Economy

Highlights We are going long spot gold at tonight's closing price, given our view that inflation and inflation expectations will continue to move higher going into 2018. In the U.S., we expect higher fiscal spending and tax cuts hitting the economy next year to have a significant effect on an economy already at or very close to full employment, boosting real wages and inflationary pressures. As a safe-haven, gold also is well suited to hedging geopolitical risks, which also are rising. Lastly, gold exposure has the added benefit of providing a hedge to equity positions. Energy: Overweight. The ~ 10% correction in benchmark crude oil prices from 1Q17 levels likely has run its course, as representatives of key states that are party to the November 2016 production cut deal signal it will be extended at the upcoming May 25 meeting in Vienna. We remain long Dec/17 Brent $65/bbl calls vs. short the Dec/17 Brent $45/bbl puts, which is down $0.88/bbl, and will be getting long Dec/17 Brent $55/bbl calls vs. Dec/17 $60/bbl calls at tonight's close. We expect Dec/17 Brent to reach $60/bbl by year-end, with WTI trading ~ $2.00/bbl lower. Base Metals: Neutral. Indonesia's state mining company PT Aneka Tambang is expected to resume nickel exports, reversing a three-year ban on outgoing trade. We remain neutral base metals. Precious Metals: Neutral. We are recommending an allocation to gold outright as a strategic hedge against higher inflation, particularly emanating from the U.S., and geopolitical risk in Europe (see below). Underweight. Markets remain well stocked with indications stocks-to-use data will continue to weigh on prices. We remain bearish. Feature Recent indications inflation and inflation expectations are ticking higher will persist into 2018 (Chart of the Week). U.S. fiscal spending and tax cuts expected next year will lift real wages and boost spending power. The American economy already is at or very close to full employment, and U.S. rate hikes are lagging wage growth, which will, all else equal, boost inflation and inflation expectations (Chart 2). Although we expect the Fed to raise rates at least two more times this year - perhaps three - we believe the central bank will continue to keep rate hikes behind wage growth, and will not try to get out in front of inflation (Chart 3). Chart Of The WeekGlobal CPI Inflation Continues To Percolate Chart 2Rate Hikes Lagging Wage Growth Chart 3Fed Likely Won't Get Ahead Of Inflation On the political and geopolitical fronts, looming Italian elections are a risk that is all but being ignored by financial markets. Our colleague Marko Papic, head of BCA's Geopolitical Strategy service, identifies next February's Italian elections as "the highest probability risk to European integration at the moment," given its potential to "reignite Euro Area breakup risk."1 Political risks dog the DM economies: falling support for globalization, which will undermine the benefits of sourcing low-cost inputs (labor and capital) worldwide; tighter immigration policies, which go hand-in-hand with falling support for globalization; a predisposition to monetize debt via higher money supply; and higher minimum-wage demands as income inequality increases all raise inflation and inflation expectations in DM economies.2 This financial and political backdrop again points us toward gold in an attempt to identify safe-haven assets and hedges against the increasing likelihood of renewed inflation. In addition, while our House view does not include a marked equities correction in the near term, it is worthwhile pointing out that gold does hedge equities when they are selling off, and in bear markets generally. A corollary to this property is that in equity bull markets, gold tends to hold value, even if it underperforms stocks in absolute terms. These are powerful properties, which increase the stability of investors' portfolios. Before proceeding, it is useful to distinguish between the specifications mentioned above:3 A safe-haven asset refers to an asset that is negatively correlated (or uncorrelated) with other assets that lose value in times of financial stress. An important feature of a safe-haven asset is that it only exhibit low or negative correlation with financial assets (e.g., equities) in extremely negative market conditions, without specifying any particular behavior when markets are not under stress. In other words, both assets could be positively correlated in bull markets, as long as the correlation turns negative when financial-market conditions deteriorate. We make a distinction between the weak and strong form of safe-havens: The weak form represents an asset that is uncorrelated with the reference asset, while the strong form is negatively correlated.4 A hedge is an asset that is negatively correlated (or uncorrelated) with another asset, on average, over the time interval being examined in a particular analysis. As with safe-haven assets, there is a similar distinction between weak- and strong-form hedges. A diversifier refers to an asset that is positively, but imperfectly, correlated with another asset on average during the period of analysis. Gold Vs. Inflation During inflationary periods, assets that generate returns for investors that offset purchasing-power losses experienced by other assets in their portfolio - i.e., a store of value - traditionally have been preferred. Gold has been used as a store of value during inflationary episodes, and for this reason is viewed as a safe haven. Fundamentally, gold's supply is relatively inelastic, and consists of above-ground physical stocks comprising public and private holdings. The world gold council estimates physical gold stocks were ~ 4570.8t at the end of 2016, up 5.8% since 2010. Demand for gold was estimated at 4249.1t at the end of 2016, versus 3281t at the end of 2000. The inelasticity of gold supply makes it difficult to respond to changes in inflation - or to any shocks to the economy, for that matter - by increasing the supply over the short term, as it would be the case with any fiat currencies and other assets. For this reason, price allocates limited supply. During inflationary periods and during a macroeconomic shock, gold's price is bid up, which is the source of returns for holding gold.5 Gold often is seen as a currency; however, it lacks a central bank that can increase its supply via turning up the printing press. This makes the precious metal a so-called "hard currency," and endows it with the ability to maintain its purchasing power during periods of inflation. In addition, it is an asset that is accepted as collateral to support bank lending and margining by the BIS and numerous banks.6 In Table 1, we look at the correlation between year-on-year gold return and U.S. CPI inflation.7 We used a sample period from 1985 to now.8 On average, during the entire sample, we obtained a correlation of 26%. Within the sub-periods gold provides a hedge against inflation, but how much of a hedge depends on other financial factors - chiefly the broad USD TWI and real U.S. interest rates - affecting its performance (Chart 4). We examine these below. Table 1Gold Vs. U.S.##BR##And EU Inflation Chart 4Gold's Inflation-Hedging Properties##BR##Affected By Monetary Conditions The hedging relationship between gold returns and the CPI inflation rates does not consistently hold up in all bear markets - e.g., the GFC, when global assets became highly correlated and lost significant value. It is possible, though, that in times of financial stress or downturn, gold's ability to act as a hedge asset to U.S. equities might sometime dominates its ability to hedge inflation, leading to an ambiguous relationship with inflation during bear markets. We delve further into this below. Gold, Inflation And U.S. Monetary Conditions We typically model gold as a function of financial variables, which are sensitive to inflation and inflation expectations and to Fed policy shifts. Given our preference for modeling gold's price evolution as a function of U.S. financial variables - the broad trade-weighted (TWI) USD and real rates, in particular - we looked further into this (Chart 5). The impact of inflation on gold prices is stronger when the dollar experiences large negative shocks and depreciates, and weaker when the USD appreciates (i.e., a large positive shock).9 So, when the USD broad TWI is falling, gold is an effective hedge. When the greenback is appreciating, it is less effective. Next, we examined the ability of gold to hedge inflation risk when U.S. real rates are high and low. To do this, we used 10-year real rates and cut a long-term sample from 1990 to now into two different sub-periods: a high-rate period from 1990 to 2003, and a low-rate period from 2003 to now (Chart 6).10 Chart 5USD's Evolution Is Important To Gold,##BR##As Are U.S. Real Rates Chart 6U.S. 10-Year##BR##Real Rates During the high-real-rate period, the correlation between gold and inflation is close to zero (0), meaning gold did not act as a strong hedge against inflation, but still could have been acting as a weak hedge (meaning it's uncorrelated). Gold's hedging ability increased significantly in the low-real-rate period (Table 2). Again, this supports our theory that gold's hedging ability depends on U.S. monetary conditions, and that during periods of low real U.S. interest rates gold is an effective hedge against inflation. Table 2Gold Vs. CPI Inflation In High- And Low-Real Rate Environments Gold Vs. U.S. Equities Cutting right to the chase, gold can be used to hedge equities exposure in portfolios, as the correlation analysis in Table 3 demonstrates. Here, we are examining the hedging ability of gold relative to the U.S. stock market (proxied by the S&P 500 Total Return (TR) index). Table 3Gold's Hedging Properties Vs. Equities In our analysis, we find gold and U.S. equities are negatively correlated, on average, over the entire sample (correlation coefficient -0.19). We also tested for time-varying correlation by looking at the correlation separately in different bull- and bear-market sub-periods. Bull (bear) markets are defined as periods in which the U.S. stock index has a positive (negative) move of more than 15% and that lasts for at least 3 months.11 During both bear markets, gold's annualized compound returns were up when the S&P 500 returns were negative (Table 4). This strongly suggests gold is a safe-haven asset in time of extended weakness for equities, all else equal (i.e., we don't have a 100-year global meltdown that takes all correlations to 1.00). Interestingly, the relationship is unclear for bull markets which reflects the non-linearity in gold's hedging ability. We can conclude that during bull markets, gold tends to underperform equity markets; however, this does not imply that holding gold will lead to negative returns. Hence, gold offers protection against bear markets that offsets the costs in terms of returns during bull markets.12 Table 4Gold Hedges U.S. Equities The correlation between month-on-month gold and S&P 500TR returns corroborate the earlier finding. We find that gold is negatively correlated with U.S. equities during equity bear markets, and that it is ambiguous in equity bull markets. Bottom Line: We find gold is a good hedge during inflationary periods, particularly when the USD TWI is weak and real rates are low. We also show gold has excellent safe-haven and hedging properties versus equities (using the S&P 500TR index as a proxy). Based on this analysis, we are recommending a strategic allocation to gold, and will get long at tonight's close. Robert P. Ryan, Senior Vice President Commodity & Energy Strategy rryan@bcaresearch.com Hugo Bélanger, Research Assistant Commodity & Energy Strategy hugob@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see "Political Risks Are Understated in 2018," published on April 12, 2017, by BCA Research's Geopolitical Strategy. It is available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see "The End Of the Anglo-Saxon Economy?" published April 13, 2016, by BCA Research's Geopolitical Strategy. It is available at gps.bcresearch.com. 3 Baur, Dirk G.; Brian M. Lucey (2010), "Is Gold a Hedge or a Safe Haven? An Analysis of Stocks, Bonds and Gold". The Financial Review 45, 217-229. 4 Baur, Dirk G.; Thomas K.J. McDermott (2010), "Is Gold a Safe Haven? International Evidence", Journal of Banking & Finance 34, 1886-1898. 5 We would note that the real price of gold increased during the Great Depression, which indicated gold's value during a period of significant deflation appears to increase, perhaps as investors fear the debasement of their currencies and the subsequent loss of purchasing power. 6 Please see Section 4 of "Basel III counterparty credit risk and exposures to central counterparties - Frequently asked questions," published by the BIS December 2012. 7 We use CPI here because it drives the payout of inflation-linked securities in the U.S. 8 We begin our analysis in 1990 for consistency throughout. We also note that several papers take note of an important structural break in U.S. inflation around 1984. Please see Batten, Jonathan A.; Cetin Ciner; Brian M. Lucey (2014), "On The Economic Determinants Of The Gold-Inflation Relation", Resources Policy 41, 101-108; and Stock, James H.; Mark W. Watson (2007), "Why Has U.S. Inflation Become Harder to Forecast?", Journal of Money, Credit and Banking 39 (supplement). For the selection of bear and bull markets, please see "Monthly Economic Report" published on April 2017, by Mackenzie investments. 9 We did this by estimating a regression to see how gold responds when the broad trade-weighted USD is trading in the 5% and 90% quantile of year-on-year U.S. dollar variation over the period 1995 to present. We did this using dummy variables to represent the impact of U.S. inflation in periods of large dollar appreciation and dollar depreciation. The model's adj-R2 is 0.45, and all coefficients are significant below 5%. 10 The mean for the high-rates period is 3.77%; for the low-rates period it is 1.07%. These rates are statistically different between these two sub-periods (using a two-tailed t-test). 11 The selection of bull and bear markets is based on Mackenzie investment analysis. Please see "Monthly Economic Report" published on April 2017, by Mackenzie investments. 12 Our results were supported by further econometric analysis of the variance properties using GARCH modeling. These results are available upon request. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed In 2017 Summary Of Trades Closed In 2016

Highlights The global credit impulse is 4 months into a mini-downswing, and it is too soon to position for the next mini-upswing. The euro area economy will remain one of the better performers in a global growth pause. Underweight German bunds in a global bond portfolio. Stay long the euro, especially euro/yuan. Go long euro area Financials versus U.S. Financials, currency unhedged, as a first foray into a beaten-up sector. Feature First the good news: the ECB's latest bank lending data indicate that the euro area 6-month bank credit impulse is stabilizing after a modest but clear decline in recent months (Chart I-2). Now the bad news: the global bank credit impulse continues to weaken. The upshot is that the euro area economy - even with 1.5% growth - will remain one of the better performers in what is now a very clear global growth pause. Chart of the WeekThe Global Bond Yield Has Shown ##br##A Regular Wave Like Pattern Chart I-2The 6-Month Credit Impulse Has Stabilized In The ##br##Euro Area... But Not In The U.S. Or China How To Play The Euro Area's Economic Outperformance In a global growth pause, the best way to play euro area economic outperformance is through relative positions in the bond markets and through currencies. Specifically, underweight German bunds in a global bond portfolio but stay long the euro, especially euro/yuan. The implication for euro area equities is more ambiguous. The Eurostoxx50 has a very low exposure to Technology, which tends to perform defensively in a growth pause. Conversely, the Eurostoxx50 has a high exposure to Financials, whose relative performance reduces to a play on the bond yield (Chart I-3). Given that the global credit impulse is still weakening, it is premature to expect a sustained absolute rally in Financials anywhere. Therefore, the strong knee-jerk absolute rally in European banks after the French election first round is unlikely to last. That said, with the euro area economy likely to outperform in a global growth pause, and euro area Financials still near a 50-year relative low versus U.S. Financials, euro area bank equities can now outperform banks in other markets (Chart I-4). Chart I-3Global Bond Yield = ##br##Financials Vs. Market Chart I-4T-Bond/German Bond Spread Compression =##br## Euro Area Financials Outperform U.S. Financials As a first foray into a beaten-up sector, go long euro area Financials versus U.S. Financials, currency unhedged. (Caveat: all of this assumes that Emanuel Macron beats Marine Le Pen to the French Presidency on Sunday, as we expect.) Don't Rely On Year On Year Comparisons Nature provides many of our units of time. The earth's orbit around the sun gives us a year; the moon's orbit around the earth gives us a month; the earth's rotation on its axis gives us a day. But there is absolutely no reason why economic and financial cycles should follow nature's cycles. Yet most analysts persist at looking for patterns and cycles in economic and financial data using yearly, monthly, or daily rates of change. Unfortunately, by focusing on years, months and days, they risk completely missing some of the strongest patterns and cycles in the economy and markets. Think about a clock pendulum. If you look at it once a second, it will always seem to be in the same position, motionless. You will miss the cycle. Likewise, if an economy regularly accelerates for 6 months and then symmetrically decelerates for 6 months, the yearly rate of change will be a constant, giving the false appearance that nothing is happening. It will miss the cycle. It turns out that the global economy does indeed regularly accelerate and decelerate - and that each half-cycle averages about 8 months. The strongest evidence of this very clear oscillation comes from the remarkably regular wave like pattern in the global bond yield, illustrated in the Chart of the Week and Chart I-5 and Chart I-6. Chart I-5The Global Bond Yield Has Shown A ##br##Regular Wave Like Pattern... Chart I-6...Which Is Easier To See ##br##When Detrended Furthermore, the acceleration and deceleration of bank credit flows - as measured in the global credit impulse - also exhibits a remarkably regular wave like pattern, with each half-cycle lasting about 8 months. But crucially, a half-cycle length of less than a year means that a year on year analysis would miss this very clear oscillation. Hence, our analysis always uses the 6-month credit impulse (Chart I-7). Chart I-7The Global Credit Impulse Has Also Shown A Regular Wave Like Pattern Mini Half-Cycles Average Eight Months It is not a coincidence that the bond yield and bank credit impulse exhibit near identical half-cycle lengths. The bond yield and credit impulse cycles are inextricably embraced in a perpetual feedback loop. A higher bond yield will initiate a mini down cycle. All else being equal, the higher cost of credit will weigh on credit flows. This will slow economic growth, which will then show up in GDP (and other hard) data. The bond yield will respond by readjusting down. In turn, a lower bond yield will then initiate a mini up cycle. And so on... But each stage in the sequence comes with a delay. For a change in the cost of credit to register with households and firms and fully impact credit flows, it clearly takes time. The credit flows do not generate instantaneous economic activity either. Fully spending the credit flows also takes time. Once you accept these assumptions of internal regulating feedback combined with delays in economic response, the economy has to be a naturally-oscillating system whose half-cycle length depends on the delays in economic response. And the important point is that these delays have little connection with nature's cycles. For those who are mathematically inclined, Box I-1 shows the differential equations which define the economic mini-cycle and its half-cycle length. Box 1The Mathematics Of Mini-Cycles Still, some commentators counter that credit flows don't just depend on the cost of credit. They also depend on so-called "animal spirits" - optimism or pessimism about the future. These commentators point to sentiment and survey data which show that animal spirits have soared. Our response is yes, for credit flows, heightened animal spirits in isolation are indeed a tailwind. But any rise in the cost of credit is a headwind. It follows that the net impact on credit flows depends on the relative strengths of the tailwind from heightened animal spirits and the headwind from the higher cost of credit. It is the net effect on the 6-month credit impulse - rather than heightened animal spirits per se - that determines the cyclical direction of the economy. We would suggest that the tailwind from heightened animal spirits has been countered by an even stronger headwind - the sharpest proportional rise in borrowing costs for at least 70 years (Chart I-8). Chart I-8The Sharpest Proportional Rise In Borrowing Costs For At Least 70 Years! As anticipated in our 16th February report The Contrarian Case For Bonds, incoming GDP data from the world's largest economies - the U.S., U.K. and France - now confirm this. First quarter growth (at annualised rates) sharply decelerated to 0.7%, 1.2% and 1.0% respectively. And this is not just about so-called first quarter "residual seasonality" as 6-month growth rates have also lost momentum. The global credit impulse is 4 months into a mini-downswing; the global bond yield is 2 months into a mini-downswing. Previous half-cycles have averaged 8 months, with the shortest at around 5 months. Hence, we feel it is somewhat premature to position for the next mini-upswing. Dhaval Joshi, Senior Vice President European Investment Strategy dhaval@bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading Model* The rally in Portuguese sovereign bonds appears technically overextended. Go short Portuguese sovereign 10-year bonds versus Spanish sovereign 10-year bonds with a profit target and stop loss of 2.5% . For any investment, excessive trend following and groupthink can reach a natural point of instability, at which point the established trend is highly likely to break down with or without an external catalyst. An early warning sign is the investment's fractal dimension approaching its natural lower bound. Encouragingly, this trigger has consistently identified countertrend moves of various magnitudes across all asset classes. Chart I-9 * For more details please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report "Fractals, Liquidity & A Trading Model," dated December 11, 2014, available at eis.bcaresearch.com The post-June 9, 2016 fractal trading model rules are: When the fractal dimension approaches the lower limit after an investment has been in an established trend it is a potential trigger for a liquidity-triggered trend reversal. Therefore, open a countertrend position. The profit target is a one-third reversal of the preceding 13-week move. Apply a symmetrical stop-loss. Close the position at the profit target or stop-loss. Otherwise close the position after 13 weeks. Use the position size multiple to control risk. The position size will be smaller for more risky positions. Fractal Trading Model Recommendations Equities Bond & Interest Rates Currency & Other Positions Closed Fractal Trades Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Interest Rate Chart II-5Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch ##br##- Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations

Highlights Ongoing monetary tightening in China poses a substantial threat to EM risk assets. Yet financial markets remain highly complacent. Mind the gap between EM risk assets and commodities currencies/various commodities prices. Business conditions in EM ex-China will diverge from the U.S. and European economies and recouple to the downside with China's growth. The pillars of the EM business cycle are China, commodities, and their own domestic credit cycle, rather than the U.S. and Europe. Continue shorting/underweighting the Malaysian currency, stocks and sovereign credit. Feature Chart I-1China: Ongoing Liquidity Tightening There is one major underappreciated risk in global financial markets: China's gradual yet unrelenting monetary tightening. Though slow and measured, this policy tightening constitutes a significant risk, particularly for emerging markets. The basis is that it could trigger a disproportionally large negative effect on Chinese growth because it is taking place amid a lingering credit bubble in China.1 Mainland interbank rates and onshore corporate bond yields have risen as the People's Bank of China (PBoC) has reduced its net liquidity injections via open market operations (Chart I-1, top panel). The PBoC's monetary tightening is bound to reduce money/credit growth in China. The bottom panel of Chart I-1 demonstrates that changes in the central bank's claims on commercial banks lead by 3 months asset growth at commercial banks. Diminished liquidity injections by the PBoC will soon push commercial banks to reduce the pace of their balance sheet expansion. Asset growth/loan origination among policy banks2 has already slowed (Chart I-2). On top of this, China's regulatory tightening aimed at curbing speculative (high-risk) financial activity will also curtail commercial banks' loan origination. For example, bank regulators are forcing banks to bring off-balance-sheet assets onto their balance sheets. As a result, money/credit growth is set to decelerate meaningfully. This, in turn, will cause another slump in this credit-addicted economy. It is very probable that the mini-business cycle in China has already reached its peak - our credit and fiscal impulse heralds further drop in the manufacturing PMI (Chart I-3). Chart I-2Commercial Banks And Policy ##br##Banks' Loan Growth To Slow Further Chart I-3China's Growth Has Rolled Over While China's monetary tightening is not a direct risk to domestic demand in the U.S. or Europe, it poses an imminent risk to commodities prices and EM risk assets. Consistent with slowing Chinese manufacturing output growth, commodities prices trading in mainland China have lately tanked. Bottom Line: BCA's Emerging Markets Strategy team maintains that ongoing monetary tightening in China poses substantial risks to EM risk assets and commodities. Yet financial markets remain complacent. Perplexing Complacency It is very perplexing that EM risk assets have so far ignored the risks stemming from China's tightening and renewed relapse in commodities prices. It seems portfolio allocation into risk assets, including those in the EM universe, is pushing prices higher irrespective of a major relapse in forward-looking indicators for both China and EM growth. EM stocks, currencies and credit spreads have decoupled from a number of indicators with which they historically had a high correlation: In recent weeks, we have brought to investors' attention that an unsustainable gap has been opening between the commodities currencies index - an equal-weighted average of AUD, NZD and CAD - and both EM exchange rates and EM share prices in local currency terms (Chart I-4A & Chart I-4B). Chart I-4AHeed The Message From Commodities Currencies Chart I-4BHeed The Message From ##br##Commodities Currencies Not only have commodities currencies decisively rolled over, but also commodities prices have begun sliding. Historically, EM risk assets in general and the sovereign credit market in particular have always sold off when commodities prices have drifted lower (Chart I-5). EM equity volatility is back to its lows (Chart I-6). This corroborates reigning complacency in the marketplace. Chart I-5Commodities Prices And ##br##EM Sovereign Spreads Chart I-6A Sign Of Complacency EM sovereign and corporate spreads have also fallen to their narrowest levels in recent years (Chart I-7). Notably, our valuation model for EM corporate bonds - which is constructed based on our EM Corporate Financial Health Index - posits that EM corporate credit is very expensive (Chart I-8). Chart I-7EM Sovereign And Corporate Spreads Chart I-8EM Corporate Credit Is Expensive Finally, EM local currency bond yield spreads over U.S. Treasurys have also dropped a lot, signifying complacency on the part of EM investors (Chart I-9). Chart I-9EM Local Bond Yield Spreads ##br##Over U.S. Treasurys Are Low Bottom Line: EM financial markets are not cheap, and investors are highly complacent. Mind the gap between EM risk assets and commodities currencies/various commodities prices. Can EM Decouple From China? An oft-asked and relevant question is whether EM ex-China can decouple from China itself. Not for the time being, in our view. On the contrary, as we argued in last week's report titled Toward A Desynchronized World,3 China's slowdown will weigh on the majority of the EM investable equity, currency and credit markets. As a result, growth conditions in EM ex-China will diverge from the U.S. and European economies and recouple to the downside with China's growth. The three pillars of EM ex-China growth are commodities, China and their domestic credit cycles. The primary link is via commodities. As China's growth decelerates and its imports relapse, commodities prices will plunge (Chart I-10). Latin America, Africa, the Middle East, Russia, Malaysia and Indonesia are set to experience negative terms-of-trade shocks as commodities prices deflate. As a result, their currencies will depreciate and growth will suffer. Although Mexico is leveraged to the U.S., oil prices still matter for it. This leaves non-commodities producing economies in Asia and central Europe. The latter is too small to matter for EM benchmarks. Central Europe correlates with Europe's business cycle rather than EM. In emerging Asia, Korea and Taiwan - the largest equity market cap weights after China in the MSCI EM index - sell much more to China than to the U.S. and Europe combined. Korea's shipments to China account for 25% of total exports while those to the U.S. and Europe combined make up 22%. For Taiwan the numbers are 27% and 20%, respectively. Thailand sells to China as much as it does to the U.S. This by and large leaves only three mainstream EM economies that are not substantially exposed to China: India, the Philippines and Turkey (Table I-1). Indian and Philippine stocks are expensive, and these nations confront their own unique problems. Turkey in turn is facing major political, economic and financial predicaments. Chart I-10Industrial Metals Prices To head Lower Table I-1Export To China And U.S. In short, among mainstream EM countries, there are very few plays not exposed to China or commodities and offer a reasonable risk/return profile. Investors also often ask if commodities importing economies in Asia can rally in absolute terms when and as commodities prices drop. Chart I-11 illustrates the Korean and Taiwanese equity indexes have historically (in the past 20 years) been strongly correlated with oil and industrial metals prices. The reason is that commodity price swings partially reflect global growth conditions. Being heavily dependent on exports, Korea and Taiwan are highly sensitive to fluctuations in global growth. We expect global trade to slow down anew, driven by weakness in China/EM imports, even if U.S. and European demand remains resilient. We elaborated on this theme in last week's report.4 Therefore, Korean and Taiwanese export shipments are set to slow as well. We are not bearish on Korean and Taiwanese domestic demand - we are in fact overweight these bourses within the EM equity universe, with a focus on technology and domestic sectors. That said, consumer and business spending in these economies is relatively small in a global context to make a difference for other EM markets. In addition, given these economies' mature phase of development, the pace of their income and domestic demand growth will be moderate. Many EM countries have experienced excessive credit growth in the past 15 years, but their banking systems have not restructured - i.e. banks have not sufficiently provisioned for non-performing loans. Until they do so, domestic loan growth remains at risk of weakening. There has been modest deleveraging in Brazil, Russia and India (Chart I-12). However, there is no evidence that these economies have embarked on a new credit cycle. Chart I-11Korean And Taiwanese Stocks ##br##Correlate With Commodities Chart I-12Some Moderate Deleveraging ##br##In Brazil, Russia And India Case in point are Indian state-owned banks: their experience shows that deleveraging can be more protracted and painful than one might initially expect. The reason is that it takes time for banks to acknowledge non-performing loans, be recapitalized and get ready to boost loan growth again. In addition, Brazil and Russia are still commodities plays at the mercy of commodities price dynamics. Besides, Brazil needs to undergo painful fiscal adjustment/reforms. In other developing countries, bank loan growth remains elevated and bank loan-to-GDP ratios continue to rise (Chart I-13). In these economies, credit retrenchment and even a mild deleveraging has not yet occurred. Prominently, as EM currencies come under downward pressure, interest rates in many economies running current account deficits will be pressured higher. This will lead to a slowdown in bank credit growth and will depress demand. Finally, if it were not for the pick-up in Chinese imports, the EM ex-China business cycle and commodities prices would not have ameliorated in the past 12 months. Notably, excluding China, Korea and Taiwan, developing nations' retail sales volumes and new vehicle sales remain dormant (Chart I-14). Similarly, there has not been much recovery in capital spending and, consistently, imports of capital goods in EM ex-China, Korea and Taiwan (Chart I-15). Chart I-13No Deleveraging In Many EMs Chart I-14EM Ex-China, Korea And Taiwan: ##br##Stabilization But No Revival Chart I-15EM Ex-China, Korea And Taiwan: ##br##Not Much Of Recovery As credit growth slows or fails to pick up in these economies, domestic demand recovery will be tepid, and will certainly disappoint market expectations. Bottom Line: Given budding divergence between U.S./Europe and Chinese growth, EM ex-China growth will fail to recover and will surprise to the downside. The basis is that the pillars of the EM's business cycle are China, commodities and their own domestic credit cycle, rather than the U.S. and Europe. Arthur Budaghyan, Senior Vice President Emerging Markets Strategy arthurb@bcaresearch.com 1 Please refer to the Emerging Markets Strategy Special Reports from October 26, 2016, November, 23 2016, and January 18, 2017, the links are available on page 16. 2 Policy banks are China Development Bank, Agricultural Development Bank and Export-Import Bank of China. 3 Please refer to the Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report titled, "Toward A Desynchronized World", dated April 26, 2017, link available on page 16. 4 Please refer to the Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report titled, "Toward A Desynchronized World", dated April 26, 2017, link available on page 16. Malaysia: Not Out Of The Woods Arenewed relapse in Chinese growth later this year coupled with lower commodities prices will once again expose Malaysia's vulnerabilities. Notably, 26% of Malaysia's exports are related to commodities - mainly crude oil, natural gas, petroleum products and palm oil. Another downleg in the ringgit's value along with lower commodities prices will cause domestic interest rates to rise. However, Malaysia is in no position to tolerate higher interest rates. Leverage has risen considerably in the past ten years in Malaysia, and is very high (Chart II-1A). Indeed, the country has one of the highest debt-servicing costs in the EM universe, according to BIS data (Chart II-1B). Chart II-1A...And Debt Servicing Costs Chart II-1BHigh Leverage... If the Malaysian central bank attempts to cap interest rates by injecting local currency liquidity into the system, the ringgit will plunge even further. Chart II-2 shows that in recent years local interbank rates have tended to rise when the central bank curtailed its net liquidity injection. If on the other hand the Bank Negara of Malaysia (BNM) does not inject liquidity into the banking/financial system, interest rates will rise as the currency depreciates. Interestingly, despite strong inflows into EM generally, the BNM has continued to inject local liquidity into the economy - albeit at a slower pace than in recent years - to keep local rates tame (Chart II-2). Additionally, despite the significant growth slowdown that has occurred in the past two years in Malaysia, banks' NPLs have not risen much (Chart II-3). As banks start acknowledging loan losses and setting provisions for them, their profitability will decline, capital will be eroded, and loan origination will fall. Chart II-2BNM Has Been Injecting Liquidity ##br##To Control Interest Rates Chart II-3Malaysian Banks Haven't ##br##Acknowledged Enough Losses Yet Meanwhile, even though global trade and commodities prices have picked in the past 15 months, Malaysia's economy has failed to recover. This reflects the country's underlying economic vulnerability as the borrowing/credit spree of the past decade has come to a halt: Commercial and passenger vehicle sales are shrinking. Retail trade and employment are also still anemic. Property sales volumes and housing construction approvals are collapsing (Chart II-4). Capital expenditures are depressed (Chart II-4, bottom panel). On the external side, the semiconductor/electronics sector has boomed in Asia since early 2016, but Malaysia has failed to benefit much. Indeed, the recovery in Malaysia's electronics sector has been weak compared to other technology hubs such as Taiwan and Korea. This confirms why Malaysia has been losing market share in electronics products to Korea, Taiwan and the Philippines (Chart II-5). Chart II-4Cyclical Growth Remains Anemic Chart II-5Malaysia Is Losing Tech Market ##br##Share To Its Asian Competitors Bottom Line: Continue shorting MYR versus the U.S. dollar and the Russian ruble. Equity investors should continue to underweight Malaysian stocks within an EM equity portfolio. Relative value traders should maintain our long Russian / short Malaysia equity trade. Buy/hold Malaysian CDS or underweight this sovereign credit market within an EM credit portfolio. Ayman Kawtharani, Associate Editor aymank@bcaresearch.com Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations

Feature Table 1Recommended Allocation Don't Worry About The Tepid Data Risk assets are likely to continue to grind higher. Two of the catalysts we cited for this in our most recent Quarterly1 have half happened: European political risk is lifting now that Marine Le Pen looks most unlikely to win in the second round of the French presidential election (polls give her less than 40% of the vote); and the Trump administration announced its tax cut plan (which, though details are still sparse, we expect to be passed in some form this year). As a result, the MSCI All Country World Index hit a record high in late April and the S&P 500 is only 1% below its high. But both growth and inflation have surprised somewhat to the downside in the past couple of months. The Citi Economic Surprise Index for the U.S. has fallen sharply, though surprises remain fairly positive elsewhere (Chart 1).Q1 U.S. real GDP growth came in at an annualized rate of only 0.7%. This has pushed bond yields down (with the US Treasury 10-year yield falling back to 2.2%), consequently weakening the dollar. We are not unduly worried about the tepid data. It is mainly due to technical factors. Corporate loan growth in the U.S., for example (Chart 2), mostly reflects just the lagged effect of last year's slowdown on banks' willingness to lend, as well as energy companies repaying credit lines they tapped in early 2016 when short of working capital. The weakness in auto sales (Chart 3) is most likely caused by the end of the car replacement cycle which began in 2010, rather than reflecting any generalized deterioration in consumer behavior. Moreover, there seem to be problems with seasonal adjustment of data caused by the extreme swings in the economy in 2008 and 2009: Q1 has been the weakest quarter for U.S. GDP in six out of the past 10 years, and has on average been 2.3 ppts lower than Q2.2 There were no such distortions prior to 1996. Chart 1U.S. Growth Has Surprised To The Downside Chart 2Weaker Loan Growth Is Mostly Technical... Chart 3...And The Slowdown In Autos Is Just The End Of A Replacement Cycle A consequence of the wobbly data is that markets have become too complacent about the Fed raising rates, with futures markets now projecting only about 40 bps of hikes over the next 12 months (Chart 4). Our view is that wages will gradually move up this year, pushing core PCE inflation to 2% by year end, which will cause the Fed to raise rates twice before end-2017 and once early in 2018 (though the latter rise could be postponed if the Fed starts to reduce its balance-sheet and forgoes one quarter's hike to judge the impact of this on the market). By contrast, we do not see the ECB hiking before 2019 at the earliest, with ECB President Draghi reiterating that he sees core inflation staying low and remains concerned about the fragile banking systems in peripheral European markets and about Italian politics. We also believe Bank of Japan governor Kuroda when he says he has no plans to change the BoJ's 0% target for the 10-year JGB yield. All this implies that the dollar is likely to appreciate further in the next 12 months as interest rate spreads widen (Chart 5). Chart 4Fed Is Likely To Hike Faster Than This Chart 5Interest Differentials Suggest Further Dollar Strength The next catalyst for equities to rise further could be earnings. Q1 U.S. earnings are surprising significantly on the upside, with EPS growth of 11.7% year on year and 75% of companies beating analysts' estimates.3 BCA's proprietary model suggests that S&P 500 operating earnings this year could grow by over 20% (Chart 6). If anything, upside surprises to earnings have been even stronger in the euro zone and Japan. With none of the standard indicators signaling any risk of recession over the next 12 months (Chart 7), we remain overweight equities versus bonds. We continue to warn, though, that the Goldilocks scenario of healthy growth and stable inflation may not last for long. A combination of tax cuts, wage growth accelerating as labor participation hits a ceiling, and the Fed falling behind the curve (perhaps when President Trump - given that he recently confessed "I do like a low interest rate policy" - appoints a dovish replacement for Janet Yellen as Fed Chair) could cause inflation to rise unexpectedly next year, forcing the Fed to raise rates sharply, triggering a recession in 2019. Chart 6U.S. Earnings Could Grow 20% This Year Chart 7No Sign Of A Recession On The Horizon Equities: In a risk-on environment, euro zone equities should continue to outperform, due to their higher beta (averaging 1.3 against global equities over the past 20 years, compared to 0.9 for the U.S.), more cyclical earnings, and modestly cheaper valuations (forward PE is at a 18.9% discount to the U.S.). Japanese equities should also do well as interest rates rise again globally (except in Japan where the BoJ will stick to its 0% yield target on 10-year bonds), which should push down the yen and boost earnings. We remain overweight Japanese equities on a currency-hedged basis. We are underweight EM equities, which are likely to be weighed down over the next 12 months by the stronger dollar, and by a slowdown in China which should cause commodity prices to fall. Fixed Income: We expect the 10-year U.S. Treasury yield to reach 3% by year-end: a pickup in real growth, slightly higher inflation and two more Fed hikes can easily add 70 bps to the yield over the next eight months. Euro zone yields will also rise, though not by as much. This implies a negative return from G7 sovereign bonds for the first time since 1994. We continue to prefer corporate credit, with a preference for U.S. investment-grade debt over high-yield bonds (which have stretched valuations) and over European corporate debt (which will be negatively affected by the tapering of ECB purchases next year). Currencies: As described above, we do not believe that the dollar appreciation which began in 2014 is over, due to divergences in monetary policy. We would look for a further 5-10% appreciation of the dollar over the coming 12 months, though the rise is likely to be bigger against the yen and emerging market currencies than against the euro. Commodity currencies such as the Australian dollar also look vulnerable and overvalued. The British pound will be driven by the vicissitudes of the Brexit negotiations in the short-run but looks undervalued in the long run if, as we expect, the EU eventually agrees a moderately satisfactory trade deal with the U.K. Commodities: We continue to believe that the equilibrium level for oil is $55 a barrel, and that an extension of the OPEC production agreement beyond June and a drawdown in inventories in the second half will bring WTI crude back to that level - with the risk of even $60-65 temporarily if there are any unforeseen supply disruptions. We remain more cautious on industrial commodities, which will be hurt by a mild withdrawal of monetary and fiscal stimulus in China. Following its 6.9% GDP print in Q1, Chinese growth is likely to slow moderately. However, with the Party Congress coming up in the fall, growth will not be allowed to slow excessively - and, indeed, there are signs that central government spending has begun to accelerate recently (Chart 8). We remain positive on gold as a long-term hedge against the tail risk of inflation. As our recent Special Report on Safe Havens demonstrated,4 gold has historically provided good returns during recessions, particularly those associated with high inflation (Chart 9). Chart 8China Is Withdrawing Stimulus - Or Is It? Chart 9Gold Glisters When Inflation Rises Garry Evans, Senior Vice President Global Asset Allocation garry@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Global Asset Allocation, "Quarterly Portfolio Outlook: No Reasons To Turn Cautious," dated 3 April 2017, available at gaa.research.com 2 For detailed analysis of the problems with seasonal adjustment, please see U.S. Investment Strategy, "Spring Snapback?" dated April 24, 2017, available at usis.bcaresearch.com 3 So far about half of U.S. companies have reported. 4 Please see Global Asset Allocation, "Safe Havens: Where To Hide Next Time?" dated April 21, 2017, available at gaa.bcaresearch.com. Recommended Asset Allocation

Highlights Geopolitical tensions eased last week, but there are still a few near term hurdles to clear. Domestic policy uncertainty remains. Investors still can't seem to reconcile the disconnect between weak "hard" data and solid "soft" data. A gradual Fed may be the right response to the recent run of mixed economic data. Housing and housing-related investments led the global economy into the last recession. Housing is still on the mend. The housing sector will contribute about 0.2 percentage points and 0.5 percentage points to real GDP growth in 2017 and 2018, respectively. Investors should look to housing-related assets as a source of potential outperformance over the coming 6-12 months. Feature U.S. equity prices neared record highs and Treasury yields bounced off of their late-March low last week as near term international and domestic political risk melted away in the minds of investors. We continue to expect U.S. equities to beat bonds this year. Oil prices continue to trade near $50/bbl, and the dollar held steady amid all the news-good and bad. Both have upside over the remainder of 2017. In today's report, we examine the following key issues for investors: Since the end of the Great Recession, geopolitical risks have ebbed and flowed, and 2017 has proven to be no different. Are political risks over, or just over for now? How does the recent run of mixed U.S. data influence the Fed, and what does this mean for risky asset prices? Housing and housing-related investments led the global economy into the last recession. Where do we stand now? Are Geopolitical Concerns Over? North Korea failed to test another nuke after a nerve rattling Easter Weekend. The leadup to the presidential election in South Korea on May 9 may have motivated a part (or most) of the uptick in belligerence that we are seeing from North Korea. All leading candidates are more likely to try diplomacy and economic engagement with North Korea than to maintain the past ten years of conservative efforts to strengthen military deterrence via stronger alliances with the U.S. and Japan. In the euro area, the good news is that the polls in the first round of the French election (April 23) were correct. The bad news is that there is still another election. Macron and Le Pen face off on this Sunday (May 7), and markets are betting that the polls will be correct again given Macron's 20 point lead over Le Pen. The June parliamentary elections in France should be a non-event for U.S. financial markets; we still see Italy - where most voters favor Eurosceptic parties - as the biggest risk on the geopolitical scene in the next year or so. In the U.K., the ruling Tories look to add to their majority in June's parliamentary election, which will provide British Prime Minister Theresa May with a stronger hand to negotiate with Europe and increases the odds of a less extreme Brexit outcome (Chart 1). Chart ICGeopolitical Risk Is Ebbing...For Now Chart 1BGeopolitical Risk Is Ebbing...For Now Chart 1AGeopolitical Risk Is Ebbing...For Now There was good news and bad news on the domestic policy front last week as well. The release of the long awaited Trump tax plan and the passage of a spending bill by Congress to avert a government shutdown (at least until later this week) helped to remove some domestic political uncertainty. The bad news is that the plan was more tax cut than tax reform. The one page plan lacked detail and still has to pass muster with the House GOP. The Trump Administration may have started a trade war with Canada (over lumber) and sent trial balloons about pulling out of NAFTA (despite walking back from this position soon after). Is this "negotiator" Trump or something worse? The bad news is that tax reform, trade wars, dynamic scoring, and yes, even Obamacare will be with us until late Summer/early Fall. The good news is that the border adjustment tax may not be. The takeaway for investors is that while geopolitical concerns have not disappeared, they have ebbed, and this will support the relative performance of U.S. equities over 10-year government bonds over the coming year. Italy (not North Korea, France, or Germany) remains the biggest geopolitical risk on the horizon, but the next election there isn't until early-2018. Domestically, Trump's pro-growth agenda is advancing at a pace that is slower than many investors would prefer, but it is advancing, which we believe will continue to support a pro-cyclical asset allocation stance. Bottom Line: Geopolitical concerns have not disappeared, but they have ebbed materially to the benefit of risky asset prices. Investors should stay overweight U.S. stocks vs 10-year government bonds within a multi-asset portfolio. Mixed Data Warrants A Gradual Fed Investors still can't seem to reconcile the disconnect between weak "hard" data and solid "soft" data. The recent uptick in initial claims and the soft Q1 GDP data are the most recent examples. Investors should recall that claims are inherently noisy; a rise in claims of more than 75,000 over a 6-month period is typically needed to signal a recession. Chart 2 makes it clear that the latest wiggles on claims are not sending a recessionary signal. Chart 2Claims Are Not Even Close To Sending A Recession Signal Friday's GDP report highlighted that growth in Q1 was soft again. As we noted in last week's report, GDP growth in Q1 averaged -0.1% over the last 10 years. Q2 growth has averaged more than 2%. Q1 growth has been below Q2 in 8 of the last 10 years. 2017 is shaping up to be a repeat performance. Defense spending - identified by the Cleveland Fed as a key culprit in the unwanted seasonal weakness in Q1 GDP - fell 4% in Q1, subtracting 0.2% from growth. Inventories were also singled out by the Cleveland Fed, and they shaved 0.9% off of GDP in Q1. We expect to see a snapback in all three components of growth (GDP, defense spending and inventories) in Q2. Business capital spending, and housing were bright spots in Q1 (Chart 3). Corporate earnings are the ultimate piece of hard data. Equity prices track earnings growth over the long term. With 288 members of the S&P 500 reporting, 77% have beaten expectations on the bottom line. Healthcare, financials and technology lead the way. Weakness was evident in defensives. More impressive is the 7.1% gain in revenues in Q1 so far (Table 1). But overall, corporations appear to have pricing power. The ECI accelerated in Q1 to +2.4% year-over-year from +2.2%, but remain relatively subdued. This implies that margins will hold up, which will continue to support our view that stocks will beat bonds this year. With no Fed Chair Yellen press conference, a new set of dot plots or a new economic forecast, markets will have to be content with just the FOMC statement this week. A speech by Fed Vice Chair Fischer will be closely watched for signals about the June FOMC meeting. The market has been too quick to price out rate hikes in 2017. Expectations for rate hikes in 2018 have all but disappeared (Chart 4). We expect this gap will close - in favor of the Fed for both 2017 and 2018. We expect Treasury yields and inflation to head higher this year, despite recent soft readings on March CPI. The March PCE deflator - also due this week-is key. Chart 3Markets Shouldn't Be Surprised By Weak##br## Q1 GDP, Or What Caused It Table 1S&P 500: ##br##Q1 2017 Results* Chart 4Still Plenty Of Disagreement Between Fed ##br##And Market; Both Expect Gradual Hikes Though Bottom Line: We continue to expect the hard data to catch up to the soft data in the coming months. Financial markets have overreacted to the weak data and have been too quick to price out Fed rate hikes this year and next. The Fed is taking a gradual approach to rate hikes for a reason; the data-hard or soft-doesn't warrant an aggressive Fed. But a gradual Fed and solid profit growth strongly favor an allocation towards stocks over bonds this year. Housing: Set To Keep A "Slow-Burn" Expansion Burning Housing is one sector of the economy that stands to look relatively good over the coming few years, with some important implications for housing-related asset performance. The monthly Bank Credit Analyst recently published some research in which we split U.S. post-1950 economic cycles into three sets based on the length of the expansion phase: short (about 2 years), medium (4-6 years) and long (8-10 years). What distinguishes short from medium and long expansions is the speed at which the most cyclical parts of the economy accelerated, and the time it took unemployment to reach a full employment level. Long expansions were characterized by a drawn-out rise in the cyclical parts of the economy and a very slow return to full employment in the labor market, similar to what has occurred since the Great Recession. Chart 5 compares the current cycle (dotted lines) with the average of the 1980s and 1990s long expansions (solid lines). The cycles are all lined up with the beginning of the expansion, indicated by the first vertical line. These long "slow burn" recoveries also extended well beyond the point at which the economy first reached full employment (called late-cycle phases, shaded in Chart 5). Inflation pressures were slower to emerge in these types of recoveries, allowing the Fed to proceed cautiously when normalizing interest rates. Interestingly, earnings-per-share for S&P 500 companies expanded by an average of 18% in inflation-adjusted terms during the two late-cycle phases, despite the twin headwinds of narrowing profit margins and a strengthening dollar (the dollar appreciated by an average of 23% in trade-weighted terms). The stock market provided an impressive average real return of 25%. We are not making the case that returns will be anywhere near this level in the coming years. The starting point for valuation, for example, is much more extended than it was in previous long cycles. There are also plenty of possible sources of shocks that could end the expansion abruptly. Nonetheless, it is not going to die simply of old age. In the absence of any major shocks, this expansion may continue for a while yet. One reason is that there are no major areas of overspending that would make the economy highly vulnerable. This includes the housing sector, where investment has lagged previous slow-burn recoveries by a wide margin. A lagging housing market is not surprising given the bloated inventory of vacant homes that had to be absorbed in this cycle. The good news is that overhang appears to now be gone. The stock of unsold new and existing homes has returned to low levels by historical standards (inventories of new homes are in fact now rising, after plunging between 2006 and 2012; Chart 6). Chart 5The Current Cycle Is ##br##A "Slow Burn" Expansion Chart 6The Overhang From Housing##br## Inventories Is Gone Other positive factors include the following: Lending standards haven't eased much, but FICO scores have increased sharply, meaning that more renters now qualify for loans and thus might move from rental unit to a single family home (which generates more GDP per unit). This factor was highlighted in a recent Special Report on housing.1 Affordability is favorable, and the cost of owning is cheap relative to the cost of renting. The home-ownership rate has returned to its long-term average (Chart 6, bottom panel). If the pre-Lehman bubble in the homeownership rate has been unwound, it removes a headwind for construction activity because renting favors multi-family construction that produces less GDP per unit than single family homes. The supply of foreclosed homes onto the market has withered along with the foreclosure rate. This might not affect construction activity because it represents families simply swapping homes for other ones, but it supports home prices. Importantly, household formation is still recovering from a period in which young adults stayed with their parents for longer than normal for economic reasons. The tightening in the labor market and cyclical rebound in real disposable income growth is allowing millennials to finally move out, boosting the demand for new housing stock (Chart 7). Chart 8 presents a simple way of estimating the remaining pent-up demand for housing, based on the deviation from its 1990-2007 trend in the ratio of the number of households to the total population. A closing of the remaining gap implies an extra 540,000 housing units. Chart 7Income Growth Is Helping Young Americans To Leave The Nest Chart 8A Catch-Up Housing Construction Will Occur If This Gap Closes The equilibrium number of housing starts that cover underlying population growth plus the units lost to scrappage is estimated to be about 1.4 million annually. If the household formation 'catch up' occurs over the next two years, adding another 250,000 units per year, total demand could be 1.6 to 1.7 million in each of the next two years. This compares to the just-released March housing starts level of 1.2 million. If starts rise smoothly from today's level to 1.7 million at the end of 2018, then the housing sector will contribute about 0.2 percentage points and 0.5 percentage point to real GDP growth in 2017 and 2018, respectively (Chart 9). Chart 9A Housing Catch-Up Will Boost GDP Growth For the economy, the implication is that this already-aged expansion phase could persist for a couple of more years as long as it is not hit by a negative shock and inflationary pressures remain quiescent, allowing the Fed to proceed slowly. Bottom Line: Housing starts remain well below the equilibrium level implied by underlying household formation, and a "catch up" phase could help keep the current "slow burn" expansion burning over the coming years. Favor Housing-Related Assets The above analysis also has some favorable implications for housing-related financial assets. We originally examined the implications of a rebound in home construction in 2012, during the early phase of the recovery in housing starts.2 Our approach was to test the historical excess return performance of several financial assets as a function of key housing market variables, and concluded that housing-related financial assets were set to outperform their respective benchmarks in a bullish housing scenario over the following year (and beyond). We have updated our original analysis in this report, with a few modifications. First, we examine the relationship between key housing market variables and excess returns of housing-related assets since the onset of the U.S. economic expansion in June 2009, given the structural change in the housing market that occurred following the Great Recession. Second, our analysis is based on a more focused set of housing market indicators, given the relatively poor predictive power of new home sales and the months' supply of homes following the crisis period on housing-related asset returns. Table 2 presents the list of housing-related assets that we examined,3 along with the key housing market variables used to forecast excess returns (and whether they were significant predictors in the post-crisis era). The table highlights that most of the variables do contain useful information, with the exception of the two noted above. The rightmost column presents the share of excess returns explained by a composite model of the factors noted as significant for each asset, which varies from a low of 13% to a high of 20%. Table 2Important Predictors Of Housing-Related Asset Excess Returns* (June 2009-December 2016) Charts 10 and 11 present a set of relatively conservative assumptions for the key housing market variables shown in Table 2, based on a rise in housing starts modestly above the scrappage rate that we noted in the previous section. We assume that house price appreciation and housing affordability moderate due to further rate hikes from the Fed, that the already-elevated homebuilders' confidence index stays flat, that refi applications remain low due to the uptrend in mortgage rates, and that purchase applications rise in lockstep with housing starts. Chart 10A Set Of Conservative Assumptions... Chart 11...For Key Housing Market Variables Finally, Table 3 illustrates the predicted excess returns over the coming 12-months of the housing-related assets that we examined, along with the annualized excess returns in 2016 and over the entire sample period for the purposes of comparison. It is important to note that excess returns of corporate bonds are presented relative to duration-matched government bonds, not a speculative- or investment-grade corporate bond aggregate. Table 3Excess Returns Of Housing-Related Assets* (%) The analysis presented above highlights several important conclusions for investors: The predictive power of key housing market variables has been smaller over the course of this economic expansion than in the past economic cycle (including the recession of 2008-2009), suggesting that housing market developments were more important during the downturn than they have been during the recovery. Still, housing market data is an important driver of excess returns for housing-related assets. All of the housing-related assets that we examined are expected to outperform their respective benchmarks over the coming year, even given the relatively conservative assumptions that we have made about the pace of gains in the housing market. For the three corporate bond assets shown in Tables 2 and 3, our model predicts outperformance even relative to their respective corporate bond benchmarks, albeit only marginally in the case of investment-grade banks. With the exception of S&P 500 homebuilders and banks, the model's predicted excess returns are lower over the coming year than they have been on an annualized basis since the onset of the recovery, highlighting that housing-related assets have front-run at least some of the expected normalization in the housing market over the coming few years. However, a full rise to our equilibrium estimate of 1.7 million starts over the coming two years could potentially lead to even larger outperformance than the model would predict. Charts 12 and 13 do not suggest that valuation will be an impediment to the outperformance of housing-related assets. Chart 12Valuation Won't Be An Impediment... Chart 13...For Housing Related Assets Bottom Line: Investors should look to housing-related assets as a source of potential outperformance over the coming 6-12 months. The historical relationship between key housing market variables and the excess returns of these assets implies the latter is set to outperform even given conservative assumptions about the former. John Canally, CFA, Senior Vice President U.S. Investment Strategy johnc@bcaresearch.com Mark McClellan, Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst markm@bcaresearch.com Jonathan LaBerge Vice President, Special Reports jonathanl@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see U.S. Investment Strategy Special Report "U.S. Housing: What Comes Next?", dated March 27, 2017, available at usis.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report U-3 Or U-6?", dated February 13, 2012, available at usis.bcaresearch.com 3 Note that we have excluded fixed and floating rate home equity loan ABS from our list of housing-related assets owing to a lack of data, as well as investment-grade REITs because of a very low degree of return predictability from key indicators of the housing market

Highlights Portfolio Strategy Upgrade the financials sector to overweight. This year's consolidation phase is drawing to a close as inflation expectations stabilize. Lift the S&P banks index to overweight. Leading indicators of credit creation are signaling a reacceleration as the year progresses. Trim the S&P health care sector to neutral via profit-taking in medical equipment stocks. Recent Changes S&P Financials - Upgrade to overweight from neutral. S&P Banks Index - Upgrade to overweight from underweight. S&P Health Care - Downgrade to neutral. S&P Health Care Equipment - Downgrade to neutral. Table 1 Feature Chart 1Yields Are Not Yet Restrictive The S&P 500 is challenging the top end of its range. A playable breakout looks increasingly probable, albeit the exact timing is difficult. First quarter profit results have been strong, corporate guidance has been solid and monetary conditions are unlikely to become tight enough in the short run to dent renewed profit optimism. The latest string of economic disappointments is seen as providing the Fed with ample leeway, and investors are willing to overlook ongoing sluggishness because earnings are outperforming the economy via margin expansion. As discussed in detail in recent weeks, earnings growth is supported by a broad-based recovery in sales and pricing power. Top-line growth is critical to sustaining the overall equity market overshoot given sky-high valuations. Indeed, the appeal of equities stems from their attractiveness relative to other asset classes rather than in absolute terms. History shows that an asset preference shift can take time to play out, and push valuations higher than seems justified on fundamentals alone as long as recession is not an imminent risk. The Treasury market can provide clues as to when vulnerabilities will intensify. According to BCA's Treasury Bond Valuation Model, yields usually need to be at least one standard deviation above normal before stocks, and the economy, are at risk of a major downturn (Chart 1). At those turning points, inflation concerns are typically running hot, forcing the Fed to tighten enough to slow growth and undermine economic activity. This simple rule of thumb warned of the most recent stock market peaks, as well as equity slumps in the early-1990s, 1987, and the early-1980s, and supported bond vs. equity outperformance. Recently, the 10-year Treasury yield has returned to fair value, and the U.S. dollar has come off the boil. The implication is that there is no monetary roadblock to halt the upward momentum in equities at the moment. There is ample room for yields to rise before becoming restrictive, especially if the primary driver is the real component. In this light, we will continue with our program of transitioning to a more balanced equity portfolio from its previous defensive tilt. This week we downgrade a defensive sector to neutral and redeploy capital into the financials sector. Upgrade The Financials Sector... The financials sector has given back roughly 50% of its post-election surge this year. The main culprits have been a calming in Fed interest rate hike expectations, a flattening yield curve and softening inflation expectations. Moribund credit creation has also created earnings uncertainty (Chart 2). Nevertheless, the corrective phase appears to be drawing to a close, because financials sector profits are increasingly likely to surpass those of the overall corporate sector going forward. Traditionally, the financials sector benefited from a strong U.S. dollar. A strong dollar exerted downward pressure on interest rates, which spurred domestic economic strength, loan demand and a steepening yield curve. However, since the GFC, the opposite has been true. Zero interest rates and intense deflationary risks were exacerbated by U.S. dollar appreciation, as the corporate sector and commodities suffered. In other words, with the economy operating on a knife's edge between deflation and inflation, a strong currency weighed heavily on financial shares. Thus, the hiatus in the U.S. dollar bull market is a significant positive catalyst, if it arrests the decline in inflation expectations. The yield curve is making an effort to stabilize, suggesting that the risks of falling back close to the deflationary precipice are low. There are already signs of a positive reversal in euro area financials, which had led the U.S. financial sector on the way down after peaking late last year (Chart 2). The euro area has been in a deleveraging phase with acute deflationary risks, underscoring that the signal from share price stabilization in this region is worth noting. The key to a sustained recovery in sector profits is economic reacceleration. Corporate sector profits are healing as a consequence of the pickup in global final demand and the peak in the U.S. dollar, which should ensure that labor market slack does not imminently build. That is necessary to sustain credit quality and generate faster credit demand, and can be illustrated through the positive correlation between the output gap and relative share price performance (Chart 3), at least until the gap grows too large to generate inflationary pressures and by extension, tight monetary policy. Chart 2Earnings Uncertainty... Chart 3...But A Narrowing Output Gap... Leading economic indicators are consistent with erring on the side of optimism (Chart 4). Our proxy for the supply/demand balance for C&I loans confirms a positive bias for future loan growth (Chart 4). The upturn in the financial sector sales/employment ratio is encouraging (Chart 4). Productivity improvement has begun prior to a reacceleration in loan creation, suggesting that additional upside looms as balance sheets expand. Any unlocking of the regulatory shackles would be a bonus. Strength in our Financials Cyclical Macro Indicator confirms that profits should best those of the overall corporate sector. The financial sector is contributing more to overall GDP growth than it did even during the credit binge/housing bubble (Chart 5), despite the headwind of ultralow interest rates. Chart 4...And Leading Indicators ##br##Are Positive Offsets Chart 5Market Cap ##br##Gains Loom Even though financials represent an ever increasing share of the broad economy, the sector still garners less than its historic median market cap weight (Chart 5). The upshot is that if the economy stays resilient, the correction in relative share price performance should fully reverse, and we recommend further upgrading allocations to overweight via the heavyweight bank group. ...And Bank On Faster Growth Bank profit growth is supported by three main pillars: the quantity, price and quality of credit. All three are set to improve. While seven out of eight lending categories are experiencing a negative credit impulse, forward looking indicators are sending a more positive message. Business and consumer confidence have skyrocketed (Chart 6). If the revival in animal spirits lifts real economic activity later this year, capital demands could finally break out of their slump and reinvigorate moribund loan growth (Chart 6). Importantly, our U.S. Capital Spending Indicator (CSI) snapped back into positive territory. This primarily reflects both the firming in the ISM manufacturing survey and tightness in the labor market. Credit growth has not yet troughed, but should recover in the second half of the year based on our CSI's reading (Chart 6, top panel). Other leading indicators are heralding a pickup in credit demand. A steepening yield curve and the soaring ISM new orders index have an excellent track record in leading the Fed's Senior Loan Officer Survey for overall credit demand (Chart 6). Solid house price inflation and a tight labor market should ensure that consumer credit growth also firms (Chart 7), pointing to the potential for a broad-based bank balance sheet expansion. Overall household leverage has fallen back to 2003 levels and the household debt-service ratio is at multi-decade lows. Chart 6A Turning Point For Loans... Chart 7...As Demand Recovers Bank deposits are still growing, outpacing nominal GDP by 200bps, and the sector is extremely well capitalized. The loan-to-deposit ratio remains low by historical standards (Chart 8). Bank holdings of risk free securities comprise about 15% of the sector's assets, well above the historic average (Chart 8). The upshot is that there is plenty of firepower to crank up credit creation. True, a rundown in Treasury holdings would result in mark-to-market losses, but banks are well positioned to navigate through rising interest rates. According to the FDIC, net interest income as a share of total revenue has climbed steadily at commercial banks with assets greater than $1bn (Chart 9). Thus, if a better economy and rising inflation materialize in the back half of the year, then higher interest rates will boost profitability (Chart 9). Chart 8Banks Have Dry Powder Chart 9A Durable NIM Expansion Table 2 shows a sample of the four largest U.S. banks' earnings sensitivity to interest rate changes. Banks profit from overall rising interest rates in two ways: reinvesting at higher yields and assets repricing at a faster pace than deposits. Table 2Top Four Banks' Interest Rate Sensitivities Thus, a steepening yield curve would signal that bank profit estimates should experience a re-rating, provided the yield lift at the long end of the curve was gradual and did not choke off growth via a sudden spike (Chart 9). In terms of credit quality, non-performing loans and charge-offs are sinking from already low levels. It would take a significant deterioration in the labor market to warn that credit quality was about to become a profit drag (Chart 10). Chart 10Credit Quality Is Not An Issue, For Now Importantly, the reserve coverage ratio has climbed to near 100%, as non-current loans have fallen faster than banks have released reserves. Historically, credit quality improvement has been positively correlated with rising valuations (Chart 10). This message is corroborated by return on equity (ROE). Bank ROE has recouped most of the losses since the GFC on the back of recovering productivity gains. However, valuations do not yet reflect the ROE improvement. History shows that after a financial crisis, it can take a prolonged period of improved ROE before investors reward the sector with a valuation expansion, as occurred in the early-1990s (Chart 7, bottom panel). Bottom Line: Boost the S&P financials sector to overweight from neutral. Lift the S&P banks index to overweight. The ticker symbols for the stocks in the S&P banks index are: BLBG: S5BANKX - WFC, JPM, BAC, C, USB, PNC, BBT, STI, MTB, FITB, CFG, RF, KEY, HBAN, CMA, ZION, PBCT. Take Health Care Equipment Down A Notch We are making room for the financials sector upgrade by trimming the health care sector to neutral. As discussed in recent weeks, a modest shift away from a defensive to a more balanced portfolio has been on our radar and the surge in equities over the past week suggests that the consolidation phase is now ending in a bullish fashion, as expected. At the beginning of the year we added the S&P health care equipment (HCE) index to our high-conviction overweight list for three main reasons: valuations had undershot owing to health care reform uncertainty, domestic sales were set to improve and leading indicators of foreign sourced revenue also painted a rosy picture. What has changed? Relative share prices have undergone a V-shaped snapback, all of which can be attributed to a valuation expansion. A flurry of recent M&A activity has also buoyed relative valuations, as takeover premiums have been significant. Relative performance is now at a natural spot to expect a breather. On the operating front, a number of positive profit drivers are still intact. The industry's shipments-to-inventories ratio remains at multi-decade highs and the backlog of medical equipment orders is robust (top and bottom panels, Chart 11). HCE exports are primed to accelerate in the coming months likely irrespective of the U.S. dollar's move. In particular, Europe matters most to S&P HCE constituents, as roughly half of international sales originate in the old continent. Forward-looking indicators of European demand are upbeat, especially with the surge in German medical equipment orders (Chart 11). However, domestic sales indicators have downshifted. New health care facility construction has dropped sharply, warning that investment in medical equipment may soon follow suit (Chart 12, second panel). Consumables demand growth may also take a breather. Consumer outlays at hospitals have nosedived on a growth rate basis. This suggests that the growth in patient visits has dried up, and may be a warning that medical equipment new order growth will also decelerate (Chart 12). Moreover, as outlined in recent Weekly Reports, the broad corporate sector has regained pricing power, but medical equipment suppliers have lagged. Chart 12 shows that relative selling prices are contracting at an accelerating pace. This is significant, as deflation concerns could undermine revenues, and halt the valuation expansion. If domestic medical equipment demand cools, then it will sustain downward pressure on industry activity (Chart 13). Already, medical equipment industrial production (IP) has collapsed, in marked contrast with the expansion in overall IP. Chart 11Export Prospects Are Positive... Chart 12...But Domestic Blues... Chart 13...Will Weigh On Activity Worrisomely, the HCE new orders-to-inventories ratio has also lost steam, warning that a recovery in future production growth may not be imminent. The implication is that productivity gains are petering out, denting our confidence in a further valuation re-rating. Bottom Line: Downgrade the S&P health care equipment index and remove it from the high-conviction overweight list for an 9% gain. This also pushes the broad health care index to neutral. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5HCEP: MDT, ABT, DHR, SYK, BDX, BSX, ISRG, BAX, ZBH, EW, BCR, IDXX, HOLX, VAR. Current Recommendations Current Trades Size And Style Views Favor small over large caps and stay neutral growth over value.

Special Report

Dear Client, In addition to an abbreviated Weekly Report that you will receive later tonight, I am sending you this Special Report written by my colleague Mark McClellan of our monthly Bank Credit Analyst publication. Following up on many of the themes discussed in our latest Quarterly Strategy Outlook, Mark makes a convincing case that most of the factors that have suppressed global interest rates since the financial crisis could begin to unwind or even reverse over the coming years. Best regards, Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Highlights The fundamental drivers of the low rate world are considered by many to be structural, and thus likely to keep global equilibrium bond yields quite depressed by historical standards for years to come. However, some of the factors behind ultra-low interest rates have waned, while others have reached an inflection point. The age structure of world population is transitioning from a period in which aging added to the global pool of savings to one in which aging will begin to drain that pool. Global investment needs will wane along with population aging, but the majority of the effect on equilibrium interest rates is in the past. In contrast, the demographic effects that will depress desired savings are still to come. The net impact will be bond-bearish. Moreover, the massive positive labor supply shock, following the integration of China and Eastern Europe into the world's effective labor force, is over. Indeed, this shock is heading into reverse as the global working-age population ratio falls. This may improve labor's bargaining power, sparking a shift toward using more capital in the production process and thereby placing upward pressure on global real bond yields. It is too early to declare globalization dead, but the neo-liberal trading world order that has been in place for decades is under attack. This could be inflationary if it disrupts global supply chains. Anti-globalization policies could paradoxically be positive for capital spending, at least for a few years. As for China, the fundamental drivers of its savings capacity appear to rule out a return to the days when the country was generating a substantial amount of excess savings. Technological advance will remain a headwind for real wage gains, but at least the transition to a world that is less labor-abundant will boost workers' ability to negotiate a larger share of the income pie. We are not making the case that real global bond yields are going to quickly revert to pre-Lehman averages. Global yields could even drop back to previous lows in the event of another recession. Nonetheless, from a long-term perspective, current market expectations for bond yields are too low. Investors should have a bond-bearish bias on a medium- and long-term horizon. Feature In the September 2016 The Bank Credit Analyst, we summarized the key drivers behind the major global macroeconomic disequilibria that have resulted in deflationary pressure, policy extremism, dismal productivity, and the lowest bond yields in recorded history (Chart 1). The disequilibria include income inequality, the depressed wage share of GDP, lackluster capital spending, and excessive savings. Chart 1Global Disequilibria The fundamental drivers of the low bond yield world are now well documented and understood by investors. These drivers generally are considered to be structural, and thus likely to keep global equilibrium bond yields and interest rates at historically low levels for years to come according to the consensus. Based on discussions with BCA clients, it appears that many have either "bought into" the secular stagnation thesis or, at a minimum, have adopted the view that growth headwinds preclude any meaningful rise in bond yields. However, bond investors might have been lulled into a false sense of security. Yields will not return to pre-Lehman norms anytime soon, but some of the factors behind the low-yield world have waned, while others have reached an inflection point. Most importantly, the age structure of world population is transitioning from a period in which aging added to the global pool of savings to one in which aging will begin to drain that pool. We have reached the tipping point. Equilibrium real bond yields will gradually move higher as a result. But before we discuss what is changing, it is important to review the drivers of today's macro disequilibria. Several of them predate the Great Financial Crisis, including demographic trends, technological advances, and the integration of China's massive workforce and excess savings into the global economy. Ultra-Low Rates: How Did We Get Here? (A) Demographics And Global Savings Chart 2Global Shifts In The Saving And Investment Curves The so-called Global Savings Glut has been a bullish structural force for bonds for the past couple of decades. We won't go through all of the forces behind the glut, but a key factor is population aging in the advanced economies. Ex-ante desired savings rose as baby boomers entered their high-income years. The Great Financial Crisis only served to reinforce the desire to save, given the setback in the value of boomers' retirement nest eggs.1 The corporate sector also began to save more following the crisis. Even more importantly, the surge in China's trade surplus since the 1990s had to be recycled into the global pool of savings. While China's rate of investment was very high, its propensity to save increased even faster, resulting in a swollen external surplus and a massive net outflow of capital. Other emerging economies also made the adjustment from net importers of capital to net exporters following the Asian crisis in the late 1990s. By leaning into currency appreciation, these countries built up huge foreign exchange reserves that had to be recycled abroad. In theory, savings must equal investment at the global level and real interest rates shift to ensure this equilibrium (Chart 2). China's excess savings, together with a greater desire to save in the developed countries, represented a shift in the saving schedule to the right. The result was downward pressure on global interest rates. (B) Demographics And Global Capital Spending Demographics and China's integration also affected the investment side of the equation. A slower pace of labor force growth in the developed countries resulted in a permanently lower level of capital spending relative to GDP. Slower consumer spending growth, as a result of a more moderate expansion in the working-age population, meant a reduced appetite for new factories, malls, and apartment buildings. Chart 3 shows that the growth rate of global capital spending that is required to maintain a given capital-to-output ratio has dropped substantially, due to the dramatic slowdown in the growth of the world's working-age population.2 Keep in mind that this estimate refers only to the demographic component of investment spending. Actual capital expenditure growth will not be as weak as Chart 3 suggests because firms will want to adopt new technologies for competitive or environmental reasons. Nonetheless, the point is that the structural tailwind for global capex from the post-war baby boom has disappeared. Chart 3Demographics Are A Structural Headwind For Global Capex (C) Labor Supply Shock And Global Capital Spending While the working-age population ratio peaked in the developed countries years ago, it is a different story at the global level (Chart 4). The integration of the Chinese and Eastern European workforces into the global labor pool during the 1990s and 2000s resulted in an effective doubling of global labor supply in a short period of time. Relative prices must adjust in the face of such a large boost in the supply of labor relative to capital. The sudden abundance of cheap labor depressed real wages from what they otherwise would have been, thus incentivizing firms to use more labor and less capital at the margin. The combination of slower working-age population growth in the advanced economies and a surge in the global labor force resulted in a decline in desired global capital spending. In terms of Chart 2, the leftward shift of the investment schedule reinforced the impact of the savings impulse in placing downward pressure on global interest rates. (D) Labor Supply Shock And Income Inequality The wave of cheap labor also aggravated the trend toward greater inequality in the advanced economies and the downward trend in labor's share of the income pie (Chart 5). In theory, a surge in the supply of labor is a positive "supply shock" that benefits both developed and developing countries. However, a recent report by David Autor and Gordon Hanson3 highlighted that trade agreements in the past were incremental and largely involved countries with similar income levels. The sudden entry of China to the global trade arena, involving a massive addition to the effective global stock of labor, was altogether different. The report does not argue that trade has become a "bad" thing. Rather, it points out that the adjustment costs imposed on the advanced economies were huge and long-lasting, as Chinese firms destroyed entire industries in developed countries. The lingering adjustment phase contributed to greater inequality in the major countries. Management was able to use the threat of outsourcing to gain the upper hand in wage negotiations. The result has been a rise in the share of income going to high-income earners in the Advanced Economies, at the expense of low- and middle-income earners (Chart 6). The same is true, although to a lesser extent, in the emerging world. Chart 4Working-Age Population Ratios Have Peaked Chart 5Labor Share Of Income Has Dropped Chart 6Hollowing Out Greater inequality, in turn, has weighed on aggregate demand and equilibrium interest rates because a larger share of total income flowed to the "rich" who tend to save more than the low- and middle-income classes. (E) The Dark Side Of Technology Advances in technology also contributed to rising inequality. In theory, new technologies hurt some workers in the short term, but benefit most workers in the long run because they raise national income. However, there is evidence that past major technological shocks were associated with a "hollowing out" or U-shaped pattern of employment. Low- and high-skilled employment increased, but the proportion of mid-skilled workers tended to shrink. Wages for both low- and mid-skilled labor did not keep up with those that were highly-skilled, leading to wider income disparity. Today, technology appears to be resulting in faster, wider and deeper degrees of hollowing-out than in previous periods of massive technological change. This may be because machines are not just replacing manual human tasks, but cognitive ones too. A recent IMF report made the case that technology and global integration played a dominant role in labor's declining fortunes. Technology alone explains about half of the drop in the labor share of income in the developed countries since 1980.4 Falling prices for capital goods, information and communications technology in particular, have facilitated the expansion of global value chains as firms unbundled production into many tasks that were distributed around the world in a way that minimized production costs. Chart 7 highlights that the falling price of capital goods in the advanced economies went hand-in-hand with rising participation in global supply chains since 1990. Falling capital goods prices also accelerated the automation of routine tasks, contributing especially to job destruction in the developed (high-wage) economies. In other words, firms in the developed world either replaced workers with machinery in areas where technology permitted, or outsourced jobs to lower-wage countries in areas that remained labor-intensive. Both trends undermined labor's bargaining power, depressed labor's share of income, and contributed to inequality. The effects of technology, global integration, population aging and China's economic integration are demonstrated in Chart 8. The world working-age-to-total population ratio rose sharply beginning in the late 1990s. This resulted in an upward trend in China's investment/GDP ratio, and a downward trend in the G7. The upward trend in the G7 capital stock-per-capita ratio began to slow as a result, before experiencing an unprecedented contraction after the Great Recession and Financial Crisis. Chart 7Economic Integration And Falling Capital Goods Prices Chart 8Macro Impact Of Labor Supply Shock The result has been a deflationary global backdrop characterized by demand deficiency and poor potential real GDP growth, both of which have depressed equilibrium global interest rates over the past 20 to 25 years. Transition Phase Chart 9Working-Age Population To Shrink in G7 and China It would appear easy to conclude that these trends will be with us for another few decades because the demographic trends will not change anytime soon. Nonetheless, on closer inspection the global economy is transitioning from a period when cyclical economic pressures and all of the structural trends were pushing equilibrium interest rates in the same direction, to a period in which the economic cycle is becoming less bond-friendly and some of the secular drivers of low interest rates are gradually changing direction. First, the massive labor supply shock of the past few decades is over. The world working-age population ratio has peaked according to United Nations estimates. This ratio is already declining in the major advanced economies and is in the process of topping out in China. The absolute number of working-age people will shrink in China and the G7 countries over the next five years, although it will continue to grow at a low rate for the world as a whole (Chart 9). Unions are unlikely to make a major comeback, but a backdrop that is less labor-abundant should gradually restore some worker bargaining power, especially as economies regain full employment. The resulting upward pressure on real wages will support capital spending as firms substitute toward capital and away from (increasingly expensive) labor. Consumer demand will also receive a boost if inequality moderates and the labor share of income begins to rise. Globalization On The Back Foot Chart 10Globalization Peaking? Second, it is too early to declare globalization dead, but the neo-liberal trading world order that has been in place for decades is under attack. Global exports appear to have peaked relative to GDP and average tariffs have ticked higher (Chart 10). The World Trade Organization has announced that the number of new trade restrictions or impediments outweighed the number of trade liberalizing initiatives in 2016. The U.K. appears willing to sacrifice trade for limits to the free movement of people. The new U.S. Administration has ditched the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and is threatening to impose punitive tariffs on some trading partners. Anti-globalization policies could paradoxically be positive for capital spending, at least for a few years. If the U.S. were to impose high tariffs on China, for example, it would make a part of the Chinese capital stock redundant overnight. In order for the global economy to produce the same amount of goods and services as before, the U.S. and other countries would need to invest more. Any unwinding of globalization would also be inflationary as it would disrupt international supply chains. Demographics And Saving: From Tailwind To Headwind... Third, the impact of savings in the major advanced economies and China on global interest rates will change direction as well. In the developed world, aggregate household savings will come under downward pressure as boomers increasingly shift into retirement. Economists are fond of employing the so-called life-cycle theory of consumer spending. According to this theory, consumers tend to smooth out lifetime spending by accumulating assets during the working years in order to maintain a certain living standard after retirement. The U.N. National Transfer Accounts Project has gathered data on spending and labor income by age cohort at a point in time. Chart 11 presents the data for China and three of the major advanced economies. The data for the advanced economies suggest that spending tends to rise sharply from a low level between birth and about 15 years of age. It continues to rise, albeit at a more modest pace, through the working years. Other studies have found that consumer spending falls during retirement. Nonetheless, these studies generally include only private spending and therefore do not include health care that is provided by the government. The data presented in Chart 11 show that, if government-provided health care is included, personal spending rises sharply toward the end of life. The profile is somewhat different in China. Spending rises quickly from birth to about 20 years of age, and is roughly flat thereafter. Indeed, consumption edges lower after 75-80 years of age. These data allow us to project the impact of changing demographics on the average household saving rate in the coming years, assuming that the income and spending profiles shown in Chart 11 are unchanged. We start by calculating the average saving rate across age cohorts given today's age structure. We then recalculate the average saving rate each year moving forward in time. The resulting saving rate changes along with the age structure of the population. Chart 11Income And Consumption By Age Cohort The results are shown in Chart 12. The saving rates for all four economies have been indexed at zero in 2016 for comparison purposes. The aggregate saving rate declines in all cases, falling between 4 and 8 percentage points between 2016 and 2030. Germany sees the largest drop of the four countries. Chart 12Aging Will Undermine Aggregate Saving The simulations are meant to be suggestive, rather than a precise forecast, because the savings profile across age cohorts will adjust over time. Moreover, governments will no doubt raise taxes to cover the rising cost of health care, providing a partial offset in terms of the national saving rate.5 Nonetheless, the simulations highlight that the major economies are past the point where the baby boom generation is adding to the global savings pool at a faster pace than retirees are drawing from it. The age structure in the major advanced economies is far enough advanced that the rapid increase in the retirement rate will place substantial downward pressure on aggregate household savings in the coming years. It is well known that population aging will also undermine government budgets. Rising health care costs are already captured in our household saving rate projection because the data for household spending includes health care even if it is provided by the public sector. However, public pension schemes will also be a problem. To the extent that politicians are slow to trim pension benefits and/or raise taxes, public pension plans will be a growing drain on national savings. Could younger, less developed economies offset some of the demographic trends in China and the Advanced Economies? Numerically speaking, a more effective use of underutilized populations in Africa and India could go a long way. Nevertheless, deep-seated structural problems would have to be addressed and, even then, it is difficult to see either of these regions turning into the next "China story" given the current backlash against globalization and immigration. ...And The Capex Story Is Largely Behind Us Demographic trends also imply less capital spending relative to GDP, as discussed above. In terms of the impact on global equilibrium interest rates, it then becomes a race between falling saving and investment rates. Some analysts point to the Japanese experience because it is the leading edge in terms of global aging. Bond yields have been extremely low for many years even as the household saving rate collapsed, suggesting that ex-ante investment spending shifted by more than ex-ante savings. Nonetheless, Japan may not be a good example because the deterioration in the country's demographics coincided with burst bubbles in both real estate and stocks that hamstrung Japanese banks for decades. A series of policy mistakes made things worse. Economic theory is not clear on the net effect of demographics on savings and investment. The academic empirical evidence is inconclusive as well. However, a detailed IMF study of 30 OECD countries analyzed the demographic impact on a number of macroeconomic variables, including savings and investment.6 They estimated separate demographic effects for the old-age dependency ratio and the working-age population ratio. Applying the IMF's estimated model coefficients to projected changes in both of these ratios over the next decade suggests that the decline in ex-ante savings will exceed the ex-ante drop in capex requirements by about 1 percentage point of GDP. This is a non-trivial shift. Chart 13Demographics And Capex Requirements Moreover, our simulations highlight that timing is important. The outlook for the household saving rate depends on the changing age structure of the population and the distribution of saving rates across age cohorts. Thus, the average saving rate will trend down as populations continue to age over the coming decades. In contrast, the impact of demographics on capital spending requirements is related to the change in the growth rate of the working-age population. Chart 13 once again presents our estimates for the demographic component of capital spending. The top panel presents the world capex/GDP ratio that is necessary to maintain a constant capital/output ratio, and the bottom panel shows the change in that ratio. The important point is that the downward adjustment in world capex/GDP related to aging is now largely behind us because most of the deceleration in the growth rate of the working-age population is done. This is in contrast to the household saving rate adjustment where all of the adjustment is still to come. China Is Transitioning Too China must be treated separately from the developed countries because of its unique structural issues. As discussed above, household savings increased dramatically beginning in the mid-1990s (Chart 14). This trend reflected a number of factors, including: the rising share of the working-age population; a drop in the fertility rate, following the introduction of the one-child policy in the late 1970s that allowed households to spend less on raising children and save more for retirement; health care reform in the early 1990s required households to bear a larger share of health care spending; and job security was also undermined by reform of the state-owned enterprises (SOE) in the late 1990s, leading to increased precautionary savings to cover possible bouts of unemployment. These savings tailwinds have turned around in recent years and the household saving rate appears to have peaked. China's contribution to the global pool of savings has already moderated significantly, as measured by the current account surplus. The surplus has withered from about 9% in 2008 to 2½% in 2016. A recent IMF study makes the case that China's national saving rate will continue to decline. The IMF estimates that for every one percentage-point rise in the old-age dependency ratio, the aggregate household saving rate will fall by 0.4-1 percentage points. In addition, the need for precautionary savings is expected to ease along with improvements in the social safety net, achieved through higher government spending on health care. The household saving rate will fall by three percentage points by 2021 according to the IMF (Chart 15). Competitive pressure and an aging population will also reduce the saving rates of the corporate and government sectors. Chart 14China's Savings Rates Have Peaked... Chart 15...Suggesting That External Surplus Will Shrink Of course, investment as a share of GDP is projected to moderate too, reflecting a rebalancing of the economy away from exports and capital spending toward household consumption. The IMF expects that savings will moderate slightly faster than investment, leading to a narrowing in the current account surplus to almost zero by 2021. A lot of assumptions go into this type of forecast such that we must take it with a large grain of salt. Nonetheless, the fundamental drivers of China's savings capacity appear to rule out a return to the days when the country was generating a substantial amount of excess savings. Moreover, a return to large current account surpluses would likely require significant currency depreciation, which is a political non-starter given U.S. angst over trade. The risk is that China's excess savings will be less, not more, in five year's time. Tech Is A Wildcard It is extremely difficult to forecast the impact of technological advancement on the global economy. We cannot say with any conviction that the tech-related effects of "hollowing out", "winner-take-all" and the "skills premium" will moderate in the coming years. Nonetheless, these effects have occurred alongside a surge in the world's labor force and rapid globalization of supply chains, both of which reinforced the erosion of employee bargaining power. Looking ahead, technology will still be a headwind for some employees, but at least the transition from a world of excess labor to one that is more labor-scarce will boost workers' ability to negotiate a larger share of the income pie. We will explore the impact of technology on productivity, inflation, growth, and bond yields in a companion report to be published in the next issue. Conclusion: Table 1Key Secular Drivers The main points we made in this report are summarized in Table 1. All of the structural factors driving real bond yields were working in the same (bullish) direction over the past 30-40 years. Looking ahead, it is uncertain how technological improvement will affect bond prices, but we expect that the others will shift (or have already shifted) to either neutral or outright bond-bearish. No doubt, our views that globalization and inequality have peaked, and that the labor share of income has bottomed, are speculative. These factors may not place much upward pressure on equilibrium yields. Nonetheless, it seems likely that the demographic effect that has depressed capital spending demand is well advanced. We see it shifting from a positive factor for bond prices to a neutral factor in the coming years. It is also clear that the massive positive labor supply shock is over, and is heading into reverse as the global working-age population ratio falls. This may improve labor's bargaining power and the resulting boost consumer spending will be negative for bonds. This may also spark a shift toward using more capital in the production process and thereby place additional upward pressure on global real bond yields. Admittedly, however, this last point requires more research because theory and empirical evidence on it are not clear. Perhaps most importantly, the aging of the population in the advanced economies has reached a tipping point; retirees will drain more from the pool of savings than the working-age population will add to it in the coming years. We have concentrated on real equilibrium bond yields in this report because it is the part of nominal yields that is the most depressed relative to historical norms. The inflation component is only a little below a level that is consistent with central banks meeting their 2% inflation targets in the medium term. There is a risk that inflation will overshoot these targets, leading to a possible surge in long-term inflation expectations that turbocharges the bond bear market. This is certainly possible, as highlighted by a recent Global Investment Strategy Quarterly Strategy Outlook. Pain in bond markets would be magnified in this case, especially if central banks are forced to aggressively defend their targets. Please note that we are not making the case that real global bond yields will quickly revert to pre-Lehman averages. It will take time for the bond-bullish structural factors to unwind. It will also take time for inflation to gain any momentum, even in the United States. Global yields could even drop back to previous lows in the event of another recession. Nonetheless, from a long-term perspective, current market expectations suggest that investors have adopted an overly benign view on the outlook for yields. For example, implied real short-term rates remain negative until 2021 in the U.S. and 2026 in the Eurozone, while they stay negative out to 2030 in the U.K. (Chart 16). We doubt that short-term rates will be negative for that long, given the structural factors discussed above. Another way of looking at this is presented in Chart 17. The market expects the 10-year Treasury yield in ten years to be only slightly above today's spot yield, which itself is not far above the lowest levels ever recorded. Market expectations are equally depressed for the 5-year forward rate for the U.S. and the other major economies. Chart 16Market Expects Negative Short-Term Rates For A Long Time Chart 17Forward Rates Very Low Vs. History The implication is that investors should have a bond-bearish bias on a medium- and long-term horizon. Mark McClellan, Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst markm@bcaresearch.com 1 It is true that observed household saving rates fell in some of the advanced economies, such as the United States, at a time when aging should have boosted savings from the mid-1990s to the mid-2000s. This argues against a strong demographic effect on savings. However, keep in mind that we are discussing desired (or ex-ante) savings. Ex-post, savings can go in the opposite direction because of other influencing factors. As discussed below, global savings must equal investment, which means that shifts in desired capital spending demand matter for the ex-post level of savings. 2 Arithmetically, if world trend GDP growth slows by one percentage point, then investment spending would need to drop by about 3½ percentage points of GDP to keep the capital/output ratio stable. 3 David H. Autor, David Dorn, and Gordon H. Hanson, "The China Shock: Learning from Labor-Market Adjustment to Large Changes in Trade," Annual Review of Economics, Vol 8, pp. 205-240 (October 2016). 4 Please see "Understanding The Downward Trend In Labor Income Shares," Chapter 3, IMF World Economic Outlook (April 2017). 5 In other words, while the household saving rate, as defined here to include health care spending by governments on behalf of households, will decline, any associated tax increases will blunt the impact on national savings (i.e., savings across the household, government, and business sectors). 6 Jong-Won Yoon, Jinill Kim, and Jungjin Lee, "Impact Of Demographic Changes On Inflation And The Macroeconomy," IMF Working Paper no. 14/210 (November 2014).

Highlights Lean against depressed and euphoric interest rate expectations. The ECB will remove or fade the negative deposit rate, with an outside chance that it happens this year. The U.K. economy will determine the nature of Brexit - not the other way round. The snap General Election doesn't change anything. Expect an ongoing narrowing in the U.S. T-bond/German bund yield spread and U.S. T-bond/U.K. gilt yield spread. Expect the following order of currency performance: euro first, pound second, dollar third. Expect the FTSE100 to outperform the Eurostoxx50. Feature The interplay between interest rate expectations - in the U.K., U.S. and euro area - is one of the most important factors in explaining what has happened, what is happening, and what will happen, to financial markets. Chart of the WeekBrexit Depression Has Unwound; ##br##Trump Euphoria Hasn't... Yet Interest rate expectations convincingly explain the movements in the U.S. T-bond/German bund yield spread, the U.S. T-bond/U.K. gilt yield spread, euro/dollar, and pound/dollar. Thereby, they also explain FTSE100/Eurostoxx50 relative performance which is just an (inverse) currency play. Chart I-2, Chart I-3, Chart I-4, Chart I-5 and Chart I-6 should leave readers in absolutely no doubt. Chart I-2Interest Rate Expectations Explain The ##br##T-Bond/German Bund Yield Spread Chart I-3Interest Rate Expectations Explain The##br## T-Bond/U.K. Gilt Yield Spread Chart I-4Interest Rate Expectations ##br##Explain Euro/Dollar Chart I-5Interest Rate Expectations##br## Explain Pound/Dollar Chart I-6Pound/Euro (Inversely) Explains ##br##FTSE100/Eurostoxx50 Lean Against Depressed And Euphoric Interest Rate Expectations Last year's shock victories for Brexit and Trump dramatically swung the market mood towards the U.K. and U.S. economies. After Brexit, the knee-jerk response was depression; after Trump, the knee-jerk response was euphoria. But extreme mood swings to depression and euphoria are rarely justified, and ultimately tend to unwind. Responding to last year's dramatic mood swings, U.K. and U.S. interest rate policy - both actual and expected - moved very sharply in opposite directions. Following the Brexit vote, the BoE cut the base rate by a quarter percent, and the rate expected two years out plunged by three quarters of a percent. In contrast, following the Trump victory, the Federal Reserve twice hiked the Fed funds rate by a quarter percent, and the rate expected two years out surged by more than a percent. Meanwhile, throughout all this activity, the ECB repo rate and deposit rate were anchored at zero and -0.4% respectively, and the interest rate expected two years out remained in negative territory. Fast forward to today, and the U.K. interest rate expected two years out has fully unwound the Brexit vote depression - the expected BoE policy rate two years out stands exactly where it stood before the EU Referendum. In contrast, the expected Fed policy rate two years out retains its Trump euphoria (Chart of the Week). Meanwhile, the expected ECB policy rate two years out remains anchored close to the realistic limit of negativity. To reiterate, the extreme market moods of depression and euphoria are rarely justified, and tend to unwind. On this basis, we can say that policy rate expectations in relative terms now have the scope to: Get less depressed in the euro area. Remain broadly unchanged in the U.K. Get less euphoric in the U.S.1 Hence, on a 12-month horizon, expect a continued narrowing in the U.S. T-bond/German bund yield spread and U.S. T-bond/U.K. gilt yield spread. For currencies, expect the following order of performance: euro first, pound second, dollar third. And therefore, expect the FTSE100 to outperform the Eurostoxx50. Brexit: A Reductionist View Many millions of words have been written about Brexit, and we suspect that many millions more will be written. But true to our reductionist philosophy, we can reduce those millions of words to a single sentence. Brexit was, is, and always will be, about the trade-off between national sovereignty and access to the European single market. Irrespective of the vote to leave the EU and the start of the divorce proceedings, the full spectrum of possibilities in this trade-off is still open to the U.K. At one extreme the U.K. could get a full divorce, and thereby regain absolute national sovereignty in all areas including law and immigration. But in this full divorce, the EU27 would regard the U.K. as a complete outsider whose status is little different to say, Russia. At the other extreme, the U.K. could near enough replicate its current economic and political relationship with the EU27 in a 'pseudo-marriage'. Technically, the U.K. would be divorced, but practically, there would be only minor differences to being married. Although the U.K. would lose its official place at the EU top table, in all likelihood the EU27 would still listen to the British voice given the U.K.'s size and global standing. But in this pseudo-marriage the EU27 would exact a cost: the U.K. could not regain any national sovereignty. All points on the spectrum between a full divorce and a pseudo-marriage are now available to the U.K. The relationship that the U.K. ends up with depends on the trade-off that the British public - and therefore its political representatives in the government and parliament - will accept. In turn, this will depend on the evolution of the economy and standards of living. A strong economy will embolden the British public to want something close to a full divorce. Conversely, a weakening economy might be blamed, rightly or wrongly, on Brexit. In which case, public opinion would shift towards something closer to a pseudo-marriage. Therefore, the causality runs from the economy to Brexit, not from Brexit to the economy. The U.K. economy will determine where the U.K. ends up on the Brexit spectrum - at least, in terms of the initial deal. The snap General Election doesn't change anything. Nor is the General Election a game changer for the pound. The preceding section demonstrated that relative interest rate expectations - rather than Brexit per se - are driving the pound. We expect the BoE to remain relatively inactive because empirically, U.K. real consumption is hyper-sensitive (inversely) to inflation. When inflation is too high, real consumption growth is undermined, making it difficult to hike rates; and when inflation is too low, real consumption tends to grow strongly, making it difficult to cut rates (Chart I-7). This ties the hands of the BoE, and explains why the post EU Referendum emergency rate cut has been the BoE's only interest rate change since early 2009! Chart I-7Why The Bank Of England's Hands Are Tied While rate expectations can get less depressed in the euro area, and less euphoric in the U.S., they are likely to change least in the U.K. Hence, we like the pound less than the euro; but we like the pound more than the dollar. Role Playing On The ECB Governing Council We are writing ahead of the ECB policy meeting, but we do not anticipate any substantive announcements - given that we are only half way through the French Presidential Election. In the absence of major developments, the euro's strong recent advance might take a tactical breather. But what then? Some people argue that ECB policy should be based not on the aggregate euro area economy, but instead on the weaker links in the euro area economy. These arguments have some merit, as the ECB - unlike other central banks - has to contend with a permanent existential threat. On this basis, let's finish this week with a role playing exercise. Imagine you're on the ECB Governing Council, and the weak link that worries you is euro area bank fragility, particularly in some of the southern member states. Your own (ECB) analysis, illustrated in Chart I-8, shows that extreme accommodative monetary policy has had a negligible net impact on bank profitability. The QE component has probably been a mild net positive - admittedly, a flatter yield has dragged down banks' net interest margins; but it has also generated profits in banks' bond portfolios; and in so far as QE has boosted economic growth, it has reduced bank charge-offs. Chart I-8What Is The Point Of The ECB's Negative Deposit Rate? But the negative deposit rate - charging banks for excess liquidity - has been a clear drag on bank profitability. And there is little evidence that it has encouraged lending. What would you do? Even if the ECB is setting policy for the euro area weak links, the central bank's own analysis suggests that it should remove, or at least fade, the negative deposit rate. Our central expectation is for this to happen early next year, with an outside chance that it is even sooner. With expectations for ECB policy rates still anchored close to the realistic limit of negativity, the euro exchange rate has cyclical upside. Dhaval Joshi, Senior Vice President European Investment Strategy dhaval@bcaresearch.com 1 Assuming that the U.S. government does not approve inappropriate fiscal stimulus. Fractal Trading Model* This week's trade is to go long the FTSE100 versus the IBEX35 with a profit target and stop loss of 4%. For any investment, excessive trend following and groupthink can reach a natural point of instability, at which point the established trend is highly likely to break down with or without an external catalyst. An early warning sign is the investment's fractal dimension approaching its natural lower bound. Encouragingly, this trigger has consistently identified countertrend moves of various magnitudes across all asset classes. Chart I-9 * For more details please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report "Fractals, Liquidity & A Trading Model," dated December 11, 2014, available at eis.bcaresearch.com The post-June 9, 2016 fractal trading model rules are: When the fractal dimension approaches the lower limit after an investment has been in an established trend it is a potential trigger for a liquidity-triggered trend reversal. Therefore, open a countertrend position. The profit target is a one-third reversal of the preceding 13-week move. Apply a symmetrical stop-loss. Close the position at the profit target or stop-loss. Otherwise close the position after 13 weeks. Use the position size multiple to control risk. The position size will be smaller for more risky positions. Fractal Trading Model Recommendations Equities Bond & Interest Rates Currency & Other Positions Closed Fractal Trades Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Interest Rate Chart II-5Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch ##br##- Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations

Special Report

The fundamental drivers of the low rate world are considered by many to be structural, and thus likely to keep global equilibrium bond yields quite depressed by historical standards for years to come. However, some of the factors behind ultra-low interest rates have waned, while others have reached an inflection point. The age structure of world population is transitioning from a period in which aging added to the global pool of savings to one in which aging will begin to drain that pool. Global investment needs will wane along with population aging, but the majority of the effect on equilibrium interest rates is in the past. In contrast, the demographic effects that will depress desired savings are still to come. The net impact will be bond-bearish. Moreover, the massive positive labor supply shock, following the integration of China and Eastern Europe into the world's effective labor force, is over. Indeed, this shock is heading into reverse as the global working-age population ratio falls. This may improve labor's bargaining power, sparking a shift toward using more capital in the production process and thereby placing upward pressure on global real bond yields. It is too early to declare globalization dead, but the neo-liberal trading world order that has been in place for decades is under attack. This could be inflationary if it disrupts global supply chains. Anti-globalization policies could paradoxically be positive for capital spending, at least for a few years. As for China, the fundamental drivers of its savings capacity appear to rule out a return to the days when the country was generating a substantial amount of excess savings. Technological advance will remain a headwind for real wage gains, but at least the transition to a world that is less labor-abundant will boost workers' ability to negotiate a larger share of the income pie. We are not making the case that real global bond yields are going to quickly revert to pre-Lehman averages. Global yields could even drop back to previous lows in the event of another recession. Nonetheless, from a long-term perspective, current market expectations for bond yields are too low. Investors should have a bond-bearish bias on a medium- and long-term horizon. In the September 2016 The Bank Credit Analyst, we summarized the key drivers behind the major global macroeconomic disequilibria that have resulted in deflationary pressure, policy extremism, dismal productivity, and the lowest bond yields in recorded history (Chart II-1). The disequilibria include income inequality, the depressed wage share of GDP, lackluster capital spending, and excessive savings. Chart II-1Global Disequilibria The fundamental drivers of the low bond yield world are now well documented and understood by investors. These drivers generally are considered to be structural, and thus likely to keep global equilibrium bond yields and interest rates at historically low levels for years to come according to the consensus. Based on discussions with BCA clients, it appears that many have either "bought into" the secular stagnation thesis or, at a minimum, have adopted the view that growth headwinds preclude any meaningful rise in bond yields. However, bond investors might have been lulled into a false sense of security. Yields will not return to pre-Lehman norms anytime soon, but some of the factors behind the low-yield world have waned, while others have reached an inflection point. Most importantly, the age structure of world population is transitioning from a period in which aging added to the global pool of savings to one in which aging will begin to drain that pool. We have reached the tipping point. Equilibrium real bond yields will gradually move higher as a result. But before we discuss what is changing, it is important to review the drivers of today's macro disequilibria. Several of them predate the Great Financial Crisis, including demographic trends, technological advances, and the integration of China's massive workforce and excess savings into the global economy. Ultra-Low Rates: How Did We Get Here? (A) Demographics And Global Savings Chart II-2Global Shifts In The ##br##Saving And Investment Curves The so-called Global Savings Glut has been a bullish structural force for bonds for the past couple of decades. We won't go through all of the forces behind the glut, but a key factor is population aging in the advanced economies. Ex-ante desired savings rose as baby boomers entered their high-income years. The Great Financial Crisis only served to reinforce the desire to save, given the setback in the value of boomers' retirement nest eggs.1 The corporate sector also began to save more following the crisis. Even more importantly, the surge in China's trade surplus since the 1990s had to be recycled into the global pool of savings. While China's rate of investment was very high, its propensity to save increased even faster, resulting in a swollen external surplus and a massive net outflow of capital. Other emerging economies also made the adjustment from net importers of capital to net exporters following the Asian crisis in the late 1990s. By leaning into currency appreciation, these countries built up huge foreign exchange reserves that had to be recycled abroad. In theory, savings must equal investment at the global level and real interest rates shift to ensure this equilibrium (Chart II-2). China's excess savings, together with a greater desire to save in the developed countries, represented a shift in the saving schedule to the right. The result was downward pressure on global interest rates. (B) Demographics And Global Capital Spending Demographics and China's integration also affected the investment side of the equation. A slower pace of labor force growth in the developed countries resulted in a permanently lower level of capital spending relative to GDP. Slower consumer spending growth, as a result of a more moderate expansion in the working-age population, meant a reduced appetite for new factories, malls, and apartment buildings. Chart II-3 shows that the growth rate of global capital spending that is required to maintain a given capital-to-output ratio has dropped substantially, due to the dramatic slowdown in the growth of the world's working-age population.2 Keep in mind that this estimate refers only to the demographic component of investment spending. Actual capital expenditure growth will not be as weak as Chart II-3 suggests because firms will want to adopt new technologies for competitive or environmental reasons. Nonetheless, the point is that the structural tailwind for global capex from the post-war baby boom has disappeared. Chart II-3Demographics Are A Structural Headwind For Global Capex (C) Labor Supply Shock And Global Capital Spending While the working-age population ratio peaked in the developed countries years ago, it is a different story at the global level (Chart II-4). The integration of the Chinese and Eastern European workforces into the global labor pool during the 1990s and 2000s resulted in an effective doubling of global labor supply in a short period of time. Relative prices must adjust in the face of such a large boost in the supply of labor relative to capital. The sudden abundance of cheap labor depressed real wages from what they otherwise would have been, thus incentivizing firms to use more labor and less capital at the margin. The combination of slower working-age population growth in the advanced economies and a surge in the global labor force resulted in a decline in desired global capital spending. In terms of Chart II-2, the leftward shift of the investment schedule reinforced the impact of the savings impulse in placing downward pressure on global interest rates. (D) Labor Supply Shock And Income Inequality The wave of cheap labor also aggravated the trend toward greater inequality in the advanced economies and the downward trend in labor's share of the income pie (Chart II-5). In theory, a surge in the supply of labor is a positive "supply shock" that benefits both developed and developing countries. However, a recent report by David Autor and Gordon Hanson3 highlighted that trade agreements in the past were incremental and largely involved countries with similar income levels. The sudden entry of China to the global trade arena, involving a massive addition to the effective global stock of labor, was altogether different. The report does not argue that trade has become a "bad" thing. Rather, it points out that the adjustment costs imposed on the advanced economies were huge and long-lasting, as Chinese firms destroyed entire industries in developed countries. The lingering adjustment phase contributed to greater inequality in the major countries. Management was able to use the threat of outsourcing to gain the upper hand in wage negotiations. The result has been a rise in the share of income going to high-income earners in the Advanced Economies, at the expense of low- and middle-income earners (Chart II-6). The same is true, although to a lesser extent, in the emerging world. Chart II-4Working-Age Population Ratios Have Peaked Chart II-5Labor Share Of Income Has Dropped Chart II-6Hollowing Out Greater inequality, in turn, has weighed on aggregate demand and equilibrium interest rates because a larger share of total income flowed to the "rich" who tend to save more than the low- and middle-income classes. (E) The Dark Side Of Technology Advances in technology also contributed to rising inequality. In theory, new technologies hurt some workers in the short term, but benefit most workers in the long run because they raise national income. However, there is evidence that past major technological shocks were associated with a "hollowing out" or U-shaped pattern of employment. Low- and high-skilled employment increased, but the proportion of mid-skilled workers tended to shrink. Wages for both low- and mid-skilled labor did not keep up with those that were highly-skilled, leading to wider income disparity. Today, technology appears to be resulting in faster, wider and deeper degrees of hollowing-out than in previous periods of massive technological change. This may be because machines are not just replacing manual human tasks, but cognitive ones too. A recent IMF report made the case that technology and global integration played a dominant role in labor's declining fortunes. Technology alone explains about half of the drop in the labor share of income in the developed countries since 1980.4 Falling prices for capital goods, information and communications technology in particular, have facilitated the expansion of global value chains as firms unbundled production into many tasks that were distributed around the world in a way that minimized production costs. Chart II-7 highlights that the falling price of capital goods in the advanced economies went hand-in-hand with rising participation in global supply chains since 1990. Falling capital goods prices also accelerated the automation of routine tasks, contributing especially to job destruction in the developed (high-wage) economies. In other words, firms in the developed world either replaced workers with machinery in areas where technology permitted, or outsourced jobs to lower-wage countries in areas that remained labor-intensive. Both trends undermined labor's bargaining power, depressed labor's share of income, and contributed to inequality. The effects of technology, global integration, population aging and China's economic integration are demonstrated in Chart II-8. The world working-age-to-total population ratio rose sharply beginning in the late 1990s. This resulted in an upward trend in China's investment/GDP ratio, and a downward trend in the G7. The upward trend in the G7 capital stock-per-capita ratio began to slow as a result, before experiencing an unprecedented contraction after the Great Recession and Financial Crisis. Chart II-7Economic Integration And ##br##Falling Capital Goods Prices Chart II-8Macro Impact Of ##br##Labor Supply Shock The result has been a deflationary global backdrop characterized by demand deficiency and poor potential real GDP growth, both of which have depressed equilibrium global interest rates over the past 20 to 25 years. Transition Phase Chart II-9Working-Age Population ##br##To Shrink In G7 And China It would appear easy to conclude that these trends will be with us for another few decades because the demographic trends will not change anytime soon. Nonetheless, on closer inspection the global economy is transitioning from a period when cyclical economic pressures and all of the structural trends were pushing equilibrium interest rates in the same direction, to a period in which the economic cycle is becoming less bond-friendly and some of the secular drivers of low interest rates are gradually changing direction. First, the massive labor supply shock of the past few decades is over. The world working-age population ratio has peaked according to United Nations estimates. This ratio is already declining in the major advanced economies and is in the process of topping out in China. The absolute number of working-age people will shrink in China and the G7 countries over the next five years, although it will continue to grow at a low rate for the world as a whole (Chart II-9). Unions are unlikely to make a major comeback, but a backdrop that is less labor-abundant should gradually restore some worker bargaining power, especially as economies regain full employment. The resulting upward pressure on real wages will support capital spending as firms substitute toward capital and away from (increasingly expensive) labor. Consumer demand will also receive a boost if inequality moderates and the labor share of income begins to rise. Globalization On The Back Foot Chart II-10Globalization Peaking? Second, it is too early to declare globalization dead, but the neo-liberal trading world order that has been in place for decades is under attack. Global exports appear to have peaked relative to GDP and average tariffs have ticked higher (Chart II-10). The World Trade Organization has announced that the number of new trade restrictions or impediments outweighed the number of trade liberalizing initiatives in 2016. The U.K. appears willing to sacrifice trade for limits to the free movement of people. The new U.S. Administration has ditched the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and is threatening to impose punitive tariffs on some trading partners. Anti-globalization policies could paradoxically be positive for capital spending, at least for a few years. If the U.S. were to impose high tariffs on China, for example, it would make a part of the Chinese capital stock redundant overnight. In order for the global economy to produce the same amount of goods and services as before, the U.S. and other countries would need to invest more. Any unwinding of globalization would also be inflationary as it would disrupt international supply chains. Demographics And Saving: From Tailwind To Headwind... Third, the impact of savings in the major advanced economies and China on global interest rates will change direction as well. In the developed world, aggregate household savings will come under downward pressure as boomers increasingly shift into retirement. Economists are fond of employing the so-called life-cycle theory of consumer spending. According to this theory, consumers tend to smooth out lifetime spending by accumulating assets during the working years in order to maintain a certain living standard after retirement. The U.N. National Transfer Accounts Project has gathered data on spending and labor income by age cohort at a point in time. Chart II-11 presents the data for China and three of the major advanced economies. Chart II-11Income And Consumption By Age Cohort The data for the advanced economies suggest that spending tends to rise sharply from a low level between birth and about 15 years of age. It continues to rise, albeit at a more modest pace, through the working years. Other studies have found that consumer spending falls during retirement. Nonetheless, these studies generally include only private spending and therefore do not include health care that is provided by the government. The data presented in Chart II-11 show that, if government-provided health care is included, personal spending rises sharply toward the end of life. The profile is somewhat different in China. Spending rises quickly from birth to about 20 years of age, and is roughly flat thereafter. Indeed, consumption edges lower after 75-80 years of age. These data allow us to project the impact of changing demographics on the average household saving rate in the coming years, assuming that the income and spending profiles shown in Chart II-11 are unchanged. We start by calculating the average saving rate across age cohorts given today's age structure. We then recalculate the average saving rate each year moving forward in time. The resulting saving rate changes along with the age structure of the population. The results are shown in Chart II-12. The saving rates for all four economies have been indexed at zero in 2016 for comparison purposes. The aggregate saving rate declines in all cases, falling between 4 and 8 percentage points between 2016 and 2030. Germany sees the largest drop of the four countries. Chart II-12Aging Will Undermine Aggregate Saving The simulations are meant to be suggestive, rather than a precise forecast, because the savings profile across age cohorts will adjust over time. Moreover, governments will no doubt raise taxes to cover the rising cost of health care, providing a partial offset in terms of the national saving rate.5 Nonetheless, the simulations highlight that the major economies are past the point where the baby boom generation is adding to the global savings pool at a faster pace than retirees are drawing from it. The age structure in the major advanced economies is far enough advanced that the rapid increase in the retirement rate will place substantial downward pressure on aggregate household savings in the coming years. It is well known that population aging will also undermine government budgets. Rising health care costs are already captured in our household saving rate projection because the data for household spending includes health care even if it is provided by the public sector. However, public pension schemes will also be a problem. To the extent that politicians are slow to trim pension benefits and/or raise taxes, public pension plans will be a growing drain on national savings. Could younger, less developed economies offset some of the demographic trends in China and the Advanced Economies? Numerically speaking, a more effective use of underutilized populations in Africa and India could go a long way. Nevertheless, deep-seated structural problems would have to be addressed and, even then, it is difficult to see either of these regions turning into the next "China story" given the current backlash against globalization and immigration. ...And The Capex Story Is Largely Behind Us Demographic trends also imply less capital spending relative to GDP, as discussed above. In terms of the impact on global equilibrium interest rates, it then becomes a race between falling saving and investment rates. Chart II-13Demographics And Capex Requirements Some analysts point to the Japanese experience because it is the leading edge in terms of global aging. Bond yields have been extremely low for many years even as the household saving rate collapsed, suggesting that ex-ante investment spending shifted by more than ex-ante savings. Nonetheless, Japan may not be a good example because the deterioration in the country's demographics coincided with burst bubbles in both real estate and stocks that hamstrung Japanese banks for decades. A series of policy mistakes made things worse. Economic theory is not clear on the net effect of demographics on savings and investment. The academic empirical evidence is inconclusive as well. However, a detailed IMF study of 30 OECD countries analyzed the demographic impact on a number of macroeconomic variables, including savings and investment.6 They estimated separate demographic effects for the old-age dependency ratio and the working-age population ratio. Applying the IMF's estimated model coefficients to projected changes in both of these ratios over the next decade suggests that the decline in ex-ante savings will exceed the ex-ante drop in capex requirements by about 1 percentage point of GDP. This is a non-trivial shift. Moreover, our simulations highlight that timing is important. The outlook for the household saving rate depends on the changing age structure of the population and the distribution of saving rates across age cohorts. Thus, the average saving rate will trend down as populations continue to age over the coming decades. In contrast, the impact of demographics on capital spending requirements is related to the change in the growth rate of the working-age population. Chart II-13 once again presents our estimates for the demographic component of capital spending. The top panel presents the world capex/GDP ratio that is necessary to maintain a constant capital/output ratio, and the bottom panel shows the change in that ratio. The important point is that the downward adjustment in world capex/GDP related to aging is now largely behind us because most of the deceleration in the growth rate of the working-age population is done. This is in contrast to the household saving rate adjustment where all of the adjustment is still to come. China Is Transitioning Too Chart II-14China's Savings Rates Have Peaked... China must be treated separately from the developed countries because of its unique structural issues. As discussed above, household savings increased dramatically beginning in the mid-1990s (Chart II-14). This trend reflected a number of factors, including: the rising share of the working-age population; a drop in the fertility rate, following the introduction of the one-child policy in the late 1970s that allowed households to spend less on raising children and save more for retirement; health care reform in the early 1990s required households to bear a larger share of health care spending; and job security was also undermined by reform of the state-owned enterprises (SOE) in the late 1990s, leading to increased precautionary savings to cover possible bouts of unemployment. These savings tailwinds have turned around in recent years and the household saving rate appears to have peaked. China's contribution to the global pool of savings has already moderated significantly, as measured by the current account surplus. The surplus has withered from about 9% in 2008 to 2½% in 2016. A recent IMF study makes the case that China's national saving rate will continue to decline. The IMF estimates that for every one percentage-point rise in the old-age dependency ratio, the aggregate household saving rate will fall by 0.4-1 percentage points. In addition, the need for precautionary savings is expected to ease along with improvements in the social safety net, achieved through higher government spending on health care. The household saving rate will fall by three percentage points by 2021 according to the IMF (Chart II-15). Competitive pressure and an aging population will also reduce the saving rates of the corporate and government sectors. Chart II-15...Suggesting That External Surplus Will Shrink Of course, investment as a share of GDP is projected to moderate too, reflecting a rebalancing of the economy away from exports and capital spending toward household consumption. The IMF expects that savings will moderate slightly faster than investment, leading to a narrowing in the current account surplus to almost zero by 2021. A lot of assumptions go into this type of forecast such that we must take it with a large grain of salt. Nonetheless, the fundamental drivers of China's savings capacity appear to rule out a return to the days when the country was generating a substantial amount of excess savings. Moreover, a return to large current account surpluses would likely require significant currency depreciation, which is a political non-starter given U.S. angst over trade. The risk is that China's excess savings will be less, not more, in five year's time. Tech Is A Wildcard It is extremely difficult to forecast the impact of technological advancement on the global economy. We cannot say with any conviction that the tech-related effects of "hollowing out", "winner-take-all" and the "skills premium" will moderate in the coming years. Nonetheless, these effects have occurred alongside a surge in the world's labor force and rapid globalization of supply chains, both of which reinforced the erosion of employee bargaining power. Looking ahead, technology will still be a headwind for some employees, but at least the transition from a world of excess labor to one that is more labor-scarce will boost workers' ability to negotiate a larger share of the income pie. We will explore the impact of technology on productivity, inflation, growth, and bond yields in a companion report to be published in the next issue. Conclusion: The main points we made in this report are summarized in Table II-1. All of the structural factors driving real bond yields were working in the same (bullish) direction over the past 30-40 years. Looking ahead, it is uncertain how technological improvement will affect bond prices, but we expect that the others will shift (or have already shifted) to either neutral or outright bond-bearish. Table II-1Key Secular Drivers No doubt, our views that globalization and inequality have peaked, and that the labor share of income has bottomed, are speculative. These factors may not place much upward pressure on equilibrium yields. Nonetheless, it seems likely that the demographic effect that has depressed capital spending demand is well advanced. We see it shifting from a positive factor for bond prices to a neutral factor in the coming years. It is also clear that the massive positive labor supply shock is over, and is heading into reverse as the global working-age population ratio falls. This may improve labor's bargaining power and the resulting boost consumer spending will be negative for bonds. This may also spark a shift toward using more capital in the production process and thereby place additional upward pressure on global real bond yields. Admittedly, however, this last point requires more research because theory and empirical evidence on it are not clear. Perhaps most importantly, the aging of the population in the advanced economies has reached a tipping point; retirees will drain more from the pool of savings than the working-age population will add to it in the coming years. We have concentrated on real equilibrium bond yields in this report because it is the part of nominal yields that is the most depressed relative to historical norms. The inflation component is only a little below a level that is consistent with central banks meeting their 2% inflation targets in the medium term. There is a risk that inflation will overshoot these targets, leading to a possible surge in long-term inflation expectations that turbocharges the bond bear market. This is certainly possible, as highlighted by a recent Global Investment Strategy Quarterly Strategy Outlook.7 Pain in bond markets would be magnified in this case, especially if central banks are forced to aggressively defend their targets. Please note that we are not making the case that real global bond yields will quickly revert to pre-Lehman averages. It will take time for the bond-bullish structural factors to unwind. It will also take time for inflation to gain any momentum, even in the United States. Global yields could even drop back to previous lows in the event of another recession. Nonetheless, from a long-term perspective, current market expectations suggest that investors have adopted an overly benign view on the outlook for yields. For example, implied real short-term rates remain negative until 2021 in the U.S. and 2026 in the Eurozone, while they stay negative out to 2030 in the U.K. (Chart II-16). We doubt that short-term rates will be negative for that long, given the structural factors discussed above. Chart II-16Market Expects Negative Short-Term Rates For A Long Time Another way of looking at this is presented in Chart II-17. The market expects the 10-year Treasury yield in ten years to be only slightly above today's spot yield, which itself is not far above the lowest levels ever recorded. Market expectations are equally depressed for the 5-year forward rate for the U.S. and the other major economies. Chart II-17Forward Rates Very Low Vs. History The implication is that investors should have a bond-bearish bias on a medium- and long-term horizon. Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst 1 It is true that observed household savings rates fell in some of the advanced economies, such as the United States, at a time when aging should have boosted savings from the mid-1990s to the mid-2000s. This argues against a strong demographic effect on savings. However, keep in mind that we are discussing desired (or ex-ante) savings. Ex-post, savings can go in the opposite direction because of other influencing factors. As discussed below, global savings must equal investment, which means that shifts in desired capital spending demand matter for the ex-post level of savings. 2 Arithmetically, if world trend GDP growth slows by one percentage point, then investment spending would need to drop by about 3½ percentage points of GDP to keep the capital/output ratio stable. 3 David H. Autor, David Dorn, and Gordon H. Hanson, "The China Shock: Learning from Labor-Market Adjustment to Large Changes in Trade," Annual Review of Economics, Vol. 8, pp. 205-240 (October 2016). 4 Please see "Understanding The Downward Trend In Labor Income Shares," Chapter 3 in the IMF World Economic Outlook (April 2017). 5 In other words, while the household savings rate, as defined here to include health care spending by governments on behalf of households, will decline, any associated tax increases will blunt the impact on national savings (i.e. savings across the household, government and business sectors). 6 Jong-Won Yoon, Jinill Kim, and Jungjin Lee, "Impact Of Demographic Changes On Inflation And The Macroeconomy," IMF Working Paper no. 14/210 (November 2014). 7 Please see Global Investment Strategy, "Strategy Outlook: Second Quarter 2017: A Three-Act Play," dated March 31, 2017, available at gis.bcaresearch.com.