Corporate Bonds

Highlights Recommendation Allocation 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 Chart 2Is The Softness In Inflation Over? Chart 3The 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? Chart 5Who Will Trump Choose To Lead The Fed? 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? Chart 7Nothing 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 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 Chart 10India: Loosing Steam? How should global equity investors hedge foreign currency exposures? Chart 11Dynamic Hedging Outperforms Static Hedging 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... Chart 13...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... 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 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 Chart 17MSCI 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* Table 2YTD Total Returns* (%) Small Cap - Large Cap 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 Chart 19Bank 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. Chart 21IG Spreads Unlikely To Contract Further Chart 22High-Yield Debt Valuations Look Attractive Commodities Chart 23Mixed 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? 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 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? Chart 27Could Growth Surprise On The Upside? Chart 28Suppose 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 Chart 2Funds 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 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 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 Chart 6Corporate Health Monitor Components Box 1Corporate Health Monitor Components 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? 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 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 Chart 10Consumer 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 Beige Book highlights disconnect between inflation words and inflation data. Peak in auto sales is not a harbinger of recession. Capital spending still trending higher. Inflation and inflation surprise will need to move higher before Fed hikes again. Big disconnect between 10-year yield and our fair value model. Feature Disconnect On Inflation Chart 1Beige Book Monitors Support##BR##Fed's Outlook On Economy And Inflation The Beige Book released on September 6 supports the Fed's base case outlook for the economy and inflation. It also keeps the Fed on track to begin trimming its balance sheet in September and boost rates by another 25 basis points in December if the CPI and PCE inflation readings turn higher. Our quantitative approach to the qualitative data in the Beige Book points to an acceleration in GDP and inflation, less business unease from a rising U.S. dollar, and ongoing improvement in real estate, both commercial and residential (Chart 1). At 64%, the BCA Beige Book Monitor was still near its cycle highs in September, providing further confirmation that economic growth was sturdy in the first two months of Q3. The Fed noted that "the information included in the report was primarily collected before Hurricane Harvey made landfall on the Gulf Coast." However, there was a mention of the storm's clout based on preliminary assessments of business and banking contacts across several districts. The U.S. dollar should not be much of an issue in the Q3 earnings season, according to the Beige Book. The greenback seems to have faded as a concern for small businesses and bankers, in sharp contrast with 2015 and early 2016 when Beige Book references to a strong dollar surged. The Q3 earnings reporting season will provide corporate managements with another forum to discuss the currency's impact on their operations. The 2% decline in the dollar over the past 12 months suggests that the dollar may even provide a small lift to Q3 results (Chart 1, panel 4). Remarkably, business uncertainty over government policy (fiscal, regulatory and health) has moved lower in 2017. The implication is that the business community is largely ignoring the lack of progress by Washington policymakers on Trump's agenda (Chart 1, panel 5). Echoing the market's disagreement with the Fed on inflation, the big disconnect in the Beige Book showed up in the number of inflation words (Chart 1, panel 3). Expressions of inflation dipped between the July and September reports. That said, a wide disconnect remains between the elevated inflation mentions and the soft readings on CPI and PCE. In the past, increased references to inflation have led measured inflation by a few months, suggesting that the CPI and core PCE may soon turn up. Bottom Line: The Beige Book backs the Fed's assertion that the economy will expand around 2% this year and inflation will mount in the coming months, supporting a gradual removal of policy accommodation. Policy uncertainty in Washington and worries over the dollar seem to be fading. The divide between the quantity of inflation words in the Beige Book and measured inflation remains unresolved. Neither the soft data in the Beige Book nor the hard data on the economy suggest that an economic downturn is nigh. Recession Not Imminent Some investors have concluded that the peak in auto sales, a key component of consumer spending on durable goods, suggests that a recession is imminent (Chart 2). We take a different view. Zeniths in consumer durable goods, followed closely by consumer services, were primary harbingers of economic downturns in the post-WWII period. However, expenditures on autos, light trucks and other durables tend to peak seven quarters before the onset of recession. Consumer spending on nondurable goods and services provide less of a warning, topping out just five and four quarters out, respectively. The implication for investors is that the peak in auto sales suggests that a recession is still several years away (Chart 3, panels 1-4). Chart 2Vehicle Sales May##BR##Have Peaked Chart 3Consumer Spending And##BR##Housing Prior To Recessions Housing investment provides an even earlier indication that a recession is on the horizon (Chart 3, panel-panel 5). Housing peaked 17 quarters before the start of the 2007 recession and 20 quarters, on average, before the onset of the 2001 and 1991 recession. Since the early 1960s, a crest in housing provided seven quarters of warning before a downturn commenced. While housing's contribution to overall economic growth plunged in Q2, we expect housing to provide fuel for the next few years as pent up demand from the depressed household formation rate since the GFC is worked off. The implication from our upbeat view on housing is that the next recession is still several years away. Bottom Line: We expect the next recession to be triggered by an over aggressive Fed, not by imbalances in one of more segments of the economy. It is premature to say that the economy is headed into recession based on a peak in auto sales. Stay long stocks versus bonds, but we recommend that clients be prudent, paring back any overweight positions and holding some safe-haven assets within diversified portfolios. Business Capital Spending Still Up Elevated readings on capex in the first half of the year should persist into the second half. Corporate managements may be postponing investment decisions until they have more clarity on federal tax policy and the Trump administration's plans for infrastructure investment. In short, corporations continue to struggle with how much and when to spend, rather than whether to invest at all. The key supports for sustained corporate spending stayed in place despite the soft July factory orders report and lackluster C&I loan growth. BCA's model for capex (based on non-residential fixed investment, small business optimism and the speculative-grade default rate) suggests lending is poised to climb on a 12-month basis (Chart 4) despite the softening of C&I loan growth since November 2016. Moreover, the 3.3% month-over-month (m/m) drop in factory orders in July masked an upward revision to orders in June and a substantial 1.0% m/m gain in core orders. Core shipments, which feed directly into GDP, rose 1.2% m/m in July. Almost all of the weakness in orders and shipments in July was linked to a 71% plunge in the volatile aircraft orders segment. BCA's research shows that sustainable capital spending cycles get underway only when businesses see evidence that consumer final demand is on the upswing. Consumer expenditures averaged an above-trend 2.7% in 1H. We anticipate that household spending will continue to improve in the second half of 2017.1 Moreover, recent readings on core durable goods orders and shipments show that the uptrend that began in mid-2016 persists, despite recent monthly wiggles in the data (Chart 5). Chart 4BCA Capex Model Points##BR##To Further Improvement Chart 5Capital Spending##BR##Remains In An Uptrend CEO confidence, still a primary support for capex, recently soared to a 13-year high in Q1, but retreated modestly in Q2. The last reading on this survey was in mid-July, and the dip in sentiment reflects the lack of legislative progress in Washington (Chart 5, top panel). The next CEO survey is set for mid-October. The dip in CEO sentiment in Q2 stands in sharp contrast with the easing of concerns around policy in the Beige Book. Chart 6Surprising Drop In Policy##BR##Uncertainty This Year Surprisingly, the chaos in Washington during the first eight months of the Trump administration has not led to an increase in economic policy uncertainty (Chart 6). Instead, after rising sharply in the wake of the Brexit vote in mid-2016 and the U.S. presidential election in November, policy uncertainty has ebbed. While uncertainty over economic policy remains elevated relative to the past few years, the concern under Trump is surprisingly subdued. This metric is in line with the Beige Book's assessment of Trump's impact on sentiment. A series of business-friendly legislative wins for the GOP and President Trump would further reduce any qualms. Even so, a failure by Congress to boost the debt ceiling and fund the U.S. government later this month would increase business worries/fears. Late last week, Trump cut a deal with Congressional Democrats to extend the debt ceiling for three months and is in talks to do away with it altogether. Bottom Line: The fundamentals still support solid business spending. However, BCA's positive capex outlook in the U.S. could be blemished if the Republicans fail to deliver on their promises to cut taxes and boost infrastructure spending in the next several months. Inflation Surprise And The Fed Chart 7The Fed Cycle And Inflation Surprise We expect inflation surprise to move higher, which could spur the Fed to resume its rate hike campaign. A disconnect has opened between economic surprise and inflation surprise.2 In the past 13 years, there have been 15 periods when economic surprise has climbed after a trough. The inflation surprise index temporarily increased in 13 of those episodes. For example, in the aftermath of the oil price peak in the U.S. in mid-2014, both economic surprise and inflation surprise diminished through early 2015 and then began climbing. However, today's inflation surprise index has rolled over while economic surprise has gained. The inflation surprise index escalated during previous tightening regimes when the economy was at full employment and the Fed funds rate was in accommodative territory (Chart 7). The last time those conditions were in place, which was in 2005, the Fed was wrapping up a rate increase campaign that began in mid-2004. Mounting inflation surprise also accompanied most of the Fed's rate increases from mid-1999 through mid-2000 under similar conditions. In late 2015, as the current set of rate hikes commenced, the inflation surprise index was on the upswing, the economy was close to full employment and the Fed funds rate was accommodative. What Does This Mean For The Fed? The above analysis underscores that economic growth is in good shape and it is likely to remain so for the next year at a minimum, barring any nasty shocks. Normally, the positive U.S. (and global) growth backdrop would place upward pressure on bond yields. It has not been the case this time. Investors appear skeptical of the ability of strong economic growth to generate higher inflation. The attitude seems to be "we will believe it when we see it". Some on the FOMC are taking a similar attitude. Lael Brainard, a FOMC governor, presented an interesting speech last week that makes this point. She speculated that inflation has been lower post-Lehman for structural reasons related partly to a drop in long-term inflation expectations. The Fed has been reluctant in the past to even hint that inflation expectations have become unmoored, because that could reinforce the trend, thus making it harder for the Fed to move inflation up to target. Brainard, a voting member of the committee with a dovish bias, argued that unemployment may have to undershoot the full employment level for longer than normal because low inflation expectations will be a persistent headwind. She also implied that the central bank should allow inflation to temporarily overshoot the 2% target. At a minimum, she wants to see evidence of rising inflation and inflation expectations before the Fed delivers the next rate hike. In the past, Brainard's speeches have sometimes heralded shifts in the FOMC's consensus. An example is her December 1, 2015 speech at Stanford.3 It is not clear if this is the case this time, but it does reinforce the view that a strong economy and a falling unemployment rate is not enough to justify another rate hike this year according to the consensus on the FOMC. Bottom Line: Our inflation indicators are pointing mildly up. Nonetheless, timing the upturn in inflation is difficult and the Fed will not hike in December without at least a modest rise in inflation (together with higher inflation expectations). We are short duration because Treasuries are overvalued and market expectations for Fed rate hikes over the next year are overly complacent (see next section). Nonetheless, a rise in yields may not be imminent. Disconnect On Duration The Global Manufacturing PMI reached a more than 6-year high in August, climbing from 52.7 in July to 53.1 last month (Chart 8, panel 3). Meanwhile, bullish sentiment toward the U.S. dollar continues to plunge (Chart 8, bottom panel). Together, these two factors suggest that global growth is accelerating and becoming broader based. BCA's U.S. Bond Strategy service4 views the improving global economic backdrop as an extremely bond-bearish development. A wide global recovery means that when U.S. data turns surprisingly positive, it is less likely that any increase in Treasury yields will be met with an influx of foreign demand and surge in the dollar. Our Treasury model (based on Global PMI and dollar sentiment) currently places fair value for the 10-year Treasury yield at 2.67% (Chart 8, top panel). Moreover, our 3-factor version of the model (which includes the Global Economic Policy Uncertainty Index), puts fair value slightly higher at 2.68% (not shown). Investors should continue to position for a steeper curve by favoring the 5-year bullet versus a duration-matched 2/10 barbell. After adjusting for changes in credit rating and duration over time, the average spread offered by the Bloomberg Barclays corporate bond index is fairly valued relative to similar stages of past business cycles. However, the Aaa-rated portion of the market looks expensive. Further, strong Q2 profit growth likely foreshadows a decline in net leverage. This lengthens the window for corporate bond outperformance. We recommend an overweight in the high-yield market. In the early stages of the previous two Fed tightening cycles (February 1994 to July 1994 and 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 (378 bps) almost in line with the average achieved during other similar monetary conditions (Chart 9). We continue to favor a "buy on the dips"5 approach in the high-yield market. Chart 8Treasury Fair Value Models Chart 9High-Yield Market Overview Regarding high-yield 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 recovery rate of 49% (Chart 9, bottom panel). We remain underweight MBSs; While MBS are starting to look more attractive, especially relative to Aaa credit, we think it is still too soon to buy. The Fed will announce the run-off of its balance sheet when it meets later this month. 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. Bottom Line: Rates have tested their post-election lows, but BCA's fair value model suggests a bounce higher, which supports our stocks-over-bonds stance. In terms of U.S. bonds, we favor short duration over long and credit over high quality. MBSs will be hurt more than Treasuries as the Fed begins to shrink its balance sheet. John Canally, CFA, Senior Vice President U.S. Investment Strategy johnc@bcaresearch.com Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy ryans@bcaresearch.com Mark McClellan, Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst markm@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA's U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "The Fed's Third Mandate", July 24, 2017. Available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA's U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Surprise, Surprise", August 28, 2017. Available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 3 https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/brainard20151201a.htm 4 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Portfolio Allocation Summary, "The Cyclical Sweet Spot Rolls On," September 5, 2017. Available at usbs.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see BCA's U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Keep Buying Dips," March 28, 2017. Available at usbs.bcaresearch.com.

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

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

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

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

Special Report

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

Highlights Chart 1Too 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 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* Table 3BCorporate Sector Risk Vs. Reward* High-Yield: Overweight Chart 3High-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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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)