Gov Sovereigns/Treasurys

Highlights U.S. Treasuries: The surprisingly positive response from financial markets to last week's Fed rate hike should force the Fed to quickly shift back to a hawkish bias. Maintain an underweight exposure to U.S. Treasuries, and an overall below-benchmark portfolio duration stance. Bearish Fed Trade: As a new tactical trade, go short the January 2018 fed funds futures contract to benefit from the Fed ramping up the hawkish language again. Japan: Japanese inflation remains too low for the Bank of Japan to move away from its 0% target on JGB yields anytime soon, even with signs of better Japanese growth and rising pressure on global bond yields. Upgrade low-beta Japan to above-benchmark in global hedged bond portfolios, while downgrading core Europe (Germany, France, the Netherlands) to neutral. Feature Chart of the WeekAre Central Banks OK With This? Are Central Banks OK With This? Are Central Banks OK With This? The major central banks all had a chance to send a more hawkish message to the markets in the past couple of weeks, and every one took a pass. Even the Fed, who actually hiked rates, signaled that U.S. monetary policy would not be tightened more aggressively than previously planned, which financial markets took very bullishly. With the global economy finally enjoying a synchronized upturn after several years of sluggishness, policymakers are showing no interest in hitting the brakes too hard, too soon and risking a sudden downturn in growth The current backdrop of improving economic momentum, with central banks remaining accommodative, is sustaining the strong performance of growth-sensitive assets like equities and corporate debt over government bonds. This should continue over the next 6-12 months. Inflation rates, both realized and expected, continue to rise across the developed economies alongside faster economic growth, putting upward pressure on government bond yields (Chart of the Week). Central bank dovishness is looking increasingly non-credible as long as this dynamic persists, but policymakers will likely be slow to respond without a more rapid rise in inflation. Bond yields will continue to climb higher against this backdrop, first from continued increases in inflation expectations and, later, from a shift to less restrictive monetary settings. We continue to recommend a below-benchmark duration stance, while underweighting government bonds versus corporate debt, particularly in the U.S. This week, we are making a significant portfolio shift to get even more defensive within our government bond allocation, upgrading low-beta Japan to above-benchmark while downgrading core Europe (Germany, France & the Netherlands) to neutral. The Fed Declares Victory Over "Low-flation" The market response to last week's Fed tightening was consistent with the idea of a "dovish hike", with U.S. equity and bond markets rallying while the U.S. dollar sold off and overall U.S. financial conditions actually easing. There was heightened nervousness heading into the meeting that the Fed could signal a faster or steeper trajectory for interest rates. That turned out to be a false alarm, as not much was changed from the Fed's prior guidance to markets. The range for the funds rate was raised to 0.75-1.00%, as expected, but there was virtually no change to any of the median FOMC member projections for GDP growth, inflation or interest rates out to 2019. Another 50bps of increases are expected this year, with 75bps in both 2018 and 2019 (Chart 2). This would bring the funds rate to 3% in 2019, which is the median FOMC member's assessment of where the terminal rate lies. The pricing from the U.S. Overnight Index Swap (OIS) curve shows that market expectations for the funds rate are in line with the Fed's projections for this year, but lower for the next two years. Our proxy measure for the market's assessment of the terminal rate - the 5-year OIS rate, 5-years forward - sits at 2.25%, 75bps below the Fed's number. Our bias is closer to the market on this point, as we do not see a need for the funds rate, in real terms, to end this tightening cycle much above 0% against a backdrop of still very high U.S. debt levels and low U.S. productivity growth. A 0% real funds rate would be the result of the Fed successfully getting U.S. inflation expectations back to its 2% target level, with a nominal funds rate of 2%. That inflation goal has not yet been reached, however, as inflation expectations are still below levels consistent with the Fed's inflation target (Chart 3, bottom panel). Chart 2FOMC & Market Disagree Beyond This Year FOMC & Market Disagree Beyond This Year FOMC & Market Disagree Beyond This Year Chart 3Few Signs Of An Overheating U.S. Economy Few Signs Of An Overheating U.S. Economy Few Signs Of An Overheating U.S. Economy The FOMC has made it clear that they believe the U.S. economy is running very close to full employment. Yet the recent modest deceleration in the various measures of wage inflation (middle panel) suggests that there could still be some excess slack in the U.S. labor market - even with the recent Payrolls reports showing job growth of over 200k per month. If that pace is sustained for several months, however, the unemployment rate will likely fall further and wage pressures will intensify. In the near-term, the Fed will continue to focus on financial markets to get a sense of whether current policy settings are too restrictive or too accommodative. One recent development on this front is that the correlation between the U.S. dollar (USD) and risk assets has flipped, with a stronger USD now positively correlated to global equities and credit (Chart 4). This shift was already starting to happen before the election of Donald Trump and his pro-growth agenda last November, likely because the global economy was improving as evidenced by the accelerating trend in our global purchasing managers' index (PMI, bottom panel). We have written extensively about the Fed being stuck in a "policy loop" in the past couple of years, where a shift to a more hawkish bias would sharply drive up the USD and cause a risk-off move in global financial markets. This unwanted tightening of financial conditions would cause the Fed to back off from its hawkishness, causing the USD to soften and markets to rally. We have argued that the way to break out of this loop would likely be a rise in non-U.S. economic growth that would allow the Fed to continue slowly normalizing U.S. monetary policy without disrupting global markets. We seem to be in that period now. One implication of this is that the longer risk assets can withstand rising U.S. interest rates and a stronger USD, the more the fed funds rate and U.S. Treasury yields must rise in response to U.S. economic strength. For this reason, we continue to recommend a below-benchmark duration stance on U.S. Treasuries on a 6-12 month horizon. We also maintain our bias towards a bear-steepening of the Treasury curve through our butterfly trade, long the 5-year bullet versus a duration-matched 2-year/10-year barbell. The curve will remain positively correlated to inflation expectations until those reach the Fed's target level, after which any additional Fed rate hikes will likely flatten the yield curve in a more typical pattern during the latter stages of a tightening cycle. It is possible, though, that because markets shrugged off the latest rate increase, the Fed could return to sending hawkish signals in the near term. To play for this possibility, our colleagues at BCA U.S. Bond Strategy recommend that investors add a tactical trade: going short the January 2018 fed funds futures contract (Chart 5). We are today adding this trade to our list of Tactical Overlay Trades (see page 12). Chart 4The Strong USD Is Not A Problem The Strong USD Is Not A Problem The Strong USD Is Not A Problem Chart 5Go Short January 2018 Fed Funds Futures Go Short January 2018 Fed Funds Futures Go Short January 2018 Fed Funds Futures We calculate that this trade will return 11bps in a scenario where the Fed lifts rates twice more before the end of the year and 37bps in a scenario where the funds rate is raised a more aggressive-than-expected three times. However, we do not expect to hold this trade until the end of the year. Rather, we expect the Fed will nudge rate expectations higher in the next month or two in response to the latest easing of financial conditions, and that these gains will be realized over a much shorter horizon. We also add a caveat that, in the present environment, it is safer to implement any "hawkish Fed trades" in either fed funds futures or the OIS market. The Eurodollar market does not provide the same potential for gains because the LIBOR / OIS spread is currently elevated and could tighten to offset the profits from rising rate expectations. Bottom Line: The surprisingly positive response from financial markets to last week's Fed rate hike could force the Fed to quickly shift back to a hawkish bias. Maintain below-benchmark exposure to U.S. Treasuries. As a new tactical trade, go short the January 2018 fed funds futures contract to benefit from the Fed ramping up the hawkish language again. Japan: A Weaker Yen Is Still The Only Way Out The Bank of Japan (BoJ) stayed on hold last week, as expected. There had been some increased speculation of late that the BoJ could start to signal a potential increase in its 0% target for the 10-year Japanese Government Bond (JGB) yield, given the rising trend in global yields and signs of better growth in Japan. At the press conference following the BoJ meeting, however, Governor Kuroda shot down that notion, saying that the current accommodative policy stance must be maintained given how far Japanese inflation is below the central bank's 2% target. It remains far too soon for the central bank to signal any shift to a less accommodative stance, as both the pace of economic growth and inflation are not only modest but lagging the current global upturn. In Chart 6, we show some Japanese growth variables relative to an aggregate of the same data for the major developed economies.1 What is clear from the chart is that Japan is benefitting from faster global growth on the industrial side, with the manufacturing PMI above 50. However, the domestic demand story is not as positive, with consumer confidence and real retail sales growth languishing. The lack of real income growth remains the biggest drag on Japanese consumers, as we show in another set of international comparisons in Chart 7. Japan's unemployment rate, currently at 3%, is below the OECD's estimate of the full employment level (consistent with stable domestic inflation pressures). This is in contrast to the other major economies, which are either at, or close to, full employment. Yet Japanese wages continue to struggle, both in nominal terms (a year-over-over growth rate of 1%) and real terms (a year-over-year growth rate of 0.4%). The current annual spring round of Japanese wage negotiations is showing that downward pressure remains powerful, with many manufacturing companies offering pay raises only half as large as those of last year.2 Chart 6Japan Is Lagging The Global Upturn Japan Is Lagging The Global Upturn Japan Is Lagging The Global Upturn Chart 7Still No Wage Growth In Japan Still No Wage Growth In Japan Still No Wage Growth In Japan Japan is still struggling to generate positive rates of inflation, even as price growth is accelerating in the other major economies (Chart 8). This is keeping Japanese inflation expectations, which the BoJ believes are mostly a function of the recent performance of actual inflation, subdued. As always, the only reliable source of Japanese inflation seems to be yen weakness. We continue to see this as the only way out of the low-inflation trap for Japan - keeping Japanese interest rates depressed versus the rest of the world, thus weakening the yen through increasingly unattractive interest rate differentials. The BoJ's 0% yield curve targeting framework has been successful in keeping rate differentials wide enough to soften up the yen, especially against the USD (Chart 9). Given our expectations of additional Fed rate hikes, and higher U.S. Treasury yields, over the rest of the year, the yen will likely depreciate further as long as the BoJ sticks with its current interest rate targets. A similar argument holds for the yen versus the Euro, given the increasing likelihood that the European Central Bank (ECB) will be forced to signal a less accommodative monetary policy stance later this year. Against this backdrop, JGBs are likely to outperform the major global government bond markets over the rest of 2017. We upgraded our recommended stance on JGBs from underweight to neutral last October after the BoJ introduced its yield curve targeting framework. In Chart 10, we show the relative performance of JGBs versus some other bond benchmarks, on a duration-matched and common-currency (hedged into USD) basis. We broke up the returns into two periods, from our October 11, 2016 Japan upgrade to January 31 of this year when we upgraded our U.S. corporate bond exposure and cut our overall portfolio duration stance to below-benchmark. The chart shows that JGBs were a good defensive hedge during the latter part of 2016 when global yields were rising, led by U.S. Treasuries. The more recent period, however, shows a much more negligible relative performance, both against other government bonds and corporate debt, during a period where global bond yields have generally traded sideways. Chart 8Japan Inflation Still A No-Show Japan Inflation Still A No-Show Japan Inflation Still A No-Show Chart 9A Weaker Yen Is Still Necessary A Weaker Yen Is Still Necessary A Weaker Yen Is Still Necessary Chart 10Relative Performance Of JGBs Staying Behind The Curve, For Now Staying Behind The Curve, For Now Given our views that U.S. Treasury yields will continue to move higher in the next 6-9 months, and that the performance of core European government bonds will suffer over the same period as the ECB signals a slower pace of asset purchases for next year, a return to the late 2016 relative performance of JGBs is very likely. Thus, we are upgrading Japan to an above-benchmark stance in our model portfolio this week, while downgrading core Europe (Germany, France, the Netherlands) to neutral. This is purely a move to get even more defensive in our overall country exposures, by allocating into JGBs which are low-beta to both U.S. Treasuries (where we are already below-benchmark) and core European government debt. Bottom Line: Japanese inflation remains too low for the Bank of Japan to move away from its 0% target on JGB yields anytime soon, even with signs of better Japanese growth and rising pressure on global bond yields. Upgrade Japan to above-benchmark in global hedged bond portfolios, while downgrading core Europe (Germany, France, the Netherlands) to neutral. Robert Robis, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com 1 The U.S., Euro Area, U.K., Canada & Australia 2 https://www.ft.com/content/0895c4ee-eb3b-11e5-888e-2eadd5fbc4a4 The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Staying Behind The Curve, For Now Staying Behind The Curve, For Now Recommendations Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Highlights Once the Brexit starting gun is fired, the EU27's high-level guidelines and red lines will create more vulnerabilities and uncertainties for the U.K. than for the euro area. The BoE will be more boxed in than the ECB. Brexit trades have more legs. We describe four structural disruptors to economies and financial markets (on page 6). Our favourite structural investment themes are Personal Product equities, euro/yuan, and real estate in Spain, Ireland and Germany. Feature "Many in Great Britain expected a major calamity... but what happened was near enough nothing ." The citation above perfectly describes the 9 months that have elapsed since the U.K.'s June 23 2016 vote to exit the EU. In fact, it refers to the 9 months that elapsed after Britain declared war on Germany on September 3 1939 - a period of calm, militarily speaking, which became known as the 'Phoney War'.1 But outside the military sphere a lot did happen in the Phoney War. Most notably, a propaganda war ensued. On the night of September 3 1939 alone, the Royal Air Force dropped 6 million leaflets over Germany titled 'Note to the German People'. Chart of the WeekOne Big Correlated Trade: Pound/Euro And Eurostoxx600 Vs. FTSE100 One Big Correlated Trade: Pound/Euro And Eurostoxx600 Vs. FTSE100 One Big Correlated Trade: Pound/Euro And Eurostoxx600 Vs. FTSE100 Brexit Phoney War And The Markets Fast forward 77 years. The 9 months since the Brexit vote has also been a period of calm, economically speaking. Indeed, the U.K. economy has sailed along remarkably smoothly. And this has fuelled a propaganda war for those who believe that Brexit's economic impact will be near enough nothing. But outside the economic sphere, a lot has happened in the Brexit Phoney War: The pound has slumped 12% versus the euro and 17% versus the dollar. The FTSE100 has surged 16%, substantially outperforming the 8% gain in the Eurostoxx600 The U.K. 10-year gilt yield is down 40 bps when the equivalent German bund yield is up 40 bps and the equivalent U.S. Treasury yield is up 90 bps. These relative moves appear to reflect different asset class stories, but it is crucial to realise that: All of these relative moves are just one big correlated trade. The relative moves in bond yields have just tracked the expected differences in central bank policy rates two years ahead (Chart I-2 and Chart I-3). This is exactly in line with the theory that a bond yield just equals the expected average interest rate over the bond's lifetime. Chart I-2Difficult Brexit = Gilt Yields Fall Vs. Bund Yields Difficult Brexit = Gilt Yields Fall Vs. Bund Yields Difficult Brexit = Gilt Yields Fall Vs. Bund Yields Chart I-3Difficult Brexit = Gilt Yields Fall Vs. T-Bond Yields Difficult Brexit = Gilt Yields Fall Vs. T-Bond Yields Difficult Brexit = Gilt Yields Fall Vs. T-Bond Yields Likewise, the moves in pound/dollar and pound/euro have also closely tracked the same expected differences in central bank policy rates (Chart I-4 and Chart I-5). Again, this is exactly in line with theory. Over short horizons, the biggest driver of exchange rates is fixed income cross-border portfolio flows - which always seek out the highest yield adjusted for hedging costs. Chart I-4Difficult Brexit = Pound/Euro Falls Difficult Brexit = Pound/Euro Falls Difficult Brexit = Pound/Euro Falls Chart I-5Difficult Brexit = Pound/Dollar Falls Difficult Brexit = Pound/Dollar Falls Difficult Brexit = Pound/Dollar Falls In turn, FTSE100 performance versus the Eurostoxx600 has near-perfectly tracked the inverse direction of pound/euro. Once more, this is exactly as theory would suggest. The FTSE100 and Eurostoxx600 are just a collection of multinational dollar-earning companies quoted in pounds and euros respectively. So when pound/euro weakens, the dollar earnings increase more in FTSE100 index terms than in Eurostoxx600 index terms, resulting in Eurostoxx600 underperformance (Chart of the Week). Now that the Brexit battle is about to begin in earnest, what will happen to these Brexit trades? Brexit Battle Begins It is not our intention here to forecast all the twists and turns of the Brexit battle. We will leave that to a later report. Instead, we just want to list the likely opening salvos. With Parliamentary approval now sealed, Theresa May is due to trigger Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty in the week commencing March 27 and thereby formally begin the Brexit battle. Expect the first EU27 response within 48 hours, probably through the President of the European Council, Donald Tusk. In this response, Tusk may also give the date for the first European Council 'Brexit' summit. This EU27 Brexit summit will take place within 8 weeks of the Article 50 trigger, and likely after the two-round French Presidential Election in April/May. At the Brexit summit, the EU27 will establish its strategy, high-level guidelines and red lines for the Brexit negotiations. The European Council will present these negotiating guidelines to the European Commission. Drawing upon its own legal and policy expertise, the Commission will then draft a mandate which sets out more technical details of each area of negotiation. Next, the Council of the EU2 must approve this draft mandate by qualified majority vote (obviously excluding the U.K.) Once approved, the European Commission can begin the detailed negotiations with the U.K., keeping within the final mandate's guidelines. But what does all this mean for investors? The preceding analysis showed that the dominant driver for all Brexit trades is the expected difference in central bank policy interest rates two years ahead. Recall that not long ago the BoE was vying with the Fed to be the first to hike rates in this cycle, while the ECB was likely to ease further. But after the Brexit vote and the resulting uncertainty about the U.K.'s position in the world, the tables have turned. The EU27's high-level negotiating guidelines and red lines are likely to create more vulnerabilities and uncertainties for the U.K. than for the euro area. And now, these vulnerabilities and uncertainties are amplified by Scotland First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon, calling for a second referendum on Scottish Independence. For central bank policy, this means that the BoE will be hamstrung; whereas, absent any tail-events, the ECB can continue to back away from its extreme dovishness - a process that Draghi verbally started at the ECB Press Conference last week. Therefore, at least into the early summer, stay: Overweight U.K. gilts versus German bunds. Long euro/pound. Long FTSE100 versus Eurostoxx600 (or Eurostoxx50). Long U.K. Clothes and Apparel equities versus the market (Chart I-6). Short U.K. Real Estate equities versus the market (Chart I-7). But a word of warning for risk control. Remember that all five positions are in effect just one big correlated trade. So they will all work together, or they will all not work together! Chart I-6Difficult Brexit = U.K. Clothes And Apparel Outperforms Difficult Brexit = U.K. Clothes And Apparel Outperforms Difficult Brexit = U.K. Clothes And Apparel Outperforms Chart I-7Difficult Brexit = U.K. Real Estate Equities Underperform Difficult Brexit = U.K. Real Estate Equities Underperform Difficult Brexit = U.K. Real Estate Equities Underperform Four Disruptors The final section this week takes a wider-angle view of the world, and briefly highlights four structural disruptors to economies and financial markets in the coming years. Disruptor 1: Protectionism. Since the Great Recession, an extremely polarised distribution of economic growth has left most people's standard of living stagnant - despite seemingly decent headline economic growth and job creation (Chart I-8). Looking to find a scapegoat, economic nationalism and protectionism have resonated very strongly with voters in the U.K. and U.S. - resulting in Brexit and President Donald Trump. Other voters could follow in the same vein. But history teaches us that protectionism ends up hurting many more people than it helps. Disruptor 2: Technology. The bigger danger is that people are misdiagnosing the illness. The vast majority of middle-income job losses are not due to globalization, but due to technology. Specifically, Artificial Intelligence (AI) is replacing secure middle-income jobs and displacing workers into insecure low-income manual jobs - like bartending and waitressing - which AI cannot (yet) replace (Table I-1). And AI's impact on middle-income jobs is only in its infancy.3 The worry is that by misdiagnosing the illness as globalization and wrongly taking a protectionist medicine, the illness will intensify, rather than improve. Chart I-8Disruptor 1: Protectionism Disruptor 1: Protectionism Disruptor 1: Protectionism Table I-1Disruptor 2: Technology Phoney War Ends. Battle Begins. Phoney War Ends. Battle Begins. Disruptor 3: Debt super-cycles have reached exhaustion. The protectionist medicine carries a further danger. Major emerging market economies are coming to the end of structural credit booms and need to wean themselves off their credit addictions (Chart I-9). At this point of vulnerability, aggressive protectionism risks tipping these emerging economies into a sharp slowdown. Chart I-9Disruptor 3: Debt Super-Cycles Have Reached Exhaustion Disruptor 3: Debt Super-Cycles Have Reached Exhaustion Disruptor 3: Debt Super-Cycles Have Reached Exhaustion Disruptor 4: Equities are overvalued. Disruptors one, two and three come at a time when equities are valued to generate feeble total nominal returns over the next decade (Chart I-10). Risk premiums are extremely compressed. And if investors suddenly demand that risk premiums rise to average historical levels, it necessarily requires equity prices to adjust downwards. Chart I-10Disruptor 4: Equities Are Overvalued Disruptor 4: Equities Are Overvalued Disruptor 4: Equities Are Overvalued The long-term investment message is crystal clear. With the four disruptors in play, we strongly advise long-term investors not to follow passive (equity) index-tracking strategies. Instead, we advise long-term investors to stick to bespoke structural investment themes. Our favourite structural investment themes are Personal Product equities, euro/yuan, and real estate in Spain, Ireland and Germany. Dhaval Joshi, Senior Vice President European Investment Strategy dhaval@bcaresearch.com 1 C N Trueman 'The Phoney War'. 2 The Council of the EU should not be confused with the European Council. 3 Please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report, "The Superstar Economy: Part 2," dated January 19, 2017, available at eis.bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading Model This week's trade is to short Netherlands equities, but wait until after the election result. 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-11 Short AEX Short AEX 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 - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations

Highlights Monetary Policy: The Fed will lift rates this week, but will likely leave its median forecast for three hikes this year unchanged. With inflation still below target the Fed has an incentive to take it easy. Curve steepeners, TIPS breakeven wideners and overweight spread product positions will benefit. Duration: The growth outlook is improving and the 10-year Treasury yield could soon move higher, breaking out of its recent trading range. An already elevated economic surprise index should not be a deterrent. High-Yield: Junk spreads have widened even though default rate indicators continue to show improvement. With valuations now looking more attractive, we upgrade high-yield from neutral to overweight. Feature Chart 1How Much Hawkishness ##br##Can Markets Take? How Much Hawkishness Can Markets Take? How Much Hawkishness Can Markets Take? In early November, just prior to the U.S. election, money markets were still only discounting one rate hike before the end of 2017. The Fed has already raised rates once since then and the market is now almost priced for another three hikes before year-end (Chart 1). Encouragingly, financial markets digested the shift up to two 2017 rate hikes without much of a hiccup - the yield curve steepened, TIPS breakevens widened and junk spreads tightened - but the journey from two to three hikes has not gone down quite as easily (Chart 1, bottom panel). The yield curve has now started to flatten, breakevens have leveled off and junk spreads have edged wider. The worry is that a further shift in expectations - from three to four hikes in 2017 - might cause markets to choke. Fed Will Take It Slow Markets are already priced for a rate hike at this week's FOMC meeting along with no change to the Fed's median forecast for three hikes in 2017. As such, we would not expect much of a market reaction if that outcome is delivered. If the Fed were to increase its median forecast from three to four hikes in 2017, then we would anticipate at least some tightening of financial conditions. In other words, we would expect the yield curve to flatten, TIPS breakevens to narrow, the dollar to strengthen and credit spreads to widen. As we have written several times,1 with core inflation and TIPS breakevens still below target, the Fed must ensure that the economic recovery continues. It will therefore be quick to back away from any nascent hawkishness if financial conditions start to tighten. With markets already showing some signs of stress, we expect the Fed to err on the side of caution this week. This means the Fed will lift rates, but also leave the median forecast of three 2017 rate hikes unchanged. This notion that the Fed should be lifting rates, but only very slowly, is confirmed by our Fed Monitor (Chart 2). The Fed Monitor is a composite of 32 indicators that track the evolution of U.S. economic growth, inflation pressures and financial market conditions. Historically, a positive reading from the monitor has coincided with rate hikes, and vice versa. Chart 2BCA Fed Monitor Suggests A Slow Pace Of Rate Hikes BCA Fed Monitor Suggests A Slow Pace Of Rate Hikes BCA Fed Monitor Suggests A Slow Pace Of Rate Hikes The Fed Monitor just recently moved above zero, suggesting that only modestly tighter monetary policy is required. As an aside, we view the strongly positive readings from the Fed Monitor in 2011 and 2012 as anomalous and an artifact of the zero-lower-bound on interest rates. Since interest rates could not be lowered as much as would have been necessary (according to the Fed Monitor) in 2009, they also could not be raised as quickly as the monitor suggested in 2011. With the base effects from the financial crisis now out of the data, the Fed Monitor should go back to providing a useful signal about the future course of monetary policy. Chart 3BCA Fed Monitor Components BCA Fed Monitor Components BCA Fed Monitor Components We gain further insight from splitting the Fed Monitor into its three key components: growth, inflation and financial conditions (Chart 3). The growth component has accelerated strongly into positive territory but the inflation component still suggests that an easy policy stance is required. Financial conditions are also consistent with modest Fed tightening but have ticked down in recent weeks as the market has discounted a more rapid pace of hikes. Judging from the prior two cycles, an acceleration of the inflation component will be necessary for the Fed to deliver on its current expected path of rate hikes. While the Fed has sometimes started to lift rates with the inflation component below zero, that component has always surged into positive territory soon after hikes began (Chart 3, panel 2). While economic growth is accelerating, below-target inflation means that the Fed must continue to nurture the economic recovery. Investors should position for a steeper curve, wider TIPS breakevens and tighter credit spreads until inflationary pressures are more pronounced. This means at least until long-maturity TIPS breakevens reach the 2.4% to 2.5% range and core PCE inflation is firmly anchored around 2%. Bottom Line: The Fed will lift rates this week, but will likely leave its median forecast for three hikes this year unchanged. With inflation still below target the Fed has an incentive to take it easy. Curve steepeners, TIPS breakeven wideners and overweight spread product positions will benefit. Consolidation Complete? The 10-year Treasury yield has been stuck in a tight range below 2.6% since mid-December (Chart 4), but recent trends in the economic data suggest that it could be on the verge of breaking through this key resistance level. Economic surprises are positively correlated with changes in the 10-year Treasury yield and currently appear extended (Chart 4, bottom panel). While not a mean-reverting series by construction, economic surprises tend to follow a mean reverting pattern because investors revise their expectations higher as the economic data outperform. Eventually, expectations are bound to become excessive and the series will mean revert. However, we have found that economic surprises are usually first reflected in Treasury yields. In fact, changes in the 10-year Treasury yield tend to lead the economic surprise index by several weeks. This means that stagnant yields during the past few months have already foreshadowed a reversal in the surprise index. In other words, some mean reversion in economic surprises is already in the price and should not prevent yields from rising in the coming weeks. More important is that economic growth should be sustainably above trend on a 6-12 month horizon. This will continue to put upward pressure on inflation and ensure that the Fed remains in a rate hike cycle. Judging from recent data, not only is growth sustainably above trend, but it is probably even accelerating. Last week's February employment report showed that nonfarm payrolls rose by 235k, the second consecutive month of gains above 200k. The rate of change of employment growth is now threatening to reverse the downtrend that started in early 2015, and aggregate hours worked have accelerated suggesting that GDP growth will be strong in Q1 (Chart 5). Chart 410-Year Yield Facing Resistance 10-Year Yield Facing Resistance 10-Year Yield Facing Resistance Chart 5Labor Market Points To Stronger Growth... Labor Market Points To Stronger Growth... Labor Market Points To Stronger Growth... Financial conditions are also supportive of a further acceleration in growth. We found that the financial conditions component of our Fed Monitor provides a strong indication of near-term trends in GDP growth (Chart 6). This highlights that growth should be strong during the next few months but also that the Fed must respond to any tightening in financial conditions if it wants growth to remain robust. Chart 6...So Do Financial Conditions ...So Do Financial Conditions ...So Do Financial Conditions Bottom Line: The growth outlook is improving and the 10-year Treasury yield could soon move higher, breaking out of its recent trading range. An already elevated economic surprise index should not be a deterrent. The Value Is Back In High-Yield One of our key themes for 2017 is that the uptrend in the high-yield default rate is due for a pause.2 With the first quarter of the year nearly complete, all the indicators that make up our Default Rate Model are showing noticeable improvement (Chart 7). Chart 7Default Rate Indicators Are Showing Improvement Default Rate Indicators Are Showing Improvement Default Rate Indicators Are Showing Improvement Interest coverage remains elevated A strong Manufacturing PMI points to a rebound in after-tax cash flow Lending standards have rolled over and are now just barely in "net tightening" territory An improving sales/inventory ratio portends a return to positive industrial production growth Job cut announcements have fallen back to 2011 levels on a trailing 12-month basis Meantime, even though the default outlook continues to improve, junk spreads have actually widened during the past couple of weeks. The average option-adjusted spread on the Bloomberg Barclays High-Yield index has widened from a low of 344 basis points up to 378 bps (Chart 8). Some of that spread increase is likely attributable to declining oil prices, as energy sector credits have indeed underperformed the overall index. However, the underperformance of the energy sector also started before the sharp drop in oil prices (Chart 8, bottom panel). In any event, our commodity strategists are not expecting the current decline in oil prices to persist and their estimates show that the oil market has recently shifted from an environment of excess supply to one of excess demand. U.S. crude oil inventories are poised to decline later this month and the OPEC / non-OPEC production deal negotiated by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and Russia at the end of last year should be met with high compliance.3 If this view is correct, then the energy sector will not drag overall junk spreads wider in the months ahead. The combination of wider junk spreads and an improving default outlook has led to an increase in our preferred gauge of value for high-yield bonds - the default-adjusted spread (Chart 9). The default-adjusted spread is calculated by subtracting an ex-ante estimate of default losses from the average spread on the Bloomberg Barclays High-Yield index. Chart 8Energy Contributed To Junk Sell-Off Energy Contributed To Junk Sell-Off Energy Contributed To Junk Sell-Off Chart 9Some Value Returns To High-Yield Some Value Returns To High-Yield Some Value Returns To High-Yield To arrive at an estimate of default losses we use the Moody's baseline forecast for the default rate and our own forecast for the recovery rate based on the historical relationship between recoveries and defaults. With the release of February's default report, the Moody's baseline default rate forecast fell to 3.14% for the next 12 months. Based on this forecast we estimate that the recovery rate will be 44%. Combining the default and recovery rate forecasts gives an estimate for default losses of 3.14% x (1- 0.44) = 176 bps for the next 12 months. Since the average option-adjusted spread of the Bloomberg Barclays High-Yield index is currently 378 bps, we calculate the default-adjusted spread to be: 378 bps - 176 bps = 202 bps. A default-adjusted spread of 202 bps is 60 bps higher than the reading of 142 bps that prevailed just last week. This 60 bps spread advantage makes a considerable difference in terms of projected excess returns. Chart 10 shows the relationship between 12-month excess returns and the starting default-adjusted spread. We observe a reasonably strong correlation and note that, using a linear regression, an extra 60 bps of spread translates to an extra +251 bps of excess return on average over a 12-month period. Chart 1012-Month Excess High-Yield Returns Vs. ##br##Ex-Ante Default-Adjusted Spread (2002 - Present) Buy The Back-Up In Junk Spreads Buy The Back-Up In Junk Spreads Table 1 provides more detail in terms of what excess returns have historically been associated with different levels of the default-adjusted spread. We see that when the default-adjusted is between 100 bps and 150 bps, high-yield bonds earn positive excess returns 64% of the time over the following 12 months. When the default-adjusted spread is between 200 bps and 250 bps, high-yield earns a positive 12-month excess return 71% of the time. Table 112-Month High-Yield Excess Returns & Ex-Ante Default-Adjusted Spread Buy The Back-Up In Junk Spreads Buy The Back-Up In Junk Spreads Given our upbeat assessment of the trend in defaults and a wider junk spread than we have seen in a while, we think it is a good time to upgrade high-yield from neutral to overweight. The key near-term risk to this view is that the Fed will be more hawkish than we anticipate at this week's meeting. If the Fed's median forecast is revised up to four hikes in 2017, then it is possible that the recent bout of junk spread widening will have a bit further to run. However, given still-low inflation readings, the Fed would eventually be forced to back away from its hawkish rhetoric and support renewed spread tightening. In our view, the main risk to upgrading junk this week is that we are a bit too early. Bottom Line: Junk spreads have widened even though default rate indicators continue to show improvement. With valuations now looking more attractive, we upgrade high-yield from neutral to overweight. Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Inflation: More Fire Than Ice, But Don't Sound The Alarm", dated January 24, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, "Seven Fixed Income Themes For 2017", dated December 20, 2016, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, "Fed's Pre-Emptive Hike Will Hit Gold, Not Oil", dated March 9, 2017, available at ces.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

Highlights Eurostoxx50 versus S&P500 boils down to a simple choice: Banco Santander, BNP Paribas and ING; or Apple, Microsoft and Google? Right now, we would rather own the three tech stocks than the three banks - which necessarily means underweighting the Eurostoxx50 versus the S&P500. Eurostoxx50 performance relative to the FTSE100 boils down to the inverse direction of euro/pound. Right now, we expect euro/pound to strengthen - which necessarily means underweighting the Eurostoxx50 versus the FTSE100. Stay overweight Spanish Bonos versus French OATs as a structural position. Feature Which would you rather own: Banco Santander, BNP Paribas and ING; or Apple, Microsoft and Google?1 Surprising as it may seem, the all-important allocation decision between the Eurostoxx50 and the S&P500 boils down to this simple choice. The Chart of the Week should leave no doubt that everything else is largely irrelevant. Chart of the WeekEurostoxx50 Vs. S&P500 = Santander, BNP & ING Vs. Apple, Microsoft & Google Eurostoxx50 Vs. S&P500 = Santander, BNP & ING Vs. Apple, Microsoft & Google Eurostoxx50 Vs. S&P500 = Santander, BNP & ING Vs. Apple, Microsoft & Google Right now, we would rather own the top three U.S. tech stocks rather than the top three euro area banks - which necessarily means underweighting the Eurostoxx50 versus the S&P500. The Fallacy Of Division For Equities The fallacy of division is a logical fallacy. It occurs when somebody falsely infers that what is true for the whole is also true for the parts that make up the whole. As a simple example, somebody might infer that because their computer screen appears purple, the pixels that make up the screen are also purple. In fact, the pixels are not purple. They are either red or blue. The fallacy of division is that the property of the whole - purpleness - does not translate to the property of the constituent parts - redness or blueness. As investment strategists, we hear a common fallacy of division. Since global equities are a play on the global economy, it might seem that national equity markets - like Ireland's ISEQ or Denmark's OMX - are plays on their national economies. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth. The property of the equity market as a global aggregate does not translate to the property of equity markets as national parts. The equity markets in Ireland and Denmark are each dominated by one stock which accounts for almost a quarter of national market capitalization - in Ireland, Ryanair, the pan-European budget airline, and in Denmark, Novo Nordisk, the global pharmaceutical company. Therefore, the relative performance of Ireland's ISEQ has almost no connection with Ireland's economy; rather, it is a just a play on airlines. And given budget airlines' sensitivity to fuel costs, Ireland's ISEQ is counterintuitively an inverse play on the oil price (Chart I-2). Likewise, the relative performance of Denmark's OMX has no connection with Denmark's economy; it is just a strong play on global pharma (Chart I-3). Chart I-2Ireland = Short Oil Ireland = Short Oil Ireland = Short Oil Chart I-3Denmark = Long Pharma Denmark = Long Pharma Denmark = Long Pharma In a similar vein, the relative performance of Switzerland's SME is also a play on global pharma - via Novartis and Roche (Chart I-4); Norway's OBX is a play on global energy - via Statoil (Chart I-5); and Italy's MIB and Spain's IBEX are plays on banks (Chart I-6 and Chart I-7). We could continue, but you get our drift... Chart I-4Switzerland = Long Pharma / Short Oil Switzerland = Long Pharma / Short Oil Switzerland = Long Pharma / Short Oil Chart I-5Norway = Long Oil Norway = Long Oil Norway = Long Oil Chart I-6Italy = Long Banks Italy = Long Banks Italy = Long Banks Chart I-7Spain = Long Banks Spain = Long Banks Spain = Long Banks But what about a regional index like the Eurostoxx50 or Eurostoxx600: surely, with the broader exposure, there must be a strong connection with the euro area economy? Unfortunately not - at least, not when it comes to relative performance. Consider that for the past few years, the euro area economy has actually outperformed the U.S. economy2 (Chart I-8). Yet the Eurostoxx50 has substantially underperformed the S&P500 (Chart I-9). What's going on? The answer is that the Eurostoxx50 has a major 15% weighting to banks and a minor 7% weighting to tech. The S&P500 is the mirror image; a minor 7% weighting to banks and a major 22% weighting to tech. Chart I-8The Euro Area Economy ##br##Has Outperformed... The Euro Area Economy Has Outperformed... The Euro Area Economy Has Outperformed... Chart I-9...But The Eurostoxx50##br## Has Underperformed ...But The Eurostoxx50 Has Underperformed ...But The Eurostoxx50 Has Underperformed For the Eurostoxx50 the distinguishing property is 'bank'; for the S&P500 it is 'tech'. And as we saw earlier, these distinguishing properties are captured by just three large euro area banks and three large U.S tech stocks. So index relative performance simply boils down to whether the three euro area banks outperform the three U.S. tech stocks, or vice-versa. Everything else is largely irrelevant. Equities' Connection With Economies Is Often Counterintuitive When it comes to the FTSE100, it turns out that it is not more bank or tech than the Eurostoxx50. Major sector weightings across the two indexes are broadly similar. Hence, relative performance is more connected to relative economic performance. But there is a catch - the connection is not as intuitive as you might first think. You see, both major indexes are made up of dollar-earning multinational companies. Yet the index value and earnings are quoted in pounds and euros respectively. If the home currency appreciates, index earnings - translated from dollars into home currency - go down, depressing index relative performance with it. And the opposite happens if the home currency depreciates. So the counterintuitive thing is that a relatively strengthening home economy does not result in index outperformance. Quite the opposite, it normally means a relatively more hawkish central bank, and an appreciating currency (Chart I-10). Thereby it causes index underperformance. Hence, Eurostoxx50 performance relative to the FTSE100 boils down to the inverse direction of euro/pound. Once again, Chart I-11 should leave readers in no doubt. Chart I-10A Relatively More Hawkish Central Bank =##br## A Stronger Currency A Relatively More Hawkish Central Bank = A Stronger Currency A Relatively More Hawkish Central Bank = A Stronger Currency Chart I-11A Stronger Currency = ##br##Equity Index Underperformance A Stronger Currency = Equity Index Underperformance A Stronger Currency = Equity Index Underperformance Which neatly brings us to today's ECB meeting. The ECB is a tunnel-vision 2% inflation-targeting central bank. Any upgrade to its inflation forecast, as seems likely, would imply less need for its extreme and experimental monetary easing. Once digested by the market, this would support the euro. Meanwhile, on the other side of the Channel, the U.K. Government is preparing to trigger Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty and start its formal divorce from the EU within a couple of weeks. Expect the EU's immediate response to cast long shadows across Theresa May's vision of a future in sunlit uplands. Once digested by the market, this would further weigh down the pound. A stronger euro/pound necessarily means underweighting the Eurostoxx50 versus the FTSE100. The Fallacy Of Division For Bonds The fallacy of division also applies to euro area sovereign bonds. The aggregate euro area sovereign yield just equals the average ECB policy rate anticipated over the lifetime of the bond (Chart I-12). This is directly analogous to the relationship between the U.K. gilt yield and the anticipated path of the BoE base rate, and the relationship between the U.S. T-bond yield and the anticipated path of the Fed funds rate (Chart I-13). Chart I-12The Aggregate Euro Area Bond Yield = ##br##The Average ECB Policy Rate Expected The Aggregate Euro Area Bond Yield = The Average ECB Policy Rate Expected The Aggregate Euro Area Bond Yield = The Average ECB Policy Rate Expected Chart I-13The U.S. T-Bond Yield = ##br##The Average Fed Funds Rate Expected The U.S. T-Bond Yield = The Average Fed Funds Rate Expected The U.S. T-Bond Yield = The Average Fed Funds Rate Expected But what is true for the whole is not necessarily true for the parts that make up the whole. Individual euro area sovereign bond yields carry a second component which can override everything else. This second component is a redenomination premium as compensation for the expected loss if the bond redenominates out of euros. For example, the redenomination premium on a Spanish Bono versus a French OAT equals: The annual probability of euro breakup Multiplied by The expected undervaluation of a new peseta versus a new franc. However, the ECB's own analysis shows that Spain is now as competitive as France (Chart I-14), meaning that a new peseta ultimately should not lose value versus a new franc. So irrespective of the probability of euro breakup, the second item of the multiplication should be zero. Meaning that the redenomination premium should also be zero, rather than today's 75 bps (on 10-year Bonos over OATs). Bear in mind that Spain's housing bust and subsequent recapitalisation of its banks has followed Ireland's template - just with a two year lag. And observe that the redenomination premium on Irish 10-year bonds over OATs, which once stood at a remarkable 1100 bps, has now completely vanished. We expect Spain to continue following in the footsteps of Ireland (Chart I-15). As a structural position, stay long Spanish Bonos versus French OATs. Chart I-14Spain Has Dramatically Improved##br## Its Competitiveness Spain Has Dramatically Improved Its Competitiveness Spain Has Dramatically Improved Its Competitiveness Chart I-15Spain Is Following In The##br## Footsteps Of Ireland Spain Is Following In The Footsteps Of Ireland Spain Is Following In The Footsteps Of Ireland Dhaval Joshi, Senior Vice President European Investment Strategy dhaval@bcaresearch.com 1 Listed as Alphabet. 2 On a per capita basis. Fractal Trading Model* Long tin / short copper hit its 5% profit target, while short MSCI AC World hit its 2.5% stop-loss. This week's recommendation is to short ruble / dollar. 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-16 Short RUB/USD Short RUB/USD * 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 Chart 1Keep A Close Eye On Financial Conditions Keep A Close Eye On Financial Conditions Keep A Close Eye On Financial Conditions The market's rate hike expectations moved sharply higher during the past two weeks as a string of Fed speeches, including one by Chair Yellen, all but confirmed a March rate hike. The market is now priced for 75 basis points of hikes during the next 12 months, compared to 50 bps at the end of January. At least so far, broad indicators of financial conditions have not tightened in response to this re-rating of the Fed (Chart 1). However, there are some preliminary indications that the reflation trade is fraying at the edges. The trade-weighted dollar has appreciated +0.2% since the end of January, the 2/10 Treasury slope has flattened 9 bps and the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate has declined 1 bp. The Fed is currently testing the markets with hawkish rhetoric but, with inflation and TIPS breakevens still below target, will ultimately support the reflation trade if it comes under threat. In this environment investors with 6-12 month investment horizons should maintain below-benchmark duration, remain overweight spread product and continue to position for a steeper curve and wider TIPS breakevens. Feature Chart 2Investment Grade Market Overview Investment Grade Market Overview Investment Grade Market Overview Investment Grade: Overweight Investment grade corporate bonds outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 48 basis points in February. The index option-adjusted spread tightened 6 bps on the month and, at 112 bps, it remains well below its historical average (134 bps). Our research1 shows that when core PCE inflation is between 1.5% and 2%2 investment grade corporate bonds produce an average monthly excess return of close to zero. A 90% confidence interval places monthly excess returns between -19 bps and +17 bps with inflation in this range and excess returns do not turn decisively negative until core PCE is above 2%. Given the Fed's desire to nurture a continued recovery in inflation, we are not worried about significant spread widening until inflation is sustainably above 2%. In the meantime we expect corporate bond excess returns to be low, but positive. While supportive monetary policy should ensure excess returns consistent with carry, investors should not bank on further spread compression as corporate spreads have already discounted a substantial improvement in leverage (Chart 2). Energy related sectors still appear cheap after adjusting for differences in credit rating and duration (Table 3), and our commodity strategists expect oil prices to remain firm even in the face of a stronger U.S. dollar. This week we upgrade the Wireless and Packaging sectors from underweight to neutral and downgrade the Consumer Cyclical Services sector from neutral to underweight. The former two sectors now appear cheap on our model, while the latter has become expensive. Table 3ACorporate Sector Relative Valuation And Recommended Allocation* How Much Can Markets Take? How Much Can Markets Take? Table 3BCorporate Sector Risk Vs. Reward* How Much Can Markets Take? How Much Can Markets Take? High-Yield: Neutral Chart 3High-Yield Market Overview High-Yield Market Overview High-Yield Market Overview High-Yield outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 112 basis points in February. The index option-adjusted spread tightened 25 bps on the month and, at 349 bps, it is currently 170 bps below its historical average. One of our key investment themes3 for this year is that the uptrend in defaults is likely to reverse (Chart 3), mostly due to recovery in the energy sector. However, still-poor corporate health and tightening monetary policy will lead to a resumption of the uptrend in 2018 and beyond. Despite the positive outlook for defaults, we retain only a neutral allocation to High-Yield because of very tight valuations. The index option-adjusted spread is now within a hair of the average level of 340 bps that prevailed during the 2004 - 2006 Fed tightening cycle, when indicators of corporate balance sheet health were in much better shape. In fact, the index spread is now only 116 bps wider than its all-time low of 233 bps, reached in 2007. Our preferred measure of High-Yield valuation is the default-adjusted spread - the average spread of the junk index less our forecast of 12-month default losses. At present, the default-adjusted spread is 142 bps. Historically, a default-adjusted spread between 100 bps and 150 bps is consistent with positive excess returns during the subsequent 12 months 64% of the time. It is only when the default-adjusted spread falls below 100 bps that positive excess returns become unlikely. Junk has provided positive excess returns over a 12-month horizon only 13% of the time when the starting default-adjusted spread is between 50 bps and 100 bps. MBS: Underweight Chart 4MBS Market Overview MBS Market Overview MBS Market Overview Mortgage-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 3 basis points in February. The conventional 30-year MBS yield fell 5 bps on the month, driven by a 7 bps decline in the rate component. The compensation for prepayment risk (option cost) increased by 1 bp, as did the option-adjusted spread. MBS spreads remain extremely tight relative both to history and Aaa-rated credit, although they have begun to widen somewhat relative to credit in recent weeks (Chart 4). More distressing is that the nominal MBS spread appears too tight relative to interest rate volatility (bottom panel). As we noted in a recent report,4 the long-run trend in interest rate volatility tends to be driven by uncertainty about the macroeconomic and political environment. In fact, rate volatility can be modeled using forecaster disagreement about GDP growth and T-bill rates. While the Fed's policy of forward guidance and a fed funds rate pinned at zero limited the amount of forecaster disagreement in recent years, this disagreement will re-emerge the further the fed funds rate moves off its lower bound. Another medium-term risk for MBS comes from the Fed ending the reinvestment of its MBS portfolio. As we described in a recent Special Report,5 the Fed is likely to allow its MBS portfolio to shrink at some point in 2018, putting further upward pressure on MBS spreads. Government Related: Underweight Chart 5Government-Related Market Overview Government-Related Market Overview Government-Related Market Overview The government-related index outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 30 basis points in February, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +51 bps. The high-beta Sovereign and Foreign Agency sectors outperformed the Treasury benchmark by 90 bps and 59 bps, respectively. Meanwhile, the low-beta Domestic Agency and Supranational sectors each outperformed by 4 bps. Local Authorities returned 24 bps in excess of duration-matched Treasuries. Sovereigns have outperformed Baa-rated corporate bonds year-to-date, a trend consistent with the rise in commodity prices and a trade-weighted dollar that has weakened by 1.5% (Chart 5). However, the dollar has started to appreciate in recent weeks and probably has further upside in the medium-term, especially if the Fed maintains its hawkish posture. Historically, it has been very rare for Sovereigns to outperform U.S. corporate bonds when the dollar is appreciating. After adjusting for credit rating and duration, the Foreign Agency and Local Authority sectors continue to appear cheap relative to U.S. corporate credit. In contrast, Sovereigns, Supranationals and Domestic Agencies all appear expensive. We continue to recommend overweight allocations to Foreign Agencies and Local Authorities, alongside underweight allocations to the rest of the government-related index. In a television interview last month Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin confirmed that GSE reform is still a priority for the new administration but that tax reform is much higher on the agenda. This means that agency spreads will likely remain insulated from any "reform risk" until next year at the earliest. Municipal Bonds: Neutral Chart 6Municipal Market Overview Municipal Market Overview Municipal Market Overview Municipal bonds outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 13 basis points in February (before adjusting for the tax advantage). The average Municipal / Treasury (M/T) yield ratio has fallen 4% since the end of January and remains firmly anchored below its post-crisis average. The decline in the average M/T yield ratio was concentrated in short maturities, while ratios at the long-end of the curve actually rose (Chart 6). Accelerating fund flows and falling issuance will continue to support yield ratios in the near term. In fact, our tactical yield ratio model - based on issuance, fund flows and ratings migration - shows that yield ratios are presently very close to fair value. Although the average M/T yield ratio still appears expensive if we include the global economic policy uncertainty index as an additional explanatory variable.6 One risk to Munis is that yield ratios have already discounted a substantial reduction in state and local government net borrowing in Q1 (panel 3). While we expect this improvement will materialize in the next few quarters, net borrowing is biased upward beyond this year based on the lagged relationship between corporate sector and state and local government health.7 Treasury Curve: Favor 5-Year Bullet Over 2/10 Barbell Chart 7Treasury Yield Curve Overview Treasury Yield Curve Overview Treasury Yield Curve Overview The Treasury curve has bear-flattened since the end of January as the market revised its Fed rate hike expectations sharply higher. Both the 2/10 and 5/30 Treasury slopes have flattened by 9 basis points since January 31. As such, our recommended position long the 5-year bullet and short the 2/10 barbell - designed to profit from a steeper yield curve - has returned -26 bps since the end of January, although it has returned close to 0 bps since it was initiated on December 20.8 As was stated on the front page of this report, the Fed's increasingly hawkish rhetoric has already caused the uptrend in TIPS breakevens to pause and the nominal Treasury slope to flatten (Chart 7). With inflation still below target these trends are not sustainable from the point of view of Fed policymakers. If the trend of decreasing TIPS breakevens and a flattening curve persists, we would expect the Fed to back away from its hawkish rhetoric. This dynamic will support a steeper yield curve at least until core PCE inflation is back to the Fed's 2% target and long-dated TIPS breakevens are anchored in a range between 2.4% and 2.5% (a range that is typically consistent with core PCE inflation at 2%). The persistent attractiveness of the 5-year bullet relative to the rest of the curve makes a position long the 5-year bullet and short a duration-matched 2/10 barbell the most attractive way to position for a steeper yield curve (panel 3). The carry buffer in the 5-year helps mitigate some of the risk of curve flattening. TIPS: Overweight Chart 8TIPS Market Overview TIPS Market Overview TIPS Market Overview TIPS underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 18 basis points in February. The 10-year TIPS breakeven rate declined 3 bps on the month and, at 2.04%, it remains well below its pre-crisis trading range of 2.4% to 2.5%. While the catalyst for the recent softening in TIPS outperformance seems to be the hawkish re-rating of Fed rate hike expectations, the uptrend in TIPS breakevens was probably due for a pause in any case. Breakevens had become stretched relative to our TIPS Financial Model - based on the dollar, oil prices and the stock-to-bond total return ratio (Chart 8). Diffusion indexes for both PCE and CPI inflation have also shifted into negative territory, suggesting that realized inflation readings will soften during the next couple of months. On a cyclical horizon, however, the Fed will be keen to allow breakevens to rise toward levels more consistent with its inflation target and will quickly adopt a more dovish stance if breakevens fall significantly. This "Fed put" should remain in place at least until core PCE inflation is firmly anchored around 2% and long-dated TIPS breakevens return to a range between 2.4% and 2.5%. As we detailed in a recent report,9 while accelerating wage growth will ensure that inflation remains in a long-run uptrend, the impact from wages will be mitigated by deflating import prices meaning that the uptrend will be slow. We continue to expect that year-over-year core PCE inflation will not attain the Fed's 2% target until the end of this year. ABS: Maximum Overweight Chart 9ABS Market Overview ABS Market Overview ABS Market Overview Asset-Backed Securities performed in-line with the duration-equivalent Treasury index in February. Aaa-rated issues underperformed the Treasury benchmark by 2 basis points, while non-Aaa issues outperformed by 12 bps. The index option-adjusted spread for Aaa-rated ABS widened 3 bps on the month. At 50 bps, the spread remains well below its average pre-crisis level. Banks are now tightening lending standards on both auto loans and credit cards (Chart 9). While we do not think this will have much of an impact on consumer spending,10 it is usually an indication that there is growing concern about ABS collateral credit quality. While credit card charge-offs remain well below their pre-crisis levels, net losses on auto loans have in fact started to trend higher (bottom panel). We continue to recommend Aaa-rated credit cards over Aaa-rated auto loans, despite the spread advantage in autos. We will closely monitor the evolving credit quality situation, but for now continue to view consumer ABS as a very attractive alternative to other short-duration Aaa-rated spread product such as MBS and Agency bonds. The main reason being the sizeable spread advantage that has persisted in ABS for some time. At present, Aaa-rated consumer ABS offer an option-adjusted spread of 50 bps, compared to 31 bps for 30-year conventional Agency MBS and 18 bps for Agency bonds. Non-Agency CMBS: Underweight Chart 10CMBS Market Overview CMBS Market Overview CMBS Market Overview Non-agency Commercial Mortgage-Backed Securities underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 34 basis points in February. The index option-adjusted spread for non-agency Aaa-rated CMBS widened 7 bps on the month, but remains below its average pre-crisis level (Chart 10). Rising CMBS delinquency rates and tightening commercial real estate lending standards make us cautious on non-agency CMBS. This caution has only intensified now that spreads are firmly entrenched below their pre-crisis average. Agency CMBS: Overweight Agency CMBS underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 20 basis points in February. The index option-adjusted spread for Agency CMBS widened 5 bps on the month, and currently sits at 53 bps. The spread offered on Agency CMBS is similar to what is offered by Aaa-rated consumer ABS (50 bps) and greater than what is offered by conventional 30-year MBS (31 bps) for a similar amount of spread volatility. We continue to recommend an overweight position in Agency CMBS. Treasury Valuation Chart 11Treasury Fair Value Models Treasury Fair Value Models Treasury Fair Value Models The current reading from our 2-factor Treasury model (which is based on Global PMI and dollar sentiment) places fair value for the 10-year Treasury yield at 2.42% (Chart 11). Our 3-factor version of the model, which also incorporates the Global Economic Policy Uncertainty Index, places fair value at 2.21%. The lower fair value results from the large spike in the uncertainty index last November, which has only been partially unwound (bottom panel). Large spikes in uncertainty that do not coincide with deterioration in other economic indicators tend to mean revert fairly quickly. So we would be inclined to view the fair value reading from our 2-factor model as more indicative of true fair value at the moment. For further details on our Treasury models please refer to the U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "The Message From Our Treasury Model", dated October 11, 2016, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com At the time of publication the 10-year Treasury yield was 2.49%. Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Inflation: More Fire Than Ice, But Don't Sound The Alarm", dated January 24, 2016, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 Year-over-year core PCE inflation is currently 1.74%. 3 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, "Seven Fixed Income Themes For 2017", dated December 20, 2016, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "The Road To Higher Vol Is Paved With Uncertainty", dated February 14, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 5 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy / Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report, "The Way Forward For The Fed's Balance Sheet", dated February 28, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 6 For further details on the model please see U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, "Seven Fixed Income Themes For 2017", dated December 20, 2016, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 7 For further details on the linkage between corporate sector health and state & local government health please see U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, "Trading The Municipal Credit Cycle", dated October 18, 2016, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 8 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, "Seven Fixed Income Themes For 2017", dated December 20, 2016, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 9 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Inflation: More Fire Than Ice, But Don't Sound The Alarm", dated January 24, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 10 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "The Odds Of March", dated February 21, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification Corporate Sector Relative Valuation And Recommended Allocation Total Return Comparison: 7-Year Bullet Versus 2-20 Barbell (6-Month Investment Horizon) Current Recommendation

Highlights Assessing Our Tilts: Our decision to upgrade corporate spread product versus government debt in the U.S., and to reduce overall recommended duration exposure, at the end of January has been performing well. Maintain these tilts, with both soft and hard economic data pointing to a broadening global economic upturn and the Fed prepared to hike rates next week. Fed Vs ECB: Cyclical comparisons of the Euro Area today to the U.S. in the months prior to the Fed's 2013 "Taper Tantrum" show that the Euro Area is closer to full employment, with headline inflation at target, compared to the U.S. four years ago. The ECB may be facing its own tantrum pressures later in 2017. U.K.: Gilts have already priced in a significantly weaker U.K. economic outlook, especially with regards to consumer spending, yet inflation expectations are only now starting to peak. Raise U.K. bond exposure to neutral, from underweight. More clarity on the Brexit negotiations status is necessary to develop a firmer conviction on Gilts with yields already at rich levels. Feature Chart of the WeekAre Central Banks Getting ##br##Behind The Curve? Are Central Banks Getting Behind The Curve? Are Central Banks Getting Behind The Curve? A whiff of central bank hawkishness has quickly swept over the major bond markets. In the U.S., a series of Fed speeches, coming after a string of improving economic data amid booming asset markets, has turned a March Fed rate hike from a long-shot to a virtual certainty in little more than a week. In Europe, another round of stronger inflation data is emboldening some of the hawks at the European Central Bank (ECB) to more openly question if some tapering of the central bank's asset purchases will be necessary next year. Even in the U.K., the Bank of England (BoE) is letting its latest round of Gilt quantitative easing (QE) expire, although the BoE is not close to considering a rate hike, as we discuss later in this Weekly Report. Chart 2A Supportive Backdrop ##br##For Taking Credit Risk A Supportive Backdrop For Taking Credit Risk A Supportive Backdrop For Taking Credit Risk A move by the Fed next week now seems like a done deal, and the new question for investors is: how many more times the Fed will lift rates in 2017? The market is now pricing in "only" 75bps of hikes over the next year, even as the S&P 500 sits close to its all-time high and U.S. jobless claims hit a 43-year low last week (Chart 1). We still see three hikes - the Fed's current projection - to be the most that the Fed will deliver in 2017. Yet the fact that equity & credit markets have taken the rising odds of a March rate increase in stride might nudge the Fed towards even more hikes this year than currently forecast. Bond markets around the world will likely not take a shift higher in the Fed "dots" very well, although in the U.S. the immediate upside for yields remains tempered by the persistent short positioning in the U.S. Treasury market. We still expect Treasury yields to rise over the next 6-9 months, though, driven by additional increases in inflation expectations rather than a sharp repricing of the expected path of the funds rate. The biggest risk looming for global bonds, however, would come from any signal by the ECB that a taper is in the cards next year. That would likely result in wider term premiums and bear-steepening of yield curves in the major developed government bond markets. It would be a surprise if the ECB started preparing the markets for a less accommodative policy stance at this week's meeting, although questions about a taper will certainly be posed to ECB President Draghi by reporters after the meeting. Evaluating Our Recommendations As Global Growth Improves Back on January 31st, we shifted to a more pro-growth stance in our fixed income portfolio recommendations, moving our duration tilt back to below-benchmark, while downgrading government debt and upgrading corporate bond exposure.1 The key to that shift was a growing body of evidence pointing to a broadening global economic upturn. The latest round of global purchasing managers' indices (PMIs) released last week confirmed that the business cycle dynamics continue to accelerate to the upside (Chart 2). This will maintain upward pressure on bond yields and downward pressure on credit spreads. Our portfolio recommendations have generally done well since we made our shift. In Chart 3, we show the excess returns (on a currency-hedged basis) for the individual government debt markets versus the overall Barclays Global Treasury Index since the end of January. Our underweight positions in the U.S., Spain and Australia (up to February 21st, when we upgraded Aussie debt to neutral) performed well, as did our overweights in core Europe (Germany & France). Our worst performing tilts were our below-benchmark stances on Italy, which benefitted greatly from some diminished pressures on French government debt last week, and U.K. Gilts, which we discuss later in this report. In Chart 4, we show the excess returns (on a currency-hedged basis) for the major spread product markets, since January 31. Our decisions to upgrade U.S. investment grade (IG) to above-benchmark, and U.S. high-yield (HY) to neutral, have done well as U.S. corporate spreads continue to tighten in response to improving U.S. economic growth. Our relative exposures between the U.S. and Euro Area remain our biggest tilts between countries. Specifically, we remain overweight core Euro Area government debt versus U.S. Treasuries, while we are neutral U.S. HY and underweight Euro Area equivalents. On IG corporate debt, we are above-benchmark on both sides of the Atlantic. Our marginal preference, however, is for U.S. IG given the shifting changes in relative balance sheet health in the U.S. (improving, but from relatively poor levels) versus Europe (stable, but at relatively strong levels) suggested by our Corporate Health Monitors. On a currency-hedged and duration-matched basis, our relative U.S. vs Euro Area tilts have done well since our major allocation shift on January 31 (Chart 5), with Treasuries underperforming, U.S. HY outperforming and both U.S. and European IG performing similarly. Chart 3Our Recent Country Allocation Performance Will The Hawks Walk The Talk? Will The Hawks Walk The Talk? Chart 4Our Recent Spread Product Allocation Performance Will The Hawks Walk The Talk? Will The Hawks Walk The Talk? Chart 5Our Europe Vs U.S. Tilts Have Done Well Of Late Will The Hawks Walk The Talk? Will The Hawks Walk The Talk? Bottom Line: Our decision to upgrade corporate spread product risk versus government debt in the U.S., and to reduce overall recommended duration exposure, at the end of January has been performing well. Maintain these tilts, with both soft and hard economic data pointing to a broadening global economic upturn and the Fed prepared to hike rates next week. The Timing Of A Potential "Bund Tantrum" Looking ahead, timing a potential turn in our U.S. versus Europe tilts will likely remain the biggest call we make this year. With the Fed now set to raise rates again next week, and the ECB likely to deflect any talk of a taper to after the upcoming French elections (at the earliest), the bias will remain toward Treasury market underperformance in the near term. Yet the marginal pressures on inflation in both the U.S. and Euro Area suggest that a turning point in U.S./Core Europe bond spreads could arrive sooner than many expect. While realized inflation rates are moving higher in both regions, the underlying price pressures have a different look. In the U.S., headline inflation (using the Fed's preferred measure, the change in the personal consumption expenditure, or PCE, deflator) has risen to 1.89%, a mere 15bps above core PCE inflation with both measures now sitting just below the Fed's 2% target. Yet the breadth of the rise in core inflation has rolled over, according to our diffusion index (Chart 6). This suggests that the recent acceleration in core inflation, which we believe the Fed is most focused on, may take a pause in the next few months. The opposite is true in the Euro Area, where headline HICP inflation (the ECB's target measure) has soared to 1.9%, right at the ECB target of "at or just below" 2%. The gap between headline and core HICP inflation has been widening, though, as there has been very little follow through from the acceleration in headline inflation, largely driven by base effects related to previous rises in energy prices and declines in the euro, into core prices. Our Euro Area headline inflation diffusion index is moving higher, highlighting that the increase in headline HICP inflation is becoming more broadly based (Chart 7). Chart 6A Narrowing Increase In U.S. Inflation A Narrowing Increase In U.S. Inflation A Narrowing Increase In U.S. Inflation Chart 7A Broadening Increase In Euro Area Inflation A Broadening Increase In Euro Area Inflation A Broadening Increase In Euro Area Inflation The cyclical uptrend in Euro Area growth and inflation is also fairly broad-based at the country level, with the individual country PMIs and headline HICP inflation rates all in solid uptrends for the major countries in the region (Chart 8). At the same time, core inflation rates remain well contained. Various ECB members have pointed to the benign core inflation readings as a reason to stay the course on extraordinarily accommodative monetary policy settings. Yet with unemployment rapidly falling in many parts of the Euro Area, it is becoming increasingly difficult to get a consensus view on maintaining the status quo on ECB policy. Already, the German Bundesbank has been quite vocal in questioning the need for the ECB to maintain the current pace of its asset purchase program, and that pressure will only grow with German inflation now above 2%. So how close is the ECB to a potential asset purchase taper? Some clues emerge when comparing Europe now to the U.S. around the time of the Fed's 2013 "Taper Tantrum." In Chart 9, we show "cycle-on-cycle" comparisons for both the Euro Area and U.S. All series in the chart are lined up to the peak in our Months-To-Hike indicator, which measures the number of months to the first rate hike of the next interest rate cycle, as discounted in the Overnight Index Swap (OIS) curve. That indicator peaked in the U.S. in late 2012, several months before Ben Bernanke's infamous speech in May 2013 that signaled the Fed's QE appetite was beginning to wane. Chart 8A Consistent Upturn##br## In Europe A Consistent Upturn in Europe A Consistent Upturn in Europe Chart 9Less Spare Capacity In Europe Now Vs ##br##Pre-Taper Tantrum U.S. Less Spare Capacity in Europe Now vs Pre-Taper Tantrum U.S. Less Spare Capacity in Europe Now vs Pre-Taper Tantrum U.S. In the Euro Area, the Months-To-Hike indicator peaked in July of last year right around the time of the U.K. Brexit vote. Interestingly, the indicator remains much higher than it ever was in the U.S. during the QE era, indicating how the market believes that the ECB will have to maintain zero (or lower) interest rates for longer. Yet, by some measures, the ECB is closer to reaching its policy goals then the Fed was in 2012/13. In the 2nd panel of Chart 9, we show the "unemployment gap" - the difference between the unemployment rate and the rate consistent with inflation stability - for the U.S. and Euro Area. Note that there is far less spare capacity in labor markets today in Europe than there was in the U.S. when the Fed raised the topic of a QE taper to the markets. The U.S. unemployment rate was a full three percentage points above the full employment level in 2012, while Euro Area unemployment is now only one percentage point above full employment. In the bottom two panels of Chart 9, we show the gap between headline and core inflation in both the U.S. and Euro Area, relative to the 2% inflation targets that both the Fed and ECB aim to hit. U.S. inflation was in the vicinity of the Fed's target around the time of the Taper Tantrum. While Euro Area headline inflation is similarly close to the ECB's 2% target today, core inflation is much further away from 2% than U.S. core inflation was four years ago. If the ECB focuses on headline rather than core inflation, then Europe could be getting close to its own Taper Tantrum. Yet the relatively calmer readings on Euro Area core inflation suggest that the ECB does not have to make a rush to judgement on its asset purchase program, especially given the uncertainties presented by the upcoming French elections in April & May. We are still maintaining our overweight stance on core European government debt versus U.S. Treasuries, but we are growing increasingly worried that a turning point may be on the horizon. As can be seen in the additional cycle-on-cycle comparisons in Chart 10, the benchmark 10-year German Bund is tracing out a similar path to that of the 10-year U.S. Treasury around the time of the Fed Taper Tantrum. If the ECB focuses on the tightening labor market and accelerating pace of headline inflation in the Euro Area, a "Bund Tantrum" could become the big story for global bond markets later this year. Bottom Line: Cyclical comparisons of the Euro Area today to the U.S. in the months prior to the Fed's 2013 "Taper Tantrum" show that the Euro Area is closer to full employment, with headline inflation at target, compared to the U.S. four years ago. The ECB may be facing its own tantrum pressures later in 2017. Gilt(y) Optimism? The British economy has surprised to the upside in the last few months. Policy uncertainty has collapsed, while inflation expectations have marched higher and business optimism has stabilized. Most surprising against this backdrop, Gilt returns, on a currency hedged basis, have beaten most of their developed market fixed income peers (Chart 11). Chart 10A Bund Taper On The Horizon? A Bund Taper On The Horizon? A Bund Taper On The Horizon? Chart 11Gilts Should Have Underperformed Gilts Should Have Underperformed Gilts Should Have Underperformed This outperformance cannot be linked to factors such as the usual safe-haven status of Gilts, with no signs of major financial stresses in the Euro Area that would cause money to flow into Gilts (Chart 12). Indeed, the opposite has been happening as foreigners have been net sellers of Gilts in recent months. A better explanation might come from what has become a bond-bullish linkage between the British currency, inflation, real wages and consumption. In all likelihood, investors have already incorporated most of the impact of a weak Pound on U.K. inflation expectations and Gilt yields. Yet higher expected prices continue to erode household purchasing power, leading to weaker consumer spending (Chart 13). This dynamic is bullish for bonds. Chart 12Can't Blame The Safe Haven Status This Time Can't Blame The Safe Haven Status This Time Can't Blame The Safe Haven Status This Time Chart 13Consumers Will Feel The Pinch Consumers Will Feel The Pinch Consumers Will Feel The Pinch Already, this backdrop has become widely accepted. The Bloomberg survey of economists' forecasts is calling for U.K. consumer spending growth to decelerate to 1.6% on a year-over-year basis in 2017, down from 2.8% in 2016. The BoE adopted a more dovish stance at last month's Monetary Policy Committee (MPC) meeting, citing the downside risks to consumption from high currency-driven inflation at a time of persistent spare capacity in labor markets and modest wage increases.2 This threat to U.K. growth from a more sluggish consumer should continue, at least in the short term. BCA's U.K. real average weekly earnings model is clearly pointing towards additional declines in inflation-adjusted wages (Chart 14). This should restrain consumption growth, especially as other factors boosting spending are likely to fade. For example, the gains to disposable income growth from falling interest rates are likely done for this cycle, with mortgage rates having little room to decline further from the current 2.5% level (Chart 15). Also, consumer credit is now expanding 10% year-over-year - a pace that is most likely unsustainable with household debt still at high levels relative to income and the savings rate having fallen close to pre-recession levels (Chart 16). As a result, U.K. consumers are unlikely to continue stretching their financial situation to support spending. Chart 14Real Wages Will Constrain Consumption Real Wages Will Constrain Consumption Real Wages Will Constrain Consumption Chart 15Little Room For Lower Mortgage Rates Little Room For Lower Mortgage Rates Little Room For Lower Mortgage Rates Chart 16Structural Limits On Consumer Credit Growth Structural Limits On Consumer Credit Growth Structural Limits On Consumer Credit Growth Additionally, the housing market could dent consumer confidence in the near term. Since the beginning of 2014, all measures of house price inflation have rolled over, while mortgage approvals have moved sideways (Chart 17). Signs of increased weakness are appearing and could force households to revise their spending habits downward. There are also potential risks coming from the business side, despite some more positive data of late. BCA's U.K. capex indicator, composed of several survey measures, points to a cyclical improvement in capital spending in the next few quarters. At the same time, net lending to non-financial institutions is growing at a robust rate (Chart 18), suggesting that credit availability is not an impairment for U.K. businesses. Chart 17Housing: From Tailwind To Headwind? Housing: From Tailwind To Headwind? Housing: From Tailwind To Headwind? Chart 18Some Optimism Is Warranted... Some Optimism Is Warranted... Some Optimism Is Warranted... However, the situation remains very fragile. The upcoming Brexit negotiations will keep animal spirits well contained. Firms have become more risk averse and less willing to take balance sheet risks according to the Deloitte CFO survey (Chart 19). Until the details on the U.K.'s future economic links to Europe are resolved, corporate decision-makers will be dissuaded from making long-term investments in productivity-enhancing capital such as plant and machinery. In turn, the continued lack of productivity gains will further depress U.K. corporate profitability (Chart 19, bottom panels). This uncertain environment will mean suppressed hiring intentions, greater slack in the economy and decreasing inflationary pressure. Consequently, the BoE should remain patient. The accommodative policy measures introduced last August after the Brexit vote have been working so far. Rock bottom real yields and highly expansionary money supply growth have spurred domestically generated inflation. While the BoE's latest Gilt QE program is expiring, there is no rush to hike rates until core inflation has reached the 2% threshold or until headline inflation tops out at 2.7% in Q1 2018, as the BoE predicts.3 As such, the probability of a rate hike this year, which has collapsed from 55% to 17% since January, will fall even further, to the benefit of Gilts (Chart 20). Chart 19...But The Brexit-Induced Stalemate ##br##Effects Still Prevail ...But The Brexit-Induced Stalemate Effects Still Prevail ...But The Brexit-Induced Stalemate Effects Still Prevail Chart 20More Time Needed ##br##For The BoE More Time Needed For The BoE More Time Needed For The BoE This week, we are upgrading our recommended stance on Gilts from below-benchmark to neutral. We have maintained an underweight posture since October 18th of last year, primarily driven by our expectation that rising U.K. inflation would put upward pressure on Gilt yields. Now that the main force driving inflation higher - the exchange rate - is bottoming out and possibly set to reverse, we have to change tack. On that note, our colleagues at BCA Geopolitical Strategy have recently laid out a very compelling bullish case for the Pound.4 They disagree with the assessment that further volatility in the currency is warranted because of the Brexit process. They oppose the market narrative that: Europeans will seek to punish the U.K. severely for Brexit, to set an example to their own Euroskeptics; Exiting the common market is negative for the country's economy in the short-term; Remaining legal uncertainties about Brexit could derail the process. In their view, two events that occurred in January - the U.K. Supreme Court decision that the U.K. parliament must have a say in triggering Article 50 and Prime Minister May's "Brexit means exit" speech - have reduced political uncertainty regarding Brexit. The first because parliament would ultimately be bound by the popular referendum. The second because the main cause of European consternation - the U.K. asking for special treatment with respect to the common market - was taken off the table. Thus, going forward, Europe will exact a price, but it will not be severe. And the negative economic repercussions of leaving will only be fully registered in the coming years. If our colleagues are right, an overweight position in Gilts could be tempting, as a stronger Pound would decrease inflation expectations, pushing nominal yields lower. This case is even stronger given the economic uncertainties we've laid out above. Despite their convincing arguments, we prefer to take a cautious approach, while waiting to see on what ground the Brexit negotiations will start. Moreover, Gilt valuations now seem rich, with spreads versus U.S. Treasuries at historic lows. Thus, we are only upgrading to a neutral allocation to Gilts for now. In our model portfolio (shown on Page 16), we are funding the increased Gilt allocations by equally reducing the U.S. and German exposure, given the upward pressure on yields in those markets described earlier in this Weekly Report. Bottom Line: The U.K. economy has surprised to the upside and inflation expectations have reacted in line with the domestic currency weakness. There is now a greater chance that both of those trends will reverse, to the benefit of Gilts. Raise U.K. bond exposure to neutral, from underweight. More clarity on the Brexit negotiations status is necessary to develop a firmer conviction on Gilts, especially with yield already at rich levels. Robert Robis, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com Jean-Laurent Gagnon, Editor/Strategist jeang@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "The Global Growth Upturn Has Legs: Reduce Duration, Upgrade Credit Exposure", dated January 31, 2017, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com 2 The BoE lowered its estimate of the full-employment level of the U.K. unemployment rate, consistent with accelerating wage growth, from 5% to 4.5% at the February MPC meeting. 3 Please see "Inflation Report", February 2017, Bank Of England, available at http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/Pages/inflationreport/2017/feb.aspx 4 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "The "What Can You Do For Me" World?", dated January 25, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Will The Hawks Walk The Talk? Will The Hawks Walk The Talk? Recommendations Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

How Long Is The Sweet Spot? Table 1Recommended Allocation Monthly Portfolio Update Monthly Portfolio Update The sweet spot on a baseball bat, scientists find,1 is the small area about two inches (5 cm) long, some six inches from the tip. The sweet spot for global risk assets may not be much bigger. The 22% rise in global equities since February last year has been driven by a "goldilocks" combination of recovering economic activity, quiescent inflation, and still-accommodative monetary policy. But, after such a strong rally, markets must walk a fine line - no slowdown in growth and no surprising tightening of monetary conditions - for prices to rise further. Our analysis suggests that they can, but the risk of a correction is rising. A lot of the better news of the past year has already been priced in. The price-to-sales ratio for U.S. stocks is close to an all-time high, and even the plain-vanilla 12-month forward PE ratio has reached 17.5x, the highest since 2002 (Chart 1). Volatility has fallen to a low level, with the VIX not rising above 12 over the past month, and the S&P500 index going 98 days without a one-day decline of 1% or more, the longest such period since 1995 (Chart 2). To a degree, this is justified by the recent strong pick-up in global growth. Sentiment indicators have accelerated since the election of President Trump, and even hard data is now showing the first signs of recovery (Chart 3) with, for example, U.S. retail sales rising 5.6% year-on-year in January, and core durable goods orders starting to follow the rise in companies' capex intentions (Chart 4). Similar positive economic surprises are visible in Europe, Japan, China and elsewhere. The problem is that further upside surprises are likely to be limited. Regional Fed NowCast surveys for Q1 real GDP growth are already at 2.5-3.1%. Consensus forecasts for S&P500 earnings growth in 2017 look about right at 10.5% but, with a stronger dollar and rising wages, are unlikely to be beaten. Chart 1Historically High Valuations Historically High Valuations Historically High Valuations Chart 2Time For A Pull-Back? Time For A Pull-Back? Time For A Pull-Back? Chart 3Hard Data Starting To Recover Too Hard Data Starting To Recover Too Hard Data Starting To Recover Too Chart 4Orders To Follow Capex Intentions Orders To Follow Capex Intentions Orders To Follow Capex Intentions Headline inflation has picked up (to 2.5% in the U.S. and 1.9% in the Eurozone), mainly because of higher oil prices, but core inflation remains sufficiently under control that central banks don't need to slam on the brakes. The rise in unit labor costs in the U.S. suggests that core PCE inflation will gradually move up to 2% during the year (Chart 5). The latest FOMC minutes revealed that members want a further rate hike "fairly soon", and BCA expects the Fed to raise three times this year (to which the futures market ascribes only a 36% probability). But Fed policy remains very accommodative (Chart 6), the European Central Bank is unlikely to end its asset purchases soon on account of political and banking system concerns, and the Bank of Japan remains committed to its 0% yield target for 10-year government bonds until inflation is well above 2%. Absent a powerful fiscal stimulus in the U.S. or a move by the "hard money" advocates in the Trump administration to change the Fed's modus operandi, we think its unlikely that a tightening of monetary policy will drag down asset prices. Chart 5Labor Costs Putting Pressure On Prices Labor Costs Putting Pressure On Prices Labor Costs Putting Pressure On Prices Chart 6Fed Policy Still Accomodative Fed Policy Still Accomodative Fed Policy Still Accomodative Risks certainly abound. The Trump administration could start a trade war with China. Its proposals for corporate and personal tax cuts could disappoint both in terms of their details and the timing of Congress's passing them. European politics remain a concern, with the probability of Marine Le Pen becoming French President increasing recently (though it remains small). But risk markets tend to rise on a wall of worry. Investor sentiment is not particularly bullish at the moment, with the bull/bear ratio among individual investors barely above 1 (Chart 7) and flows into equity funds in recent months not reversing the outflows of last year (Chart 8). Chart 7Retail Investors Not So Bullish Retail Investors Not So Bullish Retail Investors Not So Bullish Chart 8Equity Flows Are Still Tepid Equity Flows Are Still Tepid Equity Flows Are Still Tepid After a year of a strong cyclical risk-on rally, progress from now on will get tougher. A short-term change of direction is quite possible (and has already happened in some assets, with the yen moving back to 112 and the 10-year Treasury yield to 2.3%). But we expect economic growth to remain robust this year - with U.S. real GDP growth likely to come in close to 3% on the back of surprises in capex - which will push the 10-year Treasury yield above 3% by year-end. In this environment, we continue to favor equities over bonds, and maintain our pro-risk tilt in equity sectors, credit and alternative assets. Equities: U.S. equities have outperformed Eurozone ones by 5% year-to-date, mainly because of worries about Europe's political risk and the fragility of its banking sector. Though we think the political risks are overstated (except perhaps in Italy), we continue to prefer the U.S. in common currency terms because of our expectations of further dollar appreciation and because the lower volatility of the U.S. helps reduce the beta of our recommended portfolio. Emerging markets have outperformed global equities by 3% YTD, mainly on the back of stronger commodities prices. But we remain underweight EM because of the risks from a stronger dollar and rising global rates, concerns about protectionism and debt refinancing, and because of the likelihood that China's rebound will run out of steam over the next 12 months (Chart 9). Fixed Income: Rates have pulled back recently: long-term institutional investors have begun to find attraction in the long end of the U.S. Treasury yield curve at 2-3%, though speculative investors remain short (Chart 10). With the Fed likely to raise rates three times this year, inflation expectations to pick up further, and nominal GDP growth in the U.S. to reach 4.5-5%, we expect the U.S. 10-year yield to rise above 3%. We therefore remain underweight duration and prefer inflation-linked over nominal bonds. In the improving economic environment, we continue to like credit, but find valuations more attractive for investment-grade bonds than for high-yield. Currencies: Dollar appreciation has been on hold since January but we think the long-term trend remains in place because of the probable direction of relative interest rates. Neither Japan nor the Eurozone is likely to move towards monetary tightening over the next 12 months. Even if the Trump administration were to want a weaker dollar, a few tweets would not be enough to offset monetary fundamentals. And, while it is true that sentiment towards the dollar is already bullish, this has historically not precluded further appreciation, for example in the late 1990s (Chart 11). Chart 9EM Equities Correlated With China PMIs EM Equities Correlated With China PMIs EM Equities Correlated With China PMIs Chart 10Divergent Views On U.S. Bonds Divergent Views On U.S. Bonds Divergent Views On U.S. Bonds Chart 11Optimism Need Not Stop USD's Rise Optimism Need Not Stop USD's Rise Optimism Need Not Stop USD's Rise Commodities: The oil price remains close to its equilibrium level at around $55 a barrel, with the OPEC agreement largely holding but being offset by a production increase from the U.S. shale drillers, whose rig count has doubled since last May. We are neutral on industrial commodities: Chinese demand resulting from last year's reflationary policy is likely to be offset by the stronger dollar. Gold remains a useful portfolio hedge in a world of elevated geopolitical worries and inflation tail-risk, but is also negatively correlated with the U.S. dollar. Garry Evans, Senior Vice President Global Asset Allocation garry@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see, for example, "The Sweetspot of a Hollow Baseball or Softball Bat", by Daniel A. Russell, Pennsylvania State University, available at www.acs.psu.edu/drussell/bats/sweetspot.html Recommended Asset Allocation Model Portfolio (USD Terms)

Highlights U.S. Treasuries - Fair Value: The 10-year U.S. Treasury yield now appears 7 bps expensive on our model. Investors should maintain below-benchmark duration and continue to monitor bullish sentiment toward the U.S. dollar for signals about the breadth of the global economic recovery. U.S. Treasuries - Technicals: Large net short bond positions are in the process of being unwound. A more balanced technical picture removes one of the key impediments to the bond bear market and possibly sets the stage for another leg higher in yields. China: Chinese monetary policy that is sufficiently accommodative to spur economic growth, but not so accommodative that it causes undue strength in the trade-weighted U.S. dollar, is the most bearish outcome for U.S. bonds. Feature Bonds rallied strongly late last week without any obvious economic catalyst. Now that the dust has settled we find the 10-year U.S. Treasury yield trading at 2.34%, 7 bps below our estimate of fair value (Chart 1). Chart 12-Factor U.S. Treasury Model 2-Factor U.S. Treasury Model 2-Factor U.S. Treasury Model Updating Our U.S. Treasury Model That fair value estimate comes from our 2-factor U.S. Treasury model, based on the Global Manufacturing PMI and bullish sentiment toward the U.S. dollar. In our view, these two factors capture the most important macro drivers of U.S. bond yields. Stronger global growth, as proxied by the Global Manufacturing PMI, tends to push yields higher. However, to the extent that stronger global growth coincides with an appreciating U.S. dollar, the amount of monetary tightening that needs to be achieved through higher interest rates is limited. This caps the upside in long-dated U.S. bond yields. Put differently, it is not just the magnitude of the global growth impulse that matters for U.S. bond yields, but also the breadth of the recovery. The more broad-based the recovery, the less upward pressure on the U.S. dollar and the higher U.S. Treasury yields can rise. Last week we received Flash PMI estimates for the U.S., Eurozone and Japan that we can use to estimate the Global PMI for February. According to the Flash estimates, the U.S. PMI declined slightly in February, but this was more than offset by accelerations in both the Eurozone and Japan. Altogether, these three regions account for 48% of the Global PMI and, assuming PMIs in all other countries remain flat, we can calculate that the global PMI will nudge higher from 52.7 in January to 52.9 in February. Of course one month of data is much less important than the longer run trend. Taking a step back, we see that manufacturing PMIs are trending higher in every major economic bloc (Chart 2). Our diffusion index also shows that the global manufacturing recovery is more broadly based than at any time during the past three years (Chart 2, top panel). The synchronized nature of the recovery is also reflected in the behavior of the U.S. dollar, which has not appreciated during the past month even though Fed rate hike expectations have shifted up (Chart 3). The message from the survey of bullish dollar sentiment - the series that is included in our Treasury model - is more mixed. Bullish dollar sentiment plunged from elevated levels in January but has recovered somewhat during the past few weeks (Chart 3, panel 2). Meantime, U.S. Treasury spreads over German bunds and JGBs are also sending mixed signals. Short-maturity spreads have widened alongside increased U.S. rate hike expectations, while long-maturity spreads have been well contained (Chart 3, bottom 2 panels). Chart 2Synchronized Global Recovery Synchronized Global Recovery Synchronized Global Recovery Chart 3Keep Watching The Dollar Keep Watching The Dollar Keep Watching The Dollar Global bond investors should closely monitor trends in the U.S. dollar, bullish sentiment toward the dollar, and U.S. Treasury spreads over bunds and JGBs. Each of these indicators provides information about the breadth of the economic recovery. If Fed rate hike expectations remain firm, or even move higher, and that trend is not matched by a stronger dollar or wider Treasury spreads, then that would signal that the global recovery is becoming more synchronized, suggesting additional upside for bond yields. Bottom Line: The 10-year U.S. Treasury yield now appears 7 bps expensive on our model. Investors should maintain below-benchmark duration and continue to monitor bullish sentiment toward the U.S. dollar for signals about the breadth of the global economic recovery. Chart 4Positioning Becoming More Balanced Positioning Becoming More Balanced Positioning Becoming More Balanced Treasury Technicals Less Stretched This brings us back to last Friday's bond rally. Puzzlingly, the 2-year U.S. Treasury yield declined 6 bps and the 10-year yield fell 7 bps on a day without any significant economic or political news. In fact, Treasury yields managed to decline even though rate hike expectations embedded in the overnight index swap curve were unchanged and the probability of a March rate hike priced into fed funds futures actually increased from 31% to 33%! The unusual disconnect between Treasury yields and rate hike expectations is probably related to the expiry of the March bond futures contracts. Last week, traders had to decide whether to let their March contracts expire or roll them over into June. Positioning data show that speculators carried large net short positions into last week (Chart 4), so it is possible that it was the capitulation of these large short positions that drove yields lower on Friday. More timely data from the skew between payer and receiver swaptions show that swaption investors are no longer betting on rising rates (Chart 4, panel 4). Net speculative positions in Treasury futures could follow suit when the data are released later this week. In addition, our composite sentiment indicator has just recently ticked back above the zero line (Chart 4, panel 2). Bottom Line: Large net short bond positions are in the process of being unwound. A more balanced technical picture removes one of the key impediments to the bond bear market, and possibly sets the stage for another leg higher in yields. China's Bond Market Balancing Act Chart 5Easy Money Spurs Chinese Growth Easy Money Spurs Chinese Growth Easy Money Spurs Chinese Growth In the context of the 2-factor U.S. Treasury model presented above, there are two reasons why developments in China matter for U.S. bond markets. The first is that China accounts for the single largest weighting in the Global Manufacturing PMI, so stronger growth in the Chinese manufacturing sector will pressure bond yields higher, all else equal. But the Chinese economy can also influence U.S. bond yields if changes in the RMB exert meaningful influence on the trade-weighted U.S. dollar. For example, faster Chinese growth pressures U.S. bond yields higher, but some of that upward pressure could be mitigated if that strong growth is engineered through a rapid depreciation of the RMB relative to the U.S. dollar. On the first point, China's manufacturing PMI is in a clear uptrend although the recent contraction in the government's fiscal expenditures is a potential warning sign (Chart 5). Our China Investment Strategy service views the fiscal contraction as a risk but still expects the Chinese economy to remain buoyant this year.1 This is because Chinese monetary conditions remain supportive of further gains in the manufacturing sector, and the rebound in China's PMI that began early last year is more tied to easing monetary conditions - a weaker exchange rate and falling real interest rates - than to increased fiscal spending. On the second point, while a weaker trade-weighted RMB has helped spur the recovery in Chinese manufacturing, the impulse from a weaker RMB has so far not been potent enough to move the needle on the trade-weighted U.S. dollar (Chart 6). From the perspective of U.S. fixed income markets a continuation of this trend would be the most bond-bearish outcome. Chinese monetary policy remains easy enough to spur economic growth but not so easy that it causes the U.S. dollar to spike. For the time being at least, China has been actively selling Treasuries in order to mitigate the extent of its currency depreciation (Chart 7). If China were to suddenly stop selling Treasuries, then the RMB would likely depreciate sharply. This would actually have an ambiguous impact on U.S. Treasury yields since it would probably lead to both a stronger U.S. dollar and faster global growth. Chart 6USD So Far Not Impacted By RMB USD So Far Not Impacted By RMB USD So Far Not Impacted By RMB Chart 7China Is A Treasury Seller China Is A Treasury Seller China Is A Treasury Seller More likely, however, is that China will continue to manage the gradual depreciation of its currency unless it is forced to take more dramatic action in the face of a negative growth shock. Our China Investment Strategy team notes that the annual People's Congress in early March should offer some important clues about the Chinese government's growth priorities and policy direction going forward. Bottom Line: Chinese monetary policy that is sufficiently accommodative to spur economic growth, but not so accommodative that it causes undue strength in the trade-weighted U.S. dollar, is the most bearish outcome for U.S. bonds. Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Be Aware Of China's Fiscal Tightening", dated February 16, 2017, available at cis.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

Feature Recently we have received a number of client questions about the Fed's balance sheet. When will the Fed start to shrink its balance sheet (if at all)? If the Fed does decide to shrink its balance sheet, how long will that process take? How will the Fed control interest rates in the years ahead? And most importantly, how will these decisions impact financial markets? To answer these questions, this week we are sending you a Special Report titled "Cleaning Up After The 100-Year Flood" that was first published on June 10, 2014. This report explains how monetary policy is conducted at an operational level, and also how the dramatic expansion of the Fed's balance sheet forced the Fed to modify its approach. But first, we have some additional thoughts on how the Fed's balance sheet is likely to evolve during the next few years. The Fed's Stated Plan The most up-to-date guidance we have received about the Fed's balance sheet plans comes from Janet Yellen's recent Congressional testimony: The FOMC has annunciated that its longer run goal is to shrink our balance sheet to levels consistent with the efficient and effective implementation of monetary policy. And while our system evolves and I can't put a number on that, I would anticipate a balance sheet that's substantially smaller than at the current time. In addition, we would like our balance sheet to again be primarily Treasury securities, whereas as you pointed out, we have substantial holdings of mortgage-backed securities. From this, and similar statements from other Fed officials, we conclude that the Fed will allow its balance sheet to shrink once the fed funds rate is somewhere in the range of 1% to 1.5%.1 Surveys also show that the median primary dealer expects the Fed will change its balance sheet policy when the target fed funds rate is 1.38%. As such, and under reasonable assumptions for the pace of rate hikes, we think it is very likely that the Fed will start to let its balance sheet shrink sometime in 2018. MBS First, Treasuries Maybe Later Yellen's statement to Congress also makes clear that the Fed would be more comfortable with a balance sheet that consists entirely of Treasury securities. For this reason, the central bank will start by simply ceasing the reinvestment of its Agency bond and MBS portfolios. At least initially, the Fed will continue to reinvest the proceeds from its maturing Treasury portfolio. Yellen also left open the possibility that reinvestment could be "tapered" rather than just halted altogether. While this is possible, and in fact 70% of primary dealers think that reinvestments will be phased out over time while only 14% think they will be ceased all at once, it seems to us like a needless complication. We expect that reinvestments of Agency bonds and MBS will end all at once sometime in 2018. As for the Fed's holdings of Treasury securities, it is much less clear whether the Fed will allow these balances to run down. The accompanying Special Report describes in detail the differences between the Fed's pre-crisis mode of operation, when bank reserves were scarce, and the Fed's current mode of operation with large bank reserve balances. As of now, the Fed has stated that it intends to eventually drain bank reserves from the system and return to its pre-crisis mode of operation, but there are several possible advantages to running a system with an outsized Fed balance sheet and large bank reserve balances. Chart 1Reserves Can Be Drained Fairly Quickly Reserves Can Be Drained Fairly Quickly Reserves Can Be Drained Fairly Quickly None other than Ben Bernanke pointed out a few of those reasons in a blog post last fall.2 In our view, the most compelling is that regulatory changes have increased private sector demand for safe, short-maturity, liquid assets in recent years. If the Treasury department is unwilling to supply T-bills in sufficient numbers, then the Fed can supply safe, short-maturity, liquid assets to the market by purchasing long-maturity Treasury securities and replacing them with bank reserves. Of course, we take the Fed at its word when it says that it would like to eventually drain excess bank reserves from the system. But even in that case, the steady growth of currency in circulation means that bank reserves will decline over time even if the Fed keeps the asset side of its balance sheet flat. For example, Chart 1 shows what would happen to bank reserves if the amount of currency in circulation grows at a conservative 5% per year pace, and if the Fed decides to allow its Agency bond and MBS portfolios to run off at the beginning of next year while keeping its Treasury portfolio flat. We assume that MBS runs off the Fed's balance sheet at a pace of $15 billion per month, slightly below the recent pace of MBS reinvestment. During the past three years, the Fed has reinvested between $20bn and $40bn MBS each month with an average monthly reinvestment of $32bn. In this scenario, outstanding bank reserves would decline to zero by the end of 2025. At that point the Fed would have to start adding to its Treasury holdings just to keep pace with the amount of currency in circulation. Bottom Line: While it is very likely that the Fed will allow its Agency bond and MBS portfolios to run off starting in 2018, it is much more uncertain whether it will ever cease the reinvestment of its Treasury holdings. If the Fed does allow its Treasury holdings to run down as well, it will have to start buying Treasuries again before 2025. Investment Implications Treasuries As our U.S. Bond Strategy service has written several times,3 considered in isolation it is unlikely that any decision by the Fed to allow its Treasury holdings to run off will have much of on an impact on the Treasury curve. To see why, we need to consider the process by which the Fed currently rolls over maturing Treasury securities at auction. At the moment, balances of matured Treasury securities are added to upcoming note/bond auctions as non-competitive bids. In other words, as Treasury securities mature the Fed buys an equal amount at upcoming Treasury auctions. If the Fed were to cease this reinvestment, that amount would need to be added to the competitive portion of the auctions and would greatly increase the gross issuance of Treasury debt to the public. For a sense of scale, we calculate that Treasury issuance to the public would need to increase by $426bn in 2018 and $378bn in 2019 if the Fed were to cease the reinvestment of its portfolio at the end of this year (Chart 2). However, the fact that this process is intermediated by the Treasury department means we also have to consider potential changes to fiscal policy and the U.S. government's financing mix. For instance, since running down the Fed's Treasury portfolio would also reduce the amount of bank reserves in the system, it is very likely that the Treasury department would seek to increase issuance of T-bills to compensate for the banking sector's loss of safe, short-maturity liquid assets. At present, bill supply as a percent of total Treasury debt is near a multi-decade low (Chart 3) and any increase in T-bill issuance would limit the impact of Fed balance sheet run-off on long-dated Treasury yields. Chart 2Fed Runoff Will Increase Issuance To Public... Fed Runoff Will Increase Issuance To Public... Fed Runoff Will Increase Issuance To Public... Chart 3... But Mostly Through T-Bills ... But Mostly Through T-Bills ... But Mostly Through T-Bills Bottom Line: When forecasting Treasury issuance and any potential impact on yields we must consider both the Fed's balance sheet and fiscal policy together. In our view, whatever the government's financing requirement in the years ahead, a considerable portion will be met through increased T-bill issuance, limiting the impact on long-dated Treasury yields. Mortgage-Backed Securities As our U.S. Bond Strategy service has recently written,4 the unwinding of the Fed's MBS portfolio poses a considerable threat to MBS spreads for two reasons. First, the transfer of MBS from the Fed to the private sector will put upward pressure on implied volatility. While private investors often hedge their MBS positions by purchasing volatility, the Fed has no incentive to do so. It follows that by removing a large stock of MBS from private hands the Fed has also removed a large source of demand for volatility. When this supply is re-introduced into the market, demand for volatility will increase pressuring MBS spreads wider (Chart 4). The second reason relates more directly to the supply and demand balance for MBS. In years when net MBS issuance (adjusted for Fed purchases) has been negative, excess MBS returns have tended to be positive (Chart 5). Further, while negative net MBS issuance (adjusted for Fed purchases) has been the norm since Fed asset purchases began in 2009 (Chart 6), this state of affairs will change once the Fed starts to unwind its MBS portfolio. Chart 4MBS Spreads Are##br## Linked To Vol MBS Spreads Are Linked To Vol MBS Spreads Are Linked To Vol Chart 5Annual MBS Excess Returns##br## Vs. Net Supply Since 1989 The Way Forward For The Fed's Balance Sheet The Way Forward For The Fed's Balance Sheet Chart 6Adjusted Net Issuance Will ##br##Turn Positive In 2018 Adjusted Net Issuance Will Turn Positive In 2018 Adjusted Net Issuance Will Turn Positive In 2018 Bottom Line: The unwinding of the Fed's MBS portfolio will pressure MBS spreads wider through increased supply and increased demand for volatility. Note: Please see the U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, titled "Cleaning Up After The 100-Year Flood", dated June 10, 2014 available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com 1 In a Q&A from June 2015 New York Fed President William Dudley floated 1% to 1.5% as a potentially reasonable range for the fed funds rate before the Fed considers changing its balance sheet policy. https://mninews.marketnews.com/content/feds-dudley-qa-markets-should-not-be-surprised-liftoff 2 https://www.brookings.edu/blog/ben-bernanke/2016/09/02/should-the-fed-keep-its-balance-sheet-large/ 3 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Is It Time To Cut Duration?", dated January 17, 2017. And also U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Currencies: The Tail Wagging The Dog", dated August 18, 2015. Both available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "The Road To Higher Vol Is Paved With Uncertainty", dated February 14, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Cleaning Up After The 100-Year Flood In this Special Report we consider how the dramatic expansion of the Fed's balance sheet has influenced the conduct of monetary policy from an operational perspective. Massive reserve balances have made the federal funds market largely irrelevant, but the Fed's new overnight reverse repo facility will allow it to tighten policy when the time comes. The Fed will likely provide new guidelines for its exit strategy before the end of 2014. We anticipate how these guidelines will be modified to reflect the challenges of implementing monetary policy with a large balance sheet. Large reserve balances do not pose an inflation threat, but they do have implications for the state of banking sector regulation and the policy tools at the Fed's disposal. Chart 1What Are Implications Of Fed's Epic Intervention? The Way Forward For The Fed's Balance Sheet The Way Forward For The Fed's Balance Sheet Feature The Federal Reserve resorted to a number of very aggressive and extraordinary monetary policy measures to deal with the failure of Lehman Brothers, the subsequent financial crisis and Great Recession. The result has been a flood of liquidity that has supported asset prices and spurred the recovery, yet has left the central bank balance sheet exponentially larger than at any time in its 100-year history (Chart 1). In formulating its exit strategy the Fed will finally be forced to grapple publicly with the aftereffects of its dramatic intervention in financial markets, which has complicated how monetary policy is implemented at an operational level. This Special Report is divided into three sections. In the first section, Before The Storm, we provide some background on the process of money creation and explain how the Fed implemented monetary policy prior to the Great Recession. In the second section, The Flood Waters Rise, we consider how monetary policy is implemented today in light of the dramatic expansion of the Fed's balance sheet. In the third section, Building On Higher Ground, we examine the way forward for the Fed, describe how the exit is likely to be managed and discuss the potential problems with this approach. 1. Before The Storm Prior to the financial crisis, the Fed expressed the stance of monetary policy via a target for the federal funds rate. The federal funds rate is the rate at which banks borrow and lend reserves to each other in the overnight market. The Fed conducted its day-to-day operations with the goal of supplying all the reserves demanded by the banking sector, while steering the fed funds rate toward its target. To understand how this was accomplished, we first require some background on the money creation process. Money Creation: More Than Just A Printing Press Contrary to what many believe, the process of money creation does not begin at the Federal Reserve. Rather, it begins in the banking system at the point of loan origination and ends at the Fed (Figure 1). The process is set in motion when a bank makes a new loan. This loan creates a new asset on the aggregate balance sheet for the banking system. The newly created money typically ends up as a deposit, either at the same bank or elsewhere in the banking system.1 The increase to the asset side of the banking sector's balance sheet is offset by an equal increase on the liability side. Only then does the Fed enter the picture. In a fractional reserve system, banks must hold reserves equal to a proportion of their deposits. Therefore, in the pre-QE world illustrated in Figure 1, any increase in deposits also creates demand for more reserves. Crucially, only the Fed is able to supply the banking sector with the needed reserves. The Fed will increase the supply of reserves either by purchasing Treasury securities or lending money in the repo market. This increase on the asset side of the Fed's balance sheet is balanced by an increase in reserves on the liability side. The creation of new bank reserves is the final step in the money creation process. Figure 1The Money Creation Process The Way Forward For The Fed's Balance Sheet The Way Forward For The Fed's Balance Sheet Chart 2QE Has Not Encouraged Lending The Way Forward For The Fed's Balance Sheet The Way Forward For The Fed's Balance Sheet This is not to suggest the Fed is powerless to control the rate of money creation. On the contrary, Fed policy is the most influential determinant of the rate of money growth. One important distinction, however, is that the Fed exerts control over the pace of money creation because it controls the overnight interest rate. The interest rate, in turn, is the most important driver of bank lending. Changes in the level of bank reserves not associated with changes in interest rates, QE for example, have no effect on credit growth (Chart 2). The Pre-Crisis Fed Funds Market How then, prior to the Great Recession, was the Fed able to maintain the fed funds rate at its target, while still satisfying the banking system's demand for reserves? It accomplished this task by maintaining what it calls a "structural deficiency" in the supply of bank reserves. In practice this means the Fed was careful to supply no more than the quantity of reserves demanded, so that each day it would typically add to the reserve supply to accommodate the newly created demand. As a practical matter, the Fed increases the supply of reserves by either buying securities or lending money in the repo market. Both of these transactions enter the Fed's balance sheet as an asset, which must be offset by a liability, in this case an increase in bank reserves. The Fed can also reduce the supply of reserves by either selling securities or borrowing in the repo market (using the securities it owns as collateral, deemed a reverse repo from the point of view of the borrower). Although due to the "structural deficiency" in the reserve market, the Fed would typically transact to increase reserve balances. Chart 3The Pre-Crisis 'Channel System' The Way Forward For The Fed's Balance Sheet The Way Forward For The Fed's Balance Sheet If, for example, the Fed wanted to increase the fed funds rate. It would be slow to accommodate the increase in demanded reserves throughout the day. Banks in need of reserves to meet intra-day payment processing needs would bid up the fed funds rate towards the new target. Effective communication of the target fed funds rate also aided this process. Since the target for the fed funds rate was known in advance, and the banking sector believed the Fed would supply all necessary reserves at that target rate, most federal funds transactions tended to occur at rates very close to the target. By the end of the day, however, the Fed must always supply the exact amount of reserves demanded by the banking sector if it wants to maintain control of the fed funds rate. If the Fed were to supply more reserves than the banking system required, banks would try to lend the unwanted excess reserves in the fed funds market, driving the federal funds rate lower to the interest rate paid on excess reserves (IOER), which was zero prior to 2008. Or, consider the opposite case where the Fed supplies too few reserves. In this instance banks would clamor to borrow reserves to meet their regulatory requirement. This incremental demand would drive the federal funds rate higher to the Fed's discount window lending rate, which is always available for banks to access in times of severe stress. The IOER and discount window rate thus created a channel for the fed funds rate (Chart 3), within which the Fed could nudge the rate toward target by being either too quick, or too slow to accommodate increases in demanded reserves throughout the day. Bottom Line: A "structural deficiency" in reserve balances prior to 2008 allowed the Fed to conduct monetary policy by setting a target for the fed funds rate. Also, it is the level of interest rates, and not the level of reserves, that determines the rate of money creation in the economy. 2. The Flood Waters Rise The Federal Reserve began large scale asset purchases (quantitative easing) in late 2008, dramatically increasing the asset side of its balance sheet and consequently the supply of bank reserves (Figure 2). Suddenly, the banking system found itself with far more reserves than it demanded. Predictably, trading in the fed funds market dried up and the fed funds rate was driven toward its lower bound, the IOER.2 The Fed's target for the federal funds rate quickly became irrelevant. Figure 2Illustrative Post-Crisis Balance Sheets For The Fed And The Aggregatve Banking System*: ##br##An Explosion In Excess Reserves The Way Forward For The Fed's Balance Sheet The Way Forward For The Fed's Balance Sheet In the presence of excess bank reserves, the Fed needs a mechanism to control the lower bound of overnight lending rates. In theory, the IOER could serve as a floor beneath the fed funds rate because banks should not be willing to lend reserves at a rate lower than what can be earned at the Fed. Yet the fed funds rate has consistently traded below the IOER since 2008 (Chart 4). The reason for this violation is that the IOER is only available to depository institutions with reserve accounts at the Fed. Other suppliers of short maturity funds, mostly the GSEs, are still willing to transact at lower rates (Chart 5). Chart 4In Need ##br##Of A Floor The Way Forward For The Fed's Balance Sheet The Way Forward For The Fed's Balance Sheet Chart 5Fed Funds Market Smaller, ##br## And Dominated By GSEs The Way Forward For The Fed's Balance Sheet The Way Forward For The Fed's Balance Sheet Chart 6Reverse Repo Facility Is New Floor On ##br##Rates Money Markets Under The Microscope The Way Forward For The Fed's Balance Sheet The Way Forward For The Fed's Balance Sheet A new facility is required, that is capable of absorbing all of the supply of overnight funds including that emanating from outside the traditional banking system. The Fed answered this requirement by creating a fixed rate overnight reverse repo (RRP) facility. Once fully implemented, the Fed will stand ready to borrow overnight in unlimited amounts, at a rate that it chooses (i.e. is set independently of market forces). By making this facility available to a larger set of counterparties than the IOER, including money market funds and the GSEs, the Fed now has a "hard floor" on rates that it will be able to use to raise interest rates when the time comes. Even though it is still in a testing phase, the RRP already appears to be acting as a floor for overnight rates (Chart 6). Bottom Line: The stockpile of excess reserves created by the Fed's large scale asset purchase program has made the federal funds market largely irrelevant. The Fed is now only able to implement monetary policy by placing a floor under short-term interest rates, the RRP. 3. Building On Higher Ground From an operational perspective, there are two possible ways forward for the Fed as it prepares to lift rates. One option would be to return to the pre-crisis method of operation described in the first section. To do this, the Fed would first have to drain all excess reserves from the banking system by either selling securities, or deploying some of the tools on the liability side of its balance sheet, such as term deposits.3 This would re-launch the federal funds market and the Fed could return to setting policy in its traditional manner, by targeting the fed funds rate. Unfortunately, there are simply too many excess reserves in the system to make this a viable strategy, at least for the next several years. Moreover, the pace of asset sales required to drain excess reserves in a timely manner would lead to large spikes in the Treasury term premium. Instead, the Fed will almost certainly choose to maintain large reserve balances and operate monetary policy by lifting the floor RRP rate. Specifically, the Fed will set the RRP rate equal to (or slightly below) the IOER. It will then hike rates by increasing both in tandem. The Fed may still choose to set a target for the fed funds rate at a level somewhat above the RRP to maintain consistency in its communications, but this rate will be meaningless. We outline the likely sequence of the Fed's exit strategy in the following Box. Box The Exit Strategy Revisited The Fed first articulated the likely sequence of the exit strategy in the minutes to the June 2011 FOMC meeting.4 That sequence was as follows: Cease reinvestment of principal on securities holdings. Modify forward guidance on the path of the federal funds rate, and initiate reserve draining operations (e.g. term deposits). Begin raising the target federal funds rate. Begin sales of securities holdings, with a goal of returning the balance sheet to a more traditional size within two to three years. The above sequence suggests the Fed was planning to first drain excess reserves and then conduct monetary policy operations in the fed funds market, as it did prior to QE. This strategy has now been abandoned, and we expect to receive a modified exit sequence before the end of the year. The revised sequence will be consistent with the implementation of policy using a floor system, with large excess reserves, and could look something like: Modify forward guidance on the path of interest rates (including IOER, RRP and fed funds). Begin raising interest rates. First by raising the RRP rate to slightly below the IOER, and then by raising both rates in tandem. A few months after rate hikes begin; cease reinvestment of principal on Agency and Agency MBS holdings. Much later; cease reinvestment of principal on Treasury securities. The Fed will probably cease reinvestment of its MBS holdings prior to its Treasury holdings, and will then let its MBS holdings run-off passively to zero. The Fed will also probably let some of its Treasury holdings run-off passively, but could decide to maintain a permanently larger balance sheet, depending on the success of the RRP and floor system. In the next few years, as its balance sheet begins to shrink through passive run-off, the Fed may decide to drain the remaining excess reserves and return to its traditional operating method as outlined in Section1 above. Either way, U.S. monetary policy will operate under a "floor system", using the RRP rate, for at least the next few years. This new method of operation comes with several potential drawbacks, which we address below. Excess Reserves Are "Dry Powder" For The Banking System Chart 7Drivers Of Bank Lending The Way Forward For The Fed's Balance Sheet The Way Forward For The Fed's Balance Sheet Many have speculated that banks have been choosing to sit on large excess reserve balances. The thinking is that eventually the economy will reach a turning point and banks will decide to convert their excess reserves to loans en masse, leading to a surge in bank lending, and eventually, inflation. This implies that the presence of large excess reserve balances would force the Fed to hike rates more quickly than in their absence. This concern stems from a misunderstanding of the money creation process described above. The Fed could fall "behind the curve" and normalize policy too slowly, which could ultimately lead to higher inflation. However, this would simply be a consequence of keeping interest rates too low for too long. The presence of excess reserves does not in itself create a desire to lend and thus poses no additional inflation risk. For one thing, the banking system in aggregate is powerless to reduce the amount of excess reserves without the Fed also taking action to reduce the supply. As shown in Figures 1 and 2, the supply of excess reserves is determined solely on the Fed's balance sheet. There is no danger of excess reserves "leaking out" into the economy. More importantly, however, is that the process of money creation begins with the origination of a loan and ends when the Fed increases the supply of reserves. The catalyst for the process, the amount of bank lending, is determined by (Chart 7): loan demand banks' perceived profitability from additional lending banks' concerns about taking too much risk on the balance sheet, putting their viability at risk regulatory requirements concerning capital and liquidity The Fed exerts control over these four factors through its interest rate policy, but not through changes in the balance of excess reserves. Prior to 2008, the lack of excess reserves did not act to constrain bank lending, rather the Fed chose to encourage or discourage lending by decreasing or increasing the interest rate. Similarly, the large excess reserve balances since 2008 have not provided an incentive to lend. Excess Reserves and Bank Regulation One implication of the Fed having sole control over the supply of bank reserves is that, through QE, it has effectively forced reserves onto bank balance sheets. These reserves obviously factor into banks' calculations concerning required regulatory ratios for liquidity and capital. Liquidity Coverage Ratio Chart 8Fed Purchases Pushed ##br##Term Premium Lower The Way Forward For The Fed's Balance Sheet The Way Forward For The Fed's Balance Sheet Under the proposed liquidity coverage ratio (LCR), banks must maintain a balance of high-quality liquid assets (such as bank reserves and Treasury securities) equal to their expected net cash requirement during a 30-day period. In theory, should the Fed ever decide to reduce the supply of excess reserves, banks could have trouble meeting the LCR requirement. In removing reserves, however, the Fed would also be selling securities. Banks falling short of their LCR requirement would be natural buyers for the securities offloaded by the Fed. Thus, the Fed's operating decisions will probably not exert any influence over banks' ability to meet their liquidity requirements. The LCR, however, does have implications for the equilibrium level of the Treasury term premium. Much as the Fed's Treasury purchases pressured the term premium lower (Chart 8), any future Treasury sales could be expected to unwind this effect. Even so, bank demand for those same Treasury securities would mitigate some of the upside for the term premium. Supplementary Leverage Ratio Large U.S. banks face a supplementary leverage ratio (SLR) which requires them to hold capital equal to at least 5% of total assets, not risk-weighted. In other words, large excess reserves force banks to hold more capital, which could have an adverse economic impact. Banks falling short of the SLR can either raise capital, or reduce assets. If they are either unable or unwilling to raise capital, then the large balance of excess reserves thrust upon them by the Fed could in theory crowd out bank lending. In other words, if the banking sector refuses to increase capital, then the onus falls on the asset side of the balance sheet to adjust to SLR standards. Since the banking sector in aggregate is unable to reduce reserve balances, any desired contraction in total assets could conceivably translate into an incentive to reduce the pace of bank lending. As currently proposed the SLR does not appear to be too big a hurdle for the largest U.S. banks. It is very likely they will be able to meet the requirement through retained earnings and new equity issuance. Nevertheless, it still provides a potential drag on bank lending that would not exist under the traditional model of monetary policy operations. Collateral Shortage Chart 9RRP Alleviates Collateral Shortage The Way Forward For The Fed's Balance Sheet The Way Forward For The Fed's Balance Sheet One side effect of the Fed's large scale asset purchases is that they have removed a lot of high-quality collateral from the financial system. Chart 9 shows that during periods when the Fed is adding to its balance sheet, the amount of collateral in the tri-party repo market declines. As the supply of collateral dwindles, repo rates are also pressured lower. The problem is that once repo rates approach the zero lower bound, counterparties have an increasing incentive to fail on delivery of repo contracts. Given the widespread use of repo financing, persistent repo fails have the potential to undermine liquidity in financial markets. Thankfully, the Fed's new tool for controlling the overnight interest rate, the RRP facility, solves this problem. In a reverse repo transaction, a counterparty purchases securities from the Fed with the understanding that it will sell them back the next day, earning the RRP rate in the process. This means the private sector once again gains access to collateral that had been cordoned off on the Fed's balance sheet. This should have the effect of keeping the repo rate above the floor set by the RRP, and well above zero. Repo fails have already levelled off and should begin to decline once the RRP facility is fully implemented. Financial Stability Concerns We have seen that monetary policy operates under a floor system when there are large reserve balances. One complication is that the U.S. is operating with two different floors, the IOER and the RRP. Due to its availability to a wider selection of counterparties, the RRP is the true floor on rates. From a monetary policy perspective, the easiest way forward is to set both rates at the same level and hike them in tandem. However, in a recent speech5 New York Fed President Dudley pointed out that from a financial stability perspective an RRP rate equal to the IOER could result in money flowing out of institutions eligible to receive IOER and into the less regulated shadow banking sector. It is therefore probable the Fed will choose to maintain the RRP at a level slightly below the IOER as rate hikes commence. We maintain focus on the RRP as the true floor on rates. President Dudley also made the case that the Fed's RRP facility could have positive implications for financial stability. He observed that with a Fed-backed short-term safe asset now more widely available, it could crowd out the creation of money-like liquid assets by the private sector. Those privately created liquid assets, such as commercial paper, are more prone to fire sales during times of stress. In a recent paper,6 John Cochrane agreed forcefully with this sentiment. Due to its potential for eliminating privately created money-like liquid assets, Cochrane referred to a monetary policy regime operating with large reserve balances as "a very desirable configuration of monetary affairs." The downside of the Fed providing a short-term safe asset is that it could encourage runs into the RRP during times of crisis. President Dudley rightly concludes that this is more of a technical hurdle that could be managed using caps on usage of the RRP facility. Bottom Line: The Fed will be able to operate monetary policy with large reserve balances, using the RRP as a floor on interest rates for several years while it decides by how much to run down its balance sheet and whether it should revert to its traditional fed funds rate target. Investors should remember that large reserve balances, by themselves, do not pose an inflation risk. Whether or not inflation becomes a problem will depend on the Fed's foresight to raise interest rates in a timely manner. Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com 1 Alternatively it could be held in cash. This would be reflected on the banking sector's balance sheet as an increase in loans and a decrease in reserves, and on the Fed's balance sheet as an increase in currency in circulation and a decrease in reserves. 2 The Fed began paying interest on excess reserve balances on October 6, 2008. 3 The Fed's current Term Deposit Facility (TDF) temporarily drains reserves from the banking system by receiving funds from the banking sector for a period of 7 days, paying 26 basis points of interest. The early stages of the Fed exit strategy will rely more heavily on the overnight RRP facility rather than the TDF. But term deposits could be deployed once the Fed's balance sheet has returned closer to its traditional size, and the Fed decides it wants to drain the remaining excess reserves and return to its pre-crisis method of operation. 4 http://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/files/fomcminutes20110622… 5 "The Economic Outlook and Implications for Monetary Policy" available at http://www.newyorkfed.org/newsevents/speeches/2014/dud140520.html 6 Cochrane, John H. Monetary Policy with Interest on Reserves. Available at http://media.hoover.org/sites/default/files/documents/2014CochraneMonet…

The Tactical Asset Allocation model can provide investment recommendations which diverge from those outlined in our regular weekly publications. The model has a much shorter investment horizon - namely, one month - and thus attempts to capture very tactical opportunities. Meanwhile, our regular recommendations have a longer expected life, anywhere from 3-months to a year (or longer). This difference explains why the recommendations between the two publications can deviate from each other from time to time. Highlights In February, the model underperformed global equities and the S&P 500 in USD and local-currency terms. For March, the model slightly increased its allocation to stocks and cut its weighting in bonds (Chart 1). Within the equity portfolio, the allocation to Europe was increased. The model boosted its weightings to French and Australian bonds at the expense of Canadian and Swedish paper. The risk index for stocks, as well as the one for bonds, deteriorated in February. Feature Performance In February, the recommended balanced portfolio gained 2.1% in local-currency terms, and 0.2% in U.S. dollar terms (Chart 2). This compares with a gain of 3% for the global equity benchmark and a 3.3% gain for the S&P 500. Given that the underlying model is structured in local-currency terms, we generally recommend that investors hedge their positions, though we provide suggestions on currency risk exposure from time to time. The high allocation to bonds continued to hold back the model's performance. Chart 1Model Weights Model Weights Model Weights Chart 2Portfolio Total Returns Portfolio Total Returns Portfolio Total Returns Weights The model increased its allocation to stocks from 53% to 57%, and cut its bond weighting from 47% to 43% (Table 1). Table 1Model Weights (As Of February 23, 2017) Tactical Asset Allocation And Market Indicators Tactical Asset Allocation And Market Indicators The model increased its equity allocation to Dutch and Swedish equities by 4 points each, Germany and New Zealand by 2 points each, and France and Emerging Asia by 1 point each. Weightings were cut in Italy by 4 points, Latin America by 3 points, Spain by 2 points, and Switzerland by 1 point. In the fixed-income space, the allocation to Australia was boosted by 8 points, France by 6 points, and Germany by 4 points. The model cut its exposure to Swedish bonds by 9 points, Canadian bonds by 6 points, U.S. and U.K. bonds by 3 points each, and Kiwi bonds by 1 point. Currency Allocation Local currency-based indicators drive the construction of our model. As such, the performance of the model's portfolio should be compared with the local-currency global equity benchmark. The decision to hedge currency exposure should be made at the client's discretion, though from time to time, we do provide our recommendations. The most recent bout of dollar depreciation was halted in February. Our Dollar Capitulation Index is below neutral levels. However, it is not extended, meaning that it does not preclude renewed dollar weakness in the near term. That said, assuming no major negative economic surprises, a relatively more hawkish Fed versus its peers should provide support for the dollar (Chart 3). Chart 3U.S. Trade-Weighted Dollar* And Capitulation U.S. Trade-Weighted Dollar* And Capitulation U.S. Trade-Weighted Dollar* And Capitulation Capital Market Indicators The risk index for commodities was little changed in February. The model continues to avoid this asset class (Chart 4). The risk index for global equities rose to its highest level since early 2010, mostly on the back of deteriorating value. Despite this, the model slightly increased its allocation to equities (Chart 5). Chart 4Commodity Index And Risk Commodity Index And Risk Commodity Index And Risk Chart 5Global Stock Market And Risk Global Stock Market And Risk Global Stock Market And Risk The rally in U.S. stocks - driven by optimism about the economic outlook - pushed the value component of the risk index into expensive territory. The model kept a small allocation in U.S. equities. A change in the perception about the ability of the new U.S. administration to boost growth remains a risk for this market (Chart 6). The risk index for euro area equities continues to deteriorate. However, it remains lower than its U.S. counterpart. The continued flow of solid economic data and a weaker currency should bode well for euro area stocks, although political uncertainty is a potential headwind (Chart 7). Chart 6U.S. Stock Market And Risk U.S. Stock Market And Risk U.S. Stock Market And Risk Chart 7Euro Area Stock Market And Risk Euro Area Stock Market And Risk Euro Area Stock Market And Risk All three components of the risk index for Dutch equities are close to neutral levels. As a result, despite the recent deterioration in the overall risk index, it remains one of the lowest among the markets the model covers (Chart 8). The risk index for Swedish stocks worsened. However, the model increased its allocation to this bourse. Swedish equities would be a beneficiary of the continued risk-on environment (Chart 9). Chart 8Netherlands Stock Market And Risk Netherlands Stock Market And Risk Netherlands Stock Market And Risk Chart 9Swedish Stock Market And Risk Swedish Stock Market And Risk Swedish Stock Market And Risk The momentum indicator for global bonds is less stretched in February. Meanwhile, despite its latest decline, the cyclical indicator continues to signal that the positive global economic backdrop is firmly bond-bearish. Taken all together, the risk index for bonds deteriorated in February, although it still remains in the low-risk zone (Chart 10). U.S. Treasury yields moved sideways in February as investors await more guidance from the Fed on the timing of the next hike. A bond-negative cyclical indicator coupled with the unwinding of oversold conditions - as per the momentum measure - led to a deterioration in the risk index for U.S. Treasurys. The latter is almost back to neutral levels. The model trimmed the allocation to this asset class (Chart 11). Chart 10Global Bond Yields And Risk Global Bond Yields And Risk Global Bond Yields And Risk Chart 11U.S. Bond Yields And Risk U.S. Bond Yields And Risk U.S. Bond Yields And Risk The momentum indicator remains the main driver of the risk index for Canadian bonds. As a result, the less extreme momentum reading translated into an increase in the risk index for this asset class. (Chart 12). The risk index for Australian bonds moved lower in February, reflecting improvements in all three of its components. The model included the relatively high-yielding Aussie bonds in the portfolio. (Chart 13). Chart 12Canadian Bond Yields And Risk Canadian Bond Yields And Risk Canadian Bond Yields And Risk Chart 13Australian Bond Yields And Risk Australian Bond Yields And Risk Australian Bond Yields And Risk The cyclical indicator for euro area bonds is near expensive levels, and the momentum indicator shows heavily oversold conditions. These two measures are offsetting the cyclical one that is sending a bond-bearish message. While the overall risk index for euro area bonds is in the low-risk zone, the country allocation is concentrated in French paper (Chart 14). The risk level for French bonds is seen as low thanks to oversold momentum. French presidential elections are probably the most important political event in Europe this year. Whether the models' heavy allocation to this asset pans out hinges to a certain extent on the reduction of investor anxiety about this political risk (Chart 15). Chart 14Euro Area Bond Yields And Risk Euro Area Bond Yields And Risk Euro Area Bond Yields And Risk Chart 15French Bond Yields And Risk French Bond Yields And Risk French Bond Yields And Risk The 13-week momentum measure for the dollar broke below the zero line, and is currently sitting on its upward-sloping trendline, drawn from the 2010 lows, that has been broken only once before. Meanwhile, the 40-week rate of change measure is still suggesting that the dollar bull market has more legs on a cyclical horizon. Monetary divergences should lend support to the dollar over the cyclical horizon, although the new administration's attempts to talk down the dollar as well as heightened policy uncertainty could translate into more volatility (Chart 16). The weakening trend in the yen hit a snag two months ago, as the 13-week momentum measure reached the lows that previously foreshadowed a consolidation phase after sharp depreciations. This short-term rate-of-change measure has bounced smartly this year reaching a critical level. Meanwhile, the 40-week rate-of-change measure is not warning of a major change in the underlying trend which remains dictated by BoJ's dovish bias (Chart 17). EUR/USD has been gravitating towards 1.05 over the course of February. The short-term rate-of-change measure seems to be holding at the neutral level, while the 40-week rate-of-change measure is in negative territory, but hardly stretched. Political uncertainty has the potential to drive the euro in near term, but the longer-term outlook is mostly a function of the monetary policy divergence between the ECB and the Fed (Chart 18). Chart 16U.S. Trade-Weighted Dollar* U.S. Trade-Weighted Dollar* U.S. Trade-Weighted Dollar* Chart 17Yen Yen Yen Chart 18Euro Euro Euro Miroslav Aradski, Senior Analyst miroslava@bcaresearch.com