickly turned bullish after the presidential election, and hard data has now started to follow, with personal consumption expenditure rising 4.7% year on year and capital goods orders (+2.7% YoY in February) growing for the first time since 2014. With steady wage growth, continuing employment improvements, and a likely pick-up in capex, we expect 2017 GDP growth to beat the current consensus expectations of 2.2%. For now inflation remains quiescent, with core PCE inflation stuck at around 1.8%, below the Fed's 2% target. Euro Area: Leading indicators, such as PMIs, have rebounded in Europe too (Chart 15), suggesting that the consensus 2017 GDP forecast of 1.6% is achievable. Inflation has picked up, with the headline CPI 2.0% for the Eurozone in January, but core inflation remains low at 0.7% and headline fell back to 1.5% in February. However, the recent slowdown in bank loan growth (new credit creation is 36% below the level six months ago) suggests that continuing weakness in the banking sector is likely to keep growth sluggish. Chart 14How Long Can Growth Continue To Surprise? How Long Can Growth Continue To Surprise? How Long Can Growth Continue To Surprise? Chart 15A Synchronized Global Growth Rebound A Synchronized Global Growth Rebound A Synchronized Global Growth Rebound Japan is a tale of two segments. International-oriented data have recovered, with IP up 3.7% (Chart 15, panel 2) and exports +5.4% year on year. But domestic demand remains weak: wages are rising only 0.5% YoY (despite a tight labor market), which is holding back household spending (-1.2% YoY in January). Core inflation has shown the first signs of picking up, but remains very low at 0.1% YoY. Emerging Markets: The effects of China's reflationary policies from early 2016 continue to boost activity (Chart 15, panel 3). But the excess liquidity they triggered worries the authorities, who have clamped down on real estate purchases and capital outflows, slowed fiscal spending, and tightened monetary policy. China will prioritize stability until the Party Congress in the fall, but the impact of reflation on commodity prices and on other emerging markets will fade. Interest rates: The Fed is likely to hike twice more this year in line with its "dot plot", unless inflation surprises significantly to the upside. This, plus an acceleration of nominal GDP growth to 4.5-5%, should push the 10-year bond yield above 3% by year end. The ECB will not be as hawkish as the market expects (futures markets indicate a rate hike by end-2018), since Mario Draghi expects headline inflation to fall back once the oil price stabilizes and is concerned about political risk especially in Italy. Consequently, rates are unlikely to rise as quickly as in the U.S. The Bank of Japan will keep its 0% yield target for 10-year JGB for the foreseeable future. Global Equities Global equities continued to make impressive gains in Q1 2017, after a strong 2016. The price appreciation since the low in February 2016 has been driven by both multiple expansion and earnings growth, roughly in equal proportion, as shown in Chart 16, panel 1. Chart 16Earnings Improving But Valuation Stretched Earnings Improving But Valuation Stretched Earnings Improving But Valuation Stretched Equity valuation is expensive by historical standards but, as an asset class, equities are still attractively valued compared to bonds (see the "What Our Clients Are Asking" section on page 6). In this "TINA" (There Is No Alternative) world, we remain overweight equities versus bonds. Within equities, we maintain our call of favoring DM equities versus EM equities despite of the 6% EM outperformance in Q1, which was supported by attractive valuations. About half of that outperformance came from the appreciation of EM currencies versus the USD. Our house view is that the USD will strengthen further versus the EM currencies. Within EM, we have been more positive on China and remain so on a 6-9 month horizon. The only adjustment we make now is to upgrade euro area equities to overweight by reducing half of our large overweight in the U.S. so that now we are equally overweight the U.S. and euro area (see details on the next page). In terms of global sector positioning, we maintain a pro-cyclical tilt. Our largest overweight in Healthcare panned out very well in Q1 but the overweight in Energy did not, due to the drop in oil prices. Our Energy strategists believe this was caused by one-off technical factors on the supply side, and argue that the oil price will soon revert to $55 a barrel. Euro Area Equities: A Cheaper Alternative To The U.S. Political risks related to elections in some eurozone countries are receding. The ECB is likely to maintain its easy monetary policies, while the Fed is on track to normalize interest rates in the U.S. We have had a large overweight of 6 percentage points (ppts) on U.S. equities while being neutral on the euro area. We upgrade the eurozone to overweight by 3 ppts, so that we are now equally overweight the U.S. and the euro area. The following are the reasons: First, the relative performance of total returns between eurozone and the U.S. equities is at its lowest since 1987. Since April 2015, when the most recent brief period of eurozone outperformance ended, eurozone equities have underperformed the U.S. by over 16% in common currency terms (Chart 17, panel 1), while the euro lost only about 4% versus the USD over the same period. Second, eurozone equities are trading at a 22% discount to the U.S., compared to the five-year average discount of 17% (panel 3). Third, eurozone equities have lower margins than the U.S., but the profit margin in the eurozone has been improving (panel 2). Lastly, the PMIs in the euro area have been improving (panel 4) and this improvement is faster than the global aggregate PMI (panel 5), which implies - based on the close correlation between PMIs and earnings growth - that profitability in the eurozone should improve at a faster pace than the global average. Sector Allocation: We have had a relatively pro-cyclical tilt in our global sector positioning, overweight three cyclical sectors (Energy, Industrials and Info Tech) plus Healthcare, while underweight three defensive sectors (Consumer Staples, Telecoms and Utilities) as well as Consumer Discretionary. We have been neutral on Financials and Materials. After very strong performance in 2016, cyclical sectors underperformed in Q1 2017 (Chart 18, panel 1). The underperformance of cyclicals versus defensives can be largely attributed to the polar-opposite performance of Energy and Healthcare (Chart 19). Going forward, we maintain our current sector positioning for the following reasons: Chart 17Earnings Growth At Lower Valuation Earnings Growth At Lower Valuation Earnings Growth At Lower Valuation Chart 18Maintain The Cyclical Tilt Maintain The Cyclical Tilt Maintain The Cyclical Tilt Chart 19Global Sector Performance Quarterly - April 2017 Quarterly - April 2017 First, Energy was the only sector which fell in Q1, largely due to the decline in oil prices. BCA's Energy and Commodity Strategy attributes the oil price weakness to inventory buildup related to the production rush before the OPEC agreement to cut production, and therefore expects the WTI oil price to return to the $50-55 range. Energy stocks should benefit once oil prices turn back up. Chart 20Relative Factor Performance Relative Factor Performance Relative Factor Performance Second, the relative profitability between cyclicals and defensives is underpinned by global economic conditions, as represented by the global PMI. The PMI is on track to recover further, which bodes well for the profit outlook for cyclicals versus defensives. Third, our pro-cyclical tilt in sector positioning is hedged by an overweight in Healthcare (a defensive sector) and underweight in Consumer Discretionary (a cyclical). Smart Beta Update: No Style Bet Q1 2017 saw some significant performance reversals in the five most enduring factors: quality, minimum volatility, momentum, value, and size (Chart 20, panels 2-6). Quality and Momentum performed the best, outperforming the global benchmark by over 200 bps in Q1. The star performer in 2016, the Value factor, performed the worst, underperforming by 190 bps. According to the findings in our Special Report,8 recent factor performance seems to be pricing in a "Goldilocks" environment in which growth is rising and inflation falling. We have shown that it is very difficult to time the shift in factor performance cycles and so have advocated an equal weight in the five factors (Chart 20, panel 1) for long-term investors. We reiterate this view. Government Bonds Maintain slight underweight duration. Our 2-factor model made up of global PMI and U.S. dollar sentiment indicates the current fair value of the 10-year Treasury yield is 2.4% (Chart 21). While this suggests bonds are currently correctly priced, we still expect that long-term yields will rise over a cyclical horizon. The long end should grind higher given improving growth, rising equity prices and renewed "animal spirits." Additionally, large net short positions have been unwound, allowing for another leg higher in yields. Overweight TIPS vs. Treasuries. Diffusion indexes for both PCE and CPI inflation shifted into negative territory, suggesting realized inflation will soften in the near term. Nevertheless, with headline and core CPI readings of 2.7% and 2.2% respectively, U.S. inflation has clearly bottomed for the cycle (Chart 22). This trend should continue as a result of cost-push inflation driven by faster wage growth. Very gradual Fed hikes will not be enough to derail the upward momentum in consumer prices. Euro area growth is stable, but expectations of a rate hike from the ECB are premature (Chart 23). While the central bank opened the door slightly to a less-accommodative policy stance, it is unlikely that the ECB will hike until full employment is reached. Our expectation is for a tapering of asset purchases to occur in 2018. Once tapering is complete, rate hikes will follow by approximately 6-12 months. The implication is upward pressure on European bond yields and wider spreads for peripheral government debt. Chart 2110-Year Treasury Fair Value Model 10-Year Treasury Fair Value Model 10-Year Treasury Fair Value Model Chart 22Inflation Has Bottomed Inflation Has Bottomed Inflation Has Bottomed Chart 23Will the ECB Hike Soon? Will the ECB Hike Soon? Will the ECB Hike Soon? Corporate Bonds The BCA Corporate Health Monitor remains deeply in "Deteriorating Health" territory, indicating weakness within corporate balance sheets (Chart 24). Over the last quarter, the indicator worsened, as profit margins, return-on-capital and liquidity declined. However, leverage did improve slightly. The trend toward weaker corporate health has been firmly established over the past 12 quarters. This is consistent with the very late stages of past credit cycles. Maintain overweight to Investment Grade debt. The U.S. is in a self-reinforcing, low-inflation recovery. Economic growth should accelerate throughout 2017, with strong consumer spending, rising capex intentions, and still accommodative monetary policy. The potential sell-off from rate hikes this year should be fairly mild given that the market is already close to pricing in three. Additionally, credit has historically outperformed in the early stages of the Fed tightening cycle. Expect low but positive excess returns (Chart 25). Shift to overweight in high-yield debt. Our default model is showing improvement due to elevated interest coverage, a robust PMI reading, declining job cut announcements, softening lending standards and a rising sales/inventory ratio. The recent backup in yields has made junk bond valuations more attractive. The default adjusted spread, calculated by subtracting an ex-ante estimate of default losses from the average spread, is now approximately 220bps (Chart 26). Chart 24Balance Sheets Deteriorating Balance Sheets Deteriorating Balance Sheets Deteriorating Chart 25A Supportive Backdrop A Supportive Backdrop A Supportive Backdrop Chart 26High Yield: Valuations Becoming More Attractive High Yield: Valuations Becoming More Attractive High Yield: Valuations Becoming More Attractive Commodities Chart 27Upside To Resource Prices Limited Upside To Resource Prices Limited Upside To Resource Prices Limited Secular Perspective: Bearish A slowdown in Chinese activity, led by its transition to a services economy, coupled with unfavorable global demographics, will continue to constrain demand for commodities. This slack in demand coupled with excess capacity will continue to limit the upside in resource prices and prolong the commodities bear market which began in 2012 (Chart 27). Cyclical Perspective: Neutral Energy markets have moved from excess supply to excess demand, and so we remain positive on oil. But, with the impact of Chinese fiscal stimulus waning, excess supply in the metals market will persist, putting downward pressure on prices. Our divergent outlook for energy vs metals gives us an overall neutral view for commodities over the cyclical horizon. Energy: With a synchronized upturn in global growth and inflation, both OECD and non-OECD demand will remain strong. Following Saudi Arabia's production cuts, we expect the OPEC agreement to be honored by all members, including Russia. With strengthening demand and falling production, storage should draw through the year. We expect the oil-USD divergence to persist as improving fundamentals override the stronger dollar. Base Metals: With Chinese government spending slowing from 24% growth year on year in January 2016 to only 4%, the country's fiscal impulse has ended. Tightening in Chinese liquidity conditions have led to higher borrowing rates for the real estate sector, which is dampening its demand for materials. At the same time, inventories for key metals such as copper and steel have risen. We expect metals prices to correct over the coming months. Precious Metals: Gold has rallied 10% from last December, and another 4% following the Fed's March rate hike. These were responses to the dovish nature of the hike and continuing political risk. We expect the Fed to turn more hawkish in coming weeks, sending the dollar and real yields higher, thereby holding back the gold price from rising much further. Currencies Chart 28Return Of The Dollar Return Of The Dollar Return Of The Dollar USD: The last Fed meeting resulted in a dovish hike, as evidenced by the subsequent fall in the dollar. However, as the U.S. economy nears full employment, we expect a more hawkish tone from FOMC members in the coming weeks which will push the dollar up (Chart 28). The Fed continues to be data dependent, and sees the recent synchronized global upturn as an opportunity to deliver hikes in line with market expectations. Euro: As the economy stabilizes, as evidenced by rising headline inflation, stronger retail sales and improving PMI numbers, the ECB has opened the window for reducing monetary accommodation. However, since the economy is expected to reach full employment only in 2019, we expect rates to be kept low even after the tapering of ECB asset purchases starts next year. This will add further downward pressure on the euro. Yen: The Bank of Japan will continue its highly accommodative monetary policy, centered on its 0% yield target for 10-year government bonds, because Japanese growth and inflation is lagging the global upturn. Japan is benefitting from global growth, as seen in the improvement in its manufacturing PMI, but domestic demand remains weak as consumer confidence and retail sales stagnate. Continued downward pressure on relative interest rates will drive the only reliable source of inflation: a weaker yen. EM: A more hawkish Fed and rising bond yields will tighten global liquidity conditions, making it difficult for emerging nations that run current account deficits. The rising threat of protectionism could affect EM exports and create a new wave of deflationary pressure, forcing central banks to engineer currency devaluation. The fact that commodity prices have risen, yet EM currencies have remained weak, is a clear indications that EM fundamentals are weak. Alternatives Overweight private equity / underweight hedge funds. Leading indicators suggest that global growth continues to improve. In the absence of a recession, private equity typically outperforms as the illiquidity premium should provide a boost to returns. Additionally, surveys suggest that managers are planning on increasing their allocation percentage toward private equity over the rest of the year. Hedge funds, on the other hand, have displayed a negative correlation with global growth. Historically, they have outperformed private equity only during recessions or periods of high credit market stress (Chart 29). Overweight direct real estate / underweight commodity futures. Demand for commercial real estate (CRE) assets remains robust but the increase in completions is worrying. Favor Industrials for its income potential and Retail given resilient consumer spending. Overweight trophy markets, as demand remains robust given multiple macro risks. Commodities have bounced, but remain in a secular bear market caused by a supply glut and exacerbated by a market-share war (Chart 30). Overweight farmland & timberland / underweight structured products. The potential for trade wars, geopolitical risk in Europe and concerns over an equity market correction have increased the importance of volatility reduction. Favor farmland & timberland. Substantial portfolio diversification benefits, resulting from low correlations with traditional assets, coupled with a positive skew, make these assets highly attractive. As the most bond-like alternative, the end of the 35-year bull market in bonds presents a substantial headwind. Structured products also tend to outperform during recessions, which is not our base case (Chart 31). Chart 29PE: Tied To Real Growth PE: Tied To Real Growth PE: Tied To Real Growth Chart 30Commodities: A Secular Bear Market Commodities: A Secular Bear Market Commodities: A Secular Bear Market Chart 31Structured Products Outperform In Recessions Structured Products Outperform In Recessions Structured Products Outperform In Recessions Risks To Our View Our pro-cyclical pro-risk tilts are based on the premise that global growth will remain strong over the next 12 months. We do not see many risks to this view: leading indicators suggest that consumption and capex are likely to continue to rebound. The one major indicator that suggests downside risk is loan growth. In the U.S., loans to firms have slowed to 5.4% from over 10% last summer, and in the euro area the meager pickup in corporate loan growth seems to have faltered (Chart 32). There may be some special factors: oil companies that borrowed in early 2016 when in difficulty no longer need to tap credit lines, and U.S. companies may be holding back to see details of tax cuts. But loan growth needs to be watched closely. More granularly, our country and sector preferences - in particular, our cautious views on Emerging Markets and industrial commodities - are based partly on the expectation that the U.S. dollar will appreciate further. If the global expansion remains highly synchronized (Chart 33) this might instigate all G7 central banks to tighten, allowing the Fed to raise rates without appreciating the dollar. However, we expect continuing divergences in growth and monetary policy to push the dollar up further. Finally, some indicators suggest that investors have become too positive on the outlook for stocks (Chart 34). Sentiment has in the past not been a reliable indicator of stock market peaks, but excess euphoria could trigger a short-term correction. Chart 32Why Is Bank Loan Growth Slowing? Why Is Bank Loan Growth Slowing? Why Is Bank Loan Growth Slowing? Chart 33Could Synchronized Growth Push Down USD? Could Synchronized Growth Push Down USD? Could Synchronized Growth Push Down USD? Chart 34Are Investors Too Euphoric? Are Investors Too Euphoric? Are Investors Too Euphoric? 1 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst, March 2017, page 33, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see What Our Clients Are Asking: When Will The ECB Taper? on page 9 of this report for a full explanation of why we think this. 3 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Donald Trump Is Who We Thought He Was", dated March 8, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see BCA Special Report titled "Beware The 2019 Trump Recession", dated March 7, 2017, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 5 Please see Global Asset Allocation Strategy Special Report, "EM Asset Allocation: Is There Any Reason To Own Stocks?," dated November 27, 2012, available at gaa.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report, "The Way Forward For The Fed's Balance Sheet," dated February 28, 2017, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 7 Please see Global Asset Allocation Strategy Special Report, "REITs Vs. Direct: How To Get Exposure To Real Estate," dated September 15, 2016, available at gaa.bcaresearch.com. 8 Please see Global Asset Allocation Strategy Special Report, "Is Smart Beta A Useful Tool In Global Asset Allocation?," dated July 8, 2016, available at gaa.bcaresearch.com. Recommended Asset Allocation Model Portfolio (USD Terms)