Economic Growth

Highlights Global Duration: The current mix of rising government bond yields, bear-steepening yield curves and rising inflation expectations is not surprising, given reduced political uncertainty and greater perceived tolerance of higher inflation by central banks. Maintain a below-benchmark portfolio duration stance, favoring low-inflation countries (core Europe, Japan) over higher-inflation countries (U.S., U.K.). U.K. Gilts: The selloff in Gilts looks similar to the path followed by U.S. Treasuries after the Fed's quantitative easing programs, only with a much larger currency decline. Yields have more upside in the near-term, especially against bond markets with lower inflation pressures. Downgrade U.K. allocations to below-benchmark (2 of 5) and upgrade core European exposure by upgrading France to neutral (3 of 5). U.K. Corporates: The Bank of England's corporate bond purchase program has made valuations quite expensive in the sectors where the central bank has been most active. We continue to recommend an above-benchmark stance on U.K. Investment Grade corporates versus nominal Gilts, but focusing on sectors that still over some relative value (mostly Communications). Feature Chart of the WeekA Rough Couple Of Months For Bonds There is not a lot of love for government bonds right now. Yields continue to grind higher, led by rising inflation expectations and bear-steepening moves in the core Developed market yield curves at a time when bond durations are extremely elevated (Chart of the Week). Bond investors may be starting to worry about monetary authorities falling behind the inflation-fighting curve, particularly with the heads of some major central banks openly expressing tolerance of inflation overshooting policy targets. It remains to be seen if the markets will start discounting significantly higher inflation. Within the major Developed economies, only in the U.K. are market-based inflation expectations currently above the central bank target level ... and only then after a historic currency collapse that has already caused a surge in U.K. import prices. The more important point is that the monetary authorities seem almost happy (relieved?) to see inflation expectations finally moving up and are unlikely to be very aggressive in trying to stop that trend. Only in the U.S. is there talk of a monetary tightening in the near term and, even there, little has been promised after a likely December rate hike with some Fed officials talking about letting the U.S. economy "run hot" for a while. The time for bond investors to start worrying more about inflation is when central banks begin to worry less about inflation. Favoring the bond markets with the lower rates of inflation seems like a reasonable investment strategy to pursue in the current environment. Global Duration - Stay Below-Benchmark In our previous Weekly Report,1 we revisited the reasons behind our current below-benchmark duration recommendation that has stood since July. We concluded that the case for higher yields was still intact. An additional factor that we did not discuss, but which has also had a significant influence on bond yields this year, has been the rise of political uncertainty on both sides of the Atlantic. Between the U.K. Brexit drama, and the rise of the protectionist Donald Trump in the U.S. Presidential election, investors have had to worry more about political risk than in previous years. This uncertainty created massive safe haven flows into core Developed market bonds, helping drive yields down to secular lows (Chart 2). Chart 2Uncertainty Fading, Yields Rising Yet the shock of the Brexit vote has not resulted in any noticeable slump in global growth, with even the U.K. economic data starting to show some improvement of late (more on that in the next section). As investors have come to realize that the Brexit vote was having no material effect on global growth, the political uncertainty premium on global bond yields has unwound, with yields in the major Developed bond markets now back to, or even surpassing, the pre-Brexit levels. In the case of the U.S. election, the recent decline in Trump's polling numbers has coincided with the rise in U.S. Treasury yields (Chart 3). Given the significant changes to all aspects of the U.S. government that Trump has proposed (foreign policy, immigration policy, tax policy, etc), his campaign represents the "greater uncertainty" choice in the U.S. election. So as his polling numbers decline, so should any impact on U.S. Treasury yields from political uncertainty. While this is hardly the only factor influencing Treasury yields, it is one piece of the puzzle that has turned a bit more bond bearish of late. So with less political uncertainty weighing on bonds, investors can turn their focus back to the usual drivers of yields - growth, inflation and monetary policy expectations. The news is not very bond bullish on those fronts either. Global economic indicators are not pointing to any material slowing of growth, with the OECD leading economic indicators (LEI) currently in the process of bottoming out or increasing (Chart 4). While absolute growth rates are hardly booming in the Developed world, the cyclical upturn in many Emerging economies this year has been a positive surprise. If the Emerging LEIs are to be believed, this pickup in growth can continue into next year. Chart 3Trump Really Is The 'King Of Debt' Chart 4Signs Of A Global Growth Upturn Meanwhile, inflationary pressures are potentially appearing in some of the Developed economies, most notably the U.S. and the U.K. The end of the disinflationary shock from the oil price collapse in 2014/15 has played a large role here. However, measures of spare economic capacity like the output gap or the unemployment gap2 have narrowed considerably in the major Developed economies (Chart 5), so it is perhaps no surprise that inflation expectations are starting to move higher in some of the those countries. Against this backdrop where the world might be a bit more inflationary than has been the case over the past several years, these comments last week from two prominent central bankers may have set off some alarm bells for bond investors: Bank of England Governor Mark Carney: "We're willing to tolerate a bit of overshoot in inflation over the course of the next few years in order [...] to cushion the blow [from Brexit]." U.S. Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen: "[...] it might be possible to reverse these adverse supply-side effects [from a deep recession] by temporarily running a 'high-pressure economy,' with robust aggregate demand and a tight labor market." This comes on top of the Bank of Japan's decision last month to move to deliberately target an overshoot of the 2% inflation target in order to raise depressed longer-term inflation expectations. The central banks may have a tough time convincing the markets that they would tolerate much of a rise in inflation above the policy targets. Already, interest rate expectations embedded in money market yield curves have either priced out additional rate cuts or, in the case of the U.S., priced in some modest rate hikes (Chart 6). This pricing appears correct, in our view. Chart 5The Gaps Are Closing Fast Chart 6Rate Expectations Have Turned Less Dovish We still see the Fed delivering on another rate hike in December but, even then, the median FOMC projection is only calling for two more rate hikes in 2017 following one increase this year. In the case of the Euro Area, our base case remains that the European Central Bank (ECB) will not end its asset purchase program in early 2017, as currently scheduled, but will also not push short-term interest rates deeper into negative territory. In the U.K., our expectation is that the BoE will not provide any new stimulus (i.e. cutting the policy rate to 0% or extending the current asset purchase program beyond March of next year), but will not move to quickly tighten policy either, even with U.K. inflation surging and the Pound collapsing. Chart 7Inflation Expectations Are Moving First The Bank of Japan (BoJ) may try another interest rate cut in the coming months to try and help weaken the yen, but given its new policy of yield curve "targeting", we do not expect longer-term Japanese government bond (JGB) yields to move in response to a rate cut, if it does occur. Meanwhile, we expect no policy moves from the Bank of Canada or the Reserve Bank of Australia over the next six months, even though the domestic economy looks in good shape in the latter. We continue to advise keeping a below-benchmark stance on overall portfolio duration, as the global growth and inflation backdrop has become a bit less bond-friendly at a time when longer-term bond yields remain generally overvalued. In terms of our country allocation, we recommend below-benchmark exposure where inflation expectations are rising the fastest and are most likely to continue doing so - the U.S. and, as of this week, the U.K. (see the next section). We also continue to recommend favoring inflation-linked bonds/swaps in the U.S. and U.K. over nominal government debt. Finally, we advise neutral allocations to the markets where inflation expectations are farthest from the central bank targets: Japan and core Europe (Chart 7). Bottom Line: The current mix of rising government bond yields, bear-steepening yield curves and rising inflation expectations is not surprising, given reduced political uncertainty and greater perceived tolerance of higher inflation by central banks. Maintain a below-benchmark portfolio duration stance, favoring low-inflation countries (core Europe, Japan) over higher-inflation countries (U.S., U.K.). U.K.: Monetary Overkill From The BoE? U.K. Gilts have suffered major losses over the past couple of months, with the benchmark 10-year yield up +30bps since the BoE cut rates and introduced a new round of quantitative easing (QE) back on August 4th. Reducing the policy rate and ramping up QE should, in theory, be supportive for the Gilt market. However, the BoE's actions may be causing the growth and inflation backdrop in the U.K. to become very unfriendly for Gilts: Domestic economic data have improved sharply higher in the months after the June Brexit vote, with retail sales and manufacturing in particular showing large improvements, even as business optimism took a hit following the vote to leave the European Union (Chart 8); U.K. realized inflation has started to move higher in response to the collapse of the Pound and higher import prices, which now are rising at a positive annual rate for the first time since 2011 (Chart 9 & Chart 10). Chart 8What Post-Brexit Slump? Chart 9Blame The Pound For Rising U.K. Inflation This type of response from Gilt yields to a QE announcement is not unprecedented; a similar pattern unfolded after the Fed's QE announcements earlier in the decade. In Chart 11, we show a "cycle-on-cycle" analysis of the U.K. and the U.S. financial markets around past QE announcements. The dotted lines in all panels of the chart represent the equally-weighted average of the three Fed QE announcements (in 2008, 2010 and 2012), while the solid line is the current U.K. cycle. The vertical line in the chart represents the day of the QE announcement, so in this chart we are "lining up" the U.K. now with the U.S. back then. Chart 10BoE QE: Good For Corporates, Bad For Inflation Chart 11Gilts Following The Post-Fed-QE Playbook The conclusion from Chart 11 is that Gilts are behaving in a similar fashion to Treasuries after the Fed announced its QE programs. Yields rose almost immediately, led by a wider term premium and higher inflation expectations. The initial response was modestly bullish for the currency, but then that was quickly reversed as inflation expectations continued to rise. Risk assets like equities and credit performed very well in response to the QE. The biggest difference between the U.K. now and the U.S. then is the magnitude of the currency decline. The Pound has fallen -17% since the Brexit vote, and the decline has accelerated in recent weeks on the back of increased worries about a possible "hard Brexit" - a more protectionist outcome than was originally feared after the June vote. With the U.K. having a massive current account deficit (-5.7% of GDP), any news that could stall capital inflows into the U.K. (like worries about greater protectionism) can trigger an outsized currency decline. With the Pound unlikely to rebound in the near-term, the inflationary effects of the weaker currency can continue to feed through into both realized and expected inflation. Already, the 10yr U.K. CPI swap rate has risen to 3.6% - the high end of the range of the post-2008 crisis era. We have recommended favoring inflation-linked Gilts over nominal Gilts since the BoE's QE announcement in August, and we continue to recommend owning U.K. inflation protection. If Gilts continue to follow the post-Fed-QE playbook shown in Chart 11, then Gilt yields will likely to rise until the end of the year. Chart 12Gilt Underperformance Will Continue We have maintained an overweight stance on Gilts since the BoE announcement, as we had expected the QE effect on the supply/demand balance in the Gilt market to dominate via an even more depressed Gilt term premium. A strong possibility of a final BoE rate cut to 0% was also a reason to favor Gilts over other Developed economy government bonds. But with the Pound continuing to plunge and inflation expectations soaring, and with little sign of a big downturn in the U.K. economy, it is difficult to argue that the BoE needs to easy policy again. Even if they did, the markets would likely interpret the next cut as being "monetary overkill" that was unnecessary and creates future inflation risks. This would likely exacerbate the current selloff in Gilts. The recent comments from BoE Governor Carney highlighted earlier in this report suggest that he is quite comfortable with the current monetary policy stance, and that he is not overly concerned about the inflationary effects of a weaker Pound. This suggests that the BoE will not be quickly reversing any of the August monetary easing measures, even as U.K. inflation continues to rise. Given this new policy of "benign neglect" towards rising inflation by the BoE, this week we are downgrading our recommended stance on U.K. fixed income from above-benchmark (4 of 5) to below-benchmark (2 of 5). As an offset, we are upgrading our allocation to core European bonds to neutral (3 of 5) - specifically in France, where we are currently below-benchmark (2 of 5). The spreads between U.K. Gilts and French debt have been widening as Gilt yields have increased (Chart 12), and we see the spreads returning to their pre-Brexit ranges in the months ahead. Bottom Line: The selloff in Gilts looks similar to the path followed by U.S. Treasuries after the Fed's quantitative easing programs, only with a much larger currency decline. Yields have more upside in the near-term, especially against bond markets with lower inflation pressures. Downgrade U.K. allocations to below-benchmark (2 of 5) and upgrade core European exposure by upgrading France to neutral (3 of 5). A Quick Update On U.K. Corporate Bonds The BoE's expanded QE program also included an increase in Investment Grade non-financial corporate bond purchases. The plan called for the BoE to purchase 10bn pounds worth of corporate debt over an 18-month period. The BoE has pursued a weighting scheme across sectors that differs from the market-capitalization based weightings of a traditional U.K. corporate bond benchmark index. For example, the BoE is buying far more debt from sectors like Electricity, Consumer Non-Cyclicals, Industrials and Transportation relative to the weights in the Barclays U.K. corporate bond index (Chart 13). Chart 13BoE Corporate Bond Purchases Are Not Following The Benchmark The impact of the BoE bond buying can be seen in current corporate bond spread valuations. The BoE's heavy focus on Utilities & Industrials issuers drove the spreads on the Barclays benchmark indices for those sectors down to the lows of the past few years (Chart 14). We can also see this in our own U.K. sector spread relative value framework, where the sectors that have the heaviest BoE involvement also have the most expensive spreads (Table 1). Chart 14U.K. Corporate Spreads Are Tight (Ex Financials) Table 1U.K. Investment Grade Corporate Sector Spread Valuations With the BoE becoming such a large marginal player in the U.K. corporate bond market, an overweight position versus nominal Gilts is still warranted. The weakness of the Pound is also supportive of the performance of U.K. non-financial corporates, as evidenced by the strong correlation of corporate bond excess returns, equity returns and the swings of the trade-weighted Pound over the past five years (Chart 15 & Chart 16). Chart 15U.K. Equities & Corps Are Both Performing Well... Chart 16...Thanks To The Plunging Currency In terms of individual sector recommendations, favor names in the Communications sectors (specifically, Cable & Satellite and Wireless), where spreads are cheap in our valuation framework and the BoE can potentially buy bonds as part of its QE program. One final note: U.K. Financials score the cheapest in our sector valuation model, and there is a case for shifting to an overweight in those sectors (most Banks and Insurers), even if the BoE is not buying those bonds. Financials will likely benefit from higher Gilt yields and a steeper Gilt curve, but could also require higher risk premiums as the Brexit process plays out and the business models of banks may need to be altered in a post-EU U.K. This likely makes U.K. Financials more of a riskier carry trade than an undervalued spread-compression trade. Bottom Line: The Bank of England's corporate bond purchase program has made valuations quite expensive in the sectors where the central bank has been most active. We continue to recommend an above-benchmark stance on U.K. Investment Grade corporates versus nominal Gilts, but focusing on sectors that still over some relative value where the central bank is buying (mostly in Communications). Robert Robis, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "The Bond Bear Phase Continues", dated October 11, 2016, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com 2 The unemployment rate minus the NAIRU or "full employment" level of unemployment The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Recommendations Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Special Report

Highlights Muni Credit Cycle: The reading from our Municipal Health Monitor supports low Muni/Treasury yield ratios for now, but will become less supportive near the end of 2017. This is consistent with historical lags between the muni and corporate credit cycles. Issuance: State & local government investment spending will increase in 2017, as will muni issuance for new capital. Pensions: The pension funding problem will only get worse in the coming years. Credit ratings do not adequately reflect the risk from under-funded pensions. Election: Muni/Treasury yield ratios have not yet discounted Donald Trump's recent plunge in the polls. Maintain an overweight allocation to municipal bonds for the time being, but stand prepared to gradually reduce exposure as the muni credit cycle starts to turn in late 2017. Feature The financial crisis marked a major inflection point in the municipal bond market. Not only did the economic fall-out from the housing crash lead to historically large state & local government budget gaps, but the end of bond insurance and a growing realization that municipal default is possible have focused investor attention on credit quality more than ever before. In this Special Report we zero-in on the Municipal/Treasury (M/T) yield ratio.1 We identify its major short-run and long-run drivers, and assess where it is headed in the context of the municipal bond credit cycle. The Longer-Run Outlook For Yield Ratios An important input to our understanding of the municipal credit cycle is our Muni Health Monitor (MHM). The MHM is a composite of eight indicators of state & local government budget health. Full details of the indicator and its components can be found in the Appendix to this report. The MHM has an excellent track record of signaling the major inflection points in muni ratings migration (Chart 1). We observe that the MHM bottomed in 2006, one year before the previous trough in ratings migration. The MHM also crossed into "deteriorating health" territory six months before municipal downgrades started to outpace upgrades in 2008. More recently, the MHM crossed back into "improving health" territory in Q4 2012. Muni ratings migration also peaked in Q4 2012 and upgrades began outpacing downgrades in Q4 2014. Chart 1The Municipal Health Monitor Leads Ratings We pay attention to the trends in muni ratings because ratings and state & local government net borrowing explain more than 50% of the variation in the average M/T yield ratio since 1997 (Chart 2). Further, increased investor focus on the creditworthiness of municipal issues has made the yield ratio even more responsive to ratings and net borrowing since the Great Recession. So where are we currently situated in the muni credit cycle? The MHM remains in "improving health" territory, but appears to have entered an extended bottoming-out phase. Given the re-leveraging that has already occurred in the corporate sector, it would be extremely unusual for the MHM to improve further during this cycle. In fact, our Corporate Health Monitor tends to lead the MHM by about two years (Chart 3). This squares with what we know about the behavior of state & local governments throughout the economic cycle. Chart 2The Muni Credit Cycle Illustrated I Chart 3The Muni Credit Cycle Illustrated II Typically, the corporate sector will increase debt loads when times are good and will then be forced to de-lever when the economy enters recession, profits contract and those debt loads become unsustainable. State & local government budget gaps, on the other hand, will tend to narrow during an economic recovery as rapid income growth translates into increased tax revenue. It is only during a recession that state & local government budget gaps widen, since tax revenue plummets while expenditure growth - particularly for social benefits - remains firm. The end result is that the municipal credit cycle tends to lag the corporate credit cycle. This is also apparent in the ratings data (Chart 3, bottom panel), which suggest that we should expect to see muni downgrades (and hence yield ratios) head higher near the end of next year. The typical lag between the corporate credit cycle and the municipal credit cycle suggests that M/T yield ratios should remain well behaved until late-2017, and then begin to move higher. However, the extraordinary length of the current economic recovery gives us some cause to believe that the lags in this cycle may be somewhat longer. We turn to a macro analysis of net state & local government borrowing to shed some further light on this issue. Net borrowing is simply the difference between revenues and expenditures. On the revenue side of the ledger, state & local governments have already seen a significant deceleration in tax receipts during the past year (Chart 4). Every source of tax revenue - except for property taxes - has slowed alongside what has been disappointing overall economic growth so far in 2016. While a return to the 10% revenue growth that was seen in the mid-2000s is unlikely, we expect most of the recent deceleration will soon be reversed. Aggregate weekly hours bounced sharply in September (Chart 5), and federal income tax withholdings also continue to grow rapidly. Both indicators suggest that income growth will be stronger during the next few months, which will support state & local tax receipts. On the expenditures side, while spending on social benefit programs has increased, state & local governments have largely dealt with budget gaps by cutting back severely on discretionary spending (Chart 6). Investment spending has also collapsed and, as a result, gross municipal bond issuance has been dominated by refinancing (Chart 6, bottom two panels). Chart 4S&L Government Revenue Chart 5Income Growth Will Rebound Chart 6S&L Government Expenditures This could all be about to change. Both U.S. Presidential candidates have prioritized infrastructure spending as part of their platforms. Hillary Clinton plans to increase infrastructure spending by $500 billion. This consists of $250 billion of federal infrastructure spending over the next five years and $25 billion of seed money to create a national infrastructure bank. The bank would also accept an additional $225 billion in direct loans. Clinton's plan would also bring back the Build America Bonds (BABs) program. Donald Trump has also expressed a desire to invest heavily in infrastructure, and has floated figures in the range of $1 trillion, although he has been less specific about the details. Historically, about 70% of public investment has occurred at the state & local government level (Chart 7). This suggests that if infrastructure spending became a priority it would lead to a large increase in state & local government investment and hence municipal bond issuance. However, with Clinton's plan it is still unclear whether the bulk of infrastructure spending would be financed through the Treasury market or the muni market. Certainly, to the extent that increased spending is financed through the BABs program, then tax-exempt muni issuance would not be impacted. In our view, state & local government investment spending will head higher in 2017 even without any support from the new President. The need for state & local governments to invest in infrastructure has been evident for some time, but only recently have budgets become healthy enough for governments to consider it. There is a strong correlation between state & local government investment spending and the net percentage of states with a total balance (general fund plus rainy day fund) that exceeds 5% of expenditures (Chart 8). This figure has just recently moved into positive territory and, not coincidentally, more than $200 billion worth of infrastructure spending will be on ballots requesting voter approval in November.2 Chart 7State & Local Government ##br##Drives Investment Chart 8Healthy Enough##br## To Invest The combination of resilient, but not surging, revenue growth and increased investment spending in 2017 is consistent with the idea that the muni credit cycle will follow the lead of the corporate cycle and start to turn near the end of next year. Bottom Line: The reading from our Municipal Health Monitor supports low Muni/Treasury yield ratios for now, but will become less supportive near the end of 2017. This is consistent with historical lags between the muni and corporate credit cycles. The Pension Problem Of course, the elephant in the room with regards to the long-run outlook for municipal credit quality is pensions. So far pensions have only entered our discussion of the muni credit cycle tangentially, since the pension funded ratio is a component of the MHM (see Appendix). However, large unfunded pension liabilities - should they persist - have the potential to be severely destabilizing for the muni market at some point in the future. According to the U.S. National Accounts, aggregate defined benefit pension entitlements at the state & local government level total $5.6 trillion, only 65% of which are currently funded by assets. However, this aggregate figure masks large divergences between a few municipalities with unsustainable pension liabilities and the majority of municipalities where pension liabilities are probably manageable. Chart 9Low Returns Put Pressure On Pensions In a recent report,3 the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College found that 36 states should be able to fund their existing liabilities by making annual payments that total less than 15% of revenue. However, five states - Illinois, New Jersey, Connecticut, Hawaii and Kentucky - require annual payments in excess of 25% of revenue. The breakdown is found to be similar at the city level, where pension costs were found to be manageable for the majority of cities, although Chicago, Detroit, San Jose, Miami, Houston, Baltimore, Wichita and Portland all face annual pension costs that exceed 40% of revenue. Unfortunately, while the pension situations of most municipalities are currently manageable, they are only likely to get worse. Changes in the aggregate pension funded ratio closely track returns from a portfolio that is 50% invested in the S&P 500 and 50% invested in the Barclays Treasury index (Chart 9). Based on current equity valuations, it is probably only reasonable to expect 6% annual nominal returns from the equity market during the next 10 years,4 and the 10-year Treasury yield suggests that 1.8% is a reasonable expectation for annual nominal Treasury returns. Taken together, annual nominal investment returns from a 50/50 portfolio during the next decade could be close to 4%, far below the historical average of 8.9% and also below the 7.6% average return assumed by state & local pension plans in 2014. The two main points are that: The pension problem is likely to get worse, not better Given that large under-funded pensions are concentrated in only a few states, inter-state muni allocations are very important On this second point, we observe that states with lower pension funded ratios have higher General Obligation (GO) bond yields (Chart 10), and also that not all of the difference is reflected in credit ratings. We ran a cross-sectional regression of GO bond yields against credit rating and found that a correlation remains between the residual from that regression and the pension funded ratio (Chart 11). In other words, credit rating does not adequately control for the risk presented by under-funded pensions. Chart 10Municipal Bond Yields Vs. Pension Funded Ratios Chart 11Municipal Bond Yields Vs. Pension Funded Ratios: Controlling For Credit Rating Bottom Line: The pension funding problem will only get worse in the coming years. Credit ratings do not adequately reflect the risk from under-funded pensions. The Short-Run Outlook For Yield Ratios So far we have discussed the muni credit cycle and noted that M/T yield ratios should begin to move higher on a sustained basis at some point near the end of 2017. However, the near-term drivers of M/T yield ratios suggest that an overweight allocation to municipal bonds remains appropriate for the time being. We have found that the bulk of near-term volatility in M/T ratios can be explained by four factors (Chart 12): The Global Policy Uncertainty Index5 Gross municipal bond issuance Net municipal mutual fund flows Ratings migration The Brexit shock to policy uncertainty has now mostly been reversed. Meanwhile, our Muni Excess Supply Indicator (Chart 12, panel 4) shows that gross issuance has been outpacing fund inflows of late. This should put upward pressure on yield ratios, although this pressure has been largely offset by still supportive ratings migration (Chart 12, bottom panel). Considering all factors, this short-term model shows that the average M/T yield ratio is close to fair value. A reading close to fair value is consistent with muni returns that should exceed those from duration-equivalent Treasuries most of the time (Table 1), even before adjusting for the muni tax advantage. In fact, Table 1 shows that the odds of muni underperformance only really increase once the M/T ratio appears more than one half standard deviation expensive on our model. Chart 12A Short-Term Muni Model Table 1Municipal Bond Excess Returns* Based On Fair Value Model** Residual: 2010 - 2016 The other near-term factor that supports a continued overweight allocation to municipal debt is the prospect of a Clinton victory in next month's election. Since the beginning of the year, the average M/T ratio has closely tracked the probability of a Trump election victory (Chart 13). The reasoning is entirely logical. Trump has promised large tax cuts for the highest earners. Such tax cuts would significantly de-value the tax advantage of municipal bonds and pressure yield ratios higher. In contrast, Clinton promises to raise taxes on high income individuals. This would make the tax advantage of municipal debt more valuable, and pressure yield ratios lower. Chart 13Trump Is Bad For Yield Ratios The average M/T yield ratio has not yet discounted Trump's recent plunge in the polls. This argues for the maintenance of an overweight allocation to municipal debt in the near term. Bottom Line: M/T yield ratios appear fairly valued in the near-term, and have not yet discounted Donald Trump's recent plunge in the polls. Maintain an overweight allocation to municipal bonds for the time being, but stand prepared to gradually reduce exposure as the muni credit cycle starts to turn in late 2017. Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com Alex Wang, Research Analyst alexw@bcaresearch.com Appendix: The BCA Municipal Health Monitor The BCA Municipal Health Monitor is an equal-weighted composite of eight indicators meant to quantify trends in state & local government budget gaps and debt service capability. The components consist entirely of data that are publicly available from the Bureau of Economic Analysis, Federal Reserve, Bureau of Labor Statistics and the National Association of State Budget Officers. The eight components are described below, and shown graphically in Charts A1 & A2. Chart A1Muni Health Monitor Components I Chart A2Muni Health Monitor Components II Leverage: The ratio of total state & local government liabilities (excluding unfunded pension liabilities) to total financial assets. Interest Coverage: State & local government current budget surplus (excluding interest expenditures) divided by interest expenditures. The current surplus is calculated as the difference between current revenues and current expenditures (i.e. investment spending is excluded). Pension Funded Ratio: Total assets of state & local government pension funds divided by total pension liabilities. Revenue: State & local government current revenue in nominal terms, as a deviation from its 18-quarter trend. Surplus Margin: State & local government current budget surplus as a % of current revenue. Liquidity: State & local government total financial assets less short-term liabilities, as a % of total financial assets. Employment Growth: Year-over-year % change in state and local government employment. Total Balance: Aggregate state government total year-end balance. The total balance is the general fund balance plus the rainy day fund, as a % of total expenditures. 1 The average M/T yield ratio shown in this report is calculated by taking an equal-weighted average of M/T yield ratios for 2-year, 5-year, 10-year and 30-year maturities. For each maturity point the yield ratio is calculated as the ratio between the Bloomberg Fair Value Aaa Municipal bond yield and the Federal Reserve's constant maturity Treasury yield. 2 http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-09-13/mega-deals-lead-ballo… 3 http://crr.bc.edu/briefs/will-pensions-and-opebs-break-state-and-local-… 4 Please see Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "Global Equity Valuations: Risks And Opportunities", dated July 1, 2016, available at gis.bcaresearch.com 5 The index was created by Professors Scott Baker, Nick Bloom and Steven Davis and is driven by the number of times terms related to economic and policy uncertainty are found in newspaper articles. Full details of the methodology are available at www.policyuncertainty.com

Special Report

Highlights It is premature to position for an equity market handoff from liquidity to growth. Cyclical sectors have overshot the mark in recent months. There is scant evidence from macro variables that cyclical sector earnings validation will materialize, especially if the U.S. dollar continues its stealth appreciation. Defensive sectors are primed to resume their market leadership role. Feature Rotational Correction Beneath the surface, equity markets have behaved as if a handoff to growth from liquidity is underway. Since July, defensives have not benefited from the broad market consolidation and increased volatility (Chart 1). Instead, cyclical sectors have celebrated the easing in financial conditions in recent months. The bounce in oil prices, commensurate narrowing in corporate bond spreads and firming inflation expectations have provided enough fuel for cyclical vs. defensive outperformance. Other financial markets appear to corroborate such a view. The equity-to-bond ratio has firmed. Inflation expectations have risen, partly reflecting commodity price appreciation. Gold prices are down. The Fed is itching to lift interest rates. Long-term global government bond yields have climbed. Even the U.S. dollar is testing the top end of its recent range (Chart 1). All of these factors would suggest that the growth outlook is steadily improving. If so, then a rethink of our defensive portfolio positioning would be imperative. Sectoral trends have reached a critical point. Defensive sectors have unwound overbought conditions, and are close to hitting oversold levels (Chart 2). The interest rate-sensitive consumer discretionary, financials and utilities sectors have already hit deeply oversold levels on the latest blip up in Treasury yields (Chart 2). Cyclical sectors are just starting to roll over from overbought levels. Chart 1The U.S. Dollar Is A Critical Influence Chart 2End Of Rotational Correction? These dynamics reflect a rotational equity market correction. Indeed, there have been many episodes in the past few years when countertrend sector swings occurred, but each was fleeting and the economy's need for liquidity stayed as strong as ever, ultimately propelling defensive shares back to a leadership position. Is this time different? Below, we revisit a range of indicators that we use to help forecast and time durable shifts in the cyclical vs. defensive trade off. Cyclical Vs. Defensive Checklist Update In our March, 2016 Special Report on cyclical vs. defensive sector strategy, we outlined a checklist of factors that would trigger the need for more aggressive positioning rather than simply riding out the anticipated countertrend move: Broad-based U.S. dollar weakness, particularly against emerging market currencies in countries with large current account deficits. An end to Chinese manufacturing sector deflation. A decisive upturn in global manufacturing purchasing manager's indexes. A return to growth in global export volumes and prices. A resynchronization in global profitability such that U.S. profits were not the only locomotive. A rebound in global inflation expectations. China credibly addressing banking sector weakness to the point where economic growth can reaccelerate rather than move laterally. Of this checklist, items 1, 2, 4, 5 and 7 remain unfulfilled, while items 3 and 6 have moved from a deep negative to a more neutral setting. Financial Variables Offer Modest Cyclical Sector Hope... Financial variables that typically lead the cyclical vs. defensive share price ratio have improved, on the margin, as noted in our March 29th Special Report. Commodity prices bounced on the back of the pause in the U.S. dollar rally, aided more recently by hopes for oil market supply restraint, while developed world equities have lagged behind their emerging market counterparts. The latter is notable, because goods producing cyclical sectors have a tight link with manufacturing-intensive emerging market economies (Chart 3). However, we do not recommend extrapolating these financial market messages, especially since the greenback and commodity prices are starting to reverse. It is also worth noting the bounce in emerging market currencies has been modest, and pales in comparison with the scale of the previous slide (Chart 3). In other words, we are not convinced that EM currency moves are signaling that countries are gaining better access to global funding. Moreover, the back up in global bond yields has not yet produced any meaningful steepening in the U.S. yield curve, which would be a reliable confirming indication that U.S. growth expectations were improving. At the moment, the yield curve is signaling that defensive sectors are now undershooting (Chart 4). Chart 3Some Financial Variables Have Firmed... Chart 4... But Not All ... But There Is Still A Dearth Of Fundamental Support Financial variables are only useful when confirmed by economic variables. Global manufacturing surveys have stabilized, but are oscillating around the boom/bust line rather than recording incremental gains. Inventory destocking may have finally run its course, based on the trough in the U.S. business sales-to-inventory ratio (Chart 5, top panel), but it is premature to forecast improvement in final demand. Keep in mind that ex consumption, the U.S. economy is in recession. Heavy truck sales have been an excellent business cycle indicator for decades. Truck orders tend to be an early indicator for activity. Heavy truck orders peaked in 2015, and the shipments-to-inventory ratio is heading rapidly toward recession levels (Chart 5). The risk is that employment cools. Corporate employment decisions are profit-motivated. Wages are currently rising much faster than nominal GDP. That is never a good environment for the labor market (Chart 6). True, wages are up, but productivity is down. While broad-based labor market weakness has yet to materialize, the risks are skewed to the downside. Sinking profits and rising wages warn that the unemployment rate is headed higher (shown inverted, Chart 6). Goods producing employment is rolling over relative to service sector employment, which is often a leading indicator of cyclical vs. defensive relative performance momentum (Chart 7, middle panel). Chart 5Cyclicals Have Overshot Fundamentals Chart 6Buy Cyclicals When The Economy Overheats Chart 7Mixed Signals The time to tilt portfolios in favor of cyclical sectors is when profits and profit margins are expanding at a rate such that the labor market is steadily tightening, creating a self-reinforcing consumption/economic feedback loop that feeds into rising inflation pressures, i.e. when the corporate sector is in a position of financial strength. Defensives often outperform when the unemployment rate is rising. Consumers are still much stronger than the corporate sector, and should remain so even if job growth recedes. Consumer balance sheets have been repaired and savings rates are up. Conversely, the BCA Corporate Health Monitor is deep in deteriorating health territory (Chart 5), as profits are contracting and free cash flow is eroding. That divergence is reflected in economic data. For instance, the producer price index is still deep in deflation relative to the consumer price index, albeit the rate of decay has lessened. The upshot is that a meaningful pricing power advantage exists for businesses that sell to consumers rather than to other businesses. Defensives are much more consumer-oriented than deep cyclical sectors, and move in line with relative pricing power (Chart 7). Little Help From Abroad It does not appear as if external forces will take up any slack from lackluster U.S. growth. The all important emerging market PMI has edged back to the boom/bust line, reflecting the tailwind from monetary easing. However, emerging market inventories have spiked in the last two months (shown inverted, Chart 8), warning against getting too excited about growth. It is notable that emerging markets, and China, have failed to begin deleveraging (Chart 9). Chart 8Global: From Negative To Neutral Chart 9A Bearish Credit Impulse The global credit impulse is negative, especially in commodity-dependent developing economies (Chart 9). It is no wonder that global export prices continue to deflate, and export volumes have slipped back into negative territory (Chart 10). The message is that developed country domestic demand is not yet sufficiently robust to boost global final demand. Instead, growth will continue to be redistributed through foreign exchange resets. While China has opened the fiscal taps, the economic outlook is still only for stabilization rather than growth acceleration. Money growth has surged and the Chinese Keqiang index has climbed off its lows (Chart 11), but we are reluctant to extrapolate these signals. Chart 10Still Deflating Chart 11Not Ready To Bet On China Acceleration Credit growth continues to sink and loan demand remains anemic (Chart 11). The speed of the debt build up since the financial crisis has been breathtaking, and undoubtedly included capital misallocation. While the unknown scale of the non-performing loan implications for the banking system is cause for concern, it is notable that the growth in fixed asset investment projects started has rolled over (Chart 11), and the authorities recently introduced measures to curb house price inflation. The Chinse manufacturing sector price deflator is still below zero (Chart 11). Now that the U.S. dollar is perking back up, the pressure on the authorities to reduce prices and/or further devalue the yuan will increase, representing another headwind for global cyclical companies, especially given the recent relapse in exports. Another bout of deflationary stress would cause risk premiums to rise for global cyclical equities, which garner a significant portion of revenue from abroad. Interest coverage is already razor thin, and free cash flow growth is deeply negative (Chart 12). U.S.-sourced profits are still outpacing earnings from the rest of the world, despite the pause in the U.S. dollar bull market over the past year. Now that the U.S. dollar is quietly grinding higher, the outlook is for ongoing U.S. profit outperformance. That is conducive to defensive sector outperformance (Chart 13). In all, it appears as if a technical adjustment has occurred in equity markets, rather than a fundamentally-driven trend change. In fact, the cyclical vs. defensive share price ratio appears to now be overshooting after having undershot. Worrisomely, most of this overshoot reflects a surge in tech stocks, and to a lesser extent, energy, as both industrials and materials have rolled over in relative performance terms (Chart 14). We expect leadership to revert back to non-cyclical sectors once the current rotational correction has run its course, given the lack of confirmation from the bulk of the macro variables on our checklist. Chart 12Risk Premiums Will Stay High Chart 13No Turn Yet Chart 14Deep Cyclicals: A One Trick Pony Bottom Line: Now is not the time to chase momentum in recent outperformers, as defensives are about to reclaim the leadership role from cyclical sectors, based on a broad range of macro, valuation and financial market indicators.

Highlights Recent U.S. economic data have surprised to the upside, raising the odds of a December rate hike. U.S. GDP growth is likely to accelerate further in 2017 on the back of stronger business capex, a turn in the inventory cycle, and a pickup in government spending. Faster wage growth should also support consumption. The real broad trade-weighted dollar will appreciate by 10% over the next 12 months, as the market prices in more Fed tightening. The stronger dollar will pose a headache for U.S. multinationals, as well as emerging markets and commodity producers. However, it will be a boon for Europe and Japan. Global equities are vulnerable to a near-term correction, but the longer-term outlook for developed market stocks outside the U.S. looks reasonably good. Investors should overweight euro area and Japanese equities in currency-hedged terms. Feature Why The Fed Hit The Pause Button When the FOMC decided to hike rates last December, it signaled to investors via its "dot plot" that rates would likely rise four times this year. Ten months later, the fed funds rate remains unchanged. What caused the Fed to stand down? External factors certainly played a role: Fears of a hard landing in China permeated the markets at the start of the year. And just as these worries were beginning to recede, the Brexit vote sent investors into a hurried panic. However, the more important reason for the Fed's decision to hit the pause button is that U.S. domestic activity slowed sharply, with real GDP growing by just 0.9% in Q4 of 2015 and by an average of 1.1% in the first half of 2016. Rays Of Light Fortunately, recent data suggest that the growth drought may be ending (Chart 1): Chart 1Some Bright Spots In the U.S. Data The ISM non-manufacturing index jumped 5.7 points in September, the largest monthly increase on record. The ISM manufacturing index also surprised to the upside, with the new orders index jumping six points to 55.1. Factory orders increased by 0.2% in August, against consensus expectations for a modest decline. Initial unemployment claims continue to decline, with the four-week average falling to a 42-year low this week. The Conference's Board's consumer confidence index hit a nine-year high in September. The University of Michigan's index also rose. The key question for investors is whether the recent spate of good data is just noise or the start of a more lasting improvement in underlying demand growth. We think it's the latter. As we expand upon below, the adverse lagged effects on growth from the dollar's appreciation between mid-2014 and early this year should dissipate, pushing aggregate demand higher. Energy sector capex appears to be stabilizing after plunging nearly 70% since its peak in 2014. Stronger wage growth should also keep consumption demand elevated, even as employment growth continues to decelerate. In addition, fiscal policy is likely to loosen somewhat regardless of who wins the presidential election. Lastly, the inventory cycle appears to be turning, following five straight quarters in which falling inventory investment subtracted from growth. To what extent will better U.S. growth translate into a stronger dollar? To answer this question, we proceed in three steps: First, we estimate the magnitude by which U.S. growth will exceed its trend rate if the Fed takes no action to tighten financial conditions. Our answer is "by around one percentage point in 2017," which we think is considerably above market expectations. Second, we assess the degree to which the Fed will need to tighten financial conditions - via higher interest rates and a stronger dollar - in order to keep inflation from significantly overshooting its target. Third, we consider how developments abroad will affect the dollar. Our conclusion is that the real trade-weighted dollar will likely rise by around 10% over the next 12 months. How Quickly Will Aggregate Demand Grow If The Fed Does Not Raise Rates? As detailed below, a bottom-up analysis of the various components of GDP suggests that real GDP growth could reach 2.5% in the second half of 2016 and accelerate to 2.8% in 2017 if financial conditions remain unchanged from current levels. This would represent a significant step up in growth from the average pace of 1.6% experienced between Q1 of 2015 and Q2 of 2016. While growth of 2.8% next year might sound implausibly high, keep in mind that real final sales to private domestic purchasers - the cleanest measure of underlying private-sector demand - has grown by an average of 3% since Q3 of 2014 and increased by 3.2% in Q2 of this year, the last quarter for which data is available. Consumption Assuming that interest rates and the dollar remain unchanged, we project that real personal consumption will grow by an average of 2.7% in Q4 of this year and over the course of 2017. This is equivalent to the average growth rate of real PCE between Q1 of 2015 and Q2 of 2016, but below the 3% pace recorded in the first half of this year. Granted, employment growth is likely to slow over the coming quarters, as labor market slack is absorbed. Nevertheless, real income growth should remain reasonably robust, as real wages accelerate in response to a tighter labor market. A rough rule of thumb is that a 1% increase in real wage growth boosts real household income by the equivalent of 120,000 extra jobs per month over one full year. Thus, it would not take much of a pickup in wage growth to ensure that consumption keeps rising at a fairly solid pace. In fact, one could see a virtuous circle emerging, where accelerating wage growth pushes up consumption, leading to a tighter labor market, and even faster wage growth. At some point the Fed would raise rates by enough to cool the economy, but not before the dollar had moved sharply higher. This may explain why there is such a strikingly strong correlation between the dollar and labor's share of national income (Chart 2). Households may also end up spending a bit more of their incomes. Faster wage growth, rising consumer confidence, continued home price appreciation, and negative real deposit rates have all given households even more incentive to spend freely. While we do not expect the savings rate to fall anywhere close to the rock-bottom levels seen before the financial crisis, even a 0.5 percentage point decline from the current level of 5.7%, spread out over six quarters, would add 0.4% to GDP growth. Residential Investment Real residential investment dropped 7.7% in Q2 after growing by an average of nearly 12% over the preceding six quarters. The Q2 dip was mainly due to the warm winter, which pulled forward home-improvement spending. Housing activity has recovered since then, with new home sales, single-family housing starts, and the NAHB homebuilders index all at or near post-crisis highs (Chart 3). Chart 2The Dollar Is Redistributing Income Chart 3U.S. Housing Remains Robust The underpinnings for housing continue to look good. The ratio of household debt-to-GDP has declined nearly 20 points from its 2008 high - the lowest figure since 2003 - while the debt- service ratio is back to where it was in the early 1980s (Chart 4). Excess inventories have also been absorbed. The homeowner vacancy rate has fallen to 1.7%, completely reversing the spike experienced during the Great Recession (Chart 5). With household formation picking up and housing starts still 20%-to-25% below most estimates of how much construction is necessary to keep up with population growth, it is likely that housing activity can increase at a reasonably brisk pace over the next two years. We assume that real residential investment will expand by 4% in both Q4 and 2017. Chart 4Household Debt Burdens Have Declined Chart 5The Excess Supply In Housing Has Cleared Business Capex Growth in business capital spending has been falling since mid-2014 and turned negative on a year-over-year basis in the first quarter of this year. Initially, the deceleration in capital spending was largely confined to the energy sector. Since late last year, however, non-energy capex has also weakened sharply (Chart 6). Chart 6Easing In Energy Sector Retrenchment The recent slowdown in business capex reflects three factors. First, the disaggregated data on corporate investment spending indicate that lower energy prices generated a second-round effect on businesses that are not officially classified as being part of the energy space, but that are nonetheless major suppliers to the sector. Second, the stronger dollar hurt the manufacturing sector more broadly, leading to a lagged decline in capital spending. Third, the backup in corporate borrowing spreads that began in May 2014 and the associated tightening in bank lending standards put further downward pressure on business capex. All three of these headwinds have waned over the past few months (Chart 7). The oil rig count has started to recover, suggesting that energy capex should stabilize and perhaps even improve. The dollar and corporate credit spreads have also come down, while loan growth remains robust (Chart 8). Reflecting these developments, core capital goods orders have risen for the past three months. Corporate capex intentions have also perked up (Chart 9). We project that real business capex will increase by 2.5% in Q4 and 3.5% in 2017 if the dollar and interest rates remain unchanged. Chart 7Borrowing Costs Have Fallen Chart 8Solid Loan Growth Chart 9Recent Signs Of Improving Corporate Capex Spending Intentions Inventories Lower inventory investment shaved 1.2 percentage points off Q2 growth. This marked the fifth consecutive quarter that inventories have been a drag on growth - the first time this has happened since 1956. Real inventory levels fell by $9.5 billion at a seasonally-adjusted annualized pace in the second quarter and are likely to be flat-to-slightly down again in Q3. However, since it is the change in inventory investment that affects growth, this should translate into a modestly positive contribution to Q3 GDP growth. Looking further out, firms are likely to start slowly rebuilding inventories as we head into 2017. The economy wide inventory-to-sales ratio is now back near its trend level (Chart 10). Durable goods inventories excluding the volatile aircraft component rose in the third quarter, as did the inventory component of the ISM manufacturing index (Chart 11). We expect inventory restocking to boost growth by 0.1 percentage points in Q4 and 2017, a big improvement over the drag of -0.6 percentage points between Q2 of 2015 and Q2 of 2016. Chart 10Room To Stock Up Chart 11Inventory Rebuilding Has Commenced Government Spending Real government consumption and investment declined by 1.7% in Q2 on the back of lower state and local spending and continued weakness in defense expenditures. The drop at the state and local levels should be reversed, given that tax revenues are trending higher. Federal government spending should also pick up regardless of who wins the presidency. There is now bipartisan support for removing the sequester and increasing infrastructure spending. We are penciling in growth in real government expenditures of 1.5% in Q4 and 2.5% in 2017. Net Exports Net exports shaved 0.8 percentage points off growth in the five quarters spanning Q4 of 2014 to Q4 of 2015. Net exports made a slight positive contribution to growth in the first half of this year. Unfortunately, this was mainly a consequence of sluggish import growth against a backdrop of decelerating domestic demand. Looking out, assuming no change in the dollar index, a rebound in import demand will lead to a modest widening in the trade deficit, which will translate into a 0.2 percentage-point drag from net exports over the remainder of this year and 2017. Putting It All Together The analysis above suggests that the U.S. economy will grow by around 2.5% in Q4 - close to the pace that Q3 growth is currently tracking at - with growth accelerating to 2.8% in 2017. This is a point above the Fed's estimate of long-term real potential GDP growth based on the latest Summary of Economic Projections. How Will The Fed React To Faster Growth? We tend to agree with most FOMC officials who think that the economy is now close to full employment. We also concur that the relationship between inflation and spare capacity is not linear. When spare capacity is high, even large declines in unemployment have little effect on inflation. In contrast, when the labor market becomes quite tight, modest declines in the unemployment rate can cause inflation to rise appreciably. As Chart 12 illustrates, the existence of such a "kinked" Phillips Curve is consistent with the data. Where this publication's view differs with the Fed's is over the question of how much of an inflation overshoot should be tolerated. Considering that the Fed has undershot its inflation target by a cumulative 4% since 2009, a strong case can be made that it should aim for a sizable overshoot in order to bring the price level back to its pre-crisis trend. Most FOMC members do not see it that way, however. This point was reinforced by Chair Yellen at her September press conference when she said that "We don't want the economy to overheat and significantly overshoot our 2 percent inflation objective."1 Chart 13 shows that many measures of core inflation are already above 2%. This suggests that the Fed is unlikely to stand pat if aggregate demand growth looks set to accelerate to nearly 3% next year, as our analysis suggests it will. Chart 12The Phillips Curve Appears To Be Non-Linear Chart 13Some Measures Of U.S. Core Inflation Are Already Above 2% How high will rates go? This is a tricky question to answer because it requires us to know the value of the so-called neutral rate - the short-term interest rate consistent with full employment. Complicating the matter is the fact that changes in interest rate expectations will affect the value of the dollar, and that changes in the value of the greenback, in turn, will affect the level of the neutral rate. This is because a stronger dollar means a larger trade deficit, which necessitates a lower interest rate to keep the economy at full employment. It is a "joint estimation" problem, as economists call it. One key point to keep in mind is that currencies tend to be more sensitive to changes in interest rate differentials when those differentials are expected to persist for a long time. Chart 14 makes this point using a visual example.2 The implication is that most of the tightening in financial conditions that the Fed will need to engineer is likely to occur through a stronger dollar rather than through higher interest rate expectations. Chart 14The Longer The Interest Rate Gap Persists, The Bigger The Exchange Rate Overshoot A back-of-the-envelope calculation suggests that the level of aggregate demand would exceed the economy's supply-side potential by 2% of GDP by end-2019 in the absence of any effort by the Fed to tighten financial conditions.3 We estimate that in order to keep the output gap at zero, the real trade-weighted dollar would need to appreciate by 10% and the fed funds rate would need to rise to 2% in nominal terms, or 0% in real terms. Despite this month's rally, the real broad trade-weighted dollar is still down more than 2% from its January high. Thus, a 10% appreciation would leave the dollar index less than 8% above where it was earlier this year, and well below past peaks (Chart 15). Chart 15Still Far From Past Peaks In terms of timing, a reasonable baseline is that the Fed will raise rates in December and twice more in 2017. This would represent a more rapid pace of rate hikes than what is currently discounted by markets, but would only be roughly half as fast as in past tightening cycles. How quickly the dollar strengthens will depend on how fast market expectations about the future path of short-term rates adjust. In past episodes such as the "taper tantrum," they have moved quite rapidly. This suggests that the dollar could also rise at a fairly fast clip. The Impact From Abroad Chart 16A Stronger Dollar Could Push Up EM Spreads Exchange rates are nothing more than relative prices. This means that developments abroad have just as much of an effect on currencies as developments at home. Given the size of the U.S. economy, better U.S. growth would likely benefit the rest of the world. Could this impart a tightening bias on other central banks that cancels out some of the upward pressure on the dollar? For the most part, the answer is no. Both the euro area and Japan have more of a problem with deflation than the U.S. The neutral rate is also lower in both economies. This implies that neither the ECB nor the BoJ are likely to raise rates anytime soon. Thus, to the extent that stronger U.S. growth buoys these economies, this will translate into somewhat higher inflation expectations and thus, lower real rates in the euro area and Japan. This is bearish for their currencies. The possibility that the ECB will start tapering asset purchases next March, as many have speculated, would not alter our bullish view on the dollar to any great degree. Granted, if the ECB did take such a step without introducing any offsetting measures to ease monetary policy, this would cause European bond yields to rise, putting upward pressure on the euro. However, anything that strengthens the euro would weaken the dollar, giving the U.S. a competitive boost. This, in turn, would prompt the Fed to raise rates even more than it otherwise would. The final outcome would be that the dollar would still appreciate, although not quite as much as if the ECB kept its asset purchases unchanged. As far as emerging markets are concerned, a hawkish Fed is generally bad news. Tighter U.S. monetary policy will reduce the pool of global liquidity that has pushed down EM borrowing costs (Chart 16). And given that 80% of EM foreign-currency debt is denominated in dollars, a stronger greenback could cause distress among some over-leveraged borrowers. To make matters worse, a stronger dollar has typically hurt commodities - the lifeblood for many emerging economies. All of this is likely to translate into weaker EM currencies, and hence, a stronger dollar. Investment Conclusions Today's market climate is similar to the one around this time last year. Back then, the Fed was also gearing up to hike rates. Initially, stocks held their ground even as bond yields edged higher. But then, shortly after the Fed raised rates, the floodgates opened and the S&P 500 fell 13% within the course of six weeks (Chart 17). We are nearing such a precipice again. And, in contrast to earlier this year when the 10-year Treasury yield fell by 70 basis points, there is less scope for the bond market to generate an easing in financial conditions in response to plunging equity prices. The 10-year Treasury yield stood at 2.30% on December 29, just before the stock market began to sell off. Today it stands at 1.74%. Investors should position for an equity correction that sends the S&P 500 down 10% from current levels. Looking out, if U.S. growth does begin to accelerate, that should provide some support to stocks. Nevertheless, a stronger dollar and faster wage growth will weigh on corporate earnings, while stretched valuation levels will limit any further expansion in P/E multiples (Chart 18). Investors should underweight U.S. stocks relative to their global peers, at least in local-currency terms. Chart 17Beware Of A Replay Of The Last Correction Chart 18U.S. P/E Ratios: High, Very High Turning to bonds, while an equity market correction would not cause Treasurys to rally as much as they did in January, the 10-year yield could still touch 1.5% if risk sentiment were to deteriorate. Once the dust settles, however, bond yields will resume their upward grind. Lastly, a stronger dollar will pose a significant headwind for commodities. That said, as we discussed in last week's Fourth Quarter Strategy Outlook, recent cuts to capital spending are likely to generate supply shortages in some corners of the commodity complex.4 BCA's commodity strategists prefer energy over metals and are particularly bullish on U.S. natural gas heading into 2017. Peter Berezin, Senior Vice President peterb@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see "Transcript of Chair Yellen's Press Conference September 21, 2016," Federal Reserve, September 21, 2016. 2 To understand this concept in words, consider two countries: Country A and Country B. Suppose rates in both countries are initially the same, but that Country A's central bank then proceeds to raise rates by one percentage point and pledges to keep them at this higher level for five years. Why would anyone buy Country B's short-term debt given that Country A's debt yields one percent more? The answer is that people would be indifferent between investing in Country A and Country B if they thought Country A's currency would depreciate by 1% per year over the next five years. To generate the expectation of a depreciation, however, Country A's currency would first have to appreciate by 5%. Now modify the example with the only difference being that Country A's central bank pledges to keep rates higher for ten years, rather than five. For interest rate parity to hold, Country A's currency would now have to overshoot its fair value by 10%. The implication is that the longer interest rates in Country A are expected to exceed those in Country B, the more "expensive" Country A's currency must first become. 3 For the purposes of this calculation, we assume that the output gap this year will be -0.5% of GDP and that aggregate demand growth will exceed potential GDP growth by 1% in both 2017 and 2018, with the gap between demand and supply growth falling to 0.5% in 2019 and stabilizing at zero thereafter. The New York Fed's trade model suggests that a 10% appreciation in the dollar would reduce the level of real GDP by a cumulative 1.2 percentage points over a two-year period. A slightly modified Taylor Rule equation implies that an 80 basis-point increase in interest rates on average across the yield curve would reduce the level of real GDP by 0.8 percentage points after several years. We assume that Fed tightening would lead to a flatter yield curve so that short-term rates rise more than long-term yields. 4 Please see Global Investment Strategy Strategy Outlook, "Fourth Quarter 2016: Supply Constraints Resurface," dated October 7, 2016, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. Strategy & Market Trends Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

Equities, bonds and commodities are becoming suddenly, unusually, and dangerously correlated. But it cannot last.

Keeping home price gains in check has once again become a top priority for the Chinese authorities, which casts fresh uncertainty on both China's macro policy and growth outlook. Tactically downgrade H shares and expect near term volatility to rise. Strategically, we continue to expect Chinese equities to be positively re-rated against their global peers.

Hillary Clinton has a 65% chance of winning the election; she receives 334 electoral college votes according to our model. Trump still requires an exogenous shock to win. Meanwhile, the USD is poised to rally - and leftward-moving policymakers will applaud its redistributive effects while MNCs suffer the consequences.

When earnings growth negatively diverges from GDP growth, the gap rarely closes <i>via</i> a rebound in profit growth. The most notable feature of prior episodes is weak corporate pricing power and the current period is no different; an ongoing profit margin squeeze means earnings in the next few months risk being a disappointment.

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