Fixed Income

Highlights Financial markets have slipped into a 'risk off' phase. The upbeat second quarter earnings season in the U.S., Japan and the Eurozone was overwhelmed by a number of negative events. Equity bear markets are usually associated with recessions. On that score, we do not see any warning signs of an economic downturn. However, geopolitical risks are rising at a time when valuation measures suggest that risk assets are vulnerable. We do not see the debt ceiling or the failure of movement on U.S. tax reform as posing large risks for financial markets. However, trade protectionism and, especially, North Korea are major wildcards. We don't believe the tensions in the Korean peninsula will end the cyclical bull market in global equities. Nonetheless, investors should expect to be tested numerous times over the next year to 18 months. BCA Strategists debated trimming equity exposure to neutral. However, the majority felt that, while there will be near-term volatility, the main equity indexes are likely to be higher on a 6-12 month horizon. Riding out the volatility is a better approach than trying to time the short-term ups and downs. That said, it appears prudent to be well shy of max overweight positions and to hold some safe haven assets within diversified portfolios. On a positive note, we have upgraded our EPS growth forecasts, except in the Eurozone where currency strength will be a significant drag in the near term. The Fed faced a similar low inflation/tight labor market environment in 1999. Policymakers acted pre-emptively and began to tighten before inflation turned up. This time, the FOMC will want to see at least a small increase in inflation just to be sure. Wages may be a lagging indicator for inflation in this cycle. Watch a handful of other indicators we identify that led inflection points in inflation in previous long economic expansions. This year's euro strength is unlikely to delay the next installment of ECB tapering, which we expect in early in 2018. Investors seem to be taking an "I'll believe it when I see it" attitude toward the U.S. inflation outlook, which has led to very lopsided rate expectations. Keep duration short. Feature Chart I-1Trump Popularity Headwind For Tax Reform A 'risk off' flavor swept over financial markets in August. The upbeat second quarter earnings season in the U.S., Japan and the Eurozone was overwhelmed by a number of negative events, from President Trump's Charlottesville controversy to the never-ending staff changes in the White House to North Korean tensions to the Texas flood and the terror attack in Spain. Trump's popularity rating is steadily declining, even now among Republican voters (Chart I-1). This has raised concerns that none of his business-friendly policies, tax cuts or initiatives to boost growth will be successfully enacted. It is even possible that the debt ceiling will be used as a bargaining chip among the various Republican factions. The political risks are multiplying at a time when the equity and corporate bond markets are pricey. Valuation measures do not help with timing, but they do inform on the potential downside risk if things head south. At the moment, we do not see any single risk as justifying a full retreat into safe havens and a cut in risk asset allocation to neutral or below. Nonetheless, there is certainly a case to be cautious and hold some traditional safe haven assets. Timing The Next Equity Bear Market It is rare to have an equity bear market without a recession in the U.S. There have been plenty of market setbacks that did not quite meet the 20% bear-market threshold, but were nonetheless painful even in the absence of recession (Black Monday, LTCM crisis, U.S. debt ceiling showdown and euro crises). Unfortunately, these corrections are very difficult to predict. At least with recessions, investors have a fighting chance in timing the exit from risk exposure. The slope of the yield curve and the Leading Economic Indicator (LEI) are classic recession indicators, and for good reason (Chart I-2). Over the past 50 years they have both successfully called all seven recessions with just one false positive. We can eliminate the false positive signals by combining the two indicators and follow a rule that both must be in the red to herald a recession.1 Chart I-2The Traditional Recession Indicators Have Worked Well It will be almost impossible for the yield curve to invert until the fed funds rate is significantly higher than it is today. Thus, it may be the case that a negative reading on the LEI, together with a flattening (but not yet inverted) yield curve, will be a powerful signal that a recession is on the way. Neither of these two indicators are warning of a recession. Global PMIs are hovering at a level that is consistent with robust growth. The erosion in the Global ZEW and the drop in the diffusion index of the Global LEI are worrying signs, but at the moment are consistent with a growth slowdown at worst (Chart I-3). Financial conditions remain growth-friendly and subdued inflation is allowing central banks to proceed cautiously when tightening (in the case of the Fed and Bank of Canada) or tapering (ECB). As highlighted in last month's Overview, the global economy has entered a synchronized upturn that should persist for the next year. The U.S. will be the first major economy to enter the next recession, but that should not occur until 2019 or 2020, barring any shocks in the near term. That said, risk asset prices have been bid up sharply and are therefore vulnerable to a correction. Below, we discuss five key risks to the equity bull market. (1) Is All Lost For U.S. Tax Cuts? Our recent client meetings highlight that investors are skeptical that any fiscal stimulus or tax cuts will see the light of day in the U.S. Tax cuts and infrastructure spending appear to have been priced out of the equity market, according to the index ratios shown in Chart I-4. We still expect a modest package to eventually be passed, although time is running out for this year. Tax reform is a major component of Trump's and congressional Republicans' agenda. If it fails, Republicans will have to go to their home districts empty-handed to campaign for the November 2018 midterm elections. Chart I-3Some Worrying Signs On Growth Chart I-4Fiscal Stimulus Largely Priced Out One implication of Tropical Storm Harvey is that it might force Democrats and Republicans to cooperate on an infrastructure bill for rebuilding. Even a modest spending boost or tax reduction would be equity-market positive given that so little is currently discounted. The dollar should also receive a lift, especially given that the Fed might respond to any fiscally-driven growth impulse with higher interest rates. (2) Who Will Lead The Fed? There is a significant chance that either Yellen will refuse to stay on when her term expires next February or that Trump will appoint someone else anyway. In this case, we would expect the President to do everything he can to ensure that the Fed retains its dovish bias. This means that he is likely to favor a non-economist and a loyal adviser, like Gary Cohn, over any of the more traditional, and hawkish, Republican candidates. Cohn could not arrive at the Fed and change the course of monetary policy on day one. The FOMC votes on rate changes, but in reality decisions are formed by consensus (with one or two dissents). The only way Cohn could implement an abrupt change in policy is if the Administration stacks the Fed Governors with appointees that are prepared to "toe the line" (the Administration does not appoint Regional Fed Presidents). Stacking the Governorships would take time. Nonetheless, it is not clear why President Trump would take a heavy hand in monetary policy when the current FOMC has been very cautious in tightening policy. The bottom line is that we would not see Cohn's appointment to the Fed Chair as signaling a major shift in monetary policy one way or the other. (3) The Debt Ceiling A more immediate threat is the debt ceiling. Recent fights over Obamacare and tax reform have pit fiscally conservative Republicans against the moderates, and it is possible that the debt ceiling is used as a bargaining chip in this battle. While government shutdowns have occurred in the past, the debt ceiling has never been breached. At the end of the day, the debt ceiling will always be raised because no government could stand the popular pressure that would result from social security checks not being mailed out to seniors or a halt to other entitlement programs. Even the Freedom Caucus, the most fiscally conservative grouping in the House, is considerably divided on the issue. This augurs well for a clean bill to raise the debt ceiling as the Republican majority in the House is 22 and the Freedom Caucus has 31 members. Democrats will not stand in the way of passage in the Senate. The worst-case scenario for the market would be a two-week shutdown in the first half of October, just before the debt ceiling is hit. We would not expect a shutdown to have any lasting impact on the economy, although it could provide an excuse for the equity market to correct. That said, the risk of even a shutdown has been diminished by events in Houston. It would be very difficult and damaging politically to shut down the government during a humanitarian emergency. (4) Trade And Protectionism The removal of White House Chief Strategist Stephen Bannon signals a shift in power toward the Goldman clique within the Trump Administration. National Economic Council President Gary Cohn, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, and Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross are now firmly in charge of economic policy. The mainstream media has interpreted this shift within the Administration as reducing the risk of trade friction. We do not see it that way. President Trump still sounds hawkish on trade, particularly with respect to China. Our geopolitical experts point out that there are few constraints on the President to imposing trade sanctions on China or other countries. He could use such action to boost his popularity among his base heading into next year's midterm elections. On NAFTA, the Administration took a hard line as negotiations kicked off in August. This could be no more than a negotiating tactic. Our base case is that it will be some time before investors find out if negotiations are going off the rails. That said, the situation is volatile for both NAFTA and China, and we can't rule out a trade-related risk-off phase in financial markets over the next year. (5) North Korea North Korea's missile launch over Japan highlights that the tense situation is a long way from a resolution. The U.S. is unlikely to use military force to resolve the standoff. There are long-standing constraints to war, including the likelihood of a high death toll in Seoul. Moreover, China is unlikely to remain neutral in any conflict. However, the U.S. will attempt to establish a credible threat in order to contain Kim Jong-un. From an investor's perspective, it will be difficult to gauge whether the brinkmanship and military displays are simply posturing or evidence of real preparations for war.2 We don't believe the tensions in the Korean peninsula will end the cyclical bull market in global equities. Nonetheless, investors should expect to be tested numerous times over the next year to 18 months. Adding it all up, there is no shortage of things to keep investors awake at night. We would be de-risking our recommended portfolio were it not for the favorable earnings backdrop in the major advanced economies. Profit Outlook Update Chart I-5EPS Growth Outlook Second quarter earnings season came in even stronger than our upbeat models suggested in the U.S., Eurozone and Japan. This led to upward revisions to our EPS growth forecast, except in the Eurozone where currency strength will be a significant drag in the near term. The U.S. equity market enjoyed another quarter of margin expansion in Q2 2017 and the good news was broadly based. Earnings per share were higher versus Q2 2016 in all 11 sectors. Results were particularly strong in energy, technology and financials. Looking ahead, an update of our top-down model suggests the EPS growth will peak just under 20% late this year on a 4-quarter moving average basis, before falling to mid-single digits by the end of 2018 (Chart I-5). The peak is predicted to be a little higher than we previously forecast largely due to the feed-through of this year's pullback in the dollar. In Japan, a solid 70% of reporting firms beat estimates. Chart I-6 shows that Japan led all other major stock markets in positive earnings surprises in the second quarter. Manufacturing sectors, such as iron & steel, chemicals and machinery & electronics, were particularly impressive in the quarter, reflecting yen weakness and robust overseas demand. Japanese earnings are highly geared to the rebound in global industrial production. Moreover, Japan's nominal GDP growth accelerated in the second quarter and the latest PPI report suggested that corporate pricing power has improved. Twelve-month forward EPS estimates have risen to fresh all times highs, and have outperformed the U.S. in local currencies so far this year. Corporate governance reform - a key element of Abenomics - can take some credit for the good news on earnings. The share of companies with at least two independent directors rose from 18% in 2013 to 78% in 2016. The number of companies with performance-linked pay increased from 640 to 941, while the number that publish disclosure policies jumped from 679 to 1055. Analysts have been slow to factor in these positive developments. We expect trailing EPS growth to peak at about 25% in the first half of 2018 on a 4-quarter moving total basis, before edging lower by the end of the year. This is one reason why we like the Japanese market over the U.S. in local currency terms. Second quarter results in the Eurozone were solid, although not as impressive as in the U.S. and Japan. The 6% rise in the trade-weighted euro this year has resulted in a drop in the earnings revisions ratio into negative territory. Our previous forecast pointed to a continued rise in the 4-quarter moving average growth rate into the first half of 2018. However, we now expect the growth rate to dip by year end, before picking up somewhat next year. If the euro is flat from today's level, our model suggests that the drag on EPS growth will hover at 3-4 percentage points through the first half of next year as the negative impact feeds through (Chart I-7, bottom panel). Chart I-6Japan Led In Q2 Earning Surprises Chart I-7Currency Effects On Eurozone EPS Our top-down EPS model highlights that Eurozone earnings are quite sensitive to swings in the currency. In Chart I-7, we present alternative scenarios based on the euro weakening to EUR/USD 1.10 and strengthening to EUR/USD 1.30. For demonstration purposes we make the extreme assumption that the trade-weighted value of the euro rises and falls by the same amount in percentage terms. Profit growth decelerates by the end of 2017 in all three scenarios because of the lagged effect of currency swings. The projections begin to diverge only in 2018. EPS growth surges to around 20% by the end of next year in the euro-bear case, as the tailwind from the weakening currency combines with continuing robust economic growth. Conversely, trailing earnings growth hovers in the 5-8% range in the euro bull scenario, which is substantially less than we expect in the U.S. and Japan over the next year. EPS growth remains in positive territory because the assumed strength in European and global growth dominates the drag from the euro. The strong euro scenario would be negative for Eurozone equity relative performance versus global stocks in local currencies, although Europe might outperform on a common currency basis. The bottom line is that 12-month forward earnings estimates should remain in an uptrend in the three major economies. This means that, absent a negative political shock, the equity bull phase should resume in the coming months. Monetary policy is unlikely to spoil the party for risk assets, although the bond market is a source of risk because investors seem unprepared for even a modest rise in inflation. FOMC Has Seen This Before The Minutes from the July FOMC meeting highlighted that the key debate still centers on the relationship between labor market tightness and inflation, the timing of the next Fed rate hike and how policy should adjust to changing financial conditions. Chart I-8The FOMC Has Been Here Before The majority of policymakers are willing for now to believe that this year's soft inflation readings are driven largely by temporary 'one-off' factors. The hawks worry that a further undershoot of unemployment below estimates of full employment could suddenly generate a surge of inflation. They also point to the risk that low bond yields are promoting excess risk taking in financial markets. Moreover, the recent easing in financial conditions is stimulative and should be counterbalanced by additional Fed tightening. The hawks are thus anxious to resume tightening, despite current inflation readings. Others are worried that inflation softness could reflect structural factors, such as restraints on pricing power from global developments and from innovations to business models spurred by advances in technology. In this month's Special Report beginning on page 18, we have a close look at the impact of "Amazonification" in holding down overall inflation. We do not find the evidence regarding e-commerce compelling, but the jury is still out on the impact of other technologies. If robots and new business strategies are indeed weighing on inflation, it would mean that the Phillips curve is very flat or that the full employment level of unemployment is lower than the Fed estimates (or both). Either way, the doves would like to see the whites-of-the-eyes of inflation before resuming rate hikes. The last time the Fed was perplexed by a low level of inflation despite a tight labor market was in the late 1990s (Chart I-8). The FOMC cut rates following the LTCM financial crisis in late 1998, and then held the fed funds rate unchanged at 4¾% until June 1999. Core inflation was roughly flat during the on-hold period at 1% to 1½%, even as the unemployment rate steadily declined and various measures pointed to growing labor shortages. The FOMC 's internal debate in the first half of 1999 sounded very familiar. The minutes from meetings at that time noted that some policymakers pointed to the widespread inability of firms to raise prices because of strong competitive pressures in domestic and global markets. Some argued that significant cost saving efforts and new technologies also contributed to the low inflation environment for both consumer prices and wages. One difference from today is that productivity growth was solid at that time. The FOMC decided to hike rates in June 1999 by a quarter point, despite the absence of any clear indication that inflation had turned up. Policymakers described the tightening as "a small preemptive move... (that) would provide a degree of insurance against worsening inflation later". The Fed went on to lift the fed funds rate to 6½% by May 2000. Interestingly, the unemployment rate in June 1999 was 4.3%, exactly the same as the current rate. There are undoubtedly important differences in today's macro backdrop. The Fed is also more fearful of making a policy mistake in the aftermath of the Great Recession and financial crisis. Nonetheless, the point is that the Fed has faced a similar low inflation/tight labor market environment before, but in the end patience ran out and policymakers acted pre-emptively. Inflation Warning Signs During Long-Expansions We have noted in previous research that inflation pressures are slower to emerge in 'slow burn' recoveries, such as the 1980s and 1990s. In Chart I-9, we compare the core PCE inflation rate in the current cycle with the average of the previous two long expansion episodes (the inflection point for inflation in the previous cycles are aligned with June 2017 for comparison purposes). The other panels in the chart highlight that, in the 1980s and 1990s, wage growth was a lagging indicator. Economic commentators often assume that inflation is driven exclusively by "cost push" effects, such that the direction of causation runs from wage pressure to price pressure. However, causation runs in the other direction as well. Households see rising prices and then demand better wages to compensate for the added cost of living. This is not to say that we should totally disregard wage information. But it does mean that we must keep an eye on a wider set of data. Indicators that provided some leading information in the previous two long cycles are shown in Chart I-10. To this list we would also add the St. Louis Fed's Price Pressure index, which is not shown in Chart I-10 because it does not have enough history. At the moment, the headline PPI, ISM Prices Paid and BCA's pipeline inflation pressure index are all warning that inflation pressures are gradually building. However, this message is not confirmed by the St. Louis Fed's index and corporate selling prices. We are also watching the velocity of money, which has been a reasonably good leading indicator for U.S. inflation since 2000 (Chart I-11). Chart I-9In The 80s & 90s Wage Growth ##br##Gave No Early Warning On Inflation Chart I-10Leading Indicators Of Inflation ##br##In "Slow Burn" Recoveries Chart I-11Money Velocity And Inflation Our Fed view remains unchanged from last month; the FOMC will announce its balance sheet diet plan in September and the next rate hike will take place in December. Nonetheless, this forecast hangs on the assumption that core inflation edges higher in the coming months. Some indicators are pointing in that direction and recent dollar weakness will help. Wake Me When Inflation Picks Up Investors seem to be taking an "I'll believe it when I see it" attitude toward the U.S. inflation outlook. They also believe that persistent economic headwinds mean that monetary policy will need to stay highly accommodative for a very long time. Only one Fed rate hike is discounted between now and the end of 2018, and implied forward real short-term rates are negative until 2022. While we do not foresee surging inflation, the risks for market expectations appear quite lopsided. We expect one rate hike by year end, followed by at least another 50 basis points of tightening in 2018. The U.S. 10-year yield is also about almost 50 basis points below our short-term fair value estimate (Chart I-12). Moreover, over the medium- and long-term, reduced central bank bond purchases will impart gentle upward pressure on equilibrium bond yields. Twenty-eighteen will be the first time in four years in which the net supply of government bonds available to private investors will rise, taking the U.S., U.K., Eurozone and Japanese markets as a group. This year's euro strength is unlikely to delay the next installment of ECB tapering, which we expect in early in 2018. The currency appreciation will keep a lid on inflation in the near term. However, we see the euro's ascent as reflective of the booming economy, rather than a major headwind that will derail the growth story. Overall financial conditions have tightened this year, but only back to levels that persisted through 2016 (Chart I-13). Chart I-12U.S. 10-year Yield Is Below Fair Value Chart I-13Financial Conditions It will take clear signs that the economy is being negatively affected by currency strength for the ECB to back away from tapering. Indeed, the central bank has little choice because the bond buying program is approaching important technical limits. European corporate and peripheral bond spreads are likely to widen versus bunds as a result. The implication is that global yields have significant upside potential relative to forward rates, especially in the U.S. market. Duration should be kept short. JGBs are the only safe place to hide if global yields shift up because the Bank of Japan is a long way from abandoning its 10-year yield peg. Treasury yields should lead the way higher, which will finally place a bottom under the beleaguered dollar. Nonetheless, we are tactically at neutral on the greenback. Conclusions Chart I-14Gold Loves Geopolitical Crises In light of rising geopolitical risk, the BCA Strategists recently debated trimming equity exposure to neutral. Some argued that the risk/reward balance has deteriorated; the upside is limited by poor valuation, while there is significant downside potential if the North Korean situation deteriorates alarmingly. However, the majority felt that, while there will be near-term volatility, the main equity indexes are likely to be higher on a 6-12 month horizon. Riding out the volatility is a better approach than trying to time the short-term ups and downs. That said, it appears prudent to be well shy of max overweight positions and to hold some safe haven assets within diversified portfolios. BCA research has demonstrated that U.S. Treasurys, Swiss bonds and JGBs have been the best performers in times of crisis (Chart I-14).3 The same is true for the Swiss franc and the Japanese yen, such that the currency exposure should not be hedged in these cases. The dollar is more nuanced. It tends to perform well during financial crises, but not in geopolitical crises or recessions. Gold has tended to perform well in geopolitical events and recessions, although not in financial crises. We continue to prefer Japanese to U.S. stocks in local currency terms, given that EPS growth will likely peak in the U.S. first. Japanese stocks are also better valued. Europe is a tough call because this year's currency strength will weigh on earnings in the next quarter or two. However, the negative impact on earnings will reverse if the euro retraces as we expect. EM stocks have seen the strongest positive earnings revisions this year. We continue to worry about some of the structural headwinds facing emerging markets (high debt levels, poor governance, etc.). However, the cyclical picture remains more upbeat. Chinese H-shares remain our favorite EM market, trading at just 7.5 times 2017 earnings estimates. Our dollar and duration positions have been disappointing so far this year. Much hinges on U.S. inflation. Investors appear to have adopted the idea that structural headwinds to inflation will forever dominate the cyclical pressures. This means that the bond market is totally unprepared for any upside surprises on the inflation landscape. Admittedly, a rise in bond yields may not be imminent, but the risks appear to us to be predominantly to the upside. Lastly, crude oil inventories are shrinking as our commodity strategists predicted. They remain bullish, with a price target of USD60/bbl. Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst August 31, 2017 Next Report: September 28, 2017 1 Please see BCA Global ETF Strategy, "A Guide To Spotting And Weathering Bear Markets," dated August 16, 2017, available at etf.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Can Pyongyang Derail The Bull Market?" dated August 16, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see BCA Special Report, "Stairway To (Safe) Haven: Investing In Times Of Crisis," dated August 25, 2016, available at bca.bcaresearch.com II. Did Amazon Kill The Phillips Curve? A "culture of profound cost reduction" has gripped the business sector since the GFC according to one school of thought, permanently changing the relationship between labor market slack and wages or inflation. If true, it could mean that central banks are almost powerless to reach their inflation targets. Amazon, Airbnb, Uber, robotics, contract workers, artificial intelligence, horizontal drilling and driverless cars are just a few examples of companies and technologies that are cutting costs and depressing prices and wages. In the first of our series on inflation, we will focus on the rise of e-commerce and the related "Amazonification" of the economy. In theory, positive supply shocks should not have more than a temporary impact on inflation if the price level is indeed a monetary phenomenon in the long term. But a series of positive supply shocks could make it appear for quite a while that low inflation is structural in nature. We are keeping an open mind and reserving judgement on the disinflationary impact of robotics, artificial intelligence and the gig economy until we do more research. But in terms of the impact of e-commerce, it is difficult to find supportive evidence at the macro level. The admittedly inadequate measures of online prices available today do not suggest that e-commerce sales are depressing the overall inflation rate by more than 0.1 or 0.2 percentage points. Moreover, it does not appear that the disinflationary impact of competition in the retail sector has intensified over the years. Today's creative destruction in retail may be no more deflationary than the shift to 'big box' stores in the 1990s. Perhaps lower online prices are forcing traditional retailers to match the e-commerce vendors, allowing for a larger disinflationary effect than we estimate. However, the fact that retail margins are near secular highs outside of department stores argues against this thesis. The sectors potentially affected by e-commerce make up a small part of the CPI index. The deceleration of inflation since the GFC has been in areas unaffected by online sales. High profit margins for the overall corporate sector and depressed productivity growth also argue against the idea that e-commerce represents a large positive macro supply shock. Perhaps the main way that e-commerce is affecting the macro economy and financial markets is not through inflation, but via the reduction in the economy's capital spending requirement. This would reduce the equilibrium level of interest rates, since the Fed has to stimulate other parts of the economy to offset the loss of demand in capital spending in the retail sector. Anecdotal evidence is all around us. The global economy is evolving and it seems that all of the major changes are deflationary. Amazon, Airbnb, Uber, robotics, contract workers, artificial intelligence, horizontal drilling and driverless cars are just a few examples of companies and technologies that are cutting costs and depressing prices and wages. Central banks in the major advanced economies are having difficulty meeting their inflation targets, even in the U.S. where the labor market is tight by historical standards. Based on the depressed level of bond yields, it appears that the majority of investors believe that inflation headwinds will remain formidable for a long time. One school of thought is that low inflation reflects a lack of demand growth in the post-Great Financial Crisis (GFC) period. Another school points to the supply side of the economy. A recent report by Prudential Financial highlights "...obvious examples of ... new business models and new organizational structures, whereby higher-cost traditional methods of production, transportation, and distribution are displaced by more nontraditional cost-effective ways of conducting business."1 A "culture of profound cost reduction" has gripped the business sector since the GFC according to this school, permanently changing the relationship between labor market slack and wages or inflation (i.e., the Phillips Curve). Employees are less aggressive in their wage demands in a world where robots are threatening humans in a broadening array of industrial categories. Many feel lucky just to have a job. In a highly sensationalized article called "How The Internet Economy Killed Inflation," Forbes argued that "the internet has reduced many of the traditional barriers to entry that protect companies from competition and created a race to the bottom for prices in a number of categories." Forbes believes that new technologies are placing downward pressure on inflation by depressing wages, increasing productivity and encouraging competition. There are many factors that have the potential to weigh on prices, but analysts are mainly focusing on e-commerce, robotics, artificial intelligence, and the gig economy. In the first of our series on inflation, we will focus on the rise of e-commerce and the related "Amazonification" of the economy. The latter refers to the advent of new business models that cut out layers of middlemen between producers and consumers. Amazonification E-commerce has grown at a compound annual rate of more than 9% over the past 15 years, and now accounts for about 8½% of total U.S. retail sales (Chart II-1). Amazon has been leading the charge, accounting for 43% of all online sales in 2016 (Chart II-2). Amazon's business model not only cuts costs by eliminating middlemen and (until recently) avoiding expensive showrooms, but it also provides a platform for improved price discovery on an extremely broad array of goods. In 2013, Amazon carried 230 million items for sale in the United States, nearly 30 times the number sold by Walmart, one of the largest retailers in the world. Chart II-1E-Commerce: Steady Increase In Market Share Chart II-2Amazon Dominates With the use of a smartphone, consumers can check the price of an item on Amazon while shopping in a physical store. Studies show that it does not require a large price gap for shoppers to buy online rather than in-store. Amazon appears to be impacting other retailers' ability to pass though cost increases, leading to a rash of retail outlet closings. Sears alone announced the closure of 300 retail outlets this year. The devastation that Amazon inflicted on the book industry is well known. It is no wonder then, that Amazon's purchase of Whole Foods Market, a grocery chain, sent shivers down the spines of CEOs not only in the food industry, but in the broader retail industry as well. What would prevent Amazon from applying its model to furniture and appliances, electronics or drugstores? It seems that no retail space is safe. A Little Theory Before we turn to the evidence, let's review the macro theory related to positive supply shocks. The internet could be lowering prices by moving product markets toward the "perfect competition" model. The internet trims search costs, improves price transparency and reduces barriers to entry. The internet also allows for shorter supply chains, as layers of wholesalers and other intermediaries are removed and e-commerce companies allow more direct contact between consumers and producers. Fewer inventories and a smaller "brick and mortar" infrastructure take additional costs out of the system. Economic theory suggests that the result of this positive supply shock will be greater product market competition, increased productivity and reduced profitability. In the long run, workers should benefit from the productivity boost via real wage gains (even if nominal wage growth is lackluster). Workers may lower their reservation wage if they feel that increased competitive pressures or technology threaten their jobs. The internet is also likely to improve job matching between the unemployed and available vacancies, which should lead to a fall in the full-employment level of unemployment (NAIRU). Nonetheless, the internet should not have a permanent impact on inflation. The lower level of NAIRU and the direct effects of the internet on consumer prices discussed above allow inflation to fall below the central bank's target. The bank responds by lowering interest rates, stimulating demand and thereby driving unemployment down to the new lower level of NAIRU. Over time, inflation will drift back up toward target. In other words, a greater degree of the competition should boost the supply side of the economy and lower NAIRU, but it should not result in a permanently lower rate of inflation if inflation is indeed a monetary phenomenon and central banks strive to meet their targets. Still, one could imagine a series of supply shocks that are spread out over time, with each having a temporary negative impact on prices such that it appears for a while that inflation has been permanently depressed. This could be an accurate description of the current situation in the U.S. and some of the other major countries. We have sympathy for the view that the internet and new business models are increasing competition, cutting costs and thereby limiting price increases in some areas. But is there any hard evidence? Is the competitive effect that large, and is it any more intense than in the past? There are a number of reasons to be skeptical because most of the evidence does not support Forbes' claim that the internet has killed inflation. (1) E-commerce affects only a small part of the Consumer Price Index As mentioned above, online shopping for goods represents 8.5% of total retail sales in the U.S. E-commerce is concentrated in four kinds of businesses (Table II-1): Furniture & Home Furnishings (7% of total retail sales), Electronics & Appliances (20%), Health & Personal Care (15%), and Clothing (10%). Since goods make up 40% of the CPI, then 3.2% (8% times 40%) is a ballpark estimate for the size of goods e-commerce in the CPI. Table II-1E-Commerce Market Share Of Goods Sector (2015) Table II-2 shows the relative size of e-commerce in the service sector. The analysis is complicated by the fact that the data on services includes B-to-B sales in addition to B-to-C.2 However, e-commerce represents almost 4% of total sales for the service categories tracked by the BLS. Services make up 60% of the CPI, but the size drops to 26% if we exclude shelter (which is probably not affected by online shopping). Thus, e-commerce in the service sector likely affects 1% (3.9% times 26%) of the CPI. Table II-2E-Commerce Market Share Of Service Sector (2015) Adding goods and services, online shopping affects about 4.2% of the CPI index at most. The bottom line is that the relatively small size of e-commerce at the consumer level limits any estimate of the impact of online sales on the broad inflation rate. (2) Most of the deceleration in inflation since 2007 has been in areas unaffected by e-commerce Table II-3 compares the average contribution to annual average CPI inflation during 2000-2007 with that of 2007-2016. Average annual inflation fell from 2.9% in the seven years before the Great Recession to 1.8% after, for a total decline of just over 1 percentage point. The deceleration is almost fully explained by Energy, Food and Owners' Equivalent Rent. The bottom part of Table II-3 highlights that the sectors with the greatest exposure to e-commerce had a negligible impact on the inflation slowdown. Table II-3Comparison Of Pre- and Post-Lehman Inflation Rates (3) The cost advantages for online sellers are overstated Bain & Company, a U.S. consultancy, argues that e-commerce will not grow in importance indefinitely and come to dominate consumer spending.3 E-commerce sales are already slowing. Market share is following a classic S-shaped curve that, Bain estimates, will top out at under 30% by 2030. First, not everyone wants to buy everything online. Products that are well known to consumers and purchased on a regular basis are well suited to online shopping. But for many other products, consumers need to see and feel the product in person before making a purchase. Second, the cost savings of online selling versus traditional brick and mortar stores is not as great as many believe. Bain claims that many e-commerce businesses struggle to make a profit. The information technology, distribution centers, shipping, and returns processing required by e-commerce companies can cost as much as running physical stores in some cases. E-tailers often cannot ship directly from manufacturers to consumers; they need large and expensive fulfillment centers and a very generous returns policy. Moreover, online and offline sales models are becoming blurred. Retailers with physical stores are growing their e-commerce operations, while previously pure e-commerce plays are adding stores or negotiating space in other retailers' stores. Even Amazon now has storefronts. The shift toward an "multichannel" selling model underscores that there are benefits to traditional brick-and-mortar stores that will ensure that they will not completely disappear. (4) E-commerce is not the first revolution in the retail sector The retail sector has changed significantly over the decades and it is not clear that the disinflationary effect of the latest revolution, e-commerce, is any more intense than in the past. Economists at Goldman Sachs point out that the growth of Amazon's market share in recent years still lags that of Walmart and other "big box" stores in the 1990s (Chart II-3).4 This fact suggests that "Amazonification" may not be as disinflationary as the previous big-box revolution. (5) Weak productivity growth and high profit margins are inconsistent with a large supply-side benefit from e-commerce As discussed above, economic theory suggests that a positive supply shock that cuts costs and boosts competition should trim profit margins and lift productivity. The problem is that the margins and productivity have moved in the opposite direction that economic theory would suggest (Chart II-4). Chart II-3Amazon Vs. Walmart: ##br##Who's More Deflationary? Chart II-4Incompatible With A Supply Shock By definition, productivity rises when firms can produce the same output with fewer or cheaper inputs. However, it is well documented that productivity growth has been in a downtrend since the 1990s, and has been dismally low since the Great Recession. A Special Report from BCA's Global Investment Strategy5 service makes a convincing case that mismeasurement is not behind the low productivity figures. In fact, in many industries it appears that productivity is over-estimated. If e-commerce is big enough to "move the dial" on overall inflation, it should be big enough to see in the aggregate productivity figures. Chart II-5Retail Margin Squeeze ##br##Only In Department Stores One would also expect to see a margin squeeze across industries if e-commerce is indeed generating a lot of deflationary competitive pressure. Despite dismally depressed productivity, however, corporate profit margins are at the high end of the historical range across most of the sectors of the S&P 500. This is the case even in the retailing sector outside of department stores (Chart II-5). These facts argue against the idea that the internet has moved the economy further toward a disinflationary "perfect competition" model. (6) Online price setting is characterized by frictions comparable to traditional retail We would expect to observe a low price dispersion across online vendors since the internet has apparently lowered the cost of monitoring competitors' prices and the cost of searching for the lowest price. We would also expect to see fairly synchronized price adjustments; if one vendor adjusts its price due to changing market conditions, then the rest should quickly follow to avoid suffering a massive loss of market share. However, a recent study of price-setting practices in the U.S. and U.K. found that this is not the case.6 The dataset covered a broad spectrum of consumer goods and sellers over a two-year period, comparing online with offline prices. The researchers found that market pricing "frictions" are surprisingly elevated in the online world. Price dispersion is high in absolute terms and on par with offline pricing. Academics for years have puzzled over high price rigidities and dispersion in retail stores in the context of an apparently stiff competitive environment, and it appears that online pricing is not much better. The study did not cover a long enough period to see if frictions were even worse in the past. Nonetheless, the evidence available suggests that the lower cost of monitoring prices afforded by the internet has not led to significant price convergence across sellers online or offline. Another study compared online and offline prices for multichannel retailers, using the massive database provided by the Billion Prices Project at MIT.7 The database covers prices across 10 countries. The study found that retailers charged the same price online as in-store in 72% of cases. The average discount was 4% for those cases in which there was a markdown online. If the observations with identical prices are included, the average online/offline price difference was just 1%. (7) Some measures of online prices have grown at about the same pace as the CPI index The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics does include online sales when constructing the Consumer Price Index. It even includes peer-to-peer sales by companies such as Airbnb and Uber. However, the BLS admits that its sample lags the popularity of such services by a few years. Moreover, while the BLS is trying to capture the rising proportion of sales done via e-commerce, "outlet bias" means that the CPI does not capture the price effect in cases where consumers are finding cheaper prices online. This is because the BLS weights the growth rate of online and offline prices, not the price levels. While there may be level differences, there is no reason to believe that the inflation rates for similar goods sold online and offline differ significantly. If the inflation rates are close, then the growing share of online sales will not affect overall inflation based on the BLS methodology. The BLS argues that any bias in the CPI due to outlet bias is mitigated to the extent that physical stores offer a higher level of service. Thus, price differences may not be that great after quality-adjustment. All this suggests that the actual consumer price inflation rate could be somewhat lower than the official rate. Nonetheless, it does not necessarily mean that inflation, properly measured, is being depressed by e-commerce to a meaningful extent. Indeed, Chart II-6 highlights that the U.S. component of the Billion Prices Index rose at a faster pace than the overall CPI between 2009 and 2014. The Online Price Index fell in absolute and relative terms from 2014 to mid-2016, but rose sharply toward the end of 2016. Applying our guesstimate of the weight of e-commerce in the CPI (3.2% for goods), online price inflation added to overall annual CPI inflation by about 0.3 percentage points in 2016 (bottom panel of Chart II-6). There is more deflation evident in the BLS' index of prices for Electronic Shopping and Mail Order Houses (Chart II-7). Online prices fell relative to the overall CPI for most of the time since the early 1990s, with the relative price decline accelerating since the GFC. However, our estimate of the contribution to overall annual CPI inflation is only about -0.15 percentage points in June 2017, and has never been more than -0.3 percentage points. This could be an underestimate because it does not include the impact of services, although the service e-commerce share of the CPI is very small. Chart II-6Online Price Index Chart II-7Electronic Shopping Price Index Another way to approach this question is to focus on the parts of the CPI that are most exposed to e-commerce. It is impossible to separate the effect of e-commerce on inflation from other drivers of productivity. Nonetheless, if online shopping is having a significant deflationary impact on overall inflation, we should see large and persistent negative contributions from these parts of the CPI. We combined the components of the CPI that most closely matched the sectors that have high e-commerce exposure according to the BLS' annual Retail Survey (Chart II-8). The sectors in our aggregate e-commerce price proxy include hotels/motels, taxicabs, books & magazines, clothing, computer hardware, drugs, health & beauty aids, electronics & appliances, alcoholic beverages, furniture & home furnishings, sporting goods, air transportation, travel arrangement and reservation services, educational services and other merchandise. The sectors are weighted based on their respective weights in the CPI. Our e-commerce price proxy has generally fallen relative to the overall CPI index since 2000. However, while the average contribution of these sectors to the overall annual CPI inflation rate has fallen in the post GFC period relative to the 2000-2007 period, the average difference is only 0.2 percentage points. The contribution has hovered around the zero mark for the past 2½ years. Surprisingly, price indexes have increased by more than the overall CPI since 2000 in some sectors where one would have expected to see significant relative price deflation, such as taxis, hotels, travel arrangement and even books. One could argue that significant measurement error must be a factor. How could the price of books have gone up faster than the CPI? Sectors displaying the most relative price declines are clothing, computers, electronics, furniture, sporting goods, air travel and other goods. We recalculated our e-commerce proxy using only these deflating sectors, but we boosted their weights such that the overall weight of the proxy in the CPI is kept the same as our full e-commerce proxy discussed above. In other words, this approach implicitly assumes that the excluded sectors (taxis, books, hotels and travel arrangement) actually deflated at the average pace of the sectors that remain in the index. Our adjusted e-commerce proxy suggests that online pricing reduced overall CPI inflation by about 0.1-to-0.2 percentage points in recent years (Chart II-9). This contribution is below the long-term average of the series, but the drag was even greater several times in the past. Chart II-8BCA E-Commerce Proxy Price Index Chart II-9BCA E-Commerce Adjusted Proxy Price Index Admittedly, data limitations mean that all of the above estimates of the impact of e-commerce are ballpark figures. Conclusions We are keeping an open mind and reserving judgement on the disinflationary impact of robotics, artificial intelligence and the gig economy until we do more research. But in terms of the impact of e-commerce, it is difficult to find supportive evidence. The available data are admittedly far from ideal for confirming or disproving the "Amazonification" thesis. Perhaps better measures of e-commerce pricing will emerge in the future. Nonetheless, the measures available today do not suggest that online sales are depressing the overall inflation rate by more than 0.1 or 0.2 percentage points, and it does not appear that the disinflationary impact has intensified by much. One could argue that lower online prices are forcing traditional retailers to match the e-commerce vendors, allowing for a larger disinflationary effect than we estimate. Nonetheless, if this were the case, then we would expect to see significant margin compression in the retail sector. The sectors potentially affected by e-commerce make up a small part of the CPI index. The deceleration of inflation since the GFC has been in areas unaffected by online sales. High corporate profit margins and depressed productivity growth also argue against the idea that e-commerce represents a large positive macro supply shock. Finally, today's creative destruction in retail may be no more deflationary than the shift to 'big box' stores in the 1990s. Perhaps the main way that e-commerce is affecting the macro economy and financial markets is not through inflation, but via the reduction in the economy's capital spending requirement. Rising online activity means that we need fewer shopping malls and big box outlets to support a given level of consumer spending. This would reduce the equilibrium level of interest rates, since the Fed has to stimulate other parts of the economy to offset the loss of demand in capital spending in the retail sector. To the extent that central banks were slow to recognize that equilibrium rates had fallen to extremely low levels, then policy was behind the curve and this might have contributed to the current low inflation environment. Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst 1 Robert F. DeLucia, "Economic Perspective: A Nontraditional Analysis Of Inflation," Prudential Capital Group (August 21, 2017). 2 Business to business, and business to consumer. 3 Aaron Cheris, Darrell Rigby and Suzanne Tager, "The Power Of Omnichannel Stores," Bain & Company Insights: Retail Holiday Newsletter 2016-2017 (December 19, 2016). 4 "US Daily: The Internet And Inflation: How Big Is The Amazon Effect?" Goldman Sachs Economic Research (August 2, 2017). 5 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Weak Productivity Growth: Don't Blame The Statisticians," dated March 25, 2016, available at gis.bcaresearch.com 6 Yuriy Gorodnichenko, Viacheslav Sheremirov, and Oleksandr Talavera, "Price Setting In Online Markets: Does IT Click?" Journal of the European Economic Association (July 2016). 7 Alberto Cavallo, "Are Online And Offline Prices Similar? Evidence From Large Multi-Channel Retailers," NBER Working Paper No. 22142 (March 2016). III. Indicators And Reference Charts Stocks struggled in August on the back of intensifying geopolitical risks, such that equity returns slipped versus bonds in the month. The earnings backdrop remains constructive for global stocks. In the U.S., 12-month forward EPS estimates continue to climb, in line with upbeat net revisions and earnings surprises. Nonetheless, the risk/reward balance has deteriorated due to escalating risks inside and outside of the U.S. Allocation to risk assets should still exceed benchmark, but should be shy of maximum settings. It is prudent to hold some of the traditional safe haven assets, including gold. Our new Revealed Preference Indicator (RPI) remained at 100% in August, sending a bullish message for equities. We introduced the RPI in the July report. Quite simply, it combines the idea of market momentum with valuation and policy measures. It provides a powerful bullish signal if positive market momentum lines up with constructive signals from the policy and valuation measures. Conversely, if constructive market momentum is not supported by valuation and policy, investors should lean against the market trend. Our Willingness-to-Pay (WTP) indicators are also bullish on stocks for the U.S., Europe and Japan. These indicators track flows, and thus provides information on what investors are actually doing, as opposed to sentiment indexes that track how investors are feeling. The U.S. WTP topped out in June and the same occurred in August for the Japan and the Eurozone indexes. While the indicators are still bullish, they highlight that flows into the equity markets in the major countries are beginning to moderate. These indicators would have to clearly turn lower to provide a bearish signal for stocks. The VIX increased last month, but remains depressed by historical standards. This implies that the equity market is vulnerable to bad news. However, investor sentiment is close to neutral and our speculation index has pulled back from previously elevated levels. These suggest that investors are not overly long at the moment. Our monetary indicator is only slightly negative, but the equity technical indicator is close to breaking below the 9-month moving average (a negative technical sign). Bond valuation continues to hover near fair value, according to our long-standing model that is based on a simple regression of the nominal 10-year yield on short-term real interest rates and a moving average of inflation. Another model, presented in the Overview section, estimates fair value based on dollar sentiment, a measure of policy uncertainty and the global PMI. This model suggests that the 10-year yield is almost 50 basis points on the expensive side. We think that Fed rate expectations are far too benign, suggesting that bond yields will rise. EQUITIES: Chart III-1U.S. Equity Indicators Chart III-2Willingness To Pay For Risk Chart III-3U.S. Equity Sentiment Indicators Chart III-4Revealed Preference Indicator Chart III-5U.S. Stock Market Valuation Chart III-6U.S. Earnings Chart III-7Global Stock Market And ##br##Earnings: Relative Performance Chart III-8Global Stock Market And ##br##Earnings: Relative Performance FIXED INCOME: Chart III-9U.S. Treasurys And Valuations Chart III-10U.S. Treasury Indicators Chart III-11Selected U.S. Bond Yields Chart III-1210-Year Treasury Yield ComponentsChart III-13U.S. Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor Chart III-14Global Bonds: Developed Markets Chart III-15Global Bonds: Emerging Markets CURRENCIES: Chart III-16U.S. Dollar And PPP Chart III-17U.S. Dollar And Indicator Chart III-18U.S. Dollar Fundamentals Chart III-19Japanese Yen Technicals Chart III-20Euro Technicals Chart III-21Euro/Yen Technicals Chart III-22Euro/Pound Technicals COMMODITIES: Chart III-23Broad Commodity Indicators Chart III-24Commodity Prices Chart III-25Commodity Prices Chart III-26Commodity Sentiment Chart III-27Speculative Positioning ECONOMY: Chart III-28U.S. And Global Macro Backdrop Chart III-29U.S. Macro Snapshot Chart III-30U.S. Growth Outlook Chart III-31U.S. Cyclical Spending Chart III-32U.S. Labor Market Chart III-33U.S. Consumption Chart III-34U.S. Housing Chart III-35U.S. Debt And Deleveraging Chart III-36U.S. Financial Conditions Chart III-37Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Chart III-38Global Economic Snapshot: China

Highlights Dear Client, The Global Fixed Investment Strategy will not be publishing next week. Our regular publishing schedule will resume on September 12, 2017. Jackson Hole: Last week's Fed conference did not produce any signals on policy shifts from the Fed or ECB. Yet the outlook for either central bank over the next year has not changed. The Fed will deliver more hikes than currently discounted by the market, while the ECB will taper the pace of its asset purchases. A below-benchmark duration stance is warranted on a 6-12 month horizon. IG Sector Performance: Our Investment Grade (IG) corporate sector allocations for the U.S., Euro Area and U.K., taken from our relative value models, have generated outperformance versus the regional benchmarks since the beginning of the year, led by overweights to Banks. The alpha of sector selection should start to outweigh the beta of owning corporates in the next 6-12 months, given the tight overall level of spreads and flat credit curves. Feature Markets Were Too Jacked Up For Jackson Hole Well, so much for that. The highly anticipated Federal Reserve symposium in Jackson Hole last weekend provided little in the way of guidance on the future monetary policy moves in the U.S. or Europe. The speakers at Jackson Hole, including Fed Chair Janet Yellen and ECB President Mario Draghi, instead chose to focus more on factors that they cannot directly control, such as trade protectionism, income inequality and technological change. Chart of the WeekTougher Regulations Or Just Easy Money? The market reaction was interesting. Bond yields and equities were essentially unchanged on the day last Friday, but the U.S. dollar ended softer, especially versus the euro. Perhaps this was simply a function of very short-term positioning in currency markets. The speculation prior to Jackson Hole was that Yellen might talk up another Fed rate hike to offset to stimulative effects of booming financial asset prices, perhaps in the absence of any renewed pickup in U.S. inflation. At the same time, there were expectations that Draghi could use his speech to dial back expectations of a reduction in ECB asset purchases, which have helped fuel the strong rally in the euro. With both central bankers delivering a big "nothing burger" with regards to policy changes, speculators likely covered their positions. The speeches from Yellen and Draghi were not totally without meaningful content, however. They both warned about the potential risks from dialing back some of the post-crisis regulatory changes to the infrastructure of the global financial system. Both of them went as far as stating that the stronger regulatory backdrop has been a major factor behind the current health of the global economy: Yellen: "Our more resilient financial system is better prepared to absorb, rather than amplify, adverse shocks, as has been illustrated during periods of market turbulence in recent years." Draghi: "[...] lax regulation runs the risk of stoking financial imbalances. By contrast, the stronger regulatory regime that we now have has enabled economies to endure a long period of low interest rates without any significant side-effects." This is an interesting way to spin the events of the past decade. Yes, regulatory reforms have forced global banks to hold higher levels of capital. This should, in theory, help mitigate the spillover effects on the real economy from periodic financial market sell-offs that could make banks more risk-averse. Yet central banks have, at the same time, maintained incredibly loose monetary policies that have helped support both global growth and bull markets in risk assets (Chart of the Week). It is, at best, complacency and, at worst, hubris for Yellen or Draghi to say that the financial system can handle market shocks better when their own hyper-easy monetary policies are a big reason why asset markets have avoided protracted sell-offs. "Buy the dip" is an easy investment strategy when central banks are providing a liquidity tailwind while keeping risk-free interest rates at unattractive levels. Yet market valuations are now at the point where the payoff to buying the dips will be much lower than in recent years, presenting a challenge to financial stability for policymakers looking to incrementally become less accommodative. In Charts 2A & 2B, we show the range of asset prices and valuations for key fixed income and equity markets since 1990. The blue dots in each panel represent the latest reading, while the historical ranges are the thick lines. The benchmark 10-year government bond yields for the U.S., Germany, Japan and the U.K. are shown in Chart 2A, both in nominal and inflation-adjusted terms.1 In Chart 2B, the trailing price-earnings multiples for global equity markets and option-adjusted spreads for the major global credit sectors (corporate bonds and Emerging Market debt) are displayed. Chart 2AGlobal Asset Valuations, 1990-2017 Chart 2BGlobal Asset Valuations, 1990-2017 Within fixed income, nominal government bond yields and credit spreads are trading at the low end of the historical ranges. Equity valuations are not yet at the stretched extremes seen during the late 1990s dot-com bubble, although longer-term measures like the CAPE (cyclically-adjusted price earnings) ratio are much closer to all-time highs. By any measure, most financial assets are not cheap, thanks in large part to the easy monetary backdrop. Right now, the current tranquil market backdrop is increasingly at risk from a shift in monetary policies. The Fed and ECB are still confronted with the problem of tight labor markets alongside tame inflation (Chart 3). While there has been a much more vigorous debate among central bankers on the effectiveness of using a Phillips Curve framework for forecasting inflation, the plain truth is that policymakers do not have any reliable alternative. The best they can do is stick with the unemployment-versus-inflation trade-off and go more slowly on policy adjustments when inflation undershoots levels suggested by strong labor markets. At the moment, there is no immediate need for either the Fed or ECB to tighten monetary policy. Realized inflation rates on both sides of the Atlantic are still below the 2% target. Our Central Bank Monitors for the U.S. and Euro Area are both hovering around the zero line (Chart 4), also indicating that no imminent changes in the policy stance are required. Chart 3Fed & ECB Facing The Same##BR##Phillips Curve Dilemma Chart 4Bond & FX Markets Look Fully##BR##Priced For A Stronger Europe The improvement in the Euro Area Monitor is related to both faster domestic economic growth and a slow-but-steady rise in inflation, trends that are likely to be maintained over at least the next 6-12 months given the strength of European leading economic indicators. However, the decline in the U.S. Monitor is largely a function of the recent surprising dip in U.S. inflation (both prices and wages) over the past few months. We expect that to soon begin to reverse on the back of reaccelerating U.S. growth and a rebound in inflation fueled in part by the lagged impact of the weaker U.S. dollar. The greenback's decline this year versus the euro has been a reflection of a more rapid improvement in European economic growth (3rd panel). Although this looks to have overshot with the EUR/USD exchange rate rising far more rapidly than implied by interest rate differentials between the U.S. and Europe (bottom panel). This either suggests that European bond yields must rise relative to U.S. yields to justify the current level of EUR/USD (a UST-Bund spread close to 100bs based on the relationship over the past three years), or that the currency must pull back to valuations more consistent with interest rate differentials (around 1.10, also based on the post-2014 correlations). The easier path is for the currency to soften up rather than European bond yields rising faster than U.S. Treasuries. The ECB is still far from contemplating an actual interest rate hike, and is only debating the need to continue buying European bonds at the current pace. At the same time, there is now barely one full 25bp Fed rate hike discounted by the market, which makes Treasuries more vulnerable to the rebound in U.S. growth and inflation that we expect. That outcome is not conditional on any easing of U.S. fiscal policy, but any success by the Trump White House in delivering tax cuts would only force the Fed to hike rates to offset the stimulus to an economy already at full employment. In other words, we see more reasons for both U.S. Treasury yields and the U.S. dollar to go up from current levels versus European equivalents. Bottom Line: Last week's Fed conference at Jackson Hole did not produce any signals on policy shifts from the Fed or ECB. Yet the outlook for either central bank over the next year has not changed. The Fed will deliver more hikes than currently discounted by the market, while the ECB will taper the pace of its asset purchases. A below-benchmark duration stance is warranted on a 6-12 month horizon. A Brief Update On The Performance Of Our Corporate Bond Sector Allocation Recommendations Chart 5Performance Of Our IG Sector Allocations We last published an update of our Investment Grade (IG) sector valuation models for the U.S., Euro Area and U.K. back on June 6th.2 This followed up on our report from January 24th of this year where we added our IG sector recommendations to our model bond portfolio.3 That meant putting actual weightings to each sub-sector within the overall IG index for each region, rather than a more nebulous "overweight", "underweight" or "neutral" recommendation. This was in keeping with the spirit of our overall model bond portfolio framework, which is to present a more transparent measure of how our recommended tilts would perform as a hypothetical fully-invested fixed income portfolio. Our IG sector allocations come from our IG relative value model, which is designed to measure the valuation of each sector relative to the overall Barclays Bloomberg corporate bond index for each region. The latest output of the model can be found in the Appendix on page 14. The current valuations have not changed material from that June 6th report, suggesting that the rally in corporate bond markets has been more about beta driving the valuations of all sectors. In other words, the sectors have maintained their value relative to each other and to the overall IG index over the past few months. Having said that, our sector allocations have still been able to deliver some extra return versus the regional benchmarks since we started putting specific weights to our sector tilts back in January. Since then, our sector tilts have added +3bps of "active" excess return (i.e. returns over duration-matched government bonds) versus the IG benchmark in the U.S., +9bps in the Euro Area and an impressive +32bps in the U.K. (Chart 5). Most of that outperformance came between January and our last update, with only the U.K. showing gains since June. The specifics of the returns can be found in Table 1 for the U.S., Table 2 for the Euro Area and Table 3 for the U.K. For all three regions, the biggest source of the outperformance of our allocations has come from the overweight positions in Financials, specifically Banks. As any corporate bond portfolio manager will attest, the large weighting of Financials in IG bond indices makes the Financials versus Non-Financials decision the most important one to make. Our model bond portfolio is no different. Table 1U.S. Investment Grade Performance Table 2Euro Area Investment Grade Performance Table 3U.K. Investment Grade Performance Looking ahead, we expect that sector allocations may soon begin to have a greater impact on the performance of IG corporate bond portfolios, given how flat credit curves have become (Chart 6). The spread between BBB-rated corporates and A-rated corporates is at historically narrow levels in all regions. The flattening of credit curves may be reaching a resistance level in the U.S. and U.K., but not so in the Euro Area where the gap between BBB-rated and A-rated corporates is now a mere 34bps. Chart 6Credit Quality Curves Are Very Flat The combination of a solid Euro Area economic upturn and persistent ECB buying of corporates as part of its asset purchase program has driven a reduction of risk premiums throughout the Euro Area credit markets. Given our expectation that the ECB will be forced to begin tapering its asset purchase program in 2018, including the pace of corporate buying, we continue to maintain an underweight allocation to Euro Area IG corporates in our overall model portfolio. We are also seeking to limit our overall recommended spread risk to around index levels using our preferred metric, Duration Times Spread (DTS). At the same time, we are maintaining our recommended overweights to U.S. IG and U.K. IG, sticking with above-benchmark tilts in the Banks, while maintaining a portfolio DTS close to the overall index DTS. In the U.S., we are also keeping an overweight bias on Energy-related sectors, which offer the most attractive valuations despite having a higher DTS than the overall benchmark index. Our underweights in higher DTS U.S. sectors, specifically in the Consumer Non-Cyclicals and Utilities groupings, offset the DTS exposure from our recommended Energy overweight. Bottom Line: Our Investment Grade (IG) corporate sector allocations for the U.S., Euro Area and U.K., taken from our relative value models, have generated outperformance versus the regional benchmarks since the beginning of the year, led by overweights to Banks. The alpha of sector selection should start to outweigh the beta of owning corporates in the next 6-12 months, given the tight overall level of spreads and flat credit curves. Robert Robis, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com 1 In the bottom panel of Chart 2A, we deflate nominal 10-year bond yields by a 3-year moving average of realized headline inflation to smooth out the fluctuations in inflation. 2 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report, "Updating Our Investment Grade Corporate Bond Sector Allocations", dated June 6th 2017, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report, "Adding Investment Grade Corporate Bond Sectors To Our Model Portfolio Framework", dated January 24th 2017, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. Appendix Appendix Table 1U.S. Corporate Sector Valuation And Recommended Allocation* Appendix Chart 1U.S. Corporate Sector Risk Vs. Reward* Appendix Table 2Euro Area Corporate Sector Valuation And Recommended Allocation* Appendix Chart 2Euro Area Corporate Sector Risk Vs. Reward* Appendix Table 3U.K. Corporate Sector Valuation And Recommended Allocation* Appendix Chart 3U.K. Corporate Sector Risk Vs. Reward* Recommendations Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index

Highlights Monetary Policy: The Fed's inflation forecast will continue to guide interest rate policy. This means that while an announcement about winding down the balance sheet will occur in September, a December rate hike is only in the cards if inflation shows some strength in the coming months. Fiscal Policy: The market is likely too pessimistic on the potential for fiscal stimulus from tax cuts, especially given the recent shift in power within the White House. Corporate Spread Valuation: With the exception of Aaa-rated credits (which appear expensive), investment grade corporate spreads are fairly valued after adjusting for changes in credit rating, duration and the stage of the cycle. Investors should expect to earn excess returns from corporate bonds consistent with carry on a 6-12 month horizon. Feature Several developments during the past two weeks provided a lot of information about the near-term outlooks for both monetary and fiscal policy. On the monetary front, the minutes from the July FOMC meeting elucidated the trade-off faced by the Fed between low inflation on one hand and easing financial conditions on the other. Then, at last week's Jackson Hole symposium, both Janet Yellen and Mario Draghi expounded on the topic of financial stability and how central bankers incorporate it into their frameworks. On the fiscal front, the dismissal of White House Chief Strategist Stephen Bannon has the potential to alter the Trump administration's legislative agenda for the remainder of the year, making fiscal stimulus more likely. In this week's report we reflect on how all of these developments impact our 6-12 month policy and market views. Monetary Policy From The Minutes: Low Inflation Vs. Easy Financial Conditions The minutes from the July FOMC meeting showed that "some participants [...] argued against additional adjustments until incoming information confirmed that the recent low readings on inflation were not likely to persist." Meanwhile, "some other participants were more worried about the risks arising from [...] the easing in financial conditions that had developed since the Committee's policy normalization process was initiated in December 2015." In other words, the Committee is roughly evenly split into two groups. Those that would rather delay rate hikes until inflation moves higher, and those that think easier financial conditions are reason enough to continue tightening. Those in the dovish group could point to Chart 1 for support. That chart shows that the real fed funds rate is approaching at least one popular estimate of its neutral level. In the Fed's mental framework it is crucial that the real fed funds rate stays below its neutral level because monetary policy must remain accommodative if inflation is to rise back to the 2% target. In other words, the Fed does not have "room" for further rate hikes unless inflation rises first, causing the real fed funds rate to fall. We won't re-hash prior arguments about why core inflation is likely to rise on a 6-12 month horizon,1 but we will note that our diffusion indexes for both PCE and CPI inflation have recently swung into positive territory. These indexes have strong track records capturing the near-term moves in year-over-year core inflation (Chart 2), and this development gives us some confidence that the downtrend in inflation will soon reverse. Chart 1Closing In On Neutral Chart 2A Positive Signal On Inflation While the dovish camp wants to see strength in core inflation before delivering another hike, the hawkish camp views the easing of financial conditions as sufficient to forecast stronger growth and higher inflation in the near future. This view is backed by some solid empirical evidence. Chart 3 shows one measure of financial conditions - the financial conditions component of our Fed Monitor.2 This index performs reasonably well predicting near-term swings in GDP, and at the moment it suggests that growth will accelerate further in the back half of the year. This "financial conditions approach" to policymaking suggests that monetary policy impacts financial markets and that financial market performance then translates into economic outcomes. From this perspective, the fact that financial conditions have continued to ease since the Fed started tightening in December 2015 means that, so far, monetary tightening has not had any impact cooling the economy (Chart 4). Chart 3Financial Conditions##br## Lead Growth Chart 4Financial Conditions Easier, ##br##Despite Fed Tightening To us, this is the crucial point about the arguments made by the hawkish camp. This group focuses on financial conditions because it believes that easier financial conditions will soon lead to stronger growth and higher inflation. The group is not making the case that the Fed should abandon its 2% inflation target because of concerns about stability in financial markets. From Jackson Hole: Financial Conditions Vs. Financial Stability The focus on financial stability at Jackson Hole led many commentators to forecast that the Fed might tighten due to concerns about excessive leverage and risk-taking in financial markets, ignoring progress toward its inflation target.3 We think this is incorrect, and would draw an important distinction between when central bankers talk about "financial conditions" and when they talk about "financial stability". While the two concepts are obviously similar, central bankers tend to focus on financial conditions as a leading indicator for the economy. It is not separate from the 2% inflation target, rather, it is an input to the Fed's growth and inflation forecasts. However, when central bankers talk about financial stability, they are typically referring to an assessment of the amount of risk-taking and leverage in financial markets. If the risk-taking and leverage in financial markets is deemed excessive, it could pose a downside risk to future growth. Currently, central bankers in general do not believe that there is an imminent threat from financial stability. But more importantly, no current prominent central banker has proposed tightening policy to deal with financial stability risks while disregarding the inflation target. Here is what Janet Yellen had to say on the topic at Jackson Hole: I expect that the evolution of the financial system in response to global economic forces, technology, and, yes, regulation will result sooner or later in the all-too-familiar risks of excessive optimism, leverage, and maturity transformation reemerging in new ways that require policy responses. And Mario Draghi: [W]hen monetary policy is accommodative, lax regulation runs the risk of stoking financial imbalances. By contrast, the stronger regulatory regime that we have now has enabled economies to endure a long period of low interest rates without any significant side-effects on financial stability[.] The above passages make a couple of points abundantly clear: Neither central banker views financial stability as currently posing an economic risk. The preferred method for dealing with this risk, if it were to arise in the future, would be through macroprudential regulation. That is, regulations that limit leverage and maturity transformation. In fact, Draghi plainly said that a robust regulatory regime is important because it allows central banks to use interest rate policy to manage inflation back to target. Janet Yellen also pointed out in her remarks that financial stability risks in the future will almost certainly emerge in "new ways". This makes these risks much more difficult to detect in real time. Meanwhile, it is comparatively easy for Fed policymakers to look at inflation and judge it relative to the 2% target. This is yet another reason why interest rate policy will continue to be guided by inflationary pressures in the economy, not concerns about financial stability. Put differently, if inflation does not reach the Fed's 2% target before the next recession, that would be an easily quantifiable policy failure. This is an outcome that Fed policymakers will seek to avoid at all costs. Bottom Line: The Fed's inflation forecast will continue to guide interest rate policy. This means that while an announcement about winding down the balance sheet will occur in September, a December rate hike is only in the cards if inflation shows some strength in the coming months. Financial conditions are an important input to the Fed's growth and inflation forecasts, but the Fed will not tighten policy due to concerns about financial stability alone. Fiscal Policy Judging from the performance of a high tax-rate basket of U.S. stocks, investors appear to have completely priced out any possibility of tax reform (Chart 5). This is likely a mistake. Tax reform is a major component of both President Trump's and congressional Republicans' agendas. If it fails, Republicans will have to go to their home districts empty-handed to campaign for the November 2018 midterm elections. Chart 5Too Complacent On Tax Cuts? Further, as was recently discussed in depth by our Geopolitical Strategy service,4 until recently the White House had been divided into two cliques. The "Goldman clique", led by National Economic Council Director Gary Cohn, is pragmatic and un-ideological. It is focused on passing tax reform and pro-business regulation. In contrast, the "Breitbart clique" is populist and nationalist. It also leans to the left on economic matters. The recent removal of White House Chief Strategist (and Breitbart clique leader) Stephen Bannon signals a shift in power toward the Goldman clique. Cohn, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, and Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross are now firmly in charge of economic policy. Meanwhile, three generals are now in charge of foreign and national policy: Defense Secretary James Mattis, National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster, and Chief of Staff John F. Kelly. Between the six of them, and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, there is not a drop of populism left in the White House. This likely points to an increased resolve to push through some sort of tax legislation. While the size of any tax cut is still very much in question, given how little is priced in, it will not take much to move the needle on financial markets. Bottom Line: The market is likely too pessimistic on the potential for fiscal stimulus from tax cuts, especially given the recent shift in power within the White House. Corporate Spread Valuation How expensive are corporate bonds compared to history? On its face, a simple question. But one that quickly gets complicated when we dig into the details. Case in point, the top panel of Chart 6 shows the average option-adjusted spread (OAS) on the Bloomberg Barclays Investment Grade Corporate Bond Index going back to 1990. A cursory glance at this chart shows that the OAS is somewhat below its historical average, but also that it has been tighter in the past. But this simple visual obscures a few important factors: The average credit quality of the index has worsened since the financial crisis (Chart 6, panel 2). All else equal, this means the average spread should be wider. The average duration of the index has risen over time as bond yields have fallen (Chart 6, panel). This means that the same change in spreads has a larger return impact today than in years past. The stage of the credit/monetary policy cycle is also important. In the top panel of Chart 6 we see that the OAS does not spend a lot of time near its long-run average. Rather, it tends to be very wide in the negative phases of the cycle and very tight in the positive phases. In past reports we have considered the performance of corporate bonds across the four phases of the Fed cycle (Chart 7). To recap, these phases are defined as follows: Chart 6Corporate Spreads Need To Be Adjusted Chart 7Stylized Fed Cycle Phase I represents the early stage of the withdrawal of monetary stimulus. This phase begins with the first rate hike of a new tightening cycle and ends when the fed funds rate crosses above its equilibrium (or neutral) level. Phase II represents the late stage of the tightening cycle, when the Fed hikes its target rate above equilibrium in an effort to slow the economy. Phase III represents the early stage of the easing cycle. It begins with the first rate cut from the peak and lasts until the Fed cuts its target rate below equilibrium. Phase IV represents the late stage of the easing cycle. It encompasses both the period when the fed funds rate descends to its cycle trough and the subsequent adjustment period when the Fed remains on hold in an effort to kick start an economic recovery. In phases I and IV, we can expect tight spreads and relatively strong excess returns from corporate bonds. Phases II and III are characterized by wider spreads and lower returns. At the moment we judge that we are firmly in phase I of the cycle. The Fed has begun to tighten policy, but by all accounts monetary conditions remain accommodative and the real fed funds rate is below its neutral level (Chart 6, bottom panel).5 Adjusting Corporate Spreads On the first necessary adjustment, we can easily adjust for differences in average credit rating by looking at the different credit tiers of the corporate bond index rather than the index as a whole. As for the second necessary adjustment, we adjust for changes in duration over time by using a 12-month breakeven spread instead of the OAS. The 12-month breakeven spread is defined as the spread widening (in basis points) required over a 12-month period before the given corporate bond index delivers a negative excess return relative to duration-matched Treasuries. It thus includes both the OAS and the impact of lower duration.6 Chart 8 shows 12-month breakeven spreads for each investment grade corporate bond credit tier alongside its historical average and +/- one standard deviation. In each case we observe that breakeven spreads are well below average. In fact, the breakeven spread makes corporate bonds appear slightly more expensive than does the OAS. The final adjustment we need to make is to consider current spreads relative to other similar phases of the Fed cycle. In Chart 9 we show OAS for each credit tier, with dashed lines denoting the historical average, minimum and maximum OAS seen during prior Phase I periods. Adjusting only for credit rating and the stage of cycle (not for changes in duration), we find that Aaa, Aa and A-rated credits appear quite cheap, while Baa-rated credits appear close to fair value. In Chart 10 we show 12-month breakeven spreads for each credit tier relative to other similar phases of the Fed cycle. In other words, the spreads here are adjusted for credit rating, duration and the stage of the cycle. This chart tells a somewhat different story. Here, Aaa-rated credits appear very expensive. Meanwhile, Aa, A and Baa-rated credits appear close to fairly valued. Chart 8Breakeven Spreads Versus Long-Run Average Chart 9Cycle-Adjusted OAS Chart 10Cycle-Adjusted Breakeven Spreads Bottom Line: With the exception of Aaa-rated credits (which appear expensive), investment grade corporate spreads are fairly valued after adjusting for changes in credit rating, duration and the stage of the cycle. Investors should expect to earn excess returns from corporate bonds consistent with carry on a 6-12 month horizon. Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Low Inflation And Rising Debt", dated June 13, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 For more details on the Fed monitor, please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Buy The Back-Up In Junk Spreads", dated March 14, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 3 https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-08-25/el-erian-says-markets-too-sanguine-about-fed-view-on-instability 4 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "The Wrath Of Cohn", dated July 26, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com 5 As was stated earlier in this report, the gap between the real fed funds rate and its neutral level will widen as inflation bounces back in the coming months. 6 For simplicity we assume no convexity impact on excess returns. The 12-month breakeven spread is then calculated as OAS divided by duration. Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

Highlights Yellen sidesteps monetary policy at Jackson Hole. The Fed raised rates in late 1990s before seeing any inflation. Tax cut deal is still likely... ..but a prolonged debt ceiling battle or government shutdown is not. Inflation surprise has not yet followed economic surprise higher. Earnings and earnings guidance matters more than politics. Feature Fed Chair Yellen's speech on financial stability at the Jackson Hole symposium on Friday, August 25 shed little light on the timing of the central bank's next policy move. Some investors were fearing that Yellen would give a nod to the hawks in her speech. Yellen did no such thing. She simply noted "that the core reforms we have put in place have substantially boosted resilience without unduly limiting credit availability or economic growth". Yellen made no comments to suggest that monetary policy needs to tighten in order to reduce financial froth and foster greater stability. Financial stability1 matters to the Fed almost as much as maintaining low and stable inflation, and full employment. In this week's report, we discuss the FOMC's deliberations when the economy was at full employment in the late 1990s, and note that the Fed was willing to raise rates even before inflation accelerated. Gary Cohn, a potential replacement for Yellen, suggested in an interview last week that tax cut legislation is on the way. We agree and discuss below. The economic surprise index is rebounding, but that has not yet led to positive surprises on inflation as it has in the past. We also examine what history says about earnings guidance, U.S. equities and the stock-to-bond ratios during and after earnings reporting season. Fed Deliberations At Full Employment Chart 1The Fed And Inflation At Full Employment Minutes from FOMC meetings in the late 1990s are instructive in understanding the central bank's reaction function due to a lack of inflation as the economy moves beyond full employment (Chart 1). The Fed cut rates following the LTCM financial crisis in late 1998 and subsequently held the fed funds rate at 4¾% until June 1999. Core inflation was roughly flat during the on-hold period, even as the unemployment rate steadily declined and various measures pointed to significant labor market tightness. The FOMC discussion in the late 1990s of why inflation was still quiescent sounds very familiar. Policymakers pointed to the widespread inability of firms to raise prices because of strong competitive pressures in domestic and global markets. In the Fed's view, significant cost-saving efforts and new technologies also contributed to the low inflation environment for both consumer prices and wages. Moreover, rapid increases in imports and a drawdown in the pool of available workers was also seen as satisfying growing demand and avoiding upward pressure on inflation. One difference from today is that productivity growth was solid at that time. The FOMC decided to hike rates in June 1999 by a quarter point, despite any indication that inflation had turned up. Policymakers described the tightening as "a small preemptive move... (that) would provide a degree of insurance against worsening inflation later". The Fed went on to lift the fed funds rate to 6½% by May 2000. Interestingly, the unemployment rate in June 1999 was 4.3%, the same as the current rate. There are undoubtedly important differences in today's macro backdrop. The Fed is also more fearful of making a policy mistake in the aftermath of the Great Recession and financial crisis. Nonetheless, the point is that the Fed has faced a similar low inflation / tight labor market environment before. Question marks regarding the structural headwinds to inflation will remain in place, but it will not take much of a rise in core inflation in the coming months for the Fed to deliver the next rate hike (most likely in December). Any fiscal stimulus, were it to occur, would reinforce the FOMC's bias to normalize interest rates. Is All Lost For U.S. Tax Cuts? Although tax reform was a major component of President Trump's legislative agenda, investors are skeptical that any fiscal stimulus or tax cuts will succeed (Chart 2). In our view, there is a high probability that at least a modest package will be passed. The reason is that, if it fails, Republicans will return empty-handed to their home districts to campaign for the November 2018 mid-term elections. Historically, Republican Presidents who have low approval ratings ahead of mid-term elections tend to lose a larger number of seats to Democrats (Chart 3). Chart 2Market Has Priced Out Trump's Economic Agenda Chart 3GOP Is Running Out Of Time Now that the border adjustment tax is officially dead, the GOP must either significantly moderate its tax cuts or add to the deficit. BCA's geopolitical strategists argue that regardless of which bill is passed by the GOP, the legislation will expire after a "budget window" of around 10 years.2 Tax cut plans ultimately will be watered down, but even a modest cut would be positive for the equity market. The dollar should also receive a boost, especially given that the Fed would have to respond to any fiscally driven growth impulse with higher interest rates. We expect Trump to ensure that the Fed retains its dovish bias when Chair Janet Yellen's term expires on February 3, 2018. He may favor a non-economist and a loyal adviser, such as Gary Cohn, over any of the more traditional and hawkish Republican candidates. Cohn could not single-handedly affect the course of monetary policy. The FOMC votes on rate changes, but decisions are formed by consensus (with one or two dissents). Cohn could implement an abrupt change in policy in the unlikely event that the Administration stacks the Fed Governors with appointees that are prepared to "toe the line." (The Administration does not appoint Regional Fed Presidents). Stacking the Governorships would take time. The FOMC has been very cautious in tightening policy and we do not see Trump taking an active role in monetary policy. The bottom line is that Cohn's possible appointment to the Fed Chair would not signal a major shift in monetary policy. Raising The Debt Ceiling Recent fights over Obamacare and tax reform have pitted fiscally conservative Republicans against moderates, with the debt ceiling used as a bargaining chip in the battles. While government shutdowns have occurred in the past, the debt ceiling has never been breached. At the end of the day, the debt ceiling will always be raised because government could not withstand the public pressure. Democrats can't be blamed because the Republicans control both chambers of Congress and the White House. Even the Freedom Caucus, the most fiscally conservative grouping in the House, is divided on the issue. This augurs well for a clean bill to raise the debt ceiling because the Republican majority in the House is 22 and the Freedom Caucus has 31 members. Democrats will not stand in the way of passage in the Senate. The worst-case scenario for the market would be a two-week shutdown, between October 1 when the current funding for the government will expire, and mid-October when the CBO predicts that the debt ceiling will be reached. Odds of such a scenario are probably around 25%. We would not expect a shutdown to have any lasting impact on the economy, although it could provide an excuse for the equity market to correct. The good news is that at least the economy is cooperating. Economic Surprise Versus Inflation Surprise Economic expectations are now low enough for the still-tepid activity data to beat, but this trend has not yet spilled over into the inflation data. Elevated economic expectations post-election led to a four-month period (early March-mid June) when the Citi Economic surprise index rolled over3 (Chart 4). In mid-July, the data began to top washed-out expectations and the surprise index accelerated. In the past two months, readings across a wide spectrum of economic indicators (consumer and business sentiment, consumer spending, home prices, manufacturing sentiment, and employment) have outpaced lowered expectations. Even so, inflation readings continue to disappoint relative to forecasts. Chart 4Inflation Surprise Usually Follows Economic Surprise Higher... But Not This Time After briefly moving above zero in early 2017 - indicating that inflation data was stronger than analysts projected- the Citi inflation surprise index rolled over again (Chart 4, bottom panel). Reports on the CPI, PPI, and average hourly earnings continued to fall short of consensus forecasts. This despite the rebound in the economic surprise index and the tightening of labor and product markets. The disappointment on price data relative to consensus forecasts is not new. Although there were brief periods where prices exceeded forecasts in 2010 and 2011, the last time that inflation exceeded market consensus in this business cycle was in late 2009 and early 2010. In the last few years of the 2001-2007 economic expansion through early 2009, the price data eclipsed forecasts more than half of the time. During this interval, economists underestimated the impact of surging energy prices on inflation readings. Moreover, the disconnect between economic surprise and inflation surprise has never been wider, but the inflation surprise index should follow the economic surprise index upward. In the past 13 years, there have been 15 periods when economic surprise has climbed after a trough. The inflation surprise index has temporarily increased in 13 of those episodes. For example, in the aftermath of the oil price peak in the U.S. in mid-2014, both economic surprise and inflation surprise diminished through early 2015 and then began moving up. However, today's inflation surprise index has rolled over while economic surprise has gained, but remember that inflation is a lagging indicator.4 Asset class performance since the economic surprise index formed a bottom in mid-June has run counter to history as risk assets have underperformed (Table 1). Returns on the S&P 500 have lagged Treasuries since the June 14 trough, driving down the stocks-to-bond ratio. U.S. large cap equities have outperformed Treasuries by an average of 290 basis points in the 11 prior episodes in this expansion as economic surprise climbed. Similarly, both high yield and investment-grade corporate bond returns have lagged Treasuries since mid-June. During previous episodes when the surprise index was climbing, credit outperformed Treasuries. Small caps have also lagged large caps, which is counter to the historical pattern, although oil and gold have both gained since the trough in economic surprise. The evidence is mixed for these two commodities after a bottom in economic surprise. Table 1Performance Of Risk Assets As Economic Surprise Rises BCA's view5 is that a Fed-led recession will begin in 2019. Nonetheless, markets were concerned about a recession occurring this year as the economic data underwhelmed in the first part of the year. Despite market fears, reliable leading indicators of a recession such as the LEI, the yield curve and the 26-week change in claims, are not signaling a recession (Chart 5). BCA does not expect the buildup of the types of imbalances that led to economic downturns in the past. Instead, a recession may be triggered by a Fed policy mistake, or a terrorist attack that disrupts economic activity over large area for an extended time, or a widespread natural disaster. Chart 5Data Suggest Low Odds Of A##BR##Recession In Next 12 Months Bottom Line: There are few imbalances in the economy and a recession in the U.S. is more than a year away. Although risk assets have not outperformed as is typical after a trough in economic surprise, we anticipate that stocks will beat bonds in the next 12-18 months. Inflation will surprise to the upside in the coming months, pressuring the Fed and the bond market. Stay short duration. Is Trump To Blame For The Stalled Stock Market Rally? Corporate earnings, not politics, drive equity prices. The S&P 500 has retreated from its all-time highs in early August despite another terrific earnings reporting season.6 Investors are concerned that Trump's erratic presidency may be to blame, but we take a different view Since the start of the economic expansion, the S&P 500 rose in 83% of the periods when large U.S. corporations provide results for the prior quarter and guidance on subsequent periods. (Table 2, bottom panel) U.S. equities increased only 66% of the time when managements were silent on profitability and future prospects (Table 3, bottom panel). However, there are periods when exogenous events like the 2011 U.S. debt downgrade and the 2015 Chinese devaluation that can disrupt the normal pattern, and we have excluded those from our calculations. Nevertheless, with the Q2 earnings reporting season over, the odds are less favorable for a rising U.S. equity market in the next few months. Table 2S&P 500, Stock-Bond-Ratio And Guidance During Earnings Season Table 3S&P 500, Stock-Bond-Ratio And Guidance Outside Of Earnings Season The stock-to-bond ratio also fares better during earnings season than during corporate quiet periods, and moves higher more often. When companies report profits, the stock-to-bond ratio increases 73% (Table 2, bottom panel) of the time versus just 65% outside of earnings season (Table 3, bottom panel). Since the start of 2010, the median return for the stock-to-bonds ratio is 0.046% per day during reporting season (Table 2, top panel) and 0.037% when it is not earnings season (Table 3, top panel). The implication is that the stock-to-bond ratio over the next two months may move higher, and at a faster rate than it did during the just completed Q2 earnings reporting season. Counter-intuitively, earnings guidance increases more often outside of earnings season (90% of the time and 0.04% per day, Table 3) than during it (77% of the time and 0.019% per day, Table 2). The top panels of Tables 3 and 2 respectively also show that the median daily return on stocks is higher outside of earnings reporting season (0.074% per day) than it is as earnings are being reported (0.054% per day). This is also somewhat counter-intuitive, as over the long term, earnings trends drive stock prices. We intend to examine the shorter term relationship between stock prices, the stocks to bond ratio and earnings guidance in a future Weekly Report. Bottom Line: The path of corporate earnings and not politics, ultimately drive stock prices. In the past eight years, the stocks to bond ratio during earnings season rises more and more often than when there was no new information on earnings. We remain upbeat on the earnings outlook for at least the remainder of this year, which will help the equity market weather the ongoing turbulence emanating from Washington. Next year, the earnings backdrop will not be as supportive. Stay overweight stocks versus bonds. John Canally, CFA, Senior Vice President U.S. Investment Strategy johnc@bcaresearch.com Mark McClellan, Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst markm@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "The Fed's Third Mandate", dated July 24, 2017. It is available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Is The Trump Put Over" dated August 23, 2017. It is available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA's U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Global Monetary Policy Recalibration", published July 17, 2017. It is available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "From Slow Burn Recovery To Retro-Recession?," August 18, 2017. It is available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see BCA's Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "The Timing Of The Next Recession" published June 16, 2017. It is available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see BCA's U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "The Stage Is Set For Jackson Hole", August 21, 2017. It is available at usis.bcaresearch.com.

Highlights Mario Draghi will signal the ECB's intention to further taper asset purchases during his Jackson Hole address later today, while cautioning that rate hikes remain a way away. The spread between long-term U.S. and euro area bond yields is not especially wide considering that trend growth is higher in the U.S. and fiscal policy will add 4% of GDP more to U.S. aggregate demand over the next few years than it will in the euro area. The upswing in Japanese growth is unlikely to prompt the BoJ to abandon its yield- curve targeting regime. Japanese stocks are cheap and corporate profits are rebounding smartly. Stay overweight Japanese equities in currency-hedged terms for the next 12 months. As one looks further ahead to the next decade, Japanese inflation will likely break out as labor shortages intensify. This will be part of a broad-based increase in global inflation. Stay long Japanese inflation protection and go short 20-year JGBs relative to their 5-year counterparts. Feature Mario Draghi: Action Jackson, The Sequel? Mario Draghi made shockwaves the last time he spoke at Jackson Hole on August 22, 2014. Draghi used that occasion to lay out the case for additional monetary easing. This paved the way for the ECB's own QE program. From that fateful speech to March 2015, EUR/USD fell from 1.33 to 1.05. Three years later, investors are anxious to hear what Draghi has to say, but this time around the expectation is that he will discuss plans for winding down QE. We agree that Draghi will signal the ECB's intent to further taper asset purchases. Growth is currently strong and the risk of a euro area breakup has all but disappeared. Nevertheless, although he may not publicly admit it, Draghi is cognizant of the fact that euro area financial conditions have tightened on the back of a strong euro, while U.S. financial conditions have continued to ease (Chart 1). Mario Draghi also knows that both inflation and wage growth remain depressed across the euro area, and that labor market slack outside Germany is still 6.7 percentage points higher than in 2008 (Chart 2). In addition, Draghi is undoubtedly aware of the likelihood that the neutral rate of interest is extremely low in the euro area, implying that the ECB would be constrained in raising rates even if the region were close to full employment.1 The spread between the 30-year U.S. Treasury yield and the 30-year GDP-weighted euro area bond yield - a reasonable proxy for the market's estimate of the difference in neutral rates between the two regions - currently stands at 86 basis points in nominal terms and 56 basis points in real terms. This is not especially wide considering that trend growth is higher in the U.S. and fiscal policy will add 4% of GDP more to U.S. aggregate demand over the next few years than it will in the euro area (Chart 3).2 Chart 1Diverging Financial Conditions Favor U.S. Over The Euro Area Chart 2Draghi Is Paying Attention Chart 3The State Of Fiscal Policy In The G4 We expect EUR/USD to pare back its gains, dropping to $1.05 by the end of 2018. However, most of the dollar's rebound is likely to occur next year, when it becomes apparent that the U.S. unemployment rate will fall well below the Fed's 2018 projection of 4.2%. This will force the Fed to step up the pace of rate hikes. For the time being, we see EUR/USD fluctuating within a broad range of $1.10-to-$1.20. BoJ: Time To Remove The Sake Bowl? Could the Bank of Japan follow in the Fed's and ECB's footsteps by signaling the desire to slowly withdraw monetary accommodation? On the surface, there are certainly some reasons to think so. Japanese growth has picked up recently, with real GDP rising at a blistering annualized pace of 4% in the second quarter (Chart 4). The acceleration in growth was driven entirely by stronger domestic demand. Consumer spending increased by 3.7%, while private nonresidential investment jumped by 9.9%. Inflation appears to be bottoming. The national core CPI index, which excludes fresh food prices but includes energy costs, rose for the seventh straight month in June to 0.4% on a year-over-year basis. Corporate goods inflation has reached 2.6%, up from a low of -4.6% in May 2016. Corporate service inflation moved to 0.8% this spring, the highest rate since 1993 (Chart 5). Nominal wage growth has also accelerated. Our Wage Trend Indicator, which uses statistical techniques applied to three separate data series to extract the underlying trend in Japanese wages, is now close to its 2007 highs (Chart 6). Chart 4GDP Growth Has Perked Up In Japan Chart 5Corporate Pricing Power Has Improved Chart 6Japanese Wages Are In An Uptrend The recovery in Japanese wage growth has occurred alongside a tightening of the labor market. The latest Economy Watchers Survey featured a litany of companies complaining of worsening labor shortages (Table 1). This is confirmed by the job openings-to-applicants ratio, which has surged to the highest level since 1974 (Chart 7). Table 1Japan: Evidence Of Shortages Of Workers, Part I Chart 7Japan: Evidence Of Shortages Of Workers, Part II Easy Does It, Kuroda-san Despite the good news on the economy, it is highly unlikely that the Bank of Japan will abandon its ultra-accommodative stance any time soon. There are a number of reasons for this: While inflation is rising, it is coming off a very low base, and is nowhere near the BoJ's 2% target. A deflationary mindset also remains firmly entrenched, as highlighted by both survey data and market expectations (Chart 8). Much of the recent pickup in inflation is attributable to higher energy prices and the lagged effects of a weaker yen. Excluding energy prices, core inflation has barely risen. The increase in corporate goods prices has also closely tracked the price of imports. Considering that the trade-weighted yen has appreciated of late, it is reasonable to assume that import price inflation will dissipate. This spring's annual shunto wage negotiations yielded smaller wage hikes among large companies than in 2016. This suggests that further near-term gains in wages will be hard to come by. Fiscal policy may turn less accommodative. The government passed a supplementary budget last summer (worth 1.5% of GDP according to the IMF). The effects of this package are being felt now. Public fixed investment surged by 21.9% in Q2. Under current law, however, fiscal policy is set to turn contractionary again over the next few years. Leading economic indicators are pointing to a modest slowdown in growth over the coming months (Chart 9). Chart 8Deflationary Mindset Has Been Hard To Shake Off Chart 9LEIs Pointing To Modest Slowdown The BoJ is not the same central bank that it was five years ago. The last two hawkish dissenters, Takehiro Sato and Takehide Kiuchi, both stepped down in July when their terms expired. They were replaced by Goshi Kataoka and Hitoshi Suzuki, neither of whom are expected to oppose Governor Haruhiko Kuroda's dovish approach. As such, it is highly likely that the BoJ will continue to anchor the 10-year yield at close to zero for at least the next 12 months. If bond yields elsewhere rise over this period - as we expect will be the case - the yen will weaken. Good News For Japanese Stocks... For Now A weaker yen is, of course, good news for Japanese stocks. Japanese equities are currently trading at a 16% discount to the MSCI World index based on forward earnings (Chart 10). Moreover, unlike in the past, both earnings and dividend growth have been strong, averaging 19% and 9%, respectively, over the last five years (Chart 11). Corporate governance reform - a key element of Abenomics - can take some credit for this. The share of companies with at least two independent directors rose from 18% in 2013 to 78% in 2016. The number of companies with performance-linked pay increased from 640 to 941, while the number that publish disclosure policies jumped from 679 to 1055. Analysts have been slow to factor in these positive developments. Chart 12 shows that Japan leads all other major stock markets in positive earnings surprises in the second quarter. We remain overweight Japanese equities in currency-hedged terms. Chart 10Good Value In Japanese Stocks Chart 11Solid Earnings And Dividend Growth Chart 12Japan And Positive Earnings Revisions: Follow The Leader . The Longer-Term Outlook: Japan (Eventually) Escapes Deflation As we discussed last week, it is likely that the U.S. will fall into recession in 2019 or 2020, dragging the rest of the world down with it.3 As a risk-off currency, the yen will strengthen, potentially reigniting deflationary forces. This will make it impossible for the BoJ to abandon its yield-curve targeting regime. Does that mean that Japan is condemned to a never-ending cycle of reflation/deflation? Not necessarily. As one looks at a longer-term horizon of 5-to-10 years, it is likely that Japan will finally escape deflation. This is because many of the structural forces that have sustained deflation will have either receded or reversed course by then. The simultaneous bursting of Japan's real estate and stock market bubbles in the early 1990s ushered in a prolonged period of falling property prices and corporate deleveraging. This suppressed both household consumption and business investment, leading to a persistent shortfall in aggregate demand. The latest data suggests that property prices are bottoming and corporate balance sheets have finally improved to the point where further aggressive cost-cutting is no longer necessary (Chart 13). Demographic trends are also likely to fuel higher inflation over the long haul. The deceleration in population growth in the early 1990s reduced the need for everything from new homes to new cars, shopping malls, and factories. This weighed on business capex and consumer durable spending, thereby exacerbating the deflationary forces that were already in place. In addition, a surge in the share of the population in their peak saving years - ages 30 to 50 - led to an increase in desired savings throughout the economy. More savings means less spending, so this also contributed to deflation. Looking out, population growth will remain anemic. However, two important developments will occur. First, the biggest cohort of Japanese baby boomers - those born in 1947-52 - will hit 70, the age at which most Japanese workers retire. Second, the secular rise in female labor force participation will plateau. Chart 14 shows that a larger percentage of Japanese women between the ages of 25 and 54 are employed than in the U.S., a massive shift from 20 years ago. Both these changes will exacerbate labor shortages, while further reducing national savings. Chart 13Deflationary Headwinds Are Abating Chart 14Female Employment In Japan Has Surpassed The U.S. Concluding Thoughts Contrary to popular belief, the Phillips curve remains intact, even in Japan (Chart 15). The market is not at all prepared for the prospect of higher Japanese inflation, as evidenced by the fact that CPI swaps are pricing in inflation of only 0.5% over the next two decades. As inflation picks up in the 2020s, nominal GDP will rise (even if real GDP growth remains anemic due to a shrinking labor force). The Bank of Japan will keep nominal rates low during the first half of the 2020s, ensuring that real rates sink further into negative territory. This will be the way by which Japan reduces its debt burden. Older savers may not like it, but the alternative of pension and health care cuts will be seen as even worse. We are currently long Japanese inflation protection through the CPI swaps market. As of today, we are adding a new long-term trade recommendation: Go short 20-year JGBs relative to their 5-year counterparts. The potential upside from this trade easily compensates for the negative carry of 66 bps. An upswing in Japanese inflation in the 2020s is very much in line with our secular view that global inflation will trend higher over the long haul, as articulated in a recent report.4 This will have a profound impact on fixed-income markets. While Japan's demographic transition has been and will continue to be more extreme than elsewhere, population aging is something that will affect all major economies. Chart 15Japan's Phillips Curve Is Alive And Well Chart 16Demographic Shifts: From Highly Deflationary To Highly Inflationary Chart 16 shows the IMF's estimate of how projected changes in the age structure of the population will affect inflation over the next few decades. The Fund's calculations suggest that demographic shifts will go from being very deflationary to very inflationary in every major economy. This will translate into significantly higher long-term nominal bond yields. Peter Berezin, Global Chief Strategist Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "The Future Of The Neutral Rate," dated August 4, 2017. 2 We calculate this number by taking the difference between the structural primary budget balance in the euro area (roughly 1.5% of GDP) and the U.S. (roughly -2.5% of GDP). The claim that this will translate into 4% more in aggregate demand in the U.S. implicitly assumes a fiscal multiplier of one. A larger multiplier would generate an even bigger gap in demand. 3 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "From Slow Burn Recovery To Retro-Recession?" dated August 18, 2017. 4 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "A Secular Bottom In Inflation," dated July 28, 2017. Strategy & Market Trends Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

Highlights U.S. Tax Cuts: The ongoing turmoil in the White House, and the negative impact it is having on the popularity ratings of both President Trump and the Republican-led U.S. Congress, will intensify efforts to get a tax cut package done as quickly as possible. Success on this front will help buoy U.S. business confidence and lead to stronger U.S. economic growth, and likely more Fed rate hikes, in 2018. Fed vs. ECB: Economic growth is solid, and inflation expectations remain stable, on both sides of the Atlantic. We expect a December rate hike by the Fed, with more likely in 2018, and a tapering of asset purchases by the ECB beginning in January. Maintain a defensive stance on portfolio duration. U.S. Corporates vs. EM: Emerging market (EM) hard currency debt, both sovereign and corporate looks fully valued, even with a positive global growth backdrop. Reduce EM sovereign and corporate debt in favor of U.S. Investment Grade corporates in global fixed income portfolios. Feature Who's In Charge Here? Table 1A Rough Month For Risk Financial markets are sailing without a rudder at the moment. A clear risk-off flavor has swept over most risk assets, as can be seen in the returns seen so far in August in so many asset classes (Table 1). There have been a number of negative news events for investors to process, from President Trump's Charlottesville controversy to the never-ending staff changes in the White House to the North Korean tensions to last week's terror attack in Spain. On top of that, some of the major central banks have become a bit more wishy-washy in their guidance to the markets, even going as far as questioning their own understanding of the inflation process (does the Philips curve even work anymore?). Investors always prefer a clean narrative when it comes to the "big picture" macro backdrop. Right now, they are not getting that from political leaders and policymakers, especially in the U.S. (Chart of the Week). Trump's popularity rating is steadily declining, even now among Republican voters. This has raised concerns that any of his business-friendly policies tax cuts or initiatives to boost growth like infrastructure spending can be successfully enacted. At the same time, and perhaps for similar reasons, the gap between the market expectation and the Fed's projection for the funds rate is widening with only 24bps of hikes priced over the next year. This is driven largely by investors' persistent lack of belief that U.S. inflation will hit to the Fed's target in the next few years. Simply put, the market is saying that the Fed's current tightening cycle is essentially complete unless there is a turnaround in U.S. inflation and/or a sizeable fiscal stimulus enacted in D.C. On that latter point, we think it is critical to monitor measures of U.S. business confidence. The current cyclical upturn in global growth and corporate profits has certainly lifted optimism among business leaders. Yet it is clear that there was also a boost to business sentiment after the U.S. election (Chart 2) last November as it was believed that Trump's victory, and the likely policies that would follow, would be good for American companies. Right now, business optimism remains at strong levels whether looking at small business measures like the NFIB survey (top panel) or the big business series like the Conference Board CEO confidence index of the Duke University/CFO Magazine indicator for confidence among chief financial officers (middle panel). There has been a slight recent pullback from the post-election peak in all the business sentiment indicators, however, and any sign that Trump will have difficulty pushing his tax cuts through Congress could result in a bigger loss of confidence that could impact future hiring and capital spending activity. Our colleagues at BCA Geopolitical Strategy continue to believe that a tax reform package, including significant tax cuts, is still the most likely outcome. Congressional Republicans will not want to go into the 2018 U.S. mid-term elections "empty-handed". With Congress and the White House on the same page, focused by fears of losing seats next year, even an embattled and unpopular president should be able to get his tax cuts implemented. Any fiscal boost in the U.S. can only help to support the current global cyclical economic upturn. While growth indicators like our global PMI index have come off the highs a bit (Chart 3), the OECD's global leading economic indicator is still rising and pointing to rising real developed market bond yields (middle panel). In addition, the global data surprise index has bottomed out, leaving global bond yields exposed to any improvement in economic momentum (bottom panel). Chart of the WeekLosing Faith In##BR##Trump & The Fed Chart 2U.S. Businesses##BR##Are Still Confident Chart 3Global Bond Yields Are##BR##Vulnerable To Faster Growth The fiscal news flow out of D.C. is likely to remain volatile once Congress returns from its summer recess, particularly with regards to tax cut negotiations and the looming debt ceiling. Yet the big news that investors want to hear, regarding U.S. tax cuts, is more likely to be positive for growth and risk assets and negative for bond yields. Bottom Line: The ongoing turmoil in the White House, and the negative impact it is having on the popularity ratings of both President Trump and the Republican-led U.S. Congress, will intensify efforts to get a tax cut package done as quickly as possible. Success on this front will help buoy U.S. business confidence and lead to stronger U.S. economic growth, and likely more Fed rate hikes, in 2018. The Fed & ECB: Still Sticking To Their Script Chart 4Inflation Expectations Are##BR##Stable In The U.S. & Europe The markets continue to underestimate the likelihood of more Fed rate hikes in the next year. The odds of a hike in December now sit at only 32%, while essentially no hikes in 2018 are currently discounted. This is far too low, given the steady (if unspectacular) growth in the U.S. and tightening labor conditions. The market has clearly responded to the dip in realized U.S. inflation since March as a sign that the real fed funds rate is now close to equilibrium - a point that has also been suggested by some FOMC members - and that the Fed's inflation forecasts are hence unlikely to be realized. Yet measures of U.S. inflation expectations, both survey-based and market-based, have been fairly stable at levels consistent with the Fed's inflation target in recent months, even as headline U.S. inflation has slowed (Chart 4, 2nd panel).1 A similar dynamic is playing out in Europe. Both survey-based and market-based measures of inflation expectations have been stable at levels close to the ECB's inflation target of "just below" 2% on headline inflation (bottom panel), despite the dip in realized inflation. Stable inflation expectations are something that central bankers take very seriously as a sign that their monetary policies are seen as credible. If the recent dip in realized inflation also showed up as an equivalent decline in expected inflation, this would give policymakers in D.C. and Frankfurt second thoughts about making any policy changes in a less dovish/more hawkish direction. The latest readings on realized inflation in both the U.S. and Euro Area suggest some stabilization of the current downturn may be underway. Headline CPI inflation ticked higher from 1.6% to 1.7% in July, ending a streak of four consecutive months of deceleration since March. Core CPI inflation has been stable at 1.7% for three consecutive months up to July, after falling for four consecutive months from January. Data released last week for July inflation in Europe showed a similar dynamic, with core HICP inflation ticking up to 1.2%, the third consecutive month of faster year-over-year inflation. With growth on both sides of the Atlantic maintaining a steady, above-potential pace, amid stable inflation expectations and with realized inflation showing signs of bottoming out, we see both the Fed and the ECB sticking with their current messaging and forward guidance. That means one more rate hike this year by the Fed, most likely in December, following an announcement on beginning the process of reducing the Fed's balance sheet at the September FOMC meeting. After that, at least another 25-50bps of hikes in 2018 will be delivered, which is currently not discounted by the market. As for the ECB, expect a shift to a slower pace of asset purchases for 2018, to be announced at either the September or October monetary policy meetings. Chart 5Has The Euro Already Overshot? The Kansas City Fed's annual Jackson Hole conference, set to take place this weekend, is unlikely to produce any major surprises for investors. Both Fed Chair Janet Yellen and ECB President Mario Draghi will give speeches to an audience of their peers - other global central bankers. Much is being made of Draghi's speech, since he has not spoken at Jackson Hole since 2014 when he gave strong indications of the introduction of the ECB's asset purchase plan in 2015. After his speech at the ECB Forum in Portugal in late June of this year - also to an audience of central bankers - where he mentioned a "reflationary" impulse in Europe that could require some "adjustments" to the ECB's policy settings, investors will be on high alert for any indications that the ECB is about to announce a tapering of its asset purchases. The Account of the July ECB meeting released last week suggested some concern within the ECB Governing Council regarding the potential for an "overshoot" of the euro in response to any policy shift.2 Some are interpreting those comments as a sign that the ECB might be getting cold feet over making any changes to its asset purchase program given the 11% rise in the euro seen this year. However, we think that there was too much attention focused on the fears that a strong euro could derail any plans for an ECB taper, for two reasons: The ECB did note in the July Account that the rise in the euro was a reflection of both the relatively stronger growth seen in the Euro Area this year and the reduction in political risk premia after the French presidential elections in the spring. The Account also noted that the ECB was looking at the totality of its monetary policy measures - policy rates, forward guidance & asset purchases - when assessing its policy stance. This specific quote from the Account, shown with our emphasis on the key passages, highlights that the ECB thinks that a tapering of asset purchases, done on its own with no hikes in short-term interest rates, will still leave monetary policy at very accommodative settings: "...the point was made again that the overall degree of accommodation was determined by the combination of all the monetary policy measures implemented by the ECB, and that the Governing Council's assessment of progress regarding a sustained adjustment in the path of inflation should apply to the overall design and direction of the ECB's monetary policy stance as a whole, and not with reference to any particular instrument in isolation, such as the duration and pace of APP asset purchases." Investors should understandably be worried about the impact of the rising in the euro, which was one of the fastest rates of acceleration seen in the currency's history (Chart 5). Yet given that extreme in price momentum, the lack of support from higher short-term Euro Area interest rates, and with speculative positioning on the euro at very bullish levels, it is unlikely that much further gains in the currency can be expected. This is especially true for the euro versus the U.S. dollar if the Fed delivers additional rate hikes, as we expect. Unless there is decisive evidence that the latest rise in the euro was seriously dampening Euro Area economic growth or inflation, which is not currently visible in the data (bottom panel), then the ECB is still likely to downshift to a slower pace of asset purchases in 2018. Bottom Line: Economic growth is solid, and inflation expectations remain stable, on both sides of the Atlantic. The Fed and ECB remain on course to shift to a less accommodative policy stance towards year-end. That means a December rate hike by the Fed, with more likely in 2018, and a tapering of asset purchases by the ECB beginning in January. Maintain a defensive stance on portfolio duration. Trim EM Debt Exposure Versus U.S. Investment Grade Corporates Emerging market (EM) debt has been one of the strongest performing asset classes so far in 2017. EM USD-denominated sovereign bonds have delivered a total return of 7.5%, while USD-denominated EM corporates have returned 8.7%, according to Bloomberg Barclays index data. These returns have handily surpassed the majority of all other major USD-denominated fixed income sectors. A robust pace of inflows into EM debt, a record $48.6 billion year-to-date to August 9th according to the Wall Street Journal, has helped drive EM debt spreads to tight levels (Chart 6).3 The outperformance of EM debt, both versus its own history and compared with other pro-risk fixed income classes like U.S. corporates, would be justified if EM economic growth was faster than that seen in developed markets. Yet that is not currently the case. An EM (excluding China) PMI Index put together by our colleagues at BCA Emerging Markets Strategy has shown a sharp deceleration of EM growth for most of 2017 (Chart 7, top panel). This stands in sharp contrast to the improving growth seen in both the U.S. and Europe. Chart 6EM Debt Looks##BR##Fully Valued Chart 7Stronger U.S. Growth Favors##BR##U.S. IG Vs EM Sovereigns... The gap between the U.S. and EM (ex China) PMIs has widened to the largest level since 2014. This PMI gap has been a good directional indicator for the spread between U.S. corporate bond spreads (both for Investment Grade and High-Yield) and EM debt spreads (bottom two panels). Right now, it appears that U.S. High-Yield looks fairly valued versus EM USD-denominated sovereign debt but U.S. Investment Grade spreads still look a bit too wide relative to EM sovereigns. A similar story can be told when comparing U.S. corporates to EM USD-denominated corporate debt (Chart 8). Arthur Budaghyan, BCA's Chief Emerging Market strategist, recently made a trade recommendation to go short EM sovereign and corporate debt versus U.S. Investment Grade corporate debt.4 His argument was based on the relatively expensive valuations on EM debt, coming at a time when the outlook for economic growth and corporate profits looks healthier in the U.S. We could not agree more - especially if the Fed begins to hike rates, as we expect, and the U.S. dollar begins to strengthen anew, potentially triggering outflows from EM. Arthur has also pointed out that the gap between the option-adjusted spread (OAS) on EM corporates and U.S. corporates (both Investment Grade and High-Yield) has been an excellent leading indicator of the total return differential between the asset classes (Chart 9). The current relationships show that there is upside potential for U.S. Investment Grade versus EM corporates over the next 12 months, but not for U.S. High-Yield versus EM. Chart 8...And Vs. EM Corporates Chart 9Downgrade EM Debt Vs U.S. IG Corporates Thus, this week, we are cutting our allocations to both EM sovereign and corporate debt in our model bond portfolio, and increasing our allocation to U.S. Investment Grade corporates (see page 12). While this does move us into an asset class with a longer duration, the increase in our overall portfolio duration from this shift is very small given the small weight of EM debt in our custom benchmark. More importantly, U.S. Investment Grade is less risky than EM corporates using the duration-times-spread metric - our preferred measure for spread product risk. Bottom Line: Emerging market (EM) hard currency debt, both sovereign and corporate looks fully valued, even with a positive global growth backdrop. We see better value in U.S. higher-quality corporates vs. EM debt at current spread levels. Reduce EM sovereign and corporate debt in favor of U.S. Investment Grade corporates in global fixed income portfolios. Robert Robis, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com 1 The inflation expectations data shown in Chart 4 is based off the U.S. Consumer Price Index (CPI) measure of inflation, while the Fed targets growth in the headline Personal Consumption Expenditure (PCE) deflator of 2%. The spread between the two measures have averaged around 50bps in recent years, which suggests that the current CPI-based inflation expectations around 2.5% are in line with the Fed's 2% PCE inflation target. 2 https://www.ecb.europa.eu/press/accounts/2017/html/ecb.mg170817.en.html 3 https://blogs.wsj.com/moneybeat/2017/08/17/emerging-market-bonds-attract-record-inflows/?mg=prod/accounts-wsj 4 Please see BCA Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report, "EM: The Focus Is On Profits", dated August 16th 2017, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. Recommendations Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index

Highlights Washington must establish a "credible threat" if it is to convince Pyongyang that negotiations offer the superior outcome; The process of establishing such a credible threat is volatile; U.S. Treasurys, along with Swiss and Japanese government bonds have been consistent safe haven assets; The risk of a U.S. attack against North Korea is a red herring, while the crisis itself is not; We suggest that investors hedge the risk with an equally-weighted basket of Swiss bonds and gold. Feature Brinkmanship between Pyongyang and Washington, D.C. has roiled markets over the past week. The uptick in rhetoric has not come as a surprise. Since last year, BCA's Geopolitical Strategy has stressed that souring Sino-American relations were the premier geopolitical risk to investors and that China's periphery, especially the Korean peninsula, would be the "decisive" factor for markets.1 North Korea's nuclear ambitions - which could be snuffed out immediately by a concerted and coordinated effort by China and the U.S. - are a derivative of the broader U.S.-China dynamic. The U.S. is unlikely to use military force to resolve its standoff with North Korea. There are long-standing constraints to war, ones that all of the interested parties know only too well from their experience in the Korean War of 1950-53. The first of these is that war is likely to bring a high death toll: Pyongyang can inflict massive civilian casualties in Seoul with a conventional artillery barrage; U.S. troops and Japanese troops and civilians would also likely suffer. Second, China is unlikely to remain neutral, given its behavior in the 1950s, its persistent strategic interest in the peninsula, and its huge increase in military strength relative to both the past and to the United States. However, the process by which the U.S. establishes a "credible threat" of military action is volatile.2 Such a credible threat is necessary if Washington is to convince Pyongyang that negotiations offer a superior outcome to the belligerent status quo. Viewed from this perspective - which is informed by game theory -President Donald Trump has not committed any grave mistakes so far, but has rather shrewdly manipulated the world's perception that he is mentally unhinged in order to enhance his negotiating leverage. It is unclear how long it will take Trump to convince North Korea that the threat of a U.S. preemptive strike is "credible." As such, it is unclear how long the current standoff will persist. From an investor perspective, it will be difficult to gauge whether the brinkmanship and military posturing are part of this "territorial threat display" or evidence of real preparations for an actual attack. As such, further volatility is likely. The ongoing crisis in North Korea is neither the first nor the last geopolitical crisis the world will face in today's era of paradigm shifts.3 We have long identified East Asia as the cauldron of investment-relevant geopolitical risks.4 This is a dynamic produced by the multipolar global context and the geopolitical disequilibrium in the Sino-American relationship. For now, investors have been able to ignore the rising global tensions (Chart 1) due to the ample liquidity emanating from central banks, but the day of reckoning is nigh (Chart 2). Chart 1Multipolarity Increases Conflict Frequency Chart 2Day Of Reckoning? Q&A On North Korea Back on April 19, we wrote a Special Report, "North Korea: Beyond Satire," which argued that North Korea had at last become a market-relevant geopolitical risk after decades of limited impact (Chart 3).5 Chart 3North Korean Provocations Rarely Affect Markets For Long Looking to the next steps, we introduced the "arc of diplomacy," a framework comparable to the U.S.-Iran nuclear negotiations from 2010-15 (Chart 4). We predicted that the U.S. would ultimately ramp up threats for the purpose of achieving a diplomatic solution. The U.S. was constrained and would only go to war if an act of war were committed, or appeared imminent.6 Chart 4Arc Of Diplomacy: Tensions Ramp Up As Nuclear Negotiations Begin This assessment is now playing out. But not all clients are convinced of our logic, as we have found in our travels throughout Asia Pacific and elsewhere this month. Below we offer a short Q&A based on questions we have received from clients: Q: Diplomacy has already been tried, so why won't the U.S. attack? A: The U.S. public has less appetite for war, especially a preemptive strike, in the wake of the Iraq War, and has not suffered a 9/11 or Pearl Harbor-type catalyst. The U.S. will exhaust diplomatic options before joining a catastrophic second Korean War. And the diplomatic options are far from exhausted. The latest round of sanctions are tighter and more serious than past ones, but still leave categories untouched (like fuel supplies to the North) and are still very hard to enforce (like cutting illegal North Korean labor remittances). Enforcement is always difficult, and the U.S. is currently attempting to ensure that its allies enforce the sanctions strictly, not to mention its rivals (i.e. Russia and China). While we do not think China will ever impose crippling sanctions, we do think it can tighten them up considerably, which could be enough to change the North's behavior. Q: Why doesn't China just take North Korea out? A: China is a formal political, military, and ideological ally of North Korea, and has a strategic interest in maintaining a buffer space on the Korean peninsula - which it defended at enormous human cost in the Korean War. This interest remains in place. China is far more likely to aid and abet a nuclear-armed ally in North Korea than it is to endorse (much less participate in) regime change. The fallout from a new war, such as North Korean refugees flooding into China, is extremely undesirable for China, though it could handle the problem ruthlessly. China would also prefer not to have to occupy a collapsing North, which would be an extensive and dangerous entanglement. Therefore, expect China to twist Pyongyang's arm but not to break its legs. On a more topical note, China is consumed with domestic politics ahead of the nineteenth National Party Congress. It is perhaps more likely to take action after the congress in October-November. Q: Will U.S. allies cooperate with Trump? Why not bandwagon with China to gain economic benefit? A: South Korea is the best litmus test for whether Trump is causing U.S. allies to drift. The new South Korean President Moon Jae-In, who is politically left-of-center, has played his cards very carefully and started out on good footing with President Trump. A disagreement appears to be a likely consequence of Moon's agenda, which calls for extensive engagement with the North and a review of the U.S. THAAD missile defense deployment in Korea. So far, however, Moon is reaffirming the alliance, in his own way, and Trump has not (yet) expressed misgivings about him. If this changes significantly - as in, South Korea joining with China to give North Korea significant economic aid in defiance of U.S. sanctions efforts - then it would be a sign of division among the allies that would benefit North Korea and could even increase the risk of the U.S. taking unilateral action. The odds of that are still low, however. We have been short the Korean won versus the Thai baht since March 1, and the trade is up 6.03%. We also expect greater volatility and higher prices of credit default swaps to plague South Korea while the crisis continues over the coming months. We are closing our long Korean consumer stocks trade versus Taiwanese exporters for a loss of 4.24%. Q: What is Japan's role in the current crisis? What is the impact on Japan? A: Japan is one of the few countries whose relations with the U.S. have benefited under the Trump administration. The Japanese are in lock-step so far in reacting to North Korea. The government has been sounding louder alarms about North Korea for the past year, including by conducting evacuation drills in the case of attack. Japan has long been within range of North Korea's missiles, but its successes in nuclear miniaturization pose a much greater threat. Not only does North Korea pose a legitimate security risk, but Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe also stands to benefit at least marginally in terms of popular support and support for his controversial constitutional revision. This will, in turn, feed into the region's insecurities. Yen strength as a result of the crisis, however, would be a headwind to Japan's economic growth. Thus Abe has a tightrope to walk. We expect him to take actions to ensure the economy continues to reflate. Q: Is Trump rational? How do we know he won't push the nuclear button? A: Ultimately this is unknowable. It also involves one's philosophical outlook. Josef Stalin and Mao Zedong both committed atrocities by the tens of millions but did not use nuclear weapons. Nikita Khrushchev practically wrote the playbook that North Korea's Kim dynasty has used in making its belligerent nuclear threats. Yet Khrushchev ultimately agreed to détente. Kim Jong Un makes Trump look calm. The combination of Kim and Trump is worrisome; but so was the combination of Eisenhower and Khrushchev, one believing nuclear weapons should be used if needed, the other threatening wildly to use them. It may be the case that the threat of an atrocity, or (in Kim's case) of total annihilation, is enough to keep decisions restrained. As we go to press, Kim has ostensibly suspended his plan to fire missiles around Guam and U.S. officials have repeatedly stated that they would not attack unless attacked. Stairway To (Safe) Haven Revisited In expectation of increased frequency of geopolitical risks, BCA's Geopolitical Strategy has produced two quantitative analyses of safe haven assets over the past two years. The first, "Geopolitics And Safe Havens," unequivocally crowned gold as the ultimate safe haven (Table 1), while showing that the USD is not much of a defense against geopolitical events (Chart 5).7 Table 1Safe-Haven Demand Rises During Crises Table 1Safe-Haven Demand Rises During Crises As such, investors should fade the narrative that the failure of the USD to appreciate amidst the latest North Korean imbroglio is a sign of some structural weakness. The greenback continues to underperform due to weak inflation in the U.S., a fleeting condition that our macro-economist colleagues expect to reverse. Mathieu Savary, BCA's currency strategist, believes that more upside exists for the USD regardless of the geopolitical outcome: Chart 5Gold Loves Geopolitical Crises Chart 6DXY Is Cheap... Chart 7...But The Euro Is Not First, the dollar is currently trading at its deepest discount to the BCA Foreign Exchange Service augmented interest rate parity model since 2010 (Chart 6). The euro, which accounts for 58% of the DXY index, is its mirror image, being now overvalued by two sigma, the most since 2010 (Chart 7). Second, bullish euro bets will dissipate as Europe's economic outperformance versus the U.S. fades. Financial conditions have massively eased in the U.S., while they have tightened in Europe, resulting in the biggest upswing on euro area growth relative to the U.S. in over two years (Chart 8). Such an economic outperformance by the U.S. should lead to a strengthening greenback (Chart 9).8 Chart 8Easing Versus Tightening FCI Chart 9PMIs Point To USD Rally Our second attempt to quantify safe-haven assets, "Stairway To (Safe) Haven: Investing In Times Of Crisis," concluded that U.S. Treasurys, Swiss bonds, and Japanese bonds are the best performers in times of crisis.9 We considered 65 assets10 (Table 2) with five different methodologies and back-tested them empirically within the context of 25 financial and geopolitical events since January 1988. Some of these assets have been proven to perform as safe havens by previous academic research, some are commonly utilized in investment strategies, and others could provide alternatives (see Box 1 for further details). Table 2Scrutinizing The World For Safe Havens This report demystifies four key issues related to safe havens: Part I identifies what qualifies as a safe-haven asset. Unsurprisingly, the best performers are U.S. Treasurys along with Swiss and Japanese bonds due to their currency effects. Part II examines if safe havens change over time. We find that gold and Treasurys have changed places as safe havens, and that JGBs and Swiss bonds have a long history as portfolio protectors. Part III breaks down safe havens through an event analysis. We look at the country of origin, the nature of the crisis, and whether the risk is a "black swan" or "red herring" - two classifications of events that BCA's Geopolitical Strategy has established - all of which have an impact on their performance. But red herrings or black swans are only defined after the fact, thus requiring geopolitical analysis or market timing indicators to be able to act on them. Part IV demonstrates that timing plays a crucial part when investing in safe havens as their performance is coincident with that of equities. Box 1 Safe Havens - A Literature Review In a previous Geopolitical Strategy Special Report published in November 2015, it was established that shifts in economic and political regimes alter investors' preferences for safe-haven assets, and that Swiss bonds and U.S. 10-year Treasurys were at the top of that list.11 Also, statistical methods were used to demonstrate that gold had acted as a safe haven from the 1970s to the early 90s, but has since lost its status due in part to a new era of looming deflationary risks. Li and Lucey (2013) have identified a pattern in precious metals, through a series of quarterly rolling regressions testing the significance of the 1st, 5th and 10th percentile movements in U.S. equity movements against safe-haven assets, catching extreme negative events. For instance, the 1st percentile captures the very worst corrections that have occurred, the one that represent the bottom 1% of the equity performances. The 5th and 10th percentiles represent the 5% and 10% lowest returns for equities, respectively. The authors demonstrated that silver, platinum and palladium act as safe havens when gold does not.12 Similarly, Bauer and McDermott (2013) examined the 1st, 5th and 10th percentile movements in U.S. equity movements and proved that both gold and U.S. Treasurys can serve as safe havens, but that gold has the best record in times of extreme financial stress.13 Baele et al. (2015) concentrated on flight-to-safety episodes, which they characterized as events in which the VIX, TED spreads and a basket of CHF, JPY, and USD all increased drastically.14 They found that during flight-to-safety episodes, large cap stocks outperform small caps, precious metal and gold prices (measured in dollars) increase slightly, while bond returns exceed those of the equity market by 2.5-4 percentage points. Baur and Glover (2012) provide further evidence that gold can no longer be utilized as a safe haven due to increased speculation and hedging. Their main finding is that gold cannot be both an investment and a safe-haven asset. That is, gold can only be effective as a safe haven if the periods prior to the event had not generated significant investment demand for gold.15 Using high-frequency exchange rate data, Ranaldo and Soederlind (2010) conclude that the CHF, EUR and JPY have significant safe-haven characteristics, but not the GBP.16 The strongest safe havens are identified as the CHF and JPY, but the returns are partly reversed after a day of safe-haven protection. They also find that the nature of the crisis has a significant effect on safe-haven properties. For instance, a financial crisis and a natural disaster produced drastically different outcomes for the yen. Part I - Safety In Numbers Our first step in identifying safe-haven assets was to review each asset's performance against equities in times of crisis. As such, we conducted a series of threshold regressions to generate a list of true safe-haven assets - assets that have a statistically significant positive performance in times of turmoil. Our method is explained as follows: Step 1 - Percentile Dummies: Following methods from Li and Lucey (2013) and Bauer and McDermott (2013), we created dummy variables for the 1st, 5th and 10th percentile of the S&P 500 daily total returns since 1988. We then multiplied each of these dummies by their corresponding stock returns (see Box 1 for further detail). Step 2 - Regressions: Using the 64 potential safe-haven assets, we ran a series of regressions both in USD and the local currency, testing each asset's returns explained by the three percentile dummies.17 Step 3 - Identifying Safe Havens: We then quantified strong safe-havens as assets having significant coefficients for all three return thresholds (1st, 5th and 10th percentile of the S&P 500 daily total returns). Results - Seek Refuge In Currencies And Government Bonds: Our quantitative results are mainly consistent with what others have found in the past: the Japanese yen and most G10 government bonds are safe havens. Table 3 shows the safe-haven assets that generated negative coefficients versus equities for all three threshold percentiles. Table 3Seeking Protection Against Corrections In our threshold regressions expressed in USD terms, we found that the Japanese yen, Quality Stocks,18 and Japanese, Swiss and U.S. bonds acted as strong safe havens. Currencies play a crucial part in the performance of safe havens. In fact, in local-currency terms, a series of G10 government bonds (U.S., Canada, Belgium, France, Germany, Netherlands, Sweden, Switzerland, and the U.K.) proved to be the most useful safe havens. In sum, true or strong safe havens are government bonds that have currencies that add to positive returns during times of crisis. Unsurprisingly, this select group of strong safe-haven assets is comprised of U.S., Japanese, and Swiss government bonds. Quality Stocks did provide positive and statistically significant results, but the returns were very low - for this reason, we excluded them from our basket of strong safe havens. While gold, the Swiss franc, and the U.S. dollar did generate positive returns during times of crisis, they failed to generate statistically significant results at all three thresholds. Bottom Line: Based on our econometric work, most G10 government bonds can act as safe havens. But due to strong currency effects, our models favor what are already commonly known as safe havens: U.S., Japanese, and Swiss government bonds. Simply put, the difference between this select group and other G10 bonds is that their currencies rise or are stable during turmoil, while the currencies of the other G10 bonds do not. Part II - Are Safe Havens Like Fine Wines? U.S., Japanese, and Swiss government bonds were not always the top assets providing protection against the downside in equities, however. To determine whether safe-haven properties change, we examined the evolution of the relationship between safe havens and U.S. equity markets over time with the following model: Step 1 - Rolling Regressions: Considering the results obtained in Part I, we restricted our sample to G10 governments in USD and local-currency terms, Quality Stocks, gold, JPY, EUR, and USD for this statistical procedure. We put these remaining assets, both in USD and local-currency terms, through a series of 1-year rolling regressions.19 Step 2 - Identifying Trends: Each regression generated a coefficient that explained the relationship between equities and safe havens (B1). We created a new time series by collecting the coefficients for each data point and smoothing them using a five-year moving average, thus depicting a long-term pattern in the evolution of safe havens. Results - A Regime Shift In Gold And Treasurys: Our findings show that safe-haven assets fall in and out of favor through time (Charts 10A, B & C). Most striking are the changes in U.S. Treasurys and gold. Only after 2000 did Treasurys start providing a good hedge for equity corrections. The contrary is true for gold - it acted as one of the most secure investments during corrections until that time, but has since become correlated with S&P 500 total returns. That said, gold's coefficient has been falling closer to zero lately, illustrating that it could soon resurface as a proper safe haven, especially if deflation risks begin to dissipate. Given that this is precisely the conclusion stated by our colleague Peter Berezin - BCA's Chief Global Strategist - and our own political analysis, we suspect that gold may be resurrected as a safe haven very soon.20 Chart 10ASafe Havens Don't Necessarily Age Well Chart 10BSafe Havens Don't Necessarily Age Well Chart 10CSafe Havens Don't Necessarily Age Well Another important finding is that the currency effect plays a key role during recent risk-off periods (Charts 11A & B). The best protector currencies are the ones that are negatively correlated with equity returns. According to our results, the CHF and the JPY have generally been risk-off currencies, while the USD has only been one since 2007, switching places with the euro. This reinforces the case for U.S., Japanese, and Swiss government bonds, which are supported by risk-off currencies. Chart 11ACurrencies Are Difference Makers Chart 11BCurrencies Are Difference Makers Bottom Line: Safe havens change over time. Gold fell out of favor due to global deflationary dynamics. With inflation on the horizon, we will keep monitoring the relationship between gold and equities for a possible return of the yellow metal as a safe haven. Since the July 4 North Korean ICBM test, for example, gold has rallied 4.8%. Part III - Red Herrings And Black Swans Since 1988, we identified 25 economic and (geo)political events that generated instant panic or acute uncertainty in the media and financial markets.21 We analyzed the short-term reactions of the safe-haven assets, both in USD and local-currency terms. This methodology allowed for the deconstruction of the impact of the events by the following factors: Country of origin of the crisis, the nature of the crisis, and whether the event was a "red herring" or a "black swan." Generally speaking, a red herring event is a crisis of some sort with little lasting financial impact. A black swan, on the other hand, is an event that has a very low probability of occurring but has a pronounced market impact if it does. Quantitatively, our definition of a black swan is an event that produces an immediate negative response in the S&P 500 below -1%, while creating a rise in either U.S., Japanese, or Swiss government bonds above 0% (Table 4). Of course, determining which event is a red herring or a black swan is only obvious post-facto and thus requires thorough geopolitical analysis. Table 4Understanding The Crises Results - Red Herrings And Black Swans Matter: Our event analysis solidifies our findings with regards to U.S., Japanese, and Swiss government bonds, but also builds a case for some European bonds as well as gold during black swan events. Our main findings can be summarized as follows. Fade The Red Herrings: Out of the sixteen geopolitical events, ten were identified as red herrings, in which safe havens underperformed the equity market. This, then, suggests that it is not always beneficial to buy safe-haven assets when tensions are rising. What is interpreted as a major geopolitical crisis - say, Ukraine in 2014 or Greece in 2015 - often ends up being a "red herring." Geopolitical Risk = Gold: Geopolitical black swan events, on the other hand, have a significant, negative impact on the market. During these events, gold emerges as the strongest hedge against a downturn in equities. U.S. Treasurys And The Swiss Franc Provide A Baseline: Under all black swan events considered - geopolitical and non-geopolitical - U.S. Treasurys and the Swiss franc had the strongest performance, generating positive returns on the day of the stock market crash in 85% of the cases. G10 Government Bonds Will Also Do: German, Dutch, Swiss and Swedish government bonds also provided protection during black swan events in local and common-currency terms, albeit to a lesser extent. U.S. And Swiss Bonds Outperform During Financial Episodes: During black swan financial crises, Swiss and U.S. government bonds stand out as the best safe havens due to their capacity to generate positive returns both in USD and local-currency terms in eight out of the nine examined crashes. Other findings that are interesting, yet less robust due to a limited sample size, include: When the crisis originated on U.S. soil, U.S. Treasurys and the dollar performed relatively poorly compared to other safe-haven assets. This is a somewhat surprising finding, as most investors believe that U.S. assets rally even at a time of U.S.-based crises, such as the 2011 budget crisis. We show that they may perform well, but in USD, non-U.S. based assets do better. When the crisis originated in Europe, European bonds performed very well both in USD and local-currency terms. When the crisis originated in Europe, Swiss and U.K. government bonds performed poorly in USD terms, but offered strong protection in local-currency terms. When the crisis originated in Russia, precious metals acted as a poor hedge. Bottom Line: It is crucial to gain an understanding of the nature of any potential crisis. Red herrings should always be faded, not hedged against, as they produce poor results in safe-haven assets. U.S. Treasurys, Swiss and Japanese government bonds have been very consistent safe-haven assets during previous periods of acute risk. Part IV: Timing Is Everything As a final step in our quantitative approach, we put our results through numerous timing exercises to test how the assets would perform in real time. Based on our Risk Asset Spectrum (Diagram 1), which summarizes our findings, one could argue that investing in times of crisis simply boils down to buying an equal-weighted basket of U.S. Treasurys, Swiss, and Japanese government bonds. Although this is technically true, such a strategy would require perfect foresight, unparalleled timing, or dumb luck - since black swan events are, by definition, very difficult to predict. Diagram 1Risk Asset Spectrum Proof Of The Ultimate Safe Haven: The first experiment we conducted was to illustrate how powerful safe havens can be when timed perfectly in a trading strategy. We started off by comparing two baskets. The first was a benchmark portfolio comprised of 60% U.S. equities and 40% U.S. bonds. The other contained the same two assets, but with 100% allocated to a basket comprised of U.S. Treasurys, Swiss, and Japanese government bonds during times of negative returns for equities. Of course, this strategy is not realistic and would be impossible to implement, since the trading rule depends on future events. But as Chart 12 shows, if one were able to predict every single period of negative returns for global equities and hold safe-haven assets instead, the trading rule would outperform almost 10-fold. Chart 12Safe Havens Work Wonders With Perfect Information... One-Month Lag Is Already Too Late: Repeating the same exercise, but with a one-month lag in the execution, produces drastically different results. More specifically, whenever the previous month's equity return is negative (t=0), the portfolio allocates 100% to a single safe-haven asset for the current month (t=1), otherwise it keeps the allocation identical to that of the benchmark. The rationale for using such a simple rule is that average investors are generally late in identifying a crisis and only react once they have validation that the market is in a correction. Chart 13 shows that being late by one month changes the performance of the safe haven basket from astronomically outperforming the benchmark to underperforming it. Chart 13... But Timing Is Everything Reaction Is Key: As a final timing exercise, we analyzed the reaction function of our assets to see how quickly they react after the correction in equities begins (Chart 14). Unsurprisingly, the top assets that we identified start appreciating as soon as the crisis hits (t=0). Gold is, on average, the quickest asset to react from investors seeking refuge. Swiss bonds come in as a close second, almost mirroring gold during the first few days of the correction. But both assets start to flatten out and even roll over after a few days. Japanese bonds react slightly later than gold and Swiss bonds, but keep increasing for a longer period of time and start plateauing around the 30th day after the crisis. U.S. Treasurys and Quality Stocks, on the other hand, remain rather flat and constant over the short term. These results attest to the importance of timing the crisis using the best safe-haven assets. Chart 14Safe Havens React Instantly Bottom Line: Timing plays a crucial part in investing in safe-haven assets, as their performance is coincident to that of equities. Investment Implications: Is Pyongyang A Red Herring Or A Black Swan? The results of our quantitative analysis are clear: hedging geopolitical risk depends on whether it is persistent or fleeting. So, is Pyongyang a red herring or a black swan? From our geopolitical analysis we make three key conclusions: The U.S. is not likely to preemptively attack North Korea; However, the U.S. has an interest in signaling that it may conduct precisely such an attack; Brinkmanship could last for a long time. Even if the risk of a U.S. attack against North Korea itself is a red herring, the crisis itself is not. In fact, between now and when a negotiated solution emerges, investors may face several new crises, which may include limited military attacks or skirmishes. While markets have faded such North Korean provocations in the past, the current context is clearly different. As such, we would suggest that investors hedge the risk with an equally-weighted basket of Swiss bonds and gold. Even though a "buy and hold" strategy with such a "Doomsday Basket" will likely underperform the market if tensions with North Korea subside, we are betting that it may take time for the U.S. and North Korea to get to the negotiating table. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken, Associate Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com David Boucher, Associate Vice President Quantitative Strategist davidb@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "The Geopolitics Of Trump," dated December 6, 2016, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. We upgraded North Korea to the status of a genuine market-relevant risk in "North Korea: A Red Herring No More?" in Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "Partem Mirabilis," dated April 13, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Client Note, "Trump Re-Establishes America's 'Credible Threat'," dated April 7, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Strategic Outlook, "Strategic Outlook 2017: We Are All Geopolitical Strategists Now," dated December 14, 2017 available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Power And Politics In East Asia: Cold War 2.0," dated September 25, 2012, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "North Korea: Beyond Satire," dated April 19, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. In particular, we argued, "the current saber-rattling is carefully orchestrated. But North Korea can no longer be consigned to the realm of satire. The very fact that the U.S. administration is adopting greater pressure tactics makes this year a heightened risk period. Investors should be especially wary of any missile tests that reveal North Korean long-range capabilities to be substantially better than is known to be the case today." Then, on May 13 and July 4, North Korea conducted its first ICBM launches; the UN Security Council agreed to a new round of even tighter economic sanctions on August 5; and the U.S. and North Korea engaged in an alarming war of words. 6 Specifically, we wrote: "Diplomacy is the only real option. And in fact it is already taking shape. The theatrics of the past few weeks mark the opening gestures. And theatrics are a crucial part of any foreign policy. The international context is looking remarkably similar to the lead-up to the new round of Iranian negotiations in 2012. The United States pounded the war drums and built up the potential for war before coordinating a large, multilateral sanctions-regime and then engaging in talks with real willingness to compromise." 7 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Geopolitics And Safe Havens," dated November 11, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 8 Please see BCA Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report, "Fade North Korea, And Sell The Yen," dated August 11, 2017, available at fes.bcaresearch.com. 9 Please see BCA Bank Credit Analyst Special Report, "Stairway To (Safe) Haven: Investing In Times Of Crisis," dated August 25, 2016, available at bca.bcaresearch.com. 10 Forty-one assets were denominated in USD only, while G10 bonds, Credit Suisse Swiss Real Estate Fund, and European 600 real estate were used both in local-currency terms and USD, for a total of 65 assets. 11 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Geopolitics And Safe Havens," dated November 11, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 12 Sile Li and Brian M. Lucey, "What precious metals act as safe havens, and when? Some U.S. evidence," Applied Economic Letters, 2013. 13 Dirk G. Bauer and Thomas K.J. McDermott, "Financial Turmoil and Safe Haven Assets," 2013. 14 Lieven Baele, Geer Bekaert, Koen Inghelbrecht and Min Wei, "Flights to Safety," National Bank of Belgium Working Paper No. 230, 2015. 15 Dirk G. Baur and Kristoffer J. Glover, "The Destruction of Safe Haven Asset?,"2012. 16 Angelo Ranaldo and Paul Soederlind, "Safe Haven Currencies," Review of Finance, Vol. 10, pp. 385-407, 2010. 18 Quality stocks are defensive equity plays with high, steady earnings with an elevated return on investments. They are estimated by Deutsche Bank's Factor Index Equity Quality Excess Return in USD. 20 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "Throwing The Baby (Globalization) Out With The Bath Water (Deflation)," dated July 13, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com, and BCA Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "A Secular Bottom In Inflation," dated July 28, 2017, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 21 Since we were interested in the immediate, often unexpected, response to the event, we did not include economic recessions in our event analysis.

Highlights A number forward-looking indicators for EM corporate profits point to a major deceleration in the next several months, and potentially a contraction early next year. The most reliable forward-looking indicators for EM EPS have been EM/China narrow and broad money growth and they herald a bearish outlook for EM EPS. We continue deciphering the differences between China's various money and credit aggregates. Irrespective of which money measure we use, and regardless of their past track record, all of them are currently extremely weak and point to a major and imminent slump in China's growth in the next six to 12 months. We recommend shifting the underweight EM corporate and sovereign credit position versus U.S. high-yield to underweight versus U.S. investment-grade corporate credit. Feature Chart I-1Asian Exports And EM EPS The recovery in EM earnings per share (EPS) has been instrumental to the EM stock rally this year. As such, the equity strategy at the moment hinges on the outlook for corporate profits. In this report, we revisit coincident and leading indicators for EM profits. At the moment, EM corporate profit growth still appears robust, though several forward-looking indicators point to a major deceleration in the next several months, and potentially a contraction early next year. Korean and Taiwanese exports can be used as proxy for global trade. The latest data for July reveal that the sum of Taiwanese exports and Korean total exports excluding vessels has rolled over (Chart I-1). Historically, the U.S. dollar values of both economies' exports have correlated with EM EPS, and Chart I-1 entails that EM EPS growth will roll over very soon. The reason why we exclude vessel exports in the case of Korea is because vessel shipments are one-off occurrences and when they take place, they distort export growth. This was the case in the last several months - vessel (shipbuilding) exports surged by 75% from a year ago, distorting the annual growth rate of total exports. Overall, Korea's and Taiwan's overseas shipments in the past three months have averaged about 10%, which is lower than the mid-teen growth rates recorded earlier this year. In China, export growth is close to 9% in the past three months, and it is also rolling over. On a similar note, Korea's and Taiwanese shipments-to-inventory ratios lead EM EPS cycles, and they are presently sending a downbeat message (Chart I-2). China's import growth has relapsed, as suggested by both Chinese trade data and their counterparties export data to China (Chart I-3). Chart I-2Asia's Shipment-To-Inventory Ratios And EM EPS Chart I-3Exports To China And Chinese Imports The recovery in Chinese imports has been responsible for a considerable part of the recovery in global trade. Importantly, Chinese import cycles correlate very well with EM EPS growth (Chart I-4). The key pillar of our view remains that Chinese imports will contract going forward, which will depress both advanced and developing countries' shipments to China. Exports to China are much more important for EM than DM economies, and deteriorating sales to China will weigh considerably on EM profits and currencies. The most reliable forward-looking indicators for EM EPS have been EM/China narrow and broad money growth. Chart I-5A and Chart I-5B demonstrate that both EM narrow (M1) growth and China's broad money impulse (the second derivative) - herald a major slump in EM EPS. This is the main reason behind our negative stance on EM share prices and other risk assets. Chart I-4Chinese Imports And EM EPS Chart I-5AChina Broad Money Impulse And EM EPS Chart I-5BEM Narrow Money And EM EPS Both narrow and broad money growth in China have already relapsed, and it is a matter of time until economic growth and imports downshift enough to produce a major selloff in EM risk assets. We discuss China's monetary aggregates in the section below. Finally, if Chinese imports and commodities prices relapse, any reasonable strength in DM domestic demand will not be sufficient to preclude a meaningful EM slowdown. The basis is that exports to the U.S. and EU only make up 7% of GDP for China, 8% for Korea and 11% for Taiwan. While exports to China account for 10% of Korean GDP and 15% of Taiwanese GDP. The same holds true for most East Asian countries. With the exceptions of India and Turkey, non-Asian EM countries are primarily commodities producers. These two have their own idiosyncratic problems. Most of our analysis is not applicable to smaller central European economies that are leveraged to the EU business cycle. That said, neither Turkey, India, nor central European markets have large enough financial markets to make a difference in the EM benchmarks. The above is the primary reason behind our bearish view on EM growth and profits. That said, there are a few other interesting considerations regarding EM corporate profits dynamics. First, EM share prices lead EM EPS by six to nine months. Therefore, to be bullish on EM stocks, it is not sufficient to expect EM EPS growth to be robust over the next three months. Rather, to be bullish on EM stocks at the current juncture, one should have a bullish view on EM EPS by the end of this year and into the early part of 2018. Consistently, we believe that EM EPS growth will decelerate materially by the end of this year and shrink in the early part of 2018. Second, the top-line shrinkage in 2015 and the consequent recovery for EM exporters has been mostly driven by prices rather than volumes. Chart I-6A illustrate that Korean, Taiwanese and Chinese manufacturing production growth is rather muted. Chart I-6ACorporate Pricing Power Chart I-6BAsian Manufacturing Production Price fluctuations affect profits much more than output volume changes. Therefore, if global tradable goods prices deflate - at the moment they have rolled over (Chart I-6B) - EM EPS will contract materially. Third, in EM excluding China, Korea and Taiwan, there has been little economic recovery, as evidenced by Chart I-7. Along the same lines, the latest (July) manufacturing PMI for EM ex-China, Korea and Taiwan has dropped below the crucial 50 line (Chart I-7, bottom panel). This and the majority of other economic aggregates we use are equity market-cap weighted averages, so they are relevant to investors. This corroborates the fact that outside China, Korea and Taiwan there has been little genuine growth improvement in EM domestic demand - despite the decent recovery in global trade. This challenges the prevailing widespread consensus of a synchronized global economic recovery/expansion. This is also consistent with the fact that the overwhelming EM profit recovery has occurred in technology and resource sectors while domestic sectors have not seen much of corporate earnings recovery (Chart I-8). Chart I-7EM Ex-China, Korea And Taiwan: ##br##No Strong Recovery Chart I-8EM Sectors' EPS: Exporters ##br##Have Outperformed Domestic Finally, bottom-up equity analysts have recently downgraded their EPS estimates for listed EM companies (Chart I-9). Typically, analysts alter their forecasts simultaneously with swings in share prices. Hence, the latest decoupling is puzzling. Chart I-9EM EPS And Analysts' Net Revisions Notably, EM net EPS revisions have failed to move into positive territory in the past 7 years. This entails that analysts' expectations have been chronically high in recent years, and/or that companies have failed to deliver profits that match these projections. Bottom Line: The EM EPS outlook is downbeat, and listed companies profits will likely contract early next year. Deciphering China's Money Puzzle Based on our assessment of multiple measures, our conclusion with respect to Chinese broad money growth is as follows: Irrespective of which measure we use, and regardless of their individual past track records, all Chinese monetary growth aggregates are currently weak (Chart 10), and point to a major and imminent slump in China's growth in the next six to 12 months. In recent weeks, we have been working to understand differences among various measures of money growth in China. Our motivation is because neither M2 nor total social financing and fiscal spending - variables that we relied on last year - did a good job of forecasting the duration and magnitude of China's economic and profit revival in the past 12 months. In our July 26 report,1 we introduced the concept of broad money calculated using commercial banks' assets. We called it credit-money. This week, we discuss a different broad money calculation based on commercial banks' liabilities, and refer to it as deposit-money. Deposit-money is an aggregate of non-financial companies' time and demand deposits, household deposits, transferable and other deposits, other liabilities, bonds issued and liabilities to non-depository financial corporations. This measure is broader than official broad money (M2) because the latter includes only non-financial companies' time and demand deposits, household deposits and some of liabilities to non-depository financial corporations. In brief, our deposit-money calculation is more comprehensive than the official broad money figures (M2). In turn, banks' credit-money is the sum of commercial banks' claims on companies, households, non-bank financial institutions and all levels of government, as well as banks' foreign assets. Also, we deduct government deposits at the central bank (see July 26 Emerging Markets Strategy report1 for more details). Chart I-10 illustrates the differences between credit-money, deposit-money, total social financing and M2. Based on our calculations, deposit-money grew faster in 2015-'16 than both M2 and total social financing. Yet its current and ongoing slowdown is as bad as that of credit-money or M2. Chart I-10Dichotomy Among Various Money And Credit Aggregates In China The reason why M2 growth has lagged behind deposit-money growth since the middle of 2015 until now is the fact that the latter's components that are not included in the official M2 measure have outpaced M2 growth by a wide margin since late 2015. The main components of deposit-money are shown in Chart I-11. This is one of the main reasons why we missed the latest China-play rally - we relied on the official measure of money and credit published by the PBoC that has been much tamer than the broader money and credit, as banks have originated credit and hence money in a way that official monetary aggregates have not captured. In addition, banks' credit-money and deposit-money measures should theoretically be identical, but this has not been the case in China in recent years. Deposit-money is larger and it may well be more comprehensive than credit-money (Chart I-12). Chart I-11China: Components Of Deposit-Money Aggregate Chart I-12The Outstanding Stock And Flow Of Money Understanding these discrepancies is an ongoing work-in-progress for us, and we will be refining these measures going forward. For now, we would say that these differences are probably due to banks' efforts to misrepresent/hide their assets and liabilities to meet the regulatory ratios and avoid penalties, as well as maximize short-term profits. All that said, the gaps between M2 and deposit-money has recently narrowed: both deposit-money and M2 growth and their impulses are at all-time lows (Chart I-13). Furthermore, we expect deposit-money to slow further because of the lagged impact of higher interest rates and regulatory tightening that is intended to curb commercial banks' ability to originate more money via shadow banking activities. Finally, as can be seen from Chart I-14A, Chart I-14B and Chart I-15, deposit-money's impulse - its second derivative - leads many cyclical economic variables such as nominal GDP, producer prices, freight index, and imports. Chart I-13China: Two Measures Of Broad Money Chart I-14ADeposit-Money Leads Real Business Cycle Chart I-14BDeposit-Money Leads Real Business Cycle There are several other data points from China's real economy that portend developing weakness. Specifically, car sales growth has almost ground to a halt, real estate floor space sold and started are decelerating (Chart I-16). Chart I-15Deposit-Money Leads Metals Prices And Construction Chart I-16China: More Signs Of Slowdown Bottom Line: Regardless of which money measure we use, and regardless of their past track record, all of them are currently weak and point to a major and imminent slump in China's growth in the next six to 12 months. This gives us confidence in reiterating our negative view on China plays (including commodities) and EM. Credit Markets Strategy We have been recommending a strategy of shorting/underweighting EM sovereign and corporate credit versus U.S. high-yield (HY) credit and this strategy has shown strong performance, producing 15% gains with low volatility since August 2011 (Chart I-17). However, today we recommend shifting the underweight EM corporate and sovereign credit position from U.S. HY to U.S. investment grade (IG) corporate credit. The primary reason is that credit spreads are extremely tight and odds favor credit spreads widening in both U.S. and EM. Chart I-18 shows that when U.S. TIPS yields rise U.S. IG usually outperforms U.S. HY on an excess return basis. We expect U.S. Treasurys and TIPS yields to grind higher in the near term because U.S. growth and inflation are much stronger than the bond market is currently pricing in. Chart I-17Book Gains On This Strategy Chart I-18Higher U.S. Bond (TIPS) Yields Warrant Rotation Rising U.S. bond yields also warrants EM credit underperformance versus U.S. IG because the EM credit benchmark is riskier than U.S. IG. While the two segments have similar durations, the duration times spread measure of risk is greater for EM credit. Furthermore, U.S. HY spreads have narrowed versus both EM sovereign and corporate spreads since early 2016 (Chart I-19, top panel). Hence, there is little value favoring the former versus EM credit. In contrast, U.S. IG spreads versus both EM sovereign and corporate credit are appealing historically (Chart I-19, bottom panel). Therefore, there is a valuation aspect to this strategy change. Relative spread differences have historically correlated quite well with the subsequent 12-month return. Given where relative spreads are, the subsequent 12-month return for investing in U.S. IG relative EM credit is positive (Chart I-20, top panel) but it is negative for investing in U.S. HY versus EM credit (Chart I-20, bottom panel). Chart I-19EM Credit Offers Value Relative ##br##To U.S. HY But Not Versus U.S. IG Chart I-20Projected Returns Of EM Credit ##br##To Both U.S. IG And HY As to the rationale of favoring U.S. credit to EM credit, this is consistent with our theme that the growth outlook, corporate leverage, and health of the banking system are in much better shape in the U.S. than in EM. Bottom Line: Book profits on the short EM sovereign and corporate credit / long U.S. HY credit position. Institute a new position: short EM sovereign and corporate credit / long U.S. IG corporate credit. Arthur Budaghyan, Senior Vice President Emerging Markets Strategy arthurb@bcaresearch.com 1 Please refer to the Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report, titled "Follow The Money, Not The Crowd", dated July 26, 2017, link available on page 18. Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations

Highlights GFIS Portfolio: The GFIS model bond portfolio has lagged its benchmark index since inception last September and since our previous performance update in April. All of that underperformance can be accounted for this month, however, given the risk-off moves seen in global financial markets. As investors begin to shift their attention away from the current geopolitical blustering over North Korea and back towards the solid global economic upturn, our current tilts should begin to outperform again. Risk Management: We have successfully raised the amount of overall portfolio risk (tracking error) since our last portfolio performance update in April. The tracking error remains below our self-imposed limit of 100bps, however, giving us the ability to make further adjustments to our tilts as opportunities arise. Tactical Overlay: Our Tactical Overlay trades have delivered a positive average return over the past year, led by the current open trades that have produced an average gain of +30bps. Feature In this Special Report, we are presenting a performance update for our Global Fixed Income Strategy (GFIS) model bond portfolio. We did the first such update back in mid-April, and we will continue to publish periodic portfolio reviews going forward. As a reminder to our readers, the GFIS model portfolio is intended to be a tool for us to both communicate and evaluate our fixed income investment recommendations. By putting actual weightings to each of our country and sector calls, against a bond benchmark index with an overall portfolio risk limit, we are aiming to express the convictions of our views in a manner more in line with the actual day-to-day portfolio trade-offs faced by bond managers. The model portfolio is a relatively new addition to the GFIS service, starting only in September 2016, thus the return history is still limited. We have built out several pieces of the GFIS model portfolio framework over the past year, and the process is nearing completion. We now have a custom performance benchmark index that reflects the universe of fixed income sectors that we regularly cover in GFIS (essentially, the Bloomberg Barclays Global Aggregate Index plus riskier fixed income classes like High-Yield corporates). We also have performance measurement metrics and a way to regularly present the portfolio returns, while we have also added a risk management (tracking error) element to help size our relative tilts. The final piece will be to incorporate our corporate bond sector recommendations within the model portfolio, both as a source of potential return and a use of our risk budget (tracking error). We intend to add that final element in the coming weeks. Overall Performance Review: Winners & Losers Chart 1GFIS Model Portfolio Performance As of August 11th, the GFIS model portfolio has produced a total return of +0.93% (hedged into U.S. dollars) since inception on September 20, 2016 (Chart 1). This has underperformed our custom benchmark index by -14bps. Since our last performance review on April 18th, the model portfolio has lagged the benchmark by -10bps. The portfolio has suffered in the risk-off environment seen so far in August, with a -14bp underperformance seen month-to-date, equal to the entire underperformance since inception. Our core structural positions of maintaining a below-benchmark duration stance, while staying underweight government bonds versus overweight spread product, have all suffered of late (bottom two panels). Our government bond country allocation has been the biggest overall drag on returns (Table 1) since last September (-26bps versus our benchmark). Japan (+5bps) and Spain (+3bps) have been the biggest positive contributors since inception, while Italy, the U.K. and France have a combined underperformance of -31bps. That more than accounts for the entire underperformance of the government bond sleeve of the model portfolio since inception (Chart 2). Since our last portfolio update in April, our government bond allocations have lagged our benchmark index by -29bps. Small gains in Spain and Germany (+2bps each) have been dwarfed by underperformance in the U.S. (-16bps), Italy (-10bps) and France (-5bps). Across almost every country, our below-benchmark duration positioning has translated into a bear-steepening yield curve bias, as we have been recommending substantially reduced exposure to the 10+ year maturity buckets in the major countries (U.S., Germany, France, Italy, and Japan). The bull-flattening of global yield curves between March and June, led by a downturn in inflation expectations, was more than large enough to offset any of the potential benefits from our country allocation. Yield curves did began to bear-steepen in July after the European Central Bank (ECB) sent signals that a tapering of its asset purchase program next year was increasingly likely. That move has quickly reversed this month, however, as financial markets have shifted to a risk-off stance on the back of rising geopolitical tensions on the Korean Peninsula. Table 1A Detailed Breakdown Of The GFIS Model Portfolio Chart 2GFIS Model Portfolio Government Bond Performance Attribution By Country The news is better with regards to our global spread product allocations. Those have delivered a total return of +1.41% since last September (beating the benchmark by +12bps) and +0.98% since the last performance review in April (+19bps versus the benchmark). Our allocations to U.S. Investment Grade (IG) and High-Yield (HY) have combined for a +30bps outperformance since September and a +23bps outperformance since April (Chart 3). Euro Area corporate debt has been a modest drag, with the combined allocation to IG and HY debt underperforming by -7bps since September and -3bps since April. Emerging Market corporate debt contributed -2bps of underperformance, while U.K. IG corporates added +1bp of excess return. Chart 3GFIS Model Portfolio Spread Product Performance Attribution Among other spread sectors, U.S. Mortgage-Backed Securities (MBS) have generated a -12bps contribution to our excess return, although this entirely came from a period immediately after the inception of our model portfolio (Sept-Nov 2016) where we briefly moved to a tactical overweight stance. We have since maintained a structural underweight posture on U.S. MBS, but this has barely generated any relative performance (-1bp) since our last portfolio review in April. Net-net, the GFIS model portfolio has generally performed in line with where our recommendations are concentrated, both in absolute terms and on a relative basis between sectors. Our below-benchmark stance on overall duration has suffered as the government bond yield curves have exhibited more volatility than trend. At the same time, our structural overweights on global corporate debt, favoring the U.S. over non-U.S. equivalents, have contributed positively to the overall portfolio performance. In Charts 4-7, we show the relative performance of some individual countries and sectors that are part of our GFIS benchmark index. We specifically singled out our major asset allocation calls between sectors made over the past year, with a vertical line drawn at the date when the change was recommended. The data shown in all three charts is the relative performance of each tilt on a duration-adjusted basis and (where applicable) hedged back into U.S. dollars, indexed to 100 at the date of implementation in our model portfolio. Shown this way, we can evaluate the success of the timing of our calls. Our shift to an overweight stance on U.S. corporate debt versus U.S. Treasuries both for IG and HY in the first quarter of this year can be judged a success both in terms of timing and magnitude, with IG outperforming Treasuries by 217bps and HY outperforming by 826bps (Chart 4). Within our HY allocation, we left some performance on the table by concentrating our overweights on the higher-rated credit tiers (bottom panel), but this was a move we felt comfortable with (and still do) as a way of staying a bit up in quality at a time when lower-rated spreads were looking fully valued. In terms of our cross-Atlantic credit allocation, we shifted to an overweight stance on U.S. corporates versus Euro Area equivalents back on January 31st of this year (Chart 5). Since then, U.S. IG has underperformed Euro Area IG by -142bps, but U.S. HY has outperformed by a much larger 581bps. Taken together, these positions have contributed positively to the overall performance of the model portfolio. We continue to like U.S. corporates over Euro Area corporates from a valuation standpoint, thus we are keeping this tilt in the portfolio. Chart 4Our Overweights On##BR##U.S. Corporates Have Done Well Chart 5Our Combined Tilt Towards##BR##U.S. Corporates Has Outperformed With regards to our other major spread sector tilts, our shift to an underweight stance on U.S. MBS versus Treasuries back in November has essentially been a wash (Chart 6). Looking ahead, the combination of unattractive valuations and, more importantly, reduced buying of Agency MBS by the Federal Reserve as it begins to shrink its balance sheet will weigh on MBS performance in the next 6-12 months - we are staying underweight. At the same time, we are maintaining our long-held overweight stance on U.K. IG corporates versus Gilts (bottom panel). The Bank of England will be keeping interest rates unchanged over the next year given mixed readings on U.K. economic growth and the lingering uncertainties over the Brexit negotiations, thus going for the added carry of corporates versus expensive Gilts still makes sense. As for our cross-country government bond allocations, our underweight stance on Italy versus Spain, and our overweight stance on Japan versus Germany, have been volatile while delivering no excess performance (Chart 7). Chart 6Sticking With Our Tilts On##BR##U.S. MBS & U.K. IG Chart 7Our Cross-Country Government Bond##BR##Tilts Have Been Volatile Looking ahead, we continue to expect the global growth backdrop to be supportive of spread product over government debt over the next 6-12 months, particularly with central banks unlikely to shift to a restrictive monetary stance. At the same time, we should soon begin to claw back some of the underperformance of the government bond sleeve of the GFIS model portfolio coming from our below-benchmark duration stance, for several reasons: Our colleagues at BCA's Geopolitical Strategy service do not expect the current standoff between Pyongyang and Washington to devolve into a shooting war, even though the tough talk on both sides will likely continue for some time. As the military tensions begin to subside, this should reverse some of the safe-haven bid for government bonds seen in the past couple of weeks, causing yields to drift higher. The solid global growth backdrop, confirmed by the still-rising trend in leading economic indicators, will continue to force central banks to slowly shift to a less dovish policy stance. U.S. inflation will begin to rebound in the next few months, led by the lagged impact of the U.S. dollar weakness seen in 2017 and continued tightening of the U.S. labor market. This will prompt the Fed to hike rates in December and deliver more hikes in 2018, which is NOT currently priced into U.S. Treasuries. We expect the ECB to soon signal a reduction of the size of its asset purchase program starting in 2018, which will put upward pressure on core Euro Area bond yields, and widen Peripheral European spreads, as the market moves to price in a smaller amount of future bond supply that will be absorbed by the central bank. The combination of modest increases in global inflation, a rebound in investor risk sentiment, and an ECB taper announcement should all place bear-steepening pressures on developed market yield curves (ex-Japan). This will benefit the curve-steepening bias we have in the U.S., Euro Area and U.K., while also supporting our country allocation of a maximum overweight to low-beta Japanese Government Bonds (JGBs). Net-net, we see no reason to alter any of current portfolio tilts at the moment based on any change in our market views. Bottom Line: The GFIS model bond portfolio has lagged its benchmark index since inception last September and since our previous performance update in April. Our overweight credit allocations have performed well but our below-benchmark duration tilts have not. All of that underperformance can be accounted for this month, however, given the risk-off moves seen in global financial markets. As investors begin to shift their attention away from the current geopolitical blustering over North Korea and back towards the solid global economic upturn, our current tilts should begin to outperform again. A Very Brief Comment On Our Risk Management Framework In our prior portfolio update in April, we noted that the initial sizes we placed on the tilts in the GFIS model portfolio proved to be far too small to generate any meaningful outperformance.1 After that, we increased the sizes of our all our existing positions in the portfolio. We later introduced a "risk budget" into our framework that would allow us to measure the tracking error (excess volatility versus the GFIS benchmark index) of our portfolio to ensure that we were taking adequate levels of risk.2 So far, our changes have had the desired effect of raising the tracking error of the portfolio to more realistic levels to try and generate outperformance. The average allocations to our government bond underweights and our spread product overweights have increased since that April portfolio review (Chart 8). This has helped raise the tracking error of the model portfolio to 61bps from 25bps in April (Chart 9). This is still below our risk limit of 100bps of tracking error, giving us room to add positions to the model portfolio if we see opportunities come up. Chart 8We've Increased The Sizes Of##BR##Our Tilts Since April ... Chart 9...Which Has Boosted The Tracking##BR##Error Of The Model Portfolio Bottom Line: We have successfully raised the amount of overall portfolio risk (tracking error) since our last portfolio performance update in April. The tracking error remains below our self-imposed limit of 100bps, however, giving us the ability to make further adjustments to our tilts as opportunities arise. Tactical Overlay Bets Have Been Helpful In addition to our GFIS model bond portfolio, we also are running recommended trades in our Tactical Overlay portfolio. These are positions that typically have a shorter-term investment time horizon (0-6 months) than those in the model portfolio. They can also be in less-liquid markets that are not included in the custom bond benchmark index for the model portfolio, like U.S. TIPS or New Zealand government bonds. The Overlay is intended to produce ideas for more tactical traders than portfolio managers, although the trades can also be viewed as a compliment to the model bond portfolio. The performance of our Tactical Overlay can be seen in Table 2 (for our current open trades) and Table 3 (for our past closed trades). We have shown the trade performance going back to the inception date of our model bond portfolio in September 2016, to facilitate apples-for-apples comparisons. We are currently working on developing a trade sizing and risk management framework along the lines of our model portfolio. For now, we can only present average return numbers and not a meaningful cumulative return measure. Table 2The Current Open GFIS Tactical Overlay Trades Are Performing Well Table 3The Closed GFIS Tactical Overlay Trades Have Been A Mixed Bag Our closed Overlay trades since last September generated only an average total return of a mere +1bp, but this weighed down by a large losing position on shorting Portuguese government bonds versus German Bunds. The average trade return would have been +21bps, on fifteen closed trades, excluding that Portuguese bet. The notable winners were long positions in 10-year French government bonds versus German Bunds (+130bps), a long position on Australian Semi-Government debt versus Federal government debt (+159bps) and a long positon on Korean 5-year government bonds vs. 5-year JGBs on a currency-unhedged basis (+195bps). The other notable loser besides the Portuguese trade was a failed long position on Japanese CPI swaps (-111bps). The current open Overlay trades have performed much better, delivering an average gain of +30bps. 14 of the current 16 open trades have a positive gain, thus the batting average is solid. Notable winners are an overweight on U.S. TIPS versus U.S. Treasuries (+197bps) and our Canada/U.K. 2-year/30-year yield curve box trade (+110bps). The only serious losing trade at the moment is our long position in 5-year New Zealand government bonds versus 5-year German debt (-123bps), although this is the only trade in the table that is currency UN-hedged and is a bet on a stronger New Zealand dollar versus the euro as well as a relative bond spread trade. Net-net, our Tactical Overlay trades have generated a positive average return since last September. In the next few months, we will look to introduce a weighting scheme and risk budget for the Overlay trades to better present these trades as a true complement to our model bond portfolio. Bottom Line: Our Tactical Overlay trades have delivered a positive average return over the past year, led by the current open trades that have produced an average gain of +30bps. Robert Robis, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report, "An Initial Look At The Performance Of Our Model Bond Portfolio", dated April 18th 2017, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report, "Adding A Risk Management Framework To Our Model Bond Portfolio", dated June 20th 2017, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Appendix - Selected Sectors From The GFIS Model Portfolio

Highlights Duration: An environment characterized by strong global growth and a weak dollar is very bearish for U.S. bonds. According to our model, fair value for the 10-year Treasury yield is 2.6%. Stay at below-benchmark duration. The Fed & The Dollar: A weak dollar eases financial conditions and supports higher core goods inflation. All else equal, this will strengthen the Fed's hawkish resolve in the near term. However, a rebound in core services (excluding shelter and medical care) inflation will be necessary for core inflation to reach the Fed's target on a sustained basis. USD Sovereigns: USD-denominated sovereigns are not attractive compared to domestic Baa-rated U.S. credit. At the country level, Finland, Mexico and Colombia offer the most attractive spreads and Finnish debt offers the best risk/reward trade-off. Feature Please note there will be no U.S. Bond Strategy report next week. Our regular publishing schedule will resume on August 29, 2017. Chart 1Firm Growth, Despite Weaker $ Escalating tension between the U.S. and North Korea captured the market's attention during the past week, causing investors to ignore what in our view is a more important economic development: Global growth has managed to stay firm even in the face of significant dollar depreciation. Not only does this break the pattern of the past few years when periods of substantial dollar weakness were associated with slowing global growth (Chart 1), but in our view it sends a very bearish signal for U.S. bonds. Above all else, a weak dollar amidst strong global growth suggests that the breadth of the economic recovery is improving. This intuition is confirmed by the fact that our Global Manufacturing PMI Diffusion Index, which measures the net percentage of countries with PMIs above the 50 boom/bust line, is fast approaching 90% (Chart 2). Not only that, but PMIs from the four most important economic blocs are all showing signs of strength. Both the Eurozone and Japanese PMIs are holding firm at high levels, while the U.S. and Chinese PMIs have recently reversed their year-to-date downtrends (Chart 2, bottom two panels). Why is the breadth of the global recovery important? Precisely because a more synchronized recovery prevents the dollar from appreciating too quickly. All else equal, a stronger dollar causes investors to reduce their forecasts for future U.S. growth and inflation. This implies a slower expected pace of rate hikes and lower Treasury yields. Conversely, a weaker dollar causes investors to revise up their growth and inflation forecasts, leading to a quicker expected pace of rate hikes and higher yields. To capture the importance of both global growth and the exchange rate we turn to our 2-factor Treasury model (Chart 3). This is a simple model of the 10-year Treasury yield based on the Global PMI and bullish sentiment toward the dollar. A stronger Global PMI pressures the model's fair value higher, as does increasingly bearish dollar sentiment. Chart 2Synchronized Global Growth Chart 310-Year Treasury Yield Fair Value At present, the model pegs fair value for the 10-year Treasury yield at 2.6%, meaning the current 10-year Treasury yield of 2.22% is 38 bps below fair value. This is the most expensive Treasuries have appeared on our model since the immediate aftermath of last year's Brexit vote. Political Uncertainty & Flights To Quality While our 2-factor model does a good job, there is one important driver of Treasury yields it does not capture. That is the tendency for political events to drive a flight to safety into Treasuries (Chart 4). Typically, if it is possible to identify a purely politically-driven flight to safety - one that is unlikely to exert a meaningful economic impact during the next 6-12 months - then the correct strategy is to heed our model's message and position for higher yields. This strategy worked out perfectly following the Brexit vote, and we anticipate it will work again this time around. Chart 4Policy Uncertainty Is A Driver Of Bond Yields With regards to the catalyst for last week's flight to safety, our Geopolitical Strategy service wrote in a recent Special Report1 that a pre-emptive strike by the U.S. on North Korea is extremely unlikely. The theatrics of the past week demonstrate only that the U.S. needs to establish a "credible threat" if it wants to eventually open a new round of negotiations over North Korea - not unlike the Iranian nuclear negotiations of the past decade. Looking further down the road, if those talks eventually fail then the potential for military conflict is high. We therefore conclude that there is not much potential for U.S. / North Korean tensions to exert a meaningful economic impact during the next 6-12 months, and view the recent bond rally as an opportunity to position for sharply higher yields in the near-term. Bottom Line: An environment characterized by strong global growth and a weak dollar is very bearish for U.S. bonds. According to our model, fair value for the 10-year Treasury yield is 2.6%. Stay at below-benchmark duration. How The Fed Views A Weaker Dollar Financial Conditions Chart 5Weak $ Eases Financial Conditions The Fed views the 7% year-to-date depreciation of the dollar as a significant easing of financial conditions. In fact, most broad indicators of financial conditions have eased this year, even though the Fed has lifted rates by 75 bps since December (Chart 5). In the Fed's framework, this means that the pace of rate hikes might need to increase in order to tighten financial conditions as much as desired. New York Fed President William Dudley summed up this approach in a 2015 speech:2 All else equal, if financial conditions tighten sharply, then we are likely to proceed more slowly. In contrast, if financial conditions were not to tighten at all or only very little, then - assuming the economic outlook hadn't changed significantly - we would likely have to move more quickly. In the end, we will adjust the policy stance to support financial market conditions that we deem are most consistent with our employment and inflation objectives. Of course, all else is not equal. Core inflation has disappointed so far this year and our current assessment of monetary policy is that while the Fed will take action to start shrinking its balance sheet next month, rate hikes are on hold until inflation turns higher. We remain optimistic that inflation will show sufficient strength in time for the Fed to lift rates in December.3 Inflation Chart 6Weak $ = Higher Inflation A weaker dollar also increases the Fed's confidence that inflation will head higher. Although so far we have not seen much evidence that this is occurring. Last Friday's July CPI report showed that core CPI rose only 0.1% month-over-month, while the year-over-year growth rate held flat at 1.7%. However, evidence is mounting that core inflation will soon put in a bottom. Our CPI diffusion index bounced back into positive territory in July (Chart 6) and our PCE diffusion index is at its highest level since last October.4 Both of these measures have excellent track records capturing the near-term swings in core inflation. The year-to-date weakness in the dollar has led to a surge in import prices. Stronger import prices will soon translate into higher core goods inflation (Chart 6, panels 2 and 3). Unfortunately, any increase in core goods inflation is unlikely to be sustained beyond the next 12 months. If the year-to-date dollar weakness starts to reverse, as our currency strategists anticipate,5 then import prices will decline anew. Eventually, this will translate into a deceleration in core goods inflation. For core inflation to sustainably reach the Fed's target, improvement in the lagging core services (excluding shelter and medical care) component will be required. Historically, this component is the most tightly linked to wage growth (Chart 6, bottom panel). A Rising Wage Growth Environment Two related methods do an excellent job predicting the direction of wage growth on a cyclical horizon. First, wages accelerate when the unemployment rate is falling, and second, wages accelerate when the prime-age (25-54) employment-to-population ratio is increasing. The top two panels of Chart 7 show the relationship between wage growth and the unemployment rate. The shaded regions in both panels correspond to periods when the unemployment rate is falling. As can be seen, wage growth always rises during these periods. That being the case, we calculate that non-farm employment needs to grow by more than 125k per month (on average) for the unemployment rate to continue its downtrend, assuming the labor force participation rate remains flat. Chart 7A Rising Wage Environment Of course it is not guaranteed that the labor force participation rate will stay flat. In a recent report we discussed the risk that a large cyclical increase in the participation rate might cause the unemployment rate to rise even as the economy continues to recover.6 This is why we also look at the shaded regions in the bottom two panels of Chart 7 and see that wages always rise during periods when the prime-age employment-to-population ratio is rising. By looking at the employment-to-population ratio instead of the unemployment rate we do not need to make an assumption about the trend in labor force participation. Using this method, we calculate that monthly employment growth must exceed 140k (on average) for the prime-age employment-to-population ratio to keep increasing. Non-farm payroll growth has averaged 184k per month so far in 2017 and averaged 187k per month in 2016. In other words, the U.S. jobs machine is running at a fairly steady pace, well above the thresholds we see as necessary for the recovery in wage growth to continue. Bottom Line: A weak dollar eases financial conditions and supports higher core goods inflation. All else equal, this will strengthen the Fed's hawkish resolve in the near term. However, a rebound in core services (excluding shelter and medical care) inflation will be necessary for core inflation to reach the Fed's target on a sustained basis. Sovereigns Not Buying The Weak Dollar USD-denominated sovereign bonds should benefit from a falling dollar. A weaker U.S. dollar makes the debt obligation cheaper in the issuing nation's local currency. However, the USD Sovereign index has actually underperformed the duration-matched Baa U.S. Credit index during the past six months, despite a depreciating U.S. currency (Chart 8). The duration-matched Baa-rated U.S. Credit index is the closest comparable we can find for the Sovereign index. It matches the Sovereign index in terms of duration and average credit rating, although historically it also delivers less excess return volatility (Chart 8, bottom panel). The two main factors we consider when deciding whether to add USD-denominated sovereigns to our portfolio at the expense of domestic U.S. credit are relative valuation and the outlook for the dollar. Historically, spread differential has been an important driver of relative returns. Attractive starting valuations even allowed sovereigns to outperform credit in 2014 and 2015 despite the dollar's surge. But at the moment, relative value is skewed heavily in favor of domestic U.S. credit (Chart 8, panel 1). Chart 8Sovereigns Too Expensive Added to that, with U.S. growth likely to remain strong and U.S. inflation poised to rebound, we think there is a high likelihood that the Fed will deliver more rate hikes than are currently priced in. This will make it difficult for the dollar to decline further from current levels. Taken together, poor relative valuation and a bullish outlook for the dollar lead us to continue underweighting USD-denominated sovereigns in our portfolio. The Sovereign Index: Country Breakdown Even though the overall index is unappealing, opportunities might still exist at the country level. Chart 9 shows a risk/reward picture for each country in the Bloomberg Barclays Sovereign index. The upper panels show the option-adjusted spread for each country relative to its duration and credit rating. The lower panels show a risk-adjusted spread on the y-axis. This risk-adjusted spread is the excess spread that remains after we adjust for differences in credit rating and duration using a cross-sectional model. What sticks out immediately is that Finland, Colombia and Mexico all offer compelling spreads after adjusting for differences in credit rating and duration. The outlook for each country's currency versus the U.S. dollar is obviously also important. And in fact, the lower-right panel of Chart 9 shows that exchange rate volatility is positively correlated with the risk-adjusted spreads from our cross-sectional model. This implies that the extra compensation available in Mexican and Colombian sovereigns is probably compensation for assuming highly volatile currency risk. By this measure, Finland looks even more attractive given the euro's slightly lower volatility. Chart 9USD Sovereign Index: Country Breakdown Bottom Line: USD-denominated sovereigns are not attractive compared to domestic Baa-rated U.S. credit. Remain underweight. At the country level, Finland, Mexico and Colombia offer the most attractive spreads and Finnish debt offers the best risk/reward trade-off. Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "North Korea: Beyond Satire", dated April 19, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com 2 https://www.newyorkfed.org/newsevents/speeches/2015/dud150605 3 For further details on our outlook for the near-term path of monetary policy please see U.S. Bond Strategy Portfolio Allocation Summary, "On Hold, But Not For Long", dated August 8, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 4 For a chart of the PCE diffusion index please see page 11 of U.S. Bond Strategy Portfolio Allocation Summary, "On Hold, But Not For Long", dated August 8, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 5 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report, "Fade North Korea, And Sell The Yen", dated August 11, 2017, available at fes.bcaresearch.com 6 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Three Scenarios For Treasury Yields In 2017", dated June 20, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification