Gov Sovereigns/Treasurys

Highlights Overall Duration: The factors that have driven global bond yields lower over the past month are not sustainable. Maintain a below-benchmark duration exposure, with current yield levels looking attractive to add to underweight/short positions as we did last week. French Election: We got the market-friendly outcome in the French election that we were expecting. We are closing our recommended long 10-year France vs 10-year Germany Tactical Overlay trade after the post-election spread tightening, at a profit of 1.3%. Feature Investors breathed a sigh of relief yesterday, after the French presidential election produced the most market-friendly result - a Macron-Le Pen matchup in the May 7 run-off. Pre-election polling showed that the pro-Europe reformer Macron and his En Marche ("On The Move") party would easily trounce the anti-Europe populist Le Pen in a head-to-head showdown. That outcome would eliminate the possibility of a confidence-shattering "Frexit" along the lines of last year's U.K. vote that could stall the current global economic expansion. Elevated political risks in Europe, and geopolitical risks in Syria and North Korea, have been a factor driving volatility higher, and bond yields lower, in recent weeks. There have also been some data disappointments in the U.S. that have occurred at the same time (Chart of the Week). It is difficult to tell which factor has been more important for government bond markets. The fact that yields jumped worldwide yesterday after the French election result and, more importantly, the lack of any serious repricing in global equity and credit markets alongside the recent pop in volatility, suggests that bond markets are likely not sniffing out a sustained growth slowdown. Government bond yields remain too low relative to underlying economic and inflation trends, and we continue to recommend below-benchmark duration exposure and above-benchmark allocations to corporate credit versus government bonds (especially in the U.S.). Falling Bond Yields: Some Shifting Expectations, But Not A Change In Trend The recent decline in global bond yields began in mid-March. The move in most of the major markets was largely driven by falling inflation expectations, with real yields staying relatively stable, although in the U.S. the split was more 50/50. Importantly, both the nominal 10-year U.S. Treasury and German Bund yield are bouncing off the bottom of their upward sloping trend channels that started in early 2016 (Chart 2). Chart of the WeekA Series Of Unfortunate Events A Series Of Unfortunate Events A Series Of Unfortunate Events Chart 2Upward Trend In Yields Still Intact Upward Trend In Yields Still Intact Upward Trend In Yields Still Intact We see those upward trending channels as being the primary medium-term trend for bond yields. The recent pullback in yields has been the result of several individual factors that have occurred at the same time that are likely to reverse in the months ahead: Slower U.S. growth & inflation: The latest soft readings on U.S. retail sales and core CPI inflation are not consistent with the robust readings on business confidence and manufacturing activity, as well as the accelerating trend in U.S. corporate profit growth that our models expect will continue in the coming quarters (Chart 3). The latter is being driven by significant improvements in corporate pricing power that are helping boost profit margins, according to our equity strategists (bottom panel).1 We find it hard to believe that there can be a prolonged slowdown in the U.S. economy if earnings growth is accelerating and firms are not forced to cut back on hiring and investment to preserve profitability. The U.S. Overnight Index Swap (OIS) curve is now only discounting 38bps of rate increases over the next year, Treasuries look expensive as the Fed is likely to deliver at least 50bps worth of hikes by year-end and the large short positions in the Treasury market have been unwound (Chart 4). Chart 3The U.S. Economy Is Not Rolling Over The U.S. Economy Is Not Rolling Over The U.S. Economy Is Not Rolling Over Chart 4Treasuries Are Expensive & Positioning Is Now Long Treasuries Are Expensive & Positioning Is Now Long Treasuries Are Expensive & Positioning Is Now Long Softer U.S. wage inflation: Some of that boost to U.S. profit margins is also due to the recent slower pace of wage growth, which we do not expect to continue given the tightness in the U.S. labor market and the continued robust readings on labor demand indicators (Chart 5). We expect wage growth to begin ticking higher in the months ahead, as will overall U.S. inflation expectations which still appear too low. The Cleveland Fed Median CPI has been steady around 2.5%, which is where we expect headline CPI inflation to be if the Fed's inflation target of 2% on the PCE deflator is met.2 We see TIPS breakevens gravitating towards those levels in the coming months, driving longer-term U.S. Treasury yields higher. Setbacks on the Trump economic agenda: President Trump's failure to get health care reform passed in Congress was interpreted as a sign that the more pro-growth parts of his agenda, like tax reform and infrastructure spending, would also have difficulties getting implemented. We are not strong believers in the idea of a significant "Trump trade" impact on growth and bond yields, as the U.S. economy was already showing improvement before Trump won the presidency. Nonetheless, any delay in the fiscal easing that Trump promised during the campaign would act to dampen expectations for U.S. growth and Fed rate hikes on the margin, to the benefit of U.S. Treasuries. Trump announced that he will unveil his tax reform proposals this week, with Congressional hearings on the subject also set to begin. Our colleagues at BCA Geopolitical Strategy expect Trump to try and move quickly to get a deal done, especially after the initial failure on health care reform. The political risks for the Republicans are very real in next year's mid-term elections, with current polling pointing to large losses of seats that could return the House of Representatives to Democrat control. If the Republicans want to push through their reform agenda and try and boost growth heading into the 2018 midterms to try and avert a loss of the House, they cannot delay on tax reform this year. While the U.S. political situation is always a wild card, we do not think that "Trump trade" disappointment will be a factor weighing on Treasury yields over the rest of 2017. Lower oil prices: Some of the decline in the inflation expectations component of global bond yields can be attributed to the pullback in oil prices since late February. Our colleagues at BCA Commodity & Energy Strategy continue to have a bullish outlook on global oil prices, however, and view the recent dip as a buying opportunity.3 They expect Russia and Saudi Arabia to honor their agreement to remove 1.8mm barrels/day of production from the global oil market our by mid-2017, as visible inventory levels remain too high. Combined with stronger expected demand, our strategists expect oil prices to move toward the $60/bbl level by year-end (Chart 6). That move would boost help to raise inflation expectations, and bond yields, in the months ahead. Chart 5U.S. Inflation Expectations Still Too Low U.S. Inflation Expectations Still Too Low U.S. Inflation Expectations Still Too Low Chart 6Oil Prices Set To Move Higher Oil Prices Set To Move Higher Visible Inventories Barely Budge In 2017Q1, As Supply Surge And Lower Demand Collide Oil Prices Set To Move Higher Visible Inventories Barely Budge In 2017Q1, As Supply Surge And Lower Demand Collide Slower Euro Area inflation: Just like in the U.S., there was a pullback in Euro Area inflation expectations after the dip in realized inflation readings in March. While some cooling was expected simply from base effects related to swings in oil prices and the Euro, our headline CPI diffusion index indicates that an increasing majority of sectors are seeing accelerating price growth (Chart 7). If our commodity strategists are correct on the call for higher oil prices, we would expect to see some re-acceleration of Euro Area inflation, and more bear-steepening of Euro Area government bond yield curves, in the coming months. Especially if the European Central Bank (ECB) begins to send a signal about a tapering of its asset purchases - an outcome that is more likely if the polling data proves correct and Macron wins the French Presidency in two weeks, thus reducing the near-term political uncertainty in Europe. The ECB meets this week, and while we still think any shift in the ECB's tone is more likely at the June meeting (when a new set of economic projections will be produced), this will be the first opportunity for comments after the French election result. French Election Uncertainty: The pre-election rise in French risk premia fully unwound yesterday in a matter of hours (Chart 8). Implied volatilities on Euro Area equities and the EUR/USD exchange rate plunged, as did France sovereign CDS spreads. France-Germany government bond spreads tightened sharply as well, with the benchmark 10-year OAT-Bund spread declining -19bps from last Friday's closing levels. With Macron having a 20 point lead on Le Pen in a two-way race according to the latest opinion polls - which proved to be very accurate in the first round of voting - we think that current spread levels are consistent with a Macron victory on May 7. Chart 7Only A Brief Setback##br## In Euro Area Inflation Only A Brief Setback In Euro Area Inflation Only A Brief Setback In Euro Area Inflation Chart 8Taking Profit On Our Long France/Short ##br##Germany Spread Trade Taking Profit On Our Long France/Short Germany Spread Trade Taking Profit On Our Long France/Short Germany Spread Trade We do not expect much additional spread tightening if Macron does indeed win, especially if the ECB does begin to signal a tapering of bond purchases in 2018. That would result in wider risk premia across all European bond markets as valuations start to return to levels more in line with fundamentals. Given France's high sovereign debt levels and low productivity growth vis-à-vis Germany, we do not see the OAT-Bund spread returning to the pre-election lows if the ECB slows its bond buying. Thus, we are taking profits on the long France/Short Germany 10-year bond trade in our Tactical Overlay Portfolio, which we established back in early February when the spread was 76bps; 26bps higher than yesterday's close.4 Bottom Line: The factors that have driven global bond yields lower over the past month are not sustainable. Maintain a below-benchmark duration exposure, with current yield levels looking attractive to add to underweight/short positions as we did last week. We got the market-friendly outcome in the French election that we were expecting. We are closing our recommended long 10-year France vs 10-year Germany Tactical Overlay trade after the post-election spread tightening, at a profit of 1.3%. Robert Robis, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report, "Pricing Power Comeback," dated April 24 2017, available at uses.bcaresearch.com 2 That assumes a difference between headline CPI and PCE deflator inflation in line with its historical average of around 50bps. 3 Please see BCA Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, "OPEC 2.0 Cuts Will Be Extended Into 2017/H2; Fade The Skew And Get Long Calls Vs. Short Puts," dated April 20 2017, available at ces.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report, "Our Views On French Government Bonds," dated February 7 2017, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Global Bond Yields On The Move, Higher Global Bond Yields On The Move, Higher Recommendations Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Highlights Duration: The market is now priced for only 30 bps of rate hikes between now and the end of the year, despite little evidence that growth is actually slowing. Stay at below-benchmark duration and remain short the January 2018 Fed Funds Futures contract. TIPS: Although we still expect TIPS breakevens to widen as inflation rises, this week we review possible arguments for why breakevens might have shifted to a permanently lower post-crisis equilibrium. Remain overweight TIPS versus nominal Treasuries. Corporate Valuation: Our Default-Adjusted Spread remains at reasonably attractive levels, suggesting that corporate spreads will tighten in the coming months if the economic recovery remains on track. Remain overweight corporate bonds within U.S. fixed income portfolios. Feature Chart 1Yields Lower Since March FOMC Yields Lower Since March FOMC Yields Lower Since March FOMC In last week's report we argued that recent bond market strength was caused by a politically-induced flight-to-quality. In particular, we noted that the term structure of implied equity volatility had inverted - investors were paying more to hedge equity positions over a 1-month horizon than over a 3-month horizon. But political tensions have eased somewhat during the past week. President Trump promised to unveil his administration's tax reform plan this Wednesday, and the first round of the French election resulted in centrist candidate Emmanuel Macron securing a significant advantage over far-right candidate Marine Le Pen. As a consequence, 1-month implied equity vol fell back below 3-month vol, and the bond rally ebbed with the 10-year Treasury yield edging up to 2.29% from 2.17% at this time last week. Nonetheless, bond yields are still far below the levels seen following the last FOMC meeting in mid-March. Since that meeting, the 10-year Treasury yield has fallen 27 bps, split between a 12 bps decline in the real yield and a 15 bps drop in the cost of inflation compensation (Chart 1). Real Yields Are Too Low As shown in the top panel of Chart 1, the 10-year real yield is tightly linked to the number of rate hikes discounted in the overnight index swap curve during the next 12 months. Further, the drop in both of these series since mid-March occurred alongside a string of economic data disappointments, as evidenced by the sharp fall in the Economic Surprise Index (Chart 2). Our assessment, however, is that the mean reversion in the surprise index represents excessively optimistic expectations rather than a trend change in the pace of U.S. growth. Chart 2Disappointments Are Discounted Disappointments Are Discounted Disappointments Are Discounted To test this theory, we looked at the New York Fed's Nowcast for Q1 GDP growth and noted that it has been revised lower from 2.96% (as of March 24) to 2.65% (as of April 20). We observed that the data releases responsible for the bulk of the downward revision were: Real consumer spending Retail sales and food services Import & Export growth Housing starts As can be seen in Chart 3, with the exception of real consumer spending, all of the other data disappointments represent small corrections from elevated levels. As for real consumer spending, we noted last week that the recent weakness is probably explained by problems with Q1 seasonal adjustments.1 Taking a step back, U.S. growth still appears to be on solid footing. The BCA Beige Book Monitor, introduced last week by our U.S. Investment Strategy service,2 scans the Federal Reserve's Beige Book3 for the words "strong" and "weak" (and their derivatives like stronger, weakened, etc...). The Monitor is the number of "strong" words less the number of "weak" words, and it has been an excellent coincident indicator of GDP growth since the mid-1990s (Chart 4). At present, the Beige Book Monitor is sending a robust signal for U.S. growth. Similarly, despite supposed weakness in housing starts and trade data, our preferred leading indicators point to continued strength in both the residential investment and net export components of GDP (Chart 4, bottom 2 panels). Chart 3What Weak Data? What Weak Data? What Weak Data? Chart 4Growth Still Looks Strong Growth Still Looks Strong Growth Still Looks Strong Bottom Line: The market is now priced for only 30 bps of rate hikes between now and the end of the year, despite little evidence that growth is actually slowing. We still expect the Fed will lift rates by at least 50 bps between now and the end of the year. Stay at below-benchmark duration and remain short the January 2018 Fed Funds Futures contract. TIPS Breakevens: How Far From Fair Value? As was mentioned above, the cost of 10-year inflation compensation has also declined since mid-March alongside some weakness in the headline non-seasonally adjusted Consumer Price Index (see Chart 1). Our Financial Model of TIPS Breakevens - which models the 10-year TIPS breakeven rate using the stock-to-bond total return ratio, the price of oil and the trade-weighted dollar - attributes the recent decline to weakness in the stock-to-bond ratio and the fact that the 10-year breakeven rate was already quite elevated compared to our model's fair value (Chart 5). The 10-year breakeven rate is still somewhat wide compared to our model's fair value, but much less so. We remain overweight TIPS versus nominal Treasuries on the view that growth will be strong enough to keep measures of core inflation on a steady upward trajectory, eventually converging with the Fed's 2% inflation target. The fair value reading from our TIPS Financial Model should also trend gradually higher in this environment. Historically, core PCE inflation anchored around the Fed's 2% inflation target has corresponded with a 5y5y TIPS breakeven inflation rate in the range of 2.4% to 2.5% (current value 1.89%) and a 5y5y CPI swap rate between 2.8% and 2.9% (current value = 2.31%) (Chart 6). These remain our target levels for TIPS breakevens and CPI swaps, respectively. Chart 5TIPS Financial Model TIPS Financial Model TIPS Financial Model Chart 6Still Below Target Still Below Target Still Below Target However, we must also consider the possibility that these target ranges, based on the mid-2000s, may no longer be applicable. Put differently, it is possible that the market for inflation protection underwent a structural shift following the financial crisis and the appropriate level for long-maturity TIPS breakeven rates when core PCE is anchored around 2% might now be lower. A Structurally Lower Inflation Risk Premium? It is common to think of the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate as: TIPS Breakeven Inflation = Inflation Expectations + Inflation Risk Premium The inflation risk premium is the extra return required by nominal bond investors to bear the risk that future inflation will differ from expected inflation. In theory, this premium can be influenced by uncertainty about the inflation outlook, but also by structural factors that make it more or less attractive to include TIPS in a portfolio. For example, any asset that is negatively correlated with equities is more valuable as a hedge in the context of an overall portfolio and investors should demand less of a risk premium to hold that asset. As one recent Fed paper4 noted, the correlation between long-maturity TIPS breakeven rates and equities has shifted from being negative in the 1980s to being sharply positive in recent years. This means that TIPS have become less valuable as a hedge against equity positions. All else equal, this should increase the yield that investors demand to hold TIPS and thus lower the TIPS breakeven inflation rate. We acknowledge the strong positive correlation between equities and TIPS breakevens, but are inclined to view it as more of a cyclical phenomenon. Chart 7 shows that the correlation between inflation expectations5 and equities was negative when inflation was above the Fed's 2% target in the 1980s and also that the correlation becomes more positive when the Fed eases and more negative when the Fed tightens (Chart 7, bottom panel). Chart 7Correlation Between Breakevens & Equities Is Cyclical Correlation Between Breakevens & Equities Is Cyclical Correlation Between Breakevens & Equities Is Cyclical In other words, when inflation is low the Fed has an incentive to maintain an accommodative monetary policy. It does not react strongly when inflation rises, and this supports increases in both inflation expectations and equity prices. However, when inflation becomes too high, the correlation between inflation expectations and equity prices shifts because higher inflation now signals a more rapid pace of Fed tightening which tends to depress equities. It therefore seems likely that the correlation between TIPS breakevens and equity prices will weaken as inflation rises and the Fed tightens policy. So we do not view this as a compelling reason for why TIPS breakevens might be permanently lower. Structural Limits To Arbitrage? A potentially more interesting line of argument comes from a 2010 paper by Fleckenstein, Longstaff and Lustig.6 In this paper, the authors document a persistent arbitrage opportunity between TIPS and nominal Treasury bonds. Investors can earn risk-free returns using inflation swaps and TIPS to replicate the cash flows from a nominal Treasury bond. The authors also find that this arbitrage opportunity biases TIPS breakeven rates lower, and that this bias worsens in times of increased financial market volatility. Chart 8Repo Market Less Efficient Repo Market Less Efficient Repo Market Less Efficient Specifically, the authors demonstrate that the size of the downward bias in TIPS breakevens increases as repo market fails trend higher. The rationale being that repo fails occur when market participants are unable to acquire specific Treasury collateral. This is taken as a signal that the supply of government bonds is constrained, which makes it more difficult to take advantage of the arbitrage between TIPS and nominal Treasuries. Interestingly, repo fails have been trending higher since the financial crisis as repo market activity has been reduced by strict post-crisis regulations (Chart 8). The case has been made that new regulations - specifically the Supplementary Leverage Ratio which forces dealer banks to set aside a fixed amount of capital for any assets they hold, regardless of riskiness - have caused dealers to shy away from low margin businesses such as making markets in repo.7 It is conceivable that reduced activity in the repo market has resulted in less available collateral and increased fails. If this is the new state of affairs, then it is possible that TIPS breakevens will be permanently lower in the post-crisis world because lack of liquidity in the repo market has reduced the attractiveness of arbitraging the difference between nominal and real yields. So far, we are reluctant to draw any sweeping conclusions from this analysis. In fact, if the Fed believes that the fair value for long-maturity TIPS breakevens is between 2.4% and 2.5%, then does the "limits to arbitrage" argument even matter? Also, Manmohan Singh of the IMF has argued that the act of the Fed unwinding its balance sheet would free up balance sheet space for dealer banks, mitigating some of the regulatory burden and leading to a more efficient repo market.8 If this is correct, then repo fails could decline as the Fed starts to let its balance sheet run down, a process that is likely to start later this year. For now, we consider the theory of a permanently lower equilibrium for TIPS breakevens a risk to our view that merits further research in the coming weeks. Corporate Bond Valuation Update With the release of the Moody's Default Report for March we were able to update our High-Yield Default-Adjusted Spread (Chart 9). Our Default-Adjusted Spread is equal to the average option-adjusted spread from the Bloomberg Barclays High-Yield index less a 12-month forecast of default losses. That 12-month forecast is based on Moody's baseline forecast for the speculative grade default rate and our own forecast of the recovery rate. Chart 9Default-Adjusted Spread Default-Adjusted Spread Default-Adjusted Spread Moody's data show that the speculative grade default rate was 4.7% for the 12 months ending in March, and the baseline forecast calls for it to fall to 3% during the next 12 months. Using this forecast we calculate that the current Default-Adjusted Spread is 228 bps. Our analysis shows that excess returns for both Investment Grade and High-Yield corporate bonds are usually positive unless the Default-Adjusted Spread is below 100 bps. The relationship between excess returns and the Default-Adjusted Spread for both Investment Grade and High-Yield corporates is shown graphically in Charts 10 & 11 and also in Tables 1 & 2. Chart 1012-Month Excess Investment Grade Returns ##br##Vs. Ex-Ante Default-Adjusted Spread (2003 - Present) Will Breakevens Ever Recover? Will Breakevens Ever Recover? Chart 1112-Month Excess High-Yield Returns Versus Ex-Ante ##br##Default-Adjusted Spread (2003-Present) Will Breakevens Ever Recover? Will Breakevens Ever Recover? Table 112-Month Investment Grade Excess Returns & Ex-Ante Default-Adjusted Spread Will Breakevens Ever Recover? Will Breakevens Ever Recover? Table 212-Month High-Yield Excess Returns & Ex-Ante Default-Adjusted Spread Will Breakevens Ever Recover? Will Breakevens Ever Recover? Given our relatively optimistic outlook for U.S. growth, we tend to view current valuation levels as attractive and see scope for spread tightening during the next few months. However, the weakening state of corporate balance sheets means spreads are at risk once inflation starts to bite and monetary policy turns less accommodative, possibly as early as next year.9 Bottom Line: Our Default-Adjusted Spread remains at reasonably attractive levels, suggesting that corporate spreads will tighten in the coming months if the economic recovery remains on track. Remain overweight corporate bonds within U.S. fixed income portfolios. Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Fade The Flight To Safety", dated April 18, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "The Great Debate Continues", dated April 17, 2017, available at usis.bcaresearch.com 3 According to the Fed, the Beige Book provides "an up-to-date depiction of regional economic conditions based on anecdotal information gathered from a diverse range of business and community contacts." 4 Chen, Andrew Y., Eric C. Engstrom, and Olesya V. Grishchenko (2016). "Has the inflation risk premium fallen? Is it now negative?," FEDS Notes. Washington: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, April 4, 2016, http://dx.doi.org/10.17016/2380-7172.1720 5 In order to benefit from more back-data, in Chart 7 we use the Cleveland Fed's measure of inflation expectations rather than TIPS breakeven rates. Details about the Cleveland Fed's methodology can be found here: https://www.clevelandfed.org/en/our-research/indicators-and-data/inflation-expectations.aspx 6 Fleckenstein, Matthias, Francis A. Longstaff, and Hanno Lustig (2010). "Why Does the Treasury Issue TIPS? The TIPS-Treasury Bond Puzzle", NBER Working Paper No. 16358. September 2010. JEL No. E6,G12,G14. http://www.nber.org/papers/w16358 7 https://www.forbes.com/sites/lbsbusinessstrategyreview/2016/03/11/why-are-big-banks-offering-less-liquidity-to-bond-markets/#64286f5729de 8 https://ftalphaville.ft.com/2017/04/24/2187716/guest-post-why-shrinking-the-fed-balance-sheet-may-have-an-easing-effect/ 9 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "The Payback Period In Corporate Bonds", dated April 11, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

Highlights It is difficult to judge how much of the recent unwind of the Trump Trades has been due to data disappointments versus rising geopolitical tensions. We do not believe that an attack on North Korea is imminent. Rather, U.S. military muscle-flexing is designed to force the rogue state to the negotiating table. On the economic front, the U.S. "hard" data have disappointed surveys in Q1. However, we believe this largely reflects weather and seasonal adjustment distortions. The Leading Economic Indicator and our new Beige Book Monitor support this view. Our profit growth model is very bullish for earnings this year, and is supported by our proxies for corporate pricing power. The latter is improving relative to wage growth recently, suggesting that there is more upside for margins this year. Returning cash to shareholders has not been particularly strong in this expansion relative to past expansions, contrary to popular belief. Nonetheless, buyback activity will continue to boost EPS growth by about 2 percentage points. Cyclical conditions and a significant improvement in relative valuation suggests that investors should continue to favor small over large cap stocks. Feature Treasury yields fell to their lowest level last week since just after the U.S. Presidential election. The solid start to the Q1 earnings reporting season was not enough to offset the disappointing economic reports and geopolitical fears, leaving U.S. equity prices mostly lower on the week (Chart 1). We thought that the "hard" data would improve to meet the accelerating "soft" data, but that clearly didn't occur last week. Unusual weather in March may have been a factor. We will return to the outlook for the economy and corporate profits later in the report. Chart 1Q1 Growth Disappoints Q1 Growth Disappoints Q1 Growth Disappoints It is difficult to judge how much of the bond rally has been due to data disappointments versus rising geopolitical tensions. President Trump's military show of force in Asia and comments about "losing patience" with North Korea have the world on edge. The U.S. has acted tough with the regime before, but nothing beyond economic sanctions ever materialized. The balance of power vis-à-vis China and the military threat to South Korea made North Korea a stalemate. Nonetheless, our geopolitical team argues that the calculus of the standoff is changing. Most importantly, the rogue regime is getting closer to being capable of hitting the U.S. with long-range missiles. Second, China is unhappy with the increased U.S. military presence in its backyard that North Korea is inviting. China also sees North Korea's missile tests as a threat to its own security. Third, the U.S. is prepared to use the threat of trade sanctions as leverage with Beijing. It is demanding that China use its own economic leverage to convince North Korea to freeze its nuclear and missile programs. We do not believe that an attack on North Korea is imminent. But doing nothing is not an option either. Our base case is that the U.S. military's muscle-flexing is designed to force North Korea to the negotiating table. Over the next four years, the North might be persuaded to freeze its nuclear and missile programs in exchange for a non-aggression pact from the U.S. and a lifting of sanctions. That said, this is probably North Korea's last chance to show it can be pragmatic. A failure of negotiations would induce a real crisis in which the U.S. contemplates unilateral action. It would be a bad sign if North Korea's long-range missile tests continue, are successful, and show greater distances.1 The market's political focus will likely turn back to Washington this week. Congress has until April 28 to pass a bill to keep the U.S. government running through the end of fiscal year 2017. Our Geopolitical Strategy Service continues to expect a deal to get done, but a partial government shutdown lasting a few weeks could occur. Separately, Congress will need to approve an increase in the debt ceiling by July-September in order for the Treasury to avoid defaulting on payments. While the negotiations surrounding both of events could weigh on Treasury yields in the near term, our view is that they are unlikely to prevent an uptrend in yields over the coming 6-12 months. As for North Korea, the safe-haven bid in the Treasury market will moderate if Kim Jong-un agrees to negotiations. But, near term, this situation is a huge wildcard. We cannot rule out another wave of risk aversion in financial markets. As this week's publication goes to press, the results of the first round of the French presidential election are being tabulated. Please consult BCA's Daily Insight on Monday, April 24, 2017 for our first take on the election results. A Temporary Soft Patch Or Something Worse? In last week's report, we wrote that the weak readings from the "hard" economic data would soon catch up with the surging "soft" economic data. In fact, the opposite has occurred since mid-April. Is this the start of a prolonged weak patch in the U.S. economy? Or is the softness perhaps related to weather and poor seasonal adjustment? We favor the later explanation for now. The first quarter GDP report is due out this Friday, April 28. The Bloomberg consensus is looking for just a 1.2% gain in the quarter after the 2.1% increase in Q4 2016. The Atlanta Fed's "GDP Nowcast" puts Q1 GDP at just 0.5% (Chart 1). The New York Fed's "Nowcast" is at 2.7%. Both estimates have been moving consistently lower since early March, dragging down 10-year Treasury yields (with U.S. stock prices along for the ride). Financial markets should be used to weak readings on first quarter GDP by now. Between 1950 and 1996, Q1 GDP was the weakest quarter of the year in just 14 of 47 years, or 30% of the time (Table 1). Q2 growth was stronger than Q1 growth about half the time. This is just about what you would expect if the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis' (BEA) seasonal adjustment program was functioning properly. But something has gone awry since 1997, despite the government statisticians' recent attempts to correct the problem. Over the past 20 years, the first quarter has been the weakest GDP reading of the year 10 times, or 50% of the time, and Q2 GDP growth has been faster than Q1 growth 70% of the time. Table 1The Gap Between GDP Growth In Q1 And Q2 Has Widened In The Past 20 Years Spring Snapback? Spring Snapback? A recent study by the staff at the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland2 suggests that the main culprits in this anomaly are in the private investment and government consumption components of GDP. More specifically, the Cleveland Fed cites defense spending as the key driver of the weakness in Q1 GDP relative to other quarters. We'll expand on this theme in next week's U.S. Investment Strategy report, but for now our view remains that the weakness in U.S. economic growth is temporary. The March reading of the Conference Board's Leading Economic Indicator provided no warning that underlying growth is about to trail off, although a couple of the regional Fed surveys have backed off of their recent highs. With April shaping up to be warmer than usual across the U.S., we expect a bounce back in weather-impacted "hard" data like retail sales, housing starts and industrial production. The April update of our Beige Book Monitor, which we introduced last week, confirms that the economy is stronger than the GDP data suggest (Chart 2). The Monitor is simply the difference between the percentage of "strong" versus "weak" descriptors for growth in the document. Chart 2BCA Beige Book Monitor Upbeat For Growth BCA Beige Book Monitor Upbeat For Growth BCA Beige Book Monitor Upbeat For Growth The Monitor edged higher in April to 65%, from 51% in the March reading. "Weather" was mentioned 18 times, after just 6 mentions in March. More than two thirds of the 18 mentions of weather in April cited it as having a negative impact on economic activity. This supports our view that weather had a non-negligible impact on the hard data in March. Thus, if the weather in the first three weeks of April persists into the final week of the month, the stage is set for a noticeable improvement in U.S. economic data released in May. All else equal, this should temper fears that the U.S. economic expansion has lost momentum, supporting stock prices and allowing the recent bond rally to unwind (depending on geopolitics). The soft March CPI also appeared to be quirky, revealing that the core measure actually contracted in March (Chart 3). We note, however, that the weak March reading followed two months of extremely strong gains. In addition, it still appears as though measures of core inflation put in a cyclical bottom in early 2015. While our CPI diffusion index is still below zero, signaling that inflation is likely to remain soft during the next couple of months, it would be premature to suggest that the gradual uptrend in core inflation has reversed. Our "inflation words" indicator based on the Beige Book remains in an uptrend (Chart 2). Chart 3Has U.S. Inflation Peaked? Has U.S. Inflation Peaked? Has U.S. Inflation Peaked? A rebound in the activity data in the coming months should keep the Fed on track to raise rates at least two more times in 2017. A rate hike in next month is unlikely, but we would not rule out June if the economic data firm as we expect. Positive Signs For U.S. Corporate Pricing Power Another 82 S&P 500 companies report first quarter results this week, making it the busiest week of the season. The consensus for Q1 earnings growth remains near 10% on a 4-quarter trailing basis. That forecast is likely to be met. We highlighted the positive 2017 outlook for U.S. corporate profits in the April 10, 2017 Weekly Report. The U.S. experienced a profit recession in 2016 that did not coincide with an economic recession. Oil prices were part of the story, but we have seen this pattern occur several time since the late 1990s; nominal GDP growth (a proxy for top line growth) decelerates temporarily relative to labor compensation growth. Margins get squeezed but, since the economy manages to avoid a recession, nominal GDP growth subsequently rebounds relative to labor compensation. This resulted in a 'catch up' phase when earnings-per-share growth accelerated sharply and equity returns were favorable. We believe that U.S. earnings are in the same type of catch-up phase now, which has been accentuated by the rebound in oil prices. Proprietary indicators from our sister publication, the U.S. Equity Strategy service, confirm our thesis. First, deflation pressures appear to be abating. A modest revival in corporate pricing power is underway according to our Pricing Power Proxy (Chart 4). It is constructed from proxies for selling prices in almost 50 industries. Importantly, the rise in the Proxy is broadly based across industries (as shown by the diffusion index in the chart). As a side note, the Proxy provides some evidence that softness in core CPI will not last. At the same time, the upward march of wage growth appears to be taking a breather (Chart 4). Average hourly earnings growth has softened in recent months. Broader measures, such as the Atlanta Fed Wage Tracker, tell a similar story. We do not expect wage growth to decelerate much given tightness in the labor market. Nonetheless, the combination of firming pricing power and contained wage growth (for now) suggests that margins will continue to expand modestly in the first half of the year. Our model even suggests that U.S. EPS growth has a very good shot at matching (perpetually optimistic) bottom-up estimates for 2017 (Chart 5). Chart 4Corporate Sector Gaining ##br##Some Pricing Power Corporate Sector Gaining Some Pricing Power Corporate Sector Gaining Some Pricing Power Chart 5Profit Model##br## Is Very Bullish Profit Model Is Very Bullish Profit Model Is Very Bullish Companies have supported per share profits in this expansion in part via share buybacks, often funded through debt issuance. This has generated some angst that companies are sacrificing long-term earnings growth potential for short-term EPS growth. This appeared to be the case early in the expansion, but the story is less compelling today. Chart 6 compares the cumulative dollar value of equity buybacks and dividends in this expansion with the previous three expansion phases. The cumulative dollar values are divided by cumulative nominal GDP to make the data comparable across cycles. By this metric, capital spending has lagged previous expansion, but not by much. While capital spending growth has been weak, the same has been true for GDP growth. Chart 6Comparison Of Corporate Outlays Across Four Economic Expansion Phases Spring Snapback? Spring Snapback? Dividend payments have been stronger than the three previous expansions. Buyback activity was also more aggressive compared with the 1990s and 2000s, although repurchase activity has been roughly in line with the expansion that ended in 2007. Net equity withdrawal since 2009, which includes the net impact of IPOs, share buybacks and M&A activity, has not been out of line with previous expansions. Bottom Line: CFOs have not been radically different in this cycle in terms of apportioning funds between capital spending and returning cash to shareholders. Buyback Tailwind To Continue How important are buybacks to EPS growth? Chart 7 (second panel) presents a rough proxy for the historical impact of equity withdrawal that is based on the S&P 500 divisor. It is the difference between EPS growth and growth in total dollar earnings. When the line is above zero, it means that EPS growth has been lifted above dollar earnings growth via equity withdrawals. Chart 7Buybacks Adding Almost ##br##2 Percentage Points To EPS Growth Buybacks Adding Almost 2 Percentage Points To EPS Growth Buybacks Adding Almost 2 Percentage Points To EPS Growth This proxy must be taken with a grain of salt due to the manner in which the divisor is calculated. Nonetheless, it suggests that buybacks have boosted EPS growth by 2 percentage points in the year to 2016Q4. We expect that buyback activity will continue to be a mild tailwind in the coming quarters given the positive reading from our Capital Structure Preference Indicator (Chart 7, third panel). This Indicator is defined as the equity risk premium minus the default adjusted high-yield corporate bond yield. When the indicator is above zero, there is financial incentive for firms to issue debt and buy back shares. Conversely, firms are incentivized to issue stock and retire debt when the indicator is below zero. The Indicator is currently positive, although not as high as it was in 2015. Bottom Line: Buybacks have not had an outsized impact on EPS growth in this cycle, but the good news is that this tailwind is likely to continue. Capitalization Strategy: Stick With Small Caps The relative performance of U.S. small vs large cap stocks surged following the November election, but has since retraced about two-thirds of its post-election gains and has recently been trading below its 200-day moving average. Small cap stocks have been one of several "Trump trades" that have waned over the past three months, but our view is that several positive tailwinds for small cap relative performance continue to warrant an overweight stance: Panel 1 of Chart 8 highlights that our cyclical capitalization indicator has moved sharply into positive territory following the election, and has remained positive despite the recent weakness in small cap relative performance. Small cap stocks have been a reliably high-beta segment of U.S. capital markets since the middle of the last economic cycle (panel 2), which argues for a bullish stance given our overweight positions in U.S. equities versus bonds. Our relative valuation indicator for U.S. small caps has moved back towards neutral valuation territory, which is a significant change from the conditions that prevailed in the early part of the U.S. economic recovery. Chart 9 shows that the indicator was consistently elevated from 2009 until early-2015, but has since fallen back to zero. While relative prices have accounted for some of this adjustment, the relative (trailing) earnings trend for small cap stocks remains in an uptrend and has recently risen to an all-time high, despite a disappointing Q1. Chart 10 highlights one risk to the small cap trade that will be important to monitor. The chart shows the NFIB's outlook survey along with the percentage of respondents citing "red tape" as the most important problem facing their business. The consistent rise in concerns about red tape under the Obama administration, especially the strong rise that began in 2010, suggests that small firms have found elements of the Affordable Care Act to be particularly burdensome for their business. This suggests that a portion of the sharp rise in the outlook for small businesses following the election has occurred due to expectations that the ACA will be repealed, in turn implying that confidence may wither following the failure of the American Health Care Act (AHCA) to even be subjected to a vote in the House. Chart 8Beta And The Cycle Argue ##br##For Small Caps Beta And The Cycle Argue For Small Caps Beta And The Cycle Argue For Small Caps Chart 9Small Caps Are##br## No Longer Expensive Small Caps Are No Longer Expensive Small Caps Are No Longer Expensive Chart 10Watch The Change Of A "Trump Slump" ##br##In Small Business Sentiment Watch The Change Of A "Trump Slump" In Small Business Sentiment Watch The Change Of A "Trump Slump" In Small Business Sentiment While several planned policies of the Trump administration have indeed been delayed due to the failure of the AHCA, we remain of the view that a legislative agenda that at least appears to be pro-business remains in place. As such, our view is that it is too early to abandon a bullish bias towards small cap stocks, especially given the major improvement in relative valuation that we noted above. Bottom Line: Cyclical conditions and a significant improvement in relative valuation suggests that investors should continue to favor small over large cap stocks. The failure of the AHCA may cause a near-term pullback in small business confidence, but we doubt that this will be sustained over the coming 6-12 months. John Canally, CFA, Senior Vice President U.S. Investment Strategy johnc@bcaresearch.com Mark McClellan, Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst markm@bcaresearch.com Jonathan LaBerge Vice President, Special Reports jonathanl@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "North Korea: Beyond Satire," dated April 19, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 "Lingering Residual Seasonality in GDP Growth," Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland, March 28, 2017.

Highlights Safe-haven assets do not simply outperform equities on a relative basis during bear markets. In fact, the average return of nine safe-haven assets has been positive in every bear market since 1972. A safe haven should serve two purposes. First, it should have a negative correlation with equities during bear markets, not necessarily in all markets. Second, it should have an insurance-like payoff, surging during systemic crashes. Low intra-correlations between safe-haven assets, and substantial absolute differences between individual returns and the overall group average suggest that selection adds significant alpha. In the next bear market, we recommend positions in CHF over USD and JPY, due to its greater consistency as a safe-haven asset and more attractive valuations. Favor gold over farmland and TIPS, as gold offers a better hedge against political risks while still protecting against rising inflation. Overweight Treasuries relative to Bunds given a more appealing return distribution and high spreads. Feature Feature ChartSafe Haven Performance Safe Haven Performance Safe Haven Performance As the economic expansion approaches its 100th month, far longer than 38.7 month average1 of cycles starting from 1854, concerns continue to mount over the next recession and equity market crash. Memories of over 50% losses in stocks during the subprime crisis are still ingrained in investors' minds and the importance of capital preservation and safe-haven assets cannot be stressed enough. Safe-haven assets do not simply outperform equities on a relative basis during bear markets. In fact, during the subprime crisis, an equal-weighted portfolio of nine safe-haven assets actually increased in absolute value by 12% (Feature Chart)! This has held consistent through every bear market since 1972 and we expect the next crisis to be the same. While we do not expect a bear market in the next 12 months, we do stress the importance of being prepared and tactically flexible given the substantial relative and absolute performance of safe-haven assets. In this Special Report, we analyze behaviors of safe havens during past bear markets in order to recommend tilts to outperform during the next major equity selloff. Historical Perspective For our analysis, we used monthly return data to more accurately compare across asset classes. We used the following nine safe-haven assets: U.S. Dollar - As the world's reserve currency, the U.S. dollar benefits from massive trade volumes. Japanese Yen - Japan is still the world's 3rd largest economy and runs a current account surplus. Investors' perceptions of safety are intact and the currency benefits from unwinding of carry trades during risk-off environments. Swiss Franc - Switzerland has built a reputation for its international banking prowess, political neutrality and economic stability. U.S. Farmland - Farmland differs from the others in that it is a tangible, hard asset. With finite supply and an increasing population leading to higher needs for farming and food, demand will remain robust. U.S. Treasuries - Treasuries have essentially no default risk. Since its formation in 1776, the U.S. has never failed to pay back its debt. German Bunds - Germany benefits from being economically and politically stable. Bunds are extremely liquid and could receive capital inflows in the event of euro area disintegration. Gold - Gold has a longstanding history as a safe-haven asset, protecting against inflation, currency debasement and geopolitical risks. U.S. TIPS - TIPS are the purest inflation hedge; their historical performance has held a very tight correlation with realized changes in consumer prices. Hedge Funds - Hedge funds are attractive given their lack of restrictions and ability to short. We classified an equity bear market as a decline in the S&P 500, from peak to trough, larger than 19%.2 Using this definition, we recorded eight separate instances since 1972 (See Appendix). On average, these episodes lasted about 14 months and equity prices experienced declines of 34%. We examined returns, correlations and recession characteristics in order to draw conclusions about potential future behavior. Key Findings: During bear markets, the value of these nine safe havens increased on average by 9.2% (Table 1). This certainly does not offset the 34% average decline in equities, but it does provide a considerable buffer, particularly if allocators tilt asset class weightings. However, there is concern that safe havens as a whole will not provide as much protection in the next downturn as they have in the past, given weak equity inflows and still-considerable cash on the sidelines (Chart 2). The average absolute spread between the returns of the nine safe havens and their overall average return was 12.3%. While the correlations between financial assets tend to spike upwards during bear markets, they actually remain very low between safe-haven assets. This indicates a significant opportunity for alpha generation during equity downturns. The region from which a crisis stems has little impact on which safe haven outperforms. For example, U.S. Treasuries and the U.S. dollar both increased in value during the past two recessions, despite the tech bubble and subprime crisis originating from the U.S. (Chart 3). Capital inflows into those assets remained robust given their reputation for safety and quality. U.S. Treasuries and the Swiss franc always had positive absolute returns during the eight bear markets, and therefore have always had a negative correlation with equities (Table 2). These two assets have very stable reputations for safety. Nevertheless, other safe havens, such as gold, USD, JPY and Bunds, still maintained negative correlations with equities during most bear markets. U.S. farmland and U.S. TIPS also had positive returns in the three bear markets since their starting dates. Hedge funds, while known to outperform equities during bear markets, did not provide positive absolute returns in any of the four equity downturns since the index began. Table 1Bear Market Performance Safe Havens: Where To Hide Next Time? Safe Havens: Where To Hide Next Time? Chart 2Safe Havens: Less Protection Next Time? Safe Havens: Less Protection Next Time? Safe Havens: Less Protection Next Time? Chart 3Location Doesn't Matter Safe Havens: Where To Hide Next Time? Safe Havens: Where To Hide Next Time? Table 2Correlation With Equities Safe Havens: Where To Hide Next Time? Safe Havens: Where To Hide Next Time? Investment Implications Chart 4A Near-term Bear Market Is Unlikely A Near-term Bear Market Is Unlikely A Near-term Bear Market Is Unlikely It is crucial to understand the purpose of a safe-haven asset as it pertains to portfolio management. First, a safe-haven asset should have a negative correlation with equities during bear markets, not necessarily in all environments. Secondly, and more importantly, a safe-haven asset should have an insurance-like payoff, surging during systemic crashes. As safe havens naturally receive a smaller allocation in typical portfolios due to their underperformance versus equities in most years, it is imperative that relatively smaller weightings and minor tilts offset large declines in equity prices. It is important, however to note that we view the probability of a bear market as highly unlikely over the next twelve months (Chart 4). First, substantial stock price declines are not very common outside of recessions. As our colleague Martin Barnes points out, the yield curve is not inverted, there are no serious financial imbalances, and the leading economic indicator remains in an uptrend.3 Monetary conditions are still stimulative, and it generally requires Fed tightening to surpass equilibrium before recessions occur. Massive average absolute deviations for each individual safe haven from the overall group average and low intra-correlations suggest that selection adds significant alpha (Chart 5). Unlike most financial assets, intra-correlations between safe havens actually decline during bear markets. In order to best compare and contrast safe havens, we divided the assets into three buckets: currencies, inflation hedges and fixed income. Below, we recommend tilts within these buckets and will revisit these recommendations closer to the next bear market. Chart 5Intra-correlations Remain Low In Bear Markets Intra-correlations Remain Low In Bear Markets Intra-correlations Remain Low In Bear Markets Currencies: Overweight CHF relative to USD and JPY. As a zero-sum game, currency selection offers a critical avenue for alpha generation. As global growth continues to improve and capital flows to more cyclical currencies, or to the USD where policymakers are tightening, the Swiss franc should become even more attractively valued. The franc's considerable excess kurtosis, indicating higher likelihood of outsized returns, best fits the insurance-like payoff quality (Chart 6). It is the only currency to have outperformed, and therefore held a negative correlation with equities, during each of the eight recessions, indicating high reliability as a safe-haven asset. Going forward, we see no reason for Switzerland's reputation for economic stability or political neutrality to be compromised. The biggest risk to this view would be if the Swiss National Bank were to stick stubbornly to its peg of the CHF to the EUR during the next recession, thereby dampening the franc's risk-off properties. The USD has historically been able to outperform even when the crisis originated in the U.S. Historical bear market performance was greatest, however, following sharp Fed tightening such as the Volker crash, when the Fed increased rates in response to high inflation, or in the subprime crisis, when the Fed increased rates to slow growth (Chart 7). While we expect inflation and growth to grind upward over the cyclical horizon, our base case is not for a surge in consumer prices or for economic growth to expand significantly above trend. Chart 6Return Distributions Safe Havens: Where To Hide Next Time? Safe Havens: Where To Hide Next Time? Chart 7Fed Tightening = USD Outperformance Fed Tightening = USD Outperformance Fed Tightening = USD Outperformance In the next bear market, the JPY will likely benefit from cheap starting valuations as the BoJ is currently aggressively easing, and its current account surplus raises its fair value. Nevertheless, the yen's returns during equity downturns have not always been consistent with its safe haven reputation. Of the three currencies, since 1970, it has had the lowest probability for large returns. Inflation Hedges: Overweight Gold relative to TIPS and Farmland. Over most of the time frames we tested, gold had the highest correlation with both headline and core inflation (Tables 3 & 4). Table 3Correlation With Core Inflation Safe Havens: Where To Hide Next Time? Safe Havens: Where To Hide Next Time? Table 4Correlation With Headline Inflation Safe Havens: Where To Hide Next Time? Safe Havens: Where To Hide Next Time? The main differentiating factor with gold is its ability to hedge against political risk. Our geopolitical strategists found that of all of the safe-haven assets, gold offered the best protection against political shocks4 (Chart 8). As mentioned in one of our recent Special Reports,5 we believe that stagnation in median wages and wealth inequality will continue to fuel the rise in populism and social unrest. Chart 8Gold Is Best At Hedging Political Risk Safe Havens: Where To Hide Next Time? Safe Havens: Where To Hide Next Time? Farmland has historically offered decent inflation protection, but its history is limited, supply is scarce and the massive runup in prices is a cause for concern. While we currently favor TIPS over nominal bonds, their negative skew and excess kurtosis suggest that they are vulnerable to large negative returns, making them a less-than-ideal safe-haven asset. Fixed Income: Overweight Treasuries relative to Bunds. Concerns that, because government yields are starting at very low levels, bonds will not provide safety in the next bear market, are overblown. Recent history proves that yields can reach negative territory, and historical performance for government fixed income has been robust in almost every significant equity decline. Additionally, the end of the 35-year decline in interest rates should not negatively affect the protection capabilities of Treasuries. Yields actually rose leading up to, and during, the 1972 and 1980 bear markets, and Treasuries still provided positive absolute returns (Chart 9). One caveat is that starting yields are much lower today. If yields were to rise during the next recession, they may not achieve positive absolute returns, though government bonds would still certainly outperform equities by a wide margin. Overall, Treasuries have held a more negative correlation with equities during bear markets, spreads over Bunds will likely continue to rise given diverging monetary policy, and they have historically been more prone to outsized positive returns during crisis periods (Chart 10). Bunds are currently benefitting from flight-to-quality flows resulting from political and policy issues originating in the periphery. However, at some point, concerns that the euro crisis will spread to Germany may eliminate this advantage. Chart 9Rising Yields Were Not A Problem Rising Yields Were Not A Problem Rising Yields Were Not A Problem Chart 10Relative Treasury Valuations Will Become More Attractive Relative Treasury Valuations Will Become More Attractive Relative Treasury Valuations Will Become More Attractive Patrick Trinh, Associate Editor patrick@bcaresearch.com 1 http://www.nber.org/cycles.html. 2 While a 20% decline may be a more widely-used measure for bear markets, there have been three instances of 19% declines since 1972, one of which was a recession. We decided to include these in our analysis to increase the number of observations and improve the reliability of our analysis. 3 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst Special Report, "Beware The 2019 Trump Recession," dated 7 March 2017, available at bca.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Geopolitics and Safe Havens" dated November 11, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see Global Asset Allocation Special Report, "Refreshing Our Long-Term Themes," dated 5 December 2016, available at gaa.bcaresearch.com.

Highlights Treasury yields have slumped since early March, helping to push down the dollar. Slower U.S. growth in the first quarter of the year, weak inflation readings, uncertainty on tax reform, the prospect of a government shutdown, and rising political risks in Europe have all contributed to the Treasury rally. Looking out, U.S. growth should accelerate while growth abroad will stay reasonably firm. The market is pricing in only 34 basis points in rate hikes over the next 12 months. This seems too low to us. Go short the January 2018 fed funds futures contract. Feature What Explains The Treasury Rally? Global bond yields have swooned since early March. The 10-year Treasury yield fell to as low as 2.18% this week, down from a closing high of 2.62% on March 13th. A number of fundamental factors have contributed to the Treasury rally: Recent "hard data" on the U.S. growth picture has been somewhat disappointing. The Atlanta Fed's model suggests that real GDP expanded by only 0.5% in Q1 (Chart 1). So far this month, hard data on payrolls, housing starts, and auto sales have fallen short of consensus expectations. Credit growth has also decelerated sharply (Chart 2). The prospect of tax cuts this year have faded. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin told the Financial Times on Monday that getting a tax bill through Congress by August was "highly aggressive to not realistic at this point."1 Meanwhile, worries about a government shutdown - possibly coming as early as next week - have escalated. Recent inflation readings have been on the soft side. Core CPI dropped by 0.12% month-over-month in March, the first outright decline since 2010. China's growth outlook remains cloudy. Government officials warned this week that recent measures undertaken to cool the housing sector will begin to bite later this month.2 Concerns that the French election will feature a runoff between the "Alt-Right" candidate, Marine Le Pen, and the "Ctrl-Left" candidate, Jean-Luc Mélenchon, have intensified (Chart 3). Euroskeptic parties also continue to make gains in Italy (Chart 4). Chart 1A Disappointing First Quarter A Disappointing First Quarter A Disappointing First Quarter Chart 2Credit Growth Slowdown Credit Growth Slowdown Credit Growth Slowdown While none of the things listed above can be easily dismissed, the key question for fixed-income investors is whether bond yields are already adequately discounting these risks. Keep in mind that markets are pricing in only 34 basis points in Fed rate hikes over the next 12 months (Chart 5). This is substantially less than the median "dot" in the Summary of Economic Projections, which implies three more hikes between now and next April. Chart 3French Elections: A Many-Way Race? French Elections: A Many-Way Race? French Elections: A Many-Way Race? Chart 4Euroskepticism Is On The Rise In Italy Euroskepticism Is On The Rise In Italy Euroskepticism Is On The Rise In Italy Chart 5Markets Are Too Sanguine About The Fed's Rate Hike Intentions Markets Are Too Sanguine About The Fed's Rate Hike Intentions Markets Are Too Sanguine About The Fed's Rate Hike Intentions U.S. Economy Still In Reasonably Good Shape Our view on rates for the next year is closer to the Fed's than the market's. Yes, the "hard data" on U.S. growth has been lackluster. However, as we discussed last week, the hard data may be biased down by seasonal adjustment problems.3 Moreover, the hard data tend to lag the soft data, and the latter remain reasonably perky. Reflecting the strength of the soft data, our newly-released Beige Book Monitor points to an improving growth picture across the Fed's 12 districts (Chart 6). Worries about plunging credit growth are also overstated. While the increase in interest rates since last year has likely curbed credit demand, some of the recent deceleration in business lending appears to be due to the improving financial health of energy companies. Higher profits have permitted these firms to pay back old bank loans, while also enabling them to finance new capital expenditures using internally-generated funds. In addition, the rising appetite for corporate debt has also allowed more companies to access the bond market. According to Bloomberg, the U.S. leveraged-loan market saw $434 billion in issuance in Q1, the highest level on record (Chart 7). Chart 6Fed Districts See Things Improving Fed Districts See Things Improving Fed Districts See Things Improving Chart 7More And More Leveraged Loans Fade The Rally In Treasurys Fade The Rally In Treasurys Looking out, business lending should pick up. The Fed's Senior Loan Officer Survey indicates that banks stopped tightening lending standards to businesses in Q1. This should help boost the supply of credit over the coming months (Chart 8). Meanwhile, the recovery in the manufacturing sector will bolster credit demand. Chart 9 shows that an increase in the ISM manufacturing index leads business lending by 6-to-12 months. Chart 8Bank Lending Standards: Stable For Businesses, Tighter For Consumers Bank Lending Standards: Stable For Businesses, Tighter For Consumers Bank Lending Standards: Stable For Businesses, Tighter For Consumers Chart 9Manufacturing ISM Points To A Pick Up In Business Lending Manufacturing ISM Points To A Pick Up In Business Lending Manufacturing ISM Points To A Pick Up In Business Lending As far as household credit is concerned, higher interest rates and tighter lending standards for consumer loans (especially auto loans) are both headwinds. Nevertheless, overall household leverage has fallen back to 2003 levels and the household debt-service ratio is at multi-decade lows (Chart 10). And while delinquencies have edged higher, they are still well below their historic average (Chart 11). Chart 10Lower Household Leverage Lower Household Leverage Lower Household Leverage Chart 11Despite Slight Uptick, Delinquency Rates Remain Well Contained Despite Slight Uptick, Delinquency Rates Remain Well Contained Despite Slight Uptick, Delinquency Rates Remain Well Contained A reasonably solid growth picture should help lift inflation over the coming months. Chart 12 shows that inflation tends to accelerate once unemployment falls below its full employment level. The U.S. headline unemployment rate currently stands at 4.5%, below the Fed's estimate of NAIRU. Other measures of labor market slack also point to an economy that is quickly running out of surplus labor (Chart 13). As such, it is not surprising that the Atlanta Fed's wage tracker continues to trend higher, as has the NFIB's labor compensation gauge and most other measures of labor compensation (Chart 14). Chart 12The Phillips Curve Appears To Be Non-Linear Fade The Rally In Treasurys Fade The Rally In Treasurys Chart 13Disappearing Labor Market Slack Disappearing Labor Market Slack Disappearing Labor Market Slack Chart 14U.S.: Broad Measures Pointing To Rising Wage Pressures Wage Growth Trending Higher U.S.: Broad Measures Pointing To Rising Wage Pressures Wage Growth Trending Higher U.S.: Broad Measures Pointing To Rising Wage Pressures Wage Growth Trending Higher U.S. Political Risks Will Diminish... The political risks which have pushed down Treasury yields since early March should also subside over the coming weeks. Concerns that the Trump administration will be unable to pass tax cuts are overblown. Unlike in the case of health care, there is virtual unanimity among Republicans in favor of cutting taxes.4 Congressional hearings on tax reform are scheduled to begin next week. We expect Trump to move quickly to get a deal done. He needs a political victory and this is his best shot. We are also not especially worried about the prospect of a government shutdown. Congress needs to agree on a bill to extend government funding beyond April 28 when congressional appropriations are set to expire. So far, Republican leaders are pursuing a sensible strategy of keeping controversial items - including funding for a border wall and cuts to Obamacare subsidies - out of the bill in the hopes of attracting enough Democrat support to avoid a filibuster in the Senate. Without the inclusion of these contentious measures, it would be politically difficult for the Democrats to take any action that triggers a government shutdown, as they would be blamed for the outcome. ...As Will Risks In Europe... Chart 15The French Are Not Euroskeptic The French Are Not Euroskeptic The French Are Not Euroskeptic In the U.K., Prime Minister Theresa May's decision to hold a snap election reduces the risk of a "hard Brexit." The current slim 17-seat majority that the Conservatives hold in Parliament has made May highly dependent on a small band of hardline Tories. These uncompromising MPs would rather see negotiations break down than acquiesce to any of the EU's demands, including that the U.K. pay the remaining £60 billion portion of its contribution to the EU's 2014-20 budget. If the Conservative Party is able to increase its control over Parliament - as current opinion polls suggest is likely - May will have greater flexibility in reaching an agreement with Brussels and will face less of a risk that Parliament shoots down the final deal. Worries about the outcome of French elections should also diminish. Opinion polls continue to signal that Emmanuel Macron will make it to the second round of the presidential contest. If that happens, he would be a shoo-in to win against either Marine Le Pen or the far-left challenger Jean-Luc Mélenchon. Even in the unlikely event that Le Pen or Mélenchon ends up prevailing, their ability to push through their agendas would be severely constrained. Neither candidate is likely to secure a majority in the National Assembly when legislative elections are held in June. French presidents have a lot of leeway over foreign affairs, but need the support of parliament to change taxes, government spending, regulations, or most other aspects of domestic policy.5 Also, keep in mind that France's place in the EU is enshrined in the French constitution. Any modifications to the constitution would require that a referendum be called. Considering that French voters are highly pessimistic of their future outside of the EU, it would require a seismic shift in voter preferences for France to end up following the U.K.'s example (Chart 15). ...And In China Lastly, the risks of a trade war between the U.S. and China have eased following President Trump's summit with President Xi. This should help stem Chinese capital outflows. On the domestic front, the government's efforts to clamp down on property speculation will cool the economy. However, as our China team has pointed out, this may not be such a bad thing, given that recent activity has been strong and parts of the economy are showing signs of overheating. Investment Conclusions Chart 16Bet On The Fed Bet On The Fed Bet On The Fed The reflation trade will eventually fizzle out, but our sense is that this will be more of a story for late next year than for 2017. For now, underlying global growth is still strong and the sort of imbalances that usually precipitate recessions are not severe enough. If there is going to be one big surprise in the U.S. fixed-income market this year, it is that the Fed sticks to its guns and keeps raising rates at a pace of roughly once per quarter. With that in mind, we recommend that clients go short the January 2018 fed funds futures contract as a tactical trade (Chart 16). A rebound in U.S. rate expectations will lead to a widening in interest rate differentials between the U.S. and its trading partners. This will produce a stronger dollar. The yen is likely to suffer the most in a rising rate environment, given the Bank of Japan's policy of keeping the 10-year JGB yield pinned close to zero. On the equity side, we continue to recommend a modestly overweight position in global stocks. Investors should favor Japan and the euro area over the U.S. in local-currency terms. Peter Berezin, Senior Vice President Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com 1 Sam Fleming, Demetri Savastopulo, and Shawn Donnan, "Interview With Steven Mnuchin: Transcript," Financial Times, Monday April 17, 2017. 2 Li Xiang, "Real Estate Investment Likely To Slow Down," Chinadaily.com.cn, April 18, 2017. 3 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Talk Is Cheap: EUR/USD Is Heading Towards Parity," dated April 14, 2017, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Political Risks Are Overstated In 2017," dated April 5, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Five Questions On Europe," dated March 22, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. Strategy & Market Trends Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

Highlights The July 2016 to January 2017 doubling of the global bond yield was possibly the sharpest ever 6-month spike in modern economic history. Its toll is a global growth pause - evidenced by the post February 2017 synchronized retracement of bond yields, commodity prices, steel production, and cyclical equity prices. Until bank credit flows stabilize, stay cyclically overweight bonds - especially T-bonds... ...and stay underweight bank equities, but overweight real estate equities. Fade any knee-jerk move in the CAC40 after the French Presidential Election first round result. Feature Since February, world bond yields have edged down in synchronized fashion; commodity prices - including the global bellwether Dr. Copper - have fallen together (Chart I-2); global steel production has suffered an abrupt reversal; and cyclical sectors in the stock market have rolled over (Chart I-3). Chart of the WeekSharpest Proportionate Change In Bond Yields... Ever? Sharpest Proportionate Change In Bond Yields... Ever? Sharpest Proportionate Change In Bond Yields... Ever? Chart I-2Compelling Evidence Of A Global Growth Pause: ##br##Bond Yields And Commodity Prices Have Rolled Over Compelling Evidence Of A Global Growth Pause: Bond Yields And Commodity Prices Have Rolled Over Compelling Evidence Of A Global Growth Pause: Bond Yields And Commodity Prices Have Rolled Over Chart I-3Steel Production And Cyclical Equity##br## Sectors Have Rolled Over Too Steel Production And Cyclical Equity Sectors Have Rolled Over Too Steel Production And Cyclical Equity Sectors Have Rolled Over Too For us, the synchronized decline in the four separate indicators - bond yields, commodity prices, steel production, and cyclical equity prices - can mean only one thing: a global growth pause. The Largest Proportionate Increase In Bond Yields Ever... To make sense of what is happening, let's ask a simple but crucial question. If interest rates go up, from say 1% to 2%, is it the absolute increase - of 1% - that matters more for the economy, or is it the proportionate increase - a doubling - that matters more? We ask this simple question because the 0.75% absolute increase in the global government bond yield through July 2016 to January 2017 amounted to one of the sharpest rises in the past decade (Chart I-4). But when it comes to the proportionate increase, the doubling of the global yield in 6 months was the sharpest spike in at least 70 years, and quite possibly the sharpest 6-month spike ever in economic history! (Chart I-5 and Chart of the Week). Chart I-4A Sharp Absolute Spike In ##br##Global Bond Yields... A Sharp Absolute Spike In Global Bond Yields... A Sharp Absolute Spike In Global Bond Yields... Chart I-5...But An Extremely Sharp ##br##Proportionate Spike ...But An Extremely Sharp Proportionate Spike ...But An Extremely Sharp Proportionate Spike Anybody with a mortgage knows that it is not the absolute change in the mortgage rate that matters for your budget; it is the proportionate change that matters. A 1% rise in rates hurts much less when rates start high than when they start low. One way to see this is that to note that a 1% spike in U.K. bond yields over six months was extremely common in the 1970s and 80s - when the level of yields was already high. But outside this era of high nominal numbers, a 1% yield spike over six months is almost unheard of (Chart I-6 and Chart I-7). Chart I-6A 1% Rise In Bond Yields Over Six Months Was Very Common In The 70s And 80s A 1% Rise In Bond Yields Over Six Months Was Very Common In The 70s And 80s A 1% Rise In Bond Yields Over Six Months Was Very Common In The 70s And 80s Chart I-7But Today A 1% Rise Equates To An Extreme Proportionate Increase But Today A 1% Rise Equates To An Extreme Proportionate Increase But Today A 1% Rise Equates To An Extreme Proportionate Increase Some people might counter that interest payments are just a transfer from borrowers to savers. For every borrower who complains at a doubling of his interest outlays, there is a mirror-image saver who rejoices at a doubling of his interest income. But understand that higher interest rates do not just redistribute spending power from borrowers to savers. The much more important economic effect almost always comes from the impact on bank lending. Fractional reserve banking allows banks to create money out of thin air. When a bank issues a new loan, the borrower's spending power instantaneously goes up, but there is no equal and opposite saver whose spending power goes down. ...Takes Its Toll On Bank Lending Our thesis is that the change in bank lending depends on the proportionate change in long-term interest rates. If long-term rates rise by, say, 1% then a certain proportion of investment projects will suddenly become unprofitable. Firms (and households) would stop borrowing for such projects, and the drop in borrowing would equal the proportion of projects impacted. It should be clear that the distribution of investment project returns is much wider in an era of high nominal numbers when interest rates are, say, 10% than in an era of low nominal numbers when interest rates are, say, 1%. So the impact on borrowing of a 1% rise in rates is much less when rates are high - as they were in the 1970s and 80s - than when rates are low - as they are today. In other words, the impact depends on the proportionate increase in interest rates. And this explains why a 1% spike in U.K. bond yields over six months was extremely common in the 1970s and 80s, but is almost unheard of now. Some commentators point out that working in the other direction are so-called "animal spirits" - increased optimism about the future and the returns that all investment projects will generate. But as we explained in Credit Slumps While Animal Spirits Soar, Why? 1 the greatest proportionate 6-month increase in global bond yields for at least 70 years has understandably trumped these putative animal spirits. Bank credit flows have slumped. In practice, changes in borrowing can take 3-6 months to impact spending. For this reason, we tend to monitor the change in the credit flow in the last 6 months versus the preceding 6 months. Recently, this global 6-month credit impulse has headed sharply lower (Chart I-8). Chart I-8The Global 6-Month Credit Impulse Has Headed Sharply Lower The Global 6-Month Credit Impulse Has Headed Sharply Lower The Global 6-Month Credit Impulse Has Headed Sharply Lower Putting this all together, the sharpest spike in global bond yields in living memory has taken an understandable toll on bank credit creation and the global 6-month credit impulse. In turn, the slump in the credit impulse is now weighing on the global growth mini-cycle - as signaled by the synchronized retracement in bond yields, commodity prices, steel production and cyclical equity performance. The evidence compellingly suggests that we are two months into a global growth pause. But mini down-cycles tend to last, on average, about six months. So for the time being, and at least until bank credit flows stabilize, own bonds - especially T-bonds - and avoid cyclical equity exposure. Furthermore, as we presciently argued in our February 16 report The Contrarian Case For Bonds, when bond yields decline, bank equities are losers and real estate equities are winners. These arguments still hold. A Brief Comment On Upcoming Elections: France And The U.K. Ahead of the French Presidential Election first round on April 23, we would like to remind readers of two facts. First, the CAC40, like most mainstream European equity indexes, is a collection of large multinational companies. As such, it is not a play on French economics or politics. Indeed, compared to other European indexes, the CAC40 underexposure to banks actually makes it one of the more defensive European equity indexes. Given the loose connection between the index and domestic economics and politics, fade any knee-jerk move that happens after the first round result: sell any relative rally; buy any relative dip. Second, euro area sovereign credit spreads must ultimately relate to the relative competitiveness of their national economies, as this is what would determine the size and direction of redenomination were the euro to break up. In this regard, there is now no difference in competitiveness between France and Spain (Chart I-9), yet Bonos still yield more than OATs. So for long-term investors, it is still right to be long Spanish Bonos versus French OATs. Chart I-9France And Spain Have Converged On Competitiveness France And Spain Have Converged On Competitiveness France And Spain Have Converged On Competitiveness We will wait until the more important second round vote on May 7 to present a more detailed assessment of the impact of French politics on the European economic and investment landscape. Lastly, a quick comment on the likely snap U.K. General Election on June 8: the conventional wisdom states that U.K. politics will drive the type of Brexit; and the type of Brexit will drive the long-term destiny of the U.K. economy. But for us, the causality runs the other way round. The U.K. economy will drive the type of Brexit - the weaker the economy gets, the softer that Brexit will get (and vice-versa); and the type of Brexit will drive the long-term destiny of U.K. politics. Therefore, for us, the General Election does not appear to be a game changer - unless it delivers a shock result. I am on holiday right now, so I will cover this topic in more depth on my return next week. Dhaval Joshi, Senior Vice President European Investment Strategy dhaval@bcaresearch.com 1 Published on March 30, 207 and available at eis.bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading Model There are no new trades this week, but all three open positions are now in profit, having produced classic liquidity-triggered trend reversals. For any investment, excessive trend following and groupthink can reach a natural point of instability, at which point the established trend is highly likely to break down with or without an external catalyst. An early warning sign is the investment's fractal dimension approaching its natural lower bound. Encouragingly, this trigger has consistently identified countertrend moves of various magnitudes across all asset classes. Chart I-10 Short Basic Materials Equities Short Basic Materials Equities * For more details please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report "Fractals, Liquidity & A Trading Model," dated December 11, 2014, available at eis.bcaresearch.com The post-June 9, 2016 fractal trading model rules are: When the fractal dimension approaches the lower limit after an investment has been in an established trend it is a potential trigger for a liquidity-triggered trend reversal. Therefore, open a countertrend position. The profit target is a one-third reversal of the preceding 13-week move. Apply a symmetrical stop-loss. Close the position at the profit target or stop-loss. Otherwise close the position after 13 weeks. Use the position size multiple to control risk. The position size will be smaller for more risky positions. Fractal Trading Model Recommendations Equities Bond & Interest Rates Currency & Other Positions Closed Fractal Trades Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Interest Rate Chart II-5Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations

Highlights GFIS Portfolio: Our GFIS model fixed income portfolio has essentially matched the benchmark in the six months since inception. Our strategic below-benchmark duration stance has given up much of the strong Q4/2016 excess return performance over the past couple of months as bond yields have drifted lower. Corporate bonds contributed positively to performance, particularly after our upgrade of U.S. Investment Grade and High-Yield in late January. Upsizing Positions: The weightings in our model portfolio appear to have been too small versus our benchmark index to generate any meaningful outperformance. This week, we increase our positions for our highest conviction views: staying below-benchmark portfolio duration, underweighting U.S. Treasuries, overweighting U.S. corporate debt and underweighting Italian government debt. Tactical Overlay: Our current Tactical Overlay trades have been very successful over the life of the model bond portfolio, with 9 of 12 positions currently in the money with an average return of 0.45%. We are maintaining these positions for now, even as we alter the model portfolio. Feature Last September, we introduced a new element into our global bond strategy framework - a model portfolio that allows us to track the combined performance of our individual recommendations. The first piece of this process was the introduction of our custom benchmark index that defined our investment universe, which is similar to the Barclays Global Aggregate but with a dedicated allocation to global high-yield corporate debt.1 The next component is presented in this Special Report, where we take an initial look at measuring the performance of our model portfolio. The final element (to be presented in another upcoming report) will be introducing a formal risk management system into our process to help guide the relative sizes of our suggested portfolio tilts. We intend to show the portfolio returns on a quarterly basis going forward, in line with the types of reporting mandates that a typical bond manager might face. However, our recommendations are meant to play out over a more strategic investment horizon of one full year, in line with our proven strength in analyzing medium-term macroeconomic and investment trends. Each individual quarterly report should be interpreted in that context as only a partial reflection of the full expected return from our portfolio if our market calls come to fruition. Overall Portfolio Performance Attribution: Winners & Losers Chart 1GFIS Model Portfolio Performance GFIS Model Portfolio Performance GFIS Model Portfolio Performance Our model portfolio has delivered a total return of -0.41% (hedged into U.S. dollars) since inception on September 20, 2016. This slightly underperformed our Global Fixed Income Strategy (GFIS) custom benchmark index by -2bps, but did outperform the Barclays Global Aggregate index that returned -0.85%. In terms of the main drivers of our returns, the government bond portion of our portfolio added +3bps of excess return versus our GFIS benchmark, while the spread product component subtracted -5bps (Chart 1). These are admittedly small numbers, essentially delivering a benchmark return in six months. In terms of our major asset allocation decisions, our below-benchmark overall duration stance served us well in the final quarter of 2016, adding +20bps of excess return during the run-up in global bond yields following the election victory of President Trump in November. After shifting to a neutral posture in early December, however, our decision to cut duration again in late January has hurt the performance of our model portfolio, as global bond yields have since fallen and eliminated much of our gains from duration positioning from Q4/2016. On the other hand, that same choice to lower duration exposure in late January coincided with our decision to raise exposure to U.S. corporate bonds (both investment grade and high-yield) and cut the allocations to U.S. Treasuries and Euro Area investment grade corporates. U.S. corporates have performed relatively well since then, helping pull the excess return from our overall spread product exposure, excluding U.S. Mortgage Backed Securities (MBS), into positive territory (Chart 1, bottom panel). Unfortunately, our underweight tilt on U.S. MBS - a sector that represents a hefty 14% of our benchmark index - has acted as a drag on our overall returns from spread product. However, MBS performance has started to lag both U.S. Treasuries and corporates of late, justifying our underweight stance. A more detailed performance attribution is presented in Table 1, which shows the excess returns broken down by the same government bond duration buckets and credit sectors that we regularly present in the model portfolio table in our Weekly Reports. We also show the average deviation from our GFIS benchmark index weightings (our "active" positions) over the period in question to give a sense of the bias of our tilts. Table 1A Detailed Breakdown Of The GFIS Model Performance An Initial Look At The Performance Of Our Model Bond Portfolio An Initial Look At The Performance Of Our Model Bond Portfolio Within the government bond portion of our model portfolio, there were positive excess return contributions from the U.S. and Japan (Chart 2), largely coming from underweights at the very long end of the yield curves that reflect our bias for curve steepening in those markets. The 10+ year duration buckets in the U.S. and Japan added +8bps and +7bps of excess return, respectively. Also, our underweight position in Italy helped generate a small positive excess return of +3bps. Chart 2GFIS Model Portfolio Performance Attribution By Country Within Government An Initial Look At The Performance Of Our Model Bond Portfolio An Initial Look At The Performance Of Our Model Bond Portfolio At the same time, our exposures in Europe proved to be an almost equivalent drag on returns, as we maintained an underweight in U.K. Gilts, and overweights in German and French sovereign debt, for a bit too long before the trends in those markets turned late last year (more bullishly for the U.K. and bearishly for core Europe). Within the spread product segment of the portfolio (Chart 3), our steady overweight to U.S. Investment Grade Financials and our large underweight to U.S. Investment Grade industrials late last year (which we reduced substantially in December) helped those segments deliver excess returns of +5bps and +2bps, respectively. Our decision to upgrade High-Yield in late January also added positively to our performance within the Ba-rated and B-rated credit tiers. Emerging market debt, where we have maintained only a neutral weighting, was the largest contributor to absolute returns within our portfolio and our benchmark, adding +30bps to both. Chart 3GFIS Model Portfolio Performance Attribution By Sector Within Spread Product An Initial Look At The Performance Of Our Model Bond Portfolio An Initial Look At The Performance Of Our Model Bond Portfolio Detailed charts showing the total returns, yields, portfolio weights and excess returns for some of our best and worst performing sectors are presented in the Appendix on page 11. Bottom Line: Our GFIS model fixed income portfolio has essentially matched the benchmark in the six months since inception. Our strategic below-benchmark duration stance has given up much of the strong Q4/2016 excess return performance over the past couple of months as bond yields have drifted lower. Corporate bonds contributed positively to performance, particularly after our upgrade of U.S. Investment Grade and High-Yield in late January. Increasing The Sizes Of Our Highest Conviction Portfolio Recommendations Delivering only a benchmark-like return is hardly the goal we are aiming to achieve with our model portfolio. However, given how much our weightings have, in aggregate, mirrored those of our benchmark index so far, the results should not be a surprise. The average (mean) allocations to government debt and spread product over the six-month life our model portfolio are shown in Chart 4, alongside the average (mean) benchmark weightings. It is clear from that chart that our overall exposures have been far too similar to those of our GFIS benchmark index. In the parlance of portfolio management, we have been taking far too little tracking error versus our benchmark, so far, to generate any meaningful alpha. Or, more simply put, our recommended positions have been too small and, in many cases, have been offsetting each other. Chart 4Bigger Tilts Are Needed In The Model Portfolio An Initial Look At The Performance Of Our Model Bond Portfolio An Initial Look At The Performance Of Our Model Bond Portfolio The absence of a true risk management system, incorporating sector correlations and volatilities, has clearly been an issue so far. Our initial (and, admittedly, simple) attempt at sizing our recommendations was based on translating our "1 to 5" rankings from our traditional portfolio allocation tables into a factor that would scale up/down the individual country or sector weightings versus our benchmark.2 Clearly, this approach has not created portfolio weightings large enough to move the needle on performance. We will look to complete that final piece of our GFIS model portfolio framework - appropriate trade sizing and risk management - in the next couple of months. This will allow us to more properly size our relative positions going forward while maintaining enough overall deviation from the GFIS benchmark index (i.e. tracking error) to have a chance to generate meaningful outperformance. For now, however, we feel that we can comfortably increase the sizes of our current recommended tilts for our highest conviction views, which we discussed in our most recent Weekly Report.3 We are reducing our overall portfolio duration from the current 6.34 years (-0.64 years versus our GFIS benchmark index duration) to 5.75 years. After the recent decline in bond yields on the back of rising global geopolitical tensions and a modest soft patch of "hard" U.S. economic data, the entry point for reducing duration exposure even further is attractive. We are cutting our allocation to U.S. Treasuries from the current 14.6% (-3% versus the benchmark) to 10%, and placing the proceeds equally into U.S. Investment Grade and High-Yield corporate debt. This is to capitalize on the cyclical uptrend in U.S. growth and corporate profits, and additional Fed rate hikes, which we still see unfolding this year. We are cutting our allocation to Italian government debt from the current 3.5% (-0.8% versus the benchmark) to 1%, and placing the proceeds equally into Germany and Spain. This is to reduce exposure to the weakest link in the Euro Area, particularly as political risks will remain elevated in Italy leading up to the parliamentary elections that are due in 2018. We are maintaining the current sizes of the medium conviction views that we discussed last week - specifically, the overweight stance on Japanese government bonds (a low-beta market in a rising yield environment) and an underweight tilt on U.S. MBS (where valuations are stretched). The new weightings within our portfolio are shown in the model portfolio table on page 10. Bottom Line: The weightings in our model portfolio appear to have been too small versus our benchmark index to generate any meaningful outperformance. This week, we increase our positions for our highest conviction views: staying below-benchmark portfolio duration, underweight U.S. Treasuries, overweight U.S. corporate debt and underweight Italian government debt. Don't Forget About Our Tactical Overlays Our model portfolio is intended to be a reflection of the more medium-term, strategic fixed income investment views that stem from our regular analysis of trends in the global economy, inflation, monetary policy, etc. In other words, the positions in the portfolio are not intended to be changed too frequently. We also have chosen to stick with what we believe are more liquid markets in the portfolio, and without any use of derivatives of leverage to amplify returns beyond what the "fundamentals" suggest. Our recommendations that are shorter-term in nature (i.e. 0-3 months), or that may be in less liquid markets (i.e. New Zealand government bonds or U.S. TIPS), or that involve derivatives (i.e. Japanese CPI swaps or Sweden Overnight Index Swaps) are placed in our "Tactical Overlay Trades" list that appears in every Weekly Report. These recommendations have been performing extremely well since the inception of our model portfolio, as shown in Table 2.4 Table 2GFIS Tactical Overlay Trades Are Doing Well An Initial Look At The Performance Of Our Model Bond Portfolio An Initial Look At The Performance Of Our Model Bond Portfolio 9 of the current 12 trades are making money, with an average total return of 0.45%. The most successful are the long U.S. TIPS/short U.S. Treasuries trade (+3.4%) and the short 10-year Portugal government bond versus German Bunds trade (+1.0%). While we have not made any attempt to put any position sizes on those trade ideas, in contrast to our model portfolio, it is clear that even a modest allocation to each of these trades would have generated a meaningful positive return "overlay" on top of what was generated by our model portfolio. Bottom Line: Our current Tactical Overlay trades have been very successful over the life of the model bond portfolio, with 9 of 12 positions currently in the money with an average return of 0.45%. We are maintaining these positions for now, even as we alter the model portfolio. Robert Robis, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com Ray Park, Research Analyst ray@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report, "Introducing Our Recommended Global Fixed Income Portfolio", dated September 20, 2016, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com 2 For example, a "5 of 5" ranking would generate a portfolio allocation that was 1.75x the benchmark index weight, while a "1 of 5" ranking would apply a 0.5x factor to the index weight. 3 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "The Song Remains The Same", dated April 11, 2017, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com 4 Please note that in Table 2, the returns on the trades that were initiated before the inception of our model portfolio on September 20th, 2016 are shown from that date and not from the date that the trade was initiated. This is to allow an "apples-to-apples" comparison to our model portfolio performance. The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index An Initial Look At The Performance Of Our Model Bond Portfolio An Initial Look At The Performance Of Our Model Bond Portfolio Appendix - Selected Sectors From The GFIS Model Portfolio Appendix 1 Appendix 1 Appendix 2 Appendix 2 Appendix 3 Appendix 3 Appendix 4 Appendix 4 Appendix 5 Appendix 5 Appendix 6 Appendix 6 Appendix 7 Appendix 7 Appendix 8 Appendix 8

I am honored to join BCA Research as Senior Vice President of the U.S. Investment Strategy service. I have been researching and writing about the economy and financial markets for more than 30 years. I joined BCA Research from LPL Financial in Boston, MA where I served as the firm’s Chief Economic Strategist. At LPL I helped to manage more than $120 billion in client assets and provided more than 14,000 financial advisors and 700+ financial institutions with insights on asset allocation, global financial markets and economics. Prior to LPL, I served in similar functions at PNC Advisors, Stone & McCarthy Research, Prudential Securities, and the Congressional Budget Office in Washington, DC. I look forward to meeting you and providing quality research in the years to come. John Canally, Senior Vice President U.S. Investment Strategy Highlights We are not changing our view on Treasury markets or our stocks over bonds call despite the news that the Fed will begin shrinking its balance sheet later this year. The Fed's action is marginally dollar positive. For the major industrialized economies, the so-called "hard" data are moving in line with the "soft" survey data for the most part. Retail sales and industrial production have accelerated, although "hard" data on business capital spending remains weak. We introduce our Bond Duration checklist this week. These are the key economic and market indicators that we are watching to assess whether we should maintain our current below-benchmark portfolio stance. We continue to favor U.S. equites over bonds in 2017 and recommend keeping duration short of benchmark. Despite outsized performance from high-yield corporate bonds in 2016, investors should favor stocks over high-yield over the coming year. We introduce the BCA Beige Book Monitor this week. This metric provides a quantitative look at the qualitative, or "soft" data in the Fed's Beige Book. The Beige Book is due out Wednesday, April 19. Feature Chart 1Weak Data And More Weighed ##br##On Risk Assets Weak Data And More Weighed On Risk Assets Weak Data And More Weighed On Risk Assets U.S. stocks stumbled and Treasury yields slumped last week with the 10-year Treasury yield hitting a 2017 low. The drop in yields came despite news from the FOMC that the Fed is prepared to shrink its balance sheet later this year, a bit sooner than the market expected. Comments from Fed Chair Yellen - who expressed concern that the Fed's independence is "under threat"- should have jolted the bond market, but didn't. Not yet at least. Geopolitics played a role in the week's market action as well, the main culprits being upcoming French elections, the aftermath of President Trump's missile attack on Syria and ongoing tensions in North Korea. The looming Q1 earnings reporting season weighed on risk assets as well. The dollar ended lower last week. Trump told the Wall Street Journal he prefers a weak dollar. Those comments and the tepid data helped to offset the safe-haven bid generated by the geopolitical events of the week (Chart 1). The "hard" vs "soft" data debate will continue this week and likely for some time thereafter. "Hard" data on housing and manufacturing for March as well as the U.S. leading indicator are due out this week. Of course, the ultimate set of "hard" data is the corporate earnings data. Nearly 70 S&P 500 firms will report Q1 results and provide guidance for Q2 and beyond this week. "Soft" data on the PMI, Philly Fed and Empire State manufacturing sector for April will undoubtedly keep the debate going. Our view is that the hard data will catch up with the upbeat surveys in the U.S. This week we review the key economic indicators for the major advanced economies, which highlight that the global growth acceleration remains on track. We also introduce a Duration Checklist designed to help separate "signal from noise" in the bond market. Most of the items on the Checklist remain bond-bearish. Fed plans to shrink its balance sheet is not particularly negative for bond prices, but it certainly won't be supportive. The main risk to our bond-bearish view remains geopolitics, including the first round voting and results in the French election due on Sunday, April 23. Balance Sheet Bedlam? Maybe Not The release of Minutes from the FOMC's March meeting contained a robust discussion of the Fed's balance sheet. Until recently, most market participants had assumed that the Fed would maintain the size of its balance sheet via reinvesting through at least late 2017/early 2018. The latest FOMC minutes suggest that, assuming the economy continues to track the Fed's forecast, the FOMC will allow its balance sheet to shrink this year. The FOMC will achieve this by ceasing reinvestment of both its MBS and Treasury holdings at the same time. No decision has been made about whether the reinvestments will end all at once or will be phased out over time (tapered). Chart 2 shows that when QE1 ended in 2010 and QE2 ended in 2011, U.S. equities underperformed bonds. It's important to note, however, that underperformance didn't occur in a vacuum. The European debt crisis, the U.S. rating downgrade and debt ceiling debates all weighed on risk assets after QE1 and QE2 ended. Other factors played a role as well, such as weak economic growth and policy uncertainty. Amid QE3, U.S. equities surged in 2013, returning 32.4%, while bonds fell 8.5%. But in late 2013, the Fed announced that purchases would be tapered over the course of 2014. QE3 finally ended in late 2014. Stocks and bonds battled it out over 2014 and 2015, with stocks beating bonds by 3%. Chart 2Reminder What Happened When QE1, QE2 & QE3 Ended Reminder What Happened When QE1, QE2 & QE3 Ended Reminder What Happened When QE1, QE2 & QE3 Ended Bottom Line: Our view remains that Fed balance sheet run-off won't have a big impact on Treasury yields, although may lead to a widening of MBS spreads. What matters more for Treasury yields than the size of the balance sheet is the expected path of short rates. As for equities, while geopolitical risks are ever-present, the U.S. economy is in far better shape today than it was when QE1, QE2 and QE3 ended. U.S. corporate earnings are pointing higher as well. While we've clearly entered a new part in the Fed cycle, the news on the Fed's balance sheet does not change our view that U.S. stocks will outperform bonds this year. All else equal, the dollar should get a small boost from a shrinking Fed balance sheet, supporting our view that the dollar will rise 10% this year. Overplaying The Soft Data And Underplaying Geopolitics...In 2018 Chart 3Global Pick-Up On Track Global Pick-Up On Track Global Pick-Up On Track Traders and investors have been giving up on the global reflation story of late, sending the 10-year Treasury yield down to the bottom end of this year's trading range. Missile strikes, upcoming French elections and U.S. saber rattling regarding North Korea have lifted the allure of safe havens such as government bonds. At the same time, the Fed was unwilling to revise up the 'dot plot', doubts are growing over the ability of the Trump Administration to deliver any stimulus and a few recent U.S. data releases have disappointed. It is difficult to forecast the ebb and flow of safe-haven demand for bonds, especially related to North Korea and Syria. However, our geopolitical team holds a high-conviction view that angst over Eurozone elections this year are overblown. The Italian election in 2018 is more of a threat. While we cannot rule out an even stronger safe-haven bid from developing in the coming weeks, the global cyclical economic backdrop remains negative for government bond markets. For the major industrialized economies, the so-called "hard" data are moving in line with the "soft" survey data for the most part. For example, retail sales growth continues to accelerate, reaching 4.7% in February on a year-over-year basis (Chart 3). This follows the sharp improvement in consumer confidence. Manufacturing production growth is also accelerating to the upside, in line with the PMIs. The global manufacturing sector is rebounding smartly after last year's recession, which was driven by the collapse in oil prices and a global inventory correction. Readers may be excused for jumping to the conclusion that the rebound is largely in the energy space, but this is not true. Production growth in the energy sector is close to zero on a year-over-year basis, and is negative on a 3-month rate of change basis (Chart 4). The growth pickup has been in the other major sectors, including consumer-related goods, capital goods and technology. In the U.S., non-energy production has boomed over the three months, rising 5.2% at annual rates (Chart 5). The weak spot has been in capital goods orders (Chart 3). We only have data for the big three economies - the U.S., Japan and the Eurozone - but growth is near to zero or slightly negative for all three. These data are perplexing because they are at odds with an acceleration in the production of capital goods (noted above) and a pickup in capital goods imports for 20 economies (Chart 3, third panel). Nonetheless, improving CEO sentiment, strengthening profit growth and activity surveys all suggest that capital goods orders will "catch up" in the coming months. Chart 4Manufacturing Rebound Is Not About Energy Manufacturing Rebound Is Not About Energy Manufacturing Rebound Is Not About Energy Chart 5U.S.: Non-Energy Production Surging U.S.: Non-Energy Production Surging U.S.: Non-Energy Production Surging That said, one risk to our positive capex outlook in the U.S. is that the Republicans could fail to deliver on their promises to cut taxes and boost infrastructure spending. This is not our base case, but current capex plans could be cancelled or put on indefinite hold were there to be no corporate tax cuts or immediate expensing of capital expenditures. Duration Checklist: What We're Watching BCA's Global Fixed Income Strategy service recently introduced a "Duration Checklist" designed to keep us focused on the most relevant factors while trying to sift out the signal from the noise (Table 1).1 These are the key economic and market indicators that we are watching to assess whether we should maintain our current below-benchmark portfolio stance. Naturally, leading and coincident indicators for global growth feature prominently in the top section of the Checklist (Chart 6). All four of these indicators appear to have topped out except the Global Leading Economic Indicator (GLEI), suggesting that the period of maximum growth acceleration has past. Nonetheless, all four are still consistent with robust growth for at least the near term. Table 1Stay Bearish On Treasuries & Bunds The Great Debate Continues The Great Debate Continues Chart 6Some Warning From Leading Indicators Some Warning From Leading Indicators Some Warning From Leading Indicators The rapid decline in the diffusion index, based on the 22 countries that comprise our GLEI, is concerning. The LEIs for two major economies and two emerging economies dipped slightly in February, such that roughly half of the country LEIs rose and half fell in the month. While it is too early to hit the panic button, the diffusion index is worth watching closely; a decline below 50 for several months would indicate that a peak in the GLEI is approaching. The remainder of the items on the checklist are related to growth, inflation pressure, central bank stance, investor risk-taking behavior and bond market technicals. We are focusing on the U.S. and Eurozone at the moment because we believe these two economies will be the main driver of global yields over the next 12 months. In the U.S., the Fed is tightening and market expectations are overly benign on the pace of rate hikes in the coming years. Upside pressure on global yields should intensify later this year, when the ECB announces the next "tapering" of its asset purchase program. All of the economic growth, inflation pressure and risk-seeking indicators on the Checklist warrant a check mark for the U.S., although this is not the case for the Eurozone inflation indicators. From a technical perspective, the Treasury and bund markets no longer appear as oversold as they did after the rapid run-up in yields following last November's U.S. elections. Large short positions have largely unwound. This removes one of the largest impediments to a renewed decline in global bond prices. For the U.S., we expect that the 10-year yield to rise to the upper end of the recent 2.3%-2.6% trading range in the next couple of months, before eventually breaking out on the way to the 2.8%-3% area by year-end. Bottom Line: A number of political pressure points and some modest U.S. data disappointments have triggered an unwinding of short bond positions. Nonetheless, the global manufacturing revival and growth impulse remain in place, and the majority of items on our Checklist suggest that the recent bond rally represents a consolidation phase rather than a trend reversal. Keep duration short of benchmark within fixed-income portfolios. Favor Stocks Over Junk Bonds Table 2A New Trend In Junk Vs. Stocks? The Great Debate Continues The Great Debate Continues We continue to favor U.S. equities over bonds in 2017 and recommend keeping duration short of benchmark. But what about U.S. equities versus high-yield bonds? As a reminder, favoring corporate bonds over equities was a long-running BCA theme during the early stages of the economic recovery.We noted that corporate bonds were likely to outperform equities in a prescient Special Report published in late-2008,2 and we continued to favor corporate bonds until late-2012 when we shifted towards strong dividend-paying stocks. Table 2 highlights that our corporate bond vs equity recommendations have worked out well over the past several years. The table presents the annual total return for the S&P 500 and high-yield corporate bonds (as well as the difference between the two), and it shows that the former underperformed the latter from 2008 to 2011 (and again in 2012 in risk-adjusted terms). However, stocks materially outperformed high-yield bonds from 2013-2015, which followed our recommendation to favor the S&P Dividend Aristocrats index over corporate bonds in our November 2012 Special Report.3 But Table 2 also shows that the trend of stock outperformance reversed last year, with high-yield bonds having somewhat outpaced the S&P 500 in total return terms. Does this imply that investors are witnessing the beginning of a new uptrend in corporate bond outperformance versus equities? In our view, the answer is 'no'. Chart 7 presents our simple framework for the relative performance of stocks vs high-yield corporate bonds, which suggests that investors should favor the former over the latter. Panel 1 highlights that the trend in stocks vs high-yield is generally the same as that vs 10-year Treasuries, with a few notable exceptions of sustained difference. The first exception was from 2002 to 2004, when stocks significantly outperformed government bonds but were flat vs high-yield. The second exception occurred during the early part of this expansion, which again saw high-yield corporate bonds post equity-like returns. Chart 7Major Valuation Advantage Needed For High-Yield To Outperform Stocks Major Valuation Advantage Needed For High-Yield To Outperform Stocks Major Valuation Advantage Needed For High-Yield To Outperform Stocks Panel 2 suggests that both of these circumstances were fueled by a substantial high-yield valuation advantage over stocks. The panel illustrates the gap between the speculative-grade corporate bond yield-to-worst and the S&P 500 12-month forward earnings yield, which was elevated and fell materially in both of the cases of sustained divergence shown in panel 1. The key point for investors is that last year's outperformance of junk bonds is unlikely to continue. While the compression of the junk/stock yield gap did lead the former to outperform last year, the gap was not high to begin with and is currently not that far away from its historical lows. This suggests that there is no reason to expect the stock/junk relative performance trend to deviate from the overall stock/government bond trend, which we expect to rise further over the coming 6-12 months. Bottom Line: Despite outsized performance from high-yield corporate bonds in 2016, investors should continue to favor stocks over high-yield over the coming year (but favor both over Treasuries and cash). Introducing The BCA Beige Book Monitor Chart 8BCA Beige Book Monitor: ##br##A "Hard" Look At "Soft" Data BCA Beige Book Monitor: A "Hard" Look At "Soft" Data BCA Beige Book Monitor: A "Hard" Look At "Soft" Data The Fed's Beige Book is released eight times a year, two weeks ahead of each FOMC meeting. It was first released in 1983. The Beige Book's predecessor was the Red Book, first produced in 1970. The Beige Book itself got a makeover from the Fed in early 2017. The Fed changed the way the information was presented across the 12 Fed districts, but, according to the Fed, the Beige Book will continue to provide "an up-to-date depiction of regional economic conditions based on anecdotal information gathered from a diverse range of business and community contacts." In addition to the Beige Book, FOMC officials also review what is now known as the "Teal Book" at each meeting. The Teal Book combined the "Green Book" - a review of current economic and financial conditions - and the "Blue Book"- which provided context for FOMC members on monetary policy actions. As noted in the Fed's own description, the Beige Book is "soft data". In discussing the Beige Book, the financial press often notes the number of districts where growth is expanding and contracting or describes the pace of overall activity (modest, moderate etc). The BCA Beige Book Monitor takes a more quantitative approach to all the qualitative data in the Beige Book. We began by searching the document for all the words we could think of that signify strength: Strong, strength, rise, increase, accelerate, fast, expand, advance, positive, robust, optimistic, up, etc. We then counted up all the words that denote weakness: Weak, fell, slow, decelerate, decrease, decline, soft, negative, pessimistic, down, contract, etc. Next, we subtracted the number of weak words from the strong words to calculate the BCA Beige Book Monitor. The Monitor begins in 2005, so it covers the time period from the middle of the 2001-2007 expansion, through the Great Recession (2007-2009) and the recovery since 2009. A more streamlined approach, using the words "strong" and "strength" (and their derivatives like stronger, strengthened, etc) as proxy for all the strong words and the word "weak" as a proxy for all the weak words, showed the same results. We adopted this simpler approach. Chart 8, panels 1 and 2, shows the BCA Beige Book Monitor versus real GDP and CEO Confidence. The BCA Beige Book monitor does a good job explaining GDP, but it is more timely. The Monitor leads CEO confidence, especially around turning points. We intend to do more work with the Beige Book Monitor and present it to you in future editions of this publication. We also track mentions of other key words in the Beige Book. For example changes in mentions of "inflation" words in the Beige book track, and sometimes lead, core inflation (Panel 3). Mentions of the "strong dollar" track the dollar itself, although tends to be lagging (Panel 4). We'll be watching for those inflation words and mentions of the dollar in the Beige Book this week. The Beige Book will also help to shed some qualitative light on the recent weakness in capital spending and C&I loans. Has the uncertainty about the timing, scope and scale of Trump's legislative agenda (taxes, infrastructure and the repeal of Obamacare, etc) had an impact on corporate spending or borrowing? We'll find out this week. Bottom Line: Although technically it is "soft" data, the Beige Book is a major input on monetary policy decision making for the FOMC. As we showed last week, the rise in "inflation" words in the Beige Book has certainly captured the Fed's attention, and confirms the "hard" we've seen on inflation. The next FOMC meeting is on May 2-3, and neither we nor the consensus expects a hike at that meeting. Despite the apparent flare-up in geopolitics last week and the run of disappointing economic data, we continue to expect the Fed to raise rates 2 more times in 2017. John Canally, CFA, Senior Vice President U.S. Investment Strategy johnc@bcaresearch.com Mark McClellan, Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst markm@bcaresearch.com Jonathan LaBerge Vice President, Special Reports jonathanl@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report, "A Duration Checklist For U.S. Treasurys And German Bunds," dated February 15, 2017, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "Value And The Cycle Favor Corporate Debt Over Equities," dated November 14, 2008, available at gis.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see U.S. Investment Strategy Special Report, "The Search For Yield Continues: Aristocrats Or High Yield?" dated November 5, 2012, available at usis.bcaresearch.com

Highlights Despite President Trump's consternation, the dollar bull market will persist. The euro will reach parity against the greenback by the end of this year. The Fed will deliver more tightening over the next 12 months than the market is expecting, while the ECB will deliver less. The fact that U.S. Treasury-German bund spreads are near record-high levels will not prevent the euro from weakening further. About half of the Treasury-bund spread can be explained by two factors: 1) lower inflation expectations in the euro area; and 2) the hedge that bunds provide against redenomination risk in the event of a breakup of the common currency. The rest can be mostly explained by the fact that the euro area is still well behind the U.S. in its cyclical recovery. It is not the absolute level of interest rate spreads that matters for investors, but how spreads evolve relative to market expectations. The market is already pricing in a substantial amount of spread narrowing over the coming years. Investors expect real rates to be only 17 basis points higher in the U.S. than in the euro area in five years' time. This seems too low to us. Feature Can't Trump The Dollar After an impressive rally from its late-March lows, the dollar hit a roadblock on Wednesday following Trump's remarks on the currency. "I think our dollar is getting too strong," the President said, adding in typical Trumpian style, "and partially that's my fault because people have confidence in me." He went on to say that he prefers that the Fed keep interest rates low. We doubt that Trump will get his wish. If anything, with the Federal Reserve's independence under fire from Republicans in Congress, Fed officials could subconsciously react to Trump's rhetoric by accelerating the pace of rate hikes. Janet Yellen turned 70 last year and she would rather go out in style after serving one term as Fed chair than be perceived as doing Trump's bidding. Soft Versus Hard Data Chart 1U.S. Growth: Broader 'Nowcasts' ##br##Painting A More Flattering Picture U.S. Growth: Broader "Nowcasts" Painting A More Flattering Picture U.S. Growth: Broader "Nowcasts" Painting A More Flattering Picture Of course, the Fed's ability to keep hiking rates is contingent on growth holding up. As discussed in our Q2 Strategy Outlook, while we are worried that growth may disappoint towards the end of 2018, the next 12 months still look reasonably solid.1 Granted, the Atlanta Fed's widely-watched GDP model is pointing to growth of only 0.6% in Q1. However, we would discount this and other narrow tracking estimates, given that the so-called "nowcasts" - which use a broader array of data - paint a much more flattering picture (Chart 1). Some commentators have expressed concern that the nowcasts are being contaminated by "soft data" derived from surveys, which are sending much more bullish signals than the "hard data" published by government statistical agencies. We are less worried about this issue. For one thing, the soft data generally leads the hard data, so some divergence during periods of accelerating growth is not unusual. Second, survey data tends not to be revised, whereas the hard data often is. This is especially important at present because of question marks over seasonal adjustments to Q1 data, which by some calculations are biasing down growth by around one percentage point. Third, the soft data is more consistent with what we are seeing in the labor market. Despite a weak weather-distorted March payrolls report, the overall tone of the labor market data has been positive, as evidenced by near record-low levels of unemployment claims, a rising job openings rate, and ongoing improvement in the Conference Board's perception of job availability measure. Aggregate hours worked still managed to increase by 1.5% at an annualized rate in Q1. If GDP growth was barely above zero as the Atlanta Fed's model suggests, this would imply an outright decline in the level of labor productivity. Even in a world where structural productivity growth is lower than it was in the past, this strikes us as rather implausible. ECB: Doves Are Still In Control There is no denying that economic data from the euro area has been strong this year (Chart 2). The composite PMI stood just shy of a 6-year high in March. Capital goods orders are in a clear uptrend, which bodes well for investment spending over the coming months. Private-sector credit growth reached 2.5% earlier this year, the fastest pace since July 2009. A further acceleration is probable over the coming months, given rising business confidence, firm loan demand, and declining nonperforming loans (Chart 3). Chart 2The Euro Area Economy Will Continue To Recover The Euro Area Economy Will Continue To Recover The Euro Area Economy Will Continue To Recover Chart 3Euro Area: Credit Growth Should Accelerate Euro Area: Credit Growth Should Accelerate Euro Area: Credit Growth Should Accelerate Despite the bevy of good news, the ECB is in no rush to tighten monetary policy. Yes, the central bank did announce a one-off decrease in the size of its asset purchases in December, and will likely do so again in early 2018. However, Mario Draghi has made it clear that he will not raise rates until well after all asset purchases have been completed, which probably won't be until late 2019 at the earliest. The ECB's dovish bias is understandable. While the regionwide unemployment rate is falling, it is still 2% above pre-crisis lows (Chart 4). In Spain and Italy, the unemployment rate stands at 18% and 11.5%, respectively, up from 7.9% and 5.7%. Meanwhile, core inflation is still squarely below the ECB's 2% target and sluggish wage growth across most of the region suggests that this will remain the case for the foreseeable future (Chart 5). Chart 4The ECB's Dovishness Is Merited... The ECB's Dovishness Is Merited... The ECB's Dovishness Is Merited... Chart 5...Especially Given The Muted Inflation Backdrop ...Especially Given The Muted Inflation Backdrop ...Especially Given The Muted Inflation Backdrop Peering Through The Treasury-Bund Spread The usual rejoinder is that all this has been priced into the market. We disagree. The market is currently pricing in less than two Fed rate hikes over the next 12 months. In contrast, we expect the Fed to raise rates three or four times over this period. The FOMC is also likely to announce in December that it will allow the size of its balance sheet to shrink as maturing assets roll off. This could put some upward pressure on the term premium. On the flipside, the months-to-hike measure for the ECB has fallen from 60 last summer to only 30 today. We doubt it will go much lower. What about the fact that Treasury-bund spreads stand close to record-high levels? Doesn't that severely limit the downside for EUR/USD? The answer is no. First, one should ideally compare the U.S. Treasury yield with the composite euro area bond yield rather than the bund yield, since the former is what the ECB ultimately cares most about. Chart 6 shows that the GDP-weighted average of 5-year bond yields in Germany, France, the Netherlands, Belgium, Austria, Italy, and Spain currently stands 55 basis points above comparable bund yields. Second, it is not the absolute level of interest rate spreads that matters for investors, but how spreads evolve relative to market expectations. The euro area is still well behind the U.S. in its cyclical recovery. As such, the 5-year U.S.-euro area spread is currently 173 basis points. However, the 5-year, 5-year forward spread - the spread that investors expect to see in five years' time - is only 92 basis points (Chart 7). This means that investors expect the 5-year spread to fall by 81 basis points over the next half-decade as the business cycles in the two regions converge. Chart 6Bund Yields Remain Below Euro Area Peers Bund Yields Remain Below Euro Area Peers Bund Yields Remain Below Euro Area Peers Chart 7The Vanishing Transatlantic Bond Spread Talk Is Cheap: EUR/USD Is Heading Towards Parity Talk Is Cheap: EUR/USD Is Heading Towards Parity Third, both theory and evidence say that real interest rate differentials are what drive currencies. Investors have long believed that inflation is likely to be structurally lower in the euro area than the U.S. This is underscored by the fact that the CPI swaps market is signaling that inflation will be 0.8% points higher in the latter five years from now. If inflation evolves the way the market expects, U.S. real 5-year yields will be a mere 17 basis points higher than in the euro area in 2022 (Chart 8). This gap does not strike us as being particularly large. Chart 8AU.S. And Euro Area Bond Yields: A Nuanced Picture U.S. And Euro Area Bond Yields: A Nuanced Picture U.S. And Euro Area Bond Yields: A Nuanced Picture Chart 8BU.S. And Euro Area Bond Yields: A Nuanced Picture U.S. And Euro Area Bond Yields: A Nuanced Picture U.S. And Euro Area Bond Yields: A Nuanced Picture We can debate how low the neutral real rate is in the U.S., but whatever it is there, it is likely that it is even lower in the euro area, given the region's worse demographics and higher debt burdens. The anti-growth features of the common currency - namely, the inability to devalue one's currency in response to an adverse economic shock, as well as the austerity bias that comes from not having a central bank that can act as a lender of last resort to solvent but illiquid governments - also imply a lower neutral rate. This brings us back to Trump's rhetoric. If the neutral rate is lower in the euro area than it is in the U.S., any effort to weaken the dollar is bound to backfire. If the Fed raises rates too slowly, the economy could overheat, leading to higher inflation and the need for a sharp increase in rates later on. On the flipside, if the ECB raises rates too quickly, deflationary forces could set in, forcing it to reverse course. Central banks have firm control over many things, but the neutral rate of interest is not one of them.2 As such, we expect real U.S.-euro area spreads to widen over the coming months, which should help push EUR/USD to parity by the end of this year. Peter Berezin, Senior Vice President Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Global Investment Strategy, "Strategy Outlook: Second Quarter 2017: A Three-Act Play," dated March 31, 2017, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Plaza Accord 2.0: Unnecessary, Unfeasible, And Unlikely," dated February 10, 2017, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. Strategy & Market Trends Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

Highlights An investment's long-term attractiveness depends on the trade-off between its expected long-term return and its risk of suffering an intermediate loss. On this risk-adjusted basis: Bonds are now less ugly than equities. U.S. T-bonds are more attractive than the average euro area government bond. European equities and U.S. equities are fairly valued against each other... ...but European equities can outperform when euro breakup risk eventually fades. Feature The English poet Samuel Taylor Coleridge coined the term "willing suspension of disbelief" in his Biographia Literaria published in 1817. It describes the sacrifice of reason and logic to believe the unbelievable. Coleridge suggested that if he could instil a "semblance of truth" into a fantastic tale, the reader would suspend judgement about the implausibility of the narrative in order to enjoy it. Today, it feels like financial market prices are relying on the willing suspension of disbelief. At our client meetings, almost everybody disbelieves that current valuations allow developed market equities to generate attractive long-term returns. Yet many investors are willing to suspend this disbelief, at least for the time being. Our own return forecasts justify the disbelief (Chart I-2). In Outlook 2017, Shifting Regimes,1 my colleague and BCA Chief Economist, Martin Barnes, published our long-term nominal return forecasts for the major asset classes. Allowing for market moves since publication, four of those 10-year annualised total returns2 now stand at: Chart I-2Valuation Drives Long-Term Returns Valuation Drives Long-Term Returns Valuation Drives Long-Term Returns European equities3 5.0% U.S. equities4 3.2% U.S. 10-year T-bond 2.3% Euro area 10-year sovereign bond5 1.2% With annual inflation expected at 2%, these numbers imply paltry real returns from mainstream investments over the coming decade. Still, in terms of ranking relative attractiveness, it might appear reasonable to follow the sequence of returns:6 European equities; U.S. equities; the U.S. 10-year T-bond; and then the euro area 10-year sovereign bond. But that sequence would be wrong - at least in the medium term. The key point is that the four investments are not equally risky. For a riskier asset, investors should expect today's price to generate a higher long-term return as compensation for the extra risk of intermediate loss. Put another way, a risky asset must offer a higher long-term return than a less risky asset for an investor to be indifferent between them. If it doesn't, the danger is that the price will adjust (down) at some point until it does. European Equity Valuations Must Allow For Euro Breakup Risk Consider European equities versus U.S. equities. The sovereign bond market is discounting a 5% annual risk of euro break-up (Chart I-3). This shows up as a discount on German bund yields, because in that tail-event a new deutschmark would rise; and a symmetrical premium on Italian BTP yields, because a new lira would fall. But for the aggregate euro area bond, the risk largely cancels out because intra-euro currency redenomination would be zero sum (Chart I-4). Unfortunately, for the aggregate European stock market, the risk does not cancel out. If the euro broke up, European equities would suffer a much greater drawdown than other markets. Recall that at the peak of the euro debt crisis in 2011, the Eurostoxx600 underperformed the S&P500 by 25% in one year (Chart I-5). In an outright break-up, the underperformance would almost certainly be worse, let's conservatively say 30%. So assuming a 5% annual risk, European equities must compensate with a valuation discount which allows a 1.5% excess annual return over U.S. equities. Chart I-3The Bond Market Is Discounting##br## A 5% Risk Of Euro Breakup... The Bond Market Is Discounting A 5% Risk Of Euro Breakup... The Bond Market Is Discounting A 5% Risk Of Euro Breakup... Chart I-4...Based On The Sovereign Yield Spread##br## Between Italy And Germany ...Based On The Sovereign Yield Spread Between Italy And Germany ...Based On The Sovereign Yield Spread Between Italy And Germany Chart I-5In The Euro Crisis, The Eurostoxx ##br##Underperformed By 25% In The Euro Crisis, The Eurostoxx Underperformed By 25% In The Euro Crisis, The Eurostoxx Underperformed By 25% There is also the issue of the post-2016 bailout rules for European banks. At a stroke, the Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive (BRRD) has made European bank equity investment more risky. In the event of a bank failure, investors must now suffer the first losses - including full wipe-out - before governments can step in. Combining this with the risk of euro breakup, the 1.8% excess annual return that we expect from the Eurostoxx600 versus the S&P500 makes European equity valuations look fair, rather than attractive, on a relative risk-adjusted basis. That said, the good news is that if the risk of euro area breakup gradually fades, it would permit a healthy re-rating of the Eurostoxx600 versus the S&P500. For example, if the annual risk of breakup declined from 5% to 1%, it would equate to a 12% outperformance. But as the greatest political risk to the euro now emanates from Italy - and not the upcoming French Presidential Election - we recommend playing this re-rating opportunity closer to, or after, Italy's next general election.7 Equity Valuations Reliant On "Willing Suspension Of Disbelief" Now consider equities versus bonds. An expected 3.2% annual return from the S&P500 versus a 2.3% 10-year T-bond yield implies an ex-ante 10-year equity risk premium (ERP) of just 0.9% (Chart I-6). This is significantly lower than the 135-year average of 5% and even the post war average of 2.5%8 (Chart of the Week). Chart of the WeekThe Ex-Ante Equity Risk Premium Is Close To Zero The Ex-Ante Equity Risk Premium Is Close To Zero The Ex-Ante Equity Risk Premium Is Close To Zero Chart I-6In The U.S., The Expected 10-Year Return From Equities And Bonds Is Now Almost The Same In The U.S., The Expected 10-Year Return From Equities And Bonds Is Now Almost The Same In The U.S., The Expected 10-Year Return From Equities And Bonds Is Now Almost The Same What can justify the "willing suspension of disbelief" that permits today's abnormally low ERP? There are three arguments. All have Coleridge's "semblance of truth" but are ultimately flawed. Chart I-7In The 1970s Inflation Scare, Equities##br## Suffered Much More Than Bonds In The 1970s Inflation Scare, Equities Suffered Much More Than Bonds In The 1970s Inflation Scare, Equities Suffered Much More Than Bonds First, it is argued that the ERP should be low because bonds have become more risky. With 10-year bond yields so low, bond prices have limited upside but substantial downside. The problem with this argument is that equities are a much longer duration asset than a 10-year bond, so if inflation did take hold, equities would suffer the much greater drawdown - as they did in the 1970s (Chart I-7). Another counterargument is that bond yields have been this low on previous occasions in the past 135 years, but on those previous occasions the ex-ante ERP was not as depressed as it is today. Second, it is argued that the ERP should be low because central banks now have a tried and tested weapon - QE - which they can pull out at the slightest sign of trouble. Empirically, it might be true that QE did compress the ERP. But theoretically, it shouldn't. Even Ben Bernanke told us at our 2015 New York Conference that QE is nothing more than a signalling mechanism for interest rate policy. So it works by compressing bond yields rather than the ERP. In this sense, justifying a low ERP with QE is a worry rather than a hope. Third, and most recently, it is argued that the surprise arrival of the Trump administration is a game changer for investments - structurally positive for equities, structurally negative for bonds. The jury is out on this. But given the speed of market moves, our sense is that is the hope of fast-moving momentum traders. Slow-moving value investors are still on the side lines, waiting to see what - if anything - will really change. Mr. Market Is Little Short Of Silly In his 1949 seminal work, The Intelligent Investor Benjamin Graham, the grandfather of value investing, introduced us to a whimsical character called Mr. Market. Every day, Mr. Market quotes a price for your investments, at which you can buy or sell. Sometimes, Mr. Market's idea of value seems plausible. At other times: "Mr. Market lets his enthusiasm or his fears run away with him, and the value he proposes seems to you little short of silly." The point of Graham's allegory is that investors should not cheerlead the market come what may. Mr. Market will not always quote you an attractive price; sometimes he will quote you a very unattractive price (Chart I-8). Chart I-8Mr. Market Will Not Always Quote You An Attractive Price Markets Suspended In Disbelief Markets Suspended In Disbelief "At which the long-term investor certainly should refrain from buying and probably would be wise to sell." Today, when we see the ugly long-term returns offered by Mr. Market and we risk-adjust for potential drawdowns, we conclude: Bonds are now less ugly than equities. U.S. T-bonds are more attractive than the average euro area government bond. European equities and U.S. equities are fairly valued against each other, but European equities can outperform when euro breakup risk eventually fades. Dhaval Joshi, Senior Vice President European Investment Strategy dhaval@bcaresearch.com 1 Published on December 20, 2016 and available at www.bcaresearch.com 2 Nominal local currency returns including income. 3 Outlook 2017 showed "Other (non-U.S.) developed equities" but this aligns with our forecast for European equities. 4 Since Outlook 2017 was published, equity markets are up around 5%. So 10-year return forecasts have been reduced by around (5/10) = 0.5%. 5 Euro area weighted average 10-year yield weighted by sovereign issue size. 6 This assumes investors can cheaply hedge currency exposure, as is the case now. 7 Please see the Geopolitical Strategy Service Weekly Report titled "Political Risks Are Understated In 2018", dated April 12, 2017 and available at gps.bcaresearch.com 8 In this report we define the ex-ante ERP at any point in time as the Shiller P/E's implied prospective 10-year equity return (see Chart 8) less the 10-year bond yield. Fractal Trading Model* This week's trade is to go long the sugar number 11 futures contract on the NYB-ICE exchange, with a profit target of 7%. Alternatively, a more hedged position is long sugar / short aluminium with a profit target of 10%. For any investment, excessive trend following and groupthink can reach a natural point of instability, at which point the established trend is highly likely to break down with or without an external catalyst. An early warning sign is the investment's fractal dimension approaching its natural lower bound. Encouragingly, this trigger has consistently identified countertrend moves of various magnitudes across all asset classes. Chart I-9 Long Sugar Long Sugar Chart I-10 Long Sugar Vs. Aluminium Long Sugar Vs. Aluminium * For more details please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report "Fractals, Liquidity & A Trading Model," dated December 11, 2014, available at eis.bcaresearch.com The post-June 9, 2016 fractal trading model rules are: When the fractal dimension approaches the lower limit after an investment has been in an established trend it is a potential trigger for a liquidity-triggered trend reversal. Therefore, open a countertrend position. The profit target is a one-third reversal of the preceding 13-week move. Apply a symmetrical stop-loss. Close the position at the profit target or stop-loss. Otherwise close the position after 13 weeks. Use the position size multiple to control risk. The position size will be smaller for more risky positions. Fractal Trading Model Recommendations Equities Bond & Interest Rates Currency & Other Positions Closed Fractal Trades Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Interest Rate Chart II-5Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations