Inflation Protected

Highlights Recommendation Allocation Quarterly - October 2017 Quarterly - October 2017 The global growth outlook remains strong, with corporate earnings likely to beat expectations for a couple more quarters. Inflation and Fed policy are key to asset allocation. We expect inflation to recover, which will push up interest rates and the dollar. But uncertainty is rising too: for example the composition of the FOMC next year, Chinese policy post the Party Congress, Geopolitics. We keep our pro-risk tilts, particularly overweights in euro area and Japanese equities, U.S. high-yield bonds, private equity, and cyclical sectors. But we reduce portfolio risk by bringing some allocations closer to benchmark, for example downgrading U.S. equities to neutral and reducing the underweight in EM. Feature Overview Growth Is Picking Up - But So Is Uncertainty The outlook for global economic growth remains almost unarguably positive (Chart 1). The key for asset allocation, then, comes down to whether inflation in the U.S. will rebound, and whether therefore the Fed will continue to tighten monetary policy in line with its current projections. This would likely cause long-term interest rates to rise and the dollar to appreciate, which would be positive for developed market equities and credit, but negative for government bonds, emerging market equities and commodities. This scenario has been our expectation - and the basis of our recommendations - for some time, and it remains so. In September, the market started coming around to our view - after months of pricing in that inflation would stay sluggish (which, therefore, had caused the euro and yen, government bonds, EM equities and commodities to perform well). In just a couple of weeks, the futures-market-priced probability of a December Fed hike has moved from 31% to 75%. This was triggered by little more than stabilization of core CPI (Chart 2), due mainly to shelter inflation, which anyway has a low weight in the core PCE inflation data that the Fed most closely watches. To us, this demonstrates just how sensitive the market is to any slight pickup in inflation, due to the fact that its expectations of Fed rate hikes over the next 12 months are so far below what the FOMC is signaling (Chart 3). Chart 1Lead Indicators Looking Good Lead Indicators Looking Good Lead Indicators Looking Good Chart 2Is The Softness In Inflation Over? Is The Softness In Inflation Over? Is The Softness In Inflation Over? Chart 3The Market Still Doesn't Believe The Fed The Market Still Doesn't Believe The Fed The Market Still Doesn't Believe The Fed However, a risk to BCA's view is that the Fed turns dovish. Even Janet Yellen, in the press conference after the FOMC meeting on 20 September, admitted that the Fed needs "to figure out whether the factors that have lowered inflation are likely to prove persistent". If they do, she said, "it would require an alteration of monetary policy." FOMC member (and notable dove) Lael Brainard, in an important speech earlier in September, laid out the argument that, since inflation has missed the Fed's 2% target for five years, inflation expectations have been damaged (Chart 4) and that only a period during which inflation overshot could repair them. With Yellen's term due to expire next February and four other vacancies on the FOMC, personnel changes could significantly change the Fed's direction. Online prediction sites give a somewhat high probability to President Trump's replacing Yellen, with (the rather more hawkish) Kevin Warsh, a Fed governor in 2006-11 (Chart 5). However, presidents tend to like loose monetary policy - President Trump has said as much himself - which raises the possibility of his trying to steer the Fed in a direction that is more tolerant of rising inflation. A possible scenario, then, is of an accommodative Fed which allows equities markets to have a final meltup for this cycle, similar to 1999. Chart 4Have Inflation Expectations Been Damaged? Have Inflation Expectations Been Damaged? Have Inflation Expectations Been Damaged? Chart 5Who Will Trump Choose To Lead The Fed? Quarterly - October 2017 Quarterly - October 2017 Another current source of uncertainty is China. Money supply growth there has slowed sharply this year, after being pushed upwards by the government's reflationary policies in late 2015. This historically has been a good lead indicator of growth and, indeed, many cyclical indicators have surprised to the downside recently (Chart 6). It is also hard to predict whether, after October's five-yearly Communist Party congress, newly re-elected President Xi Jinping will move ahead with implementing structural reforms, even at the expense of a short-term slowdown of growth.1 We continue to think that risk assets have further upside for this cycle. Growth is likely to remain strong, the probability of a U.S. tax cut is rising, and corporate earnings should surprise to the upside for another couple of quarters (Q3 S&P500 EPS consensus forecasts remain cautious at 5% YoY, versus our model which suggests double-digit growth). Nonetheless, the cycle is now mature, global equities have already produced a total return of almost 40% since their recent bottom in February last year, and valuations in almost every asset class are stretched (Chart 7). Moreover, geopolitical risks - such as that from North Korean missiles - will not disappear quickly. We continue to pencil in the possibility of a recession in 2019 or 2020, caused by a sharp rise in inflation, especially in the U.S., which the Fed - whoever is running it - would have to stamp on by raising rates above the equilibrium level. Chart 6Is A Downturn Coming In China? bca.gaa_qpo_2017_10_02_c6 bca.gaa_qpo_2017_10_02_c6 Chart 7Nothing Looks Cheap Nothing Looks Cheap Nothing Looks Cheap Therefore, on the 12-month horizon we continue to recommend pro-risk and pro-cyclical positioning, for example an overweight in equities versus fixed income. However, given the rising uncertainty, we are reducing the scale of our bets a little and so, for example among our equity country and regional recommendations, move a little closer to benchmark by lowering the U.S. to neutral and reducing the degree of our underweight in EM. Garry Evans, Senior Vice President Global Asset Allocation garry@bcaresearch.com What Our Clients Are Asking How worried should we be about North Korea? Chart 8Threats - But Eventually A Diplomatic Solution Threats - But Eventually A Diplomatic Solution Threats - But Eventually A Diplomatic Solution President Obama reportedly warned President Trump just prior to inauguration that North Korea would be his biggest headache. After 15 missile launches and a nuclear test this year (Chart 8, panel 1), investors are beginning to think the same. How big is the risk that the tension turns into warfare? BCA's Geopolitical strategists have written about the subject extensively.2 They conclude that military action is unlikely. An U.S. attack on North Korean missile or nuclear sites would simply provoke an attack with conventional weapons on Seoul, which is only 50 km from the border. Kim Jong-un undoubtedly knows that if he were to attack Guam or Japan, his country would be wiped out. In the end, then, a diplomatic solution is likely - but this will only be achieved after tension has risen sufficiently to force the two sides to the negotiating table. The analogy is Iran in 2012-15, where sanctions finally forced it to agree to a 10-year freeze in its nuclear plans. For the moment, sanctions seem unlikely to bite. North Korea's trade with China is not yet notably slowing (Chart 8, panel 2) and its GDP growth actually accelerated last year, albeit from stagnating levels, according to estimates from the Bank of Korea (Chart 8, panel 3). So the cycle of new threats and tougher sanctions will continue for a while. Historically, North Korean provocations caused related markets (such as South Korea stocks) to fall sharply for a few days, but this always represented a buying opportunity (Chart 8, panel 4). Given the likelihood of a diplomatic outcome, we think this remains a good rule of thumb. What will happen after China's 19th Party Congress, and will there be a slowdown in the economy? China's twice-a-decade National Party Congress will be held October 18-25. The outcome of the meeting could have important economic and market consequences. The key purpose of the Congress is to rotate China's political leaders. The 19th Party Congress is crucial because it marks the passing of a generation: President Xi Jinping will receive a second five-year term, but is predicted to consolidate his power by placing a younger generation of leaders who support his structural reforms into key positions. When Xi came to power, his reform agenda included de-emphasizing GDP targets; injecting private capital, competition and market discipline into the state-owned corporate sector; and fighting pollution. This agenda has since been compromised, with Xi reverting to infrastructure spending and credit growth to avoid painful adjustments. However, recently, there have been signs of a pullback in reflationary policies (Chart 9). Financial tightening is a key to reviving reform. Tighter controls on banks and leverage will translate into greater market discipline, and will put pressure on the sector most in need of change: SOEs. During the twice-a-decade National Financial Work Conference In late July, Yang Weimin, a key economic policymaker who is close to Xi, said, "The nation can't let leverage rise for the purpose of boosting economic expansion," signaling that the administration is willing to tackle difficult reform issues. He also mentioned the potential risks in the economy such as shadow banking, property bubbles, high leverage in SOEs, and local government debt, adding that the nation should set out its priorities and tackle them. Though it is impossible to predict the precise outcome of the Congress, the leadership reshuffle is likely to benefit Xi's reform agenda. The new leadership is likely to work on rebalancing growth toward consumption and services while encouraging private entrepreneurship and cutting back state-owned enterprises and, most importantly, deleveraging corporate debt. If China's credit impulse rolls over, the recent improvement in industrial profits and domestic demand will come under threat (Chart 9). As a result, China's cyclical growth is set to slow in 2018 as Xi reboots reform. Although economic risks will rise as the reform takes place, we still believe China H shares are attractive relative to other EM markets. In the long run, Xi's renewed reform drive should help China to get out of the "middle income trap'', which could help Chinese stocks to outperform EMs such as South Africa, Turkey and Brazil, where reforms are absent.3 Are Indian equities still a buy? In the three years since Prime Minister Narendra Modi's election, Indian stock prices have outperformed their emerging market peers by more than 20%. But the underlying growth dynamics do not justify this performance. We are turning cautious on India and downgrade Indian equities to neutral for the following reasons. India's GDP growth rate fell to a three-year low of 5.7% yoy in the April-June quarter. The administration's "Make In India" campaign is having limited impact, as seen in the near-zero growth of the manufacturing sector. Capital spending by firms has been dismal, further weighing on the outlook for productivity. Increasing layoffs and business shutdowns have produced considerable slack in the economy. Non-performing loans in the banking system have reached 11.8% of assets. As a result, credit growth to business has fallen almost to zero. This has slowed infrastructure development, as seen in the high level of stalled capital projects. The Reserve Bank of India has only just started the process of pushing banks to raise provisioning for distressed assets. The negative impact of last year's demonetization program is finally showing through. Less than 10% of Indians have ever used non-cash payment methods, and so demand for cyclical goods is slowing. Finally, Indian stocks have risen significantly in recent years, making them expensive relative to EM peers. In addition, profit growth has slowed, and return on equity converged with the EM average. Indian equities have been riding on expectations of reforms from the Modi administration. But, with the exception of the Goods & Services Tax (GST), the reform progress has been disappointing. We are turning cautious on Indian equities until we see improvements in the macro backdrop (Chart 10). Chart 9Sign of slowdown in Chinese Economy Sign of slowdown in Chinese Economy Sign of slowdown in Chinese Economy Chart 10India: Loosing Steam? India: Loosing Steam? India: Loosing Steam? How should global equity investors hedge foreign currency exposures? Chart 11Dynamic Hedging Outperforms Static Hedging Quarterly - October 2017 Quarterly - October 2017 There have been many conflicting views on how to hedge foreign currency exposures in a global equity portfolio. Full hedge,4 no hedge,5 or simply 50% hedge?6 Or should all investors hold the reserve currencies (USD, euro and Swiss Franc), avoid commodities currencies (AUD and CAD) while being neutral on GBP and JPY?7 As published in a Special Report 8 on September 29, 2017, our research has found that not only should investors with different home currencies manage their foreign currency exposures differently, but also a dynamic hedging framework based on the indicators from BCA's Foreign Exchange Strategy service's Intermediate Timing Model (ITTM)9 outperforms all the static hedging strategies for all investors with six different home currencies (USD, EUR, JPY, GBP, AUD and CAD) (Chart 11). A few key observations from Chart 11 Static hedges reduces risk with little impact on returns for the USD and JPY investors only. Unlike the CAD investors, the AUD investors are much better off to hedge than not to, on a risk adjusted basis, even though AUD is also a commodity currencies, like the CAD. The 50% "least regret" hedge ratio has lived up to its reputation as it reduced risk by more than 50% without severely jeopardizing returns. And for the USD based investors, the 50% static hedge has a similar risk/return profile as the dynamic hedge. For all other five home currencies, however, the 50% static hedge underperforms the dynamic hedge. Global Economy Overview: Globally growth has accelerated, with inflation quiescent. We expect growth to continue to be strong, but U.S. inflation will start to normalize, which should trigger further Fed hikes and a rise in long-term rates. Japanese and euro zone growth will be less inflationary, given continued slack in these economies. U.S.: Growth has rebounded sharply after the seasonally weak Q1 and excessive expectations following the presidential election. The Citi Economic Surprise Index (Chart 12, panel 1) shows strong upward surprises. First-half GDP growth came in at 2.2% (above trend, which is estimated at 1.8%), and the manufacturing ISM reached 57.7 in September. The two big hurricanes will probably knock around 0.5 points off Q3 growth but the lesson from previous disasters is that this will be more than made up over the following three quarters. Rebounding capex, and consumption aided by a probable acceleration in wages, should keep GDP growth strong. Euro Area: Due to Europe's greater cyclicality and dependence on the global cycle, growth momentum is unsurprisingly even stronger than in the U.S., with Q2 GDP growth 2.3% YoY and the manufacturing PMI at 57.4. German growth has been particularly robust with the IFO index at 115.9, close to an all-time high, and German manufacturing wages growing by 2.9% YoY. The credit impulse suggests that the strong growth should continue, although the euro appreciation this year (and consequent tightening of financial conditions) might dampen it a little. Japan: Growth continues to be good in the external sector (with exports rising 18% YOY and industrial production 5%), but weak in the domestic economy, where household spending and core inflation continue to flatline. We do, though, see some first tentative signs of inflation: the Bank of Japan's estimate suggests the output gap has now closed, and the tight labor market is showing through in part-time hourly wages, which are rising 2.9%. Emerging Markets: China's PMI has oscillated around 50 all year (Chart 13, panel 3), as the authorities tried to stabilize growth ahead of October's Party Congress. But money supply and credit growth have been slowing all year, and this is now showing through in downside surprises in fixed asset investment and retail sales data. Especially if the congress moves towards structural reform and short-term pain, growth may slow further. This would be negative for other emerging markets, which depend on China for growth. Bank loan growth and domestic consumption generally remain weak throughout EM ex China. Chart 12Global Growth Is Accelerating... Global Growth Is Accelerating... Global Growth Is Accelerating... Chart 13...Propelling Europe And Japan ...Propelling Europe And Japan ...Propelling Europe And Japan Interest Rates: Inflation has been soft this year in the U.S. but is likely to pick up in coming months reflecting stronger economic growth and dollar depreciation. We expect the Fed to raise rates in December and confirm its three hikes next year. That should be enough to push the 10-year Treasury yield up to close to 3%. In Japan and the euro area, however, underlying inflationary pressures are much weaker. So we expect the Bank of Japan to stick to its yield curve control policy, and for the ECB to emphasize, when it announces in October next year's (reduced) asset purchase program, that it will be cautious about raising rates. Global Equities Chart 14Earnings Have Been Strong... Earnings Have Been Strong... Earnings Have Been Strong... Q3 2017 was the second quarter in a row when the price appreciation in global equities was driven entirely by earnings growth, since the forward price-to-earnings ratio contracted by 2% compared to Q2 (Chart 14). Chart 15No Compelling Reasons To Make Large Bets No Compelling Reasons To Make Large Bets No Compelling Reasons To Make Large Bets The scope of the improvement in earnings so far in 2017 has been wide. Not only are forward earnings being revised up, but 12-month trailing earnings growth has also been very strong, with all 10 top-level sectors registering positive earnings growth. Margins have steadily improved globally from the lows in early 2016. Despite the slight multiple compression in Q3, equity valuations are not cheap by historical standards. As an asset class, however, equities are still attractively valued compared to bonds, especially after the recent safe-haven buying drove global bond yields to very depressed levels. We remain overweight equities versus bonds on the 9-12 month horizon. Within equities, however, we think it's prudent to reduce portfolio risk by bringing allocations closer to benchmark weighting because 1) equities are not cheap, 2) volatility is low, 3) geopolitical tension is rising, and 4) year-on-year earnings growth over coming quarters may not be as strong as it has been so far this year because earnings in the first half of the 2016 were very depressed. As such, we downgrade the U.S. to neutral from overweight (+3 percentage points), and reduce the underweight in EM (to -2 from -5). We remain overweight the euro area and Japan (but hedge the yen exposure). Within EM, we have been more positive on China and remain so on a 6-9 month horizon. Sector-wise, we maintain our pro-cyclical tilt. Country Allocations: Downgrade U.S. To Neutral We started the year being "cautiously optimistic" with a maximum overweight (+6 ppts) in U.S. equities.10 We added risk at the end of the first quarter by reducing by half the U.S. overweight in order to upgrade the higher-beta euro area to overweight (+3) from neutral.11 The change has worked well, as the euro area outperformed the U.S. by 542 basis points (bps) in Q2 and then by 370 bps in Q3 in unhedged USD terms. Our DM-only quant model also started the year with a maximum overweight in the U.S., but the overweight was gradually reduced each month until July when the model indicated a benchmark weight for the U.S. The model continued its shift away from the U.S. in August and September, and now the U.S. is the largest underweight in the model. As we have previously stated, we use the quant model as one key input into our decision-making process, but we do not follow it slavishly because 1) no model can capture all the ever-changing driving forces in the market, and 2) the model moves more often than we prefer. In light of the rising geopolitical risks and low levels of volatility in all asset classes, we conclude that there are no longer compelling reasons to make large bets among the countries (Chart 15). Valuation in the U.S. is stretched, but neither is it cheap in EM anymore; both trailing and forward earnings growth in the U.S. are below the global average. Forward earnings in the EM look likely to outpace the global average, but EM trailing earnings growth seems to be losing steam. As such, we recommend investors to be neutral in the U.S. and use the funds to reduce the underweight in EM. Sector Allocation: Stay Underweight Global Utilities Overall, our sector positioning retains its tilt towards cyclicals and against defensives (see Table 1). Our global sector quant model, however, in September reduced its underweight in defensives by upgrading utilities to overweight from underweight, mainly due to the momentum factor. We have decided to overwrite the model result and maintain our underweight recommendation for the following reasons. In October, the model again downgraded utilities to underweight. In the most recent cycle post the Global Financial Crisis (GFC), the relative performance of utilities has been closely correlated with the performance of bonds vs. equities (Chart 16, top panel). This is not surprising given the bond-like nature of the sector. The sector enjoys a higher dividend yield than the global average: other than during the GFC, the excess yield has been in the range of 1-2%. In a low bond-yield environment, this yield pick-up is no doubt attractive. However, our house view is for global bond yields to rise over the next 9-12 months and we maintain our overweight on equities vs. bonds. As such, underweight utilities is in line with our overall risk/return assessment. In addition, even though the utilities sector has a higher dividend yield, the current reading is not particularly attractive compared to the five-year average (panel 4); valuation measures such as price to book (panel 3) show a neutral reading as well. The other sector where we override our quant model is Healthcare, which we favor as a long-term play because of favorable demographic trends, while the quant model points to an underweight due to short-term factors such as momentum and valuation. Smart Beta Update Year-to-date, the equal-weighted multi-factor portfolio has outperformed the global benchmark by 54 basis point (bps). (Table 1 and Chart 17) Among the five most enduring factors - size, value, quality, minimum volatility, and momentum - momentum is the only factor that has prevailed in both DM and EM universes, while quality has outperformed in the DM, but underperformed in EM. (Table 1) Chart 16Maintain Underweight Utilities Maintain Underweight Utilities Maintain Underweight Utilities Chart 17MSCI ACW: Factor Relative Performance MSCI ACW: Factor Relative Performance MSCI ACW: Factor Relative Performance Value has underperformed growth across the board (Table 1). The size performance, however, has large regional divergences in both value and growth spaces. Small cap has outperformed large cap consistently in both the value and growth spaces in the higher-beta euro area, Japan and U.K., while underperforming in the lower-beta U.S. (Table 2) We maintain our neutral view on styles and prefer to use sector positioning to implement the underlying factors given the historically close correlation between styles and cyclicals versus defensives (Chart 17, bottom two panels). Year-to-date cyclicals have outperformed defensives (Table 1). Table 1YTD Relative Performance* Quarterly - October 2017 Quarterly - October 2017 Table 2YTD Total Returns* (%) Small Cap - Large Cap Quarterly - October 2017 Quarterly - October 2017 Government Bonds Maintain Slight Underweight Duration. U.S. bond yields declined significantly in Q3 to below fair-value levels in response to heightened geopolitical risks and hurricanes (Chart 18, top panel). This safe-haven buying spread globally, despite ample evidence of faster global growth (middle panel) and less accommodative monetary policies from the major central banks. There is now considerable upside risk for global bond yields from these current low levels. Maintain Overweight TIPS Vs. Treasuries. The fall in nominal U.S. Treasury yields, however, was concentrated in the real yields, as 10-year break-even inflation widened in Q3 (Chart 18, panel 3). In terms of relative value, TIPS are now fairly valued vs. nominal bonds. However, our U.S. Bond Strategy's core PCE model, which closely tracks the 10-year TIPS breakeven rate (Chart 18, panel 3), is sending the message that inflationary pressures are building in the economy and that core PCE should reach the Fed's 2% target by the end of this year. This suggests that the bond markets are not providing adequate compensation for the inflationary economic backdrop. Underweight Canadian Government Bonds. The Bank of Canada (BOC) delivered another surprise 25 bps rate hike in September, due to "the impressive strength of the Canadian economy" and "the more synchronized global expansion that was supporting higher industrial commodity prices." BCA's Global Fixed Income Strategy has been underweight Canada in its hedged global portfolio and recommends investors not to fight the BOC despite little inflation pressure in the Canadian economy (Chart 19). Chart 18Poor Value in Nominal Government Bonds Poor Value in Nominal Government Bonds Poor Value in Nominal Government Bonds Chart 19Bank of Canada: Shock Hawks Bank of Canada: Shock Hawks Bank of Canada: Shock Hawks Corporate Bonds As inflation recovers and the Fed moves ahead with rate hikes, we expect long-term risk-free rates to rise moderately. Fair value for the 10-year U.S. Treasury yield is currently close to 2.7%. In the context of rising rates and continued economic expansion, we continue to prefer spread product over government bonds. Investment grade bonds in the U.S. trade at an average option-adjusted spread over Treasuries of 110 bps. While Aaa corporate spreads are expensive, other investment grade credit tiers appear fairly valued. Given the deterioration in our U.S. Corporate Health Monitor (Chart 20), amid a rise in leverage, over the past two years (Chart 21) we do not expect the spread to contract further or fall back close to historic lows. However, investors should still be moderately attracted by the carry in a low interest rate environment. Our preference is for U.S. investment-grade corporate bonds over European ones, since the latter could be negatively impacted when the ECB announces its tapering of asset purchases in October. High-yield bonds look attractive after a small rise in spreads and an improvement in the cyclical outlook over the past quarter. The current spread of U.S. high-yield, 360 bps, translates into a default-adjusted yield (assuming a 2.6% default rate and 49% recovery rate over the next 12 months) of 250 bps - close to the long-run average (Chart 22). European junk debt looks less attractive from a valuation perspective. Chart 20Corporate Health Is A Worry In The U.S. Corporate Health Is A Worry In The U.S. Corporate Health Is A Worry In The U.S. Chart 21IG Spreads Unlikely To Contract Further IG Spreads Unlikely To Contract Further IG Spreads Unlikely To Contract Further Chart 22High-Yield Debt Valuations Look Attractive High-Yield Debt Valuations Look Attractive High-Yield Debt Valuations Look Attractive Commodities Chart 23Mixed View Towards Commodities Mixed View Towards Commodities Mixed View Towards Commodities Secular perspective: Bearish We hold a bearish secular outlook for commodities, mainly due to our view on China's slowing economic growth and the increasing shift from traditional energy sources to alternatives. Cyclical perspective: Neutral Our short-term commodities view remains neutral since oil inventory drawdowns will push up the crude oil price further, and because low real interest rates will keep gold from falling this year. But industrial metals are likely to react negatively to the winding down of China's reflation after the Party Congress in mid-October. Precious metal: Short-term bullish, long-term bearish. We expect the Fed to tighten rates only slowly which, over time, will mean the central bank finds itself behind the curve on inflation. Real rates are expected to remain relatively low for the foreseeable future, which will be supportive of gold. Rising tension between North Korea and the U.S. could also give gold a lift. Industrial metals: Bearish The copper price has rallied by 10% during Q3 2017, thanks to supply-side disruptions at some of the world's largest copper mines, along with better-than-expected performance of the Chinese economy. However, mine interruptions will be transitory, and the world copper market is already back in balance (Chart 23, panel 3). Although the rebound in the Chinese PMI is keeping metal prices up, we believe China after the Party Congress will try to reengineer its economy towards being more consumption and services-led, which will temper demand for industrial metals. Energy: Bullish We believe that market has been overly pessimistic on oil, and that this will change due to declining inventories and better demand and supply dynamics. (Chart 23) The U.S. Energy Information Administration revised down its shale production forecast for 2H 2017 by 200,000 barrels/day, which should lower investors' concerns over shale overproduction. Libyan oil production, the biggest threat to our bullish oil view, faltered by 300,000/day in August, keeping OPEC in compliance with its promised cuts. Currencies U.S. Dollar: Year to date, the dollar is down by 8% on a trade-weighted basis (Chart 24). However, after a period of underperformance, the U.S. economy is improving relative to its G10 peers, as seen by the strong rebound in the U.S. ISM manufacturing index. Additionally, the pick-up in money velocity points to a recovery in core inflation. As inflation starts to pick up again, markets will discount additional Fed rate hikes. Stay bullish U.S. dollar over the next 12 months. Chart 24U.S. Dollar Recovery? U.S. Dollar Recovery? U.S. Dollar Recovery? Pound: After a weak start to the year, sterling has recovered all its losses. Strong net FDI inflows have pushed the basic balance back into positive territory. However, Brexit negotiations will impact the financial sector, the largest target for FDI. Additionally, the recent sharp increase in inflation came from the pass-through effect of the weaker currency, and is not reflective of domestic economic activity. We expect increased political uncertainty to weigh down on future growth, forcing the Bank of England to maintain a dovish stance. Stay bearish over the next 12 months. Dollar: On a trade-weighted basis the currency is up 4% year to date, primarily driven by the rally in select metal prices. OECD's measure of output gap still points to substantial slack in the domestic economy, as seen in the downtrend in core inflation and nominal retail sales. However, despite improvements in global trade and domestic real estate activity, the Reserve Bank of Australia will keep policy easy in response to volatile commodity markets. Stay bearish over the next 12 months. Canadian Dollar: Driven by net portfolio inflows near record highs, the currency is up 6% on a trade-weighted basis so far this year. With improving economic activity, as seen in strong retail sales, the Bank of Canada expects the output gap to close in 2018. However, going forward, oil prices are unlikely to double again, and the combination of elevated indebtedness, bubby house prices and rising rates will create headwinds for the household sector. Stay bearish over the next 12 months. Alternatives Chart 25Favor PE, Real Assets Favor PE, Real Assets Favor PE, Real Assets Return Enhancers: Favor private equity vs. hedge funds In 2017 so far, private equity has returned 9%, whereas hedge funds have managed only a 3.5% return (Chart 25). Given their strong performance, private equity firms are raising near-record amounts of capital from investors starved for yield. By contrast, hedge funds continue to underperform both global equities and private equity, as is typical outside of recessions or bear markets. However, increasing concerns about valuations in private markets have pushed private equity dry powder to new highs of $963 billion. We continue to favor private equity over hedge funds, albeit with a more cautious outlook. Within the hedge fund space, we favor event-driven funds over the cycle, and macro funds heading into a recession. Inflation Hedges: Favor direct real estate vs. commodity futures In 2017 to date, direct real estate has returned 3.3%, whereas commodity futures are down over 10%. With energy markets likely to continue to recover lost ground over the coming months, we stress the structural nature of our negative recommendation on commodities. Depressed interest rates will keep financing cheap, making the spread between real estate and fixed income yields attractive. However, the slowdown in commercial real estate has made us more cautious on the overall real estate space. With regards to the commodity complex, the long term transition of China to a service-based economy will continue the structural decline in commodity demand. Continue to favor direct real estate vs. commodity futures. Volatility Dampeners: Favor farmland & timberland vs. structured products In 2017 to date, farmland and timberland have returned 2.2% and 1.5% respectively, whereas structured products have returned 1.4%. Farmland continues to outperform timberland given the latter's lower correlation with growth. Timberland returns have also lagged farmland given the weak recovery in the U.S. housing market. Investors can reduce the volatility of a multi-asset portfolio with the inclusion of farmland and timberland. With regards to structured products, rising rates and deteriorating credit quality in the auto loan market will weigh on returns. Given the Fed's plans to start unwinding its balance sheet this year, increased supply will put upward pressure on spreads. Risks To Our View Our pro-risk positioning would be incorrect if global growth were to slow sharply. But we see little sign that this is a significant risk over the next six to 12 months. Of our three favorite indicators of recession risk, global PMIs remain strong, and the U.S. 10-minus-2 year yield curve is still solidly positive at around 80 BP. Only a small blip up in junk bond spreads in August (Chart 26) is of any concern, and it was probably caused just by geopolitical tensions. With U.S. and European consumption and capex looking strong, probably the biggest risk to global growth would come from China, similar to 2015, if October's Party Congress signals a shift to short-term pain to achieve structural reforms. Perhaps more likely is an upside surprise to growth, with BCA's models - based on consumer and business sentiment - pointing to around 3% real GDP growth in the U.S. and 2½% in the euro area over the coming couple of quarters (Chart 27). Such an acceleration of growth would raise the risk of upside surprises to inflation, which could cause a bigger sell off in bond markets than we currently anticipate. Chart 26Any Need To Worry About Credit Spreads? Any Need To Worry About Credit Spreads? Any Need To Worry About Credit Spreads? Chart 27Could Growth Surprise On The Upside? Could Growth Surprise On The Upside? Could Growth Surprise On The Upside? Chart 28Suppose Inflation Stays Stubbornly Low Suppose Inflation Stays Stubbornly Low Suppose Inflation Stays Stubbornly Low Our positioning is not based on inflation remaining chronically low. But structural changes in the economy could cause this. While the Philips curve has not broken down completely, wage growth in the U.S. is 1-1½% lower than in previous expansions when the unemployment gap was at its current level (Chart 28). Could the Nairu be lower than the Fed's estimate of 4.6%? Has the gig economy somehow changed worker and employer behavior? 1 Please see What Our Clients Are Asking: "What Will Happen After China's 19th Party Congress, And Will There Be A Slowdown In The Economy?" of this report. 2 For their most comprehensive analysis, please see Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "North Korea: Beyond Satire," dated April 19, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Special Report "China: Looking Beyond The Party Congress'' dated July 19, 2017. available at gps.bcaresearch.com). 4 Perold, A and E. Schulman, 1988, "The free lunch in currency hedging: Implications for investment policy and performance standards," Financial Analyst Journal 44, 45-50. 5 Froot K., 1993, "Currency hedging over long horizons," NBER working paper 4355. 6 Michenaud, S., and B., Solnik, 2008, "Applying Regret Theory to Investment Choices: Currency Hedging Decisions," Journal of International Money and Finance 27, 677-694. 7 Campbell, J., K. de Medeiros and L. Viceira, 2010, "Global Currency Hedging," Journal of Finance LXV, 87-122. 8 Please see Global Asset Allocation Special Report, "Currency Hedging: Dynamic Or Static? - A Practical Guide For Global Equity Investors," dated September 29, 2017, available at gaa.bcaresearch.com. 9 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy "In Search of A Timing Model," dated July 22, 2016, available at fes.bcaresearch.com. 10 Please see Global Asset Allocation, "Quarterly - December 2016," dated December 15, 2016. 11 Please see Global Asset Allocation, "Quarterly - April 2017," dated April 3, 2017. GAA Asset Allocation

Highlights Duration: As long as inflation shows signs of stabilizing during the next couple of months the Fed will lift rates again in December. Stay at below-benchmark duration and remain overweight TIPS versus nominal Treasuries. Credit Cycle: The process of corporate sector re-leveraging is well underway, but the corporate bond trade still has further to run. In fact, the second quarter decline in net leverage likely prolongs the length of time that overweight corporate bond positions will be profitable. Economy & Inflation: While households are no longer paying down debt, the pace of re-leveraging has so far been slow. With delinquency rates already starting to rise for certain classes of consumer credit, we see household debt growth as remaining tepid at best. Feature Janet Yellen struck a somewhat hawkish tone in her press conference following last week's FOMC meeting, as did the post-meeting statement and Summary of Economic Projections (SEP). Predictably, the bond market sold off and is now priced for 39 bps of rate hikes between now and the end of 2018 (Chart 1). While this is still well below the 100 bps predicted in the SEP, it proved sufficient to send the 2-year Treasury yield to a new cycle high (Chart 1, bottom panel). The Fed also announced the unwind of its balance sheet, as had been widely anticipated, and Yellen took great pains to stress that the pace of balance sheet reduction will not be altered unless the economy encounters a shock severe enough to send the fed funds rate back to zero. As was discussed in last week's report,1 this is a calculated move by the Fed meant to sever the link between the balance sheet and expectations about the future path of rate hikes. The SEP showed that most FOMC participants still expect to lift rates once more this year, and that only four out of 16 believe the Fed should stand pat, the same number as in June. However, expectations for one more hike this year are most likely contingent on inflation showing some further signs of strength. To see this, we note that the real fed funds rate is very close to at least one popular estimate of its equilibrium level (Chart 2). With inflation still below the Fed's target it is imperative that an accommodative monetary policy stance is maintained. Practically, this means keeping the real fed funds rate below equilibrium so that economic slack can be absorbed and inflation can rise. If inflation stays flat and the Fed hikes in December, then the real fed funds rate will move above the Laubach-Williams estimate of equilibrium. Chart 1Fed Pushes Yields Higher Fed Pushes Yields Higher Fed Pushes Yields Higher Chart 2Funds Rate Must Stay Below Neutral Funds Rate Must Stay Below Neutral Funds Rate Must Stay Below Neutral We calculate that if the Fed delivers a 25 basis point hike in December, then year-over-year core PCE inflation must rise from its current 1.41% to 1.63% for the real fed funds rate to stay below its neutral level (Chart 2, bottom panel). This squares with the Fed's central tendency forecast that calls for core PCE inflation between 1.5% and 1.6% by the end of the year. In our view, as long as inflation shows further signs of stabilizing and moves toward the Fed's central tendency range during the next couple of months, then the Fed will likely lift rates again in December. However, if inflation resumes its recent downtrend, then the Fed will take a pass. Inflation Expectations: Yellen vs. Brainard Perhaps the most interesting detail to emerge from last week's FOMC meeting is that the committee is so far rejecting Governor Lael Brainard's claim that inflation expectations have become unanchored to the downside. As we discussed in a recent report,2 inflation expectations are critical to the Fed's way of thinking about inflation. In the Fed's view, monetary policy can be used effectively in response to shifts in the cyclical drivers of inflation. However, if inflation expectations were to become unanchored, it would suggest that inflation's long run trend had been altered. This would make monetary policy much less effective, and a timely return of inflation to target much less likely. Governor Brainard views the recent weakness in inflation as suggesting that inflation expectations have in fact become unmoored. As evidence she points to the low levels of: TIPS breakeven inflation rates (Chart 3, top panel) Chart 3Inflation Expectations Inflation Expectations Inflation Expectations Household inflation expectations from the University of Michigan survey (Chart 3, panel 2) 5-year, 5-year forward CPI forecasts derived from the Survey of Professional Forecasters (SPF) (Chart 3, panel 3) In contrast, at her post-meeting press conference Chair Yellen pointed to median 10-year forecasts from the SPF as evidence that inflation expectations remain well-anchored (Chart 3, bottom panel). Although, she also admitted that she is unable to explain why inflation has fallen this year: I can't say I can easily point to a sufficient set of factors that explain this year why inflation has been this low. I've mentioned a few idiosyncratic things, but frankly, the low inflation is more broad-based than just idiosyncratic things. What matters for bond investors is that TIPS breakeven inflation rates, a measure of the compensation for inflation protection embedded in nominal bond yields, are well below levels that are usually seen when core inflation is well anchored around the Fed's target. At present, the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate is 1.84%. We expect it will return to a range between 2.4% and 2.5% by the time that year-over-year core PCE inflation reaches 2%. In Yellen's view, inflationary pressures are strong enough for this process to play out with the Fed still being able to gradually lift rates, once more this year and then three more times in 2018. But the longer that inflation fails to rebound as Yellen expects, the more likely it becomes that the committee will come around to Brainard's view and scale back the pace of hikes. A slower expected pace of rate hikes will lend support to inflation and TIPS breakevens, and in either scenario we would expect TIPS breakevens to reach the 2.4% to 2.5% range by the end of the cycle. The uncertainty surrounds what level of real rates will be required to achieve that outcome. In that regard we are more inclined toward Yellen's view. Inflation will soon follow growth indicators higher,3 and the Fed will be able to deliver a pace of rate hikes similar to what it currently projects. But with so few rate hikes priced into the curve, we think the investment implications are the same in either scenario. Investors should stay at below-benchmark duration and remain overweight TIPS versus nominal Treasuries. Bonds In The Long-Run? The Fed's median projection for the level of longer-run interest rates also declined last week, from 3% to 2.75%. It is now only 8 bps above the 5-year, 5-year forward Treasury yield (Chart 4). Chart 4Fed Slowly Embracing A Low Neutral Rate Fed Slowly Embracing A Low Neutral Rate Fed Slowly Embracing A Low Neutral Rate In general, we think the 5-year, 5-year Treasury yield should be equal to the nominal interest rate expected to prevail in the longer-run plus a small risk premium. In that respect, the yield still looks a tad low compared to the Fed's forecast, although the gap has narrowed considerably. While we would not want to hinge our investment strategy on the accuracy of the Fed's longer-run interest rate forecast, it is notable that the Fed continues to price-in a future where the equilibrium interest rate remains depressed. Please see the Economy & Inflation section (below) for a discussion of the longer-run outlook for the fed funds rate. Corporate Credit Cycle Prolonged Second quarter Financial Accounts (formerly Flow of Funds) data were released last week, allowing us to update some of our credit cycle indicators. Chart 5 shows that, historically, three conditions must be met before the credit cycle turns and we experience a period of sustained corporate bond underperformance. Our Corporate Health Monitor (CHM) must be in "deteriorating health" territory, signaling that the corporate sector is aggressively taking on debt (Chart 5, panel 2). Monetary policy must be restrictive. This can be signaled by the real federal funds rate crossing above its equilibrium level (Chart 5, panel 3), or an inversion of the yield curve (Chart 5, panel 4). Banks must be tightening standards on commercial & industrial loans (Chart 5, bottom panel). So far this cycle only the first criterion has been met and while the CHM remains firmly in "deteriorating health" territory, it actually took a sizeable turn toward zero in Q2. The marginal improvement in corporate health was broad based across all six of our monitor's components (Chart 6). Even return on capital, which had been in free fall, managed to move higher (Chart 6, panel 3). Chart 5Credit Cycle Indicators Credit Cycle Indicators Credit Cycle Indicators Chart 6Corporate Health Monitor Components Corporate Health Monitor Components Corporate Health Monitor Components Box 1Corporate Health Monitor Components Won't Back Down Won't Back Down The slower pace of deterioration in corporate health can mostly be chalked up to surging profit growth. EBITD4 growth outpaced debt growth in Q2, sending our measure of net leverage lower (Chart 7). Year-over-year EBITD growth is now within striking distance of corporate debt growth for the first time since 2015 (Chart 7, bottom panel). Chart 7Can Leverage Reverse Its Uptrend? Can Leverage Reverse Its Uptrend? Can Leverage Reverse Its Uptrend? It is rare for corporate spreads to tighten while leverage is rising. So in that regard the tick lower in leverage probably extends the period of time we can remain overweight corporate bonds in a U.S. fixed income portfolio. Chart 8Profit Outlook Still Positive Profit Outlook Still Positive Profit Outlook Still Positive Since 1973, we calculate that investment grade corporate bonds have outperformed duration-equivalent Treasuries in 62% of six month periods, for an average annualized excess return of 45 bps. In prior research5 we showed that, during the same timeframe, when leverage rose for two consecutive quarters corporate bonds outperformed in only 45% of the following six month periods, for an average annualized excess return of -190 bps. This quarter's decline in leverage breaks a streak of two consecutive increases. But what about going forward? Further declines in leverage will depend on whether profit growth can sustain its recent strength. While some moderation is likely, our leading profit indicators suggest that growth will remain firm for the remainder of the year (Chart 8). Total business sales less inventories have hooked a tad lower, but are still consistent with solid profit growth (Chart 8, panel 1). Industrial production growth also rolled over last month, but that reflects temporary weakness related to Hurricane Harvey. Continued elevated readings from the ISM manufacturing index suggest that underlying demand is strong (Chart 8, panel 2). Meanwhile, dollar weakness continues to provide a tailwind for profit growth (Chart 8, panel 3), and our profit margin proxy has also ticked higher (Chart 8, bottom panel). Our profit margin proxy has risen due to weakness in unit labor costs. While tightening labor markets should cause the corporate wage bill to increase, a late-cycle rebound in productivity growth will ensure that unit labor cost growth stays muted compared to other wage growth measures. We made the case for a late-cycle rebound in productivity growth driven by stronger non-residential investment in a recent report.6 That being said, mounting wage pressures will likely cause margins to narrow next year, although a sharp margin-driven hit to profit growth is not likely in the next few quarters. Bottom Line: The process of corporate sector re-leveraging is well underway, but the corporate bond trade still has further to run. In fact, the second quarter decline in net leverage likely prolongs the length of time that overweight corporate bond positions will be profitable. Economy & Inflation: Household Re-leveraging Still A Slog As was noted above, both model-driven estimates and FOMC forecasts posit that the real equilibrium fed funds rate is very low by historical standards. One school of thought, secular stagnation, views the low equilibrium rate as a permanent state of affairs. While another, the "headwinds" thesis, claims that the fall-out from the financial crisis is keeping the equilibrium rate low for now, but that it will rise as the vestiges of the crisis start to fade. In this second theory, the major headwind keeping the equilibrium rate temporarily low would be the slow pace of household re-leveraging. Chart 9 shows the correlation between the Laubach-Williams estimate of the real equilibrium fed funds rate and growth in household debt. Household debt has only recently started to increase, and even today it is growing at a historically slow pace. So far this has not translated into strong enough growth to push the equilibrium interest rate higher, perhaps because the modest debt growth is occurring off quite a low base. Overall household debt is no longer falling relative to disposable income, but it has also not yet started to rise (Chart 9, panel 2). Whether you fall into the secular stagnation or headwinds camp, we would argue that the pace of household re-leveraging will remain tepid, keeping a lid on the equilibrium interest rate for quite some time. Household debt is dominated by housing, where still-tight lending standards and a lack of savings on the part of potential first-time homebuyers remain semi-permanent features of the economic landscape that will take a long time to disappear. Outside of housing, consumers have been adding debt fairly aggressively, especially in the non-revolving (auto loan and student loan) spaces (Chart 9, bottom panel). The problem is that in those areas where consumers have been adding debt (credit cards, auto loans and student loans), we are also seeing delinquency rates start to rise (Chart 10). Chart 9Household Debt & The Neutral Rate Household Debt & The Neutral Rate Household Debt & The Neutral Rate Chart 10Consumer Credit Delinquency Rates Consumer Credit Delinquency Rates Consumer Credit Delinquency Rates Delinquency rates are elevated compared to pre-crisis levels for both auto loans and student loans. For credit cards, where the re-leveraging is not as far advanced, delinquency rates remain low but have started to increase. It is only in the mortgage market, where re-leveraging has not occurred, that delinquencies remain low. The fact that delinquency rates have already started to increase for auto loans, student loans and credit cards suggests that there is limited scope to add further debt in those areas. Bottom Line: While households are no longer paying down debt, the pace of re-leveraging has so far been slow. With delinquency rates already starting to rise for certain classes of consumer credit, we see household debt growth as remaining tepid at best. Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "The Great Unwind", dated September 19, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Open Mouth Operations", dated September 12, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Open Mouth Operations", dated September 12, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 4 Earnings before interest, taxes and depreciation. 5 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Low Inflation And Rising Debt", dated June 13, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 6 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Open Mouth Operations", dated September 12, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

Highlights Monetary Policy: A prominent Fed Governor has acknowledged that inflation expectations have become un-anchored to the downside. This is an important signal and suggests that the Fed will keep policy easy enough for inflation expectations to recover. TIPS: The combination of a Fed that communicates a desire for higher inflation expectations and an end to the current downtrend in realized core inflation will send TIPS breakevens wider. Yield Curve: Higher inflation expectations will cause the yield curve to steepen on a 6-12 month horizon. Although steepener trades no longer appear cheap on our model, we remain overweight the 5-year bullet versus a duration-matched 2/10 barbell. Feature Chart 1Flight To Safety Focused In Real Yields Flight To Safety Focused In Real Yields Flight To Safety Focused In Real Yields Bond markets digested two important events last week. The first was a politically driven flight to safety. The 10-year yield fell 10 bps (Chart 1) and the average junk spread widened 8 bps as the daily U.S. Policy Uncertainty index1 averaged 121 for the week, its second-highest reading since February. As we have noted in past reports,2 historically the best strategy has been to fade politically driven flights to safety. The second, and more significant, event was a speech3 given by Fed Governor Lael Brainard in which she suggested that inflation expectations have become un-anchored to the downside. As is explained below, this acknowledgement represents an important change in tone from the Fed. One that reinforces our outlook for higher Treasury yields, a steeper yield curve and wider TIPS breakevens on a 6-12 month horizon. You Had One Job The key passage from Governor Brainard's speech is the following: Nonetheless, a variety of measures suggest underlying trend inflation may be lower than it was before the crisis, contributing to the ongoing shortfall of inflation from our objective. To understand the significance of this statement we need some background on how the Fed thinks about inflation. FOMC members tend to apply an expectations-augmented Phillips curve framework to the task of forecasting inflation (Chart 2). Fed Chair Janet Yellen explained this approach in a September 2015 speech.4 In Yellen's words: ...economic slack, changes in imported goods prices, and idiosyncratic shocks all cause core inflation to deviate from a longer-term trend that is ultimately determined by long-run inflation expectations. [...] An important feature of this model of inflation dynamics is that the overall effect that variations in resource utilization, import prices, and other factors will have on inflation depends crucially on whether these influences also affect long-run inflation expectations. In other words, the Fed's model distinguishes between core inflation's long-run trend and its cyclical fluctuations. Cyclical fluctuations are driven by: Resource utilization (usually measured as the unemployment rate minus its estimated natural rate) Non-oil import prices Idiosyncratic shocks In contrast, core inflation's long-run trend is purely a function of long-term inflation expectations. In the Fed's view, monetary policy can be used effectively in response to shifts in the cyclical drivers of inflation. However, if inflation expectations were to become unanchored, then inflation's long-run trend would be altered and monetary policy would become less effective. In a sense, the worst possible outcome would be if inflation expectations became un-anchored to the downside. Once again, in Janet Yellen's own words: Anchored inflation expectations were not won easily or quickly: Experience suggests that it takes many years of carefully conducted monetary policy to alter what households and firms perceive to be inflation's "normal" behavior, and, furthermore, that a persistent failure to keep inflation under control - by letting it drift either too high or too low for too long - could cause expectations to once again become unmoored. This describes precisely the conventional wisdom as to why the Japanese economy has experienced two decades of deflation despite reasonably high levels of resource utilization. Policymakers did not act quickly or strongly enough following the burst stock market bubble of 1989-91, and this allowed deflationary expectations to become entrenched. In this sense the Japanese experience provides a roadmap for what could happen in the U.S. if the Fed doesn't act quickly to bring inflation expectations back up to target levels. It is true that not all measures of U.S. inflation expectations currently display weakness. For example, the measure we used in our expectations-augmented Phillips curve in Chart 2 - median 10-year PCE expectations from the Survey of Professional Forecasters - appears stable in recent years. However, Governor Brainard pointed to several measures that suggest inflation expectations have already declined (Chart 3). Chart 2The Fed's Inflation Model The Fed's Inflation Model The Fed's Inflation Model Chart 3Still Well Anchored? Still Well Anchored? Still Well Anchored? Comparing the three-year period ending in the second quarter of this year with the three-year period ended just before the financial crisis, 10-year-ahead inflation compensation based on TIPS [...] yields is ¾ percentage point lower. Survey-based measures of inflation expectations are also lower. The Michigan survey measure of median household expectations of inflation over the next five to 10 years suggests a ¼ percentage point downward shift over the most recent three-year period compared with the pre-crisis years, similar to the five-year, five-year forward forecast for the consumer price index from the Survey of Professional Forecasters.5 Investment Implications In our view, there are two important facts to keep in mind: In the Fed's model of inflation it is crucial that long-term inflation expectations do not fall. Otherwise, the odds of replicating the Japanese scenario start to increase. A prominent Fed Governor has now suggested that U.S. inflation expectations have become un-anchored to the downside. Chart 4The Market's Rate Hike Expectations The Market's Rate Hike Expectations The Market's Rate Hike Expectations Taken together, these two facts have important investment implications. First, the two facts suggest that TIPS breakevens will move wider. While the Japanese experience has taught us that "open mouth operations" become less effective once deflationary expectations are entrenched, they should still have some impact in the States. Notice that the decline in Treasury yields that followed Brainard's comments last week was concentrated in the real component. The 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate actually rose 2 bps (Chart 1). The combination of a Fed that communicates a desire for higher inflation expectations and an end to the current downtrend in realized core inflation (see "Economy & Inflation" section below) will be enough to send long-dated TIPS breakevens wider on a 6-12 month horizon. Second, a Fed that is committed to staying accommodative for as long as is necessary to ensure that inflation expectations move higher will cause the yield curve to steepen (see section titled "Inflation Expectations Drive The Curve" below). Third, a Fed that is more committed to fighting deflation should bias Treasury yields lower. However, inflationary pressures in the U.S. economy are strong enough that the Fed will be able to move inflation expectations higher while still delivering more rate hikes than are currently priced into the curve. At present, the overnight index swap curve is discounting that the next 25 basis point rate hike will not occur until November 2018 (Chart 4)! Bottom Line: A prominent Fed Governor has acknowledged that inflation expectations have become un-anchored to the downside. This represents an important signal about the future path of policy and reinforces our view that the Treasury curve will bear-steepen during the next 6-12 months, led by wider TIPS breakevens. Inflation Expectations Drive The Curve Our research6 shows that inflation expectations are the most important driver of changes in the slope of the yield curve. This runs counter to the conventional wisdom which states that the curve flattens when the Fed hikes rates, and steepens when it cuts rates. While the correlation between Fed rate moves and the slope of the curve is undeniable, the relationship results purely from the fact that the Fed responds to changes in inflation. The link between inflation expectations and the yield curve is the dominant relationship. To see this we look at Charts 5 and 6. Both charts show monthly changes in the 5-year, 5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rate plotted against monthly changes in the nominal 2/10 slope. Chart 5 shows all available historical data, and we observe a strong positive correlation. In fact, 63% of monthly observations fall into either the top-right or bottom-left quadrants indicating that wider breakevens correlate with a steeper curve and vice-versa. Chart 52/10 Nominal Treasury Slope Vs. TIPS Breakeven Inflation Rate 5-Year / ##br##5-Year Forward (February 1999-Present) Open Mouth Operations Open Mouth Operations Chart 62/10 Nominal Treasury Slope Vs. TIPS Breakeven Inflation Rate 5-Year / 5-Year Forward ##br##During Fed Tightening Cycles (June 1999 To May 2000 & June 2004 To June 2006) Open Mouth Operations Open Mouth Operations The more important question, however, is whether this correlation still holds when the Fed is raising rates. Chart 6 focuses only on prior rate hike cycles and still shows a strong positive correlation. 73% of the monthly observations fall into either the top-right or bottom-left quadrants, although in this case there are more observations in the bottom-left quadrant because typically the Fed lifts rates with the goal of sending inflation and inflation expectations lower. In this respect the current rate hike cycle is unique. The Fed is in the process of lifting rates, but as Brainard's speech shows, it still critically needs inflation expectations to rise. We conclude that the Fed will stay easy enough, long enough, for long-dated TIPS breakevens to return to their pre-crisis trading range between 2.4% and 2.5%. An upward adjustment to this range will occur alongside a steeper 2/10 curve. Unit Labor Costs And The Yield Curve The logic presented above also suggests an inverse relationship between the slope of the curve and wage growth. In a world where inflation expectations are well anchored, stronger wage growth encourages the Fed to tighten policy more quickly, this causes the yield curve to flatten. Conversely, softer wage growth leads to a steeper curve. Our research shows that unit labor costs are the measure of wage growth that correlates most closely with the slope of the curve. The reason is that unit labor costs actually measure both wage growth (compensation per hour) and labor productivity (output per hour). Put differently, the yield curve can flatten because labor compensation is rising and the Fed is tightening policy (bear flattening) or it can flatten because productivity is falling and investors are discounting a slower pace of potential growth and a lower terminal fed funds rate (bull flattening). Unit labor costs capture both of these dynamics. Last week saw second quarter productivity growth revised higher from 0.9% to 1.5% and unit labor cost growth revised down from 0.6% to 0.2% (Chart 7). We expect that productivity will continue to experience a modest late-cycle bounce. Usually, payroll growth starts to moderate late in the business cycle as the labor market tightens. The cost of labor typically rises and encourages firms to substitute capital for workers. This late-cycle boost in capital spending tends to correlate with stronger productivity growth (Chart 8), and this dynamic looks to be in full swing at the moment. Payroll growth has been decelerating since early 2015, and durable goods orders have picked up sharply since the end of last year (Chart 8, bottom panel). Chart 7Weakness In Unit Labor Costs Weakness In Unit Labor Costs Weakness In Unit Labor Costs Chart 8Productivity: Look For A Late-Cycle Rebound Productivity: Look For A Late-Cycle Rebound Productivity: Look For A Late-Cycle Rebound A modest late-cycle upswing in productivity growth will put downward pressure on unit labor costs and lead to curve steepening. How To Position For Steepening We have been expressing our yield curve view via a long position in the 5-year bullet and a short position in a duration-matched 2/10 barbell since last December.7 So far that trade has returned +28 bps, even though the 2/10 slope has flattened more than 50 bps since its inception. The reason our curve steepener has outperformed even as the curve has flattened is that, when we initiated our trade, the 2/5/10 butterfly spread was discounting an even larger curve flattening. Put differently, the 5-year bullet looked extremely cheap on the curve (Chart 9).8 Chart 92/5/10 Butterfly Spread Fair Value Model 2/5/10 Butterfly Spread Fair Value Model 2/5/10 Butterfly Spread Fair Value Model This state of affairs has now changed. Our fair value model shows that the 5-year bullet appears slightly expensive compared to the barbell, or alternatively, that the 2/5/10 butterfly spread is priced for a 20 bps steepening of the 2/10 slope during the next six months. According to our model, the 2/10 slope will have to steepen by more than 20 bps during the next six months for our trade to outperform from current levels. Bottom Line: Higher inflation expectations will cause the yield curve to steepen on a 6-12 month horizon. Although steepener trades no longer appear cheap on our model, we remain overweight the 5-year bullet versus a duration-matched 2/10 barbell for now. Economy & Inflation Updates received during the past few weeks indicate that U.S. growth is running solidly above trend, and may even be accelerating. Real second-quarter GDP growth was revised higher from 2.6% to 3%. Second quarter labor productivity growth was also revised higher, as was discussed above. Even following a lackluster August employment report, our back-of-the-envelope tracking estimate for U.S. growth - the sum of year-over-year growth in aggregate hours worked and average quarterly productivity growth since 2012 - is running at 2.7%, well above the Fed's 1.8% estimate of trend (Chart 10). Survey measures also suggest that growth has further upside in the second half of the year, at least according to a simple growth model based on the ISM non-manufacturing survey, our own BCA Beige Book Monitor and a composite of new orders surveys (Chart 11). Chart 10Growth Tracking Above-Trend... Growth Tracking Above-Trend... Growth Tracking Above-Trend... Chart 11...And Surveys Suggest Further Upside ...And Surveys Suggest Further Upside ...And Surveys Suggest Further Upside But bond markets are not getting the message. The 10-year yield is stuck at 2.12%, and the markets seem to be saying that the link between stronger growth and rising inflation has been permanently broken. We disagree and think that investors are simply underestimating the often long and variable lags between economic growth and inflation. Chart 12Inflation Lags Growth Inflation Lags Growth Inflation Lags Growth Chart 12 shows that real GDP growth has tended to lead core inflation by about 18 months, while changes in year-over-year core CPI (the second derivative of prices) have tended to follow the ISM Manufacturing index with a lag of about 12 months. All signs suggest that the recent downtrend in inflation is nothing more than a reaction to the growth deceleration seen between mid-2015 and mid-2016. Now that growth has re-accelerated, inflation is poised to move higher. Bottom Line: Bond markets are priced as though the link between growth and inflation is broken. We expect they will be proven wrong as inflation regains its uptrend during the next few months. Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com 1 The daily policy uncertainty index measures the number of news items related to economic uncertainty. For further details please see www.policyuncertainty.com 2 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "What We Know About Uncertainty", dated July 12, 2016, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 3 https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/brainard20170905a.htm 4 https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/yellen20150924a.htm 5 https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/brainard20170905a.htm 6 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "The Yield Curve On A Cyclical Horizon", dated March 21, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 7 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, "Seven Fixed Income Themes For 2017", dated December 20, 2016, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 8 For further details on how butterfly trades respond to changes in the yield curve, and on how we use our fair value yield curve models please see U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, "Bullets, Barbells And Butterflies", dated July 25, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

Highlights Chart 1"Trump Trade" Progress Report "Trump Trade" Progress Report "Trump Trade" Progress Report One of our seven investment themes for 2017, published in a Special Report last December, is that the combination of strong U.S. growth and accommodative Fed policy creates a cyclical sweet spot in which risk assets will outperform. After last week's GDP revisions we now know that real growth averaged 2.1% in the first half of the year, solidly above the Fed's 1.8% estimate of trend. Meanwhile, weak inflation has caused markets to discount an exceptionally shallow path for Fed rate hikes - only 19 bps of rate hikes are priced for the next 12 months. This divergence between growth and inflation is reflected in Treasury yields. The real 10-year yield is 24 bps above its pre-election level, while the compensation for inflation protection is only 5 bps higher (Chart 1). Not surprisingly, the cyclical sweet spot has led corporate bonds to outperform duration-matched Treasuries by 296 bps since the election. The persistence of the cyclical sweet spot leads us to believe that last month's politically-driven spread widening should be seen as an opportunity to increase exposure to corporate bonds. Remain at below-benchmark duration and overweight spread product in U.S. fixed income portfolios. Feature Investment Grade: Overweight Chart 2Investment Grade Market Overview Investment Grade Market Overview Investment Grade Market Overview Investment grade corporate bonds underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 62 basis points in August, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to 146 bps. The average index option-adjusted spread widened 8 bps on the month to reach 110 bps. In last week's report,1 we demonstrated that to properly assess corporate bond valuations it is not sufficient to simply look at the average index spread. We need to adjust for the fact that both the average credit rating and duration of the index change over time. We also need to consider corporate spreads relative to other similar stages of the economic cycle, not relative to long-run averages. In this respect, considering the breakeven spread2 for each credit tier relative to where it traded in the early stages of prior Fed tightening cycles gives us the best sense of the value proposition in corporate bonds. At present, this analysis shows that while Aaa corporate spreads are expensive, the other investment grade credit tiers all appear fairly valued (Chart 2). Corporate profit data for the second quarter was released last week and showed a big jump in our measure of EBITD (panel 4). This makes it extremely likely that net corporate leverage declined in Q2. All else equal, this lengthens the window for corporate bond outperformance Table 3.3 Table 3ACorporate Sector Relative Valuation And Recommended Allocation* The Cyclical Sweet Spot Rolls On The Cyclical Sweet Spot Rolls On Table 3BCorporate Sector Risk Vs. Reward* The Cyclical Sweet Spot Rolls On The Cyclical Sweet Spot Rolls On High-Yield: Overweight Chart 3High-Yield Market Overview High-Yield Market Overview High-Yield Market Overview High-Yield underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 67 basis points in August, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to 378 bps. The index option adjusted spread widened 26 bps to end the month at 378 bps, 55 bps above the mid-2014 cycle low. Back in March4 we tested a strategy of buying the High-Yield index relative to Treasuries whenever spreads widened by more than 20 bps in a single month, and then holding the trade for a period of one, two or three months. We found that this "buy the dips" strategy works very well when inflationary pressures are low, but performs poorly when inflation is high and rising. When inflation is low the Fed needs to support the recovery by adopting a more dovish posture whenever financial conditions tighten. With the St. Louis Fed Price Pressures Measure5 at only 6% (Chart 3), we expect a "buy the dips" strategy will continue to work for some time. In terms of valuation, our estimated default-adjusted spread stands at 245 bps. Historically, this level is consistent with excess returns of just under 3% versus duration-matched Treasuries over the subsequent 12 months. Our estimated default-adjusted spread is based on an expected default rate of 2.6%, and an expected recovery rate of 49%. MBS: Underweight Chart 4MBS Market Overview MBS Market Overview MBS Market Overview Mortgage-Backed Securities underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 12 basis points in August, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to -9 bps. The conventional 30-year MBS yield fell 13 bps in August, driven by an 18 bps decline in the rate component. This was partially offset by a 4 bps increase in the compensation for prepayment risk (option cost) and a 1 bp widening of the option-adjusted spread (OAS). The Fed is likely to announce the run-off of its balance sheet when it meets later this month. For its part, the market has been pricing-in this eventuality for most of the year, leading to a significant widening in MBS OAS. More recently, the option cost component of MBS spreads has joined in, widening alongside falling mortgage rates and expectations of rising prepayments (Chart 4). In this sense, the Fed's commitment to proceed with balance sheet normalization no matter the outlook for the future pace of rate hikes is doubly negative for MBS spreads. OAS are biased wider as Fed buying exits the market, while low rates encourage faster prepayments and a higher option cost component of spreads. Going forward, the option cost component of spreads will decline as mortgage rates cease their downtrend, but OAS still appear too tight relative to trends in net issuance. Despite robust issuance so far this year and the Fed backing away as a buyer, the conventional 30-year MBS OAS remains well below its pre-crisis mean (panel 2). While MBS are starting to look more attractive, especially relative to Aaa credit (panel 3), we think it is still too soon to buy. Government-Related: Underweight Chart 5Government-Related Market Overview Government-Related Market Overview Government-Related Market Overview The Government-Related index outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 5 basis points in August, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to 154 bps. The Foreign Agency and Local Authority sectors drove the index outperformance in August. Both beat the duration-matched Treasury benchmark by 12 bps. Sovereigns outperformed the benchmark by 3 bps, Supranationals outperformed by 1 bp, and Domestic Agency bonds underperformed by 2 bps. We took a detailed look at the Sovereign index in a recent report,6 both at the aggregate and individual country levels. At the aggregate level, the two main factors we consider when deciding whether to add USD-denominated sovereigns to our portfolio at the expense of domestic U.S. credit are relative valuation and the outlook for the U.S. dollar (Chart 5). At present, relative valuation is skewed heavily in favor of domestic U.S. credit (panel 2). Added to that, given downbeat Fed rate hike expectations, we view further dollar weakness as unlikely on a 6-12 month horizon. Taken together, we continue to favor U.S. credit over USD-denominated Sovereign debt. At the country level, we identified several countries where USD-backed debt appears attractive. We found that Finland, Mexico and Colombia all offer attractive spreads. However, the spread pick-up available in Mexican and Colombian debt is compensation for heightened exchange rate volatility. Finnish debt appears the most attractive on a risk/reward basis. Municipal Bonds: Underweight Chart 6Municipal Market Overview Municipal Market Overview Municipal Market Overview Municipal bonds underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 40 basis points in August (before adjusting for the tax advantage). Munis have outperformed the Treasury benchmark by 144 bps, year-to-date. The average Municipal / Treasury (M/T) yield ratio held flat in August, and it remains extremely tight relative to its post-crisis trading range (Chart 6). The M/T yield ratio remains very low despite the fact that state & local government net borrowing continues to rise. Net borrowing increased to $209 billion in Q2, the highest level since the second quarter of last year. Further, the Trump administration appears to be finally tackling the issue of tax reform. While comprehensive tax reform is probably too ambitious, some form of corporate and personal tax cuts seems likely, probably in the first half of next year. Lower tax rates are obviously a negative for municipal bonds, but some of the negative impact could be offset if current tax deductions (such as the deduction of state & local income tax) are removed. All else equal, fewer available tax deductions elsewhere makes the tax exemption of municipal bonds look more attractive. Of course, the municipal bond tax exemption itself could also be threatened, but at least so far this appears less likely. The bottom line is that current M/T yield ratios are far too low given the looming risks of rising state & local government borrowing and looming federal tax cuts. Remain underweight. Treasury Curve: Favor 5-Year Bullet Over 2/10 Barbell Chart 7Treasury Yield Curve Overview Treasury Yield Curve Overview Treasury Yield Curve Overview The Treasury curve bull flattened in August. The 2/10 slope flattened 17 bps and the 5/30 slope flattened 2 bps. The market moved to discount an even shallower path for Fed rate hikes in August. At the end of July the market had expected 27 bps of rate hikes during the next 12 months, and that number has now fallen to 19 bps (Chart 7). Consequently, our recommendation to short the July 2018 fed funds futures contract has suffered. The position is now 17 bps in the red, but we continue to believe that the market's expected rate hike path is too benign. From current levels, a position short the July 2018 fed funds futures contract will return 35 bps if there are two hikes between now and next July and 61 bps if there are 3 hikes. We also continue to recommend a position long the 5-year bullet versus a duration-matched 2/10 barbell on the view that the Treasury curve will steepen as inflation and TIPS breakevens move higher. This position has earned 28 bps since initiation last December, but valuation is starting to look less attractive. Our butterfly spread model7 suggests that the 5-year bullet is now slightly expensive compared to the 2/10 barbell (panel 3). Or put differently, that the 2/10 Treasury slope will have to steepen by more than 20 bps during the next 6 months for our trade to earn a positive return. TIPS: Overweight Chart 8TIPS Market Overview TIPS Market Overview TIPS Market Overview TIPS underperformed the duration-equivalent nominal Treasury index by 36 basis points in August, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to -169 bps. The 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate fell 6 bps on the month and, at 1.76%, it remains well below its pre-crisis trading range of 2.4% to 2.5%. Despite robust growth, extremely weak realized inflation has caused breakevens to tighten this year. Last week's July PCE release was yet another disappointment. The year-over-year core inflation rate fell from 1.51% to 1.41% and the year-over-year trimmed mean rate fell from 1.68% to 1.64% (Chart 8). However, measures of pipeline inflation pressure such as the supplier deliveries and prices paid components of the ISM Manufacturing survey point towards higher inflation. The supplier deliveries component increased from 55.4 to 57.1 in August (panel 4) while the prices paid component held firm at an elevated 62 (panel 3). Adding it all up, and incorporating the fact that employment growth should stay strong enough to maintain downward pressure on the unemployment rate, we think it is very likely that core inflation will soon reverse course and resume the steady uptrend that began in early 2015. TIPS breakevens will widen alongside. At present, our TIPS Financial model suggests that breakevens are trading in line with other financial market instruments (panel 2). In other words, there is no apparent mis-valuation in breakevens relative to other financial markets, and higher realized inflation is likely required before breakevens move sustainably wider. ABS: Overweight Chart 9ABS Market Overview ABS Market Overview ABS Market Overview Asset-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 11 basis points in August, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to 71 bps. Aaa-rated ABS outperformed the benchmark by 10 bps in August, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to 63 bps. Meanwhile, non-Aaa ABS outperformed by 26 bps in August, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to 147 bps. Credit card ABS outperformed the Treasury benchmark by 10 bps in August, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to 69 bps. Auto loan ABS outperformed by 12 bps, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to 71 bps. The index option-adjusted spread for Aaa-rated ABS tightened 4 bps on the month, and remains well below its average pre-crisis level (Chart 9). At 36 bps, the option-adjusted spread for Aaa-rated ABS is now the same as the option-adjusted spread for conventional 30-year Agency MBS. Meanwhile, lending standards are now tightening for both auto loans and credit cards. Further, the New York Fed's Household Debt and Credit Report for the second quarter revealed that "flows of credit card balances into both early and serious delinquencies climbed for the third straight quarter - a trend not seen since 2009."8 While overall credit card charge-offs in ABS collateral pools remain low (panel 4), it is clear that the cyclical winds are shifting against consumer ABS. If the trends of tightening lending standards and rising delinquencies continue, then it will soon be time to reduce consumer ABS exposure, possibly shifting into Agency MBS. Non-Agency CMBS: Underweight Chart 10CMBS Market Overview CMBS Market Overview CMBS Market Overview Non-agency Commercial Mortgage-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 19 basis points in August, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to 116 bps. The index option-adjusted spread for non-agency Aaa-rated CMBS tightened 2 bps on the month, and is approaching one standard deviation below its average pre-crisis level (Chart 10). The combination of tightening lending standards and weaker demand for commercial real estate (CRE) loans (as evidenced by the Fed's Senior Loan Officer Survey) suggests that credit concerns are starting to mount in the CRE space. Meanwhile, CMBS delinquency rates have leveled-off during the past few months and remain much lower in the multi-family space (panel 5). Agency CMBS: Overweight Agency CMBS outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 14 basis points in August, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to 79 bps. The average index option-adjusted spread for the Agency CMBS index held flat at 48 bps on the month. This compares favorably to the 36 bps offered by both Aaa-rated consumer ABS and conventional 30-year Agency MBS. Not only does the Agency CMBS sector continue to offer an attractive spread relative to both consumer ABS and Agency MBS, but its agency guarantee and concentration in the multi-family space (where delinquencies are still low) makes it look particularly attractive. Treasury Valuation Chart 11Treasury Fair Value Models Treasury Fair Value Models Treasury Fair Value Models The current reading from our 2-factor Treasury model (which is based on Global PMI and dollar sentiment) places fair value for the 10-year Treasury yield at 2.67% (Chart 11). Our 3-factor version of the model (not shown), which also includes the Global Economic Policy Uncertainty Index, places fair value at 2.68%. The Global Manufacturing PMI rose to 53.1 in August, from 52.7 in July, reaching a 75-month high (panel 3). Meanwhile, bullish sentiment toward the U.S. dollar continues to plunge (bottom panel). Taken together, these two factors suggest that not only is global growth accelerating but that the global economic recovery is increasingly broad based. This is an extremely bond-bearish development. A broad based global recovery means that when U.S. data finally start surprising positively, it is less likely that any increase in Treasury yields will be met with an influx of foreign demand. For further details on our Treasury models please refer to the U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "The Message From Our Treasury Models", dated October 11, 2016, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com At the time of publication the 10-year Treasury yield was 2.16%. Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Policy Reflections", dated August 29, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 The 12-month breakeven spread is the basis point widening required over a 12-month period before a corporate bond delivers losses relative to a duration-matched Treasury security. We assume no impact from convexity and calculate the breakeven spread as OAS divided by duration. 3 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Low Inflation And Rising Debt", dated June 13, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Keep Buying Dips", dated March 28, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 5 The Price Pressures Measure is a composite indicator which shows the percent chance that PCE inflation will exceed 2.5% during the next 12 months. 6 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "The Upside Of A Weaker Dollar", dated August 15, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 7 For further details on our models please see U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, "Bullets, Barbells And Butterflies", dated July 25, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 8 https://www.newyorkfed.org/microeconomics/hhdc Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification Corporate Sector Relative Valuation And Recommended Allocation Total Return Comparison: 7-Year Bullet Versus 2-20 Barbell (6-Month Investment Horizon)

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

Highlights Chart 1Too Close For Comfort Too Close For Comfort Too Close For Comfort The Fed is in the midst of tightening policy, but with inflation still below target it wants to ensure that overall policy settings remain accommodative. In the language of central bankers, the Fed wants to keep the real fed funds rate below its equilibrium level, the level that applies neither upward nor downward pressure to price growth. The equilibrium fed funds rate cannot be calculated with precision, but one popular estimate shows that policy settings are dangerously close to turning restrictive (Chart 1). While an announcement of balance sheet reduction is almost certain to occur next month, with the real fed funds rate so close to neutral, rate hikes are probably on hold until the gap widens. Higher inflation will widen the gap by causing the real fed funds rate to fall, and we are confident that core inflation will rise in the coming months (see page 11 for further details). This will permit the Fed to deliver more than the currently discounted 28 bps of rate increases during the next 12 months. Feature Investment Grade: Overweight Chart 2Investment Grade Market Overview Investment Grade Market Overview Investment Grade Market Overview Investment grade corporate bonds outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 60 basis points in July, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to 209 bps. The financial press is littered with stories highlighting extremely unattractive corporate bond valuations, but we think this storyline is exaggerated. In fact, the average spread on the Bloomberg Barclays corporate bond index is somewhat wider than is typically observed in the early stages of a Fed tightening cycle (Chart 2). We calculate that in the early stages of the prior two Fed tightening cycles (February 1994 to July 1994 & June 2004 to December 2005), the index option-adjusted spread averaged 86 bps and traded in a range between 66 bps and 104 bps.1 Viewed in this context, the current spread of 102 bps looks somewhat cheap. That being said, corporate balance sheet health is worse than is typically seen during the early stages of a tightening cycle and this will limit spread compression from current levels. But all in all, excess returns to corporate bonds should be consistent with carry during the next 6-12 months, with higher inflation and tighter Fed policy being pre-conditions for material spread widening. In a recent report2 we showed that bank bonds (both senior and subordinate) still offer a spread advantage compared to other similarly risky sectors (Table 3). Banks also continue to make progress shoring up their balance sheets and the outlook for bank profits is starting to brighten. Table 3ACorporate Sector Relative Valuation And Recommended Allocation* On Hold, But Not For Long On Hold, But Not For Long Table 3BCorporate Sector Risk Vs. Reward* On Hold, But Not For Long On Hold, But Not For Long High-Yield: Overweight Chart 3High-Yield Market Overview High-Yield Market Overview High-Yield Market Overview High-Yield outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 83 basis points in July, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to 448 bps. The index option-adjusted spread tightened 12 bps to end the month at 352 bps, 8 bps above the 2017 low. We calculate that in the early stages of the prior two Fed tightening cycles (February 1994 to July 1994 & June 2004 to December 2005), the index option-adjusted spread averaged 342 bps and traded in a range between 259 bps and 394 bps. This puts the current junk spread almost in line with the average witnessed during other similar monetary environments. In contrast, the VIX index, which co-moves with junk spreads (Chart 3), is well below levels seen during the early stages of the prior two tightening cycles. The VIX currently sits at 10, and its historical range in similar monetary environments is between 11 and 17, with an average of 13.3 In this way, there would appear to be more room for investment grade corporate bond spreads to tighten than junk spreads, especially on a volatility-adjusted basis. Despite somewhat more stretched valuations than in investment grade, high-yield still offers reasonable compensation relative to expected defaults. At present, our estimated default-adjusted spread is 206 bps, only slightly below its historical average (panel 3). This is based on an expected default rate of 2.8% during the next 12 months and an expected recovery rate of 48% (bottom panel). MBS: Underweight Chart 4MBS Market Overview MBS Market Overview MBS Market Overview Mortgage-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 24 basis points in July, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to 4 bps. The conventional 30-year MBS yield declined 3 bps in July, as a small 1 bp increase in the rate component was offset by a 4 bps tightening of the option-adjusted spread (OAS). The compensation for prepayment risk (option cost) held flat. Index OAS has been in a widening trend since bottoming at 15 bps last September (Chart 4). Since then, MBS have returned 43 bps less than duration-equivalent Treasury securities. The Bloomberg Barclays Aaa-rated Credit index has outperformed Treasuries by 71 bps during that same timeframe. The back-up in OAS reflects, in large part, the market pricing in the upcoming wind-down of the Fed's balance sheet, set to be announced next month. However, we think OAS still have further to widen to catch up with the rising trend in net issuance. According to Flow of Funds data, net MBS issuance totaled $83 billion in the first quarter. If that pace continues for the rest of the year, then 2017 will be the strongest year for MBS issuance since 2009. While higher mortgage rates since the end of 2016 present a drag, at least so far, home sales have not shown much weakness (bottom panel). This is unlike the 2013 taper tantrum when home sales fell sharply following the surge in rates. We are underweight MBS on the expectation that the housing market will remain resilient in the face of higher rates, allowing issuance to continue its uptrend. However, we are closely tracking the spread advantage in MBS compared to Aaa-rated credit which is finally starting to look attractive (panel 3). Government-Related: Underweight Chart 5Government-Related Market Overview Government-Related Market Overview Government-Related Market Overview The Government-Related index outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 42 basis points in July, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to 149 bps. Sovereigns and Local Authorities outperformed the Treasury benchmark by 81 bps and 112 bps, respectively. The low-beta Supranational and Domestic Agency sectors each outperformed by 5 bps. The Foreign Agency sector outperformed the duration-matched Treasury index by 56 bps. USD-denominated sovereign bonds have underperformed the Baa-rated U.S. Corporate index (their closest comparable in terms of risk) during the past three months even though the U.S. dollar has continued its trend lower (Chart 5). But despite this recent underperformance, the Sovereign index still does not offer a spread advantage over the Baa-rated U.S. Corporate index (panel 3). Further, while our Emerging Markets Strategy service still looks favorably upon the Mexican peso relative to other emerging market currencies, it does not expect the peso to continue its recent appreciation versus the U.S. dollar.4 We share this opinion, and expect the broad trade-weighted dollar to appreciate as U.S. growth rebounds in the back-half of the year.5 In our cross-sectional model, which adjusts spreads for credit rating and duration. Local Authorities and Foreign Agencies continue to look attractive compared to most U.S. corporate sectors. In contrast, the Sovereign and Supranational sectors appear expensive. Municipal Bonds: Underweight Chart 6Municipal Market Overview Municipal Market Overview Municipal Market Overview Municipal bonds outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 38 basis points in July (before adjusting for the tax advantage). Munis have outperformed the Treasury benchmark by 186 bps year-to-date. The average Municipal / Treasury (M/T) yield ratio fell 2% in July, breaking below 85%. The average yield ratio remains extremely tight relative to its post-crisis trading range (Chart 6). There is more compensation available at the long-end of the muni curve than at the short-end (panel 2), and investors should continue to favor long maturities over short maturities on the Aaa Muni curve. Our early estimate, based on the recently released second quarter National Accounts data, shows that state & local government net borrowing probably moved higher in Q2 (panel 3), making the recent decline in yield ratios appear even more tenuous. The increase in net borrowing stems largely from a $21 billion drop in income tax revenues and a $20 billion decline in transfer receipts from the federal government. Income tax revenue should recover in the next two quarters,6 and we expect net borrowing will also start to decline. However, it is unlikely that net borrowing will fall by enough to justify current muni valuations. On July 6, the state House of Illinois overrode Governor Bruce Rauner's veto to finally pass a $36 billion budget. The move was sufficient for Moody's and S&P to both subsequently affirm the state's investment grade rating. The 10-year Illinois General Obligation bond yield declined 102 bps on the month, despite only a 1 bp drop in the 10-year Treasury yield. Treasury Curve: Favor 5-Year Bullet Over 2/10 Barbell Chart 7Treasury Yield Curve Overview Treasury Yield Curve Overview Treasury Yield Curve Overview The Treasury curve bull steepened in July. The 2/10 slope steepened 3 bps and the 5/30 slope steepened 10 bps. We currently recommend two tactical trades designed to profit from movements in the Treasury curve. First, we have been recommending a short position in the July 2018 fed funds futures contract since July 11.7 From current levels, we calculate this trade will deliver an un-levered return of 28 bps if there are two hikes between now and then, and 53 bps if there are three hikes. Our second recommendation is a long position in the 5-year bullet versus a short position in a duration-matched 2/10 barbell, a trade designed to profit from a steepening of the 2/10 yield curve. It remains our view that inflation and inflation expectations, and not Fed tightening, are the main determinants of the slope of the yield curve. We expect the 2/10 slope to steepen as inflation rebounds during the next few months. Two weeks ago we published a Special Report 8 that explained our rationale for taking views on the slope of the curve using butterfly trades. It also explained our butterfly spread valuation model, and how we use that model to determine how much steepening/flattening is currently discounted in the yield curve. According to our model, the curve is priced for 9 bps of 2/10 steepening during the next six months (Chart 7). Our recommended butterfly trade will earn positive returns if the curve steepens by more than that. TIPS: Overweight Chart 8TIPS Market Overview TIPS Market Overview TIPS Market Overview TIPS outperformed the duration-equivalent nominal Treasury index by 39 basis points in July. The 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate rose 9 bps on the month and, at 1.8%, it remains well below its pre-crisis trading range of 2.4% to 2.5%. Core inflation has moved sharply lower since February, but the fact that our Phillips Curve model of core inflation has not rolled over makes us inclined to view the downtrend as transitory. Also, during the past few weeks we have seen some preliminary signs that inflation is on the cusp of rebounding. Year-over-year core PCE inflation ticked higher in June for the first time since January. The PCE diffusion index, which has a good track record capturing near-term swings in core PCE, moved sharply higher (Chart 8). The prices paid components of the ISM manufacturing and non-manufacturing surveys increased from 55 to 62 and from 52.1 to 52.7, respectively, in July. We expect stronger realized inflation will lead TIPS breakevens higher during the next few months. However, even in a scenario where core inflation fails to rebound, the downside in breakevens from current levels is limited. The reason is that if inflation remains very low, the Fed will most likely refrain from hiking rates in December. Such a dovish capitulation from the Fed would put upward pressure on breakevens at the long-end of the curve. We discussed this possible scenario in more detail in a recent report.9 ABS: Overweight Chart 9ABS Market Overview ABS Market Overview ABS Market Overview Asset-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 5 basis points in July, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to 59 bps. The index option-adjusted spread for Aaa-rated ABS held flat on the month, and remains well below its average pre-crisis level. The Federal Reserve released its Q2 Senior Loan Officer Survey last week. It showed that credit card lending standards moved back into "net tightening" territory after having eased the previous quarter (Chart 9). Auto loan lending standards tightened on net for the fifth consecutive quarter. Tightening lending standards are usually a response to deteriorating credit quality, and thus tend to correlate with higher losses and wider spreads. In that regard, net loss rates for auto loans continue to trend higher, and Moody's data show that the cumulative loss rate for prime auto loans originated in 2017 is worse than for any vintage since 2009, for loans with the same age. Conversely, the mild tightening in credit card lending standards has so far not translated into rising charge-offs (Chart 9), but the situation bears close monitoring. For now, we are content to remain overweight ABS given the attractive spread pick-up compared to other similarly risky sectors. However, we also recommend investors favor Aaa-rated credit cards over Aaa-rated auto loans, even though auto loans now once again offer an attractive spread differential, after adjusting for differences in duration and spread volatility (panel 3). Non-Agency CMBS: Underweight Chart 10CMBS Market Overview CMBS Market Overview CMBS Market Overview Non-agency Commercial Mortgage-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 39 basis points in July, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to 96 bps. The index option-adjusted spread for non-agency Aaa-rated CMBS tightened 4 bps on the month, and remains below its average pre-crisis level. The Fed's Q2 Senior Loan Officer Survey showed that lending standards for all classes of commercial real estate (CRE) loans tightened, on net, for the eighth consecutive quarter. The survey also reported that demand for CRE loans is on the decline (Chart 10). The combination of tighter lending standards and weak loan demand suggests that credit concerns continue to mount in the private CMBS space. Agency CMBS: Overweight Agency CMBS outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 11 basis points in July, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to 65 bps. The average option-adjusted spread for the Agency CMBS index held flat on the month but, at 49 bps, the sector continues to look attractive compared to other similarly risky alternatives.10 Not only does the sector offer attractive spreads, but the agency guarantee and the lower delinquency rate in multi-family loans compared to other CRE loans (panel 5) makes its risk/reward profile particularly appealing. Treasury Valuation Chart 11Treasury Fair Value Models Treasury Fair Value Models Treasury Fair Value Models The current reading from our 2-factor Treasury model (which is based on Global PMI and dollar sentiment) places fair value for the 10-year Treasury yield at 2.62% (Chart 11). Our 3-factor version of the model, which also includes the Global Economic Policy Uncertainty Index, places fair value at 2.63%. The U.S. PMI bounced back in July, after having trended lower for most of this year. The Chinese PMI also increased last month, while the Eurozone reading moderated somewhat from a very high level (panel 4). Overall, the Global PMI came in at 52.7 in July, up from 52.6 in June. Bullish sentiment toward the U.S. dollar has also fallen sharply in recent weeks (bottom panel). Bearish dollar sentiment in an environment of expanding global growth sends a very bond-bearish signal. It means that the entire world is participating in the global expansion and any increase in Treasury yields is less likely to be met with an influx of foreign buying. For further details on our Treasury models please refer to the U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "The Message From Our Treasury Models", dated October 11, 2016, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com At the time of publication the 10-year Treasury yield was 2.26%. Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com Alex Wang, Research Analyst alexw@bcaresearch.com 1 Range calculated using monthly data, specifically the final day of each month. 2 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Summer Snapback", dated July 11, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 3 Ranges for junk spread and VIX calculated using monthly data, specifically the final day of each month. 4 Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report, "The Case For A Major Top In EM", dated July 12, 2017, available at ems.bcaresearch.com 5 Mexico carries the largest weight in the Sovereign index, accounting for 23% of market cap. 6 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Will The Fed Stick To Its Guns?", dated May 16, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 7 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Summer Snapback", dated July 11, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 8 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, "Bullets, Barbells And Butterflies", dated July 25, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 9 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Three Scenarios For Treasury Yields In 2017", dated June 20, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 10 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Risk Rally Extended", dated June 27, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification Corporate Sector Relative Valuation And Recommended Allocation Total Return Comparison: 7-Year Bullet Versus 2-20 Barbell (6-Month Investment Horizon)

Highlights The neutral real rate of interest, R*, is low in most economies, and will only rise gradually over the coming years. Currency movements tend to dampen differences in neutral rates across countries. The fact that R* is higher in the U.S. will limit further downside risk for the dollar. While a variety of structural forces will cap the increase in the neutral real rate, the neutral nominal rate could rise more briskly as inflation picks up. As such, investors should reduce duration risk and increase exposure to inflation-linked securities. We are closing our long GBP/JPY trade for a gain of 9.9% and opening a new trade going short EUR/GBP. EUR/USD will trade in a range of $1.10-to-$1.20 over the next 6-to-9 months before moving lower in the second half of next year. Feature Where Is Neutral? As the global economy continues to recover, central banks are increasingly turning to the question of how to best normalize monetary policy. A key issue in this debate concerns the level of the neutral real rate of interest, commonly referred to as R*. If central banks raise rates too far above the neutral rate, growth could stall. If they don't raise rates enough, inflation could accelerate. The concept of the neutral rate is somewhat difficult to grasp, and we apologize in advance that this report is more abstract than what we are normally accustomed to writing. However, we think that readers who stick with the logic of the piece will be well rewarded with the practical implications that it provides. A Conceptual Framework In thinking about the neutral rate, it is worthwhile to recall the familiar macro identity which states that the difference between what a country saves and what it invests is equal to its current account balance.1 Since one country's current account surplus is another's deficit, globally, the current account balance must equal zero. This, in turn, implies that globally, savings must equal investment. What happens when desired global savings exceed desired investment? The answer is that interest rates will fall.2 Lower rates will incentivize firms to undertake more investment projects, while discouraging household savings. Investment will rise and savings will decline by just enough to ensure that the global savings-investment identity is satisfied. The discussion above aptly captures what happened to the global economy after the financial crisis. The desire of households to boost savings and firms to cut capital spending led to a sharp and sustained drop in the neutral rate. Those who understood this point back in 2010, when the 10-year Treasury yield briefly hit 4%, made a lot of money by being long bonds when most others were fretting about the inflationary effects of QE and large government budget deficits. The Exchange Rate As A Mitigating Force The ability of countries to export their excess savings abroad by running current account surpluses implies that the neutral rate has a large global component. To appreciate this point, consider a simple thought experiment. Suppose the global trading system completely breaks down and every country ends up with a trade balance of zero. For the sake of argument, let us ignore the immense economic dislocations that this would cause and focus simply on the arithmetic impact that this would have on aggregate demand. The U.S. trade deficit currently stands at $567 billion (3% of GDP). Getting rid of it would add about six million jobs. This would likely cause the economy to overheat, forcing the Fed to raise rates. In contrast, the German economy would fall into a deep recession if its €224 billion (7.1% of GDP) trade surplus vanished. The ECB would not be able to raise rates for years. Thus, in the absence of trade, the neutral rate would be higher in the U.S. and lower in the euro area. This simple thought experiment illustrates why the neutral rate partly depends on the value of a country's currency.3 If a country's currency strengthens, all things equal, its neutral rate will fall. The extent to which the currency appreciates will depend on how long the forces causing neutral rates to diverge across countries are expected to persist. In general, if the forces are more structural than cyclical in nature, currencies will adjust to a greater degree (Chart 1).4 Chart 1The Longer The Interest Rate Gap Persists, The Bigger The Exchange Rate Overshoot The Future Of The Neutral Rate The Future Of The Neutral Rate The discussion above helps make sense of currency movements over the past three years. A key reason the dollar began to strengthen against the euro in the second half of 2014 is that investors became convinced that the neutral rate in the U.S. would exceed that of the euro area for a very long period of time. The rally in the euro this year largely reflects a reappraisal of that view. Stronger euro area growth has convinced many investors that the neutral rate in the region may not be as low as previously imagined. The Outlook For The Neutral Rate The savings-investment balance provides a useful framework for thinking about how the neutral rate will evolve over the coming years. With this framework in mind, let us consider the various forces affecting the neutral rate and how they might change over time. The Debt Supercycle Today, almost 60% of Americans want to save more money according to a recent Gallop poll; before the financial crisis, that number was less than 50% (Chart 2). A slower pace of debt accumulation implies less spending and more desired savings. It is possible that households will become more willing to take on debt as the memories of the Great Recession fade. However, a return to the reckless lending standards of the pre-crisis period is unlikely. Thus, while the end of the deleveraging cycle in the U.S. will push up R*, it will remain low by historic standards. Globally, efforts to reduce leverage have been more halting. In fact, in many emerging markets, debt levels are higher today than in 2008 (Chart 3). This will weigh on R*. Chart 2Return To Thrift Return To Thrift Return To Thrift Chart 3EM Debt At All-Time Highs EM Debt At All-Time Highs EM Debt At All-Time Highs The "Amazonification" Of The Economy Chart 4Savings Heavily Skewed Towards Top Earners Savings Heavily Skewed Towards Top Earners Savings Heavily Skewed Towards Top Earners Technological progress is nothing new, but unlike past inventions which typically replaced man with machine, many of today's innovations appear to be reducing the need for both labor and physical capital.5 Companies like Amazon are laying waste to America's retail sector. Uber and Airbnb are providing ways to use the existing stock of capital more efficiently. Fewer shopping malls, taxis, and hotels means less investment, and less investment means a lower neutral rate. Inequality One of the distinguishing features of the "Amazon economy" is that it is dominated by a few winner-take-all firms. This has generated huge payoffs for their owners, but paltry returns for everyone else. While this is not the only trend fueling income inequality, it has certainly exacerbated it. Rising inequality redistributes income from households that tend to live paycheck-to-paycheck to those who save a lot (Chart 4). This increases aggregate desired savings, leading to a lower neutral rate. However, rising inequality may also generate a political backlash. Donald Trump's ability to take over the Republican party was partly driven by the disillusionment of Republican voters over the GOP's pro-business positions on issues such as immigration and trade. Historically, populism has been associated with larger budget deficits. To the extent that budget deficits soak up savings, they lead to a higher neutral rate. Rising populism could also lead to stronger calls for anti-trust policies. Our sense is that we are slowly moving in this direction. Slower Population Growth Demographic shifts can be tricky to assess because they affect savings and investment in offsetting ways and over different time horizons (Chart 5). A decrease in the growth rate of the population will reduce the incentive to expand capacity. Less investment means a lower neutral rate. Slower population growth may also lead to higher savings for a while, as a larger fraction of the population enters its peak saving years (ages 30-to-50). This also means a lower neutral rate. Eventually, however, aging will push more of the population into retirement, increasing the number of people who are dissaving rather than saving. Rising government spending on health care and pensions could also lead to larger fiscal deficits, further depleting national savings. We may be approaching this outcome. Chart 6 shows that the global "support ratio" - defined as the number of workers relative to the number of consumers - has peaked globally and will start falling sharply over the coming years. Chart 5An Aging Population Eventually Pushes Up Interest Rates The Future Of The Neutral Rate The Future Of The Neutral Rate Chart 6The Ratio Of Workers To Consumers Have Peaked The Ratio Of Workers To Consumers Have Peaked The Ratio Of Workers To Consumers Have Peaked Slower Productivity Growth As with population growth, slower productivity growth is likely to depress R* at first, but could raise R* over time (Chart 7). Initially, slower productivity growth will prompt firms to curb investment spending. It could also lead to less consumer spending, as households react to the prospect of smaller gains in real incomes. All this implies a lower neutral rate. Eventually, however, chronically weak income growth is likely to deplete national savings, leading to a higher neutral rate. The U.S. and a number of other economies may be getting increasingly close to that inflection point (Chart 8). Chart 7A Decline In Productivity Growth Is Deflationary In The Short Run, But Inflationary In The Long Run The Future Of The Neutral Rate The Future Of The Neutral Rate Chart 8Weak Supply Growth Has Narrowed Output Gaps Weak Supply Growth Has Narrowed Output Gaps Weak Supply Growth Has Narrowed Output Gaps Lower Commodity Prices Swings in commodity prices may also generate offsetting pressures on the neutral rate that manifest themselves over different time horizons. At the outset, lower commodity prices tend to depress investment spending in the resource sector. This implies a lower neutral rate. Over time, however, lower commodity prices may generate new investment opportunities in downstream industries that use fuel as an input. Lower commodity prices also put money into the pockets of poorer households who are likely to spend it. This raises the neutral rate. Investment Implications Given the conflicting forces affecting R*, it is difficult to have much certainty over how it will evolve. Our best guess is that R* will increase over the next few years, as the scars from the financial crisis recede, deleveraging headwinds abate, fiscal deficits in some economies widen, and population aging and lower productivity growth make more of a dent in national savings. However, the rise in R* is likely to be gradual and from what is currently a very low base. Where we do have greater conviction is on two points: First, the neutral nominal rate will rise more quickly than the neutral real rate, as inflation picks up in most economies. As discussed last week, central banks have a strong incentive to try to engineer more inflation in situations where the economy needs a low real rate to maintain full employment.6 Getting inflation up has been a struggle ever since the financial crisis began, but now that spare capacity around the world is dissipating, central banks are likely to gain more traction over monetary policy. As such, investors should reduce duration risk and increase exposure to inflation-linked securities. Second, the forces pushing down R* outside the U.S. will remain more pronounced than those in the U.S. This, in turn, will provide some support to the beleaguered U.S. dollar. Investors, in particular, may be getting too optimistic about the ability of the ECB to engineer a full-fledged tightening cycle. The euro area is further behind the U.S. in the deleveraging process, suggesting that desired private-sector savings will remain higher there. The overall stance of fiscal policy is also much tighter in the euro area. The IMF estimates that the euro area's structural primary budget surplus currently stands at 0.7% of GDP, compared to a deficit of 1.9% in the U.S. Thus, fiscal policy is currently adding 2.6% of GDP more to aggregate demand in the U.S. than in the euro area. The Fund expects this relative contribution to increase to nearly 4% of GDP by the end of the decade (Chart 9). Furthermore, investment spending has more scope to fall in the euro area. According to the OECD, gross fixed capital formation is actually higher in the euro area than in the U.S. as a share of GDP, despite the fact that potential GDP growth is slower in the euro area (Chart 10). Chart 9Fiscal Policy Is More Stimulative In The U.S. The Future Of The Neutral Rate The Future Of The Neutral Rate Chart 10Euro Area Investment Spending: Higher Than In The U.S. Euro Area Investment Spending: Higher Than In The U.S. Euro Area Investment Spending: Higher Than In The U.S. The appreciation of the euro has led to a tightening in euro area financial conditions in recent weeks, whereas U.S. financial conditions have continued to ease (Chart 11). This will cause relative growth to shift back in favor of the U.S. later this year. Chart 11Diverging Financial Conditions##br## Favor U.S. Over The Euro Area Diverging Financial Conditions Favor U.S. Over The Euro Area Diverging Financial Conditions Favor U.S. Over The Euro Area Chart 12The Neutral Rate Is Lowest In The Euro Area The Neutral Rate Is Lowest In The Euro Area The Neutral Rate Is Lowest In The Euro Area The 30-year U.S. Treasury yield is currently 95 basis points higher than the 30-year GDP-weighted euro area government bond yield. This gap in yields does not strike us as being especially large considering that both the neutral rate and long-term inflation expectations are lower in the euro area. We expect EUR/USD to trade in a range of $1.10-to-$1.20 over the next 6-to-9 months before moving lower in the second half of 2018, by which time the Fed will be forced to pick up the pace of rate hikes. The resurgent euro has approached all-time highs against the pound, abetted by a somewhat more dovish-than-expected BoE meeting this week. Yet, with U.K. inflation above target and the unemployment rate at the lowest level since 1975, the Bank of England may need to deliver more than the mere 36 basis points in rate hikes the market is expecting over the next two years. Holston, Laubach and Williams estimate that R* is 1.6 percentage points higher in the U.K. than in the euro area (Chart 12). As such, the balance of risks now favor a stronger pound over a cyclical horizon of 12 months. With that in mind, we are closing our long GBP/JPY trade for a gain of 9.9% and opening a new short EUR/GBP position (Note: The returns of all closed trades are displayed at the back of this report). Peter Berezin, Global Chief Strategist Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com 1 The difference between what a country saves and what it invests is also equal to the difference between what it earns and what it spends. To see this, note that S=Y-C-G where S is national savings, Y is national income, C is personal consumption, and G is government spending. Hence, the identity S-I=CA can be re-written as Y-(C+G+I)=CA where CA is the current account balance. 2 An obvious question is what happens if desired savings exceed desired investment, but interest rates are already equal to zero. In that case, income will contract. Workers will lose their jobs, making it impossible for them to save. Firms will suffer lower profits or even incur losses in the face of flagging demand. Governments will see tax revenues dry up and spending on welfare programs escalate. This means that household, corporate, and government savings will all decline. Of course, since firms are likely to reduce investment in response to slower growth, this could usher in a vicious cycle where falling demand leads to higher unemployment and even less spending - in other words, a recession or even a depression. 3 Suppose, for example, that the interest rate in Country A were to rise above that of Country B for a period of say, ten years. Country A's currency would appreciate. This would reduce net exports in Country A, leading to a decline in aggregate demand. This, in turn, would prevent the neutral rate in Country A from rising as much as it otherwise would. On the flipside, the cheapening of Country B's currency would push up its neutral rate. 4 In the extreme case where the structural forces are expected to last forever, currencies will adjust to the point where the neutral rate across countries is equalized. Intuitively, this must happen because it is impossible for currency-hedged, risk-adjusted interest rates to be lower in one country than in another for an indefinite amount of time. 5 From a neoclassical economics perspective, one might imagine a "production function" that includes labor, physical capital, and digital capital. Many of today's innovations are raising the return on digital capital relative to those on labor and physical capital. This generates outsized rewards to the owners of this particular form of capital (i.e., internet companies), while potentially undercutting the income of workers and owners of physical capital. 6 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “A Secular Bottom In Inflation,” dated July 28, 2017, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. Strategy & Market Trends Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

Highlights Strengthening income growth is apparent in DM and EM trade volumes, real wages in the U.S., and industrial commodity prices, chiefly oil and copper. This indicates inflation at the consumer level will move higher in the near future, most likely in 2H2018. We believe 10-year U.S. Treasury Inflation-Indexed securities (TIPS) trading below 0.52 do not reflect the risk of higher inflation and are, therefore, going long at tonight's close. Energy: Overweight. Crude oil prices rallied 4.6% this week, following the OPEC 2.0 meeting in St. Petersburg. Although ministers did not announce additional cuts to the 1.8mm b/d agreed at the end of last year, Saudi Energy Minister Khalid al-Falih said the Kingdom would reduce August exports to 6.6mm b/d, which is more than 300k b/d below May's level, the latest month for which data are available from JODI. Given strong global demand, if this export reduction persists - and if others join the Kingdom - it would speed the drawdown in global inventories. Base Metals: Neutral. Copper pushed through $2.80/lb on the COMEX, a level not seen since May 2015. Underlying strength in EM economic activity - seen most recently in global trading activity (discussed below) - and a weaker USD are supporting base metals. Precious Metals: Neutral. Gold fell below $1,257/oz earlier this week, and was trading ~ $1,250/oz going to press Wednesday. We remain long gold as a portfolio hedge; the position is up 1.7% since it was initiated on May 4, 2017. Ags/Softs: Underweight. Harsh weather is impacting grains. The USDA rated 62% of the U.S. corn crop in the 18 states comprising 92% of total output good or excellent last week, down from 76% in 2016. For beans, the split was 58% last week vs. 71% last year. Feature The expansion in global trade that began toward the end of last year continues, which, based on our modeling, indicates inflation at the consumer level likely will move higher in the short run (Chart of the Week). Trade expansion, particularly in EM economies, is consistent with rising incomes, which, all else equal, will keep industrial commodities - oil and copper, in particular - well supported, given income and demand for these commodities are closely aligned.1 These fundamentals dovetail with other indications of stronger growth, particularly in DM economies, where trade volumes also are growing (Chart 2). In the U.S., for example, wage growth continues to outpace inflation, and monetary conditions remain benign (Chart 3). Our colleagues at BCA Research's Global Investment Strategy believe the Fed actually may be behind the curve in reacting to nascent inflationary pressures emerging in the U.S.2 Chart of the WeekRising EM Trade Volumes Consistent##BR##With Higher U.S. CPI Inflation Rising EM Trade Volumes Consistent With Higher U.S. CPI Inflation Rising EM Trade Volumes Consistent With Higher U.S. CPI Inflation Chart 2DM Trade Volumes Are Expanding##BR##At ~ 5% Pace ... DM Trade Volumes Are Expanding At ~ 5% Pace ... DM Trade Volumes Are Expanding At ~ 5% Pace ... Chart 3U.S. Labor Market Tightening,##BR##Financial Conditions Remain Loose U.S. Labor Market Tightening, Financial Conditions Remain Loose U.S. Labor Market Tightening, Financial Conditions Remain Loose Trade Growth Supports Higher Inflation U.S. CPI is highly correlated with EM trade volumes (imports and exports) as shown in the Chart of the Week. In recent research into inflation and trade, we also showed EM oil demand and world base metals demand are highly correlated with EM trade volumes.3 Chart 4EM Trade Volumes##BR##Continue To Strengthen Growth EM Trade Volumes Continue To Strengthen Growth EM Trade Volumes Continue To Strengthen Growth EM import growth continues to expand at a faster pace than DM growth (Chart 4). Year-on-year (yoy) EM import growth came in at 7.7%, a full 2 percentage points above DM growth. This is not to minimize DM growth - it finally broke out of its lethargy in May with a sharp advance of close to 6%, which will lift the trend rate of growth (the 12-month moving average, or 12mma) higher going forward. EM export growth in May was only slightly above DM growth for the month - 5.4% yoy vs. 5.2% yoy. These stout monthly trade performances will, in the next few months, offset the lethargic growth seen in EM and DM prior to the expansion begun at the end of 2016, as weaker monthly performance falls off the trend calculations. Over the year ended in May, within EM markets the annual trend in imports (the 12mma to May 2017) has barely grown more than 1% yoy, dragged down by a 6% contraction in the Middle East and Africa (MEA) and a 2.1% contraction in Latin American growth. The trend in EM - Asia's imports is up, rising 3.2% over the same period. For the year ended in May, imports into central and Eastern Europe were mostly flat; however, since November 2016, the trend turned sharply positive with 3.3% yoy growth. The trend in export volumes is expanding for in MEA and Latin America economies - 3.5% yoy trend growth (12mma) in MEA, and 4.4% growth in Latin America, which is slightly higher than the overall 2.2% rate of trend growth in EM exports. Still, lower oil and commodity prices, along with reduced volumes are curtailing an income recovery in these regions. Central and Eastern Europe's rate of export expansion leads EM generally at close to 4% yoy trend growth. Favor Gold And TIPS Ahead Of Higher Inflation As the labor market tightens and real-wage growth continues to outpace productivity growth, we expect U.S. inflation to pick up. Growth in trade volumes also will support growth in EM oil demand and world base metal demand, as noted above. This will feed into U.S. core PCE, the Fed's preferred inflation gauge (Chart 5). As we've highlighted in the past, there is very strong co-movement among these variables: We've found that, all else equal, a 1% increase in the non-OECD oil demand implies an increase in the core PCE of slightly less than 50bp. If the trend in overall EM trade volumes persists, the likelihood we will be increasing our estimate of non-OECD oil consumption for 2H17 and 2018 increases. U.S. CPI and EM trade volumes show similar co-movement properties, as the Chart of the Week shows. A 1% increase in EM import volumes translates into a 0.53% increase in the U.S. CPI, while a 1% increase in EM export volumes implies a 0.49% increase in the CPI. EM import volumes over the January - May 2017 interval have been growing at slightly more than 8% yoy, while exports have been growing at slightly more than 3%. Continued strength in the EM trade data implies U.S. CPI could grow well above what's currently being priced in inflation markets and by Fed policymakers. This leads us to favour gold and TIPS as inflation hedges. If we do get a larger-than-expected move in the U.S. CPI, gold should respond well. The modelling depicted in Chart 6 shows a 1% increase in the CPI translates into a 4.1% increase in gold. Chart 5Core PCE Will Pick Up##BR##As Commodity Demand Grows Core PCE Will Pick Up As Commodity Demand Grows Core PCE Will Pick Up As Commodity Demand Grows Chart 6Gold Will Pick Up##BR##Larger-Than-Expected CPI Moves Gold Will Pick Up Larger-Than-Expected CPI Moves Gold Will Pick Up Larger-Than-Expected CPI Moves For this reason we recommend getting long U.S. Treasury Inflation-Protected Securities (TIPS), which will appreciate as the U.S. CPI moves higher.4 We will be getting long as of tonight's close. We remain long low-risk calls spreads in Dec/17 WTI and Brent - long $50/bbl strikes vs. short $55/bbl strikes. We are up 39.3% and 32.9% on the Brent and WTI positions, respectively, from last week, and 47.2% and 89.2% since inception. U.S. Monetary Policy Remains A Huge Risk To EM Trade As we've noted in the past, U.S. monetary policy can have an outsized effect on EM trade volumes. In an update of an earlier model using U.S. M2 and the broad trade-weighted USD (TWIB), we find a 1% increase in the broad trade-weighted USD translates into a 1.1% drop in EM imports, while a 1% increase in U.S. M2 (broad money) implies an 85bp increase in EM imports (Chart 7).5 Chart 7EM Trade Volumes Highly Sensitive##BR##To U.S. Monetary Policy EM Trade Volumes Highly Sensitive To U.S. Monetary Policy EM Trade Volumes Highly Sensitive To U.S. Monetary Policy This demonstrates the feedback loop we've identified between U.S. monetary policy and EM trade. EM trade volumes affect inflation at a global level. We've found inflation in the U.S., EU and China to be co-integrated - i.e., these price gauges all follow the same long-term trend. Inflation and inflation expectations drive Fed policy, which drives the price formation of the USD - i.e., the FX rates included in the USD TWIB - and affect Fed policy on M2. These U.S. monetary variables, in turn, affect EM trade volumes. And so it goes ... Too-aggressive a tightening by the Fed as it normalizes its interest-rate policy regime could destabilize EM economies - either via too-sharp an appreciation in the USD TWIB, a larger-than-expected deceleration in M2 growth, or both - and negatively affect trade flows. At the end of the day, this would redound to the detriment of the U.S. economy, as the different feedback mechanisms kick in. This says the Fed's policy doesn't just affect the U.S. economy, or that EM economies essentially are on their own in the policy tools they deploy to adjust to Fed innovations. Like it or not, the Fed has to consider these types of feedback loops in its decision-making, since the Open Market Committee will be dealing with the fallout of its earlier policies. Bottom Line: EM trade volumes continue to grow yoy, continuing the trend that began at the end of last year. This performance, coupled with a tightening labor market in the U.S. and a still-loose financial backdrop, raises the odds inflation will exceed what's currently priced into market and Fed expectations. We are getting long U.S. 10-year TIPS at tonight's close, and remain long gold as a strategic portfolio hedge. Robert P. Ryan, Senior Vice President Commodity & Energy Strategy rryan@bcaresearch.com 1 The income elasticity for industrial commodities in EM economies is ~ 1.0, according to the OECD. Please see "The Price of Oil - Will It Start Rising Again?" OECD Economics Department Working Paper No. 1031, p. 6 (2013). 2 Please see BCA's Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report titled "Are Central Banks Behind The Curve Or Ahead Of It?," published on July 21, 2017. It is available at gis.bcaresearch.com. Among other things, the Global Investment Strategy team notes labor-market slack is dissipating, real wages are increasing, and easier financial conditions are spurring credit growth. Our colleagues note, "The prospect of stronger growth over the next few quarters implies that the unemployment rate is likely to fall below 4% early next year, possibly breaking through the 2000 low of 3.8%." BCA's Global Investment Strategy believes U.S. inflation could move higher by 2H18. 3 Please see BCA Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Reports titled "EM Trade Volumes Continue Trending Higher, Supporting Metals" and "Strong EM Trade Volumes Will Support Oil," published June 29, and June 8, 2017. Both are available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 4 U.S. TIPS increase in value as the Consumer Price Index (CPI) rises, and fall in value as the index declines. Please see "TIPS: Rates & Terms" on the UST's TreasuryDirect web page (https://www.treasurydirect.gov/indiv/research/indepth/tips/res_tips_rates.htm). 5 This model covers 2000 to the present, using monthly data. The R2 for the cointegrating regression is 0.96. These variables do not explain EM exports, which are not cointegrated with U.S. monetary variables. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Trade And Commodity Data Point To Higher Inflation Trade And Commodity Data Point To Higher Inflation Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trade And Commodity Data Point To Higher Inflation Trade And Commodity Data Point To Higher Inflation Trades Closed in 2017 Summary of Trades Closed in 2016

Highlights Monetary Policy: The Fed is still on track to start winding down its balance sheet in September, and will lift rates again in December if inflation starts to move higher. If the Fed continues to lift rates in the face of low inflation, then the real fed funds could soon overtake its estimated neutral level. TIPS: We attribute this year's decline in breakevens to the combination of disappointing realized inflation and the fact that they had appeared too wide on our TIPS Financial Model. Inflation: Core inflation disappointed once again in June. The pass-through from a depreciating dollar and accelerating wages should cause this weakness to reverse in the months ahead. Feature Chart 1Bond Bear Takes A Pause Bond Bear Takes A Pause Bond Bear Takes A Pause Globally, a shift toward less accommodative monetary policy remains the dominant market theme. However, the U.S. bond selloff did pause last week following some disappointing macro data and comments from Fed policymakers that were interpreted as dovish. The market is now discounting 30 bps of rate hikes during the next 12 months, down slightly from the recent peak of 36 bps (Chart 1). The dovish comments came from Governor Lael Brainard in a July 11 speech1 and were echoed one day later by Fed Chair Janet Yellen in her semi-annual testimony to Congress.2 Both comments related to the stance of monetary policy in relation to its neutral (or equilibrium) level. In my view, the neutral level of the federal funds rate is likely to remain close to zero in real terms over the medium term. If that is the case, we would not have much more additional work to do on moving to a neutral stance. - Fed Governor Lael Brainard Because the neutral rate is currently quite low by historical standards, the federal funds rate would not have to rise all that much further to get to a neutral policy stance. - Fed Chair Janet Yellen Contextualizing "Neutral" Contrary to how many have interpreted the above remarks, neither Chair Yellen nor Governor Brainard meant to suggest that the rate hike cycle is close to finished. In fact, Yellen went on to say in her testimony that: ...we also anticipate that the factors that are currently holding down the neutral rate will diminish somewhat over time, additional gradual rate hikes are likely to be appropriate over the next few years... This is the first important piece of context needed to understand how the Fed views the neutral rate. The Fed views the neutral rate as variable, and sees it increasing over time. This becomes clear when we look at the Fed's Summary of Economic Projections and note that the median forecast calls for a nominal fed funds rate of 2.9% at the end of 2019 and 3% in the longer run. Incorporating a 2% inflation target, we can infer that the Fed anticipates a real neutral rate of 1% in the longer run. Second, the Fed is likely tracking the real neutral fed funds rate using an estimate created by Laubach and Williams (LW).3 Chart 2 shows this estimate of the neutral rate alongside the real federal funds rate - deflated using 12-month trailing core PCE. We observe that the real fed funds rate has risen sharply during the past seven months, in part because the Fed lifted rates three times but also because inflation weakened. Chart 2Real Fed Funds Rate Getting Closer To Neutral Real Fed Funds Rate Getting Closer To Neutral Real Fed Funds Rate Getting Closer To Neutral We calculate that if the Fed lifts rates once more this year and core inflation stays flat, then the real fed funds rate would end 2017 at 0.02%, only 42 bps below neutral. However, it's more likely that the Fed will need to see inflation rebound before it delivers another rate hike. In a scenario where core inflation rises to 1.9% and the Fed lifts rates once more, then the real fed funds rate would actually decline between now and the end of the year. In sum, the LW neutral rate is a useful tool for assessing the path of Fed policy. If the real fed funds rate gets too close to neutral, then the Fed will probably need to see inflation rise before it delivers another hike. This would appear to be the situation we are in at the moment. We continue to expect that the Fed will start to unwind its balance sheet in September, but will need to see some signs that core inflation is increasing before lifting rates again. Our forecast still calls for higher core inflation during the next few months and another Fed rate hike in December (see section titled "Inflation: Chalk Up Another Bad Month" below). A related issue is why the Fed thinks the neutral rate will rise during the next few years. In arguments that date back to Ben Bernanke's tenure,4 the Fed maintains that headwinds related to household deleveraging and balance sheet repair have depressed the neutral rate since the Great Recession and financial crisis. There is some evidence to support this stance. The LW neutral rate correlates quite strongly with the growth rate of household debt (Chart 3). Although the neutral rate hasn't kept pace so far this cycle, household debt is growing off an unusually low base (Chart 3, bottom panel) and that may mean it takes longer for the neutral rate to rise. There is one final important application for the neutral fed funds rate, and it relates to the timing of the corporate credit cycle (Chart 4). Typically, excess returns to corporate bonds do not start to decline until the following three criteria are met: Chart 3Household Leverage And The Neutral Rate Household Leverage And The Neutral Rate Household Leverage And The Neutral Rate Chart 4Neutral Rate Important For Credit Cycle Neutral Rate Important For Credit Cycle Neutral Rate Important For Credit Cycle Deteriorating corporate balance sheet health (Chart 4, panel 2) Restrictive monetary policy i.e. the fed funds rate above its neutral level (Chart 4, panel 3) Tightening bank lending standards (Chart 4, bottom panel) Notice that in the prior two cycles the real fed funds rate actually rose above the LW neutral level before our Corporate Health Monitor started to signal deteriorating corporate health. In contrast, corporate balance sheets have already aggressively added leverage this cycle and accommodative policy is the sole support for spreads. In this environment, we view inflation and the stance of Fed policy as the most important factors determining the medium term outlook for corporate bond returns.5 Policy Wildcard: A New Fed Chair In 2018 One potential wrinkle in our outlook for monetary policy is that Janet Yellen's term as Fed Chair will end in February 2018. If history is any guide, we should expect to learn the identity of the new Fed Chair sometime this fall. While we would not completely rule out the possibility that Janet Yellen is re-appointed, recently, the chatter is that Gary Cohn, the Chairman of President Trump's National Economic Committee, is the frontrunner for the position (see Box). Box 1: Fed Chairs Since 1970 Gary Cohn does not have any experience as a central banker, but that does not preclude him from holding the position. Since the late 1970s, Presidents have tended to select the Fed Chair based on their trust relationship with a candidate (Table 1). Table 1Characteristics Of Fed Chairs Since 1970 Every Which Way But Loose Every Which Way But Loose Arthur Burns (Chair from 1970 - 1978) was head of President Eisenhower's Council of Economic Advisors (CEA) and was a special counselor to President Nixon. William Miller (1978 - 1979) worked for the presidential campaigns of Hubert Humphrey and Jimmy Carter. Alan Greenspan (1987 - 2006) served as the Chair of Ronald Reagan's Social Security Commission in the early 1980s, was the Chair of President Ford's CEA and advised President Nixon's campaign in 1968. Ben Bernanke (2006-2014) was George W. Bush's chief economist in 2005 and 2006 before Bush chose him to lead the Fed. Janet Yellen (2014 - present) was Chair of Bill Clinton's CEA in the late 1990s, when she worked with many of Obama's economic team. Paul Volcker (1979 - 1987) was the lone exception to this rule, he worked for Nixon, but not Carter, before becoming Fed Chair. Volcker, Bernanke and Yellen, all held posts in the Federal Reserve System before their appointments as Chair. However, Miller was an outside director for the Boston Fed, and Burns and Greenspan had no prior experience at the monetary authority. Party identification is one area where Gary Cohn would stand out. Since at least 1970, the party affiliation of a new Fed Chair has matched that of the President. However, Presidents have crossed party lines to reappoint sitting Fed Chairmen to additional terms. Volcker, Greenspan and Bernanke were all reappointed to lead the Fed by Presidents from opposing political parties. Chart 5Yellen Vs. Summers Drove Markets In 2013 Yellen Vs. Summers Drove Markets In 2013 Yellen Vs. Summers Drove Markets In 2013 To see how the timing of the Fed Chair appointment can matter for markets in the short-term, we need only look back to the autumn of 2013 when two candidates - Larry Summers and Janet Yellen - were in the running for the position. Rightly or wrongly, Summers was viewed as the more hawkish candidate and once he withdrew from the race on September 15, the market's expected pace of rate hikes plunged and long-dated TIPS breakevens surged on the expectation of a more dovish Fed (Chart 5). Bottom Line: The Fed is still on track to start winding down its balance sheet in September, and will lift rates again in December if inflation starts to move higher. If the Fed continues to lift rates in the face of low inflation, then the real fed funds could soon overtake its estimated neutral level. What's Driving The TIPS Breakeven Rate? We maintain an overweight position in TIPS relative to nominal Treasury securities on the view that long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates will eventually settle into a range between 2.4% and 2.5%, once core inflation gets back to the Fed's 2% target. At the time of publication the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate was 1.76%. In that sense, we view the medium to longer-run driver of TIPS breakevens as the path of inflation itself. However, we also acknowledge that breakevens are highly correlated with other financial asset prices, which can explain many of the near-term moves (Chart 6). In fact, our TIPS Financial Model - a model of the 10-year TIPS breakeven rate based on the oil price, the dollar and the stock-to-bond total return ratio - was flagging that breakevens were far too wide earlier this year (Chart 6, panel 1). Through this lens, the year-to-date decline in breakevens can be attributed simply to overvaluation being wrung out of the market. Digging a little deeper into the model, we find that breakevens have maintained their strong positive correlation with energy prices this year (Chart 6, panel 2), while non-energy commodity prices exhibit a weaker positive correlation (Chart 6, panel 3). Interestingly, the negative correlation between breakevens and the trade-weighted dollar has broken down during the past year (Chart 6, bottom panel). If dollar weakness persists, we would eventually expect it to translate into higher realized inflation - via higher import prices - and also wider breakevens. Other pipeline inflation measures, which tend to correlate with breakevens, are sending mixed signals. Core PPI inflation for intermediate goods remains elevated (Chart 7, panel 2), while the supplier deliveries component of the ISM manufacturing survey is trending higher (Chart 7, panel 3). The prices paid component of the ISM manufacturing survey has followed breakevens lower (Chart 7, bottom panel). Chart 6TIPS Breakevens: Financial Drivers TIPS Breakevens: Financial Drivers TIPS Breakevens: Financial Drivers Chart 7TIPS Breakevens: Pipeline Inflation Drivers TIPS Breakevens: Pipeline Inflation Drivers TIPS Breakevens: Pipeline Inflation Drivers Bottom Line: We attribute this year's decline in breakevens to the combination of weak realized inflation data (Chart 7, panel 1) and the fact that they had appeared too wide on our Financial Model. Going forward, we expect TIPS breakevens to increase as the realized inflation data bounce back. Inflation: Chalk Up Another Bad Month Core CPI increased just 0.12% month-over-month in June, marking the fourth consecutive downside surprise. The year-over-year growth rate also moderated from 1.74% to 1.71%, and the weakness was once again broad based across the four major components (Chart 8). The cost of shelter continues to decelerate from a high level, and our model - based largely on the rental vacancy rate - forecasts further moderation in the months ahead (Chart 8, panel 1). Core goods prices continue to deflate, though dollar weakness should filter through to higher core goods prices in the coming months (Chart 8, panel 2). In last week's report we showed that non-oil import prices have already moved higher in response to the weaker exchange rate.6 The big drag on inflation in recent months has been the failure of core services inflation (excluding shelter and medical care) to respond to rising wage pressures. The third panel of Chart 8 shows that core services inflation (excluding shelter and medical care) correlates strongly with the employment cost index. Further, the employment cost index itself has been accelerating since 2010 alongside improvement in the prime-age employment-to-population ratio (Chart 9). Chart 8Core CPI Components Core CPI Components Core CPI Components Chart 9Wages Will Grow As Labor Market Heals Wages Will Grow As Labor Market Heals Wages Will Grow As Labor Market Heals We expect wages will continue to accelerate as the labor market remains on a steadily improving path. Eventually this will bleed into core services inflation, as it has in the past. In the near term, the employment cost index for the second quarter will be a crucial input for the direction of both inflation and monetary policy. It will be released on July 28. Bottom Line: Core inflation disappointed once again in June. The pass-through from a depreciating dollar and accelerating wages should cause this weakness to reverse in the months ahead. Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com John Canally, CFA, Senior Vice President U.S. Investment Strategy johnc@bcaresearch.com 1 https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/brainard20170711a.htm 2 https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/testimony/yellen20170712a.htm 3 Laubach, Thomas, and John C. Williams. 2003. "Measuring the Natural Rate of Interest," Review of Economics and Statistics, 85(4), November, 1063-1070. 4 https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/bernanke20121120a.htm 5 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Low Inflation And Rising Debt", dated June 13, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 6 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Summer Snapback", dated July 11, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

Highlights Chart 1Too Pessimistic On Growth Too Pessimistic On Growth Too Pessimistic On Growth Treasury yields bounced sharply last week and the yield curve steepened. As a result the Bloomberg Barclays Treasury index posted a negative return in June, only the second month of negative Treasury returns so far in 2017. Last week's increase in yields could signal that growth expectations have finally become overly pessimistic. Our U.S. Investment Strategy service has calculated that after the U.S. Economic Surprise Index rises above 40, its average peak to trough decline lasts 90 days. Given that the surprise index peaked above 40 in mid-March, a bottoming-out in the coming weeks would be right on schedule (Chart 1). Net speculative positioning in the futures market has also capitulated, swinging sharply from net short to net long. In recent years, extreme net long positioning has led to higher Treasury yields during the following three months (bottom panel). Our assessment is that U.S. growth will remain above trend for the remainder of the year, and the Treasury curve will continue to bear-steepen as the economic data start to outperform downbeat expectations. Stay at below-benchmark duration, in curve steepeners, overweight spread product versus Treasuries, and overweight TIPS versus nominals. Feature Investment Grade: Overweight Chart 2Investment Grade Market Overview Investment Grade Market Overview Investment Grade Market Overview Investment grade corporate bonds outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 50 basis points in June. The index option-adjusted spread tightened 4 bps to end the month at 109 bps. Though below its historical mean, the investment grade spread is actually somewhat elevated compared to the early stages of prior Fed tightening cycles (Chart 2). We calculate that in the early stages of the past two tightening cycles (February 1994 to July 1994 & June 2004 to December 2005), the index option-adjusted spread averaged 90 bps and traded in a range between 66 bps and 107 bps. While spreads are currently more attractive than is typical for this stage of the cycle, there is good reason for investors to demand some extra risk premium. In a recent report1 we observed that non-financial corporate debt as a percent of GDP is already as high as it was during the past two recessions. Further, the majority of this debt has been issued to finance direct payments to shareholders (dividends & buybacks) as opposed to capital investment. This unfavorable shift in corporate capital structures means that bond investors should demand somewhat greater compensation. All in all, we do not see potential for much spread tightening from current levels. However, a large spread widening would be equally unlikely given the favorable back-drop of steady growth and muted inflation. Small positive excess returns, consistent with carry, remains the most likely scenario. Energy debt underperformed duration-matched Treasuries by 12 bps in June. The sector still looks cheap after adjusting for credit rating and duration (Table 3), and our commodity strategists remain bullish on oil. Table 3ACorporate Sector Relative Valuation And Recommended Allocation* Inflection Point? Inflection Point? Table 3BCorporate Sector Risk Vs. Reward* Inflection Point? Inflection Point? High-Yield: Overweight Chart 3High-Yield Market Overview High-Yield Market Overview High-Yield Market Overview High-Yield outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 35 basis points in June. The index option-adjusted spread widened 1 bp to end the month at 364 bps, 20 bps above its 2017 low. Energy sector spreads widened sharply in June, alongside falling oil prices, once again de-coupling from the overall index spread (Chart 3). Junk-rated energy credits underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 190 bps in June, while the High-Yield index excluding energy outperformed by 70 bps. In a report published today,2 our Energy Sector Strategy service takes a detailed look at credit risk among high-yield energy issuers, concluding that while the worst of the energy bankruptcy cycle is behind us, $23 billion of high-yield energy debt remains in distress. 91% of that distressed debt is in the Exploration & Production and Offshore Drilling & Transportation sectors. The continued moderation in energy sector defaults will ensure that the overall speculative grade default rate trends lower for the rest of the year, probably settling below 3% (bottom panel). The decline in defaults means that the current compensation offered by junk spreads in excess of expected default losses stands at 221 bps, right in line with its historical average (panel 3). In last week's report,3 we showed that a default-adjusted spread of 221 bps is consistent with excess returns close to 150 bps during the next 12 months. MBS: Underweight Chart 4MBS Market Overview MBS Market Overview MBS Market Overview Mortgage-Backed Securities underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 20 basis points in June, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to -20 bps. The conventional 30-year MBS yield rose 11 bps on the month, driven by a 7 bps increase in the rate component and a 6 bps widening of the option-adjusted spread (OAS). This was partially offset by a 2 bps decline in the compensation for prepayment risk (option cost). In last week's report,4 we examined the risk/reward trade-off in different Aaa-rated spread products. We found that despite some recent widening in MBS OAS, you still need to move into 4% coupons or higher to find competitive spreads relative to Aaa-rated corporates, consumer ABS, agency CMBS and non-agency CMBS. Further, MBS OAS are still too tight compared to the trend in net issuance (Chart 4), and even though depressed refi activity will continue to hold down the option cost component of spreads, it is unlikely that a lower option cost will be able to completely offset wider OAS during the next 12 months. The Fed released more details about its balance sheet run-off plan at the June FOMC meeting. We now know that the Fed will start by allowing only $4 billion of MBS per month to run off its balance sheet, but this cap will increase by $4 billion every 3 months until it reaches $20 billion per month. This means that even if the Fed starts to wind down its balance sheet following the September meeting, which is our base case expectation, then it will still be some time before a significant amount of extra supply shifts into the private market. Government-Related: Underweight Chart 5Government-Related Market Overview Government-Related Market Overview Government-Related Market Overview The Government-Related index outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 21 basis points in June, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +107 bps. Sovereigns and Local Authorities outperformed the Treasury benchmark by 65 bps and 73 bps, respectively. The low-beta Supranational and Domestic Agency sectors outperformed by 2 bps and 10 bps, respectively. The Foreign Agency sector underperformed duration-matched Treasuries by 4 bps, alongside the dip in oil prices. A weakening U.S. dollar has led to the outperformance of USD-denominated sovereign debt so far this year. Year-to-date, the Sovereign index has outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 300 bps. This is better than the equivalently-rated Baa U.S. Corporate index, which has outperformed by 195 bps year-to-date. However, there are already signs that the trade-weighted dollar is starting to moderate its downtrend (Chart 5), and we expect the trade-weighted dollar will strengthen as the economic data surprise to the upside in the back half of the year, as discussed on the first page of this report. Granted, the Mexican peso continues to strengthen versus the dollar (panel 3) and this currency pair is particularly important since Mexico is the largest issuer in the Sovereign index. On the heels of its recent outperformance, the Sovereign sector once again looks expensive compared to U.S. corporate sectors, after adjusting for credit rating and duration. Meanwhile, the Local Authority and Foreign Agency sectors continue to look cheap. Supranationals and Domestic Agencies offer very little additional compensation relative to Treasuries, and as we discussed last week,5 there are better options available for investors in need of high-quality spread product. Municipal Bonds: Underweight Chart 6Municipal Market Overview Municipal Market Overview Municipal Market Overview Municipal bonds underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 18 basis points in June (before adjusting for the tax advantage). Last month we observed that Municipal / Treasury (M/T) yield ratios had become very tight, and we advised reducing municipal bond exposure to underweight. The average M/T yield ratio ticked higher in June, but at 85%, it remains more than one standard deviation below its post-crisis average (Chart 6). There is more compensation available at the long-end of the muni curve than at the short-end (panel 2), and investors should continue to favor long maturities over short maturities on the Aaa Muni curve. The National Association of State Budget Officers recently released its Fiscal Survey of the States and it showed that overall general fund expenditures are expected to increase by only 1% in the 2018 fiscal year, the slowest rate of growth since 2009/10. Meanwhile, 23 states have already enacted mid-year budget cuts in 2017. Budget cutting measures are clearly a response to disappointing tax revenues, which should bounce back somewhat in fiscal year 2018.6 This will help reduce net borrowing, though probably not by enough to justify current municipal bond valuations (panel 3). The state of Illinois avoided a ratings downgrade to junk this week, as the State House of Representatives voted to approve an income tax increase. This measure will keep the rating agencies at bay for now, but a downgrade is still possible in the coming months if the state fails to pass a budget for fiscal year 2018. Treasury Curve: Favor 5-Year Bullet Over 2/10 Barbell Chart 7Treasury Yield Curve Overview Treasury Yield Curve Overview Treasury Yield Curve Overview The Treasury curve bull-flattened for most of June, before suddenly reversing course and bear-steepening late in the month. The 2/10 slope flattened 15 basis points between the end of May and June 26, and then steepened 15 bps between June 26 and the end of the month. All told, the 2/10 slope was unchanged in June, while the 5/30 slope flattened 17 bps. The abrupt transition from bull-flattening to bear-steepening was prompted by comments from European Central Bank (ECB) President Mario Draghi that suggested a much more hawkish bias from the ECB. Higher rate expectations in the rest of the world should put downward pressure on the U.S. dollar, and historically, bearish sentiment toward the U.S. dollar has led to a steeper U.S. yield curve (Chart 7, bottom panel). This correlation has not held up so far this year, and we suspect this is because a weaker dollar has not translated into higher U.S. inflation and inflation expectations, as it usually does. We have previously made the case that inflation and inflation expectations, and not Fed tightening, are the main determinants of the slope of the yield curve (panel 4).7 As such, we attribute the bulk of this year's curve flattening to disappointing core inflation which has dragged TIPS breakevens lower. This should reverse in the coming months.8 Investors should continue to position for a steeper curve by favoring the 5-year bullet versus a duration-matched 2/10 barbell. TIPS: Overweight Chart 8TIPS Market Overview TIPS Market Overview TIPS Market Overview TIPS underperformed the duration-equivalent nominal Treasury index by 86 basis points in June. The 10-year TIPS breakeven rate fell 8 bps on the month and, at 1.75%, it remains well below its pre-crisis trading range of 2.4% to 2.5%. In a recent report9 we outlined three possible scenarios for Treasury yields between now and the end of the year based on the interaction between incoming inflation data and Fed policy. In our base case scenario inflation will start to rebound in the coming months, heeding the message from our Phillips Curve model (Chart 8), leading to wider TIPS breakevens and keeping the Fed on its current tightening path. Even if realized inflation remains depressed, the next most likely scenario is that the Fed will capitulate later this year and adopt a shallower expected rate hike path. Such a dovish reaction from the Fed would lend support to long-maturity breakeven wideners, even though real yields would decline. The least likely scenario, in our view, is one where realized inflation remains low but the Fed sticks to its hawkish rhetoric. This is also the scenario that would lead to the most downside in the cost of inflation protection. May PCE inflation data were released last Friday, with year-over-year core PCE decelerating from 1.50% to 1.39%, and trimmed mean PCE decelerating from 1.70% to 1.66% (panel 4). One bright spot is that our PCE Diffusion Index swung sharply into positive territory. Historically, this index has a strong track record signaling turning points in core inflation (bottom panel). ABS: Overweight Chart 9ABS Market Overview ABS Market Overview ABS Market Overview Asset-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 2 basis points in June, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +54 bps. The index option-adjusted spread for Aaa-rated ABS tightened 2 bps on the month, and remains well below its average pre-crisis level. Despite low spreads relative to history, in a recent report10 we showed that Aaa-rated ABS appear quite attractive compared to other Aaa-rated spread product. Specifically, Aaa consumer ABS offer greater compensation per unit of duration than Agency bonds, agency MBS and Aaa Credit. They offer similar compensation per unit of duration to Agency CMBS, but less than non-Agency Aaa CMBS. Within consumer ABS, auto loan-backed securitizations offer slightly greater compensation than the credit card-backed variety (Chart 9). However, we still prefer credit card ABS over auto loan ABS. While credit card charge-offs remain historically low, auto net loss rates are rising. Auto lending standards also moved deeper into "net tightening" territory in the first quarter, according to the Fed's Senior Loan Officer Survey, while credit card lending standards dipped back into "net easing" territory (bottom panel). We continue to recommend that investors favor Aaa-rated credit cards over Aaa-rated auto loans within an overall overweight allocation to consumer ABS. Non-Agency CMBS: Underweight Chart 10CMBS Market Overview CMBS Market Overview CMBS Market Overview Non-agency Commercial Mortgage-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 5 basis points in June, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +57 bps. The index option-adjusted spread for non-agency Aaa-rated CMBS tightened 1 bp on the month, and remains below its average pre-crisis level (Chart 10). In last week's report,11 we showed that non-agency CMBS offer by far the most compensation per unit of duration of any Aaa-rated spread sector. However, we are concerned that non-agency CMBS spreads will widen on a 6-12 month horizon. Commercial real estate lending standards are tightening and property prices are decelerating. Both of these developments tend to correlate with wider spreads. Despite lower spreads, we are much more comfortable in the Agency CMBS market. Agency CMBS: Overweight Agency CMBS outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 4 basis points in June, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +54 bps. Agency CMBS offer somewhat lower spreads than their non-agency counterparts, but this sector should be more insulated from spread widening in the months ahead. Not only do these securities benefit from agency backing, but they also mostly comprise multi-family loans. Multi-family property prices have been stronger than those in the retail and office sectors, and delinquencies have been lower (bottom 2 panels). Treasury Valuation Chart 11Treasury Fair Value Models Treasury Fair Value Models Treasury Fair Value Models The current reading from our 2-factor Treasury model (which is based on Global PMI and dollar sentiment) places fair value for the 10-year Treasury yield at 2.52% (Chart 11). Our 3-factor version of the model, which also includes the Global Economic Policy Uncertainty Index, places fair value at 2.45%. The lower fair value results from the large spike in the uncertainty index last November, which has only been partially unwound. The U.S. PMI has dipped lower in recent months, but remains firmly entrenched above the 50 boom/bust line. Meanwhile, the Eurozone PMI continues to surge ahead. China's PMI sent a worrying signal when it dipped below 50 in May, but it bounced back to 50.4 last month (bottom panel). Overall, the Global PMI came in at 52.6 in June, no change from the prior month. For further details on our Treasury models please refer to the U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "The Message From Our Treasury Models", dated October 11, 2016, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com At the time of publication the 10-year Treasury yield was 2.35%. Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com Alex Wang, Research Analyst alexw@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Low Inflation And Rising Debt", dated June 13, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see Energy Sector Strategy Weekly Report, "HY Debt Update: Offshore Drilling & Transportation Getting Left Behind", dated July 5, 2017, available at nrg.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Risk Rally Extended", dated June 27, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Risk Rally Extended", dated June 27, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 5 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Risk Rally Extended", dated June 27, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 6 For further details please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Will The Fed Stick To Its Guns?", dated May 16, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 7 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "The Yield Curve On A Cyclical Horizon", dated March 21, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 8 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Three Scenarios For Treasury Yields In 2017", dated June 20, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 9 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Three Scenarios For Treasury Yields In 2017", dated June 20, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 10 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Risk Rally Extended", dated June 27, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 11 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Risk Rally Extended", dated June 27, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification Corporate Sector Relative Valuation And Recommended Allocation Total Return Comparison: 7-Year Bullet Versus 2-20 Barbell (6-Month Investment Horizon)