Market Returns

Highlights Expanded data availability and increasingly systemized investment processes have powered a surge of interest in factor attribution among academics, quants and ordinary investors. Momentum has long been recognized as a proven factor. Kenneth French's database shows that a zero-net-exposure strategy of shorting the stocks with the weakest momentum to fund the purchase of their strong-momentum counterparts yielded over 10% per year from 1939-1999. Since the crisis, however, momentum has lost its magic touch. As in the 1930s, Fama and French's long/short momentum strategy has stumbled following a crash. The long leg of the strategy's outperformance record remains intact, though, just as it has across the 90 years covered by the Fama-French database. In this Special Report, we examine some hypotheses for why momentum has lost some of its edge and consider the conditions under which it might fully regain it. We then consider the current crop of smart-beta momentum funds based on the features we would like to have in a momentum fund once the factor fully recovers its footing. Feature Regular readers will recognize this installment of our smart-beta ETF series as a departure. Unlike the Value and Dividend Special Reports, this one does not employ the relevant metrics from our Equity Trading Strategy's ("ETS") proprietary multi-factor model to evaluate single-factor ETFs. The momentum factor's post-crisis stumbles may indicate that the classic momentum yardsticks are in need of realignment, and the modest pool of smart-beta momentum ETFs can be winnowed without them. We instead use this Special Report to explore the momentum factor: its empirical history, potential explanations for its long success and current slump, and its interaction with the fed funds rate cycle. We will examine the links between the big picture and factor performance next month, with a particular focus on monetary policy settings. Careful study of the relationship between macro variables and equity factors may shed some light on the most opportune cycle phases for seeking particular factor exposures. It will also illustrate how individual factors could interact within a portfolio to boost risk-adjusted returns. The series' primary goal is still to provide our clients with a solid grounding in the basics of factor investing and the smart-beta process. It is our hope that the addition of macro-level guidance to help recognize the best cyclical backdrops for taking on factor exposures will enhance the micro-level guidance to help choose the optimal ETFs for gaining exposure to a particular factor. The Momentum Paradox Traders are a famously empirical breed with little use for fancy theories. Their common-sense mantras that survive long enough to pass into general use are based on steady observation and hard-won experience. Two of our favorites sum up the duality at the heart of momentum investing: The trend is your friend. Trees don't grow to the sky. Trader intuition is valid: academic research has repeatedly confirmed the existence and persistence of momentum. Alas, it doesn't last forever. The challenge at the heart of developing a working momentum strategy is determining how long the typical trend runs before it reverses. Investors have much longer timeframes than traders, but they would do well to heed traders' warning about overstaying one's welcome when they plot their course: Bulls make money; bears make money; pigs get slaughtered. A History Of Momentum In Five Chapters The Golden Age, 1939-1999 Momentum shot the lights out for 60 years. From late 1939, when it finally threw off the lingering effects of the Great Depression, until the peak of the tech bubble in early 2000, a simple zero-net-exposure strategy developed by Fama and French (please see Box 1 for the parameters of the strategies referenced herein) generated a whopping 10.4% compound annualized return (Chart 1, Phase 3). The strategy's consistency may have been even more remarkable. The 60-year golden age included just one bear event (a peak-to-trough decline of at least 20%),1 and a mild and brief one at that.2 Data from Jegadeesh and Titman, co-authors of the seminal momentum-focused paper,3 corroborate Fama and French's findings. Tracking the results of 32 separate strategies from 1965 to 1989 (Box 1), Jegadeesh and Titman definitively established that the momentum factor generates statistically significant excess returns. The 6-month, 6-month strategy on which they focused (shorting the last six months' biggest laggards to fund the purchase of its biggest outperformers, and holding the portfolio for six months) generated an average compound annual return of 12%.4 The Roaring Twenties, 1927-1932 The Fama-French momentum strategy blasted out of the gate with compound annual returns of 29% through June 1932 (Chart 1, Phase 1). Full year returns were at least 20% every year from 1927 through 1931, as momentum was impervious to the 1929 Crash. This chapter illustrates that stock-price momentum is hardly a new phenomenon, and that momentum strategies, which often zig when the broad market zags, can contribute welcome diversification to a portfolio. The First Failure, 1932-1939 The party came to an abrupt end in July and August 1932, when the strategy lost three-quarters of its value in two months (Chart 1, Phase 2). As the financial crisis would reiterate seven decades later, momentum crashes can be vicious and swift. This one was followed by several years of listless performance, capped by a brutal coda. The aftershocks can be much worse for momentum than the earthquake itself, and it only hit bottom after September 1939's 30% decline. The Wobbly Years, 2000-2008 The end of the tech bubble marked a watershed for momentum. Although the strategy generated hearty positive returns given its zero net exposure (4.7% CAGR from March 2000 through November 2008), its return profile became uncharacteristically volatile (Chart 1, Phase 4). Momentum bear markets became a regular feature, with three separate declines of 23% to 32% occurring between February 2000 and August 2004. Academic research into the momentum factor became a veritable cottage industry after its discovery in the early 1990s, making this the first chapter to unfold against a backdrop of wide investor awareness of its existence. The Crisis and Its Aftermath, 2008-2017... The spring of 2009 witnessed the second great momentum crash, with the strategy losing 58% from its November 2008 peak to its September 2009 trough, sustaining a 49% loss over just the three months of March (-11.5%), April (-34.6%) and May (-12.3%) (Chart 1, Phase 5). The strategy has crept back to post a 3% compound annualized return since the trough, but it has recovered just 18% of its peak-to-trough decline in the ensuing seven-and-a-half years,5 and it just entered a bear market for the first time since the '08-'09 crash. Highlighting its extended slump, the strategy now trades at a level it first reached in December 1999. What Makes Momentum Tick? As with all factors, the jury is out on just what drives momentum's performance. Some researchers have argued for a risk-based explanation, but we do not see momentum as especially risky, relative to other strategies6 (Table 1), and therefore have more sympathy for the behavioral hypotheses advanced by the academic consensus. These hypotheses coalesce around the sense that markets systematically underreact to information, perhaps because of the time required to fully digest it or because the disposition effect lures investors into parting with winning positions too quickly and holding onto losing positions too long. As the built-in lags between portfolio formation and activation described in Box 1 recognize, however, the medium-term underreaction reliably follows an immediate overreaction. Table 1Market-Neutral Momentum Versus The Broad Market Smart-Beta ETF Selection, Part III - Momentum Funds Smart-Beta ETF Selection, Part III - Momentum Funds BOX 1 Momentum Strategy Parameters We refer to two distinct approaches to building momentum portfolios in this Special Report: Fama and French's single long/short strategy and Jegadeesh and Titman's matrix of sixteen long/short strategies. Both approaches attempt to exploit the observed tendency for outperforming stocks to continue to outperform and underperforming stocks to continue to underperform. Each strategy starts by ordering stocks based on their trailing returns over a stated period (the lookback period) to determine their relative price momentum. Each strategy creates its portfolio after a short lag following the lookback period to evade relative performance's tendency to mean revert over the short term. Each strategy maintains its portfolio for a stated holding period before reshuffling the deck. Fama and French's lookback period is the first eleven months of the preceding twelve-month period, with the twelfth month serving as the lag between portfolio definition and formation. Fama and French form their market-neutral portfolio by buying the top three relative-performance deciles and shorting the bottom three. The portfolio is reconstituted monthly and its sample period extends from 1927 to today. By using four different lookback and holding periods (three, six, nine and twelve months), Jegadeesh and Titman formed sixteen different market-neutral portfolios with a one-week lag. Jegadeesh and Titman's portfolios buy the top, and short the bottom, deciles. They offer a more concentrated take on a long/short momentum strategy than Fama and French's. The near-term overreaction/medium-term underreaction response is additionally complicated by the tendency for relative performance to mean revert over long periods. Trees don't grow to the sky. Over time, investors may unduly extrapolate past surprises into the future, or mean-reversion may impede continued growth surprises via adaptive expectations and/or the law of large numbers. Whatever the cause, our Equity Trading Strategy model navigates the oscillating reaction gauntlet by betting on mean reversion over one- and 36-month timeframes and on momentum over a twelve-month timeframe. Why Isn't Momentum Working Like It Used To? Advances in communications and computing technology may have compressed the timeframes over which the overreaction/underreaction/overreaction pattern unfolds. Information travels faster in a wired world, and enhanced computing power allows it to be digested more rapidly after it's disseminated. Once digested, investors are able to act upon it in milliseconds. Reduced frictions in terms of commission costs and bid-ask spreads (as stocks have gone from being quoted in eighths, to sixteenths to pennies) have made it feasible to capture profits that couldn't be captured before. Specific to the post-crisis landscape, momentum portfolios are particularly susceptible to the whipsawing that can occur in the wake of once-in-a-generation bear markets. Momentum strategies tend to weather the initial storms quite well by steadily migrating to lower-beta stocks and shunning higher-beta ones. Eventually, however, their lopsided beta profiles turn momentum portfolios into sitting ducks for the violent snapback rallies that originate among the most down-and-out stocks. Those rallies inflicted heavy casualties after the Depression, when the bottom three deciles surged by 200% in July and August 1932, versus the top three deciles' 60%, and after the crisis, when the bottom three deciles nearly doubled in March, April and May 2009 while the top three deciles gained just 15%. The gory particulars behind momentum's biggest setbacks illustrate why investors shouldn't write the factor off just yet. Its crashes - and the reason it takes so long to recover from them - are a function of runaway shorts. Table 2 shows the Fama-French momentum portfolio separated into its long (Up Basket) and short (Down Basket) components. As one would expect in a market that's trended steadily higher ever since the Depression, the shorts are volatile and lag both the overall market and the long basket. Jegadeesh and Titman's more concentrated portfolios (confined to stocks in the top and bottom deciles) have struggled mightily in the out-of-sample period, losing money across the board (Chart 2). Table 2Full Speed Ahead For Long-Only Momentum Strategies Smart-Beta ETF Selection, Part III - Momentum Funds Smart-Beta ETF Selection, Part III - Momentum Funds Chart 2The Last Shall Be First (After A Crash, Anyway) Smart-Beta ETF Selection, Part III - Momentum Funds Smart-Beta ETF Selection, Part III - Momentum Funds But the real news is in the Up Basket's performance, which has pounded the overall market on both a nominal and a risk-adjusted basis for the entirety of the pre-crisis history and has fought it to a risk-adjusted draw since the crisis (while winning again on a nominal basis). Momentum still works, even now. We like to test factor performance on a market-neutral basis to gauge how well it stratifies a population from top to bottom, but we are sensitive to the fact that the majority of our clients are long-only investors. It is gratifying to see the factor's favored stocks consistently outperforming by a wide margin because it means alpha-generation is available to all investors. The potential excess returns to overweighting the winners and under- or zero-weighting the losers may be limited relative to overweighting the winners and shorting the losers, but they are excess returns nonetheless. We are unwilling to conclude that a factor as persistently robust as momentum is dead. It is simply hibernating, in our view, until the rising tide of extraordinarily accommodative monetary policy stops lifting all boats. ZIRP (and NIRP) have helped enable a bull market that has muffled the distinctions between individual stocks and other risk assets. That's unhelpful for relative value strategies, which feed on wide spreads, but the inflection in Fed policy may soon help mo-mo recover its missing mojo. Momentum And The Fed Funds Rate Cycle We have found that the fed funds rate cycle can provide an excellent guide to broad equity movements. As our U.S. Investment Strategy service has shown, the level of the fed funds rate has exerted a powerful pull on equities, with all of the S&P 500's price returns over 55 years having accumulated in periods when policy settings were accommodative.7 As Table 3 shows, Fama and French's momentum strategy turns that rule on its head, posting its strongest returns during periods when policy settings are restrictive. Table 3Fama French Momentum Portfolio Returns During Rate Cycle Phases From August 1961 Smart-Beta ETF Selection, Part III - Momentum Funds Smart-Beta ETF Selection, Part III - Momentum Funds The results are not as counterintuitive as they seem when one recalls that they are generated by long/short portfolios. As noted above, accommodative policy could act to narrow the gap between winners and losers. Restrictive policy may have the opposite effect, as reduced liquidity and higher yields make borrowing more fraught and debt service more onerous. It's only when the tide goes out that markets see who was swimming naked. Isolating Fama and French's Up- and Down-Basket returns supports this reading. Average return spreads between the long and short positions widen when policy is restrictive and narrow when it's accommodative (Tables 4A and 4B). Restrictive policy brings internal stresses to the fore, even to the point of inducing recessions (all of the recessions since the inception of our equilibrium fed funds rate model have begun in Phase II or Phase III of the policy cycle). Table 4AFama French Down-Basket Returns During Rate Cycle Phases From August 1961 Smart-Beta ETF Selection, Part III - Momentum Funds Smart-Beta ETF Selection, Part III - Momentum Funds Table 4BFama French Up-Basket Returns During Rate Cycle Phases From August 1961 Smart-Beta ETF Selection, Part III - Momentum Funds Smart-Beta ETF Selection, Part III - Momentum Funds The empirical evidence suggesting that restrictive policy settings are more conducive to momentum factor outperformance than accommodative ones carries tactical and strategic implications. The tactical implication suggests there's no rush to assume standalone momentum exposure even though it has distinguished itself over time. The strategic implication suggests that momentum exposure, in conjunction with other factor exposures, could help to reduce portfolio volatility for any given level of expected returns, or increase expected returns for any given level of volatility. The Smart-Beta Momentum Menu The same considerations involved in setting momentum model parameters bear on the choice of smart-beta momentum ETFs (Table 5). What is the optimal lookback period, the optimal rebalancing frequency and portfolio-formation lag? What tweaks might help avoid drawdowns and boost risk-adjusted performance over time? The sponsors of the ETFs tend to keep their lookback-period cards close to the vest, but six- and twelve-month lookback periods seem to be the standard. Lag periods are also treated like competitive secrets, except at the major index providers, where one- and two-month lags are the norm. Table 5The Current Universe Of U.S. Equity-Focused Smart-Beta Momentum ETFs Smart-Beta ETF Selection, Part III - Momentum Funds Smart-Beta ETF Selection, Part III - Momentum Funds The funds distinguish themselves more clearly in their rebalancing frequencies. Quarterly rebalancings are the standard, but MTUM, ONEO and SPMO, based on benchmarks from established index families, roost at the more patient semi-annual end of the continuum. EEH has the shortest attention span, pursuing its sector rotation strategy with daily rebalancing, and fund-of-funds DWTR rebalances monthly. We note that EEH is an ETN representing an obligation of a Swedish bank and that, all else equal, we prefer ETFs since they carry no credit risk. QMOM recently shifted its registration from Active to Passive, along with three other Alpha Architect funds. Alpha Architect is a quant shop run by a Finance PhD and we have noticed that its funds tend to cluster at the top of our ETS model rankings. It would appear that its portfolio construction models share several factors with the ETS model, and we will be keeping an eye on its funds' performance. Doug Peta, Senior Vice President Global ETF Strategy dougp@bcaresearch.com Philippe Morissette, Associate Vice President Equity Trading Strategy philippem@bcaresearch.com 1 Based on a manual review of the data using month-end closing prices. 2 The strategy lost 20.4% from December 1980 through August 1981 at the beginning of the Volcker bear market. 3 Jegadeesh, Narasimhan and Titman, Sheridan, "Returns to Buying Winners and Selling Losers: Implications for Stock Market Efficiency," Journal of Finance, Volume 48, Issue 1 (March 1993), p.70. 4 Ibid, p. 89. 5 Through the end of February. 6 Asness, Clifford S. and Frazzini, Andrea and Israel, Ronen and Moskowitz, Tobias J., "Fact, Fiction and Momentum Investing," Journal of Portfolio Management, Fall 2014 (40th Anniversary Issue); Fama-Miller Working Paper. Asness et al demonstrate that momentum's risk-adjusted returns have outpaced those of more widely celebrated factors and the overall market. 7 Please see U.S. Investment Strategy Special Report, "Stocks And The Fed Funds Rate Cycle," published December 23, 2013, available at usis.bcaresearch.com.

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

Highlights Duration: The recent strength in bond markets appears to be a flight to quality driven by heightened political uncertainty. Underlying economic growth remains solid, and investors should fade the recent moves by adding to duration underweights. Quality Spreads: It might be wise to take advantage of current tight quality spreads to hedge the risk of the corporate interest expense tax deduction being repealed. Credit Curve: There is a substantial spread advantage to extending maturity within an allocation to investment grade corporate bonds. Further, this spread advantage should dissipate as Treasury yields move higher. Feature Political risks dominated the headlines last week, sparking what looks like a textbook flight-to-quality in financial markets. The 10-year Treasury yield broke below its long-standing 2.3% floor to end the week at 2.24%, and the S&P 500 declined by just over 1%. Another telltale sign of a flight-to-quality is that the term structure of implied equity volatility inverted (Chart 1). That is, implied volatility on 1-month S&P 500 index options rose above 3-month implied vol. We know the playbook here. Politically driven risk-off episodes that are unlikely to materially impact economic growth should be faded. This means staying at below-benchmark duration and overweight spread product, while favoring curve steepeners and TIPS breakeven wideners. We don't have to look that far back to identify another politically driven risk off episode. The Brexit vote from early last summer also caused the equity volatility term structure to invert, and drove the 10-year Treasury yield down to 1.37%, well below the fair value dictated by global economic fundamentals. Following the Brexit vote the 10-year Treasury yield was 58 bps expensive according to our 2-factor Treasury model.1 Presently, the 10-year yield appears 30 bps expensive (Chart 2), and much like in the aftermath of the Brexit vote, the deviation from fair value looks to be driven by spiking political uncertainty. Chart 1Inverted Vol Term Structure Inverted Vol Term Structure Inverted Vol Term Structure Chart 210-Year Treasury Yield Fair Value 10-Year Treasury Yield Fair Value 10-Year Treasury Yield Fair Value Now, the Global Economic Policy Uncertainty Index has been above normal levels since Donald Trump's election last November (Chart 2, bottom panel), and as long as the reading from that index is elevated the risk of another flight-to-quality episode in financial markets will remain high. However, spikes in policy uncertainty that do not coincide with economic deterioration have historically tended to mean-revert in relatively short order. We anticipate that Treasury yields will rise as policy uncertainty eases in the months ahead. Chart 3The Fed Is Being Priced Out The Fed Is Being Priced Out The Fed Is Being Priced Out Coincident with the drop in long-dated Treasury yields, the overnight index swap curve is now priced for only 39 bps of rate hikes between now and the end of the year (Chart 3). That's barely more than one 25 basis point hike! We previously recommended shorting January 2018 Fed Funds Futures on March 21,2 and would advise investors who have not yet entered this trade to do so now from even more attractive levels. We calculate that a short January 2018 Fed Funds Futures trade will return 20 bps (from current levels) in the event that the Fed hikes twice more this year, and 45 bps in the event of three more hikes. In our view, growth will be strong enough to support at least two more rate hikes this year. Bottom Line: The recent strength in bond markets appears to be a flight to quality driven by heightened political uncertainty. Underlying economic growth remains solid, and investors should fade the recent moves by adding to duration underweights. Are Markets Sniffing Out A Slowdown? Of course, bond markets could just be rallying in response to slowing U.S. economic growth. After all, the Atlanta Fed's GDPNow forecast is calling for a measly 0.5% annualized GDP growth in Q1. In stark contrast, the New York Fed's GDP Nowcast is calling for robust growth of 2.6% in Q1 and 2.1% in Q2 (Chart 4). How do we square the two? The answer relates to the ongoing debate between so-called "soft" and "hard" data. The New York Fed model incorporates a great deal more "soft data" than the Atlanta Fed model. In other words, it incorporates a wider swathe of survey data than the Atlanta Fed model, which relies more heavily on actual production and spending statistics. We think it would be unwise to dismiss the more positive economic message being sent by survey data. First, surveys tend to lead actual spending so we should expect some divergence whenever the economy reaches a turning point. Second, "hard data" are often revised after the fact and there are question marks about whether residual seasonality has biased Q1 growth lower during the past few years. The minutes from the March FOMC meeting showed that participants "noted that residual seasonality might have exaggerated the increase" in the PCE price deflator in January and February. The corollary of an unduly strong PCE price deflator is unusually weak real consumer spending. Real consumer spending was indeed weak in January and February, as was the headline retail sales figure for March. However, the weakness in March retail sales was concentrated in gasoline stations and auto sales. The more stable retail sales control group - a measure that excludes autos, gas stations and building materials - ticked higher in March (Chart 5). While the recent decline in auto sales should not be dismissed, it is too soon to call for a broad slowdown in consumer spending. Finally, as was recently noted by our colleagues at BCA's Global Investment Strategy service,3 even with bad weather having been a large drag on employment growth in March, aggregate hours worked still grew 1.5% in Q1 (Chart 6). This means that productivity growth would need to be negative in order to achieve the Atlanta Fed's 0.5% forecast. Given that aggregate hours worked were biased lower due to weather in the first quarter, and that quarterly productivity growth has averaged approximately +0.7% (annualized) since 2010, overall GDP growth forecasts closer to 2% seem more reasonable going forward. Chart 4Soft Data Versus Hard Data Soft Data Versus Hard Data Soft Data Versus Hard Data Chart 5Weak Auto Sales Are A Concern Weak Auto Sales Are A Concern Weak Auto Sales Are A Concern Chart 6Aggregate Hours Still Robust Aggregate Hours Still Robust Aggregate Hours Still Robust No Deflation Here GDP growth in the neighborhood of 2% is sufficient to keep measures of core inflation gradually trending higher. Higher inflation, in turn, will eventually translate into increased inflation expectations and higher long-dated Treasury yields. While last week's release showed that core CPI actually contracted in March, we note that this followed two months of extremely strong inflation (Chart 7). Taking a step back, it still appears as though measures of core inflation put in a cyclical bottom in early 2015 (Chart 8). While our CPI diffusion index is still below zero, signaling that inflation is likely to remain soft during the next couple of months, it would be premature to suggest that the gradual uptrend in core inflation has reversed. Chart 7March CPI Is An Anomaly March CPI Is An Anomaly March CPI Is An Anomaly Chart 8Inflation Still Trending Higher Inflation Still Trending Higher Inflation Still Trending Higher One final point relevant to the inflation outlook is that last week President Trump refused to rule out re-appointing Janet Yellen as Fed Chair when her current term expires early next year. If we can take the President at his word, then this potentially removes what was an important tail risk for the inflation outlook and the reflation trade more generally. If Trump were to appoint a staunch hawk as Fed Chair, then a much tighter Fed policy would likely halt the uptrend in core inflation. This would also cause the Treasury curve to bear-flatten and risk assets to sell off. However, an FOMC hewing closer to the status quo would allow inflation to trend higher, prolonging the reflation trade. Bottom Line: We don't see enough evidence to call for a slowdown in economic growth or inflation. Growth in the neighborhood of 2% going forward will be sufficient to send inflation expectations and long-dated nominal yields higher. Corporate Bond Positioning: Credit Rating & Maturity In last week's report we performed an assessment of the corporate credit cycle and concluded that corporate bonds should perform well relative to Treasuries this year, but are at risk next year once inflationary pressures start to bite and the Fed speeds up the pace of tightening.4 This week, we consider the implications of this outlook for positioning across the corporate bond quality and maturity spectrums. Quality Spreads Chart 9Quality Spreads Are Tight Quality Spreads Are Tight Quality Spreads Are Tight Obviously, lower rated corporate bonds offer a spread advantage relative to more highly rated bonds. This spread advantage is usually worth chasing unless the default outlook is worsening and overall corporate spreads are widening. At the moment, the option-adjusted spread (OAS) advantage in the Barclays High-Yield index relative to the Investment Grade index is 274 bps, about 100 bps below its long-run average. Further, Baa-rated investment grade corporate bonds currently offer a spread advantage of 77 bps over Aa-rated bonds, about 20 bps below the long-run average. Even though these quality spreads are somewhat tight by historical standards, the mere fact that the quality spread is positive means there is an advantage to moving down the quality spectrum as long as default risk is benign. For this reason, it is more relevant to consider the additional compensation for moving down in quality relative to our expectations for default losses during the next 12 months.5 In Chart 9 we see that quality spreads are in fact tighter than average, even after adjusting for default loss expectations, although there have also been extended periods when they were even tighter than current levels. Although the risk/reward trade-off for moving down in quality is not all that attractive by historical standards, given our view that corporate spreads will be well behaved this year, we are fairly agnostic about moving down in quality on a 6-12 month investment horizon. There is, however, one additional factor to consider with regards to positioning across the credit quality spectrum. Corporate tax reform, some form of which our Geopolitical strategists still see as having a high probability of being passed before the end of this year,6 will involve some combination of lower tax rates and the repeal of some deductions. One deduction that is very much at risk is that of corporate interest expense. If implemented, it seems likely that corporate interest deductibility would be phased out over time. That is, the interest on outstanding corporate bonds would remain tax deductible, and only the interest on newly issued debt would be excluded from the deduction. While the gradual phase-out would prevent a wave of defaults related to a sudden surge in tax expense, the provision very clearly favors large highly-rated firms relative to small lower-rated firms, whose interest expense makes up a larger proportion of total expenses. Investors with longer time horizons might be wise to take advantage of current tight quality spreads (i.e. move up in quality) to hedge the risk of the corporate interest expense tax deduction being repealed. Credit Curve Considerations Turning to the corporate bond term structure, we see that the OAS advantage in long-maturity investment grade corporate bonds is extremely high relative to history (Chart 10). As we discussed in a 2013 report,7 the two main drivers of the credit OAS curve are differences in duration and expected default losses. A greater difference in duration between the long-maturity and intermediate-maturity investment grade corporate bond indexes leads to a greater OAS advantage in the long-maturity index. Conversely, an increase in perceived default risk causes the OAS curve to flatten, as short-maturity credits are perceived to be at greater risk of default. We find that the majority of the spread advantage in long-dated corporate bonds represents compensation for duration risk. If we look at OAS per unit of duration rather than outright OAS, the credit curve no longer appears steep (Chart 10, panel 2). Digging a little deeper, we see that the difference in duration between the long-maturity and intermediate-maturity indexes has been steadily increasing since 1990. In the early 1990s the increase was at least partially attributable to actual changes in the maturity structure of the indexes themselves (Chart 10, panel 3). However, in recent years the increased duration spread is entirely the result of lower Treasury yields (Chart 10, bottom panel). It follows that if Treasury yields continue to trend lower, then the corporate OAS curve will remain very steep. Higher Treasury yields would reduce the difference in duration between the intermediate and long maturity indexes, causing the OAS curve to flatten. After adjusting for differences in duration, we also need to consider the default outlook. By performing a regression of the difference in OAS per unit of duration between the long-maturity and intermediate-maturity indexes on our measure of expected default losses, we find that the amount of spread per unit of duration at the long-end of the curve looks somewhat attractive given our outlook for default losses (Chart 11). Chart 10OAS Term Structure Is Steep OAS Term Structure Is Steep OAS Term Structure Is Steep Chart 11Higher Defaults = Flatter OAS Curve Higher Defaults = Flatter OAS Curve Higher Defaults = Flatter OAS Curve Adding it all up, there is a compelling case to be made for favoring long-maturity investment grade corporate bonds relative to short maturities. Not only is the spread advantage substantial on its face, but the OAS curve should flatten if Treasury yields move higher - as we expect they will. The OAS curve also appears too steep relative to our assessment of default risk. Bottom Line: There is a substantial spread advantage to extending maturity within an allocation to investment grade corporate bonds. Further, this spread advantage should dissipate as Treasury yields move higher. Investors should favor long-maturity issues over short-maturity issues within an overweight allocation to investment grade corporate bonds. Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com 1 Our 2-factor Treasury model is based on Global Manufacturing PMI and bullish sentiment toward the U.S. dollar. For further details please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "The Message From Our Treasury Model", dated October 11, 2016, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "The Yield Curve On A Cyclical Horizon", dated March 21, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Talk Is Cheap: EUR/USD Is Heading Toward Parity", dated April 14, 2017, available at gis.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "The Payback Period In Corporate Bonds", dated April 11, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 5 We calculate expected default losses using the Moody's baseline forecast for the default rate and our own forecast of the recovery rate. 6 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Political Risks Are Overstated In 2017", dated April 5, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com 7 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, "On The Term Structure Of Credit Spreads", dated July 10, 2013, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

Highlights Portfolio Strategy Operating leverage could surprise on the strong side this year, based on the message from our pricing power and wage growth indicators. REITs are experiencing a playable recovery following the Fed-induced sell-off earlier this year, and overweight positions will continue to pay off. Energy services activity is set to steadily accelerate this year, powering an earnings-led share price outperformance phase. Recent Changes There are no changes to our portfolio this week. Table 1 Operating Leverage To The Rescue? Operating Leverage To The Rescue? Feature Volatility has climbed to the highest level since the U.S. election, signaling that the broad market is not yet out of the woods. As stocks recalibrate to a cooling in economic growth momentum and an escalation in geopolitical threats, downside risks should be reasonably contained by mounting signs of a healthier corporate sector. Last week we posited that stronger top line revenue growth is necessary to sustain the profit upcycle, and provide justification for historically rich valuations. Chart 1 shows sales and EPS growth over the long-term. Chart 1Joined At The Hip Joined At The Hip Joined At The Hip Obviously, the two move closely together, with earnings enjoying more powerful growth phases when revenue accelerates. Since 1960, regression analysis shows that operating leverage for the S&P 500's is 1.4X. In other words, a 5% increase in sales growth typically leads to 7% EPS growth. When sales are initially recovering from a deep slump operating leverage can be even higher, with earnings often rising two to three times as fast as revenue. Clearly, that is not sustainable, but can give the illusion of powerful and sustained growth for brief periods of time. At the current juncture, there are reasons to expect investors to embrace the durability of the profit expansion. Our corporate pricing power proxy has vaulted higher. Importantly, the breadth of this surge has been impressive, which bodes well for its staying power (Chart 2, second panel). On the flip side, rising labor costs look set to take a breather. Compensation growth has crested, and according to our diffusion index, fewer than half of the 18 industries tracked have higher wages than last year. The wage growth diffusion index provides a reliable leading indication for the trend in labor expenses. In other words, pricing power is rising on a broad basis while wage inflation is decelerating on a broad basis. Consequently, there are decent odds that resilient forward operating margin expectations can be matched (Chart 2, bottom panel). Elsewhere, a revival in animal spirits, the potential for easier fiscal policy and prospects for a hiatus in the U.S. dollar bull market bode well for brisk business activity. While the budding recovery in global trade could sputter if protectionism proliferates, our working assumption is that the U.S. Administrations' bark will be worse than its bite. Thus, a self-reinforcing sales and profit upcycle could be materializing. The objective message from our S&P 500 EPS model concurs (Chart 3), underscoring that high single digit/low double digit profit growth could be broadly perceived as attainable this year. Chart 2Profit Margins Can Expand Profit Margins Can Expand Profit Margins Can Expand Chart 3Few Sectors Control The Fate Of S&P 500 EPS Few Sectors Control The Fate Of S&P500 EPS Few Sectors Control The Fate Of S&P500 EPS True, our model has recently shown tentative signs of cresting, but difficult comparisons will only arise later this year. Indeed, Q3 and Q4 2016 were all-time high EPS numbers, implying that 12% estimated growth rates are a tall order (Chart 3, middle panel). Importantly, dissecting the profit growth sectorial contribution is instructive. Calendar 2017 over 2016 S&P 500 earnings growth is concentrated in four sectors: tech, energy, health care and financials comprise over 87% of the incremental profit growth expected (Chart 3, bottom panel). The upshot is that there is a high degree of concentration risk to fulfilling overall profit growth expectations. Energy profits are wholly dependent on the oil price, and financial sector profit optimism appears to have embedded a healthy increase in both interest rates and capital markets activity. In addition, tech sector earnings are heavily influenced by the U.S. dollar. Consequently, it will be critical for monetary conditions to stay loose, otherwise estimates will be at risk of downward revisions. Adding it up, the corporate sector sales pendulum is finally swinging in a positive direction, which should support the cyclical overshoot in stocks for a while longer, notwithstanding our expectation that the current corrective phase has further to run. This week we are updating our high-conviction overweight views on both the lagging energy services index and REIT sector. Revisiting REITs REITs have staged a mini V-shaped rebound after being punished alongside rising bond yields and worries about aggressive Fed rate hikes earlier this year. As outlined in recent Weekly Reports, the reflation theme is likely to lose steam in the second half of the year as economic momentum cools, providing additional impetus for capital inflows into the more stable income profile of REITs. Even if the economy proves more resilient and Treasury yields move higher, there are few barriers to additional outperformance. Our Technical Indicator, a combination of rates of change and moving average divergences, is extremely oversold. Forward intermediate and cyclical relative returns from current readings have been solid, as occurred in 2004, 2008 and 2014 (Chart 4). REIT valuations are more than one standard deviation below normal, according to our gauge. This suggests that poor operating performance and/or higher discount rates are already expected. There may be a limit as to how high bond yields can climb, given that they are already deep in undervalued territory according to the BCA 10-year Treasury Bond Valuation Index (Chart 4). Regardless, history shows that REITs have typically had a more positive than negative correlation with bond yields. The inverse correlation has only been in place since the financial crisis, when zero interest rate policies pushed massive capital flows into all yield generating assets. Chart 5 shows that prior to 2008, REITs outperformed during periods of both rising and falling Treasury yields. Chart 4Unloved And Undervalued Unloved And Undervalued Unloved And Undervalued Chart 5No Concrete Correlation Pre GFC No Concrete Correlation Pre GFC No Concrete Correlation Pre GFC Similarly, REITs have a solid track record during periods of rising inflation pressures. Since 1975, there have been six periods of rising core PCE inflation: REITs have enjoyed meaningful rallies during five of these phases (Chart 6). Hard assets tend to hold their stock market value well when overall inflation moves higher, with REIT net asset values providing solid support to share price performance. Chart 6Buy REITs In Times Of Inflation Buy REITs In Times Of Inflation Buy REITs In Times Of Inflation Looking ahead, REITs should continue to enjoy success in boosting rental rates. Occupancy rates continue to rise (Chart 7). The unemployment rate is low, consumption is decent and businesses are growing increasingly confident. That is a recipe for higher rental demand. Our Rental Rate Composite has crested on a growth rate basis, but the advance in the CPI for homeowner's equivalent rent, a good proxy for REITs, suggests that the path of least resistance remains higher (Chart 7). REIT supply growth has also leveled off, which provides additional confidence that rental inflation will remain solid. Nevertheless, there are some areas of concern. Banks are tightening lending standards on commercial real estate loans. Some sub-categories are experiencing a mild deterioration in credit quality. For instance, Chart 8 shows that delinquency rates in the retail and office spaces have edged higher. Retail and mall REITs are likely under structural pressure owing to online competition from the likes of Amazon. Chart 7Rental Demand##br## Is Solid Rental Demand Is Solid Rental Demand Is Solid Chart 8Watch Delinquencies As ##br##Banks Tighten Credit Standards Watch Delinquencies As Banks Tighten Credit Standards Watch Delinquencies As Banks Tighten Credit Standards Overall vacancy rates are still very low (Chart 8), but if credit becomes too tight, then the relentless advance in commercial property prices may cool. For now, our REIT Demand Indicator is not signaling any imminent stress. In fact, the economy is strong enough to expect occupancy rates to keep climbing, to the benefit of underlying property valuations and rental income (Chart 7, bottom panel). In sum, the budding rebound in REIT relative performance should be embraced as the start of a sustained trend. Total return potential is very attractive on a relative basis. Bottom Line: REITs remain a very attractive high-conviction overweight. Energy Servicers Are Cleaning Up Their Act We put the S&P energy services index on our high-conviction overweight list at the start of the year, because three critical factors that typically lead to a playable rally existed, namely; the global rig count had hit an inflection point, oil supplies were easing and global oil production growth had begun to decelerate. While the pullback in oil prices has undermined relative performance for the time being, there is scope for a full recovery, and more. Oil prices have firmed, underpinned by a revival in the geopolitical risk premium following the U.S. bombing campaign in Syria. There is already a wide gap between share prices and oil prices (Chart 9, top panel), and a narrowing is probable, especially as earnings drivers reaccelerate. There are tentative signs that capital spending cuts are finally reversing. The global rig count has rebounded, and is a good leading indicator for investment (Chart 10). This message is corroborated by our Global Capex Indicator, which has recently surged anew (Chart 10). Chart 9Room For ##br##Margin Improvement... Room For Margin Improvement... Room For Margin Improvement... Chart 10...As Deflation Eases ##br##And Capex Rebounds ...As Deflation Eases And Capex Rebounds ...As Deflation Eases And Capex Rebounds The longer that oil prices can stay in their current trading range, or beyond, the more time E&P balance sheets have to heal and the greater the odds that the cost of capital will be reduced. Against this backdrop, there are high odds that previously mothballed exploration projects will be restored. The V-shaped recovery in the global oil rig count, albeit from a very low base, will eventually absorb excess capacity and allow the industry to escape deflation. A major improvement in day rates is unlikely given the scale of the previous capacity boom, but even a modest pricing power improvement should provide a nice boost given high operating leverage. EBITDA margins have considerable room to improve if pricing power grows anew (Chart 9, bottom panel). Importantly, the shifting composition of global production will allow service companies with domestic exposure to shine. Shale oil producers should recapture lost market share, given that the onus to rebalance markets has been taken on by OPEC. OPEC production is contracting, while non-OPEC output is starting to recover (Chart 11, bottom panel), culminating in a widening in the Brent-WTI oil price spread. Production restraint is helping to rebalance physical oil markets. Total OECD inventory growth is reversing, and anecdotal reports are surfacing that floating storage is rapidly being depleted. Oil supply at Cushing is on the cusp of contracting, which is notable given that this has had a high correlation with relative share price performance for the past decade (oil supply shown inverted, Chart 11). On a global basis, global inventory drawdowns have been correlated with a firming industry relative profitability, and vice versa. OECD oil supply growth is rapidly receding, which augurs well for an extension of budding earnings outperformance (Chart 12, middle panel). Chart 11Receding Inventories ##br##Should Boost Performance... Receding Inventories Should Boost Performance… Receding Inventories Should Boost Performance… Chart 12...EPS And##br## Valuations ...EPS And Valuations ...EPS And Valuations The rise in clean tanker rates reinforces that oil demand is rising quickly enough to expect additional inventory depletion (Chart 12, bottom panel). Typically, tanker rates and energy service relative valuations are positively correlated. Adding it up, a rising global rig count, decelerating inventories and restrained oil production continue to bode well for a playable rally in the high-beta S&P energy services group. Bottom Line: We reiterate our high-conviction overweight stance in the S&P energy services index. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5ENRE - SLB, HAL, BHI, NOV, FTI, HP, RIG. Current Recommendations Current Trades Size And Style Views Favor small over large caps and stay neutral growth over value.

Highlights The level of Fed interest rates, in absolute or relative terms, has been a poor determinant of dollar bull markets. A more useful marker has been the relative performance of U.S. assets as well as relative growth rates. The U.S. economy should continue to outperform the rest of the G10 on a cyclical basis, suggesting that the USD could rise further on a 12-18 months basis. April is seasonally the cruelest month for the USD. Once this hurdle is passed, the likelihood grows that the dollar correction will be over. The conditions are slowly falling into place for the SNB to abandon the floor under EUR/CHF. Bank of Canada: Bye-bye easing bias, hello neutrality. Feature One of the great paradox of modern finance is the relationship between the dollar and the Fed. Contrary to a priories, rising U.S. interest rates are not synonymous with a rising dollar (Chart I-1). In fact, since 1975, out of seven protracted Fed tightening campaigns, the greenback fell four times. Obviously, one could argue that domestic interest rates per say are irrelevant, what matters should be the trend of U.S. interest rates relative to the rest of the world. Here again, the evidence is rather inconclusive. As Chart I-2 illustrates, since 1975, out of the eight episodes where U.S. policy rates rose relative to the rest of the advanced economies, the dollar was down or flat five times. Chart I-1The Fed Is Not An All-Weather Friend The Fed Is Not An All-Weather Friend The Fed Is Not An All-Weather Friend Chart I-2Rate Differentials Are Also A Fickle Ally Rate Differentials Are Also A Fickle Ally Rate Differentials Are Also A Fickle Ally This modern Gordian knot is not as intractable as it seems. In fact, we would argue that focusing on the Fed misses some key drivers of flows inside the U.S. economy. What really matters for the U.S. dollar is not just what the Fed does, but in fact, how U.S. assets are performing relative to the rest of the world. It's Not Just The Fed, It's Everything Simple interest rate differentials have a poor long-term track record explaining the U.S. dollar. However, one factor does seem to work better: the relative performance of a portfolio of U.S. stocks, bonds, and money market securities relative to the rest of the world. This does make sense. Investors who want to buy the USD do so because they expect to receive higher returns on their U.S. assets, independently of whether these assets are cash, stocks or bonds. As Chart I-3 shows, the ups and down of the USD have been contemporaneous with the gyrations of a U.S. portfolio invested 40% in stocks, 30% in bonds, and 30% in cash relative to the same portfolio in the euro area (and its predecessor national markets), Japan, the U.K., and Canada. However, there is a problem with this observation. It is expected returns that should drive the inflows into a currency, not the ex-post returns like the one used in the previous chart. But this forgets a key factor influencing asset returns: the momentum effect. As Chart I-4 illustrates, playing momentum continuation strategies has historically been one of the best performing investment philosophies, a fact not lost on investors.1 As such, there is a very rational reason for previously outperforming markets to attract funds by virtue of their previous outperformance. This would also explain why peaks and troughs in the relative U.S. / global portfolios tend to lead the turning points in the dollar itself. Chart I-3It's All About Returns It's All About Returns It's All About Returns Chart I-4Don't Get Against The Crowd The Fed And The Dollar: A Gordian Knot The Fed And The Dollar: A Gordian Knot The same dynamics are prevalent when one looks at bilateral pairs. This is particularly true of the EUR/USD, which has a 58% weight in the dollar index vis-à-vis major currencies. As Chart I-5 illustrates, as was the case with the dollar against the majors, EUR/USD dynamics are a function of the relative performance of a European portfolio of various assets against a similar U.S. portfolio. As an aside, it is true that the secular trend in the dollar is not nearly as well explained by the dynamics in the asset markets. On longer time horizons, other factors dominate currency returns. While the most well know long-term exchange rate determinant has been relative inflation rates (the PPP effect), our research has corroborated well-known academic findings that relative productivity differentials and net international investment positions (NIIP) also play important roles.2 While U.S. productivity growth has been equal or superior to that of the other nations comprised in the dollar index against the majors, the other variables have forced the long-term fair value of the dollar downward. Relative to Europe and Japan (the crucial weights in the dollar index), the U.S. NIIP grows each year more deeply into negative territory, and the U.S. has also experienced structurally more elevated inflation than these currency blocs (Chart I-6). Going back to the cyclical moves in the dollar, another factor has had a very strong explanatory power for the USD: Relative trend growth (Chart I-7). The 5-year moving average of real growth rate differentials - when GDP is measured at PPP, thus eliminating some currency effects - has mimicked the moves in the greenback. In the context of portfolio flows, this also makes sense. Ultimately, a faster growing economy should be able to generate higher rates of returns than slower growing ones, and thus attract more funds. Chart I-5EUR/USD And Asset Returns EUR/USD And Asset Returns EUR/USD And Asset Returns Chart I-6Secular Drags On The USD Secular Drags On The USD Secular Drags On The USD Chart I-7Growth Is Paramount Growth Is Paramount Growth Is Paramount What do these observations mean for the future path of the dollar? Despite continued noise by President Trump, we think the outlook for the dollar remains bright. First, the dollar is still not nearly as expensive as it has been at the peak of previous cyclical bull markets, which raises the likelihood that the USD has yet to hit the historical pain thresholds of the U.S. economy (Chart I-8). Further reinforcing this probability, U.S. employment in the manufacturing sector represents 10% of the working population today, versus 15% in 2001 and more than 22% in 1985 (Chart I-9). Not only does this mean that the sector of the U.S. economy most exposed to the pain created by a strong dollar is much smaller than at previous dollar peaks - raising the resilience of the U.S. economy to the tightening created by a strong dollar - the share of employment in that sector today remains much lower in the U.S. than it is in Japan and Europe. Chart I-8Valuations Have Yet To Bite Valuations Have Yet To Bite Valuations Have Yet To Bite Chart I-9The U.S. Is More Resilient To XR Moves The U.S. Is More Resilient To XR Moves The U.S. Is More Resilient To XR Moves Second, on a multi-year basis, the U.S. economic outlook remains more exciting than what the majority of the rest of the G10 has to offer. Most obviously, even if Trump changes immigration laws, the U.S. demographic outlook still outshines that of other nations (Chart I-10). Also, the U.S. benefits from being much more advanced than the rest of the G10 in its deleveraging cycle. As Chart I-11 illustrates, U.S. non-financial private debt to GDP fell from 170% of GDP to a low of 146% of GDP, while outside of the U.S., the same ratio has plateaued at 175%. This means that debt is likely to represents a greater ceiling on growth outside than inside the United States. Chart I-10A Structural Help To The U.S. A Structural Help To The U.S. A Structural Help To The U.S. Chart I-11Lower Deleveraging Pressures In The U.S. Lower Deleveraging Pressures In The U.S. Lower Deleveraging Pressures In The U.S. Third, U.S. markets can continue to attract funds. For one, most of the net inflows in the U.S. since 2015 has been driven by a surge in U.S. funds repatriation. Foreign investors remain timid buyers of U.S. assets (Chart I-12). This phenomenon is most pronounced in the equity space, where investors have been net sellers of U.S. equities (Chart I-13). Additionally, if the U.S. continues to grow faster than most other large advanced economies, FDIs inflow into the U.S. are likely to improve further, something that could be reinforced by Trump's hard-nosed trade negotiations with the rest of the world (Chart I-14). Chart I-12Foreigners Still Have Room To Buy Foreigners Still Have Room To Buy Foreigners Still Have Room To Buy Chart I-13Big Deficit In U.S. Stock Purchases Big Deficit In U.S. Stock Purchases Big Deficit In U.S. Stock Purchases Chart I-14FDI Inflows In The U.S. Can Grow More FDI Inflows In The U.S. Can Grow More FDI Inflows In The U.S. Can Grow More Finally, when it comes to money markets, the U.S. continues to hold the advantage. As we have argued, U.S. rates are likely to remain in the top of the G10 distribution. While the level and direction of rate differentials between the U.S. and the rest of the world has been a poor predictor of the USD's trend, how high U.S. rates rank globally has been a better explanatory variable of the greenback (Chart I-15). This means that money markets in the U.S. are likely to remain more attractive to investors needing to park liquidity than money markets outside the U.S. We are currently still positioned negatively on the U.S. dollar against European currencies and the yen on a tactical basis. We expect this phenomenon to be toward its tail end. First, when it comes to seasonality, April is historically the weakest month for the dollar (Chart I-16). Second, Trump's comments on Wednesday regarding the dollar's strength were enough to prompt a vicious sell-off in the dollar. Yet, this seems overdone. Unlike Reagan in 1985, Trump has little levers to force a strong re-evaluation of the euro and the yen. Moreover, his endorsement of Janet Yellen implies that the Fed is less likely to lose its independence in the near future, suggesting that U.S. rates will continue to be tightened if the economy improves. Thus, a plunge in U.S. real rates relative to the rest of the world prompted by a too easy Fed is less of a risk, reducing the probability of the re-emergence of the 1970s.3 Chart I-15Being The Leader Of The Pack Is What Matters Being The Leader Of The Pack Is What Matters Being The Leader Of The Pack Is What Matters Chart I-16April Is The Cruelest Month April Is The Cruelest Month April Is The Cruelest Month Bottom Line: On a cyclical basis, more than simple interest rate differentials between the U.S. and the rest of the world, what matters for the dollar's trend is the return on U.S. assets vis-à-vis the rest of the world as well as the growth rate of the U.S. compared to other nations. On this front, relative growth rate differentials continue to be the best factor pointing toward further USD outperformance. Tactically, the USD is in the midst of its seasonally weakest month, suggesting another down leg in DXY is likely in the coming weeks. However, it may soon be time to start buying the USD once again. EUR/CHF: Getting Closer To The End Recent data in Switzerland have shown great improvement. The PMIs are at their highest levels in six years and CPI has moved back into positive territory. This raises the specter of the end of the Swiss National Bank floor under EUR/CHF (Chart I-17). Chart I-17The SNB Floor Lives On The SNB Floor Lives On The SNB Floor Lives On While we think this peg might be in its final innings, its end is not imminent. However, we think that if Swiss data continues to improve, late 2017 will be a more supportive environment for the SNB to bury this strategy. What key signals are we looking for? First, inflation may be in positive territory, but it remains very low by recent standards. Most specifically, core CPI stands at a low 0.1%, well below the 0.8% average experienced from 1999 to 2010, an era when the euro already existed, but when the euro area crisis was still outside of investors' lexicons. As well, wage dynamics continue to underwhelm. Swiss wages are growing at a 2.4% rate compared to 3.3% from 1999 to 2010. Growth conditions also remain weak. Swiss real GDP is growing at 1%, half of the average that existed before the euro area crisis. Nominal GDP growth is undershooting the mark by an even greater margin, standing at 0.7% versus an average of 3%. What does this mean for the SNB? We would expect these datasets to move closer to their historical average before the SNB adjusts its policy stance. The main reason for this is 2015. In late 2014, just before the SNB tentatively let the CHF float, nominal and real GDP growth were outperforming current readings, yet the Swiss economy was not strong enough to handle a stronger franc. While Europe and the global economy are in a better place than in these days, risk management and precaution are likely to dictate a more careful approach by the central bank, especially as the ECB has eased monetary policy since that period, potentially causing another slingshot move in the franc if the SNB lets it float once again. In terms of strategy, we would expect the SNB to manage any appreciation in the franc following a lifting of the floor. We expect a move more akin to that of the PBoC in 2005, when the yuan, after an original 2% move, was allowed to increase progressively to minimize disruptions. We think this type of strategy is also currently being employed by the Czech central bank, and that EUR/CZK will continue to depreciate over time. This means that we would use any rebound in EUR/CHF to 1.08 to begin shorting this cross, knowing that the timing of an SNB policy change will be uncertain, but that the conditions are falling into place. Bottom Line: Even if it is still too early to bet on an imminent fall in EUR/CHF, Swiss data is moving in the right direction to expect a lift of the EUR/CHF floor later this year. As such, with the large amount of uncertainty surrounding such a decision, we would use any rebound in EUR/CHF to 1.08 to implement some short positions on the cross to bet on the eventuality of a policy change in Switzerland. Bank Of Canada: Less Dovish But Far From Hawkish The Bank of Canada this week officially removed its dovish bias. Canadian data has been very strong, with recent housing starts coming in at 254 thousand, a 10-year high. Additionally, recent employment data has been strong and so have purchasing managers index and business surveys. As a result, the BoC used this meeting as an opportunity to increase its growth expectation for the year - albeit a move heavily based on a stronger Q1 - and also brought forward in time its expectation of the closing of the output gap to early 2018. Chart I-18Canadian Surprises: More Likely##br## To Roll-Over Than Not Canadian Surprises: More Likely To Roll-Over Than Not Canadian Surprises: More Likely To Roll-Over Than Not Despite this more upbeat picture, the Bank of Canada also highlighted heavy risks to the Canadian economy. Obviously, the risks from the potential for a U.S. border adjustment tax and renegotiations of NAFTA were seen as crucial. The housing market too continues to be a big worry for the Bank of Canada, with affordability being extremely poor. Moreover, the BoC also decreased its estimate of the neutral rate and observed that monetary conditions are not as accommodative as was believed in January. Going forward, we think that the upside for the CAD remains limited. Canadian economic surprises are stretched and are very likely to rollover in the coming months (Chart I-18). This suggests that further upgrades to the Canadian economic outlook may take some time to emerge. As such, we continue to expect rate differentials between the U.S. and Canada to continue to support a higher USD/CAD, especially as Canadian money markets are already pricing in a full rate hike by Q1 2018. Bottom Line: The Bank Of Canada abandoned it dovish bias, but it is still far away from moving toward a hawkish bias. While a rate hike in 2018 is now much more likely, the market already anticipates this. As such, since the Canadian surprise index is very elevated, the likelihood of a move downward in interest rate expectations grows as surprises are likely to roll over. Stay long USD/CAD. Mathieu Savary, Vice President Foreign Exchange Strategy mathieu@bcaresearch.com 1 For a discussion on why momentum continuation strategies may have worked, see the April 24, 2015 Global Investment Strategy Special Report titled "Investing In Style" available at gis.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Special Report titled "A Guide To Currency Markets (Part I)", dated April 8, 2016, and the Foreign Exchange Strategy Special Report titled "Assessing Fair Value In FX Markets", dated February 26, 2016, both available at fes.bcaresearch.com 3 For a more detailed discussion of the 1970s stagflation, please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Special Report titled "Trump: No Nixon Redux", dated December 2, 2016, available at fes.bcaresearch.com Currencies U.S. Dollar Chart II-1USD Technicals 1 USD Technicals 1 USD Technicals 1 Chart II-2USD Technicals 2 USD Technicals 2 USD Technicals 2 President Trump, once again, delivered dollar-nuking remarks, after saying it was "getting too strong". The dollar dropped 0.7% on the news, while other currencies appreciated. The dollar has since regained most of its losses, but further upside remains questionable in the coming weeks. The market has already priced-in large amounts of monetary tightening, and recent producer price figures disappointed expectations: PPI increased at a 2.3% annual pace and contracted 0.1% monthly; core PPI increased at a 1.6% annual pace, and did not grow at a monthly pace. Additionally, in the past 5, 10 and 26 years, April has been the weakest month for the dollar. Upside is most likely limited until after the French elections. Report Links: U.S. Households Remain In The Driver's Seat - March 31, 2017 Healthcare Or Not, Risks Remain - March 24, 2017 USD, Oil Divergences Will Continue As Storage Draws - March 17, 2017 The Euro Chart II-3EUR Technicals 1 EUR Technicals 1 EUR Technicals 1 Chart II-4EUR Technicals 2 EUR Technicals 2 EUR Technicals 2 Recent movements in the euro remain largely a function of the dollar. Even after the Trump-induced dollar gyrations, the euro appreciated this week. The ZEW Survey for Economic Sentiment and Current Situation both outperformed expectations, however weak industrial production figures were also evident, which contracted by 0.3% on a monthly basis, and grew at less than expectations at 1.2%. Peripheral economies are also showing strength, with inflation outperforming expectations in Italy and Greece. Nevertheless, the outlook for the euro this month remains decent, as April is notorious for dollar weakness. Moreover, Melanchon's rising popularity is a double-edge sword: while it increases the risk that yet another euro-sceptic becomes the French president, if it grows further it is likely to take away potential voters from Le Pen. In fact, with the chances of Macron winning remaining elevated, this election could ultimately could provide further support to the euro. Report Links: ECB: All About China? - April 7, 2017 Healthcare Or Not, Risks Remain - March 24, 2017 Et Tu, Janet? - March 3, 2017 The Yen Chart II-5JPY Technicals 1 JPY Technicals 1 JPY Technicals 1 Chart II-6JPY Technicals 2 JPY Technicals 2 JPY Technicals 2 USD/JPY continues to fall rapidly, and now stands at 109. However, we believe the yen could still have more upside. Indeed, EM assets continue to struggle with a technical resistance, and a down leg seems imminent, given the tightening in liquidity conditions that China is currently experiencing. As evidenced by the events of early 2016, such as sell off of EM assets could supercharge yen rallies. On the data side the Japanese economy continues to show mixed signs: Labor cash earning underperformed expectations, growing by a paltry 0.4% from a year ago. However domestic corporate goods prices outperformed expectations, growing by 1.4% year on year. Overall Japanese economic activity continues to be too tepid for the BoJ to have a shift from its ultra-dovish policy. This makes us yen bears on a 12 to 18 month basis. Report Links: U.S. Households Remain In The Driver's Seat - March 31, 2017 Et Tu, Janet? - March 3, 2017 JPY: Climbing To The Springboard Before The Dive - February 24, 2017 British Pound Chart II-7GBP Technicals 1 GBP Technicals 1 GBP Technicals 1 Chart II-8GBP Technicals 2 GBP Technicals 2 GBP Technicals 2 Recent data from the U.K. has been mixed this week: Industrial production growth underperformed coming in at 2.8% The goods trade balance also underperformed coming in at -12.46 billion pounds. However, average hourly earnings including bonus outperformed coming in at 2.3%, while core inflation come in at 1.8%, below expectations. This last point bodes well for consumption as it would limit the downside to real income caused by the inflationary shock resulting from the depreciation of the pound. Moreover, long term inflation expectations remain relatively stable, which means that British households are looking past the temporary nature of the inflation caused by the pound sell-off. Both of these factors should help the British economy outperform expectations, and ultimately help the GBP rally against the EUR. Report Links: Updating Our Long-Term FX Value Models - February 17, 2017 Outlook: 2017's Greatest Hits - December 16, 2016 The Pound Falls To The ConqueringDollar - October 14, 2016 Australian Dollar Chart II-9AUD Technicals 1 AUD Technicals 1 AUD Technicals 1 Chart II-10AUD Technicals 2 AUD Technicals 2 AUD Technicals 2 An unfortunate tropical storm, Cyclone Debbie, ravaged through the state of Queensland at the end of March. Queensland is known for its agriculture and mining industries, which suffered heavily during the hurricane. March and April export figures are likely to weaken as output was destroyed and reparations may delay production. Exacerbating this weakness is the risk of faltering import demand from China, which is the most likely the reason behind the current weakness in industrial metal prices. As this trend continues, the AUD is likely to suffer for the remainder of the year. On the bright side, the labor market has regained some vigor as full-time employment outperformed part-time employment in two consecutive months, with full-time job growing at a 30-year-high pace. However, a durable trend needs to be apparent for the labor market to fully strengthen. Report Links: U.S. Households Remain In The Driver's Seat - March 31, 2017 AUD And CAD: Risky Business - March 10, 2017 Et Tu, Janet? - March 3, 2017 New Zealand Dollar Chart II-11NZD Technicals 1 NZD Technicals 1 NZD Technicals 1 Chart II-12NZD Technicals 2 NZD Technicals 2 NZD Technicals 2 After positive import and export data out of China, the kiwi rallied strongly. The market interpreted this data as evidence that global growth is on a solid footing and that it will continue to surprise to the upside. Although we agree with the first point we disagree with the second one, as outperformance in global growth amid a sharp tightening in Chinese monetary conditions, a slowdown in Chinese shadow banking credit and a deceleration in Chinese house prices, is highly unlikely. Thus, carry currencies like the NZD are likely to underperform against the dollar. Against other commodity currency the picture is more nuanced, as strong PMI numbers of 57.8 as well as solid credit and employment numbers are evidence that the kiwi economy is better equipped to deal with a Chinese shock than Australia. Report Links: U.S. Households Remain In The Driver's Seat - March 31, 2017 Et Tu, Janet? - March 3, 2017 Updating Our Long-Term FX Value Models - February 17, 2017 Canadian Dollar Chart II-13CAD Technicals 1 CAD Technicals 1 CAD Technicals 1 Chart II-14CAD Technicals 2 CAD Technicals 2 CAD Technicals 2 The BoC left its overnight rate unchanged at 0.5%, citing recent stronger than expected economic activity and a sooner-than-previously-anticipated closure of the output gap. The gains in the energy sector are unlikely to provide as much of a tailwind as earlier this year as the base effects from rising oil prices prove transitory on inflation and exports. The Bank highlighted labor market slack as a key factor which may contribute to the brevity of this growth impulse, as well as the business sector being hampered by low investment aimed at maintenance rather than expansion. Similarly strong data are needed to keep growth rate high enough for the Bank to become hawkish. For the time being, employment data still remains mixed. Although employment increased by 19,400, the unemployment rate ticked up to 6.7%. With only 38% of firms planning to add jobs over the next 12 months, job gains could be modest and slack could remain. Report Links: AUD And CAD: Risky Business - March 10, 2017 Updating Our Long-Term FX Value Models - February 17, 2017 Outlook: 2017's Greatest Hits - December 16, 2016 Swiss Franc Chart II-15CHF Technicals 1 CHF Technicals 1 CHF Technicals 1 Chart II-16CHF Technicals 2 CHF Technicals 2 CHF Technicals 2 After a short rally in early March, EUR/CHF cross is once again at 1.066, very close to the SNB's implied floor of 1.065. This sell-off is most likely the result of risk-off flows caused by the French presidential elections. However, we believe these fears are overstated, as Macron seems primed to win the election. Once these political fears dissipate, and economic fundamentals take over, EUR/CHF would likely be at a point where it would become an attractive short, given that there are some early signs that inflation is slowly coming back to the alpine country and that the franc has strong structural forces pushing up its value. While an abandonment of the SNB's floor in unlikely until the end of the year, investors could still begin positioning themselves for this eventuality given that a rally in EUR/CHF beyond the French election should be limited. Report Links: Updating Our Long-Term FX Value Models - February 17, 2017 Outlook: 2017's Greatest Hits - December 16, 2016 Long-Term FX Valuation Models: Updates And New Coverages - September 30, 2016 Norwegian Krone Chart II-17NOK Technicals 1 NOK Technicals 1 NOK Technicals 1 Chart II-18NOK Technicals 2 NOK Technicals 2 NOK Technicals 2 The relationship between the NOK and oil prices continues to be a strange one, as the NOK has depreciated this last month even in the face of a strong rally in oil prices. Plummeting inflation and inflation expectations in Norway are probably the main culprit, as it entrenches the Norges Bank dovish bias. All this being said, there are some faint signs that the economy is starting to recover as manufacturing PMI is at 5 year highs while consumer confidence keeps creeping up and is now at its highest point since early 2015. While we are still NOK bears, we will continue to monitor these developments, as the NOK could become an attractive buy against other commodity currencies. Report Links: Updating Our Long-Term FX Value Models - February 17, 2017 Outlook: 2017's Greatest Hits -December 16, 2016 The Pound Falls To The Conquering Dollar - October 14, 2016 Swedish Krona Chart II-19SEK Technicals 1 SEK Technicals 1 SEK Technicals 1 Chart II-20SEK Technicals 2 SEK Technicals 2 SEK Technicals 2 Recent inflation numbers corroborate downside risk to the krona. Headline inflation dropped by 0.5% to 1.3% on an annual basis; Core inflation dropped by 0.3% to 1%. This is most likely a follow-through of February's producer prices contraction. This may justify the Riksbank's fear over deflationary risks, as inflation remains tamed despite increased economic activity. However, it is likely that this proves to be a temporary phenomenon, as manufacturing new orders expanded at 12% in February, while industrial production expanded at 4.1%. Given that the next monetary policy meeting is in July, it is too early to tell if the Riksbank will further pursue its dovish stance: inflation will need to be consistently underperform further for that to happen, which is still not our base case. Report Links: Updating Our Long-Term FX Value Models - February 17, 2017 Outlook: 2017's Greatest Hits - December 16, 2016 One Trade To Rule Them All - November 18, 2016 Trades & Forecasts Forecast Summary Core Portfolio Tactical Trades Closed Trades

Highlights This week, we provide one of our occasional updates on Commodities as an Asset class (CAAC), examining the strategic case for getting long commodity index exposure. Commodity index exposure is more highly correlated with inflation than equities or bond exposure, indicating commodities - and real assets generally - provide a better hedge against inflation than financial assets. A pure investment case for getting long broad commodity index exposure can be made if backwardation is expected in one or more of the components of a given index. Given our expectation for higher inflation, and our positioning for backwardation in the oil market, we recommend getting long the energy-heavy S&P GSCI index as a strategic portfolio position. Energy: Overweight. Deeper-than-expected production cuts from OPEC were reported by Reuters Tuesday, suggesting Cartel members are at 104% of pledged output reductions.1 Our $50/bbl vs. $55/bbl WTI calls spreads in Jul-Aug-Sep settled at an average of $3.06/bbl, and we are taking profits of 76.9%, per the upside $3.00/bbl stop we established for these positions on March 23/17. We also are taking profits on our Dec/17 vs. Dec/18 WTI backwardation trade basis tonight's close, after registering a gain of more than 700% when we marked to market earlier this week. We are keeping our long Dec/17 vs. short Dec/18 Brent backwardation spread open; it is up 426.3% since we recommended it on March 23/17. We are recommending a strategic long position in the energy-heavy S&P GSCI basis today's close. Given this commodity index's overweight to oil and refined products, we believe price appreciation will offset negative roll returns until crude markets go into backwardation later this year. We expect WTI and Brent to trade on either side of $60/bbl by year end. Base Metals: Neutral. Workers at Southern Copper's Toquepala and Cuajone mines struck Monday seeking higher wages and improved working conditions, according to Metal Report. Front-line copper on the COMEX has been chopping between ~ $2.50/lb and $2.70/lb since the beginning of the year through multiple strike actions. Precious Metals: Neutral. Gold rallied slightly, but our long volatility play still is down 14.7%. Markets do not appear to be overly concerned with Fed actions over the next couple of months. Feature There's a long-standing argument among equities investors as to whether they trade the stock market or a market of stocks. In the case of the former, getting long index exposure makes sense. In the case of the latter, stock pickers sensitive to the idiosyncratic risk of individual equities outperform the broad-exposure devotees. Sometimes, both are right at the same time. Commodities are no different. There are times when broad exposure to commodities is warranted - e.g., in the early stages of a global industrial rebound or when investors expect higher inflation. However, there are periods in which sensitivity to idiosyncratic risk reflecting different fundamental states for each market works best. And, as is the case with equities, there are times when both points of view can co-exist without contradiction. The relative performance of commodities vs. equities post-Global Financial Crisis (GFC) leaves much to be desired (Chart 1A and Chart 1B). The re-balancing of commodities generally, led by crude oil, but apparent in key base metals like copper, suggests the overall commodity down-cycle - with the exception of ags - has leveled out. Fundamentals - supply, demand and inventories - will be far more important for commodities going forward, particularly as the Fed pursues its rates-normalization policy and markets are slowly weaned off the excessive monetary accommodation they've seen in the post-GFC period. Chart 1ACommodities Were Competitive Pre-GFC, ##br##Post-GFC Underperformance Will Reverse Commodities Were Competitive Pre-GFC, Post-GFC Underperformance Will Reverse Commodities Were Competitive Pre-GFC, Post-GFC Underperformance Will Reverse Chart 1BCommodities Were Competitive Pre-GFC, ##br##Post-GFC Underperformance Will Reverse Commodities Were Competitive Pre-GFC, Post-GFC Underperformance Will Reverse Commodities Were Competitive Pre-GFC, Post-GFC Underperformance Will Reverse There are two global-macro considerations driving our expectation commodities will outperform the other major asset classes going forward, which we consider below. First, consistent with our House view and recent analysis from our Global Fixed Income Strategy (GFIS) service, we expect higher inflation, which already is being reflected in the forward CPI swaps markets. This could be exacerbated if oil supplies tighten on the back of massive capex cuts following the 2015 - 16 oil-price collapse, and if U.S. fiscal stimulus overheats an economy that already is at or near full capacity and full employment. Second, backwardation in crude oil markets will be a positive development for commodity index products generally, and the energy-heavy S&P GSCI in particular. Together, these fundamentals will provide investors portfolio diversification via non-correlated returns vis-à-vis the other asset classes. Higher Inflation Expectations Support Commodity Index Exposure We have been highlighting the inflationary "tail risks" in commodity markets for a number of months. These include the possibility of 1) higher oil prices after 2018, following the more-than-$1 trillion cuts in oil-and-gas capex in the wake of the 2015 - 16 oil price collapse; and 2) a large injection of fiscal stimulus to the U.S. economy from the Republican-controlled U.S. Congress working with President Trump's White House. The fiscal stimulus could become material next year, revving an economy that is at or near full employment and an output gap at or close to being closed.2 Our colleagues on BCA's GFIS desk note, "underlying U.S. inflation pressures remain strong, particularly given the evidence that conditions in the labor market are getting progressively tighter." While inflationary forces are a bit more subdued in Europe and Japan, our colleagues continue to favor being long CPI swaps in both markets (Chart 2).3 BCA's GFIS expects inflation expectations to rise to a level of ~ 2.5% p.a. on 10-year TIPS breakevens, which are priced off the CPI index. If markets do raise the odds of higher inflation over the medium term, it most likely will continue to show up in the 5-year 5-year (5y5y) CPI Swaps in the U.S. and Europe, which we have found to be cointegrated with 3-year forward WTI futures (Chart 3). The oil market will be especially sensitive to the supply-demand balances after 2018, and will move higher if it senses a supply squeeze from too-little investment in production following the massive cuts to supply-side capex. This will feed into the 5y5y CPI swaps markets, which, in turn, will drive TIPS yields higher. Chart 2Early Days Yet, But ##br##U.S. Inflation Pressures Are Building Early Days Yet, But U.S. Inflation Pressures Are Building Early Days Yet, But U.S. Inflation Pressures Are Building Chart 3Watch 3-Year Forward WTI Futures ##br##For Early Signs Of Higher Inflation Watch 3-Year Forward WTI Futures For Early Signs Of Higher Inflation Watch 3-Year Forward WTI Futures For Early Signs Of Higher Inflation Apart from active commodity positioning, commodity index exposure offers better inflation risk coverage than equities or bonds, as can be seen in Table 1.4 Chart 4 shows the out-performance of the commodity indices, the S&P GSCI in particular, in higher-inflation environments. Table 1Correlations Between Real And Financial Assets CAAC: Time To Get Long Commodity Index Exposure CAAC: Time To Get Long Commodity Index Exposure Our own modeling supports the academic findings. When we estimated the yoy S&P GSCI returns as a function of U.S. CPI yoy changes and the difference between 1st-nearby WTI futures (CL1) and 12th nearby WTI futures (CL12), we found this specification explained just over 84% of the commodity index's annual returns. Our model indicates the S&P GSCI can be expected to increase in value by close to 15bp for every 1% increase in U.S. CPI (Chart 5). This energy-heavy index - crude oil and refined products comprise more than half of the S&P GSCI - performs much better than the more evenly disbursed Bloomberg Commodity Index (BCI) as an inflation hedge. Chart 4Commodities Outperform In##br## Inflationary Markets Commodities Outperform In Inflationary Markets Commodities Outperform In Inflationary Markets Chart 5S&P GSCI Index Exposure ##br##Moves With Inflation S&P GSCI Index Exposure Moves With Inflation S&P GSCI Index Exposure Moves With Inflation Profiting From Backwardation Long-only commodity index products generate returns from three sources: Price appreciation; roll yield - the returns generated by selling and replacing futures contracts approaching their terminal trading date (the expiring contract in the index is sold and replaced by a contract with a deferred delivery); and on the collateral posted to carry positions. An investor with a strong view on prices can express it by getting long or short futures. When an investor wants to express a view on the structure of the market - chiefly the shape of the forward curve and whether it will be backwardated (prompt delivery costs more than deferred delivery), or in contango (prompt delivery costs less than deferred delivery) - they can do so either by trading spreads (buying prompt-delivered contracts vs. selling deferred-delivered contracts, and vice versa) or getting long commodity-index exposure such as the S&P GSCI or Bloomberg Commodity Index (BCI). Typically, long-only commodity-index products largest returns are generated via price appreciation and roll yield, which simply are returns generated by "rolling" the underlying futures contracts in the index as these contracts approach the termination of trading to a deferred month. In a backwardated market, prompt-delivered contracts are sold and replaced with lower-cost contracts. In contango markets the opposite occurs. Indexes with heavy concentrations in futures that are likely to be backwardated for a length of time are preferred to indexes with futures that, on a fundamental basis, are more likely to have a flat or contango term structure. We have been positioning for a backwardation in crude oil later this year for some time. We continue to expect backwardation in crude oil markets, and remain long Dec/17 Brent vs. short Dec/18 Brent to express this view. Given the very high concentration of energy exposure in the S&P GSCI index - more than half of the index is crude oil or refined products, according to S&P - this index is best-suited, in our estimation, to benefit from a backwardated oil market.5 Indeed, our modeling, shown in Chart 5, supports our view that backwardation would significantly boost performance in the S&P GSCI index: A 1% increase in the spread between 1st-nearby WTI vs. 12th-nearby WTI contracts likely would translate into gain in the index of slightly more than 1.14%. Bottom Line: We expect higher inflation and backwardation in the oil market later this year. For this reason, we are recommending a long exposure in the energy-heavy S&P GSCI index. Commodities outperform equities and bonds in inflationary markets. In addition, this index's overweight to crude oil and refined products suggests it will outperform when markets backwardate. Given we expect WTI and Brent prices to trade on either side of $60/bbl later this year, we believe price appreciation will offset minor roll-yield losses until markets backwardate. Robert P. Ryan, Senior Vice President Commodity & Energy Strategy rryan@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see "Exclusive: OPEC futures show oil output cuts exceed pledge in March - sources" published by Reuters.com on April 11, 2017. 2 Please see issue of BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report "Gold's 'Known Unknowns' And Fat Tails," dated February 23, 2017, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Research's Global Fixed Income Strategy weekly Report "The Song Remains The Same," dated April 11, 2017, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see Bhardwaj, Geetesh, Gary Gorton and Geert Rouwenhorst (2015), "Facts and Fantasies about Commodity Futures Ten Years Later*" published by Yale University. This article updates earlier research and notes, "In the original study we found that commodities had historically offered a risk premium similar to equities, and at the same time would provide diversification to a traditional portfolio of stocks and bonds. What set commodities apart from these traditional assets was their positive correlation with inflation. (Emphasis added.) Here we provide 10 years of additional data. Although a decade is sometimes too short to draw firm conclusions, our-of-sample period is rich because it includes a global economic expansion led by the industrialization of China, a housing boom and bust in the United States, the largest financial crisis since the Great Depression, followed by a monetary policy stimulus response which has driven interest rates around the world towards zero. ... Many of the basic conclusions of the original study continue to hold." (p. 22) 5 Please see "WTI Crude Oil Remains On Top As S&P Dow Jones Indices Announces 2017 Weights For The S&P GSCI," at http://ca.spindices.com/indices/commodities/sp-gsci, website for the index. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table The Game's Afoot In Oil, But Which One? The Game's Afoot In Oil, But Which One? Summary of Trades Closed In 2016

Highlights High Conviction Views: The global cyclical backdrop remains negative for government bond markets, and the recent declines in yields will not be sustained. We continue to recommend a below-benchmark overall duration stance, favoring U.S. corporate debt with underweight exposures to U.S. Treasuries and Italian government debt, as our highest conviction views. Medium Conviction Views: Staying overweight global inflation protection, French government bonds versus Germany, and Japanese Government Bonds (JGBs) versus the rest of the developed bond markets, while remaining underweight U.S. Mortgage Backed Securities, are recommendations that we hold with a more moderate conviction level. Euro Area Bond Distortions: The ECB's negative interest rate and asset purchase programs have created significant distortions in the German bond yield curve that are not as evident in the Euro Area swap rate curve, especially at shorter maturities. ECB tapering will be the trigger for a reversal of these trends. Feature Chart of the WeekWhy Are Yields Falling? Why Are Yields Falling? Why Are Yields Falling? After publishing two Special Reports in the past two weeks, this Weekly Report is our first opportunity to comment on the markets in April. We find it somewhat surprising that government bonds in the developed world have rallied as much as they have since the most recent peak last month, with the benchmark 10-year U.S. Treasury and German Bund seeing yield declines of -29bps and -22bps, respectively. Most of the move in Treasuries has been in the real yield component, while Bunds have seen a more even split between declines in real yields and inflation expectations. This has occurred despite minimal changes in actual growth or inflation pressures in either the U.S. or Europe (Chart of the Week). The price action in the Treasury market after last week's U.S. Payrolls report is a sign that the bond backdrop remains bearish. Yields initially fell all the way to 2.26% after the March increase in jobs fell short of expectations, before subsequently rebounding sharply to end the day at 2.38%. While intraday yield reversals on Payrolls Fridays are as typical as the sun setting in the west, a 12bp swing is one of the larger ones in recent memory (perhaps because investors eventually noticed the weather-related distortions in the data or, more importantly, that the U.S. unemployment rate had fallen to 4.5%). We continue to favor a pro-growth bias for bond investors, staying below-benchmark on overall duration and selectively overweight on corporate credit (favoring the U.S.). Ranking Our Current Market Views, By Conviction We have seen little in the economic data over the past few weeks to change our main strategic market views and portfolio recommendations. We summarize our main opinions below, ranked in order of our conviction level: Highest conviction views: Below-benchmark on overall portfolio duration exposure (for dedicated bond investors). Global bond yields have more room to rise alongside solid economic growth, tightening labor markets, inflation expectations drifting higher and central banks moving to slightly less accommodative monetary policies, on the margin. While the sharp upward momentum in coincident bond indicators like the global ZEW sentiment index has cooled of late, the solid upturn in the BCA Global Leading Economic Indicator continues to point to future upward pressure on real yields (Chart 2). The recent pullback in yields also appears to have run too far versus the trend in global data surprises, which remain elevated (bottom panel). One factor that we see having a potentially huge negative impact on global bond markets is the European Central Bank (ECB) announcing a move to a less accommodative policy stance later this year. A taper of asset purchases starting in 2018 is the more likely outcome than any hike in policy interest rates, which we see as more of a story for 2019. This should help push longer-dated bond yields higher within the Euro Area, and drag up global bond yields more generally. Underweight U.S. Treasuries. We still expect the Fed to deliver at least two more hikes this year, and there is still room for U.S. inflation expectations to rise further and put bear-steepening pressure on the Treasury curve. Our two-factor model for the benchmark 10-year Treasury yield, which uses the global purchasing managers index (PMI) and investor sentiment towards the U.S. dollar as the explanatory variables, indicates that yields are now about 18bps below fair value. From a technical perspective, the Treasury market no longer appears as oversold as it did after the rapid run-up in yields following last November's U.S. elections. The large short positions indicated by the J.P. Morgan duration survey and the Commitment of Traders report for Treasury futures have largely been unwound, while price momentum has flipped into positive territory (Chart 3). This removes one of the largest impediments to a renewed decline in Treasury prices, and we expect that the 10-year yield to rise to the upper end of the recent 2.30%-2.60% trading range in the next couple of months, before eventually breaking out on the way to the 2.80%-3% area by year-end. Chart 2Maintain A Defensive Duration Posture Maintain A Defensive Duration Posture Maintain A Defensive Duration Posture Chart 3Stay Underweight U.S. Treasuries Stay Underweight U.S. Treasuries Stay Underweight U.S. Treasuries Underweight Italian government bonds, versus both Germany and Spain. Italian government debt continues to suffer from the toxic combination of sluggish growth and weak domestic banks. The OECD leading economic indicator for Italy is declining, in contrast to the stable-to-rising trends in Germany and Spain (Chart 4). Meanwhile, the 5-year credit default swaps (CDS) for the major banks in Italy remain elevated around 400bps, in sharp contrast to the declining CDS in Germany and Spain which are now at 100bps. It is no coincidence that the widening trend in Italy-Germany and Italy-Spain spreads began around the same time last year that Italian bank CDS started to disengage from the rest of Europe (bottom panel). Markets understand that the undercapitalized Italian banking system will need government assistance at some point, which will add to the Italian government's already huge debt/GDP ratio of 133%. Political uncertainty in Italy, with parliamentary elections due by the spring of 2018 and populist parties like the anti-euro Five-Star Alliance holding up well in the polls, will also ensure that the risk premium on Italian bonds stays wide both in absolute terms and relative to other Peripheral European markets. Overweight U.S. corporate bonds, versus both U.S. Treasuries and Euro Area equivalents. The positive case for U.S. corporate debt is built upon two factors - the cyclical decline in default risk and the marginal improvement in balance sheet metrics. The latest estimates from Moody's are calling for a decline in the U.S. speculative grade corporate default rate to 3.1% this year. This leaves our measure of default-adjusted spreads in U.S. high-yield at levels that our colleagues at our sister publication, U.S. Bond Strategy, have shown to have a high probability of delivering positive excess returns over Treasuries in the next 12 months.1 Add to that the recent change in trend of our U.S. Corporate Health Monitor (CHM), which appears largely driven by some more positive numbers coming from lower-rated issuers in the Energy space given the recovery in oil prices, and the optimistic case for U.S. corporate debt is compelling. This is in contrast to our Euro Area CHM, which shows that the improving trend in balance sheet metrics has stalled of late (Chart 5, top panel). Chart 4Stay Underweight Italy Stay Underweight Italy Stay Underweight Italy Chart 5Stay Overweight U.S. Corporates vs Europe Stay Overweight U.S. Corporates vs Europe Stay Overweight U.S. Corporates vs Europe The difference between the U.S. and European CHMs has proven to be a good directional indicator for the relative return performance between the two markets, and is currently pointing to continued outperformance of both U.S. investment grade and high-yield debt versus European equivalents (bottom two panels). The threat of an ECB taper also hangs over the Euro Area investment grade corporate bond market, given the large buying of that debt by the central bank over the past year that has helped dampen both yields and spreads. Chart 6Stay Overweight Inflation Protection Stay Overweight Inflation Protection Stay Overweight Inflation Protection Medium-conviction views: Overweight inflation protection (both inflation-linked bonds and CPI swaps) in the U.S., Euro Area and Japan. In the U.S., the breakeven inflation rate on 10-year TIPS looks a bit too wide relative to our shorter-term model based on financial variables. However, underlying U.S. inflation pressures remain strong (Chart 6, top panel), particularly given the evidence that conditions in the labor market are getting progressively tighter. We expect inflation expectations to eventually rise back to levels consistent with the Fed's 2% inflation target on headline PCE inflation (which is around 2.5% on 10-year TIPS breakevens that are priced off the CPI index). The reflation story is somewhat less compelling in Europe and Japan, although CPI swaps are now at levels consistent with the underlying trends in realized inflation in both regions (bottom two panels). We continue to view long positions in CPI swaps in Europe and Japan as having a positive risk/reward skew given the tightening labor market in the former and the yen-negative monetary policies in the latter. Long France government bonds (10yr OATs) versus Germany (10yr Bunds). This is purely a call on the upcoming French election, which our political strategists believe will not end in a victory for the populist Marine Le Pen. While Le Pen has seen a recent bump in support heading into the first round of voting on April 23rd, her strong anti-euro position will eventually prove to be her undoing in the run-off election on May 7th (Chart 7). We first made this recommendation back in early February, and even though France-Germany spreads have been volatile since then as both Le Pen and the far-left candidate Jean-Luc Melenchon have seen a pickup in their poll numbers, the yield differentials are essentially at the same levels.2 We take this as a sign that the market believes current spreads are enough to compensate for the likely probability that either candidate could win the French presidency. Overweight JGBs Vs. the Global Treasury index. The argument here is a simple one - in an environment where there is cyclical upward pressure on global bond yields, favor the lowest-beta bond market (Chart 8). Persistently low inflation will prevent the Bank of Japan (BoJ) from making any changes to its current hyper-accommodative policies this year, especially the 0% cap on the benchmark 10-year JGB yield.3 The lack of yield limits the prospects for JGBs on a total return basis, but relative to other government bond markets, JGBs should outperform over the next 6-12 months as non-Japanese yields rise further. Chart 7Stay Overweight France Vs Germany Stay Overweight France Vs Germany Stay Overweight France Vs Germany Chart 8Stay Overweight Low-Beta JGBs Stay Overweight Low-Beta JGBs Stay Overweight Low-Beta JGBs Underweight U.S. Agency Mortgage-Backed Securities (MBS). Investors should remain underweight U.S. MBS, as spreads remain tight by historical standards. Our colleagues at U.S. Bond Strategy note that nominal MBS spreads have been flat in recent weeks as the option cost, which is the compensation for expected prepayments, has tightened to offset a widening in the option-adjusted spread (OAS).4 Chart 9Stay Underweight U.S. MBS Stay Underweight U.S. MBS Stay Underweight U.S. MBS We tend to think of the OAS as being influenced by trends in net issuance while the option cost is linked to mortgage prepayments (Chart 9). Looking ahead, the supply of MBS should increase further when the Fed starts to shrink its balance sheet later this year (as was mentioned in the minutes of the March FOMC meeting that were released last week), leading to a wider OAS. At the same time, refinancing applications should stay low as Treasury yields and mortgage rates rise. This will keep downward pressure on the option cost component of spreads. But with the option cost already near its historical lows, it is unlikely to completely offset the widening in OAS going forward. We see little value in U.S. MBS at current spread levels. Bottom Line: The global cyclical backdrop remains negative for government bond markets, and the recent declines in yields will not be sustained. We continue to recommend a below-benchmark overall duration stance, favoring U.S. corporate debt with underweight exposures to U.S. Treasuries and Italian government debt, as our highest conviction views. Staying overweight global inflation protection, French government bonds versus Germany, and Japanese Government Bonds (JGBs) versus the rest of the developed bond markets, while remaining underweight U.S. Mortgage Backed Securities, are recommendations that we hold with a more moderate conviction level. How Much Has The ECB Distorted The European Bond Market? Last week, Benoit Coeure of the ECB Executive Board gave a speech entitled "Bond Scarcity and the ECB Asset Purchase Program."5 That title piqued our interest, as that exact topic has come up in several of our conversations with clients this year. In his speech, Coeure discussed how the huge rally at the short-end of the German government bond curve over the past year has been at odds with what has occurred in the Euro swap curve, where interest rates are much higher for shorter-maturity swaps. Typically, German yields and Euro swap rates move in tandem, with the only differences being a function of technical factors like fixed-rate corporate debt issuance or government bond repo rates - and, on occasion, shifts in the perceived health of Euro Area banks that are the counterparties to any interest rate swap. The latter has become much less of an issue in recent years given the regulatory changes to the swap market, where trading has moved to centralized exchanges to reduce counterparty risks. In this environment, the difference between German bond yields and Euro swap rates, a.k.a the swap spread, should be relatively modest. Yet as can be seen in Chart 10, there has been a notable divergence at the shorter-maturity portions of the respective yield curves, where swap rates are rising but bond yields remain subdued. We can also see the divergences in the slopes of the relative yield curves, with the Euro Area swap curve much flatter than the German bond curve, particularly at longer maturities (Chart 11). Chart 10Large Distortions At The Front End Of The German Curve Large Distortions At The Front End Of The German Curve Large Distortions At The Front End Of The German Curve Chart 11Euro Area Swap Curves Are Generally Flatter Euro Area Swap Curves Are Generally Flatter Euro Area Swap Curves Are Generally Flatter Coeure argued that part of this distortion can be attributed to ECB asset purchases, especially after the decision taken last December to allow bond buying at yields below the -0.4% ECB deposit rate. This created a more favorable demand/supply balance for German debt, especially given the dearth of short-dated issuance. In addition, Coeure noted that there have been substantial safe-haven flows into shorter-dated German bonds (including treasury bills) by non-Euro Area entities. Some of this demand comes from large institutional investors like sovereign wealth funds and currency reserve managers, who are worried about political risks in France and Italy, and about the general rising trend in global bond yields, and are thus seeking the safety of low duration German debt. But some of the demand for short-dated German paper also comes from non-Euro Area banks, who have excess liquidity that needs to be parked in Euros but do not have access to the ECB deposit facility for the excess reserves of Euro Area banks. We can see this in Chart 12, which shows ECB data for the relative government bond ownership trends for Germany, France and Italy. The data is broken into holdings for bonds with maturities of one year or less (short-term) and bonds with maturities greater than one year (long-term). It is clear that the non-Euro area buyers own a much larger share of short-term German paper, around 90%, than in France and Italy, while Euro Area entities own nearly 80% of long-term bonds in all three countries. Coeure is correct in pointing out that there is an excess demand condition for short-dated core European debt, exacerbated by foreigners who need Euro-denominated safe assets - particularly GERMAN safe assets, if those investors are at all worried about redenomination risks given the rise of anti-euro populist parties in Europe.6 It is clear that the economic messages sent by looking at the German bond and Euro swap curves are very different. The flatter swap curve is more consistent with a steadily growing Euro Area economy where economic slack is being steadily absorbed and inflation pressures are building (albeit slowly). Also, the sovereign spread differentials within Europe do not look as problematic using swaps as the reference rate rather than German bonds. That is the case in France, where spreads versus swaps look in line with the averages of the past few years (Chart 13). This contrasts with the yield differentials versus Germany, which have reportedly gone up as investors have priced in a higher sovereign risk premium before the French presidential election. Chart 12French Bond Valuations Look More Subdued vs Swaps The Song Remains The Same The Song Remains The Same Chart 13French Bond Valuations Look More Subdued vs Swaps French Bond Valuations Look More Subdued vs Swaps French Bond Valuations Look More Subdued vs Swaps The story is a little different for Italy, where bond spreads versus both German bonds and Euro Area swaps have risen for all but the shortest maturities (Chart 14). This could be consistent with an interpretation that Italy's banking sector woes will add to the nation's longer-term fiscal stresses (as discussed earlier in this report), but not in a way that raises immediate default risks (which is why the 2-year Italy vs swap spread is well-behaved). Regardless of the "bias of interpretation", one thing that is clear is that the ECB's extraordinary monetary policies have created distortions in Euro Area bond markets. These may start to unwind, though, if the ECB begins to signal a shift towards a tapering of asset purchases next year, as we expect. The distortions in Euro area government bond yields (and, by association, swap spreads) have occurred alongside both the cuts in ECB policy rates into negative territory and the expansion of its balance sheet to purchase government bonds (Chart 15). As the ECB moves incrementally towards less accommodative monetary policy, we would expect to see front-end Euro swap spreads narrow in absolute terms and relative to longer-tenor spreads, and the German bond curve to flatten toward levels seen in the swap curve. Chart 14Only Short-Dated Italian Bond Valuations Look More Subdued vs Swaps Only Short-Dated Italian Bond Valuations Look More Subdued vs Swaps Only Short-Dated Italian Bond Valuations Look More Subdued vs Swaps Chart 15ECB Policies Have Caused The Distortions In Euro Swap Spreads ECB Policies Have Caused The Distortions In Euro Swap Spreads ECB Policies Have Caused The Distortions In Euro Swap Spreads Bottom Line: The ECB's negative interest rate and asset purchase programs have created significant distortions in the German bond yield curve that are not as evident in the Euro Area swap rate curve, especially at shorter maturities. ECB tapering will be the trigger for a reversal of these trends. Robert Robis, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Buy The Back-Up In Junk Spreads", dated March 14, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report, "Our Views On French Government Bonds", dated February 7, 2017, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "Staying Behind The Curve, For Now", dated March 21, 2017, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see BCA U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "The Payback Period In Corporate Bonds", dated April 11, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 5 http://www.ecb.europa.eu/press/key/date/2017/html/sp170403_1.en.html 6 Coeure noted that, at the time that the ECB began its asset purchase program in March 2015, the share of German bonds of less than TWO years maturity held by foreigners was 70%, but that rose to 90% by the 3rd quarter of 2016. The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index The Song Remains The Same The Song Remains The Same Recommendations Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

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

Portfolio Strategy Any meaningful weakness in the U.S. dollar could accelerate the budding recovery in corporate revenue growth after a multiyear malaise. Following this year's underperformance, lift the industrials sector to neutral via an upgrade in machinery stocks. The recent jump in auto parts stocks is a selling opportunity. Recent Changes S&P Industrial Machinery - Boost to overweight from underweight. S&P Construction Machinery & Heavy Trucks - Lift to neutral from underweight. S&P Industrials Sector - Remove from high conviction underweight and augment to neutral. Table 1Sector Performance Returns (%) Revenue Revival Revenue Revival Consolidation remains the dominant tactical market theme. The question is whether momentum behind the cyclical advance will fade at the same time? Our sense is that the overshoot will reassert itself once the corrective phase has run its course. Two weeks ago we updated a number of qualitative factors that suggested that a major market peak had not yet arrived, even though the rally is approaching retirement age and valuations are full. Other variables concur. For instance, while cash holdings are being depleted, they are not yet running on empty, gauging from survey data or depicted as a share of total market capitalization. Surprisingly, there are still a large number of bearish individual investors (Chart 1). Thus, drawing sidelined cash back into stocks at current stretched valuations and with buoyant expectations requires a resumption of top-line growth. Revenue growth has been conspicuously absent throughout the past few years of the bull market. Companies have supported per share profits through cost cutting and aggressive share buybacks, typically funded through debt issuance. Sustaining high valuations without reinvesting for growth is hard enough, but it becomes an even more onerous task without top-line expansion. There is room for cautious optimism. Deflation pressures have abated, and companies are enjoying a modest pricing power revival. As outlined in our regular industry group pricing power updates, the majority of sectors and industries are now able to lift selling prices, and an increasing number are able to keep pace with overall inflation. Our pricing power proxy has moved decisively back into positive territory (Chart 2), following a pattern typically reserved for when the economy exits recession. Even deflation in the chronically challenged retailing sector is ebbing. Chart 1Bears Still Have A Little Cash Bears Still Have A Little Cash Bears Still Have A Little Cash Chart 2Revenue Revival Revenue Revival Revenue Revival Importantly, both core inflation and inflation expectations remain well below the zone that would cause the Fed to tighten more aggressively than is currently expected (Chart 3). If financial conditions remain relatively easy, then business activity should stay sufficiently brisk to foster further pricing power improvement, i.e. a return to deflation is unlikely. The readings from both the ISM services and manufacturing sectors, and firming business confidence (Chart 2), indicate brighter revenue opportunities. The pickup in world trade volumes implies that goods and services are flowing more freely than they have for several years, and provided protectionist policies do not gain traction, a rebound in global growth should be supportive of total business sales. We doubt there is a vigorous top-line thrust ahead given that potential GDP growth around the world is limited, but modest growth is probable. If the U.S. dollar were to weaken substantially, especially if it occurred within the context of better economic growth abroad, then revenue upside would increase. Chart 4 shows that S&P 500 sales advanced significantly after the last two major U.S. dollar bull markets peaked. Chart 3The Fed Still Has Latitude The Fed Still Has Latitude The Fed Still Has Latitude Chart 4A Top-Line Boom ##br##Requires Dollar Depreciation A Top-Line Boom Requires Dollar Depreciation A Top-Line Boom Requires Dollar Depreciation In sum, the sales outlook has brightened, which is critical to absorbing the increase in labor costs and cushioning the profit margin squeeze. If investors begin to factor in sales-driven earnings growth, rather than buyback and cost cutting-dependent improvement, then it is plausible that the overshoot in stocks will be extended for a while longer. As outlined in recent weeks, the easing in the U.S. dollar allows for some selective bargain hunting in the lagging deep cyclical sectors, which have underperformed this year. This week we are prospecting in the industrials sector. The Wheels Are Turning: Upgrade Machinery Machinery stocks have been stronger than we anticipated. It is doubtful that an underweight position will pay off even if the broad market stays in a corrective phase. Many of the sales and earnings drags on the broad machinery industry, which comprises both industrial machinery and construction machinery & heavy trucks indexes, are lifting. Our primary concerns had been that the overhang from a lack of resource-related investment and a strong U.S. dollar would undermine sales performance (Chart 5). The former may not change much given poor resource balance sheet health, but the U.S. dollar has stopped appreciating. The currency bull market may have gone on extended hiatus if foreign growth continues to improve and the recent disappointing U.S. labor market report was the beginning of a period of economic cooling, as we expect. Despite the resilience of relative share performance, the machinery group is not overpriced based on a normalized relative forward P/E basis (Chart 5). A move to above average valuations requires an acceleration in relative profits. The objective message from our models has turned upbeat. Our Global Capital Spending Indicator has climbed back into positive territory. That primarily reflects the firming in global purchasing manager's surveys. G3 capital goods order momentum has not yet pushed above zero, but should soon recover based on our model (Chart 6). Chart 5Two Drags, But... Two Drags, But... Two Drags, But... Chart 6... Other Engines Are Revving ... Other Engines Are Revving ... Other Engines Are Revving Developing economies may soon participate to a greater degree, if the budding turnaround in long moribund Chinese loan demand gains traction (Chart 6). While China has begun to target a cooler housing market, the improvement in overall credit demand should provide an important offset. Other developing countries are easing policy and trying to spur growth, which should help machinery consumption. When global output growth recovers, machinery demand tends to demonstrate its high beta characteristics. Chart 6 shows that our global, excluding the U.S., machinery new orders proxy has jumped sharply in recent months, consistent with our global machinery exports proxy (Chart 6). While the previously strong U.S. dollar threatened to divert this demand to non-U.S. competitors, the playing field has leveled: U.S. machinery new orders have accelerated. The revival in coal prices is a major plus, given that the coal industry is a key source of domestic machinery demand (Chart 7, second panel). The new order jump, especially compared with inventories, bodes well for additional strength in machinery output (Chart 7, middle panel). Faster production should further propel our productivity proxy, which already suggests analyst earnings upgrades lie ahead (Chart 7). Better machinery sales prospects will add to the productivity gains already evident from cost control and capacity restraint. Chart 8 shows that machinery companies have had a clear focus on profit margin preservation. Headcount continues to contract, while inventories at both the wholesale and manufacturing levels are lean. Chart 7New Order Recovery New Order Recovery New Order Recovery Chart 8Lean Lean Lean There is corroborating evidence of tight supplies, as machinery selling prices are climbing anew even though factory utilization rates are not far off their lows (Chart 8). If demand strength persists, then additional pricing power upside is probable. All of this argues for making a full shift from underweight to overweight in the S&P industrial machinery group. This full upgrade does not extend to the S&P construction machinery & heavy trucks sub-component. Heavy truck sales are very weak, and the outlook for agriculture and food prices is shaky. Food commodity prices remain depressed (Chart 9), which will limit agricultural spending budgets. There is a high correlation between raw food price inflation and relative forward earnings estimates. Moreover, we remain skeptical that the resource industry is about to embark on a major expansion. Instead, only maintenance capital spending is probable, which is not conducive to driving a meaningful increase in construction machinery demand. It is notable that Caterpillar's machine sales to dealers continue to contract throughout most regions of the world. As such, chronic pricing power pressure will persist, keeping relative forward earnings under wraps (Chart 9). In sum, we are shifting our industrial machinery recommendation from underweight to overweight, to reflect the hiatus in the U.S. dollar bull market and firming in other leading top-line growth indicators. The S&P construction machinery & heavy trucks index only warrants an upgrade to neutral. These allocation changes argue for removing the overall industrials sector from our high-conviction underweight list, protecting the profit that accrued from year-to-date underperformance. From an industrials sector standpoint, it has paid to be skeptical of extrapolating the scale of the surge in leading sentiment indicators, such as capital spending intentions. However, enough evidence has now materialized to expect that the contraction in industrials sector relative forward earnings momentum should soon draw to a close. Core durable goods orders recently returned to growth territory, supporting the budding upturn in our Cyclical Macro Indicator (Chart 10). Both herald profit stabilization. Pricing power has rebounded, although capital goods import prices are still deflating, albeit at a lesser rate. Chart 9A Laggard A Laggard A Laggard Chart 10Our Models Have Perked Up Our Models Have Perked Up Our Models Have Perked Up Importantly, U.S. export price inflation is no longer lagging the rest of the world, suggesting that the U.S. manufacturers are regaining competitiveness (Chart 10). The upshot is that deflationary pressures are easing. Bottom Line: Lift the S&P industrial machinery index to overweight and the S&P construction machinery & heavy trucks index to neutral. We are also taking the industrials sector off of our high-conviction underweight list and raising allocations to neutral, partially to protect against a continued lateral move in the U.S. dollar. The ticker symbols for the stocks in the S&P construction machinery & heavy truck index are: BLBG: S5CSTF-CAT, PCAR, CMI. The ticker symbols for the stocks in the S&P industrial machinery index are: BLBG: S5INDM-ITW, IR, PH, SWK, FTV, DOV, PNR, SNA, XYL, FLS. Auto Components: Engine Trouble While we are upbeat on the broad consumer discretionary index and recently augmented restaurants to overweight, the niche S&P auto components index remains in the underweight column. Is such bearishness still warranted, especially following recent signs of life in share prices? The short answer is yes. Vehicle sales have plateaued and are unlikely to reaccelerate because pent-up demand has been fully exhausted and auto credit is harder to come by. Banks have started tightening the screws on auto loans. Auto loan delinquency rates are hooking up and charge-off rates have been rising sequentially since Q2/2016 according to the latest FDIC Quarterly Banking Profile. That reflects previous lax lending standards, especially in the sub-prime category. As credit availability dries up, auto loan growth will continue to deteriorate. Chart 11 shows that subprime auto loan originations have an excellent track record in leading light vehicle sales, given that they represent the marginal buyer. Moreover, rising interest rates are also denting affordability (Chart 11, bottom panel). All of this suggests low odds of renewed strength in vehicle demand. The last time vehicle sales flat-lined was in the middle of the last decade, from 2003 to 2007, share prices underperformed reflecting a relative valuation squeeze (Chart 11). Importantly, deflation has taken root in the auto industry and will likely intensify in the coming months. Auto factories are reasonably quiet, in sharp contrast with the recovery in overall industrial production (Chart 12). Chart 11Tighter Auto Loan Standards... Tighter Auto Loan Standards... Tighter Auto Loan Standards... Chart 12... Will Sustain Deflationary Forces ... Will Sustain Deflationary Forces ... Will Sustain Deflationary Forces The auto shipments-to-inventories ratio is probing multi-decade lows and car parts inventories both at the retail and manufacturing levels are beginning to pile up (Chart 13). Without a resurgence in vehicle sales, inventory liquidation pressures will rise, reinforcing the deflationary impulse and warning that industry earnings will likely underwhelm. Moreover, used car prices have nosedived. Used car prices tend to lead new car price inflation (Chart 12). Recent anecdotes of cutthroat competition in dealerships, with massive incentives failing to turn around sales, signal that deflation along the supply chain will likely become entrenched. Finally, international sales are unlikely to fill in the domestic void. Emerging markets (ex-China) automobile sales have been contracting, heralding an underperformance phase for the S&P auto components index (Chart 14, top panel). Chart 13Too Much Supply Too Much Supply Too Much Supply Chart 14No Global Relief No Global Relief No Global Relief There could be a respite if the U.S. dollar weakens substantially (Chart 14, second panel), but historically high relative valuations warn that optimism has already run ahead of the cloudy earnings outlook (Chart 14, bottom panel). Adding it up, auto demand will remain uninspiring as banks tighten their grip on auto loan lending standards, industry deflation is gaining steam owing to inventory accumulation, and there is no sizeable offset from foreign sales. This is recipe for an underweight position. Bottom Line: We reiterate our underweight stance in the S&P auto components index. The ticker symbols for the stocks in the S&P 1500 auto components index are: DLPH, GT, BWA, GNTX, DAN, DORM, LCII, CTB, CPS, THRM, AXL, FOXF, SMP, MPAA, SUP. Current Recommendations Current Trades Size And Style Views Favor small over large caps and stay neutral growth over value.

Highlights Small caps have not consistently outperformed large caps. However, the cyclical nature of small-cap relative performance may provide tactical timing opportunities. Index methodology plays a very important role in the behavior of small-cap performance. Currently, we recommend being neutral on size in a balanced global equity portfolio because risk/reward between small and large caps is balanced, and because GAA is overweight cyclicals versus defensives, a similar play but with a better risk/reward profile. Feature The Academic Evidence On Size Premium In academic research, the size premium, or the outperformance of small-cap common stocks relative to large-cap common stocks, has been calculated mostly based on the difference between the return of the smallest cap portfolio and that of the largest cap portfolio. Since the first academic paper that "discovered" the "size premium" in 1981, by Rolf Banz of the University of Chicago,1 a great deal of research has been devoted to this subject, both for and against the validity of the size premium.2 Table 1 comes from Asness et al.3 It summarizes the statistics of monthly size premium over time using the two most widely used zero-cost portfolio approaches to capture the returns to size. 1) The "small minus big" (SMB) stock factor return of Fama and French:4 the average return of three small portfolios minus the average return of three large portfolios obtained from Ken French's website;5 and 2) the return spread between size-sorted and market cap-weighted decile portfolios. The universe is all the stocks listed on the NYSE, AMEX and NASDAQ, including delisted securities from the CRSP (Center for Research in Security Prices) database. Table 1Size Premium Over Time* Small Cap Outperformance: Fact Or Myth? Small Cap Outperformance: Fact Or Myth? The size premium is statistically significant at the 5% level with a t-stat of 2.27 for SMB and 2.32 for D1-D10 for the full sample period from 19266 to 2012;7 However, most of the size premium comes from January, while in the rest of the year the size return is economically and statistically not different from zero; The size premium was not always positive over time, as evidenced during the period 1980-1999 when small cap suffered a 20-year underperformance right after the size premium was "discovered" in 1981. Compared to SMB, the more extreme approach, Decile 1 minus Decile 10, has produced a larger positive size premium (as well as a larger negative size premium in periods of underperformance), suggesting that micro caps, the most volatile segment of the market, may have a significant impact on the overall size premium. However, for non-quant practitioners, especially asset allocators, the portfolio approaches used in academic research may not be practical. In this report, we will study a series of small cap and large cap benchmark indexes in the U.S. and globally that are commonly used by practitioners to shed some light on the size premium and how it can be harvested, if it indeed exists. Not All Small-Cap Indexes Are Created Equal, Even In The U.S. There is no definitive definition of small cap. The general consensus is that it refers to companies with market value between US$300 and US$2 billion in the U.S., while in other markets this may vary. In the U.S., the first small-cap index, the Russell 2000 (R2K), was created in 1984, after the size premium was discovered in 1981 by Rolf Banz. While Banz was not sure if size per se was responsible for the effect or if size was just a proxy for one or more true unknown factors correlated with size, Fama and French published their ground breaking work in 19926 and 19934 confirming the existence of size and value factors. Then in 1994 the S&P launched its own small-cap index, the S&P 600. Chart 1U.S. Small Cap Performance Divergence U.S. Small Cap Performance Divergence U.S. Small Cap Performance Divergence Chart 1 shows that the performance of these two indexes has been quite different even though they have been highly correlated. Since December 1994, the S&P 600 has outperformed the R2K by about 50%-about 2% per year on a compound basis. From 1980 to 1994, however, the back-calculated8 S&P 600 significantly underperformed the R2K. So what has contributed to such significant performance difference between these two U.S. small-cap indexes? The answer may lie in the different methodologies used in constructing them. Different Universe And Size Distribution: FTSE Russell9 and S&P Dow Jones10 use different eligibilitFy conditions to define their respective universes for the U.S. equity market. Russell 3000 (R3K) contains the 3000 largest publicly traded companies in the U.S. by market cap. The smallest 2000 names go into the R2K, which currently accounts for about 8% of the R3K by market cap weight.11 The S&P 1500 contains the 1500 largest names, also by market cap, with the S&P 600 being the smallest 600 of these names, which account for less than 3.5% of the S&P 1500. Even though the stated target market-cap range is US$30 million to US$2 billion for the R2K, and US$450 million to US$2.1 billion for the S&P 600, respectively, currently about 50% and 40% of the companies in the R2K and the S&P 600 respectively have a market cap over US$2 billion, as shown in Chart 2. The R2K even has 25% over US$3 billion, about 15% more than the S&P 600. Different Sector Compositions: Both indexes' sector composition has evolved over the years due to changes in the economy and financial markets. Their current sector compositions are shown in Table 2. Most notably, the S&P 600 has higher weights in industrials and consumer discretionary, while R2K has higher weights in technology, financials, real estate and utilities. Chart 2U.S. Small-Cap Index Market Cap Distribution Small Cap Outperformance: Fact Or Myth? Small Cap Outperformance: Fact Or Myth? Table 2Canadian Small-Cap Index Sector Composition Small Cap Outperformance: Fact Or Myth? Small Cap Outperformance: Fact Or Myth? Global Small Caps Have Not Consistently Outperformed Large Caps MSCI also produces small-cap indexes for each country. According to the MSCI Global Investable Markets Index methodology,12 the size cut-off for each size segment needs to be a balance between the minimum size requirement and the target coverage range, in addition to other requirements such as liquidity and free float. As shown in Table 3, large caps comprise the top 70% of the investable universe, mid caps the next 15%, and small caps a further 14%. As of October 2016, the market-cap range for the DM small-cap index is from US$527 million to US$5 billion, and about half that for the EM small-cap index. Table 3MSCI Size Cut-Offs* Small Cap Outperformance: Fact Or Myth? Small Cap Outperformance: Fact Or Myth? MSCI indexes apply the same rules to all markets, which aids the global comparison analysis. Unfortunately, MSCI indexes have very short histories. Chart 3 shows the relative performance of small caps vs. large caps based on the MSCI indexes, and also local exchange indexes (where available). All panels are rebased to 1 as of March 2009 when the S&P 500 reached its low during the most recent financial crisis. The shaded areas are U.S. recession periods as defined by NBER. Several observations from Chart 3: U.S., U.K. and Japan have relatively long histories for the small-cap indexes. Based on the three countries' local indexes, small caps have barely outperformed large caps over the full history available; From the index inceptions until 1999, small-cap indexes broadly underperformed large caps in the U.S., U.K. and Japan, in line with the findings of the academic research shown in Table 1; Since 2000, however, small caps have outperformed large caps in most countries (in line with the academic findings shown in Table 1) with the exception of Canada and Australia, which both have extremely skewed sector composition. As shown in Table 4, a bet on Canadian small caps vs. large caps is essentially a bet on materials, real estate and industrials versus financials and telecoms; In the most recent cycle from March 2009, small-cap outperformance has been most prominent outside the U.S., especially in the U.K. and euro area. This might be due to the fact that the U.S. is the most academically researched market and that most small-cap funds are U.S. oriented. In the U.S., the MSCI and the S&P small-cap indexes have performed better than the Russell indexes, which is likely due to the fact that Russell does not have a midcap segment, with both the R2K and R1K including stocks that would elsewhere be classified as mid caps. Table 4Canadian Small-Cap Index Sector Composition Small Cap Outperformance: Fact Or Myth? Small Cap Outperformance: Fact Or Myth? Drivers Of Small/Large Cap Performance Even though small-cap stocks have not consistently outperformed large-cap stocks over the long run, Chart 3 indicates that the relative performance does have cycles, which may provide tactical opportunities for investors. In line with our investment approach across all asset classes, we try to identify the key factors that drive the relative performance of small caps versus large caps based on economic fundamentals, valuation metrics, and technical conditions. Economic Conditions: Compared to large-cap companies, small-cap firms are usually smaller-scale enterprises with a more domestic focus and less tried-and-tested business models. On average, they have less predictable cash flows, lower profit margins and lower credit ratings. As such, their ability to withstand hard times is lower, while their likelihood to prosper in good times is higher. Chart 4 (panel 1) shows that the rate of change in the small/large cap performance ratio has a good correlation with the PMI, indicating that stronger economic growth is indeed better for the more cyclically-oriented small-cap firms. Other factors such as credit spreads and small enterprise confidence also have good correlations with small/large cap performance in the most recent cycle, but historical correlations were much looser (panels 2 and 3). Chart 3Small Vs. Large Cap Performance Small Vs. Large Cap Performance Small Vs. Large Cap Performance Chart 4What Drives Size Performance? What Drives Size Performance? What Drives Size Performance? Valuation Metrics: Asness et al4 labelled 2000-2012 as the "resurrection" period for small-cap outperformance. Chart 4 (panel 4), shows that the first uninterrupted outperformance from 2000 to 2006 started at an extremely cheap valuation in 2000 when small caps were trading at a 36% discount to large caps, two standard deviations below the five-year average discount of 8%. The six-year uninterrupted outperformance was largely driven by relative valuation expansion such that by 2006, when the outperformance peaked, small caps were trading at a 20% premium, two standard deviations above the five-year average, which was a discount of 4%. The unwinding of the excessive valuation over the next two years brought the valuation metrics back to an extremely cheap level again in 2008, which kick-started another strong period of outperformance for small caps. However, since 2012 valuation has failed to expand even though small caps continued to outperform, albeit at a slower pace. This might be due to the fact that, on an absolute basis, small caps have been trading at a premium to large caps, and because valuation expansion became more difficult given how low small-cap profit margins have been (panel 5). Technically, based on our factor studies on momentum, a simple 12-month rate of change has generated positive alpha in a statistically significant way. We use the standardized 12-month rate of change of the relative performance ratio to gauge the relative momentum (panel 6) Portfolio Recommendation: Neutral On Size Over The Next 9-12 Months Chart 5There Is A Better Alternative There Is A Better Alternative There Is A Better Alternative The top panel of Chart 5 shows that the relative performance of global small caps versus large caps had a close correlation with cyclicals/defensives from 1995 to 2011, but that the two have diverged over the past five years, during which time small caps have outperformed large caps by 7%, but cyclicals have underperformed defensives by 4%, despite a strong reversal in 2016. This divergence could be explained by relative earnings growth, as shown in panel 2: small-cap earnings outpaced large-cap over the past five years, while cyclicals' earnings growth lagged defensives' until 2016 when a reversal occurred. Given our view on global growth and the historical correlation shown in panel 3, it's likely that cyclical earnings growth will further outpace the defensive earnings growth over the next 12 months. GAA's portfolio approach is to take risk where risk is most likely to be rewarded. We already have overweights on equities versus bonds at the asset class level, and on cyclicals versus defensives in our global equity sector positioning, on a 12-month investment horizon. As such, we do not feel comfortable adding a similar, but less rewarding, risk into our recommended global equity portfolio. In addition, current readings on the key performance drivers also support a neutral rating: as shown in Chart 4, both valuation and technical indicators are at the neutral level. The Global PMI is strong, but credit spreads are tight and small enterprise surveys in the U.S. and Japan are already at extremely optimistic levels. Xiaoli Tang, Associate Vice President xiaolit@bcaresearch.com 1 Banz, Rolf (1981), "The relationship between Return and Market Value of Common Stocks," Journal of Financial Economics, vol.6, 103-126 2 Van Dijk, Mathijs A, (2011), "Is size dead? A review of the size effect in equity returns," Journal of Banking and Finance, 35, 3263-3274. 3 Asness, Clifford S., Andrea Frazzini, Ronen Israel, Tobias Moskowitz and Lasse H. Pedersen, "Size Matters, If You Control Your Junk", AQR Working Paper, 2015. 4 Fama, Eugene F. and Kenneth R. French (1993), "Common Risk Factors in the Returns to Stocks and Bonds", The Journal of Financial Economics, vol 33, pp.3-56. 5 Kenneth R. French website: http://mba.tuck.dartmouth.edu/pages/faculty/ken.french/Data_Library/f-f_bench_factor.html 6 Fama, Eugene F. and Kenneth R. French (1992), "The Cross Section of Expected Stock Returns," Journal of Finance 47, 427-465 7 Fama, Eugene F. and Kenneth R. French (1993), "Common Risk Factors in the Returns to Stocks and Bonds," The Journal of Financial Economics, vol 33, pp.3-56. 8 S&P600 history before October 1994 was back calculated by Datastream, Russell 2000 history before 1984 was back calculated by FTSE Russell. 9 Please see "Construction and Methodology : Russell U.S. Equity Indexes, v.2.4," FTSE Russell, March 2017. 10 Please see "S&P U.S. Indices Methodology," S&P Dow Jones, March 2017. 11 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell_2000_Index 12 Please see "MSCI Global Investable Market Indexes Methodology," MSCI, Feb 2017.