MBS

Highlights Duration: Bond market positioning is no longer at a bearish extreme and the economy is quickly approaching full employment. We expect Treasury yields will soon break through the upside of their post-election trading range. Maintain below-benchmark duration. Fed's Balance Sheet: The unwinding of the Fed's balance sheet is only important for Treasury yields if it impacts the market's rate hike expectations. However, the extra supply of MBS should lead to wider MBS spreads. Credit Cycle: Corporate spreads are in a "payback period" from 2014's energy shock that will allow them to tighten as corporate profits rebound, even though corporate leverage continues to trend higher. The weakening state of corporate balance sheets means spreads are at risk once monetary policy turns less accommodative. Feature The bond bear market has been on pause for the past few months, with Treasury yields confined to a trading range since last November's post-election sell off. While yields have not moved meaningfully higher during this time, firm floors have also formed beneath both the 5-year and 10-year yields (Chart 1). Even after last Friday's disappointing payrolls number, the 10-year did not move below 2.3% and the 5-year did not move below 1.8%. Trading Range About To Break? Our sense is that the current consolidation phase in Treasuries is approaching its end and yields will soon head higher. Global growth indicators have continued to improve during the past few months, and as we noted in last week's report,1 our 2-factor Treasury model, based on Global PMI and U.S. dollar sentiment, pegs fair value for the 10-year yield at 2.54%. We attribute the recent leveling-off in yields to technical shifts in bond positioning and sentiment. Earlier this year, net positions in Treasury futures and asset manager duration allocations were deep in "net short" territory (Chart 2). Extreme short positioning usually leads to a period of bond market strength until short positions are washed out. Now that bond market positioning is closer to neutral, a key impediment to further yield increases has been removed. Chart 1Poised For A Breakout? Poised For A Breakout? Poised For A Breakout? Chart 2Positioning Has Normalized Positioning Has Normalized Positioning Has Normalized The elevated level of economic surprises has also been flagged as a potential roadblock to the bond bear market. Extended readings from the economic surprise index tend to mean revert as investor expectations are revised higher in the face of improving data. However, our research suggests that the change in Treasury yields tends to lead the economic surprise index by 1-2 months (Chart 2, bottom panel). Given this relationship, we suspect that the bond market has already discounted a lot of mean reversion in the economic surprise index. Chart 3Approaching Full Employment Approaching Full Employment Approaching Full Employment Finally, last week's employment report should not be taken as a signal that U.S. economic growth is weakening. Bad weather in the northeast played a key role in the low March payrolls number - only 98k jobs added. But more importantly, at this stage of the cycle we should expect payroll growth to slow and wage pressures to increase as we approach full employment. As can be seen in Chart 3, the late cycle trends of slowing payroll growth and rising wages are very much in place. Further, even broad measures of labor market tightness, such as the U6 unemployment rate,2 are quickly approaching levels that suggest the economy is operating at full employment. Increasingly it is measures of labor market utilization, wage growth and inflation that will guide the Fed's decision making, and these measures continue to improve. It was even noted in the minutes from the March FOMC meeting that "tight labor markets [are] increasingly a factor in businesses' planning". The minutes also reported that: Business contacts in many Districts reported difficulty recruiting workers and indicated that they had to either offer higher wages or hire workers with lower qualifications than desired Accordingly, surveys show that households are increasingly describing jobs as "plentiful" (Chart 3, panel 3) and small businesses are indeed ramping up their compensation plans (Chart 3, bottom panel). At this stage of the cycle, continued progress on measures of labor market utilization, wage growth and inflation will be sufficient for the Fed to continue lifting rates, pushing Treasury yields higher. Bottom Line: Bond market positioning is no longer at a bearish extreme and the economy is quickly approaching full employment. We expect Treasury yields will soon break through the upside of their post-election trading range. Maintain below-benchmark duration. The Fed Will Shrink Its Balance Sheet This Year Last week's release of the minutes from the March FOMC meeting also contained some new information about how the Fed plans to deal with its large balance sheet. To summarize, we learned that: The Fed intends to start shrinking its balance sheet later this year (assuming growth maintains its current pace). The Fed will shrink its balance sheet by ceasing the reinvestment of both its MBS and Treasury holdings at the same time. Still no decision has been made about whether reinvestments will stop entirely or whether they will be phased out over time ("tapered"). On February 28, we published a detailed report about the Fed's balance sheet policy.3 In that report we explained why the winding down of the balance sheet will not have much of an impact on Treasury yields, but could lead to a material widening in MBS spreads. The new information received last week does not change either of these conclusions. The minutes did make clear that the Fed favors what Governor Lael Brainard recently called a "subordination strategy" for dealing with its balance sheet.4 [A subordination strategy] would prioritize the federal funds rate as the sole active tool away from the effective lower bound, effectively subordinating the balance sheet. Once federal funds normalization meets the test of being well under way, triggering an end to the current reinvestment policy, the balance sheet would be set on autopilot, shrinking in a gradual, predictable way until a "new normal" has been reached, and then increasing in line with trend increases in the demand for currency thereafter. Under this strategy, the balance sheet might be used as an active tool only if adverse shocks push the economy back to the effective lower bound. Essentially, the Fed is trying to de-emphasize the size of the balance sheet and would rather investors focus on the fed funds rate to assess the stance of monetary policy. For our part, we think it would be unwise to "fight the Fed" on this issue. For Treasury yields, we observe that the real 10-year Treasury yield closely tracks changes in the expected number of rate hikes during the next 12 months, while the inflation component of the 10-year yield tracks changes in realized inflation (Chart 4). These two relationships will continue to determine trends in bond yields going forward, and Fed balance sheet shrinkage is only important if it impacts the expected pace of rate hikes or inflation. The Fed's "subordination strategy" should ensure that the act of winding down the balance sheet does not have much of an impact on the expected pace of rate hikes. Ironically, if Treasury yields were to rise sharply following the announcement of balance sheet runoff, then the ensuing tightening of financial conditions would probably lower the expected pace of rate hikes and bring Treasury yields back down again. The story for MBS is somewhat different. Nominal MBS spreads remain tight by historical standards and closely track implied interest rate volatility (Chart 5). But we can also think of nominal MBS spreads as being split between the option cost, which is the compensation for expected prepayments, and the option-adjusted spread (OAS), which tends to correlate with net supply (Chart 5, panel 2). Chart 4Focus On Rate Expectations Focus On Rate Expectations Focus On Rate Expectations Chart 5Stay Underweight MBS Stay Underweight MBS Stay Underweight MBS In recent weeks, the OAS has widened alongside rising net issuance, but this has been offset by a sharp decline in the option cost. This is generally the pattern we would expect to play out as the Fed lifts rates and removes itself from the MBS market. The increased supply of MBS should lead to wider OAS, but refinancing applications should also stay low as Treasury yields and mortgage rates rise (Chart 5, bottom panel). However, netting it all out, the option cost component of MBS spreads is already near its historical lows and the OAS could move materially wider just to catch up to net issuance. In prior reports,5 we have also made the case that rate volatility should rise as the fed funds rate moves further away from the zero-lower-bound. Investors should stay underweight MBS. Bottom Line: The unwinding of the Fed's balance sheet is only important for Treasury yields if it impacts the market's rate hike expectations. However, the extra supply of MBS should lead to wider MBS spreads. Checking In On The Credit Cycle We continue to recommend overweight allocations to both investment grade and high-yield corporate bonds. This optimistic outlook is predicated on low inflation and a Fed that will support risk assets by remaining sufficiently accommodative until inflationary pressures are more pronounced. We think this "reflationary window" will stay open at least until core PCE inflation is firmly anchored around 2% and long-maturity TIPS breakevens reach the 2.4% to 2.5% range.6 Behind the scenes, however, leverage is building in the nonfinancial corporate sector. In this week's report we take a look at several different indicators of corporate credit quality and conclude that once the support from low inflation and accommodative monetary policy vanishes, it is very likely that corporate defaults will start to increase and corporate spreads will widen. If our anticipated timeline plays out, we will be looking to scale back on credit risk in 2018. Corporate Health Vs. The Yield Curve Our Corporate Health Monitor (CHM, see Appendix for further details) has been signaling deteriorating nonfinancial corporate health since late 2013 (Chart 6), and moved even deeper into 'deteriorating health' territory in Q4 of last year. Chart 6Corporate Health Is Deteriorating, But Monetary Policy Remains Supportive Corporate Health Is Deteriorating, But Monetary Policy Remains Supportive Corporate Health Is Deteriorating, But Monetary Policy Remains Supportive Periods when the CHM is in 'deteriorating health' territory are marked by shaded regions in Chart 6. We see that these regions usually correspond with periods when corporate spreads are widening. Even in the current episode, corporate spreads have yet to regain their mid-2014 tights. However, the bottom panel of Chart 6 shows that periods of deteriorating corporate health and wider corporate spreads are typically preceded by a very flat (often inverted) yield curve. This makes sense because a flat yield curve usually signals that interest rates are high and monetary policy is tight. Tight policy and elevated rates lead to more stringent bank lending standards and increase firms' interest burdens. With the curve still quite steep, we think the risk of sustained spread widening is minimal. However, if the CHM is still above zero when the yield curve is flatter, no support will remain for excess corporate bond returns. Net Leverage & The Payback Period We would further argue that the CHM will almost certainly be in 'deteriorating health' territory once the yield curve is close to flat. In Chart 7 we see that net leverage (defined as: total debt minus cash, as a percent of EBITD) is not only positively correlated with spreads, but also has never reversed its uptrend unless prompted by a recession. In other words, the corporate sector never voluntarily undertakes deleveraging, it only starts to pay down debt when forced by a severe economic contraction. Chart 7The Uptrend In Leverage Will Only Be Broken By Recession The Uptrend In Leverage Will Only Be Broken By Recession The Uptrend In Leverage Will Only Be Broken By Recession Closer inspection of Chart 7 reveals that the period between 1986 and 1989 is the only period when corporate spreads tightened even though leverage remained in an uptrend. In the late 1980s, leverage and corporate spreads both shot higher as a collapse in the energy sector caused overall corporate earnings to contract (Chart 7, bottom panel). But then the energy sector recovered just as quickly, and earnings growth bounced back. This caused spreads to tighten for a couple of years, even though the trend in net leverage only ever managed to flatten-off. Debt growth stayed robust during this time, despite the wild fluctuations in earnings. If any of this sounds familiar, it should. The energy sector collapse of 2014 caused net leverage and spreads to shoot higher, and now spreads have started to tighten again as earnings have rebounded. Notice that just like in the late-1980s, net leverage has not reversed its uptrend. We believe that corporate spreads have entered a "payback period" very similar to the late 1980s. Spreads can tighten as earnings rebound, but because the economy is not in recession, debt growth will remain solid and leverage will continue to trend higher. Once inflationary pressures start to bite and Fed policy becomes less accommodative, the payback period will end and spreads will head wider. Debt Growth Chart 8Bond Issuance Is Back Bond Issuance Is Back Bond Issuance Is Back Although we have made the case that the corporate sector does not delever unless prompted by a recession, it is notable that net corporate bond issuance was negative in Q4 of last year and the growth rate in bank lending to the corporate sector has slowed sharply. We do not think this cycle is different, and expect corporate debt growth (both bonds and loans) to rebound in the coming months. We chalk up weak corporate bond issuance in 2016Q4 to uncertainty surrounding the U.S. election. In fact, we see that gross corporate bond issuance has already rebounded strongly in January and February of this year (Chart 8). Turning to bank loans, we observe that the outright level of outstanding bank loans only contracts following a recession, and that the rate of increase follows bank lending standards with a lag (Chart 9). In other words, Commercial & Industrial (C&I) loan growth is still responding to the surge in defaults that resulted from the energy sector's 2014 collapse. Now that defaults have waned, this process will soon be thrown into reverse. In fact, our model of the 6-month rate of change in C&I lending - based on private non-residential fixed investment, small business optimism and corporate defaults - points to an imminent bottoming in C&I loan growth (Chart 10). Chart 9Loan Growth Follows Lending Standards Loan Growth Follows Lending Standards Loan Growth Follows Lending Standards Chart 10BCA C&I Loan Growth Model BCA C&I Loan Growth Model BCA C&I Loan Growth Model Bottom Line: Corporate spreads are in a "payback period" from 2014's energy shock that will allow them to tighten as corporate profits rebound, even though corporate leverage continues to trend higher. The weakening state of corporate balance sheets means spreads are at risk once monetary policy turns less accommodative. Ratings Trends & Shareholder Friendly Activities Chart 11Shareholder Friendly Activity Has Ebbed Shareholder Friendly Activity Has Ebbed Shareholder Friendly Activity Has Ebbed Our assessment of the cyclical back-drop for corporate spreads is primarily based on the combination of balance sheet quality - as determined by our Corporate Health Monitor and its underlying components - and the stance of monetary policy - as determined by the slope of the yield curve and C&I lending standards (among other factors). However, ratings migration and "shareholder friendly" activities have also historically provided advance notice of turns in the credit cycle. Net transfers to shareholders, i.e. payments to shareholders in the form of dividends and buybacks, are a direct transfer of capital from bondholders to equityholders. These transfers tend to rise late in the cycle, just before defaults start to increase and spreads start to widen (Chart 11). Net transfers to shareholders had been moving higher, but have recently rolled over. Similarly, ratings downgrades related to shareholder transfers have also moderated (Chart 11, panel 2). Historically, ratings migration related to "shareholder friendly" activities has been a more reliable indicator of the credit cycle than overall ratings migration. It has tended to move into "net downgrade" territory later in the cycle, closer to the onset of recession (Chart 11, panel 3). Ratings trends and transfers to shareholders are not flagging any imminent risk of spread widening. However, there is the additional risk that downgrades have simply not kept pace with the actual deterioration in credit quality of the nonfinancial corporate sector. Using firm-level data, we calculated the percent of high-yield rated companies with net debt-to-EBITDA ratios above 5. We see that actual ratings migration is too low relative to the number of highly-levered firms (Chart 11, bottom panel). It is possible that ratings agencies have already incorporated the rebound in energy prices and profit growth into their assessments while the actual debt-to-EBITDA data are lagging, but this is still a risk that bears monitoring. Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Portfolio Allocation Summary, "Reflation Window Still Open", dated April 4, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 The U6 unemployment rate is a broader measure than the headline (U3) unemployment rate. It also includes those "marginally attached" to the labor force and those working part-time for economic reasons. 3 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy / Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report, "The Way Forward For The Fed's Balance Sheet", dated February 28, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 4 https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/brainard20170301a.htm 5 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "The Road To Higher Vol Is Paved With Uncertainty", dated February 14, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 6 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Keep Buying Dips", dated March 28, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Appendix Chart 12Corporate Health Monitor Components Corporate Health Monitor Components Corporate Health Monitor Components Box 1: Corporate Health Monitor Components The BCA Corporate Health Monitor is a normalized composite of six financial ratios, calculated for the non-financial corporate sector as a whole (Chart 12). These six ratios are defined as follows: Profit Margins: After-tax cash flow as a percent of corporate sales Return on Capital: After-tax earnings plus interest expense, as a percent of capital stock Debt Coverage: After-tax cash flow less capital expenditures, as a percent of all interest bearing debt Interest Coverage: EBITDA (Earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation & amortization) divided by the sum of interest expense and dividends Leverage: Total debt as a percent of market value of equity Liquidity: Working Capital, excluding inventories, as a percent of market value of assets Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

Highlights Chart 1Is Inflation Heating Up? Is Inflation Heating Up? Is Inflation Heating Up? In past reports we have argued that as long as inflation (and inflation expectations) are below the Fed's target, then the "reflation trade" will remain in vogue. In other words, with inflation still too low, the Fed has an incentive to back away from its hawkish rhetoric whenever risk assets sell off and financial conditions tighten. But with inflation heating up - the last two monthly increases in core PCE are close to the highest seen in this recovery (Chart 1) - will the Fed become less responsive? Not yet! Year-over-year core PCE is still only 1.75% (the Fed's target is 2%) and the cost of inflation protection embedded in long-dated TIPS remains too low (panel 2). In fact, the uptrend in TIPS breakevens lost some of its momentum last month alongside wider credit spreads and the S&P 500's first monthly decline since October. In this environment, we are inclined to add credit risk as spreads widen and believe a "buy the dips" strategy will work until inflation pressures are more pronounced. On a 6-12 month horizon we continue to recommend: below-benchmark duration, overweight spread product, curve steepeners and TIPS breakeven wideners. 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 15 basis points in March. The index option-adjusted spread widened 3 bps on the month and, at 118 bps, it remains well below its historical average (134 bps). While supportive monetary policy will ensure excess returns consistent with carry, investors should not bank on further spread compression as spreads have already discounted a substantial improvement in leverage (Chart 2). In fact, leverage showed a marked increase in Q4 2016 even though spreads moved tighter. The measure of gross leverage (total debt divided by EBITD) shown in Chart 2 increased in the fourth quarter even though total debt grew at an annualized rate of only 0.3%. However, EBITD actually contracted at an annualized rate of 7% in Q4 causing leverage to rise. The quarterly decline in EBITD looks anomalous, and the year-over-year trend is improving (panel 4). In fact, we would not be surprised to see leverage stabilize this year as profits rebound.1 But similarly, we also expect that the recent plunge in debt growth will reverse. Historically, it has been very rare for leverage to fall unless prompted by a recession. We will take up this issue in more detail in next week's report. Energy related sectors still appear cheap after adjusting for differences in credit rating and duration (Table 3), and we remain overweight. This week we also downgrade the Retailers and Packaging sectors, which have become expensive, and upgrade Cable & Satellite, which appears cheap. Table 3A Reflation Window Still Open Reflation Window Still Open Table 3B Reflation Window Still Open Reflation Window Still Open 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 25 basis points in March. The index option-adjusted spread widened 20 bps on the month and, at 383 bps, it is currently 136 bps below its historical average. Given the favorable policy back-drop described on page 1, we view the recent widening in junk spreads (Chart 3) as an opportunity to increase exposure to the sector. In fact, in a recent report2 we tested a strategy of "buying dips" in the junk bond market in different inflationary regimes. The strategy involved buying the High-Yield index whenever spreads widened by 20 bps or more in a month and then holding that position for 3 months. We defined the different inflationary regimes based on the St. Louis Fed's Price Pressures Measure (PPM).3 We found that our "buy the dips" strategy yielded positive excess returns 65% of the time in a very low inflation regime (PPM < 15%), 59% of the time in a low inflation regime (15% < PPM < 30%), 44% of the time in a moderate inflation regime (30% < PPM < 50%) and only 25% of the time in a high inflation regime (50% < PPM < 70%). Currently, the reading from the PPM is 13%. MBS: Underweight Chart 4MBS Market Overview MBS Market Overview MBS Market Overview Mortgage-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 4 basis points in March. The conventional 30-year MBS yield rose 6 bps on the month, driven entirely by a 6 bps increase in the rate component. The compensation for prepayment risk (option cost) declined by 6 bps, but this was exactly offset by a 6 bps widening in the option-adjusted spread. As a result, the zero-volatility spread was flat on the month. The option-adjusted spread represents expected excess returns to MBS assuming that prepayments fall in line with expectations. On this basis, MBS look more attractive than they have for some time (Chart 4). However, net MBS issuance also surged in Q4 2016 (panel 4) and should remain robust this year despite higher mortgage rates.4 Interest rates have not been a deterrent to mortgage demand since the financial crisis. The limiting factors have been a lack of household savings and restrictive bank lending standards. Both of these headwinds continue to gradually fade. The option-adjusted spread still appears too low relative to issuance. Nominal MBS spreads are linked to rate volatility (bottom panel), and volatility should increase as the fed funds rate moves further off its zero-bound.5 The wind-down of the Fed's MBS portfolio - which we expect will begin in 2018 - should also pressure implied volatility higher as the private sector is forced to absorb the increased supply, some of which will be convexity-hedged. 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 22 basis points in March. The high-beta Sovereign and Foreign Agency sectors outperformed by 71 bps and 41 bps, respectively. Meanwhile, the low-beta Domestic Agency and Supranational sectors outperformed by 9 bps and 15 bps, respectively. Local Authorities underperformed the Treasury benchmark by 17 bps. The performance of Sovereigns has been stellar this year, as the sector has benefited from a 3% depreciation in the trade-weighted dollar (Chart 5). However, the downtrend in the dollar looks more like a temporary reversal than an end to the bull market. With U.S. growth on a strong footing, there is still scope for global interest rate differentials to move in favor of the dollar. Potential fiscal policy measures - such as lower tax rates and a border-adjusted corporate tax - would also lead to a stronger dollar, if enacted. As such, we do not believe the current outperformance of Sovereigns can be sustained. We continue to recommend overweight allocations to Foreign Agencies and Local Authorities, alongside underweight allocations to the rest of the Government-Related index. Municipal Bonds: Neutral Chart 6Municipal Market Overview Municipal Market Overview Municipal Market Overview Municipal bonds outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 24 basis points in March (before adjusting for the tax advantage). The average Municipal / Treasury (M/T) yield ratio declined 2% on the month and remains firmly anchored below its post-crisis average. This year's decline in M/T yield ratios has been concentrated at the short-end of the curve (Chart 6), and long maturities now offer a significant valuation advantage. This week we recommend favoring the long-end of the Aaa Muni curve (10-year maturities and beyond) versus the short-end (maturities up to 5 years). Overall, M/T yield ratios appear fairly valued on a tactical basis. While fund inflows have ebbed in recent weeks (panel 4), this has occurred alongside a plunge in gross issuance (bottom panel). The more concerning near-term risk for Munis is that yield ratios have already discounted a substantial improvement in state & local government net borrowing (panel 3). However, we expect net borrowing to decline during the next couple of quarters on the back of rising tax revenues. State & local government tax receipts decelerated throughout most of 2015 and 2016 alongside falling personal income growth and disappointing retail sales. However, both income growth and retail sales have moved higher in recent months, and this should soon translate into accelerating tax receipts and lower net borrowing. Longer term, significant risks remain for the Muni market.6 Chief among them is that state & local government budgets now finally look healthy enough to increase investment spending. Not to mention the significant uncertainty surrounding the potential for lower federal tax rates and plans to invest in infrastructure. 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 underwent a small parallel shift upward in March, roughly split between a bear-steepening leading up to the FOMC meeting on March 15 and a bull-flattening from the meeting until the end of the month. Overall, the 2/10 Treasury slope flattened 1 basis point on the month and the 5/30 slope ended the month 1 bp steeper. Our recommended position long the 5-year bullet and short the 2/10 barbell - designed to profit from a steeper yield curve - returned +3 bps in March and is up 7 bps since inception on December 20. In addition, we also entered a short January 2018 fed funds futures trade on March 21.7 The performance of this trade has so far been flat. In a recent report,7 we identified the main cyclical drivers of the slope of the yield curve as: The fed funds rate (higher fed funds rate = flatter curve) Inflation expectations (higher inflation expectations = steeper curve) Interest rate volatility (higher volatility = steeper curve) Unit labor costs (higher unit labor costs = flatter curve) We concluded that even though the Fed is in the process of lifting the funds rate, the yield curve likely has room to steepen as long-maturity TIPS breakevens recover to levels more consistent with the Fed's inflation target (Chart 7). In addition, interest rate volatility has likely bottomed for the cycle and the uptrend in unit labor costs could level-off if productivity growth continues to rebound. The recent decline in bullish sentiment toward the dollar has also not yet been matched by a steeper 5/30 slope (bottom panel). TIPS: Overweight Chart 8TIPS Market Overview TIPS Market Overview TIPS Market Overview TIPS outperformed the duration-equivalent nominal Treasury index by 6 basis points in March. The 10-year TIPS breakeven rate declined 5 bps on the month and, at 1.97%, it remains well below its pre-crisis trading range of 2.4% to 2.5%. While the catalyst for the recent softening in TIPS outperformance seems to be the hawkish re-rating of Fed rate hike expectations, the uptrend in TIPS breakevens was probably due for a pause in any case. Breakevens had become stretched relative to our TIPS Financial Model - based on the dollar, oil prices and the stock-to-bond total return ratio. However, measures of pipeline inflation pressure - such as the ISM prices paid survey (Chart 8) - still point toward wider breakevens and, as was noted on the front page of this report, recent core inflation prints have been quite strong. All in all, growth appears strong enough that core inflation should continue its gradual uptrend and, more importantly, the Fed will be keen to accommodate an increase in both realized core inflation and TIPS breakevens, which remain below target. This means that in the absence of a material growth slowdown, long-maturity TIPS breakevens should continue to trend higher until they reach the 2.4% to 2.5% range that historically has been consistent with the Fed's inflation target. In a baseline scenario where the unemployment rate is 4.7% at the end of the year and the dollar remains flat, our Phillips curve model8 predicts that year-over-year core PCE inflation will be 2.02% at the end of this year. ABS: Maximum Overweight Overweight Chart 9ABS Market Overview ABS Market Overview ABS Market Overview Asset-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 17 basis points in March, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +22 bps. Aaa-rated issues outperformed the Treasury benchmark by 16 bps on the month, and non-Aaa issues outperformed by 26 bps. The index option-adjusted spread for Aaa-rated ABS tightened 5 bps on the month. At 48 bps, the spread remains well below its average pre-crisis level (Chart 9). Banks are now tightening lending standards on both auto loans and credit cards. While we do not expect this recent development to have much of an impact on consumer spending, it is usually an indication that there is growing concern about ABS collateral credit quality. As such, this week we scale back our recommended allocation to ABS from maximum overweight (5 out of 5) to overweight (4 out of 5). While credit card charge-offs remain well below pre-crisis levels, net losses on auto loans have started to trend higher (bottom panel). We continue to favor Aaa-rated credit cards over Aaa-rated auto loans, despite the modest spread advantage in autos (panel 3). Further, the spread advantage in Aaa consumer ABS relative to other high-quality spread product is becoming less compelling. Aaa ABS now only provide a 12 bps option-adjusted spread cushion relative to conventional 30-year Agency MBS and offer a slightly lower spread than Agency CMBS. 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 10 basis points in March, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to +16 bps. The index option-adjusted spread for non-agency Aaa-rated CMBS widened 4 bps on the month, but remains below its average pre-crisis level. Commercial real estate prices are still growing strongly, and prices in both major and non-major markets have re-gained their pre-crisis peaks (Chart 10). However, lending standards are tightening and, more recently, loan demand has rolled over (panel 4). This suggests that credit risk is starting to increase in commercial real estate, as do CMBS delinquencies which have put in a bottom (panel 5). Agency CMBS: Overweight Agency CMBS outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 14 basis points in March, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +16 bps. The index option-adjusted spread for Agency CMBS tightened 2 bps on the month, and currently sits at 53 bps. The option-adjusted spread on Agency CMBS looks attractive compared to other high-quality spread product: Agency MBS = 36 bps, Aaa consumer ABS = 48 bps, Agency bonds = 18 bps and Supranationals = 22 bps. We continue to recommend an overweight position in Agency CMBS. Treasury Valuation Chart 11Treasury Fair Value Models Treasury Fair Value Models Treasury Fair Value Models The current reading from our 2-factor Treasury model (which is based on Global PMI and dollar sentiment) places fair value for the 10-year Treasury yield at 2.54% (Chart 11). Our 3-factor version of the model, which also incorporates the Global Economic Policy Uncertainty Index, places fair value at 2.28%. The lower fair value results from the large spike in the uncertainty index last November, which has only been partially unwound (bottom panel). Large spikes in uncertainty that do not coincide with deterioration in other economic indicators tend to mean revert fairly quickly. So we are inclined to view the fair value reading from our 2-factor model as more indicative of true fair value at the moment. For further details on our Treasury models please refer to the U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "The Message From Our Treasury Model", dated October 11, 2016, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com At the time of publication the 10-year Treasury yield was 2.35%. 1 For further detail on the medium-term profit outlook please see The Bank Credit Analyst, February 207, dated January 26, 2017, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Keep Buying Dips", dated March 8, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 3 A composite of 104 economic indicators designed to capture the probability of PCE inflation exceeding 2.5% during the subsequent 12 months. https://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/economic-synopses/2015/11/06/introducing-the-st-louis-fed-price-pressures-measure 4 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Keep Buying Dips", dated March 28, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 5 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "The Road To Higher Vol Is Paved With Uncertainty", dated February 14, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 6 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, "Trading The Municipal Credit Cycle", dated October 18, 2016, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 7 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "The Yield Curve On A Cyclical Horizon", dated March 21, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 8 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "The Odds Of March", dated February 21, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification Corporate Sector Relative Valuation And Recommended Allocation Total Return Comparison: 7-Year Bullet Versus 2-20 Barbell (6-Month Investment Horizon)

Highlights U.S. equity valuations are historically high, based on a variety of metrics. However, relative to competing assets and global equity peers, U.S. stock valuations are not an extreme. For U.S.-based investors, our upbeat view on the U.S. dollar implies that efforts to diversify globally may come up short. The Fed will allow its Agency bond and MBS portfolios to run off starting in 2018, but it is much more uncertain whether it will ever cease the reinvestment of its Treasury holdings. Feature The S&P 500 remains near record highs, despite a modest setback last week. And the only period when stocks were more expensive was during the halcyon days of the dot-com bubble. Have stock prices outpaced fundamentals, and if so, how much of a risk does this present over the cyclical horizon? And should U.S. investors look further afield than domestic markets for a relative deal? On a historical basis, it is hard to argue that U.S. equities are anything other than expensive. A preferred valuation metric is the cyclically adjusted P/E ratio (CAPE), see Chart 1. Based on this metric, stocks are expensive, trading at their highest valuation outside of the dot-com bubble. However, valuing equities is a complicated issue, and the CAPE is not without its weaknesses. Examining a broad array of valuation indicators provides a slightly different message; U.S. stocks are expensive in absolute terms based on historic relationships, but are less stretched relative to both other asset classes and other equity indexes. Expensive, But... Our BCA valuation index captures the message from a broad range of metrics in one gauge (Chart 2). The valuation index was constructed using 11 different measures in an attempt to approach valuation from multiple angles. Decomposing the index into its three major components - earnings, balance sheet metrics and yield - show that stocks prices are well into expensive territory in absolute terms based on traditional fundamentals: Chart 1(Part I) U.S. Stocks Are Expensive ##br##Relative To History (Part I) U.S. Stocks Are Expensive Relative To History (Part I) U.S. Stocks Are Expensive Relative To History Chart 2(Part II) U.S. Stocks Are Expensive Relative ##br##To History (Part II) U.S. Stocks Are Expensive Relative To History (Part II) U.S. Stocks Are Expensive Relative To History Earnings Group: There are five inputs to the earnings component of our valuation indicator, including trailing price/earnings ratio, price/sales, market cap as a share of GDP. The second panel of Chart 2 shows that the aggregate of the Earnings Group indicators sits at historical highs, excluding the tech bubble. Balance Sheet Metrics: This component includes measure of the market value of equities relative to corporate net worth, both using market value (replacement cost) and historical cost. This measure of valuation has the same profile as the Earnings Group. Yield Group: The yield group compares the price of stocks to interest rates, nominal and real, government and corporate. Of the three groups, it is this Yield Group that gives a less expensive reading on equities (bottom panel of Chart 2). Overall, the Valuation Indicator is already well into "overvalued territory". There is only one episode since 1970 when the indicator has reached a significantly more extreme reading (the dot-com bubble). ...Not So On A Relative Basis Stocks are expensive on an absolute basis, but are far more appealing in relative terms. The current earnings yield on stocks is well above the real corporate bond yield and corporate bond spreads are historically very tight, despite the erosion in balance sheet health (our corporate health monitor has been deteriorating for several months). And compared to housing returns, stocks look downright cheap (Chart 3). Within the U.S., we expect stocks to be the biggest beneficiary of investment flows in the next year or two, in part because equity market value is the most appealing. Meanwhile, relative to global peers, U.S. equities valuations have been climbing since 2009 (Charts 4 and Chart 5). This eight-year rise in valuations now leaves U.S. P/Es at the higher end of the historical range relative to G10 ex-U.S. equities. U.S. stocks are especially expensive relative to Japanese equities. In any case, standard valuation measures have always been lower in Japan, with the exception of price-forward earnings. As our Bank Credit Analyst monthly publication points out, Japanese companies generally have a much higher interest coverage ratio compared to Corporate America. Nonetheless, they tend to come up short in terms of profitability. Operating margins in the U.S. have typically been double that of Japan. Japan's return-on-equity (RoE) has been dismal because of low levels of corporate leverage and loads of low-yielding cash sitting on balance sheets. Nonetheless, the valuation gap is at an extreme, with Japanese equities appearing to be a screaming value relative to U.S. stocks. Chart 3Stocks Look Less Expensive Relative To Competing Assets Stocks Look Less Expensive Relative To Competing Assets Stocks Look Less Expensive Relative To Competing Assets Chart 4(Part I) U.S. Outperformance Phase Can Continue (Part I) U.S. Outperformance Phase Can Continue (Part I) U.S. Outperformance Phase Can Continue Chart 5(Part II) U.S. Outperformance Phase Can Continue (Part II) U.S. Outperformance Phase Can Continue (Part II) U.S. Outperformance Phase Can Continue A similar, albeit less extreme, valuation case can be made for European stocks relative to the U.S. Eurozone stocks have also almost always traded at a discount to U.S. equities and this continues to be the case. Stocks have gotten even more expensive, more quickly, in the U.S. over the past year. But relative valuations are not near historic extremes. Tack on the fact that BCA's view is that the dollar will continue to appreciate over the next six-twelve months. For U.S.-based investors, the coming rise in the domestic currency implies that efforts to diversify globally may come up short, despite better value in major foreign markets. It is important to note that BCA does not view valuation measures as market timing tools. They are only useful at extremes. The bottom line is that U.S. equities are certainly far from cheap, but are not so expensive in relative terms to warrant an allocation change on this basis. We believe that equity returns should outperform Treasuries, cash and high-quality corporate bonds over the next 1-2 years as the bond bear market plays out. The Fed's Balance Sheet: What's Next? Recently we have received a number of client questions about the Fed's balance sheet and how it will evolve during the next few years. In response, we reprint below work from our U.S. Bond Strategy team, who recently addressed the topic in detail. The Fed's Stated Plan The most up-to-date guidance we have received about the Fed's balance sheet plans comes from Janet Yellen's recent Congressional testimony: "The FOMC has annunciated that its longer run goal is to shrink our balance sheet to levels consistent with the efficient and effective implementation of monetary policy. And while our system evolves and I can't put a number on that, I would anticipate a balance sheet that's substantially smaller than at the current time. In addition, we would like our balance sheet to again be primarily Treasury securities, whereas as you pointed out, we have substantial holdings of mortgage-backed securities." From this, and similar statements from other Fed officials, we conclude that the Fed will allow its balance sheet to shrink once the fed funds rate is somewhere in the range of 1% to 1.5%. Surveys also show that the median primary dealer expects the Fed will change its balance sheet policy when the target fed funds rate is 1.38%. As such, and under reasonable assumptions for the pace of rate hikes, we think it is very likely that the Fed will start to let its balance sheet shrink sometime in 2018. MBS First, Treasuries Maybe Later Yellen's statement to Congress also makes clear that the Fed would be more comfortable with a balance sheet that consists entirely of Treasury securities. For this reason, the central bank will start by simply ceasing the reinvestment of its Agency bond and MBS portfolios. At least initially, the Fed will continue to reinvest the proceeds from its maturing Treasury portfolio. Yellen also left open the possibility that reinvestment could be "tapered" rather than just halted altogether. While this is possible, and in fact 70% of primary dealers think that reinvestments will be phased out over time while only 14% think they will be ceased all at once, it seems to us like a needless complication. We expect that reinvestments of Agency bonds and MBS will end all at once sometime in 2018. As for the Fed's holdings of Treasury securities, it is much less clear whether the Fed will allow these balances to run down. In a Report in 2014,1 we describe in detail the differences between the Fed's pre-crisis mode of operation, when bank reserves were scarce, and the Fed's current mode of operation with large bank reserve balances. As of now, the Fed has stated that it intends to eventually drain bank reserves from the system and return to its pre-crisis mode of operation, but there are several possible advantages to running a system with an outsized Fed balance sheet and large bank reserve balances. None other than Ben Bernanke pointed out a few of those reasons in a blog post last fall.2 In our view, the most compelling is that regulatory changes have increased private sector demand for safe, short-maturity, liquid assets in recent years. If the Treasury department is unwilling to supply T-bills in sufficient numbers, then the Fed can supply safe, short-maturity, liquid assets to the market by purchasing long-maturity Treasury securities and replacing them with bank reserves. Chart 6Reserves Can Be Drained Fairly Quickly Reserves Can Be Drained Fairly Quickly Reserves Can Be Drained Fairly Quickly Of course, we take the Fed at its word when it says that it would like to eventually drain excess bank reserves from the system. But even in that case, the steady growth of currency in circulation means that bank reserves will decline over time even if the Fed keeps the asset side of its balance sheet flat. For example, Chart 6 shows what would happen to bank reserves if the amount of currency in circulation grows at a conservative 5% per year pace, and if the Fed decides to allow its Agency bond and MBS portfolios to run off at the beginning of next year while keeping its Treasury portfolio flat. We assume that MBS runs off the Fed's balance sheet at a pace of $15 billion per month, slightly below the recent pace of MBS reinvestment. During the past three years, the Fed has reinvested between $20bn and $40bn MBS each month with an average monthly reinvestment of $32bn. In this scenario, outstanding bank reserves would decline to zero by the end of 2025. At that point the Fed would have to start adding to its Treasury holdings just to keep pace with the amount of currency in circulation. Bottom Line: While it is very likely that the Fed will allow its Agency bond and MBS portfolios to run off starting in 2018, it is much more uncertain whether it will ever cease the reinvestment of its Treasury holdings. If the Fed does allow its Treasury holdings to run down as well, it will have to start buying Treasuries again before 2025. Lenka Martinek, Vice President U.S. Investment Strategy lenka@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report "Cleaning Up After The 100-Year Flood", dated June 10, 2014, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com. 2 https://www.brookings.edu/blog/ben-bernanke/2016/09/02/should-the-fed-keep-its-balance-sheet-large/

Highlights Chart 1Keep A Close Eye On Financial Conditions Keep A Close Eye On Financial Conditions Keep A Close Eye On Financial Conditions The market's rate hike expectations moved sharply higher during the past two weeks as a string of Fed speeches, including one by Chair Yellen, all but confirmed a March rate hike. The market is now priced for 75 basis points of hikes during the next 12 months, compared to 50 bps at the end of January. At least so far, broad indicators of financial conditions have not tightened in response to this re-rating of the Fed (Chart 1). However, there are some preliminary indications that the reflation trade is fraying at the edges. The trade-weighted dollar has appreciated +0.2% since the end of January, the 2/10 Treasury slope has flattened 9 bps and the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate has declined 1 bp. The Fed is currently testing the markets with hawkish rhetoric but, with inflation and TIPS breakevens still below target, will ultimately support the reflation trade if it comes under threat. In this environment investors with 6-12 month investment horizons should maintain below-benchmark duration, remain overweight spread product and continue to position for a steeper curve and wider TIPS breakevens. Feature Chart 2Investment Grade Market Overview Investment Grade Market Overview Investment Grade Market Overview Investment Grade: Overweight Investment grade corporate bonds outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 48 basis points in February. The index option-adjusted spread tightened 6 bps on the month and, at 112 bps, it remains well below its historical average (134 bps). Our research1 shows that when core PCE inflation is between 1.5% and 2%2 investment grade corporate bonds produce an average monthly excess return of close to zero. A 90% confidence interval places monthly excess returns between -19 bps and +17 bps with inflation in this range and excess returns do not turn decisively negative until core PCE is above 2%. Given the Fed's desire to nurture a continued recovery in inflation, we are not worried about significant spread widening until inflation is sustainably above 2%. In the meantime we expect corporate bond excess returns to be low, but positive. While supportive monetary policy should ensure excess returns consistent with carry, investors should not bank on further spread compression as corporate spreads have already discounted a substantial improvement in leverage (Chart 2). Energy related sectors still appear cheap after adjusting for differences in credit rating and duration (Table 3), and our commodity strategists expect oil prices to remain firm even in the face of a stronger U.S. dollar. This week we upgrade the Wireless and Packaging sectors from underweight to neutral and downgrade the Consumer Cyclical Services sector from neutral to underweight. The former two sectors now appear cheap on our model, while the latter has become expensive. Table 3ACorporate Sector Relative Valuation And Recommended Allocation* How Much Can Markets Take? How Much Can Markets Take? Table 3BCorporate Sector Risk Vs. Reward* How Much Can Markets Take? How Much Can Markets Take? High-Yield: Neutral Chart 3High-Yield Market Overview High-Yield Market Overview High-Yield Market Overview High-Yield outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 112 basis points in February. The index option-adjusted spread tightened 25 bps on the month and, at 349 bps, it is currently 170 bps below its historical average. One of our key investment themes3 for this year is that the uptrend in defaults is likely to reverse (Chart 3), mostly due to recovery in the energy sector. However, still-poor corporate health and tightening monetary policy will lead to a resumption of the uptrend in 2018 and beyond. Despite the positive outlook for defaults, we retain only a neutral allocation to High-Yield because of very tight valuations. The index option-adjusted spread is now within a hair of the average level of 340 bps that prevailed during the 2004 - 2006 Fed tightening cycle, when indicators of corporate balance sheet health were in much better shape. In fact, the index spread is now only 116 bps wider than its all-time low of 233 bps, reached in 2007. Our preferred measure of High-Yield valuation is the default-adjusted spread - the average spread of the junk index less our forecast of 12-month default losses. At present, the default-adjusted spread is 142 bps. Historically, a default-adjusted spread between 100 bps and 150 bps is consistent with positive excess returns during the subsequent 12 months 64% of the time. It is only when the default-adjusted spread falls below 100 bps that positive excess returns become unlikely. Junk has provided positive excess returns over a 12-month horizon only 13% of the time when the starting default-adjusted spread is between 50 bps and 100 bps. MBS: Underweight Chart 4MBS Market Overview MBS Market Overview MBS Market Overview Mortgage-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 3 basis points in February. The conventional 30-year MBS yield fell 5 bps on the month, driven by a 7 bps decline in the rate component. The compensation for prepayment risk (option cost) increased by 1 bp, as did the option-adjusted spread. MBS spreads remain extremely tight relative both to history and Aaa-rated credit, although they have begun to widen somewhat relative to credit in recent weeks (Chart 4). More distressing is that the nominal MBS spread appears too tight relative to interest rate volatility (bottom panel). As we noted in a recent report,4 the long-run trend in interest rate volatility tends to be driven by uncertainty about the macroeconomic and political environment. In fact, rate volatility can be modeled using forecaster disagreement about GDP growth and T-bill rates. While the Fed's policy of forward guidance and a fed funds rate pinned at zero limited the amount of forecaster disagreement in recent years, this disagreement will re-emerge the further the fed funds rate moves off its lower bound. Another medium-term risk for MBS comes from the Fed ending the reinvestment of its MBS portfolio. As we described in a recent Special Report,5 the Fed is likely to allow its MBS portfolio to shrink at some point in 2018, putting further upward pressure on MBS spreads. Government Related: Underweight Chart 5Government-Related Market Overview Government-Related Market Overview Government-Related Market Overview The government-related index outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 30 basis points in February, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +51 bps. The high-beta Sovereign and Foreign Agency sectors outperformed the Treasury benchmark by 90 bps and 59 bps, respectively. Meanwhile, the low-beta Domestic Agency and Supranational sectors each outperformed by 4 bps. Local Authorities returned 24 bps in excess of duration-matched Treasuries. Sovereigns have outperformed Baa-rated corporate bonds year-to-date, a trend consistent with the rise in commodity prices and a trade-weighted dollar that has weakened by 1.5% (Chart 5). However, the dollar has started to appreciate in recent weeks and probably has further upside in the medium-term, especially if the Fed maintains its hawkish posture. Historically, it has been very rare for Sovereigns to outperform U.S. corporate bonds when the dollar is appreciating. After adjusting for credit rating and duration, the Foreign Agency and Local Authority sectors continue to appear cheap relative to U.S. corporate credit. In contrast, Sovereigns, Supranationals and Domestic Agencies all appear expensive. We continue to recommend overweight allocations to Foreign Agencies and Local Authorities, alongside underweight allocations to the rest of the government-related index. In a television interview last month Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin confirmed that GSE reform is still a priority for the new administration but that tax reform is much higher on the agenda. This means that agency spreads will likely remain insulated from any "reform risk" until next year at the earliest. Municipal Bonds: Neutral Chart 6Municipal Market Overview Municipal Market Overview Municipal Market Overview Municipal bonds outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 13 basis points in February (before adjusting for the tax advantage). The average Municipal / Treasury (M/T) yield ratio has fallen 4% since the end of January and remains firmly anchored below its post-crisis average. The decline in the average M/T yield ratio was concentrated in short maturities, while ratios at the long-end of the curve actually rose (Chart 6). Accelerating fund flows and falling issuance will continue to support yield ratios in the near term. In fact, our tactical yield ratio model - based on issuance, fund flows and ratings migration - shows that yield ratios are presently very close to fair value. Although the average M/T yield ratio still appears expensive if we include the global economic policy uncertainty index as an additional explanatory variable.6 One risk to Munis is that yield ratios have already discounted a substantial reduction in state and local government net borrowing in Q1 (panel 3). While we expect this improvement will materialize in the next few quarters, net borrowing is biased upward beyond this year based on the lagged relationship between corporate sector and state and local government health.7 Treasury Curve: Favor 5-Year Bullet Over 2/10 Barbell Chart 7Treasury Yield Curve Overview Treasury Yield Curve Overview Treasury Yield Curve Overview The Treasury curve has bear-flattened since the end of January as the market revised its Fed rate hike expectations sharply higher. Both the 2/10 and 5/30 Treasury slopes have flattened by 9 basis points since January 31. As such, our recommended position long the 5-year bullet and short the 2/10 barbell - designed to profit from a steeper yield curve - has returned -26 bps since the end of January, although it has returned close to 0 bps since it was initiated on December 20.8 As was stated on the front page of this report, the Fed's increasingly hawkish rhetoric has already caused the uptrend in TIPS breakevens to pause and the nominal Treasury slope to flatten (Chart 7). With inflation still below target these trends are not sustainable from the point of view of Fed policymakers. If the trend of decreasing TIPS breakevens and a flattening curve persists, we would expect the Fed to back away from its hawkish rhetoric. This dynamic will support a steeper yield curve at least until core PCE inflation is back to the Fed's 2% target and long-dated TIPS breakevens are anchored in a range between 2.4% and 2.5% (a range that is typically consistent with core PCE inflation at 2%). The persistent attractiveness of the 5-year bullet relative to the rest of the curve makes a position long the 5-year bullet and short a duration-matched 2/10 barbell the most attractive way to position for a steeper yield curve (panel 3). The carry buffer in the 5-year helps mitigate some of the risk of curve flattening. TIPS: Overweight Chart 8TIPS Market Overview TIPS Market Overview TIPS Market Overview TIPS underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 18 basis points in February. The 10-year TIPS breakeven rate declined 3 bps on the month and, at 2.04%, it remains well below its pre-crisis trading range of 2.4% to 2.5%. While the catalyst for the recent softening in TIPS outperformance seems to be the hawkish re-rating of Fed rate hike expectations, the uptrend in TIPS breakevens was probably due for a pause in any case. Breakevens had become stretched relative to our TIPS Financial Model - based on the dollar, oil prices and the stock-to-bond total return ratio (Chart 8). Diffusion indexes for both PCE and CPI inflation have also shifted into negative territory, suggesting that realized inflation readings will soften during the next couple of months. On a cyclical horizon, however, the Fed will be keen to allow breakevens to rise toward levels more consistent with its inflation target and will quickly adopt a more dovish stance if breakevens fall significantly. This "Fed put" should remain in place at least until core PCE inflation is firmly anchored around 2% and long-dated TIPS breakevens return to a range between 2.4% and 2.5%. As we detailed in a recent report,9 while accelerating wage growth will ensure that inflation remains in a long-run uptrend, the impact from wages will be mitigated by deflating import prices meaning that the uptrend will be slow. We continue to expect that year-over-year core PCE inflation will not attain the Fed's 2% target until the end of this year. ABS: Maximum Overweight Chart 9ABS Market Overview ABS Market Overview ABS Market Overview Asset-Backed Securities performed in-line with the duration-equivalent Treasury index in February. Aaa-rated issues underperformed the Treasury benchmark by 2 basis points, while non-Aaa issues outperformed by 12 bps. The index option-adjusted spread for Aaa-rated ABS widened 3 bps on the month. At 50 bps, the spread remains well below its average pre-crisis level. Banks are now tightening lending standards on both auto loans and credit cards (Chart 9). While we do not think this will have much of an impact on consumer spending,10 it is usually an indication that there is growing concern about ABS collateral credit quality. While credit card charge-offs remain well below their pre-crisis levels, net losses on auto loans have in fact started to trend higher (bottom panel). We continue to recommend Aaa-rated credit cards over Aaa-rated auto loans, despite the spread advantage in autos. We will closely monitor the evolving credit quality situation, but for now continue to view consumer ABS as a very attractive alternative to other short-duration Aaa-rated spread product such as MBS and Agency bonds. The main reason being the sizeable spread advantage that has persisted in ABS for some time. At present, Aaa-rated consumer ABS offer an option-adjusted spread of 50 bps, compared to 31 bps for 30-year conventional Agency MBS and 18 bps for Agency bonds. Non-Agency CMBS: Underweight Chart 10CMBS Market Overview CMBS Market Overview CMBS Market Overview Non-agency Commercial Mortgage-Backed Securities underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 34 basis points in February. The index option-adjusted spread for non-agency Aaa-rated CMBS widened 7 bps on the month, but remains below its average pre-crisis level (Chart 10). Rising CMBS delinquency rates and tightening commercial real estate lending standards make us cautious on non-agency CMBS. This caution has only intensified now that spreads are firmly entrenched below their pre-crisis average. Agency CMBS: Overweight Agency CMBS underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 20 basis points in February. The index option-adjusted spread for Agency CMBS widened 5 bps on the month, and currently sits at 53 bps. The spread offered on Agency CMBS is similar to what is offered by Aaa-rated consumer ABS (50 bps) and greater than what is offered by conventional 30-year MBS (31 bps) for a similar amount of spread volatility. We continue to recommend an overweight position in Agency CMBS. Treasury Valuation Chart 11Treasury Fair Value Models Treasury Fair Value Models Treasury Fair Value Models The current reading from our 2-factor Treasury model (which is based on Global PMI and dollar sentiment) places fair value for the 10-year Treasury yield at 2.42% (Chart 11). Our 3-factor version of the model, which also incorporates the Global Economic Policy Uncertainty Index, places fair value at 2.21%. The lower fair value results from the large spike in the uncertainty index last November, which has only been partially unwound (bottom panel). Large spikes in uncertainty that do not coincide with deterioration in other economic indicators tend to mean revert fairly quickly. So we would be inclined to view the fair value reading from our 2-factor model as more indicative of true fair value at the moment. For further details on our Treasury models please refer to the U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "The Message From Our Treasury Model", dated October 11, 2016, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com At the time of publication the 10-year Treasury yield was 2.49%. Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Inflation: More Fire Than Ice, But Don't Sound The Alarm", dated January 24, 2016, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 Year-over-year core PCE inflation is currently 1.74%. 3 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, "Seven Fixed Income Themes For 2017", dated December 20, 2016, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "The Road To Higher Vol Is Paved With Uncertainty", dated February 14, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 5 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy / Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report, "The Way Forward For The Fed's Balance Sheet", dated February 28, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 6 For further details on the model please see U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, "Seven Fixed Income Themes For 2017", dated December 20, 2016, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 7 For further details on the linkage between corporate sector health and state & local government health please see U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, "Trading The Municipal Credit Cycle", dated October 18, 2016, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 8 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, "Seven Fixed Income Themes For 2017", dated December 20, 2016, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 9 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Inflation: More Fire Than Ice, But Don't Sound The Alarm", dated January 24, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 10 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "The Odds Of March", dated February 21, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification Corporate Sector Relative Valuation And Recommended Allocation Total Return Comparison: 7-Year Bullet Versus 2-20 Barbell (6-Month Investment Horizon) Current Recommendation

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

Highlights Rate Volatility: Forecast disagreement about GDP growth and T-bill rates will increase over the course of the year. This, alongside elevated policy uncertainty, will translate into higher interest rate volatility. Treasury Yields: Higher rate volatility should cause the term premium in the Treasury curve to increase at the margin. However, this impact could be offset if rate volatility and equity volatility rise in concert. An increase in equity vol would encourage flight-to-safety flows into bonds. MBS: Higher interest rate volatility and the unwinding of the Fed's mortgage portfolio will lead to wider MBS spreads during the next two years. Feature Low interest rate volatility has been a constant feature of the investing landscape during the past few years. In fact, you need to go back to the 1970s to find another period when interest rate volatility was consistently at or below its current level (Chart 1). Not surprisingly, the implied volatility priced into Treasury options is also as low as it has been during the past 30 years, with the exception of the period just prior to the financial crisis in 2007 (Chart 2). Chart 1Yield Volatility: Lowest Since The 70s Yield Volatility: Lowest Since The 70s Yield Volatility: Lowest Since The 70s Chart 2Implied And Realized Yield Volatility Move Together Implied And Realized Yield Volatility Move Together Implied And Realized Yield Volatility Move Together This begs the question of whether the current low-vol environment can be sustained, or whether overly complacent investors are in for a shock. At the very least, we believe that rate volatility has already passed its cyclical trough and will start to move up this year. Investors should prepare themselves for higher volatility. In this week's report we examine the key macro drivers of interest rate volatility and discuss the implications of rising vol for both Treasury yields, and crucially, mortgage-backed securities. Macro Uncertainty & Rate Volatility Chart 3Macro Drivers Of Rate Volatility Macro Drivers Of Rate Volatility Macro Drivers Of Rate Volatility In a Special Report published in 2014,1 we posited that the long-term trends in volatility across all asset classes are largely driven by common macroeconomic factors. Specifically, investor uncertainty regarding the outlook for economic growth and monetary policy. A 2004 paper by Alexander David and Pietro Veronesi2 provides some theoretical justification for this view, as the authors observed that investors tend to overreact to new information when macro uncertainty is high, and underreact when uncertainty is low. To test the linkage between interest rate volatility and macro uncertainty we consider three measures of uncertainty. The first two measures, shown alongside the MOVE index of implied Treasury volatility in Chart 3, are measures of GDP growth and T-bill rate forecast dispersion. We measure dispersion - the disagreement among forecasters - by looking at individual forecasts of GDP growth and T-bill rates and calculating the difference between the 75th and 25th percentiles. The series shown in Chart 3 are equal-weighted averages of the forecast dispersion calculated for five different time horizons, ranging from the current quarter to four quarters ahead. As can be seen in the top two panels of Chart 3, implied interest rate volatility is higher when the disagreement among forecasters is greater, consistent with our thesis. The third measure of uncertainty we consider is the Global Economic Policy Uncertainty Index created by Baker, Bloom and Davis.3 This index tracks uncertainty about the macro environment by counting the number of mentions of certain key words in major global newspapers. Elevated readings from this index have also coincided with high rate volatility in the past (Chart 3, bottom panel). GDP Growth Forecast Dispersion Chart 4Forecast Dispersion & Corporate Lending Forecast Dispersion & Corporate Lending Forecast Dispersion & Corporate Lending Disagreement among GDP growth forecasts reached an all-time low in the fourth quarter of 2016, but has since recovered to slightly more typical levels. Historically, we have found that C&I lending standards and corporate sector balance sheet health correlate most closely with GDP growth forecast dispersion (Chart 4) and both measures suggest that forecast dispersion is biased upward. T-Bill Rate Forecast Dispersion T-bill rate forecast dispersion was abnormally low between 2011 and 2014 for two reasons. The first reason is quite simply the zero-lower-bound on interest rates. A short rate bounded at zero necessarily trimmed the distribution of possible T-bill rate forecasts, since forecasters logically assumed that further interest rate cuts were not possible. This impact will gradually dissipate the further the fed funds rate moves off zero. Chart 5Fed Says March Meeting Is Live Fed Says March Meeting Is Live Fed Says March Meeting Is Live The second reason for extremely low T-bill rate forecast dispersion was the Fed's forward guidance. During this timeframe the Fed was actively trying to convince the public that interest rates would remain low. The most obvious example being the "Evans Rule", where the Fed promised not to lift interest rates at least until the unemployment rate had fallen below a specific threshold. This activist forward guidance limited the range of conceivable T-bill rate forecasts and crushed interest rate volatility. Nowadays, the Fed is engaged in a different sort of forward guidance, trying to convince markets that every FOMC meeting is live and that rate hikes could occur at any moment. Essentially, the Fed is trying to inject volatility into the rates market. Just a few weeks ago, when asked about the low probability markets are assigning to a March rate hike (Chart 5), San Francisco Fed President John Williams replied flatly: "I don't agree. All our meetings are live." Global Economic Policy Uncertainty We have written a lot about the policy uncertainty index in recent reports,4 focusing specifically on how it has diverged from its historical relationships with many asset prices. At the very least, we expect that sustained elevated policy uncertainty will place upward pressure on asset price volatility at the margin. Bottom Line: Forecast disagreement about GDP growth and T-bill rates will increase over the course of the year. This, alongside elevated policy uncertainty, will translate into higher interest rate volatility. Rate Volatility & Treasury Yields Long-dated nominal Treasury yields can be decomposed in a few different ways. In recent reports we have focused on the decomposition of the nominal 10-year Treasury yield into its real and inflation components. By identifying different macro drivers for each component we concluded that nominal Treasury yields will increase this year, driven by a rising inflation component and relatively stable real yields.5 Alternatively, we can think of the nominal 10-year Treasury yield as consisting of an expectations component equal to the market's expected path of short rates over the next ten years, and a term premium that reflects all of the other market imbalances and uncertainties associated with taking duration risk. This second approach is complicated by the fact that it requires a model of ex-ante interest rate expectations and every commonly used model is fraught with its own unique difficulties.6 Setting that aside, if we use the Kim & Wright (2005)7 estimate of the 10-year term premium we observe an expectations component that generally tracks the fed funds rate and a term premium component that is correlated with implied Treasury volatility (Chart 6), although the latter correlation is less than perfect. This decomposition also suggests that nominal Treasury yields should rise. The Fed is much more likely to hike rates than cut them and we have concluded that rate volatility is likely to trend higher from current depressed levels. However, the relationship between rate volatility and the term premium is complicated. The main reason for the complicated relationship between interest rate volatility and the term premium is the fact that elevated interest rate volatility also tends to be correlated with high equity volatility (Chart 7). So while higher rate volatility puts upward pressure on the term premium, the associated increase in equity volatility tends to raise investor risk aversion and increase the perceived value of bonds as a hedge against equity positions. This mitigates some (or often all) of the impact of rising rate volatility on the term premium. Chart 6Which Way For The ##br##Term Premium? Which Way For The Term Premium? Which Way For The Term Premium? Chart 7MOVE & VIX Have Opposing##br## Impacts On Bond Yields MOVE & VIX Have Opposing Impacts On Bond Yields MOVE & VIX Have Opposing Impacts On Bond Yields Bottom Line: Higher rate volatility should cause the term premium in the Treasury curve to increase at the margin. However, this impact could be offset if rate volatility and equity volatility rise in concert. An increase in equity vol would encourage flight-to-safety flows into bonds. Rate Volatility & MBS The relationship between rate volatility and MBS is much more straightforward than for Treasury yields. We observe a tight correlation between nominal MBS spreads and the MOVE implied volatility index (Chart 8). Chart 8 suggests that, even in the near-term, MBS spreads are too low for current levels of rate vol. The relationship between MBS spreads and rate volatility is easily explained. The defining characteristic of a negatively convex asset, such as MBS, is that its duration is positively correlated with the level of interest rates (Chart 9). This correlation leads to increased losses when yields rise and lower gains when yields fall. It's not surprising that negatively convex assets perform best in low volatility environments. Chart 8MBS Spreads Are Linked To Vol MBS Spreads Are Linked To Vol MBS Spreads Are Linked To Vol Chart 9MBS Duration Moves With Yields MBS Duration Moves With Yields MBS Duration Moves With Yields We maintain an underweight allocation to MBS given that spreads are already low and that the volatility environment is poised to become less favorable. Further, if the Fed continues along its planned normalization path it is likely to cease the reinvestment of its MBS portfolio at some point in 2018. There are two reasons why this poses a risk for MBS. The first reason is that the unwinding of the Fed's MBS portfolio is likely to place upward pressure on implied volatility. While private investors often hedge their MBS positions by purchasing volatility, the Fed has no incentive to do so. It follows that by removing a large stock of MBS from private hands the Fed has also removed a large source of demand for volatility. When this supply is re-introduced into the market, demand for volatility is likely to increase. The second reason relates more directly to the supply and demand balance for MBS. In years when net MBS issuance (adjusted for Fed purchases) has been negative, excess MBS returns have tended to be positive (Chart 10). Further, while negative net MBS issuance (adjusted for Fed purchases) has been the norm since Fed asset purchases began in 2009 (Chart 11), this state of affairs will change once the Fed starts to unwind its MBS portfolio. Chart 10Annual MBS Excess Returns ##br## Vs. Net Supply Since 1989 The Road To Higher Vol Is Paved With Uncertainty The Road To Higher Vol Is Paved With Uncertainty Chart 11Net Issuance Will Turn##br## Positive In 2018 Net Issuance Will Turn Positive In 2018 Net Issuance Will Turn Positive In 2018 During the past three years the Fed has been buying between $20bn and $40bn MBS per month, just to keep its balance sheet stable. Net new MBS issuance will not be strong enough to overcome this hurdle in 2017, but net MBS issuance (adjusted for Fed purchases) will swing quickly into positive territory in 2018 if the Fed decides to let its MBS portfolio run down. Bottom Line: Higher interest rate volatility and the unwinding of the Fed's mortgage portfolio will lead to wider MBS spreads during the next two years. Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy / Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report, "Volatility, Uncertainty And Government Bond Yields", dated May 13, 2014, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 "Inflation and earnings uncertainty and volatility forecasts", Alexander David and Pietro Veronesi, Manuscript, Graduate School of Business, University of Chicago (2004). 3 Please see www.policyuncertainty.com for further details. 4 Please see Theme # 4 in U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, "Seven Fixed Income Themes For 2017", dated December 20, 2016, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 5 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Is It Time To Cut Duration?", dated January 17, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 6 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Bond Volatility - The Unwelcome Guest That Will Not Leave", dated June 16, 2015, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 7 Don H. Kim and Jonathan H. Wright, "An Arbitrage-Free Term Structure Model and the Recent Behavior of Long-Term Yields and Distant-Horizon Forward Rates", FEDS 2005-33. https://www.federalreserve.gov/econresdata/feds/2005/index.htm Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

Highlights Chart 1Strong Growth & An Easy Fed Strong Growth & An Easy Fed Strong Growth & An Easy Fed More than a month has passed since the Fed's latest rate hike and, at least so far, the economy is displaying no ill effects. While the economic data continue to surprise to the upside, Fed rate hike expectations have moderated since mid-December (Chart 1). The combination of accelerating growth and accommodative monetary policy sets the stage for further outperformance in spread product. This message was underscored by last Friday's employment report which showed robust payroll gains of +227k alongside a slight deceleration in wage growth. This is consistent with an environment where growth remains above trend but the recovery in inflation proceeds more gradually. Against this back-drop we favor overweight positions in spread product and TIPS relative to nominal Treasuries, while also positioning for a bear-steepening of the Treasury curve. While we would not rule out a near-term correction in risk assets, due to extended positioning and elevated policy uncertainty, we would view any correction as a buying opportunity given the supportive growth and monetary policy back-drop. 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 5 basis points in January (Chart 2). The index option-adjusted spread tightened 2 bps on the month and, at 121 bps, it remains well below its historical average (134 bps). In a recent report1 we examined historical excess returns to corporate bonds given different levels of core PCE inflation. We found that excess returns are best when year-over-year core PCE is below 1.5%. This should not be surprising since an environment of low inflation is most likely to coincide with extremely accommodative monetary policy. When inflation is between 1.5% and 2% (year-over-year core PCE is currently 1.7%), average monthly excess returns are close to zero and a 90% confidence interval places them between -19 bps and +17 bps. Excess returns do not turn decisively negative until core PCE is above 2%. Given the Fed's desire to nurture a continued recovery in inflation, we expect corporate bond excess returns to be low, but positive. The Technology sector is relatively defensive and is close to neutrally valued according to our model (Table 3). In addition, our Geopolitical Strategy service has observed that many of the firms in this sector carry significant exposure to China, a risk as U.S. protectionism ramps up.2 We therefore downgrade our position in Technology from overweight to neutral, and upgrade our positions in Wirelines, Media & Entertainment and Other Utilities from underweight to neutral. Table 3ACorporate Sector Relative Valuation And Recommended Allocation* Cue The Reflation Trade Cue The Reflation Trade Table 3BCorporate Sector Risk Vs. Reward* Cue The Reflation Trade Cue The Reflation Trade High-Yield: Neutral Chart 3High-Yield Market Overview High-Yield Market Overview High-Yield Market Overview High-Yield outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 124 basis points in January. The index option-adjusted spread tightened 21 bps on the month and, at 376 bps, it is currently 144 bps below its historical average. As we highlighted in our year-end Special Report,3 the uptrend in defaults is likely to reverse this year, mostly due to recovery in the energy sector. However, still-poor corporate health and tightening monetary policy will lead to a resumption of the uptrend in 2018 and beyond. Given the improving default outlook, last week we upgraded high-yield from underweight to neutral. Still-tight valuation is the reason we maintain a neutral allocation as opposed to overweight. Our estimate of the default-adjusted high-yield spread - the average spread of the junk index less our forecast of 12-month default losses - is currently 152 bps (Chart 3). This is close to one standard deviation below its long-run average. Historically, we have found that a default-adjusted spread between 150 bps and 200 bps is consistent with positive 12-month excess returns 65% of the time, but with an average 12-month excess return of -164 bps. With the spread in this range a 90% confidence interval places 12-month excess returns between -500 bps and +171 bps. MBS: Underweight Chart 4MBS Market Overview MBS Market Overview MBS Market Overview Mortgage-Backed Securities underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 24 basis points in January. The conventional 30-year MBS yield rose 5 bps in January, driven by a 7 bps widening of the option-adjusted spread. The rate component of the yield held flat, while the compensation for prepayment risk (option cost) declined by 2 bps. MBS spreads remain extremely tight, relative both to history and Aaa-rated credit. Historically, the option-adjusted spread is correlated with net MBS issuance and robust issuance will eventually lead this spread wider. At least so far, net MBS issuance shows no sign of slowing down. While refinancing applications declined alongside the recent spike in Treasury yields, purchase applications have remained resilient (Chart 4). The Fed ceasing the reinvestment of its MBS portfolio would also significantly add to MBS supply. As we explained in a recent report,4 we expect the Fed will not start to wind down its balance sheet until 2018. However, if growth is stronger than we expect there is a chance the process could begin near the end of this year. In that same report we also observed that nominal MBS spreads are very low relative to both the slope of the yield curve and implied rate volatility. This poses a risk to MBS in the near-term. Government-Related: Cut To 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 21 basis points in January. Sovereign bonds outperformed by 75 bps, while Foreign and Domestic Agency bonds outperformed by 6 bps and 14 bps, respectively. Local Authorities outperformed by 34 bps and Supranationals outperformed by 2 bps. This week we downgrade the government-related sector from overweight to underweight, although we recommend maintaining an overweight allocation to both the Foreign Agency and Local Authority sectors. Sovereigns are not attractive compared to corporate credit, according to our model, and will struggle to outperform if the dollar remains in a bull market, as we expect it will. A stronger dollar increases the cost of debt servicing from the perspective on non-U.S. issuers. Foreign Agencies and Local Authorities both appear attractive relative to corporate credit, after adjusting for differences in credit rating and duration. Foreign Agencies in particular will perform well if oil prices continue to trend higher. Supranationals offer very little spread, and are best thought of as a hedge in spread widening environments. Domestic Agency debt can also be thought of in this vein, but with the added risk that spreads start to widen if any progress is made toward GSE reform. While any concrete movement on GSE reform is still a long way off, the new administration has brought the topic back into the headlines and this has led to some increased volatility in Domestic Agency spreads in recent weeks (Chart 5). Municipal Bonds: Upgrade To Neutral Chart 6Municipal Market Overview Municipal Market Overview Municipal Market Overview Municipal bonds outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 40 basis points in January (before adjusting for the tax advantage). The average Municipal / Treasury (M/T) yield ratio fell 2% in January and currently sits just below its post-crisis average. Even though net state & local government borrowing edged higher in Q4, issuance has rolled over in recent weeks and fund flows have sharply reversed course (Chart 6). As a result, our tactical yield ratio model - based on issuance, fund flows and ratings migration - shows that yield ratios are very close to fair value. Although the average M/T ratio still appears expensive if we include the global economic policy uncertainty index as an additional explanatory variable.5 While we remain cautious on the long-term prospects for state & local government health, we expect that improving trends in fund flows and issuance will support yield ratios for the next several months. Eventually we expect that increased state & local government investment will lead to higher issuance, but this will take some time to play out. In the meantime it will be crucial to monitor the federal government's progress on tax reform, particularly if there appears to be any appetite for removing municipal bonds' tax exempt status. Our sense is that the tax exemption will remain in place due to the administration's stated preference for increased infrastructure spending. But that outcome is highly uncertain. Treasury Curve: Favor 5-Year Bullet Over 2/10 Barbell Chart 7Treasury Yield Curve Overview Treasury Yield Curve Overview Treasury Yield Curve Overview After a volatile end to last year, the Treasury curve was relatively unchanged in January. The 2/10 slope steepened by 1 basis point on the month and the 5/30 slope steepened by 2 bps. In previous reports we detailed how the combination of accelerating economic growth and still-accommodative Fed policy will cause the Treasury curve to bear-steepen this year. This steepening will be driven by a continued, but gradual, recovery in long-dated TIPS breakeven inflation back to pre-crisis levels (2.4% to 2.5%). Once inflation expectations return to pre-crisis levels, it is possible that the Fed will shift to a monetary policy that is focused more on tamping out inflation than supporting growth. At that point the curve will shift from a bear-steepening to a bear-flattening regime. However, as we posited in a recent report,6 it could take until the end of this year before TIPS breakevens return to pre-crisis levels and core inflation returns to the Fed's target. To position for a steeper Treasury curve, we recommend that investors favor the 5-year bullet versus a duration-equivalent 2/10 barbell. Not only will the bullet outperform the barbell as the curve steepens, but the 5-year bullet is currently very cheap relative to the 2/10 slope (Chart 7). This trade has so far returned +29 bps since initiation on December 20. TIPS: Overweight Chart 8TIPS Market Overview TIPS Market Overview TIPS Market Overview TIPS outperformed the duration-equivalent nominal Treasury index by 58 basis points in January. The 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate increased 10 bps on the month and, at 2.05%, it remains well below its pre-crisis range of 2.4% to 2.5%. The Fed will be keen to allow TIPS breakevens to rise toward levels more consistent with its inflation target, and will quickly adopt a more dovish policy stance if breakevens fall. This "Fed put" is a key reason why we remain overweight TIPS relative to nominal Treasuries, although we expect the uptrend in breakevens will moderate during the next few months. As we detailed in a recent report,7 while accelerating wage growth will ensure that inflation remains in an uptrend, the impact from wages will be mitigated by deflating import prices. Diffusion indexes for both PCE and CPI have also rolled over recently, suggesting that inflation readings will soften during the next couple of months. The anchor from slowly rising inflation will prevent TIPS breakevens from increasing too quickly, and breakevens are also too high compared to the reading from our TIPS Financial model - based on the dollar, oil prices and the stock-to-bond total return ratio (Chart 8). At the moment, only pipeline measures of inflationary pressure such as the ISM prices paid index (panel 4) suggest that breakevens will move rapidly higher in the near term. Remain overweight TIPS but expect the uptrend in breakevens to moderate in the months ahead. ABS: Maximum Overweight Chart 9ABS Market Overview ABS Market Overview ABS Market Overview Asset-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 6 basis points in January. Aaa-rated issues outperformed by 5 bps while non-Aaa issues outperformed by 17 bps. Credit card issues outperformed by 8 bps and auto loans outperformed by 5 bps. The index option-adjusted spread for Aaa-rated ABS tightened 3 bps on the month. At 51 bps, the spread remains well below its average pre-crisis level. As was noted in the Appendix to our year-end Special Report,8 consumer ABS provided better volatility-adjusted excess returns than all fixed income sectors except Baa-rated corporates and Caa-rated high-yield in 2016. With ABS spreads still elevated relative to other similarly risky fixed income sectors, we expect this risk-adjusted performance to continue. The spread on Aaa-rated credit card ABS tightened 4 bps in January, and now sits at 49 bps. Meanwhile, the spread on Aaa-rated auto loan ABS tightened 1 bp on the month, and now sits at 54 bps. In early November we recommended favoring Aaa-rated credit cards relative to Aaa-rated auto loans. Collateral credit quality between credit cards and auto loans is clearly diverging in favor of credit cards (Chart 9, bottom panel), and in early November, our measure of the volatility adjusted breakeven spread (days-to-breakeven) was displaying no discernible valuation advantage in autos. Since November, however, autos have started to look more attractive (Chart 9, panel 3). If auto loan spreads continue to widen relative to credit cards we may soon shift back into autos. Non-Agency CMBS: Underweight Chart 10CMBS Market Overview CMBS Market Overview CMBS Market Overview Non-agency Commercial Mortgage-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 60 basis points in January. The index option-adjusted spread for non-agency Aaa-rated CMBS tightened 6 bps on the month, and is now close to one standard deviation below its pre-crisis mean (Chart 10). Rising CMBS delinquency rates and tightening commercial real estate lending standards make us cautious on non-agency CMBS. This caution has only intensified now that spreads are at their tightest levels since prior to the financial crisis. Agency CMBS: Overweight Agency CMBS outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 22 basis points in January. The index option-adjusted spread for Agency CMBS tightened 4 bps on the month, and currently sits at 51 bps. The spread offered from Agency CMBS is similar to what is offered by Aaa-rated consumer ABS (52 bps) and greater than what is offered by conventional 30-year MBS (30 bps) for a similar amount of spread volatility. We continue to recommend an overweight position in Agency CMBS. Treasury Valuation Chart 11Global PMI Model Global PMI Model Global PMI Model The current reading from our 2-factor Global PMI model (which includes the global PMI and dollar sentiment) places fair value for the 10-year Treasury yield at 2.44% (Chart 11). Our 3-factor version of the model, which also incorporates the Global Economic Policy Uncertainty Index, places fair value at 2.08%. The lower fair value is the result of a large spike in the uncertainty index in November that has yet to unwind (bottom panel). Large spikes in uncertainty that do not coincide with deterioration in other economic indicators tend to mean revert fairly quickly. So we would be inclined to view the fair value reading from our 2-factor model as more indicative of true fair value at the moment. It is for this reason that we recently moved back to a below-benchmark duration stance.9 For further details on our Global PMI models please refer to the U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "The Message From Our Treasury Model", dated October 11, 2016, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com. At the time of publication the 10-year Treasury yield was 2.44%. Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Inflation: More Fire Than Ice, But Don't Sound The Alarm", dated January 24, 2016, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Trump, Day One: Let The Trade War Begin", dated January 18, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, "Seven Fixed Income Themes For 2017", dated December 20, 2016, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Is It Time To Cut Duration?", dated January 17, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 5 For further details on the model please see U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, "Seven Fixed Income Themes For 2017", dated December 20, 2016, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 6 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Inflation: More Fire Than Ice, But Don't Sound The Alarm", dated January 24, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 7 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Inflation: More Fire Than Ice, But Don't Sound The Alarm", dated January 24, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 8 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, "Seven Fixed Income Themes for 2017", dated December 20, 2016, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 9 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Dollar Watching: Another Update", dated January 31, 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 Duration: In the absence of a major economic shock we will reinitiate a below-benchmark duration recommendation once the Global Economic Policy Uncertainty Index displays some mean reversion and positioning indicators are at less bearish extremes. Fed Balance Sheet: The Fed could start to reduce the size of its balance sheet as early as the end of this year, but more likely in 2018. In any case, allowing securities to run off its portfolio will not have much of an impact on long-dated Treasury yields. MBS: Remain underweight MBS. Spreads are already low and have near-term upside based on the slope of the yield curve and the uptrend in interest rate volatility. Feature As we pointed out in our December 6 report, the bond selloff had proceeded too far, too fast, and was due for a pause. The 10-year Treasury yield then peaked at 2.6% on December 16 and has now fallen back to 2.4% as we go to press. It is of note that all of the reversal has come from the real component of yields while the compensation for expected inflation has remained firm (Chart 1). Chart 1Bear Market On Pause Bear Market On Pause Bear Market On Pause In our end-of-year "Themes For 2017" Special Report 1 we explained why we believe Treasury yields will level-off in the near term before heading higher throughout most of 2017. Now that we have entered this first "consolidation phase" it is time to consider what factors would cause us to reinstate a below-benchmark duration stance. But first, let us quickly recap our bearish 6-12 month outlook for Treasuries. The Cyclical Outlook For Treasury Yields Many of the headwinds that held back economic growth last year - including fiscal policy, inventory drawdowns and the impact of a distressed energy sector on capital spending - are poised to abate in 2017. With stronger growth and an already tight labor market, core inflation will continue to gradually rise toward the Fed's target. We expect trailing 12-month core PCE inflation will reach the Fed's 2% target near the end of 2017. Consequently, the cost of inflation protection embedded in bond yields will also converge with levels that are consistent with the Fed's target (Chart 2). We judge this level to be in the range of 2.4% to 2.5% for long-dated TIPS breakevens. With the 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven rate at 2.13% and the 10-year TIPS breakeven rate at 2%, long-dated Treasury yields have approximately 30-50 bps of upside from the inflation component alone. Chart 2Breakevens Still Too Low Breakevens Still Too Low Breakevens Still Too Low Chart 3Real Yields Also Biased Higher Real Yields Also Biased Higher Real Yields Also Biased Higher We are less certain about how much higher real yields might move during the next 12 months. However, the downside in real yields is surely limited. Chart 3 shows that changes in the 10-year real yield and changes in our 12-month Fed Funds Discounter2 are almost always positively correlated. At present, the reading from our discounter is 46 bps, meaning the market is priced for about 2 more rate hikes during the next 12 months. Given our positive economic outlook, 2 or 3 rate hikes in 2017 sounds reasonable. Is Now The Time To Trim Duration? Barring any major economic setbacks we will consider three factors when making this decision: (i) valuation, (ii) economic policy uncertainty and (iii) sentiment & positioning. Factor 1: Valuation When we last shifted from a below-benchmark to a benchmark duration stance on December 6 the 10-year Treasury yield traded 14 bps above the fair value reading from our 2-factor Global PMI Model. At present, the 10-year yield is only 9 bps cheap on this model (Chart 4). In other words, valuation is essentially neutral. But since global PMI is likely to trend higher over the course of the year, we would be comfortable cutting duration at current valuation levels should the other two factors on our checklist fall into place. Factor 2: Uncertainty We've been talking a lot about uncertainty recently, mostly in reference to the Global Economic Policy Uncertainty Index created by Baker, Bloom and Davis.3 This index exhibits a strong inverse correlation with Treasury yields over time and has shot higher during the past couple of months without a corresponding decrease in yields. When we consider the uncertainty index alongside Global PMI and bullish sentiment toward the U.S. dollar in our 3-factor model of Treasury yields, we find that the 10-year Treasury yield now appears 38 bps cheap (Chart 5). Chart 4Close To Fair Value... Close To Fair Value ... Close To Fair Value ... Chart 5...But Uncertainty Remains Elevated ... But Uncertainty Remains Elevated ... But Uncertainty Remains Elevated What is particularly odd is that the uncertainty index has diverged so sharply from measures of both consumer and small business confidence (Chart 6). This epic split can mean only one of two things: Chart 6Excessive Optimism Or A False Reading From The Uncertainty Index? Excessive Optimism Or A False Reading From The Uncertainty Index? Excessive Optimism Or A False Reading From The Uncertainty Index? Businesses and consumers are excessively optimistic in the face of an increasingly uncertain back-drop, or The uncertainty index is unable to distinguish between policy shocks with positive and negative economic implications We turn to history in an attempt to determine whether the warning from the uncertainty index should be heeded. Specifically, we searched for other one-month periods when there was a one standard deviation increase in the uncertainty index alongside increases in both consumer and small business confidence. Since 1991, ten months meet these criteria (Table 1). Table 1Periods Displaying One Standard Deviation Increase In Global Economic Policy##br## Uncertainty Index* And Increase In Both Consumer Sentiment Index** ##br##And Small Business Confidence Index*** (1991 To Present) Is It Time To Cut Duration? Is It Time To Cut Duration? First we note that Treasury yields declined in 7 out of the 10 flagged periods, but in many of those episodes the scale of the positive confidence shocks was not very large. The two months that appear most similar to the present situation are September 2008 and December 2013. Chart 7Investors Still Bearish Investors Still Bearish Investors Still Bearish The Fed announced the tapering of its asset purchases in December 2013 amidst signs of an improving economy. The hawkish Fed announcement and improving economic outlook sent yields higher on the month, while the uncertainty index spiked as a large number of Fed-related news stories hit the papers.4 One thing that makes December 2013 an imperfect comparable to the present day is that the uncertainty shock was relatively small compared to the confidence shocks. In September 2008 the confidence shocks were not as large as the uncertainty shock, much like today, and the 10-year Treasury yield managed a 2 bps increase. However, it is definitely unfair to draw a conclusion based on the extremely volatile price movements that were witnessed at the height of the financial crisis in September 2008. Based on the example of December 2013, we cannot decisively rule out the possibility that the uncertainty index is simply giving a false signal. However, if that is the case we would expect the uncertainty index to mean revert in relatively short order. Given the strong historical relationship between the uncertainty index and Treasury yields, we will wait for some mean reversion in the uncertainty index before shifting back to a below-benchmark duration stance. Factor 3: Sentiment & Positioning When we shifted from a below-benchmark to a benchmark duration stance measures of investor sentiment and positioning were at bearish extremes, sending a decisive signal that the bond market was oversold. As of today, some of these indicators have started to reverse course while others have not (Chart 7). Our BCA Bond Sentiment Indicator, a composite of a survey of bullish sentiment toward bonds and the 13-week rate of change in bond yields is no longer at an oversold extreme. However, net speculative positions in the 10-year Treasury futures contract have moved even further into "net short" territory. The J.P. Morgan client survey shows that investors remain below benchmark duration in aggregate, although active traders are no longer net short. Although some capitulation of shorts has already taken place, we will await some further normalization of positioning - particularly in net speculative futures - before reinitiating a below-benchmark duration stance. Bottom Line: In the absence of a major economic shock we will reinitiate a below-benchmark duration recommendation once the Global Economic Policy Uncertainty Index displays some mean reversion and positioning indicators are at less bearish extremes. The Fed's Balance Sheet & The Shortage Of Bills The minutes from December's FOMC meeting revealed that: Several participants noted circumstances that might warrant changes to the path for the federal funds rate could also have implications for the reinvestment of proceeds from maturing Treasury securities and principal payments from agency debt and mortgage-backed securities Since then, three different FOMC members have also spoken about the size of the Fed's balance sheet. Philadelphia Fed President Patrick Harker said that the Fed should consider shrinking its balance sheet once the fed funds rate reaches 1%.5 Boston Fed President Eric Rosengren made the case for more immediate action6 and St. Louis Fed President James Bullard said the Fed should consider shrinking its balance sheet in 2017.7 Clearly, talk of unwinding the Fed's balance sheet is heating up. The Fed's only official stated position on this topic is that it will keep its balance sheet level until normalization of the fed funds rate is "well under way", a statement we have long interpreted to mean "until the fed funds rate is 1%, or perhaps even higher". As such, we would not expect any action on winding down the Fed's balance sheet until late this year at the earliest, and more likely in 2018. The Impact On Treasury Yields In any case, as we detailed in a report published in August 2015,8 we do not think that the Fed allowing its balance sheet to shrink will itself have much of an impact on Treasury yields. The reason relates to the way in which maturing Treasury securities are currently rolled over at auction and the persistent shortage of T-bills in the market. Chart 8Fed Runoff Will Increase##br## Issuance To Public ... Fed Runoff Will Increase Issuance To Public ... Fed Runoff Will Increase Issuance To Public ... At the moment, balances of matured Treasury securities are added to upcoming note/bond auctions as non-competitive bids. In other words, as Treasury securities mature the Fed buys an equal amount at upcoming Treasury auctions. If the Fed were to cease this reinvestment, that amount would need to be added to the competitive portion of the auctions and would greatly increase the gross issuance of Treasury debt to the public. For a sense of scale, we calculate that Treasury issuance to the public would need to increase by $426 bn in 2018 and $378 bn in 2019 if the Fed were to cease the reinvestment of its portfolio at the end of this year (Chart 8). We contend, however, that a significant portion of this extra financing requirement will be met through increased T-bill issuance and will therefore not impact long-dated Treasury yields. The Treasury department has had a stated goal of increasing T-bill issuance since May 2015 and bill supply as a percentage of total Treasury debt remains near a multi-decade low (Chart 9). Further, T-bills are still in high demand as evidenced by the fact that they are trading at a substantial premium to other money market instruments (Chart 10). This premium exists despite the fact that the Fed has been soaking up a lot of T-bill demand through its Overnight Reverse Repo facility (Chart 10, bottom panel). If the Fed were to phase this program out alongside a reduction in the size of its balance sheet - which is its current stated exit strategy - the shortage of T-bills would be exacerbated. Chart 9... But Mostly Through T-Bills ... But Mostly Through T-Bills ... But Mostly Through T-Bills Chart 10T-Bills In High Demand T-Bills In High Demand T-Bills In High Demand Of course there is a new regime about to enter the White House and the Treasury department, and also a lot of uncertainty about how large the deficit will be going forward. If the deficit is increased substantially then it would likely be necessary for the Treasury department to increase the size of both bill and coupon issuance in the years ahead. Bottom Line: It is necessary to consider both fiscal policy and the Fed's balance sheet together when forecasting Treasury issuance. Further, whatever the government's financing requirement, a considerable portion of it will be addressed through increased T-bill issuance in the years ahead. This will limit the impact on long-dated Treasury yields. A Quick Note On MBS Chart 11MBS Spreads Are Too Low MBS Spreads Are Too Low MBS Spreads Are Too Low Any unwind of the Fed's balance sheet will have a much greater impact on MBS spreads than on Treasury yields since it will add directly to the supply of MBS available to the public, which tends to correlate with MBS option-adjusted spreads (Chart 11). Of course, other factors such as the rate of prepayments will determine how quickly the Fed's MBS holdings run off and the state of the housing market will determine how much new mortgage origination takes place. We hope to explore these issues in more depth in the coming weeks. Of more immediate concern for MBS spreads though is the recent divergence between nominal spreads, rate volatility and the slope of the yield curve (Chart 11, bottom two panels). MBS spreads have not widened in recent weeks despite curve steepening and rising rate vol. MBS spreads are already low compared to investment alternatives and have upside in the near term, especially if the yield curve continues to steepen, as we expect it will. Looking further out, the eventual wind down of the Fed's balance sheet is another risk the MBS market will have to face. Bottom Line: Remain underweight MBS. Spreads are already low and have near-term upside based on the slope of the yield curve and the uptrend in interest rate volatility. Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, "Seven Fixed Income Themes For 207", dated December 20, 2016, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 Our 12-month discounter measures the expected change in the fed funds rate during the next 12 months as discounted in the overnight index swap curve. 3 www.policyuncertainty.com 4 The uncertainty index is in part based on an algorithm that scans newspapers for coverage of policy-related economic uncertainty. 5 http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-fed-harker-idUSKBN14W1W4 6 http://www.cnbc.com/2017/01/09/reuters-america-interview-rosengren-urges-more-rate-hikes-slimmer-balance-sheet.html 7 http://www.businessinsider.com/lets-shrink-the-balance-sheet-bullard-says-2016-12 8 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Currencies: The Tail Wagging The Dog", dated August 18, 2015, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

Highlights Chart 1Upside Risks & Uncertainty Upside Risks & Uncertainty Upside Risks & Uncertainty The evidence of economic acceleration continues to pile up and we maintain our view that bond yields will be higher than current forwards by the end of 2017. In the near-term, however, the bond market has been too quick to discount a more positive growth outlook, especially considering still-elevated levels of economic policy uncertainty. Our cautious optimism is echoed by the readings from our global PMI models and also by the Fed. The minutes from December's FOMC meeting revealed that more participants saw upside risks to growth and inflation than saw downside risks, but also that this improved economic forecast was judged to be more uncertain than any Fed forecast since 2013 (Chart 1). We remain bond bears on a 12-month horizon, but advocate a benchmark duration stance in the near term. A period of flat bond yields is the most likely outcome until elevated uncertainty levels revert to a more normal range (see the global economic policy uncertainty index). Feature Investment Grade: Neutral Chart 2Investment Grade Market Overview Investment Grade Market Overview Investment Grade Market Overview Investment grade corporate bonds outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 82 basis points in December and by 478 basis points in 2016. The index option-adjusted spread tightened 6 bps on the month and 42 bps on the year. At 122 bps, the spread is currently well below its historical average (134 bps). Corporate spreads have tightened substantially since last February despite elevated gross leverage (Chart 2).1 As we pointed out in our end-of-year Special Report titled "Seven Fixed Income Themes For 2017",2 it is very rare for spreads to tighten when leverage is in an uptrend. While a rebound in profit growth will likely cause the uptrend in leverage to abate this year, spreads have already moved to discount a significant reversal. Although valuations are by no means attractive, accelerating economic growth and still-accommodative Fed policy will keep spreads at tight levels during the first half of this year. This sweet spot will persist at least until TIPS breakeven inflation rates return to pre-crisis levels, which would likely presage a hawkish shift in Fed policy. Energy sector debt returned 12.5% in excess of duration-equivalent Treasuries in 2016, compared to excess returns of under 5% for the overall corporate index. Despite this large outperformance, energy credits still appear attractive according to our model (Table 3), and should continue to outperform into the New Year. Table 3ACorporate Sector Relative Valuation##br## And Recommended Allocation* Cautious Optimism Cautious Optimism Table 3BCorporate Sector##br## Risk Vs. Reward* Cautious Optimism Cautious Optimism High-Yield: Underweight Chart 3High-Yield Market Overview High-Yield Market Overview High-Yield Market Overview High-yield outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 188 basis points in December and by 1539 basis points in 2016. The index option-adjusted spread narrowed 46 bps on the month and 251 bps on the year. At 383 bps, it is currently 137 bps below its historical average. As we highlighted in our year-end Special Report,3 the uptrend in defaults is likely to reverse this year, mostly due to recovery in the energy sector. However, still-poor corporate health and tightening monetary policy will lead to a resumption of the uptrend in 2018 and beyond. Given the improving default backdrop, we are actively looking to upgrade our allocation to high-yield debt. However, valuations do not present a sufficiently compelling opportunity at the moment. Our estimate of the default-adjusted high-yield spread - the average spread of the junk index less our forecast of 12-month default losses - is below 150 bps (Chart 3). This is close to one standard deviation below the long-run average. Historically, we have found that a default-adjusted spread between 100 bps and 200 bps is consistent with positive 12-month excess returns 65% of the time, but with an average 12-month excess return of close to zero. With the spread in this range, a 90% confidence interval would place 12-month excess returns between -3% and +4%. MBS: Underweight Chart 4MBS Market Overview MBS Market Overview MBS Market Overview Mortgage-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 6 basis points in December, but underperformed by 11 bps in 2016. The conventional 30-year MBS yield rose 5 bps in December, completely driven by a 5 bps increase in the rate component. The compensation for prepayment risk (option cost) and option-adjusted spread were both flat on the month. In 2016, the conventional 30-year MBS yield rose 6 bps. This was driven by a 12 bps increase in the rate component that was partially offset by a 9 bps decline in the option-adjusted spread. The option cost increased 3 bps on the year. Our underweight in MBS is predicated upon very low option-adjusted spreads, relative both to history and other comparable spread product (Chart 4). Historically, the option-adjusted spread is correlated with net MBS issuance and eventually we expect rising net issuance to lead the option-adjusted spread wider. Importantly, purchase applications have remained firm in the face of higher mortgage rates even though refinancings have collapsed (bottom panel). Another tail risk for the MBS market is the possibility that the Fed ceases the reinvestment of its mortgage portfolio. While we do not expect this to occur in 2017, with two rate hikes now in the bank the fed funds rate is approaching levels where the Fed might begin to consider it. A new Fed Chair in early 2018 might also be more inclined to wind down the balance sheet. Government Related: Overweight Chart 5Government Related Market Overview Government Related Market Overview Government Related Market Overview The government-related index outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 27 basis points in December. Foreign Agency and Sovereign bonds outperformed by 84 bps and 83 bps respectively, while Local Authorities outperformed by 22 bps. Domestic Agency bonds and Supranationals were a drag on performance during the month, underperforming the Treasury benchmark by 10 bps and 7 bps respectively. The government-related index outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury benchmark by 150 bps in 2016. The best performing sub-sectors for the year were Sovereigns (outperformed by 322 bps), Local Authorities (outperformed by 286 bps) and Foreign Agencies (outperformed by 258 bps). Domestic Agency bonds outperformed Treasuries by 38 bps, while Supranationals underperformed by 11 bps. Foreign Agency bonds and Local Authority bonds continue to appear attractive relative to U.S. corporate credit, after adjusting for credit rating and duration. We recommend focusing our government related allocation in these two sectors. In contrast, Sovereigns and Supranationals both appear expensive relative to U.S. corporate credit, and we recommend avoiding these sectors. Spreads on Domestic Agency debt have room to tighten in the near-term (Chart 5). Spreads widened to the top of their recent range last month on rumors that the new government could seek to speed up the process of GSE reform. We view these concerns as premature. This week we also remove our recommendation to favor callable agencies over bullets. Bullets have tended to outperform when the 2/5 Treasury slope steepens (bottom panel). We expect the 2/5 curve to be biased steeper in the first half of this year. Municipal Bonds: Underweight Chart 6Municipal Market Overview Municipal Market Overview Municipal Market Overview Municipal bonds outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 134 basis points in December, but underperformed the index by 103 basis points in 2016 (before adjusting for the tax advantage). The average Municipal / Treasury (M/T) yield ratio fell 8% in December, but increased 13% during 2016. At present the average M/T ratio is 98%, only slightly below its post-crisis average (Chart 6). Although M/T ratios moved higher last year, trends in issuance and fund flows suggest they are still too low. As we noted in our year-end Special Report,4 our tactical model of the M/T yield ratio - based on issuance, fund flows, ratings changes and economic policy uncertainty - pegs current fair value for the average M/T yield ratio at 112%. Further, as was also highlighted in our year-end report, the municipal credit cycle is likely to take a turn for the worse in late 2017, with muni downgrades starting to outpace upgrades. This analysis is based on indicators of state & local government budget health that tend to follow our indicators of corporate sector health with a two year lag. Just last month Moody's downgraded $1.6 billion worth of the City of Dallas' general obligation debt from Aa3 to A1. The downgrade was justified based on the city's poorly funded public safety pension plan. Attention will increasingly turn to underfunded public pensions when state & local government budget health starts to deteriorate later this year. Treasury Curve: Favor 5-Year Bullet Over 2/10 Barbell Chart 7Treasury Yield Curve Overview Treasury Yield Curve Overview Treasury Yield Curve Overview The Treasury curve shifted higher and flattened in December. The 2/10 slope flattened by 1 basis point on the month and the 5/30 slope flattened 6 bps. For 2016 as a whole, the Treasury curve bear-steepened out to the 10-year maturity. The 2/10 slope steepened 4 bps and the 5/30 slope flattened 12 bps. In our year-end Special Report,5 we detailed how the combination of accelerating economic growth and still-accommodative Fed policy will cause the Treasury curve to bear-steepen in the first half of 2017. This steepening will be driven by continued, but gradual, recovery in long-dated TIPS breakeven inflation back to pre-crisis levels (2.4% to 2.5%). Once inflation expectations return to pre-crisis levels, it is possible that the Fed will shift to a monetary policy that is focused more on tamping out inflation than supporting growth. At that point the curve will shift from a bear-steepening to a bear-flattening regime. A steepening curve environment will cause bullet trades to outperform barbells. On top of that, the 5-year bullet is currently extremely cheap on the curve (Chart 7). For these reasons we recommended entering a long 5-year bullet, short 2/10 barbell trade on December 20. This trade has already returned 8 bps since initiation, even though the 2/10 slope has flattened 10 bps during this period. A resumption of curve steepening will cause our long 5-year bullet, short 2/10 barbell trade to perform even better in the months ahead. TIPS: Overweight Chart 8TIPS Market Overview TIPS Market Overview TIPS Market Overview TIPS outperformed the duration-equivalent nominal Treasury index by 6 basis points in December, and by 331 bps in 2016. The 10-year TIPS breakeven rate increased by 1 bp in December and by 41 bps in 2016. At present it sits at 1.96%, still well below the 2.4% to 2.5% range that is consistent with the Fed's 2% inflation target. As we explained in our year-end Special Report,6 the Fed will be keen to allow TIPS breakevens to rise toward levels more consistent with its inflation target, and will quickly back away from a hawkish policy stance should breakevens fall. But while breakevens will continue to trend higher, the rate of increase should moderate to be more in line with the shallow uptrend in realized inflation. It is difficult for the Fed to drive long-dated inflation expectations higher while it is in the midst of a tightening cycle. For this reason, trends in actual inflation will be a more important determinant of TIPS breakevens than in the past. And while there are indications that the uptrend in realized inflation will persist, notably recent accelerations in wage growth and survey measures of prices paid (Chart 8). There is currently no indication that core and trimmed mean inflation are breaking out to the upside (bottom panel). We remain overweight TIPS relative to nominal Treasuries on the expectation that long-dated breakevens reach the 2.4% to 2.5% range in the second half of 2017, and that core PCE inflation reaches the Fed's 2% target by the end of the year. ABS: Maximum Overweight Chart 9ABS Market Overview ABS Market Overview ABS Market Overview Asset-Backed Securities underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 17 basis points in December but outperformed the Treasury benchmark by 94 bps in 2016. Aaa-rated ABS underperformed Treasuries by 21 bps in December but outperformed by 75 bps in 2016, while non-Aaa ABS outperformed the benchmark by 13 bps in December and by 257 bps in 2016. The index option-adjusted spread for Aaa-rated ABS widened by 11 bps in December, but tightened by 10 bps in 2016. Further, the spread differential between Aaa-rated auto ABS and Aaa-rated credit card ABS narrowed substantially in 2016. The option-adjusted spread for Aaa-rated auto loan ABS has tightened by 20 bps since the end of 2015, while the option-adjusted spread for Aaa-rated credit card ABS has tightened by 10 bps. We have previously noted that, after adjusting for spread volatility, Aaa-rated auto loan ABS no longer offer an attractive opportunity relative to Aaa-rated credit cards (Chart 9). We continue to favor Aaa-rated credit cards over Aaa-rated auto loans, given the low spread differential and divergences in collateral credit quality (bottom panel). As was noted in the Appendix to our year-end Special Report,7 consumer ABS provided better volatility-adjusted excess returns than all fixed income sectors except for Baa-rated corporates and Caa-rated high-yield in 2016. With spreads still elevated relative to other similarly risky fixed income sectors, we expect this risk-adjusted performance to continue. Non-Agency CMBS: Underweight Agency CMBS: Overweight Chart 10CMBS Market Overview CMBS Market Overview CMBS Market Overview Agency CMBS underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 40 basis points in December, but outperformed by 117 bps in 2016. The index option-adjusted spread for Agency CMBS widened 10 bps in December but tightened 6 bps in 2016. Agency CMBS still offer 50 bps of option-adjusted spread. This is similar to what is offered by Aaa-rated consumer ABS (51 bps) and greater than what is offered by conventional 30-year MBS (26 bps) for a similar amount of spread volatility. We continue to recommend an overweight position in Agency CMBS. Non-agency Commercial Mortgage-Backed Securities underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 19 basis points in December, but outperformed by 313 bps in 2016. The index option-adjusted spread for non-agency Aaa-rated CMBS widened 7 bps in December but tightened 48 bps in 2016. It has recently moved well below its average pre-crisis level (Chart 10). Rising CMBS delinquency rates and tightening commercial real estate lending standards make us cautious on non-agency CMBS. This caution has only intensified now that spreads are at their tightest levels since prior to the financial crisis. Treasury Valuation Chart 11Global PMI Model Global PMI Model Global PMI Model The current reading from our 2-factor Global PMI model (which includes the global PMI and dollar sentiment) places fair value for the 10-year Treasury yield at 2.31% (Chart 11). Our 3-factor version of the model, which also incorporates the global economic policy uncertainty index, places fair value at 2.02%. The lower fair value is the result of a large spike in the global economic policy uncertainty index in November that barely reversed in December (bottom panel). Large spikes in uncertainty that do not coincide with deterioration in other economic indicators tend to mean revert fairly quickly. So we would be inclined to view the fair value reading from our 2-factor model as more indicative of true fair value at the moment. However, unusually high uncertainty is one reason we are reluctant to adopt a below benchmark duration stance for the time being even though we expect yields to be higher in 12 months. At the time of publication the 10-year Treasury yield was 2.37% For further details on our Global PMI models please refer to the U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "The Message From Our Treasury Model", dated October 11, 2016, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com. Monetary Conditions And Rate Expectations The BCA Monetary Conditions Index (MCI) combines changes in the fed funds rate with changes in the trade-weighted dollar using a 10:1 ratio. Historically, economic downturns have been preceded by a break in this index above its equilibrium level - calculated using the Congressional Budget Office's estimate of potential GDP growth (Chart 12). With the MCI having just reached this estimate of equilibrium, the shaded region in Chart 13 shows the expected path of the federal funds rate assuming that the MCI remains at its equilibrium level. The upper-end of the shaded region corresponds to a scenario where the trade-weighted dollar depreciates by 2% per year and the lower-end of the shaded region corresponds to a scenario where the dollar appreciates by 2% per year. The thick line through the middle of the region corresponds to a flat dollar. Chart 12Monetary Conditions Vs. Equilibrium Monetary Conditions Vs. Equilibrium Monetary Conditions Vs. Equilibrium Chart 13Fed Funds Rate Scenarios Fed Funds Rate Scenarios Fed Funds Rate Scenarios As can be seen in Chart 13, both the market and Fed are discounting a move in the MCI above its equilibrium level. This would be consistent with behavior witnessed in past cycles when the MCI broke above its equilibrium level several years before the next recession. Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com Alex Wang, Research Analyst alexw@bcaresearch.com 1 Defined as total debt divided by EBITD. 2 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, "Seven Fixed Income Themes For 2017", dated December 20, 2016, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, "Seven Fixed Income Themes For 2017", dated December 20, 2016, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, "Seven Fixed Income Themes For 2017", dated December 20, 2016, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 5 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, "Seven Fixed Income Themes For 2017", dated December 20, 2016, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 6 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, "Seven Fixed Income Themes For 2017", dated December 20, 2016, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 7 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, "Seven Fixed Income Themes For 2017", dated December 20, 2016, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification Corporate Sector Relative Valuation And Recommended Allocation Total Return Comparison: 7-Year Bullet Versus 2-20 Barbell (6-Month Investment Horizon)

Highlights Chart 1More Upside From Inflation bca.usbs_pas_2016_12_06_c1 bca.usbs_pas_2016_12_06_c1 We moved to below benchmark duration on July 19, when the 10-year Treasury yield was 1.56%. As of last Friday's close, the 10-year Treasury yield was 2.4% and above the fair value reading from our global PMI model. While our economic outlook still justifies higher Treasury yields on a 12-month horizon, the selloff in bonds has moved too far, too quickly. We recommend tactically shifting to a benchmark duration stance. Longer run, the upside in Treasury yields will be concentrated in the inflation component. The cost of 10-year inflation compensation can rise another 49 bps before it is consistent with the Fed's target. But that adjustment will proceed gradually next year, alongside a shallow uptrend in realized inflation (Chart 1). Higher inflation compensation can occasionally be offset by lower real yields, but this only occurs when the increase in inflation compensation results from an easing of Fed policy, as in 2011-2012. With the Fed in the midst of a hiking cycle, the downside in real yields is limited. We would not be surprised to see the 10-year Treasury yield re-visit the 2%-2.2% range during the next month or two. At that point we would re-initiate a below benchmark duration stance, on the view that the 10-year yield will reach 2.80%-3% by the end of 2017. Feature Investment Grade: Neutral Chart 2Investment Grade Market Overview Investment Grade Market Overview Investment Grade Market Overview Investment grade corporate bonds outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 52 basis points in November. The index option-adjusted spread tightened 3 bps on the month and, at 129 bps, it is now slightly below its historical average (134 bps). Spread per unit of gross leverage1 for the nonfinancial corporate sector is slightly above its historical average (Chart 2). But unusually, spreads have been tightening this year despite sharply rising gross leverage. Since 1973, there has only been one other period when spreads tightened despite rising gross leverage. That was in 1986-88 when, similar to today, spreads were tightening from extremely oversold levels. Much like today, elevated spreads in 1986 resulted from distress in the energy sector that dissipated as oil prices recovered. This caused corporate spreads to widen dramatically and then tighten, while in the background gross leverage persistently climbed higher. The current recovery in oil prices could lead to further corporate spread tightening early next year. Indeed, energy sector credits still appear cheap on our model and we continue to recommend overweighting those sectors. This month we also upgrade Paper from neutral to overweight (Table 3). Table 3Corporate Sector Relative Valuation And Recommended Allocation* Too Far Too Fast, But The Bond Bear Is Still Intact Too Far Too Fast, But The Bond Bear Is Still Intact Table 3BCorporate Sector Risk Vs. Reward* Too Far Too Fast, But The Bond Bear Is Still Intact Too Far Too Fast, But The Bond Bear Is Still Intact However, corporate credit fundamentals are deteriorating rapidly and spreads will be at risk when the Fed adopts a more hawkish policy stance, possibly as early as the second half of next year.2 High-Yield: Maximum Underweight Chart 3High-Yield Market Overview High-Yield Market Overview High-Yield Market Overview High-yield outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 128 basis points in November. The index option-adjusted spread tightened 23 bps on the month and, at 450 bps, it is 71 bps below its historical average. A model based on lagged spreads and default losses explains more than 50% of the variation in 12-month excess junk returns. This model currently forecasts excess junk returns of close to zero during the next 12 months (Chart 3), a forecast that is based on our expectation of a modest improvement in default losses (bottom panel). In a recent report,3 we examined the relationship between default-adjusted spreads and excess junk returns in more detail. We showed that a model based purely on ex-ante estimates of default losses explains around 34% of the variation in excess junk returns. We also showed that, historically, negative excess returns to junk bonds are only likely if the ex-ante default-adjusted spread is below 100 bps. Our current ex-ante default-adjusted spread is 201 bps. Historically, when the ex-ante default-adjusted spread is between 200 bps and 250 bps, junk earns positive excess returns 81% of the time. However, junk earns positive excess returns only 65% of the time if the spread is between 150 bps and 200 bps. Although our economic outlook for next year is fairly optimistic, high-yield valuations are stretched and we expect to get a better entry point from which to upgrade the sector during the next couple of months. MBS: Underweight Chart 4MBS Market Overview bca.usbs_pas_2016_12_06_c4 bca.usbs_pas_2016_12_06_c4 Mortgage-Backed Securities underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 47 basis points in November. Other than municipal bonds, MBS has been the worst performing fixed income sector relative to Treasuries, earning year-to-date excess returns of -17 bps. The conventional 30-year MBS yield rose 53 bps in November, driven by a 59 bps increase in the rate component. The compensation for prepayment risk (option cost) declined 10 bps, while the option-adjusted spread widened by 4 bps. Prior to the election, we had been tactically overweight MBS on the view that higher Treasury yields would lead to a lower option cost, benefitting MBS in the near term. Now that Treasury yields have moved substantially higher, our focus returns to the extremely depressed levels of MBS option-adjusted spreads (Chart 4). Extremely low option-adjusted spreads coupled with a housing market that should continue to recover - leading to steadily increasing net supply (bottom panel) - make for a poor risk/reward trade-off in MBS relative to other fixed income sectors. Against this back-drop, MBS are only worth a tactical trade if you have high conviction that Treasury yields are about to rise and option costs about to tighten. We do not expect the Fed to cease the reinvestment of its MBS purchases in 2017. But, if Janet Yellen is replaced as Fed Chair in early 2018, then it is possible that the new Fed will seek to end its involvement in the MBS market. This is a tail risk for MBS in 2018. Government Related: Overweight Chart 5Government Related Market Overview bca.usbs_pas_2016_12_06_c5 bca.usbs_pas_2016_12_06_c5 The government-related index underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 19 basis points in November (Chart 5). Domestic Agency bonds and Local Authority bonds outperformed the Treasury index by 2 bps and 61 bps, respectively. Sovereign debt underperformed by 122 bps, Foreign Agency debt underperformed by 54 bps and Supranationals underperformed by 6 bps. More than half of the underperformance in the Foreign Agency sector came from Mexico's state oil company, Pemex, in the aftermath of Donald Trump's election win. Losses in the Sovereign debt sector were similarly concentrated in Mexican issues. Strength in oil prices should permit Foreign Agency debt to outperform going forward, while the strong U.S. dollar will remain a drag on Sovereign debt. Local Authority and Foreign Agency debt both continue to offer attractive spreads relative to U.S. investment grade corporate bonds, after adjusting for duration and credit rating. In contrast, Supranationals and Sovereigns both appear expensive. We continue to recommend an underweight allocation to Sovereign debt within an otherwise overweight allocation to the government related sector. Bullet Agency issues outperformed callable Agency bonds in November, despite the large increase in Treasury yields (bottom panel). We expect this trend will soon reverse, and remain overweight callable versus bullet Agencies. Municipal Bonds: Underweight Chart 6Municipal Market Overview bca.usbs_pas_2016_12_06_c6 bca.usbs_pas_2016_12_06_c6 Municipal bonds underperformed the duration equivalent Treasury index by 83 basis points in November (before adjusting for the tax advantage). The average Municipal / Treasury (M/T) yield ratio rose from 99% to 107% in November, and is now above its post-crisis average (Chart 6). We downgraded municipal bonds to underweight on November 15,4 following Donald Trump's election victory. Lower tax rates under the new administration will undermine the tax advantage in municipal bonds, leading to outflows and higher M/T yield ratios. ICI data show that outflows have already begun. Net outflows from Muni funds have exceeded $7 billion in the four weeks since the end of October (panel 4). There are also longer-run concerns related to supply and state & local government credit quality. Depending on how it is structured, increased infrastructure spending next year could lead to a large increase in municipal bond supply. Also, state & local government downgrades are likely to increase later next year, following the lead of the corporate sector. Both of these issues are discussed in more detail in a recent Special Report.5 In October, the SEC finalized new liquidity management standards for open-ended investment funds. Funds must now determine a minimum percentage of net assets that must be invested in highly liquid securities, and no more than 15% of assets can be invested in securities deemed illiquid. At the margin, the new rule could limit funds' appetites for municipal bonds. Treasury Curve: Laddered Chart 7Treasury Yield Curve Overview bca.usbs_pas_2016_12_06_c7 bca.usbs_pas_2016_12_06_c7 November's bond rout was concentrated in the belly (5-10 years) of the Treasury curve. The 2/10 Treasury slope steepened 28 basis points on the month, while the 5/30 slope flattened by 8 bps. We believe that the yield curve has room to steepen further in 2017, based largely on the expectation that the Fed will maintain an accommodative stance of monetary policy at least until TIPS breakeven inflation rates are at levels more consistent with the Fed's 2% inflation target (Chart 7). In our view, this level is between 2.4% and 2.5% for long-dated TIPS breakevens. However, we are reluctant to initiate a curve steepener one week before the Fed is poised to lift rates. Although we view a "dovish hike", i.e. an increase in the fed funds rate with no upward revision to the Fed's interest rate forecasts, as the most likely outcome. If we are wrong, an upward revision to the Fed's forecasts would cause the curve to bear-flatten on the day. At present, the market expects 55 bps of rate hikes during the next 12 months (panel 1). If expectations remain at these levels until after next week's FOMC meeting they will be consistent with the Fed's median forecast, assuming there are no upward revisions. Also, as we pointed out on the front page of this report, the selloff at the long-end of the Treasury curve appears stretched relative to fundamentals and is likely to take a pause. This should provide us with a more attractive level from which to enter curve steepeners heading into next year. TIPS: Overweight Chart 8TIPS Market Overview bca.usbs_pas_2016_12_06_c8 bca.usbs_pas_2016_12_06_c8 TIPS outperformed the duration-equivalent nominal Treasury index by 148 bps in November. The 10-year breakeven rate increased 21 bps on the month, and currently sits at 1.91%. The 5-year, 5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rate has risen to 2.06% from its early 2016 trough of 1.41%. However, it still has room to rise before it returns to levels that are consistent with the Fed's 2% target for PCE inflation (Chart 8). As economic growth improves next year the Fed will be keen to allow TIPS breakevens to rise toward its target, and will be slow to shift to a less accommodative policy stance. As such, we maintain our recommendation to overweight TIPS relative to nominal Treasuries, with a target of 2.4% to 2.5% for the 5-year, 5-year forward TIPS breakeven rate. While breakevens will continue to trend higher, the rate of increase should moderate to be more in line with the shallow uptrend in realized inflation. With the Fed in the midst of a tightening cycle, it will be difficult for the Fed to lead inflation expectations sharply higher as in past cycles. Trends in realized inflation will be more important for long-dated breakevens this time around. Core and trimmed mean PCE inflation continue to grind slowly higher, a trend that is supported by the PCE diffusion index (panel 4). Assuming the current trend remains in place, core PCE inflation should finally reach the Fed's 2% target before the end of next year. ABS: Maximum Overweight Chart 9ABS Market Overview bca.usbs_pas_2016_12_06_c9 bca.usbs_pas_2016_12_06_c9 Asset-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 10 basis points in November, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +111 bps. Aaa-rated ABS outperformed the Treasury benchmark by 11 bps on the month, while non-Aaa issues outperformed by 5 bps. Credit card ABS outperformed by 14 bps, while auto ABS outperformed by 7 bps. The index option-adjusted spread for Aaa-rated ABS tightened 4 bps in November and, at 43 bps, it is well below its average pre-crisis level. Last month we observed that after adjusting for trailing 6-month spread volatility, Aaa-rated auto loan ABS no longer offer a compelling spread pick-up relative to Aaa-rated credit card ABS. We calculate that it will take 12 days of average spread widening for Aaa-rated auto ABS to underperform Treasuries on a 6-month horizon and 9 days of average spread widening for Aaa-rated credit card ABS to underperform (Chart 9). This spread cushion is not sufficient to compensate for the fact that credit card quality metrics are in much better shape than those for auto loans. The auto loan net loss rate has entered a clear uptrend, while credit card charge-offs are still near all-time lows (bottom panel). CMBS: Underweight Chart 10CMBS Market Overview bca.usbs_pas_2016_12_06_c10 bca.usbs_pas_2016_12_06_c10 Commercial Mortgage-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 74 basis points in November, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +269 bps. The index option-adjusted spread for non-agency Aaa-rated CMBS tightened 16 bps in November, and has now fallen below its average pre-crisis level (Chart 10). Rising delinquency rates and tightening lending standards make us cautious on non-agency CMBS. This caution has only intensified now that spreads are at their tightest levels since prior to the financial crisis. Further adding to our caution is that more than 6000 commercial real estate loans backing public conduit CMBS deals are set to mature in 2017. This is almost 5x the number that matured last year, according to data from Trepp. Agency CMBS outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 52 basis points in November, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +158 bps. Agency CMBS still offer 45 bps of option-adjusted spread. This is similar to what is offered by Aaa-rated consumer ABS (43 bps) and greater than what is offered by conventional 30-year MBS (22 bps) for a similar amount of spread volatility. We continue to recommend an overweight position in Agency CMBS. Treasury Valuation Chart 11Global PMI Model bca.usbs_pas_2016_12_06_c11 bca.usbs_pas_2016_12_06_c11 The current reading from our 3-factor Global PMI model (which includes global PMI, dollar sentiment and global policy uncertainty) places fair value for the 10-year Treasury yield at 1.82%. However, the low reading mostly reflects a large spike in global policy uncertainty in November. Large spikes in uncertainty that do not coincide with deterioration in other economic indicators tend to mean revert fairly quickly. So we would be inclined to view the fair value reading from our 2-factor Global PMI model (which includes only global PMI and dollar bullish sentiment) as more representative of 10-year Treasury yield fair value at the moment. The fair value reading from our 2-factor model is currently 2.26% (Chart 11). At the time of publication the 10-year Treasury yield was 2.4%. For further details on our Global PMI model please refer to the U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "The Message From Our Treasury Model", dated October 11, 2016, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com. Monetary Conditions And Rate Expectations The BCA Monetary Conditions Index (MCI) combines changes in the fed funds rate with changes in the trade-weighted dollar using a 10:1 ratio. Historically, economic downturns have been preceded by a break in this index above its equilibrium level - calculated using the Congressional Budget Office's estimate of potential GDP growth (Chart 12). Using assumptions for the time until the MCI converges with equilibrium and the annual appreciation of the trade-weighted dollar, it is possible to calculate the expected change in the fed funds rate for the cycle. The shaded region in Chart 13 shows the expected path for the federal funds rate assuming that the MCI reaches equilibrium at the end of 2019. The upper-end of the region corresponds to a scenario where the trade-weighted dollar depreciates by 2% per year and the lower-end of the region corresponds to a scenario where the dollar appreciates by 2% per year. The thick line through the middle of the region corresponds to a flat dollar. Chart 12Monetary Conditions Vs. Equilibrium bca.usbs_pas_2016_12_06_c12 bca.usbs_pas_2016_12_06_c12 Chart 13Fed Funds Rate Scenarios bca.usbs_pas_2016_12_06_c13 bca.usbs_pas_2016_12_06_c13 Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com Alex Wang, Research Analyst alexw@bcaresearch.com 1 Defined as total debt divided by EBITD. 2 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Toward A Cyclical Sweet Spot?", dated November 22, 2016, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy / Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "The Fourth Tantrum", dated November 29, 2016, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Secular Stagnation Vs. Trumponomics", dated November 15, 2016, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 5 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, "Trading The Municipal Credit Cycle", dated October 18, 2016, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification Corporate Sector Relative Valuation And Recommended Allocation Total Return Comparison: 7-Year Bullet Versus 2-20 Barbell (6-Month Investment Horizon)