Corporate Bonds

Highlights As interest rates rise, investors are looking for the leveraged pressure points in the global economy to identify the sectors most likely to show strain. We previously identified the U.S. corporate bond market as a definite candidate. In this report, we look at European corporates. European corporations are still well behind the U.S. in the leveraging cycle. Relative trends in corporate financial health have generally favored European credit quality relative to U.S. issuers. Below the surface, balance sheet repair in the Eurozone has been concentrated in domestic issuers; financial trends among foreign issuers have resembled those in the U.S. market. Foreign issuers are much more vulnerable to higher interest rates and an economic downturn. Interest- and debt-coverage ratios are likely to fall to levels that will spark a raft of downgrades for foreign firms issuing into the Eurozone market, in the event that interest rates rise and a recession follows. Investors should concentrate their European corporate bond portfolios in domestic securities. Feature That said, trends in financial health are unlikely to be the key driver of corporate bond relative returns this year. More important will be the end of the ECB's asset purchase program. We recommend an underweight position in Eurozone IG and HY relative to Eurozone government bonds, and relative to U.S. corporates. Risk assets remain on a collision course with monetary policy, which is the main reason why the "return of vol" was a key theme in the BCA 2018 Outlook. In the U.S., rising inflation is expected to limit the FOMC's ability to cushion soft patches in the economic data or negative shocks from abroad. We expect that ECB tapering will add to market stress, especially now that Eurozone breakup risks are again a concern. We also believe that geopolitics will remain a major source of uncertainty and volatility. All this comes at a time when corporate bond spreads offer only a thin buffer against bad news. On a positive note, we remain upbeat on the earnings outlook in the major countries. The U.S. recession that we foresaw in 2019 has been delayed into 2020 by fiscal stimulus. The longer runway for earnings to grow keeps us nervously overweight corporate bonds, at least in the U.S. That said, corporates are no more than a carry trade now that the lows in spreads are in place for the cycle. We are keeping a close eye on a number of indicators that will help us to time the next downgrade to our global corporate bond allocation. Profitability is just one, albeit important, aspect of the financial backdrop. What about the broader trends in other measures of corporate health, like leverage? Do they justify wider spreads even if the economy and profits hold up over the next year? We reviewed U.S. corporate financial health in the March 2018 monthly Bank Credit Analyst, using our bottom-up sample of companies. We also stress-tested these companies for higher interest rates and a medium-sized recession.1 We concluded that the U.S. corporate sector's heavy accumulation of debt in this expansion will result in rampant downgrade activity during the next economic downturn. In this report, we extend the analysis to the European corporate sector. The European Corporate Health Monitor The bottom-up version of our European Corporate Health Monitor (CHM) is a complement to our top-down CHM, which uses macro data from the European Central Bank (ECB) to construct an index of six financial ratios for the non-financial corporate sector. While useful as an indicator of the overall trend in corporate financial health in the Eurozone, the top-down CHM does not shed light on underlying trends across credit quality, countries and sectors. It also fails to distinguish between domestic versus foreign issuers in the Eurozone market. To allow those comparisons, we built bottom-up versions of the CHM using actual individual company financial data that are then aggregated up to the sector level, etc. A number of features of the European market limit the bottom-up analysis to some extent relative to what we are able to do for the U.S.: the Eurozone market is significantly smaller and company data typically do not have as much history; foreign issuers comprise almost 50% of the market, a much higher percentage than in the U.S.; and the Financial sector features more prominently in the Eurozone index, but we exclude it in our CHM calculations because financial firms are structurally different than non-financial firms (i.e. financials sustainably operate with much higher leverage and much lower returns on capital). We analyzed only domestic issuers in our study of U.S. corporate health. However, we decided to include foreign issuers in our Eurozone analysis in order to maximize the sample size. Moreover, it is appropriate for some bond investors to consider the whole picture, given that important benchmarks such as the Bloomberg Barclays corporate bond indexes include both foreign and domestic issuers. The relative composition of domestic versus foreign, investment grade versus high-yield, and industrial sectors in our sample are comparable with the weights used in the Bloomberg Barclays index. The CHM is calculated using the median value for each of six financial ratios (Table 1). We then standardize2 the median values for the six ratios and aggregate them into a composite index using a simple average. The result is an index that fluctuates between +/- 2 standard deviations away from a medium-term trend. A rising index indicates deteriorating health, while a downtrend signals improving health. Table 1Definitions Of Ratios That Go Into The CHMs Leverage And Sensitivity To Rising Rates: The Eurozone Corporate Sector Leverage And Sensitivity To Rising Rates: The Eurozone Corporate Sector We defined it this way in order to facilitate comparison with trends in corporate spreads (i.e. a rising CHM means worsening credit quality, justifying wider credit spreads). One has to be careful in interpreting our Eurozone CHM. The bottom-up version only dates back to 2005. Thus, while both the level and change in the U.S. CHM provide important information regarding balance sheet health, for the Eurozone CHM we focus more on the change. Whether it is a little above or below the zero line is less important than the trend. Top-Down Versus Bottom-Up Chart 1 compares the top-down and bottom-up Eurozone CHMs for the entire non-financial corporate sector.3 The levels are different, although the broad trends are similar. Key differences that help to explain the divergence include the following: the top-down CHM defines leverage to be total debt as a percent of the market value of equity, while our bottom-up CHM defines it to be total debt as a percent of the book value of the company. The second panel of Chart 1 highlights that the two measures of leverage have diverged significantly since 2012; the top-down CHM defines profit margins as total cash flow as a percent of sales. For data availability reasons, our bottom-up version uses operating income/total sales; most importantly, the top-down CHM uses ECB data, which includes only companies that are domiciled in the Eurozone. Thus, it excludes foreign issuers that make up a large part of our company sample and the Bloomberg Barclays index. When we recalculate the bottom-up CHM using only domestic investment grade issuers, the result is much closer to the top-down version (Chart 2). Both CHMs have been in 'improving health' territory since the end of the Great Financial Crisis. The erosion in the profitability components during this period was offset by declining leverage, rising liquidity and improving interest coverage for domestic issuers. Chart 1Top-Down Vs. Bottom-Up Top-Down Vs. Bottom-Up Top-Down Vs. Bottom-Up Chart 2Top-Down Vs. Domestic Bottom-Up Top-Down Vs. Domestic Bottom-Up Top-Down Vs. Domestic Bottom-Up It has been a different story for foreign investment grade issuers (Chart 3). These firms have historically enjoyed higher returns on capital, operating margins, interest coverage, debt coverage and liquidity. Nonetheless, heavy debt accumulation has undermined their interest- and debt-coverage ratios in absolute terms and relative to their domestic peers until very recently. In other words, while domestic issuers have made an effort to clean up their balance sheets since the Great Recession, financial trends among foreign issuers look more like the trends observed in the U.S. No doubt, this is in part due to U.S. companies issuing euro-denominated debt, but there are many other foreign issuers in our sample as well. Some analysts prefer total debt/total assets to the leverage measure we use in constructing our CHMs. However, the picture is much the same; leverage among investment grade domestic and foreign firms has diverged dramatically since 2010 (Chart 4). Over the past year or so there has been some reversal in the post-Lehman trends; domestic health has stabilized, while that of foreign issuers has improved. Leverage among foreign companies has leveled off, while margins and the liquidity ratio have bounced. The results for high-yield issuers must be taken with a grain of salt because of the small sample size. Chart 5 highlights that the high-yield CHM is improving for both domestic and foreign issuers. Impressively, leverage is declining for both the domestic and foreign components. The return on capital, interest coverage, and debt coverage have also improved, although only for foreign issuers. Chart 3Bottom-Up: Domestic Vs. Foreign IG Bottom-Up: Domestic Vs. Foreign IG Bottom-Up: Domestic Vs. Foreign IG Chart 4Diverging Leverage Trends Diverging Leverage Trends Diverging Leverage Trends Chart 5Bottom-Up: Domestic Vs. Foreign HY Bottom-Up: Domestic Vs. Foreign HY Bottom-Up: Domestic Vs. Foreign HY Corporate Sensitivity The bottom line is that, while there have been some relative shifts below the surface, the European corporate sector's finances are generally in good shape in absolute terms and relative to the U.S. This is particularly the case for domestic issuers that have yet to catch the debt-financed equity buyback bug. However, the threat of less accommodative ECB monetary policy and rising borrowing rates raises potential concerns over future Eurozone corporate bond performance - especially if the economy suffers a prolonged slump. Corporate bond yields and spreads remain near historically low levels in Europe. Thus, it is important to estimate the potential impact of higher borrowing rates, weaker economic growth, or both, on Eurozone corporate financial health and, by association, corporate bond spreads. We estimated the change in the interest coverage ratio for the companies in our bottom-up European sample for a 100 basis-point rise in interest rates across the corporate curve, taking into consideration the maturity distribution of the debt (i.e. the coupons reset only for the bonds, notes and loans that mature in the next three years). We make the simplifying assumptions that all debt and loans maturing in the next three years are rolled over, but that companies do not take on net new obligations. We also assume that earnings before interest and taxes (EBIT) are unchanged in order to isolate the impact of higher interest rates. The 'x' in Chart 6 denotes the result of the interest rate shock only. The 'o' combines the interest rate shock with a recession scenario, in which EBIT contracts by 15%. The interest coverage ratio declines sharply when rates rise by 100 basis points, but the ratio moves to a new post-2000 low only for foreign issuers. The ratio for domestic issuers falls back to the range that existed between 2009 and 2013. The median interest coverage ratio drops further when we combine this with a 15% earnings contraction in the recession scenario. Again, the outcome is far worse for foreign issuers than for domestic issuers. Chart 7 presents a shock to the median debt coverage ratio. Since debt coverage (cash flow divided by total debt) does not include interest payments, we show only the recession scenario result that reflects the decline in profits. Once again, foreign issuers appear to be far more exposed to an economic downturn than their domestic brethren. Chart 6Interest Coverage Shocks Interest Coverage Shocks Interest Coverage Shocks Chart 7Debt Coverage Shock Debt Coverage Shock Debt Coverage Shock Indeed, the results for Eurozone foreign issuers are qualitatively similar to the shocks we previous published for our bottom-up sample of investment grade corporates in the U.S. (Charts 8 and 9). In both cases, higher interest rates and contracting earnings will take the interest coverage and debt coverage ratios down into uncharted territory. Chart 8U.S. Interest Coverage Shocks U.S. Interest Coverage Shocks U.S. Interest Coverage Shocks Chart 9U.S. Debt Coverage Shock U.S. Debt Coverage Shock U.S. Debt Coverage Shock Conclusions European corporations are still well behind the U.S. in the leveraging cycle. Relative trends in corporate financial health have generally favored European credit quality relative to U.S. issuers, where balance sheet activity has focused on lifting shareholder value since the last recession. Below the surface, balance sheet repair in the Eurozone has been concentrated in domestic issuers; financial trends among foreign issuers have resembled those in the U.S. market. There has been a small convergence of financial health between Eurozone domestic and foreign issuers over the past year or so, but the latter are still much more vulnerable to higher interest rates and an economic downturn. Interest- and debt-coverage ratios are likely to fall to levels that will spark a raft of downgrades for foreign firms issuing into the Eurozone market, in the event that interest rates rise and a recession follows. Investors should concentrate their European corporate bond portfolios in domestic securities. That said, trends in financial health are unlikely to be the key driver of corporate bond returns relative to European government bonds or to U.S. corporates this year. More important will be the end of the ECB's asset purchase program later in 2018. We expect spreads to widen as this important liquidity tailwind fades. For the moment, our Global Fixed Income Strategy service recommends an underweight position in Eurozone investment grade and high-yield corporates relative to Eurozone government bonds, and relative to U.S. corporates. Mark McClellan, Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst markm@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Section II of the March 2018 edition of The Bank Credit Analyst, "Leverage And Sensitivity To Rising Rates: The U.S. Corporate Sector", available at bca.bcaresearch.com. 2 Standardizing involves taking the deviation of the series from the 18 quarter moving average and dividing by the standard deviation of the series. 3 Note that a rising CHM indicates deteriorating health to facilitate comparison with quality spreads.

Highlights Monetary Policy: Position for rate hikes of 25 bps per quarter for the next 6-12 months and watch nominal GDP growth, cyclical spending and the price of gold for signals about the position of the fed funds rate relative to its equilibrium level. Yield Curve: Curve flattening will proceed as the Fed lifts rates, but some flattening pressure will be mitigated by the re-anchoring of long-dated inflation expectations. Against this back-drop, and given currently attractive valuations, a position long the 7-year bullet and short the duration-matched 1/20 barbell makes the most sense. IG Credit: Moving down-in-quality has a greater positive impact on the risk-adjusted performance of a credit portfolio when excess return volatility and index duration-times-spread are low. At present, down-in-quality allocations within investment grade credit are only marginally attractive. Feature "You just let the machines get on with the adding up," warned Majikthise, "and we'll take care of the eternal verities, thank you very much. [...] "That's right," shouted Vroomfondel, "we demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!" - The Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy, By Douglas Adams Jerome Powell put his stamp on Fed communications at last week's FOMC meeting. He trimmed 100 words from the policy statement and began his post-meeting press conference with a concise "plain-English" summary of how the economy is doing. In short: "the economy is doing very well". But while he expressed confidence in the Fed's assessment of the economy, he was also keen to point out areas where the outlook is cloudier. His central theme seemed to be that we must delineate between those questions that can be addressed by the Fed's reading of the economic data and those that are better left to the philosophers in Douglas Adams' novel. The Chairman stressed the uncertainty surrounding two concepts in particular: the non-accelerating inflation rate of unemployment (NAIRU) and the neutral (or equilibrium) interest rate, even advising that "we can't be too attached to these unobservable variables." But what can we say about these traditionally important policy guideposts? And more importantly, how should we think about them when formulating an investment strategy? The Importance Of NAIRU Chart 1The Fed's Projections The Fed's Projections The Fed's Projections One issue that came up repeatedly in the Chairman's press conference was the seeming disconnect between the Fed's labor market projections and its inflation projections. The Fed expects the unemployment rate to fall far below NAIRU during the next two years, and yet it anticipates only a mild overshoot of its inflation target (Chart 1).1 Ultimately this disconnect will be resolved in one of two ways. Either the Fed is underestimating the inflation pressures that will result from running the unemployment rate so far below NAIRU and will be forced to hike rates more quickly than anticipated, or it will eventually revise its estimate of NAIRU downward. From an investment perspective, this disconnect will only matter if inflation starts to rise more quickly than anticipated and the Fed is forced to ramp up the pace of rate hikes. We discussed this possibility in a recent report and concluded that, on a 6-12 month horizon, the odds of the Fed hiking more quickly than its current 25 bps per quarter pace are low.2 This is principally because the Fed will likely tolerate a fairly substantial overshoot of its inflation target before it feels the need to tighten more quickly. The Importance Of The Neutral Rate For bond investors the theoretical concept of the neutral (or equilibrium) interest rate is much more important. This interest rate represents the threshold between accommodative and restrictive monetary policy. When the fed funds rate is above neutral we should expect the pace of economic growth to slow and inflation pressures to dissipate. At present, the majority of FOMC participants estimate that the neutral fed funds rate is between 2.75% and 3%. At the Fed's current 25 bps per quarter pace, the funds rate will reach neutral by the middle of next year (Chart 2). Chart 2The Federal Funds Rate Will Hit Neutral Next Year The Federal Funds Rate Will Hit Neutral Next Year The Federal Funds Rate Will Hit Neutral Next Year The important question for investors is whether the Fed will start to slow its rate hike pace at that time, or whether it will revise its estimate of the neutral rate based on trends in the economy. Chairman Powell's emphasis on uncertainty makes us lean toward the latter. In a recent report we outlined three factors to monitor that will help us determine whether monetary policy is accommodative (fed funds rate below neutral) or restrictive (fed funds rate above neutral).3 The first factor is the year-over-year growth rate in nominal GDP relative to the fed funds rate (Chart 3). Historically, the year-over-year growth rate in nominal GDP falling below the fed funds rate is a reliable (though often lagging) signal that monetary policy has turned restrictive. A more leading signal of restrictive monetary policy is the proportion of nominal GDP that comes from the most cyclical (or interest rate sensitive) sectors of the economy. Those sectors being consumer spending on durable goods, residential investment and investment on equipment & software. When cyclical spending declines as a proportion of overall growth it is often a sign that the fed funds rate is above its neutral level (Chart 3, panel 2). Finally, we also recommend monitoring the price of gold for clues about the neutral rate of interest. Gold tends to appreciate when the stance of monetary policy becomes more accommodative and depreciate when it becomes more restrictive. The steep decline in the gold price between 2013 and 2016 even preceded downward revisions to the Fed's estimate of the neutral rate (Chart 4). Going forward, an upside breakout in the price of gold would be a signal that we should revise our estimate of the neutral fed funds rate higher. Conversely, a large decline would suggest that monetary policy is turning restrictive and we should think about calling the cyclical peak in bond yields. Chart 3Tracking The Neutral Rate I Tracking The Neutral Rate I Tracking The Neutral Rate I Chart 4Tracking The Neutral Rate II Tracking The Neutral Rate II Tracking The Neutral Rate II Bottom Line: Rather than rely on current estimates of unobservable variables like NAIRU and the neutral rate of interest, investors should monitor developments in the economy and consider how those estimates might evolve over time. For now, investors should expect a rate hike pace of 25 bps per quarter and watch nominal GDP growth, cyclical spending and the price of gold for signals about the position of the fed funds rate relative to its equilibrium level. Gradualism And The Slope Of The Curve The Fed's fairly explicit guidance that rates will rise by 25 bps per quarter is quite helpful when formulating expectations about the slope of the yield curve. For example, we know that the current 1-year par coupon Treasury yield of 2.35% is priced for exactly 100 bps of rate hikes during the next 12 months with no term premium. In other words, investors today should be indifferent between an investment in cash and an investment in a 1-year Treasury note if they are 100% certain that the Fed will stick to its 25 bps per quarter hike pace for the next 12 months. We can also forecast where the 1-year Treasury yield will be six months from now under a few different scenarios (Table 1). The forward curve is consistent with a 1-year Treasury yield of 2.69% six months from now, and we calculate that it will be 2.83% if the market moves to fully discount a rate hike pace of 25 bps per quarter until the end of 2019. If the market only prices in the Fed's median funds rate projection, which calls for three hikes in 2019, then the 1-year Treasury yield will be between 2.62% and 2.81% six months from now, depending on which meetings in 2019 those three rate hikes are delivered. Table 1Forecasting The 1-Year Treasury Yield Rigidly Defined Areas Of Doubt And Uncertainty Rigidly Defined Areas Of Doubt And Uncertainty The main takeaway from these observations is that even in the most hawkish scenario the 1-year Treasury yield will only rise to 2.83%. This is 48 bps above its current level and a mere 14 bps more than what is already priced into the forward curve. Now let's consider the long-end of the curve. The 10-year and 20-year TIPS breakeven inflation rates currently sit at 2.12% and 2.10%, respectively. If inflation expectations become re-anchored around the Fed's 2% target during the next six months, which we expect they will, then both of these rates will reach a range between 2.3% and 2.5% (Chart 5). This alone will apply between 20 bps and 40 bps of upward pressure to the 20-year Treasury yield. The nominal 20-year Treasury yield is currently 2.98% and the forward curve is priced for it to rise to 3.01% in six months. In the most hawkish scenario where the Fed lifts rates 25 bps per quarter and long-maturity yields remain constant, the 1/20 Treasury slope will flatten by 48 bps during the next six months. In the more likely scenario where Fed rate hikes coincide with the re-anchoring of long-dated inflation expectations, the 1/20 slope will flatten by 28 bps or less. Meanwhile, our model of the 1/7/20 butterfly spread shows that it is priced for 55 bps of 1/20 flattening during the next six months (Chart 6). Or put differently, there is so much extra yield pick-up in the 7-year bullet relative to the duration-matched 1/20 barbell that being long the bullet and short the barbell will be profitable unless the 1/20 slope flattens by more than 55 bps. Chart 5Inflation Expectations Are Still Too Low Inflation Expectations Are Still Too Low Inflation Expectations Are Still Too Low Chart 6Butterfly Spread Fair Value Model Butterfly Spread Fair Value Model Butterfly Spread Fair Value Model Bottom Line: Curve flattening will proceed as the Fed lifts rates, but some flattening pressure will be offset by the re-anchoring of long-dated inflation expectations. Against this back-drop, and given currently attractive valuations, a position long the 7-year bullet and short the duration-matched 1/20 barbell makes the most sense. Risk Update On May 22 we initiated a tactical long duration position premised on extended net short positioning in the bond market and the high likelihood of negative near-term data surprises.4 We have seen considerable movement in our indicators during the past two weeks - positioning is now much closer to neutral (Chart 7) and our model no longer expects data surprises to turn negative (Chart 8). Therefore, this week we remove our tactical long duration recommendation. The biggest current risk to our below-benchmark duration stance is the large divergence that has opened up between U.S. growth and the rest of the world (Chart 9). This divergence is putting upward pressure on the U.S. dollar and, much like in 2015, is starting to hurt growth in emerging markets, as we discussed last week. Chart 7Bond Market Positioning Bond Market Positioning Bond Market Positioning Chart 8Data Surprises Should Remain Positive Data Surprises Should Remain Positive Data Surprises Should Remain Positive Chart 9Foreign Growth Is The Greatest Risk Foreign Growth Is The Greatest Risk Foreign Growth Is The Greatest Risk But dollar strength and emerging market weakness is not an imminent threat to higher U.S. yields. Using the 2015 experience as a template, we see in Chart 9 that U.S. yields did not fall until after emerging market financial conditions and global growth had already troughed. In fact, it was not until dollar strength and weak global growth culminated in a dramatic tightening of U.S. financial conditions that the Fed finally signaled a slower pace of rate hikes and Treasury yields declined (Chart 9, bottom panel). Similarly, we don't think the Fed will react to a strong dollar and weak foreign growth until the impact is felt by U.S. risk assets. With U.S. growth still elevated and the dollar having appreciated only modestly so far, we think Treasury yields will avoid this risk during the next few months. Nonetheless, the divergence between U.S. and foreign growth is a risk that bears close monitoring. We will not hesitate to alter our duration stance if the dollar continues to appreciate and the divergence appears close to a breaking point. The Best Time To Move Down In Quality In last week's report we reviewed our assessment of where we stand in the credit cycle. That assessment determines whether we should be overweight or underweight investment grade corporate bonds relative to a duration-equivalent position in Treasuries. This week we zero-in on our allocation to investment grade corporate bonds and consider how we should allocate between the different credit tiers (Aaa, Aa, A and Baa). In next week's report we will look at positioning across the different maturity buckets and industries. We begin our analysis with the four Bond Maps presented in Charts 10-13. These Bond Maps show risk-adjusted return potential on the y-axis. Specifically, the number of months of average spread tightening necessary to achieve the excess return threshold listed in each map's title. The risk-adjusted potential for losses is shown on the x-axis. In this case, it shows the number of months of average spread widening required to underperform Treasuries by the amount listed in the title. Chart 10Investment Grade Corporate Excess Return Bond Map:##br## +/- 50 BPs Threshold Rigidly Defined Areas Of Doubt And Uncertainty Rigidly Defined Areas Of Doubt And Uncertainty Chart 11Investment Grade Corporate Excess Return Bond Map: ##br##+/- 100 BPs Threshold Rigidly Defined Areas Of Doubt And Uncertainty Rigidly Defined Areas Of Doubt And Uncertainty Chart 12Investment Grade Corporate Excess Return Bond Map: ##br##+/- 200 BPs Threshold Rigidly Defined Areas Of Doubt And Uncertainty Rigidly Defined Areas Of Doubt And Uncertainty Chart 13Investment Grade Corporate Excess Return Bond Map:##br## +/- 300 BPs Threshold Rigidly Defined Areas Of Doubt And Uncertainty Rigidly Defined Areas Of Doubt And Uncertainty Credit tiers plotting closer to the bottom-left of the Bond Maps have less potential for return and less risk. Credit tiers plotting closer to the upper-right have greater potential for return and more risk. What we find particularly interesting is that when we set a low return threshold, such as +/- 50 bps, the credit tiers plot almost right on top of each other. In other words, an allocation to Baa-rated corporate bonds gives you a much greater chance of earning 50 bps with about the same risk of losing 50 bps as the other credit tiers. But as we increase the excess return threshold the risk/reward trade-off between the different credit tiers becomes more linear. In Chart 13 we see that Baa-rated bonds have a greater chance of earning 300 bps than the other credit tiers, but also carry a significantly greater risk of losing 300 bps. Chart 14Down-In-Quality Works ##br##Best When Vol Is Low Down-In-Quality Works Best When Vol Is Low Down-In-Quality Works Best When Vol Is Low This leads to an interesting conclusion. A macro environment where we would expect low excess return volatility is also one where moving down in quality within investment grade corporate bonds is most beneficial from a risk/reward perspective. Conversely, moving down in quality will improve the risk-adjusted performance of your portfolio by less (and might even hurt the risk-adjusted performance of your portfolio) in a highly volatile return environment. To test this theory, we first recognize that the excess return volatility of the investment grade corporate bond index is tightly linked with its duration-times-spread (DTS). Low DTS environments have lower excess return volatility, and also less of a spread differential between the lower and higher credit tiers (Chart 14). With this in mind we split the historical time series of monthly corporate bond excess returns into four quartiles based on the index DTS (Table 2). We also exclude recessions from our sample, meaning this analysis is only valid during periods of economic recovery. Not surprisingly, the results show that the standard deviation of monthly excess returns increases alongside index DTS. But we also see that the average return advantage in the Baa-rated credit tier is lower when the index DTS is higher. Table 2Investment Grade Corporate Bond Excess Returns By Credit Tier (1989-Present)* Rigidly Defined Areas Of Doubt And Uncertainty Rigidly Defined Areas Of Doubt And Uncertainty When the index DTS is between 3 and 4.5, the reward/risk ratio in the Baa-rated credit tier exceeds the average of the other three credit tiers by 0.13. This advantage falls to 0.07 when the DTS is between 4.5 and 6.7; and falls further to 0.04 when the DTS is between 6.7 and 9.7. In the highest DTS quartile, the Baa-rated credit tier provides a lower reward/risk ratio than the average of the other three credit tiers. At present the index DTS is 8.4. This puts us in the second highest quartile relative to history, and is consistent with a 12-month standard deviation of monthly excess returns of roughly 77 bps for the corporate bond index. In this environment we should expect down-in-quality allocations to positively impact the risk-adjusted performance of a credit portfolio, but not by as much as in lower DTS environments. Bottom Line: Moving down-in-quality has a greater positive impact on the risk-adjusted performance of a credit portfolio when excess return volatility and index duration-times-spread are low. At present, down-in-quality allocations within investment grade credit are only marginally attractive. Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com 1 In order to display a longer history, Chart 1 shows the Congressional Budget Office's estimate of NAIRU rather than the Fed's. At present both estimates are very close. The CBO estimates NAIRU to be 4.65% and the Fed's median projection calls for a NAIRU of 4.5%. 2 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Breaking Points", dated May 29, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "A Signal From Gold?", dated May 1, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Pulling Back And Looking Ahead", dated May 22, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

Highlights China's ongoing industrial sector slowdown will not likely lead to a global growth shock, but investors should recognize that China's relative stability is supported by strong global demand. A negative surprise to export growth could materially shift global investor sentiment about the trajectory of China's economy, which would bode poorly for Chinese ex-tech stocks versus their global peers. Stay overweight for now, but with a short leash. The recent inclusion of Chinese A-shares in the MSCI Emerging Markets index may lead to heightened investor attention over the coming months, but we still recommend a neutral allocation. Within the domestic market, a factor approach suggests that financials are a good bet, and that real estate stocks have great potential as a contrarian trade if housing sales begin to durably trend higher. Index inclusion may also be a factor leading to increased global investor attention towards China's bond market over the coming two years. The comparatively high-yield and short duration of China's corporate bond market makes for an attractive investment opportunity, despite recent concerns about defaults. Stay long/overweight over the coming 6-12 months. Feature We have presented the following views about China's economy and its financial markets over the past several months: China's industrial sector is slowing, and is set to slow further based on our proprietary leading indicators for the Li Keqiang index. This will cause a further deceleration in Chinese nominal import growth and suggests that Chinese ex-tech earnings per share growth will soon peak. Residential investment has potential to provide a tailwind to domestic growth if home sales sustainably pick up, but there are no firm signs that this is occurring. Robust export growth will help China's economy from slowing sharply, but there are several risks to the external demand outlook that need to be monitored. Given the poor growth momentum in the industrial sector, fiscal or monetary stimulus will likely be required if China suffers a sudden export shock. China's consumer-oriented tech sector ostensibly stands out as a shelter from an old economy slowdown, but it is extremely expensive, earnings momentum is very stretched, and it may be adversely impacted by the U.S.' section 301 investigation. We have recommended avoiding exposure since mid-February. China's ex-tech equity market is comparatively cheap, high-beta vs the global benchmark, and technically robust. While the risks to the economic outlook are clear, investors should continue to overweight Chinese ex-tech stocks vs their global peers. For global investors who are perennially concerned that a slowdown in China's economy will culminate in a significant shock to the global economy, Chart 1 provides a helpful visual representation of our view. The chart depicts two scenarios: first, the ongoing industrial sector slowdown in China results in an outright subtraction from global growth momentum via a contraction in imports, despite positive growth impulses from the U.S. and euro area. In our view, Chinese import growth is likely to remain positive, but will largely be driven by strong demand in the developed world (scenario 2). Chart 1Two Different Scenarios Concerning China's Contribution To The Global Economy A Shaky Ladder A Shaky Ladder Chart 1 highlights that our view is more positive for the global economy than one might otherwise think, but it is important for investors to understand the nature of China's relative stability in the event that export growth surprises to the downside over the coming months. In fact, Chart 2 highlights that the most salient data development over the past two weeks has been a fairly significant deceleration in smoothed nominal export growth, which is our preferred method of analyzing Chinese trade data. Despite the relative stability of China's PMIs over the past few months, a 3-month moving average of US$ exports decelerated from 17.5% to 7% in May, or from 10% to -1% in RMB-terms. Sequentially, Chinese export growth improved in May (vs April's reading) in both US$ and RMB-terms, and both beat market expectations. As a result, we are sticking with the second scenario depicted in Chart 1 as the more likely of the two for the coming 6-12 months. However, the reliance on strong external demand to prop up China's import growth is somewhat of a "shaky ladder" for global investors to climb, given the clear risks from U.S. protectionist action, the headwinds to Chinese export competitiveness from a strong currency (or, alternatively, the punishing impact of translation effects on exporter revenue), and the potential for robust export growth to embolden Chinese policymakers to push forward with even more aggressive reforms over the coming year. Still, Chart 3 highlights that many investors are perfectly willing to climb this ladder, shaky or otherwise. The chart shows that the relative performance of Chinese ex-tech stocks versus their global peers remains firmly within the ascending trend channel that has been in place since early-2017, despite the ongoing slowdown in the industrial sector. As we noted in our May 30 report,1 this message is consistent with the view that any recent negative relative performance of Chinese ex-tech stocks has been in response to global rather than idiosyncratic, China-specific risk. Chart 2A Nontrivial Slowdown In Chinese Export Growth A Nontrivial Slowdown In Chinese Export Growth A Nontrivial Slowdown In Chinese Export Growth Chart 3Investors Are Fine Climbing A Shaky Ladder Investors Are Fine Climbing A Shaky Ladder Investors Are Fine Climbing A Shaky Ladder We remain nervous bulls concerning Chinese ex-tech stocks, and continue to recommend an overweight stance. But our reading of China's macro dynamics suggests that investors should not be dogmatic about their equity allocation to China, and should be prepared to cut exposure in response to a material shift in sentiment towards the Chinese economy. As a final point, while we have clearly presented our framework over the past several months for thinking about and analyzing China, investors attending BCA's Annual Investment Conference in September will get an opportunity to hear additional perspectives about the cyclical trajectory of its economy. Leland R. Miller, CEO of the China Beige Book, will be presenting his thoughts on the outlook for Chinese growth and risk assets. Based on his firm's unique insights into China's economic and financial market developments, Mr. Miller's panel will certainly be among those not to miss. Bottom Line: China's ongoing industrial sector slowdown will not likely lead to a shock to global demand, but investors should recognize that China's relative stability is supported by strong global demand. A negative surprise to export growth could materially shift global investor sentiment about the trajectory of China's economy, which would bode poorly for Chinese ex-tech stocks versus their global peers. Stay overweight for now, but with a short leash. A-Shares: EM Inclusion, Factor Analysis, And A Contrarian Shadow Trade The beginning of June marked a milestone for Chinese equities, as MSCI added over 226 large-cap A-shares to their Emerging Markets index. Box 1 provides some brief details about the inclusion, and also notes how it affects several of the trades in our trade book. Chart A1A-Share Inclusion Added 10% Market Cap ##br##To The MSCI China Index A-Share Inclusion Added 10% Market Cap To The MSCI China Index A-Share Inclusion Added 10% Market Cap To The MSCI China Index Box 1 The Inclusion Of Chinese A-Shares In The MSCI Emerging Markets Index On May 31 2018, 226 China large-cap RMB-denominated A-shares were included in the MSCI Emerging Markets Index. The change represented a 1.4% increase in the market capitalization of the MSCI Emerging Markets index, and 10% increase in the MSCI China Index (Chart A1). We have often referred to the MSCI China Index as the "investable" index in previous reports and in our trade table, but this index now includes some domestic stocks as a result of the recent inclusion. We plan to continue to use the MSCI China Index (or its ex-tech equivalent) as the main outlet for our investment recommendations, which means that the benchmark for five of our trades will be re-labeled in our trade table (from China investable to MSCI China Index). One exception is our trade favoring the MSCI China ESG Leaders Index, as MSCI has yet to publish an ESG rating index for Chinese domestic stocks. We last wrote about the outlook for A-shares in our March 14 Weekly Report,2 and noted that the significant underperformance of A-shares relative to global stocks over the past few years was due to the legacy effects of an enormous, policy-driven speculative bubble in 2014-2015. We highlighted that while domestic stocks have worked off some of this bubble and multiples are no longer extreme, that a neutral allocation was still warranted due to an uninspiring earnings outlook and, at best, a very modest valuation discount relative to global stocks. Chart 4 illustrates this latter point; based on all four trailing valuation ratios that we track, ex-tech onshore stocks are either on par or considerably more expensive than global ex-tech stocks. By contrast, the MSCI China Index (excluding technology) is cheaper than their global peers by all measures, in some cases considerably so. Nevertheless, while we continue to recommend that investors maintain a neutral stance towards A-shares within a global equity portfolio, the inclusion of A-shares in the EM index may force some investors to increase their exposure to domestic stocks beyond the level that they otherwise would have maintained. In order to provide some perspective of what domestic stocks to favor, we have taken a quantitative approach to analyzing A-shares that is loosely inspired by the Fama-French three-factor model. More precisely, we have examined the historical relative performance of three separate factor strategies for A-shares and global stocks, both relative to their respective broad market. The three factors tested are as follows: Return On Equity (ROE): Replacing market beta in the F&F model, we have built a historical portfolio for both Chinese domestic and global stocks that favors level 1 GICS sectors with above-median ROE. Within high-ROE sectors, the portfolio allocates to the sectors on a value-weighted basis to maximize the investability of the strategy. Sector Weight: Our second approach favors GICS sectors with a below-median sector weight, which conceptually mimics the firm size factor in the F&F model. In reality, this strategy is selecting among sectors made up of large cap firms, meaning that investors should regard the performance of this strategy as reflecting the success or failure of investing in potentially underowned or unloved sectors. Value: Our third factor is exactly in line with the F&F model, with portfolios using this approach favoring sectors with above-median dividend yields. We have chosen a cash flow-based valuation measure instead of the book value yield to assuage potential investor concerns about accrual quality. Chart 5 presents the cumulative returns of these strategies, for both global and Chinese domestic stocks. Several important observations are noteworthy: Chart 4A-Shares Are Not Cheap Vs##br## Global Stocks In Ex-Tech Terms A-Shares Are Not Cheap Vs Global Stocks In Ex-Tech Terms A-Shares Are Not Cheap Vs Global Stocks In Ex-Tech Terms Chart 5ROE, Sector Weight, and Value Are ##br##All Successful Factors In China's Domestic Market ROE, Sector Weight, and Value Are All Successful Factors In China's Domestic Market ROE, Sector Weight, and Value Are All Successful Factors In China's Domestic Market Favoring high-ROE sectors has been a more profitable strategy when allocating among global sectors than those of the domestic Chinese market, but we have seen similar returns from the strategy in both markets since early-2011. This is consistent with an important conclusion that we made in our March report: the perception among some global investors that domestic Chinese stocks are a "casino" market disconnected from fundamentals does not appear to be supported by the data over the past several years. A strategy of favoring sectors with a low market cap weight has fared better for Chinese A-shares than for the global market, albeit with considerable volatility. We suspect that the underperformance of smaller-than-average sectors at the global level has been affected over the past four years by the underperformance of resources, but the outperformance of the strategy in China also makes sense: underowned or unloved sectors should have more abnormal return potential in smaller, less scrutinized markets. Favoring cheap stocks has been an abysmally poor strategy at the global level over the past decade, due to the chronic underperformance of the financial sector. But cheaper sectors have outperformed China's domestic equity market at a modest pace over the past several years, which is good news for value-oriented investors. Chart 6 highlights where each of China's domestic equity sectors currently sits in the ROE/size/value spectrum. There are three sectors exhibiting two of the factors employed in our analysis: health care, financials, and real estate. For now, we would caution investors against buying domestic health care stocks, as Chart 7 shows that the sector has become heavily overbought over the past several months. Domestic financials would appear to be a better bet: despite underperforming financials in the MSCI China Index, domestic financials have outperformed the domestic broad market over the past year and have not broken materially below their trend line despite a recent selloff. Chart 6Health Care, Financials, And Real Estate Are At The Intersection Of Successful Factors A Shaky Ladder A Shaky Ladder Chart 7Financials Are A Better Bet Than Health Care; Watch For A Housing Catalyst To Buy Real Estate Financials Are A Better Bet Than Health Care; Watch For A Housing Catalyst To Buy Real Estate Financials Are A Better Bet Than Health Care; Watch For A Housing Catalyst To Buy Real Estate Finally, real estate stocks have the potential to become a fantastic contrarian trade if Chinese home sales do sustainably pick up. The sector is cheap, profitable, and highly unloved given the view among many investors that the Chinese government's structural reforms will weigh on performance for some time to come. But as we have noted in previous reports, the persistent gap between home sales and housing construction over the past few years may very well be over, implying that the latter may rise in lockstep with the former if sales begin to trend higher. Chart 7 shows that investors are not even remotely pricing in such a scenario, as domestic real estate companies have underperformed the domestic benchmark since early-2016 and remain in a relative downtrend. We would not recommend fighting negative investor sentiment towards the sector for now, but domestic real estate companies should clearly be on an investor's watch list, alongside the trend in residential sales volume. Bottom Line: The recent inclusion of Chinese A-shares in the MSCI Emerging Markets index may lead to heightened investor attention over the coming months, but we still recommend a neutral allocation. Within the domestic market, a factor approach suggests that financials are a good bet, and that real estate stocks have great potential as a contrarian trade if housing sales begin to durably trend higher. An Update On China's Corporate Bond Market China's equity market may not be the only financial market segment to garner more addition from increased index inclusion over the coming year: Bloomberg recently announced that it will add Chinese RMB-denominated government and policy bank bonds to the Bloomberg Barclays Global Aggregate Index over a 20-month period beginning in April 2019, conditional on the implementation of certain "operational enhancements" to the market by the PBOC and Ministry of Finance.3 China's total bond market (government and corporate) is the third-largest in the world, with a record of 79 trillion yuan ($12.7 trillion) outstanding. Yet foreign investors have little exposure to Chinese bonds, due to frictions concerning investability, a lack of transparency on issuers/index components, and concerns about the quality of domestically-issued credit ratings (95% of China's corporate bonds are rated AA- or higher). Chart 8The Recent Uptick In Yields Has Had A Paltry Impact On Total Returns The Recent Uptick In Yields Has Had A Paltry Impact On Total Returns The Recent Uptick In Yields Has Had A Paltry Impact On Total Returns While the proportion of foreign ownership of Chinese bonds may rise slowly over time, our sense is that it will indeed rise. First, there is a clear yield advantage for Chinese relative to global bonds, in a world where high long-term absolute return prospects are scarce. Second, Chinese policymakers continue to (slowly) open China's financial markets to the rest of the world, and global investors can now gain access to China's onshore bond market through four channels without quota: the qualified foreign institutional investors program (QFII), the renminbi qualified foreign institutional investor program (RQFII), the China interbank bond market (CIBM), and the Bond Connect program.4 Third, China's regulators allowed foreign-owned ratings agencies to set up shop in China last year, in an attempt to address the ratings quality issue. BCA's China Investment Strategy service initiated our long China onshore corporate bonds trade on June 22 last year, which has since earned a 3.7% return in spite of widening yield spreads and a spike in default concerns over the past several weeks. Indeed, Chart 8 highlights that the recent rise in corporate yields has had a minimal impact on the index total return profile. There is one critical factor driving this apparent discrepancy that is not well understood by global investors: compared with corporate issues in the developed world, China's corporate bond market has considerably shorter duration. Table 1 highlights that most of the corporate bonds issued in China have a maturity of three years or less, and the duration for the ChinaBond Company Credit Index, the benchmark that we have used for our corporate bond trade, is approximately 2.3 years. By contrast, U.S. investment- and speculative-grade bonds currently have an effective duration of 7.5 and 4 years, respectively. Chart 9 illustrates the 12-month breakeven spread for the Company Credit Index, unadjusted for default. The breakeven spread represents the rise in yields that would be required for investors to lose money over a 12-month horizon (i.e. the yield change that exactly erases the income return from the position), assuming no defaults. The chart shows that Chinese corporate bond yields would have to rise approximately 250 bps over the coming year before investors suffer a negative total return, which would be an enormous rise that is totally inconsistent the PBOC's monetary policy stance. Table 1Maturity Distribution Of China's Bond Market A Shaky Ladder A Shaky Ladder Chart 9A Compelling Cushion Against Potentially Higher Rates A Compelling Cushion Against Potentially Higher Rates A Compelling Cushion Against Potentially Higher Rates Another way to gauge the attractiveness of a corporate bond position is to look at the spread relative to comparable duration government bonds in order to calculate the default loss that would be required to erase the spread (which is also roughly 250 bps today). Using the relatively conservative assumption of a 35% recovery rate, a 2.5% default loss implies a default rate of close to 4%. We noted in our May 23 Special Report that recent corporate defaults in China amounted to only 0.1% of the outstanding corporate bond market,5 implying that the ultimate scope of corporate bond defaults in China would have to be 40 times larger than currently observed to wipe out the spread relative to Chinese government bonds of comparable duration. While we cannot rule such an event from occurring, there is no evidence to suggest that such a dramatic escalation in defaults is about to occur. Bottom Line: Index inclusion may also be a factor leading to increased global investor attention towards China's bond market over the coming two years. The comparatively high-yield and short duration of China's corporate bond market makes for an attractive investment opportunity, despite recent concerns about defaults. Stay long/overweight over the coming 6-12 months. Jonathan LaBerge, CFA, Vice President Special Reports jonathanl@bcaresearch.com Lin Xiang, Research Analyst linx@bcaresearch.com 1 Pease see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report "11 Charts To Watch", dated May 30, 2018, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Pease see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report "A-Shares: Stay Neutral, For Now", dated March 14, 2018, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 3 These enhancements include the implementation of delivery vs. payment settlement, the ability to allocate block trades across portfolios, and clarification on tax collection policies. 4 The first three programs have a clear statement that no quotas apply, whereas the bond connect program has no specific statement concerning quotas. 5 Pease see China Investment Strategy Special Report "Messages From BCA's China Industry Watch", dated May 23, 2018, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations

Highlights Fed: The Fed will not automatically slow the pace of rate hikes as the funds rate approaches current estimates of its neutral level. Rather, estimates of that neutral level will be revised depending on the outlook for the economy. For the time being investors should continue to expect a rate hike pace of 25 bps per quarter. Credit Cycle: For the time being both our monetary and credit quality indicators recommend an overweight allocation to corporate bonds. Inflation expectations are not yet anchored around the Fed's target, and gross leverage is trending sideways. Both of these measures will likely send a more negative signal later this year, and we will reduce exposure to corporate credit at that time. Emerging Market Debt: Despite the recent weakness in emerging market currencies, U.S. corporate credit still looks more attractive than USD-denominated emerging market sovereign debt. At the country level, only Russian debt warrants an overweight allocation relative to U.S. corporates. Feature The Federal Reserve meets this week and will deliver the second rate hike of the year, bringing the target range for the federal funds rate up to 1.75% - 2%. With that hike already fully discounted, investors will be more concerned with parsing the post-meeting statement, Summary of Economic Projections, and Chairman Powell's press conference for clues about the future path of rates. We expect only minor changes to the statement, though the Committee could decide to tweak its promise that "the federal funds rate is likely to remain, for some time, below levels that are expected to prevail in the longer run". Such a change would simply acknowledge that if gradual rate hikes continue, then the federal funds will move close to most estimates of its neutral (or equilibrium) level within the next 12 months. This touches on an important question for bond investors. Would the Fed actually start to slow the pace of rate hikes once the funds rate reaches its estimated neutral level? Or will it need to see some evidence of decelerating economic growth before slowing the pace of rate hikes below its current 25 bps per quarter pace? Chart 1 shows why this question is important. The shaded boxes in that chart outline a "gradual" rate hike path of 25 bps per quarter. The Fed has been lifting rates at this pace since late 2016. The "x" markings denote the median expected fed funds rate from the Fed's Survey of Primary Dealers, and the "F" markings denote the Fed's own median projections. Notice that there are two "F"s shown at the end of 2018. This is because an equal number of FOMC participants (6) expect a fed funds rate of 2% - 2.25% as expect one of 2.25% - 2.5%. We expect the median will coalesce around the 2.25% to 2.5% range by the end of tomorrow's meeting. Chart 1The Outlook For Rate Hikes The Outlook For Rate Hikes The Outlook For Rate Hikes Notice in Chart 1 that both primary dealers and the Fed expect to deviate from the quarterly rate hike pace around the middle of next year. This would be consistent with the pace of hikes starting to slow as the fed funds rate approaches its currently anticipated neutral level near 3%. But how confident is the Fed in its estimate of that neutral rate? We would argue that its confidence should be quite low. We are not alone in this assessment. In one of Janet Yellen's final speeches as Fed Chair she warned against placing too much confidence in estimates of the neutral rate.1 [T]he neutral rate changes over time as a result of the interaction of many forces, including demographics, productivity growth, fiscal policy, and the strength of global demand, so its value at any point in time cannot be estimated or projected with much precision. We expect that the current FOMC will heed this warning, and if there are no signs of economic deterioration by the middle of next year, then the Fed will continue to hike rates at a pace of 25 bps per quarter and estimates of the neutral rate will be revised higher. We examined what could potentially make the Fed deviate from its 25 bps per quarter rate hike pace, by hiking either more quickly or more slowly, in a recent report.2 Crucially, Chart 1 shows that not only is the market priced for the Fed to slow its pace of rate hikes as we reach the middle of next year, it is also priced for a slower pace of rate hikes than is expected by the Fed or the primary dealers. This divergence means that below-benchmark portfolio duration continues to make sense on a 6-12 month horizon. Bottom Line: The Fed will not automatically slow the pace of rate hikes as the funds rate approaches current estimates of its neutral level. Rather, estimates of that neutral level will be revised depending on the outlook for the economy. For the time being investors should continue to expect a rate hike pace of 25 bps per quarter. A Quick Update On Our Tactical Long Position On May 22 we advised clients with a short-term (0-3 month) horizon to position for lower U.S. bond yields in the near term.3 This call was premised on two catalysts. First, bond market positioning had become excessively net short. That picture now looks more mixed (Chart 2). Net speculative positions in 10-year Treasury futures remain deep in "net short" territory and the Marketvane survey of bond sentiment is still "bearish", but the JP Morgan Duration Surveys for both "all clients" and active clients" have moved somewhat closer to neutral. The second catalyst was that our auto-regressive model pointed to strong odds of a negative reading from the U.S. Economic Surprise Index during the next month (Chart 3). This remains the case, but the reading from our model has moved much closer to the zero line. Chart 2Positioning Now Closer To Neutral Positioning Now Closer To Neutral Positioning Now Closer To Neutral Chart 3Surprise Index Still Low Surprise Index Still Low Surprise Index Still Low Taken together, our two indicators no longer send a resounding "buy bonds" signal. But given the deeply net short Treasury futures positioning and the low level of the surprise index, we are inclined to maintain our tactical buy recommendation for another week. We will re-assess again next week based on trends in the surprise index and the positioning data. The Fed & The Credit Cycle The Powell Fed has so far not been kind to credit spreads. Since February our index of financial conditions has tightened considerably, driven by a combination of falling equity prices, wider quality spreads and a stronger dollar (Chart 4). Yet, the Fed seems relatively unconcerned and is broadly expected to lift rates this week. All in all, the Powell Fed seems less concerned with responding to tighter financial conditions than was the Yellen Fed. Chart 4How Much Pain Can The Fed Take? How Much Pain Can The Fed Take? How Much Pain Can The Fed Take? There is some truth to this observation, though we think the difference has more to do with recent trends in inflation than with any change in approach between the two Fed Chairs. As inflation pressures mount, the Fed is marginally less concerned with responding to weakness in financial markets and marginally more concerned with preventing an inflation overshoot. This is why we will reduce our allocation to corporate bonds once our monetary indicators tell us that inflation expectations are well anchored around the Fed's target. Monetary Indicators Long maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates are the primary indicators we are monitoring in this regard. When both the 10-year and 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rates reach a range between 2.3% and 2.5%, that will be consistent with past periods of well-anchored inflation expectations and we will start reducing exposure to corporate credit (Chart 5). But we should not rely solely on one indicator. It is conceivable that the financial crisis ushered in a structural shift (possibly due to stricter banking regulations) and that the level of TIPS breakevens consistent with well-anchored inflation expectations is now slightly lower.4 For this reason we also pay attention to the St. Louis Fed's Price Pressures Measure (Chart 5, bottom panel). This model is designed to output the percent chance that inflation will exceed 2.5% during the next 12 months, and we have found that corporate bond excess returns decline significantly when it exceeds 15%.5 It currently sits at 13%. Finally, it's also a good idea to pay attention to core PCE inflation itself. The year-over-year rate of change in core PCE inflation jumped sharply in recent months, but it has not yet returned to the Fed's 2% target (Chart 6). It is therefore still reasonable to expect that inflation expectations are not consistent with target inflation. It is likely that many investors still have doubts about whether inflation will recover to the Fed's target. Chart 5Credit Cycle: Monetary Indicators Credit Cycle: Monetary Indicators Credit Cycle: Monetary Indicators Chart 6The Fed's Inflation Model The Fed's Inflation Model The Fed's Inflation Model Those doubts would probably fade if the year-over-year rate of change in core PCE inflation actually rose to 2% and stayed there for several months. At that point we would have to conclude that inflation expectations are well anchored, whatever the level of TIPS breakeven rates. Incidentally, the recent bounce in core inflation brought it back in line with the reading from Janet Yellen's Phillips Curve model that she presented in a speech from 2015.6 In the context of this model, a continued decline in the unemployment rate will pressure inflation slowly higher, meaning that we expect to receive a signal from our monetary indicators sometime this year. We will pare exposure to corporate bonds at that time. It will be very interesting to hear from Chair Yellen herself when she visits the BCA Conference in September, and we hope to gain insight not only about her inflation forecast but also about how the Fed thinks about its responsiveness to financial markets, and most importantly, about how the Fed is likely to manage the tightening cycle as the funds rate approaches its estimate of neutral. Credit Quality Indicators Outside of Fed policy and the inflation outlook, we are also closely monitoring the relationship between profit growth and debt growth for the nonfinancial corporate sector. Leverage rises whenever debt growth exceeds profit growth and rising leverage tends to coincide with widening credit spreads (Chart 7). Nonfinancial corporate debt grew at an annualized rate of 4.4% in the first quarter, while pre-tax profits actually contracted at an annualized rate of 5.7%. As a result, our measure of gross leverage ticked higher from 6.9 to 7.1. More broadly, profits grew 5.8% in the four quarters ending in Q1 2018, only slightly faster than the 5.2% increase in corporate debt. This does not provide much of a buffer, and it will not take much to send profit growth below debt growth on a sustained basis. In fact, we expect that if labor compensation costs continue to accelerate we will see leverage start to rise more meaningfully in the second half of this year. Our overall Corporate Health Monitor improved noticeably in the first quarter (Chart 8). But this large move will almost certainly reverse in Q2. The improvement was concentrated in the components of the Monitor that use after-tax cash flows, and as such they were influenced by the sharp decline in the corporate tax rate. Profit margins, for example, increased from 25.8% to 26.4% on an after-tax basis in Q1 (Chart 8, panel 2), but would have fallen to 25.5% if the effective corporate tax rate had remained the same as in 2017 Q4. As the effective corporate tax rate levels-off around its new lower level (Chart 8, bottom panel), last quarter's improvement in the Corporate Health Monitor will start to unwind. Chart 7Leverage Is Poised To Head Higher Leverage Is Poised To Head Higher Leverage Is Poised To Head Higher Chart 8Tax Cuts Helped Balance Sheets In Q1 Tax Cuts Helped Balance Sheets In Q1 Tax Cuts Helped Balance Sheets In Q1 Bottom Line: For the time being both our monetary and credit quality indicators recommend an overweight allocation to corporate bonds. Inflation expectations are not yet anchored around the Fed's target, and gross leverage is trending sideways. Both of these measures will likely send a more negative signal later this year, and we will reduce exposure to corporate credit at that time. Still No Opportunity In Emerging Market Debt We pointed out in a recent report that a persistent divergence between U.S. and non-U.S. economic growth was the most likely catalyst that could cause the Fed to slow its pace of rate hikes.7 A divergence between strong U.S. growth and weaker growth in the rest of the world puts upward pressure on the U.S. dollar, and this is a particular problem for many emerging markets that carry large balances of U.S. dollar denominated debt. Our Emerging Markets Strategy service published a Special Report last week that explains in detail this particular problem faced by emerging markets and shows which countries face the most pressing debt concerns.8 For U.S. fixed income investors another important question is whether the recent strength in the U.S. dollar, and weakness in emerging market currencies, has resulted in an opportunity to shift out of U.S. corporate credit and into USD-denominated emerging market sovereign debt. On that note, Chart 9 shows that the average option-adjusted spread for the Baa-rated U.S. Corporate bond index recently dipped below the average spread for the investment grade USD Emerging Market (EM) Sovereign index. However, we think it is still too soon to move into emerging market debt. After adjusting for differences in duration and spread volatility between the two indexes, we come up with a measure of "Months-To-Breakeven". This indicator shows the number of months of spread widening required for each index to lose money relative to U.S. Treasuries. By this measure, U.S. Corporate bonds still look attractive compared to investment grade EM Sovereigns. At the country level, Chart 10 shows the 12-month breakeven spread for the USD-denominated sovereign debt of several major EM countries. It also shows each country's foreign funding requirement, a measure of the foreign capital inflows required in the next 12 months for each country to cover any shortfall in current account transactions and service its foreign currency debt. Chart 9EM Sovereigns Are Still Expensive EM Sovereigns Are Still Expensive EM Sovereigns Are Still Expensive Chart 10USD-Denominated Emerging Market Debt: Risk/Reward At The Country Level Threats & Opportunities In Emerging Markets Threats & Opportunities In Emerging Markets For the Baa-rated countries, Colombia, Mexico and Indonesia all offer spreads similar to what can be found in the Baa-rated U.S. Corporate bond market. The Philippines looks quite expensive, but Russia looks cheap compared to U.S. Corporates and has one of the lowest foreign funding requirements of any EM country. In High-Yield space, Turkey is fairly priced relative to Ba-rated U.S. junk, while Brazil and South Africa both look expensive. Argentina also looks expensive relative to B-rated U.S. junk. Bottom Line: Despite the recent weakness in emerging market currencies, U.S. corporate credit still looks more attractive than USD-denominated emerging market sovereign debt. At the country level, only Russian debt warrants an overweight allocation relative to U.S. corporates. Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com 1 https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/yellen20170926a.htm 2 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Breaking Points", dated May 29, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Pulling Back And Looking Ahead", dated May 22, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 4 We explored some possible reasons for such a shift in the U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Will Breakevens Ever Recover?", dated April 25, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 5 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Risk Rally Extended", dated June 27, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 6 https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/yellen20150924a.htm 7 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Breaking Points", dated May 29, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 8 Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, "A Primer On EM External Debt", dated June 7, 2018, available at ems.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

Highlights Chart 1Risks To The Bond Bear Market Risks To The Bond Bear Market Risks To The Bond Bear Market Two weeks ago we flagged that large net short positioning and elevated growth expectations left the Treasury market primed to benefit from any disturbance in the economic outlook. Since then the 10-year yield fell from a peak of 3.06% to 2.77%, before climbing back to 2.92%. With positioning still deeply net short and strong odds of a further decline in the economic surprise index (Chart 1), we continue to see an elevated risk that yields move lower on a 0-3 month horizon. But beyond that, less nimble investors should remain positioned for higher yields on a 6-12 month timeframe. The major risks in the global economy - Eurozone sovereign credit concerns and a strong dollar weighing on emerging market demand - are unlikely to put the Fed off its "gradual" pace of one rate hike per quarter unless they lead to a significant risk-off event in U.S. financial markets. Absent that sort of shock, the Fed will continue to lift rates "gradually" toward a neutral level near 3%, and eventually into restrictive territory. This rate hike path is consistent with a cyclical peak in the 10-year Treasury yield between 3.30% and 3.80%, well above current levels. Feature Investment Grade: Overweight Chart 2Investment Grade Market Overview Investment Grade Market Overview Investment Grade Market Overview Investment grade corporate bonds underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 45 basis points in May, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to -122 bps. Value has improved considerably since the start of the year. The 12-month breakeven spread for a Baa-rated corporate bond is back up to its 29th percentile relative to history (Chart 2). Market-derived inflation expectations also ebbed during the past month, with the 10-year and 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rates now at 2.09% and 2.12% respectively. This is below the target range of 2.3% to 2.5% that would trigger a downgrade to our corporate bond allocation. The combination of more attractive value and a somewhat more supportive monetary environment (as evidenced by the decline in TIPS breakeven rates) increases the odds of near-term corporate bond outperformance, and we would not be surprised to see spreads tighten during the next few months. However, the longer run outlook for corporates remains negative. First quarter data showed a 5.7% annualized decline in pre-tax corporate profits, dragging the year-over-year growth rate down to 5.8% (bottom panel). As employee compensation costs accelerate in the second half of the year, we expect that corporate profit growth will fall sustainably below the pace of corporate debt growth leading to rising leverage (panel 4). Strong oil prices have caused the energy sector to outperform the overall index considerably since the middle of last year. Now, many energy sub-sectors no longer appear cheap on our model. We take this opportunity to downgrade a few energy sub-sectors from overweight to neutral, and adjust some other sector recommendations as well (Table 3). Table 3ACorporate Sector Relative Valuation And Recommended Allocation* Bond Bear Still Intact Bond Bear Still Intact Table 3BCorporate Sector Risk Vs. Reward* Bond Bear Still Intact Bond Bear Still Intact High-Yield: Overweight Chart 3High-Yield Market Overview High-Yield Market Overview High-Yield Market Overview High-Yield underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 65 basis points in May, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to +36 bps. The average index option-adjusted spread widened 24 bps on the month, and currently sits at 356 bps. High-yield spreads are increasingly at odds with Moody's default rate projections. The latter call for the 12-month speculative grade default rate to fall to 1.5% by next April. The current 12-month trailing default rate is 3.7% (Chart 3). Using the Moody's default rate projection, and our own forecast for the recovery rate, we calculate the excess spread available in the Bloomberg Barclays High-Yield index to be 284 bps (after accounting for expected default losses). This is somewhat higher than the historical average of 248 bps. The current excess spread means that in an unchanged spread environment we would expect a High-Yield excess return (relative to duration-matched Treasuries) of +278 bps during the next 12 months. If the index spread were to tighten by 100 bps, we would expect an excess return of +675 bps. If the index spread were to widen by 100 bps we would expect an excess return of -120 bps (panel 3). If the excess spread were to simply revert to its historical average, then it would imply an excess High-Yield return of +427 bps. At the sector level, Moody's expects that most defaults during the next 12 months will come from the Media: Advertising, Printing & Publishing sector, followed closely by the Durable Consumer Goods and Retail sectors. Much of the projected improvement in the overall default rate results from a continued decline in Oil & Gas sector defaults compared to the past few years. MBS: Neutral Chart 4MBS Market Overview MBS Market Overview MBS Market Overview Mortgage-Backed Securities underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 5 basis points in May, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to -27 bps. The conventional 30-year zero-volatility MBS spread widened 4 bps on the month, driven entirely by a 4 bps increase in the compensation for prepayment risk (option cost). The option-adjusted spread held flat at 32 bps. Value in the MBS sector is by no means exciting. The nominal spread on a conventional 30-year MBS is near its all-time low, the option-adjusted spread is close to one standard deviation below its pre-crisis mean (Chart 4) and MBS no longer look very attractive compared to investment grade corporate credit (panel 3). The most compelling reason to hold agency-backed MBS is that mortgage refinancings are likely to remain very low, owing both to rising interest rates and the large number of homeowners that have already refinanced. Depressed refi activity should keep MBS spreads near historically low levels (bottom panel), even as stresses emerge in other spread product sectors, notably corporate bonds. We recently presented a method for calculating expected total returns for all different bond sectors, only using assumptions for the number of Fed rate hikes during the next 12 months and the expected change in spreads.1 Our results showed an expected total return of 2.9% for conventional 30-year MBS in a scenario where the Fed lifts rates by 100 bps and where spreads remain flat. The same scenario corresponds to 3.4% total return for the investment grade corporate index. Government-Related: Underweight Chart 5Government-Related Market Overview Government-Related Market Overview Government-Related Market Overview The Government-Related index underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 