High-Yield

Highlights Chart 12017 Bond Returns 2017 Bond Returns 2017 Bond Returns Treasuries sold off for the third consecutive month in November (Chart 1), and with Congress about to deliver tax cuts and core inflation showing signs of bottoming, the bond bear market is poised to shift into a higher gear. At the moment, the biggest upside risk for bonds is that the Fed continues its hawkish posturing but inflation refuses to comply. That combination would put downward pressure on TIPS breakeven inflation rates and cause the yield curve to flatten further. A flat yield curve increases the odds of a risk-off episode in equities and credit spreads, with a consequent flight into the safety of Treasuries. We do not think the Fed will get it wrong and expect TIPS breakevens to widen alongside rising inflation, easing the flattening pressure on the yield curve. Investors should maintain a below-benchmark duration stance and an overweight allocation to spread product on a 6-12 month investment horizon.   Feature Investment Grade: Overweight Chart 2Investment Grade Market Overview Investment Grade Market Overview Investment Grade Market Overview Investment grade corporate bonds underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 3 basis points in November, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to 285 bps. The average index option-adjusted spread widened 2 bps on the month and now sits at 97 bps. Spreads gapped wider early in the month but then reversed course, ending November not far from where they began. In other words, investment grade corporate bonds remain extremely expensive. We calculate that Baa-rated spreads can only tighten another 39 bps before reaching the most expensive levels since 1989. This represents 3 months of historical average spread tightening. Corporate bonds are essentially a carry trade at this stage of the cycle, but should continue to deliver positive excess returns to Treasuries until inflation pressures mount and the credit cycle comes to an end. We expect the credit cycle will end sometime in 2018.1 Last week's profit data showed that our measure of EBITD increased at an annualized rate of 4% in Q3 (Chart 2), solidly above zero but significantly slower than the 12% registered in Q2. If corporate debt grows by more than 4% in the third quarter, our measure of gross leverage will tick higher (panel 4). As we have shown in prior reports, this would bring the end of the credit cycle closer.2 Quarterly corporate debt growth has averaged just under 6% (annualized) since 2012, so higher leverage in Q3 is likely (Table 3). Table 3ACorporate Sector Relative Valuation And Recommended Allocation* A Higher Gear A Higher Gear Table 3BCorporate Sector Risk Vs. Reward* A Higher Gear A Higher Gear High-Yield: Overweight Chart 3High-Yield Market Overview High-Yield Market Overview High-Yield Market Overview High-Yield underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 2 basis points in November, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to 578 bps. The index option-adjusted spread widened 6 bps on the month, and currently sits at 349 bps. Excess returns were negative in November for only the fourth month since spreads peaked in February 2016. In a recent Special Report we argued that last month's sell-off would prove fleeting, but also cautioned that excess returns are likely to be low between now and the end of the credit cycle.3 The report flagged five reasons why investors might be nervous about their high-yield allocations. The two most important being that spreads are very tight and the yield curve is very flat. Tight spreads imply that investors should not expect much in the way of further capital gains, insofar as much further spread tightening would lead to historically expensive valuations. In a baseline scenario where spreads remain flat, we forecast excess returns to junk of 246 bps (annualized) (Chart 3). An inverted yield curve signals that investors believe the Fed will be forced to cut rates in the future. This makes it an excellent indicator for the end of the credit cycle. When the yield curve is very flat investors are more inclined to view any negative development as a signal that the cycle is about to turn. This leads to more frequent sell-offs. A period of curve steepening led by higher inflation would mitigate the risk. MBS: Neutral Chart 4MBS Market Overview MBS Market Overview MBS Market Overview Mortgage-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 4 basis points in November, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to 35 bps. The conventional 30-year zero-volatility MBS spread was flat on the month, as a 2 bps widening in the option-adjusted spread (OAS) was offset by a 2 bps decline in the compensation for prepayment risk (option cost). Agency MBS OAS continue to look reasonably attractive, especially relative to Aaa-rated credit. And with the pace of run-off from the Fed's balance sheet already well telegraphed, there is no obvious catalyst for further OAS widening. In addition, mortgage refinancings are unlikely to spike any time soon. This will ensure that nominal MBS spreads remain capped at a low level (Chart 4). If bond yields rise during the next 6-12 months, as we expect, then higher mortgage rates will be a drag on refinancings. However, as we showed in a recent report, even if rates move lower, the coupon and age distribution of outstanding mortgages has made refi activity much less sensitive to rates than in the past.4 All in all, with OAS more attractive than they have been for several years, Agency MBS are an alluring alternative for investors looking to scale back exposure to corporate bonds. We anticipate shifting some of our recommended spread product allocation out of corporate bonds and into MBS once we are closer to the end of the credit cycle, likely sometime in 2018. 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 28 basis points in November, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to 221 bps. Foreign Agencies and Local Authorities outperformed the Treasury benchmark by 39 bps and 34 bps, respectively. Meanwhile, Sovereign bonds delivered a stellar 93 bps of outperformance. Domestic Agency bonds outperformed by 4 bps, while Supranationals underperformed by 1 bp. We continue to hold a negative view of USD-denominated Sovereign debt. Not only is valuation unattractive compared to similarly-rated U.S. corporate bonds (Chart 5), but historically, periods of sovereign bond outperformance have coincided with falling U.S. rate hike expectations.5 Our Global Fixed Income Strategy team flagged similar concerns in a recent Special Report on the merits of USD-denominated EM debt (both corporate and sovereign).6 The recent moderation in Chinese money and credit growth also heightens the risk of near-term Sovereign underperformance.7 We remain overweight Local Authorities and Foreign Agencies. Year-to-date, those sectors have delivered 256 bps and 402 bps of excess return, respectively, and continue to offer attractive spreads after adjusting for credit rating, duration and spread volatility. Municipal Bonds: Underweight Chart 6Municipal Market Overview Municipal Market Overview Municipal Market Overview Municipal bonds underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 19 basis points in November (before adjusting for the tax advantage). The average Municipal / Treasury (M/T) yield ratio moved sharply higher in November, with short maturities bearing the brunt of the sell-off. But even after November's weakness, the average M/T yield ratio remains below its average post-crisis level, and long maturities continue to offer a significant yield advantage over short maturities. Both the Senate and House have already passed their own versions of a tax bill, which now just need to be reconciled before new tax legislation is signed into law. Judging from the two versions of the bill, the following will likely occur: The Muni tax exemption will be maintained, the top marginal tax rate will remain close to its current level, the corporate tax rate will be reduced substantially, the state & local income tax deduction will be at least partially eliminated, the tax exemption for private activity bonds might be removed, and advance refunding of municipal bonds will be outlawed or severely restricted. Last month's poor Muni performance was driven by a surge in supply (Chart 6), almost certainly issuers trying to get their advance refundings done before the passage of the final bill. Given that the other provisions in the bill should not have a major impact on yield ratios (any negative impact from lower corporate tax rates should be mitigated by stronger household demand stemming from the removal of the state & local tax deduction), this back-up in yield ratios could present a tactical buying opportunity in Munis once the bill is passed. Stay tuned.   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 bear-flattened in November, as investors significantly bid up the expected pace of Fed rate hikes but did not correspondingly increase their long-dated inflation expectations. The sharp upward adjustment in rate hike expectations means that investors are now positioned for 69 bps of rate hikes during the next 12 months (Chart 7). Similarly, the July 2018 fed funds futures contract is now priced for 52 bps of rate hikes between now and next July. Even if the Fed lifts rates in line with its dots, we would only see 75 bps of rate hikes between now and next July. Since there are strong odds that the Fed will proceed more gradually, this week we close our short July 2018 fed funds futures position for an un-levered profit of 21 bps. In a Special Report published last week, we presented several scenarios for the slope of the 2/10 yield curve based on different combinations of Fed rate hikes and future rate hike expectations.8 We also noted that the positive correlation between long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates and the slope of the nominal 2/10 yield curve has remained intact this cycle. We conclude that the 2/10 slope will steepen modestly in the first half of 2018, before transitioning to flattening once TIPS breakevens level-off at a higher level. With the 2/5/10 butterfly spread now discounting some mild curve flattening (panel 4), investors should remain long the 5-year bullet versus the duration-matched 2/10 barbell.   TIPS: Overweight Chart 8TIPS Market Overview TIPS Market Overview TIPS Market Overview TIPS outperformed the duration-equivalent nominal Treasury index by 15 basis points in November, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to -84 bps. The 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate fell 2 bps on the month and, at 1.86%, it remains well below its pre-crisis trading range of 2.4% to 2.5%. As was detailed in last week's Special Report, one of our key views for 2018 is that core inflation will resume its gradual cyclical uptrend, causing long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates to return to their pre-crisis trading range between 2.4% and 2.5%.9 A wide range of indicators, such as our own Pipeline Inflation Indicator and the New York Fed's Underlying Inflation Gauge, already suggest that TIPS breakevens are biased wider (Chart 8). Even more encouragingly, both year-over-year core CPI and core PCE inflation have printed higher in each of the last two months. But even if inflation remains stubbornly low, we think any downside in long-maturity breakevens will prove fleeting. We are quickly approaching an inflection point where if inflation does not rise, the Fed will have to adopt a more dovish policy stance. A sufficiently dovish policy response would limit any downside in breakevens. According to our model, the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate is currently trading in-line with other financial market variables - oil, the trade-weighted dollar and the stock-to-bond total return ratio (panel 2). ABS: Neutral Chart 9ABS Market Overview ABS Market Overview ABS Market Overview Asset-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 11 basis points in November, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to 92 bps. Aaa-rated ABS outperformed the Treasury benchmark by 10 bps and non-Aaa ABS outperformed by 30 bps. The index option-adjusted spread (OAS) for Aaa-rated ABS tightened 3 bps on the month and, at 31 bps, it remains well below its average pre-crisis trading range. The value proposition in Aaa-rated ABS is not what it once was. At 31 bps, the average index OAS is only 1 bp greater than the average OAS for a conventional 30-year Agency MBS. Agency CMBS are even more attractive, offering an index OAS of 44 bps. Further, the credit cycle is slowly turning against consumer debt. Delinquency rates are rising, albeit off a very low base, but this has caused banks to start tightening lending standards on consumer credit (Chart 9). Tight bank lending standards typically coincide with wider spreads. Importantly, while lending standards are tightening they are not yet very restrictive in absolute terms. In response to a special question from the July 2017 Fed Senior Loan Officer's Survey, banks reported (on net) that lending standards are tighter than the midpoint since 2005 for subprime auto and credit card loans, but are still easier than the midpoint since 2005 for credit card and auto loans to prime borrowers. 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 1 basis point in November, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to 180 bps. The index option-adjusted spread (OAS) for non-agency Aaa-rated CMBS widened 3 bps in November, but is still about one standard deviation below its pre-crisis average (Chart 10). With spreads at such low levels in an environment of tightening commercial real estate (CRE) lending standards and falling CRE loan demand, we continue to view the risk/reward trade-off in non-Agency CMBS as quite unfavorable. Agency CMBS: Overweight Agency CMBS outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 15 basis points in November, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to 112 bps. The index OAS for Agency CMBS tightened 2 bps on the month but, at 44 bps, the sector continues to offer an attractive spread pick-up relative to other low-risk spread product. The Aaa-rated consumer ABS OAS is only 31 bps, and the OAS on conventional 30-year Agency MBS is a mere 30 bps. Such an attractive spread pick-up in a sector that benefits from Agency backing is surely worth grabbing. Treasury Valuation Chart 11Treasury Fair Value Models Treasury Fair Value Models Treasury Fair Value Models The current reading from our 2-factor Treasury model (based on Global PMI and dollar sentiment) pegs fair value for the 10-year Treasury yield at 2.81% (Chart 11). Our 3-factor version of the model (not shown), which also incorporates the Global Economic Policy Uncertainty Index, places fair value at 2.79%. The Global Manufacturing PMI edged higher once more in November, up to 54 from 53.5 in October. It is now at its highest level since March 2011. Meanwhile, sentiment toward the dollar remains significantly less bullish than it was in 2015 and 2016 (bottom panel). A higher PMI reading and less bullish dollar sentiment both lead to a higher fair value in our model. At the country level, both the Eurozone and Japanese PMIs ticked higher in November. The Eurozone PMI broke above 60 for the first time since April 2000. The U.S. and Chinese PMIs both moved modestly lower. For further details on our Treasury models please refer to U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "The Message From Our Treasury Models", dated October 11, 2016, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com. At the time of publication the 10-year Treasury yield was 2.39%. Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, "2018 Key Views: Implications For U.S. Fixed Income", dated November 28, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Won't Back Down", dated September 26, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, "Junk Bond Jitters", dated November 21, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Dollar Watching: Yet Another Update", dated October 10, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 5 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Living With The Carry Trade", dated October 17, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 6 Please see Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report, "Examining The Role Of EM Hard Currency Debt In Global Bond Portfolios", dated October 31, 2017, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com 7 Please see China Investment Strategy Special Report, "The Data Lab: Testing The Predictability Of China's Business Cycle", dated November 30, 2017, available at cis.bcaresearch.com 8 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, "2018 Key Views: Implications For U.S. Fixed Income", dated November 28, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 9 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, "2018 Key Views: Implications For U.S. Fixed Income", dated November 28, 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)

Highlights A more bearish backdrop for bonds, led by the U.S.: Faster global growth, with rebounding inflation expectations, will trigger tighter overall global monetary policy. This will be led by Fed rate hikes and, later in 2018, ECB tapering. Global bond yields will rise in response, primarily due to higher inflation expectations. Growth & policy divergences will create cross-market bond investment opportunities: Global growth in 2018 will become less synchronized compared to 2016 & 2017, as will individual country monetary policies. Government bonds in the U.S. and Canada, where rate hikes will happen, will underperform, while bonds in the U.K. and Australia, where rates will likely be held steady, will outperform. The most dovish central banks will be forced to turn less dovish: The ECB and BoJ will both slow the pace of their asset purchases in 2018, in response to strong domestic economies and rising inflation. This will lead to bear-steepening of yield curves in Europe, mostly in the latter half of 2018. The BoJ could raise its target on JGB yields, but only modestly, in response to an overall higher level of global bond yields. The low market volatility backdrop will end through higher bond volatility: Incremental tightening by central banks, in response to faster inflation, will raise the volatility of global interest rates. This will eventually weigh on global growth expectations over the course of 2018, and create a more volatile backdrop for risk assets in the latter half of the year. Feature BCA's annual Outlook report, outlining the main investment themes that will drive global asset markets in 2018, was sent to all clients in late November.1 In this Weekly Report, we drill down into the specific implications of those themes for global bond markets over the next year. In a follow-up report to be published in two weeks, we will discuss how to piece together those implications into an effective fixed income portfolio for 2018. A More Bearish Backdrop For Bonds, Led First By The U.S., Then By Europe The first major takeaway for bond investors from the BCA Outlook is that the current bullish global backdrop of easy monetary policy, solid growth and low inflation is going to change in the coming year. A robust global economy with broadening inflation pressures will force the major central banks to continue incrementally moving away from extraordinarily accommodative monetary policy settings. This will set up an eventual collision between policy and the markets, the latter of which have benefitted so much from the support of the former during the current bull run for risk assets. The changing monetary backdrop will essentially split 2018 into two halves. The current pro-risk backdrop will be maintained in the first half of the year, with continued above-potential global growth and higher realized inflation in the major developed economies at a time when monetary policy is still too accommodative (Chart 1). This will put upward pressure on global bond yields. There is potential for a significant move higher, as real yields now are too low relative to robust global growth and market-based inflation expectations remain well below central bank inflation targets (Chart 2). Chart 1Central Banks Are##BR##Lagging The Cycle Central Banks Are Lagging The Cycle Central Banks Are Lagging The Cycle Chart 2Both Global Real Yields AND Inflation##BR##Expectations Are Too Low Both Global Real Yields AND Inflation Expectations Are Too Low Both Global Real Yields AND Inflation Expectations Are Too Low The trend of rising bond yields will be most acute in the U.S., at least in the first half of 2018. The economy is already operating above potential (Chart 3), and this is before factoring in any impact from the tax cut plan currently being finalized in the U.S. Congress. This fiscal stimulus risks overheating the U.S. economy and will likely encourage the Fed to hike interest rates in 2018 by at least as much as it is currently projecting (75bps after the almost certain rate hike later this month). A faster growth trajectory, combined with a rebound in realized inflation after the 2017 slump, will restore investors' belief that U.S. inflation can move back to the Fed's 2% target. The latter can boost the inflation expectations component of the benchmark 10-year U.S. Treasury yield by as much as 60bps next year. The Fed will feel more emboldened to continue delivering rate hikes if inflation expectations are closer to the central bank's target, thus providing an additional boost to Treasury yields. We project that the 10-year Treasury yield can rise up into the 2.9-3% range, well above the current market forwards. The pressure on global bond yields will not only come from the U.S., according to the BCA Outlook. The booming European economy, freed from the years of fiscal austerity after the Euro Debt Crisis and supported by hyper-easy monetary policy from the European Central Bank (ECB), will continue to grow at an above-trend pace in 2018. Japan is enjoying a very powerful cyclical move (by its own modest post-bubble standards) that should continue given very easy monetary policy, robust profit growth and a historically tight labor market. While China is expected to slow on the back of tighter monetary policy and less fiscal stimulus, growth is still expected to be above 6% in 2018. For all of these economies, inflation is expected to rise alongside growth (to varying degrees) given tight labor markets and diminished levels of global spare capacity. Higher oil prices will also boost global inflation and raise the inflation expectations component of global bond yields, given BCA's above-consensus view on oil prices in 2018 (Chart 4). This will also put bear-steepening pressure on many developed market government bond yield curves as inflation expectations increase, particularly with so many countries operating without much economic slack. This argues for being long inflation protection (i.e. inflation-linked bonds vs. nominals or CPI swaps) in 2018, particularly in the U.S., Euro Area and Japan where inflation expectations are well below central bank targets. Chart 3The Global Output Gap Is Closed The Global Output Gap Is Closed The Global Output Gap Is Closed Chart 4Rising Oil Will Boost Inflation Expectations Rising Oil Will Boost Inflation Expectations Rising Oil Will Boost Inflation Expectations The BCA Outlook noted that government bond valuations are poor in most countries, with inflation-adjusted (real) yields well below long-run historical averages (Chart 5). We see higher inflation expectations translating directly into higher global bond yields next year, with little room for real yields to decline as an offset. Chart 5Valuation Ranking Of Developed Bond Markets BCA's Outlook & What It Means For Global Fixed Income Markets BCA's Outlook & What It Means For Global Fixed Income Markets The latter half of 2018 will see increased worries about future U.S. growth after the Fed has delivered a few more rate hikes and U.S. monetary policy potentially shifts into restrictive territory. At the same time, the strength in global growth and, especially, inflation will cast doubts on the need for continued aggressive bond buying by the ECB and the Bank of Japan (BoJ). Unlike last year, the ECB will be unable to wiggle its way out of the politically difficult decision to begin tapering its asset purchases when the latest program ends in September. Even the BoJ may be forced to alter its current "yield curve control" strategy by raising the target on longer-term JGB yields in response to pressures from better domestic growth and rising global bond yields. Thus, the pressures for higher bond yields will rotate away from the U.S. in the latter half of 2018 towards Europe and possibly Japan. Other developed economy central banks, like the Bank of England (BoE), the Bank of Canada (BoC), the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) and the Swedish Riksbank will also be faced with decisions on dialing back monetary accommodation in 2018. Although we anticipate that only the BoC and the Riksbank could credibly deliver on monetary tightening given robust growth and, in the case of Sweden, rapidly rising inflation. Which leads to the second major takeaway from the BCA 2018 Outlook ..... Growth & Policy Divergences Will Create Cross-Market Bond Investment Opportunities The BCA Outlook noted that growth expectations for 2018 still look too cautious in many countries. For example, the IMF is forecasting growth in the developed economies will slow from 2.2% to 2% next year, led by decelerations in the Euro Area, Japan, the U.K., Canada and Sweden (Table 1). At the same time, growth in the emerging economies is optimistically projected to accelerate to a 4.9% pace in 2018, even as China's economy cools to 6.5%. Inflation is expected to modestly increase across most of the world, but remain below central bank targets in many countries. So upside growth surprises, particularly in the U.S. and Europe, will continue to be a major investment theme in 2018. Table 1IMF Global Growth & Inflation Forecasts For 2018 Are Too Pessimistic BCA's Outlook & What It Means For Global Fixed Income Markets BCA's Outlook & What It Means For Global Fixed Income Markets The growth trends, however, may be more divergent than seen in 2017. This leads to potential cross-market bond trading opportunities by playing relative central bank expectations. The OECD's leading economic indicators are accelerating in the U.S., Europe and Japan; potentially peaking at a very high level in Canada; and outright slowing in the U.K. and Australia (Chart 6). When looking at our central bank discounters, which measure the amount of interest rate changes that are currently priced into money market curves, there are some notable discrepancies with the leading indicators (Chart 7). Chart 6More Divergent##BR##Growth... More Divergent Growth... More Divergent Growth... Chart 7...Will Lead To More Divergent##BR##Monetary Policies ...Will Lead To More Divergent Monetary Policies ...Will Lead To More Divergent Monetary Policies The market is now pricing in multiple rate hikes in 2018 from the Fed and BoC, modest increases from the BoE and RBA, and no move from the ECB and BoJ. Given the trends in the leading indicators, rate hikes from the Fed and the BoC are likely, while the BoE and RBA will be hard pressed to raise rates at all next year. Thus, U.S. Treasuries and Canadian government bonds are likely to underperform in 2018, while U.K. Gilts and Australian government bonds can be relative outperformers against a backdrop of rising global bond yields. The outlook for the ECB and BoJ, and the implications for bond yields in Europe and Japan, are a special case that represents the third major takeaway from the BCA Outlook ... The Most Dovish Central Banks Will Be Forced To Turn Less Dovish Chart 8ECB Will Fully Taper By The End Of 2018 ECB Will Fully Taper By The End Of 2018 ECB Will Fully Taper By The End Of 2018 The BCA Outlook noted that growth in both the Euro Area and Japan has done very well versus the U.S. over the past four years, essentially matching U.S. growth on a per capital basis (i.e. adjusting for faster population growth in the U.S.). In the Euro Area, an end to the painful fiscal austerity after the 2011-13 sovereign debt crisis was a big driver of the economic strength. The BCA Outlook noted that the drag from tighter fiscal policy during the crisis years was equivalent to around 10% of GDP in Greece and Portugal and 7% of GDP in Ireland and Spain. There has been little fiscal tightening in the following three years, which allowed growth in those economies to catch up rapidly. Add in extremely easy financial conditions - low borrowing rates, a cheap euro, and booming European equity and credit markets - and it is no surprise that the Euro Area economy has enjoyed robust growth over the past couple of years. Looking ahead to 2018, the outlook for Euro Area growth still looks very positive. The OECD leading indicator is rising steadily (Chart 8, top panel). The stock of non-performing loans that has clogged up banking systems in the Peripheral European economies is being whittled down - even in Italy where efforts to fix the many problems of its banks are starting to bear fruit (second panel). At the same time, there will be continued upward pressure on Euro Area inflation in 2018. This will mostly come from higher headline inflation related to higher oil prices (third panel), but also from a grind higher in core inflation and wage growth with the Euro Area unemployment rate already at the OECD's estimate of full employment (bottom panel). The Euro Area economy is likely to expand at an above-potential pace over 2% in the first half of 2018, while headline inflation is set to accelerate back towards the ECB's 2% target. This means that the ECB will have to go through another long conversation with the markets about the future of the asset purchase program. Only the outcome will be different than in 2017 as the economic and inflation arguments for continuing with ECB bond buying will be much harder to justify - especially to the hard money core of the ECB led by Germany. Already, the reduced pace of ECB bond buying set for next year, with the monthly purchases cut in half to €30bn/month, implies a significant slowing of Euro Area monetary liquidity (Chart 9). This will put upward pressure on German Bund yields, but with the move being more concentrated in the latter half of the year as the talk of a true ECB taper, perhaps as soon as the end of 2018, builds. Thus, we see Euro Area government debt being an outperformer in the first half of 2018 and an underperformer in the second half. A move in the benchmark 10-year German Bund yield to the 0.8-1.0% range by year-end is a reasonable target. This would reflect the rise in global bond yields that we expect (i.e. the 10-year U.S. Treasury pushing close to 3%), more normalization in Euro Area inflation expectations and the market pulling forward the timing of future ECB rate hikes. Our base case is still that the ECB will not hike policy interest rates until late 2019, however, which will limit the upside for Euro Area yields next year to some degree. In Japan, the BoJ will continue with its current yield curve targeting regime, aiming to cap 10-year JGBs yields through its bond purchases. This is the most effective way to try and boost Japanese inflation through a weaker yen (Chart 10). The BoJ hopes that this will then lead to rising wage growth as workers demand more pay in response to higher realized inflation. Only if there is a pickup in core/wage inflation in Japan can the BoJ have any chance of reaching its 2% inflation target. Chart 9ECB Tapering Will Put European Yields##BR##Under Upward Pressure ECB Tapering Will Put European Yields Under Upward Pressure ECB Tapering Will Put European Yields Under Upward Pressure Chart 10BoJ Will Keep Rates Low To Boost Inflation##BR##Through A Weaker Yen BoJ Will Keep Rates Low To Boost Inflation Through A Weaker Yen BoJ Will Keep Rates Low To Boost Inflation Through A Weaker Yen The current BoJ yield target is around 0% on the 10-year JGB. There has been talk of late from some BoJ officials that the yield target could be raised in response to the strengthening Japanese economy. This is likely just talk to placate BoJ board members who were against the yield curve targeting regime in the first place (it was a very close 5-4 vote to implement the new policy framework in September 2016). Yet the BoJ could conceivable raise the yield target by a modest amount in the context of a bigger move higher in global bond yields. According to a simple econometric model of the 10-year JGB yield unveiled by the BoJ in 2016, a 10bp move higher in the 10-year U.S. Treasury yield would raise the fair value of the JGB yield by 2.7bps (Table 2).2 That model currently shows that JGB yields are about 8bps above fair value (around 0%) at the moment. If the 10yr U.S. Treasury yield were to rise to 3%, however, the current level of the JGB yield would be 7bps too low, which would represent the limit of "overvaluation" on this model since 2013 (Chart 11). Under such a scenario, the BoJ raising the yield target to 0.2%, for example, would not be an unusual response - and it would still be consistent with keeping yield differentials wide enough to generate a weaker yen. Table 2Bank Of Japan 10-Year##BR##JGB Yield Model BCA's Outlook & What It Means For Global Fixed Income Markets BCA's Outlook & What It Means For Global Fixed Income Markets Chart 11BoJ Could Face Pressure To Raise##BR##The Yield Target If UST Yields Rise BoJ Could Face Pressure To Raise The Yield Target If UST Yields Rise BoJ Could Face Pressure To Raise The Yield Target If UST Yields Rise In any event, the boost to global monetary liquidity from the asset purchases of the ECB and BoJ will fade next year as both central banks will buy a smaller number of bonds than in 2017. Which brings us to the final main takeaway from the 2018 BCA Outlook .... The Low Market Volatility Backdrop Will End Through Higher Bond Volatility The Outlook noted that the conditions underpinning the growth and liquidity driven bull markets for risk assets will start to turn more negative by mid-2018. Tightening financial conditions, especially as the Fed delivers more rate hikes, will eventually start to weigh on global growth expectations. There is even a very real possibility that the Fed will engineer a U.S. recession in 2019 through tighter monetary policy. At the same time, the Fed will be in the process of its balance sheet runoff, while the ECB and BoJ will be buying smaller amounts of bonds. As we have noted many times this year in Global Fixed Income Strategy reports, a slower growth rate of central bank balance sheets will weigh on the performance of risk assets in 2018 (Chart 12). Add in the risk of growth expectations starting to deteriorate in response to tighter monetary policy in the U.S. (and in China, as well), and markets may become increasingly more volatile later next year - starting with more volatile government bond yields (Chart 13). Chart 12Central Bank Liquidity Tailwind To##BR##Risk Assets Will Fade In 2018 Central Bank Liquidity Tailwind To Risk Assets Will Fade In 2018 Central Bank Liquidity Tailwind To Risk Assets Will Fade In 2018 Chart 13The Low Market Vol Backdrop Will End##BR##Through Rising Bond Vol The Low Market Vol Backdrop Will End Through Rising Bond Vol The Low Market Vol Backdrop Will End Through Rising Bond Vol A higher volatility backdrop raises the risk for so many global fixed income markets that have benefitted from investors stretching for yield in order to try and achieve adequate returns. In Chart 14, we show the historical range of yields for global government bonds and spread product (using the benchmark indices for each country or sector) dating back to 2000. The gray dots in the chart represent the current yield for each fixed income category and shows how yields are at historic lows in all markets. Chart 14Historical Range Of Bond Yields For Various Fixed Income Markets, 2000-2017 BCA's Outlook & What It Means For Global Fixed Income Markets BCA's Outlook & What It Means For Global Fixed Income Markets In Chart 15, we present the historic range of volatility-adjusted yields (the same yields from the previous chart, divided by the trailing 12-month realized index total return volatility of each sector). In this chart, the gray dots again represent the current readings. The blue squares show how volatility-adjusted yields would look if the median volatility of each asset class since 2000 was used in the denominator instead of the latest low level of volatility. Chart 15Historical Range Of VOLATILITY-ADJUSTED Bond Yields##BR##For Various Fixed Income Markets, 2000-2017 BCA's Outlook & What It Means For Global Fixed Income Markets BCA's Outlook & What It Means For Global Fixed Income Markets As can be seen in the chart, many of the sectors that currently have reasonably attractive volatility-adjusted yields, like U.S. Investment Grade, U.S. High-Yield, and hard-currency Emerging Market debt, will look much less compelling if volatility were to increase to more "normal" levels. The market response will be typical in such a higher volatility environment, as yields would increase to compensate for the greater volatility of returns. The current low volatility regime will end when higher inflation and less accommodative central banks raise interest rate volatility and, eventually, future growth uncertainty. We see that inflection point occurring sometime next year, leading to a more challenging environment for global fixed income "carry trades" that are also focused on global growth, like developed market corporate bonds and emerging market debt. In terms of the investment strategy implications, we end this report with a quote taken directly from the 2018 BCA Outlook: "Given our economic and policy views, there is a good chance that we will move to an underweight position in risk assets during the second half of 2018." Robert Robis, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see the December 2017 edition of The Bank Credit Analyst, "Outlook 2018 - Policy And The Markets: On A Collision Course", available at bca.bcaresearch.com and gfis.bcaresearch.com. 2 The model can be found in this report: https://www.boj.or.jp/en/announcements/release_2016/rel160930d.pdf The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index BCA's Outlook & What It Means For Global Fixed Income Markets BCA's Outlook & What It Means For Global Fixed Income Markets Recommendations Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Highlights China stands out as the most likely candidate to send negative shock waves through EM and commodities in 2018. Granted the ongoing policy tightening in China will likely dampen money growth further, the only way mainland nominal GDP growth can hold up is if the velocity of money rises meaningfully, offsetting the drop in money growth. Assigning equal probabilities to various scenarios of velocity of money, the outcome is as follows: one-third probability of robust nominal growth (continuation of the rally in China-related plays) and two-third odds of a non-trivial slowdown in nominal growth with negative ramifications for China-related plays. Hence, we reiterate our negative stance on EM risk assets Feature The key question for emerging markets (EM) in 2018 is whether a slowdown in Chinese money growth will translate into a meaningful growth deceleration in this economy, and in turn produce a reversal in EM risk assets. This week we address the above question in detail elaborating on what could make China's business cycle defy the slowdown in its monetary aggregates and how investors should approach such uncertainty. Before this, we review the status of financial markets going into 2018. Priced To Perfection Or A New Paradigm? Several financial markets are at extremes. Our chart on the history of financial market manias reveals that some parts of technology/new concept stocks may be entering uncharted territory (Chart I-1). Tencent's share price, for instance, has surged 11-fold since January 2010. Chart I-1History Of Financial Markets Manias: They Lasted A Decade History Of Financial Markets Manias: They Lasted A Decade History Of Financial Markets Manias: They Lasted A Decade This is roughly on par with the prior manias' average 10-year gains. As this chart indicates, the manias of previous decades run wild until the turn of the decade. It is impossible to know whether technology/new concept stocks will peak in 2018 or run for another two years. Regardless whether or not the mania in tech/new concept stocks endures up until 2020, some sort of mean reversion in their share prices is likely next year. This has relevance to EM because the magnitude of the EM equity rally in 2017 has been enormously boosted by four large tech/concept stocks in Asia. Our measure of the cyclically-adjusted P/E (CAPE) ratio for the U.S. market suggests that equity valuations are reaching their 2000 overvaluation levels (Chart I-2, top panel). The difference between our measure and Shiller's measure of CAPE is that Shiller's CAPE is derived by dividing share prices by the 10-year moving average of EPS in real terms (deflated by consumer price inflation). Our measure is calculated by dividing equity prices by the time trend in real EPS (Chart I-2, bottom panel). Our CAPE measure assumes that in the long run, U.S. EPS in real terms will revert to its time trend. Meanwhile, the Shiller CAPE is based on the assumption that real EPS will revert to its 10-year mean. Hence, the assumptions behind our CAPE model are quite reasonable if not preferable to those of Shiller's P/E. Remarkably, the U.S. (Wilshire 5000) market cap-to-GDP ratio is close to its 2000 peak (Chart I-3). With respect to EM equity valuations, the non-financial P/E ratio is at its highest level in the past 15 years (Chart I-4). EM banks have low multiples and seem "cheap" because many of them have not provisioned for NPLs. Hence, their profits and book values are artificially inflated. In short, excluding financials, EM stocks are not cheap at all, neither in absolute terms nor relative to DM bourses. Chart I-2A Perspective On U.S. Equity Valuation A Perspective On U.S. Equity Valuation A Perspective On U.S. Equity Valuation Chart I-3The U.S. Market Cap-To-GDP ##br##Ratio Is Close To 2000 Peak The U.S. Market Cap-To-GDP Ratio Is Close To 2000 Peak The U.S. Market Cap-To-GDP Ratio Is Close To 2000 Peak Chart I-4EM Non-Financial Equities Are Not Cheap EM Non-Financial Equities Are Not Cheap EM Non-Financial Equities Are Not Cheap Such elevated DM & EM stock market valuations might be justified by currently low global long-term bond yields. Yet, if and when long-term bond yields rise, multiples will likely shrink. The latter will overpower the profit growth impact on share prices, as multiples are disproportionately and negatively linked to interest rates - especially when interest rates are low - but are proportionately and positively linked to EPS.1 As a result, a small rise in long-term bond yields will lead to a meaningful P/E de-rating. Despite very high equity valuations, U.S. advisors and traders are extremely bullish on American stocks. Their sentiment measures are at all time and 11-year highs, respectively. So are copper traders on red metal prices (Chart I-5). The mirror image of the strong and steady rally in global stocks is record-low implied volatility. The aggregate financial markets' implied volatility index is at a multi-year low (Chart I-6). Finally, yields on junk (high-yield) EM corporate and sovereign bonds are at all-time lows (Chart I-7). They are priced for perfection. Chart I-5Bullish Sentiment On Copper Is Very Elevated Bullish Sentiment On Copper Is Very Elevated Bullish Sentiment On Copper Is Very Elevated Chart I-6Aggregate Global Financial Markets ##br##Implied VOL Is At Record Low Aggregate Global Financial Markets Implied VOL Is At Record Low Aggregate Global Financial Markets Implied VOL Is At Record Low Chart I-7EM Junk Bond Yields Are At Record Low EM Junk Bond Yields Are At Record Low EM Junk Bond Yields Are At Record Low Are we in a new paradigm, or are we witnessing financial market extremes that are unsustainable? In regard to the timing, can these dynamics last throughout 2018 or at least the first half of next year, or will they reverse in the coming months? We have less conviction on the durability of the U.S. equity rally, but our bet is that EM risk assets will roll over in absolute terms and begin underperforming their DM peers very soon. What could cause such a reversal in EM risk assets? China stands out as the most likely candidate to send negative shock waves through emerging markets and commodities. China: "Financial Stability" Priority Entails Tighter Policy The Chinese authorities are facing unprecedented challenges: The outstanding value of broad money in China (measured in U.S. dollars) is now larger than the combined U.S. and euro area broad money supply (Chart I-8, top panel). Chart I-8Beware Of Money Excesses In China Beware Of Money Excesses In China Beware Of Money Excesses In China As a share of its own GDP, broad money in China is much higher compared to any other nation in history (Chart I-8, bottom panel). In brief, there is too much money in China and most of it - $21 trillion out of $29 trillion - has been created by the banking system since early 2009. We maintain that the enormous overhang of money and credit in China represents major excess/imbalances and has nothing to do with the nation's high savings rate.2 Rather, it is an outcome of animal spirits running wild among bankers and borrowers over the past nine years. Easy money often flows into real estate and China has not been an exception. Needless to say, property prices are hyped and expensive relative to household income. Policy tightening amid lingering excesses and imbalances makes us negative on China's growth outlook. In a nutshell, we place more weight on tightening when there are excesses in the system, and downplay the importance of tightening in a healthy system without excesses. Importantly, excessive money creation seems to finally be pushing inflation higher. Consumer price services and core consumer price inflation rates are on a rising trajectory (Chart I-9, top and middle panels). As a result, banks' deposit rates in real terms (deflated by core CPI) have plunged into negative territory for the first time in the past 12 years (Chart I-9, bottom panel). Remarkably, the People's Bank of China's existing $3 trillion of international reserves is sufficient to "back up" only 13% and 11% of official M2 and our measure of M3, respectively (Chart I-10). If Chinese households and companies decide to convert 10-15% of their deposits into foreign currency and the PBoC takes the other side of the trade, its reserves will be exhausted. Chart I-9China: Inflation Is Rising And ##br##Real Deposit Rate Is Negative China: Inflation Is Rising And Real Deposit Rate Is Negative China: Inflation Is Rising And Real Deposit Rate Is Negative Chart I-10China: Low Coverage Of ##br##Money Supply By FX Reserves bca.ems_wr_2017_11_29_s1_c10 bca.ems_wr_2017_11_29_s1_c10 Therefore, reining money and credit expansion is of paramount importance to China's long-term financial and economic stability. "Financial stability" has become the key policy priority. "Financial stability" is policymakers' code word for containing and curbing financial imbalances and bubbles. Having experienced the equity bubble bust in 2015, policymakers are determined to preclude another bubble formation and its subsequent bust. Consequently, the ongoing tightening campaign will not be reversed in the near term unless damage to the economy becomes substantial and visible. By the time the authorities and investors are able to identify such damage in the real economy, China-related plays in financial markets will be down substantially. Chart I-11China: Corporate Bond Yields And Yield Curve China: Corporate Bond Yields And Yield Curve China: Corporate Bond Yields And Yield Curve Faced with significant excesses in money, leverage and property markets, the Chinese authorities have been tightening - and have reinforced their policy stance following the Party's Congress in October. There is triple tightening currently ongoing in China: 1. Liquidity tightening: Money market rates have climbed, and onshore corporate bond yields are rising (Chart I-11, top panel). Remarkably, the yield curve is flat, pointing to weaker growth ahead (Chart I-11, bottom panel). 