BCA Indicators/Model

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

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

Highlights Small caps have not consistently outperformed large caps. However, the cyclical nature of small-cap relative performance may provide tactical timing opportunities. Index methodology plays a very important role in the behavior of small-cap performance. Currently, we recommend being neutral on size in a balanced global equity portfolio because risk/reward between small and large caps is balanced, and because GAA is overweight cyclicals versus defensives, a similar play but with a better risk/reward profile. Feature The Academic Evidence On Size Premium In academic research, the size premium, or the outperformance of small-cap common stocks relative to large-cap common stocks, has been calculated mostly based on the difference between the return of the smallest cap portfolio and that of the largest cap portfolio. Since the first academic paper that "discovered" the "size premium" in 1981, by Rolf Banz of the University of Chicago,1 a great deal of research has been devoted to this subject, both for and against the validity of the size premium.2 Table 1 comes from Asness et al.3 It summarizes the statistics of monthly size premium over time using the two most widely used zero-cost portfolio approaches to capture the returns to size. 1) The "small minus big" (SMB) stock factor return of Fama and French:4 the average return of three small portfolios minus the average return of three large portfolios obtained from Ken French's website;5 and 2) the return spread between size-sorted and market cap-weighted decile portfolios. The universe is all the stocks listed on the NYSE, AMEX and NASDAQ, including delisted securities from the CRSP (Center for Research in Security Prices) database. Table 1Size Premium Over Time* Small Cap Outperformance: Fact Or Myth? Small Cap Outperformance: Fact Or Myth? The size premium is statistically significant at the 5% level with a t-stat of 2.27 for SMB and 2.32 for D1-D10 for the full sample period from 19266 to 2012;7 However, most of the size premium comes from January, while in the rest of the year the size return is economically and statistically not different from zero; The size premium was not always positive over time, as evidenced during the period 1980-1999 when small cap suffered a 20-year underperformance right after the size premium was "discovered" in 1981. Compared to SMB, the more extreme approach, Decile 1 minus Decile 10, has produced a larger positive size premium (as well as a larger negative size premium in periods of underperformance), suggesting that micro caps, the most volatile segment of the market, may have a significant impact on the overall size premium. However, for non-quant practitioners, especially asset allocators, the portfolio approaches used in academic research may not be practical. In this report, we will study a series of small cap and large cap benchmark indexes in the U.S. and globally that are commonly used by practitioners to shed some light on the size premium and how it can be harvested, if it indeed exists. Not All Small-Cap Indexes Are Created Equal, Even In The U.S. There is no definitive definition of small cap. The general consensus is that it refers to companies with market value between US$300 and US$2 billion in the U.S., while in other markets this may vary. In the U.S., the first small-cap index, the Russell 2000 (R2K), was created in 1984, after the size premium was discovered in 1981 by Rolf Banz. While Banz was not sure if size per se was responsible for the effect or if size was just a proxy for one or more true unknown factors correlated with size, Fama and French published their ground breaking work in 19926 and 19934 confirming the existence of size and value factors. Then in 1994 the S&P launched its own small-cap index, the S&P 600. Chart 1U.S. Small Cap Performance Divergence U.S. Small Cap Performance Divergence U.S. Small Cap Performance Divergence Chart 1 shows that the performance of these two indexes has been quite different even though they have been highly correlated. Since December 1994, the S&P 600 has outperformed the R2K by about 50%-about 2% per year on a compound basis. From 1980 to 1994, however, the back-calculated8 S&P 600 significantly underperformed the R2K. So what has contributed to such significant performance difference between these two U.S. small-cap indexes? The answer may lie in the different methodologies used in constructing them. Different Universe And Size Distribution: FTSE Russell9 and S&P Dow Jones10 use different eligibilitFy conditions to define their respective universes for the U.S. equity market. Russell 3000 (R3K) contains the 3000 largest publicly traded companies in the U.S. by market cap. The smallest 2000 names go into the R2K, which currently accounts for about 8% of the R3K by market cap weight.11 The S&P 1500 contains the 1500 largest names, also by market cap, with the S&P 600 being the smallest 600 of these names, which account for less than 3.5% of the S&P 1500. Even though the stated target market-cap range is US$30 million to US$2 billion for the R2K, and US$450 million to US$2.1 billion for the S&P 600, respectively, currently about 50% and 40% of the companies in the R2K and the S&P 600 respectively have a market cap over US$2 billion, as shown in Chart 2. The R2K even has 25% over US$3 billion, about 15% more than the S&P 600. Different Sector Compositions: Both indexes' sector composition has evolved over the years due to changes in the economy and financial markets. Their current sector compositions are shown in Table 2. Most notably, the S&P 600 has higher weights in industrials and consumer discretionary, while R2K has higher weights in technology, financials, real estate and utilities. Chart 2U.S. Small-Cap Index Market Cap Distribution Small Cap Outperformance: Fact Or Myth? Small Cap Outperformance: Fact Or Myth? Table 2Canadian Small-Cap Index Sector Composition Small Cap Outperformance: Fact Or Myth? Small Cap Outperformance: Fact Or Myth? Global Small Caps Have Not Consistently Outperformed Large Caps MSCI also produces small-cap indexes for each country. According to the MSCI Global Investable Markets Index methodology,12 the size cut-off for each size segment needs to be a balance between the minimum size requirement and the target coverage range, in addition to other requirements such as liquidity and free float. As shown in Table 3, large caps comprise the top 70% of the investable universe, mid caps the next 15%, and small caps a further 14%. As of October 2016, the market-cap range for the DM small-cap index is from US$527 million to US$5 billion, and about half that for the EM small-cap index. Table 3MSCI Size Cut-Offs* Small Cap Outperformance: Fact Or Myth? Small Cap Outperformance: Fact Or Myth? MSCI indexes apply the same rules to all markets, which aids the global comparison analysis. Unfortunately, MSCI indexes have very short histories. Chart 3 shows the relative performance of small caps vs. large caps based on the MSCI indexes, and also local exchange indexes (where available). All panels are rebased to 1 as of March 2009 when the S&P 500 reached its low during the most recent financial crisis. The shaded areas are U.S. recession periods as defined by NBER. Several observations from Chart 3: U.S., U.K. and Japan have relatively long histories for the small-cap indexes. Based on the three countries' local indexes, small caps have barely outperformed large caps over the full history available; From the index inceptions until 1999, small-cap indexes broadly underperformed large caps in the U.S., U.K. and Japan, in line with the findings of the academic research shown in Table 1; Since 2000, however, small caps have outperformed large caps in most countries (in line with the academic findings shown in Table 1) with the exception of Canada and Australia, which both have extremely skewed sector composition. As shown in Table 4, a bet on Canadian small caps vs. large caps is essentially a bet on materials, real estate and industrials versus financials and telecoms; In the most recent cycle from March 2009, small-cap outperformance has been most prominent outside the U.S., especially in the U.K. and euro area. This might be due to the fact that the U.S. is the most academically researched market and that most small-cap funds are U.S. oriented. In the U.S., the MSCI and the S&P small-cap indexes have performed better than the Russell indexes, which is likely due to the fact that Russell does not have a midcap segment, with both the R2K and R1K including stocks that would elsewhere be classified as mid caps. Table 4Canadian Small-Cap Index Sector Composition Small Cap Outperformance: Fact Or Myth? Small Cap Outperformance: Fact Or Myth? Drivers Of Small/Large Cap Performance Even though small-cap stocks have not consistently outperformed large-cap stocks over the long run, Chart 3 indicates that the relative performance does have cycles, which may provide tactical opportunities for investors. In line with our investment approach across all asset classes, we try to identify the key factors that drive the relative performance of small caps versus large caps based on economic fundamentals, valuation metrics, and technical conditions. Economic Conditions: Compared to large-cap companies, small-cap firms are usually smaller-scale enterprises with a more domestic focus and less tried-and-tested business models. On average, they have less predictable cash flows, lower profit margins and lower credit ratings. As such, their ability to withstand hard times is lower, while their likelihood to prosper in good times is higher. Chart 4 (panel 1) shows that the rate of change in the small/large cap performance ratio has a good correlation with the PMI, indicating that stronger economic growth is indeed better for the more cyclically-oriented small-cap firms. Other factors such as credit spreads and small enterprise confidence also have good correlations with small/large cap performance in the most recent cycle, but historical correlations were much looser (panels 2 and 3). Chart 3Small Vs. Large Cap Performance Small Vs. Large Cap Performance Small Vs. Large Cap Performance Chart 4What Drives Size Performance? What Drives Size Performance? What Drives Size Performance? Valuation Metrics: Asness et al4 labelled 2000-2012 as the "resurrection" period for small-cap outperformance. Chart 4 (panel 4), shows that the first uninterrupted outperformance from 2000 to 2006 started at an extremely cheap valuation in 2000 when small caps were trading at a 36% discount to large caps, two standard deviations below the five-year average discount of 8%. The six-year uninterrupted outperformance was largely driven by relative valuation expansion such that by 2006, when the outperformance peaked, small caps were trading at a 20% premium, two standard deviations above the five-year average, which was a discount of 4%. The unwinding of the excessive valuation over the next two years brought the valuation metrics back to an extremely cheap level again in 2008, which kick-started another strong period of outperformance for small caps. However, since 2012 valuation has failed to expand even though small caps continued to outperform, albeit at a slower pace. This might be due to the fact that, on an absolute basis, small caps have been trading at a premium to large caps, and because valuation expansion became more difficult given how low small-cap profit margins have been (panel 5). Technically, based on our factor studies on momentum, a simple 12-month rate of change has generated positive alpha in a statistically significant way. We use the standardized 12-month rate of change of the relative performance ratio to gauge the relative momentum (panel 6) Portfolio Recommendation: Neutral On Size Over The Next 9-12 Months Chart 5There Is A Better Alternative There Is A Better Alternative There Is A Better Alternative The top panel of Chart 5 shows that the relative performance of global small caps versus large caps had a close correlation with cyclicals/defensives from 1995 to 2011, but that the two have diverged over the past five years, during which time small caps have outperformed large caps by 7%, but cyclicals have underperformed defensives by 4%, despite a strong reversal in 2016. This divergence could be explained by relative earnings growth, as shown in panel 2: small-cap earnings outpaced large-cap over the past five years, while cyclicals' earnings growth lagged defensives' until 2016 when a reversal occurred. Given our view on global growth and the historical correlation shown in panel 3, it's likely that cyclical earnings growth will further outpace the defensive earnings growth over the next 12 months. GAA's portfolio approach is to take risk where risk is most likely to be rewarded. We already have overweights on equities versus bonds at the asset class level, and on cyclicals versus defensives in our global equity sector positioning, on a 12-month investment horizon. As such, we do not feel comfortable adding a similar, but less rewarding, risk into our recommended global equity portfolio. In addition, current readings on the key performance drivers also support a neutral rating: as shown in Chart 4, both valuation and technical indicators are at the neutral level. The Global PMI is strong, but credit spreads are tight and small enterprise surveys in the U.S. and Japan are already at extremely optimistic levels. Xiaoli Tang, Associate Vice President xiaolit@bcaresearch.com 1 Banz, Rolf (1981), "The relationship between Return and Market Value of Common Stocks," Journal of Financial Economics, vol.6, 103-126 2 Van Dijk, Mathijs A, (2011), "Is size dead? A review of the size effect in equity returns," Journal of Banking and Finance, 35, 3263-3274. 3 Asness, Clifford S., Andrea Frazzini, Ronen Israel, Tobias Moskowitz and Lasse H. Pedersen, "Size Matters, If You Control Your Junk", AQR Working Paper, 2015. 4 Fama, Eugene F. and Kenneth R. French (1993), "Common Risk Factors in the Returns to Stocks and Bonds", The Journal of Financial Economics, vol 33, pp.3-56. 5 Kenneth R. French website: http://mba.tuck.dartmouth.edu/pages/faculty/ken.french/Data_Library/f-f_bench_factor.html 6 Fama, Eugene F. and Kenneth R. French (1992), "The Cross Section of Expected Stock Returns," Journal of Finance 47, 427-465 7 Fama, Eugene F. and Kenneth R. French (1993), "Common Risk Factors in the Returns to Stocks and Bonds," The Journal of Financial Economics, vol 33, pp.3-56. 8 S&P600 history before October 1994 was back calculated by Datastream, Russell 2000 history before 1984 was back calculated by FTSE Russell. 9 Please see "Construction and Methodology : Russell U.S. Equity Indexes, v.2.4," FTSE Russell, March 2017. 10 Please see "S&P U.S. Indices Methodology," S&P Dow Jones, March 2017. 11 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell_2000_Index 12 Please see "MSCI Global Investable Market Indexes Methodology," MSCI, Feb 2017.

Highlights Dusting Off The BCA Bond Model: As central bankers moving away from the hyper-easy monetary policies of the post-crisis era, reverting back to more traditional bond investing tools, like our BCA Bond Model - which focuses on cyclical economic pressures, valuation and momentum - can be useful. GFIS Composite Bond Indicators: After adding a new element to our classic Bond Model, carry, we come up with a new measure to assess government bond markets - the GFIS Composite Bond Indicators. Current Signals: Our new indicators point to Australia, Canada and the U.K. as looking more attractive on a relative basis than Germany or France. Feature For global fixed income investors, four key questions matter most in selecting which government bond markets to prioritize at the country level: Where each country stands in its economic cycle? Which bonds offer the best value? Which bonds exhibit the strongest price momentum? Which bonds benefit from the best carry? To answer those questions, BCA has built specific macro indicators over the years. The ones related to the cycle, value and momentum form the building blocks of the BCA Bond Model. We have not spent as much time discussing these indicators in recent years. This is because the performance of bond markets has been dominated by extraordinarily easy monetary policies (quantitative easing, negative interest rates) in the major economies since the Great Recession. As more central banks start to question the need for maintaining those crisis-era policy settings, however, the utility of referring back to our classic bond indicators is growing. In this Special Report, we re-examine our bond indicators, explain briefly how they were built, evaluate quantitatively if they still provide a consistent signal and elaborate on the best way to utilize them. To enhance the existing model, we add a "carry" component to it, which is a vital part of bond investing. Since the cyclical, value, momentum and carry indicators often give different asset allocation signals at any given point in time, we propose a way to aggregate the information into one single indicator for each country, i.e. the BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy (GFIS) Bond Composite Indicators. We then test these indicators to see if they help bond portfolio managers outperform. The report concludes by comparing the latest message from the GFIS Bond Composite Indicators versus our current recommended portfolio positioning. Specifically, we explain why we are choosing to deviate from our indicators and assess how we could shift our tilts in the future. Evaluating The BCA Cyclical Bond Indicators The most important aspect of bond investing is to understand where each country stands in its current economic cycle. As a way to quickly assess this, we developed our Cyclical Bond Indicators many years ago. Tailored for each country, the Indicators are composed of economic data such as: the unemployment rate private sector credit growth the slope of the government bond yield curve commodity prices denominated in local currency terms realized inflation rates Since economies do not always exhibit the same sensitivity to common macro drivers, we created country-specific Cyclical Bond Indicators that each use a different set of variables. After transforming the data, using de-trending and standardizing techniques, the variables are aggregated to form a single indicator for each country.1 Although Developed Market (DM) countries typically appear to be in the same phase of their economic cycle simultaneously, there are always some slight differences between them. These are crucial to identify and can make a huge difference in the government bond asset allocation process. First and foremost, knowing where a country is in its business cycle should impact expected returns on fixed income. Theoretically, bonds should underperform as the economic cycle becomes more advanced and outperform as the economic cycle deteriorates. Statistical Observations To verify that last statement, we separated the cycle for each country in our DM bond universe into seven distinct phases for the economic cycle: Euphoria End of upturn Upturn Downturn End of downturn Crisis Mega Crisis The phases of the cycle are defined by how much the Cyclical Bond Indicator diverges from its mean, which is always zero since the Indicators are standardized (i.e. removing the mean and dividing by the standard deviation). Chart 1 illustrates how our four core countries (U.S., Germany, Japan, U.K.) have gone through those cycles since 1967. At the positive end of the spectrum, the Euphoria state represents instances where economic variables have been especially upbeat (i.e. the Cyclical Bond Indicator is more than two standard deviations above the mean). At the negative end, the Crisis and Mega Crisis periods are when the Cyclical Bond Indicator is more than two and three standard deviations below the mean, respectively. Chart 1The BCA Cyclical Bond Indicators For The 'Core Four' Markets The BCA Cyclical Bond Indicators For The 'Core Four' Markets The BCA Cyclical Bond Indicators For The 'Core Four' Markets To evaluate the usefulness of the Cyclical Bond Indicator as an investment tool, we have calculated the average monthly return during each phase of the cycle for the major DM countries with a one-month lag (i.e. the March 2017 returns are based on the signals given by the February 2017 readings of the Indicators - this is done throughout the rest of this report when testing other bond indicators). The results are shown in Table 1. Table 1Bond Market Performance, Seen Through Our Cyclical Bond Indicator Revisiting The BCA Bond Model Revisiting The BCA Bond Model As expected, the average monthly performance tends to increase as an economy enters a downturn. Conversely, as an economic upturn gathers momentum, the performance of the bond market tends to decline.2 In Table 1, we highlighted the current phase for each country. Australia and U.K. are the only countries in Downturn territory right now; compared to their peers, those two countries would have the largest expected return3 of this group. On the other hand, the U.S. economy might be at the End of Upturn phase, when Treasuries should be expected to post the worst return, if history is any guide. In Table 2, we broke out the monthly results into 10-year periods to test the consistency of the indicator performance over time. Unsurprisingly, the End of Upturn phase has been quite detrimental for the DM bond markets during all eras, while the End of Downturn episodes have been good for bond investors in every decade. Table 2Bond Market Returns During ##br##The Various Stages Of Our Cyclical Bond Indicator Are Consistent Across Time Revisiting The BCA Bond Model Revisiting The BCA Bond Model Chart 2The Gains From Bond Investing##br## According To The Economic Cycle Revisiting The BCA Bond Model Revisiting The BCA Bond Model Finally, we looked into the usefulness of the Cyclical Bond Indicators in helping construct simple bond portfolios by using them as a ranking tool using the steps described in Box 1. The big picture takeaway is this: the countries with the three highest ranking Cyclical Bond Indicators (i.e. those with the slowest economic growth) outperform by roughly +6 basis points (bps) per month, on average. Similarly, the countries with the lowest-ranked cyclical indicators would underperform by -6bps, on average (Chart 2). Box 1 Ranking Bond Returns Using The BCA Cyclical Bond Indicators We calculated the average monthly excess return by buckets using the following steps: We ranked the ten countries in our bond universe by the level of their Cyclical Bond Indicators, from lowest (ranked #1) to highest (ranked #10). We then calculated the monthly currency-hedged excess return of each country versus the average of all the countries in our DM bond universe We then aggregated all the monthly results to have an average excess return for all ten of our ranking buckets We then separated them further into three buckets (the top three, middle four and bottom three ranks) and averaged the monthly excess returns for those groupings. Comments There is nothing particularly out of the ordinary with those findings - the countries with the weakest economies have the best performing government bond markets. However, the results of these statistical exercises confirm that the BCA Cyclical Bond Indicators are reliable and can confidently be used to support our qualitative analysis for each country. Importantly, following those indicators brings a dose of discipline to our bond allocation framework. For example, if our initial qualitative macro analysis diverges markedly from what the Cyclical Bond Indicator is telling us, this would represent a red flag that prompts us to question our initial conclusions. We will highlight situations like this later in this report. Evaluating The BCA Bond Value Indicators To assess the richness or cheapness of DM government bonds, BCA developed a Bond Value Indicator for each country. It is composed of several measures that have a fundamental macroeconomic relationship to bond yields, such as: Central bank policy rate expectations Trend inflation The deviation of the exchange rate from Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) The 10-year U.S. Treasury yield (as a proxy for the global bond yield) The variables are transformed using regressions, then combined to form a single measure of how far bond yields are from a theoretical fair value. Similar to other components of the BCA Bond Model, the power of these country indicators arises when comparing them amongst each other. Bond markets with yields below fair value should outperform those with yields above fair value. Just like all other asset classes, valuation is a poor tactical timing tool for fixed income. Our Bond Value Indicator is more useful in the long term; value can remain cheap/expensive for an extended period of time. For example, Germany has been the most, or second-most, expensive bond market in our bond universe since June 2013. Due to this shortcoming, the Bond Value Indicator will be given a smaller weighting in our composite indicator laid out later in this report. Statistical Observations To test this indicator, we looked at the hedged excess monthly returns generated using the same ranking procedure laid out in Box 1. The results show that investors can expect to earn about +12bps per month in excess hedged return from countries with the three cheapest valuations according to the Bond Value Indicators, and can expect to lose -6bps/month in countries that are ranked most expensive (Chart 3). Moreover, betting on countries with the cheapest ranked valuations skews favorably the odds of outperforming, from about 46% to 53% (Chart 4). Chart 3The Gains From Bond Investing ##br##According To Value Revisiting The BCA Bond Model Revisiting The BCA Bond Model Chart 4Favor The Cheaper Bond Markets Revisiting The BCA Bond Model Revisiting The BCA Bond Model Comments Currently, the U.S. bond market offers the best value (Chart 5). This contrasts unfavorably with our recommended underweight exposure to U.S. Treasuries. Nonetheless, we remain comfortable with this exposure since the U.S. economy is currently in the strongest economic cycle, and its bond market is technically less oversold than its peers (see the next section). Chart 5Bunds Look Rich, Treasuries Look A Bit Cheap Bunds Look Rich, Treasuries Look A Bit Cheap Bunds Look Rich, Treasuries Look A Bit Cheap Also, note that German and Japanese yields look quite expensive, although this is no surprise given the extremely easy monetary policy settings (negative rates, central bank asset purchases) in place from the European Central Bank (ECB) and Bank of Japan (BoJ). As we have discussed in recent Weekly Reports, we see far greater risks for the ECB moving to a less accommodative monetary bias in the months ahead than the BoJ, and we shifted our country allocations to reflect that view (moving to overweight Japan and cutting Germany to neutral).4 In other words, Japanese bonds will likely stay expensive for longer, unlike German debt. As we mentioned earlier, the value component warrants lesser importance in our tactical and strategic bond allocation framework since it is more long term in nature. In a nutshell, value is something good to have on your side when the macro backdrop shifts, but is not absolutely crucial to generate returns on a month-to-month basis. Evaluating The BCA Bond Momentum Indicator So far, the BCA Bond Cyclical Indicator informed us where the macroeconomic forces were the strongest and the BCA Bond Value Indicator helped us find bargains. This is all great, but bond investors could still underperform if their timing is off. The BCA Bond Momentum Indicator helps in finding the appropriate short-term timing. It has been built simply by looking at how far bond yields are relative to their primary medium-term trend. In theory, bond markets where yields are too stretched to the upside (oversold) should outperform versus countries where yields are too stretched to the downside (overbought). Statistical Observations Using the same ranking methodology explained in Box 1, investors can expect to earn roughly +11bps/month in excess return versus DM peers where conditions are the most oversold and should expect to lose -6bps/month from bond markets with the most overbought conditions (Chart 6). Comments While we do consider technical analysis as part of the tactical component in our bond allocation framework, we put less emphasis on it relative to other more fundamental factors that sustainably drive bond returns over time. Nonetheless, our ranked findings show that choosing markets based on price/yield momentum does generate fairly reliable outperformance. What About Carry? As seen so far, our traditional bond indicators encompass typical variables that would be expected to influence bond returns. Our framework would be incomplete, however, without incorporating the notion of "carry" - the investment return generated by the interest income on bonds. Having instruments that earn too little carry can be very harmful to the returns of a bond portfolio over prolonged periods. A simple observation of the long-term performance of higher-yielding credit markets (i.e. corporate debt or Emerging Market sovereigns) proves that point (Chart 7), especially in the current era where investors continue to stretch for yield given puny risk-free interest rates in so many countries. Chart 6The Gains From Bond Investing ##br##According To Momentum Revisiting The BCA Bond Model Revisiting The BCA Bond Model Chart 7Carry Plays A Huge Role ##br##For Long-Run Bond Returns Carry Plays A Huge Role For Long-Run Bond Returns Carry Plays A Huge Role For Long-Run Bond Returns Of course, most of the major carry gaps between DM sovereign bond yields disappear after currency hedging. However, even on a hedged basis, the carry differentials remain important. Currently, Italian debt carries the highest hedged yield in our DM bond universe, at 3.95%, versus 1.54% for Japan. The 241bp differential between the two is significant, especially in the current global low yield environment. However, some of that additional yield is compensation for the greater riskiness of Italian debt, given the many structural problems in that country (high debt levels, low productivity, political instability, fragile banks). In other words, a better way to evaluate carry is on a risk-adjusted basis. In Chart 8, we show the hedged 10-year government bond yields of the ten DM countries shown throughout this report, both in absolute terms (top panel) and adjusted for volatility (bottom panel). Note that Italy's ranking moves down two notches after accounting for the greater return volatility of Italian debt, while Spain offers the most attractive yield on a risk-adjusted basis. At the other end of the spectrum, Australia and Canada have less attractive yields relative to their volatilities than Japan - home of the 0% bond yield. Of course, as the old investment saying goes, "you can't eat risk-adjusted returns." As a general rule, bond markets with higher yields should be expected to outperform markets with lower yields over time. Statistical Observations An historical analysis of our DM universe using the methodology laid out in Box 1 confirms that observation. The bond markets with better ranked carry have a tendency to generate positive excess returns (on a currency-hedged basis) and, on average, produce more winning months than losing ones (Chart 9). This is true even though the higher-yielding markets are often those with higher inflation, or greater government debt levels, or more active central banks that create interest rate volatility. Chart 8Peripheral European Carry##br## Is Still The Most Attractive Revisiting The BCA Bond Model Revisiting The BCA Bond Model Chart 9The Gains From Bond Investing##br## According To Carry Revisiting The BCA Bond Model Revisiting The BCA Bond Model Comments Currently, the carry factor would favor overweighting Italy, Spain and France, while underweighting Japan, Australia and the U.K. Those relative rankings still generally hold up even after adjusting for volatility. Pulling It All Together: Introducing The GFIS Bond Composite Indicators Now that we have outlined the four elements of our proposed composite bond indicator, the question becomes: how do we aggregate those pieces? The components of our original BCA Bond Model rarely give the same message simultaneously, even after adding a new factor (carry) to the mix. Moreover, as discussed above, some elements (Cyclical and Carry) are more important than others (Value and Momentum) in delivering consistent outperformance of bond returns. Hence, to build a new composite indicator, we need to make a judgment call as to which component should be given more weight. Cyclical (50%). Here at BCA, we spend a fair amount of time trying to deeply understand economic cycles, which are a major driver of financial markets. Bonds are no exception, with changes in growth and inflation expectations forming the fundamental building blocks of yields. As such, we allocate a substantial 50% weight to the cyclical component of our GFIS Bond Composite Indicators. Value (15%). Value moves much more slowly than the other indicators and yields often diverge from fair value for long periods of time. As such, we are giving a smaller weighting of 15% to the value piece of the GFIS Bond Composite Indicators that we are designing to provide a timely signal for country allocation. Momentum (15%). Although technical analysis should be a meaningful part of any investment process, markets can often trend for extended periods before any consolidation, or even reversal, takes place. To reflect that, our momentum indicator will also carry only a 15% weighting in our composite indicator, the same as the weight given to value. Carry (20%). Carry should play an important part in a bond allocation framework. To use a sporting analogy - favoring higher-yielding bonds means starting the game with the score already in your favor. For that reason, we will give carry a 20% weight in our overall bond indicators. After combining our individual bond indicator rankings (from 1 to 10) using the weightings described above, we come up with an overall score for each country which becomes the GFIS Composite Bond Indicator (Table 3). Ranking the countries according to their respective scores gives a new indication as to which bond markets we might want to overweight or underweight. Table 3Combining The BCA Bond Indicators Revisiting The BCA Bond Model Revisiting The BCA Bond Model Statistical Observations Chart 10Our Composite Bond Indicator ##br##Adds Value At The Extremes Our Composite Bond Indicator Adds Value At The Extremes Our Composite Bond Indicator Adds Value At The Extremes To test the investment performance of our new GFIS Composite Bond Indicators, we created an equally-weighted index using the monthly hedged returns of the ten countries in our DM bond universe. We then created two portfolios: One composed of the countries with the three best composite scores; The other composed of the countries with the three worst composite scores. In both cases, those sample portfolios out-/under-performed the equally-weighted index as expected, proving that value can be extracted by following the recommendations of the GFIS Composite Indicators (Chart 10). Comments This automatic/quantitative ranking of the countries is designed as a guideline only. The goal here is to quickly find what could be the most appealing bond markets on a relative basis. Judgment on whether to apply the findings should and will always take precedence when we make our investment recommendations. Also note, in attributing weightings across the components, we have not used any optimization techniques to find the perfect balance. We simply relied on our judgment for a simple reason: optimization gives the best fit according to a set of historical market volatilities and correlations. During periods when volatilities change, or correlations become less stable, the historically-optimal weightings may produce sub-optimal investment results. We prefer to use a constant set of weights across our individual indicators, derived from our own investment intuition and preferences. What Could Be Our Next Portfolio Tweaks? We compare the latest rankings from our GFIS Composite Bond Indicators to our current fixed income country allocations in Table 4. Deviations between the two can provide some ideas for possible changes to our recommendations. Table 4The GFIS Composite Bond Indicator##br## Vs. Our Current Recommendations Revisiting The BCA Bond Model Revisiting The BCA Bond Model From this table, two observations arise: The three countries that rank the highest, Australia, Canada and U.K. are at neutral in our recommended portfolio (Chart 11). Should we move them to overweight? Among the three countries that rank the worst, we are still only at neutral Germany and France (Chart 12). Should we move to an underweight stance given the signal from our new Composite Bond Indicator? On the first point, we have turned decidedly less negative on Australia and U.K. bonds of late.5 In the next few months, if more signs of cyclical deterioration emerge, we will be tempted to align ourselves with our composite indicators and overweight those markets. Although as we discussed in a recent Special Report, another set of our in-house indicators, the Central Bank Monitors, are pointing to pressures to tighten monetary policy in Australia, Canada and the U.K., perhaps providing some justification for only being neutral on those markets.6 On the second point, we recently downgraded core Europe to neutral from overweight, given our growing concern that the ECB will be forced to announce a tapering of its asset purchases, likely starting in early 2018.7 We anticipate that our next move will be to a full-blown underweight position on both Germany and France, although we prefer to wait until after the upcoming French elections before making that shift. Given our view that the populist Marine Le Pen will not win the presidency, we expect to be cutting Germany before France, as there is still a wide political uncertainty premium built into French-German bond spreads.8 Chart 11Bond Upgrade Candidates Bond Upgrade Candidates Bond Upgrade Candidates Chart 12Bond Downgrade Candidates Bond Downgrade Candidates Bond Downgrade Candidates Going forward, we will continue to monitor our GFIS's Composite Bond Indicators to supplement/confirm our macro analyses and to discover some potential portfolio moves/trades. Additionally, we will look to further test and refine the Composite Bond Indicators by looking at different weighting schemes among the component indicators, how the correlations between the components shift over time (and if there is any information from those changes), and other considerations. Now that we've "dusted off" our classic bond indicators, there is plenty of additional research that can be done to build on the initial results shown in this report. Jean-Laurent Gagnon, Editor/Strategist jeang@bcaresearch.com Robert Robis, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com 1 We have built the Cyclical Bond Indicators using data going back to 1967 for most DM countries, allowing for a robust historical analysis across the different bond markets. 2 Since global bonds have experienced a powerful secular bull market over the past 35 years, the majority of monthly returns in the history of the Cyclical Bond Indicator have been positive. As such, shorting bonds in absolute terms has seldom proved to be a value-added proposition. The only exceptions are when the macro landscape has entered the Euphoria state, which has been quite rare. 3 In local currency terms 4 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "Staying Behind The Curve, For Now", dated March 21, 2017, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com 5 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Reports, "Will The Hawks Walk The Talk?", dated March 7, 2017 (on the U.K.), and "It's Real Growth, Not Fake News", dated February 21, 2017 (on Australia), both available at gfis.bcaresearch.com 6 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report, "BCA Central Bank Monitor Chartbook", dated March 28, 2017, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com 7 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "March Madness", dated March 14, 2017, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com 8 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report "Our Views On French Government Bonds", dated February 7, 2017, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com

GAA DM Equity Country Allocation Model Update The GAA DM Equity Country Allocation model is updated as of March 31, 2017. The model has not made significant changes compared to previous month as shown in Table 1. As shown in Table 2 and Charts 1, 2 and 3, Level 2 model ( the allocation among the 11 non-U.S. DM countries) sharply outperformed its benchmark by 338 basis points (bps) in March, largely a result from the overweight of Spain and Italy versus underweight in Japan and Canada. Level 1 model, the allocation between U.S. and non-U.S., underperformed by 27 bps in March due to the large overweight in the U.S. Overall, the aggregate GAA model outperformed its MSCI World benchmark by 71 bps in March and by 117 bps since going live. Table 1Model Allocation Vs. Benchmark Weights GAA Model Updates GAA Model Updates Table 2Performance (Total Returns In USD) GAA Model Updates GAA Model Updates Chart 1GAA DM Model Vs. MSCI World GAA DM Model Vs. MSCI World GAA DM Model Vs. MSCI World Chart 2GAA U.S. Vs. Non U.S. Model (Level 1) GAA U.S. Vs. Non U.S. Model (Level1) GAA U.S. Vs. Non U.S. Model (Level1) Chart 3GAA Non U.S. Model (Level 2) GAA Non U.S. Model (Level 2) GAA Non U.S. Model (Level 2) Please see also on the website http://gaa.bcaresearch.com/trades/allocation_performance. For more details on the models, please see the January 29th, 2016 Special Report "Global Equity Allocation: Introducing the Developed Markets Country Allocation Model". http://gaa.bcaresearch.com/articles/view_report/18850. GAA Equity Sector Selection Model The GAA Equity Sector Selection Model (Chart 4) is updated as of March 31, 2017. Table 3Allocations GAA Model Updates GAA Model Updates Table 4Performance Since Going Live GAA Model Updates GAA Model Updates Chart 4Overall Model Performance Overall Model Performance Overall Model Performance The momentum component has shifted Materials from overweight to underweight and Consumer Discretionary from underweight to overweight. The growth component has become less optimistic on global growth given the weakness in metals prices. For mode details on the model, please see the Special Report "Introducing The GAA Equity Sector Selection Model," July 27, 2016 available at https://gaa.bcaresearch.com. Xiaoli Tang, Associate Vice President xiaoli@bcaresearch.com Patrick Trinh, Associate Editor patrick@bcaresearch.com Aditya Kurian, Research Analyst adityak@bcaresearch.com

Highlights The financial market landscape has shifted over the past month with asset correlations changing and the so-called 'Trump trades' going into reverse. Equity valuation is stretched and plenty of risks remain. Nonetheless, we do not believe it is time to become defensive, scale back on risk assets, upgrade bonds and short the dollar. The economic data remain constructive for profits in the major countries. The risks posed by upcoming European elections have eased for 2017, now that the Italian election appears unlikely until 2018. The failure to replace Obamacare does not mean that tax reform is necessarily going to be delayed. If a tax reform package proves too difficult to pass, then the GOP will settle for straight tax cuts and a modest amount of infrastructure spending. Market reaction to the FOMC's 'dovish hike' was overdone. If the U.S. economy performs as we expect, the Fed will have to take a more hawkish tone later this year. Not before September will the ECB be in a position to announce a further tapering of its asset purchases beginning in 2018. A "Bund Tantrum" could thus be the big story for the global bond market later this year. In Japan, the 0% yield cap on the 10-year JGB to remain in place at least for the remainder of this year. Our views on U.S. fiscal policy and the major central banks paint a bullish picture for the dollar, and suggest that the other 'Trump trades' still have legs. The dollar has another 10% upside in trade-weighted terms and the global bond bear phase is not yet over. Another key market development has been the continuing drop in risk asset correlations. This reflects falling perceptions of downside "tail risk", which is reflected in a declining equity risk premium (ERP). Absent further negative shocks, perceptions of downside risk should continue to wane, allowing risk premia and asset correlations to ease further. And, if business leaders come to believe that deflation risk has finally been vanquished, they can focus more on long-term revenue generation rather than on guaranteeing their existence. Much of the normalization of the ERP since 2012 has been due to multiple expansion. Going forward, the lion's share of the remaining adjustment is likely to be in the bond market, with equity multiples trending sideways. This means that equity total returns will be roughly in line with dividends and earnings growth over the next couple of years. The only adjustment to asset allocation we are making this month is an upgrade for U.S. high-yield based on improved valuation. Feature The financial market landscape has shifted over the past month with asset correlations changing and a number of popular trades going into reverse. First, the failure to replace Obamacare triggered a pull-back of the so-called 'Trump trades.' Stock indexes are holding up well, but the U.S. dollar has given back most of the gains made in March and the 10-year Treasury yield has dropped back to the bottom of the post-U.S. election trading range. Moreover, the negative correlation between the U.S. dollar and risk assets has flipped (Chart I-1). Even oil prices have diverged from their usual negative trading relationship with the dollar. Second, investors are questioning the FOMC's appetite for rate hikes in the coming months. They are also wondering how much longer the European Central Bank (ECB) and the Bank of Japan (BoJ) can maintain current hyper-stimulative policy settings. The whole narrative regarding equity strength, a dollar overshoot and bond price weakness may be over if there is not going to be any fiscal stimulus in the U.S., the Fed is not going to hike more aggressively than the market currently expects, and monetary policy is near a turning point in Japan and the Eurozone. Is it time for investors to become defensive, scale back on risk assets, upgrade bonds and short the dollar? We believe the answer is 'not yet', although 2017 was always destined to be a rough ride given the ups-and-downs in the U.S. legislative process and the lineup of European elections. President Trump's first 100 days are turning out to be even more tumultuous than many expected. Allegations of wiretaps and the FBI investigation into the alleged interference of Russia in the U.S. election are costing the President political capital, as well as raising question marks over the Republican Party's wish list. Simply removing the possibility of corporate tax cuts would justify a healthy haircut on the S&P 500. The political situation has admittedly become more complicated, but our geopolitical team makes the following observations: The GOP base supports Trump: Until the mid-term elections, Trump's popularity with Republican voters remains strong, which means that the President still has political capital (Chart I-2). Chart I-1Changing Correlations Changing Correlations Changing Correlations Chart I-2Trump Not Dead To Republicans Yet April 2017 April 2017 Republicans want tax reform: Even if reform gets bogged down, there is broad support for cutting taxes at a minimum. Many deficit hawks appear willing to use the magic of "dynamic scoring" to justify tax cuts as revenue-neutral. Even the chairman of the Freedom Caucus has signaled that he is open to tax reform that is not revenue neutral. Tax reform not conditional on Obamacare: The failure to replace Obamacare does not mean that tax reform is necessarily going to be delayed. The Republicans will need to show success on at least one of their signature platforms before heading into the mid-term elections. The prospective savings from Obamacare's repeal are not needed to "fund" tax cuts. Infrastructure: We still expect that President Trump will get his way on additional spending on defense, veterans, infrastructure and the wall. The tax reform process will undoubtedly be full of drama and may be stretched out, adding volatility to the equity market. Our base case is that some sort of tax reform and infrastructure package will be passed by year end. However, if a reform package proves too difficult to pass, then we believe that the GOP will settle for straight-forward tax cuts and a modest amount of infrastructure spending (please see Table I-1 in the March 2017 monthly Bank Credit Analyst for the probabilities we have attached to the various GOP proposals). Tax cuts and increased spending will be positive for risk assets. The caveat is that we see little change in Trump's commitment to mercantilism. This means he will lean toward backing the border tax or tariff increases, which will offset some of the benefits for risk assets from reduced tax rates. Excess Reaction To FOMC Chart I-3FOMC & Market Disagree Beyond This Year FOMC & Market Disagree Beyond This Year FOMC & Market Disagree Beyond This Year Given the uncertainty on the fiscal side, one can't blame the FOMC for taking a "wait and see" approach. The range for the funds rate was raised to 0.75-1.00% at the March meeting, as expected, but there was virtually no change to any of the median FOMC member projections for GDP growth, inflation or interest rates out to 2019. Another 50 bps of tightening is expected by the Committee this year, with 75 bps expected in both 2018 and 2019 (Chart I-3). The FOMC signaled in March that it was not yet prepared to adjust the 'dot plot,' sparking a rally in bond prices and a pullback in the dollar. This market reaction seemed excessive in our view. The key message from the March meeting was that the Fed now sees inflation as having finally reached its 2% target, as highlighted by the decision to strip the reference to the "current shortfall of inflation" from the statement. If the U.S. economy performs as we expect, the Fed will have to take a more hawkish tone later this year. Is The Dollar Bull Over? Still, recent market action suggests that the dollar may not get a lift from future Fed rate hikes because the outlook for global growth outside of the U.S. is brightening. Moreover, it could be that monetary policy in the Eurozone and Japan is at a turning point. There is increasing speculation that the ECB will have to taper the quantitative easing program sooner than planned. Some are even speculating the ECB will lift rates this year. The recent economic data for the euro area have indeed been stellar. The composite PMI surged to 56.7 in March, with the forward-looking new orders components hitting new cyclical highs. Capital goods orders continue to trend higher, which bodes well for investment spending over the coming months (Chart I-4). In addition, private-sector credit growth has accelerated to the fastest pace since the 2008-09 financial crisis. Our real GDP model for the Eurozone, based on our consumer and business spending indicators, remains quite upbeat for the first half of the year. With unemployment rapidly falling in many parts of the Euro Area, it is becoming increasingly difficult to establish a consensus view on the ECB policy committee. The Bundesbank has been quite vocal on this issue, especially given that Eurozone headline HICP inflation reached 2% in February. The core rate of inflation remains close to 1%, but the rising diffusion index suggests that budding inflation pressure is becoming more broadly based (Chart I-5). Chart I-4Solid Eurozone Economic Data Solid Eurozone Economic Data Solid Eurozone Economic Data Chart I-5Eurozone Inflation Broadening Out Eurozone Inflation Broadening Out Eurozone Inflation Broadening Out BCA's Global Fixed Income Strategy service recently compared the current economic situation to that of the U.S. around the time of the Fed's 2013 "Taper Tantrum."1 In Chart I-6, we show "cycle-on-cycle" comparisons for the Euro Area and U.S. In the Euro Area, the number of months to the first rate hike discounted in money markets peaked in July of last year right around the time of the U.K. Brexit vote. Interestingly, this indicator has converged with the U.S. path. There is less spare capacity in European labor markets today than was the case in the U.S. when the Fed first hinted at tapering its asset purchases. Nonetheless, the relatively calmer readings on Euro Area core inflation suggest that the ECB does not have to rush to judgment on asset purchases, especially given upcoming elections. Not before September will the ECB be in a position to announce another tapering of its asset purchases beginning in 2018. A "Bund Tantrum" could thus be the big story for the global bond market later this year. We do not believe that the ECB will raise short-term interest rates before it starts the tapering process. A rate hike would result in a stronger euro, downward pressure on inflation, and an unwanted tightening in financial conditions that would threaten the current economic impulse. This means that, between now and September, the window is still open for U.S./Eurozone interest rate spreads to move further in favor of the dollar. The European election calendar remains a risk to our view on currencies and risk assets. Widening OAT/Bund yield spreads highlight that investors remain concerned that the French election will follow last year's populist script in the U.K. and the U.S. However, our geopolitical team believes that Le Pen is unlikely to win since she trails in the polls by a 25-30% margin relative to Macron, her most likely opponent. Even if she were to pull off a win, she will not hold the balance of power in the National Assembly. Over in Germany, where the election is heating up, the fact that the Europhile SPD party is gaining in the polls means that the September vote is unlikely to be a speed bump for financial markets. The real political risk lies in Italy. While the election has been pushed off to February 2018, it appears that there will be genuine fireworks at that time because Euroskeptic parties have seized the lead in the polls (Chart I-7). In the meantime, European elections will be a source of volatility, but investors should ride it out until we get closer to the Italian election. Chart I-6Less Spare Capacity In Europe ##br##Now Vs. Pre-Taper Tantrum U.S. Less Spare Capacity in Europe Now vs Pre-Taper Tantrum U.S. Less Spare Capacity in Europe Now vs Pre-Taper Tantrum U.S. Chart I-7Italian Elections: The Big Risk Italian Elections: The Big Risk Italian Elections: The Big Risk Japanese Yield Cap To Hold Chart I-8Japanese Wages Still Disappointing Japanese Wages Still Disappointing Japanese Wages Still Disappointing Similar to our view on the ECB, we do not believe that the Bank of Japan (BoJ) will be in a position to begin removing monetary accommodation anytime soon. We expect that the 0% yield cap on the 10-year JGB to remain in place at least for the remainder of this year. True, deflationary forces appear to have eased somewhat. Japan is also benefiting from the faster global growth on the industrial side. Nonetheless, the domestic demand story is less positive, with consumer confidence and real retail sales growth languishing. Wages continue to struggle as well (Chart I-8). This year's round of Japanese wage negotiations was particularly disappointing, with many manufacturing companies offering pay raises only half as large as those of last year. We continue to see this as the only way out of the low-inflation trap for Japan - keeping Japanese interest rates depressed versus the rest of the world, thus making the yen weaken alongside increasingly unattractive interest rate differentials. Our views on U.S. fiscal policy and the outlook for the major central banks paint a bullish picture for the dollar and suggest that the other 'Trump trades' still have legs. The dollar has another 10% upside in trade-weighted terms and the global bond bear phase is not yet over. Admittedly, however, the next major move in global yields may not occur until the autumn when the ECB takes a less dovish tone. In the meantime, our fixed-income strategists remain underweight Treasurys within global currency-hedged portfolios. The team recently upgraded (low beta) JGBs to overweight at the expense of core European government bonds, which move to benchmark. Correlation, ERP And Hurdle Rates Chart I-9Market Correlations Are Shifting Market Correlations Are Shifting Market Correlations Are Shifting Another key market development has been the continuing drop in risk asset correlations, a trend that began before the U.S. election (Chart I-9). Elevated financial market correlations have been a hallmark of this expansion, making life difficult for traders and for investors searching for diversification. Correlations have been higher than normal across assets, across regions and within asset classes. However, the situation has changed dramatically over the past 6 months. A drop in asset correlations is important for diversification reasons and because it provides a better backdrop for those seeking alpha. But the reasons behind the decline in correlations may have broader financial and economic implications. One can only speculate on the underlying cause of the surge in asset correlations in the first place. Our theory has been that the large global output gap lingered because of the sub-par recovery that followed the most damaging macroeconomic shock since the Great Depression. The growth headwinds were formidable and many felt that the sustainability of the recovery hinged solely on the success or failure of radical monetary policy. Either policy would "work", the output gap will gradually close, the deflation threat would be extinguished and risk assets would perform well, or it would fail, and risk assets would be dragged down as the economy fell back into recession. Thus, risk assets fluctuated along with violent swings in investor sentiment in what appeared to be a binary economic environment. In the March 2017 Quarterly Review, the Bank for International Settlements described it this way: "In a global environment devoid of growth but plentiful in liquidity, central bank decisions appear to draw investors into common, successive phases of buying or selling risk." In previous research, we developed a model that helps to explain the historical movements in correlations. We chose to focus on the correlation of individual stocks within the S&P 500 (Chart I-10). The two explanatory variables are: (1) the equity risk premium (ERP; the difference between the S&P 500 forward earnings yield and the 10-year Treasury yield); and (2) rolling 1-year realized downside volatility.2 The logic behind the model is that a higher ERP causes investors to revalue cash flows from all firms, which in turn, causes structural shifts in the correlation among stocks. Conversely, a lower ERP results in less homogenization of the present value of future cash flows, and raises the effect of differentiation among business models. A rise in the ERP could occur for different reasons, but the most obvious include an increase in the perceived riskiness of firms, a shift in investor risk aversion, or both. Volatility is included to explain the cyclical variation of correlations, but we use only below-average returns in the calculation because we are more concerned about the risk of equity market declines. It makes sense that perceptions of downside "tail risk" should affect investors' appetite for risk. The model almost completely explains the trend in stock price correlations over the past decade, highlighting the importance of the ERP in driving the structural change in correlations (Chart I-11). But why was the ERP so elevated after 2007? Chart I-10Market Correlation And The ERP bca.bca_mp_2017_04_01_s1_c10 bca.bca_mp_2017_04_01_s1_c10 Chart I-11Modeling The Stock ##br##Correlation Within The S&P 500 Modeling The Stock Correlation Within The S&P 500 Modeling The Stock Correlation Within The S&P 500 The preceding moderation in risk premia in the 1990s was likely due to a decline in macroeconomic volatility, a phenomenon that began in the early 1980s and has since been dubbed "The Great Moderation". A waning in the volatility of global inflation and growth contributed to a decline in the volatility of interest rates, which are used to discount future cash flows. This also reduced the perceived riskiness of investing in securities that are leveraged to economic growth, thus causing investors to trim their required excess returns to equities. Unfortunately, the Great Moderation contributed to complacency and bubbles in tech stocks and, later, housing.3 The bursting of the U.S. housing bubble brought the Great Moderation to a crushing end, ushering in an era of rolling financial crises and monetary extremism. Our measure of downside volatility soon returned to normal levels after the recession-driven spike. However, the ERP continued to fluctuate at a higher average level, which helps to explain the strong correlation among risk asset prices in the years since the recession. The ERP And Capital Spending Chart I-12Capex Hurdle Rates Never Came Down Capex Hurdle Rates Never Came Down Capex Hurdle Rates Never Came Down An elevated equity risk premium is consistent with the view that investors demanded a more generous premium to take risk in a post-Lehman world. This may also help to explain the disappointing rate of capital spending growth in the major countries in recent years. Firms demanded a fat "hurdle rate" when evaluating new investment projects. Sir John Cunliffe, a member of the Bank of England Monetary Policy Committee, recently cited survey evidence related to the dismal U.K. capital spending record since the recession.4 The main culprits were bank lending issues, the high cost of capital and elevated hurdle rates. Eighty percent of publically-owned firms in the survey agreed that financial market pressure for short-term returns to shareholders had been an obstacle to investment. This short-termism makes sense if investors feared that the recovery could turn to bust at any moment. The survey highlighted that market pressure, together with macro uncertainty among CEOs, kept the hurdle rate applied to new investment projects at close to 12%, despite the major drop in market interest rates. In other words, the gap between the required rate-of-return on new projects and the risk-free rate or corporate borrowing rates surged (Chart I-12). J.P. Morgan concluded that hurdle rates have also been sticky at around 12% in the U.S.5 This study blamed uncertainty over the cash-flow outlook (macro risk) and the fact that CEOs believed that low borrowing rates are temporary. It is rational for a firm to hold cash and buy back stock if perceptions of downside tail risk remain lofty. The bottom line is that uncertainty and higher risk aversion related to macro volatility kept the ERP elevated, curtailing animal spirits and lifting correlation among risk asset prices. The good news is that the situation appears to have changed since the U.S. election. Measures of market correlation have dropped sharply across asset classes, within asset classes and across regions. Animal spirits also appear to be reviving given the jump in consumer and business confidence in the major countries. We are not making the case that all risks have dissipated. The military situation in North Korea and upcoming European elections are just two on a long list, as highlighted in this month's Special Report on Brexit's implication for Scotland independence, beginning on page 19. Our point is that, absent further negative shocks, perceptions of downside tail risk and a binary economic future should wane further. And, if business leaders come to believe that deflation risk has finally been vanquished, they can now focus more on long-term revenue generation rather than on guaranteeing their existence. Does The ERP Have More Downside? It is difficult to determine the equilibrium equity risk premium, but back-of-the-envelope estimates can provide a ballpark figure. Let us assume that the ERP is not going back into negative territory, as was the case from 1980-2000. A more reasonable assumption is that the ERP instead converges with the level that prevailed during the last equity bull market, from 2003 to 2007 (about +200 basis points). The ERP is currently 3.2, which is equal to the forward earnings yield of 5.6 minus the 10-year yield of 2.4% (Chart I-13). The ERP would need to fall by 120 basis points to get back to the 2% average yield of 2003-2007. This convergence can occur through some combination of a lower earnings yield or a higher bond yield. If the 10-year Treasury yield is assumed to peak in this cycle at about 3%, then this leaves room for the earnings yield to fall by 60 basis points. This would boost the earnings multiple from 17.8 to 20. However, a rise in the 10-year yield to 3½% would leave no room for multiple expansion. We lean to the latter scenario for bonds, although it will take some time for the bond bear phase to play out. In the meantime, an equity overshoot is possible. The bottom line is that much of the normalization of the ERP since 2012 has been due to multiple expansion. Going forward, the lion's share of the remaining adjustment is likely to be in the bond market, with equity multiples trending sideways. This means that equity total returns will be roughly in line with dividends and earnings growth over the next couple of years, although that will be much better than the (likely negative) returns in the bond market. We continue to favor higher beta developed markets where value is less stretched, such as the euro area and Japan, over the U.S. on a currency-hedged basis. Europe is about one standard deviation cheap relative to the U.S. index, although the extra value in the Japanese market has dissipated recently (Chart I-14). Moreover, both Eurozone and Japanese stocks in local currency terms will benefit from weaker currencies in the coming months, as rising inflation expectations and stable nominal interest rates result in declining in real rates, at least relative to the U.S. Chart I-13Forward Multiple Scenarios bca.bca_mp_2017_04_01_s1_c13 bca.bca_mp_2017_04_01_s1_c13 Chart I-14Eurozone Stocks Are Cheap Eurozone Stocks Are Cheap Eurozone Stocks Are Cheap Conclusion We have reassessed our asset allocation given that several market calls have gone against us over the past month. However, three key views argue to stay the course for now: Recent economic data support our view that a synchronized global acceleration is underway. This is highlighted by an update of the real GDP growth models we introduced last month (Chart I-15). The implication is that earnings growth will be constructive for stocks; Tax reform is still likely to be passed this year in the U.S. Moreover, were a broad tax reform package to elude the Administration, the fallback position will involve (stimulative) tax cuts, some infrastructure spending and de-regulation; and The FOMC will shift to a more hawkish tone in the coming months, while the ECB, Bank of England and Bank of Japan will maintain extremely accommodative monetary policy at least into the fall. The result is that stocks will outperform cash and bonds, while the dollar still has another 10% upside potential. The only adjustment we are making this month is in the U.S. high-yield corporate bond allocation. According to our fixed-income strategists, value has improved enough that it is worth upgrading the sector to overweight at the expense of Treasurys. Some of the indicators that comprise our default rate model have become more constructive for credit risk, including lending standards, the PMIs and profits. The combination of wider junk spreads and an improving default rate outlook have resulted in a widening in our estimate of the default-adjusted high-yield spread to 219 basis points (Chart I-16). Historically, high-yield earns a positive 12-month excess return 81% of the time when the default-adjusted spread is between 200 and 250 basis points. Chart I-15GDP Models Are Bullish GDP Models Are Bullish GDP Models Are Bullish Chart I-16Upgrade U.S. High Yield Upgrade U.S. High Yield Upgrade U.S. High Yield Turning to oil markets, we expect recent price weakness to reverse despite dollar strength. Building inventories have weighed on crude, but this is a head fake according to our commodity experts. We expect to see a sustained draw in OECD storage volumes this year, now that the year-end surge on crude product from OPEC's Gulf producers has been fully absorbed. With global supply/demand fundamentals now dominating price movements, the recent breakdown in the inverse correlation between oil prices and the dollar should persist. Oil prices will rise back toward the US$55 range that we believe will be the central tendency over 2016 and 2017. Risks are to the upside. Our other recommendations include: Maintain below-benchmark duration within bond portfolios. Shift to benchmark in Eurozone government bonds and upgrade JGBs to overweight within currency-hedged portfolios. The U.S. remains at underweight. Overweight European and Japanese equities versus the U.S. in currency-hedged portfolios. Be defensively positioned within equity sectors to temper the risk associated with overweighting stocks over bonds. In U.S. equities, maintain a preference for exporting companies over those that rely heavily on imports. Overweight investment-grade corporate bonds relative to government issues in the U.S.; upgrade U.S. high-yield to overweight, but downgrade European investment-grade to underweight due to fading support from the ECB. Within European government bond portfolios, continue to avoid the Periphery in favor of the core markets. Fade the widening in French/German spreads. Overweight the dollar relative to the other major currencies. Stay cautious on EM bonds, stocks and currencies. Overweight small cap stocks versus large in the U.S. market, on expected policy changes that will disproportionately favor small companies. Favor oil to base metals. Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst March 30, 2017 Next Report: April 27, 2017 1 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "Will The Hawks Walk The Talk?" dated March 7, 2017, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Downside volatility is calculated in a fashion similar to standard deviation, except only using below-average returns. 3 Of course, the Great Moderation was not the only factor that contributed to the financial market bubbles. 4 Are Firms Underinvesting - and if so why? Speech by Sir Jon Cunliffe, Deputy Governor Financial Stability and Member of the Monetary Policy Committee. Greater Birmingham Chamber of Commerce. February 8, 2017. 5 It's Time to Reassess Your Hurdle Rates. J.P. Morgan, November 2016. II. Will Scotland Scotch Brexit? This month's Special Report, on Scotland's role in Brexit negotiations, was penned by our colleagues Matt Gertken, Marko Papic, and Jesse Kurri of BCA's Geopolitical Strategy service. Scottish secessionist sentiment has increased in response to First Minister Nicola Sturgeon's decision to push for a second popular referendum on Scottish independence, tentatively set for late 2018 or early 2019, though likely to be denied for some time by Westminster. The outcome of a referendum on leaving the U.K., which eventually will occur, is too close to call at this point. The possibility will influence the U.K.'s negotiations with the EU, and vice versa. The risk of a U.K. break-up adds an important constraint to Prime Minister Theresa May's government in the Brexit talks. Since the EU also has an interest in avoiding a devastating outcome for the U.K., our geopolitical team believes that the worst version of a "hard Brexit" will be avoided. That said, independence for Scotland cannot be ruled out, particularly in the context of any adverse economic shock stemming from the U.K.'s divorce proceedings. I trust that you will find the report as insightful as I did. Mark McClellan Senior Vice President A second Scottish referendum will be "too close to call"; There is upside potential to the 45% independence vote of 2014; Scots may vote with their hearts instead of their heads; But the EU will not seek to dismember the U.K. ... ...And that may keep the kingdom united. "No sooner did Scots Men appear inclined to set Matters upon a better footing, than the Union of the two Kingdoms was projected, as an effectual measure to perpetuate their Chains and Misery." - George Lockhart, Memoirs Concerning The Affairs Of Scotland, 1714. British Prime Minister Theresa May has had a busy week. On Monday she met with Scotland's First Minister Nicola Sturgeon as part of a tour of the United Kingdom to drum up national unity. On Wednesday she communicated with European Council President Donald Tusk and formally invoked Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty, initiating the process of the U.K.'s withdrawal from the European Union. And on that day and Thursday, she turns to the parliamentary battle over the "Great Repeal Bill" that will replace the 1972 European Communities Act, which until now translated European law into British law. Brexit is finally getting under way. As our colleague Dhaval Joshi puts it, the "Phoney War" has ended, and now the real battle begins.1 Indeed, the dynamic has truly shifted in recent weeks. Not because PM May invoked Article 50, which was expected, but rather because Scottish secessionist sentiment has ticked up in reaction to Sturgeon's decision to hold a second popular referendum on Scottish independence (Chart II-1), tentatively set for late 2018 or early 2019. Scottish voters are still generally opposed to holding a second referendum, but the gap is narrowing (Chart II-2). A sequel to the September 2014 referendum was always in the cards in the event of a Brexit vote. Financial markets called it, by punishing equities domiciled in Scotland following the U.K.'s EU referendum (Chart II-3). The timing of the move toward a second referendum is significant for two reasons. First, the odds of Scotland actually voting to leave have increased relative to 2014, even as the economic case for secession has worsened. Second, Scotland's threat of leaving will impact the U.K.'s negotiations with the EU, slated to end in March 2019.2 Chart II-1A Second Independence Referendum... A Second Independence Referendum ... A Second Independence Referendum ... Chart II-2...Is Looking More Likely ... Is Looking More Likely ... Is Looking More Likely Chart II-3Scottish Stocks Have Underperformed Scottish Stocks Have Underperformed Scottish Stocks Have Underperformed BCA's Geopolitical Strategy service believes that a second Scottish referendum will eventually take place. And as with the Brexit referendum, the outcome will be "too close to call," at least judging by the data available at present. In what follows we discuss why, and how Scotland could influence the Brexit negotiations, and vice versa. While the U.K. can avoid the worst version of a "hard Brexit," the high risk of a break-up of the U.K. will add urgency to negotiations with the EU. Why Scotland Rejected "Freedom" In 2014 In a Special Report on "Secession In Europe," in May 14, 2014, we argued that the incentives for separatism in Europe had weakened and that this trend specifically applied to Scotland:3 The world is a scary place: Whereas the market-friendly 1990s fueled regional aspirations to independence by suggesting that the world was fundamentally secure and that "the End of History" was nigh, the multipolar twenty-first century discourages those aspirations, with nation-states fighting to maintain their integrity. For Scotland, the Great Recession drove home the dangers of socio-economic instability. EU and NATO membership is difficult to obtain: Scotland could not be assured to find easy accession to the EU as it faced opposition from states like Spain, which wanted to discourage Catalan independence. Enlargement of the EU and NATO have both become increasingly difficult and Scotland would need a special dispensation. The United States and the European Union vociferously discouraged Scotland from striking out on its own ahead of the 2014 referendum. Domestic politics: The Great Recession revived old fissures in every country, including the old Anglo-Scots divide. The U.K. imposed budgetary austerity while Scotland opposed it. Left-leaning Scotland resented the rightward shift in the U.K., ruled by the Conservative Party after 2010. We also highlighted some of Scotland's particular impediments to independence: Energy: Scotland's domestic sources of energy are in structural decline. This would weigh on the fiscal balance and domestic private demand. The referendum actually signaled a top in the oil market, with oil prices collapsing by 58% in 2014. Deficits and debt: Scotland's public finances would get worse if it left the U.K. If that had happened in 2014, it was estimated that the country's fiscal deficit would have been 5.9% of GDP and that its national debt would have been 109% of GDP. (Today those numbers are 8% and 84% of GDP respectively) (Table II-1). A newborn Scotland would have to adopt austerity quickly. Table II-1Scotland Would Be A High-Debt Economy April 2017 April 2017 Central banking: If Scotland walked away from its share of the U.K.'s national debt, yet retained the pound unilaterally and without the blessing of the BoE, it would lose access to the English central bank as lender of last resort. And if it walked away from its U.K. debt obligation and the pound, then it would also lose its financial sector and much of its wealth, which would be newly redenominated into a Scots national currency. Scotland is every bit as reliant on the financial sector as the U.K. as a whole (Chart II-4), making for a major constraint on any political rupture that threatens to force it to change currencies or lose control of monetary policy. Chart II-4Highly Financialized Societies April 2017 April 2017 Politics: We also posited that domestic political changes in the U.K. could provide inducements to keep Scotland in the union, particularly if the Conservatives suffered in the 2015 elections. The opposite, in fact, occurred, sowing the seeds for today's confrontation. For all these reasons, we argued that the risks of Scottish secession were overstated. The September 2014 referendum confirmed our forecast. The economic prospects were simply too daunting outside the U.K. But the 45% pro-independence tally also left open the possibility for another referendum down the line. Bottom Line: Scottish independence did not make sense in 2014 for a range of geopolitical, political, and economic reasons. But note that while independence still does not make economic sense, the political winds have shifted. Scottish antagonism toward the Conservative leadership in England has only intensified, while it remains to be seen how the European Union will respond to Scotland in a post-Brexit world. The Three Kingdoms In our Strategic Outlook for 2017, we argued that the British public not only did not regret the Brexit referendum outcome, but positively rallied around the flag because of it. This helped set up an environment in which the ruling party could charge forward aggressively and pursue the outcome confirmed by the vote (Chart II-5). Brexit does indeed mean Brexit. We have since seen that the Tories have forced parliament's hand in approving the bill authorizing the government to initiate exit proceedings. Chart II-5Three Cheers For Brexit And The Tories Three Cheers For Brexit & The Tories Three Cheers For Brexit & The Tories It stood to reason that the crux of tensions would shift to the domestic sphere, i.e. to the troubling constitutional problems that Brexit would provoke between what were once called "the Three Kingdoms," England (and Wales), Scotland, and Northern Ireland.4 While 52% of the U.K. public voted to leave the EU, the subdivision reveals the stark regional differences: England and Wales voted to leave (53.4% and 52.5% respectively), while Scotland and Northern Ireland voted to stay (62% and 55.8% respectively). Scotland and the London metropolitan area were the clear outliers. The Scottish parliament is a devolved parliament subordinate to the U.K. parliament in Westminster, and it cannot hold a legally binding referendum on independence without the latter's permission.5 The May government is insisting that it will not allow a referendum to go forward until the Brexit negotiations are completed. This is an obvious strategic need. Although the Scottish National Party (SNP), the dominant party in Edinburgh, could hold a non-binding referendum at any time to apply pressure on London (reminder: the Brexit vote was also non-binding), it has an interest in waiting to see whether public opinion of Brexit will shift in England and what kind of deal the U.K. might get from the EU in the exit negotiations. Eventually, however, Scotland is likely to push for a new vote. The SNP is a party whose raison d'être is independence sooner or later. It faces a once-in-a-generation opportunity, with the 2014 referendum producing an encouraging result and Brexit adding new impetus. The party manifesto made clear in 2016 that a new independence vote would be justified in case of "a significant and material change in the circumstances that prevailed in 2014, such as Scotland being taken out of the EU against our will." Why have the odds of Scottish independence increased? First, Brexit removes a domestic political constraint on independence. After the Brexit vote, the SNP and other pro-independence groups can say that England changed the status quo, not Scotland. It is worth remembering that the Anglo-Scots union was forged in 1707 at a time of severe Scottish economic hardship, in which a common market was the primary motivation to merge governments. Today, Scotland's comparable interest lies in maintaining access to the European single market, which is now under threat from Westminster. In particular, as with the U.K. as a whole, Scotland stands to suffer from a decline in immigration and hence workforce growth (Chart II-6). Second, Brexit removes an external constraint. The EU's official opposition to Scottish independence, particularly European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso's threat that Scottish accession would be "extremely difficult, if not impossible," likely affected the outcome of the 2014 referendum. Of course, many Scots rejected all such warnings as the vote approached, with polls showing a rally just before the referendum date toward the 45% outcome (Chart II-7). But if the EU's warnings even had a temporary effect, what happens if the EU gives a nod and wink this time around? While EU officials have recently reiterated the so-called "Barroso doctrine," we suspect that they are less likely to play an interventionist role under the new circumstances. Spain - which is still concerned about Scotland fanning Catalan ambitions - might be less vocal this time, since Madrid could plausibly argue that Brexit makes a material difference from its own case. Catalonians could not argue, like the Scots, that their parent country attempted to deprive them of access to the European Single Market. Chart II-6Immigration Curbs ##br##Threaten Scots Growth April 2017 April 2017 Chart II-7Scottish Patriots ##br##Only Temporarily Deterred Scottish Patriots Only Temporarily Deterred Scottish Patriots Only Temporarily Deterred To put this into context, remember that it is not historically unusual for continental Europe to act as a patron to Scotland to keep England in check. There is ample record of this behavior, namely French and Spanish patronage of the exiled Stuart kings after 1688. The situation is very different today, but the analogy is not absurd: insofar as Brexit undermines the integrity of the EU, the EU can be expected to reciprocate by not doing everything in its power to defend the integrity of the U.K. All is fair in love and war. Nevertheless, the economic constraints to Scottish secession are even clearer than they were in 2014: The North Sea is drying up: Scotland's North Sea energy revenues have essentially collapsed to zero (Chart II-8). Meanwhile the long-term prospects for the North Sea oil production remain as bleak as they were in 2014, especially since oil prices halved. Reserves of oil and gas are limited, hovering at around five to eight years' worth of supply - i.e. not a good basis for long-term independence (Chart II-9). Decommissioning costs are also expected to be high as the sector is wound down. England still foots many bills: Total government expenditures in Scotland exceed the total revenue raised in Scotland by about £15 billion or 28% of Scotland's government revenue (Chart II-10). Chart II-8No Golden Goose In The North Sea April 2017 April 2017 Chart II-9Limited Domestic Energy Supplies April 2017 April 2017 Chart II-10The U.K. Pays For Scotland's Allegiance April 2017 April 2017 Scottish finances stand at risk: Scotland's fiscal, foreign exchange, and monetary policy dilemmas are as discouraging as they were in 2014 (Chart II-11). Judging by the value of financial assets (which come under risk if Scotland loses the BoE's support or changes currencies), Scotland is incredibly exposed to financial risk (Chart II-12). Chart II-11Scotland's Deficits Getting Worse Scotland's Deficits Getting Worse Scotland's Deficits Getting Worse Chart II-12Scottish Financial Assets Need Currency Stability April 2017 April 2017 Thus, while key domestic political and foreign policy impediments may be removed, the country's internal economic impediments remain gigantic. Moreover, Scotland already has most of the characteristics of a nation state. It has its own legal and education system, prints its own banknotes, and has some powers of taxation (about 40% of revenue). It lacks a standing army and full fiscal control, but in these cases it clearly benefits from partnering with England. It also has a strong sense of national identity, regardless of whether it is technically independent. Why, then, do we believe Scottish independence is too close to call? Because Brexit has shown that "math" is insufficient! The Scots may go with their hearts against their heads, just as many English voters did in favor of Brexit. Nationalism and political polarization are a two-way street. History also shows that strictly materialist or quantitative assessments cannot anticipate paradigm shifts or national leaps into the unknown. Compare Ireland in 1922, the year of its independence from the U.K. Ireland was far less prepared to strike out on its own than Scotland is today. It comprised a smaller share of the U.K.'s population, workforce, and GDP than Scotland today (Charts II-13 and II-14). It was less educated and less developed relative to its neighbors, and it faced unemployment rates above 30%. Yet it chose independence anyway - out of political will and sheer Celtic grit. Ireland's case was very different than Scotland's today, but there is an interesting parallel. The U.K. was absorbed with continental affairs, the Americans played the role of external economic patron, and the Irish were ready to seize their once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. Today the U.K. is similarly distracted with Europe, and the SNP leadership is ready to seize the moment, having revealed its preference in 2014. But foreign support (in this case the EU's) will be a critical factor, even though the EU's common market is much less valuable to Scotland than the U.K.'s (Chart II-15). Chart II-13Irish Independence: ##br##Poverty Not An Obstacle April 2017 April 2017 Chart II-14Scotland: If The Irish ##br##Can Do It So Can We April 2017 April 2017 Chart II-15EU Market No ##br##Substitute For British Market April 2017 April 2017 Will the SNP be able to get enough votes? We know that more Scots voted to stay in the EU (62%) than voted to stay in the U.K. (55%), which in a crude sense implies that there is upside potential to the first referendum outcome. However, looking at the referendum results on the local level, it becomes clear that there is no correlation between Scottish secessionists and Europhiles, or unionists and Euroskeptics (Chart II-16). Nor is there any marked correlation between level of education and the desire for independence, as was the case in Brexit. Yet there is evidence that love of the Union Jack is correlated with age (Chart II-17). Youngsters are willing to take risks for the thrill of freedom, while their elders better understand the benefits from economic links and transfer payments. In the short and medium run, this suggests that demographics will continue to work against independence - reinforcing the fact that the SNP can wait to see what kind of deal the U.K. gets first.6 Chart II-16No Relationship Between IndyRef And Brexit April 2017 April 2017 Chart II-17Old Folks Loyal To The Union Jack April 2017 April 2017 The most striking indicator of Scottish secessionism is unemployment (Chart II-18). Thus an economic downturn that impacts Scotland, for example as result of uncertainty over Brexit, poses a critical risk to the union. The SNP will be quick to blame even a shred of economic pain on Tory-dominated Westminster. The British government and BoE have shown a commitment to use accommodative monetary and fiscal policy to smooth over the transition period, and they have fiscal room for maneuver (Chart II-19), but much will depend on what kind of a deal London gets from the EU and whether the markets remain calm. Chart II-18Joblessness Boosts Independence Vote April 2017 April 2017 Chart II-19The U.K. Has Room To Maneuver The U.K. Has Room To Maneuver The U.K. Has Room To Maneuver Bottom Line: Economics is an argument against Scottish independence, but history and politics are unclear. We simply note that independence cannot be ruled out, particularly in the context of any adverse economic shock stemming from the U.K.'s actual divorce proceedings. Will Scotland Scotch Brexit? From the beginning of the Brexit saga, BCA's Geopolitical Strategy service has argued that Britain, of all EU members, was uniquely predisposed and positioned to leave the union. Hence the referendum was "too close to call."7 This did not mean that the U.K. could do so without consequences. Leaving would be detrimental (albeit not apocalyptic) to the U.K.'s economy, particularly by harming service exports to the EU and reducing labor force growth via stricter immigration controls. In the event, upside economic surprises have occurred, though of course Brexit has not happened yet.8 How does the Scottish referendum threat affect the Brexit negotiations? This is much less clear and will require constant monitoring over the coming two years, and perhaps longer if the European Council agrees to extend the negotiating period (which would require a unanimous vote). Still, we can draw a few conclusions from the above. First, London is a price taker not a price maker. It cannot afford not to agree to a trade deal or transition deal of some sort upon leaving in 2019. Even if England were willing to walk away from the EU's offers, a total rupture (reversion to minimal WTO trade rules) would be unacceptable to Scotland after being denied a say in the negotiation process. Therefore Scotland is now a moderating force on the Tory leadership that is otherwise unconstrained by domestic politics due to the high level of support for May's government (see Chart II-5, page 24). To save the United Kingdom, the Tories may simply have to accept what Europe is willing to give. This supports our view that the risk of a total diplomatic war between Europe and the U.K. is unlikely and that expectations of cross-channel fireworks may be overdone. Second, Scotland is twice the price taker, because it can only afford independence from the U.K. if the EU is willing to grant it a special arrangement. This is possible, but difficult to see happen early in the negotiations process. It will be important to monitor Brussels' statements on Scottish independence carefully for signs that the EU is taking a tough stance on Brexit negotiations. Sturgeon has to play it safe and see what kind of a deal May brings back from Brussels. By waiting, she can profit from Scottish indignation over both May's use of prerogative to block the referendum in the first place and then over the Brexit deal itself, when it takes place. Third, the saving grace for both countries is that it is not in Europe's interest to dismantle the U.K., or to force it into a debilitating economic crisis. We have long differed from the view that the EU will be remorseless in its negotiations over Brexit. The EU seeks extensive trade engagements with every European country, from Norway and Switzerland to Iceland and Turkey, because its interest lies in expanding markets and forging alliances. Europe is not Russia, seeking to impose punitive economic embargoes on Ukraine and Belarus for failure to conform to its market standards. While free trade agreements usually take longer than two years to negotiate, and while the CETA agreement between the EU and Canada is a recent and relevant example of the risks for the U.K., the U.K. and EU are already highly integrated, unlike the two parties in most other bilateral trade negotiations. In addition, the U.K. is a military and geopolitical ally of key European states. The U.K.-EU negotiations are not being conducted in a ceteris paribus economic laboratory, but are occurring in 2017, a year in which Russian assertiveness, transnational terrorism and migration, and global multipolarity are all shared risks to both the U.K. and EU. Investment Implications Since January 17 - the date of Theresa May's speech calling for the exit from the common market - we have argued that the worst is probably over for the U.K.9 Yes, the EU negotiations will be tough and the British press - surprisingly lacking the stiff upper lip of its readers - will make mountains out of molehills. However, by saying no to the common market, Theresa May plays the role of a spouse who does not want to fight over the custody of the children, thus defusing the divorce proceedings. Our Geopolitical Strategy service has been short EUR/GBP since mid-January and the trade is down 2%. This suggests that the market has been in "wait and see mode" since the speech. We are comfortable with this trade regardless of our analysis on the rising probability of the Scottish referendum for two reasons: Hard Brexit is less likely: Many Tory MPs have had a tough time getting behind the "hard Brexit" policy, but until now they have had a tough time expressing their displeasure. However, the threat of Scottish independence and the dissolution of the U.K. will give the members of the Conservative and Unionist Party (as it is officially known) plenty of ammunition to push May towards a softer Brexit outcome. This should be bullish GBP in ceteris paribus terms. It's not the seventeenth century: We do not expect the EU to act like seventeenth-century France and subvert U.K. unity, at least not this early in the negotiations. For clients who expect the "knives to come out," we offer Scottish independence as a critical test of the thesis. Let's see if the EU is ready to play dirty and if it decides to alter the "Barroso doctrine" for Scotland. If they do, then our sanguine thesis is truly wrong. To be clear, we do not have high conviction that the pound will outperform either the euro or the U.S. dollar. Instead, we offer this currency trade as a way to gauge our political thesis that the U.K.-EU negotiations will likely go more smoothly than the market expects. Matt Gertken Associate Editor Geopolitical Strategy Marko Papic Senior Vice President Geopolitical Strategy Jesse Anak Kuri Research Analyst Geopolitical Strategy 1 Please see BCA European Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Phoney War Ends. Battle Begins," dated March 16, 2017, available at eis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Article 50 allows for a two-year negotiation period, after which the departing party may have an exit deal but is not guaranteed a trade deal for the future. The negotiation period can be extended with a unanimous vote in the European Council. 3 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Secession In Europe: Scotland And Catalonia," dated May 14, 2014, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy, "Brexit: The Three Kingdoms," in Strategic Outlook, "We Are All Geopolitical Strategists Now," dated December 14, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 5 The union of the kingdoms of Scotland and England is a power "reserved" to parliament and the crown in Schedule 5 of the Scotland Act of 1998. Altering the union would therefore require the U.K. and Scottish parliaments to agree to devolve the power to Scotland using Section 30(2) of the same act, which the monarch would then endorse. This was the case in 2012 when the 2014 referendum was initiated. 6 On the other hand, demographics also may work against Brexit in the long run, given that - as our colleague Peter Berezin has said in the past - many who voted to leave the EU will eventually pass away. 7 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Strategic Outlook, "Multipolarity & Markets," dated December 9, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 8 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and European Investment Strategy Special Report, "With Or Without You: The U.K. And The EU," dated March 17, 2016, and "BREXIT Update: Brexit Means Brexit, Until Brexit," dated September 16, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 9 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "The 'What Can You Do For Me' World?" dated January 25, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. III. Indicators And Reference Charts The S&P 500 index has pulled back from its recent highs, but it has not corrected enough to 'move the dial' in terms of the valuation or technical indicators. Stocks remain expensive based on our valuation index made up of 11 different measures. The technical indicator is still bullish. Our equity monetary indicator has dropped back to the zero line, meaning that it is not particularly bullish or bearish at the moment. The speculation index is elevated, however, pointing to froth in the market. The high level of our composite sentiment index and the low level of the VIX speaks to the level of investor complacency. Net earnings revisions remain close to the zero mark, although it is somewhat worrying that the earnings surprises index is slowly deteriorating. Our U.S. Willingness-to-Pay (WTP) indicator continues to send a positive message for the S&P 500. This indicator tracks flows, and thus provides information on what investors are actually doing, as opposed to sentiment indexes that track how investors are feeling. Investors often say they are bullish but remain conservative in their asset allocation. However, the widening gap between the U.S. WTP and that of Japan and Europe highlights that recent flows have favored the U.S. market relative to the other two. Looking ahead, this means that there is more "dry powder" available to buy the Japanese and European markets. A rise in the WTPs for these two markets in the coming months would signal that a rotation into Europe and Japan is taking place. U.S. bond valuation is hovering close to fair value. However, we believe that fair value itself is moving higher as some of the economic headwinds fade. The composite technical indicator for the 10-year Treasury shows that oversold conditions are unwinding, although the indicator is not yet back to zero. This suggests that the consolidation period for bonds is not yet complete. Oversold conditions are almost completely gone in terms of the U.S. dollar. The dollar is very expensive on a PPP basis, although it is less so by other measures. We believe the dollar has more upside. Technical conditions are also benign in the commodity complex. However, we are only bullish on oil at the moment. EQUITIES: Chart III-1U.S. Equity Indicators U.S. Equity Indicators U.S. Equity Indicators Chart III-2Willingness To Pay For Risk Willingness To Pay For Risk Willingness To Pay For Risk Chart III-3U.S. Equity Sentiment Indicators U.S. Equity Sentiment Indicators U.S. Equity Sentiment Indicators Chart III-4U.S. Stock Market Valuation U.S. Stock Market Valuation U.S. Stock Market Valuation Chart III-5U.S. Earnings U.S. Earnings U.S. Earnings Chart III-6Global Stock Market ##br##And Earnings: Relative Performance Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Chart III-7Global Stock Market ##br##And Earnings: Relative Performance Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance FIXED INCOME: Chart III-8U.S. Treasurys And Valuations U.S. Treasurys and Valuations U.S. Treasurys and Valuations Chart III-9U.S. Treasury Indicators U.S. Treasury Indicators U.S. Treasury Indicators Chart III-10Selected U.S. Bond Yields Selected U.S. Bond Yields Selected U.S. Bond Yields Chart III-1110-Year Treasury Yield Components 10-Year Treasury Yield Components 10-Year Treasury Yield Components Chart III-12U.S. Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor U.S. Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor U.S. Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor Chart III-13Global Bonds: Developed Markets Global Bonds: Developed Markets Global Bonds: Developed Markets Chart III-14Global Bonds: Emerging Markets Global Bonds: Emerging Markets Global Bonds: Emerging Markets CURRENCIES: Chart III-15U.S. Dollar And PPP U.S. Dollar And PPP U.S. Dollar And PPP Chart III-16U.S. Dollar And Indicator U.S. Dollar And Indicator U.S. Dollar And Indicator Chart III-17U.S. Dollar Fundamentals U.S. Dollar Fundamentals U.S. Dollar Fundamentals Chart III-18Japanese Yen Technicals Japanese Yen Technicals Japanese Yen Technicals Chart III-20Euro/Yen Technicals Euro/Yen Technicals Euro/Yen Technicals Chart III-19Euro Technicals Euro Technicals Euro Technicals Chart III-21Euro/Pound Technicals Euro/Pound Technicals Euro/Pound Technicals COMMODITIES: Chart III-22Broad Commodity Indicators Broad Commodity Indicators Broad Commodity Indicators Chart III-23Commodity Prices Commodity Prices Commodity Prices Chart III-24Commodity Prices Commodity Prices Commodity Prices Chart III-25Commodity Sentiment Commodity Sentiment Commodity Sentiment Chart III-26Speculative Positioning Speculative Positioning Speculative Positioning Chart III-27U.S. And Global Macro Backdrop U.S. And Global Macro Backdrop U.S. And Global Macro Backdrop ECONOMY: Chart III-28U.S. Macro Snapshot U.S. Macro Snapshot U.S. Macro Snapshot Chart III-29U.S. Growth Outlook U.S. Growth Outlook U.S. Growth Outlook Chart III-30U.S. Cyclical Spending U.S. Cyclical Spending U.S. Cyclical Spending Chart III-31U.S. Labor Market U.S. Labor Market U.S. Labor Market Chart III-32U.S. Consumption U.S. Consumption U.S. Consumption Chart III-33U.S. Housing U.S. Housing U.S. Housing Chart III-34U.S. Debt And Deleveraging U.S. Debt And Deleveraging U.S. Debt And Deleveraging Chart III-35U.S. Financial Conditions U.S. Financial Conditions U.S. Financial Conditions Chart III-36Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Chart III-37Global Economic Snapshot: China Global Economic Snapshot: China Global Economic Snapshot: China

Highlights EM equity valuations are neutral. Relative to the U.S., EM share prices do offer some value, but this primarily reflects elevated valuations within the S&P 500. According to the cyclically-adjusted P/E ratio, EM stocks are cheap for investors with a long-term time horizon - longer than two to three years. Corporate profits are much more important than equity valuations in driving share prices in the next 12 months. Our outlook for EM EPS is downbeat for the next 12 months. Maintain a defensive posture and an underweight allocation in EM stocks versus DM. A new trade: go long Russian energy stocks / short global energy ones. Feature Chart I-1EM P/E Ratio And EPS EM P/E Ratio And EPS EM P/E Ratio And EPS There is ongoing debate in the investment community concerning whether emerging markets (EM) equities are or are not cheap, in both absolute terms and relative to developed markets (DM). In this week's report we review various equity valuation indicators and reiterate that EM stocks are neither cheap nor expensive in absolute terms. For example, the average of trailing and forward P/E ratios is slightly above its historical mean (Chart I-1, top panel). Relative to the U.S., EM share prices do offer value, but this reflects elevated valuations within the S&P 500. Despite this, we recommend underweighting EM vs U.S./DM because the cyclical growth dynamics is much better in DM than EM. EM stocks are cheap if one assumes a strong earnings recovery (Chart I-1, bottom panel). If earnings per share (EPS) begin contracting anew, as we expect, then the current rally will be reversed sooner than later. Overall, we continue to recommend a defensive posture for absolute-return investors and maintaining an underweight allocation in EM stocks versus DM for asset allocators. Valuation Perspectives Below we consider several valuation ratios: The equal-sector weighted trailing P/E ratio is 17.7 for EM (Chart I-2). Table I-1 displays equal-sector weighted P/E ratio, price-to-book value ratio and dividend yields for major equity markets globally. This is an apples-to-apples comparison, as it assigns equal weights to each of the 10 MSCI sectors - i.e., it removes sector biases. Chart I-2Equal-Sector Weighted Trailing P/E Ratio Equal-Sector Weighted Trailing P/E Ratio Equal-Sector Weighted Trailing P/E Ratio Table I-1Equal-Sector Weighted Valuation Ratios Across EM And DM EM Equity Valuations Revisited EM Equity Valuations Revisited Hence, on a comparable basis, EM equities are only slightly cheaper than DM stocks as is evident in Table I-1. Besides, the composite valuation indicator based on equal-sector weighted trailing and forward P/E, price-to-book value, price-to-cash earnings ratios and dividend yield indicate that EM stocks are fairly valued (Chart I-3). The cyclically-adjusted P/E (CAPE) ratio. The CAPE ratio is a structural valuation measure, i.e. it matters in the long run. Importantly, it assumes that real (inflation-adjusted) EPS will revert to its historical mean or trend. In short, the CAPE ratio tells us what the P/E ratio would be if EPS were to revert to its historical trend. Chart I-4 illustrates the EM CAPE ratio. If EM EPS in inflation-adjusted U.S. dollar terms reaches its historical time trend, one can safely assume that EM stocks are cheap and currently worth buying. In a nutshell, the current CAPE ratio of 15 assumes that EM EPS should rise by about 30% in nominal U.S. dollar terms over an investor's time horizon. Chart I-3EM Equities Valuations Are Neutral bca.ems_wr_2017_03_29_s1_c3 bca.ems_wr_2017_03_29_s1_c3 Chart I-4EM CAPE Ratio EM CAPE Ratio EM CAPE Ratio Given that our time horizon is 12 months, the assumption that EM EPS will surge by about 30% in U.S. dollar terms is in our view ambitious. Therefore, we posit that EM share prices do not offer compelling value at all in the next 12 months. If one's investment horizon were two-to-three years or longer, the assumption that EPS will rise by 30% or more in U.S. dollar terms is much more plausible. In this sense we would concur that EM share prices offer decent value from a longer-term perspective. Our methodology of calculating the CAPE ratio for EM varies from the well-known Robert Shiller's CAPE ratio for the U.S.1 However, even when applying our CAPE methodology to U.S. equities, the resulting ratio is not very different from Shiller's CAPE (Chart I-5). Trimmed-mean equity valuation ratios. Chart 6 illustrates 20% trimmed-mean trailing and forward P/E, price-to-book value, price-to-cash earnings ratios and dividend yields for the EM equity universe. A 20% trimmed-mean ratio excludes the top 10% and bottom 10% of industry groups, and then calculates the average. All calculations are based on 50 EM industry group data available from MSCI. Why look at trimmed-mean valuation ratios? Because by removing the top and bottom 10% of industry groups, this measure excludes outliers and provides a better perspective on valuation. A few observations are in order: First, according to the trimmed-mean valuation ratios, EM equities are not cheap. The trimmed-mean ratios are close to their historical mean (Chart I-6). Second, the trimmed-mean ratios are well above their market cap ones. This indicates that there are a few industry groups with large market caps that pull EM multiples lower. In other words, market-cap weighted multiples are skewed to the downside by a few large industry groups. There are reasons why some sectors and countries have low or high equity multiples. It makes sense to exclude them. Finally, the composite valuation indicator based on trimmed-mean trailing and forward P/Es, PBV and price-to-cash earnings ratios and dividend yield demonstrates that EM equity valuations are neutral (Chart I-7). Chart I-5U.S. CAPE Ratios U.S. CAPE Ratios U.S. CAPE Ratios Chart I-6EM Stocks Are Close to Fair Value EM Stocks Are Close to Fair Value EM Stocks Are Close to Fair Value Chart I-7EM Equities Have Neutral Value bca.ems_wr_2017_03_29_s1_c7 bca.ems_wr_2017_03_29_s1_c7 Bottom Line: EM equities by and large command a neutral valuation. According to the CAPE ratio, EM equities are cheap for investors with a long-term time horizon, say two-to-three years or longer. Profits Hold The Key Valuations are not a good timing tool. For low equity valuations to be realized, i.e., to produce solid price gains, corporate profits should grow. The reverse is also true: for an overvalued market to decline, company earnings should contract, or at least disappoint. When valuations are neutral - as they currently are for the EM equity benchmark - a recovery in EPS should entail higher share prices, while EPS shrinkage should lead to a selloff. EM EPS will continue to recover in the next three to six months, given the rally in commodities prices in 2016, amelioration in China's business cycle and the technology sector boom in Asia. However, this moderate and short-lived EPS recovery is already priced in. For the market to rally further, EPS will need to expand beyond the next three to six months. Remarkably, there has been little improvement in EM ex-China domestic demand. Besides, the risk to bank loan growth remains to the downside both in China and EM ex-China. Slower loan growth and the need to recognize and provision for potentially large NPLs will pressure banks' profits in many EM countries. Finally, we expect oil and industrial metals prices to decline considerably over the course of this year. If and as this view plays out, energy and materials stocks will fall. Energy and materials share prices correlate not with their past or current profits but rather with underlying commodities prices. One area where we remain bullish is the technology sector. Even though tech share prices are overbought and could correct in absolute terms in the months ahead, they will continue to outperform the benchmark. Bottom Line: Corporate profits are much more important in driving share prices in the next 12 months than equity valuations. Our outlook for EM EPS is downbeat for the next 12 months or so, even though EPS will continue to recover in the next three to six months. Timing Reversal: Watch Credit Quality Spreads Chart I-8Credit Quality Spreads: ##br##A Correction Or Reversal? Credit Quality Spreads: A Correction Or Reversal? Credit Quality Spreads: A Correction Or Reversal? Following are some of the indicators we are monitoring to gauge a reversal in EM share prices. EM corporate spreads have widened a notch relative to EM sovereign spreads (Chart I-8, top panel). Similarly, Chinese off-shore corporate spreads have widened versus Chinese sovereign spreads (Chart I-8, middle panel). Credit quality spreads - the gap between B- and BAA-grade corporate bonds - have widened slightly in the U.S. (Chart I-8, bottom panel). These moves are still very small, and do not constitute a definite sign of a major trend reversal. Nevertheless, such widening in credit quality spreads is an important development. If they persist, they will certainly sound the alarm for the reflation trade. Interestingly, this is the first time a simultaneous widening in credit quality spreads has occurred since the risk assets rally began in early 2016. Bottom Line: Major equity market selloffs will occur when lower quality credit begins to persistently underperform better quality credit. There have been budding signs of quality spread widening that are worth being monitored. Identifying Relative Value Within the EM equity universe, valuation ratios differ greatly. For example, banks trade at a trailing P/E of 9.7, while consumer staple stocks trade at 24.8. Table I-2 portrays the trailing P/E ratio and its historical mean as well as 12-month forward EPS growth and the forward P/E ratio for each sector - as well as average of trailing and forward P/E ratios. Table I-3 shows the same valuation measures but for EM countries. Table I-2Stock Valuation Snapshot: EM Sectors EM Equity Valuations Revisited EM Equity Valuations Revisited Table I-3Equity Valuation Snapshot: EM Countries EM Equity Valuations Revisited EM Equity Valuations Revisited It is difficult to draw any definitive conclusions from these tables. On a general level, a simplistic approach to investing based on trailing and forward P/E ratios would not have produced great outcomes in EM in recent years. When analyzing EM stock valuations, we prefer to use the trailing rather than forward P/E ratio because historically, EM forward EPS have had a very poor record forecasting actual EPS. One of our favorite ways to identify relative value is to compare the PBV ratio and return on equity (RoE) across countries/sectors. Chart I-9 plots RoE on the X-axis and the PBV ratio on the Y axis. Countries and sectors located in the bottom right corner (at the low end of the shaded area) have a low PBV ratio compared to their RoE. In contrast, in the north-west side of the distribution (at the upper end of the shaded zone), these have an elevated PBV ratio, taking into account their RoE. Chart I-9Searching For Relative Value EM Equity Valuations Revisited EM Equity Valuations Revisited Among countries, Korea, Russia, Hungary, the Czech Republic and China appear cheap, while Mexico, Brazil, South Africa, Colombia, Malaysia and Poland are on the expensive side. Chart I-10EMS's Recommended ##br##Equity Portfolio Performance EMS's Recommended Equity Portfolio Performance EMS's Recommended Equity Portfolio Performance Concerning equity sectors, utilities and financials/banks are cheap, yet consumer staples and consumer discretionary, health care, telecom and materials appear expensive in relative terms. Our recommended country equity allocation is based on a qualitative assessment of many variables including but not limited to valuation. Chart I-10 displays the performance of our fully invested EM Equity Portfolio Model versus the EM benchmark. Our overweights presently include: Korea, Taiwan, India, China, Thailand, Russia and central Europe. Our underweights are Brazil, Turkey, Indonesia, Malaysia and Peru. We are neutral on Mexico, Chile, Colombia, South Africa and the Philippines. The lists of our country allocation and other equity investment recommendations are presented each week at the end of our reports. Arthur Budaghyan, Senior Vice President Emerging Markets Strategy arthurb@bcaresearch.com Bet On Russia's Non-Compliance With OPEC Odds of Russia's compliance with the OPEC agreement to cut oil output by 300k b/d in the next two months are low. This poses downside risk to oil prices. Russia has so far done only 120k b/d cuts. Hence, in the next two months it should reduce its output by 180k b/d which amounts to 1.6% of the nation's oil output. One way to bet on Russia's non-compliance, regardless the direction of oil prices, is to go long Russian energy stocks / short global energy ones (Chart II-1). There are a number of political, economic and financial motives why Russia might care less about lower oil prices than Saudi Arabia in the next 12-18 months or so. As a result, Russia might not cut as much as it is expected by the OPEC agreement. Russia is able to increase oil production due to a cheaper ruble and technology advances. BCA's Energy Sector Strategy team has been highlighting that there have been concerted efforts by Russia's largest producers to employ horizontal drilling and multi-zone hydraulic fracturing in Western Siberia.2 These have stemmed declines from those aging fields and allowed production to rise (Chart II-2). Chart II-1Long Russia Energy / ##br##Short Global Energy Stocks Long Russia Energy / Short Global Energy Stocks Long Russia Energy / Short Global Energy Stocks Chart II-2Russian Oil ##br##Production Will Increase Russian Oil Production Will Increase Russian Oil Production Will Increase Russia will not shy away from being opportunistic and increase its market share when it can ramp up oil production. A rising global oil market share will allow Russian companies to outperform their global peers regardless the direction of oil prices. There are major cyclical divergences between Russian and Saudi economies. Russia's economy is gradually picking up while there is less certainty about Saudi's growth recovery. The reason is that Russia has allowed the ruble to depreciate and act as a shock absorber. Meanwhile, Sa­­­­udis have stuck to the currency peg. ­­­Oil prices are down by 27% from their top in rubles and 55% in Saudi riyals (Chart II-3). This has reflated Russia's fiscal revenues and the economy, while Saudi Arabia is still struggling with the consequences of low ­oil prices. On the fiscal front, Russia went through a notable fiscal squeeze and its budget deficit is projected to be 3.2% of GDP in 2017 (Chart II-4). In contrast, the Saudi Arabian fiscal deficit in 2016 reached an outstanding 17% of GDP, accounting for the drawdown in reserves by our estimates.3 Chart II-3Ruble's Depreciation ##br##In 2014-15 Made a Difference Ruble's Depreciation In 2014-15 Made a Difference Ruble's Depreciation In 2014-15 Made a Difference Chart II-4Fiscal Deficit: Small In ##br##Russia & Large In Saudi Fiscal Deficit: Small In Russia & Large In Saudi Fiscal Deficit: Small In Russia & Large In Saudi More importantly, Russia's federal budget for 2017 was constructed on the oil price assumption of $40/bbl. The 2017 Saudi budget assumes oil price of $50/bbl.4 Therefore, Russia would not mind if oil prices drop toward or slightly below $40 in the second half of this year. Therefore, Saudis care much more about sustaining oil prices at a higher level than Russians do. Finally, Rosneft has already conducted its IPO while Aramco's IPO has not taken place yet. As such, the need for higher oil prices is much greater in Saudi Arabia - to justify a higher value of their oil giant - than in Russia. Bottom Line: Odds are considerable that Russia will not comply with the OPEC deal and this could cause oil prices to selloff more. Regardless of direction of oil prices, we expect the Russian energy sector to outperform their global peers due to Russia's rising market share in the global oil market. Go long Russian energy stocks / short global ones. Stephan Gabillard, Research Analyst stephang@bcaresearch.com 1 For more detailed discussion on our methodology of CAPE, please refer to January 20, 2016 Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report titled "EM Equity Valuations: A CAPE Model", available at ems. bcaresearch.com 2 Please refer to the Energy Sector Strategy Weekly Report titled, "Russian Oil Production: Surpassing Expectation", dated December 14, 2016, available at nrg.bcaresearch.com 3 Please refer to the Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report titled, "Saudi Arabia: Short-Term Gain, Long-Term Pain", dated February 1, 2017, available at ems.bcaresearch.com 4 https://mof.gov.sa/en/budget2017/Documents/The_National_Budget.pdf Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations

Highlights The years since the 2008 Global Financial Crisis have been dominated by the major central banks emptying their toolkits to fight off deflationary pressures and sustain even modest nominal growth rates. Extraordinary policy measues like quantitative easing, negative interest rates and "forward guidance" were all intended to be signals to expect nothing but stimulative monetary policy, even if there were brief pickups in growth or realized inflation rates. This helped suppress both bond yields and volatility, forcing investors to take on more risk to generate acceptable returns in fixed income markets. Now, however, there are signs that the world economy may finally be becoming a bit more "normal" after the years of malaise. While growth can hardly be described as booming, there are a growing number of countries that appear to have passed the worst phase of the excess capacity/deflation pressures that dominated the post-crisis era. This is creating more two-way risk with regards to central bank decisions than we have seen for some time. In this Special Report, we update one of our favorite tools to assess the potential for monetary policy changes, the BCA Central Bank Monitors. We present them in a chartbook format with a focus on the relationship to government bond yields. Feature An Overview Of The BCA Central Bank Monitors The BCA Central Bank Monitors are composite indicators that are designed to measure the cyclical growth and inflation pressures that can influence future central bank policy decisions. We created Monitors for the major developed economies: the U.S., Euro Area, Japan, the U.K., Australia, Canada and New Zealand. The list of data series used to construct the Monitors is not the same for each country, but the components generally measure the same things (i.e. manufacturing cycles, domestic demand pressures, commodity prices, labor market conditions, exchange rates, etc) Right now, the Monitors are rising in a coordinated fashion for the first time since 2011 (Chart 1 on Page 1). What is different in 2017 is that there is much less spare capacity in the developed economies than there was six years ago. For central bankers who still adhere to the Phillips curve tradeoff of unemployment versus inflation, tight labor markets alongside highly accommodative policy settings pose a problem. In the rest of this report, we show the individual Central Bank Monitors, along with measures of spare capacity and inflation for each country. We also show the correlations between the Monitors and changes in government bond yields, both before and after the 2008 Crisis. Correlations have shifted in the post-crisis era, but there are still some reliable relationships that can provide signals for bond investors. The broad conclusions: Japanese Government Bonds (JGBs) are the ideal country overweight in a world where all other developed economy central banks are witnessing rising cyclical pressures, while bonds in the U.K., Australia and New Zealand are likely to struggle as central banks in those regions become increasingly hawkish (Chart 2). Chart 1More Central Banks Are Under Pressure To Tighten More Central Banks Are Under Pressure To Tighten More Central Banks Are Under Pressure To Tighten Chart 2Tightening Pressures (Ex-Japan) ##br##Can Push Bond Yields Higher Tightening Pressures (ex-Japan) Can Push Bond Yields Higher Tightening Pressures (ex-Japan) Can Push Bond Yields Higher The Fed Monitor Is Pointing To Additional U.S. Rate Hikes Our Fed Monitor has just recently pushed above the zero line, indicating the need for the Fed to tighten policy (Chart 3A). The Fed already began raising the funds rate back in late 2015, but this was the beginning of normalizing the crisis-era policy settings rather than a move to offset improving U.S. cyclical conditions. The latter is now indeed happening, and it is perhaps no surprise that the Fed has just delivered 50bps of rate hikes in a span of three months. Chart 3AU.S.: Fed Monitor U.S.: Fed Monitor U.S.: Fed Monitor Chart 3BNo Spare Capacity In The U.S. No Spare Capacity In The U.S. No Spare Capacity In The U.S. Chart 3CThe Fed Monitor Is Most Correlated To ##br##Shorter Maturity U.S. Treasuries The Fed Monitor Is Most Correlated To Shorter Maturity U.S. Treasuries The Fed Monitor Is Most Correlated To Shorter Maturity U.S. Treasuries We still see the Fed pursuing a relatively gradual process of raising rates further in 2017, but in line with the current FOMC projections of another 50bps of tightening before year-end. Measures like the output gap and the unemployment gap (unemployment relative to the level consistent with stable inflation) show no spare capacity in the U.S. economy (Chart 3B). At the same time, core inflation continues to only grind higher and inflation expectations are also drifting up towards the Fed's 2% target. This can hardly be qualified as an "overheating" economy that needs a sharp tightening of monetary conditions, particularly with the still-expensive U.S. dollar not providing any stimulus. The correlations between our Fed Monitor and the year-over-year changes in U.S. Treasury yields (Chart 3C) have been extremely low since the 2008 Crisis - unsurprising with the Fed keeping the funds rate near zero for most of that period while also buying large amounts of Treasuries. While the correlations appear to be shifting on the margin, we still see the Treasury curve steepening first (via rising inflation expectations), then flattening later (through tighter monetary conditions). BoE Monitor Calling For Tighter U.K. Policy Our Bank of England (BoE) Monitor is at very elevated levels (Chart 4A), driven by a combination of improving production data and high inflation. There is much more bubbling beneath the surface, however. The more domestically-focused components of the Monitor are losing some upward momentum, while the inflation elements are also starting to top out as the big post-Brexit depreciation of the Pound is losing momentum. Chart 4AU.K.: BoE Monitor U.K.: BoE Monitor U.K.: BoE Monitor Chart 4BTight Capacity In The U.K. Tight Capacity In The U.K. Tight Capacity In The U.K. Chart 4CGilts Are At Risk From A More Hawkish Turn From The BoE Gilts Are At Risk From A More Hawkish Turn From The BoE Gilts Are At Risk From A More Hawkish Turn From The BoE This is creating a dilemma for the BoE - respond to high U.K. inflation with tighter monetary policy, or focus on the slowdown in domestic demand and do nothing? The BoE signaled in February that the biggest concern for policy was a slump in consumer spending led by lower real income growth on the back of rising inflation. Yet at the March policy meeting, one BoE member even voted to raise rates and others raised concerns about the elevated level of U.K inflation. With even policymakers unsure about their next move, the marginal swings in U.K. growth should have an even greater impact on Gilt yields. The U.K. economy is running around full capacity and both headline and core inflation are rising (Chart 4B). Somewhat surprisingly, the correlations between changes in Gilt yields and our BoE Monitor have actually increased since the 2008 Crisis (Chart 4C). This raises a potential risk for the Gilt market if the BoE decides that the U.K. economy is not slowing as much as it is expecting. For now, we continue to recommend a neutral stance on Gilts until there is greater clarity on the state of the economy. ECB Monitor Reflects A Less Deflationary Backdrop In Europe Our European Central Bank (ECB) Monitor has recently crept above the zero line for the first time in three years (Chart 5A). This is driven mostly by the current uptrend in headline inflation in the Euro Area, but also by the steady improvement in economic growth. Chart 5AEuro Area: ECB Monitor Euro Area: ECB Monitor Euro Area: ECB Monitor Chart 5BExcess Capacity in Europe Dwindling Fast Excess Capacity in Europe Dwindling Fast Excess Capacity in Europe Dwindling Fast Chart 5CStable Correlations Between The ECB Monitor & The Front End Of The Yield Curve Stable Correlations Between The ECB Monitor & The Front End Of The Yield Curve Stable Correlations Between The ECB Monitor & The Front End Of The Yield Curve The Euro Area is the one economy presented in this report where no indicator (either the output gap or unemployment gap) is pointing to a lack of spare capacity (Chart 5B). All of the rise in headline Euro Area inflation can be attributable to base effects related to last year's rise in oil prices and decline in the euro. The latest ECB projections call for core inflation to return to just under 2% in 2019, suggesting that there is no hurry to begin tightening monetary policy. Yet the ECB remains in an asset purchase program which is set to expire at the end of this year, so a policy decision must be made in the next 3-6 months. We expect the ECB to begin tapering its bond buying in the first quarter of 2018, with interest rate hikes to follow after the tapering has been completed. The ECB could raise rates before tapering to try and minimize the impact on Peripheral sovereign and corporate bond yields (it is buying both), although that would likely create a greater degree of tightening than the ECB would like before full employment is reached. Given the strong correlations between our ECB Monitor and much of the Euro Area yield curve (Chart 5C), however, we anticipate moving soon to an underweight stance on Euro Area bonds after our recent downgrade to neutral. BoJ Monitor: Nothing To See Here Our BoJ Monitor has been in the "easier policy required" zone for most of the past 25 years, barring a brief blip above the zero line that heralded the rate hikes in 2006/07 (Chart 6A). Inadequate growth and excess capacity remain the biggest problem with Japan's economy, preventing any meaningful upturn in inflation beyond that caused by higher commodity prices or a weaker yen. Chart 6AJapan: BoJ Monitor Japan: BoJ Monitor Japan: BoJ Monitor Chart 6BTight Labor Market, But Still No Inflation Tight Labor Market, But Still No Inflation Tight Labor Market, But Still No Inflation Chart 6CLonger-Maturity JGB Yields Have No Correlation To The BoJ Monitor Longer-Maturity JGB Yields Have No Correlation To The BoJ Monitor Longer-Maturity JGB Yields Have No Correlation To The BoJ Monitor Even with Japan operating at full employment, with an unemployment rate at 3%, there has barely been any acceleration in wages or core inflation (Chart 6B). The only way out of this for Japan is to keep monetary policy settings as easy as possible to ensure that there is enough growth to eat away at the remaining spare capacity in the Japanese economy. That means keeping both policy rates and the yen as low as possible, and hoping that this will cause enough of a rise in inflation expectations to lower real interest rates and boost domestic demand. As an added "kicker", the BoJ is even anchoring the long end of the Japan yield curve by targeting a 0% yield level on 10-year government debt - a policy that we do not expect to change anytime soon. We see Japan as a low-beta "safe haven" government bond market in an environment where other central banks are seeing some tightening pressures and Japanese bonds have virtually no correlation to the BoJ Monitor (Chart 6C). We continue to recommend an overweight stance on Japan within an overall defensively positioned government bond portfolio with below-benchmark duration exposure. BoC Monitor: No Big Need To Tighten In Canada Our Bank of Canada (BoC) Monitor has recently moved into positive territory (Chart 7A) , primarily due to some improvement in growth and higher commodity prices. Given the close linkages between the U.S. and Canadian economies, we include some U.S. growth variables in our BoC Monitor and these are also helping boost the indicator. However, there are no signs that the Canadian economy is overheating - unless you are trying to buy a home in Toronto - with both the output gap and unemployment gap not yet in positive territory (Chart 7B). Chart 7ACanada: BoC Monitor Canada: BoC Monitor Canada: BoC Monitor Chart 7BStill Not Much Inflation In Canada Still Not Much Inflation In Canada Still Not Much Inflation In Canada Chart 7CThe BoC Monitor Is Highly Correlated To Shorter-Maturity Canadian Bonds The BoC Monitor Is Highly Correlated To Shorter-Maturity Canadian Bonds The BoC Monitor Is Highly Correlated To Shorter-Maturity Canadian Bonds The BoC is maintaining a dovish bias at the moment. Some of that has to do with the uncertainty over the U.S. economic outlook, especially with regards to the fiscal and trade policies of the Trump administration. While a boost to U.S. growth via a fiscal easing could help support Canadian exports to the U.S., any move to renegotiate trade agreements involving the two countries could end up hurting the Canadian economy. Add to that the concerns over the bubbly valuations of Canadian real estate that could be pricked by even modest rate increases, and the BoC will likely not want to contemplate any early tightening of monetary policy. The higher correlations between our BoC Monitor and the front end of the Canadian yield curve (Chart 7C) suggest that a bear flattener would be the appropriate trade if and when the BoC does contemplate a rate hike. For now, however, we see that as a low-probability event and we are maintaining a neutral stance on Canadian bonds until there is greater clarity on U.S. growth and Trump's policy agenda. RBA Monitor: Higher Because Of Growth, Not Inflation Our Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) Monitor has surged into the "tighter policy required" territory in recent months (Chart 8A), driven by higher commodity prices and stronger Asian export demand. Survey-based measures of inflation expectations are also part of the Monitor, and those have also been rising despite a lack of realized inflation in Australia (Chart 8B). The low inflation readings have been causing a bit of a problem for the RBA, given the tight labor market and that boost to Aussie demand from better Asian growth. This is especially true given the surprisingly soft readings on employment growth, consumer confidence and spending, all occurring against a persistent deceleration in core inflation. The RBA was focusing on the inflation story last year when it delivered some surprise rate cuts, and we still suspect that a lack of inflation pressure will keep the RBA on hold for at least the next few months. We are currently at a neutral stance on Australian government bonds, given these conflicting forces of better export growth but weakening domestic demand. The lack of an inflation threat could make Australia an outperformer in a world of rising bond yields. Given the surge in our RBA Monitor, however, we see some risk in looking at Aussie bonds as a potential safe haven market given upward pressures on yields in the U.S. and Europe. The correlations between Australian yields and the RBA Monitor are extremely high (Chart 8C), and have actually gone up in the post-crisis era. Chart 8AAustralia: RBA Monitor Australia: RBA Monitor Australia: RBA Monitor Chart 8BNo Inflation Pressures On The RBA No Inflation Pressures On The RBA No Inflation Pressures On The RBA Chart 8CAussie Bonds Across The Curve Are Highly Correlated To The RBA Monitor Aussie Bonds Across The Curve Are Highly Correlated To The RBA Monitor Aussie Bonds Across The Curve Are Highly Correlated To The RBA Monitor RBNZ Monitor: A Strong Case For A Rate Hike Our Reserve Bank of New Zealand (RBNZ) Monitor is strongly in positive territory (Chart 9A), led by the components focused on commodity prices and global growth. However, there is a fairly solid structural case for an RBNZ rate hike, given the lack of any spare capacity in New Zealand and inflation on the rise (Chart 9B). Chart 9ANew Zealand: RBNZ Monitor New Zealand: RBNZ Monitor New Zealand: RBNZ Monitor Chart 9BFull Employment & Rising Inflation In NZ Full Employment & Rising Inflation In NZ Full Employment & Rising Inflation In NZ Chart 9ANZ Bonds Are Vulnerable To Current Cyclical Pressures NZ Bonds Are Vulnerable To Current Cyclical Pressures NZ Bonds Are Vulnerable To Current Cyclical Pressures The RBNZ has been maintaining a dovish bias of late, although it has chosen to sight more "international" risks related to geopolitics, rather than domestic economic conditions. Perhaps this is nothing more than a fear of a potential shock outcome in the upcoming French elections, although it could also be worries that tensions between the Trump White House and China (or, worse yet, North Korea) could trigger a hit to demand for New Zealand exports to Asia. In the end, we think the RBNZ will be forced to a hike off the current record low interest rates as the next policy move. While we do not include New Zealand government bonds as part of our model fixed income portfolio, we do currently have a bearish rates trade on in our list of Tactical Overlay Trades, choosing to pay 12-month NZD OIS rates. We will maintain that recommendation, but we may look to add some bearish New Zealand bond trades, as well, given the strong correlation between our RBNZ Monitor and bond yields (Chart 9C). Robert Robis, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com

Highlights Portfolio Strategy Internal dynamics warn that a broad market consolidation phase has begun. The jump in growth vs. value stocks has provided an opportunity to shift to a neutral style bias. Transports have sold off sharply, but downside risks have not yet been fully expunged, especially for the airline group. Recent Changes Growth Vs. Value - Shift to a neutral stance. Table 1Sector Performance Returns (%) Heading For A Choppier Market Heading For A Choppier Market Feature The perceived dovish Fed shift and doubts about the achievability of Trump's policy goals are causing equity market consternation. To the extent that the run up in stocks has largely reflected an improvement in sentiment and other 'soft' economic data, the lack of follow through in 'hard' data has created a validation void. While a weaker U.S. dollar, lower oil prices and less hawkish Fed imply easier monetary conditions, which are ultimately positive for growth, profits and the stock market, a digestion phase still looms. Financials, and banks in particular, had been market leaders, driven up by hopes for a meaningful upward shift in the yield curve and unleashing of animal spirits. But these assumptions are being challenged and there is limited fundamental support. Indeed, bank lending growth remains non-existent and there is no tailwind from improving credit quality. Our view remains that banks carry the most downside risk of all financial groups (please see the March 6 Weekly Report for more details). Regional banks are now down on a year-to-date relative performance basis (Chart 1). In fact, our newly constructed gauge of the equity market's internal dynamics suggests that additional tactical broad market turbulence lies ahead. A composite of relative bank stock, relative transport, small/large cap and industrials/utilities share prices has been a good coincident to leading market indicator in recent years (Chart 2). While no indicator is infallible, the message is that overall market risk is elevated and a choppy period lies ahead, reinforcing our defensive vs. cyclical bias. Nevertheless, it will be important to put any corrective action into a longer-term context. Over the years, we have kept an eye on several qualitative 'unconventional indicators' that have helped time major market turning points. They are meant to augment rather than replace fundamental factors. Chart 1Market Leaders Are Stumbling Market Leaders Are Stumbling Market Leaders Are Stumbling Chart 2A Yellow Flag From Internal Dynamics A Yellow Flag From Internal Dynamics A Yellow Flag From Internal Dynamics Below we highlight five critical variables to gauge whether a correction will devolve into a sustained sell-off. Each of the indicators measures either; profits; business confidence; investor confidence; and/or reflects how liquidity conditions are impacting market dynamics. Investor confidence can be measured through margin debt. While extremely elevated (Chart 3), there is no concrete sign that access to funds is being undermined by the modest backup in interest rates. When the cost of borrowing becomes too onerous, it will manifest in reduced margin debt and forced selling, which will be a serious threat to stocks given that leverage is challenging levels experienced at prior peaks, as a share of nominal income. M&A activity is losing momentum (Chart 4). A peak in merger activity typically coincides with a rising cost of capital. If corporate sector capital availability becomes a pressing issue, then M&A activity will decline further, signaling that the corporate sector is facing growth headwinds. Economic signals are mostly positive. Durable goods orders have tentatively perked back up (Chart 5), reinforcing that profits and confidence have improved after a soft patch. Temporary employment continues to rise (Chart 5). When temp workers shrink, it is often an early warning sign that companies are entering retrenchment mode, given the ease and low cost of reducing this source of labor costs. If temporary employment falls at the same time as share prices, that would be a red flag. The relative performance of consumer discretionary to consumer staples can provide a read on purchasing power and/or the marginal propensity to spend. This share price ratio does not suggest any consumption concerns exist (Chart 4, bottom panel). If consumer staples begin to outperform, then it would warn of a more daunting economic outlook. Chart 3Borrowing Costs Are Not Yet Restrictive Borrowing Costs Are Not Yet Restrictive Borrowing Costs Are Not Yet Restrictive Chart 4M&A Is Starting To Labor M&A Is Starting To Labor M&A Is Starting To Labor Chart 5Economic Signals Are Decent Economic Signals Are Decent Economic Signals Are Decent In all, these indicators suggest that any pullback will be corrective rather than a trend change. If the profit cycle continues to improve and the Fed has no inflationary need to become restrictive, then any broad market correction could provide an opportunity to selectively add cyclical exposure to portfolios in the coming weeks. In the meantime, we are revisiting our growth vs. value view and providing an update on transports. Growth Vs. Value: Shifting To Neutral Our last style bias update in the December 19 Weekly Report concluded that we would likely recommend moving to a neutral stance over the coming weeks/months from our current growth vs. value (G/V) stance, but expected to do after growth stocks had staged a comeback. That recovery is now well underway and so we are revisiting the outlook. Growth indexes have outperformed value since the depths of the Great Recession. The preference for growth reflected central bank interest rate suppression, which boosted the multiple investors were willing to pay for perceived growth at a time when growth was scarce. In addition, the composition of the growth index is much longer duration than that of the value space. The surge in long-term earnings growth expectations suggests that investors have increased conviction in the durability of the expansion, which has aided the G/V recovery (Chart 6). That monetary experiment has recently begun to pay off, as global economic growth has finally demonstrated evidence of self-reinforcing traction, led by developed countries. As a result, most central banks are well past the point of maximum thrust, which would mean the loss, albeit not a reversal, of the primary support for the secular advance in growth vs. value indexes. Keep in mind that growth benchmarks have a massive technology sector weight, at just over 1/3 of the total index capitalization. Value indices carry only a 7% weight. As shown in previous research, the technology sector underperforms when economic growth is fast enough to create inflationary pressure and therefore, the interest rate structure. Furthermore, value benchmarks have more than 25% of their weight in the financials sector vs. less than 5% for growth indexes. The upshot is that a meaningful interest rate increase would pad the profits of financials-rich value indices while having little to no impact on growth benchmarks by virtue of their tech-dependence. It is no surprise that the G/V ratio trends with technology/financials relative sector performance (Chart 7). The latter has clearly peaked, with an assist from the renormalization in Fed policy. Chart 6Time To Shift Time To Shift Time To Shift Chart 7Two Key Sector Influences Two Key Sector Influences Two Key Sector Influences These sector discrepancies mean that a critical question for the style decision is what is the path for government bond yields? The U.S. economy is exhibiting signs of self-reinforcing behavior. The small business sector's hiring plans have surged, and the ISM employment index remains solid (Chart 8). Chart 8Economy No Longer Favors Growth Economy No Longer Favors Growth Economy No Longer Favors Growth Chart 9A Mixed Bag A Mixed Bag A Mixed Bag While at least a modest employment slowdown is probable given that the corporate sector is feeling the profit margin pinch from higher wage costs, these gauges do not suggest a major crunch is imminent. The personal savings rate is drifting lower, supporting consumption growth (Chart 8). Value indexes have a higher economic beta than growth benchmarks, owing to their exposure to shorter duration sectors. The gap between growth and value operating margins tends to close when the economy enjoys a meaningful acceleration (Chart 8). Chart 10Volatility Is A Style Driver Volatility Is A Style Driver Volatility Is A Style Driver Other markers of global economic growth are more mixed. The global manufacturing PMI survey is very strong, but oil and other commodity prices have started to diverge negatively (Chart 9). That may soon change if the U.S. dollar has crested, which would provide a much needed fillip to emerging markets and remove a source of deflationary pressure. Real global bond yields are grinding higher, suggesting that in all, economic prospects have improved, and alleviating a major constraint on value stocks. Against this backdrop, it is timely to shift to a neutral style preference after the sharp rebound in the G/V ratio since late last year. Why not a full shift into value indexes? Developing countries are conspicuously lagging developed countries, which caps the outlook for commodities and their beneficiaries. EM capital spending is still very weak in real terms. Deep cyclical sectors are much more heavily-weighted in value benchmarks. A global recovery that has a greater thrust from consumption than investment, at least at the outset, argues against expecting value stocks to outperform. Moreover, the fallout from potentially protectionist U.S. trade policies remains unknown, which could restrain economic growth momentum and unleash volatility in the equity markets. The latter has been incredibly muted in recent months. In fact, BCA's VIX model, which incorporates corporate sector health and interest rate expectations, is heralding a higher VIX. Clearly, elevated volatility has supported the G/V ratio over meaningful periods of time (Chart 10). Bottom Line: Shift to a neutral style bias. A full shift to a value preference would require BCA to forecast a much weaker U.S. dollar and/or demand-driven inflationary pressure. Transports: Stuck In Neutral The S&P transports index peaked in mid-December versus the broad market, the first major sub-group to fizzle after the post-election sugar high (Chart 11). The recent setback has been broad-based. We had been overweight both the rails and air freight & logistics industry sub-groups, but booked gains in both prior to their respective pullbacks. Is it time to get back in? Transportation equities are ultra-sensitive to swings in global economic growth. Chart 12 shows that the relative share price ratio is an excellent leading indicator of both the ISM manufacturing survey and Citi's economic surprise index. The message is that at least a mild mean reversion in both of these indexes looms in the coming months, i.e. beware of some form of economic cooling. Chart 11Transports Have Cracked... Transports Have Cracked... Transports Have Cracked... Chart 12... Signaling Economic Cooling Ahead ... Signaling Economic Cooling Ahead ... Signaling Economic Cooling Ahead Against this backdrop, we are revisiting our last remaining underweight, the S&P airlines index. While rails and air freight & logistics stocks are directly linked to global trade, the same does not hold true for the S&P airlines index. Business and consumer travel budgets are the key drivers of industry demand. A revival in animal spirits and a healthy U.S. consumer could be clear positives for air travel. Moreover, the recent pullback in fuel costs should cushion profit margins for unhedged airline operators (Chart 13). Finally, renowned investor Warren Buffett has recently become a major shareholder in the U.S. airline industry, raising its profile. While betting against Buffett is always fraught with risk, our cautious take on the airline industry boils down to our view that excess capacity will continue to hold back profitability. If the overall transport index is accurately signaling that some loss of economic momentum looms, then a rapid expansion in business and travel spending may not be quick to materialize. A pricing war has already gripped the industry, as airlines are scrambling to fill up planes. Revenue-per-available-seat-mile and U.S. CPI airfare are contracting (Chart 14), reflecting a fight for market share. That is a serious impediment to profit margins. Chart 13Airlines Are Losing Altitude... Airlines Are Losing Altitude... Airlines Are Losing Altitude... Chart 14... As Price Wars Persist ... As Price Wars Persist ... As Price Wars Persist The headwinds extend beyond the U.S. Chart 15 shows that global airfare deflation also bodes ill for top line industry growth. The lags from previous U.S. dollar strength could compound this source of drag. Absent a decisive recovery in total travel spending, there does not appear to be any catalysts to reverse deflationary conditions. Carriers are still allocating an historically high portion of cash flow to capital spending. While upgrading aging fleets to become more fuel-efficient in an era of low interest rates is a long-term positive, the payback period may be extended. Revenue has failed to keep up with the increase in capital expenditures (Chart 16, bottom panel), suggesting that capacity growth continues to outpace industry demand, a recipe for ongoing pricing pressure. Chart 15Deflation Is Global Deflation Is Global Deflation Is Global Chart 16Too Much Capacity Too Much Capacity Too Much Capacity This difficult backdrop has begun to infect analyst earnings estimates. Net earnings revisions have nosedived. Relative performance momentum is tightly lined with the trend in earnings estimates (Chart 16). The message is that the breakdown in cyclical momentum has further to run. Indeed, the 52-week rate of change rarely troughs until it reaches much lower levels, warning of additional downside relative performance risks. Bottom Line: The S&P transports group is heralding a period of economic cooling, but the airline sub-component has not yet fully discounted such an outcome. Stay underweight. The ticker symbols for the stocks in the S&P airlines index are: UAL, AAL, DAL, LUV & ALK. Current Recommendations Current Trades Size And Style Views Favor small over large caps and stay neutral growth over value.

Dear Client, In addition to an abridged Weekly Report, we are also including a Special Report written by our Global ETF Strategy team. BCA's Global ETF Strategy, launched in September joins comprehensive ETF analysis with BCA's global macroeconomic thematic research: its aim is to help clients connect the dots from BCA themes to individual ETF ticker symbols with real-time market expressions of our views. The team is currently producing a series of reports on smart-beta ETF selection, whereby they examine the key factors recognized by academia and investment practitioners as persistent drivers of market performance. In this second installment, the team focuses on dividend-focused funds. Although the team finds that dividends do not qualify as a true standalone factor consistently explaining equity returns, dividend policy can add to multi-factor models' explanatory power at the margin. Given the popularity of dividend investing, we think dividend policy could be a fruitful subject for further research. Best regards, Lenka Martinek Feature U.S. financial markets breathed a collective sigh of relief last week when the FOMC followed through on a fully discounted 25 bps rate hike, but did not increase the number of expected rate hikes for the year. In other words, the Fed successfully delivered a "dovish hike", thus reassuring investors that the policy sweet spot - the period when interest rates are rising but have not become restrictive - will last a while longer (Chart 1). Chart 1A "Dovish Hike" A "Dovish Hike" A "Dovish Hike" Chart 2Low Structural Unemployment Rate Low Structural Unemployment Rate Low Structural Unemployment Rate The Fed's assessment of the economy is not very different from our own, though there were a few details in the economic projections worth highlighting. First, the estimate for the structural rate of unemployment was scaled down further by a tenth of a percentage point to 4.7%. This may seem minor, but it suggests that policymakers believe the labor market has more running room before wage inflation moves higher. Granted, any forecast for structural unemployment should be taken with a dose of salt, but our bias throughout this cycle - and as outlined in our November Special Report - has been to expect wage inflation to lag relative to past cycles due to structural factors (Chart 2). And as can be seen in Chart 3, Japan provides a roadmap: in that country, demographic factors helped push the unemployment rate to below 3% without creating inflationary pressures. Of course, the U.S. economy is very different from Japan and we do not expect unemployment to drop as low. However, as occurred in Japan, we would not be surprised to see the FOMC trim its forecast for the structural unemployment rate further in the coming quarters. A related point is that the Fed also adjusted the wording of the FOMC statement regarding its inflation targets. The statement said that the Fed was looking for a "sustained" return to 2% inflation, while also referring to its inflation target as a "symmetric" one. Our interpretation is that the Fed is trying to clarify that it will not react too aggressively if core inflation were to drift somewhat above 2%. Clearly, the Fed is beginning to see the balance of risks toward higher inflation. That makes sense, given that the economy is operating close to full employment. However, we maintain that a sustained rise in inflation above the Fed's 2% core PCE target is not imminent. Indeed, the message from last week' CPI report reinforces our view that with the exception of a few components, inflation is very well contained (Chart 4). Our diffusion index of the major inflation components is in negative territory. Importantly, price surveys continue to show that businesses are not able to easily raise prices. For example, despite the continued optimism in the headline components of the NFIB small businesses survey, small businesses have not been able to - and do not yet anticipate being able to - raise prices. This reinforces our long-held view that after a long period of disinflation - and outright deflation in the retail sector - inflation expectations are extremely well-anchored and savvy consumers know how to extract a better deal. Core PCE inflation may converge on the Fed's target of 2% in the second half of 2017, but an inflation overshoot should not be a major driver of investment decision-making over the next 6-12 months. Chart 3Japan: A Low Unemployment Rate ##br##And Little Wage Inflation Japan: A Low Unemployment Rate And Little Wage Inflation Japan: A Low Unemployment Rate And Little Wage Inflation Chart 4Inflation ##br##Still Low Inflation Still Low Inflation Still Low In the end, it is Fed Chair Yellen's least sophisticated remarks that provide the best summation. During the FOMC press conference, she stated that "the simple message is the economy is doing well". Indeed, the moderate pace of growth that has prevailed since the beginning of the recovery means that the typical imbalances and pressure points that accumulate in the advanced stages of a business cycle are so far still absent. The backdrop overwhelmingly favors stocks relative to government bonds on a cyclical horizon. To be sure, equities are expensive, but as we wrote last week, relative to competing assets, valuations are not extreme. The greater near-term risk continues to be a phase of economic and earnings disappointments that could develop later this year, since there remains a tremendous amount of optimism in the business community regarding regime change in Washington. Note that the policy uncertainty index remains very elevated (Chart 5) and Trump's "skinny budget", which aims to slash spending across all discretionary items save military and veterans affairs, will be contested. Our geopolitical team notes that Democrats could threaten a government shutdown later this year to try to force Republicans' hand at removing the most controversial elements of the budget. Democrats can filibuster parts of the appropriations process which makes the concrete budget allocations. Chart 5Political Uncertainty Still Elevated Political Uncertainty Still Elevated Political Uncertainty Still Elevated On this basis, we remain skeptical that fiscal policy will be clean fuel for the equity bull market. However, we adhere to Yellen's "simple message" that the economy is on a stable footing. That implies that Washington disappointments will most likely lead to equity setbacks rather than a painful breakdown. Lenka Martinek, Vice President U.S. Investment Strategy lenka@bcaresearch.com Appendix Monthly Asset Allocation Model Update Our Asset Allocation (AA) model provides an objective assessment of the outlook for relative returns across equities, Treasuries and cash. It combines valuation, cyclical, monetary and technical indicators. The model was constructed as a capital preservation tool, and has historically outperformed the benchmark in large part by avoiding major equity bear markets. Please note that our official cyclical asset allocation recommendations deviate at times from the model's recommendation. The model is just one input to our decision process. The model's recommendation weightings for the major asset classes are unchanged: neutral equity exposure at 60% (benchmark 60%), neutral Treasury allocation at 30% (benchmark 30%) and cash at 10% (benchmark 10%). The diffusion index of the three components for The Equity Model remained neutral. The technical component "buy" signal strengthened, with sturdy advances for both the breadth & trend and momentum indicators. The monetary component, which measures overall liquidity conditions within the financial and economic system and designed to lead equity prices, is slightly more bullish and still favorable for equities. The earnings-driven component continues to give a cautious signal. Real operating earnings remain at a significant distance from positive economic expectations which have moved higher yet again. Moreover, earnings momentum is still sluggish, based on our earnings diffusion index, which compares nominal earnings growth relative to four key macro proxies for business costs. The model's recommendation for bonds remains at benchmark which still fits with our neutral qualitative stance for Treasuries in balanced portfolios since November 7, 2016. Although the cyclical component of the bond model is more constructive than the valuation component, the further deterioration in the technical component maintains the "sell" signal for Treasuries firmly in place. Chart 6Portfolio Total Returns Portfolio Total Returns Portfolio Total Returns Chart 7Current Model Recommendations Current Model Recommendations Current Model Recommendations Note: The asset allocation model is not necessarily consistent with the weighting recommendations of the Cyclical Investment Stance. For further information, please see our Special Report "Presenting Our U.S. Asset Allocation Model", February 6, 2009. Highlights Factor attribution began a half-century ago with the Capital Asset Pricing Model ("CAPM"). Although the CAPM itself has been superseded, selected factors have exerted a consistent influence on equity performance. The empirical evidence does not support including dividends among the proven factors, yet dividend-focused funds are the most numerous in the smart-beta universe. The ambiguity surrounding dividends' effect on equity performance leaves plenty of room for smart-beta purveyors to build a better mousetrap, but our own research suggests that they will have to do so with something other than purely dividend-related metrics. Reflecting the fact that many of the dividend funds already incorporate multi-factor inputs, we evaluate them based on their exposure to all of the metrics within our Equity Trading Strategy service's multi-factor model. Feature Welcome to the second installment of our series on smart-beta ETF selection. Over the course of the series, we intend to examine the factors widely recognized by academia and investment practitioners as persistent drivers of equity performance. Each Special Report will weigh the evidence for the factor's efficacy, consider the metrics that best reveal its presence and compare our ideal metrics with the metrics utilized by our proprietary Equity Trading Strategy ("ETS") multi-factor model. It will then evaluate the menu of smart-beta ETFs using either our ETS model's metrics or an augmented version of them. The series began last month with a review of the Value factor, enshrined by Fama and French's research, and the current subset of Value smart-beta ETFs.1 This month we examine Dividend smart-beta ETFs. Subsequent installments will examine Quality, Momentum and Volatility,2 and we will likely wrap up the series with a review of Multi-Factor smart-beta ETFs. This installment provides some background on factor investing and the smart-beta process before subjecting Yield (Dividends) to scrutiny to determine whether or not it really constitutes a standalone equity factor. Back To The Beginning The ubiquity of beta in discussions of investing performance originates from the Capital Asset Pricing Model ("CAPM"), as advanced by William Sharpe and other researchers in the early 1960's. The CAPM posits that the expected return of stock XYZ is solely a function of XYZ's riskiness relative to the overall equity market. XYZ's riskiness is a function of its covariance with the market, and is represented in the CAPM's simple linear model as the coefficient "beta.3" The elegantly simple CAPM holds that any stock's expected return (E(rs)) is the sum of the risk-free rate (rf) and the product of its beta (ßs) and the difference between the expected market return (E(rm)) and the risk-free rate (rf): E(rs) = rf + ßs x (E(rm) - rf) As noted by several researchers, including Eugene Fama and Kenneth French,4 CAPM's return predictions are woefully errant when applied to stocks. As Chart 1 indicates, the returns projected by the CAPM bear little relationship to empirical results. It turns out that low-beta stocks have systematically outperformed high-beta stocks on a risk-adjusted basis (Chart 2), just as low-book-multiple stocks have crushed high-book-multiple stocks without regard for beta (Chart 3). This is powerful evidence for value, and for the low-volatility factor that we will examine in a subsequent report, but it is damning for the simple application of the CAPM to stocks. Chart 1CAPM Sounded Great In Theory ... Smart-Beta ETF Selection, Part II - Dividend Funds Smart-Beta ETF Selection, Part II - Dividend Funds Chart 2... But It Flopped In Practice Smart-Beta ETF Selection, Part II - Dividend Funds Smart-Beta ETF Selection, Part II - Dividend Funds Chart 3Low-Book-Multiple Stocks Systematically ##br##Flout CAPM Predictions Smart-Beta ETF Selection, Part II - Dividend Funds Smart-Beta ETF Selection, Part II - Dividend Funds A New Vocabulary Despite its empirical shortcomings, the CAPM provides an intuitive way of conceptualizing the risk-return tradeoff, and it paved the way for the asset-pricing research that followed it. The notion that individual securities' risks come in two flavors, market and idiosyncratic, is a critical element of portfolio theory and its thou-shalt-diversify commandment. It is also the basis, as we shall see, for beta, alpha and the factor-investing approach enabled by smart-beta ETFs. For that application, let us add an alpha term to the CAPM to account for the component of realized returns that cannot be explained by market exposures: rs = rf + ßs x (E(rm) - rf) + a Rearranging terms to solve for alpha shows it to be the difference between the realized return and the return expected by CAPM: a = rs - (rf + ßs x (E(rm) - rf)) From CAPM To Factors To Smart Beta In today's accepted usage, alpha is the ex-post difference between portfolio and benchmark return, adjusted for risk. It is the component of return attributed to portfolio manager skill, whereas beta is the return accruing to simple market exposure. As return-attribution research has uncovered the systematic factors underpinning performance, beta has claimed an increasing share of the pie from alpha. The salubrious effect for investors, especially those who employ third-party managers, has been to demystify the sources of portfolio returns. Beta's expanding share has also opened the door to a middle course between purely active and purely passive portfolio management strategies. Factor research has made it possible to join the main advantages of passive strategies - transparency, predictability and low cost - with active strategies' aim of delivering a risk-adjusted return profile distinct from those offered by cap-weighted benchmarks. Investors have embraced the factor approach and traditional asset managers have obliged them with a torrent of smart-beta ETF choices. Both should put investors on alert: according to the late Barton Biggs, there is no investment idea so good that it can't be destroyed by too much money, and fund company enthusiasm may correlate more closely with its own profits than its clients'. Biggs' admonition is always on our mind, but we don't think the established factors are in imminent danger of losing their zest. Factor excess returns are not new news. 25 years after Fama and French's paper, low-book-multiple stocks continue to outperform high-book-multiple stocks and smaller stocks continue to outperform larger stocks. We do not see the comparatively modest aggregate smart-beta ETF AUM as a catalyst for bidding away the returns that have durably accrued to factors. Are Dividends Really An Equity Factor? For the purposes of this report, our first objective is to determine whether or not Dividends can properly be considered a factor alongside the big five (Value, Quality, Momentum, Volatility and Size). Unable to find compelling evidence for their inclusion, we do not think they should. Yield may be a promising factor in fixed income, but extending the concept to equities is problematic. Across all capitalization buckets for the last 20 years, it cannot even be said that dividend payers outperform non-dividend payers (Chart 4). The empirical record for more sophisticated slicing and dicing is mixed, depending on the level of granularity. Breaking the universe of U.S. equities into non-dividend payers and dividend payers, and then segmenting the latter by yield into the lowest three deciles, the median four deciles and the highest three deciles, Fama and French's 90-year dataset supports the idea that higher-yielding stocks generate higher total returns (Chart 5). The breakout is neatly consistent, with dividend payers outperforming non-dividend payers, and each yield cohort of the dividend payers outperforming the lower-yielding cohorts beneath it (Chart 6, top panel). Zoom into the dividend payers at the quintile and decile levels, however, and the consistency disappears as the tidy staircase pattern begins instead to resemble a jagged picket fence (Chart 6, lower panels). Chart 4Dividends Have Been Hazardous To Investors' ##br##Wealth Over The Last 20 Years ... Smart-Beta ETF Selection, Part II - Dividend Funds Smart-Beta ETF Selection, Part II - Dividend Funds Chart 5... Though They've Rewarded Investors ##br##Over Nine Decades Smart-Beta ETF Selection, Part II - Dividend Funds Smart-Beta ETF Selection, Part II - Dividend Funds Chart 6Not Ready For A Close-Up Smart-Beta ETF Selection, Part II - Dividend Funds Smart-Beta ETF Selection, Part II - Dividend Funds Adjusting for risk makes the picture even murkier. While the non-payers and the lowest-yielding cohorts always post the smallest risk-adjusted returns, they are the only cohorts the highest-yielders manage to beat. The median 40 is the winner among our 30-40-30 cohorts, while the fourth and the second quintiles bracketing the median 40 easily outpace the top quintile, and the eighth, fourth and seventh deciles break away from the rest of the decile pack (Chart 7). It should come as no surprise that our long top 30%/short bottom 30% litmus test failed to reveal any viable excess return strategies based on dividend yields. Our attempts to develop simple portfolio construction rules based on markers of dividend quality and sustainability failed to conclusively advance the dividend cause. Long/short strategies founded on dividend growth added no value to a simple portfolio built from dividend yield and change in share count (Chart 8). Payout ratio metrics, which might shed some light on both quality and sustainability, provided pretty solid results, but they weren't enormous winners (Chart 9). Our analysis left us unable to conclude that Yield merits inclusion among the established equity factors. Chart 7No Theme To Risk-Adjusted Return Profiles Smart-Beta ETF Selection, Part II - Dividend Funds Smart-Beta ETF Selection, Part II - Dividend Funds Chart 8No Viable Long/Short Dividend-Growth Strategy ... Smart-Beta ETF Selection, Part II - Dividend Funds Smart-Beta ETF Selection, Part II - Dividend Funds Chart 9... But Payout Ratios Work Pretty Well Smart-Beta ETF Selection, Part II - Dividend Funds Smart-Beta ETF Selection, Part II - Dividend Funds An Ideal Dividend Index The fact that the way forward for dividend strategies is not obvious is good news for smart-beta sponsors. The ambiguity leaves plenty of room for developing better index-construction methods. Some sources of improvement might include: A means of identifying and sidestepping "yield traps," high and/or growing yields that are actually a distress signal. A way to review historical metrics to gain a sense of ongoing dividend growth. An evaluation of a dividend's source, valuing dividends supported by operating cash flows more highly than those supported by financing activities or asset dispositions. A process for limiting sector exposures, and an awareness of the most auspicious backdrops for taking on exposure to specialized yield plays like mortgage REITs, MLPs and BDCs. Ticking off every item on this wish list, however, would necessarily involve infringing on other factors' turf. Quality, Value, Size and Volatility could all spill into the process of assessing dividend quality and sustainability. Given that our attempts at creating our own tests to measure up to the wish list came up empty, it seems that a cross-disciplinary approach might be the only option. Even if the indexes are not based completely on dividend-derived metrics, it may be possible for a few dividend accents to add some incremental value to the overall stew. Smart-Beta Fund Evaluation These issues were on our mind when we set out to define the metrics that we would use to evaluate the indexes created by our Dividend smart-beta ETF subset. The two payout metrics in the ETS model, dividend yield and change in shares outstanding, are pretty thin gruel for evaluating the dividend ETFs. The ETS payout metrics were selected based on their interaction with the Value, Safety, Quality, Momentum and Sentiment metrics, 23 in all, that comprise the rest of the stock-level inputs into our model. They were not intended to be stand-alone measures. Many of the ETFs in our subset explicitly screen for Quality, Value and/or Low Volatility. They could just as accurately be described as multi-factor funds in a dividend-first wrapper, and we have therefore deployed the entire ETS model to evaluate them. To assess whether or not their constituent selection process consistently improves upon a simple dividend strategy, we compare their ETS scores to those of VIG, the Vanguard Dividend Appreciation ETF, which tracks the NASDAQ US Dividend Achievers Select Index of stocks (ex-REITs and LPs) with at least 10 consecutive years of dividend increases. First Trust Rising Dividend Achievers ETF (RDVY) RDVY's ETS scores have stood out from its smart-beta peers' since the fund's inception at the beginning of 2014. Its concentrated 50-stock portfolio allows it to focus on exposure to its preferred growth and sustainability metrics. Only stocks that have grown their dividends over 3- and 5-year periods, and their non-zero earnings per share over a 3-year period, make it through the growth filters. The sustainability filters admit only stocks with cash-to-debt ratios of at least 50% and dividend payout ratios of 65% or less. Chart 10Good Things Come To Those Who Wait Smart-Beta ETF Selection, Part II - Dividend Funds Smart-Beta ETF Selection, Part II - Dividend Funds Although the fund has outperformed VIG since inception, its relative performance has not been nearly as consistent as its relative ETS scores (Chart 10). It has taken a 40% surge over the 12 months ended February 28th to put RDVY over the top. We recognize that performance can be capricious, however, and place more weight on RDVY's consistently stellar relative ETS scores, which are 20% more, on average, than its smart-beta peers'.5 RDVY's 50-basis-point ("bps") expense ratio exceeds the 36-bps group average, but we think its screens and concentration are worth the incremental 14 bps. The fund is on the smaller side with $127 million of AUM, and daily turnover of just over $2 million, but larger investors can make use of the creation/redemption unit process to transact in larger volumes without concern. We recommend RDVY for investors seeking large- and mid-cap dividend exposure. FlexShares Quality Dividend Index Fund (QDF) QDF stands second to RDVY on an ETS score basis. Its relative scores have been remarkably stable, rarely falling below 110% en route to averaging 113% of the aggregate Dividend smart-beta score. QDF's selection process is proprietary, and it incorporates measures of cash flow, profitability, and management's skill at deploying capital and financing its activities. The mix has enabled QDF to outperform VIG from the get-go, and steadily pad its lead ever since (Chart 11). Its 37-bps expense ratio is right in line with the group's and its $1.7 billion AUM and $5 million average daily turnover provide a nice sense of ballast. We recommend QDF, along with RDVY, as the best Dividend smart-beta options. Chart 11Wire-To-Wire Outperformance Smart-Beta ETF Selection, Part II - Dividend Funds Smart-Beta ETF Selection, Part II - Dividend Funds WisdomTree MidCap Dividend Fund (DON) O'Shares FTSE US Quality Dividend ETF (OUSA) WisdomTree has been a pioneer in creating dividend-weighted indexes, but the formula it's applied to selecting constituents for DON, its mid-cap dividend ETF, has not found favor with the ETS model. The fund's constituents have repeatedly earned an aggregate ETS score below 40, holding its relative score below 80% for extended periods. OUSA is a newer fund, with less than a year of history, but its ETS scores have been noticeably weak. We would avoid OUSA until it compiles enough of a track record to permit more conclusions about its process and we would advise investors seeking targeted mid-cap exposure to gain it via funds other than DON. Dividends' Curious Attraction Our work in researching this Special Report has brought dividends' many contradictions to light. In countries like the U.S., where ordinary income is taxed at a higher rate than capital gains, dividends represent an especially tax-inefficient way of redeeming a portion of one's investment. Either share buybacks or sales to third parties would yield more after-tax cash. Humans feel a strong pull to book gains, and steadily redeeming portions of a successful investment has an intuitive emotional appeal: "Let's quit while we're ahead, let's go while the getting is good." It's exactly the wrong thing to do with investments, however. If the quarterly dividend flow assuages the remorse over a mistaken investment, encouraging an investor to stick with a losing position, it's even worse. It is possible that dividends, even though they're small, help reinforce our innate resistance to selling losers and letting winners run. From management's perspective, legacy dividend payments can act as handcuffs. Fearful of issuing a signal that is sure to be interpreted negatively by the market, firms take pains to refrain from cutting dividends. Dividend declarations, then, are a part of the capital budgeting process that is not rooted in economics. A rigorously utility-maximizing visitor from outer space may have found the oil majors' borrowing to fund their dividends in the midst of the severe downturn in crude prices to be very odd indeed. All of these shortcomings may help explain why we were unable to find clear evidence that dividends exert a clear and consistent influence on stock prices. And yet, dividends are enormously popular, with dividend funds by far outnumbering every other flavor of smart-beta ETF. We, too, like to think of positions in balanced portfolios on a total-return basis, as does our U.S. Investment Strategy service, which has successfully recommended the Dividend Aristocrats much longer than we have. Total return is important, but we are increasingly leaning toward the view that specialty dividend plays, purchased at the right point of the cycle, are the best way for an investor to capture income from equity holdings. Such an all-or-nothing approach may well be superior to the one-foot-in, one-foot-out stance that is embodied by the average 2% large-cap dividend yield. Our U.S. Investment Strategy service has successfully surfed the cyclical wave in mortgage REITs, and we are attempting to do so now with the inclusion of BIZD, the business development company ETF, in our U.S. portfolios. Adding cycle analysis would make our smart-beta studies too long, but we are conducting research into the interaction between factor performance and cycle phases, and we will share our findings with our clients in standalone Special Reports if they are insightful enough to merit their attention. Doug Peta, Vice President Global ETF Strategy dougp@bcaresearch.com Jennifer Lacombe, Research Analyst Global ETF Strategy Jenniferl@bcaresearch.com Philippe Morissette, Associate Vice President Equity Trading Strategy philippem@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Global ETF Strategy/Equity Trading Strategy Special Report, "Smart-Beta ETF Selection, Part I - Value Funds," published February 15, 2017, at etf.bcaresearch.com. 2 Size may be too straightforward to allow for an index-construction edge. 3 Stock XYZ's beta is equal to the covariance of its returns with the market's returns, divided by the variance of the market's returns, where its covariance with the market equals its returns' correlation with the market's times the product of XYZ's volatility and the market's volatility. 4 Fama, Eugene F. and French, Kenneth R., "The Capital Asset Pricing Model: Theory and Evidence," Journal of Economic Perspectives, Volume 18, Number 3 (Summer 2004), pp. 25-46. 5Befitting its benchmark status, VIG’s ETS scores have averaged 99.8% of the entire subset’s since inception.