33 basis points in May, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to -40 bps. Sovereign debt underperformed the Treasury benchmark by 158 bps on the month, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to -242 bps. Foreign Agencies underperformed by 37 bps on the month, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to -56 bps. Local Authorities underperformed by 22 bps on the month, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to +37 bps. Supranationals underperformed by 2 bps on the month, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to +2 bps. Domestic Agency bonds outperformed by 7 bps, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +7 bps. Global growth divergences and a stronger U.S. dollar weighed on Sovereign bond returns in May (Chart 5). While value in the sector improved somewhat as a result, it remains expensive relative to investment grade corporate credit (panel 2). With dollar strength likely to persist in the near-term, we remain underweight Sovereign bonds. Conversely, we reiterate our overweight recommendations on Foreign Agency and Local Authority bonds. Those sectors still offer compelling valuations and are less sensitive to a strong U.S. dollar than the lower-rated Sovereign sector. Supranationals and Domestic Agency bonds are low risk but do not offer sufficient spread to warrant much attention. Better low-risk spread product opportunities are available in the Agency CMBS and Consumer ABS sectors. Municipal Bonds: Underweight Chart 6Municipal Market Overview Municipal Market Overview Municipal Market Overview Municipal bonds outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 15 basis points in May, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +110 bps (before adjusting for the tax advantage). The average Aaa-rated Municipal/Treasury yield ratio declined 2% on the month and, at 86%, it is very close to its post-crisis low (Chart 6). It remains somewhat elevated compared to the average level of 81% that was observed in the late stages of the previous cycle, between mid-2006 and mid-2007. Technically, yield ratios have been supported by robust fund flows and subdued issuance (panels 2 & 3), while fundamentally our Municipal Health Monitor suggests that ratings upgrades will continue to outpace downgrades for the time being (not shown). The message from our Health Monitor is confirmed by the trend in state & local government net borrowing (bottom panel). First quarter data, released last week, showed a sizeable drop in net borrowing as state & local governments managed to grow revenues by $46 billion while growing expenditures by only $25 billion. This is consistent with governments working hard to repair their budgets, raising taxes and slowing spending growth, as we showed in a recent report.2 Given tight municipal valuations, we continue to see better opportunities in the corporate bond space than in municipal bonds. But we will look to upgrade munis at the expense of corporates as we approach the end of the credit cycle. Hopefully, from a more attractive entry point. Treasury Curve: Favor 7-Year Bullet Over 1/20 Barbell Chart 7Treasury Yield Curve Overview Treasury Yield Curve Overview Treasury Yield Curve Overview The Treasury curve bull-flattened in May. The 2/10 Treasury slope flattened 3 bps to end the month at 43 bps. The 5/30 slope held steady at 32 bps. The short-end of the Treasury curve is still not adequately priced for the Fed's likely pace of one 25 basis point rate hike per quarter. Such a pace translates to a level of 100 bps on our 12-month discounter, which currently sits at only 73 bps (Chart 7). Similarly, the long-end of the Treasury curve is not adequately priced for the likely trend in inflation. The 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate is at only 2.09%, below the range of 2.3% to 2.5% that is consistent with well-anchored inflation expectations. We anticipate that higher TIPS breakevens at the long end of the curve will be roughly offset by loftier rate expectations at the short end of the curve, leaving the slope of the Treasury curve close to current levels during the next few months. In a recent report we introduced a framework for identifying the most attractively valued butterfly trades across the entire yield curve.3 The results, shown in Table 4, identify the 7-year bullet over the 1-year/20-year barbell as the most attractively valued butterfly trade that is geared toward curve steepening. According to our model, that trade is priced for 56 bps of 1/20 flattening during the next six months (panel 4). That seems excessive given the low level of long-maturity TIPS breakevens. Table 4Butterfly Strategy Valuation (As Of June 4, 2018) Bond Bear Still Intact Bond Bear Still Intact TIPS: Overweight Chart 8Inflation Compensation Inflation Compensation Inflation Compensation TIPS underperformed the duration-equivalent nominal Treasury index by 65 basis points in May, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to +95 bps. The 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate fell 10 bps on the month and currently sits at 2.09%. The 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rate fell 13 bps and currently sits at 2.12%. As we explained in a recent report, we view the first stage of the bond bear market as being driven by the re-anchoring of inflation expectations.4 We will consider inflation expectations well anchored when both the 10-year and 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rates are in a range between 2.3% and 2.5%, where they were the last time that inflation was well anchored around the Fed's target. Recent trends show that inflation is steadily making progress toward the Fed's 2% goal. The 12-month rate of change in the core PCE deflator is back up to 1.8%, from 1.5% in February. However, the core PCE deflator has only increased by 0.15% in each of the past two months. Consistent monthly prints above 0.165% are required to reach the Fed's 2% target (Chart 8). We expect tight labor markets and strong pipeline pressures (panel 3) to drive inflation higher in the months ahead. Although, as we discussed last week, the risk of a significant overshoot of the Fed's inflation target during the next 6-12 months is low.5 ABS: Neutral Chart 9ABS Market Overview ABS Market Overview ABS Market Overview Asset-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 3 basis points in May, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to -3 bps. The index option-adjusted spread for Aaa-rated ABS widened 1 bp on the month and now stands at 41 bps, 7 bps above its pre-crisis low. While consumer ABS offer reasonably attractive expected returns relative to other low-risk spread product (Agency CMBS, Domestic Agency bonds and Supranationals), credit risk is slowly starting to build in the sector. The New York Fed's Household Debt and Credit report showed that the 90+ day credit card delinquency rate rose above 8% in Q1 for the first time since 2015. Meanwhile, the overall consumer credit delinquency rate continues to increase alongside a rising debt service ratio (Chart 9). On the supply side, banks reported tightening credit card lending standards for the fourth consecutive quarter in Q1, while auto loan lending standards were tightened for the eighth consecutive quarter. Periods of tightening lending standards tend to coincide with rising delinquencies and wider spreads (bottom panel). In a recent report we forecasted 12-month total returns for each U.S. fixed income sector using inputs only for the path of spreads and the number of Fed rate hikes during the next year. In a scenario where spreads remain flat and the Fed lifts rates four times next year, we would expect Aaa-rated credit card ABS to return 2.3% and Aaa-rated auto loan ABS to return 2.4%.6 Non-Agency CMBS: Underweight Chart 10CMBS Market Overview CMBS Market Overview CMBS Market Overview Non-Agency Commercial Mortgage-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 1 basis point in May, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +71 bps. The index option-adjusted spread for non-agency Aaa-rated CMBS widened 2 bps on the month and currently sits at 70 bps, close to one standard deviation below its pre-crisis mean. Banks eased lending standard on nonfarm nonresidential loans in Q1 for the first time since 2015, and continued easing could signal lower delinquencies in the future (Chart 10). Easier lending standards could also support commercial real estate prices, which have decelerated recently and currently pose a risk for spreads (panel 3). Agency CMBS: Overweight Agency CMBS outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 1 basis point in May, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +13 bps. The index option-adjusted spread widened 1 bp on the month and currently sits at 48 bps. In a recent report we forecasted 12-month total returns for each U.S. fixed income sector using inputs only for the path of spreads and the number of Fed rate hikes during the next year. In a scenario where spreads remain flat and the Fed lifts rates four times next year, we would expect non-agency Aaa-rated CMBS to return 2.8% and Agency CMBS to return 2.6%.7 Treasury Valuation Chart 11Treasury Fair Value Models Treasury Fair Value Models Treasury Fair Value Models The current reading from our 2-factor Treasury model (based on Global PMI and dollar sentiment) pegs fair value for the 10-year Treasury yield at 2.54%. The drop in the model's fair value compared to last month stems from a decline in the global PMI from 53.5 to 53.1, and a rise in dollar bullish sentiment from 60% to 67%. While global growth has undoubtedly lost momentum in recent months, we also suspect that our 2-factor model is finally breaking down. The 2-factor model does not contain a variable to capture the degree of resource utilization in the economy. As resource slack dissipates, inflationary pressures mount and the same pace of global growth should be associated with a higher Treasury yield. This means that as we approach the end of the cycle, the 2-factor model will start producing fair value readings that are consistently too low. We can attempt to correct for this by incorporating a measure of resource slack into our model, in this case the employment-to-population ratio. A model for the 10-year Treasury yield based on the employment-to-population ratio and the Global PMI produces a fair value of 3.29% (Chart 11). As we move further toward the end of the cycle, and away from the zero-lower bound on the fed funds rate, we expect the regression coefficients shown in the bottom three panels will revert to their pre-crisis levels and Treasury fair value will revert closer to the one shown in the second panel. Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com Jeremie Peloso, Research Analyst jeremiep@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Pulling Back And Looking Ahead", dated May 22, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Profiting From A Higher LIBOR", dated March 20, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, "More Bullets, Barbells And Butterflies", dated May 15, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "A Signal From Gold?", dated May 1, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 5 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Breaking Points", dated May 29, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 6 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Pulling Back and Looking Ahead", dated May 22, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 7 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Pulling Back and Looking Ahead", dated May 22, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification Corporate Sector Relative Valuation And Recommended Allocation Total Return Comparison: 7-Year Bullet Versus 2-20 Barbell (6-Month Investment Horizon)

As interest rates rise, investors are looking for the leveraged pressure points in the global economy to identify the sectors most likely to show strain. We previously identified the U.S. corporate bond market as a definite candidate. This month we look at European corporates. European corporations are still well behind the U.S. in the leveraging cycle. Relative trends in corporate financial health have generally favored European credit quality relative to U.S. issuers. Below the surface, balance sheet repair in the Eurozone has been concentrated in domestic issuers; financial trends among foreign issuers have resembled those in the U.S. market. Foreign issuers are much more vulnerable to higher interest rates and an economic downturn. Interest- and debt-coverage ratios are likely to fall to levels that will spark a raft of downgrades for foreign firms issuing into the Eurozone market, in the event that interest rates rise and a recession follows. Investors should concentrate their European corporate bond portfolios in domestic securities. That said, trends in financial health are unlikely to be the key driver of corporate bond relative returns this year. More important will be the end of the ECB's asset purchase program. We recommend an underweight position in Eurozone IG and HY relative to Eurozone government bonds, and relative to U.S. corporates. Risk assets remain on a collision course with monetary policy, which is the main reason why the "return of vol" is a key theme in the BCA 2018 Outlook. In the U.S., rising inflation is expected to limit the FOMC's ability to cushion soft patches in the economic data or negative shocks from abroad. We expect that ECB tapering will add to market stress, especially now that Eurozone breakup risks are again a concern. We also believe that geopolitics will remain a major source of uncertainty and volatility. All this comes at a time when corporate bond spreads offer only a thin buffer against bad news. On a positive note, we remain upbeat on the earnings outlook in the major countries. The U.S. recession that we foresaw in 2019 has been delayed into 2020 by fiscal stimulus. The longer runway for earnings to grow keeps us nervously overweight corporate bonds, at least in the U.S. That said, corporates are no more than a carry trade now that the lows in spreads are in place for the cycle. We are keeping a close eye on a number of indicators that will help us to time the next downgrade to our global corporate bond allocation. Profitability is just one, albeit important, aspect of the financial backdrop. What about the broader trend in financial health? Does the trend justify wider spreads even if the economy and profits hold up over the next year? We reviewed U.S. corporate financial health in the March 2018 monthly Bank Credit Analyst, using our bottom-up sample of companies. We also stress-tested these companies for higher interest rates and a medium-sized recession. We concluded that the U.S. corporate sector's heavy accumulation of debt in this expansion will result in rampant downgrade activity during the next economic downturn. As interest rates rise, investors are looking for the leveraged pressure points in the global economy to identify the sectors most likely to show strain. The U.S. corporate bond market is a definite candidate. This month we extend the analysis to the European corporate sector. The European Corporate Health Monitor The bottom-up version of the Corporate Health Monitor (CHM) is a complement to our top-down CHM, which uses macro data from the ECB to construct an index of six financial ratios for the non-financial corporate sector. While useful as an indicator of the overall trend in corporate financial health, it does not shed light on underlying trends across credit quality, countries and sectors. It also fails to distinguish between domestic versus foreign issuers in the Eurozone market. A number of features of the European market limit the bottom-up analysis to some extent relative to what we are able to do for the U.S.: the Eurozone market is significantly smaller and company data typically do not have as much history; foreign issuers comprise almost 50% of the market, a much higher percentage than in the U.S.; and the Financial sector features more prominently in the Eurozone index, but we exclude it because our CHM methodology does not lend itself well to this sector. We analyzed only domestic issuers in our study of U.S. corporate health. However, we decided to include foreign issuers in our Eurozone analysis in order to maximize the sample size. Moreover, it is appropriate for some bond investors to consider the whole picture, given that important benchmarks such as Barclay's corporate indexes include both foreign and domestic issuers. The relative composition of domestic versus foreign, investment-grade versus high-yield, and industrial sectors in our sample are comparable with the weights used in the Barclay's index. The CHM is calculated using the median value for each of six financial ratios (Table II-1). We then standardize1 the median values for the six ratios and aggregate them into a composite index using a simple average. The result is an index that fluctuates between +/- 2 standard deviations. A rising index indicates deteriorating health, while a downtrend signals improving health. We defined it this way in order to facilitate comparison with trends in corporate spreads. Table II-1Definitions Of Ratios That Go Into The CHMs June 2018 June 2018 One has to be careful in interpreting our Eurozone Monitor. The bottom-up version only dates back to 2005. Thus, while both the level and change in the U.S. CHM provide important information regarding balance sheet health, for the Eurozone Monitor we focus more on the change. Whether it is a little above or below the zero line is less important than the trend. Top-Down Versus Bottom-Up Chart II-1 compares the top-down and bottom-up Eurozone CHMs for the entire non-financial corporate sector.2 The levels are different, although the broad trends are similar. Key differences that help to explain the divergence include the following: the top-down CHM defines leverage to be total debt as a percent of the market value of equity, while our bottom-up CHM defines it to be total debt as a percent of the book value of the company. The second panel of Chart II-1 highlights that the two measures of leverage have diverged significantly since 2012; the top-down CHM defines profit margins as total cash flow as a percent of sales. For data-availability reasons, our bottom-up version uses operating income/total sales; and most importantly, the top-down CHM uses ECB data, which includes only companies that are domiciled in the Eurozone. Thus, it excludes foreign issuers that make up a large part of our company sample and the Barclay's index. When we recalculate the bottom-up CHM using only domestic investment-grade issuers, the result is much closer to the top-down version (Chart II-2). Both CHMs have been in 'improving health' territory since the end of the Great Financial Crisis. The erosion in the profitability components during this period was offset by declining leverage, rising liquidity and improving interest coverage for domestic issuers. Chart II-1Top-Down Vs. Bottom-Up Top-Down Vs. Bottom-Up Top-Down Vs. Bottom-Up Chart II-2Top-Down Vs. Domestic Bottom-Up Top-Down Vs. Domestic Bottom-Up Top-Down Vs. Domestic Bottom-Up It has been a different story for foreign IG issuers (Chart II-3). These firms have historically enjoyed a higher return on capital, operating margins, interest coverage, debt coverage and liquidity. Nonetheless, heavy debt accumulation has undermined their interest- and debt-coverage ratios in absolute terms and relative to their domestic peers until very recently. In other words, while domestic issuers have made an effort to clean up their balance sheets since the Great Recession, financial trends among foreign issuers look more like the trends observed in the U.S. No doubt, this is in part due to U.S. companies issuing Euro-denominated debt, but there are many other foreign issuers in our sample as well. Some analysts prefer total debt/total assets to the leverage measure we use in constructing our CHMs. However, the picture is much the same; leverage among IG domestic and foreign firms has diverged dramatically since 2010 (Chart II-4). Chart II-3Bottom-Up: Domestic Vs. Foreign IG Bottom-Up: Domestic Vs. Foreign IG Bottom-Up: Domestic Vs. Foreign IG Chart II-4Diverging Leverage Trends Diverging Leverage Trends Diverging Leverage Trends Over the past year or so there has been some reversal in the post-Lehman trends; domestic health has stabilized, while that of foreign issuers has improved. Leverage among foreign companies has leveled off, while margins and the liquidity ratio have bounced. The results for high-yield (HY) issuers must be taken with a grain of salt because of the small sample size. Chart II-5 highlights that the HY CHM is improving for both domestic and foreign issuers. Impressively, leverage is declining for both the domestic and foreign components. The return on capital, interest coverage, and debt coverage have also improved, although only for foreign issuers. Chart II-5Bottom-Up: Domestic Vs. Foreign HY Bottom-Up: Domestic Vs. Foreign HY Bottom-Up: Domestic Vs. Foreign HY Corporate Sensitivity The bottom line is that, while there have been some relative shifts below the surface, the European corporate sector's finances are generally in good shape in absolute terms and relative to the U.S. This is particularly the case for domestic issuers that have yet to catch the equity buyback bug. However, less accommodative monetary policy and rising borrowing rates have focused investor attention on corporate sector vulnerability. Downgrade risk will mushroom if corporate borrowing rates continue rising and, especially, if the economy contracts. If there is a recession in Europe in the next few years it will likely be as a result of a downturn in the U.S. We expect a traditional end to the U.S. business cycle; the Fed overdoes the rate hike cycle, sending the economy into a tailspin. The U.S. downturn would spill over to the rest of the world and could drag the Eurozone into a mild contraction. We estimated the change in the interest coverage ratio for the companies in our bottom-up European sample for a 100 basis-point rise in interest rates across the corporate curve, taking into consideration the maturity distribution of the debt (i.e. the coupons reset only for the bonds, notes and loans that mature in the next three years). We make the simplifying assumptions that all debt and loans maturing in the next three years are rolled over, but that companies do not take on net new obligations. We also assume that EBIT is unchanged in order to isolate the impact of higher interest rates. The 'x' in Chart II-6 denotes the result of the interest rate shock only. The 'o' combines the interest rate shock with a recession scenario, in which EBIT contracts by 15%. The interest coverage ratio declines sharply when rates rise by 100 basis points, but the ratio moves to a new post-2000 low only for foreign issuers. The ratio for domestic issuers falls back to the range that existed between 2009 and 2013. The median interest coverage ratio drops further when we combine this with a 15% earnings contraction in the recession scenario. Again, the outcome is far worse for foreign than it is for domestic issuers. Chart II-7 presents a shock to the median debt coverage ratio. Since debt coverage (cash flow divided by total debt) does not include interest payments, we show only the recession scenario result that reflects the decline in profits. Once again, foreign issuers appear to be far more exposed to an economic downturn than their domestic brethren. Chart II-6Interest Coverage Shocks Interest Coverage Shocks Interest Coverage Shocks Chart II-7Debt Coverage Shock Debt Coverage Shock Debt Coverage Shock Indeed, the results for foreign issuers are qualitatively similar to the shocks we previous published for our bottom-up sample of IG corporates in the U.S. (Chart II-8 and Chart II-9). In both cases, higher interest rates and contracting earnings will take the interest coverage and debt coverage ratios into uncharted territory. Chart II-8U.S. Interest Coverage Shocks U.S. Interest Coverage Shocks U.S. Interest Coverage Shocks Chart II-9U.S. Debt Coverage Shock U.S. Debt Coverage Shock U.S. Debt Coverage Shock Conclusions European corporations are still well behind the U.S. in the leveraging cycle. Relative trends in corporate financial health have generally favored European credit quality relative to U.S. issuers, where balance sheet activity has focused on lifting shareholder value since the last recession. Below the surface, balance sheet repair in the Eurozone has been concentrated in domestic issuers; financial trends among foreign issuers have resembled those in the U.S. market. There has been a small convergence of financial health between Eurozone domestic and foreign issuers over the past year or so, but the latter are still much more vulnerable to higher interest rates and an economic downturn. Interest- and debt-coverage ratios are likely to fall to levels that will spark a raft of downgrades for foreign firms issuing into the Eurozone market, in the event that interest rates rise and a recession follows. Investors should concentrate their European corporate bond portfolios in domestic securities. That said, trends in financial health are unlikely to be the key driver of corporate bond returns relative to European government bonds or to U.S. corporates this year. More important will be the end of the ECB's asset purchase program later in 2018. We expect spreads to widen as this important liquidity tailwind fades. For the moment, our Global Fixed Income Strategy service recommends an underweight position in Eurozone IG and HY relative to Eurozone government bonds, and relative to U.S. corporates. Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst 1 Standardizing involves taking the deviation of the series from the 18 quarter moving average and dividing by the standard deviation of the series. 2 Note that a rising CHM indicates deteriorating health to facilitate comparison with quality spreads.

Highlights The risk/reward balance for risk assets remains unappealing this month, even though our base-case outlook sees them outperforming cash and bonds over the next 6-12 months. The number of items that could take equity markets to new highs appears to fall well short of the number of potential landmines that could take markets down. Tensions vis-à-vis North Korea have eased, but the U.S./China trade war is heating up. Trump's voter base and many in Congress want the President to push China harder. Eurozone "breakup risk" has reared its ugly head once again. The Italian President is trying to install a technocratic government, but the interim between now and a likely summer election will extend the campaign period during which the two contending parties have an incentive to continue with hyperbolic fiscal proposals. The next Italian election is not a referendum on exiting the EU or Euro Area. Nonetheless, the risks posed by the Italian political situation may not have peaked, especially since Italy's economic growth appears set to slow. We are underweight both Italian government bonds and equities within global portfolios. It is also disconcerting that we have passed the point of maximum global growth momentum. We expect growth to remain above-trend in the advanced economies, but the economic data will be less supportive of global risk assets than was the case last year. One reason for the economic "soft patch" is that the Chinese economy continues to decelerate. Our indicators suggest that growth will moderate further, with negative implications for the broader emerging market complex. Dearer oil may also be starting to bite, although prices have not increased enough to derail the expansion in the developed economies. This is especially the case in the U.S., where the shale industry is gearing up. Last year's "global synchronized growth" story is showing signs of wear. While the U.S. economy will enjoy a strong rebound in the second quarter, leading economic indicators in most of the other major countries have rolled over. Similar divergences are occurring in the inflation data. The international growth and inflation decoupling is probably not over, which means that long-dollar positions should continue to pay off in the coming months. U.S. inflation is almost back to target and the FOMC signaled that an overshoot will be tolerated. Policymakers will likely transition from "normalizing" policy to targeting slower economic growth once long-term inflation expectations return to the 2.3%-2.5% range. The advanced stage of the U.S. business cycle, heightened geopolitical risks and our bias for capital preservation keep us tactically cautious on risk assets again this month. Feature The major stock indexes are struggling, even though 12-month forward earnings estimates continue to march higher (Chart I-1). One problem is that a lot of good earnings news was discounted early in the year. The number of items that could take markets to new highs appear to fall well short of the number of potential landmines that could take markets down. Not the least of which is ongoing pain in emerging markets and the return of financial stress in Eurozone debt markets. Last month's Overview highlighted the unappealing risk/reward balance for risk assets, even though our base-case outlook sees them outperforming cash and bonds over the next 6-12 months. The advanced stage of the business cycle and our bias for capital preservation motivated us to heed the recent warnings from our growth indicators and 'exit' timing checklist. We also were concerned about a raft of geopolitical tensions. Fast forward one month and the backdrop has not improved. Our Equity Scorecard Indicator edged up, but is still at a level that historically was consistent with poor returns to stocks and corporate bonds (see Chart I-1 in last month's Overview). Our 'exit' checklist is also signaling that caution is warranted (Table I-1). Meanwhile, the "global synchronized expansion" theme that helped to drive risk asset prices higher last year is beginning to unravel and trade tensions are escalating. Chart I-1Struggling To Make Headway Struggling To Make Headway Struggling To Make Headway Table I-1Exit Checklist For Risk Assets June 2018 June 2018 U.S./Sino Trade War Is Back? The "on again/off again" trade war between the U.S. and China is on again as we go to press. Investors breathed a sigh of relief in mid-May when the Trump Administration signaled that China's minor concessions were sufficient to avoid the imposition of onerous new tariffs. However, the proposed deal did not go down well with many in the U.S., including some in the Republican Party. The President was criticized for giving up too much in order to retain China's help in dealing with North Korea. Trump might have initially cancelled the summit with Kim in order to send a message to China that he is still prepared to play hard ball on trade, despite the North Korean situation. We expect that U.S./North Korean negotiations will soon begin, and that Pyongyang will not be a major threat to global financial markets for at least the near term. It is a different story for U.S./China relations. Trump's voter base and many in Congress on both sides of the isle want the President to push China harder. This is likely to be a headwind for risk assets at least until the U.S. mid-term elections. The Return Of Eurozone Breakup Risk Turning to the Eurozone, "breakup risk" has reared its ugly head once again. Italian President Sergio Mattarella's decision to reject a proposed cabinet minister has led to the collapse of the populist coalition between the anti-establishment Five Star Movement (M5S) and the euroskeptic League. President Mattarella's choice for interim-prime minister, Carlo Cottarelli, is unlikely to last long. It is highly unlikely that he will be able to receive parliamentary support for a technocratic mandate, given the fact that he cut government spending during a brief stint in government from 2013-14. As such, elections are likely this summer. Chart I-2Italy: No Euro Support Rebound Italy: No Euro Support Rebound Italy: No Euro Support Rebound Investors continue to fret for two reasons. First, the interim period will extend the campaign period during which both M5S and the League have an incentive to continue with hyperbolic fiscal proposals. Second, M5S has suggested that it will try to impeach Mattarella, a long and complicated process that would heighten political risk, though it will likely fail in our view. As our geopolitical strategists have emphasized throughout 2017, Italy will eventually be the source of a major global risk-off event because it is the one outstanding major European country capable of reigniting the Euro Area break-up crisis.1 While a majority of Italians support the euro, they are less supportive than any other major European country, including Greece (Chart I-2). Meanwhile a plurality of Italians is confident that the future would be brighter if Italy were an independent country outside of the EU. That said, the next election is not a referendum on exiting the EU or Euro Area. The current conflict arises from the coalition wanting to run large budget deficits in violation of Europe's Stability and Growth Pact fiscal rules. Given that the costs of attempting to exit the Euro Area are extremely severe for Italy's households and savers, and that even the Five Star Movement has moderated its previous skepticism about the euro for the time being, it is likely going to require a recession or another crisis to cause Italy seriously contemplate an exit. We are still several steps away from such a move. Nonetheless, the risks posed by the Italian political situation may not have peaked. Italy's leading economic indicator points to slowing growth, which will intensify the populist push for aggressive fiscal stimulus. We are underweight both Italian government bonds and equities within global portfolios. Global Growth Has Peaked Chart I-3Past The Point Of Max Growth Momentum Past The Point Of Max Growth Momentum Past The Point Of Max Growth Momentum It is also disconcerting that we have passed the point of maximum global growth momentum, as highlighted by the indicators shown in Chart I-3. We expect growth to remain above-trend in the advanced economies, but the economic data will be less supportive of global risk assets than was the case last year. What is behind this year's loss of momentum? First, growth in 2017 was flattered by a rebound from the oil-related manufacturing recession of 2015/16. That rebound is now topping out, while worries regarding a trade war are undoubtedly weighing on animal spirits and industrial activity. Second, the Eurozone economy was lifted last year by the previous recapitalization of parts of the banking system, which allowed some pent-up credit demand to be satiated. This growth impulse also appears to have peaked, which helps to explain the sharp drop in some of the Eurozone's key economic indicators. Still, we do not expect European growth to slip back below a trend pace on a sustained basis unless the Italian situation degenerates so much that contagion causes significantly tighter financial conditions for the entire Eurozone economy. The third factor contributing to the global growth moderation is China. The Chinese economy surged in 2017 in a lagged response to fiscal and monetary stimulus in 2016, as highlighted by the Li Keqiang Index (LKI) and import growth (Chart I-4). Both are now headed south as the policy backdrop turned less supportive. Downturns in China's credit and fiscal impulses herald a deceleration in capital spending and construction activity (Chart I-4, bottom panel). The LKI has a strong correlation with ex-tech earnings and import growth. In turn, the latter is important for the broader EM complex that trade heavily with China. Weaker Chinese import growth has also had a modest negative impact on the developed world (Chart I-5). We estimate that, for the major economies, the contribution to GDP growth of exports to China has fallen from 0.3 percentage points last year to 0.1 percentage points now.2 Japan and Australia have been hit the hardest, but the Eurozone has also been affected. Interestingly, U.S. exports to China have bucked the trend so far. Chart I-4China Growth Slowdown... China Growth Slowdown... China Growth Slowdown... Chart I-5...Is Weighing On Global Activity ...Is Weighing On Global Activity ...Is Weighing On Global Activity China is not the only story because the slowdown in global trade activity in the first quarter was broadly based (Chart I-5). Nonetheless, softer aggregate demand growth out of China helps to explain why manufacturing PMIs and industrial production growth in most of the major developed economies have cooled. Our model for the LKI is still moderating. We do not see a hard economic landing, but our analysis points to further weakening in Chinese imports and thus softness in global exports and manufacturing activity in the coming months. Oil's Impact On The Economy... Finally, oil prices are no doubt taking a bite out of consumer spending power as Brent fluctuates just below $80/bbl. Our energy experts expect the global crude market to continue tightening due to robust growth and ongoing geopolitical tensions. Chief among these are the continuing loss of Venezuelan crude production and the re-imposition of U.S. sanctions on Iran. At the same time, we expect OPEC 2.0 to keep its production cuts in place in the second half of the year. Increasing shale output will not be enough to prevent world oil prices from rising in this environment, and we expect oil prices to continue to trend higher through 2018 and into early 2019 (Chart I-6). Brent could touch $90/bbl next year. There are a few ways to gauge the size of the oil shock on the economy. Chart I-7 shows the U.S. and global 'oil bill' as a share of GDP. We believe that both the level and the rate of change are important. Price spikes, even from low levels, do not allow energy users the time to soften the blow by shifting to alternative energy sources. Chart I-6Oil: Stay Bullish Oil: Stay Bullish Oil: Stay Bullish Chart I-7The Oil Bill The Oil Bill The Oil Bill The level of the oil bill is not high by historical standards. The increase in the bill over the past year has been meaningful, both for the U.S. and at the global level, but is still a long way from the oil shocks of the 1970s. U.S. consumer spending on energy as a share of disposable income, at about 4%, is also near the lowest level observed over the past 4-5 decades (Chart I-8). The 2-year swing in this series shows that rapid increases in energy-related spending has preceded slowdowns in economic growth, even from low starting points. The swing is currently back above the zero line but, again, it is not at a level that historically was associated with a significant economic slowdown. Chart I-8Oil's Impact On U.S. Consumer Spending Oil's Impact On U.S. Consumer Spending Oil's Impact On U.S. Consumer Spending Moreover, the mushrooming shale oil and gas industry has altered the calculus of oil shocks for the U.S. The plunge in oil prices in 2014-16 was accompanied by a manufacturing and profit mini recession in the developed countries, providing a drag on overall GDP growth. Chart I-9 provides an estimate of the contribution to U.S. growth from the oil and gas industry. We have included capital spending and wages & salaries in the calculation, and scaled it up to include spillover effects on other industries. Chart I-9Oil's Impact On Consumer Spending And Shale Oil's Impact On Consumer Spending And Shale Oil's Impact On Consumer Spending And Shale The oil and gas contribution swung from +0.5 percentage points in 2012 to -0.4 percentage points in 2016. The contribution has since become only slightly positive again, but it is likely to rise further unless oil prices decline in the coming months. We have included the annual swing in consumer spending on energy as a percent of GDP in Chart I-9 (inverted) for comparison purposes. At the moment, the impact on growth from the shale industry is roughly offsetting the negative impact on consumer spending. The bottom line is that the rise in oil prices so far is enough to take the edge off of global growth, but it is not large enough to derail the expansion in the developed countries. This is especially the case in the U.S., where the shale industry is gearing up. ...And Asset Prices As for the impact on asset prices, it is important to ascertain whether rising oil prices represent more restrictive supply or expanding demand. A mild rise in oil prices might simply be a symptom of increased demand caused by accelerating global growth. Higher oil prices are thus reflective of robust demand, and thus should not be seen as a threat. In contrast, the 1970s experience shows that supply restrictions can send the economy into a tailspin. In order to separate the two drivers of prices, we regressed WTI oil prices on global oil demand, inventories and the U.S. dollar. By excluding supply-related factors such as production restrictions, the residual of the regression model gives an approximate gauge of supply shocks (panel 2, Chart I-10). This model clearly has limitations, but it also has one key benefit: it estimates not just actual disruptions in supply, but also the premium built into prices due to perceived or expected future supply disruptions. For example, the 1990 price spike appears as quite a substantial deviation from what could be explained by changes in demand alone. Similar negative supply shocks are evident in 2000 and 2008. Chart I-10Identifying Supply Shocks In The Oil Market Identifying Supply Shocks In The Oil Market Identifying Supply Shocks In The Oil Market We then examined the impact that supply shocks have on subsequent period returns for both Treasury and risk assets. We divided the Supply Shock Proxy into four quartiles corresponding to the four zones shown in Chart I-10: strong positive shock, mild positive shock, mild negative shock and strong negative shock; the last of these corresponds to the region above the upper dashed line, which we have shaded in the chart. The performance of risk assets does not vary significantly across the bottom three quartiles of the supply shock indicator (Chart I-11). However, performance drops off precipitously in the presence of a strong negative supply shock. This is consistent with the "choke point" argument: investors are initially unconcerned with a modest appreciation in oil prices. It is only when prices are driven sharply above the level consistent with the current demand backdrop that risk assets begin to discount a more pessimistic future. The total returns to the Treasury index behave in the opposite manner (Chart I-12). Treasury returns are below average when the oil shock indicator is below one (i.e. positive supply shock) and above average when oil prices rise into negative supply shock territory. In other words, an excess of oil supply is Treasury bearish, as it would tend to fuel more robust economic growth. Conversely, a supply shock that drives oil prices higher tends to be Treasury bullish. This may seem counterintuitive because higher oil prices can be inflationary and thus should be bond bearish in theory. However, large negative oil supply shocks have usually preceded recessions, which caused Treasurys to rally. Chart I-11Effect On Risk Assets June 2018 June 2018 Chart I-12Effect On Treasurys June 2018 June 2018 The model clearly shows that the drop in oil prices in 2014/15 was a positive supply shock, consistent with the oil consumption data that show demand growth was fairly stable through that period. The model indicator has moved up toward the neutral line in recent months, suggesting that the supply side of the market is tightening up, but it is still in "mild positive supply shock" territory. The latest data point available is April, which means that it does not capture the surge in oil prices over the past month. Some of the recent jump in prices is clearly related to the cancelled Iran deal and other supply-related factors, although demand continues to be supportive of prices. The implication of this model is that it will probably require a significant further surge in prices, without a corresponding ramp up in oil demand, for the model to signal that supply constraints are becoming a significant threat for risk assets. A rise in Brent above US$85 would signal trouble according to this model. As for government bonds, rising oil prices are bearish in the near term, irrespective of whether it reflects demand or supply factors. This is because of the positive correlation between oil prices and long-term inflation expectations. The oil bull phase will turn bond-bullish once it becomes clear that energy prices have hit an economic choke point. Desynchronization Last year's "global synchronized growth" story is showing signs of wear. First quarter U.S. GDP growth was underwhelming, but the long string of first-quarter disappointment points to seasonal adjustment problems. Higher frequency data are consistent with a robust rebound in the second quarter. Forward looking indicators, such as the OECD and Conference Board's Leading Economic Indicators, continue to climb. This is in contrast with some of the other major economies, such as the Eurozone, U.K., Australia and Japan (Chart I-13). First quarter real GDP growth was particularly soft in Japan and the Eurozone, and one cannot blame seasonal adjustment in these cases. Chart I-13Growth & Inflation Divergences Growth & Inflation Divergences Growth & Inflation Divergences The divergence in economic performance likely reflects Washington's fiscal stimulus that is shielding the U.S. from the global economic soft patch. Moreover, the U.S. is less exposed to the oil shock and the China slowdown than are the other major economies. Similar divergences are occurring in the inflation data. While U.S. inflation continues to drift higher, it has lost momentum in the euro area, Japan and the U.K. (Chart I-13). Renewed stresses in the Italian and Spanish bond markets have sparked a flight-to-quality in recent trading days, depressing yields in safe havens such as U.S. Treasurys and German bunds. Nonetheless, prior to that, the divergence in growth and inflation was reflected in widening bond yield spreads as U.S. Treasurys led the global yields higher. Long-term inflation expectations have risen everywhere, but real yields have increased the most in the U.S. (prior to the flight-to-quality bond rally at the end of May). This is consistent with the growth divergence story and with our country bond allocation: overweight the U.K., Australia and Japan, and underweight U.S. Treasurys within hedged global portfolios. The dollar lagged earlier this year, but is finally catching up to the widening in interest rate spreads. The international growth and inflation decoupling is probably not over, which means that long-dollar positions should continue to pay off in the coming months. Expect More Pain In EM Dollar strength and rising U.S. bond yields are a classic late-cycle combination that often spells trouble for emerging market assets. We do not see the recent selloff across EM asset classes as a buying opportunity since markets have only entered the first stage of the classic final chapter; EM assets underperform as U.S. bond yields and the dollar rise, but commodity prices are resilient. In the second phase, U.S. bond yields top out, but the U.S. dollar continues to firm and commodity prices begin their descent. If the current slowdown in Chinese growth continues, as we expect, it will begin to weigh on non-oil commodity prices. Thus, emerging economies may have to deal with a deadly combination of rising U.S. interest rates, a stronger greenback, falling commodity prices and slowing exports to China (Chart I-14). Which countries are most exposed to lower foreign funding? BCA's Emerging Market Strategy services has ranked EM countries based on foreign funding requirements (Chart I-15). The latter is calculated as the current account balance plus foreign debt that is due in the coming months. Chart I-14EM Currencies Exposed To China Slowdown EM Currencies Exposed To China Slowdown EM Currencies Exposed To China Slowdown Chart I-15Vulnerability Ranking: Dependence On Foreign Funding June 2018 June 2018 Turkey, Malaysia, Peru and Chile have the heaviest foreign funding requirements in the next six months. These mostly stem from foreign debt obligations by their banks and companies. Even though most companies and banks with foreign debt will not default, their credit spreads will likely widen as it becomes more difficult to service the foreign debt.3 It is too early to build positions even in Turkish assets. Our EM strategists believe that it will require an additional 15% depreciation in the lira versus an equal-weighted basket of the dollar and euro, in combination with 200-250 basis points hike in the policy rate, and a 20% drop in share prices in local currency terms, to create a buying opportunity in Turkish financial instruments. FOMC Expects Inflation Overshoot Escalating turmoil in EM financial markets could potentially lead the Federal Reserve to put the rate hike campaign on hold. However, that would require some signs of either domestic financial stress or slowing growth. The FOMC is monitoring stress in emerging markets and in the Eurozone, but is sticking with its "gradual" tightening pace for now (i.e. 25 basis points per quarter). May's FOMC minutes signaled a rate hike in June. However, the minutes did not suggest that the Fed is getting more hawkish, despite the Staff's forecast that growth will remain above trend and that the labor market will continue to tighten at a time when core inflation is already pretty much back to target. Some inflation indicators, such as the New York Fed's Inflation Gauge, suggest that core inflation will overshoot. The minutes signaled that policymakers are generally comfortable with a modest overshoot of the 2% inflation target because many see it as necessary in order to shift long-term inflation expectations higher, into a range that is consistent with meeting the 2% inflation target on a "sustained" basis (we estimate this range to be 2.3-2.5% for the 10-year inflation breakeven rate). The fact that the FOMC took a fairly dovish tone and did not try to guide rate expectations higher contributed to some retracement of the Treasury selloff in recent weeks. Nonetheless, an inflation overshoot and rising inflation expectations will ultimately be bond-bearish, especially when the FOMC is forced to clamp down on growth as long-term inflation expectations reach the target range. As discussed in BCA's Outlook 2018, one of our key themes for the year is that risk assets are on a collision course with monetary policy because the FOMC will eventually have to transition from simply removing accommodation to targeting slower growth. Timing that transition will be difficult, and depends importantly on how much of an inflation overshoot the FOMC is prepared to tolerate. Is 2½% reasonable? Or could inflation go to 3%? The makeup of the FOMC has changed, but we expect Janet L. Yellen4 to shed light on this question when she speaks at the BCA Annual Investment Conference in September. Investment Conclusions The risks facing investors have shifted, but we do not feel any less cautious than we did last month. Geopolitical tensions vis-à-vis North Korea have perhaps eased. But trade tensions are escalating and investors are suddenly faced with another chapter in the Eurozone financial crisis. The major fear in the first and second chapters was that bond investors would attack Italy, given the sheer size of that economy and the size of Italian government debt. That dreadful day has arrived. The profit backdrop in the major economies remains constructive for equity markets. However, even there, the bloom is coming off the rose. Global growth is no longer synchronized and the advanced economies have hit a soft patch with the possible exception of the U.S. While far from disastrous, our short-term profit models appear to be peaking across the major countries (Chart I-16). Chart I-16Profit Growth: Solid, But Peaking Profit Growth: Solid, But Peaking Profit Growth: Solid, But Peaking The typical U.S. late cycle dynamics are also threatening emerging markets, at a time when investors are generally overweight and many EM countries have accumulated a pile of debt. U.S. inflation is set to overshoot the target, the FOMC is tightening and the dollar is rising. Throw in slowing Chinese demand and the EM space looks highly vulnerable. If the global economic slowdown is pronounced and drags the U.S. down with it, then bonds will rally and risk assets will take a hit. If, instead, the soft patch is short-lived and growth re-accelerates, then the U.S. Treasury bear market will resume. Stock indexes and corporate bond excess returns would enjoy one last upleg in this scenario, but downside risks would escalate once the Fed begins to target slower economic growth. Either way, EM assets would be hit. Our base case remains that stocks will beat government bonds and cash on a 6-12 month horizon. However, the risk/reward balance is unattractive given the geopolitical backdrop. Thus, we remain tactically cautious on risk assets for the near term. We still expect that the 10-year Treasury yield will peak at close to 3½% before this economic expansion is over. Nonetheless, this would require a calming of geopolitical tensions and an upturn in the growth indicators in the developed world. The risk/reward tradeoff for corporate bonds is no better than for equities and we urge caution in the near term. On a 6-12 month cyclical horizon, we still expect corporate bonds to outperform government bonds, at least in the U.S. European corporates are subject to the ebb and flow of the Italian bond crisis, and face the added risk that the ECB will likely end its QE program later this year. Looking further ahead, this month's Special Report, beginning on page 19, analyzes the Eurozone corporate sector's vulnerability to the end of the cycle that includes rising interest rates and, ultimately, a recession. We find that domestic issuers into the Eurozone market are far less exposed than are foreign issuers. Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst May 31, 2018 Next Report: June 28, 2018 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Europe's Divine Comedy: Italian Inferno," dated September 2016, available on gps.bcaresearch.com 2 This underestimates the impact on the major countries because it does not account for third country effects (i.e. trade with other countries that trade with China). 3 For more information, please see BCA Emerging Market Strategy Weekly Report, "The Dollar Rally And China's Imports," dated May 24, 2018, available on ems.bcaresearch.com 4 Janet L. Yellen, Chair, Board of Governors, Federal Reserve System (2014-2018). II. Leverage And Sensitivity To Rising Rates: The Eurozone Corporate Sector As interest rates rise, investors are looking for the leveraged pressure points in the global economy to identify the sectors most likely to show strain. We previously identified the U.S. corporate bond market as a definite candidate. This month we look at European corporates. European corporations are still well behind the U.S. in the leveraging cycle. Relative trends in corporate financial health have generally favored European credit quality relative to U.S. issuers. Below the surface, balance sheet repair in the Eurozone has been concentrated in domestic issuers; financial trends among foreign issuers have resembled those in the U.S. market. Foreign issuers are much more vulnerable to higher interest rates and an economic downturn. Interest- and debt-coverage ratios are likely to fall to levels that will spark a raft of downgrades for foreign firms issuing into the Eurozone market, in the event that interest rates rise and a recession follows. Investors should concentrate their European corporate bond portfolios in domestic securities. That said, trends in financial health are unlikely to be the key driver of corporate bond relative returns this year. More important will be the end of the ECB's asset purchase program. We recommend an underweight position in Eurozone IG and HY relative to Eurozone government bonds, and relative to U.S. corporates. Risk assets remain on a collision course with monetary policy, which is the main reason why the "return of vol" is a key theme in the BCA 2018 Outlook. In the U.S., rising inflation is expected to limit the FOMC's ability to cushion soft patches in the economic data or negative shocks from abroad. We expect that ECB tapering will add to market stress, especially now that Eurozone breakup risks are again a concern. We also believe that geopolitics will remain a major source of uncertainty and volatility. All this comes at a time when corporate bond spreads offer only a thin buffer against bad news. On a positive note, we remain upbeat on the earnings outlook in the major countries. The U.S. recession that we foresaw in 2019 has been delayed into 2020 by fiscal stimulus. The longer runway for earnings to grow keeps us nervously overweight corporate bonds, at least in the U.S. That said, corporates are no more than a carry trade now that the lows in spreads are in place for the cycle. We are keeping a close eye on a number of indicators that will help us to time the next downgrade to our global corporate bond allocation. Profitability is just one, albeit important, aspect of the financial backdrop. What about the broader trend in financial health? Does the trend justify wider spreads even if the economy and profits hold up over the next year? We reviewed U.S. corporate financial health in the March 2018 monthly Bank Credit Analyst, using our bottom-up sample of companies. We also stress-tested these companies for higher interest rates and a medium-sized recession. We concluded that the U.S. corporate sector's heavy accumulation of debt in this expansion will result in rampant downgrade activity during the next economic downturn. As interest rates rise, investors are looking for the leveraged pressure points in the global economy to identify the sectors most likely to show strain. The U.S. corporate bond market is a definite candidate. This month we extend the analysis to the European corporate sector. The European Corporate Health Monitor The bottom-up version of the Corporate Health Monitor (CHM) is a complement to our top-down CHM, which uses macro data from the ECB to construct an index of six financial ratios for the non-financial corporate sector. While useful as an indicator of the overall trend in corporate financial health, it does not shed light on underlying trends across credit quality, countries and sectors. It also fails to distinguish between domestic versus foreign issuers in the Eurozone market. A number of features of the European market limit the bottom-up analysis to some extent relative to what we are able to do for the U.S.: the Eurozone market is significantly smaller and company data typically do not have as much history; foreign issuers comprise almost 50% of the market, a much higher percentage than in the U.S.; and the Financial sector features more prominently in the Eurozone index, but we exclude it because our CHM methodology does not lend itself well to this sector. We analyzed only domestic issuers in our study of U.S. corporate health. However, we decided to include foreign issuers in our Eurozone analysis in order to maximize the sample size. Moreover, it is appropriate for some bond investors to consider the whole picture, given that important benchmarks such as Barclay's corporate indexes include both foreign and domestic issuers. The relative composition of domestic versus foreign, investment-grade versus high-yield, and industrial sectors in our sample are comparable with the weights used in the Barclay's index. The CHM is calculated using the median value for each of six financial ratios (Table II-1). We then standardize1 the median values for the six ratios and aggregate them into a composite index using a simple average. The result is an index that fluctuates between +/- 2 standard deviations. A rising index indicates deteriorating health, while a downtrend signals improving health. We defined it this way in order to facilitate comparison with trends in corporate spreads. Table II-1Definitions Of Ratios That Go Into The CHMs June 2018 June 2018 One has to be careful in interpreting our Eurozone Monitor. The bottom-up version only dates back to 2005. Thus, while both the level and change in the U.S. CHM provide important information regarding balance sheet health, for the Eurozone Monitor we focus more on the change. Whether it is a little above or below the zero line is less important than the trend. Top-Down Versus Bottom-Up Chart II-1 compares the top-down and bottom-up Eurozone CHMs for the entire non-financial corporate sector.2 The levels are different, although the broad trends are similar. Key differences that help to explain the divergence include the following: the top-down CHM defines leverage to be total debt as a percent of the market value of equity, while our bottom-up CHM defines it to be total debt as a percent of the book value of the company. The second panel of Chart II-1 highlights that the two measures of leverage have diverged significantly since 2012; the top-down CHM defines profit margins as total cash flow as a percent of sales. For data-availability reasons, our bottom-up version uses operating income/total sales; and most importantly, the top-down CHM uses ECB data, which includes only companies that are domiciled in the Eurozone. Thus, it excludes foreign issuers that make up a large part of our company sample and the Barclay's index. When we recalculate the bottom-up CHM using only domestic investment-grade issuers, the result is much closer to the top-down version (Chart II-2). Both CHMs have been in 'improving health' territory since the end of the Great Financial Crisis. The erosion in the profitability components during this period was offset by declining leverage, rising liquidity and improving interest coverage for domestic issuers. Chart II-1Top-Down Vs. Bottom-Up Top-Down Vs. Bottom-Up Top-Down Vs. Bottom-Up Chart II-2Top-Down Vs. Domestic Bottom-Up Top-Down Vs. Domestic Bottom-Up Top-Down Vs. Domestic Bottom-Up It has been a different story for foreign IG issuers (Chart II-3). These firms have historically enjoyed a higher return on capital, operating margins, interest coverage, debt coverage and liquidity. Nonetheless, heavy debt accumulation has undermined their interest- and debt-coverage ratios in absolute terms and relative to their domestic peers until very recently. In other words, while domestic issuers have made an effort to clean up their balance sheets since the Great Recession, financial trends among foreign issuers look more like the trends observed in the U.S. No doubt, this is in part due to U.S. companies issuing Euro-denominated debt, but there are many other foreign issuers in our sample as well. Some analysts prefer total debt/total assets to the leverage measure we use in constructing our CHMs. However, the picture is much the same; leverage among IG domestic and foreign firms has diverged dramatically since 2010 (Chart II-4). Chart II-3Bottom-Up: Domestic Vs. Foreign IG Bottom-Up: Domestic Vs. Foreign IG Bottom-Up: Domestic Vs. Foreign IG Chart II-4Diverging Leverage Trends Diverging Leverage Trends Diverging Leverage Trends Over the past year or so there has been some reversal in the post-Lehman trends; domestic health has stabilized, while that of foreign issuers has improved. Leverage among foreign companies has leveled off, while margins and the liquidity ratio have bounced. The results for high-yield (HY) issuers must be taken with a grain of salt because of the small sample size. Chart II-5 highlights that the HY CHM is improving for both domestic and foreign issuers. Impressively, leverage is declining for both the domestic and foreign components. The return on capital, interest coverage, and debt coverage have also improved, although only for foreign issuers. Chart II-5Bottom-Up: Domestic Vs. Foreign HY Bottom-Up: Domestic Vs. Foreign HY Bottom-Up: Domestic Vs. Foreign HY Corporate Sensitivity The bottom line is that, while there have been some relative shifts below the surface, the European corporate sector's finances are generally in good shape in absolute terms and relative to the U.S. This is particularly the case for domestic issuers that have yet to catch the equity buyback bug. However, less accommodative monetary policy and rising borrowing rates have focused investor attention on corporate sector vulnerability. Downgrade risk will mushroom if corporate borrowing rates continue rising and, especially, if the economy contracts. If there is a recession in Europe in the next few years it will likely be as a result of a downturn in the U.S. We expect a traditional end to the U.S. business cycle; the Fed overdoes the rate hike cycle, sending the economy into a tailspin. The U.S. downturn would spill over to the rest of the world and could drag the Eurozone into a mild contraction. We estimated the change in the interest coverage ratio for the companies in our bottom-up European sample for a 100 basis-point rise in interest rates across the corporate curve, taking into consideration the maturity distribution of the debt (i.e. the coupons reset only for the bonds, notes and loans that mature in the next three years). We make the simplifying assumptions that all debt and loans maturing in the next three years are rolled over, but that companies do not take on net new obligations. We also assume that EBIT is unchanged in order to isolate the impact of higher interest rates. The 'x' in Chart II-6 denotes the result of the interest rate shock only. The 'o' combines the interest rate shock with a recession scenario, in which EBIT contracts by 15%. The interest coverage ratio declines sharply when rates rise by 100 basis points, but the ratio moves to a new post-2000 low only for foreign issuers. The ratio for domestic issuers falls back to the range that existed between 2009 and 2013. The median interest coverage ratio drops further when we combine this with a 15% earnings contraction in the recession scenario. Again, the outcome is far worse for foreign than it is for domestic issuers. Chart II-7 presents a shock to the median debt coverage ratio. Since debt coverage (cash flow divided by total debt) does not include interest payments, we show only the recession scenario result that reflects the decline in profits. Once again, foreign issuers appear to be far more exposed to an economic downturn than their domestic brethren. Chart II-6Interest Coverage Shocks Interest Coverage Shocks Interest Coverage Shocks Chart II-7Debt Coverage Shock Debt Coverage Shock Debt Coverage Shock Indeed, the results for foreign issuers are qualitatively similar to the shocks we previous published for our bottom-up sample of IG corporates in the U.S. (Chart II-8 and Chart II-9). In both cases, higher interest rates and contracting earnings will take the interest coverage and debt coverage ratios into uncharted territory. Chart II-8U.S. Interest Coverage Shocks U.S. Interest Coverage Shocks U.S. Interest Coverage Shocks Chart II-9U.S. Debt Coverage Shock U.S. Debt Coverage Shock U.S. Debt Coverage Shock Conclusions European corporations are still well behind the U.S. in the leveraging cycle. Relative trends in corporate financial health have generally favored European credit quality relative to U.S. issuers, where balance sheet activity has focused on lifting shareholder value since the last recession. Below the surface, balance sheet repair in the Eurozone has been concentrated in domestic issuers; financial trends among foreign issuers have resembled those in the U.S. market. There has been a small convergence of financial health between Eurozone domestic and foreign issuers over the past year or so, but the latter are still much more vulnerable to higher interest rates and an economic downturn. Interest- and debt-coverage ratios are likely to fall to levels that will spark a raft of downgrades for foreign firms issuing into the Eurozone market, in the event that interest rates rise and a recession follows. Investors should concentrate their European corporate bond portfolios in domestic securities. That said, trends in financial health are unlikely to be the key driver of corporate bond returns relative to European government bonds or to U.S. corporates this year. More important will be the end of the ECB's asset purchase program later in 2018. We expect spreads to widen as this important liquidity tailwind fades. For the moment, our Global Fixed Income Strategy service recommends an underweight position in Eurozone IG and HY relative to Eurozone government bonds, and relative to U.S. corporates. Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst 1 Standardizing involves taking the deviation of the series from the 18 quarter moving average and dividing by the standard deviation of the series. 2 Note that a rising CHM indicates deteriorating health to facilitate comparison with quality spreads. III. Indicators And Reference Charts The divergence between the U.S. corporate earnings data and our equity-related indicators continued in May. We remain cautious, despite the supportive profit backdrop. The U.S. net earnings revisions ratio fell a bit in May, but it remains well in positive territory. Forward earnings continued their ascent, and the net earnings surprise index rose further to within striking distance of the highest levels in the history of the series. Normally, an earnings backdrop this strong would justify an overweight equity allocation within a balanced portfolio. Unfortunately, a lot of good earnings news is discounted based on our Composite Valuation Indicator and extremely elevated 5-year bottom-up earnings growth expectations (see the Bank Credit Analyst Overview, May 2018). Moreover, our equity indicators are sending a cautious signal. Our U.S. Willingness-to-Pay indicator continued to decline in May. The WTP indicators track flows, and thus provide information on what investors are actually doing, as opposed to sentiment indexes that track how investors are feeling. U.S. flows have clearly turned negative for equities, although flows into European and Japanese markets are holding up for now. Our Revealed Preference Indicator (RPI) for stocks remained on its 'sell' signal in May, for the second month in a row. The RPI combines the idea of market momentum with valuation and policy measures. It provides a powerful bullish signal if positive market momentum lines up with constructive signals from the policy and valuation measures. Conversely, if constructive market momentum is not supported by valuation and policy, investors should lean against the market trend. These indicators are not aligned at the moment, further supporting the view that caution is warranted. Moreover, our composite equity Technical Indicator is on the verge of breaking down and our Monetary Indicator moved further into negative territory in May. Meanwhile, market froth has not been completely extinguished according to our Speculation Indicator (which is a negative sign for stocks from a contrary perspective). As for bonds, the powerful rally at the end of May has undermined valuation, but the 10-year Treasury is not yet in expensive territory. Our technical indicator suggests that previously oversold conditions are easing, but bonds are a long way from overbought. This means that yields have room to fall further in the event of more bad news on Italy or on the broader geopolitical scene. The dollar has not yet reached overbought territory according to our technical indicator. EQUITIES: Chart III-1U.S. Equity Indicators U.S. Equity Indicators U.S. Equity Indicators Chart III-2Willingness To Pay For Risk Willingness To Pay For Risk Willingness To Pay For Risk Chart III-3U.S. Equity Sentiment Indicators U.S. Equity Sentiment Indicators U.S. Equity Sentiment Indicators Chart III-4Revealed Preference Indicator Revealed Preference Indicator Revealed Preference Indicator Chart III-5U.S. Stock Market Valuation U.S. Stock Market Valuation U.S. Stock Market Valuation Chart III-6U.S. Earnings U.S. Earnings U.S. Earnings Chart III-7Global Stock Market And Earnings: ##br##Relative Performance Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Chart III-8Global Stock Market And Earnings: ##br##Relative Performance Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance FIXED INCOME: Chart III-9U.S. Treasurys And Valuations U.S. Treasurys and Valuations U.S. Treasurys and Valuations Chart III-10U.S. Treasury Indicators U.S. Treasury Indicators U.S. Treasury Indicators Chart III-11Selected U.S. Bond Yields Selected U.S. Bond Yields Selected U.S. Bond Yields Chart III-1210-Year Treasury Yield Components 10-Year Treasury Yield Components 10-Year Treasury Yield Components Chart III-13U.S. Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor U.S. Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor U.S. Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor Chart III-14Global Bonds: Developed Markets Global Bonds: Developed Markets Global Bonds: Developed Markets Chart III-15Global Bonds: Emerging Markets Global Bonds: Emerging Markets Global Bonds: Emerging Markets CURRENCIES: Chart III-16U.S. Dollar And PPP U.S. Dollar And PPP U.S. Dollar And PPP Chart III-17U.S. Dollar And Indicator U.S. Dollar And Indicator U.S. Dollar And Indicator Chart III-18U.S. Dollar Fundamentals U.S. Dollar Fundamentals U.S. Dollar Fundamentals Chart III-19Japanese Yen Technicals Japanese Yen Technicals Japanese Yen Technicals Chart III-20Euro Technicals Euro Technicals Euro Technicals Chart III-21Euro/Yen Technicals Euro/Yen Technicals Euro/Yen Technicals Chart III-22Euro/Pound Technicals Euro/Pound Technicals Euro/Pound Technicals COMMODITIES: Chart III-23Broad Commodity Indicators Broad Commodity Indicators Broad Commodity Indicators Chart III-24Commodity Prices Commodity Prices Commodity Prices Chart III-25Commodity Prices Commodity Prices Commodity Prices Chart III-26Commodity Sentiment Commodity Sentiment Commodity Sentiment Chart III-27Speculative Positioning Speculative Positioning Speculative Positioning ECONOMY: Chart III-28U.S. And Global Macro Backdrop U.S. And Global Macro Backdrop U.S. And Global Macro Backdrop Chart III-29U.S. Macro Snapshot U.S. Macro Snapshot U.S. Macro Snapshot Chart III-30U.S. Growth Outlook U.S. Growth Outlook U.S. Growth Outlook Chart III-31U.S. Cyclical Spending U.S. Cyclical Spending U.S. Cyclical Spending Chart III-32U.S. Labor Market U.S. Labor Market U.S. Labor Market Chart III-33U.S. Consumption U.S. Consumption U.S. Consumption Chart III-34U.S. Housing U.S. Housing U.S. Housing Chart III-35U.S. Debt And Deleveraging U.S. Debt And Deleveraging U.S. Debt And Deleveraging Chart III-36U.S. Financial Conditions U.S. Financial Conditions U.S. Financial Conditions Chart III-37Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Chart III-38Global Economic Snapshot: China Global Economic Snapshot: China Global Economic Snapshot: China Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst

Highlights 0 To 3 Months: Extended net short positioning and the recent moderation in economic data suggest that Treasury yields are ripe for a near-term pullback. Investors who are able should consider tactically buying bonds on a 0-3 month horizon, but with a tight stop loss. 6 to 12 Months: We recommend that investors maintain below-benchmark portfolio duration on a 6-12 month horizon, consistent with our Two Stage Bond Bear Market framework. While the credit cycle is in its late stages, it is still too soon to reduce exposure to corporate bonds. We will pare exposure to corporate bonds once our TIPS breakeven inflation targets are met. Total Return Forecasts: Our simple framework for estimating total bond returns reveals that risk/reward arguments clearly favor below-benchmark portfolio duration on a 12-month horizon. Feature Chart 1Two Milestones Two Milestones Two Milestones The U.S. bond market reached one noteworthy milestone last week and is quickly closing in on another. The first milestone is that the 10-year Treasury yield decisively broke through the 3% level that had defined its most recent peak (Chart 1). The second milestone is that the market is now close to fully pricing-in the likely near-term path for Fed rate hikes. We noted in a recent report that the Fed's "gradual" rate hike path is quite clearly defined as one 25 basis point rate hike per quarter.1 This equates to 100 bps on our 12-month Fed Funds Discounter, which currently sits at 91 bps, just below this key level (Chart 1, bottom panel). We continue to see upside in Treasury yields on a cyclical horizon. Though tactically, the likelihood of a near-term pullback in yields has increased greatly during the past few days. In this week's report we outline the case for a near-term (0-3 month) pullback in Treasury yields, but also look ahead by introducing a simple framework investors can use to make total return forecasts for all different U.S. bond sectors. The Case For A Near-Term Pullback In addition to the fact that the market is closer to fully discounting the likely near-term path of rate hikes than it has been for some time, there are two other reasons to expect a near-term, temporary pullback in yields. The first is that the below-benchmark duration trade has become the consensus position in the market (Chart 2). Net speculative short positions in 10-year Treasury futures have rarely been greater, and since the financial crisis large net short positions have correlated quite strongly with a decline in the 10-year yield during the subsequent three months. Similarly, positions reported in the JP Morgan Duration Survey are firmly in "net short" territory for both the "all clients" and "active clients" surveys. The Marketvane survey of bond sentiment has also turned bearish for only the fourth time since 2010. Each of the other three times has coincided with a near-term drop in yields. Chart 2Bond Market Looks Oversold Bond Market Looks Oversold Bond Market Looks Oversold But positioning alone would not be enough to convince us that yields might decline in the near-term. Investors also need a catalyst. An excuse to take profits on large net short positions that have been working well. That catalyst is typically a period of worse-than-expected economic data. To judge the trend in economic data relative to expectations we turn to the Economic Surprise Index. Chart 3Economic Surprise Index Economic Surprise Index Economic Surprise Index In a report from last year we demonstrated that if the Economic Surprise Index ends a month below (above) the zero line, it is very likely that Treasury yields fell (rose) during that month.2 Also, we know that the surprise index is mean reverting by its very nature. A long period of positive (negative) data surprises will certainly be followed an upward (downward) revision to investors' economic expectations. Eventually expectations become so elevated (depressed) that they become impossible to surpass (disappoint). The index will then start to mean revert. In that same report from last year we also introduced a simple auto-regressive model of the surprise index, designed to capture its average speed of mean reversion. Based on that model, which is purely a function of the index's own lags, we would expect the surprise index to dip slightly into negative territory in one month's time (Chart 3). Though given the large amount of uncertainty in the model, a fairer assessment would be that it is no longer a given that the surprise index will remain above the zero line in the near-term. Bottom Line: Extended net short positioning and the recent moderation in economic data suggest that Treasury yields are ripe for a near-term pullback. Investors who are able should consider tactically buying bonds on a 0-3 month horizon, but with a tight stop loss. Less nimble investors are better off riding out any potential near-term volatility and maintaining below-benchmark portfolio duration on a 6-12 month horizon. The Cyclical Picture Is Unchanged On a 6-12 month investment horizon, we are sticking with the playbook of our Two-Stage Bond Bear Market.3 The first stage is characterized by the re-anchoring of inflation expectations, and here, long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates are still slightly below our target range of 2.3% to 2.5% (Chart 4). We also think bond investors should maintain an overweight allocation to spread product, though the time to trim exposure is approaching. Because the Fed's support for credit markets will weaken as inflation pressures mount, we will start reducing exposure to spread product once both the 10-year and 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rates are within our target 2.3% to 2.5% band. The intuition that the credit cycle is long in the tooth is further supported by the fact that the 2/10 Treasury curve is close to 50 bps (Chart 4, bottom panel). In a recent report we showed that while corporate bond excess returns relative to Treasuries usually remain positive until the yield curve inverts, they decline dramatically once the slope dips below 50 bps.4 Valuation also remains tight in the corporate bond market. While investment grade corporate bond spreads have widened in recent months, the junk spread is still close to its post-crisis low, as is the differential between the junk and investment grade spread (Chart 5). Chart 4Inflation Compensation Inflation Compensation Inflation Compensation Chart 5Flirting With The Lows Flirting With The Lows Flirting With The Lows The recent widening of investment grade corporate spreads appears to simply reflect a reversion to more reasonable valuation levels, after they had been extremely expensive at the start of the year. Chart 6 shows the 12-month breakeven spread for each investment grade credit tier. We look at the breakeven spread - defined as the spread widening required to lose money versus Treasuries on a 12-month horizon - in order to adjust for the changing duration of the index over time. Chart 6 also shows the breakeven spread as a percentile rank relative to history. In other words, it shows the percentage of time that the breakeven spread has been lower in the past. Notice that earlier in the year investment grade corporate spreads had been approaching all-time expensive levels. They are now closer to the 25th percentile, much more in line with similar spreads for the High-Yield credit tiers (Chart 7). Chart 6Investment Grade Breakeven Spreads Investment Grade Breakeven Spreads Investment Grade Breakeven Spreads Chart 7High-Yield Breakeven Spreads High-Yield Breakeven Spreads High-Yield Breakeven Spreads There is no longer a risk-adjusted opportunity in high-yield corporate bonds relative to investment grade. Bottom Line: We recommend that investors maintain below-benchmark portfolio duration on a 6-12 month horizon, consistent with our Two Stage Bond Bear Market framework. While the credit cycle is in its late stages, it is still too soon to reduce exposure to corporate bonds. We will pare exposure to corporate bonds once our TIPS breakeven inflation targets are met. A Simple Framework For Forecasting Total Returns In a recent report we observed that, using a 12-month investment horizon, the difference between market expectations for the change in the federal funds rate and the actual change in the federal funds rate closely tracks the price return from the Bloomberg Barclays Treasury index.5 With that in mind, this week we extend that analysis to develop a simple framework for forecasting bond total returns. The framework relies on the fact that the "12-month rate hike surprise" described above is correlated with the 12-month change in Treasury yields. The Appendix to this report shows the historical correlation between the 12-month rate hike surprise and the 12-month change in several different par-coupon Treasury yields. Unsurprisingly, the correlation is very strong for short maturity yields, and gradually weakens as we move further out the curve. This is important because it means that the total return forecasts we generate from this exercise will be more accurate for bond sectors with low duration than for those with high duration. Table 1 shows the total return forecasts we generated for the Bloomberg Barclays Treasury Master Index and for several of its maturity buckets. The results are presented in such a way that readers can impose their own forecasts for the number of Fed rate hikes that will occur during the next 12 months, and then map that forecast to a reasonable expectation for Treasury total returns. Table 1Treasury Index Total Return Forecasts Pulling Back And Looking Ahead Pulling Back And Looking Ahead For example, in a scenario where the Fed lifts rates four times (100 bps) during the next year, given current market pricing the rate hike surprise will be modestly negative.6 Using the historical correlations shown in the Appendix, we map that rate hike surprise to changes in the par-coupon Treasury curve and then use the duration and convexity attributes of each individual index to determine how that shift in the Treasury curve will impact index returns. In the scenario described above we would expect the Treasury Master Index to return +2.13% during the next year. While this is a slightly positive number, it is close enough to zero that it does not provide much insulation from changes in long-dated yields that are unrelated to the near-term path for rate hikes. Further, in the four rate hike scenario, investors moving from the Treasury Master Index to the 1-3 year index need only sacrifice 12 bps of expected return to reduce their duration risk by a factor of three. Such a risk/reward trade-off clearly favors a below-benchmark duration stance on a 12-month investment horizon. Table 2 repeats the same exercise but for the major spread sectors of the U.S. bond market. To estimate spread sector total returns we need to forecast both the shift in the Treasury curve and whether spreads will widen, tighten or remain constant. Specifically, we assume that spreads either widen or tighten by the standard deviation of annual spread changes for each index, calculated using a post-crisis interval. Table 2Spread Product Total Return Forecasts Pulling Back And Looking Ahead Pulling Back And Looking Ahead The results show that, in a four rate hike scenario, we should expect 12-month investment grade corporate bond total returns of approximately 3.4%, assuming also that spreads stay flat. In a scenario where the average index spread widens by 42 bps, we should expect total returns of only 1%. Bottom Line: Our simple framework for estimating total bond returns reveals that risk/reward arguments clearly favor below-benchmark portfolio duration on a 12-month horizon. Spread product returns should continue to beat Treasuries for the time being, but the window for outperformance is starting to close. Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com Appendix Chart 8Change In 1-Year Yield Vs. 12-Month ##br## Fed Funds Rate Surprise Pulling Back And Looking Ahead Pulling Back And Looking Ahead Chart 9Change In 2-Year Yield Vs. 12-Month ##br## Fed Funds Rate Surprise Pulling Back And Looking Ahead Pulling Back And Looking Ahead Chart 10Change In 3-Year Yield Vs. 12-Month ##br##Fed Funds Rate Surprise Pulling Back And Looking Ahead Pulling Back And Looking Ahead Chart 11Change In 5-Year Yield Vs.12-Month ##br##Fed Funds Rate Surprise Pulling Back And Looking Ahead Pulling Back And Looking Ahead Chart 12Change In 7-Year Yield Vs. 12-Month ##br##Fed Funds Rate Surprise Pulling Back And Looking Ahead Pulling Back And Looking Ahead Chart 13Change In 10-Year Yield Vs. 12-Month ##br##Fed Funds Rate Surprise Pulling Back And Looking Ahead Pulling Back And Looking Ahead Chart 14Change In 30-Year Yield Vs. 12-Month ##br## Fed Funds Rate Surprise Pulling Back And Looking Ahead Pulling Back And Looking Ahead 1 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Portfolio Allocation Summary, "Coming To Grips With Gradualism", dated May 8, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "How Much Higher For Yields?", dated October 31, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "A Signal From Gold?", dated May 1, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "As Good As It Gets For Corporate Debt", dated April 24, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 5 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Back To Basics", dated April 17, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 6 The 12-month rate hike surprise is defined as the 12-month Fed Funds Discounter less the actual change in the fed funds rate during the following 12 months. Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

Highlights Chart 1Interest Rate Expectations Interest Rate Expectations Interest Rate Expectations Last week the Federal Reserve made some necessary tweaks to the language in its statement. Namely, with the year-over-year core PCE deflator now up to 1.88%, the Fed was forced to upgrade its assessment of inflation and note that it has "moved close" to the 2 percent target. To assuage concern that such a change might lead to a quicker pace of rate hikes, the statement also emphasized that the inflation target is "symmetric" and noted that its policy of "gradual increases in the federal funds rate" will continue. While the recent increase in inflation is not sufficient to nudge the Fed away from "gradualism", the more important observation is that yields are still not high enough to discount the Fed's gradual approach (Chart 1). The Fed has tightened policy once per quarter since December 2016, tapering asset purchases in place of a rate hike in September 2017. It should be obvious that, absent an economic shock, one rate hike per quarter is the Fed's definition of "gradual". And yet, the market is still priced for barely more than two hikes for the balance of 2018, and not even two rate hikes for all of 2019! Maintain a below-benchmark duration stance until the market comes to grips with the Fed's gradualism. Feature Investment Grade: Overweight Chart 2Investment Grade Market Overview Investment Grade Market Overview Investment Grade Market Overview Investment grade corporate bonds outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 4 basis points in April, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to -77 bps. The Corporate index option-adjusted spread tightened somewhat in the first half of April, but widened anew during the past couple of weeks and recently made a new high for the year. Despite this sell-off, valuation remains expensive for investment grade corporates. The 12-month breakeven spread for an A-rated bond has only been tighter 27% of the time since 1989 (Chart 2). The same measure for a Baa-rated bond has only been tighter 28% of the time. We are preparing to cyclically scale back our corporate bond exposure, and will start the process once TIPS breakeven inflation rates reach our target range, signaling that monetary conditions are sufficiently restrictive. Our target range is 2.3% to 2.5% for both the 10-year and 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rates. Those rates currently sit at 2.16% and 2.23%, respectively. In a recent report we noted that corporate bond excess returns fall sharply once the 2/10 Treasury yield curve flattens to below 50 bps, though they typically remain positive until the curve actually inverts.1 The 2/10 Treasury slope currently sits at 45 bps. That same report also notes that while the outlook for corporate revenue growth is strong, rising employee compensation costs will likely soon put a dent in profit margins and cause gross leverage to resume its uptrend (panel 4). This will apply further widening pressure to spreads later in the year. Table 3ACorporate Sector Relative Valuation And Recommended Allocation* Coming To Grips With Gradualism Coming To Grips With Gradualism Table 3BCorporate Sector Risk Vs. Reward* Coming To Grips With Gradualism Coming To Grips With Gradualism High-Yield: Overweight Chart 3High-Yield Market Overview High-Yield Market Overview High-Yield Market Overview High-Yield outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 121 basis points in April, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to 102 bps. The average index option-adjusted spread tightened 16 bps on the month, and currently sits at 343 bps. The 12-month trailing speculative grade default rate moved higher for the second consecutive month, hitting 3.92% in March. Moody's baseline forecast still calls for it to fall to 1.7% by March of next year. Based on Moody's default rate projection and our estimate of the recovery rate, we forecast High-Yield default losses of 0.85% for the next 12 months. This translates to a 12-month excess return of 257 bps for the High-Yield index versus Treasuries, assuming an unchanged junk spread (Chart 3). One hundred basis points of spread widening would lead to an excess return of -140 bps during this time horizon, and 100 bps of spread tightening would lead to an excess return of +654 bps. However, such a large spread tightening is almost certainly over-optimistic. As inflation continues to rise and the Fed applies the brakes, a floor will likely remain under the VIX index of implied equity volatility and this will prevent junk spreads from recovering their cyclical lows (top panel). This would be consistent with behavior typically seen late in the cycle, once the 2/10 Treasury slope flattens to below 50 bps.2 MBS: Neutral Chart 4MBS Market Overview MBS Market Overview MBS Market Overview Mortgage-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 18 basis points in April, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to -22 bps. The conventional 30-year zero-volatility MBS spread tightened 4 bps on the month, split between a 1 bp tightening of the option-adjusted spread (OAS) and a 3 bps decline in the compensation for prepayment risk (option cost). While mortgages are no longer excessively cheap compared to corporate credit (Chart 4), we still see limited potential for spread widening during the next 6-12 months. Rising interest rates should serve to limit mortgage refinancing, and muted refis are closely linked to tight MBS spreads (bottom panel). We also view extension risk as relatively limited for conventional 30-year MBS. Using a model of excess MBS returns that we introduced in February, we estimate that despite the 25 bps increase in duration-matched Treasury yields that occurred in April, extension risk trimmed only 2 bps off monthly excess returns.3 Our excess return Bond Map also shows that conventional 30-year MBS require far fewer days of average spread tightening to earn 100 bps of excess return than most other Aaa-rated structured products (Non-Agency Aaa-rated CMBS being the exception), although they are also more likely to deliver losses. But given the benign refinancing back-drop, we remain reasonably positive on the sector.4 Government-Related: Underweight Chart 5Government-Related Market Overview Government-Related Market Overview Government-Related Market Overview The Government-Related index underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 9 basis points in April, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to -7 bps. Sovereign debt underperformed the Treasury benchmark by 37 bps on the month, while Foreign Agencies underperformed by 15 bps and Domestic Agencies underperformed by 14 bps. Local Authorities delivered 14 bps of outperformance and Supranationals bested duration-equivalent Treasuries by 5 bps. Dollar strength hurt the performance of Sovereign debt last month, and relative valuation continues to show that Sovereigns are expensive relative to similarly-rated U.S. corporate bonds (Chart 5). We remain underweight USD-denominated Sovereign debt. Conversely, Foreign Agencies and Local Authorities continue to offer very attractive spreads, especially considering the duration and spread volatility characteristics of those sectors. Our excess return Bond Map shows that both sectors offer a superior risk/reward trade-off than the Barclays Aggregate and almost all of its components.5 The large presence of state-owned energy companies in the Foreign Agency sector means it should also benefit from higher oil prices in the coming months. Municipal Bonds: Underweight Chart 6Municipal Market Overview Municipal Market Overview Municipal Market Overview Municipal bonds outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 65 basis points in April, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to 94 bps (before adjusting for the tax advantage). The average Aaa-rated Municipal/Treasury yield ratio declined 2% in April as fund inflows returned to the sector (Chart 6). Persistently low visible supply is also contributing to the strong technical environment for yield ratios. The tax-adjusted yield for a 10-year municipal bond is now about 46 bps below the yield offered by an equivalent-duration corporate bond. As we have shown in prior research, investors typically get an opportunity to shift out of corporates and into munis at a positive spread differential before the end of the cycle.6 We will await this more attractive entry point before aggressively shifting our allocation in favor of munis. In a recent report we noted that state and local governments are still working to repair their budgets.7 More states enacted tax increases than decreases in fiscal year 2018 and the projected nominal budget increase across all states is a paltry 2.3%. Fortunately, our Municipal Health Monitor indicates that the hard work is paying off, and suggests that ratings upgrades should continue to outpace downgrades for the time being (bottom panel). Treasury Curve: Favor 5-Year Bullet Over 2/10 Barbell Chart 7Treasury Yield Curve Overview Treasury Yield Curve Overview Treasury Yield Curve Overview The Treasury curve rose considerably in April, steepening a touch out to the 5-year maturity point and flattening thereafter. The 2/10 Treasury slope flattened 1 basis point in April, and currently sits at 45 bps. The 5/30 slope flattened 9 bps on the month and currently sits at 34 bps. The trade-off between the pace of Fed rate hikes on the one hand, and the re-anchoring of long-dated TIPS breakeven inflation rates on the other will dictate the slope of the yield curve during the next six months. With the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate at 2.16%, it remains slightly below the range of 2.3% to 2.5% that is consistent with well-anchored inflation expectations. It will be difficult for the yield curve to flatten aggressively until that target is met. After that, curve flattening becomes much more likely. We continue to recommend a position in the 5-year bullet versus the duration-matched 2/10 barbell, primarily due to extremely attractive starting valuation. Our model suggests that the 2/5/10 butterfly spread is priced for 17 bps of 2/10 curve flattening during the next six months (Chart 7). With long-maturity TIPS breakevens still below target, we think that is too high a bar. TIPS: Overweight Chart 8TIPS Market Overview TIPS Market Overview TIPS Market Overview TIPS outperformed the duration-equivalent nominal Treasury index by 93 basis points in April, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to 161 bps. The 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate rose 12 bps on the month and currently sits at 2.16%. The 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rate increased 6 bps and currently sits at 2.23%. As we explained in a recent report, we view the first stage of the bond bear market as being driven by the re-anchoring of inflation expectations.8 We will consider inflation expectations well anchored when both the 10-year and 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rates are in a range between 2.3% and 2.5%, where they were the last time that inflation was well anchored around the Fed's target. If the recent trend in inflation continues, then this re-anchoring will occur relatively soon. The annualized 6-month rate of change in the trimmed mean PCE deflator has already returned to the Fed's target, and the annual rate of change jumped from 1.71% to 1.77% in March (Chart 8). Pipeline measures of inflation pressure also continue to strengthen. Our Pipeline Inflation Indicator is in a strong uptrend and the prices paid component of the ISM manufacturing survey is closing in on 80, a level last seen in 2011 (panel 4). ABS: Neutral Chart 9ABS Market Overview ABS Market Overview ABS Market Overview Asset-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 13 basis points in April, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to -6 bps. The index option-adjusted spread for Aaa-rated ABS narrowed 4 bps on the month and now stands at 40 bps, 7 bps above its pre-crisis low. Our recently introduced excess return Bond Map shows that both Aaa-rated credit card and Aaa-rated auto loan ABS exhibit lower risk and less potential for gains than the Barclays Aggregate index.9 It also confirms that credit card ABS are somewhat more attractive than auto loan ABS, offering approximately the same potential for excess return with less risk. Compared to other fixed income sectors, Aaa-rated ABS offer greater potential return and higher risk than Agency CMBS, Domestic Agencies and Supranationals. But the ABS sector also has a less attractive risk/reward profile than the Foreign Agency, Local Authority and Investment grade corporate sectors. Fundamentally, while consumer delinquencies remain low, they are heading higher alongside a rising household debt service coverage ratio (Chart 9). The persistent (though mild) deterioration in credit quality causes us to maintain a neutral allocation to the sector, despite reasonably attractive valuations. Non-Agency CMBS: Underweight Chart 10CMBS Market Overview CMBS Market Overview CMBS Market Overview Non-Agency Commercial Mortgage-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 60 basis points in April, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to 71 bps. The index option-adjusted spread for non-agency Aaa-rated CMBS tightened 4 bps on the month and currently sits at 69 bps, close to one standard deviation below its pre-crisis mean. Our excess return Bond Map shows that Aaa-rated non-Agency CMBS offer greater potential reward, but also greater risk, than the majority of other high-rated spread products. The exception is conventional 30-year Agency MBS, which offer a less attractive risk/reward trade-off.10 That being said, the fundamental picture for commercial real estate is less appealing than on the residential side. CMBS spreads continue to diverge from commercial property prices (Chart 10). Agency CMBS: Overweight Agency CMBS outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 26 basis points in April, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to 12 bps. The index option-adjusted spread was flat on the month and currently sits at 47 bps. According to our Bond Map, Agency CMBS offer greater potential excess return and less risk than both the Supranational and Domestic Agency sectors. We continue to view the Agency CMBS space as an attractive low-risk spread sector. Treasury Valuation Chart 11Treasury Fair Value Models Treasury Fair Value Models Treasury Fair Value Models The current reading from our 2-factor Treasury model (based on Global PMI and dollar sentiment) pegs fair value for the 10-year Treasury yield at 2.70%. The drop in the model's fair value stems from a decline in the global PMI to 53.5 from a recent peak of 54.5. While global growth has undoubtedly lost momentum in recent months, we also suspect that our 2-factor model is finally breaking down. The 2-factor model does not contain a variable to capture the degree of resource utilization in the economy. Logically, as slack dissipates in the economy and inflationary pressures mount, then the same level of global growth should be associated with a higher Treasury yield, all else equal. This means that at some point, as we approach the end of the cycle, the model will break down and consistently produce fair value readings that are too low. We suspect that we may be reaching this point. When we augment our model with an additional variable to measure the degree of resource utilization, in this case the employment-to-population ratio, we find that the new model projects a fair value of 3.28% for the 10-year Treasury yield (Chart 11). This 3-factor model would not have worked as well as our 2-factor model during the zero-lower bound period, as can be seen by looking at how rolling regression betas from each of the three variables moved sharply following the recession (bottom three panels). However, as we move further away from the zero-lower bound we expect the regression coefficients to return to pre-crisis levels, meaning that it will be important to monitor both trends in global growth and the amount of resource slack in the economy. Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com Jeremie Peloso, Research Analyst jeremiep@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "As Good As It Gets For Corporate Debt", dated April 24, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "As Good As It Gets For Corporate Debt", dated April 24, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "On The MOVE", dated February 13, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 4 For details on the Bond Map please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "As Good As It Gets For Corporate Debt", dated April 24, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 5 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "As Good As It Gets For Corporate Debt", dated April 24, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 6 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Monetary Restraints", dated February 27, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 7 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Profiting From A Higher LIBOR", dated March 20, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 8 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "A Signal From Gold?", dated May 1, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 9 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "As Good As It Gets For Corporate Debt", dated April 24, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 10 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "As Good As It Gets For Corporate Debt", dated April 24, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification Corporate Sector Relative Valuation And Recommended Allocation Total Return Comparison: 7-Year Bullet Versus 2-20 Barbell (6-Month Investment Horizon)

Highlights Corporate Bonds & The Yield Curve: Corporate bond excess returns fall sharply once the yield curve flattens to below 50 basis points, though they typically remain positive until the yield curve inverts. Interestingly, excess returns for equities relative to Treasuries exhibit the opposite pattern. Corporate Bonds & Leverage: The outlook for top-line corporate revenue growth is strong, but employee compensation costs will also rise this year. We are doubtful that corporate profit growth will keep pace with debt growth for the remainder of year, meaning that leverage is likely to rise. Rising leverage will be a signal to reduce exposure to corporate bonds. Bond Map: We perform a back-test to assess the effectiveness of the Bond Map framework for sector allocation that was introduced in last week's report. Feature It's been a while, but last week's bond market performance was reminiscent of an old fashioned risk-on phase. The 10-year Treasury yield reached its highest level since early 2014, causing a temporary halt in the yield curve's flattening trend. Spread product also responded to investor optimism, and returns from the investment grade corporate bond index now lag the duration-equivalent Treasury index by only 52 basis points year-to-date, up from a mid-March trough of -94 bps (Chart 1). High-Yield index returns also rebounded, and that index is now outpacing Treasuries by +150 bps so far this year. Chart 1Corporate Credit: Annual Excess Returns Corporate Credit: Annual Excess Returns Corporate Credit: Annual Excess Returns But for corporate bond investors, now is not the time for complacency. Out of the criteria we use to signal turns in the credit cycle, we are progressively checking more and more off our list.1 Spreads are already tight relative to history and corporate debt levels are already high. That much has been true for some time. Next up, we await a more restrictive monetary policy and a more severe slow-down in corporate profit growth to below the pace of corporate debt growth. Both of those conditions also need to be met before corporate defaults start to occur and spreads start to widen materially. In this week's report we consider each of those two conditions in turn, noting the triggers that will need to be hit for us to downgrade our current overweight allocation to corporate bonds. Condition 1: Restrictive Monetary Policy Chart 2Monetary Policy Not Yet Restrictive Monetary Policy Not Yet Restrictive Monetary Policy Not Yet Restrictive On the monetary policy front, we expect that monetary conditions will turn restrictive in the not-to-distant future (Chart 2). For the time being, long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates are still below levels that are consistent with the Fed achieving its 2% inflation target. The 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate is currently 2.17% and the 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rate is 2.24%. But once both of those rates reach a range between 2.3% and 2.5%, they will be consistent with well-anchored inflation expectations and the Fed will have one less reason to stay cautious. We will start paring exposure to corporate bonds once both the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate and the 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rate cross above the 2.3% threshold. The re-anchoring of inflation expectations will also impart further upside to nominal Treasury yields, and we therefore maintain our below-benchmark duration stance and continue to follow the road-map laid out in our February report detailing the two-stage Treasury bear market.2 Another traditional signal of restrictive monetary policy is a flat or inverted yield curve (Chart 2, panel 2). Intuitively, a very flat yield curve tells us that the market expects very few (if any) Fed rate hikes in the future. An inverted yield curve tells us that the market actually anticipates rate cuts. While the yield curve is not yet close to inverting, it is approaching levels that are consistent with much lower (and often negative) excess returns for both investment grade and high-yield corporate bonds, as is discussed below. A third indicator of the stance of monetary policy is simply the spread between the real federal funds rate and an estimate of its equilibrium level - the level consistent with neither an accommodative nor a restrictive policy stance (Chart 2, bottom panel). While the fact that the real fed funds rate is currently quite close to the popular Laubach-Williams estimate of its equilibrium level certainly reinforces our view that policy is almost restrictive, the large degree of uncertainty inherent in this sort of estimate leads us to prefer the market signals from the slope of the yield curve and TIPS breakeven inflation rates when forming an investment strategy. The Yield Curve And Corporate Bond Returns To assess the importance of the yield curve as a predictor of turns in the credit cycle, we split each cycle going back to the mid-1970s into regimes based on the yield curve slope. We then calculate excess returns during each phase for both investment grade and high-yield corporate bonds, as well as the stock-to-bond total return ratio. We use the 3/10 yield curve slope instead of the more often quoted 2/10 slope because it allows for the inclusion of more historical data. This decision did not materially impact the results of our analysis. Chart 3 shows how we divided each cycle into three phases: Chart 3Corporate Bond Performance And The Yield Curve Corporate Bond Performance And The Yield Curve Corporate Bond Performance And The Yield Curve Phase 1 runs from the end of the previous NBER-defined recession until the slope crosses below 50 bps. Phase 2 runs from the time that the slope crosses below 50 bps until it crosses below zero. Phase 3 runs from the time that the yield curve first inverts to the start of the next recession. Notice that we do not include recessionary periods in our analysis, usually the periods with the worst excess corporate bond returns. The results of our analysis are shown in Table 1, and the first obvious result is that corporate bond excess returns are much higher in Phase 1 than in Phase 2, although Phase 2 returns are usually still positive.3 Negative excess returns occur more often than not in Phase 3, after the yield curve has inverted. Table 1Risk Asset Performance In Different Yield Curve Regimes As Good As It Gets For Corporate Debt As Good As It Gets For Corporate Debt The biggest exception to the above observations is that Phase 2 High-Yield returns actually exceeded Phase 1 High-Yield returns in the 2001-07 cycle. In our view, this exception results from the fact that corporate profit growth was well above corporate debt growth in 2005, and did not really decline until 2007, shortly after the yield curve inverted. In contrast, Phase 2 returns were exceptionally weak in the prolonged period between 1994 and 2000. In this instance, corporate profit growth actually fell below corporate debt growth in 1998, well before the yield curve inverted in 2000. This reinforces that both the stance of monetary policy and the trend in corporate leverage matter for corporate bond returns. The latter is discussed in the next section of this report. Another interesting result shown in Table 1 is that the pattern of stock market excess returns over Treasuries is the mirror image of the pattern in corporate bond excess returns. The stock market tends to perform better in Phase 2 than in Phase 1, and often even performs well in Phase 3 after the yield curve has inverted. This means that multi-asset investors should consider paring exposure to corporate bonds relative to Treasuries before they think of reducing exposure to the stock market. Bottom Line: Restrictive monetary policy is one condition that must be met before we reduce exposure to corporate bonds in our recommended portfolio. The first indication of this will likely be the re-anchoring of long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates in a range between 2.3% and 2.5%. We will start paring exposure to corporate bonds when that occurs. The slope of the yield curve is already at levels that are consistent with very low excess returns. Though we demonstrate that an inverted yield curve is historically linked to even lower returns. Conviction that the yield curve is about to invert will be another trigger to further reduce corporate bond exposure in the future. Condition 2: Rising Leverage The second condition that will cause us to take even more credit risk off the table is when gross leverage for the nonfinancial corporate sector - calculated as total debt over pre-tax profits - enters an uptrend. Chart 4 shows that periods of spread widening almost always coincide with rising gross leverage, or put differently, periods when the rate of debt growth exceeds the rate of profit growth. Profit growth has kept pace with debt growth during the past few quarters, causing leverage to flatten-off and allowing corporate spreads to narrow. Going forward, the outlook for top-line corporate revenue growth (a.k.a. net value added) remains favorable, owing to an ISM index that is well above the 50 boom/bust line and still climbing (Chart 5). But on the expense side of the ledger, employee compensation - the largest expense for the corporate sector - is also poised to increase in the months ahead. Unit labor costs jumped sharply in the fourth quarter of 2017 (Chart 5, panel 2), and with the unemployment rate at 4.1% and the economy still adding jobs at a robust pace - nonfarm payrolls have increased by an average of +211k during the past six months - a further acceleration in employee compensation is likely this year. Chart 4Corporate Leverage Has Flattened Off Corporate Leverage Has Flattened Off Corporate Leverage Has Flattened Off Chart 5Wage Growth Will Hamper Profits Wage Growth Will Hamper Profits Wage Growth Will Hamper Profits The key question then becomes whether corporations will be able to offset rising compensation costs by lifting prices. This remains uncertain, but early indications are not favorable. Our Profit Margin Proxy - the growth in the corporate sector's implicit selling price deflator relative to the growth in unit labor costs - does an excellent job tracking pre-tax profits (Chart 5, bottom panel). At the moment, this indicator signals that profit growth will moderate in the coming quarters. Bottom Line: The outlook for top-line corporate revenue growth is strong, but employee compensation costs will also rise this year. We are doubtful that corporate profit growth will keep pace with debt growth for the remainder of year. A decline in the rate of profit growth to below the rate of corporate debt growth will be another signal to reduce exposure to corporate bonds. The Bond Map Back-Test Last week we introduced the BCA Bond Map, a graphical depiction of the current risk/reward trade-off on offer from the different sectors of the U.S. bond market.4 To summarize, in our excess return Bond Map we plot the number of days of average spread tightening required for each sector to earn 100 bps of excess return on the vertical axis, and the number of days of average spread widening required for each sector to lose 100 bps versus Treasuries on the horizontal axis (Chart 6). The diagram is then split into four quadrants based on the location of the Bloomberg Barclays Aggregate index, which we have modified to also include junk bonds. The upper-left quadrant, which we label "Best Bets", contains those sectors that offer less risk and greater excess return potential than the benchmark. The upper-right quadrant, which we label "Exciting", contains those sectors that offer higher risk than the benchmark but also higher potential returns. The bottom-left ("Boring") quadrant contains those sectors with low risk of losses but also low probability of gains, and the bottom-right ("Avoid") quadrant contains those sectors with higher risk than the benchmark and lower expected returns. As can be seen in Chart 6, the current excess return Bond Map shows that Local Authorities, Foreign Agencies and investment grade corporate bonds offer the best combination of risk and expected return. No sectors currently plot in the "Avoid" quadrant. Chart 6Excess Return Bond Map (As Of April 20, 2018) As Good As It Gets For Corporate Debt As Good As It Gets For Corporate Debt This week, we publish the results of a back-test of the real time performance of our Bond Map. To do this we produced the Bond Map at the beginning of each calendar year starting in 2006 and then calculated average excess returns for each quadrant. For example, if three sectors were in the "Best Bets" quadrant at the beginning of the year, we calculated 12-month excess returns for each sector and then averaged them together to get an excess return for "Best Bets" sectors that year.5 Table 2 shows the average and standard deviation of calendar year excess returns for each quadrant, using a sample that spans from 2006-2017. As would be expected, the "Exciting" quadrant displays the highest average excess return, but also the highest standard deviation. Conversely, the "Boring" quadrant delivers the lowest average return and the lowest risk. The performance of the "Best Bets" quadrant is somewhere in between, delivering a greater average return than the "Boring" quadrant with less risk than the "Exciting" quadrant. Although the Sharpe Ratio for the "Best Bets" quadrant turns out to be worse than the Sharpe ratio for both the "Exciting" and "Boring" quadrants. This provides some support for the investment strategy of favoring either the "Exciting" or "Boring" quadrants depending on your assessment of the macro environment. The "Avoid" quadrant actually delivered negative excess returns on average, with elevated risk. Table 2Excess Return Bond Map Track Record (2006-2017) As Good As It Gets For Corporate Debt As Good As It Gets For Corporate Debt For comparison we also show the average and standard deviation of excess returns for the Bloomberg Barclays Aggregate index, augmented with High-Yield. The benchmark delivered excess returns only slightly greater than the "Boring" quadrant, with significantly more risk. The total return version of the Bond Map is shown in Chart 7. This is identical to the excess return Bond Map, except it shows the number of days of average increase/decrease in yields for each sector to lose/earn 5% total return. We perform the identical back-test as with the excess return map, and display the results in Table 3. Chart 7Total Return Bond Map (As Of April 20, 2018) As Good As It Gets For Corporate Debt As Good As It Gets For Corporate Debt Table 3Total Return Bond Map Track Record (2006-2017) As Good As It Gets For Corporate Debt As Good As It Gets For Corporate Debt Here we see the interesting result that the average total returns are higher in the "Best Bets" quadrant than in the "Exciting" quadrant, but strangely the "Best Bets" quadrant also delivered greater volatility. The "Boring" quadrant delivered the best Sharpe Ratio, while the "Avoid" sector delivered both lower average returns and greater volatility than the "Boring" quadrant. For comparison, the average total returns for the Aggregate index (plus High-Yield) were lower than the total returns from any of the four quadrants, but also with less volatility. Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com 1 We define the "turn" in the credit cycle as when corporate defaults start to occur and corporate spreads enter a sustained widening phase. 2 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "The Two-Stage Bear Market In Bonds", dated February 20, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 3 For the Phase 1 period in Cycle 2 we use an interval of June 1983 to July 1988 because High-Yield excess returns are only available starting in June 1983. In reality, the Phase 1 period should have started when the prior recession ended in December 1982. Using the correct interval (starting in December 1982) investment grade corporate bond excess returns are +131 bps and the stock-to-bond ratio returns are +5.19%, both annualized. 4 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Back To Basics", dated April 17, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 5 We started our back-test sample in 2006 even though our sector data goes back to 2000. Because our bond map relies on historical estimates of spread/yield volatility, we wanted a sample of at least five years of data before starting the test. With each passing year more back-data is incorporated into our spread/yield volatility estimates, which should improve the Bond Map's accuracy over time. Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification