Global

Highlights Our base case outlook is unchanged. We do not see a recession in the U.S. before 2020, and the U.S. equity market could reward investors with high single-digit total returns this year and next. Nonetheless, the cycle is well advanced and, given current valuations, the long-term outlook for returns in the major asset classes is far less appealing. The risk/reward balance is unfavorable. Investors should therefore separate strategy from forecast. U.S. unemployment is very low and we are beginning to see hints of late-cycle inflation dynamics. Core inflation could soon be at the Fed's 2% target, which means that the FOMC will have to consider becoming outright restrictive in order to slow growth and raise the unemployment rate. The risks facing equities, EM assets and spread product will escalate at that point. The advanced stage in the cycle and our bias for capital preservation requires us to heed the recent warnings from our growth indicators and 'exit' timing checklist. The geopolitical calendar is also stacked with risk for markets over the next month at least. The implication is that we are tactically trimming risk asset exposure to benchmark. We expect to shift back to overweight once our indicators improve and/or the geopolitical tensions fade. This month we provide total return estimates for the major U.S. asset classes under our base case outlook and two alternative scenarios. We place the odds at 50% for the base case, 20% for the optimistic scenario and 30% for a recession in 2019. We also review the U.S. fiscal outlook, which is clearly unsustainable over the long-term. While we do not see a dollar crisis anytime soon, the prospect of large and sustained federal budget deficits supports the view that the dollar will continue on a long-term downtrend (although it is likely to buck the trend in the coming months). It also supports our view that the multi-decade Treasury bull market is over. U.S. consumers will not be particularly sensitive to rising borrowing rates, although there are pockets of excessive borrowing that will no doubt result in a spike in defaults in selected sectors when the next economic downturn arrives. Feature It was the summer of 2009. Risk assets were bombed out, investor sentiment was deeply depressed, business leaders were shell-shocked, the Fed was easing and some 'green shoots' of recovery were emerging. Plentiful economic slack also meant that there was a long potential runway for the economy and earnings to grow. Given that backdrop, it was appropriate to begin rebuilding risk portfolios and ride out any additional turbulence in the markets. Today's situation is almost the mirror image. The economic expansion is well advanced, there is little slack, the Fed is tightening, risk assets are expensive, and investor equity sentiment is frothy. The long-term outlook for returns in the major asset classes is underwhelming to say the least. Table I-1 updates the long-run return expectations we published in the 2018 BCA Outlook. Some technical adjustments make the numbers look a little better but, still, a balanced portfolio will deliver average returns over the long-term of only 3.8% and 1.8% in nominal and real terms, respectively. Table I-110-Year Asset Return Projections For stocks, the expected returns are poor by historical standards because we assume a mean-reversion in multiples and a decline in the profit share of total income. These assumptions may turn out to be too pessimistic if there is no redistribution of income shares from the corporate sector back to labor and/or P-E ratios remain at historically high levels. Equities obviously would do better than our estimates in this case, but the point is that it is very hard to see returns in risk assets anywhere close to their 1982-2017 average over the long haul. On a two-year horizon, our base case outlook still sees decent equity returns. Nonetheless, the risk/reward balance has become quite unfavorable because the cycle is so advanced. It is therefore prudent to focus on capital preservation and be quicker to trim risk exposure when the outlook becomes cloudier. Losing Sleep Investors have cheered some easing in the perceived risk of a trade war in recent weeks. Nonetheless, a number of items have made us more nervous about the near term. First, our Equity Scorecard has dropped to one, well below the critical value of three that is consistent with positive equity returns historically (Chart I-1). Table I-2 updates our Exit Checklist of items that we believe are important for the equity allocation call. Five of the nine are now giving a 'sell' signal, pointing to at least a technical correction. Chart I-1Our Equity Scorecard Turned Negative Table I-2Exit Checklist For Risk Assets Moreover, we highlighted last month that global growth appears to be peaking (Chart I-2). Our Global Leading Economic Indicator is still bullish, but its diffusion index has plunged below zero. The Global ZEW index and our Boom/Bust indicator have fallen sharply and the global PMI index ticked down (albeit, from a high level). Industrial production in the major economies has eased. Korean and Taiwanese exports, which are a barometer of global industrial activity, have decelerated as well. Chart I-2Economic Indicators Have Softened While we expect global growth to remain at an above-trend pace for at least the next year, the peaking in some coincident and leading indicators is worrying nonetheless. Other items to keep investors up at night include the following: Loss Of Fed Put: With inflation likely to reach the Fed's target in the next couple of months, and policymakers worried about froth in markets, the FOMC will be less predisposed to ease at the first hint of economic softness (see below). Inflation Surge: There is a lot of uncertainty around estimates of the level of the unemployment rate that is consistent with rising wage and price pressures. Inflation could suddenly jump if unemployment is far below this critical level, leading to a blood bath in the bond market that would reverberate through all other assets. The fact that long-term inflation breakevens have surged along with the 10-year Treasury yield in the past couple of weeks is an ominous sign for risk assets. Neutral Rate: We agree with the Fed that the neutral fed funds rate is rising, but nobody knows exactly where it is at the moment. If the neutral rate is lower than the Fed believes, then the economy could suddenly stall as actual rates rise above the neutral level. Trade War: President Trump's popularity among Republican voters is rising, which gives him the ability to weather turbulence in the stock market while he 'gets tough' on trade. The fact that U.S. Treasury Secretary Mnuchin will visit China is a hopeful sign. Nonetheless, we do not believe that we have seen peak pessimism on trade because the President needs to placate his supporters in the mid-west that are in favor of protectionism. The summer months could be volatile as market confusion grows amidst a plethora of upcoming event risks.1 Iran: This year's premier geopolitical risk is the potential for renewed U.S.-Iran tensions. Ahead of the all-important May 12 deadline - when the White House will decide whether to end the current waiver of economic sanctions against Iran - President Trump has staffed his cabinet with two hawks (Bolton and Pompeo). Meanwhile, tensions in Syria are building with the potential for U.S. and Iranian forces to be directly implicated in a skirmish. Russia: Tensions between the West and Russia are also building again. Stroke Of Pen Risk: There is a rising probability that the current administration decides to up the regulatory pressure on Amazon. Other technology companies like Facebook and Google also face "stroke of pen" risks. On a positive note, first quarter earnings season is off to a good start in the U.S. Earnings have surprised to the upside by a wide margin, which is impressive given that analysts bumped up their Q1 assessments in 10 of 11 sectors between the start of 2018 and the beginning of the Q1 reporting season. Analysts' estimates typically move lower as a quarter unfolds, which has the effect of lowering the bar for results to beat expectations. That said, a lot of good news is already discounted in the U.S. market. Chart I-3 highlights that bottom-up analysts' expected annual average EPS growth for the S&P 500 over the next five years has shot up to more than 15%, a level not seen since 1998! This is excessive even considering that the estimates include the impact of the tax cuts. History teaches that investors should be wary during periods of earnings euphoria. Chart I-3Five-Year Bottom-Up EPS Growth Estimates Are Impossibly High Given these risks, market pricing and our checklist, we adjusted the tactical (3-month) House View recommendation on risk assets to benchmark in April. We see this shift as tactical, and expect to move back to overweight once our growth indicators bottom and the geopolitical situation calms down a little. Our base case outlook remains constructive for risk assets on a cyclical (6-12 month) view. Three Scenarios This month we consider two alternative scenarios to our base case outlook and provide estimates of how several key asset classes would perform between now and the end of 2019: Base Case: U.S. real GDP growth accelerates to 3.3% year-over-year by the end of 2018 on the back of fiscal stimulus and improving animal spirits in the corporate sector. Growth is expected to decelerate in 2019, but remain above trend. Profit margins are squeezed marginally by rising wage pressure. The recession we expect to occur in 2020 is beyond the horizon of this exercise. Optimistic Case: The multiplier effects of the fiscal stimulus could be larger than we are assuming if consumers decide to spend most of the tax windfall, and the corporate sector cranks up capital spending due to accelerated depreciation, the tax savings and repatriated overseas funds. We assume that real GDP growth is about a half percentage point higher than the base case in both 2018 and 2019. This is only modestly stronger than the base case because, given that the economy is already at full employment, the supply side of the economy will constrain growth. Even more margin pressure partially offsets stronger top line growth for corporations. Pessimistic Case: The fiscal multiplier effects turn out to be smaller than expected, compounded by the growth-sapping impact of a tariff war and a spike in oil prices due to tensions in the Middle East. The corporate and consumer sectors are more sensitive to rising interest rates than we thought (see below for more discussion of U.S. consumer vulnerabilities). Growth begins to slow toward the end of 2018, culminating in a recession in the second half of 2019. Margins are squeezed initially, but then rise as labor market slack opens up next year. This is more than offset, however, by declining corporate revenues. Chart I-4 presents the implications for S&P 500 EPS growth in the three scenarios, according to our top-down model. Four-quarter trailing profit growth comes in at a respectable 15% and 8½%, respectively, in 2018 and 2019 in our base case. The optimistic scenario would see impressive profit growth of 20% and 13%. Trailing EPS expands by 9% this year in the pessimistic case, but contracts by about the same amount next year. Chart I-4Three Scenarios For S&P 500 EPS Growth In order to use these EPS forecasts to estimate expected S&P 500 returns, we made assumptions regarding an appropriate 12-month forward P/E ratio (Table I-3). We also translated our trailing EPS forecasts into 12-month forward estimates based on historical cyclical patterns. The 12-month forward P/E ratio is 17 as we go to press (based on Standard and Poors figures). We assume the ratio is flat this year in the base case, before edging lower in 2019 due to rising interest rates. The forward P/E is assumed to edge up in the optimistic case in 2019, but then falls back in 2019 as rates rise. In the recession scenario, we conservatively assume that this ratio falls to 15 by the end of this year, and to 13 by the end of 2019. We incorporate a 2% dividend yield in all scenarios. Over the next two years, the S&P 500 delivers an 8% annual average return in our baseline, and 13% in the optimistic case. As would be expected, investors suffer painful losses of 13% this year and roughly 20% next year in the case of recession, as the drop in multiples magnifies the earnings contraction. Table I-4 presents total return estimates for the 10-year Treasury under the three scenarios. The bond will provide an average return of close to zero in our base case. It suffers heavy losses in 2018 if growth turns out to be stronger than we expect, because a faster acceleration in inflation would spark a sharp upward revision to the path of short-term rates. Long-term inflation expectations would rise as well. The 10-year yield finishes 2019 at 3.5% in the base case, and at 3.75% in the optimistic growth scenario. In contrast, total returns are hefty in the recession case as the 10-year yield drops back below 2%. Table I-3S&P 500 Return Scenarios Table I-410-year Treasury Return Scenarios We believe the risk/reward profile is less attractive for corporate bonds than it is for equities (Table I-5). Strong profit growth in the base and optimistic cases is positive for corporates, but this is offset by deteriorating financial ratios as interest rates rise in the context of high leverage ratios. We expect investment-grade (IG) spreads to widen modestly even in the base case, providing a small negative excess return. We see spreads moving sideways at best in our optimistic scenario, giving investors a small positive excess return of about 100 basis points. In the case of a recession, we could see the option-adjusted spread of the Barclay's IG index surging from 105 basis points today to 250 basis points. Excess returns would obviously be quite negative. Table I-5U.S. Investment Grade Corporate Bonds All of these projected returns are only meant to be suggestive because they depend importantly on several key assumptions. Still, we wanted to provide readers with a sense of the risks for returns around our base case outlook. We place the odds at 50% for the base case, 20% for the optimistic scenario and 30% for a recession. U.S. Fiscal Policy: Good And Bad News The probabilities attached to the baseline and optimistic scenarios are supported by the U.S. fiscal stimulus that is in the pipeline. The IMF estimates that the tax cuts and spending increases will provide a fiscal thrust of 0.8% in 2018 and 0.9% in 2019, not far from the estimates we presented last month (Chart I-5).2 This represents a powerful tailwind for growth for the next two years. We must turn to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projections to gauge the longer-term implications. On a positive note, the CBO revised up its estimate of the economy's long-run potential growth rate on account of the supply-side benefits of lower taxes and the immediate expensing of capital outlays. Faster growth over the long run, on its own, reduces the projected cumulative budget deficit over the 2018-2027 period by $1 trillion. However, this positive impact is swamped by the direct effect on the budget of the tax breaks and increased spending. The CBO estimates that the net effect of the fiscal adjustments will be a $1.7 trillion increase in the cumulative budget deficit over the next decade, relative to the previous baseline (Chart I-6). The annual deficit is projected to surpass $1 trillion in 2020, and peak as a share of GDP at 5.4% in 2022. Federal government debt held by the private sector will rise from 76% this year to 96% in 2028 in this scenario. Chart I-5U.S. Fiscal Stimulus Will Support Growth Chart I-6U.S. Federal Budget: A Lot More Red Ink The deficit situation begins to look better after 2020 because a raft of "temporary provisions" are assumed to sunset as per current law, including some of the personal tax cuts and deductions included in the 2017 tax package. As is usually the case, the vast majority of these provisions are likely to be extended. The CBO performed an alternative scenario in which they extend the temporary provisions and grow the spending caps at the rate of inflation after 2020. In this more realistic scenario, the deficit reaches 6% of GDP by 2022 and the federal debt-to-GDP ratio hits almost 110% of GDP in 2028. This is not a pretty picture and investors are wondering what it means for government bond yields and the dollar. We noted in the March 2018 Bank Credit Analyst that academic studies published before 2007 suggested that every percentage point rise in the government's debt-to-GDP ratio added roughly three basis points to the equilibrium level of bond yields. If this is correct, then a rise in the U.S. ratio of 25 percentage points over the next decade would lift the equilibrium long-term bond yields by 75 basis points. This estimated impact on yields should not be thought of as a default risk premium because there is no reason to default when the Fed can simply print money in the event of a funding crisis. Rather, a worsening fiscal situation could show up in higher long-term inflation expectations if investors were to lose confidence in the Fed's inflation target. Higher real yields could also come about through the 'crowding out' effect; since growth is limited in the long run by the supply side of the economy, a larger government sector means that some private sector demand needs to be crowded out via higher real interest rates. Deficits And The Dollar We discussed the potential debt fallout for the U.S. dollar from an economic perspective in the April 2018 Special Report. While the fiscal stimulus means that the U.S. twin deficits are set to worsen, the situation is not so dire that the U.S. dollar is about to fall off a cliff because of sudden concerns regarding U.S. debt sustainability among international investors. The U.S. is not close to the point where investors will begin to seriously question America's ability to service its debt. Nonetheless, with President Donald Trump's overt calls for American geopolitical retrenchment from global commitments, investors have asked whether the end of the dollar as the global reserve currency is nigh. This month's Special Report beginning on page 22 examines this issue. There is no evidence at the moment that the U.S. dollar is losing any market share and we do not foresee any sudden shifts away from the U.S. dollar as a reserve currency. However, cracks are beginning to form, especially with regard to the RMB. We also believe that the euro is likely to benefit from a structural tailwind as global reserve managers increase the share of the euro in their reserves. A trade war would accelerate the diversification away from the dollar. Chart I-7Economic Slack: U.S./Eurozone Comparison The conclusions of this month's Special Report support those of last month's analysis; the dollar will continue on its long-term downtrend, although there is still room for a counter-trend rally this year. We do not see much upside against the yen in the near term, but we expect some of the euro's recent strength to be unwound. A debate is raging within the halls of the European Central Bank regarding the amount of Europe's economic slack. On this we side with President Draghi, who believes that there is still plenty of excess capacity in the labor market. The Eurozone's unemployment rate has reached the level of full employment as estimated by the OECD. However, Chart I-7 shows various measures of hidden unemployment, including discouraged workers and those that have been out of work for more than a year. In all cases, the Eurozone appears to be behind the U.S. in terms of getting back to full employment. This, along with the recent softening in some of the Eurozone's economic data, will keep the ECB wedded to low interest rates even as it terminates the asset purchase program this autumn. Long-dated forward rate differentials are beginning to move back in favor of the dollar relative to the Euro. Dollar strength will also be at the expense of most of the EM currencies. The Long-Term Consequences Of Government Debt While it is somewhat comforting that the U.S. twin-deficits are unlikely to spark financial panic in the short- to medium term, the U.S. and global debt situations are not without consequences. The latest IMF Fiscal Monitor again sounded the alarm over global debt levels, especially government paper. The Fund argues that debt sustainability becomes increasingly questionable once the general government debt/GDP ratio breaches 85%. The IMF points out that more than one-third of advanced economies had debt above 85% in 2017, three times more countries than in 2000. And this does not include the implicit liabilities linked to pension and health care spending. The good news is that the IMF expects that most of the major economies will see a reduction in their general government debt/GDP ratios between 2017 and 2023. The big exception is the U.S., where the average deficit is expected to far exceed the other major countries (Charts I-8A and I-8B). The U.S. cyclically-adjusted budget deficit is projected to be almost 7% of GDP in 2019! Including all levels of government, the IMF estimates that the U.S. debt/GDP ratio will rise by about nine percentage points, to almost 117%, between 2017 and 2023. Chart I-8AIMF Projections (I) Chart I-8BIMF Projections (II) U.S. fiscal trends are clearly unsustainable in the long-term. Taxes will have to rise or entitlement programs will have to be slashed at some point. The question is whether Congress administers the required medicine willingly, or is forced to do so by rioting markets. We do not believe that the dollar's 'day of reckoning' will happen anytime soon, but growing angst over the U.S. fiscal outlook supports our view that the multi-decade Treasury bull market is over. In the near term, the main threat to the global bond market is a mini 'inflation scare' in the U.S. Fed Will Soon Reach 2% Goal Chart I-9Inflation May Soon Reach The Fed's Target The 10-year Treasury yield is testing the 3% support level as we go to press. In part, upward pressure on yields likely reflects some calming of tensions regarding global trade and the news that the U.S. will hold face-to-face discussions with North Korea. Moreover, long-term inflation expectations have been rising in most of the major countries. Investors appear to be waking up to how strong U.S. inflation has been in recent months, driven in part by an unwinding of base effects that temporarily depressed the annual inflation rate. U.S. core CPI inflation has already quickened from 1.8% in February to 2.1% in March (Chart I-9). This acceleration will also play out in the core PCE deflator, the Fed's preferred inflation metric. Even if the core PCE deflator rises only 0.1% month-over-month in March, year-over-year core PCE inflation will increase to 1.85%. This would be above Bloomberg and Fed estimates for the end of the year. If the core PCE deflator rises 0.2% m/m in March - a reading more consistent with recent trends - then year-over-year core PCE inflation will almost reach the Fed's 2% target. The FOMC will not be alarmed even if inflation appears set to overshoot the 2% target. Nonetheless, Fed officials will be forced to adjust the communication language because they can no longer argue that "accommodative" monetary policy is still appropriate. In other words, policymakers will have to openly admit that policy will have to become outright restrictive. The Fed's "dot plot" could then be revised higher. The policy risks facing equities, EM assets and spread product will escalate once it becomes clear that the FOMC is actively targeting slower economic growth and a higher unemployment rate. As for Treasurys, the surge in the 10-year yield to 3% has been quick and we would not be surprised to see another consolidation period. Eventually, however, we expect the yield to reach 3.5% before the bear phase is over. How Vulnerable Are U.S. Households? The ultimate peak in U.S. yields will depend importantly on the economy's sensitivity to rising borrowing costs. Our research on excessive borrowing in recent months has focussed on the U.S. corporate sector. Next month we will review corporate vulnerabilities in the Eurozone. But what about U.S. consumers? Overall debt as a ratio to GDP or personal income has fallen back to pre-housing bubble levels, underscoring that the household sector has deleveraged impressively (Chart I-10). Household net worth has surpassed the pre-Lehman peak and our "wealth effect" proxy suggests that the rise in asset prices and recovery in home values provide a strong tailwind for spending (Chart I-11). The proxy likely overstates the size of the tailwind due to the lack of cash-out refinancing. Chart I-10U.S. Consumers Have Deleveraged Chart I-11'Wealth Effect' Is A Tailwind The financial obligation ratio (FOR) - a measure of the debt service burden for the average household - is rising but is still close to the lowest levels in three decades (Chart I-12). Chart I-13 shows a broader measure of the burden that households face when paying for essentials; interest payments, food, medical care and energy. These are all expenses that are difficult to trim. Spending on essentials has increased over the past couple of years to a little under 42% of disposable income due to rising interest rates and a continuing uptrend in out-of-pocket medical care costs. However, the ratio is below the post-1980 average level and has only risen back to levels that existed in 2011/12. From this perspective, it is difficult to believe that rising gasoline prices will dominate the benefits of the tax cuts on household spending. Chart I-12Past The Peak Of U.S. Consumer Credit Quality Chart I-13Spending On Essentials Is Not Onerous The labor market is clearly supportive for consumer spending. Wage growth has been disappointing so far in this recover, and real personal disposable income has slowed over the past year. Nonetheless, the economy continues to produce new jobs at an impressive pace, unemployment claims are close to all-time lows, and households are feeling confident about their future income and job prospects. Some market pundits have pointed to the falling household savings rate as a warning sign that consumers are 'tapped out' (Chart I-14). We are less concerned. The savings rate tends to decline during economic expansions and rises almost exclusively during recessions. All else equal, one could make the case that U.S. households should save more over their lifetimes. Nonetheless, a falling savings rate is consistent with strong, not weak, economic activity. That said, some signs have emerged that not all consumer lending in recent years has been prudent. Bank and finance company loan delinquency rates are rising, especially for credit cards and autos (Chart I-15). While the FOR is still low, it is rising and it tends to lead bank loan delinquency rates (Chart I-12). These trends usually occur just prior to a recession. Chart I-14Savings Rate Falls During Expansions Chart I-15Some Signs Of Excessive Lending There has also been an alarming surge in credit card charge-off rates, which have reached recession levels among banks that are outside of the top 100 (Chart I-15, top panel). Anecdotal evidence suggests that large banks offered lush cash rewards and points to attract higher-quality customers. Smaller banks could not compete on cash rewards, and instead had to loosen credit requirements for card issuance. The deterioration in the credit-quality composition of these banks' loan portfolios helps to explain why delinquencies have increased despite a robust labor market. The Fed's senior loan officer survey shows that expected delinquencies and charge-offs are rising even among large banks. One risk is that, while overall credit growth has been weak in this expansion, it has been concentrated in lower-income households. However, the Fed's Survey of Consumer Finances does not flag a huge problem. Various measures of credit quality have not deteriorated for lower income households since 2007 (latest year available; Chart I-16). Chart I-16Credit Quality For Lower ##br##Income U.S. Households The bottom line is that there are pockets of excessive borrowing that will no doubt result in a spike in defaults in selected sectors when the next economic downturn arrives. Nonetheless, the backdrop for consumer health has not deteriorated to the point where the U.S. household sector will be ultra-sensitive to higher interest rates on a broad scale. Investment Conclusions Our base case outlook is unchanged this month. We do not see a recession in the U.S. before 2020, and the U.S. equity market could reward investors with high single-digit total returns this year and next. Nonetheless, one must separate strategy from forecast at this point in the cycle. U.S. unemployment is very low and we are beginning to see hints of late-cycle inflation dynamics. Core inflation could soon be at the Fed's 2% target, while rising energy and base metal prices add to the broader inflationary backdrop. Strong global oil demand growth and the OPEC/Russia production cuts are draining global oil inventories and supporting prices. Sanctions against Iran and/or Venezuela that further restrict supply could easily send oil prices to more than US$80/bbl this year. Investors should remain overweight energy plays. The implication is that the Fed may have to tighten into outright restrictive territory. The advanced stage in the cycle and our bias for capital preservation requires us to heed the warnings from our indicators and timing checklist. The geopolitical calendar is also stacked with risk for markets over the next month at least. Thus, we are tactically trimming risk asset exposure to benchmark until our indicators improve and/or geopolitical tensions fade. Investors should also be more cautious in their equity sector allocation for the very near term. We continue to favor Eurozone stocks over the U.S. (currency hedged), since the threat from monetary tightening is greater in the latter market and we expect the dollar to appreciate. We are neutral on the Nikkei because the risk of a rising yen offsets currently-strong EPS growth momentum. Stay short duration within global bond portfolios, and remain underweight the U.S., Canada and core Europe (currency hedged). Overweight Australia and the U.K. The Aussie economy will continue to underperform, and the U.K. economy will not allow the Bank of England to hike rates as much as is currently discounted. Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst April 26, 2018 Next Report: May 31, 2018 1 For a list of these events, see Table 2 in the BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report "Expect Volatility... Of Volatility," dated April 11, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 The fiscal thrust is the change in the cyclically-adjusted budget balance as a share of GDP. It is a measure of the initial impetus to real GDP growth, but the actual impact on growth depends on fiscal "multipliers". II. Is King Dollar Facing Regicide? This month's Special Report is a joint effort by BCA's Geopolitical and Foreign Exchange strategists, along with contributing editors Mehul Daya and Neels Heyneke (Strategists at Nedbank CIB Research). It is a companion piece to last month's Special Report, in which I discussed the short- and long-term outlook for the U.S. dollar from a purely economic perspective. This month's analysis takes a geopolitical perspective, focusing on the possibility that the U.S. dollar will lose its reserve currency status and weaken over the long term. I trust that you will find the Report as insightful as I did. Mark McClellan Reserve currencies are built on a geopolitical and macroeconomic foundation. For the U.S. Dollar, these foundations remain in place, but cracks are emerging. Relative decline in American power, combined with a loss of confidence in the "Washington Consensus" at home, are eroding the geopolitical foundations. Meanwhile, threats to globalization, a slower pace of petrodollar recycling, and stresses in the Eurodollar system are eroding the macroeconomic foundations. The Renminbi is not an alternative to King Dollar, but the euro remains a potential challenger in the coming interregnum years that will see the world transition from American hegemony... to something else. In the long run, we envision a multipolar currency regime to emerge alongside a multipolar geopolitical world order. In this report, BCA's Geopolitical and Foreign Exchange strategies join efforts with contributing editors Mehul Daya and Neels Heyneke (Strategists at Nedbank CIB Research) to examine the conditions necessary for the decline of a reserve currency. Specifically, we seek to answer the question of whether the U.S. dollar is at the precipice of such a decline. With President Donald Trump's overt calls for American geopolitical retrenchment from global commitments, investors have asked whether the end of the dollar as the global reserve currency is nigh. After all, King Dollar has fallen by 9.7% since President Trump's inauguration on January 20, while alternatives of dubious value, such as a slew of cryptocurrencies, have seen a rally of epic proportions (Chart II-1). Professor Barry Eichengreen, a world-renowned international economics historian,1 has recently penned an insightful paper proposing a link between the robustness of military alliances and currency reserve status.2 According to the analysis, reserve currency status reflects both economic fundamentals - safety, liquidity, network effects, and economic conditions - and geopolitical fundamentals. In the case of close U.S. military allies, such as South Korea and Japan, the choice of the dollar as store of value is explained far more by the geopolitical links to the U.S., rather than the importance of the dollar for their economies. The authors warn that if the U.S. "withdraws from the world," the impact could be as large as an 80 basis points rise in the U.S. long-term interest rate. Intriguingly, some of what Professor Eichengreen posits could happen has already happened. For example, the share of foreign holdings of U.S. Treasuries by military allies has already declined by a whopping 25% (Chart II-2). And yet the demand for King Dollar assets was immediately picked up by non-military allies, proving the resiliency of greenback's status as the reserve currency. Chart II-1Is Trump Guilty Of Regicide? Chart II-2Geopolitics Is Not Driving ##br##Demand For Treasuries When it comes to global currency reserves, the U.S. dollar continues to command 63%, roughly the same level it has commanded since 2000 (Chart II-3). Interestingly, alternatives remain roughly the same as in the past, with little real movement (Chart II-4). The Chinese renminbi remains largely ignored as a global reserve currency and its use across markets and geographies appears to have declined since the imposition of full capital controls in October 2015 (Chart II-5). Chart II-3Dollar Remains King Chart II-4The Euro Is The Only Serious Competitor To King Dollar... Chart II-5...The Renminbi Is Not However, some cracks in the foundation are emerging. A recent IMF paper, penned by Camilo E. Tovar and Tania Mohd Nor,3 uses currency co-movements to determine which national currencies belong to a particular reserve currency bloc.4 Their work shows that the international monetary system has already transitioned from a bi-polar system - consisting of the greenback and the euro - to a multipolar one that includes the CNY (Chart II-6). However, the CNY's influence does not extend beyond the BRICS and is scant in East Asia, the geographical region that China already dominates in trade (Chart II-7), albeit not yet geopolitically (Map II-1). Chart II-6Renminbi Does Command A Large Currency 'Bloc'... Chart II-7...But Despite China's Dominance Of East Asia... Map II-1...Renminbi's 'Bloc' Is Not In Asia! Our conclusion is that the geopolitical and economic tailwinds behind the greenback's status as a global reserve currency are shifting into headwinds. This process, as we describe below, could increase the risk of a global dollar liquidity shortage, buoying the greenback in the short term. In the long term, however, a transition into a multipolar currency arrangement could rebalance some of the imbalances created by the collapse of the Bretton Woods System and is not necessarily to be feared. The Geopolitical Fundamentals Of A Reserve Currency Nothing lasts forever and the U.S. dollar will one day join a long list of former reserve currencies that includes the Ancient Greek drachma, the Roman aureus, the Byzantium solidus, the Florentine florin, the Dutch gulden, the Spanish dollar, and the pound sterling. All of the political entities that produced these reserve currencies have several factors in common. They were the geopolitical hegemons of their era, capable of controlling the most important trade routes, projecting both hard and soft power outside of their borders, and maintaining a stable economy that underpinned the purchasing power of their currency. Table II-1 illustrates several factors that we believe encapsulate the necessary conditions for a dominant international currency. Table II-1Insights From History: What Makes A Reserve Currency? Geopolitical Power As Eichengreen posits, geopolitical fundamentals are essential for reserve currency status. Military power is necessary in order to defend one's national and commercial interests abroad, compel foreign powers to yield to those interests, and protect allies in exchange for their acquiescence to the hegemonic status quo. An important modern world example of such "gunboat diplomacy" was the 1974 agreement between the U.S. and Saudi Arabia.5 In exchange for dumping their petro-dollars into U.S. debt, Riyadh received an American commitment to keep the Saudi Kingdom safe from all threats, both regional (Iran) and global (the Soviet Union). It also received special permission to keep its purchases of U.S. Treasuries secret. Chart II-8The Exorbitant Privilege In One Chart As with all the empires surveyed in Table II-1, allies and vassal states were forced to use the hegemon's currency in their trade and investment transactions as a way of paying for the security blanket. To this day, there is no better way to explain the "exorbitant privilege" that the dollar commands. Chart II-8 illustrates that the U.S. enjoys positive net income despite a massively negative net international investment position. It is true that the U.S.'s foreign assets are skewed toward foreign direct investment and equities, investments that have higher rates of returns than the fixed-income liabilities the U.S. owes to the rest of the world. But the U.S.'s positive net income balance has been exacerbated by the willingness of foreigners to invest their assets into the U.S. for little compensation, something illustrated by the fact that between 1971 and 2007, the ex-post U.S. term premium has been toward the lower end of the G10. Additionally, as foreigners are also willing holders of U.S. physical cash, the U.S. government has been able to finance part of its budget deficit with instruments carrying no interest payments. This is what economists refer to as seigniorage, a subsidy to the U.S. government equivalent to around 0.2% of GDP per annum (or roughly $39.5 bn in 2017). In essence, American allies are paying for American hegemony through their investments in U.S. dollar assets, and this lets the U.S. live above its means. But ultimately, the quid pro quo is perhaps as much geopolitical as economic. There is one, non-negligible, cost for U.S. policymakers. The greenback tends to appreciate during periods of global economic stress due to its reserve currency status.6 This means that each time the U.S. needs a weak dollar to reflate its economy, the dollar moves in the opposite direction, adding deflationary pressures to an already weak domestic economy. Compared to the benefits, which offer the U.S. a steady-stream of seigniorage income and low-cost financing, the cost of reserve currency status is acceptable. Chart II-9U.S. Naval Strength Still Supreme... Economic Power Aside from brute force, an empire is built on commercial and trade links. There are two reasons for this. First, trade allows the empire to acquire raw materials to fuel its economy and technological advancement. Second, it also gives the "periphery" a role to play in the empire, a stake in the world system underpinned by the hegemonic core. This creates an entire layer of society in the periphery - the elites enriched by and entrenched in the Empire - with existential interest in the status quo. For the past five centuries, commercial dominance has been underpinned by naval dominance. As the Ottoman Empire and the Ming Dynasty closed off the overland routes in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, Europeans used technological innovation to avoid the off-limits Eurasian landmass and establish alternative - and exclusively naval - routes to commodities and new markets. This has propelled a succession of largely naval empires: Portuguese, Spanish, Dutch, French, British, and finally American. Several land-based powers tried to break through the nautical noose - Ottoman Turks, Sweden, Hapsburg Austria, Germany, and the Soviet Union - but were defeated by the superiority of naval-based power. Dominance of the seas allows the hegemonic core to unite disparate and far-flung regions through commerce and to call upon vast resources in case of a global conflict. Meanwhile, the hegemon can deny that commerce and those resources to land-locked challengers. This is how the British defeated Napoleon and how the U.S. and its allies won World War I and II. The U.S. remains the supreme naval power (Chart II-9). While China is building up its ability to push back against the U.S. navy in its regional seas (East and South China Seas), it will be decades before it is close to being able to project power across the world's oceans. While the former is necessary for becoming a regional hegemon, the latter is necessary for China to offer non-contiguous allies an alternative to American hegemony. Bottom Line: The foundation of a global reserve currency status is geopolitical fundamentals. The U.S. remains well-endowed in both. American Hegemony - From Tailwinds To Headwinds Chart II-10...But Overall Hegemony Is In Decline The U.S. is already facing a relative geopolitical decline due to the rise of major emerging markets like China (Chart II-10). This theme underpins BCA Geopolitical Strategy's view that the world has already transitioned from American hegemony to a multipolar arrangement.7 In absolute terms, the U.S. still retains the hard and soft power variables that have supported the USD's global reserve status and will continue to do so for the next decade (which is the maximum investment horizon of the vast majority of our clients). However, there are three imminent threats to the status quo that may accentuate global multipolarity: Populism: The global hegemon could decide to withdraw from distant entanglements and institutional arrangements. In the U.S., an isolationist narrative has emerged suggesting that America's status as the consumer and mercenary of last resort is unsustainable (Chart II-11). President Obama was elected on the promise of withdrawing from Iraq and Afghanistan; his administration also struck a major deal with Iran to reduce American exposure to the Middle East. Donald Trump won the presidency on an even more isolationist platform and he and several of his advisors have voiced such a view over the past 15 months. The appeal of isolationism could resurface as it is a potent political elixir based on a much deeper rejection of globalization among the American public than the policy establishment realized (Chart II-12). Chart II-11Trump Is Rebelling Against The Post-Cold War System Chart II-12Americans Are Rebelling Against The 'Washington Consensus' Return of the land-based empire: While the U.S. remains the preeminent naval power, its leadership in military prowess could be wasted through a suboptimal grand strategy. The U.S. has two geopolitical imperatives: dominate the world's oceans and ensure the disunity of the Eurasian landmass.8 Eurasia has sufficient natural resources (Russia), population (China), wealth (Europe), and geographical buffer from naval powers (the seas surrounding it) to become self-sufficient. Hence any great power that managed to dominate Eurasia would have no need for a navy as it would become a superpower by default. Why would America's European allies abandon their U.S. security blanket for an alliance with Russia and China? First, stranger shifts in alliance structure have occurred in the past.9 Second, because a mix of U.S. mercantilism and isolationism could push Europe into making independent geopolitical arrangements with its Eurasian peers, even if these arrangements were informal. The advent of the cyber realm: Finally, the advent of the Internet as a new realm of great power competition reduces the relative utility of hard power, such as a navy. Great empires of the past struggled when confronted with new arenas of conflict such as air and submarine. New technologies and new arenas can yield advantages in traditional battlefields. Today, the U.S. must compete for hegemony in space and cyber-space with China, Russia, and other rivals. In these mediums, the U.S. does not have as great of a head start as it has in naval competition. Bottom Line: The U.S. remains the preeminent global power. However, its status as a hegemon is in relative decline. Domestic populism, suboptimal grand strategy, and the advent of cyber and outer-space warfare could all accelerate this decline on the margin. The Economic Fundamentals Of U.S. Dollar Reserve Status One unique aspect of the U.S. dollar as a reserve currency is that it is a fiat currency, i.e. paper money limited in supply only by policy. Throughout human history, most dominant currency reserves were based on commodities that were rare or difficult to acquire, like silver or gold.10 When the U.S. dollar was decoupled from gold prices in 1971, it became the only recent example of a global reserve currency backed by nothing but faith (the pound was for most of its period of dominance backed by gold). Money serves three functions in the economy. It is a means of payment, a unit of account, and a store of value. The last comes into jeopardy when the reserve currency has to supply the world with more and more liquidity, also known as the "Triffin dilemma". By definition, as the global reserve currency, the USD has to be plentiful enough for the global economy and financial system to function adequately. The U.S. government must constantly supply dollars to this end. Chart II-13 illustrates the timeline of global dollar liquidity, which we define as the total U.S. monetary base in circulation (U.S. monetary base plus holdings of U.S. Treasury securities held in custody for foreign officials and international accounts). The world has seen an ever-expanding U.S. dollar monetary base since 1988. Only during periods where the price of money (i.e. the Federal funds rate) has increased, has the money creation process slowed. Now that the expansion of the global USD monetary base is slowing, overall dollar liquidity is as important as the price, if not more (Chart II-14). Chart II-13Global Dollar Liquidity... Chart II-14...Drives Global Asset Prices The constant increase of dollar liquidity has made the greenback the "lubricant" of today's global financial system. There are three major forces at work beneath this condition: Recycling of petrodollars into the global financial system; Globalization and the build-up of - mainly USD-denominated - FX reserves; Deregulation of the Eurodollar system.11 Petrodollars Commodity exporters, mainly oil producers, sell their products in exchange for U.S. dollars. In addition, most Middle Eastern producers recycle their profits into U.S. dollars due to the liquidity and depth of U.S. capital markets. By 1980, the majority of oil producers were trading in U.S. dollars and were similarly investing their surpluses into the U.S. financial system in the form of U.S. government debt securities. The growth in petrodollars has allowed the world's dollar monetary base to grow substantially. This was both enabled by direct issuance of U.S. debt securities funded by petrodollar purchases and also through the Eurodollar system whereby banks outside the U.S. held large deposits of surplus dollar earnings from Middle East oil producers. Globalization The contemporary wave of globalization began in the mid-1980s, when it became evident that the Soviet Union was in midst of a deep economic malaise. This prompted the new Soviet Premier Mikhail Gorbachev to launch perestroika ("restructuring") in 1985, throwing in the proverbial towel in the contest between a statist planned economy and a free market one. Alongside the rise in global trade, financial globalization rose at a very rapid pace as cross-border capital flows more than doubled as a percentage of global GDP from 1990 onward. In the U.S., the economic boom of the 1990s was the longest expansion in history, with growth averaging 4% during the period. The U.S. trade deficit ballooned, providing the world with large amounts of dollar liquidity in the process. The flipside of the massive current account deficit was the accumulation of FX reserves in Europe and Asia, largely denominated in U.S. dollars. These insensitive buyers of U.S. debt indirectly financed the U.S. trade deficit, and also indirectly fuelled the debt super cycle and asset inflation as the "savings glut" compressed the world's risk-free rate and term premium. In other words, financial globalization combined with excess international savings morphed into a global quid pro quo. The world economy needed liquidity to finance growth and capital investment. In a system where the greenback stood at the base of any liquidity build up, this meant that the world needed dollars to finance its development. The world was thus willing to finance the U.S. current account deficit at little cost. The Eurodollar System The Eurodollar system was originally a payment system introduced after World War II as a result of the Marshal Plan. Because global trade was dominated by the U.S. - the only country that retained the capacity to produce industrial goods - foreigners had to be able to access U.S. dollars where they were domiciled in order to buy capital goods. The U.S. current account deficit played a role in growing that Eurodollar market. While a lot of the dollars supplied to the rest of the world through the U.S. current account deficit ended up going back to the U.S. via its large capital account surplus, a significant portion remained in offshore jurisdictions, providing an important fuel for the Eurodollar markets. In fact, more than two-thirds of U.S.-dollar claims in the Eurodollar market can be traced back to U.S. entities. After this original impetus, the Eurodollar market grew by leaps and bounds amid a number of regulatory advantages introduced in the 1980s. These changes in regulations not only deepened the participation of European and Japanese banks in the offshore markets, it also allowed U.S. banks to shift capital to Europe, harvesting a lower cost of capital in the process.12 The next growth phase in the Eurodollar system came with the evolution of shadow banking, in which credit was created off balance sheet by lending out collateral more than once, thus enabling banks to obtain higher gearing. This process is known as "re-hypothecation." In the U.S. there was a limit to which banks were allowed to gear collateral, which was not the case in Europe. Hence, to take advantage of this regulatory leniency, global banks grew further through the offshore market, causing an additional expansion in the Eurodollar market.13 Ultimately, this implies that over the past 30 years, the growth of the Eurodollar system has mainly been a consequence of the architecture of the international financial system. Headwinds To Dollar Liquidity The forces contributing to the extraordinary growth in dollar liquidity have begun to fade. In brief: Protectionism and populism: A slowdown in global trade has occurred for a number of structural, non-geopolitical reasons, especially if one controls for the recovery of energy prices (Chart II-15).14 This slowdown implies a slower accumulation of international FX reserves and a reduction of the "savings glut." If protectionism were to compound the effects - by shrinking the U.S. trade deficit - the result for global dollar liquidity would be negative. The consequence would be a certain degree of "quantitative tightening" of global dollar liquidity. Energy prices: Despite the recovery in energy prices, oil producers continue to struggle to rein in their budget deficits. Deficits blew out during the high-spending era buoyed by high oil prices (Chart II-16). Today, oil producing countries have less oil revenues to spend on the Treasury market, as their cash is needed at home. Meanwhile, the U.S. is slowly moving towards partial energy independence, further shrinking its trade deficit. Chart II-15Global Trade Growth Has Moderated Chart II-16Petrodollars Are Scarce Eurodollar system: The monetary "plumbing" has become clogged since 2014 after the Fed stopped growing its balance sheet and sweeping Basel III bank regulations took effect. The cost of acquiring U.S. dollars in Eurodollar markets currently stands at a premium. This extra cost cannot be arbitraged away due to the restrictive capital rules imposed under Basel III, which have raised the cost of capital for banks. This can be seen in the persistent widening of USD cross-currency basis-swap spreads and more recently, in the rise of the Libor-OIS spread (Chart II-17). The introduction of interest on excess reserves by the Federal Reserve is further draining dollars from the Eurodollar system. The velocity of dollar usage in international markets is unlikely to return to the pace experienced from 1995 to 2008, when the shadow banking system grew rapidly. To complicate matters, dollar-denominated debt issued outside of the U.S. by non-U.S. entities such as banks, governments, and non-financial corporations has grown substantially. This could exacerbate the scramble for dollars in case of a global shortage. For example, the stock of outstanding dollar debt issued by foreign nonfinancial corporations currently stands at US$10 trillion (Chart II-18). Chart II-17Mounting Stress In The Eurodollar System Chart II-18Foreign Dollar Debt Is At $10 Trillion Why is the Eurodollar system so important? Today is the first time in the world's history that this much debt has been accumulated in the global reserve currency outside of the country that issues that currency. The Eurodollar system is thus a key source of liquidity for global borrowers. It is also necessary to ensure that these borrowers can access U.S. dollars when the time comes to repay their USD-denominated obligations. The U.S. trade deficit is effectively the source of the growth of the monetary base in the Eurodollar system, and the stock of dollar-denominated debt issued by non-U.S. entities is the world's broad money supply. With the money multiplier in the offshore USD markets having fallen in response to the regulatory tightening that followed the Great Financial Crisis, broad USD money supply in the Eurodollar system will be hyper sensitive to any decline in the U.S. current account deficit. Less global imbalances would therefore result in a further increase in USD funding costs in the international system, and potentially into a stronger U.S. dollar as well, making this dollar debt very expensive to repay. This raises the likelihood of a massive short-squeeze in favour of the U.S. dollar, challenging the current downward trajectory in the U.S. dollar, at least in the short term. Another consequence of a higher cost of sourcing U.S. dollars in the Eurodollar market tends to be rising FX volatility (Chart II-19). An increase in FX volatility should represent a potent headwinds for carry trades. This, in turn, will hurt liquidity conditions in EM economies. Hence, EM growth may be another casualty of problems in the Eurodollar system. Chart II-19Eurodollar Stress Produces FX Volatility Thus, the risks associated with U.S. protectionism go well beyond the risks to global trade. If severe enough, protectionism can threaten the plumbing system of the global economy. Bottom Line: The global economy has been supplied with dollar-based liquidity through the Eurodollar market. At the base of this edifice stands the U.S. trade-deficit, which was then magnified by the issuance of U.S. dollar-denominated debt by non-U.S. entities. This system is becoming increasingly tenuous as Basel III regulations have increased the cost of capital for global money-center banks, resulting in a downward force on the money multiplier in the offshore dollar funding system. In this environment, the risk to the system created by protectionism rises. If Trump and his administration can indeed scale back the size of the U.S. trade deficit, not only will the growth of the U.S. dollar monetary base be broken, but since the monetary multiplier of the Eurodollar system is also impaired, the capacity of the system to provide the dollars needed to fund all the liabilities it has created will decline. This could result in a serious rise in dollar funding costs as well as a tightening of global liquidity that will hurt global growth and result in a dollar short squeeze. This implied precarious situation raises one obvious question: Could we see the emergence of another reserve asset to complement the dollar, alleviating global liquidity risk? If Something Cannot Go On Forever, It Will Stop A global shortage of dollars is not imminent but could result from the forces described above. Even so, it is unlikely that the U.S. dollar faces any sudden end to its role as the leading global reserve currency. However, the world is unlikely to abide by a system that limits its growth potential either. The demise of the Bretton Woods system is important to keep in mind. The Bretton Woods system tied the supply of global liquidity to the supply of U.S. dollars. Initially this was not a problem as the U.S. ran a trade surplus. But it became a significant issue when the rest of the world began to question the U.S. commitment to honouring the $35/oz price commitment amidst domestic profligacy and money printing. Ultimately, the system broke down for this very reason. The strength of the global economy, along with the size of the U.S. current account deficit, was creating too many offshore dollars. Either the global money supply had to shrink, or gold had to be revalued against the dollar. The unpegging of the dollar from gold effectively resulted in the latter. However, the 1971 Smithsonian Agreement that replaced the gold standard with a dollar standard retained the dollar's hegemony. There was simply no alternative at the time. Today, it is unlikely that the global economy will stand idle in the face of a potentially sharp tightening of global liquidity conditions. We posit that this rising dollar funding costs will be the most important factor to decrease the importance of the dollar in the global financial system. Since the demand for the USD as a reserve currency is linked to its use as a liability by banks and financial systems outside of the U.S., if the USD gets downgraded as a source of financing by global banks, the demand for the greenback in global reserves will decline.15 As the share of dollars in foreign reserve coffers decreases, the dollar will likely depreciate over time as it will stop benefiting from the return-inelastic demand from reserve managers. Profit-motivated private investors will demand higher expected returns on dollar assets in order to finance the U.S. current account deficit. Despite this important negative, the dollar will still be the most important reserve asset in the world for many decades. After all, the decline of the pound as the global reserve asset in the interwar period was a gradual affair. Nonetheless, the share of reserves concentrated in USD assets as well as the share of international liabilities issued in USD will decrease, potentially a lot quicker than is thought possible. Chart II-20Reserve Currency Status ##br##Can Diminish Quickly For example, Eichengreen has shown that the pound sterling's share of non-gold global currency reserves fell from 63% in 1899 to 48% in 1913, just 14 years later (Chart II-20). It is instructive that this pre-World War I era coincides with today's multipolar geopolitical context. It similarly featured the decline of a status quo power (the U.K.) and the emergence of a rising challenger (the German Empire). What are the alternatives to the dollar? Obviously, the euro will have a role in this play. The euro today only represents 20% of global reserve assets, and considering the size of the Euro Area economy as well as the depth of its capital markets, the euro's place in global reserves has room to increase. In fact, the share of euros in global reserves is 15% smaller than that of the combined continental European national currencies in 1990 (see Chart II-4 on page 25). The CNY can also expect to see its share of international reserves increase. While China does not have the same capital-market depth as the Euro Area, it is gaining wider currency. The One Belt One Road project is causing many international projects to be financed in CNY and China's economic and military heft is still growing fairly rapidly. Nevertheless, China's closed capital account continues to weigh against the CNY's position. As Chart II-21 illustrates, there is a relationship between a country's share of international global payments and inward foreign investment. Essentially, investors want to know that they can do something (buy and sell goods and services) with the currency that they use to settle their payments. In particular, they want to know that they can use the currency in the economy that issues it. As long as it keeps its capital account closed, China will fail to transform the CNY into a reserve currency. Chart II-21A Reserve Currency With A Closed Capital Account? Forget About It! This means that for at least the next five years, the renminbi's internationalization will be limited. If U.S. protectionism is severe enough, China's economic transition is less likely to be orderly and capital account liberalization could be delayed further. In terms of investment implications, this suggests that for the coming decade, the euro is likely to benefit from a structural tailwind as global reserve managers increase their share of euro reserves. The key metric that investors should follow to gauge whether or not the euro is becoming a more important source of global liquidity is not just the share of euros in global reserves, but also the amount of foreign-currency debt issued in euros by non-euro area entities in the international markets. In all likelihood, before the world transitions toward a unit of account other than the USD, tensions will grow severe, as they did in the late 1960s. It is hard to know when these tensions will become evident. This past winter, the USD basis-swap spread began to widen along with the Libor-OIS spread, but while the Libor-OIS spread remains wide, basis-swap spreads have normalized. Nonetheless, by the end of this cycle, we would expect a liquidity event to cause stress in global carry trades and EM assets. It is important that investors keep a close eye on basis-swap and Libor-OIS spreads to gauge this risk (Chart II-22). Chart II-22Are We Nearing A Global Liquidity Event? Additionally, the more protectionist the U.S. becomes, the larger the diversification away from the dollar by both global reserve managers and international bond issuers could become. This is because of two reasons: First, if the U.S. actually manages to pare down its trade deficit, this will accentuate the decline in the supply of base money in the international system. Second, rising trade protectionism out of the White House gives the world the impression that economic mismanagement is taking hold of the U.S., raising the spectre of stagflation. Finally, the next global reserve asset does not have to be a currency. After all, for millennia, that role was fulfilled by commodities such as gold, silver, or copper. Thus, another asset may emerge to fill this gap. At this point in time it is not clear which asset this may be. Bottom Line: A severe liquidity-tightening caused by a scarcity of U.S. dollars would create market tumult around the world. We worry that such a risk is growing. However, it is hard to envision the global economy falling to its knees. Instead, the global system will likely do what it has done many times before: evolve. This evolution will most likely result in new tools being used to increase the global monetary base. At the current juncture, our best bet is that it will be the euro, which will hurt the USD's exchange rate at the margin on a secular basis. This brings up the very important question of whether the euro is politically viable. We have turned to this question many times over the past seven years. Our high conviction view is still that the euro will survive over the foreseeable time horizon.16 Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist Mathieu Savary, Vice President Foreign Exchange Strategy Mehul Daya Consulting Editor Neels Heyneke Consulting Editor 1 And an erstwhile member of BCA's Research Advisory Board. 2 Please see Eichengreen, Barry et al, "Mars or Mercury? The Geopolitics of International Currency Choice," dated December 2017, available at nber.org. 3 Please see Tovar, Camillo and Tania Mohd Nor, 2018 "Reserve Currency Blocks: A Changing International Monetary System?," IMF Working Paper WP/18/20, Washington D.C. 4 The authors are essentially examining the extent to which national currencies are anchored to a particular reserve currency. 5 Please see David Shapiro, The Hidden Hand Of American Hegemony: Petrodollar Recycling And International Markets, New York: Columbia University Press. Also, Andrea Wong, "The Untold Story Behind Saudi Arabia's 41-Year Secret Debt," The Independent, dated June 1, 2016, available at independent.co.uk. 6 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst Special Report, "Stairway To (Safe) Haven: Investing In Times Of Crisis," dated August 25, 2016, available at bca.bcaresearch.com. 7 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "Multipolarity And Investing," dated April 9, 2014, and Geopolitical Strategy Strategic Outlook, "We Are All Geopolitical Strategists Now," dated December 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 8 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "The Trump Doctrine," February 1, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 9 Entente cordiale being particularly shocking at the time it was formalized in 1904. Other examples of ideologically heterodox alliances include the USSR's alliance first with Nazi Germany and then with Democratic America during World War II; the notorious alliance of Catholic France with Muslim Turks against its Christian neighbors throughout the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries; or Greek alliances with the Carthaginians against Rome in the third century BC. 10 Another exception to this rule was the Yuan Dynasty, established by Mongol ruler Kublai Khan, which issued fiat money made from mulberry bark. In fact, the mulberry trees in the courtyard at the Bank of England serve as a reminder of the origins of fiat money. 11 Eurodollar system simply refers to U.S. dollars that are outside the U.S. 12 Firstly, the absence of Regulation Q in offshore markets meant that regulatory arbitrage was possible, i.e. there was no ceiling imposed on interest rates on deposits at non-U.S. banks. Then, in the late 1990s, the Eurodollar system had another jump start with the amendment to Regulation D, which meant that non-U.S. banks were exempted from reserve requirements. 13 European banks specifically, but also U.S. banks with European branches, were aggressive buyers/funders of exotic derivatives products, such as CDO, MBS, SIVS. Most of these activities were off-balance sheet and took place in the Eurodollar system because a number of regulatory arbitrages existed. This is one of the main reasons that the Federal Reserve's bailout programs were largely focused towards foreign banks. The Fed's swap lines were heavily used by foreign central banks in order to clean up the operations of their own financial institutions. 14 Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "Why Has Global Trade Slowed?," dated January 29, 2016, available at gis.bcaresearch.com 15 Shah, Nihar, "Foreign Dollar Reserves and Financial Stability," December 2015, Harvard University. 16 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Europe's Geopolitical Gambit: Relevance Through Integration," dated November 2011; "No Apocalypse Now?," dated October 31, 2011; "The Draghi 'Bait And Switch," dated January 9, 2013; "Europe: The Euro And (Geo)politics," dated February 11, 2015; "Greece After The Euro: A Land Of Milk And Honey?," dated January 20, 2016; "After BREXIT, N-EXIT?," dated July 13, 2016; "Europe's Divine Comedy Part II: Italy In Purgatorio," dated June 21, 2017. III. Indicators And Reference Charts A key divergence has emerged between the U.S. corporate earnings data and our equity-related indicators. The divergence supports our tactical cautiousness on risk assets. Forward earnings have soared on the back of the U.S. tax cuts and upgrades to the growth outlook. Earnings are beating expectations by a wide margin so far in the Q1 earnings season, which is reflected in very elevated levels for the net revisions ratio and net earnings surprises. However, the S&P 500 has failed to gain any altitude on the back of the positive earnings news, in part because bond yields have jumped. Our Monetary Indicator moved further into bearish territory, and our Equity Technical indicator is below its 9-month moving average and is threatening to break below the zero line (which would be another negative signal). Valuation has improved marginally, but is still stretched, according to our Composite Valuation Indicator. Our Speculation Indicator does not suggest that market frothiness has waned at all, although sentiment has fallen back to neutral level. It is also worrying that our U.S. Willingness-to-Pay indicator took a sharp turn for the worse in April. The WTP indicators track flows, and thus provide information on what investors are actually doing, as opposed to sentiment indexes that track how investors are feeling. U.S. flows have clearly turned negative for equities, although flows into European and Japanese markets are holding up for now. Finally, our Revealed Preference Indicator (RPI) for stocks flashed a 'sell' signal in April. The RPI combines the idea of market momentum with valuation and policy measures. It provides a powerful bullish signal if positive market momentum lines up with constructive signals from the policy and valuation measures. Conversely, if constructive market momentum is not supported by valuation and policy, investors should lean against the market trend. These indicators are not aligned at the moment, further supporting the view that caution is warranted. As for bonds, oversold conditions have emerged but valuation has not yet reached one standard deviation, the threshold for undervaluation. This suggests that there is more upside potential for Treasury yields. The U.S. dollar broke out of its recent tight trading range to the upside in April, although this has only resulted in an unwinding of oversold conditions according to our Composite Technical Indicator. The dollar is expensive on a PPP basis, but we still expect the dollar to rally near term. EQUITIES: Chart III-1U.S. Equity Indicators Chart III-2Willingness To Pay For Risk Chart III-3U.S. Equity Sentiment Indicators Chart III-4Revealed Preference Indicator Chart III-5U.S. Stock Market Valuation Chart III-6U.S. Earnings Chart III-7Global Stock Market And Earnings: ##br##Relative Performance Chart III-8Global Stock Market And Earnings: ##br##Relative Performance FIXED INCOME: Chart III-9U.S. Treasurys And Valuations Chart III-10U.S. Treasury Indicators Chart III-11Selected U.S. Bond Yields Chart III-1210-Year Treasury Yield ComponentsChart III-13U.S. Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor Chart III-14Global Bonds: Developed Markets Chart III-15Global Bonds: Emerging Markets CURRENCIES: Chart III-16U.S. Dollar And PPP Chart III-17U.S. Dollar And Indicator Chart III-18U.S. Dollar Fundamentals Chart III-19Japanese Yen Technicals Chart III-20Euro Technicals Chart III-21Euro/Yen Technicals Chart III-22Euro/Pound Technicals COMMODITIES: Chart III-23Broad Commodity Indicators Chart III-24Commodity Prices Chart III-25Commodity Prices Chart III-26Commodity Sentiment Chart III-27Speculative Positioning ECONOMY: Chart III-28U.S. And Global Macro Backdrop Chart III-29U.S. Macro Snapshot Chart III-30U.S. Growth Outlook Chart III-31U.S. Cyclical Spending Chart III-32U.S. Labor Market Chart III-33U.S. Consumption Chart III-34U.S. Housing Chart III-35U.S. Debt And Deleveraging Chart III-36U.S. Financial Conditions Chart III-37Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Chart III-38Global Economic Snapshot: China Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst

Highlights Global corporate bond markets have seen both ups and downs so far in 2018. Credit spreads in the developed markets and emerging markets, both for investment grade (IG) and lower quality credit tiers, tightened in January. This was followed by a sharp widening of spreads in the two months after the "VIX spike" in early February. Spreads have begun narrowing again in April, but remain above levels that began the year in all major countries with one notable exception - U.S. high-yield. Feature The volatility in corporate credit is a reflection of the growing list of investor worries, coming at a time when yields and spreads still remain near historically low levels in almost all markets. Topping that list is the fear that low unemployment and rising inflation rates will force the major central banks to maintain a more hawkish (or, at least, less dovish) policy bias in the medium term, even with the global economy losing some upside momentum so far this year after a robust 2017. Add in other concerns over U.S. trade policy (i.e. tariffs), U.S. fiscal policy (i.e. wider deficits, more U.S. Treasury issuance) and even signs of potential stresses in global funding markets (i.e. wider LIBOR-OIS spreads), and it is no surprise that more uncertain investors have become less comfortable with the risks stemming from credit exposure. This can be seen in the volatility of mutual fund and ETF flows into riskier bond categories like U.S. high-yield (HY), which saw a whopping -$19.8bn in outflows in Q1/2018, but has already seen +$3.8bn in inflows in April - possibly in response to the surprisingly strong results seen in Q1 U.S. corporate earnings reports.1 Against this backdrop of more uncertainty in credit markets, we are presenting our latest update of the BCA Corporate Health Monitor (CHM) Chartbook. The CHMs are composite indicators of balance sheet and income statement ratios (using both top-down and bottom-up data) that are designed to assess the financial well-being of the overall non-financial corporate sectors in the major developed economies. A brief overview of the methodology is presented in Appendix 1 on page 16. In this CHM Chartbook, we introduce new country coverage to our CHM universe, adding a bottom-up measure for Japan and both top-down and bottom-up CHMs for Canada. After these new additions, we now have CHMs covering 92% of the Barclays Bloomberg Global Corporate Bond Index universe, based on country market capitalization weightings. The broad conclusion from the latest readings on our CHMs is that global credit quality has enjoyed a cyclical improvement in response to the coordinated growth seen in 2017, but with important geographical differences (Chart 1): Chart 1Global Corporates: Now Supported##BR##By Growth, Not Central Banks Credit quality in the U.S. has improved on the back of the solid performance of U.S. profits over the past year, but high leverage and low interest coverage suggest corporates are highly vulnerable to any slowing in economic growth Underlying credit quality in euro area corporates remains supported by low interest rates and the easy money policies of the European Central Bank (ECB), but the CHMs are trending in the wrong direction due to poor profitability metrics - most notably, a very depressed return on capital - and rising leverage among core European issuers U.K. corporate health continues to benefit from a very robust short-term liquidity position, although sluggish profitability and weak interest coverage suggest potential medium-term problems beneath the surface Japanese corporates are in good shape, enjoying strong interest coverage and low leverage, although absolute levels of profitability remain much lower than the other countries in our CHM universe Canadian corporate health has enjoyed some modest cyclical improvement, but low absolute levels on profitability and interest coverage, combined with high leverage, point to underlying risks. Looking ahead, the tailwinds that have supported corporate health and the performance of global corporate debt in the past couple of years - a coordinated cyclical upturn driving solid earnings growth, with low inflation allowing monetary policies to stay accommodative - are becoming headwinds. Inflation expectations are moving higher in most countries, fueled by low unemployment rates and rising oil prices. This is most evident in the U.S., where the additional boost to growth from fiscal stimulus will keep the Fed on its rate hiking path over the next year. A mild inflation upturn is also visible in the euro area and Japan, where the ECB and Bank of Japan (BoJ) are already contributing to a less favorable liquidity backdrop for corporates by reducing the pace of their asset purchases. That trend is projected to continue over the next year, to the detriment of credit market returns that have been boosted by those unusual monetary policies (see the bottom panel of Chart 1). At some point within the 6-12 months, more hawkish central banks will act to slow global economic growth, triggering a more fundamental underperformance of corporates versus government bonds. For now, the backdrop remains supportive, but the clock is ticking as the end of this credit cycle draws closer. U.S. Corporate Health Monitors: A Cyclical Improvement, But Underlying Problems Persist Our top-down CHM for the U.S. has been flashing "deteriorating health" for fourteen consecutive quarters dating back to the middle of 2014 (Chart 2). Yet there has been a modest cyclical improvement seen in many of the individual CHM ratios over the past couple of years - most importantly, return on capital and profit margins - helping push the top-down level to close to the zero line. It is important to note that, due to delays in the reporting of the data used in the top-down U.S. CHM, the latest reading is only from the 4th quarter of 2017.2 A move into "improving health" territory in the 1st quarter of 2018 would require additional increases in cyclical profitability measures. This will be difficult to achieve with U.S. economic growth cooling off a bit in the first three months of 2018 (although the enactment of the Trump corporate tax cuts will likely help support the after-tax measure of margins used in the top-down CHM as 2018 progresses). From a longer-term perspective, the fact that the top-down CHM return on capital metric is well off the post-crisis peak is a disturbing development, given that non-financial corporate profit margins have been stable over the same period. This suggests a more fundamental problem with weak U.S. productivity growth and lower internal rates of return on marginal investments for companies, which is a longer-term concern for U.S. corporate health when the economic growth backdrop becomes less friendly. The bottom-up versions of the U.S. CHMs for IG corporates (Chart 3) and HY companies (Chart 4) have also both improved, with the HY indicator sitting right at the zero line. This confirms that the signal from our top-down CHM is being reflected in both higher-rated and lower quality companies. Yet the longer-term problems of high leverage and low returns on capital are not going away. In particular, HY interest and debt coverage remains near multi-decade lows. Chart 2Top-Down U.S. CHM:##BR##A Cyclical Pause Of A Structural Deterioration Chart 3Bottom-Up U.S. Investment Grade CHM:##BR##A Bit Better, But Still Deteriorating What is rather worrying is the fact that IG interest coverage has fallen in recent years, despite high profit margins and historically low corporate borrowing rates. This indicates that the stock of debt has now expanded to a point where the interest expense required to service that debt is eating up a greater share of corporate earnings, even at a time when profit growth is still quite strong. This will raise downgrade risk if corporate borrowing rates were to increase significantly or the U.S. experiences a major economic downturn. Interest costs would rise while earnings deteriorate, which would push interest coverage to historic lows, as was discussed in a recent report from our flagship Bank Credit Analyst service.3 For now, we are still recommending playing the growth phase of the business cycle by staying overweight U.S. corporate debt within global fixed income portfolios (Chart 5). The time to scale back positions will come after U.S. inflation expectations rise to levels consistent with the Fed's inflation target (i.e. when both the 5-year/5-year forward U.S. TIPS breakeven and the outright 10-year TIPS breakevens reach 2.4-2.5%). This will give the Fed confidence to follow through on its rate hike projections, pushing the funds rate to restrictive levels. In turn, that will dampen future corporate profit expectations and raise risk premiums on U.S. corporate bonds. With those breakevens now sitting at the highest point in four years (2.19%), that tipping point for credit markets is drawing nearer. Chart 4Bottom-Up U.S. High-Yield CHM:##BR##A Strong Cyclical Improvement Chart 5The Beginning Of The End Of##BR##The U.S. Credit Cycle Euro Corporate Health Monitors: Getting Better Thanks To The Economy & The ECB Our top-down Euro Area CHM remains in "improving health" territory, as it has for the entire period since the 2008 crisis. The trend in the indicator has been steadily worsening since 2015, however, and the top-down CHM now sits just below the zero line (Chart 6). The steady deterioration of the top-down CHM is due to declines in profit margins, return on capital and debt coverage. This is offsetting the high and rising levels of short-term liquidity and interest coverage, which are being supported by the easy money policies of the ECB (negative short-term interest rates, liquidity programs designed to prompt low-cost bank lending, and asset purchase programs that include buying of corporate bonds). Compared to the top-down CHMs we have constructed for other countries, there is an even longer lag on data availability from euro area government statisticians. Our top-down euro area CHM is only available to the 3rd quarter of 2017 and, therefore, does not reflect the strong performance of the euro area economy at the end of last year. Our bottom-up versions of the euro area CHMs for IG (Chart 7) and HY (Chart 8), which are based on individual earnings data that is more timely, both show that corporate health continued to improve at the end of 2017. Return on capital for euro area IG issuers (both domestic issuers and foreign issuers in the European bond market) is between 8-10%, similar to the level in the bottom-up U.S. IG CHM but higher than the equivalent measures in our U.K., Japan and Canada CHMs. Both interest coverage and liquidity ratios for euro area IG are also close to U.S. IG levels. The euro area HY CHM is also showing improvement though declining leverage, although these results should be interpreted with caution as the sample size is relatively small. Chart 6Top-Down Euro Area CHM:##BR##Health Improving At A Diminishing Rate Chart 7Bottom-Up Euro Area##BR##Investment Grade CHMs: Steady Improvement Within the Euro Area, our bottom-up CHMs show that the gap has closed between issuers from the core countries versus those in the periphery, but all still remain in the "improving health" zone. (Chart 9). Return on capital, interest coverage and debt coverage are higher in the core, while liquidity is better in the periphery despite more highly levered balance sheets. Chart 8Bottom-Up Euro Area High-Yield CHMs:##BR##Steady Improvement As Leverage Declines Chart 9Bottom-Up Euro Area IG CHMs:##BR##Core Vs. Periphery While all of our euro area CHMs are indicating healthier balance sheets, that fact is already discounted in the low yields and tight spreads for both IG and HY issuers (Chart 10). Euro area corporates are also benefitting from the supportive bid of the ECB, which buys credit as part of its asset purchase program. We expect the ECB to fully taper its government bond purchases by the end of 2018, while continuing to reinvest the proceeds of maturing debt in 2019 and beyond. It is less clear what the ECB will do with its corporate bond buying program, and there has been some speculation that the ECB could leave its corporate program untouched while tapering the government purchases. That would be a scenario that could be keep euro area credit spreads tight, although the momentum in the euro area economy will likely be the more important driver of credit valuations. If the soft patch in growth seen in the first few months of 2018 continues in the coming months, euro area credit spreads would likely widen, although by less than if the ECB was not buying corporates. We have preferred to own U.S. corporates over Euro Area equivalents for much of the past year. The gap between our top-down CHMs for the U.S. and Europe has proven to be an excellent directional indicator for the relative performance of U.S. credit vs. Europe (Chart 11). That CHM gap continues to favor U.S. credit, although that has not yet flowed through into any meaningful outperformance of U.S. IG and HY corporates. Chart 10European Credit:##BR##Spreads & Yields Have Bottomed Out Chart 11Relative Top-Down CHMs##BR##Still Favor The U.S. Over Europe U.K. Corporate Health Monitor: Still No Major Causes For Concern The top-down U.K. CHM remains firmly in the "improving health" zone, led by cyclical improvements in profit margins and interest coverage, combined with very strong short-term liquidity (Chart 12). Return on capital remains near 20-year lows around 6%, however, mirroring levels seen in this ratio in the CHMs for other countries. Profit margins remain at 20%, near the middle of the historical range. U.K. credit has benefitted from highly stimulative monetary policy settings by the Bank of England (BoE) - especially after the 2016 Brexit shock when the central bank not only lowered policy rates, but announced bond buying programs for both Gilts and U.K. corporates. The BoE has begun to take back some of that monetary easing by raising rates 50bps since last November. However, we remain skeptical that the central bank will be able to deliver much additional tightening over the rest of 2018 given sluggish growth, falling realized inflation and lingering Brexit uncertainties weighing on business confidence. An environment of mushy domestic growth and a stand-pat central bank would typically be good for risk assets like corporate credit. Yet both yields and spreads have been drifting higher in recent months, mirroring the trends seen in other global corporate bond markets (Chart 13). It is difficult to paint a scenario of renewed outperformance of U.K. credit versus Gilts without a fresh catalyst like accelerating growth or monetary easing. Yet the combination of accommodative monetary policy with a solid credit backdrop leads us to maintain a neutral recommendation on U.K. corporate debt. Chart 12U.K. Top-Down CHM:##BR##Steady Improvement Chart 13U.K. Credit: Yields & Spreads##BR##Are Drifting Higher Japan Corporate Health Monitor: A Small, But Very Healthy, Market We introduced our Japan CHM in a recent Weekly Report.4 We only have a bottom-up version of the indicator at the moment, as there is not the same consistency of top-down data sources as are available in other countries. Furthermore, the Japanese corporate bond market is small, as companies have historically chosen to borrow money (when needed) through bank loans and not bond issuance. This means that we have a much more limited amount of data available with which to build a Japan CHM, which covers only 43 companies and only goes back to 2006. The Japan CHM has been in "improving health" territory for the past decade, driven by very healthy liquidity levels and rising return on capital and interest coverage (Chart 14). While the trend in the latter two ratios differs from what is shown in all CHMs for other countries, it is noteworthy that Japan's return on capital has risen to a "high" level (6%) that is similar to the current historically low levels in the U.S. and Europe. The comparison is even less flattering when looking at profit margins, which have been steadily improving over the past five years but are only around 6% - less than half the levels seen in the bottom-up IG CHMs for the U.S. and Europe. Turning to the corporate spread, it has slightly widened in 2018, but by a far smaller amount than seen in other corporate bond markets (Chart 15). We have shown that Japanese corporate spreads are highly correlated to the level of the yen. The direct effect is obvious, as a stronger yen will hurt the competitiveness and profitability of the exporter-heavy Japanese non-financial corporate sector. Yet a strong yen is also a reflection of the market's belief in the next move by the BoJ with regards to Japanese monetary policy. On the front, we continue to expect the BoJ to maintain a very dovish policy stance, with no change in the central bank's interest rate targets (both for short-term interest rates and the 10yr JGB yield). The bigger issue will be if the current softness in the Japanese economic data turns into a broader trend, which would damage corporate profits and likely result in some widening of Japanese credit spreads.  Chart 14Japan Bottom-Up CHM:##BR##Very Healthy Chart 15Japanese Corporates##BR##Will Continue To Outperform JGBs Canada Corporate Health Monitor: In Good Shape On A Cyclical Basis In this CHM Chartbook, we are introducing new CHMs for Canada. Like Japan, this is another relatively small market. Canadian corporates represent a slightly larger share of the Bloomberg Barclays Global Investment Grade Corporate Bond Index (5%) than Japan (3%). The average credit rating of the Canadian corporate bond index is A2/A3, which is higher quality than that of the U.S. IG index with but with similar credit spreads over their respective government bonds. However, due to the lack of liquidity and market accessibility, Canadian corporates are considered a niche market that has not gained much attention from global investors. We created both a top-down and bottom-up version of the Canada CHM. For the bottom-up CHM, we gathered data on 85 companies from both the Bloomberg Canadian dollar-denominated IG and HY indices. We combined IG and HY bonds into one set of data given the small sample sizes of each category, which also allows us to compare it to the top-down Canadian CHM that does not distinguish by credit quality. Both Canadian CHMs are firmly in the "improving health" territory (Chart 16). Unsurprisingly, these CHMs have shown a reasonably strong correlation to oil prices, which are a key driver of the Canadian economy through the energy sector. This can be seen in the deterioration in the CHMs after global oil prices collapsed in 2014/15, and the subsequent improvement as oil prices have recovered over the past couple of years. Going through the individual CHM components, leverage has been steadily rising and currently sits around 100%. While Canada's problems with high household debt levels are well known, the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) noted in its March 2018 Quarterly Review that high Canadian corporate leverage could also pose a future problem for the Canadian economy.5 Among the other CHM ratios, return on capital and profit margin have fallen for nearly a decade, although there has been some moderate improvement of late thanks to higher oil prices. Debt coverage and interest coverage are also showing some very moderate recovery due to low interest rates - a trend also observed in other countries where central banks have maintained easy monetary policy. Canadian corporate bond valuations are not cheap at the moment, with the index spread around decade-lows of 100bps (Chart 17). BCA's commodity strategists expect global oil prices to continue climbing over the next year, which should support Canadian corporate valuations versus government bonds given past correlations. We also expect the Bank of Canada to continue to slowly raise interest rates over the next year, as well, mimicking moves we also anticipate from the U.S. Federal Reserve. Given the cyclical signs of improving corporate health from our Canadian CHMs, and our bearish views on Canadian government bonds, we are upgrading our recommended allocation on Canadian corporates to overweight while downgrading governments. This is strictly a carry trade, however, as we do not anticipate spreads narrowing much from current levels. Chart 16Canada CHMs:##BR##Cyclical Improvements, Structural Problems Chart 17Canadian Corporates:##BR##No Cyclical Case For Spread Widening Yet Robert Robis, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com Ray Park, Research Analyst ray@bcaresearch.com Appendix 1: An Overview Of The BCA Corporate Health Monitors The BCA Corporate Health Monitor (CHM) is a composite indicator designed to assess the underlying financial strength of the corporate sector for a country. The Monitor is an average of six financial ratios inspired by those used by credit rating agencies to evaluate individual companies. However, we calculate our ratios using top-down (national accounts) data for profits, interest expense, debt levels, etc. The idea is to treat the entire corporate sector as if it were one big company, and then look at the credit metrics that would be used to assign a credit rating to it. Importantly, only data for the non-financial corporate sector is used in the CHM, as the measures that would be used to measure the underlying health of banks and other financial firms are different than those for the typical company. The six ratios used in the CHM are shown in Table 1 below. To construct the CHM, the individual ratios are standardized, added together, and then shown as a deviation from the medium-term trend. That last part is important, as it introduces more cyclicality into the CHM and allows it to better capture major turning points in corporate well-being. Largely because of this construction, the CHM has a very good track record at heralding trend changes in corporate credit spreads (both for Investment Grade and High-Yield) over many cycles. Top-down CHMs are now available for the U.S., euro area, the U.K. and Canada. The CHM methodology was extended in 2016 to look at corporate health by industry and by credit quality.6 The financial data of a broad set of individual U.S. and euro area companies was used to construct individual "bottom-up" CHMs using the same procedure as the more familiar top-down CHM. Some of the ratios differ from those used in the top-down CHM (see Table 1), largely due to definitional differences in data presented in national income accounts versus those from actual individual company financial statements. The bottom-up CHMs analyze the health of individual sectors, and can be aggregated up into broad CHMs for Investment Grade and High-Yield groupings to compare with credit spreads. In 2018, we introduced bottom-up CHMs for Japan and Canada. With the country expansion of our CHM universe, we now have coverage for 92% of the Bloomberg Barclays Global Aggregate Corporate Bond Index (Appendix Chart 1). Table 1Definitions Of Ratios##BR##That Go Into The CHMs Appendix Chart 1We Now Have CHM Coverage For 92% Of##BR##The Developed Market Corporate Bond Universe 1 http://lipperalpha.financial.thomsonreuters.com/2018/04/high-yield-bond-funds-attract-investor-attention/ 2 The majority of data used in the top-down U.S. CHM comes from the Federal Reserve's quarterly Financial Accounts Of The United States Z1 release (formerly known as the Flow of Funds), which is typically published in the third month following the end of a quarter. Thus, those data inputs for Q1/2018 will not be available until June. 3 Please see Section II of the March 2018 edition of The Bank Credit Analyst, available at bca.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "Sticking With The Plan", dated March 13th 2018, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 5 https://www.bis.org/publ/qtrpdf/r_qt1803.htm 6 Please see Section II of The Bank Credit Analyst, "U.S. Corporate Health Gets A Failing Grade", dated February 2016, available at bca.bcaresearch.com. Appendix 2: U.S. Bottom-Up CHMs For Selected Sectors The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Recommendations Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Dear Client, Alongside this week's report we are also sending you a fascinating short Special Report written by Jennifer Lacombe of our Global ETF Strategy sister service. The report, which demonstrates the use of ETF flows as a leading indicator of FX trends, points to downside for the EUR/USD and GBP/USD this year. I trust you find the piece informative. Best regards, Mathieu Savary, Vice President Foreign Exchange Strategy Highlights A debate over slack is raging within the ECB. We tend to side with President Draghi, and believe there is more labor market slack in the euro area than suggested by the OECD's measures. Arguing in favor of this case is the presence of hidden labor market slack, the paucity of wage gains, even in Germany, and the potential for NAIRU to decline in many large economies. With global and European growth slowing, this will limit how hawkish the ECB can be in the short term, and thus limits the euro's gains in 2018. However, on a long-term basis, the presence of slack today argues that the euro area's potential GDP is higher than if there were no slack, and therefore policy rates and the euro have more long-term upside. Feature The recent release of the European Central Bank's account of its March policy meeting was very revealing. The ECB is currently torn between two camps: one believing there is little slack in the euro area labor market, and the other, led by ECB President Mario Draghi and chief economist Peter Praet, arguing that the continent's job market is still replete with excess capacity. This debate has enormous implications for the path of the euro. If there is no slack left in the euro area, this would point to an immediate need for higher rates and a higher euro, but it would also suggest the scope for the terminal policy rate in Europe to rise is limited. The long-term upside in the euro would therefore also be small. If there is still a large amount of slack in the euro area labor market, this implies that policy rates do not have much scope to rise over the next 18 months, and that the euro will find it difficult to appreciate much over this time frame. However, it also suggests that the potential growth rate of the euro area is higher than would otherwise be the case and that terminal policy rates can rise more in the long-run - implying that on a long-term basis the euro still has meaningful upside. We side in the latter camp. Chart I-1No Slack In Europe? Hidden Labor Market Slack... The question of slack in the euro area has been ignited by a simple reality: both the OECD's measure of the European output gap and the difference between the official unemployment rate and the equilibrium unemployment rate calculated by the OECD (NAIRU) are close to zero (Chart I-1). This observation would vindicate the desire of some ECB members to increase rates sooner than later, since the absence of an unemployment gap should lead to both higher wages and higher inflation. But before making too prompt a judgment, the U.S.'s recent experience is illuminating. Only now that the unemployment rate is 0.5% below NAIRU are U.S. wages and core inflation showing some signs of life (Chart I-2). In the U.S., we observed that while the headline unemployment rate has been consistent with accelerating wages as early as in 2015, discouraged workers back then represented 0.4% of the working age population, and were in fact willing participants in the job market. Only now that this number has fallen back to 0.27% - levels associated with full-employment in the previous business cycle - are employment costs perking up. There is little reason to believe that the eurozone economy is very different from the U.S. in this respect. In fact, the euro area suffered a double-dip recession, the second leg of which ended only in 2013, suggesting Europe suffered a severe enough shock to also fall victim to the symptoms of hidden labor market slack. A simple comparison helps illustrates that Europe is likely to still be experiencing labor market slack. Chart I-3 shows various measures of total and hidden labor market slack in the U.S. and the euro area. To begin with, despite a sharp rise in the female participation rate, the euro area's employment-to-population ratio for prime-age workers is not only well below the level that currently prevails in the U.S., it is also below its 2008 peak by a greater extent than is the case on the other side of the Atlantic. This suggests there is greater total labor market slack in Europe than in the U.S. Additionally, discouraged workers and long-term unemployment remain much closer to post-crisis highs in the euro area than in the U.S. In the latter, these ratios have mostly normalized close to levels consistent with full employment. Chart I-2The U.S. Experience WIth##br## Hidden Labor Market Slack Chart I-3The Euro Area Still Has ##br##Plenty Hidden Slack Looking at some euro area-specific variables also dispels the idea that the European job market is near full employment and about to generate inflation: The ECB's labor underutilization measure1 still shows a high level of slack, especially in the European periphery (Chart I-4). Another problem for Europe is irregular work contracts. Europe, like Japan, is plagued with a dual labor market. On one hand, permanent employees are still protected by generous employment laws. On the other hand, employees under temporary work contracts are not. In Japan, this same disparity has been blamed for keeping wages down, as temporary employees are often willing to switch to positions offering the protection of regular job contracts for no wage increases. These workers are a form of hidden labor-market slack. Temporary employment in Europe remains at elevated levels, and contract work represents a record share of employment in Italy and France (Chart I-5), suggesting the same disease present in Japan also lingers in vast swaths of the European economy. Chart I-4The ECB's Metrics Also Show ##br##Elevated Labor Underutilization Chart I-5A Dual Labor Market Weighs ##br##On Wage Growth Labor reforms could also be creating labor market slack in Europe. As Chart I-6 shows, after Germany implemented its Hartz IV labor reforms in 2004, NAIRU collapsed. Spain, which has implemented equally draconian measures, could also witness its own equilibrium unemployment rate trend sharply lower over the coming years (Chart I-6, bottom panel). In France, timid reforms were implemented during the Hollande presidency, but President Macron is pushing an agenda of deep job market reforms. While Italy remains a laggard and its current political miasma offers little hope, the reality remains that much of Europe could also be experiencing a decline in NAIRU like Germany did last decade. Even Germany shows limited signs of an overheating labor market, despite an unemployment rate of 5.3%, the lowest reading ever in re-unified Germany: not only have German wages been unable to advance at a faster pace than the experience of the past 15 years, recent quarters have seen a slowdown in wage growth (Chart I-7). The presence of slack in the rest of Europe therefore appears to be limiting wage pressures even in that booming economy. Chart I-6The Impact Of Labor Reforms##br## On Full Employment Chart I-7No Wage Growth##br## In Germany Bottom Line: The euro area is likely to be under the same spell as the U.S. was a few years ago. Traditional metrics portend a labor market at full employment, but broader measures in fact highlight that there is still plentiful slack. Additionally, the implementation of labor market reforms in key European economies in recent years could imply that Europe's NAIRU is lower than the OECD's estimate and may further decline in coming years. ... And Slowing Global Growth It is one thing for Europe to be experiencing hidden labor market slack, but if growth is set to accelerate further, this would mean that this slack could nonetheless dissipate fast enough to allow for a more hawkish ECB in the short run. However, this is not the case. The European economy is very sensitive to global growth gyrations, and signs are accumulating that the global synchronized boom is petering out. As we have already highlighted, the diffusion index of the OECD global leading economic indicator has plummeted well below the boom/bust line, pointing to a sharp slowdown in the LEI itself (Chart I-8, top panel). EM carry trades have been underperforming, which normally leads a slowdown in global industrial activity (Chart I-8, middle panel). Additionally, Japanese export growth is decelerating sharply (Chart I-8, bottom panel). In a previous report we attributed major responsibility for this slowdown to monetary, fiscal and regulatory tightening in China. Europe is not immune to this malaise. European exports growth and foreign orders are all slowing sharply, but interestingly domestic factors are also at play. As the top panel of Chart I-9 illustrates, the European credit impulse is now contracting, suggesting domestic demand is set to slow. In fact, this has already begun as the growth of German domestic manufacturing orders is in negative territory (Chart 9, bottom panel). Chart I-8Global Growth Is Slowing Clouds##br## Hanging Over Global Growth Chart I-9Euro Area Domestic##br## Growth Is Flagging No matter the source, the end result for Europe is the same: the torrid pace of European growth is set to slow, not accelerate. Not only have European economic surprises fallen precipitously (Chart I-10, top panel), but the Ifo survey - a key bellwether of German activity - has also peaked. Moreover, the Sentix survey points to a sharp slowdown in the manufacturing PMIs (Chart I-10, bottom panel). Because there is slack in the European economy and growth is set to slow, there is a good reason for the Draghi-led ECB to remain very cautious in the coming quarters before sounding hawkish. As a result, the euro faces strong headwinds over the next six months or so, especially as the Federal Reserve faces milder handicaps than the ECB: U.S. economic slack has dissipated and U.S. inflation is rising. These inflationary pressures could even intensify thanks to U.S. President Donald Trump's late-cycle fiscal stimulus. Relative growth dynamics also support the dollar this year as euro area industrial production is already lagging behind the U.S. (Chart I-11). This trend is set to continue for the coming quarters because the U.S. economy is less exposed to a global growth slowdown and U.S. households' are experiencing sharply accelerating disposable income growth, a support for domestic demand. Chart I-10Weakening European ##br##Growth Outlook Chart I-11European Growth Will ##br##Underperform The U.S. Further Bottom Line: Not only is there still slack in the euro area labor market, global growth is showing signs of a slowdown. This is likely to have a deleterious impact on European growth as the eurozone credit impulse is already contracting. As a result, European growth is likely to lag that of the U.S., an economy where there is no more slack, and where inflation is perking up. This combination represents a potent headwind for the euro over the next six months or so. The Euro Cyclical Bull Market Is Far From Over The combination of slowing global growth and labor market slack in the euro area suggests the euro may depreciate by six to eight cents over the next six months, but it does not sound the death knell of the euro's cyclical rally. To the contrary, the presence of slack in Europe suggests the euro still has significant cyclical upside. Historically, the euro performs well when the U.S. business cycle enters the last two years of expansion (Chart I-12). This is because European growth begins to outperform U.S. growth in the late stages of the economic cycle, allowing investors to upgrade their assessment of the path of long-term monetary policy in the euro area relative to the U.S. This time an additional impetus could emerge. If there is more slack in the euro area than traditional unemployment metrics imply, the euro area's potential GDP is also higher than these traditional metrics would submit - i.e. trend growth in Europe could be higher than once thought. The impact of labor market reforms in France and Spain further bolster this possibility. A consequence of a higher trend growth rate would also be a higher than originally assessed level for euro area neutral interest rates, or the so-called r-star. The European five-year forward 1-month OIS could therefore have significant upside from current levels (Chart I-13, top panel). This would also imply that expected rates in Europe have room to increase versus the U.S., lifting the euro in the process (Chart I-13, bottom panel). Chart I-12The Euro Rallies Late##br## In The Business Cycle Chart I-13European Slack Today Means ##br##Higher Rates Tomorrow Bottom Line: The presence of slack in Europe suggests that its potential GDP is higher than once thought. Hence, Europe could still have a few more years of robust growth in front of her. The following paradox ensues: if the presence of slack limits the upside for European interest rates today, it also suggests that European policy rates can rise much more in the future than if there was no slack today. Therefore, while this limits the capacity of the euro to rise further this year, the euro cyclical bull market has much more upside than if there was no slack in Europe today. Mathieu Savary, Vice President Foreign Exchange Strategy mathieu@bcaresearch.com 1 This underutilization measure is based on the number of unemployed and underemployed, those available to work but not seeking a job and those seeking a job but not available for one. Currencies U.S. Dollar Chart II-1USD Technicals 1 Chart II-2USD Technicals 2 U.S. data was decent: Retail sales ex. Autos increased at a 0.2% monthly pace, in line with expectations; Housing starts and building permits both beat expectations, coming in at 1.319 million and 1.354 million, respectively; Industrial production grew by 0.5% at a monthly pace, beating expectations; Capacity utilization also increased to 78%; Continuing and initial jobless claims both came out higher than expected; U.S. data continues to generally beat expectations, especially when contrasted with European data, representing a sharp reversal from last year's environment. The yield curve has flattened which has weighed on the greenback preventing the USD from rallying despite an outperforming U.S. economy. Report Links: U.S. Twin Deficits: Is The Dollar Doomed? - April 13, 2018 More Than Just Trade Wars - April 6, 2018 Do Not Get Flat-Footed By Politics - March 30, 2018 The Euro Chart II-3EUR Technicals 1 Chart II-4EUR Technicals 2 European data has been disappointing: German Wholesale price index increased by only 1.2%, less than the expected 1.5%; European industrial production grew at a 2.9% yearly pace, less than expectations of 3.8%; The ZEW Economic Sentiment and Current Situation Survey for Germany disappointed; European headline inflation disappointed, coming in at 1.3%, while core was in line with expectations of 1%. Signs of a slowdown are now emerging in European data, however the euro has yet to follow. The euro area's leading economic indicator is rolling over, suggesting that cyclical factors could drag the euro down in the coming months. The waning of inflationary pressures across the euro area is likely prompt a dovish tone in upcoming ECB communications, which will induce a downward revision in rate expectations by investors. Report Links: More Than Just Trade Wars - April 6, 2018 Who Hikes Again? - February 9, 2018 The Euro's Tricky Spot - February 2, 2018 The Yen Chart II-5JPY Technicals 1 Chart II-6JPY Technicals 2 Recent data in Japan has been negative: Exports yearly growth underperformed expectations, coming in at 2.1%. Moreover, imports yearly growth also surprised to the downside, coming in at -0.6%. Finally industrial production yearly growth also disappointed, coming in at 1.6%. USD/JPY has remained relatively flat this week. Overall, we expect that the yen will continue to appreciate, as global geopolitical risks are on the rise and a potential slowdown in China's growth could will likely lead to a pick-up in FX market volatility. On the other hand, the yen remains at risk in the long term, given that economic data continues to underperform due to the strong yen and Japan's great exposure to global growth. This means that the BoJ will have to keep policy easy in order to support the economy. Report Links: The Yen's Mighty Rise Continues... For Now - February 16, 2018 Who Hikes Again? - February 9, 2018 Yen: QQE Is Dead! Long Live YCC! - January 12, 2018 British Pound Chart II-7GBP Technicals 1 Chart II-8GBP Technicals 2 Recent data in the U.K. has been mixed: Headline inflation underperformed expectations, coming in at 2.5%. Moreover, core inflation also surprised negatively, coming in at 2.3%. Retail prices yearly growth also underperformed, coming in at 3.3%. However, the ILO unemployment rate surprised positively, coming in at 4.2%. After being up nearly 1.4% this week, GBP/USD fell more than a percentage point following the disappointing inflation numbers. Overall, the data follows our prediction from a couple of weeks ago: inflation in the U.K. is set to decline substantially despite a tightening labor market. This is because inflation in the U.K. is mainly driven by previous currency movements. Therefore, given the steep appreciation of the pound since 2017, prices will likely fall, causing the hawkishly-priced BOE to tighten less than expected, hurting the pound in the process. Report Links: Do Not Get Flat-Footed By Politics - March 30, 2018 Who Hikes Again? - February 9, 2018 The Euro's Tricky Spot - February 2, 2018 Australian Dollar Chart II-9AUD Technicals 1 Chart II-10AUD Technicals 2 The Aussie has traded in a wave pattern against the greenback since the beginning of 2016. This week, AUD once again rebounded off the trough of the wave, catalyzed by higher prices in the metals space. Recent announcements by Anglo-Australian group BHP Billiton about curtailing production forecasts provided a boost to iron ore prices. This was coupled with the PBOC's decision to cut banks' reserve requirements which is raising the specter of a potential reflation wave in China. While, for now, external factors are proving to be positive for the Antipodean economy and its currency, the domestic story remains the same: labor market slack, high debt loads, and not enough wage inflation. Recent employment figures confirm this reality: employment grew by only 4,900, driven by a decline in full-time employment of 19,900. Report Links: Who Hikes Again? - February 9, 2018 From Davos To Sydney, With a Pit Stop In Frankfurt - January 26, 2018 10 Charts To Digest With The Holiday Trimmings - December 22, 2017 New Zealand Dollar Chart II-11NZD Technicals 1 Chart II-12NZD Technicals 2 Recent data in New Zealand has been mixed: The food price index month-on-month growth came in at 1%. Meanwhile, headline inflation came in at 1.1%, in line with expectations. NZD/USD has fallen by nearly 1.3% this week. Overall, we expect that the NZD will suffer in the current environment of rising volatility and geopolitical risks. Moreover, on a long term basis, the kiwi continues to be at risk, given that the new populist government is set to decrease immigration and implement a dual mandate for the RBNZ; both factors would lower the real neutral rate. Report Links: Who Hikes Again? - February 9, 2018 10 Charts To Digest With The Holiday Trimmings - December 22, 2017 The Xs And The Currency Market - November 24, 2017 Canadian Dollar Chart II-13CAD Technicals 1 Chart II-14CAD Technicals 2 This year's disappointing first quarter GDP growth of 1.7% QoQ growth was regarded as an important factor in the BoC's decision this week to hold interest rates unchanged. The statement recognized the weaker housing market and flailing exports as the two culprits in this development. Bank officials denoted the tight capacity utilization as a constraint to further export growth, stating that growth will not be sufficient "to recover the ground lost during recent quarters". While this was an overall dovish policy statement, the Bank still continues to see robust growth going forward, revising their 2019 growth forecast from 1.6% to 2.1%. Importantly, this revision widened the output gap as the potential growth rate was revised higher. In terms of monetary policy, investors still predict two more rate hikes this year, bringing the benchmark rate to 1.75%, which is still below the Bank's estimated neutral rate of 2.5% - 3.5%. This means that if NAFTA is not abrogated in any major way - our base case scenario for the current negotiations - there is still plenty of upside for Canadian rates, and therefore, the CAD. Report Links: More Than Just Trade Wars - April 6, 2018 Who Hikes Again? - February 9, 2018 Yen: QQE Is Dead! Long Live YCC! - January 12, 2018 Swiss Franc Chart II-15CHF Technicals 1 Chart II-16CHF Technicals 2 EUR/CHF has gone up by 1% this week. Overall, we continue to believe that the franc will continue to depreciate on a cyclical basis, given that Swiss inflationary pressures remain too weak and economic activity is still highly dependent on the easy monetary conditions brought about by the weak franc and low rates. Therefore, the SNB will remain very dovishly enclined in order to keep an appreciating franc from hurting the economy. Moreover, the Swiss franc continues to be expensive, putting further downward pressure on this currency. On a tactical basis however, this cross could have some downside in an environment of rising volatility and rising geopolitical risk. Report Links: The SNB Doesn't Want Switzerland To Become Japan - March 23, 2018 Who Hikes Again? - February 9, 2018 10 Charts To Digest With The Holiday Trimmings - December 22, 2017 Norwegian Krone Chart II-17NOK Technicals 1 Chart II-18NOK Technicals 2 USD/NOK has been relatively flat this week. We continue to be negative on the krone against the U.S. dollar, even in an environment of rising oil prices. This is because this cross is more correlated to real rate differential than it is to crude. Therefore, in an environment where the Fed hikes more than expected, real rates should move in favor of the U.S., helping USD/NOK in the process. That being said, the krone will likely outperform other commodity currencies like the AUD, as oil has a relatively lower beta than industrial metals to global growth and Chinese economic activity. Report Links: Who Hikes Again? - February 9, 2018 Yen: QQE Is Dead! Long Live YCC! - January 12, 2018 10 Charts To Digest With The Holiday Trimmings - December 22, 2017 Swedish Krona Chart II-19SEK Technicals 1 Chart II-20SEK Technicals 2 A slight economic slowdown is still being felt in the Scandinavian economy. As leading economic indicators in both Sweden and the euro area roll over, disinflationary winds continue to batter Swedish shores. As a result, EUR/SEK continues to trade at lofty levels, especially as global investors remain nervous about the risks of a global trade war. The Swedish yield curve has flattened 53 bps since January highs, which is one of the most severe moves in the G-10. It seems that Stefan Ingves' extreme dovishness is again being taken seriously by investors, especially as core CPI is at a mere 1.5%, despite CPIF clocking in at 2%. This core measure and global reflation will need to pick up for Ingves to change his view. While the SEK is cheap, and thus have limited downside from current levels, this economic backdrop suggests it is still risky for short-term investors to buy the SEK. Long-term players, however, should use current weaknesses as a buying opportunity. Report Links: Who Hikes Again? - February 9, 2018 10 Charts To Digest With The Holiday Trimmings - December 22, 2017 Canaries In The Coal Mine Alert 2: More On EM Carry Trades And Global Growth - December 15, 2017 Trades & Forecasts Forecast Summary Core Portfolio Tactical Trades Closed Trades

Special Report

Highlights It is well established that portfolio flows play an important role in determining exchange rates. ETF flows are considerably timelier than the standard measures of investment flows, and they permit more precise tracking of currency demand. Economies with a low absolute value of basic balance of payment as a share of GDP tend to have USD exchange rates that are sensitive to equity ETF flows. The currencies of economies with high positive net international investment positions (NIIP), like Japan, Norway and Switzerland, have been impervious to equity ETF flows. For currencies with high exchange-rate sensitivities, flows into flagship country equity ETFs tend to lead currency moves by about six months. EUR/USD and GBP/USD could depreciate in the short term, while emerging market and commodity currencies may have more room to appreciate before they roll over. Feature A Vote Of Confidence Mutual fund flows are an entrenched measure of investor sentiment. Data on mutual fund flows from the Investment Company Institute (ICI) and other providers are widely followed. The view that international portfolio flows tend to be backward looking is reasonably well supported. Empirical evidence suggests that flows into a country's equity market coincide with, or lag, its performance. After all, it can be argued that foreign assets don't pour into a country's stock market until local demand has already driven prices higher, raising its global profile. But portfolio flows play a direct determining role in currency fluctuations. Cyclical fundamental supports for exchange rates include a country's current account balance, net foreign direct investment (FDI) and portfolio flows. The last is also a measure of sentiment. So are mutual fund and ETF flows. After all, currency movements are ultimately a reflection of investors' confidence in a country's economy and markets. Benefits Of A "Great Rotation" While current account balances and net FDI transactions are better suited to long-term exchange-rate forecasting, portfolio flows exert a powerful influence on immediate currency trends. However, conventional measures of portfolio flows are released with a time lag. Because they are publicly listed securities, ETFs have to comply with high standards of daily liquidity and information transparency. An investor can easily track an ETF's share count on a weekly basis. In contrast to conventional aggregated flow measures, ETF flows offer the added benefit of allowing for more granularity at the individual-bourse level. Conventional flow measures tend to sum flows from mutual funds and flows from ETFs. But today, the market capitalization of U.S.-listed ETFs is US$2.5 trillion, and assets have rotated from actively managed mutual funds into cheaper index-tracking alternatives. As ETFs get larger and offer a clearer window into investors' preferences, the analysis of ETF flows is becoming increasingly relevant for investors' decision making (Chart 1). Chart 1A Mirror Image All Currencies Are Equal, But Some Currencies Are More Equal Than Others Table 1The NOK, CHF And JPY Should Sit On One Side Of The Spectrum And The AUD, CAD And EUR On The Other While all currencies are affected by foreign flows, some currencies display a greater sensitivity to this factor than others. In theory, countries with high positive net international investment positions (NIIP) should be less affected by foreign portfolio flows. A high positive NIIP indicates that domestic investors own more assets abroad than foreigners own locally. Therefore, the demand stemming from domestic investors when shifting their assets in and out of the country is an overwhelming determinant of their exchange rate. Countries with very high positive NIIP include Norway, Switzerland and Japan (Table 1). On a cyclical horizon, currencies are a function of a country's current account balance, FDI and portfolio flows. The sum of the first two items is also known as the narrow basic balance of payments (BBOP). Mathematically, countries that exhibit a low absolute BBOP as a share of GDP (-2% to +2%) should also be more sensitive to portfolio flows. Countries with a narrow basic balance close to equilibrium include Australia, Canada, Japan and the Eurozone. The Non-Resident ETFs Limitation The U.S.-listed ETF market is currently the largest and most developed in the world (Chart 2). Flows into unhedged U.S.-listed country equity ETFs are a good proxy for U.S. investors' demand for that country's currency. We are excluding hedged vehicles as they have zero net impact on currency demand. Investors hedge their currency exposure by selling the foreign currency forward, effectively locking in the number of dollars they will receive for every unit of foreign currency sold. The purchase of the underlying equity to create the ETF increases the demand for the foreign currency while the commitment to sell that currency also increases its supply. From an exchange-rate perspective, the entire transaction is a wash. Currently, the lion's share of ETF assets under management (AUM) for any country's equity is held by one or two flagship funds. We use the flows into these unhedged flagship country equity funds to gauge the demand from USD-based investors for a particular currency (Table 2). Chart 2A U.S.-Dominated ETF Market Table 2Flagship Regional And Broad Commodity ETFs Listed On U.S. Exchanges Estimating the other leg of the two-way trade is far more challenging. Because ETFs listed outside the U.S. are not currently as firmly established as U.S. vehicles, they may not provide as accurate a read on external demand for the USD. In the particular case of the E.U., the UCITS1 regime allows all E.U.-based investors access to ETFs listed on any bourse within the E.U., obscuring the home-currency source of USD demand, be it euro, sterling, franc or any of the varieties of krone/a. A Leading Indicator Of Exchange Rates In spite of this data limitation, we have found that the analysis based on gross ETF flows still yields compelling results. The Most Robust Relationships Perhaps the most impressive relationships pertain to the Eurozone and emerging markets. We have found that flows into flagship unhedged U.S.-listed Eurozone and emerging markets equity ETFs have led the fluctuations in the EUR/USD and aggregate EM/USD exchange rates by six months (Chart 3 and Chart 4). It makes sense that the demand for U.S.-listed Eurozone Equity ETFs should be a significant driver of the EUR/USD: this cross is the most traded currency pair in the world, accounting for nearly a quarter of global FX turnover, and the Eurozone is a very open economy. Meanwhile, the observed relationship with EM exchange rates also makes sense as the key marginal price setters in EM capital markets often are the foreign investors, which tend to provide the marginal liquidity in these markets. U.S. investors' demand for U.K. equities also exhibits interesting leading properties in determining the direction of GBP/USD six months out (Chart 5). Chart 3Country Equity ETF Flows Perfectly Lead The EUR/USD... Chart 4...As Well As Aggregate EM/USD Exchange Rates... Chart 5...And Do A Good Job Leading GBP/USD Resource Economies Slightly different variables are at play when it comes to commodity currencies. They are open economies highly levered to emerging markets and Chinese demand. We found that U.S. investors' demand for commodities and EM equities are a better leading indicator of commodity currencies than the demand for the countries' respective equities (Charts 6, 7 and 8). The size of the aggregate AUM of the flagship Australia, Canada and New Zealand ETFs, relative to the aggregate AUM in flagship EM and commodity ETFs, suggests that only the most globally dedicated U.S. investors would seek exposure to peripheral DM equity markets and that most players would prefer direct EM/commodity exposures. Australia, Canada and New Zealand account for just over half of emerging markets' representation in the MSCI All Country World Index. Chart 6Commodity Currencies Are Also Led By... Chart 7...Flows Into EM Equity ETFs... Chart 8...And Flows Into Broad Commodity ETFs Peripheral G10 Currencies And The Yen Chart 9The Swedish Krona Is Also Sensitive To Flows Into The Eurozone We have found that the relationship between flows into Japanese equities, Norwegian equities and Swiss equities ETFs and the USD/JPY, USD/NOK and CHF/USD is much weaker. Consistent with Table 1, this result is unsurprising, given these economies' high NIIP. The Swedish krona's low correlation to flows into Swedish equity ETFs doesn't fit the theoretical framework as easily. Sweden is an open economy that is highly leveraged to global trade, but the EUR acts as an anchor for the SEK, dampening its fluctuations against the USD. We found that the sum of flows into the flagship Swedish and Eurozone equity ETF predicts USD/SEK moves better than the flows into the Swedish ETF alone (Chart 9). Finally, both the NOK and the SEK may not be on U.S. investors' radar, as USD/SEK and USD/NOK only represent 1.3% and 0.9% of global FX turnover. Investment Implications We are well aware that the data limitation only allows us to assess one leg of a two-way trade. The results are nonetheless compelling, and we will look to refine our measure as soon as we can gain more clarity into the origin of the ETF flows. That said, ETF flows do offer a fairly timely measure of portfolio flows, and their six-month lead on exchange rates is worth investors' attention. From these indicators, we can most reasonably expect the EUR and the GBP to depreciate in the short run, while aggregate EM and commodity currencies may have more room to appreciate before their run is complete. More broadly, a U.S.-based investor should consider the signal from ETF flows when deciding whether or not to hedge his/her foreign equity investments. Our global model portfolios currently include the unhedged iShares MSCI Eurozone, United Kingdom and EM equity ETFs (tickers: EZU, EWU and EEM). In light of these results, we may consider switching into HEZU and HEWU, the respective USD-hedged versions of the MSCI Eurozone and U.K. trackers, when we reassess our model portfolios at the beginning of May. We will leave our EM currency exposure unhedged. Jennifer Lacombe, Senior Analyst jenniferl@bcaresearch.com 1 UCITS stands for Undertakings for the Collective Investment of Transferable Securities. It creates a harmonized regime for the sale of mutual funds throughout the European Union. In the case of ETFs, it allows the same instrument to be listed on several European stock exchanges.

Highlights The global economy is slowing. However, growth should stabilize at an above-trend pace over the next few months, as fiscal policy turns more stimulative and interest rates remain in accommodative territory. President Trump's macroeconomic policies are completely at odds with his trade agenda. Fortunately, Trump appears willing to cut a deal on trade, even if it is on terms that are not nearly as favorable to the U.S. as he might have touted. The recently renegotiated South Korea-U.S. Free Trade Agreement is a case in point. We remain cyclically overweight global equities, but acknowledge that valuations are stretched and the near-term market environment could remain challenging until leading economic indicators improve. Feature Global Equities: Near-Term Outlook Is Still Hazy We published a note on February 2nd entitled "Take Out Some Insurance" warning investors that the stock market had become highly vulnerable to a correction.1 The VIX spike began the next day. Although volatility has fallen and equities have rebounded so far in April, we are reluctant to sound the all-clear. The near-term signal from the beta version of our MacroQuant model has improved a bit but remains in bearish territory, as it has for over two months now (Chart 1). Chart 1MacroQuant Model Suggests Caution Is Warranted The model is highly sensitive to changes in growth. Starting early this year, it began to detect a weakening in a variety of leading economic indicators in the U.S. and, to an even greater degree, abroad. Most notably, global PMIs and the German IFO have dipped, Korean and Taiwanese exports have decelerated, Japanese machinery orders have fallen, and the Baltic Dry Index has swooned by 36% from its December high (Chart 2). The model also noted an increase in inflationary pressures, suggesting that monetary policy would likely end up moving in a less accommodative direction. The emergence of stagflationary concerns came at a time when bullish stock market sentiment stood at very elevated levels (Chart 3). Our empirical work has shown that equities perform worst when sentiment is deteriorating from bullish levels and perform best when sentiment is improving from bearish levels (Chart 4). Chart 2Growth Has Peaked Chart 3Stock Market Sentiment Was Very ##br##Bullish Earlier This Year Chart 4Swings In Sentiment And ##br##Stock Market Returns Waiting For The Economic Data To Stabilize The good news is that the drop in equity prices has caused sentiment to return to more normal levels. The bad news is that the activity data has continued to disappoint at the margin, as evidenced by the weakness in economic surprise indices and various "nowcasts" of real-time growth (Chart 5). Ultimately, we expect global growth to stabilize at an above-trend pace over the coming months, which should allow equities to grind higher. Monetary policy is still quite accommodative. The yield on the JP Morgan Global Bond Index has averaged 1.88% since the end of the Great Recession (Chart 6). We do not know where the "neutral" level of bond yields has been over this period. However, we do know that unemployment in the major economies has been falling, which suggests that monetary policy has been in expansionary territory. Despite the move away from quantitative easing by many central banks, the yield on the JP Morgan Global Bond Index is only 1.53% today. This implies a fortiori that bond yields today are well below restrictive levels. The conclusion is further strengthened if one assumes, as seems highly plausible, that the neutral bond yield has risen over the past few years, as deleveraging headwinds have abated and fiscal policy has turned more stimulative (Chart 7). Chart 5Unexpected Slowdown In Growth Chart 6Interest Rates Are Off Their Bottom, ##br##But Are Not Restrictive Chart 7Fiscal Policy Will Be Stimulative ##br##This Year And Next The Protectionism Bugbear Global growth has not been the only thing on investors' minds. The specter of a trade war has also loomed large. It is true that the standard early-19th century Ricardian model that first-year economics students learn predicts very small welfare losses from increased protectionism.2 The model, however, makes highly antiquated assumptions about how trade works. Trade today bears little resemblance to the world in which David Ricardo lived - the one where England exchanged cloth for Portuguese wine (the example Ricardo used to illustrate his famous principle of comparative advantage). Chart 8Trade In Intermediate Goods Dominates To an increasingly large extent, countries do not really trade with one another anymore. One can even go as far as to say that different companies do not really trade with each other in the way they once did. A growing share of international trade is between affiliates of the same companies. Trade these days is dominated by intermediate goods (Chart 8). The exchange of goods and services takes place within the context of a massive global supply chain, where such phrases as "outsourcing," "vertical integration" and "just-in-time inventory management" have entered the popular vernacular. This arrangement has many advantages, but it also harbors numerous fragilities. A small fire at a factory in Japan that manufactured 60 percent of the epoxy resin used in chip casings led to a major spike in RAM prices in 1993. Flooding in Thailand in 2011 wreaked havoc on the global auto industry.3 The global supply chain is highly vulnerable to even small shocks. Now imagine an across-the-board trade war. Equities represent a claim on the existing capital stock, not the capital stock that might emerge after a trade war has been fought. A trade war would result in a lot of stranded capital. It is not surprising that investors are worried. Trump's Dubious Trade Doctrine The psychology of a trade war today is not that dissimilar to that of an actual war among the great powers. It would be immensely damaging if it were to happen, but because everyone knows it would be so damaging, it is less likely to occur. How then should one interpret President Trump's tweet that "Trade wars are good, and easy to win?" One possibility is that he is bluffing. The U.S. exported only $131 billion in goods to China last year, which is less than the $150 billion in Chinese imports that Trump has already targeted for tariffs. China simply cannot win a tit-for-tat trade war with the United States. Unfortunately, there is also a less charitable interpretation, as revealed by the second part of Trump's tweet, where he said, "When we are down $100 billion with a certain country and they get cute, don't trade anymore - we win big. It's easy!" Trump seems to equate countries with companies: Exports are revenues and imports are costs. If a country is exporting less than it is importing, it must be losing money. This is deeply flawed reasoning. I run a trade deficit with the place where I eat lunch, but I don't go around complaining that they are ripping me off. One would think that Trump - whose businesses routinely spent more than they earned, accumulating debt in the process - would understand this. But apparently not. As we discussed two weeks ago, the U.S. runs a trade deficit mainly because its deep and open financial markets, along with a relatively high neutral rate of interest, make it an attractive destination for foreign capital.4 If a country runs a capital account surplus with the rest of the world - meaning that it sells more assets to foreigners than it buys from foreigners - it will necessarily run a current account deficit. Trump's Macro Policy Colliding With His Trade Policy In this respect, President Trump's macroeconomic policies are completely at odds with his trade agenda. By definition, the current account balance is the difference between what a country saves and what it invests. The U.S. fiscal position is set to deteriorate over the coming years, even if the unemployment rate continues to fall - an unprecedented occurrence (Chart 9). A bigger budget deficit will drain national savings. Chart 9The U.S. Budget Deficit Is Set To Widen Even If The Unemployment Rate Continues To Decline Meanwhile, an overheated economy will cause capital spending to rise as firms run out of low-cost workers. If Trump succeeds in boosting infrastructure spending, aggregate U.S. investment will rise even more. The current account deficit is highly likely to widen in this environment. A Temporary Reprieve? Chart 10Trump's Protectionist Agenda Is A ##br##Popular One Among Republican Voters The prospect of a wider trade deficit means that Trump's protectionist wrath will not go quietly into the night. It may, however, go into remission for a little while. Trump's approval rating has managed to rise over the past few months because his protectionist agenda is popular with a large segment of the population (Chart 10). However, if the problems on Wall Street begin to show up on Main Street - as is likely to happen if stocks resume their decline - Trump will change his tune. This is especially true if a trade war threatens to hurt U.S. agricultural interests. Rural areas have been a key source of support for Trump's populist rhetoric. Trump has shown a willingness to cut a deal on trade even if the negotiated outcome falls well short of his bluster. Consider the agreement between the U.S. and Korea in late March to amend their existing trade pact. Trump had called the South Korea-U.S. Free Trade Agreement an "unacceptable, horrible deal" and a "job killer." After the agreement was renegotiated, the President described it as a "wonderful deal with a wonderful ally." What did Trump get that was so wonderful? The Koreans agreed to double the ceiling on the number of U.S. automobiles that can be exported to Korea without having to meet the country's tough environmental standards to 50,000. The problem is that the U.S. only shipped 11,000 autos to Korea last year, so the original quota was nowhere close to binding. The Koreans also agreed to reduce steel exports to the U.S. to about 70% of the average level of the past three years in exchange for a permanent exemption from Trump's 25% steel tariff. That may sound like a major concession, but keep in mind that only 12% of Korea's steel exports go to the United States. Korea also re-exports steel from other countries. These re-exports can be curtailed without causing major damage to Korea's steel industry. The shares of Korea's largest publicly-listed steel companies jumped by 1.7% on the first trading day after news of the deal broke, eclipsing the 0.8% rise in the KOSPI index. Investment Conclusions The global economy is going through a soft patch and this could weigh on stocks in the near term. However, if trade frictions fade into the background and global growth stabilizes over the coming months, as we expect will be the case, global equities should rally to fresh cycle highs. Granted, we are in the late stages of the business-cycle expansion. U.S. interest rates are likely to move into restrictive territory in the second half of 2019. Given the usual lags between changes in monetary policy and the real economy, this would place the next recession in 2020. By then, barring any fresh stimulus, the U.S. fiscal impulse will have dropped below zero. It is the change in the fiscal impulse that matters for growth. If growth has already slowed to a trend-like pace by late 2019 due to a shortage of workers, the economy could easily stall out in 2020. Given the still-dominant role played by U.S. financial markets, a recession in the U.S. would quickly be transmitted to the rest of the world. Stocks will peak before the next recession starts, but if history is any guide, this will only happen six months or so before the economic downturn begins (Table 1). This suggests that the equity bull market still has another 12-to-18 months of life left. The extent to which investors may wish to participate in any blow-off rally this year is a matter of personal preference. As was the case in the late 1990s, long-term expected returns have fallen to fairly low levels. A comparison between the Shiller P/E ratio and subsequent 10-year returns over the past century suggests that the S&P 500 will deliver a total nominal annualized return of only 4% during the next decade (Chart 11). A composite valuation measure incorporating both the trailing and forward P/E ratio, price-to-book, price-to-cash flow, price-to-sales, market cap-to-GDP, dividend yield, and Tobin's Q shows only modestly higher expected returns for stock markets outside the U.S. (Appendix A). Table 1Cyclically, It Is Too Soon To Get Out... Chart 11...But Long-Term Investors, Take Note As such, while we recommend overweighting global equities over a 12-month horizon, we would not fault long-term investors for taking some money off the table now. Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Take Out Some Insurance," dated February 2, 2018. 2 Roughly speaking, the Ricardian model predicts that the welfare loss from protectionism will be one-half times the average percentage-point increase in tariffs times the change in the import-to-GDP ratio. Imports are about 15% of U.S. GDP. Consider a 10 percent across-the-board increase in tariffs. Assuming a price elasticity of import demand of 4, this would reduce trade by 1-0.96^10=0.33 (i.e., 33%), which would take the import-to-GDP ratio down from 15% to 10%. As such, the welfare loss would be 0.5*0.1*(15%-10%)=0.25%, or just one quarter of one percent of GDP. 3 James Coates, "Real Chip Shortage Or Just A Panic, Crunch Is Likely To Boost Pc Prices," Chicago Tribune, dated August 6, 1993. "Thailand Floods Disrupt Production And Supply Chains," BBC.com, dated October 13, 2011; Ploy Ten Kate, and Chang-Ran Kim, "Thai Floods batter Global Electronics, Auto Supply Chains," Reuters.com, dated October 28, 2011. 4 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "U.S.-China Trade Spat: Is R-Star To Blame?" dated April 6, 2018. APPENDIX A Chart 1Long-Term Real Return Prospects Are Slightly Better Outside The U.S. Strategy & Market Trends Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

Highlights Oil markets could get even tighter, depending on fundamental "known unknowns." Chart of the WeekEM Import Volumes Continue Expanding,##BR##Reflecting Rising Incomes And Oil Demand The largest of these unknowns are the evolution of Iranian and Venezuelan oil output. With the May 12 deadline for U.S. President Donald Trump to waive trade sanctions against Iran fast approaching, and Venezuela's output in free fall, supply could contract dramatically. On the demand side, our short-term trade model is signaling EM imports continue to grow, which indicates continued income growth (Chart of the Week). EM growth drives oil demand growth. DM growth also will support commodity demand this year and next. The likelihood oil prices push toward - or exceed - $80/bbl this year is high. An extension of OPEC 2.0's production cuts into next year all but assures such excursions in 2019.1 Our forecast for 2018 remains at $74 and $70/bbl for Brent and WTI; we are leaving our 2019 forecasts at $67 and $64/bbl, respectively, but anticipate raising them as OPEC 2.0 forward guidance evolves. Energy: Overweight. Oil trade recommendations closed in 1Q18 were up an average 82%. The trades were initiated between Sep/17 and Jan/18. Base Metals: Neutral. LME aluminum's backwardation extends to end-2021, reflecting tighter physical markets. This supports our long S&P GSCI call, which is up 11.4% since Dec 7/17, when we recommended it. Precious Metals: Neutral. We are getting tactically long spot silver at tonight's close. Back-to-back physical deficits in 2016 and 2017, global income growth, and near-record speculative short positioning in COMEX silver - 79.8k futures contracts - are bullish. Ags/Softs: Underweight. Importers of U.S. sorghum into China now are required to post a 179% deposit with Chinese customs, according to Xinhuanet. The state-run news agency reported Ministry of Commerce findings of a surge in U.S. imports - from 317k MT in 2013 to 4.80mm MT in 2017 - which drove down local prices 31%, and "hurt local industries." Feature Our updated balances modeling indicates oil markets remain tight, and will continue to tighten this year, given our fundamental assumptions for supply and demand (Chart 2). We now estimate slightly lower crude oil production this year - 99.73mm b/d vs. our March estimate of 100.20mm b/d - with OPEC output at 32.12mm b/d, vs. 32.50mm b/d last month (Table 1). This is offset by non-OPEC supply growth, which continues to be led by rising U.S. shale-oil output (Chart 3). We expect production in the "Big 4" basins - Bakken, Permian, Eagle Ford and Niobrara - to average just over 6.44mm b/d this year, up 1.21mm b/d y/y, and 7.78mm b/d next year, up just over 1.34mm b/d. Chart 2Oil Markets Will Tighten Further Chart 3Lower OPEC Production Offset By U.S. Shales Table 1BCA Global Oil Supply - Demand Balances (mm b/d) We are leaving our consumption growth estimate for this year unchanged at 1.70mm b/d, bringing demand to 100.32mm b/d in 2018 on average, and raising our expectation for 2019 to 1.70mm b/d growth, which will take it to 102.00mm b/d on average (Chart 4). Global inventories will continue to drain on the back of these bullish fundamentals, falling somewhat more than we expected last month (Chart 5). We would note the trajectory of inventory growth likely will be altered once we have definitive 2019 production guidance from OPEC 2.0 - i.e., we expect some production cuts to be maintained next year, keeping inventories closer to end-2018 levels. These fundamentals leave our price forecasts unchanged at $74 and $70/bbl for Brent and WTI this year, and $67 and $64/bbl, respectively, next year (Chart 6). Again, we caution clients we fully expect to raise our 2019 forecast as OPEC 2.0 forward guidance evolves. Ministers of the coalition met this month in New Delhi and Riyadh, presumably to discuss institutionalizing their confederation.2 Chart 4Oil Demand##BR##Remains Stout Chart 5Bullish Fundamentals##BR##Drain Inventories Chart 6Price Forecast Unchanged,##BR##But Upside Risks Are Rising Once Again With "Known Unknowns"3 Supply-Side "Known Unknowns" A critical juncture in the evolution of the oil markets is fast approaching: The May 12 deadline for U.S. President Donald Trump to waive trade sanctions against Iran, and a determination on whether the U.S. will impose sanctions directly against Venezuela's oil industry. We have no advance knowledge of what the administration will do, but the signaling from the Trump White House has us inclined to believe the Iran sanctions will not be waived this time around. Action against Venezuela also is difficult to predict, but, of late, markets are sourcing alternative crude streams against a growing likelihood such sanctions will be imposed.4 Approaching the deadline for waiving Iranian sanctions, we have Iranian crude production at ~ 3.85mm b/d in 2H18, and a little over 3.90mm b/d next year. Prior to sanctions being lifted in January 2016, Iran was producing 2.80mm b/d. It is difficult to determine what will happen if sanctions are not waived by the U.S. - critically, whether U.S. allies will support such a move - so it is difficult to determine how deeply Iranian production and exports will be affected, if at all. S&P Global's Platts service noted a former Obama administration official estimated as much as 500k b/d of Iranian exports could be lost to the market, should the sanctions be restored. Other estimates range as high as 1mm b/d.5 We are carrying Venezuelan crude production at 1.52mm b/d for March, and have it declining to just over 1.40mm b/d by December. Last year, production averaged just over 1.90mm b/d. The government of Nicolas Maduro has run the economy and the state oil company, PDVSA, into the ground. Inflation came in at 454% in 1Q18, leaving prices up 8,900% in the year ended in March, according to Reuters.6 Presently, oil workers are fleeing PDVSA in a "stampede," according to Reuters, leaving the company woefully short of experienced personnel.7 The company lacks the wherewithal to pay for basic additives (diluents) to make its crude oil marketable. It is possible some of the company's creditors in Russia or China will step in to take over operations, but so far nothing has been announced. Demand-Side "Known Unknowns" Our demand estimates are premised on continued global growth this year and next, consistent with the IMF's latest global economic assessment.8 The Fund expects global GDP growth of 3.9% this year and next, which we incorporate into our modeling. Aside from the usual litany of long-term economic ills plaguing DM and EM economies - high debt levels, aging populations, falling labor-force participation rates, low productivity growth, and the need for diversification among commodity-exporting EM economies - trade tensions have become a more prominent risk. The Fund notes increasing trade tensions - set off by the U.S. imposition of tariffs on aluminum and steel imports - have the potential to "undermine confidence and derail global growth prematurely." These tensions have been stoked by tit-for-tat tariff announcements by the U.S. and China over the past month or so. Our own research supports this concern, which we believe is particularly acute for EM economies, where income growth, trade and commodity demand are inextricably entwined. Continued EM trade growth is essential for commodity demand growth, particularly for oil: A 1% increase in EM import volumes has translated into roughly a 1% increase in Brent and WTI prices since 2000. These variables all are linked: EM economic growth correlates with higher incomes, higher commodity demand and higher import volumes.9 EM growth accounts for slightly more than three-quarters of the overall oil-demand growth we expect this year and next - ~ 1.30mm b/d of the 1.70mm b/d of growth we are forecasting. While the odds of a full-blown trade war remain low, in our estimation, we could begin to see the erosion of confidence and the potential for growth to be derailed affecting investment, trade volumes and EM growth generally, which would be bearish for oil demand growth. That said, we share the view articulated by our colleagues in BCA's Global Investment Strategy last week: "Just as investors were overly complacent about protectionism a few months ago, they have become overly alarmist now." "Both the U.S. and China have a strong incentive to reach a mutually-satisfying agreement over trade. President Trump has been able to shrug off the decline in equities because his approval rating has actually risen during the selloff ... . However, if the problems on Wall Street begin to show up on Main Street - as is likely to happen if stocks continue to fall - Trump will change his tune."10 A Note On Permian Basis Differentials WTI - Midland differentials recently weakened considerably, as take away capacity out of the basin became strained (Chart 7). Weakness in the Light Houston Sweet differentials, which measure the spread between the producing and consuming markets for WTI produced in the Permian, traded as wide as -$9.00/bbl. This market has experienced similar such widening of the basis, which can be seen in the WTI-Midland vs. WTI - Cushing differentials, which widened considerably when Permian production increased (Chart 8).11 These basis blowouts typically incentivize additional pipeline capacity. Indeed, earlier this year, some 2.4mm b/d of new takeaway capacity had been proposed by pipeline operators.12 Once this capacity is online, we expect to see WTI exports from the Gulf increasing. Chart 7Growing Pains In The Permian:##BR##Takeaway Capacity Constraints Chart 8Permian Crude Oil Production##BR##Exceeded Takeaway In The Past Bottom Line: We are maintaining our $74 and $70/bbl prices forecasts for Brent and WTI in 2018, and expect to revise our 2019 forecasts of $67 and $64/bbl, respectively, once we get definitive forward guidance from OPEC 2.0. We continue to monitor supply-side risk - chiefly re Venezuela and Iran - and trade-war threats to the demand side, for any information that could cause us to substantially revise our forecasts. Robert P. Ryan, Senior Vice President Commodity & Energy Strategy rryan@bcaresearch.com Hugo Bélanger, Research Analyst Commodity & Energy Strategy HugoB@bcaresearch.com 1 OPEC 2.0 is the name we coined for the OPEC/non-OPEC producer coalition lead by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) and Russia. Member states pledged to remove 1.80mm b/d of production from the market, of which some 1.2mm b/d is believed to be actual production cuts, while the remainder is comprised of involuntary losses from Venezuela and other producers unable to offset decline curve losses. 2 Please see S&P Platts OPEC Guide of April 16, 2018, entitled "OPEC MAR CRUDE OIL PRODUCTION TUMBLES TO 32.14 MIL B/D, DOWN 250,000 B/D FROM FEB: PLATTS SURVEY," which reports on the OPEC 2.0 ministerial meetings this month in New Delhi and Riyadh. 3 "Known Unknowns" is a phrase popularized by Donald Rumsfeld, a former U.S. Secretary of Defence in the administration of George W. Bush, at a press conference. Please see the U.S. Department of Defence "News Transcript" of February 12, 2002, at http://archive.defense.gov/Transcripts/Transcript.aspx?TranscriptID=2636 4 Please see "A U.S. Ban On Crude Imports," published by vessel tracker KPLER April 13, 2018. 5 Please see "US foreign policy turn could take 1.4 million b/d off global oil market: analysts," published by S&P Global Platts March 20, 2018. 6 Please see "Venezuela inflation 454 percent in first quarter: National Assembly," published by reuters.com on April 11, 2018. 7 Please see "Under military rule, Venezuela oil workers quit in a stampede," published by uk.reuters.com on April 17, 2018. 8 Please see "Global Economy: Good News for Now but Trade tensions a Threat," published on the Fund's blog April 17, 2018. 9 Please see "Trade Tensions Cloud Oil Outlook," in the March 8, 2018, issue of BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy. It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 10 Please see "Is China Heading For A Minsky Moment?" in the April 13, 2018, issue of BCA Research's Global Investment Strategy. It is available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 11 LHS data is limited, as it only recently emerged as a benchmark for the Houston refining market. 12 Please see "Operators Race to Build Pipelines As Permian Nears Takeaway Capacity," in the March 2018 issue of Pipeline & Gas Journal. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed in 2018 Summary of Trades Closed in 2017

Highlights U.S. Treasury Curve: The U.S. Treasury curve has flattened to new cyclical lows as the market has moved to fully price in the Fed's interest rate forecasts. Inflation expectations must rise further for those forecasts to be fully realized, however. Expect renewed U.S. curve steepening through higher inflation expectations and longer-term Treasury yields in the next 3-6 months. UST-Bund Spread Update: Stay in our recommended 10yr UST-Bund spread widening trade. as Treasury yield increases will not be matched in Bunds given slowing euro area economic momentum and a more balanced tone from the ECB. Global IG Corporate Sector Allocation: Our investment grade (IG) sector allocations, taken from our relative value models, have added positive performance since our last update in August. Feature The unpredictable, and at times unruly, behavior of financial markets over the first few months of 2018 has been exhausting for investors. A calm January was followed by the early February volatility spike and, more recently, huge intraday swings based on the ebb and flow of news on U.S. trade and foreign policy. Yet when looking at the year-to-date returns for various asset classes, the numbers do not seem unusually alarming given the amount of surrounding noise. Chart of the WeekA Long Road Back From The VIX Spike The S&P 500 index is only down -0.7%, while both equities in both the euro area and emerging markets (EM) equities are up +1.8% and +1.1%, respectively (using MSCI data in U.S. dollar terms). Credit markets are also delivering rather boring performance so far in 2018, from U.S. high-yield (+1.2% excess return over government debt) to euro area investment grade and EM hard currency corporates (both with an -0.1% excess return in U.S. dollar terms). Admittedly, these numbers look far less flattering considering the robust rally in risk assets in January. Yet the year-to-date returns simply do not line up with our impression of how investors' feel about how this year has gone so far. The perception is much gloomier than the actual outcome. Right now, markets are looking for guidance and direction and finding little of both. A big problem is that global bond yields, most notably in the U.S., have not fallen much from the highs for the year - even with global growth clearly losing some steam in the first quarter of 2018. The reason? Global inflation is in a mild cyclical upswing, a product of persistently tight labor markets and rising oil prices (Chart of the Week). The "leadership" in government bond markets has shifted away from accelerating global growth and an upward repricing of future central bank tightening, to rising inflation and unchanged monetary policy expectations. The notion of central bankers not being friendly to the markets remains our key theme for this year. We continue to expect that policymakers will not respond to the latest softer patch of economic data and will focus more on the reacceleration of inflation. This is especially true with risk assets stabilizing and volatility measures like the U.S. VIX index continuing to drift lower and, more importantly, the "volatility of volatility" (as measured by the VVIX index) now back to the levels that prevailed before the early February volatility spike (bottom panel). Although as BCA's strategists discussed at our View Meeting yesterday, volatility can quickly return with a vengeance given softer global growth momentum, and with the geopolitical calendar heating up next month (the U.S. government must make its final decision on the China trade tariffs and investment restrictions).1 This led the group to downgrade our recommended global equity exposure and upgrade our global bond exposure on a tactical (0-3 months) basis, although our more medium-term cyclical allocations (6-12 months) were unchanged (overweight stocks versus bonds). From the point of view of global bond markets, we may now be in period of mild "stagflation" with softening growth and rising inflation. We remain of the view that the former is temporary and the latter is not. This backdrop will keep global bond yields under upward pressure for at least the next few months, with better expected performance of corporate debt over governments - albeit with the potential for higher volatility given more elevated geopolitical risks. What Next For The U.S. Treasury Curve? The Treasury curve flattened to a new cyclical low last week, with the spread between 2-year and 10-year bonds now sitting at 45bps. On the surface, this flattening seems consistent with a Fed that is maintaining a "cautiously hawkish" message and that its rate hike plans for 2018 are unchanged despite more volatile financial markets. Chart 2This UST Curve Flattening Is Different What makes this current episode different from other bouts of Treasury curve flattening over the past five years, however, is the starting point for the absolute of bond yields. According to our two-factor valuation model for the 10-year Treasury yield, yields are now just a touch above fair value, which is currently 2.78%. That yield valuation was at least +25bps before the previous flattening episodes between 2014 and 2017 (Chart 2). That distinction is critical in differentiating a bull flattener from a bear flattener. Simply put, longer-dated Treasuries are not yet cheap enough to suggest that investors should extend duration risk to benefit from any additional curve flattening from here. In fact, we see a greater risk that Treasury curve re-steepens a bit from here, as there is more room for longer-term inflation expectations to move higher than there is for the front-end of the curve to reprice an even more hawkish Fed. The recent softening of cyclical global economic data has been occurring while realized inflation rates have been slowly rising from depressed levels (Chart 3). Yet in the U.S., the slowing of growth seen in the first quarter of the year remains very modest compared to that seen in Europe or Japan, while core inflation rates (for both the CPI index and the PCE deflator) have accelerated back to 2%. The Atlanta Fed's GDPNow forecasting model is calling for Q1/2018 growth of 1.9%, while the New York Fed's Nowcast model is predicting Q1 growth of 2.8%. While both forecasts are a deceleration from the 3% rates seen in the previous three quarters in 2017, neither is below U.S. potential GDP growth, which the U.S. Congressional Budget Office now estimates to be 1.9%. Even in China, where the economy had been slowing as policymakers have aimed to tighten monetary policy and slow credit growth, cyclical indicators such as the Li Keqiang index (the preferred indicator of our China strategists) have shown a bit of a rebound of late. Right now, underlying U.S. growth and inflation momentum are still pointing towards the Fed delivering on its current projection of an additional 50bps of rate hikes in 2018, taking the funds rate to 2.25%, with even a chance of an additional hike if inflation continues to accelerate. This is essentially fully priced with a 2-year Treasury yield just under 2.4%, however, and the real funds rate is now at neutral according to measures like the Fed's r-star. Therefore, additional flattening pressures from the front end of the curve are unlikely unless the Fed is willing to signal a faster pace of rate hikes than currently laid out in its economic projections (the "dots"). At the same time, the 10-year TIPS inflation breakeven remains 25-35bps below the 2.4-2.5% range that would be consistent with the market expecting U.S. inflation to sustainably return to the Fed's 2% inflation target on the headline PCE deflator. Hence, a steeper Treasury curve is far more likely than a flatter Treasury curve from current levels. Where could this view go wrong? Perhaps the Trump administration's trade skirmishes with China could broaden into a full-on trade war that could cause deeper damage to U.S. equities, dampen growth expectations and drive longer-term yields lower. Coming at a time when there is a significant short position in the U.S. Treasury market, this could look similar to the prolonged bull-flattening seen in 2015-16. During that episode, duration exposure flipped from a big net short to very net long according to measures like the J.P. Morgan Duration Survey (Chart 4, top panel), while the market priced out all expected Fed rate hikes (2nd panel). However, that also occurred alongside a 50bp decline in inflation expectations (3rd panel) and a big deceleration of U.S. growth (bottom panel), both related to a weakening global economy and collapsing oil prices. It is uncertain if the current U.S.-China trade skirmish would have an equivalent impact on both the U.S. economy and the Treasury curve, especially given a starting point of stronger global growth a far more positive demand/supply balance in world oil markets. Chart 3A Whiff Of Stagflation? Chart 42018 Is Not 2015/16 In sum, we are sticking to our view that the Treasury curve is more likely to bear-steepen through higher longer-term yields than flatten bearishly through more discounted Fed hikes or flatten bullishly through much weaker growth and inflation. We continue to recommend a below-benchmark duration stance in the U.S., within an underweight allocation in a currency-hedged global government bond portfolio. We are also are sticking with our tactical trade of staying short the 10-year U.S. Treasury versus the 10-year German Bund, even with the spread now looking a bit too wide on our fundamentals-based valuation model (Chart 5). The unrelenting string of disappointing economic data in the euro area has already resulted in a far more cautious tone from European Central Bank (ECB) officials regarding the potential for quick rate hikes after the expected end of the asset purchase program at the end of this year. The gap between the U.S. and euro area data surprise indices has proven to be a good directional indicator for the Treasury-Bund spread (Chart 6, bottom panel). Given our views on the potential for renewed bear-steepening in the Treasury curve, which is unlikely to be matched in the German curve in the next 3-6 months, we see no reason to take profits yet on our spread trade. Chart 5UST-Bund Spread Now A Bit Too Wide... Chart 6...But Too Soon For Spread Tightening Bottom Line: The U.S. Treasury curve has flattened to new cyclical lows as the market has moved to fully price in the Fed's interest rate forecasts. Inflation expectations must rise further for those forecasts to be fully realized, however. Expect renewed U.S. curve steepening through higher inflation and longer-term Treasury yields in the next 3-6 months. Stay in our recommended 10-year Treasury-Bund spread widening trade, as Treasury yield increases will not be matched in Bunds given slowing euro area economic momentum and a more balanced tone from the ECB. A Brief (And Belated) Performance Update For Our Corporate Bond Sector Allocations It has been some time (August 2017) since we last published a performance update for our investment grade (IG) corporate sector allocations for the U.S., euro area and U.K. As a reminder, those allocations come from our relative value model, which is designed to measure the valuation of each individual sector compared to the overall Barclays Bloomberg corporate bond index for each region. The methodology takes each sector's individual option-adjusted spread (OAS) and regresses it in a panel regression with all the other sectors in each region, as a function of the sector's duration, convexity (duration squared) and credit rating - the primary risk factors for any corporate bond. Using the common coefficients from that regression, a risk-adjusted "fair value" spread is calculated. The difference between the actual OAS and the fair value OAS is our valuation metric from the model for each region. The latest output from the models can be found in the tables and charts in the Appendix starting on Page 14. We also show the duration-times-spread (DTS) for each sector in those tables, using that as our primary way to measure the volatility of each sector. The scatterplot charts in the Appendix show the tradeoff between the valuation residual from our model and each sector's DTS. Chart 7Performance Of Our IG Sector Allocations We then apply individual sector weights based on the model output and our desired level of overall spread risk that we wish to take in our recommended credit portfolio. At our last update in August 2017, we made a decision to keep the overall (weighted) DTS of our sector tilts roughly equal to the overall IG corporate DTS for each region. With credit spreads looking tight at the time, credit spread curves flat relative to history, and with the Fed in the midst of a tightening cycle, we did not see a case for taking aggressive spread risk (i.e. having a high aggregate DTS) in the portfolio. The performance of our latest sector recommendations since our last update in August 2017, and in the first quarter of 2018, are shown in Chart 7. We show both the total return and excess return of each sector versus duration-matched government bonds. Since that last review, our U.K. sector allocations have performed the best, delivering an additional 12bps of total return and 10bps of excess return versus the U.K. IG corporate index. Our euro area corporate allocations have added 2bps of total return and 3bps of excess return, while our U.S. allocations have modestly underperformed both on total return (-1bp) and excess return. We also show the performance numbers for just the first quarter of 2018 in Chart 7, and we will present the return numbers on this quarterly basis in the future as part of our regular model bond portfolio performance reviews. The sector allocations offered a modest underperformance in Q1 2018, with -5bps of total return and -8bps of excess return coming mostly from euro area and U.K. allocations. The U.S. allocations actually outperformed by +3bps on a total return basis in Q1. The return numbers for our U.S. sector allocations can be found in Table 1. Since our last update in August, the best performing sectors (in excess return terms) for our U.S. portfolio allocation were the overweights to all Energy sub-sectors (+35bps combined), Cable & Satellite (+4bps) and Banks (+4bps). Of those names, only the Independent Energy sub-sector delivered a positive excess return (+3bps) in Q1 2018. Table 1U.S. Investment Grade Performance The return numbers for our euro area sector allocations can be found in Table 2. Since our last update in August, the best performing sectors (in excess return terms) for our euro area portfolio allocation were the overweights to Financials (+35bps, coming mainly from Banks, Senior Debt and Insurance) and Integrated Energy (+13bps). Those overweights also delivered small positive excess returns (+3bps and +1bps, respectively) in Q1 2018. The return numbers for our U.K. sector allocations can be found in Table 3. Since our last update, the best performing sector (in excess return terms) was the overweight to Financials (+6bps, coming mostly from Banks). Looking ahead, credit spread curves remain very flat by historical standards (Chart 8), which suggests there is not enough spread compensation for extending credit risk to lower quality tiers. Thus, we are sticking with keeping our target DTS for our combined sector allocations equal to that of the overall IG index for each region. We will update our sector allocations in an upcoming Weekly Report. Table 2Euro Area Investment Grade Performance Table 3U.K. Investment Grade Performance Chart 8Credit Quality Curves Remain Very Flat Bottom Line: Our investment grade (IG) sector allocations, taken from our relative value models, have added positive performance since our last update in August. We continue to recommend a cautious approach to sector allocation, targeting index levels of spread risk (in aggregate) in the U.S. euro area and U.K. Robert Robis, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Expect Volatility ... Of Volatility", dated April 11, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. Appendix Appendix Chart 1U.S. Corporate Sector Valuation And Recommended Allocation* Appendix Chart 1U.S. Corporate Sector Risk Vs. Reward* Appendix Table 2Euro Area Corporate Sector Valuation And Recommended Allocation* Appendix Chart 2Euro Area Corporate Sector Risk Vs. Reward* Appendix Table 3U.K. Corporate Sector Valuation And Recommended Allocation* Appendix Chart 3U.K. Corporate Sector Risk Vs. Reward* Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Highlights Capacity cuts in China's steel and aluminum industries over the winter produced little in the way of output reductions, confounding our expectations. The resulting unintended inventory accumulation in Asian markets, reflecting high production relative to demand, and slowing Chinese steel exports are a downside risk to our neutral view. U.S. sanctions against Russian oligarchs close to President Putin could tighten the aluminum market, countering the unintended inventory accumulations. For now, we remain neutral base metals. Energy: Overweight. We are closing our long put spread position in Dec/18 Brent options at tonight's close. The fast-approaching May 12 deadline for President Trump to renew sanctions waivers against Iran shifts the balance of price risks to the upside. Base Metals: Neutral. COMEX copper rallied above $3.10/lb on the back of Chinese President Xi's remarks at the Boao Forum earlier this week, which re-hashed plans to open China's economy to imports. Precious Metals: Neutral. Gold likely becomes better bid as the May 12 deadline to waive Iran sanctions nears. Our long gold portfolio hedge is up 8.9%. Ags/Softs: Underweight. European buyers are scooping up U.S. soybeans, as Chinese purchases of Brazilian beans makes U.S.-sourced crops relatively cheaper, according to Reuters.1 China also announced plans to start selling corn stocks from state reserves this week, offering an alternative protein for animals to partially offset the price impact of tariffs on their imports of U.S. soybeans. Feature Chart of the WeekAluminum Rebounds On U.S. Sanctions Despite much-ballyhooed capacity reductions in China's steel and aluminum capacity, these markets - both in China and globally - remained relatively well supplied over the winter. Higher global supplies, and falling Chinese steel exports, will result in unintended inventory accumulation, which already is showing up in Shanghai Futures Exchange (SHFE) inventories. While we remain neutral base metals, continued unintended inventory accumulation could cause us to downgrade the sector. The MySteel Composite Index we use to track steel prices is down more than 10% since the beginning of the year (Chart of the Week). Similarly, the first-nearby primary aluminum contract on the LME was down ~ 12% year-to-date (ytd) early last week, before regaining most of these losses on news of U.S. sanctions against Russian oligarchs, which hit shares of Rusal very hard. Given that these sanctions will restrict access to up to 6% of global aluminum supply, ex-China supply dynamics will dominate the aluminum market this year making the outlook relatively favorable, putting a floor beneath the London Metal Exchange Index (LMEX).2 Ex-Post Winter Production Production cuts over the winter - when Chinese mills in 28 smog-prone northern cities were ordered to reduce capacity by up to 50% - did not live up to our expectations.3 China's steel and aluminum sectors have undergone major supply-side reforms, particularly re the removal of outdated capacity, most of which has been completed. In addition to the winter capacity cuts, past reforms that have already been implemented, and have shaped current market conditions, are as follows: In an effort to eliminate outdated and unlicensed facilities, China removed an estimated 3-4 mm MT of annual capacity in 2017 - amounting to approximately 10% of total aluminum smelting capacity. In the case of steel, Beijing announced plans to shut down 150 mm MT of annual steel capacity between 2016 and 2020. To date, 115 mm MT of capacity have already been eliminated. Another estimated 80-120 mm MT of induction furnace capacity was shuttered in 1H17. Going forward, China's steel and aluminum markets will be driven by: An estimated 3-4 mm MT of updated aluminum capacity is expected to come on line this year, offsetting constraints from last year's supply cuts. 30 mm MT of steel capacity shutdowns are planned this year, putting Beijing on track to meet its five-year target two years ahead of schedule. The Chinese National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) has communicated its resolve to keep shuttered capacity offline. Major steelmaking cities in Hebei province - accounting for 22% of 2017 Chinese crude steel output - have announced plans to extend the capacity cuts to November 2018. The mid-November to mid-March capacity cuts implemented this past season are expected to be a recurring event. Winter Shutdowns Minimally Impact China's Steel Output ... According to steel production data released by the World Steel Association (WSA), winter capacity closures in China did not significantly affect overall output levels. Crude steel output from China was up 3.9% year-on-year (y/y) in the November to February period (Chart 2). At the same time, production from the rest of the world increased by 3.6% y/y in the November to February. Thus global crude steel supply remained in excess over the winter season, as global steel output increased 3.8% y/y. A caveat to these data: China does not account for the historical output of induction furnaces, which produced an estimated ~30-50 mm MT of steel in 2016. As mentioned in our previous research, the output of these furnaces was illegal and thus not carried in statistics we use to track supply.4 These data problems mean it is possible that actual output in the November 2016 to February 2017 period was higher than suggested by the data, and as a result, actual output during this year's winter season may actually be lower than last year. As induction-furnace data lie in the statistical shadows, we cannot ascertain this with certainty. Nevertheless, a buildup in China inventories - which we discuss below - indicates an oversupplied market. It is also likely producers - incentivized by high steel prices earlier this year - kept capacity utilization at maximum levels throughout the winter. ... And Aluminum Output According to International Aluminum Institute data, primary aluminum output in China fell 2.3% y/y in the November to February period, suggesting the winter cuts likely had an impact on aluminum supply (Chart 3). Data from the World Bureau of Metal Statistics (WBMS) show an even sharper decline in winter aluminum output: primary production in China fell 8.7% y/y in the November to January period. Chart 2Steel Output Grew##BR##Amid Winter Cuts Chart 3China Aluminum Market In Surplus##BR##Despite Production Decline Both sources reveal an especially pronounced contraction in November, at the onset of the winter cuts. Despite reduced supply, WBMS data indicate a positive Chinese aluminum market balance throughout the winter. A large contraction in demand offset the supply shortfall, and kept primary aluminum in a physical surplus throughout the winter, ultimately leading to a buildup in domestic inventories. A Look At The Trade Data Despite our disappointment regarding the impact of the winter cuts on steel and aluminum markets, trade data increasingly suggests China's steel exports have peaked. Aluminum exports from China, on the other hand, are likely to continue rising. Chinese Steel Exports Continue To Fall ... Chinese steel product net exports have been falling since mid-2016, and have continued falling in y/y terms throughout the winter. According to Chinese customs data, steel product net exports fell 35.1% y/y in the November to February period, driven by both falling exports as well as rising imports (Chart 4). Steel product exports plunged 30% y/y in the November to February period, more or less in line with the 2017 average. The decline mirrors the 2017 contraction in domestic supply, bringing exports to their lowest level since 2012. This indicates fears of a China slowdown leading to a flood of metal onto global markets have not materialized, at least not yet. In fact, Customs data show a 1.7% y/y increase in Chinese steel imports during the November to February period - a reversal from falling imports prior to the winter season. The conclusion we draw from this is that, while in the past, China was a source of supply for the world, ongoing capacity cuts and production controls could mean China will lack the ability to ramp up output in case of a global physical supply deficit. If this becomes the new normal, price volatility will likely increase. This trend is important, especially given our expectation of strong world ex-China demand this year. As such, global steel prices may find support amid this new normal. ... But Aluminum Exports Move Higher In the case of aluminum, Chinese net exports were up 28.7% y/y during the winter, continuing their upward trend. Customs data show a 14.8% y/y increase in aluminum exports in November to February, bringing exports in this period to their highest level since 2014/15 (Chart 5). At the same time, imports of aluminum have come down during this period - by 37.2% y/y. According to China customs data, 2017 imports over these winter months registered their lowest level since 1994. Chart 4Steel Exports Continue Falling ... Chart 5...While Aluminum Exports Are On the Uptrend The combination of growing exports amid falling imports puts China's net exports in expansionary territory. This will be especially true given the planned increase in capacity this year amid weak Chinese demand. All in all, ceteris paribus global supply of aluminum looks set to increase. However, we do not live in a ceteris paribus world and, as we explore below, sanctions against the top aluminum producer outside of China will have massive implications on the global aluminum supply chain. Are Inventories Due For A Turnaround? Chart 6Larger Than Expected##BR##Seasonal Inventory Buildup China Iron and Steel Association data indicate that since the beginning of the year, steel product inventories have been re-stocked to levels last seen in 1Q14. Inventories of the five main steel products we track have more than doubled since the beginning of the year (Chart 6). Although the Q1 build is seasonal, the re-stocking since the beginning of the year has been especially pronounced. This buildup occurred in an environment of stable supply - with minimal impact from the winter capacity cuts - amid weak exports, indicating domestic demand for the metal was subdued. However, steel inventories have turned around, and we expect further destocking as demand accelerates post the Chinese New Year. The question remains whether this destocking will bring inventories back down to their 5-year average. Aluminum inventories on the SHFE show similar dynamics. However in this case, it is part of the larger trend of rising stocks since the beginning of last year. Aluminum inventories at SHFE warehouses are up more than nine-fold - or 0.87 mm MT - since the end of 2016. In fact, the pace of buildup seems to have accelerated: the average weekly build of 16.6k MT of aluminum coming into warehouse inventories since the beginning of the year stands above the 2017 average weekly build of 12.6k MT. This brought SHFE aluminum inventories to almost 1 mm MT, more than double their previous record in 2010. Although the Chinese physical aluminum surplus weighed down on prices in 1Q18, we expect global aluminum prices to remain supported from here due to the impact of U.S. sanctions on world ex-China aluminum supply. U.S. Russian Sanctions Could Be A Game-Changer Chart 7Sanctions Will Restrict##BR##Marketable Aluminum Supply Last Friday, the U.S. announced sanctions on Russian oligarchs close to President Vladimir Putin. Among those sanctioned is Oleg Deripaska who controls EN+ Group, which owns a controlling interest in top aluminum producer United Company Rusal. Given that UC Rusal accounts for ~6% of global aluminum production, we view this move as significant to global aluminum markets. As the top producer of the metal outside China, Rusal aluminum likely makes up the majority of Russian supply, which account for 14% of U.S. imports (Chart 7). In fact, almost 15% of Rusal's revenues comes from its business with the U.S. While it is clear that these sanctions will, in effect, terminate aluminum trade between Russia and the U.S., more significant are the implications on the global supply chain. A clause in the U.S. Treasury Department's order extending the restrictions to non-U.S. citizens dealing with U.S. entities means the impact could be far-reaching, requiring a major re-shuffle in global aluminum trade. Earlier this week, the LME announced that it will no longer accept Rusal aluminum produced after April 6, effectively preventing the company's products from being delivered on the LME. These sanctions will likely turn global aluminum buyers off from Rusal products, as they can no longer deliver it to the LME. The net effect will be a contraction in global usable aluminum supply. Furthermore, these sanctions will likely disrupt supply chains as aluminum users scramble to avoid purchasing metal from the Russian producer. While the details of these restrictions are still unclear, the sanctions are a game changer in the global aluminum market - effectively restricting access to a major source of the metal. As such, primary aluminum on the LME is up more than 10% since the announcement last Friday. Bottom Line: While China's crude steel output increased y/y during government-mandated output cuts over the winter, seasonally weak demand meant that the metal piled up in inventories. Falling exports indicates that at least for now, the domestic surplus is not flooding global markets. The main risk to our neutral view here is that demand in China remains weak, and that this will lead to the offloading of Chinese metal to global markets, i.e. a pickup in exports. This has not yet materialized, so we are holding on to our neutral view for now. China's primary aluminum production declined y/y during the winter cuts. However the decline in domestic demand was greater - likely due to the decline in auto production and sales following the loss of tax credit incentives. Consequently, China's aluminum market remained in surplus throughout the winter. Some of the excess supply was exported, but SHFE inventories continued building. Our outlook on the aluminum market had been bearish, due to additional capacity coming online this year amid an uncertain China demand environment. However, the sanctions on Rusal could be a game changer, putting a floor beneath aluminum prices. This improves our near term outlook for the aluminum market. This makes our outlook on aluminum prices much more favorable. Roukaya Ibrahim, Associate Editor Commodity & Energy Strategy RoukayaI@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see "As U.S. and China trade tariff barbs, others scoop up U.S. soybeans," published by reuters.com on April 8, 2018. 2 The six non-ferrous metals represented in the LMEX and their respective weights are as follows: aluminum: 42.8%, copper: 31.2%, zinc: 14.8%, lead: 8.2%, nickel: 2.0%, and tin: 1.0%. 3 China's winter smog "battle plan" targeted polluting industries in the northern China region by mandating cuts on steel, cement and aluminum production during the smog-prone mid-November to mid-March months. Steel and aluminum production cuts targeted a range between 30-50% during this period. This event is expected to be an annually recurring event until 2020. 4 Please see BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report titled "China's Environmental Reforms Drive Steel & Iron Ore," dated January 11, 2018, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed in 2018 Summary of Trades Closed in 2017

Highlights Q1 Performance Breakdown: The GFIS recommended model bond portfolio returned -0.55% (hedged into U.S. dollars) in the first quarter of 2018, underperforming the custom benchmark index by -11bps. The overweight to U.S. corporate bonds was the main drag on performance. Stress Test & Scenario Analysis: We introduce a simple framework to conduct scenario analysis and stress testing of the model bond portfolio. Our conclusion is that some shifting in our corporate bond allocations - reducing exposure to U.S. investment grade, increasing exposure to euro area and emerging market corporates - can actually help eliminate expected losses in scenarios that run counter to our base case. Feature This week, we present our regular quarterly report on the performance of the BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy (GFIS) model bond portfolio. As a reminder to existing readers (and for new clients), the portfolio is a part of our service that is a departure from the usual BCA macro analysis of global fixed income markets. The model portfolio is how we communicate our opinion on the relative attractiveness between government bond and spread product sectors, by applying actual percentage weightings to each of our recommendations within a fully invested hypothetical bond portfolio. This framework also gives us a vehicle to discuss many of the typical bond portfolio management issues that our clients face on a daily basis. In that vein, we are introducing a new element to our framework in this report - estimating future portfolio performance using scenario analysis, and conducting stress testing of outcomes that are contrary to our base case expectations for global bond markets. Q1/2018 Model Portfolio Performance Breakdown: An Unexpected Hit From U.S. Corporates Chart of the WeekShifting Correlations Hurt##BR##The Model Portfolio In Q1 The surge in global market volatility in the first quarter of the year weighed on the returns for the GFIS model bond portfolio. The portfolio had a total return of -0.55% (hedged into U.S. dollars), which lagged that of our custom benchmark index by -11bps.1 The quarter started out on a good note, with the portfolio outperforming by +12bps in January, as gains from our below-benchmark duration stance offset some underperformance from our overweight on global spread product. The story changed in early February, however, as the U.S. wage inflation "scare" and the associated VIX spike resulted in wider U.S. corporate bond spreads. This counteracted the gains on the government bond side of the portfolio as bond yields continued to climb. After yields peaked in mid-February, the portfolio gave back much of the outperformance from duration, with no recovery of the early February losses from spread product (Chart of the Week). In terms of the breakdown between the government bond and spread product allocations in our model portfolio, the former generated +9bps of outperformance versus our custom benchmark index while the latter underperformed by -19bps (Table 1). The bar charts showing the total and relative returns for each individual government bond market and spread product sector are presented in Charts 2 and 3. The main individual sectors of the portfolio that drove the excess returns were the following: Biggest outperformers Underweight U.S. Treasuries (+16bps) Underweight emerging market (EM) U.S. dollar (USD) denominated corporate debt (+5bps) Overweight Japanese government bonds (JGBs) with maturities of ten years or less (+4bps) Underweight EM USD-denominated sovereign debt (+2bps) Biggest underperformers Overweight U.S. investment grade (IG) Financials (-14bps) Overweight U.S. IG Industrials (-8bps) Underweight JGBs with maturities beyond ten years (-8bps) Overweight U.S. Ba-rated high-yield (HY) corporates (-4bps) Table 1GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q1-2018 Overall Return Attribution Chart 2GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q1-2018 Government Bond Performance Attribution By Country Chart 3GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q1-2018 Spread Product Performance Attribution By Sector The hits from the overweight positions in U.S. corporate debt were the most surprising, given that the U.S. economy and corporate profits are still expanding at a solid pace. That would typically keep corporate credit spreads well-behaved, especially when U.S. Treasury yields are rising or stable as was the case in the first quarter. Yet volatility has spiked and stayed elevated in response to heightened uncertainty over slowing global growth momentum, rising U.S. inflation and worries about future U.S. trade policy. Investors have demanded moderately higher credit risk premiums in the U.S. as a result, to the detriment of U.S. corporate bond performance. This can be seen in Chart 4, which presents the returns of the individual countries and spread product sectors in the GFIS model bond portfolio. The returns are hedged into U.S. dollars (we do not take active currency risk in this portfolio) and also adjusted to reflect duration differences between each country/sector and the overall custom benchmark index for the model portfolio. We have also color coded the bars in each chart to reflect our recommended investment stance for each market.2 On this "apples-for-apples" basis, U.S. IG corporates were the worst performing fixed income market in the first quarter of 2018. Chart 4Ranking The Winners & Losers From The Model Portfolio In Q1 Looking ahead, we see no need yet to get out of our recommended overweight in global spread product or underweight in global government bond exposure (Chart 5). While there are some signs of slowing growth momentum in major economies (euro area, China), a deeper slowdown is not being heralded by leading economic indicators, which continue to rise. Much of the global economy continues to operate at or beyond full employment, which will continue to put moderate upward pressure on inflation rates. This will force central banks to maintain a relatively hawkish bias, despite more elevated financial market volatility. The most likely outcomes are still more bearish for government bonds than for corporate credit. Chart 5We're Sticking With Our##BR##Spread Product Overweight Having said that - the higher volatility environment does argue for some reduction in the size of the spread product overweight in the model portfolio. Especially after we consider some scenario analysis on returns, as we discuss in the next section. Bottom Line: The GFIS recommended model bond portfolio returned -0.55% (hedged into U.S. dollars) in the first quarter of 2018, underperforming the custom benchmark index by -11bps. The overweight to U.S. corporate bonds was the main drag on performance, thanks to the more elevated level of market volatility and spread widening during the quarter. Stress Tests & Scenario Analysis A common analytical tool used by professional fund managers is to perform "stress tests" on their portfolios. This is done to estimate the size of potential losses that could occur after major market moves, typically those that went against current positioning in a portfolio. Those estimates are critical to the effective risk management of a portfolio. As part of the ongoing development of the infrastructure for our model bond portfolio framework, we are introducing scenario analysis and stress testing of our current recommended allocations. The goal is to determine the magnitude of potential returns that could be expected under our base case and alternative scenarios. This is meant to complement the main risk management tool that we added last year, a "risk budget" based on the tracking error (i.e. volatility difference) of the portfolio versus our custom benchmark.3 We have deliberately been targeting a modest tracking error for our model portfolio, given the historical richness (low yields, tight spreads) of so many parts of the global bond universe. Yet our estimate of the GFIS model bond portfolio's tracking error has fallen even below the low end of the 40-60bp range that we have been targeting (Chart 6).4 Chart 6Lower Tracking Error Through Higher##BR##Corporate Bond Volatility This appears to be due to an odd development. The model bond portfolio's volatility was running below that of its benchmark index over the past year, but with the increase in the return volatility of U.S. IG corporate debt - the biggest overweight within spread product - the portfolio's volatility has been converging to that of the benchmark from below, hence lowering the tracking error. In other words, being overweight U.S. IG was a portfolio diversifier last year, but that is no longer the case. This obviously highlights some of the limitations of using tracking error as the sole risk management tool for a bond portfolio. Shifting cross-asset correlations and volatilities can wreak havoc on any "guesstimate" of a portfolio's underlying risk. A more simple solution is to conduct scenario analysis of expected returns, then shock the analysis for changes in the underlying assumptions. The key is having a reasonable framework for estimating returns for various asset classes. For our purposes in the model portfolio, we are using a simple approach to forecast the expected returns. We use a factor-based framework that models changes in global bond yields as a function of changes in the following four variables: the U.S. dollar, the price of oil, the fed funds rate and the VIX index. We show the regression results of our factor-based modeling of yield changes for each spread sector in our model bond portfolio in Table 2A. We ran the regressions for different time horizons, but we decided on using the post-crisis period since 2009 in all cases. We also attempted to model the yield changes of government bonds using those same four factors, but the R-squareds for all those regressions were far too low to make them useful. We instead used a simple approach of calculating the beta since 2009 of changes in individual bond yields to changes in U.S. Treasury yields for each corresponding maturity bucket. We present those yield betas in Table 2B. Table 2AFactor Regressions Used To Estimate Spread Product Yield Changes Table 2BEstimated Government Bond Yield Betas To U.S. Treasuries With these tools, we can forecast returns for each bond sector under different scenarios. We can then use those forecasts to predict the expected return for our model bond portfolio under those same scenarios. In Tables 3A & 3B. We show three differing scenarios, with all the following changes occurring over a one-year horizon: Table 3AScenario Analysis For The GFIS Model Portfolio Table 3BU.S. Treasury Yield Assumptions For The Scenario Analysis Our Base Case: the Fed delivers another 75bps of rate hikes, the U.S. dollar rises by 5%, oil prices rise by 20% (the non-consensus view of BCA's commodity strategists), the VIX index stays unchanged at current elevated levels and there is a modest bear steepening of the U.S. Treasury curve. A Very Hawkish Fed: the Fed delivers 150bps of rate hikes, the U.S. dollar rises by 10%, oil prices fall by 10%, the VIX index increases by ten points from current levels and there is a sharp bear flattening of the U.S. Treasury curve. Chart 7U.S. IG Corporates Have A##BR##High Yield Beta (a.k.a. Duration) A Very Dovish Fed: the Fed only hikes rates by 25bps, the U.S. dollar falls by 5%, oil prices fall by 5%, the VIX index increases by five points from current levels and there is a modest bull steepening of the U.S. Treasury curve. In Table 3A, we also show the expected yield changes generated by our regressions for each spread product sector and the yield betas to U.S. Treasuries for each government bond market. This produces expected returns for the GFIS model bond portfolio, which are shown in the top part of the table. In our base case, the portfolio is expected to outperform the benchmark by +42bps, but underperform by nearly equivalent amounts in both alternative scenarios. In the bottom part of the table, we show expected returns where we reduce our large overweight to U.S. IG corporates. The latter has a high sensitivity to rising global government bond yields compared to some of our other significant overweights like Japanese government debt and U.S. high-yield (Chart 7). We then take that reduced U.S. IG weighting and increase the exposure to euro area and EM corporate bonds. This adjusted portfolio results in higher excess returns not only in our base case (now +78bps) but even in the "very hawkish Fed" scenario (now +8bps). The "very dovish Fed" scenario produces a similar loss in this scenario (now -37bps), but that is to be expected since this includes a fall in global bond yields that would hurt our current underweight duration stance (Chart 8). Importantly, this adjusted portfolio would not alter the positive carry of the model portfolio (i.e. the portfolio yield remains at 16bps above that of the custom benchmark index, Chart 9) Chart 8Flattening Yield Curves##BR##Have Also Hurt Returns Chart 9Some Help From##BR##Positive Carry Based on this scenario analysis, we are going to implement the changes in the bottom half of Table 3A. We are cutting our overweight to U.S. IG corporates in half (which still leaves us overweight), raising euro area IG and HY corporate exposure to neutral and reducing the size of our EM corporate underweight. The changes to the model portfolio can be found on Page 14. These changes will reduce our exposure to a sector that not only has become riskier, but which also looks relatively expensive to U.S. high-yield (Chart 10) and which has been underperforming euro area (Chart 11) and EM equivalents (Chart 12). Chart 10U.S. IG Looks More##BR##Expensive Than U.S. HY Chart 11An Unexpected Underperformance##BR##Of U.S. IG vs. European Corporates Chart 12An Unexpected Underperformance##BR##Of U.S. IG Vs. Versus EM Corporates Bottom Line: We introduce a simple framework to conduct scenario analysis and stress testing of the model bond portfolio. Our conclusion is that some shifting in our corporate bond allocations - reducing exposure to U.S. investment grade, increasing exposure to euro area and emerging market corporates - can actually help eliminate expected losses in scenarios that run counter to our base case. Robert Robis, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com 1 The GFIS model bond portfolio custom benchmark index is the Bloomberg Barclays Global Aggregate Index, but with allocations to global high-yield corporate debt replacing very high quality spread product (i.e. AA-rated). We believe this to be more indicative of the typical internal benchmark used by global multi-sector fixed income managers. 2 For Italy & Spain, the bars have two colors since the portfolio weights were changed in mid-February, when we upgraded Italian debt to neutral at the expense of a reduction in Spanish government bond exposure. 3 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report, "Adding A Risk Management Framework To Our Model Bond Portfolio", dated June 20th 2017, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 4 In general, we aim to target a tracking error no greater than 100bps. We think this is reasonable for a portfolio where currency exposure is fully hedged and less than 5% of the portfolio benchmark is in bonds with ratings below investment grade. Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns