Fixed Income

Highlights Idea 1: Long Eurodollar, short Euribor - December 2022 interest rate futures contracts. Alternatively just go outright long the Eurodollar contract. Idea 2: Long EUR/USD Idea 3: Underweight Basic Materials equities versus market. Alternative expressions are to go short the LMEX index, or underweight Norway (OMX) versus Ireland (ISE). Idea 4: Long Norwegian 10-year bonds, short German 10-year bunds. Idea 5: Long U.K. 10-year gilts, short Irish 10-year bonds. Feature Question 1: Where Is The Worrying Imbalance? Last week, in the Quantum Theory Of Finance,1 we pointed out that when bond yields reach ultra-low levels, the payoff profile from bonds becomes highly asymmetric. When yields approach a lower bound, they cannot fall much further but they can rise a lot. Meaning that bond prices have very limited potential for gains, but have great potential for sudden and deep losses. Chart of the WeekThe Norway Versus Euro Area Bond Yield Spread Is Too Wide The unattractive asymmetric payoff profile - known as negative skew - applies to both nominal and real returns. This is because negative skew is concerned about deep nominal losses over a relatively short period. In which case, a deep nominal loss will be a deep real loss too.2 As equity returns always possess negative skew we can say that at ultra-low bond yields, bond risk becomes equity-like. Given this risk equalization, equities no longer justify a risk premium over bonds. And the lower prospective return required from equities means that today's equity valuations and prices become a lot richer. But the new delicate balance of valuations is conditional on bond yields remaining ultra-low. This is because the unattractive negative skew on a 10-year bond's returns disappears when its yield moves up into the 'high 2s' (Chart I-2). At this point, risk is no longer equalized and the equity risk premium must fully re-emerge - requiring today's equity market valuation and price to drop, perhaps substantially. However, the ensuing fight to havens would then once again pull bond yields back down from the 'high 2s'. It follows that the rise in expected interest rates is self-limiting. Any policy interest rate expectation already in the 'high 2s' - such as the Eurodollar December 2022 contract - cannot sustainably rise much further, whereas those that are still some way below - such as the Euribor December 2022 contract - can (Chart I-3). Which leads to our first investment idea. Chart I-2Bonds Become Much More ##br##Risky At Ultra-Low Yields Chart I-3The Euro Area/U.S. Interest Rate Expectation ##br##Spread Is Too Wide Investment idea 1: Long Eurodollar, short Euribor - December 2022 interest rate futures contracts. Alternatively just go outright long the Eurodollar contract. Question 2: Which Is The Safest Currency To Hold? Chart I-4Euro/Dollar Just Tracks ##br##The Bond Yield Spread To reiterate, at ultra-low bond yields, bond returns offer a highly unattractive payoff profile. Put simply, you can quickly lose a lot more money - in both nominal and real terms - than you can make! Now observe that the payoff profile for a foreign exchange rate just tracks the bond yield spread (Chart I-4). This means that when a central bank has already taken bond yields close to their lower bound, its currency possesses a highly attractive payoff profile called positive skew. In essence, as the ECB is at the realistic limit of ultra-loose policy, the direction of policy rate expectations cannot go significantly lower. Conversely, policy rate expectations for the Federal Reserve (for 2022) are not far from our upper bound of the 'high 2s'. So these expectations cannot go significantly higher without threatening a risk-asset selloff. On this basis, EUR/USD has more scope to gap up than to gap down. Investment idea 2: Long EUR/USD But be aware that investment ideas 1 and 2 are highly correlated with each other! Question 3: Where Are We In The Global Growth Mini-Cycle? Global growth experiences remarkably consistent - and therefore predictable - 'mini-cycles', with half-cycle lengths averaging 8 months. As the current mini-upswing started in May we can infer that it is likely to end in early 2018. So one surprise in 2018 could be that global growth slows in the first half rather than in the second half - contrary to what the consensus is expecting. That said, half-cycle lengths do have some degree of variation: the current upswing might be a few months longer or shorter than the average. So how can we avoid positioning too early or too late for the next turn? The answer is to focus on investments that have already fully priced the current upswing, so that timing becomes less of an issue. On this basis, we propose that the rally in industrial metals and Basic Materials equities is already extended. Our technical indicator which captures herding and groupthink correctly identified the trough at the end of 2015, the mini-peak at the end of 2016, and is now signalling that the latest rally is likely to fade (Chart I-5 and Chart I-6). Chart I-5Metals Have Fully Priced ##br##The Mini-Upswing... Chart I-6...And The Metal Rally Is Reaching##br## Its Technical Limit Investment idea 3: Underweight Basic Materials equities versus market. Alternative expressions are to go short the LMEX index, or underweight Norway (OMX) versus Ireland (ISE). Question 4: Will Inflation Lift Off? The ECB's continued indulgence with ultra-loose monetary policy would make you think that the euro area is on the edge of a deflationary abyss. In fact, inflation has been running comfortably within a 0-2% band for almost two years. Will inflation edge closer to the ECB's 2% point target? Given our view on the growth mini-cycle, not immediately. In the first half of 2018, inflation may even edge lower within the 0-2% band, but this global dynamic will affect inflation in all jurisdictions, not just in the euro area. There is nothing wrong with inflation running comfortably within a 0-2% band. Now that we know that nominal interest rates can go slightly negative, a 0-2% inflation band even permits negative real interest rates. The big mistake is to aim for an arbitrary point target, like 2%. This is because inflation is a non-linear phenomenon, and a defining characteristic of a non-linear phenomenon is that it cannot hit an arbitrary point target.3 It is our high conviction expectation that the major central banks will eventually change their point targets for inflation into target bands such as 0-2% or 1-3%. But afraid to lose credibility, they will not change tack abruptly. In the meantime, we notice that the Norges Bank is undershooting its 2.5% inflation target by considerably more than the ECB is undershooting its 2% target (Chart I-7). Yet the yield spread between Norwegian and euro area bonds has not caught up with this reality (Chart of the Week). Chart I-7The Norges Bank Is Undershooting Its Inflation Target By More Than The ECB Investment idea 4: Long Norwegian 10-year bonds, short German 10-year bunds. Question 5: Will Political Risk Re-emerge? Political events have had a hand in three of the sharpest recent moves in financial markets. The vote for Brexit catalysed a 15% decline in the pound; the vote for Trump triggered an 80 bps spike in the 10-year T-bond yield, and the vote for Macron unleashed a 10% rally in the euro. Political change disrupts markets if it dislocates the long-term expectations embedded in economic agents and financial prices. The vote for Brexit changed expectations about the U.K.'s long-term trading relationships; the election of Trump changed expectations about fiscal stimulus, the tax structure, and protectionism (perhaps unrealistically); and the election of Macron exorcised the potential chaos of a Le Pen presidency. Chart I-8The U.K. Versus Ireland Bond ##br##Yield Spread Is Too Wide In contrast, the recent (disputed) vote for independence in Catalonia, and the breakdown of coalition discussions in Germany barely moved the markets - because neither event changed expectations of long-term economic outcomes. As investors, this is the test we should apply to all political events. In 2018, the evolution of Brexit has the potential to move markets. This is because hard Brexiters and the EU27 are on a collision course. Specifically, the issue of the Irish border is insoluble. It is Brexit's Gordian knot. Theresa May has promised the hard Brexiters that the U.K. will leave the EU customs union and single market. She has also promised the Northern Ireland Unionists - who are propping up May's minority government - that there will be no hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland or the rest of the U.K. But these promises are irreconcilable. The Republic of Ireland will veto a border that threatens the Good Friday peace agreement; the Northern Ireland Unionists will not tolerate the border moving to the Irish Sea, which would effectively take Northern Ireland into the EU customs union and single market; and the EU27 will block a Hong Kong type 'free port' status for Northern Ireland - as this would remove the integrity of harmonized standards across the EU. Eventually, the impenetrable Irish border problem is likely to be the roadblock to a hard Brexit. But first there needs to be a collision. And the collision could move markets. With the yield spread between U.K. 10-year gilts and Irish 10-year bonds near a 2-year wide (Chart I-8), this leads us to our fifth investment idea. Investment idea 5: Long U.K. 10-year gilts, short Irish 10-year bonds. Dhaval Joshi, Senior Vice President Chief European Investment Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report 'The Quantum Theory Of Finance' November 23 2017 available at eis.bcaresearch.com. 2 For example if the nominal return over 3 months was a very painful -10%, and inflation was running at -10% per annum, the real return over 3 months would be a still very painful -7.5%. 3 Please see the European Investment Strategy Weekly Report 'Three Mantras For Investors' August 17 2017 available at eis.bcaresearch.com. Fractal Trading Model* Ahead of the OPEC meeting on November 30, the WTI crude oil price is vulnerable to any disappointment - because its rally is technically very extended. This week's trade recommendation is to expect a retracement of 7.5% with a symmetrical stop-loss. For any investment, excessive trend following and groupthink can reach a natural point of instability, at which point the established trend is highly likely to break down with or without an external catalyst. An early warning sign is the investment's fractal dimension approaching its natural lower bound. Chart I-9 The post-June 9, 2016 fractal trading model rules are: When the fractal dimension approaches the lower limit after an investment has been in an established trend it is a potential trigger for a liquidity-triggered trend reversal. Therefore, open a countertrend position. The profit target is a one-third reversal of the preceding 13-week move. Apply a symmetrical stop-loss. Close the position at the profit target or stop-loss. Otherwise close the position after 13 weeks. Use the position size multiple to control risk. The position size will be smaller for more risky positions.Encouragingly, this trigger has consistently identified countertrend moves of various magnitudes across all asset classes. * For more details please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report "Fractals, Liquidity & A Trading Model," dated December 11, 2014, available at eis.bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading Model Recommendations Equities Bond & Interest Rates Currency & Other Positions Closed Fractal Trades Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Interest Rate Chart II-5Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations

Highlights China stands out as the most likely candidate to send negative shock waves through EM and commodities in 2018. Granted the ongoing policy tightening in China will likely dampen money growth further, the only way mainland nominal GDP growth can hold up is if the velocity of money rises meaningfully, offsetting the drop in money growth. Assigning equal probabilities to various scenarios of velocity of money, the outcome is as follows: one-third probability of robust nominal growth (continuation of the rally in China-related plays) and two-third odds of a non-trivial slowdown in nominal growth with negative ramifications for China-related plays. Hence, we reiterate our negative stance on EM risk assets Feature The key question for emerging markets (EM) in 2018 is whether a slowdown in Chinese money growth will translate into a meaningful growth deceleration in this economy, and in turn produce a reversal in EM risk assets. This week we address the above question in detail elaborating on what could make China's business cycle defy the slowdown in its monetary aggregates and how investors should approach such uncertainty. Before this, we review the status of financial markets going into 2018. Priced To Perfection Or A New Paradigm? Several financial markets are at extremes. Our chart on the history of financial market manias reveals that some parts of technology/new concept stocks may be entering uncharted territory (Chart I-1). Tencent's share price, for instance, has surged 11-fold since January 2010. Chart I-1History Of Financial Markets Manias: They Lasted A Decade This is roughly on par with the prior manias' average 10-year gains. As this chart indicates, the manias of previous decades run wild until the turn of the decade. It is impossible to know whether technology/new concept stocks will peak in 2018 or run for another two years. Regardless whether or not the mania in tech/new concept stocks endures up until 2020, some sort of mean reversion in their share prices is likely next year. This has relevance to EM because the magnitude of the EM equity rally in 2017 has been enormously boosted by four large tech/concept stocks in Asia. Our measure of the cyclically-adjusted P/E (CAPE) ratio for the U.S. market suggests that equity valuations are reaching their 2000 overvaluation levels (Chart I-2, top panel). The difference between our measure and Shiller's measure of CAPE is that Shiller's CAPE is derived by dividing share prices by the 10-year moving average of EPS in real terms (deflated by consumer price inflation). Our measure is calculated by dividing equity prices by the time trend in real EPS (Chart I-2, bottom panel). Our CAPE measure assumes that in the long run, U.S. EPS in real terms will revert to its time trend. Meanwhile, the Shiller CAPE is based on the assumption that real EPS will revert to its 10-year mean. Hence, the assumptions behind our CAPE model are quite reasonable if not preferable to those of Shiller's P/E. Remarkably, the U.S. (Wilshire 5000) market cap-to-GDP ratio is close to its 2000 peak (Chart I-3). With respect to EM equity valuations, the non-financial P/E ratio is at its highest level in the past 15 years (Chart I-4). EM banks have low multiples and seem "cheap" because many of them have not provisioned for NPLs. Hence, their profits and book values are artificially inflated. In short, excluding financials, EM stocks are not cheap at all, neither in absolute terms nor relative to DM bourses. Chart I-2A Perspective On U.S. Equity Valuation Chart I-3The U.S. Market Cap-To-GDP ##br##Ratio Is Close To 2000 Peak Chart I-4EM Non-Financial Equities Are Not Cheap Such elevated DM & EM stock market valuations might be justified by currently low global long-term bond yields. Yet, if and when long-term bond yields rise, multiples will likely shrink. The latter will overpower the profit growth impact on share prices, as multiples are disproportionately and negatively linked to interest rates - especially when interest rates are low - but are proportionately and positively linked to EPS.1 As a result, a small rise in long-term bond yields will lead to a meaningful P/E de-rating. Despite very high equity valuations, U.S. advisors and traders are extremely bullish on American stocks. Their sentiment measures are at all time and 11-year highs, respectively. So are copper traders on red metal prices (Chart I-5). The mirror image of the strong and steady rally in global stocks is record-low implied volatility. The aggregate financial markets' implied volatility index is at a multi-year low (Chart I-6). Finally, yields on junk (high-yield) EM corporate and sovereign bonds are at all-time lows (Chart I-7). They are priced for perfection. Chart I-5Bullish Sentiment On Copper Is Very Elevated Chart I-6Aggregate Global Financial Markets ##br##Implied VOL Is At Record Low Chart I-7EM Junk Bond Yields Are At Record Low Are we in a new paradigm, or are we witnessing financial market extremes that are unsustainable? In regard to the timing, can these dynamics last throughout 2018 or at least the first half of next year, or will they reverse in the coming months? We have less conviction on the durability of the U.S. equity rally, but our bet is that EM risk assets will roll over in absolute terms and begin underperforming their DM peers very soon. What could cause such a reversal in EM risk assets? China stands out as the most likely candidate to send negative shock waves through emerging markets and commodities. China: "Financial Stability" Priority Entails Tighter Policy The Chinese authorities are facing unprecedented challenges: The outstanding value of broad money in China (measured in U.S. dollars) is now larger than the combined U.S. and euro area broad money supply (Chart I-8, top panel). Chart I-8Beware Of Money Excesses In China As a share of its own GDP, broad money in China is much higher compared to any other nation in history (Chart I-8, bottom panel). In brief, there is too much money in China and most of it - $21 trillion out of $29 trillion - has been created by the banking system since early 2009. We maintain that the enormous overhang of money and credit in China represents major excess/imbalances and has nothing to do with the nation's high savings rate.2 Rather, it is an outcome of animal spirits running wild among bankers and borrowers over the past nine years. Easy money often flows into real estate and China has not been an exception. Needless to say, property prices are hyped and expensive relative to household income. Policy tightening amid lingering excesses and imbalances makes us negative on China's growth outlook. In a nutshell, we place more weight on tightening when there are excesses in the system, and downplay the importance of tightening in a healthy system without excesses. Importantly, excessive money creation seems to finally be pushing inflation higher. Consumer price services and core consumer price inflation rates are on a rising trajectory (Chart I-9, top and middle panels). As a result, banks' deposit rates in real terms (deflated by core CPI) have plunged into negative territory for the first time in the past 12 years (Chart I-9, bottom panel). Remarkably, the People's Bank of China's existing $3 trillion of international reserves is sufficient to "back up" only 13% and 11% of official M2 and our measure of M3, respectively (Chart I-10). If Chinese households and companies decide to convert 10-15% of their deposits into foreign currency and the PBoC takes the other side of the trade, its reserves will be exhausted. Chart I-9China: Inflation Is Rising And ##br##Real Deposit Rate Is Negative Chart I-10China: Low Coverage Of ##br##Money Supply By FX Reserves Therefore, reining money and credit expansion is of paramount importance to China's long-term financial and economic stability. "Financial stability" has become the key policy priority. "Financial stability" is policymakers' code word for containing and curbing financial imbalances and bubbles. Having experienced the equity bubble bust in 2015, policymakers are determined to preclude another bubble formation and its subsequent bust. Consequently, the ongoing tightening campaign will not be reversed in the near term unless damage to the economy becomes substantial and visible. By the time the authorities and investors are able to identify such damage in the real economy, China-related plays in financial markets will be down substantially. Chart I-11China: Corporate Bond Yields And Yield Curve Faced with significant excesses in money, leverage and property markets, the Chinese authorities have been tightening - and have reinforced their policy stance following the Party's Congress in October. There is triple tightening currently ongoing in China: 1. Liquidity tightening: Money market rates have climbed, and onshore corporate bond yields are rising (Chart I-11, top panel). Remarkably, the yield curve is flat, pointing to weaker growth ahead (Chart I-11, bottom panel). 2. Regulatory tightening: The China Banking Regulatory Commission (CBRC) is forcing banks to bring off-balance-sheet assets onto their balance sheets, and is reining banks' involvement in shadow banking activities. In addition, financial regulators are trying to remove the government's implicit "put" from the financial system, and thereby curb speculative and irresponsible investment behavior. Finally, many local governments are tightening investors' participation in the real estate market. 3. Anti-corruption campaign is embracing the financial institutions: The powerful anti-corruption commission is planning to dispatch groups of inspectors to examine financial institutions' activities. This could dampen animal spirits among bankers and shadow banking organizations. The Outlook: The "Knowns"... In China, broad money growth has already slumped to an all-time low (Chart I-12). The money as well as the credit plus fiscal spending impulses both point to a considerable slowdown in the mainland's industrial cycle and overall economic activity (Chart I-13). Chart I-12China: Broad Money ##br##Growth Is At All-Time Low Chart I-13China: Money And Credit & ##br##Fiscal Impulses Are Negative The slowdown is not limited to money growth; there are a few real business cycle indicators that are already weakening. For example, the growth rate of property floor space sold and started has slumped to zero (Chart I-14). Electricity output and aggregate freight volume growth have both decisively rolled over (Chart I-15). Chart I-14China: Property Starts Are Set To Contract Again Chart I-15China: A Few Signs Of Slowdown That said, based on the past correlation between money and credit impulses on the one hand and the business cycle on the other, China's economy should have slowed much more, and its negative impact on the rest of the world should have already been felt (Chart I-13, on page 9). This has been the key pillar of our view on EM, but it has not yet transpired. Is it possible that the relationship between money/credit impulses and the business cycle has broken down? If so, why? And how should investors handle such uncertainty? Bottom Line: China's ongoing policy tightening will ensure that money and credit impulses remain negative for some time. Can the country's industrial sectors de-couple from its past tight correlation with money and credit? ...And The "Unknowns" By definition, the only way to sustain nominal economic growth in the face of a decelerating money supply is if the velocity of money increases. This is true for any economy. Nominal GDP = Money Supply x Velocity of Money Provided China's policy tightening will likely further dampen money growth, the only way nominal GDP growth can hold up is if the velocity of money rises meaningfully, offsetting the drop in money growth. This is the main risk to our view and strategy. Chart I-16 portrays all three variables. Chart I-16China: Money, Nominal GDP ##br##And Velocity Of Money Even though the velocity of money has fallen structurally over the past nine years (Chart I-16, bottom panel), it has risen marginally in 2017, allowing the mainland's nominal economic growth to hold up despite a considerable relapse in money supply growth. Notably, this has been the reason why our view has not worked this year. What is the velocity of money, and how can we forecast its fluctuations and, importantly, the magnitude of its variations? The velocity of money is one of the least understood concepts in economic theory. The velocity of money is anything but stable. In our opinion, the velocity of money reflects animal spirits of households and businesses as well as government spending decisions. Forecasting animal spirits and the magnitude of their variations is not very a reliable exercise. In a nutshell, the banking system (commercial banks and the central bank) creates money via expanding its balance sheet - making loans to or acquiring assets from non-banks. However, commercial banks have little direct influence on the velocity of money. The latter is shaped by non-banks' decisions to spend or not (i.e., save). Significantly, non-banks' spending and saving decisions do not alter the amount of money in the system. Yet they directly impact the velocity of money. The banking system creates money, and non-banks churn money (make it circulate). At any level of money supply, a rising number of transactions will boost nominal output, and vice versa. Further, there is a great deal of complexity in the interaction between money supply and its velocity. Both are sometimes independent, i.e. they do not influence one another, but in some other cases one affects the other. For example, with the ongoing triple tightening in China and less money being originated by the banking system, will households and businesses increase or decrease their spending? Our bias is that they will not increase spending. This is especially true for the corporate sector, which has record-high leverage and where access to funding has been tightening. It is also possible that rising velocity will lead to more money creation as more spending leads to higher loan demand and banks accommodate it - i.e., originating more loans/money. These examples corroborate that money supply and the velocity of money are not always independent of each other. On the whole, it is almost impossible to reliably forecast the magnitude of changes in velocity of money. In the same vein, it is difficult to forecast animal spirit dynamics in any economy. Chart I-17U.S.: The Rise In Velocity Of Money ##br##Overwhelmed Slowdown In Money One recent example where nominal GDP has decoupled from broad money growth is the U.S. Chart I-17 demonstrates that in the past 12 months, U.S. nominal GDP growth has firmed up even though broad money (M2) growth has slumped. This decoupling can only be explained by a spike in the velocity of M2. In other words, soaring confidence and animal spirits among U.S. households and businesses have boosted their willingness to spend, even as the banking system has created less money and credit growth has slowed considerably over the past 12 months. Going back to China, how should investors consider such uncertainty in changes in the velocity of money? Investing is about the future, which is inherently uncertain. Hence, an investment process is about assigning probabilities to various scenarios. Provided the velocity of money is impossible to forecast, we assign equal probabilities to each of the following scenarios for China in 2018 (Figure I-1): One-third odds that the velocity of money rises more than the decline in broad money growth, producing robust nominal GDP growth; One-third probability that the velocity of money stays broadly flat - the outcome being meaningful deceleration in nominal GDP growth; A one-third chance that the velocity of money declines - the result being a severe growth slump. Figure I-1How Investors Can Consider Uncertainty Related To Velocity Of Money In short, a positive outcome on China-related plays has a one-third probability of playing out, while a negative outcome carries a two-thirds chance. This is why we continue to maintain our negative view on EM and commodities. Commodities Our view on commodities and commodity plays is by and large shaped by our view on China's capital spending. Given the credit plus fiscal spending impulse is already very weak, the path of least resistance for capital expenditures is down. Besides, the government is clamping down on local governments' off-balance-sheet borrowing and spending (via Local Government Financing Vehicles). A deceleration in capital expenditures in general and construction (both infrastructure and property development) in particular is bearish for industrial metals (Chart I-18). Money and credit impulses herald a major downturn in Chinese imports values and volumes (Chart I-19). Chart I-18Industrial Metals / Copper Are At Risk Chart I-19China Will Be A Drag On Its Suppliers As to China's commodities output reductions, last week we published a Special Report3 on China's "de-capacity" reforms in steel and coal. The report concludes the following: The path of least resistance for steel, coal and iron ore prices is down over the next 12-24 months. China's "de-capacity" reforms in steel and coal will continue into 2018 and 2019, but the scale and pace of "de-capacity" will diminish. Importantly, the mainland's steel and coal output will likely rise going forward as new capacity using more efficient and ecologically friendly technologies come on stream. The capacity swap policy introduced by the authorities has been allowing steel and coal producers to add new capacity in order to replace almost entirely obsolete capacity. The combination of demand slowdown and modest production recovery will weigh on non-oil raw materials. As for oil, the picture is much more complicated. Oil prices have been climbing in reaction to declining OECD inventories as well as on expectations of an extension to oil output cuts into 2018. One essential piece of missing information in the bullish oil narrative is China's oil inventories. In recent years, China has been importing more crude oil than its consumption trend justifies. Specifically, the sum of its net imports and domestic output of crude oil has exceeded the amount of refined processed oil. This difference between the sum of net imports and production of crude oil and processed crude oil constitutes our proxy for the net change of crude oil inventories. Chart I-20 shows that our proxy for mainland crude oil inventories has risen sharply in recent years. This includes both the nation's strategic oil reserves as well as commercial inventories. There is no reliable data on the former. Therefore, it is impossible to estimate the country's commercial crude oil inventories. Chart I-20China: Beware Of High Chinese Oil Inventories Nevertheless, whether crude oil inventories have risen due to a build-up of strategic petroleum reserves or commercial reserves, the fact remains that crude oil inventories in China have surged and appear to be reaching the size of OECD total crude and liquid inventories (Chart I-20). In short, China has been a stabilizing force for the oil market over the past three years by buying more than it consumes. Without such excess purchases from China, oil prices would likely have been much weaker. Going forward, the pace of Chinese purchases of crude oil will likely slow due to several factors: (a) China prefers buying commodities on dips, especially when it is for strategic inventory building. With crude oil prices having rallied to around $60, the authorities might reduce their purchases temporarily, creating an air pocket for prices, and then accelerate their purchases at lower prices; (b) Commercial purchases of oil will likely decelerate due to tighter money/credit, possibly high inventories and a general slowdown in industrial demand for fuel. Bottom Line: Raw materials and oil prices4 are at risk from China and overly bullish investor sentiment. Beyond Commodities The slowdown in China will impact not only commodities but also non-commodity shipments to the mainland (Chart I-21). In fact, 47% of the nation's imports are commodities and raw materials and 45% are industrial/capital goods - i.e., China's imports are heavily exposed to investment expenditures, not consumer spending. This is why money/credit impulses correlate so well with this country's imports. Consistently, China's broad money (M3) impulse leads EM corporate profit growth by 12 months - and currently heralds a major EPS downtrend (Chart I-22). In addition, aggregate EM narrow money (M1) growth also points to a material slump in EM EPS (Chart I-23). Chart I-21China Is A Risk To ##br##Non-Commodity Economies Too Chart I-22Downside Risk To EM EPS The only EM countries that are not materially exposed to China and commodities are Turkey and India. The former is a basket case on its own. Indian stocks are expensive and will have a difficult time rallying in absolute terms when the EM equity benchmark relapses. As for Korea and Taiwan, their largest export destination is not advanced economies but China. China accounts for 25% of Korea's exports and 28% of Taiwan's. This compares to a combined 22% of total Korean exports and 20% of total Taiwanese exports going to the U.S. and EU combined Can robust growth in the U.S. and EU derail the growth slowdown in China when capital spending slows? This is very unlikely, in our view. Chart I-24 portends that China's shipments to the U.S. and EU account for only 6.6% of Chinese GDP, while capital spending and credit origination constitute 45% and 25% of GDP, respectively. Chart I-23EM M1 And EM EPS Chart I-24What Drives Chinese Growth? A final word on tech stocks. EM's four large-cap tech stocks (Tencent, Ali-Baba, Samsung and TSMC) have gone exponential and are extremely overbought. At this juncture, any strong opinion on tech stocks is not warranted because they can sell off or continue advancing for no fundamental reason. We have been recommending an overweight position in tech stocks, and continue recommending overweighting them, especially Korean and Taiwanese semiconductor companies. As for Tencent and Alibaba, these are concept stocks, and as a top-down house we have little expertise to judge whether or not they are expensive. These are bottom-up calls. Investment Strategy EM Stocks: Asset allocators should continue to underweight EM versus DM, and absolute-return investors should stay put. Our overweights are Taiwan, China, Korean tech stocks, Thailand, Russia and central Europe. Our underweights are Turkey, South Africa, Brazil, Peru and Malaysia. Chart I-25EM Currencies: A Canary In ##br##Coal Mine For EM Credit? Stay short a basket of the following EM currencies: ZAR, TRY, BRL, IDR and MYR. We are also shorting the COP and CLP. Unlike in 2014-2015, EM currencies will depreciate not only versus the U.S. dollar but also the euro. For traders who prefer a market neutral currency portfolio, our recommended longs (or our currency overweights) are TWD, THB, SGD, ARS, RUB, PLN and CZK. INR and CNH will also outperform other EM currencies. Continue underweighting EM sovereign and corporate credit relative to U.S. investment grade bonds. The mix of weaker EM/China growth, lower commodities prices and EM currency depreciation bode ill for already very tight EM credit spreads (Chart I-25). Within the sovereign credit space, our underweights are Brazil, Venezuela, South Africa and Malaysia and our overweights are Russia, Argentina and low beta defensive credits. The main risk to EM local currency bonds is EM currency depreciation. With foreign ownership of EM domestic bonds at all-time highs, exchange rate depreciation could trigger non-trivial selling pressure. Among local currency bond markets, the most vulnerable are Turkey, South Africa, Indonesia and Malaysia. The least vulnerable are Korea, Russia, China, India, Argentina and Central Europe. Other high-conviction market-neutral recommendations: Long U.S. banks / short EM banks. Long U.S. homebuilders / short Chinese property developers. Long the Russian ruble / short oil. Long the Chilean peso / short copper. Long Big Five state-owned Chinese banks / short small- and medium-sized banks. Arthur Budaghyan, Senior Vice President Emerging Markets Strategy arthurb@bcaresearch.com 1 For example, given that interest rates are in the denominator of the Gordon Growth model, a one percentage point change in interest rates from a low level can have a significant impact on the fair value P/E ratio. 2 Please refer to the Emerging Markets Strategy Special Reports from October 26, 2016, November 23, 2016 and January 18, 2017; available on ems.bcaresearch.com 3 Please refer to the Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report titled "China's 'De-Capacity' Reforms: Where Steel & Coal Prices Are Headed," dated November 22, 2017, link available on page 22. 4 This is the Emerging Markets Strategy team's view and is different from BCA's house view on commodities. Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations

Highlights Higher Treasury Yields: As core inflation returns to the Fed's target in 2018 the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate will rise by at least 50 basis points and the nominal 10-year Treasury yield will move above 2.80%. This is substantially higher than the 1-year forward rate of 2.49%. Maintain a below-benchmark portfolio duration stance. TIPS Over Nominal Treasuries: TIPS will outperform nominal Treasury securities in 2018 as long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates widen alongside rising core inflation. The passage of tax cuts in the first half of next year would speed up the adjustment in breakevens. Curve Steepeners, Then Flatteners: The slope of the yield curve is positively correlated with TIPS breakeven inflation rates. Look for mild curve steepening in the first half of 2018 as breakevens widen, transitioning to flattening once breakevens level-off around mid-year. The Cyclical Sweet Spot Comes To An End: The cyclical sweet spot of solid growth and low inflation that has been driving the outperformance of spread product will come to an end in 2018. The catalyst will be higher inflation. We will start paring exposure to spread product once long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates approach our target range of 2.4% to 2.5%, probably in the middle of next year. A Year Of Low Returns: Spreads are not that far from all-time expensive levels, meaning there is limited room for spread compression at this late stage of the credit cycle. Excess returns from spread product will be very similar to carry in 2018 - at least until inflation rises and it is time to prepare for a sustained period of spread widening. Feature BCA's Outlook for 2018 was published last week.1 That report laid out the macroeconomic themes that will impact markets during the next year. In this week's report we expand on those themes and discuss what they mean for U.S. fixed income markets specifically. We identify five key implications. Implication 1: Higher Yields One important theme for 2018 will be the resumption of the cyclical uptrend in inflation. As was stated in the Outlook: The historical evidence still suggests that once the labor market becomes tight, inflation eventually does accelerate. A broad range of data indicates that the U.S. labor market is indeed tight and the Atlanta Fed's wage tracker is in an uptrend, albeit modestly. Two other factors consistent with an end to disinflation are the lagged effects of dollar weakness and a firming in oil prices. Non-oil import prices have now moved decisively out of deflationary territory while oil prices in 2017 have averaged more than 20% above year-ago levels. Rising inflation mustn't necessarily translate into higher yields, but the Treasury market is not currently priced for the possibility that core inflation will ever re-gain the Fed's 2% target. Chart 1 shows the nominal 10-year Treasury yield split into its two main components: Chart 110-Year Treasury Yield Components The compensation for future inflation - proxied by the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate. The real 10-year Treasury yield - proxied by the 10-year TIPS yield. As has been stated repeatedly in this publication, in an environment where realized inflation is well-anchored around the Fed's 2% target the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate has historically traded in a range between 2.4% and 2.5% (Chart 1, top panel). The 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate currently sits at 1.84%. This means that by the time core inflation returns to the Fed's 2% target, a feat we think will be achieved in 2018, the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate will impart 56 to 66 basis points of upside to the nominal 10-year Treasury yield. It is possible that any increase in the compensation for inflation protection could be offset by falling real yields. However, it is highly unlikely that the 10-year real yield would decline while the Fed is hiking rates, unless there is a sharp downward adjustment in our 12-month Fed Funds Discounter2 (Chart 1, panel 2). On that front, the market is currently priced for between two and three rate hikes during the next 12 months. This expectation could be revised even higher in the near-term as inflation recovers, but that faster pace of rate hikes is unlikely to be sustained for any significant period of time. All in all, the discounter appears not that far from its fair value, meaning that the 10-year real yield should impart some modest additional upside to the 10-year nominal yield on a 6-12 month horizon. To summarize, if core inflation returns to the Fed's target in 2018, then the nominal 10-year Treasury yield will move into a range between 2.90% and 3.00% (Chart 1, bottom panel), conservatively assuming no additional upside or downside from real yields. This is substantially above the 1-year forward rate of 2.49%, and we therefore advocate a below-benchmark portfolio duration stance. The Importance Of Synchronized Growth It was also observed in the Outlook that, according to the IMF, the median output gap for 20 advanced economies will shift from -0.1% in 2017 to +0.3% in 2018. If these forecasts pan out, then 2018 will also be the first year since the recession that more than 50% of those 20 economies have output gaps in positive territory. Meanwhile, the IMF estimates that the U.S. output gap has been essentially closed since 2015 (Chart 2). In other words, the U.S. has been leading the global economic recovery for the past few years but this is now starting to change. The rest of world is quickly catching up and the global economic recovery is now much more synchronized. This is critically important for U.S. bond yields because it lessens the impact of foreign inflows. For example, when U.S. growth was far outpacing growth in the rest of the world in 2014 and 2015, any increase in U.S. Treasury yields also widened the spread between U.S. yields and yields in the rest of the world. The wider gap encouraged foreign inflows to the U.S. bond market and limited how high U.S. yields could rise. Now, with the global economic recovery more synchronized, U.S. yields will have to increase by much more to have the same impact on the spread between U.S. yields and yields in the rest of the world. In our view this is an extremely bond-bearish development that often goes under-appreciated. Our 2-factor Treasury model attempts to quantify the impact of synchronized global growth on the U.S. 10-year Treasury yield (Chart 3). The model uses Global Manufacturing PMI as its proxy for global growth, and bullish sentiment toward the U.S. dollar as a proxy for the synchronization of the global recovery - a less synchronized recovery should lead to increased bullishness toward the dollar and vice-versa. The model's current reading pegs fair value for the 10-year Treasury yield at 2.69%. Chart 2Rest of World Playing Catch-Up Chart 32-Factor Treasury Model Bottom Line: As core inflation returns to the Fed's target in 2018 the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate will rise by at least 50 basis points and the nominal 10-year Treasury yield will move above 2.80%. This is substantially higher than the 1-year forward rate of 2.49%. Maintain a below-benchmark portfolio duration stance. Implication 2: TIPS Over Nominal Treasuries It should be obvious that if the forecasts in the prior section pan out then TIPS will substantially outperform nominal Treasury securities as breakeven inflation rates widen in 2018. In our opinion the low level of long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates represents the greatest source of medium-term value in U.S. bond markets. Chart 4Breakevens Biased Wider In addition, a wide range of indicators, such as our own Pipeline Inflation Indicator and the New York Fed's Underlying Inflation Gauge, already suggest that breakevens are biased wider (Chart 4). With the Fed engaged in a rate hike cycle, evidence of price pressures in the realized inflation data will be required before breakevens see significant upside. Our base case forecast is that the 10-year TIPS breakeven rate will reach our target range of 2.4% to 2.5% around the same time that core PCE inflation reaches 2%, probably in the middle of next year. However, there is one political risk that could speed up that adjustment. Namely, if Congress manages to pass tax cuts in the first half of 2018. From the Outlook: The U.S. tax system is desperately in need of reform [...]. However, the economy does not need stimulus from net tax giveaways given that it is operating close to potential. That would simply boost demand relative to supply, create overheating, and give the Fed more reason to get aggressive. The Republican's initial tax plan has some good elements of reform such as cutting back the personal mortgage interest deduction, eliminating some other deductions and making it less attractive for companies to shift operations overseas. However, many of these proposals are unlikely to survive the lobbying efforts of special interest groups. The net result probably will be tax giveaways without much actual reform. [...] There inevitably will be contentious negotiations in Congress but we assume that the Republicans will eventually come together to pass some tax cuts by early next year. Fiscal stimulus from tax cuts at this late stage of the cycle would be very inflationary, and judging by the sharp increase in TIPS breakevens that followed President Trump's election last November, the market has already figured this out. The passage of a tax bill early next year would no doubt speed up the return of long-maturity TIPS breakevens to our target range. Bottom Line: TIPS will outperform nominal Treasury securities in 2018 as long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates widen alongside rising core inflation. The passage of tax cuts in the first half of next year would speed up the adjustment in breakevens. Implication 3: Curve Steepeners, Then Flatteners Another recommendation that follows from rising inflation is that the yield curve will steepen as long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates rise. We have previously observed that changes in the slope of the 2/10 Treasury curve are positively correlated with changes in the 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rate. Crucially, this positive correlation remains intact even when the Fed is hiking rates.3 In the current rate hike cycle (which started in December 2015) we observe that monthly changes in the 2/10 nominal Treasury slope have been positively correlated with monthly changes in the 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven rate in 22 out of 24 months (Chart 5). It stands to reason that we should expect the yield curve to steepen as TIPS breakevens rise. Chart 52/10 Nominal Treasury Slope Vs. TIPS Breakeven Inflation Rate 5-Year/5-Year Forward ##br##(December 2015 - Present) However, we caution that curve steepening is probably only a story for the first half of 2018. Steepening will transition to flattening once long-dated TIPS breakevens reach our 2.4% to 2.5% target range, and in the meantime, there is a limit to how steep the yield curve can get. Let's assume that the Fed's median projection of a 3% terminal fed funds rate is reasonably accurate. It follows that the 10-year Treasury yield is unlikely to rise much above 3% before the end of the recovery. We can also calculate what the 2-year Treasury yield will be under different scenarios for the fed funds rate and the 2-year/fed funds slope. The latter can be thought of as simply the number of rate hikes the market expects during the subsequent two years. With these assumptions we can craft scenarios for where the 2/10 Treasury slope will be under different conditions, and these scenarios are presented in Table 1. The shaded cells in Table 1 are the scenarios that cause the 2/10 Treasury slope to steepen from its current level of 59 bps. Table 1Scenarios For The Number Of Fed Rate Hikes By ##br##The Time That Inflation Returns To Target For example, by the time that inflation recovers to the Fed's 2% target, the nominal 10-year Treasury yield will most likely be in a range between 2.8% and 3.25%. If the Fed only delivers two rate hikes between now and then it is very likely that the yield curve will steepen. This is shown in the section of Table 1 labelled "2 Rate Hikes". However, if the Fed lifts rates four times between now and the time that inflation returns to target, then it is much more likely that the 2/10 curve will flatten. These scenarios are shown in the top three rows of Table 1. The message is that the order of events matters. In our base case scenario, inflation starts to recover early next year and long-dated TIPS breakeven inflation rates reach our 2.4% to 2.5% target by mid-2018. At that point it is quite likely that the Fed will have only hiked rates a couple of times and the curve will have steepened. More rapid rate hikes, however, would severely limit the amount of potential steepening. We continue to advocate positioning for 2/10 steepening via a long position in the 5-year bullet versus a short position in the duration-matched 2/10 barbell. At present, the 2/5/10 butterfly spread is priced for 4 bps of 2/10 curve flattening during the next six months, so even mild curve steepening will lead to outperformance during that timeframe.4 We will shift from curve steepeners to flatteners once TIPS breakevens return to our target range. Bottom Line: The slope of the yield curve is positively correlated with TIPS breakeven inflation rates. Look for mild curve steepening in the first half of 2018 as breakevens recover, transitioning to flattening once breakevens re-normalize around mid-year. Implication 4: The Cyclical Sweet Spot Comes To An End From the Outlook: The perfect environment for markets has been moderate economic growth, low inflation and easy money. [...] We are assuming that growth is strong enough to encourage central banks to keep moving away from hyper-easy policies, setting up for a collision with markets. If growth slows enough that recession fears spike, then that also would be bad for risk assets. Sustaining the bull market requires a goldilocks growth outcome of not too hot and not too cold. Chart 6The "Fed Put" Is Still In Place This publication has named that goldilocks environment the "cyclical sweet spot" for risk assets. Essentially, as long as inflation is below the Fed's target, the Fed must respond to any economic weakness (or tightening of financial conditions) by adopting a more accommodative policy stance. The market knows that this "Fed put" is in place and that makes it very difficult to get a meaningful sell-off. In fact, the last major sell-off in corporate credit (in 2014/15) only occurred because the market assumed that the Fed would not deviate from its projected rate hike path even though commodity prices were plunging, causing defaults in certain exposed industry groups. Notice in Chart 6 that our 24-month Fed Funds Discounter stayed flat as spreads widened. Spreads only tightened in early 2016 after the Fed capitulated. So under what conditions will the "Fed put" disappear? Logically, if inflation were much higher the Fed would be less inclined to support markets at any sign of trouble. This is the reason that, while we remain overweight spread product versus Treasuries for now, we expect the cyclical sweet spot for spreads will come to an end next year. Long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates approaching our target range of 2.4% to 2.5% will be the first signal that it is time to pare exposure. The importance of supportive monetary policy for spread product performance is also evident when looking at our three favorite credit cycle indicators (Chart 7). Historically, three conditions must be met before a sustained period of spread widening can occur. Chart 7Credit Cycle Indicators Our Corporate Health Monitor must be in "deteriorating health" territory (Chart 7, panel 2). Fed policy must be restrictive. This can be proxied by an inverted yield curve, or a real fed funds rate above its estimated equilibrium level (Chart 7, panels 3 & 4). Bank Commerical & Industrial lending standards must be in "net tightening" territory (Chart 7, bottom panel). For the time being only corporate health is sending a negative signal, but once inflation recovers we will be at increasing risk of monetary conditions turning restrictive. Tighter lending standards tend to follow restrictive monetary policy with a short lag. Bottom Line: The cyclical sweet spot of solid growth and low inflation that has been driving the outperformance of spread product will come to an end in 2018. The catalyst will be higher inflation. We will start paring exposure to spread product once long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates approach our target range of 2.4% to 2.5%, probably in the middle of next year. Implication 5: A Year Of Low Returns From the Outlook: Our estimates indicate that a balanced portfolio will deliver average returns of only 3.3% a year over the coming decade, or 1.3% after inflation. That is down from the 4% and 1.9% nominal and real annual returns that we estimated a year ago, reflecting the current more adverse starting point for valuations. Heading into 2018 almost all U.S. spread product sectors are indeed faced with a more adverse starting point for valuations. Chart 8 compares today's option-adjusted spread (OAS) with the OAS at the end of 2016 for seven major spread products. With the exception of MBS, all sectors currently have lower spreads than at they did at the beginning of 2017. Chart 8Less Value In Spread Product Starting valuation is only one component of excess returns. Capital gains/losses from the change in spreads is the other. However, the deeper we move into the credit cycle the less room there is for further spread compression. In fact, we have previously calculated that the average spread for the investment grade Corporate bond index can only tighten another 35 bps before it reaches all-time expensive levels. This represents only 3 months of historical average spread tightening. The same calculation for the High-Yield index shows that the spread can only tighten another 145 bps, representing 4 months of average tightening.5 In other words, there is not much potential for spread compression at this late stage of the credit cycle and excess returns will be very similar to carry in 2018 - at least until inflation rises and it is time to prepare for a sustained period of spread widening. Chart 9 shows annualized 2017 year-to-date excess returns for each sector alongside projected excess returns for 2018 under two scenarios. The "flat spread" scenario assumes that spreads stay flat at current levels, while the "optimistic" scenario assumes that spreads tighten to all-time expensive valuation levels. Chart 92018 Excess Return Projections For investment grade corporate bonds even this extremely optimistic scenario would only provide excess returns of 363 bps, just 121 bps above this year's likely returns. For High-Yield, the optimistic scenario would provide excess returns of 637 bps, a mere 148 bps above this year's likely returns. For consumer ABS and domestic Agency bonds, the projections from our optimistic scenario do not even surpass this year's likely excess returns. Bottom Line: Spreads are not that far from all-time expensive levels, meaning there is limited room for spread compression at this late stage of the credit cycle. Excess returns from spread product will be very similar to carry in 2018 - at least until inflation rises and it is time to prepare for a sustained period of spread widening. Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Outlook 2018, "Policy And The Markets: On A Collision Course", dated November 20, 2017, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 2 Our 12-month Fed Funds Discounter measures the number of rate hikes priced into the overnight index swap curve for the next 12 months. 3 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "The Yield Curve On A Cyclical Horizon", dated March 21, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 4 For further details on our yield curve models and how we calculate the amount of steepening/flattening priced into the butterfly spread please see U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, "Bullets, Barbells And Butterflies", dated July 25, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 5 These numbers refer to the spread tightening necessary to reach all-time lows on the 12-month breakeven spread for each index. We calculate the 12-month breakeven spread as OAS divided by duration. Fixed Income Sector Performance

Highlights Risk assets continue to rise despite a flattening yield curve. Individual investors are more sanguine than institutional investors as stocks make new highs. The S&P 500 is testing the top of a key channel. Will it break out or break down? Bond market sentiment, positioning and technicals today vs. 1994. Feature Risk-on returned to financial markets last week as the S&P 500 hit a new all-time high and oil prices reached a 2-year high. Credit spreads narrowed as well. This occurred despite growing investor angst regarding the flattening yield curve. At 58 basis points, the 2/10 yield curve is still in positive territory, but the recent flattening could be interpreted as heralding a Fed policy mistake. We, too, are concerned. The flattening curve is being driven by the Fed's determination to continue lifting short-term rates even in the face of subdued inflation readings. Our base case outlook sees inflation grinding higher in the coming months, leading to a temporarily steeper curve. Nonetheless, we will re-evaluate our asset allocation if the curve continues to flatten and core inflation remains stuck in a range. BCA expects U.S. stocks to outperform Treasuries in 2018. S&P 500 EPS growth and margins will hold up through mid-year, supported by an above-trend domestic economic expansion in 1H 2018, a dose of fiscal stimulus and accelerating economic activity outside the U.S. Still, many investors are concerned that sentiment and valuations are signaling that a pullback is nigh. Sanguine Sentiment Our technical and sentiment indicators are not flashing red as in previous bear markets, but neither are they giving an all-clear for U.S. equity investors. Sentiment levels are a bigger concern than technical indicators and investors should monitor both for signs of an equity sell-off. BCA's U.S. equity sentiment indicator is elevated, although not at an extreme (Chart 1). Remarkably, in contrast to previous market troughs, individual Investors (panel 2) are more sanguine than either financial advisors (panel 3) or traders (panel 4). Bullishness among traders is at a 10-year high. Typically, after a long bull run, institutions are more cautious about equities than the oft-maligned individual investor. Several other sentiment surveys illustrate the divergence in sentiment between institutions and individuals. As per the American Institute of Individual Investors, the percentage of small investors who are bearish (Chart 2, 35%, panel 2) is in the middle of a 30-year range while the percentage of bulls (29%, panel 3) is at the low end. Moreover, Chart 3 shows the gap in the expectation between households and professionals on future stock market returns (as tallied by the Yale School of Management's International Center for Finance) and on buying the dips (panel 4). That said, individuals and institutions are more aligned on the likelihood of a stock market crash in the next six months. None of the three sentiment indicators from the Yale survey are at an extreme. Chart 1Overall Sentiment Levels Elevated##BR##But Not At Extremes Chart 2Individuals Are Not##BR##Overly Bullish Active managers have reduced equity risk since the beginning of Q4 (Chart 4). At 61%, the average equity exposure of institutional investors surveyed by the NAAIM1 is at the lowest level since May 2016 and is nearly half the 102% exposure at the start of 2017. The March 2017 reading was the highest since 2007, just before the S&P 500 peak in October 2007. Chart 3Gap Between Individual##BR##And Institutional Investors Chart 4Active Managers Still##BR##Overweight Equities... Similarly to previous bear markets, BCA's equity speculation index moved into "high speculation" territory in early 2017 and remains so as the year ends and range bound on average at somewhat lower levels. Net speculative positions of S&P 500 stocks are in balance, however, and do not signal that market risk-taking is rampant (Chart 5). Moreover, the dispersion of equity volatility of new high and lows of the S&P500 is quite wide, ranging from over 20% to below 5%, over previous historical periods since 1994. Although volatility is not a leading indicator of future equity market returns, good or bad, the current low level of volatility, especially over the short-term, 6 months to 1-year, may be longer-lasting, having peaked from over 15% only since early 2016 and now closer to 5%. Longer-term volatility, for example, based on 2-, 3- and 4-years, still remains above 10%. It is not unusual for both short-term and long-term volatility to eventually converge, as seen in post-bear market phases, especially in the mid-2000s (Chart 6). Chart 5Speculation High, But Not At Extremes Chart 6Equity Vol Remains Low Warning Signs From Technicals? On balance, the technical indicators we monitor do not suggest that the market is stretched. Chart 7 shows that the S&P 500 is testing the top end of the 2009-2017 recovery trend channel. A failure to break out of the channel may result in some near-term consolidation for U.S. equities. However, a definitive break above 2616 would imply another upleg for stocks. The escalating advance/decline line is also in a bullish trend (Chart 7). The other technical indicators we monitor fall into two categories. Some are elevated, but not at extremes. Others are still in the middle of the range and are not a concern. The S&P 500 is 6% above its 200-day moving average, in the upper end of its post-2000 range, which is well below the recent highs set in 2009, 2011 and 2013. The S&P's distance from its 50-day MA is in a similar position (Chart 8, panels 1 and 2). BCA's composite technical measure is in the middle of the 2007-2017 range, and is not a concern (Chart 9, panel 5). Moreover, the percent of NYSE stocks above their 10- and 30-week highs are midway in their recent range. Furthermore, new highs minus new lows is at neutral lows (Chart 6, panel 2). Chart 7Breakout...Or Breakdown##BR##At Top Of Channel? Chart 8S&P Not Elevated Vs.##BR##Moving Averages Chart 9U.S. Stocks Not##BR##Overextended Bottom Line: Neither sentiment nor technical indicators are flashing red, although the fact that institutional managers are heavily overweight stocks is worrying. We continue to recommend stocks over bonds in the next 12 months, but acknowledge that risks to BCA's stance are climbing. Investors should be prudent with risk assets, paring back any maximum overweight positions and holding some safe-haven assets within diversified portfolios. BCA's U.S. Equity Strategy service maintains a positive technical stance on the energy sector2 and notes that technicals in the consumer discretionary sector look washed out.3 BCA downgraded consumer discretionary from overweight to neutral on September 25, 2017 despite the attractive technical backdrop of the sector. Is It 1994 - Again? BCA's U.S. Bond Strategy service puts fair value on the U.S. 10-year Treasury at 2.69%,4 and rates may climb as high as 3.0% in 2018 if inflation returns to the Fed's 2.0% target. Fundamentals (elevated inflation, above-trend U.S. growth, a more aggressive Fed) support our bond view. However, what does the technical picture in the bond market tell investors? Charts 10 and 11 show the sentiment and technical indicators for the bond market in 2017 and 1994. The duration positioning of portfolio managers in late 2017 matches the situation in 1994. At 100%, portfolio duration is the highest since March 21, 2017. This positioning implies that the market is vulnerable to a spike in rates, as it was in 1994 when the Fed's 75-basis point rate hike in February caught the market off guard. In October 1994, portfolio duration was 103%. While BCA views a Fed policy mistake as a risk to our bullish equity call in 2018, a 1994-style surprise from the Fed is unlikely. In 1994, the Fed's policy intentions were opaque, at best. Since then, the Fed has become increasingly transparent and frequently seeks a "buy-in" from the market before boosting rates. Chart 10Bond Market Positioning,##BR##Sentiment And Technicals In 1994.... Chart 11...And In##BR##2017 The 10-year Treasury yield is currently in an uptrend as it was in early 1994. Today, yields have climbed 80 bps off their post-Brexit lows in mid-2016. The 10-year yield troughed in October 1993 at 5.19%, and rose 60 bps before the Fed's shock rate hike in early 1994. However, in 1994 yields were only beginning to enter the second decade of what would become a 35-year fall in bond yields. BCA's view is that the 1.57% yield in June 2016 marked the end of that multi-year decline. The bond market in late 2017 is as oversold as the bond market was in early 1994, although it took different paths to get to the same juncture. According to BCA's Composite Bond Indicator, the bond market in late 1993 and early 1994 was working off a deeply overbought position. However, by early 1994, bonds were modestly oversold. BCA's bond measure was deeply oversold in late 2016 and early 2017, but shifted into overbought territory in the summer. Today, bonds are modestly oversold. Panel 4 of Charts 10 and 11 show that Fed rate hikes were not priced in at the end of 1993 and in early 1994; today, a few increases are priced in. Investors were net purchasers of bond funds in 1993 and 1994, which is the same as the current situation. In 1993, however, investors were shedding bond funds while individuals are now adding to their bond positions. Bottom Line: Several sentiment and technical indicators in the bond market echo the scenario in 1994. Nonetheless, 25 years of increased Fed transparency means it would be unlikely that the market will be surprised by the Fed's next rate increase. Still, with a new Fed Chair, a record number of vacancies on the Fed's Board and an unprecedented unwinding of its balance sheet, a policy misstep by the Fed would threaten BCA's position on the economy, equities and bonds in 2018. A bigger risk may be that the bond market is still priced for the low inflation environment to persist. Accordingly, if there is an upside surprise on inflation, bonds could be hit hard on a re-assessment of the Fed's rate path. John Canally, CFA, Senior Vice President U.S. Investment Strategy johnc@bcaresearch.com 1 National Association of Active Investment Managers. 2 Please see BCA Research's U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report "Invincible", published November 6, 2017. Available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Research's U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report "Resilient", published September 25, 2017. Available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA Research's U.S. Bond Strategy Portfolio Allocation Summary "Into The Fire", published November 7, 2017. Available at usbs.bcaresearch.com.

Feature When things get ultra-small, the laws that describe the universe change radically. Classical physics breaks down and we have to turn to quantum physics to explain behaviour that seems strange and counterintuitive. In this short Special Report, we would like to extend the quantum principle into the financial world. When interest rates get ultra-low, the laws that describe the behaviour of financial markets also change radically. Classical financial theory breaks down and we have to turn to what we will call the quantum theory of finance. Figure I-1AThe Quantum Theory Of Physics Figure I-2BThe Quantum Theory Of Finance Some Interest Rates Are Not Allowed Somebody once said the test of a good theory is that you should be able to write it on the front of a T-shirt. What would the T-shirt for the quantum theory of physics say? Probably this: "For a physical system, energies take discrete values and some energies are not allowed." What would the T-shirt for the quantum theory of finance say? Probably this (Figure I-1): "For a financial system, interest rates take discrete values, and some interest rates are not allowed." At large scales, the granularity that defines the energy of all physical system and the interest rates in a financial system is not apparent. Allowable values seem a continuum, and all values are allowed. Chart I-1A Promise To Keep The Policy Interest Rates##br## Ultra-Low Pulls Down Bond Yields But at ultra-small scales for both energy and interest rates, the granularity of the values becomes very apparent and this granularity becomes the dominant driver of physical systems and, we would argue, financial systems too. Policy interest rates do not have to take discrete values, but in practice they do move in steps. More importantly, some policy interest rates are not allowed. Policymakers accept that there exists a 'lower bound' to interest rates - perhaps slightly negative - below which there would be an exodus of bank deposits. Hence, this lower bound marks the limit of allowable interest rates. When policy interest rates approach this lower bound, central banks can turn to a second strategy: they can promise to keep rates at this lower bound for an extended period of time. Thereby they can pull down long-term interest rates towards the lower bound too (Chart I-1). To do this, they must convince the market that their promise is genuine. Enter quantitative easing (QE). In the words of ECB Chief Economist Peter Praet, "the credibility of promises to follow a certain course for policy rates in the future is enhanced by asset purchases." QE is nothing more than "a signalling channel which reinforces the credibility of forward guidance on (ultra-low) policy rates." Once bond yields approach ultra-low levels, we begin to see some of the strange effects of the quantum theory of finance. When bond yields cannot fall much further, they can only stabilize or rise, leaving the bond investor with a highly asymmetric payoff (Chart I-2 and Chart I-3) - technically known as negative skew. Chart I-2When Bond Yields Become Ultra-Low, Potential Losses Become Larger Than Potential Gains Chart I-3Bonds Become Much More Risky At Ultra-Low Yields Put simply, a distribution with negative skew produces values that usually turn out to be slightly higher than the mean and rarely, values substantially lower than the mean (Figure I-2). For financial returns negative skew means frequent small gains and infrequent large losses. The opposite is true for positive skew. Figure I-2Distributions With Negative And Positive Skew This brings us to an important point. Empirical and theoretical evidence now proves that investors are not concerned about small fluctuations around an investment's mean return. Instead, they are concerned about large and sudden losses. Hence, the classical use of volatility1 σ as a standard measure of risk is wrong.2 The truth is that risk premiums are a compensation for holding assets that provide positive cash flows but may occasionally suffer very large losses, erasing a large proportion of wealth. In other words, assets with negative skew. Hope And Fear Move In Quanta Too There is compelling theoretical evidence linking risk premiums to negative skew. It comes from a branch of behavioural finance developed by Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky, called prospect theory. In their seminal 1979 paper in Econometrica,3 Kahneman and Tversky proposed that "choices among risky prospects exhibit several pervasive effects that are inconsistent with the basic tenets of (classical) utility theory." Contrary to classical utility theory, people do not think in terms of final wealth (utility). In practice, people think in terms of gains and losses. And within these gains and losses, people tend to overweight low probability events by very large amounts - contributing to the attractiveness of both gambling and insurance. In prospect theory, the value of any gain or loss is multiplied by a 'decision weight'. Decision weights measure the impact on the investor of a specific prospect. Prospect theory finds that people tend to ascribe large decision weights to low probability events. Why? Remarkably, Kahneman and Tversky found the answer comes from quantum theory (what they called a quantal effect). "There is a limit to how small a decision weight can be attached to an event, if it is given any weight at all. Because people are limited in their ability to comprehend and evaluate extreme probabilities, highly unlikely events are either ignored or overweighted." Just like the energies of a physical system, or policy interest rates, the feelings of hope and fear occur in quanta and not in a continuum. You move stepwise from 'no hope' to 'some hope' to 'a lot of hope'. You move stepwise from 'no fear' to 'some fear' to 'a lot of fear'. Furthermore, the step from no hope to some hope and the step from some fear to no fear are especially large. You significantly overpay for a lottery ticket versus your expected gain because it takes you from no hope to some hope of winning a life-changing fortune. Likewise, you overpay for the insurance on your home versus your expected loss because it takes you from some fear to no fear of a ruinous loss. In exactly the same way, investment risk premiums are the return compensation for holding assets that may occasionally suffer ruinous losses - in other words, investments that exhibit negative skew (Table I-1 and Chart I-4). Table I-1At Low Bond Yields, Bonds Have ##br## Extreme Negative Skew Chart I-4Bonds Become Much More Risky##br## At Ultra-Low Yields Applying The Quantum Theory To Markets So now let's pull together what the quantum theory of finance tells us: A lower bound to interest rates - perhaps slightly negative - defines the 'quantum limit' of allowable interest rates. When bond yields approach this lower bound, prospective returns from bonds suffer strong negative skew, meaning the prospect of a rare but ruinous loss. The quantum step from 'no fear' to 'some fear' means that negative skew requires a risk premium. Therefore, at low bond yields the valuation relationship between bonds and equities changes radically. Given that equity returns always possess negative skew, we can say that at low bond yields, bond risk becomes equity-like. So the excess return demanded on equities relative to bonds - the equity risk premium - should compress, or indeed fully disappear (Chart I-5). This means that at low bond yields equity prospective returns should become bond-like. Justifying much richer equity valuations today. Chart I-5At Low Bond Yields, The Excess Prospective Return On Equities Over Bonds Disappears However, the conditionality on the negative skew of bonds is crucial. The negative skew on a 10-year bond starts to fade when the bond yield is at 2% and completely disappears at 3%, at which point the equity risk premium must fully re-emerge. Removing the justification for the richer equity valuations. Markets tend to move en masse, so we infer that the rich valuation of equity markets would be at risk of correction if a mainstream 10-year bond yield broke well north of 2.5%. At current yields, the 10-year bond closest to the 2.5%-3% 'red zone' is the U.S. T-bond. And a breach into the 'high 2s' would trigger us to de-risk our portfolio. However, the flight to investment havens that would follow a sell-off in risk assets would also curtail the rise in bond yields. No mainstream bond yield can realistically rise beyond 3% - and stay there - in the foreseeable future. Dhaval Joshi, Senior Vice President Chief European Investment Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com 1 Root mean squared 2 Please see Quantitative Finance, Risk premia: asymmetric tail risks and excess returns, by Y. Lemperiere et al. 3 Please see Econometrica Volume 47 Number 2 March 1979, Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk, by Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky.

Highlights Junk & The Yield Curve: The flat yield curve increases the risk of a sell-off in junk bonds. The most likely scenario is that higher inflation steepens the curve and mitigates this risk, but if inflation fails to respond then spreads will probably gap wider in the near-term. Ultimately, this would be a buying opportunity and not the end of the cycle. Junk & Corporate Health: Net debt-to-EBITDA should move lower during the next few quarters, driven by strong profit growth, but this is already in the price. Further increases in net debt-to-EBITDA would bring the end of the credit cycle closer, and this measure bears close monitoring. Junk & Fund Flows: Outflows from open-ended bond funds - especially those that invest in illiquid securities - can exacerbate periods of spread widening much in the same way as the use of leverage. Feature Anxiety in appropriate intensity makes humans intelligent - Anna Freud The remarkable run of junk bond outperformance suffered a setback last week, and it is very likely that excess returns will be negative in November for only the fourth month since spreads peaked in February 2016 (Chart 1). Chart 1A Buying Opportunity? We are inclined to view the recent price action as a temporary blip, and continue to believe that higher inflation and a more restrictive central bank reaction function are pre-conditions for a sustained period of spread widening.1 Nonetheless, if inflation trends higher as we expect, our pre-conditions for the end of the credit cycle could be in place by the middle of next year. In other words, we are much closer to the end of the credit cycle than the beginning and investors should be constantly re-assessing the risk/reward trade-off of staying invested. To aid in this process, this week we consider five reasons why investors might be nervous about their high-yield allocations and discuss how to think about each reason in the context of making a portfolio allocation decision. Reason 1: Spreads Are Tight Undoubtedly, the number one reason most people fret about high-yield bond performance is that valuation is extremely stretched. Even after last week's sell-off the average option-adjusted spread on the junk index is still 362 basis points, only 38 bps above the mid-2014 cycle lows (Chart 2). A more refined valuation measure, the 12-month breakeven spread for each credit tier, paints a similar picture.2 Chart 3 shows that valuation has been more expensive for Ba-rated securities only 23% of the time. B-rated securities have been more expensive only 39% of the time, and Caa-rated securities only 44% of the time. Chart 2Bouncing Off The Lows Chart 3Junk Bond Valuation Further, we calculate that if Ba-rated spreads tighten another 97 bps they will reach all-time expensive levels. This represents only 3 months of average spread tightening. The same calculation shows that B-rated spreads can tighten another 179 bps (4 months of average tightening) and Caa-rated spreads can tighten another 378 bps (5 months of average tightening). The message is quite clear. Spreads are close to all-time expensive levels and it would be unwise to hinge an investment decision on the expectation of significant capital gains. Junk is a carry trade at this point in the cycle, and the important question is how much longer we can pick up the carry before a sustained period of spread widening takes hold. However, we must also remember that valuation is not a market timing tool. Spreads can stay at low levels for extended periods, especially in the late stages of the credit cycle. Valuation is only important because it allows us to formulate expected return projections, and lower expected returns make the prospect of trying to time the exact end of the credit cycle less appealing. With that in mind, our base case scenario assumes that default losses will total 1.02% during the next 12 months. This means we should expect excess returns of 260 bps in a scenario where spreads remain flat. Even if spreads tighten another 100 bps from current levels high-yield excess returns will only reach 651 bps. That would represent a very optimistic scenario for junk returns. More realistically investors should expect excess returns between 200 bps and 500 bps (annualized) between now and the end of the credit cycle. Reason 2: The Yield Curve Is Flat The relentless flattening of the yield curve also presents a risk for junk bonds because it is a signal that monetary policy is becoming too restrictive. Restrictive monetary policy, along with deteriorating corporate health and tightening bank lending standards, is one of our three main credit cycle indicators (Chart 4). Typically we need a signal from all three of our indicators before a bear market in junk bonds kicks in. We already see such a signal from deteriorating corporate health, but accommodative Fed policy and easing bank lending standards continue to support spreads. Chart 4Credit Cycle Indicators That being said, during the past nine months the combination of disappointing inflation and two Fed rate hikes has caused the 2/10 Treasury slope to flatten all the way down to 62 bps. An inverted yield curve is a signal that the credit cycle is over and a slope of 62 bps is close enough to zero that market participants are jittery. We think a slope at these levels makes a near-term sell off in junk bonds more likely because investors will be inclined to view any negative news as a signal that the credit cycle is about to turn. They would be less inclined to do so if the curve was steeper. While such a flat yield curve poses a near-term risk to spreads, we have argued forcefully in recent reports that it will soon steepen.3 The most likely scenario is that inflation will start to trend higher, and this will steepen the curve while still allowing the Fed to deliver a pace of rate hikes close to its median projection. But even in a scenario where inflation fails to rise, we would still expect the curve to steepen as the Fed capitulates on its projected rate hike path. The key risk for junk spreads is a scenario where inflation fails to rise but the Fed does not react and instead continues to lift rates. This scenario would certainly lead to a risk-off episode in credit markets. At that point, however, the Fed would take note of the tightening in financial conditions and adopt a more dovish policy stance to support the recovery. In other words, while the Fed might be slow to renege on its rate hike projections in the face of low inflation, it has a strong track record of responding to shifts in financial conditions. This is because the Fed rightly understands that financial conditions lead GDP growth (Chart 5), and above-trend growth must be maintained in order for inflation to move back to target. Chart 5Financial Conditions Lead Growth Bottom Line: The flat yield curve increases the risk of a sell-off in junk bonds. The most likely scenario is that higher inflation steepens the curve and mitigates this risk, but if inflation fails to respond then spreads will probably gap wider in the near-term. Ultimately, this would be a buying opportunity and not the end of the cycle. Reason 3: Corporate Health Is Weak As was noted in the prior section, corporate balance sheet health is weak but this is only one of the three conditions that need to be met before defaults start to pick up and spreads start to widen. We also need to see more restrictive monetary policy and banks that are less inclined to extend credit. But it is also logical that weaker balance sheets should cause investors to demand greater compensation to hold high-yield bonds, and in general we do observe a strong correlation between junk spreads and net debt-to-EBITDA for the non-financial corporate sector as a whole (Chart 6). Worryingly, spreads have diverged from this measure since early 2016, but net debt-to-EBITDA did tick lower in Q2 and we anticipate further improvement in the coming quarters as the outlook for profit growth appears strong.4 It is important to note that any future improvement in net debt-to-EBITDA is already priced in, but further deterioration would speed up the time until the end of the credit cycle. That is, if the measure of net debt-to-EBITDA shown in the top panel of Chart 6 moves higher in the coming quarters then we will have to be quicker to shift to an underweight stance on high-yield (and investment grade) corporate bonds at the first sign of inflation. The other important issue related to corporate health is that we have seen a great deal of bond issuance during the past few years, but almost none of that issuance has been required to finance capital investment. Chart 7 shows that the financing gap - firms' capital expenditures less retained earnings - has only recently turned positive. It follows that the proceeds from most of this cycle's bond issuance must have been returned to shareholders in the form of stock buybacks. Chart 6Leverage Bears Monitoring Chart 7Less Equity, More Debt This observation does not help us figure out when the credit cycle will end, but if corporate capital structures have less of an equity cushion then it should lead to lower recovery rates when corporate defaults finally start to occur. In the bottom two panels of Chart 7 we show aggregated bottom-up data from a sample of junk rated non-financial firms. We see that the debt-to-equity ratio of the median company in the sample is much higher than during the last recession, but at similar levels to what was seen during the 2001 recession. The bottom panel of Chart 7 shows the percent of firms in our sample with a debt-to-equity ratio above 300%, and it sends a similar message. Bottom Line: Net debt-to-EBITDA should move lower during the next few quarters, driven by strong profit growth, but this is already in the price. Further increases in net debt-to-EBITDA would bring the end of the credit cycle closer, and this measure bears close monitoring. Additionally, corporate capital structures have less of an equity cushion than during the last recession but look similar to the late 1990s/early 2000s. This has more of a bearing on recovery rates during the next downturn than on the timing of the turn in the credit cycle. Reason 4: Volatility Is Low VIX and junk spreads are practically tied at the hip (Chart 8), that much is well known. The question is whether the very low reading from the VIX poses an additional risk to junk bonds beyond what is already reflected in tight spreads. For the most part we think that it does not. The low VIX appears to be driven by the same factors that cause junk spreads to tighten - stronger corporate balance sheets, accommodative monetary policy and easing bank lending standards (Chart 9). Chart 8VIX Also At Cycle Lows Chart 9VIX Fair Value Is Biased Higher There is one possible exception and that relates to leverage in the banking system. It has been shown that financial intermediaries manage their Value-at-Risk (VaR) so that the ratio of VaR-to-equity is stable. Since lower volatility leads to a lower calculated VaR, it suggests that banks can take on more leverage and still keep their ratio of VaR-to-equity stable.5 If low volatility mechanically leads to higher banking sector leverage, then that presents the additional risk that banks will face greater losses when spreads eventually widen. This would cause lending standards to tighten even more quickly, and exacerbate the spread widening. So while low volatility could potentially lead to a wider end-point for junk spreads once the cycle turns, it does not help us determine when that widening will occur. Also, stricter post-crisis bank capital regulations may have mitigated this risk to a certain extent, though it is difficult to know until the default cycle actually takes hold. Reason 5: Open-Ended Fund Flows Another risk that has been flagged by many investors is the ever-growing presence of open-ended mutual funds and ETFs in the corporate bond market. According to second quarter Flow of Funds data, 19% of corporate and foreign bonds were held in mutual funds or ETFs (Chart 10). This is a big change from past cycles. In a speech from 2014, then Fed Governor Jeremy Stein elucidated why this might pose a risk:6 When investor i exits [the fund] on day t, does the net asset value at the end of the day that defines investor i's exit price fully reflect the ultimate price effect of the sales created by his exit? If not, those investors who stay behind are hurt, which is what creates run incentives. And, if run incentives are strong enough, then a credit-oriented bond fund starts looking pretty bank-like. The fact that its liabilities are not technically debt claims is not all that helpful in this case - they are still demandable, and hence investors can pull out very rapidly if the terms of exit create a penalty for being last out the door. Essentially, outflows from open-ended bond funds - especially those that invest in illiquid securities - can exacerbate periods of spread widening much in the same way as the use of leverage. If fund outflows drive a gap between the price of the fund and its net asset value, then investors may be incentivized to quickly exit the fund before the gap widens even further. And in fact, even since the beginning of 2016 we have seen that periods of junk spread widening have coincided on occasion with a gap opening up between the price of the popular SPDR junk ETF and its net asset value (Chart 11). So far the effect has not been dramatic, but potentially the shock has simply not yet been large enough for the dynamic described by Stein to play out more fully. Chart 10Growing Fund Presence In Corporate Bond Market Chart 11A Run On Bond Funds? Much like with the risk from low volatility, the large presence of open-ended funds in the corporate bond market does not help us determine when the credit cycle is about to end. However, it does potentially increase the risk that once spreads start to widen they will widen much further than they would have otherwise. Investment Recommendations We continue to hold the view that we must first see stronger inflation and a more restrictive monetary policy before the credit cycle can end. We are therefore inclined to remain overweight high-yield bonds and would view last week's spread widening as a buying opportunity. That being said, if inflation starts to trend higher as we expect, then the credit cycle could come to an end as early as the middle of next year. Our first signal will be when long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates return to the 2.4% to 2.5% range that has historically been consistent with inflation anchored around the Fed's target. In the meantime, the flat yield curve increases the risk of near-term spread widening. We think this risk will be mitigated as higher inflation steepens the curve, but until then investors should be on guard. Ultimately, any spread widening that occurs before inflationary pressures are more pronounced will be a buying opportunity, not the end of the credit cycle. Additionally, net debt-to-EBITDA must continue to trend lower as profit growth recovers. If it fails to do so then we will be quicker to adopt an underweight allocation to junk. Investors should also be mindful of the potential risks posed by low volatility and the large presence of open-ended funds in the corporate bond market. Both of those factors could exacerbate any spread widening once the credit cycle turns, though they do not help us determine when that turn will occur. Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Risk Rally Extended," dated June 27, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 Looking at each credit tier individually controls for the changing average credit rating of the overall index. The 12-month breakeven spread is used in place of the option-adjusted spread to control for the changing duration of each index. 3 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "The Fed Will Fall Behind The Curve," dated October 24 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Won't Back Down," dated September 26, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 5 Tobias Adrian and Hyun Song Shin, "Procyclical Leverage and Value-at-Risk," Federal Reserve Bank of New York Staff Report No. 338. July 2008. 6 https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/stein20140228a.htm

Highlights Global credit markets have endured a surprising bit of turbulence over the past month. Credit spreads in a variety of markets, from U.S. High-Yield (HY) to Euro Area Investment Grade (IG) to Emerging Markets (EM) corporate debt, have widened for the first time since August. Outflows from dedicated corporate bond funds helped fuel the sell-off, with a reported $6.8 billion pulled from U.S. high-yield mutual funds and ETFs over the past week according to Reuters.1 Feature This volatility in credit markets spooked other asset classes last week, triggering a few days of equity market weakness. That is no surprise given the reliable and well-known leading relationship between corporate bond spreads and equity values. For markets that are priced for perfection, with tight credit spreads and elevated equity market valuations at a time when global central banks are inching towards a less accommodative policy stance, it may not take much to prompt some nervous selling by investors. Was this risk-off move justified by any renewed deterioration in credit fundamentals? Or was it just a correction in a market that was very overdue for one? To try and answer this, we think this is an ideal time to present an update of our Corporate Health Monitor (CHM) Chartbook. Chart 1Credit Markets Priced For Perfection Our CHMs are composite indicators of balance sheet and income statement ratios designed to assess the financial well-being of the overall non-financial corporate sectors in the U.S., Europe and Emerging Markets (EM). We have developed both top-down (based on profit data from national income/GDP accounts) and bottom-up (based on actual reported financial data of individual companies) versions of the CHM. While there are differences in methodology between the two measures due to data availability and coverage (see Appendix 1 on Page 13 for details), we have found that both are useful in providing a more complete and comprehensive assessment of the state of corporate finances. The broad conclusion from the latest readings on our Developed Markets CHMs paint a mixed picture (Chart 1): Medium-term credit quality in the U.S. continues to deteriorate, especially for high-yield borrowers, although there has been some cyclical improvement on the back of the solid cyclical performance of U.S. profit growth. Euro Area corporate health remains in good shape, supported in no small part by the hyper-accommodative policy stance of the European Central Bank (ECB) that includes corporate bond purchases. Although returns on capital remain poor and leverage has increased in the Peripheral economies. U.K. corporates are enjoying very strong liquidity positions that are boosting overall credit quality despite mediocre underlying earnings performance. With the global economy enjoying a coordinated cyclical upturn that is supporting solid earnings growth, combined with global monetary policy settings that still accommodative, corporate health is not the primary driver of credit market returns at the moment. Yet if the BCA view on global growth, inflation and interest rates plays out in 2018 - all moving higher, especially in the U.S. - then the story is likely to change. Investors who have been piling into credit because of low risk-free interest rates (and spillovers from global central bank asset purchases) will begin to worry more about credit fundamentals than simply chasing higher yields, to the detriment of credit market performance. U.S. Corporate Health Monitors: Still Deteriorating Our top-down CHM for the U.S. has now been in the "deteriorating health" region for thirteen consecutive quarters dating back to the middle of 2014 (Chart 2). The current U.S. economic expansion has boosted corporate earnings growth on a cyclical basis. This has only acted to slow the modest decline in top-down profit margins, and much larger fall in return on capital, since the peak in both ratios three years ago. The reading on the latter from the 2nd quarter of 2017 (the last data available) is only 6%, not far from the lows seen during the past two recessions. The low return on capital during the current cycle is a disturbing development, as it suggests that there has is a surplus of capital on U.S. balance sheets that is largely unproductive and not boosting profits (the numerator in the ratio). This can also be seen in the run-up in corporate borrowing in recent years that has been used strictly to do share buy-backs. If the best investment idea that a company can have is to take on debt to repurchase its own stock, rather than borrow to invest in its own business, then the internal rate of return on that investment (i.e. the return on capital) must indeed be quite low, which is a longer-term problem for corporate health. Short-term liquidity remains in good shape for U.S. companies, but interest coverage remains near the low end of the historical range of this ratio. This combination suggests that U.S. companies are not facing an imminent cash crunch that could raise downgrade/default risk, but there is less room for error than in years when interest coverage was at higher levels. This can also be seen in the bottom-up versions of the U.S. CHMs for IG corporates (Chart 3) and HY companies (Chart 4). Interest coverage is at historically depressed levels for the U.S. HY names in our indicator, and has fallen back to just slightly above the levels seen prior to the 2009 recession. Leverage levels are much higher in HY - around 180% debt/equity (at book value) compared to around 100% for IG - with profit margins that are ½ as wide as those of the IG names in our CHM universe. Thus, it is no surprise to see a far worse interest coverage ratio within our HY CHM where most components are near historically "bad" levels for credit quality. Chart 2Top-Down U.S. CHM:##BR##Still Deteriorating Chart 3Bottom-Up U.S. Investment Grade CHM:##BR##Still Deteriorating What is rather worrying is the fact that U.S. IG interest coverage has fallen in recent years, despite high profit margins and historically low corporate borrowing rates. This suggests that the stock of debt has now grown so much after the rapid run-up in leverage (i.e. record bond issuance) that the interest expense required to service that debt is eating up a greater share of corporate earnings, even at a time when profit growth is robust. This will raise downgrade risk if corporate borrowing rates were to rise significantly or the U.S. experiences a major economic downturn, as interest costs would rise while earnings deteriorate. Given our views on the likelihood of additional Fed rate hikes and higher Treasury yields in 2018, with even a possibility of a Fed-induced recession in 2019 if policy is tightened too aggressively to combat rising inflation, the risks to U.S. corporate debt performance (both IG and HY) will grow over the course of next year. For now, we are still recommending playing the growth phase of the business cycle by staying overweight U.S. corporate debt within global fixed income portfolios (Chart 5). The time to scale back positions will come after there is more decisive evidence that rising realized inflation is boosting inflation expectations, which will give the Fed confidence to tighten policy more aggressively. This will dampen future corporate profit expectations and likely raise risk premiums on U.S. corporate bonds. Chart 4Bottom-Up U.S. High-Yield CHM:##BR##Modest Cyclical Improvement, From Very Bad Levels Chart 5Credit Rally##BR##Losing Momentum? One final point on the U.S. CHMs - in this version of the CHM Chartbook, we are adding some additional charts showing the bottom-up CHMs for some selected corporate bond sectors. These can be found in Appendix 2 on Page 13. We are only showing the charts this time, but we do plan on doing deeper dives on some individual sectors in future Weekly Reports and CHM Chartbooks. Euro Area CHMs: Still O.K., But With Some Mixed Signals Our top-down Euro Area CHM remains in "improving health" territory as it has for the entire period since the Global Financial Crisis. The direction is turning a bit more worrisome, though, as the indicator is now the closest it's been to the zero line since 2013 (Chart 6). By construction, the CHM shows deviations of the indicator from recent trends, in order to more quickly capture turning points in credit quality. Looked in that light, the steady worsening of the top-down CHM is a function of recent declines in profit margins, return on capital and debt coverage. This is offsetting the high and rising levels of short-term liquidity levels and interest coverage. The latter two points are directly related to the easy money policies of the ECB. The combination of zero (and even negative) short-term interest rates, specific liquidity programs aimed to prompt low-cost bank lending, and outright ECB asset purchases of Euro Area corporate debt have all helped drive borrowing rates to record low levels. Perhaps surprisingly, the low return on capital in the Euro Area, around 8%, is still above the return on capital from the U.S. top-down CHM of 6%. This is also confirmed by the bottom-up versions of the Euro Area CHMs for IG corporates (Chart 7) and HY corporates (Chart 8). Return on capital for Euro Area IG issuers (both domestic issuers and foreign issuers in the European bond market) is between 8-10%, a healthy number by any measure and similar to the level in the bottom-up U.S. IG CHM. Even Euro Area HY shows a return on capital of 4-6%, similar to that of U.S. HY. Chart 6Top-Down Euro Area CHM:##BR##Trending In A Bad Direction Chart 7Bottom-Up Euro Area##BR##Investment Grade CHMs: Improving Within the countries of the Euro Area, our bottom-up CHMs show that the credit metrics look better for the Core versus the Periphery (Chart 9). The biggest difference comes from a cyclical improvement in profit margins and interest coverage in the Core that is not being matched in the Periphery. Chart 8Bottom-Up Euro Area##BR##High-Yield CHMs: Looking Much Better Chart 9Bottom-Up Euro Area##BR##IG CHMs: Core Vs. Periphery More broadly, European corporate health seems to be improving when looking at our bottom-up CHMs. This goes against the trend we are seeing in the top-down CHM, although the latter is still in the "improving health" zone. Declining leverage, especially among the HY issuers in our bottom-up universe, appears to be the biggest source of the HY CHM improvement - again, a bit of a surprising result given how low the cost of debt finance currently is in Europe. Looking ahead, the outlook for Euro Area corporate credit looks positive in the near term, but murkier after that. The current powerful cyclical upturn in the European economy is likely to continue in 2018, as is the ECB's highly accommodative monetary policy. But at some point in the middle of next year, the ECB will be having the same discussion with the markets that was conducted over the past few months, regarding the future of the central bank's asset purchase program. This time, we think the growth and inflation data will give the ECB no choice but to announce a full tapering of its bond-buying program by the end of 2018. Interest rate hikes will come after that, but with a lag of at least one full year. European government bond yields will rise as the ECB eventually stops its asset purchases and the market pulls forward the timing of the next ECB rate hiking cycle. This also applies to corporate debt, where the ECB has become a massive buyer over the past three years. As the pace of ECB buying diminishes, Euro Area corporate bond yields should begin to rise and credit spreads will widen (Chart 10). The underlying improvements in our bottom-up Euro Area CHMs suggests that the repricing of European credit post-ECB tapering may be relatively contained. We still prefer to own U.S. corporate credit over Euro Area equivalents at this time, though. The gap between our top-down CHMs for the U.S. and Europe has proven to be an excellent directional indicator for the relative performance of U.S. credit vs. Europe (Chart 11). That CHM gap continues to favor U.S. credit, although of late only U.S. IG corporates have outperformed Euro Area corporates. European HY has been outperforming in 2018 (in excess return terms), which may be a sign that investors are seeing the better European credit health that our bottom-up CHM is showing. Chart 10European Credit##BR##Looks Fully Valued Chart 11Relative Top-Down CHMs##BR##Still Favor The U.S. Over Europe U.K. Corporate Health Monitor: No Major Causes For Concern The top-down U.K. CHM has been in the "improving health" zone for the past two years, led by cyclical improvements in profit margins and interest coverage, combined with very strong short-term liquidity (Chart 12). Return on capital is low relative to its history, which is consistent with the trends seen in the U.S. and Euro Area and likely reflects the global low productivity backdrop (although at levels not far off those seen in the U.S. and Europe). U.K. credit has enjoyed the same global liquidity tailwind that other corporate bond markets have enjoyed. This is doubly so because of the specific easy monetary policies of the Bank of England (BoE) after the 2016 Brexit vote. The BoE has already reversed the post-Brexit interest rate cut, although additional hikes are highly unlikely given muddled growth momentum and the lingering uncertainties over the Brexit negotiations. The post-Brexit weakness in the British pound has stabilized, with the trade-weighted exchange rate now in positive territory on a year-over-year basis. This will result in slower inflation rates in the coming months and a BoE that is likely to sit on its hands for a while. An environment of mushy domestic growth and a stand-pat central bank would typically be good for risk assets like corporate credit. Yet at current low yield and spread levels, it is difficult to paint a scenario of additional outperformance of U.K. credit without a catalyst like accelerating growth or monetary easing. The combination of accommodative monetary policy and a solid credit backdrop, as indicated by our U.K. CHM, leads us to maintain our current neutral allocation to U.K. corporate debt, even though valuations do not look particularly cheap (Chart 13). Chart 12U.K. Corporate Health Monitor:##BR##Credit Quality Still Improving Chart 13U.K. Credit Rally Starting##BR##To Lose Steam Robert Robis, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com 1 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-markets-flows-baml/investors-yank-6-8-billion-from-high-yield-bonds-third-largest-outflows-baml-idUSKBN1DH1G8 Appendix 1: An Overview Of The BCA Corporate Health Monitors The BCA Corporate Health Monitor (CHM) is a composite indicator designed to assess the underlying financial strength of the corporate sector for a country. The Monitor is an average of six financial ratios inspired by those used by credit rating agencies to evaluate individual companies. However, we calculate our ratios using top-down (national accounts) data for profits, interest expense, debt levels, etc. The idea is to treat the entire corporate sector as if it were one big company, and then look at the credit metrics that would be used to assign a credit rating to it. Importantly, only data for the non-financial corporate sector is used in the CHM, as the measures that would be used to measure the underlying health of banks and other financial firms are different than those for the typical company. The six ratios used in the CHM are shown in Table 1 below. To construct the CHM, the individual ratios are standardized, added together, and then shown as a deviation from the medium-term trend. That last part is important, as it introduces more cyclicality into the CHM and allows it to better capture major turning points in corporate well-being. Largely because of this construction, the CHM has a very good track record at heralding trend changes in corporate credit spreads (both for Investment Grade and High-Yield) over many cycles. Table 1Definitions Of Ratios That Go Into The CHMs Top-down CHMs are now available for the U.S., Euro Area and U.K. The CHM methodology was extended in 2016 to look at corporate health by industry and by credit quality.2 The financial data of a broad set of individual U.S. and Euro Area companies was used to construct individual "bottom-up" CHMs using the same procedure as the more familiar top-down CHM. Some of the ratios differ from those used in the top-down CHM (see Table 1), largely due to definitional differences in data presented in national income accounts versus those from actual individual company financial statements. The bottom-up CHMs analyze the health of individual sectors, and can be aggregated up into broad CHMs for Investment Grade and High-Yield groupings to compare with credit spreads. An EM version of the bottom-up CHM was introduced by the BCA Emerging Markets Strategy team in September 2016, which extends the CHM analysis to EM hard-currency corporate debt.3 2 Please see Section II of The Bank Credit Analyst, "U.S. Corporate Health Gets A Failing Grade", dated February 2016, available at bca.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, "EM Corporate Health Is Flashing Red" dated September 14 2016, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. Appendix 2: U.S. Bottom-Up CHMs For Selected Sectors Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Mr. X is a long-time BCA client who visits our offices toward the end of each year to discuss the economic and financial market outlook. This year, Mr. X introduced us to his daughter, who we shall identify as Ms. X. She has many years of experience as a portfolio manager, initially in a wealth management firm, and subsequently in two major hedge funds. In 2017, she joined her father to help him run the family office portfolio. She took an active role in our recent discussion and this report is an edited transcript of our conversation. Mr. X: As always, it is a great pleasure to sit down with you to discuss the economic and investment outlook. And I am thrilled to bring my daughter to the meeting. She and I do not always agree on the market outlook and appropriate investment strategy, but even in her first year working with me she has added tremendous value to our decisions and performance. As you know, I have a very conservative bias in my approach and this means I sometimes miss out on opportunities. My daughter is more willing than me to take risks, so we make a good team. I am happy that our investment portfolio has performed well over the past year, but am puzzled by the high level of investor complacency. I can't understand why investors do not share my concerns about by sky-high valuations, a volatile geopolitical environment and the considerable potential for financial instability. Over the years, you have made me appreciate the power of easy money to create financial bubbles and also that market overshoots can last for a surprisingly long time. Thus, I am fully aware that we could easily have another year of strong gains, but were that to happen, I would worry about the potential for a sudden 1987-style crash. I remember that event well and it was an unpleasant experience. My inclination is to move right now to an underweight equity position. Ms. X: Let me add that I am delighted to finally attend the annual BCA meeting with my father. Over the years, he has talked to me at length about your discussions, making me very jealous that I was not there. He and I do frequently disagree about the outlook so it will be good to have BCA's independent and objective perspective. As my father noted, I do not always share his cautious bias. When I joined the family firm in early 2017, I persuaded him to raise our equity exposure and that was the right decision. I have been in the business long enough to know that it is dangerous to get more bullish as the market rises and I agree there probably is too much complacency. However, I do not see an early end to the conditions that are driving the bull market and I am inclined to stay overweight equities for a while longer. Thus, the big debate between us is whether or not we should now book profits from the past year's strong performance and move to an underweight stance in risk assets. Hopefully, this meeting will help us make the right decision. Chart 1An Impressive Bull Market BCA: First of all, we are delighted to see you both and look forward to getting to know Ms. X in the years to come. It is not a surprise that you are debating whether to cut exposure to risk assets because that question is on the mind of many of our clients. We share your surprise about complacency - investors have been seduced by the relentless upward drift of prices since early 2016. The global equity index has not suffered any setback above 2% during the past year, and that has to be close to a record (Chart 1). The conditions that have underpinned this remarkable performance are indeed still in place but we expect that to change during the coming year. Thus, if equity prices continue to rise, it would make sense to reduce exposure to risk assets to a neutral position over the next few months. A blow-off phase with a final spike in prices cannot be ruled out, but trying to catch those moves is a very high-risk strategy. We are not yet recommending underweight positions in risk assets, but if our economic and policy views pan out, we likely will shift in that direction in the second half of 2018. Ms. X: It seems that you are siding with my father in terms of wanting to scale back exposure to risk assets. That would be premature in my view and I look forward to discussing this in more detail. But first, I would be interested in reviewing your forecasts from last year. BCA: Of course. A year ago, our key conclusions were that: A number of important regime shifts will impact the economic and investment outlook over the next few years. These include the end of the era of falling inflation and interest rates, a move away from fiscal conservatism, a policy pushback against globalization, and a rise in the labor share of income at the expense of profit margins. Together with an earlier regime shift when the Debt Supercycle ended, these trends are consistent with very modest returns from financial assets over the next decade. The failure of low interest rates to trigger a vigorous rebound in private credit growth is consistent with our end-of-Debt Supercycle thesis. The end point for dealing with high debt levels may ultimately be sharply higher inflation, but only after the next downturn triggers a new deflationary scare. The potential for trade restrictions by the incoming U.S. administration poses a threat to the outlook, but the odds of a global trade war are low. Time lags in implementing policy mean that the fiscal plans of President-elect Trump will boost U.S. growth in 2018 more than 2017. This raises the risk of an overheated economy in 2018 leading to a monetary squeeze and recession in 2019. The key issue will be whether the supply side of the economy expands alongside increased demand and it will be critical to monitor business capital spending. Lingering structural problems will prevent any growth acceleration outside the U.S. The euro area and emerging economies are still in the midst of a deleveraging cycle and demographics remain a headwind for Japan. Not many countries will follow the U.S. example of fiscal stimulus. Nevertheless, for the first time since the recovery began, global growth forecasts are likely avoid a downgrade over the next couple of years. China remains an unbalanced and fragile economy but the authorities have enough policy flexibility to avoid a hard landing, at least over the year or two. The longer-run outlook is more bearish unless the government moves away from its stop-go policy approach and pursues more supply-side reforms. Inflation has bottomed in the U.S., but the upturn will be gradual in 2017 and it will stay subdued in the euro area and Japan. Divergences in monetary policy between the U.S. and other developed economies will continue to build in 2017 as the Fed tightens and other central banks stay on hold. Unlike a year ago, the Fed's rate expectations look reasonable. Bond yields in the U.S. may fall in the near run after their recent sharp rise, but the cyclical trend is up against a backdrop of monetary tightening, fiscal stimulus and rising inflation. Yields in the euro area will be held down by ongoing QE, while the 10-year yield will stay capped at zero in Japan. The secular bull market in bonds is over although yields could retest their recent lows in the next downturn. The search for yield will remain an important investment theme, but rich valuations dictate only a neutral weighting in investment-grade corporate bonds and a modest underweight in high-yielders. The U.S. equity market is modestly overvalued but the conditions are ripe for an overshoot in 2017 given optimism about a boost to profits from the new administration's policies. Earnings expectations are far too high and ignore the likelihood that rising labor costs will squeeze margins. Nevertheless, that need not preclude equity prices moving higher. There is a good chance of a sell-off in early 2017 and that would be a buying opportunity. Valuations are better in Japan and several European markets than in the U.S. and relative monetary conditions also favor these markets. We expect the U.S. to underperform in 2017. We expect emerging markets to underperform developed markets. The oil price should average around $55 a barrel over the next one or two years, with some risk to the upside. Although shale production should increase, the cutbacks in oil industry capital spending and planned production cuts by OPEC and some other producers will ensure that inventories will have to be drawn down in the second half of 2017. Non-oil commodity prices will stay in a trading range after healthy gains in 2016, but the long-run outlook is still bearish. The dollar bull market should stay intact over the coming year with the trade-weighted index rising by around 5%. Relative policy stances and economic trends should all stay supportive of the dollar. The outlook for the yen is especially gloomy. A stabilization in resource prices will keep commodity prices in a range. We remain bearish on EM currencies. The biggest geopolitical risks relate to U.S.-China relations, especially given President-elect Trump's inclination to engage in China-bashing. Meanwhile, the defeat of ISIS could create a power vacuum in the Middle East that could draw Turkey into a disastrous conflict with the Kurds and Iran/Russia. The coming year is important for elections in Europe but we do not expect any serious threat to the EU or single currency to emerge. The most important prediction that we got right was our view that conditions were ripe for an overshoot in equity prices. The MSCI all-country index has delivered an impressive total return of around 20% in dollar terms since the end of 2016, one of the best calendar year performances of the current cycle (Table 1). So it was good that your daughter persuaded you to keep a healthy equity exposure. It is all the more impressive that the market powered ahead in the face of all the concerns that you noted earlier. Our preference for European markets over the U.S. worked out well in common currency terms, but only because the dollar declined. Emerging markets did much better than we expected, with significant outperformance relative to their developed counterparts. Table 1Market Performance With regard to the overall economic environment, we were correct in forecasting a modest improvement in 2017 global economic activity and that growth would not fall short of the IMF's predictions for the first time in the current expansion. However, one big surprise, not only for us, but also for policymakers, was that inflation drifted lower in the major economies. Latest data show the core inflation rate for the G7 economies is running at only 1.4%, down from 1.6% at the end of 2016. We will return to this critical issue later as the trend in inflation outlook will be a key determinant of the market outlook for the coming year and beyond. Regionally, the Euro area and Japanese economies registered the biggest upside surprises relative to our forecast and those of the IMF (Table 2). That goes a long way to explaining why the U.S. dollar was weaker than we expected. In addition, the dollar was not helped by a market downgrading of the scale and timing of U.S. fiscal stimulus. Nonetheless, it is worth noting that the dollar has merely unwound the 2016 Trump rally and recently has shown some renewed strength. Table 2IMF Economic Forecasts A year ago, there were major concerns about potential political turmoil from important elections in Europe, the risk of U.S.-led trade wars and a credit bust-up in China. We downplayed these issues as near-term threats to the markets and that turned out to be appropriate. Nevertheless, there are many lingering risks to the outlook and market complacency is a much bigger concern now than it was a year ago. Mr. X: As you just noted, a key theme of your Outlook last year was "Shifting Regimes" such as the end of disinflation and fiscal conservatism, a retreat from globalization, and the start of a rebalancing in income shares away from profits toward labor. And of course, you talked about the End of the Debt Supercycle a few years ago. Do you still have confidence that these regime shifts are underway? BCA: Absolutely! These are all trends that we expect to play out over a number of years and thus can't be judged by short-term developments. There have been particularly important shifts in the policy environment. The 2007-09 economic and financial meltdown led central banks to fight deflation rather than inflation and we would not bet against them in this battle. Inflation has been lower than expected, but there has been a clear turning point. On fiscal policy, governments have largely given up on austerity against a background of a disappointingly slow economic recovery in recent years and rising populist pressures (Chart 2). The U.S. budget deficit could rise particularly sharply over the next few years. In the U.S., the relative income shares going to profits and labor have started to shift direction, but there is a long way to go. Finally, the same forces driving government to loosen fiscal purse strings have also undermined support for globalization with the U.S. even threatening to abandon NAFTA. The ratio of global trade to output has trended sideways for several years and is unlikely to turn higher any time soon. All these trends are part of our Regime Shift thesis. Chart 2Regime Shifts The remarkable macro backdrop of low inflation, easy money and healthy profits has been incredibly positive for financial markets in recent years. You would have to be an extreme optimist to believe that such an environment will persist. Our big concern for the coming year is that we are setting up for a collision between the markets and looming changes in economic policy. The Coming Collision Between Policy And The Markets BCA: As you mentioned earlier, we attach enormous importance to the role of easy money in supporting asset prices and it is hard to imagine that we could have had a more stimulative monetary environment than has existed in recent years. Central banks have been in panic mode since the 2007-09 downturn with an unprecedented period of negative real interest rates in the advanced economies, coupled with an extraordinary expansion of central bank balance sheets (Chart 3). Initially, the fear was for another Great Depression and as that threat receded, the focus switched to getting inflation back to the 2% target favored by most developed countries. In a post-Debt Supercycle world, negative real rates have failed to trigger the typical rebound in credit demand that was so characteristic of the pre-downturn era. Central banks have expanded base money in the form of bank reserves, but this has not translated into markedly faster growth in broad money or nominal GDP. This is highlighted by the collapse in money multipliers (the ratio of broad to base money) and in velocity (the ratio of GDP to broad money). This has been a double whammy: there is less broad money generated for each dollar of base money and less GDP for every dollar of broad money (Chart 4). Chart 3An Extraordinary Period Of Easy Money Chart 4Monetary Policy: Pushing On A String Historically, monetary policy acted primarily through the credit channel with lower rates making households and companies more willing to borrow, and lenders more willing to supply funds. In the post-Debt Supercycle world, the credit channel has become partly blocked, forcing policymakers to rely more on the other channels of monetary transmission, the main one being boosting asset prices. However, there is a limit to how far this can go because the end result is massively overvalued assets and building financial excesses. The Fed and many other central banks now realize that this strategy cannot be pushed much further. The economic recovery in the U.S. and other developed economies has been the weakest of the post-WWII period. But potential growth rates also have slowed which means that spare capacity has gradually been absorbed. According to the IMF, the U.S. output gap closed in 2015 having been as high as 2% of potential GDP in 2013. The IMF estimates that the economy was operating slightly above potential in 2017 with a further rise forecast in 2018 (Chart 5). According to IMF estimates, the median output gap for 20 advanced economies will shift from -0.1% in 2017 to +0.3% in 2018 (i.e. they will be operating above potential). This makes it hard to justify the maintenance of hyper-stimulative monetary policies. Chart 5No More Output Gaps The low U.S. inflation rate is giving the Fed the luxury of moving cautiously and that is keeping the markets buoyant. Indeed, the markets don't even believe the Fed will be able to raise rates as much they expect. The most recent FOMC projections show a median federal funds rate of 2.1% by the end of 2018 but the markets are discounting a move to only 1.8%. The markets probably have this wrong because inflation is likely to wake up from its slumber in the second half of the year. Ms. X: This is another area where my father and I disagree. I view the world as essentially deflationary. We all know that technological innovations have opened up competition in a lot of markets, driving down prices. Two obvious examples are Uber and Airbnb, but these are just the tip of the iceberg. Amazon's purchase of Whole Foods is another example of how increased competitive pressures will continue to sweep through previously relatively stable industries. And such changes have an important impact on employee psychology and thus bargaining power. These days, people are glad to just keep their jobs and this means companies hold the upper hand when it comes to wage negotiations. So I don't see a pickup in inflation being a threat to the markets any time soon. Mr. X: I have a different perspective. First of all, I do not even believe the official inflation data because most of the things I buy have risen a lot in price over the past couple of years. Secondly, given the extremely stimulative stance of monetary policy in recent years, a pickup in inflation would not surprise me at all. So I am sympathetic to the BCA view. But, even if the data is correct, why have inflation forecasts proved so wrong and what underpins your view that it will increase in the coming year? BCA: There is an interesting disconnect between the official data and the inflation views of many consumers and economic/statistics experts. According to the Conference Board, U.S. consumers' one-year ahead inflation expectations have persistently exceeded the published data and the latest reading is close to 5% (Chart 6). That ties in with your perception. Consumer surveys by the New York Fed and University of Michigan have year-ahead inflation expectations at a more reasonable 2.5%. At the same time, many "experts" believe the official data is overstated because it fails to take enough account of technological changes and new lower-priced goods and services. The markets also have a moderately optimistic view with the five-year CPI swap rate at 2%. This is optimistic because it is consistent with inflation below the Fed's 2% target, if one allows for an inflation risk premium built in to the swap price. We are prepared to take the inflation data broadly at face value. Low inflation is consistent with an ongoing tough competitive environment in most sectors, boosted by the disruptive impact of technological changes that Ms. X described. The inflation rate for core goods (ex-food and energy) has been in negative territory for several years while that for services ex-shelter is at the low end of its historical range (Chart 7). Chart 6Differing Perspectives Of Inflation Chart 7Not Much Inflation Here There is no simple explanation of why inflation has fallen short of forecasts. Economic theory assumes that price pressures build as an economy moves closer to full employment and the U.S. is at that point. This raises several possibilities: There is more slack in the economy than suggested by the low unemployment rate. The lags are unusually long in the current cycle. Technological disruption is having a greater impact than expected. The link between economic slack and inflationary pressures is typically captured by the Phillips Curve which shows the relationship between the unemployment rate and inflation. In the U.S., the current unemployment rate of 4.1% is believed to be very close to a full-employment level. Yet, inflation recently has trended lower and while wage growth is in an uptrend, it has remained softer than expected (Chart 8). Chart 8Inflationary Pressures Are Turning We agree with Ms. X that employee bargaining power has been undermined over the years by globalization and technological change and by the impact of the 2007-09 economic downturn. That would certainly explain a weakened relationship between the unemployment rate and wage growth, but does not completely negate the theory. The historical evidence still suggests that once the labor market becomes tight, inflation eventually does accelerate. A broad range of data indicates that the U.S. labor market is indeed tight and the Atlanta Fed's wage tracker is in an uptrend, albeit modestly. Two other factors consistent with an end to disinflation are the lagged effects of dollar weakness and a firming in oil prices. Non-oil prices have now moved decisively out of deflationary territory while oil prices in 2017 have averaged more than 20% above year-ago levels. As far as the impact of technology is concerned, there is no doubt that innovations like Uber and Airbnb are deflationary. However, our analysis suggests that the growth in online spending has not had a major impact on the inflation numbers. E-commerce still represents a small fraction of total U.S. consumer spending, depressing overall consumer inflation by only 0.1 to 0.2 percentage points. The deceleration of inflation since the global financial crisis has been in areas largely unaffected by online sales, such as energy and rent. Moreover, today's creative destruction in the retail sector is no more deflationary than the earlier shift to 'big box' stores. We are not looking for a dramatic acceleration in either wage growth or inflation - just enough to convince the Fed that it needs to carry on with its plan to raise interest rates. And the pressure to do this will increase if the Administration is able to deliver on its planned tax cuts. Ms. X: You make it sound as if cutting taxes would be a bad thing. Surely the U.S. would benefit from the Administration's tax plan? A reduction in the corporate tax rate would be very bullish for equities. BCA: The U.S. tax system is desperately in need of reform via eliminating loopholes and distortions and using the savings to lower marginal rates. That would make it more efficient and hopefully boost the supply side of the economy without undermining revenues. However, the economy does not need stimulus from net tax giveaways given that it is operating close to potential. That would simply boost demand relative to supply, create overheating, and give the Fed more reason to get aggressive. The Republican's initial tax plan has some good elements of reform such as cutting back the personal mortgage interest deduction, eliminating some other deductions and making it less attractive for companies to shift operations overseas. However, many of these proposals are unlikely to survive the lobbying efforts of special interest groups. The net result probably will be tax giveaways without much actual reform. Importantly, there is not a strong case for personal tax cuts given that a married worker on the average wage and with two children paid an average income tax rate of only 14% in 2016, according to OECD calculations. There inevitably will be contentious negotiations in Congress but we assume that the Republicans will eventually come together to pass some tax cuts by early next year. The combination of easier fiscal policy and Fed rate hikes will be bullish for the dollar and this will contribute to tighter overall financial conditions. That is why we see a coming collision between economic policy and the markets. The narrative for the so-called Trump rally in markets was based on the assumption that the Administration's platform of increased spending, tax cuts and reduced regulations would be bullish for the economy and thus risk assets. That was always a misplaced notion. The perfect environment for markets has been moderate economic growth, low inflation and easy money. The Trump agenda would be appropriate for an economy that had a lot of spare capacity and needed a big boost in demand. It is less suited for an economy with little spare capacity. Reduced regulations and lower corporate tax rates are good for the supply side of the economy and could boost the potential growth rate. However, if a key move is large personal tax cuts then the boost to demand will dominate. Mr. X: It seems that you are making the case for a serious policy error in the U.S. in the coming year - both on fiscal and monetary policy. I can't argue against that because everything that has happened over the past few years tells me that policymakers don't have a good grip on either the economy or the implications of their actions. I never believed that printing money and creating financial bubbles was a sensible approach to an over-indebted economy. I always expected it to end badly. BCA: Major tightening cycles frequently end in recession because monetary policy is a very blunt tool. Central banks would like to raise rates by just enough to cool things down but that is hard to achieve. The problem with fiscal policy is that implementation lags mean that it often is pro-cyclical. In other words, there is pressure for fiscal stimulus in a downturn, but by the time legislation is passed, the economy typically has already recovered and does not really need a big fiscal boost. And that certainly applies to the current environment. The other area of potential policy error is on trade. Having already pulled the U.S. out of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the Trump Administration is taking a hardline attitude toward a renegotiation of NAFTA. This could even end up with the deal being scrapped and that would add another element of risk to the North American economies. Ms. X: Your scenario assumes that the Fed will be quite hawkish. However, everything I have read about Jerome Powell, the new Fed chair, suggests that he will err on the side of caution when it comes to raising rates. So monetary policy may not collide with markets at all over the coming year. BCA: It is certainly true that Powell does not have any particular bias when it comes to the conduct of monetary policy. That would not have been the case if either John Taylor or Kevin Warsh had been given the job - they both have a hawkish bias. Powell is not an economist so will likely follow a middle path and be heavily influenced by the Fed's staff forecasts and by the opinions of other FOMC members. There are still several vacancies on the Fed's Board so much will depend on who is appointed to those positions. The latest FOMC forecasts are for growth and inflation of only 2% in 2018 and these numbers seem too low. Meanwhile, the prediction that unemployment will still be at 4.1% at end-2018 is too high. We expect projections of growth and inflation to be revised up and unemployment to be revised down. That will embolden the Fed to keep raising rates. So, even with Powell at the helm, monetary policy is set to get tighter than the market currently expects. Ms. X: So far, we have talked mainly about the U.S. What about other central banks? I can't believe that inflation will be much of a problem in the euro area or in Japan any time soon. Does that not mean that the overall global monetary environment will stay favorable for risk assets? BCA: The Fed is at the leading edge of the shift away from extreme monetary ease by hiking interest rates and starting the process of balance sheet reduction. But the Bank of Canada also has raised rates and the ECB has announced that it will cut its asset purchases in half beginning January 2018, as a first step in normalizing policy. Even the Bank of England has raised rates despite Brexit-related downside risks for the economy. The BoJ will keep an accommodative stance for the foreseeable future. You are correct that financial conditions will be tightening more in the U.S. than in other developed economies. Moreover, equity valuations are more stretched in the U.S. than elsewhere leaving that market especially vulnerable. Yet, market correlations are such that any sell-off in U.S. risk assets is likely to become a global affair. Another key issue relates to the potential for financial shocks. Long periods of extreme monetary ease always fuel excesses and sometimes these remain hidden until they blow up. We know that companies have taken on a lot of debt, largely to fund financial transactions such as share buybacks and merger and acquisitions activity. That is unlikely to be the direct cause of a financial accident but might well become a problem in the next downturn. It typically is increased leverage within the financial sector itself that poses the greatest risk and that is very opaque. The banking system is much better capitalized than before the 2007-09 downturn so the risks lie elsewhere. As would be expected, margin debt has climbed higher with the equity market, and is at a historically high level relative to market capitalization (Chart 9). We don't have good data on the degree of leverage among non-bank financial institutions such as hedge funds but that is where leverage surprises are likely to occur. And the level of interest rates that causes financial stress is almost certainly to be a lot lower than in the past. Chart 9Financial Leverage Has Risen Mr. X: That is the perfect lead-in to my perennial concern - the high level of debt in the major economies. I realize high debt levels are not a problem when interest rates are close to zero, but that will change if your view on the Fed is correct. Ms. X: I would just add that this is one area where I share my father's concerns, but with an important caveat. I wholeheartedly agree that high debt levels pose a threat to economic and financial stability, but I see this as a long-term issue. Even with rising interest rates, debt servicing costs will stay low for at least the next year. It seems to me that rates will have to rise a lot before debt levels in the major economies pose a serious threat to the system. Even if the Fed tightens policy in line with its plans, real short rates will still stay low by historical standards. This will not only keep debt financing manageable but will also sustain the search for yield and support equity prices. BCA: We would be disappointed if you both had not raised the issue of debt. Debt levels do indeed remain very elevated among advanced and emerging economies (Chart 10). The growth in private debt remains far below pre-crisis levels in the advanced countries, but this has been offset by the continued high level of government borrowing. As a result, the total debt-to-GDP ratio has stayed close to a peak. And both private and public debt ratios have climbed to new highs in the emerging economies, with China leading the charge. Chart 10ADebt Levels Remain Elevated Chart 10BDebt Levels Remain Elevated As we have discussed in the past, there is not an inconsistency between our End of Debt Supercycle thesis and the continued high levels of debt in most countries. As noted earlier, record-low interest rates have not triggered the kind of private credit resurgence that occurred in the pre-crisis period. For example, household borrowing has remained far below historical levels as a percent of income in the U.S., despite low borrowing costs (Chart 11). At the same time, it is not a surprise that debt-to-income ratios are high given the modest growth in nominal incomes in most countries. Chart 11Low Rates Have Not Triggered ##br##A Borrowing Surge In U.S. Debt growth is not benign everywhere. In the developed world, Canada's debt growth is worryingly high, both in the household and corporate sectors. As is also the case with Australia, Canada's overheated housing market has fueled rapid growth in mortgage debt. These are accidents waiting to happen when borrowing costs increase. In the emerging word, China has yet to see the end of its Debt Supercycle. Fortunately, with most banks under state control, the authorities should be able to contain any systemic risks, at least in the near run. With regard to timing, we agree that debt levels are not likely to pose an economic or financial problem in next year. It is right to point out that debt-servicing costs are very low by historical standards and it will take time for rising rates to have an impact given that a lot of debt is locked in at low rates. For example, in the U.S., the ratio of household debt-servicing to income and the non-financial business sector's ratio of interest payments to EBITD are at relatively benign levels (Chart 12). However, changes occur at the margin and the example of the Bernanke taper tantrum highlighted investor sensitivity to even modest changes in the monetary environment. You may well be right Ms. X that risk assets will continue to climb higher in the face of a tighter financial conditions. But given elevated valuations, we lean toward a cautious rather than aggressive approach to strategy. We would rather leave some money on the table than risk being caught in a sudden downdraft. Other investors, including yourself, might prefer to wait for clearer signals that a turning point is imminent. Returning to the issue of indebtedness, the end-game for high debt levels continues to be a topic of intense interest. There really are only three options: to grow out of it, to write it off, or to try and inflate it away. The first option obviously would be best - to have fast enough growth in real incomes that allowed debtors to start paying down their debt. Unfortunately, that is the least likely prospect given adverse demographic trends throughout the developed world and disappointing productivity growth (Chart 13). Chart 12Borrowing Costs Are Benign Chart 13It's Hard To Grow Out Of Debt ##br##With These Structural Headwinds Writing the debt off - i.e. defaulting - is a desperate measure that would be the very last resort after all other approaches had failed. In this case, we are talking mainly about government debt, because private debt always has to be written off when borrowers become bankrupt. Japan is the one developed country where government debt probably will be written off eventually. Given that the Bank of Japan owns around 45% of outstanding government debt, those holdings can be neutralized by converting them to perpetuals - securities that are never redeemed. If the first two options are not viable, then inflation becomes the preferred solution to over-indebtedness. To make a big impact, inflation would need to rise far above the 2% level currently favored by central banks, and it would have to stay elevated for quite some time. Central banks are not yet ready to allow such an environment, but that could change after the next economic downturn. Central banks have made it clear that they are prepared to pursue radical policies in order to prevent deflation. This sets the scene for increasingly aggressive actions after the next recession and the end result could be a period of significantly higher inflation. Mr. X: I don't disagree with that view which is why I always like to hold some physical gold in my portfolio. It is interesting that you are worried about a looming setback for risk assets because you are positive on the near-run economic outlook. That is contrary to the typical view that sees a decent economy as supporting higher equity prices. Let's spend a bit more time on your view of the economic outlook. Ms. X: Before we do that, I would just emphasize that it is far too early to worry about debt end games and the potential for sharply rising inflation. I don't disagree that monetary policy could be forced to embrace massive reflation during the next downturn and perhaps that will make me change my view of the inflation outlook. But the sequencing is important because we would first have to deal with a recession that could be a very deflationary episode. And before the next recession we could have period of continued decent growth, which would be positive for risk assets. So I agree that the near-term view of the economic outlook is important. The Economic Outlook BCA: This recovery cycle has been characterized by a series of shocks and headwinds that constrained growth in various regions. In no particular order, these included fiscal austerity, the euro crisis, a brief U.S. government shutdown, the Japanese earthquake, and a spike in oil prices above $100. As we discussed a year ago, in the absence of any new shocks, we expected global growth to improve and that is what occurred in 2017. A broad range of indicators shows that activity has picked up steam in most areas. Purchasing managers' indexes are in an uptrend, business and consumer confidence are at cyclical highs and leading indicators have turned up (Chart 14). This is hardly a surprise given easy monetary conditions and a more relaxed fiscal stance almost everywhere. Chart 14Global Activity On An Uptrend The outlook for 2018 is positive and the IMF's projections for growth is probably too low (see Table 2). So, for the second year in a row, the next set of updates due in the spring are likely to be revised up. Ms. X: Let's talk about the U.S. economy. You are concerned that tax cuts could contribute to overheating, tighter monetary policy and an eventual collision with the markets. But there are two alternative scenarios, both quite optimistic for risk assets. On the one hand, a cut in the corporate tax rate could trigger a further improvement in business confidence and thus acceleration in capital spending. This would boost the supply side of the economy and mean that faster growth need not lead to higher inflation. It would be the perfect world of a low inflation boom. At the other extreme, if political gridlock prevents any meaningful tax cuts, we will be left with the status quo of moderate growth and low inflation that has been very positive for markets during the past several years. Mr. X: You can always rely on my daughter to emphasize the potential for optimistic outcomes. I would suggest another entirely different scenario. The cycle is very mature and I fear it would not take much to tip the economy into recession, even if we get some tax relief. So I am more concerned with near-term downside risks to the U.S. economy. A recession in the coming year would be catastrophic for the stock market in my view. BCA: Before we get to the outlook, let's agree on where we are right now. As we already noted, the U.S. economy currently is operating very close to its potential level. The Congressional Budget Office estimates potential growth to be only 1.6% a year at present, which explains why the unemployment rate has dropped even though growth has averaged a modest 2% pace in recent years. The consumer sector has generally been a source of stability with real spending growing at a 2¾% pace over the past several years (Chart 15). And, encouragingly, business investment has recently picked up from its earlier disappointing level. On the negative side, the recovery in housing has lost steam and government spending has been a source of drag. Looking ahead, the pattern of growth may change a bit. With regard to consumer spending, the pace of employment growth is more likely to slow than accelerate given the tight market and growing lack of available skilled employees. According to the National Federation of Independent Business survey, 88% of small companies hiring or trying to hire reported "few or no qualified applicants for the positions they were trying to fill". Companies in manufacturing and construction say that the difficulty in finding qualified workers is their single biggest problem, beating taxes and regulations. In addition, we should not assume that the personal saving rate will keep falling given that it has hit a recovery low of 3.1% (Chart 16). On the other hand, wage growth should continue to firm and there is the prospect of tax cuts. Overall, this suggests that consumer spending should continue to grow by at least a 2% pace in 2018. Chart 15Trends In U.S. Growth Chart 16Personal Saving At A Recovery Low Survey data suggests that business investment spending should remain strong in the coming year, even without any additional boost from corporate tax cuts. Meanwhile, rebuilding and renovations in the wake of Hurricanes Harvey and Irma should provide a short-term boost to housing investment and a more lasting improvement will occur if the millennial generation finally moves out of their parents' basements. On that note, it is encouraging that the 10-year slide in the homeownership rate appears to have run its course (Chart 17). And although housing affordability is down from its peak, it remains at an attractive level from a historical perspective. Chart 17A Weak Housing Recovery Last, but not least, government spending will face countervailing forces. The Administration plans to increase spending on defense and infrastructure but there could be some offsetting cutbacks in other areas. Overall, government spending should make a positive contribution to 2018 after being a drag in 2017. Putting all this together, the U.S. economy should manage to sustain a growth rate of around 2.5% in 2018, putting GDP further above its potential level. And it could rise above that if tax cuts are at the higher end of the range. You suggested three alternative scenarios to our base case: a supply-side boom, continued moderate growth and a near-term recession. A supply-side revival that leads to strong growth and continued low inflation would be extremely bullish, but we are skeptical about that possibility. The revival in capital spending is good news, but this will take time to feed into faster productivity growth. Overall, any tax cuts will have a greater impact on demand than supply, putting even greater pressure on an already tight labor market. The second scenario of a continuation of the recent status quo is more possible, especially if we end up with a very watered-down tax package. However, growth would actually have to drop below 2% in order to prevent GDP from rising above potential. We will closely monitor leading indicators for signs that growth is about to lose momentum. The bearish scenario of a near-term recession cannot be completely discounted, but there currently is no compelling evidence of such a development. Recessions can arrive with little warning if there is an unanticipated shock, but that is rare. Historically, a flat or inverted yield curve has provided a warning sign ahead of most recessions and the curve currently is still positively sloped (Chart 18). Another leading indicator is when cyclical spending1 falls as a share of GDP, reflecting the increased sensitivity of those items to changes in financial conditions. Cyclical spending is still at a historically low level relative to GDP and we expect this to rise rather than fall over the coming quarters. While a near-term recession does not seem likely, the odds will change during the course of 2018. By late year, there is a good chance that the yield curve will be flat or inverted, giving a warning signal for a recession in 2019. Our base case view is for a U.S. recession to start in the second half of 2019, making the current expansion the longest on record. At this stage, it is too early to predict whether it would be a mild recession along the lines of 1990-91 and 2000-01 or a deeper downturn. Chart 18No Recession Signals For The U.S. ...Yet Mr. X: I hope that you are right that a U.S. recession is more than a year away. I am not entirely convinced but will keep an open mind, and my daughter will no doubt keep me fully informed of any positive trends. Ms. X: You can be sure of that. Although I lean toward the optimistic side on the U.S. economy, I have been rather surprised at how well the euro area economy has done in the past year. Latest data show that the euro area's real GDP increased by 2.5% in the year to 2017 Q3 compared to 2.3% for the U.S. Can that be sustained? BCA: The relative performance of the euro area economy has been even better if you allow for the fact that the region's population growth is 0.5% a year below that of the U.S. So the economic growth gap is even greater on a per capita basis. The euro area economy performed poorly during their sovereign debt crisis years of 2011-13, but the subsequent improvement has meant that the region's real per capita GDP has matched that of the U.S. over the past four years. And even Japan's GDP has not lagged much behind on a per capita basis (Chart 19). Chart 19No Clear Winner On Growth The recovery in the euro area has been broadly based but the big change was the end of a fiscal squeeze in the periphery countries. Between 2010 and 2013, fiscal drag (the change in the structural primary deficit) was equivalent to around 10% of GDP in Greece and Portugal and 7% of GDP in Ireland and Spain. There was little fiscal tightening in the subsequent three years, allowing those economies to recover lost ground. Meanwhile, Germany's economy has continued to power ahead, benefiting from much easier financial conditions than the economy has warranted. That has been the inevitable consequence of a one size fits all monetary policy that has had to accommodate the weakest members of the region. The French and Italian economies have disappointed, but there are hopes that the new French government will pursue pro-growth policies. And Italy should also pick up given signs that it is finally starting to deal with its fragile banking system. Both Spain and Italy faced a sharp rise in non-performing bank loans during the great recession, but Italy lagged Spain in dealing with the problem (Chart 20). That goes a long way to explaining why the Italian economic recovery has been so poor relative to Spain. With Italian banks raising capital and writing off non-performing loans more aggressively, the Italian economy should start to improve, finally catching up with the rest of the region. Overall, the euro area economy should manage to sustain growth above the 2.1% forecast by the IMF for 2018. Overall financial conditions are likely to stay favorable for at least another year and we do not anticipate any major changes in fiscal policy. If, as we fear, the U.S. moves into recession in 2019, there will be negative fallout for Europe, largely via the impact on financial markets. However, in relative terms, the euro area should outperform the U.S. during the next downturn. Mr. X: A year ago, you said that Brexit posed downside risks for the U.K. economy. For a while, that seemed too pessimistic as the economy performed quite well, but recent data show things have taken a turn for the worse. How do you see things playing out with this issue? BCA: It was apparent a year ago that the U.K. government had no concrete plans to deal with Brexit and little has changed since then. The negotiations with the EU are not going particularly well and the odds of a "hard" exit have risen. This means withdrawing from the EU without any agreement on a new regime for trade, labor movements or financial transactions. A growing number of firms are taking the precaution of shifting some operations from the U.K. to other EU countries. As you noted, there are signs that Brexit is starting to undermine the U.K. economy. For example, London house prices have turned down and the leading economic index has softened (Chart 21). The poor performance of U.K. consumer service and real estate equities relative to those of Germany suggest investors are becoming more wary of the U.K. outlook. Of course, a lot will depend on the nature of any deal between the U.K. and the EU and that remains a source of great uncertainty. Chart 20A Turning Point For Italian Banks? Chart 21U.K. Consumer Services Equities Are ##br##Underperforming Brexit Effects Show Up At the moment, there are no real grounds for optimism. The U.K. holds few cards in the bargaining process and the country's strong antipathy toward the free movement of people within the EU will be a big obstacle to an amicable separation agreement. Ms. X: I think the U.K. made the right decision to leave the EU and am more optimistic than you about the outlook. There may be some short-term disruption but the long-term outlook for the U.K. will be good once the country is freed from the stifling bureaucratic constraints of EU membership. The U.K. has a more dynamic economy than most EU members and it will be able to attract plenty of overseas capital if the government pursues appropriate policies toward taxes and regulations. It will take a few years to find out who is correct about this. In the meantime, given the uncertainties, I am inclined to have limited exposure to sterling and the U.K. equity market. Let's now talk about China, another country facing complex challenges. This is a topic where my father and I again have a lot of debates. As you might guess, I have been on the more optimistic side while he has sided with those who have feared a hard landing. And I know that similar debates have occurred in BCA. BCA: It is not a surprise that there are lots of debates about the China outlook. The country's impressive economic growth has been accompanied by an unprecedented build-up of debt and supply excesses in several sectors. The large imbalances would have led to a collapse by now in any other economy. However, China has benefited from the heavy state involvement in the economy and, in particular, the banking sector. The big question is whether the government has enough control over economic developments to avoid an economic and financial crisis. The good news is that China's government debt is relatively low, giving them the fiscal flexibility to write-off bad debts from zombie state-owned enterprises (SOEs). The problems of excessive leverage and over-capacity are particularly acute in SOEs that still comprise a large share of economic activity. The government is well aware of the need to reform SOEs and various measures have been announced, but progress has been relatively limited thus far. The IMF projects that the ratio of total non-financial debt to GDP will remain in an uptrend over the next several years, rising from 236% in 2016 to 298% by 2022 (Chart 22). Yet, growth is expected to slow only modestly over the period. Of course, one would not expect the IMF to build a crisis into their forecast. Some investors have been concerned that a peak in China's mini-cycle of the past two years may herald a return to the economic conditions that prevailed in 2015, when the industrial sector grew at a slower pace than during the acute phase of the global financial crisis. These conditions occurred due to the combination of excessively tight monetary conditions and weak global growth. While China's export growth may slow over the coming year, monetary policy remains accommodative. Monetary conditions appear to have peaked early this year but are still considerably easier than in mid-2015. Shifts in the monetary conditions index have done a good job of leading economic activity and they paint a reasonably positive picture (Chart 23). The industrial sector has finally moved out of deflation, with producer prices rising 6.9% in the year ended October. This has been accompanied by a solid revival in profits. Chart 22China: Debt-Fueled Growth To Continue Chart 23China Leaves Deflation Behind On balance, we assume that the Chinese economy will be able to muddle through for the foreseeable future. President Xi Jinping has strengthened his grip on power and he will go to great lengths to ensure that his reign is not sullied with an economic crisis. The longer-term outlook will depend on how far the government goes with reforms and deleveraging and we are keeping an open mind at this point. In sum, for the moment, we are siding with Ms. X on this issue. Mr. X: I have been too bearish on China for the past several years, but I still worry about the downside risks given the massive imbalances and excesses. I can't think of any example of a country achieving a soft landing after such a massive rise in debt. I will give you and my daughter the benefit of the doubt, but am not totally convinced that you will be right. BCA has been cautious on emerging economies in general: has that changed? BCA: The emerging world went through a tough time in 2015-16 with median growth of only 2.6% for the 23 constituent countries of the MSCI EM index (Chart 24). This recovered to 3% in 2017 according to IMF estimates, but that is still far below the average 5% pace of the period 2000-07. Chart 24Emerging Economy Growth: ##br##The Boom Years Are Over It is always dangerous to generalize about the emerging world because the group comprises economies with very different characteristics and growth drivers. Two of the largest countries - Brazil and Russia - went through particularly bad downturns in the past couple of years and those economies are now in a modest recovery. In contrast, India has continued to grow at a healthy albeit slowing pace, while Korea and the ASEAN region have not suffered much of a slowdown. If, as seems likely, Chinese growth holds above a 6% pace over the next year, then those countries with strong links to China should do fine. And it also points to reasonably steady commodity prices, supporting resource-dependent economies. Longer-run, there are reasons to be cautious about many emerging economies, particularly if the U.S. goes into recession 2019, as we fear. That would be associated with renewed weakness in commodity prices, and capital flight from those economies with high external debt such as Turkey and South Africa. As we stated a year ago, the heady days of emerging economy growth are in the past. Mr. X: It seems that both my daughter and I can find some areas of agreement with your views about the economic outlook. You share her expectation that the global growth outlook will stay healthy over the coming year, but you worry about a U.S.-led recession in 2019, something that I certainly sympathize with. But we differ on timing: I fear the downturn could occur even sooner and I know my daughter believes in a longer-lasting upturn. Let's now move onto what this all means for financial markets, starting with bonds. Bond Market Prospects Ms. X: I expect this to be a short discussion as I can see little attraction in bonds at current yields. Even though I expect inflation to stay muted, bonds offer no prospect of capital gains in the year ahead and even the running yield offers little advantage over the equity dividend yield. BCA: As you know, we have believed for some time that the secular bull market in bonds has ended. We expect yields to be under upward pressure in most major markets during 2018 and thus share your view that equities offer better return prospects. By late 2018, it might well be appropriate to switch back into bonds against a backdrop of higher yields and a likely bear market in equities. For the moment, we recommend underweight bond exposure. It is hard to like government bonds when the yield on 10-year U.S. Treasuries is less than 50 basis points above the dividend yield of the S&P 500 while the euro area bond yield is 260 basis points below divided yields (Chart 25). Real yields, using the 10-year CPI swap rate as a measure of inflation expectations, are less than 20 basis points in the U.S. and a negative 113 basis points in the euro area. Even if we did not expect inflation to rise, it would be difficult to recommend an overweight position in any developed country government bonds. One measure of valuation is to compare the level of real yields to their historical average, adjusted by the standard deviation of the gap. On this basis, the most overvalued markets are the core euro area countries, where real yields are 1.5 to 2 standard deviations below their historical average (Chart 26). There are only two developed bond markets where real 10-year government yields currently are above their historical average: Greece and Portugal. This is warranted in Greece where there needs to be a risk premium in case the country is forced to leave the single currency at some point. This is less of a risk for Portugal, making it a more interesting market. Real yields in New Zealand are broadly in line with their historical average, also making it one of the more attractive markets. Chart 25Bonds Yields Offer Little Appeal Chart 26Valuation Ranking Of Developed Bond Markets Mr. X: Given your expectation of higher inflation, would you recommend inflation-protected Treasuries? BCA: Yes, in the sense that they should outperform conventional Treasuries. The 10-year TIPS are discounting average inflation of 1.85% and we would expect this to be revised up during the coming year. However, the caveat is that absolute returns will still be mediocre. Ms. X: You showed earlier that corporate bonds had a reasonable year in 2017, albeit falling far short of the returns from equities. A year ago, you recommended only neutral weighting in investment-grade bonds and an underweight in high yield. But you became more optimistic toward both early in 2017, shifting to an overweight position. Are you thinking of scaling back exposure once again, given the tight level of spreads? BCA: Yes, we were cautious on U.S. corporates a year ago because valuation was insufficient to compensate for the deterioration in corporate balance sheet health. Nonetheless, value improved enough early in 2017 to warrant an upgrade to overweight given our constructive macro and default rate outlook. The cyclical sweet spot for carry trades should continue to support spread product for a while longer. Moreover, value is better than it appears at first glance. The dotted line in Chart 27 shows the expected 12-month option-adjusted spread for U.S. junk bonds after adjusting for our base case forecast for net default losses. At 260 basis points, this excess spread is in line with the historical average. In the absence of any further spread narrowing, speculative-grade bonds would return 230 basis points more than Treasurys in 2018. If high-yield spreads were to tighten by another 150 basis points, then valuations would be at a historical extreme, and that seems unwarranted. An optimistic scenario would have another 100 basis point spread tightening, delivering excess returns of 5%. Of course, if spreads widen, then corporates will underperform. If financial conditions tighten in 2018 as we expect then it will be appropriate to lower exposure to corporates. In the meantime, you should favor U.S. and U.K. corporate bonds to issues in the Eurozone because ECB tapering is likely to spark some spread widening in that market. Mr. X: What about EM hard-currency bonds? BCA: The global economic background is indeed positive for EM assets. However, EM debt is expensive relative to DM investment-grade bonds which, historically, has heralded a period of underperformance (Chart 28). We expect that relative growth dynamics will be more supportive of U.S. corporates because EM growth will lag. Any commodity price weakness and/or a stronger U.S. dollar would also weigh on EM bonds and currencies. Chart 27Not Much Value In U.S. Corporates Chart 28Emerging Market Bonds Are Expensive Mr. X: We have not been excited about the bond market outlook for some time and nothing you have said changes my mind. I am inclined to keep our bond exposure to the bare minimum. Ms. X: I agree. So let's talk about the stock market which is much more interesting. As I mentioned before, I am inclined to remain fully invested in equities for a while longer, while my father wants to start cutting exposure. Equity Market Outlook BCA: This is one of those times when it is important to draw a distinction between one's forecast of where markets are likely to go and the appropriate investment strategy. We fully agree that the conditions that have driven this impressive equity bull market are likely to stay in place for much of the next year. Interest rates in the U.S. and some other countries are headed higher, but they will remain at historically low levels for some time. Meanwhile, in the absence of recession, corporate earnings still have upside, albeit not as much as analysts project. However, we have a conservative streak at BCA that makes us reluctant to chase markets into the stratosphere. For long-term investors, our recommended strategy is to gradually lower equity exposure to neutral. However, those who are trying to maximize short-term returns should stay overweight and wait for clearer signs that tighter financial conditions are starting to bite on economic activity. Chart 29Reasons For Caution On U.S. Stocks Getting down to specifics, here are the trends that give us cause for concern and they are all highlighted in Chart 29. Valuation: Relative to both earnings and book value, the U.S. equity market is more expensive than at any time since the late 1990s tech bubble. The price-earnings ratio (PER) for the S&P 500 is around 30% above its 60-year average on the basis of both trailing operating earnings and a 10-year average of earnings. The market is not expensive on a relative yield basis because interest rates are so low, but that will change as rates inevitably move higher. Other developed markets are not as overvalued as the U.S., but neither are they cheap. Earnings expectations: The performance of corporate earnings throughout this cycle - particularly in the U.S. - has been extremely impressive give the weaker-than-normal pace of economic growth. However, current expectations are ridiculously high. According to IBES data, analysts expect long-run earnings growth of around 14% a year in both the U.S. and Europe. Even allowing for analysts' normal optimistic bias, the sharp upward revision to growth expectations over the past year makes no sense and is bound to be disappointed. Investor complacency: We all know that the VIX index is at a historical low, indicating that investors see little need to protect themselves against market turmoil. Our composite sentiment indicator for the U.S. is at a high extreme, further evidence of investor complacency. These are classic contrarian signs of a vulnerable market. Most bear markets are associated with recessions, with the stock market typically leading the economy by 6 to 12 months (Chart 30). The lead in 2007 was an unusually short three months. As discussed earlier, we do not anticipate a U.S. recession before 2019. If a recession were to start in mid-2019, it would imply the U.S. market would be at risk from the middle of 2018, but the rally could persist all year. Of course, the timing of a recession and market is uncertain. So it boils down to potential upside gains over the next year versus the downside risks, plus your confidence in being able to time the top. Chart 30Bear Markets And Recessions Usually Overlap We are not yet ready to recommend that you shift to an underweight position in equities. A prudent course of action would be to move to a broadly neutral position over the next few months, but we realize that Ms. X has a higher risk tolerance than Mr. X so we will leave you to fight over that decision. The timing of when we move to an underweight will depend on our various economic, monetary and market indicators and our assessment of the risks. It could well happen in the second half of the year. Mr. X: My daughter was more right than me regarding our equity strategy during the past year, so maybe I should give her the benefit of the doubt and wait for clearer signs of a market top. Thus far, you have focused on the U.S. market. Last year you preferred developed markets outside the U.S. on the grounds of relative valuations and relative monetary conditions. Is that still your stance? BCA: Yes it is. The economic cycle and thus the monetary cycle is far less advanced in Europe and Japan than in the U.S. This will provide extra support to these markets. At the same time, profit margins are less vulnerable outside the U.S. and, as you noted, valuations are less of a problem. In Chart 31, we show a valuation ranking of developed equity markets, based on the deviation of cyclically-adjusted PERs from their historical averages. The chart is not meant to measure the extent to which Portugal is cheap relative to the U.S., but it indicates that Portugal is trading at a PER far below its historical average while that of the U.S. is above. You can see that the "cheaper" markets tend to be outside the U.S. Japan's reading is flattered by the fact that its historical valuation was extremely high during the bubble years of the 1980s, but it still is a relatively attractive market. Chart 31Valuation Ranking Of Developed Equity Markets From a cyclical standpoint, we are still recommending overweight positions in European and Japanese stocks relative to the U.S., on a currency-hedged basis. Nevertheless, market correlations are such that a sell-off in the U.S. will be transmitted around the world (Chart 32). Chart 32When the U.S. Market Sneezes, The World Catches A Cold Ms. X: I would like to turn the focus to emerging equity markets. You have been cautious on these for several years and that worked out extremely well until 2017. I note from your regular EM reports that you have not changed your stance. Why are you staying bearish given that you see an improvement in global growth and further potential upside in developed equity prices? BCA: The emerging world did extremely well over many years when global trade was expanding rapidly, China was booming, commodity prices were in a powerful bull market and capital inflows were strong. Those trends fostered a rapid expansion in credit-fueled growth across the EM universe and meant that there was little pressure to pursue structural reforms. However, the 2007-09 economic and financial crisis marked a major turning point in the supports to EM outperformance. As we noted earlier, the era of rapid globalization has ended, marking an important regime shift. Meanwhile, China's growth rate has moderated and the secular bull market in commodities ended several years ago. We do not view the past year's rebound in commodities as the start of a major new uptrend. Many emerging equity markets remain highly leveraged to the Chinese economy and to commodity prices (Chart 33). Although we expect the Chinese economy to hold up, growth is becoming less commodity intensive. Finally, the rise in U.S. interest rates is a problem for those countries that have taken on a marked increase in foreign currency debt. This will be made even worse if the dollar appreciates. Obviously, the very term "emerging" implies that this group of countries has a lot of upside potential. However, the key to success is pursuing market-friendly reforms, rooting out corruption and investing in productive assets. Many countries pay only lip service to these issues. India is a case in point where there is growing skepticism about the Modi government's ability to deliver on major reforms. The overall EM index does not appear expensive, with the PER trading broadly in line with its historical average (Chart 34). However, as we have noted in the past, the picture is less compelling when the PER is calculated using equally-weighted sectors. The financials and materials components are trading at historically low multiples, dragging down the overall index PER. Emerging market equities will continue to rise as long as the bull market in developed markets persists, but we expect them to underperform on a relative basis. Chart 33Drivers Of EM Performance Chart 34Emerging Markets Fundamentals Mr. X: One last question on equities from me: do you have any high conviction calls on sectors? BCA: A key theme of our sector view is that cyclical stocks should outperform defensives given the mature stage of the economic cycle. We are seeing the typical late-cycle improvement in capital spending and that will benefit industrials, and we recommend an overweight stance in that sector. Technology also is a beneficiary of higher capex but of course those stocks have already risen a lot, pushing valuations to extreme levels. Thus, that sector warrants only a neutral weighting. Our two other overweights are financials and energy. The former should benefit from rising rates and a steeper yield curve while the latter will benefit from firm oil prices. If, as we fear, a recession takes hold in 2019, then obviously that would warrant a major shift back into defensive stocks. For the moment, the positive growth outlook will dominate sector performance. Ms. X: I agree that the bull market in equities, particularly in the U.S., is very mature and there are worrying signs of complacency. However, the final stages of a market cycle can sometimes be very rewarding and I would hate to miss out on what could be an exciting blow-off phase in 2018. As I mentioned earlier, my inclination is to stay heavily invested in equities for a while longer and I have confidence that BCA will give me enough of a warning when risks become unacceptably high. Of course, I will have to persuade my father and that may not be easy. Mr. X: You can say that again, but we won't bother our BCA friends with that conversation now. It's time to shift the focus to commodities and currencies and I would start by commending you on your oil call. You were far out of consensus a year ago when you said the risks to crude prices were in the upside and you stuck to your guns even as the market weakened in the first half. We made a lot of money following your energy recommendations. What is your latest thinking? Commodities And Currencies BCA: We had a lot of conviction in our analysis that the oil market would tighten during 2017 against a backdrop of rising demand and OPEC production cuts, and that view turned out to be correct. As we entered the year, the big reason to be bearish on oil prices was the bloated level of inventories. We forecast that inventories would drop to their five-year average by late 2017, and although that turned out to be a bit too optimistic, the market tightened by enough to push prices higher (Chart 35). Chart 35Oil Market Trends The forces that have pushed prices up will remain in force over the next year. Specifically, our economic view implies that demand will continue to expand, and we expect OPEC 2.0 - the producer coalition of OPEC and non-OPEC states, led by Saudi Arabia and Russia - to extend its 1.8 million b/d production cuts to at least end-June. On that basis, OECD inventories should fall below their five-year average by the end of 2018. We recently raised our 2018 oil price target to an average of $65 in 2018. Of course, the spot market is already close to that level, but the futures curve is backwardated and that is likely to change. We continue to see upside risks to prices, not least because of potential production shortfalls from Venezuela, Nigeria, Iraq and Libya. Mr. X: The big disruptor in the oil market in recent years was the dramatic expansion in U.S. shale production. Given the rise in prices, could we not see a rapid rebound in shale output that, once again, undermines prices? BCA: Our modeling indicates that U.S. shale output will increase from 5.1 mb/d to 6.0 mb/d over the next year, in response to higher prices. This is significant, but will not be enough to materially change the global oil demand/supply balance. Longer run, the expansion of U.S. shale output will certainly be enough to prevent any sustained price rise, assuming no large-scale production losses elsewhere. A recent report by the International Energy Agency projected that the U.S. is destined to become the global leader in oil and gas production for decades to come, accounting for 80% of the rise in global oil and gas supply between 2010 and 2025. Ms. X: You have suggested that China's economic growth is becoming less commodity intensive. Also, you have shown in the past that real commodity prices tend to fall over time, largely because of technological innovations. What does all this imply for base metals prices over the coming year? BCA: The base metals story will continue to be highly dependent on developments in China. While the government is attempting to engineer a shift toward less commodity-intensive growth, it also wants to reduce excess capacity in commodity-producing sectors such as coal and steel. Base metals are likely to move sideways until we get a clearer reading on the nature and speed of economic reforms. We model base metals as a function of China's PMIs and this supports our broadly neutral stance on these commodities (Chart 36). Chart 36China Drives Metals Prices Mr. X: As usual, I must end our commodity discussion by asking about gold. Last year, you agreed that an uncertain geopolitical environment coupled with continued low interest rates should support bullion prices, and that was the case with a respectable 12% gain since the end of 2016. You also suggested that I should not have more than 5% of my portfolio in gold which is less than I am inclined to own. It still looks like a gold-friendly environment to me. Ms. X: Let me just add that this is one area where my father and I agree. I do not consider myself to be a gold bug, but I think bullion does provide a good hedge against shocks in a very uncertain economic and political world. I would also be inclined to hold more than 5% of our portfolio in gold. BCA: There will be opposing forces on gold during the coming year. On the positive side, it is safe to assume that geopolitical uncertainties will persist and may even intensify, and there also is the potential for an increase in inflation expectations that would support bullion. On the negative side, rising interest rates are not normally good for gold and there likely will be an added headwind from a firmer U.S. dollar. Gold appears to be at an important point from a technical perspective (Chart 37). It currently is perched just above its 200-day average and a key trend line. A decisive drop below these levels would be bearish. At the same time, there is overhead resistance at around 1350-1360 and prices would have to break above that level to indicate a bullish breakout. Traders' sentiment is at a broadly neutral level, consistent with no clear conviction about which way prices will break. There is no science behind our recommendation of keeping gold exposure below 5%. That just seems appropriate for an asset that delivers no income and where the risk/reward balance is fairly balanced. Ms. X: You referred to the likelihood of a firmer dollar as a depressant on the gold price. You also were bullish on the dollar a year ago, but that did not work out too well. How confident are you that your forecast will fare better in 2018? BCA: We did anticipate that the dollar would experience a correction at the beginning of 2017, but we underestimated how profound this move would be. A combination of factors explains this miscalculation. Chart 37Gold At A Key Level It first began with positioning. We should have paid more attention to that fact that investors were massively bullish and long the dollar at the end of 2016, making the market vulnerable to disappointments. And disappointment did come with U.S. inflation weakening and accelerating in the euro area. Additionally, there were positive political surprises in Europe, especially the presidential victory of Emmanuel Macron in France. In the U.S., the government's failure to repeal Obamacare forced investors to lower expectations about fiscal stimulus. As a result, while investors were able to price in an earlier first hike by the ECB, they cut down the number of rate hikes they anticipated out of the Fed over the next 24 months. In terms of the current environment, positioning could not be more different because investors are aggressively shorting the dollar (Chart 38). The hurdle for the dollar to deliver positive surprises is thus much lower than a year ago. Also, we remain confident that tax cuts will be passed in the U.S. by early 2018. As we discussed earlier, U.S. GDP will remain above potential, causing inflation pressures to build. This will give the Fed the leeway to implement its planned rate hikes, and thus beat what is currently priced in the market. This development should support the dollar in 2018. Ms. X: A bullish view on the U.S. dollar necessarily implies a negative view on the euro. However, the European economy seems to have a lot of momentum, and inflation has picked up, while U.S. prices have been decelerating. To me, this suggests that the ECB also could surprise by being more hawkish than anticipated, arguing against any major weakness in the euro. BCA: The European economy has indeed done better than generally expected in the past year. Also, geopolitical risks were overstated by market participants at the beginning of 2017, leaving less reason to hide in the dollar. However, the good news in Europe is now well known and largely discounted in the market. Investors are very long the euro, by both buying EUR/USD and shorting the dollar index (Chart 39). In that sense, the euro today is where the dollar stood at the end of 2016. Chart 38Too Much Pessimism On The Dollar Chart 39Positioning Risk In EUR/USD Valuations show a similar picture. The euro might appear cheap on a long-term basis, but not so much so that its purchasing power parity estimate - which only works at extremes and over long-time periods - screams a buy. Moreover, the euro has moved out of line with historical interest rate parity relationships, warning that the currency is at risk if the economy disappoints. Overall, we expect EUR/USD to trade around 1.10 in 2018. Long-run, the picture is different because a U.S. recession in 2019 would trigger renewed broad-based weakness in the dollar. Mr. X: I have been perplexed by the yen's firmness in the past year, with the currency still above its end-2016 level versus the dollar. I expected a lot more weakness with the central bank capping bond yields at zero and more or less monetizing the government deficit. A year ago you also predicted a weak yen. Will it finally drop in 2018? BCA: We were not completely wrong on the yen as it has weakened over the past year on a trade-weighted basis and currently is about 2% below its end-2016 level. But it has risen slightly against the U.S. dollar. In the past couple of years, the yen/dollar rate has been highly correlated with real bond yield differentials (Chart 40). These did not move against the yen as much as we expected because U.S. yields drifted lower and there was no major change in relative inflation expectations. Chart 40Bond Yield Differentials Drive The Yen The real yield gap is likely to move in the dollar's favor over the next year, putting some downward pressure on the yen. Meanwhile, the Bank of Japan will continue to pursue a hyper-easy monetary stance, in contrast to the Fed's normalization policy. However, it is not all negative: the yen is cheap on a long-term basis, and Japan is an international net creditor to the tune of more than 60% of GDP. Investors are also quite short the yen as it remains a key funding currency for carry trades. Thus, it will continue to benefit each time global markets are gripped with bouts of volatility. It remains a good portfolio hedge. Ms. X: Are any other currency views worth noting? BCA: The outlook for sterling obviously will be tied to the Brexit negotiations. Having fallen sharply after the Brexit vote, sterling looks cheap relative to its history. This has allowed it to hold in a broad trading range over the past 18 months, even though the negotiations with the EU have not been going well. At this stage, it is hard to know what kind of deal, if any, will emerge regarding Brexit so we would hedge exposure to sterling. Our optimism toward the oil price is consistent with a firm Canadian dollar, but developments in the NAFTA negotiations represent a significant risk. At the moment, we are overweight the Canadian dollar, but that could change if the NAFTA talks end badly. We still can't get enthusiastic about emerging market currencies even though some now offer reasonable value after falling sharply over the past few years. Mr. X: We can't leave currencies without talking about Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies in general. I like the idea of a currency that cannot be printed at will by governments. There are too many examples of currency debasement under a fiat money system and the actions of central banks in recent years have only served to increase my mistrust of the current monetary system. But I can't profess to fully understand how these cryptocurrencies work and that makes me nervous about investing in them. What are your thoughts? BCA: You are right to be nervous. There have been numerous cases of hackers stealing Bitcoins and other cryptocurrencies. Also, while there is a limit to the number of Bitcoins that can be issued, there is no constraint on the number of possible cryptocurrencies that can be created. Thus, currency debasement is still possible if developers continue creating currencies that are only cosmetically different from the ones already in existence. Moreover, we doubt that governments will sit idly by and allow these upstart digital currencies to become increasingly prevalent. The U.S. Treasury derives $70 billion a year in seigniorage revenue from its ability to issue currency which it can then redeem for goods and services. At some point, governments could simply criminalize the use of cryptocurrencies. This does not mean that Bitcoin prices cannot rise further, but the price trend is following the path of other manias making it a highly speculative play (Chart 41). If you want more detail about our thoughts on this complex topic then you can read the report we published last September.2 Chart 41Bitcoin Looks Like Other Bubbles Ms. X: I don't fear bubbles and manias as much as my father and have made a lot of money during such episodes in the past. But I am inclined to agree that Bitcoin is best avoided. The topic of manic events presents a nice segue into the geopolitical environment which seems as volatile as ever. Geopolitics Ms. X: Which geopolitical events do you think will have the biggest impact on the markets over the coming year? BCA: Domestic politics in the U.S. and China will be very much in focus in 2018. In the U.S., as we discussed, the Republicans will pass tax cuts but it is unclear whether this will help the GOP in the November midterm elections. At this point, all of our data and modeling suggests that Democrats have a good chance of picking up the House of Representatives, setting a stage for epic battles with President Trump about everything under the sun. In China, we are watching carefully for any sign that Beijing is willing to stomach economic pain in the pursuit of economic reforms. The two reforms that would matter the most are increased financial regulation and more aggressive purging of excess capacity in the industrial sector. The 19th Party Congress marked a serious reduction in political constraints impeding President Xi's domestic agenda. This means he could launch ambitious reforms, akin to what President Jiang Zemin did in the late 1990s. While this is a low-conviction view, and requires constant monitoring of the news and data flow out of China, it would be a considerable risk to global growth. Reforms would be good for China's long-term outlook, but could put a significant damper on short-term growth. The jury is out, but the next several months will be crucial. Three other issues that could become market-relevant are the ongoing North Korean nuclear crisis, trade protectionism, and tensions between the Trump administration and Iran. The first two are connected because a calming of tensions with North Korea would give the U.S. greater maneuvering room against China. The ongoing economic détente between the U.S. and China is merely a function of President Trump needing President Xi's cooperation on pressuring North Korea. But if President Trump no longer needs China's help with Kim Jong-Un, he may be encouraged to go after China on trade. As for Iran, it is not yet clear if the administration is serious about ratcheting up tensions or whether it is playing domestic politics. We suspect it is the latter implying that the market impact of any brinkmanship will be minor. But our conviction view is low. Mr. X: We seem to be getting mixed messages regarding populist pressures in Europe. The far right did not do as well as expected in the Netherlands or France, but did well in Austria. Also, Merkel is under some pressure in Germany. BCA: We don't see much in the way of mixed messages, at least when it comes to support for European integration. In Austria, the populists learned a valuable lesson from the defeats of their peers in the Netherlands and France: stay clear of the euro. Thus the Freedom Party committed itself to calling a referendum on Austria's EU membership if Turkey was invited to join the bloc. As the probability of that is literally zero, the right-wing in Austria signaled to the wider public that it was not anti-establishment on the issue of European integration. In Germany, the Alternative for Germany only gained 12.6%, but it too focused on an anti-immigration platform. The bottom line for investors is that the European anti-establishment right is falling over itself to de-emphasize its Euroskepticism and focus instead on anti-immigration policies. For investors, the former is far more relevant than the latter, meaning that the market relevance of European politics has declined. One potential risk in 2018 is the Italian election, likely to be held by the end of the first quarter. However, as with Austria, the anti-establishment parties have all moved away from overt Euroskepticism. At some point over the next five years, Italy will be a source of market risk, but in this electoral cycle and not with economic growth improving. Ms. X: The tensions between the U.S. and North Korea, fueled by two unpredictable leaders, have me very concerned. I worry that name-calling may slide into something more serious. How serious is the threat? BCA: The U.S.-Iran nuclear negotiations are a good analog for the North Korean crisis. The U.S. had to establish a "credible threat" of war in order to move Iran towards negotiations. As such, the Obama administration ramped up the war rhetoric - using Israel as a proxy - in 2011-2012. The negotiations with Iran did not end until mid-2015, almost four years later. We likely have seen the peak in "credible threat" display this summer between the U.S. and North Korea. The next two-to-three months could revisit those highs as North Korea responds to President Trump's visit to the region, as well as to the deployment of the three U.S. aircraft carriers off the coast of the Korean Peninsula. However, we believe that we have entered the period of "negotiations." It is too early to tell how the North Korean crisis will end. We do not see a full out war between either of the main actors. We also do not see North Korea ever giving up its nuclear arsenal, although limiting its ballistic technology and toning down its "fire and brimstone' rhetoric is a must. The bottom line is that this issue will remain a source of concern and uncertainty for a while longer. Conclusions Mr. X: This seems a good place to end our discussion. We have covered a lot of ground and your views have reinforced my belief that it would make good sense to start lowering the risk in our portfolio. I know that such a policy could leave money on the table as there is a reasonable chance that equity prices may rise further. But that is a risk I am prepared to take. Ms. X: I foresee some interesting discussions with my father when we get back to our office. At the risk of sounding reckless, I remain inclined to stay overweight equities for a while longer. I am sympathetic to the view that the era of hyper-easy money is ending and at some point that may cause a problem for risk assets. However, timing is important because, in my experience, the final stages of a bull market can deliver strong gains. BCA: Good luck with those discussions! We have similar debates within BCA between those who want to maximize short-run returns and those who take a longer-term view. Historically, BCA has had a conservative bias toward investment strategy and the bulk of evidence suggests that this is one of these times when long-run investors should focus on preservation of capital rather than stretching for gains. Our thinking also is influenced by our view that long-run returns will be very poor from current market levels. Our estimates indicate that a balanced portfolio will deliver average returns of only 3.3% a year over the coming decade, or 1.3% after inflation (Table 3). That is down from the 4% and 1.9% nominal and real annual returns that we estimated a year ago, reflecting the current more adverse starting point for valuations. There is a negligible equity risk premium on offer, implying that stock prices have to fall at some point to establish higher prospective returns. Table 310-Year Asset Return Projections The return calculations for equities assume profit margins decline modestly over the period and that multiples mean revert to their historical average. These assumptions may turn out to be too pessimistic if there is no redistribution of income shares from the corporate sector back to labor and/or PERs stay at historically high levels. In that case, equities obviously would do better than our estimates. In terms of the outlook for the coming year, a lot will depend on the pace of economic growth. We are assuming that growth is strong enough to encourage central banks to keep moving away from hyper-easy policies, setting up for a collision with markets. If growth slows enough that recession fears spike, then that also would be bad for risk assets. Sustaining the bull market requires a goldilocks growth outcome of not too hot and not too cold. That is possible, but we would not make it our base case scenario. Ms. X: You have left us with much to think about and I am so glad to have finally attended one of these meetings. My father has always looked forward to these discussions every year and I am very happy to be joining him. Many thanks for taking the time to talk to us. Before we go, it would be helpful to have a recap of your key views. BCA: That will be our pleasure. The key points are as follows: The environment of easy money, low inflation and healthy profit growth that has been so bullish for risk assets will start to change during the coming year. Financial conditions, especially in the U.S., will gradually tighten as decent growth leads to building inflation pressures, encouraging central banks to withdraw stimulus. With U.S. equities at an overvalued extreme and investor sentiment overly optimistic, this will set the scene for an eventual collision between policy and the markets. The conditions underpinning the bull market will erode only slowly which means that risk asset prices should continue to rise for at least the next six months. However, long-run investors should start shifting to a neutral exposure. Given our economic and policy views, there is a good chance that we will move to an underweight position in risk assets during the second half of 2018. The U.S. economy is already operating above potential and thus does not need any boost from easier fiscal policy. Any major tax cuts risk overheating the economy, encouraging the Federal Reserve to hike interest rates and boosting the odds of a recession in 2019. This is at odds with the popular view that tax cuts will be good for the equity market. A U.S. move to scrap NAFTA would add to downside risks. For the second year in a row, the IMF forecasts of economic growth for the coming year are likely to prove too pessimistic. The end of fiscal austerity has allowed the euro area economy to gather steam and this should be sustained in 2018. However, the slow progress in negotiating a Brexit deal with the EU poses a threat to the U.K. economy. China's economy is saddled with excessive debt and excess capacity in a number of areas. Any other economy would have collapsed by now, but the government has enough control over banking and other sectors to prevent a crisis. Growth should hold above 6% in the next year or two, although much will depend on how aggressively President Xi pursues painful reforms. The market is too optimistic in assuming that the Fed will not raise interest rates by as much as indicated in their "dots" projections. There is a good chance that the U.S. yield curve will become flat or inverted by late 2018. Bonds are not an attractive investment at current yields. Only Greece and Portugal currently have 10-year government bond real yields above their historical average. Corporate bonds should outperform governments, but a tightening in financial conditions will put these at risk in the second half of 2018. The euro area and Japanese equity markets should outperform the U.S. over the next year reflecting their better valuations and more favorable financial conditions. Developed markets should outperform the emerging market index. Historically, the U.S. equity market has led recessions by between 3 and 12 months. If, as we fear, a U.S. recession starts in the second half of 2019, then the stock market would be at risk from the middle of 2018. The improving trend in capital spending should favor industrial stocks. Our other two overweight sectors are energy and financials. The oil price will be well supported by strong demand and output restraint by OPEC and Russia. The Brent price should average $65 a barrel over the coming year, with risks to the upside. We expect base metals prices to trade broadly sideways but will remain highly dependent on developments in China. Modest positions in gold are warranted. Relative economic and policy trends will favor a firm dollar in 2018. Unlike at the start of 2017, investors are significantly short the dollar which is bullish from a contrary perspective. Sterling is quite cheap but Brexit poses downside risks. The key market-relevant geopolitical events to monitor will be fiscal policy and mid-term elections in the U.S., and reform policies in China. With the former, the Democrats have a good chance of winning back control of the House of Representatives, creating a scenario of complete policy gridlock. A balanced portfolio is likely to generate average returns of only 3.3% a year in nominal terms over the next decade. This compares to average returns of around 10% a year between 1982 and 2017. Let us take this opportunity to wish you and all of our clients a very peaceful, healthy and prosperous New Year. The Editors November 20, 2017 1 This comprises consumer spending on durables, housing and business investment in equipment and software. 2 Please see 'Bitcoin's Macro Impact', BCA Global Investment Strategy Special Report, September 15, 2017.

Mr. X is a long-time BCA client who visits our offices toward the end of each year to discuss the economic and financial market outlook. This year, Mr. X introduced us to his daughter, who we shall identify as Ms. X. She has many years of experience as a portfolio manager, initially in a wealth management firm, and subsequently in two major hedge funds. In 2017, she joined her father to help him run the family office portfolio. She took an active role in our recent discussion and this report is an edited transcript of our conversation. Mr. X: As always, it is a great pleasure to sit down with you to discuss the economic and investment outlook. And I am thrilled to bring my daughter to the meeting. She and I do not always agree on the market outlook and appropriate investment strategy, but even in her first year working with me she has added tremendous value to our decisions and performance. As you know, I have a very conservative bias in my approach and this means I sometimes miss out on opportunities. My daughter is more willing than me to take risks, so we make a good team. I am happy that our investment portfolio has performed well over the past year, but am puzzled by the high level of investor complacency. I can't understand why investors do not share my concerns about by sky-high valuations, a volatile geopolitical environment and the considerable potential for financial instability. Over the years, you have made me appreciate the power of easy money to create financial bubbles and also that market overshoots can last for a surprisingly long time. Thus, I am fully aware that we could easily have another year of strong gains, but were that to happen, I would worry about the potential for a sudden 1987-style crash. I remember that event well and it was an unpleasant experience. My inclination is to move right now to an underweight equity position. Ms. X: Let me add that I am delighted to finally attend the annual BCA meeting with my father. Over the years, he has talked to me at length about your discussions, making me very jealous that I was not there. He and I do frequently disagree about the outlook so it will be good to have BCA's independent and objective perspective. As my father noted, I do not always share his cautious bias. When I joined the family firm in early 2017, I persuaded him to raise our equity exposure and that was the right decision. I have been in the business long enough to know that it is dangerous to get more bullish as the market rises and I agree there probably is too much complacency. However, I do not see an early end to the conditions that are driving the bull market and I am inclined to stay overweight equities for a while longer. Thus, the big debate between us is whether or not we should now book profits from the past year's strong performance and move to an underweight stance in risk assets. Hopefully, this meeting will help us make the right decision. Chart 1An Impressive Bull Market BCA: First of all, we are delighted to see you both and look forward to getting to know Ms. X in the years to come. It is not a surprise that you are debating whether to cut exposure to risk assets because that question is on the mind of many of our clients. We share your surprise about complacency - investors have been seduced by the relentless upward drift of prices since early 2016. The global equity index has not suffered any setback above 2% during the past year, and that has to be close to a record (Chart 1). The conditions that have underpinned this remarkable performance are indeed still in place but we expect that to change during the coming year. Thus, if equity prices continue to rise, it would make sense to reduce exposure to risk assets to a neutral position over the next few months. A blow-off phase with a final spike in prices cannot be ruled out, but trying to catch those moves is a very high-risk strategy. We are not yet recommending underweight positions in risk assets, but if our economic and policy views pan out, we likely will shift in that direction in the second half of 2018. Ms. X: It seems that you are siding with my father in terms of wanting to scale back exposure to risk assets. That would be premature in my view and I look forward to discussing this in more detail. But first, I would be interested in reviewing your forecasts from last year. BCA: Of course. A year ago, our key conclusions were that: A number of important regime shifts will impact the economic and investment outlook over the next few years. These include the end of the era of falling inflation and interest rates, a move away from fiscal conservatism, a policy pushback against globalization, and a rise in the labor share of income at the expense of profit margins. Together with an earlier regime shift when the Debt Supercycle ended, these trends are consistent with very modest returns from financial assets over the next decade. The failure of low interest rates to trigger a vigorous rebound in private credit growth is consistent with our end-of-Debt Supercycle thesis. The end point for dealing with high debt levels may ultimately be sharply higher inflation, but only after the next downturn triggers a new deflationary scare. The potential for trade restrictions by the incoming U.S. administration poses a threat to the outlook, but the odds of a global trade war are low. Time lags in implementing policy mean that the fiscal plans of President-elect Trump will boost U.S. growth in 2018 more than 2017. This raises the risk of an overheated economy in 2018 leading to a monetary squeeze and recession in 2019. The key issue will be whether the supply side of the economy expands alongside increased demand and it will be critical to monitor business capital spending. Lingering structural problems will prevent any growth acceleration outside the U.S. The euro area and emerging economies are still in the midst of a deleveraging cycle and demographics remain a headwind for Japan. Not many countries will follow the U.S. example of fiscal stimulus. Nevertheless, for the first time since the recovery began, global growth forecasts are likely avoid a downgrade over the next couple of years. China remains an unbalanced and fragile economy but the authorities have enough policy flexibility to avoid a hard landing, at least over the year or two. The longer-run outlook is more bearish unless the government moves away from its stop-go policy approach and pursues more supply-side reforms. Inflation has bottomed in the U.S., but the upturn will be gradual in 2017 and it will stay subdued in the euro area and Japan. Divergences in monetary policy between the U.S. and other developed economies will continue to build in 2017 as the Fed tightens and other central banks stay on hold. Unlike a year ago, the Fed's rate expectations look reasonable. Bond yields in the U.S. may fall in the near run after their recent sharp rise, but the cyclical trend is up against a backdrop of monetary tightening, fiscal stimulus and rising inflation. Yields in the euro area will be held down by ongoing QE, while the 10-year yield will stay capped at zero in Japan. The secular bull market in bonds is over although yields could retest their recent lows in the next downturn. The search for yield will remain an important investment theme, but rich valuations dictate only a neutral weighting in investment-grade corporate bonds and a modest underweight in high-yielders. The U.S. equity market is modestly overvalued but the conditions are ripe for an overshoot in 2017 given optimism about a boost to profits from the new administration's policies. Earnings expectations are far too high and ignore the likelihood that rising labor costs will squeeze margins. Nevertheless, that need not preclude equity prices moving higher. There is a good chance of a sell-off in early 2017 and that would be a buying opportunity. Valuations are better in Japan and several European markets than in the U.S. and relative monetary conditions also favor these markets. We expect the U.S. to underperform in 2017. We expect emerging markets to underperform developed markets. The oil price should average around $55 a barrel over the next one or two years, with some risk to the upside. Although shale production should increase, the cutbacks in oil industry capital spending and planned production cuts by OPEC and some other producers will ensure that inventories will have to be drawn down in the second half of 2017. Non-oil commodity prices will stay in a trading range after healthy gains in 2016, but the long-run outlook is still bearish. The dollar bull market should stay intact over the coming year with the trade-weighted index rising by around 5%. Relative policy stances and economic trends should all stay supportive of the dollar. The outlook for the yen is especially gloomy. A stabilization in resource prices will keep commodity prices in a range. We remain bearish on EM currencies. The biggest geopolitical risks relate to U.S.-China relations, especially given President-elect Trump's inclination to engage in China-bashing. Meanwhile, the defeat of ISIS could create a power vacuum in the Middle East that could draw Turkey into a disastrous conflict with the Kurds and Iran/Russia. The coming year is important for elections in Europe but we do not expect any serious threat to the EU or single currency to emerge. The most important prediction that we got right was our view that conditions were ripe for an overshoot in equity prices. The MSCI all-country index has delivered an impressive total return of around 20% in dollar terms since the end of 2016, one of the best calendar year performances of the current cycle (Table 1). So it was good that your daughter persuaded you to keep a healthy equity exposure. It is all the more impressive that the market powered ahead in the face of all the concerns that you noted earlier. Our preference for European markets over the U.S. worked out well in common currency terms, but only because the dollar declined. Emerging markets did much better than we expected, with significant outperformance relative to their developed counterparts. Table 1Market Performance With regard to the overall economic environment, we were correct in forecasting a modest improvement in 2017 global economic activity and that growth would not fall short of the IMF's predictions for the first time in the current expansion. However, one big surprise, not only for us, but also for policymakers, was that inflation drifted lower in the major economies. Latest data show the core inflation rate for the G7 economies is running at only 1.4%, down from 1.6% at the end of 2016. We will return to this critical issue later as the trend in inflation outlook will be a key determinant of the market outlook for the coming year and beyond. Regionally, the Euro area and Japanese economies registered the biggest upside surprises relative to our forecast and those of the IMF (Table 2). That goes a long way to explaining why the U.S. dollar was weaker than we expected. In addition, the dollar was not helped by a market downgrading of the scale and timing of U.S. fiscal stimulus. Nonetheless, it is worth noting that the dollar has merely unwound the 2016 Trump rally and recently has shown some renewed strength. Table 2IMF Economic Forecasts A year ago, there were major concerns about potential political turmoil from important elections in Europe, the risk of U.S.-led trade wars and a credit bust-up in China. We downplayed these issues as near-term threats to the markets and that turned out to be appropriate. Nevertheless, there are many lingering risks to the outlook and market complacency is a much bigger concern now than it was a year ago. Mr. X: As you just noted, a key theme of your Outlook last year was "Shifting Regimes" such as the end of disinflation and fiscal conservatism, a retreat from globalization, and the start of a rebalancing in income shares away from profits toward labor. And of course, you talked about the End of the Debt Supercycle a few years ago. Do you still have confidence that these regime shifts are underway? BCA: Absolutely! These are all trends that we expect to play out over a number of years and thus can't be judged by short-term developments. There have been particularly important shifts in the policy environment. The 2007-09 economic and financial meltdown led central banks to fight deflation rather than inflation and we would not bet against them in this battle. Inflation has been lower than expected, but there has been a clear turning point. On fiscal policy, governments have largely given up on austerity against a background of a disappointingly slow economic recovery in recent years and rising populist pressures (Chart 2). The U.S. budget deficit could rise particularly sharply over the next few years. In the U.S., the relative income shares going to profits and labor have started to shift direction, but there is a long way to go. Finally, the same forces driving government to loosen fiscal purse strings have also undermined support for globalization with the U.S. even threatening to abandon NAFTA. The ratio of global trade to output has trended sideways for several years and is unlikely to turn higher any time soon. All these trends are part of our Regime Shift thesis. Chart 2Regime Shifts The remarkable macro backdrop of low inflation, easy money and healthy profits has been incredibly positive for financial markets in recent years. You would have to be an extreme optimist to believe that such an environment will persist. Our big concern for the coming year is that we are setting up for a collision between the markets and looming changes in economic policy. The Coming Collision Between Policy And The Markets BCA: As you mentioned earlier, we attach enormous importance to the role of easy money in supporting asset prices and it is hard to imagine that we could have had a more stimulative monetary environment than has existed in recent years. Central banks have been in panic mode since the 2007-09 downturn with an unprecedented period of negative real interest rates in the advanced economies, coupled with an extraordinary expansion of central bank balance sheets (Chart 3). Initially, the fear was for another Great Depression and as that threat receded, the focus switched to getting inflation back to the 2% target favored by most developed countries. In a post-Debt Supercycle world, negative real rates have failed to trigger the typical rebound in credit demand that was so characteristic of the pre-downturn era. Central banks have expanded base money in the form of bank reserves, but this has not translated into markedly faster growth in broad money or nominal GDP. This is highlighted by the collapse in money multipliers (the ratio of broad to base money) and in velocity (the ratio of GDP to broad money). This has been a double whammy: there is less broad money generated for each dollar of base money and less GDP for every dollar of broad money (Chart 4). Chart 3An Extraordinary Period Of Easy Money Chart 4Monetary Policy: Pushing On A String Historically, monetary policy acted primarily through the credit channel with lower rates making households and companies more willing to borrow, and lenders more willing to supply funds. In the post-Debt Supercycle world, the credit channel has become partly blocked, forcing policymakers to rely more on the other channels of monetary transmission, the main one being boosting asset prices. However, there is a limit to how far this can go because the end result is massively overvalued assets and building financial excesses. The Fed and many other central banks now realize that this strategy cannot be pushed much further. The economic recovery in the U.S. and other developed economies has been the weakest of the post-WWII period. But potential growth rates also have slowed which means that spare capacity has gradually been absorbed. According to the IMF, the U.S. output gap closed in 2015 having been as high as 2% of potential GDP in 2013. The IMF estimates that the economy was operating slightly above potential in 2017 with a further rise forecast in 2018 (Chart 5). According to IMF estimates, the median output gap for 20 advanced economies will shift from -0.1% in 2017 to +0.3% in 2018 (i.e. they will be operating above potential). This makes it hard to justify the maintenance of hyper-stimulative monetary policies. Chart 5No More Output Gaps The low U.S. inflation rate is giving the Fed the luxury of moving cautiously and that is keeping the markets buoyant. Indeed, the markets don't even believe the Fed will be able to raise rates as much they expect. The most recent FOMC projections show a median federal funds rate of 2.1% by the end of 2018 but the markets are discounting a move to only 1.8%. The markets probably have this wrong because inflation is likely to wake up from its slumber in the second half of the year. Ms. X: This is another area where my father and I disagree. I view the world as essentially deflationary. We all know that technological innovations have opened up competition in a lot of markets, driving down prices. Two obvious examples are Uber and Airbnb, but these are just the tip of the iceberg. Amazon's purchase of Whole Foods is another example of how increased competitive pressures will continue to sweep through previously relatively stable industries. And such changes have an important impact on employee psychology and thus bargaining power. These days, people are glad to just keep their jobs and this means companies hold the upper hand when it comes to wage negotiations. So I don't see a pickup in inflation being a threat to the markets any time soon. Mr. X: I have a different perspective. First of all, I do not even believe the official inflation data because most of the things I buy have risen a lot in price over the past couple of years. Secondly, given the extremely stimulative stance of monetary policy in recent years, a pickup in inflation would not surprise me at all. So I am sympathetic to the BCA view. But, even if the data is correct, why have inflation forecasts proved so wrong and what underpins your view that it will increase in the coming year? BCA: There is an interesting disconnect between the official data and the inflation views of many consumers and economic/statistics experts. According to the Conference Board, U.S. consumers' one-year ahead inflation expectations have persistently exceeded the published data and the latest reading is close to 5% (Chart 6). That ties in with your perception. Consumer surveys by the New York Fed and University of Michigan have year-ahead inflation expectations at a more reasonable 2.5%. At the same time, many "experts" believe the official data is overstated because it fails to take enough account of technological changes and new lower-priced goods and services. The markets also have a moderately optimistic view with the five-year CPI swap rate at 2%. This is optimistic because it is consistent with inflation below the Fed's 2% target, if one allows for an inflation risk premium built in to the swap price. We are prepared to take the inflation data broadly at face value. Low inflation is consistent with an ongoing tough competitive environment in most sectors, boosted by the disruptive impact of technological changes that Ms. X described. The inflation rate for core goods (ex-food and energy) has been in negative territory for several years while that for services ex-shelter is at the low end of its historical range (Chart 7). Chart 6Differing Perspectives Of Inflation Chart 7Not Much Inflation Here There is no simple explanation of why inflation has fallen short of forecasts. Economic theory assumes that price pressures build as an economy moves closer to full employment and the U.S. is at that point. This raises several possibilities: There is more slack in the economy than suggested by the low unemployment rate. The lags are unusually long in the current cycle. Technological disruption is having a greater impact than expected. The link between economic slack and inflationary pressures is typically captured by the Phillips Curve which shows the relationship between the unemployment rate and inflation. In the U.S., the current unemployment rate of 4.1% is believed to be very close to a full-employment level. Yet, inflation recently has trended lower and while wage growth is in an uptrend, it has remained softer than expected (Chart 8). Chart 8Inflationary Pressures Are Turning We agree with Ms. X that employee bargaining power has been undermined over the years by globalization and technological change and by the impact of the 2007-09 economic downturn. That would certainly explain a weakened relationship between the unemployment rate and wage growth, but does not completely negate the theory. The historical evidence still suggests that once the labor market becomes tight, inflation eventually does accelerate. A broad range of data indicates that the U.S. labor market is indeed tight and the Atlanta Fed's wage tracker is in an uptrend, albeit modestly. Two other factors consistent with an end to disinflation are the lagged effects of dollar weakness and a firming in oil prices. Non-oil prices have now moved decisively out of deflationary territory while oil prices in 2017 have averaged more than 20% above year-ago levels. As far as the impact of technology is concerned, there is no doubt that innovations like Uber and Airbnb are deflationary. However, our analysis suggests that the growth in online spending has not had a major impact on the inflation numbers. E-commerce still represents a small fraction of total U.S. consumer spending, depressing overall consumer inflation by only 0.1 to 0.2 percentage points. The deceleration of inflation since the global financial crisis has been in areas largely unaffected by online sales, such as energy and rent. Moreover, today's creative destruction in the retail sector is no more deflationary than the earlier shift to 'big box' stores. We are not looking for a dramatic acceleration in either wage growth or inflation - just enough to convince the Fed that it needs to carry on with its plan to raise interest rates. And the pressure to do this will increase if the Administration is able to deliver on its planned tax cuts. Ms. X: You make it sound as if cutting taxes would be a bad thing. Surely the U.S. would benefit from the Administration's tax plan? A reduction in the corporate tax rate would be very bullish for equities. BCA: The U.S. tax system is desperately in need of reform via eliminating loopholes and distortions and using the savings to lower marginal rates. That would make it more efficient and hopefully boost the supply side of the economy without undermining revenues. However, the economy does not need stimulus from net tax giveaways given that it is operating close to potential. That would simply boost demand relative to supply, create overheating, and give the Fed more reason to get aggressive. The Republican's initial tax plan has some good elements of reform such as cutting back the personal mortgage interest deduction, eliminating some other deductions and making it less attractive for companies to shift operations overseas. However, many of these proposals are unlikely to survive the lobbying efforts of special interest groups. The net result probably will be tax giveaways without much actual reform. Importantly, there is not a strong case for personal tax cuts given that a married worker on the average wage and with two children paid an average income tax rate of only 14% in 2016, according to OECD calculations. There inevitably will be contentious negotiations in Congress but we assume that the Republicans will eventually come together to pass some tax cuts by early next year. The combination of easier fiscal policy and Fed rate hikes will be bullish for the dollar and this will contribute to tighter overall financial conditions. That is why we see a coming collision between economic policy and the markets. The narrative for the so-called Trump rally in markets was based on the assumption that the Administration's platform of increased spending, tax cuts and reduced regulations would be bullish for the economy and thus risk assets. That was always a misplaced notion. The perfect environment for markets has been moderate economic growth, low inflation and easy money. The Trump agenda would be appropriate for an economy that had a lot of spare capacity and needed a big boost in demand. It is less suited for an economy with little spare capacity. Reduced regulations and lower corporate tax rates are good for the supply side of the economy and could boost the potential growth rate. However, if a key move is large personal tax cuts then the boost to demand will dominate. Mr. X: It seems that you are making the case for a serious policy error in the U.S. in the coming year - both on fiscal and monetary policy. I can't argue against that because everything that has happened over the past few years tells me that policymakers don't have a good grip on either the economy or the implications of their actions. I never believed that printing money and creating financial bubbles was a sensible approach to an over-indebted economy. I always expected it to end badly. BCA: Major tightening cycles frequently end in recession because monetary policy is a very blunt tool. Central banks would like to raise rates by just enough to cool things down but that is hard to achieve. The problem with fiscal policy is that implementation lags mean that it often is pro-cyclical. In other words, there is pressure for fiscal stimulus in a downturn, but by the time legislation is passed, the economy typically has already recovered and does not really need a big fiscal boost. And that certainly applies to the current environment. The other area of potential policy error is on trade. Having already pulled the U.S. out of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the Trump Administration is taking a hardline attitude toward a renegotiation of NAFTA. This could even end up with the deal being scrapped and that would add another element of risk to the North American economies. Ms. X: Your scenario assumes that the Fed will be quite hawkish. However, everything I have read about Jerome Powell, the new Fed chair, suggests that he will err on the side of caution when it comes to raising rates. So monetary policy may not collide with markets at all over the coming year. BCA: It is certainly true that Powell does not have any particular bias when it comes to the conduct of monetary policy. That would not have been the case if either John Taylor or Kevin Warsh had been given the job - they both have a hawkish bias. Powell is not an economist so will likely follow a middle path and be heavily influenced by the Fed's staff forecasts and by the opinions of other FOMC members. There are still several vacancies on the Fed's Board so much will depend on who is appointed to those positions. The latest FOMC forecasts are for growth and inflation of only 2% in 2018 and these numbers seem too low. Meanwhile, the prediction that unemployment will still be at 4.1% at end-2018 is too high. We expect projections of growth and inflation to be revised up and unemployment to be revised down. That will embolden the Fed to keep raising rates. So, even with Powell at the helm, monetary policy is set to get tighter than the market currently expects. Ms. X: So far, we have talked mainly about the U.S. What about other central banks? I can't believe that inflation will be much of a problem in the euro area or in Japan any time soon. Does that not mean that the overall global monetary environment will stay favorable for risk assets? BCA: The Fed is at the leading edge of the shift away from extreme monetary ease by hiking interest rates and starting the process of balance sheet reduction. But the Bank of Canada also has raised rates and the ECB has announced that it will cut its asset purchases in half beginning January 2018, as a first step in normalizing policy. Even the Bank of England has raised rates despite Brexit-related downside risks for the economy. The BoJ will keep an accommodative stance for the foreseeable future. You are correct that financial conditions will be tightening more in the U.S. than in other developed economies. Moreover, equity valuations are more stretched in the U.S. than elsewhere leaving that market especially vulnerable. Yet, market correlations are such that any sell-off in U.S. risk assets is likely to become a global affair. Another key issue relates to the potential for financial shocks. Long periods of extreme monetary ease always fuel excesses and sometimes these remain hidden until they blow up. We know that companies have taken on a lot of debt, largely to fund financial transactions such as share buybacks and merger and acquisitions activity. That is unlikely to be the direct cause of a financial accident but might well become a problem in the next downturn. It typically is increased leverage within the financial sector itself that poses the greatest risk and that is very opaque. The banking system is much better capitalized than before the 2007-09 downturn so the risks lie elsewhere. As would be expected, margin debt has climbed higher with the equity market, and is at a historically high level relative to market capitalization (Chart 9). We don't have good data on the degree of leverage among non-bank financial institutions such as hedge funds but that is where leverage surprises are likely to occur. And the level of interest rates that causes financial stress is almost certainly to be a lot lower than in the past. Chart 9Financial Leverage Has Risen Mr. X: That is the perfect lead-in to my perennial concern - the high level of debt in the major economies. I realize high debt levels are not a problem when interest rates are close to zero, but that will change if your view on the Fed is correct. Ms. X: I would just add that this is one area where I share my father's concerns, but with an important caveat. I wholeheartedly agree that high debt levels pose a threat to economic and financial stability, but I see this as a long-term issue. Even with rising interest rates, debt servicing costs will stay low for at least the next year. It seems to me that rates will have to rise a lot before debt levels in the major economies pose a serious threat to the system. Even if the Fed tightens policy in line with its plans, real short rates will still stay low by historical standards. This will not only keep debt financing manageable but will also sustain the search for yield and support equity prices. BCA: We would be disappointed if you both had not raised the issue of debt. Debt levels do indeed remain very elevated among advanced and emerging economies (Chart 10). The growth in private debt remains far below pre-crisis levels in the advanced countries, but this has been offset by the continued high level of government borrowing. As a result, the total debt-to-GDP ratio has stayed close to a peak. And both private and public debt ratios have climbed to new highs in the emerging economies, with China leading the charge. Chart 10ADebt Levels Remain Elevated Chart 10BDebt Levels Remain Elevated As we have discussed in the past, there is not an inconsistency between our End of Debt Supercycle thesis and the continued high levels of debt in most countries. As noted earlier, record-low interest rates have not triggered the kind of private credit resurgence that occurred in the pre-crisis period. For example, household borrowing has remained far below historical levels as a percent of income in the U.S., despite low borrowing costs (Chart 11). At the same time, it is not a surprise that debt-to-income ratios are high given the modest growth in nominal incomes in most countries. Chart 11Low Rates Have Not Triggered ##br##A Borrowing Surge In U.S. Debt growth is not benign everywhere. In the developed world, Canada's debt growth is worryingly high, both in the household and corporate sectors. As is also the case with Australia, Canada's overheated housing market has fueled rapid growth in mortgage debt. These are accidents waiting to happen when borrowing costs increase. In the emerging word, China has yet to see the end of its Debt Supercycle. Fortunately, with most banks under state control, the authorities should be able to contain any systemic risks, at least in the near run. With regard to timing, we agree that debt levels are not likely to pose an economic or financial problem in next year. It is right to point out that debt-servicing costs are very low by historical standards and it will take time for rising rates to have an impact given that a lot of debt is locked in at low rates. For example, in the U.S., the ratio of household debt-servicing to income and the non-financial business sector's ratio of interest payments to EBITD are at relatively benign levels (Chart 12). However, changes occur at the margin and the example of the Bernanke taper tantrum highlighted investor sensitivity to even modest changes in the monetary environment. You may well be right Ms. X that risk assets will continue to climb higher in the face of a tighter financial conditions. But given elevated valuations, we lean toward a cautious rather than aggressive approach to strategy. We would rather leave some money on the table than risk being caught in a sudden downdraft. Other investors, including yourself, might prefer to wait for clearer signals that a turning point is imminent. Returning to the issue of indebtedness, the end-game for high debt levels continues to be a topic of intense interest. There really are only three options: to grow out of it, to write it off, or to try and inflate it away. The first option obviously would be best - to have fast enough growth in real incomes that allowed debtors to start paying down their debt. Unfortunately, that is the least likely prospect given adverse demographic trends throughout the developed world and disappointing productivity growth (Chart 13). Chart 12Borrowing Costs Are Benign Chart 13It's Hard To Grow Out Of Debt ##br##With These Structural Headwinds Writing the debt off - i.e. defaulting - is a desperate measure that would be the very last resort after all other approaches had failed. In this case, we are talking mainly about government debt, because private debt always has to be written off when borrowers become bankrupt. Japan is the one developed country where government debt probably will be written off eventually. Given that the Bank of Japan owns around 45% of outstanding government debt, those holdings can be neutralized by converting them to perpetuals - securities that are never redeemed. If the first two options are not viable, then inflation becomes the preferred solution to over-indebtedness. To make a big impact, inflation would need to rise far above the 2% level currently favored by central banks, and it would have to stay elevated for quite some time. Central banks are not yet ready to allow such an environment, but that could change after the next economic downturn. Central banks have made it clear that they are prepared to pursue radical policies in order to prevent deflation. This sets the scene for increasingly aggressive actions after the next recession and the end result could be a period of significantly higher inflation. Mr. X: I don't disagree with that view which is why I always like to hold some physical gold in my portfolio. It is interesting that you are worried about a looming setback for risk assets because you are positive on the near-run economic outlook. That is contrary to the typical view that sees a decent economy as supporting higher equity prices. Let's spend a bit more time on your view of the economic outlook. Ms. X: Before we do that, I would just emphasize that it is far too early to worry about debt end games and the potential for sharply rising inflation. I don't disagree that monetary policy could be forced to embrace massive reflation during the next downturn and perhaps that will make me change my view of the inflation outlook. But the sequencing is important because we would first have to deal with a recession that could be a very deflationary episode. And before the next recession we could have period of continued decent growth, which would be positive for risk assets. So I agree that the near-term view of the economic outlook is important. The Economic Outlook BCA: This recovery cycle has been characterized by a series of shocks and headwinds that constrained growth in various regions. In no particular order, these included fiscal austerity, the euro crisis, a brief U.S. government shutdown, the Japanese earthquake, and a spike in oil prices above $100. As we discussed a year ago, in the absence of any new shocks, we expected global growth to improve and that is what occurred in 2017. A broad range of indicators shows that activity has picked up steam in most areas. Purchasing managers' indexes are in an uptrend, business and consumer confidence are at cyclical highs and leading indicators have turned up (Chart 14). This is hardly a surprise given easy monetary conditions and a more relaxed fiscal stance almost everywhere. Chart 14Global Activity On An Uptrend The outlook for 2018 is positive and the IMF's projections for growth is probably too low (see Table 2). So, for the second year in a row, the next set of updates due in the spring are likely to be revised up. Ms. X: Let's talk about the U.S. economy. You are concerned that tax cuts could contribute to overheating, tighter monetary policy and an eventual collision with the markets. But there are two alternative scenarios, both quite optimistic for risk assets. On the one hand, a cut in the corporate tax rate could trigger a further improvement in business confidence and thus acceleration in capital spending. This would boost the supply side of the economy and mean that faster growth need not lead to higher inflation. It would be the perfect world of a low inflation boom. At the other extreme, if political gridlock prevents any meaningful tax cuts, we will be left with the status quo of moderate growth and low inflation that has been very positive for markets during the past several years. Mr. X: You can always rely on my daughter to emphasize the potential for optimistic outcomes. I would suggest another entirely different scenario. The cycle is very mature and I fear it would not take much to tip the economy into recession, even if we get some tax relief. So I am more concerned with near-term downside risks to the U.S. economy. A recession in the coming year would be catastrophic for the stock market in my view. BCA: Before we get to the outlook, let's agree on where we are right now. As we already noted, the U.S. economy currently is operating very close to its potential level. The Congressional Budget Office estimates potential growth to be only 1.6% a year at present, which explains why the unemployment rate has dropped even though growth has averaged a modest 2% pace in recent years. The consumer sector has generally been a source of stability with real spending growing at a 2¾% pace over the past several years (Chart 15). And, encouragingly, business investment has recently picked up from its earlier disappointing level. On the negative side, the recovery in housing has lost steam and government spending has been a source of drag. Looking ahead, the pattern of growth may change a bit. With regard to consumer spending, the pace of employment growth is more likely to slow than accelerate given the tight market and growing lack of available skilled employees. According to the National Federation of Independent Business survey, 88% of small companies hiring or trying to hire reported "few or no qualified applicants for the positions they were trying to fill". Companies in manufacturing and construction say that the difficulty in finding qualified workers is their single biggest problem, beating taxes and regulations. In addition, we should not assume that the personal saving rate will keep falling given that it has hit a recovery low of 3.1% (Chart 16). On the other hand, wage growth should continue to firm and there is the prospect of tax cuts. Overall, this suggests that consumer spending should continue to grow by at least a 2% pace in 2018. Chart 15Trends In U.S. Growth Chart 16Personal Saving At A Recovery Low Survey data suggests that business investment spending should remain strong in the coming year, even without any additional boost from corporate tax cuts. Meanwhile, rebuilding and renovations in the wake of Hurricanes Harvey and Irma should provide a short-term boost to housing investment and a more lasting improvement will occur if the millennial generation finally moves out of their parents' basements. On that note, it is encouraging that the 10-year slide in the homeownership rate appears to have run its course (Chart 17). And although housing affordability is down from its peak, it remains at an attractive level from a historical perspective. Chart 17A Weak Housing Recovery Last, but not least, government spending will face countervailing forces. The Administration plans to increase spending on defense and infrastructure but there could be some offsetting cutbacks in other areas. Overall, government spending should make a positive contribution to 2018 after being a drag in 2017. Putting all this together, the U.S. economy should manage to sustain a growth rate of around 2.5% in 2018, putting GDP further above its potential level. And it could rise above that if tax cuts are at the higher end of the range. You suggested three alternative scenarios to our base case: a supply-side boom, continued moderate growth and a near-term recession. A supply-side revival that leads to strong growth and continued low inflation would be extremely bullish, but we are skeptical about that possibility. The revival in capital spending is good news, but this will take time to feed into faster productivity growth. Overall, any tax cuts will have a greater impact on demand than supply, putting even greater pressure on an already tight labor market. The second scenario of a continuation of the recent status quo is more possible, especially if we end up with a very watered-down tax package. However, growth would actually have to drop below 2% in order to prevent GDP from rising above potential. We will closely monitor leading indicators for signs that growth is about to lose momentum. The bearish scenario of a near-term recession cannot be completely discounted, but there currently is no compelling evidence of such a development. Recessions can arrive with little warning if there is an unanticipated shock, but that is rare. Historically, a flat or inverted yield curve has provided a warning sign ahead of most recessions and the curve currently is still positively sloped (Chart 18). Another leading indicator is when cyclical spending1 falls as a share of GDP, reflecting the increased sensitivity of those items to changes in financial conditions. Cyclical spending is still at a historically low level relative to GDP and we expect this to rise rather than fall over the coming quarters. While a near-term recession does not seem likely, the odds will change during the course of 2018. By late year, there is a good chance that the yield curve will be flat or inverted, giving a warning signal for a recession in 2019. Our base case view is for a U.S. recession to start in the second half of 2019, making the current expansion the longest on record. At this stage, it is too early to predict whether it would be a mild recession along the lines of 1990-91 and 2000-01 or a deeper downturn. Chart 18No Recession Signals For The U.S. ...Yet Mr. X: I hope that you are right that a U.S. recession is more than a year away. I am not entirely convinced but will keep an open mind, and my daughter will no doubt keep me fully informed of any positive trends. Ms. X: You can be sure of that. Although I lean toward the optimistic side on the U.S. economy, I have been rather surprised at how well the euro area economy has done in the past year. Latest data show that the euro area's real GDP increased by 2.5% in the year to 2017 Q3 compared to 2.3% for the U.S. Can that be sustained? BCA: The relative performance of the euro area economy has been even better if you allow for the fact that the region's population growth is 0.5% a year below that of the U.S. So the economic growth gap is even greater on a per capita basis. The euro area economy performed poorly during their sovereign debt crisis years of 2011-13, but the subsequent improvement has meant that the region's real per capita GDP has matched that of the U.S. over the past four years. And even Japan's GDP has not lagged much behind on a per capita basis (Chart 19). Chart 19No Clear Winner On Growth The recovery in the euro area has been broadly based but the big change was the end of a fiscal squeeze in the periphery countries. Between 2010 and 2013, fiscal drag (the change in the structural primary deficit) was equivalent to around 10% of GDP in Greece and Portugal and 7% of GDP in Ireland and Spain. There was little fiscal tightening in the subsequent three years, allowing those economies to recover lost ground. Meanwhile, Germany's economy has continued to power ahead, benefiting from much easier financial conditions than the economy has warranted. That has been the inevitable consequence of a one size fits all monetary policy that has had to accommodate the weakest members of the region. The French and Italian economies have disappointed, but there are hopes that the new French government will pursue pro-growth policies. And Italy should also pick up given signs that it is finally starting to deal with its fragile banking system. Both Spain and Italy faced a sharp rise in non-performing bank loans during the great recession, but Italy lagged Spain in dealing with the problem (Chart 20). That goes a long way to explaining why the Italian economic recovery has been so poor relative to Spain. With Italian banks raising capital and writing off non-performing loans more aggressively, the Italian economy should start to improve, finally catching up with the rest of the region. Overall, the euro area economy should manage to sustain growth above the 2.1% forecast by the IMF for 2018. Overall financial conditions are likely to stay favorable for at least another year and we do not anticipate any major changes in fiscal policy. If, as we fear, the U.S. moves into recession in 2019, there will be negative fallout for Europe, largely via the impact on financial markets. However, in relative terms, the euro area should outperform the U.S. during the next downturn. Mr. X: A year ago, you said that Brexit posed downside risks for the U.K. economy. For a while, that seemed too pessimistic as the economy performed quite well, but recent data show things have taken a turn for the worse. How do you see things playing out with this issue? BCA: It was apparent a year ago that the U.K. government had no concrete plans to deal with Brexit and little has changed since then. The negotiations with the EU are not going particularly well and the odds of a "hard" exit have risen. This means withdrawing from the EU without any agreement on a new regime for trade, labor movements or financial transactions. A growing number of firms are taking the precaution of shifting some operations from the U.K. to other EU countries. As you noted, there are signs that Brexit is starting to undermine the U.K. economy. For example, London house prices have turned down and the leading economic index has softened (Chart 21). The poor performance of U.K. consumer service and real estate equities relative to those of Germany suggest investors are becoming more wary of the U.K. outlook. Of course, a lot will depend on the nature of any deal between the U.K. and the EU and that remains a source of great uncertainty. Chart 20A Turning Point For Italian Banks? Chart 21U.K. Consumer Services Equities Are ##br##Underperforming Brexit Effects Show Up At the moment, there are no real grounds for optimism. The U.K. holds few cards in the bargaining process and the country's strong antipathy toward the free movement of people within the EU will be a big obstacle to an amicable separation agreement. Ms. X: I think the U.K. made the right decision to leave the EU and am more optimistic than you about the outlook. There may be some short-term disruption but the long-term outlook for the U.K. will be good once the country is freed from the stifling bureaucratic constraints of EU membership. The U.K. has a more dynamic economy than most EU members and it will be able to attract plenty of overseas capital if the government pursues appropriate policies toward taxes and regulations. It will take a few years to find out who is correct about this. In the meantime, given the uncertainties, I am inclined to have limited exposure to sterling and the U.K. equity market. Let's now talk about China, another country facing complex challenges. This is a topic where my father and I again have a lot of debates. As you might guess, I have been on the more optimistic side while he has sided with those who have feared a hard landing. And I know that similar debates have occurred in BCA. BCA: It is not a surprise that there are lots of debates about the China outlook. The country's impressive economic growth has been accompanied by an unprecedented build-up of debt and supply excesses in several sectors. The large imbalances would have led to a collapse by now in any other economy. However, China has benefited from the heavy state involvement in the economy and, in particular, the banking sector. The big question is whether the government has enough control over economic developments to avoid an economic and financial crisis. The good news is that China's government debt is relatively low, giving them the fiscal flexibility to write-off bad debts from zombie state-owned enterprises (SOEs). The problems of excessive leverage and over-capacity are particularly acute in SOEs that still comprise a large share of economic activity. The government is well aware of the need to reform SOEs and various measures have been announced, but progress has been relatively limited thus far. The IMF projects that the ratio of total non-financial debt to GDP will remain in an uptrend over the next several years, rising from 236% in 2016 to 298% by 2022 (Chart 22). Yet, growth is expected to slow only modestly over the period. Of course, one would not expect the IMF to build a crisis into their forecast. Some investors have been concerned that a peak in China's mini-cycle of the past two years may herald a return to the economic conditions that prevailed in 2015, when the industrial sector grew at a slower pace than during the acute phase of the global financial crisis. These conditions occurred due to the combination of excessively tight monetary conditions and weak global growth. While China's export growth may slow over the coming year, monetary policy remains accommodative. Monetary conditions appear to have peaked early this year but are still considerably easier than in mid-2015. Shifts in the monetary conditions index have done a good job of leading economic activity and they paint a reasonably positive picture (Chart 23). The industrial sector has finally moved out of deflation, with producer prices rising 6.9% in the year ended October. This has been accompanied by a solid revival in profits. Chart 22China: Debt-Fueled Growth To Continue Chart 23China Leaves Deflation Behind On balance, we assume that the Chinese economy will be able to muddle through for the foreseeable future. President Xi Jinping has strengthened his grip on power and he will go to great lengths to ensure that his reign is not sullied with an economic crisis. The longer-term outlook will depend on how far the government goes with reforms and deleveraging and we are keeping an open mind at this point. In sum, for the moment, we are siding with Ms. X on this issue. Mr. X: I have been too bearish on China for the past several years, but I still worry about the downside risks given the massive imbalances and excesses. I can't think of any example of a country achieving a soft landing after such a massive rise in debt. I will give you and my daughter the benefit of the doubt, but am not totally convinced that you will be right. BCA has been cautious on emerging economies in general: has that changed? BCA: The emerging world went through a tough time in 2015-16 with median growth of only 2.6% for the 23 constituent countries of the MSCI EM index (Chart 24). This recovered to 3% in 2017 according to IMF estimates, but that is still far below the average 5% pace of the period 2000-07. Chart 24Emerging Economy Growth: ##br##The Boom Years Are Over It is always dangerous to generalize about the emerging world because the group comprises economies with very different characteristics and growth drivers. Two of the largest countries - Brazil and Russia - went through particularly bad downturns in the past couple of years and those economies are now in a modest recovery. In contrast, India has continued to grow at a healthy albeit slowing pace, while Korea and the ASEAN region have not suffered much of a slowdown. If, as seems likely, Chinese growth holds above a 6% pace over the next year, then those countries with strong links to China should do fine. And it also points to reasonably steady commodity prices, supporting resource-dependent economies. Longer-run, there are reasons to be cautious about many emerging economies, particularly if the U.S. goes into recession 2019, as we fear. That would be associated with renewed weakness in commodity prices, and capital flight from those economies with high external debt such as Turkey and South Africa. As we stated a year ago, the heady days of emerging economy growth are in the past. Mr. X: It seems that both my daughter and I can find some areas of agreement with your views about the economic outlook. You share her expectation that the global growth outlook will stay healthy over the coming year, but you worry about a U.S.-led recession in 2019, something that I certainly sympathize with. But we differ on timing: I fear the downturn could occur even sooner and I know my daughter believes in a longer-lasting upturn. Let's now move onto what this all means for financial markets, starting with bonds. Bond Market Prospects Ms. X: I expect this to be a short discussion as I can see little attraction in bonds at current yields. Even though I expect inflation to stay muted, bonds offer no prospect of capital gains in the year ahead and even the running yield offers little advantage over the equity dividend yield. BCA: As you know, we have believed for some time that the secular bull market in bonds has ended. We expect yields to be under upward pressure in most major markets during 2018 and thus share your view that equities offer better return prospects. By late 2018, it might well be appropriate to switch back into bonds against a backdrop of higher yields and a likely bear market in equities. For the moment, we recommend underweight bond exposure. It is hard to like government bonds when the yield on 10-year U.S. Treasuries is less than 50 basis points above the dividend yield of the S&P 500 while the euro area bond yield is 260 basis points below divided yields (Chart 25). Real yields, using the 10-year CPI swap rate as a measure of inflation expectations, are less than 20 basis points in the U.S. and a negative 113 basis points in the euro area. Even if we did not expect inflation to rise, it would be difficult to recommend an overweight position in any developed country government bonds. One measure of valuation is to compare the level of real yields to their historical average, adjusted by the standard deviation of the gap. On this basis, the most overvalued markets are the core euro area countries, where real yields are 1.5 to 2 standard deviations below their historical average (Chart 26). There are only two developed bond markets where real 10-year government yields currently are above their historical average: Greece and Portugal. This is warranted in Greece where there needs to be a risk premium in case the country is forced to leave the single currency at some point. This is less of a risk for Portugal, making it a more interesting market. Real yields in New Zealand are broadly in line with their historical average, also making it one of the more attractive markets. Chart 25Bonds Yields Offer Little Appeal Chart 26Valuation Ranking Of Developed Bond Markets Mr. X: Given your expectation of higher inflation, would you recommend inflation-protected Treasuries? BCA: Yes, in the sense that they should outperform conventional Treasuries. The 10-year TIPS are discounting average inflation of 1.85% and we would expect this to be revised up during the coming year. However, the caveat is that absolute returns will still be mediocre. Ms. X: You showed earlier that corporate bonds had a reasonable year in 2017, albeit falling far short of the returns from equities. A year ago, you recommended only neutral weighting in investment-grade bonds and an underweight in high yield. But you became more optimistic toward both early in 2017, shifting to an overweight position. Are you thinking of scaling back exposure once again, given the tight level of spreads? BCA: Yes, we were cautious on U.S. corporates a year ago because valuation was insufficient to compensate for the deterioration in corporate balance sheet health. Nonetheless, value improved enough early in 2017 to warrant an upgrade to overweight given our constructive macro and default rate outlook. The cyclical sweet spot for carry trades should continue to support spread product for a while longer. Moreover, value is better than it appears at first glance. The dotted line in Chart 27 shows the expected 12-month option-adjusted spread for U.S. junk bonds after adjusting for our base case forecast for net default losses. At 260 basis points, this excess spread is in line with the historical average. In the absence of any further spread narrowing, speculative-grade bonds would return 230 basis points more than Treasurys in 2018. If high-yield spreads were to tighten by another 150 basis points, then valuations would be at a historical extreme, and that seems unwarranted. An optimistic scenario would have another 100 basis point spread tightening, delivering excess returns of 5%. Of course, if spreads widen, then corporates will underperform. If financial conditions tighten in 2018 as we expect then it will be appropriate to lower exposure to corporates. In the meantime, you should favor U.S. and U.K. corporate bonds to issues in the Eurozone because ECB tapering is likely to spark some spread widening in that market. Mr. X: What about EM hard-currency bonds? BCA: The global economic background is indeed positive for EM assets. However, EM debt is expensive relative to DM investment-grade bonds which, historically, has heralded a period of underperformance (Chart 28). We expect that relative growth dynamics will be more supportive of U.S. corporates because EM growth will lag. Any commodity price weakness and/or a stronger U.S. dollar would also weigh on EM bonds and currencies. Chart 27Not Much Value In U.S. Corporates Chart 28Emerging Market Bonds Are Expensive Mr. X: We have not been excited about the bond market outlook for some time and nothing you have said changes my mind. I am inclined to keep our bond exposure to the bare minimum. Ms. X: I agree. So let's talk about the stock market which is much more interesting. As I mentioned before, I am inclined to remain fully invested in equities for a while longer, while my father wants to start cutting exposure. Equity Market Outlook BCA: This is one of those times when it is important to draw a distinction between one's forecast of where markets are likely to go and the appropriate investment strategy. We fully agree that the conditions that have driven this impressive equity bull market are likely to stay in place for much of the next year. Interest rates in the U.S. and some other countries are headed higher, but they will remain at historically low levels for some time. Meanwhile, in the absence of recession, corporate earnings still have upside, albeit not as much as analysts project. However, we have a conservative streak at BCA that makes us reluctant to chase markets into the stratosphere. For long-term investors, our recommended strategy is to gradually lower equity exposure to neutral. However, those who are trying to maximize short-term returns should stay overweight and wait for clearer signs that tighter financial conditions are starting to bite on economic activity. Chart 29Reasons For Caution On U.S. Stocks Getting down to specifics, here are the trends that give us cause for concern and they are all highlighted in Chart 29. Valuation: Relative to both earnings and book value, the U.S. equity market is more expensive than at any time since the late 1990s tech bubble. The price-earnings ratio (PER) for the S&P 500 is around 30% above its 60-year average on the basis of both trailing operating earnings and a 10-year average of earnings. The market is not expensive on a relative yield basis because interest rates are so low, but that will change as rates inevitably move higher. Other developed markets are not as overvalued as the U.S., but neither are they cheap. Earnings expectations: The performance of corporate earnings throughout this cycle - particularly in the U.S. - has been extremely impressive give the weaker-than-normal pace of economic growth. However, current expectations are ridiculously high. According to IBES data, analysts expect long-run earnings growth of around 14% a year in both the U.S. and Europe. Even allowing for analysts' normal optimistic bias, the sharp upward revision to growth expectations over the past year makes no sense and is bound to be disappointed. Investor complacency: We all know that the VIX index is at a historical low, indicating that investors see little need to protect themselves against market turmoil. Our composite sentiment indicator for the U.S. is at a high extreme, further evidence of investor complacency. These are classic contrarian signs of a vulnerable market. Most bear markets are associated with recessions, with the stock market typically leading the economy by 6 to 12 months (Chart 30). The lead in 2007 was an unusually short three months. As discussed earlier, we do not anticipate a U.S. recession before 2019. If a recession were to start in mid-2019, it would imply the U.S. market would be at risk from the middle of 2018, but the rally could persist all year. Of course, the timing of a recession and market is uncertain. So it boils down to potential upside gains over the next year versus the downside risks, plus your confidence in being able to time the top. Chart 30Bear Markets And Recessions Usually Overlap We are not yet ready to recommend that you shift to an underweight position in equities. A prudent course of action would be to move to a broadly neutral position over the next few months, but we realize that Ms. X has a higher risk tolerance than Mr. X so we will leave you to fight over that decision. The timing of when we move to an underweight will depend on our various economic, monetary and market indicators and our assessment of the risks. It could well happen in the second half of the year. Mr. X: My daughter was more right than me regarding our equity strategy during the past year, so maybe I should give her the benefit of the doubt and wait for clearer signs of a market top. Thus far, you have focused on the U.S. market. Last year you preferred developed markets outside the U.S. on the grounds of relative valuations and relative monetary conditions. Is that still your stance? BCA: Yes it is. The economic cycle and thus the monetary cycle is far less advanced in Europe and Japan than in the U.S. This will provide extra support to these markets. At the same time, profit margins are less vulnerable outside the U.S. and, as you noted, valuations are less of a problem. In Chart 31, we show a valuation ranking of developed equity markets, based on the deviation of cyclically-adjusted PERs from their historical averages. The chart is not meant to measure the extent to which Portugal is cheap relative to the U.S., but it indicates that Portugal is trading at a PER far below its historical average while that of the U.S. is above. You can see that the "cheaper" markets tend to be outside the U.S. Japan's reading is flattered by the fact that its historical valuation was extremely high during the bubble years of the 1980s, but it still is a relatively attractive market. Chart 31Valuation Ranking Of Developed Equity Markets From a cyclical standpoint, we are still recommending overweight positions in European and Japanese stocks relative to the U.S., on a currency-hedged basis. Nevertheless, market correlations are such that a sell-off in the U.S. will be transmitted around the world (Chart 32). Chart 32When the U.S. Market Sneezes, The World Catches A Cold Ms. X: I would like to turn the focus to emerging equity markets. You have been cautious on these for several years and that worked out extremely well until 2017. I note from your regular EM reports that you have not changed your stance. Why are you staying bearish given that you see an improvement in global growth and further potential upside in developed equity prices? BCA: The emerging world did extremely well over many years when global trade was expanding rapidly, China was booming, commodity prices were in a powerful bull market and capital inflows were strong. Those trends fostered a rapid expansion in credit-fueled growth across the EM universe and meant that there was little pressure to pursue structural reforms. However, the 2007-09 economic and financial crisis marked a major turning point in the supports to EM outperformance. As we noted earlier, the era of rapid globalization has ended, marking an important regime shift. Meanwhile, China's growth rate has moderated and the secular bull market in commodities ended several years ago. We do not view the past year's rebound in commodities as the start of a major new uptrend. Many emerging equity markets remain highly leveraged to the Chinese economy and to commodity prices (Chart 33). Although we expect the Chinese economy to hold up, growth is becoming less commodity intensive. Finally, the rise in U.S. interest rates is a problem for those countries that have taken on a marked increase in foreign currency debt. This will be made even worse if the dollar appreciates. Obviously, the very term "emerging" implies that this group of countries has a lot of upside potential. However, the key to success is pursuing market-friendly reforms, rooting out corruption and investing in productive assets. Many countries pay only lip service to these issues. India is a case in point where there is growing skepticism about the Modi government's ability to deliver on major reforms. The overall EM index does not appear expensive, with the PER trading broadly in line with its historical average (Chart 34). However, as we have noted in the past, the picture is less compelling when the PER is calculated using equally-weighted sectors. The financials and materials components are trading at historically low multiples, dragging down the overall index PER. Emerging market equities will continue to rise as long as the bull market in developed markets persists, but we expect them to underperform on a relative basis. Chart 33Drivers Of EM Performance Chart 34Emerging Markets Fundamentals Mr. X: One last question on equities from me: do you have any high conviction calls on sectors? BCA: A key theme of our sector view is that cyclical stocks should outperform defensives given the mature stage of the economic cycle. We are seeing the typical late-cycle improvement in capital spending and that will benefit industrials, and we recommend an overweight stance in that sector. Technology also is a beneficiary of higher capex but of course those stocks have already risen a lot, pushing valuations to extreme levels. Thus, that sector warrants only a neutral weighting. Our two other overweights are financials and energy. The former should benefit from rising rates and a steeper yield curve while the latter will benefit from firm oil prices. If, as we fear, a recession takes hold in 2019, then obviously that would warrant a major shift back into defensive stocks. For the moment, the positive growth outlook will dominate sector performance. Ms. X: I agree that the bull market in equities, particularly in the U.S., is very mature and there are worrying signs of complacency. However, the final stages of a market cycle can sometimes be very rewarding and I would hate to miss out on what could be an exciting blow-off phase in 2018. As I mentioned earlier, my inclination is to stay heavily invested in equities for a while longer and I have confidence that BCA will give me enough of a warning when risks become unacceptably high. Of course, I will have to persuade my father and that may not be easy. Mr. X: You can say that again, but we won't bother our BCA friends with that conversation now. It's time to shift the focus to commodities and currencies and I would start by commending you on your oil call. You were far out of consensus a year ago when you said the risks to crude prices were in the upside and you stuck to your guns even as the market weakened in the first half. We made a lot of money following your energy recommendations. What is your latest thinking? Commodities And Currencies BCA: We had a lot of conviction in our analysis that the oil market would tighten during 2017 against a backdrop of rising demand and OPEC production cuts, and that view turned out to be correct. As we entered the year, the big reason to be bearish on oil prices was the bloated level of inventories. We forecast that inventories would drop to their five-year average by late 2017, and although that turned out to be a bit too optimistic, the market tightened by enough to push prices higher (Chart 35). Chart 35Oil Market Trends The forces that have pushed prices up will remain in force over the next year. Specifically, our economic view implies that demand will continue to expand, and we expect OPEC 2.0 - the producer coalition of OPEC and non-OPEC states, led by Saudi Arabia and Russia - to extend its 1.8 million b/d production cuts to at least end-June. On that basis, OECD inventories should fall below their five-year average by the end of 2018. We recently raised our 2018 oil price target to an average of $65 in 2018. Of course, the spot market is already close to that level, but the futures curve is backwardated and that is likely to change. We continue to see upside risks to prices, not least because of potential production shortfalls from Venezuela, Nigeria, Iraq and Libya. Mr. X: The big disruptor in the oil market in recent years was the dramatic expansion in U.S. shale production. Given the rise in prices, could we not see a rapid rebound in shale output that, once again, undermines prices? BCA: Our modeling indicates that U.S. shale output will increase from 5.1 mb/d to 6.0 mb/d over the next year, in response to higher prices. This is significant, but will not be enough to materially change the global oil demand/supply balance. Longer run, the expansion of U.S. shale output will certainly be enough to prevent any sustained price rise, assuming no large-scale production losses elsewhere. A recent report by the International Energy Agency projected that the U.S. is destined to become the global leader in oil and gas production for decades to come, accounting for 80% of the rise in global oil and gas supply between 2010 and 2025. Ms. X: You have suggested that China's economic growth is becoming less commodity intensive. Also, you have shown in the past that real commodity prices tend to fall over time, largely because of technological innovations. What does all this imply for base metals prices over the coming year? BCA: The base metals story will continue to be highly dependent on developments in China. While the government is attempting to engineer a shift toward less commodity-intensive growth, it also wants to reduce excess capacity in commodity-producing sectors such as coal and steel. Base metals are likely to move sideways until we get a clearer reading on the nature and speed of economic reforms. We model base metals as a function of China's PMIs and this supports our broadly neutral stance on these commodities (Chart 36). Chart 36China Drives Metals Prices Mr. X: As usual, I must end our commodity discussion by asking about gold. Last year, you agreed that an uncertain geopolitical environment coupled with continued low interest rates should support bullion prices, and that was the case with a respectable 12% gain since the end of 2016. You also suggested that I should not have more than 5% of my portfolio in gold which is less than I am inclined to own. It still looks like a gold-friendly environment to me. Ms. X: Let me just add that this is one area where my father and I agree. I do not consider myself to be a gold bug, but I think bullion does provide a good hedge against shocks in a very uncertain economic and political world. I would also be inclined to hold more than 5% of our portfolio in gold. BCA: There will be opposing forces on gold during the coming year. On the positive side, it is safe to assume that geopolitical uncertainties will persist and may even intensify, and there also is the potential for an increase in inflation expectations that would support bullion. On the negative side, rising interest rates are not normally good for gold and there likely will be an added headwind from a firmer U.S. dollar. Gold appears to be at an important point from a technical perspective (Chart 37). It currently is perched just above its 200-day average and a key trend line. A decisive drop below these levels would be bearish. At the same time, there is overhead resistance at around 1350-1360 and prices would have to break above that level to indicate a bullish breakout. Traders' sentiment is at a broadly neutral level, consistent with no clear conviction about which way prices will break. There is no science behind our recommendation of keeping gold exposure below 5%. That just seems appropriate for an asset that delivers no income and where the risk/reward balance is fairly balanced. Ms. X: You referred to the likelihood of a firmer dollar as a depressant on the gold price. You also were bullish on the dollar a year ago, but that did not work out too well. How confident are you that your forecast will fare better in 2018? BCA: We did anticipate that the dollar would experience a correction at the beginning of 2017, but we underestimated how profound this move would be. A combination of factors explains this miscalculation. Chart 37Gold At A Key Level It first began with positioning. We should have paid more attention to that fact that investors were massively bullish and long the dollar at the end of 2016, making the market vulnerable to disappointments. And disappointment did come with U.S. inflation weakening and accelerating in the euro area. Additionally, there were positive political surprises in Europe, especially the presidential victory of Emmanuel Macron in France. In the U.S., the government's failure to repeal Obamacare forced investors to lower expectations about fiscal stimulus. As a result, while investors were able to price in an earlier first hike by the ECB, they cut down the number of rate hikes they anticipated out of the Fed over the next 24 months. In terms of the current environment, positioning could not be more different because investors are aggressively shorting the dollar (Chart 38). The hurdle for the dollar to deliver positive surprises is thus much lower than a year ago. Also, we remain confident that tax cuts will be passed in the U.S. by early 2018. As we discussed earlier, U.S. GDP will remain above potential, causing inflation pressures to build. This will give the Fed the leeway to implement its planned rate hikes, and thus beat what is currently priced in the market. This development should support the dollar in 2018. Ms. X: A bullish view on the U.S. dollar necessarily implies a negative view on the euro. However, the European economy seems to have a lot of momentum, and inflation has picked up, while U.S. prices have been decelerating. To me, this suggests that the ECB also could surprise by being more hawkish than anticipated, arguing against any major weakness in the euro. BCA: The European economy has indeed done better than generally expected in the past year. Also, geopolitical risks were overstated by market participants at the beginning of 2017, leaving less reason to hide in the dollar. However, the good news in Europe is now well known and largely discounted in the market. Investors are very long the euro, by both buying EUR/USD and shorting the dollar index (Chart 39). In that sense, the euro today is where the dollar stood at the end of 2016. Chart 38Too Much Pessimism On The Dollar Chart 39Positioning Risk In EUR/USD Valuations show a similar picture. The euro might appear cheap on a long-term basis, but not so much so that its purchasing power parity estimate - which only works at extremes and over long-time periods - screams a buy. Moreover, the euro has moved out of line with historical interest rate parity relationships, warning that the currency is at risk if the economy disappoints. Overall, we expect EUR/USD to trade around 1.10 in 2018. Long-run, the picture is different because a U.S. recession in 2019 would trigger renewed broad-based weakness in the dollar. Mr. X: I have been perplexed by the yen's firmness in the past year, with the currency still above its end-2016 level versus the dollar. I expected a lot more weakness with the central bank capping bond yields at zero and more or less monetizing the government deficit. A year ago you also predicted a weak yen. Will it finally drop in 2018? BCA: We were not completely wrong on the yen as it has weakened over the past year on a trade-weighted basis and currently is about 2% below its end-2016 level. But it has risen slightly against the U.S. dollar. In the past couple of years, the yen/dollar rate has been highly correlated with real bond yield differentials (Chart 40). These did not move against the yen as much as we expected because U.S. yields drifted lower and there was no major change in relative inflation expectations. Chart 40Bond Yield Differentials Drive The Yen The real yield gap is likely to move in the dollar's favor over the next year, putting some downward pressure on the yen. Meanwhile, the Bank of Japan will continue to pursue a hyper-easy monetary stance, in contrast to the Fed's normalization policy. However, it is not all negative: the yen is cheap on a long-term basis, and Japan is an international net creditor to the tune of more than 60% of GDP. Investors are also quite short the yen as it remains a key funding currency for carry trades. Thus, it will continue to benefit each time global markets are gripped with bouts of volatility. It remains a good portfolio hedge. Ms. X: Are any other currency views worth noting? BCA: The outlook for sterling obviously will be tied to the Brexit negotiations. Having fallen sharply after the Brexit vote, sterling looks cheap relative to its history. This has allowed it to hold in a broad trading range over the past 18 months, even though the negotiations with the EU have not been going well. At this stage, it is hard to know what kind of deal, if any, will emerge regarding Brexit so we would hedge exposure to sterling. Our optimism toward the oil price is consistent with a firm Canadian dollar, but developments in the NAFTA negotiations represent a significant risk. At the moment, we are overweight the Canadian dollar, but that could change if the NAFTA talks end badly. We still can't get enthusiastic about emerging market currencies even though some now offer reasonable value after falling sharply over the past few years. Mr. X: We can't leave currencies without talking about Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies in general. I like the idea of a currency that cannot be printed at will by governments. There are too many examples of currency debasement under a fiat money system and the actions of central banks in recent years have only served to increase my mistrust of the current monetary system. But I can't profess to fully understand how these cryptocurrencies work and that makes me nervous about investing in them. What are your thoughts? BCA: You are right to be nervous. There have been numerous cases of hackers stealing Bitcoins and other cryptocurrencies. Also, while there is a limit to the number of Bitcoins that can be issued, there is no constraint on the number of possible cryptocurrencies that can be created. Thus, currency debasement is still possible if developers continue creating currencies that are only cosmetically different from the ones already in existence. Moreover, we doubt that governments will sit idly by and allow these upstart digital currencies to become increasingly prevalent. The U.S. Treasury derives $70 billion a year in seigniorage revenue from its ability to issue currency which it can then redeem for goods and services. At some point, governments could simply criminalize the use of cryptocurrencies. This does not mean that Bitcoin prices cannot rise further, but the price trend is following the path of other manias making it a highly speculative play (Chart 41). If you want more detail about our thoughts on this complex topic then you can read the report we published last September.2 Chart 41Bitcoin Looks Like Other Bubbles Ms. X: I don't fear bubbles and manias as much as my father and have made a lot of money during such episodes in the past. But I am inclined to agree that Bitcoin is best avoided. The topic of manic events presents a nice segue into the geopolitical environment which seems as volatile as ever. Geopolitics Ms. X: Which geopolitical events do you think will have the biggest impact on the markets over the coming year? BCA: Domestic politics in the U.S. and China will be very much in focus in 2018. In the U.S., as we discussed, the Republicans will pass tax cuts but it is unclear whether this will help the GOP in the November midterm elections. At this point, all of our data and modeling suggests that Democrats have a good chance of picking up the House of Representatives, setting a stage for epic battles with President Trump about everything under the sun. In China, we are watching carefully for any sign that Beijing is willing to stomach economic pain in the pursuit of economic reforms. The two reforms that would matter the most are increased financial regulation and more aggressive purging of excess capacity in the industrial sector. The 19th Party Congress marked a serious reduction in political constraints impeding President Xi's domestic agenda. This means he could launch ambitious reforms, akin to what President Jiang Zemin did in the late 1990s. While this is a low-conviction view, and requires constant monitoring of the news and data flow out of China, it would be a considerable risk to global growth. Reforms would be good for China's long-term outlook, but could put a significant damper on short-term growth. The jury is out, but the next several months will be crucial. Three other issues that could become market-relevant are the ongoing North Korean nuclear crisis, trade protectionism, and tensions between the Trump administration and Iran. The first two are connected because a calming of tensions with North Korea would give the U.S. greater maneuvering room against China. The ongoing economic détente between the U.S. and China is merely a function of President Trump needing President Xi's cooperation on pressuring North Korea. But if President Trump no longer needs China's help with Kim Jong-Un, he may be encouraged to go after China on trade. As for Iran, it is not yet clear if the administration is serious about ratcheting up tensions or whether it is playing domestic politics. We suspect it is the latter implying that the market impact of any brinkmanship will be minor. But our conviction view is low. Mr. X: We seem to be getting mixed messages regarding populist pressures in Europe. The far right did not do as well as expected in the Netherlands or France, but did well in Austria. Also, Merkel is under some pressure in Germany. BCA: We don't see much in the way of mixed messages, at least when it comes to support for European integration. In Austria, the populists learned a valuable lesson from the defeats of their peers in the Netherlands and France: stay clear of the euro. Thus the Freedom Party committed itself to calling a referendum on Austria's EU membership if Turkey was invited to join the bloc. As the probability of that is literally zero, the right-wing in Austria signaled to the wider public that it was not anti-establishment on the issue of European integration. In Germany, the Alternative for Germany only gained 12.6%, but it too focused on an anti-immigration platform. The bottom line for investors is that the European anti-establishment right is falling over itself to de-emphasize its Euroskepticism and focus instead on anti-immigration policies. For investors, the former is far more relevant than the latter, meaning that the market relevance of European politics has declined. One potential risk in 2018 is the Italian election, likely to be held by the end of the first quarter. However, as with Austria, the anti-establishment parties have all moved away from overt Euroskepticism. At some point over the next five years, Italy will be a source of market risk, but in this electoral cycle and not with economic growth improving. Ms. X: The tensions between the U.S. and North Korea, fueled by two unpredictable leaders, have me very concerned. I worry that name-calling may slide into something more serious. How serious is the threat? BCA: The U.S.-Iran nuclear negotiations are a good analog for the North Korean crisis. The U.S. had to establish a "credible threat" of war in order to move Iran towards negotiations. As such, the Obama administration ramped up the war rhetoric - using Israel as a proxy - in 2011-2012. The negotiations with Iran did not end until mid-2015, almost four years later. We likely have seen the peak in "credible threat" display this summer between the U.S. and North Korea. The next two-to-three months could revisit those highs as North Korea responds to President Trump's visit to the region, as well as to the deployment of the three U.S. aircraft carriers off the coast of the Korean Peninsula. However, we believe that we have entered the period of "negotiations." It is too early to tell how the North Korean crisis will end. We do not see a full out war between either of the main actors. We also do not see North Korea ever giving up its nuclear arsenal, although limiting its ballistic technology and toning down its "fire and brimstone' rhetoric is a must. The bottom line is that this issue will remain a source of concern and uncertainty for a while longer. Conclusions Mr. X: This seems a good place to end our discussion. We have covered a lot of ground and your views have reinforced my belief that it would make good sense to start lowering the risk in our portfolio. I know that such a policy could leave money on the table as there is a reasonable chance that equity prices may rise further. But that is a risk I am prepared to take. Ms. X: I foresee some interesting discussions with my father when we get back to our office. At the risk of sounding reckless, I remain inclined to stay overweight equities for a while longer. I am sympathetic to the view that the era of hyper-easy money is ending and at some point that may cause a problem for risk assets. However, timing is important because, in my experience, the final stages of a bull market can deliver strong gains. BCA: Good luck with those discussions! We have similar debates within BCA between those who want to maximize short-run returns and those who take a longer-term view. Historically, BCA has had a conservative bias toward investment strategy and the bulk of evidence suggests that this is one of these times when long-run investors should focus on preservation of capital rather than stretching for gains. Our thinking also is influenced by our view that long-run returns will be very poor from current market levels. Our estimates indicate that a balanced portfolio will deliver average returns of only 3.3% a year over the coming decade, or 1.3% after inflation (Table 3). That is down from the 4% and 1.9% nominal and real annual returns that we estimated a year ago, reflecting the current more adverse starting point for valuations. There is a negligible equity risk premium on offer, implying that stock prices have to fall at some point to establish higher prospective returns. Table 310-Year Asset Return Projections The return calculations for equities assume profit margins decline modestly over the period and that multiples mean revert to their historical average. These assumptions may turn out to be too pessimistic if there is no redistribution of income shares from the corporate sector back to labor and/or PERs stay at historically high levels. In that case, equities obviously would do better than our estimates. In terms of the outlook for the coming year, a lot will depend on the pace of economic growth. We are assuming that growth is strong enough to encourage central banks to keep moving away from hyper-easy policies, setting up for a collision with markets. If growth slows enough that recession fears spike, then that also would be bad for risk assets. Sustaining the bull market requires a goldilocks growth outcome of not too hot and not too cold. That is possible, but we would not make it our base case scenario. Ms. X: You have left us with much to think about and I am so glad to have finally attended one of these meetings. My father has always looked forward to these discussions every year and I am very happy to be joining him. Many thanks for taking the time to talk to us. Before we go, it would be helpful to have a recap of your key views. BCA: That will be our pleasure. The key points are as follows: The environment of easy money, low inflation and healthy profit growth that has been so bullish for risk assets will start to change during the coming year. Financial conditions, especially in the U.S., will gradually tighten as decent growth leads to building inflation pressures, encouraging central banks to withdraw stimulus. With U.S. equities at an overvalued extreme and investor sentiment overly optimistic, this will set the scene for an eventual collision between policy and the markets. The conditions underpinning the bull market will erode only slowly which means that risk asset prices should continue to rise for at least the next six months. However, long-run investors should start shifting to a neutral exposure. Given our economic and policy views, there is a good chance that we will move to an underweight position in risk assets during the second half of 2018. The U.S. economy is already operating above potential and thus does not need any boost from easier fiscal policy. Any major tax cuts risk overheating the economy, encouraging the Federal Reserve to hike interest rates and boosting the odds of a recession in 2019. This is at odds with the popular view that tax cuts will be good for the equity market. A U.S. move to scrap NAFTA would add to downside risks. For the second year in a row, the IMF forecasts of economic growth for the coming year are likely to prove too pessimistic. The end of fiscal austerity has allowed the euro area economy to gather steam and this should be sustained in 2018. However, the slow progress in negotiating a Brexit deal with the EU poses a threat to the U.K. economy. China's economy is saddled with excessive debt and excess capacity in a number of areas. Any other economy would have collapsed by now, but the government has enough control over banking and other sectors to prevent a crisis. Growth should hold above 6% in the next year or two, although much will depend on how aggressively President Xi pursues painful reforms. The market is too optimistic in assuming that the Fed will not raise interest rates by as much as indicated in their "dots" projections. There is a good chance that the U.S. yield curve will become flat or inverted by late 2018. Bonds are not an attractive investment at current yields. Only Greece and Portugal currently have 10-year government bond real yields above their historical average. Corporate bonds should outperform governments, but a tightening in financial conditions will put these at risk in the second half of 2018. The euro area and Japanese equity markets should outperform the U.S. over the next year reflecting their better valuations and more favorable financial conditions. Developed markets should outperform the emerging market index. Historically, the U.S. equity market has led recessions by between 3 and 12 months. If, as we fear, a U.S. recession starts in the second half of 2019, then the stock market would be at risk from the middle of 2018. The improving trend in capital spending should favor industrial stocks. Our other two overweight sectors are energy and financials. The oil price will be well supported by strong demand and output restraint by OPEC and Russia. The Brent price should average $65 a barrel over the coming year, with risks to the upside. We expect base metals prices to trade broadly sideways but will remain highly dependent on developments in China. Modest positions in gold are warranted. Relative economic and policy trends will favor a firm dollar in 2018. Unlike at the start of 2017, investors are significantly short the dollar which is bullish from a contrary perspective. Sterling is quite cheap but Brexit poses downside risks. The key market-relevant geopolitical events to monitor will be fiscal policy and mid-term elections in the U.S., and reform policies in China. With the former, the Democrats have a good chance of winning back control of the House of Representatives, creating a scenario of complete policy gridlock. A balanced portfolio is likely to generate average returns of only 3.3% a year in nominal terms over the next decade. This compares to average returns of around 10% a year between 1982 and 2017. Let us take this opportunity to wish you and all of our clients a very peaceful, healthy and prosperous New Year. The Editors November 20, 2017 1 This comprises consumer spending on durables, housing and business investment in equipment and software. 2 Please see 'Bitcoin's Macro Impact', BCA Global Investment Strategy Special Report, September 15, 2017.

Highlights The recent price action in the credit markets is disconcerting; it challenges BCA's bullish view and raises the odds of an equity market correction in the near term. Credit spreads would need to widen significantly more to signal that a recession is imminent. What asset classes would benefit if the curve steepens and oil prices rise? Risk assets tend to do better the year before a tax cut than they do the year after. Feature BCA's view is that global growth is on solid footing. EPS growth in the U.S. is in the process of peaking, but will be relatively robust through the end of 2018. If our view is correct, U.S. stocks will outperform bonds in the next 12 months. Nonetheless, last week investors took profits in oil, the dollar, high-yield bonds and U.S. equities as the 2/10 Treasury curve flattened to just 65 bps, the lowest reading in 10 years (Chart 1). The risk aversion occurred amid concern about global growth, waning prospects for the GOP tax cut, and higher odds of a Fed policy mistake. Moreover, financial conditions tightened last week. Chart 1BCA Expects The Curve To Steepen In The Next 12 Months Even so, the recent price action in the credit markets is disconcerting; it challenges BCA's bullish view and raises the odds of an equity market correction in the near term. Junk bonds have sold off in recent weeks, along with EM credit and currencies. In general, credit trends lead the stock market. Moreover, a recent Bank of America Merrill Lynch Survey found that a record share of fund managers are overweight risk assets. Any delay in passage of the tax plan could be the trigger for a correction. BCA's U.S. Equity strategists' views on financial and energy sectors run counter to the recent market action.1 Our position is that financials will benefit from a steeper yield curve and that a drawdown in inventories and robust global oil demand will allow oil prices to rise and energy shares to outperform the S&P 500. Later in this report, we will examine how other risk assets perform as the yield curve steepens and oil prices climb. We also investigate the efficacy of using the high-yield bond market to time equity market pullbacks and recessions. In addition, with investors concerned about the GOP tax bill, we evaluate the performance of U.S. financial market assets, commodities and earnings before and after stimulative fiscal policy is enacted. Slack Is Disappearing The health of the U.S. economy in Q4 is not a concern. Data released last week was solid on October's retail sales, small business optimism and industrial production. Moreover, the November readings on the Empire State and Philadelphia Fed's manufacturing indices support BCA's view that the output gap is narrowing. However, some of the bright readings on the economy in October may reflect a snap back from Hurricanes Harvey and Irma. The November 17 readings on Q4 real GDP from both the Atlanta Fed's GDP Now (+3.4%) and the New York Fed's Nowcast (+3.8%) show the economy is running hot. Inflation-adjusted GDP growth of 3.0% or more in Q4 indicates year-over-year GDP growth is well above the Fed's view of both potential GDP growth (1.8%) and its estimate for 2017 (2.4%). Above-potential economic expansion will ultimately lead to higher inflation, given the ever tightening labor market. Despite tightening in the past week, financial conditions have eased in the past year. The implication is that GDP growth in the U.S. is set to accelerate in the coming quarters (Chart 2). The October CPI data provide the Fed with enough reason to bump up rates again next month. The annual core inflation rate ticked up to 1.8% from 1.7%. However, it is still below the roughly 2.4% pace that would be consistent with the core PCE deflator reaching the Fed's 2% target. While inflation is still below-target, there were two encouraging signs in the report. First, BCA's CPI diffusion index nudged back above the zero line. Secondly, core services (ex-shelter and medical care) are showing signs of accelerating. This sub-component of core CPI is the most correlated with wages (Chart 3, panel 4). Fed officials will get one additional reading each on CPI (December 13), the PCE deflator (November 30), and wage inflation (December 8), before the end of the December 12-13 FOMC meeting. Chart 2Easier Financial Conditions Will Boost U.S. Growth Chart 3October CPI Provides Cover For The Fed Bond Market Message The recent widening of credit spreads is not a signal that a recession is imminent. Chart 4 shows that peaks in key credit market metrics are lagging indicators of recession. While the recent spread widening is worrisome on its own, spreads would need to widen significantly more to signal that a recession is imminent. BAA quality spreads, the prepayment and liquidity risk spread (AAA corporate bond yield less 10-year Treasury) and the default risk spread (BAA minus AAA quality spread) are at or close to multi-decade lows.2 BCA does not believe that the spike in all these metrics in late 2015 was a signal that the economy was in or just exiting recession. Rather, the spread widening was related to the collapse in oil prices between mid-2014 and early 2016. BCA's Commodity & Energy Strategy service forecasts oil prices to rise as high as $70 per barrel in 2018.3 Chart 4Spreads Would Need To Widen Significantly More To Signal A Recession That said, these spreads tend to trough just prior to the onset of a recession. In longer expansions in the '60s, '80s, and '90s, bottoms in spreads occurred in mid-cycle. Credit spreads bottomed at the onset of recessions in the early 1960s, late 1960s, mid-1970s and early 1980s. The BAA quality spread and the prepayment and liquidity risk spreads bottomed six months before the onset of the 2007-2009 recession. However, the default risk spread formed a bottom in late 2004, three years before the end of a cycle (Chart 4). Spreads on lower-rated high-yield debt provide slightly earlier signals than those listed above. In the mid-1990s, spreads on BB- and CCC-rated U.S. corporate debt troughed in late 1998 as Russia defaulted, oil prices collapsed and LTCM failed. The signal came more than two years before the onset of the 2001 recession. In the mid-2000s, these spreads formed a bottom in late 2004/early 2005, three years before the 2007-2009 recession. The CCC- and BB-rated OAS spreads in this cycle initially bottomed in mid-2014 as oil price peaked. BB-rated spreads are below their mid-2014 trough, but spreads on CCC-rated debt are not (Chart 5). Chart 5HY Credit Still Outperforming Treasuries Investors question if the widening of spreads is a signal for other markets, especially the equity market. BCA finds that signals from the credit markets for equity markets are short-lived. Table 1 shows that the 13-week change in high-yield OAS is coincident to changes in S&P 500 prices. Often, stocks have already changed direction before any significant sell-off in the high-yield market. Rising spreads of more than 100 basis points tend to last for an average of 16 weeks and are accompanied by a 6% drop in the S&P 500. The only episode when a peak in spreads was not associated with a drop in equity prices occurred in 2001, as the S&P 500 rebounded in the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Table 1Stock Market Warning? Rising default rates are a necessary pre-condition for a prolonged interval of escalating spreads. Chart 6 shows the peaks in high-yield OAS spreads, along with the S&P, the VIX and Moody's trailing and forward default rates. In seven of the eight periods, spread widening occurred alongside a rising default rate. The only exception was in 2002 when spreads widened despite a fall in the default rate as accounting scandals rocked corporate America. Today, the default rate is low and falling. BCA's U.S. Bond Strategy team expects the default rate to move modestly lower in the next 12 months.4 Chart 6Spread Widening, Recessions, S&P 500 And Vol Bottom Line: The recent widening in credit spreads is one of the factors driving our cautious tactical stance on the U.S. equity market. Despite our near-term concern, BCA favors investment-grade credit and high-yield bonds over Treasuries in the next 12 months. Rising Oil And A Steeper Yield Curve BCA expects that oil prices will move 25% higher to $70/bbl in the next 12 months and that the yield curve will steepen. Above potential economic growth, tightening labor markets and rising inflation expectations will push up the long end of the Treasury curve, while the Fed lags the inflation upturn, leading initially to a steeper curve. What other asset classes would benefit if BCA's call is accurate? Chart 7 and Chart 8 show periods when oil prices rise and the yield curve steepens along with the performance of several key financial markets. Since 1970, there were five periods when oil prices moved higher and seven when the curve steepened. There are several years when both occurred at the same time, and many of these intervals also overlapped with recessions. Chart 7Lessons From Periods Of Rising Oil Prices Chart 8Lessons From Periods Of A Steepening Yield Curve The stock-to-bond ratio climbs when oil prices are rising, including the most recent episode. The S&P 500 outperformed the 10-year Treasury between 2009 and 2014 alongside oil prices, in the second half of the 1998-2008 run up in prices, and in the mid-1980s. However, during the rally in oil in the mid-to-late 1970s, stocks and bonds performed similarly. Both investment-grade and high-yield bonds outpace Treasuries as oil prices escalate. Investment-grade corporates outperformed in each of the five periods. Junk bonds struggled in the late 1980s as oil prices rose and then cruised in the 1990s, but trailed Treasuries in the first half of the 1998-2008 oil boom, finally catching up late in the cycle. The peak in both investment-grade and high-yield's performance versus Treasuries came in June 2007, providing a 12-month advance warning that oil prices had peaked for the cycle. Credit outpaced Treasuries in both oil rallies since the end of the 2007-2009 recession. Small cap performance during oil price rallies is mixed. Small caps beat large caps in the late 1970s, but underperformed in the mid-1980s. Small caps trounced large caps in the first half of the 1998-2008 energy price rally; large caps ran up and then back down again as the tech bubble swelled and then burst. Small caps only kept pace with large as energy prices soared between 2005 and 2008. Small caps eked out modest gains versus large between 2009 and 2014, and since 2016. Today, the energy sector's weight in the small cap sector is 3%, but it has ranged from 2% (2015) to 13% (2008) since 2001. Gold performs well as energy prices increase, aided in part by a weaker dollar. Gold climbed and the dollar fell during all five periods of expanding oil prices. There were several phases (mid-to-late 1980s, early 2000s and earlier this year) when the dollar mounted along with oil prices. Gold moved sideways at times as oil rose, but ultimately gold trended higher. BCA's stock-to-bond ratio generally moves lower as the curve steepens. Nonetheless, there are a few distinct but brief stages (late 1970s, mid 2000s, and 2009-10) when stocks beat bonds. There is not much difference between the performance of either investment-grade or high-yield credit in each of the six periods of curve steepening, but several shifts in a few of these cycles that overlapped with recessions are notable. Credit underperformed Treasuries in the early 1990s, early 2000s and mid-2000s as the economy entered recession, but then outperformed as the recession ended and the curve continued to steepen. Small cap performance as the curve steepens is mixed. As with credit, small caps underperform large on the way into recession as the curve steepens, but outperform after the recession ends. Recessions were not a significant factor in the performance pattern for gold and the dollar during curve steepening. Gold climbed in four of the seven periods of curve steepening, but changed little in the late 1980s/early 1990s episode. Gold declined sharply along with inflation and inflationary expectations in the early 1980s. The dollar moved significantly higher in just one of the seven periods (early 1980s) and was mixed-to-lower in the others. Bottom Line: BCA's bullish stance on the energy and financials sectors in the next 12 months is driven by our view that oil prices will continue to rally and that the Treasury yield curve will steepen as U.S. economic growth accelerates and inflation moved back to the Fed's 2% target. Stocks typically beat bonds as oil prices rally, but stocks generally underperform as the curve steepens. Gold advances under either scenario, while the dollar moves lower when the curve steepens and oil prices rise. The performance of credit and small caps in these episodes is sensitive to the business cycle. Hooray For Tax Cuts? BCA's Geopolitical Strategy team expects the GOP to pass a tax cut bill by the end of Q1 2018.5 Furthermore, the bill should provide a small but positive boost for the U.S. economy, and be neutral for EPS in the 10-year lifetime of the cuts. Chart 9 and Table 2 show that there have been seven periods since 1970 when the OECD's measure of "fiscal thrust"6 climbed. On average, stocks underperform bonds, although both are higher on average. Investment-grade corporate debt beats Treasuries, but high-yield underperforms as fiscal stimulus swells. Small caps (relative to large), gold, oil and the dollar, all are winners. Chart 9Equities, Bonds, Commodities And The Dollar Vs. Fiscal Stimulus Treasuries are the most consistent performers when fiscal policy boosts the economy, advancing in each of the seven episodes. Small caps beat large and the S&P 500 rises in five of the seven periods. The process to propose, debate, and enact significant fiscal stimulus can be a long one, and in many cases, investors deduce that a fiscal boost is on the way well before it is passed into law. Accordingly, risk assets tend to outperform a year before a tax plan is passed. On average, stocks beat bonds, small caps do better than large caps, and both gold and oil accelerate a year before fiscal thrust starts to intensify. Corporate and high-yield bonds keep pace with Treasuries during these episodes. The S&P 500 jumps nearly 10% a year prior to an increase in fiscal thrust, while the total return on Treasuries rises by 5% and the dollar is flat (Table 3). Table 2 and 3Impact Of Fiscal Policy On Markets, The Dollar And Earnings The most consistent performers as fiscal thrust is priced in are small caps over large, oil prices, the S&P 500 and the 10-year Treasury. Each of these asset classes strengthens in five of the seven periods mentioned above. Chart 10 shows the Trump trades in the past year. The performance matches the historical experience a year before the economy receives a boost from tax and spending legislation. The tax proposal before Congress provides fiscal stimulus via tax cuts, but does not provide any economic lift from an increase in government spending. Therefore, it may be more useful to review asset class performance after personal income tax rates are lowered. The GOP plan also proposes corporate tax cuts, but the historical evidence is scant; corporate tax rates have been lowered only three times in the past 45 years. There is no clear pattern of performance for U.S. financial assets and commodities in the wake of a reduction in the top marginal personal tax rate. Chart 11 shows the performance of the primary U.S. dollar asset classes and financial markets since 1970. Stocks outperformed bonds in the year after the top marginal tax rate fell in only one of the four periods (mid-1980s). The track record for corporate bonds is also mixed at best. Investment-grade either matches or beats the performance of Treasuries in each of the four periods. High-yield outperformed in the mid-1980s, but subsequently underperformed in the wake of the early 2000s tax cut. Gold was the most consistent winner, climbing in three of the four intervals. The dollar was higher in two of the three periods since moving off the gold standard in the early 1970s. There is no consistent pattern for small caps after a decrease in personal tax rates. Chart 10Market Remains Skeptical That Tax Package Will Pass Chart 11Tax Cuts Vs. Equities, Bonds, Commodities And Earnings Bottom Line: BCA's stance is that by the end of Q1 2018 the GOP will pass a tax cut that will provide a small lift to the economy. History shows that investing in risk assets in the year before fiscal thrust passes would provide the best returns. That said, the GOP plan only has tax cuts, and the performance of risk assets is mixed in the year following reduced personal tax rates, at best. John Canally, CFA, Senior Vice President U.S. Investment Strategy johnc@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Research's U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report "Later Cycle Dynamics", dated October 23, 2017. Available at uses.bcarearch.com. 2 "One component of the Baa-Treasury spread is the prepayment premium (Aaa-Treasury) to investors for the risk that if interest rates fall in the future, borrowers might retire old debt with new debt at lower rates. Another component of the Baa-Treasury spread is a liquidity premium (Aaa-Treasury) that compensates investors for the fact that private instruments are less desirable to hold relative to U.S. Treasuries when financial markets are turbulent and investors are very risk averse. The Baa-Treasury spread also contains a default risk premium (Baa-Aaa) to compensate lenders for the risk that borrowers may not repay, reflecting the amount of default risk posed and the price of risk."; Source: "What Credit Market Indicators Tells US", John V. Duca, Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, October 1999 3 Please see BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, "Still Some Upside In The Nickel Market," November 2, 2017. Available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA Research's U.S. Bond Strategy Portfolio Allocation Summary, "Into The Fire," November 7, 2017. Available at usbs.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see BCA Research's Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Tax Cuts Are Here... So Much For Populism," November 8, 2017. Available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 6 The change in general government cyclically-adjusted balance as percent of potential GDP, Source: OECD.