Gov Sovereigns/Treasurys

Highlights Federal Reserve: Is the U.S. neutral rate now higher? ECB: How much has the euro rally damaged European growth? Bank of Japan: Will a stronger yen tip Japan back into deflation? Bank of England: Will higher real wages offset Brexit uncertainties? Bank of Canada & Reserve Bank Of Australia: How much spare capacity truly exists? Feature We have not published a regular Weekly Report in Global Fixed Income Strategy since February 6th. We instead published necessary Special Reports on two countries of immediate relevance: Japan, because of the recent surprising strength in the yen, and Italy, because of the upcoming election. The pause in our regular commentary on the state of the markets, however, was useful. It has given us more time to reflect on the potential for a continuation of the global bond bear market after the volatility spike earlier in the month. What we find interesting is that, despite the common narrative that the back-up in global bond yields seen in 2018 has been about rising inflation fears, market pricing suggests the big shift has instead been in real bond yields and central bank policy expectations. In Table 1, we present the year-to-date change in the 10-year government bond yield for the major developed markets. We also show the changes in various other interest rate measures, including: Table 12018 Year-To-Date Changes In Government Bond Yield Components The Biggest Question Facing Each Central Bank The Biggest Question Facing Each Central Bank Our 12-month Policy Rate Discounters, which show the change in short-term interest rates priced into money market curves Our proxy measure of the market pricing of the real neutral ("terminal") interest rate - the 5-year Overnight Index Swap (OIS) rate, 5-years forward minus the 5-year CPI swap rate, 5-years forward Our estimate of the term premium on the 10-year government bond yield. What stands out in the table is that markets have moved to price in both a higher amount of expected rate hikes over the next year (Chart 1) and a higher neutral real interest rate, even with very little change in expected inflation. This can also been seen by looking at recent declines in the correlations between inflation expectations and nominal bond yields in the major economies, which are off from the peaks seen late in 2017 (Chart 2). Chart 1Rising Rate Expectations Have##BR##Been Pushing Yields Higher Of Late... Rising Rate Expectations Have Been Pushing Yields Higher Of Late... Rising Rate Expectations Have Been Pushing Yields Higher Of Late... Chart 2...Rather Than Higher##BR##Inflation Expectations ...Rather Than Higher Inflation Expectations ...Rather Than Higher Inflation Expectations The obvious conclusion is that the bulk of the rise in global bond yields seen year-to-date has been driven by increases in the real yield component, which itself has been heavily influenced by expected changes to central bank policy rates. Keeping that in mind, in this Weekly Report, we take a look at the most important question faced by each major central bank, and what that means for future decisions on policy interest rates - and by extension, for government bond yields. The Federal Reserve: "Is The U.S. Neutral Rate Now Higher?" With the 10-year U.S. Treasury yield having taken several runs at the critical 3% level in recent weeks, the debate has raged among investors as to whether that should be considered a breakout point or a buying opportunity. Comparing the U.S. economy now to what it looked like the last time the 10-year yield was at 3% at the end of 2013 suggests that yields could have more upside: Real GDP growth: 1.7% then, 2.3% now1 The unemployment rate: 6.7% then, 4.1% now Headline CPI inflation: 1.4% then, 2.1% now Core CPI inflation: 1.7% then, 1.8% now Average Hourly Earnings growth: 1.9% then, 2.9% now Growth is faster, there is less spare capacity, and inflation is higher now than it was just over four years ago. Yet when looking at the decomposition of the 10-year U.S. Treasury yield into its real and inflation expectations component (Chart 3, 2nd panel), we find that the mix is only slightly more skewed to real yields today: Chart 3Treasury Yields Still Have More Upside,##BR##Based On 2013 Comparisons Treasury Yields Still Have More Upside, Based On 2013 Comparisons Treasury Yields Still Have More Upside, Based On 2013 Comparisons Nominal 10-year Treasury yield: 3.03% then (December 31st, 2013), 2.87% now (February 26th, 2018) Inflation expectations (10-year CPI swap): 2.54% then, 2.30% now Real yields (nominal 10-year yield minus 10-year CPI swap): 0.49% then, 0.57% now In other words, the real yield today is 20% of the total nominal 10-year yield compared to 16% back at the end of 2013. Not a major difference. Yet there are much bigger discrepancies between the elements that go into our real neutral rate proxy for the U.S. (bottom two panels): 5-year OIS rate, 5-years forward: 4.1% then, 2.6% now 5-year CPI swap rate, 5-years forward: 2.9% then, 2.3% now Real neutral rate proxy: 1.2% then, 0.3% now The market is now pricing in a real neutral funds rate that is nearly one full percentage point below the level that prevailed the last time the 10-year Treasury yield reached 3% prior to 2018. Even though the U.S. economy is now growing faster, with far less spare capacity and higher inflation, than it did at the end of 2013. This does suggest that the level of the neutral real fed funds rate has likely gone up, which the 43bps increase in our market-implied real neutral rate proxy so far in 2018 is likely reflecting. But does the Fed actually believe that the neutral funds rate should be higher? The minutes from the January FOMC meeting, released last week, noted that there was discussion on the neutral funds rate, but one that was different than during previous FOMC meetings in 2017 - the actual appropriate level of the neutral funds rate was a topic of debate: "Some participants also commented on the likely evolution of the neutral federal funds rate. [...] the outlook for the neutral rate was uncertain and would depend on the interplay of a number of forces. For example, the neutral rate, which appeared to have fallen sharply during the Global Financial Crisis when financial headwinds had restrained demand, might move up more than anticipated as the global economy strengthened. Alternatively, the longer-run level of the neutral rate might remain low in the absence of fundamental shifts in trends in productivity, demographics, or the demand for safe assets."2 Any change in the Fed's estimation of the long-run neutral funds rate is critical for the future path of Treasury yields, given where market pricing is at the moment. The U.S. OIS curve has now fully converged to the FOMC interest rate projections (the "dots") for this year and next year. More importantly, the market-implied terminal rate (the nominal 5-year OIS rate, 5-years forward) has now caught up to the FOMC terminal rate dot (Chart 4). The implication is that any further meaningful increase in Treasury yields can only come from higher inflation expectations - unless the Fed signals that a higher neutral rate is required. Our colleagues at our sister publication, U.S. Bond Strategy, recently noted that the Fed has historically been much more reluctant to raise its terminal rate projection in response to rising inflation than it was in cutting the projection when inflation falls.3 The conclusion is that inflation expectations will likely need to return to levels consistent with the Fed's inflation target - 2.3-2.5% on both the 10-year TIPS breakeven rate and the 5-year breakeven rate, 5-years forward - before the Fed would make any significant upward revisions to its terminal rate projection. In the meantime, Treasury yields are more likely to see a near-term consolidation, as U.S. data surprises have rolled over, market positioning has become very short, momentum is oversold and market pricing has fully converged with Fed expectations (Chart 5). In terms of data, the release of the next U.S. Employment report on March 9th is critical for the Treasury market in the near term, given that the January uptick in wage growth was the trigger for the spike in bond yields, and subsequent equity market correction, at the beginning of February (bottom panel). Chart 4Could The Fed Move##BR##The Interest Rate 'Goalposts'? Could The Fed Move The Interest Rate 'Goalposts'? Could The Fed Move The Interest Rate 'Goalposts'? Chart 5Treasury Selloff May Be##BR##Due For A Pause Treasury Selloff May Be Due For A Pause Treasury Selloff May Be Due For A Pause The ECB: "How Much Has The Euro Rally Damaged European Growth?" The European Central Bank (ECB) has been slowly preparing markets for an eventual withdrawal of its extraordinary monetary policy stimulus since last summer. Specifically, the ECB has begun a discussion of what it would take to end its bond buying program. Already, the central bank cut the monthly pace of its asset purchases in half at the beginning of 2018, and the topic of "tapering" has come up in many speeches from ECB officials. The ECB has been trying to not present an overly hawkish message when discussing an eventual end to its hyper-easy monetary stance. The overall level of government bond yields - both in the core and Periphery of the Euro Area - has been drifting higher, but by less than the increases seen in the U.S. Inflation expectations have been rising since the middle of 2017, although most of the 23bps increase in the benchmark 10-year German Bund yield seen so far in 2018 can be attributed to rising real yields (Chart 6). The market-implied real neutral rate has also been increasing, but still remains below zero (-0.2%). Yet despite only the modest increase in European interest rate expectations, there has been a substantially larger move in the euro. The trade-weighted euro has bond up by 8% over the past year, bringing the currency back to levels last seen in 2014 (Chart 7, top panel). The appreciating euro has become a subject of focus by the ECB, although it is not yet a cause for worry according to the minutes of the January ECB meeting released last week: Chart 6Only A Modest Rise In European Yields, So Far Only A Modest Rise In European Yields, So Far Only A Modest Rise In European Yields, So Far Chart 7A Potential ECB Dilemma A Potential ECB Dilemma A Potential ECB Dilemma "[...] although the past appreciation of the euro had so far had no significant impact on euro area external demand, volatility in foreign exchange markets represented a further increase that need monitoring."4 Chart 8No Damage Yet To European##BR##Exports From The Euro Rally No Damage Yet To European Exports From The Euro Rally No Damage Yet To European Exports From The Euro Rally The ECB is correct that the rising euro has not yet impacted Euro Area exports, the growth rate of which remains solid at 8% (bottom panel). This contrasts sharply with the performance the last time the trade-weighted euro was at current levels in 2014, when exports were barely growing at all. The difference is a much stronger global economy that is demanding far more European goods and services now compared to four years ago. For now, the ECB can look to the stability of export demand as a sign that the euro has not become a drag on the economy, but some warning signals may be flashing. Euro Area economic data surprises have plunged sharply, and the manufacturing PMI data has been softer in the past couple of months (Chart 8). While the absolute levels of the PMIs suggest an economy that is still growing at an above-trend pace, a continuation of the recent drops could pose a problem for the ECB as it tries to communicate its next policy move to the markets. The surging euro has done very little to drag down overall Euro Area headline inflation, given the strength in global oil prices over the past year (3rd panel). Core inflation has struggled to stay much above 1% over the past year or so, but our core inflation diffusion index - which measures the number of core Euro Area HICP sectors with rising inflation rates versus those with falling inflation rates - has surged in the past couple of months, which typically leads to a faster rate of core inflation (bottom panel). As long as the Euro Area export growth data holds up, the ECB is likely to focus more on rising core inflation than a stronger euro and should begin signaling an end to the asset purchase program by year-end. The Bank Of England: "Will Faster Wage Growth Offset Brexit Uncertainty?" The Bank of England (BoE) has surprised markets with its more hawkish commentary of late, particularly given the reason for the change - faster wage growth. The BoE had previously been cautious on its outlook for the U.K. economy, which was suffering from two powerful drags. First, the uncertainty over the Brexit negotiations was dampening business confidence and restraining capital spending. Second, the surge in realized inflation following the post-Brexit collapse of the British Pound triggered a period of contracting real wages that would be a drag on consumer spending. Until these were resolved, the BoE would be cautious with its future policy moves. Next month's European Union (EU) summit can provide some news on Brexit, as the U.K. government will be seeking a transition agreement that would give U.K. businesses a firm timeline for the separation of the U.K. from the EU. The U.K. government is reported to be seeking a two-year period for the agreement, but it may take longer than that to hammer out all the deals involved with the contentious issues of trade, immigration, etc. The longer the Brexit transition period, the more likely that U.K. firms will hold back on long-term investment spending because of uncertainty. As for the wage side of the story, the annual growth rate of Average Weekly Earnings has increased from 1.7% to 2.6% since the April 2017 low, but this is still below the headline CPI inflation rate of 3% (Chart 9, bottom panel). With the U.K. unemployment rate at a cyclical low of 4.4% - far below the OECD's estimate of the full employment NAIRU rate of 5.1% - additional increases in wage growth are possible if hiring demand does not begin to slow. Yet with U.K. data surprises rolling over (top panel), and with the OECD's U.K. leading economic indicator decelerating (middle panel), there is a growing risk that economic growth will slow in the coming quarters, to the detriment of hiring activity and wages. The current market pricing shows that there remains a wide gap between U.K. inflation expectations and nominal Gilt yields (Chart 10). The real 10-year Gilt yield is -1.84% (deflated by CPI swaps), while the market-implied neutral real interest rate is -1.94%. While such a deeply negative interest rate is unlikely to be a permanent state of affairs in the U.K., such an accommodative policy setting is required to prevent the economy from falling into a deep slump. Chart 9Is The BoE More Worried About##BR##Wage Pressures Than Growth? Is The BoE More Worried About Wage Pressures Than Growth? Is The BoE More Worried About Wage Pressures Than Growth? Chart 10Real Gilt Yields Rising,##BR##But Still Very Low Real Gilt Yields Rising, But Still Very Low Real Gilt Yields Rising, But Still Very Low As we noted back in January, we do not see the BoE being able to raise rates much at all this year given the likelihood of prolonged sluggishness of the U.K. economy and some reversal of the currency-fueled surge in inflation seen in 2017.5 The BoE choosing to tackle rising wage inflation while growth was decelerating would be a huge policy error that would eventually benefit the performance of U.K. Gilts. The Bank Of Japan: "Will A Stronger Yen Tip Japan Back Into Deflation?" The extraordinary monetary policy accommodation provided by the Bank of Japan (BoJ) makes an analysis of Japanese Government Bond (JGB) yields far less interesting. After all, when the central bank is actively intervening in large quantities to hold the level of the 10-year JGB around 0%, do the signals sent from money market and bond yield curves have any meaning vis-à-vis the actual Japanese economy? Right now, the pricing of the real 10-year JGB yield (deflated by CPI swaps) is just below 0%, as is the real terminal rate proxy from the Japanese OIS curve (Chart 11). Keeping JGB yields at such low levels is part of the BoJ's attempt to raise Japanese inflation back towards the central bank's 2% yield target. The mechanism by which that should happen is through a weaker Japanese yen. Yet the yen has been showing surprising strength in recent weeks, most notably the USD/JPY exchange rate that has been falling in the face of rising U.S.-Japan interest rate differentials (Chart 12, top panel). Chart 11Negative Real Rates Still Necessary In Japan Negative Real Rates Still Necessary In Japan Negative Real Rates Still Necessary In Japan Chart 12An Unwelcome Rise In The Yen An Unwelcome Rise In The Yen An Unwelcome Rise In The Yen The risk going forward is that the strengthening yen will create a drag on headline Japanese inflation that has recently accelerated back to 1% (middle panel). Given that both core CPI and nominal wages barely growing at all (bottom panel), the odds are increasing that Japanese inflation could begin to move lower without getting anywhere close to the BoJ's 2% target. As we discussed in our recent Special Report, a much weaker yen (i.e. USD/JPY between 115 and 120) is the first necessary precondition before the BoJ would consider raising its yield target on the 10-year JGB.6 We had placed odds of no more than 20% that the BoJ would raise its yield target in 2018, but if the yen continues to hold firm or even strengthen further from current levels, those odds fall to zero. Bank Of Canada & Reserve Bank Of Australia: "How Much Spare Capacity Truly Exists?" We are lumping the Bank of Canada (BoC) and Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) together in this report, as both are facing the same critical question. The BoC has already raised its policy rate three times since last summer, in response to accelerating growth and diminished spare capacity in Canada. Canadian bond yields have risen in response through higher inflation expectations, rising real yields and greater expected rate increases from the BoC (Chart 13). The real 10-year Canadian yield has risen back to the highs last seen in late 2013, while inflation expectations are not quite back to those levels - a similar story to that seen in the U.S. The BoC's own estimate of the Canadian output gap flipped into positive territory at the end of 2017, signifying that there was no longer any spare capacity in the Canadian economy (Chart 14, top panel). The signal from the Canadian labor market is similar, with the unemployment rate now at 5.9% - well below the OECD NAIRU estimate of 6.5% (middle panel). Yet Canadian inflation rates, both for headline and core CPI, are only at 1.7% and 1.5%, respectively - both not even at the midpoint of the BoC's 1-3% target band (bottom panel). At the same time, wages have been accelerating, with the annual growth rate of Average Hourly Earnings now up to a two-year high of 3.3%. Chart 13All Bond Yield Components Rising In Canada All Bond Yield Components Rising In Canada All Bond Yield Components Rising In Canada Chart 14Where's The Inflation? Where's The Inflation? Where's The Inflation? Such a wide gap between price inflation and wage growth does throw into the question if the BoC's own output gap estimate is correct. We expect Canadian price inflation to eventually begin to close the gap with wage inflation, which will keep the BoC on its current expected rate hiking path in 2018 as long as the economy does not begin to slow meaningfully. The CPI inflation reports will be the most important data to watch in Canada over the next few months to determine if our view will pan out. In Australia, the market pricing is nowhere near as hawkish as in Canada, with inflation expectations (10-year CPI swaps) having been stuck in a range between 2.2-2.4% for the past two years (Chart 15, 2nd panel). The market-implied neutral real interest rate is stuck at 0% and has not been sustainably above that level since 2014 (bottom panel). Yet, like Canada, there are questions about the true degree of slack in the economy. The Australian unemployment rate is currently at 5.5%, well below NAIRU (Chart 16, top panel). The last time that the Australian economy ran for so long beyond full employment was in 2010-11, when headline inflation breached the upper limit of the RBA's 1-3% target band (bottom panel). Yet the so-called "underemployment rate" - essentially, those working part-time that would like to work full-time - has been much higher in recent years and now sits at 8.3%. This also fits with the IMF's estimate of the Australian output gap, which is still a very large -1.8%. Chart 15Australian Yields Are Stuck In A Range Australian Yields Are Stuck In A Range Australian Yields Are Stuck In A Range Chart 16Very Different Than 2011-12 Very Different Than 2011-12 Very Different Than 2011-12 Given these signs of excess capacity in both the labor market and the overall economy, it is no surprise that Australian inflation has struggled to surpass even the 2% midpoint of the RBA target band. The implication is that the Australian NAIRU is much lower than the official OECD estimate, and that the RBA is under no pressure to contemplate any interest rate increases for at least the rest of 2018. Net-net, while both the BoC and RBA are facing questions over the true amount of spare capacity in their economies, the situation is much more bullish for Australian government bonds than Canadian equivalents given the greater slack Down Under. Robert Robis, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com 1 These are average quarterly growth rates of U.S. real GDP for the full calendar year of 2013 and 2017, respectively. 2 https://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/files/fomcminutes20180131.pdf 3 Please see BCA U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "The Two-Stage Bear Market In Bonds", dated February 20th, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com. 4 https://www.ecb.europa.eu/press/accounts/2018/html/ecb.mg180222.en.html 5 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "A Melt Up In Equities AND Bond Yields?", dated January 23rd, 2018, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report, "What Would It Take For The Bank Of Japan To Raise Its Yield Target?", dated February 13th 2018, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index The Biggest Question Facing Each Central Bank The Biggest Question Facing Each Central Bank Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Highlights BCA has shifted its view on how fiscal policy will impact the U.S. economy, the path of S&P 500 earnings growth and the 10-year Treasury yield. While we remain positive on risk assets, the U.S. is in the late innings of the expansion and markets have entered a new, more volatile phase. The FOMC will continue to monitor financial stability under Powell and raise rates four times in 2018. Feature The S&P 500 and other risk assets continued their recovery last week after an early February swoon. Equity volatility ebbed, but remains well above levels seen at the start of the year. The dollar rose while the 10-year Treasury yield stabilized near 2.90%. WTI oil prices climbed above $63/bbl, but remain below BCA Commodity & Energy Strategy's revised $70 target for 2018.1 It was a quiet week for economic data and news. The U.S. data that was released (initial claims, existing home sales, leading economic indicators) continue to suggest that the U.S. economy will grow well above its long term potential in the next few quarters. The data calendar is full this week, and investors will focus on Fed Chair Jay Powell's Monetary Policy testimony to Congress on Tuesday, February 27. Changes BCA has shifted its view on how fiscal policy will impact the U.S. economy, the path of S&P 500 earnings growth and the 10-year Treasury yield. Notably, minutes from the FOMC's January meeting suggest that the Fed's forecast for above-trend growth and higher inflation solidified after the Tax Cut and Jobs Act of 2017 passed late last year. The influence of the tax bill, coupled with the Senate deal on spending, has turned the fiscal impulse positive in 2018, to the tune of 0.8% of GDP. Next year's impulse will be even larger at 1.3% (Chart 1). Our expectation in early January was that the direct effect of the tax cuts would likely boost U.S. real GDP growth in 2018 by only 0.2 to 0.3 percentage points. The U.S. budget deficit will likely jump to about 5.5% of GDP in FY2019, up from 3.3% in last year's CBO baseline forecast (Chart 2). This increase reflects the tax cuts, but also outlays for disaster relief ($45 billion), the military ($165 billion) and non-defense discretionary items ($131 billion), spread over the next two years. A deal on infrastructure spending would add to the deficit. The additional fiscal stimulus will lift nominal GDP growth as well. Stronger nominal growth and a patient Fed will be a positive combination for risk assets, such as corporate bonds and equities. Chart 3 provides an update of our top-down forecast for the S&P 500 operating profits, incorporating the economic impact of the new fiscal stimulus. We still expect profit growth to peak this year as industrial production tops out and margins begin to moderate on the back of rising wages. However, compared with our previous forecast, the projected peak will occur later in the year and at a higher level, and the entire profile is shifted up. Most of this improvement in the profit outlook is already discounted in prices, but the key point is that the earnings backdrop will remain a tailwind for stocks at least into early 2019. Chart 1Substantial Stimulus In The Pipeline Late Innings Late Innings Chart 2U.S. Budget Deficit To Reach 5 1/2 % In 2019 U.S. Budget Deficit to Reach 5 1/2 % in 2019 U.S. Budget Deficit to Reach 5 1/2 % in 2019 Chart 3The Profile For S&P 500 EPS Growth Shifts Up The Profile For S&P 500 EPS Growth Shifts Up The Profile For S&P 500 EPS Growth Shifts Up BCA's U.S. Bond Strategy service raised its year-end target for the 10-year Treasury yield from around 3% to 3.3-3.5%, partly reflecting the U.S. fiscal shock.2 Nonetheless, extreme short positioning and oversold conditions suggest that a consolidation phase is likely in the near term. Bottom Line: Fiscal stimulus will extend the expansion to 2020, but faster growth in the coming quarters will deepen the next recession. BCA's stance remains that the next economic downturn will be triggered by the Fed's overtightening. BCA's recommended asset allocation remains unchanged: overweight risk assets and below-benchmark on duration. In fixed-income portfolios, we will probably trim corporate bond exposure to neutral or underweight in advance of taking profits on equities. The dollar should head up at some point, although not in the near term. The End Of The Low-Vol Period While we remain positive on risk assets, the U.S. is in the late innings of the expansion and markets have entered a new, more volatile phase. We have been warning of upheaval when investor complacency regarding inflation is challenged, because the rally in risk assets has been balanced precariously on a three-legged stool of low inflation, depressed interest rates and modest economic volatility. All it took was a couple of small positive inflation surprises to spark a reset in the market for volatility. The key question is whether February's turmoil represented a healthy market correction or a signal that a bear market is approaching. The good news is that the widening in high-yield corporate bond spreads was muted (Chart 4). This market has often provided an early warning sign of an approaching major top in the stock market. The adjustment in other risk gauges, such as EM stocks and gold, was also fairly modest. This suggests that equity and volatility market action was largely technical in nature, in the context of extended investor positioning, crowded trades and elevated valuations. There has been no change in the items on our checklist for trimming equity exposure. We presented the checklist in the February Bank Credit Analyst.3 Our short-term economic growth models for the major countries remain upbeat and our global capital spending indicators are also bullish (Chart 5). Industrial production in the advanced economies is in hyperdrive as global capital spending growth accelerates (Chart 6). Chart 4February's Volatility Reset February's Volatility Reset February's Volatility Reset Chart 5Near-Term Growth Outlook Still Solid... Near-Term Growth Outlook Still Solid... Near-Term Growth Outlook Still Solid... Chart 6... Partly Due to Capex Acceleration ... Partly Due to Capex Acceleration ... Partly Due to Capex Acceleration Nonetheless, it will be difficult to put the 'vol genie' back into the bottle. The surge in bond yields has focused market attention on the leverage pressure points in the system. One potential source of volatility is the corporate bond space. We conclude that higher rates on their own won't cause significant pain, but the combination of higher rates and a downturn in earnings would lead to a major deterioration in credit quality.4 Moreover, expansionary fiscal policy and recent inflation surprises have limited the Fed's room to maneuver. Under Fed Chairs Bernanke and Yellen, markets relied on a so-called "Fed Put". When inflation was low and stable, economic slack was abundant and long-term inflation expectations were depressed. Then disappointing economic data or equity market setbacks were followed by an easing in the expectations for Fed rate hikes. This helped to calm investors' nerves. We do not think that the Powell FOMC represents a regime shift in terms of the Fed's reaction function, but the rise in long-term inflation expectations and the January inflation report have altered the Fed's calculus. The new Committee will be more tolerant of equity corrections and tighter financial conditions than in the past. Indeed, some FOMC members would welcome reduced frothiness in financial markets, as long as the correction is not large enough to undermine the economy (i.e. a 20% or greater equity market decline). The implication is that we are unlikely to see a return of market volatility to the lows observed early this year. Vol Spike The spike in equity volatility in early 2018 was extreme. Table 1 shows 10 episodes when the VIX climbed by more than 10% in a 13-week period when the economy was not in recession. The equity price index fell by an average of 7% during those episodes, with a range of -3.6 to -18.1%. Our November 13, 2017 report discussed volatility and its relationship with the business cycle, monetary policy and economic volatility.5 In that report, we noted that "any meaningful pickup in inflation would upset the 'low vol' applecart." Table 1Episodes When VIX Spiked Late Innings Late Innings Table 1 and Chart 7 show that a spike in volatility does not signal the end of the business cycle. However, 6 of the 10 of the upheavals outside of recessions occurred during the late stages of the business cycle. The step-up in volatility in 2010, 2011 and 2015 arose mid-cycle, while only one (2002) was in the early stages of an expansion. On average, the economic expansion lasted for an additional 41 months after the spikes noted in Table 1. Investors should be aware that the recent surge in volatility is another signal that the economy is in the final stages of the expansion. Chart 7Spikes In Vol Typically Occur Late In The Economic Cycle Spikes In Vol Typically Occur Late In The Economic Cycle Spikes In Vol Typically Occur Late In The Economic Cycle Volatility is not a leading indicator of equity prices. While U.S. equity prices declined during each of the episodes in Table 1, none marked the start of a bear market. U.S. stock prices were higher a year after a spike in vol in 8 of 9 episodes. The average interval between the spikes and the end of the bull market was 45 months. While there are many examples of shifts in correlation around elevated equity volatility, there is no consistent relationship between the two. Chart 8 examines the relationship between spikes in equity volatility and correlations among several key U.S. asset classes. For example, the relationship between the S&P 500 and the 10-year Treasury yield (panel 1) changed direction in about half of the 10 periods of higher vol. The correlation between the 10-year Treasury and the U.S. dollar changed in 7 of the 10 occasions (panel 2). Panel 6 shows that shifts in correlation between real Treasury yields and the S&P 500 tend to coincide with periods of higher equity volatility. On balance, however, it is not clear that a spike in equity volatility leads to widespread changes in the relationships between asset classes. Chart 8Spike In Vol Vs Stock,Bond Dollar, Oil Correlations Spike In Vol Vs Stock,Bond Dollar, Oil Correlations Spike In Vol Vs Stock,Bond Dollar, Oil Correlations Chart 9A shows that the correlation between S&P 500 and HY spreads do tend to flip near peaks in equity vol. Shifts in correlation between U.S. equity prices and most commodities change course more often than not around a surge in equity vol. Chart 9B shows a clear relationship between spikes in equity vol and changes in intra-S&P 500 correlations. Chart 9ASpikes In Vol Vs S&P 500 Correlation To HY And Commodities Spikes In Vol Vs S&P 500 Correlation To HY And Commodities Spikes In Vol Vs S&P 500 Correlation To HY And Commodities Chart 9BSpikes In Vol Vs Intra-S&P 500 Correlations Spikes In Vol Vs Intra-S&P 500 Correlations Spikes In Vol Vs Intra-S&P 500 Correlations The Fed's Third Mandate Revisited Chart 10FOMC Closely Monitoring Financial Stability FOMC Closely Monitoring Financial Stability FOMC Closely Monitoring Financial Stability BCA views financial stability as a third mandate6 for the central bank, along with low and stable inflation, and full employment. Financial stability was discussed at the January meeting by both Fed staff and voting FOMC members (Chart 10). However, the meeting ended prior to early February's turmoil in the stock market. Former Fed Chair Janet Yellen elevated financial stability during her tenure, leading discussions or staff briefings in 26 of the 32 meetings. New Fed Chair Jay Powell is expected to continue Yellen's lead and will likely face questions on financial stability this week from Congress, as he delivers testimony related to the Fed's semiannual Monetary Policy Report. The Fed does not provide a financial stability grade at every meeting. Fed staff described financial conditions as moderate in September and December 2013, and then again in April 2014. The next assessment (also moderate) was only in January 2016. Since then, the FOMC stepped up its discussions of financial stability. Fed staff provided an assessment of financial stability in 8 of its 16 subsequent meetings. FOMC participants debated financial stability at all but 1 of its 8 meetings in 2017, and in 13 of the 15 since April 2016. At the January meeting, Fed staff noted that valuations in financial assets were high, but that vulnerabilities due to leverage in the nonfinancial sector appeared to remain moderate. Fed staff downplayed risks in the financial sector associated with leverage and from maturity and liquidity transformation. Fed economists recently updated their quantitative assessments of the FOMC's minutes.7 The note provides a guide (Table 1 in the Fed paper and Table 2 below) to the number of quantitative descriptors in the minutes (one, a couple, a few, etc.). We use this rubric to assess the committee's latest views on financial stability, inflation and the impact of fiscal policy. FOMC meeting participants seemed less concerned with financial stability at the January meeting. That may change at the next meeting given the recent upheaval in financial markets. A couple of FOMC participants raised concerns that "a step-up in the pace of economic growth could tighten labor market conditions even more than they currently anticipated, posing risks to inflation and financial stability associated with substantially overshooting full employment". According to the FOMC minutes, for the second consecutive meeting, there was no assessment of overseas financial stability. However, at the October 2017 meeting, Fed staff had assessed overall vulnerabilities to foreign financial stability as moderate. Moreover, the staff highlighted specific vulnerabilities in some foreign economies, including weak banks, heavy indebtedness in the corporate and/or household sectors, rising property prices, overhangs of sovereign debt and susceptibility to political developments. Table 2FOMC Minutes Rubric Late Innings Late Innings Some FOMC participants raised the prospect that inflation would continue to fall short of the Committee's objectives, adding they observed no significant wage or inflationary pressures. However, they counselled patience before deciding whether to increase the target range for the federal funds rate. Notably, however, almost all participants continued to anticipate that inflation would move up to the Committee's 2 percent objective over the medium term as economic growth remained above trend and the labor market stayed strong. There were extensive comments from both Fed staff and FOMC participants about the impact of fiscal policy on views of the economy and inflation. Fed staff continued to assume that the tax cuts would boost real GDP growth moderately in the medium term. Moreover, they noted that the unemployment rate was projected to decline further in the next few years and would continue to run well below the staff's estimate of the longer-run natural rate of unemployment in that timeframe. FOMC participants, on the other hand, noted that there was still some uncertainty about how the tax bill would affect companies' investment or compensation plans. A number of participants bumped up their forecasts for economic growth in the near term, due in part to the bill's positive impact. Bottom Line: We maintain our base case scenario: the FOMC will continue to monitor financial stability under Powell and raise rates four times in 2018. The FOMC has revised up growth, but is reluctant to signal a faster pace of rate hikes until it sees how the fiscal impulse affects growth and inflation. This means they will be "behind the curve" as inflation lifts. However, once realized inflation climbs and inflation expectations approach 2.3%, the FOMC will have to get more aggressive. At that point, because the Fed would be targeting slower growth to curb inflation, another 'vol shock' is likely. This would be a negative signal for risk assets. Stay underweight duration. John Canally, CFA, Senior Vice President U.S. Investment Strategy johnc@bcaresearch.com Mark McClellan, Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst markm@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report "OPEC 2.0 Getting Comfortable With Higher Prices", February 22,2018. Available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Research U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report "Two Stage Bear Market In Bonds," February 13, 2018. Available at usbs.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Research's Bank Credit Analyst Monthly Report, February 2018. Available at bca.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA Research's Bank Credit Analyst Monthly Report, March 2018. Available at bca.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see BCA Research's U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Patience Required", published November 13, 2017. Available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see BCA Research's U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "The Fed's Third Mandate", published July 24, 2017. Available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 7 https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/notes/feds-notes/the-fomc-meeting-minutes-an-update-of-counting-words-20170803.htm

Highlights The financial landscape has shifted over the past month with the arrival of some inflation 'green shoots' and a major shift in U.S. fiscal policy. Fiscal policy is shaping up to be a major source of demand and a possible headache for the FOMC. Tax cuts and the spending deal will result in fiscal stimulus of about 0.8% of GDP in 2018 and 1.3% in 2019. The latest U.S. CPI and average hourly earnings reports caught investors' attention. However, most other wage measures are consistent with our base-case view that inflation will trend higher in an orderly fashion. If correct, this will allow the FOMC to avoid leaning heavily against the fiscal stimulus. Stronger nominal growth and a patient Fed are a positive combination for risk assets such as corporate bonds and equities. The projected peak in S&P profit growth now occurs later in the year and at a higher level compared with our previous forecast. The bad news is that the fiscal stimulus and budding inflation signs imply that investors cannot count as much on the "Fed Put" to offset negative shocks. Our fixed income strategists have raised their year-end target for the 10-year Treasury yield from around 3% to the 3.3-3.5% range, partly reflecting the U.S. fiscal shock. That said, extreme short positioning and oversold conditions suggest that a consolidation phase is likely in the near term. Loose fiscal and tight money should be bullish for the currency. However, angst regarding the U.S. "twin deficits" problem appears to be weighing on the dollar. We do not believe that fiscal largesse will cause the current account deficit to blow out by enough to seriously undermine the dollar. We still expect a bounce in the dollar, but we cannot rule out further weakness in the near term. Fiscal stimulus could extend the expansion, but the more important point is that faster growth in the coming quarters will deepen the next recession. For now, stay overweight risk assets (equities and corporate bonds), and below benchmark in duration. Feature The financial landscape has shifted over the past month with the arrival of some inflation 'green shoots' and a major shift in U.S. fiscal policy. This has not come as a surprise to BCA's Geopolitical Strategy, which has been flagging the shift away from fiscal conservatism and towards populism for some time, particularly in the U.S. context.1 The move is wider than just in the U.S. In Germany, the Grand Coalition deal was only concluded after Chancellor Merkel conceded to demands for more spending on everything from education to public investment in technology and defense. The German fiscal surplus will likely be fully spent. There is no fiscal room outside of Germany, but the austerity era is over. Japan is also on track to ease fiscal policy this year. The big news, however, is in the U.S. President Trump is moving to the middle ground in order to avoid losing the House in this year's midterm elections. Deficit hawks have mutated into doves with the passage of profligate tax cuts, and Congress is now on the brink of a monumental two-year appropriations bill that will add significantly to the Federal budget deficit (Chart I-1). The deficit will likely rise to about 5½% of GDP in FY2019, up from 3.3% in last year's CBO baseline forecast for that year. This includes the impact of the tax cuts, as well as outlays for disaster relief ($45 billion), the military ($165 billion) and non-defense discretionary items ($131 billion), spread over the next two years. A deal on infrastructure spending would add to this already-lofty total. Chart I-1U.S. Budget Deficit To Reach 5 1/2 % In 2019 U.S. Budget Deficit to Reach 5 1/2 % in 2019 U.S. Budget Deficit to Reach 5 1/2 % in 2019 There is also talk in Congress of re-authorizing "earmarks" - legislative tags that direct funding to special interests in representatives' home districts. Earmarks could add another $50 billion in spending over 2018 and 2019. While not a major stimulative measure, earmarks could further reduce Congressional gridlock and underscore that all pretense of fiscal restraint is gone. Chart I-2Substantial Stimulus In The Pipeline March 2018 March 2018 Chart I-2 presents an estimate of U.S. fiscal thrust, which is a measure of the initial economic impulse of changes in government tax and spending policies.2 The IMF's baseline, done before the tax cuts were passed, suggested that policy would be contractionary this year (about ½% of GDP), and slightly expansionary in 2019. Incorporating the impact of the tax cuts and the Senate deal on spending, the fiscal impulse will now be positive in 2018, to the tune of 0.8% of GDP. Next year's impulse will be even larger, at 1.3%. These figures are tentative, because it is not clear exactly how much of the spending will take place this year versus 2019 and 2020. A lot can change in the coming months as Congress hammers out the final deal. Moreover, the impact on GDP growth will be less than these figures suggest, because the economic multipliers related to tax cuts are less than those for spending. Nonetheless, the key point is that fiscal policy is shaping up to be a major source of demand and a possible headache for the FOMC. The Fed's Dilemma Chart I-3U.S. Inflation Green Shoots U.S. Inflation Green Shoots U.S. Inflation Green Shoots Textbook economic models tell us that the combination of expansionary fiscal policy and tightening monetary policy is a recipe for rising interest rates and a stronger currency. However, it is not clear how much of the coming pickup in nominal GDP growth will be due to inflation versus real growth, given that the U.S. already appears to be near full employment. How will the Fed respond to the new fiscal outlook? We do not believe policymakers will respond aggressively, but much depends on the evolution of inflation. January's 0.3% rise in the core CPI index grabbed investors' attention, coming on the heels of a surprisingly strong average hourly earnings report (AHE). The 3-month annualized core inflation rate surged to 2.9% (Chart I-3). Among the components, the large rent and owners' equivalent rent indexes each rose 0.3% in the month, while medical care services jumped by 0.6%. Also notable was the 1.7% surge in apparel prices, which may reflect 'catch up' with the perky PPI apparel index. More generally, it appears that the upward trend in import price inflation is finally leaking into consumer prices. That said, investors should not get carried away. Most other wage measures, such as unit labor costs, are not flashing red. This is consistent with our base-case view that inflation will trend higher in an orderly fashion over the coming months. Moreover, the Fed's preferred measure, core PCE inflation, is still well below 2%. If our 'gradual rise' inflation view proves correct, it will allow the FOMC to avoid leaning heavily against the fiscal stimulus. We argued in last month's Overview that the new FOMC will strive to avoid major shifts in policy, and that Chair Powell has shown during his time on the FOMC that he is not one to rock the boat. It is doubtful that the FOMC will try to head off the impact of the fiscal stimulus on growth via sharply higher rates, opting instead to maintain the current 'dot plot' for now and wait to see how the stimulus translates into growth versus inflation. Stronger nominal growth and a patient Fed is a positive combination for risk assets such as corporate bonds and equities. Chart I-4 provides an update of our top-down S&P operating profit forecast, incorporating the economic impact of the new fiscal stimulus. We still expect profit growth to peak this year as industrial production tops out and margins begin to moderate on the back of rising wages. However, the projected peak now occurs later in the year and at a higher level compared with our previous forecast, and the whole profile is shifted up. Most of this improvement in the profit outlook is already discounted in prices, but the key point is that the earnings backdrop will remain a tailwind for stocks at least into early 2019. Chart I-4The Profile For S&P EPS Growth Shifts Up The Profile For S&P EPS Growth Shifts Up The Profile For S&P EPS Growth Shifts Up The End Of The Low-Vol Period That said, the U.S. is in the late innings of the expansion and risk assets have entered a new, more volatile phase. We have been warning of upheaval when investor complacency regarding inflation is challenged, because the rally in risk assets has been balanced precariously on a three-legged stool of low inflation, depressed interest rates and modest economic volatility. All it took was a couple of small positive inflation surprises to spark a reset in the market for volatility. The key question is whether February's turmoil represented a healthy market correction or a signal that a bear market is approaching. The good news is that the widening in high-yield corporate bond spreads was muted (Chart I-5). This market has often provided an early warning sign of an approaching major top in the stock market. The adjustment in other risk gauges, such as EM stocks and gold, was also fairly modest. This suggests that equity and volatility market action was largely technical in nature, in the context of extended investor positioning, crowded trades and elevated valuations. There has been no change in the items on our checklist for trimming equity exposure. We presented the checklist in last month's Overview. Our short-term economic growth models for the major countries remain upbeat and our global capital spending indicators are also bullish (Chart I-6). Industrial production in the advanced economies is in hyper-drive as global capital spending growth accelerates (Chart I-7). Chart I-5February's Volatility Reset February's Volatility Reset February's Volatility Reset Chart I-6Near-Term Growth Outlook Still Solid... Near-Term Growth Outlook Still Solid... Near-Term Growth Outlook Still Solid... Chart I-7... Partly Due To Capex Acceleration ... Partly Due to Capex Acceleration ... Partly Due to Capex Acceleration Nonetheless, it will be difficult to put the 'vol genie' back into the bottle. The surge in bond yields has focused market attention on the leverage pressure points in the system. One potential source of volatility is the corporate bond space. This month's Special Report, beginning on page 17, analyses the vulnerability of the U.S. corporate sector to rising interest rates. We conclude that higher rates on their own won't cause significant pain, but the combination of higher rates and a downturn in earnings would lead to a major deterioration in credit quality. Moreover, expansionary fiscal policy and recent inflation surprises have limited the Fed's room to maneuver. Under Fed Chairs Bernanke and Yellen, markets relied on a so-called "Fed Put". When inflation was low and stable, economic slack was abundant and long-term inflation expectations were depressed then disappointing economic data or equity market setbacks were followed by an easing in the expectations for Fed rate hikes. This helped to calm investors' nerves. We do not think that the Powell FOMC represents a regime shift in terms of the Fed's reaction function, but the rise in long-term inflation expectations and the January inflation report have altered the Fed's calculus. The new Committee will be more tolerant of equity corrections and tighter financial conditions than in the past. Indeed, some FOMC members would welcome reduced frothiness in financial markets, as long as the correction is not large enough to undermine the economy (i.e. a 20% or greater equity market decline). The implication is that we are unlikely to see a return of market volatility to the lows observed early this year. Bonds: Due For Consolidation Chart I-8Market Is Converging With Fed 'Dots' Market is Converging With Fed 'Dots' Market is Converging With Fed 'Dots' A lot of adjustment has already taken place in the bond market. Market expectations for the Fed funds rate have moved up sharply since last month (Chart I-8). The market now discounts three rate hikes in 2018, in line with the Fed 'dot plot'. Expectations still fall short of the Fed's plan in 2019, but the market's estimate of the terminal fed funds rate has largely converged with the Fed's dots. Meanwhile, the latest Bank of America Merrill Lynch Global Fund Manager Survey revealed that investors cut bond allocations to the lowest level in the 20-year history of the report. All of this raises the odds that the rise in U.S. and global bond yields will correct before the bear phase resumes. Our fixed income strategists have raised their year-end target for the 10-year Treasury yield from around 3% to the 3.3-3.5% range. The 10-year TIPS breakeven rate has jumped to 2.1% even as oil prices have softened, signaling that the market is seeing more evidence of underlying inflationary pressure. This breakeven rate will likely rise by another 30 basis points and settle back into its pre-Lehman trading range of 2.3-2.5%. Importantly, the latter range was consistent with stable inflation expectations in the pre-Lehman years. The upward revision to our 10-year nominal yield target is due to a higher real rate assumption. In part, this reflects the fact that we have been impressed by last year's productivity performance. We are not expecting a major structural upshift in underlying productivity growth, for reasons cited by our colleague Peter Berezin in a recent report.3 Nonetheless, capital spending has picked up and Chart I-9 suggests that productivity growth should move a little higher in the coming years based on the acceleration in growth of the capital stock. Equilibrium interest rates should rise in line with slightly faster potential economic growth. Should we worry about a higher fiscal risk premium in bond yields? In the pre-Lehman era, academic studies suggested that every percentage point rise in the government's debt-to-GDP ratio added three basis points to the equilibrium level of bond yields. We shouldn't think of this as a 'default risk premium', because there is little default risk for a country that can print its own currency. Rather, higher yields reflect a crowding-out effect; since growth is limited in the long run by the supply side of the economy, a larger government sector means that some private sector demand needs to be crowded out via higher real interest rates. Plentiful economic slack negated the need for any crowding out as government debt exploded in aftermath of the Great Recession. Moreover, quantitative easing programs soaked up more than all of net government issuance for the major economies. Chart I-10 shows that the flow of the major economies' government bonds available for the private sector to purchase was negative in each of 2015, 2016 and 2017. The flow will swing to a positive figure of US$957 billion this year and US$1,127 billion in 2019. Real interest rates may therefore be higher to the extent that government bonds will have to compete with private sector issuance for available savings. Chart I-9U.S. Productivity Should Improve Modestly U.S. Productivity Should Improve Modestly U.S. Productivity Should Improve Modestly Chart I-10Government Bond Supply Is Accelerating Government Bond Supply is Accelerating Government Bond Supply is Accelerating The bottom line is that duration should be kept short of benchmarks within fixed-income portfolios, although we would not be surprised to see a consolidation phase or even a counter-trend rally in the near term. Dollar Cross Currents As mentioned earlier, standard theory suggests that loose fiscal policy and tight money should be bullish for the currency. However, the U.S. situation is complicated by the fact that fiscal stimulus will likely worsen the "twin deficits" problem. The current account deficit widened last year to 2.6% of GDP (Chart I-11). The fiscal measures will result in a jump in the Federal budget deficit to roughly 5½% in 2019, up from 3½% in last summer's CBO baseline projection. As a ballpark estimate, the two percentage point increase will cause the current account deficit to widen by only 0.3 percentage points. Of course, this will be partly offset by the continued improvement in the energy balance due to surging shale oil production. The poor international investment position is another potential negative for the greenback. Persistent U.S. current account deficits have resulted in a huge shortfall in the country's international investment account, which has reached 40% of GDP (Chart I-12). This means that foreign investors own a larger stock of U.S. financial assets than U.S. investors own abroad. Nonetheless, what matters for the dollar are the returns that flow from these assets. U.S. investors have always earned more on their overseas investments than foreigners make on their U.S. assets (which are dominated by low-yielding fixed-income securities). Thus, the U.S. still enjoys a 0.5% of GDP net positive inflow of international income (Chart I-12, bottom panel). Chart I-11A U.S. Twin Deficits Problem? A U.S. Twin Deficits Problem? A U.S. Twin Deficits Problem? Chart I-12U.S. Net International Investment U.S. Net International Investment U.S. Net International Investment Interest income flowing abroad will rise along with U.S. bond yields. This will undermine the U.S. surplus on international income to the extent that it is not offset by rising returns on U.S. investments held abroad. We estimate that a further 60 basis point rise in the U.S. Treasury curve (taking the 10-year yield from 2.9% to our target of 3½%) would cause the primary income surplus to fall by about 0.7 percentage points (Chart I-13). Adding this to the 0.3 percentage points from the direct effect of the increased fiscal deficit, the current account shortfall would deteriorate to roughly 3½% of GDP. While the deterioration is significant, the external deficit would simply return to 2009 levels. We doubt this would justify an ongoing dollar bear market on its own. Historically, a widening current account deficit has not always been the dominant driver of dollar trends. What should matter more is the Fed's response to the fiscal stimulus. If the FOMC does not immediately respond to head off the growth impulse, then rising inflation expectations could depress real rates at the short-end of the curve and undermine the dollar temporarily, especially in the context of a deteriorating external balance. The dollar would likely receive a bid later, when inflation clearly shifts higher and long-term inflation expectations move into the target zone discussed above. At that point, policymakers will step up the pace of rate hikes in order to get ahead of the inflation curve. The bottom line is that we still believe that the dollar will move somewhat higher on a 12-month horizon, but we can't rule out a continued downtrend in the near term until inflation clearly bottoms. It will also be difficult for the dollar to rally in the near term in trade-weighted terms if our currency strategists are correct on the yen outlook. The Japanese labor market is extremely tight, industrial production is growing at an impressive 4.4% pace, and the OECD estimates that output is now more than one percentage point above its non-inflationary level (Chart I-14). Investors are betting that a booming economy will give the monetary authorities the chance to move away from extraordinarily accommodative conditions. Investors are thus lifting their estimates of where Japanese policy will stand in three or five years. Chart I-13U.S. Fiscal Stimulus ##br##Impact On External Deficit U.S. Fiscal Stimulus Impact On External Deficit U.S. Fiscal Stimulus Impact On External Deficit Chart I-14Yen Benefitting From ##br##Domestic And Foreign Growth Yen Benefitting From Domestic And Foreign Growth Yen Benefitting From Domestic And Foreign Growth Increased volatility in global markets is also yen-bullish, especially since speculative shorts in the yen had reached near record levels. The pullback in global risk assets triggered some short-covering in yen-funded carry trades. Finally, the yen trades at a large discount to purchasing power parity. A strong Yen could prevent dollar rally in trade-weighted terms in the near term. Finally, A Word On Oil Oil prices corrected along with the broader pullback in risk assets in February. Nonetheless, the fundamentals point to a continued tightening in crude oil markets in the first half of 2018 (Chart I-15). Chart I-15Oil Inventory Correction Continuing Oil Inventory Correction Continuing Oil Inventory Correction Continuing OPEC's goal of reducing OECD inventories to five-year average levels will likely be met late this year. OPEC and Russia's production cuts are pretty much locked in to the end of June, when the producer coalition will next meet. Even with U.S. shale-oil output increasing, solid global demand will ensure that OECD inventories will continue to draw through the spring period. Over the past week, comments from Saudi and Russian oil ministers indicate they are more comfortable with extending OPEC 2.0's production cuts to end-2018, which, along with strong global demand growth, raises the odds Brent crude oil prices will exceed $70/bbl this year and possibly next year. Whether this is the result of the Saudi's need for higher prices to support the Aramco IPO, or it reflects an assessment by OPEC 2.0 that the world economy can absorb such prices without damaging demand too much, is not clear. Markets have yet to receive forward guidance from OPEC 2.0 leadership indicating this is the coalition's new policy, but our oil analysts are raising the odds that it is, and will be adjusting their forecast accordingly this week. Investment Conclusions The combination of an initially plodding Fed and faster earnings growth this year provides a bullish backdrop for the equity market. Treasury yields will continue to trend higher but, as long as the Fed sticks with the current 'dot plot', the pain in the fixed-income pits will not prevent the equity bull phase to continue for a while longer. Nonetheless, the fiscal stimulus is arriving very late in the U.S. economic cycle. The fact that there is little economic slack means that, rather than extending the expansion and the runway for earnings, stimulus might simply generate a more exaggerated boom/bust scenario; the FOMC sticks with the current game plan in the near term, but ends up falling behind the inflation curve and then is forced to catch up. The implication is 'faster growth now, deeper recession later'. Timing the end of the business cycle keeps coming back to the inflation outlook. If the result of the fiscal stimulus is more inflation but not much more growth, then the Fed will be forced to step harder and earlier on the brakes. Our base case is that inflation rises in a gradual way, but it has been very difficult to forecast inflation in this cycle. The bottom line is that our recommended asset allocation is unchanged for now. We are overweight risk assets (equities and corporate bonds), and below benchmark on duration. We will continue to watch the items in our Exit Checklist for warning signs (see last month's Overview). We are likely to trim corporate bond exposure within fixed-income portfolios to neutral or underweight in advance of taking profits on equities. The dollar should head up at some point, although not in the near term. The yen should be the strongest currency of the majors in the next 3-6 months. In currency-hedged terms, our fixed-income team still believes that JGBs are the best place to hide from the bond bear market. Gilts and Aussie governments also provide some protection. The worst performers will likely be government bonds in the U.S., Canada and Europe. Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst February 22, 2018 Next Report: March 29, 2018 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Constraints & Preferences Of The Trump Presidency," dated November 30, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 The fiscal thrust is defined as the change in the cyclically-adjusted budget balance, expressed as a percent of GDP. 3 Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "A Structural Bear Market In Bonds," dated February 16, 2018, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. II. Leverage And Sensitivity To Rising Rates: The U.S. Corporate Sector We estimate the corporate sector's vulnerability to rising interest rates and a weaker economic environment, highlighting the industries that will be hit the hardest. Both our top-down and bottom-up Corporate Health Monitors show that overall corporate finances improved last year on the back of a mini profit boom. Nonetheless, leverage remained on the up-escalator. The re-leveraging of the corporate sector has been widespread across industries and ratings. The credit cycle has entered a late stage and we are biased to take profits early on our overweight corporate bond positioning. Rising interest rates will not, on their own, trigger a downgrade and default wave in the next few years. Nonetheless, the starting point for interest coverage ratios is low. The interest coverage ratio for the U.S. non-financial corporate sector will likely drop to all-time lows even in a mild recession. Downgrades will proliferate when the rating agencies realize that the economy is turning south. Our profit indicators are more likely to give an early warning sign than the economic data. We remain overweight corporates within fixed income portfolios for now, but a downgrade would be warranted given some combination of rising core consumer price inflation, a further increase in the 10-year TIPS breakeven to 2.3%, and/or a deterioration in our margin proxy. February's "volatility" tremors focused investor attention on leveraged pressure points in the financial system, at a time when valuation is stretched and central banks are turning down the monetary thermostat. The market swoon may have simply reflected the unwinding of crowded volatility-related trades, but the risk is that there are other landmines lurking just ahead. The corporate sector is one candidate. Equity buybacks have not been especially large compared to previous cycles after adjusting for the length of the expansion (i.e. adjusting for cumulative GDP over the period, Chart II-1).1 But the expansion has gone on for so long that cumulative buybacks exceed the previous three expansions in absolute terms (Chart II-1, bottom panel). One would expect a lot of financial engineering to take place in an environment where borrowing costs are held at very low levels for an extended period. But, of course, one should also expect there to be consequences. Chart II-1Cycle Comparison: Corporate Finance Trends March 2018 March 2018 Chart II-2Corporate Bond Spreads And Leverage Corporate Bond Spreads And Leverage Corporate Bond Spreads And Leverage As Chart II-2 shows, corporate spreads tend to follow the broad trends in leverage, albeit with lengthy periods of divergence. The chart suggests that current spreads are far too narrow given the level of corporate leverage. Balance sheet health is obviously not the key driver of corporate bond relative returns at the moment. Nonetheless, this will change as interest rates rise and investors begin to worry about the growth outlook rather than squeezing the last drop of yield out of spread product. In this Special Report, we estimate the corporate sector's vulnerability to rising interest rates and a weaker economic environment, highlighting the industries that will be hit the hardest. But first, we review recent trends in leverage and overall balance sheet health. BCA's Corporate Health Monitors BCA's top-down Corporate Health Monitor (CHM) has been a workhorse for our corporate bond strategy for almost 20 years (Chart II-3). It is based on six financial ratios constructed from the U.S. Flow of Funds data for the entire non-financial corporate sector (Table II-1). The top-down CHM shifted into "deteriorating health" territory in 2014 on the back of rising leverage and an eroding return on capital.2 Chart II-3Top Down U.S. Corporate Health Monitor Top Down U.S. Corporate Health Monitor Top Down U.S. Corporate Health Monitor Table II-1Definitions Of Ratios That Go Into The CHMs March 2018 March 2018 The downward trend in the return on capital since 2007 is disturbing, as it suggests that there is a surplus of capital on U.S. balance sheets that is largely unproductive and not lifting profits. This can also be seen in the run-up in corporate borrowing in recent years that has been used to undertake share buybacks. If a company's best investment idea is to take on debt to repurchase its own stock, rather than borrow to invest in its own business, then the expected internal rate of return on investment must be quite low. This is a longer-term problem for corporate health. Alternatively, financial engineering may reflect misaligned incentives, such as stock options, rather than poor investment opportunities. The good news is that profit margins bounced back in 2017, which was reflected in a small decline in our top-down CHM toward the zero line over the past year (although it remained in 'deteriorating' territory). While the top-down CHM has been a useful indicator to time bear markets in corporate bond relative performance, it tells us nothing about the distribution of credit quality. In 2016 we looked at the financials of 1,600 U.S. companies to obtain a more detailed picture of corporate health. After removing ones with limited history or missing data, our sample shrank to a still-respectable 770 companies from across the industrial and quality spectrum. We then constructed an overall Corporate Health Monitor for all companies in the sample, as well as for the nine non-financial industries. We refer to these indicators as bottom-up CHMs, which we regard as complements to our top-down Health Monitor. The companies selected for our universe provided a sector and credit-quality composition that roughly matched the Barclays corporate bond indexes. In our first report, published in the February 2016 monthly Bank Credit Analyst, we highlighted that the financial ratios and overall corporate health looked only a little better excluding the troubled energy and materials sectors. The level of debt/equity was even a bit higher outside of the commodity industries. The implication was that, at the time, corporate credit quality had deteriorated across industrial sectors and levels of credit quality. Profitability Drove Improving Health In 2017... An update of the bottom-up CHMs shows that corporate financial health improved in 2017 for both the investment-grade (IG) and high-yield (HY) sectors (Chart II-4 and Chart II-5). The IG bottom-up Monitor remains in "deteriorating health" territory, but HY Monitor moved almost all the way back to the neutral line by year end. Leverage continued to trend higher last year for both IG and HY, but this was more than offset by a strong earnings performance that was reflected in rising operating margins, interest coverage and debt coverage. Chart II-4Bottom-Up IG CHM BOTTOM-UP IG CHM BOTTOM-UP IG CHM Chart II-5Bottom-Up HY CHM BOTTOM-UP HY CHM BOTTOM-UP HY CHM These improvements were particularly evident in the sub-investment grade universe. Our industry high-yield CHMs fell significantly in 2017 from elevated (i.e. poor) levels all the way back to the neutral line for Consumer Discretionary, Energy, Industrials, Materials and Utilities (not shown). The high-yield Technology and Health Care sector CHMs are also close to neutral. ...But The Earnings Runway Is Limited Unfortunately, the profit tailwind won't last forever. At some point, earnings growth will stall and this cycle's debt accumulation will start to bite in the context of rising interest rates. While interest coverage (EBIT divided by interest payments) improved last year for most industries, it remains depressed by historical standards. This is despite ultra-low borrowing rates and a robust earnings backdrop. U.S. companies are not facing an imminent cash crunch that would raise downgrade/default risk, but depressed interest coverage suggests that there is less room for error than in previous years. Table II-2Widespread Re-Leveraging March 2018 March 2018 Now that government bond yields have bottomed for the cycle and the "green shoots" of inflation are beginning to emerge, it begs the question of corporate sector exposure to rising interest costs. The sensitivity is important because Moody's assigns a weight of between 20% and 40% for the leverage and coverage ratios when rating a company, depending on the industry. Downgrade risk will escalate if corporate borrowing rates continue rising and, especially, if the U.S. economy enters a downturn. Comparing the level of debt or leverage across industries is complicated by the fact that some industries perpetually carry more debt than others due to the nature of the business. Moody's uses different thresholds for leverage when rating companies, depending on the industry. Thus, the change in the leverage ratio is perhaps more important than its level when comparing industries. Table II-2 shows the change in the ratio of debt to the book value of equity from our bottom-up universe of companies from 2010 to 2017. Leverage rose sharply in all sectors except Utilities. The worse two sectors were Communications and Consumer Discretionary, where leverage rose by 81 and 104 percentage points, respectively. Highest Risk Sectors We expect a traditional end to the business cycle; the Fed overdoes the rate hike cycle, sending the economy into recession. The industrial sectors with the poorest financial health and the greatest earnings "beta" to the overall market are most at risk in this macro scenario. We first estimate earnings betas by comparing the peak-to-trough decline in EPS for each sector to the overall decline in the non-financial S&P 500 EPS, taking an average of the last two recessions (we could not include the early 1990s recession due to data limitations). Not surprisingly, Materials, Technology, Consumer Discretionary and Energy sport the highest earnings beta based on this methodology (Chart II-6). Chart II-6Earnings Beta March 2018 March 2018 Chart II-7 presents a scatter plot of 2017 leverage versus the industry's earnings beta. Consumer Discretionary stands out on the high side on both counts. Materials and Energy are also high-beta industries, but have lower leverage. Communications is a high-debt industry with a medium earnings beta. These same industries stand out when comparing the earnings beta to the interest coverage ratio (the lower the interest coverage ratio the more risky in Chart II-8). Chart II-7Leverage Vs. Earnings Beta March 2018 March 2018 Chart II-8Interest Coverage Ratio Vs. Earnings Beta March 2018 March 2018 Of course, a sector's sensitivity to rising interest rates will depend on both the level of debt and its maturity distribution. Higher rates will not have much impact in the near term for firms that have little debt to roll over in the next couple of years. Chart II-9 presents the percentage of total debt that will come due over the next three years by industry. Consumer Discretionary, Tech, Staples and Industrials are the most exposed to debt rollover. To further refine the analysis, we estimate the change in the interest coverage ratio over the next three years for a 100 basis point rise in interest rates across the corporate curve, taking into consideration the maturity distribution of the debt. We make the simplifying assumptions that companies do not issue any more debt over the three years, and that EBIT is unchanged, in order to isolate the impact of higher interest rates. For the universe of our companies, the interest coverage ratio would drop from about 4 to 2½, well below the lows of the Great Recession (denoted as "x" in Chart II-10). The Consumer Staples, Tech and Health Care are affected most deeply (Chart II-11 and Chart II-12). Chart II-9Debt Maturing In Next ##br##Three Years (% Of Total) March 2018 March 2018 Chart II-10Interest Coverage Ratio ##br##Headed To New Lows Interest Coverage Ratio Headed To New Lows Interest Coverage Ratio Headed To New Lows Chart II-11Interest Coverage By ##br##Sector (IG Plus HY) Interest Coverage By Sector (IG plus HY) Interest Coverage By Sector (IG plus HY) Chart II-12Interest Coverage By ##br##Sector (IG Plus HY) Interest Coverage By Sector (IG plus HY) Interest Coverage By Sector (IG plus HY) Recession Shock Of course, the decline in interest coverage will be much worse if the Fed steps too far and monetary tightening sparks a recession. Looking again at Charts II-10 to II-12, "o" denotes the combination of a 100 basis point interest rate shock and a mild recession in which the S&P 500 suffers a 25% peak-to-trough decline in EPS. We estimate the decline in EPS based on the industry's earnings beta to the overall market. The overall interest coverage ratio falls even further into uncharted territory below two. The additional shock of the earnings recession makes little difference to earnings coverage for the low beta sectors such as Consumer Staples and Health Care. The coverage ratio falls sharply for the Communications and Industries, although not to new lows. It is a different story for Consumer Discretionary and Materials. The combination of elevated debt and a high earnings beta means that the interest coverage ratio would likely plunge to levels well below previous lows for these two industries. Corporate bond investors and rating agencies will certainly notice. Signposts Our top-down Corporate Health Monitor is one of the key indicators we use to identify cyclical bear phases for corporate bond excess returns. A shift from "improving" to "deteriorating" health has been a reliable confirming indicator for periods of sustained spread widening. The other two key indicators are (Chart II-13): Chart II-13Key Cyclical Drivers Of Corporate Excess Returns Key Cyclical Drivers Of Corporate Excess Returns Key Cyclical Drivers Of Corporate Excess Returns Bank lending standards for Commercial & Industrial loans: Banks begin to tighten up on lending standards when they realize that the economy is slowing and credit quality is deteriorating as a result. By making it more difficult for firms to roll over bank loans or replace bond financing, more restrictive standards reinforce the negative trend in corporate credit quality. We traditionally view lending standards as a confirming indicator for a turn in the credit cycle, since tightening standards are typically preceded by deteriorating corporate health and restrictive monetary policy. Restrictive monetary policy: This is the most difficult of the three indicators for which to determine critical values. We had a good idea of the level of the neutral real fed funds rate prior to 2007. Since then, our monetary compass is far less certain because the neutral rate has likely declined for cyclical and structural reasons. The real fed funds rate has moved just slightly into restrictive territory if we take the Laubach-Williams estimate at face value (Chart II-13, third panel). That said, we would expect the 2/10 Treasury yield curve to be closer to inverting if real short-term interest rates are indeed in restrictive territory. Taking the two indicators together, we conclude that monetary policy is not yet outright restrictive. Historically, all three indicators had to be flashing red in order to justify a shift to below-benchmark on corporate bonds within fixed-income portfolios. Only the CHM is negative at the moment, but this time we are unlikely to wait for all three signals to take profits. Poor valuation, lopsided positioning, financial engineering and uncertainty regarding the neutral fed funds rate all argue in favor of erring on the side of caution and not trying to closely time the peak in excess returns. The violent unwinding of short-volatility trades in January highlighted the potential for a quick and nasty repricing of corporate bonds spreads on any disappointments regarding the default rate outlook. Conclusion Both our top-down and bottom-up Corporate Health Monitors show that overall corporate finances improved last year on the back of a mini profit boom. Nonetheless, leverage remained on the up-escalator as businesses continued to pile up debt and return cash to shareholders. Our sample of individual companies reveals that the re-leveraging of the corporate sector has been widespread across industries and ratings. We have clearly entered the late stage of the credit cycle. Rising interest rates will not, on their own, trigger a downgrade and default wave in the next few years. However, debt levels are elevated and the starting point for interest coverage ratios is low. This means that, for any given size of recession, the next economic downturn will have a larger negative impact on corporate health than in the past. The interest coverage ratio for the non-financial corporate sector will likely drop to all-time lows even in a mild recession. Downgrades will proliferate when the rating agencies realize that the economy is turning and the profit boom is over. Last month's Overview listed the top economic indicators we are watching in order to time our exit from risky assets. Inflation expectations will be key; A rise in the 10-year inflation breakeven rate above 2.3% would be a warning that the FOMC will need to ramp up the speed of rate hikes to avoid a large inflation overshoot. While we are also watching a list of economic indicators, they have not provided any lead time for corporate spreads in the past (since the latter are themselves leading indicators). Our profit indicators are probably more likely to give an early warning sign than the economic data. Indeed, the profit outlook will be particularly important in this cycle because of the heightened sensitivity of corporate financial health changes in the macro backdrop. None of our earnings indicators are flashing a warning sign at the moment. A recent Special Report on corporate pricing power found that almost 80% of the sectors covered are lifting selling prices, at a time when labor costs are still subdued.3 These trends are captured by our U.S. Equity Strategy service's margin proxy, which remains in positive territory (Chart II-14). The margin proxy fell into negative territory ahead of the start of the last three sustained widening phases in U.S. corporate bonds. Chart II-14For Corporate Spreads, Watch Our Margin Proxy For Corporate Spreads, Watch Our Margin Proxy For Corporate Spreads, Watch Our Margin Proxy The bottom line is that we remain overweight corporates within fixed income portfolios for now, but a downgrade would be warranted given some combination of rising core consumer price inflation, a further increase in the 10-year TIPS breakeven to 2.3%, and/or a deterioration in our margin proxy. We expect to pull the trigger later this year but the timing is uncertain. Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst 1 The accumulation of equity buybacks, net equity withdrawal, dividends and capital spending are all adjusted by the accumulation of GDP during the expansion to facilitate comparison across business cycles. 2 The Monitor is an average of six financial ratios that are used by rating agencies to rate individual companies. We have applied the approach to the entire non-financial corporate sector, using the Fed's Flow of Funds data. To facilitate comparison with corporate spreads, the ratios are inverted so that a rising CHM indicates deteriorating health. The CHM has a very good track record of heralding trend changes in investment-grade and high-yield spreads over many cycles. 3 Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Service Weekly Report, "Corporate Pricing Power Update," dated January 29, 2018, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. III. Indicators And Reference Charts Volatility returned to financial markets in February. The good news is that it appears to have been a healthy technical correction that has tempered frothy market conditions, rather than the start of an equity bear phase. The VIX has shot from very low levels to above the long-term mean, indicating that there is less complacency among investors. This is confirmed by the pullback in our Composite Sentiment Indicator, although it remains at the high end of its historical range. Our Composite Speculation Indicator is also still hovering at a high level, suggesting that frothiness has not been fully washed out. Similarly, our Equity Valuation Indicator has pulled back, but remains close to our threshold for overvaluation at +1 standard deviations. Our Equity Technical Indicator came close, but did not give a 'sell' signal in February (i.e. it remained above its 9-month moving average). Our Monetary Indicator moved slightly further into 'restrictive' territory in February. We highlight in the Overview section that monetary policy will become a significant headwind once long-term inflation expectations have fully normalized. It is constructive that the indicators for near-term earnings growth remain upbeat; both the net revisions ratio and the earnings surprise index continue to point to further increases in 12-month forward earnings estimates. Our Revealed Preference Indicator (RPI) returned to its bullish equity signal in February, following a temporary shift to neutral in January. The RPI combines the idea of market momentum with valuation and policy measures. It provides a powerful bullish signal if positive market momentum lines up with constructive signals from the policy and valuation measures. Conversely, if constructive market momentum is not supported by valuation and policy, investors should lean against the market trend. Our Willingness-to-Pay (WTP) indicators are bullish on stocks in the U.S., Europe and Japan. However, the WTP for the U.S. market appears to have rolled over, suggesting that flows are becoming less constructive for U.S. stocks. The WTP indicators track flows, and thus provide information on what investors are actually doing, as opposed to sentiment indexes that track how investors are feeling. At the margin, the WTP indicator suggest that flows favor the European and Japanese markets to the U.S. Treasurys moved closer to 'inexpensive' territory in February, but are not there yet. Extended technicals suggest a period of consolidation, but value is not a headwind to a continuation in the cyclical bear phase. EQUITIES: Chart III-1U.S. Equity Indicators U.S. Equity Indicators U.S. Equity Indicators Chart III-2Willingness To Pay For Risk Willingness To Pay For Risk Willingness To Pay For Risk Chart III-3U.S. Equity Sentiment Indicators U.S. Equity Sentiment Indicators U.S. Equity Sentiment Indicators Chart III-4Revealed Preference Indicator Revealed Preference Indicator Revealed Preference Indicator Chart III-5U.S. Stock Market Valuation U.S. Stock Market Valuation U.S. Stock Market Valuation Chart III-6U.S. Earnings U.S. Earnings U.S. Earnings Chart III-7Global Stock Market And ##br##Earnings: Relative Performance Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Chart III-8Global Stock Market And ##br##Earnings: Relative Performance Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance FIXED INCOME: Chart III-9U.S. Treasurys And Valuations U.S. Treasurys and Valuations U.S. Treasurys and Valuations Chart III-10U.S. Treasury Indicators U.S. Treasury Indicators U.S. Treasury Indicators Chart III-11Selected U.S. Bond Yields Selected U.S. Bond Yields Selected U.S. Bond Yields Chart III-1210-Year Treasury Yield Components 10-Year Treasury Yield Components 10-Year Treasury Yield Components Chart III-13U.S. Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor U.S. Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor U.S. Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor Chart III-14Global Bonds: Developed Markets Global Bonds: Developed Markets Global Bonds: Developed Markets Chart III-15Global Bonds: Emerging Markets Global Bonds: Emerging Markets Global Bonds: Emerging Markets CURRENCIES: Chart III-16U.S. Dollar And PPP U.S. Dollar And PPP U.S. Dollar And PPP Chart III-17U.S. Dollar And Indicator U.S. Dollar And Indicator U.S. Dollar And Indicator Chart III-18U.S. Dollar Fundamentals U.S. Dollar Fundamentals U.S. Dollar Fundamentals Chart III-19Japanese Yen Technicals Japanese Yen Technicals Japanese Yen Technicals Chart III-20Euro Technicals Euro Technicals Euro Technicals Chart III-21Euro/Yen Technicals Euro/Yen Technicals Euro/Yen Technicals Chart III-22Euro/Pound Technicals Euro/Pound Technicals Euro/Pound Technicals COMMODITIES: Chart III-23Broad Commodity Indicators Broad Commodity Indicators Broad Commodity Indicators Chart III-24Commodity Prices Commodity Prices Commodity Prices Chart III-25Commodity Prices Commodity Prices Commodity Prices Chart III-26Commodity Sentiment Commodity Sentiment Commodity Sentiment Chart III-27Speculative Positioning Speculative Positioning Speculative Positioning ECONOMY: Chart III-28U.S. And Global Macro Backdrop U.S. And Global Macro Backdrop U.S. And Global Macro Backdrop Chart III-29U.S. Macro Snapshot U.S. Macro Snapshot U.S. Macro Snapshot Chart III-30U.S. Growth Outlook U.S. Growth Outlook U.S. Growth Outlook Chart III-31U.S. Cyclical Spending U.S. Cyclical Spending U.S. Cyclical Spending Chart III-32U.S. Labor Market U.S. Labor Market U.S. Labor Market Chart III-33U.S. Consumption U.S. Consumption U.S. Consumption Chart III-34U.S. Housing U.S. Housing U.S. Housing Chart III-35U.S. Debt And Deleveraging U.S. Debt And Deleveraging U.S. Debt And Deleveraging Chart III-36U.S. Financial Conditions U.S. Financial Conditions U.S. Financial Conditions Chart III-37Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Chart III-38Global Economic Snapshot: China Global Economic Snapshot: China Global Economic Snapshot: China Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst

Highlights The euro is cheap. To cease being cheap, EUR/USD needs to approach 1.35. Euro area bonds are expensive. To cease being expensive, the yield spread between the euro area and U.S. long bond needs to compress from -135 bps to -40 bps. Never pick mainstream stock markets on the basis of seeming cheapness. Sector effects, step changes in sector valuations and currency effects make relative valuations very difficult to interpret. Always pick mainstream stock markets on the basis of the sector and currency biases you wish to express. Overweight Denmark's OMX and Ireland's ISEQ on a 6-9 month horizon. Feature A very common question we get asked is: are European investments attractively priced compared to those elsewhere in the world? To which the current answers are: yes for the euro currency; no for euro area government bonds; and highly unlikely for the aggregate European stock market. That said, we can still identify individual European stock markets that are well placed to outperform major equity indexes, including the S&P500, over the coming 6-9 months. Chart of the WeekWhen Healthcare Outperforms, Denmark's OMX Outperforms The S&P 500 When Healthcare Outperforms, Denmark"s OMX Outperforms The S&P 500 When Healthcare Outperforms, Denmark"s OMX Outperforms The S&P 500 The Euro Is Cheap... Says The ECB We can confidently claim that the euro is cheap because the ECB's own indicators say so.1 According to the ECB, the euro needs to appreciate at least 7% to cancel the euro area's over-competitiveness versus its top 19 trading partners. In terms of EUR/USD this translates to 1.32. Admittedly, 1.32 encapsulates a spectrum of fair values for the individual euro area economies: 1.45 for Germany; around 1.30 for France, Spain and Netherlands; and around 1.20 for Italy (Chart I-2). Chart I-2The Euro Needs To Appreciate 7% To Cancel The Euro Area's Over-Competitiveness The Euro Needs To Appreciate 7% To Cancel The Euro Area"s Over-Competitiveness The Euro Needs To Appreciate 7% To Cancel The Euro Area"s Over-Competitiveness The ECB indicators also assume that the euro began its life close to fair value. This seems plausible. Twenty years ago, the euro area's constituent economies were broadly in internal balance and had a lot in common. Remarkably, Germany and Italy scored identically on total debt as a share of GDP as well as on exports as a share of GDP. Furthermore, euro area trade was in external balance, and the bloc's real competitiveness versus its major trading partners was exactly in line with its long-term average. After its birth, the euro first became extremely undervalued in the dot com bubble, then extremely overvalued in the global credit boom, and most recently, extremely undervalued again. Seen in this bigger picture, the euro's current ascent is just a recovery from an extreme undervaluation, an argument that even Mario Draghi made at the last ECB press conference: "Movements in the exchange rate, to the extent that it is justified by the strengthening of the economy, is part of nature." At what level would EUR/USD cease to be cheap? Based on the average of the ECB's three competitiveness indicators, EUR/USD needs to approach 1.35. Euro Area Bonds Are Expensive The yield spread between the euro area and U.S. long bond stands at an extreme -135 bps.2 This compares with an average -40 bps through the twenty year life of the euro - indicating that euro area government bonds are very expensive relative to U.S. T-bonds. Over the completion of this cycle, this yield spread is highly likely to compress to its long-term average of -40 bps, given that the yield spread just tracks relative real GDP per head - which is itself mean-reverting (Chart I-3). Interestingly, the euro area versus U.S. annual inflation differential has also averaged -40 bps (Chart I-4), so the real interest rate differential has averaged zero. This means that the so-called 'neutral' (or mid-cycle) real interest rates in the euro area and the U.S. have been identical through the past twenty years. Growth in real GDP per head has also been identical (Chart I-5). Chart I-3Euro Area-U.S.: Average Interest ##br##Rate Differential = -40bps Euro Area-U.S.: Average Interest Rate Differential = -40bps Euro Area-U.S.: Average Interest Rate Differential = -40bps Chart I-4Euro Area-U.S.: Average Inflation ##br##Differential = -40bps Euro Area-U.S.: Average Inflation Differential = -40bps Euro Area-U.S.: Average Inflation Differential = -40bps Chart I-5The Euro Area And U.S. Have Generated##br## Identical Growth Per Head The Euro Area And U.S. Have Generated Identical Growth Per Head The Euro Area And U.S. Have Generated Identical Growth Per Head The past twenty years provide a good template for what the future holds, at least in relative terms if not in absolute terms. This is because 1999-2018 captures multiple manias and crises, some centred in Europe, some in the U.S. With no difference in neutral real rates over the past two decades, is there any reason to expect the future neutral rate to be meaningfully lower in the euro area compared to the U.S.? Our starting assumption has to be no. This assumption would be at risk if the existential threat to the euro resurfaced. Looking at the political calendar, the immediate concern might be the Italian election on March 4. Specifically, the anti-establishment Five Star Movement and Northern League could poll well enough to hold some sway in the next government and ruffle the markets. However, while both the Five Star Movement and Northern League have agendas that are unashamedly disruptive, anti-establishment and anti-austerity, neither party is standing on an anti-euro platform. Unless there is a major change in emphasis, the Italian election should not pose an existential threat to the euro. Our central expectation is that the euro area versus U.S. yield spread has the scope to compress substantially from its current -135 bps. In other words, euro area government bonds are very expensive relative to U.S. T-bonds. Never Pick Stock Markets On The Basis Of Seeming Cheapness Compared with currencies and bonds, stock markets are much less connected with their domestic economies. Mainstream stock markets are eclectic collections of multinational companies, with each stock market possessing its own unique fingerprint of sector and industry skews. Therefore, a head-to-head comparison of European stock market valuations either with each other or with non-European stock markets is a meaningless and potentially dangerous exercise. Two sectors with vastly different structural growth prospects - say, Financials and Personal Products (Chart I-6) - must necessarily trade on vastly different valuations. So the sector with the lower valuation is not necessarily the cheaper sector. By extension, a stock market with a lower valuation because of its sector fingerprint is not necessarily a cheaper stock market. Chart I-6Two Sectors With Vastly Different Growth Prospects Will Trade On Vastly Different Valuations Two Sectors With Vastly Different Growth Prospects Will Trade On Vastly Different Valuations Two Sectors With Vastly Different Growth Prospects Will Trade On Vastly Different Valuations Some people suggest comparing a valuation with its own history, and assessing how many 'standard deviations' it is above or below its norm. The problem with this standard deviation approach is that it assumes 'stationarity' - meaning, no step changes in a sector's valuation through time. Unfortunately, sector valuations can and do undergo major step changes when they enter a vastly different economic climate. For example, the structural outlook for bank profits undergoes a step change when a debt super-cycle ends. Therefore, comparing a bank valuation after a debt super-cycle with the valuation during a debt super-cycle is like comparing an apple with an orange. Another issue for stock markets that contain multinational companies is the so-called 'currency translation effect'. A multinational company will intentionally diversify its sales and profits across multiple major currencies - say, euros, dollars and yen - but of course its primary stock market listing will be in just one currency - say, euros. So when the other currencies weaken versus the euro, the company's profit growth (quoted in its home currency of euros) will necessarily weaken too. If investors anticipate this effect - because they see that the euro is structurally cheap today - they might downgrade the stock market's profit growth expectations. Thereby, they will also downgrade the stock market's valuation. Pulling together these complexities of sector effects, step changes in sector valuations and currency effects, we offer some very strong advice: picking stock markets on the basis of relative valuation is a wrong and very dangerous way to invest. The correct and safe way to invest is to pick stock markets on the basis of the sector and currency biases you wish to express (Chart I-7). This brings us to one of the major advantages of investing in Europe. The plethora of stock markets - each with their own unique fingerprint of sector and industry skews - means that there are always European bourses worth overweighting, whatever your economic outlook. Right now, two of our sector recommendations are to overweight Healthcare and to underweight Energy. Please review our report Beware The Great Moderation 2.0 for the underlying thesis, which we will not repeat here.3 If these sector recommendations pan out as we expect, Denmark's OMX is highly likely to outperform the S&P500 given the OMX's substantial overweighting to Healthcare (Chart of the Week). Likewise, Ireland's ISEQ is highly likely to outperform the S&P500 given the ISEQ's substantial underweighting to Energy via its large exposure to budget airline Ryanair (Chart I-8). Chart I-7Eurostoxx50 Vs. S&P500 Is Just 3 Banks Vs.##br## 3 Tech Stocks! Eurostoxx50 Vs. S&P500 Is Just 3 Banks Vs. 3 Tech Stocks! Eurostoxx50 Vs. S&P500 Is Just 3 Banks Vs. 3 Tech Stocks! Chart I-8When Energy Underperforms, Ireland's ##br##ISEQ Outperforms The S&P 500 When Energy Underperforms Ireland"s ISEQ Outperforms The S&P 500 When Energy Underperforms Ireland"s ISEQ Outperforms The S&P 500 Overweight Denmark's OMX And Ireland's ISEQ. A final salutary observation illustrates the importance of the sector approach to picking stock markets. As a result of favourable sector biases - overweight Healthcare, underweight Energy - a 50:50 combination of Denmark and Ireland has kept pace with the S&P500 over the past 20 years, while the Eurostoxx50 has been left a very long way behind (Chart I-9). Chart I-9Sector Biases Helped Denmark's OMX And Ireland's ISEQ, But Hindered The Eurostoxx 50 Sector Biases Helped Denmark"s OMX And Ireland"s ISEQ, But Hindered The Eurostoxx 50 Sector Biases Helped Denmark"s OMX And Ireland"s ISEQ, But Hindered The Eurostoxx 50 Dhaval Joshi, Senior Vice President Chief European Investment Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com 1 Available at https://www.ecb.europa.eu/stats. The ECB calculates three Harmonised Competitiveness Indicators for the euro area versus its top 19 trading partners based on unit labour costs (ULCs), GDP deflators, and consumer price indices (CPIs), with the latest readings referring to Q3 2017 for ULCs and GDP deflators and January 2018 for CPIs. Updating these for the euro's move to February 20 2018, the three indicators suggest that the trade-weighted euro is still undervalued by 7%, 12% and 7% respectively. 2 Calculated from the over 10-year government bond yield: euro area average, weighted by sovereign issue size, less U.S. 3 Please see the European Investment Strategy Weekly Report 'Beware The Great Moderation 2.0' published on February 1, 2018 and available at eis.bcaresearch.com. ­­ Fractal Trading Model* This week our fractal model has produced a very interesting finding. The 130-day fractal dimension for the U.S. 10-year T-bond is approaching a level which has consistently signalled a technical inflection point. This suggests that the recent sell-off in bonds might be close to running its course. We are not putting on a countertrend position yet, but expect to do so within the next few weeks. 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 Long U.S. 10-Year Gov. Bond Long U.S. 10-Year Gov. Bond 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. * For more details please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report "Fractals, Liquidity & A Trading Model," dated December 11, 2014, available at eis.bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading Model Recommendations Equities Bond & Interest Rates Currency & Other Positions Closed Fractal Trades Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Interest Rate Chart II-5Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch ##br##- Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations

Highlights The call on EM local bonds boils down to the outlook for EM exchange rates. Forthcoming EM currency depreciation will halt the rally in local bonds. EM currencies positively correlate with commodities prices but not with domestic real interest rates. Widening U.S. twin deficits are not a reason to be long EM currencies. There has historically been no consistent relationship between the U.S. exchange rate and America's twin deficits in general, or its fiscal balance, in particular. For investors who have to be invested in EM domestic bonds, our recommended overweights are Russia, Argentina, Poland, the Czech Republic, Korea, India and Thailand. Feature The stampede into EM local currency bonds has persisted even amid recent jitters in global equity markets. Notably, surging U.S./DM bond yields have failed to cause a spike in EM local yields, despite past positive correlations (Chart I-1). Chart I-1Will EM Domestic Bond Yields Continue Defying Rising U.S. Treasury Yields? Will EM Domestic Bond Yields Continue Defying Rising U.S. Treasury Yields? Will EM Domestic Bond Yields Continue Defying Rising U.S. Treasury Yields? The main reason is the resilience of EM currencies. The latter have not sold off even during the recent correction in global share prices. In high-yielding EM domestic bond markets, total returns are substantially affected by exchange rates. Not only do U.S. dollar total returns on local bonds suffer when EM currencies depreciate, but also weaker EM exchange rates cause spikes in domestic bond yields (Chart I-2). Consequently, the call on EM local bonds, especially in high-yielding markets, boils down to the outlook for EM exchange rates. Chart I-2EM Currencies Drive EM Local Yields EM Currencies Drive EM Local Yields EM Currencies Drive EM Local Yields We are negative on EM currencies versus the U.S. dollar and the euro. The basis for our view is two-fold: Strong growth in the U.S. and higher U.S. bond yields should be supportive of the greenback vis-à-vis EM currencies; the same applies to euro area growth and the euro against EM exchange rates; Weaker growth in China should weigh on commodities prices and, in turn, on EM currencies. So far, this view has not played out. In fact, negative sentiment on the U.S. dollar has recently been amplified by concerns about America's widening fiscal and current account deficits. In fact, one might argue that EM local bonds stand to benefit from the potential widening in U.S. twin deficits and the flight out of the U.S. dollar. We address the issue of U.S. twin deficits first. Twin Deficits And The U.S. Dollar... The recent narrative that the dollar typically depreciates during periods of widening twin deficits is not supported by historical evidence. We are not suggesting that twin deficits lead to currency appreciation. Our argument is that twin deficits have historically coincided with both appreciation and depreciation of the U.S. dollar. Chart I-3 exhibits the relationship between the U.S. dollar and the fiscal and current account balances. It appears that there is no consistent relationship between the fiscal and current account balances and the exchange rate. Chart I-3No Stable Relationship Between U.S. Twin Deficits And Dollar No Stable Relationship Between U.S. Twin Deficits And Dollar No Stable Relationship Between U.S. Twin Deficits And Dollar To produce a quantitative measure of the twin deficits, we sum up both the fiscal and current account balances. Chart I-4 demonstrates the relationship between the latter measure and the trade-weighted U.S. dollar. This analysis encompasses the entire history of the floating U.S. dollar since 1971. Chart I-4Combination Of U.S. Twin Deficits And Real Bond Yields Better Explain Dollar Combination Of U.S. Twin Deficits And Real Bond Yields Better Explain Dollar Combination Of U.S. Twin Deficits And Real Bond Yields Better Explain Dollar The vertical lines denote the tax cuts under former U.S. President Ronald Reagan in 1981 and 1986, and under former U.S. President George W. Bush in 2001 and 2003. As can be seen from Chart I-4, there is no stable relationship between the twin deficits and the greenback. In the 1970s, there was no consistent relationship at all; In the first half of the 1980s, the twin deficits widened substantially, but the dollar rallied dramatically. The tailwind behind the rally was tightening monetary policy and rising/high real U.S. interest rates; From 1985 through 1993, there was no consistent relationship between America's twin deficits and the currency; From 1994 until 2001, the greenback appreciated as the twin deficits narrowed, particularly the fiscal deficit; From 2001 through 2011, the dollar was in a bear market as the twin deficits expanded; From 2011 until 2016, the shrinking-to-stable twin deficits were accompanied by a U.S. dollar rally. Bottom Line: We infer from these charts that there has historically been no stable relationship between the U.S. exchange rate and America's twin deficits in general, or its fiscal balance, in particular. ... And A Missing Variable: Interest Rates Twin deficits are often associated with rising inflation. In fact, a widening current account deficit can mask hidden price pressures. In particular, an economy that over-consumes - consumes more than it produces - can satisfy its demand via imports without exerting pressure on the economy's domestic productive capacity. Booming imports will lead to a widening trade deficit rather than higher consumer price inflation. Hence, in an open economy, over-consumption can lead to a widening current account deficit, rather than rising inflation. A currency is likely to plunge amid widening twin deficits if the central bank is behind the inflation curve. In such a case, the low real interest rates would undermine the value of the exchange rate. If the central bank, however, embarks on monetary tightening that is adequate, the currency can in fact strengthen amid growing twin deficits. In this scenario, rising real interest rates would support the currency. With respect to the U.S. dollar today, its future trajectory depends on the Fed, and the market's perception of its policy stance. If the market discerns that the Fed is behind the curve, the greenback will plummet. By contrast, if the market reckons that the Fed policy response is appropriate, and U.S. real interest rates are sufficiently high/rising, the dollar could in fact appreciate amid widening twin deficits. Specifically, the U.S. dollar was in a major bull market in the early 1980s, with Reagan's tax cuts in 1981 and the ensuing widening of the country's twin deficits doing little to thwart the dollar bull market (Chart I-4). In turn, the Bush tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 were followed by a major dollar bear market. The main culprit between these two and other episodes was probably real interest rates. U.S. real interest rates/bond yields rose between 1981 and 1985, generating an enormous dollar rally. In the decade of the 2000s, by contrast, U.S. real interest rates fell and that coincided with a major bear market in the greenback (Chart I-4). Overall, the combination of U.S. twin deficits and real bond yields together, help better explain U.S. dollar dynamics than twin deficits alone. We agree that America's twin deficits will widen materially. That said, odds are that the Fed commits to further rate hikes and that U.S. bond yields continue to rise. In fact, not only are U.S. inflation breakeven yields climbing, but TIPS (real) yields have also spiked significantly. Rising real yields, which in our opinion have more upside, should support the U.S. dollar. As a final point, if the Fed falls behind the curve and the dollar continues to tumble, the markets could begin to fear a material rise in U.S. inflationary pressures. That scenario would actually resemble market dynamics that prevailed before the 1987 stock market crash. Although this is a negative scenario for the U.S. currency and is, by default, bullish for EM exchange rates and their local bonds, this is not ultimately an optimistic scenario for global risk assets. Bottom Line: Twin deficits are not solely sufficient to produce a currency bear market. Twin deficits accompanied by a central bank that is behind the inflation curve - i.e., combined with low/falling real interest rates - are what generate sufficient conditions for currency depreciation. EM Currencies And Commodities Many EM exchange rates - such as those in Latin America, as well as South African, Russian, Malaysian and Indonesian currencies - are primarily driven by commodities prices. Not surprisingly, the underlying currency index of the EM local bond benchmark index (the JPM GBI index) - which excludes China, India, Korea and Taiwan - positively correlates with commodities prices (Chart I-5). Hence, getting commodities prices right is of paramount importance to the majority of high-yielding EM local bonds. We have the following observations: First, investors' net long positions in both oil and copper are extremely elevated (Chart I-6). The last datapoint is as of February 16. Any rebound in the U.S. dollar or mounting concerns about China's growth could produce a meaningful drop in commodities prices as investors rush to close their long positions. Second, we maintain that China's intake of commodities is bound to decelerate, as decelerating credit growth and local governments' budget constraints lead to curtailment of infrastructure and property investment (Chart I-7). Chart I-5EM Currencies Positively Correlate ##br##With Commodities Prices EM Currencies Positively Correlate With Commodities Prices EM Currencies Positively Correlate With Commodities Prices Chart I-6Investors Are Very Long##br## Copper And Oil Investors Are Very Long Copper And Oil Investors Are Very Long Copper And Oil Chart I-7Slowdown In ##br##China's Capex Slowdown In China's Capex Slowdown In China's Capex Strong growth in the U.S. and EU will not offset the decline in China's intake of raw materials (excluding oil). China accounts for 50% of global demand for industrial metals. America's consumption of industrial metals is about 6-7 times smaller. For crude oil, China's share of global consumption is 14% compared with 20% and 15% for the U.S. and EU, respectively. We do not expect outright contraction in China's crude imports or consumption. The point is that when financial markets begin to price in weaker mainland growth or the U.S. dollar rebounds, oil prices will retreat as investors reduce their record high net long positions. Finally, even though EM twin deficits have ameliorated in recent years, they remain wide (Chart I-8). In turn, the majority of these countries have been financing their deficits by volatile foreign portfolio flows, as FDIs into EM remain largely depressed. If commodities prices relapse and EM currencies depreciate, there will be a period of reversal in foreign portfolio inflows into EM. While EM real local bonds yields are reasonably high, they are unlikely to prevent outflows if the U.S. dollar rallies. In the past, neither high absolute EM real yields nor their wide spreads over U.S. TIPS prevented EM currency depreciation (Chart I-9). Chart I-8AEM Twin Deficits Have Ameliorated ##br##But Are Still Wide EM Twin Deficits Have Ameliorated But Are Still Wide EM Twin Deficits Have Ameliorated But Are Still Wide Chart I-8BEM Twin Deficits Have Ameliorated ##br##But Are Still Wide EM Twin Deficits Have Ameliorated But Are Still Wide EM Twin Deficits Have Ameliorated But Are Still Wide Chart I-9EM Local Real Yields Do Not ##br##Drive Their Currencies EM Local Real Yields Do Not Drive Their Currencies EM Local Real Yields Do Not Drive Their Currencies EM Local Bonds: Country Allocation Strategy Chart I-10 attempts to identify pockets of value in EM domestic bonds. It exhibits the sum of current account and fiscal balances on the X axis, and domestic bond yields deflated by headline inflation on the Y axis. Chart I-10Identifying Pockets Of Value In EM Domestic Bonds EM Local Bonds And U.S. Twin Deficits EM Local Bonds And U.S. Twin Deficits Markets in the upper-right corner should be favored as they offer high real yields and maintain healthy fiscal and current account balances. Bond markets in the lower-left corner should be underweighted. They have low inflation-adjusted yields and large current account and fiscal deficits. Based on these metrics as well as fundamental analysis, our recommended country allocation for EM domestic bond portfolios has been and remains: Overweights: Russia, Argentina, Poland, the Czech Republic, Korea, India and Thailand. Neutral: Brazil, Mexico, Indonesia, Hungary, Chile and Colombia. Underweights: Turkey, South Africa and Malaysia. The below elaborates on Brazil, Russia and South Africa. Russia Fiscal and monetary policies are extremely tight. While they are curtailing the economic recovery, they are very friendly for creditors. Interest rates deflated by both headline and core consumer price inflation are at their highest on record, government spending is lackluster, and the new fiscal rule has replenished the country's foreign currency reserves (Chart I-11). Besides, the government's budget assumption for oil prices is very conservative - in the low-$40s per barrel for this year and 2019. Commercial banks have been increasing provisions, even though the NPL ratio is falling. In fact, Russia is well advanced in terms of both corporate and household deleveraging as well as banking system adjustment. On the whole, having experienced two large recessions in the past 10 years and having pursued extremely orthodox fiscal and monetary policies, Russian markets have become much more insulated from negative external shocks than many of their peers. In brief, Russian financial markets have become low-beta markets,1 and they will outperform their EM peers in a selloff even if oil prices slide. Brazil Brazilian local bonds offer the highest inflation-adjusted yields. However, unlike Russia, Brazil has untenable public debt dynamics, and its politics remain a wild card. The public debt-to-GDP ratio is 16% in Russia and 80% in Brazil. The fiscal deficit in Brazil stands at a whopping 8% of GDP, and interest payments on public debt are equal to 6% of GDP. Without major fiscal reforms, Brazil's public debt will continue to surge and will likely reach almost 100% of GDP by the end of 2020. High real interest rates are not only holding back the recovery but are also making public debt dynamics unsustainable. Chart I-12 illustrates that nominal GDP growth is well below local government bond yields. Chart I-11Continue Favoring ##br##Russian Local Bonds Continue Favoring Russian Local Bonds Continue Favoring Russian Local Bonds Chart I-12Brazil: Borrowing Costs Are Dreadful ##br##For Public Debt Dynamics Brazil: Borrowing Costs Are Dreadful For Public Debt Dynamics Brazil: Borrowing Costs Are Dreadful For Public Debt Dynamics Brazil needs either much higher nominal growth or major fiscal tightening to stem the surge in the public debt-to-GDP ratio. The necessary fiscal reforms - social security restructuring or primary budget surpluses - are not politically feasible right now. Meanwhile, materially higher nominal growth can be achieved only if interest rates are brought down quickly and drastically and the currency is devalued meaningfully. Hence, the primary risk to Brazilian local bonds is the exchange rate. The currency is at risk from potentially lower commodities prices on the external side, and continuous public debt deterioration, debt monetization or drastic interest rate cuts on the domestic side. Remarkably, Chart I-13 demonstrates that historically real interest rates in Brazil do not explain fluctuations in the real. The currency, rather, positively correlates with commodities prices (Chart I-14). Chart I-13Brazil: No Relationship Between##br## Real Yields And Currency Brazil: No Relationship Between Real Yields And Currency Brazil: No Relationship Between Real Yields And Currency Chart I-14The Brazilian Real And ##br##Commodities Prices The Brazilian Real And Commodities Prices The Brazilian Real And Commodities Prices It is possible that policymakers find an optimal balance between these adjustment paths, and financial markets continue to rally. However, with the current government lacking any political capital and great uncertainty surrounding the October presidential elections; the outlook is very risky, We recommend a neutral allocation to Brazilian local bonds for EM domestic bond portfolios. South Africa The South African rand and fixed-income markets have surged in the wake of Cyril Ramaphosa's win of the ANC leadership elections and his taking over of the presidency from Jacob Zuma. This has been devastating to our short rand and underweight local bonds positions. Chart I-15The South African Rand And Metals Prices The South African Rand And Metals Prices The South African Rand And Metals Prices There is no doubt that President Ramaphosa will adopt some market-friendly policies. This will constitute a major change from Zuma's handling of the economy in the past nine years. Yet the outlook for the rand is also contingent on global markets. If commodities prices do not relapse and EM risk assets generally perform well, the rand will continue strengthening, and local bond yields will decline further. However, if metals prices begin to drop and EM currencies sell off, it will be hard for the South African currency to rally further (Chart I-15). While we acknowledge the potential for positive political announcements and actions from the new political leadership, the main drivers of the rand, in our opinion, remain the trends in the U.S. dollar and commodities prices. Some investors might be tempted to compare South Africa to Brazil in terms of political headwinds turning into tailwinds. From a political vantage point, it is a fair comparison. Nevertheless, investors should put Brazil's rally into perspective. If commodities prices did not rise in 2016-2017, the Brazilian real would not have rallied. In brief, external tailwinds are as - if not more - important for EM high-yielding currencies than domestic political developments. Positive political developments are magnified amid a benign external backdrop. Conversely, in a negative external environment, positive political transformations can have limited impact on the direction of financial markets. To reflect the potential for a positive political change and forthcoming orthodox macro policies, we are closing our bet on yield curve steepening in South Africa. This position was stipulated by unorthodox macro policies of the previous government. This trade has been flat since its initiation on June 28, 2017. Weighing pros and cons, we are reluctant to upgrade the South African rand and its fixed-income market at the moment because of our negative view on metals prices and EM currencies versus the U.S. dollar. Investment Conclusions The broad trade-weighted U.S. dollar is at record oversold levels (Chart I-16). Given the forthcoming U.S. fiscal stimulus, the Fed will likely lift its dots and the greenback will rebound. This is bearish for EM currencies, especially if China's growth slows and commodities prices roll over, as we expect. EM exchange rate depreciation will halt the rally in local bonds, especially in high-yielding markets. Foreign holdings of EM local bonds are elevated (Table I-1). Hence, risks of unwinding of some positions are not trivial. Chart I-16The U.S. Dollar Is Due For A Rally The U.S. Dollar Is Due For A Rally The U.S. Dollar Is Due For A Rally Table I-1Foreign Ownership Of EM Local Bonds Is High EM Local Bonds And U.S. Twin Deficits EM Local Bonds And U.S. Twin Deficits Nevertheless, as we have argued in the past, EM local bonds offer great diversification benefits to all type of portfolios, as their correlations with many asset classes are low. For domestic bond investors who have to be invested, our recommended overweights are Russia, Argentina, Poland, the Czech Republic, Korea, India and Thailand. As to the sovereign and corporate credit markets, asset allocators should compare these with U.S. corporate credit. Consistent with our negative view on EM currencies and equities vis-à-vis their U.S. counterparts, we recommend favoring U.S. corporates versus EM sovereign and corporate credit. Arthur Budaghyan, Senior Vice President Emerging Markets Strategy arthurb@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, titled "Russia: Entering A Lower-Beta Paradigm," dated March 8, 2017, available at ems.bcaresearch.com Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations

Highlights Economy: The Italian economy is enjoying a solid, if unspectacular, cyclical upturn led by exports, but inflation pressures remain subdued. Banks: The health of Italian banks has improved drastically over the last year, with liquidity, solvency, and systemic risks fading for the time being. Politics: Euroskepticism will not be the major issue in the election given an expanding economy, but none of the likely outcomes will lead to a prudent fiscal policy. ECB: The inevitable tapering of ECB asset purchases later in 2018 will not have a meaningful impact on Italian government bond valuations - as long as the ECB does not begin to raise rates soon after. Upgrade Italian government bonds to neutral until signs of an economic slowdown in Italy emerge. Feature Italy's financial markets have been on quite a roll over the past year. Italian equities are up 13% since the beginning of 2017 in local currency terms, well above the 8% increase in overall Euro Area stocks (Chart 1). Italian government bonds returned 1.8% over that same period (also in local currency terms), massively outperforming core European equivalents that have suffered significant losses as global bond yields have risen substantially. Investors have been focusing on the upbeat news of a cyclical economic expansion and the improving health of Italian banks, which has helped reduce the risk premia on Italian financial assets (Chart 2). At the same time, markets are not pricing in any political risk in the run-up to next month's Italian parliamentary elections that could end up with, at best, yet another unstable coalition government. Chart 1Italy Has Been##BR##A Star Performer Italy: Growth Cures All Ills ... For Now Italy: Growth Cures All Ills ... For Now Chart 2Investors Are Focusing On Italian Growth,##BR##Not Politics Investors Are Focusing On Italian Growth, Not Politics Investors Are Focusing On Italian Growth, Not Politics Most importantly, the growing pressure on the European Central Bank (ECB) to begin shifting away from the era of extreme monetary policy accommodation threatens to remove a major buyer of Italian debt. This is a large problem down the road, as the easy money policies of the ECB have helped paper over a lot of structural cracks that still exist in Italy. In this Special Report, jointly prepared by BCA's Global Fixed Income Strategy and Geopolitical Strategy teams, we examine the outlook for Italian financial assets, both in the short run heading into the March 4th election and also over a medium-term perspective. Specifically, we look at the ultimate measure of Italian risk - the Italy-Germany government bond yield spread. Our conclusion is that Italy's economy and financial markets may be better placed to survive the more volatile global investment backdrop in 2018 than is commonly believed. Beyond this time horizon, however, Italian politics remains a risk. The Economy: Looking Better, But Highly Levered To Global Growth Italy's economy is enjoying a relatively strong economic expansion, judged by its own modest standards. Real GDP grew 1.5% last year, delivering the fourth consecutive year of growth following the recession in 2012-13. That was slower than the 2.5% pace witnessed across the entire Euro Area. The cyclical trend in Italy, however, remains highly correlated to that of its common currency neighbors, as all have benefitted from the easy financial conditions created by ECB policy (Chart 3). Consumer spending has been a modest contributor to the current economic upturn. Consumer confidence is steadily climbing and approaching its 2015 highs, yet retail sales volumes are only growing at a 1% pace. Sluggish incomes are the reason. Real wage growth has struggled to stay positive in the years since the last recession and now sits at a mere 0.25% (Chart 4). Against this backdrop, Italian consumers have been reluctant to significantly run down savings or ramp up debt to support a faster pace of consumption. The household debt/GDP ratio is only 42%, well below the Euro Area median. The decline in Italian interest rates, however, has helped free up income available for spending; the household debt service ratio is now sitting at 4.5%, one full percentage point below the 2012 peak (bottom panel). Chart 3Italian Growth Is Out Of The Doldrums Italian Growth Is Out Of The Doldrums Italian Growth Is Out Of The Doldrums Chart 4A Modest Pick-Up In Consumer Spending A Modest Pick-Up In Consumer Spending A Modest Pick-Up In Consumer Spending A bigger boost to Italian growth has come from the corporate sector. Business confidence has been steadily improving in response to the cyclical upturn in global economic growth. Exports, which now represent about one-third of Italian GDP, are growing just over 5% in real terms. This has helped boost industrial production and capacity utilization, with the latter reaching the highest level since 2007 (Chart 5). Companies have responded by ramping up capital spending, which grew 4.6% (year-over-year) in Q3 2017. Structurally, problems of poor labor productivity continues to plague Italian companies, however, and it remains to be seen if the rise in the euro over the past year will begin to have an impact on sales and profits. For now, the cyclical industrial upturn will likely continue as long as global growth, and specifically export demand, remain buoyant. Another underappreciated driver of the current Italian expansion has been mildly stimulative fiscal policy. Italy benefited from four consecutive years of positive "fiscal thrust", i.e., the change in the cyclically-adjusted primary budget balance (Chart 6). This was a welcome relief given the austerity that was imposed on Italy after the European Debt Crisis, which drained 3% from the Italian economy from 2011 to 2013. The IMF is projecting that Italian fiscal policy will turn restrictive this year and in 2019 but, as we discuss later in this report, the upcoming Italian election is likely to deliver a government that will go for more fiscal stimulus, not less. Chart 5An Expansion##BR##Fueled By Exports An Expansion Fueled By Exports An Expansion Fueled By Exports Chart 6Fiscal Tightening Will Not Happen,##BR##Post-Election Fiscal Tightening Will Not Happen, Post-Election Fiscal Tightening Will Not Happen, Post-Election The labor market recovery from the 2012 recession has been slow. Italy's unemployment rate is 10.8%, down from a peak level of 13% in 2014 but still well above the OECD's estimate of full employment (NAIRU). For Italy, the youth unemployment rate remains a major problem - at 33%, it is easily the highest among European countries and continues to fuel support for the anti-establishment Five Star Movement. More generally, Italy's relatively high unemployment rate is not necessarily a sign of underlying economic malaise. Italy's labor force participation rate has risen from a low of 60.4% in August 2010 to 64.5% at the end of 2017 (Chart 7). The steadily improving economy is drawing discouraged workers back into the labor force, as we predicted it would in 2012,1 with the extra labor supply ensuring that Italian wage growth will stay sluggish for some time. On a related note, Italy's inflation remains well below the ECB's 2% target rate. Headline HICP and core HICP inflation are 1% and 0.6%, respectively. These levels are also well below the Euro Area aggregate levels, which are 1.35% and 1.2% for headline and core HICP, respectively. Although consumer spending has improved in Italy, it has not been strong enough to put upward pressure on consumer prices, and weaker wage growth will not force businesses to raise prices to protect profitability. In addition, the IMF projects that Italy's output gap will not close until 2022, or three years after the overall Euro Area gap will be eliminated (Chart 8). Chart 7Plenty Of Labor Market Slack In Italy Plenty Of Labor Market Slack In Italy Plenty Of Labor Market Slack In Italy Chart 8No Sign Of Inflation Pressures No Sign Of Inflation Pressures No Sign Of Inflation Pressures Bottom Line: The Italian economy is enjoying a solid, if unspectacular, cyclical upturn. This is being led by exports and flowing through into domestic production and investment. Inflation pressures remain subdued, however, given ample slack in labor markets. The Banks: Drastic Improvement, But Risks Remain The Italian banking system has a well-earned reputation of being dysfunctional, undercapitalized and plagued by non-performing loans (NPLs). However, last summer, the ECB declared that two Italian banks were "failing or likely to fail," prompting state intervention. The Italian government followed that with a E5.4 billion bailout for Monte dei Paschi di Siena, Italy's fourth largest bank. Given the tight correlation between Italy's relative financial asset performance and its banking sector, these actions were met with loud cheers from investors as both Italian equities and bonds rallied. Standard & Poor's credit rating agency then raised Italy's sovereign debt rating to BBB, citing "subsiding risks" in the banking sector. As a result, investors' fears have eased, as evidenced by recent successful capital raisings and the collapse in bank credit default spreads (CDS) for the major banks, which have now fallen to nearly the same levels as their European counterparts (Chart 9). The health of the Italian banking system has improved drastically over the past year given the improving economy. Italy still sits on a large absolute amount of non-performing loans at E274 billion, but this is a risk has receded quickly from its peak of E328 billion in Q1 2017. The continued economic recovery and sales of bad loans have pushed the NPL ratio down to approximately 15%, well below its peak of over 19% (Chart 10). The Bank of Italy's recent Financial Stability Review projects that the one-year forward default probability from a sample of nearly 300,000 indebted companies has fallen to 1% in mid-2017 from 2.5% in 2013. Fewer new loans are becoming impaired, which is encouraging given the ongoing pressures on the banks from the ECB and the Italian government to improve asset quality. Chart 9Italian Bank Risk##BR##Has Declined Italian Bank Risk Has Declined Italian Bank Risk Has Declined Chart 10Banks Better Capitalized,##BR##But NPLs Remain A Problem Banks Better Capitalized, But NPLs Remain A Problem Banks Better Capitalized, But NPLs Remain A Problem The rise in capital ratios over the last year is also a very positive development. For the major banks, liquidity coverage ratios are nearly 200%, the ratio of tangible equity to tangible assets has skyrocketed to nearly 7%, and the Tier 1 capital ratio has increased to 14.8%. Even with the introduction of the IFRS 9 accounting rules in January, which is estimated to reduce the Tier 1 ratio by 38bps, capital levels are high and will allow for banks to operate more normally. Bank earnings rebounded in Q4 2017 on the back of aggressive cost cutting, falling loan impairments and solid net interest income. Margins remain stubbornly weak, even though the yield curve has been steepening since early 2015. Going forward, earnings expectations do not seem overly optimistic, particularly in relation to long-term averages. The continued acceleration in economic growth will provide a considerable tailwind. Lending volumes should rise, albeit at a relatively slow pace, due to improving business confidence. Asset quality is set to strengthen as NPLs decline further, reducing the cost of capital and loss provisions. Bank expenses will also decline due to additional layoffs and a reduction in branch locations. However, despite the substantial improvement in their balance sheets, the Italian banking system is far from invulnerable. Apart from the obvious downturn in economic growth, banks are heavily exposed to Italian government bonds. Holdings of government debt securities as a percentage of total assets have declined considerably to 9% from nearly 11% a year ago, but still remain much higher than levels seen during the euro debt crisis (Chart 11). This suggests that fears of the so-called "doom loop" - where the credit quality of the government and the banks are intertwined through bond holdings – may arise once again in the future if Italy suffers another sovereign debt crisis. Another potential source of risk to the banking sector is the housing market. Unlike its EU counterparts, where house prices have been in an uptrend since 2013, house prices in Italy have been collapsing in both nominal and real terms since 2008, falling -20% and -28% respectively (Chart 12). The Italian real estate market is facing multiple headwinds: poor demographics, a lack of property investors dampening transaction volumes, banks aggressively selling repossessed homes at large discounts, and a large stock of unsold properties. Further declines could damage asset quality and impair bank balance sheets. Nevertheless, prices in nominal terms appear to be stabilizing. As real GDP growth continues to recover, the real estate market should eventually start to catch up. Chart 11Can The 'Doom Loop' Be Broken? Can The 'Doom Loop' Be Broken? Can The 'Doom Loop' Be Broken? Chart 12No Recovery In Italian House Prices No Recovery In Italian House Prices No Recovery In Italian House Prices Bottom Line: The health of Italian banks has improved drastically over the last year. Cost cutting has been aggressive, capital levels have risen, and non-performing loans are slowly declining in a growing economy. Recently added macro-prudential measures will provide additional buffers. As such, liquidity, solvency and systemic risks have faded for the time being. The Political Outlook: Acute Pain Is Gone, But Chronic Risks Linger Italian equity and bond markets have priced out political risk in the country's asset markets over the past 12 months, and for good reasons: New election rules: The October 2017 electoral rule changes have made it highly likely that the next government in Italy will be a coalition government, reducing the probability of a runaway electoral performance by an anti-establishment party.2 Anti-establishment becomes the establishment: Italy's populists have dulled their edge by moving to the middle on the key question of Euro Area membership. The anti-establishment Five Star Movement (M5S) announced in early January that "it is no longer the right moment for Italy to leave the euro." The party's leader, Luigi Di Maio, pledged to remain "comfortably below the antiquated and stupid three percent level" EU deficit limit. The party followed this announcement by slaughtering its final sacred cow and renouncing its promise never to form a coalition with traditional, centrist parties. Migration crisis has ended: While continental Europe has gotten relief from the migration wave since early 2016, Italy continued to be impacted throughout 2017. Nonetheless, the EU's intervention in Libyan security and politics has successfully, and dramatically, altered the trajectory of migrants arriving in Italy and Europe as a whole (Chart 13). Current polls show that no single party is close to the 40% threshold needed to win the election outright, although the ostensibly center-right coalition of Forza Italia, Lega Nord, and Fratelli d'Italia is the closest (Chart 14). Predicting the outcome of the election is therefore impossible, other than to guarantee that the next Italian government will be a coalition. Chart 13Italians (And Europeans) Reject Immigration Italians (And Europeans) Reject Immigration Italians (And Europeans) Reject Immigration Chart 14Italy: No Party Will Rule Alone Italy: No Party Will Rule Alone Italy: No Party Will Rule Alone New electoral rules - which favor coalition building - and poor turnout in a recent regional election will encourage parties to make extravagant promises, particularly on the spending side of the ledger. Italian politicians understand that, in a coalition government, the partner can always be blamed for why election promises fell by the wayside. This has produced a deluge of unrealistic promises.3 What should investors know about the upcoming election? First, the center-right is not the center-right. When investors hear that the "center right is likely to win," they are likely to bid up assets in expectation of structural reforms and prudent fiscal policy. If the recent polling performance of Forza Italia and Lega Nord has in any way contributed to the appreciation of Italian assets, we would caution investors to fade the rally. Former PM Silvio Berlusconi, leader of Forza Italia, has promised to reverse crucial (and bitterly fought) employment law reforms. Meanwhile, his coalition partner Matteo Salvini, leader of Lega Nord, has promised to scrap pension cuts altogether. The proper characterization for the Forza-Lega alliance is therefore "conservative populism," not pro-market center-right. In fact, the two parties are the most vociferously anti-EU and anti-euro of the four major parties, with Lega still pushing for the abolishment of the euro and even for an EU exit. For a summary of the most market-relevant electoral promises, please refer to Box 1. Box 1: Italian Electoral Promises Of Major Parties Presented in the order of current polling Five Star Movement (M5S) Italy's anti-establishment party wants to abolish 400 laws, including a web of regulation that makes it difficult for businesses to invest. The promise is unusually "supply-side" oriented for an anti-establishment party, but Italy's establishment has made the business environment difficult. In addition, the party wants to invest in technology and clean energy. What is truly anti-establishment is that M5S has promised to provide a monthly universal income of E780, but also to introduce means-testing for public services so that the well-off pensioners do not receive them. It also seeks broad justice system reforms, including a crackdown on corruption and the mafia, building new prisons, and hiring more police. Its immigration plans are centrist, if not right-leaning, with plans to repatriate migrants back to their original countries. Democratic Party (PD) Led by former PM Matteo Renzi, the Democratic Party (PD) is contesting elections on the basis of its past achievements, which includes passing the 2015 "Jobs Act," mitigating the country's banking crisis, and keeping up the pulse of the otherwise sclerotic economy. Current caretaker PM Paolo Gentiloni remains popular, in part because of his no-nonsense, humble approach to governance. Other than minor proposals - scrapping the TV license fee that finances the national Rai network and raising the minimum wage - the party is largely standing pat in terms of promises. The PD-led government has clashed with the EU, including over its 2018 budget proposal, which the Commission criticized as a "significant deviation" from the bloc's fiscal target. However, aside from its disagreements with the Commission over fiscal policy, PD is broadly pro-Europe and pro-euro. Forza Italia Populist Forza is proposing a flat tax of 23%, which would abolish the current staggered income tax rate. It would also abolish taxes on real estate, inheritance, and transportation, and expand reprieves to tax payers with financial problems. The party would double minimum pension payments and scrap the 2015 "Jobs Act." That said, leader Silvio Berlusconi has said that his proposals would respect the EU's 3% of GDP budget deficit target - in fact that his government would eliminate the deficit completely by 2023 - and that it would rein in the debt-to-GDP ratio to 100%. However, it is unclear how the math would actually work. At the same time, a collision course with the EU is likely as the party wants not only to end budget austerity but also to revise EU treaties, including the fiscal compact, and to pay less into the EU's annual budget. Lega Nord The other populist party looks to out-do the more establishment Forza by proposing an even lower flat tax rate of 15%. The revenue shortfall would be made up by aggressive enforcement against tax cheats. The party is the most Euroskeptic of the major Italian parties, arguing that a Euro-exit is in the country's national interest and should be contemplated unless fiscal rules set out by the Maastricht Treaty are scrapped. Leader Matteo Salvini recently suggested that he had changed his position on the euro, but the chief economist of the party - Claudio Borghi - has since reversed that position, stating that "one second after the League is in government it will begin all possible preparations to arrive at our monetary sovereignty." This last statement is more in keeping with the Lega's recent history of euroskepticism. Second, the electoral platforms of all four major parties are profligate. The flat tax proposal by Forza and Lega is likely the most egregious. Generally speaking, Berlusconi's previous governments can be associated with a rise in expenditure, deficits, and debt levels, with no real track record of fiscal prudence. Even during the boom years (2001-2006), Berlusconi failed to reduce the budget deficit. By contrast, the center-left has been marginally more fiscally prudent (Chart 15), with a considerable improvement in the country's budget balance under each Democratic Party-led government (Chart 16). Chart 15Italy's Debt Dynamics Are Contained Italy's Debt Dynamics Are Contained Italy's Debt Dynamics Are Contained Chart 16Democratic Party Is Relatively Prudent Italy: Growth Cures All Ills ... For Now Italy: Growth Cures All Ills ... For Now Given the mildly Euroskeptic positioning of the conservative populist coalition and their likely bias toward profligacy, we would rank the currently most likely electoral coalition as the least pro-market. Below are the three potential outcomes and their likely impact on the markets: Scenario 1 - Populist Coalition Probability of winning: 35% - Polls currently put the Forza-Lega coalition in a clear lead and only several percentage points away from the likely 40% threshold needed to secure a majority. Fiscal impact: We would assign a 100% probability that the Forza-Lega coalition would negatively impact the country's budget balance, with debt levels most likely rising. Reform impact: There is a 0% probability of pro-growth, structural reforms being passed by the conservative populist coalition. As such, investors should stop referring to the Forza-Lega alliance as a center-right alliance. European integration: We would assign a high probability, around 50%, that a Forza-Lega government would threaten to exit the Euro Area at some point during its mandate. This is based on a two-fold assumption that there will be a recession at some point during its reign and that its electoral platform reveals the potential for a serious Euroskeptic turn not only by Lega Nord but also by the formerly staunchly pro-EU Forza Italia. Scenario 2 - Grand Coalition Probability of winning: 35% - If the Forza-Lega coalition fails to win enough votes, the second-most likely outcome would be a grand coalition between Forza Italia and the center-right Democratic Party (PD), perhaps with both M5S and Lega joining in. Fiscal impact: Given that all four major parties are essentially looking to spend more money and collect less revenue, we would expect that the country's budget balance would be negatively impacted in this scenario. However, both PD and M5S have less profligate electoral platforms. As such, the impact would likely be a lot less dramatic than if Forza-Lega coalition won. Reform impact: With Forza-Lega potentially in a grand coalition, we would expect the probability of pro-growth reforms to be just 25%. European integration: We would assign a very low probability, essentially 0%, that a grand coalition contemplates Euro-exit during its mandate. However, a global recession that impacts Italy would almost certainly force such a government to fall as Euroskeptic parties withdrew their support, thus shortening the electoral mandate. This means that a grand coalition is the least viable and least stable outcome. It would allow the Euroskeptic Forza-Lega to campaign from a populist, Euroskeptic, position. Scenario 3 - Center-Left Coalition Probability of winning: 30% - A PD-M5S coalition is less likely despite being mathematically the most likely. This is because M5S has not said that it would ever join a coalition with the PD; only that it would join a grand coalition with all parties. Nonetheless, such a coalition makes the most sense ideologically now that M5S has abandoned its Euroskepticism. Fiscal impact: Both parties are looking to expand the minimum wage, with M5S arguing for a universal basic income. It is very likely that the impact on the budget balance would be negative, although we would not expect extreme profligacy. Reform impact: Given the electoral platform of M5S and the reform record of PD, we assign a healthy 75% probability for pro-growth structural reforms. Despite the view that M5S is an anti-establishment party, it is actually quite pro-reform, with several of its proposals in the past being characterized as impacting the supply-side. Investors should remember that being anti-establishment does not mean being anti-reform, especially in Italy where the establishment has an atrocious record of being pro-reform! European integration: We do not think that the M5S move to the middle on European integration is false. Forcing it to be in government, particularly once a recession hits over the course of its mandate, will only lock in its establishment position on European integration. As we have expected for some time, the M5S has followed the path of other Mediterranean, left-leaning, anti-establishment parties on the euro, with both Podemos (Spain) and SYRIZA (Greece) now being fully pro-Europe. As such, the probability that a PD-M5S government considers Euro-exit during its mandate is 0%. Counterintuitively, a PD-M5S coalition is therefore the most pro-market option for Italy. It would be relatively fiscally prudent and would surprise to the upside on structural reforms. In addition, it would give Italy a five-year window during which no challenge to its membership in European institutions is possible (provided that the coalition does not rely on small parties whose exit threatens the stability of government). This outcome could extend the current rally in Italian assets, although that rally is already long-in-the-tooth. On the other hand, a Forza-Lega coalition is the least stable. First, we believe that such a coalition has a 50% probability of challenging Italy's membership in European institutions at the first sign of a domestic recession. Lega is outwardly Euroskeptic, even at the top of the global economic cycle and with a healthy Italian recovery underway. Meanwhile, Silvio Berlusconi has consciously evolved his Forza Italia towards a more Euroskeptic position. In addition, we believe that this populist alliance would be fiscally profligate and would not attempt any structural reforms. This political outcome is therefore an occasion to underweight Italian sovereign bonds. Finally, a grand coalition would have a neutral market impact. However, due to structural political risks, we would expect such a government to collapse at the first sign of economic hardship.4 This would open up the risk of a Euroskeptic electoral challenge and a potential market riot as the likelihood of brinkmanship with Brussels and Berlin rises.5 We encourage our clients to revisit our "Divine Comedy" series on Italy, where we have set out the argument for why Euroskepticism continues to have appeal in Italy. We would briefly remind our readers that: Italians remain Euroskeptic despite a European-wide recovery in support for the common currency (Chart 17); Italians are increasingly confident in a future outside of Europe (Chart 18), whereas such a trend is not identifiable in wider Europe (Chart 19); Chart 17Italy Lags In Support For Euro Italy Lags In Support For Euro Italy Lags In Support For Euro Chart 18Italians Optimists About Future Outside EU Italians Optimists About Future Outside EU Italians Optimists About Future Outside EU While Europeans are increasingly comfortable with dual-identities (national and continental), Italians are increasingly identifying as strictly Italian (Chart 20); Chart 19Europeans Pessimists About Future Outside EU Europeans Pessimists About Future Outside EU Europeans Pessimists About Future Outside EU Chart 20We Are Italian (Not European)! We Are Italian (Not European)! We Are Italian (Not European)! Italians do not see the EU as a geopolitical project, leaving them more likely to focus on the transactional and economic nature of their relationship with Europe (Chart 21); Chart 21Italians View The EU In Transactional Terms Italy: Growth Cures All Ills ... For Now Italy: Growth Cures All Ills ... For Now On net, Italians are the most anti-immigrant people in core Europe (Chart 22), which suggests that the migration crisis hit them quite hard. Any restart of that crisis could push the country towards anti-EU politicians; Chart 22Italians Are Staunchly Anti-Immigration Italy: Growth Cures All Ills ... For Now Italy: Growth Cures All Ills ... For Now Finally, we would remind investors that many Italians continue to see FX devaluation as a panacea that can save the economy. Our view is that Italy has, by far, the highest baseline level of Euroskepticism among Euro Area members. The March 4 election is important because the next government will likely have to face a recession and a global downturn during its mandate. A grand coalition or a populist coalition would both leave Italy more vulnerable to Euroskeptic alternatives. This is because a grand coalition would most likely collapse at the first sign of a recession whereas a populist government would itself turn to Euroskepticism. If the election produces either of these outcomes, we would assign a very high probability - near 50% - that Italy produces a global risk off event sometime within the next five years. Bottom Line: The upcoming Italian parliamentary election is difficult to call, but one thing seems certain - the winning coalition will seek to ease fiscal policy. Euroskepticism will not be the major issue in the election given the expanding economy; yet, in two of the scenarios discussed above, it will come back with a vengeance after the next Italian recession. The ECB: Don't Fear The QE Unwind If there is one consensus view on Italy among investors (at least among the BCA clients that ask questions on Italy!), it is that Italian government bonds will suffer significant losses when the ECB begins to unwind its easy money policies. For many people, 10-year bonds trading with less than a 2% yield, with a government debt/GDP ratio near 130%, in a country with a structural low growth problem and perpetually unstable politics, just screams "bubble" - one that will end badly when the ECB is eventually forced to stop buying government bonds. With the broader Euro Area economy now operating at full employment, an announcement of a tapering of asset purchases by the ECB is inevitable. Our base case remains that the ECB will announce during the summer that the bond buying program will be wound down by year-end. After that, maturing bonds will be reinvested, with the first interest rate hike not taking place until the latter half of 2019. How the ECB communicates that message to the markets will be critical in avoiding a "Taper Tantrum 2.0." Already, the ECB is sending a bit of a mixed message with its current asset purchases. Officially, the central bank has been aiming to distribute its monthly pace of asset purchases along the lines of the ECB's Capital Key, which is roughly correlated to the size of each Euro Area country. This rule was put in place by the ECB to avoid any accusations that the central bank would politically favor the more indebted countries when executing its bond buying. Yet a look at the ECB's actual data on its monthly purchases shows that the Capital Key limits have often been breached, and for what appears to be reasons rooted in politics (Chart 23). The ECB exceeded the Capital Key limit on French bonds in the run-up to last year's French presidential election. The limit on Italian bonds was also consistently breached for much of last year, as investors were beginning to grow more concerned about potential ECB tapering and anti-euro factions winning the next election in Italy. We shared those concerns, which led us to downgrade Italian government bonds to underweight in Global Fixed Income Strategy in late 2016, both in absolute terms and versus Spanish debt. That call has obviously not worked out as we hoped. In fact, a counterintuitive result occurred where Italian bonds outperformed German debt in 2017, even as the ECB was already beginning to slow the pace of its bond buying. That can be seen in Chart 24, which shows the annual growth rate of the ECB's monetary base (which proxies the flow of bonds purchased by the ECB) versus both the Italy-Germany 10-year government bond spread (top panel) and the annual excess return of Italian government bonds relative to German debt (bottom panel).6 There has been no reliable correlation between the pace of ECB buying and the Italy-Germany spread, but there has been a very strong correlation with relative returns. When the ECB was buying more bonds in 2015 and 2016, Germany was outperforming Italy. The opposite occurred last year when the ECB started to dial back the pace of its purchases. Why? Most likely, it was because the Italian economy was starting to gain momentum, which helps alleviate (but not eliminate) the debt sustainability fears about Italy's massive debt stock. The ECB's other extraordinary policy tool, low interest rates, has been an even bigger support for Italian debt sustainability. The government of Italy has been able to consistently issue bonds with coupons below 1% in the years after the ECB went to its zero interest rate policy (ZIRP) in 2014, according to the Bank of Italy (Chart 25). This has lowered the average interest rate on all outstanding Italian government bonds from 4% to 3% over that same period. This also reduced the ratio of Italian government interest payments to GDP by nearly one full percentage point over the past three years (bottom panel). Chart 23The Capital Key Is Only##BR##A 'Guideline' For ECB QE The Capital Key Is Only A 'Guideline' For ECB QE The Capital Key Is Only A 'Guideline' For ECB QE Chart 24Less ECB Bond Buying =##BR##Italian Bond Outperformance! Less ECB Bond Buying = Italian Bond Outperformance! Less ECB Bond Buying = Italian Bond Outperformance! Chart 25ZIRP/NIRP More Helpful##BR##For Italy Than QE ZIRP/NIRP More Helpful For Italy Than QE ZIRP/NIRP More Helpful For Italy Than QE Italy still has a significant long-run fiscal problem, however. The gross government debt/GDP ratio of 126% is only dwarfed by Japan and Greece within the developed markets (Chart 26). Even when looked at on a net basis (i.e. excluding the debt owned by Italian government entities like state pension funds) and, more importantly, after removing the bonds owned by the ECB, Italy still has a stock of debt equal to 100% of GDP (Chart 27). This is the highest in the Euro Area for countries eligible for the ECB's asset purchase program. Chart 26Italy's Debt Problems Have Not Gone Away Italy: Growth Cures All Ills ... For Now Italy: Growth Cures All Ills ... For Now Chart 27Still A Big Stock Of Italian Debt, Net Of ECB Purchases Italy: Growth Cures All Ills ... For Now Italy: Growth Cures All Ills ... For Now Importantly for market perceptions of Italy's debt sustainability, the ECB absorbing 15% of the stock of Italian government bonds has provided some wiggle room for an expansion of fiscal deficits without materially affecting long-term interest rates. That is no small matter, given how it is highly likely that the winner of the March 4th Italian election will step on the fiscal accelerator. Bottom Line: The inevitable tapering of ECB asset purchases later in 2018 will not have a meaningful impact on Italian government bond valuations - as long as the ECB is not planning on quickly raising interest rates soon after tapering. Upgrade Italian government bonds to neutral until signs of an economic slowdown in Italy emerge. Investment Conclusions After assessing the four main drivers of Italian bond risk premia - economic growth, the health of the banks, domestic politics and ECB monetary policy - it is clear that the state of the economy is the most important factor. If Italian growth is strong enough, investors will feel more comfortable about chasing the higher yields on Italy's government bonds and be a lot more relaxed about its Euroskeptic leanings. Given Italy's heavy reliance on exports as the driver of the current cyclical upturn, this means Italian financial assets are a levered play on global growth. The next most important factor is the ECB's monetary policy, but specifically, its interest rate policy and not its asset purchase program. Chart 28Upgrade Italian Debt To##BR##Neutral Until Growth Rolls Over Upgrade Italian Debt To Neutral Until Growth Rolls Over Upgrade Italian Debt To Neutral Until Growth Rolls Over This week, we are upgrading our recommended allocation to Italian government bonds to neutral from underweight in Global Fixed Income Strategy. At current yield levels and spreads to core European debt, a move all the way to an overweight recommendation is not ideal. Yet the case for Italian bond underperformance on the back of political uncertainty and eventual ECB tapering is even less ideal. Moving to neutral is a sensible compromise between a positive cyclical backdrop with poor valuation. Going forward through 2018, we will monitor the Italy Leading Economic Indicator (LEI) as a signal for when to consider downgrading Italian debt. If the LEI begins to hook down, that would be a bearish sign for the relative performance of both Italian government bonds and Italian equities (Chart 28). In addition, any indication that the ECB is considering not only tapering its bond buying, but also raising interest rates, could pose a problem for Italian assets. Although given the low starting point for any shift higher in policy rates, it would likely take several interest rate increases before Italian economic growth would start to be negatively impacted. Over a longer-term time horizon, investment implications are difficult to gauge. Structurally, both from an economic and political perspective, Italy is the least stable pillar of European economy. As such, it still has a potential to be a source of global risk-off if an economic downturn negatively impacts the current political stability. Robert Robis, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com Patrick Trinh, Associate Editor Patrick@bcaresearch.com Ray Park, Research Analyst Ray@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Demographics And Geopolitics, Part I: A Silver Lining?", dated October 10, 2012, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 The new Italian Electoral law - also known as Rosatellum - is particularly negative for Five Start Movement (M5S). First, it assigns over a third (37%) of the seats using a first-past-the-post system. This will hurt M5S, which lacks a geographical base where it can guarantee easy electoral district wins. Second, the vote eliminates a seat bonus for the party that wins a plurality of votes, forcing the winning coalition to gain at least around 40% of the vote to govern. Eliminating the bonus hurts M5S as it has led other parties in the polls. That said, a coalition government almost guarantees that fiscal spending will increase over the course of the next administration, given that budget outlays will be used to grease-the-wheels of any coalition deal. 3 The Italian public, known for its knack for satire, has parodied the electoral platforms with a Twitter hashtag #AboliamoQualcosa ("let's abolish something"). Twitter and Facebook have suggested that everything from French carbonara to vegan Bolognese should be abolished (BCA's Geopolitical Strategy heartily agrees with both suggestions!). 4 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Europe's Divine Comedy: Italian Inferno," dated September 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Europe's Divine Comedy Part II: Italy In Purgatorio," dated June 21, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 6 It is important to note that the relative returns shown in the bottom panel Chart 24 are calculated using the Bloomberg Barclays benchmark Treasury indices for Italy and Germany. These indices include debt across all maturities for both countries, not just the benchmark 10-year Italy-Germany spread shown in the top panel.

Highlights Stage 1: The first stage of the bond bear market is being driven by a re-anchoring of inflation expectations. This stage will be complete when both the 10-year and 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rates reach our target range of 2.3% to 2.5%. Stage 2: How high Treasury yields rise in Stage 2 of the bond bear market will be determined by expectations for the terminal fed funds rate. Assuming a 3% terminal rate, we would expect the 10-year Treasury yield to peak somewhere between 3.08% and 3.59%. Risks: If our model suggests that economic surprises are likely to turn negative at a time when we also see extended net short bond positioning, then that would likely present an opportunity to tactically increase portfolio duration even though the cyclical bond bear market would remain intact. The risk of a growth slowdown emanating from China or other emerging markets also bears monitoring. Feature Some degree of calm returned to financial markets last week. The S&P 500 bounced back above 2700 and the VIX fell back below 20. Corporate bond spreads also tightened somewhat - the average High-Yield index spread tightened from 369 bps to 341 bps and the investment grade spread tightened from 95 bps to 93 bps - but the factors we are monitoring to determine the end of the credit cycle continue to send warning signs (Chart 1). We view the recent turmoil as markets adjusting to a Fed that must now become less responsive to financial conditions because inflationary pressures are mounting. As we discussed in last week's report, this dynamic is best explained using our Fed Policy Loop.1 It follows from our Fed Policy Loop analysis that we should track measures of inflation and inflation expectations and start taking credit risk off the table as these indicators rise. In that regard, neither TIPS breakeven inflation rates nor commodity prices - an indicator of pipeline inflation pressure - corrected much in the past few weeks (Chart 1, bottom panel). This suggests that the end of the credit cycle is approaching. We reiterate our view that it will soon be time to scale back the credit risk in our recommended portfolio. We will likely begin this process once both the 10-year and 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rates reach a range between 2.3% and 2.5%. We discuss the intuition behind this target range in the section titled "A Fair Value For TIPS Breakevens" below. Currently, the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate sits at 2.09% and the 5-year/5-year forward rate is 2.18%. Unlike credit spreads, the sell-off in Treasuries did not abate at all last week. Volatility also returned to the rates market, coinciding with a steeper yield curve (Chart 2). We are not nearly as anxious to increase the duration of our recommended portfolio as we are to scale back on credit risk, and believe that Treasury yields still have considerable cyclical upside. Chart 1No Correction In Breakevens No Correction In Breakevens No Correction In Breakevens Chart 2No Correction In Bond Yields No Correction In Bond Yields No Correction In Bond Yields In this week's report we discuss how we see the Treasury bear market proceeding in two stages, and also start the process of thinking about how high the 10-year Treasury yield can get before the next recession hits. We also highlight several near-term risks that could temporarily derail the cyclical bond bear market. The Two-Stage Treasury Bear Market. Stage 1: Re-Anchoring Of Inflation Expectations For some time it has been our view that the economic recovery is unlikely to end before inflation returns to the Fed's 2% target. This is simply because when inflation is very low the Fed has an incentive to keep policy accommodative, and restrictive monetary policy is typically a pre-condition for recession. It therefore struck us as odd that as recently as June 2017 the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate was only 1.66%, well below levels consistent with the Fed's target. It was as though the market expected that inflation would never move higher no matter how long the Fed maintained an easy policy stance. That notion always seemed far-fetched, and this is why the first stage of the cyclical bond bear market was always likely to be driven by the re-anchoring of inflation expectations. This is the stage we are in currently, and indeed it is almost complete. We will deem that inflation expectations have become re-anchored (and the first stage of the cyclical bond bear market is complete) when both the 10-year and 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rates reach our target range of 2.3% to 2.5%. This means that, assuming unchanged real yields, the nominal 10-year Treasury yield has another 21 bps to 41 bps of upside in Stage 1. A Fair Value For TIPS Breakevens To arrive at our fair value target for the inflation compensation embedded in the 10-year Treasury yield, we looked back to the last period when inflation was well-anchored around the Fed's 2% target. This occurred between July 2004 and June 2008. We note that during this timeframe the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate spent 56% of its time between 2.3% and 2.5%. The 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven rate spent 73% of its time in that range (Chart 3).2 The 2.3% to 2.5% range therefore seems like a good starting point, but we must also consider whether something has changed since the mid-2000s that might lead to a different fair value range today. One possible difference would be if the spread between CPI and PCE inflation changed significantly. The Fed targets 2% PCE inflation, but TIPS are linked to CPI inflation. CPI inflation was somewhat higher than PCE inflation in the mid-2000s, and this is one reason why TIPS breakevens were somewhat higher than 2% throughout that period. At present, we observe that the spread between CPI and PCE inflation is only slightly above where it was in the mid-2000s (Chart 4), and note that it will probably trend lower in the coming months. Chart 3TIPS Breakevens When Inflation Is ##br##Anchored (July 2004 to June 2008) The Two-Stage Bear Market In Bonds The Two-Stage Bear Market In Bonds Chart 4CPI Versus ##br##PCE CPI Versus PCE CPI Versus PCE The two biggest reasons for divergences between PCE and CPI inflation are: The different treatment of medical care inflation in the two indexes. CPI includes only out-of-pocket medical care expenses. PCE includes spending by the government on a person's behalf. The greater weight of shelter in CPI. Lately, the difference in medical care inflation between the two indexes has narrowed considerably and our models suggest that shelter inflation will continue to moderate in the months ahead (Chart 4, bottom 2 panels). This suggests that the spread between CPI and PCE inflation will continue to tighten. If the spread were to fall much below its average level from the mid-2000s, then we would revise our target range for TIPS breakevens down accordingly. The second reason why the fair value range for TIPS breakevens might be different than it was in the mid-2000s is if the inflation risk premium has undergone a structural shift. The compensation for inflation priced into bond yields can be split into (i) an expectation for future inflation and (ii) a risk premium to compensate investors for the uncertainty in that expectation. Other factors, such as changes in the post-crisis regulatory environment that impact the attractiveness of TIPS as an investment vehicle, could also potentially cause a structural shift in the inflation risk premium. We addressed this possibility in a report last year, but so far we see no conclusive evidence that such a structural shift has occurred.3 Indeed, the fact that breakevens have risen back close to their pre-crisis range in recent months suggests that the inflation risk premium is probably not structurally lower. Bottom Line: The first stage of the bond bear market is being driven by a re-anchoring of inflation expectations. This stage will be complete when both the 10-year and 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rates reach our target range of 2.3% to 2.5%. The nominal 10-year Treasury yield has another 21 bps to 41 bps of upside before this phase of the bear market is complete. The Two-Stage Treasury Bear Market. Stage 2: Fed Rate Hikes & The Terminal Rate Debate Once inflation expectations are re-anchored the cyclical bond bear market will shift into Stage 2. With no further upside in the cost of inflation protection the emphasis in this stage will be on the path of real yields. The main question will be: How high will the Fed have to lift the real interest rate to contain inflationary pressures? Or alternatively: What is the terminal fed funds rate in this cycle? The answers to the above questions will ultimately determine how high the real 10-year Treasury yield can rise, and provide us with an end-of-cycle target for the nominal 10-year yield. Anchoring Around The Fed's Projections Chart 5Stage 2 Is All About The Terminal Rate Stage 2 Is All About The Terminal Rate Stage 2 Is All About The Terminal Rate At the moment, most FOMC participants estimate the terminal fed funds rate to be in the range of 2.75% to 3%. This may or may not be proven correct, but at least for now the market is likely to anchor around that expectation. In other words, the only way we will find out if that projection is too low is if the fed funds rate is lifted close to the 2.75% to 3% range but inflation continues to rise and economic growth shows no signs of slowing. With the fed funds rate still at 1.42%, we are at least four rate hikes away from that range. This means that any potential upward revisions to the Fed's terminal rate projections are more likely a story for late-2018 or early-2019. Notice in Chart 5 that the Fed has responded to falling inflation by lowering its median projected terminal fed funds rate, but has been more hesitant to increase its projection in response to rising inflation. This means the Fed could wait until inflation is much closer to its target before making any significant upward revisions to its terminal rate projection. The market would likely react more quickly than the Fed, but not by much. Notice that the decline in the 5-year/5-year forward overnight index swap rate was more or less coincident with the downward revisions to the Fed's projected terminal rate between 2014 and 2016 (Chart 5, bottom panel). Our view is that the market will anchor around the Fed's terminal rate projections for at least the next six months. With that in mind, we can make some back-of-the-envelope calculations for how high the 10-year Treasury yield will get before the end of the cycle. To do this we consider that the nominal 10-year yield consists of four components: Inflation expectations Inflation risk premium Real rate expectations Real risk premium Our target range of 2.3% to 2.5% for the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate encompasses both the inflation expectations and inflation risk premium components. If we then assume a terminal fed funds rate of 3%, we get a real rate expectation of 1% (we subtract the Fed's 2% inflation target). This means that even if we assume no real risk premium, we get a conservative estimate for the end-of-cycle level of the nominal 10-year Treasury yield of 3.3% to 3.5%. Turning To The Models As a check on our back-of-the-envelope calculations we created simple fair value models for both the 2-year and 10-year Treasury yields (Chart 6). Both models have three independent variables: The fed funds rate Our 12-month fed funds discounter (to capture expectations for future changes in the fed funds rate) The MOVE index of implied interest rate volatility (as a proxy for the term premium) These models allow us to input various scenarios for the expected path of rate hikes and implied volatility, and then come up with appropriate fair value targets for the 10-year and 2-year Treasury yields. The results from various scenarios are shown in Table 1. Chart 6Treasury Yield Models Treasury Yield Models Treasury Yield Models Table 1End-Of-Cycle Treasury Yield Projections Under Different Scenarios The Two-Stage Bear Market In Bonds The Two-Stage Bear Market In Bonds For example, let's assume that the terminal fed funds rate is 3%. Let's also assume that the Fed delivers four rate hikes this year and the market moves to expect another two rate hikes in 2019. That would mean the market is pricing-in a fed funds rate of 2.92% by the end of 2019 - very close to a 3% terminal rate assumption. If we further assume that implied rate volatility stays flat at its current level, then our model gives us a target of 3.59% for the 10-year Treasury yield. This would seem like a reasonable end-of-cycle target for the 10-year Treasury yield in an environment with a 3% terminal fed funds rate. Table 1 also demonstrates the importance of interest rate volatility. If we assume the exact same scenario for rate hikes but also allow the MOVE index to return to its recent lows, then our end-of-cycle target for the 10-year Treasury yield falls to 3.08%. Conversely, if we allow the MOVE index to rise to its historical average, the target for the 10-year yield rises to 4.25%. As we discussed in last week's report, interest rate volatility is more likely to fall than rise between now and the end of the cycle.4 This is due to the strong correlation between interest rate volatility and the slope of the yield curve. As the Fed tightens and the curve flattens, implied volatility tends to decline. In fact, because of its strong correlation with the slope of the yield curve, any scenario where implied rate volatility increases significantly would coincide with an environment where the terminal fed funds rate is being revised higher. If 3% turns out to be a reasonable estimate for the terminal fed funds rate, then implied rate volatility is much more likely to fall than rise. All in all, if we assume that the fed funds rate will only return to 3% before the next recession, then we should expect the 10-year Treasury yield to eventually settle into a range between 3.08% and 3.59% by the end of the second stage of the cyclical bond bear market. We plan to explore whether 3% is a reasonable expectation for the terminal fed funds rate in future reports. Bottom Line: How high Treasury yields rise in Stage 2 of the bond bear market will be determined by how expectations for the terminal fed funds rate evolve. If, for now, we assume that the Fed's 3% terminal rate projection is roughly correct, then the 10-year Treasury yield will peak somewhere between 3.08% and 3.59%. Three Risks To The Bond Bear Market It is important to point out that the two-stage cyclical bond bear market described above may not play out un-interrupted. In this section we highlight three potential risks that could cause us to, at least temporarily, increase the duration of our recommended portfolio. Risk 1: Positioning One risk that could flare up in the near-term is that short positioning in the Treasury market has ramped up significantly in recent weeks. Since the financial crisis, net short positions in 10-year Treasury futures have often coincided with a lower 10-year Treasury yield three months later (Chart 7). Similarly, we have also seen positioning in oil futures become extremely net long (Chart 7, bottom panel). In a recent report we analyzed the strong correlation between oil prices and TIPS breakeven inflation rates and concluded that the correlation would likely persist throughout Stage 1 of the bond bear market.5 A significant relapse in oil prices would very likely filter through to lower bond yields. Chart 7Risk 1 = Positioning Risk 1 = Positioning Risk 1 = Positioning Risk 2: Unrealistic Expectations Much like how consensus is forming around short bond positions, consensus economic expectations are also being revised higher. This is what happens when the economic data surprise positively for a significant period of time. Expectations eventually ratchet up and then become too optimistic for the data to surpass. It is this dynamic that causes the Economic Surprise Index to be mean reverting (Chart 8). In previous reports we have shown that months with negative data surprises tend to coincide with falling Treasury yields, and vice-versa.6 While negative data surprises are not an imminent risk - a simple auto-regressive model of the Economic Surprise Index shows we should expect an index reading of +15 in one month's time - the surprise index will eventually move below zero and this will likely coincide with at least some pull-back in bond yields. Risk 3: Global Growth Slowdown A third risk to the cyclical bond bear market is that we see a relapse in global growth that derails the economic recovery before Treasury yields reach our target range. At the moment our 2-factor Treasury model - based on Global Manufacturing PMI and bullish sentiment toward the dollar - still posits a fair value 10-year Treasury yield of 3.01% (Chart 9), but a significant growth scare emanating from outside the U.S. would cause both the Global PMI to fall and bullish sentiment toward the dollar to rise. Both of those factors are bullish for U.S. bonds. Chart 8Risk 2 = Economic Surprises Risk 2 = Economic Surprises Risk 2 = Economic Surprises Chart 9Risk 3 = China/EM Slowdown Risk 3 = China/EM Slowdown Risk 3 = China/EM Slowdown For now there is no strong signal that global growth is about to slow, but some trends in China and other emerging markets bear monitoring. Our Foreign Exchange strategists' Carry Canary Indicator tracks the performance of EM / JPY carry trades.7 These trades go short the Japanese Yen and long an emerging market currency with a high interest rate (Brazilian Real, Russian Ruble or South African Rand), and as such they are highly geared to a positive global growth back-drop. Historically, a deterioration in the performance of these carry trades has often coincided with a slowdown in global growth and we notice that the outperformance of these trades has moderated in recent weeks (Chart 9, panel 2). Further, we have also seen some coincident and leading indicators of Chinese economic activity start to roll over (Chart 9, bottom 2 panels). The slowdown appears relatively benign for now but could eventually morph into a significant global event. This could occur if the growth deterioration accelerates and infects the Global PMI, or if Chinese policymakers react too strongly to slowing growth and engineer a sharp depreciation of the currency (as in August 2015). The latter scenario would impart increased bullish sentiment to the U.S. dollar and cause U.S. bond yields to fall. Both risks seem low at the moment, but are still worth monitoring during the next few months. Bottom Line: If our model suggests that economic surprises are likely to turn negative at a time when we also see extended net short bond positioning, then that would likely present an opportunity to tactically increase portfolio duration even though the cyclical bond bear market would remain intact. The risk of a growth slowdown emanating from China or other emerging markets also bears monitoring. Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "On The MOVE", dated February 13, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 Percentages calculated using daily values. 3 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Will Breakevens Ever Recover?", dated April 25, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "On The MOVE", dated February 13, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 5 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "It's Still All About Inflation", dated January 16, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 6 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "How Much Higher For Yields?", dated October 31, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 7 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report, "Canaries In The Coal Mine Alert: EM/JPY Carry Trades", dated December 1, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

Highlights The ascent in Treasury yields is likely to flatten out over the coming months, now that rate expectations have almost converged to the Fed dots. This should provide some near-term support for stocks. The structural outlook for bonds remains quite bearish, however. Exploding budget deficits, a retreat from globalization, and the withdrawal of well-paid baby boomers from the labor force will all combine to push up inflation. As inflation increases, the positive correlation between bond yields and stock prices will break down. This will cause bond term premia to rise, pushing yields even higher. Investors should use any bond rally as an opportunity to reduce duration risk. They should also look to scale back exposure to equities later this year in advance of a recession starting in late-2019 or 2020. Feature More Than A Technical Correction Global equities moved higher this week following last week's drubbing. We noted in our February 6th report that the correction was amplified by technical factors.1 Rising volatility led to a wave of forced selling in so-called risk parity funds. These funds automatically adjust their exposure to stocks based on how volatile they are. When volatility spiked, the funds started selling stocks. This pushed down equity prices, causing volatility to rise further, which led to even more forced selling. The good news is that the losses suffered by investors in these funds have had little effect on the underlying health of the financial system. This is a major difference from 2008, when delinquent mortgages led to huge losses for banks and other highly levered institutions. The equity selloff has also made stocks more attractive. Even after this week's rebound, the S&P 500 trades at a forward P/E of 18 - roughly where it stood in early 2017 and not much higher than it was in 2015 (Chart 1). Chart 1A Healthy Valuation Reset A Healthy Valuation Reset A Healthy Valuation Reset If that were all there was to the story, one could breathe a sigh of relief. Unfortunately, there is more to it than that. When a building collapses during an earthquake, does one blame mother nature or the company that built it? Sometimes the answer is both. The stock market had been ripe for a correction for a long time. Why did it happen last week? The answer, at least in part, is that the foundation on which the equity bull market was built - the presumption that monetary policy would stay easy for as far as the eye could see - began to crumble. The timing is too conspicuous to ignore. Stocks began to swoon just as the payrolls report revealed that average hourly earnings had surprised on the upside. Investors began to fret that the remaining runway for low inflation was not as long as they had supposed. Bond Yields Should Level Off In The Near Term... Are investors correct to be concerned? As we argue in detail below, over the long term, the answer is definitely yes. Over the next 12 months, however, the picture is much more nuanced. Actual inflation remains fairly tame. Even after this week's higher-than-expected CPI print, core CPI excluding shelter is up by only 0.8% year-over-year. Moreover, despite their recent climb, global bond yields are still quite low in absolute terms. The yield on the JP Morgan global bond index stands at 1.7%, close to half of what it was in 2011 (Chart 2). Chart 2AYields Are Still Low By Historic Standards (I) Yields Are Still Low By Historic Standards (I) Yields Are Still Low By Historic Standards (I) Chart 2BYields Are Still Low By Historic Standards (II) Yields Are Still Low By Historic Standards (II) Yields Are Still Low By Historic Standards (II) Chart 3Market Pricing Has Almost ##br##Caught Up To The Fed's Dots Market Pricing Has Almost Caught Up To The Fed's Dots Market Pricing Has Almost Caught Up To The Fed's Dots Market expectations now place the fed funds rate at the level implied by the dots for end-2018 and only slightly below the dots for end-2019 (Chart 3). Expectations for the first ECB rate hike in the second half of 2019 have also converged with what the central bank is targeting. The nearly two rate hikes for the Bank of England that are priced in this year may, if anything, be too aggressive. The latest Bank of America Merrill Lynch Global Fund Manager Survey revealed that investors cut bond allocations to the lowest level in the 20-year history of the report. All of this raises the odds that the rise in global bond yields will level off, and perhaps even temporarily reverse. This should give some support to stocks. ... But The Long-Term Direction For Yields Is Up While bond yields are due for a pause, the long-term trend remains firmly to the upside. BCA declared "The End Of The 35-Year Bond Bull Market" on July 5, 2016.2 As luck would have it, this was the same day that the 10-year U.S. Treasury yield hit a record closing low of 1.37%. We argued at the time that both cyclical and structural forces would conspire to put in a bottom for yields. Since then, the global economy has continued to grow at an above-trend pace. This has caused output gaps to shrink in every major economy (Chart 4). The U.S. has now reached full employment. Wage growth tends to accelerate once the unemployment rate falls below NAIRU (Chart 5). Faster wage growth will give households the wherewithal to spend more. With little spare capacity left, this will fuel inflation. Chart 4Output Gaps Have##br## Shrunk In Advanced Economies Output Gaps Have Shrunk In Advanced Economies Output Gaps Have Shrunk In Advanced Economies Chart 5U.S. Wage Growth Set##br## To Accelerate Further U.S. Wage Growth Set To Accelerate Further U.S. Wage Growth Set To Accelerate Further The shift from fiscal austerity to largesse across much of the world is adding to the inflationary pressures. The Trump tax cuts are starting to look like chump change compared to the massive amount of spending coming down the pike. The Senate agreed last week to raise the caps on spending by $153 billion in FY2018 and an additional $143 billion in FY2019. This does not even include the $80 billion that has already been allocated to disaster relief, the still-to-be-negotiated sum for infrastructure spending, or up to $25 billion in additional annual spending that our Geopolitical Strategy team estimates would result if "earmarks" are reinstated (Chart 6).3 Chart 6Let The Good Times Roll A Structural Bear Market In Bonds A Structural Bear Market In Bonds Meanwhile, Japan is on track to ease fiscal policy this year.4 In Germany, the Grand Coalition deal was only concluded after Chancellor Angela Merkel conceded to demands for more spending on everything from education to public investment on technology and defense. Globalization, which historically has been a highly deflationary force, is on the back foot. Global trade nearly doubled as a share of GDP from the early 1980s to 2008, but has been stagnant ever since (Chart 7). Donald Trump pulled the U.S. out of the Trans-Pacific Partnership and he may very well pull it out of NAFTA. Opposition towards open-border immigration policies is rising. More Mexicans left the U.S. over the past eight years than entered it. On the demographic front, the three decade-long increase in the global ratio of workers-to-consumers has finally reversed (Chart 8). As baby boomers leave the labor force, the amount of GDP they produce will plummet. However, their spending on goods and services will continue to rise once health care expenditures are included in the tally. The combination of more consumption and less production is inflationary. Against a backdrop of slow potential GDP growth, policymakers will welcome rising inflation as the only viable tool left to deflate away high debt levels. Chart 7Global Trade Has Crested Global Trade Has Crested Global Trade Has Crested Chart 8Peak In The Ratio Of Workers-To-Consumers Peak In The Ratio Of Workers-To-Consumers Peak In The Ratio Of Workers-To-Consumers Productivity Stuck In The Slow Lane Faster productivity growth could help stave off this outcome. Unfortunately, so far, a sustained productivity revival is more of a dream than a reality. Chart 9 shows that G7 productivity has been rising at a disappointingly slow pace since the mid-2000s. Optimists like to tout the impact of robotics and the "Amazon effect". However, as my colleague Mark McClellan discussed in a series of reports, neither factor is quantitatively all that important.5 In the case of the Amazon effect, profit margins in the retail sector are close to record highs (Chart 10). This calls into doubt claims that online shopping has undermined businesses' pricing power. Recent productivity growth in the U.S. distribution sector has actually been slower than in the 1990s, a decade that produced large productivity gains from the displacement of "mom and pop" stores with "big box" retailers such as Walmart and Costco. Chart 9G7 Productivity: Not What It Used To Be G7 Productivity: Not What It Used To Be G7 Productivity: Not What It Used To Be Chart 10Retail Sector Profit Margins Near Record Highs Retail Sector Profit Margins Near Record Highs Retail Sector Profit Margins Near Record Highs Meanwhile, student test scores across the OECD have declined over the past decade (Chart 11). The accumulation of human capital has been the single most important driver of rising living standards over the past few centuries.6 This tailwind is now dissipating at an alarmingly fast pace. Chart 11AThe Contribution To Growth From ##br##Rising Human Capital Is Falling A Structural Bear Market In Bonds A Structural Bear Market In Bonds Chart 11BStudent Test Scores Are ##br##Declining In Many Countries A Structural Bear Market In Bonds A Structural Bear Market In Bonds Will The Stock-Bond Correlation Flip? As inflation becomes a greater concern over the coming years, the bond term premium will rise. Chart 12 shows that the term premium has often been negative in the recent past. This means that investors have been willing to accept a discount on holding long-term bonds relative to what they would get by rolling over short-term bills. Chart 12The Term Premium Has Been Negative Over The Past Three Years The Term Premium Has Been Negative Over The Past Three Years The Term Premium Has Been Negative Over The Past Three Years It is not surprising that this has been the case. Since the late 1990s, Treasury prices have tended to go up when the stock market sells off (Chart 13). This has made owning bonds a good hedge against bad economic news. Chart 13Bond Prices Have Tended To Rise When Equity Prices Fall Since The Late 1990s Bond Prices Have Tended To Rise When Equity Prices Fall Since The Late 1990s Bond Prices Have Tended To Rise When Equity Prices Fall Since The Late 1990s The last few weeks have seen a reversal of this pattern. Since January 26, the 10-year yield has risen by 25 basis points while the S&P 500 has fallen by 4.9%. When economies are operating at full capacity, anything that adds to aggregate demand will lead to higher inflation rather than faster growth. The latter is good for stocks because it means stronger earnings. The former is bad for stocks if it leads to a more rapid pace of rate hikes. As bond yields temporarily level off, the positive correlation between yields and equity prices should return. However, this may simply prove to be the last hurrah for this relationship. Over the long haul, bonds and equities will become more alike in the sense that they will prosper or suffer at the same time. The equity risk premium will shrink not because equities will be revalued upwards but because bonds will be revalued downwards. The runoff of the Fed's balance sheet and a slower pace of central bank bond purchases elsewhere will only compound the damage to bonds. Investment Conclusions Global bond yields are on a structural upward trajectory, however the progression will be a choppy one. The rapid rise in bond yields will flatten out, but the 10-year Treasury yield will nevertheless finish the year at about 3.25% - around 25 basis points above the forwards. Yields will continue to rise into next year. The resulting tightening in financial conditions will cause the U.S. economy to slow, ultimately setting the stage for a recession in late-2019 or 2020. The next downturn will see inflation and bond yields dip again. However, they will do so from higher levels than today. As in the 1970s, bond yields and inflation will trend higher over the coming years, reaching "higher highs" and "higher lows" with every passing business cycle (Chart 14). Investors should use any bond rally as an opportunity to reduce duration risk. They should also look to scale back exposure to equities later this year. A structurally high path for inflation is not good for the dollar. However, the coming stagflationary era will not be unique to the U.S. Many other countries actually have higher debt levels and weaker growth prospects than the U.S. More relevant to the current environment, the increasingly popular narrative that attributes the dollar's ongoing decline in 2018 to heightened fears of large budget deficits does not really mesh with what is happening to real rates. Real yields have actually surged since the start of the year (Chart 15). In this respect, today's landscape looks a bit like the early 1980s, a period when massive tax cuts and increased defense expenditures led to rising real yields and a stronger dollar. Chart 14A Template For The Next Decade? A Template For The Next Decade? A Template For The Next Decade? Chart 15Real Yields Have Surged Since The Start Of The Year Real Yields Have Surged Since The Start Of The Year Real Yields Have Surged Since The Start Of The Year Momentum is a powerful force in currency markets. This is particularly true for the dollar, which scores higher than all other currencies on our Foreign Exchange Strategy team's "momentum factor"7 (Chart 16). Today, the trend is definitely not the dollar's friend. Nevertheless, the fundamentals may be shifting in favor of the greenback. EUR/USD has decisively decoupled from the 30-year Treasury/bund spread (Chart 17). If the relationship had held, the cross would be trading at 1.12, rather than today's level of 1.25. The latest BofA Merrill Lynch survey reported "short USD" as one of the most crowded trades among fund managers. Going long the dollar could be a successful non-consensus trade for the next few months. Chart 16USD Is A ##br##Momentum Winner A Structural Bear Market In Bonds A Structural Bear Market In Bonds Chart 17EUR/USD Has Diverged From##br## Interest Rate Spreads This Year EUR/USD Has Diverged From Interest Rate Spreads This Year EUR/USD Has Diverged From Interest Rate Spreads This Year Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "The Return Of Vol," dated February 6, 2018. 2 Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "End Of The 35-Year Bond Bull Market," dated July 5, 2016; and Strategy Outlook, "Third Quarter 2016: End Of The 35-Year Bond Bull Market," dated July 9, 2016. 3 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Upside Risks In U.S., Downside Risks In China," dated January 17, 2018. 4 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Japan: Kuroda Or No Kuroda, Reflation Ahead," dated February 7, 2018. 5 Please see BCA The Bank Credit Analyst Special Report, "Did Amazon Kill The Phillips Curve?" dated August 31, 2017; and Special Report, "The Impact Of Robots On Inflation," dated January 25, 2018. 6 Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "Is Slow Productivity Growth Good Or Bad For Bonds?" dated May 31, 2017; and BCA The Bank Credit Analyst Special Report, "Taking Off The Rose-Colored Glasses: Education And Growth In The 21st Century," dated February 24, 2011. 7 Please see BCA Foreign Exchange Strategy Special Report, "Riding The Wave: Momentum Strategies In Foreign Exchange Markets," dated December 8, 2017. Strategy & Market Trends Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

Highlights Spread Product: TIPS breakeven inflation rates are holding firm despite the correction in equity markets. Remain overweight spread product versus Treasuries for now, but be prepared to reduce exposure once long-maturity TIPS breakevens reach our target range of 2.4% to 2.5%. Volatility: While implied interest rate volatility could increase further in the near-term, its upside will be limited by a flattening yield curve in the second half of this year. Municipal Bonds: After-tax muni yields are near the high-end of their historical ranges relative to investment grade corporate bonds. MBS: The option-adjusted spread offered by a conventional 30-year Agency MBS is tight relative to its own history, but appears quite attractive relative to an investment grade corporate bond. Feature Chart 1Corporate Spreads Are Stoic Corporate Spreads Are Stoic Corporate Spreads Are Stoic The stock market is down and volatility is up dramatically. At least so far the pass through to credit spreads has been relatively mild (Chart 1), but this does not make us more optimistic. Rather, our sense is that last week's market action is yet another sign that we are approaching the end of the credit cycle. Same Loop, Different Day Last week's equity sell off is best viewed through the lens of the Fed Policy Loop that we introduced in 2015 (Chart 2).1 The Fed Policy Loop is a framework for understanding the interplay between monetary policy and risk assets. Its recent dynamics can be summarized as follows: The perception of easy Fed policy fuels the outperformance of risk assets, and seven months of falling inflation between last January and August kept that perception in place for all of 2017. The end result is that financial conditions eased dramatically - stock prices soared and credit spreads tightened. But easing financial conditions also sow the seeds of their own destruction. Easier financial conditions eventually beget stronger growth and stronger growth eventually begets higher inflation (Chart 3). Last week the market finally caught a whiff of inflation and started to price-in a more hawkish Fed reaction function. Chart 2The Fed Policy Loop On The MOVE On The MOVE Chart 3Financial Conditions Lead Growth And Growth Leads Inflation Financial Conditions Lead Growth And Growth Leads Inflation Financial Conditions Lead Growth And Growth Leads Inflation On a positive note, the Loop framework also tells us that the Fed will eventually ease policy in response to tighter financial conditions and this will allow the risk-on rally to resume. While this is undoubtedly true, the Fed's breaking point is also a lot higher when inflationary pressures are more pronounced. This is why we have repeatedly stressed that our cyclical call on spread product hinges on the path of long-dated TIPS breakeven inflation rates.2 Chart 4No Correction Here No Correction Here No Correction Here Last year, when the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate was down around 1.6% - well below the 2.4% to 2.5% range that is consistent with inflation anchored around the Fed's target - the market understood that the Fed's tolerance for tighter financial conditions was quite low. This made it very difficult for risk assets to sell off meaningfully. But now, with the 10-year TIPS breakeven rate at 2.05% and the 5-year/5-year forward breakeven rate at 2.27%, the Fed can clearly tolerate more market pain. The bad news from a cyclical perspective is that, despite the equity correction, the market's assessment of inflationary pressure in the economy has barely budged. Long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates are holding firm, as are the prices of crude oil and other commodities - prices that tend to correlate with TIPS breakeven rates (Chart 4).3 In other words, last week's correction didn't give our overweight spread product position any further room to run. While it may take a few more sessions, our sense is that the market and the Fed will hash out a new equilibrium in the near-term and that the true bear market in risk assets won't occur until inflationary pressures are even more pronounced. We continue to look for a range of 2.4% to 2.5% on long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates before we scale back our cyclical overweight exposure to spread product. The inflation data take on extra significance between now and then, as each incoming report will help confirm or deny the message priced into TIPS breakevens. Every weak inflation print buys the credit cycle more time, every strong print hastens its demise. Next up: tomorrow morning's CPI. Don't Fear Rising Rate Vol The return of volatility was the other big story last week. The VIX index of implied equity volatility was as low as 9 in early January, but stood at 33 as of last Friday's market close. With rising inflation starting to weaken the "Fed put" in risk assets we think it is unlikely that equity volatility will return to its previous cycle lows.4 But what about the volatility in rates markets? The MOVE index of implied interest rate volatility also jumped last week, and its path going forward is of critical importance for Treasury yields. Chart 5 shows that the Kim & Wright estimate of the term premium embedded in the 10-year Treasury yield is highly correlated with the MOVE index, while the expectations component implied by that term premium is the mirror image of the fed funds rate. It follows that a surge in rate volatility would lead to much higher Treasury yields, particularly if the Fed continues to hike. However, it would be quite unusual for the MOVE index to increase significantly while the Fed is lifting rates. To see this we can simply observe the tight correlation between the MOVE index and the slope of the yield curve (Chart 6). The crucial question then becomes: Does the slope of the yield curve drive volatility or does volatility drive the slope of the curve? Chart 5Volatility And The Term Premium Volatility And The Term Premium Volatility And The Term Premium Chart 6Volatility And The Yield Curve Volatility And The Yield Curve Volatility And The Yield Curve Like most things in economics, the answer is a little bit of both. Chart 7Forecasters In Agreement Forecasters In Agreement Forecasters In Agreement It is relatively straightforward to see why higher rate volatility might lead to a steeper yield curve. To the extent that the slope of the yield curve reflects a term premium to compensate investors for the extra price risk in a long-dated bond, then investors should demand greater compensation to bear that extra risk when rate volatility is elevated. But that analysis ignores the other reason why the yield curve might be steep. Namely, the yield curve might be steep because the market expects the Fed to hike rates substantially. It would seem logical to expect that investors would be more uncertain about a forecast that calls for many rate hikes than they would be about a forecast that calls for only a few rate hikes. It therefore follows that an environment where the market expects a large change in the fed funds would also be an environment of elevated rate volatility. The two-way causation between rate volatility and the slope of the yield curve is reinforced by the fact that both trends also correlate with forecaster uncertainty about the macro environment. Chart 7 shows that the dispersion of individual forecasts for the 3-month T-bill rate and GDP growth correlate with both the MOVE volatility index and the slope of the yield curve. At the moment, disagreement amongst professional forecasters remains low relative to history. All in all, our sense is that once long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates reach our target fair value range of 2.4% to 2.5% they are unlikely to move much higher. Fed hawkishness will ramp up considerably and the yield curve will be much more likely to flatten. This means that while implied interest rate volatility could increase further in the near-term, its upside will be limited by a flattening yield curve in the second half of this year. We are not overly concerned about a huge spike in rate volatility leading to a blow-out in bonds. Two Attractive Ways To De-Risk As stated in the first section of this report, the higher that TIPS breakeven inflation rates rise the closer we get to calling the end of the credit cycle. If current trends continue, then it is likely we will begin to de-risk the spread product side of our recommended portfolio in the not-too-distant future. With that in mind, we have identified two lower risk spread sectors that are starting to look attractive. 1) Municipal Bonds Like all spread sectors, at first blush municipal bonds appear quite expensive relative to Treasuries. Chart 8 shows Aaa-rated municipal bond yields, adjusted for the top marginal tax rate, relative to equivalent-maturity Treasury yields. The message is quite clear. Municipal bonds offer far less excess compensation relative to Treasuries than has been typical in the past. However, the valuation picture changes completely when we consider municipal bonds versus investment grade corporates. Chart 9 once again shows Aaa-rated municipal bond yields, adjusted for the top marginal tax rate, but this time relative to equivalent-duration corporate bonds. We do not attempt to match credit quality in Chart 9, so Aaa-rated municipal bonds are being compared to the corporate bond index which has an average credit rating of A3/Baa1. Chart 8Munis Expensive Versus Treasuries Munis Expensive Versus Treasuries Munis Expensive Versus Treasuries Chart 9Munis Cheap Versus Corporates Munis Cheap Versus Corporates Munis Cheap Versus Corporates Chart 9 shows that after-tax muni yields are near the high-end of their historical ranges relative to investment grade corporate bonds. In fact, a 10-year Aaa-rated municipal bond currently offers only 13 bps less yield than an equivalent duration A3/Baa1-rated corporate bond. In addition, whenever the after-tax yield on a 10-year Aaa-rated municipal bond has exceeded the yield on a 10-year corporate bond in the past, it has been a fairly good signal that investment grade corporates are too expensive and due for a correction. Not only did municipal bonds look more attractive than corporates before the crisis in 2007, but also before corporates sold off in 2011 and 2014 (Chart 9, bottom panel). Agency MBS Chart 10An Opportunity In MBS? An Opportunity In MBS? An Opportunity In MBS? As with munis, the option-adjusted spread (OAS) offered by a conventional 30-year Agency MBS is tight relative to its own history, but appears quite attractive relative to investment grade corporate bonds (Chart 10). Further, in a rising rate environment the risk of a large increase in mortgage refinancings is low and this should keep MBS spreads well contained. The biggest potential risk for MBS spreads is that a large spike in Treasury yields causes MBS duration to extend, and sparks a spread widening. In our report from two weeks ago we introduced a model for excess MBS returns in an attempt to quantify what sort of increase in Treasury yields would be necessary to make duration extension a meaningful risk for MBS.5 We modeled monthly excess returns for conventional 30-year MBS relative to duration-matched Treasuries using the following equation: Formula On The MOVE On The MOVE The monthly change in Treasury yields enters the equation with a positive sign because it proxies for refinancing risk. Higher yields lead to lower refis, and lower refis lead to MBS outperformance. The squared change in yields enters the equation with a negative sign because it proxies for extension risk. If yields rise too much during the month, then MBS duration will extend and the sector will underperform. Chart 11Refi Risk Is Low Refi Risk Is Low Refi Risk Is Low From that equation we calculated that, holding the change in OAS flat, it would take a monthly increase in yields of at least 72 bps to lead to negative monthly excess returns. However, in January this appeared not to work very well. The duration-matched Treasury yield in our equation increased only 38 bps in January and the OAS was virtually flat, but MBS still managed to underperform Treasuries by 16 bps on the month. Upon further investigation, the reason our model failed in January is that mortgage refinancings actually increased on the month even though Treasury yields rose (Chart 11). This behavior is unusual and we would not expect it to persist going forward. However, we also made one modification to our model that we expect will lead to more accurate results on a real-time basis. Specifically, we removed the intercept term from the prior model and replaced it with a 1-month lag of the average index OAS. The rationale is that since the intercept term is in the equation to capture the carry return in an MBS trade, we should use a more accurate measure of MBS carry rather than relying on the regression to calculate the historical carry. Our new equation is as follows: Formula On The MOVE On The MOVE Chart 12 On The MOVE On The MOVE Interestingly, using our new equation we find that the monthly increase in Treasury yields required to spark MBS underperformance is now a function of the current average OAS of the MBS index. This would seem to make sense. If the carry buffer is higher, then it should take a greater duration extension for capital losses to overcome the carry and lead to negative excess returns. The relationship between the required monthly increase in yields and the index OAS is illustrated in Chart 12. At the current average index OAS of 31 bps, our equation suggests that a monthly increase in Treasury yields of 58 bps or higher is required for extension risk to become meaningful. Bottom Line: Both municipal bonds and Agency MBS are starting to look attractive relative to investment grade corporate bonds. We stand ready to upgrade these sectors at the expense of investment grade corporate bonds when the time comes to de-risk our spread product portfolio. Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Caught In A Loop", dated September 29, 2015, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "The Most Important Chart In Finance", dated January 30, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 3 For further details on the correlation between TIPS breakevens and commodity prices please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "It's Still All About Inflation", dated January 16, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see BCA Research Special Report, "The Return Of Vol", dated February 6, 2018, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 5 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "The Most Important Chart In Finance", dated January 30, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

Highlights Japan Economy & Inflation: Japan is in the midst of a solid cyclical upturn, driven by strong exports and rising investment spending. Yet despite signs that the economy is running at an above-potential pace with no spare capacity in labor or product markets, inflation remains tame. This puts no immediate pressure on the Bank of Japan (BoJ) to move away from its easy policy stance. Future BoJ Options: When the BoJ does finally consider a shift in its monetary policy, the first thing it will do is raise its yield target on the 10-year JGB. Before doing that, three things must happen - yen weakness, higher core Japanese inflation and much higher non-Japanese global bond yields. Feature Chart 1A 'Non-Systemic' Vol Spike A 'Non-Systemic' Vol Spike A 'Non-Systemic' Vol Spike Global financial markets appear to be calming down a bit after the Great Volatility Scare of 2018. While the equity market sell-off and spike in volatility was intensely compacted into a brief period of time, the changes has been relatively modest when looked at against the broader history of the past decade (Chart 1). This may have been a serious market tremor, but it is not clear that this was the beginning of "The Big One." What could turn investor sentiment into a more permanently bearish state would be a sign of a coordinated move to tighter monetary policy by all the major global central banks. The Federal Reserve is in the midst of a prolonged tightening cycle, while the European Central Bank (ECB) is more openly debating the future of its asset purchase program. Yet amidst all the current investor worries about higher inflation and rising global bond yields, any sign that the hyper-easy BoJ is openly moving to a less accommodative monetary policy could be the trigger for the next wave of market volatility. The BoJ's current policy is to manage short-term interest rates and asset purchases to keep the benchmark 10-year Japanese Government Bond (JGB) yield around 0%. What would it take for the BoJ to make a change to that policy? In this Special Report, we take a look at the current cyclical dynamics for Japanese economic growth and inflation, and determine what it would take to force the BoJ to consider altering its current policy. We conclude that three things that must ALL happen before the BoJ could possibly change its strategy: The USD/JPY exchange rate must increase back to at least the 115-120 range Japanese core CPI inflation and nominal wage inflation must both rise sustainably above 1.5% The 10-year JGB yield must reach an overvalued extreme versus the 10-year U.S. Treasury Strong Japanese Growth, But Where's The Inflation? If it was strictly a growth story, the BoJ could have a case to begin formally removing monetary accommodation relatively soon. The Japanese economy is enjoying a broad-based upturn led by robust export demand and a pickup in capital spending (Chart 2). Private consumption and government spending have also provided smaller, but still positive, contributions to Japanese GDP growth in the current cycle. The BoJ stated in its latest Outlook for Economic Activity and Prices (January 2018) that Japan's economy has entered a virtuous cycle from income to spending that would support continued growth this year. The leading economic indicator estimated by Japan's Cabinet Office is expanding at a solid rate that suggests real GDP growth could accelerate to a well-above potential pace around 2.5% in 2018. The manufacturing PMI is now at the highest level in four years, while the December Tankan survey was the highest reading since Japan's asset bubble burst in the early 1990s. The cyclical upturn in growth has boosted corporate profits, business confidence and capital spending (Chart 3). This is especially so on the manufacturing side of the Japanese economy, where machinery orders and capacity utilization are at the highest levels in almost three years and the level of industrial production is now back to pre-crisis highs. The high level of capacity utilization is a boost both to the economy - through capital spending, as firms need to invest to keep up with underlying demand - and to corporate profits as companies can spread their fixed costs of production over more units sold. Against this backdrop, it is no surprise that Japanese business confidence is solid (bottom panel). Chart 2Lots Of Good Economic News In Japan Lots Of Good Economic News In Japan Lots Of Good Economic News In Japan Chart 3A Cyclical Rise In Production & Confidence A Cyclical Rise In Production & Confidence A Cyclical Rise In Production & Confidence Japan's economy remains highly levered to global growth, as the pickup in machinery orders has been focused on foreign demand (Chart 4, bottom panel). With the global leading economic indicator still in a steady uptrend, however, overall export growth should remain in good shape in the next few quarters. For most countries, a solid economic upturn like Japan is currently enjoying would potentially trigger some inflationary pressures. Alas, Japan is not most countries. Over the past several years, the BoJ has consistently projected that Japanese inflation will be on a path to reach its 2% target. That can be seen in Chart 5, which shows Japanese core CPI inflation (ex fresh food) with the annual forecasts produced by the BoJ each year (the dotted lines). Yet the only time that core inflation got remotely close to that level was in 2014 - and, only then, after global oil prices had breached the $100/bbl level. Inflation expectations momentarily rose at that time, but plunged in 2015 as oil prices collapsed. Since then, CPI swaps have struggled to trade much above 0%, only starting to perk up last year as oil prices began rising once again (bottom panel). Chart 4Japan Is Benefiting From##BR##Strong Global Growth Japan Is Benefiting From Strong Global Growth Japan Is Benefiting From Strong Global Growth Chart 5Watch Oil & The Yen,##BR##Not The BoJ Inflation Forecasts Watch Oil & The Yen, Not The BoJ Inflation Forecasts Watch Oil & The Yen, Not The BoJ Inflation Forecasts Having inflation consistently below its target rate is frustrating to the BoJ. By its own estimates, Japan's output gap closed in 2016 and now sits at +1.35% - levels that have been consistent with headline CPI inflation rates of 2% or greater since the mid-1980s (Chart 6, top panel). Our own Japan headline CPI diffusion index, which measures the breadth of the moves in inflation across ten CPI sectors, is struggling to stay above the 50 line, unlike those previous periods where Japan had a large positive output gap. The main reason for this is that Japanese service sector inflation, consisting of around ½ of the total Japanese CPI index, remains anemic at 0.8% or a massive 2.3 percentage points below the rate of goods inflation (bottom panel). The odds of the BoJ successfully seeing Japanese inflation reach its target are low without any meaningful pickup in services inflation. The latter requires a boost to household purchasing power, which is next to impossible without faster wage growth. One of the fundamental reasons for Japan's low inflation continues to be the surprising lack of wage inflation despite strong Japanese profitability and a very tight labor market. Japanese firms are enjoying an extended period of robust earnings growth, with corporate profits up nearly 500% since the trough during the 2009 recession (Chart 7, top panel). Moreover, firms have not been cutting back on labor over that period. The jobs-to-applicant ratio has steadily climbed and is now at the highest level since 1974, and while the annual rate of employment growth remains well above the historical average (2nd panel). The result is an unemployment rate that is currently at 2.8%, well below the OECD's estimate of the full employment NAIRU at 3.6% (3rd panel). Yet despite firms remaining desperate to hire new employees to fill empty or newly created positions, at a time when there is no spare labor capacity, wage growth remains stagnant. Nominal wage growth is only 0.6%, or -0.6% in real terms. The problem of low real wage growth is not unique to Japan, of course (bottom panel), but it is unusual given how far the Japanese unemployment rate is below NAIRU. The subject of persistent low wages has become an important political matter for Japanese PM Shinzo Abe, given that breaking Japan out of its low inflation trap has become critical to the long-term success of his "Abenomics" program. Our colleagues at BCA Geopolitical Strategy discussed this exact topic in a Special Report published last week, noting that: Wages will be a decisive factor in Abe's economic success .... In this spring's "shunto" negotiations between businesses and unions, both the Abe administration and Keidanren, the top business group, are asking for 3% wage increases. The biggest union, Rengo, is only asking for one percentage point more. Abe has dedicated the current Diet session, beginning January 22, to "work-style reforms" that should be, on net, positive for wage growth. He wants to remove disparities between regular and irregular workers, particularly regarding wages, training opportunities, and welfare benefits. He also wants to impose limits on the workweek - putting a cap on the average 80-hour workweek of Japan's full-time workers so as to force companies to hire more irregular workers on a full-time basis (and to encourage employed people to have children). Companies that raise wages by 3% or more will see a cut in the corporate tax rate from around 30% to 25%.1 If Abe is successful in convincing Japanese companies to boost wages, this can help broaden the current cyclical economic upturn in Japan through faster consumer spending. Consumption has lagged other more robust parts of the economy during the current cycle (Chart 8, top panel), even though consumer confidence has surged in response to the healthy labor market (middle panel). Real disposable income growth has been unable to exceed 1% since 2010, a problem for consumer spending that has been exacerbated by the five percentage point rise in the household saving rate since 2013 (bottom panel). Chart 6Domestic Inflation,##BR##Like Services, Is Anemic Domestic Inflation, Like Services, Is Anemic Domestic Inflation, Like Services, Is Anemic Chart 7Japanese Companies##BR##Are Not Sharing The Wealth Japanese Companies Are Not Sharing The Wealth Japanese Companies Are Not Sharing The Wealth Chart 8Poor Fundamentals For##BR##The Japanese Consumer Poor Fundamentals For The Japanese Consumer Poor Fundamentals For The Japanese Consumer Putting it all together, the Japanese economy is in good shape, but inflation continues to undershoot the BoJ's goals. Bottom Line: Japan is in the midst of a solid cyclical upturn, driven by strong exports and rising investment spending. Yet despite signs that the economy is running at an above-potential pace with no spare capacity in labor or product markets, inflation remains tame. This puts no immediate pressure on the BoJ to move away from its easy policy stance. Plausible Next Steps For The BoJ The BoJ is in a difficult spot at the moment. The underwhelming pace of inflation is forcing the central bank to continue committing to its aggressive monetary easing programs, which include large-scale purchases of Japanese Government Bonds (JGBs) and Japanese equities via ETFs. Yet the BoJ already shifted from a quantity target for its JGB purchases to a price target back in September 2016 when it introduced the "Yield Curve Control" (YCC) element to its overall Quantitative & Qualitative Easing (QQE) program. By switching to a price level on the 10-year, the BoJ was aiming to reduce the amount of JGBs it was buying from 80 trillion yen per year to whatever level was required to keep the 10-year yield at 0%. After switching to the YCC framework, the growth in the BoJ's JGB holdings slowed sharply to a pace that is now below the pace of new JGB issuance for the first time since the QQE program started in 2013 (Chart 9). It is no coincidence that the peak in the pace of BoJ buying coincided with the cyclical trough in our own BoJ Central Bank Monitor, which suggests that tighter monetary policy is now required in Japan (top panel). The BoJ has been successful in keeping the 10-year JGB yield near its 0% target, but that outcome will be operationally harder to achieve in the future. The BoJ currently holds about 70% of all 10-year JGBs outstanding, and the increase in ownership has risen by 5-7% in each quarter (Chart 10). In other words, if this pattern lasts, without a major increase in issuance at that maturity, the BoJ will effectively own all the 10-year JGBs outstanding by the middle of 2019. Already, the BoJ owns around 43% of the entire stock of JGBs, draining liquidity away from the market for the risk-free asset (government bonds) that is needed by Japanese banks and major investors like pension funds and insurance companies (Chart 11). Chart 9BoJ Has Already 'Tapered'##BR##Its Bond Purchases BoJ Has Already 'Tapered' Its Bond Purchases BoJ Has Already 'Tapered' Its Bond Purchases Chart 10The BoJ Is Cornering##BR##The JGB Market BoJ Has Already 'Tapered' Its Bond Purchases BoJ Has Already 'Tapered' Its Bond Purchases With the BoJ unwilling to continue impairing the liquidity in the JGB market, it will be forced to consider alternatives to its current YCC program settings. Last week, the Japanese government nominated BoJ Governor Haruhiko Kuroda for another five-year term as the head of the central bank. Kuroda has received the full trust from PM Abe in his handling of monetary policy. However, maintaining the current monetary policy has some limitations. What can the BoJ realistically do? Until realized inflation reaches the BoJ target, there can be no shift to a less accommodative monetary policy involving a full tapering of asset purchases or interest rate increases. Yet the BoJ cannot continue to buy bonds at the current pace without essentially "cornering the market" for 10-year JGBs. The solution that would be the least disruptive, in our view, would be increasing the YCC yield target from the current 0%. It has been rumored over the past year that the BoJ would consider raising that yield curve target, although that idea has been repeatedly shot down by Governor Kuroda - no surprise, given how far inflation is from the BoJ target. The BoJ has been already been effectively "tapering" by buying fewer bonds under YCC than QQE. An explicit announcement to reduce the pace of bond buying, however, would be taken as a hawkish sign by the markets. Just ask the ECB, who is dealing with its own communication problems with the markets as it tries to prepare for the inevitable exit from its bond buying program. Explicitly raising the yield curve target would only be an option for the BoJ if it felt that a) the domestic economy could tolerate some increase in longer-term bond yields; b) Japanese inflation was likely to reach (or even surpass) the BoJ's 2% target; and c) the global economy was strong enough to push global bond yields to a sustained higher trajectory. We see the following as being a necessary "checklist" of events that must occur before the BoJ would even contemplate a more to a higher target on the 10-year JGB yield (Chart 12): Chart 11JGB Ownership Shares##BR##By Investor Category JGB Ownership Shares By Investor Category JGB Ownership Shares By Investor Category Chart 12These Must ALL Happen Before##BR##The BoJ Lifts Its JGB Yield Target These Must ALL Happen Before The BoJ Lifts Its JGB Yield Target These Must ALL Happen Before The BoJ Lifts Its JGB Yield Target 1) The USD/JPY exchange rate must increase back to at least the 115-120 range The recent rise in the yen versus the U.S. dollar has flied in the face of interest rate differentials that should be highly supportive of the U.S. dollar (top panel). This is not the only currency pair where this has happened, of course, but it matters far more for Japan given the low readings on headline inflation. A strengthening yen makes a difficult job - boosting Japanese inflation sustainably to 2% - almost impossible. 2) Japanese core CPI inflation and nominal wage inflation must both rise sustainably above 1.5% This is fairly obvious, but the BoJ cannot be confident that its 2% inflation target can be reached if core inflation continues to muddle along at levels well below that target. If wage growth were to also rise at the same time and pace as core inflation, both within hailing distance of 2%, then the BoJ would be even more convinced that some modest change to its yield target was required. 3) The 10-year JGB yield must reach an overvalued extreme versus U.S. Treasuries Table 1JGB Yield Model What Would It Take For The Bank Of Japan To Raise Its Yield Target? What Would It Take For The Bank Of Japan To Raise Its Yield Target? Or put more simply, global bond yields must rise by enough for the BoJ to say that there has been a shift in the global growth/inflation backdrop, justifying a structurally higher level of bond yields. The BoJ could then point to non-Japanese factors as the reason to bump up the target for 10-year JGB yields. We can evaluate this using the BoJ's own model for the 10-year JGB yield that was introduced back in 2016 (Table 1). This model includes Japanese potential GDP growth, the 10-year U.S. Treasury yield and the share of JGBs owned by the BoJ (along with "dummy variables" to identify the dates of the BoJ's QQE and negative interest rate policy). In the bottom two panels of Chart 12, we show a scenario that would lower the residual of the model (i.e. how far JGB yields are below fair value) to the same extremes seen during the QQE era since 2013. That would require a move in the 10-year U.S. Treasury yield to 3.5% AND an increase in the BoJ ownership share of the entire stock of JGBs to 50%. That would increase the fair value of the 10-year JGB yield to 0.18%, leaving the current yield around 10bps too expensive. Importantly, all three items in our checklist would have to happen at the same time for the BoJ to contemplate any shift in its yield curve target. That is especially true for USD/JPY. Japan would face considerable international pressure if the yen was held at undervalued levels by an overly accommodative BoJ policy that was no longer needed with Japanese inflation approaching the 2% target. What are the odds of all three of these items in our checklist being reached in 2018? Quite low, perhaps no more than 20%. For that reason, we do not see the BoJ being a new reason for frazzled global investors to worry about another spike in volatility. Bottom Line: When the BoJ does finally consider a shift in its monetary policy stance, the first thing it will do is raise its yield target on the 10-year JGB. Before doing that, three things must happen - yen weakness, higher core Japanese inflation and much higher non-Japanese global bond yields. Robert Robis, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com Ray Park, Research Analyst Ray@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Kuroda Or No Kuroda, Reflation Ahead", dated February 7th 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com.