Fixed Income

Highlights EM, The USD & Bond Yields: The turbulence in Turkey and other emerging markets has likely not been enough to move the Fed off its planned 25bp/quarter trajectory. It will take a larger and faster U.S. dollar appreciation, and more serious U.S. market declines, before the Fed backs down and bond yields fall more decisively. Stay below-benchmark on overall portfolio duration exposure, but only neutral on spread product exposure. Australia: Australian economic growth momentum is choppy and inflation is struggling to accelerate amidst ample excess capacity in labor markets. Stay overweight Australian government bonds, but temper return expectations after the big outperformance year-to-date. Feature It's All About The Dollar Chart of the WeekBad Things Happen More Often With A Rising USD The turmoil in Turkey and collapse of the lira has been the latest bout of financial market turbulence seen in 2018. From the VIX shock in early February, to the Italy yield spike in May, to the bear market in Chinese equities, there have been big market meltdowns that seem to come out of nowhere. Yet these are not isolated events. The slowing pace of bond buying by the European Central Bank and the Bank of Japan, in addition to the Fed unwinding its huge balance sheet, have left the global financial system with diminished liquidity. More importantly, the Fed's tightening cycle has turned the U.S. dollar from a weak currency in 2017 to a strong currency in 2018 (Chart of the Week). Yes, U.S.-China trade tensions have compounded matters by raising uncertainties about global growth, but tightening monetary policies and more growth uncertainties have been the true cause of this year's market shocks. Turkey and Italy were questionable credits in 2017, but investors did not care when the dollar was soft and global growth was accelerating. Looking ahead, the key variable to watch will be the U.S. dollar. Many of BCA's strategists have made comparisons between the backdrop today and the late 1990s period that resulted in the 1998 Asian Crisis.1 Those comparisons are valid, given the high level of dollar debt in the emerging markets at a time of Fed tightening and a rising U.S. dollar (Chart 2). A key difference is that, in that late 1990s episode, the Fed was keeping U.S. monetary policy very tight as evidenced by the inverted U.S. Treasury yield curve and a fed funds rate that was well in excess of inflation (and well above what we now know to be the neutral r-star rate). The dollar surged during that period because global growth differentials strongly favored the U.S. Today, the Fed has not yet pushed the funds rate into restrictive territory and the dollar is still well below the peak seen in the late 1990s. With the Fed still not signaling any adjustment to its rate hike plans based on the latest bout of EM turmoil, there is scope for the dollar to continue appreciating over the next 6-12 months. The critical factor that could change this dynamic, however, is the pace of dollar appreciation. The U.S. trade-weighted dollar is now only 5% above the levels of a year ago. Looking back at the 2014/15 surge in the dollar, the peak annual pace of dollar appreciation reached 15% in mid-2015 (Chart 3). That move was big enough, and fast enough, to trigger a sharp U.S. economic growth slowdown, a contraction in U.S. corporate profit growth and a large fall in U.S. inflation (admittedly, helped by collapsing oil prices). It would take a 10% appreciation from current levels (think EUR/USD at 1.04) over the next four months to generate an equivalent pace of dollar appreciation (the black dotted line in all panels). So far, the EM turmoil and dollar strength have not resulted in much turbulence in U.S. financial markets (Chart 4). Corporate credit spreads have stayed well behaved, while U.S. equities are only modestly off the recent highs. Only U.S. Treasury yields have dipped lower from recent highs, even though yields are still contained within the range of the past few months. This is in sharp contrast to the 2015 episode, when U.S. financial markets eventually succumbed to the pressure of the strong dollar and EM selloff - but not without decisive evidence of slowing U.S. growth (top panel). Only then did the Fed finally capitulate and announce a pause after lifting rates just once at the end of 2015, sending Treasury yields sharply lower. Chart 2It's Not 1998##BR##...Yet Chart 3The Pace Of USD Appreciation##BR##Matters A Lot Chart 42015 Redux? Watch##BR##U.S. Growth & Earnings Until there is evidence that the U.S. economy is losing momentum, and that the stronger U.S. dollar and emerging market volatility are a root cause of slowing growth, global bond yields are unlikely to fall much lower on a sustainable basis. The next few readings on the ISM indices, employment growth and small business confidence, along with the third quarter earnings reports starting in October, will be critical in determining if the U.S. economy is falling victim to the "EM Flu". It will likely take more dollar strength before that happens, however. In the meantime, we continue to recommend a below-benchmark overall duration stance, with only a neutral allocation to global corporate bonds versus government debt. We still favor U.S. corporate debt over non-U.S. equivalents until there is evidence of slowing U.S. growth. Bottom Line: The turbulence in Turkey and other emerging markets has likely not been enough to move the Fed off its planned 25bp/quarter trajectory. It will take a larger and faster U.S. dollar appreciation, and more serious U.S. market declines, before the Fed backs down and bond yields fall more decisively. Stay below-benchmark on overall portfolio duration exposure, but only neutral on spread product exposure. Australia: Still Too Much Uncertainty For Rate Hikes One of our highest conviction calls since the start of 2018 has been to stay overweight Australian government bonds. The logic behind the view was simple; it would be very difficult for the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) to deliver even a single rate hike over the course of the year. A combination of a fragile consumer, persistent slack in labor markets and softening Chinese demand for Australian exports would all conspire to restrain Australian inflation and keep the RBA on the sidelines. So far, our view has largely come to fruition, to the benefit of Australian government bond performance. Chart 5Massive Australian Bond Outperformance vs USTs The RBA has held the benchmark Cash Rate at the same 1.5% level that has prevailed since August 2016. This has helped the Bloomberg Barclays Australia Treasury index deliver a local currency total return of 2.68% year-to-date. The performance has been even more impressive hedged into U.S. dollars, with an excess return over U.S. Treasuries of 3.95% - surpassing the overall Global (ex U.S.) Treasury index excess return by 85bps. The benchmark 10-year Australian yield has fallen 10bps since the end of 2017, in sharp contrast to the 46bps increase in the 10-year U.S. Treasury yield, with the spread between the two bonds now in negative territory for the first time since 1998 (Chart 5). Obviously, the potential for further outperformance of Australian bonds is diminished after such an impressive run. The Australian Overnight Index Swap (OIS) curve is now only discounting a mere 15bps of rate hikes over the next twelve months, and a move to outright rate cuts will be difficult with the economy still growing above trend and inflation now back to the low end of the RBA's 2-3% target range. Headline unemployment is now down to 5.4%, the lowest level since 2012 and within hailing distance of the 5% level that the RBA believes to be full employment. Yet there are now enough uncertainties regarding the Australian economic outlook to suggest that Australian government bonds should continue to outperform developed market peers over the next 6-12 months. The Biggest Uncertainties: Consumer Spending, Housing & Banks Consumer spending - 60% of Australian GDP, the largest component - has struggled to gain much positive momentum in recent years. Since the end of 2013, the year-over-year growth rate of real consumption has ranged between 2.2% and 3.1%. The lack of spending power has been the biggest problem, with real wage growth averaging a mere 0.2% over the past five years and hours worked remaining stagnant (Chart 6). Anemic income growth means that the household saving rate had to fall from 8% to 2% just to maintain an uninspiring 2.5% average pace of real consumer spending. Both real wage growth and average weekly hours worked have decelerated since the start of 2017, with the former now only at 0.1% and the latter at an all-time low. This has compounded the biggest structural risk to the Australian consumer - high debt. Household debt is now up to a record 190% of disposable income, the fourth highest figure among OECD countries after having shot up thirty percentage points since the end of 2012 (bottom panel). The ability to carry that huge debt load is helped by low interest rates that have helped keep debt service ratios in line with long-run averages. More recently, house prices have been coming off the boil (Chart 7). National house prices were down 2.5% in July on a year-over-year basis, led by declines in the major markets of Sydney (down 5.5% from the July 2017 peak) and Melbourne (down 3% from the November 2017 peak). In the RBA's latest Statement on Monetary Policy released earlier this month, it was noted that even such a modest decline in housing values after years of substantial price gains could have an outsized impact on overall consumption if focused on the more highly indebted or credit-constrained households.2 Yet a cooling of overheated housing values is, as RBA Governor Philip Lowe noted in a speech last week, a "welcome development" after years of unsustainable price gains that greatly diminished housing affordability.3 Homebuyer sentiment and growth in housing approvals have already ticked up in response to the slowing pace of house price appreciation, although both remain well below levels seen during the boom years. One wild card that could short-circuit any rebound in house prices is the availability of credit from Australian banks. The entire Australian banking industry has come under harsh criticism from the findings of the government's Royal Commission on Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Industry.4 The Commission was established at the end of 2017, after years of public pressure regarding the questionable business practices of Australian financial firms. Evidence of bribery, forged documents, extending loans to those that could not afford it and even charging fees to dead clients has already come to light. With financial firms on the defensive, there is a risk that banks will raise lending standards for new loans going forward. Australian bank equities have already been underperforming and credit growth is slowing (Chart 8). The bigger concern is the sharp decline in bank deposit growth, which is now contracting modestly on a year-over-year basis. Already, Australian banks are facing some higher funding costs through rising money market rates. Much of that spike seen earlier in 2018 could be attributed to rise in the U.S. bank funding costs, but there is now a notable divergence between LIBOR-OIS spreads in Australia and the U.S., which may be a sign of uniquely Australian funding pressures. Chart 6Poor Fundamentals For##BR##The Australian Consumer Chart 7Weaker Prices =##BR##Stronger Housing Demand? Chart 8An Australian Credit##BR##Crunch Unfolding? The RBA has noted that the absolute levels of bank funding costs (bank debt spreads, deposit rates wholesale lending rates) remain low by historical standards, and that overall financial conditions remain supportive for Australian economic growth. Yet the marginal changes in funding dynamics, combined with the pressure on banks to be more prudent in extending loans, raise downside risks to Australian growth from future credit availability. Other Uncertainties: Capital Spending, Exports & Commodity Prices Australian businesses have ramped up capital spending over the past year, with the annual growth rate of machinery and equipment investment now at the fastest pace since 2012 (Chart 9). An improvement in Australian commodity prices and the overall terms of trade has helped boost corporate profits, helping to fund investment spending. Importantly, the recent pickup in commodity prices has been more broad-based than the iron ore boom in 2010/11, with prices of non-ferrous metals rising even with iron ore prices languishing. Looking ahead, there are increasing risks to the capital spending upturn from growing uncertainties surrounding the outlook for Chinese economic growth, and global trade activity more generally. The NAB business confidence survey, which leads capital spending intentions, has been falling over the past several months (bottom panel). This comes after a significant slowing of Australian export growth, the manufacturing PMI and capacity utilization (Chart 10). Much of that is due to diminished demand from China, which remains Australia's largest export market. Chart 9Capex Upturn At Risk From Global Trade Tensions Chart 10China Is A Big Source Of Uncertainty In Australia China is now undertaking some fresh economic stimulus in response to the growing trade war with the U.S. and the imposition of tariffs. Our colleagues at BCA's China Investment Strategy and Geopolitical Strategy recently penned a Special Report discussing the potential for China's stimulus measures to halt the Chinese growth deceleration seen so far in 2018.5 Their conclusion was that the overall size of the stimulus would be significant, with the surge in fiscal spending potentially equaling the 3% GDP boost seen in 2015/16. This would help support Australia export demand, on the margin, and could potentially boost the prices of Australia's key industrial commodities. However, the overall impact will be less than was seen in 2016/17 given that there will be some offsetting drag from the imposition of tariffs by China and the U.S. The Most Important Uncertainty: How Much Spare Capacity? Chart 11Still Lots Of Slack In The Australian Economy Given all these potential headwinds to Australian growth, the RBA has stated that they are in no hurry to raise interest rates, particularly without any serious threat of an acceleration in inflation. Headline Australian CPI inflation rose to 2.1% in the second quarter of 2018, while core inflation drifted down to 1.8%. Both measures have struggled to breach the lower bound of the RBA's 2-3% target range in recent years (Chart 11). The biggest reason for this is the continued existence of spare capacity in the economy. The IMF estimates that Australia will have a negative output gap of nearly -1% in 2018, unlike most other developed economies where the gap has been closed. Overall wage inflation remains modest, as discussed earlier. While the headline unemployment rate of 5.4% is below the IMF's estimate of the full employment NAIRU of 5.9% (middle panel), the RBA thinks NAIRU is closer to 5%. That implies that there is still slack in the labor market, which is evidenced by the high level of underemployment and the growing share of part-time employment (bottom panel). The RBA anticipates that full employment will not be reached until the end of 2020, even with real GDP growth expected to average 3.25% over the next two years. Both headline and core inflation are projected to rise only to 2.25% by the end of 2020, staying in the lower half of the RBA target band. Unsurprisingly, the RBA has provided guidance stating that it does not expect to raise the Cash Rate before then. Investment Conclusions The Australian OIS curve has now priced out much of the nearly 50bps of rate hikes that were discounted at the start of the year, but there are still 15bps of rate increases expected over the next twelve months. Yet our own Australia Central Bank Monitor has now flipped into negative territory, indicating that fundamental economic and inflation pressures are pointing to the RBA's next move being a rate cut (Chart 12). While that is not our expectation, we think the argument that supported our original investment thesis on Australian government bonds at the beginning of 2018 still holds. Growth uncertainties, ample spare capacity and moderate inflation pressures will ensure that the RBA will struggle to deliver even a single rate hike in 2018 or 2019. Chart 12Stay Overweight Australian Government Bonds The main risk to our view would come from a bigger-than-expected stimulus from China and/or a resolution of the U.S.-China trade war. This would boost Australian economic growth and commodity prices and potentially bring forward the timing of the next RBA hike. We continue to recommend an overweight stance on Australian government bonds in global fixed income portfolios. All positions should be run on a currency-hedged basis, as the Australian dollar is likely to remain under downward pressure from less supportive interest rate differentials. For dedicated Australian bond investors, we recommend a neutral duration stance, as we see yields broadly following the path laid out in the forwards. Bottom Line: Australian economic growth momentum is choppy and inflation is struggling to accelerate amidst ample excess capacity in labor markets. Stay overweight Australian government bonds, but temper return expectations after the big outperformance year-to-date. Robert Robis, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com Ray Park, Research Analyst ray@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Foreign Exchange Strategy/Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "The Bear And The Two Travelers", dated August 17th 2018, available at fes.bcaresearch.com and gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 https://www.rba.gov.au/publications/smp/2018/aug/pdf/statement-on-monetary-policy-2018-08.pdf 3 https://www.rba.gov.au/speeches/2018/sp-gov-2018-08-17.html 4 https://financialservices.royalcommission.gov.au/Pages/default.aspx 5 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy/China Investment Strategy Special Report, "China: How Stimulating Is The Stimulus?", dated August 8th 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com and cis.bcaresearch.com. Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Dear Client, There will be no U.S. Bond Strategy report next week. Our regular publishing schedule will resume on September 4th. Best regards, Ryan Swift Highlights Global Growth Divergences: The impact of weak foreign growth will eventually be felt in the U.S. and could even result in the Fed pausing its rate hike cycle for a time. But history tells us that the resulting decline in Treasury yields will not last long. Investors should hedge the risk of weak foreign growth by maintaining only a neutral allocation to spread product, but should maintain below-benchmark portfolio duration. Corporates: As global growth divergences deepen and the dollar strengthens, corporate profit growth will eventually fade and corporate leverage and defaults will rise. Accelerating wages will exacerbate the problem, much like in the late 1990s. Municipal Bonds: Municipal bonds offer attractive yields relative to corporate bonds, especially considering that they are more insulated from weakening foreign growth. Remain overweight municipal bonds. Feature "It is just not credible that the United States can remain an oasis of prosperity unaffected by a world that is experiencing greatly increased stress." - Alan Greenspan, September 19981 Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan uttered the above sentence in early September 1998. Russia had just defaulted on its government debt and a few weeks later the heavily-exposed hedge fund Long-Term Capital Management would require a bail-out, kicking off a period of turmoil in U.S. financial markets. The Federal Reserve responded by cutting interest rates by 75 basis points between September 30th and November 4th, despite a domestic labor market that Chairman Greenspan described as "unusually tight." We recall this tumultuous period because a divergence between strong U.S. and weak non-U.S. growth is once again putting upward pressure on the U.S. dollar, leading to pain in emerging markets. So far it is the Turkish lira bearing the brunt of the sell-off, but the lesson from the late 1990s is that other EMs, and eventually the U.S., are also vulnerable. A joint Special Report, published last week, from our Foreign Exchange Strategy and Geopolitical Strategy services provides a blow-by-blow account of the late 1990s period, with implications for today's currency markets.2 In this week's report, we focus on what divergences between strong U.S. growth and weak non-U.S. growth mean for U.S. bond portfolios. A History Of False Starts The divergence between strong U.S. and weak non-U.S. growth is illustrated in Chart 1. The shaded regions in the chart correspond to periods when the Global (ex. U.S) leading economic indicator (LEI) is contracting while the U.S. LEI continues to rise. There have been 10 such episodes since 1966. In the four instances that occurred prior to 1993, the U.S. economy remained insulated from flagging growth in the rest of the world. That is, the U.S. LEI continued to expand and the Global (ex. U.S.) LEI eventually recovered into positive territory. However, since 1993, every time the Global (ex. U.S) LEI has dipped below zero the U.S. LEI has eventually followed. In other words, prior to 1993 the U.S. economy acted very much like an oasis of prosperity. But global events have become much more important since then. Chairman Greenspan's claim was correct in 1998 and remains relevant today. Case Study: 1997 Two of the post-1993 growth divergence episodes are particularly relevant for bond investors today. The first occurred in 1997 (Chart 2). The Fed tried to kick off a rate hike cycle in March 1997, but the combination of a Fed rate hike and weak foreign growth led to a surge in the dollar. Eventually, the strong dollar dragged our Fed Monitor below zero and the Fed was forced to abandon rate hikes until June 1999. In the interim, the Fed's dovish turn caused the dollar to halt its uptrend (Chart 2, panel 3). Treasury yields collapsed and then recovered (Chart 2, panel 4). Credit spreads moved in line with the exchange rate (Chart 2, bottom panel), widening alongside a stronger dollar in 1997/98, and then leveling off as the Fed eased policy and the dollar moved sideways. The end result of the 1997 episode is that Treasury yields took a round trip, falling as the Fed backed away from its rate hike path, then rising again once rate hikes resumed. Credit spreads, however, never fully recovered their 1997 tights. Case Study: 2015 More recently, growth divergences flared again in 2015 (Chart 3). This time, our Fed Monitor was already recommending rate cuts in late-2015, but the Fed pressed on and delivered the first rate hike of the cycle that December. Once again, the combination of a hawkish Fed and weak foreign growth put upward pressure on the dollar (Chart 3, panel 3), and the Fed was forced to pause its rate hike cycle. Chart 1The Weight Of The World Chart 2False Start 1997 Chart 3False Start 2015 Much like in 1997, Treasury yields declined as the Fed went on hold and then started to rise again as rate hikes resumed (Chart 3, panel 4). Also like 1997, credit spreads widened alongside the strengthening dollar, though this time they actually managed to tighten back to new lows when the Fed went on hold and the upward pressure on the dollar abated in 2016/17 (Chart 3, bottom panel). Implications For The Present Day Chart 4Inflation Is Much Closer To Target What lessons can we take away from these two episodes? The first is that if growth divergences continue to worsen and the dollar continues to appreciate, it will eventually cause our Fed Monitor to dip below zero and the Fed will likely pause its rate hike cycle. Such a dovish pause will lead to a decline in Treasury yields and a flattening-off, or even depreciation, of the dollar. However, we also know from history that any decline in Treasury yields is likely to prove fleeting. Once dovish Fed action takes the shine off the dollar, foreign economic growth will improve and the Fed will soon be able to resume rate hikes. This was the case in both 1997 and 2015. There is even reason to believe that any pause in Fed rate hikes could be particularly short-lived this time around. Inflation is already closing-in on the Fed's target and there is some evidence that long-dated inflation expectations have become stickier. Long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates have not fallen much in recent weeks, even as weakening foreign growth has dragged down commodity prices (Chart 4). As for credit spreads, history shows that they are likely to widen as global growth divergences deepen and the dollar appreciates. Then, any pause in Fed rate hikes will improve credit's outlook for a time. Once again, because relatively strong inflation will limit the length of time that the Fed can pause lifting rates, we think any period of spread tightening that coincides with more dovish Fed policy will be short-lived. We also see similarities with the 1997 episode in terms of the outlook for corporate defaults. Such similarities bode ill for credit spreads, as is discussed in the next section. Bottom Line: The impact of weak foreign growth will eventually be felt in the U.S. and could even result in the Fed pausing its rate hike cycle for a time. However, history tells us that the resulting decline in Treasury yields will not last long. Investors should hedge the risk of weak foreign growth by maintaining only a neutral allocation to spread product, but should maintain below-benchmark portfolio duration. Corporate Defaults: Look To The Late 1990s Considering the two case studies presented above, the reason corporate bonds performed worse in 1997 compared to 2015 is that in 1997 corporate leverage and defaults started to creep higher and did not peak until the 2001 recession. In contrast, corporate leverage flattened-off and defaults fell once the Fed paused its rate hike cycle in 2016 (Chart 5). Chart 5Corporate Defaults: The Late 1990s Roadmap Looking closer, the bottom panel of Chart 5 shows that once profit growth fell below the rate of debt growth in 1997 it continued to trend down. In 2015/16, profit growth was again dragged lower by the strong dollar, but it quickly rebounded once the Fed turned dovish. In our view, if global growth divergences continue to worsen and the dollar continues to strengthen, the next increase in corporate leverage will probably look more like 1997. To see why, we consider the two reasons why profit growth decelerated in 1997. The first is the obvious reason that the strong dollar started to weigh on corporate revenues. The growth in business sales moderated and the PMI dipped below 50 (Chart 6). Today, we have not yet seen enough dollar strength to weigh on business sales or the manufacturing PMI, which is still hovering around 60 (Chart 6, bottom panel). But this will change as the emerging market turmoil spreads and eventually impacts the U.S. business sector. The second reason why the 1997 corporate default episode is the most comparable to the present day is that much like in 1997, but unlike in 2015, the labor market is extremely tight and wages are starting to accelerate (Chart 7). The growth in unit labor costs started to outpace the growth in corporate selling prices in 1997, and this caused our Profit Margin Proxy to fall (Chart 7, panel 2). At present, our Profit Margin Proxy is very close to the zero line, but with a sub-4% unemployment rate further downside is likely. Finally, much like in 1997, small businesses are increasingly citing labor quality as a more important problem than lack of sales (Chart 7, bottom panel). The difference between the rankings of these two problems has done a good job tracking profit growth historically. This indicator is currently at levels that are much more reminiscent of the late 1990s. Chart 6Dollar Strength Drags Down Revenue Chart 7Wages Will Weigh On Profits Bottom Line: As global growth divergences deepen and the dollar strengthens, corporate profit growth will eventually fade and corporate leverage and defaults will rise. Accelerating wage growth will exacerbate the problem, much like in the late 1990s. Take Shelter In Municipal Bonds Chart 8Munis As A Safe Haven Another implication of the divergence in growth between the U.S. and the rest of the world is that fixed income sectors that are more exposed to the domestic U.S. economy and less exposed to foreign growth and the exchange rate should fare better. In this regard, municipal bonds are an obvious candidate. While state & local government net borrowing has flattened off at a relatively high level during the past few quarters, state governments have recently re-committed to austerity (Chart 8). Data from the National Association of State Budget Officers show that states enacted a net $9.9 billion increase in revenues in fiscal year 2018, with another $2.8 billion planned for fiscal year 2019. Historically, revenue raises of this magnitude have led to declines in net borrowing, which should ensure that municipal ratings upgrades continue to outpace downgrades for the time being (Chart 8, bottom panel). But there's an even better reason for investors to favor municipal bonds. Quite simply, yields remain attractive compared to the riskier corporate alternatives, particularly at longer maturities. The top section of Table 1 shows relevant statistics for the 5-year, 10-year and 20-year tax-exempt Bloomberg Barclays Municipal bond indexes, along with the closest comparable indexes from the investment grade corporate sector. We observe that a 5-year Aa-rated municipal bond carries a yield of 2.18% versus a yield of 3.26% for a comparable corporate bond index. This implies that an investor with an effective tax rate of 33% should be indifferent between the two bonds. Any investor exposed to an effective tax rate above 33% should favor the municipal bond, even before considering the differences in risk between the two sectors. Moving further out the curve, the breakeven tax rate falls to 24% at the 10-year maturity point and to either 13% or 21% at the 20-year maturity point, depending on whether you use Aa-rated or A-rated corporate debt as the relevant comparable. We also find that High-Yield municipal debt looks attractive compared to the corporate alternative. The Bloomberg Barclays High-Yield Muni Index (excluding Puerto Rico) trades at a breakeven tax rate of 18% relative to a Ba-rated corporate bond, and 33% relative to a B-rated corporate bond. Even the taxable municipal space is attractive. The bottom section of Table 1 shows that the average yield on the 1-5 year taxable municipal bond index is slightly higher than that of the closest comparable corporate bond index. The same goes for the 5-10 year taxable muni index. Table 1A Comparison Of Municipal And Corporate Bond Yields Finally, drawing on work we presented in a recent Special Report, we provide total return forecasts for different municipal bond indexes along with the comparable corporate sector indexes (Table 2).3 We show results for three different effective tax rates, depending on how many rate hikes you expect from the Fed during the next 12 months and whether you expect Municipal / Treasury yield ratios to remain flat, widen to their post-2016 highs, or tighten to their post-2016 lows. Table 2Municipal Bonds Total Return Forecasts Vs. Corporate Sector Comparables For example, in an environment where the Fed delivers four rate hikes during the next 12 months and Municipal / Treasury yield ratios remain flat, an investor with a 24% effective tax rate can expect a total return of 2.81% from the 10-year Municipal bond index. If we adjust returns using the top marginal tax rate of 37% the expected total return rises to 3.52%. In the same scenario, where corporate spreads also remain flat, investors can expect a total return of 2.86% from a corporate bond with similar duration and credit rating. Bottom Line: Municipal bonds offer attractive yields relative to corporate bonds, especially considering that they are more insulated from weakening foreign growth. Remain overweight municipal bonds. Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com 1 https://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/speeches/1998/19980904.htm 2 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy / Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "The Bear And The Two Travelers", dated August 17, 2018, available at fes.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, "The Golden Rule Of Bond Investing", dated July 24, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

Highlights It has not been a lot of fun being a corporate bond investor in 2018. Global credit markets have struggled to deliver positive returns, amid a news flow that has been overwhelming at times. Geopolitical uncertainty, shifting monetary policy biases, greater inflation pressures, intensifying trade tensions, a rising U.S. dollar, slowing Chinese growth - all have combined to form a backdrop where investors should require wider risk premiums to own risky assets like corporate debt. Yet are wider spreads justified relative to the underlying financial health of companies? Feature Chart 1Global Corporates: Fading Support From##BR##Growth & Monetary Policy Against this backdrop of more uncertainty in credit markets, we are presenting our latest update of the BCA Corporate Health Monitor (CHM) Chartbook. The CHMs are composite indicators of balance sheet and income statement ratios (using both top-down and bottom-up data) that are designed to assess the financial well-being of the overall non-financial corporate sectors in the major developed economies. A brief overview of the methodology is presented in Appendix 1 on page 16. The broad conclusion from the latest readings on our CHMs is that global credit quality has been enjoying a cyclical improvement across countries, regions and credit tiers. The U.S. has delivered the biggest improvement in corporate health, compared to the recent past and to bearish investor perceptions as well. Much of that can be attributed to the impact of the Trump corporate tax cuts, though. At the same time, there have even been significant improvements in profitability metrics in regions that have lagged during the current global economic expansion, like Peripheral Europe. We recently downgraded our overall global spread product allocation to neutral.1 This reflected the increased concerns of the BCA Strategists that valuations on global risk assets looked rich compared to growing geopolitical risks (U.S.-China trade tensions, U.S.-Iran military tensions). Yet it also was related to the ongoing development of our biggest investment theme for 2018 - the eventual likely collision between tightening global monetary policy and rich valuations on global risk assets. Looking ahead, the tailwinds that have been supportive for corporate health and the performance of global corporate debt in the past couple of years - a coordinated cyclical upturn driving solid earnings growth, with low inflation allowing monetary policies to stay accommodative - are becoming headwinds (Chart 1). The overall OECD leading economic indicator, which is well correlated to the annual excess returns of global high-yield debt, has peaked. Central banks are either delivering rate hikes, talking about rate hikes, or cutting back on the pace of balance sheet expansion. All of these factors will weigh on corporate bond returns over the next 6-12 months. U.S. Corporate Health Monitors: Improving Thanks To Resilient Growth & Tax Cuts Chart 2Top-Down U.S. CHM:##BR##Boosted By Cyclically Strong Profits Our top-down CHM for the U.S. has been in the "deteriorating health" region for fifteen consecutive quarters dating back to the middle of 2014 (Chart 2). That streak appears set to end soon, as the indicator has been falling since peaking in 2016 and now sits just above the zero line. The resilience of the U.S. economy, combined with the positive impact on U.S. profitability from the Trump corporate cuts, has put U.S. companies in a cyclically healthier position, even with relatively high leverage. It is important to note that the top-down CHM uses after-tax earnings measures in several of the ratios the go into the indicator: return on capital, profit margin and debt coverage. All three of those ratios saw significant upticks in the first quarter of 2018, which is the latest available data for the top-down CHM. The Trump tax cuts did take effect at the start of the year, but given the robust results seen in reported second quarter profits reported so far, a bigger impact will likely be visible once we are able to update the CHM for the most recently completed quarter. The ability for U.S. companies to continue expanding margins will be tested in the next 6-12 months. The tight U.S. labor market is pushing up wage growth, which will pressure margins and prompt some firms to try and raise prices to compensate. Firming U.S. inflation is already keeping the Fed on a 25bps-per-quarter pace of rate hikes, and perhaps more if U.S. inflation continues to accelerate without any slowing of U.S. economic growth. If the Fed starts actively targeting a slower pace of U.S. growth to cool off inflation, credit markets will take notice and U.S. corporate debt will underperform. From a fundamental perspective, the top-down U.S. CHM suggests that the U.S. credit cycle is being extended by the stubborn endurance of the U.S. business cycle. There are no imminent domestic pressures on U.S. corporate finances that should require wider credit spreads to compensate for rising default risk. The bottom-up versions of the U.S. CHMs for investment grade (IG) corporates (Chart 3) and high-yield (HY) companies (Chart 4) have also both improved, with the HY indicator now crossing over the zero line into "improving health" territory. This confirms that the signal from our top-down CHM is being reflected in both higher-rated and lower quality companies. Yet the longer-term issues of high leverage and low interest/debt coverage are not going away, suggesting that potential problems are being stored up for the next U.S. economic downturn. What also remains worrying is the fact that IG interest coverage has fallen in recent years, despite high profit margins and historically low corporate borrowing rates. This indicates that the stock of U.S. corporate debt is now so large that the interest expense required to service that debt is eating up a greater share of corporate earnings, even at a time when profit growth is still quite strong. This will raise downgrade risk if corporate borrowing rates were to rise significantly or if U.S. earnings growth slows sharply. We moved our recommended stance on U.S. IG and HY to neutral at the end of June as part of our downgrade of overall global spread product exposure. We may consider a move back to overweight (versus U.S. Treasuries) on any meaningful spread widening given our optimistic view on U.S. economic growth and the positive measure on credit risk signaled by our CHMs. Yet it may be difficult to get such an opportunity. The U.S. is reaching a more challenging point in the monetary policy cycle with the Fed likely to shift to a restrictive stance within the next 6-12 months. At the same time, there are risks to the U.S. economy stemming from the widening U.S.-China trade conflict, a stronger U.S. dollar and, potentially, the growing turmoil in emerging markets. Yet the state of U.S. corporate health has improved substantially, leaving companies less immediately vulnerable to any of those shocks. Given this balance of risks, a neutral stance on U.S. corporates remains appropriate (Chart 5). Chart 3Bottom-Up U.S. Investment Grade CHM:##BR##Stable, But Watch Profit Margins Chart 4Bottom-Up U.S. High-Yield CHM:##BR##Cyclical Improvement Chart 5U.S. Corporates:##BR##Stay Neutral IG & HY Euro Corporate Health Monitors: Strong Economy, Big Improvements Our top-down euro area CHM remains in "improving health" territory, as has been the case for the past decade (Chart 6). The indicator had been worsening towards the zero line during 2016-17, but rebounded in the first quarter of 2018 thanks to a pickup in profit margins and debt coverage. Those positive developments are even more impressive since they occurred during a quarter when there was some cooling from the robust pace of economic growth seen in 2017. Chart 6Top-Down Euro Area CHM: Modestly Improving Interest coverage and liquidity remain in structural uptrends, supported by the super-easy monetary policies of the European Central Bank (ECB) that have lowered corporate borrowing costs (negative short-term interest rates, liquidity programs designed to prompt low-cost bank lending, and asset purchase programs that include buying of corporate bonds). Our bottom-up versions of the CHMs for euro area IG (Chart 7) and HY (Chart 8), which are based on individual company earnings data, both confirm the positive message from the top-down CHM. For IG, a noticeable gap has opened up between domestic and foreign issuers in the euro area corporate bond market. Return on capital, operating margins, interest coverage and debt coverage all ticked higher in the first quarter of this year, while leverage slightly declined. Those developments were not repeated among the foreign issuers in our sample. Within the Euro Area, our bottom-up CHMs show that the gap has closed between IG issuers from the core countries versus the periphery, but both remain in the "improving health" zone. (Chart 9). Somewhat surprisingly, the only ratios where there is a material difference are leverage (150% and falling in the periphery, 100% and stable in the core countries) and interest coverage (rising sharply toward 5x in the periphery, stable just above 6x in the core). Despite the improvement in the CHMs, credit spreads for euro area IG and HY have both widened over the course of 2018, while excess returns have been negative year-to-date (Chart 10). Looking ahead, we see the biggest threat for euro area corporate bond performance to come from a shift in ECB policy. We expect the ECB to follow through on its commitment to fully taper net new government bond purchases by the end of 2018, while continuing to reinvest the proceeds of maturing debt in 2019 and beyond. It is less clear what the ECB will do with its corporate bond buying program, and there has been some speculation that the ECB could leave its corporate program untouched while tapering the government purchases. We doubt that the ECB would want to make such a distinction that would artificially suppress corporate borrowing costs relative to government yields. The ECB is more likely to end both programs concurrently at the end of the year, which will remove a major prop under the euro area corporate bond market. This is a main reason why we are currently recommending an underweight stance on euro area corporates versus U.S. corporates. Chart 7Bottom-Up Euro Area Investment Grade CHMs: Domestic Issuers Looking Better Chart 8Bottom-Up Euro Area High-Yield CHMs: Falling Leverage, Mediocre Profitability Chart 9Bottom-Up Euro Area IG CHMs: Periphery Improving vs Core Yet the bigger reason why we prefer corporates from the U.S. over the euro area is that the relative improvement in corporate health has been bigger in the U.S. The gap between our top-down CHMs for the U.S. and Europe has proven to be an excellent directional indicator for the relative performance of U.S. credit vs Europe (Chart 11). That CHM gap continues to favor U.S. credit, which has been outperforming over the past several months (on a common currency basis compared to euro area debt hedged in USD). Chart 10Euro Area Corporates:##BR##Stay Underweight IG & HY Chart 11Relative Top-Down CHMs:##BR##Continue To Favor U.S. over Europe U.K. Corporate Health Monitor: Deteriorating Amid Rising Domestic Risks The U.K. CHM saw a significant deterioration in the first quarter of 2018, thanks largely to slowing U.K. growth that has impacted all the profit-focused ratios (Chart 12). The CHM is still in the "improving health" zone, but just barely. Seeing the return on capital, profit margin, interest coverage and debt coverage ratios all roll over at historically low levels is a worrying sign for future U.K. credit quality. This is especially true given the extremely stimulative monetary policy run by the Bank of England (BoE) since the 2008 Global Financial Crisis. The only ratio in the U.K. CHM that has seen steady improvement over the past decade is short-term liquidity (bottom panel), which has been boosted by steady increases in working capital. The performance of U.K. credit has benefited from the BoE's additional monetary policy measures taken after the shock Brexit vote in 2016. This involved both interest rate cuts and asset purchases, which included buying of U.K. corporate bonds. The BoE has shifted its policy bias from easing to tightening over the past year, even with sluggish U.K. economic growth and still-unresolved uncertainty about the future U.K. trading relationship with the European Union. This has raised the risks that the BoE could commit a policy error through additional interest rate hikes over the next 6-12 months, especially if policymakers focus more on targeting higher real policy rates as we discussed in a recent Weekly Report.2 U.K. corporates have been a laggard among global credit markets throughout 2018 and especially so in the month of July during a generally positive month for global corporate debt (Chart 13). We see the underperformance continuing in the coming months, as wider spreads will be required given the uncertainties surrounding Brexit, economic growth and BoE monetary policy. Stay underweight U.K. corporate debt within an overall neutral allocation to global spread product. Chart 12U.K. Top-Down CHM: Cyclical Deterioration Chart 13U.K. Corporates: Stay Underweight Japan Corporate Health Monitor: No Problems Here We added Japan to our suite of global CHMs earlier this year.3 Although the Japanese corporate bond market is small (the Bloomberg Barclays Japan Corporates index only has a market capitalization of $116bn), the asset class does provide opportunities for investors to pick up a bit of yield versus zero-yielding Japanese government bonds (JGBs) Japanese corporate health has been excellent for the past decade, with the CHM steadily holding in "improving health" territory (Chart 14). The trends in the Japan CHM ratios since 2008 are quite different than those seen in the CHMs for other countries. Leverage has been steadily falling, return on capital has been steadily rising (and has now converged to the 6% level seen in other countries' CHMs), and the interest coverage multiple of 9.6x is by far the largest in our CHM universe. Default risk is non-existent in Japan. Only pre-tax operating margins for our bottom-up Japan CHM have lagged those in other countries, languishing at 6% for the past three years. Yet Japanese corporate profits are at all-time highs, a logical outcome when companies can borrow at less than 50bps and earn a return on capital of 6%. That wide gap should allow Japanese companies to continue to earn steady, strong profits even with wage inflation finally showing life in Japan alongside a 2.3% unemployment rate. Japanese corporate bond spreads have widened a bit in 2018, but remain far more stable compared to corporates in other developed markets (Chart 15). The lack of spread volatility has allowed Japanese corporates to steadily outperform JGBs since 2011, even as all Japanese bond yields have collapsed. That trend is likely to continue, as the Bank of Japan (BoJ) is still a long way from being able to credibly pull off any upward adjustment of the current 0% BoJ yield target on 10-year JGBs. Chart 14Japan Bottom-Up CHM: Still Healthy,##BR##But Has Cyclical Improvement Peaked? Chart 15Japan Corporates:##BR##Stay Overweight vs JGBs Importantly, the BoJ recently introduced new forward guidance that states there will be no interest rate hikes until at least 2020. This will positively affect Japanese corporate health by keeping borrowing costs extremely low and preventing any unwanted strength in the yen that could damage Japanese competitiveness. There is a risk that increasing global trade tensions could impact the export-heavy Japanese economy and damage corporate profit growth and corporate bond performance. We do not yet see that as a major risk that could derail the Japanese economy and we continue to recommend an overweight stance on Japanese corporate debt vs JGBs. Canada Corporate Health Monitor: Faster Growth Hiding Structural Warts We introduced both top-down and bottom-up CHMs for Canada in our previous CHM Chartbook in April. As was the case then, both CHMs are in "improving health" territory (Chart 16). These CHMs are typically correlated to the price of oil, as befits Canada's status as a major energy exporter. Yet the strong CHMs also reflect the solid pace of overall Canadian economic growth. Looking at the individual components of the Canada CHMs, the leverage ratios for both measures have been steadily rising and currently sit above 100%. The return on capital has been in a structural downtrend, as is the case for most countries in our CHM universe (excluding Japan), but has ticked up alongside faster economic growth over the past couple of years. There was a noticeable drop in the margin ratio for the bottom-up CHM, coming entirely from the HY firms within our sample group of companies. Interest coverage and debt coverage ratios remain depressed, even with some improvement in corporate profits. This is partially due to rising interest rates as the Bank of Canada (BoC) has been tightening monetary policy - a trend that we expect to continue over the next 6-12 months. Canadian corporate bond spreads have widened slightly since the start of 2018, but remain tight relative to a longer-term history (Chart 17). Excess returns over Canadian government bonds have flattened out after enjoying a very solid period of outperformance in 2016-17. Looking ahead, there are balanced risks to the outlook for Canadian corporate debt. Chart 16Canada CHMs: Cyclically Improving,##BR##But Longer-Term Problems Are Building Chart 17Canadian Corporates:##BR##Stay Neutral Vs Canadian Government Debt We continue to expect the BoC to hike rates because of solid growth and faster inflation in Canada. Yet we do not see the BoC moving rapidly to a restrictive monetary stance that would damage growth expectations and trigger some credit spread widening. At the same time, we also see risks stemming from Canada-U.S. trade disagreements that could hurt Canadian growth and cause investors to demand cheaper valuations for Canadian corporate bonds. Adding it all up, a neutral stance on Canadian corporates versus government debt remains appropriate, largely as a carry trade. Robert Robis, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com Ray Park, Research Analyst ray@bcaresearch.com Appendix 1: An Overview Of The BCA Corporate Health Monitors The BCA Corporate Health Monitor (CHM) is a composite indicator designed to assess the underlying financial strength of the corporate sector for a country. The Monitor is an average of six financial ratios inspired by those used by credit rating agencies to evaluate individual companies. However, we calculate our ratios using top-down (national accounts) data for profits, interest expense, debt levels, etc. The idea is to treat the entire corporate sector as if it were one big company, and then look at the credit metrics that would be used to assign a credit rating to it. Importantly, only data for the non-financial corporate sector is used in the CHM, as the measures that would be used to measure the underlying health of banks and other financial firms are different than those for the typical company. The six ratios used in the CHM are shown in Table 1 below. To construct the CHM, the individual ratios are standardized, added together, and then shown as a deviation from the medium-term trend. That last part is important, as it introduces more cyclicality into the CHM and allows it to better capture major turning points in corporate well-being. Largely because of this construction, the CHM has a very good track record at heralding trend changes in corporate credit spreads (both for Investment Grade and High-Yield) over many cycles. Top-down CHMs are now available for the U.S., euro area, the U.K. and Canada. The CHM methodology was extended in 2016 to look at corporate health by industry and by credit quality.4 The financial data of a broad set of individual U.S. and euro area companies was used to construct individual "bottom-up" CHMs using the same procedure as the more familiar top-down CHM. Some of the ratios differ from those used in the top-down CHM (see Table 1), largely due to definitional differences in data presented in national income accounts versus those from actual individual company financial statements. The bottom-up CHMs analyze the health of individual sectors, and can be aggregated up into broad CHMs for Investment Grade and High-Yield groupings to compare with credit spreads. In 2018, we introduced bottom-up CHMs for Japan and Canada. Table 1Definitions Of Ratios That Go Into The CHMs With the country expansion of our CHM universe, we now have coverage for 92% of the Bloomberg Barclays Global Aggregate Corporate Bond Index (Appendix Chart 1). Appendix Chart 1We Now Have CHM Coverage For 92% Of The Developed Market Corporate Bond Universe 1 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Weekly Report, "Time To Take Some Chips Off The Table; Downgrade Global Corporate Bond Exposure To Neutral", dated June 26 2018, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "An R-Star Is Born", dated August 7th 2018, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "Sticking With The Plan", dated March 13th 2018, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see Section II of The Bank Credit Analyst, "U.S. Corporate Health Gets A Failing Grade", dated February 2016, available at bca.bcaresearch.com. Appendix 2: U.S. Bottom-Up CHMs For Selected Sectors Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Highlights Duration: The market is only priced for a fed funds rate of 2.83% by the end of 2019. This is well below the range of 3.25% to 3.5% that will prevail if the Fed sticks to its current 25 basis points per quarter rate hike pace. Maintain below-benchmark portfolio duration. The Neutral Rate: Our indicators of the neutral (or equilibrium) fed funds rate are sending conflicting signals. The economic data suggest that the neutral rate might be above 3%, but this is contradicted by weakness in the price of gold. TIPS: Long-dated TIPS breakeven inflation rates remain slightly below target levels, but appear to be increasingly taking their cues from the realized inflation data rather than swings in global growth and commodity prices. Remain overweight TIPS versus nominal Treasuries. Feature In February we published a report that outlined how we expect the cyclical bear market in bonds to evolve. Essentially, we view the bear market as consisting of two stages.1 The first stage is characterized by the re-anchoring of inflation expectations and the second stage deals with determining the neutral (or equilibrium) federal funds rate. In this week's report we track how the two-stage Treasury bear market has progressed since February and consider the implications for portfolio strategy. The First Stage Is Nearly Complete Long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates are slightly higher than when we published our February report, but they are still not at levels we would consider "well anchored". We showed in our February report that prior periods when core inflation was close to the Fed's 2% target coincided with both the 10-year and 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rates in a range between 2.3% and 2.5%. At present, the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate is 2.10% and the 5-year/5-year forward is 2.19%. As long as TIPS breakeven inflation rates remain below the 2.3% - 2.5% target range, nominal Treasury yields have further cyclical upside due to the re-anchoring of inflation expectations. This re-anchoring will play out as the core inflation data are released and investors come to realize that inflation is no longer consistently undershooting the Fed's target. When that re-anchoring occurs and both the 10-year and 5-year/5-year forward breakevens cross above 2.3%, the first stage of the bond bear market will be complete. One recent development is that TIPS breakevens have risen even as commodity prices have declined (Chart 1). In fact, while breakevens are somewhat higher than when we published our February report, commodity prices - as measured by the CRB Raw Industrials index - are lower. While this shift in correlation is so far only tentative, it could signal that TIPS investors are increasingly influenced by the actual core inflation data and not swings in the global growth outlook. We would not be surprised to see this correlation continue to weaken going forward, especially considering that core inflation looks more and more consistent with the Fed's 2% target. Core CPI for July came in at 2.33% on both a trailing 12-month and 3-month basis, annualized (Chart 2). This is more or less consistent with the pre-crisis period when the Fed's preferred PCE inflation measure was close to the 2% target. Alternative measures of CPI send a similar message (Chart 2, panel 2) and our diffusion index shows that more individual items have accelerated in price than have decelerated in each of the past three months (Chart 2, bottom panel). Taken together, the signals point to further near-term price acceleration. Chart 1Inflation Date Sinking In Chart 2Inflation Picking Up Steam Digging deeper, we see that the outlook for higher inflation pervades each of the main components of core CPI (Chart 3). The reading from our shelter inflation model has stabilized, core goods inflation continues to track non-oil import prices higher, and the rebound in core services inflation is consistent with rising wage growth. Eventually, we would expect the strengthening dollar to exert a drag on import prices (Chart 4), but it will be some time before this is reflected in the CPI data. Another important development is that, after appearing to have turned a corner in 2016, the residential vacancy rate has dipped back down (Chart 4, bottom panel). Such a low vacancy rate will continue to support strong shelter inflation. Chart 3The Components Of Core CPI Chart 4A Headwind And A Tailwind For Inflation Bottom Line: Long-dated TIPS breakeven inflation rates remain slightly below target levels, but appear to be increasingly taking their cues from the realized inflation data rather than swings in global growth and commodity prices. Nominal Treasury yields have further upside at least until both the 10-year and 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rates reach a range between 2.3% and 2.5%. We also continue to recommend an overweight position in TIPS relative to nominal Treasury securities. We will remove this recommendation when breakeven rates reach our target range and stage one of the bond bear market is complete. Stage 2 Update: Conflicting Evidence On The Neutral Rate Once inflation expectations are well-anchored at levels consistent with the Fed's target, the cyclical bond bear market will transition into its second stage. How much further Treasury yields rise during this stage will depend on how high the Fed is able to lift interest rates before the economy starts to slow. In other words, the cyclical peak in Treasury yields will be determined by the neutral (or equilibrium) fed funds rate - the level of interest rates where monetary policy is neither accommodative nor restrictive, and which is also consistent with stable inflation near the Fed's 2% target. Unfortunately, the neutral rate can only be known with certainty in hindsight. But in a recent report we presented three factors that investors can track in real time that have forewarned of the shift from accommodative to restrictive monetary policy in the past.2 We review the recent trends in each of these signals below. Signal 1: Nominal GDP Growth Vs The Fed Funds Rate Chart 5The Message From Nominal GDP Growth A fed funds rate that is above the year-over-year growth rate in nominal GDP is typically a signal (though often a lagging one) that monetary policy has turned restrictive (Chart 5). An intuition that is confirmed by the fact that the spread between nominal GDP growth and the fed funds rate correlates positively with the slope of the yield curve. But while the flattening yield curve has caused some to worry that the Fed is tightening too quickly, the message from nominal GDP growth is that monetary policy is actually becoming more accommodative (Chart 5, bottom panel). If the Fed continues to lift rates at its current pace of 25 basis points per quarter, the fed funds rate will be between 3.25% and 3.5% by the end of 2019. Nominal GDP would have to decelerate fairly substantially from its current 5.4% growth rate to signal restrictive monetary policy by then. Signal 2: Cyclical Spending Another indicator that has historically coincided with restrictive monetary policy and the cyclical peak in bond yields is when growth in the most interest-rate sensitive sectors of the economy (aka the cyclical sectors) slows as a proportion of overall growth (Chart 6). This is especially true for consumer spending on durable goods. Not only is it well below pre-crisis levels as a percent of GDP, but recent data revisions revealed that the personal savings rate is much higher than previously thought. The savings rate looks especially elevated relative to household wealth, which leaves room for spending to accelerate as it falls to more normal levels (Chart 7). Extremely high consumer confidence supports the view that the savings rate will decline (Chart 7, panel 2), and despite recent increases in interest rates and the price of gasoline, consumer spending on essentials is not yet excessive relative to income (Chart 7, bottom panel). Chart 6Signal 2: Cyclical Spending Chart 7The Outlook For Consumer Spending Cyclical spending - which includes consumer spending on durable goods, residential investment and nonresidential investment in equipment & software - is currently rising only slowly as a proportion of GDP, but it remains well below average historical levels. This suggests that further catch-up is likely. Much like consumer spending, residential investment also has a lot of room to play catch-up relative to pre-crisis levels (Chart 6, panel 3). However, growth in residential investment has waned in recent months (Chart 8). The slowdown is likely the result of the housing market coming to grips with higher mortgage rates. But while higher rates have definitely impaired affordability, housing remains quite cheap compared to history (Chart 8, panel 2). A further support for housing is that homebuilders are extraordinarily confident in the outlook (Chart 8, panel 3). This is for good reason. The outstanding housing supply is historically low and continues to contract relative to demand as increases in building permits fail to keep pace with household formation (Chart 8, bottom panel). Unlike consumer spending on durables and residential investment, nonresidential investment in equipment & software is roughly consistent with its average historical level as a proportion of GDP (Chart 6, bottom panel). But so far leading indicators are not pointing to a slowdown. On the contrary, surveys of new orders, capital expenditure plans and CEO confidence suggest that investment growth will stay strong for the next few quarters (Chart 9). At some point, given its higher level relative to GDP, investment could be the cyclical sector that first shows some evidence of weakness. But so far this is not the case. Chart 8The Outlook For Residential Investment Chart 9The Outlook For Non-Residential Investment Signal 3: Gold Chart 10Signal 3: Gold The final signal of restrictive monetary policy we consider is the price of gold. The widely accepted perception of gold as a long-run store of value makes it the ideal "anti-central bank" asset. In other words, gold tends to perform well when monetary policy is perceived to be turning more accommodative relative to its neutral level, and it tends to sell off when policy is perceived to be turning restrictive. Gold is also a useful addition to our suite of indicators because it is a price that is set in financial markets. Compared to our other two indicators which are based on economic data, financial market indicators can provide more of a leading signal. The trade-off, however, is that false signals are far more frequent. Most interestingly, we observe that fluctuations in the price of gold have preceded revisions to the Fed's estimate of the neutral fed funds rate in the post-crisis period (Chart 10). This seems entirely logical. The falling gold price in 2014/15 suggested that the market viewed Fed policy as becoming increasingly restrictive, but market expectations for the near-term path of rate hikes were roughly flat during this period (Chart 10, bottom panel). The only explanation is that investors were revising down their estimates of the neutral fed funds rate during this time, resulting in a de-facto policy tightening. Similarly, around the same time that gold put in a bottom in early 2016, neutral rate estimates from both investors and the Fed started to level-off around the 3% level, where they remain today. Going forward, the implication is that if gold were to break out of its trading range to the upside, it would send a strong signal that the Fed is perceived to be falling behind the curve. Such a price movement would make upward revisions to the neutral fed funds rate, and a higher cyclical peak in Treasury yields, more likely. Conversely, if gold continues its recent slide, it could signal that policy is turning restrictive more quickly than many expect. Bottom Line: Trends in our neutral rate indicators since February are sending conflicting signals. The economic data - nominal GDP growth and cyclical spending - have improved and suggest that we should think about a neutral fed funds rate above the current market consensus of 3%. On the other hand, the weakness in the price of gold suggests that investors view monetary policy as becoming increasingly restrictive. Investment Strategy How best to square these conflicting signals when formulating a portfolio strategy? For the time being we strongly advise investors to maintain below-benchmark duration on a cyclical (6-12 month) horizon. For one thing, the bond bear market remains in its first stage and the market is still not fully convinced that inflation will re-anchor itself around the Fed's 2% target. This alone argues for maintaining below-benchmark duration and an overweight allocation to TIPS versus nominal Treasuries, at least until long-dated TIPS breakevens reach our target range. Beyond that, while the true neutral fed funds rate remains uncertain, the market is only priced for a fed funds rate of 2.83% by the end of 2019. This is well below the range of 3.25% to 3.5% that will prevail if the Fed sticks to its current 25 basis points per quarter rate hike pace, and is consistent with a neutral rate that is well below 3% (Chart 11). Chart 11The Market Not Buying Into The Fed's Current Rate Hike Pace In other words, current market pricing tilts the risk/reward trade-off firmly in favor of below-benchmark duration, but we will keep a close eye on our neutral rate signals in the coming quarters to see if a more consistent message emerges. Stay tuned. Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "The Two-Stage Bear Market In Bonds", dated February 20, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "A Signal From Gold?", dated May 1, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

Highlights Real Rate "Targeting": Global central bankers are increasingly following the Fed's lead by paying more attention to the appropriate level of real interest rates that will keep inflation stable given low unemployment (r-star). This raises a new potentially bearish element for global bond markets through higher real yields. U.K.: The Bank of England hiked rates last week, despite sluggish growth, slowing inflation and elevated Brexit uncertainties. Additional rate hikes will be difficult to deliver, however, without a change in trend for those factors. Stay overweight Gilts in global hedged bond portfolios. Japan: The conditions for a shift higher in the Bank of Japan's bond yield targets - a weaker yen, core inflation at 1.5% and much higher U.S. bond yields - are still not yet in place. Stay overweight JGBs. Feature Chart Of The WeekA 'New, New Normal' Of Higher Real Rates? Three major central banks met last week and, surprisingly, the most important message did not come from the Federal Reserve. The Bank of England (BoE) and Bank of Japan (BoJ) both delivered policy decisions that appeared more hawkish on the surface, even though the underlying message was far more mixed. The BoE hiked rates by 25bps, while the BoJ tweaked its yield curve control policy by raising the allowable ceiling for the 10-year Japanese Government Bond (JGB) to 0.2%. Yet both central banks signaled - through published research, commentary and outright forward guidance - that the timing of the next policy move is uncertain. This contrasts with the Fed, who continues to signal a slow-but-steady path of U.S. rate hikes over at least the next year. The BoE and BoJ are dealing with the same issues that all the major developed market central banks are facing now - how to reconcile low unemployment and an apparent dearth of spare economic capacity with only modest upward inflation momentum and real interest rates that appear too low (Chart of the Week). Against that backdrop, the communication of central banker strategies to the public, and to the financial markets, is critical to their success, defined by keeping inflation stable around target levels. The Fed has been a leader in introducing nuance into the execution, and communication, of post-crisis policymaking. First, by focusing more on underutilized capacity in the U.S. labor market to justify keeping the funds rate low despite the headline unemployment rate falling below its estimate of "full" employment. Later, by focusing attention on real interest rates and the possibility that the neutral level of that rate (a.k.a. "r-star") can vary cyclically from levels that would previously have been considered consistent with full employment and stable inflation. In both cases, the Fed has provided a framework that allows some wiggle room as it continues to normalize away from crisis-era policy settings. Passionate advocates of the concept like current New York Fed President John Williams have led the Fed's growing focus on r-star. Yet in its latest Inflation Report published last week, the BoE dedicated five full pages to the topic of estimating r-star in the U.K.1 Other central banks have discussed their own estimates of r-star over the past year, as well.2 This is an important point for global bond markets. If other central banks begin to follow the lead of the Fed and elevate the importance of "real rate targeting" into their inflation targeting frameworks, then real bond yields could have significant upside with policy rates still not above realized inflation in the major developed economies. This will especially be true if factors that have kept r-star cyclically depressed in many countries in the post-crisis era - weak productivity growth, fiscal consolidation, excess capacity in labor markets, household deleveraging, among others - continue to slowly dissipate. At the moment, the most important themes for global financial markets relate to the ongoing Fed tightening cycle, the potential for policy stimulus in China in response to slowing domestic growth, and the slowing growth of central bank balance sheets (Chart 2). All three are bond bearish. We could add a fourth item to that list - U.S. protectionism, which can lead to slowing global through diminished trade activity. While there is evidence from many countries that a more uncertain outlook for global trade has negatively affected business confidence, there is also some tentative evidence that the deceleration in global trade activity may be in the process of stabilizing (Chart 3). Yet even if the U.S. - China trade tensions worsen and industrial activity slows further, tariffs and trade barriers represent a supply shock that could result in higher global inflation and prevent a meaningful decline in bond yields. Summing it all up for our government bond investment strategy, we continue to recommend: a below-benchmark overall portfolio duration stance country allocation (Chart 4) with underweight exposure to countries where central banks can credibly raise interest rates (U.S., Canada) and overweight exposure where rate hikes will be more difficult to deliver (U.K., Japan, Australia) Bottom Line: Global central bankers are increasingly following the Fed's lead by paying more attention to the appropriate level of real interest rates that will keep inflation stable given low unemployment (r-star). This raises a new potentially bearish element for global bond markets through higher real yields. Chart 2The Biggest Market Risks Are Bond Bearish Chart 3Tentative Signs Of Global Trade Stabilization? Chart 4Underweight Countries That Can Credibly ##br##Raise Rates (And Vice Versa) Stay Overweight U.K. Gilts, Even After The BoE Rate Hike The BoE delivered a 25bp rate hike last week, bringing its Bank Rate to 0.75%. The growth and inflation forecasts for the next three years were essentially unchanged, however. The hike was described by BoE Governor Mark Carney as a sign of growing confidence by the Monetary Policy Committee (MPC) in its forecast. Thus, another step towards normalizing the Bank Rate from accommodative levels was appropriate. In the press conference following the MPC meeting, Carney noted that the recent pickup in U.K. wage growth was an important development. Carney said that with the economy at full employment,3 the BoE's job is to "manage demand" to control inflation while nominal wage growth expands. Real wage growth has crept back into positive territory in recent months (Chart 5). Numerous indicators were presented in the August 2018 Inflation Report to suggest that U.K. labor markets are growing increasingly tight - including faster wage growth for those switching jobs than those staying in jobs (bottom panel) and survey data showing greater pay increases in sectors facing recruitment and retention difficulties. The BoE did downplay the recent cooling of realized U.K. inflation, which has been more a product of the stability of the pound than an easing of domestic inflation pressures. While this is true, market-based measures of inflation expectation like CPI swaps have also been following the path of the pound, rather than typical forces like oil prices, since the collapse in the pound after the 2016 Brexit vote (Chart 6). On the margin, however, the more stable pound means that U.K. inflation will be more influenced by domestic factors, like tight labor markets and wage pressures. Chart 5Mixed Signals From The U.K. Labor Market Chart 6U.K. Inflation Following The Pound, Not The Labor Market As discussed earlier, the BoE did devote a significant section of the latest Inflation Report to the topic of the neutral real rate or r-star. The BoE noted that there was a longer-term and shorter-term r-star, and that the latter had to be deeply negative in recent years given the shocks from the 2008 Financial Crisis and recession to the 2016 Brexit vote to the fiscal austerity of recent Conservative governments. As the impacts of those shocks fades, the shorter-term r-star increases, requiring faster BoE rate hikes. Or as it was described in the Inflation Report: "The expected rise in r* over coming years, combined with the absorption of spare capacity over the forecast period, means that - even as inflation is projected to fall back toward 2% - the Bank Rate is likely to need to rise gradually to keep inflation at the target. But the persistence of the fall in the trend real rate means that any rises in the Bank Rate are expected to be limited, and interest rates are likely to need to remain low by historical standards for some time to come." That sounds like the BoE wanting to have its cake and eat it too, talking up rate hikes while making the case for rates to stay low for longer. The longer-run r-star estimates shown in the Inflation Report (between 0.5% and 1.5%) when added to the 2% BoE inflation target, suggests that the neutral nominal Bank Rate is between 2.5% and 3.5%. That does imply that there is a lot of scope for additional BoE rate hikes without even reaching a level that could be considered "'neutral' from a longer-term perspective" (Chart 7). It will be difficult for the BoE to deliver on any additional rate hikes, however, while both the economy and inflation are decelerating. The current pricing in the U.K. Overnight Index Swap (OIS) curve shows that there are only 42bps of hikes discounted by the end of 2020. That represents a very low hurdle to overcome, even if the U.K. economy remains sluggish and the Brexit outcome turns ugly. From a strategy perspective, we think that Gilt yields can rise above the current shallow path of the forward curve over the next 6-12 months, suggesting that a below-benchmark duration stance in the U.K. is appropriate. Yet with U.K. growth slowing and leading indicators suggesting more of that is to come, and with still no resolution to the Brexit negotiations with the March 29, 2019 "Brexit Day" looming in the distance, Gilt yields are likely to stay relatively subdued versus global peers. We continue to recommend an overweight stance on Gilts in hedged global bond portfolios (Chart 8). Chart 7U.K. Real Rates Are WAY Below Longer-Run R-Star Chart 8Stay Overweight U.K. Gilts Bottom Line: The Bank of England hiked rates last week, despite sluggish growth, slowing inflation and elevated Brexit uncertainties. Additional rate hikes will be difficult to deliver, however, without a change in trend for those factors. Stay overweight Gilts in global hedged bond portfolios. Bank of Japan: Zero Pressure On The 0% Target Global bond yields got a bit of a jolt recently from the most unlikely of sources - Japan, the place where bond volatility goes to die. Amid media speculation that the Bank of Japan (BoJ) was considering an upward adjustment to its JGB yield target, the 10-year JGB took several runs at breaching the BoJ's implied pain threshold of 0.10%, resulting in the BoJ intervening with offers of "unlimited" purchases to quell the selloff. Yet at the monetary policy meeting last week, the BoJ only delivered modest changes: The allowable range for the 10-year JGB yield was widened to -0.20% to +0.20% New forward guidance was introduced indicating no rate hikes until at least 2020 A shift in the BoJ's equity ETF purchases to favor ETF's that target a broader index We were not surprised by the outcome, given that there was absolutely no reason why the BoJ should have even considered a change in policy settings. Back in February, we outlined the three things that we believed must ALL occur before the BoJ could plausibly raise its yield target for the 10-year Japanese government bond (JGB).4 Five months later, none of those conditions has been met (Chart 9): 1) The USD/JPY exchange rate must at least get back to the 115-120 range. USD/JPY has struggled to reach even the bottom end of our target range, only getting to an intraday high of 113.17 on July 19th. The starting point for the yen must be weaker than that before the BoJ can deliver any sort of more hawkish policy that would likely send the yen roaring higher. 2) Japanese core CPI inflation and nominal wage inflation must both rise sustainably above 1.5%. The extremely tight Japanese labor market (Chart 10) has finally begun to put upward pressure on wage growth, which now sits at 2.2% on a year-over-year basis. There has been no follow through into core inflation, however, which only got as high at 0.5% in March before sliding back to 0.2% in June. Chart 9None Of Our Conditions For A BoJ Hike Have Been Met Chart 10How Does This Job Market Not Produce Inflation? 3) The 10-year JGB yield must reach an overvalued extreme versus U.S. Treasuries. We judge this by looking at the residual from a fundamental model of the 10-year JGB yield published by the BoJ. The model includes both the 10-year U.S. Treasury yield as the proxy for global yields, and the share of outstanding JGBs owned by the central bank to measure the impact of BoJ buying (Table 1). That model suggests that current JGB yields are only at fair value, and that U.S. Treasury yields have to rise by a lot more (to at least 3.5%) to make the current level of JGB yields look "expensive", thus justifying a higher BoJ yield target (USD/JPY would likely be in the 115-120 range if that happened, as well). Yet despite all these factors arguing against any change in the BoJ's policy settings, the topic was seriously discussed at last week's policy meeting, according to Reuters.5 The renewed weakness of Japanese inflation scuttled any chance that a serious policy change could be delivered. The decision to widen the allowable yield range for the 10-year JGB yield not associated with any signaled change to the 0% yield target. Investors got the hint, and yields have calmed down after the late July turbulence. The BoJ is increasingly backed into a corner with its hyper-easy monetary policy. There is no spare capacity in the economy, with the unemployment rate at a 25-year low of 2.4% and the BoJ estimating that the output gap is closed. Our own Japan Central Bank Monitor is no longer in negative territory, indicating that the next policy move should be a tightening (Chart 11). The BoJ has indeed been "tightening", but only by reducing the pace of its bond buying. BoJ purchases now only matches the pace of new JGB - a far cry from when the BoJ was buying more than all new JGBs issued between 2013 and 2017 (bottom two panels). Table 1JGB Yield Model Chart 11BoJ Has Been Quantitatively Tightening There is a reported disagreement within the BoJ over the impact of the negative interest rate and yield curve control policies on Japanese bank profitability and lending capacity. Yet any sort of rate hike, at either end of the yield curve, would result in a sharp increase in the yen. To have that happen now would harm Japanese exporters' competitiveness at the worst possible time. Economic growth is decelerating in two of Japan's major trading partners, China and South Korea. At the same time, U.S. protectionism risks trade wars that would slow global trade at a time when Japanese export growth, and business confidence, may already be peaking (Chart 12). We continue to recommend an overweight position in Japanese government debt within hedged global government bond portfolios. Admittedly, the idea of overweighting a market where nearly half of all bonds still have a negative yield does not sound like a path to riches. Yet the BoJ stands out as the one major central bank that has virtually no chance at credibly talking about, much less delivering, any sort of monetary tightening with core inflation close to 0%. If non-Japanese yields continue to rise over the next 6-12 months, as we expect, then JGBs will once again be a relative outperformer in a global bond bear market (Chart 13). Chart 12Japan Is Vulnerable To A Global Trade War Chart 13Stay Overweight JGBs In Hedged Global Bond Portfolios Bottom Line: The conditions for a shift higher in the Bank of Japan's bond yield targets - a weaker yen, core inflation at 1.5% and much higher U.S. bond yields - are still not yet in place. Stay overweight JGBs. Robert Robis, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com 1 The r-star discussion can be found on pages 39-43 of the August 2018 BoE Inflation Report, which can be found here https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/-/media/boe/files/inflation-report/2018/august/inflation-report-august-2018.pdf 2 For example, the BoJ's estimates of Japan's r-star can be found here, https://www.boj.or.jp/en/research/wps_rev/wps_2018/data/wp18e06.pdf, while the Bank of Canada's estimates for Canadian r-star can be found here https://www.bankofcanada.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/boc-review-autumn2017-dorich.pdf 3 The BoE estimates full employment to be around the current unemployment rate of 4.25%, which is well below the OECD's estimate of 5.5% shown in the top panel of Chart 5. 4 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report "What Would It Take For The Bank Of Japan To Raise Its Yield Target?" dated February 13, 2018, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com 5 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-japan-economy-boj-policy-insight/bojs-architect-of-shock-and-awe-plots-retreat-from-stimulus-idUSKBN1KR0TA Recommendations Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Highlights Chart 1Yield Curve Suggests GDP Growth Has Peaked Last month we learned that the U.S. economy grew 4.1% in the second quarter, the fastest pace since 2014. The gap between year-over-year nominal GDP growth and the fed funds rate - a reliable recession indicator - also widened considerably (Chart 1). However, our sense is that this might be as good as it gets for the U.S. economy. With fewer unemployed workers than job openings and businesses reporting difficulties finding qualified labor, strong demand will increasingly translate into higher prices rather than more output. Higher interest rates and a stronger dollar will also start to weigh on demand as the Fed responds to rising inflation. For bond investors, it is still too soon to position for slower growth by increasing portfolio duration. Markets are priced for only 83 basis points of Fed tightening during the next 12 months, below the current "gradual" pace of +25 bps per quarter. Maintain below-benchmark portfolio duration and a neutral allocation to spread product. Feature Investment Grade: Neutral Chart 2Investment Grade Market Overview Investment grade corporate bonds outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 133 basis points in July, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to -50 bps. The index option-adjusted spread tightened 14 bps on the month, and currently sits at 109 bps. Corporate bonds remain expensive with 12-month breakeven spreads for both the A and Baa credit tiers near their 25th percentiles since 1989 (Chart 2). Further, with inflation now close to the Fed's target, monetary policy will provide much less support for corporate bond returns going forward. These are two main reasons why we downgraded our cyclical corporate bond exposure to neutral near the end of June.1 Recent revisions to the U.S. National Accounts reveal that gross nonfinancial corporate leverage declined in Q4 2017 and Q1 2018, though from an elevated starting point (panel 4). While strong Q2 2018 profit growth should lead to a further decline when the second quarter data are reported in September, the downtrend in leverage will probably not last through the second half of the year. A rising wage bill and stronger dollar will soon drag profit growth below the rate of debt growth. At that point, leverage will rise. Historically, rising gross leverage correlates with rising corporate defaults and widening corporate bond spreads. The Fed's Senior Loan Officer Survey for the second quarter was released yesterday, and it showed that banks continue to ease standards on commercial & industrial loans (bottom panel). Rising corporate defaults tend to coincide with tightening lending standards (Table 3). Table 3ACorporate Sector Relative Valuation And Recommended Allocation* Table 3BCorporate Sector Risk Vs. Reward* High-Yield: Neutral Chart 3High-Yield Market Overview High-Yield outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 128 basis points in July, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +205 bps. The average index option-adjusted spread tightened 27 bps on the month, and currently sits at 334 bps. Our measure of the excess spread available in the High-Yield index after accounting for expected default losses is currently 213 bps, below its long-run mean of 247 bps (Chart 3). This tells us that if default losses during the next 12 months are in line with our expectations, we should expect excess high-yield returns of 213 bps over duration-matched Treasuries, assuming also that there are no capital gains/losses from spread tightening/widening. However, we showed in a recent report that the default loss expectations embedded in our calculation are extremely low relative to history (panel 4).2 Our assumption, derived from the Moody's baseline default rate forecast and our own forecast of the recovery rate, calls for default losses of 1.2% during the next 12 months. The only historical period to show significantly lower default losses was 2007, a time when corporate balance sheets were in much better shape than today. While most indicators suggest that default losses will in fact remain low for the next 12 months, historical context clearly demonstrates that the risks are to the upside. It will be critically important to track real-time indicators of the default rate such as job cut announcements, which declined last month but remain above 2017 lows (bottom panel), for signals about whether current default forecasts are overly optimistic. MBS: Neutral Chart 4MBS Market Overview Mortgage-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 20 basis points in July, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to -4 bps. The conventional 30-year zero-volatility MBS spread tightened 3 bps on the month, driven by a 2 bps decline in the compensation for prepayment risk (option cost) and a 1 bp tightening of the option-adjusted spread (OAS). The excess return Bond Map shows that MBS offer a relatively poor risk/reward trade-off, particularly compared to Aaa-rated non-Agency CMBS, High-Yield and Sovereigns. However, our Bond Map analysis does not account for the macro environment, which remains very favorable for the sector. In a recent report we showed that the two main factors that influence MBS spreads are mortgage refinancing activity and residential mortgage bank lending standards.3 Refi activity is tepid (Chart 4) and will likely stay that way for the foreseeable future. Only 5.8% of the par value of the Conventional 30-year MBS index carries a coupon above the current mortgage rate, and even a drop in the mortgage rate to below 4% (from its current 4.6%) would only increase the refinanceable percentage to 38%. As for lending standards, yesterday's second quarter Senior Loan Officer Survey showed that they continue to ease (bottom panel), though banks also reported that they remain at the tighter end of the range since 2005. The still-tight level of lending standards suggests that further gradual easing is likely going forward. That will keep downward pressure on MBS spreads. Government-Related: Underweight Chart 5Government-Related Market Overview The Government-Related index outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 37 basis points in July, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +2 bps. Sovereign debt outperformed the Treasury benchmark by 179 bps on the month, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to -35 bps. Foreign Agencies outperformed by 24 bps on the month, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to -22 bps. Local Authorities outperformed by 33 bps on the month, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +61 bps. Supranationals outperformed by 6 bps on the month, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +13 bps. Domestic Agency bonds broke even with duration-matched Treasuries in July, keeping year-to-date excess returns steady at -1 bp. The strengthening U.S. dollar is a clear negative for hard currency Sovereign debt (Chart 5) and valuation relative to U.S. corporates remains negative (panel 2). Maintain an underweight allocation to Sovereigns. In contrast, the Foreign Agency and Local Authority sectors continue to offer a favorable risk/reward trade-off compared to other fixed income sectors (please see the Bond Maps on page 15). Maintain overweight allocations to both sectors. The Bond Maps also show that while the Supranational and Domestic Agency sectors are very low risk, expected returns are feeble. Both sectors should be avoided. Municipal Bonds: Overweight Chart 6Municipal Market Overview Municipal bonds outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 66 basis points in July, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +187 bps (before adjusting for the tax advantage). The average Aaa-rated Municipal / Treasury yield ratio fell 3% in July to reach 83% (Chart 6). This is more than one standard deviation below its post-crisis mean and only slightly higher than the average of 81% that was observed in the late stages of the previous cycle, between mid-2006 and mid-2007. The total return Bond Map shows that municipal bonds still offer an attractive risk/reward profile for investors who are exposed to the top marginal tax rate. For investors who cannot benefit from the tax exemption there are better alternatives - notably Supranationals, Domestic Agency bonds and Agency CMBS. While value is dissipating, the near-term technical picture remains positive. Fund inflows are strong (panel 2) and visible supply is low (panel 3). Fundamentally, revisions to the GDP data reveal that state & local government net borrowing has been fairly flat in recent years, and in fact probably increased in the second quarter (bottom panel). At least so far, ratings downgrades have not risen alongside higher net borrowing, but this will be crucial to monitor during the next few quarters. Stay tuned. Treasury Curve: Buy The 5/30 Barbell Versus The 10-Year Bullet Chart 7Treasury Yield Curve Overview The Treasury curve's bear flattening trend continued in July. The 2/10 Treasury slope flattened 4 bps and the 5/30 slope flattened 2 bps, as yields moved higher. Despite the curve flattening, our position long the 7-year bullet and short the 1/20 barbell returned +8 bps on the month and is now up +30 bps since inception.4 The trade's outperformance is due to the extreme undervaluation of the 7-year bullet versus the 1/20 barbell. As of today, the bullet still plots 12 bps cheap on our model (Chart 7), which translates to an expected 42 bps of 1/20 flattening during the next six months. We view that much flattening as unlikely.5 Table 4 of this report shows that curve steepeners are also cheap at the front-end of the curve, particularly the 2-year bullet over the 1/5 and 1/7 barbells. Meanwhile, barbells are more fairly valued relative to bullets at the long-end of the curve. The 5/30 and 7/30 barbells look particularly attractive relative to the 10-year bullet. We recommend adding a position long the 5/30 barbell and short the 10-year bullet. The 5/30 barbell is close to fairly valued on our model (panel 4), which implies that the 5/10/30 butterfly spread is priced for relatively little change in the 5/30 slope during the next six months. This trade should perform well in the modest curve flattening environment we anticipate, and it provides a partial hedge to our 1/7/20 trade that is geared toward curve steepening. Table 4Butterfly Strategy Valuation (As Of August 3, 2018) TIPS: Overweight Chart 8Inflation Compensation TIPS outperformed the duration-equivalent nominal Treasury index by 10 basis points in July, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +139 bps. The 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate increased 1 bp on the month and currently sits at 2.12%. The 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rate increased 8 bps on the month and currently sits at 2.24% (Chart 8). Both the 10-year and 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rates remain below the 2.3% to 2.5% range that has historically been consistent with inflation expectations that are well-anchored around the Fed's 2% target. We expect breakevens will return to that target range as investors become increasingly convinced that the risk of deflation has faded. Consistent inflation prints at or above the Fed's 2% target will be the deciding factor that eventually leads to this upward re-rating of inflation expectations. In that regard, core PCE inflation was relatively weak in June, growing only 0.11% month-over-month. That pace is somewhat below the monthly pace of 0.17% that is necessary to sustain 2% annualized inflation (panel 4). Nevertheless, 12-month core PCE inflation at 1.9% is only just below the Fed's target, and the 6-month rate of change is above 2% on an annualized basis. These readings are confirmed by the Dallas Fed's trimmed mean PCE inflation measure (bottom panel). Maintain an overweight allocation to TIPS relative to nominal Treasury securities for now. We will reduce exposure to TIPS once both the 10-year and 5-year/5-year forward breakeven rates reach our target range of 2.3% to 2.5%. ABS: Neutral Chart 9ABS Market Overview Asset-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 11 basis points in July, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +9 bps. The index option-adjusted spread for Aaa-rated ABS narrowed 5 bps on the month and now stands at 38 bps, only 11 bps above its pre-crisis low. The Bond Maps show that consumer ABS continue to offer relatively attractive return potential compared to other low-risk spread products. However, we maintain only a neutral allocation to this space because credit quality trends have started to move against the sector. Despite the large upward revision to the personal savings rate that accompanied the second quarter GDP report, the multi-year uptrend in the household interest coverage ratio remains intact (Chart 9). This will eventually translate into more frequent consumer credit delinquencies, and indeed, the consumer credit delinquency rate appears to have put in a bottom. The Fed's Senior Loan Officer Survey for Q2 was released yesterday and it showed that average consumer credit lending standards tightened for the ninth consecutive quarter (bottom panel). Credit card lending standards tightened for the fifth consecutive quarter, while auto loan standards eased after having tightened in each of the prior eight quarters. Non-Agency CMBS: Underweight Chart 10CMBS Market Overview Non-Agency Commercial Mortgage-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 37 basis points in July, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +98 bps. The index option-adjusted spread for non-agency Aaa-rated CMBS tightened 5 bps on the month and currently sits at 71 bps (Chart 10). In a recent report we showed that the macro picture for CMBS is decidedly mixed.6 A typical negative environment for CMBS is characterized by tightening bank lending standards for commercial real estate loans and falling demand. Yesterday's Q2 Senior Loan Officer Survey reported that both lending standards and demand for nonresidential real estate loans were very close to unchanged (bottom two panels). Agency CMBS: Overweight Agency CMBS outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 24 basis points in July, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +31 bps. The index option-adjusted spread tightened 5 bps on the month and currently sits at 47 bps. The Bond Maps show that Agency CMBS offer high potential return compared to other low risk spread products. An overweight allocation to this defensive sector continues to make sense. The BCA Bond Maps The following page presents excess return and total return Bond Maps that we use to assess the relative risk/reward trade-off between different sectors of the U.S. fixed income market. The Maps employ volatility-adjusted breakeven spread/yield analysis to show how likely it is that a given sector will earn/lose money during the subsequent 12 months. The Maps do not impose any macroeconomic view. The Excess Return Bond Map The horizontal axis of the excess return Bond Map shows the number of days of average spread widening required for each sector to lose 100 bps versus a position in duration-matched Treasuries. Sectors plotting further to the left require more days of average spread widening and are therefore less likely to see losses. The vertical axis shows the number of days of average spread tightening required for each sector to earn 100 bps in excess of duration-matched Treasuries. Sectors plotting further toward the top require fewer days of spread tightening and are therefore more likely to earn 100 bps in excess of Treasuries. The Total Return Bond Map The horizontal axis of the total return Bond Map shows the number of days of average yield increase required for each sector to lose 5% in total return terms. Sectors plotting further to the left require more days of yield increases and are therefore less likely to lose 5%. The vertical axis shows the number of days of average yield decline required for each sector to earn 5% in total return terms. Sectors plotting further toward the top require fewer days of yield decline and are therefore more likely to earn 5%. Chart 11Excess Return Bond Map (As Of August 3, 2018) Chart 12Total Return Bond Map (As Of August 3, 2018) Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com Jeremie Peloso, Research Analyst jeremiep@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, "Go To Neutral On Spread Product", dated June 26, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Out Of Sync", dated July 3, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "The Fed's Balance Sheet Problem", dated July 17, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, "More Bullets, Barbells And Butterflies", dated May 15, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 5 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Rigidly Defined Areas Of Doubt And Uncertainty", dated June 19, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 6 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "The Fed's Balance Sheet Problem", dated July 17, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification Corporate Sector Relative Valuation And Recommended Allocation Total Return Comparison: 7-Year Bullet Versus 2-20 Barbell (6-Month Investment Horizon)

Highlights U.S. Investment Strategy is getting back to basics: We follow last week's report outlining our stance on interest rates with a review of the credit cycle and its current position. The credit cycle is not just about borrowers: Lender willingness is inversely related to loan performance over a five-year horizon, but it amplifies near-term performance swings. Our bond strategists use three broad indicators to track the credit cycle...: Valuation, monetary conditions and credit quality all offer insight into corporate bond performance. ... and we also consider the fed funds rate cycle: The way that lenders interact with the monetary policy backdrop is discouraging for the course of human evolution, but it follows a well-defined pattern that helps demarcate the credit cycle. The cycle is in its latter stages, and investors should be in the process of dialing down credit exposures: Our bond strategists downgraded spread product to neutral in mid-June, and we won't return to overweight until the next recession is well underway. Feature U.S. Investment Strategy is meant to provide analyses and forecasts of financial markets and the economy for the purpose of helping our clients make asset-allocation decisions. This report continues our focus on going back to the basics of meeting that mandate. Next week's Special Report will present a simple indicator for anticipating the onset of a recession and the end of the equity bull market. After Labor Day, we will publish a Special Report updating, and expanding upon, our work on the fed funds rate cycle. By the unofficial end of the summer, then, we will have outlined our positions on rates, credit, the business cycle, and the state of monetary policy. That will provide us with a framework for evaluating incoming data and engaging in an ongoing investment-focused dialogue. It will also hopefully put us in position to identify the first set of major cyclical inflection points since 2007-8 in a timely fashion. 2019 is shaping up as a pivotal year for asset allocation, and we look forward to navigating it alongside our clients. Lenders Never Learn, Part I: Lending Standards Investors typically think of the credit cycle exclusively in terms of borrower performance. After all, cycle peaks and troughs are defined by default-rate troughs and peaks. There are two parties to every loan, though, and a narrow focus on debtors precludes a full understanding of the landscape. The credit cycle encompasses lender willingness as well as borrower performance. Bad loans are made in good times, just as surely as good loans are made in bad times. Skepticism and gloom carry the day in a recession and its immediate aftermath, and the loans that manage to get made early in the credit cycle are tightly underwritten, insulated with a margin of safety that would warm Benjamin Graham's heart. As the cycle stretches on, however, lenders forget about the trauma of the last downturn and focus more on market share than standards. The fact that standards impact performance with a lag much longer than the annual bonus cycle obscures their importance and helps them persist. Like the rest of us, loan officers and their managers learn best when they receive immediate feedback that clearly results from their decisions. Over the three-decade history of the Federal Reserve's senior loan officer survey the last three cycles, however, it appears that lending standards impact loan performance with as much as a five-year lag. The Chart Of The Week shows the net percentage of loan officers tightening standards for commercial and industrial (C&I) loans to large and mid-sized companies, inverted and advanced by 20 quarters. Easy standards line up with peak defaults, and tight standards align with default troughs. Chart of the WeekLending Standards Are Negatively Correlated With Intermediate-Term Loan Performance ... The lag between loan approval and loan performance is far too long to reinforce learning, however. Over the course of five years, factors that could not have been foreseen at origination may well end up precipitating a default. Lenders' response to that long-term uncertainty may help explain the positive short-term correlation (Chart 2). Partially goaded by pro-cyclical loan-loss reserve standards, lenders react to surging default rates by getting more conservative, nudging default rates higher in a feedback loop that plants the seeds for strong intermediate-term performance. Chart 2... But They March In Lockstep With Loan Performance In The Near Term Bottom Line: 2014's cyclical bottom in standards suggests that rising default rates will not peak until late 2019 or 2020. Increased near-term lender caution will reinforce the upward move. Tracking The Credit Cycle: Default Rates When the economy is expanding, borrowers in the aggregate find it easier to service their debts, just as recessions make debt service more onerous. The pro-cyclicality of inflation, which eases debt burdens, helps reinforce the relationship. There is more to tracking the credit cycle than tracking the business cycle, however. While defaults have peaked within five months after the end of the last three recessions, default-rate troughs have varied wildly, occurring anywhere from six years before the recession to the month it began (Chart 3). Our credit strategists try to identify the point at which defaults begin to take off by tracking lending standards, monetary conditions, and credit quality. None of these factors suggests that default rates can make new lows. The loan officer survey could improve, but tight spreads leave almost no room for the bond market to become more receptive (Chart 4). Monetary conditions are steadily becoming less accommodative, helped along by the rate-hike/dollar-strength loop (Chart 5). Our bond strategists expect that credit quality will weaken as soon as upward wage pressure snuffs out pre-tax corporate profits'1 ability to keep up with double-digit debt growth. It's hard to say just when default rates will begin to erode total returns in a meaningful way, but our bond strategists are of a mind that risk is rapidly catching up with reward. Chart 3The Business Cycle Reliably Calls Peaks,##BR##But It's No Help With Troughs Chart 4Little Room##BR##For Improvement Chart 5Tightening,##BR##But Not Yet Tight Tracking The Credit Cycle: Corporate Spreads Chart 6Spreads Aren't Ready To Blow Out Yet High-yield data only exist for the last two spread-widening episodes, but what they lack in quantity they make up for in consistency. Heading into both the dot-com bust and the financial crisis, spreads did not widen in earnest (Chart 6, top panel) until the Fed had completed its tightening cycle (Chart 6, second panel), BCA's proprietary Corporate Health Monitor (CHM) began to deteriorate (Chart 6, third panel), and lenders tightened their standards (Chart 6, bottom panel). That template suggests that spreads are not poised to blow out anytime soon, as we expect the Fed will not be finished tightening before the end of 2019 (or later), and lenders are still actively easing their standards for commercial borrowers. As noted above, we expect that deterioration in the CHM will pick up again, once runaway profit growth ceases to paper over surging leverage. All in all, our bond strategists do not think it is anywhere near time to panic. As with defaults, they think it is still too soon to expect the beginning of sustained spread widening. On balance, however, the indicators suggest that return expectations should be modest, and limited to coupon yields. It is too late to buy bonds with the expectation of realizing capital gains, and prudent return projections should pencil in some minor capital losses. Lenders Never Learn, Part II: The Fed Funds Rate Cycle The fed funds rate cycle has been a U.S. Investment Strategy pillar, informing many of our views on cycles and asset markets. We will publish a Special Report delving into it more fully the first week of September, but a quick summary is sufficient to illustrate its relevance to the credit cycle. We divide the fed funds rate cycle into four phases based on whether the Fed is hiking rates or cutting them, and whether or not the fed funds exceeds our estimate of the equilibrium rate. Per our stylized representation of the cycle (Chart 7), we are currently in Phase I (the Fed is hiking, but policy remains accommodative) and are likely to remain there until the second half of 2019, when we expect that policy will turn restrictive, ushering in Phase II. While we have found that the level of the fed funds rate trumps its direction when it comes to explaining equity and bond returns, loan growth is more sensitive to the direction of rates. Banks expand their loan books more rapidly when the Fed is tightening than they do when it's easing. The effect is most pronounced for C&I loans, which grow five times faster during rake-hiking campaigns than they do during rate-cutting campaigns (Table 1). The conclusion may seem counter-intuitive on its face, but one must remember that the Fed is charged with leaning against the cycle: it tightens when times are good to keep them from becoming too good, and its eases when times are bad to get the economy back on its feet. Chart 7The Fed Funds Rate Cycle Table 1An Example Of What Not To Do Lenders who take a countercyclical tack operate with the policy wind at their back. Those who follow the cycle are actually fighting the Fed. Most lenders short-sightedly follow the crowd aping the cycle, basing future projections on the most recent data samples and hewing to career incentives that encourage herding. Bankers who load up on loans when the cycle is demonstrably old and approaching its peak make two errors: they ignore a well-established cyclical pattern (tightening leads recessions, which lead defaults and higher losses given default), and they deploy capital when it's widely available in the marketplace, but husband it when it's scarce. Bottom Line: Banks reinforce the credit cycle by avidly deploying capital when conditions are about to take a turn for the worse, and withholding it when they're about to get better. We recommend investors reject their example, and limit their exposure to spread product. Investment Implications If our view that the Fed is going to hike rates more than the consensus expects is correct, all bonds will have to contend with a persistent headwind. Thanks to positive carry, and high-yield bonds' structurally shorter duration, spread product will be less vulnerable than Treasuries. Our bond strategists are nonetheless lukewarm on the risk-reward offered by investment-grade and high-yield bonds. The cycle is clearly in its latter stages and spreads are historically tight. We remain constructive on both the business cycle and the monetary policy cycle, and we are not yet ready to throw in the towel on the equity bull market. Although our equity take is more sanguine than the BCA consensus, our optimism does not extend to the credit cycle, which has clearly passed its peak. While neither modest spread widening nor a mild pickup in defaults is likely to wipe out all of spread product's excess returns, we do not expect that they will be large enough to merit more than benchmark weighting in balanced portfolios. Our sister Global ETF Strategy service's model portfolios hold benchmark spread-product positions (while underweighting Treasuries, maintaining below-benchmark duration across all bond categories, and overweighting cash) and that is the way we intend to be positioned in the small basket of ETFs we will recommend once we've completed our review of the most impactful macro drivers. A Note On Payrolls Friday's Goldilocks employment situation report for July reinforced our views on the economy and rates, but it was mixed enough to have satisfied anyone's preconceived notions. July's net payroll gains fell shy of the consensus expectation, but revisions to May and June pushed the 3-month moving average of net gains to over 224,000, slightly above expectations. Neither hours worked nor average hourly earnings set off any alarm bells, but the "hidden" unemployment rate slid 30 basis points to 7.5%, the lowest level since May 2001. We see the seeds of future inflation pressures in the continued absorption of slack, and believe that the Fed does as well. We continue to expect four hikes this year and next, two more than the money market is currently discounting. Doug Peta, Senior Vice President U.S. Investment Strategy dougp@bcaresearch.com 1 Annualized profit growth calculated with data from the BEA's National Income and Profit Accounts.

Highlights Global QE has made bonds as risky as equities. Thereby, global QE has forced investors to accept identically depressed returns from equities and from bonds, requiring equity and other risk-asset valuations to surge. The good news is that record high valuations of risk-assets are fully justified if global bond yields remain at current levels or fall. The bad news is that risk-asset valuations will become dangerously unstable if global bond yields march much higher. The 'rule of 4' for equity/bond allocation: sum the three 10-year yields - the German bund, the U.S. T-bond, and the JGB. Above 3.5 means a neutral stance in equities... ... Above 4 means it's time to go underweight equities and overweight bonds. Feature Chart of the WeekAt Higher Bond Yields, The Correlation With Equity Prices Has Flipped From Positive To Negative The end is nigh for QE. The ECB will exit its asset purchase program at the end of the year. In doing so, it will mark the end of an epoch which began in the aftermath of the global financial crisis, a ten year period in which at least one of the world's major central banks has been buying a defined quantity of assets every month (Chart I-2). Approaching the end of the epoch, it is fitting to ask: how did the global QE stimulant work, and what will be the withdrawal symptoms? Chart I-2The End Is Nigh For QE As far back as 2011, in a provocative report titled QE And Riots we predicted that: "QE... will exacerbate already extreme income inequality and the consequent social tensions that arise from it" Events in the subsequent seven years have fully vindicated our prediction. Simply put, QE has front-loaded asset returns which would ordinarily have accrued in the distant future to the here and now - in the form of sharply higher capital values. So if you were invested in the financial markets or most housing markets, congratulations, you have received a bonanza; if you weren't, bad luck, there's not much left for you (Chart I-3). Chart I-3Equities Are Now Priced To Generate A Measly Long-Term Return To understand why, we need to delve deeper into behavioural economics. QE: Why The Stimulant Was So Powerful Central banks admit that there is a lower bound for interest rates below which there would be an exodus of bank deposits. Once policy rates hit the lower bound, central banks can unleash a 'plan B': a commitment to keep policy rates at this lower bound for an extended period. QE is simply a powerful signalling tool for this commitment. As ECB Chief Economist Peter Praet explains: "There is a signalling channel inherent in asset purchases, which reinforces the credibility of forward guidance on policy rates. This credibility of promises to follow a certain course for policy rates in the future is enhanced by the asset purchases, as these asset purchases are a concrete demonstration of our desire (to keep policy rates at the lower bound)" The credible commitment to keep policy rates near the lower bound for an extended period depresses bond yields towards the lower bound too (Chart I-4). Chart I-4The Credible Commitment To Keep Policy Rates##br## Low Pulls Down Bond Yields Now comes the part of the story that is not well understood, even by central bankers, because it derives from recent breakthroughs in behavioural economics. When bond yields approach the lower bound, the asymmetry in their future direction makes bonds very risky investments. The short-term potential for capital appreciation - nominal or real - vanishes, while the potential for vicious losses increases dramatically (Chart I-5). The technical term for this unattractive asymmetry is negative skew. Years of research in behavioural economics has led Nobel Laureate Professor Daniel Kahneman to conclude: negative skew is the measure that best encapsulates our perception of an investment's risk. Chart I-5Bonds Become Much Riskier ##br## At Low Bond Yields Professor Kahneman's work reveals a profound truth: global QE has made bonds as risky as equities (Chart I-6). The ramification is that equities and other risk-assets no longer need to lure investors with an excess return over bond returns. QE has forced investors to accept identically depressed returns from equities and from bonds, requiring equity and other risk-asset valuations to surge.1 Chart I-6Global QE Has Made Bonds ##br##As Risky As Equities One counterargument we hear is that bonds offer investors a diversification benefit and, because of this, investors will still accept a lower return from bonds. But this argument is flawed. Just as bonds are a diversifier for equity investors, equities are a diversifier for bond investors. Indeed in recent years, equities have protected bond investors during vicious sell-offs in the bond market such as after Trump's shock victory in 2016. So we could equally argue that equities require the lower return. In fact, with the same negative skew and symmetrical diversification properties, both assets must offer the same prospective return. The breakthroughs in behavioural economics provide some good news and some bad news. The good news is that record high valuations of risk-assets are fully justified if bond yields remain at current levels or fall. The bad news is that risk-asset valuations will become dangerously unstable if bond yields march much higher (Chart I-7). Chart I-7At Low Bond Yields The Required Return On ##br##Equities Plunges, So Equity Valuations Surge Financial Markets Dwarf The World Economy One common misunderstanding about QE is that it has been the bond purchasing itself that has held down bond yields. This seems a natural assumption because we connect the act of buying with higher prices (lower yields). Moreover, the $10 trillion of bonds that the 'big four' central banks have bought is not far short of the size of the euro area economy. But let's put this into context. The global bond market exceeds $100 trillion. Long-term bank loans amount to something similar. In this $217 trillion2 global fixed income market, $10 trillion of QE is peanuts. To reiterate, QE's impact came not from the $10 trillion of central bank purchases in itself, but from the signal that interest rates would remain at the lower bound for a long time, mathematically requiring bond yields to approach the lower bound too;3 and from the consequent equalization of negative skew on bonds and risk-assets, mathematically requiring an exponential rerating of all risk-asset valuations (Chart I-8). Chart I-8Equities Are Now Priced To Generate A Measly Long-Term Return Now note that the combination of equities and correlated risk-assets such as corporate and EM debt is worth around $160 trillion, and real estate is worth $220 trillion. World GDP is worth much less, around $80 trillion. So if returns from these richly valued risk-assets were reallocated from the here and now back to the distant future, through lower capital values today, there would be a very real risk that current spending could take a dive. Supporting this broad thesis, central bank measures of 'financial conditions easiness' are just tracking the level of the stock market (Chart I-9). Chart I-9Financial Conditions Are Just##br## Tracking The Stock Market The 'Rule Of 4' For Equities And Bonds On February 1 this year, we advised that the big threat to risk-asset valuations "comes from the global 10-year bond yield rising to 2% - broadly equivalent to the German 10-year bund yield rising to 1% or the U.S. 10-year T-bond yield rising to 3%." This advice has proved to be remarkably prescient. Whenever bond yields have been at the lower end of recent ranges, the correlation with equities has been positive, meaning equities have risen in tandem with bond yields. But whenever bond yields have moved to the upper end of recent ranges, the correlation has abruptly flipped to negative, meaning equities have fallen as bond yields have risen (Chart of the Week). While many strategists and commentators are fixated on the risks from trade wars and/or the global economy, our non-consensus call is that the biggest threat to risk-assets comes from rich valuations which will become dangerously unstable if bond yields march much higher. In this regard the bond yield that matters is the global bond yield. Previously we defined this in terms of the German 10-year bund yield and the U.S. 10-year T-bond yield. But today for completeness, we would like to add another important component: the Japanese 10-year government bond yield. The global bond yield is a weighted average of the three components. But for a useful rule of thumb, just sum the three 10-year yields - the German bund, the U.S. T-bond, and the JGB. A sum above 3.5 means a neutral stance to equities. A sum above 4 - which broadly equates to the global yield rising above 2% - means it's time to go underweight equities and overweight bonds. Dhaval Joshi, Senior Vice President Chief European Investment Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com 1 Consider what happens to valuations when bond yields decline from 4% to 2%. At a 4% bond yield, equities possess significantly more negative skew than 10-year bonds. So investors will demand a comparatively higher return from equities, let’s say 8% a year. Whereas, at a 2% bond yield, equities and 10-year bonds possess the same negative skew. So investors will demand the same return from equities as they can get from bonds, 2% a year. At the lower bond yield, the bond must deliver 2% a year less for ten years compared to previously, meaning its price must rise by 22%. But equities must deliver 6% a year less for ten years, so the equity market must surge by 80%. 2 Source: The Institute of International Finance (IIF) https://www.iif.com/publication/global-debt-monitor/global-debt-monitor-june-2017 3 In contrast, if the market feared bond purchases would cause inflation and thereby imply a higher path of interest rates, QE would push up bond yields! Fractal Trading Model* This week we note that the underperformance of emerging market versus developed market equities is technically stretched and ripe for at least a brief countertrend reversal. The 65-day trade is long EM versus DM with a profit target of 2.5% and a symmetrical stop-loss. For any investment, excessive trend following and groupthink can reach a natural point of instability, at which point the established trend is highly likely to break down with or without an external catalyst. An early warning sign is the investment's fractal dimension approaching its natural lower bound. Encouragingly, this trigger has consistently identified countertrend moves of various magnitudes across all asset classes. Chart I-10 The post-June 9, 2016 fractal trading model rules are: When the fractal dimension approaches the lower limit after an investment has been in an established trend it is a potential trigger for a liquidity-triggered trend reversal. Therefore, open a countertrend position. The profit target is a one-third reversal of the preceding 13-week move. Apply a symmetrical stop-loss. Close the position at the profit target or stop-loss. Otherwise close the position after 13 weeks. Use the position size multiple to control risk. The position size will be smaller for more risky positions. * For more details please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report "Fractals, Liquidity & A Trading Model," dated December 11, 2014, available at eis.bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading Model Recommendations Equities Bond & Interest Rates Currency & Other Positions Closed Fractal Trades Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Interest Rate Chart II-5Indicators To Watch ##br##- Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations

Feature Downside Risks Haven't Gone Away We downgraded risk assets to neutral in last month's Quarterly Portfolio Outlook,1 citing an increasing number of risks to the equity bull market. Specifically, we warned about the slowdown and desynchronization of global growth, rising U.S. inflation, further deterioration in the trade war, and the ongoing slowdown in China. Markets - particularly in the U.S. - have stabilized somewhat over the past few weeks on the expectation that these risks are not particularly grave, that global growth remains robust, and that central banks will be slow to tighten. We accept that there remain upside risks (which is why we are neutral, not underweight, equities) but think many investors remain too sanguine about the downside risks. On desynchronized growth, it is true that the slowdown in the euro zone seems to have bottomed. The Citi Economic Surprise Indexes (Chart 1) suggest that downward surprises to euro zone and Japanese growth have ended, and that the U.S. is no longer surprising significantly to the upside. However, the likely path of inflation in the two regions looks very different, with U.S. core PCE inflation likely headed towards 2.5% over the next few quarters, while euro zone core inflation is stuck around 1% (Chart 2). Table 1Recommended Allocation Chart 1A Resynchronization Of Growth? Chart 2Core Inflation: Higher In The U.S. Than In The Euro Zone In particular, we think it is only a matter of time before U.S. wages start to accelerate. Unemployment has not been this low since the late 1960s. As happened then, there is typically a lag between the labor market becoming tight and inflation emerging (Chart 3). With the employment/population ratio for the key working-age demographic now back close to its 2007 level (Chart 4), and 601,000 new entrants to the labor force last month alone, that point is probably not far away. Note, too, that people switching jobs are now seeing large wage rises; those staying are not (Chart 5). With strong corporate profit growth, companies will soon start to raise wages to keep staff and fill vacancies. Chart 3Just A Matter Of Time Before Inflation Accelerates Chart 4Little Slack Left In The Labor Market Chart 5Switchers Getting Wage Rises; Stayers Not This all suggests that markets are too nonchalant about the risk of further Fed tightening. The futures market is pricing in only four rate hikes from the Fed over the next 24 months (Chart 6). We think it likely that the Fed will continue to hike by 25 basis points a quarter until something gives. By contrast, the ECB has clearly signaled that it will wait until at least September next year before raising rates; when it does so, it may hike by only 10 basis points. The futures market is close to pricing this correctly (Chart 6, panel 2). We remain concerned about further exacerbation of the retaliatory tariff war. In late July, the European Union and President Trump seemed to agree a truce, especially with regard to auto tariffs. But, even if this proves more than transitory, it is unlikely to be repeated between the U.S. and China. Both sides have raised the stakes so much that it will be politically difficult for either to back down. Further aggressive moves are likely, including a 10% tariff on all USD500 billion of Chinese imports into the U.S, and the Chinese authorities engineering a further depreciation of the Chinese yuan, and making life difficult for U.S. companies that manufacture and sell in China (where their sales total USD350 billion). Businesses around the world have woken up to this risk: capex intentions among U.S. companies have slipped recently and, in the Global ZEW survey, future expectations are now the lowest relative to current conditions since 2007, a bearish indicator (Chart 7). Chart 6Fed Is Likely To Hike more Than This Chart 7Businesses Expect Things To Get Worse Moreover, we don't see China launching a massive reflationary stimulus, as it did in 2009 and 2015. In the past few weeks, it has announced some minor easing of monetary policy, targeted tax cuts, and an acceleration of this year's fiscal spending. This will be enough to cushion the downside. But interest rates have not fallen anything like as much as in previous episodes (Chart 8). The authorities have reiterated that structural reform remains the priority. Given the significant slowdown in credit growth over the past year, we expect a further deceleration in the Chinese industrial economy (and, therefore, in imports) through the end of the year. If our macro outlook is correct, it is likely to have the following consequences for financial markets: further rises in long-term interest rates (we forecast 3.3-3.5% for the 10-year U.S. Treasury bond yield by early 2019), a further appreciation of the U.S. dollar (as monetary policy divergences with the euro area and Japan widen further), and negative performance for emerging market assets (hurt by higher U.S. rates, the rising USD, and the slowdown in China). This points to small negative returns from global government bonds over the next 12 months. Equities are more complicated. Earnings growth remains strong. If S&P500 companies really achieve the 20% EPS growth this year and 10% next year that analysts (and BCA's models) are forecasting, the forward multiple will fall from 16.5x now to 14.0x by end-2019. We would expect to see low single-digit positive returns from global equities over the rest of the year. We accordingly remain neutral on equities, where we can see both upside and downside risks. One key is the timing of the peak in profit margins. This has typically come a few quarters before the start of a recession. Currently margins continue to improve (Chart 9). They are likely to peak around the end of this year, when wages (and input prices, partly because of higher import tariffs) begin to rise faster than sales. We expect to move underweight equities around that time, when this and other recession indicators start to flash warning signals. Chart 8Not 2015 Redux In China Chart 9Watch For The Peak In Profit Margins Currencies: The outlook for the USD remains the key to the performance of other asset classes, particularly emerging markets and commodities. We see the risk of a short-term pullback, since long speculative positions in the dollar have recently built up (Chart 10). But differences in growth, inflation, monetary policy, and long-term rates between the U.S. and other developed economies suggest further moderate dollar appreciation over the coming 12 months. We remain very negative on EM currencies. Central banks in many emerging markets have been forced to raise rates sharply in recent weeks to defend their currencies. This is likely to slow growth over coming quarters. Those central banks that have resisted hiking (for example, Turkey and Brazil) are likely to see sharp rises in inflation. Equities: We prefer developed market equities over emerging ones. Our two overweights are the U.S. and Japan. The U.S. is a defensive market, with a beta to global equities of only 0.9 over the past 20 years. But, if there were to be a last-year equity market melt-up (along the lines of 1999), it is likely to be led by internet stocks, in which the U.S. is particularly overweight, and so the U.S. overweight also acts as a hedge against this upside risk. Our overweight in Japan is based on our view that the Bank of Japan will continue its ultra-accommodative monetary policy (bolstered by the recent tweaks to the operation of the policy), even while other DM central banks are moving towards tightening. There are also some signs of wage growth picking up, which should be positive for consumer sectors. Fixed Income: We remain underweight bonds and, within the asset class, are neutral between government bonds and spread product. U.S. junk bonds continue to have some attraction as long as economic growth remains strong (and the oil price does not fall). But junk bonds typically peak one or two quarters before equities. And, in this cycle, U.S. corporate leverage began to rise rather early, which suggests that at the start of the next recession leverage will be worryingly high (Chart 11) and that junk bonds will, therefore, perform particularly poorly. Chart 10Dollar Long Positions Building Up Again Chart 11Leverage Is High For This Stage Of The Cycle Commodities: Oil has become much harder to forecast in recent weeks, with downside risk to the price of crude coming from the recently announced OPEC production increases, but upside risk from Iran (which is threatening to close the straits of Hormuz in the face of renewed U.S. sanctions) and the collapse in Venezuelan production. BCA's energy strategists see Brent falling a little to average USD70 a barrel in 2H, and at USD75 on average next year, with greater risk of upside surprises than downside.2 Industrial metals prices are likely to remain under pressure if the USD appreciates and China slows further, as evidenced by significant downside moves in copper, iron ore and other metals over the past few weeks. Garry Evans, Senior Vice President Global Asset Allocation garry@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Global Asset Allocation Quarterly Portfolio Review, "Lowering Risk Assets To Neutral," dated 2 July 2018, available at gaa.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see Commodity & Energy Strategy Special Report, "U.S., OPEC Talk Oil Prices Down; Gulf Tensions Could Become Kinetic," dated 19 July 2018, available at ces.bcaresearch.com GAA Asset Allocation

Highlights Editor's Note: I am pleased to return to U.S. Investment Strategy (USIS). I worked with the service when I joined BCA in 2010, and previously led it from August 2013 through September 2014. Sara Porrello, who has been with the team for over 20 years, and I look forward to re-aligning USIS with its original mandate. We hope you will find it consistently insightful. Best regards, Doug Peta U.S. Investment Strategy is getting back to basics: Today's report, plainly stating our position on the near-term direction of interest rates, is the first in an ongoing series meant to stake out our views on the macro issues that are most important to investors. Rates are headed higher, consistent with a booming economy that may well overheat, ... : Assuming trade tensions don't short-circuit the expansion, the U.S. economy is poised to grow above trend well into 2019. ...thanks to a tightening labor market and dubious fiscal spending, ... : Employers will be forced to bid up wages as the pool of idled and under-utilized workers dries up, and the fiscal stimulus package is all but certain to goose inflation pressures. ... and neither tweets nor testy interviews nor other expressions of presidential pique are likely to stay the Fed from its appointed rounds: The Federal Reserve cherishes its independence, and it is extremely unlikely to bow to presidential pressure. Feature U.S. Investment Strategy is meant to provide analyses of the U.S. economy and its future direction for the purpose of helping our clients make asset-allocation decisions. Starting with this report, we are going back to the basics of meeting that mandate. Over the rest of the summer, we intend to outline our positions on the key macro drivers of financial markets: rates, credit, the business cycle, and the state of monetary policy. Laying out our big-picture views, and the rationale underpinning them, will establish a framework for evaluating incoming data. The goal is to allow our clients to think along with us as new information is disseminated, and to distinguish signals from noise. We also want to make it easier for clients to anticipate the evolution of our views. To that end, will make frequent use of checklists highlighting the specific elements that might lead us to change our take on the evolution of the key cycles. The ultimate goal is to stay on top of cyclical inflection points, and to use them to inform asset-allocation decisions. The Fed Gets Its Way On Rates Monetary policy is a blunt instrument that works with indeterminate lags, and its effect has been roundly questioned. At the ends of the armchair-quarterback continuum, the Fed is mocked as a clueless bumbler, turning dials at random like a fumbling Mr. Magoo, or bemoaned as an omnipotent manipulator of financial markets and real-world activity. Strictly speaking, it controls nothing more than short rates. As its post-crisis communications strategy has shown, however, its reach extends well beyond its official policy-rate dominion. Talk of last decade's "conundrum" aside, changes in the fed funds rate reverberate along the entire yield curve. As the Chart Of The Week demonstrates, the aggregate yield on all outstanding Treasury issues is joined at the hip, directionally, with the fed funds rate. Aggregate weighted-average Treasury duration sits squarely in the belly of the curve, and it is a not-quite-perfect proxy for the long end, where the Fed's gravitational pull wanes (Table 1). Its pull is still powerful, though; the 90% correlation between the fed funds rate and the 30-year bond testifies eloquently to the Fed's significant influence at all points of the curve (Chart 2). Chart of the WeekThe Fed Gets Its Way The investment takeaway is that the Fed gets what it wants across the full spectrum of rates the vast majority of the time. Given the FOMC's repeatedly expressed intention to continue on its normalization course, the path of least resistance for rates at all maturities is higher. Despite the money markets' resistance to extrapolate the 25-bps-a-quarter "gradual pace" across the rest of this year and next (Chart 3), six more quarters of that pace is our baseline expectation provided an economic shock does not occur. Investors should be prepared for a higher peak in the fed funds rate than the consensus expects. Table 1Correlation With The Fed Funds##BR##Rate By Bond Maturity Chart 2The Long Arm##BR##Of The Fed Chart 3Rates Have Room To##BR##Surprise To The Upside Bottom Line: The Treasury curve faithfully reflects changes in the fed funds rate. In the absence of a shock that would cause the FOMC's repeatedly expressed plans to change, monetary policy is a catalyst for higher rates. But What About An Inverted Yield Curve? The yield curve typically inverts in the latter stages of a rate-hiking campaign, so it is more correct to say a higher fed funds rate implies higher Treasury yields until the yield curve inverts. An inverted yield curve is a classic recession indicator, albeit often a very early one (Table 2), and it should not be taken as a signal to immediately de-risk portfolios. The yield curve may be prone to invert even earlier than it otherwise would this time around, given that QE1, QE2, and QE3 may well have depressed the term premium on long-term bonds,1 as The Bank Credit Analyst noted in its August edition. The question of how much the Fed's asset purchases have affected the term premium, if at all, is far from settled within either the Fed or BCA, but its potential to impact the signal from the yield curve reinforces our conviction to look to other indicators to confirm its recession message before declaring the end of the bull markets in equities and spread product. Table 2The Yield Curve Is Early The Inflation Outlook As the tepid post-crisis expansion has stretched on and on, investors have grown accustomed to sleepy inflation readings and begun to regard the prospects for a pickup in inflation with skepticism, if not outright disdain. Even within BCA, there has been spirited debate about the relevance of the Phillips Curve - the formalization of the idea that there is an inverse relationship between wage growth and the unemployment rate. Despite the stagflation of the 1970s and the lengthy post-crisis dry spell that have undermined the Phillips Curve's credibility with the rigorously empirically-minded, we do not find it controversial. The relationship between unemployment and compensation may not be perfectly linear, but the Phillips Curve is nothing more than an extension of the laws of supply and demand to wage negotiations. We can accept that the Phillips Curve is kinked - that compensation growth is utterly indifferent to changes in the unemployment rate when labor supply is glutted (as can be seen in Chart 4 when covering all of the observations below 7%), but rather sensitive to its moves when it is in the neighborhood of full employment (as can be seen when covering all of the observations above 5%). We believe the U.S. labor market has reached the point at which employers will have to compete fiercely to attract new talent. After nine years, the economy has finally worked down nearly all of the hidden slack that had padded the broader U-6 unemployment rate.2 The pool of discouraged workers - those who are not counted as officially unemployed because they're not actively looking for a job, but would start tomorrow if offered one - has shrunk below its 2000 and 2007 levels (Chart 5, top panel). Similarly, the share of the labor force that is working part time but would prefer to be working full time is approaching its pre-crisis bottom (Chart 5, bottom panel). The prospects for inflation gained another boost last December upon the passage of the spending package on the coattails of the tax-cut bill. The U.S. economy is poised to receive a substantial dose of fiscal stimulus this year and next (Chart 6). Mainstream macroeconomic thought holds that stimulus injected into an economy that is already operating at full capacity is prone to kindle inflation.3 Chart 4The Phillips Curve Can't Handle Copious Slack ... Chart 5... But Almost All Of It Has Been Worked Off Chart 6Goosing Inflation Along With Output Bottom Line: The U.S. labor market has tightened considerably and competition between employers to attract scarce talent should soon translate to a pickup in wage growth. Unneeded fiscal stimulus is also likely to push prices higher. There are plenty more inflation green shoots behind the ones that have already begun to emerge. White House-Fed Tension Is Nothing New It is not beyond the realm of possibility that presidential pressure could deter the Fed from following through on its intentions and present a risk to our above-consensus terminal rate estimate. The bond market immediately discounted the potential of a less independent Fed by selling off at the long end after the president stated he was "not thrilled" with ongoing rate hikes in an interview with CNBC. There would seem to be little doubt that a captive Fed would be more reluctant to remove the punch bowl than a Fed which was free to pursue its inflation mandate without outside interference. After all, elected officials would be happy to trade long-term pain for near-term gain (at least through the next campaign). The president may have upended convention by publicly airing his displeasure, but there is a natural tension between the White House and the Fed. There have been dust-ups in the past, and there will be dust-ups in the future for as long as elected officials shudder at the thought of an economic downturn. Alan Greenspan wrote frankly in his memoir about friction with the first Bush administration, which included public criticism from the sitting president. "I do not want to see us move so strongly against inflation that we impede growth," President Bush told the press at the beginning of his term, in response to hawkish congressional testimony from Greenspan.4 By all accounts, however, the conflict between Bush père and Greenspan was of a lower-pressure variety than the conflicts between LBJ and William McChesney Martin, and Nixon and Arthur Burns. The legendarily intimidating LBJ summoned Martin to his ranch following an unwelcome rate hike. According to several accounts (and consistent with his longstanding negotiating practices in the Senate), LBJ backed the smaller Martin up against a wall before giving full voice to his complaints. Martin did not budge, pointing out that the Fed had acted in accordance with the legislation governing its actions.5 If Martin represents the heroic Fed chief, standing his ground in the face of heavy pressure from a larger-than-life figure, Arthur Burns is the poster child for folding like a cheap lawn chair. The Nixon tapes capture Nixon and his proxies repeatedly pressuring Burns to prime the pump ahead of the 1972 election, which Burns ultimately did.6 Our view is that Fed Chair Powell is more likely to follow Martin than Burns. The Fed is more transparent today, and its independence is more firmly established than it was in the 1970s. Even if Powell were amenable to doing the president's bidding, he would be held back by the realization that it would ultimately be self-defeating: any hint of political manipulation in the rate-setting process would risk a bond market riot that would blast rates far beyond the levels where a 3.5% fed funds rate would take them. Bottom Line: We are not concerned that the FOMC will yield to pressure from the White House to back away from their rate hike plans. Attempted influence of the Fed is nothing new, and investors need not worry about it now. Investment Implications If we are correct in our view that rates have not yet peaked, the bond market is likely to face continued headwinds. Long-dated Treasuries will come under more pressure than shorter-maturity issues. Thanks to positive carry, spread product will be less vulnerable to higher rates, but our bond strategists are lukewarm on the risk-reward offered by investment-grade and high-yield bonds given the late stage of the cycle and historically tight spreads. We acknowledge the potential seriousness of the current spate of geopolitical risks, headlined by trade tensions, and advocate temporarily de-risking portfolios in line with the BCA house view (equal weight equities, underweight bonds, overweight cash). We are more constructive than the BCA consensus, however, because we remain constructive on the business cycle, the monetary policy cycle, and the credit cycle. If the key cycles aren't over, the equity bull market probably isn't over, and neither spread widening nor a pickup in defaults is likely to wipe out spread product's excess returns. We will express all of our calls in a basket of ETF recommendations once we have completed our review of the most impactful macro questions, but for now we recommend maintaining below-benchmark positioning in Treasury portfolios while overweighting TIPS at the expense of nominal Treasuries. Doug Peta, Senior Vice President U.S. Investment Strategy dougp@bcaresearch.com 1 Long-term bond yields can be decomposed into the expected path of short-term rates and a term premium, which compensates an investor for the uncertainties that can arise over the extended time period that s/he is locking up his/her money by buying a longer-maturity instrument. 2 In the monthly employment report, the headline unemployment rate, which includes only jobless workers who are actively seeking work, is labeled U-3 unemployment. The U-6 series broadens the definition of unemployment to include the jobless who aren't actively searching and those who are working part time only because they cannot find a full-time position. 3 Please see the November 7, 2016 U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Policy, Polls, Probability," available at usis.bcaresearch.com, for a discussion of fiscal multipliers under a range of scenarios. 4 Greenspan, Alan. The Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a New World, Penguin (New York): 2007, p.113. To this day, several members of the G.H.W. Bush administration continue to pin a large measure of blame for its 1992 electoral loss on overly conservative monetary policy. The ex-president himself, in a 1998 television interview, said, "I reappointed him [Greenspan], and he disappointed me." 5 Granville, Kevin. "A President at War With His Fed Chief, 5 Decades Before Trump," New York Times, June 15, 2017, page B3 (updated July 19, 2018). https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/13/business/economy/a-president-at-war-with-his-fed-chief-5-decades-before-trump.html 6 "How Richard Nixon Pressured Arthur Burns: Evidence from the Nixon Tapes, Vol. 20, No. 4," Journal of Economic Perspectives (Fall 2006). https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/title/1167/item/2388, accessed on July 24, 2018.