Market Returns

Highlights Portfolio Strategy A playable sector rotation opportunity has emerged, as we first argued at the recent BCA investment conference: Financials, industrials and select tech subgroups will lead the next phase of the market advance, a result of the bond market selloff gaining steam into year-end and beyond. In contrast, rising interest rates, a vibrant U.S. economy, softening operating metrics and high indebtedness signal that it is time to shed utility stocks. Recent Changes Trim the S&P Utilities sector to underweight today. Table 1 The "FIT" Market The "FIT" Market Feature On the eve of earnings season, the SPX remains close to an all-time high. The most recent spate of investor optimism was driven by President Trump cementing another deal last week, this time with Canada. While the renaming of NAFTA to USMCA is a step in the right direction (i.e. a deal was struck), a deal with China remains the elephant in the room. On that front, U.S. hawkish trade rhetoric should remain in vogue and any deal will have to wait until at least after the election, if not until Q1/2019. Up to now Trump's trade hawkishness has not infiltrated U.S. profits, but we continue to closely monitor IBES reported profit growth expectations. Following up from last week, the rest of the world is bearing the brunt of the U.S. trade-related rhetoric according to our profit growth models, a message sell-side analysts' forecasts also corroborate (we use forward EBITDA in order to gauge trend profit growth and filter out the tax-induced jump in U.S. EPS, Chart 1). Meanwhile, at the margin, seasonality can prop up stocks. While September - a historically negative return month, but not this year - is behind us, stock market crash-prone October is upon us, and thus a pick-up in volatility would not come as a surprise. Beyond October's dreaded crash history, the Presidential cycle has piqued our interest, especially years two and three. Building on our sister Geopolitical Strategy publication's research,1 and given the upcoming midterm elections, we created a cycle-on-cycle profile of SPX returns during these two middle Presidential cycle years (Chart 2). Chart 1U.S. Has The Upper Hand U.S. Has The Upper Hand U.S. Has The Upper Hand Chart 2Seasonality Boost Until Midyear 2019? Seasonality Boost Until Midyear 2019? Seasonality Boost Until Midyear 2019? In more detail, we analyzed 17 cycles starting in 1950 using S&P 500 daily data (reconstructed S&P 500 prior to 1957). During these iterations, only two two-year periods ended in the red, 1974/75 and 2002/03. The first coincided with a recession and the second took place in the aftermath of the dotcom bust. In addition, two other cycles produced roughly 5% two-year returns, 1962/63 and 1966/67. Finally, 1954/55 was the outlier when the SPX went parabolic and nearly doubled. While every cycle is different, it is clear from Chart 2 that the Presidential cycle should continue to underpin the SPX, if history is an accurate guide, especially given our forecast of no recession in the coming 9-to-12 months. In fact, the S&P could rise another 10%, in line with our 2019 expectation, predicated upon a 10% increase in profits and a lateral multiple move. Interestingly, according to the median Presidential cycle-on-cycle roadmap, while the back half of 2019 is likely to prove more challenging, the first half of next year should enjoy most of the returns (Chart 2). An assessment of recent data releases in the U.S. and abroad is also revealing. Chart 3 shows that the domestic economy is firing on all cylinders. Consumer confidence and sentiment hit multi-decade highs recently. Similarly, the job market remains vibrant and small business euphoria reigns supreme. Not only are small business owners optimistic on all employment-related subcomponents of the NFIB survey, but SME capex intentions are also as good as they get. The ISM manufacturing survey ticked down from the August peak, but remains close to 60. Its close sibling, the ISM services survey, vaulted into uncharted territory. All of this is reflected in the still-growing U.S. leading economic indicator and signals that the U.S. equity market remains on a solid footing. Outside U.S. shores, the bearish narrative is well established with EMs, especially the U.S. dollar debt-saddled fragile five that have to contend with twin deficits, sinking in a bear market. China's debt load is also coming under intense scrutiny as U.S. tariffs are all but certain to weigh on Chinese output growth. Nonetheless, there is a chance that the EMs have depreciated their currencies by enough to engineer a modest rebound (bottom panel, Chart 4). In other words, absent the currency peg straightjacket that dominated the region in the late-1990s, free-floating FX devaluations may serve as a relief valve in order to boost exports. The latest Korean MARKIT manufacturing PMI spiked above the boom/bust line to a multi-year high signaling that already humming Korean factories (industrial production is accelerating) will likely remain busy in the coming months. Other hard economic data also confirm these greenshoots: Korean manufacturing exports are expanding smartly. In particular, exports to China are soaring. Reaccelerating manufacturing selling prices also corroborate this budding Korean recovery (third panel, Chart 4). Chart 3U.S. Is On Fire U.S. Is On Fire U.S. Is On Fire Chart 4Reflationary Impulse? Reflationary Impulse? Reflationary Impulse? While it is premature to call an end to the EM carnage, most of the bad news on global export volumes and prices may be nearing an end and the EMs may even export some of their inflation to the U.S. Play The Sector Rotation Into Financials And Industrials... In recent research, we have been highlighting that inflation is slowly rearing its ugly head and there are high odds that the selloff in the bond market gains steam into year-end and beyond2 (as a reminder BCA's fixed income publications continue to recommend below-benchmark portfolio duration). Against such a backdrop, sectors that benefit from rising interest rates and that serve as inflation hedges should outperform in the coming quarters. The "FIT" market refers to financials, industrials and select technology stocks. In more detail, we expect a sector rotation, especially into financials and industrials that have been laggards and remain compellingly valued (Chart 5). With regard to financials, Chart 6 shows that this early cyclical sector enjoys a positive correlation with interest rates and inflation expectations, and a catch up phase in relative share prices looms in the coming quarters. Chart 5Rotate Into Financials...   Rotate Into Financials…   Rotate Into Financials… Chart 6...And Industrials     …And Industrials     …And Industrials Industrials stocks also benefit from rising inflation and interest rates as large parts of this deep cyclical sector are levered to the commodity cycle (Chart 7). In other words, industrials stocks are an indirect inflation hedge and trouble surfaces only when capital goods producers cannot pass rising input costs down the supply chain or to the consumer. But, we are not there yet. Keep in mind that during the last cycle, relative (and absolute) industrials performance peaked prior to relative energy stock prices. Similarly, the relative industrials stock price ratio troughed in early 2009 before their deep cyclical brethren put in a (temporary) bottom a year later (Chart 8). Chart 7Industrials Lead       Industrials Lead       Industrials Lead Chart 8Undervalued     Undervalued     Undervalued True, energy stocks are also going to perform well if our thesis of higher interest rates/inflation pans out in the coming quarters and especially if BCA's Commodity & Energy Strategy service's view of a looming oil price spike materializes (Chart 9). Thus, we sustain the high-conviction overweight stance in the broad sector and reaffirm our recent upgrade to an above benchmark allocation in the S&P oil & gas exploration & production (E&P) subgroup.3 We also reiterate our recent market-neutral and intra-commodity pair trade: long S&P oil & gas E&P / short global gold miners.4 This trade is off to a great start up 10.3% since inception and will benefit further from an inflationary impulse. Chart 9Energy Remains A High-Conviction Overweight Energy Remains A High-Conviction Overweight Energy Remains A High-Conviction Overweight While tech stocks have really delivered and led the market advance year-to-date, a bifurcated tech market should remain in place with capex levered S&P software and S&P tech hardware, storage & peripherals indexes (both are high-conviction overweights) outperforming early cyclical tech groups, semi and semi equipment stocks (we remain underweight both semi subindexes). Bottom Line: A playable rotation into financials and industrials is in the offing especially if the selloff in the bond market accelerates on the back of an inflationary whim. We continue to recommend an overweight allocation to both the S&P financials and S&P industrials sectors. ...But Lights Are Out For Utilities Utilities stocks are the ultimate loser from a backup in interest rates as they serve as premier fixed income proxies in the equity space and we are compelled to trim exposure to below benchmark. The niche S&P utilities sector yields 3.5% and when the competing risk free asset is near 3.2% and rising, investors prefer to shed, at the margin, riskier high-yielding equities and park the proceeds in U.S. Treasurys (Chart 10). While arguably most of the bad news is already reflected in washed out technicals and bombed out short and even long-term profit expectations (Chart 11), the selling will only accelerate into yearend and 2019. Chart 10Higher Yields Bite   Higher Yields Bite   Higher Yields Bite Chart 11Oversold And Unloved... Oversold And Unloved… Oversold And Unloved… Apart from the tight inverse correlation utilities have with interest rates, they are also a defensive sector that outperforms the broad market when the economy is in retreat. Currently a plethora of recent economic releases are signaling that the U.S. economy is overheating. Chart 12 illustrates the safe haven status of utility stocks (ISM surveys shown inverted). On the operating front, despite the upbeat economic data, electricity capacity utilization remains anemic. Capacity growth is likely responsible for this weak resource utilization signal as utilities construction continues unabated (private construction shown inverted, top panel, Chart 13). Adding insult to injury, inventory accumulation is also weighing on the sector (turbine inventories shown inverted, middle panel, Chart 13). Chart 12...But More Pain Looms …But More Pain Looms …But More Pain Looms Chart 13Weak Operating Metrics   Weak Operating Metrics   Weak Operating Metrics Worrisomely, all these expansion plans have been financed with debt. While this is not typically an issue for stable cash flow generating utilities, the sector's net debt-to-EBITDA profile has gone parabolic, nearly doubling since the GFC and even overtaking the early 2000s when a California deregulation wave first led to exuberance and then an electricity crisis (Chart 14). Any letdown in cash flow growth will be disruptive, especially given that the sector has no valuation cushion (bottom panel, Chart 14). Nevertheless, there are some risks that could put our underweight position offside. Natural gas prices have spiked of late and given that they are the marginal price setter for the sector they could boost utility pricing power and thus profits (top & middle panels, Chart 15). As the U.S. economy is firing on all cylinders, electricity demand should remain brisk and provide an offset to the otherwise weakening utility operating backdrop (bottom panel, Chart 15). Chart 14Heavily Indebted And Pricey   Heavily Indebted And Pricey   Heavily Indebted And Pricey Chart 15Risks To Underweight View   Risks To Underweight View   Risks To Underweight View Netting it all out, rising interest rates, a vibrant U.S. economy, softening operating metrics and high indebtedness signal that the time is ripe to sell utility stocks. Bottom Line: Downgrade the S&P utilities sector to underweight. Anastasios Avgeriou, Vice President U.S. Equity Strategy anastasios@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Fade The Midterms, Not Iraq Or Brexit," dated September 12, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report, "Deflation - Reflation - Inflation," dated August 20, 2018, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report, "Soldiering On," dated July 16, 2018, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report, "Deflation - Reflation - Inflation," dated August 20, 2018, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. Current Recommendations Current Trades Size And Style Views Favor value over growth Favor large over small caps

Highlights Duration: Last week's bond market rout was driven by strong U.S. data. Global growth (ex. U.S.) continues to weaken. Weak foreign growth that migrates stateside via a stronger dollar remains the biggest risk to our below-benchmark duration stance. For now, we prefer to hedge that risk by owning curve steepeners and maintaining only a neutral allocation to spread product. High-Yield: A supply shock in the oil market would most likely lead to steep backwardation in the oil futures curve and an increase in implied oil volatility. An increase in implied oil volatility will translate into a higher risk premium embedded in junk spreads. Emerging Market Sovereigns: All of the recent widening in USD-denominated EM sovereign spreads has been concentrated in Turkey and Argentina, two nations that remain highly exposed to global growth divergences and a stronger U.S. dollar. Most other EM countries offer less attractive spreads than comparable U.S. corporate debt. Remain underweight USD-denominated EM sovereign bonds. Feature Bond Breakout Chart 1The Long End Breaks Out The Long End Breaks Out The Long End Breaks Out Bond markets sold off sharply last week and long-dated Treasury yields took out some noteworthy technical levels in the process. The 10-year Treasury yield broke above its May 2018 peak of 3.11% and settled at 3.23% as of last Friday. The next big test for the 10-year's cyclical uptrend is the 2011 peak of 3.75% (Chart 1). The 30-year yield similarly broke above its May 2018 peak of 3.25%, settling at 3.39% as of last Friday. The next resistance for the 30-year occurs at the early-2014 peak of 3.96%. Removing our, admittedly uncomfortable, technical analysis hat, it is instructive to note which macro factors were responsible for last week's large bear-steepening of the Treasury curve and which weren't. Strong U.S. economic data - the non-manufacturing ISM survey hit its highest level since 1997 (Chart 2) - and Fed Chairman Powell commenting that the fed funds rate is "a long way from neutral at this point, probably" were the key drivers of the move.1 Taken together, these two developments suggest that the Fed is further behind the curve than was previously thought. This is consistent with an upward revision to the market's assessment of the neutral fed funds rate, which explains why the yield curve steepened and the price of gold edged higher.2 But it's equally important to note the factors that didn't drive the increase in yields. In this case, yields weren't driven by a rebound in growth outside of the U.S., which continues to flag (Chart 2, panel 2). The Global Manufacturing PMI fell for the fifth consecutive month in September. While our diffusion index based on the number of countries with PMIs above versus below the 50 boom/bust line ticked higher (Chart 2, panel 3), our diffusion index based on the number of countries with rising versus falling PMIs remained deeply negative (Chart 2, bottom panel). Chart 2Growth Divergences Deepen Growth Divergences Deepen Growth Divergences Deepen Chart 3Global PMIs Global PMIs Global PMIs Taken together, our diffusion indexes are consistent with an environment where most countries are experiencing decelerating growth from high levels. This message is confirmed by looking at the PMIs from the five largest economic blocs (Chart 3). The Eurozone PMI continues to fall rapidly, though it remains well above 50. The Emerging Markets (ex. China) PMI is also trending lower from a relatively high level, while the Chinese PMI is threatening to break below 50. Only the U.S. and Japan have healthy looking PMIs. The precariousness of non-U.S. growth leads us to reiterate the biggest risk to our below-benchmark duration view. The risk is that weak foreign growth eventually migrates to the U.S. via a stronger dollar and forces the Fed to pause its +25 bps per quarter rate hike cycle. If current trends continue, it is highly likely that U.S. growth will slow in the first half of next year, though it is unclear whether such a slowdown would be severe enough for the Fed to pause rate hikes.3 In any event, the bond market is only priced for the Fed to maintain its quarterly rate hike pace until June of next year (3 more hikes) before going on hold (Chart 4). Essentially, the market already discounts a rate hike pause, even after last week's large increase in yields. Chart 4Market's Rate Expectations Still Too Low Market's Rate Expectations Still Too Low Market's Rate Expectations Still Too Low For this reason, we prefer to maintain our below-benchmark portfolio duration stance, and to hedge the risk of weakening foreign growth by owning curve steepeners,4 and maintaining only a neutral allocation to spread product. Bottom Line: Last week's bond market rout was driven by strong U.S. data. Global growth (ex. U.S.) continues to weaken. Weak foreign growth that migrates stateside via a stronger dollar remains the biggest risk to our below-benchmark duration stance. For now, we prefer to hedge that risk by owning curve steepeners and maintaining only a neutral allocation to spread product. In Case You Needed Another Reason To Be Nervous About Junk As Treasury yields broke higher last week, the average high-yield index option-adjusted spread tightened to a fresh cyclical low of 303 bps. It has since rebounded to 316 bps (Chart 5). Our measure of the excess spread available in the high-yield index after adjusting for expected default losses is now at 196 bps, well below its historical average of 247 bps (Chart 5, panel 2). We have previously pointed out that even this below-average excess spread embeds a very low 12-month default loss expectation of 1.07%.5 Rarely have default losses been below that level. With job cut announcements forming a tentative bottom (Chart 5, bottom panel), we see high odds that default losses surprise to the upside during the next 12 months. In the absence of further spread tightening, that would translate to 12-month excess junk returns of 196 bps or less. But this week we want to highlight an additional risk to junk spreads. That risk being our Commodity & Energy Strategy service's view that crude oil prices could experience a positive supply shock in the first quarter of next year. At present, our strategists see high odds of $100 per barrel Brent crude oil in the first quarter of next year, and are forecasting an average price of $95 per barrel for 2019. At publication time, the Brent crude oil price was $85.6 At first blush it isn't obvious why high oil prices would pose a risk to junk spreads, and in fact there is no consistent correlation between the level of oil prices and junk spreads. However, there is a correlation between implied volatility in the crude oil market and junk spreads, with higher implied vol coinciding with wider spreads and vice-versa (Chart 6). Chart 5Default Loss Expectations Too Low Default Loss Expectations Too Low Default Loss Expectations Too Low Chart 6Higher Oil Vol = Wider Junk Spreads Higher Oil Vol = Wider Junk Spreads Higher Oil Vol = Wider Junk Spreads Would higher oil prices necessarily induce a spike in implied volatility? Not necessarily. It turns out that what matters for implied oil volatility is the slope of the futures curve.7 A contangoed futures curve where long-dated futures trade at a higher price than short-dated futures tends to be associated with high implied volatility. A steeply backwardated futures curve where long-dated futures trade well below short-dated futures is equally associated with elevated implied vol (Chart 7). Implied volatility tends to be lowest when the futures curve is in mild backwardation. A mild backwardation is typical when crude prices are in a gradual uptrend, as is the case at present. All in all, the following features provide a reasonable description of the current environment: Gradual uptrend in crude oil price Mild oil futures curve backwardation Low implied crude volatility Tight junk spreads However, as we head into next year, our commodity strategists anticipate that supply constraints will bite in the oil market. The U.S. is poised to implement an oil embargo against Iran in November, and Venezuela - another important oil exporter - remains on the brink of collapse. With global oil inventories already tight, and the loss of further production from Venezuela and Iran looming, our strategists anticipate that the number of days of demand covered by crude oil inventories will decline sharply. This decline will lead to a steep backwardation of the futures curve (Chart 8). Chart 7Brent Crude Oil Volatility Vs. Forward Slope Oil Supply Shock Is A Risk For Junk Oil Supply Shock Is A Risk For Junk Chart 8Supply Shock Will Lead To Steep Backwardation Supply Shock Will Lead To Steep Backwardation Supply Shock Will Lead To Steep Backwardation The bottom line for junk investors is that a supply shock in the oil market would most likely lead to a steep backwardation in the futures curve and an increase in implied oil volatility. An increase in implied oil volatility will translate into a higher risk premium embedded in junk spreads. We continue to recommend only a neutral allocation to high-yield in U.S. bond portfolios. We will await a signal that profit growth is set to deteriorate before advocating for a further reduction in exposure. Still No Buying Opportunity In EM Sovereigns Chart 9EM Index Spread Looks Cheap EM Index Spread Looks Cheap EM Index Spread Looks Cheap As growth divergences between the U.S. and the rest of the world increase, we are on high alert for an opportunity to shift some allocation out of U.S. corporate credit and into USD-denominated emerging market (EM) sovereign debt. However, so far EM spreads are simply not wide enough to merit attention from U.S. bond investors. This is not apparent from the average index spreads. In fact, a quick glance at the indexes shows that EM sovereign spreads have widened a lot relative to duration- and quality-matched U.S. corporates, and actually offer a healthy spread pick-up (Chart 9). However, a more detailed look at the spreads from individual countries shows that the spread advantage in EM is only available in a select few markets (Charts 10A & 10B). At the lower-end of the credit spectrum: Turkey, Argentina, Ukraine and Lebanon all offer higher breakeven spreads than comparable U.S. corporates. In the upper credit tiers: Saudi Arabia, Qatar and United Arab Emirates (UAE) look attractive. All other EM countries off lower breakeven spreads than comparable U.S. corporates. Chart 10ABreakeven Spreads: USD EM Sovereigns Vs. U.S. Corporates Oil Supply Shock Is A Risk For Junk Oil Supply Shock Is A Risk For Junk Chart 10BBreakeven Spreads: USD EM Sovereigns Vs. U.S. Corporates Oil Supply Shock Is A Risk For Junk Oil Supply Shock Is A Risk For Junk We would be very reluctant to shift any allocation out of U.S. corporates and into either Turkey or Argentina. Both of those countries are highly exposed to the tightening in global liquidity conditions that occurs alongside a strengthening U.S. dollar. Our Foreign Exchange and Global Investment Strategy teams created a Vulnerability Heat Map to identify which EM countries are likely to struggle as the U.S. dollar appreciates (Chart 11).8 These tend to be countries with large current account deficits and high external debt balances, though several other factors are also considered. The results show that Argentina and Turkey are the two most exposed nations. Chart 11Vulnerability Heat Map For Key EM Markets Oil Supply Shock Is A Risk For Junk Oil Supply Shock Is A Risk For Junk At the upper-end of the credit spectrum, the USD bonds from Saudi Arabia, Qatar and UAE are more interesting. Our geopolitical strategists anticipate an escalation of tensions between the U.S. and Iran following the U.S. midterm elections, and such tensions could increase the political risk premium embedded in all Middle Eastern debt. But for longer-term U.S. fixed income investors, it is worth noting that extra spread is available in the hard currency sovereign debt of Saudi Arabia, Qatar and UAE compared to A-rated U.S. corporates. Bottom Line: All of the recent widening in USD-denominated EM sovereign spreads has been concentrated in Turkey and Argentina, two nations that remain highly exposed to global growth divergences and a stronger U.S. dollar. Most other EM countries offer less attractive spreads than comparable U.S. corporate debt. Remain underweight USD-denominated EM sovereign bonds. Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com 1 Powell's full interview can be viewed here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-CqaBSSl6ok 2 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "A Signal From Gold?", dated May 1, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "An Oasis Of Prosperity?", dated August 21, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com, where we note that every time the Global (ex. US) LEI has dipped below zero since 1993, the U.S. LEI has eventually followed. 4 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "More Than One Reason To Own Steepeners", dated September 25, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 5 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Out Of Sync", dated July 3, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 6 Please see Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, "Odds Of Oil-Price Spike In 1H19 Rise; 2019 Brent Forecast Lifted $15 To $95/bbl", dated September 20, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 7 Please see Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, "Calm Before The Storm In Oil Markets", dated August 2, 2018, available at ces.bcaresearch.com 8 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy/Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "The Bear And The Two Travelers", dated August 17, 2018, available at fes.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

Highlights Chart of the WeekIncreasing Gas-On-Gas Pricing Will Disrupt Global LNG Markets U.S. Set To Disrupt Global LNG Market U.S. Set To Disrupt Global LNG Market Growth in the global Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) market will be fuelled by surging U.S. natural gas production, which will allow consumers in Asian and European markets to diversify away from oil-indexed pricing - with its attendant geopolitical risks - and falling European gas production. As a result, markets will move toward short- and long-term contracts priced in USD/MMBtu (Chart of the Week). This will favor gas producers and LNG merchants with access to U.S. shale-gas supplies, where production is growing at double-digit p.a. rates (Chart 2). Well-developed trading and risk-management markets in the U.S. - centered on Henry Hub, LA - will incentivize consumers to shorten the tenor of oil-indexed contracts, replacing them with hedgeable futures-based contracts. These markets allow producers and merchants to offer short- and long-term contracts that meet consumer preferences. As the global LNG market grows, shipping companies, along with producers and merchants with worldwide trading and transport capabilities - or access to such capabilities - will grow market share at the expense of exporters tied to the more rigid oil-indexing regime (Chart 3). Energy: Overweight. We remain long call spreads along the Brent forward curve over February - August; these positions are up an average 88.4% since inception, basis Tuesday's close. The long S&P GSCI position we recommended in December is up 21.8%, on the back of higher oil prices and backwardated crude-oil forward curves. Base Metals: Neutral. Copper is holding on to recent gains - up ~ 11% from its mid-August trough, following oil higher. Precious Metals: Neutral. Gold hovers around $1,200/oz, following the Fed's meeting last week, which resulted in a 25bp increase in fed funds to 2.25%. Ags/Softs: Underweight. The trade agreement to be signed by U.S. officials at the end of November with their counterparts in Mexico and Canada removes some of the uncertainty weighing on ag markets. Upward revisions to 2017 carry-out estimates by the USDA continue to pressure corn and beans. Chart 2Surging Production, Market Depth Favor U.S. Gas Producers And Merchants U.S. Set To Disrupt Global LNG Market U.S. Set To Disrupt Global LNG Market Chart 3Growing LNG Imports Will Favor Shippers, Producers And Merchants U.S. Set To Disrupt Global LNG Market U.S. Set To Disrupt Global LNG Market Feature Surging U.S. natural gas production will continue to find its way to global LNG markets over the next decade. The persistence of oil-indexing in Asian LNG contracts will fuel the growth of U.S. exports, given the arbitrage between cheaper natural gas - priced basis supply-demand fundamentals for gas - and more expensive oil-indexed contracts.1 Added to this cost advantage, U.S. exports can be linked to hedgeable futures prices, using NYMEX Henry Hub, LA, contracts. These stability-of-supply and pricing advantages also allow LNG buyers in Asia and Europe to diversify away from oil-production disruption risks, which can send prices sharply higher, and being overly reliant on Russian imports. Chart 4U.S. LNG Exports Will Surge U.S. Set To Disrupt Global LNG Market U.S. Set To Disrupt Global LNG Market This will give global consumers an incentive to continue shortening the tenor of more rigid oil-indexed LNG contracts, and to replace them with hedgeable contracts referencing Henry Hub, LA, futures contracts priced in USD/MMBtu. While a fairly stout increase of U.S. LNG exports already is expected by the EIA and IEA, we believe this dynamic likely results in export volumes that are higher than the ~ 10 Bcf/d expected by 2023, and close to 15 Bcf/d toward the end of the 2020s (Chart 4).2 Increasing volumes of associated natural gas production in the Permian Basin in west Texas, which will have to be transported from the basin so that it does not curtail oil production, will drive a large part of this growth. We expect a significant LNG export center to be developed in South Texas in Corpus Christi over the next five years or so, just as the U.S. surpasses 10 Bcf/d of exports in the middle of the next decade.3 Flexible pricing of LNG contracts basis Henry Hub already is supporting the buildout of Gulf Coast exports via take-or-cancel contracts. These contracts are replacing the more restrictive take-or-pay contracts still used in Asia.4 This will continue to evolve, allowing supply development to be hedged via Henry Hub natgas futures. Consumers ultimately benefit from cheaper supplies and hedgeable risks. This is not to say other benchmarks will fall away. There is always room for regional benchmarks - even oil-based benchmarks such as the Japan Crude Cocktail (JCC), or the spot- and swaps-market reference Japan/Korea Marker (JKM).5 The global crude oil market accommodates such regional benchmarks: WTI crude oil futures are the benchmark for oil markets in the Americas, while Brent crude oil futures serve as the benchmark for global markets. Crude oils with different chemical properties can be priced relative to these benchmarks for delivery anywhere in the world. The global LNG market could retain an Asian benchmark, but a lot of work needs to be done in terms of building the supporting infrastructure - pipelines, regasification facilities, deep futures markets, etc. - to make that happen.6 We are inclined to believe the build-out of U.S. LNG export capacity will occur before these pieces fall into place: Scale has never been an issue in the U.S. oil and gas patch. Global Supply - Demand Overview Chart 5Global LNG Demand Growth Likely Outpaces Current Expectations U.S. Set To Disrupt Global LNG Market U.S. Set To Disrupt Global LNG Market Global LNG demand is expected to rise at an impressive 1.7% p.a. out to 2040 (Chart 5). However, local supply and demand levels are increasingly unbalanced, implying that cross-border pipeline and LNG imports will need to increase as gas demand rises.7 A few key markets lead this trend, as seen in Chart 6, which illustrates the supply-gap in major consuming countries. Supply gaps are poised to grow in Emerging Asia and Europe, due to elevated demand growth in the former and lack of supply growth in the latter. World LNG demand grew by 10% last year, with Europe and Emerging Asia accounting for more than 95% of this increase. However, last year's stellar growth numbers should not be considered as the baseline growth forecast.8 The latest projections show demand increasing by 21 Bcf/d by 2025 - taking LNG imports from 38 Bcf/d at present to 58 Bcf/d by then. This implies a lower annualized growth rate of 5.5%. Chart 6Supply - Demand Imbalances Will Fuel LNG Demand Globally U.S. Set To Disrupt Global LNG Market U.S. Set To Disrupt Global LNG Market LNG Supply On Growth Trajectory World LNG export capacity is expected to go from 48 Bcf/d in 2017 to 61 Bcf/d by 2022 (Chart 7), with 53% of the additional capacity coming from the U.S., 18% from Australia, and 15% from Russia.9 Chart 7LNG Export Capacity Growth U.S. Set To Disrupt Global LNG Market U.S. Set To Disrupt Global LNG Market Our baseline forecast for the LNG market foresees a short-term supply surplus in 2020 (Chart 8), followed by a catch-up in demand and new waves of projects between 2024 and 2030. Among the supply-side developments we are following: Chart 8New LNG Projects In The Pipeline U.S. Set To Disrupt Global LNG Market U.S. Set To Disrupt Global LNG Market The Australian LNG market has undergone massive change in the last five years. While being a relatively small natural gas producer (8th largest producer, accounting for ~ 3% of world output), in 2015, the country became the second largest LNG exporting country in the world with now over 7.5 Bcf/d of exports. The bulk of new liquefaction facilities will be operational in 2019 with the completion of new trains at the Wheatstone, Prelude Floating and Ichthys LNG facilities.10 This will bring Australian total LNG export capacity to over 10 Bcf/d. Importantly, most of Australia's LNG trade is with Emerging Asian countries. This region still relies mostly on oil-linked, long-term, and fixed-destination contracts. Absent the OPEC market-share war of 2014 - 2016, when oil prices collapsed, Australia's LNG prices are subject to oil price risks and volatility (Chart 9). Chart 9Asian Oil-Indexed Contracts Trade Above Spot LNG U.S. Set To Disrupt Global LNG Market U.S. Set To Disrupt Global LNG Market The U.S. currently has ~ 3 Bcf/d liquefaction capacity and is increasingly exporting to Asian countries (Table 1). The present wave of projects under-construction will push capacity to ~ 9 Bcf/d in 2020. Following a two year pause in project Final Investment Decisions (FIDs) from 2016 to 2017, potential FIDs in 2018 and 2019 could increase the U.S. capacity to ~ 14 Bcf/d by 2025. This will make the U.S. the second-largest exporter of LNG in the world, surpassing Australia. This new wave of investment is yet to be finalized; therefore, final investment decisions in 2H18 and 2019 will be crucial to determine the medium-term potential of U.S. LNG. If a majority of these projects goes through, U.S. capacity risks being overbuilt for the next decade (Chart 10). Table 1U.S. LNG Exports By Country U.S. Set To Disrupt Global LNG Market U.S. Set To Disrupt Global LNG Market Chart 10U.S. LNG Capacity Risks Becoming Overbuilt U.S. Set To Disrupt Global LNG Market U.S. Set To Disrupt Global LNG Market Importantly, U.S. LNG exports already have had a massive impact on the global LNG market. The totality of U.S. export prices are determined by gas-on-gas pricing - i.e., gas priced in USD/MMBtu as a function of gas supply-demand fundamentals. Just as importantly, these contracts are without destination restrictions found in many oil-indexed contacts. In the U.S., the presence of a deep futures market allows flexible long-term contracting.11 According to Royal Dutch Shell, the spot LNG market doubled from 2010 to 2017, accounting for ~ 25% of all transactions, most of it due to the prodigious increase in U.S. LNG supply.12 An overbuilt U.S. market would increase spot LNG trading. Our own calculations based on EIA data indicate the U.S. could have too much capacity relative to demand in 2018 - 19, but goes into balance in 2020 - 2022.13 Russia's natural gas production is projected to increase from 66.7 Bcf/d in 2017 to 70.1 Bcf/d in 2023. However, the bulk of this increase will cover new pipeline exports. The country's LNG capacity is expected to grow by ~ 2.5 Bcf/d with the completion of trains at the Yamal, Vysotsk and Portovaya export facilities. Despite its low LNG capacity, Russia remains a key player in the LNG market. Its rising pipeline capacity connected to China - the fastest growing market in the world - competes directly with global LNG supplies. For Russia, the rise of natural gas availability on a global basis - in the form of LNG - shakes its foreign relationships and policies to the core. In loosening the once-tight relationship between buyers and sellers, the rise of spot LNG supplies will favor consumers and energy security, and foster the development of longer-term contracting.14 Global LNG Demand Could Outpace Supply By our reckoning, some 62% of additional global gas demand of 160 Bcf/d will be covered by rising domestic production, 12% by rising trans-national pipeline capacity, and the remaining 26% by LNG imports.15 Longer-term, we expect LNG and natural gas demand to keep rising as industry demand expands and major coal consumers build up their natural gas and renewables usage. As a result, LNG consumption will increase at a rate of ~ 3% p.a. until 2040, as overall gas demand grows ~ 1.7%.16 Key demand-side developments: Table 2Natgas Emits Less CO2 U.S. Set To Disrupt Global LNG Market U.S. Set To Disrupt Global LNG Market China's environmental reforms, supply-side industrial policies and continued economic growth will be the engine of global natural gas and LNG growth in the next decade. The Middle Kingdom's natural gas demand grew 15% to 23 Bcf/d in 2017, of which 54% came from additional LNG. This short-term growth surge required spot and short-term LNG imports, which pushed up North Asian LNG spot prices. Despite our expectation that China will continue leading global LNG growth, we believe 2017 to be an outlier. Two factors contributed to the rise in spot prices: To tackle its massive pollution without significantly altering economic development and growth, China's environmental policies favor natural gas as a bridge to a low-carbon economy, since natgas contains half the carbon content of coal (Table 2). China's supply-side reforms and winter capacity cut led to a spike in spot LNG demand, which had to be covered in global LNG markets. China has an extremely low level of storage to deal with seasonal natgas consumption fluctuations; this forces the country to rely on spot LNG to meet short-term peaks in gas demand (Chart 11). Chart 11China's Minimal Natgas Storage Forces It To Rely On Spot Markets U.S. Set To Disrupt Global LNG Market U.S. Set To Disrupt Global LNG Market While these factors still dominate Chinese markets, new Russian pipeline capacity is expected to start delivering gas in 2019, the ~ 247 bcf of additional domestic storage capacity and the rise in spot LNG supply will mitigate the effect. In addition, China is limited in its regasification capacity. Data re projects under construction and demand forecasts indicate the average utilization would rise to ~ 90% in 2020. Winter usage would push this to ~ 100% rapidly, constraining its ability to meet winter demand with spot LNG. As a result, we expect Asian spot LNG prices to rise above contracted oil-indexed prices next winter, but less so in 2020 and 2021. Longer term, China's gas consumption is expected to grow 4.6% p.a., outpacing the 4.0% p.a. domestic production growth. Some 23% of the gap will come from Russian and Turkmenistan pipeline imports. Europe's supply-gap rose in the past 3 years, and is expected to continue to widen. Unlike the rest of the world, this gap is growing because of supply depletion instead of strong demand growth. In fact, demand is expected to remain flat, based on the IEA's forecast of Europe's long-term growth. On the other hand, total European gas supply has decreased by 16% since 2010, and is expected to continue decreasing at a similar pace, reaching 21 Bcf/d in 2023 from 25 Bcf/d in 2017. These declines in European natgas supply are due to: The phase-out by 2030 of Netherlands' Groningen field. Continued concerns about the impact of natural gas production on earthquakes in nearby communities pushed the Dutch government to adopt, in March 2018, a plan to gradually stop gas extraction at the Groningen field. Production has been decreasing since 2013 and is expected to decrease by around three quarters between now and end-2023. U.K. natural gas production will decrease by 5% p.a. due to the lack of capex and the large number of fields reaching a mature state. Stagnation in Norway's gas production following its record production level in 2017. Europe's regasification capacity has considerable slack, which will allow it to expand its import volumes. Europe currently has 23 Bcf/d regas capacity, with a very low 27% utilization in 2017. This means it has ~16 Bcf/d capacity available. With the U.S. is expected to raise its exports by ~ 6 - 7 Bcf/d in the next couple of years, Europe could potentially absorb the entire U.S. LNG exports if it desires to diversify its source of energy supply. Pressure Builds For Competitive LNG Markets Chart 12Expect More LNG Spot Trading U.S. Set To Disrupt Global LNG Market U.S. Set To Disrupt Global LNG Market The movement toward an integrated global market - similar in structure to current oil markets - will be driven by sharply increased U.S. LNG exports, and more competitive pricing of LNG as a function of gas supply-demand fundamentals. This latter effort likely will find support from Japanese and EU regulators. In addition, U.S. exporters already are using futures-based pricing - using Henry Hub contracts - which provide greater flexibility for producers, consumers and merchants to hedge their risk. Either Asian markets will develop viable regional benchmarks, or the global market will increasingly adopt Henry Hub indexing. Again, this is a typical commodity-market evolution: wheat can be priced for delivery anywhere on the planet using Chicago Board of Trade indexing. Asia lacks an integrated pipeline network. Market-based pricing of gas as gas - i.e., based on regional supply-demand gas fundamentals - also has not fully developed. LNG-on-LNG competition is considered a way to promote market-based pricing. Thus, the rise in spot and short-term contracts priced on the basis of natural gas fundamentals in the region already visible in the data likely will continue (Chart 12). In addition, if we see the oil price spike we expect in 1Q19 - driven by the loss of Iranian exports due to U.S. sanctions, continuing losses in Venezuelan exports due to economic collapse, and still-strong global oil demand - LNG priced on gas fundamentals will become even more attractive.17 LNG consumers' exposure to oil prices - via oil-indexed supply contracts - is a disadvantage to consumers with super-abundant natural gas supplies (Chart 13).18 That said, the U.S. export capacity remains limited, thus it cannot completely substitute for the global trade being done basis oil-indexed LNG contracts. Still, higher oil prices will incentivize a shift to contracts with prices determined by natgas fundamentals, which favors continued growth in U.S. exports. If anything, it will push for a faster-than-expected expansion of U.S. LNG export capacity. Chart 13LNG Buyers Will Resist Oil-Indexed Exposure BCA Ensemble Forecast Lifts Brent To $95/bbl, As Market Tightens BCA Ensemble Forecast Lifts Brent To $95/bbl, As Market Tightens Bottom Line: Growth in global LNG markets likely will be faster than expected, as the U.S. develops its export capacity and continues to offer futures-based pricing. This will further reduce the attractiveness of rigid oil-indexed contracts. Gas producers and LNG merchants with access to U.S. shale-gas supplies, possessing trading and risk-management capabilities that allow them to offer flexible contracts globally, are favored in this quickly evolving market. Hugo Bélanger, Senior Analyst HugoB@bcaresearch.com Pavel Bilyk, Research Associate pavelb@bcaresearch.com Robert P. Ryan, Senior Vice President Commodity & Energy Strategy rryan@bcaresearch.com 1 The LNG cost structure is complex. A recent paper from the Oxford Institute For Energy Studies estimates U.S. breakeven costs for new LNG projects are roughly $7/MMBtu delivered, or ~ $4/MMBtu over current Henry Hub, LA, spot prices. This includes liquefaction costs, and transportation costs from the U.S. Gulf to Asia of ~ $1.50/MMBtu, and ~ $0.70/MMBtu from the U.S. Gulf to northwest Europe. Regasification charges and entry fees likely add ~ $0.70 to $1/MMBtu. Please see "The LNG Shipping Forecast: costs rebounding, outlook uncertain," published by the Oxford Institute For Energy Studies, March 2018. Transport costs are variable, and are only one part of the LNG pricing equation. The benefits of diversifying supplies cannot be overlooked, nor can the benefit of gas-on-gas pricing in a high-priced crude oil market. See also see "US powerhouse in the making," published June 14, 2018, by petroleum-economist.com. 2 Please see the International Energy Agency's Gas 2018 report published in March, particularly the discussion of supply beginning on p. 67. 3 Please see "The Price of Permian gas Pipeline Limits," by Stephen Rassenfoss, in the Journal of Petroleum Technology, published July 19, 2018. 4 Take-or-cancel contracts employ option-like features - e.g., cancelation payments that function as an option premium - that give buyer and seller flexibility in cancelling a contract or delivery in a manner that allows the seller to cover fixed costs, not unlike a tolling contact. This is possible because of the hedging latitude provided by the NYMEX natural gas futures market, which has Henry Hub, LA, as its delivery point. Please see "The Shift Away from Take-or-Pay Contracts in LNG," published by the Atlanta-based law firm King & Spalding on its Energy Law Exchange blog September 13, 2017. 5 Platts' JKM spot assessment for November was $11.35/MMBtu, which was down 6% from October assessments. Please see "Platts JKM: Asia November LNG spot prices fall on thin demand," published by S&P Global Platts September 21, 2018. The NYMEX JKM forward curve peaks at $13.50/MMBtu for January 2019 deliveries, and backwardates thereafter. 6 Big LNG consumers' antitrust regulators are increasing pressure on overly restrictive contracts, which could open these markets to further competition over the next three years. Japan's Fair Trade Commission (JFTC) in 2017 concluded a review of term LNG contracts, which raised the possibility heretofore standard term contract features - e.g., limits on destinations and diversions, and take-or-pay provisions - could run counter to its antimonopoly laws. Japan is the largest importer of LNG in the world, taking ~ 11 Bcf/d. Meanwhile, in June of this year, the European Commission opened an investigation into long-term LNG contracts between its member states and Qatar Petroleum. Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, the Washington, D.C., law firm, expects a ruling on destination and profit-sharing clauses that severely limit re-trading of LNG by purchasers. Akin Gump expects a ruling in the course of the next 3 years. While Japan's FTC did not specify remedies, it is possible buyers gain rights to re-sell and re-direct cargoes, following these reviews. This would make markets more competitive, although indexing the price of LNG to oil-based formulas likely will hinder this process. Please see "Revisiting LNG Resale Restrictions - Implications of Recent EU Decisions," published on the firm's website August 2, 2018. 7 Natural gas demand grew by 16% since 2010, according to the BP 2018 Statistical Review of World Energy, and is expected to grow by a cumulative 47% (1.6% p.a.) by 2040. 8 Many idiosyncratic factors helped Chinese LNG imports reach such an exceptional growth rate, mostly weather-related: China's environmental policy is resulting in widespread substitution of coal for natural gas for space-heating purposes, which, in colder-than-expected winters, results in surging demand. We do not believe this will be a long-term seasonal influence: Physical facilities are being built out to accommodate higher supply and demand. 9 World liquefaction capacity will rise to ~ 61 Bcf/d in 2022, based on our calculations of projects under construction. The bulk of additional capacity will come from the U.S., Australia and Russia. 10 Capacity of 0.6, 0.5 and 1.2 Bcf/d, respectively. 11 Please see U.S. Department of Energy, office of Oil & Natural Gas, LNG Monthly. 12 Like most globally traded commodities, LNG can be traded in USD/MMBtu. The global financial and clearing system already is set up to accommodate commodity transactions denominated in USD, therefore we do not see any impediments to extending it further into the LNG market. 13 Please see Chart 10 footnote for details. 14 We will be exploring the geopolitical dimension of LNG next week in a Special Report written with our colleagues in BCA Research's Geopolitical Strategy. Please see Meghan L. O'Sullivan, Windfall: How the new energy abundance upends global politics and Strengthens America's Power (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2012). 15 From 2017 to 2040, based on BP projections. The bulk of additional pipeline capacity will come from Russia with 12 Bcf/d destined to China and Europe expected to come on line in 2019. 16 Please see the International Energy Agency's GAS 2018 report published in March, BP's BP Statistical Review Of World Energy 2018 report published in June, Shell's Shell LNG Outlook 2018 report published in February, and U.S. the Energy Information Administration's International Energy Outlook 2017 report published in September. 17 Please see our most recent assessment of global oil fundamentals, published September 27, 2018, entitled "Risks From Unplanned Oil-Outage Rising; OPEC 2.0's Spare Capacity Is Suspect," and our updated forecast, "Odds Of Oil-Price Spike In 1h19 rise; 2019 Brent Forecast Lifted $15 To $95/bbl," published September 20, 2018. 18 Asia LNG prices are usually linked to the JCC according to predetermined formulae. However, the exact formula remains opaque and varies with each contract. Based on our calculations, we concluded that since 2010, the average formula uses a slope of ~14% on JCC prices lagged 4 months, with very low s-curve components and a constant. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table U.S. Set To Disrupt Global LNG Market U.S. Set To Disrupt Global LNG Market Trades Closed in 2018 Summary of Trades Closed in 2017 U.S. Set To Disrupt Global LNG Market U.S. Set To Disrupt Global LNG Market

Highlights Value is the most storied of all the factors discovered by academicians, and some of the most revered investors of all time have been those most closely associated with value investing. Over the nearly 92 years covered by Fama and French's data set, stocks with the highest book-to-price multiples have outperformed the overall market by three percentage points annually, but they have underperformed by two percentage points a year since their pre-financial-crisis peak. Fama and French's top value cohort has spent much of the post-crisis period mired at relative levels it first surpassed in early 2001, leading to whispers that value might be finished. It may take another year or two, but nothing ails value that a good bear market couldn't cure. The most popular value indexes are poor proxies for the value factor identified by Fama and French. We turn to our proprietary Equity Trading Strategy service's model for better insight into the metrics that separate value stocks from the rest of the field. Feature Macro students and investors are captivated by "factors," independent variables that are widely recognized as persistent drivers of equity returns, and BCA researchers are no exception. Although we have little time for the new factor "discoveries" that are accumulating at a rate that might make a bitcoin miner jealous, the established factors - Value, Size, and Momentum - have earned their stripes. We are card-carrying members of Professor Fama and French's fan club, and well-thought-out strategies attempting to harness their insights merit serious consideration. This Special Report updates a Special Report published jointly by our Global ETF Strategy and Equity Trading Strategy (ETS) services in May with insights from a custom value index just created by The Bank Credit Analyst and ETS teams.1 It compares today's popular conceptions of value to the principles of Benjamin Graham, the "father of value investing," and finds that off-the-shelf value indexes fall far short of the value ideal. We seek to answer two questions with far-reaching investment implications: Is value dead? If not, how will investors know when it's about to reclaim its former glory? In our view, value is not dead, it's only sleeping, even if its hibernation is starting to feel like Rip van Winkle's. Although it is not yet time to tilt a portfolio in its direction, the Value factor is alive and well, and simply biding its time until the next bear market and recession. Decomposing value investing's performance across market and policy cycles shows that it edges out the equity universe when policy is easy and bull markets are in force, but crushes it when policy is tight and stocks are in a bear market. The investment strategy conclusion is one with the empirical record: non-dedicated investors should look to value stocks when the weather turns rough. What Is Value? As our ETF and ETS teams lamented in their initial smart-beta ETF selection Special Report,2 the principles established by Benjamin Graham and Fama and French have faded with the passage of time. The essential notion that value is a by-product of temporary dislocations has slipped from popular understanding, making room for a simplistic, one-size-fits-all index-construction method that grants bank stocks lifetime membership. Those who bothered to read Fama and French's paper quickly forgot step one of its methodology, which stated, "We exclude financial firms." Financials' higher debt loads depress their price-to-book multiples relative to their nonfinancial counterparts', making direct comparisons dubious. The result has been to tether off-the-shelf value indexes' relative performance to the relative performance of the Financials sector (Chart 1). Since Tech stocks account for a similarly outsized proportion of the market cap of most growth indexes, value vs. growth boils down to a binary choice between Financials and Tech (Chart 2). Style investing is presumably meant to be something larger than a head-to-head battle between Financials' and Tech's prospective returns. It is certainly a long way away from the margin-of-safety concept that Graham applied to every investment. Chart 1Value Indexes' Permanent Residents Value Indexes' Permanent Residents Value Indexes' Permanent Residents Chart 2In A Standard Index, Value Is To Growth ##br##As Financials Are To Tech In A Standard Index, Value Is To Growth As Financials Are To Tech In A Standard Index, Value Is To Growth As Financials Are To Tech What's The Big Deal? Shorn of the margin-of-safety concept, value investing ceases to provide investors with downside protection. Regardless of the metric(s) used to measure an investor's margin of safety (Graham preferred a multiple of future earnings, conservatively estimated; Fama and French found that trailing book-to-price in isolation best explained subsequent returns), securities bought with a large one provide investors with a cushion against untoward future developments. That cushion is readily apparent in Fama and French's high book-to-price portfolios' performance relative to low book-to-price portfolios', and to the overall equity market (Chart 3): they outperform in bull markets, albeit at a modest pace, but they blast ahead during bear markets and recessions (Table 1). Long bull markets, like the one that was mainly in force from 1982 to 2000, and the current one, which just established a postwar record of over nine-and-a-half years, are a drag on rolling (Chart 3, middle panel) and cumulative returns (Chart 3, bottom panel). Chart 3Making Hay While The Rain Falls Making Hay While The Rain Falls Making Hay While The Rain Falls Table 1Value Portfolio Returns, July 1967 - July 2018 When Will Value Work Again? When Will Value Work Again? By contrast, the S&P 500 Value Index offers very little protection in times of stress, nosing out the broad S&P 500 in the one-seventh of the time a bear market has been in force since its 1975 launch, while lagging the broad index over the other six-sevenths (Table 2). The result is steady underperformance that adds up over time (Chart 4), and mirrors the relative performance of the S&P 500 Financials (Chart 4, bottom panel). Since value investors are conceding performance to growth investors in boom times, they really need to make hay during slumps, which the S&P 500 Value Index has failed to do, outside of the bursting of the dot-com bubble. The empirical record suggests that the main off-the-shelf value index's construction methodology leaves a lot to be desired (Chart 5). Table 2S&P 500 Value Index Returns, ##br##February 1975 - July 2018 When Will Value Work Again? When Will Value Work Again? Chart 4A Simplistic Proxy ... A Simplistic Proxy ... A Simplistic Proxy ... Chart 5... That Can't Hold A Candle To The Real Factor ... That Can't Hold A Candle To The Real Factor ... That Can't Hold A Candle To The Real Factor Building A Better Value Index The standard value indexes have several shortcomings. They are backward-looking, overly reliant on earnings as a cash-flow metric, blind to serial acquirers' accumulation of book-to-market-flattering intangible assets, and oblivious to sector-neutrality's charms. The value metrics in our Equity Trading Strategy (ETS) model correct for all but sector biases. They incorporate forward P/E multiples alongside trailing multiples; they consider cash-flow multiples; and their use of price-to-tangible-book, in place of simple price-to-book, partially corrects for acquirers' cosmetic advantage. Our Bank Credit Analyst colleagues turned to the ETS software to screen for candidates that more fully live up to Graham's value ideal. To combat sector biases, they grouped large- and mid-cap U.S. stocks3 by sector and evaluated their value characteristics only against each other, identifying the top three (value) and bottom three (growth) deciles within individual sector silos. Then and only then did they bring the value and growth pools together into market-wide baskets. Every sector is equally represented in its value and growth indexes, which bring together the best- and worst-value stocks from every sector. The ETS approach, which may do a better job of screening out value traps than simple book-to-price multiples alone, shows promise. The ETS value: growth index has outperformed Fama and French's high-minus-low index by an annualized 4 percentage points over its 22-year life (Chart 6). The ETS index rebalances monthly, making it more costly to track than Fama and French's high-minus-low (HML) index, but does not ride the same Size factor tailwind.4 We estimate that the Size factor contributes more to Fama and French's HML than ignoring commissions contributes to the ETS index. Chart 6Standing On The Shoulders Of Giants Standing On The Shoulders Of Giants Standing On The Shoulders Of Giants When Will Value Regain Its Footing? The Value factor has underperformed the broad market before, but its rolling 10-year returns have never been underwater for so long. Relative to the bottom three deciles of stocks on a book-to-price basis, the top three deciles have spent much of the post-crisis period bumping along a level they first reached in February 2001, when the stock market was in the midst of furiously unwinding the excesses of the dot-com era (Chart 7). Seventeen years of sideways action have emboldened skeptics to suggest that Value might have met its end at the hands of overexposure and increased short-term pressure on professional investors. Chart 7A Historically Long Value Slump A Historically Long Value Slump A Historically Long Value Slump Count us among those who believe Value's demise has been greatly exaggerated. We've seen this movie before - the Value factor posts its strongest relative gains during bear markets and/or recessions - and the last 17 years have been market-friendly away from the crisis, when high book-to-price stocks uncharacteristically underperformed. Consistent with its comfort in adverse conditions, Value has performed best when monetary policy settings are restrictive (Table 3). Policy has now been accommodative for a record 10 consecutive years and counting (Chart 8), subjecting the high book-to-price stocks to a persistent relative headwind. Table 3High-Minus-Low* Annualized Returns By Fed Funds Cycle Phase, August 1961-July 2018 When Will Value Work Again? When Will Value Work Again? Chart 8Easier For Lo-o-o-onger Easier For Lo-o-o-onger Easier For Lo-o-o-onger The policy backdrop may provide the surest route back to Value outperformance. Based on the tight-as-a-drum labor market and budding inflation pressures, we expect the FOMC to maintain its 25-basis-points-a-quarter pace throughout 2019, putting the target fed funds rate on a path to cross our estimate of equilibrium sometime around the middle of next year. Tight policy would be conducive for Value outperformance and potentially plant the seeds for a recession and equity bear market at some point in 2020. As our ETF and ETS teams showed in their review of equity factors and the fed funds rate cycle, countercyclical Value naturally diversifies a portfolio with pro-cyclical Size and Momentum exposures,5 suggesting that Value exposure could be a welcome input to a recession portfolio. Investment Implications Prime time for the Value factor still appears to be a year off, but the time for considering new, or increasing existing, exposures is approaching, and another year of Fed hikes will bring it squarely into view. Value investing will never die as long as significant segments of the investing public pursue instant gratification, or are drawn in by the siren song of potentially supercharged growth opportunities.6 The current cycle is simply extended, and just as it remains appropriate to stick with equities overall, it remains appropriate from a factor perspective to de-emphasize Value in the near term. We remain on the style-investing sidelines, waiting for the next policy-cycle phase. Once it arrives, investors would be well-advised to apply the ETS approach to uncovering the best value candidates for an equity portfolio. Doug Peta, Senior Vice President U.S. Investment Strategy dougp@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see the May 16, 2018 Global ETF Strategy/Equity Trading Strategy Special Report, "Smart-Beta ETF Selection Update - Is Value Still Worth It?" available at etf.bcaresearch.com, and the October 2018 Bank Credit Analyst Special Report, "Is It Time To Buy Value Stocks?," available at www.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see the February 15, 2017 Global ETF Strategy Special Report, "Smart-Beta ETF Selection, Part I - Value Funds," available at etf.bcaresearch.com. 3 The ETS model draws its index members from the top three deciles of U.S. stocks by market cap. 4 Fama and French's HML index is equally composed of the top three book-to-price (B/P) deciles less the bottom three B/P deciles of the stocks above the median market cap and the top three B/P deciles less the bottom three B/P deciles of stocks below the median market cap. The ETS index is drawn from the largest three deciles of all stocks by market cap. The net effect is for the HML index to include stocks with much smaller market caps than the ETS index, allowing it to derive an added benefit from the Size factor (smaller stocks outperform larger stocks over time). 5 Please see the May 17, 2017 Global ETF Strategy Special Report, "Equity Factors And The Fed Funds Rate Cycle," available at etf.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see the June 20, 2018 Global ETF Strategy/Equity Trading Strategy Special Report, "Why Anomalies Persist," available at etf.bcaresearch.com.

Highlights Chart 1Second Half Rebound Second Half Rebound Second Half Rebound The leveling-off of bullish sentiment toward the dollar and the perception of fading political risk have caused spread product to rally hard since the end of June. Indeed, corporate bonds are almost back into the black versus Treasuries for the year (Chart 1). We caution against buying into either of these trends. We have demonstrated that divergences between the U.S. and the rest of the world usually end with weaker U.S. growth,1 and our geopolitical strategists warn that American tensions with both Iran and China are poised to ramp up after the November midterms.2 Add in persistent monetary tightening and corporate profit growth that is barely keeping pace with debt growth, and it becomes clear that the corporate spread environment is turning more negative. Investors should maintain below-benchmark portfolio duration and only a neutral allocation to spread product versus Treasuries. Evidence of deteriorating profit growth is required before turning more negative on spread product. 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 78 basis points in September, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to -16 bps. The index option-adjusted spread tightened 8 bps on the month, and currently sits at 114 bps. Corporate bonds remain expensive with 12-month breakeven spreads for both A and Baa-rated credit tiers below their 25th percentiles since 1989 (Chart 2). Further, with inflation now at the Fed's target, monetary policy will provide less and less support for corporate bond returns going forward. These are the two main reasons we downgraded our cyclical corporate bond exposure to neutral in June.3 Gross leverage for the nonfinancial corporate sector declined in Q2, for the third consecutive quarter (panel 4), though the declines have been quite modest. Dollar strength and accelerating wage growth will weigh on corporate profits in the second half of the year, and with corporate profit growth just barely keeping pace with debt growth (bottom panel), odds are that leverage will start to rise. Midstream and Independent Energy companies remain attractively valued after adjusting for duration and credit rating (Table 3). These two sectors stand to benefit from rising oil prices into next year, as is expected by our commodity strategists.4 Table 3ACorporate Sector Relative Valuation And Recommended Allocation* Complacent Complacent Table 3BCorporate Sector Risk Vs. Reward* Complacent Complacent 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 104 basis points in September, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +326 bps. The average index option-adjusted spread tightened 22 bps on the month, and currently sits at 316 bps. Our measure of the excess spread available in the High-Yield index after accounting for default losses is currently 209 bps, below the long-run mean of 247 bps (Chart 3). This tells us that if default losses are in line with our expectations during the next 12 months, we should expect high-yield returns of 209 bps in excess of duration-matched Treasuries, assuming also no capital gains/losses from spread tightening/widening. But the default loss expectations embedded in our calculation are also extremely low relative to history (panel 4). Our assumption, derived from the Moody's baseline default rate forecast and our own forecast of the recovery rate, calls for default losses of 1.07% during the next 12 months. Default losses have rarely come in below that level. While most indicators suggest that default losses will remain low for the next 12 months, historical context clearly demonstrates that the risks are to the upside. Meanwhile, with gross corporate leverage likely to rise in the second half of the year,5 and job cut announcements already trending higher (bottom panel), current default loss forecasts appear overly optimistic. MBS: Neutral Chart 4MBS Market Overview MBS Market Overview MBS Market Overview Mortgage-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 11 basis points in September, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to -7 bps. The conventional 30-year zero-volatility MBS spread tightened 5 bps on the month, driven by a 4 bps decline in the compensation for prepayment risk (option cost) and a 1 bp tightening in the option-adjusted spread. The excess return Bond Map on page 15 shows that MBS offer a relatively poor risk/reward trade-off, particularly compared to Aaa-rated non-Agency CMBS, High-Yield and Sovereigns. However, our Bond Map does not account for the macro environment, which remains favorable for the sector. Refi activity is tepid, and continued Fed rate hikes will ensure that it stays that way (Chart 4). Meanwhile, lending standards have been slowly easing since 2014 (bottom panel). Despite the steady easing, the Fed's most recent Senior Loan Officer Survey reports that mortgage lending standards remain at the tighter end of the range since 2005. This suggests that further easing is likely going forward. In a recent report we noted that residential investment has decelerated in recent months, with the weakness mostly stemming from multi-family construction.6 Demand for single-family housing remains robust, and we see no potential negative impact on MBS spreads during the next 6-12 months. 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 48 basis points in September, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +38 bps. Sovereign debt outperformed the Treasury benchmark by 151 bps, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +67 bps. Foreign Agencies outperformed by 70 bps on the month, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +34 bps. Local Authorities outperformed by 50 bps, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +91 bps. Supranationals outperformed Treasuries by 4 bps, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +16 bps. Domestic Agency bonds outperformed by 6 bps, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +10 bps. After adjusting for differences in credit rating and duration, the average spread available from the USD-denominated Sovereign index is unattractive compared to the U.S. corporate bond space (Chart 5). Dollar strength should also cause Sovereign debt to underperform U.S. corporates in the coming months (panel 3). But the outlook could be worse for the Sovereign index. Mexico, Colombia and the Philippines make up approximately 50% of the index's market cap, and our Emerging Markets Strategy team has found that none of those countries are particularly vulnerable to a slowdown in Chinese aggregate demand.7 Mexico and Columbia are particularly insulated. Municipal Bonds: Overweight Chart 6Municipal Market Overview Municipal Market Overview Municipal Market Overview Municipal bonds outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 36 basis points in September, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +153 bps (before adjusting for the tax advantage). The average Aaa-rated Municipal / Treasury (M/T) yield ratio rose 2% in September, and currently sits at 87% (Chart 6). This is about one standard deviation below its post-crisis mean and only slightly above the average of 81% that was observed in the late stages of the previous cycle, between mid-2006 and mid-2007. In a recent report we demonstrated that while M/T yield ratios are low, municipal bonds offer attractive yields compared to corporate bonds.8 For example, we observe that a 5-year Aa-rated municipal bond carries a yield of 2.40% versus a yield of 3.42% for a comparable corporate bond index. This implies that an investor with an effective tax rate of 30% should be indifferent between the two bonds. Moving further out the curve, the breakeven tax rate falls to 23% at the 10-year maturity point and is even lower at the 20-year maturity point. The greater attractiveness of long-maturity munis is consistent across credit tiers, and investors should favor long-dated over short-dated municipal debt (bottom panel). Treasury Curve: Favor The 7-Year Bullet Over The 1/20 Barbell Chart 7Treasury Yield Curve Overview Treasury Yield Curve Overview Treasury Yield Curve Overview The Treasury curve underwent a roughly parallel upward shift in September. While the 10-year Treasury yield rose 19 bps, the 2/10 slope was unchanged at 24 bps and the 5/30 slope flattened 3 bps to reach 25 bps. The yield curve is already quite flat, and our models suggest that a lot more flattening is discounted. For example, our 1/7/20 butterfly spread model shows that 32 bps of 1/20 flattening is priced into the 1/7/20 butterfly spread for the next six months (Chart 7).9 With the U.S. economy growing strongly and the Fed moving at a gradual +25 bps per quarter pace, the curve is likely to flatten by less than is currently discounted on a cyclical (6-12 month) horizon. This argues for positioning in curve steepeners. In a recent report we also made the case for owning steepeners as a hedge against the risk that weak foreign growth infiltrates the U.S. via a stronger dollar.10 We found that the yield pick-up is similar for the different steepener trades we considered, and also that the 7-year yield has the most downside in the event of a pause in the Fed's tightening cycle. This argues for maintaining our position long the 7-year bullet and short the 1/20 barbell, a position that has earned +37 bps since it was initiated in May. TIPS: Overweight Chart 8Inflation Compensation Inflation Compensation Inflation Compensation TIPS outperformed the duration-equivalent nominal Treasury index by 16 basis points in September, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +138 bps. The 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate rose 6 bps on the month and currently sits at 2.14%. The 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rate rose 7 bps and currently sits at 2.25%. Both the 10-year and 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rates remain below the 2.3% to 2.5% range that has historically been consistent with inflation expectations that are well-anchored around the Fed's 2% target. TIPS breakeven rates have held firm in recent months, despite the sharp drop in commodity prices (Chart 8). This suggests that investors' inflation expectations are increasingly being swayed by U.S. core inflation, which is now more or less consistent with the Fed's target (bottom panel). In recent reports we showed that year-over-year core inflation (both CPI and PCE) is likely to flatten-off during the next six months.11 But continued inflation prints near the Fed's target should be sufficient to drive long-dated breakevens higher, into our target range. This will occur as persistent prints near target cause investors' fears of deflation to gradually ebb. ABS: Neutral Chart 9ABS Market Overview ABS Market Overview ABS Market Overview Asset-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 11 basis points in September, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +29 bps. The index option-adjusted spread for Aaa-rated ABS narrowed 4 bps on the month and now stands at 33 bps, just below its pre-crisis minimum. The excess return Bond Map on page 15 shows that consumer ABS offer attractive return potential compared to other high-rated spread products - such as Agency CMBS and Domestic Agencies - but also carry a greater risk of losses. The Bond Map also reveals that Aaa-rated credit card ABS offer a more attractive risk/reward trade-off than Aaa-rated auto loan ABS. We continue to recommend favoring the former over the latter. Credit quality trends have been slowly moving against the ABS sector and we think caution is warranted. The consumer credit delinquency rate bottomed in 2015, albeit from a very low level, and it should continue to head higher based on the trend in household interest coverage (Chart 9). Average consumer credit bank lending standards have also been tightening for nine consecutive quarters (bottom panel). 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 41 basis points in September, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +167 bps. The index option-adjusted spread for non-agency Aaa-rated CMBS tightened 6 bps on the month and currently sits at 83 bps (Chart 10). In a recent report we showed that the macro picture for CMBS is decidedly mixed.12 A typical negative environment for CMBS is characterized by tightening bank lending standards for commercial real estate loans and falling demand. At present, both lending standards and demand for nonresidential real estate loans are close to unchanged (bottom two panels). Agency CMBS: Overweight Agency CMBS outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 13 basis points in September, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +54 bps. The index option-adjusted spread tightened 1 bp on the month and currently sits at 44 bps. The Bond Maps on page 15 show that Agency CMBS offer high potential return compared to other low risk spread products. An overweight allocation to this defensive sector continues to make sense. The BCA Bond Maps The following page presents excess return and total return Bond Maps that we use to assess the relative risk/reward trade-off between different sectors of the U.S. fixed income market. The Maps employ volatility-adjusted breakeven spread/yield analysis to show how likely it is that a given sector will earn/lose money during the subsequent 12 months. The Maps do not impose any macroeconomic view. The Excess Return Bond Map The horizontal axis of the excess return Bond Map shows the number of days of average spread widening required for each sector to lose 100 bps versus a position in duration-matched Treasuries. Sectors plotting further to the left require more days of average spread widening and are therefore less likely to see losses. The vertical axis shows the number of days of average spread tightening required for each sector to earn 100 bps in excess of duration-matched Treasuries. Sectors plotting further toward the top require fewer days of spread tightening and are therefore more likely to earn 100 bps in excess of Treasuries. The Total Return Bond Map The horizontal axis of the total return Bond Map shows the number of days of average yield increase required for each sector to lose 5% in total return terms. Sectors plotting further to the left require more days of yield increases and are therefore less likely to lose 5%. The vertical axis shows the number of days of average yield decline required for each sector to earn 5% in total return terms. Sectors plotting further toward the top require fewer days of yield decline and are therefore more likely to earn 5%. Chart 11Excess Return Bond Map (As Of September 28, 2018) Complacent Complacent Chart 12Total Return Bond Map (As Of September 28, 2018) Complacent Complacent Table 4Butterfly Strategy Valuation (As Of September 28, 2018) Complacent Complacent Table 5Discounted Slope Change During Next 6 Months (BPs) Complacent Complacent Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "An Oasis Of Prosperity?", dated August 21, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "A Story Told Through Charts: The U.S. Midterm Election", dated September 19, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, "Go To Neutral On Spread Product", dated June 26, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, "Odds Of Oil-Price Spike In 1H19 Rise; 2019 Brent Forecast Lifted $15 To $95/bbl", dated September 20, 2018, available at ces.bcaresearch.com 5 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "More Than One Reason To Own Steepeners", dated September 25, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 6 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "More Than One Reason To Own Steepeners", dated September 25, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 7 Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, "Deciphering Global Trade Linkages", dated September 27, 2018, available at ems.bcaresearch.com 8 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "An Oasis Of Prosperity?", dated August 21, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 9 For further details on our yield curve models please see U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, "More Bullets, Barbells And Butterflies", dated May 15, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 10 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "More Than One Reason To Own Steepeners", dated September 25, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 11 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "No Excuses", dated September 18, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 12 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "The Fed's Balance Sheet Problem", dated July 17, 2018, 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 Q3/2018 Performance Breakdown: The Global Fixed Income Strategy (GFIS) recommended model bond portfolio outperformed its custom benchmark in the third quarter of 2018 by +9bps. This raised the overall 2018 year-to-date performance to +6bps. Winners & Losers: The outperformance came mostly from our defensive duration positioning, which benefitted as global bond yields rose during the quarter, but also from successful country selection (overweight Australia & New Zealand, underweight the U.S., Canada & Italy). Our underweight tilts on EM credit were the largest drag on performance after the sharp EM rally in September. Scenario Analysis: The combination of defensive overall duration positioning and underweight allocations to EM and European credit should allow the model bond portfolio to outperform its custom benchmark index over the next year. Feature This week, we present the performance numbers of the BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy (GFIS) model bond portfolio for the 3rd quarter of 2018. We also update our scenario analysis of the future expected performance of the portfolio based on the risk-factor based return forecasting framework we introduced earlier this year. As a reminder to existing readers (and for new clients), the portfolio is a part of our service that is meant to complement the usual macro analysis of global fixed income markets. The model portfolio is how we communicate our opinion on the relative attractiveness between government bond and spread product sectors, by applying actual percentage weightings to each of our recommendations within a fully invested hypothetical bond portfolio. Broadly speaking, the portfolio did slightly outperform its benchmark index over the past three months, driven mostly by defensive duration positioning during a period of rising developed market bond yields. The portfolio would have done considerably better if not for a September rally in emerging market (EM) credit that flew in the face of our maximum underweight position in EM. We still have strong conviction in those two main themes - higher global bond yields and EM underperformance - and we fully expect our model portfolio to generate larger outperformance over the next year. Q3/2018 Model Portfolio Performance Breakdown: Duration Underweights Pay Off The total return of the GFIS model bond portfolio was +0.12% (hedged into U.S. dollars) in the third quarter of the year, which outperformed the custom benchmark index by +9bps (Chart of the Week).1 The main driver of the outperformance was our structural below-benchmark portfolio duration stance, which benefited as the overall Bloomberg Barclays Global Treasury Index yield rose to 1.54% - the highest level since April 2014. The portfolio's excess return got as high as +19bps on September 4th, before seeing some pullback in recent weeks as our main spread product tilt - underweight EM hard currency sovereign and corporate debt - enjoyed a counter-trend rally in September from the bearish spread widening seen since the start of 2018. Chart of the WeekDefensive Duration Stance = Q3 Outperformance Defensive Duration Stance = Q3 Outperformance Defensive Duration Stance = Q3 Outperformance Table 1GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q3/2018 Overall Return Attribution GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q3/2018 Performance Review: Inching Ahead GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q3/2018 Performance Review: Inching Ahead In terms of the specific breakdown between the government bond and spread product allocations in our model portfolio, the former generated +17bps of outperformance versus our custom benchmark index while the latter lagged the benchmark by -8bps (Table 1). The bar charts showing the total and relative returns for each individual government bond market and spread product sector are presented in Charts 2 and 3. Chart 2GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q3/2018 Government##BR##Bond Performance Attribution By Country GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q3/2018 Performance Review: Inching Ahead GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q3/2018 Performance Review: Inching Ahead Chart 3GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q3/2018 Spread##BR##Product Performance Attribution By Sector GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q3/2018 Performance Review: Inching Ahead GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q3/2018 Performance Review: Inching Ahead The main individual sectors of the portfolio that drove the excess returns were the following: Biggest outperformers Underweight Japanese government bonds (JGBs) with maturities beyond 10 years (+7bps) Underweight U.S. Treasuries with maturities beyond 7 years (+6bps) Underweight French government bonds with maturities beyond 7 years (+2bps) Underweight Italian government bonds (+2bps) Overweight JGBs with maturities up to 10 years (+1bp) Biggest underperformers Underweight EM USD-denominated sovereign debt (-3bps) Underweight EM USD-denominated corporate debt (-3bps) Underweight euro area investment grade corporate debt (-2bps) Underweight euro area high-yield corporate debt (-1bp) Chart 4 presents the ranked benchmark index returns of the individual countries and spread product sectors in the GFIS model bond portfolio. The returns are hedged into U.S. dollars (we do not take active currency risk in this portfolio) and also adjusted to reflect duration differences between each country/sector and the overall custom benchmark index for the model portfolio. We have also color coded the bars in each chart to reflect our recommended investment stance for each market during the third quarter (red for underweight, blue for overweight, gray for neutral weight). Chart 4Ranking The Winners & Losers From The Model Portfolio In Q3/2018 GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q3/2018 Performance Review: Inching Ahead GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q3/2018 Performance Review: Inching Ahead Spread product sectors dominate the left half of that chart, as credit spreads have tightened across the board since the early September peak. The best performing sector during Q3 in our model portfolio universe was EM hard currency sovereign debt, which has delivered a total return of +2.8% since September 4th (with spreads tightening by 50bps) after losing -0.7% in July and August. Similar performance stories occurred in corporate debt in the U.S. and Europe during the quarter. That credit outperformance comes after the sustained spread widening seen in virtually all global credit markets (excluding U.S. high-yield) since January of this year. The main drivers that prompted that widening - Fed tightening, a stronger U.S. dollar, diminishing asset purchases from the European Central Bank (ECB) and Bank of Japan (BoJ), some cyclical slowing of non-U.S. growth - are still in place. With our geopolitical strategists continuing to highlight the additional risks of U.S.-China and U.S.-Iran tensions intensifying after next month's U.S. Midterm elections, a cautious stance on global spread product - as we have maintained since downgrading our recommended overall credit exposure to neutral in late June - is still warranted.2 Outside of spread product, our model portfolio tilts generally lined up with the sector returns shown in Chart 4. We have overweights on two of the best performing government bond markets (Australia and New Zealand) and underweights on three of the worst performers (U.S., Canada, Italy). Interestingly, despite having overweights on two of the worst performing government bond markets - Japan and the U.K. - the excess return contribution from those countries did not hurt the model bond portfolio return in Q3 (+8bps and 0bps, respectively). This was due to the curve steepening bias embedded within our overweight country tilts (i.e. more duration allocated to shorter-maturity buckets, see the model portfolio details on Page 14), which benefitted as yield curves in those countries bear-steepened. Net-net, we are satisfied with the modest portfolio outperformance seen in Q3, given that the rally in global credit markets went against our more defensive posture on spread product exposure. Bottom Line: The GFIS recommended model bond portfolio outperformed its custom benchmark in the third quarter of 2018 by +9bps. This put the overall 2018 year-to-date performance into positive territory (+6bps). The outperformance came entirely from our defensive duration positioning, which benefitted as global bond yields rose during the quarter, and from successful country selection. Our underweight tilts on EM credit were the largest drag on performance after the sharp EM rally in September. Future Drivers Of Portfolio Returns Looking ahead, the performance of the model bond portfolio will continue to benefit from two primary trends: rising global bond yields and growth divergences that continue to favor the U.S. In terms of the specific weightings in the GFIS model bond portfolio, we still prefer owning U.S. corporate debt versus equivalents in Europe and EM. When we downgraded our recommended allocation to U.S. and investment grade corporates to neutral from overweight back in July, we also cut the portfolio exposure to euro area corporates, as well as to all EM hard currency debt, to underweight. The latter changes were necessary to maintain our desired higher exposure to U.S. corporate debt versus non-U.S. corporates, although it did leave the model portfolio with a small overall underweight stance on global spread product (Chart 5). Importantly, we are maintaining a below-benchmark stance on overall portfolio duration, which is now one full year shorter than our benchmark index duration (Chart 6), even as we have grown more cautious on credit exposure. This is because we still see potential medium-term upward pressure on bond yields coming from tightening monetary policies (Fed rate hikes, ECB tapering of bond purchases) and increasing inflation expectations. The majority of global central bankers are dealing with tight labor markets and slowly rising inflation rates. While global growth has cooled a bit from the rapid pace seen in 2017, it has not been by enough to force policymakers to shift to a more dovish bias. Chart 5Spread Product Allocation:##BR##Neutral U.S., Underweight Non-U.S. GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q3/2018 Performance Review: Inching Ahead GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q3/2018 Performance Review: Inching Ahead Chart 6Maintaining##BR##Below-Benchnmark Duration Maintaining Below-Benchnmark Duration Maintaining Below-Benchnmark Duration Our underweights on EM and euro area spread product have left the portfolio in a "negative carry" position where it yields 34bps less than the benchmark index (Chart 7). In a backdrop of stable markets and low volatility, being short carry will be a drag on the model bond portfolio performance as we saw over the past month. Yet we do not see the recent market calm as being sustainable, with all plausible outcomes pointing to more volatile markets, largely driven by U.S.-centric events (more Fed tightening, a stronger dollar, U.S. growth convergence to slower non-U.S. growth, increased trade protectionism, higher oil prices due to U.S.-Iran tensions). We continue to suggest a cautious allocation of investor risk budgets against this backdrop. We have been targeting a tracking error (relative volatility versus the benchmark) for our model bond portfolio in the 40-60bp range, well below our 100bps maximum. Our current allocations give us a tracking error right at the bottom of that range (Chart 8).3 Chart 7The Cost Of Being More Defensive On Credit The Cost Of Being More Defensive On Credit The Cost Of Being More Defensive On Credit Chart 8Maintaining A Cautious Allocation Of The Risk Budget Maintaining A Cautious Allocation Of The Risk Budget Maintaining A Cautious Allocation Of The Risk Budget Scenario Analysis & Return Forecasts Back in April of this year, we introduced a framework for estimating total returns for all government bond markets and spread product sectors, based on common risk factors.4 For credit, returns are estimated as a function of changes in the U.S. dollar, the Fed funds rate, oil prices and market volatility as proxied by the VIX index (Table 2A). For government bonds, non-U.S. yield changes are estimated using historical betas to changes in U.S. Treasury yields (Table 2B). This framework allows us to conduct scenario analysis based on projected returns for each asset class in the model bond portfolio universe by making assumptions on those individual risk factors. Table 2AFactor Regressions Used To Estimate##BR##Spread Product Yield Changes GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q3/2018 Performance Review: Inching Ahead GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q3/2018 Performance Review: Inching Ahead Table 2BEstimated Government Bond##BR##Yield Betas To U.S. Treasuries GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q3/2018 Performance Review: Inching Ahead GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q3/2018 Performance Review: Inching Ahead With these tools, we than can attempt to forecast returns for each bond sector under different scenarios. We can then use those forecasts to predict the expected return for our model bond portfolio under those same scenarios. In Tables 3A & 3B. we show three differing scenarios, with all the following changes occurring over a one-year horizon. Table 3AScenario Analysis For The GFIS Model Portfolio GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q3/2018 Performance Review: Inching Ahead GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q3/2018 Performance Review: Inching Ahead Table 3BU.S. Treasury Yield Assumptions For The Scenario Analysis GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q3/2018 Performance Review: Inching Ahead GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q3/2018 Performance Review: Inching Ahead Our Base Case: the Fed delivers another 100bps of rate hikes, the U.S. dollar rises +5%, oil prices rise by +10%, the VIX index increases by five points from current levels, and U.S. Treasury yields rise by 40bps across the curve. A Very Hawkish Fed: the Fed delivers 150bps of rate hikes, the U.S. dollar rises by +10%, oil prices rise by +10%, the VIX index increases by ten points from current levels and there is a sharp bear flattening of the U.S. Treasury curve (2yr yield +75bps, 10yr yield +40bps). A Very Dovish Fed: the Fed only hikes rates by 25bps, the U.S. dollar falls by -5%, oil prices fall by -20%, the VIX index increases by fifteen points from current levels and there is a modest bull steepening of the U.S. Treasury curve. In this scenario, the Fed puts the rate hiking cycle on hold in response to a sharp tightening of U.S. financial conditions. Table 3A shows the expected returns for all three scenarios based on our risk-factor framework. The model bond portfolio is expected to outperform the custom benchmark index in all three scenarios we have laid out. This occurs even with the negative carry coming from the credit underweights in EM and Europe, with losses from credit spread widening projected to be larger than the yield give-up from being underweight. The excess returns are modest, however, with only 6bps of outperformance expected in our base case scenario and 13bps expected in the "Very Hawkish Fed" and "Very Dovish Fed" scenarios. This return distribution, with better outcomes occurring in the "tails", is a desirable property to have as it relates to the VIX/volatility forecasts embedded in the scenarios. Both of the non-base case scenarios have a higher VIX (Chart 9), even in the case of the "Very Dovish Fed" outcome where a severe U.S. financial market selloff (coming complete with a higher VIX) would be the necessary trigger for the Fed to reverse course and begin cutting interest rates (Chart 10). Such a backdrop would obviously hurt our below-benchmark duration stance, but would help our underweight EM/Europe spread product recommendations. Chart 9Risk Factors For Scenario Analysis Risk Factors For Scenario Analysis Risk Factors For Scenario Analysis Chart 10UST Yield Moves For Scenario Analysis UST Yield Moves For Scenario Analysis UST Yield Moves For Scenario Analysis Of course, our recommendations will not be static at current levels throughout the next twelve months. We increasingly expect that our next major allocation move will be downgrade U.S. spread product exposure and raise U.S. Treasury allocations, especially after the Fed delivers a few more 25bps-per-quarter rate hikes and the U.S. dollar rises further. This will provide a boost to the portfolio's expected returns through renewed spread widening and, potentially, a reduction of our below-benchmark overall duration stance as Treasury yields reach likely cyclical peaks. Bottom Line: The combination of defensive overall duration positioning and underweight allocations to EM and European credit should allow the model bond portfolio to outperform its custom benchmark index over the next year. Robert Robis, CFA, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com 1 The GFIS model bond portfolio custom benchmark index is the Bloomberg Barclays Global Aggregate Index, but with allocations to global high-yield corporate debt replacing very high quality spread product (i.e. AA-rated). We believe this to be more indicative of the typical internal benchmark used by global multi-sector fixed income managers. 2 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "Time To Take Some Chips Off The Table: Downgrade Global Spread Product Exposure To Neutral", dated June 26th 2018, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 3 In general, we aim to target a tracking error no greater than 100bps. We think this is reasonable for a portfolio where currency exposure is fully hedged and less than 5% of the portfolio benchmark is in bonds with ratings below investment grade. 4 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q1/2018 Performance Review: A Rough Start", dated April 10th 2018, available at gfis.bcareseach.com. Recommendations Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Feature GAA DM Equity Country Allocation Model Update The GAA DM Equity Country Allocation model is updated as of September 30, 2018. The quant model has not made significant allocation changes as shown in Table 1. As shown in Table 2 and Charts 1, 2 and 3, the overall model underperformed its benchmark by 53 bps in September, largely driven by Level 2 model which underperformed its benchmark by 156 bps. Japan was the largest underweight in the model, yet Japan was the best performing country in September, which contributed largely to the model's underperformance. Since going live, the overall model has outperformed its benchmarks by only 7 bps, driven by the Level 2 outperformance of 46 bps offset by the 8 bps of Level 1 underperformance. Even though the model underperformed significantly in both August and September, it's still within the back-tested range based on one-year and four-year changes. Table 1Model Allocation Vs. Benchmark Weights GAA Quant Model Updates GAA Quant Model Updates Table 2Performance (Total Returns In USD %) GAA Quant Model Updates GAA Quant Model Updates Chart 1GAA DM Model Vs. MSCI World GAA DM Model Vs. MSCI World GAA DM Model Vs. MSCI World Chart 2GAA U.S. Vs. Non U.S. Model (Level 1) GAA U.S. Vs. Non U.S. Model (Level 1) GAA U.S. Vs. Non U.S. Model (Level 1) Chart 3GAA Non U.S. Model (Level 2) GAA Non U.S. Model (Level 2) GAA Non U.S. Model (Level 2) Please see also the website http://gaa.bcaresearch.com/trades/allocation_performance. For more details on the models, please see Special Report, "Global Equity Allocation: Introducing The Developed Markets Country Allocation Model," dated January 29, 2016, available at https://gaa.bcaresearch.com. Please note that the overall country and sector recommendations published in our Monthly Portfolio Update and Quarterly Portfolio Outlook use the results of these quantitative models as one input, but do not stick slavishly to them. We believe that models are a useful check, but structural changes and unquantifiable factors need to be considered too in making overall recommendations. GAA Equity Sector Selection Model Dear Client, As advised last month, we have suspended the GAA Equity Sector Selection Model due to the significant changes in the GICS sector classifications, implemented at the end of September. We will rebuild the model using the newly constituted sectors once full back data is available from MSCI, which we understand will be in December. We thank you for your understanding. Xiaoli Tang, Associate Vice President xiaoliT@bcaresearch.com Aditya Kurian, Senior Analyst adityak@bcaresearch.com

Per the most commonly referenced growth and value indexes, growth has been outperforming value for over 11 years, the longest stretch in the history of the series. Growth's extended winning streak has split investors into two camps: those who believe that value is finished because of overexposure and shortened investor timeframes, and those who are trying to identify the point at which reversion to the mean will ensue. In this Special Report, we argue that the traditional off-the-shelf indexes are poor proxies for true value. Their methodology strays quite far from the principles enumerated by Benjamin Graham, the father of value investing, and Fama and French, the researchers who demonstrated that lower-priced stocks have outperformed over time. The headline S&P 500 indexes currently differentiate between growth and value stocks using simplistic metrics that introduce considerable sector bias, reducing the difference between growth and value to a binary choice between Tech and Financials. Using tools developed by BCA's Equity Trading Strategy service, we create sector-neutral U.S. value and growth indexes that correct for the off-the-shelf indexes' flaws, and broaden the range of metrics Fama and French employed to make style distinctions. The ETS-derived indexes appear to better distinguish between value and growth stocks. The ETS value-versus-growth portfolio beat its Fama and French counterpart by four percentage points annually over its 22-year life. We join our custom value and growth indexes to Fama and French's to study the impact of macro variables on relative style performance over time for the purpose of gaining insight into the most opportune points to shift between styles. Relative style performance has not corresponded consistently or robustly enough with the business cycle, inflation, interest rates, or broad market direction to support reliable style-decision rules. We find that monetary policy settings, as defined by our stylized fed funds rate cycle, are a consistently reliable predictor of relative style performance. Per the fed funds rate cycle, tight policy is most conducive to value outperformance. From this perspective, value's decade-long slump is not a surprise, given that the ultra-accommodative tide has been lifting all boats. There is no rush to increase value exposure while policy remains easy, but investors should look to load up on value once policy becomes tight, using the metrics in our ETS model to identify true value stocks. We expect that the policy inflection will occur sometime in the second half of 2019, or the first half of 2020. Growth stocks have been on a tear for the longest stretch in the history of the series, based on the most commonly referenced growth and value indexes, even if their gains haven't yet matched the magnitude of the 1990s (Chart II-1). It is no surprise, then, that growth stocks are as expensive as they have ever been, outside of the tech-bubble era in the late 1990s. Many investors are thus wondering if the next "big trade" is to bet on an extended reversion to the mean during which value regains the ground it has given up. Chart II-1A Lost Decade For Value Stocks A Lost Decade For Value Stocks A Lost Decade For Value Stocks In this Special Report, we argue that the traditional off-the-shelf indexes are not very good at differentiating growth from value stocks. Trends in relative performance have much more to do with sector performance than intrinsic value, making the indexes a poor proxy for investors who are truly interested in selecting stocks based on their value and growth profiles. We create U.S. value and growth indexes that are unaffected by sector performance, using stock selection software provided by BCA's Equity Trading Strategy service. The results will surprise readers who are used to dealing with canned measures of value and growth. What Is Value Investing? Value investing principles have been around at least since the days when Benjamin Graham was a money manager himself. Style investing has been a part of the asset-management lexicon for four decades. Yet there is no universally agreed-upon definition of a value stock versus a growth stock. Based on our reading of Graham's Intelligent Investor, we submit that an essential element of value investing is the identification of stocks that are temporarily trading below their intrinsic value. The temporary drag may persist for a while - stock markets can remain oblivious to fundamentals for extended stretches - but it is ultimately expected to dissipate. Value investing is a play on negative overreaction or neglect, and dedicated value investors have to be contrarians, not to mention contrarians with strong stomachs. The temporary nature of undervaluation is a recurring theme in Graham's book. The stock market's ever-present proclivity toward overreaction ensures a steady supply of value opportunities: "The market is always making mountains out of molehills and exaggerating ordinary vicissitudes into major setbacks.1" "[W]hen an individual company ... begins to lose ground in the economy, Wall Street is quick to assume that its future is entirely hopeless and it should be avoided at any price.2" "[T]he outstanding characteristic of the stock market is its tendency to react excessively to favorable and unfavorable influences.3" Graham viewed security analysis as the comparison of an issue's market price to its intrinsic value. He advised buying stocks only when they trade at a discount to intrinsic value, offering an investor a "margin of safety" that should guard against significant declines. His favorite measure for assessing intrinsic value was a sober, objective estimate of average future earnings, grossed-up by an appropriate multiple. A low price-to-average-earnings ratio was the linchpin of his margin-of-safety mantra. Decades after Graham's heyday, University of Chicago professors Eugene Fama and Kenneth French bestowed the academy's seal of approval on value investing. Their landmark 1992 paper found that low price-to-book ("P/B") stocks consistently and convincingly outperformed high P/B stocks.4 Several "growth" and "value" indexes have been developed over the years, but they bear no more than a passing resemblance to Graham's, and Fama and French's, work. It is important to realize that the off-the-shelf indexes are far from an ideal proxy for the value factor that Fama & French tried to isolate. Traditional Growth And Value Indexes Are Wanting The off-the-shelf growth and value indexes shown in Chart II-1 all share similar cyclical profiles, with only small differences in long-term returns. Given the similarity of the indexes, we will focus on Standard & Poor's/Citigroup methodology for the purposes of this report.5 The headline S&P 500 indexes currently differentiate between growth and value stocks using the following metrics: 3-year growth rates in EPS, 3-year growth rates in sales-per-share, and 12-month price momentum; along with valuation yardsticks including price-to-book, price-to-earnings, and price-to-sales. Companies with higher growth rates in earnings and sales, and better price momentum, are classified as growth stocks, while those with lower valuation multiples are considered value stocks. Several stocks are cross-listed in both indexes, which is baffling and counterproductive for an investor seeking to implement a rigorous style tilt.6 Table II-1 contains a summary of the current sector breakdowns for the S&P 500 Growth and Value indexes. Table II-2 sheds light on each index's aggregate geographical and U.S. business cycle exposure, the former of which is based on our U.S. Equity Strategy service's judgment. Table II-1Current S&P 500 Style Index Exposures October 2018 October 2018 Table II-2The Value Index Has Less Global ##br##And Late Cyclical Exposure October 2018 October 2018 Growth is currently heavily weighted in Health Care, Technology and Consumer Discretionary sectors, while value has a high concentration of Financials, Energy and Consumer Staples (Table II-1). Table II-2 shows that the growth index has a clear current bias toward sectors with global economic exposure that typically outperform the broad equity market late in the business cycle. The value benchmark flips growth's global/domestic exposure, and has slightly more exposure to defensive sectors, while splitting its cyclical exposure evenly between early and late cyclicals. Sector Dominance Unfortunately, the reigning methodology creates a major problem - shifts in the relative performance of growth and value indexes are dominated by sector performance. Financials' higher debt loads, and banks' low-margin operations, depress their multiples relative to nonfinancial firms. Thus, Financials hold permanent residency in the off-the-shelf value indexes. Conversely, Tech stocks perennially account for an outsized proportion of most growth indexes' market cap. Value-versus-growth boils down to a binary choice between Financials and Tech.7 The growth/value price ratio has closely tracked the Technology/Financials price ratio since the late 1990s (Chart II-2, top panel). The correlation was much less evident before 1995, when Tech stocks accounted for a much smaller share of market capitalization. Chart II-3 demonstrates that the positive correlation between growth/value and Tech has steadily climbed over the decades to almost 1, while the correlation with Financials has become increasingly negative (currently at -0.75). Chart II-2The S&P 500 Style Indexes Merely Mimic Relative Sector Performance The S&P 500 Style Indexes Merely Mimic Relative Sector Performance The S&P 500 Style Indexes Merely Mimic Relative Sector Performance Chart II-3Style Capture Style Capture Style Capture In contrast, the Fama/French approach, which focuses exclusively on price-to-book while ensuring equal representation for large- and small-market-cap stocks, appears much less affected by sector skews; the growth/value index created from their data has not tracked the Tech/Financials ratio, even after 1995 (Chart II-2, second panel). Moreover, note that the extended downward trend in the Fama/French growth/value ratio is consistent with other academic research that shows that value stocks outperform growth over the long-term. The off-the-shelf indexes show the opposite, but that is because they are merely tracking the long-term outperformance of Tech relative to Financials. The bottom line is that the standard indexes incorporate flawed measures of growth and value that limit their usefulness for true style investing. Conventional Wisdom With respect to style investing and the economic cycle, the prevailing conventional wisdom holds that: Inflation - Growth stocks perform best during times of disinflation and persistently low inflation, whereas value stocks perform best during periods of accelerating inflation; Interest Rates - Periods of high and rising interest rates favor value stocks at the expense of growth; and Business Cycle - It is believed that growth stocks outperform value during recessions, because the latter tend to be more highly leveraged to the economic cycle than their growth counterparts. According to the conventional view, value stocks shine in the early and middle phases of a business cycle expansion. Growth stocks return to favor again in the late states of an expansion, when investors begin to worry about the pending end to the business cycle and are looking for reliable and consistent earnings growth. Do the traditional measures of growth and value corroborate this conventional wisdom? Chart II-4 shows that the S&P value/growth index and headline CPI inflation have both trended lower since the early 1980s, but there has been no tendency for value to outperform when inflation rises. Value has shown some tendency to outperform during rising-rate phases since the mid-1980s, but the relationship with the level of the fed funds rate is stronger than its direction, as we discuss below. The growth-over-value relationship with the business cycle is complicated by the tech bubble in the late 1990s, which heavily distorted relative sector performance. The Citigroup measure of growth began to outperform very late in the cycle and through the subsequent recession in some business cycles (1979-1981, 1989-1991, and 2007-2009; Chart II-5). The early and middle parts of the cycles, however, were a mixed bag. Chart II-4Spiting The Conventional Wisdom Spiting The Conventional Wisdom Spiting The Conventional Wisdom Chart II-5No Consistent Relationship With The Business Cycle No Consistent Relationship With The Business Cycle No Consistent Relationship With The Business Cycle The bottom line is that there appears to be some rough correspondence between the Citigroup index and the interest rate and growth cycles, but it is too variable to point to reliable rules for shifting between styles. Ultimately, determining the direction of the growth and value indexes is more about forecasting relative Tech and Financials performance than it is about identifying cheap stocks. A Better Value Approach We identify four broad shortcomings of off-the-shelf value indexes: They exclusively use trailing multiples, a rear-view mirror metric. They rely on simple price-to-book multiples, which flatter serial acquirers. They rely entirely on reported earnings, which are an imperfect proxy for cash flow. A share of stock ultimately represents a claim on its issuer's future cash flows. They make no attempt to place relative metrics into historical context. Without a mechanism to compare a particular segment's valuation relative to its history, structurally low-multiple stocks will be over-represented and structurally high-multiple stocks will be under-represented. BCA's Equity Trading Strategy (ETS) platform provides a way of differentiating value from growth stocks that avoids these problems. The web-based platform uses 24 quantitative factors to rank approximately 10,000 individual stocks in 23 countries. Users can rank and score individual equities to support a broad set of investment strategies and apply macro and sector views to single-name investments. The ETS approach has an impressive track record. Historically, the top decile of stocks ranked using the "BCA Score" methodology has outperformed stocks in the bottom decile by over 25% a year. The overall BCA Score includes all 24 factors when ranking stocks, but to develop our custom value index, we use only the five valuation measures in the ETS database: trailing P/E, forward P/E, price-to-tangible-book, price-to-sales and price-to-cash flow. Every quarter we rank the stocks within each of the 11 sectors based on an equally-weighted composite of the five valuation measures. Note that we are using the data to rank stocks only against other stocks in the same sector. We calculate the total return from owning the top 30% of stocks by value in each sector. We do the same with the bottom 30% and refer to this as our "growth" index.8 We then compute an equally-weighted average of the total returns for the growth indexes across the 11 sectors. We do the same for the value indexes. By comparing stock valuation only to other stocks in the same sector, this approach avoids the sector composition problem suffered by the off-the-shelf measures. Chart II-6 compares the ETS value/growth total return index to the Fama/French value/growth index. Data limitations preclude comparing the two measures before 1996, but the ETS index confirms the Fama/French result that value trumps growth over the long term. The ETS index follows a similar cyclical profile to the Fama/French index from 1997 to 2009, rising and falling in tandem. The two series subsequently diverge: per the criteria ETS uses to identify value and construct an index, lower-priced stocks have outperformed higher-priced ones for most of this expansion, while the Fama/French methodology suggests the reverse. Chart II-6The ETS Model Builds On Fama And French's Work The ETS Model Builds On Fama And French's Work The ETS Model Builds On Fama And French's Work By avoiding sector composition problems and using a wider variety of value measures, the ETS approach appears to be a superior measure of value. An investor that consistently over-weighted value stocks according to the ETS approach would have outperformed someone who did the same using the Fama methodology by an annual average of four percentage points from 1996 to 2018. The history of our ETS index only covers two recessions, limiting our ability to gauge its performance vis-Ã -vis a variety of macro factors, so we extend the ETS index back to 1926 using the Fama/French index. While joining two indexes with different methodologies is less than ideal, we feel the drawbacks are outweighed by the benefit of observing growth and value relative performance across more business cycles. The top panel of Chart II-7 shows U.S. real GDP growth, shaded for recessions. The bottom panel presents our extended ETS value/growth index, shaded for declines of more than 10%. The shaded periods overlap in many, but not all, cycles (indicated by circles in the chart). That is, growth stocks have tended to outperform during economic downturns, although this is not a hard-and-fast rule. Chart II-7No Hard-And-Fast Relationship With The Business Cycle... No Hard-And-Fast Relationship With The Business Cycle... No Hard-And-Fast Relationship With The Business Cycle... Value-over-growth relative returns exhibit some directionality with the overall equity market when looking at corrections (peak-to-trough declines of at least 10%, as shaded in the top panel of Chart II-8), though it should be noted that it is nearly impossible to flag a correction in advance. The relationship weakens when considering bear markets, i.e. peak-to-trough declines of at least 20%, which can be forecast with at least some reliability.9 The bottom panel is the same as in Chart II-7; the extended ETS index, shaded for periods of significant value stock underperformance. The correspondence between the shaded periods is hardly perfect, and there does not appear to be a practical style exposure message, even if an investor could call corrections in advance. Chart II-8...And Market Directionality Has Been An Imperfect Guide Over The Last 50 Years ...And Market Directionality Has Been An Imperfect Guide Over The Last 50 Years ...And Market Directionality Has Been An Imperfect Guide Over The Last 50 Years Valuation Relative valuation also provides some useful information on positioning, though it is not always timely. Chart II-9 presents an aggregate valuation measure for the stocks in our value index relative to that of the stocks in our growth index. Value stocks are expensive relative to growth when the valuation indicator is above +1 standard deviation, and value is cheap when the indicator is less than -1 standard deviation. Historically, investors would have profited if they had over-weighted value stocks when the valuation indicator reached the threshold of undervaluation, although subsequent outperformance was delayed by as much as a year in two episodes. In contrast, the valuation indicator is not useful as a 'sell' signal for value stocks because they can remain overvalued for long periods. Value was overvalued relative to growth for much of the time between 2009 and 2016. Value stocks have cheapened since then, although they have yet to reach the undervaluation threshold. The Fed Funds Rate Cycle While relative style performance may generally lean in one direction or another in conjunction with the business cycle, inflation, interest rates, or broad equity-market performance, there are no hard-and-fast rules. It is difficult to formulate any sort of rotation view between styles, and history does not inspire confidence that any such rule would generate material outperformance. The monetary policy backdrop offers a path forward. We have found the fed funds rate cycle offers a consistent guide to equity and bond returns in other contexts, and our Global ETF Strategy service has found a robust link between the policy cycle and equity factor performance.10 We segment the fed funds rate cycle into four phases, based on whether or not the Fed is hiking or cutting rates, and whether policy is accommodative or restrictive (Chart II-10). Our judgment of the state of policy is derived from comparing the fed funds rate to our estimate of the equilibrium fed funds rate, the policy rate that neither encourages nor discourages economic activity. Chart II-9Sizeable Undervaluation Flags Turning ##br##Points, But You May Have To Wait A While Sizeable Undervaluation Flags Turning Points, But You May Have To Wait A While Sizeable Undervaluation Flags Turning Points, But You May Have To Wait A While Chart II-10The Fed Funds Rate Cycle October 2018 October 2018 As defined by Fama and French, value stocks outperform growth stocks by a considerable margin when monetary policy is restrictive (Table II-3 and Chart II-11, top panel). Considering value and growth stocks separately, both perform extremely well when policy is easy (Chart II-11, second panel), but growth stocks barely advance when policy is tight, falling far behind their value counterparts. A strategy for generalist investors may be to seek out value exposure when policy is tight, while investing without regard to styles when it is easy. Table II-3The State Of Monetary Policy Is The Best ##br##Guide To Style Performance October 2018 October 2018 Chart II-11The State Of Monetary Policy ##br##Drives Style Performance The State Of Monetary Policy Drives Style Performance The State Of Monetary Policy Drives Style Performance Investment Conclusions: U.S. equity sectors that have traditionally been considered "growth" have outperformed value sectors for an extended period. The long slump has led some investors to argue that value investing is finished, killed by a combination of overexposure and short-term performance imperatives. Other investors see value's long drought as an anomaly, and are looking for the opportune time to bet on a reversal. We are in the latter camp. The difficulty lies in finding an indicator that reliably leads value stocks' outperformance. Most macro measures are unhelpful, though broad market direction offers some insight, as stocks with low price-to-book multiples have outperformed their high-priced peers by a wide margin during bear markets. Bear markets aren't the most useful timing guide, however, because one only knows in retrospect when they begin and end. The monetary policy backdrop holds the most promise as a practical guide. Although our determination of easy or tight policy turns on the modeled estimate of a concept and should not be looked to for absolute precision, it has provided a timely, reliable guide to value outperformance. We expect the relationship will persist because of the cushion provided by less demanding multiples. Earnings and multiples surge when policy is easy, lifting all boats. It is only when policy is tight, and the tide is going out, that the margin of safety offered by lower-priced stocks yields the greatest benefit. Per our estimate of the equilibrium fed funds rate, we are still firmly ensconced within Phase I of the policy rate cycle, and expect that we will remain there until sometime in the second half of 2019. We therefore expect that value, in Fama and French terms, will continue to underperform growth for another year. The clock is ticking for growth, though, as the expansion is in its latter stages and building inflation pressures will likely force the Fed to take a fairly hard line in this rate-hiking cycle. Once monetary policy turns restrictive, investors should hunt for value candidates using a range of valuation metrics, and combine them in a sector-neutral way, as we have via our Equity Trading Strategy service's model. Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst Doug Peta Senior Vice President U.S. Investment Strategy 1 Graham, Benjamin, The Intelligent Investor, Harper Collins: New York, 2005, p. 97. 2 Ibid, p. 15. 3 Ibid, p. 189. 4 Fama, Eugene F. and French, Kenneth R., "The Cross-Section of Expected Stock Market Returns," The Journal of Finance, Volume 47, Issue 2 (June 1992), pp. 427-465. 5 S&P currently brands its Growth and Value Indexes as S&P 500 Dow Jones Indexes, but Citigroup has the longest history of compiling S&P 500 Growth and Value Indexes, beginning in 1975, so we join the Citigroup S&P 500 style indexes to the Standard & Poor's series to obtain the maximum style-index history. We use the terms Citigroup and S&P interchangeably. 6 The Pure Value and Pure Growth indexes include only the top quartile of value and growth stocks, respectively, with no overlap between indexes, and are therefore better gauges of true style investing. 7 The Tech-versus-Financials cast of the indexes endures because all of the other sectors, ex-regulated Telecoms and Utilities, which account for too little market cap to make a difference, regularly move between the indexes as their fundamental fortunes, and investor appetites, wax and wane. The current Early Cyclical/Late Cyclical/Defensive profiles are not etched in stone and should be expected to shift, perhaps considerably, over time. 8 We created a second growth index by taking the top 30% of stocks ranked by earnings momentum. However, it made little difference to the results, so we will use the bottom 30% of stocks by value as our measure of "growth" for the purposes of this report, consistent with Fama/French methodology. 9 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst. September 2017, available on bca.bcaresearch.com 10 Please see the May 17, 2017 Global ETF Strategy Special Report, "Equity Factors And The Fed Funds Rate Cycle," available at getf.bcaresearch.com.

Dear Client, This week, we are sending you a Special Report written by my colleague Juan Correa on the topic of carry trades. In this report, Juan builds on our previous work on the subject. He analyses the role of interest rates, spot fluctuations, and volatility in determining the risk profile of carry trade returns. He also provides suggestions to improve the return skew created by the occasional sharp drawdowns suffered by carry trades. I trust you will find this report interesting and informative. Best regards, Mathieu Savary, Vice President Foreign Exchange Strategy Feature While the great financial crisis claimed many victims in its wake, none better embodies the promise and perils of carry strategies than John Devaney. The Florida-based fund manager was able to amass a great fortune by using cheap leverage to finance the purchase of high-yielding MBS; a popular and very profitable strategy during the U.S. housing bubble. Eventually, he paid tribute to the pillar of his success by naming his 62-meter yacht "Positive Carry", - as a reminder of the great riches that could be achieved by simply borrowing at low yields to invest at higher ones. But just as his success was great, so was his downfall. When the housing bubble popped, Mr. Devaney's fund found itself unable to meet its margin calls, causing it to shut down. Ultimately, every single penny of investors' money was lost, while Mr. Devaney had to liquidate millions in personal assets; the yacht "Positive Carry" being one of them.1 Of course, bonds have not been the only asset class where carry strategies have been popular. Foreign exchange in particular has historically been the market of choice for investors looking to take advantage of positive carry. Specifically, the seminal 1984 paper, "Forward and Spot Exchange Rates", where Eugene Fama made the empirical observation that uncovered interest rate parity (UIP) does not hold2 (Chart 1), officially formalized the idea that carry in currency markets was a factor that could be systematically exploited. Chart 1The Forward Premium Puzzle Carry Strategies In FX Markets: Arbitrage Or Russian Roulette? Carry Strategies In FX Markets: Arbitrage Or Russian Roulette? So where do FX carry strategies stand in reality? Is carry really a market inefficiency that can be taken advantage of in almost arbitrage-like fashion? Or is it more like playing Russian roulette? A strategy that is deceptively profitable, but one that in the long run will wipe out an investor's capital. Table 1The Mechanics Of The Carry Strategy Index Carry Strategies In FX Markets: Arbitrage Or Russian Roulette? Carry Strategies In FX Markets: Arbitrage Or Russian Roulette? To answer these questions, we analyze the properties of carry strategies by constructing a Carry Strategy Index as follows:3 Ranking the 10 countries in the G10 according to their 3-month interest rate. Using the 3-month rate implied by forward rates.4 Going long 3 crosses that have the following criteria: With 1/3 of the portfolio, long the currency from the country with the highest interest rate vs. Short the currency from the country with the lowest interest rate. With 1/3 of the portfolio, long the currency from the country with the second highest interest rate vs. Short the currency from the country with the second lowest interest rate. With 1/3 of the portfolio, long the currency from the country with the third highest interest rate vs. Short the currency from the country with the third lowest interest rate. Rebalance every three months. (For clarity Table 1 shows an example of the strategy at work) We did not take into account collateral return, as this component can vary depending on the home currency of the investor. While not taking into account collateral returns penalizes the profitability of the strategy, this method allows our Carry Strategy Index to be comparable across investors in the G10. Observations On Carry Returns Chart 2 shows our Carry Strategy Index, along with a breakdown of the strategy's two components: the spot component and the interest rate component. The Carry Strategy Index obtained an annualized rate of return of 4.1% from the beginning of the sample in March 1989 to the end in mid-September 2018, with an annualized daily standard deviation of 9.3%. Moreover, while many investors often laud carry strategies as an opportunity to earn a double whammy of positive carry and positive spot return, most of the sample return was attributable to the interest rate component, as the spot component earned a paltry -0.23% annualized sample return, while it was also responsible for all the risk. Which currencies does the Carry Strategy Index favor? Overall, the AUD and the NZD are overwhelmingly carry currencies while the CHF and the JPY tend to be funding currencies most of the time (Chart 3). Chart 2Carry Throughout The Years Carry Throughout The Years Carry Throughout The Years Chart 3The Usual Suspects: NZD, AUD, JPY & CHF Carry Strategies In FX Markets: Arbitrage Or Russian Roulette? Carry Strategies In FX Markets: Arbitrage Or Russian Roulette? The amount earned on yield differentials was not consistent over time. The best period for our carry index went from 1995 to 2008, where a relatively high level of carry earned remained stable for more than a decade (Chart 4 - top two panels). Meanwhile the convergence of G10 interest rates to near zero in the wake of the great financial crisis reduced the return from the interest rate component to an annualized rate of roughly 3%. Remarkably, while the return offered by the interest rate component decreased, the implied volatility of currencies stayed relatively constant (Chart 4 - third panel), suggesting that the ex-ante return-to-volatility ratio of these strategies has actually decreased since 2008 (Chart 4 - bottom panel). Although the return for the Carry Strategy Index across the sample is attractive, carry investors are unlikely to implement their position over such a long horizon. It is therefore important to recognize that while the interest rate component tends to be relatively stable through multi year periods, the spot component can make the total return of the carry strategy vary wildly across sub-periods (Chart 5). This sub-period performance is likely more relevant for portfolio managers, as these periods reflect with greater accuracy the length of the horizon used to evaluate them. Interestingly, the annualized returns for longer holding periods are more attractive, while carry returns also become more disentangled from spot returns the longer the time horizon becomes. Chart 4Risk Versus Return In ##br##Carry Strategy Index Risk Versus Return In Carry Strategy Index Risk Versus Return In Carry Strategy Index Chart 5The Spot Component Is The Main Driver Of ##br##Carry Returns On Realistic Time Horizons The Spot Component Is The Main Driver Of Carry Returns On Realistic Time Horizons The Spot Component Is The Main Driver Of Carry Returns On Realistic Time Horizons Bottom Line: Our Carry Strategy Index was overwhelmingly long AUD and NZD, while being short JPY and CHF. Moreover, the interest rate component decreased significantly after G10 central bank rates converged to the zero bound, without a corresponding decrease in volatility, resulting in a deteriorating return-to-volatility ratio. Finally, while spot returns had a very small contribution to the sample return, they are a crucial driver for total return in more realistic time horizons, particularly shorter ones. Structural Determinants Of Carry: Is There Really A Puzzle? Many investors have grown disillusioned with carry trades in recent years, as the spot component of the strategy has become much more mediocre than in the past. This general disenchantment with carry trades has only grown stronger, with recent research showing that since 2008 the relationship between rate differentials and spot returns has flipped from positive to negative.5 So where have the good old days gone? A deeper look at the data suggests that the strong positive relationship between spot returns and rate differentials might have been a temporary phenomenon. In fact, the correlation between rate differentials and spot returns can vary widely from year to year (Chart 6). Thus, while the period after 2008 has shown a decrease in correlation, it is not a particularly unique sub-sample, as there have been other periods in history where there has been a negative correlation between rate differentials and spot returns. In fact, the Fama puzzle is not quite a puzzle if one remembers that UIP is not an arbitrage condition like CIP (Covered Interest Rate Parity). Two currencies could very well offer different rates of return so long as they also offer different levels of risk.6 We can see evidence of this by looking at the characteristics of typical carry currencies vs the characteristics of typical funding currencies. Carry currencies tend to have large current account deficits, negative net international investment positions, and are highly levered to the global economic cycle (Chart 7). Not only does this mean they are correlated to other assets, but it also means they are more prone to sudden pullbacks when global liquidity dries up. Funding currencies on the other hand have the opposite characteristics, being typically safe havens that act as hedges against other assets (Chart 7). Chart 6No Stable Correlation Between Interest Rates ##br##And Currency Returns No Stable Correlation Between Interest Rates And Currency Returns No Stable Correlation Between Interest Rates And Currency Returns Chart 7No Puzzle: Yield Differentials Are ##br##Just Risk Differentials No Puzzle: Yield Differentials Are Just Risk Differentials No Puzzle: Yield Differentials Are Just Risk Differentials Does this mean that carry trades will regain their former glory? It is hard to tell. One reason to remain cautious on the long-term outlook for carry trades has been the trade rebalancing that has taken place since the financial crisis (Chart 8). Technically, a rebalancing in the G10 space implies that the risk differential between countries should be decreasing. However, this also means that the return differential has also decreased, which means that the low interest rate component of the Carry Strategy Index at present might be justified. As mentioned previously, the interest rate component is the ultimate driver of carry returns over long horizons (Chart 9). Therefore, carry investors should keep in mind that as imbalances are fixed, risk and yield differentials will narrow, implying that the long-term return of carry strategies will stay low by historical standards. Chart 8Decreasing Risk Differentials##br## In The G10... Decreasing Risk Differentials In The G10... Decreasing Risk Differentials In The G10... Chart 9...Imply A Reduced Long-Term Rate Of Return ##br##For Carry Trades ...Imply A Reduced Long-Term Rate Of Return For Carry Trades ...Imply A Reduced Long-Term Rate Of Return For Carry Trades Bottom Line: UIP is not an arbitrage condition, which explains why the correlation between spot returns and rate differentials has historically been highly unstable. Instead, rate differentials are often reflective of risk differentials between countries. Rebalancing within the G10 has likely reduced these risk differentials, and consequently carry returns. Cyclical Determinants Of Carry: The Role Of The U.S. Dollar While occasionally there are other currencies that become either funding or carry currencies, this tends to be a rare phenomenon. In fact, the ranking within the G10 rate distribution for any given country tends to remain stable throughout the years. There is only one glaring exception: the United States (Chart 10A and Chart 10B). Chart 10ASince The Mid 1990s Most Countries Remain ##br##Relatively Fixed In The Interest Rate Distribution (I) Since The Mid 1990s Most Countries Remain Relatively Fixed In The Interest Rate Distribution (I) Since The Mid 1990s Most Countries Remain Relatively Fixed In The Interest Rate Distribution (I) Chart 10BSince The Mid 1990s Most Countries Remain ##br##Relatively Fixed In The Interest Rate Distribution (II) Since The Mid 1990s Most Countries Remain Relatively Fixed In The Interest Rate Distribution (II) Since The Mid 1990s Most Countries Remain Relatively Fixed In The Interest Rate Distribution (II) The first half of the 1990s was the only time where there was significant interest rate migration for multiple countries. Since then, the U.S. is the only country whose interest rate has migrated significantly across the distribution. This is because it has become the de facto global price-maker of monetary policy. After all, the U.S. is the G10 country whose inflation dynamics are least sensitive to currency movements. Therefore, the Federal Reserve is less concerned with its interest rate differential relative to other G10 economies than other central banks. This allows the Fed to reposition U.S. rates within the G10 distribution according to its own business cycle (Chart 11). On the other hand, the central banks in the rest of the G10 are much more concerned with the way that currency fluctuations can potentially amplify the effect of monetary policy tightening or easing. This makes them much more prone to holding their place in the distribution, and following the rest of the pack accordingly as the business cycle progresses. Additionally, the U.S. economy tends to be less affected by the global business cycle than other economies in the G10. As a result, while other countries might move in unison, the U.S. can follow its own dynamics. The current business cycle is an exaggerated example of this phenomenon. Understanding this dynamic is crucial for carry trades, as the U.S. dollar is the only chameleon currency that can constantly shift from funding currency to carry currency and vice-versa. Chart 12 shows that returns from carry strategies suffer whenever U.S. rates are at the top of the distribution. By the same token, when the U.S. dollar becomes a funding currency, the return in our Carry Strategy Index increase significantly. Chart 11U.S.: Global Price Maker ##br##Of Monetary Policy U.S.: Global Price Maker Of Monetary Policy U.S.: Global Price Maker Of Monetary Policy Chart 12Carry Strategies Suffer When The##br## USD Is A Carry Currency Carry Strategies In FX Markets: Arbitrage Or Russian Roulette? Carry Strategies In FX Markets: Arbitrage Or Russian Roulette? Why does this relationship exist? External debt for the world in general and emerging markets in particular is denominated in U.S. dollars. Whenever U.S. rates rise, external debt servicing increases, causing the return of investment in emerging markets, commodity producers and other cyclical plays highly sensitive to U.S. dollar borrowing costs to deteriorate. Moreover, the high rates in the U.S. make cyclical plays like Australia or New Zealand relatively less attractive to global investors. This creates a dangerous environment for carry trades, given that the possibility of a risk-off event - where funding currencies can rally - becomes increasingly likely. Bottom Line: The U.S. dollar is the only currency that can consistently change from carry to funding currency. When the USD is a funding currency, overall carry returns are attractive. Conversely, when the USD is a carry currency, overall carry returns become poor. Tactical Determinants Of Carry: Fighting Against Negative Skew It is important to recognize that volatility is not the only risk that carry investors are exposed to. One of the most agreed upon hypotheses put forward is that carry strategies offer a positive return in exchange for exposure to negative skew in returns, or what is commonly known as the "Peso Problem". Essentially, when they work, carry strategies generate consistent small positive returns; however, they are subject to infrequent yet violent drawdowns. Hence, the return distribution is not normally distributed, but instead has a heavy left tail7 (Chart 13). Chart 13Negative Skew In Carry Strategy Index Carry Strategies In FX Markets: Arbitrage Or Russian Roulette? Carry Strategies In FX Markets: Arbitrage Or Russian Roulette? Why does skew matter? Carry trades are generally accompanied by leverage to amplify the return earned. However, the negative skew can become extremely dangerous at high levels of leverage, as it can lead to margin calls. In selloffs, investors who are not able to meet their margin calls are forced to quickly liquidate their positions, generating downward pressure on prices, and causing even more margin calls. This dynamic causes vicious cycles in carry trades, where losses can pile up very quickly.8 Chart 14Vega-M: An Enhanced Carry Strategy Vega-M: An Enhanced Carry Strategy Vega-M: An Enhanced Carry Strategy However, we can use the reflexive relationship between risk aversion and carry returns and turn it to our advantage. If we know that once it rises, volatility will create further downward price pressure, which in turn generates further volatility, then we can use the momentum in volatility to determine entry and exit points into carry trades. To take advantage of the above we created a strategy as follows: Long the Carry Strategy Index at day t if at day t-1 the 20-day moving average of the CVIX is below the 200-day moving average.9 Remain uninvested (earn 0% return) at day t if at day t-1 the 20-day moving average of the CVIX is above the 200-day moving average. We call this strategy the Vega-M Carry Index. Our Vega-M Carry Index manages to outperform the Carry Strategy Index within our sample, while also displaying significantly less volatility (Chart 14 - top panel). The Vega-M Carry Index also manages to closely track the interest rate component of the strategy, while eliminating some of the spot risk (Chart 14 - bottom panel). The Vega-M Carry Index also exhibits a much tighter return profile than the Carry Strategy Index (Chart 15 - top panel). Furthermore, while kurtosis in the Vega-M Index is still high, skew for the Vega-M Carry Index is actually positive (Chart 15 - bottom panel). This reduction in negative skew has important implications for investors using leverage. Chart 16 shows how the Vega-M Carry Index allows for a greater use of leverage, as the reduced negative skew eliminated margin calls, which means investors are not stopped out. This allows investors to have much better performance at high levels of leverage. Bottom Line: Given the reflexive relationship between volatility and carry trades, investors can use volatility momentum to generate buy/sell signals. Carry investors should remain invested when the volatility momentum is negative, while they should close their positions when momentum is positive. Chart 15Vega-M: More Compact Return Distribution And No Negative Skew Carry Strategies In FX Markets: Arbitrage Or Russian Roulette? Carry Strategies In FX Markets: Arbitrage Or Russian Roulette? Chart 16Vega-M: Better Performance When Using Margin Carry Strategies In FX Markets: Arbitrage Or Russian Roulette? Carry Strategies In FX Markets: Arbitrage Or Russian Roulette? Investment Implications With the above points considered, we have made a list of the three rules of thumb for carry investors to use: On a structural basis, the long-term rate of return of carry strategies will be determined by the interest rate differential. In general, this differential is a compensation for risk differentials between countries Cyclically, carry trades will deliver poorer returns whenever the U.S. dollar is a carry currency (at the end of the cycle), and will deliver better returns when the U.S. dollar is a funding currency (at the beginning of the cycle). Tactically, investors can use the momentum in volatility as a signal to enter or exit carry trades. Negative volatility momentum can be used as a long signal, while investors should exit their carry positions when volatility momentum becomes positive. While we have divided our rules into investment horizons, carry investors should use all rules in conjunction. The interest rate differential and the projected risk differential between countries can be used to establish an expected long-term rate of return to benchmark against. The position of U.S. rates within the distribution can be used to determine whether a high or low level of leverage is appropriate. Finally, the momentum in volatility can be used to assess entry or exit points from carry trades. What are all these signals telling us right now? The annualized rate of return of the interest rate component in carry strategies will likely remain low. This means that the long-term rate of return of carry strategies will remain at the low end of its historical distribution. Inflationary forces in the U.S. will continue to be greater than in the rest of the world. Thus, U.S. rates will remain at the top of the distribution, which means that leverage on carry strategies should be maintained at a minimum The momentum in volatility continue to be positive. This means investors should hold off from entering into carry trades, and instead wait for a better entry point. Juan Manuel Correa, Senior Analyst juanc@bcaresearch.com 1 Story, Louise. "Hedge Fund Manager Describes Rock Bottom." The New York Times, The New York Times, 10 July 2008, www.nytimes.com/2008/07/10/business/10fund.html. 2 Please see Fama, E.F. (1984) "Forward And Spot Exchange Rates" Journal of Monetary Economics, 14(3), 319-338 3 We use a multi-currency strategy, as academic research has shown that this method outperforms single currency strategies. For more details, please see "Multiple Currencies Investment Strategy To Take Advantage Of The Forward Bias," Haas School of Business, University of California Berkeley, BA 285/E285 International Finance, Student Project. 4 Carry strategies in the FX markets are normally implemented through buying (selling) forward rates with a forward discount (premium) 5 Please see Bussiere, M., Chinn, M., Ferrara, L.,& Heipertz, J. (2018) "The New Fama Puzzle" NBER Working Papers 6 The UIP theory makes the assumption that economic agents are risk neutral. Given this is not the case in reality, much work has been done to try to explain deviations from UIP with currency risk premiums. For more information please see Menkhoff, L., Sarno, L. , Schmeling, M. and Schrimpf, A. (2012), "Carry Trades and Global Foreign Exchange Volatility". The Journal of Finance, 67: 681-718. 7 This makes the Sharpe ratio deceptive as a measure of risk-reward for carry strategies, as this measure does not account for skew. 8 For a more detailed description about the relationship between unexpected jumps in volatility and carry returns please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Special Report, titled "Carry Trades: More Than Pennies And Steamrollers", dated May 6, 2016, available at fes.bcaresearch.com 9 We use 20-day and 200-day moving averages given that moving averages using these types of ranges tend to best capture the momentum in financial markets. For more details about momentum strategies please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Special Report, titled "Riding The Wave: Momentum Strategies in Foreign Exchange Markets", dated December 8, 2017, available at fes.bcaresearch.com Trades & Forecasts Forecast Summary Core Portfolio Tactical Trades Closed Trades

Highlights The presidential race between Haddad and Bolsorano will be very tight. At present, we put slightly higher odds on Haddad winning by a small margin in the second round. A Haddad victory would lead to a continuation of stress in financial markets. The prospects of Lula's release and populist policies will lead to further downside in Brazilian assets Bolsorano's victory in the second round will likely lead to a tradeable rally in Brazil's financial markets. For now continue underweighting Brazilian equities and credit and continue shorting the BRL. We will consider whether to upgrade Brazil after the outcome of the elections becomes clearer. Feature Chart 1Potential Roadmaps For Equities Relative Performance Brazil: Can The Election Change Anything? Brazil: Can The Election Change Anything? Brazil's upcoming general elections will be among the closest in recent history. Current polls show a tight race between right-wing candidate Jair Bolsonaro and left-wing candidate Fernando Haddad. A victory by Bolsonaro may spark a short-term rally in Brazilian assets on the expectation of structural reforms. On the other hand, a Haddad victory and return of the Worker's Party to power would be quite negative for financial markets. The upside of this election, regardless of outcome, is that a new government with a new mandate will be formed, restoring a semblance of legitimacy for the first time since the impeachment of President Dilma Rousseff in 2016. The downside is that this mandate will be weak, the odds of a "pro-market" government are uncertain, and Congress will be fragmented. Much-needed yet painful social security reforms will face an uphill battle, with potentially another market riot needed to motivate policymakers and legislators to enact social security reforms. On the macroeconomic front, Brazil does not have a lot of room and time for maneuver. Without drastic measures to cut the budget deficit or boost nominal GDP, public debt will most likely spiral out of control. Due to the current state of polarization, we cannot have a high conviction view on the election outcome until after the congressional elections on October 7. That said, the macro forces remain negative for EM overall and Brazil in particular. Barring Bolsorano's victory in the second round, there is little reason for Brazilian risk assets to rally (Chart 1). An Anti-Establishment Victory? Media attention has centered on Bolsonaro of the Social Liberal Party. He is the frontrunner in the first round of the race, despite his controversial rhetoric and overt sympathies with Brazil's military dictatorship of the past. In polling for the second round, his considerable lead has shrunk, as he is now neck and neck with the other contenders (Chart 2). Bolsonaro is a serious candidate not because of any overarching, international "Trumpian" narrative, but because Brazil itself is ripe for an anti-establishment electoral outcome: With Lula out of the race, the combined "right-wing" and "left-wing" vote is close in the first round (Chart 3). Chart 2Second-Round Polls Very Tight Brazil: Can The Election Change Anything? Brazil: Can The Election Change Anything? Chart 3A Tight Race Brazil: Can The Election Change Anything? Brazil: Can The Election Change Anything? The country is still in the throes of a political crisis and a historic recession (Chart 4). The major political parties have been discredited. Years of slow economic growth have resulted in extremely low levels of public trust in government (Chart 5). Chart 4Brazil In The Wake Of A Historic Recession Brazil: Can The Election Change Anything? Brazil: Can The Election Change Anything? Chart 5Low Growth Countries Suffer From Lack Of Trust In Their Government Brazil: Can The Election Change Anything? Brazil: Can The Election Change Anything? This is prompting voters to seek a "change in direction" and/or a "protest vote," from which Bolsonaro is apparently benefiting. There is even a sizable audience for Bolsonaro's authoritarianism and nostalgia for military rule. Brazilians are disillusioned with democracy - with 67% of respondents in a Pew Research poll saying they are "not satisfied" with democracy, compared to a global median of 52%.1 Almost a third of educated Brazilians favor military rule, and that number is as high as 45% among the uneducated (Chart 6).2 Bolsonaro's net approval is less negative than other candidates. In fact, only former Presidents Lula and Rousseff have higher net approval (Chart 7). This is a serious risk to Bolsonaro's likeliest rivals, Fernando Haddad of the Worker's Party and Ciro Gomes of the Democratic Labor Party. Bolsonaro's stabbing at a rally on September 6 has not taken him out of the race. His social media support has become an important tool to reach out to his fan base. Chart 6Brazilian Voters Harbor Some Authoritarian Tendencies Brazil: Can The Election Change Anything? Brazil: Can The Election Change Anything? Chart 7Net Approvals Advantage Bolsonaro Brazil: Can The Election Change Anything? Brazil: Can The Election Change Anything? However, there are two key reasons why Bolsonaro is not the favorite to win the election: First, Brazil's two-round electoral system works against Bolsonaro because it enables left-leaning voters to vote strategically in favor of the "least bad option," i.e. the available left-of-center candidate, in the second round. Thus while polling shows Bolsonaro very close to each of his potential opponents in the second round, his final opponent will receive a boost that will not be fully accounted for until after the first round eliminates other left-wing contenders. Recent polls suggest that Haddad stands to benefit much more than Bolsonaro from the "migration" of votes after the first round, as left-wing supporters team up against Bolsonaro in the second round (Table 1). Second, with Lula disqualified from the race, Lula supporters are now in the process of switching to support Haddad. Lula has carried a high approval rating of around 35%-40% for over a year, well above all other candidates. In our "poll of polls" (average of various polls) Haddad has risen rapidly in the one month since Lula's disqualification became clear, so that he is now at equal odds with Bolsonaro (see Chart 2 above). A few polls even suggest Haddad is ahead of Bolsonaro in the second round (Chart 8).3 Table 1Second Round Migration##br## Polls Advantage Haddad Brazil: Can The Election Change Anything? Brazil: Can The Election Change Anything? Chart 8Haddad Is Ahead##br## In These Polls Brazil: Can The Election Change Anything? Brazil: Can The Election Change Anything? To elaborate on this last point: First, about 59% of Lula's supporters say they will shift to Haddad (Chart 9), which should be enough to position him as one of the top two contenders in the first round of voting. Only 4% of Lula supporters will shift to right-of-center candidate Alckmin- a share that is overpowered by the 71% of the Lula vote that will go to left-leaning candidates. Second, the number of undecided and "blank" Lula voters is high at 18%. These voters - if they vote - will mostly go to Haddad, and then Gomes. From the above we can conclude that Haddad will face Bolsonaro in the second round runoff. Because of strategic voting, Haddad will be favored to win the Presidency. A major risk to the left-wing candidate in the second round is that as many as 18% of Lula voters may stay home and not vote. This would mean that Haddad could lose the final vote due to low turnout.4 Overall voter turnout has been falling slightly since 2006 (from 83.3% to 80.7% in 2014) and the disillusionment of voters could result in still lower turnout in 2018. This would favor Bolsonaro, whose supporters are the most likely to vote, whereas Haddad's are the least likely, according to surveys. The profile of the most likely voters favors Bolsonaro (Table 2).5 Chart 9Lula's Migration Vote Brazil: Can The Election Change Anything? Brazil: Can The Election Change Anything? Table 2Voter Profile Of Each Candidate Brazil: Can The Election Change Anything? Brazil: Can The Election Change Anything? As a consequence, we give Bolsonaro 40%-50% odds of winning the presidency, with the possibility of downgrading his probability to a flat 40% if the rise in Haddad's polling continues at the current pace. Strategic voting imposes a handicap on Bolsonaro, making it hard for him to increase his odds above 50%. The lower net approval for Haddad and Gomes, and the risk that Lula voters will fail to transfer in full force to Haddad, suggests that Bolsonaro has a fair chance of winning the second round. Elections are a Bayesian process and we will update our probabilities as more information comes in. In particular, it is important to see if Haddad exceeds expectations in the October 7 first round. Bottom Line: Given strategic voting in the second round and the momentum behind Haddad, the odds of a left-wing victory in the Brazilian election are 50%-60%. However, this is a low-conviction view. Bolsonaro's odds of winning are closer to 40%-50%, particularly if Lula voters stay home. The New Government's Mandate Will Be Weak No matter who wins, there will be at least one positive takeaway for Brazilian risk assets: a new government will be elected with a fresh mandate to lead the country. The Brazilian state has suffered from a crisis of legitimacy over the past few years. A countrywide anti-corruption campaign and economic depression has led to a general loss of confidence. The latter was further exacerbated by the impeachment of President Rousseff and paralysis of the interim government of Michel Temer. Hence this election will clear the air and give a new government the chance to tackle the country's economic and political problems. However, this clearly positive factor will be overwhelmed by negative factors as the election unfolds and in the aftermath: No first round winner: As outlined above, none of the candidates are likely to win a simple majority of the vote in the first round on October 7. This has been the norm in recent elections, but it precludes the possibility that the current crisis will be matched by a leader with a strong personal mandate, like Cardoso in the 1990s. A close election may lead to contested results: The current second-round polling suggests the outcome will be close. The losing side may challenge the results, a controversy that could cause significant political uncertainty for weeks or months. Bolsonaro has already suggested that he can only lose if the Worker's Party rigs the election. Congress will be fractured: Brazil's Congress is always fractious; with numerous parties and coalitions cobbled together by presidents whose own party has a relatively small share of seats (Chart 10). The upcoming president may even have a weaker congressional base than usual. The erstwhile dominant parties, the PDMB and the PSDB, are less popular than they once were and have put forward lackluster presidential candidates, suggesting they will not win large numbers of seats. The Worker's Party, with a large support base in recent decades, was at the epicenter of the impeachment crisis and suffered huge losses in the municipal elections of 2016, also suggesting it will not win as many seats.6 Meanwhile Bolsonaro's Social Liberal Party is starting from a low base (it currently has only eight out of 513 seats in the lower house and none in the senate). Hence, no party is in a position to sweep Congress, or even come close to a majority, ensuring high diffusion of power, horse-trading, and unstable, ad hoc coalitions. Such coalitions have been a hallmark of Brazilian politics and may even be more unstable this time around. Chart 10ABrazil's Parliament Is Fractious Brazil: Can The Election Change Anything? Brazil: Can The Election Change Anything? Chart 10BBrazil's Parliament Is Fractious Brazil: Can The Election Change Anything? Brazil: Can The Election Change Anything? No more pork: Given the focus on fiscal austerity and corruption, the next president of Brazil will struggle to command as much "pork-barrel spending" - politically-motivated fiscal handouts to individual congress members - to grease the wheels of politics. President Lula and President Cardoso both relied on pork to ensure passage of key legislation in the 1990s and early 2000s. Polarization: Polarization will remain high as a result of the economic crisis. If Haddad wins, we expect that he will pardon President Lula, despite his assertions to the contrary, and create ill-will among the roughly 52% of the population that views Lula as corrupt. If Bolsonaro manages a victory, he will face intense opposition and resistance from civil society and possibly a left-of-center Congress. Historically, a governing coalition with a majority of seats eventually emerges from Brazil's fragmented Congress. However, periods of political crisis - and transitions from one leading party to the next - often require more time to form such coalitions. It took Lula two years, from 2002-04, to form a majority coalition during his first term in office, according to research by Taeko Hiroi of the University of Texas at El Paso (Chart 11). Chart 11Historical Profile Of Governing Coalitions Brazil: Can The Election Change Anything? Brazil: Can The Election Change Anything? Bottom Line: The formation of a new government with a new mandate is positive but it will not bestow as much political capital as the market expects: in all likelihood the new president's mandate will be weak and Congress will, at least initially, be divided. Will Reforms Be Reactive Or Proactive? What are the likely market reactions from the different election scenarios? And will policymakers be proactive or reactive in their pursuit of any structural reforms? While we cannot rule out a knee-jerk rally if Bolsonaro wins, the length and breadth of the market reaction will depend on the government's political capital (e.g. popular margin of victory and strength in Congress) and willingness to be proactive about structural reforms. On the left, both Haddad and Gomes are "populist," left-leaning, candidates whose victory would exacerbate the selloff. Haddad's vice-presidential candidate and coalition partner is Manuela D'Avila, from the Brazilian Communist Party (PCdoB). Their platform states that the solution to low economic growth is expansionary fiscal and monetary policies, such as a removal of the cap on government spending and a reduction in interest rates. Meanwhile the Gomes campaign has denied that Brazil has a pension deficit.7 Neither Haddad nor Gomes faces the IMF-imposed constraints that Lula faced when he took power in 2002. The market pressure surrounding his election in 2002 and the IMF proposals at that time essentially forced Lula to continue his predecessor Cardoso's reforms. Compared to 2002-03, today's profile of Brazilian share prices suggests that more downside is warranted (see Chart 1, page 1). Hence, we believe more market turmoil would be necessary to force Haddad or Gomes to adopt any difficult and unpopular fiscal reforms. We believe that both could be capable of executing reforms if pressed by the market, but a market riot is needed first. On the other hand, a Bolsonaro victory would likely trigger a meaningful rally on the expectation of pro-market reforms. Bolsonaro's economic advisor Paulo Guedes, a University of Chicago economics PhD holder, is a supply-side reformer who has proposed to privatize state-owned assets, enact tax and pension reforms, and scale back the bureaucracy. Crucially, Bolsonaro's camp wants to use the proceeds from privatization to repurchase public debt and buy time before reforming the pension system. Hence, in the eyes of many investors, Bolsonaro represents a market-friendly candidate despite his tough talk and anti-establishment tendencies. The problem is that Guedes has spent far more time giving interviews to the financial press than campaigning on draconian structural reforms. As such, it is not clear that Bolsonaro's economic team's promises jive with the desires of the median voter in the country. Bolsonaro, meanwhile, will likely be limited in forming a coalition in the Chamber of Deputies.8 The ability to form and maintain alliances in the Chamber of Deputies is a key constraint for any Brazilian president, especially from a smaller party. Obstructionism is common.9 Even large parties with strong alliances have fallen into gridlock, most obviously in attempting structural reforms. In late 1998, for instance, President Cardoso's own PSDB party deprived him of the votes needed to seal a painstakingly negotiated deal with the IMF, which led to a loss of confidence among creditors and a sharp devaluation of the real in January 1999. In short, it will be difficult for the new president to implement reforms at the beginning of his term even though, as noted above, Brazilian presidents tend to cobble together a coalition over time. It should be noted that Bolsonaro's authoritarian tendencies and desire to rewrite the 1988 constitution - a partisan Pandora's Box - could result in a further deterioration of Brazilian governance (Chart 12). This would push up the risk premium on assets over the long run, though in the short run Bolsonaro may be positively received by financial markets. Bottom Line: Bolsonaro would likely want to be a proactive structural reformer, but he would also be constrained at first due to his small party base in Congress and need to form a coalition. In addition, the days of liberally soothing partisan battles with pork-barrel spending are over. Brazil is both fiscally constrained and increasingly sensitive to corruption. Moreover, fiscal austerity would come with a negative hit to growth in the short term. It is not clear whether Bolsonaro will be able to form a Congressional coalition that can push through the painful part of the "J-Curve" of structural reform (Diagram 1). Chart 12Brazilian Governance Set To Fall Further Brazil: Can The Election Change Anything? Brazil: Can The Election Change Anything? Diagram 1The J-Curve Of Structural Reform Brazil: Can The Election Change Anything? Brazil: Can The Election Change Anything? On the other hand, neither Haddad's nor Gomes's platforms are market-friendly. Neither is likely to attempt structural reforms proactively. The market would have to sell off further, as in 2002, to pressure them into such policies. At that point, however, they might ultimately have a better ability to push legislation through Congress than Bolsonaro due to their ability to form larger coalitions amongst leftist parties. Either way Brazilian risk assets have further downside from where they stand today. A market riot is likely necessary to galvanize the population's support for painful structural reforms. That support currently does not exist. What Is At Stake? Chart 13The Achilles Heel Of The Brazilian Economy Brazil: Can The Election Change Anything? Brazil: Can The Election Change Anything? Brazil's public debt is out of control. Weak nominal GDP growth and high borrowing costs are increasing the public debt burden. This debt stems in large part from a sizable social security deficit that will continue expanding without the above-mentioned reforms (Chart 13). Thus, the next president will face a dilemma: implement austerity to satisfy creditors or increase spending to satisfy voters. A close look at voter preferences suggests that top priorities are improving health services and raising the minimum wage, while pension reform is at the bottom of the list (Chart 14). This reinforces our view that the left-of-center candidates are likely to be the closest to the median voter, and that fiscal austerity is not forthcoming. However, voters are also demanding that inflation be controlled, taxes be cut, and jobs be created - all of which could result in support for right-of-center candidates. Two possibilities to stabilize or reduce the debt load are: (1) restoring a primary budget surplus by enacting social security cuts and/or (2) privatizing state assets to raise fiscal revenues. In Europe throughout the early 2000s, peripheral countries with large public debt imbalances ran large primary budget deficits, just as Brazil has been running (Chart 15, top panel). Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Greece, and Spain stabilized their debt-to-GDP ratios by cutting social spending and capping fiscal expenditures (Chart 15, bottom panel). This will prove challenging as Brazil's pension system is one of the most generous in the world, with retirement ages of 54 and 52 for men and women, respectively, and a much lower contribution period relative to other countries. Furthermore, replacement rates for both men and women are 61%, or 10 percentage points above the OECD average and over 15 percentage points above other countries' reformed pension systems.10 Finally, the dependency ratio will continue to increase, as rising life expectancy and a declining working-age population remain structural headwinds for years to come.11 In our conversations with clients, the reality of Brazil's aging demographics usually comes as a complete surprise. Chart 14Brazil's Population Is ##br##Not Open To Fiscal Austerity Brazil: Can The Election Change Anything? Brazil: Can The Election Change Anything? Chart 15Eurozone Debt Crisis Resulted ##br##In Lower Spending And Stable Debt Brazil: Can The Election Change Anything? Brazil: Can The Election Change Anything? Therefore, social security reforms require outright cuts in spending, rather than soft caps on the budget balance. The present soft cap on government expenditures is not adequate to stabilize or reduce government debt levels. Could privatization help stabilize public debt dynamics? The privatization program during the 1990s under the Collor, Franco, and Cardoso governments led to the sale of $91 billion (around R$ 100 billion or 9% of GDP) worth of assets from 107 state-owned enterprises over the course of a decade. Presently, in order to re-balance the primary deficits of R$93 and R$79 billion for 2018 and 2019 respectively, the government would be required to frontload the sale of large state-owned entities, such as Petrobras or Banco do Brasil. This will prove challenging, since the sale of state-owned enterprises requires legislative approval. In fact, over the past two years, under interim President Temer, the government has struggled to sell its assets such as Electrobras. Even assuming that a Brazilian government under Bolsonaro conducts large-scale asset sales, previous privatization programs have failed to yield targeted sums and have required a longer time to implement than originally expected. Overall, privatization is not a feasible option to reduce high debt levels in Brazil in the short run. Bottom Line: Stabilizing or reducing the public debt as a share of GDP will be challenging under the current set of preferences set by voters. Moreover, demographic headwinds and structural constraints embodied in Brazil's two-tier legislative system will slow down the process of privatization and pension reform. The market is forward-looking and will cheer attempts to enact supply-side reforms in the short run, should they emerge, despite long-term uncertainties. The key questions are (1) whether the election produces a proactive Bolsonaro regime or a reactive left-wing regime (2) whether coalition formation - in Bolsonaro's case - or exogenous market pressure - in Haddad's case - are sufficient to initiate reforms in a timely manner in 2019. Amidst a broad EM selloff driven by external factors as well as Brazil's and other EM's internal fundamentals, we expect the markets to be largely disappointed in 2019. The evolution of the political context throughout the year will then determine when and if a buying opportunity emerges. Investment Implications In the late 1990s, faced with high foreign debt levels, a large current account deficit, and weak nominal growth, the Brazilian central bank devalued the real by 66% in January 1999 (Chart 16). This led to a rebound in nominal growth which helped the country relieve itself from built up excesses. In today's context, a weaker currency and lower interest rates are required to boost nominal GDP and contain Brazil's public debt as a share of GDP. There are already signs that the central bank is easing liquidity amid currency depreciation - which stands in contrast of the recent past (Chart 17). More liquidity provisioning by the central bank will cause the real to depreciate further. In light of this, we recommend that investors continue shorting the currency versus the U.S. dollar. Furthermore, due to our expectation of further deceleration in global growth stemming from China and a strong dollar, investors should expect more downside in broader EM and Brazilian share prices in U.S. dollar terms. With respect to the outcome of the elections, investors should continue underweighting Brazilian equities and credit in their respective portfolios for now (Chart 18). Chart 16Brazil Needs A Weaker Currency To##br## Boost Nominal Growth Brazil: Can The Election Change Anything? Brazil: Can The Election Change Anything? Chart 17A New##br## Paradigm Shift? Brazil: Can The Election Change Anything? Brazil: Can The Election Change Anything? Chart 18Sovereign Credit Spreads Will##br## Continue Widening Brazil: Can The Election Change Anything? Brazil: Can The Election Change Anything? We will consider whether an upgrade of Brazil is warranted after electoral outcomes become known. Particularly, the balance of the parties in Congress and the new president's coalition formation options will dictate the relative performance of Brazilian equities and credit over the next 6-12 months. Andrija Vesic, Research Analyst andrijav@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken, Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see, Wike, R. et al., "Globally, Broad Support for Representative and Direct Democracy", October 16th, 2017, available at http://www.pewglobal.org/2017/10/16/many-unhappy-with-current-political-system/ 2 In addition to the Pew Research data cited in Chart 5, please see Dora Saclarides, "Do Brazilians Believe In Democracy?" InoVozes, The Wilson Center, November 21, 2017, available at www.wilsoncenter.org. 3 Please see "Brazil: Vox Populi Poll Gives Haddad Lead In Presidential Race," Telesur, September 13, 2018, available at www.telesurtv.net, & Data Poder 360 poll from September 21st, available at: https://www.poder360.com.br/datapoder360/datapoder360-bolsonaro-tem-26-e-haddad-22-os-2-empatam-no-2o-turno/ 4 Please see, BTG Pactual September 15-16 poll, page 18. The Polls states that 57% of Lula voters would "not vote at all" while 41% would vote for Haddad. While turnout will improve for the second round, this is a risk to Haddad. 5 A poll by Empiricus Research and Parana Pesquisas p56 shows that 89.5% intend to vote (which is unrealistic), and that 95.7% of Bolsonaro voters intend to vote while 91.6% of Haddad voters intend to vote. 6 "The PT lost four of the five state capitals it had run, including Sao Paulo, the country's economic powerhouse where the leftist party was born. The PT lost two-thirds of the municipalities it won in 2012, dropping to 10th place from third in the number of mayors controlled by each party." Please see Anthony Broadle, "Brazil parties linked to corruption punished in local elections," Reuters, October 2, 2016, available at www.reuters.com. 7 Gomes has, however, admitted the need for some adjustments to the retirement age and public sector worker privileges, which suggests that he could be brought to pursue structural reforms under the right circumstances. https://todoscomciro.com/en_us/pnd/ciro-gomes-previdencia-social/ 8 Bolsonaro's legislative experience is also surprisingly thin. As a congressional representative for 27 years, he has only passed two laws, after presenting a total of 171 bills and one amendment to the constitution. Only three of these bills presented were of economic nature. It is unclear whether he has what it takes to galvanize the legislature in pursuit of tricky reforms. 9 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Separating The Signal From The Noise," dated September 10, 2014, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 10 A replacement rate is the percentage of a worker's pre-retirement income that is paid out by a pension program upon retirement. 11 Ratio measuring number of dependent zero to 14 and over the age of 65 to total working age population