lookout report - s&p global · exploration and analysis. s&p global market...

The 2016 Outlook For The U.S. Economy And CorporateProfitability Appears To Be Brightening

U.S. recession anxiety continues to subside. It started with the January retail sales report, but

existing home sales, the Institute for Supply Management's (ISM's) Purchasing Managers'

Indices (PMIs) and now even the February employment report have all ended up exceeding

economists' consensus forecasts. There was even a Goldilocks-like component to the jobs report;

Non-farm payroll growth was stronger than expected, the unemployment rate was unchanged at

4.9%, and average hourly wage inflation cooled to 2.2% to 2.4% in February from the more

worrisome 2.3% to 2.6% pace seen in the fourth quarter of 2015. Since economic activity

appears to be stabilizing or even improving, consensus 2016 S&P 500 earnings per share (EPS)

expectations should soon follow suit after having fallen significantly from levels recorded just

five months ago.

Anticipated calendar-year 2016 S&P 500 EPS have dropped to $119.50 as of March 3,

representing a 7.6% decline from the rosier $129.30 that was expected at the end of the third

quarter of 2015, according to S&P Global Market Intelligence estimates data. The sharp decline

in expected corporate earnings has been driven in large part by deeply depressed crude oil

commodity prices and its drag on energy sector earnings, but the story is not limited to the

energy or--to a lesser extent--the materials sectors. Every sector besides telecommunication

services has seen a steep sequential decline in expected earnings growth this past year.

Looking at first quarter 2016 S&P 500 EPS numbers alone, energy sector growth expectations

have collapsed to -100% from -30.3% at the end of the third quarter of 2015. The materials

sector has also recorded a downdraft in expected first-quarter EPS growth to -16.5% from

12.9%. Even after excluding energy's severe negative influence, first-quarter S&P 500 EPS are

still expected to decline by 2.9% from the year-ago quarter. Having seen a sharp downward

revision to 11.2% growth today from 18.5% at the end of the third quarter, the consumer

discretionary sector nonetheless continues to show relatively healthy double-digit first-quarter

EPS growth expectations, which is a testament to the fortitude of the U.S. consumer (see table

1).

Lookout Report

March 4, 2016

Michael G Thompson

Managing Director

S&P Investment Advisory Services

(1) 212-438-3480

[email protected]

Robert A Keiser

Vice President

S&P Global Market Intelligence

(1) 212-438-3540

[email protected]

This report was prepared by S&P

Global Market Intelligence. Enabled

with cutting-edge data and insights,

S&P Global Market Intelligence offers

investors valuable new sources for

alpha discovery and "out-of-the-box"

thinking through robust data

exploration and analysis. S&P Global

Market Intelligence's research

provides investors with actionable and

topical market perspectives that can

offer innovative ways to leverage

credit and risk intelligence.

33505660 | 270752268

Table 1

S&P 500 First-Quarter 2016 Earnings Growth Expectations

March 1, 2016 Sept. 30, 2015 June 30, 2015 March 31, 2015

Sector (%)

Consumer discretionary 11.22 18.47 19.20 19.58

Consumer staples (3.21) 5.69 7.62 10.06

Energy (100.11) (30.29) 6.18 38.81

Financials 3.36 6.24 6.18 16.44

Health care 3.87 6.71 7.26 16.04

Industrials (6.25) 4.55 4.85 12.56

Information technology (6.19) 6.08 9.21 14.13

Materials (16.51) 12.94 16.34 25.95

Telecommunication services 5.18 5.12 5.41 4.16

Utilities 1.62 2.71 2.50 3.76

S&P 500 earnings per share ($) (6.15) 5.04 8.03 15.25

S&P 500 earnings per share excluding energy ($) (2.90) 7.04 7.85 13.27

Source: S&P Global Market Intelligence.

It is interesting to note that although first-quarter 2016 and calendar-year 2016 S&P 500 earnings expectations have

dramatically deteriorated, longer-term optimism concerning corporate profit growth remains largely unscathed.

Specifically, beginning with mid-year 2016, S&P 500 12-month forward earnings growth expectations are either in line

with or slightly higher today than what was seen on Sept. 30, 2015. By the numbers, third-quarter 2016 S&P 500

12-month forward earnings are expected to grow 12.4% as of month-end February 2016, which is just below the 13.4%

anticipated growth seen at the conclusion of September 2015. Partially reflecting reduced prior-year EPS numbers,

12-month forward expected earnings growth for third- and fourth-quarter 2016 have now improved on average to 14.5%

as of March 2 from 11.6% as of Sept. 30, 2015. So although the sharp downdraft in consensus 2016 calendar-year S&P

500 earnings has certainly caught investors' attention in the early months of the year, it is somewhat comforting to see

that forward earnings growth expectations for the second half of 2016 haven't really moved all that much (see chart 1).

This suggests that recently elevated recession anxiety failed to meaningfully damper earnings growth expectations for the

second half of 2016.

The 2016 Outlook For The U.S. Economy And Corporate Profitability Appears To Be Brightening Lookout Report

2

March 4, 2016

33505660 | 270752268

Chart 1

All of this collective optimism concerning Wall Street analysts' consensus corporate profit growth in the second half of

2016 and beyond not only requires that the U.S. economy avoid recession for the foreseeable future, but that economic

activity and industrial production in particular may also need to improve significantly from what occurred in 2015.

Supporting the notion that the consumer-driven U.S. economy is fundamentally in sound shape and well-positioned for

strengthening GDP growth, at least two economic indicators are currently at the best levels seen since the start of recovery

at mid-year 2009.

The U.S. unemployment rate has now declined to 4.9% from 10.0% in October 2009, which is also the lowest jobless rate

seen since February 2008. Likewise, the S&P/Experian Consumer Credit Default Composite Index currently stands at

0.965% as of January 2016 (see chart 2). The consumer credit default index has now been below the 1.0% level since

April 2015, which is significant because these are the lowest levels on record dating back to July 2004. In fact, until April

2015, the default index had never dipped below the 1.0% level. The combination of sustained U.S. job creation, declining

unemployment, rising hourly wage growth, elevated consumer confidence, and healthy household credit conditions

provides a solid foundation backing the outlook for the U.S. economy and corporate profits throughout 2016.


3

March 4, 2016

33505660 | 270752268

Chart 2

Inside This Issue:

Macroeconomic Overview: The 2016 Outlook For The U.S. Economy And Corporate Profitability Appears To Be Brightening

U.S. recession anxiety continues to subside. Retail sales, existing home sales, the ISM's PMIs, and the employment report

all ended up exceeding economists' consensus forecasts. As economic activity appears to be stabilizing, consensus 2016

S&P 500 EPS expectations should soon follow suit after having fallen significantly from levels recorded just five months

ago. The combination of sustained U.S. job creation, declining unemployment, rising hourly wage growth, elevated

consumer confidence, and healthy household credit conditions provides a solid foundation backing the outlook for the

U.S. economy and corporate profits throughout 2016.

Economic And Market Outlook: Sales Weakness Contributes to Second Consecutive Quarter Of EPS Declines

S&P 500 fourth-quarter earnings season is nearly complete with only a handful of companies left to report as more than

97% of the index has announced results. Although a beat is certainly appreciated, the current beat rate is soft compared

with the historical 400 bps to 450 bps that the index typically records from the start of the reporting season to the end. A

beat rate this low hasn't been recorded since the fourth quarter of 2011. What's worse is that analysts reduced estimates

by 508 bps from the start of the quarter on Oct. 1 through the start of earnings season.


4

March 4, 2016

33505660 | 270752268

S&P Dow Jones Index Commentary: S&P 500 Dividends Make Quite A Splash

The February month-end S&P 500 indicated dividend rate was $390.6 billion--its first monthly closing over $390 billion

in history. The actual February 2016 was also a record, at $46.3 billion, which was a 4.2% over February 2015. The

bottom line for dividends is growth. Just look at the recent history. On March 6, 2013, the S&P 500 annual indicated

dividend rate reached $300 billion for the first time. On Jan. 29, 2014, it reached $330 billion.

Leveraged Commentary And Data: Leveraged Loans Lose 0.53% In February; Year-To-Date Return Is -1.18%

Despite a rally in the final week of the month, the S&P/LSTA Index still shed 0.53% in February after dropping 0.65% in

January. The largest loans, which constitute the S&P/LSTA Loan 100, continued to outperform in February, falling a

more modest 0.21% after losing 0.43% in January. All told, the S&P/LSTA Index fell 1.18% in the first two months of

2016 while the Loan 100 dropped 0.64%. By comparison, the S&P/LSTA Index gained 1.75%, and the Loan 100 gained

1.65% in the first two months of 2015.

R2P Corporate Bond Monitor

The latest data from the U.S. indicated a revival within the fragile manufacturing sector with the manufacturing Institute

for Supply Management (ISM) at its closest level to halting contraction in the sector since September 2015. The eurozone

continues to be a melting pot for a host of issues ranging from a possible "Brexit" to possible political reform and a

change to the austerity environment imposed in the past few years, compounded by more weakening data releases.

Capital Market Commentary: IPOs, M&A, And Debt

It's been a downright awful period for IPO underwriting in the U.S. as of late. During the first two months this year, just

four new issues, excluding closed-end funds and special purpose acquisition companies, have been completed with

underwriting proceeds of less than $398 million. Although U.S. announced M&A activity in early 2016 has trended

slightly lower than year-ago proceeds, for deals involving European targets, the boom times are continuing thanks to

several large transactions.

Economic And Market Outlook: Sales Weakness Contributes to Second Consecutive Quarter OfEPS Declines

North America

S&P 500 fourth-quarter earnings season is nearly complete with only a handful of companies left to report as more than

97% of the index has announced results. EPS of $29.25 represent a -4.3% decline in fourth-quarter growth, which is

about 100 basis points (bps) better than the estimate of -5.3% on Jan 1 and is 127 bps better than the -5.5% expected at

the start of earnings season on Jan 11. Although a beat is certainly appreciated, the current beat rate is soft compared with

the historical 400 bps to 450 bps that the index typically records from the start of the reporting season to the end. A beat

rate this low hasn't been recorded since the fourth quarter of 2011. What's worse is that analysts reduced estimates by 508

bps from the start of the quarter on Oct. 1 through the start of earnings season. This is well above the historical reduction

of about 350 bps, highlighting analysts' uncertainty going into the quarterly reports, yet corporations were unable to

surpass the lowered estimates.

Estimates were initially affected by declining energy sector earnings due to falling oil prices. Despite the early reduction in

energy estimates (795 bps), materials actually underwent the largest reduction as growth was slashed by more than 20

percentage points to -23.3% from -2.6%. Currently, energy is still the largest drag on index growth with projected decline


5

March 4, 2016

33505660 | 270752268

of 73.0%. Materials follows with a 17.7% decline. When removing the energy sector, index growth would be up 2.0%.

Chart 3

Although oil and commodity price declines weighed on the energy and materials sectors, they weren't the only laggards in

the fourth quarter. Financials, utilities, and consumer staples also posted earnings declines. A low interest rate

environment and high levels of regulation have pressured financial sector earnings, and deflation in food products and a

strong U.S. dollar hurt the consumer staples.

The telecommunication services, consumer discretionary, and health care sectors, all with double-digit growth rates, led

for the third quarter in a row. Accounting changes related to the elimination of phone subsidies and reduced competitive

pressures benefited the telecommunications sector. Consumer discretionary growth was driven by the automobiles and

internet retailers, and biotechnology once again was the primary driver of health care's robust growth rates, even as

industry growth has slowed.


6

March 4, 2016

33505660 | 270752268

Chart 4

Propelling improvements to growth since the start of earnings season are the materials, health care and information

technology sectors, averaging a 501 bp beat rate (better than the historic average beat rate for the index). Materials has

been in the lead from a growth rate improvement perspective for a while, which may be surprising given the impact of

commodity price deflation. However, strong end markets, such as auto and construction, are benefiting certain parts of

the sector. Information technology's growth improved by the second largest amount. Overall, technology has the highest

beat rate in the index with 80% of the sector reporting better-than-expected EPS (versus the 65% beat rate for the index).

Also impressive, 66% of the sector has beat on sales (versus the 46% beat rate for the index).

Table 2

Fourth-Quarter EPS Growth Rates--Start of Earnings Season Versus March 3

As of Jan. 11 (%) As of March 3 (%) Change (bps)

Financials 0.3 (5.1) (541)

Energy (68.6) (73.0) (437)

Utilties (1.8) (2.3) (48)

Industrials (0.1) 0.8 87

Consumer staples (3.9) (1.8) 211

Telecommunication services 17.9 21.8 388

Consumer discretionary 7.4 11.5 415

Health care 5.6 10.1 452


7

March 4, 2016

33505660 | 270752268

Table 2

Fourth-Quarter EPS Growth Rates--Start of Earnings Season Versus March 3 (cont.)

Information technology (4.5) 0.5 492

Materials (23.3) (17.7) 558

S&P 500 (5.5) (4.3) 127

EPS--Earnings per share. bps--Basis points.

The drag from oil prices has been well-documented, but the impact of the U.S. dollar on corporate earnings has been

discussed less. The dollar appreciated 11% on average year over year in the fourth quarter, based on the U.S. Dollar

Index. The S&P 500 generates 47.8% of sales overseas according to S&P Dow Jones Indices with the information

technology, energy, materials, and health care sectors having the largest exposure. Consumer staples has also been vocal in

the impact from the strong dollar on sales in recent quarters as many of these companies are multinational in nature. S&P

Global Market Intelligence believes the dollar's climb shaved an estimated 6-8 percentage points off top-line growth,

ultimately leading to a 7% earnings reduction for the S&P 500. Thus, sales have fallen short of initial estimates at the start

of the quarter, which is the opposite of the trend seen in earnings. Sales growth of -3.5% makes this the fourth quarter in

a row to see declining sales growth. Excluding the energy drag (-35.4% sales growth), total index sales growth would be

1.4%, which is below the 3.4% average over the prior four quarters when energy is excluded. Excluding energy, growth is

weaker this quarter as five sectors are expected to finish with sales lower than last year. Historically sales growth has

averaged 6%.

The sectors that have led sales growth continue to be the EPS growth leaders--telecommunication services, health care, and

consumer discretionary. In the same vein, energy and materials are the sales laggards. Without top-line growth, earnings

growth will be tough to come by.


8

March 4, 2016

33505660 | 270752268

Chart 5

Europe

Earnings growth rates for the Euro 350 continue to see deterioration as fourth quarter results weigh heavily on full year

results. Earnings growth is currently pegged at 2.9% (versus 6.2% a month ago) for 2015, and it is expected to be 1.1% in

2016 (versus 1.0% a month ago).

Eight of 10 sectors are expected to report growth in 2015 with three of eight projecting double-digit figures. Technology

(31.4%), consumer discretionary (15.4%), industrials (12.5%), financials (9.6%), and health care (9.5%) lead with robust

growth rates. Utilities, telecommunication services, and consumer staples round out the index with growth of 9.0%, 8.8%,

and 3.6%, respectively. Energy (-40.4%) and materials (-19.6%) are the only sectors with projected declines.

Table 3

Calendar-Year 2015 And 2016 EPS And Growth Rate

--Calendar-year 2015-- --Calendar-year 2016--

EPS (€) Growth (%) EPS (€) Growth (%)

Consumer discretionary 118.14 15.4 131.8 11.6

Consumer staples 150.1 3.6 157.83 5.1

Energy 71.95 (40.4) 51.39 (28.6)

Financials 66.86 9.6 68.22 2.0

Health care 123.29 9.5 129.93 5.4


9

March 4, 2016

33505660 | 270752268

Table 3

Calendar-Year 2015 And 2016 EPS And Growth Rate (cont.)

Industrials 104 12.5 108.21 4.0

Information technology 64.19 31.4 68.39 6.5

Materials 112.28 (19.6) 102.81 (8.4)

Telecommunication services 70.01 8.8 72.14 3.0

Utilities 93.44 9.0 87.49 (6.4)

S&P 350 90.84 2.9 91.81 1.1

EPS--Earnings per share. Source: S&P Global Market Intelligence.

Contact Information: Lindsey Bell, Senior Analyst--S&P Global Market Intelligence, [email protected]

S&P Dow Jones Index Commentary: S&P 500 Dividends Make Quite A Splash

The February month-end S&P 500 indicated dividend rate was $390.6 billion--its first monthly closing over $390 billion

in history. The actual February 2016 was also a record, at $46.3 billion, which was a 4.2% over February 2015.

The bottom line for dividends is growth. Just look at the recent history. On March 6, 2013, the S&P 500 annual indicated

dividend rate reached $300 billion for the first time. On Jan. 29, 2014, it reached $330 billion--and I said it would be

$350 billion by the time I opened my swimming pool for the season. And on June 12, 2014, it reached $350 billion--quite

a splash! So here's another "swimming pool" prediction: I expect the $400 billion mark by the time I open my pool this

summer. Although there is legitimate concern about energy and material issues dividend cuts, most companies are

continuing to increase, be it at a slower pace.

But beware the deep end of the pool. The number of dividend increases has slowed, and the number of dividend decreases

is surging. At the same time, the actual percentage increases are smaller than in the past while the decreases are larger (see

table 4).

Table 4

S&P Indicated Dividend Rate Changes

Year Median increase (%) Average increase (%) Doubled Suspended

Year-to-date 2016 7.86 10.47 1 1

2015 10.00 13.08 3 3

2014 11.11 17.50 8 1

2013 11.76 20.38 19 0

2012 12.50 20.20 14 1

2011 14.29 26.46 27 0

2010 10.00 17.94 10 2

The median and average figures exclude issues that have doubled (up at least 100%). Source: S&P Dow Jones Indices.

I found it interesting that the S&P 500 indicated dividend rate surpassed $390 billion on Feb. 18, 2016, which is exactly

49 years after my Bar Mitzvah in 1967. Back then, the index was paying $13.3 billion in dividends with a yield of 3.3%

(versus 2.32% today, or 2.73% including only the 417 payers). In 1967, the largest issue was American Telephone &

Telegraph with $31 billion in market value (11th now with $228 billion), followed by International Business Machines

Corp. with $23 billion (30th now with $130 billion) and General Motors Co. with $21 billion (92nd with $45 billion).

Enough of this history lesson; let's get ready to go swimming!

Contact Information: Howard Silverblatt, Senior Index Analyst--S&P Dow Jones Indices, [email protected].


10

March 4, 2016

33505660 | 270752268

Leveraged Commentary And Data: Leveraged Loans Lose 0.53% In February; Year-To-DateReturn Is -1.18%

Despite a rally in the final week of the month, the S&P/LSTA Index still shed 0.53% in February after dropping 0.65% in

January. The largest loans, which constitute the S&P/LSTA Loan 100, continued to outperform in February, falling a

more modest 0.21% after losing 0.43% in January.

Chart 6

All told, the S&P/LSTA Index fell 1.18% in the first two months of 2016 while the Loan 100 dropped 0.64%. By

comparison, the S&P/LSTA Index gained 1.75%, and the Loan 100 gained 1.65% in the first two months of 2015.


11

March 4, 2016

33505660 | 270752268

Chart 7

February's loss extends the asset class' run of red ink to a record nine months, topping the prior record of six months from

the second half of 2008. The losing streak is a product of generally weak technical conditions, negative investor sentiment

across the capital markets, and growing concerns about the state of the credit cycle.

Although it has been an unusually sustained period of losses, the overall decline of the past nine months has been shallow

compared with that of the credit crunch. From June 2015 through February 2016, the index lost 4.95% overall and

8.37% on a market-value basis. During the epic meltdown of second-half 2008, by comparison, the index fell 28.32%

overall and 30.98% on a market-value basis. That may be cold comfort to investors as loan values and returns have fallen

the third most in any nine-month period. Indeed, excluding times around the credit crunch, the next deepest loss was

1.40% total/–4.85% market value from March through November 2011.


12

March 4, 2016

33505660 | 270752268

Chart 8

Getting back to February's action, managers continued to prefer better-rated loans amid today's technical malaise, fragile

economic backdrop, and amped-up investor scrutiny. This table provides a tale of the tape.

Table 5

Returns By Type Of Debt

February 2016 (%) January 2016 (%) Year-to-date 2016 (%) Average bid

All loans (0.53) (0.65) (1.18) 89.44

Performing loans (0.56) (0.66) (1.22) 90.93

'BB' (0.06) (0.24) (0.30) 96.38

B' (0.88) (0.71) (1.58) 89.84

'CCC' (1.79) (3.58) (5.30) 69.45

'D' (3.21) (5.66) (8.69) 35.60

S&P/LSTA 100 (0.21) (0.43) (0.64) 86.51

First-lien (0.48) (0.59) (1.06) 90.24

Second-lien (1.67) (1.98) (3.62) 74.15

Source: Leveraged Commentary and Data.

It's been a particularly rough period for the distressed segment of the market, represented by 'CCC' and defaulted loans.

This is typical of bear markets, of course, as investors focus on shoring up credit quality. In addition, collateralized loan

obligation (CLO) managers, sources say, are generally focused on reducing exposure to 'CCC' and defaulted loans in


13

March 4, 2016

33505660 | 270752268

order to limit overcollateralization damage.

Chart 9

Likewise, the long unloved second-lien segment fell further behind first-lien loans. Managers explain that the hedge funds

and other relative-value investors that form the traditional constituency for these loans remain largely sidelined, while

regular-way investors no longer need second-lien paper to juice portfolio spreads given where first-lien paper now trades.


14

March 4, 2016

33505660 | 270752268

Chart 10

Overall, loan conditions deteriorated in February, though improving investor sentiment across the capital markets helped

lift loan prices in the waning days of the month, and there were hopeful signs on the CLO horizon. Let's review February's

technical trends, starting with the month as a whole, before we isolate the mini-rally.

For February as a whole, net new supply exceeded visible capital formation from CLOs and loan mutual fund flows by

$8.3 billion: $7.3 billion to -$1 billion.


15

March 4, 2016

33505660 | 270752268

Chart 11

Supply growth in February reversed January's $6.2 billion contraction, pushing the universe of index loans outstanding to

a record of $882 billion from $875 billion on Jan. 31 and $881 billion at year-end.


16

March 4, 2016

33505660 | 270752268

Chart 12

The increase in loan supply resulted from an uptick in break volume, on the one hand, and a downshift in repayments, on

the other.


17

March 4, 2016

33505660 | 270752268

Chart 13

On the demand side of the ledger, CLO issuance bounced back to a still less-than-robust $2.07 billion in February after

falling to a four-year low of $826 million in January.


18

March 4, 2016

33505660 | 270752268

Chart 14

Managers attribute the lack of issuance to three main factors. First, the price at which CLO equity is trading in the

secondary continues to languish, what with recent loan price declines magnified in the context of a CLO structure. Second,

demand for liabilities--particularly in the mezzanine section of the capital stack--is anemic with the market for 'B'

liabilities nearly closed and 'BBs' printing at a price that creates negative carry. And finally, despite the low-90s average

price of index loans, the higher-rated product that appeals to CLO investors remains far better bid and, what's more,

difficult to source given the lack of growth in the asset class in the past 12 months during which index loans outstanding

have increased by just 4.7%.

Retail flows, meanwhile, remained in negative territory. Loan mutual funds that report weekly to Lipper FMI posted $2.2

billion of redemptions, slightly better than January's reading of $2.5 billion of redemptions.


19

March 4, 2016

33505660 | 270752268

Chart 15

Beyond these visible sources of demand, managers say separately managed accounts from pension funds and other

institutional investors remain effectively neutral. These investors, they say, are interested in loans and other credit products

but are not yet excited at current price levels.

Although few players are calling for a strong reversal in the ongoing loan market correction, late February brought a

respite from the run of negative news. During the week ended Feb. 26, the S&P/LSTA Index traded up 0.15%, the best

full-week return since the final week of 2015.


20

March 4, 2016

33505660 | 270752268

Chart 16

One week is hardly a trend, but the rise in late February was a result of three encouraging signs. First, macro investor

sentiment improved, spurring a rally in the broader capital markets that pushed the S&P 500 up 4.47% in the final two

full weeks of the month, its best two-week performance in a year, and the S&P U.S. High Yield Corporate Bond Index up

3.43%. Second, CLO issuance spiked during the final full week of February with four managers--BlackRock, Credit Suisse

Asset Management, Crestline, and Neuberger Berman--printing $1.72 billion of new vehicles, the biggest weekly sum since

mid-December. Furthermore, Leveraged Commentary & Data's forward calendar of merger and acquisition

(M&A)-related loans remains at the low-end of the recent range.


21

March 4, 2016

33505660 | 270752268

Chart 17

Looking ahead, players think the market's negative bias is more likely than not to persist, the action of late February

notwithstanding. After all, regulatory and market pressure on CLOs remains intense, and rates show no signs of turning

up any time soon. Indeed, the 10-year Treasury rate ended February at 1.74%, down from 1.94% a month earlier and

2.27% at year-end. With economic growth still sluggish, expectations for a further rate increase remain subdued. Thus,

managers expect outflows from retail investors to continue for the foreseeable future.

That said, if the uptick in CLO issuance proves durable, loan prices could rebound from the current levels, which remain

out of sync with fundamental trends such as default rates and, thus, imply a larger-than-normal illiquidity premium. This

implies that there is a fair amount of potential upside in today's loan prices if the economy hangs in and as a result default

rates remain below trend, and as a result, investors sense value in unleveraged loan portfolios and CLO equity, creating an

uptick in demand for the asset class.

Sector performance

The most challenged sectors in the index--energy and metals and mining--remained a drag on overall returns in February

but to a far lesser extent than in the recent past as oil and gas and other commodity prices stabilized.


22

March 4, 2016

33505660 | 270752268

Table 6

Energy And Metals And Mining Impact

February 2016 (%) January 2016 (%) Year-to-date 2016 (%) 2015 (%)

Energy (4.59) (10.32) (14.44) (29.42)

Metals and mining (4.57) (10.39) (14.49) (24.23)

Drag on index (0.16) (0.40) (0.55) (1.51)

Total return (0.53) (0.65) (1.18) (0.69)


Loans versus other asset classes

With rates falling, less-credit-sensitive fixed-income products outperformed loans in February, as did equities, thanks to

the late-month rally mentioned above.

In the year to date, loans are lagging 10-year Treasuries, corporate bonds, and speculative-grade while leading equities.

Table 7

Returns

February 2016 (%) January 2016 (%) Year-to-date 2016 (%)

S&P/LSTA Index (0.53) (0.65) (1.18)

BAML High-Yield Master 0.47 (1.58) (1.12)

10-year Treasury 1.73 3.25 5.03

S&P 500, including dividends (0.13) (4.96) (5.08)

BAML High-Grade Corp. 0.74 0.44 1.18

Sources: Leveraged Commentary and Data and Bank of America Merrill Lynch.

On a risk-adjusted basis, February's results didn't move the historical needle. Since the commencement date of the

S&P/LSTA Index in January 1997, the Sharpe ratio of loans lags behind that of the three fixed-income products we track

here--which have been boosted by a drop in the 10-year yield from 6.34% at year-end 1996--while exceeding equities.

Table 8

January 1997 To February 2016

Annualized returns (%) Standard deviation (%) of monthy returns Sharpe ratio

S&P/LSTA Index 4.82 1.74 0.42

BAML High-Yield Master 6.74 2.66 0.48

10-year Treasury 6.10 2.12 0.51

S&P 500, including dividends 7.92 4.48 0.36

BAML High-Grade Corp. 6.21 1.53 0.74

Sources: Leveraged Commentary and Data and Bank of America Merrill Lynch.

Big movers

Energy Future Holdings Corp.'s prepetition term debt was the largest detractor from index returns last month, though not

far behind was Avaya Inc., which gapped lower early in the month amid the volatile market conditions and following the

release of its first-quarter results. Also high on the list were oil and gas company Sheridan Production Partners; Intelsat

S.A., which tumbled on disappointing 2016 guidance and after the company disclosed it retained Guggenheim; and

Valeant Pharmaceuticals International Inc., which was volatile and lower on news of an SEC investigation into the


23

March 4, 2016

33505660 | 270752268

company and on news that it would restate some earnings.

In terms of the largest contributors to Index returns last month, Fortescue Metals Group Ltd.'s jumbo term loan led the

back by a wide margin, buoyed by a rally in iron ore prices. Fortescue was followed by Scientific Games Corp. and TTM

Technologies Inc., both of which got a boost on earnings.

Table 9

Big Movers (February)

Standard & Poor's loan rating February index return contribution (%)

Up

Fortescue Metals Group Ltd. BB+ 0.0477

Scientific Games Corp. BB- 0.0152

TTM Technologies Inc. B+ 0.0143

Caesars Entertainment Inc. D 0.0140

Energy Transfer Equity L.P. BB 0.0135

Getty Images Inc. CCC+ 0.0120

Securus Technologies Inc. B 0.0116

Global Tel Link Corp. B 0.0105

SeaDrill Ltd. B 0.0099

Walter Investment Management Corp. BB- 0.0095

Down

Energy Future Holdings Corp. D (0.0318)

Avaya Inc. B (0.0312)

Sheridan Production Partners CCC+ (0.0253)

Intelsat S.A. BB- (0.0224)

Valeant Pharmaceuticals International Inc. BB (0.0200)

Murray Energy Corp. B (0.0179)

Gardner Denver Inc. B (0.0167)

Cumulus Media Inc. B- (0.0154)

EP Energy LLC B- (0.0140)

Epicor Software Corp./Eagle Parent B (0.0130)


Contact Information: Steve Miller, Managing Director--Leveraged Commentary And Data, [email protected].

Follow Steve on Twitter (@millerLCD) for an early look at LCD analysis and for market commentaries.

R2P Corporate Bond Monitor

The latest data from the U.S. indicated a revival within the fragile manufacturing sector with the manufacturing Institute

for Supply Management (ISM) at its closest level to halting contraction in the sector since September 2015. The ISM

registered 49.5 for February from 48.2 in January (where 50 indicates a break-even, no growth, level) driven by domestic

new orders, though export new orders continued to worsen. Durable goods orders surprised to the upside, rising 4.9% in

January, correcting a sharp slump in December 2015. The rebound was attributed to higher spending in capital goods

(nondefense excluding aircraft), which broadly represents company expenditure. The data follows previous good news in

the manufacturing sector after January's improving industrial production figures and a 1.5% increase in construction

spending (following a 0.1% rise in December month over month). But how long this revival can go on is questionable for


24

March 4, 2016

33505660 | 270752268

the sector as early indicators show slowing exports and even stifling domestic demand could be on the horizon.

The eurozone continues to be a melting pot for a host of issues ranging from a possible "Brexit" to possible political

reform and a change to the austerity environment imposed in the past few years, compounded by more weakening data

releases. The region also remains at the mercy of the world economy with the slowdown in China seemingly more

apparent in the latest manufacturing PMI. The reading tumbled to 51.2 in February, representing a 12-month low, from

January's 52.3 as a multitude of factors including new orders and exports lost momentum. This mainly contributed a fall

in the eurozone composite PMI to 52.7 from 53.6 in January with growth woes also prevalent in the services sector. Its

PMI hit a 13-month low, reading 53.0 in February from 53.6 in January. Inflation data in the month also showed a broad

decline with consumer prices plummeting to -0.2% for the year ended in February after rising in the past four months

(0.3% in January). The fall was again the consequence of energy prices as the measure continues to defy any attempts by

the European Central Bank to reach its 2% target.

As market volatility continues to dominate markets, risk-reward profiles, as measured by average Risk-to-Price scores,

continued to worsen in both North America and Europe in the month ended Feb. 26, 2016.

In North America, the risk-reward profile deteriorated across every sector except the utilities sector as both market risks

(as measured by bond-price volatility) and credit risks (as measured by the probability of default) increased in the month

overall. Spread levels remained fairly stable with a mixed performance among sectors largely offsetting each other overall.

In Europe, the risk-reward profile also deteriorated as market and credit risks increased in the month overall. Spreads

generally tightened overall with some sectors exhibiting widening.

Table 10

North America Risk-Reward Profiles By Sector*

Scores (%) OAS (bps) PD (%) BP Vol. (%)

Consumer discretionary (16) (13) (0.054) 0.032

Consumer staples (3) (19) (0.233) 0.005

Energy (7) 3 0.394 0.036

Financials (21) 1 0.107 0.105

Health care (11) (14) 0.155 0.035

Industrials (10) (8) (0.016) 0.131

Information technology (17) (10) 0.190 0.146

Materials (10) 23 0.644 0.290

Telecommunications services (2) 2 (0.068) 0.054

Utilities 10 (10) (0.113) 0.052

Average (9) (5) 0.101 0.089

*One-month average Risk-to-Price score and components changes to Feb. 26, 2016. OAS--Option-adjusted spreads. bps--Basis points.

PD--Probability of default. BP Vol.--Bond-price volatility. Source: S&P Global Market Intelligence.

Table 11

Europe Risk-Reward Profiles By Sector*

Scores (%) OAS (bps) PD (%) BP Vol. (%)

Consumer discretionary (22) (15) 0.011 0.115

Consumer staples (11) (16) 0.008 (0.013)

Energy (25) (22) 0.044 0.105

Financials (20) 4 0.066 0.104


25

March 4, 2016

33505660 | 270752268

Table 11

Europe Risk-Reward Profiles By Sector* (cont.)

Health care (1) (13) 0.002 0.028

Industrials (26) (21) 0.031 0.042

Information technology (20) 13 0.028 0.079

Materials (23) 28 0.083 0.263

Telecommunication services (21) (6) 0.006 0.069

Utilites (18) (6) 0.006 0.079

Average (19) (6) 0.029 0.087

*One-month average Risk-to-Price score and components changes to Feb. 26, 2016. OAS--Option-adjusted spreads. bps--Basis points.

PD--Probability of default. BP Vol.--Bond-price volatility. Source: S&P Global Market Intelligence.

Contact Information: Fabrice Jaudi, Vice President--S&P Investment Advisory Services, [email protected].

Kunaal Vora, Credit Research Analyst--S&P Investment Advisory Services, London +44(0)207 176 8317;

[email protected].

Capital Market Commentary: IPOs, M&A, And Debt

IPOs

It's been a downright awful period for IPO underwriting in the U.S. as of late. During the first two months this year, just

four new issues, excluding closed-end funds and special purpose acquisition companies, have been completed with

underwriting proceeds of less than $398 million. To find a more lackluster opening two months based on the number of

issues, we have to go back to 2009 when just a single IPO--a $720 million offering by Mead Johnson Nutrition Co.--came

to market. However, for those looking for a silver lining in dark underwriting clouds, consider that the S&P 500 posted

an annual return of 25.9% in that year.

Table 12

U.S. IPO Underwriting

Period Issues Value (mil. $)

January 2003-February 2003 2 1123.6
















26

March 4, 2016

33505660 | 270752268

M&A

Although U.S. announced M&A activity in early 2016 has trended slightly lower than year-ago proceeds, for deals

involving European targets, the boom times are continuing thanks to several large transactions. According to S&P Global

Market Intelligence data, the announced deal value of European M&A in 2016 has surpassed $158 billion compared with

$108.2 billion in the year-ago period. Chiefly responsible for the large jump is China National Chemical Corp.'s

agreement to acquire Swiss materials company Syngenta AG for $46.5 billion on Feb. 2. Another large proposed

transaction is Deutsche Boerse AG agreeing to acquire London Stock Exchange Group PLC in a deal valued at $15.9

billion on Feb. 23.

Additionally, several sectors are seeing large year-over-year advances in European M&A deal activity. Five sectors are

posting percentage gains greater than 100% in year-over-year deal proceeds (see table 13).

Table 13

Announced European Mergers And Acquisitions

Number of deals by sector

2015 YTD 2016 YTD Change (%)

Energy 42 56 33.33

Materials 140 128 (8.57)

Industrials 485 546 12.58

Consumer discretionary 458 496 8.30

Consumer staples 146 163 11.64

Health care 152 143 (5.92)

Financials 891 801 (10.10)

Information technology 364 353 (3.02)

Telecommunication services 29 26 (10.34)

Utilities 69 101 46.38

No primary industry assigned 303 255 (15.84)

Total 3,079 3,068 (0.36)

Proceeds by sector (mil. $)

Energy 503.9 1,927.2 282.49

Materials 11,235.0 46,995.7 318.30

Industrials 15,411.6 24,173.8 56.85

Consumer discretionary 14,777.1 11,441.9 (22.57)

Consumer staples 1,094.7 7,964.4 627.54

Health care 5,891.3 12,073.7 104.94

Financials 34,151.3 41,895.7 22.68

Information technology 5,168.8 3,855.9 (25.40)

Telecommunication services 16,267.4 113.1 (99.30)

Utilities 2,244.1 4,780.3 113.02

No primary industry assigned 1,421.9 3,155.0 121.89

Total 108,167.1 158,376.7 46.42

Total deal value (mil. $) 108,167.05 158,376.74 46.42

Average deal value (mil. $) 116.81 197.23 68.85

Average total enterprise value/revenue 6.35 8.28 30.39

Average total enterprise value/EBITDA 13.31 11.89 (10.67)


27

March 4, 2016

33505660 | 270752268

Table 13

Announced European Mergers And Acquisitions (cont.)

Average day-prior premium (%) 15.86 24.45 54.16

Average week-prior premium (%) 14.45 25.86 78.96

Average month-prior premium (%) 18.22 27.23 49.45

Number of deals by transaction ranges

Greater than $1 billion 15 15 0.00

$500 million-$999.9 million 22 12 (45.45)

$100 million-$499.9 million 122 118 (3.28)

Less than $100 million 751 633 (15.71)

Undisclosed 2,169 2,290 5.58


Debt

After a lackluster January in which security identifier orders for several debt-related offerings saw tepid activity as

potential issuers embraced a risk-adverse approach to underwriting, February saw improvement in several categories.

According to information provided by Committee on Uniform Security Identification Procedures (CUSIP) Global Services,

the collective count for CUSIP orders for six popular debt asset classes had a 22% increase in February from January's

results. Among individual asset categories, domestic corporate debt CUSIP demand advanced 29% last month, and

municipal security identifier requests rose 25% throughout the same period. Still, despite the generally positive results,

when examining current activity from year-ago results, we find a downbeat atmosphere as five of the six categories below

are lower this year. Going into the final month of the first quarter of 2016, the prospects for an active period for issuance

may be ebbing.

Table 14

Selected Debt CUSIP Requests

Asset type February 2016 January 2016 2016 YTD 2015 YTD Change (%)

Domestic corporate debt 617 477 1,094 1,323 (17.31)

Municipal bonds 1,137 910 2,047 2,251 (9.06)

Short-term municipal notes 57 83 140 117 19.66

Long-term municipal notes 19 13 32 55 (41.82)

International debt 134 134 268 409 (34.47)

PPN domestic debt 157 123 280 327 (14.37)

Total 2,121 1,740 3,861 4,482 (13.86)

CUSIP--Committee on Uniform Security Identification Procedures. PPN--Private placement number. YTD--Year-to-date. Source: CUSIP Global

Services.

Contact Information: Rich Peterson, Senior Director--S&P Global Market Intelligence, [email protected].


28

March 4, 2016

33505660 | 270752268

About S&P Global Market Intelligence And S&P Dow Jones Indices

S&P Global Market Intelligence

S&P Investment Advisory Services

Provides event-driven, multi-asset class market commentary and analysis; model development; and investment

advisory services.

Research

Provides global company and funds research including insight into the performance of the world's leading

investment funds.

Leveraged Commentary And Data

Delivers insight into the leveraged loan market through a combination of data, commentary, analysis, and

real-time news.

S&P Dow Jones Indices

The world's leading index provider maintaining a wide variety of investable and benchmark indices to meet an

array of investor needs.

To learn more about S&P Investment Advisory Services's Lookout Report, please see:

https://www.spcapitaliq.com/our-thinking/research.html?category=LookoutReport.

For full disclosures, please see https://www.spcapitaliq.com/disclaimers/s-p-capital-iq.

Investment Advisory Services LLC ("SPIAS") and McGraw-Hill Financial Research Europe Limited ("MHFRE")

(collectively, "S&P Investment Advisory Services" or "S&P IAS"), each a wholly owned subsidiary of McGraw Hill

Financial, Inc., and a part of S&P Global Market Intelligence. S&P IAS provides non-discretionary advisory services to

institutional clients and does not provide advice to underlying clients of the firms to which it provides advisory services. In

the United States, advisory services are offered by SPIAS. SPIAS does not act as a "fiduciary" or as an "investment

manager", as defined under Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), to any investor. MHFRE, is authorized

and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority in the United Kingdom. Under the Markets in Financial Instruments

Directive ("MiFID"), MHFRE is entitled to exercise a passport right to provide cross border investment advice to

European Economic Area ("EEA") States. MHFRE has duly notified the Financial Conduct Authority in the United

Kingdom of its intention to provide cross border investment advice in EEA States in accordance with MiFID. MHFRE

trades as S&P Global Market Intelligence, does not provide services to "retail clients" and only has "professional clients"

as defined under MiFID. In the United Kingdom to the extent the material is a financial promotion it is issued and

approved by MHFRE. In Hong Kong, advisory services are offered by Standard & Poor's Investment Advisory Services

(HK) Limited ("SPIAS HK"), which is regulated by the Hong Kong Securities and Futures Commission; in Singapore, by

McGraw-Hill Financial Singapore Pte. Limited ("MHFSPL"), which is regulated by the Monetary Authority of Singapore;

in Malaysia, by Standard & Poor's Malaysia Sdn Bhd ("S&P Malaysia"), which is regulated by the Securities Commission

of Malaysia; and in Australia, by Standard & Poor's Information Services (Australia) Pty Ltd ("SPIS"), which is regulated

by the Australian Securities & Investments Commission. In Korea, SPIAS holds a cross-border non-discretionary

investment adviser license and it is registered with the Financial Supervisory Service (FSS). SPIAS, MHFRE, SPIAS HK,


29

March 4, 2016

33505660 | 270752268

MHFSPL, S&P Malaysia and SPIS, each a wholly owned subsidiary of McGraw Hill Financial, Inc. operate under the

S&P Global Market Intelligence brand.

S&P IAS offers four broad categories of investment advice: (i) portfolio strategies; (ii) fund research and

recommendations; (iii) asset allocation; and (iv) analyses of certain U.S. and European fixed income securities using its

proprietary Risk-to-Price scoring methodology. S&P IAS' model portfolios ("model(s)") are not collective investment

funds. Assets managed in accordance with the models may lose money. S&P IAS is not responsible for client suitability

and or the appropriateness of the service for the client. Any performance data quoted represents past performance. Past

performance is not indicative of future returns.

With respect to the investment recommendations made by S&P IAS, investors should realize that such investment

recommendations are provided only as a general guideline. There is no agreement or understanding whatsoever that S&P

IAS will provide individualized advice to any investor. S&P IAS is not responsible for client suitability. S&P IAS does not

take into account any information about any investor or any investor's assets when providing investment advice. S&P IAS

does not have any discretionary authority or control with respect to purchasing or selling securities or making other

investments. Individual investors should ultimately rely on their own judgment and/or the judgment of a financial advisor

in making their investment decisions. Investments are subject to investment risks including the possible loss of the

principal amount invested. An investment based upon S&P IAS' investment advice should only be made after consulting

with a financial advisor and with an understanding of the risks associated with any investment in securities, including, but

not limited to, market risk, currency risk, interest rate risk and foreign investment risk.

S&P Global Market Intelligence and its affiliates (collectively, S&P) and any third-party providers, as well as their

directors, officers, shareholders, employees or agents (collectively S&P Parties) do not guarantee the accuracy,

completeness, timeliness or availability of the Content. S&P Parties are not responsible for any errors or omissions

(negligent or otherwise), regardless of the cause, for the results obtained from the use of the Content, or for the security or

maintenance of any data input by the user. The Content is provided on an "as is" basis. S&P PARTIES DISCLAIM ANY

AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ANY WARRANTIES OF

MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE OR USE, FREEDOM FROM BUGS,

SOFTWARE ERRORS OR DEFECTS, THAT THE CONTENT'S FUNCTIONING WILL BE UNINTERRUPTED OR

THAT THE CONTENT WILL OPERATE WITH ANY SOFTWARE OR HARDWARE CONFIGURATION. In no event

shall S&P Parties be liable to any party for any direct, indirect, incidental, exemplary, compensatory, punitive, special or

consequential damages, costs, expenses, legal fees, or losses (including, without limitation, lost income or lost profits and

opportunity costs or losses caused by negligence) in connection with any use of the Content even if advised of the

possibility of such damages.

S&P IAS may consider research and other information from affiliates in making its investment recommendations. The

investment policies of certain model portfolios specifically state that among the information S&P IAS will consider in

evaluating a security are the credit ratings assigned by Standard & Poor's Ratings Services. S&P IAS does not consider the

ratings assigned by other credit rating agencies. Credit rating criteria and scales may differ among credit rating agencies.

Ratings assigned by other credit rating agencies may reflect more or less favorable opinions of creditworthiness than

ratings assigned by Standard & Poor's Ratings Services.

For more detailed descriptions of disclosures and disclaimers such as investment risk and country conditions, please see:

http://www.spcapitaliq.com/disclaimers/spias-investment-advisory-services

Copyright © 2016 by S&P Global Market Intelligence. Redistribution, reproduction and/or photocopying in whole or in

part is prohibited without written permission. All rights reserved. STANDARD & POOR'S, S&P and S&P 500 are


30

March 4, 2016

33505660 | 270752268

registered trademarks of Standard & Poor's Financial Services LLC. CAPITAL IQ is a registered trademark of Capital IQ,

Inc. S&P Capital IQ is a trademark of Standard & Poor's Financial Services LLC.


31

March 4, 2016

33505660 | 270752268

32 March 4, 2016

33505660 | 270752268

S&P may receive compensation for its ratings and certain analyses, normally from issuers or underwriters of securities or from obligors. S&P reserves the right to disseminateits opinions and analyses. S&P's public ratings and analyses are made available on its Web sites, www.standardandpoors.com (free of charge), and www.ratingsdirect.comand www.globalcreditportal.com (subscription), and may be distributed through other means, including via S&P publications and third-party redistributors. Additionalinformation about our ratings fees is available at www.standardandpoors.com/usratingsfees.

S&P keeps certain activities of its business units separate from each other in order to preserve the independence and objectivity of their respective activities. As a result,certain business units of S&P may have information that is not available to other S&P business units. S&P has established policies and procedures to maintain theconfidentiality of certain nonpublic information received in connection with each analytical process.

To the extent that regulatory authorities allow a rating agency to acknowledge in one jurisdiction a rating issued in another jurisdiction for certain regulatory purposes, S&Preserves the right to assign, withdraw, or suspend such acknowledgement at any time and in its sole discretion. S&P Parties disclaim any duty whatsoever arising out of theassignment, withdrawal, or suspension of an acknowledgment as well as any liability for any damage alleged to have been suffered on account thereof.

Credit-related and other analyses, including ratings, and statements in the Content are statements of opinion as of the date they are expressed and not statements of fact.S&P's opinions, analyses, and rating acknowledgment decisions (described below) are not recommendations to purchase, hold, or sell any securities or to make anyinvestment decisions, and do not address the suitability of any security. S&P assumes no obligation to update the Content following publication in any form or format. TheContent should not be relied on and is not a substitute for the skill, judgment and experience of the user, its management, employees, advisors and/or clients when makinginvestment and other business decisions. S&P does not act as a fiduciary or an investment advisor except where registered as such. While S&P has obtained information fromsources it believes to be reliable, S&P does not perform an audit and undertakes no duty of due diligence or independent verification of any information it receives.

No content (including ratings, credit-related analyses and data, model, software or other application or output therefrom) or any part thereof (Content) may be modified,reverse engineered, reproduced or distributed in any form by any means, or stored in a database or retrieval system, without the prior written permission of Standard & Poor'sFinancial Services LLC or its affiliates (collectively, S&P). The Content shall not be used for any unlawful or unauthorized purposes. S&P and any third-party providers, as wellas their directors, officers, shareholders, employees or agents (collectively S&P Parties) do not guarantee the accuracy, completeness, timeliness or availability of theContent. S&P Parties are not responsible for any errors or omissions (negligent or otherwise), regardless of the cause, for the results obtained from the use of the Content, orfor the security or maintenance of any data input by the user. The Content is provided on an "as is" basis. S&P PARTIES DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIEDWARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ANY WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE OR USE, FREEDOM FROM BUGS,SOFTWARE ERRORS OR DEFECTS, THAT THE CONTENT'S FUNCTIONING WILL BE UNINTERRUPTED, OR THAT THE CONTENT WILL OPERATE WITH ANY SOFTWARE ORHARDWARE CONFIGURATION. In no event shall S&P Parties be liable to any party for any direct, indirect, incidental, exemplary, compensatory, punitive, special orconsequential damages, costs, expenses, legal fees, or losses (including, without limitation, lost income or lost profits and opportunity costs or losses caused by negligence)in connection with any use of the Content even if advised of the possibility of such damages.

This report was prepared by the S&P Capital IQ Global Markets Intelligence group, formerly known as the Global Markets Intelligence research group. This group isanalytically and editorially independent from any other analytical group at S&P.

Copyright © 2016 by Standard & Poor's Financial Services LLC. All rights reserved.

lookout report - s&p global · exploration and analysis. s&p global market...

Documents