Fixed Income

Highlights We highlighted last month that investors should remain slightly overweight risk assets, but should also hold safe havens given the preponderance of risks. Some of the risks have since faded and the sweet spot for equities is continuing, but the potential for a correction remains elevated. Geopolitics will no doubt remain a threat for 'risk on' trades, although we may be at peak tensions with respect to North Korea. Our models point to an acceleration in growth in the major economies. Our capital spending indicators suggest that animal spirits are stirring in the business sector. In the U.S., fiscal stimulus is back on the table and investors are looking beyond the negative short-term impact of the hurricanes to the growth-enhancing rebuilding that will follow. It is also positive for the stock-to-bond return ratio that our bullish oil scenario is playing out. Stay long oil-related plays. There is a good chance that this year's downtrend in the dollar and government bond yields is over. The rise in both may be halting, but the risks are to the upside now that disappointments on U.S. growth and inflation have likely ended (notwithstanding the hurricane-distorted economic data in the near term). The Phillips curve is not dead. We do not expect Fed balance sheet normalization on its own to be a major headwind for risk assets. The bigger threat is a sudden and sharp re-assessment of the outlook for interest rates in the major countries. Our base-case view is that inflation will only grind higher in the major countries. It should be slow enough that the associated backup in bond yields does not derail the rally in risk assets, but the danger of a sharper bond market adjustment means that investors should continue to be on the conservative side. Feature It was 'risk on' in financial markets in September, despite a less dovish tone among the major central banks. The reason is that the synchronized global growth outlook continues to gather momentum, supporting the earnings backdrop, but inflation remains dormant in the major countries outside of the U.K. Investors believe that calm inflation readings will allow central banks to proceed cautiously and avoid taking risks with growth, extending the expansion in GDP and earnings. The North Korean situation changes from day to day, but investors appear to be more comfortable with it at the margin. In the U.S., fiscal stimulus is back on the table and investors are looking beyond the negative short-term impact of the hurricanes to the growth-enhancing rebuilding that will follow. Finally, rising oil prices will lift earnings in the energy patch. These developments spurred investors to embrace risk assets and carry trades again in September. However, value is poor and signs of froth are accumulating. For example, equity investors are employing record amounts of margin debt to lever up investments. The Bank for International Settlements highlighted in its Quarterly Review that margin debt outstanding in 2015 was higher than during the dotcom boom (and it has surely increased since then). The global volume of outstanding leveraged loans continues to set new highs even as covenant standards slip. Risk assets are being supported by a three-legged stool: solid earnings growth, low bond yields and depressed bond market volatility. The latter is a reflection of current market expectations that dormant inflation will continue to constrain central bankers. We agree that the economic growth and earnings outlook is positive on a 6-12 month horizon. The main item that could upset the sweet spot for risk assets, outside of a geopolitical event, is an awakening in inflation. This would shatter the consensus view that the bond market will remain well behaved. Markets are priced for little change in the inflation backdrop even in the long term. Our base-case view is that inflation will grind higher in the major countries, although it should be slow enough that the associated backup in bond yields does not derail the rally in risk assets in the next 6-12 months. But the risk of a sharper bond market adjustment means that investors should continue to be conservative (although slightly tilted to risk-over-safety). Getting Used To North Korea It appears that investors are becoming increasingly desensitized to provocation from the rogue state. Our geopolitical experts argued that the risk of a full-out war with the U.S. was less than 10%, but they warned that there could be a market-rattling political crisis or even a military skirmish before Pyongyang returned to the negotiating table. However, we may be at peak tensions now, based on several key developments over the past month. First, both China and Russia, two North Korean allies, have turned up the pressure. China appears to be enforcing sanctions according to Chinese trade data vis-à-vis North Korea (Chart I-1). Both China and Russia have also agreed to reduce fuel supplies. And there is evidence that U.S. and North Korea have held unofficial diplomatic talks behind the scenes. The implication is that North Korea is responding to pressure now that its critical fuel supplies are at risk. Chart I-1China Getting Tougher With NK We cannot rule out more goading from Kim Jong Un, especially with a busy political calendar in Asia this fall: the Korean Worker's Party's anniversary on October 10, the Chinese midterm leadership reshuffle on October 11-25, Japanese elections on October 22, and Trump's visit to the region in mid-November. Nevertheless, it would require a major provocation (i.e. a direct attack on the U.S. or its allies) for Pyongyang to escalate tensions from current levels. This would require the North to be very reckless with its own strategic assets, given that the U.S. would likely conduct a proportional retaliation against any serious attack. The recent backup in Treasury yields and yen pullback suggest that investors do not think tensions will escalate that far. We agree, but obviously the situation is fluid. Trump Trades Back In Play? U.S. politics have also become more equity-friendly and bond-bearish at the margin. The risk of a debt ceiling standoff has been delayed until December following President Trump's deal with the Democrats. We do not think that this represents a radical shift toward bipartisanship, but it is warning from the President that the GOP had better get cracking on tax legislation. The House Budget committee passed a FY2018 budget resolution in late July that included "reconciliation instructions" for tax legislation. Such a budget resolution approved by the Congress as a whole would allow for tax cuts that are not fully offset by spending cuts, with the proviso that the tax reductions sunset after a defined number of years. It is difficult to see tax legislation being passed before year end, but the first quarter of 2018 is certainly possible. Markets will begin to price in the legislation well before it is passed, which means that the so-called Trump trades are likely to see a revival. In particular, the legislation should favor small caps and boost the dollar. This year's devastating hurricane activity will also lift U.S. growth in 2018. History shows that natural disasters have only a passing effect on the U.S. economy and financial markets. Following the short-term negative economic impact, rebuilding adds to growth with the Federal government footing part of the bill. A 2016 Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report found that federal spending after major hurricanes can add as much as 0.6% to GDP. CBO notes that the lion's share of the economic impact is in the first year after a storm, with most of those expenditures helping victims to obtain food and shelter, fund search and rescue operations, and protect critical infrastructure. Federal outlays for public infrastructure occur after the first year and provide a much smaller lift to GDP (Chart I-2). Chart I-2Federal Government Outlays For Hurricane Relief Oil: Inventories Are Correcting Chart I-3Oil Inventory Correction To Lift Prices It is also positive for the stock-to-bond return ratio that our bullish oil scenario is playing out. Our energy strategists highlight that global oil demand is booming, at a time when the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) lowered its estimated shale oil output by 200,000 bpd for the third quarter. This confirms our contention that the EIA has overestimated the pace of the shale production response during 2017. Taken together, these factors helped to improve the global net demand/supply balance by 600,000 bpd. The drawdown in global oil inventories is thus likely to continue (Chart I-3). Looking to next year, crude prices could go even higher with an extension of the OPEC/Russian production cuts beyond March 2018 and continued strong growth in global oil demand. The synchronized global expansion is reflected in rising oil demand from all parts of the world. Soft Industrial Production Readings Won't Last We have highlighted global and regional industrial production as important indicators of both economic growth corporate earnings. It is therefore a little disconcerting that our aggregate for industrial production in the advanced economies has suddenly lost momentum (Chart I-4). We are inclined to fade the recent softening for a few reasons. First, much of it is due to weakness in the U.S. where hurricanes affected the August figures. Second, most of our leading indicators remain very constructive. Chart I-5 present a simple model for real GDP growth for the G4 economies based on our consumer and capital spending indicators. Real GDP growth will continue to accelerate for the G4 economies as a group according to the model. Our aggregate consumer indicator appears to have peaked at a high level, but the capex indicator is blasting off. The bullish capital spending reading is unanimous across the major economies (Chart I-6). Chart I-4Animal Spirits Are Stirring... Chart I-5...Contributing To Stronger G4 Economic Growth Chart I-6Capital Goods Indicators Are Surging The Eurozone is particularly strong on both the consumer and business fronts, suggesting that euro strength has not undermined growth. Conversely, the U.K. is at the weak end of the spectrum based on the drop in its consumer spending indicator. This is the main reason why we do not believe the Bank of England will be able to make good on its warning of a rate hike this year (see below). Robust capital goods imports for our 20-country aggregate supports the view that animal spirits are stirring in boardrooms in the advanced economies (Chart I-4, third panel). These imports and our capital spending indicators suggest that the small pullback in advanced-economy industrial production will not last, purchasing managers' indexes will remain elevated, and the acceleration in global export activity is just getting started. Even U.S. small business sector has shifted into a higher gear in terms of hiring and capital spending according to the NFIB survey. These trends will favor industrial stocks, especially versus utilities. Central Banks Shedding Dovish Feathers The synchronized global growth pickup is also reflected in our Central Bank Monitors, which are all near or above the zero line (Chart I-7). The Monitors gauge pressure on central banks to adjust policy. Current readings are consistent with the relatively more hawkish tone by central bankers in Canada, the U.S., the Eurozone and the U.K. Chart I-7Central Bank Monitors Support Less Dovish Policymakers The violent reaction in the gilt market to the Bank of England's hint that it could hike rates in the next few months highlights the vulnerability of bond markets to any shift by central bankers in a less dovish direction. In this case, we do not believe the BoE will be able to follow through with its rate hike plan. The leading economic indicators are softening and inflation is about to roll over now that the pound has bottomed. In contrast, bunds are quite vulnerable to a more hawkish tilt at the European Central Bank (ECB). Eurozone policymakers confirmed at their September meeting that they plan to announce in October a reduction in the asset purchase program, to take effect in 2018. The ECB revised up its growth forecast for 2017, and left the subsequent two years unchanged. The inflation forecast was trimmed by 0.1 percentage points in 2018 and 2019. The fact that this year's surge in the euro was not enough to move the needle much on the ECB's projections speaks volumes about the central bank's confidence in the current European economic expansion, as well as its comfort level with the rising currency. Our fixed income strategists believe that the full extent of ECB tapering is not yet fully discounted in the European bond market. Phillips Curve: It's Not Dead, Just Resting Chart I-8U.S. Inflation Turning to the Fed, the bond market did not get the dovish tone it was expecting from September's FOMC meeting. Policymakers left a December rate hike on the table, as Chair Yellen downplayed this year's lagging inflation data as well as the impact of the hurricanes on the economy. Not surprisingly, the odds of a December rate hike have since jumped to 70%. The Fed announced its plan to begin shrinking its balance sheet beginning in October. In the press conference, Yellen tried to disassociate balance sheet policy from the rate outlook. Balance sheet adjustment will be on autopilot, such that short-term interest rates will be the Fed's main policy instrument going forward. While the Fed plans to deliver another rate increase in December, it will require at least a small rise in inflation. Policymakers were no doubt pleased that annual CPI core inflation edged up in August and the 3-month rate of change has moved back to 2% (Chart I-8). The CPI diffusion index also moved above the zero line, indicating that the soft patch in the inflation data may be over, although the diffusion index for the PCE inflation data fell back to the zero line. Table I-1 presents the major contributors to the 0.9 percentage point decline in the year-over-year headline CPI inflation rate since February. Energy accounts for the majority of the decline, at 0.6 percentage points. New cars, shelter, medical services and wireless telephone services account for the remainder. The deflationary wireless price effect is now unwinding, but medical services is a wildcard and our shelter model suggests that this large part of the CPI index will probably not help to lift inflation this year. Thus, higher inflation must come largely from non-shelter core services, which is the component most closely correlated with wages. Investors remain unconvinced by Yellen's assertion that the soft patch in the inflation data reflects transitory factors. Indeed, market-based long-term inflation expectations remain well below the Fed's target, and they even fell a little following the FOMC meeting. Table I-1Contribution To Change In Headline ##br##Inflation (February -August, 2017) One FOMC member is becoming increasingly alarmed by the market's disbelief that the Fed will hit the 2% target even in the long run (Chart I-9). In a recent speech, Governor Brainard noted that both market-based and survey evidence on inflation expectations have drifted lower in the post-Lehman years. More recently, long-term inflation breakeven rates and CPI swaps have been surprisingly sticky in the face of the rebound in oil prices. In the Fed's view, monetary policy can be used effectively in response to shifts in the cyclical drivers of inflation. However, if inflation expectations were to become unanchored, then inflation's long-run trend would be altered and monetary policy would become less effective. Japan is a glaring example of what could be the endpoint. Brainard's fears have not yet affected the FOMC consensus, which is loath to throw the Phillips curve model into the dust bin just yet. We agree that the Phillips curve is not dead. Peter Berezin, Chief Strategist for the BCA Global Investment Strategy Service, argued in a recent Special Report that the often-cited reasons for why the Phillips curve has become defunct - decreased union bargaining power, a more globalized economy, and technological trends - are less convincing than they appear. The Fed simply has to be patient because the U.S. is only now reaching the kinked part of the Phillips Curve (Chart I-10). Chart I-9Worrying Trends For The FOMC Chart I-10U.S. Wage Growth Accelerates Once The Unemployment Rate Falls Below 5% (1997-2017) Moreover, our global fixed income team has made the case that the global output gap must be taken into consideration.1 Chart I-11 presents the percentage of OECD economies that have an unemployment rate below the NAIRU rate, along with inflation in the services and goods sectors of the developed markets. While the correlation between this global NAIRU indicator and realized inflation rates declined in the years after the recession, the linkages have improved over the past couple of years. The fact that the global NAIRU indicator is only now back to pre-Lehman levels suggests that inflationary pressure could finally be near an inflection point. Market expectations for the path of real GDP growth and the unemployment rate are roughly in line with the FOMC's central tendency forecast. However, the wide gulf between the FOMC and the market on the path of interest rates remains a potential catalyst for a correction in risk assets if market rates ratchet higher. Fed balance sheet runoff could also be problematic in this regard. QE Unwind: How Much Of A Risk? Many investors equate the surge in asset prices in the years after the Great Financial Crisis with central bank largesse. Won't a reversal of this policy be negative for both bonds and stocks? Fed balance sheet runoff, together with ECB tapering and less buying by the Bank of Japan, will certainly change the supply/demand backdrop for the G4 government bond markets in 2018. We have updated our projection for the net flow of government bonds available to the private sector, taking into consideration the supply that is absorbed by central banks and other official institutions (Chart I-12). The top panel shows that the net supply of Treasurys to the private sector never contracted in recent years, but the bottom panel highlights that the net supply of G4 government bonds as a group was negative for 2015, 2016 and 2017. Central banks and other official buyers had to bid-away bonds from the private sector during these years. Chart I-11Global Slack Matters Chart I-12Major Swing In Government ##br##Bond Supply In 2018 We project that the net supply will swing from a contraction of almost $600 billion in 2017 to a positive net flow of almost US$200 billion next year. The Fed's projected runoff accounts for most of the swing. The supply/demand effect might push up term premia a little. Nonetheless, as discussed in this month's Special Report beginning on page 19, the balance sheet unwind is not the key threat to bonds and stocks. Rather, the main risk is the overly benign central bank outlook that is priced into the bond market. Real 5-year bond yields, five years forward, are still extremely depressed because the market has discounted negative real short-term interest rates out to 2022 in the U.S. and 2026 in the Eurozone (Chart I-13). Chart I-13Real Forward Short-Term Rates Time For The Nikkei To Shine Equity bourses took September's backup in bond yields in stride. Indeed, the S&P 500 and Nikkei broke to new highs during the month. The Euro Stoxx 50 also sprang to life, although has not yet reached fresh highs in local currency terms. The solid earnings backdrop remains a key support for the market. We highlighted our EPS forecasts in last month's report. Nothing of significance has changed on this front. The latest data suggest that operating margins may be peaking, but the diffusion index does not suggest an imminent decline (Chart I-14). Meanwhile, our upbeat economic assessment discussed above means that top line expansion should keep EPS growing solidly into the first half of 2018 at the global level. EPS growth will likely decelerate toward the end of next year to mid-single digits. Chart I-14Operating Margins Approaching A Peak? We still see a case for the Nikkei to outperform the S&P 500, at least in local currencies. Japan is on the cheap side according to our top-down indicator (Chart I-15). Japanese earnings are highly geared to economic growth at home and abroad. Japanese EPS is in an uptrend versus the U.S. in both local and common currencies (Chart I-16). We do not expect to see a peak in EPS growth until mid-2018, a good six months after the expected top in the U.S. Moreover, an Abe win in the October 22 election would mean that policy will remain highly reflationary in absolute terms and relative to the U.S. Chart I-15Valuation: Japan Cheap To The U.S., But Not Europe Chart I-16Japanese Earnings Outperforming The U.S. European stocks are a tougher call. On the plus side, the economy is flying high and there are no warning signs that this is about to end. There is hope for structural reform in France after Macron's election win this year. We give Macron's proposed labor market reforms high marks because they compare favorably with those of Spain and Germany, which helped to diminish structural unemployment in those two countries. Many doubt that Macron's reforms will see the light of day, but our geopolitical team believes that investors are underestimating the chances. The German election in September poured cold water on recent enthusiasm regarding accelerated European integration. This is because Merkel will likely have to deal with a larger contingent of Euroskeptics in the grand coalition that emerges in the coming months. However, we do not expect political developments in Germany to be a headwind for the Eurozone stock market. On the negative side, European stocks do not appear cheap to the U.S. after adjusting for the structural discount (Chart I-15). Moreover, this year's euro bull phase will take a bite out of earnings. As noted in last month's Overview, euro strength so far this year will lop three to four percentage points off of EPS growth by the middle of next year. Our model suggests that this will be overwhelmed by the robust economic expansion at home and abroad, but profit growth could fall to 5%, which is likely to be well short of that in the U.S. and Japan (local currency). Still, a lot of the negative impact of the currency on profits may already be discounted as forward earnings have been revised down. On balance, we remain overweight European stocks versus the U.S. (currency hedged). However, it appears that Japan has more latitude to outperform. Dollar: Finally Finding A Floor? Chart I-17Has The Dollar Found Bottom? The Fed's determination to stick with the 'dot plot' may have finally placed a floor under the dollar. Before the September FOMC meeting, the market had all but priced out any rate hikes between now and the end of 2018. Both the U.S. economic surprise index and the inflation surprise index have turned up relative to the G10 (Chart I-17). The dollar has more upside if we are past the period of maximum bond market strength and moving into in a window in which U.S. economic and inflation surprises will 'catch up' with the other major economies. Technically, investors appear to be quite short the dollar, especially versus the euro. Bullish sentiment on the euro is highlighted by the fact that the currency has deviated substantially from the interest rate parity relationship. Euro positioning is thus bullish the dollar from a contrary perspective. Nonetheless, our currency experts are more bullish the dollar versus the yen. Given that inflation expectations have softened in Japan and wage growth is still lacking, the Bank of Japan will have to stick with its zero percent 10-year JGB target. The yen will be forced lower versus the dollar as the U.S. yield curve shifts up. We also like the loonie. The Bank of Canada (BoC) pulled the trigger in September for the second time this year, lifting the overnight rate to 1%. Policymakers gave themselves some "wiggle room" on the outlook, but more tightening is on the way barring a significant slowdown in growth, another spike in the C$, or a housing meltdown. The statement said that the loonie's rise partly reflected the relative strength of the Canadian economy, which implies that it is justified by the fundamentals. It does not appear that the C$ has reached a "choke point" in the eyes of the central bank. Investment Conclusions: We highlighted in our last issue that investors should remain slightly overweight risk assets, but should also hold safe haven assets given the preponderance of risks. Some of the risks have since faded and the sweet spot for risk assets is continuing. We remain upbeat on global economic growth and earnings. Nonetheless, both stocks and bonds remain vulnerable to any upside surprises on inflation, especially in the U.S. While the positive trends in stock indexes and corporate bond spreads should continue over the coming 6-12 months, there is a good chance that this year's downtrend in the dollar and government bond yields is over. The rise in both may be halting, but the risks are to the upside now that disappointments on U.S. growth and inflation have likely ended (notwithstanding the hurricane-distorted economic data in the near term). The Phillips curve is not dead, which means that it is only a matter of time before inflation begins to find a little traction. Higher oil prices will also provide a tailwind for headline inflation. Geopolitics will no doubt remain a threat for 'risk on' trades, but we may be past the worst in terms of North Korean tension. We also do not expect Fed balance sheet normalization to be a major headwind for risk assets. Nonetheless, the anticipated swing the supply of G4 government bonds to private investors would serve to add to selling pressure in the fixed-income space if inflation is rising in the U.S. and/or Europe at the same time. In other words, the risk relates more to expected policy rates than the Fed's balance sheet. Stay overweight stocks versus bonds, long oil related plays, slightly short in duration in the fixed income space, and long inflation protection. We also recommend returning to long positions on the U.S. dollar. Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst September 28, 2017 Next Report: October 26, 2017 1 Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Is The Phillips Curve Dead Or Dormant?" dated September 22, 2017, available at gis.bcaresearch.com II. Liquidity And The Great Balance Sheet Unwind Liquidity is the lifeblood of the economy and financial markets, but it is a slippery concept that means different things to different people. Liquidity falls into four categories: monetary, balance sheet, financial market transaction liquidity, and funding liquidity. Overall liquidity conditions are reasonably constructive for risk assets at the moment. Financial market and balance sheet liquidity are adequate. Monetary policy is extremely easy, although the low level of money and credit growth underscores that the credit channel of monetary policy is still somewhat impaired. Funding liquidity is as important as monetary liquidity for financial markets. It has recovered from the Great Financial Crisis (GFC) lows, but it is far from frothy. Unwinding the Fed's balance sheet represents a risk to investors because QE played such an important role in reducing risk premia in financial markets. The unwind should not affect transactions liquidity or balance sheet liquidity. It should not affect the broad monetary aggregates either. The bond market's reaction will be far more important than balance sheet shrinkage. As long as the Fed can limit the bond market damage via forward guidance, then funding liquidity should remain adequate and risk assets should take the Fed's unwind in stride. It will be a whole different story, however, if inflation lurches higher. The technical impact of balance sheet unwind on the inner workings of the credit market is very complicated. Asset sales could lead to a shortage of short-term high-quality assets, unless it is offset with increased T-bill issuance. However, a smaller balance sheet could, in fact, improve funding liquidity to the extent that it frees up space on banks' balance sheets. Liquidity has been an integral part of BCA's approach to financial markets going back to the early days of the company under the tutelage of Editor-in-Chief Hamilton Bolton from 1949 to 1968. Bolton was ahead of his time in terms of developing monetary indicators to forecast market trends. Back then, the focus was on bank flows such as the volume of checks cashed because capital markets were still developing and most credit flowed through the banking system. Times changed, monetary policy implementation evolved and financial markets became more important and sophisticated. When money targeting became popular among central banks in the 1970s, central bank liquidity analysis focused more on the broader monetary aggregates. These and other monetary data were used extensively by Anthony Boeckh, BCA's Editor-in-Chief from the 1968 to 2002, to forecast the economy and markets. He also highlighted the importance of balance sheet liquidity (holdings of liquid assets), and its interplay with rising debt levels. Martin Barnes continued with these themes when writing about the Debt Supercycle in the monthly Bank Credit Analyst. "Liquidity" is a slippery concept, and it means different things to different people. In this Special Report, we describe BCA's approach to liquidity and highlight its critical importance for financial markets. We provide a list of indicators to watch, and also outline how the pending shrinkage of the Fed's balance sheet could affect overall liquidity conditions. A Primer On Liquidity We believe there are four types of liquidity that are all interrelated: Central Bank Liquidity: Bank reserves lie at the heart of central bank liquidity. Reserves are under the direct control of the central bank, which are used as a tool to influence general monetary conditions in the economy. The latter are endogenous to the system and also depend on the private sector's desire to borrow, spend and hold cash. Bullish liquidity conditions are typically associated with plentiful bank reserves, low interest rates and strong growth in the monetary aggregates. Balance Sheet Liquidity: A high level of balance sheet liquidity means that plenty of short-term assets are available to meet emergencies. The desire of households, companies and institutional investors to build up balance sheet liquidity would normally increase when times are bad, and decline when confidence is high. Thus, one would expect strong economic growth to be associated with declining balance sheet liquidity, and vice versa when the economy is weak. Of course, deteriorating balance sheet liquidity during good times is a negative sign to the extent that households or business are caught in an illiquid state when the economy turns down, jobs are lost and loans are called. Financial Market Transaction Liquidity: This refers to the ability to make transactions in securities without triggering major changes in prices. Financial institutions provide market liquidity to securities markets through their trading activities. Funding Liquidity: The ability to borrow to fund positions in financial markets. Financial institutions provide funding liquidity to borrowers through their lending activities. The conditions under which these intermediaries can fund their own balance sheets, in turn, depend on the willingness of banks and the shadow banking system to interact with them. The BIS definition of funding liquidity is a broad concept that captures a wide range of channels. It includes the capacity of intermediaries that participate in the securitization chain to access the necessary funding to originate loans, to acquire loans for packaging into securities, and finance various kinds of guarantees. The availability and turnover of collateral for loans is also very important for generating funding liquidity, as we discuss below. These types of liquidity are interrelated in various ways, and can positively or negatively reinforce each other. It is the interaction of these factors that determines the economy's overall ease of financing. See Box II-1 for more details. BOX II-1 How Liquidity Is Inter-Related Central bank liquidity, which is exogenously determined, is the basis for private liquidity creation (the combination of market transaction and funding liquidity). The central bank determines the short-term risk-free rate and the official liquidity that is provided to the banking system. If the central bank hikes rates or provides less official liquidity, appetite for private lending begins to dry up. Private sector liquidity is thus heavily influenced by monetary policy, but can develop a life of its own, overshooting to the upside and downside with swings in investor confidence and risk tolerance. Financial market liquidity and funding liquidity are closely interrelated. When times are good, markets are liquid and funding liquidity is ample. But when risk tolerance takes a hit, a vicious circle between market transaction and funding liquidity develops. The BIS highlights the procyclical nature of private liquidity, which means that it tends to exhibit boom-bust cycles that generate credit excesses that are followed by busts.1 The Great Financial Crisis of 2008 is a perfect example. The Fed lifted the fed funds rate by 400 basis points between 2004 and 2006. Nonetheless, the outsized contraction in private liquidity, resulting from the plunge in asset prices related to U.S. mortgage debt, was a key driver of the crash in risk asset prices. Liquidity Indicators: What To Watch (1) Monetary Liquidity Key measures of central bank liquidity include the monetary base and the broad money aggregates, such as M1 and M2 (Chart II-1). Central banks control the amount of reserves in the banking system, which is part of base money, but they do not control the broad monetary aggregates. The latter is determined by the desire to hold cash and bank deposits, as well as the demand and supply of credit. Box II-2 provides some background on the monetary transmission process and quantitative easing. BOX II-2 The Monetary Transmission Process And Qe Before the Great Recession and Financial Crisis, the monetary authorities set the level of short-term interest rates through active management of the level of bank reserves. Reserves were drained as policy tightened, and were boosted when policies eased. The level of bank reserves affected banks' lending behavior, and shifts in interest rates affected the spending and investment decisions of consumers and businesses. Of course, it has been a different story since the financial crisis. Once short-term interest rates reached the zero bound, the Fed and some other central banks adopted "quantitative easing" programs designed to depress longer-term interest rates by aggressively buying bonds and thereby stuffing the banking system with an excessive amount of reserves. Many feared the onset of inflation when QE programs were first announced because investors worried that this would contribute to a massive increase in credit and the overall money supply. Indeed, there could have been hyper-inflation if banks had gone on a lending spree. But this never happened. Banks were constrained by insufficient capital ratios, loan losses and intense regulation, while consumers and businesses had no appetite for acquiring more debt. The result was that the money multiplier - the ratio of broad money to the monetary base - collapsed (top panel in Chart II-1). Bank lending standards eventually eased and credit demand recovered. Broad money growth has been volatile since 2007 but, despite quantitative easing, it has been roughly in line with the decade before. The broad aggregates lost much of their predictive power after the 1980s. Financial innovation, such as the use of debit cards and bank machines, changed the relationship between broad money on one hand, and the economy or financial markets on the other. Despite the structural changes in the economy, investors should still keep the monetary aggregates and the other monetary indicators discussed below in their toolbox. While the year-to-year wiggles in M2, for example, have not been good predictors of growth or inflation on a one or two year horizon, Chart II-2 shows that there is a long-term relationship between money and inflation when using decade averages. Chart II-1The Monetary Aggregates Chart II-2Long-Run Relationship Between M2 And Inflation Other monetary indicators to watch: M2 Divided By Nominal GDP (Chart II-3): When money growth exceeds that of nominal GDP, it could be interpreted as a signal that there is more than enough liquidity to facilitate economic activity. The excess is then available to purchase financial assets. Monetary Conditions Index (Chart II-3): This combines the level of interest rates and the change in the exchange rate into one indicator. The MCI has increased over the past year, indicating a tightening of monetary conditions, but is still very low by historical standards. Dollar Based Liquidity (Chart II-3): This includes Fed holdings of Treasurys and U.S. government securities held in custody for foreign official accounts. Foreign Exchange Reserves (Chart II-3): Central banks hold reserves in the form of gold, or cash and bonds denominated in foreign currencies. For example, when the People's Bank of China accumulates foreign exchange as part of its management of the RMB, it buys government bonds in other countries, thereby adding to liquidity globally. Interest Rates Minus Nominal GDP Growth (Chart II-4): Nominal GDP growth can be thought of as a proxy for the return on capital. If interest rates are below the return on capital, then there is an incentive for firms to borrow and invest. The opposite is true if interest rates are above GDP growth. Currently, short-term rates are well below nominal GDP, signaling that central bank liquidity is plentiful. Chart II-3Monetary Indicators (I) Chart II-4Monetary Indicators (II) (2) Balance Sheet Liquidity Chart II-5 presents the ratio of short-term assets to total liabilities for the corporate and household sectors. It is a measure of readily-available cash or cash-like instruments that make it easier to weather economic downturns and/or credit tightening phases. The non-financial corporate sector is in very good shape from this perspective. The seizure of the commercial paper market during the GFC encouraged firms to hold more liquid assets on the balance sheet. However, the uptrend began in the early 1990s and likely reflects tax avoidance efforts. Households are also highly liquid when short-term assets are compared to income. Liquidity as a share of total discretionary financial portfolios is low, but this is not surprising given extraordinarily unattractive interest rates. The banking system is being forced to hold more liquid assets under the new Liquidity Coverage Ratio requirement (Chart II-6). This is positive from the perspective of reducing systemic risk, but it has negative implications for funding liquidity, as we will discuss below. Chart II-5Balance Sheet Liquidity Chart II-6Bank Balance Sheet Liquidity (3) Financial Market Transaction Liquidity: Transactions volumes and bid-ask spreads are the main indicators to watch to gauge financial market transaction liquidity. There was a concern shortly after the GFC that the pullback in risk-taking by important market-makers could severely undermine market liquidity, leading to lower transaction volumes and wider bid-ask spreads. The focus of concern was largely on the corporate bond market given the sharply reduced footprint of investment banks. The Fed's data on primary dealer positioning in corporates shows a massive decline from the pre-crisis peak in 2007 (Chart II-7). This represents a decline from over 10% of market cap to only 0.3%. The smaller presence of dealers could create a liquidity problem for corporate debt, especially if market-making dealers fail to adequately match sellers with buyers during market downturns. Yet, as highlighted by BCA's Global Fixed Income Strategy team, corporate bond markets have functioned well since the dark days of the Lehman crisis.2 Reduced dealer presence has not resulted in any unusual widening of typical relationships like the basis between Credit Default Swaps and corporate bond spreads. Other market participants, such as Exchange Traded Funds, have taken up the slack. Daily trading volume as a percent of market cap has returned to pre-Lehman levels in the U.S. high-yield market, although this is not quite the case for the investment-grade market (Chart II-8). Chart II-7Less Market Making Chart II-8Corporate Bond Trading Volume That said, it is somewhat worrying that average trade sizes in corporates are smaller now compared to pre-crisis levels - perhaps as much as 20% smaller according to estimates by the New York Fed. This is likely the result of the reduced risk-taking by the dealers and the growing share of direct electronic trading. Thus, it may feel like liquidity is impaired since it now takes longer to execute a large bond trade, even though transaction costs for individual trades have not been increasing. The bottom line is that financial market liquidity is not as good as in the pre-Lehman years. This is not a problem at the moment, but there could be some dislocations in the fixed-income space during the next period of severe market stress when funding liquidity dries up. (3) Funding Liquidity: There are few direct measures of funding liquidity. Instead, one can look for its "footprint" or confirming evidence, such as total private sector credit. If credit is growing strongly, it is a sign that funding liquidity is ample. Box II-3 explains why international credit flows are also important to watch for signs of froth in lending. BOX II-3 The Importance Of International Credit Flows The BIS highlights that swings in international borrowing amplify domestic credit trends. Cross border lending tends to display even larger boom-bust cycles than domestic credit, as can be seen in the major advanced economies in the lead up to the GFC, as well as some Asian countries just before the Asian crisis in the late 1990s (Chart II-9). When times are good, banks and the shadow banking system draw heavily on cross-border sources of funds, such that international credit expansion tends to grow faster during boom periods than the credit granted domestically by banks located in the country. Since G4 financial systems intermediate a major share of global credit, funding conditions within the G4 affect funding conditions globally, as BIS research shows.3 This research also demonstrates that financial cycles have become more highly correlated across economies due to increased financial integration. Booms in credit inflows from abroad are also associated with a low level of the VIX, which is another sign of ample funding liquidity conditions (Chart II-10). These periods of excessive funding almost always end with a financial crisis and a spike in the VIX. Chart II-9International Credit Is Highly Cyclical Chart II-10International Credit Booms Lead Spikes In The VIX Other measures of funding liquidity to watch include: Chart II-11Market Measures Of Funding Liquidity Libor-OIS Spread (Chart II-11): This is a measure of perceived credit risk of LIBOR-panel banks. The spread tends to widen during periods of banking sector stress. Spreads are currently low by historical standards. However, libor will be phased out by 2021, such that a replacement for this benchmark rate will have to be found by then. Bond-CDS Basis (Chart II-11): The basis is roughly the average difference between each bond's yield spread to Treasurys and the cost of insuring the bond in the CDS market. Arbitrage should keep these two spreads closely aligned, but increases in funding costs tied to balance sheet constraints during periods of market stress affect this arbitrage opportunity, allowing the two spreads to diverge. The U.S. high-yield or investment grade bond markets are a good bellweather, and at the moment they indicate relatively good funding liquidity. FX Basis Swap (Chart II-11): This is analogous to the bond-CDS basis. It reflects the cost of hedging currencies, which is critically important for international investors and lending institutions. The basis swap widens when there is financial stress, reflecting a pullback in funding liquidity related to currencies. The FX swap basis widened during the GFC and, unlike other spreads, has not returned to pre-Lehman levels (see below). Bank Leverage Ratios (Chart II-12): The ratio of loans to deposits is a measure of leverage in the banking system. Banks boost leverage during boom times and thereby provide more loans and funding liquidity to buy securities. In the U.S., this ratio has plunged since 2007 and shows no sign of turning up. Primary Dealers Securities Lending (Chart II-13): This is a direct measure of funding liquidity. Primary dealers make loans to other financial institutions with the purpose of buying securities, thereby providing both funding liquidity and market liquidity. Historically, shifts in dealer lending have been correlated with bid-ask spreads in the Treasury market. Securities lending is also correlated with the S&P 500, although it does not tend to lead the stock market. Dealer loans soared prior to 2007, before collapsing in 2008. Total loans have recovered, but have not reached pre-crisis highs, consistent with stricter regulations that forced the deleveraging of dealer balance sheets. Chart II-12U.S. Bank Leverage Chart II-13Securities Lending And Margin Debt NYSE Margin Debt (Chart II-13): Another direct measure of funding liquidity. The uptrend in recent years has been steep, although it is less impressive when expressed relative to market cap. Bank Lending Standards (Chart II-14): These surveys reflect bank lending standards for standard loans to the household or corporate sectors, but their appetite for lending for the purposes of securities purchases is no doubt highly correlated. Lending standards tightened in 2016 due to the collapse in oil prices, but they have started to ease again this year. Table II-1 provides a handy list of liquidity indicators split into our four categories. Taking all of these indicators into consideration, we would characterize liquidity conditions in the U.S. as fairly accommodative, although not nearly as abundant as the period just prior to the Lehman event. Monetary conditions are super easy, while balance sheet and financial market liquidity are reasonably constructive. In contrast, funding liquidity, while vastly improved since the GFC, is still a long way from the pre-Lehman go-go years according to several important indicators such as bank leverage. Moreover, the Fed is set to begin the process of unwinding the massive amount of monetary liquidity provided by its quantitative easing program. Chart II-14Bank Lending Standards Table II-1Liquidity Indicators To Watch Fed Balance Sheet Shrinkage: What Impact On Liquidity? Given that the era of quantitative easing has been a positive one for risk assets, it is unsurprising that investors are concerned about the looming unwind of the Fed's massive balance sheet. For example, Chart II-15 demonstrates the correlation between the change in G4 balances sheets and both the stock market and excess returns in the U.S. high-yield market. Chart II-16 presents our forecast for how quickly the Fed's balance sheet will contract. Following last week's FOMC meeting we learned that balance sheet reduction will begin October 1. For the first three months the Fed will allow a maximum of $6 billion in Treasurys and $4 billion in MBS to run off each month. Those caps will increase in steps of $6 billion and $4 billion, respectively, every three months until they level off at $30 billion per month for Treasurys and $20 billion per month for MBS. Chart II-15G4 Central Bank Balance Sheets Chart II-16Fed Balance Sheet We have received no official guidance on the level of bank reserves the Fed will target for the end of the run-off process. However, New York Fed President William Dudley recently recommended that this level should be higher than during the pre-QE period, and should probably fall in the $400 billion to $1 trillion range.4 In our forecasts we assume that bank reserves will level-off once they reach $650 billion. In that scenario the Fed's balance sheet will shrink by roughly $1.4 trillion by 2021. The level of excess reserves in the banking system will decline by a somewhat larger amount ($1.75 trillion). In terms of the impact of balance sheet shrinkage on overall liquidity conditions, it is useful to think about the four categories of liquidity described above. (1) Monetary Liquidity The re-absorption of excess reserves will mean that base money will contract (i.e. the sum of bank reserves held at the Fed and currency in circulation). However, we do not expect this to have a noticeable impact on the broader monetary aggregates, credit growth, the economy or inflation, outside of any effect it might have on the term premium in the bond market. The reasoning is that all those excess reserves did not have a major impact on growth and inflation when they were created in the first place. This was because the credit channel of monetary policy was blocked by a lack of demand (private sector deleveraging) and limited bank lending capacity (partly due to regulation). Banks were also less inclined to lend due to rising loan losses. Removing the excess reserves should have little effect on banks' willingness or ability to make new loans. In terms of asset prices, some investors believe that when the excess reserves were created, a portion of it found its way out of the banking system and was used to buy assets directly. That is not the case. The excess reserves were left idle, sitting on deposit at the Fed. They did not "leak" out and were not used to purchase assets. Thus, fewer excess bank reserves do not imply any forced selling. Nonetheless, the QE program certainly affected asset prices indirectly via the portfolio balance effect. Asset purchases supported both the economy and risk assets in part via a weaker dollar and to the extent that the policy lifted confidence in the system. But most importantly, QE depressed long-term interest rates, which are used to discount cash flows when valuing financial assets. QE boosted risk-seeking behavior and the search for yield, partly through the signaling mechanism that convinced investors that short-term rates would stay depressed for a long time. The result was a decline in measures of market implied volatility, such as the MOVE and VIX indexes. Could Bond Yields Spike? The risk is that the portfolio balance effect goes into reverse as the Fed unwinds the asset purchases. The negative impact on risk assets will depend importantly on the bond market's response. As highlighted in the Overview section, there will be a sharp swing in the flow of G4 government bonds available to the private sector, from a contraction of US$800 billion in 2017 to an increase of US$600 billion in 2018. Focusing on the U.S. market, empirical estimates suggest that the Fed's shedding of Treasurys could boost the 10-year yield by about 80 basis points because the private sector will require a higher term premium to absorb the higher flow of bonds. However, the impact on yields is likely to be tempered by two factors: Banks are required by regulators to hold more high-quality assets than they did in the pre-Lehman years in order to meet the new Liquidity Coverage Ratio. The BCA U.S. Bond Strategy service argues that growing bank demand for Treasurys in the coming years will absorb much of the net flow of Treasurys that the Fed is no longer buying.5 As the FOMC dials back monetary stimulus it will be concerned with overall monetary conditions, including short-term rates, long-term rates and the dollar. If long-term rates and/or the dollar rise too quickly, policymakers will moderate the pace of rate hikes and use forward guidance to talk down the long end of the curve so as to avoid allowing financial conditions to tighten too quickly. Thus, the path of short-term rates is dependent on the dollar and the reaction of the long end of the curve. It is difficult to estimate how it will shake out, but the point is that forward guidance will help to limit the impact of the shrinking Fed balance sheet on bond yields. Indeed, the Fed is trying hard to sever the link in investors' minds between balance sheet policy and signaling about future rate hikes, as highlighted by Chair Yellen's Q&A session following the September FOMC meeting. The bottom line is that the impact on monetary liquidity of a smaller Fed balance sheet should be minimal, although long-term bond yields will be marginally higher as a result. That said, much depends on inflation. If the core PCE inflation rate were to suddenly shift up to the 2% target or above, then bond prices will be hit hard, the VIX will surge and risk assets will sustain some damage. The prospect of a more aggressive pace of monetary tightening would undermine funding liquidity, compounding the negative impact on risk assets. (2) Funding Liquidity Chart II-17Tri-Party Repo Market Has Shrunk By unwinding its balance sheet, the Fed will be supplying securities into the market and removing cash. This will be occurring at a time when transactions in the tri-party repo market have fallen to less than half of their peak in 2007 due to stricter regulation (Chart II-17). This market has historically been an important source of short-term funding, helping to meet the secular rise in demand for short-term, low-risk instruments, largely from non-financial corporations, asset managers and foreign exchange reserve funds. If the Fed drains reserves from the system and T-bill issuance does not increase substantially to compensate, a supply shortage of short-maturity instruments could develop. We can see how this might undermine the Fed's ability to shift short-term interest rates higher under its new system of interest rate management, where reverse repos and the interest rate paid on reserves set the floor for other short-term interest rates. However, at the moment we do not see the risk that fewer excess reserves on its own will negatively affect funding liquidity. Again, any impact on funding liquidity would likely be felt via a sharp rise in interest rates and pullback in the portfolio balance effect, which would occur if inflation turns up. But this has more to do with rising interest rates than the size of the Fed's balance sheet. Indeed, balance sheet shrinkage could actually improve funding liquidity provided via the bilateral repo market, securities-lending, derivatives and prime brokerage channels. These are important players in the collateral supply chain. A recent IMF working paper emphasizes that collateral flows are just as important in credit creation as money itself.6 Collateral refers to financial instruments that are used as collateral to fund positions, which can be cash or cash-like equivalents. Since pledged collateral can be reused over and over, it can generate significantly more total lending than the value of the collateral itself. The Fed's overnight reverse-repo facility includes restrictions that the collateral accessed from its balance sheet can only be used in the tri-party repo system. Thus, the Fed's presence in the collateral market has reduced the "velocity of collateral." Table II-2 shows that the reuse rate of collateral, or its velocity, has fallen from 3.0 in 2007 to 1.8 in 2015. Table II-2Collateral Velocity The combination of tighter capital regulations and Fed asset purchases has severely limited the available space on bank balance sheets to provide funding liquidity. Regulations force banks to carry more capital for a given level of assets. Fed asset purchases have forced a large portion of those assets to be held as reserves, limiting banks' activity in the bilateral repo market. There is much uncertainty surrounding this issue, but it appears that an unwind the Fed's balance sheet will free up some space on bank balance sheets, possibly permitting more bilateral repo activity and thus a higher rate of collateral velocity. It may also relieve concerns about a shortage of safe-haven assets. Nonetheless, we probably will not see a return of collateral velocity to 2007 levels because stricter capital regulations will still be in place. What About Currency Swaps? Some have argued that this removal of cash could also lead to an appreciation of the U.S. dollar. In particular, Zoltan Pozsar of Credit Suisse has observed a correlation between U.S. bank reserves and FX basis swap spreads.7 There is also a strong correlation between FX swap spreads and the U.S. dollar (Chart II-18). Chart II-18FX Basis Swap And Reserves One possible chain of events is that, as the Fed drains cash from the market, there will be less liquidity in the FX swap market. Basis swap spreads will widen as a result, and this will cause the dollar to appreciate. In this framework, the unwinding of the Fed's balance sheet will put upward pressure on the U.S. dollar. However, it is also possible that the chain of causation runs in the other direction. The BIS has proposed a model8 where a stronger dollar weakens the capital positions of bank balance sheets. This causes them to back away from providing liquidity to the FX swap market, leading to wider basis swap spreads. In this model, a strong dollar leads to wider basis swap spreads and not the reverse. If this is the correct direction of causation, then we should not expect any impact on the dollar from the unwinding of the Fed's balance sheet. At the moment it is impossible to tell which of the above two theories is correct. All we can do is monitor the correlation between reserves, FX basis swap spreads and the dollar going forward. Conclusions: Overall liquidity conditions are reasonably constructive for risk assets at the moment. Financial market and balance sheet liquidity are adequate. Monetary policy is extremely easy, although the low level of money and credit growth underscores that the credit channel of monetary policy is still somewhat impaired and/or constrained relative to the pre-Lehman years. Funding liquidity has recovered from the Great Financial Crisis lows, but it is far from frothy. More intense regulation means that funding liquidity will probably never again be as favorable for risk assets as it was before the crisis. But, hopefully, efforts by the authorities to reduce perceived systemic risk mean that funding liquidity may not be as quick to dry up as was the case in 2008, in the event of another negative shock. Unwinding the Fed's balance sheet represents a risk to investors because QE played such an important role in reducing risk premia in financial markets. However, we believe that the bond market's reaction will be far more important than balance sheet shrinkage. As long as the Fed can limit the bond market damage via forward guidance, then risk assets should take the Fed's unwind in stride. It will be a whole different story, however, if inflation lurches higher. The technical impact of balance sheet unwind on the inner workings of the credit market is very complicated and difficult to forecast. Asset sales could lead to a shortage of short-term high-quality assets. However, this is more a problem in terms of the Fed's ability to raise interest rates than for funding liquidity. A smaller balance sheet could, in fact, improve funding liquidity to the extent that it frees up space on banks' balance sheets. Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst Ryan Swift Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy 1 D. Domanski, I. Fender and P. McGuire, "Assessing Global Liquidity," BIS Quarterly Review (December 2011). 2 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "Global Interest Rate Strategy For The Remainder Of 2017," dated July 18, 2017, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com 3 E. Cerutti, S. Claessens and L. Ratnovski, "A Primer on 'Global Liquidity'," CEPR Policy Portal (June 8, 2014). 4 William C. Dudley, "The U.S. Economic Outlook and the Implications for Monetary Policy," Federal Reserve Bank of New York (September 07, 2017). 5 Please see BCA U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "The Great Unwind," dated September 19, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 6 M. Singh, "Collateral Reuse and Balance Sheet Space," IMF Working Paper (May 2017). 7 Alexandra Scaggs, "Where would you prefer your balance sheet: Banks, or the Federal Reserve?" Financial Times Alphaville (April 13, 2017). 8 S. Avdjiev, W. Du, C. Koch, and Hyun S.Shin, "The dollar, bank leverage and the deviation from covered interest parity," BIS Working Papers No.592 (Revised July 2017). III. Indicators And Reference Charts Equity indexes in the U.S. and Japan broke out to new highs in September. European stocks surged as well. Investors embraced risk assets in the month on a solid earnings backdrop, strong economic indicators, continuing low inflation and revived hopes for fiscal stimulus in the U.S. and Japan, among other factors. Our indicators do not warn of any near-term stumbling blocks for the bull market. Our monetary indicator continues to hover only slightly on the restrictive side. Our equity composite technical indicator may be rolling over, but it must fall below zero to send a 'sell' signal. The speculation index is elevated, but bullish equity sentiment is only a little above the long-term mean. Meanwhile, the S&P 500 tends to increase whenever the 12-month forward EPS estimate is rising. The latter is in a solid uptrend that should continue based on the net revisions ratio and the earnings surprise index. Valuation remains poor, but has not yet reached our threshold of overvaluation. Our new Revealed Preference Indicator (RPI) continued on its bullish equity signal in August for the second consecutive month. We introduced the RPI in the July report. It combines the idea of market momentum with valuation and policy measures. It provides a powerful bullish signal if positive market momentum lines up with constructive signals from the policy and valuation measures. Conversely, if constructive market momentum is not supported by valuation and policy, investors should lean against the market trend. Our Willingness-to-Pay (WTP) indicators are also bullish on stocks for the U.S., Europe and Japan. These indicators track flows, and thus provide information on what investors are actually doing, as opposed to sentiment indexes that track how investors are feeling. The U.S. and Japanese WTPs are trending sideways, and Europe could be rolling over. While this is a little worrying because they indicate that flows into equity markets have moderated recently, the indicators have to clearly turn down to provide a bearish signal for stocks. Flows into the U.S. appear to be more advanced relative to Japan and the Eurozone, suggesting that there is more "dry powder" available to buy the latter two markets than for the U.S. market. Oversold conditions for the U.S. dollar are being worked off, but our technical indicator is still positive for the currency. The greenback looks expensive based on PPP, but is less so on other measures. We are positive in the near term. Our composite technical indicator for U.S. Treasurys is at neutral. Bond valuation is also at neutral based on our long-standing model. However, other models that specifically incorporate global economic factors suggest that the 10-year Treasury is still more than 30 basis points on the expensive side. Stay below benchmark in duration. EQUITIES: Chart III-1U.S. Equity Indicators Chart III-2Willingness To Pay For Risk Chart III-3U.S. Equity Sentiment Indicators Chart III-4Revealed Preference Indicator Chart III-5U.S. Stock Market Valuation Chart III-6U.S. Earnings Chart III-7Global Stock Market And Earnings: ##br##Relative Performance Chart III-8Global Stock Market And Earnings: ##br##Relative Performance FIXED INCOME: Chart III-9U.S. Treasurys And Valuations Chart III-10U.S. Treasury Indicators Chart III-11Selected U.S. Bond Yields Chart III-1210-Year Treasury Yield ComponentsChart III-13U.S. Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor Chart III-14Global Bonds: Developed Markets Chart III-15Global Bonds: Emerging Markets CURRENCIES: Chart III-16U.S. Dollar And PPP Chart III-17U.S. Dollar And Indicator Chart III-18U.S. Dollar Fundamentals Chart III-19Japanese Yen Technicals Chart III-20Euro Technicals Chart III-21Euro/Yen Technicals Chart III-22Euro/Pound Technicals COMMODITIES: Chart III-23Broad Commodity Indicators Chart III-24Commodity Prices Chart III-25Commodity Prices Chart III-26Commodity Sentiment Chart III-27Speculative Positioning ECONOMY: Chart III-28U.S. And Global Macro Backdrop Chart III-29U.S. Macro Snapshot Chart III-30U.S. Growth Outlook Chart III-31U.S. Cyclical Spending Chart III-32U.S. Labor Market Chart III-33U.S. Consumption Chart III-34U.S. Housing Chart III-35U.S. Debt And Deleveraging Chart III-36U.S. Financial Conditions Chart III-37Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Chart III-38Global Economic Snapshot: China Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst

Highlights In this Weekly Report, we present our semi-annual chartbook of the BCA Central Bank Monitors - one of our favorite and long-standing indicators to assess the potential for monetary policy changes. The broad conclusion - the Monitors are all at or above the threshold signaling that tighter monetary policy is required, validating the recent hawkish shift by policymakers. Feature September has been an active month for central bankers. The Bank of Canada hiked rates again, the European Central Bank gave strong hints that a tapering of its asset purchase program will soon be announced, and the Bank of England warned that tighter policy might soon be required. Just last week, the Federal Reserve began the process of reducing its massive balance sheet while also making no changes to its plans to hike interest rates several times over the next year. This is setting up a potential nasty surprise for bond markets. Investors have became deeply skeptical about the possibility of policymakers shifting in a more hawkish direction without an obvious trigger from faster inflation. Yet the global economy is in a synchronized expansion with the largest share of countries operating at (or beyond) full employment since the pre-crisis years. Inflation is in the process of stabilizing, or grinding higher, in most of the major economies. In this Weekly Report, we present our semi-annual chartbook of the BCA Central Bank Monitors - one of our favorite indicators to assess the potential for monetary policy changes. The broad conclusion - the Monitors are all at or above the threshold signaling that tighter policy is required, validating the recent hawkish shift by policymakers (Chart of the Week). Chart of the WeekGrowing Pressures To Tighten, According To Our Central Bank Monitors An Overview Of The BCA Central Bank Monitors Chart 2Upward Pressure On Global Bond Yields The BCA Central Bank Monitors are composite indicators designed to measure the cyclical growth and inflation pressures that can influence future monetary policy decisions. The economic data series used to construct the Monitors are not the same for every country, but the list of indicators generally measure the same things (i.e. manufacturing cycles, domestic demand strength, commodity prices, labor market conditions, exchange rates, etc). The data series are standardized and combined to form the Monitors. Readings above the zero line for each Monitor indicate pressures for central banks to raise interest rates, and vice versa. Through the nexus between growth, inflation, and market expectations of future interest rate changes, the Monitors do exhibit broad correlations to government bond yields in the Developed Markets (Chart 2). Currently, the Monitors are all near or above the zero line, providing context for why central bankers have shifted towards a more hawkish bias of late. Actual rate hikes are still not likely over the next few months outside of the Fed and BoC (we remain skeptical on the potential for the BoE to realistically tighten policy). More importantly, the underlying growth and inflation pressures indicated by the Monitors suggest that policymakers will maintain a hawkish bias (or, at best, a neutral tone) in their communications with the markets. One new addition to the individual country sections in this Chartbook are charts showing the Monitors, broken into growth and inflation components. The conclusion from these new charts is that the current level of the overall Monitors is a reflection of strong economic growth in all countries, with the inflation components giving more mixed signals. The Fed Monitor: Neutral For Now, Likely To Head Higher Again Our Fed Monitor has drifted lower over the past several months, and now sits just slightly above the zero line, calling for no imminent need to change U.S. monetary policy (Chart 3A). FOMC members have been sending more balanced messages in their recent speeches, specifically noting the confusing mix of what appears to be a U.S. economy operating at full employment but with slowing core inflation (Chart 3B). Chart 3AU.S.: Fed Monitor Chart 3BNo Spare Capacity In The U.S. When looking at the breakdown of our Monitor into its main inputs (Chart 3C), the growth component remains in a steady grinding uptrend. The inflation component had softened since the peak earlier this year, but the latest reading shows a slight uptick. Chart 3CPressure On The Fed From U.S. Growth. Is Inflation Next? Looking ahead, we expect realized U.S. inflation, which looks to be stabilizing after the downturn since the spring, to grind higher alongside a steadily expanding U.S. economy. With corporate profits and household incomes expanding, and with leading indicators steadily climbing, there is little reason to expect much sustained slowing of U.S. growth in the next few quarters. The next move in our Fed Monitor will likely be upward. The historical correlations between changes in our Fed Monitor and changes in U.S. Treasury yields suggest that any renewed increase in the Monitor should put more upward pressure on the front end of the yield curve than the back end (Chart 3D). This suggests that Treasury curve would bear-flatten as the market priced in more Fed rate hikes. However, we see a greater near-term risk of a bear-steepening of the curve given the low level of market-based inflation expectations. The Fed will want to see those rise - which will require signs of realized inflation rebounding - before delivering another rate hike, perhaps as soon as December. Chart 3DThe Fed Monitor Is Most Correlated To Shorter-Maturity USTs BoE Monitor: The Window Is Closing For A Rate Hike Our Bank of England (BoE) Monitor has been in the "tight money required" zone since the end of 2015 and has not signaled a need for easier monetary policy since 2012 (Chart 4A). This is unsurprising with the U.K. economy running beyond full employment for over three years alongside a steady rise in inflation (Chart 4B). Chart 4AU.K.: BoE Monitor Chart 4BTight Capacity In The U.K. The after-effects of the Brexit vote last year are still an issue for the U.K. economy and the BoE. The central bank eased monetary policy (rate cuts and QE) after the Brexit shock as insurance against the massive economic uncertainty. Yet that not only provided stimulus to an economy that was already operating beyond full employment, but also resulted in a 16% peak-to-trough decline in the British Pound. The result: a surge in headline U.K. inflation to 2.9%, well above the BoE's 2% target. The BoE sent a hawkish message at the policy meeting earlier this month, signaling that interest rates would have to rise if growth evolves in line with their forecasts. We are skeptical on that front: U.K. leading economic indicators have rolled over, real income growth has stagnated due the high inflation, and business confidence continues to be dragged down by Brexit uncertainties. Also, the greater stability in the trade-weighted Pound - now essentially flat versus year-ago levels - should result in some cooling off of the currency-driven surge in inflation, which the inflation component of our BoE Monitor is already signaling (Chart 4C). Chart 4CThe Inflation Component Of The BoE Monitor Has Collapsed We remain neutral on Gilts, as we expect the BoE to remain on hold and not follow through on their recent hawkish commentary (Chart 4D). Chart 4DThe Gilt/BoE Monitor Correlations Are Higher At The Long-End ECB Monitor: On Course For A 2018 Taper Our European Central Bank (ECB) Monitor has steadily climbed over the course of 2017 and now sits right on the zero line (Chart 5A). The solid and broad-based economic expansion in the Euro Area has soaked up spare capacity. The unemployment rate has fallen to an 8-year low of 9.1%, suggesting that the Euro Area economy is very close to full employment for the first time since the Great Recession (Chart 5B). Chart 5AEuro Area: ECB Monitor Chart 5BExcess Capacity In Europe Dwindling Fast Against that strong growth backdrop, core inflation has been grinding higher off the lows, but at 1.4% remains below the ECB 2% target for headline inflation. When looking at the components of our ECB Monitor, however, rising inflation pressures have been as important a reason behind the pickup in the Monitor as stronger growth (Chart 5C). Chart 5CGrowth Has Pushed The ECB Monitor Higher This Year The deflation threat that prompted the ECB to begin its own asset purchase program in 2015 has passed, and we expect the ECB to announce a tapering of the bond buying starting in January 2018. If growth and inflation evolve according to the ECB's forecasts - which is likely barring an additional major surge in the euro from current elevated levels - then there is a good chance that the asset purchase program will be wound down by the end of 2018. Interest rate hikes are still some time away, though. The market is currently discounting a first 25bp ECB rate hike around October 2019. We agree with that pricing, as the ECB will "follow the Fed playbook" and not begin rate hikes until well after the end of the asset purchase program. We remain underweight Euro Area government debt, with a bias towards bear-steepening of yield curves as inflation expectations should steadily climb higher and the ECB keeps policy rates unchanged (Chart 5D). Chart 5DStronger Bond/ECB Monitor Correlations At The Short-End BoJ Monitor: Creeping Higher, Surprisingly The Bank of Japan (BoJ) Monitor has steadily climbed throughout 2017 and now sits right on the zero line (Chart 6A). While overall inflation rates remain well below the 2% BoJ target, the steady economic expansion has absorbed spare economic capacity, with the unemployment rate now down to a mere 2.8% (Chart 6B). Both the growth and inflation components of our BoJ Monitor have been rising (Chart 6C). Chart 6AJapan: BoJ Monitor Chart 6BTight Labor Market, But Still No Inflation While the pickup in inflation off the lows is a welcome sight for the BoJ, there is no immediate pressure to shift to a less accommodative policy stance (Chart 6D). In fact, the central bank has already done its own version of a "taper" by moving to a 0% yield target on JGBs one year ago. Maintaining that yield level has required a slower pace of asset purchases by the central bank, which are running at an annualized pace of 70 trillion yen so far in 2017, below the 80 trillion yen target for the current QE program. Chart 6CTight Labor Market, But Still No Inflation We do not see the BoJ abandoning the 0% yield target anytime soon. By depressing JGB yields, the BoJ hopes to engineer additional weakness in the yen which will feed through into faster inflation and rising inflation expectations. This appears to be the only way to generate any inflation in Japan, even with such a low unemployment rate. Chart 6DLow Correlations Between the BoJ Monitor & JGB Yields It will require a rise in Japanese core inflation back towards 2% before the BoJ will even begin to discuss any real tapering of its QE program. Thus, JGBs will remain a low-beta "safe-haven" among Developed Market government bonds, where there is greater risk of central bank tightening actions that will push yields higher. Remain overweight. BoC Monitor: More Tightening To Come The Bank of Canada (BoC) Monitor has been comfortably above the zero line throughout 2017 (Chart 7A). The Canadian economy has shown robust growth, which has soaked up spare capacity (Chart 7B). The BoC is projecting that the output gap in Canada will likely be fully closed before the end of this year. The surprising surge in growth is likely to continue given the strength in the leading economic indicators and the robust readings from the BoC's own Business Outlook Survey. Chart 7ACanada: BoC Monitor Chart 7BStill Not Much Inflation In Canada The central bank has already responded to the faster-than-expected pace of growth with two 25bps rate hikes since July. This took place even without much of a pick-up in realized inflation or in the inflation component of our BoC Monitor (Chart 7C). Clearly, the BoC is focusing more on the rapidly accelerating economy, with real GDP growth surging to a 3.7% year-over-year pace in Q2. With the BoC Overnight Rate still at a very low level of 1%, well below the central bank's own estimate of the neutral "terminal" rate of 3%, there is room for additional rate hikes as long as growth remains robust. Chart 7CRising Growth Pressures On The BoC, Still No Inflation The surging Canadian dollar is not yet a concern for the BoC, as this reflects both the improving Canadian economy and the Fed taking a pause on its own rate hiking cycle. With the latter poised to resume in December and continue into 2018, the appreciation of the "Loonie" is likely to cool off, even if the BoC keeps raising rates. We have maintained an underweight stance on Canadian bonds, with a curve flattening bias, since mid-year (Chart 7D). We are sticking with that stance, even with the market now priced for nearly 70bps of additional rate hikes over the next year. If the Canadian economy continues to grow rapidly, and the Fed returns to hiking rates, the BoC can tighten to levels beyond current market pricing. Chart 7DA Rising BoC Monitor Typically Leads To A Flatter Canadian Yield Curve RBA Monitor: Conflicting Forces Our Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) Monitor remains in "tighter policy required" territory (Chart 8A). Core inflation has picked up slightly, dragging market expectations along with it, but headline price growth has declined below 2% (Chart 8B). However, commodity prices continue to ease, survey-based measures of inflation expectations have pulled back and the inflation component of the RBA Monitor has retreated from the highs (Chart 8C). Chart 8AAustralia: RBA Monitor Chart 8BNo Inflation Pressures On The RBA The RBA is facing conflicting forces of an improving labor market and booming house prices, combined with high consumer indebtedness and nonexistent real wage growth. Though employment growth has recently spiked, part time employment as a percentage of total is just starting to roll over and underemployment remains elevated. Labor market conditions will need to tighten considerably for wages to rise and consumer confidence to recover. A wide output gap, mixed employment backdrop and a lack of inflation pressure will likely keep the policymakers on hold for longer than the market expects. Chart 8CRBA Facing Surging Growth Pressures & Cooling Inflation Pressures We are currently at a neutral stance on Australian government bonds, given the mixed economic backdrop. Instead, we prefer to maintain our 2yr/10yr yield curve flattener trade. The short end will remain anchored by an inactive RBA, with the long end facing downward pressure from soft inflation expectations and macro-prudential measures in the housing market dampening credit growth. Even if the RBA were to tighten policy as markets expect, the yield curve would flatten. Additionally, negative correlations between Australian yield curves and the RBA monitor have been more robust in the post-crisis era (Chart 8D). As labor markets continue to improve, the other components of the Monitor, such as wages, retail sales and consumer confidence, will follow. Chart 8DThe Entire Australian Curve Is Highly Correlated To Our RBA Monitor RBNZ Monitor: Rate Hikes Are Needed Our Reserve Bank of New Zealand (RBNZ) Monitor has been the strongest of all our Monitors, and is currently well into "tight money required" territory" (Chart 9A). The solid New Zealand economic expansion has fully absorbed spare capacity, and both headline core inflation are accelerating towards the RBNZ target (Chart 9B). Both the inflation and growth components are surging, contributing to the overall sharp rise in the RBNZ Monitor (Chart 9C). Chart 9ANew Zealand: RBNZ Monitor Chart 9BFull Employment & Rising Inflation In NZ So with growth and inflation looking perkier, why has the RBNZ not delivered on rate hikes this year? They central bank has highlighted "international uncertainties" related to geopolitical risks as well as trade tensions between China and the U.S. that could spill over into New Zealand exports to Asia. The central bank has also shown caution in its own growth and inflation forecasts, despite the signs of strength. Chart 9CHow Much Longer Can The RBNZ Ignore This? More likely, the RBNZ has been actively trying to avoid an unwanted surge in the currency that could derail the economy. Given the elevated geopolitical tensions with North Korea, it is likely that the RBNZ will stick with a dovish message - especially given the recent pickup in the currency. We have been running long positions in New Zealand government debt versus U.S. Treasuries and German Bunds in our Tactical Overlay portfolio since May. We've been heeding the commentary of the central bank rather than our own RBNZ Monitor, although the divergence between the two is becoming unsustainable (Chart 9D). The Q3 CPI inflation report due in October will be critical to assess the RBNZ's next move. We are sticking with our recommended trades, for now. Chart 9DNZ Bonds Are Vulnerable To Current Cyclical Growth & Inflation Pressures Robert Robis, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com Patrick Trinh, Associate Editor Patrick@bcaresearch.com Recommendations Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Highlights Duration: As long as inflation shows signs of stabilizing during the next couple of months the Fed will lift rates again in December. Stay at below-benchmark duration and remain overweight TIPS versus nominal Treasuries. Credit Cycle: The process of corporate sector re-leveraging is well underway, but the corporate bond trade still has further to run. In fact, the second quarter decline in net leverage likely prolongs the length of time that overweight corporate bond positions will be profitable. Economy & Inflation: While households are no longer paying down debt, the pace of re-leveraging has so far been slow. With delinquency rates already starting to rise for certain classes of consumer credit, we see household debt growth as remaining tepid at best. Feature Janet Yellen struck a somewhat hawkish tone in her press conference following last week's FOMC meeting, as did the post-meeting statement and Summary of Economic Projections (SEP). Predictably, the bond market sold off and is now priced for 39 bps of rate hikes between now and the end of 2018 (Chart 1). While this is still well below the 100 bps predicted in the SEP, it proved sufficient to send the 2-year Treasury yield to a new cycle high (Chart 1, bottom panel). The Fed also announced the unwind of its balance sheet, as had been widely anticipated, and Yellen took great pains to stress that the pace of balance sheet reduction will not be altered unless the economy encounters a shock severe enough to send the fed funds rate back to zero. As was discussed in last week's report,1 this is a calculated move by the Fed meant to sever the link between the balance sheet and expectations about the future path of rate hikes. The SEP showed that most FOMC participants still expect to lift rates once more this year, and that only four out of 16 believe the Fed should stand pat, the same number as in June. However, expectations for one more hike this year are most likely contingent on inflation showing some further signs of strength. To see this, we note that the real fed funds rate is very close to at least one popular estimate of its equilibrium level (Chart 2). With inflation still below the Fed's target it is imperative that an accommodative monetary policy stance is maintained. Practically, this means keeping the real fed funds rate below equilibrium so that economic slack can be absorbed and inflation can rise. If inflation stays flat and the Fed hikes in December, then the real fed funds rate will move above the Laubach-Williams estimate of equilibrium. Chart 1Fed Pushes Yields Higher Chart 2Funds Rate Must Stay Below Neutral We calculate that if the Fed delivers a 25 basis point hike in December, then year-over-year core PCE inflation must rise from its current 1.41% to 1.63% for the real fed funds rate to stay below its neutral level (Chart 2, bottom panel). This squares with the Fed's central tendency forecast that calls for core PCE inflation between 1.5% and 1.6% by the end of the year. In our view, as long as inflation shows further signs of stabilizing and moves toward the Fed's central tendency range during the next couple of months, then the Fed will likely lift rates again in December. However, if inflation resumes its recent downtrend, then the Fed will take a pass. Inflation Expectations: Yellen vs. Brainard Perhaps the most interesting detail to emerge from last week's FOMC meeting is that the committee is so far rejecting Governor Lael Brainard's claim that inflation expectations have become unanchored to the downside. As we discussed in a recent report,2 inflation expectations are critical to the Fed's way of thinking about inflation. In the Fed's view, monetary policy can be used effectively in response to shifts in the cyclical drivers of inflation. However, if inflation expectations were to become unanchored, it would suggest that inflation's long run trend had been altered. This would make monetary policy much less effective, and a timely return of inflation to target much less likely. Governor Brainard views the recent weakness in inflation as suggesting that inflation expectations have in fact become unmoored. As evidence she points to the low levels of: TIPS breakeven inflation rates (Chart 3, top panel) Chart 3Inflation Expectations Household inflation expectations from the University of Michigan survey (Chart 3, panel 2) 5-year, 5-year forward CPI forecasts derived from the Survey of Professional Forecasters (SPF) (Chart 3, panel 3) In contrast, at her post-meeting press conference Chair Yellen pointed to median 10-year forecasts from the SPF as evidence that inflation expectations remain well-anchored (Chart 3, bottom panel). Although, she also admitted that she is unable to explain why inflation has fallen this year: I can't say I can easily point to a sufficient set of factors that explain this year why inflation has been this low. I've mentioned a few idiosyncratic things, but frankly, the low inflation is more broad-based than just idiosyncratic things. What matters for bond investors is that TIPS breakeven inflation rates, a measure of the compensation for inflation protection embedded in nominal bond yields, are well below levels that are usually seen when core inflation is well anchored around the Fed's target. At present, the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate is 1.84%. We expect it will return to a range between 2.4% and 2.5% by the time that year-over-year core PCE inflation reaches 2%. In Yellen's view, inflationary pressures are strong enough for this process to play out with the Fed still being able to gradually lift rates, once more this year and then three more times in 2018. But the longer that inflation fails to rebound as Yellen expects, the more likely it becomes that the committee will come around to Brainard's view and scale back the pace of hikes. A slower expected pace of rate hikes will lend support to inflation and TIPS breakevens, and in either scenario we would expect TIPS breakevens to reach the 2.4% to 2.5% range by the end of the cycle. The uncertainty surrounds what level of real rates will be required to achieve that outcome. In that regard we are more inclined toward Yellen's view. Inflation will soon follow growth indicators higher,3 and the Fed will be able to deliver a pace of rate hikes similar to what it currently projects. But with so few rate hikes priced into the curve, we think the investment implications are the same in either scenario. Investors should stay at below-benchmark duration and remain overweight TIPS versus nominal Treasuries. Bonds In The Long-Run? The Fed's median projection for the level of longer-run interest rates also declined last week, from 3% to 2.75%. It is now only 8 bps above the 5-year, 5-year forward Treasury yield (Chart 4). Chart 4Fed Slowly Embracing A Low Neutral Rate In general, we think the 5-year, 5-year Treasury yield should be equal to the nominal interest rate expected to prevail in the longer-run plus a small risk premium. In that respect, the yield still looks a tad low compared to the Fed's forecast, although the gap has narrowed considerably. While we would not want to hinge our investment strategy on the accuracy of the Fed's longer-run interest rate forecast, it is notable that the Fed continues to price-in a future where the equilibrium interest rate remains depressed. Please see the Economy & Inflation section (below) for a discussion of the longer-run outlook for the fed funds rate. Corporate Credit Cycle Prolonged Second quarter Financial Accounts (formerly Flow of Funds) data were released last week, allowing us to update some of our credit cycle indicators. Chart 5 shows that, historically, three conditions must be met before the credit cycle turns and we experience a period of sustained corporate bond underperformance. Our Corporate Health Monitor (CHM) must be in "deteriorating health" territory, signaling that the corporate sector is aggressively taking on debt (Chart 5, panel 2). Monetary policy must be restrictive. This can be signaled by the real federal funds rate crossing above its equilibrium level (Chart 5, panel 3), or an inversion of the yield curve (Chart 5, panel 4). Banks must be tightening standards on commercial & industrial loans (Chart 5, bottom panel). So far this cycle only the first criterion has been met and while the CHM remains firmly in "deteriorating health" territory, it actually took a sizeable turn toward zero in Q2. The marginal improvement in corporate health was broad based across all six of our monitor's components (Chart 6). Even return on capital, which had been in free fall, managed to move higher (Chart 6, panel 3). Chart 5Credit Cycle Indicators Chart 6Corporate Health Monitor Components Box 1Corporate Health Monitor Components The slower pace of deterioration in corporate health can mostly be chalked up to surging profit growth. EBITD4 growth outpaced debt growth in Q2, sending our measure of net leverage lower (Chart 7). Year-over-year EBITD growth is now within striking distance of corporate debt growth for the first time since 2015 (Chart 7, bottom panel). Chart 7Can Leverage Reverse Its Uptrend? It is rare for corporate spreads to tighten while leverage is rising. So in that regard the tick lower in leverage probably extends the period of time we can remain overweight corporate bonds in a U.S. fixed income portfolio. Chart 8Profit Outlook Still Positive Since 1973, we calculate that investment grade corporate bonds have outperformed duration-equivalent Treasuries in 62% of six month periods, for an average annualized excess return of 45 bps. In prior research5 we showed that, during the same timeframe, when leverage rose for two consecutive quarters corporate bonds outperformed in only 45% of the following six month periods, for an average annualized excess return of -190 bps. This quarter's decline in leverage breaks a streak of two consecutive increases. But what about going forward? Further declines in leverage will depend on whether profit growth can sustain its recent strength. While some moderation is likely, our leading profit indicators suggest that growth will remain firm for the remainder of the year (Chart 8). Total business sales less inventories have hooked a tad lower, but are still consistent with solid profit growth (Chart 8, panel 1). Industrial production growth also rolled over last month, but that reflects temporary weakness related to Hurricane Harvey. Continued elevated readings from the ISM manufacturing index suggest that underlying demand is strong (Chart 8, panel 2). Meanwhile, dollar weakness continues to provide a tailwind for profit growth (Chart 8, panel 3), and our profit margin proxy has also ticked higher (Chart 8, bottom panel). Our profit margin proxy has risen due to weakness in unit labor costs. While tightening labor markets should cause the corporate wage bill to increase, a late-cycle rebound in productivity growth will ensure that unit labor cost growth stays muted compared to other wage growth measures. We made the case for a late-cycle rebound in productivity growth driven by stronger non-residential investment in a recent report.6 That being said, mounting wage pressures will likely cause margins to narrow next year, although a sharp margin-driven hit to profit growth is not likely in the next few quarters. Bottom Line: The process of corporate sector re-leveraging is well underway, but the corporate bond trade still has further to run. In fact, the second quarter decline in net leverage likely prolongs the length of time that overweight corporate bond positions will be profitable. Economy & Inflation: Household Re-leveraging Still A Slog As was noted above, both model-driven estimates and FOMC forecasts posit that the real equilibrium fed funds rate is very low by historical standards. One school of thought, secular stagnation, views the low equilibrium rate as a permanent state of affairs. While another, the "headwinds" thesis, claims that the fall-out from the financial crisis is keeping the equilibrium rate low for now, but that it will rise as the vestiges of the crisis start to fade. In this second theory, the major headwind keeping the equilibrium rate temporarily low would be the slow pace of household re-leveraging. Chart 9 shows the correlation between the Laubach-Williams estimate of the real equilibrium fed funds rate and growth in household debt. Household debt has only recently started to increase, and even today it is growing at a historically slow pace. So far this has not translated into strong enough growth to push the equilibrium interest rate higher, perhaps because the modest debt growth is occurring off quite a low base. Overall household debt is no longer falling relative to disposable income, but it has also not yet started to rise (Chart 9, panel 2). Whether you fall into the secular stagnation or headwinds camp, we would argue that the pace of household re-leveraging will remain tepid, keeping a lid on the equilibrium interest rate for quite some time. Household debt is dominated by housing, where still-tight lending standards and a lack of savings on the part of potential first-time homebuyers remain semi-permanent features of the economic landscape that will take a long time to disappear. Outside of housing, consumers have been adding debt fairly aggressively, especially in the non-revolving (auto loan and student loan) spaces (Chart 9, bottom panel). The problem is that in those areas where consumers have been adding debt (credit cards, auto loans and student loans), we are also seeing delinquency rates start to rise (Chart 10). Chart 9Household Debt & The Neutral Rate Chart 10Consumer Credit Delinquency Rates Delinquency rates are elevated compared to pre-crisis levels for both auto loans and student loans. For credit cards, where the re-leveraging is not as far advanced, delinquency rates remain low but have started to increase. It is only in the mortgage market, where re-leveraging has not occurred, that delinquencies remain low. The fact that delinquency rates have already started to increase for auto loans, student loans and credit cards suggests that there is limited scope to add further debt in those areas. Bottom Line: While households are no longer paying down debt, the pace of re-leveraging has so far been slow. With delinquency rates already starting to rise for certain classes of consumer credit, we see household debt growth as remaining tepid at best. Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "The Great Unwind", dated September 19, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Open Mouth Operations", dated September 12, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Open Mouth Operations", dated September 12, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 4 Earnings before interest, taxes and depreciation. 5 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Low Inflation And Rising Debt", dated June 13, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 6 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Open Mouth Operations", dated September 12, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

Highlights U.S. Treasury yields should continue to rise as investors price-out doomsday risk; Tensions surrounding North Korea will continue, but there are signs that negotiations have started and that China is playing ball on sanctions; Meanwhile, our view that tax cuts are coming is finally coming to fruition; Fade renewed European risks regarding Brexit and Catalan independence; But the independence push by Kurds in Iraq could have market impact. Feature Early in the second quarter, BCA's Geopolitical Strategy made two predictions. First, we said that summer would be a time to stay invested in U.S. equities and largely ignore domestic politics.1 Second, that North Korea would become an investment-relevant risk and buoy safe-haven plays but would not lead to a full-scale war (and hence not cause a global correction).2 The summer proved lucrative for both risk-on and risk-off trades, best emblemized by solid returns for both the S&P 500 and 10-year U.S. Treasury (Chart 1 A & B). Chart 1ARisk Assets Have Rallied... Chart 1B...At The Same Time As Safe Havens Can this continue? We do not think so. Geopolitics can influence the 10-year Treasury yield via two mechanisms: safe-haven flows and fiscal policy. On both fronts, we see movements that should support a pickup in yields over the rest of the year, a view corroborated by our colleagues on the fixed-income team. First, investors finally have progress on tax legislation that we have been forecasting since President Trump's election. Given the markets' collective pessimism on corporate tax reform (Chart 2), we expect any good news to change the current narrative. While it is still difficult to envision tax legislation that massively stimulates the economy, it is also difficult to imagine tax legislation that is revenue-neutral. As such, fiscal policy in the U.S. should be at least mildly stimulative in 2018, supporting higher yields. Second, we remain concerned that North Korea could escalate the ongoing tensions in East Asia.3 However, Pyongyang is constrained by its military capacity, which limits what it can realistically do to threaten its neighbors. As we discuss below, there are emerging signs of both diplomatic negotiations and Chinese pressure, key signposts that we have passed the peak on our "Arc of Diplomacy." As such, investors should prepare for the bond rally to reverse and the broader risk-on phase to extend through the end of the year. We expect the "Trump reflation trade" - USD appreciation, yield-curve steepening, and small-cap outperformance (Chart 3) - to restart if our views on the U.S. legislative agenda and North Korean tensions hold. Chart 2Investors Remain Pessimistic On Tax Reform... Chart 3...And On Trump's Policy In General U.S. Treasuries: Fade The Doomsday Trade Our colleagues at BCA's fixed-income desk have shown that flows into safe havens over the summer have widened the disconnect between global yields and economic fundamentals (Chart 4).4 Chief Fixed-Income Strategist Rob Robis points out that BCA's own valuation model for the 10-year U.S. Treasury yield indicates that "fair value" sits at 2.67%, nearly 55bps higher than current market levels (Chart 5).5 This is a level of overvaluation that even exceeds the extreme levels seen after the U.K. Brexit vote in July of 2016. Rob believes that the summer bond rally is about safe-haven demand, depressed investor sentiment, and underwhelming inflation, in that order. It is certainly not about growth expectations, which remain buoyant (Chart 6). Chart 4Falling Yields Reflect Save Haven Demand,##br## Not Slower Growth Chart 5U.S. Treasuries ##br##Are Overvalued Chart 6Global Growth##br## Remains Buoyant To prove that underwhelming inflation has not spurred the latest rally in Treasuries, Rob decomposes developed market bond yield changes since the July 7 peak in U.S. yields. The benchmark 10-year U.S. Treasury yield has risen 20bps off those September lows as investors have priced out doomsday risk. Table 1 shows that yields declined everywhere but Canada (where the central bank has been hiking interest rates). Yet the vast majority of the yield decline has come from falling real yields and not lower inflation expectations, which have actually stabilized over the summer. This has also occurred via a bull-flattening move in government bond yield curves, which suggests it is risk-aversion that has driven yields lower. Table 1Changes In DM Bond Yields Over The Summer (From July 7th Peak In U.S. Treasury Yields) The conclusion of our fixed-income team is that there is now considerable upside risk in global yields. We agree. While North Korea could retaliate against the just-imposed UN sanctions in various ways, it is difficult to see the market reacting with the same vigor as it did in July and August. Investors are becoming desensitized to North Korean provocations, especially as the latter remain confined to "expected and accepted" forms of belligerence, even in the current context of heightened tensions. Future North Korean safe-haven rallies will be of shorter amplitude and duration. The September 15 missile launch over Japan (the fourth time this has happened) has shown this to be the case. Chart 7Position For A Tactically Wider UST-Bund Spread Bottom Line: BCA's bond team remains short duration, a position that our political analysis supports. We will keep our 2-year/30-year Treasury curve-steepener trade open, despite it being in the red by 34.3bps. In addition, we are closing our short Fed Funds January 2018 futures position (for a gain of 0.51bps) and opening a new short Fed Funds December 2018 position. Any sign of emerging bipartisanship should also favor higher fiscal spending, as policymakers almost always come together to spend money rather than cut spending. In addition, we are recommending that our clients put on a U.S. Treasury-German Bund spread widening trade.6 Rob has pointed out that this is a way to profit directly from higher fiscal spending in the U.S., particularly since there is no sign that Germany will change its government spending following its unremarkable election campaign. The data also supports a tactical widening of the Treasury-Bund spread, which is correlated with the relative data surprises (Chart 7). U.S. Politics: From Impeachable To Ingenious The crucial moment for the Trump presidency was the White House purge of the "Breitbart clique" following the social unrest in Charlottesville, Virginia on August 11-12.7 That move has made headway for upcoming tax legislation and resolution of the debt ceiling imbroglio. While some investors saw the racially motivated rioting in Virginia as a harbinger of a major risk-off episode, we saw it essentially as a "Peak Stupid" moment in U.S. politics. We may not know precisely what goes on in President Trump's mind, but we know that he likes polls. And his polling with Republican voters suffered appreciably following the Charlottesville fiasco (Chart 8). Strong Republican support for President Trump is the main source of his political capital. He can use it to cajole and influence Republicans in Congress via the upcoming Republican primary process ahead of the midterm elections. If he loses that support, his political capital will erode and he could become the earliest "lame duck" president in recent U.S. history. Worse, if support among Republicans were to fall below 70%, Trump could embark upon a Nixonian trajectory that could indeed lead to impeachment (Chart 9). Chart 8Trump's Support With GOP Voters Suffered... Chart 9... But Remains Well Above Nixonian Levels Many clients have asked us about the debt ceiling deal that President Trump made with Democrats and whether it signals a radical shift towards bipartisanship. We do not think so. In fact, we think the deal is mostly irrelevant. As we argued throughout the summer, the idea that there would be another debt ceiling crisis this year was always a figment of the media's imagination. There was never any evidence that a sufficient number of members of the House of Representatives wanted to play brinkmanship with the debt ceiling. First, Democrats in both houses of Congress have been clear throughout the year that they would not play politics with the debt ceiling. Second, investors and the media continuously overestimate the strength of the Freedom Caucus, the fiscally conservative grouping of Tea Party-linked representatives. There are 41 members of the Freedom Caucus, whereas 55 Republicans in the House sit in districts that are at least theoretically vulnerable to a Democratic challenge (Table 2).8 The danger for House Speaker Paul Ryan is not that the Freedom Caucus abandons the establishment line, but that the 55 Republicans listed in Table 2 abandon the Republican line. This, in fact, happened throughout the Obama presidency, with centrist Republicans voting with Democrats in the House on a number of key legislative bills (Chart 10). Table 2Plenty Of Vulnerable Republican Representatives Chart 10The Obama Years: A Governing 'Grand Coalition' This is why Speaker Paul Ryan largely ignored the Freedom Caucus and proposed an eighteen-month extension of the debt ceiling. He was never going to allow the Freedom Caucus to play brinkmanship. That President Trump picked the shorter Democrat version is significant only in so far as it signaled that he was willing to work with Democrats. In other words, the move was a "shot across the bow" of Republicans, a message that they had better get started on tax legislation, or else ... What should investors watch now? There are three main issues to follow: Tax legislation outline: House Speaker Paul Ryan has set the week of September 25 as the deadline for Republicans to outline their tax policy plan. The good news for investors is that the outline will supposedly include an already agreed-upon framework by both the House Ways and Means Committee - Chaired by Representative Kevin Brady (R, TX) - and the Senate Finance Committee - Chaired by Senator Orin Hatch (R-UT). Brady and Hatch are serious players and their comments on tax policy should be followed closely. Both favor legislation that would be retroactively applied to FY 2017, even if the bill is actually passed in 2018. They are also part of the Republican "Big Six" group on tax policy, along with Speaker Ryan, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, and National Economic Council Director Gary Cohn. Reconciliation instructions: The House Budget Committee passed a FY 2018 budget resolution in late July that included "reconciliation instructions" for tax legislation. These instructions allow Republicans to use the reconciliation procedure - a process that allows the Senate to pass legislation without needing 60 votes.9 However, the House version of the budget resolution also included over $200 billion of spending cuts, which is unlikely to pass in the Senate. As such, investors have to carefully watch for the House and Senate Republicans to pass a final budget resolution in order to kick off the reconciliation process. This process will likely happen in October, after the tax legislation package is presented by the Big Six. At that point, the Freedom Caucus will have the ability to extract concessions from establishment Republicans as their votes are needed to pass the budget resolution. We suspect that no Democrats will support the budget resolution given that they have not been involved in the tax policy process thus far. Trump's involvement: President Ronald Reagan's personal support and lobbying for the 1986 tax reform proved critical in getting the bill through Congress.10 President Trump's focus and energy will have to be on par with that of Reagan's if he plans to accomplish the same. A headwind for Trump is the lack of legislative experience in his White House (Chart 11). However, since the appointment of Chief of Staff General John F. Kelly, there has been a clear shift of focus on the legislative process. Chart 11Trump Administration Is On The Low End Of Congressional Experience Bottom Line: We expect investors to start gleaning the outlines of tax policy by late September, with the budget resolution containing reconciliation instructions being passed by both houses of Congress by the end of November. It may be too much to ask Congress to have an actual bill ready to pass by the end of the year, as we originally expected,11 particularly as there is now a potential immigration deal to negotiate with Democrats and last-minute effort to repeal and replace Obamacare. As such, we still think that it will take until the end of Q1 2018 for tax legislation to pass Congress (Q2 in the worst-case scenario for Republicans). Investors, however, will begin to price in a higher probability of tax policy as soon as the outline of the bill emerges in October. As such, we are reiterating our recommendation that investors go long U.S. small caps relative to large caps. Tax policy should overwhelmingly benefit small caps, which actually pay the 35% corporate tax rate. In addition, we would expect the USD to arrest its decline and rally by the end of the year. North Korea: At The Apogee Of "The Arc Of Diplomacy" To illustrate the current North Korean predicament to readers, we have referred to an "arc of diplomacy" (Chart 12), which we illustrate by referencing the rise and fall of U.S. tensions with Iran from 2010-15. The pattern is for the U.S. to increase tensions deliberately in order to convince its enemy that the military option is "on the table." Only once a "credible threat" of war has been established can the negotiations begin in earnest. Chart 12A Lesson From Iran: Tensions Ramp Up As Nuclear Negotiations Begin We are at or near the peak of this process. First: what is the worst-case scenario for markets if the North causes a crisis short of a devastating war? Using our short list of geopolitical crises (Table 3),12 our colleague Anastasios Avgeriou, chief strategist of BCA's U.S. Equity Strategy, notes that while the average peak-to-trough drop of a major crisis is 9%, equity returns also tend to rise 5% within six months and 8% within twelve months after the crisis. To illustrate the trend, Anastasios has constructed an S&P 500 profile of the average geopolitical crisis, and the picture is encouraging (Chart 13). It shows that the market is likely to grind higher even if North Korea does something truly out of the box. Table 3Geopolitical Crises And SPX Returns Nor is a geopolitical incident (again, short of total war) likely to cause a U.S. or global recession. Aside from direct shocks to oil, such as in 1973 and 1990, only the U.S. Civil War (that is, a war waged on U.S. turf) caused a recession at the outset. Other major wars (WWI, WWII, the Korean War) caused recessions when they concluded because of the sharp drop in federal spending as a result of reduced military spending. What makes us think we are at or near the peak of North Korea's belligerent threats? China appears to be enforcing sanctions: at least according to China's official statistics (Chart 14). There is no doubt there are discrepancies and black market activity, but it makes sense for China to dial up the pressure (while never imposing crippling sanctions) and that appears to be occurring. China and Russia agreed to reduce fuel supplies. Both sides agreed to new UN sanctions on September 11 that would partially cut off North Korean fuel. This is a significant step, given that Chart 14 indicates China is already moving in this direction. The U.S. and North Korea have begun diplomatic talks. According to Japan's NHK press on September 14, former U.S. diplomat Evans Revere met with Choe Kang-Il, the deputy director general of the North American bureau of North Korea's foreign ministry in Switzerland over the past week. The U.S. State Department spokeswoman Heather Nauert all but confirmed that some kind of communication is underway, and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson has described his diplomatic initiative as highly active. The last efforts at negotiations, via the longstanding New York channel, were discontinued in June after the death of a U.S. prisoner in North Korea. Those were focused on retrieving U.S. citizens, whereas the new talks allegedly centered on the latest UN sanctions, i.e. a crux of the relationship. The implication is that North Korea is responding to pressure now that its critical fuel supplies are at risk. South Korea is offering aid. South Korea's new government is looking to give the North humanitarian aid, as expected, and will decide on September 21 about a special package for pregnant women and infants. It is suggesting that such aid has no conditionality on the North's behavior. At the same time, the U.S. administration is talking down Trump's recent threat to discontinue the U.S.-South Korean free trade agreement - meaning that the U.S. may even condone the South Korean administration's more diplomatic approach to the North. Chart 13Who Is Afraid Of Geopolitical Crises? Chart 14Is China Finally Playing Ball? At the same time, North Korea is running out of options for provocations that it can commit without provoking a costly response from the U.S. and its allies. The September 15 missile test over Japan was essentially the fourth of its kind, and the market shrugged it off. Here are some options, drawn from our list of scenarios and probabilities (Table 4): Table 4North Korean Scenarios Over The Next Year More of the same: Nuclear and missile tests could continue, or be conducted at higher frequencies or simultaneously. While technical advances may become apparent, they will not change the game. U.S. Territory: The North could create a bigger risk-off move than we saw in July-August if it shot ICBMs toward Guam, or other U.S. territories, as it has suggested it might do. This is especially risky because the U.S. Secretary of Defense James Mattis has repeated Trump's warning to North Korea to not even threaten the United States. However, as long as no such missile actually strikes U.S. territory, the U.S. is unlikely to respond with an attack, and thus such a scare seems likely to fade like the others. Attacking South Koreans: The North has a history of state-backed terrorist actions and military actions. An attack limited to South Korea will cause a shock, in the current context, but the military consequences are still likely to be contained given the extensive history of such attacks. If it is an attack against South Korean civilians in a non-disputed territory, it will leave a bigger mark than it otherwise would, but the South is still likely either to retaliate in strict proportionality, or to refrain from action and use the event as a way of galvanizing international sanctions. Attacking Americans or U.S. allies: The true danger in the current climate is an attack that kills U.S. citizens, or U.S. allies who are not as, shall we say, understanding as the South Koreans (such as the Japanese). This could cause the U.S. or Japan or another ally to take a retaliatory action. Even if limited, this could cause a deep correction in the market. The U.S. response would likely still be limited and proportional. Then the question would be whether the North Koreans can afford to escalate. They can't. The military asymmetry is excessive. This is not the case of the Japanese in 1941, who believed they had the potential of defeating the U.S. if they acted quickly enough and the U.S. was distracted in Europe (Diagram 1). Diagram 1North Korea Crisis: A Decision Tree As the foregoing demonstrates, there could still be big ups and downs between now and the resumption of formal international negotiations, let alone a satisfactory diplomatic accord. The tensions could yet reach another peak. Nevertheless, our sense is that the pieces are falling into place for the North to moderate its behavior, sending the signal that it is ready to engage in real negotiations. Since the U.S. has consistently shown its readiness to talk directly with the North - coming from both Trump and Tillerson - we think we could see shuttle diplomacy taking place as early as this winter. Here are some dates and events to watch: Military exercises: Will the U.S., South Korea, and Japan stop or slow down the pace of military exercises? This could open space for North Korea to offer an olive branch in return. October 10 - anniversary of the Worker's Party of Korea: The North may take an extraordinary action, no action, or familiar actions like missile tests. October 11-25 - China's party congress: The North could fall silent ahead of the big event, or could attempt to disrupt it. China, in turn, could take action around this time (particularly afterwards) to send a signal to the North to tone down the belligerence. In previous periods of tension, China has reputedly drawn a harder line on North Korea in the month of December, when end-of-year quotas made certain trade measures more convenient. Late October - Japanese snap election? Rumor has it that Shinzo Abe is thinking of calling a snap election as early as this month. We normally dismiss such rumors but this time there is a certain logic: two North Korean missiles have flown over Hokkaido in as many months, while the Japanese opposition is in total disarray. If Abe calls early polls, it suggests that he thinks Korean fears are peaking. If he delays, and exploits these fears by pushing constitutional revisions through the Diet (our base case), then he may provoke a North Korean response, given that the revisions pave the way for Japan to "re-militarize." November 1 - APEC and Trump's visit to China: Trump is supposed to head to Vietnam for the APEC summit and to China to visit President Xi Jinping. Xi has recently shown his sensitivity to such summits by concluding the Doklam dispute with India just days ahead of the BRICS summit in Xiamen, China in order to ensure that Indian President Narendra Modi would attend. Xi may have also wanted to advertise his ability to negotiate solutions to international showdowns for the world (and U.S.) to see. Thus, progress on North Korea before or after Trump's arrival could improve Xi's authority both with Trump and the rest of the world. November 23 - U.S. Thanksgiving: North Korea likes to be "cute," so we cannot rule out attempts to unsettle the Americans on Thanksgiving or Christmas Day, as with the July 4 ICBM launch. Trump's visit is very consequential and it is more likely under the circumstances that China will receive him warmly, like Nixon, rather than coldly, like Obama last year. Trump is holding serious trade negotiations (via Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross) and at the same time threatening to sanction Chinese companies and imports (via Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin). There are many reasons for Beijing to cooperate on North Korea in order to get advantageous treatment on the economic front. Bottom Line: The market is already discounting North Korea. We may be wrong temporarily if the North ups the ante yet again, but we are very near the peak of the latest round of tensions. The North is running out of options short of instigating a fight it would lose, while China is enforcing sanctions more seriously (including fuel), and Washington has apparently opened direct talks with Pyongyang. We will maintain our portfolio hedge of Swiss bonds and gold, for now. We are also re-opening our long CBOE China ETF volatility index to account for potential rising political uncertainty surrounding the coming October Party Congress and possibly for further North Korea related risks. However, we are closing our short KRW / THB trade for a gain of 5.33%. Europe: More Red Herrings Brexit is no longer market-relevant. Its economic effect was fully priced in when Prime Minister Theresa May announced on January 17 that the U.K. would not seek membership in the Common Market. Since then, the pound has effectively bottomed against both the dollar and the euro, as we argued it would (Chart 15).13 This does not mean that investors should necessarily go long the pound. Rather, we are pointing out that the moves in the U.K. currency have ceased to be Brexit-related since we called its bottom in January. Going forward, investors should make bets on the pound based on macroeconomic fundamentals, not on the U.K.-EU negotiations. The one political risk to the pound going forward is the potential for the Labour Party, headed by opposition leader Jeremy Corbyn, to come to power in the U.K. in the near term. Corbyn is the most left-of-center leader of a developed world economy since French president François Mitterrand in 1981. And he symbolizes a leftward shift on economic policy by the median voter. Nevertheless, the risks to PM May are overstated, for now. A key test for the Prime Minister, the EU (Withdrawal) Bill, passed its first parliamentary hurdle in Westminster on September 12. No Conservatives rebelled, with seven Labour politicians defying Corbyn's instructions to vote against the bill. The bill still faces several days of amendments, but it largely gives May a free hand to negotiate with Europe going forward. Bremain-leaning Tory backbenchers could have posed problems for May had they decided to obstruct the bill. That they did not tells us that nobody wants to challenge May and that she will likely remain the prime minister until the eventual deal with the EU is reached. Our clients often balk at our dismissal of Brexit as an investment-relevant geopolitical event. However, the crucial question post-Brexit was whether any other EU member states would follow the U.K. out of the bloc. We answered this question in the negative, with high conviction, the day of the U.K. referendum.14 Not only did no country follow U.K.'s lead, but the effect of Brexit was in fact the exact opposite of the conventional wisdom, with a slew of defeats for populists around Europe following the referendum. For the U.K. economy and assets, the key two Brexit-related questions were whether the economy's service sector would have unfettered access to the European market via membership in the Common Market (Chart 16); and whether the labor market would have access to the European labor pool (Chart 17). Both questions were answered by May during her January 17 speech in the negative, which is why we continue to cite that moment as the date when U.K. assets fully priced in Brexit. Chart 15Is Brexit##br## Still Relevant? Chart 16U.K. Needs A Free Services Agreement##br## With The EU, Not An FTA! Chart 17Intra-EU Migration Boosts ##br##Labor Force Growth What could change our forecast? We would need to see the negotiations with Europe become a lot more acrimonious. Disputes over the amount of the "exit bill" or the status of the Irish border simply do not count as acrimony. We need to see the threat of a "Brexit cliff" - where the EU-U.K. trade relationship reverts to "WTO rules" - emerge due to a conflict between the two powers. However, this is unlikely to happen as the EU greatly values its trade relationship with the U.K. And London's demand for an FTA actually plays to the EU's strengths, since FTAs normally privilege trade in goods (where Europe is competitive) relative to trade in services (where the U.K. has an advantage). Bear in mind, as well, that the U.K. and EU are negotiating an FTA from a starting point of a high degree of economic integration: this is not the equivalent of two separate economies pursuing an FTA for the first time. Similarly overstated as a risk is the upcoming Catalan independence referendum. As we argued this February, the referendum is a non-event.15 Catalans do not want independence, but rather a renegotiation of the region's relationship with Spain (Chart 18). And as we argued in our net assessment of the issue in 2014, a surge in internal migration since the Second World War has diluted the Catalan share of the total population.16 In fact, only 31% of the population identifies Catalan as their "first language," compared with 55% who identify with Spanish.17 Another 10% identify non-Iberian languages as their first language, suggesting that migrants will further dilute support for sovereignty, as they have done in other places (most recently: Quebec). Chart 18Catalans Do Not Want Independence We expect the turnout of the upcoming referendum to be low. Given that Madrid will not recognize it, the only way for the Catalan referendum to be relevant is if the nationalist government is willing to enforce sovereignty. What does that mean precisely? The globally recognized definition of sovereignty is the "monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a defined territory." To put it bluntly: the Catalan government has to be willing to take up arms in order for its referendum to be relevant to the markets. Without recognition from Spain, and with no support for independence from fellow EU and NATO peers, Catalonia cannot win independence at the ballot box. Bottom Line: Fade Brexit and Catalonia risks. Iraq: An Emergent Risk In 2014, we wrote the following about the future of Iraq:18 "Furthermore, the recent Kurdish occupation of Kirkuk - nominally to secure it from ISIS, in reality to (re)claim it for the Kurdish Regional Government (KRG) - will not be acceptable to Baghdad. In our conversations with clients, too much optimism exists over the stability of Kurdistan and its expected oil output. While we are broadly positive on the KRG, there are many challenges. First, three-quarters of Iraqi production is, in fact, located in the Southern part of the country, far from Iraqi Kurdistan. Second, Kirkuk and its associated geography has the potential to boost production, but the Kurds (and their ally Turkey) will eventually have to face-off against Baghdad (and its ally Iran) for control over this territory. Just because the KRG secured Kirkuk today does not mean that it will stay in their control in the future. We are fairly certain that once ISIS is defeated, Baghdad will ask for Kirkuk back." In 2016, we followed up again on the situation in Iraq by pointing out that a series of defeats for the Islamic State were raising the probability that a reckoning was coming between Baghdad and Iraqi Kurds.19 Now that the Islamic State threat is in the rear-view mirror, our forecast is coming to fruition. On September 25, Kurds in Iraq will hold an independence referendum. Opposition to the referendum is uniform across the region, with the U.S. - Kurds' strongest ally - requesting that it not take place. Why should investors care? First, there is the issue of oil production. There are no reliable figures regarding KRG production, but it is thought to be around 550,000 bpd, although KRG officials have themselves downplayed their production. This figure includes production from the Kurdish-controlled Bai Hassan and Avana fields in the Kirkuk province, which is not formally part of the KRG territory but which Kurds nominally control due to their 2014 anti-ISIS intervention. A conflict over Kurdish independence could impact this production, particularly if war breaks out over Kirkuk. However, the bigger risk to global oil supply is what it would do to future efforts to boost Iraqi production. Iraq is the last major oil play on the planet that can cheaply and easily, with 1920s technologies, access significant new production. If a major war breaks out in the country, it is difficult to see how Iraq would sustain the necessary FDI inflows to develop its fields to boost production, even if the majority of production is far from the Kurdish region. Given steady global oil demand, the world is counting on Iraq to fill the gap with cheap oil. If it cannot, higher oil prices will have to incentivize tight-oil and off-shore production. Second, there are problematic regional dynamics. There are about six million Kurds in Iraq, about 20% of the total population. The Kurdish Regional Government controls the northeast corner of Iraq, but fighting against the Islamic State has allowed the Kurds to extend their control further south and almost double their territory (Map 1). Turkey has largely supported the KRG over the years, as the ruling party in the autonomous province is relatively hostile to the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK), which Turkey considers a terrorist organization. However, Turkey is opposed to the independence of the KRG due to fears that it would start the ball rolling on the independence of Kurds in Syria and potentially one day in Turkey as well. Also opposed to KRG secession are Iran (Baghdad's closest ally) and Syria (which is dealing with its own Kurdish question). Map 1Kurdish Gains Threaten Conflicts With Iraqi Government ... And Turkey On the other hand, the KRG does have international support. Russia just recently concluded a major oil deal with KRG, promising to buy Kurdish oil and refine it in Germany. Moscow will also invest US $3 billion in KRG territory. Russia also supplied the KRG Peshmerga - armed forces - with weapons during their fight against the Islamic State. From Russia's perspective, any conflict in the Middle East is a boon. It stalls investment in the region, curbs its oil production, and potentially adds a risk premium to oil prices. In addition, a close alliance with the KRG would allow Russia to gain another ally in the region. Bottom Line: While it is difficult to see how the independence referendum will play out in the short term, we have had a high-conviction view that Iraq's stability will not improve with the fall of the Islamic State. For investors, rising tensions in Iraq are significant because they could curb investment in the long term and potentially even impact production in the short term. Unlike the Islamic State, which never threatened oil production in the Middle East in any significant way, Iraq and the KRG are both oil producers. In fact, their main conflict is over an oil-producing region centered on Kirkuk. Tensions in the region support BCA Commodity & Energy Strategy's bullish view on oil prices.20 Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken, Associate Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Robert Robis, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Buy In May And Enjoy Your Day!" dated April 26, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "North Korea: Beyond Satire," dated April 19, 2017; "North Korea: No Longer A Red Herring" in BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Donald Trump Is Who We Thought He Was," dated March 8, 2017; and "North Korea: A Red Herring No More?" in BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "Partem Mirabilis," dated April 13, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Can Pyongyang Derail The Bull Market?" dated August 16, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "Have Bond Yields Peaked For The Cycle? No," dated September 12, 2017, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 5 BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy 10-year Treasury yield model only uses the global manufacturing PMI and sentiment towards the U.S. dollar as inputs. 6 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "The Global Duration 'Hot Potato' Shifts Back To The U.S.," dated August 8, 2017, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 7 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Is The 'Trump Put' Over?" dated August 23, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 8 We use the Cook Political Report for their assessment of how U.S. electoral districts lean. Charlie Cook is Washington's foremost election handicapper with a long record of accomplishment. Anyone interested in closely following the U.S. midterm elections should consider his research, which is found on http://www.cookpolitical.com/ 9 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Reconciliation And The Markets - Warning: This Report May Put You To Sleep," dated May 31, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 10 Please see Joseph A. Pechman, "Tax Reform: Theory and Practice," The Journal of Economic Perspectives 1:1 (1987), pp. 11-28 (15). 11 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Constraints And Preferences Of The Trump Presidency," dated November 30, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 12 Please see footnote 3 above. 13 The GBP/USD bottomed then and there. The GBP/EUR has recently hit a new low, for reasons other than Brexit. This bottom is only slightly below its previous lows in October 2016, when May confirmed that her government would seek to leave the EU in accordance with the referendum result, and in January 2017, when May admitted what the GBP/EUR had already reflected, that this meant leaving the Common Market. Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "The 'What Can You Do For Me' World," dated January 25, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 14 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "After BREXIT, N-EXIT?" dated July 13, 2016, and Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "The Coming EXITentialist Crisis," dated June 24, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 15 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "Climbing The Wall Of Worry In Europe," dated February 15, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 16 Please see Geopolitical Strategy and European Investment Strategy Special Report, "Secession In Europe: Scotland And Catalonia," dated May 2014, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 17 Please see "Language Use of the Population of Catalonia," Generalitat de Catalunya Institut d'Estadustuca de Catalunya, dated 2013, available at web.gencat.cat 18 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Middle East: Paradigm Shift (Update)," dated July 9, 2014, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 19 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Scared Yet? Five Black Swans For 2016," dated February 10, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 20 Please see BCA Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, "Hurricane Recovery Obscures OPEC 2.0's Forward Guidance," dated September 14, 2017, available at ces.bcaresearch.com.

Highlights EM EPS growth is set to decelerate significantly and will likely turn negative in 2018 based on the China/EM money/credit indicators. All measures of Chinese broad money growth have fallen to a record low signifying a major growth slump. The two pillars of the EM currency rally - strong growth in China that manifests in higher commodities prices and lower U.S. bond yields- are set to reverse. EM equities and credit markets relative performance versus their DM peers is about to relapse. A new fixed-income trade: receive 2-year swap rates in Mexico / pay 2-year swap rates in the U.S. Feature Last week we were on the road, meeting with some of our U.S. East Coast clients. This week we address some of the common questions we received. Q: Why do you think EM profits will relapse in the next six-to-nine months, given both global and EM growth continue to show strength? A: Our reluctance to change our view on EM risk assets in general and equities in particular has to do with EM/China business cycle/corporate profit indicators. Several indicators for EM profits - which have exhibited very good track records - presently forecast a material slowdown and possibly a contraction in EM EPS starting late this year and well into next year. In particular, China's broad and narrow money impulses lead EM EPS by about nine months, and are currently signaling that EPS growth is set to peak and begin to decline in the next nine months (Chart I-1). What's more, a few business cycle indicators from Korea and Taiwan, such as nominal manufacturing production and manufacturing shipments-to-inventory ratios, corroborate a peak in EM EPS growth (Chart I-2). Chart I-1EM EPS Is Set to Decelerate ##br##And Probably Contract Chart I-2More Signs Of Relapse##br## In EM EPS Growth Importantly, the EM corporate earnings slowdown will not occur in a vacuum. It will transpire amid a slowdown in Asian trade and lower commodities prices. In particular: China's broad money M3 impulse leads domestic industrial orders, nominal manufacturing production and imports (Chart I-3). Even though Asian export data were strong in August, China's container freight index signals a slowdown in Asian trade lies ahead (Chart I-4). Chart I-3China: M3 Impulse And Domestic Demand Chart I-4Asian Export Growth To Slow The Chinese broad money impulse also points to a rollover in Korean, Taiwanese, other EM as well as DM countries' shipments to the mainland (Chart I-5). This is how the slowdown in China's money/credit will hurt corporate profits in EM as well as in DM sectors with substantial exposure to Chinese growth. Besides, China's broad money impulse leads industrial metals prices in general and iron ore prices in particular (Chart I-6). This signifies downside risks to commodities producers. Finally, China's yield curve suggests that mainland manufacturing PMI will roll over after its recent ascent (Chart I-7). Chart I-5Shipments To China Are At Risk Chart I-6Industrial Metals Prices Have Peaked Chart I-7China: The Yield Curve And Manufacturing PMI In short, China has been gradually tightening monetary policy, which has already manifested in record-low broad money growth. The next phase is evidence of a material deterioration in sales and profits among China-exposed plays. The EM stock markets are unlikely to ignore it. Q: It seems you are putting a lot of emphasis on China's broad money M3 measure. Why do you look at your version of Chinese broad money M3 and not at official M2 and total social financing (TSF)? A: Over the past several months we have done a lot of research and analysis on China's money and credit, and believe that our broad money M3 measure and private and public credit aggregate calculated by BIS are presently better measures of money and credit than official broad money M2 and TSF: First, the TSF data have become distorted because of the local government financing vehicles (LGFV) debt swap program. Specifically, according to the LGFV debt swap mechanics, starting in 2015 provincial governments began issuing bonds that have been purchased by banks. The amount of bonds issued was RMB 3.2 trillion in 2015, RMB 4.9 trillion in 2016 and expected to be RMB 4.8 trillion in 2017. This amounts to total issuance of RMB 12.9 trillion since the commencement of the program. As the next step, local governments were supposed to transfer the proceeds from these bond issuances to their LGFVs, with the latter using the money to pay down their debt. The ultimate goal of the program is to shift the debt from LGFVs to provincial governments, as the latter's creditworthiness is much better than the former. This has also reduced interest rates on the debt as provincial governments borrow at lower interest rates than LGFVs. All that said, it is unclear how much of their debt LGFVs have repaid. The main problem with using TSF data is knowing the amount of proceeds from the issued debt swap bonds that were used to pay down LGFV debt. If the entire amount of these bonds issued by provincial governments was used to pay down LGFV debt, there would not be an impact on economic activity, and only a very short-term impact on money supply. When banks buy bonds from non-banks (including governments), they create new money. When debtors (including governments and their entities) pay down debt to banks, money is destroyed. Nevertheless, both official M1 growth and our measure of broad money (M3) were too strong in 2015 and 2016 – i.e., they remained strong much longer than would have been justified by the LGFV debt swap. Furthermore, private and public credit, M2 and M3 money measures have decoupled from TSF since the middle of 2015 (Chart I-8A). TSF adjusted for the LGFV debt swap – the latter is added to TSF – has also diverged from official M2, our broad money M3 and BIS’s private and public credit measures (Chart I-8B). This corroborates that TSF data can no longer serve as a reliable measure of credit/money origination. Chart I-8AChina: TSF Has Diverged From ##br##Other Money/Credit Measures Chart I-8BChina: TSF Adjusted For LGFV Debt Swap Has Also Decoupled From Money/Credit Measures Markedly, paying down debt by LGFVs should have reduced corporate debt outstanding by RMB 12.9 trillion, which would represent a 12% drop from the RMB 112 trillion outstanding at the end of 2015. However, corporate debt has continued to expand rapidly, even as government debt has surged. Given all of the above, we doubt all of the proceeds from bonds issued within the LGFV debt swap program were immediately used to repay LGFV debt. Instead, we suspect the proceeds from the bond issuance might have been at least partially invested into the economy in 2016, in defiance of the rules of LGFV debt swap operation. We played down the rise in M1 in late 2015 and early 2016 because we regarded it as temporary, reflecting the LGFV debt swap program. In retrospect, it was a mistake - this was one of the main reasons we did not heed the message from recovering money growth in early 2016 to turn cyclically positive on China's growth, and consequently on commodities and broader EM. Provided we do not know what portion of LGFV debt was repaid and when, corporate credit and total social financing data have become difficult to interpret. Chart I-8A and Chart I-8B demonstrate that TSF with and without the LGFV debt swap has diverged from private and public debt since the middle of 2015 when the LGFV debt swap program commenced. Apparently, one no longer can rely on TSF or adjust it by the amount of LGFV debt swap to gauge money and credit creation in China. In this context, the aggregate of private and public credit is a much more appropriate measure of credit provision and debt creation than TSF. The basis is because it includes both private and public debt. Indeed, the reshuffling of debt between local governments and LGFVs (the latter are treated as enterprises in China's banking statistics), does not affect either aggregate borrowing or amount of debt held in the economy. Second, when credit numbers are distorted, one needs to resort to money supply measures to judge credit dynamics. The reason is because financial engineering and, in the case of China, the LGFV debt swap program, can obscure the amount of outstanding credit, but they cannot conceal the amount of money banks create when they lend or purchase bonds or any other asset. Money is created when a bank originates claims on non-banks, and money is destroyed when a debt is paid back to the bank. Accordingly, money traces debt creation by banks. Banks can disguise their assets, and corporations and governments can conceal their liabilities, but none of them can camouflage the amount of money in circulation. In short, we trace money to gauge the amount of private and public sector borrowing from banks. This is why we have calculated various measures of money in China to overcome the shortcomings of the TSF. Specifically, we have calculated broad money M3 (see details of our calculation below) and credit-money. The latter is the sum of commercial banks' assets such as claims on non-financial institutions, claims on other financial institutions, claims on government and claim on other resident sectors and commerical banks' as well as the central bank's foreign currency assets. Chart I-9 demonstrates various measures of broad money and outstanding credit: official M2, our measure of broad money M3, our credit-money measure, and private and public debt (source BIS). Importantly, all measures of money and private and public credit suggest that credit origination/money creation was very strong in 2015 and 2016, and that it has slowed substantially in 2017. In brief, the message from various measures of money/credit is consistent. Chart I-9China: Money/Credit Growth Has Decelerated To New Lows Interestingly, broad money M3 rose by RMB 21 trillion in 2015, RMB 20 trillion in 2016 and by only RMB 16.5 trillion in the past 12 months through end of August. This is why the M3 impulse - a change in money flows - has turned negative since early this year. Third, we prefer our broad money measure M3 to official M2 because it is more consistent with the BIS's measure of private and public credit. It has also served as a better tool in forecasting the 2016-2017 recovery in Chinese growth. As can be seen in Chart 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6 on previous pages, the M3 impulse - its second derivative - has a great track record in forecasting China's business cycle dynamics. The acceleration in M2 growth in 2015-16 was milder than one would expect in order to achieve meaningful acceleration in nominal economic activity. M2 growth was more subdued than a rise in both private and public debt (Chart I-9). We suspect that M2 is no longer an encompassing measure of broad money in China, and therefore we have calculated other measures of broad money to gauge true money/credit creation. Chart I-10China: Consumer Price Inflation Is Rising Broad money consists of various liabilities of commercial banks. While the official M2 includes many of their liabilities such as corporate demand deposits, corporate time deposits and personal deposits. It does not include some others. We have added the following commercial banks' liabilities - transferable deposits and other deposits which are not included in M2, liabilities to other financial corporations and other liabilities - to M2 to produce a more all-inclusive measure of broad money M3. Q: Why can't the Chinese authorities stimulate and revive growth again, like they have done many times in the past? A: Of course, they can. However, if the authorities begin easing monetary/credit and fiscal policies now, it will affect growth six to nine months down the road. Based on money and credit indicators shown in the charts above, growth is set to slow over the next nine months because of the time lag that money/credit has on the economy. In the next six to nine months, economic activity and corporate profits are likely to decelerate considerably, based on the monetary/credit tightening that has already occurred in China. Provided China-related financial markets in general and EM risk assets in particular have so far not discounted the slowdown suggested by China's money/credit indicators, they are very vulnerable. Finally, the magnitude of the impending growth slump is likely to be large, as evidenced by the substantial decline in these money and credit indicators that has already occurred. In brief, policymakers have been tightening credit/money creation, and it has not yet impacted financial markets. Furthermore, inflation is rising in China (Chart I-10) and policymakers are unlikely to start easing before they witness a major growth slump. Until the latter becomes visible in economic data and on the ground, financial markets leveraged to mainland growth will sell off notably. Q: There is no indication that the Federal Reserve will turn hawkish. This will be especially true if global growth slows - as you argue it will because of China. Why do you expect the EM currency rally to peter out amid a dovish Fed? Historical empirical evidence suggests that EM currencies are often driven by commodities prices, not the interest rate differential over U.S. rates. Let's take the BRL and the ZAR as examples. Charts I-11A and Chart I-11B illustrate that the BRL and ZAR exchange rates versus the U.S. dollar have historically been closely correlated with commodities prices, not the level of or change in their interest rate differential over the U.S. Chart I-11ABrazil: What Drives The Currency? Chart I-11BSouth Africa: What Drives The Currency? This has also been true over the past 18 months. The rally in EM currencies since early 2016 can be largely attributed to the rise in commodities prices. As and when commodities prices roll over - as we expect to occur - the trade balances of commodities-producing nations will deteriorate, as will their currencies. Remarkably, there are tentative signs that the drop in U.S. bond yields and the greenback's depreciation are late and overdone. Two-year U.S. bond yields have bounced from their 200-day moving average (please refer to the middle panel of Chart II-1 in the Mexican section). Typically, such a technical profile leads to new highs. Our sense is that U.S. bond yields will rebound in the coming months, which will also weigh on EM currencies. Importantly, one of the drivers behind the U.S. dollar selloff since early this year has been the rise in banks' excess reserves at the Fed (Chart I-12). The latter was due to the debt ceiling, as the U.S. Treasury was running down its account at the Fed by issuing less paper. In short, since the beginning of this year the U.S. Treasury did not issue bonds/bills and deposit them at its Treasury General Account (TGA) at the Fed - meaning it was not destroying banking system reserves as it typically does. This boosted the supply of U.S. dollars - banks' excess reserves at the Fed rose by US$ 300 billion. More dollar supply depressed both the exchange rate and U.S. interest rates. Chart I-12 demonstrates that in the post-QE era, banks' excess reserves at the Fed have correlated with the U.S. dollar's exchange rate. The debt ceiling has been resolved for now, and the Treasury will now begin accumulating dollars in its TGA account again. It has already announced that its TGA will rise from $73 billion now to $400 billion at the end of this year. The Treasury will issue more paper, and deposit U.S. dollars in the TGA. This will shrink banks' excesses reserves. This, in tandem with the reduction in the Fed's balance sheet, will diminish banks' excess reserves. The latter will reduce U.S. dollar supply in off-shore markets and will likely trigger a U.S. dollar rebound. On the whole, the two pillars of the EM currency rally - strong growth in China that manifests in higher commodities prices and lower U.S. bond yields - are set to reverse. In turn, a potential EM currency selloff along with deteriorating EM corporate profits will likely weigh on EM equities and EM sovereign and corporate debt. Q: Does this mean EM stocks will relapse in absolute terms, or simply underperform the DM equity markets? Our strongest conviction at the moment is on EM relative equity performance versus DM equity markets. Odds are that a relapse in relative performance is imminent as and if U.S. bond yields rise (Chart I-13). Chart I-12U.S. Banks' Excess Reserves ##br##And The U.S. Dollar Chart I-13U.S. Stocks Outperform EM Ones When ##br##U.S. Bond Yields Are Rising In addition, U.S. stocks' underperformance versus the global equity index in common currency terms is at a technical support (Chart I-14, top panel), and will likely reverse as the dollar firms up. Historically, when U.S. stocks outperform the global benchmark in common currency terms - denoted by shaded periods in Chart I-14, EM stocks typically underperform the global equity index. The dynamics of EM equity absolute performance depends on investor's risk appetite. It will be hard for EM share prices to drop meaningfully as the DM rally persists. Global stocks are still trading well, and it is very difficult to pinpoint any trigger that will lead to a reversal. As our readers well know, we do not forecast triggers for the simple reason that the chances of getting it right are much lower than a coin toss. That said, in the medium term, the reason for a correction in DM stocks could well be EM/China growth, as it was in 2015. In such a scenario, EM risk assets will sell off first. As to timing, it is hard to find indicators that lead share prices, but aggregate EM narrow (M1) money growth has historically been coincident or leading with EM share prices - and it presently points to a considerable drop in EM equity prices (Chart I-15). This EM M1 aggregate is equity market-cap weighted making it relevant to investors. Chart I-14EM And U.S. Equites Typically Do Not Outperform Global Stocks Simultaneously Chart I-15EM M1 Growth And EM Share Prices Arthur Budaghyan, Senior Vice President Emerging Markets Strategy arthurb@bcaresearch.com A New Trade: Receive Mexican / Pay U.S. 2-Year Swap Rates Mexico's 2-year bond yield has recently fallen through a technical support line while the U.S. 2-year bond yield has recently bounced off a major support level (Chart II-1). Our bias is that the 2-year yield in Mexico will fall relative to 2-year U.S. yield (Chart II-1, bottom panel). We recommend a new trade: receive 2-year swap rates in Mexico and pay U.S. 2-year swap rates. Historically, the domestic demand cycle in Mexico was synchronized with the business cycle in the U.S., mainly due to the fact these two economies are heavily integrated. However, the two economies have recently become desynchronized. This is evident by the fact that the Mexican export sector - which is leveraged to U.S. - is booming while the domestic demand in Mexico is slowing down (Chart II-2). Chart II-12-Year Bond Yields: Mexico And U.S. Chart II-2Divergence Within Mexican Economy The culprit behind this desynchronization is the previous collapse in the peso. Falling oil prices and excessive money/credit expansion in Mexico led to a major peso depreciation in 2014 and 2015. The election of Trump pushed it off the cliff in 2016. Inflation in Mexico spiked due to the massive currency depreciation. Consequently, the Mexican central bank has hiked interest rates by 400 basis points since the end of 2015. This, along with fiscal tightening, has choked domestic demand growth in Mexico. At this point, our bias is that the short-term interest rate differential between Mexico and the U.S. is unjustifiably wide and is about to narrow. Going forward, we expect inflation to fall in Mexico and interest rate expectations will at minimum not rise. Inflation in Mexico will roll over soon and moderate because of the following: A large part of the rise in inflation was caused by the depreciation in the peso. The peso's material appreciation this year will reduce the inflation rate (Chart II-3). Consumer spending and capital expenditure are set to continue slumping as the impact of higher interest rates continues filtering through the economy (Chart II-4, top and bottom panel). Chart II-3Mexico: Exchange Rate And Core Inflation Chart II-4Mexico: Domestic Demand To Disappoint Further Domestic vehicle sales are shrinking signifying no revival in interest rate-dependent sectors. Fiscal policy has been tightening and this will continue to be a headwind on economic growth (Chart II-5). Hence, despite flourishing exports to the U.S., very weak domestic demand will dampen inflation in Mexico. Finally, there were several one-off effects to inflation such as the gasoline subsidy removal that took place at the end of last year, and the minimum wage hike that was implemented at the beginning of the year. As the base effect of these fade, the inflation rate will moderate. In the U.S., our bias is that interest rate expectations are too low given the tight labor market, reasonably strong growth, and the U.S. dollar depreciation this year. Odds are that the U.S. interest rate expectations will rise as core inflation moves up (Chart II-6). Chart II-5Mexico: A Major Improvement In Fiscal Position Chart II-6U.S. Core Inflation To Rise Investment Recommendations We recommend fixed-income traders to receive Mexican / pay U.S. 2-year swap rates. The main risk to this trade lies in the event of an abrupt sell-off in the peso against the U.S dollar that could push up the 2-year swap rate differential. While we expect EM currencies, including the peso, to depreciate, this trade is still favorable in terms of risk-reward because of the starting point in interest rate differential and peso valuations: Despite the rally this year, the peso is still cheap (Chart II-7). Furthermore, its current account and fiscal balances have improved dramatically. So, the peso should depreciate less than many other EM currencies. Chart II-7The MXN Is Still Cheap In fact, the interest rate spread between Mexico and the U.S. is already historically high, and the peso depreciation might not push it much higher. We would not be recommending this trade if the peso was fairly or overvalued, or if interest rates in Mexico were not this high. Entering this position under these current circumstances reduces the downside risk and, therefore, makes the risk-reward attractive. As to Mexican financial markets in general, we remain constructive on the peso versus other EM currencies. More specifically, we continue to recommend long positions in MXN versus ZAR and BRL. Mexican local currency bonds and sovereign credit offer good value relative to their EM counterparts. Fixed income investors should continue to overweight Mexican local currency and sovereign credit within their respective EM benchmarks. Finally, the outlook for Mexican stocks in absolute terms is poor as domestic demand will slump, further hampering corporate profits. Within an EM equity portfolio we recommend neutral allocation to this bourse mainly due to our expectations of the peso outperforming other EM currencies. Stephan Gabillard, Senior Analyst stephang@bcaresearch.com Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations

Highlights Duration: The bond market is quick to react to any signs that inflation might put in a bottom, but Treasuries are still not priced for a resumption of inflation's modest cyclical uptrend. Remain at below-benchmark duration and short the July 2018 fed funds futures contract. Fed Balance Sheet: The Fed will announce the run-off of its balance sheet at tomorrow's FOMC meeting. This decision has implications for Treasury issuance and how monetary policy will be conducted in the future, but we do not envision a large impact on yields. Investors should remain focussed on changes in the expected path of the fed funds rate to assess the outlook for Treasury yields. Feature Yields bounced back strongly last week, driven by a combination of easing flight-to-safety flows and a reasonably strong August CPI report. Even so, the bond market remains priced for an environment where inflation will never return to the Fed's 2% target, no matter the pace of economic growth. It should therefore not be shocking that yields are quick to spring higher on any evidence that core inflation might re-gain its cyclical uptrend (Chart 1). As we have previously written,1 we anticipate that core inflation will soon respond to above-trend growth and resume its modest cyclical uptrend. It is therefore worth considering whether last week's August CPI report represents a step in that direction or whether it should be written off as an outlier. After digging into the report's details we conclude that while it was probably stronger than we should expect going forward, it also suggests that core inflation is poised to put in a bottom. A Bottom In Core Inflation? Month-over-month core CPI increased 0.248% in August, an annualized pace of 3.02%, and the annualized 3-month rate of change rose back above the 12-month growth rate (Chart 2). This often signals a near-term trend reversal. Chart 1Very Sensitive To Inflation Chart 2Core Inflation By Major Component Shelter inflation jumped higher in August from 3.18% year-over-year to 3.30%. But our model suggests that this uptrend will not persist (Chart 2, panel 2). Notably, the increase in shelter inflation was concentrated in the Houston/Galveston/Brazoria area and as such reflects the one-off impact of Hurricane Harvey. The bottom line is that the positive August number should be considered an outlier. The underlying trend remains one of decelerating shelter inflation. Chart 3Ignore CPI Medical Care In contrast, year-over-year core goods prices decelerated in August, but this deceleration is equally unsustainable. The recent depreciation of the U.S. dollar and surge in non-oil import prices suggest that core goods inflation is poised to increase (Chart 2, panel 3). We expect accelerating core goods prices to offset decelerating shelter prices during the next few months. In the longer-run, neither shelter nor core goods will be sustainable drivers of inflation. Shelter has already rolled over, and core goods inflation will do the same once the dollar reverses its downtrend. For overall core inflation to sustainably return to the Fed's 2% target, core services inflation (excluding shelter and medical care) must be the main source of price pressure. Historically, this component of inflation is the most tightly linked to wage growth (Chart 2, bottom panel), and it has fallen precipitously so far this year. In August, however, year-over-year core services inflation (excluding shelter and medical care) ticked higher from 1.18% to 1.40%. While this is a positive sign, we will need to see further strength in this component to be certain that the downtrend in core inflation has turned. Some pundits have pointed to the steep decline in medical care CPI inflation as an additional deflationary force, but this is a red herring (Chart 3). In the CPI basket, medical care includes only consumers' out of pocket healthcare expenses. It does not include spending by the government on households' behalf, which is included in the Fed's target PCE inflation measure. Unlike CPI medical care, PCE medical care inflation has seen only a mild downturn and should move higher in August based on the most recent PPI numbers (Chart 3, panel 3). The bottom line is that the downtrend in CPI medical care inflation represents nothing more than a convergence between CPI and PCE inflation. Since the Fed targets PCE inflation, falling CPI medical care inflation can be safely ignored. The Fed's Reaction The Fed has already sent a strong signal that there will be no rate hike at this week's meeting, but that it will announce the run-off of its balance sheet (see next section). Our view has been that if inflation shows some signs of rebounding, the Fed will deliver another rate hike in December. The market appears to have taken a similar view and, on the strength of last week's CPI report, is now discounting a 51% chance of another rate hike this year. Last week's CPI report was probably strong enough to ensure that the median FOMC forecast will still call for one more hike this year when the revised forecasts are released tomorrow. However, we suspect that stronger inflation will need to persist for the next few months in order for that hike to be delivered on time. The reading from our Fed Monitor2 underscores how close a call another rate hike is at the moment (Chart 4). The monitor remains in "tighter money required" territory, but only faintly so. Notably, the economic growth and financial conditions components of the monitor both suggest that higher rates are required, but the inflation component remains below zero. This supports the notion that any sign of stronger inflation makes the case for further rate hikes a slam dunk. Chart 4A Close Call For The Fed Bottom Line: The bond market is quick to react to any signs that inflation might put in a bottom, but Treasuries are still not priced for a resumption of inflation's modest cyclical uptrend. Remain at below-benchmark duration and short the July 2018 fed funds futures contract. Five Questions About The Fed's Balance Sheet As was mentioned above, the Fed appears set to announce that it will cease the reinvestment of its bond holdings, meaning that its balance sheet will finally start to shrink. In all likelihood this announcement will come in tomorrow's FOMC statement. To recap, here is what we already know about how the plan will proceed: The Fed will cease the reinvestment of Treasuries and MBS at the same time. For the first three months the Fed will allow a maximum of $6 billion in Treasuries and $4 billion in MBS to run off each month. These caps will increase in steps of $6 billion and $4 billion, respectively, every three months until they level off at $30 billion per month for Treasuries and $20 billion per month for MBS. Question 1: How Long Will It Take? To answer this question we must first recall that the Fed does not target a specific level of assets on its balance sheet. Rather, it is the amount of bank reserves in the system (a liability on the Fed's balance sheet) that is the crucial variable for the economy. Bank reserves are the single biggest liability on the Fed's balance sheet, but the amount of currency in circulation is the second biggest. As of last Wednesday, bank reserves totaled $2.4 trillion and currency in circulation totaled $1.6 trillion. The amount of currency in circulation also increases as the economy grows. This means that during normal times the Fed must increase its asset holdings in line with the amount of outstanding currency just to keep the level of bank reserves constant. In other words, even if the Fed allows bank reserves to fall all the way to zero, it will still carry a larger balance sheet than it did prior to the start of QE because of the rising amount of currency in circulation. We have received no official guidance on the level of bank reserves the Fed will target for the end of the run-off process. However, New York Fed President William Dudley recently recommended that this level should be higher than during the pre-QE period. Together, as a rough starting point, we have suggested that the necessary amount of excess reserves could be in a range of $400 billion to $1 trillion. Coupled with uncertainty about the likely growth in other factors, such as currency outstanding, this implies a normalized balance sheet size of, perhaps, $2.4 trillion to $3.5 trillion in the early 2020s.3 In our estimates we have assumed that bank reserves will level-off once they reach $650 billion, considerably above levels maintained prior to the financial crisis. Bank reserves averaged $20 billion between 2000 and 2007. There are two main reasons why the Fed will favor a higher level of reserves. The first was also stated in President Dudley's speech: Having managed the System Open Market Account during the financial crisis - a period during which the demand for reserves was very volatile - I very much favor a floor-type system. It is much easier to manage on a day-to-day basis. A "floor system" means that the Fed controls the overnight rate by paying interest on excess reserves and conducting reverse repos with the securities on its balance sheet. This is the system currently in use, and it requires a glut of reserves in the banking system. Prior to the financial crisis, the Fed used a "corridor system" to control interest rates. This system required the Fed to transact in the interbank market to manage interest rates, and it required a dearth of reserves.4 The second reason is that the demand for safe short-maturity investment vehicles has been steadily increasing for at least the past fifteen years, largely due to rising cash balances on corporate balance sheets. Prior to the financial crisis this demand was intermediated through the repo market, but now that repo has mostly gone away, that cash is sitting on deposit at the Fed in the form of reserves (Chart 5). With all this demand, if the Fed tries to remove too many reserves from the banking system it could have difficulty keeping a floor under interest rates. That is, unless some other investment vehicle is supplied to mop up the rising demand for safety. In this regard, T-bills would be the most likely candidate, and fortunately, with T-bills at multi-decade lows as a percentage of the outstanding funding mix (Chart 6), there is ample room for the Treasury to increase bill supply. In short, the secular uptrend in demand for safe short-maturity financial assets means that going forward either: (i) the Fed will have to maintain a greater level of reserves in the banking system, (ii) the Treasury will have to increase the supply of T-bills, or (iii) some combination of the two. With all that in mind, let's answer the initial question of how long the Fed will allow its balance sheet to shrink. Our projections are shown in Chart 7, and make the following assumptions: Chart 5Rising Demand For Safe Short-Dated Assets Chart 6T-Bill Issuance Has Room To Rise Chart 7Fed Balance Sheet Projections Balance sheet run-off begins October 1, 2017 Bank reserves level-off at $650 billion. At that point, the Fed will continue to allow MBS to run off its balance sheet, but will start buying Treasuries to keep reserves stable. MBS will run off at a pace of $15 billion per month, before considering the caps.5 Currency in circulation will grow at a pace of 4.5% per year. Under these assumptions, we estimate that bank reserves will reach the target level of $650 billion in June 2021. At that point, the Fed's securities holdings will total $2.9 trillion - down from the current $4.3 trillion - and the Fed will have to start buying Treasuries to keep reserves stable and compensate for the continued run-off of MBS. Question 2: What Does This Mean For Bond Supply? To compensate for balance sheet run-off, The Treasury will have to increase issuance by $217 billion in 2018, $249 billion in 2019 and $182 billion in 2020 (Chart 8). Then, in 2021 and beyond, the Fed will once again start removing Treasury supply from the market as it stabilizes reserve balances. We estimate that an extra $150 billion of MBS supply will also hit the market in 2018, but we will save a discussion of the impact on MBS spreads for a future report. Chart 8Fed Starts Buying Again In 2021 The form in which this extra issuance will reach the marketplace is a question for the Treasury department. Officially, the Treasury has said: Treasury will likely respond to the additional borrowing needs associated with SOMA redemptions by increasing both Treasury bill and Treasury nominal coupon auction sizes, beginning with bills and then coupons, as appropriate.6 But the Treasury Borrowing Advisory Committee has recommended both that the Treasury increase the proportion of T-bills in its funding mix and increase the size of future coupon auctions, starting as early as next quarter. We expect these recommendations will be heeded. Question 3: Who Will Buy All These Bonds? A full breakdown of Treasury demand from different financial market actors is beyond the scope of this report. However, there is one sector that will need to greatly increase its holdings of Treasury securities as reserves are drained. That is the banking sector. The relatively new Liquidity Coverage Ratio (LCR) mandates that banks hold high-quality liquid assets (HQLA) in an amount sufficient to cover net cash outflows during a stressed 30-day period. HQLAs consist of Level 1 assets and Level 2 assets. Level 1 assets are bank reserves and Treasury securities, Level 2 assets are other riskier securities such as Agency MBS. A haircut is applied to level 2 assets for the purposes of calculating HQLA. Based on disclosures from the eight U.S. Systemically Important Financial Institutions (SIFIs), we calculate that HQLAs total about $2.4 trillion from those 8 banks alone (Table 1). If we assume that required HQLAs increase at a pace of about 4% per year (in line with expected growth in deposits), then that represents close to $100 billion of baseline Treasury demand next year and in 2019. This demand will also have to increase to compensate for the draining of reserves from the system (Chart 9). Table 1Liquidity Coverage Ratios For The 8 U.S. SIFIs Chart 9Bank Balance Sheets Loaded With Reserves At least at present, the eight largest U.S. banks do not have much of a buffer above the 100% mandated LCR. This means they will have to be active buyers of securities in order to compensate for lost reserves and keep their ratios stable. Question 4: What Will Be The Market Impact? It has been our long-standing view that the bulk of the impact on Treasury yields from Federal Reserve asset purchases can be attributed to signaling about the future path of short rates. In fact, throughout the entire QE period, there remained a strong positive correlation between long-maturity real Treasury yields and the number of rate hikes expected during the next 24 months (Chart 10). Chart 10Real Yields Driven By Rate Expectations Even theoretically, as Michael Woodford explained in his seminal Jackson Hole address from 2012,7 there is little reason to expect that central bank asset purchases exert an impact on bond yields beyond signaling about the future path of interest rates: In the representative-household theory, the market price of any asset should be determined by the present value of the random returns to which it is a claim, [...]. Insofar as a mere re-shuffling of assets between the central bank and the private sector should not change the real quantity of resources available for consumption in each state of the world, [...] the market price of one unit of a given asset should not change [...]. A more thorough empirical examination also suggests that the "signaling channel" explains most of the reaction in long-maturity Treasury yields to announcements about Fed asset purchases. We looked at a sample of dates where the Fed either made or teased an announcement related to its asset purchases, and then looked at how different financial markets reacted to those announcements. Chart 11 shows changes in the 10-year Treasury yield on the days in our sample versus changes in our 24-month fed funds discounter - the expected number of rate hikes during the next 24 months as discounted in the overnight index swap (OIS) curve. The chart shows a very strong linear relationship between changes in the 10-year Treasury yield and in expected rate hikes on those days. Chart 1110-Year Treasury Yield Vs. 24-Month Fed Funds Disc Chart 12 uses the same sample of dates, but this time looks at the change in the 10-year Treasury yield versus the change in the 10-year OIS rate. The pay-off on overnight index swaps is directly tied to the level of the fed funds rate. Therefore, if Fed asset purchases exert some impact on Treasuries above and beyond sending a signal about the future path of the fed funds rate, we should expect that impact to show up in Treasury yields but not in OIS rates. However, Chart 12 shows that changes in the 10-year Treasury yield and in the 10-year OIS rate remained tightly linked throughout our sample. Chart 1210-Year Treasury Yield Vs. 10-Year OIS Rate* Following Announcements Related##br## To Federal Reserve Asset Purchases Why is it important that the impact of Fed asset purchases on Treasury yields was mostly about signaling? It is because the Fed is following a "subordination strategy" with respect to the wind-down of its balance sheet. It plans to provide us with the schedule of balance sheet run-off in advance, and then leave that schedule un-touched regardless of economic developments. Put differently, it will respond to deteriorating economic conditions by cutting the fed funds rate before it alters the pace of balance sheet run off. In essence, the link between the Fed's balance sheet and signals about the path of the fed funds rate has been severed. As long as the "subordination strategy" is strictly enforced, we should not expect much of an impact on long-maturity Treasury yields from the unwinding of the Fed's balance sheet. Question 5: Are There Any Other Potential Market Impacts? Where Fed asset purchases essentially removed Treasuries (and MBS) from the market and replaced them with bank reserves (cash), the running down of the Fed's balance sheet will reverse this swap. Supplying securities into the market and removing cash. Some have argued that this removal of cash could lead to an appreciation of the U.S. dollar. In particular, Zoltan Pozsar of Credit Suisse has observed a correlation between U.S. bank reserves and FX basis swap spreads.8 There is also a strong correlation between FX swap spreads and the U.S. dollar (Chart 13). Chart 13Basis Swaps, Reserves And The Dollar One possible chain of events is that as the Fed drains cash from the market, there will be less liquidity in the FX swap market. Basis swap spreads will widen as a result, and this will cause the dollar to appreciate. In this framework, the unwinding of the Fed's balance sheet will put upward pressure on the U.S. dollar. However, it is also possible that the chain of causation runs in the other direction. The BIS has proposed a model9 where a stronger dollar weakens the capital positions of bank balance sheets. This causes them to back away from providing liquidity to the FX swap market, leading to wider basis swap spreads. In this model, a strong dollar leads to wider basis swap spreads and not the reverse. If this is the correct direction of causation, then we should not expect any impact on the dollar from the unwinding of the Fed's balance sheet. At the moment it is impossible to tell which of the above two theories are correct. All we can do is monitor the correlation between reserves, FX basis swap spreads and the dollar going forward. Bottom Line: The Fed will announce the run-off of its balance sheet at tomorrow's FOMC meeting. This decision has implications for Treasury issuance and how monetary policy will be conducted in the future, but we do not envision a large impact on yields. Investors should remain focussed on changes in the expected path of the fed funds rate to assess the outlook for Treasury yields. Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Open Mouth Operations", dated September 2, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 For further details on the monitor please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Buy The Back-Up In Junk Spreads", dated March 14, 017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 3 https://www.newyorkfed.org/newsevents/speeches/2017/dud170907 4 For a detailed description of the differences between a floor and corridor system please see U.S. Bond Strategy / Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report, "The Way Forward For The Fed's Balance Sheet", dated February 28, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 5 For simplicity we assume a constant pace of $1 billion MBS refinancing every month. This is somewhat below recent averages to account for the likelihood that interest rates will rise. 6 https://www.treasury.gov/press-center/press-releases/Pages/current_PolicyPressRelease.aspx 7 http://www.columbia.edu/~mw2230/JHole2012final.pdf 8 https://ftalphaville.ft.com/2017/04/13/2187317/where-would-you-prefer-your-balance-sheet-banks-or-the-federal-reserve/ 9 http://www.bis.org/publ/work592.pdf Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

Highlights Fed vs. BoE: U.S. inflation data is stabilizing, while financial conditions continue to ease. The market is underestimating the potential for the Fed to hike rates again, perhaps as soon as December. At the same time, markets have priced in too many rate hikes in the U.K., with the Bank of England's growth and inflation forecasts unlikely to be realized. USTs vs. Gilts: Maintain an overall below-benchmark portfolio duration tilt, while keeping an underweight stance on U.S. Treasuries and a neutral bias towards Gilts. Look to upgrade Gilts on any additional spread widening versus Treasuries or core Europe. Duration Checklists: An update of our Duration Checklists shows that the backdrop for growth, inflation and investor risk appetite remains bearish for U.S. Treasuries and German Bunds. Maintain below-benchmark duration exposure to both markets on a medium-term basis. Feature Inflation: Waking Up In The U.S., Peaking Out In The U.K. The bull market in risk assets remains powerful. Investors have shrugged off the worries about U.S. hurricanes and geopolitical tensions and have returned to focusing on the global growth and inflation backdrop. The fact that the S&P 500 could close at a new all-time high just above 2500 last Friday, shortly after another North Korean missile launch and a terrorist attack on the London Underground, speaks volumes about the renewed confidence (or is it hubris?) of investors. For bond markets, two events stood out - the firming read on August U.S. CPI inflation data and the surprisingly hawkish commentary from the Bank of England (BoE). We advise that investors pay more attention to the former and fade the latter. The U.S. inflation data is far more important, as it showed a decent rise in core inflation after five months of very weak prints (Chart of the Week). Chart of the WeekUSTs At Risk From A Rebound In Inflation A rebound in inflation is critical to our call for U.S. bond yields to rise over the next 6-12 months, as it would bring Fed rate hikes back into play. Right now, there is still a significant gap between market expectations for the fed funds rate by the end of 2018 and the current FOMC projection ("dot"). If the latest inflation data is the beginning of a sustained period of faster monthly price increases, then there is room for investors to reprice their expectations for both inflation and the funds rate (bottom two panels). There is a risk that the median FOMC rate projection for next year comes down a bit when the new "dots" are released after this week's FOMC meeting. Although with market-based inflation expectations firming, and survey-based measures holding steady near the Fed's 2% target amid easing financial conditions, the FOMC may choose to hold steady and wait to see if the August inflation data is the beginning of a trend - especially with the Fed set to announce the timing and details of the reduction of its balance sheet at this week's meeting. Downgrading interest rate expectations while also starting the unwind of the balance sheet could send a confusing message to markets. At the same time, any shift to a more hawkish or less dovish message from the Fed would be taken negatively by the Treasury market. The experience of Gilts last week is a warning sign about how unprepared investors are for a change in tone from central bankers. The language in the statement released after last week's BoE Monetary Policy Committee (MPC) meeting suggested that a rate hike may come within the next few months if U.K. economic growth evolves along the lines of the MPC's forecasts. That was enough to trigger a bear-flattening move in the Gilt curve, with the markets quickly pricing in one full additional rate hike by the BoE over the next year (Chart 2, second panel). A similar move could happen if the Fed were to send any new hawkish signals, although that is unlikely to occur at this week's FOMC meeting. We see a greater potential for the Fed's forecasts to be realized than the BoE's over the next year. Financial conditions have eased and leading indicators are still pointing to a reacceleration in U.S. growth in the coming months. The impact of the hurricanes in Texas and Florida will be a drag on growth in the 3rd quarter of this year, but this will not be enough to materially impact the Fed's growth forecasts for 2018. Meanwhile, the inflationary backdrop for the U.S. may finally be bottoming out, for a few reasons: 1. Our CPI diffusion index rising back above the 50 line in August (Chart 3, top panel), although additional gains will be necessary to herald a more sustained rise in core inflation. Chart 2Markets Have Bet Heavily##BR##On Central Bank Inaction Chart 3U.S. Inflation##BR##Stabilizing? 2. The U.S. labor market continues to tighten, with the gap between the "jobs plentiful" minus "jobs hard to get" indices from the Conference Board's consumer confidence survey widening to the widest level since 2001 (2nd panel), putting upward pressure on wage growth. 3. One of the biggest sources of the surprising downturn in core inflation seen in 2017, the plunge in wireless phone prices back in the spring, has fully stabilized (3rd panel). That decline alone represented a drag on the rate of inflation for core CPI services (excluding shelter) of 1.2 percentage points (bottom panel), and on overall core CPI inflation of around 35bps - ½ of the total decline in core CPI inflation since January. As the impact of that collapse in wireless charges falls out of the inflation data in the coming months, the drag on core CPI will fade. There is now a much better chance for the Fed's inflation forecasts to be realized next year, especially once the impact of a weaker dollar (and higher energy prices) is taken into account. While some of the doves on the FOMC may downgrade their inflation forecasts this week, a major reduction is unlikely in the absence of signs of a weakening U.S. labor market or renewed strength in the U.S. dollar. The U.S. backdrop contrasts sharply with what is going on in the U.K. While the labor market is even tighter there than in the U.S., the current upturn in U.K. inflation has also occurred alongside a sharp depreciation of the Pound since the 2016 Brexit vote (Chart 4). The currency has stabilized over the course of this year, with the year-over-year change in the BoE's trade-weighted index now nearly flat (bottom panel). Against this backdrop, inflation is more likely to peak out than reaccelerate from current levels. A similar argument can be made for the U.K. economy. Leading economic indicators have rolled over, while actual real GDP growth has decelerated (Chart 5, 3rd panel). Consumer confidence has steadily declined as the currency-driven inflation increase has eroded real income growth. This has created a very odd divergence between falling confidence and an increased market expectation for BoE rate hikes over the next year, which typically move in unison (bottom panel). Add in the ongoing uncertainties over Brexit that continue to weigh on business confidence and investment spending, and it is far more likely that the U.K. economy will lag versus the BoE's forecasts. Chart 4Currency Impact On U.K. Inflation Is Fading Chart 5Why Should The BoE Hike? For now, we are maintaining our recommended neutral allocation on Gilts in our model bond portfolio. Although we would view any additional widening in yield spreads between Gilts and U.S. Treasuries and core European yields as an opportunity to move to overweight. Simply put, the odds are far greater that the Fed's economic and inflation forecasts for the next year will be realized than those of the BoE, suggesting that there is more upside risk for yields in Treasuries than Gilts. Bottom Line: U.S. inflation data is stabilizing, while financial conditions continue to ease. The market is underestimating the potential for the Fed to hike rates again, perhaps as soon as December. At the same time, markets have priced in too many rate hikes in the U.K., with the Bank of England's growth and inflation forecasts unlikely to be realized. Maintain an overall below-benchmark portfolio duration tilt, while keeping an underweight stance on U.S. Treasuries and a neutral bias towards Gilts. Look to upgrade Gilts on any additional spread widening versus Treasuries or core Europe. Duration Checklist Update Back in February of this year, we introduced a list of indicators we need to monitor to determine if our recommended defensive duration stance on U.S. Treasuries and German Bunds was still warranted.1 These "Duration Checklists" combined data on overall global growth, as well as U.S. and Euro Area economic activity, inflation, investor risk-seeking behavior and technical positioning on government bonds. At the time, the Checklists were almost unanimous in pointing to a period of rising bond yields based on an improving growth profile and slowly rising inflation pressures. We updated the Checklists in May and, for the most part, the majority of the indicators were still flagging more upward pressures on yields, although some series on global growth and inflation had softened.2 With the benefit of hindsight, we now know that these factors - especially the pullback in U.S. inflation pressures - were enough to trigger a significant bond rally. With the U.S. inflation downdraft now in the process of stabilizing, as discussed earlier, this is now a good opportunity to revisit our Duration Checklists to assess the current backdrop for bond yields. The broad conclusion is that the majority of the indicators are still pointing to higher bond yields in the months ahead (Table 1). Table 1A Bearish Message From Our Duration Checklists Global economic activity indicators are mixed, but may be bottoming. The global leading economic indicator (LEI) continues to rise, heralding a continuation of the current economic uptrend (Chart 6). The breadth of that advance, however, is fading with our LEI diffusion index having fallen below the 50 line, meaning that there are more countries with a falling LEI. The global ZEW indicator of investor sentiment is also trending downward, another factor weighing on yields. The near-term dynamics on growth are starting to shift more bearishly for bonds, however, with the global data surprise index rising and the latest read on our Global Credit Impulse indicator ticking upward. We are giving a "check" to 3 of the 5 global growth elements in our Duration Checklists (LEI, data surprises, Credit Impulse), which represents a bond-bearish shift from the last update of the Checklists in May when only the LEI warranted a "check". Domestic economic growth in the U.S. and Euro Area is solid. Manufacturing PMIs in both the U.S. (the ISM index) and Europe are rising, as is consumer and business confidence (Charts 7 & 8). The latter is not surprising given the strong growth in corporate profits on both sides of the Atlantic that our models expect will continue. This bodes well for future growth momentum, as firms will not be forced to retrench on hiring and investment spending to protect profitability. We are giving a "check" to all domestic growth components of our Duration Checklists, highlighting that the economic backdrop remains bond bearish. Chart 6Yields Are Exposed To##BR##Improving Global Growth Chart 7A Solid U.S.##BR##Economic Expansion Chart 8European Growth Momentum##BR##Is Bearish For Bunds Realized inflation has dipped, but the worst looks to be over. In our Checklists, we include measures on energy prices, labor market tightness and wage inflation as the primary inflation indicators to monitor. On that front, the story still looks fairly benign for U.S. inflation given the dip in wage inflation measures like Average Hourly Earnings growth and the Atlanta Fed Wage Tracker (Chart 9). The unemployment gap (unemployment rate vs. NAIRU) is still negative, and other wage measures like the wage & salaries component Employment Cost Index are steadily expanding, suggesting that the underlying wage dynamics in the U.S. may not be as slow as indicated by Average Hourly Earnings. In the Euro Area, wage growth has accelerated above 2%, occurring alongside a grinding increase in core inflation and an unemployment gap that is almost fully closed (Chart 10). Meanwhile, the downward momentum in the growth of energy prices - denominated in both dollars and euros - has bottomed out after the sharp decline since the beginning of the year, although the rebound has been tepid so far (top panel of Charts 9 & 10). Chart 9Not Much Inflationary##BR##Pressures On UST Yields Chart 10Core Inflation & Wages Are##BR##Grinding Higher In Europe The most significant divergences between the regions exist within the inflation elements of our Checklists. For wage growth, we are giving an "x" to the U.S. but a "check" to Europe. For the unemployment gap, we are giving a "check" to both regions. For energy prices, however, we are not giving any indication (a "?") until we see more decisive evidence of a sustained acceleration that is pressuring headline inflation rates even higher. Both the Fed and ECB are biased to remove monetary accommodation. The Fed is in the midst of a rate-hiking cycle that began in late 2015, and is now about to begin the long process of shrinking its swollen balance sheet. The ECB has been slowly preparing the market for a shift to a slower pace of asset purchases, although rate hikes are still at least a couple of years away. For both central banks, we are giving a "check" for having a more hawkish/less dovish policy bias that is not bullish for bonds. Investors remain in risk-seeking mode. The way that we interpret investor risk aversion in the Checklists is if growth-sensitive risk assets like equities and corporate credit are rallying, then this is bearish for government bonds. The logic here is that private investor demand for Treasuries and Bunds is diminished when risk assets are rallying, as long as equities are not stretched to a point where the risks of a correction are elevated (i.e. indices trading 10% above their 200-day moving average). Also, the easing of financial conditions stemming from rallying stock and credit markets is a boost to growth that central banks will likely respond to by becoming less accommodative. From that perspective, the persistent bull markets in equities and corporate credit on both sides of the Atlantic are bearish for Treasuries (Chart 11) and Bunds (Chart 12). With stocks not looking stretched versus the medium-term trend and with volatility remaining low, all the related elements of our Checklists earn a "check". Chart 11Still A Pro-Risk Bias##BR##Among U.S. Investors Chart 12Still A Pro-Risk Bias##BR##Among Euro Area Investors Bond yields do not look stretched to the upside from a technical perspective. The Treasury sell-off from the 2017 peak back in March has pushed the 10-year yield back below its 200-day moving average, while also boosting the 6-month total return into positive territory (Chart 13). There is also a persistent net long position in 10-year Treasury futures (bottom panel). Add it all up and the technical backdrop for Treasuries is stretched in a way pointing to greater near-term risks of higher yields. In Europe, momentum measures all look neutral (Chart 14) and are no impediment to rising yields. We give all technical elements of our Duration Checklists a "check". Chart 13UST Rally Since March##BR##Is Looking Stretched Chart 14Neutral Technical##BR##Backdrop For Bunds Net-net, the Checklists show that the majority of indicators are still pointing to a bond-bearish backdrop. The only bond-bullish factors are the soft inflation readings in the U.S. although that may be in the process of shifting, as discussed earlier. There is not a major difference in the number of checkmarks for both the U.S. and Euro Area Checklists, thus we see no reason to favor either market from a relative perspective - there is pressure for both Treasury and Bund yields to rise. Thus, we are maintaining our recommended below-benchmark medium-term duration stance in both the U.S. and core Europe within hedged global bond portfolios. Chart 15UST Yields Have More Near-Term Upside From a shorter-term tactical perspective, however, we see more upside for Treasury yields vs Bunds with U.S. economic data surprising to the upside at a faster pace than in Europe (Chart 15). Throw in the potential for U.S. inflation to also rise above depressed expectations and a wider Treasury-Bund spread - a trade that we currently have in our Tactical Overlay portfolio and which goes against the tightening currently priced into the forwards - is the more likely outcome in the next few months. Bottom Line: An update of our Duration Checklists shows that the backdrop for growth, inflation and investor risk appetite remains bearish for U.S. Treasuries and German Bunds. Maintain below-benchmark duration exposure to both markets on a medium-term basis. Robert Robis, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report, "A Duration Checklist For U.S. Treasuries & German Bunds", dated February 15th 2017, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report, "Fade The "Trump Fade"", dated May 23rd 2017, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. Recommendations Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Highlights The law of the vital few states that a small number of causes have a disproportionate impact on your overall investment performance. Get the bond yield direction right and your equity sector allocation, equity country allocation and currency allocation should end up outperforming too. Expect the euro area versus U.S. bond yield spread to continue compressing. This means euro area banks will outperform U.S. banks and EUR/USD has cyclical upside. But within a European equity portfolio, banks should be at neutral weight. This implies upgrading Italy's MIB and Spain's IBEX to neutral and downgrading Germany's DAX to underweight. Feature "Less is more, and usually more effective" - Nassim Taleb The law of the vital few states that a small number of causes usually have a disproportionate impact on any overall result. Familiar examples of the law - also known as the Pareto principle or the 80/20 rule - are that a minority of bugs cause a majority of software problems; and that the top few salespeople in any company tend to be responsible for most of its sales. With investment research costs now coming under intense scrutiny, the law of the vital few has become highly significant for the investment management industry too. Every day, investors are bombarded with a seemingly endless stream of research, email alerts and newsfeeds. Yet most of the hundreds of choices that investors have to make reduce to getting just a handful of fundamental decisions right. We call this investment reductionism. The message from investment reductionism is to identify the few decisions that really matter, and to focus your time, effort and resources on these vital few rather than the trivial many. Because the vital few will have a disproportionate impact on hundreds of positions across different asset-classes in your investment portfolio. Bond Yields Are One Of The Vital Few Right now, one of the vital few decisions is the direction of high-quality government bond yields. Get bond yields right absolutely and relatively and you will get at least four investment decisions for the price of one. Not only will you get fixed income right, but your equity sector allocation, equity country allocation and currency allocation should end up outperforming too. In the most recent mini-cycle, the bond yield has driven the bank equity sector's relative performance almost tick for tick both in Europe (Chart I-2) and globally (Chart of the Week). There are two reasons. Higher bond yields fatten banks' net interest margins. They also signal an improving growth outlook and thereby a reduction in bad debts. Lower bond yields imply the exact opposite. Chart of the WeekGet Bond Yields Right And You"ll ##br##Get Banks Right Too Chart I-2Get Bond Yields Right And You"ll ##br##Get Banks Right Too In turn, the bank sector's relative performance has a major influence on equity country allocation. Investment reductionism teaches us that for most stock markets, the sector (and dominant company) skews swamp any effect that comes from the domestic economy. For example, the defining skew for Italy's MIB and Spain's IBEX is their large overweighting to banks. So unsurprisingly, MIB and IBEX relative performance reduces to: will banks outperform the market? (Chart I-3 and Chart I-4) Which itself reduces to: will bond yields head higher? The bond yield - relative to those in other economies - is also a major driver of the exchange rate (Chart I-5). As we detailed in Who's Afraid Of A Stronger Euro?1 the transmission mechanism is the so-called fixed income portfolio channel. In a nutshell, a higher bond yield in one jurisdiction relative to others attracts international fixed income portfolio flows into that jurisdiction, pushing up its currency - until a new higher level of the currency repels any further bond inflows. Chart I-3Get Banks Right And You"ll ##br##Get Italy Right Too Chart I-4Get Banks Right And You"ll ##br##Get Spain Right Too Chart I-5Get Bond Relative Performance Right And##br## You"ll Get EUR/USD Right Too Follow Your High Convictions Still, it is impossible to have a high-conviction view on a macro call at all times. A golden rule of investing is to have a big position only where and when you have a high-conviction view. Chart I-6When Unemployment Is Plunging, Real Wage ##br##Inflation Should Be Rising, But It Isn"t At the moment, our high-conviction view on bond yields is a relative view. Specifically, the euro area versus U.S. yield shortfall will continue to compress one way or another. This is because the polarisation of monetary policy expectations in the euro area relative to the U.S. remains at odds with growth and inflation data that have been, are, and will continue to be near-identical. Using investment reductionism, a high-conviction view that the euro area versus U.S. yield spread will compress necessarily means overweighting European banks versus U.S. banks. And it means staying cyclically long EUR/USD. On the absolute direction of bond yields we have less conviction. On the one hand, major economies are growing well and unemployment rates are coming down. Yet as we explained in Why Robots Will Kill Middle Incomes,2 the current wave of technological progress is especially disinflationary for wages, and one of the reasons why the Phillips curve relationship between unemployment and wage inflation isn't working (Chart I-6). Even the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia, in a recent research paper,3 "finds no evidence for relying on the Phillips curve". The upshot is that we are cyclically neutral on bonds, but structurally positive. Using investment reductionism again, a cyclically neutral stance on bonds necessarily means a cyclically neutral weighting to European banks versus other European sectors. In turn, this means a cyclically neutral weighting to Italy's MIB and Spain's IBEX versus the Eurostoxx600. Sector Skews Are One Of The Vital Few To reiterate, the key consideration for European equity country allocation is always: how to allocate to the vital few sectors that feature most often in the skews: in addition to Banks, this means Healthcare, Energy and Materials (Box I-1 and Appendix). Box 1: The Vital Few Sector Skews That Drive Country Relative Performance For major equity indexes in the euro area, the dominant sector skews that drive relative performance are as follows: Germany (DAX) is overweight Chemicals, underweight Banks. France (CAC) is underweight Banks and Basic Materials. Italy (MIB) is overweight Banks. Spain (IBEX) is overweight Banks. Netherlands (AEX) is overweight Technology, underweight Banks. Ireland (ISEQ) is overweight Airlines (Ryanair) which is, in effect, underweight Energy. And for major equity indexes outside the euro area: The U.K. (FTSE100) is effectively underweight the pound. Switzerland (SMI) is overweight Healthcare, underweight Energy. Sweden (OMX) is overweight Industrials. Denmark (OMX20) is overweight Healthcare and Industrials. Norway (OBX) is overweight Energy. The U.S. (S&P500) is overweight Technology, underweight Banks. Within a European equity portfolio, our cyclical stance to Banks is neutral. Healthcare's cyclical relative performance reduces to its defensiveness and low beta. This means that Healthcare tends to underperform in a strongly advancing market. But it tends to outperform when the market is doing no better than advancing weakly (Chart I-7). As this is our central expectation, our cyclical stance is to remain overweight Healthcare. Chart I-7Healthcare"s Cyclical Relative Performance Reduces To Its Defensiveness And Low Beta Regarding Energy, Materials (and Industrials), euro area equity markets with a large exposure to these export-heavy sectors will be under pressure, given our cyclical view on the euro. Mostly, this is because the translation of multi-currency international earnings into a strengthening base currency hurts index profits. Hence, underweight these sectors. Finally, to arrive at a country allocation, combine the cyclical view on the vital few sectors with the country sector skews shown above. Even if you disagree with our sector views, the sector-based approach is the right way to pick European equity markets. If you agree with our sector views, the result is the following updated European equity market allocation: Overweight: France, Ireland, U.K., Switzerland and Denmark. Neutral: Italy, Spain, and Netherlands. Underweight: Germany, Sweden and Norway. Dhaval Joshi, Senior Vice President Chief European Investment Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com 1 Published on August 3, 2017 and available at eis.bcaresearch.com 2 Published on August 10 and available at eis.bcaresearch.com 3 https://www.philadelphiafed.org/-/media/research-and-data/publications/… Chart Appendix Chart I-8Germany (DAX) Is Overweight Chemicals, ##br##Underweight Banks Chart I-9France (CAC) Is Underweight Banks ##br##And Basic Materials Chart I-10Italy (MIB) Is Overweight Banks Chart I-11Spain (IBEX) Is Overweight Banks Chart I-12Netherlands (AEX) Is Overweight Technology, ##br##Underweight Banks Chart I-13Ireland (ISEQ) Is Overweight Airlines (Ryanair)##br## Which Is, In Effect, Underweight Energy Chart I-14The U.K. (FTSE100) Is Effectively##br## Underweight The Pound Chart I-15Switzerland (SMI) Is Overweight Healthcare, ##br##Underweight Energy Chart I-16Sweden (OMX) Is Overweight ##br##Industrials Chart I-17Denmark (OMX20) Is Overweight ##br##Healthcare And Industrials Chart I-18Norway (OBX) Is##br## Overweight Energy Chart I-19The U.S. (S&P500) Is Overweight Technology, ##br##Underweight Banks Fractal Trading Model* Our model successfully captured the early August technical bounce in USD/CAD, and is signalling another opportunity now. The profit target / stop loss is 2.5%. 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-20 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

Highlights Bonds As A Safe Haven: Global bond yields have been driven lower by safe haven buying, despite ample evidence of faster global growth and central bankers that are still biased to shift to a less easy policy stance. There is now considerable upside risk for global bond yields over the next 6-12 months from these current depressed levels. ECB: The ECB is giving strong indications that a decision on tapering its asset purchase program will be made next month. With the Euro Area economy growing at a solid pace, and with inflation creeping higher, a reduction in the pace of bond buying in 2018 is highly probable. Canada: The Bank of Canada will continue to deliver on rate hikes without decisive signs that the current booming Canadian economy is slowing down, which leading indicators do not suggest is imminent. Stay underweight Canadian government debt, with a curve flattening bias. Feature Fade The Doomsday Trade Investors have had a lot of depressing news to process over the past several weeks. From threats of nuclear war with North Korea, to fears of a U.S. government shutdown over the debt ceiling, to the potential of Biblical flooding from hurricanes in Texas and Florida, the environment has not been conducive to risk-taking. This has triggered a flight into safe-haven assets like gold and U.S. Treasuries as investors have looked to protect portfolios from "existential" risks (Chart of the Week). Yet despite this rapid run-up in the value of save-havens, risky assets like equities and corporate credit have performed relatively well since the most recent peak in bond yields in early July (Table 1). Chart of the WeekFalling Yields Reflect Save Haven Demand,##BR##Not Slower Growth Table 1Changes In Risk Assets Since##BR##U.S. Treasury Yields Peaked On July 7th This move toward safety and risk aversion has widened the disconnect between global bond yields and economic fundamentals - specifically, growth momentum and central bank guidance - to extreme levels. Investors are now underestimating the potential for additional rate hikes in the U.S. in 2018, and are not fully appreciating the likelihood that the European Central Bank (ECB) will slow the pace of its asset purchases next year. Investors plowing money into government bonds now can only be rewarded if global monetary policy was set to ease, which would only be the case if global growth was slowing. That is not happening right now, even in the U.S. where the most apocalyptic headlines have been occurring. While the impact of Hurricanes Harvey and Irma will likely weigh on U.S. growth in the next few months, the underlying trend remains one of steady above-potential growth that is boosting both corporate profits and household incomes. More globally, depressed investor sentiment, indicated by measures such as the global ZEW survey, has helped drive bond yields lower despite the steady upturn in leading economic indicators (Chart 2). When looking at indicators of actual economic activity, like manufacturing PMIs, the growth story looks far stronger. As a sign of how much this "sentiment versus reality" divergence has distorted bond yields, look no further than our own valuation model for the 10-year U.S. Treasury yield. This model, which only uses the global manufacturing PMI and sentiment towards the U.S. dollar as inputs, indicates that the current "fair value" of the 10-year Treasury yield is 2.67%, nearly 60bps higher than market levels seen as this publication went to press (Chart 3). This is a level of overvaluation that even exceeds the extreme levels seen after the U.K. Brexit vote in July of 2016. Chart 2Bond Investors Are##BR##Ignoring Strong Growth Chart 3U.S. Treasuries Are##BR##Now Extremely Overvalued In Table 2, we present a decomposition of the 10-year yield changes in the major Developed Markets since that recent peak in U.S. Treasury yields on July 7th. As can be seen in the first two columns of the table, yields declined everywhere but Canada where the central bank has been hiking interest rates (as we discuss later in this report). Yet the vast majority of the yield decline has come from falling real yields and not lower inflation expectations. This has also occurred via a bull-flattening move in government bond yield curves (again, ex-Canada where the curve has bear-flattened), which suggests it is risk-aversion that has driven yields lower. Table 2Developed Market Bond Yield Changes Since U.S. Treasury Yields Peaked On July 7th The relative lack of movement in inflation expectations is a bit surprising given how strongly global oil prices have risen, denominated in any currency (see the final column of Table 2). When plotting the Brent oil price (in local currency terms) vs. the 10-year market-based inflation expectations (from inflation-linked bonds or CPI swaps), some notable divergences stand out. Inflation expectations in the U.S., U.K., Australia and even Japan look around 10-20bps too low relative to where they were the last time oil prices were at current levels (Charts 4 & 5). Meanwhile, inflation expectations are largely in lines with levels implied by oil and currency levels in the Euro Area and Canada. Most importantly, expectations are depressed in all countries, largely because actual inflation has stayed stubbornly low. Chart 4Inflation Expectations Vs. Oil Prices (1) Chart 5Inflation Expectations Vs. Oil Prices (2) The lack of realized inflation in places with allegedly "full employment" economies like the U.S. has led to questions over the usefulness of frameworks like the NAIRU (non-accelerating inflation rate of unemployment) in predicting inflation. A reduced link between the NAIRU and inflation does appear in many countries, but not necessarily in all countries when viewed in aggregate. Chart 6The NAIRU Concept Is Not Dead Yet In Chart 6, we present an indicator that shows the percentage of OECD economies (34 in total) that have an unemployment rate below the NAIRU rate. Currently, there are 67% of the countries in this list with unemployment rates under the OECD estimate of NAIRU, which is back to levels seen before the 2009 Great Recession. During that pre-crisis period, global inflation rates were accelerating for both goods and services inflation (bottom two panels). While the correlation between this global NAIRU indicator and realized inflation rates declined in the years after the recession, the linkages have improved over the past couple of years. This may be a sign that there is a "global NAIRU level" (or global output gap) that is more important in determining global inflation rates than individual country NAIRU measures. Or put more simply, investors are downplaying the NAIRU concept just at the time when it could be expected to strengthen. If that were the case, inflation expectations around the world would be too low, although it will take some evidence of faster realized inflation (especially in the U.S. and Europe) before the markets begin to discount that in bond yields. In the meantime, markets have become even too pessimistic on growth prospects and the implications for bond yields. Investors have driven down rate hike expectations in the U.S. and U.K. (and, to a lesser extent, the Euro Area) during this latest bond market rally, dragging longer-term bond yields down with them (Chart 7). Yet growth in the developing world is showing little signs of slowing down outside of the U.K., with leading economic indicators still pointing to a continued steady expansion (Chart 8). Even if central bankers are starting to question how fast their economies can grow before inflation pressures pick up in a meaningful way, they are unlikely to stand by and see faster growth prints without responding with less stimulative monetary policies. Chart 7Not Much Tightening Priced##BR##(Except For Canada)... Chart 8...Despite Improving Growth##BR##In Most Countries Net-net, bond markets are now discounting too pessimistic of an outcome for both global growth and inflation. We continue to see more upside risks for global yields on a 6-12 month horizon, although it will take some signs of faster global inflation (not just growth) before bond yields respond. Bottom Line: Global bond yields have been driven lower by safe haven buying, despite ample evidence of faster global growth and central bankers that are still biased to shift to a less easy policy stance. There is now considerable upside risk for global bond yields over the next 6-12 months from these current depressed levels. September ECB Meeting: All Systems Go For A 2018 Taper Last week's ECB meeting provided no changes on interest rates or the size of asset purchases, but plenty of clues on the central bank's next move. A reduction in the size of the ECB's asset purchase program in 2018, to be announced next month, is now highly probable - even with a strengthening euro. The ECB's GDP forecast for 2017 was revised higher from the June forecasts (2.2% vs. 1.9%), while the projections for 2018 (1.8%) and 2019 (1.7%) were unchanged. Meanwhile, the inflation forecast for 2017 was left unchanged at 1.5% and the forecasts for the next two years were only revised slightly lower (2018: 1.2% vs. 1.3%, 2019: 1.5% vs. 1.6%). The fact that the 14% rise in euro versus the U.S. dollar seen so far in 2017 was not enough to move the needle much on the ECB's projections speaks volumes about the central bank's confidence in the current European economic expansion, as well as its comfort level with the rising currency. That makes sense when looking at the euro rally more broadly, as the currency has only gone up 6% in trade-weighted terms year-to-date. Simply put, the ECB does not yet seem overly worried that the strengthening euro represent a serious threat to the economy that could cause a more prolonged medium-term undershoot in Euro Area inflation. ECB President Mario Draghi did make references to currency volatility as being something that should be closely monitored with regards to the growth and inflation outlook. Right now, the realized volatility of the euro has been quite subdued, even as the currency has steadily appreciated (Chart 9). At the same time, our Months-to-Hike indicator has also fallen as the market has pulled forward the date of the next ECB rate hike. That hike is still not expected until late 2019 - pricing that we agree with. However, the fact that the euro can appreciate with such low volatility alongside a slightly-more-hawkish repricing of ECB rate expectations suggests that the market thinks that a move towards reduced monetary stimulus in the Euro Area is credible. That will remain true until the rising euro starts to become a meaningful drag on the economy or inflation, which is not evident in the broad Euro Area data at the moment (Chart 10). Chart 9A "Credibly Hawkish" ECB? Chart 10No Impact (Yet) From A Stronger Euro Draghi did note that the "bulk of decisions" regarding the ECB's asset purchase program would likely take place in October. That means a reduction in the size of the monthly purchases starting in January of next year, but without any changes in short-term interest rates (the ECB reiterated that rates will stay at current levels until after the end of the asset purchase program). Nonetheless, the ECB is incrementally moving towards a less accommodative policy stance that will continue to put upward pressure on the euro and, eventually, trigger a move toward higher longer-term Euro Area bond yields. Bottom Line: The ECB is giving strong indications that a decision on tapering its asset purchase program will be made next month. With the Euro Area economy growing at a solid pace, and with inflation creeping higher, a reduction in the pace of bond buying in 2018 is highly probable. Maintain an underweight medium-term stance on Euro Area government debt. Bank Of Canada: Shock Hawks The Bank of Canada (BoC) continues to confound investors with a surprisingly hawkish policy bias. Another 25bp rate hike was delivered at last week's monetary policy meeting, a move that was not fully discounted by the market, bringing the BoC Overnight Rate up to 1%. The Bank cited the impressive strength of the Canadian economy, as well as the more synchronous global expansion that was supporting higher industrial commodity prices, as reasons for the rate hike. With Canadian real GDP growth surging to a 3.7% year-over-year pace in the 2nd quarter, in a broad-based fashion across all components, perhaps policymakers can be forgiven for feeling that interest rate settings are still too stimulative for an economy with a potential growth rate of only 1.4% (the most recent BoC estimate). In the statement announcing the rate hike, it was noted that the level of Canadian GDP was now higher than the BoC had been expecting after the last Monetary Policy Statement (MPS) published in July. The BoC was already projecting that the output gap in Canada would be closed by the end of 2017. Thus, a higher realized level of GDP suggests an output gap that will be closed even sooner than the BoC was forecasting. This alone would be enough to move sooner on rate hikes for a central bank that focuses so much on its own measures of the output gap when making inflation projections. However, at the moment, there is not much inflation for the central bank to worry about. Chart 11The Great White North Headline CPI inflation sits at 1.2%, well below the midpoint of the BoC's 1-3% target band, while the various measures of core inflation that the BoC monitors are between 1.3% and 1.7%. Annual wage growth accelerated to the faster growth rate of the year in August, but still only sits at 1.7% even with the unemployment rate now down to a nine-year low of 6.2%. Meanwhile, the Canadian dollar has appreciated 13% vs. the U.S. dollar, and 10% on a trade-weighted basis, since bottoming out in early May. This move has been supported by growth and interest rate differentials that favor Canada. This is especially true versus the U.S. where the 2-year gap between Overnight Index Swap (OIS) rates is now positive at +21bps - the highest level since January 2015 (Chart 11). The BoC acknowledged this in last week's policy statement, suggesting acceptance of a strong loonie as a reflection of a robust Canadian economy that requires higher interest rates. The strength in the Canadian dollar will likely weigh on import price inflation in the coming months, and act as a drag on overall inflation. This will not trigger any move by the BoC to back off from its hawkishness unless there is also some weakness in the Canadian economic data. For a central bank that focuses so much on the output gap in its assessment of its own policy stance, the inflationary impact from a booming economy will far outweigh the disinflationary effects of a stronger currency. It remains to be seen if the BoC will be proven right on delivering actual rate hikes with inflation well below target. This is a problem that many central banks are facing at the moment, but the robust Canadian economy is forcing the BoC's hand. An appreciating currency may limit the number of rate hikes that the BoC eventually undertakes, but given its own assessment that that terminal interest rate is around 3%, there are plenty of additional hikes that the BoC can deliver before getting anywhere close to "neutral". The key risk will come from the spillover effects on the overheated Canadian housing market from the interest rate increases. Already, house prices are coming off the boil in the most overheated markets like Toronto, where median home values are down 20% since April due to regulatory changes aimed at reducing leveraged speculation in Canadian housing. It remains to be seen how much the BoC hikes will exacerbate the latest downturn in house price inflation and, potentially, have spillover effects on consumer confidence given high levels of household indebtedness. For now, we do not recommend fighting the BoC, with Canadian leading economic indicators still accelerating and the BoC's own business surveys showing that the economy is likely to remain strong. While there are already 50bps of rate hikes priced next twelve months, this would only take the Overnight Rate to 1.5% - still a stimulative level in the eyes of the central bank. This could also create additional strength in the loonie, although that impact should be lessened if the Fed comes back into play and delivers additional rate hikes in 2018, as we expect. We continue to recommend a below-benchmark duration stance on Canadian government bonds, with yields likely to surpass the relatively modest increases currently priced into the forwards (Chart 12, top panel). We also continue to advise an underweight allocation to Canadian government bonds in hedged global fixed income portfolios (middle panel). We also are staying with our winning Canadian trades in our Tactical Overlay portfolio, where are positioned for wider Canada-U.S. bond spreads and a flatter Canadian yield curve (Chart 13). Chart 12Stay Underweight##BR##Canadian Government Bonds Chart 13Sticking With Our Tactical##BR##Canadian Bond Trades Bottom Line: The Bank of Canada will continue to deliver on rate hikes without decisive signs that the current booming Canadian economy is slowing down, which leading indicators do not suggest is imminent. Maintain an underweight stance on Canadian government debt, with a curve flattening bias. Robert Robis, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com Recommendations Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Highlights Monetary Policy: A prominent Fed Governor has acknowledged that inflation expectations have become un-anchored to the downside. This is an important signal and suggests that the Fed will keep policy easy enough for inflation expectations to recover. TIPS: The combination of a Fed that communicates a desire for higher inflation expectations and an end to the current downtrend in realized core inflation will send TIPS breakevens wider. Yield Curve: Higher inflation expectations will cause the yield curve to steepen on a 6-12 month horizon. Although steepener trades no longer appear cheap on our model, we remain overweight the 5-year bullet versus a duration-matched 2/10 barbell. Feature Chart 1Flight To Safety Focused In Real Yields Bond markets digested two important events last week. The first was a politically driven flight to safety. The 10-year yield fell 10 bps (Chart 1) and the average junk spread widened 8 bps as the daily U.S. Policy Uncertainty index1 averaged 121 for the week, its second-highest reading since February. As we have noted in past reports,2 historically the best strategy has been to fade politically driven flights to safety. The second, and more significant, event was a speech3 given by Fed Governor Lael Brainard in which she suggested that inflation expectations have become un-anchored to the downside. As is explained below, this acknowledgement represents an important change in tone from the Fed. One that reinforces our outlook for higher Treasury yields, a steeper yield curve and wider TIPS breakevens on a 6-12 month horizon. You Had One Job The key passage from Governor Brainard's speech is the following: Nonetheless, a variety of measures suggest underlying trend inflation may be lower than it was before the crisis, contributing to the ongoing shortfall of inflation from our objective. To understand the significance of this statement we need some background on how the Fed thinks about inflation. FOMC members tend to apply an expectations-augmented Phillips curve framework to the task of forecasting inflation (Chart 2). Fed Chair Janet Yellen explained this approach in a September 2015 speech.4 In Yellen's words: ...economic slack, changes in imported goods prices, and idiosyncratic shocks all cause core inflation to deviate from a longer-term trend that is ultimately determined by long-run inflation expectations. [...] An important feature of this model of inflation dynamics is that the overall effect that variations in resource utilization, import prices, and other factors will have on inflation depends crucially on whether these influences also affect long-run inflation expectations. In other words, the Fed's model distinguishes between core inflation's long-run trend and its cyclical fluctuations. Cyclical fluctuations are driven by: Resource utilization (usually measured as the unemployment rate minus its estimated natural rate) Non-oil import prices Idiosyncratic shocks In contrast, core inflation's long-run trend is purely a function of long-term inflation expectations. In the Fed's view, monetary policy can be used effectively in response to shifts in the cyclical drivers of inflation. However, if inflation expectations were to become unanchored, then inflation's long-run trend would be altered and monetary policy would become less effective. In a sense, the worst possible outcome would be if inflation expectations became un-anchored to the downside. Once again, in Janet Yellen's own words: Anchored inflation expectations were not won easily or quickly: Experience suggests that it takes many years of carefully conducted monetary policy to alter what households and firms perceive to be inflation's "normal" behavior, and, furthermore, that a persistent failure to keep inflation under control - by letting it drift either too high or too low for too long - could cause expectations to once again become unmoored. This describes precisely the conventional wisdom as to why the Japanese economy has experienced two decades of deflation despite reasonably high levels of resource utilization. Policymakers did not act quickly or strongly enough following the burst stock market bubble of 1989-91, and this allowed deflationary expectations to become entrenched. In this sense the Japanese experience provides a roadmap for what could happen in the U.S. if the Fed doesn't act quickly to bring inflation expectations back up to target levels. It is true that not all measures of U.S. inflation expectations currently display weakness. For example, the measure we used in our expectations-augmented Phillips curve in Chart 2 - median 10-year PCE expectations from the Survey of Professional Forecasters - appears stable in recent years. However, Governor Brainard pointed to several measures that suggest inflation expectations have already declined (Chart 3). Chart 2The Fed's Inflation Model Chart 3Still Well Anchored? Comparing the three-year period ending in the second quarter of this year with the three-year period ended just before the financial crisis, 10-year-ahead inflation compensation based on TIPS [...] yields is ¾ percentage point lower. Survey-based measures of inflation expectations are also lower. The Michigan survey measure of median household expectations of inflation over the next five to 10 years suggests a ¼ percentage point downward shift over the most recent three-year period compared with the pre-crisis years, similar to the five-year, five-year forward forecast for the consumer price index from the Survey of Professional Forecasters.5 Investment Implications In our view, there are two important facts to keep in mind: In the Fed's model of inflation it is crucial that long-term inflation expectations do not fall. Otherwise, the odds of replicating the Japanese scenario start to increase. A prominent Fed Governor has now suggested that U.S. inflation expectations have become un-anchored to the downside. Chart 4The Market's Rate Hike Expectations Taken together, these two facts have important investment implications. First, the two facts suggest that TIPS breakevens will move wider. While the Japanese experience has taught us that "open mouth operations" become less effective once deflationary expectations are entrenched, they should still have some impact in the States. Notice that the decline in Treasury yields that followed Brainard's comments last week was concentrated in the real component. The 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate actually rose 2 bps (Chart 1). The combination of a Fed that communicates a desire for higher inflation expectations and an end to the current downtrend in realized core inflation (see "Economy & Inflation" section below) will be enough to send long-dated TIPS breakevens wider on a 6-12 month horizon. Second, a Fed that is committed to staying accommodative for as long as is necessary to ensure that inflation expectations move higher will cause the yield curve to steepen (see section titled "Inflation Expectations Drive The Curve" below). Third, a Fed that is more committed to fighting deflation should bias Treasury yields lower. However, inflationary pressures in the U.S. economy are strong enough that the Fed will be able to move inflation expectations higher while still delivering more rate hikes than are currently priced into the curve. At present, the overnight index swap curve is discounting that the next 25 basis point rate hike will not occur until November 2018 (Chart 4)! Bottom Line: A prominent Fed Governor has acknowledged that inflation expectations have become un-anchored to the downside. This represents an important signal about the future path of policy and reinforces our view that the Treasury curve will bear-steepen during the next 6-12 months, led by wider TIPS breakevens. Inflation Expectations Drive The Curve Our research6 shows that inflation expectations are the most important driver of changes in the slope of the yield curve. This runs counter to the conventional wisdom which states that the curve flattens when the Fed hikes rates, and steepens when it cuts rates. While the correlation between Fed rate moves and the slope of the curve is undeniable, the relationship results purely from the fact that the Fed responds to changes in inflation. The link between inflation expectations and the yield curve is the dominant relationship. To see this we look at Charts 5 and 6. Both charts show monthly changes in the 5-year, 5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rate plotted against monthly changes in the nominal 2/10 slope. Chart 5 shows all available historical data, and we observe a strong positive correlation. In fact, 63% of monthly observations fall into either the top-right or bottom-left quadrants indicating that wider breakevens correlate with a steeper curve and vice-versa. Chart 52/10 Nominal Treasury Slope Vs. TIPS Breakeven Inflation Rate 5-Year / ##br##5-Year Forward (February 1999-Present) Chart 62/10 Nominal Treasury Slope Vs. TIPS Breakeven Inflation Rate 5-Year / 5-Year Forward ##br##During Fed Tightening Cycles (June 1999 To May 2000 & June 2004 To June 2006) The more important question, however, is whether this correlation still holds when the Fed is raising rates. Chart 6 focuses only on prior rate hike cycles and still shows a strong positive correlation. 73% of the monthly observations fall into either the top-right or bottom-left quadrants, although in this case there are more observations in the bottom-left quadrant because typically the Fed lifts rates with the goal of sending inflation and inflation expectations lower. In this respect the current rate hike cycle is unique. The Fed is in the process of lifting rates, but as Brainard's speech shows, it still critically needs inflation expectations to rise. We conclude that the Fed will stay easy enough, long enough, for long-dated TIPS breakevens to return to their pre-crisis trading range between 2.4% and 2.5%. An upward adjustment to this range will occur alongside a steeper 2/10 curve. Unit Labor Costs And The Yield Curve The logic presented above also suggests an inverse relationship between the slope of the curve and wage growth. In a world where inflation expectations are well anchored, stronger wage growth encourages the Fed to tighten policy more quickly, this causes the yield curve to flatten. Conversely, softer wage growth leads to a steeper curve. Our research shows that unit labor costs are the measure of wage growth that correlates most closely with the slope of the curve. The reason is that unit labor costs actually measure both wage growth (compensation per hour) and labor productivity (output per hour). Put differently, the yield curve can flatten because labor compensation is rising and the Fed is tightening policy (bear flattening) or it can flatten because productivity is falling and investors are discounting a slower pace of potential growth and a lower terminal fed funds rate (bull flattening). Unit labor costs capture both of these dynamics. Last week saw second quarter productivity growth revised higher from 0.9% to 1.5% and unit labor cost growth revised down from 0.6% to 0.2% (Chart 7). We expect that productivity will continue to experience a modest late-cycle bounce. Usually, payroll growth starts to moderate late in the business cycle as the labor market tightens. The cost of labor typically rises and encourages firms to substitute capital for workers. This late-cycle boost in capital spending tends to correlate with stronger productivity growth (Chart 8), and this dynamic looks to be in full swing at the moment. Payroll growth has been decelerating since early 2015, and durable goods orders have picked up sharply since the end of last year (Chart 8, bottom panel). Chart 7Weakness In Unit Labor Costs Chart 8Productivity: Look For A Late-Cycle Rebound A modest late-cycle upswing in productivity growth will put downward pressure on unit labor costs and lead to curve steepening. How To Position For Steepening We have been expressing our yield curve view via a long position in the 5-year bullet and a short position in a duration-matched 2/10 barbell since last December.7 So far that trade has returned +28 bps, even though the 2/10 slope has flattened more than 50 bps since its inception. The reason our curve steepener has outperformed even as the curve has flattened is that, when we initiated our trade, the 2/5/10 butterfly spread was discounting an even larger curve flattening. Put differently, the 5-year bullet looked extremely cheap on the curve (Chart 9).8 Chart 92/5/10 Butterfly Spread Fair Value Model This state of affairs has now changed. Our fair value model shows that the 5-year bullet appears slightly expensive compared to the barbell, or alternatively, that the 2/5/10 butterfly spread is priced for a 20 bps steepening of the 2/10 slope during the next six months. According to our model, the 2/10 slope will have to steepen by more than 20 bps during the next six months for our trade to outperform from current levels. Bottom Line: Higher inflation expectations will cause the yield curve to steepen on a 6-12 month horizon. Although steepener trades no longer appear cheap on our model, we remain overweight the 5-year bullet versus a duration-matched 2/10 barbell for now. Economy & Inflation Updates received during the past few weeks indicate that U.S. growth is running solidly above trend, and may even be accelerating. Real second-quarter GDP growth was revised higher from 2.6% to 3%. Second quarter labor productivity growth was also revised higher, as was discussed above. Even following a lackluster August employment report, our back-of-the-envelope tracking estimate for U.S. growth - the sum of year-over-year growth in aggregate hours worked and average quarterly productivity growth since 2012 - is running at 2.7%, well above the Fed's 1.8% estimate of trend (Chart 10). Survey measures also suggest that growth has further upside in the second half of the year, at least according to a simple growth model based on the ISM non-manufacturing survey, our own BCA Beige Book Monitor and a composite of new orders surveys (Chart 11). Chart 10Growth Tracking Above-Trend... Chart 11...And Surveys Suggest Further Upside But bond markets are not getting the message. The 10-year yield is stuck at 2.12%, and the markets seem to be saying that the link between stronger growth and rising inflation has been permanently broken. We disagree and think that investors are simply underestimating the often long and variable lags between economic growth and inflation. Chart 12Inflation Lags Growth Chart 12 shows that real GDP growth has tended to lead core inflation by about 18 months, while changes in year-over-year core CPI (the second derivative of prices) have tended to follow the ISM Manufacturing index with a lag of about 12 months. All signs suggest that the recent downtrend in inflation is nothing more than a reaction to the growth deceleration seen between mid-2015 and mid-2016. Now that growth has re-accelerated, inflation is poised to move higher. Bottom Line: Bond markets are priced as though the link between growth and inflation is broken. We expect they will be proven wrong as inflation regains its uptrend during the next few months. Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com 1 The daily policy uncertainty index measures the number of news items related to economic uncertainty. For further details please see www.policyuncertainty.com 2 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "What We Know About Uncertainty", dated July 12, 2016, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 3 https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/brainard20170905a.htm 4 https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/yellen20150924a.htm 5 https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/brainard20170905a.htm 6 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "The Yield Curve On A Cyclical Horizon", dated March 21, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 7 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, "Seven Fixed Income Themes For 2017", dated December 20, 2016, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 8 For further details on how butterfly trades respond to changes in the yield curve, and on how we use our fair value yield curve models please see U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, "Bullets, Barbells And Butterflies", dated July 25, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification