High-Yield

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

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.

Our Treasury yield fair value model suggests that the 10-year Treasury yield has an additional +19bps of upside. Stay at below benchmark duration.

Our <i>Fourth Quarter Strategy Outlook</i> presents the major investment themes and views we see playing out for the rest of the year and beyond.

There are two key risks that could derail a bear-flattening of the yield curve. The first is a Trump election victory, the second is a flaring of stress in the non-U.S. banking sector.

It's hard to make a case for attractive returns from any asset class over the next year. We dial down risk a bit but ending our overweight on junk bonds. Investors should pick up yield where they can but without taking excessive risk.

Investors stand to benefit from Czech koruna revaluation versus the euro and also from positive carry, while waiting for the central bank to remove the exchange rate floor. Go long CZK / short euro. Economic fundamentals and policy divergence between Poland and Hungary point to a stronger zloty versus the forint. Go long PLN / short HUF.

The fiscal spending impulse in China is still positive but receding. The nation's productivity and potential GDP growth are bound to decline due to a rising role of government in capital and resource allocation. Hence, cyclical stabilization could well be overwhelmed by a structural slowdown. Another bubble is forming in China, this time in the corporate bond market. The amelioration in Korean and Taiwanese exports is due to the technology sector/semiconductors, and does not reflect broad-based improvement in global trade.