2. Regulatory tightening: The China Banking Regulatory Commission (CBRC) is forcing banks to bring off-balance-sheet assets onto their balance sheets, and is reining banks' involvement in shadow banking activities. In addition, financial regulators are trying to remove the government's implicit "put" from the financial system, and thereby curb speculative and irresponsible investment behavior. Finally, many local governments are tightening investors' participation in the real estate market. 3. Anti-corruption campaign is embracing the financial institutions: The powerful anti-corruption commission is planning to dispatch groups of inspectors to examine financial institutions' activities. This could dampen animal spirits among bankers and shadow banking organizations. The Outlook: The "Knowns"... In China, broad money growth has already slumped to an all-time low (Chart I-12). The money as well as the credit plus fiscal spending impulses both point to a considerable slowdown in the mainland's industrial cycle and overall economic activity (Chart I-13). Chart I-12China: Broad Money ##br##Growth Is At All-Time Low bca.ems_wr_2017_11_29_s1_c12 bca.ems_wr_2017_11_29_s1_c12 Chart I-13China: Money And Credit & ##br##Fiscal Impulses Are Negative bca.ems_wr_2017_11_29_s1_c13 bca.ems_wr_2017_11_29_s1_c13 The slowdown is not limited to money growth; there are a few real business cycle indicators that are already weakening. For example, the growth rate of property floor space sold and started has slumped to zero (Chart I-14). Electricity output and aggregate freight volume growth have both decisively rolled over (Chart I-15). Chart I-14China: Property Starts Are Set To Contract Again China: Property Starts Are Set To Contract Again China: Property Starts Are Set To Contract Again Chart I-15China: A Few Signs Of Slowdown China: A Few Signs Of Slowdown China: A Few Signs Of Slowdown That said, based on the past correlation between money and credit impulses on the one hand and the business cycle on the other, China's economy should have slowed much more, and its negative impact on the rest of the world should have already been felt (Chart I-13, on page 9). This has been the key pillar of our view on EM, but it has not yet transpired. Is it possible that the relationship between money/credit impulses and the business cycle has broken down? If so, why? And how should investors handle such uncertainty? Bottom Line: China's ongoing policy tightening will ensure that money and credit impulses remain negative for some time. Can the country's industrial sectors de-couple from its past tight correlation with money and credit? ...And The "Unknowns" By definition, the only way to sustain nominal economic growth in the face of a decelerating money supply is if the velocity of money increases. This is true for any economy. Nominal GDP = Money Supply x Velocity of Money Provided China's policy tightening will likely further dampen money growth, the only way nominal GDP growth can hold up is if the velocity of money rises meaningfully, offsetting the drop in money growth. This is the main risk to our view and strategy. Chart I-16 portrays all three variables. Chart I-16China: Money, Nominal GDP ##br##And Velocity Of Money China: Money, Nominal GDP And Velocity Of Money China: Money, Nominal GDP And Velocity Of Money Even though the velocity of money has fallen structurally over the past nine years (Chart I-16, bottom panel), it has risen marginally in 2017, allowing the mainland's nominal economic growth to hold up despite a considerable relapse in money supply growth. Notably, this has been the reason why our view has not worked this year. What is the velocity of money, and how can we forecast its fluctuations and, importantly, the magnitude of its variations? The velocity of money is one of the least understood concepts in economic theory. The velocity of money is anything but stable. In our opinion, the velocity of money reflects animal spirits of households and businesses as well as government spending decisions. Forecasting animal spirits and the magnitude of their variations is not very a reliable exercise. In a nutshell, the banking system (commercial banks and the central bank) creates money via expanding its balance sheet - making loans to or acquiring assets from non-banks. However, commercial banks have little direct influence on the velocity of money. The latter is shaped by non-banks' decisions to spend or not (i.e., save). Significantly, non-banks' spending and saving decisions do not alter the amount of money in the system. Yet they directly impact the velocity of money. The banking system creates money, and non-banks churn money (make it circulate). At any level of money supply, a rising number of transactions will boost nominal output, and vice versa. Further, there is a great deal of complexity in the interaction between money supply and its velocity. Both are sometimes independent, i.e. they do not influence one another, but in some other cases one affects the other. For example, with the ongoing triple tightening in China and less money being originated by the banking system, will households and businesses increase or decrease their spending? Our bias is that they will not increase spending. This is especially true for the corporate sector, which has record-high leverage and where access to funding has been tightening. It is also possible that rising velocity will lead to more money creation as more spending leads to higher loan demand and banks accommodate it - i.e., originating more loans/money. These examples corroborate that money supply and the velocity of money are not always independent of each other. On the whole, it is almost impossible to reliably forecast the magnitude of changes in velocity of money. In the same vein, it is difficult to forecast animal spirit dynamics in any economy. Chart I-17U.S.: The Rise In Velocity Of Money ##br##Overwhelmed Slowdown In Money U.S.: The Rise In Velocity Of Money Overwhelmed Slowdown In Money U.S.: The Rise In Velocity Of Money Overwhelmed Slowdown In Money One recent example where nominal GDP has decoupled from broad money growth is the U.S. Chart I-17 demonstrates that in the past 12 months, U.S. nominal GDP growth has firmed up even though broad money (M2) growth has slumped. This decoupling can only be explained by a spike in the velocity of M2. In other words, soaring confidence and animal spirits among U.S. households and businesses have boosted their willingness to spend, even as the banking system has created less money and credit growth has slowed considerably over the past 12 months. Going back to China, how should investors consider such uncertainty in changes in the velocity of money? Investing is about the future, which is inherently uncertain. Hence, an investment process is about assigning probabilities to various scenarios. Provided the velocity of money is impossible to forecast, we assign equal probabilities to each of the following scenarios for China in 2018 (Figure I-1): One-third odds that the velocity of money rises more than the decline in broad money growth, producing robust nominal GDP growth; One-third probability that the velocity of money stays broadly flat - the outcome being meaningful deceleration in nominal GDP growth; A one-third chance that the velocity of money declines - the result being a severe growth slump. Figure I-1How Investors Can Consider Uncertainty Related To Velocity Of Money Questions For Emerging Markets Questions For Emerging Markets In short, a positive outcome on China-related plays has a one-third probability of playing out, while a negative outcome carries a two-thirds chance. This is why we continue to maintain our negative view on EM and commodities. Commodities Our view on commodities and commodity plays is by and large shaped by our view on China's capital spending. Given the credit plus fiscal spending impulse is already very weak, the path of least resistance for capital expenditures is down. Besides, the government is clamping down on local governments' off-balance-sheet borrowing and spending (via Local Government Financing Vehicles). A deceleration in capital expenditures in general and construction (both infrastructure and property development) in particular is bearish for industrial metals (Chart I-18). Money and credit impulses herald a major downturn in Chinese imports values and volumes (Chart I-19). Chart I-18Industrial Metals / Copper Are At Risk bca.ems_wr_2017_11_29_s1_c18 bca.ems_wr_2017_11_29_s1_c18 Chart I-19China Will Be A Drag On Its Suppliers bca.ems_wr_2017_11_29_s1_c19 bca.ems_wr_2017_11_29_s1_c19 As to China's commodities output reductions, last week we published a Special Report3 on China's "de-capacity" reforms in steel and coal. The report concludes the following: The path of least resistance for steel, coal and iron ore prices is down over the next 12-24 months. China's "de-capacity" reforms in steel and coal will continue into 2018 and 2019, but the scale and pace of "de-capacity" will diminish. Importantly, the mainland's steel and coal output will likely rise going forward as new capacity using more efficient and ecologically friendly technologies come on stream. The capacity swap policy introduced by the authorities has been allowing steel and coal producers to add new capacity in order to replace almost entirely obsolete capacity. The combination of demand slowdown and modest production recovery will weigh on non-oil raw materials. As for oil, the picture is much more complicated. Oil prices have been climbing in reaction to declining OECD inventories as well as on expectations of an extension to oil output cuts into 2018. One essential piece of missing information in the bullish oil narrative is China's oil inventories. In recent years, China has been importing more crude oil than its consumption trend justifies. Specifically, the sum of its net imports and domestic output of crude oil has exceeded the amount of refined processed oil. This difference between the sum of net imports and production of crude oil and processed crude oil constitutes our proxy for the net change of crude oil inventories. Chart I-20 shows that our proxy for mainland crude oil inventories has risen sharply in recent years. This includes both the nation's strategic oil reserves as well as commercial inventories. There is no reliable data on the former. Therefore, it is impossible to estimate the country's commercial crude oil inventories. Chart I-20China: Beware Of High Chinese Oil Inventories China: Beware Of High Chinese Oil Inventories China: Beware Of High Chinese Oil Inventories Nevertheless, whether crude oil inventories have risen due to a build-up of strategic petroleum reserves or commercial reserves, the fact remains that crude oil inventories in China have surged and appear to be reaching the size of OECD total crude and liquid inventories (Chart I-20). In short, China has been a stabilizing force for the oil market over the past three years by buying more than it consumes. Without such excess purchases from China, oil prices would likely have been much weaker. Going forward, the pace of Chinese purchases of crude oil will likely slow due to several factors: (a) China prefers buying commodities on dips, especially when it is for strategic inventory building. With crude oil prices having rallied to around $60, the authorities might reduce their purchases temporarily, creating an air pocket for prices, and then accelerate their purchases at lower prices; (b) Commercial purchases of oil will likely decelerate due to tighter money/credit, possibly high inventories and a general slowdown in industrial demand for fuel. Bottom Line: Raw materials and oil prices4 are at risk from China and overly bullish investor sentiment. Beyond Commodities The slowdown in China will impact not only commodities but also non-commodity shipments to the mainland (Chart I-21). In fact, 47% of the nation's imports are commodities and raw materials and 45% are industrial/capital goods - i.e., China's imports are heavily exposed to investment expenditures, not consumer spending. This is why money/credit impulses correlate so well with this country's imports. Consistently, China's broad money (M3) impulse leads EM corporate profit growth by 12 months - and currently heralds a major EPS downtrend (Chart I-22). In addition, aggregate EM narrow money (M1) growth also points to a material slump in EM EPS (Chart I-23). Chart I-21China Is A Risk To ##br##Non-Commodity Economies Too bca.ems_wr_2017_11_29_s1_c21 bca.ems_wr_2017_11_29_s1_c21 Chart I-22Downside Risk To EM EPS bca.ems_wr_2017_11_29_s1_c22 bca.ems_wr_2017_11_29_s1_c22 The only EM countries that are not materially exposed to China and commodities are Turkey and India. The former is a basket case on its own. Indian stocks are expensive and will have a difficult time rallying in absolute terms when the EM equity benchmark relapses. As for Korea and Taiwan, their largest export destination is not advanced economies but China. China accounts for 25% of Korea's exports and 28% of Taiwan's. This compares to a combined 22% of total Korean exports and 20% of total Taiwanese exports going to the U.S. and EU combined Can robust growth in the U.S. and EU derail the growth slowdown in China when capital spending slows? This is very unlikely, in our view. Chart I-24 portends that China's shipments to the U.S. and EU account for only 6.6% of Chinese GDP, while capital spending and credit origination constitute 45% and 25% of GDP, respectively. Chart I-23EM M1 And EM EPS EM M1 And EM EPS EM M1 And EM EPS Chart I-24What Drives Chinese Growth? What Drives Chinese Growth? What Drives Chinese Growth? A final word on tech stocks. EM's four large-cap tech stocks (Tencent, Ali-Baba, Samsung and TSMC) have gone exponential and are extremely overbought. At this juncture, any strong opinion on tech stocks is not warranted because they can sell off or continue advancing for no fundamental reason. We have been recommending an overweight position in tech stocks, and continue recommending overweighting them, especially Korean and Taiwanese semiconductor companies. As for Tencent and Alibaba, these are concept stocks, and as a top-down house we have little expertise to judge whether or not they are expensive. These are bottom-up calls. Investment Strategy EM Stocks: Asset allocators should continue to underweight EM versus DM, and absolute-return investors should stay put. Our overweights are Taiwan, China, Korean tech stocks, Thailand, Russia and central Europe. Our underweights are Turkey, South Africa, Brazil, Peru and Malaysia. Chart I-25EM Currencies: A Canary In ##br##Coal Mine For EM Credit? EM Currencies: A Canary In Coal Mine For EM Credit? EM Currencies: A Canary In Coal Mine For EM Credit? Stay short a basket of the following EM currencies: ZAR, TRY, BRL, IDR and MYR. We are also shorting the COP and CLP. Unlike in 2014-2015, EM currencies will depreciate not only versus the U.S. dollar but also the euro. For traders who prefer a market neutral currency portfolio, our recommended longs (or our currency overweights) are TWD, THB, SGD, ARS, RUB, PLN and CZK. INR and CNH will also outperform other EM currencies. Continue underweighting EM sovereign and corporate credit relative to U.S. investment grade bonds. The mix of weaker EM/China growth, lower commodities prices and EM currency depreciation bode ill for already very tight EM credit spreads (Chart I-25). Within the sovereign credit space, our underweights are Brazil, Venezuela, South Africa and Malaysia and our overweights are Russia, Argentina and low beta defensive credits. The main risk to EM local currency bonds is EM currency depreciation. With foreign ownership of EM domestic bonds at all-time highs, exchange rate depreciation could trigger non-trivial selling pressure. Among local currency bond markets, the most vulnerable are Turkey, South Africa, Indonesia and Malaysia. The least vulnerable are Korea, Russia, China, India, Argentina and Central Europe. Other high-conviction market-neutral recommendations: Long U.S. banks / short EM banks. Long U.S. homebuilders / short Chinese property developers. Long the Russian ruble / short oil. Long the Chilean peso / short copper. Long Big Five state-owned Chinese banks / short small- and medium-sized banks. Arthur Budaghyan, Senior Vice President Emerging Markets Strategy arthurb@bcaresearch.com 1 For example, given that interest rates are in the denominator of the Gordon Growth model, a one percentage point change in interest rates from a low level can have a significant impact on the fair value P/E ratio. 2 Please refer to the Emerging Markets Strategy Special Reports from October 26, 2016, November 23, 2016 and January 18, 2017; available on ems.bcaresearch.com 3 Please refer to the Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report titled "China's 'De-Capacity' Reforms: Where Steel & Coal Prices Are Headed," dated November 22, 2017, link available on page 22. 4 This is the Emerging Markets Strategy team's view and is different from BCA's house view on commodities. Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations

Highlights Junk & The Yield Curve: The flat yield curve increases the risk of a sell-off in junk bonds. The most likely scenario is that higher inflation steepens the curve and mitigates this risk, but if inflation fails to respond then spreads will probably gap wider in the near-term. Ultimately, this would be a buying opportunity and not the end of the cycle. Junk & Corporate Health: Net debt-to-EBITDA should move lower during the next few quarters, driven by strong profit growth, but this is already in the price. Further increases in net debt-to-EBITDA would bring the end of the credit cycle closer, and this measure bears close monitoring. Junk & Fund Flows: Outflows from open-ended bond funds - especially those that invest in illiquid securities - can exacerbate periods of spread widening much in the same way as the use of leverage. Feature Anxiety in appropriate intensity makes humans intelligent - Anna Freud The remarkable run of junk bond outperformance suffered a setback last week, and it is very likely that excess returns will be negative in November for only the fourth month since spreads peaked in February 2016 (Chart 1). Chart 1A Buying Opportunity? A Buying Opportunity? A Buying Opportunity? We are inclined to view the recent price action as a temporary blip, and continue to believe that higher inflation and a more restrictive central bank reaction function are pre-conditions for a sustained period of spread widening.1 Nonetheless, if inflation trends higher as we expect, our pre-conditions for the end of the credit cycle could be in place by the middle of next year. In other words, we are much closer to the end of the credit cycle than the beginning and investors should be constantly re-assessing the risk/reward trade-off of staying invested. To aid in this process, this week we consider five reasons why investors might be nervous about their high-yield allocations and discuss how to think about each reason in the context of making a portfolio allocation decision. Reason 1: Spreads Are Tight Undoubtedly, the number one reason most people fret about high-yield bond performance is that valuation is extremely stretched. Even after last week's sell-off the average option-adjusted spread on the junk index is still 362 basis points, only 38 bps above the mid-2014 cycle lows (Chart 2). A more refined valuation measure, the 12-month breakeven spread for each credit tier, paints a similar picture.2 Chart 3 shows that valuation has been more expensive for Ba-rated securities only 23% of the time. B-rated securities have been more expensive only 39% of the time, and Caa-rated securities only 44% of the time. Chart 2Bouncing Off The Lows Bouncing Off The Lows Bouncing Off The Lows Chart 3Junk Bond Valuation Junk Bond Valuation Junk Bond Valuation Further, we calculate that if Ba-rated spreads tighten another 97 bps they will reach all-time expensive levels. This represents only 3 months of average spread tightening. The same calculation shows that B-rated spreads can tighten another 179 bps (4 months of average tightening) and Caa-rated spreads can tighten another 378 bps (5 months of average tightening). The message is quite clear. Spreads are close to all-time expensive levels and it would be unwise to hinge an investment decision on the expectation of significant capital gains. Junk is a carry trade at this point in the cycle, and the important question is how much longer we can pick up the carry before a sustained period of spread widening takes hold. However, we must also remember that valuation is not a market timing tool. Spreads can stay at low levels for extended periods, especially in the late stages of the credit cycle. Valuation is only important because it allows us to formulate expected return projections, and lower expected returns make the prospect of trying to time the exact end of the credit cycle less appealing. With that in mind, our base case scenario assumes that default losses will total 1.02% during the next 12 months. This means we should expect excess returns of 260 bps in a scenario where spreads remain flat. Even if spreads tighten another 100 bps from current levels high-yield excess returns will only reach 651 bps. That would represent a very optimistic scenario for junk returns. More realistically investors should expect excess returns between 200 bps and 500 bps (annualized) between now and the end of the credit cycle. Reason 2: The Yield Curve Is Flat The relentless flattening of the yield curve also presents a risk for junk bonds because it is a signal that monetary policy is becoming too restrictive. Restrictive monetary policy, along with deteriorating corporate health and tightening bank lending standards, is one of our three main credit cycle indicators (Chart 4). Typically we need a signal from all three of our indicators before a bear market in junk bonds kicks in. We already see such a signal from deteriorating corporate health, but accommodative Fed policy and easing bank lending standards continue to support spreads. Chart 4Credit Cycle Indicators Credit Cycle Indicators Credit Cycle Indicators That being said, during the past nine months the combination of disappointing inflation and two Fed rate hikes has caused the 2/10 Treasury slope to flatten all the way down to 62 bps. An inverted yield curve is a signal that the credit cycle is over and a slope of 62 bps is close enough to zero that market participants are jittery. We think a slope at these levels makes a near-term sell off in junk bonds more likely because investors will be inclined to view any negative news as a signal that the credit cycle is about to turn. They would be less inclined to do so if the curve was steeper. While such a flat yield curve poses a near-term risk to spreads, we have argued forcefully in recent reports that it will soon steepen.3 The most likely scenario is that inflation will start to trend higher, and this will steepen the curve while still allowing the Fed to deliver a pace of rate hikes close to its median projection. But even in a scenario where inflation fails to rise, we would still expect the curve to steepen as the Fed capitulates on its projected rate hike path. The key risk for junk spreads is a scenario where inflation fails to rise but the Fed does not react and instead continues to lift rates. This scenario would certainly lead to a risk-off episode in credit markets. At that point, however, the Fed would take note of the tightening in financial conditions and adopt a more dovish policy stance to support the recovery. In other words, while the Fed might be slow to renege on its rate hike projections in the face of low inflation, it has a strong track record of responding to shifts in financial conditions. This is because the Fed rightly understands that financial conditions lead GDP growth (Chart 5), and above-trend growth must be maintained in order for inflation to move back to target. Chart 5Financial Conditions Lead Growth Financial Conditions Lead Growth Financial Conditions Lead Growth Bottom Line: The flat yield curve increases the risk of a sell-off in junk bonds. The most likely scenario is that higher inflation steepens the curve and mitigates this risk, but if inflation fails to respond then spreads will probably gap wider in the near-term. Ultimately, this would be a buying opportunity and not the end of the cycle. Reason 3: Corporate Health Is Weak As was noted in the prior section, corporate balance sheet health is weak but this is only one of the three conditions that need to be met before defaults start to pick up and spreads start to widen. We also need to see more restrictive monetary policy and banks that are less inclined to extend credit. But it is also logical that weaker balance sheets should cause investors to demand greater compensation to hold high-yield bonds, and in general we do observe a strong correlation between junk spreads and net debt-to-EBITDA for the non-financial corporate sector as a whole (Chart 6). Worryingly, spreads have diverged from this measure since early 2016, but net debt-to-EBITDA did tick lower in Q2 and we anticipate further improvement in the coming quarters as the outlook for profit growth appears strong.4 It is important to note that any future improvement in net debt-to-EBITDA is already priced in, but further deterioration would speed up the time until the end of the credit cycle. That is, if the measure of net debt-to-EBITDA shown in the top panel of Chart 6 moves higher in the coming quarters then we will have to be quicker to shift to an underweight stance on high-yield (and investment grade) corporate bonds at the first sign of inflation. The other important issue related to corporate health is that we have seen a great deal of bond issuance during the past few years, but almost none of that issuance has been required to finance capital investment. Chart 7 shows that the financing gap - firms' capital expenditures less retained earnings - has only recently turned positive. It follows that the proceeds from most of this cycle's bond issuance must have been returned to shareholders in the form of stock buybacks. Chart 6Leverage Bears Monitoring Leverage Bears Monitoring Leverage Bears Monitoring Chart 7Less Equity, More Debt Less Equity, More Debt Less Equity, More Debt This observation does not help us figure out when the credit cycle will end, but if corporate capital structures have less of an equity cushion then it should lead to lower recovery rates when corporate defaults finally start to occur. In the bottom two panels of Chart 7 we show aggregated bottom-up data from a sample of junk rated non-financial firms. We see that the debt-to-equity ratio of the median company in the sample is much higher than during the last recession, but at similar levels to what was seen during the 2001 recession. The bottom panel of Chart 7 shows the percent of firms in our sample with a debt-to-equity ratio above 300%, and it sends a similar message. Bottom Line: Net debt-to-EBITDA should move lower during the next few quarters, driven by strong profit growth, but this is already in the price. Further increases in net debt-to-EBITDA would bring the end of the credit cycle closer, and this measure bears close monitoring. Additionally, corporate capital structures have less of an equity cushion than during the last recession but look similar to the late 1990s/early 2000s. This has more of a bearing on recovery rates during the next downturn than on the timing of the turn in the credit cycle. Reason 4: Volatility Is Low VIX and junk spreads are practically tied at the hip (Chart 8), that much is well known. The question is whether the very low reading from the VIX poses an additional risk to junk bonds beyond what is already reflected in tight spreads. For the most part we think that it does not. The low VIX appears to be driven by the same factors that cause junk spreads to tighten - stronger corporate balance sheets, accommodative monetary policy and easing bank lending standards (Chart 9). Chart 8VIX Also At Cycle Lows VIX Also At Cycle Lows VIX Also At Cycle Lows Chart 9VIX Fair Value Is Biased Higher VIX Fair Value Is Biased Higher VIX Fair Value Is Biased Higher There is one possible exception and that relates to leverage in the banking system. It has been shown that financial intermediaries manage their Value-at-Risk (VaR) so that the ratio of VaR-to-equity is stable. Since lower volatility leads to a lower calculated VaR, it suggests that banks can take on more leverage and still keep their ratio of VaR-to-equity stable.5 If low volatility mechanically leads to higher banking sector leverage, then that presents the additional risk that banks will face greater losses when spreads eventually widen. This would cause lending standards to tighten even more quickly, and exacerbate the spread widening. So while low volatility could potentially lead to a wider end-point for junk spreads once the cycle turns, it does not help us determine when that widening will occur. Also, stricter post-crisis bank capital regulations may have mitigated this risk to a certain extent, though it is difficult to know until the default cycle actually takes hold. Reason 5: Open-Ended Fund Flows Another risk that has been flagged by many investors is the ever-growing presence of open-ended mutual funds and ETFs in the corporate bond market. According to second quarter Flow of Funds data, 19% of corporate and foreign bonds were held in mutual funds or ETFs (Chart 10). This is a big change from past cycles. In a speech from 2014, then Fed Governor Jeremy Stein elucidated why this might pose a risk:6 When investor i exits [the fund] on day t, does the net asset value at the end of the day that defines investor i's exit price fully reflect the ultimate price effect of the sales created by his exit? If not, those investors who stay behind are hurt, which is what creates run incentives. And, if run incentives are strong enough, then a credit-oriented bond fund starts looking pretty bank-like. The fact that its liabilities are not technically debt claims is not all that helpful in this case - they are still demandable, and hence investors can pull out very rapidly if the terms of exit create a penalty for being last out the door. Essentially, outflows from open-ended bond funds - especially those that invest in illiquid securities - can exacerbate periods of spread widening much in the same way as the use of leverage. If fund outflows drive a gap between the price of the fund and its net asset value, then investors may be incentivized to quickly exit the fund before the gap widens even further. And in fact, even since the beginning of 2016 we have seen that periods of junk spread widening have coincided on occasion with a gap opening up between the price of the popular SPDR junk ETF and its net asset value (Chart 11). So far the effect has not been dramatic, but potentially the shock has simply not yet been large enough for the dynamic described by Stein to play out more fully. Chart 10Growing Fund Presence In Corporate Bond Market Growing Fund Presence In Corporate Bond Market Growing Fund Presence In Corporate Bond Market Chart 11A Run On Bond Funds? A Run On Bond Funds? A Run On Bond Funds? Much like with the risk from low volatility, the large presence of open-ended funds in the corporate bond market does not help us determine when the credit cycle is about to end. However, it does potentially increase the risk that once spreads start to widen they will widen much further than they would have otherwise. Investment Recommendations We continue to hold the view that we must first see stronger inflation and a more restrictive monetary policy before the credit cycle can end. We are therefore inclined to remain overweight high-yield bonds and would view last week's spread widening as a buying opportunity. That being said, if inflation starts to trend higher as we expect, then the credit cycle could come to an end as early as the middle of next year. Our first signal will be when long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates return to the 2.4% to 2.5% range that has historically been consistent with inflation anchored around the Fed's target. In the meantime, the flat yield curve increases the risk of near-term spread widening. We think this risk will be mitigated as higher inflation steepens the curve, but until then investors should be on guard. Ultimately, any spread widening that occurs before inflationary pressures are more pronounced will be a buying opportunity, not the end of the credit cycle. Additionally, net debt-to-EBITDA must continue to trend lower as profit growth recovers. If it fails to do so then we will be quicker to adopt an underweight allocation to junk. Investors should also be mindful of the potential risks posed by low volatility and the large presence of open-ended funds in the corporate bond market. Both of those factors could exacerbate any spread widening once the credit cycle turns, though they do not help us determine when that turn will occur. Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Risk Rally Extended," dated June 27, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 Looking at each credit tier individually controls for the changing average credit rating of the overall index. The 12-month breakeven spread is used in place of the option-adjusted spread to control for the changing duration of each index. 3 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "The Fed Will Fall Behind The Curve," dated October 24 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Won't Back Down," dated September 26, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 5 Tobias Adrian and Hyun Song Shin, "Procyclical Leverage and Value-at-Risk," Federal Reserve Bank of New York Staff Report No. 338. July 2008. 6 https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/stein20140228a.htm

Highlights A Quick Primer: Convertible bonds have a risk/reward profile that falls somewhere between B-rated and Caa-rated high-yield bonds. The key difference is that convertible bonds are less exposed to credit spreads than junk bonds and more exposed to the equity market. Performance Vs. Junk: Convertibles tend to outperform junk bonds in the late stages of bull markets. Junk spreads tend to trough prior to the peak in equities, and rising Treasury yields also favor convertibles. The Value Proposition: Convertible bonds appear somewhat cheap relative to equities, but equities are fairly valued compared to junk bonds and convertible bonds currently offer an unattractive investment premium. Valuation is by no means compelling, but it should not prevent convertibles from outperforming junk bonds in the late stages of the recovery. Feature From time to time we are asked whether convertible bonds have a place in U.S. fixed income portfolios, and this is the question we consider in today's Special Report. Being a hybrid credit/equity investment, it is clear that convertibles are a fairly high-risk proposition for U.S. bond funds. In fact, we find that the historical risk/reward profile of the sector falls somewhere between B-rated and Caa-rated High-Yield corporate debt (Chart 1). So while not for every investor, we do find compelling reasons for why, in the current macro environment, U.S. bond funds should consider replacing some high-yield debt with an allocation to convertible bonds. Chart 1Fixed Income Universe - Risk Vs. Return* (1990s To Present) A Place For Convertibles A Place For Convertibles This report proceeds as follows. The first section provides a quick primer on convertible bonds, with a focus on the risk factors that drive the sector's performance. The second section takes a look at the historical performance of convertibles in different macro environments. The last section considers valuation in the sector. A Quick Primer Convertible bonds are much like traditional corporate bonds in that they pay periodic fixed coupons and have a maturity date. However, convertibles also give bondholders the option to convert the bond into a pre-specified number of shares of common stock. Investors obviously pay a premium for this option but have the potential to realize large gains if the firm's stock price rises. Convertibles are typically issued by smaller firms with low credit ratings. Fifty percent of the face value of the Bloomberg Barclays U.S. Convertibles index comes from small-cap and mid-cap firms. In addition, 58% of the Convertibles index face value comes from non-rated firms. For comparison, only 0.22% of the Bloomberg Barclays High-Yield bond index is un-rated. Technology firms make up 35% of the Convertibles index, which should not be surprising since the convertibles market appeals to small issuers with large financing demands who may have limited access to traditional debt and equity markets. The Convertibles index also has a large concentration in Healthcare & Pharmaceuticals (19%) and Financials (15%). In contrast, the largest sectors in the High-Yield bond index are Communications (20%), Consumer Cyclicals (15%) and Energy (14%). Chart 2Convertible Bond Value Illustrated A Place For Convertibles A Place For Convertibles The value of a convertible bond is illustrated in Chart 2. This chart shows how the price of a convertible bond (the line labeled "Convertible Bond Value Curve") evolves relative to the firm's stock price (shown on the x-axis). It also helps define a few key terms: Parity: Also called the "conversion value" of the security. This represents the value of the security if the conversion option is exercised. It is the 45 degree line passing through the origin of Chart 2. Conversion Premium: This is the difference between the price of the convertible bond and its parity value. In other words, it is the extra price an investor must pay for a convertible bond relative to simply buying the firm's equity. It can be thought of as the cost of downside protection for an equity investor. Chart 2 shows that this cost is larger when the firm's equity price is low. Investment Value: Also called the "bond floor". This is the value of the security if the conversion option is never exercised. It is the thick dashed line in Chart 2. Investment Premium: This is the difference between the price of the convertible bond and its investment value. In other words, it is the extra price an investor must pay for a convertible bond relative to simply buying a corporate bond. It can be thought of as the cost a convertible bond investor must pay to get potential equity exposure. Chart 2 shows that this cost is greater when the firm's stock price is high. We can use the concepts of conversion premium and investment premium to define three types of convertible bonds. A convertible bond is called "credit sensitive" when its underlying stock price is low. This type of convertible bond is valued very similarly to a corporate bond because there is only a low chance that the conversion option will be exercised. It therefore has a large conversion premium and a small investment premium. Conversely, an "equity sensitive" convertible bond is valued similarly to an equity. This is a convertible bond with an elevated underlying stock price, one that would make it beneficial to exercise the conversion option. These securities have high investment premiums and very low conversion premiums. "Balanced" convertible bonds fall between the other two categories. The stock price has not quite reached the value that makes the conversion option attractive, but it is close enough that the security trades at a significant investment premium. Risk Factors & Performance Drivers Based on the historical risk/reward relationship shown in Chart 1, it is clear that if convertible bonds should be included in U.S. fixed income portfolios it is in place of B-rated and Caa-rated junk bonds. We must therefore consider what factors determine the relative performance between high-yield bonds and convertibles. Chart 3Risk Decomposition, 1999-Present A Place For Convertibles A Place For Convertibles To do that we performed regressions of monthly total returns for both an index of convertible bonds and an index of B-rated and Caa-rated high-yield bonds on three risk factors: Interest rate risk: proxied by the yield on the Treasury Master index Credit risk: proxied by the change in the high-yield bond spread Equity risk: proxied by monthly returns from the S&P 600 The top panel of Chart 3 shows the betas from the regressions. It shows that junk bonds have greater sensitivity to interest rate risk and credit risk, but are less sensitive to equity risk. However, to perform a complete risk attribution we need to consider both the sensitivity of returns to each risk factor and the volatilities of the risk factors themselves. The second panel of Chart 3 shows the variance of each of the three risk factors and the covariance between each pair of risk factors. With that information we are able to calculate the exposure of both junk bond and convertible bond returns to each risk factor by multiplying the squared beta by the variance of each risk factor.1 The results of this complete risk accounting are presented in the bottom panel of Chart 3. It shows that both convertible bond and junk bond total returns have small exposures to interest rate risk, with junk bonds having a somewhat larger exposure. However, the big difference between the two assets is that junk bond returns are mostly determined by credit risk while convertible bond returns are mostly determined by equity risk. This means that we can boil the decision of whether to invest in junk bonds or convertible bonds down to the question of whether junk spreads are likely to outperform equities. It is this question that we address in the next section. Convertible Bond Performance: Equities Vs. Credit Chart 4 shows that the history of relative total returns between convertible and high-yield bonds has gone through five distinct phases since the early 1990s. Chart 4Five Phases Of Convertible Bond Performance Five Phases Of Convertible Bond Performance Five Phases Of Convertible Bond Performance In the first phase, which culminated in the 1999/2000 tech boom, convertibles significantly outperformed junk. This is because junk spreads widened while equities performed exceptionally well. The fact that convertible bonds were a popular financing choice for small-cap tech companies also helped the sector's returns in 1999. The second phase, between 2000 and 2005, was characterized by falling Treasury yields and tighter credit spreads. Equities also performed well during this period, but not by enough to offset the impact of falling yields and tighter spreads. Junk bonds outperformed convertibles. Convertibles then outperformed junk from 2005 until the peak of the stock market in 2007. Junk spreads widened prior to the peak in the stock market, and this caused convertibles to outperform junk. Junk outperformed convertibles from 2007 until the mid-2012 trough in Treasury yields. This period was somewhat unique in that both equities and junk spreads were relatively flat. It was the greater impact of falling Treasury yields on junk bonds that drove the relative performance. Finally, convertibles have outperformed sharply since 2012, due to much higher equity prices. Junk spreads are also tighter but did experience a large widening in 2014/15. Higher Treasury yields during this time have also favored convertibles over junk. The Outlook For Convertibles The above framework gives us a way to qualitatively assess whether convertibles are likely to outperform junk going forward. First, with the Fed likely still not passed the mid-point of its rate hike cycle, Treasury yields will probably continue to rise. This will favor convertible bonds over junk bonds. Second, we have previously shown that junk bond spreads are fast approaching historically tight levels.2 In fact, we can calculate that B-rated junk spreads can only tighten another 180 bps before reaching all-time expensive valuations and Caa-rated spreads can only tighten another 375 bps. This represents only four months and five months of average monthly spread tightening, respectively. Further, junk spreads have a history of starting to widen before equity bear markets. The 2008 and 2002 bear markets being the most obvious examples (Chart 4, bottom 2 panels). If this pattern is repeated it will help convertibles outperform junk in the late stages of the current recovery. On the equity side, although valuations are also expensive, prices should continue to rise as long as inflation stays low enough for the Fed to maintain an accommodative policy stance. Our U.S. Investment Strategy service also thinks that small cap equities will outperform large caps in the coming months.3 As discussed above, convertible bonds are mostly issued by small cap firms. Our Cyclical Capitalization Indicator is above the zero line, indicating a favorable macro environment for small caps, and our valuation indicator shows that small caps are relatively cheap (Chart 5). However, arguably more important is that small caps remain a strong high-beta equity play (Chart 5, bottom panel). As long as the equity bull market is maintained, then small caps should outperform. One final factor that should drive the relative outperformance of small cap equities is the potential for Congress to pass tax legislation in the first half of next year. The relative small cap trade has been strongly correlated with other trades that are likely to benefit from proposed tax legislation and right now the market is probably assigning too low a probability to the chance that such legislation will pass (Chart 6). The biggest near-term risk for convertible bond returns relative to junk stems from the Technology sector. Chart 7 shows that divergences in performance between convertible bond sectors and high-yield bond sectors tend to be short lived. It also shows that Technology convertible bonds have strongly outperformed their high-yield counterparts in recent months. It is almost certain that convertible Technology bonds are due for a period of underperformance, much like what happened to Healthcare & Pharmaceutical convertibles in 2014/15 (Chart 7, bottom panel). Given the size of the convertible Technology sector, any period of sector-specific underperformance would also exert a meaningful drag on the overall index. Chart 5Small Caps Poised For Outperformance Small Caps Poised For Outperformance Small Caps Poised For Outperformance Chart 6The Trump Trades Are Back On The Trump Trades Are Back On The Trump Trades Are Back On Chart 7Tax Cuts Will Help Small Caps Tax Cuts Will Help Small Caps Tax Cuts Will Help Small Caps In general, traditional late-cycle dynamics - rising Treasury yields and junk spreads widening before equities sell off - should favor convertible bonds over junk between now and the end of the economic recovery. We expect this will also be the case in the current cycle, although the recent outperformance in the technology sector makes us cautious in the near-term. The best strategy is probably to replace some low-rated high-yield bonds with convertibles, while avoiding the technology sector, and then subbing out even more junk for convertibles once Technology convertibles have come back down to earth. Bottom Line: Convertibles tend to outperform junk bonds in the late stages of bull markets. Junk spreads tend to trough prior to the peak in equities, and rising Treasury yields also favor convertibles. This pattern will likely be repeated in the current cycle, although lofty valuations in the Technology sector make us cautious in the near-term. The Value Proposition The final question worth considering is whether convertible bonds appear fairly valued relative to history and investment alternatives. Specifically, we consider valuation from three different perspectives: Are equities fairly valued relative to high-yield bonds? If equities are cheap relative to high-yield bonds then it is reasonable to expect that convertible bonds are also cheap. Are convertible bonds fairly valued relative to equities? Are convertible bonds fairly valued relative to themselves? To answer the first question we use the BCA S&P 500 Valuation Indicator as our measure of equity valuation (Chart 8, top panel) and the 12-month high-yield breakeven spread as our measure of junk bond valuation (Chart 8, bottom panel). Both indicators are at relatively expensive levels. According to our chosen valuation metrics, equity valuation was only more expensive than it is today during the late 1990s tech boom, but in that period it reached much more expensive levels before changing course. In contrast, there have been several periods when junk breakeven spreads have been tighter, but even the all-time low is not that far below current levels. To create a true relative value indicator we standardized both our equity valuation indicator and the 12-month breakeven junk spread, and then subtracted one from the other. The result is shown in the middle panel of Chart 9 and it suggests that equities look a tad cheap compared to junk. However, relative valuation is nowhere near an extreme, and a more reasonable conclusion would be that equities and junk bonds appear fairly valued relative to each other. Chart 8Equity, Convertible & Junk Valuation I Equity, Convertible & Junk Valuation I Equity, Convertible & Junk Valuation I Chart 9Equity, Convertible & Junk Valuation II Equity, Convertible & Junk Valuation II Equity, Convertible & Junk Valuation II To answer the second question, whether convertible bonds look cheap relative to equities, we compare the parity (or conversion value) of the Convertible Bond index to our equity valuation indicator. The parity of the Convertible index is shown in the middle panel of Chart 8, and it shows that convertible bonds are quite expensive, but not as expensive as they were between 2013 and 2015. In contrast, our equity valuation indicator is at its most expensive levels of the current cycle. Once again, we standardize both our equity valuation indicator and the Convertible Bond index parity and take the difference. The result is shown in the bottom panel of Chart 9, and unsurprisingly, it suggests that convertible bonds appear relatively cheap compared to equities. To answer the final question, how convertibles are valued relative to themselves, we turn to Charts 10 and 11. Chart 10 shows the conversion premium of the Convertible Bond index relative to its parity. In essence, this chart shows how much extra an investor is being charged for convertible bonds relative to a similar equity portfolio. For a given parity level, a low conversion premium would suggest a more attractive valuation, and vice-versa. At the moment, Chart 10 shows that the index conversion premium is almost exactly in line with its expected value given the level of parity. Chart 10Conversion Premium Vs. Parity A Place For Convertibles A Place For Convertibles Chart 11Investment Premium Vs. Parity A Place For Convertibles A Place For Convertibles Chart 11 shows the Convertible Bond index's investment premium relative to parity. This chart shows how much extra an investor must pay for convertible bonds relative to a similar basket of corporate bonds. Once again, a low investment premium would suggest a more attractive valuation, but at the moment the investment premium appears quite elevated. For the given parity level, investors are paying a bit too much for convertibles relative to a similar basket of corporate bonds. In summary, while convertible bonds do appear somewhat cheap relative to equities, on balance, there is not much of a pure valuation case for the asset class. Equities appear fairly valued relative to junk bonds, and convertibles are trading at an elevated investment premium. We do not think that valuation will be a significant headwind to the typical late-cycle outperformance of convertibles versus junk. Bottom Line: Convertible bonds appear somewhat cheap relative to equities, but equities are fairly valued compared to junk bonds and convertible bonds currently offer an unattractive investment premium. Valuation is by no means compelling, but it should not prevent convertibles from outperforming junk bonds in the late stages of the recovery. Alex Wang, CFA, Research Analyst alexw@bcaresearch.com Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com Jeremie Peloso, Research Assistant jeremiep@bcaresearch.com 1 We also use beta weights to attribute the covariance risk to each individual risk factor and calculate the unexplained risk as the variance of the bond returns less the risk exposure from each of our three factors. 2 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "The Fed Will Fall Behind The Curve", dated October 24, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Small Cap Surge", dated October 9, 2017, available at usis.bcaresearch.com

Highlights Chart 1Fed Must Fall Behind The Curve Fed Must Fall Behind The Curve Fed Must Fall Behind The Curve Jerome Powell will assume the Fed Chairmanship at a critical juncture for monetary policy. Core PCE inflation is still well below the Fed's 2% target, and yet, the slope of the 2/10 Treasury curve is a mere 71 bps (Chart 1). Such a flat yield curve alongside such low inflation suggests that the market believes the Fed will tighten the yield curve into inversion before inflation even regains the Fed's target. That would be an unprecedented policy mistake that the new Chairman will seek to avoid at all costs. This means either inflation will soon rise, justifying the FOMC's median rate hike projections, or inflation will stay low and the Fed will be forced to take a dovish turn. Either way the Fed must "fall behind the curve" and start chasing inflation higher. The act of falling behind the inflation curve means that long-maturity TIPS breakevens are likely to widen, the yield curve will steepen and the policy back-drop will stay accommodative for spread product. We recommend positioning for all three of these outcomes. Feature Investment Grade: Overweight Chart 2Investment Grade Market Overview Investment Grade Market Overview Investment Grade Market Overview Investment grade corporate bonds outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 52 basis points in October, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to 288 bps. The average index option-adjusted spread tightened 6 bps on the month, and now sits at 97 bps. Two weeks ago we noted that there is simply not much room for investment grade corporate spreads to tighten.1 Looking at 12-month breakeven spreads shown as a percentile rank relative to history, we see that A-rated paper has only been more expensive than it is today 7% of the time. Baa-rated paper has been more expensive only 9% of the time (Chart 2).2 Further, we calculate that at current duration levels Baa-rated option-adjusted spreads can only tighten another 36 bps before the sector is more expensive than it has ever been. Similarly, A-rated spreads can tighten another 14 bps, Aa-rated spreads another 17 bps and Aaa-rated spreads another 7 bps. All this to say that corporate bonds are essentially a carry trade at this stage of the cycle. The important question is how much longer we can pick up the carry before a period of significant spread widening. With low inflation keeping monetary policy accommodative and accelerating profit growth putting downward pressure on leverage (bottom 2 panels), the carry trade appears safe for now (Table 3). Table 3ACorporate Sector Relative Valuation And Recommended Allocation* Into The Fire Into The Fire Table 3B Corporate Sector Risk Vs. Reward* Into The Fire Into The Fire High-Yield: Overweight Chart 3High-Yield Market Overview High-Yield Market Overview High-Yield Market Overview High-Yield outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 51 basis points in October, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to 580 bps. The index option-adjusted spread (OAS) tightened 9 bps on the month, and currently sits at 339 bps. Based on our current forecast for default losses we calculate that, if junk spreads remain flat, high-yield excess returns will be 230 bps for the next 12 months. If spreads tighten by 100 bps we should expect excess returns of 606 bps, and if spreads widen by 100 bps we should expect excess returns of -145 bps (Chart 3). Given that the OAS for the high-yield index can only tighten another 139 bps before it reaches all-time expensive valuations, 606 bps is a fairly optimistic excess return projection. But equally, with inflation pressures still muted and monetary policy still accommodative, more than 100 bps of spread widening is also unlikely. Our base case forecast is that high-yield excess returns will be between 2% and 5% (annualized) on a 6-12 month investment horizon.3 In a recent report we noted that high-yield generally looks more attractive than investment grade after adjusting for differences in spread volatility between the two sectors.4 Specifically, we calculate that it will take 39 days of average spread tightening before B-rated bonds reach all-time expensive levels. The same calculation shows it will take 19 days for A-rated debt. MBS: Neutral Chart 4MBS Market Overview MBS Market Overview MBS Market Overview Mortgage-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 4 basis points in October, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to 31 bps. The conventional 30-year zero-volatility MBS spread was roughly flat on the month, as was the option-adjusted spread (OAS) and the compensation for prepayment risk (option cost). Last month we upgraded Agency MBS from underweight to neutral, noting that OAS have become significantly more attractive during the past year, particularly relative to corporate credit (Chart 4). The spread widening likely resulted from the market pricing-in the impact of the Fed's balance sheet run-off. Now that the run-off has begun, and its future pace has been well telegraphed, its impact has probably also been fully priced. While OAS is the correct measure of MBS carry because it adjusts for expected losses due to prepayments, it is the change in the nominal spread that determines capital gains and losses. With that in mind, it is difficult to see a catalyst for significantly wider nominal MBS spreads on a 6-12 month horizon. The two factors that correlate most closely with nominal MBS spreads - credit spreads and mortgage refinancings - are likely to stay depressed (bottom panel). Higher mortgage rates would obviously prevent refinancings from rising. But we showed in a recent report that even if rates move lower the coupon and age distribution of outstanding mortgages has made refi activity much less sensitive to rates than in the past.5 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 12 basis points in October, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to 193 bps. Sovereign bonds underperformed the Treasury benchmark by 5 bps on the month. Foreign and Domestic Agency bonds outperformed by 2 bps and 9 bps, respectively. Supranationals outperformed by 4 bps. The underperformance in Sovereigns was concentrated in Mexican debt, which sold off as the White House took a hard line on NAFTA negotiations. Local Authority bonds outperformed by 62 bps in October, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to 367 bps (Chart 5). Excess returns for Local Authority debt - mostly taxable municipal debt and USD-denominated Canadian provincial debt - have exceeded excess returns from Baa-rated corporate debt so far this year, despite the sector's average credit rating of Aa3/A1. In a recent report we looked at whether USD-denominated Emerging Market Sovereign debt is an attractive alternative to U.S. high-yield corporates.6 We observed that hard currency EM sovereigns and similarly rated U.S. corporate bonds offer almost exactly the same breakeven spread, and also that EM Sovereigns have been getting comparatively cheaper since early last year. Further, we observed that periods when EM Sovereigns outperform U.S. corporates tend to coincide with falling U.S. rate hike expectations, as measured by our 24-month fed funds discounter. At present, our 24-month discounter is at 74 bps, meaning the market expects less than three Fed hikes during the next two years. We anticipate a better opportunity to move into EM Sovereigns once U.S. rate hike expectations have adjusted higher. Municipal Bonds: Underweight Chart 6Municipal Market Overview Municipal Market Overview Municipal Market Overview Municipal bonds outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 43 basis points in October (before adjusting for the tax advantage). Munis have outperformed the Treasury benchmark by 251 bps, year-to-date. The average Municipal / Treasury (M/T) yield ratio edged down in October and currently sits at 87%, still extremely tight relative to its post-crisis trading range. M/T yield ratios look much more attractive at the long-end of the curve (Chart 6), and we continue to recommend that investors extend maturity within their municipal bond allocations. Congress released its first draft of proposed tax legislation last week, and while it will certainly undergo some changes in the coming months, it appears as though it will not be very negative for municipal bondholders. Crucially, the top marginal personal tax rate remains unchanged at 39.6% and demand for munis should benefit from the removal of other deductions. A reduction of the corporate tax rate to 20% remains a risk, but that will likely be revised higher as the bill is re-written. Fundamentally, state & local government health improved sharply in Q3, with net borrowing likely falling to $157 billion from $211 billion in Q2, assuming that corporate tax revenues are unchanged (Chart 6).7 The rate of growth in state & local tax revenues now exceeds expenditures and that should put further downward pressure on borrowing in the coming quarters. However, a decline in state & local government borrowing is already reflected in historically tight M/T yield ratios. 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 bear-flattened in October alongside a sharp move higher in the expected pace of Fed rate hikes (Chart 7). The 2/10 Treasury slope flattened 8 bps and the 5/30 slope flattened 7 bps. The upward adjustment in rate hike expectations benefited our recommendation to short the July 2018 fed funds futures contract. That trade is now 13 bps in the money since it was initiated on July 10. Further, the July 2018 contract is still discounting fewer than two rate hikes between now and next July. If two more hikes are delivered by July our trade will earn an additional 5 bps. If three more hikes are delivered it will earn an additional 31 bps. In a recent report we discussed why the Fed must soon "fall behind the curve" on inflation and allow the yield curve to steepen.8 Essentially, unless the Fed starts to chase inflation higher it will soon invert the yield curve without having met its inflation goal. That would be a severe policy mistake. This means that either inflation must start to rise, or the Fed must slow its pace of rate hikes. Both scenarios lead to a steeper yield curve. We continue to position for a steeper curve via a long position in the 5-year bullet versus a short position in the 2/10 barbell. At the moment our model shows the 5-year bullet trading roughly in-line with its fair value, or alternatively that the 2/5/10 butterfly spread is priced for an unchanged 2/10 slope on a 6-month horizon.9 TIPS: Overweight Chart 8TIPS Market Overview TIPS Market Overview TIPS Market Overview TIPS outperformed the duration-equivalent nominal Treasury index by 33 basis points in October, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to -99 bps. The 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate rose 4 bps on the month but, at 1.86%, it remains well below its pre-crisis trading range of 2.4% to 2.5%. As was pointed out on the front page of this report, the Fed must "fall behind the curve" on inflation if it wants to avoid a policy mistake. Our expectation is that this will occur because inflation will move higher in the coming months. The 6-month rate of change in trimmed mean PCE has already bounced off its lows (Chart 8) and pipeline measures of inflation are soaring (panels 3 & 4). However, even if inflation remains stubbornly low, we think any downside in long-maturity TIPS breakeven rates will prove fleeting. We are approaching an inflection point where if inflation does not rise the Fed will have to adopt a much more dovish policy stance. This should limit any downside in long-dated breakevens. As long as the Fed can maintain interest rates low enough for realized inflation to eventually recover to its target, then we anticipate that long-maturity TIPS breakeven rates will settle into a range between 2.4% and 2.5% by the time that occurs. According to our model, the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate is currently trading in-line with other financial market variables - oil, the trade-weighted dollar and the stock-to-bond total return ratio (panel 2). ABS: Neutral Chart 9ABS Market Overview ABS Market Overview ABS Market Overview Asset-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 13 basis points in October, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to 81 bps. Aaa-rated ABS outperformed the Treasury benchmark by 10 bps on the month, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to 71 bps. Non-Aaa ABS outperformed the benchmark by 32 bps, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to 176 bps. The index option-adjusted spread for Aaa-rated ABS tightened 5 bps in October and, at 33 bps, it remains well below its average pre-crisis trading range. We continue to favor credit cards over auto loans within Aaa-rated ABS, despite the modest additional spread pick-up available in autos (Chart 9). The main reason is that auto loan net losses have been trending steadily higher for several years while credit card charge-offs are still depressed (panel 4). However, even the credit card space is starting to see rising delinquency rates, albeit off a low base, and banks are tightening lending standards on both auto loans and cards (bottom panel). We expect that tight labor markets and solid income growth will prevent a surge in consumer delinquencies, but these are nonetheless troubling signals that bear monitoring. From a valuation perspective, with the 33 bps OAS offered from Aaa-rated Consumer ABS now only slightly higher than the 29 bps offered by Agency Residential MBS, we advocate a neutral allocation to consumer ABS. Further increases in delinquencies could warrant an eventual downgrade, stay tuned. Non-Agency CMBS: Underweight Chart 10CMBS Market Overview CMBS Market Overview CMBS Market Overview Non-agency Commercial Mortgage-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 71 basis points in October, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to 182 bps. The index option-adjusted spread (OAS) for non-agency Aaa-rated CMBS tightened sharply in October, from 74 bps to 65 bps. At current levels it is now one standard deviation below its pre-crisis average (Chart 10). With spreads at such low levels in an environment of tightening commercial real estate (CRE) lending standards and falling CRE loan demand, we view the risk/reward trade-off in non-Agency CMBS as quite unfavorable. Agency CMBS: Overweight Agency CMBS outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 34 basis points in October, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to 96 bps. The index OAS for Agency CMBS tightened 6 bps on the month but, at 46 bps, the sector continues to offer an attractive spread pick-up relative to other low-risk spread product. The Aaa-rated consumer ABS OAS is only 33 bps, and the OAS on conventional 30-year Agency MBS is a mere 29 bps. Such an attractive spread pick-up in a sector that benefits from Agency backing is probably worth grabbing. Treasury Valuation Chart 11Treasury Fair Value Models Treasury Fair Value Models Treasury Fair Value Models The current reading from our 2-factor Treasury model (based on Global PMI and dollar sentiment) pegs fair value for the 10-year Treasury yield at 2.69% (Chart 11). Our 3-factor version of the model (not shown), which also incorporates the Global Economic Policy Uncertainty Index, places fair value at 2.67%. The Global Manufacturing PMI increased to 53.5 in October, its highest level in six-and-a-half years. Bullish sentiment toward the dollar also edged higher, but not by enough to prevent the fair value reading from our 2-factor Treasury model from climbing. Last month's fair value reading was 2.65%. The U.S. and Eurozone PMIs continued to trend up, while the Chinese PMI held flat. The Japanese PMI ticked down from 52.9 to 52.8. Most importantly, of the 36 countries we track 34 now have PMIs above the 50 boom/bust line. The global economic recovery has become incredibly broad based, a bearish development for U.S. Treasury yields. For further details on our Treasury models please refer to U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "The Message From Our Treasury Models", dated October 11, 2016, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com At the time of publication the 10-year Treasury yield was 2.33%. 1 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "The Fed Will Fall Behind The Curve", dated October 24, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 We use breakeven spreads to adjust for the changing duration of the index over time. We calculate the 12-month breakeven spread as option-adjusted spread divided by duration. We ignore the impact of convexity. 3 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Living With The Carry Trade", dated October 17, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "The Fed Will Fall Behind The Curve", dated October 24, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 5 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Dollar Watching: Yet Another Update", dated October 10, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 6 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Living With The Carry Trade", dated October 17, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 7 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "How Much Higher For Yields?", dated October 31, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 8 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "The Fed Will Fall Behind The Curve", dated October 24, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 9 For further details on our model please see U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, "Bullets, Barbells And Butterflies", dated July 25, 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)

Highlights Emerging Market (EM) hard currency debt, both sovereign and corporate, has consistently outperformed the broad global bond index. However, investors should steer clear of always maintaining maximum overweights to EM given its weak volatility reduction benefits and a much higher-than normal tendency of experiencing outsized, negative returns. Our long-term analysis suggests a structural 5% allocation offers the best risk/reward potential. The Fed is still in the early stages of rate normalization. At this point in the Fed policy cycle, where the Fed is hiking rates but monetary conditions are still stimulative, EM hard currency debt has historically performed well both on a relative and absolute basis. Looking ahead, EM returns should begin to suffer in latter half of 2018 as the Fed moves to more restrictive policy stance. While global growth will remain supportive of EM credit next year, renewed U.S. dollar strength and a re-convergence to the downside with commodity prices present considerable headwinds. Maintain an underweight stance on EM hard currency debt. Favor DM spread product due to more supportive relative growth trends and valuations. Feature Emerging market (EM) sovereign and corporate debt returns have surged in 2017, returning 9.4% and 7.5%, respectively (Chart 1). Investor interest has been renewed, with the latest IMF Financial Stability Report indicating that non-resident inflows of portfolio capital to EM countries have recovered since early 2016 and reached $205 billion for 2017 through August. Against a backdrop of above-trend global economic growth, monetary policy settings from the major central banks that are still accommodative, and some diminished risks from the world's geopolitical hotspots, the current uptrend for EM debt performance could continue. Nevertheless, we urge caution. We moved to a moderate underweight stance on EM hard currency debt back in August, while at the same time increasing our current recommended overweight to U.S. investment grade (IG) corporate debt on the other side of the trade.1 Even with synchronized global growth boosting both EM export demand and industrial commodity prices, we prefer U.S. credit exposure over EM at this point in the cycle, for several reasons: The massive flow-driven EM rally has resulted in not only outsized returns but stretched valuations, with EM debt spreads now back to post-2008-crisis low (or even through those levels for EM hard currency corporates) without any major improvement in EM fundamentals; The previously reliable correlation between EM debt and commodity prices, a long-time driver of EM performance, has broken down, bullishly, for EM - potentially another sign of flow-driven overvaluation; Growing uncertainty over the near-term China growth outlook raises risks on further gains in industrial commodity demand and EM exports; The USD will appreciate once again on the back of additional Fed interest rate hikes beyond levels currently discounted by markets, which could trigger some reversal of the sharp inflows into EM seen this year. Over a strategic horizon, however, it remains difficult to argue against owning a core structural allocation of EM hard currency debt within global fixed income portfolios, given the higher yields that are typically on offer and the fairly consistent historical outperformance over Developed Market (DM) debt. Although the benefits of EM in a portfolio context are slightly overstated given its skewed risk profile (i.e. fat negative tails) and high correlation with DM spread product, specifically U.S. high-yield corporates (Chart 2). Chart 1How Much Longer Can This Rally Last? How Much Longer Can This Rally Last? How Much Longer Can This Rally Last? Chart 2EM Debt Offers Little Diversification Benefits EM Debt Offers Little Diversification Benefits EM Debt Offers Little Diversification Benefits In this Special Report, we examine the long-term role of EM hard currency debt within a fixed-income portfolio, and re-iterate our case for being underweight EM debt on a cyclical basis. The Long-Run Case For Owning EM Debt: A Moderate Core Allocation Makes Sense It is not a stretch to say that EM debt has become the most important part of global bond portfolios in the 21st century. Having a significant EM allocation at the right time can make a bond manager's year, while having it at the wrong time can end a bond manager's career. But what is the "right" allocation to optimize the long-run contribution to returns in a global fixed income portfolio? To answer this question, we took a look at the historical performance of a global bond portfolio that consisted of both DM and EM debt (sovereign and corporate), looking for the combination that would maximize the risk-adjusted return of the portfolio. In our analysis, we ran calculations for two different time periods as the available index data for EM sovereign debt goes back to 1994, while EM corporate debt indices begin in 2002. For DM debt, we used a single index - the Bloomberg Barclays Global Aggregate - as this has a long history and is a common benchmark used by global bond managers that includes both DM sovereign and corporate debt. Though the sample size of our combined global portfolio is limited due to the shorter history of the EM corporates asset class, the findings generally align with our intuition. On a standalone basis, modern portfolio theory proposes that an individual asset should be included within a portfolio if its excess return divided by its standard deviation is higher than the excess return of the portfolio divided by the portfolio's standard deviation, multiplied by the correlation between the portfolio and the asset. Examining The Role Of EM Hard Currency Debt In Global Bond Portfolios Examining The Role Of EM Hard Currency Debt In Global Bond Portfolios Though the correlation to the DM portfolio from 2004 was fairly high for both assets at over 0.6, when we applied this formula, both EM sovereign and corporate debt warranted an allocation in a standard global fixed-income portfolio. EM sovereign debt scored higher, by offering a considerably better Sharpe ratio with only a minimally higher correlation to DM fixed income. While EM hard currency debt has fairly consistently outperformed the DM benchmark on a 12-month rolling basis, investors must be careful not to simply maintain large positions at all times. Obviously, the majority of fixed-income investors have volatility constraints that impose limits on credit allocations. Additionally, apart from simple volatility measures, EM debt has a "hidden" risk profile when looking at the higher moments of return distributions. Table 1EM Debt Returns Are##BR##Negatively Skewed Examining The Role Of EM Hard Currency Debt In Global Bond Portfolios Examining The Role Of EM Hard Currency Debt In Global Bond Portfolios Both EM sovereign and corporate credit historical returns have exhibited significant negative skewness and excess kurtosis, indicating a much higher-than-normal tendency of experiencing outsized, negative returns (Table 1). This is confirmed through Historical Value-at-Risk (VaR) analysis, where the 5% worst returns far eclipsed those of DM investment grade and government debt. Nevertheless, it is important to view EM from a holistic perspective. For example, an asset with a high standard deviation may be less desirable as a standalone investment, but can be highly beneficial if it enhances overall the returns of a portfolio while also reducing its volatility. We tested these "portfolio effects" of EM debt by creating 21 hypothetical portfolios. We began with a DM-only portfolio (consisting of the Global Aggregate index) and increased the weighting toward EM debt by one percentage point in each portfolio, with the last portfolio having a 20% weighting toward EM. The breakdown within EM was 62% corporates and 38% sovereigns based on the market capitalizations of the relevant benchmark indices. Our calculations indicate that the highest portfolio Sharpe ratio was achieved with a 5% EM debt allocation, which also happens to be the "neutral" weighting of EM debt in the BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy model portfolio benchmark index (Chart 3).2 Global bond investors should hover around this weighting on EM hard currency debt, absent a high conviction view on EM. Chart 3The Optimal EM Hard Currency Debt Allocation Is 5% Examining The Role Of EM Hard Currency Debt In Global Bond Portfolios Examining The Role Of EM Hard Currency Debt In Global Bond Portfolios So while the data suggests that EM hard currency debt warrants a long-term allocation, its beneficial impact on a fixed-income portfolio is at least slightly exaggerated. Portfolio managers are typically seeking out assets that can both improve return and decrease overall volatility, thereby increasing the efficiency of their portfolios. This was not the case with EM debt. In our study, increasing the EM allocation consistently raised both returns and volatility. Chart 4EM/DM Correlations Should Decline In 2018 EM/DM Correlations Should Decline In 2018 EM/DM Correlations Should Decline In 2018 This lack of diversification benefit is a result of the high correlation between EM hard currency debt and DM fixed income. Currently, the correlation between EM and DM (the Global Aggregate) is 0.90, near the upper end of its range, indicating that diversification benefits over the last year were essentially non-existent (Chart 4). Nevertheless, this relationship clearly exhibits a mean reversion tendency. That EM/DM correlation in recent years has been itself correlated to global growth and monetary policy changes. As we show in Chart 4, our diffusion index of OECD Leading Economic Indicators (LEI) - the number of countries with a rising LEI relative to those with a declining LEI - does tend to lead the EM/DM correlation and is currently pointing to a lower correlation as global growth becomes a little less synchronized in 2018. The same goes for the growth rate of major central bank balance sheets which is already slowing and will decelerate even more in 2018 on the back of a diminished pace of bond buying by the ECB and the Fed runoff of maturing bonds on its balance sheet. The conclusion is this - the EM/DM correlation should decline in 2018 but, as we discuss below, we think that happens through relative underperformance of EM credit. Bottom Line: EM hard currency debt, both sovereign and corporate, has consistently outperformed the broad global index. However, investors should steer clear of always maintaining maximum overweights given its weak volatility reduction benefits and a much higher-than normal tendency of experiencing outsized, negative returns. Our long-term analysis suggests a structural 5% allocation offers the best risk/reward potential. The Shorter-Run Case For Owning EM Debt: Will Macro Drivers Remain Supportive? So far in 2017, EM sovereign and corporate debt have been beneficiaries of robust global growth, a declining USD and a decoupling from a broader index of commodity prices. While we expect global growth will remain strong over the medium term, our outlook for the USD is still bullish and there is a risk that commodity prices and EM debt performance re-converge to the downside. Global growth will remain strong. Outside of a major global growth slowdown, which we currently view as a low probability event, a mass flight out of EM assets anytime soon is highly unlikely. Indicators such as the global PMI index, industrial production growth and the OECD leading economic indicator are all booming (Chart 5). Inflation will head higher on the back of rising oil prices, but the increase is likely to be gradual. Importantly, this is happening alongside global monetary conditions that remain generally accommodative, even with the Fed in a tightening cycle. Credit, both DM & EM, has historically performed well against this backdrop, as we discuss in the next section of this report. A renewed upleg in the USD bull market is already underway. The correlation between EM currencies and EM debt performance has recovered after breaking down during 2013-15 (Chart 6). Year-to-date, EM currency strength - the flipside of the weaker U.S. dollar - has been a major driver of EM relative performance. Using the IMF's measure real effective exchange rates based on unit labor costs, the U.S. dollar is fairly valued.3 Neutral valuations suggest that directional market indicators are driving currency movements. As the EM business cycle slows and the Fed ramps up its rate hikes in response to rising inflation, the USD cyclical bull market should resume. Chart 5Robust Global Growth##BR##Is Supportive For EM bca.gfis_sr_2017_11_01_c5 bca.gfis_sr_2017_11_01_c5 Chart 6Can EM Ignore Another##BR##Round Of USD Strength? Can EM Ignore Another Round Of USD Strength? Can EM Ignore Another Round Of USD Strength? The de-coupling between EM debt and commodity price movements is unsustainable. EM debt has experienced a strong rally since 2016 with only a moderate rise in commodity prices compared to past periods of EM strength. We view this decoupling to be temporary (Chart 7). Many sovereign EM issuers are commodity producers, suggesting that this divergence is unsustainable. EM sovereign and corporate debt will not be able to continue their massive rallies if commodity prices relapse. We maintain a bullish view on oil prices, but there are signals that base metal prices are at risk over the next 6-12 months. Chinese monetary authorities have tightened policy and the resulting sharp slowdown in money supply growth is a worrisome sign for Chinese demand for commodities (Chart 8).4 Chart 7EM-Commodity Divergence##BR##Is Unsustainable EM-Commodity Divergence Is Unsustainable EM-Commodity Divergence Is Unsustainable Chart 8China Downside Risks For##BR##Industrial Commodity Prices bca.gfis_sr_2017_11_01_c8 bca.gfis_sr_2017_11_01_c8 Bottom Line: While global growth will remain supportive of EM credit, currency weakness and a re-convergence with commodity prices present considerable headwinds. EM Debt Performance & The Fed Policy Cycle Chart 9The Fed Policy Cycle Examining The Role Of EM Hard Currency Debt In Global Bond Portfolios Examining The Role Of EM Hard Currency Debt In Global Bond Portfolios As more central banks are shifting to a tightening bias, investors are becoming increasingly concerned over policy normalization and its potential impact on credit market performance. Given the strong historical linkages between EM debt performance and Fed policy changes, the current U.S. tightening cycle looms as a major potential problem for EM assets. We have found it most useful to think about changes in Fed monetary policy and asset market performance in terms of breaking up the Fed policy into four distinct phases (Chart 9).5 These are characterized by both the level of interest rates (whether they are above or below "equilibrium") and the direction of policy changes (whether the Fed is raising or cutting rates):6 Phase 1 - the Fed is hiking while the fed funds rate is below equilibrium (i.e. monetary conditions are stimulative). Phase 2 - the Fed is hiking or keeping policy on hold while the fed funds rate is above equilibrium (i.e. monetary conditions are restrictive). Phase 3 - the Fed is cutting while the fed funds rate is above equilibrium (i.e. monetary conditions are restrictive). Phase 4 - the Fed is cutting rates while the fed funds rate is below equilibrium (i.e. monetary conditions are stimulative). For EM sovereign debt where we have index data going back to 1994, there have been four episodes of Phase 1 and three episodes of the other phases. For EM corporate debt, where the index data begins in 2002, there have been two episodes of Phases 1 and 4 and only one occurrence of Phases 2 and 3. We present the excess returns of EM debt relative to other major fixed income classes by phase in Table 2. In the limited sample, EM sovereign debt and corporate debt consistently outperformed the Global Aggregate index and most individual bond classes. However, relative to DM high-yield debt, which has the most comparable risk profile, EM sovereign bonds underperformed in Phase 1 and EM corporate debt underperformed in all phases. Table 2Relative EM Debt Performance Worsens As Fed Policy Tightens Examining The Role Of EM Hard Currency Debt In Global Bond Portfolios Examining The Role Of EM Hard Currency Debt In Global Bond Portfolios Excess returns for both EM debt classes were highest in Phase 4, where the central bank is easing while conditions are stimulative. Similar to other risk assets, EM debt also outperformed in Phase 1, where the central bank is tightening while rates are below equilibrium. This makes sense, as the early stages of monetary tightening typically occur in conjunction with stable, above-trend growth. Liquidity conditions are still stimulative in Phase 1, which provides a substantial tailwind for spread product performance. On the other end of the spectrum, EM debt excess returns were relatively low during Phase 2 and Phase 3, and even negative in the case of EM corporate debt for Phase 3. Surprisingly, EM debt has been less affected by the direction of U.S. interest rates than what we would have expected. Monetary easing in Phase 3 was not enough to substantially boost EM relative returns and tightening in Phase 1 did not derail growth or lift the USD enough for EM debt to underperform. In fact, because EM debt still offers robust excess returns during Phase 1 when the central bank is tightening, while also suffering during Phase 3 during central bank easing, we can conclude that the level of policy rates relative to equilibrium has a greater impact on returns than the direction of rates. The severity of the Global Financial Crisis and the relatively subdued pace of recovery for both growth and inflation led to one of the longest Phase 4s in history. Given the low level of starting yields, indicating a large gap to equilibrium, and the 'gradual' pace of normalization, the current Phase 1 should also last longer than it typically has. This bodes well for all credit sectors, including EM sovereign and corporate debt, if history is any guide. However, there are still reasons to be concerned about the impact of U.S. monetary policy on EM assets next year. If the Fed follows through with the interest rate hikes it is currently projecting - another 100bps in total by the end of 2018 - the funds rate will be much closer to equilibrium. If the U.S. dollar rallies alongside that Fed tightening, as we expect, overall U.S. monetary conditions could end up being much closer to a restrictive level than implied by strictly looking at our Fed Policy Cycle (which only looks at the funds rate to determine monetary conditions). Also, the equilibrium funds rate may now be lower than the levels we are assuming in the Fed Policy Cycle framework, suggesting that policy could turn restrictive more quickly in the current tightening cycle. Bottom Line: The Fed is still in the early stages of rate normalization. At this point in the Fed policy cycle, where the Fed is hiking rates but monetary conditions are still stimulative, EM hard currency debt has historically performed well both on a relative and absolute basis. Looking ahead, EM returns should begin to suffer in latter half of 2018 as the Fed moves to more restrictive policy stance. Another Reason For Caution: Our EM Corporate Health Monitor The BCA EM Corporate Health Monitor (CHM) is a directional indicator aimed at modeling the path of EM corporate spread movements. Financial data from 220 emerging market companies in over 30 countries is aggregated. Only firms that issue USD-denominated bonds are included, with banks and other financials also omitted in a similar fashion to the CHMs we have constructed for DM corporates. The indicator is made up of four financial ratios: profit margins, free cash flow to total debt, liquidity and leverage. Unlike the DM CHMs, the ratios are not equally weighted in the construction of the EM CHM. Profit margins and free cash flow to debt combined represent 75% of the EM CHM. The latest available reading is from Q2 2017, showing a large decrease, with the indicator now only barely in 'Improving Health' territory (Chart 10). This has occurred in tandem with EM corporate spreads narrowing to post-crisis lows, leaving EM debt at potentially overvalued levels on a fundamental basis. While this slowdown in the EM CHM is not yet a cause for concern, if this became an extended trend of financial health deterioration, the divergence with EM corporate debt performance would be unsustainable and leave EM corporates highly vulnerable to a correction. Chart 10The BCA EM Corporate Health Monitor Has Rolled Over EM Corporate Health Monitor Is Sending A 'Sell' Signal The BCA EM Corporate Health Monitor Has Rolled Over EM Corporate Health Monitor Is Sending A 'Sell' Signal The BCA EM Corporate Health Monitor Has Rolled Over EM Corporate Health Monitor Is Sending A 'Sell' Signal Bottom Line: Our EM Corporate Health Monitor has declined drastically and is barely in 'Improving Health' territory. This alone is not cause for concern yet, but further deterioration in our Monitor combined with additional credit spread narrowing would be a worrisome divergence. Investment Implications Emerging market debt is facing conflicting forces. While continued robust global growth and accommodative monetary policy provide a substantial tailwind for credit performance, extended valuations, the turn in the USD and a potentially worsening commodities outlook present difficult hurdles for EM to overcome. Given the mixed messages, we prefer owning cyclical credit exposure through DM corporate debt, particularly U.S. investment grade. EM debt yields have collapsed and are expensive relative to DM investment grade debt (Chart 11). Combined with a higher risk profile in EM, elevated valuations indicate that EM sovereign and corporate debt are vulnerable to larger corrections. From a return perspective, the difference in the corporate option-adjusted spreads (OAS) has been an excellent leading indicator for relative total returns (Chart 12). This differential indicates that there is considerable relative upside potential for U.S. investment grade over EM hard currency debt. Additionally, while global growth should support credit-related plays, relative growth dynamics are more supportive of U.S. investment grade because the next phase of the global growth upturn will be driven by DM countries and not EM. The difference between the manufacturing PMIs in the U.S. and EM has historically been a good directional indicator for the spread between U.S. corporate bond spreads and EM debt spreads (Chart 13). The gap between the relative manufacturing PMI readings is at a post-crisis high, and could widen further if EM economies suffer on the back of any pullback in Chinese growth in 2018. Chart 11EM Yields & Spreads Look Full Valued EM Yields & Spreads Look Full Valued EM Yields & Spreads Look Full Valued Chart 12Favor U.S. IG Over EM Corporates... Favor U.S. IG Over EM Corporates... Favor U.S. IG Over EM Corporates... Chart 13...Because Of Stronger U.S. Growth ...Because Of Stronger U.S. Growth ...Because Of Stronger U.S. Growth What are the risks to our view? Our recommended position would suffer in the event that inflation in the U.S. slows, keeping the Fed on hold and maintaining this year's USD downtrend. Also, if China were to ease up on its policy tightening, industrial commodity prices could strengthen once again. Under these scenarios, EM hard currency debt would likely outperform DM spread product. Bottom Line: Maintain moderate underweight positions in EM hard currency debt. Favor DM spread product (especially U.S. investment grade corporates) due to more supportive relative valuations and growth trends. Patrick Trinh, Associate Editor Global Fixed Income Strategy patrick@bcaresearch.com Robert Robis, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com 1 This “EM versus IG” trade was implemented in both our Emerging Markets Strategy and Global Fixed Income Strategy services. Please see BCA Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report, “EM: The Focus Is On Profits”, dated August 16th 2017, available at ems.bcaresearch.com, as well as the BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, “A Lack Of Leadership”, dated August 22nd 2017, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 2 The weighting to EM debt in the Global Fixed Income Strategy model bond portfolio benchmark is based on market capitalizations of all the fixed income sectors we wanted to have in the benchmark, which includes non-investment grade debt like global high-yield corporates. It is reassuring to see that our benchmark weighting is also the desired weighting from a long-run portfolio optimization perspective. 3 Please see BCA Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report, "Is The Dollar Expensive, And Are EM Currencies Cheap?", dated October 11th, 2017, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see the joint BCA Global Asset Allocation/Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, "Global Equity Allocation: The Underwhelming Case For EM", dated August 9th 2017, available at ems.bcaresearch.com & gaa.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see BCA U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, "Bonds And The Fed Funds Rate Cycle", dated May 27th 2014, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com. 6 The equilibrium policy rate is a BCA calculation based on long-run real potential GDP growth and long run inflation expectations.

Highlights Emerging Market (EM) hard currency debt, both sovereign and corporate, has consistently outperformed the broad global bond index. However, investors should steer clear of always maintaining maximum overweights to EM given its weak volatility reduction benefits and a much higher-than normal tendency of experiencing outsized, negative returns. Our long-term analysis suggests a structural 5% allocation offers the best risk/reward potential. The Fed is still in the early stages of rate normalization. At this point in the Fed policy cycle, where the Fed is hiking rates but monetary conditions are still stimulative, EM hard currency debt has historically performed well both on a relative and absolute basis. Looking ahead, EM returns should begin to suffer in latter half of 2018 as the Fed moves to more restrictive policy stance. While global growth will remain supportive of EM credit next year, renewed U.S. dollar strength and a re-convergence to the downside with commodity prices present considerable headwinds. Maintain an underweight stance on EM hard currency debt. Favor DM spread product due to more supportive relative growth trends and valuations. Feature Emerging market (EM) sovereign and corporate debt returns have surged in 2017, returning 9.4% and 7.5%, respectively (Chart 1). Investor interest has been renewed, with the latest IMF Financial Stability Report indicating that non-resident inflows of portfolio capital to EM countries have recovered since early 2016 and reached $205 billion for 2017 through August. Against a backdrop of above-trend global economic growth, monetary policy settings from the major central banks that are still accommodative, and some diminished risks from the world's geopolitical hotspots, the current uptrend for EM debt performance could continue. Nevertheless, we urge caution. We moved to a moderate underweight stance on EM hard currency debt back in August, while at the same time increasing our current recommended overweight to U.S. investment grade (IG) corporate debt on the other side of the trade.1 Even with synchronized global growth boosting both EM export demand and industrial commodity prices, we prefer U.S. credit exposure over EM at this point in the cycle, for several reasons: The massive flow-driven EM rally has resulted in not only outsized returns but stretched valuations, with EM debt spreads now back to post-2008-crisis low (or even through those levels for EM hard currency corporates) without any major improvement in EM fundamentals; The previously reliable correlation between EM debt and commodity prices, a long-time driver of EM performance, has broken down, bullishly, for EM - potentially another sign of flow-driven overvaluation; Growing uncertainty over the near-term China growth outlook raises risks on further gains in industrial commodity demand and EM exports; The USD will appreciate once again on the back of additional Fed interest rate hikes beyond levels currently discounted by markets, which could trigger some reversal of the sharp inflows into EM seen this year. Over a strategic horizon, however, it remains difficult to argue against owning a core structural allocation of EM hard currency debt within global fixed income portfolios, given the higher yields that are typically on offer and the fairly consistent historical outperformance over Developed Market (DM) debt. Although the benefits of EM in a portfolio context are slightly overstated given its skewed risk profile (i.e. fat negative tails) and high correlation with DM spread product, specifically U.S. high-yield corporates (Chart 2). Chart 1How Much Longer Can This Rally Last? How Much Longer Can This Rally Last? How Much Longer Can This Rally Last? Chart 2EM Debt Offers Little Diversification Benefits EM Debt Offers Little Diversification Benefits EM Debt Offers Little Diversification Benefits In this Special Report, we examine the long-term role of EM hard currency debt within a fixed-income portfolio, and re-iterate our case for being underweight EM debt on a cyclical basis. The Long-Run Case For Owning EM Debt: A Moderate Core Allocation Makes Sense It is not a stretch to say that EM debt has become the most important part of global bond portfolios in the 21st century. Having a significant EM allocation at the right time can make a bond manager's year, while having it at the wrong time can end a bond manager's career. But what is the "right" allocation to optimize the long-run contribution to returns in a global fixed income portfolio? To answer this question, we took a look at the historical performance of a global bond portfolio that consisted of both DM and EM debt (sovereign and corporate), looking for the combination that would maximize the risk-adjusted return of the portfolio. In our analysis, we ran calculations for two different time periods as the available index data for EM sovereign debt goes back to 1994, while EM corporate debt indices begin in 2002. For DM debt, we used a single index - the Bloomberg Barclays Global Aggregate - as this has a long history and is a common benchmark used by global bond managers that includes both DM sovereign and corporate debt. Though the sample size of our combined global portfolio is limited due to the shorter history of the EM corporates asset class, the findings generally align with our intuition. On a standalone basis, modern portfolio theory proposes that an individual asset should be included within a portfolio if its excess return divided by its standard deviation is higher than the excess return of the portfolio divided by the portfolio's standard deviation, multiplied by the correlation between the portfolio and the asset. Examining The Role Of EM Hard Currency Debt In Global Bond Portfolios Examining The Role Of EM Hard Currency Debt In Global Bond Portfolios Though the correlation to the DM portfolio from 2004 was fairly high for both assets at over 0.6, when we applied this formula, both EM sovereign and corporate debt warranted an allocation in a standard global fixed-income portfolio. EM sovereign debt scored higher, by offering a considerably better Sharpe ratio with only a minimally higher correlation to DM fixed income. While EM hard currency debt has fairly consistently outperformed the DM benchmark on a 12-month rolling basis, investors must be careful not to simply maintain large positions at all times. Obviously, the majority of fixed-income investors have volatility constraints that impose limits on credit allocations. Additionally, apart from simple volatility measures, EM debt has a "hidden" risk profile when looking at the higher moments of return distributions. Table 1EM Debt Returns Are##BR##Negatively Skewed Examining The Role Of EM Hard Currency Debt In Global Bond Portfolios Examining The Role Of EM Hard Currency Debt In Global Bond Portfolios Both EM sovereign and corporate credit historical returns have exhibited significant negative skewness and excess kurtosis, indicating a much higher-than-normal tendency of experiencing outsized, negative returns (Table 1). This is confirmed through Historical Value-at-Risk (VaR) analysis, where the 5% worst returns far eclipsed those of DM investment grade and government debt. Nevertheless, it is important to view EM from a holistic perspective. For example, an asset with a high standard deviation may be less desirable as a standalone investment, but can be highly beneficial if it enhances overall the returns of a portfolio while also reducing its volatility. We tested these "portfolio effects" of EM debt by creating 21 hypothetical portfolios. We began with a DM-only portfolio (consisting of the Global Aggregate index) and increased the weighting toward EM debt by one percentage point in each portfolio, with the last portfolio having a 20% weighting toward EM. The breakdown within EM was 62% corporates and 38% sovereigns based on the market capitalizations of the relevant benchmark indices. Our calculations indicate that the highest portfolio Sharpe ratio was achieved with a 5% EM debt allocation, which also happens to be the "neutral" weighting of EM debt in the BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy model portfolio benchmark index (Chart 3).2 Global bond investors should hover around this weighting on EM hard currency debt, absent a high conviction view on EM. Chart 3The Optimal EM Hard Currency Debt Allocation Is 5% Examining The Role Of EM Hard Currency Debt In Global Bond Portfolios Examining The Role Of EM Hard Currency Debt In Global Bond Portfolios So while the data suggests that EM hard currency debt warrants a long-term allocation, its beneficial impact on a fixed-income portfolio is at least slightly exaggerated. Portfolio managers are typically seeking out assets that can both improve return and decrease overall volatility, thereby increasing the efficiency of their portfolios. This was not the case with EM debt. In our study, increasing the EM allocation consistently raised both returns and volatility. Chart 4EM/DM Correlations Should Decline In 2018 EM/DM Correlations Should Decline In 2018 EM/DM Correlations Should Decline In 2018 This lack of diversification benefit is a result of the high correlation between EM hard currency debt and DM fixed income. Currently, the correlation between EM and DM (the Global Aggregate) is 0.90, near the upper end of its range, indicating that diversification benefits over the last year were essentially non-existent (Chart 4). Nevertheless, this relationship clearly exhibits a mean reversion tendency. That EM/DM correlation in recent years has been itself correlated to global growth and monetary policy changes. As we show in Chart 4, our diffusion index of OECD Leading Economic Indicators (LEI) - the number of countries with a rising LEI relative to those with a declining LEI - does tend to lead the EM/DM correlation and is currently pointing to a lower correlation as global growth becomes a little less synchronized in 2018. The same goes for the growth rate of major central bank balance sheets which is already slowing and will decelerate even more in 2018 on the back of a diminished pace of bond buying by the ECB and the Fed runoff of maturing bonds on its balance sheet. The conclusion is this - the EM/DM correlation should decline in 2018 but, as we discuss below, we think that happens through relative underperformance of EM credit. Bottom Line: EM hard currency debt, both sovereign and corporate, has consistently outperformed the broad global index. However, investors should steer clear of always maintaining maximum overweights given its weak volatility reduction benefits and a much higher-than normal tendency of experiencing outsized, negative returns. Our long-term analysis suggests a structural 5% allocation offers the best risk/reward potential. The Shorter-Run Case For Owning EM Debt: Will Macro Drivers Remain Supportive? So far in 2017, EM sovereign and corporate debt have been beneficiaries of robust global growth, a declining USD and a decoupling from a broader index of commodity prices. While we expect global growth will remain strong over the medium term, our outlook for the USD is still bullish and there is a risk that commodity prices and EM debt performance re-converge to the downside. Global growth will remain strong. Outside of a major global growth slowdown, which we currently view as a low probability event, a mass flight out of EM assets anytime soon is highly unlikely. Indicators such as the global PMI index, industrial production growth and the OECD leading economic indicator are all booming (Chart 5). Inflation will head higher on the back of rising oil prices, but the increase is likely to be gradual. Importantly, this is happening alongside global monetary conditions that remain generally accommodative, even with the Fed in a tightening cycle. Credit, both DM & EM, has historically performed well against this backdrop, as we discuss in the next section of this report. A renewed upleg in the USD bull market is already underway. The correlation between EM currencies and EM debt performance has recovered after breaking down during 2013-15 (Chart 6). Year-to-date, EM currency strength - the flipside of the weaker U.S. dollar - has been a major driver of EM relative performance. Using the IMF's measure real effective exchange rates based on unit labor costs, the U.S. dollar is fairly valued.3 Neutral valuations suggest that directional market indicators are driving currency movements. As the EM business cycle slows and the Fed ramps up its rate hikes in response to rising inflation, the USD cyclical bull market should resume. Chart 5Robust Global Growth##BR##Is Supportive For EM bca.gfis_sr_2017_11_01_c5 bca.gfis_sr_2017_11_01_c5 Chart 6Can EM Ignore Another##BR##Round Of USD Strength? Can EM Ignore Another Round Of USD Strength? Can EM Ignore Another Round Of USD Strength? The de-coupling between EM debt and commodity price movements is unsustainable. EM debt has experienced a strong rally since 2016 with only a moderate rise in commodity prices compared to past periods of EM strength. We view this decoupling to be temporary (Chart 7). Many sovereign EM issuers are commodity producers, suggesting that this divergence is unsustainable. EM sovereign and corporate debt will not be able to continue their massive rallies if commodity prices relapse. We maintain a bullish view on oil prices, but there are signals that base metal prices are at risk over the next 6-12 months. Chinese monetary authorities have tightened policy and the resulting sharp slowdown in money supply growth is a worrisome sign for Chinese demand for commodities (Chart 8).4 Chart 7EM-Commodity Divergence##BR##Is Unsustainable EM-Commodity Divergence Is Unsustainable EM-Commodity Divergence Is Unsustainable Chart 8China Downside Risks For##BR##Industrial Commodity Prices bca.gfis_sr_2017_11_01_c8 bca.gfis_sr_2017_11_01_c8 Bottom Line: While global growth will remain supportive of EM credit, currency weakness and a re-convergence with commodity prices present considerable headwinds. EM Debt Performance & The Fed Policy Cycle Chart 9The Fed Policy Cycle Examining The Role Of EM Hard Currency Debt In Global Bond Portfolios Examining The Role Of EM Hard Currency Debt In Global Bond Portfolios As more central banks are shifting to a tightening bias, investors are becoming increasingly concerned over policy normalization and its potential impact on credit market performance. Given the strong historical linkages between EM debt performance and Fed policy changes, the current U.S. tightening cycle looms as a major potential problem for EM assets. We have found it most useful to think about changes in Fed monetary policy and asset market performance in terms of breaking up the Fed policy into four distinct phases (Chart 9).5 These are characterized by both the level of interest rates (whether they are above or below "equilibrium") and the direction of policy changes (whether the Fed is raising or cutting rates):6 Phase 1 - the Fed is hiking while the fed funds rate is below equilibrium (i.e. monetary conditions are stimulative). Phase 2 - the Fed is hiking or keeping policy on hold while the fed funds rate is above equilibrium (i.e. monetary conditions are restrictive). Phase 3 - the Fed is cutting while the fed funds rate is above equilibrium (i.e. monetary conditions are restrictive). Phase 4 - the Fed is cutting rates while the fed funds rate is below equilibrium (i.e. monetary conditions are stimulative). For EM sovereign debt where we have index data going back to 1994, there have been four episodes of Phase 1 and three episodes of the other phases. For EM corporate debt, where the index data begins in 2002, there have been two episodes of Phases 1 and 4 and only one occurrence of Phases 2 and 3. We present the excess returns of EM debt relative to other major fixed income classes by phase in Table 2. In the limited sample, EM sovereign debt and corporate debt consistently outperformed the Global Aggregate index and most individual bond classes. However, relative to DM high-yield debt, which has the most comparable risk profile, EM sovereign bonds underperformed in Phase 1 and EM corporate debt underperformed in all phases. Table 2Relative EM Debt Performance Worsens As Fed Policy Tightens Examining The Role Of EM Hard Currency Debt In Global Bond Portfolios Examining The Role Of EM Hard Currency Debt In Global Bond Portfolios Excess returns for both EM debt classes were highest in Phase 4, where the central bank is easing while conditions are stimulative. Similar to other risk assets, EM debt also outperformed in Phase 1, where the central bank is tightening while rates are below equilibrium. This makes sense, as the early stages of monetary tightening typically occur in conjunction with stable, above-trend growth. Liquidity conditions are still stimulative in Phase 1, which provides a substantial tailwind for spread product performance. On the other end of the spectrum, EM debt excess returns were relatively low during Phase 2 and Phase 3, and even negative in the case of EM corporate debt for Phase 3. Surprisingly, EM debt has been less affected by the direction of U.S. interest rates than what we would have expected. Monetary easing in Phase 3 was not enough to substantially boost EM relative returns and tightening in Phase 1 did not derail growth or lift the USD enough for EM debt to underperform. In fact, because EM debt still offers robust excess returns during Phase 1 when the central bank is tightening, while also suffering during Phase 3 during central bank easing, we can conclude that the level of policy rates relative to equilibrium has a greater impact on returns than the direction of rates. The severity of the Global Financial Crisis and the relatively subdued pace of recovery for both growth and inflation led to one of the longest Phase 4s in history. Given the low level of starting yields, indicating a large gap to equilibrium, and the 'gradual' pace of normalization, the current Phase 1 should also last longer than it typically has. This bodes well for all credit sectors, including EM sovereign and corporate debt, if history is any guide. However, there are still reasons to be concerned about the impact of U.S. monetary policy on EM assets next year. If the Fed follows through with the interest rate hikes it is currently projecting - another 100bps in total by the end of 2018 - the funds rate will be much closer to equilibrium. If the U.S. dollar rallies alongside that Fed tightening, as we expect, overall U.S. monetary conditions could end up being much closer to a restrictive level than implied by strictly looking at our Fed Policy Cycle (which only looks at the funds rate to determine monetary conditions). Also, the equilibrium funds rate may now be lower than the levels we are assuming in the Fed Policy Cycle framework, suggesting that policy could turn restrictive more quickly in the current tightening cycle. Bottom Line: The Fed is still in the early stages of rate normalization. At this point in the Fed policy cycle, where the Fed is hiking rates but monetary conditions are still stimulative, EM hard currency debt has historically performed well both on a relative and absolute basis. Looking ahead, EM returns should begin to suffer in latter half of 2018 as the Fed moves to more restrictive policy stance. Another Reason For Caution: Our EM Corporate Health Monitor The BCA EM Corporate Health Monitor (CHM) is a directional indicator aimed at modeling the path of EM corporate spread movements. Financial data from 220 emerging market companies in over 30 countries is aggregated. Only firms that issue USD-denominated bonds are included, with banks and other financials also omitted in a similar fashion to the CHMs we have constructed for DM corporates. The indicator is made up of four financial ratios: profit margins, free cash flow to total debt, liquidity and leverage. Unlike the DM CHMs, the ratios are not equally weighted in the construction of the EM CHM. Profit margins and free cash flow to debt combined represent 75% of the EM CHM. The latest available reading is from Q2 2017, showing a large decrease, with the indicator now only barely in 'Improving Health' territory (Chart 10). This has occurred in tandem with EM corporate spreads narrowing to post-crisis lows, leaving EM debt at potentially overvalued levels on a fundamental basis. While this slowdown in the EM CHM is not yet a cause for concern, if this became an extended trend of financial health deterioration, the divergence with EM corporate debt performance would be unsustainable and leave EM corporates highly vulnerable to a correction. Chart 10The BCA EM Corporate Health Monitor Has Rolled Over EM Corporate Health Monitor Is Sending A 'Sell' Signal The BCA EM Corporate Health Monitor Has Rolled Over EM Corporate Health Monitor Is Sending A 'Sell' Signal The BCA EM Corporate Health Monitor Has Rolled Over EM Corporate Health Monitor Is Sending A 'Sell' Signal Bottom Line: Our EM Corporate Health Monitor has declined drastically and is barely in 'Improving Health' territory. This alone is not cause for concern yet, but further deterioration in our Monitor combined with additional credit spread narrowing would be a worrisome divergence. Investment Implications Emerging market debt is facing conflicting forces. While continued robust global growth and accommodative monetary policy provide a substantial tailwind for credit performance, extended valuations, the turn in the USD and a potentially worsening commodities outlook present difficult hurdles for EM to overcome. Given the mixed messages, we prefer owning cyclical credit exposure through DM corporate debt, particularly U.S. investment grade. EM debt yields have collapsed and are expensive relative to DM investment grade debt (Chart 11). Combined with a higher risk profile in EM, elevated valuations indicate that EM sovereign and corporate debt are vulnerable to larger corrections. From a return perspective, the difference in the corporate option-adjusted spreads (OAS) has been an excellent leading indicator for relative total returns (Chart 12). This differential indicates that there is considerable relative upside potential for U.S. investment grade over EM hard currency debt. Additionally, while global growth should support credit-related plays, relative growth dynamics are more supportive of U.S. investment grade because the next phase of the global growth upturn will be driven by DM countries and not EM. The difference between the manufacturing PMIs in the U.S. and EM has historically been a good directional indicator for the spread between U.S. corporate bond spreads and EM debt spreads (Chart 13). The gap between the relative manufacturing PMI readings is at a post-crisis high, and could widen further if EM economies suffer on the back of any pullback in Chinese growth in 2018. Chart 11EM Yields & Spreads Look Full Valued EM Yields & Spreads Look Full Valued EM Yields & Spreads Look Full Valued Chart 12Favor U.S. IG Over EM Corporates... Favor U.S. IG Over EM Corporates... Favor U.S. IG Over EM Corporates... Chart 13...Because Of Stronger U.S. Growth ...Because Of Stronger U.S. Growth ...Because Of Stronger U.S. Growth What are the risks to our view? Our recommended position would suffer in the event that inflation in the U.S. slows, keeping the Fed on hold and maintaining this year's USD downtrend. Also, if China were to ease up on its policy tightening, industrial commodity prices could strengthen once again. Under these scenarios, EM hard currency debt would likely outperform DM spread product. Bottom Line: Maintain moderate underweight positions in EM hard currency debt. Favor DM spread product (especially U.S. investment grade corporates) due to more supportive relative valuations and growth trends. Patrick Trinh, Associate Editor Global Fixed Income Strategy patrick@bcaresearch.com Robert Robis, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com 1 This “EM versus IG” trade was implemented in both our Emerging Markets Strategy and Global Fixed Income Strategy services. Please see BCA Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report, “EM: The Focus Is On Profits”, dated August 16th 2017, available at ems.bcaresearch.com, as well as the BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, “A Lack Of Leadership”, dated August 22nd 2017, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 2 The weighting to EM debt in the Global Fixed Income Strategy model bond portfolio benchmark is based on market capitalizations of all the fixed income sectors we wanted to have in the benchmark, which includes non-investment grade debt like global high-yield corporates. It is reassuring to see that our benchmark weighting is also the desired weighting from a long-run portfolio optimization perspective. 3 Please see BCA Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report, "Is The Dollar Expensive, And Are EM Currencies Cheap?", dated October 11th, 2017, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see the joint BCA Global Asset Allocation/Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, "Global Equity Allocation: The Underwhelming Case For EM", dated August 9th 2017, available at ems.bcaresearch.com & gaa.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see BCA U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, "Bonds And The Fed Funds Rate Cycle", dated May 27th 2014, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com. 6 The equilibrium policy rate is a BCA calculation based on long-run real potential GDP growth and long run inflation expectations.

Please note that in addition to today's abbreviated Weekly Bulletin, we are also publishing a Special Report on Argentina. Feature Regarding recent financial market dynamics, it appears that the high-yielding EM currencies are breaking down as U.S. bond yields march higher. Several EM exchange rates have formed a tapering wedge pattern, as shown in Chart I-1. Such patterns eventually lead a major break out or break down. Our bias remains that we are witnessing a major breakdown in several EM high-yielding currencies. If this transpires, it would be a precursor for a wider selloff in EM risk assets. Below we discuss interesting dynamics that have emerged in India's onshore fixed-income market lately, and their implications for the nation's equity market. India Several signals tentatively indicate that the price of liquidity has risen at the margin in India. Onshore BBB corporate bond yields have increased and their respective credit spreads have widened (Chart I-2). In addition, the yield curve has steepened modestly. Chart I-1A Tapering Wedge: ##br##A Breakout Or Breakdown? A Tapering Wedge: A Breakout Or Breakdown? A Tapering Wedge: A Breakout Or Breakdown? Chart I-2India: Onshore BBB Corporate Bond ##br##Yields And Spreads Have Spiked India: Onshore BBB Corporate Bond Yields And Spreads Have Spiked India: Onshore BBB Corporate Bond Yields And Spreads Have Spiked Rising corporate bond yields and widening corporate credit spreads have been negative for share prices in the past (Chart I-3). Similarly, steepening yield curves have been associated with a pullback in equity prices in recent years (Chart I-4). Note that yields, spreads and the yield curve are shown inverted on Charts I-3 and I-4. Chart I-3India: Corporate Bond Yields ##br##And Spreads Versus Stocks India: Corporate Bond Yields And Spreads Versus Stocks India: Corporate Bond Yields And Spreads Versus Stocks Chart I-4India: Yield Curve ##br##And Share Prices India: Yield Curve And Share Prices India: Yield Curve And Share Prices Why has the market price of liquidity risen in India? In our opinion, it has to do with both the domestic and external environments. On the domestic side, the fiscal deficit has widened, implying that borrowing requirements by central and state governments have risen (Chart I-5). Increased demand for credit from the government would not have been a problem had the commercial banks accommodated for it by creating enough new money. Yet, broad money supply growth remains depressed (Chart I-6). Chart I-5India: Ballooning Fiscal Deficits ##br##And Weak Money Creation India: Ballooning Fiscal Deficits And Weak Money Creation India: Ballooning Fiscal Deficits And Weak Money Creation Chart I-6Indian Money Growth: ##br##New Record Low INDIA MONEY GROWTH: NEW RECORD LOW INDIA MONEY GROWTH: NEW RECORD LOW As a result, the diminished amount of new money relative to demand for money, among other reasons, pushed marginal borrowing costs higher. Chart I-7 shows our proxy for new money available to the private sector has dipped into negative territory. On the external side, the recent rise in U.S. bond yields and the rebound in the U.S. dollar against several EM currencies might have also contributed to higher borrowing costs in India. We expect this U.S. dollar rebound versus EM currencies to persist and U.S. Treasury yields to continue drifting higher. Hence, the global backdrop heralds marginally higher bond yields in India. Although the onshore corporate bond market - and its BBB segment - is not very large, investors should heed to its signals because it reflects the cost of borrowing for the marginal corporate borrower. Besides, its signals have worked quite well in the past as shown in previous Chart I-3 on page 2. Some commentators might argue that the mild rise in government bond yields has been driven by a rise in inflation and growth expectations. We will not disagree with that, but both economic growth and inflation variables are still muted. Chart I-8 shows economic activity is lukewarm at best. Chart I-7India: Proxy For New Money ##br##Available To Private Sector India: Proxy For New Money Available To Private Sector India: Proxy For New Money Available To Private Sector Chart I-8India's Growth Is ##br##Lukewarm At Best India's Growth Is Lukewarm At Best India's Growth Is Lukewarm At Best On the inflation outlook, the picture is mixed as well. Consumer price inflation, especially core measures, might have bottomed (Chart I-9). Critically, the government approved a draft bill in July that allows the central government to set minimum wages across all sectors and states. The central government is currently reviewing the formula used to set minimum wage and the new formula might lead to significant increases in minimum wages. These policy changes come on top of the pay raises that public sector workers saw earlier this year. Importantly, if consumer demand accelerates while capital spending remains in the doldrums, inflationary pressures will mount. Chart I-10 shows that since 2012 consumer spending has outpaced investment by a large margin. Chart I-9India: Consumer Inflation ##br##Might Be Bottoming India: Consumer Inflation Might Be Bottoming India: Consumer Inflation Might Be Bottoming Chart I-10India: Consumer Spending ##br##Has Outpaced Investment India: Consumer Spending Has Outpaced Investment India: Consumer Spending Has Outpaced Investment Provided India has been, and remains, an underinvested economy, if this gap persists, it will produce either inflation or a widening current account deficit. Rising consumption without an equal increase in the supply of goods and services will either lead to higher prices or mushrooming consumer goods imports. Both scenarios bode ill for the macro dynamics, the currency, and ultimately equity multiples. As to financial markets, the Indian bourse is one of the most expensive in the EM space, so it is not very surprising that share prices could react negatively to marginally higher interest rates. For dedicated EM equity investors, we downgraded India from overweight to neutral on August 23, and this stance remains intact. While near-term underperformance cannot be ruled out, the medium-term outlook for relative performance warrants a neutral stance. Bottom Line: There are signals that liquidity is tightening on the margin in India's fixed-income markets due to domestic and external reasons. This will likely hurt share prices. Dedicated EM equity investors should keep a neutral allocation on India's bourse. Mexico: Close Currency, Rates, And Credit Overweights NAFTA risks to Mexico are escalating again. According to our Geopolitical Strategy team, there is non-trivial probability that the NAFTA negotiations will become negative for Mexican financial markets. The recent relapse in Mexico's financial markets will likely endure. We are closing the following positions: long MXN / short BRL; long MXN / short ZAR; receive Mexican 2-year / pay 2-year swap rates as well as overweight positions in Mexican sovereign credit versus Colombia and Indonesia. Dedicated equity investors should stay neutral on this bourse. Arthur Budaghyan, Senior Vice President Emerging Markets Strategy arthurb@bcaresearch.com Ayman Kawtharani, Associate Editor ayman@bcaresearch.com Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations

Highlights High-Yield: High-Yield spreads are 149 bps away from being more expensive than they have ever been. But in the absence of inflation it is difficult to pinpoint a catalyst for sharp spread widening. We expect excess high-yield returns between 2% and 5% (annualized) during the next 6-12 months. EM Sovereigns: There is no compelling valuation argument in favor of hard currency EM Sovereign debt versus U.S. corporate bonds. We will look to shift into EM once the pace of Fed rate hikes starts to slow later in the cycle. Economy & Inflation: Core inflation disappointed expectations in September, but the details of the report showed some silver linings. Inflation looks to be past the worst of its downtrend and should be strong enough during the next two months for the Fed to lift rates in December. Feature Chart 110-Year Treasury Yield Breakdown 10-Year Treasury Yield Breakdown 10-Year Treasury Yield Breakdown Just past the three quarter mark of 2017 and stubbornly low inflation remains the story of the year in U.S. bond markets. Quite simply, if inflation rebounds during the next two-and-a-half months, as the Federal Reserve expects, then Treasury yields will move sharply higher and Treasury total returns for 2017 will be close to zero. Otherwise, yields are likely to remain near current levels and 2017 Treasury total returns will approximate carry, in the range of 2.5%. Our valuation framework for the 10-year Treasury yield underscores the importance of inflation for the duration call. The real 10-year Treasury yield (currently 0.43%) is consistent with market expectations for just under two Fed rate hikes during the next 12 months (Chart 1). With the median Fed member calling for 3-4 hikes during that period, the potential remains for somewhat higher real yields in the near-term. But with all but one Fed member forecasting a terminal fed funds rate of 3% or below (1% or below in real terms), the long-run upside in real yields appears limited. On the other hand, the compensation for inflation embedded in 10-year bond yields is still far too low. At 1.85%, the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate is well below the 2.4% to 2.5% range consistent with the Fed hitting its inflation target. This continues to be the case even as our Pipeline Inflation Indicator has accelerated in recent weeks (Chart 1, bottom panel). Bond investors are waiting for inflation to show up in the core CPI and PCE data before liquidating their positions. We retain our below-benchmark duration bias on a 6-12 month horizon on the view that inflation will soon resume its cyclical uptrend. 10-year inflation compensation has 55-65 bps of upside in this scenario, while 10-year real yields will probably stay close to current levels. The outlook for core inflation is discussed in more detail in the Economy & Inflation section below. High-Yield: Just A Carry Trade At this late stage of the credit cycle, low inflation is also the key support for excess returns in both investment grade and high-yield corporate bonds. We see limited scope for further spread tightening but think it's likely that the carry trade will continue until inflation turns the corner and long-maturity TIPS breakevens settle into the 2.4% to 2.5% range consistent with the Fed's target.1 In this week's report we explore what this carry trade means for excess high-yield returns, and put those returns into context with what the asset class has typically delivered for bond investors. Table 1 shows historical annual excess returns for the Bloomberg Barclays High-Yield index since 1995.2 On average High-Yield has returned 3.42% over Treasuries each year, but with significant variation. Most of that variation results from years when the default rate is either rising quickly during a recession or falling fast in the early stages of economic recovery. Since neither of those scenarios is likely during the next 6-12 months we filter out those periods by looking at years when the average index option-adjusted spread (OAS): Widened by more than 100 bps Tightened by more than 100 bps Was range bound between -100 bps and +100 bps The average excess return is 4.9% in years when the spread is confined to a -100 bps to +100 bps range. High-Yield has returned 5.46% in excess of Treasuries so far this year, and the OAS has tightened 61 bps. It is unlikely that junk spreads will tighten by 100 bps or more during the next 12 months. The average index OAS is currently 348 bps, only 115 bps above its all-time low (Chart 2). However, to properly assess current spread levels we also need to consider that the average index duration has declined during the past fifteen years. All else equal, the same spread level is more attractive today because index duration is lower. Table 1Historical Annual High-Yield##br## Excess Returns* (%) Living With The Carry Trade Living With The Carry Trade Chart 2Junk Spreads Not Far ##br##From All-Time Tights Junk Spreads Not Far From All-Time Tights Junk Spreads Not Far From All-Time Tights We adjust for index duration by looking at the 12-month breakeven spread.3 At 93 bps, the breakeven spread is currently 40 bps above its all-time low (Chart 2, bottom panel). In other words, at current duration levels, the junk OAS can tighten another 149 bps before the sector is more expensive than it has ever been. Either way, what's clear from Chart 2 is that we should probably not expect much more than 100 bps of further tightening this cycle. Or, put differently, it would definitely make sense to reduce high-yield exposure as we approach all-time expensive valuations. But we can get even more specific about our expectations for high-yield excess returns. Excess junk returns can be approximated using the following formula: Excess return = Starting OAS - Default Losses - Duration*(Change in OAS) The expected return from carry during the next 12 months can be thought of as today's index spread less our expectation for default losses. Capital gains and losses can be approximated using today's index duration and the expected change in spreads. For simplicity we ignore convexity effects. This excess return approximation is shown in the second panel of Chart 3, where the dashed line assumes a base case scenario where default losses fall in line with our expectation and the OAS remains flat. Table 2 shows what 12-month excess returns would be in this base case scenario, as well as in several other scenarios. Chart 3High-Yield ##br##Expected Returns High-Yield Expected Returns High-Yield Expected Returns Table 2High-Yield 12-Month Excess ##br##Return* Projections Living With The Carry Trade Living With The Carry Trade In a base case scenario, where default losses are 1.09% and the OAS is flat, we would expect excess junk returns of 2.39% during the next 12 months. In a more bullish scenario where the OAS tightens by another 100 bps - bringing it to within striking distance of all-time tights - we would expect excess returns of 6.15%. We also consider scenarios where default losses differ from our forecast of 1.09%. For context, that 1.09% forecast is derived from Moody's baseline default rate forecast of 2.26% and our own model-based recovery rate forecast of 51%. For example, in a scenario where default losses are somewhat higher than expected (2%) but where the OAS stays flat, we would expect excess returns of only 1.48%. We should note that 12-month high-yield default losses have never been lower than 0.5%. So we present that optimistic scenario as an upper-bound on potential excess returns to junk. Notice that even in the most optimistic scenario we can envision, default losses reaching all-time lows and spreads contracting to within a hair of all-time tights, expected excess high-yield returns still only reach 6.74%. We would view that as the absolute best case scenario for high-yield. Realistically, default losses will probably fall into a range between 1% and 2% during the next 12 months. Assuming also that spreads come under neither strong upward nor downward pressure, we would expect excess high-yield returns between 2% and 5% (annualized) during the next 6-12 months. Bottom Line: High-Yield spreads are 149 bps away from being more expensive than they have ever been. But in the absence of inflation it is difficult to pinpoint a catalyst for sharp spread widening. We expect excess high-yield returns between 2% and 5% (annualized) during the next 6-12 months. Is Hard Currency EM Debt A Substitute For Junk? Chart 4Favor U.S. Corporates Over EM Sovereigns Favor U.S. Corporates Over EM Sovereigns Favor U.S. Corporates Over EM Sovereigns With relatively feeble expected returns from U.S. high-yield bonds, it's logical to explore whether there are any more attractively valued alternatives in the U.S. bond universe. One potential candidate is the U.S. dollar denominated debt of Emerging Market governments. Unfortunately, valuation in that space does not look much better than in U.S. corporates. In an effort to control for differences in both credit rating and index duration, we compare 12-month breakeven spreads between the Bloomberg Barclays EM USD Sovereign Index and a credit rating matched benchmark consisting of a combination of U.S. investment grade and high-yield corporate bond indexes. We notice that hard currency EM Sovereigns and similarly rated U.S. corporate bonds offer almost exactly the same breakeven spread, and also that EM Sovereigns have been getting comparatively cheaper since early last year (Chart 4). At the moment there is no compelling argument to favor one sector over the other on pure valuation grounds. We therefore also consider the main macro drivers of relative excess returns between EM Sovereigns and U.S. corporates (Chart 4, bottom 2 panels). The last two significant periods of EM outperformance coincided with falling U.S. rate hike expectations - as evidenced by our declining fed funds discounter - and a weaker U.S. dollar. With our 24-month fed funds discounter at only 62 bps - meaning the market expects less than three rate hikes during the next 24 months - we think it is likely to move higher from here. This should lead to one more bout of EM cheapening relative to U.S. corporates. At that point, once we are past peak rate hike expectations for the cycle, we will likely get a more attractive entry point to move into EM. Interestingly, an examination of country level spreads also does not identify any clear pockets of cheapness in EM (Chart 5). Mexico and Turkey both offer similar breakeven spreads to equivalently rated U.S. corporates, but our Emerging Markets Strategy service has a dim view of both the Turkish Lira and Mexican peso versus the U.S. dollar.4 The higher-rated EM countries: Saudi Arabia, UAE and Qatar offer the most attractive relative spreads. But, at least for Qatar, that elevated spread is most likely compensation for a highly volatile currency (Chart 6).5 Chart 5Breakeven Spreads: USD EM Sovereign Vs. U.S. Corporates Living With The Carry Trade Living With The Carry Trade Chart 6USD EM Sovereign Breakeven Spread Differentials Vs. Exchange Rate Volatility Living With The Carry Trade Living With The Carry Trade Bottom Line: There is no compelling valuation argument in favor of hard currency EM Sovereign debt versus U.S. corporate bonds. We will look to shift into EM once the pace of Fed rate hikes starts to slow later in the cycle. Economy & Inflation Some Silver Linings In September's CPI The September CPI report was released last week and it disappointed expectations with core CPI rising only 0.13% month-over-month. For context, an environment where inflation is well anchored around the Fed's target would be consistent with core CPI prints of 0.2% every month, roughly 2.4% annualized. However, despite the disappointing month-over-month figure, we continue to see evidence that inflation is past the worst of its recent downtrend. First, while year-over-year core CPI was roughly flat in September, the 3-month rate of change increased for the fourth consecutive month. The year-over-year rate of change tends to converge toward the 3-month rate of change (Chart 7). Second, a look at the underlying components of core CPI shows the following (Chart 8): Chart 7CPI Inflation CPI Inflation CPI Inflation Chart 8Core CPI Components Core CPI Components Core CPI Components Shelter inflation fell from 3.30% to 3.24% year-over-year in September. This mild deceleration is consistent with the reading from our model, and will persist going forward (Chart 8, panel 1). Chart 9Wireless No Longer A Drag Wireless No Longer A Drag Wireless No Longer A Drag Core goods inflation also fell in September, but should soon start to rise as the weaker dollar and rising import prices pass through to overall core goods prices (Chart 8, panel 2). Core services inflation, excluding shelter and medical care, increased for the third consecutive month (Chart 8, panel 3). This component of inflation is most sensitive to wage growth, and it is where we would expect most of the inflation to come from going forward. Medical care inflation continues to decelerate sharply (Chart 8, bottom panel), but as we have discussed previously, this mostly reflects a convergence between CPI and PCE inflation.6 The Fed's 2% target refers to PCE inflation. The acceleration in core services inflation (excluding shelter and medical care) is particularly important as it is yet another signal that tight labor markets are starting to pressure wages higher. This is the dynamic that must continue to play out if inflation is to return to the Fed's target, and we would tend to view increases in inflation as more sustainable if they are driven by this component. Additionally, the critical core services inflation (excluding shelter and medical care) component has been depressed in recent months by an incredibly sharp decline in cellular service (aka wireless) inflation (Chart 9). The decline occurred when both Verizon and AT&T unveiled unlimited data plans in the same month, but that drop has since reversed. When we exclude wireless from core services inflation, in addition to shelter and medical care, we see that the resulting series tracks wage growth much more closely in recent months. This underscores our conviction that core services inflation will respond to tightening labor markets and mounting wage pressure going forward. Consumer Sentiment Is Sky High There was one other notable datapoint released last week, and that was the University of Michigan's Consumer Sentiment survey which surged to its highest level since 2004 (Chart 10)! This should lend support to consumer spending (and hence GDP growth) in Q3 and Q4 and is consistent with the message from the New York Fed's GDP tracking estimate which projects GDP growth to average 2.3% in the second half of 2017. This is well above the Fed's 1.8% estimate of trend. Chart 10Consumer Spending & Sentiment Consumer Spending & Sentiment Consumer Spending & Sentiment With growth coming in solidly above trend, it is unlikely that September's disappointing month-over-month CPI print will be enough to prevent the Fed from lifting rates in December. As long as inflation is flat or higher during the next two months, then another rate hike this year is probably in the cards. Bottom Line: Core inflation disappointed expectations in September, but the details of the report showed some silver linings. Inflation looks to be past the worst of its downtrend and should be strong enough during the next two months for the Fed to lift rates in December. Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Risk Rally Extended", dated June 27, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 Excess returns are calculated relative to a duration-matched position in Treasury securities. 3 The 12-month breakeven spread is the spread widening required on a 12-month investment horizon to deliver zero excess returns. For simplicity we ignore convexity effects and calculate the breakeven spread as OAS divided by duration. 4 For Turkey please see Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report, "Is The Dollar Expensive, And Are EM Currencies Cheap?" dated October 11, 2017. For Mexico please see Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report, "Questions From The Road", dated September 20, 2017. Both available at ems.bcaresearch.com 5 Both Saudi Arabia and UAE have pegged exchange rates and are not shown in Chart 6. 6 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "The Great Unwind", dated September 19, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification