Fixed Income

Highlights Safe-haven assets do not simply outperform equities on a relative basis during bear markets. In fact, the average return of nine safe-haven assets has been positive in every bear market since 1972. A safe haven should serve two purposes. First, it should have a negative correlation with equities during bear markets, not necessarily in all markets. Second, it should have an insurance-like payoff, surging during systemic crashes. Low intra-correlations between safe-haven assets, and substantial absolute differences between individual returns and the overall group average suggest that selection adds significant alpha. In the next bear market, we recommend positions in CHF over USD and JPY, due to its greater consistency as a safe-haven asset and more attractive valuations. Favor gold over farmland and TIPS, as gold offers a better hedge against political risks while still protecting against rising inflation. Overweight Treasuries relative to Bunds given a more appealing return distribution and high spreads. Feature Feature ChartSafe Haven Performance As the economic expansion approaches its 100th month, far longer than 38.7 month average1 of cycles starting from 1854, concerns continue to mount over the next recession and equity market crash. Memories of over 50% losses in stocks during the subprime crisis are still ingrained in investors' minds and the importance of capital preservation and safe-haven assets cannot be stressed enough. Safe-haven assets do not simply outperform equities on a relative basis during bear markets. In fact, during the subprime crisis, an equal-weighted portfolio of nine safe-haven assets actually increased in absolute value by 12% (Feature Chart)! This has held consistent through every bear market since 1972 and we expect the next crisis to be the same. While we do not expect a bear market in the next 12 months, we do stress the importance of being prepared and tactically flexible given the substantial relative and absolute performance of safe-haven assets. In this Special Report, we analyze behaviors of safe havens during past bear markets in order to recommend tilts to outperform during the next major equity selloff. Historical Perspective For our analysis, we used monthly return data to more accurately compare across asset classes. We used the following nine safe-haven assets: U.S. Dollar - As the world's reserve currency, the U.S. dollar benefits from massive trade volumes. Japanese Yen - Japan is still the world's 3rd largest economy and runs a current account surplus. Investors' perceptions of safety are intact and the currency benefits from unwinding of carry trades during risk-off environments. Swiss Franc - Switzerland has built a reputation for its international banking prowess, political neutrality and economic stability. U.S. Farmland - Farmland differs from the others in that it is a tangible, hard asset. With finite supply and an increasing population leading to higher needs for farming and food, demand will remain robust. U.S. Treasuries - Treasuries have essentially no default risk. Since its formation in 1776, the U.S. has never failed to pay back its debt. German Bunds - Germany benefits from being economically and politically stable. Bunds are extremely liquid and could receive capital inflows in the event of euro area disintegration. Gold - Gold has a longstanding history as a safe-haven asset, protecting against inflation, currency debasement and geopolitical risks. U.S. TIPS - TIPS are the purest inflation hedge; their historical performance has held a very tight correlation with realized changes in consumer prices. Hedge Funds - Hedge funds are attractive given their lack of restrictions and ability to short. We classified an equity bear market as a decline in the S&P 500, from peak to trough, larger than 19%.2 Using this definition, we recorded eight separate instances since 1972 (See Appendix). On average, these episodes lasted about 14 months and equity prices experienced declines of 34%. We examined returns, correlations and recession characteristics in order to draw conclusions about potential future behavior. Key Findings: During bear markets, the value of these nine safe havens increased on average by 9.2% (Table 1). This certainly does not offset the 34% average decline in equities, but it does provide a considerable buffer, particularly if allocators tilt asset class weightings. However, there is concern that safe havens as a whole will not provide as much protection in the next downturn as they have in the past, given weak equity inflows and still-considerable cash on the sidelines (Chart 2). The average absolute spread between the returns of the nine safe havens and their overall average return was 12.3%. While the correlations between financial assets tend to spike upwards during bear markets, they actually remain very low between safe-haven assets. This indicates a significant opportunity for alpha generation during equity downturns. The region from which a crisis stems has little impact on which safe haven outperforms. For example, U.S. Treasuries and the U.S. dollar both increased in value during the past two recessions, despite the tech bubble and subprime crisis originating from the U.S. (Chart 3). Capital inflows into those assets remained robust given their reputation for safety and quality. U.S. Treasuries and the Swiss franc always had positive absolute returns during the eight bear markets, and therefore have always had a negative correlation with equities (Table 2). These two assets have very stable reputations for safety. Nevertheless, other safe havens, such as gold, USD, JPY and Bunds, still maintained negative correlations with equities during most bear markets. U.S. farmland and U.S. TIPS also had positive returns in the three bear markets since their starting dates. Hedge funds, while known to outperform equities during bear markets, did not provide positive absolute returns in any of the four equity downturns since the index began. Table 1Bear Market Performance Chart 2Safe Havens: Less Protection Next Time? Chart 3Location Doesn't Matter Table 2Correlation With Equities Investment Implications Chart 4A Near-term Bear Market Is Unlikely It is crucial to understand the purpose of a safe-haven asset as it pertains to portfolio management. First, a safe-haven asset should have a negative correlation with equities during bear markets, not necessarily in all environments. Secondly, and more importantly, a safe-haven asset should have an insurance-like payoff, surging during systemic crashes. As safe havens naturally receive a smaller allocation in typical portfolios due to their underperformance versus equities in most years, it is imperative that relatively smaller weightings and minor tilts offset large declines in equity prices. It is important, however to note that we view the probability of a bear market as highly unlikely over the next twelve months (Chart 4). First, substantial stock price declines are not very common outside of recessions. As our colleague Martin Barnes points out, the yield curve is not inverted, there are no serious financial imbalances, and the leading economic indicator remains in an uptrend.3 Monetary conditions are still stimulative, and it generally requires Fed tightening to surpass equilibrium before recessions occur. Massive average absolute deviations for each individual safe haven from the overall group average and low intra-correlations suggest that selection adds significant alpha (Chart 5). Unlike most financial assets, intra-correlations between safe havens actually decline during bear markets. In order to best compare and contrast safe havens, we divided the assets into three buckets: currencies, inflation hedges and fixed income. Below, we recommend tilts within these buckets and will revisit these recommendations closer to the next bear market. Chart 5Intra-correlations Remain Low In Bear Markets Currencies: Overweight CHF relative to USD and JPY. As a zero-sum game, currency selection offers a critical avenue for alpha generation. As global growth continues to improve and capital flows to more cyclical currencies, or to the USD where policymakers are tightening, the Swiss franc should become even more attractively valued. The franc's considerable excess kurtosis, indicating higher likelihood of outsized returns, best fits the insurance-like payoff quality (Chart 6). It is the only currency to have outperformed, and therefore held a negative correlation with equities, during each of the eight recessions, indicating high reliability as a safe-haven asset. Going forward, we see no reason for Switzerland's reputation for economic stability or political neutrality to be compromised. The biggest risk to this view would be if the Swiss National Bank were to stick stubbornly to its peg of the CHF to the EUR during the next recession, thereby dampening the franc's risk-off properties. The USD has historically been able to outperform even when the crisis originated in the U.S. Historical bear market performance was greatest, however, following sharp Fed tightening such as the Volker crash, when the Fed increased rates in response to high inflation, or in the subprime crisis, when the Fed increased rates to slow growth (Chart 7). While we expect inflation and growth to grind upward over the cyclical horizon, our base case is not for a surge in consumer prices or for economic growth to expand significantly above trend. Chart 6Return Distributions Chart 7Fed Tightening = USD Outperformance In the next bear market, the JPY will likely benefit from cheap starting valuations as the BoJ is currently aggressively easing, and its current account surplus raises its fair value. Nevertheless, the yen's returns during equity downturns have not always been consistent with its safe haven reputation. Of the three currencies, since 1970, it has had the lowest probability for large returns. Inflation Hedges: Overweight Gold relative to TIPS and Farmland. Over most of the time frames we tested, gold had the highest correlation with both headline and core inflation (Tables 3 & 4). Table 3Correlation With Core Inflation Table 4Correlation With Headline Inflation The main differentiating factor with gold is its ability to hedge against political risk. Our geopolitical strategists found that of all of the safe-haven assets, gold offered the best protection against political shocks4 (Chart 8). As mentioned in one of our recent Special Reports,5 we believe that stagnation in median wages and wealth inequality will continue to fuel the rise in populism and social unrest. Chart 8Gold Is Best At Hedging Political Risk Farmland has historically offered decent inflation protection, but its history is limited, supply is scarce and the massive runup in prices is a cause for concern. While we currently favor TIPS over nominal bonds, their negative skew and excess kurtosis suggest that they are vulnerable to large negative returns, making them a less-than-ideal safe-haven asset. Fixed Income: Overweight Treasuries relative to Bunds. Concerns that, because government yields are starting at very low levels, bonds will not provide safety in the next bear market, are overblown. Recent history proves that yields can reach negative territory, and historical performance for government fixed income has been robust in almost every significant equity decline. Additionally, the end of the 35-year decline in interest rates should not negatively affect the protection capabilities of Treasuries. Yields actually rose leading up to, and during, the 1972 and 1980 bear markets, and Treasuries still provided positive absolute returns (Chart 9). One caveat is that starting yields are much lower today. If yields were to rise during the next recession, they may not achieve positive absolute returns, though government bonds would still certainly outperform equities by a wide margin. Overall, Treasuries have held a more negative correlation with equities during bear markets, spreads over Bunds will likely continue to rise given diverging monetary policy, and they have historically been more prone to outsized positive returns during crisis periods (Chart 10). Bunds are currently benefitting from flight-to-quality flows resulting from political and policy issues originating in the periphery. However, at some point, concerns that the euro crisis will spread to Germany may eliminate this advantage. Chart 9Rising Yields Were Not A Problem Chart 10Relative Treasury Valuations Will Become More Attractive Patrick Trinh, Associate Editor patrick@bcaresearch.com 1 http://www.nber.org/cycles.html. 2 While a 20% decline may be a more widely-used measure for bear markets, there have been three instances of 19% declines since 1972, one of which was a recession. We decided to include these in our analysis to increase the number of observations and improve the reliability of our analysis. 3 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst Special Report, "Beware The 2019 Trump Recession," dated 7 March 2017, available at bca.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Geopolitics and Safe Havens" dated November 11, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see Global Asset Allocation Special Report, "Refreshing Our Long-Term Themes," dated 5 December 2016, available at gaa.bcaresearch.com.

Highlights Treasury yields have slumped since early March, helping to push down the dollar. Slower U.S. growth in the first quarter of the year, weak inflation readings, uncertainty on tax reform, the prospect of a government shutdown, and rising political risks in Europe have all contributed to the Treasury rally. Looking out, U.S. growth should accelerate while growth abroad will stay reasonably firm. The market is pricing in only 34 basis points in rate hikes over the next 12 months. This seems too low to us. Go short the January 2018 fed funds futures contract. Feature What Explains The Treasury Rally? Global bond yields have swooned since early March. The 10-year Treasury yield fell to as low as 2.18% this week, down from a closing high of 2.62% on March 13th. A number of fundamental factors have contributed to the Treasury rally: Recent "hard data" on the U.S. growth picture has been somewhat disappointing. The Atlanta Fed's model suggests that real GDP expanded by only 0.5% in Q1 (Chart 1). So far this month, hard data on payrolls, housing starts, and auto sales have fallen short of consensus expectations. Credit growth has also decelerated sharply (Chart 2). The prospect of tax cuts this year have faded. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin told the Financial Times on Monday that getting a tax bill through Congress by August was "highly aggressive to not realistic at this point."1 Meanwhile, worries about a government shutdown - possibly coming as early as next week - have escalated. Recent inflation readings have been on the soft side. Core CPI dropped by 0.12% month-over-month in March, the first outright decline since 2010. China's growth outlook remains cloudy. Government officials warned this week that recent measures undertaken to cool the housing sector will begin to bite later this month.2 Concerns that the French election will feature a runoff between the "Alt-Right" candidate, Marine Le Pen, and the "Ctrl-Left" candidate, Jean-Luc Mélenchon, have intensified (Chart 3). Euroskeptic parties also continue to make gains in Italy (Chart 4). Chart 1A Disappointing First Quarter Chart 2Credit Growth Slowdown While none of the things listed above can be easily dismissed, the key question for fixed-income investors is whether bond yields are already adequately discounting these risks. Keep in mind that markets are pricing in only 34 basis points in Fed rate hikes over the next 12 months (Chart 5). This is substantially less than the median "dot" in the Summary of Economic Projections, which implies three more hikes between now and next April. Chart 3French Elections: A Many-Way Race? Chart 4Euroskepticism Is On The Rise In Italy Chart 5Markets Are Too Sanguine About The Fed's Rate Hike Intentions U.S. Economy Still In Reasonably Good Shape Our view on rates for the next year is closer to the Fed's than the market's. Yes, the "hard data" on U.S. growth has been lackluster. However, as we discussed last week, the hard data may be biased down by seasonal adjustment problems.3 Moreover, the hard data tend to lag the soft data, and the latter remain reasonably perky. Reflecting the strength of the soft data, our newly-released Beige Book Monitor points to an improving growth picture across the Fed's 12 districts (Chart 6). Worries about plunging credit growth are also overstated. While the increase in interest rates since last year has likely curbed credit demand, some of the recent deceleration in business lending appears to be due to the improving financial health of energy companies. Higher profits have permitted these firms to pay back old bank loans, while also enabling them to finance new capital expenditures using internally-generated funds. In addition, the rising appetite for corporate debt has also allowed more companies to access the bond market. According to Bloomberg, the U.S. leveraged-loan market saw $434 billion in issuance in Q1, the highest level on record (Chart 7). Chart 6Fed Districts See Things Improving Chart 7More And More Leveraged Loans Looking out, business lending should pick up. The Fed's Senior Loan Officer Survey indicates that banks stopped tightening lending standards to businesses in Q1. This should help boost the supply of credit over the coming months (Chart 8). Meanwhile, the recovery in the manufacturing sector will bolster credit demand. Chart 9 shows that an increase in the ISM manufacturing index leads business lending by 6-to-12 months. Chart 8Bank Lending Standards: Stable For Businesses, Tighter For Consumers Chart 9Manufacturing ISM Points To A Pick Up In Business Lending As far as household credit is concerned, higher interest rates and tighter lending standards for consumer loans (especially auto loans) are both headwinds. Nevertheless, overall household leverage has fallen back to 2003 levels and the household debt-service ratio is at multi-decade lows (Chart 10). And while delinquencies have edged higher, they are still well below their historic average (Chart 11). Chart 10Lower Household Leverage Chart 11Despite Slight Uptick, Delinquency Rates Remain Well Contained A reasonably solid growth picture should help lift inflation over the coming months. Chart 12 shows that inflation tends to accelerate once unemployment falls below its full employment level. The U.S. headline unemployment rate currently stands at 4.5%, below the Fed's estimate of NAIRU. Other measures of labor market slack also point to an economy that is quickly running out of surplus labor (Chart 13). As such, it is not surprising that the Atlanta Fed's wage tracker continues to trend higher, as has the NFIB's labor compensation gauge and most other measures of labor compensation (Chart 14). Chart 12The Phillips Curve Appears To Be Non-Linear Chart 13Disappearing Labor Market Slack Chart 14U.S.: Broad Measures Pointing To Rising Wage Pressures Wage Growth Trending Higher U.S. Political Risks Will Diminish... The political risks which have pushed down Treasury yields since early March should also subside over the coming weeks. Concerns that the Trump administration will be unable to pass tax cuts are overblown. Unlike in the case of health care, there is virtual unanimity among Republicans in favor of cutting taxes.4 Congressional hearings on tax reform are scheduled to begin next week. We expect Trump to move quickly to get a deal done. He needs a political victory and this is his best shot. We are also not especially worried about the prospect of a government shutdown. Congress needs to agree on a bill to extend government funding beyond April 28 when congressional appropriations are set to expire. So far, Republican leaders are pursuing a sensible strategy of keeping controversial items - including funding for a border wall and cuts to Obamacare subsidies - out of the bill in the hopes of attracting enough Democrat support to avoid a filibuster in the Senate. Without the inclusion of these contentious measures, it would be politically difficult for the Democrats to take any action that triggers a government shutdown, as they would be blamed for the outcome. ...As Will Risks In Europe... Chart 15The French Are Not Euroskeptic In the U.K., Prime Minister Theresa May's decision to hold a snap election reduces the risk of a "hard Brexit." The current slim 17-seat majority that the Conservatives hold in Parliament has made May highly dependent on a small band of hardline Tories. These uncompromising MPs would rather see negotiations break down than acquiesce to any of the EU's demands, including that the U.K. pay the remaining £60 billion portion of its contribution to the EU's 2014-20 budget. If the Conservative Party is able to increase its control over Parliament - as current opinion polls suggest is likely - May will have greater flexibility in reaching an agreement with Brussels and will face less of a risk that Parliament shoots down the final deal. Worries about the outcome of French elections should also diminish. Opinion polls continue to signal that Emmanuel Macron will make it to the second round of the presidential contest. If that happens, he would be a shoo-in to win against either Marine Le Pen or the far-left challenger Jean-Luc Mélenchon. Even in the unlikely event that Le Pen or Mélenchon ends up prevailing, their ability to push through their agendas would be severely constrained. Neither candidate is likely to secure a majority in the National Assembly when legislative elections are held in June. French presidents have a lot of leeway over foreign affairs, but need the support of parliament to change taxes, government spending, regulations, or most other aspects of domestic policy.5 Also, keep in mind that France's place in the EU is enshrined in the French constitution. Any modifications to the constitution would require that a referendum be called. Considering that French voters are highly pessimistic of their future outside of the EU, it would require a seismic shift in voter preferences for France to end up following the U.K.'s example (Chart 15). ...And In China Lastly, the risks of a trade war between the U.S. and China have eased following President Trump's summit with President Xi. This should help stem Chinese capital outflows. On the domestic front, the government's efforts to clamp down on property speculation will cool the economy. However, as our China team has pointed out, this may not be such a bad thing, given that recent activity has been strong and parts of the economy are showing signs of overheating. Investment Conclusions Chart 16Bet On The Fed The reflation trade will eventually fizzle out, but our sense is that this will be more of a story for late next year than for 2017. For now, underlying global growth is still strong and the sort of imbalances that usually precipitate recessions are not severe enough. If there is going to be one big surprise in the U.S. fixed-income market this year, it is that the Fed sticks to its guns and keeps raising rates at a pace of roughly once per quarter. With that in mind, we recommend that clients go short the January 2018 fed funds futures contract as a tactical trade (Chart 16). A rebound in U.S. rate expectations will lead to a widening in interest rate differentials between the U.S. and its trading partners. This will produce a stronger dollar. The yen is likely to suffer the most in a rising rate environment, given the Bank of Japan's policy of keeping the 10-year JGB yield pinned close to zero. On the equity side, we continue to recommend a modestly overweight position in global stocks. Investors should favor Japan and the euro area over the U.S. in local-currency terms. Peter Berezin, Senior Vice President Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com 1 Sam Fleming, Demetri Savastopulo, and Shawn Donnan, "Interview With Steven Mnuchin: Transcript," Financial Times, Monday April 17, 2017. 2 Li Xiang, "Real Estate Investment Likely To Slow Down," Chinadaily.com.cn, April 18, 2017. 3 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Talk Is Cheap: EUR/USD Is Heading Towards Parity," dated April 14, 2017, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Political Risks Are Overstated In 2017," dated April 5, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Five Questions On Europe," dated March 22, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. Strategy & Market Trends Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

Highlights The July 2016 to January 2017 doubling of the global bond yield was possibly the sharpest ever 6-month spike in modern economic history. Its toll is a global growth pause - evidenced by the post February 2017 synchronized retracement of bond yields, commodity prices, steel production, and cyclical equity prices. Until bank credit flows stabilize, stay cyclically overweight bonds - especially T-bonds... ...and stay underweight bank equities, but overweight real estate equities. Fade any knee-jerk move in the CAC40 after the French Presidential Election first round result. Feature Since February, world bond yields have edged down in synchronized fashion; commodity prices - including the global bellwether Dr. Copper - have fallen together (Chart I-2); global steel production has suffered an abrupt reversal; and cyclical sectors in the stock market have rolled over (Chart I-3). Chart of the WeekSharpest Proportionate Change In Bond Yields... Ever? Chart I-2Compelling Evidence Of A Global Growth Pause: ##br##Bond Yields And Commodity Prices Have Rolled Over Chart I-3Steel Production And Cyclical Equity##br## Sectors Have Rolled Over Too For us, the synchronized decline in the four separate indicators - bond yields, commodity prices, steel production, and cyclical equity prices - can mean only one thing: a global growth pause. The Largest Proportionate Increase In Bond Yields Ever... To make sense of what is happening, let's ask a simple but crucial question. If interest rates go up, from say 1% to 2%, is it the absolute increase - of 1% - that matters more for the economy, or is it the proportionate increase - a doubling - that matters more? We ask this simple question because the 0.75% absolute increase in the global government bond yield through July 2016 to January 2017 amounted to one of the sharpest rises in the past decade (Chart I-4). But when it comes to the proportionate increase, the doubling of the global yield in 6 months was the sharpest spike in at least 70 years, and quite possibly the sharpest 6-month spike ever in economic history! (Chart I-5 and Chart of the Week). Chart I-4A Sharp Absolute Spike In ##br##Global Bond Yields... Chart I-5...But An Extremely Sharp ##br##Proportionate Spike Anybody with a mortgage knows that it is not the absolute change in the mortgage rate that matters for your budget; it is the proportionate change that matters. A 1% rise in rates hurts much less when rates start high than when they start low. One way to see this is that to note that a 1% spike in U.K. bond yields over six months was extremely common in the 1970s and 80s - when the level of yields was already high. But outside this era of high nominal numbers, a 1% yield spike over six months is almost unheard of (Chart I-6 and Chart I-7). Chart I-6A 1% Rise In Bond Yields Over Six Months Was Very Common In The 70s And 80s Chart I-7But Today A 1% Rise Equates To An Extreme Proportionate Increase Some people might counter that interest payments are just a transfer from borrowers to savers. For every borrower who complains at a doubling of his interest outlays, there is a mirror-image saver who rejoices at a doubling of his interest income. But understand that higher interest rates do not just redistribute spending power from borrowers to savers. The much more important economic effect almost always comes from the impact on bank lending. Fractional reserve banking allows banks to create money out of thin air. When a bank issues a new loan, the borrower's spending power instantaneously goes up, but there is no equal and opposite saver whose spending power goes down. ...Takes Its Toll On Bank Lending Our thesis is that the change in bank lending depends on the proportionate change in long-term interest rates. If long-term rates rise by, say, 1% then a certain proportion of investment projects will suddenly become unprofitable. Firms (and households) would stop borrowing for such projects, and the drop in borrowing would equal the proportion of projects impacted. It should be clear that the distribution of investment project returns is much wider in an era of high nominal numbers when interest rates are, say, 10% than in an era of low nominal numbers when interest rates are, say, 1%. So the impact on borrowing of a 1% rise in rates is much less when rates are high - as they were in the 1970s and 80s - than when rates are low - as they are today. In other words, the impact depends on the proportionate increase in interest rates. And this explains why a 1% spike in U.K. bond yields over six months was extremely common in the 1970s and 80s, but is almost unheard of now. Some commentators point out that working in the other direction are so-called "animal spirits" - increased optimism about the future and the returns that all investment projects will generate. But as we explained in Credit Slumps While Animal Spirits Soar, Why? 1 the greatest proportionate 6-month increase in global bond yields for at least 70 years has understandably trumped these putative animal spirits. Bank credit flows have slumped. In practice, changes in borrowing can take 3-6 months to impact spending. For this reason, we tend to monitor the change in the credit flow in the last 6 months versus the preceding 6 months. Recently, this global 6-month credit impulse has headed sharply lower (Chart I-8). Chart I-8The Global 6-Month Credit Impulse Has Headed Sharply Lower Putting this all together, the sharpest spike in global bond yields in living memory has taken an understandable toll on bank credit creation and the global 6-month credit impulse. In turn, the slump in the credit impulse is now weighing on the global growth mini-cycle - as signaled by the synchronized retracement in bond yields, commodity prices, steel production and cyclical equity performance. The evidence compellingly suggests that we are two months into a global growth pause. But mini down-cycles tend to last, on average, about six months. So for the time being, and at least until bank credit flows stabilize, own bonds - especially T-bonds - and avoid cyclical equity exposure. Furthermore, as we presciently argued in our February 16 report The Contrarian Case For Bonds, when bond yields decline, bank equities are losers and real estate equities are winners. These arguments still hold. A Brief Comment On Upcoming Elections: France And The U.K. Ahead of the French Presidential Election first round on April 23, we would like to remind readers of two facts. First, the CAC40, like most mainstream European equity indexes, is a collection of large multinational companies. As such, it is not a play on French economics or politics. Indeed, compared to other European indexes, the CAC40 underexposure to banks actually makes it one of the more defensive European equity indexes. Given the loose connection between the index and domestic economics and politics, fade any knee-jerk move that happens after the first round result: sell any relative rally; buy any relative dip. Second, euro area sovereign credit spreads must ultimately relate to the relative competitiveness of their national economies, as this is what would determine the size and direction of redenomination were the euro to break up. In this regard, there is now no difference in competitiveness between France and Spain (Chart I-9), yet Bonos still yield more than OATs. So for long-term investors, it is still right to be long Spanish Bonos versus French OATs. Chart I-9France And Spain Have Converged On Competitiveness We will wait until the more important second round vote on May 7 to present a more detailed assessment of the impact of French politics on the European economic and investment landscape. Lastly, a quick comment on the likely snap U.K. General Election on June 8: the conventional wisdom states that U.K. politics will drive the type of Brexit; and the type of Brexit will drive the long-term destiny of the U.K. economy. But for us, the causality runs the other way round. The U.K. economy will drive the type of Brexit - the weaker the economy gets, the softer that Brexit will get (and vice-versa); and the type of Brexit will drive the long-term destiny of U.K. politics. Therefore, for us, the General Election does not appear to be a game changer - unless it delivers a shock result. I am on holiday right now, so I will cover this topic in more depth on my return next week. Dhaval Joshi, Senior Vice President European Investment Strategy dhaval@bcaresearch.com 1 Published on March 30, 207 and available at eis.bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading Model There are no new trades this week, but all three open positions are now in profit, having produced classic liquidity-triggered trend reversals. For any investment, excessive trend following and groupthink can reach a natural point of instability, at which point the established trend is highly likely to break down with or without an external catalyst. An early warning sign is the investment's fractal dimension approaching its natural lower bound. Encouragingly, this trigger has consistently identified countertrend moves of various magnitudes across all asset classes. Chart I-10 * For more details please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report "Fractals, Liquidity & A Trading Model," dated December 11, 2014, available at eis.bcaresearch.com The post-June 9, 2016 fractal trading model rules are: When the fractal dimension approaches the lower limit after an investment has been in an established trend it is a potential trigger for a liquidity-triggered trend reversal. Therefore, open a countertrend position. The profit target is a one-third reversal of the preceding 13-week move. Apply a symmetrical stop-loss. Close the position at the profit target or stop-loss. Otherwise close the position after 13 weeks. Use the position size multiple to control risk. The position size will be smaller for more risky positions. Fractal Trading Model Recommendations Equities Bond & Interest Rates Currency & Other Positions Closed Fractal Trades Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Interest Rate Chart II-5Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations

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

Highlights Duration: The recent strength in bond markets appears to be a flight to quality driven by heightened political uncertainty. Underlying economic growth remains solid, and investors should fade the recent moves by adding to duration underweights. Quality Spreads: It might be wise to take advantage of current tight quality spreads to hedge the risk of the corporate interest expense tax deduction being repealed. Credit Curve: There is a substantial spread advantage to extending maturity within an allocation to investment grade corporate bonds. Further, this spread advantage should dissipate as Treasury yields move higher. Feature Political risks dominated the headlines last week, sparking what looks like a textbook flight-to-quality in financial markets. The 10-year Treasury yield broke below its long-standing 2.3% floor to end the week at 2.24%, and the S&P 500 declined by just over 1%. Another telltale sign of a flight-to-quality is that the term structure of implied equity volatility inverted (Chart 1). That is, implied volatility on 1-month S&P 500 index options rose above 3-month implied vol. We know the playbook here. Politically driven risk-off episodes that are unlikely to materially impact economic growth should be faded. This means staying at below-benchmark duration and overweight spread product, while favoring curve steepeners and TIPS breakeven wideners. We don't have to look that far back to identify another politically driven risk off episode. The Brexit vote from early last summer also caused the equity volatility term structure to invert, and drove the 10-year Treasury yield down to 1.37%, well below the fair value dictated by global economic fundamentals. Following the Brexit vote the 10-year Treasury yield was 58 bps expensive according to our 2-factor Treasury model.1 Presently, the 10-year yield appears 30 bps expensive (Chart 2), and much like in the aftermath of the Brexit vote, the deviation from fair value looks to be driven by spiking political uncertainty. Chart 1Inverted Vol Term Structure Chart 210-Year Treasury Yield Fair Value Now, the Global Economic Policy Uncertainty Index has been above normal levels since Donald Trump's election last November (Chart 2, bottom panel), and as long as the reading from that index is elevated the risk of another flight-to-quality episode in financial markets will remain high. However, spikes in policy uncertainty that do not coincide with economic deterioration have historically tended to mean-revert in relatively short order. We anticipate that Treasury yields will rise as policy uncertainty eases in the months ahead. Chart 3The Fed Is Being Priced Out Coincident with the drop in long-dated Treasury yields, the overnight index swap curve is now priced for only 39 bps of rate hikes between now and the end of the year (Chart 3). That's barely more than one 25 basis point hike! We previously recommended shorting January 2018 Fed Funds Futures on March 21,2 and would advise investors who have not yet entered this trade to do so now from even more attractive levels. We calculate that a short January 2018 Fed Funds Futures trade will return 20 bps (from current levels) in the event that the Fed hikes twice more this year, and 45 bps in the event of three more hikes. In our view, growth will be strong enough to support at least two more rate hikes this year. Bottom Line: The recent strength in bond markets appears to be a flight to quality driven by heightened political uncertainty. Underlying economic growth remains solid, and investors should fade the recent moves by adding to duration underweights. Are Markets Sniffing Out A Slowdown? Of course, bond markets could just be rallying in response to slowing U.S. economic growth. After all, the Atlanta Fed's GDPNow forecast is calling for a measly 0.5% annualized GDP growth in Q1. In stark contrast, the New York Fed's GDP Nowcast is calling for robust growth of 2.6% in Q1 and 2.1% in Q2 (Chart 4). How do we square the two? The answer relates to the ongoing debate between so-called "soft" and "hard" data. The New York Fed model incorporates a great deal more "soft data" than the Atlanta Fed model. In other words, it incorporates a wider swathe of survey data than the Atlanta Fed model, which relies more heavily on actual production and spending statistics. We think it would be unwise to dismiss the more positive economic message being sent by survey data. First, surveys tend to lead actual spending so we should expect some divergence whenever the economy reaches a turning point. Second, "hard data" are often revised after the fact and there are question marks about whether residual seasonality has biased Q1 growth lower during the past few years. The minutes from the March FOMC meeting showed that participants "noted that residual seasonality might have exaggerated the increase" in the PCE price deflator in January and February. The corollary of an unduly strong PCE price deflator is unusually weak real consumer spending. Real consumer spending was indeed weak in January and February, as was the headline retail sales figure for March. However, the weakness in March retail sales was concentrated in gasoline stations and auto sales. The more stable retail sales control group - a measure that excludes autos, gas stations and building materials - ticked higher in March (Chart 5). While the recent decline in auto sales should not be dismissed, it is too soon to call for a broad slowdown in consumer spending. Finally, as was recently noted by our colleagues at BCA's Global Investment Strategy service,3 even with bad weather having been a large drag on employment growth in March, aggregate hours worked still grew 1.5% in Q1 (Chart 6). This means that productivity growth would need to be negative in order to achieve the Atlanta Fed's 0.5% forecast. Given that aggregate hours worked were biased lower due to weather in the first quarter, and that quarterly productivity growth has averaged approximately +0.7% (annualized) since 2010, overall GDP growth forecasts closer to 2% seem more reasonable going forward. Chart 4Soft Data Versus Hard Data Chart 5Weak Auto Sales Are A Concern Chart 6Aggregate Hours Still Robust No Deflation Here GDP growth in the neighborhood of 2% is sufficient to keep measures of core inflation gradually trending higher. Higher inflation, in turn, will eventually translate into increased inflation expectations and higher long-dated Treasury yields. While last week's release showed that core CPI actually contracted in March, we note that this followed two months of extremely strong inflation (Chart 7). Taking a step back, it still appears as though measures of core inflation put in a cyclical bottom in early 2015 (Chart 8). While our CPI diffusion index is still below zero, signaling that inflation is likely to remain soft during the next couple of months, it would be premature to suggest that the gradual uptrend in core inflation has reversed. Chart 7March CPI Is An Anomaly Chart 8Inflation Still Trending Higher One final point relevant to the inflation outlook is that last week President Trump refused to rule out re-appointing Janet Yellen as Fed Chair when her current term expires early next year. If we can take the President at his word, then this potentially removes what was an important tail risk for the inflation outlook and the reflation trade more generally. If Trump were to appoint a staunch hawk as Fed Chair, then a much tighter Fed policy would likely halt the uptrend in core inflation. This would also cause the Treasury curve to bear-flatten and risk assets to sell off. However, an FOMC hewing closer to the status quo would allow inflation to trend higher, prolonging the reflation trade. Bottom Line: We don't see enough evidence to call for a slowdown in economic growth or inflation. Growth in the neighborhood of 2% going forward will be sufficient to send inflation expectations and long-dated nominal yields higher. Corporate Bond Positioning: Credit Rating & Maturity In last week's report we performed an assessment of the corporate credit cycle and concluded that corporate bonds should perform well relative to Treasuries this year, but are at risk next year once inflationary pressures start to bite and the Fed speeds up the pace of tightening.4 This week, we consider the implications of this outlook for positioning across the corporate bond quality and maturity spectrums. Quality Spreads Chart 9Quality Spreads Are Tight Obviously, lower rated corporate bonds offer a spread advantage relative to more highly rated bonds. This spread advantage is usually worth chasing unless the default outlook is worsening and overall corporate spreads are widening. At the moment, the option-adjusted spread (OAS) advantage in the Barclays High-Yield index relative to the Investment Grade index is 274 bps, about 100 bps below its long-run average. Further, Baa-rated investment grade corporate bonds currently offer a spread advantage of 77 bps over Aa-rated bonds, about 20 bps below the long-run average. Even though these quality spreads are somewhat tight by historical standards, the mere fact that the quality spread is positive means there is an advantage to moving down the quality spectrum as long as default risk is benign. For this reason, it is more relevant to consider the additional compensation for moving down in quality relative to our expectations for default losses during the next 12 months.5 In Chart 9 we see that quality spreads are in fact tighter than average, even after adjusting for default loss expectations, although there have also been extended periods when they were even tighter than current levels. Although the risk/reward trade-off for moving down in quality is not all that attractive by historical standards, given our view that corporate spreads will be well behaved this year, we are fairly agnostic about moving down in quality on a 6-12 month investment horizon. There is, however, one additional factor to consider with regards to positioning across the credit quality spectrum. Corporate tax reform, some form of which our Geopolitical strategists still see as having a high probability of being passed before the end of this year,6 will involve some combination of lower tax rates and the repeal of some deductions. One deduction that is very much at risk is that of corporate interest expense. If implemented, it seems likely that corporate interest deductibility would be phased out over time. That is, the interest on outstanding corporate bonds would remain tax deductible, and only the interest on newly issued debt would be excluded from the deduction. While the gradual phase-out would prevent a wave of defaults related to a sudden surge in tax expense, the provision very clearly favors large highly-rated firms relative to small lower-rated firms, whose interest expense makes up a larger proportion of total expenses. Investors with longer time horizons might be wise to take advantage of current tight quality spreads (i.e. move up in quality) to hedge the risk of the corporate interest expense tax deduction being repealed. Credit Curve Considerations Turning to the corporate bond term structure, we see that the OAS advantage in long-maturity investment grade corporate bonds is extremely high relative to history (Chart 10). As we discussed in a 2013 report,7 the two main drivers of the credit OAS curve are differences in duration and expected default losses. A greater difference in duration between the long-maturity and intermediate-maturity investment grade corporate bond indexes leads to a greater OAS advantage in the long-maturity index. Conversely, an increase in perceived default risk causes the OAS curve to flatten, as short-maturity credits are perceived to be at greater risk of default. We find that the majority of the spread advantage in long-dated corporate bonds represents compensation for duration risk. If we look at OAS per unit of duration rather than outright OAS, the credit curve no longer appears steep (Chart 10, panel 2). Digging a little deeper, we see that the difference in duration between the long-maturity and intermediate-maturity indexes has been steadily increasing since 1990. In the early 1990s the increase was at least partially attributable to actual changes in the maturity structure of the indexes themselves (Chart 10, panel 3). However, in recent years the increased duration spread is entirely the result of lower Treasury yields (Chart 10, bottom panel). It follows that if Treasury yields continue to trend lower, then the corporate OAS curve will remain very steep. Higher Treasury yields would reduce the difference in duration between the intermediate and long maturity indexes, causing the OAS curve to flatten. After adjusting for differences in duration, we also need to consider the default outlook. By performing a regression of the difference in OAS per unit of duration between the long-maturity and intermediate-maturity indexes on our measure of expected default losses, we find that the amount of spread per unit of duration at the long-end of the curve looks somewhat attractive given our outlook for default losses (Chart 11). Chart 10OAS Term Structure Is Steep Chart 11Higher Defaults = Flatter OAS Curve Adding it all up, there is a compelling case to be made for favoring long-maturity investment grade corporate bonds relative to short maturities. Not only is the spread advantage substantial on its face, but the OAS curve should flatten if Treasury yields move higher - as we expect they will. The OAS curve also appears too steep relative to our assessment of default risk. Bottom Line: There is a substantial spread advantage to extending maturity within an allocation to investment grade corporate bonds. Further, this spread advantage should dissipate as Treasury yields move higher. Investors should favor long-maturity issues over short-maturity issues within an overweight allocation to investment grade corporate bonds. Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com 1 Our 2-factor Treasury model is based on Global Manufacturing PMI and bullish sentiment toward the U.S. dollar. For further details please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "The Message From Our Treasury Model", dated October 11, 2016, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "The Yield Curve On A Cyclical Horizon", dated March 21, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Talk Is Cheap: EUR/USD Is Heading Toward Parity", dated April 14, 2017, available at gis.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "The Payback Period In Corporate Bonds", dated April 11, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 5 We calculate expected default losses using the Moody's baseline forecast for the default rate and our own forecast of the recovery rate. 6 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Political Risks Are Overstated In 2017", dated April 5, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com 7 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, "On The Term Structure Of Credit Spreads", dated July 10, 2013, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

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

Highlights Despite President Trump's consternation, the dollar bull market will persist. The euro will reach parity against the greenback by the end of this year. The Fed will deliver more tightening over the next 12 months than the market is expecting, while the ECB will deliver less. The fact that U.S. Treasury-German bund spreads are near record-high levels will not prevent the euro from weakening further. About half of the Treasury-bund spread can be explained by two factors: 1) lower inflation expectations in the euro area; and 2) the hedge that bunds provide against redenomination risk in the event of a breakup of the common currency. The rest can be mostly explained by the fact that the euro area is still well behind the U.S. in its cyclical recovery. It is not the absolute level of interest rate spreads that matters for investors, but how spreads evolve relative to market expectations. The market is already pricing in a substantial amount of spread narrowing over the coming years. Investors expect real rates to be only 17 basis points higher in the U.S. than in the euro area in five years' time. This seems too low to us. Feature Can't Trump The Dollar After an impressive rally from its late-March lows, the dollar hit a roadblock on Wednesday following Trump's remarks on the currency. "I think our dollar is getting too strong," the President said, adding in typical Trumpian style, "and partially that's my fault because people have confidence in me." He went on to say that he prefers that the Fed keep interest rates low. We doubt that Trump will get his wish. If anything, with the Federal Reserve's independence under fire from Republicans in Congress, Fed officials could subconsciously react to Trump's rhetoric by accelerating the pace of rate hikes. Janet Yellen turned 70 last year and she would rather go out in style after serving one term as Fed chair than be perceived as doing Trump's bidding. Soft Versus Hard Data Chart 1U.S. Growth: Broader 'Nowcasts' ##br##Painting A More Flattering Picture Of course, the Fed's ability to keep hiking rates is contingent on growth holding up. As discussed in our Q2 Strategy Outlook, while we are worried that growth may disappoint towards the end of 2018, the next 12 months still look reasonably solid.1 Granted, the Atlanta Fed's widely-watched GDP model is pointing to growth of only 0.6% in Q1. However, we would discount this and other narrow tracking estimates, given that the so-called "nowcasts" - which use a broader array of data - paint a much more flattering picture (Chart 1). Some commentators have expressed concern that the nowcasts are being contaminated by "soft data" derived from surveys, which are sending much more bullish signals than the "hard data" published by government statistical agencies. We are less worried about this issue. For one thing, the soft data generally leads the hard data, so some divergence during periods of accelerating growth is not unusual. Second, survey data tends not to be revised, whereas the hard data often is. This is especially important at present because of question marks over seasonal adjustments to Q1 data, which by some calculations are biasing down growth by around one percentage point. Third, the soft data is more consistent with what we are seeing in the labor market. Despite a weak weather-distorted March payrolls report, the overall tone of the labor market data has been positive, as evidenced by near record-low levels of unemployment claims, a rising job openings rate, and ongoing improvement in the Conference Board's perception of job availability measure. Aggregate hours worked still managed to increase by 1.5% at an annualized rate in Q1. If GDP growth was barely above zero as the Atlanta Fed's model suggests, this would imply an outright decline in the level of labor productivity. Even in a world where structural productivity growth is lower than it was in the past, this strikes us as rather implausible. ECB: Doves Are Still In Control There is no denying that economic data from the euro area has been strong this year (Chart 2). The composite PMI stood just shy of a 6-year high in March. Capital goods orders are in a clear uptrend, which bodes well for investment spending over the coming months. Private-sector credit growth reached 2.5% earlier this year, the fastest pace since July 2009. A further acceleration is probable over the coming months, given rising business confidence, firm loan demand, and declining nonperforming loans (Chart 3). Chart 2The Euro Area Economy Will Continue To Recover Chart 3Euro Area: Credit Growth Should Accelerate Despite the bevy of good news, the ECB is in no rush to tighten monetary policy. Yes, the central bank did announce a one-off decrease in the size of its asset purchases in December, and will likely do so again in early 2018. However, Mario Draghi has made it clear that he will not raise rates until well after all asset purchases have been completed, which probably won't be until late 2019 at the earliest. The ECB's dovish bias is understandable. While the regionwide unemployment rate is falling, it is still 2% above pre-crisis lows (Chart 4). In Spain and Italy, the unemployment rate stands at 18% and 11.5%, respectively, up from 7.9% and 5.7%. Meanwhile, core inflation is still squarely below the ECB's 2% target and sluggish wage growth across most of the region suggests that this will remain the case for the foreseeable future (Chart 5). Chart 4The ECB's Dovishness Is Merited... Chart 5...Especially Given The Muted Inflation Backdrop Peering Through The Treasury-Bund Spread The usual rejoinder is that all this has been priced into the market. We disagree. The market is currently pricing in less than two Fed rate hikes over the next 12 months. In contrast, we expect the Fed to raise rates three or four times over this period. The FOMC is also likely to announce in December that it will allow the size of its balance sheet to shrink as maturing assets roll off. This could put some upward pressure on the term premium. On the flipside, the months-to-hike measure for the ECB has fallen from 60 last summer to only 30 today. We doubt it will go much lower. What about the fact that Treasury-bund spreads stand close to record-high levels? Doesn't that severely limit the downside for EUR/USD? The answer is no. First, one should ideally compare the U.S. Treasury yield with the composite euro area bond yield rather than the bund yield, since the former is what the ECB ultimately cares most about. Chart 6 shows that the GDP-weighted average of 5-year bond yields in Germany, France, the Netherlands, Belgium, Austria, Italy, and Spain currently stands 55 basis points above comparable bund yields. Second, it is not the absolute level of interest rate spreads that matters for investors, but how spreads evolve relative to market expectations. The euro area is still well behind the U.S. in its cyclical recovery. As such, the 5-year U.S.-euro area spread is currently 173 basis points. However, the 5-year, 5-year forward spread - the spread that investors expect to see in five years' time - is only 92 basis points (Chart 7). This means that investors expect the 5-year spread to fall by 81 basis points over the next half-decade as the business cycles in the two regions converge. Chart 6Bund Yields Remain Below Euro Area Peers Chart 7The Vanishing Transatlantic Bond Spread Third, both theory and evidence say that real interest rate differentials are what drive currencies. Investors have long believed that inflation is likely to be structurally lower in the euro area than the U.S. This is underscored by the fact that the CPI swaps market is signaling that inflation will be 0.8% points higher in the latter five years from now. If inflation evolves the way the market expects, U.S. real 5-year yields will be a mere 17 basis points higher than in the euro area in 2022 (Chart 8). This gap does not strike us as being particularly large. Chart 8AU.S. And Euro Area Bond Yields: A Nuanced Picture Chart 8BU.S. And Euro Area Bond Yields: A Nuanced Picture We can debate how low the neutral real rate is in the U.S., but whatever it is there, it is likely that it is even lower in the euro area, given the region's worse demographics and higher debt burdens. The anti-growth features of the common currency - namely, the inability to devalue one's currency in response to an adverse economic shock, as well as the austerity bias that comes from not having a central bank that can act as a lender of last resort to solvent but illiquid governments - also imply a lower neutral rate. This brings us back to Trump's rhetoric. If the neutral rate is lower in the euro area than it is in the U.S., any effort to weaken the dollar is bound to backfire. If the Fed raises rates too slowly, the economy could overheat, leading to higher inflation and the need for a sharp increase in rates later on. On the flipside, if the ECB raises rates too quickly, deflationary forces could set in, forcing it to reverse course. Central banks have firm control over many things, but the neutral rate of interest is not one of them.2 As such, we expect real U.S.-euro area spreads to widen over the coming months, which should help push EUR/USD to parity by the end of this year. Peter Berezin, Senior Vice President Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Global Investment Strategy, "Strategy Outlook: Second Quarter 2017: A Three-Act Play," dated March 31, 2017, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Plaza Accord 2.0: Unnecessary, Unfeasible, And Unlikely," dated February 10, 2017, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. Strategy & Market Trends Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

Highlights An investment's long-term attractiveness depends on the trade-off between its expected long-term return and its risk of suffering an intermediate loss. On this risk-adjusted basis: Bonds are now less ugly than equities. U.S. T-bonds are more attractive than the average euro area government bond. European equities and U.S. equities are fairly valued against each other... ...but European equities can outperform when euro breakup risk eventually fades. Feature The English poet Samuel Taylor Coleridge coined the term "willing suspension of disbelief" in his Biographia Literaria published in 1817. It describes the sacrifice of reason and logic to believe the unbelievable. Coleridge suggested that if he could instil a "semblance of truth" into a fantastic tale, the reader would suspend judgement about the implausibility of the narrative in order to enjoy it. Today, it feels like financial market prices are relying on the willing suspension of disbelief. At our client meetings, almost everybody disbelieves that current valuations allow developed market equities to generate attractive long-term returns. Yet many investors are willing to suspend this disbelief, at least for the time being. Our own return forecasts justify the disbelief (Chart I-2). In Outlook 2017, Shifting Regimes,1 my colleague and BCA Chief Economist, Martin Barnes, published our long-term nominal return forecasts for the major asset classes. Allowing for market moves since publication, four of those 10-year annualised total returns2 now stand at: Chart I-2Valuation Drives Long-Term Returns European equities3 5.0% U.S. equities4 3.2% U.S. 10-year T-bond 2.3% Euro area 10-year sovereign bond5 1.2% With annual inflation expected at 2%, these numbers imply paltry real returns from mainstream investments over the coming decade. Still, in terms of ranking relative attractiveness, it might appear reasonable to follow the sequence of returns:6 European equities; U.S. equities; the U.S. 10-year T-bond; and then the euro area 10-year sovereign bond. But that sequence would be wrong - at least in the medium term. The key point is that the four investments are not equally risky. For a riskier asset, investors should expect today's price to generate a higher long-term return as compensation for the extra risk of intermediate loss. Put another way, a risky asset must offer a higher long-term return than a less risky asset for an investor to be indifferent between them. If it doesn't, the danger is that the price will adjust (down) at some point until it does. European Equity Valuations Must Allow For Euro Breakup Risk Consider European equities versus U.S. equities. The sovereign bond market is discounting a 5% annual risk of euro break-up (Chart I-3). This shows up as a discount on German bund yields, because in that tail-event a new deutschmark would rise; and a symmetrical premium on Italian BTP yields, because a new lira would fall. But for the aggregate euro area bond, the risk largely cancels out because intra-euro currency redenomination would be zero sum (Chart I-4). Unfortunately, for the aggregate European stock market, the risk does not cancel out. If the euro broke up, European equities would suffer a much greater drawdown than other markets. Recall that at the peak of the euro debt crisis in 2011, the Eurostoxx600 underperformed the S&P500 by 25% in one year (Chart I-5). In an outright break-up, the underperformance would almost certainly be worse, let's conservatively say 30%. So assuming a 5% annual risk, European equities must compensate with a valuation discount which allows a 1.5% excess annual return over U.S. equities. Chart I-3The Bond Market Is Discounting##br## A 5% Risk Of Euro Breakup... Chart I-4...Based On The Sovereign Yield Spread##br## Between Italy And Germany Chart I-5In The Euro Crisis, The Eurostoxx ##br##Underperformed By 25% There is also the issue of the post-2016 bailout rules for European banks. At a stroke, the Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive (BRRD) has made European bank equity investment more risky. In the event of a bank failure, investors must now suffer the first losses - including full wipe-out - before governments can step in. Combining this with the risk of euro breakup, the 1.8% excess annual return that we expect from the Eurostoxx600 versus the S&P500 makes European equity valuations look fair, rather than attractive, on a relative risk-adjusted basis. That said, the good news is that if the risk of euro area breakup gradually fades, it would permit a healthy re-rating of the Eurostoxx600 versus the S&P500. For example, if the annual risk of breakup declined from 5% to 1%, it would equate to a 12% outperformance. But as the greatest political risk to the euro now emanates from Italy - and not the upcoming French Presidential Election - we recommend playing this re-rating opportunity closer to, or after, Italy's next general election.7 Equity Valuations Reliant On "Willing Suspension Of Disbelief" Now consider equities versus bonds. An expected 3.2% annual return from the S&P500 versus a 2.3% 10-year T-bond yield implies an ex-ante 10-year equity risk premium (ERP) of just 0.9% (Chart I-6). This is significantly lower than the 135-year average of 5% and even the post war average of 2.5%8 (Chart of the Week). Chart of the WeekThe Ex-Ante Equity Risk Premium Is Close To Zero Chart I-6In The U.S., The Expected 10-Year Return From Equities And Bonds Is Now Almost The Same What can justify the "willing suspension of disbelief" that permits today's abnormally low ERP? There are three arguments. All have Coleridge's "semblance of truth" but are ultimately flawed. Chart I-7In The 1970s Inflation Scare, Equities##br## Suffered Much More Than Bonds First, it is argued that the ERP should be low because bonds have become more risky. With 10-year bond yields so low, bond prices have limited upside but substantial downside. The problem with this argument is that equities are a much longer duration asset than a 10-year bond, so if inflation did take hold, equities would suffer the much greater drawdown - as they did in the 1970s (Chart I-7). Another counterargument is that bond yields have been this low on previous occasions in the past 135 years, but on those previous occasions the ex-ante ERP was not as depressed as it is today. Second, it is argued that the ERP should be low because central banks now have a tried and tested weapon - QE - which they can pull out at the slightest sign of trouble. Empirically, it might be true that QE did compress the ERP. But theoretically, it shouldn't. Even Ben Bernanke told us at our 2015 New York Conference that QE is nothing more than a signalling mechanism for interest rate policy. So it works by compressing bond yields rather than the ERP. In this sense, justifying a low ERP with QE is a worry rather than a hope. Third, and most recently, it is argued that the surprise arrival of the Trump administration is a game changer for investments - structurally positive for equities, structurally negative for bonds. The jury is out on this. But given the speed of market moves, our sense is that is the hope of fast-moving momentum traders. Slow-moving value investors are still on the side lines, waiting to see what - if anything - will really change. Mr. Market Is Little Short Of Silly In his 1949 seminal work, The Intelligent Investor Benjamin Graham, the grandfather of value investing, introduced us to a whimsical character called Mr. Market. Every day, Mr. Market quotes a price for your investments, at which you can buy or sell. Sometimes, Mr. Market's idea of value seems plausible. At other times: "Mr. Market lets his enthusiasm or his fears run away with him, and the value he proposes seems to you little short of silly." The point of Graham's allegory is that investors should not cheerlead the market come what may. Mr. Market will not always quote you an attractive price; sometimes he will quote you a very unattractive price (Chart I-8). Chart I-8Mr. Market Will Not Always Quote You An Attractive Price "At which the long-term investor certainly should refrain from buying and probably would be wise to sell." Today, when we see the ugly long-term returns offered by Mr. Market and we risk-adjust for potential drawdowns, we conclude: Bonds are now less ugly than equities. U.S. T-bonds are more attractive than the average euro area government bond. European equities and U.S. equities are fairly valued against each other, but European equities can outperform when euro breakup risk eventually fades. Dhaval Joshi, Senior Vice President European Investment Strategy dhaval@bcaresearch.com 1 Published on December 20, 2016 and available at www.bcaresearch.com 2 Nominal local currency returns including income. 3 Outlook 2017 showed "Other (non-U.S.) developed equities" but this aligns with our forecast for European equities. 4 Since Outlook 2017 was published, equity markets are up around 5%. So 10-year return forecasts have been reduced by around (5/10) = 0.5%. 5 Euro area weighted average 10-year yield weighted by sovereign issue size. 6 This assumes investors can cheaply hedge currency exposure, as is the case now. 7 Please see the Geopolitical Strategy Service Weekly Report titled "Political Risks Are Understated In 2018", dated April 12, 2017 and available at gps.bcaresearch.com 8 In this report we define the ex-ante ERP at any point in time as the Shiller P/E's implied prospective 10-year equity return (see Chart 8) less the 10-year bond yield. Fractal Trading Model* This week's trade is to go long the sugar number 11 futures contract on the NYB-ICE exchange, with a profit target of 7%. Alternatively, a more hedged position is long sugar / short aluminium with a profit target of 10%. For any investment, excessive trend following and groupthink can reach a natural point of instability, at which point the established trend is highly likely to break down with or without an external catalyst. An early warning sign is the investment's fractal dimension approaching its natural lower bound. Encouragingly, this trigger has consistently identified countertrend moves of various magnitudes across all asset classes. Chart I-9 Chart I-10 * For more details please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report "Fractals, Liquidity & A Trading Model," dated December 11, 2014, available at eis.bcaresearch.com The post-June 9, 2016 fractal trading model rules are: When the fractal dimension approaches the lower limit after an investment has been in an established trend it is a potential trigger for a liquidity-triggered trend reversal. Therefore, open a countertrend position. The profit target is a one-third reversal of the preceding 13-week move. Apply a symmetrical stop-loss. Close the position at the profit target or stop-loss. Otherwise close the position after 13 weeks. Use the position size multiple to control risk. The position size will be smaller for more risky positions. Fractal Trading Model Recommendations Equities Bond & Interest Rates Currency & Other Positions Closed Fractal Trades Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Interest Rate Chart II-5Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations

Highlights High Conviction Views: The global cyclical backdrop remains negative for government bond markets, and the recent declines in yields will not be sustained. We continue to recommend a below-benchmark overall duration stance, favoring U.S. corporate debt with underweight exposures to U.S. Treasuries and Italian government debt, as our highest conviction views. Medium Conviction Views: Staying overweight global inflation protection, French government bonds versus Germany, and Japanese Government Bonds (JGBs) versus the rest of the developed bond markets, while remaining underweight U.S. Mortgage Backed Securities, are recommendations that we hold with a more moderate conviction level. Euro Area Bond Distortions: The ECB's negative interest rate and asset purchase programs have created significant distortions in the German bond yield curve that are not as evident in the Euro Area swap rate curve, especially at shorter maturities. ECB tapering will be the trigger for a reversal of these trends. Feature Chart of the WeekWhy Are Yields Falling? After publishing two Special Reports in the past two weeks, this Weekly Report is our first opportunity to comment on the markets in April. We find it somewhat surprising that government bonds in the developed world have rallied as much as they have since the most recent peak last month, with the benchmark 10-year U.S. Treasury and German Bund seeing yield declines of -29bps and -22bps, respectively. Most of the move in Treasuries has been in the real yield component, while Bunds have seen a more even split between declines in real yields and inflation expectations. This has occurred despite minimal changes in actual growth or inflation pressures in either the U.S. or Europe (Chart of the Week). The price action in the Treasury market after last week's U.S. Payrolls report is a sign that the bond backdrop remains bearish. Yields initially fell all the way to 2.26% after the March increase in jobs fell short of expectations, before subsequently rebounding sharply to end the day at 2.38%. While intraday yield reversals on Payrolls Fridays are as typical as the sun setting in the west, a 12bp swing is one of the larger ones in recent memory (perhaps because investors eventually noticed the weather-related distortions in the data or, more importantly, that the U.S. unemployment rate had fallen to 4.5%). We continue to favor a pro-growth bias for bond investors, staying below-benchmark on overall duration and selectively overweight on corporate credit (favoring the U.S.). Ranking Our Current Market Views, By Conviction We have seen little in the economic data over the past few weeks to change our main strategic market views and portfolio recommendations. We summarize our main opinions below, ranked in order of our conviction level: Highest conviction views: Below-benchmark on overall portfolio duration exposure (for dedicated bond investors). Global bond yields have more room to rise alongside solid economic growth, tightening labor markets, inflation expectations drifting higher and central banks moving to slightly less accommodative monetary policies, on the margin. While the sharp upward momentum in coincident bond indicators like the global ZEW sentiment index has cooled of late, the solid upturn in the BCA Global Leading Economic Indicator continues to point to future upward pressure on real yields (Chart 2). The recent pullback in yields also appears to have run too far versus the trend in global data surprises, which remain elevated (bottom panel). One factor that we see having a potentially huge negative impact on global bond markets is the European Central Bank (ECB) announcing a move to a less accommodative policy stance later this year. A taper of asset purchases starting in 2018 is the more likely outcome than any hike in policy interest rates, which we see as more of a story for 2019. This should help push longer-dated bond yields higher within the Euro Area, and drag up global bond yields more generally. Underweight U.S. Treasuries. We still expect the Fed to deliver at least two more hikes this year, and there is still room for U.S. inflation expectations to rise further and put bear-steepening pressure on the Treasury curve. Our two-factor model for the benchmark 10-year Treasury yield, which uses the global purchasing managers index (PMI) and investor sentiment towards the U.S. dollar as the explanatory variables, indicates that yields are now about 18bps below fair value. From a technical perspective, the Treasury market no longer appears as oversold as it did after the rapid run-up in yields following last November's U.S. elections. The large short positions indicated by the J.P. Morgan duration survey and the Commitment of Traders report for Treasury futures have largely been unwound, while price momentum has flipped into positive territory (Chart 3). This removes one of the largest impediments to a renewed decline in Treasury prices, and we expect that the 10-year yield to rise to the upper end of the recent 2.30%-2.60% trading range in the next couple of months, before eventually breaking out on the way to the 2.80%-3% area by year-end. Chart 2Maintain A Defensive Duration Posture Chart 3Stay Underweight U.S. Treasuries Underweight Italian government bonds, versus both Germany and Spain. Italian government debt continues to suffer from the toxic combination of sluggish growth and weak domestic banks. The OECD leading economic indicator for Italy is declining, in contrast to the stable-to-rising trends in Germany and Spain (Chart 4). Meanwhile, the 5-year credit default swaps (CDS) for the major banks in Italy remain elevated around 400bps, in sharp contrast to the declining CDS in Germany and Spain which are now at 100bps. It is no coincidence that the widening trend in Italy-Germany and Italy-Spain spreads began around the same time last year that Italian bank CDS started to disengage from the rest of Europe (bottom panel). Markets understand that the undercapitalized Italian banking system will need government assistance at some point, which will add to the Italian government's already huge debt/GDP ratio of 133%. Political uncertainty in Italy, with parliamentary elections due by the spring of 2018 and populist parties like the anti-euro Five-Star Alliance holding up well in the polls, will also ensure that the risk premium on Italian bonds stays wide both in absolute terms and relative to other Peripheral European markets. Overweight U.S. corporate bonds, versus both U.S. Treasuries and Euro Area equivalents. The positive case for U.S. corporate debt is built upon two factors - the cyclical decline in default risk and the marginal improvement in balance sheet metrics. The latest estimates from Moody's are calling for a decline in the U.S. speculative grade corporate default rate to 3.1% this year. This leaves our measure of default-adjusted spreads in U.S. high-yield at levels that our colleagues at our sister publication, U.S. Bond Strategy, have shown to have a high probability of delivering positive excess returns over Treasuries in the next 12 months.1 Add to that the recent change in trend of our U.S. Corporate Health Monitor (CHM), which appears largely driven by some more positive numbers coming from lower-rated issuers in the Energy space given the recovery in oil prices, and the optimistic case for U.S. corporate debt is compelling. This is in contrast to our Euro Area CHM, which shows that the improving trend in balance sheet metrics has stalled of late (Chart 5, top panel). Chart 4Stay Underweight Italy Chart 5Stay Overweight U.S. Corporates vs Europe The difference between the U.S. and European CHMs has proven to be a good directional indicator for the relative return performance between the two markets, and is currently pointing to continued outperformance of both U.S. investment grade and high-yield debt versus European equivalents (bottom two panels). The threat of an ECB taper also hangs over the Euro Area investment grade corporate bond market, given the large buying of that debt by the central bank over the past year that has helped dampen both yields and spreads. Chart 6Stay Overweight Inflation Protection Medium-conviction views: Overweight inflation protection (both inflation-linked bonds and CPI swaps) in the U.S., Euro Area and Japan. In the U.S., the breakeven inflation rate on 10-year TIPS looks a bit too wide relative to our shorter-term model based on financial variables. However, underlying U.S. inflation pressures remain strong (Chart 6, top panel), particularly given the evidence that conditions in the labor market are getting progressively tighter. We expect inflation expectations to eventually rise back to levels consistent with the Fed's 2% inflation target on headline PCE inflation (which is around 2.5% on 10-year TIPS breakevens that are priced off the CPI index). The reflation story is somewhat less compelling in Europe and Japan, although CPI swaps are now at levels consistent with the underlying trends in realized inflation in both regions (bottom two panels). We continue to view long positions in CPI swaps in Europe and Japan as having a positive risk/reward skew given the tightening labor market in the former and the yen-negative monetary policies in the latter. Long France government bonds (10yr OATs) versus Germany (10yr Bunds). This is purely a call on the upcoming French election, which our political strategists believe will not end in a victory for the populist Marine Le Pen. While Le Pen has seen a recent bump in support heading into the first round of voting on April 23rd, her strong anti-euro position will eventually prove to be her undoing in the run-off election on May 7th (Chart 7). We first made this recommendation back in early February, and even though France-Germany spreads have been volatile since then as both Le Pen and the far-left candidate Jean-Luc Melenchon have seen a pickup in their poll numbers, the yield differentials are essentially at the same levels.2 We take this as a sign that the market believes current spreads are enough to compensate for the likely probability that either candidate could win the French presidency. Overweight JGBs Vs. the Global Treasury index. The argument here is a simple one - in an environment where there is cyclical upward pressure on global bond yields, favor the lowest-beta bond market (Chart 8). Persistently low inflation will prevent the Bank of Japan (BoJ) from making any changes to its current hyper-accommodative policies this year, especially the 0% cap on the benchmark 10-year JGB yield.3 The lack of yield limits the prospects for JGBs on a total return basis, but relative to other government bond markets, JGBs should outperform over the next 6-12 months as non-Japanese yields rise further. Chart 7Stay Overweight France Vs Germany Chart 8Stay Overweight Low-Beta JGBs Underweight U.S. Agency Mortgage-Backed Securities (MBS). Investors should remain underweight U.S. MBS, as spreads remain tight by historical standards. Our colleagues at U.S. Bond Strategy note that nominal MBS spreads have been flat in recent weeks as the option cost, which is the compensation for expected prepayments, has tightened to offset a widening in the option-adjusted spread (OAS).4 Chart 9Stay Underweight U.S. MBS We tend to think of the OAS as being influenced by trends in net issuance while the option cost is linked to mortgage prepayments (Chart 9). Looking ahead, the supply of MBS should increase further when the Fed starts to shrink its balance sheet later this year (as was mentioned in the minutes of the March FOMC meeting that were released last week), leading to a wider OAS. At the same time, refinancing applications should stay low as Treasury yields and mortgage rates rise. This will keep downward pressure on the option cost component of spreads. But with the option cost already near its historical lows, it is unlikely to completely offset the widening in OAS going forward. We see little value in U.S. MBS at current spread levels. Bottom Line: The global cyclical backdrop remains negative for government bond markets, and the recent declines in yields will not be sustained. We continue to recommend a below-benchmark overall duration stance, favoring U.S. corporate debt with underweight exposures to U.S. Treasuries and Italian government debt, as our highest conviction views. Staying overweight global inflation protection, French government bonds versus Germany, and Japanese Government Bonds (JGBs) versus the rest of the developed bond markets, while remaining underweight U.S. Mortgage Backed Securities, are recommendations that we hold with a more moderate conviction level. How Much Has The ECB Distorted The European Bond Market? Last week, Benoit Coeure of the ECB Executive Board gave a speech entitled "Bond Scarcity and the ECB Asset Purchase Program."5 That title piqued our interest, as that exact topic has come up in several of our conversations with clients this year. In his speech, Coeure discussed how the huge rally at the short-end of the German government bond curve over the past year has been at odds with what has occurred in the Euro swap curve, where interest rates are much higher for shorter-maturity swaps. Typically, German yields and Euro swap rates move in tandem, with the only differences being a function of technical factors like fixed-rate corporate debt issuance or government bond repo rates - and, on occasion, shifts in the perceived health of Euro Area banks that are the counterparties to any interest rate swap. The latter has become much less of an issue in recent years given the regulatory changes to the swap market, where trading has moved to centralized exchanges to reduce counterparty risks. In this environment, the difference between German bond yields and Euro swap rates, a.k.a the swap spread, should be relatively modest. Yet as can be seen in Chart 10, there has been a notable divergence at the shorter-maturity portions of the respective yield curves, where swap rates are rising but bond yields remain subdued. We can also see the divergences in the slopes of the relative yield curves, with the Euro Area swap curve much flatter than the German bond curve, particularly at longer maturities (Chart 11). Chart 10Large Distortions At The Front End Of The German Curve Chart 11Euro Area Swap Curves Are Generally Flatter Coeure argued that part of this distortion can be attributed to ECB asset purchases, especially after the decision taken last December to allow bond buying at yields below the -0.4% ECB deposit rate. This created a more favorable demand/supply balance for German debt, especially given the dearth of short-dated issuance. In addition, Coeure noted that there have been substantial safe-haven flows into shorter-dated German bonds (including treasury bills) by non-Euro Area entities. Some of this demand comes from large institutional investors like sovereign wealth funds and currency reserve managers, who are worried about political risks in France and Italy, and about the general rising trend in global bond yields, and are thus seeking the safety of low duration German debt. But some of the demand for short-dated German paper also comes from non-Euro Area banks, who have excess liquidity that needs to be parked in Euros but do not have access to the ECB deposit facility for the excess reserves of Euro Area banks. We can see this in Chart 12, which shows ECB data for the relative government bond ownership trends for Germany, France and Italy. The data is broken into holdings for bonds with maturities of one year or less (short-term) and bonds with maturities greater than one year (long-term). It is clear that the non-Euro area buyers own a much larger share of short-term German paper, around 90%, than in France and Italy, while Euro Area entities own nearly 80% of long-term bonds in all three countries. Coeure is correct in pointing out that there is an excess demand condition for short-dated core European debt, exacerbated by foreigners who need Euro-denominated safe assets - particularly GERMAN safe assets, if those investors are at all worried about redenomination risks given the rise of anti-euro populist parties in Europe.6 It is clear that the economic messages sent by looking at the German bond and Euro swap curves are very different. The flatter swap curve is more consistent with a steadily growing Euro Area economy where economic slack is being steadily absorbed and inflation pressures are building (albeit slowly). Also, the sovereign spread differentials within Europe do not look as problematic using swaps as the reference rate rather than German bonds. That is the case in France, where spreads versus swaps look in line with the averages of the past few years (Chart 13). This contrasts with the yield differentials versus Germany, which have reportedly gone up as investors have priced in a higher sovereign risk premium before the French presidential election. Chart 12French Bond Valuations Look More Subdued vs Swaps Chart 13French Bond Valuations Look More Subdued vs Swaps The story is a little different for Italy, where bond spreads versus both German bonds and Euro Area swaps have risen for all but the shortest maturities (Chart 14). This could be consistent with an interpretation that Italy's banking sector woes will add to the nation's longer-term fiscal stresses (as discussed earlier in this report), but not in a way that raises immediate default risks (which is why the 2-year Italy vs swap spread is well-behaved). Regardless of the "bias of interpretation", one thing that is clear is that the ECB's extraordinary monetary policies have created distortions in Euro Area bond markets. These may start to unwind, though, if the ECB begins to signal a shift towards a tapering of asset purchases next year, as we expect. The distortions in Euro area government bond yields (and, by association, swap spreads) have occurred alongside both the cuts in ECB policy rates into negative territory and the expansion of its balance sheet to purchase government bonds (Chart 15). As the ECB moves incrementally towards less accommodative monetary policy, we would expect to see front-end Euro swap spreads narrow in absolute terms and relative to longer-tenor spreads, and the German bond curve to flatten toward levels seen in the swap curve. Chart 14Only Short-Dated Italian Bond Valuations Look More Subdued vs Swaps Chart 15ECB Policies Have Caused The Distortions In Euro Swap Spreads Bottom Line: The ECB's negative interest rate and asset purchase programs have created significant distortions in the German bond yield curve that are not as evident in the Euro Area swap rate curve, especially at shorter maturities. ECB tapering will be the trigger for a reversal of these trends. Robert Robis, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Buy The Back-Up In Junk Spreads", dated March 14, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report, "Our Views On French Government Bonds", dated February 7, 2017, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "Staying Behind The Curve, For Now", dated March 21, 2017, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see BCA U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "The Payback Period In Corporate Bonds", dated April 11, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 5 http://www.ecb.europa.eu/press/key/date/2017/html/sp170403_1.en.html 6 Coeure noted that, at the time that the ECB began its asset purchase program in March 2015, the share of German bonds of less than TWO years maturity held by foreigners was 70%, but that rose to 90% by the 3rd quarter of 2016. The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Recommendations Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Highlights Duration: Bond market positioning is no longer at a bearish extreme and the economy is quickly approaching full employment. We expect Treasury yields will soon break through the upside of their post-election trading range. Maintain below-benchmark duration. Fed's Balance Sheet: The unwinding of the Fed's balance sheet is only important for Treasury yields if it impacts the market's rate hike expectations. However, the extra supply of MBS should lead to wider MBS spreads. Credit Cycle: Corporate spreads are in a "payback period" from 2014's energy shock that will allow them to tighten as corporate profits rebound, even though corporate leverage continues to trend higher. The weakening state of corporate balance sheets means spreads are at risk once monetary policy turns less accommodative. Feature The bond bear market has been on pause for the past few months, with Treasury yields confined to a trading range since last November's post-election sell off. While yields have not moved meaningfully higher during this time, firm floors have also formed beneath both the 5-year and 10-year yields (Chart 1). Even after last Friday's disappointing payrolls number, the 10-year did not move below 2.3% and the 5-year did not move below 1.8%. Trading Range About To Break? Our sense is that the current consolidation phase in Treasuries is approaching its end and yields will soon head higher. Global growth indicators have continued to improve during the past few months, and as we noted in last week's report,1 our 2-factor Treasury model, based on Global PMI and U.S. dollar sentiment, pegs fair value for the 10-year yield at 2.54%. We attribute the recent leveling-off in yields to technical shifts in bond positioning and sentiment. Earlier this year, net positions in Treasury futures and asset manager duration allocations were deep in "net short" territory (Chart 2). Extreme short positioning usually leads to a period of bond market strength until short positions are washed out. Now that bond market positioning is closer to neutral, a key impediment to further yield increases has been removed. Chart 1Poised For A Breakout? Chart 2Positioning Has Normalized The elevated level of economic surprises has also been flagged as a potential roadblock to the bond bear market. Extended readings from the economic surprise index tend to mean revert as investor expectations are revised higher in the face of improving data. However, our research suggests that the change in Treasury yields tends to lead the economic surprise index by 1-2 months (Chart 2, bottom panel). Given this relationship, we suspect that the bond market has already discounted a lot of mean reversion in the economic surprise index. Chart 3Approaching Full Employment Finally, last week's employment report should not be taken as a signal that U.S. economic growth is weakening. Bad weather in the northeast played a key role in the low March payrolls number - only 98k jobs added. But more importantly, at this stage of the cycle we should expect payroll growth to slow and wage pressures to increase as we approach full employment. As can be seen in Chart 3, the late cycle trends of slowing payroll growth and rising wages are very much in place. Further, even broad measures of labor market tightness, such as the U6 unemployment rate,2 are quickly approaching levels that suggest the economy is operating at full employment. Increasingly it is measures of labor market utilization, wage growth and inflation that will guide the Fed's decision making, and these measures continue to improve. It was even noted in the minutes from the March FOMC meeting that "tight labor markets [are] increasingly a factor in businesses' planning". The minutes also reported that: Business contacts in many Districts reported difficulty recruiting workers and indicated that they had to either offer higher wages or hire workers with lower qualifications than desired Accordingly, surveys show that households are increasingly describing jobs as "plentiful" (Chart 3, panel 3) and small businesses are indeed ramping up their compensation plans (Chart 3, bottom panel). At this stage of the cycle, continued progress on measures of labor market utilization, wage growth and inflation will be sufficient for the Fed to continue lifting rates, pushing Treasury yields higher. Bottom Line: Bond market positioning is no longer at a bearish extreme and the economy is quickly approaching full employment. We expect Treasury yields will soon break through the upside of their post-election trading range. Maintain below-benchmark duration. The Fed Will Shrink Its Balance Sheet This Year Last week's release of the minutes from the March FOMC meeting also contained some new information about how the Fed plans to deal with its large balance sheet. To summarize, we learned that: The Fed intends to start shrinking its balance sheet later this year (assuming growth maintains its current pace). The Fed will shrink its balance sheet by ceasing the reinvestment of both its MBS and Treasury holdings at the same time. Still no decision has been made about whether reinvestments will stop entirely or whether they will be phased out over time ("tapered"). On February 28, we published a detailed report about the Fed's balance sheet policy.3 In that report we explained why the winding down of the balance sheet will not have much of an impact on Treasury yields, but could lead to a material widening in MBS spreads. The new information received last week does not change either of these conclusions. The minutes did make clear that the Fed favors what Governor Lael Brainard recently called a "subordination strategy" for dealing with its balance sheet.4 [A subordination strategy] would prioritize the federal funds rate as the sole active tool away from the effective lower bound, effectively subordinating the balance sheet. Once federal funds normalization meets the test of being well under way, triggering an end to the current reinvestment policy, the balance sheet would be set on autopilot, shrinking in a gradual, predictable way until a "new normal" has been reached, and then increasing in line with trend increases in the demand for currency thereafter. Under this strategy, the balance sheet might be used as an active tool only if adverse shocks push the economy back to the effective lower bound. Essentially, the Fed is trying to de-emphasize the size of the balance sheet and would rather investors focus on the fed funds rate to assess the stance of monetary policy. For our part, we think it would be unwise to "fight the Fed" on this issue. For Treasury yields, we observe that the real 10-year Treasury yield closely tracks changes in the expected number of rate hikes during the next 12 months, while the inflation component of the 10-year yield tracks changes in realized inflation (Chart 4). These two relationships will continue to determine trends in bond yields going forward, and Fed balance sheet shrinkage is only important if it impacts the expected pace of rate hikes or inflation. The Fed's "subordination strategy" should ensure that the act of winding down the balance sheet does not have much of an impact on the expected pace of rate hikes. Ironically, if Treasury yields were to rise sharply following the announcement of balance sheet runoff, then the ensuing tightening of financial conditions would probably lower the expected pace of rate hikes and bring Treasury yields back down again. The story for MBS is somewhat different. Nominal MBS spreads remain tight by historical standards and closely track implied interest rate volatility (Chart 5). But we can also think of nominal MBS spreads as being split between the option cost, which is the compensation for expected prepayments, and the option-adjusted spread (OAS), which tends to correlate with net supply (Chart 5, panel 2). Chart 4Focus On Rate Expectations Chart 5Stay Underweight MBS In recent weeks, the OAS has widened alongside rising net issuance, but this has been offset by a sharp decline in the option cost. This is generally the pattern we would expect to play out as the Fed lifts rates and removes itself from the MBS market. The increased supply of MBS should lead to wider OAS, but refinancing applications should also stay low as Treasury yields and mortgage rates rise (Chart 5, bottom panel). However, netting it all out, the option cost component of MBS spreads is already near its historical lows and the OAS could move materially wider just to catch up to net issuance. In prior reports,5 we have also made the case that rate volatility should rise as the fed funds rate moves further away from the zero-lower-bound. Investors should stay underweight MBS. Bottom Line: The unwinding of the Fed's balance sheet is only important for Treasury yields if it impacts the market's rate hike expectations. However, the extra supply of MBS should lead to wider MBS spreads. Checking In On The Credit Cycle We continue to recommend overweight allocations to both investment grade and high-yield corporate bonds. This optimistic outlook is predicated on low inflation and a Fed that will support risk assets by remaining sufficiently accommodative until inflationary pressures are more pronounced. We think this "reflationary window" will stay open at least until core PCE inflation is firmly anchored around 2% and long-maturity TIPS breakevens reach the 2.4% to 2.5% range.6 Behind the scenes, however, leverage is building in the nonfinancial corporate sector. In this week's report we take a look at several different indicators of corporate credit quality and conclude that once the support from low inflation and accommodative monetary policy vanishes, it is very likely that corporate defaults will start to increase and corporate spreads will widen. If our anticipated timeline plays out, we will be looking to scale back on credit risk in 2018. Corporate Health Vs. The Yield Curve Our Corporate Health Monitor (CHM, see Appendix for further details) has been signaling deteriorating nonfinancial corporate health since late 2013 (Chart 6), and moved even deeper into 'deteriorating health' territory in Q4 of last year. Chart 6Corporate Health Is Deteriorating, But Monetary Policy Remains Supportive Periods when the CHM is in 'deteriorating health' territory are marked by shaded regions in Chart 6. We see that these regions usually correspond with periods when corporate spreads are widening. Even in the current episode, corporate spreads have yet to regain their mid-2014 tights. However, the bottom panel of Chart 6 shows that periods of deteriorating corporate health and wider corporate spreads are typically preceded by a very flat (often inverted) yield curve. This makes sense because a flat yield curve usually signals that interest rates are high and monetary policy is tight. Tight policy and elevated rates lead to more stringent bank lending standards and increase firms' interest burdens. With the curve still quite steep, we think the risk of sustained spread widening is minimal. However, if the CHM is still above zero when the yield curve is flatter, no support will remain for excess corporate bond returns. Net Leverage & The Payback Period We would further argue that the CHM will almost certainly be in 'deteriorating health' territory once the yield curve is close to flat. In Chart 7 we see that net leverage (defined as: total debt minus cash, as a percent of EBITD) is not only positively correlated with spreads, but also has never reversed its uptrend unless prompted by a recession. In other words, the corporate sector never voluntarily undertakes deleveraging, it only starts to pay down debt when forced by a severe economic contraction. Chart 7The Uptrend In Leverage Will Only Be Broken By Recession Closer inspection of Chart 7 reveals that the period between 1986 and 1989 is the only period when corporate spreads tightened even though leverage remained in an uptrend. In the late 1980s, leverage and corporate spreads both shot higher as a collapse in the energy sector caused overall corporate earnings to contract (Chart 7, bottom panel). But then the energy sector recovered just as quickly, and earnings growth bounced back. This caused spreads to tighten for a couple of years, even though the trend in net leverage only ever managed to flatten-off. Debt growth stayed robust during this time, despite the wild fluctuations in earnings. If any of this sounds familiar, it should. The energy sector collapse of 2014 caused net leverage and spreads to shoot higher, and now spreads have started to tighten again as earnings have rebounded. Notice that just like in the late-1980s, net leverage has not reversed its uptrend. We believe that corporate spreads have entered a "payback period" very similar to the late 1980s. Spreads can tighten as earnings rebound, but because the economy is not in recession, debt growth will remain solid and leverage will continue to trend higher. Once inflationary pressures start to bite and Fed policy becomes less accommodative, the payback period will end and spreads will head wider. Debt Growth Chart 8Bond Issuance Is Back Although we have made the case that the corporate sector does not delever unless prompted by a recession, it is notable that net corporate bond issuance was negative in Q4 of last year and the growth rate in bank lending to the corporate sector has slowed sharply. We do not think this cycle is different, and expect corporate debt growth (both bonds and loans) to rebound in the coming months. We chalk up weak corporate bond issuance in 2016Q4 to uncertainty surrounding the U.S. election. In fact, we see that gross corporate bond issuance has already rebounded strongly in January and February of this year (Chart 8). Turning to bank loans, we observe that the outright level of outstanding bank loans only contracts following a recession, and that the rate of increase follows bank lending standards with a lag (Chart 9). In other words, Commercial & Industrial (C&I) loan growth is still responding to the surge in defaults that resulted from the energy sector's 2014 collapse. Now that defaults have waned, this process will soon be thrown into reverse. In fact, our model of the 6-month rate of change in C&I lending - based on private non-residential fixed investment, small business optimism and corporate defaults - points to an imminent bottoming in C&I loan growth (Chart 10). Chart 9Loan Growth Follows Lending Standards Chart 10BCA C&I Loan Growth Model Bottom Line: Corporate spreads are in a "payback period" from 2014's energy shock that will allow them to tighten as corporate profits rebound, even though corporate leverage continues to trend higher. The weakening state of corporate balance sheets means spreads are at risk once monetary policy turns less accommodative. Ratings Trends & Shareholder Friendly Activities Chart 11Shareholder Friendly Activity Has Ebbed Our assessment of the cyclical back-drop for corporate spreads is primarily based on the combination of balance sheet quality - as determined by our Corporate Health Monitor and its underlying components - and the stance of monetary policy - as determined by the slope of the yield curve and C&I lending standards (among other factors). However, ratings migration and "shareholder friendly" activities have also historically provided advance notice of turns in the credit cycle. Net transfers to shareholders, i.e. payments to shareholders in the form of dividends and buybacks, are a direct transfer of capital from bondholders to equityholders. These transfers tend to rise late in the cycle, just before defaults start to increase and spreads start to widen (Chart 11). Net transfers to shareholders had been moving higher, but have recently rolled over. Similarly, ratings downgrades related to shareholder transfers have also moderated (Chart 11, panel 2). Historically, ratings migration related to "shareholder friendly" activities has been a more reliable indicator of the credit cycle than overall ratings migration. It has tended to move into "net downgrade" territory later in the cycle, closer to the onset of recession (Chart 11, panel 3). Ratings trends and transfers to shareholders are not flagging any imminent risk of spread widening. However, there is the additional risk that downgrades have simply not kept pace with the actual deterioration in credit quality of the nonfinancial corporate sector. Using firm-level data, we calculated the percent of high-yield rated companies with net debt-to-EBITDA ratios above 5. We see that actual ratings migration is too low relative to the number of highly-levered firms (Chart 11, bottom panel). It is possible that ratings agencies have already incorporated the rebound in energy prices and profit growth into their assessments while the actual debt-to-EBITDA data are lagging, but this is still a risk that bears monitoring. Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Portfolio Allocation Summary, "Reflation Window Still Open", dated April 4, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 The U6 unemployment rate is a broader measure than the headline (U3) unemployment rate. It also includes those "marginally attached" to the labor force and those working part-time for economic reasons. 3 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy / Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report, "The Way Forward For The Fed's Balance Sheet", dated February 28, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 4 https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/brainard20170301a.htm 5 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "The Road To Higher Vol Is Paved With Uncertainty", dated February 14, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 6 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Keep Buying Dips", dated March 28, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Appendix Chart 12Corporate Health Monitor Components Box 1: Corporate Health Monitor Components The BCA Corporate Health Monitor is a normalized composite of six financial ratios, calculated for the non-financial corporate sector as a whole (Chart 12). These six ratios are defined as follows: Profit Margins: After-tax cash flow as a percent of corporate sales Return on Capital: After-tax earnings plus interest expense, as a percent of capital stock Debt Coverage: After-tax cash flow less capital expenditures, as a percent of all interest bearing debt Interest Coverage: EBITDA (Earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation & amortization) divided by the sum of interest expense and dividends Leverage: Total debt as a percent of market value of equity Liquidity: Working Capital, excluding inventories, as a percent of market value of assets Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification