Corporate Bonds

Highlights Chart 1Upside Risks & Uncertainty Upside Risks & Uncertainty Upside Risks & Uncertainty The evidence of economic acceleration continues to pile up and we maintain our view that bond yields will be higher than current forwards by the end of 2017. In the near-term, however, the bond market has been too quick to discount a more positive growth outlook, especially considering still-elevated levels of economic policy uncertainty. Our cautious optimism is echoed by the readings from our global PMI models and also by the Fed. The minutes from December's FOMC meeting revealed that more participants saw upside risks to growth and inflation than saw downside risks, but also that this improved economic forecast was judged to be more uncertain than any Fed forecast since 2013 (Chart 1). We remain bond bears on a 12-month horizon, but advocate a benchmark duration stance in the near term. A period of flat bond yields is the most likely outcome until elevated uncertainty levels revert to a more normal range (see the global economic policy uncertainty index). Feature Investment Grade: Neutral Chart 2Investment Grade Market Overview Investment Grade Market Overview Investment Grade Market Overview Investment grade corporate bonds outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 82 basis points in December and by 478 basis points in 2016. The index option-adjusted spread tightened 6 bps on the month and 42 bps on the year. At 122 bps, the spread is currently well below its historical average (134 bps). Corporate spreads have tightened substantially since last February despite elevated gross leverage (Chart 2).1 As we pointed out in our end-of-year Special Report titled "Seven Fixed Income Themes For 2017",2 it is very rare for spreads to tighten when leverage is in an uptrend. While a rebound in profit growth will likely cause the uptrend in leverage to abate this year, spreads have already moved to discount a significant reversal. Although valuations are by no means attractive, accelerating economic growth and still-accommodative Fed policy will keep spreads at tight levels during the first half of this year. This sweet spot will persist at least until TIPS breakeven inflation rates return to pre-crisis levels, which would likely presage a hawkish shift in Fed policy. Energy sector debt returned 12.5% in excess of duration-equivalent Treasuries in 2016, compared to excess returns of under 5% for the overall corporate index. Despite this large outperformance, energy credits still appear attractive according to our model (Table 3), and should continue to outperform into the New Year. Table 3ACorporate Sector Relative Valuation##br## And Recommended Allocation* Cautious Optimism Cautious Optimism Table 3BCorporate Sector##br## Risk Vs. Reward* Cautious Optimism Cautious Optimism High-Yield: Underweight Chart 3High-Yield Market Overview High-Yield Market Overview High-Yield Market Overview High-yield outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 188 basis points in December and by 1539 basis points in 2016. The index option-adjusted spread narrowed 46 bps on the month and 251 bps on the year. At 383 bps, it is currently 137 bps below its historical average. As we highlighted in our year-end Special Report,3 the uptrend in defaults is likely to reverse this year, mostly due to recovery in the energy sector. However, still-poor corporate health and tightening monetary policy will lead to a resumption of the uptrend in 2018 and beyond. Given the improving default backdrop, we are actively looking to upgrade our allocation to high-yield debt. However, valuations do not present a sufficiently compelling opportunity at the moment. Our estimate of the default-adjusted high-yield spread - the average spread of the junk index less our forecast of 12-month default losses - is below 150 bps (Chart 3). This is close to one standard deviation below the long-run average. Historically, we have found that a default-adjusted spread between 100 bps and 200 bps is consistent with positive 12-month excess returns 65% of the time, but with an average 12-month excess return of close to zero. With the spread in this range, a 90% confidence interval would place 12-month excess returns between -3% and +4%. MBS: Underweight Chart 4MBS Market Overview MBS Market Overview MBS Market Overview Mortgage-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 6 basis points in December, but underperformed by 11 bps in 2016. The conventional 30-year MBS yield rose 5 bps in December, completely driven by a 5 bps increase in the rate component. The compensation for prepayment risk (option cost) and option-adjusted spread were both flat on the month. In 2016, the conventional 30-year MBS yield rose 6 bps. This was driven by a 12 bps increase in the rate component that was partially offset by a 9 bps decline in the option-adjusted spread. The option cost increased 3 bps on the year. Our underweight in MBS is predicated upon very low option-adjusted spreads, relative both to history and other comparable spread product (Chart 4). Historically, the option-adjusted spread is correlated with net MBS issuance and eventually we expect rising net issuance to lead the option-adjusted spread wider. Importantly, purchase applications have remained firm in the face of higher mortgage rates even though refinancings have collapsed (bottom panel). Another tail risk for the MBS market is the possibility that the Fed ceases the reinvestment of its mortgage portfolio. While we do not expect this to occur in 2017, with two rate hikes now in the bank the fed funds rate is approaching levels where the Fed might begin to consider it. A new Fed Chair in early 2018 might also be more inclined to wind down the balance sheet. Government Related: Overweight Chart 5Government Related Market Overview Government Related Market Overview Government Related Market Overview The government-related index outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 27 basis points in December. Foreign Agency and Sovereign bonds outperformed by 84 bps and 83 bps respectively, while Local Authorities outperformed by 22 bps. Domestic Agency bonds and Supranationals were a drag on performance during the month, underperforming the Treasury benchmark by 10 bps and 7 bps respectively. The government-related index outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury benchmark by 150 bps in 2016. The best performing sub-sectors for the year were Sovereigns (outperformed by 322 bps), Local Authorities (outperformed by 286 bps) and Foreign Agencies (outperformed by 258 bps). Domestic Agency bonds outperformed Treasuries by 38 bps, while Supranationals underperformed by 11 bps. Foreign Agency bonds and Local Authority bonds continue to appear attractive relative to U.S. corporate credit, after adjusting for credit rating and duration. We recommend focusing our government related allocation in these two sectors. In contrast, Sovereigns and Supranationals both appear expensive relative to U.S. corporate credit, and we recommend avoiding these sectors. Spreads on Domestic Agency debt have room to tighten in the near-term (Chart 5). Spreads widened to the top of their recent range last month on rumors that the new government could seek to speed up the process of GSE reform. We view these concerns as premature. This week we also remove our recommendation to favor callable agencies over bullets. Bullets have tended to outperform when the 2/5 Treasury slope steepens (bottom panel). We expect the 2/5 curve to be biased steeper in the first half of this year. Municipal Bonds: Underweight Chart 6Municipal Market Overview Municipal Market Overview Municipal Market Overview Municipal bonds outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 134 basis points in December, but underperformed the index by 103 basis points in 2016 (before adjusting for the tax advantage). The average Municipal / Treasury (M/T) yield ratio fell 8% in December, but increased 13% during 2016. At present the average M/T ratio is 98%, only slightly below its post-crisis average (Chart 6). Although M/T ratios moved higher last year, trends in issuance and fund flows suggest they are still too low. As we noted in our year-end Special Report,4 our tactical model of the M/T yield ratio - based on issuance, fund flows, ratings changes and economic policy uncertainty - pegs current fair value for the average M/T yield ratio at 112%. Further, as was also highlighted in our year-end report, the municipal credit cycle is likely to take a turn for the worse in late 2017, with muni downgrades starting to outpace upgrades. This analysis is based on indicators of state & local government budget health that tend to follow our indicators of corporate sector health with a two year lag. Just last month Moody's downgraded $1.6 billion worth of the City of Dallas' general obligation debt from Aa3 to A1. The downgrade was justified based on the city's poorly funded public safety pension plan. Attention will increasingly turn to underfunded public pensions when state & local government budget health starts to deteriorate later this year. 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 shifted higher and flattened in December. The 2/10 slope flattened by 1 basis point on the month and the 5/30 slope flattened 6 bps. For 2016 as a whole, the Treasury curve bear-steepened out to the 10-year maturity. The 2/10 slope steepened 4 bps and the 5/30 slope flattened 12 bps. In our year-end Special Report,5 we detailed how the combination of accelerating economic growth and still-accommodative Fed policy will cause the Treasury curve to bear-steepen in the first half of 2017. This steepening will be driven by continued, but gradual, recovery in long-dated TIPS breakeven inflation back to pre-crisis levels (2.4% to 2.5%). Once inflation expectations return to pre-crisis levels, it is possible that the Fed will shift to a monetary policy that is focused more on tamping out inflation than supporting growth. At that point the curve will shift from a bear-steepening to a bear-flattening regime. A steepening curve environment will cause bullet trades to outperform barbells. On top of that, the 5-year bullet is currently extremely cheap on the curve (Chart 7). For these reasons we recommended entering a long 5-year bullet, short 2/10 barbell trade on December 20. This trade has already returned 8 bps since initiation, even though the 2/10 slope has flattened 10 bps during this period. A resumption of curve steepening will cause our long 5-year bullet, short 2/10 barbell trade to perform even better in the months ahead. TIPS: Overweight Chart 8TIPS Market Overview TIPS Market Overview TIPS Market Overview TIPS outperformed the duration-equivalent nominal Treasury index by 6 basis points in December, and by 331 bps in 2016. The 10-year TIPS breakeven rate increased by 1 bp in December and by 41 bps in 2016. At present it sits at 1.96%, still well below the 2.4% to 2.5% range that is consistent with the Fed's 2% inflation target. As we explained in our year-end Special Report,6 the Fed will be keen to allow TIPS breakevens to rise toward levels more consistent with its inflation target, and will quickly back away from a hawkish policy stance should breakevens fall. But while breakevens will continue to trend higher, the rate of increase should moderate to be more in line with the shallow uptrend in realized inflation. It is difficult for the Fed to drive long-dated inflation expectations higher while it is in the midst of a tightening cycle. For this reason, trends in actual inflation will be a more important determinant of TIPS breakevens than in the past. And while there are indications that the uptrend in realized inflation will persist, notably recent accelerations in wage growth and survey measures of prices paid (Chart 8). There is currently no indication that core and trimmed mean inflation are breaking out to the upside (bottom panel). We remain overweight TIPS relative to nominal Treasuries on the expectation that long-dated breakevens reach the 2.4% to 2.5% range in the second half of 2017, and that core PCE inflation reaches the Fed's 2% target by the end of the year. ABS: Maximum Overweight Chart 9ABS Market Overview ABS Market Overview ABS Market Overview Asset-Backed Securities underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 17 basis points in December but outperformed the Treasury benchmark by 94 bps in 2016. Aaa-rated ABS underperformed Treasuries by 21 bps in December but outperformed by 75 bps in 2016, while non-Aaa ABS outperformed the benchmark by 13 bps in December and by 257 bps in 2016. The index option-adjusted spread for Aaa-rated ABS widened by 11 bps in December, but tightened by 10 bps in 2016. Further, the spread differential between Aaa-rated auto ABS and Aaa-rated credit card ABS narrowed substantially in 2016. The option-adjusted spread for Aaa-rated auto loan ABS has tightened by 20 bps since the end of 2015, while the option-adjusted spread for Aaa-rated credit card ABS has tightened by 10 bps. We have previously noted that, after adjusting for spread volatility, Aaa-rated auto loan ABS no longer offer an attractive opportunity relative to Aaa-rated credit cards (Chart 9). We continue to favor Aaa-rated credit cards over Aaa-rated auto loans, given the low spread differential and divergences in collateral credit quality (bottom panel). As was noted in the Appendix to our year-end Special Report,7 consumer ABS provided better volatility-adjusted excess returns than all fixed income sectors except for Baa-rated corporates and Caa-rated high-yield in 2016. With spreads still elevated relative to other similarly risky fixed income sectors, we expect this risk-adjusted performance to continue. Non-Agency CMBS: Underweight Agency CMBS: Overweight Chart 10CMBS Market Overview CMBS Market Overview CMBS Market Overview Agency CMBS underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 40 basis points in December, but outperformed by 117 bps in 2016. The index option-adjusted spread for Agency CMBS widened 10 bps in December but tightened 6 bps in 2016. Agency CMBS still offer 50 bps of option-adjusted spread. This is similar to what is offered by Aaa-rated consumer ABS (51 bps) and greater than what is offered by conventional 30-year MBS (26 bps) for a similar amount of spread volatility. We continue to recommend an overweight position in Agency CMBS. Non-agency Commercial Mortgage-Backed Securities underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 19 basis points in December, but outperformed by 313 bps in 2016. The index option-adjusted spread for non-agency Aaa-rated CMBS widened 7 bps in December but tightened 48 bps in 2016. It has recently moved well below its average pre-crisis level (Chart 10). Rising CMBS delinquency rates and tightening commercial real estate lending standards make us cautious on non-agency CMBS. This caution has only intensified now that spreads are at their tightest levels since prior to the financial crisis. Treasury Valuation Chart 11Global PMI Model Global PMI Model Global PMI Model The current reading from our 2-factor Global PMI model (which includes the global PMI and dollar sentiment) places fair value for the 10-year Treasury yield at 2.31% (Chart 11). Our 3-factor version of the model, which also incorporates the global economic policy uncertainty index, places fair value at 2.02%. The lower fair value is the result of a large spike in the global economic policy uncertainty index in November that barely reversed in December (bottom panel). Large spikes in uncertainty that do not coincide with deterioration in other economic indicators tend to mean revert fairly quickly. So we would be inclined to view the fair value reading from our 2-factor model as more indicative of true fair value at the moment. However, unusually high uncertainty is one reason we are reluctant to adopt a below benchmark duration stance for the time being even though we expect yields to be higher in 12 months. At the time of publication the 10-year Treasury yield was 2.37% For further details on our Global PMI models please refer to the U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "The Message From Our Treasury Model", dated October 11, 2016, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com. Monetary Conditions And Rate Expectations The BCA Monetary Conditions Index (MCI) combines changes in the fed funds rate with changes in the trade-weighted dollar using a 10:1 ratio. Historically, economic downturns have been preceded by a break in this index above its equilibrium level - calculated using the Congressional Budget Office's estimate of potential GDP growth (Chart 12). With the MCI having just reached this estimate of equilibrium, the shaded region in Chart 13 shows the expected path of the federal funds rate assuming that the MCI remains at its equilibrium level. The upper-end of the shaded region corresponds to a scenario where the trade-weighted dollar depreciates by 2% per year and the lower-end of the shaded region corresponds to a scenario where the dollar appreciates by 2% per year. The thick line through the middle of the region corresponds to a flat dollar. Chart 12Monetary Conditions Vs. Equilibrium Monetary Conditions Vs. Equilibrium Monetary Conditions Vs. Equilibrium Chart 13Fed Funds Rate Scenarios Fed Funds Rate Scenarios Fed Funds Rate Scenarios As can be seen in Chart 13, both the market and Fed are discounting a move in the MCI above its equilibrium level. This would be consistent with behavior witnessed in past cycles when the MCI broke above its equilibrium level several years before the next recession. Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com Alex Wang, Research Analyst alexw@bcaresearch.com 1 Defined as total debt divided by EBITD. 2 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, "Seven Fixed Income Themes For 2017", dated December 20, 2016, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, "Seven Fixed Income Themes For 2017", dated December 20, 2016, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, "Seven Fixed Income Themes For 2017", dated December 20, 2016, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 5 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, "Seven Fixed Income Themes For 2017", dated December 20, 2016, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 6 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, "Seven Fixed Income Themes For 2017", dated December 20, 2016, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 7 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, "Seven Fixed Income Themes For 2017", dated December 20, 2016, 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 The U.S. dollar will continue to appreciate while the RMB will depreciate further. This is a bad omen for EM risk assets, commodities, and global late cyclical equity sectors. Gold often leads oil and copper prices. Investors should heed the current downbeat message from gold. EM credit spreads have become detached from fundamentals and are unreasonably tight. Continue overweighting the Indian bourse within an EM equity portfolio. A new equity trade: long Indian software stocks / short the EM overall index. Feature There are several major discrepancies in financial markets that in our view are unsustainable. 1. The gap between EM equity breadth, USD, RMB and EM share prices One way to measure equity market breadth is to compare performance of equal-weighted versus market cap-weighted stock price indexes. Based on this measure, EM stock market breadth has been deteriorating. Poor breadth often heralds a major selloff (Chart I-1). Chart I-1Poor EM Equity Breadth Heralds A Major Selloff Poor EM Equity Breadth Heralds A Major Selloff Poor EM Equity Breadth Heralds A Major Selloff Remarkably, the same measure for the U.S. stock market shows improving breadth. The relative performance of equally-weighted EM stocks against U.S. equity indexes - a measure of breadth in relative performance - can also be a reliable marker for the relative performance of market cap-weighted indexes. It has plummeted to a new low pointing to new lows in EM versus U.S. relative share prices. In addition, a surging U.S. dollar has historically meant lower EM share prices (Chart I-2). We doubt this time is different. Finally, EM risk assets have decoupled from the RMB/USD exchange rate as well. The RMB has been depreciating and China's domestic corporate and government bond yields have spiked. As a result, the on-shore bond prices in RMB terms have plummeted (Chart I-3). Chart I-2A Rising U.S. Dollar Is ##br##A Bad Omen For EM A Rising U.S. Dollar Is A Bad Omen For EM A Rising U.S. Dollar Is A Bad Omen For EM Chart I-3China's On-Shore Corporate Bond##br## Prices Have Crashed bca.ems_wr_2016_12_21_s1_c3 bca.ems_wr_2016_12_21_s1_c3 Experiencing considerable losses on their favorite financial investment of the past year, bonds, Chinese investors, as well as households and companies, could opt to switch into U.S. dollars. The stampede into the U.S. dollar could start as early as January when the annual US$ 50,000 quota per person becomes available. It is hard to see what the government will do to preclude this rush and massive flight towards U.S. dollars. In China, households' and corporates' RMB deposits in the banking system amount to RMB 122 tn or US$17.5 tn. Hence, the PBoC's foreign exchange reserves including gold at US$ 3.2 tn are only equal to 18.5% of these deposits at the current exchange rate. Bottom Line: The U.S. dollar will appreciate and the RMB will depreciate. This is a bad omen for EM share prices and other risk assets. 2. Oil and copper prices deviating from gold prices Historically, when gold and oil prices have diverged, gold in most cases has proven more forward looking, with oil prices ultimately converging toward gold prices. Chart I-4A and Chart I-4B illustrate past episodes of gold and oil decoupling (in the 1980, 1990s and 2008), each of which were resolved via oil prices gravitating toward gold prices. Chart I-4AGold Led Oil Prices bca.ems_wr_2016_12_21_s1_c4a bca.ems_wr_2016_12_21_s1_c4a Chart I-4BGold Led Oil Prices Gold Led Oil Prices Gold Led Oil Prices In short, if history is any guide, the current gap between gold and oil prices will likely close via lower oil prices (Chart I-5, top panel). The same holds true for the recent divergence between gold and copper prices (Chart 5, bottom panel). We identified four historical periods when gold and copper prices diverged. In each case, it was copper prices that amended their trajectory and aligned with the direction of gold prices (Chart I-6A and 6B). Chart I-5Divergence Between Oil, Copper And Gold Divergence Between Oil, Copper And Gold Divergence Between Oil, Copper And Gold Chart I-6AGold Led Copper Prices Too bca.ems_wr_2016_12_21_s1_c6a bca.ems_wr_2016_12_21_s1_c6a Chart I-6BGold Led Copper Prices Too bca.ems_wr_2016_12_21_s1_c6b bca.ems_wr_2016_12_21_s1_c6b In sum, historically there have been a number of episodes when gold has led both oil and copper prices. Investors should heed the current downbeat message from gold. Chart I-7China: Dichotomies bca.ems_wr_2016_12_21_s1_c7 bca.ems_wr_2016_12_21_s1_c7 The underlying rationale could be that gold responds to monetary/liquidity conditions (gold is very sensitive to U.S. TIPS (real) yields) while oil and copper are more sensitive to growth conditions. Tightening in monetary/liquidity conditions often precedes a growth relapse. This could be the reason why gold has led oil and copper prices on several occasions in the past. 3. Dichotomies in China's industrial economy There are two types of dichotomies underway within China's industrial economy: The first is between industrial activity and industrial commodities prices. Commodities prices have surged, but the pace of manufacturing production has not improved at all (Chart I-7). There have been major discrepancies among various segments of China's industrial economy, with utilities surging and the technology sector remaining robust, and many others stagnating. The decoupling between industrial activity and industrial commodities prices can be explained by financial speculation and supply cutbacks. The former is unsustainable, while the latter is reversing as the government is gradually lifting restrictions on supply for coal and steel. The second is between the private- and state-owned parts of the industrial sector. The state-owned segment has experienced a meaningful improvement in output, while private companies in the industrial sector have seen their output growth weaken, albeit the growth rate is higher than in the SOE sector. (Chart I-7, bottom panel). As China's fiscal and credit impulses wane,1 activity in the state-owned industrial segment will relapse anew. 4. EM credit spreads diverging from EM currencies and credit fundamentals EM sovereign and corporate credit spreads (credit markets) are once again proving very resilient, despite the renewed selloff in EM currencies (Chart I-8). EM credit markets have defied deteriorating EM credit fundamentals in the past several years. Below we identify several divergences and anomalies within the EM credit space that give us confidence that EM credit markets have become detached from fundamentals, and that their risk-reward profile is poor. Chart I-8EM Credit Markets And EM Currencies:##br## A Widening Dichotomy EM Credit Markets And EM Currencies: A Widening Dichotomy EM Credit Markets And EM Currencies: A Widening Dichotomy Chart I-9EM Corporate Financial Health:##br## Not Much Improvement bca.ems_wr_2016_12_21_s1_c9 bca.ems_wr_2016_12_21_s1_c9 The EM Corporate Financial Health (CFH) Indicator has stabilized, but remains at a very depressed level (Chart I-9, top panel). This amelioration is largely due to the profit margin component. The other three components have not improved (Chart I-9, second panel). The valuation model based on the EM CFH indicator shows that EM corporate spreads are far too tight (Chart I-10). Chart I-10EM Corporate Bonds Are Expensive EM Corporate Bonds Are Expensive EM Corporate Bonds Are Expensive The strong performance of EM credit markets in recent years has been justified by the persistence of low bond yields in developed markets (DM). Yet the latest spike in DM bond yields has so far not caused EM credit spreads to widen. We expect U.S./DM government bond yields to rise further, and the U.S. dollar to continue to strengthen. This, along with potential broad-based declines in commodities prices, should lead to material widening in EM sovereign and corporate credit spreads in early 2017. With respect to unsustainable discrepancies, the case in point is Brazil. The country's sovereign and corporate spreads have tightened a lot this year, even though economic activity continues to shrink. The country has had numerous boom-bust cycles in the past 100 years, yet this depression is the worst on record. In fact, the nation's economic growth and public debt dynamics are worse than at any time during the past 20 years. Yet, at 300 basis points, sovereign spreads are well below the 1000-2500 basis point trading range that prevailed in the second half of 1990s and early 2000s (Chart I-11). Remarkably, the economy's pace of contraction has lately intensified (Chart I-12). This will likely worsen government revenues and lead to further widening in the fiscal deficit - making debt dynamics unsustainable. Another absurd credit market divergence is between China's sovereign CDS and Chinese offshore corporate spreads. Sovereign CDS spreads have been widening, but corporate credit spreads remain very tight (Chart I-13). Chart I-11Brazil: Dichotomy Between Sovereign ##br##Spreads And Fundamentals Brazil: Dichotomy Between Sovereign Spreads And Fundamentals Brazil: Dichotomy Between Sovereign Spreads And Fundamentals Chart I-12Brazil's Economy: ##br##No Improvement At All Brazil's Economy: No Improvement At All Brazil's Economy: No Improvement At All Chart I-13Chinese Sovereign CDS And ##br##Off-Shore Corporate Spreads Chinese Sovereign CDS And Off-Shore Corporate Spreads Chinese Sovereign CDS And Off-Shore Corporate Spreads Yet there is much more risk in Chinese corporates than in government debt. The corporate sector commands record leverage of 165% of national GDP, while public debt stands at 46% of GDP. Besides, the central government in China will always have immediate access to domestic or foreign debt markets, while some corporations could lose access to financing if creditors question their creditworthiness and decide to tighten credit. There is no rational case to support the rise in sovereign CDS when corporate spreads are tame. The only feasible explanation is that investors - who are invested in Chinese corporate bonds, and are not interested in selling them - are buying sovereign CDS to tactically hedge their credit exposure. If and when market sentiment sours sufficiently, and credit spread widening is perceived durable and lasting, real money will sell corporate bonds, resulting in a major spike in corporate spreads. 5. Divergence between global late cyclicals and the U.S. dollar Another area where we detect that financial markets have lately become overly optimistic is in global late cyclicals - materials, machinery and energy stocks. Typically, the absolute share prices in these sectors correlate with the U.S. dollar exchange rate but they have lately diverged (Chart I-14). Furthermore, global machinery stocks in general, and Caterpillar's share price in particular, have lately staged significant gains, while their EPS and sales continue to plunge (Chart I-15). Notably, Caterpillar's sales have not improved, even on a rate-of-change basis. Chart I-14Global Late Cyclicals And The U.S. Dollar: ##br##Unsustainable Decoupling Global Late Cyclicals And The U.S. Dollar: Unsustainable Decoupling Global Late Cyclicals And The U.S. Dollar: Unsustainable Decoupling Chart I-15Global Machinery Sales And##br## Profits Continue Plunging Global Machinery Sales And Profits Continue Plunging Global Machinery Sales And Profits Continue Plunging EM including China capital spending in real terms is as large as the U.S. and EU capital spending combined (Chart I-16). If the EM and China capex cycle does not post a recovery, which is our baseline view, it will be hard for global late cyclical stocks to continue rallying based solely on the positive outlook for U.S. infrastructure spending and potential U.S. tax reforms. In short, global late cyclicals such as machinery, materials and energy stocks that performed quite well in 2016 are vulnerable to a major pullback as EM/Chinese capital spending disappoints on the back of credit growth deceleration. Notably, these global equity sectors have reached a major technical resistance that will likely become a ceiling for their share prices (Chart I-17). Chart I-16EM/China's Capex Is As Large As ##br##U.S. And Euro Area Combined EM/China's Capex Is As Large As U.S. And Euro Area Combined EM/China's Capex Is As Large As U.S. And Euro Area Combined Chart I-17Global Late Cyclicals Are ##br##Facing Technical Resistance Global Late Cyclicals Are Facing Technical Resistance Global Late Cyclicals Are Facing Technical Resistance 6. Decoupling between the South African rand and precious metals prices The South African rand's recent resilience - despite the considerable drop in precious metal prices - is unprecedented (Chart I-18, top panel). Similarly, the rand has also decoupled from the exchange rate of another major metals producer: Australia (Chart I-18, bottom panel). We cannot think of any reason why these discrepancies can or should persist. Rising global bond yields and a broadening selloff in commodities prices should hurt the rand. In fact, the trade-weighted rand is facing a major technical resistance (Chart I-19) and will likely relapse sooner than later. Chart I-18Rand, AUD And ##br##Precious Metals Rand, AUD And Precious Metals Rand, AUD And Precious Metals Chart I-19Trade-Weighted Rand Is ##br##Facing Technical Resistance Trade-Weighted Rand Is Facing Technical Resistance Trade-Weighted Rand Is Facing Technical Resistance We reiterate our structural short position in the rand versus the U.S. dollar, and on October 12, 2016 initiated a short ZAR / long MXN trade. Traders should consider putting on these trades. Investment Strategy Chart I-20EM Relative Equity Performance ##br##Is Heading To New Lows EM Relative Equity Performance Is Heading To New Lows EM Relative Equity Performance Is Heading To New Lows Emerging markets share prices and currencies have been doing poorly since October, despite U.S. equity shares breaking out to new highs. In fact, almost all relative outperformance has been wiped out (Chart I-20). BCA's Emerging Markets Strategy team expects further declines in EM share prices and currencies, as well as a selloff in domestic bonds and a widening of sovereign and corporate spreads. Absolute return investors should stay put, while asset allocators should maintain underweight positions in EM risk assets within respective global portfolios. Arthur Budaghyan, Senior Vice President Emerging Markets Strategy arthurb@bcaresearch.com India: Demonetization And Opportunities In Equities On November 8, India launched a demonetization program with the goal of removing the two most used banknotes - the 500 INR and 1000 INR banknotes - from circulation. Both banknotes accounted for roughly 85% of currency in circulation, which itself accounts for 13% of India's broad money supply. Moreover, almost 90%2 of retail transactions in India are cash-reliant. While around INR 13 trillion of notes (US$ 190 billion) have been deposited in the banking system as of December 10, only INR 5 trillion of new notes have been issued by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI). India is unlikely to turn cashless overnight. According to a Harvard Business Review article,3 less than 10% of Indians have ever used non-cash payment instruments. Likewise, less than 2% of Indians have used a cellular phone to receive a payment. This implies cash shortages could persist for a while and will have a significant impact on short-term economic activity. There are numerous reports that layoffs and business shutdowns have ensued in several industries, particularly in the informal economy (Chart II-1). The service sector PMI already dipped below 50 in November and the manufacturing PMI fell as well (Chart II-2). Chart II-1Very Weak Employment Outlook Very Weak Employment Outlook Very Weak Employment Outlook Chart II-2Indian PMIs Are Sinking Indian PMIs Are Sinking Indian PMIs Are Sinking Having boomed over the past year, motorcycle sales growth is now waning. Similarly, passenger and commercial vehicle sales - that have been anemic - will now dip. However, the consumption slowdown should not continue beyond the next couple of months. As more currency is supplied by the RBI, economic activity will rebound - particularly household spending. Pent-up demand will be unleashed as money circulation is restored. Nevertheless, investment expenditures are the key factors for improving productivity and, hence, as non-inflationary growth potential. Capital spending had been anemic in India well before the demonetization program was announced (Chart II-3). The reason for such lackluster investment expenditure lies in the fact that past investment projects taken on by highly leveraged Indian conglomerates have delivered poor performance. This translated into ever rising non-performing loans (NPLs) at state banks. Without debt restructuring and public bank recapitalization, a new capex cycle is unlikely in India. Consistently, credit to large industries is now contracting (Chart II-4) and foreign lending to Indian companies is declining. Chart II-3Indian Capex Is Anemic Indian Capex Is Anemic Indian Capex Is Anemic Chart II-4Banks Prefer Consumers bca.ems_wr_2016_12_21_s2_c4 bca.ems_wr_2016_12_21_s2_c4 We expect the demonetization program to hurt capital spending only mildly in the coming months, but do not expect a material bounce in investment afterward, unlike the one slated for household consumption. Indian share prices have more downside in absolute terms, as the market is still expensive and growth is slumping. Nevertheless, India will likely outperform the EM equity benchmark going forward (Chart II-5). Chart II-5Indian Share Prices: A Tapering Wedge Indian Share Prices: A Tapering Wedge Indian Share Prices: A Tapering Wedge The rationale for our overweight on Indian equities within the EM stock universe is due to the nation's much better macro fundamentals relative to those in many other EM. In particular, deleveraging and NPL write-offs are more advanced, the current account deficit is small, and India will benefit from potentially lower commodities prices. Within the Indian bourse, we recommend overweighting software stocks that will benefit from a revival in advanced economies' growth and a weaker currency. Besides, Indian software stocks are not exposed to the currently weak domestic consumption cycle and in fact might benefit from the push toward digitalization in banking. Bottom Line: Indian consumption will weaken in the coming three months or so, but will rebound thereafter. The capex cycle is weak and will remain subdued. Continue overweighting the Indian bourse within an EM equity portfolio. A new equity recommendation: long Indian software stocks / short the EM overall index. Ayman Kawtharani, Research Analyst aymank@bcaresearch.com Arthur Budaghyan, Senior Vice President Emerging Markets Strategy arthurb@bcaresearch.com 1 Please refer to the Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report, titled "Key EM Issues Going Into 2017," dated December 14, 2016, available at ems.bcaresearch.com 2 Chakravorti, B., Mazzotta, B., Bijapurkar, R., Shukla, R., Ramesha, K., Bapat, D., &Roy, D. (2013). The cost of cash in India. Institute of Business in the Global Context, Fletcher School, Tufts University. 3 Chakravorti, B. (2016, December 14). India's Botched War on Cash. Retrieved from https://hbr.org Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations

Mr. X is a long-time BCA client who visits our offices towards the end of each year to discuss the economic and financial market outlook. This report is an edited transcript of our recent conversation. Mr. X: What a year it has been. The Brexit vote in the U.K. and the U.S. election result took me completely by surprise and have added to an already uncertain economic environment. A year ago, you adopted the theme of "Stuck In A Rut" to describe the economic and financial market environment and that turned out to be quite appropriate. Consistent with that rut, many issues concerning me for some time have yet to be resolved. Global economic growth has stayed mediocre, debt levels remain elevated almost everywhere, the outlook for China continues to be shrouded in fog, and stimulative monetary policies are still distorting markets. And now we face political shifts that will have major economic and financial effects. Some big changes are underway and I fear that we are more likely to head in a negative rather than positive direction. Therefore, I am very interested to learn how you see things developing. You have recommended a cautious investment stance during the past year and I was happy to go along with that given all my concerns about the economic and policy environment. While stocks have done rather better than I expected, it has all been based on flimsy foundations in my opinion. I have never been comfortable buying an asset just because prices are being supported by excessively easy money policies. The question now is whether looming changes in the policy and economic environment and in global politics will fuel further gains in risk assets or whether a significant setback is in prospect. I hope our discussion will give some clarity on this but, before talking about the future, let's quickly review what you predicted a year ago. BCA: It has indeed been a momentous year and we do seem to be at important turning points in many areas. For example, changing attitudes toward free trade and fiscal policy do have important implications for economic growth and interest rates. And this is being reinforced by cyclical economic trends as labor markets tighten in the U.S. However, it is too soon to know the extent to which political and policy uncertainties will diminish in the U.S. and Europe. You seek clarity on the investment outlook, but that will remain as challenging an objective as ever. You asked to start with a review of last year's predictions and this is always a moment of some trepidation. A year ago, our key conclusions were as follows: The current global economic malaise of slow growth and deflationary pressures reflects more than just a temporary hangover from the 2007-09 balance sheet recession. Powerful structural forces are at work, the effects of which will linger for a long time. These include an ongoing overhang of debt, the peak in globalization, adverse demographics in most major economies, monetary policy exhaustion, and low financial asset returns. Investor expectations have yet to adjust to the fact that sub-par growth and low inflation are likely to persist for many years. The Debt Supercycle is over, but weak nominal GDP growth has made it virtually impossible to reduce debt burdens. Nonetheless, a debt crisis in the advanced economies is not in prospect any time soon because low interest rates are keeping a lid on debt servicing costs. Perhaps high inflation and debt monetization will be the end-point, but that is many years away and would be preceded by a deflationary downturn. Despite ongoing exciting technological advances, the IT boom has lost its edge in terms of boosting economic growth. Even if productivity is understated, the corollary is that inflation is overstated, suggesting that central bankers will continue to face a policy dilemma. The Fed will raise interest rates by less than implied by their current projections. And the European Central Bank and Bank of Japan may expand their QE programs. Yet, monetary policy has become ineffective in boosting growth. Fiscal policy needs to play a bigger role, but it will require another recession to force a shift in political attitudes toward more stimulus. The U.S. economy will remain stuck in sub-2.5% growth in 2016, with risks to the downside. The euro zone's performance has improved recently, but 2016 growth will fall short of the IMF's 1.9% forecast. Japan's growth will continue to disappoint as it will in most other developed economies. China will continue to avoid a hard landing but growth will likely average below 6% in 2016 and beyond. Other emerging economies face a difficult environment of weak commodity prices, declining global trade. Those with excessive foreign-currency debt face additional pressures with weak exchange rates preventing an easing in monetary policy. Bonds offer poor long-term returns from current yields, but sovereign bonds in the major developed countries offer a hedge against downside macro risks and we recommend benchmark weightings. The fundamental backdrop to corporate and EM bonds remain bearish and spreads have not yet reached a level that discounts all of the risks. A buying opportunity in high-yield securities could emerge in the coming year but, for the moment, stay underweight spread product. We have turned more cautious on equities given a deterioration in the earnings outlook and in some technical indicators. No more than benchmark weighting is warranted and we would not argue against a modest underweight. The typical warning signs of a bear market are not in place but risks have risen. The U.S. equity market is expected to underperform that of Europe and Japan. Continue to stay away from emerging equities and commodity-oriented bourses. We continue to favor a defensive sector stance, favoring consumer staples and health care over cyclical sectors such as materials, energy and industrials. The bear market in commodities is not over. The sharp drop in oil prices will eventually restore balance to that market by undermining non-OPEC production and supporting demand, but this could take until the third quarter of 2016. The oil price is expected to average around $50 a barrel for the 2016-2018 period. The strong dollar and deflationary environment create a headwind for gold, offsetting the benefits of negative real interest rates. But modest positions are a hedge against a spike in risk aversion. The dollar is likely to gain further against emerging and commodity-oriented currencies. But the upside against the euro and the yen will be limited given the potential for disappointments about the U.S. economy. As was the case a year ago, geopolitical risks are concentrated in the emerging world. Meanwhile, the new world order of multipolarity and an increased incidence of military conflicts is not yet priced into markets. We do not expect the U.S. elections to have any major adverse impact on financial markets. On the economic front, we suggested that economic risks would stay tilted to the downside and this turned out to be correct with global growth, once again, falling short of expectations. A year ago, the IMF forecast global growth of 3.6% in 2016 and this has since been downgraded to 3.1%, the weakest number since the recovery began (Table 1). The U.S. economy fell particularly short of expectations (1.6% versus 2.8%). The downgrading of growth forecasts continued a pattern that has been in place since the end of the 2007-09 downturn (Chart 1). We cannot recall any other time when economic forecasts have been so wrong for such an extended period. The two big disappointments regarding growth have been the lackluster performance of global trade and the ongoing reluctance of businesses to expand capital spending. Not surprisingly, inflation remained low, as we expected. Table 1IMF Economic Forecasts January 2017 - Shifting Regimes January 2017 - Shifting Regimes Chart 1Persistent Growth Downgrades Persistent Growth Downgrades Persistent Growth Downgrades Given the disappointing economic performance, we were correct in predicting that the Federal Reserve would not raise interest rates by as much as their earlier forecasts implied. When we met last year, the Fed had just raised the funds rate from 0.25% to 0.5% and the median expectation of FOMC members was that it would reach 1.4% by end-2016 and 2.4% by end-2017. As we now know, the Fed is now targeting a funds rate of 0.5% to 0.75% and median FOMC projections are for 1.4% by end-2017 (Chart 2). Meanwhile, as we expected, both the ECB and Bank of Japan expanded their quantitative easing programs in an attempt to stimulate growth. Chart 2Changes In the Fed's Expectations Changes in the Fed's Expectations Changes in the Fed's Expectations Our concerns about the poor prospects for emerging economies were validated. The median 2016 growth rate for 152 emerging economies tracked by the IMF was only 3.1%, a notch below the 2015 pace and, barring 2009, the weakest number since the late 1990s Asia crisis. The official Chinese data overstate growth, but there was no hard landing, as many commentators continued to predict. Turning to the markets, there was considerable volatility during the year (Table 2). For example, U.S. bond yields fell sharply during the first half then rebounded strongly towards the end of the year, leaving them modestly higher over the 12 months. Yields in Europe and Japan followed a similar pattern - falling in the first half and then rebounding, but the level continued to be held down by central bank purchases. Japanese bonds outperformed in common currency terms and we had not expected that to occur, although there was a huge difference between the first and second halves of the year, with the yen unwinding its earlier strength in the closing months of the year. Table 2Market Performance January 2017 - Shifting Regimes January 2017 - Shifting Regimes Our caution toward spread product - corporate and EM bonds - turned out to have been unjustified. Despite worsening fundamentals, most notably rising leverage, the search for yield remained a powerful force keeping spreads down and delivering solid returns for these securities. Spreads are back to very low levels, warning that further gains will be hard to achieve. Equity markets made moderate net gains over the course of the year, but it was a roller coaster journey. A nasty early-year downturn was followed by a rebound, an extended trading range and a late-year rally. While the all-country index delivered a total return of around 8% for the year in common currency terms, almost one-third of that was accounted for by the dividend yield. The price index rose by less than 6% in common currency and 7% in local currency. However, our recommendation to overweight Europe and Japan did not pan out. Once again, the U.S. was an outperformer with the financially-heavy European index weighed down by ongoing concerns about banks, and Japan held back by its lackluster economic performance. Oil prices moved much as we expected, with Brent averaging around $45 over the year. At this time in 2015, prices were below $40, but we argued that a gradual rebalancing would bring prices back into a $45-$60 range in the second half of 2016. We did not expect much of a rise in the gold price and it increased less than 7% over the year. However, we did not try to dissuade you from owning some gold given your long-standing attraction to the asset, subject to keeping the allocation to 5% or less of your portfolio. Industrial commodity prices have been much stronger than we predicted, benefiting from a weak dollar in the first half of the year and continued buoyant demand from China. Finally, the dollar moved up as we had predicted, with the gains concentrated in the second half of the year. The yen's first-half strength was a surprise, but this was largely unwound in the second half as U.S. bond yields climbed. Mr. X: Notably absent has been any mention of the two political shocks of 2016. BCA: We did tell you that the U.K. referendum on Brexit was the key risk facing Europe in 2016 and that the polls were too close to have a strong view. Yet, we did not anticipate that the vote to leave the EU would pass. And when you pushed us a year ago to pick a winner for the U.S. election we wrongly went with Clinton. Our Global Strategist, Peter Berezin, was on record predicting a Trump victory as long ago as September 2015. But it seemed such an outrageous idea that our consensus view stuck to the safer option of Clinton. Interestingly, during our discussion at the end of 2014, we did note that a retreat from globalization was one of the risks in the outlook and we re-emphasized that point last year, pointing to rising populist pressures. However, we underestimated the ability of Brexit campaigners and Donald Trump to capitalize on the anger of disaffected voters. Trade and immigration policies are not the only areas where policy appears to be at a turning point. For example, fiscal conservatism is giving way to stimulus in the U.S. and several other countries, inflation and interest rates are headed higher, at least temporarily, and 2017-2018 should finally arrest the multi-year spectacle of downgrades to global growth projections. Yet, markets have a tendency to overreact and that currently seems to be the case when it comes to discounting prospective changes in the economic environment for the coming year. Turning Points And Regime Shifts: How Much Will Really Change? Mr. X: The U.S. election result and Brexit vote obviously were seismic events with potentially major policy implications. But there seem to be more questions than answers in terms of how policies actually will evolve over the next few years and the extent to which they will be good or bad for growth. The markets are assuming that economic growth will get a big boost from changes in fiscal policy. Do you agree with that view? Chart 3Fiscal Austerity Ended In 2015 Fiscal Austerity Ended in 2015 Fiscal Austerity Ended in 2015 BCA: We need to begin by putting things into perspective. Fiscal austerity came to an end pretty much everywhere a couple of years ago. Data from the IMF show that the peak years for fiscal austerity in the advanced economies were 2011-2013, and the budget cutbacks in those years did not even fully offset the massive stimulus that occurred during the downturn in 2008-10. Since 2013, the fiscal drag on GDP has gradually diminished and policy shifts are estimated to have added to GDP in the U.S., euro area and Japan in 2016 (Chart 3). Nonetheless, with economic growth falling short of expectations and easy money losing its effectiveness, there have been widespread calls for fiscal policy to do more. President-elect Trump has made major tax cuts and increased spending an important part of his policy platform, so the issue is the extent to which he follows through on his plans. Inevitably, there are some challenges: The plan to boost U.S. infrastructure spending is welcome, but the intention seems to be to emphasize private/public partnerships rather than federally-funded projects. Setting up such agreements could take time. Meanwhile, although there is great scope to improve the infrastructure, it is far less clear that a number of "shovel-ready" projects are simply waiting for finance. The bottom line is that increased infrastructure spending is more a story for 2018 and beyond, rather than 2017. And the same also is true for defense, where it may take time to put new programs in place. Turning to the proposed tax cuts, history shows there can be a huge difference between election promises and what eventually is legislated. According to the Tax Policy Center, Trump's plans would add more than $6 trillion to outstanding federal debt over the next decade and more than $20 trillion over 20 years. And that excludes the impact of higher interest costs on the debt. Even if one were to take an optimistic view of a revenue boost from faster economic growth, there would still be a large increase in federal deficits and thus debt levels and this could be problematic for many Republicans. It seems inevitable that the tax plans will be watered down. An additional issue is the distributional impact of the proposed tax cuts. Eliminating the estate tax and proposed changes to marginal rates would disproportionally help the rich. Estimates show the lowest and second lowest quintile earners would receive a tax cut of less than 1% of income, compared to 6.5% for the top 1%. Given that the marginal propensity to consume is much higher for those with low incomes, this would dilute the economic impact. Moreover, there is again the issue of timing - the usual bargaining process means that tax changes will impact growth more in 2018 than 2017. Mr. X: You did not mention the plan to cut the corporate tax rate from 35% to 15%. Surely that will be very good for growth? BCA: According to the OECD, the U.S. has a marginal corporate tax rate of 38.9% (including state and local corporate taxes), making it by far the highest in the industrialized world. The median rate for 34 other OECD economies is 24.6%. However, the actual rate that U.S. companies pay after all the various deductions is not so high. According to national accounts data, the effective tax rate for domestic non-financial companies averaged 25% in the four quarters ended 2016 Q2. Data from the IRS show an average rate of around 21% for all corporations. And for those companies with significant overseas operations, the rate is lower. There certainly is a good case for lowering the marginal rate and simplifying the system by removing deductions and closing loopholes. But special interests always make such reforms a tough battle. Even so, there is widespread support to reduce corporate taxes so some moves are inevitable and this should be good for profits and, hopefully, capital spending. The bottom line is that you should not expect a major direct boost to growth in 2017 from changes in U.S. fiscal policy. The impact will be greater in 2018, perhaps adding between 0.5% and 1% to growth. However, don't forget that there could be an offset from any moves to erect trade barriers. Mr. X: What about fiscal developments in other countries? Chart 4Japan Is A Fiscal Nightmare Japan Is A Fiscal Nightmare Japan Is A Fiscal Nightmare BCA: The Japanese government has boosted government spending again, but the IMF estimates that fiscal changes added only 0.3% to GDP in 2016, with an even smaller impact expected for 2017. And a renewed tightening is assumed to occur in 2018 as postponed efforts to reign in the deficit take hold. Of course, a sales tax hike could be delayed yet again if the economy continues to disappoint. But, with an overall budget deficit of 5% of GDP and gross government debt of more than 250% of GDP, Japan's room for additional stimulus is limited (Chart 4). Although the Bank of Japan owns around 40% of outstanding government debt, the authorities cannot openly admit that this will be written off. While more fiscal moves are possible in Japan, it is doubtful they would significantly alter the growth picture. The euro area peripheral countries have moved past the drastic fiscal austerity that was imposed on them a few years ago. Nevertheless, there is not much room for maneuver with regard to adopting an overtly reflationary stance. It is one thing to turn a blind eye to the fiscal constraints of the EU's Growth and Stability Pact and quite another to move aggressively in the opposite direction. Most of the region's economies have government debt-to-GDP ratios far above the 60% required under the Maastricht Treaty. In sum, a move to fiscal stimulus is not in the cards for the euro area. The U.K. is set to adopt more reflationary policies following the Brexit vote, but this would at most offset private sector retrenchment. In conclusion, looming shifts in fiscal policy will be positive for global growth in the next couple of years, but are unlikely to be game changers. Of course, fiscal policy is not the only thing that might change - especially in the U.S. There also are hopes that an easing in regulatory burdens will be very positive for growth. Mr. X: I am glad you raised that point. I have many business contacts in the U.S. who complain bitterly about regulatory overload and they are desperate for some relief. BCA: There certainly is a need for action on this front as regulatory burdens have increased dramatically in the U.S. in recent years. The monthly survey of small businesses carried out by the National Federation of Independent Business shows that rising health care costs, excessive regulation and income taxes are regarded as the top three problems. According to the Heritage Foundation, new regulations from the Obama administration have added more than $100 billion annually to costs for businesses and individuals since 2009. While the U.S. has a good score in the World Bank's Ease of Doing Business Index (8th best out of 190 countries), it is ranked 51st in the component that measures how easy it is to start a business, which puts it behind countries such as Jamaica, Mongolia and Albania. So we can hope that the new administration will act to improve that situation. We can be confident that there will be major reductions in regulations relating to energy and the environment. Other areas may be more challenging. It did not take long for Trump to back away from his pledge to repeal the Affordable Care Act (ACA) in its entirety. Returning to the previous status quo will not be politically acceptable and devising an alternative plan is no small task. The end result still will be a major modification of the ACA and this should ease health care costs for small businesses. With regard to the financial sector, it is no surprise that the pendulum swung massively toward increased regulation given the pre-crisis credit excesses. The economic and financial downturn of 2008-09 left a legacy of strong populist resentment of Wall Street and the banks, so a return to the previous laissez-faire model is not in the cards. At one stage, Trump indicated that he was in favor of replacing Dodd-Frank with a Glass-Steagall system, requiring commercial banks to divest themselves of their securities' businesses. The large banks would employ legions of lobbyists to prevent a new Glass-Steagall Act. The end result will be some watering down of the Dodd-Frank regulatory requirements, but again, a return to the pre-crisis status quo is not in the cards. The Retreat From Globalization Mr. X: You have challenged the consensus view that fiscal stimulus will deliver a meaningful boost to the global economy over the coming year. Having downplayed the main reason to be more positive about near-term growth, let's turn to global trade, the issue that causes most nervousness about the outlook. The Brexit vote in the U.K. was at least partly a vote against globalization and we are all familiar with Trump's threat to dramatically raise tariffs on imports from China and Mexico. What are the odds of an all-out trade war? BCA: At the risk of sounding complacent, we would give low odds to this. Again, there will be a large difference between campaign promises and actual outcomes. Let's start with China where the U.S. trade deficit ran at a $370 billion annual rate in the first nine months of 2016, up from around $230 billion a decade before (Chart 5). China now accounts for half of the total U.S. trade deficit compared to a 25% share a decade ago. On the face of it, the U.S. looks to have a good bargaining position, but the relationship is not one-sided. China has been a major financer of U.S. deficits and is the third largest importer of U.S. goods, after Canada and Mexico. Meanwhile, U.S. consumers have benefited enormously from the relative cheapness of imported Chinese goods. As for the threat to label China as a currency manipulator, it is interesting to note that its real effective exchange rate has increased by almost 20% since the mid-2000s, and since then, the country's current account surplus as a share of GDP has fallen from almost 10% to around 2.5% (Chart 6). The renminbi has fallen by around 10% against the dollar since mid-2015, but that has been due to the latter currency's broad-based rally, not Chinese manipulation. The fact that China's foreign-exchange reserves have declined in the past couple of years indicates that the country has intervened to hold its currency up, not push it down. Chart 5China-U.S. Trade: ##br##A Symbiotic Relationship? China-U.S. Trade: A Symbiotic Relationship? China-U.S. Trade: A Symbiotic Relationship? Chart 6China Has Not Manipulated ##br##Its Currency Downward China Has Not Manipulated Its Currency Downward China Has Not Manipulated Its Currency Downward Of course, facts may not be the guiding factor when it comes to U.S. trade policy, and we can expect some tough talk from the U.S. This could well involve the imposition of some tariffs and perhaps some concessions from China in the form of increased imports from the U.S. Overall, we are hopeful that rational behavior will prevail and that an all-out trade war will not occur. Mr. X: I also would like to believe that, but nothing in the U.S. election process made me think that rationality is guaranteed. BCA: Of course it is not guaranteed, and we will have to monitor the situation carefully. We should also talk about Mexico - the other main target of Trump's attacks. The U.S. trade deficit with Mexico accounts for less than 10% of the total U.S. deficit and has changed little in the past decade. More than 80% of the U.S. trade deficit with Mexico is related to vehicles and Trump clearly will put pressure on U.S. companies to move production back over the border. Within a week of the election, Ford announced that it had abandoned plans to shift production of its luxury Lincoln SUV from Kentucky to Mexico. And Trump subsequently browbeat Carrier Corporation into cancelling some job transfers across the border. If other companies follow suit, it could forestall major changes to NAFTA. Ironically, the Mexican peso has plunged by 10% against the dollar since the election, boosting the competitiveness of Mexico and offsetting some of the impact of any tariff increase. Not all the news on global trade is bad. After seven years of negotiation, the EU and Canada agreed a free trade deal. This has bolstered the U.K.'s hopes that it can arrange new trade deals after it leaves the EU. However, this will not be easy given the sheer number of bi-country deals that will be required. The time it took to negotiate the EU-Canada deal should be a salutary warning given that there was no particular animosity toward Canada within the EU. That will not be the case when it comes to negotiations with the U.K. Mr. X: Let's try and pull all this together. You have downplayed the risk of an all-out trade war and I hope that you are right. But do you expect trade developments to be a drag on economic activity, perhaps offsetting any positive impact from fiscal stimulus? Chart 7Only Modest Growth In World Trade Only Modest Growth In World Trade Only Modest Growth In World Trade BCA: You might think that trade is a zero-sum game for the global economy because one country's exports simply are another's imports. But expanding trade does confer net benefits to growth in terms of allowing a more efficient use of resources and boosting related activities such as transportation and wholesaling. Thus, the rapid expansion in trade after the fall of the Berlin Wall was very good for the global economy. Trade ceased to be a net contributor to world growth several years ago, highlighted by the fact that global export volumes have been growing at a slower pace than GDP (Chart 7). This has not been due to trade barriers but is more a reflection of China's shift away from less import-intensive growth. A return to import-intensive growth in China is not likely, and technological innovations such as 3-D printing could further undermine trade. If we also add the chances of some increase in protectionist barriers then it is reasonable to assume that trends in global trade are more likely to hinder growth than boost it over the coming couple of years. It really is too soon to make hard and fast predictions about this topic as we need to see exactly what actions the new U.S. administration will take. Nevertheless, we lean toward the optimistic side, and assume the economic impact of fiscal reflation will exceed any drag from trade restrictions. Again, this is a more of a story for 2018 than 2017. What we can say with some confidence is that the previous laissez-faire approach to globalization is no longer politically acceptable. Policymakers are being forced to respond to voter perceptions that the costs of free trade outweigh the benefits and that points to a more interventionist approach. This can take the form of overt protectionism or attempts to influence corporate behavior along the lines of president-elect Trump's exhortations to U.S. companies. Mr. X: What about the issue of immigration? Both the Brexit vote and the U.S. election result partly reflected voter rebellion against unrestrained immigration. And we know that nationalist sentiments also are rising in a number of other European countries. How big a problem is this? Chart 8Immigration's Rising Contribution ##br##To U.S. Population Growth Immigration's Rising Contribution To U.S. Population Growth Immigration's Rising Contribution To U.S. Population Growth BCA: In normal circumstances, immigration represents a win-win situation for all parties. The vast majority of immigrants are prepared to work hard to improve their economic position and in many cases take jobs that residents are not willing to accept. This all works well in a fast-growing economy, but difficulties arise when growth is weak: competition for jobs increases, especially among the unskilled, and the result is downward pressure on wages. The irony is that the U.S. and U.K. labor markets have tightened to the point where wage growth is accelerating. However, this all happened too late to affect the opinions of those who voted for tighter controls over immigration. There is an even more important issue from a big-picture perspective. As you know, an economy's potential growth rate comes from two sources: the growth in the labor force and productivity. According to the Census Bureau, U.S. population growth will average 0.8% a year over the next decade, slowing to 0.6% a year over the subsequent ten years. But more than half of this growth is assumed to come from net migration. Excluding net migration, population growth is predicted to slow to a mere 0.1% a year by the end of the 2030s (Chart 8). Thus, major curbs on immigration would directly lower potential GDP by a significant amount. In Europe, the demographic situation is even more precarious because birth rates are far below replacement levels. Europe desperately needs immigration to achieve even modest population increases. However, the migrant crisis is causing a backlash against cross-border population flows, again with negative implications for long-run economic growth. Even ignoring humanitarian considerations, major curbs on immigration would not be a good idea. Labor shortages would quickly become apparent in a number of industries. Some may welcome the resulting rise in wages, but the resulting pressure on inflation also would have adverse effects. So this is another area of policy that we will have to keep a close eye on. Inflation And Interest Rates Chart 9A Mixed U.S. Inflation Picture A Mixed U.S. Inflation Picture A Mixed U.S. Inflation Picture Mr. X: I am glad that you mentioned inflation. There are good reasons to think that an important inflection point in inflation has been reached. And bond investors seem to agree, judging by the recent spike in yields. If true, this would indeed represent a significant regime shift because falling inflation and bond yields have been such a dominant trend for several decades. Do you agree that the era of disinflation is over, along with the secular bull market in bonds? BCA: Inflation and bond yields in the U.S. have passed a cyclical turning point, but this does not mean that a sustained major uptrend is imminent. Let's start with inflation. A good portion of the rise in the underlying U.S. inflation rate has been due to a rise in housing rental costs, and, more recently, a spike in medical care costs. Neither of these trends should last: changes to the ACA should arrest the rising cost of medical care while increased housing construction will cap the rise in rent inflation. The rental vacancy rate looks to be stabilizing while rent inflation is rolling over. Meanwhile, the inflation rate for core goods has held at a low level and likely will be pushed lower as a result of the dollar's ascent (Chart 9). Of course, this all assumes that we do not end up with sharply higher import tariffs and a trade war. The main reason to expect a further near-term rise in underlying U.S. inflation is the tightening labor market and resulting firming in wage growth. With the economy likely to grow above a 2% pace in 2017, the labor market should continue to tighten, pushing wage inflation higher. So the core PCE inflation rate has a good chance of hitting the Federal Reserve's 2% target before the year is out. And bond investors have responded accordingly, with one-year inflation expectations moving to their highest level since mid-2014, when oil prices were above $110 a barrel (Chart 10). Long-run inflation expectations also have spiked since the U.S. election, perhaps reflecting the risk of higher import tariffs and the risks of political interference with the Fed. When it comes to other developed economies, with the exception of the U.K., there is less reason to expect underlying inflation to accelerate much over the next year. Sluggish growth in the euro area and Japan will continue to keep a lid on corporate pricing power and the markets seem to agree, judging by the still-modest level of one-year and long-run inflation expectations (Chart 11). The U.K. will see some pickup in inflation in response to the sharp drop in sterling and this shows up in a marked rise in market expectations. Chart 10U.S. Inflation Expectations Have Spiked U.S. Inflation Expectations Have Spiked U.S. Inflation Expectations Have Spiked Chart 11Inflation Expectations In Europe And Japan Inflation Expectations In Europe and Japan Inflation Expectations In Europe and Japan Turning back to the U.S., a key question regarding the longer-term inflation outlook is whether the supply side of the economy improves. If the new administration succeeds in boosting demand but there is no corresponding expansion in the supply capacity of the economy, then the result will be higher inflation. That will lead to continued monetary tightening and, as in past cycles, an eventual recession. But, if businesses respond to a demand boost with a marked increase in capital spending then the result hopefully would be faster productivity growth and a much more muted inflation response. Thus, it will be critical to monitor trends in business confidence and capital spending for signs that animal spirits are returning. Mr. X: So you don't think the Fed will be tempted to run a "hot" economy with inflation above the 2% target? BCA: That might have been a possibility if there was no prospect of fiscal stimulus, leaving all the economic risks on the downside. With easier fiscal policy on the horizon, the Fed can stick to a more orthodox policy approach. In other words, if the economy strengthens to the point where inflation appears to be headed sustainably above 2%, then the Fed will respond by raising rates. Unlike the situation a year ago, we do not have a strong disagreement with the Fed's rate hike expectations for the next couple of years. Nothing would please the Fed more than to return to a familiar world where the economy is behaving in a normal cyclical fashion, allowing a move away from unusually low interest rates. At the same time, the Fed believes, as we do, that the equilibrium real interest rate is far below historical levels and may be close to zero. Thus, interest rates may not need to rise that much to cool down the economy and ease inflationary pressures. This is especially true if the dollar continued to rise along with Fed tightening. Another potentially important issue is that the composition of the Federal Reserve Board could change dramatically in the next few years. There currently are two unfilled seats on the Board and it is very likely that both Janet Yellen and Stanley Fischer will leave in 2018 when their respective terms as Chair and Vice-Chair end (February 3 for Yellen and June 12 for Fischer). That means the incoming administration will be able to appoint four new Board members, and possibly more if other incumbents step down. Judging by the views of Trump's current economic advisers, he seems likely to choose people with a conservative approach to monetary policy. In sum, we do not rule out a rise in U.S. inflation to as much as 3%, but it would be a very short-lived blip. Steady Fed tightening would cap the rise, even at the cost of a renewed recession. Indeed, a recession would be quite likely because central banks typically overshoot on the side of restraint when trying to counter a late-cycle rise in inflation. Mr. X: I am more bearish than you on the inflation outlook. Central banks have been running what I regard as irresponsible policies for the past few years and we now also face some irresponsible fiscal policies in the U.S. That looks like a horrendously inflationary mix to me although I suppose inflation pressures would ease in the next recession. We can return to that possibility later when we discuss the economy in more detail. Where do you see U.S. short rates peaking in the current cycle and what does this mean for your view on long-term interest rates? To repeat my earlier question: is the secular bond bull market over? BCA: During the past 30 years, the fed funds rate tended to peak close to the level of nominal GDP growth (Chart 12). That would imply a fed funds rate of over 5% in the current cycle, assuming peak real GDP growth of around 3% and 2-3% inflation. However, that ignores the fact that debt burdens are higher than in the past and structural headwinds to growth are greater. Thus, the peak funds rate is likely to be well below 5%, perhaps not much above 3%. Chart 12The Fed Funds Rate And The Economic Cycle The Fed Funds Rate and the Economic Cycle The Fed Funds Rate and the Economic Cycle With regard to your question about the secular bull market in bonds, we believe it has ended, but the bottoming process likely will be protracted. We obviously are in the midst of a cyclical uptrend in U.S. yields that could last a couple of years. The combination of a modestly stronger economy, easier fiscal stance and monetary tightening are all consistent with rising bond yields. Although yields moved a lot in the second half of 2016, the level is still not especially high, so there is further upside. It would not be a surprise to see the 10-year Treasury yield reach 3% by this time next year. However, there could be a last-gasp renewed decline in yields at some point in the next few years. If the U.S. economy heads back into recession with the fed funds rate peaking at say 3.5%, then it is quite possible that long-term bond yields would revisit their 2016 lows - around 1.4% on the 10-year Treasury. There are no signs of recession at the moment, but a lot can change in the next three years. In any event, you should not be overly concerned with the secular outlook at this point. The cyclical outlook for yields is bearish and there should be plenty of advance notice if it is appropriate to switch direction. Update On The Debt Supercycle Mr. X: I would like to return to the issue of the Debt Supercycle - one of my favorite topics. You know that I have long regarded excessive debt levels as the biggest threat to economic and financial stability and nothing has occurred to ease my concerns. In the past, you noted that financial repression - keeping interest rates at very low levels - would be the policy response if faster economic growth could not achieve a reduction in debt burdens. But the recent rise in bond yields warns that governments cannot always control interest rate moves. Few people seem to worry anymore about high debt levels and I find that to be another reason for concern. BCA: You are correct that there has been very little progress in reducing debt burdens around the world. As we have noted in the past, it is extremely difficult for governments and the private sector to lower debt when economic activity and thus incomes are growing slowly. Debt-to-GDP ratios are at or close to all-time highs in virtually every region, even though debt growth itself has slowed (Chart 13A, Chart 13B). Chart 13ADebt Growth Slows, ##br##But Levels Remain High Debt Growth Slows, But Levels Remain High Debt Growth Slows, But Levels Remain High Chart 13BDebt Growth Slows, ##br##But Levels Remain High Debt Growth Slows, But Levels Remain High Debt Growth Slows, But Levels Remain High As a reminder, our End-of-Debt Supercycle thesis never meant that debt-to-GDP ratios would quickly decline. It reflected our belief that lenders and private sector borrowers had ended their love affair with debt and that we could no longer assume that strong credit growth would be a force boosting economic activity. And our view has not altered, even though government borrowing may show some acceleration. Chart 14The Credit Channel Is Impaired The Credit Channel Is Impaired The Credit Channel Is Impaired The failure of exceptionally low interest rates to trigger a vigorous rebound in private sector credit demand is consistent with our view. In the post-Debt Supercycle world, monetary policy has lost effectiveness because the credit channel - the key pillar of the monetary transmission process - is blocked. The drop in money multipliers and in the velocity of circulation is a stark reminder of the weakened money-credit-growth linkage (Chart 14). You always want to know what the end-point of higher debt levels will be, and we always give you a hedged answer. Nothing has changed on that front! A period of higher inflation may help bring down debt ratios for a while, but not to levels that would ease your concerns. This means that financial repression will be the fallback plan should markets rebel against debt levels. For the moment, there is still no problem because interest rates are still low and this is keeping debt-servicing costs at very low levels. If interest rates are rising simply because economic activity is strengthening, then that is not a serious concern. The danger time would be if rates were to rise while growth and inflation were weak. At that point, central banks would move aggressively to reduce market pressures with massive asset purchases. The ultimate end-point for dealing with excessive debt probably will be significantly higher inflation. But that is some time away. Central banks would not likely embrace a major sustained rise in inflation before we first suffered another serious deflationary downturn. At that point, attitudes toward inflation could change dramatically and a new generation of central bankers would probably be in charge with a very different view of the relative economic risks of inflation and deflation. However, it is premature to worry about a major sustained inflation rise if we must first go through a deflationary downturn. Mr. X: Perhaps you are right, but I won't stop worrying about debt. The buildup in debt was decades in the making and I am convinced that the consequences will extend beyond a few years of subdued economic growth. And central bank efforts to dampen the economic symptoms with unusually low interest rates have just created another set of problems in the form of distorted asset prices and an associated misallocation of capital. BCA: We agree that there may be a very unhappy ending to the debt excesses, but timing is everything. It has been wrong to bet against central banks during the past seven years and that will continue to be the case for a while longer. We will do our best to give you plenty of warning when we see signs that things are changing for the worse. Mr. X: I will hold you to that. Meanwhile, you talked earlier about the possibility of another recession in the U.S. Let's use that as a starting point to talk about the economic outlook in more detail. It seems strange to talk about the possibility of a recession in the U.S. when interest rates are still so low and we are about to get more fiscal stimulus. The Economic Outlook BCA: We do not expect a recession in the next year or two, absent some new major negative shock. But by the time we get to 2019, the recovery will be ten years old and normal late-cycle pressures should be increasingly apparent. The labor market already is quite tight, with wages growing at their fastest pace in eight years, according to the Atlanta Fed's wage tracker (Chart 15). Historically, most recessions were triggered by tight monetary policy with a flat or inverted yield curve being a reliable indicator (Chart 16). Obviously, that is extremely hard to achieve when short-term rates are at extremely low levels. However, if the Fed raises the funds rate to around 3% by the end of 2019, as it currently predicts, then it will be quite possible to again have a flat or inverted curve during that year. Chart 15U.S. Wage Growth In A Clear Uptrend U.S. Wage Growth In A Clear Uptrend U.S. Wage Growth In A Clear Uptrend Chart 16No Sign Of A U.S. Recession No Sign Of A U.S. Recession No Sign Of A U.S. Recession The recent environment of modest growth has kept inflation low and forced the Fed to maintain a highly accommodative stance. As spare capacity is absorbed, the Fed will be forced to tighten, raising the odds of a policy overshoot. And this is all without taking account of the potential threat of a trade war. Mr. X: I have never believed that the business cycle has been abolished so it would not surprise me at all to have a U.S. recession in the next few years, but the timing is critical to getting the markets right. What will determine the timing of the next economic downturn? BCA: As we mentioned earlier, the key to stretching out the cycle will be improving the supply side of the economy, thereby suppressing the cyclical pressures on inflation. That means getting productivity growth up which, in turn will depend on a combination of increased capital spending, global competition and technological innovations. Chart 17Companies Still ##br##Cautious Re: Capital Spending Companies Still Cautious Re: Capital Spending Companies Still Cautious Re: Capital Spending Thus far, there is no indication that U.S. companies are increasing their investment plans: the trend in capital goods orders remains very lackluster (Chart 17). Nonetheless, we have yet to see post-election data. The optimistic view is that the prospect of lower corporate taxes, reduced regulation and a repatriation of overseas earnings will all combine to revive the corporate sector's animal spirits and thus their willingness to invest. Only time will tell. The key point is that it is too soon for you to worry about a recession in the U.S. and for the next year or two, there is a good chance that near-term economic forecasts will be revised up rather than down. That will mark an important reversal of the experience of the past seven years when the economy persistently fell short of expectations. Mr. X: It would be indeed be a welcome change to have some positive rather than negative surprises on the economic front, but I remain somewhat skeptical. I suppose I can see some reasons to be more optimistic about the U.S., but the picture in most other countries seems as bleak as ever. The outlook for the U.K. has worsened following the Brexit vote, the euro area and Japan cannot seem to break out of a low-growth trap and China continues to skirt the edge of a precipice. BCA: The global economy still has lots of problems, and we are a long way from boom-like conditions. The IMF predicts that 2017 growth in the euro area and China will be below the 2016 level, and forecasts for the U.K. have been revised down sharply since the Brexit vote. On a more positive note, the firming in commodity prices should help some previously hard-hit emerging economies. Overall global growth may not pick up much over the coming year, but it would be a significant change for the better if we finally stop the cycle of endless forecast downgrades. Mr. X: Let's talk a bit more about the U.K. I know that it is too early to make strong predictions about the implications of Brexit, but where do you stand in terms of how damaging it will be? I am not convinced it will be that bad because I sympathize with the view that EU bureaucracy is a big drag on growth, and exiting the EU may force the U.K. government to pursue supply-side policies that ultimately will be very good for growth. BCA: The Brexit vote does not spell disaster for the U.K., but adds to downside risks at a time when the global economy is far from buoyant. The EU is not likely to cut a sweet deal for the U.K. To prevent copycat departures, the EU will demonstrate that exit comes with a clear cost. Perhaps, the U.K. can renegotiate new trade deals that do not leave it significantly worse off. But this will take time and, in the interlude, many businesses will put their plans on hold until new arrangements are made. Meanwhile, the financial sector - a big engine of growth in the past - could be adversely affected by a move of business away from London. Chart 18The U.K. Has A Twin Deficit Problem The U.K. Has A Twin Deficit Problem The U.K. Has A Twin Deficit Problem Of course, the government will not simply stand on the sidelines, and it has already announced increased infrastructure spending that will fill some of the hole created by weaker business capital spending. And the post-vote drop in sterling has provided a boost to U.K. competitiveness. Nevertheless, it seems inevitable that there will be a hit to growth over the next couple of years. The optimistic view is that the U.K. will use the opportunity of its EU departure to launch a raft of supply-side reforms and tax cuts with the aim of creating a much more dynamic economy that will be very attractive to overseas investors. Some have made the comparison with Singapore. This seems a bit of a stretch. In contrast to the pre-vote rhetoric, EU membership did not turn the U.K. into a highly-regulated economy. For example, the U.K. already is in 7th place out of 190 countries in the World Bank's Ease Doing Business Index and one of the least regulated developed economies according to the OECD. Thus, the scope to boost growth by sweeping away regulations probably is limited. At the same time, the U.K.'s ability to engage in major fiscal stimulus via tax cuts or increased spending is limited by the country's large balance-of-payments deficit and the poor state of its government finances (Chart 18). Overall, the U.K. should be able to avoid a major downturn in the next couple of years, but we don't disagree with the OECD's latest forecasts that growth will slow to round 1% in 2017 and 2018 after 2% in 2016. And that implies the risks of one or two quarters of negative growth within that period. Mr. X: I am not a fan of the EU so am inclined to think that the U.K. will do better than the consensus believes. But, I am less confident about the rest of Europe. Euro area banks are in a mess, weighed down by inadequate capital, a poor return on assets, an overhang of bad loans in Italy and elsewhere, and little prospect of much revival in credit demand. At the same time, the political situation looks fragile with voters just as disenchanted with the establishment status quo as were the ones in the U.K. and U.S. Against this background, I can't see why any companies would want to increase their capital spending in the region. Chart 19Euro Area Optimism Improves Euro Area Optimism Improves Euro Area Optimism Improves BCA: We agree that euro area growth is unlikely to accelerate much from here. The structural problems of poor demographics, a weak banking system and constrained fiscal policy represent major headwinds for growth. And the political uncertainties related to elections in a number of countries in the coming year give consumers and companies good reason to stay cautious. Yet, we should note that the latest data show a modest improvement in the business climate index, breaking slightly above the past year's trading range (Chart 19). There are some positive developments to consider. The nomination of François Fillon as the conservative candidate in France's Presidential election to be held on April 2017 is very significant. We expect him to beat Marine Le Pen and this means France will have a leader who believes in free markets and deregulation - a marked change from previous statist policies. This truly could represent a major regime shift for that country. Meanwhile, the ECB has confirmed that it will continue its QE program through 2017, albeit at a slightly reduced pace. This has costs in terms of market distortions, but will help put a floor under growth. Mr. X: You noted the fragile state of the region's banks. How do you see that playing out? BCA: Euro area banks have more than €1 trillion of non-performing loans (NPLs) and have provisioned for only about half of that amount. Nevertheless, most countries' banking sectors have enough equity capital to adequately absorb losses from these un-provisioned NPLs. On the other hand, the high level of NPLs is a protracted drag on profitability and thereby increases the banks' cost of capital. The shortage of capital constrains new lending. The biggest concern is Italy, which we estimate needs to recapitalize its banks by close to €100 billion. Complicating matters is that the EU rules on state aid for banks changed at the start of 2016. Now, a government bailout can happen only after a first-loss 'bail-in' of the bank's equity and bond holders. So if an undercapitalized bank cannot raise the necessary funds privately in the markets, there is a danger that its investors could suffer heavy losses before the government is allowed to step in. But once investors have been bailed-in, the authorities will do "whatever it takes" to prevent banking problems turning into a systemic crisis that threaten to push the economy into another recession. Mr. X: I would now like to shift our attention to Asia, most notably Japan and China. Starting with Japan, that economy seems to perfectly describe the world of secular stagnation. Despite two decades of short-term interest rates near zero and major fiscal stimulus, real growth has struggled to get above 1% and deflation rather than inflation has been the norm. Prime Minister Shinzo Abe has made a big deal about his "three arrow" approach to getting the economy going again, but I don't see much evidence that it is working. Is there any prospect of breaking out of secular stagnation? BCA: Probably not. A big part of Japan's problem is demographics - an unfortunate combination of a declining labor force and a rapidly aging population. While this means that per capita GDP growth looks a lot better than the headline figures, it is not a growth-friendly situation. Twenty years ago there were 4.6 people of working age for everyone above 64. This has since dropped to 2.2 and within another 20 years it will be down to 1.6. That falling ratio of taxpayers to pensioners and major consumers of health care is horrendous for government finances. And an aging population typically is not a dynamic one which shows up in Japan's poor productivity performance relative to that of the U.S. (Chart 20). Of course, Japan can "solve" its public finances problem by having the Bank of Japan cancel its large holdings of JGBs. Yet that does nothing to deal with the underlying demographics issue and ongoing large budget deficits. Japan desperately needs a combination of increased immigration and major supply-side reforms, but we do not hold out much prospect of either changing by enough to dramatically alter the long-run growth picture. Mr. X: I will not disagree with you as I have not been positive about Japan for a long time. We should now turn to China. It is very suspicious that the economy continues to hum along at a 6% to 7% pace, despite all the excesses and imbalances that have developed. I really don't trust the data. We talked about China at our mid-2016 meeting and, if I remember correctly, you described China as like a tightrope walker, wobbling from time to time, but never quite falling off. Yet it would only take a gust of wind for that to change. I liked that description so my question is: are wind gusts likely to strengthen over the coming year? BCA: You are right to be suspicious of the official Chinese data, but it seems that the economy is expanding by at least a 5% pace. However, it continues to be propped up by unhealthy and unsustainable growth in credit. The increase in China's debt-to-GDP ratio over the past few years dwarves that during the ultimately disastrous credit booms of Japan in the 1980s and the U.S. in the 2000s (Chart 21). The debt increase has been matched by an even larger rise in assets, but the problem is that asset values can drop, while the value of the debt does not. Chart 20Japan's Structural Headwinds Japan's Structural Headwinds Japan's Structural Headwinds Chart 21China's Remarkable Credit Boom January 2017 - Shifting Regimes January 2017 - Shifting Regimes The government would like to rein in credit growth, but it fears the potential for a major economic slowdown, so it is trapped. The fact that the banking system is largely under state control does provide some comfort because it will be easy for the government to recapitalize the banks should problems occur. This means that a U.S.-style credit freeze is unlikely to develop. Of course, the dark side of that is that credit excesses never really get unwound. You asked whether wind gusts will increase, threating to blow the economy off its tightrope. One potential gust that we already talked about is the potential for trade fights with the new U.S. administration. As we mentioned earlier, we are hopeful that nothing serious will occur, but all we can do is carefully monitor the situation. Trends in China's real estate sector represent a good bellwether for the overall economic situation. The massive reflation of 2008-09 unleashed a powerful real estate boom, accompanied by major speculative excesses. The authorities eventually leaned against this with a tightening in lending standards and the sector cooled off. Policy then eased again in 2015/16 as worries about an excessive economic slowdown developed, unleashing yet another real estate revival. The stop-go environment has continued with policy now throttling back to try and cool things off again. It is not a sensible way to run an economy and we need to keep a close watch on the real estate sector as a leading indicator of any renewed policy shifts. Over time, the Chinese economy should gradually become less dependent on construction and other credit-intensive activities. However, in the near-term, there is no escaping the fact that the economy will remain unbalanced, creating challenges for policymakers and a fragile environment for the country's currency and asset markets. Fortunately, the authorities have enough room to maneuver that a hard landing remains unlikely over the next year or two. There are fewer grounds for optimism about the long-run unless the government can move away from its stop-go policy and pursue more supply-side reforms. Mr. X: What about other emerging economies? Are there any developments particularly worth noting? BCA: Emerging economies in general will not return to the rapid growth conditions of the first half of the 2000s. Slower growth in China has dampened export opportunities for other EM countries and global capital will no longer pour into these economies in its previous, indiscriminate way. Nevertheless, the growth outlook is stabilizing and 2017 should be a modestly better year than 2016 for most countries. Chart 22India Has A Long Way To Go India Has A Long Way To Go India Has A Long Way To Go The rebound in oil and other commodity prices has clearly been positive for Russia, Brazil and other resource-dependent countries. Commodity prices will struggle to rise further from current elevated levels but average 2017 prices should exceed those of 2016. On the negative side, a firm dollar and trade uncertainty will represent a headwind for capital flows to the EM universe. The bottom line is that the growth deceleration in emerging economies has run its course but a major new boom is not in prospect. The Indian economy grew by around 7½% in 2016, making it, by far, the star EM performer. Growth will take a hit from the government's recent decision to withdraw high-denomination bank notes from circulation - a move designed to combat corruption. Fortunately, the impact should be relatively short-lived and growth should return to the 7% area during the coming year. Still, India has a long way to go to catch up with China. In 1990, India's economy was almost 90% as big as China's in PPP terms, but 20 years later, it was only 40% as large. Even though India is expected to keep growing faster than China, its relative size will only climb to 45% within the next five years, according to the IMF (Chart 22). Mr. X: Let me try and summarize your economic views before we move on to talk about the markets. The growth benefit from fiscal stimulus in the U.S. is more a story for 2018 than 2017. Nevertheless, a modest improvement in global growth is likely over the coming year, following several years of economic disappointments. The key risks relate to increased trade protectionism and increased inflation in the U.S. if the rise in demand is not matched by an increase in the economy's supply-side capacity. In that event, tighter monetary policy could trigger a recession in 2019. You do not expect any major changes in the underlying economic picture for Europe, Japan or China, although political shifts in Europe represent another downside risk. BCA: That captures our views quite well. Going back to our broad theme of regime shifts, it is important to re-emphasize that shifting attitudes toward fiscal policy and trade in the U.S. raise a red flag over the longer-term inflation outlook. And this of course feeds into the outlook for interest rates. Bond Market Prospects Mr. X: That is the perfect segue for us to shift the discussion to the investment outlook, starting with bonds. You already noted that you believe the secular bull market in bonds has ended, albeit with a drawn-out bottoming process. Given my concerns about the long-run inflation outlook, I am happy to agree with that view. Yet, yields have risen a lot recently and I am wondering if this represents a short-term buying opportunity. BCA: The late-2016 sell-off in bonds was violent and yields rose too far, too fast. So we recently shifted our tactical bond recommendation from underweight (short duration) to neutral. But obviously that is not the same as telling you to buy. The underlying story for bonds - especially in the U.S. - is bearish. The prospect of fiscal stimulus, rising short rates and a pickup in inflation suggests that U.S. yields will be higher over the next 12 months. Although yields may decline somewhat in the very near-term, we doubt the move will be significant enough or last long enough to warrant an overweight position. The outlook is not quite so bad in the euro zone given the ECB's ongoing bond purchases and a continued benign inflation outlook. But, even there, the market will remain highly correlated with trends in U.S. Treasurys so yields are more likely to rise than fall over the coming year. The story is different in Japan given the central bank's new policy of pegging the 10-year yield at zero. That will be a static market for some time. Although global yields may have bottomed from a secular perspective, the upturn will be gradual in the years ahead. A post-Debt Supercycle environment implies that private sector credit growth will remain subdued, and during 2018, the market may start to attach growing odds of a U.S. recession within a year or two. A more powerful bear trend in bonds awaits the more significant upturn in inflation that likely will follow the next economic downturn. Chart 23Treasurys Are High Yielders Treasurys Are High Yielders Treasurys Are High Yielders Mr. X: I am somewhat surprised at how much the spread between U.S. and euro area bonds has widened - it is now at the highest level since the late 1980s. Obviously, a positive spread makes sense given the relative stance of monetary policy and economic outlook. Yet, it is quite amazing how investors have benefited from both higher yields in the U.S. and a stronger dollar. If the dollar stays firm in 2017, will the spread remain at current high levels? BCA: Most of the increased spread during the past year can be attributed to a widening gap in inflation expectations, although the spread in real yields also spiked after the U.S. election, reflecting the prospects for fiscal stimulus (Chart 23). While the spread is indeed at historical highs, the backdrop of a massive divergence in relative monetary and fiscal policies is not going to change any time soon. We are not expecting the spread to narrow over the next year. You might think that Japanese bonds would be a good place to hide from a global bond bear market given BoJ's policy to cap the 10-year yield at zero percent. Indeed, JGBs with a maturity of 10-years or less are likely to outperform Treasurys and bunds in local currency terms over the coming year. However, this means locking in a negative yield unless you are willing to move to the ultra-long end of the curve, where there is no BoJ support. Moreover, there is more upside for bond prices in the U.S. and Eurozone in the event of a counter-trend global bond rally, simply because there is not much room for JGB yields to decline. Mr. X: O.K., I get the message loud and clear - government bonds will remain an unattractive investment. As I need to own some bonds, should I focus on spread product? I know that value looks poor, but that was the case at the beginning of 2016 and, as you showed earlier, returns ended up being surprisingly good. Will corporate bonds remain a good investment in 2017, despite the value problem? BCA: This a tricky question to answer. On the one hand, you are right that value is not great. Corporate spreads are low in the U.S. at a time when balance sheet fundamentals have deteriorated, according to our Corporate Health Monitor (Chart 24). After adjusting the U.S. high-yield index for expected defaults, option-adjusted spreads are about 165 basis points. In the past, excess returns (i.e. returns relative to Treasurys) typically were barely positive when spreads were at this level. Valuation is also less than compelling for U.S. investment-grade bonds. One risk is that a significant amount of corporate bonds are held by "weak hands," such as retail investors who are not accustomed to seeing losses in their fixed-income portfolios. At some point, this could trigger some panic selling into illiquid markets, resulting in a sharp yield spike. On a more positive note, the search for yield that propped up the market in 2016 could remain a powerful force in 2017. The pressure to stretch for yield was intense in part because the supply of government bonds in the major markets available to the private sector shrank by around $547 billion in 2016 because so much was purchased by central banks and foreign official institutions (Chart 25). The stock will likely contract by another $754 billion in 2017, forcing investors to continue shifting into riskier assets such as corporate bonds. Chart 24U.S. Corporate Health Has Deteriorated U.S. Corporate Health Has Deteriorated U.S. Corporate Health Has Deteriorated Chart 25Government Bonds In Short Supply Government Bonds In Short Supply Government Bonds In Short Supply Weighing the poor valuation and deteriorating credit quality trend against the ongoing pressure to search for yield, we recommend no more than a benchmark weighting in U.S. corporate investment-grade bonds and a modestly underweight position in high-yield. There are better relative opportunities in euro area corporates, where credit quality is improving and the ECB's asset purchase program is providing a nice tailwind. We are slightly overweight in both investment-grade and high-yield euro area corporates. Finally, we should mention emerging market bonds, although we do not have much good to say. The prospect of further declines in EM currencies versus the dollar is a major problem for these securities. There is a big risk that global dollar funding will dry up as the dollar moves higher along with U.S. bond yields, creating problems for EM economies running current account and fiscal deficits. You should stay clear of EM bonds. Mr. X: None of this is helping me much with my bond investments. Can you point to anything that will give me positive returns? Chart 26Real Yields Remain Exceptionally Low Real Yields Remain Exceptionally Low Real Yields Remain Exceptionally Low BCA: Not in the fixed-income market. Your concerns about inflation might lead you to think that inflation-indexed bonds are a good place to be, but prices in that market have already adjusted. Moreover, the case for expecting higher inflation rests a lot on the assumption that economic growth is going to strengthen and that should imply a rise in real yields, which obviously is bad for inflation-indexed bonds. Real yields currently are still very low by historical standards (Chart 26). A world of stagflation - weak real growth and rising inflation - would be a good environment for these securities, but such conditions are not likely in the next couple of years. Mr. X: After what you have told me, I suppose I will concentrate my fixed-income holdings in short-term Treasurys. But I do worry more than you about stagflation so will hold on to my inflation-indexed bonds. At the same time, I do understand that bonds will represent a hedge against downside risks rather than providing positive returns. So let's talk about the stock market as a more attractive place to invest. Equity Market Outlook Mr. X: I like to invest in equities when the market offers good value, there is too much pessimism about earnings and investor sentiment is gloomy. That is not the picture at the moment in the case of the U.S. market. I must confess that the recent rally has taken me by surprise, but it looks to me like a major overshoot. As we discussed earlier, the new U.S. administration's fiscal platform should be good for 2018 economic growth but the U.S. equity market is not cheap and it seems to me that there is more euphoria than caution about the outlook. So I fear that the big surprise will be that the market does much worse than generally expected. BCA: Obviously, the current market environment is nothing like the situation that exists after a big sell-off. You are correct that valuations are not very appealing and there is too much optimism about the outlook for earnings and thus future returns. Analysts' expectations of long-run earnings growth for the S&P 500 universe have risen to 12%, which is at the high end of its range over the past decade (Chart 27). And, as you suggested, surveys show an elevated level of optimism on the part of investors and traders. The outlook for earnings is the most critical issue when it comes to the long-run outlook for stocks. Low interest rates provide an important base of support, but as we noted earlier, rates are more likely to rise than fall over the next couple of years, possibly reaching a level that precipitates a recession in 2019. Investors are excited about the prospect that U.S. earnings will benefit from both faster economic growth and a drop in corporate tax rates. We don't disagree that those trends would be positive, but there is another important issue to consider. One of the defining characteristics of the past several years has been the extraordinary performance of profit margins which have averaged record levels, despite the weak economic recovery (Chart 28). The roots of this rise lay in the fact that businesses rather than employees were able to capture most of the benefits of rising productivity. This showed up in the growing gap between real employee compensation and productivity. As a result, the owners of capital benefited, while the labor share of income - previously a very mean-reverting series - dropped to extremely low levels. The causes of this divergence are complex but include the impact of globalization, technology and a more competitive labor market. Chart 27Too Much Optimism On Wall Street? Too Much Optimism On Wall Street? Too Much Optimism On Wall Street? Chart 28Profit Margins: Another Regme Shift Underway? Profit Margins: Another Regme Shift Underway? Profit Margins: Another Regme Shift Underway? With the U.S. unemployment back close to full-employment levels, the tide is now turning in favor of labor. The labor share of income is rising and this trend likely will continue as the economy strengthens. And any moves by the incoming administration to erect barriers to trade and/or immigration would underpin the trend. The implication is that profit margins are more likely to compress than expand in the coming years, suggesting that analysts are far too optimistic about earnings. Long-term growth will be closer to 5% than 12%. The turnaround in the corporate income shares going to labor versus capital represents another important element of our theme of regime changes. None of this means that the stock market faces an imminent plunge. Poor value and over-optimism about earnings raises a red flag over long-term return prospects, but says little about near-term moves. As we all know, market overshoots can move to much greater extremes and last for much longer than one can rationally predict. And the fact remains that the conditions for an overshoot could well persist for another 12 months or even longer. Optimism about the economic benefits of the new administration's policies should last for a while as proposals for tax cuts and increased fiscal spending get debated. Meanwhile, although the Fed plans to raise rates again over the next year, the level of interest rates will remain low by historical standards, sustaining the incentive to put money into stocks rather than interest-bearing assets. Mr. X: So are you telling me to buy U.S. stocks right now? BCA: No we are not. The stock market is vulnerable to a near-term setback following recent strong gains, so this is not a great time to increase exposure. However, we do expect prices to be higher in a year's time, so you could use setbacks as a buying opportunity. Of course, this is with the caveat that long-run returns are likely to be poor from current levels and we have the worry about a bear market some time in 2018 if recession risks are building. Playing market overshoots can be very profitable, but it is critical to remember that the fundamental foundations are weak and you need to be highly sensitive to signs that conditions are deteriorating. Mr. X: I am very well aware of the opportunities and risks of playing market overshoots. I completely underestimated the extent of the tech-driven overshoot in the second half of the 1990s and remained on the sidelines while the NASDAQ soared by 130% between end-1998 and March 2000. But my caution was validated when the market subsequently collapsed and it was not until 2006 that the market finally broke above its end-1998 level. I accept that the U.S. market is not in a crazy 1990s-style bubble, but I am inclined to focus on markets where the fundamentals are more supportive. BCA: The U.S. market is only modestly overvalued, based on an average of different measures. It is expensive based on both trailing and forward earnings and relative to book value, but cheap compared to interest rates and bond yields. A composite valuation index based on five components suggests that the S&P 500 currently is only modestly above its 60-year average (Chart 29). Valuation is not an impediment to further significant gains in U.S. equities over the coming year although it is more attractive in other markets. Chart 29The U.S. Market Is Modestly Expensive The U.S. Market Is Modestly Expensive The U.S. Market Is Modestly Expensive If we use the cyclically-adjusted price-earnings ratio for non-financial stocks as our metric, then Japan and a number of European markets are trading at valuations below their historical averages (Chart 30). The picture for Japan is muddied by the fact that the historical average is biased upwards by the extreme valuations that existed during the bubble years and in the aftermath when earnings were exceptionally weak. Nonetheless, even on a price-to-book basis, Japan is trading far below non-bubble historical averages (Chart 31). Chart 30Valuation Ranking Of Developed Equity Markets January 2017 - Shifting Regimes January 2017 - Shifting Regimes Chart 31Japan Looks Like A Cheap Market Japan Looks Like A Cheap Market Japan Looks Like A Cheap Market With regard to Europe, the good value is found in the euro area periphery, rather than in the core countries of Germany, France and the Netherlands. In fact, these core countries are trading more expensively than the U.S., relative to their own history. As you know, valuation is not the only consideration when it comes to investing. Nonetheless, the direction of monetary policy also would support a better outlook for Japan and the euro area given that the Fed is raising rates while the ECB and BoJ are still implementing QE policies. Exchange rate moves complicate things a bit because further gains in the dollar would neutralize some of the relative outperformance when expressed in common currency. Even so, we would expect the euro area and Japan to outperform the U.S. over the next 12 months. The one important qualification is that we assume no new major political shocks come from Europe. A resurgence of political uncertainty in the euro area would poses the greatest threat to the peripheral countries, which partly explains why they are trading at more attractive valuations than the core. Mr. X: There seem to be political risks everywhere these days. It is a very long time since I could buy stocks when they offered great value and I felt very confident about the economic and political outlook. I agree that value looks better outside the U.S., but I do worry about political instability in the euro area and Brexit in the U.K. I know Japan looks cheap, but that has been a difficult and disappointing market for a long time and, as we already discussed, the structural outlook for the economy is very troubling. Turning to the emerging markets, you have not backed away from your bearish stance. The long-run underperformance of emerging markets relative to the U.S. and other developed bourses has been quite staggering and I am glad that I have followed your advice. Are you expecting to shift your negative stance any time soon? BCA: The global underperformance of EM has lasted for six years and may be close to ending. But the experience of the previous cycle of underperformance suggests we could have a drawn-out bottoming process rather than a quick rebound (Chart 32). Emerging equities look like decent value on the simple basis of relative price-earnings ratios (PER), but the comparison continues to be flattered by the valuations of just two sectors - materials and financials. Valuations are less compelling if you look at relative PERs on the basis of equally-weighted sectors (Chart 33). Chart 32A Long Period Of EM Underperformance A Long Period Of EM Underperformance A Long Period Of EM Underperformance Chart 33EM Fundamentals Still Poor EM Fundamentals Still Poor EM Fundamentals Still Poor More importantly, the cyclical and structural issues undermining EM equities have yet to be resolved. The deleveraging cycle is still at an early stage, the return on equity remains extremely low, and earnings revisions are still negative. The failure of the past year's rebound in non-oil commodity prices to be matched by strong gains in EM equities highlights the drag from more fundamental forces. In sum, we expect EM equities to underperform DM markets for a while longer. If you want to have some EM exposure then our favored markets are Korea, Taiwan, China, India, Thailand and Russia. We would avoid Malaysia, Indonesia, Turkey, Brazil and Peru. Mr. X: None of this makes very keen to invest in any equity market. However, even in poor markets, there usually are some areas that perform well. Do you have any strong sector views? Chart 34Cyclical Stocks Have Overshot Cyclical Stocks Have Overshot Cyclical Stocks Have Overshot BCA: Our near-term sector views reflect the expectation of a pullback in the broad equity market. The abrupt jump in the price of global cyclicals (industrials, materials & energy) versus defensives (health care, consumer staples & telecom services) has been driven solely by external forces - i.e. the sell-off in the bond market, rather than a shift in underlying profit drivers. For instance, emerging markets and the global cyclicals/defensives price ratio have tended to move hand-in-hand. The former is pro-cyclical, and outperforms when economic growth prospects are perceived to be improving. Recent sharp EM underperformance has created a large negative divergence with the cyclical/defensive price ratio. The surging U.S. dollar is a growth impediment for many developing countries with large foreign debts. Meanwhile, the growth impetus required to support profit outperformance for deep cyclicals may be elusive. As a result, we expect re-convergence to occur via a rebound in defensive relative to cyclical sectors (Chart 34). On a longer-term basis, one likely long-lasting effect of the retreat from globalization is that "small is beautiful." Companies with large global footprints will suffer relative to domestically focused firms. One way to position for this change is to emphasize small caps at the expense of large caps, a strategy applicable in almost every region. Small caps are traditionally domestically geared irrespective of their domicile. In the U.S. specifically, small caps face a potential additional benefit. If the new administration follows through with promised corporate tax cuts, then small caps will benefit disproportionately given that the effective tax rate of multinationals is already low. Moreover, small companies would benefit most from any cuts in regulations. When it comes to specifics, our overweight sectors in the U.S. are consumer discretionary, telecoms, consumer staples and health care. We would underweight industrials, technology and materials. For Europe, we also like health care and would overweight German real estate. We would stay away from European banks even though they are trading at historically cheap levels. Commodities And Currencies Mr. X: A year ago, you predicted that oil prices would average $50/bbl over the 2016-18 period. As that is where prices have now settled, do you still stick with that prediction? Chart 35Oil Market Trends Oil Market Trends Oil Market Trends BCA: We have moved our forecast up to an average of $55/bbl following the recent 1.8 million b/d production cuts agreed between OPEC, led by Saudi Arabia, and non-OPEC, led by Russia. The economic pain from the drop in prices finally forced Saudi Arabia to blink and abandon its previous strategy of maintaining output despite falling prices. Of course, OPEC has a very spotty record of sticking with its plans and we expect that we will end up with a more modest 1.1 to 1.2 million b/d in actual output reductions. Yet, given global demand growth of around 1.3 million b/d and weakness in other non-OPEC output, these cuts will be enough to require a drawdown in inventories from current record levels. Even with the lower level of cuts that we expect, OECD oil inventories could drop by around 300 million barrels by late 2017, enough to bring down stocks roughly to their five-year average level (Chart 35). That is the stated goal of Saudi Arabia and the odds are good that the level of compliance to the cuts will be better than the market expects. Mr. X: How does shale production factor into your analysis? What are the odds that a resurgence of U.S. shale production will undermine your price forecast? BCA: We expect U.S. shale-oil production to bottom in the first quarter of 2017, followed by a production increase of around 200,000 b/d in the second half. However, that will not be enough to drive prices back down. The bigger risk to oil prices over the next year or two is for a rise, not a decline given the industry's massive cutbacks in capital spending. More than $1 trillion of planned capex has been cut for the next several years, which translates into more than seven million b/d of oil-equivalent (oil and natural gas) production that will not be developed. And increased shale production cannot fully offset that. In addition to meeting demand growth, new production also must offset natural decline rates, which amount to 8% to 10% of production annually. Replacing these losses becomes more difficult as shale-oil output increases, given its very high decline rates. Shale technology appears to be gaining traction in Russia, which could end up significantly boosting production but capex cuts will constrain the global supply outlook until after 2018. Mr. X: Non-oil commodity prices have shown surprising strength recently, with copper surging almost 30% in the space of a few weeks. Is that just Chinese speculation, or is something more fundamental at work? You have had a cautious long-term view of commodities on the grounds that changing technology and reduced Chinese demand would keep a lid on prices. Do you see any reason to change that view? BCA: Developments in China remain critical for non-oil commodity prices. China's reflationary policies significantly boosted real estate and infrastructure spending and that was the main driver of the rally in metals prices in 2016. As we discussed earlier, China has eased back on reflation and that will take the edge off the commodity price boom. Indeed, given the speed and magnitude of the price increases in copper and other metals, it would not be surprising to see some near-term retrenchment. For the year as a whole, we expect a trading range for non-oil commodities. Longer-run, we would not bet against the long-term downtrend in real commodity prices and it really is a story about technology (Chart 36). Real estate booms notwithstanding, economies are shifting away from commodity-sensitive activities. Human capital is becoming more important relative to physical capital and price rises for resources encourages both conservation and the development of cheaper alternatives. In the post-WWII period, the pattern seems to have been for 10-year bull markets (1972 to 1982 and 2002 to 2012) and 20-year bear markets (1952 to 1972 and 1982 to 2002). The current bear phase is only six years old so it would be early to call an end to the downtrend from a long-term perspective. Chart 36The Long-Term Trend In Real Commodity Prices Is Down The Long-Term Trend in Real Commodity Prices Is Down The Long-Term Trend in Real Commodity Prices Is Down Mr. X: You know that I can't leave without asking you about gold. I continue to believe that bullion provides a good hedge at a time of extreme monetary policies, political uncertainty and, now, the prospect of fiscal reflation. Can you see bullion at least matching its past year's performance over the coming 12 months? Chart 37A Strong Dollar Hurts Bullion A Strong Dollar Hurts Bullion A Strong Dollar Hurts Bullion BCA: It is still a gold-friendly environment. The combination of political uncertainty, rising inflation expectations and continued easy money policies should provide support to bullion prices over the next year. The main negative is the potential for a further rise in the dollar: the strengthening of the dollar clearly was a factor undermining the gold price in the second half of 2016 (Chart 37). Nevertheless, a modest position in gold - no more than 5% of your portfolio - will give you some protection in what is likely to remain a very unsettled geopolitical environment. Mr. X: You mentioned the dollar so let me now delve into your currency views in more detail. The dollar has been appreciating for a few years and it seems quite a consensus view to be bullish on the currency. I know the U.S. economy is growing faster than most other developed economies but it surprises me that markets are ignoring the negatives: an ongoing large trade deficit, a looming rise in the fiscal deficit and uncertainty about the policies of the incoming administration. BCA: It is true that if you just looked at the U.S. economic and financial situation in isolation, you would not be very bullish on the currency. As you noted, the current account remains in large deficit, an increased federal deficit seems inevitable given the new administration's policy platform, and the level of short-rates is very low, despite the Fed's recent move. However, currencies are all about relative positions, and, despite its problems, the U.S. looks in better shape than other countries. The optimism toward the dollar is a near-term concern and suggests that the currency is ripe for a pullback. However, it will not require a major sell-off to unwind current overbought conditions. The main reasons to stay positive on the dollar on a cyclical basis are the relative stance of monetary policy and the potential for positive U.S. economic surprises relative to other countries. Ironically, if the administration follows up on its threat to impose trade barriers, that also would be positive for the currency, at least for a while. Longer-run it would be dollar bearish, because the U.S. probably would lose competiveness via higher inflation. The dollar is enjoying its third major upcycle since the era of floating rates began in the early 1970s (Chart 38). There are similarities in all three cases. Policy divergences and thus real interest-rate differentials were in the dollar's favor and there was general optimism about the U.S. economy relative to its competitors. In the first half of the 1980s, the optimism reflected President Reagan's pro-growth supply-side platform, in the second half of the 1990s it was the tech bubble, and this time it is the poor state of other economies that makes the U.S. look relatively attractive. Chart 38The Dollar Bull Market In Perspective January 2017 - Shifting Regimes January 2017 - Shifting Regimes The bull market in the first half of the 1980s was the strongest of the three but was cut short by the 1985 Plaza Accord when the leading industrial economies agreed to coordinated intervention to push the dollar back down in order to forestall a U.S. protectionist response to its soaring trade deficit. The second upturn ended when the tech bubble burst. There is no prospect of intervention to end the current cycle and policy divergences will widen not narrow over the next year. Thus, the dollar should continue to appreciate over the next 12 months, perhaps by around 5% on a trade-weighted basis. The fiscal policies being promoted by the Trump team promise to widen the U.S. trade deficit but that will not stand in the way of a dollar ascent. The problems will occur if, as we discussed earlier, an overheating economy in 2018 and a resulting Fed response trigger a recession in 2019. At that point, the dollar probably would plunge. But it is far too soon to worry about that possibility. Mr. X: I was very surprised with the yen's strength in the first half of 2016 given Japan's hyper-easy policy stance. What was driving that? Also, I would be interested in your views on sterling and commodity and emerging currencies. BCA: The yen often acts as a safe-haven at times of great economic and political uncertainty and that worked in the yen's favor for much of the year. However, it lost ground when U.S. bond yields headed higher. Also, the U.S. election result did not help because Japan would be a big loser if the U.S. imposed trade restrictions. The policy settings in Japan are indeed negative for the yen and while the currency is oversold in the very short run, we expect the structural bear market to persist in 2017 (Chart 39). Sterling's trade-weighted index fell to an all-time low after the Brexit vote so it does offer good value by historical standards. However, with so much uncertainty about how Brexit negotiations will proceed, we remain cautious on the currency. The economy has performed quite well since the vote, but it is far too soon to judge the long-term consequences of EU departure. And the prospect of increased government spending when the country already has a large trade deficit and high public debt poses an additional risk. Turning to the commodity currencies, the rebound in oil and metals prices has stabilized the Canadian and Australian dollars (Chart 40). With resource prices not expected to make much further headway over the next year, these currencies likely will be range bound, albeit with risks to the downside, especially versus the U.S. dollar. Chart 39More Downside In The Yen More Downside In The Yen More Downside In The Yen Chart 40Commodity Currencies Have Stabilized Commodity Currencies Have Stabilized Commodity Currencies Have Stabilized Finally, we remain bearish on emerging currencies given relatively poor economic fundamentals. And this is particularly true for those countries with chronically high inflation and/or large current account deficits, largely outside of Asia. Mr. X: What about the Chinese currency? The renminbi has dropped by 13% against the dollar over the past three years and president-elect Trump has threatened to label China as a currency manipulator. You already noted that the Chinese authorities have intervened to prop the currency up, but this does not seem to be working. Chart 41Renminbi Weakness Renminbi Weakness Renminbi Weakness BCA: The trend in the USD/RMB rate exaggerates the weakness of the Chinese currency. On a trade-weighted basis, the currency has depreciated more modestly over the past year, and the recent trend has been up, in both real and nominal terms (Chart 41). In other words, a good part of the currency's move has reflected across-the-board strength in the dollar. The Chinese authorities are sensitive to U.S. pressures and have taken some measures to contain private capital outflows. The next step would be to raise interest rates but this would be a last resort. With the dollar expected to rise further in 2017, the RMB will drift lower, but policy interventions should limit the decline and we doubt the U.S. will follow through with its threat to label China as a manipulator. Geopolitics Mr. X: Last, but certainly not least, we must talk about geopolitics. In addition to the new political order in the U.S. we have a very unstable political situation in Europe, most notably in Italy. We cannot rule out an anti-euro party taking power in Italy which would presumably trigger massive volatility in the markets. With elections also due in France, Germany and the Netherlands, 2017 will be a crucial year for determining the future of the single currency and the EU. What is your take on the outlook? Chart 42Europeans Still Support The EU Europeans Still Support The EU Europeans Still Support The EU BCA: Europe's electoral calendar is indeed ominously packed with four of the euro area's five largest economies likely to have elections in 2017. Another election could occur if Spain's shaky minority government collapses. While we expect elevated uncertainty and lots of headline risk, we do not believe the elections in 2017 will transform Europe's future. As BCA's Geopolitical Strategy has argued since 2011, global multipolarity increases the logic for European integration. Crises such as Russian assertiveness, Islamic terrorism, and the migration wave are easier to deal with when countries act together rather than individually. Thus far, it appears that Europeans agree with this assessment: polling suggests that few are genuinely antagonistic towards the euro or the EU (Chart 42). Despite all of its problems, the single currency should hold together, at least over the next five years. Take the recent Spanish and Austrian elections. In Spain, Mariano Rajoy's right-wing People's Party managed to hold onto power despite four years of painful internal devaluations and supply-side reforms. In Austria, the more-establishment candidate for president, Alexander Van der Bellen, won the election despite fears to the contrary. In both cases, the centrist candidates survived because voters hesitated when confronted with an anti-establishment choice. We expect more of the same in the three crucial elections in the Netherlands, France, and Germany. Mr. X: What about Italy? BCA: The country certainly has its problems: it has lagged badly in implementing structural reforms and support for the euro is low compared to the euro area average. Yet, if elections were held today, polls show that the ruling Democratic Party would gain a narrow victory. There are three key points to consider regarding Italy: The December constitutional referendum was not a vote on the euro and thus cannot serve as a proxy for a future referendum. The market will punish Italy the moment it sniffs out even a whiff of a potential "Itexit" referendum. This will bring forward the future pain of redenomination, influencing voters' choices. Benefits of EU membership for Italy are considerable, especially as it allows the country to integrate its unproductive, poor, and expensive southern regions. Outside the EU, the Mezzogiorno is Rome's problem, and it is a big one. The larger question is whether other euro area countries will be content for Italy to remain mired in its fragile and troubling status quo. We think the answer is yes, given that Italy is the definition of "too-big-to-fail." Mr. X: During the past few years you have emphasized the importance of the shift from a unipolar to multipolar world, reflecting the growing power of China, renewed Russian activism and a decline in U.S. influence. How does the policy platform of the incoming Trump administration affect your view of the outlook? It seems as if the U.S. may end up antagonizing China at the same time as it tries to improve relations with Russia. How would that play out? Chart 43Asia Sells, America Rules Asia Sells, America Rules Asia Sells, America Rules BCA: The media is overemphasizing the role of president-elect Trump in Sino-American relations. Tensions have been building between the two countries for several years. The two countries have fundamental, structural, problems and Trump has just catalyzed what, in our mind, has been an inevitable conflict. The Asian state-led economic model was underpinned by the Pax Americana. Two factors were instrumental: America's commitment to free trade and its military supremacy. China was not technically an ally, like Japan and Korea, but after 1979 it sure looked like one in terms of trade surpluses and military spending (Chart 43). For the sake of containing the Soviet Union, the U.S. wrapped East Asia under its umbrella. Japan's economic model and large trade surpluses led it into a confrontation with the U.S. in the 1980s. President Ronald Reagan's economic team forced Japan to reform, but the result ultimately was a financial crisis as the artificial supports of its economic model fell away. Many investors have long suspected that a similar fate awaited China. It is unsustainable for China to seize ever greater market share and drive down manufacturing prices without reforming its economy to match G7 standards, especially if it hinders U.S. access to its vast consumer market. There is a critical difference between the "Japan bashing" of the 1980s and the increasingly potent "China bashing" of today. In the 1980s, the U.S. had already achieved strategic supremacy over Japan as a result of WWII, but that is not the case for the U.S. and China in 2017. Unlike Japan, Korea, or any of the other Asian tigers, China cannot trust the U.S. to preserve its security. Far from it - China has no greater security threat than the U.S. The American navy threatens Chinese access to critical commodities and export markets via the South China Sea. In a world that is evolving into a zero-sum game, these things suddenly matter. That means that when the Trump administration tries to "get tough" on long-standing American demands, these demands will not be taken as well-intentioned or trustworthy. Sino-American rivalry will be the chief geopolitical risk to investors in 2017. Mr. X: Are there any other geopolitical issues that might affect financial markets during the coming year? BCA: Investors are underestimating the risks that the defeat of the Islamic State Caliphate in the Middle East will pose. While the obvious consequence is a spread of terrorism as militants return home, the bigger question is what happens to the regional disequilibrium. In particular, we fear that Turkey will become embroiled in a conflict in both Syria and Iraq, potentially in a proxy war with Iran and Russia. The defeat of Islamic State will create a vacuum in the Middle East that the Syrian and Iraqi Kurds are most likely to fill. This is unacceptable to Turkey, which has intervened militarily to counter Kurdish gains and may do so in the future. The Turkish foray into the Middle East poses the chief risk of a shooting war that could impact global markets in 2017. While there are much greater geopolitical games afoot - such as increasing Sino-American tensions - this one is the most likely to produce military conflict between serious powers. It would be disastrous for Turkey. Conclusions Mr. X: I think we should end our discussions here before you make me more depressed. A year ago, I was very troubled about the economic and financial outlook, and you did not say very much at that time to ease my concerns. And I feel in a similar situation again this year. I do not believe we are at the edge of a major economic or financial crisis, so that is not the issue. The problem for me is that policymakers continue to distort things with excessively easy monetary policies. And now we face fiscal expansion in the U.S., even though the economy is approaching full employment and wages are picking up. Meanwhile, nobody seems worried about debt anymore despite debt-to-GDP ratios that are at all-time highs throughout the world. And if that was not enough, we face the most uncertain political environment that I can remember, both in the U.S. and Europe. It would not be so bad if markets were cheap to compensate for the various risks and uncertainties that we face. But, as we discussed, that is not the case. So I am left with the same dilemma as last year: where to invest when most assets are fully valued. I am sure that you are right when you say that stock prices are well placed to overshoot over the coming year, but that is not a game I like to play. So I am inclined to stay with a cautious investment stance for a while longer, hoping for a better entry point into equities and other risk assets. BCA: We understand your caution, but you risk missing out on some decent gains in equities over the coming year if you remain on the sidelines. The equity market is due for a near-term pullback, but we would use that as a buying opportunity. Markets are not expensive everywhere and the policy backdrop will remain supportive of risk assets. And although we talked about an overshoot, there is plenty of upside before we need to be concerned that valuations have become a major constraint. We are certainly not trying to persuade you to throw caution to the wind. We have not changed our view that long-term returns from financial assets will be a pale shadow of their historical performance. The past 33 years have delivered compound returns of 10.3% a year from a balanced portfolio and we cannot find any comparable period in history that comes even close (Table 3). As we discussed at length in the past, these excellent returns reflected a powerful combination of several largely interrelated forces: falling inflation and interest rates, rising profit margins, a starting point of cheap valuations and strong credit growth. None of these conditions exist now: inflation and interest rates are headed up, profit margins are likely to compress, valuations are not cheap, and in a post-Debt Supercycle world, the days of rapid credit growth are over. Thus, that same balanced portfolio is likely to deliver compound returns of only 4% over the coming decade. Table 3The Past Is Not A Guide To The Future January 2017 - Shifting Regimes January 2017 - Shifting Regimes The bottom line is that the economic and policy regime that delivered exceptional markets is shifting. The end of the Debt Supercycle a few years ago represented one element of regime shift and now we face several other elements such as the end of the era of falling inflation and interest rates, a rebalancing of the income shares going to labor and capital, and politically, in attitudes and thus policies regarding globalization. A world of modest returns is one where it is very important to get the right country and sector allocation, and ideally, catch shorter-term market swings. Of course, that is much more challenging than simply enjoying a rising tide that lifts all boats. As the year progresses, we will update you with our latest thinking on market trends and investment ideas. Mr. X: I am sure we are about to have a very interesting year and I will rely on your research to highlight investment opportunities and to keep me out of trouble. Once again, many thanks for spending the time to take me through your views and let's end with a summary of your main views. BCA: That will be our pleasure. The key points are as follows: A number of important regime shifts will impact the economic and investment outlook over the next few years. These include the end of the era of falling inflation and interest rates, a move away from fiscal conservatism, a policy pushback against globalization, and a rise in the labor share of income at the expense of profit margins. Together with an earlier regime shift when the Debt Supercycle ended, these trends are consistent with very modest returns from financial assets over the next decade. The failure of low interest rates to trigger a vigorous rebound in private credit growth is consistent with our end-of-Debt Supercycle thesis. The end-point for dealing with high debt levels may ultimately be sharply higher inflation, but only after the next downturn triggers a new deflationary scare. The potential for trade restrictions by the incoming U.S. administration poses a threat to the outlook, but the odds of a global trade war are low. Time-lags in implementing policy mean that the fiscal plans of president-elect Trump will boost U.S. growth in 2018 more than 2017. This raises the risk of an overheated economy in 2018 leading to a monetary squeeze and recession in 2019. They key issue will be whether the supply side of the economy expands alongside increased demand and it will be critical to monitor business capital spending. Lingering structural problems will prevent any growth acceleration outside the U.S. The euro area and emerging economies are still in the midst of a deleveraging cycle and demographics remain a headwind for Japan. Not many countries will follow the U.S. example of fiscal stimulus. Nevertheless, for the first time since the recovery began, global growth forecasts are likely to avoid a downgrade over the next couple of years. China remains an unbalanced and fragile economy but the authorities have enough policy flexibility to avoid a hard landing, at least over the year or two. The longer-run outlook is more bearish unless the government moves away from its stop-go policy approach and pursues more supply-side reforms. Inflation has bottomed in the U.S., but the upturn will be gradual in 2017 and it will stay subdued in the euro area and Japan. Divergences in monetary policy between the U.S. and other developed economies will continue to build in 2017 as the Fed tightens and other central banks stay on hold. Unlike a year ago, the Fed's rate expectations look reasonable. Bond yields in the U.S. may fall in the near run after their recent sharp rise, but the cyclical trend is up against a backdrop of monetary tightening, fiscal stimulus and rising inflation. Yields in the euro area will be held down by ongoing QE, while the 10-year yield will stay capped at zero in Japan. The secular bull market in bonds is over although yields could retest their recent lows in the next downturn. The search for yield will remain an important investment theme, but rich valuations dictate only a neutral weighting in investment-grade corporate bonds and a modest underweight in high-yielders. The U.S. equity market is modestly overvalued but the conditions are ripe for an overshoot in 2017 given optimism about a boost to profits from the new administration's policies. Earnings expectations are far too high and ignore the likelihood that rising labor costs will squeeze margins. Nevertheless, that need not preclude equity prices moving higher. There is a good chance of a sell-off in early 2017 and that would be a buying opportunity. Valuations are better in Japan and several European markets than in the U.S. and relative monetary conditions also favor these markets. We expect the U.S. to underperform in 2017. We expect emerging markets to underperform developed markets. The oil price should average around $55 a barrel over the next one or two years, with some risk to the upside. Although shale production should increase, the cutbacks in oil industry capital spending and planned production cuts by OPEC and some other producers will ensure that inventories will have to be drawn down in the second half of 2017. Non-oil commodity prices will stay in a trading range after healthy gains in 2016, but the long-run outlook is still bearish. The dollar bull market should stay intact over the coming year with the trade-weighted index rising by around 5%. Relative policy stances and economic trends should all stay supportive of the dollar. The outlook for the yen is especially gloomy. A stabilization in resource prices will keep commodity prices in a range. We remain bearish on EM currencies. The biggest geopolitical risks relate to U.S.-China relations, especially given president-elect Trump's inclination to engage in China-bashing. Meanwhile, the defeat of ISIS could create a power vacuum in the Middle East that could draw Turkey into a disastrous conflict with the Kurds and Iran/Russia. The coming year is important for elections in Europe but we do not expect any serious threat to the EU or single currency to emerge. Let us take this opportunity to wish you and all of our clients a very peaceful, healthy and prosperous New Year. The Editors December 20, 2016

Highlights Dear Clients, The holiday season is upon us, a time that is always filled with traditions. This week, we are starting a tradition of our own with this new "year-ahead" outlook report, focusing on the big ideas and themes that we expect will drive global bond market performance next year. We trust that you will find the report interesting and useful. This is our final report of the year; our next report will be published on January 10, 2017. On behalf of the entire BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy team, we wish you all a happy and prosperous 2017. Kindest regards, Robert Robis, Senior Vice President, Global Fixed Income Strategy Duration: Global growth will continue surprising to the upside in 2017, led by the U.S. This will put some additional upward pressure on global inflation, with developed markets operating close to full employment. Look for opportunities to reduce portfolio duration exposure once the current oversold conditions in bond markets have eased up. Favor core European bonds over U.S. Treasuries in the first half of the year, but look to reverse that position later in 2017 when the "taper talk" is revived in Europe. Yield Curves: Global yield curves will bear-steepen during the first half of 2017, led by faster growth, rising inflation expectations and accommodative monetary conditions. Later in the year, the U.S. Treasury curve will shift from bear-steepening to bear-flattening as the Fed begins to deliver more rate hikes. Watch for upside inflation surprises in Europe and Japan that could trigger additional bear-steepening at the longer-end of yield curves later in the year. Inflation: Inflation expectations will continue to grind higher in the U.S. on the back of faster economic growth and slowly rising wage pressures. Expectations will also rise in countries that will see additional currency weakness versus the powerful U.S. dollar, amid persistent strength in commodity prices. Continue to favor U.S. TIPS versus nominal U.S. Treasuries, and go long CPI swaps and inflation-linked bonds (versus nominals) in core Europe and Japan. Credit: Faster global economic growth will help support corporate profits and also boost risk appetite for growth-sensitive assets like corporate bonds. Valuations are not cheap, though, and the credit cycle is well-advanced, especially in the U.S. Balance sheet fundamentals continue to look better in Europe than in the U.S., particularly for higher-rated companies. Look to increase exposure to U.S. corporates, especially for high-yield, if spreads widen. Feature How To Think About Duration: Stay Defensive The big story for bond investors in 2016 was the rapid surge in global yields during the latter half of the year, led by the near -6% selloff in U.S. Treasuries since the July market peak. The bond rout has been triggered by improvements in the usual drivers of interest rates - real economic growth and inflation expectations (Chart 1). Expect more of the same in 2017, with rising U.S. yields keeping global bond markets under pressure during the first half of the year, and maybe longer. Chart 1An Cyclical Rise In Global Bond Yields bca.gfis_sr_2016_12_20_c1 bca.gfis_sr_2016_12_20_c1 There is the potential for a bond-bearish upside economic surprise in 2017, led by the U.S. The latest projections from the International Monetary Fund (IMF), released in October, call for the world economy to expand by 3.4% in 2017. This is a moderate increase from 3.1% this year, led by some acceleration in the emerging world and the U.S. However, the IMF is still projecting U.S. growth to be only 2.2% in 2017, in line with both the Bloomberg consensus and the Federal Reserve's own forecast. That figure is too low, in our view. The Case For Faster U.S. Growth BCA's Chief Global Strategist, Peter Berezin, recently made a compelling case for real U.S. GDP to expand by 2.8% in 2017, led by a steady pace of household consumption, improved capital spending and housing activity, along with some inventory rebuilding after the massive drawdowns seen earlier this year.1 Importantly, this was our expectation before the U.S. election victory by Donald Trump, who has promised a major fiscal stimulus that can provide an even bigger potential lift to U.S. demand. If the new President can deliver on even a portion of his campaign promises, then the risks to U.S. growth are to the upside. A positive growth surprise of the magnitude suggested by our forecast would sound some alarm bells at the Fed. The U.S. labor market is already operating beyond the Fed's estimate of full employment, with the headline unemployment rate at 4.6%, and wage pressures are building amid shortages of skilled labor. A rapid surge in wage inflation is unlikely, given the still structurally low overall inflation backdrop, but a steady grind higher in labor costs should help boost inflation expectations back toward levels consistent with the Fed's inflation target (Chart 2). In that scenario, the latest projections from the FOMC calling for three additional rate hikes in 2017 seem like a reasonable expectation, if not a bare minimum. Already, market expectations for the path of interest rates have been climbing steadily (Chart 3) and have now converged to the higher median projections of the FOMC (the "dots"). Chart 2Moving Back To Pre-Crisis Levels bca.gfis_sr_2016_12_20_c2 bca.gfis_sr_2016_12_20_c2 Chart 3Markets Have Converged To The Fed 'Dots' Markets Have Converged To The Fed 'Dots' Markets Have Converged To The Fed 'Dots' Market repricing toward the Fed dots has been a major driver of the current bond bear phase for U.S. Treasuries, but with the market and the Fed now seemingly on the same page, additional increases in rate expectations - and, by extension, the real component of U.S. Treasury yields - will require visible signs of the above-potential growth that we are forecasting. This positive growth story may not come to fruition if U.S. financial conditions tighten too rapidly. Specifically, a rapid overshoot of the U.S. dollar (USD) and/or a correction in overheated U.S. equity and credit markets could trigger a pullback in expectations for growth and inflation that could prevent the Fed from delivering on additional rate hikes in 2017. This would suggest that the "Fed policy loop" is still in effect, with financial market turbulence limiting the Fed's ability to further normalize the funds rate. We have always maintained that the Fed policy loop could be broken if the global economy was strengthening alongside faster U.S. growth, thus allowing the Fed to raise interest rates without causing an unwanted overshoot in the USD. This seems to be what is happening now, with an improving global growth backdrop allowing the Fed to shift to a more hawkish policy stance that is positive for the USD but NOT negative for financial markets (Chart 4). This stands in stark contrast to the latter months of 2015, when the threat of a Fed "liftoff" during a period of decelerating global growth triggered a rising USD, but with falling equity markets and wider credit spreads. The pace of USD appreciation is also an important factor to consider. During the 2014/15 bull phase for the USD, the annual rate of change of the greenback peaked out at nearly 15%. This was enough to cause a major drag on U.S. growth, corporate profits and inflation (Chart 5) that forced the Fed to shift to a less hawkish stance earlier in 2016, helping take some steam out of the USD. Chart 4A Better Growth Backdrop For USD Strength bca.gfis_sr_2016_12_20_c4 bca.gfis_sr_2016_12_20_c4 Chart 5This USD Rally Is Nothing Like The 2014/15 Move bca.gfis_sr_2016_12_20_c5 bca.gfis_sr_2016_12_20_c5 It would take at least a 10% rise from current levels (i.e. EUR/USD near 0.95 or USD/JPY near 130) over the course of the year to generate the same drag on U.S. growth and inflation seen in 2014/15. We are not expecting such a rapid appreciation given that the USD is already fundamentally overvalued, with our currency strategists expecting no more than another 5% rise in the trade-weighted USD in 2017 (i.e. enough to take EUR/USD to parity). This would be enough to push the USD toward the same overvaluation levels seen in previous USD bull markets in the mid-1980s and late-1990s. Thus, the USD is likely to be a moderate drag on U.S. growth in 2017, but not as severe as during the earlier stage of the current USD bull market. Under this scenario, risk assets like equities and corporate credit may not suffer severe pullbacks, although a needed correction of some of the post-U.S. election run-up in asset prices could happen in the first quarter of 2017. However, as we have discussed in recent weeks, interpreting the surge in risk assets since the U.S. election as solely driven by expectations of a U.S. fiscal boost from the incoming Trump administration is neglecting the rise in global growth that was already occurring before the election. Even if Trump disappoints on the fiscal stimulus in 2017, bond yields may not pull back that much if global growth continues to accelerate. Rising Global Yields, Led By The U.S. In the U.S, with the economy projected to look in decent shape, the Fed can deliver some additional rate hikes in 2017. The current FOMC "dots" call for an additional three rate increases in 2017, totaling 75bps. If our forecast for U.S. growth plays out, then U.S. inflation is likely to grind higher with the U.S. economy currently at full employment (Chart 6). This will put pressure on U.S. Treasuries, with the benchmark 10-year yield rising to the 2.8-3.0% level by the end of 2017. Against this backdrop, global yields have additional upside versus current forward levels, justifying a strategic below-benchmark portfolio duration stance. We recently moved to a tactical neutral duration posture, given the deeply oversold conditions in the major developed bond markets, but we are looking to re-establish a below-benchmark tilt sometime in early 2017 after bonds have fully consolidated the rapid late-2016 run-up in global yields, setting up the next phase of higher yields. This move will look very different as the year progresses, however, with the Treasury curve bear-steepening as longer-dated inflation expectations grind higher, then switching to a bear-flattening phase in the latter half of the year when U.S. inflation expectations approach the Fed's target. This will prompt the Fed to begin delivering more rate hikes, causing the USD to appreciate further. Potential asset allocation shifts out of bonds into equities could exacerbate the expected back-up in U.S. yields, if investors take a more pro-growth, pro-risk stance in their portfolios after years of defensive positioning since the 2008 equity market crash. Higher U.S. Treasury yields will put upward pressure on non-U.S. bond markets, although the ongoing presence of domestic bond buying by the European Central Bank (ECB) and the Bank of Japan (BoJ) will limit the increases in the real component of core European and Japanese bond yields. However, additional weakness in the euro and yen, against the backdrop of a stronger USD, will result in a rise in European and Japanese inflation expectations that will provide some boost to nominal yields in those markets (Chart 7). If commodity prices build on the sharp 2016 gains and continue rising in 2017, as our commodity strategists expect, then the inflation upticks in Europe and Japan could be surprisingly large. Chart 6Not Much Slack Left bca.gfis_sr_2016_12_20_c6 bca.gfis_sr_2016_12_20_c6 Chart 7Look For More Inflation Increases Next Year Look For More Inflation Increases Next Year Look For More Inflation Increases Next Year In Europe, in particular, we see the ECB being faced with another "taper or no taper" decision during the 3rd quarter of 2017, with the newly-extended ECB asset purchase program now scheduled to end next December. ECB President Mario Draghi has noted that the 2017 political calendar in Europe - with elections coming in France, Germany, the Netherlands and perhaps even Italy - will create an environment of uncertainty that could act as a drag on economic growth in the Euro Area. The ECB will not want to make the situation worse by talking about a taper of its bond purchases, which could cause a rapid rise in government bond yields and a widening of Peripheral European sovereign bond spreads. This should allow core European bond yields to outperform U.S. Treasuries during the bear-steepening phase in the U.S. that we expect, pushing the benchmark U.S. Treasury-German Bund spread to new cyclical wides. However, at some point later in the year, the transition to Fed rate hikes and a bear-flattening U.S. Treasury curve, combined with decent economic growth and rising inflation expectations in the Euro Area, will allow the Treasury-Bund spread to peak out - especially if the ECB starts to signal a taper sometime in 2018 (Chart 8). This will be one of the most important transitions for global bond investors to focus on next year. In terms of our recommended allocation, we continue to favor underweight positions in U.S. Treasuries versus core European markets entering 2017, but we would look for an opportunity to reverse that position sometime in the latter half of the year as Treasury yields approach our 2.8-3.0% target, Euro Area inflation expectations begin to move higher and the ECB taper talk heats up again. In Japan, we see limited upside in nominal Japanese government bond (JGB) yields, as the BoJ's new yield curve targeting regime will ensure that the JGB curve out to the 10-year point is stable, even as global yields rise further. The BoJ is starting to get the combination that it is looking for, rising inflation expectations and lower real yields, led by the sharp decline in the yen at the end of 2016 (Chart 9). If global yields move higher led by the U.S., then this move can continue as the spread between U.S. Treasuries and JGBs widens further (Chart 10). Chart 8UST-Bund Spreads In 2017: Wider, Then Narrower bca.gfis_sr_2016_12_20_c8 bca.gfis_sr_2016_12_20_c8 Chart 9Look For More Japan Reflation In 2017 bca.gfis_sr_2016_12_20_c9 bca.gfis_sr_2016_12_20_c9 Chart 10BoJ Yield Curve Targeting Is Working bca.gfis_sr_2016_12_20_c10 bca.gfis_sr_2016_12_20_c10 However, we are only recommending a neutral allocation to Japan versus hedged global benchmarks, despite the BoJ imposing a yield "cap" on JGBs. The risk-reward potential for JGBs is unattractive. If global yields fall because of a financial shock or a surprise growth slowdown, JGB yields cannot fall as much U.S. Treasuries or German Bunds with yields at such low levels already. On the other hand, if global yields continue to move higher, JGB yields will not rise to levels that make them attractive on a total return basis because the BoJ is targeting a 10-year yield near 0%. There is even a chance that the BoJ could raise its target level if the yen weakens even more rapidly and Japanese inflation expectations increase very rapidly (not our base case, but a risk that markets may begin to factor in later in 2017). Finally, in the U.K., we continue to recommend a below-benchmark stance on U.K. Gilts heading into 2017, given the surge in currency-induced inflation in the U.K. amid signs that the economy has not slowed much since the Brexit vote. We could transition back to an overweight stance if the U.K. government triggers the actual Brexit process in the spring, as this would likely force the Bank of England to extend its current bond-buying program beyond the March 2017 expiry date. Bottom Line: Global growth will continue surprising to the upside in 2017, led by the U.S. This will put some additional upward pressure on global inflation, with developed markets operating close to full employment. Look for opportunities to reduce portfolio duration exposure once the current oversold conditions in bond markets have eased up. Favor core European bonds over U.S. Treasuries in the first half of the year, but look to reverse that position later in 2017 when the "taper talk" is revived in Europe. How To Think About Yield Curves: Steepeners Everywhere Now, Flatteners Later In The U.S. As discussed earlier, we see the case for more steepening pressures on the major developed market government bond yield curves in 2017, led by faster growth, rising inflation and central banks being reluctant to slow either of those trends. In the case of the U.S., the shape of the curve will also be influenced, to some extent, by the combination of growth, inflation, the Fed and the size of the potential fiscal stimulus coming from the new Trump administration. As we have discussed in a recent report, there has historically been a strong correlation between the slope of the U.S. Treasury curve and the size of the U.S. federal budget deficit.2 Typically, that is a cyclical widening of the budget deficit that occurs during U.S. growth slowdowns, and the Treasury curve is also steepening because the Fed is cutting rates during economic downturns. Thus, we are currently in a relatively unique environment with the U.S. economy growing at full employment, while the government is considering a potentially large fiscal stimulus. If Trump is able to deliver on even some of his campaign promises with regards to tax cuts and spending increases, this will put upward pressure on the Treasury curve through faster nominal growth and greater Treasury issuance (Chart 11, top panel). Yet if the Fed delivers on the rate hikes implied by its inflation forecast and the "dots", this will raise real interest rates and flatten the Treasury curve (bottom panel). The Fed will likely begin to exert greater influence over the curve by quickening the pace, and raising the magnitude, of its rate hikes if Trump's fiscal stimulus is large enough. This means that the Treasury curve will steepen more before the transition to flattening later in 2017, as discussed earlier. Chart 11Trump's Deficits Will Steepen The UST Curve...Until The Fed Flattens It bca.gfis_sr_2016_12_20_c11 bca.gfis_sr_2016_12_20_c11 To benefit from that first move to a steeper Treasury curve, we recommend entering a 2/5/10 butterfly trade - buying the 5-year bullet and selling a duration-matched 2-year/10-year barbell. The 5-year is currently very cheap on the curve (Chart 12), and the belly of the curve should outperform in a typical fashion if the Treasury curve steepens, as we expect. Chart 125-Year UST Bullet Is Cheap On The Curve bca.gfis_sr_2016_12_20_c12 bca.gfis_sr_2016_12_20_c12 In core Europe, the slope of the yield curve will continue to be dictated by expectations of both inflation and the eventual ECB decision on tapering of its bond purchases. Currently, Euro Area inflation has been remarkably tame given the nearly 50% year-over-year rise in energy prices denominated in Euros - typically, a move of that magnitude would have generated a steeper yield curve via rising inflation expectations (Chart 13, third panel). Some steepening has already occurred through improving global growth (second panel) and, more recently, from expectations that the ECB would soon be forced to cut back on its bond buying program, resulting in a wider term premium on longer-dated bonds (bottom panel). We see a core European steepener as a trade for later in 2017, when the ECB will be forced to discuss a taper once again. In Japan, the only action in yield curves will come at the very long end of the curve. With no guidance on yields beyond the 10-year point from the BoJ, the JGB curve at the very long end (i.e 10-year versus 30-year) will be dictated by global steepening trends, especially with the weaker yen boosting Japanese inflation expectations (Chart 14). We currently have this curve steepening bias on in our recommended global bond portfolio (see page 17). Chart 13Look For Bear Steepening In Europe In H2/2017 bca.gfis_sr_2016_12_20_c13 bca.gfis_sr_2016_12_20_c13 Chart 14Japan 10/30 Curve Will Steepen With The UST Curve bca.gfis_sr_2016_12_20_c14 bca.gfis_sr_2016_12_20_c14 Bottom Line: Global yield curves will bear-steepen during the first half of 2017, led by faster growth, rising inflation expectations and accommodative monetary conditions. Later in the year, the U.S. Treasury curve will shift from bear-steepening to bear-flattening as the Fed begins to deliver more rate hikes. Watch for upside inflation surprises in Europe and Japan that could trigger additional bear-steepening at the longer-end of yield curves later in the year. Chart 15Can Euro Area Inflation Stay This Low In 2017? Can Euro Area Inflation Stay This Low In 2017? Can Euro Area Inflation Stay This Low In 2017? How To Think About Inflation: Bet On Higher Inflation Expectations Everywhere Our view on inflation protection in 2017 is simple: you must own it. With central banks remaining accommodative, and aiming for an inflation overshoot, the backdrop will remain conducive to faster inflation expectations. U.S. inflation expectations will be boosted more by an economy growing above potential, with faster wage and core inflation rates. While in Japan and the Euro Area, expectations will be raised by faster headline inflation on the back of sharply weaker currencies and rising energy prices, even with core inflation rates remaining subdued (Chart 15). We continue to maintain a position favoring TIPS over nominal U.S. Treasuries in our Overlay Trade portfolio (see page 19) and, this week, we are adding new long positions in 10-year CPI swaps in both the Euro Area and Japan. Bottom Line: Inflation expectations will continue to grind higher in the U.S. on the back of faster economic growth and slowly rising wage pressures. Expectations will also rise in countries that will see additional currency weakness versus the powerful U.S. dollar, amid persistent strength in commodity prices. Continue to favor U.S. TIPS versus nominal U.S. Treasuries, and go long CPI swaps and inflation-linked bonds (versus nominals) in core Europe and Japan. How To Think About Corporates: Favor Europe, But Look To Buy On Dips In The U.S. We have maintained a cautious stance on U.S. corporate debt in 2016, led by our concerns over the health of U.S. company balance sheets. Our own top-down Corporate Health Monitor (CHM) for the U.S. had been flagging a deterioration in U.S. balance sheets since mid-2014, and this indicator has typically been correlated to the level of corporate credit spreads. However, the deterioration in the U.S. CHM is starting to reverse, suggesting that company balance sheets could be embarking on a new trend towards some improvement. We have been recommending that investors favor Euro Area credit over U.S. credit, given the wide gap between our worsening U.S. CHM and our improving Euro Area CHM (Chart 16). We are not yet ready, however, to shift to a position favoring U.S. corporates over European equivalents. The individual components of the Euro Area CHM still at much strong levels than in the U.S. and, in the case of liquidity and interest coverage ratios, are dramatically improving in absolute terms (Chart 17). Chart 16Cyclical Improvement In U.S. Corporate Balance Sheets Cyclical Improvement In U.S. Corporate Balance Sheets Cyclical Improvement In U.S. Corporate Balance Sheets Chart 17European Balance Sheets Still Look Better European Balance Sheets Still Look Better European Balance Sheets Still Look Better Our bottom-up CHMs, which are constructed using individual company figures rather than economy-wide corporate data, paint a similar picture. The CHM for Investment Grade corporates is dramatically better for the Euro Area, and this is being reflected in outperformance of Euro Area debt over U.S. equivalents (Chart 18). For high-yield corporates, our bottom-up U.S. CHM has recently shown a dramatic shift towards the "improving health" zone, catching up to a similar trend in Euro Area high-yield (Chart 19). We exited our overweight tilts on Euro Area junk bonds versus U.S. equivalents in 2016 during the early stage of that convergence, and we are looking for an opportunity to upgrade U.S. junk on any spread widening in the New Year. If we are right that the U.S. is about the enter a period of upside growth surprises with a Fed that is slow to ratchet up the pace of rate hikes, then the U.S. could be entering a "sweet spot" that is great for the performance of growth sensitive assets like high-yield corporates (and equities). Chart 18Euro Area IG Corporates Should Outperform In 2017 Euro Area IG Corporates Should Outperform In 2017 Euro Area IG Corporates Should Outperform In 2017 Chart 19U.S. High-Yield Corporates Should Outperform In 2017 U.S. High-Yield Corporates Should Outperform In 2017 U.S. High-Yield Corporates Should Outperform In 2017 Default-adjusted spreads still on the expensive side for U.S. high-yield, so we would look for a better entry point before upgrading our U.S. junk allocation. However, we expect that to be our next big move in our corporate weightings in the early part of 2017. Bottom Line: Faster global economic growth will help support corporate profits and also boost risk appetite for growth-sensitive assets like corporate bonds. Valuations are not cheap, though, and the credit cycle is well-advanced, especially in the U.S. Balance sheet fundamentals continue to look better in Europe than in the U.S., particularly for higher-rated companies. Look to increase exposure to U.S. corporates, especially for high-yield, if spreads widen. Robert Robis, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Better U.S. Economic Data Will Cause The Dollar To Strengthen", dated October 14, 2016, available at gis.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Weekly Report, "Is The Trump Bump To Bond Yields Sustainable?", dated November 15, 2016, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index How To Think About Global Bond Investing In 2017 How To Think About Global Bond Investing In 2017 Recommendations Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Mr. X is a long-time BCA client who visits our offices towards the end of each year to discuss the economic and financial market outlook. This report is an edited transcript of our recent conversation. Mr. X: What a year it has been. The Brexit vote in the U.K. and the U.S. election result took me completely by surprise and have added to an already uncertain economic environment. A year ago, you adopted the theme of "Stuck In A Rut" to describe the economic and financial market environment and that turned out to be quite appropriate. Consistent with that rut, many issues concerning me for some time have yet to be resolved. Global economic growth has stayed mediocre, debt levels remain elevated almost everywhere, the outlook for China continues to be shrouded in fog, and stimulative monetary policies are still distorting markets. And now we face political shifts that will have major economic and financial effects. Some big changes are underway and I fear that we are more likely to head in a negative rather than positive direction. Therefore, I am very interested to learn how you see things developing. You have recommended a cautious investment stance during the past year and I was happy to go along with that given all my concerns about the economic and policy environment. While stocks have done rather better than I expected, it has all been based on flimsy foundations in my opinion. I have never been comfortable buying an asset just because prices are being supported by excessively easy money policies. The question now is whether looming changes in the policy and economic environment and in global politics will fuel further gains in risk assets or whether a significant setback is in prospect. I hope our discussion will give some clarity on this but, before talking about the future, let's quickly review what you predicted a year ago. BCA: It has indeed been a momentous year and we do seem to be at important turning points in many areas. For example, changing attitudes toward free trade and fiscal policy do have important implications for economic growth and interest rates. And this is being reinforced by cyclical economic trends as labor markets tighten in the U.S. However, it is too soon to know the extent to which political and policy uncertainties will diminish in the U.S. and Europe. You seek clarity on the investment outlook, but that will remain as challenging an objective as ever. You asked to start with a review of last year's predictions and this is always a moment of some trepidation. A year ago, our key conclusions were as follows: The current global economic malaise of slow growth and deflationary pressures reflects more than just a temporary hangover from the 2007-09 balance sheet recession. Powerful structural forces are at work, the effects of which will linger for a long time. These include an ongoing overhang of debt, the peak in globalization, adverse demographics in most major economies, monetary policy exhaustion, and low financial asset returns. Investor expectations have yet to adjust to the fact that sub-par growth and low inflation are likely to persist for many years. The Debt Supercycle is over, but weak nominal GDP growth has made it virtually impossible to reduce debt burdens. Nonetheless, a debt crisis in the advanced economies is not in prospect any time soon because low interest rates are keeping a lid on debt servicing costs. Perhaps high inflation and debt monetization will be the end-point, but that is many years away and would be preceded by a deflationary downturn. Despite ongoing exciting technological advances, the IT boom has lost its edge in terms of boosting economic growth. Even if productivity is understated, the corollary is that inflation is overstated, suggesting that central bankers will continue to face a policy dilemma. The Fed will raise interest rates by less than implied by their current projections. And the European Central Bank and Bank of Japan may expand their QE programs. Yet, monetary policy has become ineffective in boosting growth. Fiscal policy needs to play a bigger role, but it will require another recession to force a shift in political attitudes toward more stimulus. The U.S. economy will remain stuck in sub-2.5% growth in 2016, with risks to the downside. The euro zone's performance has improved recently, but 2016 growth will fall short of the IMF's 1.9% forecast. Japan's growth will continue to disappoint as it will in most other developed economies. China will continue to avoid a hard landing but growth will likely average below 6% in 2016 and beyond. Other emerging economies face a difficult environment of weak commodity prices, declining global trade. Those with excessive foreign-currency debt face additional pressures with weak exchange rates preventing an easing in monetary policy. Bonds offer poor long-term returns from current yields, but sovereign bonds in the major developed countries offer a hedge against downside macro risks and we recommend benchmark weightings. The fundamental backdrop to corporate and EM bonds remain bearish and spreads have not yet reached a level that discounts all of the risks. A buying opportunity in high-yield securities could emerge in the coming year but, for the moment, stay underweight spread product. We have turned more cautious on equities given a deterioration in the earnings outlook and in some technical indicators. No more than benchmark weighting is warranted and we would not argue against a modest underweight. The typical warning signs of a bear market are not in place but risks have risen. The U.S. equity market is expected to underperform that of Europe and Japan. Continue to stay away from emerging equities and commodity-oriented bourses. We continue to favor a defensive sector stance, favoring consumer staples and health care over cyclical sectors such as materials, energy and industrials. The bear market in commodities is not over. The sharp drop in oil prices will eventually restore balance to that market by undermining non-OPEC production and supporting demand, but this could take until the third quarter of 2016. The oil price is expected to average around $50 a barrel for the 2016-2018 period. The strong dollar and deflationary environment create a headwind for gold, offsetting the benefits of negative real interest rates. But modest positions are a hedge against a spike in risk aversion. The dollar is likely to gain further against emerging and commodity-oriented currencies. But the upside against the euro and the yen will be limited given the potential for disappointments about the U.S. economy. As was the case a year ago, geopolitical risks are concentrated in the emerging world. Meanwhile, the new world order of multipolarity and an increased incidence of military conflicts is not yet priced into markets. We do not expect the U.S. elections to have any major adverse impact on financial markets. On the economic front, we suggested that economic risks would stay tilted to the downside and this turned out to be correct with global growth, once again, falling short of expectations. A year ago, the IMF forecast global growth of 3.6% in 2016 and this has since been downgraded to 3.1%, the weakest number since the recovery began (Table 1). The U.S. economy fell particularly short of expectations (1.6% versus 2.8%). The downgrading of growth forecasts continued a pattern that has been in place since the end of the 2007-09 downturn (Chart 1). We cannot recall any other time when economic forecasts have been so wrong for such an extended period. The two big disappointments regarding growth have been the lackluster performance of global trade and the ongoing reluctance of businesses to expand capital spending. Not surprisingly, inflation remained low, as we expected. Table 1IMF Economic Forecasts January 2017 - Shifting Regimes January 2017 - Shifting Regimes Chart 1Persistent Growth Downgrades Persistent Growth Downgrades Persistent Growth Downgrades Given the disappointing economic performance, we were correct in predicting that the Federal Reserve would not raise interest rates by as much as their earlier forecasts implied. When we met last year, the Fed had just raised the funds rate from 0.25% to 0.5% and the median expectation of FOMC members was that it would reach 1.4% by end-2016 and 2.4% by end-2017. As we now know, the Fed is now targeting a funds rate of 0.5% to 0.75% and median FOMC projections are for 1.4% by end-2017 (Chart 2). Meanwhile, as we expected, both the ECB and Bank of Japan expanded their quantitative easing programs in an attempt to stimulate growth. Chart 2Changes In the Fed's Expectations Changes in the Fed's Expectations Changes in the Fed's Expectations Our concerns about the poor prospects for emerging economies were validated. The median 2016 growth rate for 152 emerging economies tracked by the IMF was only 3.1%, a notch below the 2015 pace and, barring 2009, the weakest number since the late 1990s Asia crisis. The official Chinese data overstate growth, but there was no hard landing, as many commentators continued to predict. Turning to the markets, there was considerable volatility during the year (Table 2). For example, U.S. bond yields fell sharply during the first half then rebounded strongly towards the end of the year, leaving them modestly higher over the 12 months. Yields in Europe and Japan followed a similar pattern - falling in the first half and then rebounding, but the level continued to be held down by central bank purchases. Japanese bonds outperformed in common currency terms and we had not expected that to occur, although there was a huge difference between the first and second halves of the year, with the yen unwinding its earlier strength in the closing months of the year. Table 2Market Performance January 2017 - Shifting Regimes January 2017 - Shifting Regimes Our caution toward spread product - corporate and EM bonds - turned out to have been unjustified. Despite worsening fundamentals, most notably rising leverage, the search for yield remained a powerful force keeping spreads down and delivering solid returns for these securities. Spreads are back to very low levels, warning that further gains will be hard to achieve. Equity markets made moderate net gains over the course of the year, but it was a roller coaster journey. A nasty early-year downturn was followed by a rebound, an extended trading range and a late-year rally. While the all-country index delivered a total return of around 8% for the year in common currency terms, almost one-third of that was accounted for by the dividend yield. The price index rose by less than 6% in common currency and 7% in local currency. However, our recommendation to overweight Europe and Japan did not pan out. Once again, the U.S. was an outperformer with the financially-heavy European index weighed down by ongoing concerns about banks, and Japan held back by its lackluster economic performance. Oil prices moved much as we expected, with Brent averaging around $45 over the year. At this time in 2015, prices were below $40, but we argued that a gradual rebalancing would bring prices back into a $45-$60 range in the second half of 2016. We did not expect much of a rise in the gold price and it increased less than 7% over the year. However, we did not try to dissuade you from owning some gold given your long-standing attraction to the asset, subject to keeping the allocation to 5% or less of your portfolio. Industrial commodity prices have been much stronger than we predicted, benefiting from a weak dollar in the first half of the year and continued buoyant demand from China. Finally, the dollar moved up as we had predicted, with the gains concentrated in the second half of the year. The yen's first-half strength was a surprise, but this was largely unwound in the second half as U.S. bond yields climbed. Mr. X: Notably absent has been any mention of the two political shocks of 2016. BCA: We did tell you that the U.K. referendum on Brexit was the key risk facing Europe in 2016 and that the polls were too close to have a strong view. Yet, we did not anticipate that the vote to leave the EU would pass. And when you pushed us a year ago to pick a winner for the U.S. election we wrongly went with Clinton. Our Global Strategist, Peter Berezin, was on record predicting a Trump victory as long ago as September 2015. But it seemed such an outrageous idea that our consensus view stuck to the safer option of Clinton. Interestingly, during our discussion at the end of 2014, we did note that a retreat from globalization was one of the risks in the outlook and we re-emphasized that point last year, pointing to rising populist pressures. However, we underestimated the ability of Brexit campaigners and Donald Trump to capitalize on the anger of disaffected voters. Trade and immigration policies are not the only areas where policy appears to be at a turning point. For example, fiscal conservatism is giving way to stimulus in the U.S. and several other countries, inflation and interest rates are headed higher, at least temporarily, and 2017-2018 should finally arrest the multi-year spectacle of downgrades to global growth projections. Yet, markets have a tendency to overreact and that currently seems to be the case when it comes to discounting prospective changes in the economic environment for the coming year. Turning Points And Regime Shifts: How Much Will Really Change? Mr. X: The U.S. election result and Brexit vote obviously were seismic events with potentially major policy implications. But there seem to be more questions than answers in terms of how policies actually will evolve over the next few years and the extent to which they will be good or bad for growth. The markets are assuming that economic growth will get a big boost from changes in fiscal policy. Do you agree with that view? Chart 3Fiscal Austerity Ended In 2015 Fiscal Austerity Ended in 2015 Fiscal Austerity Ended in 2015 BCA: We need to begin by putting things into perspective. Fiscal austerity came to an end pretty much everywhere a couple of years ago. Data from the IMF show that the peak years for fiscal austerity in the advanced economies were 2011-2013, and the budget cutbacks in those years did not even fully offset the massive stimulus that occurred during the downturn in 2008-10. Since 2013, the fiscal drag on GDP has gradually diminished and policy shifts are estimated to have added to GDP in the U.S., euro area and Japan in 2016 (Chart 3). Nonetheless, with economic growth falling short of expectations and easy money losing its effectiveness, there have been widespread calls for fiscal policy to do more. President-elect Trump has made major tax cuts and increased spending an important part of his policy platform, so the issue is the extent to which he follows through on his plans. Inevitably, there are some challenges: The plan to boost U.S. infrastructure spending is welcome, but the intention seems to be to emphasize private/public partnerships rather than federally-funded projects. Setting up such agreements could take time. Meanwhile, although there is great scope to improve the infrastructure, it is far less clear that a number of "shovel-ready" projects are simply waiting for finance. The bottom line is that increased infrastructure spending is more a story for 2018 and beyond, rather than 2017. And the same also is true for defense, where it may take time to put new programs in place. Turning to the proposed tax cuts, history shows there can be a huge difference between election promises and what eventually is legislated. According to the Tax Policy Center, Trump's plans would add more than $6 trillion to outstanding federal debt over the next decade and more than $20 trillion over 20 years. And that excludes the impact of higher interest costs on the debt. Even if one were to take an optimistic view of a revenue boost from faster economic growth, there would still be a large increase in federal deficits and thus debt levels and this could be problematic for many Republicans. It seems inevitable that the tax plans will be watered down. An additional issue is the distributional impact of the proposed tax cuts. Eliminating the estate tax and proposed changes to marginal rates would disproportionally help the rich. Estimates show the lowest and second lowest quintile earners would receive a tax cut of less than 1% of income, compared to 6.5% for the top 1%. Given that the marginal propensity to consume is much higher for those with low incomes, this would dilute the economic impact. Moreover, there is again the issue of timing - the usual bargaining process means that tax changes will impact growth more in 2018 than 2017. Mr. X: You did not mention the plan to cut the corporate tax rate from 35% to 15%. Surely that will be very good for growth? BCA: According to the OECD, the U.S. has a marginal corporate tax rate of 38.9% (including state and local corporate taxes), making it by far the highest in the industrialized world. The median rate for 34 other OECD economies is 24.6%. However, the actual rate that U.S. companies pay after all the various deductions is not so high. According to national accounts data, the effective tax rate for domestic non-financial companies averaged 25% in the four quarters ended 2016 Q2. Data from the IRS show an average rate of around 21% for all corporations. And for those companies with significant overseas operations, the rate is lower. There certainly is a good case for lowering the marginal rate and simplifying the system by removing deductions and closing loopholes. But special interests always make such reforms a tough battle. Even so, there is widespread support to reduce corporate taxes so some moves are inevitable and this should be good for profits and, hopefully, capital spending. The bottom line is that you should not expect a major direct boost to growth in 2017 from changes in U.S. fiscal policy. The impact will be greater in 2018, perhaps adding between 0.5% and 1% to growth. However, don't forget that there could be an offset from any moves to erect trade barriers. Mr. X: What about fiscal developments in other countries? Chart 4Japan Is A Fiscal Nightmare Japan Is A Fiscal Nightmare Japan Is A Fiscal Nightmare BCA: The Japanese government has boosted government spending again, but the IMF estimates that fiscal changes added only 0.3% to GDP in 2016, with an even smaller impact expected for 2017. And a renewed tightening is assumed to occur in 2018 as postponed efforts to reign in the deficit take hold. Of course, a sales tax hike could be delayed yet again if the economy continues to disappoint. But, with an overall budget deficit of 5% of GDP and gross government debt of more than 250% of GDP, Japan's room for additional stimulus is limited (Chart 4). Although the Bank of Japan owns around 40% of outstanding government debt, the authorities cannot openly admit that this will be written off. While more fiscal moves are possible in Japan, it is doubtful they would significantly alter the growth picture. The euro area peripheral countries have moved past the drastic fiscal austerity that was imposed on them a few years ago. Nevertheless, there is not much room for maneuver with regard to adopting an overtly reflationary stance. It is one thing to turn a blind eye to the fiscal constraints of the EU's Growth and Stability Pact and quite another to move aggressively in the opposite direction. Most of the region's economies have government debt-to-GDP ratios far above the 60% required under the Maastricht Treaty. In sum, a move to fiscal stimulus is not in the cards for the euro area. The U.K. is set to adopt more reflationary policies following the Brexit vote, but this would at most offset private sector retrenchment. In conclusion, looming shifts in fiscal policy will be positive for global growth in the next couple of years, but are unlikely to be game changers. Of course, fiscal policy is not the only thing that might change - especially in the U.S. There also are hopes that an easing in regulatory burdens will be very positive for growth. Mr. X: I am glad you raised that point. I have many business contacts in the U.S. who complain bitterly about regulatory overload and they are desperate for some relief. BCA: There certainly is a need for action on this front as regulatory burdens have increased dramatically in the U.S. in recent years. The monthly survey of small businesses carried out by the National Federation of Independent Business shows that rising health care costs, excessive regulation and income taxes are regarded as the top three problems. According to the Heritage Foundation, new regulations from the Obama administration have added more than $100 billion annually to costs for businesses and individuals since 2009. While the U.S. has a good score in the World Bank's Ease of Doing Business Index (8th best out of 190 countries), it is ranked 51st in the component that measures how easy it is to start a business, which puts it behind countries such as Jamaica, Mongolia and Albania. So we can hope that the new administration will act to improve that situation. We can be confident that there will be major reductions in regulations relating to energy and the environment. Other areas may be more challenging. It did not take long for Trump to back away from his pledge to repeal the Affordable Care Act (ACA) in its entirety. Returning to the previous status quo will not be politically acceptable and devising an alternative plan is no small task. The end result still will be a major modification of the ACA and this should ease health care costs for small businesses. With regard to the financial sector, it is no surprise that the pendulum swung massively toward increased regulation given the pre-crisis credit excesses. The economic and financial downturn of 2008-09 left a legacy of strong populist resentment of Wall Street and the banks, so a return to the previous laissez-faire model is not in the cards. At one stage, Trump indicated that he was in favor of replacing Dodd-Frank with a Glass-Steagall system, requiring commercial banks to divest themselves of their securities' businesses. The large banks would employ legions of lobbyists to prevent a new Glass-Steagall Act. The end result will be some watering down of the Dodd-Frank regulatory requirements, but again, a return to the pre-crisis status quo is not in the cards. The Retreat From Globalization Mr. X: You have challenged the consensus view that fiscal stimulus will deliver a meaningful boost to the global economy over the coming year. Having downplayed the main reason to be more positive about near-term growth, let's turn to global trade, the issue that causes most nervousness about the outlook. The Brexit vote in the U.K. was at least partly a vote against globalization and we are all familiar with Trump's threat to dramatically raise tariffs on imports from China and Mexico. What are the odds of an all-out trade war? BCA: At the risk of sounding complacent, we would give low odds to this. Again, there will be a large difference between campaign promises and actual outcomes. Let's start with China where the U.S. trade deficit ran at a $370 billion annual rate in the first nine months of 2016, up from around $230 billion a decade before (Chart 5). China now accounts for half of the total U.S. trade deficit compared to a 25% share a decade ago. On the face of it, the U.S. looks to have a good bargaining position, but the relationship is not one-sided. China has been a major financer of U.S. deficits and is the third largest importer of U.S. goods, after Canada and Mexico. Meanwhile, U.S. consumers have benefited enormously from the relative cheapness of imported Chinese goods. As for the threat to label China as a currency manipulator, it is interesting to note that its real effective exchange rate has increased by almost 20% since the mid-2000s, and since then, the country's current account surplus as a share of GDP has fallen from almost 10% to around 2.5% (Chart 6). The renminbi has fallen by around 10% against the dollar since mid-2015, but that has been due to the latter currency's broad-based rally, not Chinese manipulation. The fact that China's foreign-exchange reserves have declined in the past couple of years indicates that the country has intervened to hold its currency up, not push it down. Chart 5China-U.S. Trade: ##br##A Symbiotic Relationship? China-U.S. Trade: A Symbiotic Relationship? China-U.S. Trade: A Symbiotic Relationship? Chart 6China Has Not Manipulated ##br##Its Currency Downward China Has Not Manipulated Its Currency Downward China Has Not Manipulated Its Currency Downward Of course, facts may not be the guiding factor when it comes to U.S. trade policy, and we can expect some tough talk from the U.S. This could well involve the imposition of some tariffs and perhaps some concessions from China in the form of increased imports from the U.S. Overall, we are hopeful that rational behavior will prevail and that an all-out trade war will not occur. Mr. X: I also would like to believe that, but nothing in the U.S. election process made me think that rationality is guaranteed. BCA: Of course it is not guaranteed, and we will have to monitor the situation carefully. We should also talk about Mexico - the other main target of Trump's attacks. The U.S. trade deficit with Mexico accounts for less than 10% of the total U.S. deficit and has changed little in the past decade. More than 80% of the U.S. trade deficit with Mexico is related to vehicles and Trump clearly will put pressure on U.S. companies to move production back over the border. Within a week of the election, Ford announced that it had abandoned plans to shift production of its luxury Lincoln SUV from Kentucky to Mexico. And Trump subsequently browbeat Carrier Corporation into cancelling some job transfers across the border. If other companies follow suit, it could forestall major changes to NAFTA. Ironically, the Mexican peso has plunged by 10% against the dollar since the election, boosting the competitiveness of Mexico and offsetting some of the impact of any tariff increase. Not all the news on global trade is bad. After seven years of negotiation, the EU and Canada agreed a free trade deal. This has bolstered the U.K.'s hopes that it can arrange new trade deals after it leaves the EU. However, this will not be easy given the sheer number of bi-country deals that will be required. The time it took to negotiate the EU-Canada deal should be a salutary warning given that there was no particular animosity toward Canada within the EU. That will not be the case when it comes to negotiations with the U.K. Mr. X: Let's try and pull all this together. You have downplayed the risk of an all-out trade war and I hope that you are right. But do you expect trade developments to be a drag on economic activity, perhaps offsetting any positive impact from fiscal stimulus? Chart 7Only Modest Growth In World Trade Only Modest Growth In World Trade Only Modest Growth In World Trade BCA: You might think that trade is a zero-sum game for the global economy because one country's exports simply are another's imports. But expanding trade does confer net benefits to growth in terms of allowing a more efficient use of resources and boosting related activities such as transportation and wholesaling. Thus, the rapid expansion in trade after the fall of the Berlin Wall was very good for the global economy. Trade ceased to be a net contributor to world growth several years ago, highlighted by the fact that global export volumes have been growing at a slower pace than GDP (Chart 7). This has not been due to trade barriers but is more a reflection of China's shift away from less import-intensive growth. A return to import-intensive growth in China is not likely, and technological innovations such as 3-D printing could further undermine trade. If we also add the chances of some increase in protectionist barriers then it is reasonable to assume that trends in global trade are more likely to hinder growth than boost it over the coming couple of years. It really is too soon to make hard and fast predictions about this topic as we need to see exactly what actions the new U.S. administration will take. Nevertheless, we lean toward the optimistic side, and assume the economic impact of fiscal reflation will exceed any drag from trade restrictions. Again, this is a more of a story for 2018 than 2017. What we can say with some confidence is that the previous laissez-faire approach to globalization is no longer politically acceptable. Policymakers are being forced to respond to voter perceptions that the costs of free trade outweigh the benefits and that points to a more interventionist approach. This can take the form of overt protectionism or attempts to influence corporate behavior along the lines of president-elect Trump's exhortations to U.S. companies. Mr. X: What about the issue of immigration? Both the Brexit vote and the U.S. election result partly reflected voter rebellion against unrestrained immigration. And we know that nationalist sentiments also are rising in a number of other European countries. How big a problem is this? Chart 8Immigration's Rising Contribution ##br##To U.S. Population Growth Immigration's Rising Contribution To U.S. Population Growth Immigration's Rising Contribution To U.S. Population Growth BCA: In normal circumstances, immigration represents a win-win situation for all parties. The vast majority of immigrants are prepared to work hard to improve their economic position and in many cases take jobs that residents are not willing to accept. This all works well in a fast-growing economy, but difficulties arise when growth is weak: competition for jobs increases, especially among the unskilled, and the result is downward pressure on wages. The irony is that the U.S. and U.K. labor markets have tightened to the point where wage growth is accelerating. However, this all happened too late to affect the opinions of those who voted for tighter controls over immigration. There is an even more important issue from a big-picture perspective. As you know, an economy's potential growth rate comes from two sources: the growth in the labor force and productivity. According to the Census Bureau, U.S. population growth will average 0.8% a year over the next decade, slowing to 0.6% a year over the subsequent ten years. But more than half of this growth is assumed to come from net migration. Excluding net migration, population growth is predicted to slow to a mere 0.1% a year by the end of the 2030s (Chart 8). Thus, major curbs on immigration would directly lower potential GDP by a significant amount. In Europe, the demographic situation is even more precarious because birth rates are far below replacement levels. Europe desperately needs immigration to achieve even modest population increases. However, the migrant crisis is causing a backlash against cross-border population flows, again with negative implications for long-run economic growth. Even ignoring humanitarian considerations, major curbs on immigration would not be a good idea. Labor shortages would quickly become apparent in a number of industries. Some may welcome the resulting rise in wages, but the resulting pressure on inflation also would have adverse effects. So this is another area of policy that we will have to keep a close eye on. Chart 9A Mixed U.S. Inflation Picture A Mixed U.S. Inflation Picture A Mixed U.S. Inflation Picture Inflation And Interest Rates Mr. X: I am glad that you mentioned inflation. There are good reasons to think that an important inflection point in inflation has been reached. And bond investors seem to agree, judging by the recent spike in yields. If true, this would indeed represent a significant regime shift because falling inflation and bond yields have been such a dominant trend for several decades. Do you agree that the era of disinflation is over, along with the secular bull market in bonds? BCA: Inflation and bond yields in the U.S. have passed a cyclical turning point, but this does not mean that a sustained major uptrend is imminent. Let's start with inflation. A good portion of the rise in the underlying U.S. inflation rate has been due to a rise in housing rental costs, and, more recently, a spike in medical care costs. Neither of these trends should last: changes to the ACA should arrest the rising cost of medical care while increased housing construction will cap the rise in rent inflation. The rental vacancy rate looks to be stabilizing while rent inflation is rolling over. Meanwhile, the inflation rate for core goods has held at a low level and likely will be pushed lower as a result of the dollar's ascent (Chart 9). Of course, this all assumes that we do not end up with sharply higher import tariffs and a trade war. The main reason to expect a further near-term rise in underlying U.S. inflation is the tightening labor market and resulting firming in wage growth. With the economy likely to grow above a 2% pace in 2017, the labor market should continue to tighten, pushing wage inflation higher. So the core PCE inflation rate has a good chance of hitting the Federal Reserve's 2% target before the year is out. And bond investors have responded accordingly, with one-year inflation expectations moving to their highest level since mid-2014, when oil prices were above $110 a barrel (Chart 10). Long-run inflation expectations also have spiked since the U.S. election, perhaps reflecting the risk of higher import tariffs and the risks of political interference with the Fed. When it comes to other developed economies, with the exception of the U.K., there is less reason to expect underlying inflation to accelerate much over the next year. Sluggish growth in the euro area and Japan will continue to keep a lid on corporate pricing power and the markets seem to agree, judging by the still-modest level of one-year and long-run inflation expectations (Chart 11). The U.K. will see some pickup in inflation in response to the sharp drop in sterling and this shows up in a marked rise in market expectations. Chart 10U.S. Inflation Expectations Have Spiked U.S. Inflation Expectations Have Spiked U.S. Inflation Expectations Have Spiked Chart 11Inflation Expectations In Europe And Japan Inflation Expectations In Europe and Japan Inflation Expectations In Europe and Japan Turning back to the U.S., a key question regarding the longer-term inflation outlook is whether the supply side of the economy improves. If the new administration succeeds in boosting demand but there is no corresponding expansion in the supply capacity of the economy, then the result will be higher inflation. That will lead to continued monetary tightening and, as in past cycles, an eventual recession. But, if businesses respond to a demand boost with a marked increase in capital spending then the result hopefully would be faster productivity growth and a much more muted inflation response. Thus, it will be critical to monitor trends in business confidence and capital spending for signs that animal spirits are returning. Mr. X: So you don't think the Fed will be tempted to run a "hot" economy with inflation above the 2% target? BCA: That might have been a possibility if there was no prospect of fiscal stimulus, leaving all the economic risks on the downside. With easier fiscal policy on the horizon, the Fed can stick to a more orthodox policy approach. In other words, if the economy strengthens to the point where inflation appears to be headed sustainably above 2%, then the Fed will respond by raising rates. Unlike the situation a year ago, we do not have a strong disagreement with the Fed's rate hike expectations for the next couple of years. Nothing would please the Fed more than to return to a familiar world where the economy is behaving in a normal cyclical fashion, allowing a move away from unusually low interest rates. At the same time, the Fed believes, as we do, that the equilibrium real interest rate is far below historical levels and may be close to zero. Thus, interest rates may not need to rise that much to cool down the economy and ease inflationary pressures. This is especially true if the dollar continued to rise along with Fed tightening. Another potentially important issue is that the composition of the Federal Reserve Board could change dramatically in the next few years. There currently are two unfilled seats on the Board and it is very likely that both Janet Yellen and Stanley Fischer will leave in 2018 when their respective terms as Chair and Vice-Chair end (February 3 for Yellen and June 12 for Fischer). That means the incoming administration will be able to appoint four new Board members, and possibly more if other incumbents step down. Judging by the views of Trump's current economic advisers, he seems likely to choose people with a conservative approach to monetary policy. In sum, we do not rule out a rise in U.S. inflation to as much as 3%, but it would be a very short-lived blip. Steady Fed tightening would cap the rise, even at the cost of a renewed recession. Indeed, a recession would be quite likely because central banks typically overshoot on the side of restraint when trying to counter a late-cycle rise in inflation. Mr. X: I am more bearish than you on the inflation outlook. Central banks have been running what I regard as irresponsible policies for the past few years and we now also face some irresponsible fiscal policies in the U.S. That looks like a horrendously inflationary mix to me although I suppose inflation pressures would ease in the next recession. We can return to that possibility later when we discuss the economy in more detail. Where do you see U.S. short rates peaking in the current cycle and what does this mean for your view on long-term interest rates? To repeat my earlier question: is the secular bond bull market over? BCA: During the past 30 years, the fed funds rate tended to peak close to the level of nominal GDP growth (Chart 12). That would imply a fed funds rate of over 5% in the current cycle, assuming peak real GDP growth of around 3% and 2-3% inflation. However, that ignores the fact that debt burdens are higher than in the past and structural headwinds to growth are greater. Thus, the peak funds rate is likely to be well below 5%, perhaps not much above 3%. Chart 12The Fed Funds Rate And The Economic Cycle The Fed Funds Rate and the Economic Cycle The Fed Funds Rate and the Economic Cycle With regard to your question about the secular bull market in bonds, we believe it has ended, but the bottoming process likely will be protracted. We obviously are in the midst of a cyclical uptrend in U.S. yields that could last a couple of years. The combination of a modestly stronger economy, easier fiscal stance and monetary tightening are all consistent with rising bond yields. Although yields moved a lot in the second half of 2016, the level is still not especially high, so there is further upside. It would not be a surprise to see the 10-year Treasury yield reach 3% by this time next year. However, there could be a last-gasp renewed decline in yields at some point in the next few years. If the U.S. economy heads back into recession with the fed funds rate peaking at say 3.5%, then it is quite possible that long-term bond yields would revisit their 2016 lows - around 1.4% on the 10-year Treasury. There are no signs of recession at the moment, but a lot can change in the next three years. In any event, you should not be overly concerned with the secular outlook at this point. The cyclical outlook for yields is bearish and there should be plenty of advance notice if it is appropriate to switch direction. Update On The Debt Supercycle Mr. X: I would like to return to the issue of the Debt Supercycle - one of my favorite topics. You know that I have long regarded excessive debt levels as the biggest threat to economic and financial stability and nothing has occurred to ease my concerns. In the past, you noted that financial repression - keeping interest rates at very low levels - would be the policy response if faster economic growth could not achieve a reduction in debt burdens. But the recent rise in bond yields warns that governments cannot always control interest rate moves. Few people seem to worry anymore about high debt levels and I find that to be another reason for concern. BCA: You are correct that there has been very little progress in reducing debt burdens around the world. As we have noted in the past, it is extremely difficult for governments and the private sector to lower debt when economic activity and thus incomes are growing slowly. Debt-to-GDP ratios are at or close to all-time highs in virtually every region, even though debt growth itself has slowed (Chart 13A, Chart 13B). Chart 13ADebt Growth Slows, ##br##But Levels Remain High Debt Growth Slows, But Levels Remain High Debt Growth Slows, But Levels Remain High Chart 13BDebt Growth Slows, ##br##But Levels Remain High Debt Growth Slows, But Levels Remain High Debt Growth Slows, But Levels Remain High As a reminder, our End-of-Debt Supercycle thesis never meant that debt-to-GDP ratios would quickly decline. It reflected our belief that lenders and private sector borrowers had ended their love affair with debt and that we could no longer assume that strong credit growth would be a force boosting economic activity. And our view has not altered, even though government borrowing may show some acceleration. Chart 14The Credit Channel Is Impaired The Credit Channel Is Impaired The Credit Channel Is Impaired The failure of exceptionally low interest rates to trigger a vigorous rebound in private sector credit demand is consistent with our view. In the post-Debt Supercycle world, monetary policy has lost effectiveness because the credit channel - the key pillar of the monetary transmission process - is blocked. The drop in money multipliers and in the velocity of circulation is a stark reminder of the weakened money-credit-growth linkage (Chart 14). You always want to know what the end-point of higher debt levels will be, and we always give you a hedged answer. Nothing has changed on that front! A period of higher inflation may help bring down debt ratios for a while, but not to levels that would ease your concerns. This means that financial repression will be the fallback plan should markets rebel against debt levels. For the moment, there is still no problem because interest rates are still low and this is keeping debt-servicing costs at very low levels. If interest rates are rising simply because economic activity is strengthening, then that is not a serious concern. The danger time would be if rates were to rise while growth and inflation were weak. At that point, central banks would move aggressively to reduce market pressures with massive asset purchases. The ultimate end-point for dealing with excessive debt probably will be significantly higher inflation. But that is some time away. Central banks would not likely embrace a major sustained rise in inflation before we first suffered another serious deflationary downturn. At that point, attitudes toward inflation could change dramatically and a new generation of central bankers would probably be in charge with a very different view of the relative economic risks of inflation and deflation. However, it is premature to worry about a major sustained inflation rise if we must first go through a deflationary downturn. Mr. X: Perhaps you are right, but I won't stop worrying about debt. The buildup in debt was decades in the making and I am convinced that the consequences will extend beyond a few years of subdued economic growth. And central bank efforts to dampen the economic symptoms with unusually low interest rates have just created another set of problems in the form of distorted asset prices and an associated misallocation of capital. BCA: We agree that there may be a very unhappy ending to the debt excesses, but timing is everything. It has been wrong to bet against central banks during the past seven years and that will continue to be the case for a while longer. We will do our best to give you plenty of warning when we see signs that things are changing for the worse. Mr. X: I will hold you to that. Meanwhile, you talked earlier about the possibility of another recession in the U.S. Let's use that as a starting point to talk about the economic outlook in more detail. It seems strange to talk about the possibility of a recession in the U.S. when interest rates are still so low and we are about to get more fiscal stimulus. The Economic Outlook BCA: We do not expect a recession in the next year or two, absent some new major negative shock. But by the time we get to 2019, the recovery will be ten years old and normal late-cycle pressures should be increasingly apparent. The labor market already is quite tight, with wages growing at their fastest pace in eight years, according to the Atlanta Fed's wage tracker (Chart 15). Historically, most recessions were triggered by tight monetary policy with a flat or inverted yield curve being a reliable indicator (Chart 16). Obviously, that is extremely hard to achieve when short-term rates are at extremely low levels. However, if the Fed raises the funds rate to around 3% by the end of 2019, as it currently predicts, then it will be quite possible to again have a flat or inverted curve during that year. Chart 15U.S. Wage Growth In A Clear Uptrend U.S. Wage Growth In A Clear Uptrend U.S. Wage Growth In A Clear Uptrend Chart 16No Sign Of A U.S. Recession No Sign Of A U.S. Recession No Sign Of A U.S. Recession The recent environment of modest growth has kept inflation low and forced the Fed to maintain a highly accommodative stance. As spare capacity is absorbed, the Fed will be forced to tighten, raising the odds of a policy overshoot. And this is all without taking account of the potential threat of a trade war. Mr. X: I have never believed that the business cycle has been abolished so it would not surprise me at all to have a U.S. recession in the next few years, but the timing is critical to getting the markets right. What will determine the timing of the next economic downturn? BCA: As we mentioned earlier, the key to stretching out the cycle will be improving the supply side of the economy, thereby suppressing the cyclical pressures on inflation. That means getting productivity growth up which, in turn will depend on a combination of increased capital spending, global competition and technological innovations. Chart 17Companies Still ##br##Cautious Re: Capital Spending Companies Still Cautious Re: Capital Spending Companies Still Cautious Re: Capital Spending Thus far, there is no indication that U.S. companies are increasing their investment plans: the trend in capital goods orders remains very lackluster (Chart 17). Nonetheless, we have yet to see post-election data. The optimistic view is that the prospect of lower corporate taxes, reduced regulation and a repatriation of overseas earnings will all combine to revive the corporate sector's animal spirits and thus their willingness to invest. Only time will tell. The key point is that it is too soon for you to worry about a recession in the U.S. and for the next year or two, there is a good chance that near-term economic forecasts will be revised up rather than down. That will mark an important reversal of the experience of the past seven years when the economy persistently fell short of expectations. Mr. X: It would be indeed be a welcome change to have some positive rather than negative surprises on the economic front, but I remain somewhat skeptical. I suppose I can see some reasons to be more optimistic about the U.S., but the picture in most other countries seems as bleak as ever. The outlook for the U.K. has worsened following the Brexit vote, the euro area and Japan cannot seem to break out of a low-growth trap and China continues to skirt the edge of a precipice. BCA: The global economy still has lots of problems, and we are a long way from boom-like conditions. The IMF predicts that 2017 growth in the euro area and China will be below the 2016 level, and forecasts for the U.K. have been revised down sharply since the Brexit vote. On a more positive note, the firming in commodity prices should help some previously hard-hit emerging economies. Overall global growth may not pick up much over the coming year, but it would be a significant change for the better if we finally stop the cycle of endless forecast downgrades. Mr. X: Let's talk a bit more about the U.K. I know that it is too early to make strong predictions about the implications of Brexit, but where do you stand in terms of how damaging it will be? I am not convinced it will be that bad because I sympathize with the view that EU bureaucracy is a big drag on growth, and exiting the EU may force the U.K. government to pursue supply-side policies that ultimately will be very good for growth. BCA: The Brexit vote does not spell disaster for the U.K., but adds to downside risks at a time when the global economy is far from buoyant. The EU is not likely to cut a sweet deal for the U.K. To prevent copycat departures, the EU will demonstrate that exit comes with a clear cost. Perhaps, the U.K. can renegotiate new trade deals that do not leave it significantly worse off. But this will take time and, in the interlude, many businesses will put their plans on hold until new arrangements are made. Meanwhile, the financial sector - a big engine of growth in the past - could be adversely affected by a move of business away from London. Chart 18The U.K. Has A Twin Deficit Problem The U.K. Has A Twin Deficit Problem The U.K. Has A Twin Deficit Problem Of course, the government will not simply stand on the sidelines, and it has already announced increased infrastructure spending that will fill some of the hole created by weaker business capital spending. And the post-vote drop in sterling has provided a boost to U.K. competitiveness. Nevertheless, it seems inevitable that there will be a hit to growth over the next couple of years. The optimistic view is that the U.K. will use the opportunity of its EU departure to launch a raft of supply-side reforms and tax cuts with the aim of creating a much more dynamic economy that will be very attractive to overseas investors. Some have made the comparison with Singapore. This seems a bit of a stretch. In contrast to the pre-vote rhetoric, EU membership did not turn the U.K. into a highly-regulated economy. For example, the U.K. already is in 7th place out of 190 countries in the World Bank's Ease Doing Business Index and one of the least regulated developed economies according to the OECD. Thus, the scope to boost growth by sweeping away regulations probably is limited. At the same time, the U.K.'s ability to engage in major fiscal stimulus via tax cuts or increased spending is limited by the country's large balance-of-payments deficit and the poor state of its government finances (Chart 18). Overall, the U.K. should be able to avoid a major downturn in the next couple of years, but we don't disagree with the OECD's latest forecasts that growth will slow to round 1% in 2017 and 2018 after 2% in 2016. And that implies the risks of one or two quarters of negative growth within that period. Mr. X: I am not a fan of the EU so am inclined to think that the U.K. will do better than the consensus believes. But, I am less confident about the rest of Europe. Euro area banks are in a mess, weighed down by inadequate capital, a poor return on assets, an overhang of bad loans in Italy and elsewhere, and little prospect of much revival in credit demand. At the same time, the political situation looks fragile with voters just as disenchanted with the establishment status quo as were the ones in the U.K. and U.S. Against this background, I can't see why any companies would want to increase their capital spending in the region. Chart 19Euro Area Optimism Improves Euro Area Optimism Improves Euro Area Optimism Improves BCA: We agree that euro area growth is unlikely to accelerate much from here. The structural problems of poor demographics, a weak banking system and constrained fiscal policy represent major headwinds for growth. And the political uncertainties related to elections in a number of countries in the coming year give consumers and companies good reason to stay cautious. Yet, we should note that the latest data show a modest improvement in the business climate index, breaking slightly above the past year's trading range (Chart 19). There are some positive developments to consider. The nomination of François Fillon as the conservative candidate in France's Presidential election to be held on April 2017 is very significant. We expect him to beat Marine Le Pen and this means France will have a leader who believes in free markets and deregulation - a marked change from previous statist policies. This truly could represent a major regime shift for that country. Meanwhile, the ECB has confirmed that it will continue its QE program through 2017, albeit at a slightly reduced pace. This has costs in terms of market distortions, but will help put a floor under growth. Mr. X: You noted the fragile state of the region's banks. How do you see that playing out? BCA: Euro area banks have more than €1 trillion of non-performing loans (NPLs) and have provisioned for only about half of that amount. Nevertheless, most countries' banking sectors have enough equity capital to adequately absorb losses from these un-provisioned NPLs. On the other hand, the high level of NPLs is a protracted drag on profitability and thereby increases the banks' cost of capital. The shortage of capital constrains new lending. The biggest concern is Italy, which we estimate needs to recapitalize its banks by close to €100 billion. Complicating matters is that the EU rules on state aid for banks changed at the start of 2016. Now, a government bailout can happen only after a first-loss 'bail-in' of the bank's equity and bond holders. So if an undercapitalized bank cannot raise the necessary funds privately in the markets, there is a danger that its investors could suffer heavy losses before the government is allowed to step in. But once investors have been bailed-in, the authorities will do "whatever it takes" to prevent banking problems turning into a systemic crisis that threaten to push the economy into another recession. Mr. X: I would now like to shift our attention to Asia, most notably Japan and China. Starting with Japan, that economy seems to perfectly describe the world of secular stagnation. Despite two decades of short-term interest rates near zero and major fiscal stimulus, real growth has struggled to get above 1% and deflation rather than inflation has been the norm. Prime Minister Shinzo Abe has made a big deal about his "three arrow" approach to getting the economy going again, but I don't see much evidence that it is working. Is there any prospect of breaking out of secular stagnation? BCA: Probably not. A big part of Japan's problem is demographics - an unfortunate combination of a declining labor force and a rapidly aging population. While this means that per capita GDP growth looks a lot better than the headline figures, it is not a growth-friendly situation. Twenty years ago there were 4.6 people of working age for everyone above 64. This has since dropped to 2.2 and within another 20 years it will be down to 1.6. That falling ratio of taxpayers to pensioners and major consumers of health care is horrendous for government finances. And an aging population typically is not a dynamic one which shows up in Japan's poor productivity performance relative to that of the U.S. (Chart 20). Of course, Japan can "solve" its public finances problem by having the Bank of Japan cancel its large holdings of JGBs. Yet that does nothing to deal with the underlying demographics issue and ongoing large budget deficits. Japan desperately needs a combination of increased immigration and major supply-side reforms, but we do not hold out much prospect of either changing by enough to dramatically alter the long-run growth picture. Mr. X: I will not disagree with you as I have not been positive about Japan for a long time. We should now turn to China. It is very suspicious that the economy continues to hum along at a 6% to 7% pace, despite all the excesses and imbalances that have developed. I really don't trust the data. We talked about China at our mid-2016 meeting and, if I remember correctly, you described China as like a tightrope walker, wobbling from time to time, but never quite falling off. Yet it would only take a gust of wind for that to change. I liked that description so my question is: are wind gusts likely to strengthen over the coming year? BCA: You are right to be suspicious of the official Chinese data, but it seems that the economy is expanding by at least a 5% pace. However, it continues to be propped up by unhealthy and unsustainable growth in credit. The increase in China's debt-to-GDP ratio over the past few years dwarves that during the ultimately disastrous credit booms of Japan in the 1980s and the U.S. in the 2000s (Chart 21). The debt increase has been matched by an even larger rise in assets, but the problem is that asset values can drop, while the value of the debt does not. Chart 20Japan's Structural Headwinds Japan's Structural Headwinds Japan's Structural Headwinds Chart 21China's Remarkable Credit Boom January 2017 - Shifting Regimes January 2017 - Shifting Regimes The government would like to rein in credit growth, but it fears the potential for a major economic slowdown, so it is trapped. The fact that the banking system is largely under state control does provide some comfort because it will be easy for the government to recapitalize the banks should problems occur. This means that a U.S.-style credit freeze is unlikely to develop. Of course, the dark side of that is that credit excesses never really get unwound. You asked whether wind gusts will increase, threating to blow the economy off its tightrope. One potential gust that we already talked about is the potential for trade fights with the new U.S. administration. As we mentioned earlier, we are hopeful that nothing serious will occur, but all we can do is carefully monitor the situation. Trends in China's real estate sector represent a good bellwether for the overall economic situation. The massive reflation of 2008-09 unleashed a powerful real estate boom, accompanied by major speculative excesses. The authorities eventually leaned against this with a tightening in lending standards and the sector cooled off. Policy then eased again in 2015/16 as worries about an excessive economic slowdown developed, unleashing yet another real estate revival. The stop-go environment has continued with policy now throttling back to try and cool things off again. It is not a sensible way to run an economy and we need to keep a close watch on the real estate sector as a leading indicator of any renewed policy shifts. Over time, the Chinese economy should gradually become less dependent on construction and other credit-intensive activities. However, in the near-term, there is no escaping the fact that the economy will remain unbalanced, creating challenges for policymakers and a fragile environment for the country's currency and asset markets. Fortunately, the authorities have enough room to maneuver that a hard landing remains unlikely over the next year or two. There are fewer grounds for optimism about the long-run unless the government can move away from its stop-go policy and pursue more supply-side reforms. Mr. X: What about other emerging economies? Are there any developments particularly worth noting? BCA: Emerging economies in general will not return to the rapid growth conditions of the first half of the 2000s. Slower growth in China has dampened export opportunities for other EM countries and global capital will no longer pour into these economies in its previous, indiscriminate way. Nevertheless, the growth outlook is stabilizing and 2017 should be a modestly better year than 2016 for most countries. Chart 22India Has A Long Way To Go India Has A Long Way To Go India Has A Long Way To Go The rebound in oil and other commodity prices has clearly been positive for Russia, Brazil and other resource-dependent countries. Commodity prices will struggle to rise further from current elevated levels but average 2017 prices should exceed those of 2016. On the negative side, a firm dollar and trade uncertainty will represent a headwind for capital flows to the EM universe. The bottom line is that the growth deceleration in emerging economies has run its course but a major new boom is not in prospect. The Indian economy grew by around 7½% in 2016, making it, by far, the star EM performer. Growth will take a hit from the government's recent decision to withdraw high-denomination bank notes from circulation - a move designed to combat corruption. Fortunately, the impact should be relatively short-lived and growth should return to the 7% area during the coming year. Still, India has a long way to go to catch up with China. In 1990, India's economy was almost 90% as big as China's in PPP terms, but 20 years later, it was only 40% as large. Even though India is expected to keep growing faster than China, its relative size will only climb to 45% within the next five years, according to the IMF (Chart 22). Mr. X: Let me try and summarize your economic views before we move on to talk about the markets. The growth benefit from fiscal stimulus in the U.S. is more a story for 2018 than 2017. Nevertheless, a modest improvement in global growth is likely over the coming year, following several years of economic disappointments. The key risks relate to increased trade protectionism and increased inflation in the U.S. if the rise in demand is not matched by an increase in the economy's supply-side capacity. In that event, tighter monetary policy could trigger a recession in 2019. You do not expect any major changes in the underlying economic picture for Europe, Japan or China, although political shifts in Europe represent another downside risk. BCA: That captures our views quite well. Going back to our broad theme of regime shifts, it is important to re-emphasize that shifting attitudes toward fiscal policy and trade in the U.S. raise a red flag over the longer-term inflation outlook. And this of course feeds into the outlook for interest rates. Bond Market Prospects Mr. X: That is the perfect segue for us to shift the discussion to the investment outlook, starting with bonds. You already noted that you believe the secular bull market in bonds has ended, albeit with a drawn-out bottoming process. Given my concerns about the long-run inflation outlook, I am happy to agree with that view. Yet, yields have risen a lot recently and I am wondering if this represents a short-term buying opportunity. BCA: The late-2016 sell-off in bonds was violent and yields rose too far, too fast. So we recently shifted our tactical bond recommendation from underweight (short duration) to neutral. But obviously that is not the same as telling you to buy. The underlying story for bonds - especially in the U.S. - is bearish. The prospect of fiscal stimulus, rising short rates and a pickup in inflation suggests that U.S. yields will be higher over the next 12 months. Although yields may decline somewhat in the very near-term, we doubt the move will be significant enough or last long enough to warrant an overweight position. The outlook is not quite so bad in the euro zone given the ECB's ongoing bond purchases and a continued benign inflation outlook. But, even there, the market will remain highly correlated with trends in U.S. Treasurys so yields are more likely to rise than fall over the coming year. The story is different in Japan given the central bank's new policy of pegging the 10-year yield at zero. That will be a static market for some time. Although global yields may have bottomed from a secular perspective, the upturn will be gradual in the years ahead. A post-Debt Supercycle environment implies that private sector credit growth will remain subdued, and during 2018, the market may start to attach growing odds of a U.S. recession within a year or two. A more powerful bear trend in bonds awaits the more significant upturn in inflation that likely will follow the next economic downturn. Chart 23Treasurys Are High Yielders Treasurys Are High Yielders Treasurys Are High Yielders Mr. X: I am somewhat surprised at how much the spread between U.S. and euro area bonds has widened - it is now at the highest level since the late 1980s. Obviously, a positive spread makes sense given the relative stance of monetary policy and economic outlook. Yet, it is quite amazing how investors have benefited from both higher yields in the U.S. and a stronger dollar. If the dollar stays firm in 2017, will the spread remain at current high levels? BCA: Most of the increased spread during the past year can be attributed to a widening gap in inflation expectations, although the spread in real yields also spiked after the U.S. election, reflecting the prospects for fiscal stimulus (Chart 23). While the spread is indeed at historical highs, the backdrop of a massive divergence in relative monetary and fiscal policies is not going to change any time soon. We are not expecting the spread to narrow over the next year. You might think that Japanese bonds would be a good place to hide from a global bond bear market given BoJ's policy to cap the 10-year yield at zero percent. Indeed, JGBs with a maturity of 10-years or less are likely to outperform Treasurys and bunds in local currency terms over the coming year. However, this means locking in a negative yield unless you are willing to move to the ultra-long end of the curve, where there is no BoJ support. Moreover, there is more upside for bond prices in the U.S. and Eurozone in the event of a counter-trend global bond rally, simply because there is not much room for JGB yields to decline. Mr. X: O.K., I get the message loud and clear - government bonds will remain an unattractive investment. As I need to own some bonds, should I focus on spread product? I know that value looks poor, but that was the case at the beginning of 2016 and, as you showed earlier, returns ended up being surprisingly good. Will corporate bonds remain a good investment in 2017, despite the value problem? BCA: This a tricky question to answer. On the one hand, you are right that value is not great. Corporate spreads are low in the U.S. at a time when balance sheet fundamentals have deteriorated, according to our Corporate Health Monitor (Chart 24). After adjusting the U.S. high-yield index for expected defaults, option-adjusted spreads are about 165 basis points. In the past, excess returns (i.e. returns relative to Treasurys) typically were barely positive when spreads were at this level. Valuation is also less than compelling for U.S. investment-grade bonds. One risk is that a significant amount of corporate bonds are held by "weak hands," such as retail investors who are not accustomed to seeing losses in their fixed-income portfolios. At some point, this could trigger some panic selling into illiquid markets, resulting in a sharp yield spike. On a more positive note, the search for yield that propped up the market in 2016 could remain a powerful force in 2017. The pressure to stretch for yield was intense in part because the supply of government bonds in the major markets available to the private sector shrank by around $547 billion in 2016 because so much was purchased by central banks and foreign official institutions (Chart 25). The stock will likely contract by another $754 billion in 2017, forcing investors to continue shifting into riskier assets such as corporate bonds. Chart 24U.S. Corporate Health Has Deteriorated U.S. Corporate Health Has Deteriorated U.S. Corporate Health Has Deteriorated Chart 25Government Bonds In Short Supply Government Bonds In Short Supply Government Bonds In Short Supply Weighing the poor valuation and deteriorating credit quality trend against the ongoing pressure to search for yield, we recommend no more than a benchmark weighting in U.S. corporate investment-grade bonds and a modestly underweight position in high-yield. There are better relative opportunities in euro area corporates, where credit quality is improving and the ECB's asset purchase program is providing a nice tailwind. We are slightly overweight in both investment-grade and high-yield euro area corporates. Finally, we should mention emerging market bonds, although we do not have much good to say. The prospect of further declines in EM currencies versus the dollar is a major problem for these securities. There is a big risk that global dollar funding will dry up as the dollar moves higher along with U.S. bond yields, creating problems for EM economies running current account and fiscal deficits. You should stay clear of EM bonds. Mr. X: None of this is helping me much with my bond investments. Can you point to anything that will give me positive returns? Chart 26Real Yields Remain Exceptionally Low Real Yields Remain Exceptionally Low Real Yields Remain Exceptionally Low BCA: Not in the fixed-income market. Your concerns about inflation might lead you to think that inflation-indexed bonds are a good place to be, but prices in that market have already adjusted. Moreover, the case for expecting higher inflation rests a lot on the assumption that economic growth is going to strengthen and that should imply a rise in real yields, which obviously is bad for inflation-indexed bonds. Real yields currently are still very low by historical standards (Chart 26). A world of stagflation - weak real growth and rising inflation - would be a good environment for these securities, but such conditions are not likely in the next couple of years. Mr. X: After what you have told me, I suppose I will concentrate my fixed-income holdings in short-term Treasurys. But I do worry more than you about stagflation so will hold on to my inflation-indexed bonds. At the same time, I do understand that bonds will represent a hedge against downside risks rather than providing positive returns. So let's talk about the stock market as a more attractive place to invest. Equity Market Outlook Mr. X: I like to invest in equities when the market offers good value, there is too much pessimism about earnings and investor sentiment is gloomy. That is not the picture at the moment in the case of the U.S. market. I must confess that the recent rally has taken me by surprise, but it looks to me like a major overshoot. As we discussed earlier, the new U.S. administration's fiscal platform should be good for 2018 economic growth but the U.S. equity market is not cheap and it seems to me that there is more euphoria than caution about the outlook. So I fear that the big surprise will be that the market does much worse than generally expected. BCA: Obviously, the current market environment is nothing like the situation that exists after a big sell-off. You are correct that valuations are not very appealing and there is too much optimism about the outlook for earnings and thus future returns. Analysts' expectations of long-run earnings growth for the S&P 500 universe have risen to 12%, which is at the high end of its range over the past decade (Chart 27). And, as you suggested, surveys show an elevated level of optimism on the part of investors and traders. The outlook for earnings is the most critical issue when it comes to the long-run outlook for stocks. Low interest rates provide an important base of support, but as we noted earlier, rates are more likely to rise than fall over the next couple of years, possibly reaching a level that precipitates a recession in 2019. Investors are excited about the prospect that U.S. earnings will benefit from both faster economic growth and a drop in corporate tax rates. We don't disagree that those trends would be positive, but there is another important issue to consider. One of the defining characteristics of the past several years has been the extraordinary performance of profit margins which have averaged record levels, despite the weak economic recovery (Chart 28). The roots of this rise lay in the fact that businesses rather than employees were able to capture most of the benefits of rising productivity. This showed up in the growing gap between real employee compensation and productivity. As a result, the owners of capital benefited, while the labor share of income - previously a very mean-reverting series - dropped to extremely low levels. The causes of this divergence are complex but include the impact of globalization, technology and a more competitive labor market. Chart 27Too Much Optimism On Wall Street? Too Much Optimism On Wall Street? Too Much Optimism On Wall Street? Chart 28Profit Margins: Another Regme Shift Underway? Profit Margins: Another Regme Shift Underway? Profit Margins: Another Regme Shift Underway? With the U.S. unemployment back close to full-employment levels, the tide is now turning in favor of labor. The labor share of income is rising and this trend likely will continue as the economy strengthens. And any moves by the incoming administration to erect barriers to trade and/or immigration would underpin the trend. The implication is that profit margins are more likely to compress than expand in the coming years, suggesting that analysts are far too optimistic about earnings. Long-term growth will be closer to 5% than 12%. The turnaround in the corporate income shares going to labor versus capital represents another important element of our theme of regime changes. None of this means that the stock market faces an imminent plunge. Poor value and over-optimism about earnings raises a red flag over long-term return prospects, but says little about near-term moves. As we all know, market overshoots can move to much greater extremes and last for much longer than one can rationally predict. And the fact remains that the conditions for an overshoot could well persist for another 12 months or even longer. Optimism about the economic benefits of the new administration's policies should last for a while as proposals for tax cuts and increased fiscal spending get debated. Meanwhile, although the Fed plans to raise rates again over the next year, the level of interest rates will remain low by historical standards, sustaining the incentive to put money into stocks rather than interest-bearing assets. Mr. X: So are you telling me to buy U.S. stocks right now? BCA: No we are not. The stock market is vulnerable to a near-term setback following recent strong gains, so this is not a great time to increase exposure. However, we do expect prices to be higher in a year's time, so you could use setbacks as a buying opportunity. Of course, this is with the caveat that long-run returns are likely to be poor from current levels and we have the worry about a bear market some time in 2018 if recession risks are building. Playing market overshoots can be very profitable, but it is critical to remember that the fundamental foundations are weak and you need to be highly sensitive to signs that conditions are deteriorating. Mr. X: I am very well aware of the opportunities and risks of playing market overshoots. I completely underestimated the extent of the tech-driven overshoot in the second half of the 1990s and remained on the sidelines while the NASDAQ soared by 130% between end-1998 and March 2000. But my caution was validated when the market subsequently collapsed and it was not until 2006 that the market finally broke above its end-1998 level. I accept that the U.S. market is not in a crazy 1990s-style bubble, but I am inclined to focus on markets where the fundamentals are more supportive. BCA: The U.S. market is only modestly overvalued, based on an average of different measures. It is expensive based on both trailing and forward earnings and relative to book value, but cheap compared to interest rates and bond yields. A composite valuation index based on five components suggests that the S&P 500 currently is only modestly above its 60-year average (Chart 29). Valuation is not an impediment to further significant gains in U.S. equities over the coming year although it is more attractive in other markets. Chart 29The U.S. Market Is Modestly Expensive The U.S. Market Is Modestly Expensive The U.S. Market Is Modestly Expensive If we use the cyclically-adjusted price-earnings ratio for non-financial stocks as our metric, then Japan and a number of European markets are trading at valuations below their historical averages (Chart 30). The picture for Japan is muddied by the fact that the historical average is biased upwards by the extreme valuations that existed during the bubble years and in the aftermath when earnings were exceptionally weak. Nonetheless, even on a price-to-book basis, Japan is trading far below non-bubble historical averages (Chart 31). Chart 30Valuation Ranking Of Developed Equity Markets January 2017 - Shifting Regimes January 2017 - Shifting Regimes Chart 31Japan Looks Like A Cheap Market Japan Looks Like A Cheap Market Japan Looks Like A Cheap Market With regard to Europe, the good value is found in the euro area periphery, rather than in the core countries of Germany, France and the Netherlands. In fact, these core countries are trading more expensively than the U.S., relative to their own history. As you know, valuation is not the only consideration when it comes to investing. Nonetheless, the direction of monetary policy also would support a better outlook for Japan and the euro area given that the Fed is raising rates while the ECB and BoJ are still implementing QE policies. Exchange rate moves complicate things a bit because further gains in the dollar would neutralize some of the relative outperformance when expressed in common currency. Even so, we would expect the euro area and Japan to outperform the U.S. over the next 12 months. The one important qualification is that we assume no new major political shocks come from Europe. A resurgence of political uncertainty in the euro area would poses the greatest threat to the peripheral countries, which partly explains why they are trading at more attractive valuations than the core. Mr. X: There seem to be political risks everywhere these days. It is a very long time since I could buy stocks when they offered great value and I felt very confident about the economic and political outlook. I agree that value looks better outside the U.S., but I do worry about political instability in the euro area and Brexit in the U.K. I know Japan looks cheap, but that has been a difficult and disappointing market for a long time and, as we already discussed, the structural outlook for the economy is very troubling. Turning to the emerging markets, you have not backed away from your bearish stance. The long-run underperformance of emerging markets relative to the U.S. and other developed bourses has been quite staggering and I am glad that I have followed your advice. Are you expecting to shift your negative stance any time soon? BCA: The global underperformance of EM has lasted for six years and may be close to ending. But the experience of the previous cycle of underperformance suggests we could have a drawn-out bottoming process rather than a quick rebound (Chart 32). Emerging equities look like decent value on the simple basis of relative price-earnings ratios (PER), but the comparison continues to be flattered by the valuations of just two sectors - materials and financials. Valuations are less compelling if you look at relative PERs on the basis of equally-weighted sectors (Chart 33). Chart 32A Long Period Of EM Underperformance A Long Period Of EM Underperformance A Long Period Of EM Underperformance Chart 33EM Fundamentals Still Poor EM Fundamentals Still Poor EM Fundamentals Still Poor More importantly, the cyclical and structural issues undermining EM equities have yet to be resolved. The deleveraging cycle is still at an early stage, the return on equity remains extremely low, and earnings revisions are still negative. The failure of the past year's rebound in non-oil commodity prices to be matched by strong gains in EM equities highlights the drag from more fundamental forces. In sum, we expect EM equities to underperform DM markets for a while longer. If you want to have some EM exposure then our favored markets are Korea, Taiwan, China, India, Thailand and Russia. We would avoid Malaysia, Indonesia, Turkey, Brazil and Peru. Mr. X: None of this makes very keen to invest in any equity market. However, even in poor markets, there usually are some areas that perform well. Do you have any strong sector views? Chart 34Cyclical Stocks Have Overshot Cyclical Stocks Have Overshot Cyclical Stocks Have Overshot BCA: Our near-term sector views reflect the expectation of a pullback in the broad equity market. The abrupt jump in the price of global cyclicals (industrials, materials & energy) versus defensives (health care, consumer staples & telecom services) has been driven solely by external forces - i.e. the sell-off in the bond market, rather than a shift in underlying profit drivers. For instance, emerging markets and the global cyclicals/defensives price ratio have tended to move hand-in-hand. The former is pro-cyclical, and outperforms when economic growth prospects are perceived to be improving. Recent sharp EM underperformance has created a large negative divergence with the cyclical/defensive price ratio. The surging U.S. dollar is a growth impediment for many developing countries with large foreign debts. Meanwhile, the growth impetus required to support profit outperformance for deep cyclicals may be elusive. As a result, we expect re-convergence to occur via a rebound in defensive relative to cyclical sectors (Chart 34). On a longer-term basis, one likely long-lasting effect of the retreat from globalization is that "small is beautiful." Companies with large global footprints will suffer relative to domestically focused firms. One way to position for this change is to emphasize small caps at the expense of large caps, a strategy applicable in almost every region. Small caps are traditionally domestically geared irrespective of their domicile. In the U.S. specifically, small caps face a potential additional benefit. If the new administration follows through with promised corporate tax cuts, then small caps will benefit disproportionately given that the effective tax rate of multinationals is already low. Moreover, small companies would benefit most from any cuts in regulations. When it comes to specifics, our overweight sectors in the U.S. are consumer discretionary, telecoms, consumer staples and health care. We would underweight industrials, technology and materials. For Europe, we also like health care and would overweight German real estate. We would stay away from European banks even though they are trading at historically cheap levels. Commodities And Currencies Mr. X: A year ago, you predicted that oil prices would average $50/bbl over the 2016-18 period. As that is where prices have now settled, do you still stick with that prediction? Chart 35Oil Market Trends Oil Market Trends Oil Market Trends BCA: We have moved our forecast up to an average of $55/bbl following the recent 1.8 million b/d production cuts agreed between OPEC, led by Saudi Arabia, and non-OPEC, led by Russia. The economic pain from the drop in prices finally forced Saudi Arabia to blink and abandon its previous strategy of maintaining output despite falling prices. Of course, OPEC has a very spotty record of sticking with its plans and we expect that we will end up with a more modest 1.1 to 1.2 million b/d in actual output reductions. Yet, given global demand growth of around 1.3 million b/d and weakness in other non-OPEC output, these cuts will be enough to require a drawdown in inventories from current record levels. Even with the lower level of cuts that we expect, OECD oil inventories could drop by around 300 million barrels by late 2017, enough to bring down stocks roughly to their five-year average level (Chart 35). That is the stated goal of Saudi Arabia and the odds are good that the level of compliance to the cuts will be better than the market expects. Mr. X: How does shale production factor into your analysis? What are the odds that a resurgence of U.S. shale production will undermine your price forecast? BCA: We expect U.S. shale-oil production to bottom in the first quarter of 2017, followed by a production increase of around 200,000 b/d in the second half. However, that will not be enough to drive prices back down. The bigger risk to oil prices over the next year or two is for a rise, not a decline given the industry's massive cutbacks in capital spending. More than $1 trillion of planned capex has been cut for the next several years, which translates into more than seven million b/d of oil-equivalent (oil and natural gas) production that will not be developed. And increased shale production cannot fully offset that. In addition to meeting demand growth, new production also must offset natural decline rates, which amount to 8% to 10% of production annually. Replacing these losses becomes more difficult as shale-oil output increases, given its very high decline rates. Shale technology appears to be gaining traction in Russia, which could end up significantly boosting production but capex cuts will constrain the global supply outlook until after 2018. Mr. X: Non-oil commodity prices have shown surprising strength recently, with copper surging almost 30% in the space of a few weeks. Is that just Chinese speculation, or is something more fundamental at work? You have had a cautious long-term view of commodities on the grounds that changing technology and reduced Chinese demand would keep a lid on prices. Do you see any reason to change that view? BCA: Developments in China remain critical for non-oil commodity prices. China's reflationary policies significantly boosted real estate and infrastructure spending and that was the main driver of the rally in metals prices in 2016. As we discussed earlier, China has eased back on reflation and that will take the edge off the commodity price boom. Indeed, given the speed and magnitude of the price increases in copper and other metals, it would not be surprising to see some near-term retrenchment. For the year as a whole, we expect a trading range for non-oil commodities. Longer-run, we would not bet against the long-term downtrend in real commodity prices and it really is a story about technology (Chart 36). Real estate booms notwithstanding, economies are shifting away from commodity-sensitive activities. Human capital is becoming more important relative to physical capital and price rises for resources encourages both conservation and the development of cheaper alternatives. In the post-WWII period, the pattern seems to have been for 10-year bull markets (1972 to 1982 and 2002 to 2012) and 20-year bear markets (1952 to 1972 and 1982 to 2002). The current bear phase is only six years old so it would be early to call an end to the downtrend from a long-term perspective. Chart 36The Long-Term Trend In Real Commodity Prices Is Down The Long-Term Trend in Real Commodity Prices Is Down The Long-Term Trend in Real Commodity Prices Is Down Mr. X: You know that I can't leave without asking you about gold. I continue to believe that bullion provides a good hedge at a time of extreme monetary policies, political uncertainty and, now, the prospect of fiscal reflation. Can you see bullion at least matching its past year's performance over the coming 12 months? Chart 37A Strong Dollar Hurts Bullion A Strong Dollar Hurts Bullion A Strong Dollar Hurts Bullion BCA: It is still a gold-friendly environment. The combination of political uncertainty, rising inflation expectations and continued easy money policies should provide support to bullion prices over the next year. The main negative is the potential for a further rise in the dollar: the strengthening of the dollar clearly was a factor undermining the gold price in the second half of 2016 (Chart 37). Nevertheless, a modest position in gold - no more than 5% of your portfolio - will give you some protection in what is likely to remain a very unsettled geopolitical environment. Mr. X: You mentioned the dollar so let me now delve into your currency views in more detail. The dollar has been appreciating for a few years and it seems quite a consensus view to be bullish on the currency. I know the U.S. economy is growing faster than most other developed economies but it surprises me that markets are ignoring the negatives: an ongoing large trade deficit, a looming rise in the fiscal deficit and uncertainty about the policies of the incoming administration. BCA: It is true that if you just looked at the U.S. economic and financial situation in isolation, you would not be very bullish on the currency. As you noted, the current account remains in large deficit, an increased federal deficit seems inevitable given the new administration's policy platform, and the level of short-rates is very low, despite the Fed's recent move. However, currencies are all about relative positions, and, despite its problems, the U.S. looks in better shape than other countries. The optimism toward the dollar is a near-term concern and suggests that the currency is ripe for a pullback. However, it will not require a major sell-off to unwind current overbought conditions. The main reasons to stay positive on the dollar on a cyclical basis are the relative stance of monetary policy and the potential for positive U.S. economic surprises relative to other countries. Ironically, if the administration follows up on its threat to impose trade barriers, that also would be positive for the currency, at least for a while. Longer-run it would be dollar bearish, because the U.S. probably would lose competiveness via higher inflation. The dollar is enjoying its third major upcycle since the era of floating rates began in the early 1970s (Chart 38). There are similarities in all three cases. Policy divergences and thus real interest-rate differentials were in the dollar's favor and there was general optimism about the U.S. economy relative to its competitors. In the first half of the 1980s, the optimism reflected President Reagan's pro-growth supply-side platform, in the second half of the 1990s it was the tech bubble, and this time it is the poor state of other economies that makes the U.S. look relatively attractive. Chart 38The Dollar Bull Market In Perspective January 2017 - Shifting Regimes January 2017 - Shifting Regimes The bull market in the first half of the 1980s was the strongest of the three but was cut short by the 1985 Plaza Accord when the leading industrial economies agreed to coordinated intervention to push the dollar back down in order to forestall a U.S. protectionist response to its soaring trade deficit. The second upturn ended when the tech bubble burst. There is no prospect of intervention to end the current cycle and policy divergences will widen not narrow over the next year. Thus, the dollar should continue to appreciate over the next 12 months, perhaps by around 5% on a trade-weighted basis. The fiscal policies being promoted by the Trump team promise to widen the U.S. trade deficit but that will not stand in the way of a dollar ascent. The problems will occur if, as we discussed earlier, an overheating economy in 2018 and a resulting Fed response trigger a recession in 2019. At that point, the dollar probably would plunge. But it is far too soon to worry about that possibility. Mr. X: I was very surprised with the yen's strength in the first half of 2016 given Japan's hyper-easy policy stance. What was driving that? Also, I would be interested in your views on sterling and commodity and emerging currencies. BCA: The yen often acts as a safe-haven at times of great economic and political uncertainty and that worked in the yen's favor for much of the year. However, it lost ground when U.S. bond yields headed higher. Also, the U.S. election result did not help because Japan would be a big loser if the U.S. imposed trade restrictions. The policy settings in Japan are indeed negative for the yen and while the currency is oversold in the very short run, we expect the structural bear market to persist in 2017 (Chart 39). Sterling's trade-weighted index fell to an all-time low after the Brexit vote so it does offer good value by historical standards. However, with so much uncertainty about how Brexit negotiations will proceed, we remain cautious on the currency. The economy has performed quite well since the vote, but it is far too soon to judge the long-term consequences of EU departure. And the prospect of increased government spending when the country already has a large trade deficit and high public debt poses an additional risk. Turning to the commodity currencies, the rebound in oil and metals prices has stabilized the Canadian and Australian dollars (Chart 40). With resource prices not expected to make much further headway over the next year, these currencies likely will be range bound, albeit with risks to the downside, especially versus the U.S. dollar. Chart 39More Downside In The Yen More Downside In The Yen More Downside In The Yen Chart 40Commodity Currencies Have Stabilized Commodity Currencies Have Stabilized Commodity Currencies Have Stabilized Finally, we remain bearish on emerging currencies given relatively poor economic fundamentals. And this is particularly true for those countries with chronically high inflation and/or large current account deficits, largely outside of Asia. Mr. X: What about the Chinese currency? The renminbi has dropped by 13% against the dollar over the past three years and president-elect Trump has threatened to label China as a currency manipulator. You already noted that the Chinese authorities have intervened to prop the currency up, but this does not seem to be working. Chart 41Renminbi Weakness Renminbi Weakness Renminbi Weakness BCA: The trend in the USD/RMB rate exaggerates the weakness of the Chinese currency. On a trade-weighted basis, the currency has depreciated more modestly over the past year, and the recent trend has been up, in both real and nominal terms (Chart 41). In other words, a good part of the currency's move has reflected across-the-board strength in the dollar. The Chinese authorities are sensitive to U.S. pressures and have taken some measures to contain private capital outflows. The next step would be to raise interest rates but this would be a last resort. With the dollar expected to rise further in 2017, the RMB will drift lower, but policy interventions should limit the decline and we doubt the U.S. will follow through with its threat to label China as a manipulator. Geopolitics Mr. X: Last, but certainly not least, we must talk about geopolitics. In addition to the new political order in the U.S. we have a very unstable political situation in Europe, most notably in Italy. We cannot rule out an anti-euro party taking power in Italy which would presumably trigger massive volatility in the markets. With elections also due in France, Germany and the Netherlands, 2017 will be a crucial year for determining the future of the single currency and the EU. What is your take on the outlook? Chart 42Europeans Still Support The EU Europeans Still Support The EU Europeans Still Support The EU BCA: Europe's electoral calendar is indeed ominously packed with four of the euro area's five largest economies likely to have elections in 2017. Another election could occur if Spain's shaky minority government collapses. While we expect elevated uncertainty and lots of headline risk, we do not believe the elections in 2017 will transform Europe's future. As BCA's Geopolitical Strategy has argued since 2011, global multipolarity increases the logic for European integration. Crises such as Russian assertiveness, Islamic terrorism, and the migration wave are easier to deal with when countries act together rather than individually. Thus far, it appears that Europeans agree with this assessment: polling suggests that few are genuinely antagonistic towards the euro or the EU (Chart 42). Despite all of its problems, the single currency should hold together, at least over the next five years. Take the recent Spanish and Austrian elections. In Spain, Mariano Rajoy's right-wing People's Party managed to hold onto power despite four years of painful internal devaluations and supply-side reforms. In Austria, the more-establishment candidate for president, Alexander Van der Bellen, won the election despite fears to the contrary. In both cases, the centrist candidates survived because voters hesitated when confronted with an anti-establishment choice. We expect more of the same in the three crucial elections in the Netherlands, France, and Germany. Mr. X: What about Italy? BCA: The country certainly has its problems: it has lagged badly in implementing structural reforms and support for the euro is low compared to the euro area average. Yet, if elections were held today, polls show that the ruling Democratic Party would gain a narrow victory. There are three key points to consider regarding Italy: The December constitutional referendum was not a vote on the euro and thus cannot serve as a proxy for a future referendum. The market will punish Italy the moment it sniffs out even a whiff of a potential "Itexit" referendum. This will bring forward the future pain of redenomination, influencing voters' choices. Benefits of EU membership for Italy are considerable, especially as it allows the country to integrate its unproductive, poor, and expensive southern regions. Outside the EU, the Mezzogiorno is Rome's problem, and it is a big one. The larger question is whether other euro area countries will be content for Italy to remain mired in its fragile and troubling status quo. We think the answer is yes, given that Italy is the definition of "too-big-to-fail." Mr. X: During the past few years you have emphasized the importance of the shift from a unipolar to multipolar world, reflecting the growing power of China, renewed Russian activism and a decline in U.S. influence. How does the policy platform of the incoming Trump administration affect your view of the outlook? It seems as if the U.S. may end up antagonizing China at the same time as it tries to improve relations with Russia. How would that play out? Chart 43Asia Sells, America Rules Asia Sells, America Rules Asia Sells, America Rules BCA: The media is overemphasizing the role of president-elect Trump in Sino-American relations. Tensions have been building between the two countries for several years. The two countries have fundamental, structural, problems and Trump has just catalyzed what, in our mind, has been an inevitable conflict. The Asian state-led economic model was underpinned by the Pax Americana. Two factors were instrumental: America's commitment to free trade and its military supremacy. China was not technically an ally, like Japan and Korea, but after 1979 it sure looked like one in terms of trade surpluses and military spending (Chart 43). For the sake of containing the Soviet Union, the U.S. wrapped East Asia under its umbrella. Japan's economic model and large trade surpluses led it into a confrontation with the U.S. in the 1980s. President Ronald Reagan's economic team forced Japan to reform, but the result ultimately was a financial crisis as the artificial supports of its economic model fell away. Many investors have long suspected that a similar fate awaited China. It is unsustainable for China to seize ever greater market share and drive down manufacturing prices without reforming its economy to match G7 standards, especially if it hinders U.S. access to its vast consumer market. There is a critical difference between the "Japan bashing" of the 1980s and the increasingly potent "China bashing" of today. In the 1980s, the U.S. had already achieved strategic supremacy over Japan as a result of WWII, but that is not the case for the U.S. and China in 2017. Unlike Japan, Korea, or any of the other Asian tigers, China cannot trust the U.S. to preserve its security. Far from it - China has no greater security threat than the U.S. The American navy threatens Chinese access to critical commodities and export markets via the South China Sea. In a world that is evolving into a zero-sum game, these things suddenly matter. That means that when the Trump administration tries to "get tough" on long-standing American demands, these demands will not be taken as well-intentioned or trustworthy. Sino-American rivalry will be the chief geopolitical risk to investors in 2017. Mr. X: Are there any other geopolitical issues that might affect financial markets during the coming year? BCA: Investors are underestimating the risks that the defeat of the Islamic State Caliphate in the Middle East will pose. While the obvious consequence is a spread of terrorism as militants return home, the bigger question is what happens to the regional disequilibrium. In particular, we fear that Turkey will become embroiled in a conflict in both Syria and Iraq, potentially in a proxy war with Iran and Russia. The defeat of Islamic State will create a vacuum in the Middle East that the Syrian and Iraqi Kurds are most likely to fill. This is unacceptable to Turkey, which has intervened militarily to counter Kurdish gains and may do so in the future. The Turkish foray into the Middle East poses the chief risk of a shooting war that could impact global markets in 2017. While there are much greater geopolitical games afoot - such as increasing Sino-American tensions - this one is the most likely to produce military conflict between serious powers. It would be disastrous for Turkey. Conclusions Mr. X: I think we should end our discussions here before you make me more depressed. A year ago, I was very troubled about the economic and financial outlook, and you did not say very much at that time to ease my concerns. And I feel in a similar situation again this year. I do not believe we are at the edge of a major economic or financial crisis, so that is not the issue. The problem for me is that policymakers continue to distort things with excessively easy monetary policies. And now we face fiscal expansion in the U.S., even though the economy is approaching full employment and wages are picking up. Meanwhile, nobody seems worried about debt anymore despite debt-to-GDP ratios that are at all-time highs throughout the world. And if that was not enough, we face the most uncertain political environment that I can remember, both in the U.S. and Europe. It would not be so bad if markets were cheap to compensate for the various risks and uncertainties that we face. But, as we discussed, that is not the case. So I am left with the same dilemma as last year: where to invest when most assets are fully valued. I am sure that you are right when you say that stock prices are well placed to overshoot over the coming year, but that is not a game I like to play. So I am inclined to stay with a cautious investment stance for a while longer, hoping for a better entry point into equities and other risk assets. BCA: We understand your caution, but you risk missing out on some decent gains in equities over the coming year if you remain on the sidelines. The equity market is due for a near-term pullback, but we would use that as a buying opportunity. Markets are not expensive everywhere and the policy backdrop will remain supportive of risk assets. And although we talked about an overshoot, there is plenty of upside before we need to be concerned that valuations have become a major constraint. We are certainly not trying to persuade you to throw caution to the wind. We have not changed our view that long-term returns from financial assets will be a pale shadow of their historical performance. The past 33 years have delivered compound returns of 10.3% a year from a balanced portfolio and we cannot find any comparable period in history that comes even close (Table 3). As we discussed at length in the past, these excellent returns reflected a powerful combination of several largely interrelated forces: falling inflation and interest rates, rising profit margins, a starting point of cheap valuations and strong credit growth. None of these conditions exist now: inflation and interest rates are headed up, profit margins are likely to compress, valuations are not cheap, and in a post-Debt Supercycle world, the days of rapid credit growth are over. Thus, that same balanced portfolio is likely to deliver compound returns of only 4% over the coming decade. Table 3The Past Is Not A Guide To The Future January 2017 - Shifting Regimes January 2017 - Shifting Regimes The bottom line is that the economic and policy regime that delivered exceptional markets is shifting. The end of the Debt Supercycle a few years ago represented one element of regime shift and now we face several other elements such as the end of the era of falling inflation and interest rates, a rebalancing of the income shares going to labor and capital, and politically, in attitudes and thus policies regarding globalization. A world of modest returns is one where it is very important to get the right country and sector allocation, and ideally, catch shorter-term market swings. Of course, that is much more challenging than simply enjoying a rising tide that lifts all boats. As the year progresses, we will update you with our latest thinking on market trends and investment ideas. Mr. X: I am sure we are about to have a very interesting year and I will rely on your research to highlight investment opportunities and to keep me out of trouble. Once again, many thanks for spending the time to take me through your views and let's end with a summary of your main views. BCA: That will be our pleasure. The key points are as follows: A number of important regime shifts will impact the economic and investment outlook over the next few years. These include the end of the era of falling inflation and interest rates, a move away from fiscal conservatism, a policy pushback against globalization, and a rise in the labor share of income at the expense of profit margins. Together with an earlier regime shift when the Debt Supercycle ended, these trends are consistent with very modest returns from financial assets over the next decade. The failure of low interest rates to trigger a vigorous rebound in private credit growth is consistent with our end-of-Debt Supercycle thesis. The end-point for dealing with high debt levels may ultimately be sharply higher inflation, but only after the next downturn triggers a new deflationary scare. The potential for trade restrictions by the incoming U.S. administration poses a threat to the outlook, but the odds of a global trade war are low. Time-lags in implementing policy mean that the fiscal plans of president-elect Trump will boost U.S. growth in 2018 more than 2017. This raises the risk of an overheated economy in 2018 leading to a monetary squeeze and recession in 2019. They key issue will be whether the supply side of the economy expands alongside increased demand and it will be critical to monitor business capital spending. Lingering structural problems will prevent any growth acceleration outside the U.S. The euro area and emerging economies are still in the midst of a deleveraging cycle and demographics remain a headwind for Japan. Not many countries will follow the U.S. example of fiscal stimulus. Nevertheless, for the first time since the recovery began, global growth forecasts are likely to avoid a downgrade over the next couple of years. China remains an unbalanced and fragile economy but the authorities have enough policy flexibility to avoid a hard landing, at least over the year or two. The longer-run outlook is more bearish unless the government moves away from its stop-go policy approach and pursues more supply-side reforms. Inflation has bottomed in the U.S., but the upturn will be gradual in 2017 and it will stay subdued in the euro area and Japan. Divergences in monetary policy between the U.S. and other developed economies will continue to build in 2017 as the Fed tightens and other central banks stay on hold. Unlike a year ago, the Fed's rate expectations look reasonable. Bond yields in the U.S. may fall in the near run after their recent sharp rise, but the cyclical trend is up against a backdrop of monetary tightening, fiscal stimulus and rising inflation. Yields in the euro area will be held down by ongoing QE, while the 10-year yield will stay capped at zero in Japan. The secular bull market in bonds is over although yields could retest their recent lows in the next downturn. The search for yield will remain an important investment theme, but rich valuations dictate only a neutral weighting in investment-grade corporate bonds and a modest underweight in high-yielders. The U.S. equity market is modestly overvalued but the conditions are ripe for an overshoot in 2017 given optimism about a boost to profits from the new administration's policies. Earnings expectations are far too high and ignore the likelihood that rising labor costs will squeeze margins. Nevertheless, that need not preclude equity prices moving higher. There is a good chance of a sell-off in early 2017 and that would be a buying opportunity. Valuations are better in Japan and several European markets than in the U.S. and relative monetary conditions also favor these markets. We expect the U.S. to underperform in 2017. We expect emerging markets to underperform developed markets. The oil price should average around $55 a barrel over the next one or two years, with some risk to the upside. Although shale production should increase, the cutbacks in oil industry capital spending and planned production cuts by OPEC and some other producers will ensure that inventories will have to be drawn down in the second half of 2017. Non-oil commodity prices will stay in a trading range after healthy gains in 2016, but the long-run outlook is still bearish. The dollar bull market should stay intact over the coming year with the trade-weighted index rising by around 5%. Relative policy stances and economic trends should all stay supportive of the dollar. The outlook for the yen is especially gloomy. A stabilization in resource prices will keep commodity prices in a range. We remain bearish on EM currencies. The biggest geopolitical risks relate to U.S.-China relations, especially given president-elect Trump's inclination to engage in China-bashing. Meanwhile, the defeat of ISIS could create a power vacuum in the Middle East that could draw Turkey into a disastrous conflict with the Kurds and Iran/Russia. The coming year is important for elections in Europe but we do not expect any serious threat to the EU or single currency to emerge. Let us take this opportunity to wish you and all of our clients a very peaceful, healthy and prosperous New Year. The Editors December 20, 2016

Highlights Theme 1: Secular Stagnation Vs. Trumponomics. A larger deficit will cause Treasury yields to rise in 2017 and, for at least a while, it will appear as though secular stagnation has been conquered. Theme 2: A Cyclical Sweet Spot. Better growth and an accommodative Fed will create a sweet spot for risk assets in the first half of 2017. The Treasury curve will bear-steepen early in the year and transition to a bear-flattening only when long-dated TIPS breakevens reach the 2.4% to 2.5% range. Theme 3: Global Risks Shift From Bond-Bullish To Bond-Bearish. The trade-off between accelerating global growth and a stronger dollar will dictate the pace of next year's rise in Treasury yields. Be on the lookout for bond-bearish surprises from the ECB and BoJ in late 2017. Theme 4: Lingering Policy Uncertainty. Frequent spikes in the Global Economic Policy Uncertainty index are likely next year, probably warranting a policy risk premium in asset prices. The composition of the FOMC is another tail risk that bears monitoring. Theme 5: A Pause In The Default Cycle. Recovery in the energy sector will cause the uptrend in the default rate to reverse in 2017, but poor corporate health and tightening monetary policy will lead to a resumption of the uptrend in 2018 and beyond. Theme 6: The Muni Credit Cycle Starts To Turn. The municipal credit cycle will take a turn for the worse in 2017, and muni downgrades could start to outpace upgrades later in the year. Theme 7: A Rare Opportunity In Leveraged Loans. The rare combination of rising LIBOR and elevated defaults will cause leveraged loans to outperform fixed-rate junk bonds in 2017. Feature In this Special Report, the last U.S. Bond Strategy report of the year, we present seven major investment themes that will drive U.S. fixed income market performance in 2017. Our regular publication schedule will resume on January 10 with the publication of our Portfolio Allocation Summary for January 2017. Theme 1: Secular Stagnation Vs. Trumponomics With 2016 almost in the books, it is clear that Treasury returns will likely be close to zero for the year. The total return from the Bloomberg Barclays U.S. Aggregate index will be only marginally better, in the neighborhood of 1% to 2% (see the Appendix at the end of this report for a detailed summary of U.S. fixed income returns in 2016). But these disappointing returns don't tell the whole story. Up until November 8, the Bloomberg Barclays Treasury and Aggregate indexes had returned 4% and 5% year-to-date, respectively (Chart 1). It was only then that the surprise election of Donald Trump caused investors to question many of the assumptions that had driven yields lower during the past several years. As of today, there is not much daylight between the market's expected path of the federal funds rate and the FOMC's own projections (Chart 2). This means that for below-benchmark duration positions to perform well going forward it is no longer sufficient to call for a convergence between the market's rate expectations and the Fed's dots, as we had been doing since July.1 For Treasury yields to rise going forward we must exit the regime of secular stagnation - one that has been characterized by serial downward revisions to the Fed's interest rate forecasts - and enter a new regime where improving global growth and Trumponomics lead to a series of faster-than-expected rate hikes and upward revisions to the Fed's dots. Chart 1Bond Market Returns In 2016 bca.usbs_sr_2016_12_20_c1 bca.usbs_sr_2016_12_20_c1 Chart 2Market Almost In Line With Fed bca.usbs_sr_2016_12_20_c2 bca.usbs_sr_2016_12_20_c2 What Is Secular Stagnation? For the purposes of the bond market we define secular stagnation based on the observation that in each cycle since 1980 it has required lower real interest rates to achieve the Fed's inflation target (Chart 3). The logical conclusion to be drawn is that the equilibrium real interest rate - the one that is consistent with steady inflation - must be in a secular downtrend. A paper published last year by the Bank of England (BoE),2 and discussed in detail by our own Bank Credit Analyst last February,3 identifies the drivers of this long-run decline in the equilibrium real rate and ranks them in order of importance. Chart 3This Is What Secular Stagnation Looks Like bca.usbs_sr_2016_12_20_c3 bca.usbs_sr_2016_12_20_c3 One key finding from the BoE's research is that expectations for lower trend growth account for only 100 bps of the 450 bps decline in global real yields since the mid-1980s. Increases in desired savings and decreases in desired investment for a given level of global growth account for the bulk of the decline (300 bps), while 50 bps of the decline remains unexplained (Table 1). Table 1The Drivers Of Secular Stagnation Seven Fixed Income Themes For 2017 Seven Fixed Income Themes For 2017 The most important factors identified in the paper include: Demographics: A lower dependency ratio (the non-working age population relative to the working age population) is associated with an increased desire to save. Inequality: The bulk of income gains during the past 35 years have accrued to the richest tiers of the population, the group that is most inclined to save rather than spend. EM Savings Glut: Since the 1990s many emerging market countries have increased foreign exchange reserves to guard against capital outflows, representing an extra source of demand for safe assets. Falling Capital Goods Prices: The relative price of capital goods has fallen about 30% since the 1980s. This means that less savings are required to undertake the same amount of investment. Less Public Investment: The reluctance of governments to pursue large-scale public investment projects has contributed an additional 20 bps of downside to global real yields. Spread Between Cost of Capital & Risk Free Rate: The expected cost of capital (measured using bank credit spreads, corporate bond spreads and the equity risk premium) has not fallen as much as the risk free rate during the past 30 years. This has made investment less sensitive to changes in the risk-free rate. Is Trumponomics The Solution? Can a Donald Trump presidency actually change any of these long-run factors? It is conceivable that fiscal policies focused on spurring capital investment could enhance the outlook for productivity growth and reverse some of the decline in potential GDP growth expectations. However, lower potential GDP growth expectations have also been driven by slower labor force growth, a trend that fiscal policy is powerless to address. On the plus side, the dependency ratio is likely to bottom in the coming years and the increased infrastructure investment that Trump has promised would certainly put upward pressure on rates. It is also possible that the watering-down of certain regulations might bring the cost of capital more in-line with the risk free rate. However, these potentially positive trends need to be weighed against increasingly isolationist trade and immigration policies that will hamper potential GDP growth, as well as proposed tax cuts that disproportionately target the highest income tiers. The latter will only exacerbate the impact of inequality on real yields. What's The Verdict? With so much uncertainty surrounding fiscal policy it is premature to declare the death of secular stagnation. However, secular stagnation will not be the dominant bond market theme in 2017. Amidst all the uncertainty, one thing that seems likely is that a Trump presidency will result in materially higher deficits next year and consequently more Treasury issuance. Chart 4Big Government Only A##br## Problem For Opposition bca.usbs_sr_2016_12_20_c4 bca.usbs_sr_2016_12_20_c4 With one party now in complete control of the Congress it is certain that government spending will increase next year. As our geopolitical strategists have repeatedly pointed out,4 lawmakers are only opposed to higher spending when they are not in power. Survey results show that this is also true of voters (Chart 4). Further, Moody's has estimated a range of outcomes for the federal deficit in 2017 based on how much of Trump's stated campaign agenda is implemented. These estimates range from 4.1% of GDP at the low end to 6% of GDP at the high end. This compares to 3.8% of GDP that was expected under current law.5 The greater supply of Treasury securities next year will offset some of the increased demand stemming from the excess of desired savings relative to investment. This will cause Treasury yields to move higher in 2017 and, for at least a while, it will appear as though the forces of secular stagnation have been conquered. Bottom Line: While Trumponomics will rule in 2017, the forces of secular stagnation are simply dormant and are likely to flare-up again in 2018 and beyond. Theme 2: A Cyclical Sweet Spot In the first half of 2017 the combination of improving economic growth and accommodative monetary policy will create a "sweet spot" for risk assets. The positive environment for risk assets will only end when Fed policy becomes overly restrictive. We expect that restrictive Fed policy will not be an issue until near the end of 2017. Above-Trend Growth Chart 5Contributions To GDP Growth Contributions To GDP Growth Contributions To GDP Growth Even prior to the election, U.S. economic growth appeared poised to accelerate in 2017. The main reason being that some of the factors that restrained growth in 2016 are shifting from headwinds to tailwinds (Chart 5). Consumer spending should continue to be a solid contributor to growth next year, just as in 2016. Surveys of consumer sentiment suggest we should even expect a modest acceleration (Chart 5, panel 1). Residential investment actually contributed negatively to real GDP in Q2 and Q3 of 2016 even though leading indicators remained firm. This drag is bound to reverse (Chart 5, panel 2). Government spending contributed almost nothing to growth in 2016 but is poised to accelerate next year based on trends in public sector employment. This does not even take into account the potential for more stimulative fiscal policy in 2017 (Chart 5, panel 3). Inventories were a large negative contributor to growth this year. History suggests that large inventory drawdowns tend to mean-revert fairly quickly (Chart 5, panel 4). Net exports exerted less of a drag on growth in 2016 than 2015 due to moderation in the pace of exchange rate appreciation. With the dollar still in a bull market, net exports will not be a significant driver of growth in 2017 (Chart 5, bottom panel). Nonresidential investment was also a large drag on growth in 2016 and should return to being a small positive contributor next year. First, most of the drag was related to lower capital spending from the energy sector (Chart 6). Now that oil prices have rebounded this drag will abate. Second, surveys of new orders have remained supportive (Chart 7, panel 1) and industrial production growth has rebounded off its lows (Chart 7, panel 2). The rebound in industrial production growth is also likely related to the recovery in energy prices. Chart 6Contribution To Nonresidential Fixed Investment Spending Seven Fixed Income Themes For 2017 Seven Fixed Income Themes For 2017 Chart 7Will Capex Return In 2017? bca.usbs_sr_2016_12_20_c7 bca.usbs_sr_2016_12_20_c7 The end of the drag from energy alone will be enough to make nonresidential investment a positive contributor to growth next year. The wildcard is that the easier regulatory backdrop under President Trump could unleash the animal spirits of the corporate sector and lead to even larger gains. While this outcome is obviously highly uncertain, there is some evidence that business optimism has already increased. The NFIB small business optimism index shot higher in November (Chart 7, bottom panel) and what's more, the NFIB's Chief Economist Bill Dunkelberg noted that "the November index was basically unchanged from October's reading up to the point of the election and then rose dramatically after the results of the election were known." Accommodative Monetary Policy Even with an improving growth outlook we expect the Fed will be slow to react with a faster pace of rate hikes, opting instead to nurture the recovery in inflation and inflation expectations until they are more firmly anchored around its target. With core PCE inflation still running at 1.7% - below the Fed's 2% target - and the 5-year/5-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate currently at 1.86% - well below the level of 2.4% to 2.5% consistent with the Fed's inflation target - there is no rush for the Fed to send a message that it will move aggressively to snuff out incipient inflationary pressures (Chart 8). Instead, the Fed will continue to send the message that there is no need to be aggressive given the downside risks, and will continue to be sensitive to any negative market response to more restrictive monetary policy. In other words, the "Fed put" is still in place. If risk assets start to sell off due to perceptions of overly restrictive monetary policy, the Fed will be quick to adopt a more dovish posture. The Fed will react in this manner at least until long-dated TIPS breakevens are firmly anchored in the range of 2.4% to 2.5%. It is only at that point that the Fed will be less concerned about negative market reactions to Fed tightening and more concerned with battling inflation. Further, it will take at least until the second half of next year for long-dated TIPS breakevens to return to target. This is because they will be held back by the slow uptrend in actual core inflation. The sensitivity of long-dated TIPS breakevens to core inflation has increased since the financial crisis (Chart 9). We posit that this is due to the zero-lower-bound on the fed funds rate. Prior to the financial crisis, with the fed funds rate well above zero, in the event of a deflationary shock investors would reasonably expect the Fed to offset that shock by easing policy. As such, the deflationary shock had a limited impact on long-dated breakevens. But when the fed funds rate is constrained at the zero-bound, there is reason to question whether the Fed can respond to a deflationary shock as in the past. Given the proximity of the fed funds rate to zero, realized inflation will be a much stronger determinant of long-dated breakevens in the current cycle. Chart 8Inflation Still Needs To Rise bca.usbs_sr_2016_12_20_c8 bca.usbs_sr_2016_12_20_c8 Chart 9Recovery In Breakevens Will Moderate bca.usbs_sr_2016_12_20_c9 bca.usbs_sr_2016_12_20_c9 Inflation Will Move Higher, But Only Slowly Inflation will continue to march higher in 2017, driven by a tight labor market and upward pressure on wage growth. With the unemployment rate already at 4.6% even modest employment gains can lead to exponential increases in wage growth (Chart 10). However, the pass-through from wage growth to overall price inflation is likely to be muted. Shelter, the largest component of core CPI, is mostly determined by rental vacancies which appear to be stabilizing just as market rents are rolling over. Our model suggests that shelter will not drive inflation higher in 2017 (Chart 11, panel 1). Core goods inflation (25% of core CPI) will also remain very low. This component of inflation is most tightly correlated with the trade-weighted dollar (Chart 11, panel 2), and so will stay depressed as long as the bull market in the dollar remains intact. Chart 10Wage Growth & Unemployment Seven Fixed Income Themes For 2017 Seven Fixed Income Themes For 2017 Chart 11Core Inflation By Component bca.usbs_sr_2016_12_20_c11 bca.usbs_sr_2016_12_20_c11 Historically, wage growth is most tightly correlated with service sector inflation excluding shelter and medical care (Chart 11, bottom panel). This component, which accounts for 25% of core CPI, is where we expect the marginal change in inflation will come from. We expect that the current uptrend in core inflation will remain intact next year, but core PCE will not converge with the Fed's 2% target until late-2017. Investment Implications The combination of better economic growth and accommodative Fed policy is a fertile environment for risk assets, and we expect spread product will perform well in the first half of next year. At the moment, however, we advocate only a neutral allocation to investment grade corporate bonds and an underweight allocation to high-yield based on poor valuation (see Theme 5). Given the positive economic back-drop we will be quick to increase exposure if spreads widen in the near term. Long-dated TIPS breakevens will also continue to widen until they reach the 2.4% to 2.5% range that is consistent with the Fed's inflation target. As such, we remain overweight TIPS relative to nominal Treasury yields, even though the uptrend in breakevens is likely to moderate in the months ahead. We will likely downgrade TIPS in 2017, once long-dated breakevens reach our target in the second half of the year. The cyclical sweet spot of better growth and an easy Fed also means that the Treasury curve is likely to bear-steepen in the New Year. Historically, excluding periods when the Fed is cutting rates, the 2/10 Treasury curve tends to steepen when TIPS breakevens rise and flatten when they fall (Chart 12). Further, after last week's Fed meeting the 5-year bullet now looks very cheap on the curve (Chart 13). Chart 12Wider Breakevens Correlated With A Steeper Yield Curve Seven Fixed Income Themes For 2017 Seven Fixed Income Themes For 2017 Chart 13The 5-year Bullet Is Cheap On The Curve bca.usbs_sr_2016_12_20_c13 bca.usbs_sr_2016_12_20_c13 We expect Treasury curve steepening to persist next year until TIPS breakevens normalize near our target. At that point the bear-steepening curve environment will shift to a bear-flattening one. Investors should buy the 5-year bullet and sell a duration-matched 2/10 barbell to profit from curve steepening in the first half of next year and to take advantage of the cheapness of the 5-year bullet. Bottom Line: The combination of better economic growth and an accommodative Fed will create a sweet spot for risk assets in the first half of 2017. The Treasury curve will bear-steepen and TIPS breakevens will continue to rise. Curve bear-steepening will transition to bear-flattening once long-dated TIPS breakevens level-off in the 2.4% to 2.5% range. Theme 3: Global Risks Shift From Bond-Bullish To Bond-Bearish Alongside secular stagnation, the most important theme driving U.S. bond markets during the past several years has been the divergence in growth between the U.S. and the rest of the world. We have repeatedly pointed out that these global growth divergences have led to upward pressure on the dollar, and that a strong dollar necessarily limits the amount of monetary tightening that can be achieved through higher interest rates. The strong dollar thus serves as a cap on long-dated Treasury yields. This theme will remain very much intact for most of 2017, but will probably be less potent than in prior years. Our Global LEI diffusion index - a measure of global growth divergences - has moved firmly into positive territory. This makes it unlikely that we will see another dollar appreciation of the scale witnessed in 2014/15 (Chart 14). The fact that the U.S. is still leading the way in terms of growth means the bull market in the dollar will stay in place, but the appreciation will be less potent going forward. Still, from the perspective of Treasury yields, it will be important to monitor the trade-off between accelerating global growth on the one hand and a stronger dollar on the other. One tool we have devised to help guide us in this respect is our 2-factor Global PMI model (Chart 15). This is a model of the 10-year Treasury yield based on global PMI and bullish sentiment toward the U.S. dollar. A stronger global PMI puts upward pressure on the 10-year Treasury yield while, for a given level of global growth, an increase in bullish sentiment toward the dollar pressures the 10-year yield lower. Chart 14Global Growth Divergences ##br##Less Pronounced bca.usbs_sr_2016_12_20_c14 bca.usbs_sr_2016_12_20_c14 Chart 152-Factor Global ##br##PMI Model bca.usbs_sr_2016_12_20_c15 bca.usbs_sr_2016_12_20_c15 At present, this model tells us that fair value for the 10-year Treasury yield is 2.26%, well below current levels. This is one reason we tactically shifted to a benchmark duration stance on December 6 even though we expect yields to rise next year. Going forward we will continue to use this model to assess whether increasing global growth or a stronger dollar is dominating in terms of the impact on Treasury yields. Chart 16A Bond Bearish Surprise? bca.usbs_sr_2016_12_20_c16 bca.usbs_sr_2016_12_20_c16 Through the mechanism described above, the rest of the world will continue to be a bond-bullish force with respect to U.S. Treasury yields for most of 2017. However, near the end of 2017 it is possible that either the Eurozone or Japan could start to exert upward pressure on U.S. Treasury yields. This could occur if it seems likely that either economic bloc is poised to reach its inflation target and the market starts to discount an end to their extremely accommodative monetary policies. We have highlighted the risks of such events in prior reports, in the context of our Tantrum Theory of Global Bond Yields.6 The unemployment rate in the Eurozone is declining rapidly, but has historically needed to break below 9% before core inflation starts to rise (Chart 16, panels 1 & 2). If the current pace of above-trend growth in Europe is sustained throughout 2017 then higher inflation and the end of the European Central Bank's (ECB) asset purchases could become a risk to global bond markets late next year. However, even minor setbacks in growth would be enough to push this risk out to 2018. In Japan, although inflation is still well below the Bank of Japan's (BoJ) target, yen weakness suggests it should begin to rise (Chart 16, bottom panel). While the BoJ has promised to wait until inflation is above target before abandoning its yield curve peg, it is possible that near the end of next year, if inflation is much higher, the market will start to discount the eventual end of the BoJ's policy and cause global bonds to sell off. For now we would characterize these bond-bearish surprises from the BoJ and/or ECB as tail risks for the global bond market that could flare in late 2017. Bottom Line: The trade-off between accelerating global growth and a stronger dollar will dictate the pace of next year's rise in Treasury yields. Be on the lookout for bond-bearish surprises from the ECB and BoJ in late 2017. Theme 4: Lingering Policy Uncertainty With fiscal policy having the potential to drastically alter the economic landscape and yet with so much still unknown about what will occur, lingering policy uncertainty will undoubtedly be a major theme for fixed income markets in 2017. Historically, the Global Economic Policy Uncertainty index created by Baker, Bloom and Davis7 has been a reliable gauge of these risks and has also tracked asset prices surprisingly well (Chart 17). Recently, the uncertainty index has spiked and asset prices have not responded in kind. This is likely a signal that the spike in uncertainty will quickly reverse, but it could be a signal that asset prices are overly complacent. At the very least the spike in uncertainty highlights the fact that bond markets have been very quick to discount the potentially positive impacts of a Trump presidency, but are at risk if these policies are not delivered. This lack of a "policy risk premium" in fixed income markets is driven home by the reading from our 3-factor Global PMI model (Chart 18). This model adds the Global Economic Policy Uncertainty index to the 2-factor Global PMI model mentioned in the previous section, increasing the explanatory power of the model in the process. At present, the 3-factor model gives a fair value reading of 1.82% for the 10-year Treasury yield. Chart 17Economic Policy Uncertainty & Bond Markets Economic Policy Uncertainty & Bond Markets Economic Policy Uncertainty & Bond Markets Chart 183-Factor Global PMI Model bca.usbs_sr_2016_12_20_c18 bca.usbs_sr_2016_12_20_c18 While the most recent spike in policy uncertainty may reverse before asset prices respond, the volatile nature of the incoming administration means that more frequent spikes of the uncertainty index are likely in 2017. At some point asset prices will probably react. There is another political risk in 2017 that carries extra importance for bond markets. In 2017 President Trump will appoint two new Fed Governors. Also, there is a good chance that Janet Yellen and Stanley Fischer will not be re-appointed as Chair and Vice-Chair respectively when their terms expire in early 2018. Given the pedigrees of Trump's economic advisors, we would expect the newly appointed Governors in 2017 to have hawkish policy leanings. While this will not significantly alter Fed decision making in 2017, since the core members of the Committee will still be in place, there is a risk that the market will anticipate that one of the newly appointed Governors will be Janet Yellen's eventual replacement. If that Governor is hawkish, then there is a risk that the market will start to discount a much more hawkish Fed reaction function as early as next year. This could potentially speed up the transition from a bear-steepening curve environment to a bear-flattening environment, putting spread product at risk earlier than we currently anticipate. The MBS market would also be at risk in this scenario, since any incoming hawkish Fed Governor would be very likely to favor an unwind of the Fed's balance sheet at a much quicker pace than is currently anticipated. We already recommend an underweight allocation to MBS due to low spread levels and a continued recovery in the housing market that will keep net issuance trending higher. A change of leadership at the Fed represents an additional tail risk. Although we think it is premature to say for certain that Chair Yellen and Vice-Chair Fischer won't be re-appointed in 2018, the key risk for next year is that the market anticipates that they will be replaced. Bottom Line: Frequent spikes in the Global Economic Policy Uncertainty index are likely next year, probably warranting a policy risk premium in asset prices. The composition of the FOMC is another tail risk that bears monitoring. Theme 5: A Pause In The Default Cycle The uptrend in the trailing 12-month speculative grade default rate will reverse in 2017, falling from its current 5.6% back closer to 4%. But this will only be a temporary reprieve and the uptrend will resume in 2018 and beyond. Increases in job cut announcements, contractions in corporate profits and tightening C&I lending standards all tend to coincide with a rising default rate (Chart 19). All three of these factors signaled rising defaults last year, but have since rolled over. We have often drawn a comparison between the current default cycle and the default cycles of the mid-1980s and mid-1990s, and this comparison is still apt. Chart 19The Current Default Cycle Is A Hybrid Of the Mid-1980s and Late-1990s bca.usbs_sr_2016_12_20_c19 bca.usbs_sr_2016_12_20_c19 Distress in the energy sector caused a contraction in corporate profits and rising defaults in 1986. But then a sharp easing of Fed policy and a recovery in oil prices caused the uptrend in defaults to reverse. Corporate profit contraction, increasing job cut announcements and tighter lending standards also caused the default rate to trend higher in 1998. This time, however, Fed policy remained restrictive (Chart 19, bottom panel) and banks had no incentive to ease lending standards amidst a back-drop of rising corporate leverage. The default rate continued to trend higher in the late 1990s, and did not peak until the next recession. While the energy price shock and subsequent recovery make the current cycle similar to the 1980s episode, the fact that the Fed is more inclined to hike than cut rates brings to mind the late 1990s. This leads us to believe that the recovery in energy prices will cause the default rate to fall next year. This, along with better economic growth and a relatively accommodative Fed, will keep downward pressure on credit spreads throughout most of 2017. However at some point, likely after TIPS breakevens have recovered to pre-crisis levels, the Fed's tone will turn decidedly more hawkish. This will lead to renewed tightening in lending standards, a resumption of the uptrend in defaults and wider corporate spreads. Despite our optimism about the macro outlook for 2017 we cannot forget that corporate balance sheet health continues to deteriorate (Chart 20). Our Corporate Health Monitor has been in 'deteriorating health' territory since 2013, and although corporate spreads have tightened since February they have yet to regain their 2014 lows. Additionally, net leverage for the nonfinancial corporate sector - defined as outstanding debt less cash on hand as a percent of EBITDA - is still trending higher (Chart 20, bottom panel). The only other period since 1973 when corporate spreads narrowed as net leverage increased was following the oil price crash and default spike of 1986. In that period spreads remained under downward pressure for approximately two years but never regained their prior lows. Spreads also benefitted from Fed rate cuts and a weakening dollar during that timeframe. In our view, the best way to play the corporate bond market in the current cycle is to maintain a cautious long-term bias but to look for attractive opportunities to initiate overweight positions. At the moment, we are actively looking to upgrade our allocation to corporate bonds but need a more attractive entry point first. At 405 bps, the average spread on the Bloomberg Barclays High-Yield index is only 65 bps above the average level observed in the 2004 to 2006 period when our Corporate Health Monitor was deep in 'improving health' territory. Not surprisingly, the spread appears even lower after adjusting for expected default losses (Chart 21). Chart 20Corporate Balance Sheets Continue To Add Leverage Corporate Balance Sheets Continue To Add Leverage Corporate Balance Sheets Continue To Add Leverage Chart 21Corporate Bond Valuation Corporate Bond Valuation Corporate Bond Valuation The default-adjusted high-yield spread is our preferred valuation measure for high-yield and investment grade corporate bonds alike. As is shown in Charts 22 and 23, the current default-adjusted spread of 162 bps is consistent with negative excess returns for both investment grade and high-yield bonds, on average, over a 12-month investment horizon. Chart 2212-Month Excess High-Yield Returns Vs.##br## Ex-Ante Default-Adjusted Spread (2002 - Present) Seven Fixed Income Themes For 2017 Seven Fixed Income Themes For 2017 Chart 2312-Month Excess Investment Grade Returns Vs.##br## Ex-Ante Default-Adjusted Spread (2002 - Present) Seven Fixed Income Themes For 2017 Seven Fixed Income Themes For 2017 However, this average negative excess return is heavily influenced by a few periods when excess returns were deeply negative. A more detailed examination, shown in Tables 2 & 3, reveals that when the default-adjusted spread is between 150 bps and 200 bps, 12-month excess returns for high-yield have been positive 65% of the time. Investment grade excess returns have been positive only 35% of the time with spreads at current levels, but have been positive 55% of the time when the default-adjusted spread is between 100 bps and 150 bps. Table 212-Month High-Yield Excess Returns & Ex-Ante Default-Adjusted Spread Seven Fixed Income Themes For 2017 Seven Fixed Income Themes For 2017 Table 312-Month Investment Grade Excess Returns & Ex-Ante Default-Adjusted Spread Seven Fixed Income Themes For 2017 Seven Fixed Income Themes For 2017 Given our optimistic assessment of the macro back-drop, we conclude that excess returns for both investment grade and high-yield corporate bonds are likely to be positive, but very low, during the next 12 months. But we will continue to look for opportunities to upgrade our allocation to spread product from more attractive levels. Bottom Line: The improving macro back-drop means that the default rate will move lower in 2017. However, the poor state of corporate balance sheets means that the default rate will likely resume its uptrend in 2018, once Fed policy turns decidedly more hawkish. Theme 6: The Muni Credit Cycle Starts To Turn Back in October, we published a Special Report 8 wherein we observed that Municipal / Treasury (M/T) yield ratios tend to fluctuate in long-run cycles determined by ratings downgrades and net borrowing at the state & local government level. That is, there exists a municipal bond credit cycle much in the same way that there exists a corporate credit cycle. Additionally, we introduced a Municipal Health Monitor - a composite indicator of the health of state & local government finances - to help us assess the stage of the municipal credit cycle and observed that it has tended to follow our Corporate Health Monitor with a lag of approximately two years (Chart 24). Chart 24The Municipal Credit Cycle Lags The Corporate Cycle bca.usbs_sr_2016_12_20_c24 bca.usbs_sr_2016_12_20_c24 This analysis leads us to believe that our Municipal Health Monitor will move into 'deteriorating health' territory at some point during 2017 and that municipal bond downgrades could start to outpace upgrades late next year. As such, we adopt a cautious stance with respect to the municipal bond market, not least of which because of the potentially negative impact on the market from a Donald Trump presidency. Lower tax rates next year will certainly undermine the tax advantage of municipal debt, while the potential for increased infrastructure spending could lead to a sizeable increase in municipal bond supply. Historically, most public investment has been financed at the state & local government level, and while Trump's current infrastructure plan relies entirely on incentives for private sector investment, these details could change before any plan is implemented. By far the largest risk to the municipal bond market would be if the municipal tax exemption is done away with entirely in the context of broader tax reform, but this now appears unlikely. Even in the absence of a federal government initiative we would not rule out increased state & local government investment next year. State & local government finances have made substantial progress since the crisis and many states are now in a position where they may start to loosen the purse strings (Chart 25). This poses an upside risk to muni supply in 2017. Of course, we have already seen large fund outflows in response to Trump's election victory. ICI data show that net outflows from municipal bond funds have totaled $14.86 billion since the end of October, and while M/T yield ratios have risen, they remain near the middle of their post-crisis trading ranges (Chart 26). Chart 25Healthy Enough To Invest bca.usbs_sr_2016_12_20_c25 bca.usbs_sr_2016_12_20_c25 Chart 26Municipal / Treasury Yield Ratios bca.usbs_sr_2016_12_20_c26 bca.usbs_sr_2016_12_20_c26 We will continue to look for opportunities to upgrade municipal bonds when the reading from our tactical Muni model turns more positive (Chart 27). This model- based on policy uncertainty, issuance, fund flows and ratings migration - shows that M/T yield ratios are not yet attractive. This is true even if we assume that last month's spike in policy uncertainty is completely reversed. This model has a strong track record of predicting Muni excess returns since 2010 (Table 4). Chart 27Tactical Muni Model Tactical Muni Model Tactical Muni Model Table 4Municipal Bond Excess Returns* Based On Fair Value Model** Residual: 2010 - 2016 Seven Fixed Income Themes For 2017 Seven Fixed Income Themes For 2017 Bottom Line: The municipal credit cycle will take a turn for the worse in 2017, and muni downgrades could start to outpace upgrades later in the year. Remain underweight for now, but look for near-term tactical buying opportunities in municipal bonds. Theme 7: A Rare Opportunity In Leveraged Loans Chart 28Leveraged Loans Will Outperform In 2017 Leveraged Loans Will Outperform In 2017 Leveraged Loans Will Outperform In 2017 Our final theme for 2017 relates to the potential for floating rate leveraged loans to outperform fixed rate high-yield bonds. Historically, these periods of outperformance have been few and far between. There have only been two periods since 1991 when loans have outperformed bonds for any length of time (Chart 28). However, we believe that the conditions are in place for loans to outperform fixed-rate junk in 2017. There are two factors that can potentially cause leveraged loans to outperform fixed-rate junk. The first is rising LIBOR, which causes loan coupon payments to reset higher. While there is some concern that LIBOR floors prevent loans from benefitting from higher LIBOR, most loans have LIBOR floors of 75 bps or 100 bps. With 3-month LIBOR already at 99 bps, LIBOR floors will not be a constraint for much longer. The second factor that could cause loans to outperform bonds is an elevated default rate. Since loans are higher-up in the capital structure than bonds, they benefit from higher recovery rates. This matters more in terms of relative performance when the default rate is high. It is highly unusual for elevated defaults and rising LIBOR to coincide. This is because the Fed is typically cutting rates when the default rate is rising. However, next year, much like in the late 1990s, both conditions are likely to be in place. Bottom Line: The rare combination of rising LIBOR and elevated defaults will cause leveraged loans to outperform fixed-rate junk bonds in 2017. Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Global Fixed Income Strategy / U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Six Reasons To Tactically Reduce Duration Exposure Now", dated July 19, 2016, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 Lukasz Rachel & Thomas D. Smith, "Secular Drivers of the Global Real Interest Rate (Staff Working Paper No. 571)", Bank of England, December 2015. 3 Please see Bank Credit Analyst Special Report, "Secular Stagnation And The Medium-Term Outlook For Bonds", dated February 25, 2016, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "U.S. Election: Outcomes & Investment Implications", dated November 9, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com 5 Mark Zandi, Chris Lafakis, Dan White and Adam Ozimek, "The Macroeconomic Consequences of Mr. Trump's Economic Policies", Moody's Analytics, June 2016. 6 Please U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, "The Tantrum Theory Of Global Bond Yields", dated August 16, 2016, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 7 For further details on the construction of this index please see www.policyuncertainty.com 8 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, "Trading The Municipal Credit Cycle", dated October 18, 2016, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Appendix: U.S. Bond Market 2016 Risk/Return Summary Chart A-1U.S. Bond Returns In Historical Context U.S. Bond Returns In Historical Context U.S. Bond Returns In Historical Context Chart A-22016 Total Returns Versus Volatility Seven Fixed Income Themes For 2017 Seven Fixed Income Themes For 2017 Chart A-32016 Vol-Adjusted Total Returns Seven Fixed Income Themes For 2017 Seven Fixed Income Themes For 2017 Chart A-42016 Excess Returns Versus Volatility Seven Fixed Income Themes For 2017 Seven Fixed Income Themes For 2017 Chart A-52016 Vol-Adjusted Excess Returns Seven Fixed Income Themes For 2017 Seven Fixed Income Themes For 2017 Chart A-62016 Corporate Sector Excess Returns Versus Duration-Times-Spread Seven Fixed Income Themes For 2017 Seven Fixed Income Themes For 2017 Chart A-7The Performance Of Our Corporate Sector Model In 2016 Seven Fixed Income Themes For 2017 Seven Fixed Income Themes For 2017

Highlights Dear Clients, Please note that this will be our final Weekly Report for the year. We will resume our regular publishing schedule on January 3, 2017. The U.S. Investment Strategy team wishes you a restful holiday season and a prosperous New Year. Chart 1Trump + Yellen Trump + Yellen Trump + Yellen Recent bond market moves are soft echoes of the 1994 bond bear market, when investors suddenly began to price in a much less benign outlook for the Fed. There are mitigating factors that mean the current bond selloff will not be as violent. But the normalization of policy rates is no longer a challenge for the distant future. This process was always going to be fraught with risk, given the unprecedented amount of accommodation (conventional and unconventional) employed after the Great Recession. Even a mild version of 1994 could undermine equity returns. Indeed, the risk is that investors have pulled forward profit growth expectations due to anticipated fiscal stimulus (that may disappoint) at a time when domestic monetary conditions are tightening. Feature It was no surprise that the FOMC raised the Fed funds rate by 25bps at last week's meeting. But investors were caught off-guard by the move higher in the Fed's "dot" forecast. Instead of two more hikes next year, the Fed now expects to raise rates three times. Moreover, the Fed inched up its estimate of the terminal interest rate to 3.0% from 2.875%. These revisions to the path of interest rates did not occur with any material changes to the Fed's economic projections. During the post-meeting press conference, Fed Chair Janet Yellen downplayed the "dot" revisions, by noting that the median projections moved due to changes by only some Fed participants. But despite Yellen's soothing remarks, the financial markets did not interpret the revisions to be minor. The dollar strengthened by nearly 2%, and 10-year bond yields spiked by 20bps (Chart 1). These market moves are soft echoes of the 1994 bond bear market - when investors suddenly began to price in a much less benign outlook for the Fed. Investors will note that in that cycle, the Fed's extended on hold period in 1993 had lulled bond investors into a false sense of complacency; investors were almost completely caught off-guard when tightening began in early February 1994 (Chart 2 and Chart 3). At the end of 1993, the market projected that the 3-month rate, the 10-year and the 30-year yield would be 4.3%, 6.2% and 6.5%, respectively, by the end of 1994. The actual yields at the end of 1994 turned out to be more than 130 basis points higher at 5.6%, 7.8% and 7.85%. From the trough in yields in September 1993 to the peak in November 1994, the Treasury index lost 5%. High-grade spread product, such as Agencies, MBS and investment-grade corporate bonds also suffered losses. The S&P 500 fell by about 9% in early 1994. Economic improvement was the main factor for the re-pricing of the Fed funds rate in 1994 (Chart 4). In the first half of the year, the unemployment rate declined 0.5% (from 6.6% to 6.1%) and monthly average payrolls were above 320,000! As the economy gained self-feeding momentum, the Fed steadily hiked interest rates, causing Treasuries and spread product to buckle. In fact, inflation did not go up but bond yields kept rising and the U.S. economy remained robust. The Mexican financial crisis in late 1994/early 1995, directly stemming from Fed tightening, marked the end of the Treasury bear and Fed restraint. Chart 21993 Complacency, 1994 Panic bca.usis_wr_2016_12_19_c2 bca.usis_wr_2016_12_19_c2 Chart 3Bond Market Is Still Behind bca.usis_wr_2016_12_19_c3 bca.usis_wr_2016_12_19_c3 Chart 41994 Economic Acceleration Fueled The Bond Bear bca.usis_wr_2016_12_19_c4 bca.usis_wr_2016_12_19_c4 All of this bears some resemblance to current conditions, albeit the level of growth today is much lower. Like early 1994, the economy now appears on the cusp of full employment (Chart 5). Most forecasters (including BCA) expect that growth will shift to an above-trend pace for at least a few quarters. And indeed, the debate has already shifted from deflation to the potential for inflation. To be sure, as we wrote last week, it takes a long time to change a prevailing mindset about inflation or deflation and it is unlikely that the Fed will find itself in a position to aggressively tighten against an inflation breakout over the next twelve months. But if GDP growth bucks the pattern of recent years in which first quarter growth disappointed expectations, then bond investors could begin to look for the exits more fervently. What is different this cycle than in 1994? For one thing, the Fed's communication strategy has drastically changed. Since 2012, the Fed has been publishing the "dot plot," a set of FOMC projections for inflation, GDP and the projected policy path. These projections serve as forward guidance about policy intent and in theory, should help smooth out any changes in market participants' expectations about the Fed's policy path and reduce the likelihood of overshoots in expectations. In addition, it seems likely that bonds are now more concentrated in "strong hands." One of the major concerns in 1994 was that retail investors, i.e. the household sector, piled into bonds at precisely the wrong time: throughout the 1980s, bond returns only marginally trailed that of equities and with far less volatility, lulling retail investors into believe bonds couldn't lose them money. Today, according to the BIS,2 around 40% of U.S. Treasuries are owned by the Federal Reserve and the foreign official sector. In addition, the BIS also posits that it is possible that pension funds (the third largest holders of Treasuries) and insurance companies may even benefit from rising rates in the medium term, as a normalized yield environment would allow them to more easily meet promised returns. This composition of ownership, in particular the Fed and foreign official investors - who are non-profit seeking entities, will not be forced to sell into a bear market. Chart 5On The Cusp Of Full Employment bca.usis_wr_2016_12_19_c5 bca.usis_wr_2016_12_19_c5 True, corporate bonds are now more heavily concentrated in the hands of private investors who seek yield and total return. The prospective price volatility of these securities may be much higher than an entire generation of fixed income investors' experience has taught them to expect. Finally, the U.S. dollar traded sideways from 1990-1993, and fell throughout 1994, which is very different from today. Currently, the policy feedback loop limits the degree to which the Fed can ultimately raise interest rates. This loop has been in place since last year: each hawkish move from the Fed has been met by a sharp upward adjustment in the trade-weighted dollar and a selloff in equities and credit spreads. Tighter-than-expected financial conditions have then forced the Fed to lower its outlook for future economic growth and adopt a more dovish policy stance. A more dovish Fed then caused financial conditions to ease and the dollar to fall, and this easing eventually emboldened Fed policymakers to move in a more hawkish direction. The loop then repeats. The reason this loop has been in place is because U.S. monetary policy is so far in advance of other central banks. Overall, there are mitigating factors that suggest that the current bond selloff will not be as violent as 1994. But the normalization of policy rates is no longer a challenge for the distant future. As expectations of economic growth improve, a re-pricing of Fed interest rate hike expectations will persist. This process was always going to be fraught with risk, given the unprecedented amount of accommodation (conventional and unconventional) employed after the Great Recession. We expect that bond selloffs over the next year will happen in fits and starts, as the feedback loop from the bond market and dollar to policy decisions repeats. The move in Treasury yields since mid-November has proceeded too quickly relative to the improvement in economic fundamentals and will pause in the near term to prevent financial conditions from exerting an excessive drag on growth. However, we believe short duration positions will make money on a 2-3 year horizon. How Will Equities Cope? Apart from the 1994 episode, there have been three other major Fed tightening cycles since 1985 (Chart 6). In each case, the 10-year Treasury suffered an almost 10% or more annual loss, either following or just before short-term rates began their ascent. Investors underestimated the pace and extent of rate hikes every time and equity prices also faltered, at least temporarily. This was the case even when the Fed telegraphed a modest and steady 25 basis point-per-meeting pace of rate hikes from 2003 to 2006. The point is that even a mild version of 1994 could undermine equity returns. Indeed, the risk is that investors have pulled forward profit growth expectations due to anticipated fiscal stimulus (that may disappoint) at a time when domestic monetary conditions are tightening. Earnings-per-share growth is significantly lower today than in 1993, and the gap between trailing earnings growth and 12-month forward expectations is wide. This suggests that there is a greater risk of earnings disappointment than was the case in the early 1990s. Meanwhile, valuation is poor (Chart 6, bottom panel). Still, we concede that sentiment and technical indicators continue to favor near-term equity gains (Chart 7). Neither our technical nor our intermediate indicator is signalling danger (although both have rolled over). Only our monetary indicator is flashing a warning. The risk is that the longer the uptrend in stocks continues without interruption, the greater the payback will be should economic performance disappoint. Chart 6Fed Re-Entry Is Historically Tough bca.usis_wr_2016_12_19_c6 bca.usis_wr_2016_12_19_c6 Chart 7An Expensive And Risky Rally bca.usis_wr_2016_12_19_c7 bca.usis_wr_2016_12_19_c7 Animal Spirits Revival? In our view, the most notable development for the U.S. economy in recent weeks has been the impressive swing in confidence since the election in November. If sustained, the rise in confidence could propel growth to an above-trend pace as "animal spirits" are unleashed. We take this possibility seriously, since depressed confidence in the outlook was an important force capping the upside in growth earlier in the recovery. Nonetheless, this is not our base case, since we continue to believe that it is perilous to focus solely on the positive aspects of Trump's political agenda, while ignoring the more negative ones. This phenomenon seems to be borne out in the NFIB survey data. Although still low relative to past recoveries, optimism among small business owners improved drastically last month, according to the NFIB survey (Chart 8). The improvement was broad-based, showing gain in sales expectations, expansion plans and hiring intentions. But as the NFIB's chief economist pointed out, this surge in optimism is mainly due to businesses reacting favorably to Trump's platform of tax cuts and less regulation. In any case, the recent improvement in consumer confidence has not noticeably translated to improved consumer spending yet. Nominal retail sales eked out a tiny 0.1% m/m gain in November and the October data were revised lower. As we highlighted in a previous report, massive price discounting continues to be a factor pushing down nominal spending. Indeed, despite the potential for an upturn in inflation on the back of unconfirmed Trump policies, the current pricing environment remains tough. Core CPI rose only 0.2% in November, and the annual growth rate - at 2.1% - is lower than at the start of the year. Our diffusion index is below 50, meaning that more sub-components of the CPI are decelerating than accelerating (Chart 9). Chart 8Optimism Returning bca.usis_wr_2016_12_19_c8 bca.usis_wr_2016_12_19_c8 Chart 9Consumers Are Confident, Will They Spend? bca.usis_wr_2016_12_19_c9 bca.usis_wr_2016_12_19_c9 The overall message is that economic data continue to display a "two steps forward, one step backward" pattern. We expect growth momentum to gradually build and the economy can grow above trend next year. However, even once the output gap closes, it can take a long time for inflation pressures to build and for inflation expectations to move higher. Ultimately, this dynamic means that the Fed will have the scope to proceed slowly. Lenka Martinek, Vice President U.S. Investment Strategy lenka@bcaresearch.com 1 This week's report is greatly inspired by our Special Report, "Reincarnation And Bond Vigilantes," February 5, 2013. 2 "A Paradigm Shift In Markets?," Bank For International Settlements (BIS), December 11, 2016 http://www.bis.org/publ/qtrpdf/r_qt1612a.htm Appendix Monthly Asset Allocation Model Update Our Asset Allocation (AA) model provides an objective assessment of the outlook for relative returns across equities, Treasuries and cash. It combines valuation, cyclical, monetary and technical indicators. The model was constructed as a capital preservation tool, and has historically outperformed the benchmark in large part by avoiding major equity bear markets. Please note that our official cyclical asset allocation recommendations deviate at times from the model's recommendation. The model is just one input to our decision process. The model's recommended weightings for the major asset classes are unchanged: neutral equity exposure at 60% (benchmark 60%), slightly overweight Treasury allocation at 40% (benchmark 30%) and underweight cash at 0% (benchmark 10%). The diffusion index of the three components for The Equity Model remained neutral and in line with our benchmark portfolio recommendation for equities. The technical component retained its "buy" signal, with some improvements in the momentum and breadth & trend indicators. The monetary component, though less bullish for equities as it continued to weaken somewhat, is still in favorable territory for equities. However, on the cyclical front, the earnings-driven component continues to warrant caution as real operating earnings are at a significant distance from positive economic expectations. Earnings momentum has also further deteriorated, based on an earnings diffusion index which compares nominal earnings growth relative to four economic and monetary variables such as oil prices (WTI), ISM Inventories, 10-year Treasury yields and 3-month T-bill rates. Our qualitative stance for the allocation of Treasuries in balanced portfolios is neutral (since November 7, 2016) in contrast to the slightly overweight recommendation from our quantitative model. However the "buy signals" of the cyclical and technical components of the bond model have weakened, nearing critical levels which would surrender the preference for Treasuries in the near term. Chart 10Portfolio Total Returns Portfolio Total Returns Portfolio Total Returns Chart 11Current Model Recommendations Current Model Recommendations Current Model Recommendations Note: The asset allocation model is not necessarily consistent with the weighting recommendations of the Cyclical Investment Stance. For further information, please see our Special Report "Presenting Our U.S. Asset Allocation Model", February 6, 2009.

Recommendation Allocation Quarterly - December 2016 Quarterly - December 2016 Highlights Growth was picking up before the election of President Trump. His election merely accelerates the rotation from monetary to fiscal policy. This is likely to cause yields to rise, the Fed to tighten and the dollar to strengthen further. That will be negative for bonds, commodities and emerging market assets, and equivocal for equities. Short term, markets have overshot and a correction is likely. But the 12-month picture (higher growth and inflation) suggests risk assets such as equities will outperform. Our recommendations mostly have cyclical tilts. We are overweight credit versus government bonds, underweight duration and, in equity sectors, overweight energy, industrials and IT (and healthcare for structural reasons). Among alts, we prefer real estate and private equity over hedge funds and structured products. We limit beta through overweights (in common currency terms) on U.S. equities versus Europe and emerging markets. We also have a (currency-hedged) overweight on Japanese stocks. Feature Overview A Shift To Reflation The next 12 months are likely to see stronger economic growth, particularly in the U.S., and higher inflation. That will probably lead to higher long-term interest rates, the Fed hiking two or three times in 2017, and further dollar strength. The consequences should be bad for bonds, but mixed for equities - which would benefit from a better earnings outlook, but might see multiples fall because of a higher discount rate. The election of Donald Trump merely accelerates the rotation from monetary policy to fiscal policy that had been emerging globally since the summer. Trump's fiscal plans are still somewhat vague,1 but the OECD estimates they will add 0.4 percentage points to U.S. GDP growth in 2017 and 0.8 points in 2018, and 0.1 and 0.3 points to global growth. Growth was already accelerating before the U.S. presidential election. Global leading indicators have picked up noticeably (Chart 1), and the Q3 U.S. earnings season surprised significantly on the upside, with EPS growth of 3% (versus a pre-results expectation of -2%) - the first YoY growth in 18 months (Chart 2). Chart 1Global Growth Picking Up bca.gaa_qpo_2016_12_15_c1 bca.gaa_qpo_2016_12_15_c1 Chart 2U.S. Earnings Growing Again bca.gaa_qpo_2016_12_15_c2 bca.gaa_qpo_2016_12_15_c2 The problem with the shift to fiscal, then, is that it comes at a time when slack in U.S. economy has already largely disappeared. The Congressional Budget Office estimates the output gap is now only -1.5%, which means it is likely to turn positive in 2017 (Chart 3). Unemployment, at 4.6%, is below NAIRU2 (Chart 4). Historically, the output gap turning positive has sown the seeds of the next recession a couple of years later, as the Fed tightens policy to choke off inflation. Chart 3Output Gap Will Close In 2017 bca.gaa_qpo_2016_12_15_c3 bca.gaa_qpo_2016_12_15_c3 Chart 4Will This Trigger Inflation Pressures? bca.gaa_qpo_2016_12_15_c4 bca.gaa_qpo_2016_12_15_c4 As the Fed signaled at its meeting on December 14, it is likely to raise rates two or three times more in 2017. But we don't see it getting any more hawkish than that. Janet Yellen has made it clear that she will not preempt Trump's fiscal stimulus but rather wait to see it passed by Congress. The market is probably about right in pricing in an 80% probability of two rate hikes in 2017, and a 50% probability of three. With the Atlanta Fed Wage Growth Tracker rising 3.9% YoY and commodity prices (especially energy) starting to add to headline inflation, the Fed clearly wants to head off inflation before it sets in. We do not agree with the argument that the Fed will deliberately allow a "high-pressure economy." The result is likely to be higher long-term rates. The 10-year U.S. yield has already moved a long way (up 100 BP since July), and our model suggests fair value currently is around 2.3% (Chart 5). Short term, then, a correction is quite possible (and would be accompanied by moves in other assets that have overshot since November 9). But stronger global growth and an appreciating dollar over the next 12 months could easily push fair value up to 3% or beyond. The relationship between nominal GDP growth (which is likely to be 4.5-5% in 2017, compared to 2.7% in 1H 2016) and long-term rates implies a rise to a similar level (Chart 6). Accordingly, we recommend investors to be underweight duration and prefer TIPs over nominal bonds. Chart 5U.S. 10-Year At Fair Value U.S. 10-Year At Fair Value U.S. 10-Year At Fair Value Chart 6Rise In Nominal GDP Could Push It Up To 3% Rise In Nominal GDP Could Push It Up To 3% Rise In Nominal GDP Could Push It Up To 3% Global equities, on a risk-adjusted basis, performed roughly in line with sovereign bonds in 2016 - producing a total return of 9.2%, compared to 3.3% for bonds (though global high yield did even better, up 15.1%). If our analysis above is correct, the return on global sovereign bonds over the next 12 months is likely to be close to zero. Chart 7Will Investors Reverse The Move##br## from Equities To Bonds? Will Investors Reverse The Move from Equities To Bonds? Will Investors Reverse The Move from Equities To Bonds? The outlook for equities is not unclouded. Higher rates could dampen growth (note, for example, that 30-year fixed-rate mortgages in the U.S. have risen over the past two months from 3.4% to 4.2%, close to the 10-year average of 4.6%). The U.S. earnings recovery will be capped by the stronger dollar.3 And a series of Fed hikes may lower the PE multiple, already quite elevated by historical standards. Erratic behavior by President Trump and the more market-unfriendly of his policies could raise the risk premium. But we think it likely that equities will produce a decent positive return in this environment. Portfolio rebalancing should help. Since the Global Financial Crisis investors have steadily shifted allocations from equities into bonds (Chart 7). They are likely to reverse that over the coming quarters if bond yields continue to trend up. Accordingly, we moved overweight equities versus bonds in our last Monthly Portfolio Update.4 Our recommended portfolio has mostly pro-cyclical tilts: we are overweight credit versus government bonds, overweight most cyclical equity sectors, and have a preference for risk alternative assets such as real estate and private equity. But our portfolio approach is to pick the best spots for taking risk in order to make a required return. We, therefore, balance this pro-cyclicality by some lower beta stances: we prefer investment grade debt over high yield, and U.S. and Japanese equities over Europe and emerging markets. Garry Evans, Senior Vice President Global Asset Allocation garry@bcaresearch.com What Our Clients Are Asking What Will Trump Do? Trump made several speeches in September with details of his tax plan. He promised to (1) simplify personal income tax, cutting seven brackets to three, with 12%, 25% and 33% tax rates; (2) cut the headline corporate tax rate to 15% (from 35%); and (3) levy a 10% tax on the $3 trillion of corporate retained earnings held offshore. He was less specific on infrastructure spending, but Wilbur Ross, the incoming Commerce Secretary, mentioned $550 billion, principally financed through public-private partnerships. The Tax Policy Center estimates the total cost of the tax plan at $6 trillion (with three-quarters from the business tax cut). But it is not clear how much will be offset by reduced deductions. Incoming Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, for example, said that upper class taxpayers will get no absolute tax cut. TPC estimates the tax plan alone will increase federal debt to GDP by 25 percentage points over the next 10 years (Chart 8). The OECD, assuming stimulus of 0.75% of GDP in 2017 and 1.75% in 2018, estimates that this will raise U.S. GDP growth by 0.4 percentage points next year and by 0.8 points in 2018, with positive knock-on effects on the rest of the world (Chart 9). While there are questions on the timing (and how far Trump will go with trade and immigration measures), BCA's geopolitical strategists sees few constraints on getting these plans passed.5 Republications in Congress like tax cuts (and will compromise on the public spending element) and it is wrong to assume that Republican administrations reduce the fiscal deficit - historically the opposite is true (Chart 10). Chart 8Massive Increase In Debt Quarterly - December 2016 Quarterly - December 2016 Chart 9GDP Impact Of U.S. Fiscal Stimulus Quarterly - December 2016 Quarterly - December 2016 Chart 10A Lot of Stimulus, And Extra Debt bca.gaa_qpo_2016_12_15_c10 bca.gaa_qpo_2016_12_15_c10 Implications for markets? Short term positive for growth and inflation; longer-term a worry because of crowding out from the increased government debt. How Will The Strong USD Impact Global Earnings? We have a strong U.S. dollar view and also favor U.S. equities over the euro area and emerging markets. Some clients question our logic because conceptually a strong USD should benefit earnings growth in the non-U.S. markets, and therefore non-U.S. equities should outperform. Chart 11USD Impact On Global Earnings bca.gaa_qpo_2016_12_15_c11 bca.gaa_qpo_2016_12_15_c11 Currency is just one of the factors that we consider when we make country allocation decisions, and our weights are expressed in USD terms unhedged. We will hedge a currency only when we have very high conviction, such as our current Japan overweight with a yen hedge, which is based on our belief that the BOJ will pursue more unconventional policies to stimulate the economy. This is undoubtedly yen bearish but positive for Japanese stocks. As shown in Chart 11, a stronger USD has tended to weaken U.S. earnings growth (panel 1). However, what matters to country allocation is relative earnings growth. Panels 3 and 5 show that in local currency terms, earnings growth in emerging markets and the euro area did not always outpace that in the U.S. when their currencies depreciated against the USD. In fact, when their currencies appreciated, earnings growth in USD terms tended to outpace that in the U.S. (panels 2 and 4), suggesting that the translation impact plays a very important role. This is consistent with what we have found for relative equity market returns (see Global Equity section on page 13). Currency affects revenues and costs in different proportions. If both revenues and costs are in same currency, then only net profit is affected by the currency. But, since many companies manage their forex exposure, at the aggregate level the currency impact will always be "weaker than it should be". What Is The Outlook For Brexit And The Pound? The U.K. shocked the world on 24 June 2016 with its vote to leave the European Union. However, the process and terms of exit are yet to be finalized pending the Supreme Court's decision on the role of parliament in invoking Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty. Depending on this decision, there is a spectrum of possible outcomes for the U.K./EU relationship. At the two ends of the spectrum are: 1) a hard Brexit - complete separation from the EU, in which case the pound will plunge further; 2) a soft Brexit - with a few features of the current relationship retained, in which case the pound will rally. Chart 12What's Up Brexit? What's Up Brexit? What's Up Brexit? The fall in the nominal effective exchange rate to a 200-year low (Chart 12) is a clear indication of the potential serious long-term damage. With the nation's dependence on foreign direct investment (FDI) to finance its large current account deficit (close to 6% of GDP), more populist policies and increased regulation will hurt corporate profitability, making local assets less profitable to foreigners. The pound is currently caught up in a vicious circle of more depreciation, leading to higher inflation expectations and depressed real rates, which adds further selling pressure. This is the likely path of the pound in the case of a hard Brexit. For U.K. equities, under a hard Brexit that adds downward pressure to the pound, investors should favor firms with global revenues (FTSE 100) and underweight firms exposed more to domestic business and a potential recession (FTSE 250). The opposite holds true in the case of a soft Brexit. Investors should also underweight U.K. REITs because of cyclical and structural factors that will affect commercial real estate. In the case of a hard Brexit, structural long-term impacts to the British economy include: 1) a decline in the financial sector - the EU will introduce regulations that will force euro-denominated transactions out of London; 2) a slowdown in FDI - the U.K. will cease to be a platform for global companies to access the EU, triggering a long-term decline in foreign inflows; 3) weaker growth - with EU immigration into the U.K. expected to fall by 90,000 to 150,000 per year, estimates.6 point to a 3.4% to 5.4% drop in per capita GDP by the year 2030. What Industry Group Tilts Do You Recommend? In October 2015, we advocated that, because long-term returns for major asset classes would fall short of ingrained expectations, investors should increase alpha by diving down into the Industry Group level.7 How have these trades fared, and which would we still recommend? Long Household And Personal Products / Short Energy. We closed the trade for a profit of 12.2% in Q12016. This has proven to be quite timely as oil prices, and Energy stocks along with it, have rallied substantially since. Long Insurance / Short Banks. The early gains from this trade reversed in Q2 as long yields have risen rapidly, leading to yield curve steepening. However, our cyclical view is still intact. Relative performance is still holding its relationship with the yield curve (Chart 13). Historically, Fed tightening has almost always led to bear flattening. We expect the same in this cycle, which should lead to Insurance outperformance. Long Health Care Equipment / Short Materials. This trade generated early returns but has since underperformed as Materials bounced back sharply. Nevertheless, we remain bearish on commodities and EM-related plays, viewing this rise in Materials stocks as more of a technical bounce from oversold valuations (Chart 14). Commodities remain in a secular bear market. On health care, we maintain our structural bullish outlook given aging demographics, increased spending on health care and attractive valuations. Short Retail / Global Broad. We initiated trade in January after the Fed initiated liftoff. Consumer Discretionary stocks collapsed after, and this trade has provided a gain of 2.01%. We maintain this view as the recent hike and 2017 hikes will continue to dampen Retail performance (Chart 15). Additionally, Retail has only declined slightly while other Consumer Discretionary stocks have falling drastically, suggesting downside potential from convergence. Chart 13Flatter Yield Curve Is Bullish bca.gaa_qpo_2016_12_15_c13 bca.gaa_qpo_2016_12_15_c13 Chart 14An Oversold Bounce bca.gaa_qpo_2016_12_15_c14 bca.gaa_qpo_2016_12_15_c14 Chart 15Policy Tightening = Underperformance bca.gaa_qpo_2016_12_15_c15 bca.gaa_qpo_2016_12_15_c15 Global Economy Overview: The macro picture looks fairly healthy, with growth picking up in developed economies and China, though not in most emerging markets. The weak patch from late 2015 through the first half of 2016, with global industrial and profits recessions, appears to be over. The biggest threat to growth now is excessive dollar strength, which would slow U.S. exports and harm emerging markets. U.S.: U.S. growth was surprising on the upside (Chart 16) even before the election. Q2 real GDP growth came in at 3.2% and the Fed's Nowcasting models indicate 2.6-2.7% in Q4. After rogue weak ISMs in August, the manufacturing indicator has recovered to 53.2 and the non-manufacturing ISM to 57.2. However, growth continues to be driven mainly by consumption, with capex as yet showing few signs of recovery. A key question is whether a Trump stimulus will be enough to reignite "animal spirits" and push corporates to invest more. Euro Area: Eurozone growth has also been surprisingly robust. PMIs for manufacturing and services in November came in at 53.7 and 53.8 respectively; the manufacturing PMI has been accelerating all year. This is consistent with the ECB's forecasts for GDP growth of 1.7% for both this year and next. However, risk in the banking system could derail this growth. Credit growth, highly correlated with economic activity, has picked up to 1.8% YOY but could slow if banks turn cautious. Japan: Production data has reacted somewhat to Chinese stimulus, with IP growth positive (Chart 17) for the past three months and the Leading Economic Index inching higher since April. But the strength of the yen until recently and disappointing inflation performance (core CPI -0.4% YOY) have depressed exports and consumer sentiment. The effectiveness of the BoJ's 0% yield cap on 10-year government bonds, which has weakened the yen by 14% in two months, should trigger a mild acceleration of growth in coming quarters. Chart 16U.S. Economy Surprising ##br##On The Upside bca.gaa_qpo_2016_12_15_c16 bca.gaa_qpo_2016_12_15_c16 Chart 17Growth Picks Up In##br## Most DMs And China bca.gaa_qpo_2016_12_15_c17 bca.gaa_qpo_2016_12_15_c17 Emerging Markets: China has continued to see positive effects from its reflation of early 2016, with the manufacturing PMI close to a two-year high. The effects of the stimulus will last a few more months, but the authorities have reined back now and the currency is appreciating against its trade basket. The picture is less bright in other emerging markets, as central banks struggle with weak growth and depreciating currencies. Credit growth is slowing almost everywhere (most notably Turkey and Brazil) which threatens a further slowdown in growth in 2017. Interest rates: Inflation expectations have risen sharply in the U.S. following the election, but less so in the eurozone and Japan. They may rise further - pushing U.S. bond yields close to 3% - if the Trump administration implements a fiscal stimulus anywhere close to that hinted at. This could, in turn, push the Fed to raise rates at least twice more in 2017. The ECB has announced a reduction in its asset purchases starting in April 2017, too, but the Bank of Japan will allow inflation to overshoot before tightening. Chart 18Earnings Bottoming But##br## Valuation Stretched bca.gaa_qpo_2016_12_15_c18 bca.gaa_qpo_2016_12_15_c18 Global Equities Cautiously Optimistic: Global markets have embraced the "hoped for" pro-growth and inflationary policies from the new U.S. administration since Trump's win on November 8. In the latest GAA Monthly Update published on November 30,8 we raised our recommendation for global equities relative to bonds to overweight from neutral on a 6-12 month investment horizon. However, the call was driven more by underweighting bonds than by overweighting equities, given the elevated equity valuations and declining profit margins.(Chart 18) The hoped-for U.S. pro-growth policies would, if well implemented, be positive for earnings growth, but the "perceived" earnings boost has not yet shown up in analysts' earnings revisions (panel 3). In fact, only three sectors (Financials, Technology and Energy) currently have positive earnings revisions, because analysts had already been raising forward earnings estimates since early 2016. According to I/B/E/S data as of November 2016, about 80% of sectors are forecast to have positive 12-month forward earnings growth, while only about 20% have positive 12-month trailing earnings growth (panel 3). Within global equities, we continue to favor developed markets over emerging market on the grounds that most EMs are at an early stage of a multi-year deleveraging.9 We also favor the U.S. over the euro area (see more details on the next page). The Japan overweight (currency hedged) is an overwrite of our quant model: we believe that the BoJ will pursue increasingly unconventional monetary policy measures over the coming 12 months. The quant model (in USD and unhedged) has suggested a large underweight in Japan but has gradually reduced the underweight over the past two months. Our global sector positioning is more pro-cyclical than our more defensively-oriented country allocations. In line with our asset class call, we upgrade Financials to neutral and downgrade Utilities to underweight, and continue to overweight Energy, Technology, Industrials, and Healthcare while underweighting Telecom, Consumer Discretionary and Consumer Staples. Country Allocation: Still Favor U.S. Over Euro Area GAA's portfolio approach is to take risk where it is likely to be best rewarded. Having taken risk at the asset class level (overweight equities vs. bonds), at the global equity sector level with a pro-cyclical tilt, and at the bond class level with credit and inflation tilts, we believe it's appropriate to maintain our more defensive equity tilt at the country level by being market weight in euro area equities on an unhedged USD basis while maintaining a large overweight in the U.S. Chart 19Uninspiring profit Outlook bca.gaa_qpo_2016_12_15_c19 bca.gaa_qpo_2016_12_15_c19 It's true that the euro area PMI has been improving. Relative to the U.S., however, the euro area's cyclical improvement, driven by policy support, has lost momentum. It's hard to envision what would reverse this declining growth momentum, suggesting European earnings growth will remain at a disadvantage to the U.S. (Chart 19, panel 1) It's also true that the underperformance of eurozone equities versus the U.S. has reached an historical extreme in both local and common currency terms, and that euro equities are trading at significant discount to the U.S. But Europe has always traded at a discount, and the current discount is only slightly lower than its historical average. Our work has shown that valuation works well only when it is at extremes, which is not the case currently. Conceptually, a weak euro should boost euro area equity performance at least in local currency terms, yet empirical evidence does not strongly support such a claim: the severe underperformance since 2007 has been accompanied by a 43% drop in the euro versus the USD (Chart 19 panel 2). In fact, in USD terms, the euro area tended to outperform the U.S. when the euro was strong (panel 3), suggesting that currency translation plays a more dominant role in relative performance. Our currency house view is that the euro will depreciate further against the USD, given divergences in monetary and fiscal policy between the two regions. As such, we recommend clients to continue to favor U.S. equities versus the euro area, but not be underweight Europe given that it is technically extremely oversold. Sector Allocation: Upgrade Financials To Neutral Our sector quant model shifted global Financials to overweight in December from underweight, largely driven by the momentum factor. We agree with the direction of the quant model as the interest rate environment has changed (Chart 20, panel 1) and valuation remains very attractive (panels 2), but we are willing to upgrade the sector only to market weight due to our concern on banks in the euro area and emerging markets. Within the neutral stance in the sector, we still prefer U.S. and Japanese Financials to eurozone and emerging market ones. Despite the poor performance of the Financials sector relative to the global benchmark, U.S. and Japanese financials have consistently outperformed eurozone financials, driven by better relative earnings without any valuation expansion (panel 3). U.S. banks have largely repaired their balance sheets since the Great Recession, and the "promised" deregulation by the new U.S. administration will probably help U.S. banks. In the euro area, however, banks, especially in Italy, are still plagued with bad loans (panel 4). We will watch banking stress in the region very closely for signs of contagion (panel 5) The upgrade of financials is mainly financed by downgrading the bond proxy Utilities to underweight from neutral, in line with our asset class view underweighting fixed income. Chart 20Global Financials: Regional Divergence bca.gaa_qpo_2016_12_15_c20 bca.gaa_qpo_2016_12_15_c20 Chart 21Global Equities: No Style Bet bca.gaa_qpo_2016_12_15_c21 bca.gaa_qpo_2016_12_15_c21 Smart Beta Update: No Style Bet In a Special Report on Smart Beta published on July 8 2016,10 we showed that it is very hard to time style shifts and that an equal-weighted composite of the five most enduring factors (size, value, quality, minimum volatility and momentum) outperforms the broad market consistently on a risk-adjusted basis. Year-to-date, the composite has performed in line with the broad market, but over the past three months there have been sharp reversals in the performance of the different factors, with Min Vol, Quality and Momentum sharply underperforming Value and Size (Chart 21 panel 1). We showed that historically the Value/Growth tilt has been coincident with the Cyclical/Defensive sector tilt (panel 3). Panel 2 also demonstrates that the Min Vol strategy's relative performance can also be well explained by the Defensives/Cyclicals sector tilt. Sector composition matters. Compared to Growth, Value is now overweight Financials by 25.6%, Utilities by 13.2%, Energy by 8.3% and Materials by 2.5%, while underweight Tech by 23%, Healthcare by 12.7%, and Consumer Discretionary by 10%. REITs is in pure Growth, while Utilities and Telecom are in pure Value, and Energy has very little representation in Growth. In our global sector allocation, we favor Tech, REITs, Energy, and Healthcare, while underweight Utilities, Consumer Discretionary and Telecoms, and neutral on Financials and Materials. As such, maintaining a neutral stance on Value vs. Growth is consistent with our sector positioning. Government Bonds Maintain slight underweight duration. After 35 years, the secular bull market in government bonds is over. Even with Treasury yields skyrocketing since the Trump victory, the path of least resistance for yields is upward (Chart 22). Yields should grind higher slowly as inflation rises and growth indicators continue to improve. Bullish sentiment has dropped considerably, but there is further downside potential. Additionally, fiscal stimulus from Japan and further rate hikes from the Fed will provide considerable tailwinds. Overweight TIPS vs. Treasuries. Despite still being below the Fed's target, with headline and core CPI readings of 1.6% and 2.2% respectively, U.S. inflation has clearly bottomed for the cycle (Chart 23). This continued rise is a result of cost-push inflation driven by faster wage growth. Trump's increased spending and protectionist trade policies are both inflationary. As real GDP growth should remain around 2% annualized and the labor market continues to tighten, this effect will only intensify. Valuations have become less attractive but very gradual Fed hikes will not be enough to derail the upward momentum in consumer prices. Overweight JGBs. The BoJ has ramped up its commitment to exceeding 2% inflation by expanding its monetary base and locking in 10-year sovereign yields at zero percent. Additionally, the end of the structural decline in interest rates suggests global bonds will perform poorly going forward. During global bond bear markets, low-beta Japanese government debt has typically outperformed (Chart 24). This will likely hold true again as global growth improves and Japanese authorities increase fiscal stimulus while maintaining their cap on bond yields. Chart 22Maintain Slight Underweight Duration bca.gaa_qpo_2016_12_15_c22 bca.gaa_qpo_2016_12_15_c22 Chart 23Inflation Uptrend Intact bca.gaa_qpo_2016_12_15_c23 bca.gaa_qpo_2016_12_15_c23 Chart 24Overweight JGBs bca.gaa_qpo_2016_12_15_c24 bca.gaa_qpo_2016_12_15_c24 Corporate Bonds The BCA Corporate Health Monitor remains deeply in "Deteriorating Health" territory, indicating weakness within corporate balance sheets (Chart 25). Over the last quarter, the rate of deterioration actually slowed, with all six ratios improving slightly. Nevertheless, the trend toward weaker corporate health has been firmly established over the past eleven quarters. This is consistent with the very late stages of past credit cycles. Maintain overweight to Investment Grade debt. In the absence of a recession, spread product will usually outperform. U.S. growth should accelerate in 2017, with consumer confidence being resilient, fiscal spending expected to increase, and the drag from inventories unwinding. Monetary conditions are still accommodative and the potential sell-off from the rate hike should be milder than it was in December 2015 (Chart 26). Additionally, credit has historically outperformed in the early stages of the Fed tightening cycle. However, there are two key risks to our view. The end of the structural decline in interest rates presents a substantial headwind to investment grade performance. Since 1973, median and average returns were slightly negative during months where long-term yields rose. During the blow-off in yields in the late 1970s, corporate debt performed very poorly. However, yields had reached very high levels. Secondly, valuations are unattractive, with OAS spreads at their lowest in about one and a half years (Chart 27). Chart 25Balance Sheets Deteriorating Balance Sheets Deteriorating Balance Sheets Deteriorating Chart 26Still Accommodative bca.gaa_qpo_2016_12_15_c26 bca.gaa_qpo_2016_12_15_c26 Chart 27Expensive Valuations bca.gaa_qpo_2016_12_15_c27 bca.gaa_qpo_2016_12_15_c27 Commodities Secular Perspective: Bearish We reiterate our negative long-term outlook on the commodity complex on the back of a structural downward shift in global demand led primarily by China's transition to a services-driven economy. With this slack in demand, global excess capacity has sent deflationary impulses across the globe, limiting upside in commodity prices.11 Chart 28OPEC To The Rescue bca.gaa_qpo_2016_12_15_c28 bca.gaa_qpo_2016_12_15_c28 Cyclical Perspective: Neutral A divergent outlook for energy and base metals gives us a neutral view for aggregate commodities over the cyclical horizon (Chart 28). Last month's OPEC deal supports our long-standing argument of increasing cuts in oil supply, which will support energy prices. However, metal markets suffer from excess supply. A stronger U.S. dollar will continue to be a major headwind over the coming months. Energy: OPEC's agreement to cut production by 1.2 mb/d has spurred a rally in the crude oil price, as prospects for tighter market conditions next year become the base case. However, with the likelihood that the dollar will strengthen further in coming months, oil will need more favorable fundamentals to rise substantially in price from here. Base Metals: The U.S. dollar has much greater explanatory power12 than Chinese demand in price formation for base metals. The recent rally in base metals is overdone with metals prices decoupling from the dollar; we expect a correction in the near-term driven by further dollar strength. Metal markets remain oversupplied as seen by rising iron ore and copper inventories. We remain bearish on industrial and base metals. Precious Metals: Gold, after decoupling from forward inflation expectations in H1 2016 - rising while inflation expectations were weak - has converged back in line with the long-term inflation gauge. Our expectation of higher inflation, coupled with rising geopolitical uncertainties, remain the two key positives for the gold price. However, our forecast of U.S. dollar appreciation will limit upside potential for the precious metal. Currencies Key Themes: USD: Much of the post-Trump rally in the dollar can be explained by the sharp rally in U.S. bond yields (Chart 29). We expect more upside in U.S. real rates relative to non-U.S. rates, driven by the U.S.'s narrower output gap and the stronger position of its household sector. As labor market slack continues to lessen and wage pressures rise, the Fed will be careful not to fall behind the curve; this will add upward pressure to the dollar. Chart 29Dollar Continues It's Dominance bca.gaa_qpo_2016_12_15_c29 bca.gaa_qpo_2016_12_15_c29 Euro: Since the euro area continues to have a wider output gap than the U.S., the euro will face additional downward pressure on the back of diverging monetary policy. As the slack diminishes, the ECB will respond appropriately - we believe the euro has less downside versus the dollar than does the yen. Yen: Although the Japanese economy is nearing fully employment, the Abe administration continues to talk about additional stimulus. As inflation expectations struggle to find a firm footing despite the stimulus, the BOJ is explicitly aiming to stay behind the curve. Additionally, with the BOJ pegging the 10-year government bond yield at 0% for the foreseeable future, we expect further downward pressure on the currency. EM: We expect more tumult for this group as rising real rates have been negative for EM assets in this cycle. EM spreads have widened in response to rising DM yields which has led to more restrictive local financial conditions. The recovery in commodity prices has been unable to provide any relief to EM currencies - a clear sign of continued weak fundamentals (rising debt, excess capacity and low productivity). Commodity currencies will face more downside driven by their tight correlation with EM equities (0.82) and with EM spreads. Alternatives Overweight private equity / underweight hedge funds. Global growth is fairly stable and has the potential to surprise on the upside. In the absence of a recession, private equity typically outperforms as the illiquidity premium should provide a considerable boost to returns. Hedge funds, on the other hand, have displayed a negative correlation with global growth. Historically, they have outperformed private equity only during recessions or periods of high credit market stress (Chart 30). Overweight direct real estate / underweight commodity futures. Commercial real estate (CRE) assets are in a "goldilocks" scenario: Growth is sufficient to generate sustainable tenant demand without triggering a new supply cycle. Favor Industrials for its income potential and Retail given resilient consumer spending. Overweight trophy markets, as demand remains robust given multiple macro risks. Commodities have bounced, but remain in a secular bear market caused by a supply glut and exacerbated by a market-share war (Chart 31). Overweight farmland & timberland / underweight structured products. The trajectory of Fed policy, the run-up in equity prices and the weak earnings backdrop have increased the importance of volatility reduction. Favor farmland & timberland. Substantial portfolio diversification benefits, resulting from low correlations with traditional assets, coupled with a positive skew, make these assets highly attractive. As the most bond-like alternative, structured products tend to outperform during recessions, which is not our base case (Chart 32). Chart 30PE: Tied To Real Growth bca.gaa_qpo_2016_12_15_c30 bca.gaa_qpo_2016_12_15_c30 Chart 31Commodities: A Secular Bear Market bca.gaa_qpo_2016_12_15_c31 bca.gaa_qpo_2016_12_15_c31 Chart 32Structured Products Outperform In Recessions bca.gaa_qpo_2016_12_15_c32 bca.gaa_qpo_2016_12_15_c32 Risks To Our View Our main scenario is for stronger growth, higher inflation and an appreciating dollar in 2017, leading to equities outperforming bonds. Where could this go wrong? Growth stagnates. U.S. growth could fail to pick up as expected: the stronger dollar will hurt profits, which might lead to companies cutting back on hiring; higher interest rates could affect the housing market and consumer discretionary spending; companies may fail to increase capex, given their low capacity utilization ratio (Chart 33). In Europe, systemic banking problems could push down credit growth which is closely correlated to economic growth. Emerging markets might see credit events caused by the stronger dollar and weaker commodities prices. Political risks. An unconventional new U.S. President raises uncertainty. How much will Trump emphasize his more market-unfriendly policies, such as tougher immigration control, tariffs on Chinese and Mexican imports, and interference in companies' decisions on where to build plants? His more confrontational foreign policy stance risks geopolitical blow-ups. Elections in France, the Netherland and Germany in 2017 could produce populist government. The Policy Uncertainty Index currently is high and this historically has been bad for equities (Chart 34). Chart 33Maybe Companies Won't Increase Capex bca.gaa_qpo_2016_12_15_c33 bca.gaa_qpo_2016_12_15_c33 Chart 34Policy Uncertainty Is High bca.gaa_qpo_2016_12_15_c34 bca.gaa_qpo_2016_12_15_c34 Synchronized global growth. If the growth acceleration were not limited to the U.S. but were to spread, this might mean that the dollar would depreciate, particularly as it is already above fair value (Chart 35). In this environment, given their inverse correlation with the dollar (Chart 36), commodity prices and EM assets might rise, invalidating our underweight positions. Chart 35Dollar Already Above##br## Fair Value Dollar Already Above Fair Value Dollar Already Above Fair Value Chart 36How Would EM And Commodities Move##br## If USD Weakens? bca.gaa_qpo_2016_12_15_c36 bca.gaa_qpo_2016_12_15_c36 1 We discuss them in the "What Our Clients Are Asking," section of this Quarterly Portfolio Outlook. 2 Non-accelerating inflation rate of unemployment - the level of unemployment below which inflation tends to rise. 3 Please see "How Will The Strong USD Impact Global Earnings," in the What Our Clients Are Asking section of this Quarterly Portfolio Outlook. 4 Please see Global Asset Allocation, "Monthly Portfolio Update: The Meaning of Trump," dated November 30, 2016, available at gaa.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Constraints And Preferences Of The Trump Presidency", dated November 30, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 6 According to National Institute of Economic Research.com. 7 Please see Global Asset Allocation Strategy Special Report, "Asset Allocation In A Low-Return World, Part IV: Industry Groups," dated October 25, 2015, available at gaa.bcaresearch.com. 8 Please see Global Asset Allocation,"Monthly Portfolio Update," dated November 30, 2016 available at gaa.bcaresearch.com 9 Please see Global Asset Allocation Special Report,"Refreshing Our Long-Term Themes," dated December 5, 2016 available at gaa.bcaresearch.com 10 Please see Global Asset Allocation Strategy Special Report, "Is Smart Beta A Useful Tool In Global Asset Allocation?," dated July 8, 2016, available at gaa.bcaresearch.com. 11,12 Please see Global Asset Allocation Special Report, "Refreshing Our Long-Term Themes," dated December 5, 2016 available at gaa.bcaresearch.com Recommended Asset Allocation

Feature At no time in recent history have China's foreign reserves been under such tight scrutiny by global investors as they are now. The country's multi-trillion-dollar official reserve assets, long viewed by both Chinese officials and the global investment community as an unproductive use of resources, have suddenly became a lifeline for China's exchange rate stability. The latest numbers released last week show China's official reserves currently stand at US$3.05 trillion, a massive drawdown from the US$3.99 trillion all-time peak reached in 2014. Over the years, we have been running a series of Special Reports tracking the composition of China's foreign asset holdings.1 This year's update has become all the more relevant. The monthly headline figures on China's official reserves have been eagerly anticipated for clues of domestic capital outflows and the RMB outlook. Meanwhile, as the largest foreign holder of American government paper, changes in China's official reserves are also being scrutinized to assess any impact on U.S. interest rates. Moreover, Chinese outward direct investment (ODI), which had already accelerated strongly in the past few years, has skyrocketed this year - partially driven by expectations of further RMB depreciation. The Chinese authorities have recently tightened scrutiny on large overseas investments by domestic firms, which will likely lead to a notable slowdown in Chinese ODI in the near term.2 This week we take a closer look at the U.S. Treasury International Capital (TIC) system data and various other sources to check the evolution of China's official reserves and foreign assets. There are some important caveats. First, Chinese holdings of U.S. assets reported by the TIC are not entirely held by the People's Bank of China in its official reserves. Some assets, particularly corporate bonds and equities, may be held by Chinese institutional investors. Meanwhile, it is well known that in recent years China has been using offshore custodians in some European countries, the usual suspects being Belgium, Luxembourg and the U.K., which disguises the true situation of the country's official reserve holdings. Finally, China's large conglomerates owned by the central government also hold vast amounts of foreign assets, or "shadow reserves" that could be utilized to support the RMB if needed. Recently these state-owned giants were reportedly required by the government to repatriate some of their foreign cash sitting idle overseas to counter capital outflows. All of this suggests the resources available to the government are larger than the official reserve figures. With these caveats, this week's update reveals some important developments in the past year: Chinese foreign reserves have dropped by around US$400 billion since the end of 2015 to US$3.05 trillion, a level last seen in 2005 when the RMB was de-pegged from the dollar followed by a multi-year ascendance (Chart 1). China still holds the largest amount of foreign reserves in the world, but its global share has dropped to about 40%, down from a peak of over 50% in 2014. TIC data show Chinese holdings of U.S. assets declined by a mere US$100 billion in the past year, leading to a sharp increase in U.S. assets as a share of the country's total foreign reserves (Table 1). This could be attributable to mark-to-market "paper losses" of Chinese holdings in non-dollar denominated foreign assets, due to the broad strength of the greenback. It is also possible that China may have intentionally increased its allocations to U.S. assets due to heightened risks in other countries, particularly in Europe. Chinese holdings of Japanese government bonds also increased significantly this past year. Table 1Chinese Foreign Exchange Reserves Demystifying China's Foreign Assets Demystifying China's Foreign Assets Chinese holdings of U.S. Treasurys have dropped by about US$100 billion in recent months, but holdings of some other countries suspected as China's overseas custodians have continued to rise (Chart 2). This could mean that Chinese holdings of U.S. assets could be larger than reflected in the TIC data. Chinese outward direct investments have continued to power ahead. Previously Chinese investments were heavily concentrated in commodities sectors and resource-rich countries. This year the U.S. has turned out to be the clear winner in attracting Chinese capital. Moreover, recent investment deals have been concentrated in consumer related sectors such as tourism, entertainment and technology industries. Chart 1Chinese Foreign Reserves##br## Have Continued To Decline bca.cis_sr_2016_12_15_c1 bca.cis_sr_2016_12_15_c1 Chart 2U.S. Treasurys: How Much ##br##Does China Really Hold? bca.cis_sr_2016_12_15_c2 bca.cis_sr_2016_12_15_c2 Yan Wang, Senior Vice President China Investment Strategy yanw@bcaresearch.com Qingyun Xu, Senior Analyst qingyun@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see China Investment Strategy Special Report, "Demystifying China's Foreign Assets", dated September 30, 2015, available at cis.bcaresearch.com Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “How Will China Manage The Impossible Trinity”, dated December 8, 2015, available at cis.bcaresearch.com China's official data shows that the country's total holdings of international assets have stayed flat at around US$6.2 trillion since 2014, including foreign exchange reserves, direct investment, overseas lending and holdings of bonds and equities. Official reserves have declined in recent years, but other holdings have jumped sharply. Reserves assets still account for over half of total foreign assets, but their share has continued to drop. In contrast, outward direct investment and overseas loans have gained significantly both in value terms and as a share of the country's total foreign assets. Chart 3 bca.cis_sr_2016_12_15_c3 bca.cis_sr_2016_12_15_c3 Chart 4 bca.cis_sr_2016_12_15_c4 bca.cis_sr_2016_12_15_c4 Despite the sharp decline, international investment positions by Chinese nationals, public and private combined, are still much more heavily concentrated in official reserve assets compared with other major economies. In other major creditor countries, outward direct investments and portfolio investments account for much larger shares than reserve assets. Official reserves in the U.S. are negligible. Chinese official reserves give the PBoC resources to maintain exchange rate stability, but they also lower the expected returns of the country's foreign assets. Encouraging domestic entities to acquire overseas assets directly has been a long-run policy. More recently, however, the authorities have been alarmed by the pace of Chinese nationals' overseas investment and have been taking restrictive measures. Chart 5 Demystifying China's Foreign Assets Demystifying China's Foreign Assets Our calculations shows that Chinese total holdings of U.S. assets reached US$1.74 trillion at the end of September 2016, including Treasurys, government agency bonds, corporate bonds, stocks and non-Treasury short-term custody liabilities of U.S. banks to Chinese official institutions, based on the TIC data (Table 1, on page 2). Treasurys still account for the majority of the country's total holdings of U.S. assets, while bonds and stocks are relatively insignificant. China's holdings of U.S. assets as a share of total reserves declined between the global financial crisis and 2014, since when the trend has reversed. The share of U.S. asset holdings currently accounts for 55% of Chinese official reserves, compared with a peak of over 70% in the early 2000s and a trough of 46% in 2014. This could also be attributable to the sharp appreciation of the U.S. dollar against other majors. The U.S. dollar carries a 42% weight in the SDR (Special Drawing Rights of the International Monetary Fund), and it accounts for about 60% of total foreign reserves managed by global central banks. These could be two relevant benchmarks to gauge China's desired level of holdings of U.S. dollar-denominated assets in its official reserves. Chart 6 bca.cis_sr_2016_12_15_c6 bca.cis_sr_2016_12_15_c6 Chart 7 bca.cis_sr_2016_12_15_c7 bca.cis_sr_2016_12_15_c7 In terms of duration, the major part of Chinese holdings of U.S. assets is long-term (with maturity more than one year), mainly in the form of government and agency bonds, corporate bonds and stocks. Chinese holdings of short-term U.S. assets were minimal in recent years but picked up notably in the past few months, while longer term assets declined. During the global financial crisis in 2008/09, China massively increased its holdings of short-term U.S. assets, amid a global drive of "flight to liquidity" at the height of the crisis. Chart 8 bca.cis_sr_2016_12_15_c8 bca.cis_sr_2016_12_15_c8 Chart 9 bca.cis_sr_2016_12_15_c9 bca.cis_sr_2016_12_15_c9 In terms of risk classification, the majority of Chinese holdings of U.S. assets are risk-free assets, including Treasurys and government agency bonds. China's holdings of these assets have plateaued in recent years. As a share of China's total reserves, U.S. risk-free assets currently account for about 45%, down from about 65% in 2003. Meanwhile, its accumulation of U.S. risky assets, including stocks and corporate bonds, has increased sharply in the past year. Chart 10 bca.cis_sr_2016_12_15_c10 bca.cis_sr_2016_12_15_c10 Chart 11 bca.cis_sr_2016_12_15_c11 bca.cis_sr_2016_12_15_c11 China currently holds US$1.16 trillion of Treasurys, which account for over 80% of total Chinese holdings of U.S. risk-free assets, or 37% of total Chinese foreign reserves. Notably, Treasurys as a share of Chinese foreign reserves have been relatively stable, ranging between 30% and 40% over the past decade. This may be the comfort zone for the Chinese authorities' asset allocation to the U.S. government paper. China's holdings of U.S. government agency bonds have picked up in the past year, but are still significantly lower than at its peak prior to the U.S. subprime debacle. Its share in Chinese foreign reserves has declined to 8% from a peak of close to 30% in 2008. Chart 12 bca.cis_sr_2016_12_15_c12 bca.cis_sr_2016_12_15_c12 Chart 13 bca.cis_sr_2016_12_15_c13 bca.cis_sr_2016_12_15_c13 Almost the entire Chinese holding of Treasurys is parked in long-term paper (with duration of more than one year). China's possession of short-term Treasurys has been negligible in recent years, but picked up notably of late. It is possible that the Chinese central bank may be increasing cash holdings to deal with capital outflows. Chart 14 bca.cis_sr_2016_12_15_c14 bca.cis_sr_2016_12_15_c14 Chart 15 bca.cis_sr_2016_12_15_c15 bca.cis_sr_2016_12_15_c15 Chinese holdings of risky U.S. assets - corporate bonds and equities - account for over 10% of China's total foreign reserves, up sharply since 2008 after China established its sovereign wealth fund. China's holdings of risky assets are predominately equities, currently standing at about USD 325 billion, little changed in recent years. Its possessions of corporate bonds are very low. Chart 16 bca.cis_sr_2016_12_15_c16 bca.cis_sr_2016_12_15_c16 Chart 17 bca.cis_sr_2016_12_15_c17 bca.cis_sr_2016_12_15_c17 China remains the largest foreign creditor to the U.S. government. Chinese holdings of U.S. Treasurys account for about 11% of total outstanding U.S. government bonds, or around 20% of total foreign holdings of U.S. Treasurys, according to our calculation. About 55% of outstanding U.S. Treasurys are held by foreigners. China is also one of the largest foreign holders of U.S. of agency bonds. While its holdings only accounts for 3% of total outstanding agency bonds, they account for around 25% of the total held by foreigners. About 12% of agency and GSE-backed securities are currently held by foreigners. Chart 18 bca.cis_sr_2016_12_15_c18 bca.cis_sr_2016_12_15_c18 Chart 19 bca.cis_sr_2016_12_15_c19 bca.cis_sr_2016_12_15_c19 Chinese outward direct investments have continued to march higher in the past year, reaching yet another record high in 2015, and will likely set a new record in 2016. Total overseas direct investments amount to USD 1.4 trillion, equivalent to about half of China's official reserves. China's overseas investments have been heavily concentrated in resources-rich regions and industries. Cumulatively, the energy sector alone accounts for almost half of China's total overseas investments, followed by transportation infrastructure and base metals, which clearly underscores China's demand for commodities. China's outbound investment was originally led by state-owned enterprises. More recently, private Chinese enterprises have become more active in overseas investments and acquisitions. Chart 20 bca.cis_sr_2016_12_15_c20 bca.cis_sr_2016_12_15_c20 Chart 21 Demystifying China's Foreign Assets Demystifying China's Foreign Assets Chart 22 Demystifying China's Foreign Assets Demystifying China's Foreign Assets Corporate China's interest in global resource space has waned in the past year. Total investment in energy space has plateaued in recent years. There has been a dramatic increase in investment in some consumer-related sectors, particularly in tourism, entertainment and technology. These investment deals are mainly driven by private enterprises, and also reflect the changing dynamics of the Chinese economy. The U.S. received by far the largest share of Chinese investment in 2016. Total U.S.-bound Chinese investment in the first half of the year already dramatically outpaced the total amount of 2015. Chinese investments in resource rich countries, such as Australia, Canada and Brazil have been much less robust. Chinese net purchase of Japanese government bonds (JGBs) increased sharply this year. In the eight months of 2016 China's net purchases of JGBs reached $86.6 billion, more than tripling the amount during the same period last year. Chinese cumulative net purchases of JGBs since 2014 reached JPY 14.5 trillion, or USD 140 billion. This amounts to 2% of total outstanding JGBs and 4% of Chinese official reserves. Chart 23 bca.cis_sr_2016_12_15_c23 bca.cis_sr_2016_12_15_c23 Chart 24 bca.cis_sr_2016_12_15_c24 bca.cis_sr_2016_12_15_c24 Chart 25 bca.cis_sr_2016_12_15_c25 bca.cis_sr_2016_12_15_c25 Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations

Highlights Duration: An easing of financial conditions is likely necessary for recent improvements in U.S. economic growth to continue. As such, the uptrend in Treasury yields will pause in the near-term before resuming early next year. Corporate Bonds: The macro back-drop is turning marginally more positive for corporate spreads. C&I lending standards are no longer tightening and bank stocks have rallied significantly. Corporate Bonds: Spreads are too tight at the moment, even for an improving economic environment. Remain neutral (3 out of 5) on investment grade and underweight (2 out of 5) on high-yield for now. We are actively looking to add exposure to corporate credit from more attractive levels. Feature There is no question that the U.S. economy is on a firm footing heading into the New Year. Third quarter real GDP growth came in at a robust 3.2%, and the Atlanta and New York Fed tracking models currently forecast fourth quarter growth of 2.6% and 2.7%, respectively. This represents a marked acceleration from the average growth rate of 1.1% witnessed during the first two quarters of 2016. Forward-looking survey data are also pointing in the right direction. The ISM non-manufacturing survey reached 57.2 in November, its highest level since October 2015, while the expectations component of the University of Michigan Consumer Sentiment survey reached 88.9 in December, its highest level since January 2015 (Chart 1). The question for bond investors is how much of this good news is already reflected in Treasury yields. Higher Treasury yields and a stronger dollar have already led to a material tightening in some broad indexes of financial conditions, enough to exert a meaningful drag on U.S. growth (Chart 2). In fact, according to the Fed's FRB/US model, the recent interest rate and dollar moves could be expected to shave 1% from GDP over the next eight quarters. Chart 1Economic Tailwinds Economic Tailwinds Economic Tailwinds Chart 2Financial Conditions Must Ease bca.usbs_wr_2016_12_13_c2 bca.usbs_wr_2016_12_13_c2 The natural conclusion is that while some upside in Treasury yields is justified by an improving economic outlook, the bond selloff has proceeded too quickly and must pause in the near-term to prevent financial conditions from exerting an excessive drag on growth. Sentiment and positioning indicators also confirm that the uptrend in yields appears stretched (Chart 2, bottom two panels). As such, last week we tactically shifted our recommended portfolio duration allocation from 'below benchmark' to 'at benchmark'.1 We expect Treasury yields will grind higher next year, reaching a range of 2.8% to 3% by the end of 2017, but the selloff will proceed more gradually, in line with the acceleration in economic growth. A More Uncertain World The premise that the bond selloff has proceeded too quickly is confirmed by our Global PMI models of the 10-year Treasury yield. We track two versions of our Global PMI model. One is a 2-factor model based only on the Global PMI index and a survey of bullish sentiment toward the U.S. dollar. The intuition behind this model is that improving global growth contributes to a higher fair value Treasury yield. However, for a given level of global growth, increasingly bullish dollar sentiment applies downward pressure to yields. This is because a stronger dollar represents a tightening of monetary conditions, so that all else equal, a stronger dollar means we should expect fewer Fed rate hikes. The current fair value reading from this 2-factor model is 2.26%, meaning that the 10-year Treasury yield at 2.49% appears somewhat cheap (Chart 3). The second version of our Global PMI model is a 3-factor model which adds the Global Economic Policy Uncertainty Index (EPUI) as a third independent variable. All else equal, an increase in uncertainty about the economic outlook should depress the term premium in long-dated Treasury yields. The data appear to back-up this assertion, as the EPUI is negatively correlated with the 10-year Treasury yield over time. With the addition of the EPUI, our 3-factor model explains 84% of the variation in the 10-year Treasury yield since 2010, compared to 80% from our 2-factor model. The EPUI spiked last month, and as such, this version of the model suggests that fair value for the 10-year Treasury yield is only 1.82% (Chart 4). Chart 32-Factor Global PMI Model bca.usbs_wr_2016_12_13_c3 bca.usbs_wr_2016_12_13_c3 Chart 43-Factor Global PMI Model bca.usbs_wr_2016_12_13_c4 bca.usbs_wr_2016_12_13_c4 There are probably good reasons to overlook last month's spike in policy uncertainty. For one, the EPUI, created by Baker, Bloom and Davis,2 is largely constructed from algorithms that scan newspaper articles for keywords. They do not attempt to distinguish between economic news with bond-bearish or bond-bullish implications. Second, we have found that large spikes in uncertainty that do not coincide with deterioration in economic growth tend to mean-revert fairly quickly. This past summer's Brexit vote being a prime example. As a counterpoint, however, the negative correlation between the EPUI and the 10-year Treasury yield is quite robust (Chart 5), and historically, incidents of spiking policy uncertainty and rising Treasury yields have been few and far between. Since 1991, there have been 42 instances when the monthly increase in the EPUI exceeded one standard deviation. In those 42 months, the 10-year Treasury yield increased only 36% of the time, with last month's 53 basis point rise being by far the largest on record. We tend to view the reading from the 2-factor model as the more reasonable assessment of fair value in the current environment. But the spike in policy uncertainty does underscore why we should view the recent bond selloff skeptically. The recent selloff has, to a large extent, been predicated upon promises of fiscal stimulus that have yet to be delivered, from a President-elect who has shown himself to be highly unpredictable. In this environment, near-term caution is clearly warranted. Of course, this week the market's focus will at least temporarily turn away from fiscal policy and toward the Fed. We expect that the Fed will announce a 25 basis point increase in the fed funds rate tomorrow, but also that participants' interest rate projections will not change meaningfully. The FOMC will likely be much slower to react to promises of fiscal stimulus than the market. With the Fed's projected near-term path for interest rates already mostly discounted by the market (Chart 6), we could see a "dovish hike" from the Fed tomorrow coinciding with the near-term top in Treasury yields. Chart 5Economic Policy Uncertainty & Treasury Yields bca.usbs_wr_2016_12_13_c5 bca.usbs_wr_2016_12_13_c5 Chart 6A "Dovish Hike" Is In The Price bca.usbs_wr_2016_12_13_c6 bca.usbs_wr_2016_12_13_c6 Bottom Line: An easing of financial conditions is likely necessary for recent improvements in U.S. economic growth to continue. As such, the uptrend in Treasury yields will pause in the near-term before resuming early next year. A More Favorable Environment For Credit We frequently point to three main indicators that we use to assess the current stage of the credit cycle: Our Corporate Health Monitor (CHM) Monetary conditions relative to equilibrium C&I bank lending standards In a report3 published earlier this year we found that the performance of bank stocks relative to the overall market is another useful indicator (Chart 7). While the credit cycle is still very much in its late stages, recently, our indicators have been sending marginally more positive signals. The CHM remains deep in 'deteriorating health' territory and non-financial corporate balance sheets continue to lever-up aggressively. However, the indicator did inch slightly closer to 'improving health' territory in the third quarter due to an improvement in all six of its components (Chart 8). Make no mistake, trends in corporate balance sheet leverage are not supportive for corporate spreads. In fact, as we will explore in a future report, the recent divergence between rising leverage and tightening spreads is nearly unprecedented during the past 40 years. But at the margin, recent trends are less worrisome. Chart 7Credit Cycle Indicators Credit Cycle Indicators Credit Cycle Indicators Chart 8Corporate Health Monitor Components Corporate Health Monitor Components Corporate Health Monitor Components Box1: Corporate Health Monitor Components The BCA Corporate Health Monitor is a normalized composite of six financial ratios, calculated for the non-financial corporate sector as a whole. These six ratios are defined as follows: Profit Margins: After-tax cash flow as a percent of corporate sales Return on Capital: After-tax earnings plus interest expense, as a percent of capital stock Debt Coverage: After-tax cash flow less capital expenditures, as a percent of all interest bearing debt Interest Coverage: EBITDA (Earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation & amortization) divided by the sum of interest expense and dividends Leverage: Total debt as a percent of market value of equity Liquidity: Working Capital, excluding inventories, as a percent of market value of assets Second, although monetary conditions appear very close to our estimate of equilibrium, the recent steepening of the yield curve suggests that the market is revising its estimate of monetary equilibrium higher, leading to a de-facto easing of monetary conditions. In the long-run, with the Fed in the midst of a hiking cycle, this sort of easing is unlikely to persist. But, as we argued in a recent report,4 the bear steepening curve environment could continue in the first half of next year as the Fed is slow to respond to an improving economy. Third, C&I bank lending standards have fallen back to unchanged after having tightened for four consecutive quarters. This likely reflects less stress in the energy sector now that oil prices have rebounded. Fourth, bank stocks have rallied strongly alongside the steepening yield curve. To the extent that higher bank stock prices reflect lower future commercial loan delinquencies, then this trend should be viewed positively from the perspective of credit investors. To test the idea that bank stock performance might help us trade the corporate bond market, we take a look at the past six credit cycles, going back to 1975 (Chart 9). The bottom panel of Chart 9 shows the percent drawdown in relative bank equity performance from its peak during the most recent credit cycle. We define credit cycles as the periods between when the CHM crosses into 'improving health' territory. For example, we define the most recent credit cycle as beginning when the CHM fell into 'improving health' territory in 2002 and ending when it fell into 'improving health' territory in 2009. Shaded regions in Chart 9 show periods when the CHM is in 'deteriorating health' territory. Chart 9Bank Equity Drawdown & Corporate Bond Performance bca.usbs_wr_2016_12_13_c9 bca.usbs_wr_2016_12_13_c9 If we construct a trading strategy using the CHM alone, we can get fairly good results. We find that investment grade corporate bonds underperform duration-equivalent Treasury securities in 3 out of 6 instances, over a 12-month investment horizon, following the time when the CHM first crosses into deteriorating health territory, for an average excess return of -1.2% (Table 1). Table 1Corporate Bond Trading Rules: 12-Month Investment Horizon A Positive Signal From Bank Stocks A Positive Signal From Bank Stocks However, we find that this result can be improved if we also incorporate bank stock price performance. If we were to only reduce corporate bond exposure when the CHM was in deteriorating health territory and after the drawdown in bank equities exceeded 20%, then the position is still profitable in 3 out of 6 instances, but for a more negative average return of -1.9%. Further, if we were to wait for the drawdown in bank equities to surpass 30%, then the hit rate on our position improves to 3 out of 5 and the average return falls to -4.6%. We find similar results if we use a 6-month investment horizon (Table 2). In the current cycle, the drawdown in bank stocks breached 25% in February but has since reversed course, and it has not yet reached the 30% threshold. Our analysis suggests that corporate bond underperformance tends to persist for some time even after the drawdown in bank stocks exceeds 30%. Table 2Corporate Bond Trading Rules: 6-Month Investment Horizon A Positive Signal From Bank Stocks A Positive Signal From Bank Stocks Chart 10Corporate Spreads Are Too Low Corporate Spreads Are Too Low Corporate Spreads Are Too Low Bottom Line: The macro back-drop is turning marginally more positive for corporate spreads. We remain neutral (3 out of 5) on investment grade and underweight (2 out of 5) on high-yield for now, due to poor starting valuation (Chart 10). But we are looking for an opportunity to upgrade from more attractive spread levels in the next couple of months. Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Portfolio Allocation Summary, "Too Far Too Fast, But The Bond Bear Is Still Intact", dated December 6, 2016, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 For further details on the construction of this index please see www.policyuncertainty.com 3 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Lighten Up On Duration", dated February 16, 2016, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Toward A Cyclical Sweet Spot?", dated November 22, 2016, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification