Corporate Bonds

Highlights Recent market moves have been emotionally driven and speculative in nature. The risk is now that tighter monetary conditions risk crimping growth in the near term. Since 2014, whenever the 10-year Treasury yield has reached 2.5%, equity prices have corrected. This remains an important marker for when investors should begin to worry that the level of yields are moving into restrictive territory. Fiscal stimulus will be a positive development and could dominate the investment landscape for some time. But investors should not view it as a panacea for growth headwinds. Feature Investors continue to digest the ramifications of the new configuration in Washington. In this week's report, we answer the most frequently asked queries that we have received from clients. As always, please do not hesitate to contact us with yours. 1. How Has Your Forecast For Markets Changed Since November 9? We had been cautious on risk assets, we had been dollar bulls, and we had been advocating slightly underweight/neutral bond duration positions prior to the elections, as highlighted in the November 7 Weekly Report. Our cautious stance on equities, particularly large-cap stocks, has not changed. Our main worry has been that corporations continue to lack pricing power and top-line growth will struggle to grow meaningfully in 2017. In other words, profit margins are a headwind - as they often are at this point of the cycle (Chart 1). But contrary to past recoveries, persistent low growth means that top-line growth will not provide the same offset to a margin squeeze driven by rising labor costs (Chart 2). Chart 1Equity Market On Fire Chart 2Profit Margin Squeeze Intact For Now Our expectations have been for earnings growth to be in the mid-single digits in 2017, with risks to the downside depending on the degree of dollar strength. True, although the above profit outlook is rather uninspiring, it does not justify an underweight allocation to equities. Monetary policy is still accommodative and a recession is unlikely. However, as the Fed drains the punchbowl, volatility will increase as the onus of equity price appreciation falls heavily on profit drivers. Leading up to the election, we made the case that any adverse reaction to a Trump win would be very short and was not the main event for financial markets on a 6-12 month time horizon. Since November 9, there has been a strong, emotional reaction to the Trump win. Our first read of potential policy outcomes is that the "new America" will be far less business-friendly than equity prices are currently suggesting. The headwinds to multinationals from trade reform and immigration constraints may well offset any positive developments from deregulation in the financial and energy sectors. Most importantly, fiscal spending is positive to the extent that new projects and spending will boost top-line growth. But as we discuss below, the violent Treasury sell-off risks crimping growth before any fiscal spending kicks in. Moreover, so far gauges of policy uncertainty have stayed subdued, but that may change quickly, given the number of unknowns ahead and potential negative reactions from other countries to the new U.S. government. Taken together, we see no reason to upgrade our view on equities. For bonds, we had been expecting that the Fed would raise rates in December, because the economic and inflation data have been sufficiently strong relative to policymakers' thresholds to proceed with a rate hike. The bond market had not been fully discounting this outcome; our view was that the 10-year Treasury could move to 2% or slightly higher, due to the re-pricing of the Fed. Our models suggested that fair value on the 10-year Treasury was around 2% and so once bond yields got that level, a trading range would be established. Treasuries were overvalued for most of this year, and a symmetric shift to undervaluation could now occur. However, we have doubts that we have entered a new bond bear market. Market expectations for U.S. interest rates are rapidly converging to the Fed's forecasts. The rise in yields should pause once the gap has closed. Finally, we have been cyclical dollar bulls for some time. Our principle reason is due to the favorable gap in interest rate differentials between the U.S. and most other major currencies. We see no reason to change our dollar bullish stance. 2. Is Fiscal Spending Really The New Panacea? Our view can be summarized as: Curb Your Enthusiasm. Fiscal stimulus is a positive development. Since the early days of the Great Recession, monetary policymakers have been working alone. Monetary policy has become ineffective at boosting growth, and currency depreciation only shifts growth between countries, it does not create more. Fiscal spending is an opportunity to increase the "GDP pie." But as we wrote two weeks ago, the type of fiscal spending matters, a lot. Income tax cuts on high income earners as well as corporate tax cuts tend to have a low multiplier effect (well below 1), while direct spending by government, e.g. infrastructure outlays, tends to have a much higher multiplier (above 1). Equally important is the interest rate regime that coincides with fiscal stimulus. When an economy is near full employment and there is a risk that above trend growth will create inflation, central banks tend to react, and thus dull the force of the initial stimulus. That is the current economic scenario. The bottom line is that fiscal spending will give a fillip to GDP growth for a few quarters in late in 2017 and perhaps in 2018, but investors should be careful in assuming that fiscal spending will meaningfully change the long-term U.S. growth trajectory as it is not a solution for structural headwinds, such as an aging population. Chart 3Can The Economy Handle Higher Yields? 3. What Can We Monitor To Understand The Direction Of Policy With Trump As President? Cabinet appointments will be a key area of interest for financial markets. These personnel will ultimately help shape Donald Trump's policy path. There will likely be many rumors about potential appointments, but we believe it is best to ignore near-term noise and focus on Trump's announcements in December and the Senate's official appointments in January. 4. How High Can Bond Yields Get Before The Sell-off Becomes Economically Damaging? The economic backdrop has improved over the past two years and is much closer to full employment. Thus, underlying economic growth is better positioned to withstand a rise in yields. For example, better job prospects and security will allow prospective homeowners to better absorb higher mortgage rates. Still, investors should note that some equity sectors have already responded to the tightening. Chart 3 shows that home improvement stocks are underperforming significantly. What has changed is the greater role of the currency in overall monetary condition tightening. Indeed, the tightening in monetary conditions over the past twelve months has been principally due to the dollar rise. Our U.S. fixed income team's model of fair value for government bonds is based on global PMIs as a proxy for growth, policy uncertainty, and sentiment toward the U.S. dollar. The current reading suggests that 10-year Treasuries are fairly valued when at around 2.25%. Note that fair value has been moving higher in recent weeks on the back of better global economic news. Since 2014, i.e. the start of the dollar rally, whenever the 10-year Treasury yield has reached 2.5%, equity prices have corrected (Chart 4). We think this remains an important marker for when investors should begin to worry that the level of yields are moving into restrictive territory. Chart 4How Long Can Equities Shrug Off Rising Bond Yields? 5. Deregulation And Other Pro-Business Reforms Will Surely Spur Improved Business Confidence And Investor Animal Spirits? We are unsure. History has shown that periods of deregulation (the 1980s and 1990s especially) were conducive to high equity market returns and strong business growth, so this is indeed a positive factor. But there is a lot that can go wrong. Allan Lichtman, a political historian who has correctly predicted all of the past eight Presidential elections, is now predicting that Trump will be impeached within the next four years, due to previous improper business dealings. If that were to occur, we would expect market sentiment to be negative, closely akin to the Worldcom and Enron accounting scandals, which shook faith in the role of the public company CEO. One important gauge will be the global uncertainty index (Chart 5). Uncertainty leads to an increase in risk aversion, and can spur a flight into the safety of government bonds. So far, readings are benign, but should be monitored closely. Chart 5Beware A Rise In Uncertainty 6. What Are The Prospects For Fed Rate Hikes? We don't expect a major shift in the message from the Fed (i.e. the Fed dot plots) until monetary policymakers have better visibility on what the fiscal landscape will look like (Chart 6). Chart 6Fed Will Wait And See Janet Yellen's testimony last week indicates that a December rate hike is almost a certainty. However, there was no hint that the Fed is preparing for a more aggressive tightening cycle thereafter. Her assessment of the economy was balanced, noting that growth improved to 3% in Q3 from 1% in H1, but downplayed the full extent of the rebound due to a rise inventories and a surge in soybean exports. She described consumer spending to be posting "moderate gains," business investment as "relatively soft," manufacturing to be "restrained" and housing construction as "subdued." There was nothing to suggest that the Fed is revising its growth and inflation forecasts following last week's election. Yellen expects growth to continue at a "moderate pace" and inflation to return to 2% in the "next couple of years." Larger budget deficits would likely prompt the Fed to raise rates more aggressively, but for now, their bias is still to manage asymmetric downside risks. 7. Where Would You Deploy New Funds Today? Into cash. Recent market moves have been emotionally driven and speculative in nature. If the new American government succeeds in implementing a pro-business strategy of lower corporate taxes, increased infrastructure spending, a lighter regulatory burden for the financial services industry, while simultaneously avoiding any negative shocks from trade reform, foreign policy blunders, and general decline in economic and policy uncertainty, then perhaps the current risk-on market moves make some sense. However, that is a massive list, especially for a new President without political experience. In other words, markets have overshot and policy is likely to under-deliver. The risk is now that tighter monetary conditions risk crimping growth in the near term. 8. You Like Small Caps, But Are Cautious On High Yield Corporate Credit. These Two Markets Tend To Perform Similarly. Can You Comment? Historically, the absolute performance of small caps and high-yield corporate bond spreads have been tightly negatively correlated. This is because owning both investments tend to be considered a risk-on strategy. But over the past several years, this relationship has weakened and particularly, the correlation between high-yield corporate bond spreads and relative performance of small/large caps has loosened (Chart 7). This is in part because small cap sector weightings are now more closely aligned with large cap weightings. In other words, the S&P 600 index is no longer overly exposed to cyclical relative to the larger cap weightings. Chart 7Small Caps Are A Winner We expect small caps to outperform S&P 500 companies because they tend to have a domestic focus and will be more insulated from a rise in the dollar. As well, small caps, by virtue of being more geared to domestic growth, will benefit from ongoing better U.S. growth rates than global markets. Relative profit margins proxies favor small caps as well. 9. Is There A Structural Bear Market In Voter Turnout In The U.S.? A certain number of headlines have quoted a drastically lower turnout numbers for the 2016 election than in 2012. This has been reinforced by a theory of a structural downturn in voter participation. Both statements are incorrect. Early estimates for this year's election show that approximately 58.1 percent of eligible voters cast ballots, down from 58.6 percent in 2012.1 Note that these are just estimates. It is plausible that any decline in voter turnout in 2016 is due to the extreme unpopularity of both candidates (Chart 8). It is unlikely that this experience will be repeated in future elections. As for the longer-term picture, as Chart 9 shows that voter turnout had been, in fact, rising steadily since 2000. Chart 8Clinton And Trump Are Making (The Wrong Kind Of) History Chart 9Americans Like Voting, Just Not These Candidates 10. What Are Your Expectations For Upcoming Elections In Europe? A narrative has emerged in the financial industry since Donald Trump's victory and the U.K.'s decision to leave the EU: there is a structural shift towards anti-establishment movements. But we feel this is overstated. France is a case in point as Marine Le Pen, leader of the Euroskeptic National Front (FN), is reportedly enjoying a tailwind. To be sure, she can win the 2017 Presidential election, but her probability of winning has been inappropriately inflated following the U.S. election and, according to our Geopolitical experts, is approximately only 10%.2 Because Marine Le Pen is going to face off against an "establishment" candidate, she offers the alternative to the status quo that the French are seeking. But she is trailing her likely second round opponent, Alain Juppé, by around 40% in the polls. Le Pen is sticking to her negative views on the EU and euro membership. That is a formidable obstacle, since 70% of the French support the euro. The bottom line is that we do not believe that the U.S. election has had a meaningful influence on European voters. Developed nations across the globe are struggling with the same structural issues such as low growth and income inequality. It should not be surprising that common reactions and responses are occurring in various countries. Lenka Martinek, Vice President U.S. Investment Strategy lenka@bcaresearch.com 1 Please See "United States Elections Project," available at http://www.electproject.org/2016g. 2 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Will Marine Le Pen Win?," dated November 16, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com.

Highlights Trump's Win: The Republican sweep of both the White House and Congress in the U.S. elections will allow President-elect Donald Trump to implement much of his planned policies, including a major fiscal stimulus package. Trump Stimulus & The Yield Curve: Trump's proposed aggressive fiscal stimulus package will continue to put bear-steepening pressure on the U.S. Treasury curve. However, the future direction of global bond yields will be more influenced by the upcoming monetary policy decisions in the U.S. & Europe. Maintain a below-benchmark overall duration stance, while exiting curve flattening positions in the U.S. U.S. High-Yield: U.S. junk bond valuations have improved slightly in recent weeks, especially in light of an improving U.S. nominal growth outlook for 2017 that will reduce default risk to some degree. Upgrade U.S. high-yield allocations to below-benchmark (2 of 5) from maximum underweight. Feature Chart of the WeekTrump Turmoil For Bonds America has been treated to a pair of major shocking events over the past couple of weeks. The Chicago Cubs won baseball's World Series for the first time in 108 years. And now, Donald Trump - real estate tycoon, reality TV star, Twitter addict - has become the 45th President of the United States. In the aftermath of that stunning election victory, investors are being treated to one more shocker that seemed impossible even just a few months ago - rapidly rising bond yields. Trump's victory has not only changed the political power structure in the U.S., but has seemingly altered many of the familiar financial market narratives as well. The idea of "deficit spending" by the government to boost growth has not been heard for many years in Washington, but Trump has made it clear that a big fiscal stimulus is coming soon to America. He has laid out a combination of large tax cuts and infrastructure spending that could result in both a surge in U.S. Treasury issuance in the coming years and a more structural rise in inflation - again, developments that have not been seen in the U.S. in quite a while. The prospect of fiscal easing amid still-accommodative monetary conditions in the U.S., with the economy running at full employment, has sent Treasury yields surging back to pre-Brexit levels, wiping out six months of positive bond returns in the process (Chart of the Week). While many details are still to be worked out with regards to Trump's proposed fiscal policy shift, the markets have taken its pro-business tilt as a bullish sign for growth and a bearish sign for bonds. There is more scope for yields to rise in the near term, in the U.S. and elsewhere, with the Fed likely to deliver another rate hike next month and the global economy now in a cyclical upswing. Duration risk remains the biggest immediate threat for bond investors, and we continue to recommend a below-benchmark portfolio duration stance. A New Sheriff In Washington Chart 2Markets Cheer Trump 'Bigly' The consensus opinion among investors going into the U.S. election was that a Trump victory would result in considerable market turmoil. This was a reasonable argument, as Trump ran a disruptive, anti-status-quo campaign that, by definition, would be expected to generate far more changes and uncertainty than a victory by Hillary Clinton. Yet outside of a few shaky moments in the wee hours of Election Night as markets began to realize that Trump would win, the big bond-bullish/equity-bearish risk-off moment never arrived. Perhaps Trump's more conciliatory tone in his victory speech helped to calm investors' fears that his caustic campaign demeanor would continue in the White House. More likely, investors saw the results in the U.S. Congressional elections and realized that the Republican Party had won a clean sweep in D.C. that would allow Trump to implement many of his campaign promises. Markets have been rapidly pricing the potential implications of a Trump presidency into many financial assets (Chart 2), from bank stocks (which would gain from Trump's proposed rollback of the Dodd-Frank regulations on bank activities and, more importantly, from the impact of higher bond yields and a steeper yield curve on profitability) to the U.S. dollar (which would benefit from Trump's protectionist trade agenda through narrower U.S. trade deficits and stronger U.S. growth that would raise the future trajectory of U.S. interest rates). Higher-quality USD-denominated credit spreads have been surprisingly well behaved, given the moves higher in U.S. yields and the USD itself. This may reflect an optimistic belief that Trump's pro-business, pro-growth policies can offset the negative impact on corporate profits from higher yields and a stronger USD. Markets are right to assume that Trump can actually deliver on his economic agenda. A detailed analysis of the implications of the Trump victory was laid in a Special Report sent last week to all BCA clients by our colleagues at BCA Geopolitical Strategy.1 One of their main conclusions was that Trump's ability to enact his plans will not be hindered much by the U.S. Congress. Republicans now control both the House of Representatives and Senate after last week's elections and Trump has been strongly supported even by the small government fiscal conservatives in Congress. After delivering such a stunning victory for the Republicans, Trump shouldn't face much serious resistance to his economic initiatives. Investors are starting to price in the potential inflationary implications of a President Trump, with the 5-year inflation breakeven, 5-years forward from the U.S. TIPS market now sitting at 1.84%. This is still well below the Fed's 2% inflation target (after adjusting for the usual historical difference between the CPI used to price TIPS and the Fed's preferred inflation gauge, the PCE deflator, which is around 0.4-0.5%). This measure can keep moving higher over the medium-term, given the timing of Trump's proposed fiscal stimulus. Bottom Line: The Republican sweep of both the White House and Congress in the U.S. elections will allow President-elect Donald Trump to implement much of his planned policies, including a major fiscal stimulus package. The 1980s Called - They Want Their Economic Policy Back The U.S. economy is now showing few internal imbalances that would require wider government deficits as a counter-cyclical policy measure. The private sector savings/investment balance is close to zero, as the post-crisis household deleveraging phase has ended and corporate sector borrowing has skyrocketed in recent years (Chart 3, top panel). Also, measures of spare capacity in the U.S. economy like the output gap or the unemployment gap are also near zero (bottom panel), suggesting that any pickup in aggregate demand from current levels could trigger a rise in wage inflation and domestically-focused core inflation. Chart 3Deficit Spending At Full Employment: Back To The Future? The last time that such a combination of fiscal stimulus and full employment occurred was in the mid-1980s during the presidency of Ronald Reagan. Trump's plans for aggressive tax cuts and sharp increases in discretionary government spending do echo the policies of Reagan, who presided over one of the nation's largest peacetime run-ups in discretionary government budget deficits and debt (Chart 4). Perhaps there was a kernel of truth in the Trump/Reagan comparisons made during the election campaign! Chart 4Less Fiscal Space Than In The 1980s Clearly, a sharp run-up in federal budget deficits could have a much greater impact on longer-term interest rates and the shape of the yield curve, given the much higher starting point for federal debt/GDP now (74%) compared to the beginning of the Reagan presidency (26%). Especially given the potentially large budget deficits implied by Trump's campaign promises. Back in June, Moody's undertook an economic analysis of Trump's economic policies based on publically available information (i.e. Trump's campaign website) and their own assumptions based on Trump's campaign speeches.2 Moody's ran policies through its own U.S. economic model, which is similar to the forecasting and policy analysis models used by the Fed and the U.S. Congressional Budget Office. This model allows feedback from fiscal policy changes to the expected swings in growth and inflation and the likely shifts in monetary policy. The Moody's analysts used a variety of scenarios, ranging from full implementation of Trump's proposals3 to a heavily watered-down version if he faced a hostile Congress (which is clearly not the case now). We show the Moody's model forecasts for the U.S. Federal budget deficit as a percentage of GDP in Chart 5, along with the slope of the very long end of the U.S. Treasury curve. We also show the 10-year/30-year slope versus a measure of the Fed's policy stance, the real fed funds rate. According to Moody's, a full implementation of the Trump platform would push the U.S. budget deficit to double-digit levels by 2020, and would add nearly $7 trillion in debt over that time, pushing the federal debt/GDP ratio to 100%. The less extreme scenarios show smaller increases in deficits and debt, but the main point is that even if Trump implements only some fraction of his policies, the U.S. budget deficit will go up significantly during his first term in office. Looking at the historic relationship between the deficit and the slope of the Treasury yield curve, this implies that Trump's policies should put steepening pressures on the long-end of the curve as the bond market prices in greater Treasury issuance and higher future inflation rates. Of course, the bottom panel of Chart 5 shows that Fed policy also matters for the shape of the curve, and this is where the current debate over the Fed's next moves comes into play. Chart 5Trump's Deficits Will Steepen The Curve (Fed Permitting) The market is currently discounting a 70% probability that the Fed will hike at the December FOMC meeting, which has been our call for the past few months. The Fed has been projecting an increase next month and another 50bps of hikes in 2017, but these were forecasts made in the BT (Before Trump) era. The pricing from the Overnight Index Swap (OIS) curve shows that the market's expectations have started to shift upward towards the Fed's forecasts, in contrast to the BT dynamic where the Fed was having to cut its forecasts down towards the lower levels implied by the market (Chart 6). Will the Fed now look at the fiscal stimulus proposed by Trump as a reason to hike rates higher, or faster, than their latest set of projections? A big fiscal stimulus at full employment would certainly give the FOMC cover to raise its forecasts for growth and inflation, which would require a shift upwards in its interest rate projections. We do not expect that outcome at next month's FOMC meeting, as the Fed would likely want to see more specific budget details from the Trump administration in the New Year. More importantly, the Fed will want to avoid any additional strength in the U.S. dollar by moving to a more hawkish stance too soon, which would turn the dollar once again into a drag on U.S. growth, inflation and corporate profits, potentially disrupting financial markets. With the Fed unlikely to become more hawkish in the near term, the Treasury market will remain focused on the fiscal implications of Trump, placing bear-steepening pressures on the Treasury curve. For that reason, we are exiting our current Treasury curve flattener positions (2-year vs 10-year, 10-year vs 30-year) this week and moving to a neutral curve posture. We continue to maintain a below-benchmark stance on overall portfolio duration, as well as an underweight bias toward U.S. Treasuries within the developed market bond universe (on a currency-hedged basis). Treasuries are still not cheap, despite the recent run-up in yields, according to our global PMI model which incorporates variables for growth, U.S. dollar sentiment and policy uncertainty (Chart 7). Fair value has risen to 2.25% on the back of improving global growth and reduced uncertainty post-Brexit, with rising dollar bullishness providing a downward offset. Chart 6Markets Moving UP To The Fed Forecasts Chart 7USTs Not Yet Cheap If the Fed were to move too quickly to a more hawkish stance, dollar bullishness would increase and limit the cyclical rise in yields. At the same time, greater policy uncertainty under a new President could also limit yield increases although, as we have laid out above, the nature of the Trump uncertainty is not bond-bullish if it results in rising levels of government debt. For now, it is best to maintain a cautious investment stance until there is greater clarity on the U.S. policy front, while being aware that Treasuries are no longer as sharply undervalued as they were just a week ago. Looking ahead, this bond bear phase could end if the ECB announces an extension of its bond-buying program beyond the March 2017 deadline. As we discussed in a recent Weekly Report, the ECB will not be able to credibly declare that European inflation will soon return to the 2% target.4 This will force the ECB to extend the bond buying for at least another six months, with some changes to the rules of the program to allow for smoother implementation of future purchases. If, however, the ECB does indeed announce a tapering of bond purchases starting in March, bond yields will reprice higher within the main developed bond markets, led by rising term premiums (Chart 8). Given the global bond market's current worries about the inflationary implications of a switch away from extremely accommodative monetary policy to greater fiscal stimulus, a spike in yields related to a less-accommodative ECB could turn nasty fairly quickly. Chart 8A Dovish ECB Will Prevent A Deeper Global Bond Rout Bottom Line: Trump's proposed aggressive fiscal stimulus package will continue to put bear-steepening pressure on the U.S. Treasury curve. However, the future direction of global bond yields will be more influenced by the upcoming monetary policy decisions in the U.S. & Europe. Maintain a below-benchmark overall duration stance, while exiting curve flattening positions in the U.S. U.S. High-Yield: More Growth, Fewer Defaults In recent discussions with clients, many have asked whether the implications of Trump's pro-growth policies, coming at a time of a cyclical upturn in the U.S. economy and inflation, should provide a boost to corporate profits that will, by extension, reduce the default risk in U.S. high-yield bonds. Chart 9Higher Nominal Growth Is Good For Junk (During Expansions) Chart 10High-Yield Valuations Have Improved Slightly It is a valid question to ask, as the excess returns on U.S. junk bonds have been historically been higher during expansions when nominal GDP growth (currently 2.8%) has been 4% or greater (Chart 9).5 With real U.S. GDP growth likely to expand by at least 2.5% in 2017, with moderately higher inflation, nominal growth should accelerate to a pace that has historically been friendlier for junk returns. Chart 11Corporate Balance Sheets Are Still A Problem Of course, the state of the corporate leverage cycle matters too, and that remains the biggest problem for high-yield. We have been maintaining an extremely cautious stance on U.S. junk bonds over the past few months, as a combination of highly-levered balance sheets and unattractive valuations led us to expect an underwhelming return performance from junk, especially with a volatility-inducing Fed rate hike likely to occur by year-end. That has not been case, however, as junk spreads declined steadily as the summer turned to autumn and have been relatively stable during the U.S. election uncertainty. Our colleagues at our sister publication, BCA U.S. Bond Strategy, recently introduced a simple model to predict junk bond excess returns as a function of lagged junk spreads and realized default losses.6 That model had been predicting excess returns over the next year of close to zero, but at today's spread levels the expected excess return over duration-matched U.S. Treasuries during the next year is closer to 157bps (Chart 10). While this is not the usual return that investors expect from an allocation to high-yield, it is better than the previous model prediction. Given this slightly more attractive level of spreads, a bond market now more prepared for a Fed rate hike, and with the default risks potentially narrowing somewhat on the back of a better nominal growth outlook for 2017, we no longer see the case for a maximum underweight position in high-yield. We still have our concerns about the state of the corporate credit cycle, and the valuations have not improved enough to justify a move back to neutral (Chart 11). Thus, we are only moving our U.S. high-yield allocation to below-benchmark (2 of 5) from maximum underweight (1 of 5). We are maintaining our below-benchmark stance on Euro Area and Emerging Market high-yield within our model portfolio, in line with our stance on U.S. junk. Bottom Line: U.S. junk bond valuations have improved slightly in recent weeks, especially in light of an improving U.S. nominal growth outlook for 2017 that will reduce default risk to some degree. Upgrade U.S. high-yield allocations to below-benchmark (2 of 5) from maximum underweight. Robert Robis, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "U.S. Election: Outcomes & Investment Implications", dated November 9, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 https://www.economy.com/mark-zandi/documents/2016-06-17-Trumps-Economic-Policies.pdf 3 Aggressive income tax cuts, no changes to entitlement spending, increased defense outlays, and even the more controversial protectionist promises such as a 46% tariff on Chinese imports and the deportation of 11 million undocumented immigrant workers. 4 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "The ECB's Next Move: Extend & Pretend", dated October 25, 2016, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 5 Excess returns are the highest during low growth or recession periods, as this is when credit spreads are at their widest and companies are deleveraging and actively acting to reduce default risks. That is not the case at the moment. 6 Please see BCA U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, "Don't Chase The Rally In Junk", dated November 1, 2016, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com. The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Recommendations Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Highlights Duration: We continue to advocate a below benchmark duration stance, but the bond bear market is likely to take a pause once market rate expectations have fully converged with the Fed's forecasts. TIPS: The Fed will be reluctant to offset any inflationary fiscal impulse until TIPS breakevens have recovered closer to pre-crisis levels. Yield Curve: An upward re-rating of the market's assessment of the equilibrium level of monetary conditions is necessary for the curve to steepen further from current levels. Spread Product: Slightly wider spreads and a steeper yield curve make us marginally more positive on corporate bonds (both investment grade and high-yield). Conversely, the sharp rise in yields turns us more cautious on MBS. Municipal Bonds: A Trump presidency is full-stop negative for municipal bonds. Downgrade munis from overweight (4 out of 5) to underweight (2 out of 5). Feature We had expected any flight to quality related to a Donald Trump victory to be brief, but would never have anticipated how brief it actually was. Treasury yields declined for about four hours as the results came in on election night, but since midnight EST last Tuesday the bond bear market has been supercharged. BCA's fixed income publications have maintained a below benchmark duration stance since July 19 with a year-end target of 1.95-2% for the 10-year Treasury yield. The 10-year yield is now above our year-end target, as Trump's surprise victory caused investors to question many long-held assumptions. Chief among them is the thesis of secular stagnation - the idea that a chronic imbalance between savings and investment has resulted in an extremely depressed equilibrium interest rate. The secular stagnation theory has ruled the day in U.S. bond markets, but even Larry Summers, who popularized the theory in recent years, has admitted that "an expansionary fiscal policy by the U.S. government can help overcome the secular stagnation problem and get growth back on track." 1 The market has been quick to take on board President Trump's promises of massive debt-financed infrastructure spending, and is now questioning the idea of permanently low interest rates. While much uncertainty about President Trump still abounds, one thing for certain is that the path of Treasury yields next year and beyond will be determined by whether Trumponomics can successfully tackle secular stagnation. As of now, we are cautious optimists. Last week BCA sent a Special Report2 to all clients that describes the likely outcomes of a Trump presidency. One of those outcomes is that a sizeable fiscal stimulus will be enacted next year. In this week's report we explore its potential impact on bond markets and re-assess our U.S. bond portfolio in light of this surprise change in the economic landscape. Duration The expected path of future rate hikes has moved sharply higher during the past week (Chart 1). If we assume that U.S. monetary conditions reach our estimate of equilibrium3 by the end of 2019, then the shaded region in Chart 1 shows a range of possible outcomes for the federal funds rate based on different scenarios for the U.S. dollar. The upper-bound of the shaded region corresponds to the path of the fed funds rate assuming the dollar depreciates by 2% per year, while the lower-bound assumes the dollar appreciates by 2% per year. The market's expected fed funds rate path has shifted into the upper-half of the shaded region, which assumes the U.S. dollar will depreciate. The thick black line corresponds to the assumption of a flat dollar. Chart 1The Market's Rate Hike Expectations: Pre- And Post-Election Since the U.S. dollar is very likely to appreciate in the event that a Trump administration enacts growth-enhancing fiscal stimulus, it would appear as though the market's expected interest rate path is already too high. However, we must consider the possibility that large-scale government investment could shift the savings/investment balance in the economy and lead to a higher equilibrium level of monetary conditions or that the U.S. economy reaches monetary equilibrium more quickly under President Trump. In that event, Treasury yields still have room to rise. Chart 2Not Much Gap Between Market & Fed Similarly, the gap between market rate expectations and the Fed's median expected path has narrowed considerably, both at the long-end and short-end of the curve (Chart 2). The 5-year/5-year forward overnight index swap rate is now 2.05%, only about 80bps below the Fed's median estimate of the equilibrium fed funds rate. Meanwhile, our 12-month discounter - the market's expected change in the fed funds rate during the next 12 months - is already at 44bps. If there are no revisions to the Fed's interest rate forecasts at next month's meeting, then a level of 50bps on our discounter will be consistent with the Fed's expectations. This would be the first time the market and dots were lined up since 2014. The key point is that the balance of risks in the Treasury market has shifted. Prior to the election, Treasury yields had been under-estimating the potential for fiscal stimulus in 2017. Now, for Treasury yields to continue their move higher, we need to transition from a world where the Fed is continuously revising its interest rate forecasts lower to one where it is making upward revisions. To be clear, we do expect this transition to occur in 2017 but probably not during the next few months. Now that the Treasury market has reacted to the promise of fiscal stimulus, the next step is that it will demand to see some results. On that note, while Trump's infrastructure spending plan is assumed to be huge, at this point details are scarce. Further, our U.S. Investment Strategy service4 has pointed out that the effectiveness of fiscal stimulus depends critically on how well fiscal multipliers are working, and that estimates of fiscal multipliers can vary widely (Table 1). Table 1Ranges For U.S. Fiscal Multipliers Another risk to the bond bear market comes from a rapid increase in the U.S. dollar. Our modeling work shows that Treasury yields tend to rise alongside improvements in global growth (as proxied by the global manufacturing PMI), but that the impact of improving global growth on Treasury yields is dampened if bullish sentiment toward the U.S. dollar is also increasing (Chart 3). At present, the 10-year Treasury yield is very close to the fair value reading from our model, but the worry is that continued upward pressure on the dollar will cause the model's fair value to roll over in the months ahead. Another risk is the impact of a stronger dollar on emerging markets. A rebound in emerging market growth has contributed significantly to the strength in the overall global PMI since early this year (Chart 4). A strengthening dollar correlates with a weaker emerging market PMI (Chart 4, panel 2), and weakness on this front will weigh on the global growth component of our Treasury model. The possibility that President Trump will classify China as a "currency manipulator" once he takes office only exacerbates the risk from emerging markets. Chart 3Global PMI Model Chart 4EM Could Derail The Bond Bear Bottom Line: We continue to advocate a below benchmark duration stance, but the bond bear market is likely to take a pause once market rate expectations have fully converged with the Fed's forecasts. We therefore take this opportunity to book +35bps of profits on our tactical short December 2017 Eurodollar trade. Longer run, we expect Donald Trump will be able to deliver a sizeable fiscal stimulus package and that Treasury yields will be higher at the end of 2017. TIPS Chart 5TIPS Breakevens Still Depressed Our overweight recommendation on TIPS versus nominal Treasuries has also benefitted from Trump's win. The 10-year breakeven rate has increased +15bps since last Tuesday, but still has a long way to go before reaching levels that are consistent with the Fed hitting its inflation target (Chart 5). Trump's main economic policies - increased fiscal spending and more protectionist trade relationships - are both inflationary. The most likely candidate to derail the widening trend in breakevens would be a quicker pace of Fed rate hikes that offsets the inflationary fiscal impulse. We think a much more hawkish Fed policy is unlikely in the near term. With TIPS breakevens still so low the Fed will want to nurture their recovery toward pre-crisis levels. It is only once TIPS breakevens are much more firmly anchored at pre-crisis levels that the Fed will be enticed to significantly quicken the pace of hikes. Bottom Line: The Fed will be reluctant to offset any inflationary fiscal impulse until TIPS breakevens have recovered closer to pre-crisis levels. Remain overweight TIPS versus nominal Treasuries. Yield Curve We had been positioned in Treasury curve flatteners on the view that the curve would flatten in advance of a December Fed rate hike, much as it did last year. Trump's surprise win has steepened the curve dramatically, and today we close both our curve trades taking losses of -86bps on our 2/10 flattener and -42bps on our 10/30 flattener. The best determinant of the slope of the yield curve in the long run is the deviation from equilibrium of our monetary conditions index (MCI). The curve tends to flatten as monetary conditions are being tightened toward equilibrium and steepen when monetary conditions are easing away from equilibrium. Chart 6 shows a model of the 2/10 Treasury slope versus the deviation from equilibrium of our MCI. The model works well over both pre- and post-crisis time intervals, and the trailing 52-week beta between the slope of the curve and the MCI's deviation from equilibrium is in line with the beta estimated for the entire post-1990 time interval (Chart 6, bottom panel). Chart 6The Yield Curve & Monetary Conditions The curve had appeared too flat relative to fair value prior to last week's steepening, but now appears slightly too steep (Chart 6, panel 3). Since the dollar is unlikely to depreciate substantially and the fed funds rate is unlikely to be cut, the only way that the curve can continue steepening from current levels is if the market starts to revise up its assessment of the equilibrium level of monetary conditions. This is consistent with the dynamic we observed with the level of Treasury yields. Given the rapid moves we've seen in the past week, to be confident that further curve steepening is in store we need to forecast that Trump's fiscal measures will conquer secular stagnation and that the Fed will start revising up its assessment of the equilibrium rate. Much like with the level of Treasury yields, we are reluctant to bet on further steepening in the near term, before we have seen some action on Trump's fiscal policies. However, the steepening trade has gathered enough momentum at this juncture that betting on flatteners equally does not seem wise. Bottom Line: We advocate a laddered position across the Treasury curve at the moment, while we await clarity on President Trump's fiscal proposals. The Treasury curve has room to steepen further if sizeable fiscal stimulus is implemented next year. Spread Product In recent weeks we have advocated a maximum underweight (1 out of 5) allocation to high-yield and a neutral allocation (3 out of 5) to investment grade corporates, while also avoiding the Baa credit tier. This cautious stance on corporate debt was in place for two reasons. First, the junk spread had tightened in recent months despite a slight increase in the VIX and there was a sizeable risk that a Fed rate hike in December could prompt a spike in implied volatility, with a knock-on effect on spreads. Junk spreads have since widened to be more in-line with the VIX (Chart 7), and the much steeper Treasury curve tells us that the market is now less likely to consider a Fed rate hike in December - which we still expect - a policy mistake. Consequently, we are marginally less worried about a large spike in the VIX index that would translate into wider high-yield spreads. Second, high-yield spreads were simply too low relative to our forecast for default losses in 2017 (Chart 8). A model consisting of lagged junk spreads and realized default losses explains more than 50% of the variation in excess junk returns over 12-month periods.5 Previously, this model had predicted excess junk returns of close to zero, but today's spread levels are consistent with excess junk returns of +157bps during the next 12 months. Not inspiring by any means, but still better than nothing. Given the slightly better entry level for spreads and less near-term risk of a Fed-driven volatility event, we upgrade our allocation to high-yield from maximum underweight (1 out of 5) to underweight (2 out of 5). We maintain our neutral (3 out of 5) recommendation on investment grade corporates, but remove the recommendation to avoid the Baa credit tier. The past week's large increase in Treasury yields also leads us to downgrade our allocation to MBS from overweight (4 out of 5) to underweight (2 out of 5). The low level of option-adjusted spreads makes the long-term outlook for MBS uninspiring, but we had expected that the option cost component of spreads would tighten as Treasury yields moved higher (Chart 9). Now that Treasury yields have risen sharply and the option cost has tightened, we take the opportunity to adopt a more cautious outlook on the sector. Chart 7Spreads Re-Converge With VIX Chart 8Expect Low But Positive Excess Returns Chart 9Allocate Away From MBS Bottom Line: Slightly wider spreads and a steeper yield curve make us marginally more positive on corporate bonds (both investment grade and high-yield). Now that the MBS option cost has tightened in response to higher Treasury yields, the outlook for the sector is less inspiring. Municipal Bonds A Donald Trump presidency is full-stop negative for the municipal bond market. Further, as we highlighted in a recent Special Report,6 no matter the election result the outlook for state & local government health is likely to turn more negative in the second half of next year. Trump's tax cuts de-value the tax advantage of municipal debt and will drive flows out of the sector leading to wider Municipal / Treasury (M/T) yield ratios. We had been overweight municipal bonds since August 9, anticipating that a Clinton victory might provide us with a very attractive level from which to downgrade the sector heading into 2017. It was not to be, but municipal bond yields have still not quite kept pace with the sharp increase in Treasury yields, so we are able to downgrade today with M/T ratios not far off the low-end of their post-crisis range (Chart 10). In addition to tax cuts, Trump's infrastructure plan could also be a large negative for the muni market depending on how much of it is financed at the state & local government level. While the specifics of Trump's plan are not yet known, historically, most public infrastructure spending is financed at the level of state & local government (Chart 11). Another potential risk is that if large scale tax reform is on the table in 2017, then there is always the possibility that municipal bonds will lose their tax exemption altogether. At the moment it is difficult to assign odds to such an outcome. Chart 10Municipal / Treasury ##br##Yield Ratios Chart 11State & Local Government ##br##Drives Public Investment Bottom Line: A Trump presidency is full-stop negative for municipal bonds. Downgrade munis from overweight (4 out of 5) to underweight (2 out of 5). Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com 1 http://larrysummers.com/2016/02/17/the-age-of-secular-stagnation/ 2 Please see BCA Special Report, "U.S. Election: Outcomes And Investment Implications", dated November 9, 2016, available at www.bcaresearch.com 3 For further details on how we estimate the equilibrium level of monetary conditions please see U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, "Peak Policy Divergence And What It Means For Treasury Valuation", dated February 9, 2016, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Policy, Polls, Probability", dated November 7, 2016, available at usis.bcaresearch.com 5 For further details on this modeling framework please see U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, "Don't Chase The Rally In Junk", dated November 1, 2016, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 6 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, "Trading The Municipal Credit Cycle", dated October 18, 2016, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

Highlights Chart 1Targeting 2% The Fed did its best to avoid roiling markets so close to today's election, but still managed to hint at a December rate hike. The post-meeting statement was tweaked so that now only "some further evidence" rather than "further evidence" is required in order to lift the funds rate. We remain below benchmark duration in anticipation of a December rate hike. Before the end of the year we expect our 12-month discounter to reach at least 40-50bps (meaning the market will expect a further 1-2 hikes in 2017) from its current level of 28bps, and for the 10-year Treasury yield to reach 1.95-2%. While our global PMI model pegs fair value for the 10-year Treasury yield at 2.27%, the uptrend in the 10-year yield will face severe technical resistance as it approaches 2% (Chart 1). Positioning has already moved to net short duration, signaling that the bond sell-off is becoming stretched. While a Clinton victory would all but ensure a December rate hike, a Trump victory could cause a large enough market riot that the Fed delays until 2017. This would only be a brief hiccup in the return of the 10-year yield to the 1.95-2% range, and would not signal a long-lasting trend reversal. Feature Investment Grade: Neutral Chart 2Investment Grade Market Overview Investment grade corporate bonds outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by +56bps in October, but have already given back -26bps of those gains so far this month (Chart 2). The index option-adjusted spread is -2bps tighter than at the end of September and, at 136bps, it remains very close to its historical average. Corporate credit performance faces two immediate risks. The first is today's election and the second is the prospect of a Fed rate hike in December. A Clinton victory would likely prompt a knee-jerk rally in risk assets and virtually ensure a rate hike next month. In that case we would be inclined to further trim exposure to credit risk in the coming weeks as the rate hike approaches. Already, we recommend investors avoid the Baa credit tier within a neutral allocation to investment grade corporates. In a recent report we pointed out that highly-rated credit (A-rated and above) performed well in the initial stages of last year's run-up in rate hike expectations, but then started to suffer once market-implied rate hike probabilities approached 100%.1 Conversely, a Trump victory would likely prompt a flight-to-safety event in markets which, depending on its severity, could also cause the Fed to delay the next rate hike into 2017. In that event, the prospect of delayed Fed tightening would make us more likely to increase credit exposure in the near term, especially if any knee-jerk sell-off in risk assets creates better value in corporates. Table 3Corporate Sector Relative Valuation And Recommended Allocation* (Continued) Table 3BCorporate Sector Risk Vs. Reward* High-Yield: Maximum Underweight Chart 3High-Yield Market Overview High-Yield outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by +92bps in October, but has already underperformed the Treasury benchmark by -108bps so far in November. The index option-adjusted spread is +25bps wider since the end of September and, at 505bps, it is 16bps below its historical average. In a Special Report2 published last week we noted that while the default rate will not re-visit its previous lows (at least until after the next recession), it should decline from 5.4% to close to 4% during the next 12 months (Chart 3). However, even a slightly brighter default outlook will not be enough for junk bonds to sustain their current pace of outperformance. A simple model of lagged junk spreads and default losses explains more than 50% of the variation in 12-month high-yield excess returns. This model suggests that even with lower default losses, excess junk returns will be +264bps during the next 12 months (panel 3). The reason is that lower default losses are more than offset by the lower starting point for spreads. Junk spreads should also come under widening pressure in the very near term, as a December Fed rate hike spurs an increase in implied volatility. Maintain a maximum underweight allocation to high-yield and await a better entry point for spreads in the New Year. MBS: Overweight Chart 4MBS Market Overview Mortgage-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by +2bps in October, but are underperforming the benchmark by -7bps so far in November. Year-to-date, MBS have outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by a mere +22bps. Since the end of September, the conventional 30-year MBS yield has risen +23bps, driven by a +21bps increase in the rate component. The option-adjusted spread has widened +2bps, while the compensation for prepayment risk (option cost) has remained flat. Unattractive option-adjusted spreads and the prospect of further increases in issuance make for bleak long-run return prospects in MBS. However, the likelihood that Treasury yields will continue to rise in the near-term means that MBS could outperform due to a decline in the option cost component of spreads (Chart 4). We will likely reduce exposure to MBS once a December rate hike has been fully digested by the market, and the uptrend in Treasury yields starts to taper off. The Fed's Senior Loan Officer Survey for the third quarter, released yesterday, showed that banks continue to ease standards on GSE-eligible mortgage loans, while demand for these same loans continues to increase. The combination of easing lending standards and strengthening demand means that issuance is likely to continue its march higher, as does the persistent uptrend in existing home sales (bottom panel). Government Related: Overweight Chart 5Government Related Market Overview The government-related index outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by +5bps in October, but has already underperformed the Treasury benchmark by -9bps so far in November. The Foreign Agency and Local Authority sub-sectors drove October's outperformance, returning +24bps and +14bps in excess of Treasuries respectively. Domestic Agency debt outperformed the Treasury benchmark by +3bps, while Supranationals (-7bps) and Sovereigns (-10bps) both underperformed. After adjusting for differences in credit rating and duration, Foreign Agency and Local Authority bonds still appear attractive relative to investment grade U.S. corporate debt. Sovereigns, on the other hand, appear modestly expensive. We continue to recommend avoiding Sovereign issues while remaining overweight the other sub-sectors of the government related index. In a recent report,3 we observed that the performance of sovereign debt relative to equivalently-rated and duration-matched U.S. corporate credit tends to track movements in the U.S. dollar. As such, a continued bull market in the U.S. dollar will remain a significant headwind for sovereigns. At the country level, the only nations whose USD-denominated debt offers a spread advantage over Baa-rated U.S. corporate debt are Hungary, South Africa, Colombia and Uruguay. Unusually, bullet agency debt outperformed callable agency debt last month even though Treasury yields moved higher (Chart 5). Within Domestic Agency bonds, we continue to favor callable over bullet issues on the expectation that this divergence will not persist. Municipal Bonds: Overweight Chart 6Municipal Market Overview Municipal bonds underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by -12bps in October, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to -152bps (before adjusting for the tax advantage). The average Municipal / Treasury (M/T) yield ratio is largely unchanged since the end of September, and remains close to its post-crisis average. In recent months, trends in M/T yield ratios have fluctuated alongside the betting market odds for today's Presidential election. A Trump victory would cause yield ratios to widen sharply, as President Trump's promised tax cuts would substantially de-value the tax advantage in municipal bonds. We expect yield ratios to tighten in the event that Clinton prevails, as any expectation of a Trump victory works its way out of the price. Due to attractive yield ratios relative to recent history, we are inclined to remain overweight municipal bonds in the near-term. However, we will likely downgrade the sector if yield ratios move back to previous lows. As we detailed in a recent Special Report,4 historical lags between the corporate and municipal credit cycles suggest that municipal bond downgrades will start to increase in the second half of next year, alongside a deterioration in state & local government balance sheets. Further, state & local government investment spending is poised to move higher next year, regardless of the election result, leading to even greater muni issuance (Chart 6). Elevated fund flows have offset the impact of strong issuance this year, the risk is that they will not keep pace going forward. Treasury Curve: Stay In Flatteners Chart 7Treasury Yield Curve Overview The Treasury curve has bear-steepened significantly since the end of September. The 2/10 Treasury slope has steepened +16bps and the 5/30 slope has steepened +14bps. As a result, our two curve flattener trades have struggled. Our 2/10 Treasury curve flattener has returned -41bps since initiation on September 6. Our 10/30 Treasury curve flattener has returned -25bps since initiation on September 20. Our other tactical trade - short December 2017 Eurodollar - has returned +16bps since initiation on July 12. All three of the above tactical trades are premised on the view that the Fed will deliver a rate hike in December, and that such a rate hike has not yet been fully discounted by the market. At present, we calculate that the market-implied probability of a December rate hike is 62%, as discounted in fed funds futures. The historical pattern suggests the yield curve should bear flatten as the rate hike probability approaches 100%. Unusually, the correlations between both the 2/10 and 10/30 Treasury slopes and the level of Treasury yields have moved into positive (bear-steepening) territory (Chart 7). This is especially unusual for the 10/30 slope, where the correlation has been firmly in negative (bear-flattening) territory since 2013. We continue to recommend holding curve flatteners, and expect both correlations to revert into negative (bear-flattening) territory in advance of a December rate hike, as they did last year. Any surge in bullish dollar sentiment between now and December would only increase the flattening pressure on the curve (bottom panel). So far bullish dollar sentiment has remained relatively flat, but we cannot discount a large increase in the run-up to the next rate hike, as occurred last year. TIPS: Overweight Chart 8TIPS Market Overview TIPS outperformed the duration-equivalent nominal Treasury index by +112bps in October. The 10-year breakeven rate has increased +8bps since the end of September, and currently sits at 1.68%. The 10-year TIPS breakeven rate has increased substantially during the past couple months, and has now converged with the fair value reading from our TIPS Financial model (Chart 8). Rising expectations of a Fed rate hike and a flatter Treasury curve will weigh on TIPS during the next month, and we would not be surprised to see breakevens temporarily cease their uptrend as attention turns to Fed hawkishness following today's election. But we also expect that TIPS breakevens will resume their uptrend heading into next year. As we flagged in a recent report,5 the sensitivity of TIPS breakevens to core inflation has increased since the financial crisis. We posit that the reason for this increased sensitivity is that the Fed's ability to control long-dated inflation expectations has been impaired by the zero-lower bound on rates. As a result, the trend in breakevens is increasingly taking its cue from the realized inflation data. Realized inflation continues to trend steadily higher (bottom two panels), and diffusion indexes suggest that further gains are ahead (panel 4). Given that breakevens remain well below pre-crisis levels, we intend to remain overweight TIPS relative to nominal Treasuries and ride out any near-term volatility related to a Fed rate hike. ABS: Maximum Overweight Chart 9ABS Market Overview Asset-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by +10bps in October, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +101bps. Aaa-rated ABS outperformed the Treasury benchmark by +8bps on the month, while non-Aaa issues outperformed by +24bps. The index option-adjusted spread for Aaa-rated ABS has tightened -3bps since the end of September and, at 45bps, is considerably below its pre-crisis average (Chart 9). According to our days-to-breakeven measure, there still exists a valuation advantage in Aaa-rated auto ABS relative to Aaa-rated credit card ABS, but that advantage is rapidly evaporating (panel 3). We calculate that it will take 12 days of average spread widening for Aaa-rated auto ABS to underperform Treasuries on a 6-month horizon and 10 days of average spread widening for Aaa-rated credit card ABS to underperform. Moreover, credit card ABS exhibit superior collateral credit quality relative to autos. Credit card charge-offs remain near all-time lows, while the auto net loss rate appears to have bottomed (bottom panel). Further, the Fed's senior loan officer survey shows that auto lending standards have tightened for two consecutive quarters, while credit card lending standards were unchanged in Q3 following 25 consecutive quarters of net easing (panel 4). We recommend investors favor Aaa-rated credit cards over Aaa-rated auto loans within a maximum overweight allocation to consumer ABS. CMBS: Underweight Chart 10CMBS Market Overview Commercial Mortgage-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by +4bps in October, bringing year-to-date outperformance up to +194bps. The index option-adjusted spread for non-agency Aaa-rated CMBS has tightened -3bps since the end of September, and remains very close to its pre-crisis average (Chart 10). The Fed's Senior Loan Officer Survey for the third quarter, released yesterday, showed that banks continue to tighten standards on all classes of commercial real estate (CRE) loans (panel 3). The survey also shows that CRE loan demand continues to increase, though at a less rapid pace than in prior quarters. While CRE prices continue to march higher (bottom panel), tightening lending standards and a rising delinquency rate (panel 4) make us cautious on non-agency CMBS. Agency CMBS outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by +4bps in October, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +105bps. Agency CMBS still offer 56bps of option-adjusted spread. This is greater than what is offered by Aaa-rated consumer ABS (45bps) and conventional 30-year MBS (19bps) for a similar amount of spread volatility. We continue to recommend overweight positions in Agency CMBS. Treasury Valuation Chart 11Global PMI Model The current reading from our Global PMI Treasury model places fair value for the 10-year Treasury yield at 2.27% (Chart 11). This model is based on a linear regression of the 10-year Treasury yield on three factors, using a post-financial crisis time interval.6 The three factors are: Global Growth: Measured using the Global Manufacturing PMI (sourced from JP Morgan and Markit) Global Growth Divergences: Proxied by bullish sentiment toward the U.S. dollar (sourced from Marketvane.net) Economic Uncertainty: Measured using the Global Economic Policy Uncertainty Index (sourced from policyuncertainty.com) The correlation between the global PMI and the 10-year Treasury yield is strongly positive (panel 3). However, improving global growth is offset by any increase in bullish sentiment toward the U.S. dollar. For a given level of global growth any increase in bullish sentiment toward the dollar represents a drag on interest rate expectations. As such, bullish dollar sentiment enters our model with a negative sign (panel 4). The final component of our model - global economic policy uncertainty - captures changes in Treasury yields related to headline risk and "flights to quality". This factor enters our model with a negative sign - more uncertainty correlates with lower bond yields (bottom panel). Monetary Conditions And Rate Expectations The BCA Monetary Conditions Index (MCI) combines changes in the fed funds rate with changes in the trade-weighted dollar using a 10:1 ratio. Historically, economic downturns have been preceded by a break in this index above its equilibrium level - calculated using the Congressional Budget Office's estimate of potential GDP growth (Chart 12). Using assumptions for the time until the MCI converges with equilibrium and the annual appreciation of the trade-weighted dollar, it is possible to calculate the expected change in the fed funds rate for the cycle. The shaded region in Chart 13 shows the expected path for the federal funds rate assuming that the MCI reaches equilibrium at the end of 2019. The upper-end of the region corresponds to a scenario where the trade-weighted dollar depreciates by 2% per year and the lower-end of the region corresponds to a scenario where the dollar appreciates by 2% per year. The thick line through the middle of the region corresponds to a flat dollar. Chart 12Monetary Conditions Vs. Equilibrium Chart 13Fed Funds Rate Scenarios Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Dollar Watching", dated September 13, 2016, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, "Don't Chase The Rally In Junk", dated November 1, 2016, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Dollar Watching: An Update", dated October 25, 2016, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, "Trading The Municipal Credit Cycle", dated October 18, 2016, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 5 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Dollar Watching: An Update", dated October 25, 2016, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 6 For additional details on the model please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "The Message From Our Treasury Model", dated October 11, 2016, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification Corporate Sector Relative Valuation And Recommended Allocation Total Return Comparison: 7-Year Bullet Versus 2-20 Barbell (6-Month Investment Horizon)

Highlights U.S. Corporates: U.S. corporate debt, both Investment Grade and High-Yield, is fully priced for an improvement in economic growth and profits. Tight valuations offer no yield cushion before the expected December Fed rate hike. Maintain a defensive up-in-quality stance on U.S. corporates, favoring Investment Grade over junk. Euro Area Corporates: Euro Area corporate bonds are not as expensive as U.S. equivalents, but are by no means cheap. The likely extension of the ECB QE program until at least the latter half of 2017 will help keep valuations at rich levels, especially for Investment Grade issuers where the ECB is directly buying bonds. Stay defensive in Euro Area corporates, favoring Investment Grade over High-Yield. Feature Better Global Growth Not Necessarily Better For Corporate Bonds Back in July of this year, BCA put its flag in the ground and called an end to the 35-year global bond bull market after government bond yields hit historic lows following the shocking U.K. Brexit vote.1 Yields have steadily crept up since we made that declaration, due to a combination of changing cyclical factors (improving global growth, modest increases in inflation), some signs of diminished political concerns (no immediate global spillovers from a more drawn-out Brexit process, the fall in the odds of victory of the "anti-status-quo" candidate in the U.S. presidential election, Donald Trump) and structural factors (worries about less accommodative monetary policies, a political shift towards greater deficit-financed government spending). While government bond yields have been rising from depressed levels, corporate bond returns on either side of the Atlantic Ocean have at the same time lost considerable momentum, both in absolute terms and relative to sovereign debt (Chart of the Week). This is a bit of a surprise given the recent improvement in global growth data that is now appearing in a broadening number of countries (Chart 2), which would suggest a potential brighter outlook for corporate earnings. However, credit valuations and the liquidity backdrop matter, and a potential cyclical improvement in profits may not benefit corporate bond performance at a time of tight spreads and greater uncertainty about future central bank policies. Chart of the WeekIs The Party Ending For Corporate Bonds? Chart 2A Broadening Pickup In Global Growth With credit spreads currently priced for a near-perfect backdrop of low volatility and highly accommodative central banks, we continue to recommend an overall defensive posture in "Trans-Atlantic" corporate bonds, favoring Investment Grade (IG) over High-Yield (HY) in both the U.S. and Euro Area. Chart 3U.S. Corps Are Now ONLY A 'Tina' Trade U.S. Corporates: Stretched Valuations, Especially For Junk Bonds U.S. corporate bonds have been one of the biggest beneficiaries of the so-called "TINA" (There Is No Alternative) trade, where investors have been forced into riskier assets out of low-yielding government bonds. The return performance for both investment grade (IG) and high-yield (HY) debt has been outstanding, with the former up 8.2% year-to-date and the latter up +15.9%. The fundamental backdrop for corporate debt, however, has shown few signs of any improvement that would justify such strong returns, according to our U.S. Corporate Bond Checklist (Chart 3): 1.Corporate balance sheets are deteriorating: Our U.S. Corporate Health Monitor (CHM), an amalgamation of various bottom-up credit metrics applied to top-down corporate profit data, continues to signal that balance sheets are worsening. This trend has been ongoing for more than two years and shows no signs of slowing, with companies continuing to ramp up leverage to record highs at a time of increasing downward pressure on profit margins. 2.Bank lending standards are slowly tightening: The U.S. Federal Reserve's Senior Bank Loan Officer Survey has begun to flash that a greater number of U.S. banks are tightening lending standards on commercial & industrial loans. The net number is still low within the history of this series, and is largely the result of tightening standards on domestic energy companies suffering from the lower oil prices of the past two years. Nonetheless, the highly cyclical nature of lending standards suggests that a move back to easier standards may not happen at this advanced stage of the multi-year credit cycle. 3.Monetary conditions are tighter, but remain stimulative: Our U.S. Monetary Conditions Index (MCI), which is a weighted combination of short-term interest rates and the U.S. dollar, remains at an accommodative level, even after the 18% rise in the trade-weighted dollar since the trough in 2014 and the Fed's lone rate hike last year.2 Interest rates are far more important in our MCI calculation than the dollar (by a 10/1 ratio), however, so it would take an exceptionally large move in the dollar to push the MCI to restrictive territory after just a single 25bp rate hike. Yet with the Fed clearly in a slow hiking cycle that could deliver at least another 75bps of rate hikes by the end of 2017, the MCI will continue in a tightening direction that has historically been correlated with wider corporate bond spreads. With only an easy money backdrop supportive of narrower credit spreads, there is a growing risk that U.S. corporates could respond poorly to a December Fed rate hike that we expect - especially if that also coincides with renewed strength in the U.S. dollar. Already, the Fed's trade-weighted dollar index has risen by 3.2% during the recent Treasury market selloff, as the market-determined probability of a December hike has risen to 66%. This remains below the peaks seen in the run-up to the rate hike at the end of 2015, which coincided with a big widening of corporate credit spreads (Chart 4). One major difference from a year ago is that the Fed is not signaling the same degree of monetary tightening after the next hike. The FOMC median interest rate projections (the "dots") were indicating another 100bps of hikes following the December 2015 rate increase, and are now only signaling another 50bps of hikes after the Fed's expected next move in December. This is keeping both the 2-year Treasury yield and the dollar well below the peaks seen at the end of last year, helping prevent a breakout in market volatility and credit spreads. So if there is a fresh spike in volatility and/or the dollar, it would be striking the corporate credit markets at a time when valuations look stretched. We can see that in a number of indicators. U.S. corporate bond excess returns have far exceeded the levels suggested by domestic capacity utilization, which are relevant for corporates given their long-standing correlation to profit margins (Chart 5). Our colleagues at our sister publication, U.S. Bond Strategy, have calculated that a 0.4% improvement in capacity utilization has historically coincided with a 100bps tightening in HY bond spreads over a 1-year period; thus, utilization would have to rise to 77.2% by next February (a level last seen in March 2015 when the annual growth rate of Industrial Production was 2.5 percentage points faster than the current pace) to justify HY spreads at current levels.3 In other words, junk bonds are already priced for a significant recovery in U.S. economic growth and corporate profits. Chart 4U.S. Corps Not Responding To A Rising USD...Yet Chart 5Ignoring The Signal From Capacity Utilization U.S. corporate bond excess returns over duration-matched Treasuries during the past twelve months have been strongly positive: +316bps for IG and +844bps for HY. Our past work analyzing U.S. credit cycles has shown that such a positive return performance usually occurs during the deleveraging stage of the corporate credit cycle, typically during recessions when profits are falling and growth in company debt stalls or even contracts (Charts 6 & 7). Chart 6Investment Grade Corporate Annual Excess Return* Chart 7High-Yield Annual Excess Return* Chart 8Spreads Ignoring The Usual Credit Cycle The current environment is one of declining corporate profits but with debt growth still expanding, similar to the credit spread widening backdrop around the 2000 and 2008 U.S. recessions (Chart 8). This sends a similar message to the relationship of credit returns with capacity utilization, with corporate bonds now priced for a strong rebound in profit growth that may be difficult to achieve over the next year. A similar situation exists in the equity market, where the consensus bottom-up expectation is for overall profit growth to surge to +13% in 2017 and +11% in 2018.4 That would represent a sharp rebound from the profit declines witnessed in 2015 and the first half of 2016. Chart 9A Stretched Rally In U.S. Junk Some may argue that such a significant rebound in overall corporate earnings could happen just from the impact of better outlook for profits in the Energy sector given the recent recovery in oil prices. However, it appears that U.S. corporate bond valuations already more than fully discount a higher crude price. The 2016 rally in U.S. junk bonds has been led by the massive tightening of spreads of oil-related names, with the benchmark Bloomberg Barclays High-Yield Energy index returning 33% year-to-date as spreads have collapsed. However, the current Energy index OAS is at 550bps - levels last seen during the 2015 counter-trend rally in oil prices after the 2014 plunge (Chart 9, middle panel) That rally took the Brent crude price of oil up to $67/bbl, well above the current price hovering around $50/bbl. Our Commodity strategists continue to see $60/bbl as being the ceiling for the oil price range over the next year, as prices above that would begin to draw supply back into the market from U.S. shale companies and other global oil producers with higher break-even prices. Thus, U.S. HY energy debt already discounts an oil price that is unlikely to be achieved in the medium-term. A similar situation exists when looking at non-Energy junk spreads, which are highly correlated with macro volatility measures like the VIX index and which already fully reflect the current low volatility backdrop (Chart 9, bottom panel). We are concerned about a pick-up in volatility in the near-term from either a political surprise like a Trump victory on November 8 or, more likely, market jitters when the Fed delivers on a rate hike in December. With our fundamental VIX model, which is based off the lagged impact of rising corporate leverage and tightening monetary conditions, continuing to signal that the fair value level of the VIX is around 20, credit markets are not prepared for a potential rise in volatility in the next few months. Challenging Valuations At All Levels When we look at our various valuation gauges for U.S. corporate debt, it is difficult to find many areas where credit looks cheap. With regards to IG debt, our preferred measure of valuation is the 6-month breakeven spread, which shows how much spreads would need to widen to full offset the carry advantage of owning IG debt over duration-matched U.S. Treasuries, assuming spread volatility is maintained at recent levels. That breakeven spread now sits at a mere 9bps (Chart 10, top panel), well below the long-run mean. In other words, IG excess returns can easily turn negative with only a modest widening of spreads. For HY debt, our preferred valuation metric is the default-adjusted spread, where we subtract expected default losses estimated by our default rate and recovery rate models from the current junk spread. That adjusted spread is now only 69bps - a level more than one standard deviation below the long-run mean that we consider to be overvalued (bottom panel). With spreads at such depressed levels relative to expected default losses, the historical probability of junk delivering positive excess returns over the next year is extremely low. We see a similar stretched valuation backdrop when looking at credit spreads among sectors and ratings cohorts. Within the IG universe, the OAS for Financials, Industrials and Utilities have fully converged (Chart 11, top panel), while credit spread curves are near the tranquil 2005-2007 period of historically low volatility that we do not expect to be repeated (bottom panel). Within sectors, our U.S. IG relative value model only sees attractive spreads in the debt of Banks, Energy, Metals & Mining, Building Materials, Technology and Airlines. Chart 10Expensive Valuations, Especially For Junk Chart 11Not Much Difference To Choose From Here Bottom Line: U.S. corporate debt, both Investment Grade and High-Yield, is fully priced for an improvement in economic growth and corporate profits. Tight valuations offer no yield cushion before the expected December Fed rate hike. Maintain a defensive up-in-quality stance on U.S. corporates, favoring Investment Grade over junk. Euro Area Corporates: ECB Buying Keeping IG Rich While Junk Fundamentals Worsen Turning towards Europe, a similar story of expensive corporate credit valuations exists, although not to the same magnitude as in the U.S. Of course, valuations may not matter for Euro Area IG with the European Central Bank (ECB) buying corporate debt as part of their quantitative easing (QE) asset purchase program. That surge in QE buying (both real and anticipated by investors) helped drive both yields and spreads for Euro Area IG sharply lower between March and June of this year. Since then, however, both yields and spreads have gone up moderately (Chart 12), reflecting both the rising global yield backdrop and the worsening situation for Euro Area banks whose debt dominates the IG market. Chart 12Euro Area Corporate Bond Rally Has Stalled Chart 13Euro Area Valuations Are Not That Cheap The rise in Euro Area corporate credit spreads comes at a time when investors have grown increasingly concerned about a potential tapering of the ECB's QE when the current program expires in March of next year. As we discussed in our previous Weekly Report, we expect the ECB to announce in December an extension of the government bond QE to at least September 2017, likely with some additional changes to the rules of the QE program to avoid hitting any self-imposed purchase limits.5 This could help keep spreads anchored near current levels, all else equal. Of course, all else is never equal, and the liquidity story can be trumped by expensive valuations, as we currently see in U.S. junk bonds. Using the same metrics for U.S. IG and HY credit spreads that we presented earlier shows that both the breakeven spread for Euro Area IG, and the default-adjusted spread for Euro Area HY, are below the long-run mean (Chart 13). Euro Area junk valuations are not as stretched as U.S. junk valuations on this basis, but they are hardly cheap. A similar story exists when looking at Euro Area IG corporates grouped by credit rating, with spread curves looking as flat as the U.S. curves shown earlier (Chart 14). Our Euro Area IG sector relative value model (Table 1 on Page 11) is also showing a handful of sectors with comparatively cheap spreads, ranging from commodity-focused industries (Energy, Metals & Mining) to financial groups (Insurers, Banks). However, the "cheapness" in the latter likely represents some degree of risk premium on Euro Area banks, whose poor profitability and capital adequacy issues are now well known to investors. Euro Area bank spreads may stay cheaper for longer until those problems begin to be addressed. Chart 14Euro Area Credit Spread Curves Are Flat Table 1Euro Area Investment Grade Corporate Sector Spread Valuations One final note on the relative value between Euro Area and U.S. corporates: the bottom-up Corporate Health Monitors for both regions that we introduced earlier this year continue to show gaps favoring Euro Area IG over U.S. equivalents (Chart 15), and U.S. HY over Euro Area equivalents (Chart 16). The relative balance sheet trends are showing up in the relative investment performance across the Atlantic, with Euro Area IG starting to outperform U.S. IG, and Euro Area HY lagging the returns in U.S. HY. We continue to recommend allocations based on these relative valuation trends, keeping the lightest weighting on Euro Area junk bonds that score poorly on all relative balance sheet metrics. Chart 15Favor Euro Area IG Over U.S. IG Chart 16Euro Area Junk Is Unattractive Vs. The U.S. Bottom Line: Euro Area corporate bonds are not as expensive as U.S. equivalents, but are by no means cheap. The likely extension of the ECB QE program until at least the latter half of 2017 will help keep valuations at rich levels, especially for Investment Grade issuers where the ECB is directly buying bonds. Stay up in quality in Euro Area corporates, favoring Investment Grade over High-Yield. Robert Robis, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy/U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "A Note On The Long-Term Outlook For Global Bonds", dated July 27, 2016, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com and usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 A neutral reading of the MCI is the zero line is consistent with a U.S. economy without any output gap, growing at its potential rate, and with unemployment at full employment levels. 3 Please see BCA U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, "Don't Chase The Rally In Junk", dated Nov 1, 2016, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 4 Source: Thomson Reuters I/B/E/S 5 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "The ECB's Next Move: Extend & Pretend", dated Oct 25, 2016, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Recommendations Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Special Report

Highlights Defaults: The default outlook is improving alongside a brighter forecast for economic growth. The corporate default rate will fall from 5.4% to close to 4% during the next 12 months. Valuation: The low starting point for spreads means the risk/reward trade-off in junk bonds remains poor, despite a more encouraging default outlook. Strategy: In addition to a poor longer run risk/reward trade-off, the risk of a Fed rate hike in December makes us extremely cautious on junk in the near term. Maintain a maximum underweight allocation to high-yield and await a better entry point for spreads in the New Year. Feature This year's rally in High-Yield has been nothing short of impressive. The average spread on the Barclays High-Yield index has narrowed to 467bps from a February high of 839bps, and excess junk returns have now recovered all the ground lost since the mid-2014 peak (Chart 1). Chart 1Back In The Black When considering the potential for further spread tightening we first observe that, despite this year's rally, the average junk spread remains 144bps above the cycle lows reached in June 2014. However, the credit cycle is also two years older, corporations are more highly levered and the default rate has started to increase. The dramatic sell-off and subsequent recovery in the price of oil has also had a large impact on junk bond performance since mid-2014, but now that the average spread on energy debt is within 100bps of the overall index (Chart 1, bottom panel), its influence will be much smaller going forward. In this week's report we consider the potential for further junk bond outperformance through three different analytical approaches. We conclude that: Junk spreads already discount a significant improvement in capacity utilization Junk spreads do not adequately reflect the risks from higher implied equity volatility Although the outlook for default losses has improved, current spreads do not offer adequate compensation Growth Rebound Is In The Price As we anticipated,1 last Friday's preliminary Q3 GDP print exceeded expectations. Further, we expect that a number of headwinds which have held back U.S. growth in 2016 will give way next year, generating 2.5% - 3% real GDP growth in 2017.2 This should bode well for junk bond performance, except that a relatively large growth acceleration has already been incorporated into high-yield spreads. Of all economic indicators high-yield spreads correlate most closely with capacity utilization (Chart 2), which bottomed in March of this year shortly after the peak in junk spreads. But capacity utilization has not kept pace with the tightening in junk spreads since then. Historically, a 100bps tightening in junk spreads during a 12-month period has coincided with a 0.4% improvement in capacity utilization. This would suggest that even if junk spreads remain flat, capacity utilization should reach 77.2% by next February (Chart 2, bottom panel). While industrial production will continue to improve, in large part because of rebounds in the oil price and rig count (Chart 3), it will be difficult for any rebound to surpass the expectations that have already been baked into the high yield market. Chart 2Junk Spreads & Capacity Utilization Chart 3Drag From Energy Has Dissipated The Risk From Rising Vol Is Understated Another well-known correlation is between junk spreads and the VIX. As was observed by Robert Merton in 1974,3 corporate bond investors effectively bear the risk from equity investors who own portfolio insurance against downside tail risk (see Box). In other words, an increase in the price of volatility can be thought of as a transfer of default risk from equity holders to bondholders. Unusually, junk spreads have tightened during the past three months while the price of volatility (VIX) has risen (Chart 4). Box - Merton Model Of Corporate Debt Robert Merton pointed out that holding a corporate bond is equivalent to holding a risk-free security plus a short put option on the value of the assets of the corporation. For a corporation with zero default risk, the option is worthless and the bondholder owns a risk-free security. However, the closer a corporation comes to default, the put option (which the bondholder is short and the equity holder is long) increases in value. If the value of assets of the corporation falls below the value of the debt outstanding, then the equity holders are better off defaulting on the debt than repaying it. The act of defaulting on debt is analogous to exercising the put option in that the shareholders put the assets of the corporation to the debt holders rather than repay the debt. Higher volatility increases the value of this put option, effectively reducing the value of corporate debt relative to equity. In other words, higher asset price volatility increases the risk of default. Similarly, a drop in volatility makes default less likely and so increases the value of corporate debt. Although asset volatility and equity volatility are not identical, they are closely related. Therefore, declining equity implied volatility is positive for corporate bonds since it reduces the value of the implicit short put option embedded in corporate debt. This divergence is not sustainable, and the near-term risks clearly favor a convergence via wider spreads rather than a lower VIX. A Trump victory in this month's election would obviously surprise markets and prompt a flight to safety. But the polling data suggest this is a low probability event. More likely is that the VIX rises in anticipation of a Fed rate hike in December. This process could begin as early as tomorrow afternoon, if the Fed teases a December rate hike in the statement from this week's meeting. We anticipate a December rate hike and would expect investors to bid up the price of vol between now and then. As a rate hike becomes more likely, investors will become increasingly worried about a repeat of last year when a Fed rate hike precipitated a large sell-off in risk assets. The trend in equity volatility is also biased higher in the longer run. While it is impossible to accurately forecast all of the wiggles in the VIX index, its long-run underlying trend tends to be driven by corporate health and monetary conditions (Chart 5). Chart 4Higher Vol A Near-Term Risk Chart 5Long Run Vol Drivers Easier monetary conditions tend to reduce investor risk aversion and send the VIX lower. But easy money also encourages the corporate sector to take on debt. Initially, a virtuous circle is created between a lower VIX and a re-levering corporate sector. To the extent that corporate credit growth fuels aggregate demand, risk aversion will decline even further leading to even lower volatility. Eventually, the virtuous circle is broken when either monetary conditions are tightened or leverage increases so much that investors question the sustainability of corporate balance sheets. Chart 5 suggests that the current level of the VIX does not reflect the reality of tightening monetary conditions or deteriorating corporate balance sheets. Bottom Line: A sizeable improvement in capacity utilization and persistently cheap equity volatility are required to sustain junk spreads at current levels. A Brighter Outlook For Defaults Around this time last year we called the beginning of the default cycle,4 and our view remains that we are one year into a prolonged grind higher in corporate defaults. Typically, once corporate defaults start to trend higher they do not peak until the next recession and we do not expect this cycle to be any different. This is because firms tend not to engage in voluntary de-leveraging. Rather, they tend to continue to add leverage until the economy forces retrenchment upon them. One exception to this trend is the small increase and subsequent reversal in defaults that occurred in the mid-1980s (Chart 6). In this instance it was not an improvement in corporate balance sheets that caused the uptrend in defaults to reverse. Instead, it was a dramatic easing of monetary conditions that gave banks the necessary confidence to keep the credit taps open, despite worsening corporate health. This episode can be contrasted with the mid-1990s cycle when corporate health continued to deteriorate but monetary conditions did not ease. This resulted in a persistent grind higher in defaults. Chart 6Defaults Will Moderate Next Year, But Long-Run Uptrend Is Still Intact In our view, the current cycle has the most in common with the mid-1990s. Corporate balance sheets are deteriorating and no monetary relief should be expected with the Fed in the midst of a rate hike cycle, albeit a shallow one. However, the prolonged nature of the recovery also means that the rise in corporate defaults will also be shallow and drawn out, with some fluctuations around an upward trend. Chart 7The Reason For Low Recoveries On that note, we forecast that the default rate will moderate during the next twelve months. Our default rate model is shown in the top panel of Chart 6. This model is based on industrial production growth, corporate profit growth, times-interest earned and lending standards. We forecast that both industrial production and corporate profit growth will improve next year, in large part due to the end of the drag from falling oil prices. The red line in the top panel of Chart 6 shows the Moody's baseline forecast for future defaults. This forecast calls for the default rate to be 4.09% during the next 12 months, down from 5.4% during the past 12 months. This forecast is consistent with our own base case expectation that calls for a return to modestly positive growth in both industrial production and corporate profits (on the order of 5% annualized). The thick grey line in the top panel of Chart 6 shows what the default rate would be in a pessimistic scenario where industrial production and corporate profit growth are held flat at current levels. This forecast has the default rate rising to 6.5% during the next 12 months. In order to forecast default losses we also need a forecast for the recovery rate. In the past we have modeled recoveries using the output from our default rate model. This simple observation that recoveries tend to fall when defaults rise, and vice-versa, had been sufficient to capture the major swings in recoveries, but has not performed well during the current cycle (Chart 7). In fact, recoveries have lagged well below levels that would be expected given the number of corporate defaults we have seen. The reasons for the low recovery rate are not well known, but we have collected some bottom-up data that may offer a partial explanation. The bottom two panels of Chart 7 show the Tobin's Q and net debt-to-assets ratio for the bottom decile of firms in our sample going back to 1990.5 We note that the Tobin's Q - the ratio of market value to replacement value of a firm's assets - has fallen to recessionary levels. Meantime, while net debt-to-assets is in a clear uptrend, it does not appear stretched relative to the early stages of past default cycles. This suggests that low recoveries are not the result of too much debt being supported by too few assets, but are the result of a low market value being placed on the assets in question. More fundamentally, we suspect that low recovery rates are actually explained by the divergence between the monetary and credit cycles (Chart 8). In past cycles, Fed tightening has tended to occur alongside a deterioration in corporate health. However, in this cycle corporate balance sheet re-leveraging is well advanced compared to monetary tightening. If we accept the premise that defaults themselves are caused by tighter money and tightening lending standards, while recoveries are more related to the state of corporate balance sheets at the time of default, then it makes sense that recoveries would be lower in this cycle since corporate balance sheets had been aggressively levering-up for several years before monetary conditions began to tighten and defaults started to rise. Chart 8The Diverging Credit And Monetary Cycles In both our baseline and pessimistic forecasts we assume that the recovery rate increases somewhat (from 28% to 35%), but remains low relative to where we would expect it to be based on the default rate alone. Adding it all up, our base case scenario calls for default losses of 266bps during the next 12 months. This results from a default rate of 4.09% and a recovery rate of 35%. Our pessimistic scenario calls for default losses of 423bps during the next 12 months. This results from a default rate of 6.5% and a recovery rate of 35%. The Default-Adjusted Spread & Expected Returns Individually, neither the average junk spread nor future default losses offer much explanatory power when it comes to forecasting high-yield returns. Rather, it is the combination of both - the default-adjusted spread - that explains the bulk of variation in junk returns. The top panel of Chart 9 shows 12-month high-yield returns in excess of duration-matched Treasuries alongside the average option-adjusted spread from the Barclays index, advanced by 12 months. The chart shows that there is some correlation between today's average junk spread and excess returns during the following 12 months, but the correlation is very weak. Chart 9Default-Adjusted Spread Predicts Lower Excess Returns The second panel of Chart 9 adjusts the average junk spread by realized default losses. Here we see a much stronger correlation. In fact, the starting spread on the High-Yield index less realized default losses during the next 12 months explains more than 50% of the variation in excess junk returns. This means that with knowledge of today's junk spread and an accurate forecast of future default losses, we can have a reasonably good idea about what excess junk returns will be during the next year. The bottom panel shows the results of a regression of excess junk returns versus the default-adjusted spread. It also shows what the default-adjusted spread implies in term of excess junk returns using both our base case and pessimistic default loss scenarios. In our base case scenario where the default rate improves during the next year, excess junk returns are predicted to be close to zero. In other words, the anticipated improvement in defaults is not sufficient to offset the low level of starting spreads. In our pessimistic scenario, where the default rate rises to 6.5%, excess returns during the next 12 months are predicted to be deeply negative. Bottom Line: The default outlook is improving alongside a brighter outlook for economic growth, but wider spreads are still required to make the risk/reward trade-off in junk bonds attractive. Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Dollar Watching", dated September 13, 2016, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see The November 2016 Bank Credit Analyst, dated October 27, 2016, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 3 Merton, Robert C. 1974. "On the Pricing of Corporate Debt: The Risk Structure of Interest Rates." Journal of Finance 29, pp. 449-470. 4 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "The Rising Risk Of Corporate Default", dated October 20, 2015, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 5 We create a sample consisting of all the firms included in either the Barclays Corporate or High-Yield index (excluding financials) for which bottom-up data are available from Bloomberg. Data are retrieved on a quarterly basis and the sample is adjusted once per year based on changes in the composition of the Barclays indexes. The lowest sample size in any quarter is 53 firms, the largest is 101. On average, the sample size is 68 firms. Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

Highlights A poor fundamental backdrop for high yield is being offset by easy monetary conditions. A prolonged shallow uptrend in corporate defaults - and therefore spreads - is most likely. The relative performance of equities versus corporate credit has not been distorted by monetary policy: the high-yield debt market will remain a reliable indicator for equity market vulnerability. A December rate hike will not be problematic for the residential real estate market. Plenty of pent-up demand for housing exists, and this will provide long-term support, so long as the labor market remains robust. Feature High-yield (HY) corporate bond spreads have dramatically narrowed throughout 2016 (Chart 1). This trend should not go unnoticed, since beyond being an important asset class in its own right, we have long viewed the high-yield debt market as an early warning system for equities. The current message suggests an all-clear for stocks. Chart 1Dramatic Spread Narrowing In 2016, But... We have had a cautious stance on U.S. high yield since August 2015, based on the view that corporate balance sheet health has deteriorated to the point where defaults would continue to rise on a cyclical basis. This week, we explore whether this remains the right strategy, and also whether junk bond spreads are still a relevant leading indicator for the equity market. Our answer to both questions is: Yes. In our view, the HY comeback can be explained by three main factors. First, the recovery in energy-related junk bonds has led the rally, as rising oil prices have helped diminish the default risks among U.S. shale issuers. Second, the 2015 spike in junk bond yields - mainly due to contagion from energy-sector bankruptcy fears - created tactical value in high-yield. Throughout most of 2016, we have seen an unwinding of these previously oversold positions. And third, the high-yield market benefits from an ongoing and intense search for yield in a world of unattractive higher-quality interest rates. Looking ahead, the first two forces are unlikely to play much of a role in the outcome for junk bonds. Oil prices are likely to trade in narrow range, allowing energy-related company fundamentals to stabilize. The rally in junk bonds over the past several months has removed any perceived value in this sector. Thus, it is only the search for yield/accommodative monetary policy that still supports a narrowing in spreads. Over time, we believe junk bond performance will once again be aligned with balance sheet fundamentals, i.e. high-yield spreads will gradually widen. A Review Of Our HY Indicators Our fixed income strategists have developed three key indicators to gauge major turning points in corporate spreads (Chart 2): Corporate Health Monitor (CHM): An aggregate indicator of non-financial corporate balance sheet health. The CHM deteriorated further in the second quarter, and has reached levels that historically tend to only be seen during recessions. Of the indicator's six components, most of the weakness has occurred in measures of corporate profitability (Chart 3). One caveat is that our measure of leverage in the CHM remains low, but this understates the risks because it measures total debt as a percent of market value of equity. Leverage looks decidedly worse if measured using net debt/book value. Chart 2Key Corporate Credit Indicators Chart 3Corporate Health Monitor Components C&I bank lending standards: A Fed survey that measures how easy/difficult it is for the corporate sector to access bank loans. According to this gauge, banks have already been tightening credit conditions for the past three quarters. Deviation in monetary conditions from equilibrium: We use our Monetary Conditions Index (MCI), which incorporates movements in both the dollar and interest rates. Due to a very accommodative Fed, monetary conditions remain very easy according to this measure. At present, two of these three indicators are sending negative signals for corporate spreads. Our corporate health monitor is decidedly bearish, as are lending standards. Indeed, focusing on corporate balance sheets and fundamental credit quality metrics would almost unanimously lead investors to recognize that the credit cycle is in its late stages and to expect spreads to move wider. After all, spreads have widened in every episode of deteriorating balance sheet health since the mid-1990s. Or to put it more simply, a default cycle - leading to spread widening - has occurred each time that year-on-year profit growth has gone negative since 1984 (Chart 4). Chart 4Profit Contraction Spells Trouble For Junk Bonds Our Bank Credit Analyst service came to the same conclusion earlier this year. In a Special Report, our colleagues analyzed financial ratios for 770 companies from across the industrial and quality spectrum. Their work uncovered that the corporate re-leveraging cycle is far more advanced than is widely believed and that key financial ratios and overall corporate health look only mildly better excluding the troubled energy and materials sectors. Of course, there is an important salve this cycle at work and it is captured in our third indicator - monetary policy. As shown in Chart 2, easy monetary conditions have never persisted for this long and low rates have driven a colossal search for yield, causing high-yield bonds to become ever more divorced from fundamentals. This divergence between corporate bond spreads and balance sheet fundamentals is likely to persist for as long as monetary conditions remain supportive. Adding it up, a poor fundamental backdrop for high-yield is being offset by easy monetary conditions. This combination argues for a cautious long-term bias toward lower-quality corporate credit because a prolonged shallow uptrend in corporate defaults (and spreads) is most likely. Nimble investors may look to tactically buy junk bonds when spreads overshoot our forecast of default losses, although such an opportunity is not present at the moment (Chart 5). The equity market is suffering from the same dynamic. Chart 5No Value Here Will Junk Bond Yields Still Warn Of Stock Bear Markets? Junk bond yields have long been one of our early warning indicators for equity bear markets. Since the 1980s, junk yields (shown inverted in Chart 6) have consistently broken out to new highs 3-6 months before stock bear markets take hold. This is because in a typical cycle, junk yields tend to respond more quickly to an erosion in corporate health fundamentals and/or a credit event. Chart 6Junk Bonds Provide Early Warning For Stocks Chart 7Typical Behavior Here But, as we note above, in the current cycle, the reaction to worsening corporate health fundamentals has been far more subdued than historical relationships would have predicted, due to the salve effect of easy monetary policy. If corporate bonds are in a "bubble", does it mean that the behavior of junk bond spreads will no longer be an early predictor of stocks returns? We believe corporate bonds will still be a useful timing tool for equities. If equities are experiencing the same divorcing from fundamentals, courtesy of central bank largesse, then it stands to reason that what pops the bond bubble will also burst the equity balloon. The search for yield has affected the behavior of investors, and therefore returns, in a fairly systematic way. Due to the current extended period of ultra-low interest rates and central bank asset purchases, government bond prices have been pushed sky high (yields have sunk to rock-bottom lows). As a shortage of government bonds has taken hold, investors have sought to invest in "Treasury-like" products, first seeking out the safest corporate bonds, but eventually reaching further out on the risk spectrum to include high-yield bonds and (dividend yielding) stocks. Indeed, asset prices of all stripes have been distorted by the search for yield, which has fueled a broad inflation in all asset classes. The behavior of stocks relative to corporate bonds is telling (Chart 7). Since 2010, and until very recently, stocks outperformed junk bonds on a total return basis. Junk bonds outperformed investment-grade bonds over roughly the same period (although junk underperformed investment-grade in most of 2015 due to the collapse in energy prices and related energy company defaults). This is exactly what has occurred during every recovery phase since the 1980s. Over the past forty years, investment-grade bonds tended to outperform junk bonds and equities during economic recessions. Junk bonds beat equities during the early phases of recovery (i.e. when economic growth turns positive) and for as long as companies continue to repair balance sheets. And equity returns trump both investment-grade and high-yield corporate bonds when our Corporate Health Monitor is deteriorating, i.e. in the latter half of the economic cycle, such as now. This suggests that the relative performance of equities versus corporate credit has not been distorted by monetary policy. One key takeaway is that, although very easy monetary conditions mean that corporate credit performance is becoming divorced from fundamentals, monetary policy has had a similar effect on equity prices (we have written at length in past reports about equity market performance diverging from profit indicators). As in past cycles, once the monetary cover fades, it is most likely that corporate credit markets will once again respond most quickly to balance sheet fundamentals. The bottom line is that we believe the high-yield debt market will remain a reliable indicator for equity market vulnerability. The current message is that a bear market in stocks will be averted, although as we have written in recent reports, earnings disappointments amid dollar strength represent a potential trigger for a near-term correction. Housing Outlook: Room To Expand Over the past quarter, residential real estate data has been slightly disappointing. September housing starts slipped to the bottom end of the range that has held this year and are only marginally above year-ago levels. House price inflation, as measured by the Case Shiller index, is negative on a 3-month basis. Despite this mild disappointment, we continue to believe the housing market is a relative bright light and will continue to be a significant positive contribution to GDP growth. Most indicators show that the housing market continues to recover along the typical path of the classic boom/bust real estate cycle (Chart 8). Chart 8Housing And Its History Chart 9First-Time Homebuyers Entering The Market Moreover, both supply and demand conditions are supportive of further construction activity and upward pressure on house prices over the next several quarters. On the demand side, household formation and a pick-up in interest from first-time buyers are the largest positives. Household formation: The number of households being formed is the most basic measure of marginal new demand for housing units. Household formation was suppressed during the Great Recession and early recovery years, because very poor job prospects and restricted access to credit sorely limited prospective new households from entering both the rental and ownership market. From 2007-2013, the annual household formation rate was 625,000, compared to over 1.1 million in the pre-crisis period.1 Now that the unemployment rate is at 5% and job security is improving, household formation rates are accelerating, particularly among young adults who have hitherto delayed moving out on their own. Monthly numbers are choppy, but household formation could easily run on average at 1.1 million per year for the next few years, simply to make up for muted rates post-housing crisis. First-time buyers: After years of putting off purchases, first-time buyers appear to be finally coming back to the housing market (Chart 9). According to the National Association of Realtors, the proportion of first-time homebuyers for existing home sales has reached its highest mark since July 2012 (34%). But there is still room for this share to improve, as prior to 2007, first-time homebuyers averaged about 40% of total purchases. Once again, persistent income gains and job security will be the driving factors behind first-time homebuyers' decisions. Could a Fed interest rate rise slow housing demand? We don't think so. Mortgage payments relative to income will remain well below their long-term average even if rates are increased by 200bps, an extreme case scenario. Even under this scenario, housing affordability would still be above average, conservatively assuming that income is held constant (Chart 10). Income and employment prospects will continue to trump mortgage rates for consumers making housing decisions; the current employment backdrop is positive for continued housing market activity. Chart 10December Rate Hike Won't Bother The Housing Market Chart 11Supply Is Tight From a supply perspective, conditions remain ripe for more robust construction activity. As Chart 11 shows, the supply of new homes remains low both in absolute, and in terms of months of supply. The bottom line is that we do not fear that a December rate hike will be particularly onerous for the residential real estate market. Plenty of pent-up demand for housing still exists, and this will provide long-term support, so long as the labor market remains robust, as we expect. The recent soft patch in housing will give way to stronger home building activity in the coming months, helping to boost real GDP growth in 2017. Lenka Martinek, Vice President U.S. Investment Strategy lenka@bcaresearch.com 1 The State Of the Nation's Housing 2016, Joint Centre For Housing Studies of Harvard University http://jchs.harvard.edu/research/publications/state-nations-housing-2016

Highlights Global Duration: The current mix of rising government bond yields, bear-steepening yield curves and rising inflation expectations is not surprising, given reduced political uncertainty and greater perceived tolerance of higher inflation by central banks. Maintain a below-benchmark portfolio duration stance, favoring low-inflation countries (core Europe, Japan) over higher-inflation countries (U.S., U.K.). U.K. Gilts: The selloff in Gilts looks similar to the path followed by U.S. Treasuries after the Fed's quantitative easing programs, only with a much larger currency decline. Yields have more upside in the near-term, especially against bond markets with lower inflation pressures. Downgrade U.K. allocations to below-benchmark (2 of 5) and upgrade core European exposure by upgrading France to neutral (3 of 5). U.K. Corporates: The Bank of England's corporate bond purchase program has made valuations quite expensive in the sectors where the central bank has been most active. We continue to recommend an above-benchmark stance on U.K. Investment Grade corporates versus nominal Gilts, but focusing on sectors that still over some relative value (mostly Communications). Feature Chart of the WeekA Rough Couple Of Months For Bonds There is not a lot of love for government bonds right now. Yields continue to grind higher, led by rising inflation expectations and bear-steepening moves in the core Developed market yield curves at a time when bond durations are extremely elevated (Chart of the Week). Bond investors may be starting to worry about monetary authorities falling behind the inflation-fighting curve, particularly with the heads of some major central banks openly expressing tolerance of inflation overshooting policy targets. It remains to be seen if the markets will start discounting significantly higher inflation. Within the major Developed economies, only in the U.K. are market-based inflation expectations currently above the central bank target level ... and only then after a historic currency collapse that has already caused a surge in U.K. import prices. The more important point is that the monetary authorities seem almost happy (relieved?) to see inflation expectations finally moving up and are unlikely to be very aggressive in trying to stop that trend. Only in the U.S. is there talk of a monetary tightening in the near term and, even there, little has been promised after a likely December rate hike with some Fed officials talking about letting the U.S. economy "run hot" for a while. The time for bond investors to start worrying more about inflation is when central banks begin to worry less about inflation. Favoring the bond markets with the lower rates of inflation seems like a reasonable investment strategy to pursue in the current environment. Global Duration - Stay Below-Benchmark In our previous Weekly Report,1 we revisited the reasons behind our current below-benchmark duration recommendation that has stood since July. We concluded that the case for higher yields was still intact. An additional factor that we did not discuss, but which has also had a significant influence on bond yields this year, has been the rise of political uncertainty on both sides of the Atlantic. Between the U.K. Brexit drama, and the rise of the protectionist Donald Trump in the U.S. Presidential election, investors have had to worry more about political risk than in previous years. This uncertainty created massive safe haven flows into core Developed market bonds, helping drive yields down to secular lows (Chart 2). Chart 2Uncertainty Fading, Yields Rising Yet the shock of the Brexit vote has not resulted in any noticeable slump in global growth, with even the U.K. economic data starting to show some improvement of late (more on that in the next section). As investors have come to realize that the Brexit vote was having no material effect on global growth, the political uncertainty premium on global bond yields has unwound, with yields in the major Developed bond markets now back to, or even surpassing, the pre-Brexit levels. In the case of the U.S. election, the recent decline in Trump's polling numbers has coincided with the rise in U.S. Treasury yields (Chart 3). Given the significant changes to all aspects of the U.S. government that Trump has proposed (foreign policy, immigration policy, tax policy, etc), his campaign represents the "greater uncertainty" choice in the U.S. election. So as his polling numbers decline, so should any impact on U.S. Treasury yields from political uncertainty. While this is hardly the only factor influencing Treasury yields, it is one piece of the puzzle that has turned a bit more bond bearish of late. So with less political uncertainty weighing on bonds, investors can turn their focus back to the usual drivers of yields - growth, inflation and monetary policy expectations. The news is not very bond bullish on those fronts either. Global economic indicators are not pointing to any material slowing of growth, with the OECD leading economic indicators (LEI) currently in the process of bottoming out or increasing (Chart 4). While absolute growth rates are hardly booming in the Developed world, the cyclical upturn in many Emerging economies this year has been a positive surprise. If the Emerging LEIs are to be believed, this pickup in growth can continue into next year. Chart 3Trump Really Is The 'King Of Debt' Chart 4Signs Of A Global Growth Upturn Meanwhile, inflationary pressures are potentially appearing in some of the Developed economies, most notably the U.S. and the U.K. The end of the disinflationary shock from the oil price collapse in 2014/15 has played a large role here. However, measures of spare economic capacity like the output gap or the unemployment gap2 have narrowed considerably in the major Developed economies (Chart 5), so it is perhaps no surprise that inflation expectations are starting to move higher in some of the those countries. Against this backdrop where the world might be a bit more inflationary than has been the case over the past several years, these comments last week from two prominent central bankers may have set off some alarm bells for bond investors: Bank of England Governor Mark Carney: "We're willing to tolerate a bit of overshoot in inflation over the course of the next few years in order [...] to cushion the blow [from Brexit]." U.S. Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen: "[...] it might be possible to reverse these adverse supply-side effects [from a deep recession] by temporarily running a 'high-pressure economy,' with robust aggregate demand and a tight labor market." This comes on top of the Bank of Japan's decision last month to move to deliberately target an overshoot of the 2% inflation target in order to raise depressed longer-term inflation expectations. The central banks may have a tough time convincing the markets that they would tolerate much of a rise in inflation above the policy targets. Already, interest rate expectations embedded in money market yield curves have either priced out additional rate cuts or, in the case of the U.S., priced in some modest rate hikes (Chart 6). This pricing appears correct, in our view. Chart 5The Gaps Are Closing Fast Chart 6Rate Expectations Have Turned Less Dovish We still see the Fed delivering on another rate hike in December but, even then, the median FOMC projection is only calling for two more rate hikes in 2017 following one increase this year. In the case of the Euro Area, our base case remains that the European Central Bank (ECB) will not end its asset purchase program in early 2017, as currently scheduled, but will also not push short-term interest rates deeper into negative territory. In the U.K., our expectation is that the BoE will not provide any new stimulus (i.e. cutting the policy rate to 0% or extending the current asset purchase program beyond March of next year), but will not move to quickly tighten policy either, even with U.K. inflation surging and the Pound collapsing. Chart 7Inflation Expectations Are Moving First The Bank of Japan (BoJ) may try another interest rate cut in the coming months to try and help weaken the yen, but given its new policy of yield curve "targeting", we do not expect longer-term Japanese government bond (JGB) yields to move in response to a rate cut, if it does occur. Meanwhile, we expect no policy moves from the Bank of Canada or the Reserve Bank of Australia over the next six months, even though the domestic economy looks in good shape in the latter. We continue to advise keeping a below-benchmark stance on overall portfolio duration, as the global growth and inflation backdrop has become a bit less bond-friendly at a time when longer-term bond yields remain generally overvalued. In terms of our country allocation, we recommend below-benchmark exposure where inflation expectations are rising the fastest and are most likely to continue doing so - the U.S. and, as of this week, the U.K. (see the next section). We also continue to recommend favoring inflation-linked bonds/swaps in the U.S. and U.K. over nominal government debt. Finally, we advise neutral allocations to the markets where inflation expectations are farthest from the central bank targets: Japan and core Europe (Chart 7). Bottom Line: The current mix of rising government bond yields, bear-steepening yield curves and rising inflation expectations is not surprising, given reduced political uncertainty and greater perceived tolerance of higher inflation by central banks. Maintain a below-benchmark portfolio duration stance, favoring low-inflation countries (core Europe, Japan) over higher-inflation countries (U.S., U.K.). U.K.: Monetary Overkill From The BoE? U.K. Gilts have suffered major losses over the past couple of months, with the benchmark 10-year yield up +30bps since the BoE cut rates and introduced a new round of quantitative easing (QE) back on August 4th. Reducing the policy rate and ramping up QE should, in theory, be supportive for the Gilt market. However, the BoE's actions may be causing the growth and inflation backdrop in the U.K. to become very unfriendly for Gilts: Domestic economic data have improved sharply higher in the months after the June Brexit vote, with retail sales and manufacturing in particular showing large improvements, even as business optimism took a hit following the vote to leave the European Union (Chart 8); U.K. realized inflation has started to move higher in response to the collapse of the Pound and higher import prices, which now are rising at a positive annual rate for the first time since 2011 (Chart 9 & Chart 10). Chart 8What Post-Brexit Slump? Chart 9Blame The Pound For Rising U.K. Inflation This type of response from Gilt yields to a QE announcement is not unprecedented; a similar pattern unfolded after the Fed's QE announcements earlier in the decade. In Chart 11, we show a "cycle-on-cycle" analysis of the U.K. and the U.S. financial markets around past QE announcements. The dotted lines in all panels of the chart represent the equally-weighted average of the three Fed QE announcements (in 2008, 2010 and 2012), while the solid line is the current U.K. cycle. The vertical line in the chart represents the day of the QE announcement, so in this chart we are "lining up" the U.K. now with the U.S. back then. Chart 10BoE QE: Good For Corporates, Bad For Inflation Chart 11Gilts Following The Post-Fed-QE Playbook The conclusion from Chart 11 is that Gilts are behaving in a similar fashion to Treasuries after the Fed announced its QE programs. Yields rose almost immediately, led by a wider term premium and higher inflation expectations. The initial response was modestly bullish for the currency, but then that was quickly reversed as inflation expectations continued to rise. Risk assets like equities and credit performed very well in response to the QE. The biggest difference between the U.K. now and the U.S. then is the magnitude of the currency decline. The Pound has fallen -17% since the Brexit vote, and the decline has accelerated in recent weeks on the back of increased worries about a possible "hard Brexit" - a more protectionist outcome than was originally feared after the June vote. With the U.K. having a massive current account deficit (-5.7% of GDP), any news that could stall capital inflows into the U.K. (like worries about greater protectionism) can trigger an outsized currency decline. With the Pound unlikely to rebound in the near-term, the inflationary effects of the weaker currency can continue to feed through into both realized and expected inflation. Already, the 10yr U.K. CPI swap rate has risen to 3.6% - the high end of the range of the post-2008 crisis era. We have recommended favoring inflation-linked Gilts over nominal Gilts since the BoE's QE announcement in August, and we continue to recommend owning U.K. inflation protection. If Gilts continue to follow the post-Fed-QE playbook shown in Chart 11, then Gilt yields will likely to rise until the end of the year. Chart 12Gilt Underperformance Will Continue We have maintained an overweight stance on Gilts since the BoE announcement, as we had expected the QE effect on the supply/demand balance in the Gilt market to dominate via an even more depressed Gilt term premium. A strong possibility of a final BoE rate cut to 0% was also a reason to favor Gilts over other Developed economy government bonds. But with the Pound continuing to plunge and inflation expectations soaring, and with little sign of a big downturn in the U.K. economy, it is difficult to argue that the BoE needs to easy policy again. Even if they did, the markets would likely interpret the next cut as being "monetary overkill" that was unnecessary and creates future inflation risks. This would likely exacerbate the current selloff in Gilts. The recent comments from BoE Governor Carney highlighted earlier in this report suggest that he is quite comfortable with the current monetary policy stance, and that he is not overly concerned about the inflationary effects of a weaker Pound. This suggests that the BoE will not be quickly reversing any of the August monetary easing measures, even as U.K. inflation continues to rise. Given this new policy of "benign neglect" towards rising inflation by the BoE, this week we are downgrading our recommended stance on U.K. fixed income from above-benchmark (4 of 5) to below-benchmark (2 of 5). As an offset, we are upgrading our allocation to core European bonds to neutral (3 of 5) - specifically in France, where we are currently below-benchmark (2 of 5). The spreads between U.K. Gilts and French debt have been widening as Gilt yields have increased (Chart 12), and we see the spreads returning to their pre-Brexit ranges in the months ahead. Bottom Line: The selloff in Gilts looks similar to the path followed by U.S. Treasuries after the Fed's quantitative easing programs, only with a much larger currency decline. Yields have more upside in the near-term, especially against bond markets with lower inflation pressures. Downgrade U.K. allocations to below-benchmark (2 of 5) and upgrade core European exposure by upgrading France to neutral (3 of 5). A Quick Update On U.K. Corporate Bonds The BoE's expanded QE program also included an increase in Investment Grade non-financial corporate bond purchases. The plan called for the BoE to purchase 10bn pounds worth of corporate debt over an 18-month period. The BoE has pursued a weighting scheme across sectors that differs from the market-capitalization based weightings of a traditional U.K. corporate bond benchmark index. For example, the BoE is buying far more debt from sectors like Electricity, Consumer Non-Cyclicals, Industrials and Transportation relative to the weights in the Barclays U.K. corporate bond index (Chart 13). Chart 13BoE Corporate Bond Purchases Are Not Following The Benchmark The impact of the BoE bond buying can be seen in current corporate bond spread valuations. The BoE's heavy focus on Utilities & Industrials issuers drove the spreads on the Barclays benchmark indices for those sectors down to the lows of the past few years (Chart 14). We can also see this in our own U.K. sector spread relative value framework, where the sectors that have the heaviest BoE involvement also have the most expensive spreads (Table 1). Chart 14U.K. Corporate Spreads Are Tight (Ex Financials) Table 1U.K. Investment Grade Corporate Sector Spread Valuations With the BoE becoming such a large marginal player in the U.K. corporate bond market, an overweight position versus nominal Gilts is still warranted. The weakness of the Pound is also supportive of the performance of U.K. non-financial corporates, as evidenced by the strong correlation of corporate bond excess returns, equity returns and the swings of the trade-weighted Pound over the past five years (Chart 15 & Chart 16). Chart 15U.K. Equities & Corps Are Both Performing Well... Chart 16...Thanks To The Plunging Currency In terms of individual sector recommendations, favor names in the Communications sectors (specifically, Cable & Satellite and Wireless), where spreads are cheap in our valuation framework and the BoE can potentially buy bonds as part of its QE program. One final note: U.K. Financials score the cheapest in our sector valuation model, and there is a case for shifting to an overweight in those sectors (most Banks and Insurers), even if the BoE is not buying those bonds. Financials will likely benefit from higher Gilt yields and a steeper Gilt curve, but could also require higher risk premiums as the Brexit process plays out and the business models of banks may need to be altered in a post-EU U.K. This likely makes U.K. Financials more of a riskier carry trade than an undervalued spread-compression trade. Bottom Line: The Bank of England's corporate bond purchase program has made valuations quite expensive in the sectors where the central bank has been most active. We continue to recommend an above-benchmark stance on U.K. Investment Grade corporates versus nominal Gilts, but focusing on sectors that still over some relative value where the central bank is buying (mostly in Communications). Robert Robis, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "The Bond Bear Phase Continues", dated October 11, 2016, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com 2 The unemployment rate minus the NAIRU or "full employment" level of unemployment The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Recommendations Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Special Report

Highlights Muni Credit Cycle: The reading from our Municipal Health Monitor supports low Muni/Treasury yield ratios for now, but will become less supportive near the end of 2017. This is consistent with historical lags between the muni and corporate credit cycles. Issuance: State & local government investment spending will increase in 2017, as will muni issuance for new capital. Pensions: The pension funding problem will only get worse in the coming years. Credit ratings do not adequately reflect the risk from under-funded pensions. Election: Muni/Treasury yield ratios have not yet discounted Donald Trump's recent plunge in the polls. Maintain an overweight allocation to municipal bonds for the time being, but stand prepared to gradually reduce exposure as the muni credit cycle starts to turn in late 2017. Feature The financial crisis marked a major inflection point in the municipal bond market. Not only did the economic fall-out from the housing crash lead to historically large state & local government budget gaps, but the end of bond insurance and a growing realization that municipal default is possible have focused investor attention on credit quality more than ever before. In this Special Report we zero-in on the Municipal/Treasury (M/T) yield ratio.1 We identify its major short-run and long-run drivers, and assess where it is headed in the context of the municipal bond credit cycle. The Longer-Run Outlook For Yield Ratios An important input to our understanding of the municipal credit cycle is our Muni Health Monitor (MHM). The MHM is a composite of eight indicators of state & local government budget health. Full details of the indicator and its components can be found in the Appendix to this report. The MHM has an excellent track record of signaling the major inflection points in muni ratings migration (Chart 1). We observe that the MHM bottomed in 2006, one year before the previous trough in ratings migration. The MHM also crossed into "deteriorating health" territory six months before municipal downgrades started to outpace upgrades in 2008. More recently, the MHM crossed back into "improving health" territory in Q4 2012. Muni ratings migration also peaked in Q4 2012 and upgrades began outpacing downgrades in Q4 2014. Chart 1The Municipal Health Monitor Leads Ratings We pay attention to the trends in muni ratings because ratings and state & local government net borrowing explain more than 50% of the variation in the average M/T yield ratio since 1997 (Chart 2). Further, increased investor focus on the creditworthiness of municipal issues has made the yield ratio even more responsive to ratings and net borrowing since the Great Recession. So where are we currently situated in the muni credit cycle? The MHM remains in "improving health" territory, but appears to have entered an extended bottoming-out phase. Given the re-leveraging that has already occurred in the corporate sector, it would be extremely unusual for the MHM to improve further during this cycle. In fact, our Corporate Health Monitor tends to lead the MHM by about two years (Chart 3). This squares with what we know about the behavior of state & local governments throughout the economic cycle. Chart 2The Muni Credit Cycle Illustrated I Chart 3The Muni Credit Cycle Illustrated II Typically, the corporate sector will increase debt loads when times are good and will then be forced to de-lever when the economy enters recession, profits contract and those debt loads become unsustainable. State & local government budget gaps, on the other hand, will tend to narrow during an economic recovery as rapid income growth translates into increased tax revenue. It is only during a recession that state & local government budget gaps widen, since tax revenue plummets while expenditure growth - particularly for social benefits - remains firm. The end result is that the municipal credit cycle tends to lag the corporate credit cycle. This is also apparent in the ratings data (Chart 3, bottom panel), which suggest that we should expect to see muni downgrades (and hence yield ratios) head higher near the end of next year. The typical lag between the corporate credit cycle and the municipal credit cycle suggests that M/T yield ratios should remain well behaved until late-2017, and then begin to move higher. However, the extraordinary length of the current economic recovery gives us some cause to believe that the lags in this cycle may be somewhat longer. We turn to a macro analysis of net state & local government borrowing to shed some further light on this issue. Net borrowing is simply the difference between revenues and expenditures. On the revenue side of the ledger, state & local governments have already seen a significant deceleration in tax receipts during the past year (Chart 4). Every source of tax revenue - except for property taxes - has slowed alongside what has been disappointing overall economic growth so far in 2016. While a return to the 10% revenue growth that was seen in the mid-2000s is unlikely, we expect most of the recent deceleration will soon be reversed. Aggregate weekly hours bounced sharply in September (Chart 5), and federal income tax withholdings also continue to grow rapidly. Both indicators suggest that income growth will be stronger during the next few months, which will support state & local tax receipts. On the expenditures side, while spending on social benefit programs has increased, state & local governments have largely dealt with budget gaps by cutting back severely on discretionary spending (Chart 6). Investment spending has also collapsed and, as a result, gross municipal bond issuance has been dominated by refinancing (Chart 6, bottom two panels). Chart 4S&L Government Revenue Chart 5Income Growth Will Rebound Chart 6S&L Government Expenditures This could all be about to change. Both U.S. Presidential candidates have prioritized infrastructure spending as part of their platforms. Hillary Clinton plans to increase infrastructure spending by $500 billion. This consists of $250 billion of federal infrastructure spending over the next five years and $25 billion of seed money to create a national infrastructure bank. The bank would also accept an additional $225 billion in direct loans. Clinton's plan would also bring back the Build America Bonds (BABs) program. Donald Trump has also expressed a desire to invest heavily in infrastructure, and has floated figures in the range of $1 trillion, although he has been less specific about the details. Historically, about 70% of public investment has occurred at the state & local government level (Chart 7). This suggests that if infrastructure spending became a priority it would lead to a large increase in state & local government investment and hence municipal bond issuance. However, with Clinton's plan it is still unclear whether the bulk of infrastructure spending would be financed through the Treasury market or the muni market. Certainly, to the extent that increased spending is financed through the BABs program, then tax-exempt muni issuance would not be impacted. In our view, state & local government investment spending will head higher in 2017 even without any support from the new President. The need for state & local governments to invest in infrastructure has been evident for some time, but only recently have budgets become healthy enough for governments to consider it. There is a strong correlation between state & local government investment spending and the net percentage of states with a total balance (general fund plus rainy day fund) that exceeds 5% of expenditures (Chart 8). This figure has just recently moved into positive territory and, not coincidentally, more than $200 billion worth of infrastructure spending will be on ballots requesting voter approval in November.2 Chart 7State & Local Government ##br##Drives Investment Chart 8Healthy Enough##br## To Invest The combination of resilient, but not surging, revenue growth and increased investment spending in 2017 is consistent with the idea that the muni credit cycle will follow the lead of the corporate cycle and start to turn near the end of next year. Bottom Line: The reading from our Municipal Health Monitor supports low Muni/Treasury yield ratios for now, but will become less supportive near the end of 2017. This is consistent with historical lags between the muni and corporate credit cycles. The Pension Problem Of course, the elephant in the room with regards to the long-run outlook for municipal credit quality is pensions. So far pensions have only entered our discussion of the muni credit cycle tangentially, since the pension funded ratio is a component of the MHM (see Appendix). However, large unfunded pension liabilities - should they persist - have the potential to be severely destabilizing for the muni market at some point in the future. According to the U.S. National Accounts, aggregate defined benefit pension entitlements at the state & local government level total $5.6 trillion, only 65% of which are currently funded by assets. However, this aggregate figure masks large divergences between a few municipalities with unsustainable pension liabilities and the majority of municipalities where pension liabilities are probably manageable. Chart 9Low Returns Put Pressure On Pensions In a recent report,3 the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College found that 36 states should be able to fund their existing liabilities by making annual payments that total less than 15% of revenue. However, five states - Illinois, New Jersey, Connecticut, Hawaii and Kentucky - require annual payments in excess of 25% of revenue. The breakdown is found to be similar at the city level, where pension costs were found to be manageable for the majority of cities, although Chicago, Detroit, San Jose, Miami, Houston, Baltimore, Wichita and Portland all face annual pension costs that exceed 40% of revenue. Unfortunately, while the pension situations of most municipalities are currently manageable, they are only likely to get worse. Changes in the aggregate pension funded ratio closely track returns from a portfolio that is 50% invested in the S&P 500 and 50% invested in the Barclays Treasury index (Chart 9). Based on current equity valuations, it is probably only reasonable to expect 6% annual nominal returns from the equity market during the next 10 years,4 and the 10-year Treasury yield suggests that 1.8% is a reasonable expectation for annual nominal Treasury returns. Taken together, annual nominal investment returns from a 50/50 portfolio during the next decade could be close to 4%, far below the historical average of 8.9% and also below the 7.6% average return assumed by state & local pension plans in 2014. The two main points are that: The pension problem is likely to get worse, not better Given that large under-funded pensions are concentrated in only a few states, inter-state muni allocations are very important On this second point, we observe that states with lower pension funded ratios have higher General Obligation (GO) bond yields (Chart 10), and also that not all of the difference is reflected in credit ratings. We ran a cross-sectional regression of GO bond yields against credit rating and found that a correlation remains between the residual from that regression and the pension funded ratio (Chart 11). In other words, credit rating does not adequately control for the risk presented by under-funded pensions. Chart 10Municipal Bond Yields Vs. Pension Funded Ratios Chart 11Municipal Bond Yields Vs. Pension Funded Ratios: Controlling For Credit Rating Bottom Line: The pension funding problem will only get worse in the coming years. Credit ratings do not adequately reflect the risk from under-funded pensions. The Short-Run Outlook For Yield Ratios So far we have discussed the muni credit cycle and noted that M/T yield ratios should begin to move higher on a sustained basis at some point near the end of 2017. However, the near-term drivers of M/T yield ratios suggest that an overweight allocation to municipal bonds remains appropriate for the time being. We have found that the bulk of near-term volatility in M/T ratios can be explained by four factors (Chart 12): The Global Policy Uncertainty Index5 Gross municipal bond issuance Net municipal mutual fund flows Ratings migration The Brexit shock to policy uncertainty has now mostly been reversed. Meanwhile, our Muni Excess Supply Indicator (Chart 12, panel 4) shows that gross issuance has been outpacing fund inflows of late. This should put upward pressure on yield ratios, although this pressure has been largely offset by still supportive ratings migration (Chart 12, bottom panel). Considering all factors, this short-term model shows that the average M/T yield ratio is close to fair value. A reading close to fair value is consistent with muni returns that should exceed those from duration-equivalent Treasuries most of the time (Table 1), even before adjusting for the muni tax advantage. In fact, Table 1 shows that the odds of muni underperformance only really increase once the M/T ratio appears more than one half standard deviation expensive on our model. Chart 12A Short-Term Muni Model Table 1Municipal Bond Excess Returns* Based On Fair Value Model** Residual: 2010 - 2016 The other near-term factor that supports a continued overweight allocation to municipal debt is the prospect of a Clinton victory in next month's election. Since the beginning of the year, the average M/T ratio has closely tracked the probability of a Trump election victory (Chart 13). The reasoning is entirely logical. Trump has promised large tax cuts for the highest earners. Such tax cuts would significantly de-value the tax advantage of municipal bonds and pressure yield ratios higher. In contrast, Clinton promises to raise taxes on high income individuals. This would make the tax advantage of municipal debt more valuable, and pressure yield ratios lower. Chart 13Trump Is Bad For Yield Ratios The average M/T yield ratio has not yet discounted Trump's recent plunge in the polls. This argues for the maintenance of an overweight allocation to municipal debt in the near term. Bottom Line: M/T yield ratios appear fairly valued in the near-term, and have not yet discounted Donald Trump's recent plunge in the polls. Maintain an overweight allocation to municipal bonds for the time being, but stand prepared to gradually reduce exposure as the muni credit cycle starts to turn in late 2017. Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com Alex Wang, Research Analyst alexw@bcaresearch.com Appendix: The BCA Municipal Health Monitor The BCA Municipal Health Monitor is an equal-weighted composite of eight indicators meant to quantify trends in state & local government budget gaps and debt service capability. The components consist entirely of data that are publicly available from the Bureau of Economic Analysis, Federal Reserve, Bureau of Labor Statistics and the National Association of State Budget Officers. The eight components are described below, and shown graphically in Charts A1 & A2. Chart A1Muni Health Monitor Components I Chart A2Muni Health Monitor Components II Leverage: The ratio of total state & local government liabilities (excluding unfunded pension liabilities) to total financial assets. Interest Coverage: State & local government current budget surplus (excluding interest expenditures) divided by interest expenditures. The current surplus is calculated as the difference between current revenues and current expenditures (i.e. investment spending is excluded). Pension Funded Ratio: Total assets of state & local government pension funds divided by total pension liabilities. Revenue: State & local government current revenue in nominal terms, as a deviation from its 18-quarter trend. Surplus Margin: State & local government current budget surplus as a % of current revenue. Liquidity: State & local government total financial assets less short-term liabilities, as a % of total financial assets. Employment Growth: Year-over-year % change in state and local government employment. Total Balance: Aggregate state government total year-end balance. The total balance is the general fund balance plus the rainy day fund, as a % of total expenditures. 1 The average M/T yield ratio shown in this report is calculated by taking an equal-weighted average of M/T yield ratios for 2-year, 5-year, 10-year and 30-year maturities. For each maturity point the yield ratio is calculated as the ratio between the Bloomberg Fair Value Aaa Municipal bond yield and the Federal Reserve's constant maturity Treasury yield. 2 http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-09-13/mega-deals-lead-ballo… 3 http://crr.bc.edu/briefs/will-pensions-and-opebs-break-state-and-local-… 4 Please see Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "Global Equity Valuations: Risks And Opportunities", dated July 1, 2016, available at gis.bcaresearch.com 5 The index was created by Professors Scott Baker, Nick Bloom and Steven Davis and is driven by the number of times terms related to economic and policy uncertainty are found in newspaper articles. Full details of the methodology are available at www.policyuncertainty.com

Special Report

We are pleased to share this <i>Special Report</i> rolling out our Global ETF Strategy (GETF) service's model ETF portfolios.
We are in the latter stages of developing the digital interface that will serve as the central nervous system for the GETF service and are excited to be rolling it out next month. In the meantime, the GETF team has embarked on its regular bi-weekly publication schedule. An ETF Primer <i>Special Report</i> will follow on October 26. It will discuss ETF architecture, operation and trading, and is meant to help investors determine how they can best deploy ETFs to accomplish their tactical and strategic goals.