Corporate Bonds

Highlights Increased regulatory scrutiny on the domestic financial sector may continue to create some headline risks and financial volatility, but the real economic impact should be marginal. The recent regulatory crackdown has mainly caused liquidity issues in the domestic market rather than any sort of real growth issue. Chinese shares listed overseas will continue to grind higher. Domestic A shares will remain largely trendless. Domestic corporate bonds are starting to look attractive after the most recent panic selloff. Feature Chinese domestic stocks and bonds have taken a beating of late as the authorities ramped up scrutiny to rein in excesses in the country's financial sector. While it is warranted to control accumulated financial risk - especially associated with shadow banking activity - the "campaign" style administrative crackdown has caused widespread confusion and mini-panics among domestic investors. The actions and corresponding reactions illustrate the authorities' primitive control tools, which are increasingly at odds with the rapidly developing financial sector, and how blanket actions can spur undue financial volatility and provoke unintended consequences. For now, we expect the economic fallout to be limited, unless the financial crackdown causes further spikes in interest rates and a sudden halt in credit flows. Chinese shares listed overseas will continue to grind higher in the absence of a major policy mishap that short-circuits the broad growth improvement and the profit cycle upturn. Domestic A shares will remain largely trendless, while the more richly valued bubbly segments of the market will continue to deflate. Domestic corporate bonds are starting to look attractive after the most recent panic selloff. What Do They Want To Achieve? Policymakers' primary focus has been on cracking down on excessive speculation in financial markets and restricting lending activities that are not in compliance with legal and regulatory requirements. Financial sector deregulation in recent years has increasingly blurred the lines between banks, insurance companies, brokers and trust companies, and regulators are constantly challenged to monitor all the increasingly sophisticated moving parts. From the banking sector's point of view, regulators are concerned that lenders have been aggressively boosting their exposure to other banks and non-bank financial institutions instead of providing credit to the "real economy." Overall commercial banks' claims on other banks and non-bank financial institutions have increased from 12% of their total assets in 2006 to over 25% as of January 2017, while their liabilities to other banks and non-bank financial firms have increased from 7% to 12% (Chart 1). Smaller banks are even more dependent on interbank financing for loanable funds. Interbank transactions and repo activities account for about 14% of smaller lenders' total source of funding, compared with 2% for large banks (Chart 2). Some small banks regularly borrow at lower costs through the interbank market or use negotiable certificate of deposits to purchase "wealth management products" offering higher returns issued by other banks or financial institutions. The duration mismatch leads to constant pressure to roll over these short-term financial instruments. The increasing interdependence among the country's financial institutions also creates the risk of a chain reaction in the financial system should some type of credit event erupt. Chart 1Increasing Interdependence Among Financial Institutions China: Financial Crackdown And Market Implications China: Financial Crackdown And Market Implications The Chinese authorities have long regarded preventing systemic financial risk as a top priority, and the recent growth improvement has provided a window of opportunity for some housecleaning without a major adverse impact on the economy. Therefore, it is unlikely that regulators will back off from tightening regulatory supervision going forward. Overall, the authorities will continue to discourage overtrading within the financial system, and enforce full disclosure of off-balance-sheet items and shadow lending activities. The saving grace is that tightened macro prudential measures have already begun to curtail banks' aggressive expansion to non-bank financial institutions. Commercial banks' claims to these firms have slowed sharply since last year's peak (Chart 3). Meanwhile, the recent rise in interbank rates should also further discourage the perceived "risk-free" funding arbitrage to play the interest rate gap between long- and short-dated financial assets. All of this reduces the pressure of an escalation in the regulatory crackdown. Chart 2Smaller Banks Depend More On##br## Wholesale Funding Smaller Banks Depend More On Wholesale Funding Smaller Banks Depend More On Wholesale Funding Chart 3Banks' Exposure To Non-Bank Financial Firms ##br##Has Been Scaled Back Banks' Exposure To Non-Bank Financial Firms Has Been Scaled Back Banks' Exposure To Non-Bank Financial Firms Has Been Scaled Back Should Investors Be Concerned? In essence, banks' rising claims to other financial institutions means a lengthening of the credit intermediation channel, in which financing goes from credit providers through multiple layers of intermediaries to reach final borrowers in the real economy. In other words, banks, instead of lending directly to borrowers, channel loans to trust companies or securities brokers, who in turn transfer the funds to the real economy through "shadow banking" activities such as trust loans or various forms of "wealth management products", typically at higher rates. From this perspective, cracking down on lending excesses within the financial system in of itself should not have a material impact on credit flows to final corporate borrowers. In fact, streamlining the financial intermediation channel holds the promise of increasing accessibility to bank credit for the corporate sector and reducing its funding cost, which should benefit the overall economy in the long run. In the near term, liquidity tightening and the regulatory crackdown could push up interest rates and disrupt credit flows, which should be closely monitored to assess near-term negative impact on the economy. So far, the impact does not appear material. Chart 4Regulatory Crackdown ##br## Has Not Interrupted Credit Flows Regulatory Crackdown Has Not Interrupted Credit Flows Regulatory Crackdown Has Not Interrupted Credit Flows Interbank rates have increased by about 100 basis points across the board since the beginning of this year, and 10-year government bond yields have risen by 50 basis points - both of which pale in comparison to the significant improvement in overall business activity. Nominal GDP growth expanded by 11.8% in the first quarter, compared with 9.6% in Q4, 2016. Furthermore, the central bank early this week re-started its medium-term lending facility (MLF), which was designed to avoid liquidity overkill in the domestic financial sector. Overall, the risk of overtightening of liquidity is not high. The regulatory crackdown since early this year has not had a meaningful impact on credit expansion. Banks' claims to other financial institutions have slowed sharply, but overall loan growth has been rather stable. Importantly, medium- and long-term loans to the corporate sector, pivotal for overall capital spending, have in fact accelerated (Chart 4). In short, increased regulatory scrutiny on the domestic financial sector may continue to create some headline risks and financial volatility, but the real economic impact should be marginal. We expect the authorities to remain highly vigilant and avoid policy overkill. Reading Market Tea Leaves There have been some notable divergences among different classes of Chinese stocks (Chart 5). Chinext, the domestic small-cap venture board, has suffered heavy losses of late, while large-cap A shares have been much more resilient. Meanwhile, offshore Chinese shares have barely felt any pressure at all. H shares have moved higher of late, while Chinese firms listed in the U.S. have decisively broken out. The divergence between onshore and offshore Chinese stocks' performance confirms the recent regulatory crackdown has mainly caused liquidity issues in the domestic market rather than any sort of real growth issue. Barring major policy mistakes, we expect the Chinese economy to stay buoyant, as discussed in detail in our recent report.1 As such, a few investment conclusions can be drawn. Tighter liquidity will likely continue to place downward pressure on domestic stock prices, but the downside is limited by overall buoyant activity and improving profits. We expect the broad-A share market will remain narrowly range-bound. Overseas-listed Chinese shares are not subject to domestic liquidity constraints, and will likely continue to grind higher supported by growth improvement, profit recovery and low valuation multiples. The small-cap Chinext market has long been viewed as the more speculative segment of the domestic financial market, with higher multiples and greater volatility than large-cap A shares. As such, this market will remain vulnerable to domestic liquidity tightening. Even after the most recent selloff, the bourse's trailing price-to-earnings ratio and price-to-book ratio are still at 38.4 and 4.6, respectively, much higher than for broader onshore and offshore Chinese stocks. The recent selloff in the onshore corporate bond market has also been driven by liquidity pressure, which in our view is overdone. While it's true that economic acceleration justifies higher yields, corporate spreads have also widened sharply, which is at odds with the broad growth acceleration and profit recovery. In addition, after the most recent selloff, Chinese corporate spreads are significantly higher than in most other major markets (Chart 6). In the near term, tighter liquidity may continue to induce more selling pressure in the domestic bond market. Cyclically we expect Chinese corporate bond spreads to narrow. Chart 5Diverging Market Trends Diverging Market Trends Diverging Market Trends Chart 6The Sharp Spike In Chinese Corporate ##br##Spreads Is Overdone The Sharp Spike In Chinese Corporate Spreads Is Overdone The Sharp Spike In Chinese Corporate Spreads Is Overdone Yan Wang, Senior Vice President China Investment Strategy yanw@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Has China's Cyclical Recovery Peaked?" dated May 5, 2017, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations

Highlights Chart 1Rate Hikes Lagging Wage Growth Rate Hikes Lagging Wage Growth Rate Hikes Lagging Wage Growth Last Friday's GDP report showed that the U.S. economy grew a meagre 0.7% (annualized) in the first quarter of 2017, well below levels necessary to sustain an uptrend in inflation. However, our forward looking indicators still point to U.S. growth of around 2% during the next few quarters. It is likely that faulty seasonal adjustments suppressed Q1 GDP growth. Q1 growth has averaged -0.1% during the past 10 years, while Q2 growth has averaged more than 2%. Q2 growth has also exceeded Q1 growth in 8 of the last 10 years. For its part, the Bloomberg Barclays Treasury index has provided an average return of close to 1% during the past 10 Q1s and an average return of 0.4% during the past 10 Q2s. Treasury returns have been greater in the first quarter than in the second quarter in 6 out of the past 10 years. Investors would be wise to ignore Q1 GDP and stay focused on the uptrends in wage growth and inflation that are likely to persist (Chart 1). With the market priced for only 38 bps of rate hikes between now and the end of the year, there is scope for the Fed to send a hawkish surprise. Stay at below-benchmark duration and short January 2018 Fed Funds Futures. Feature Investment Grade: Overweight Chart 2Investment Grade Market Overview Investment Grade Market Overview Investment Grade Market Overview Investment grade corporate bonds outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 23 basis points in April. The index option-adjusted spread tightened 2 bps on the month and, at 116 bps, it remains well below its historical average (134 bps). While supportive monetary policy will ensure excess returns consistent with carry, investors should not bank on further spread compression as spreads have already discounted a substantial improvement in leverage (Chart 2). In a recent report,1 we noted that net leverage (defined as: total debt minus cash, as a percent of EBITD) is positively correlated with spreads, and also that it has never reversed its uptrend unless prompted by a recession. In other words, the corporate sector never voluntarily undertakes deleveraging, it only starts to pay down debt when forced by a severe economic contraction. We conclude that debt growth will likely continue to outpace profit growth (panel 4), even as profits rebound over the course of this year. If our anticipated timeline plays out, we will be looking to scale back on credit risk in 2018, when inflationary pressures are more pronounced and the Fed steps up the pace of tightening. Energy related sectors still appear cheap after adjusting for differences in credit rating and duration (Table 3). Further, our commodity strategists expect OPEC production cuts will be extended through to the end of the year, and that $60/bbl remains a reasonable target for oil prices. Table 3ACorporate Sector Relative Valuation And Recommended Allocation* Time Of The Season Time Of The Season Table 3BCorporate Sector Risk Vs. Reward* Time Of The Season Time Of The Season High-Yield: Overweight Chart 3High-Yield Market Overview High-Yield Market Overview High-Yield Market Overview High-Yield outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 62 basis points in April. The index option-adjusted spread tightened 12 bps on the month and, at 371 bps, it is currently 27 bps above its 2017-low. Wider junk spreads in recent months appear to be largely related to flight-to-safety flows driven by elevated global political uncertainty. We find it notable that spreads tightened following the market-friendly result of the first round of the French election. While political uncertainty remains, we view current spreads as attractive on a 6-12 month horizon. In a recent report,2 we tested a strategy of "buying dips" in the junk bond market and found that it produced favorable results in a low-inflation environment. With the St. Louis Fed's Price Pressures Measure still suggesting only a 6% chance of PCE inflation above 2.5% during the next 12 months, we think this strategy will continue to work. Moody's recorded 21 defaults in Q1 (globally) down from 41 in the first quarter of 2016, with the improvement attributable to recovery in the commodity sectors. While commodity sectors still accounted for half of the defaults in Q1, Moody's predicts that the retail sector will soon assume the mantle of "most troubled sector." According to Moody's, nearly 14% of retail issuers are trading at distressed levels. Moody's still expects the U.S. speculative grade default rate to be 3% for the next 12 months, down from 4.7% for the prior 12 months. Based on this forecast we calculate the High-Yield default-adjusted spread to be 207 bps (Chart 3), a level consistent with positive excess returns on a 12-month horizon more than 70% of the time. MBS: Underweight Chart 4MBS Market Overview MBS Market Overview MBS Market Overview Mortgage-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 2 basis points in April. The conventional 30-year MBS yield fell 10 bps on the month, driven by an 11 bps decline in the rate component. The compensation for prepayment risk (option cost) rose by 2 bps, but this was partially offset by a 1 bp tightening in the option-adjusted spread (OAS). Since the middle of last year the MBS OAS has widened alongside rising net issuance, but this has been offset by a falling option cost (Chart 4). This is exactly the price behavior we would expect to see in an environment where mortgage rates are moving higher and the market is starting to discount the Fed's eventual exit from the MBS market. Higher mortgage rates suppress refinancings, and this will ensure that the option cost component of spreads remains low. However, higher mortgage rates are also unlikely to halt the uptrend in net MBS issuance, since the main constraint on housing demand this cycle has been insufficient household savings, not un-affordable mortgage payments.3 This means that OAS still have room to widen alongside greater net issuance. The winding down of the Fed's mortgage portfolio - a process that is likely to begin later this year - will only add to the supply that the market needs to absorb. How will the opposing forces of low option cost and widening OAS net out? The option cost component of spreads is already close to its all-time low, while the OAS is still 16 bps below its pre-crisis mean. We think it is unlikely that a lower option cost can fully offset OAS widening. Government-Related: Underweight Chart 5Government-Related Market Overview Government-Related Market Overview Government-Related Market Overview The Government-Related index outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 2 basis points in April, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to 75 bps. The high-beta Sovereign and Foreign Agency sectors outperformed by 8 bps and 1 bp, respectively. Meanwhile, the low-beta Domestic Agency and Supranational sectors outperformed by 7 bps each. Local Authorities underperformed the Treasury benchmark by 23 bps. Since the beginning of the year, excess returns from the Sovereign sector have been supported by a weakening U.S. dollar (Chart 5). Mexican debt, in particular, has benefited from a 10% appreciation of the peso relative to the U.S. dollar (panel 3). A stronger peso obviously makes Mexico's USD-denominated debt easier to service and has led to year-to-date excess returns of 402 bps for Mexican sovereign debt relative to U.S. Treasuries. Mexican debt accounts for 21% of the Sovereign index. Our Emerging Markets Strategy service thinks that Mexico's central bank could deliver another 50 bps of rate hikes, because inflation is above target, but also maintains that further rate hikes will soon start to squeeze consumer spending.4 Conversely, the Fed has scope to hike rates much further. Sovereigns no longer appear expensive on our model, relative to domestic U.S. corporate sectors. But we still expect them to underperform as the dollar resumes its bull market. Local authorities and Foreign Agencies still offer lucrative spreads on our model, and we remain overweight those spaces within an overall underweight allocation to the Government-Related index. Municipal Bonds: Neutral Chart 6Municipal Market Overview Municipal Market Overview Municipal Market Overview Municipal bonds underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 12 basis points in April (before adjusting for the tax advantage). The average Municipal / Treasury (M/T) yield ratio was flat on the month, but has fallen 15% since peaking shortly after the U.S. election (Chart 6). The sparse details of the Trump administration's proposed tax reform plan, released last week, did not include any specific mention of the municipal bond tax exemption, but did call for the elimination of "targeted tax breaks" leaving some to wonder if the tax exemption is in play. It is too soon to tell whether repealing the tax exemption will be part of the final tax reform plan, although its repeal would be at odds with the President's stated desire to spur infrastructure spending. For this reason, we suspect the tax exemption will ultimately survive. Assuming the tax exemption survives, the proposed repeal of the Alternative Minimum Tax and of the state & local government income tax deduction should both increase demand for tax-exempt municipal bonds. However, this positive impact will be offset by lower tax rates. All in all, it is too soon to know how this will all shake out, but the considerable uncertainty makes us reluctant to take strong directional bets in the municipal bond market for now. Meanwhile, Muni mutual fund inflows have totaled more than $9 billion since the beginning of the year, while total issuance is at a 12-month low. Strong inflows and low supply likely explain why yield ratios are testing the low-end of their post-crisis trading range. Treasury Curve: Favor 5-Year Bullet Over 2/10 Barbell Chart 7Treasury Yield Curve Overview Treasury Yield Curve Overview Treasury Yield Curve Overview The Treasury curve shifted lower in April, with the 2/10 slope flattening by 12 basis points and the 5/30 slope steepening by 6 bps. The 5-year Treasury yield declined 12 bps on the month, while the 10-year yield fell 11 bps. The 2-year yield actually ticked 1 bp higher. Significant outperformance in the 5-year part of the curve means that our recommendation to favor the 5-year bullet over a duration-matched 2/10 barbell has returned 27 bps since inception on December 20, 2016. This 5-year bullet over duration-matched 2/10 barbell trade is designed to profit from 2/10 curve steepening, which has not yet materialized. Instead, the trade has performed well because the 2/5/10 butterfly spread has moved much closer to our estimate of fair value (Chart 7). The 5-year bullet still looks moderately cheap on the curve, but no longer offers an exceptional valuation cushion. For our trade to outperform from here we will likely need to see some 2/10 curve steepening. We continue to hold the 5-year bullet over duration-matched 2/10 barbell trade, because we still expect the 2/10 slope to steepen. This steepening will be driven by wider long-maturity TIPS breakevens which should eventually catch up to leading pipeline inflation measures (see next page). In a recent report,5 we outlined the main drivers of the slope of the yield curve on a cyclical horizon and concluded that wider breakevens can cause the nominal curve to steepen even with the Fed in the midst of hiking rates. TIPS: Overweight Chart 8TIPS Market Overview TIPS Market Overview TIPS Market Overview TIPS underperformed the duration-equivalent nominal Treasury index by 25 basis points in April. The 10-year TIPS breakeven rate declined 5 bps on the month and, at 1.92%, it remains well below its pre-crisis trading range of 2.4% to 2.5%. Our Financial Model of TIPS breakevens - which models the 10-year TIPS breakeven rate using the stock-to-bond total return ratio, the price of oil and the trade-weighted dollar - attributes the recent decline in breakevens to weakness in the stock-bond ratio and the fact that the 10-year breakeven rate was already quite elevated compared to fair value (Chart 8). Both core and trimmed mean PCE inflation dropped sharply in March, and are now running at 1.6% and 1.8% year-over-year, respectively (bottom panel). This decline is likely to reverse in the coming months. Crucially, pipeline inflation measures, such as the ISM prices paid index, are holding firm at high levels (panel 4). We remain overweight TIPS versus nominal Treasuries on the view that growth will be strong enough to keep measures of core inflation on a steady upward trajectory, eventually converging with the Fed's 2% inflation target. In that environment, TIPS breakevens should eventually return to their pre-crisis range. In last week's report,6 we considered the possibility that TIPS breakevens might not return to their pre-crisis trading range, even if measures of core inflation remain strong. The most likely reason relates to structural rigidities in the repo market that have made it more costly to arbitrage the difference between real and nominal rates. For now, we consider this simply a risk to our overweight view. ABS: Overweight Chart 9ABS Market Overview ABS Market Overview ABS Market Overview Asset-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 11 basis points in April, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +33 bps. Aaa-rated issuers outperformed the Treasury benchmark by 10 bps on the month, while non-Aaa issues outperformed by 13 bps. The index option-adjusted spread for Aaa-rated ABS tightened 1 bp on the month, and remains well below its average pre-crisis level. Banks are now tightening lending standards on both auto loans and credit cards. While we do not expect this recent development to have much of an impact on consumer spending,7 it is usually an indication that there is growing concern about ABS collateral credit quality. This concern is echoed by the fact that net losses on auto loans are trending sharply higher (Chart 9). Credit card charge-offs remain subdued for now - and we continue to recommend that investors favor Aaa-rated credit cards over Aaa-rated auto loans - but even in the credit card space quality concerns are starting to mount. Capital One reported a 20% drop in earnings in Q1 versus the same quarter in 2016, and noted that it has been tightening underwriting standards against a back-drop of credit card loans growing faster than income. We remain overweight ABS for now, as the securities still offer attractive spreads compared to other high-quality spread product, but we are closely monitoring credit quality metrics for signs of rising stress. Non-Agency CMBS: Underweight Chart 10CMBS Market Overview CMBS Market Overview CMBS Market Overview Non-Agency Commercial Mortgage-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 3 basis points in April, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +19 bps. The index option-adjusted spread for non-agency Aaa-rated CMBS widened 1 bp on the month, and is fast approaching its average pre-crisis level. Apartment and office building prices are growing strongly, but as in the corporate space, the retail sector is a major drag (Chart 10). Tighter lending standards and falling demand also suggest that credit stress is starting to mount, but while office and retail delinquencies are rising multi-family delinquencies remain low (panel 5). Agency CMBS: Overweight Agency CMBS outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 3 basis points in April, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +19 bps. The index option-adjusted spread for Agency CMBS widened 1 bp on the month, and currently sits at 54 bps. The option-adjusted spread on Agency CMBS looks attractive compared to other high-quality spread product: Agency MBS = 35 bps, Aaa consumer ABS = 46 bps, Agency bonds = 17 bps and Supranationals = 20 bps. We continue to recommend an overweight position in Agency CMBS. Treasury Valuation Chart 11Treasury Fair Value Models Treasury Fair Value Models Treasury Fair Value Models The current reading from our 2-factor Treasury model (which is based on Global PMI and dollar sentiment) places fair value for the 10-year Treasury yield at 2.59% (Chart 11). Our 3-factor version of the model, which also includes the Global Economic Policy Uncertainty Index, places fair value at 2.43%. The lower fair value results from the large spike in the uncertainty index last November, which has only been partially unwound (bottom panel). Large spikes in uncertainty that do not coincide with deterioration in other economic indicators tend to mean revert fairly quickly. So we are inclined to view the fair value reading from our 2-factor model as more indicative of true fair value at the moment. It should also be noted that the fair value readings from both the 2-factor and 3-factor models are calculated using FLASH PMI estimates for April. These estimates will be revised later today when the actual PMI data are released. For further details on our Treasury models please refer to the U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "The Message From Our Treasury Models", dated October 11, 2016, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com At the time of publication the 10-year Treasury yield was 2.32%. 1 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "The Payback Period In Corporate Bonds", dated April 11, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Keep Buying Dips", dated March 28, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Keep Buying Dips", dated March 28, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report, "A Time To Be Contrarian", dated April 5, 2017, available at ems.bcaresearch.com 5 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "The Yield Curve On A Cyclical Horizon", dated March 21, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 6 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Will Breakevens Ever Recover?", dated April 25, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 7 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "The Odds Of March", dated February 21, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification Corporate Sector Relative Valuation And Recommended Allocation Total Return Comparison: 7-Year Bullet Versus 2-20 Barbell (6-Month Investment Horizon)

Feature Table 1Recommended Allocation Monthly Portfolio Update Monthly Portfolio Update Don't Worry About The Tepid Data Risk assets are likely to continue to grind higher. Two of the catalysts we cited for this in our most recent Quarterly1 have half happened: European political risk is lifting now that Marine Le Pen looks most unlikely to win in the second round of the French presidential election (polls give her less than 40% of the vote); and the Trump administration announced its tax cut plan (which, though details are still sparse, we expect to be passed in some form this year). As a result, the MSCI All Country World Index hit a record high in late April and the S&P 500 is only 1% below its high. But both growth and inflation have surprised somewhat to the downside in the past couple of months. The Citi Economic Surprise Index for the U.S. has fallen sharply, though surprises remain fairly positive elsewhere (Chart 1).Q1 U.S. real GDP growth came in at an annualized rate of only 0.7%. This has pushed bond yields down (with the US Treasury 10-year yield falling back to 2.2%), consequently weakening the dollar. We are not unduly worried about the tepid data. It is mainly due to technical factors. Corporate loan growth in the U.S., for example (Chart 2), mostly reflects just the lagged effect of last year's slowdown on banks' willingness to lend, as well as energy companies repaying credit lines they tapped in early 2016 when short of working capital. The weakness in auto sales (Chart 3) is most likely caused by the end of the car replacement cycle which began in 2010, rather than reflecting any generalized deterioration in consumer behavior. Moreover, there seem to be problems with seasonal adjustment of data caused by the extreme swings in the economy in 2008 and 2009: Q1 has been the weakest quarter for U.S. GDP in six out of the past 10 years, and has on average been 2.3 ppts lower than Q2.2 There were no such distortions prior to 1996. Chart 1U.S. Growth Has Surprised To The Downside U.S. Growth Has Surprised To The Downside U.S. Growth Has Surprised To The Downside Chart 2Weaker Loan Growth Is Mostly Technical... Weaker Loan Growth Is Mostly Technical... Weaker Loan Growth Is Mostly Technical... Chart 3...And The Slowdown In Autos Is Just The End Of A Replacement Cycle ...And The Slowdown In Autos Is Just The End Of A Replacement Cycle ...And The Slowdown In Autos Is Just The End Of A Replacement Cycle A consequence of the wobbly data is that markets have become too complacent about the Fed raising rates, with futures markets now projecting only about 40 bps of hikes over the next 12 months (Chart 4). Our view is that wages will gradually move up this year, pushing core PCE inflation to 2% by year end, which will cause the Fed to raise rates twice before end-2017 and once early in 2018 (though the latter rise could be postponed if the Fed starts to reduce its balance-sheet and forgoes one quarter's hike to judge the impact of this on the market). By contrast, we do not see the ECB hiking before 2019 at the earliest, with ECB President Draghi reiterating that he sees core inflation staying low and remains concerned about the fragile banking systems in peripheral European markets and about Italian politics. We also believe Bank of Japan governor Kuroda when he says he has no plans to change the BoJ's 0% target for the 10-year JGB yield. All this implies that the dollar is likely to appreciate further in the next 12 months as interest rate spreads widen (Chart 5). Chart 4Fed Is Likely To Hike Faster Than This Fed Is Likely To Hike Faster Than This Fed Is Likely To Hike Faster Than This Chart 5Interest Differentials Suggest Further Dollar Strength Interest Differentials Suggest Further Dollar Strength Interest Differentials Suggest Further Dollar Strength The next catalyst for equities to rise further could be earnings. Q1 U.S. earnings are surprising significantly on the upside, with EPS growth of 11.7% year on year and 75% of companies beating analysts' estimates.3 BCA's proprietary model suggests that S&P 500 operating earnings this year could grow by over 20% (Chart 6). If anything, upside surprises to earnings have been even stronger in the euro zone and Japan. With none of the standard indicators signaling any risk of recession over the next 12 months (Chart 7), we remain overweight equities versus bonds. We continue to warn, though, that the Goldilocks scenario of healthy growth and stable inflation may not last for long. A combination of tax cuts, wage growth accelerating as labor participation hits a ceiling, and the Fed falling behind the curve (perhaps when President Trump - given that he recently confessed "I do like a low interest rate policy" - appoints a dovish replacement for Janet Yellen as Fed Chair) could cause inflation to rise unexpectedly next year, forcing the Fed to raise rates sharply, triggering a recession in 2019. Chart 6U.S. Earnings Could Grow 20% This Year U.S. Earnings Could Grow 20% This Year U.S. Earnings Could Grow 20% This Year Chart 7No Sign Of A Recession On The Horizon No Sign Of A Recession On The Horizon No Sign Of A Recession On The Horizon Equities: In a risk-on environment, euro zone equities should continue to outperform, due to their higher beta (averaging 1.3 against global equities over the past 20 years, compared to 0.9 for the U.S.), more cyclical earnings, and modestly cheaper valuations (forward PE is at a 18.9% discount to the U.S.). Japanese equities should also do well as interest rates rise again globally (except in Japan where the BoJ will stick to its 0% yield target on 10-year bonds), which should push down the yen and boost earnings. We remain overweight Japanese equities on a currency-hedged basis. We are underweight EM equities, which are likely to be weighed down over the next 12 months by the stronger dollar, and by a slowdown in China which should cause commodity prices to fall. Fixed Income: We expect the 10-year U.S. Treasury yield to reach 3% by year-end: a pickup in real growth, slightly higher inflation and two more Fed hikes can easily add 70 bps to the yield over the next eight months. Euro zone yields will also rise, though not by as much. This implies a negative return from G7 sovereign bonds for the first time since 1994. We continue to prefer corporate credit, with a preference for U.S. investment-grade debt over high-yield bonds (which have stretched valuations) and over European corporate debt (which will be negatively affected by the tapering of ECB purchases next year). Currencies: As described above, we do not believe that the dollar appreciation which began in 2014 is over, due to divergences in monetary policy. We would look for a further 5-10% appreciation of the dollar over the coming 12 months, though the rise is likely to be bigger against the yen and emerging market currencies than against the euro. Commodity currencies such as the Australian dollar also look vulnerable and overvalued. The British pound will be driven by the vicissitudes of the Brexit negotiations in the short-run but looks undervalued in the long run if, as we expect, the EU eventually agrees a moderately satisfactory trade deal with the U.K. Commodities: We continue to believe that the equilibrium level for oil is $55 a barrel, and that an extension of the OPEC production agreement beyond June and a drawdown in inventories in the second half will bring WTI crude back to that level - with the risk of even $60-65 temporarily if there are any unforeseen supply disruptions. We remain more cautious on industrial commodities, which will be hurt by a mild withdrawal of monetary and fiscal stimulus in China. Following its 6.9% GDP print in Q1, Chinese growth is likely to slow moderately. However, with the Party Congress coming up in the fall, growth will not be allowed to slow excessively - and, indeed, there are signs that central government spending has begun to accelerate recently (Chart 8). We remain positive on gold as a long-term hedge against the tail risk of inflation. As our recent Special Report on Safe Havens demonstrated,4 gold has historically provided good returns during recessions, particularly those associated with high inflation (Chart 9). Chart 8China Is Withdrawing Stimulus - Or Is It? China Is Withdrawing Stimulus - Or Is It? China Is Withdrawing Stimulus - Or Is It? Chart 9Gold Glisters When Inflation Rises Gold Glisters When Inflation Rises Gold Glisters When Inflation Rises Garry Evans, Senior Vice President Global Asset Allocation garry@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Global Asset Allocation, "Quarterly Portfolio Outlook: No Reasons To Turn Cautious," dated 3 April 2017, available at gaa.research.com 2 For detailed analysis of the problems with seasonal adjustment, please see U.S. Investment Strategy, "Spring Snapback?" dated April 24, 2017, available at usis.bcaresearch.com 3 So far about half of U.S. companies have reported. 4 Please see Global Asset Allocation, "Safe Havens: Where To Hide Next Time?" dated April 21, 2017, available at gaa.bcaresearch.com. Recommended Asset Allocation

Highlights Duration: The market is now priced for only 30 bps of rate hikes between now and the end of the year, despite little evidence that growth is actually slowing. Stay at below-benchmark duration and remain short the January 2018 Fed Funds Futures contract. TIPS: Although we still expect TIPS breakevens to widen as inflation rises, this week we review possible arguments for why breakevens might have shifted to a permanently lower post-crisis equilibrium. Remain overweight TIPS versus nominal Treasuries. Corporate Valuation: Our Default-Adjusted Spread remains at reasonably attractive levels, suggesting that corporate spreads will tighten in the coming months if the economic recovery remains on track. Remain overweight corporate bonds within U.S. fixed income portfolios. Feature Chart 1Yields Lower Since March FOMC Yields Lower Since March FOMC Yields Lower Since March FOMC In last week's report we argued that recent bond market strength was caused by a politically-induced flight-to-quality. In particular, we noted that the term structure of implied equity volatility had inverted - investors were paying more to hedge equity positions over a 1-month horizon than over a 3-month horizon. But political tensions have eased somewhat during the past week. President Trump promised to unveil his administration's tax reform plan this Wednesday, and the first round of the French election resulted in centrist candidate Emmanuel Macron securing a significant advantage over far-right candidate Marine Le Pen. As a consequence, 1-month implied equity vol fell back below 3-month vol, and the bond rally ebbed with the 10-year Treasury yield edging up to 2.29% from 2.17% at this time last week. Nonetheless, bond yields are still far below the levels seen following the last FOMC meeting in mid-March. Since that meeting, the 10-year Treasury yield has fallen 27 bps, split between a 12 bps decline in the real yield and a 15 bps drop in the cost of inflation compensation (Chart 1). Real Yields Are Too Low As shown in the top panel of Chart 1, the 10-year real yield is tightly linked to the number of rate hikes discounted in the overnight index swap curve during the next 12 months. Further, the drop in both of these series since mid-March occurred alongside a string of economic data disappointments, as evidenced by the sharp fall in the Economic Surprise Index (Chart 2). Our assessment, however, is that the mean reversion in the surprise index represents excessively optimistic expectations rather than a trend change in the pace of U.S. growth. Chart 2Disappointments Are Discounted Disappointments Are Discounted Disappointments Are Discounted To test this theory, we looked at the New York Fed's Nowcast for Q1 GDP growth and noted that it has been revised lower from 2.96% (as of March 24) to 2.65% (as of April 20). We observed that the data releases responsible for the bulk of the downward revision were: Real consumer spending Retail sales and food services Import & Export growth Housing starts As can be seen in Chart 3, with the exception of real consumer spending, all of the other data disappointments represent small corrections from elevated levels. As for real consumer spending, we noted last week that the recent weakness is probably explained by problems with Q1 seasonal adjustments.1 Taking a step back, U.S. growth still appears to be on solid footing. The BCA Beige Book Monitor, introduced last week by our U.S. Investment Strategy service,2 scans the Federal Reserve's Beige Book3 for the words "strong" and "weak" (and their derivatives like stronger, weakened, etc...). The Monitor is the number of "strong" words less the number of "weak" words, and it has been an excellent coincident indicator of GDP growth since the mid-1990s (Chart 4). At present, the Beige Book Monitor is sending a robust signal for U.S. growth. Similarly, despite supposed weakness in housing starts and trade data, our preferred leading indicators point to continued strength in both the residential investment and net export components of GDP (Chart 4, bottom 2 panels). Chart 3What Weak Data? What Weak Data? What Weak Data? Chart 4Growth Still Looks Strong Growth Still Looks Strong Growth Still Looks Strong Bottom Line: The market is now priced for only 30 bps of rate hikes between now and the end of the year, despite little evidence that growth is actually slowing. We still expect the Fed will lift rates by at least 50 bps between now and the end of the year. Stay at below-benchmark duration and remain short the January 2018 Fed Funds Futures contract. TIPS Breakevens: How Far From Fair Value? As was mentioned above, the cost of 10-year inflation compensation has also declined since mid-March alongside some weakness in the headline non-seasonally adjusted Consumer Price Index (see Chart 1). Our Financial Model of TIPS Breakevens - which models the 10-year TIPS breakeven rate using the stock-to-bond total return ratio, the price of oil and the trade-weighted dollar - attributes the recent decline to weakness in the stock-to-bond ratio and the fact that the 10-year breakeven rate was already quite elevated compared to our model's fair value (Chart 5). The 10-year breakeven rate is still somewhat wide compared to our model's fair value, but much less so. We remain overweight TIPS versus nominal Treasuries on the view that growth will be strong enough to keep measures of core inflation on a steady upward trajectory, eventually converging with the Fed's 2% inflation target. The fair value reading from our TIPS Financial Model should also trend gradually higher in this environment. Historically, core PCE inflation anchored around the Fed's 2% inflation target has corresponded with a 5y5y TIPS breakeven inflation rate in the range of 2.4% to 2.5% (current value 1.89%) and a 5y5y CPI swap rate between 2.8% and 2.9% (current value = 2.31%) (Chart 6). These remain our target levels for TIPS breakevens and CPI swaps, respectively. Chart 5TIPS Financial Model TIPS Financial Model TIPS Financial Model Chart 6Still Below Target Still Below Target Still Below Target However, we must also consider the possibility that these target ranges, based on the mid-2000s, may no longer be applicable. Put differently, it is possible that the market for inflation protection underwent a structural shift following the financial crisis and the appropriate level for long-maturity TIPS breakeven rates when core PCE is anchored around 2% might now be lower. A Structurally Lower Inflation Risk Premium? It is common to think of the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate as: TIPS Breakeven Inflation = Inflation Expectations + Inflation Risk Premium The inflation risk premium is the extra return required by nominal bond investors to bear the risk that future inflation will differ from expected inflation. In theory, this premium can be influenced by uncertainty about the inflation outlook, but also by structural factors that make it more or less attractive to include TIPS in a portfolio. For example, any asset that is negatively correlated with equities is more valuable as a hedge in the context of an overall portfolio and investors should demand less of a risk premium to hold that asset. As one recent Fed paper4 noted, the correlation between long-maturity TIPS breakeven rates and equities has shifted from being negative in the 1980s to being sharply positive in recent years. This means that TIPS have become less valuable as a hedge against equity positions. All else equal, this should increase the yield that investors demand to hold TIPS and thus lower the TIPS breakeven inflation rate. We acknowledge the strong positive correlation between equities and TIPS breakevens, but are inclined to view it as more of a cyclical phenomenon. Chart 7 shows that the correlation between inflation expectations5 and equities was negative when inflation was above the Fed's 2% target in the 1980s and also that the correlation becomes more positive when the Fed eases and more negative when the Fed tightens (Chart 7, bottom panel). Chart 7Correlation Between Breakevens & Equities Is Cyclical Correlation Between Breakevens & Equities Is Cyclical Correlation Between Breakevens & Equities Is Cyclical In other words, when inflation is low the Fed has an incentive to maintain an accommodative monetary policy. It does not react strongly when inflation rises, and this supports increases in both inflation expectations and equity prices. However, when inflation becomes too high, the correlation between inflation expectations and equity prices shifts because higher inflation now signals a more rapid pace of Fed tightening which tends to depress equities. It therefore seems likely that the correlation between TIPS breakevens and equity prices will weaken as inflation rises and the Fed tightens policy. So we do not view this as a compelling reason for why TIPS breakevens might be permanently lower. Structural Limits To Arbitrage? A potentially more interesting line of argument comes from a 2010 paper by Fleckenstein, Longstaff and Lustig.6 In this paper, the authors document a persistent arbitrage opportunity between TIPS and nominal Treasury bonds. Investors can earn risk-free returns using inflation swaps and TIPS to replicate the cash flows from a nominal Treasury bond. The authors also find that this arbitrage opportunity biases TIPS breakeven rates lower, and that this bias worsens in times of increased financial market volatility. Chart 8Repo Market Less Efficient Repo Market Less Efficient Repo Market Less Efficient Specifically, the authors demonstrate that the size of the downward bias in TIPS breakevens increases as repo market fails trend higher. The rationale being that repo fails occur when market participants are unable to acquire specific Treasury collateral. This is taken as a signal that the supply of government bonds is constrained, which makes it more difficult to take advantage of the arbitrage between TIPS and nominal Treasuries. Interestingly, repo fails have been trending higher since the financial crisis as repo market activity has been reduced by strict post-crisis regulations (Chart 8). The case has been made that new regulations - specifically the Supplementary Leverage Ratio which forces dealer banks to set aside a fixed amount of capital for any assets they hold, regardless of riskiness - have caused dealers to shy away from low margin businesses such as making markets in repo.7 It is conceivable that reduced activity in the repo market has resulted in less available collateral and increased fails. If this is the new state of affairs, then it is possible that TIPS breakevens will be permanently lower in the post-crisis world because lack of liquidity in the repo market has reduced the attractiveness of arbitraging the difference between nominal and real yields. So far, we are reluctant to draw any sweeping conclusions from this analysis. In fact, if the Fed believes that the fair value for long-maturity TIPS breakevens is between 2.4% and 2.5%, then does the "limits to arbitrage" argument even matter? Also, Manmohan Singh of the IMF has argued that the act of the Fed unwinding its balance sheet would free up balance sheet space for dealer banks, mitigating some of the regulatory burden and leading to a more efficient repo market.8 If this is correct, then repo fails could decline as the Fed starts to let its balance sheet run down, a process that is likely to start later this year. For now, we consider the theory of a permanently lower equilibrium for TIPS breakevens a risk to our view that merits further research in the coming weeks. Corporate Bond Valuation Update With the release of the Moody's Default Report for March we were able to update our High-Yield Default-Adjusted Spread (Chart 9). Our Default-Adjusted Spread is equal to the average option-adjusted spread from the Bloomberg Barclays High-Yield index less a 12-month forecast of default losses. That 12-month forecast is based on Moody's baseline forecast for the speculative grade default rate and our own forecast of the recovery rate. Chart 9Default-Adjusted Spread Default-Adjusted Spread Default-Adjusted Spread Moody's data show that the speculative grade default rate was 4.7% for the 12 months ending in March, and the baseline forecast calls for it to fall to 3% during the next 12 months. Using this forecast we calculate that the current Default-Adjusted Spread is 228 bps. Our analysis shows that excess returns for both Investment Grade and High-Yield corporate bonds are usually positive unless the Default-Adjusted Spread is below 100 bps. The relationship between excess returns and the Default-Adjusted Spread for both Investment Grade and High-Yield corporates is shown graphically in Charts 10 & 11 and also in Tables 1 & 2. Chart 1012-Month Excess Investment Grade Returns ##br##Vs. Ex-Ante Default-Adjusted Spread (2003 - Present) Will Breakevens Ever Recover? Will Breakevens Ever Recover? Chart 1112-Month Excess High-Yield Returns Versus Ex-Ante ##br##Default-Adjusted Spread (2003-Present) Will Breakevens Ever Recover? Will Breakevens Ever Recover? Table 112-Month Investment Grade Excess Returns & Ex-Ante Default-Adjusted Spread Will Breakevens Ever Recover? Will Breakevens Ever Recover? Table 212-Month High-Yield Excess Returns & Ex-Ante Default-Adjusted Spread Will Breakevens Ever Recover? Will Breakevens Ever Recover? Given our relatively optimistic outlook for U.S. growth, we tend to view current valuation levels as attractive and see scope for spread tightening during the next few months. However, the weakening state of corporate balance sheets means spreads are at risk once inflation starts to bite and monetary policy turns less accommodative, possibly as early as next year.9 Bottom Line: Our Default-Adjusted Spread remains at reasonably attractive levels, suggesting that corporate spreads will tighten in the coming months if the economic recovery remains on track. Remain overweight corporate bonds within U.S. fixed income portfolios. Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Fade The Flight To Safety", dated April 18, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "The Great Debate Continues", dated April 17, 2017, available at usis.bcaresearch.com 3 According to the Fed, the Beige Book provides "an up-to-date depiction of regional economic conditions based on anecdotal information gathered from a diverse range of business and community contacts." 4 Chen, Andrew Y., Eric C. Engstrom, and Olesya V. Grishchenko (2016). "Has the inflation risk premium fallen? Is it now negative?," FEDS Notes. Washington: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, April 4, 2016, http://dx.doi.org/10.17016/2380-7172.1720 5 In order to benefit from more back-data, in Chart 7 we use the Cleveland Fed's measure of inflation expectations rather than TIPS breakeven rates. Details about the Cleveland Fed's methodology can be found here: https://www.clevelandfed.org/en/our-research/indicators-and-data/inflation-expectations.aspx 6 Fleckenstein, Matthias, Francis A. Longstaff, and Hanno Lustig (2010). "Why Does the Treasury Issue TIPS? The TIPS-Treasury Bond Puzzle", NBER Working Paper No. 16358. September 2010. JEL No. E6,G12,G14. http://www.nber.org/papers/w16358 7 https://www.forbes.com/sites/lbsbusinessstrategyreview/2016/03/11/why-are-big-banks-offering-less-liquidity-to-bond-markets/#64286f5729de 8 https://ftalphaville.ft.com/2017/04/24/2187716/guest-post-why-shrinking-the-fed-balance-sheet-may-have-an-easing-effect/ 9 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "The Payback Period In Corporate Bonds", dated April 11, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

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

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

I am honored to join BCA Research as Senior Vice President of the U.S. Investment Strategy service. I have been researching and writing about the economy and financial markets for more than 30 years. I joined BCA Research from LPL Financial in Boston, MA where I served as the firm’s Chief Economic Strategist. At LPL I helped to manage more than $120 billion in client assets and provided more than 14,000 financial advisors and 700+ financial institutions with insights on asset allocation, global financial markets and economics. Prior to LPL, I served in similar functions at PNC Advisors, Stone & McCarthy Research, Prudential Securities, and the Congressional Budget Office in Washington, DC. I look forward to meeting you and providing quality research in the years to come. John Canally, Senior Vice President U.S. Investment Strategy Highlights We are not changing our view on Treasury markets or our stocks over bonds call despite the news that the Fed will begin shrinking its balance sheet later this year. The Fed's action is marginally dollar positive. For the major industrialized economies, the so-called "hard" data are moving in line with the "soft" survey data for the most part. Retail sales and industrial production have accelerated, although "hard" data on business capital spending remains weak. We introduce our Bond Duration checklist this week. These are the key economic and market indicators that we are watching to assess whether we should maintain our current below-benchmark portfolio stance. We continue to favor U.S. equites over bonds in 2017 and recommend keeping duration short of benchmark. Despite outsized performance from high-yield corporate bonds in 2016, investors should favor stocks over high-yield over the coming year. We introduce the BCA Beige Book Monitor this week. This metric provides a quantitative look at the qualitative, or "soft" data in the Fed's Beige Book. The Beige Book is due out Wednesday, April 19. Feature Chart 1Weak Data And More Weighed ##br##On Risk Assets Weak Data And More Weighed On Risk Assets Weak Data And More Weighed On Risk Assets U.S. stocks stumbled and Treasury yields slumped last week with the 10-year Treasury yield hitting a 2017 low. The drop in yields came despite news from the FOMC that the Fed is prepared to shrink its balance sheet later this year, a bit sooner than the market expected. Comments from Fed Chair Yellen - who expressed concern that the Fed's independence is "under threat"- should have jolted the bond market, but didn't. Not yet at least. Geopolitics played a role in the week's market action as well, the main culprits being upcoming French elections, the aftermath of President Trump's missile attack on Syria and ongoing tensions in North Korea. The looming Q1 earnings reporting season weighed on risk assets as well. The dollar ended lower last week. Trump told the Wall Street Journal he prefers a weak dollar. Those comments and the tepid data helped to offset the safe-haven bid generated by the geopolitical events of the week (Chart 1). The "hard" vs "soft" data debate will continue this week and likely for some time thereafter. "Hard" data on housing and manufacturing for March as well as the U.S. leading indicator are due out this week. Of course, the ultimate set of "hard" data is the corporate earnings data. Nearly 70 S&P 500 firms will report Q1 results and provide guidance for Q2 and beyond this week. "Soft" data on the PMI, Philly Fed and Empire State manufacturing sector for April will undoubtedly keep the debate going. Our view is that the hard data will catch up with the upbeat surveys in the U.S. This week we review the key economic indicators for the major advanced economies, which highlight that the global growth acceleration remains on track. We also introduce a Duration Checklist designed to help separate "signal from noise" in the bond market. Most of the items on the Checklist remain bond-bearish. Fed plans to shrink its balance sheet is not particularly negative for bond prices, but it certainly won't be supportive. The main risk to our bond-bearish view remains geopolitics, including the first round voting and results in the French election due on Sunday, April 23. Balance Sheet Bedlam? Maybe Not The release of Minutes from the FOMC's March meeting contained a robust discussion of the Fed's balance sheet. Until recently, most market participants had assumed that the Fed would maintain the size of its balance sheet via reinvesting through at least late 2017/early 2018. The latest FOMC minutes suggest that, assuming the economy continues to track the Fed's forecast, the FOMC will allow its balance sheet to shrink this year. The FOMC will achieve this by ceasing reinvestment of both its MBS and Treasury holdings at the same time. No decision has been made about whether the reinvestments will end all at once or will be phased out over time (tapered). Chart 2 shows that when QE1 ended in 2010 and QE2 ended in 2011, U.S. equities underperformed bonds. It's important to note, however, that underperformance didn't occur in a vacuum. The European debt crisis, the U.S. rating downgrade and debt ceiling debates all weighed on risk assets after QE1 and QE2 ended. Other factors played a role as well, such as weak economic growth and policy uncertainty. Amid QE3, U.S. equities surged in 2013, returning 32.4%, while bonds fell 8.5%. But in late 2013, the Fed announced that purchases would be tapered over the course of 2014. QE3 finally ended in late 2014. Stocks and bonds battled it out over 2014 and 2015, with stocks beating bonds by 3%. Chart 2Reminder What Happened When QE1, QE2 & QE3 Ended Reminder What Happened When QE1, QE2 & QE3 Ended Reminder What Happened When QE1, QE2 & QE3 Ended Bottom Line: Our view remains that Fed balance sheet run-off won't have a big impact on Treasury yields, although may lead to a widening of MBS spreads. What matters more for Treasury yields than the size of the balance sheet is the expected path of short rates. As for equities, while geopolitical risks are ever-present, the U.S. economy is in far better shape today than it was when QE1, QE2 and QE3 ended. U.S. corporate earnings are pointing higher as well. While we've clearly entered a new part in the Fed cycle, the news on the Fed's balance sheet does not change our view that U.S. stocks will outperform bonds this year. All else equal, the dollar should get a small boost from a shrinking Fed balance sheet, supporting our view that the dollar will rise 10% this year. Overplaying The Soft Data And Underplaying Geopolitics...In 2018 Chart 3Global Pick-Up On Track Global Pick-Up On Track Global Pick-Up On Track Traders and investors have been giving up on the global reflation story of late, sending the 10-year Treasury yield down to the bottom end of this year's trading range. Missile strikes, upcoming French elections and U.S. saber rattling regarding North Korea have lifted the allure of safe havens such as government bonds. At the same time, the Fed was unwilling to revise up the 'dot plot', doubts are growing over the ability of the Trump Administration to deliver any stimulus and a few recent U.S. data releases have disappointed. It is difficult to forecast the ebb and flow of safe-haven demand for bonds, especially related to North Korea and Syria. However, our geopolitical team holds a high-conviction view that angst over Eurozone elections this year are overblown. The Italian election in 2018 is more of a threat. While we cannot rule out an even stronger safe-haven bid from developing in the coming weeks, the global cyclical economic backdrop remains negative for government bond markets. For the major industrialized economies, the so-called "hard" data are moving in line with the "soft" survey data for the most part. For example, retail sales growth continues to accelerate, reaching 4.7% in February on a year-over-year basis (Chart 3). This follows the sharp improvement in consumer confidence. Manufacturing production growth is also accelerating to the upside, in line with the PMIs. The global manufacturing sector is rebounding smartly after last year's recession, which was driven by the collapse in oil prices and a global inventory correction. Readers may be excused for jumping to the conclusion that the rebound is largely in the energy space, but this is not true. Production growth in the energy sector is close to zero on a year-over-year basis, and is negative on a 3-month rate of change basis (Chart 4). The growth pickup has been in the other major sectors, including consumer-related goods, capital goods and technology. In the U.S., non-energy production has boomed over the three months, rising 5.2% at annual rates (Chart 5). The weak spot has been in capital goods orders (Chart 3). We only have data for the big three economies - the U.S., Japan and the Eurozone - but growth is near to zero or slightly negative for all three. These data are perplexing because they are at odds with an acceleration in the production of capital goods (noted above) and a pickup in capital goods imports for 20 economies (Chart 3, third panel). Nonetheless, improving CEO sentiment, strengthening profit growth and activity surveys all suggest that capital goods orders will "catch up" in the coming months. Chart 4Manufacturing Rebound Is Not About Energy Manufacturing Rebound Is Not About Energy Manufacturing Rebound Is Not About Energy Chart 5U.S.: Non-Energy Production Surging U.S.: Non-Energy Production Surging U.S.: Non-Energy Production Surging That said, one risk to our positive capex outlook in the U.S. is that the Republicans could fail to deliver on their promises to cut taxes and boost infrastructure spending. This is not our base case, but current capex plans could be cancelled or put on indefinite hold were there to be no corporate tax cuts or immediate expensing of capital expenditures. Duration Checklist: What We're Watching BCA's Global Fixed Income Strategy service recently introduced a "Duration Checklist" designed to keep us focused on the most relevant factors while trying to sift out the signal from the noise (Table 1).1 These are the key economic and market indicators that we are watching to assess whether we should maintain our current below-benchmark portfolio stance. Naturally, leading and coincident indicators for global growth feature prominently in the top section of the Checklist (Chart 6). All four of these indicators appear to have topped out except the Global Leading Economic Indicator (GLEI), suggesting that the period of maximum growth acceleration has past. Nonetheless, all four are still consistent with robust growth for at least the near term. Table 1Stay Bearish On Treasuries & Bunds The Great Debate Continues The Great Debate Continues Chart 6Some Warning From Leading Indicators Some Warning From Leading Indicators Some Warning From Leading Indicators The rapid decline in the diffusion index, based on the 22 countries that comprise our GLEI, is concerning. The LEIs for two major economies and two emerging economies dipped slightly in February, such that roughly half of the country LEIs rose and half fell in the month. While it is too early to hit the panic button, the diffusion index is worth watching closely; a decline below 50 for several months would indicate that a peak in the GLEI is approaching. The remainder of the items on the checklist are related to growth, inflation pressure, central bank stance, investor risk-taking behavior and bond market technicals. We are focusing on the U.S. and Eurozone at the moment because we believe these two economies will be the main driver of global yields over the next 12 months. In the U.S., the Fed is tightening and market expectations are overly benign on the pace of rate hikes in the coming years. Upside pressure on global yields should intensify later this year, when the ECB announces the next "tapering" of its asset purchase program. All of the economic growth, inflation pressure and risk-seeking indicators on the Checklist warrant a check mark for the U.S., although this is not the case for the Eurozone inflation indicators. From a technical perspective, the Treasury and bund markets no longer appear as oversold as they did after the rapid run-up in yields following last November's U.S. elections. Large short positions have largely unwound. This removes one of the largest impediments to a renewed decline in global bond prices. For the U.S., we expect that the 10-year yield to rise to the upper end of the recent 2.3%-2.6% trading range in the next couple of months, before eventually breaking out on the way to the 2.8%-3% area by year-end. Bottom Line: A number of political pressure points and some modest U.S. data disappointments have triggered an unwinding of short bond positions. Nonetheless, the global manufacturing revival and growth impulse remain in place, and the majority of items on our Checklist suggest that the recent bond rally represents a consolidation phase rather than a trend reversal. Keep duration short of benchmark within fixed-income portfolios. Favor Stocks Over Junk Bonds Table 2A New Trend In Junk Vs. Stocks? The Great Debate Continues The Great Debate Continues We continue to favor U.S. equities over bonds in 2017 and recommend keeping duration short of benchmark. But what about U.S. equities versus high-yield bonds? As a reminder, favoring corporate bonds over equities was a long-running BCA theme during the early stages of the economic recovery.We noted that corporate bonds were likely to outperform equities in a prescient Special Report published in late-2008,2 and we continued to favor corporate bonds until late-2012 when we shifted towards strong dividend-paying stocks. Table 2 highlights that our corporate bond vs equity recommendations have worked out well over the past several years. The table presents the annual total return for the S&P 500 and high-yield corporate bonds (as well as the difference between the two), and it shows that the former underperformed the latter from 2008 to 2011 (and again in 2012 in risk-adjusted terms). However, stocks materially outperformed high-yield bonds from 2013-2015, which followed our recommendation to favor the S&P Dividend Aristocrats index over corporate bonds in our November 2012 Special Report.3 But Table 2 also shows that the trend of stock outperformance reversed last year, with high-yield bonds having somewhat outpaced the S&P 500 in total return terms. Does this imply that investors are witnessing the beginning of a new uptrend in corporate bond outperformance versus equities? In our view, the answer is 'no'. Chart 7 presents our simple framework for the relative performance of stocks vs high-yield corporate bonds, which suggests that investors should favor the former over the latter. Panel 1 highlights that the trend in stocks vs high-yield is generally the same as that vs 10-year Treasuries, with a few notable exceptions of sustained difference. The first exception was from 2002 to 2004, when stocks significantly outperformed government bonds but were flat vs high-yield. The second exception occurred during the early part of this expansion, which again saw high-yield corporate bonds post equity-like returns. Chart 7Major Valuation Advantage Needed For High-Yield To Outperform Stocks Major Valuation Advantage Needed For High-Yield To Outperform Stocks Major Valuation Advantage Needed For High-Yield To Outperform Stocks Panel 2 suggests that both of these circumstances were fueled by a substantial high-yield valuation advantage over stocks. The panel illustrates the gap between the speculative-grade corporate bond yield-to-worst and the S&P 500 12-month forward earnings yield, which was elevated and fell materially in both of the cases of sustained divergence shown in panel 1. The key point for investors is that last year's outperformance of junk bonds is unlikely to continue. While the compression of the junk/stock yield gap did lead the former to outperform last year, the gap was not high to begin with and is currently not that far away from its historical lows. This suggests that there is no reason to expect the stock/junk relative performance trend to deviate from the overall stock/government bond trend, which we expect to rise further over the coming 6-12 months. Bottom Line: Despite outsized performance from high-yield corporate bonds in 2016, investors should continue to favor stocks over high-yield over the coming year (but favor both over Treasuries and cash). Introducing The BCA Beige Book Monitor Chart 8BCA Beige Book Monitor: ##br##A "Hard" Look At "Soft" Data BCA Beige Book Monitor: A "Hard" Look At "Soft" Data BCA Beige Book Monitor: A "Hard" Look At "Soft" Data The Fed's Beige Book is released eight times a year, two weeks ahead of each FOMC meeting. It was first released in 1983. The Beige Book's predecessor was the Red Book, first produced in 1970. The Beige Book itself got a makeover from the Fed in early 2017. The Fed changed the way the information was presented across the 12 Fed districts, but, according to the Fed, the Beige Book will continue to provide "an up-to-date depiction of regional economic conditions based on anecdotal information gathered from a diverse range of business and community contacts." In addition to the Beige Book, FOMC officials also review what is now known as the "Teal Book" at each meeting. The Teal Book combined the "Green Book" - a review of current economic and financial conditions - and the "Blue Book"- which provided context for FOMC members on monetary policy actions. As noted in the Fed's own description, the Beige Book is "soft data". In discussing the Beige Book, the financial press often notes the number of districts where growth is expanding and contracting or describes the pace of overall activity (modest, moderate etc). The BCA Beige Book Monitor takes a more quantitative approach to all the qualitative data in the Beige Book. We began by searching the document for all the words we could think of that signify strength: Strong, strength, rise, increase, accelerate, fast, expand, advance, positive, robust, optimistic, up, etc. We then counted up all the words that denote weakness: Weak, fell, slow, decelerate, decrease, decline, soft, negative, pessimistic, down, contract, etc. Next, we subtracted the number of weak words from the strong words to calculate the BCA Beige Book Monitor. The Monitor begins in 2005, so it covers the time period from the middle of the 2001-2007 expansion, through the Great Recession (2007-2009) and the recovery since 2009. A more streamlined approach, using the words "strong" and "strength" (and their derivatives like stronger, strengthened, etc) as proxy for all the strong words and the word "weak" as a proxy for all the weak words, showed the same results. We adopted this simpler approach. Chart 8, panels 1 and 2, shows the BCA Beige Book Monitor versus real GDP and CEO Confidence. The BCA Beige Book monitor does a good job explaining GDP, but it is more timely. The Monitor leads CEO confidence, especially around turning points. We intend to do more work with the Beige Book Monitor and present it to you in future editions of this publication. We also track mentions of other key words in the Beige Book. For example changes in mentions of "inflation" words in the Beige book track, and sometimes lead, core inflation (Panel 3). Mentions of the "strong dollar" track the dollar itself, although tends to be lagging (Panel 4). We'll be watching for those inflation words and mentions of the dollar in the Beige Book this week. The Beige Book will also help to shed some qualitative light on the recent weakness in capital spending and C&I loans. Has the uncertainty about the timing, scope and scale of Trump's legislative agenda (taxes, infrastructure and the repeal of Obamacare, etc) had an impact on corporate spending or borrowing? We'll find out this week. Bottom Line: Although technically it is "soft" data, the Beige Book is a major input on monetary policy decision making for the FOMC. As we showed last week, the rise in "inflation" words in the Beige Book has certainly captured the Fed's attention, and confirms the "hard" we've seen on inflation. The next FOMC meeting is on May 2-3, and neither we nor the consensus expects a hike at that meeting. Despite the apparent flare-up in geopolitics last week and the run of disappointing economic data, we continue to expect the Fed to raise rates 2 more times in 2017. John Canally, CFA, Senior Vice President U.S. Investment Strategy johnc@bcaresearch.com Mark McClellan, Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst markm@bcaresearch.com Jonathan LaBerge Vice President, Special Reports jonathanl@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report, "A Duration Checklist For U.S. Treasurys And German Bunds," dated February 15, 2017, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "Value And The Cycle Favor Corporate Debt Over Equities," dated November 14, 2008, available at gis.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see U.S. Investment Strategy Special Report, "The Search For Yield Continues: Aristocrats Or High Yield?" dated November 5, 2012, available at usis.bcaresearch.com

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

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

Highlights The rally in risk assets appears to have stalled, raising fears that the misnamed "Trump Trade" has ended. Investors are attaching too much importance to the reality show in Washington and not enough to the fundamentals underpinning the acceleration in global growth and corporate earnings. For now, these fundamentals are strong, and should remain so for the next 12 months. Beyond then, the impulse from easier financial conditions will dissipate and policy will turn less friendly, setting the stage for a major slowdown - and possibly a recession - in 2019. Stay overweight global equities and high-yield credit, but be prepared to reduce exposure next spring. Feature Risk Assets Hit The Pause Button After rallying nearly non-stop following the U.S. presidential election, risk assets have stalled since early March (Chart 1). The S&P 500 has fallen by 1.8% after hitting a record high on March 1st. Treasury yields have also backed off their highs and credit spreads have widened modestly. Globally, the picture has been much the same (Chart 2). The yen - a traditionally "risk off" currency - has strengthened, while "risk on" currencies such as the AUD and NZD have faltered. EM currencies have dipped, as have most commodity prices. Only gold has found a bid. Chart 1A Pause In Risk Assets In The U.S.... A Pause In Risk Assets In The U.S.... A Pause In Risk Assets In The U.S.... Chart 2...And Globally ...And Globally ...And Globally The key question for investors is whether all this merely represents a correction in a cyclical bull market for global risk assets, or the start of a more sinister trend. We think it is the former. Global Growth Still Solid For one thing, it would be a mistake to attach too much significance to the unfolding reality show in Washington. As we discussed in last week's Q2 Strategy Outlook,1 the recovery in global growth and corporate earnings began a few months before last year's election and would have likely continued regardless of who won the White House (Chart 3). For now, the global growth picture still looks reasonably bright. Our global Leading Economic Indicator remains in a solid uptrend. Burgeoning animal spirits are powering a recovery in business spending, as evidenced by the jump in factory orders and capex intentions (Chart 4). Consumer confidence is also soaring. If history is any guide, this will translate into stronger consumption growth in the months ahead (Chart 5). Chart 3Recovery Predates President Trump Recovery Predates President Trump Recovery Predates President Trump Chart 4Global Growth Backdrop Remains Solid Global Growth Backdrop Remains Solid Global Growth Backdrop Remains Solid Chart 5Rising Consumer Confidence Will Provide A Boost To Consumption Rising Consumer Confidence Will Provide A Boost To Consumption Rising Consumer Confidence Will Provide A Boost To Consumption The lagged effects from the easing in financial conditions over the past 12 months should help support activity. Chart 6 shows that the 12-month change in our U.S. Financial Conditions Index leads the business cycle by 6-to-9 months. The current message from the index is that U.S. growth will stay sturdy for the remainder of 2017. Stronger global growth should continue to power an acceleration in corporate earnings over the remainder of the year. Global EPS is expected to expand by 12.5% over the next 12 months. Analysts are usually too bullish when it comes to making earnings forecasts. This time around they may be too bearish. Chart 7 shows that the global earnings revisions ratio has turned positive for the first time in six years, implying that analysts have been behind the curve in revising up profit projections. Chart 6Easing Financial Conditions Will Support Activity In 2017 Easing Financial Conditions Will Support Activity In 2017 Easing Financial Conditions Will Support Activity In 2017 Chart 7Global Earnings Picture Looking Brighter Global Earnings Picture Looking Brighter Global Earnings Picture Looking Brighter Gridlock In Washington? As far as developments in Washington are concerned, it is certainly true that the failure to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act has cast doubt on the ability of Congress to implement other parts of President Trump's agenda. Despite reassurances from Trump that a new health care bill will pass, we doubt that the GOP can cobble together any legislation that jointly satisfies the hardline views of the Freedom Caucus and the more moderate views of the Republicans in the Senate. Ironically, the failure to jettison Obamacare may turn out to be a blessing in disguise for Trump and the Republican Party. Opinion polls suggest that the GOP would have gone down in flames if the American Health Care Act had been signed into law (Table 1). According to the Congressional Budget Office, the proposed legislation would have caused 24 million fewer Americans to have health insurance in 2026 compared with the status quo. The bill would have also reduced federal government spending on health care by $1.2 trillion over ten years. Sixty-four year-olds with incomes of $26,500 would have seen their annual premiums soar from $1,700 to $14,600. Even if one includes the tax cuts in the proposed bill, the net effect would have been a major tightening in fiscal policy. Now, that would have warranted lower bond yields and a weaker dollar. Table 1Passing The American Health Care Act Could Have Cost The Republicans Dearly The Trump Trade Will Fizzle Out, But Not Yet The Trump Trade Will Fizzle Out, But Not Yet Granted, the political fireworks over the past month serve as a reminder that comprehensive tax reform will be more difficult to achieve than many had hoped. However, even if Republicans are unable to overhaul the tax code, this will not prevent them from simply cutting corporate and personal taxes. Worries that tax cuts will lead to larger budget deficits will be brushed aside on the grounds that they will "pay for themselves" through faster growth (dynamic scoring!). Throw some infrastructure spending into the mix, and it will not take much for the "Trump Trade" to return with a vengeance. Trump's Fiscal Fantasy This is not to say that the "Trump Trade" won't fizzle out. It will. But that will be a story for 2018 rather than this year. This is because the disappointment for investors will stem not from the failure to cut taxes, but from the underwhelming effect that tax cuts end up having on the economy. The highly profitable companies that will benefit the most from lower corporate taxes are the ones who least need them. In many cases, these companies have plenty of cash and easy access to external financing. As a consequence, much of the tax cuts will simply be hoarded or used to finance equity buybacks or dividend payments. A large share of personal tax cuts will also be saved, given that they will mostly accrue to higher income earners. Chart 8From Unrealistic To Even More Unrealistic From Unrealistic To Even More Unrealistic From Unrealistic To Even More Unrealistic The amount of infrastructure spending that actually takes place will likely be a tiny fraction of the headline amount. This is not just because of the dearth of "shovel ready" projects. It is also because the public-private partnership structure the GOP is touting will severely limit the universe of projects that can be considered. Most of America's infrastructure needs consist of basic maintenance, rather than the sort of marquee projects that the private sector would be keen to invest in. Indeed, the bill could turn out to be little more than a boondoggle for privatizing existing public infrastructure projects, rather than investing in new ones. Meanwhile, the Trump administration is proposing large cuts to nondefense discretionary expenditures that go above and beyond the draconian ones that are already enshrined into current law (Chart 8). In his Special Report on U.S. fiscal policy, my colleague Martin Barnes argues that "it is a FALLACY to describe overall non-defense discretionary spending as massively bloated and out-of-control."2 As such, the risk to the economy beyond the next 12 months is that markets push up the dollar and long-term interest rates in anticipation of continued strong growth and major fiscal stimulus but end up getting neither. Investment Conclusions Risk assets have enjoyed a strong rally since late last year, and a modest correction is long overdue. Still, as long as the global economy continues to grow at a robust pace, the cyclical outlook for risk assets will remain bullish. As such, investors should stay overweight global equities and high-yield credit at the expense of government bonds and cash. We prefer European and Japanese equities over the U.S., currency-hedged (See Appendix). As we discussed in detail last week, global growth is likely to slow in the second half of 2018, with the deceleration intensifying into 2019, possibly culminating in a recession in a number of countries. To what extent markets "sniff out" an economic slowdown before it happens is a matter of debate. U.S. equities did not peak until October 2007, only slightly before the Great Recession began. Commodity prices did not top out until the summer of 2008. Thus, the market's track record for predicting recessions is far from an envious one. Nevertheless, investors should err on the side of safety and start scaling back risk exposure next spring. The 2019 recession will last 6-to-12 months. By historic standards, it will probably be a mild one. However, with memories of the Great Recession still fresh in most people's minds and President Trump up for re-election in 2020, the response could be dramatic. This will set the stage for a period of stagflation in the 2020s. Chart 9 presents a visual representation of how the main asset markets are likely to evolve over the next seven years. Chart 9Market Outlook For Major Asset Classes The Trump Trade Will Fizzle Out, But Not Yet The Trump Trade Will Fizzle Out, But Not Yet Peter Berezin, Senior Vice President Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Global Investment Strategy Outlook, "Second Quarter 2017: A Three-Act Play," dated March 31, 2017, available at gis.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see BCA Special Report, "U.S. Fiscal Policy: Facts, Fallacies And Fantasies," dated April 5, 2017, available at bca.bcaresearch.com. Appendix Tactical Global Asset Allocation Monthly Update We announced last week that we are making major upgrades to our Tactical Asset Allocation Model. In the meantime, we will send you a concise update of our recommendations every month based on a combination of BCA's proprietary indicators as well as our own seasoned judgement (Appendix Table 1). Appendix Table 2Global Asset Allocation Recommendations (Percent) The Trump Trade Will Fizzle Out, But Not Yet The Trump Trade Will Fizzle Out, But Not Yet In a Special Report published last year, we laid out the quantitative factors that have historically predicted stock market returns. Appendix Chart 1 updates the output of that model for the U.S. It currently shows a slightly above-average return profile for the S&P 500 over the next three months. Appendix Chart 1S&P 500: Above Average Returns Over The Next 3 Months The Trump Trade Will Fizzle Out, But Not Yet The Trump Trade Will Fizzle Out, But Not Yet Applying this model to the rest of the world yields a somewhat more positive picture for Europe and Japan, given more favorable valuations and easier monetary conditions in those regions. The technical picture has also improved in Europe and Japan. This is especially true with respect to price momentum: After a long period of underperformance, euro area equities have outpaced the U.S. by 11.5% in local-currency terms since last summer’s lows. Japanese stocks have suffered over the past few months, but are still up 12.5% against the U.S. over the same period (Appendix Chart 2). Turning to government bonds, the extreme bearish sentiment and positioning that prevailed in February and early March has been largely reversed, suggesting that the most recent rally in bonds could run out of steam (Appendix Chart 3). Looking ahead, yields are likely to rise anew on the back of strong economic growth and rising inflation. Thus, an underweight allocation to government bonds is warranted, particularly in the U.S. Appendix Chart 2Relative Performance Of Euro Area ##br##And Japanese Equities Troughed Last Summer Relative Performance Of Euro Area And Japanese Equities Troughed Last Summer Relative Performance Of Euro Area And Japanese Equities Troughed Last Summer Appendix Chart 3Rally In Bonds Could Soon Peter Out Rally In Bonds Could Soon Peter Out Rally In Bonds Could Soon Peter Out Clients should consult our Q2 Strategy Outlook for a more detailed discussion of the global investment outlook. Strategy & Market Trends Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades