Asset Allocation

Highlights Portfolio Strategy The latest wobble in the financials sector is a buying opportunity, with the exception of the defensive insurance index. Our tactical overweight in utilities has played out. Take profits and downgrade to neutral. Weak beverage operating metrics argue for a reduction in premium valuations. We recommend a full downgrade from overweight to underweight. Recent Changes S&P Utilities - Downgrade to neutral, locking in gains of 1% on this tactical position. S&P Soft Drinks - Downgrade to underweight. Table 1 Feature The S&P 500 remained undaunted in the face of a geopolitical firestorm last week. Instead, vibrant global growth and easy monetary conditions continue to underpin investor confidence in the durability of the earnings upcycle. Our thesis remains intact: a recovery in top-line growth, powered by both volume and pricing power gains, will generate sufficient profit growth to sustain the equity market overshoot. While actual inflation has surprised to the downside, weighing on inflation expectations (bottom panel, Chart 1), this has not translated into a loss of business sector pricing power. Corporate selling prices have diverged markedly from the Fed's preferred measure of inflation (middle panel, Chart 1), reflecting a goldilocks scenario where more restrictive monetary conditions will not impede the path to improved profitability. In recent research we showed that operating leverage in S&P 500 constituents runs at 1.4x. In other words, a 5% increase in sales results in a 7% rise in operating EPS, based on our regression analysis. While every cycle is different, when revenues initially recover from a slump, as is currently the case, operating leverage can be even higher, with profits often outpacing sales by two or even three times. Since mid-December, both the U.S. dollar and 10-year Treasury yields have fallen in tandem. As a result monetary conditions have eased, reversing the tightening that occurred in the second half of 2016. Our U.S. Monetary Indicator (USMI) and momentum in corporate profit margins are perfectly inversely correlated. The recent downswing in the USMI is bullish for S&P 500 margins (USMI shown inverted, bottom panel, Chart 2). True, a fall in bond yields can also be reflective of a deteriorating economy, such that investors should become worried about profitability. However, the stock-to-bond (S/B) ratio is not signaling any trouble ahead. History shows that the time to worry about the bond market's earnings message is when the S/B ratio contracts (see shaded areas, third panel, Chart 3). Chart 1Corporate Pricing Power Reigns Chart 2Easy Financial Conditions Boost Margins Chart 3Goldilocks Equity Scenario In addition, part of the decline in long-term interest rates also reflects a slower expected pace of fed funds rate increases. The bond market doubts the FOMC's 2.125% interest rate estimate for 2018, forecasting a fed funds rate roughly 63bps lower. If the bond market is accurate and the Fed recalibrates its 18-month rate outlook even modestly lower later this week, then the S/B ratio has more upside. This week we reiterate our recent financials sector upgrade to overweight, make two tweaks to our portfolio and downshift our defensive exposure another notch. Financials Are At A Critical Juncture Financials stocks have performed as if the U.S. economy is headed for a protracted slowdown, or even recession. Uncertainty with the U.S. Administration's ability to pass bills and enact reforms, a string of U.S. economic disappointments and related yield curve flattening, and sinking inflation expectations have all weighed on relative performance. Rather than extrapolate recent weakness, our inclination is to view the latest wobble as a buying opportunity. A number of forward looking loan growth indicators suggest that credit and capital formation are on an upward trajectory, which will support ongoing profit outperformance. Chart 4 shows that our U.S. capex indicator is an excellent leading indicator of loan growth, with a forty year track record. Soaring confidence implies a more expansionary mindset, and increased demand for external funds (third panel, Chart 4). Similarly, the ISM survey leads loan growth. Both the ISM manufacturing and services surveys are sending a positive signal (fourth panel, Chart 4). Specifically, our sister U.S. Bond Strategy's credit growth model captures all of these positive forces: the recent nascent recovery in bank credit growth should morph into a sustained recovery in the second half of 2017 (bottom panel, Chart 4). Meanwhile, financial conditions have continued to ease, aided by tightening credit spreads, a decline in oil prices, U.S. dollar softness and rise in equity prices (top panel, Chart 5). Easier monetary conditions should ensure that the recovery in overall corporate sector profits stays on track, thereby sustaining both consumer and corporate credit quality at high levels. It is notable that relative performance and the Bloomberg Financial Conditions Index are positively correlated (second panel, Chart 5). Credit quality is already showing signs of improvement: financials sector ratings migration has swung roughly 50 percentage points since last October (second panel, Chart 6). The implication is that reserve building should not become a profit drag over a cyclical investment horizon. Chart 4Credit Growth##br## Will Pivot Chart 5Easy Monetary Conditions ##br##Are A Boon For Financials Chart 6Financials Catch-Up##br## Phase Looms In sum, as long as the global economic expansion persists, as we expect, then the recent inflation expectations-related selloff in the sector should prove transitory. We continue to recommend above-benchmark exposure to areas with leverage to increased capital formation, with one notable exception in the sector's most defensive component: insurance. Continue To Avoid Insurers While financial companies levered to capital formation and credit creation are well positioned to thrive if the U.S. and global economies continue to improve, the same is not true for the broad S&P insurance index. This is a defensive group with a fairly stable recurring revenue stream that typically thrives when the economy is slowing, the yield curve is flattening and the U.S. dollar is on an upward trajectory. Relative performance has edged higher in concert with the recent yield curve flattening, but as detailed above, we don't expect the latter to continue. Ergo, the only external support for the group is likely to crumble, especially now that the U.S. dollar is softening (Chart 7). If the domestically-focused insurance index could not gain traction throughout the latest U.S. dollar bull market, what will happen if a mild currency depreciation occurs? Based on its own merits, the insurance industry likely heads toward a profit soft patch. The ebb and flow of overall business activity drives revenue growth, particularly in the interest rate-sensitive auto and housing sectors. Chart 8 combines sales growth for the latter two sectors into one series, which has recently slipped into negative territory, warning of a similar fate for insurance top-line growth. Consumer spending on insurance products is also contracting relative to total spending (Chart 8), corroborating the cautious message from housing and autos. There are also cracks forming in pricing power. The CPI for motor vehicle insurance remains robust, but that of household tenants insurance has sunk into the deflation zone. If the hard market turns soft, it will further undermine underwriting premium growth. To make matters worse, insurance companies have been on a hiring binge for the past several years. Headcount exploded higher beginning in 2014, and continues to make new highs. Rising cost structures coincided with the downturn in insurance book value growth (Chart 9). Book values have recently started to shrink, with little prospect for a reversal unless labor costs ease and/or underwriting activity revives. As a result, our preference is to focus exposure on non-insurance financials, as insurance remains a high-conviction underweight. Chart 7'Dollar ##br##Trouble' Chart 8Pricing ##br##Power Blues Chart 9Beware The Bull Market ##br## In Insurance Employment Book Profits In Utilities In early-April we upgraded the S&P utilities sector to a tactical (1-3 month) overweight courtesy of five key drivers that have now largely played out.1 As a result, we are booking profits of 1% and downgrading to a benchmark allocation. The U.S. economy is on the cusp of a capex revival. While Q1/2017 GDP growth was unduly weak, investment spending was a bright spot. Our U.S. Capex Indicator has accelerated sharply, signaling that investment should continue to gain traction. Historically, business spending and utilities relative performance have been inversely correlated (the Capex Indicator is shown inverted, top panel, Chart 10). Similarly, the composite ISM export index has recently catapulted to the highest level since the late-1990s. Should the U.S. dollar continue to depreciate, U.S. exporters will remain busy filling foreign orders. That is a relative performance drag for the domestically-exposed utilities sector (ISM exports shown inverted, bottom panel, Chart 10). Meanwhile, electricity production growth has crested and natural gas price inflation has rolled over, suggesting that pricing power gains have peaked (Chart 11). The implication is that there will be no earnings follow through to support the recent breakout attempt (third panel, Chart 12). Chart 10Capex Revival Is Bearish For Utilities Chart 11Soft Demand With Weak Selling Prices Chart 12Why Pay Up For Lack Of EPS Follow Through? Importantly, the total return of the bond-to-stock ratio continues to contract. While both stocks and bond prices have risen in tandem of late, persistent stock market outperformance warns that flows into this fixed income proxy will soon peter out (Chart 12). Thus, in the absence of an earnings acceleration, it will be difficult to sustain premium valuations (bottom panel, Chart 12). In sum, utilities leading profit indicators have crested and all five of the driving forces behind our tactical overweight recommendation have largely transpired. Bottom Line: Execute the downgrade alert and book 1% profits since our tactical overweight of the S&P utilities sector, initiated in early-April. Time To Liquidate Beverage Stocks Consumer staples equities in general and beverage stocks in particular have been stellar outperformers this year. Nevertheless, this strength may prove fleeting in the absence of a revival in relative profit fortunes. Since the mid-1990s, relative performance has followed the ebb and flow of relative forward profit estimates. However, a gap has opened, as analyst estimates have continued to drift lower as share prices have climbed (top panel, Chart 13). The gravitational pull from fading earnings confidence may be too powerful to overcome over the next six months, given that our leading profit indicators have all taken a decisive turn for the worse. There is a rising risk that premium valuations will normalize (bottom panel, Chart 13). Instead, household products and packaged foods stocks offer a better risk/reward tradeoff. The biggest risk that we first identified in March centers around beverage shipments. The top panel of Chart 14 shows that industry shipments have plunged on the back of anemic end-demand. Shipment weakness is cause for concern given the correlation with relative performance. Chart 13Mind The Gap Chart 14Beverage Deflation... Our beverage industry activity proxy confirms this bearish message: relative profitability is under attack (middle panel, Chart 14). Worrisomely, soft drink manufacturers have tried hard to arrest the fall in shipments via steep price concessions (third panel, Chart 14). Even price deflation has been unable to reverse the contraction in industry volumes. If S&P soft drink sales continue to soften on the back of both volume and price cuts, then profit margins will take a hit (third panel, Chart 15). True, input cost inflation remains well contained, as both ethylene and raw food commodity prices are non-threatening. Moreover, labor cost inflation is subdued. Still, history shows that deflation typically leads to a margin squeeze. There is some hope that the export relief valve may partially neutralize soft domestic consumption. Consumer goods exports have contracted, but the depreciation in the U.S. dollar, especially against emerging market (EM) currencies, provides a glimmer of light that a turnaround lies ahead (third panel, Chart 16). But we are reluctant to forecast an export resurgence, given that EM consumption growth has continued to ease. Chart 16 shows that beverage sales growth closely follows the trend in real Asian retail sales, and the current message is bearish. Chart 15Mind The Gap Chart 16Do Not Bet On An Export-Led Recovery Adding it up, leading indicators of beverage demand remain muted (second panel, Chart 16), at a time when industry price deflation has intensified. This is a toxic brew for profitability, and we recommend using recent outperformance and sell down positions to underweight. Bottom Line: Downgrade the S&P soft drinks index to underweight. 1 Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report "Great Expectations?", dated April 3, 2017, available at uses.bcaresearch.com Current Recommendations Current Trades Size And Style Views Favor small over large caps and stay neutral growth over value.

Dear Client, Along with this brief Weekly Report, we are sending you a Special Report written by my colleague Marko Papic, Chief Strategist of BCA's Geopolitical Strategy service. Marko argues that the U.S. is vulnerable to serious socio-political instability by the 2020 election, as a result of the widening gulf between elites and the rest. Trump, thus far, seems unlikely to bridge this gap. I hope you will find this report both interesting and informative. Best regards, Peter Berezin, Chief Strategist Global Investment Strategy Highlight U.S. growth will accelerate over the remainder of the year, thanks to easier financial conditions. This will force the Federal Reserve to raise rates more than the market is currently discounting. In contrast, the BoJ and the ECB will remain on hold. The net result would be a stronger dollar. Solid Chinese growth will support commodity prices. Stay overweight global equities over a cyclical horizon of 12 months. Feature U.S. Growth Will Surprise On The Upside I have been meeting clients in Asia over the past week. The ongoing decline in Treasury yields - the 10-year yield hit a 7-month low of 2.14% this week - was a frequent topic of conversation. Investors are becoming increasingly convinced that the U.S. economy is running out of steam. The OIS curve is pricing in only 48 basis points of rate hikes over the next 12 months. Since a June rate increase is now largely seen as a done deal, the market is essentially saying the Fed will abandon its tightening cycle later this year. We think that's too early. The U.S. economy may not be on fire, but it is hardly floundering. The Blue Chip consensus estimate for Q2 growth stands at 3.1%. The Atlanta Fed's GDPNow model is pointing to growth of 3.4%. There is little reason to think that growth will slow substantially later this year. Financial conditions have eased significantly over the past few months thanks to a weaker dollar, falling bond yields, narrower credit spreads, and higher equity prices (Chart 1). Our research has shown that GDP growth tends to react to changes in financial conditions with a lag of around 6-to-9 months (Chart 2). This means demand growth is likely to strengthen, not weaken, over the remainder of the year. Chart 1Financial Conditions Have Been Easing... Chart 2...Which Bodes Well For Growth Running Out Of Slack If demand growth does accelerate, does the U.S. economy have the supply capacity to fully accommodate it? We do not think so. The headline unemployment rate fell to a 16-year low of 4.3% in May. It is now half a percentage point below the Fed's estimate of full employment. The broader U-6 rate, which includes marginally-attached workers and those working part-time purely for economic reasons, dropped to 8.4%, essentially completing the roundtrip to where it was before the recession (Chart 3). Chart 3A Tight Labor Market Chart 4Wage Growth Is In An Uptrend Chart 5Wage Gains Are Broad Based Contrary to popular perception, wages are rising. Looking across the various official wage indices that are published on a regular basis, the underlying trend in wage growth has accelerated from 1.2% in 2010 to 2.4% (Chart 4). The acceleration in wage growth has been broad-based, occurring across most industries, regions, and worker characteristics (Chart 5). Wage Growth: No Mystery Here Granted, wage growth is still about a percentage point lower than it was before the recession, but that can be explained by slower productivity growth and lower long-term inflation expectations (Chart 6). Real unit labor costs, which take both factors into account, are rising at a faster pace than in 2007 and close to the pace in 2000 (Chart 7). Chart 6A Secular Downtrend In Productivity Growth ##br##And Inflation Expectations Chart 7Rising Real Unit Labor Costs: ##br##A Case Of Deja-Vu Looking out, wage growth is likely to accelerate further. The evidence strongly suggests that the Phillips curve has a "kink" at an unemployment rate of around 5% (Chart 8). In plain English, this means that a drop in the unemployment rate from 10% to 8% tends to have little effect on inflation, while a drop from 6% to 4% does. The Cost Of Waiting One might argue that the Fed can afford to take a "wait and see" approach to raising rates. There is some merit to this view, but it can be taken too far. If the Fed is to have any hope of achieving a soft landing for the economy, it needs to stabilize the unemployment rate at a level close to NAIRU. This may be possible if the unemployment rate is near 4%, but it would be difficult to pull off if the rate slips much below that level. Trying to stabilize the unemployment rate when it has already fallen well below its full employment level means accepting a permanently overheated economy. A standard "expectations-augmented" Phillips curve says that this is not possible to accomplish without accepting persistently rising inflation. If the Fed did find itself in a situation where the economy were overheating, it would have no choice but to jack up rates in order push the unemployment rate to a higher level. Unfortunately, the evidence suggests that once the unemployment rate starts rising, it keeps rising. Indeed, there has never been a case in the post-war era where the three-month moving average of the unemployment rate has risen by more than one-third of a percentage point without a recession ensuing (Chart 9). Chart 9Even A Small Uptick In The Unemployment Rate Is Bad News For The Business Cycle The inescapable fact is that modern economies contain numerous feedback loops. When unemployment is falling, this generates a virtuous cycle where rising employment boosts income and confidence, leading to more spending and even lower unemployment. The exact opposite happens when unemployment starts rising. History suggests that trying to raise the unemployment rate by just a little bit is like trying to get a little bit pregnant. It's simply impossible to pull off. The implication is that the Fed will not only raise rates in line with the dots, but could actually expedite the pace of rate hikes if aggregate demand accelerates later this year, as we expect. Remember, it wasn't that long ago that a typical tightening cycle entailed eight rate hikes per year. In this context, the market's expectation of less than two hikes over the next 12 months seems implausibly low. No Tightening In Japan Or Europe Chart 10Inflation Is Way Below The BoJ's Target Could other major central banks follow in the Fed's footsteps and tighten monetary policy more aggressively than what the market is currently discounting? We doubt it. Japanese inflation is nowhere close to the BOJ's 2% target (Chart 10). And even if Japanese growth surprises significantly to the upside, the first step the authorities will take is to tighten fiscal policy by raising the sales tax. Monetary tightening remains some ways off. Likewise, while the ECB might remove a few of its emergency measures, it is nowhere close to embarking on a full-fledged tightening cycle. The ECB's own research department recently put out a paper documenting that the combined unemployment and underemployment rate currently stands at 18% of the labor force across the euro area (Chart 11). This is 3.5 points above where it was in 2008. If one excludes Germany from the picture, the level of unemployment and underemployment is seven points higher than it was in 2008. This is not the stuff of which tightening cycles are made. Meanwhile, on the other side of the English Channel, the BoE must contend with the fact that growth remains underwhelming, partly due to ongoing angst about Brexit negotiations (Chart 12). Chart 12U.K. Is Lagging Its Peers EM Outlook Chart 13Positive Signs For The Chinese Housing Market... The outlook for EM currencies is a tougher call. On the one hand, a more hawkish Fed and broad-based dollar strength have usually been bad news for emerging markets, given that 80% of EM foreign-currency debt is denominated in U.S. dollars. On the other hand, stronger global growth should support commodity prices, even if the dollar is strengthening. Our energy strategists remain particularly convinced that oil prices will rise over the remainder of this year due to robust demand growth for crude and continued OPEC discipline. Strong Chinese growth should also boost metals demand, while limiting the need for further RMB weakness. Chart 13 shows that property developers have been snapping up new land at an accelerating pace. The percentage of households who intend to buy a new home has also surged to record high levels. This bodes well for construction, and by extension, commodity demand. The strong pace of growth in excavator sales - a leading indicator for capex - confirms this trend. Meanwhile, real-time measures of Chinese industrial activity such as rail freight traffic and electricity generation remain buoyant (Chart 14). This is helping to lift producer prices, which, in turn, is fueling a rebound in industrial company profits (Chart 15). And for all the talk about the government's crackdown on credit growth, the reality is that medium-to-long term lending to nonfinancial companies has actually picked up (Chart 16). Chart 14... And Positive Signs For Chinese Capex Chart 15Higher Producer Prices Boosting Profits Chart 16A Positive In China's Credit Picture Stick With Stocks... For Now In terms of global asset allocation, we continue to recommend a cyclical (12-month) overweight in equities relative to bonds. We have a slight preference for DM over EM stocks, although given some of the positive factors supporting EM economies noted above, we do not regard this as a high-conviction view. Within the DM universe, we favour higher-beta equity markets such Japan and the euro area over the U.S. (currency hedged). In the government bond space, we would underweight U.S. Treasurys, given the likelihood that the Fed will deliver more rate hikes over the coming months than the market is currently discounting. Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com Strategy & Market Trends Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

Highlights Chart 1Something's Got To Give Last Friday's disappointing employment report reinforced the bond market's recent strength. The 10-year Treasury yield reached a new 2017 low of 2.15%, the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate broke below 1.8% and the overnight index swap curve is now priced for only 47 bps of rate hikes during the next 12 months. Increasingly, the bond market is discounting two different future states of the world that cannot possibly coexist. Decelerating wage growth has caused the market to expect fewer Fed rate hikes, while concurrently, the cost of long-maturity inflation protection has fallen and the yield curve has flattened (Chart 1). This means the market expects that poor wage growth and inflation will cause the Fed to back away from its expected pace of two more rate hikes this year, but also that this relent will not be sufficient to prompt a recovery in economic growth or inflation. This dichotomy cannot exist for long. Either wage growth and inflation will bounce back in the second half of the year allowing the Fed to lift rates twice more in 2017 (our base case expectation), or inflation will continue to disappoint in which case the Fed will slow its pace of hikes. In both cases long-maturity Treasury yields should head higher, led by an increasing cost of inflation compensation. Stay at below benchmark duration. Feature Investment Grade: Overweight Chart 2Investment Grade Market Overview Investment grade corporate bonds outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 37 basis points in May. The index option-adjusted spread tightened 3 bps on the month and, at 113 bps, it remains well below its historical average (134 bps). Limited inflationary pressure will keep monetary policy accommodative enough to ensure excess returns consistent with carry. However, corporate spreads have already discounted a substantial improvement in leverage (Chart 2) and we do not see much potential for spread tightening from current levels. BEA data show that EBITD contracted in Q1, causing the annual growth rate to tick back below zero (panel 4). Meanwhile, gross issuance has been strong so far this year, suggesting that leverage will show an uptick in Q1 when the Flow of Funds data are released later this week. This aligns with our observation that, historically, net leverage - defined as total debt less cash as a percent of trailing EBITD - has never declined unless prompted by a recession. In other words, the corporate sector never voluntarily undertakes deleveraging, it only starts to pay down debt when forced by a severe economic contraction. For now, rising leverage will limit the amount of spread tightening, but shouldn't lead to negative excess returns. That will only occur when inflationary pressures are more pronounced and the Fed steps up the pace of tightening - probably sometime next year. Energy related sectors still appear cheap on our model (Table 3), and have outperformed the overall corporate index this year even though the oil price has fallen. Remain overweight. High-Yield: Overweight Chart 3High-Yield Market Overview High-Yield outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 48 basis points in May. The index option-adjusted spread tightened 8 bps on the month and, at 362 bps, it is currently 18 bps above its 2017 low. While the average spread on the junk index is a mere 38 bps above its post-crisis low, our estimate of the default-adjusted high-yield spread is 204 bps, only slightly below its historical average (Chart 3). Assuming our forecast for default losses is correct, a default-adjusted spread in this range has historically coincided with positive 12-month excess returns to high-yield bonds 74% of the time, with an average excess return of 82 bps. Our estimate of 12-month forward default losses is calculated using Moody's baseline assumption for the speculative grade default rate, which stands at 2.96%. We also incorporate an expected recovery rate of 47%. This expectation for a continued decline in the default rate squares with trends in corporate lending standards (which are once again easing), industrial production (which is accelerating) and job cut announcements (which are trending lower). Weak first quarter profit growth will be a headwind if it persists, but we expect it will recover alongside the broader economy in Q2. Overall, with muted inflationary pressures, an improving default back-drop and still moderate valuations, we think junk bonds will deliver small positive excess returns during the next 12 months. Stay overweight. MBS: Underweight Chart 4MBS Market Overview Mortgage-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 14 basis points in May. The compensation for prepayment risk (option cost) rose 2 bps on the month, but this was entirely offset by a 2 bps tightening in the option-adjusted spread (OAS). The most important issue for mortgage investors at the moment is when and how the Fed will cease the reinvestment of its MBS portfolio. We have written extensively on this topic in recent weeks,1 and through Fed communications have learned the following: The unwinding of the balance sheet will start before the end of this year (assuming the economic outlook does not deteriorate substantially) Both MBS and Treasury securities will be impacted The process will be "tapered" with monthly caps set on the amount of securities that will be allowed to run off. The caps will gradually increase according to a pre-set schedule. MBS OAS are already starting to look attractive, especially relative to Aaa-rated credit (Chart 4). But we are hesitant to move back into MBS at current levels. OAS have further upside relative to trends in net issuance (panel 4), and the increased supply from the end of Fed reinvestment will only add to the widening pressure. Remain underweight. Government-Related: Underweight Chart 5Government-Related Market Overview The Government-Related index outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 11 basis points in May, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to 86 bps. The Foreign Agency and Local Authority sectors outperformed by 18 bps and 38 bps, respectively. Meanwhile, the low-beta Domestic Agency and Supranational sectors outperformed by 7 bps and 9 bps, respectively. The Sovereign sector underperformed the Treasury benchmark by 12 bps on the month. Sovereigns underperformed in May even though the broad trade-weighted dollar depreciated by 1.4%. Similarly, Mexican debt - which carries the largest weighting in the Sovereign index - underperformed duration-equivalent Treasuries by 22 bps, even though the peso continued to appreciate versus the dollar (Chart 5). With U.S. growth likely to rebound following a weak Q1, the trade-weighted U.S. dollar should appreciate in the second half of this year. Meanwhile, our Emerging Markets Strategy thinks that Mexico's central bank could deliver another 25 bps rate hike, but it won't be long before tighter policy becomes a drag on consumer spending.2 The peso could stay well-bid for now, but the longer run trend is for a weaker peso versus the U.S. dollar. The Foreign Agency and Local Authority sectors continue to offer attractive spreads, after adjusting for credit rating and duration, compared to most U.S. corporate sectors. We continue to recommend overweight positions in Foreign Agencies and Local Authorities within an overall underweight allocation to the Government-Related Index. Municipal Bonds: Cut To Underweight Chart 6Municipal Market Overview Municipal bonds outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 85 basis points in May (before adjusting for the tax advantage). The average Municipal / Treasury (M/T) yield ratio declined 8% on the month, and is now more than one standard deviation below its post-crisis mean. In a recent report,3 we noted that the current weakness in state & local government revenue growth mostly reflected the fall-out from the mid-2014 commodity price slump. As such, we expect that revenue growth will rebound in the months ahead and that state & local government net borrowing will decline. However, this eventuality is now fully discounted in M/T yield ratios (Chart 6, panel 3). Further, M/T yield ratios benefited from a steep decline in issuance during the past few months (bottom panel), and the recent uptick in visible supply suggests that the tailwind from declining issuance is about to shift. Factor in the uncertainty surrounding tax reform and a potential infrastructure program, and it is difficult to make the case for much tighter yield ratios. We recommend investors reduce municipal bond exposure to underweight (2 out of 5). Investors should continue to capture the premium in long-maturity munis relative to short maturities (panel 2), and also favor the debt of commodity-dependent states where tax revenues should grow more quickly. In particular, Aaa-rated Texas General Obligation bonds offer a premium of 14 bps versus the overall Aaa muni curve at the 10-year maturity point. The average premium offered by other Aaa-rated states is -0.6 bps. Treasury Curve: Favor 5-Year Bullet Over 2/10 Barbell Chart 7Treasury Yield Curve Overview The Treasury curve shifted lower and flattened in May. The 2/10 slope flattened 8 basis points and the 5/30 slope flattened 3 bps. For the second consecutive month yields remained stable out to the 2-year maturity point, but declined further out the curve. As stated on the first page of this report, the recent flattening of the Treasury curve indicates that the market expects the Fed will maintain a policy that is too restrictive for inflation to return to target. We think this is flat out wrong. Either core inflation will turn higher in the second half of this year, allowing the Fed to lift rates twice more in 2017. Or, core inflation will remain depressed. In the latter scenario, the Fed would adopt a more dovish policy stance until inflation starts to rise. In either case, the cost of inflation compensation at the long-end of the curve is not high enough, and it will cause the curve to steepen as it rises (Chart 7). We previously documented that the positive correlation between TIPS breakeven rates and the slope of the yield curve still holds during Fed rate hike cycles.4 We continue to recommend positioning for a steeper 2/10 curve by favoring the 5-year bullet versus a duration-matched 2/10 barbell. This trade returned 0 bps in May, but is still 26 bps in the money since inception on December 20, 2016. While this trade no longer benefits from the extreme cheapness of the 5-year bullet relative to the rest of the curve (panel 3), it will continue to outperform as TIPS breakevens widen and the curve steepens in the second half of the year. TIPS: Overweight Chart 8TIPS Market Overview TIPS underperformed the duration-equivalent nominal Treasury index by 107 basis points in May. The 10-year TIPS breakeven rate fell 11 bps on the month and, at 1.79%, it remains well below its pre-crisis trading range of 2.4% to 2.5%. A series of disappointing inflation reports have led to weakness in TIPS breakevens so far this year. Year-over-year trimmed mean PCE inflation fell to 1.75% in April, all the way from a peak of 1.91% as recently as January (Chart 8). As we discussed in two recent reports,5 a Phillips Curve model- based on lagged inflation, the employment gap, non-oil import prices and inflation expectations - forcefully predicts that core inflation will trend higher for the remainder of the year (panel 4). In a base case scenario in which both the unemployment rate and the trade-weighted dollar remain flat at current levels, the model projects that core PCE inflation will exceed 2% by the end of this year. In fact, we find it difficult to create a set of reasonable economic assumptions that don't result in core PCE inflation at (or above) the Fed's 1.9% forecast by year end. While we anticipate a rebound in core inflation between now and the end of the year, if that rebound does not seem to be materializing by the end of the summer, the Fed is likely to adopt a more dovish policy stance. Such a policy shift would lend support to TIPS breakeven wideners. ABS: Overweight Chart 9ABS Market Overview Asset-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 19 basis points in May, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +52 bps. The index option-adjusted spread for Aaa-rated ABS tightened 7 bps on the month, and remains well below its average pre-crisis level. In a recent report, we highlighted that consumer balance sheets are in their best shape since prior to the start of the housing bubble.6 As such, consumer ABS should remain a relatively low risk investment. However, some signs of stress are beginning to emerge, particularly in the sub-prime auto space. According to the Federal Reserve's Senior Loan Officer Survey, credit card lending standards tightened in Q4 of last year, but have since reverted into net easing territory (Chart 9). In contrast, auto loan lending standards continue to tighten and net losses on auto loans appear to have bottomed for the cycle. At least so far, auto ABS are not discounting much deterioration in credit quality. After adjusting for volatility, Aaa-rated auto ABS do not offer much of a spread pick-up relative to Aaa-rated credit card ABS (panel 3) and the spread differential between non-Aaa auto ABS and Aaa auto ABS has fallen to one standard deviation below its post-crisis mean. We continue to recommend that investors favor Aaa-rated credit cards over Aaa-rated auto loans within an overall overweight allocation to consumer ABS. Non-Agency CMBS: Underweight Chart 10CMBS Market Overview Non-Agency Commercial Mortgage-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 33 basis points in May, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +52 bps. The index option-adjusted spread for non-agency Aaa-rated CMBS tightened 4 bps on the month, but remains below its average pre-crisis level (Chart 10). Apartment and office building prices are growing strongly, but retail sector property prices have been close to flat during the past year (bottom panel). Tighter lending standards and falling demand also suggest that credit stress is starting to mount in the commercial real estate sector. So far, this stress has manifested itself in rising retail and office delinquency rates, while multi-family delinquencies remain low (panel 5). Agency CMBS: Overweight Agency CMBS outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 31 basis points in May, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +50 bps. The index option-adjusted spread for Agency CMBS tightened 5 bps on the month, and currently sits at 49 bps. The option-adjusted spread on Agency CMBS still looks attractive compared to other high-quality spread product: Agency MBS = 36 bps, Aaa consumer ABS = 39 bps, Agency bonds = 17 bps and Supranationals = 19 bps. We continue to recommend an overweight position in Agency CMBS. Treasury Valuation Chart 11Treasury Fair Value Models The current reading from our 2-factor Treasury model (which is based on Global PMI and dollar sentiment) places fair value for the 10-year Treasury yield at 2.49% (Chart 11). Our 3-factor version of the model, which also includes the Global Economic Policy Uncertainty Index, places fair value at 2.41%. The lower fair value results from the large spike in the uncertainty index last November, which has only been partially unwound. The U.S. PMI has dipped lower in recent months, but remains firmly entrenched above the 50 boom/bust line. Meanwhile, the Eurozone PMI continues to surge ahead. China's PMI is the real source of concern. It has recently dipped below 50, and there is a risk that tighter monetary policy could lead to further contraction in the near term (bottom panel).7 For further details on our Treasury models please refer to the U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "The Message From Our Treasury Models", dated October 11, 2016, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com At the time of publication the 10-year Treasury yield was 2.15%. Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com Alex Wang, Research Analyst alexw@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "The Fed Doctrine", dated May 30, 2017, U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Two Challenges For U.S. Policymakers", dated May 23, 2017, U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "The Payback Period In Corporate Bonds", dated April 11, 2017 and U.S. Bond Strategy / Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report, "The Way Forward For The Fed's Balance Sheet", dated February 28, 2017. All available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report, "A Time To Be Contrarian", dated April 5, 2017, available at ems.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Will The Fed Stick To Its Guns?", dated May 16, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "The Yield Curve On A Cyclical Horizon", dated March 21, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 5 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "The Fed Doctrine", dated May 30, 2017 and U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Two Challenges For U.S. Policymakers", dated May 23, 2017. Both available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 6 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "The Fed Doctrine", dated May 30, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 7 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy / Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "Past Peak Pessimism", dated May 9, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification Corporate Sector Relative Valuation And Recommended Allocation Total Return Comparison: 7-Year Bullet Versus 2-20 Barbell (6-Month Investment Horizon) Current Recommendation

Highlights Overall Investment Grade (IG) Corporates: An update of our regional sector relative value models shows that it has become increasingly difficult to find industries where debt looks cheap. Maintain overweight allocations to U.S. & U.K. IG, and stay underweight Euro Area IG, but keep overall spread risk close to neutral levels. U.S. IG: Within U.S. Investment Grade corporate debt allocations, upgrade Energy names (Oil Field Services, Integrated) and Cable & Satellite to overweight, while downgrading Consumer Cyclical sectors (Retailers) and Other Industrials to Underweight. Euro IG: Stay underweight and keep spread risk (i.e. DTS) close to index levels. Reduce exposure to Cable & Satellite, Electric Utilities and Natural Gas Utilities. U.K. IG: Stay overweight U.K. IG but keep overall spread risk near index levels. Feature Chart of the WeekCandidates For Additional Spread Convergence Back on January 24th, we published a Special Report that introduced specific Investment Grade (IG) corporate bond sector allocations for the U.S., Euro Area and U.K. to our model portfolio framework.1 The recommended weightings were based on the output from our sector relative value models for each region. We had presented those models on a semi-regular basis in the past, but without any specific numerical allocation among the sectors. By attaching actual weightings to each sector, within a "fully invested" model portfolio, we are now able to more accurately measure the aggregate success of our recommendations. In this follow-up report, we discuss the performance of our sector tilts since January, refresh our relative value models and present changes to our allocations. The broad conclusion is that, while our calls have done well over the past few months and our IG portfolios have outperformed the broad IG bond indices, it remains difficult to find compellingly cheap sectors (particularly in non-financial industries) given the overall tight level of corporate bond spreads. This is especially true in the Euro Area, where we see the poorest risk/reward tradeoff for IG exposure relative to the U.S. and U.K. We are more comfortable recommending an overweight stance on U.S. and U.K. IG corporates versus Euro Area equivalents, in line with our overall allocation in our main model portfolio. Given the tight overall level of spreads in all three regions, however, we are focusing our recommendations on sectors that have cheaper valuations but with riskiness closer to the overall IG indices - like Energy in the U.S. and Wireless in both the Euro Area and U.K. (Chart 1). Good Performance From Our Sector Tilts The performance of our sector recommendations has been reasonably solid since January (Chart 2). Our U.S. sector tilts added +5bps of excess return versus duration-matched U.S. Treasuries, coming mostly from our overweights in Energy and Financials. Within the Euro Area, we were able to generate +9bps of excess return versus government debt, also mainly from above-benchmark allocations to Energy and Financial names. In the U.K., our call to overweight Bank debt provided essentially all of our +23bps of outperformance versus Gilts. These strong excess returns came on top of a very strong performance for corporate debt since January 24th. Excess returns for IG in the U.S., Euro Area and U.K. were 0.9%, 1.3% and 1.3%, respectively. The detailed breakdown of the returns by sector are shown in Appendix Tables at the back of this report. To determine the success rate of our sector tilts, we can define "winners" as sectors where we had an active view (i.e. not neutral) and where the relative performance of the sector versus the overall IG corporate index was in the direction of that active view. For example, our decision to go underweight Diversified Manufacturing in the Euro Area was a good one, as that sector had an excess return of 0.7%, well below that of the overall Euro Area IG index (a 1.3% excess return). We can define "losers" in the same way, where the relative sector performance went against our active allocation. In Chart 3, we show the "winners" and "losers" for our U.S., Euro Area and U.K. sector allocations since late January. Our success rate was quite good, as we had far more winners than losers in all three regions. The Big Picture For Corporate Credit: Favorable Business Cycle, But Valuations Are Not Cheap We have been maintaining an overall overweight allocation to IG corporates since late January. This was based on a view that global economic activity was accelerating, which would support faster profit growth. This would provide cyclical relief for stressed corporate balance sheets in the U.S. Euro Area & U.K. corporates would also benefit from a better profit backdrop, with the added bonus of central bank asset purchases helping to improve the supply/demand balance for IG debt. Yet spreads have already tightened substantially throughout the IG universe. This reflects declining macro volatility and the ongoing investor stretch for yield after the rise in global government bond yields earlier this year faded significantly. The result is that there is now far less dispersion among corporate sectors, by industry or by credit quality, then we've seen in recent years (Charts 4, 5 & 6). Coming at a time of high corporate leverage, and with central bank liquidity growth starting to roll over as we discussed in last week's Weekly Report, we are recommending an "up in quality" bias to sector allocations and credit exposure, while favoring U.S. and U.K. corporates over Euro Area equivalents.2 Chart 4Tight Spreads, Flat Credit Curve##BR##In The U.S. Chart 5Tight Spreads, Flat Credit Curve##BR##In The Euro Area Chart 6Tight Spreads, Flat Credit Curve##BR##In The U.K. Bottom Line: An update of our regional sector relative value models shows that it has become increasingly difficult to find industries where debt looks cheap. Maintain overweight allocations to U.S. & U.K. IG, and stay underweight Euro Area IG, while keep overall spread risk close to neutral levels. U.S. Investment Grade: Stay Overweight, But Be Selective In Tables 1A and 1B, we present the results of our U.S. IG sector valuation model as of May 31st.3 We are maintaining an overweight recommendation on U.S. IG in our overall model portfolio, as we continue to see the backdrop for U.S. economic growth being much friendlier for corporate debt versus Treasuries. Credit spreads are very tight, however, so we are maintaining some degree of caution in our sector recommendations. Specifically, we are aiming to favor industries with option-adjusted spread (OAS) at or above that of the overall U.S. IG index, but with a positive valuation from our U.S. IG relative value model. We also wish to keep the aggregate level of spread risk, using our preferred "duration times spread" (DTS) metric, in line with that of the overall U.S. IG index. As can be seen in the scatter diagram in Chart 7, which plots the model valuations versus the DTS score for each sector, there are precious few non-financial sectors that offer attractive spreads that are not riskier than the overall index. Our model has shown some improvement in value within the sub-sectors of the Energy space, which is a consequence of the softness in oil prices over the past few months. With our commodity strategists calling for a recovery in oil prices back up towards to $55-60 range by year-end, we see this an opportunity to raise our allocations to Energy by upgrading the Independent and Integrated sub-sectors to overweight from neutral. At the same time, we are reducing the size of our prior overweights in Refining and Midstream to keep the overall Energy sector allocation to no more than two times that of the U.S. IG Energy index - a pure risk management move on our part. We are also upgrading some of our prior underweights in the Communications sectors to neutral (Media & Entertainment, Wirelines & Wireless) and to overweight (Cable & Satellite), given relatively attractive valuations in those areas. By the same token, we are cutting Other Industrials to underweight from neutral with valuations now looking unattractive. All of our U.S. sector changes result in an upgrade of our weighting to the broad Industrials grouping by 5 percentage points to 58.6%. We are reducing our large overweight to U.S. Banks by an equivalent amount to "fund" this new allocation within our 100% invested model IG portfolio. The net result of all these changes is that our U.S. IG portfolio has an overall DTS score of around 9, in line with that of the U.S. IG benchmark index. Thus, we are not making any changes to our aggregate recommended spread risk, in line with our top-down views on the overall level of credit spreads and curves, as described earlier. Bottom Line: Within U.S. Investment Grade corporate debt allocations, upgrade Energy names (Oil Field Services, Integrated) and Cable & Satellite to overweight, while downgrading Consumer Cyclical sectors (Retailers) and Other Industrials to Underweight. Euro Area Investment Grade: Not Much Value Left, Remain Underweight In Tables 2A and 2B, we show the output from our Euro Area IG sector valuation model. The scatter diagram showing the model residuals versus the individual sector DTS scores is shown in Chart 8. Finding value has become a problem in Europe, with only a few sectors (most notably, Metals & Mining, Oil Field Services, Life Insurance and P&C Insurance) showing a double-digit spread residual from our model. All those sectors also offer wider spreads than the overall Euro Area IG index, but the Insurers stand out as being much riskier from a DTS perspective. That is a function of the wide spread for the overall Insurance sector, which is nearly double that of the overall Euro Area IG index. We see no reason to change our existing allocations to those sectors in our model portfolio, keeping Metals & Mining and Oil Field Services at overweight and the Insurers at neutral (a prudent tradeoff between wide spreads and high risk). It would likely take a meaningful rise in European interest rates before any serious compression in Insurance spreads could unfold, given the struggles that industry faces from low yields on its fixed income investment assets. A rise in European bond yields could unfold later this year if the European Central Bank (ECB) signals that a tapering of its asset purchase program will begin next year. We see that scenario as increasingly likely, given the overall strength of the Euro Area recovery. The ECB will only shift its stance gradually, due to the lack of immediate inflation concerns. Any signal that that fewer bond purchases are in the offing, however, will pose a major risk for European corporates given the large ECB buying of that debt over the past year. We see very few necessary changes to our Euro Area allocations at the moment, as our overall portfolio DTS is in line with the IG benchmark index (around 6). We do recommend cutting Cable & Satellite and Utilities (Electric & Natural Gas) to underweight. Bottom Line: With corporate spreads at tight levels, and with few sectors showing compelling value, we are comfortable in remaining underweight Euro Area corporates, while keeping spread risk (i.e. DTS) close to index levels. Reduce Cable & Satellite, Electric Utilities and Natural Gas Utilities to underweight. U.K. Investment Grade: Stay Overweight, Focusing On Financials In Tables 3A and 3B, we present our update U.K. IG sector model, with the scatterplot of model residuals versus DTS scores shown in Chart 9. Not much has changed in terms of which sectors appear cheap in our model versus the late January levels. Financials, in general, have the cheapest spreads on an absolute basis, especially the Insurers. Although the cheap valuation on the Insurance debt mirrors the same problem highlighted above for the Euro Area insurers - interest rates that are too low to generate acceptable investment returns on the insurers' portfolios. We are maintaining our overall modest overweight allocation to U.K. IG, while keeping overall spread risk close to index levels. While the political and security risks within the U.K. are significant at the moment, there is no threat of the Bank of England moving to a less accommodative monetary policy anytime soon. A backdrop of churning economic growth, an undervalued British Pound and a central bank maintaining hyper-easy monetary policy is still a decent one for U.K. corporate debt. In terms of sector allocation changes based on our U.K. IG sector valuation model, we recommend upgrading Health Care and REITs to overweight, downgrading Other Industrials to neutral and cutting Tobacco to underweight. Bottom Line: Stay overweight U.K. IG but keep overall spread risk near index levels. Robert Robis, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report, "Adding Investment Grade Corporate Bond Sectors To Our Model Portfolio Framework", dated January 24 2017, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "Distant Early Warning", dated May 30 2017, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 3 Our valuation framework assesses the attractiveness of each IG sector within a cross-sectional analysis. The OAS for each sector is regressed against common risk factors (interest rate duration, credit quality) with the residual spread determining the valuation of each sector. Appendix

Feature Table 1 Growth And Its Implications We still see little on the horizon to undermine a continued rally in risk assets over the next 12 months. U.S. economic growth will be propelled by an acceleration in both consumption and capex - leading indicators for both point to further upside (Chart 1). The weak U.S. GDP growth in Q1, just 1.2% annualized, was dragged down by two, less meaningful elements: inventories (which fell, deducting 1 ppt from growth) and imports (which rose, deducting 0.6 ppt). Regional Fed GDP "nowcasts" are pointing to 2.2-3.8% growth in Q2. Corporate earnings had their best quarter in five years in Q1, with S&P500 sales up 8% and EPS up 14% - but, despite this, analysts have barely revised up their calendar year EPS growth forecast, which stands at 10%. In Europe, loan growth has picked up to 2.5% YoY, with the credit impulse indicating that GDP growth is likely to remain above trend at around the 2% it achieved in Q1 (Chart 2). But the stronger growth has implications. It suggests the market is too complacent about the probability of Fed tightening. Futures are pricing a hike on June 14 as a near certainty but, after that, imply little more than one further 25bp rise by end-2019 (Chart 3). We expect two hikes before the end of 2017. Not least, the Fed will be cognizant of how financial conditions have recently eased, not tightened, despite its raising rates in December and March (Chart 4) and will want to put in place insurance against inflation rising sharply in 12 months' time, especially given that it may wish to hold back from hikes early next year as it begins to reduce its balance-sheet. Chart 1Consumption And Capex On Track to Rebound Chart 2Euro Credit Growth Looks Good For GDP Chart 3 Will The Fed Really Be This Slow? As a result, 10-year U.S. Treasury bond yields are likely to move back up. The 40bp fall from the peak of 2.6% in March was caused partly by softer growth and inflation data, but also reflected a correction after the excessive pace at which rates had run up - the fastest in 30 years (Chart 5). The combination of stronger growth, a 50bp higher Fed Funds Rate, and a moderate acceleration of inflation as wages begin to pick up again, should push the 10-year yield to above 3% by year-end. Chart 4Fed Must Worry About Easing Conditions Chart 5Rates Couldn't Keep Rising This Fast Momentum for risk assets over the coming months is likely to slow a little. Global PMIs have probably peaked for now (Chart 6) and investors should not expect to repeat the 19% total return from global equities they have enjoyed over the past 12 months. And there are potential pitfalls: China could continue to slow, and European politics could come into focus again (with early Austrian and Italian parliamentary elections looking increasingly possible for the fall). Investors may also worry about the chaotic state of the Trump White House. However, we never believed the U.S. presidential election had much impact on markets (the S&P500 has risen by 2% a month since then, whereas it had risen by 4% a month over the previous nine months). If anything, there could still be a positive catalyst if Congress is able to pass a tax cut before year-end - which we see as likely - since this is no longer priced in (Chart 7). Chart 6Momentum For Equities Will Slow A Little Chart 7No One Expects A Corporate Tax Cut On balance, then, we continue to see equities outperforming bonds comfortably over the next 12 months, and so keep an overweight on equities within our asset class recommendations. We also maintain the generally pro-cyclical, pro-risk and higher-beta tilts within our multi-asset global portfolio. Equities: The combination of cyclical economic growth, accelerating earnings, and easy monetary conditions represents a positive environment for global equities. Valuations are not particularly stretched: forward PE for the MSCI All Country World Index is 15.9x, almost in line with the 30-year average of 15.7x (Chart 8). The Vix (30-day implied volatility on S&P500 options) may look low - famously it dipped below 10 last month, raising fears of complacency - but the Vix term structure is fairly steep, implying that investors are hedging exposure three and six months out (Chart 9). Within equities, our preference remains for DM over EM. The latter will be hurt by the slowdown in China (Chart 10), a rising dollar, the ongoing slowdown in credit growth in most EM economies, and continual political disappointments (most recent example: Brazil). We like euro zone equities, on the grounds of their high beta and greater cyclicality of earnings. We are overweight Japan (with a currency hedge), since rising global rates will weaken the yen and boost earnings. Chart 8Global Equity Valuations Are Not So High Chart 10China's Slowdown Should Hurt EM Fixed Income: As described above, we expect the U.S. 10-year Treasury yield to reach 3% by year-end. This should mean a negative return from global sovereign bonds for the year as a whole, for the first time since 1994. Accordingly, we remain underweight duration and prefer inflation-linked over nominal bonds in most markets. In this positive cyclical environment, we continue to overweight credit, with a preference for U.S investment grade (which trades at a 100 bp spread over Treasuries) over high-yield bonds (where valuations are not as attractive) and euro area credit (which will be hurt when the ECB starts to taper its bond purchases). Currencies: The temporary softness in the dollar has probably run its course. Interest rate differentials between the U.S. and other G7 countries point to further dollar appreciation (Chart 11). At the same time as we expect the Fed to tighten more quickly than the market is pricing in, we see the ECB setting monetary policy for the euro periphery (especially Italy) which, given weak fundamentals (Chart 12), cannot bear much tightening. The Bank of Japan, too, will stick to its yield curve control policy which, as global rates rise, ought to significantly weaken the yen. Chart 11Interest Differentials Point To Stronger USD Chart 12Italy Can Not Bear A Rate Hike Chart 13OPEC Cut Agreement Showing Through Commodities: The recently agreed extension of the OPEC agreement should push crude oil prices up to around $60 a barrel in the second half. OPEC production has already fallen noticeably since the start of the year, but the response from non-OPEC producers - including North American shale - to boost output has so far been subdued (Chart 13). Metals prices have fallen sharply over the past two months (iron ore, for example, by 36% since March) as Chinese growth slowed as a result of moderate fiscal and monetary tightening. They could have further to fall. But China, with its key five-year Party Congress scheduled for the fall, is likely to take measures to boost activity if economic growth slows much further, which would help commodities prices stabilize. Garry Evans, Senior Vice President Global Asset Allocation garry@bcaresearch.com Recommended Asset Allocation

GAA DM Equity Country Allocation Model Update The model has increased its allocation to Netherland, Italy, France and Germany, the underweight in Australia is also reduced by half. All these are financed by a large reduction in the U.S. overweight, mostly due to the change in liquidity and technical indicators, compared to previous month as shown in Table 1 As shown in Table 2 and Charts 1, 2 and 3, Level 2 model ( the allocation among the 11 non-U.S. DM countries) outperformed its benchmark by 119 basis points (bps) in May, largely a result from the overweight of the euro area versus the underweight in Canada and Australia. Level 1 model, the allocation between U.S. and non-U.S., underperformed by 22 bps in May due to the large overweight in the U.S. Overall, the aggregate GAA model outperformed its MSCI World benchmark by 13 bps in May and by 157 bps since going live. Please see also on the website http://gaa.bcaresearch.com/trades/allocation_performance. For more details on the models, please see the January 29th, 2016 Special Report "Global Equity Allocation: Introducing the Developed Markets Country Allocation Model". http://gaa.bcaresearch.com/articles/view_report/18850. Table 1Model Allocation Vs. Benchmark Weights Table 2Performance (Total Returns In USD) Chart 1 Chart 2 Chart 3 GAA Equity Sector Selection Model The GAA Equity Sector Selection Model (Chart 4) is updated as of May 31, 2017. The model continues to overweight cyclical versus defensive sectors. However, the model has turned overweight utilities on the back of improved technicals. For more details on the model, please see the Special Report "Introducing The GAA Equity Sector Selection Model," July 27, 2016 available at https://gaa.bcaresearch.com. Chart 4Overall Model Performance Table 3Allocations Table 4Performance Since Going Live Xiaoli Tang, Associate Vice President xiaoli@bcaresearch.com Aditya Kurian, Research Analyst adityak@bcaresearch.com

Dear Client, I will be visiting clients in Asia over the next ten days, so we are sending you this week's report a bit ahead of schedule. In addition, at the end of this report, we are including the recommendations from our tactical asset allocation model. Going forward, we will be updating these recommendations on our website at the end of every month. Please feel free to contact us if you have any questions. Best regards, Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy Highlights Productivity growth has declined in most countries. This appears to be a structural problem that will remain with us for years to come. In theory, slower productivity growth should reduce the neutral rate of interest, benefiting bonds in the process. In reality, countries with chronically low productivity growth typically have higher interest rates than faster growing economies. The passage of time helps account for this seeming paradox: Slower productivity growth tends to depress interest rates at the outset, but leads to higher rates later on. The U.S. has reached an inflection point where weak productivity growth is starting to push up both the neutral real rate and inflation. Other countries will follow. The implication for investors is that government bond yields have begun a long-term secular uptrend. The market is not at all prepared for this. Feature Slow Productivity Growth: A Structural Problem Productivity growth has fallen sharply in most developed and emerging economies (Chart 1). As we argued in "Weak Productivity Growth: Don't Blame The Statisticians," there is little compelling evidence that measurement error explains the productivity slowdown.1 Yes, the unmeasured utility accruing from free internet services is large, but so was the unmeasured utility from antibiotics, indoor plumbing, and air conditioning. No one has offered a convincing explanation for why the well-known problems with productivity calculations suddenly worsened about 12 years ago. If mismeasurement is not responsible for the productivity slowdown, what is? Cyclical factors have undoubtedly played a role. In particular, lackluster investment spending has curtailed the growth in the capital stock (Chart 2). This means that today's workers have not benefited from the improvement in the quality and quantity of capital to the same extent as previous generations. However, the timing of the productivity slowdown - it began in 2004-05 in most countries, well before the financial crisis struck - suggests that structural factors have been key. These include: Waning gains from the IT revolution. Recent innovations have focused more on consumers than businesses. As nice as Facebook and Instagram are, they do little to boost business productivity - in fact, they probably detract from it, given how much time people waste on social media these days. The rising share of value added coming from software relative to hardware has also contributed to the decline in productivity growth. Chart 3 shows that productivity gains in the latter category have been much smaller than in the former. Chart 2The Great Recession Hit##BR##Capital Stock Accumulation Chart 3The Shift Towards Software Has##BR##Dampened IT Productivity Gains Slower human capital accumulation. Globally, the fraction of adults with a secondary degree or higher is increasing at half the pace it did in the 1990s (Chart 4). Educational achievement, as measured by standardized test scores in mathematics and science, is edging lower in the OECD, and is showing very limited gains in most emerging markets (Chart 5). Test scores tend to be much lower in countries with rapidly growing populations (Chart 6). Consequently, the average level of global mathematical proficiency is now declining for the first time in modern history. Decreased creative destruction. The birth rate of new firms in the U.S. has fallen by half since the late 1970s and is now barely above the death rate (Chart 7). In addition, many firms in advanced economies are failing to replicate the best practices of industry leaders. The OECD reckons that this has been a key reason for the productivity slowdown.2 Chart 7Secular Decline In U.S. Firm Births Productivity Growth And Interest Rates Investors typically assume that long-term interest rates will converge to nominal GDP growth. All things equal, this implies that faster productivity growth should lead to higher interest rates. Most economic models share this assumption - they predict that an acceleration in productivity growth will raise the rate of return on capital and incentivize households to save less in anticipation of faster income gains.3 Both factors should cause interest rates to rise. The problem is that these theories do not accord with the data. Chart 8 shows that interest rates are far higher in regions such as Africa and Latin America, which have historically suffered from chronically weak productivity growth. In contrast, rates are lower in regions such as East Asia, which have experienced rapid productivity growth. One sees the same negative correlation between interest rates and productivity growth over time in developed economies. In the U.S., for example, interest rates rose rapidly during the 1970s, a decade when productivity growth fell sharply (Chart 9). Chart 9U.S. Interest Rates Soared In The 1970s##BR##While Productivity Swooned Two Reasons Why Slower Productivity Growth May Lead To Higher Interest Rates There are two main reasons why slower productivity growth may lead to higher nominal interest rates over time: Slower productivity growth may eventually lead to higher inflation; Slower productivity growth may deplete national savings, thereby raising the neutral real rate of interest. We discuss each reason in turn. Reason #1: Slower Productivity Growth May Fuel Inflation Chart 10The Fed Continuously Overstated The Magnitude##BR##Of Economic Slack In The 1970s Most economists agree that chronically weak productivity growth tends to be associated with higher inflation. Even Janet Yellen acknowledged as much, noting in a 2005 speech that "the evidence suggests that the predominant medium-term effect of a slowdown in trend productivity growth would likely be higher inflation."4 In theory, the causation between productivity and inflation can run in either direction: Weak productivity gains can fuel inflation while high inflation can, in turn, undermine growth. With respect to the latter, economists have focused on three channels: First, higher inflation may make it difficult for firms to distinguish between relative and absolute price shocks, leading to suboptimal resource allocation. Second, higher inflation may stymie capital accumulation because investors typically pay capital gains taxes even when the increase in asset values is entirely due to inflation. Third, high inflation may cause households and firms to waste time and effort on economizing their cash holdings. There are also several ways in which slower productivity growth can lead to higher inflation. For example, sluggish productivity growth may increase the likelihood that a country will be forced to inflate its way out of any debt problems. In addition, central banks may fail to recognize structural declines in productivity growth in real time, leading them to keep interest rates too low in the errant belief that weak GDP growth is due to inadequate demand when, in fact, it is due to insufficient supply. There is strong evidence that this happened in the U.S. in the 1970s. Chart 10 shows that the Fed consistently overestimated the size of the output gap during that period. Reason #2: Slower Productivity Growth May Deplete National Savings, Leading To A Higher Neutral Real Rate Imagine that you have a career where your real income is projected to grow by 2% per year, but then something auspicious happens that leads you to revise your expected annual income growth to 20%. How do you react? If you are like most people, your initial inclination might be to celebrate by purchasing a new car or treating yourself to a lavish vacation. As such, your saving rate is likely to fall at the outset. However, as the income gains pile up, you might find yourself running out of stuff to buy, resulting in a higher saving rate. This is particularly likely to be true if you grew up poor and have not yet acquired a taste for conspicuous consumption. Now consider the opposite case: One where you realize that your income will slowly contract over time as your skills become increasingly obsolete. The logic above suggests that your immediate reaction will be to hunker down and spend less - in other words, your saving rate will rise. However, as time goes by and the roof needs to be changed and the kids sent off to college, you may find it hard to pay the bills - your saving rate will then fall. The same reasoning applies to economy-wide productivity growth. When productivity growth increases, household savings are likely to decline as consumers spend more in anticipation of higher incomes. Meanwhile, investment is likely to rise as firms move swiftly to expand capacity to meet rising demand for their products. The combination of falling savings and rising investment will cause real rates to increase. As time goes by, however, it may become increasingly difficult for the economy to generate enough incremental demand to keep up with rising productive capacity. At that point, real rates will begin falling. The historic evidence is consistent with the notion that higher productivity growth causes savings to fall at the outset, but rise later on. Chart 11 shows that East Asian economies all had rapid growth rates before they had high saving rates. China is a particularly telling example. Chinese productivity growth took off in the early 1990s. Inflation accelerated over the subsequent years, while the country flirted with current account deficits - both telltale signs of excess demand. It was not until a decade later that the saving rate took off, pushing the current account into a large surplus, even though investment was also rising at the time (Chart 12). Chart 11Asian Tigers: Growth Took Off First,##BR##Followed By Higher Savings Chart 12China: Productivity Growth Accelerated,##BR##Then Savings Rate Took Off Today, Chinese deposit rates are near rock-bottom levels, and yet the household sector continues to save like crazy. This will change over time. The working-age population has peaked (Chart 13). As millions of Chinese workers retire and begin to dissave, aggregate household savings will fall. Meanwhile, Chinese youth today have no direct memory of the hardships that their parents endured. As happened in Korea and Japan, the flowering of a consumer culture will help bring down the saving rate. Meanwhile, sluggish income growth in the developed world will make it difficult for households to save much. Population aging will only exacerbate this effect. As my colleague Mark McClellan pointed out in last month's edition of the Bank Credit Analyst, elderly people in advanced economies consume more than any other age cohort once government spending for medical care on their behalf is taken into account (Chart 14).5 Our estimates suggest that population aging will reduce the household saving rate by five percentage points in the U.S. over the next 15 years (Chart 15). The saving rate could fall as much as ten points in Germany, leading to the evaporation of the country's mighty current account surplus. As saving rates around the world begin to fall, real interest rates will rise. Chart 13China's Very High Rate Of National Savings Will Face Pressure From Demographics Chart 15Aging Will Reduce##BR##Aggregate Savings The Two Reasons Reinforce Each Other The discussion above has focused on two reasons why chronically low productivity growth could lead to higher interest rates: 1) weak productivity growth could fuel inflation; and 2) weak productivity growth could deplete national savings, leading to higher real rates. There is an important synergy between these two reasons. Suppose, for example, that weak productivity growth does eventually raise the neutral real rate. Since central banks cannot measure the neutral rate directly and monetary policy affects the economy with a lag, it is possible that actual rates will end up below the neutral rate. This would cause the economy to overheat, resulting in higher inflation. Thus, if the first reason proves to be true, it is more likely that the second reason will prove to be true as well. The Technological Wildcard So far, we have discussed productivity growth in very generic terms - as basically anything that raises output-per-hour. In reality, the source of productivity gains can have a strong bearing on interest rates. Economists describe innovations that raise the demand for labor relative to capital goods as being "capital saving." Paul David and Gavin Wright have argued that the widespread adoption of electrically-powered processes in the early 20th century serves as "a textbook illustration of capital-saving technological growth."6 They note that "Electrification saved fixed capital by eliminating heavy shafts and belting, a change that also allowed factory buildings themselves to be more lightly constructed." In contrast, recent technological innovations have tended to be more of the "labor saving" than "capital saving" variety. Robotics and AI come to mind, but so do more mundane advances such as containerization. Marc Levinson has contended that the widespread adoption of "The Box" in the 1970s completely revolutionized international trade. Nowadays, huge cranes move containers off ships and place them onto waiting trucks or trains. Thus, the days when thousands of longshoremen toiled in the great ports of Baltimore and Long Beach are gone.7 If technological progress is driven by labor-saving innovations, real wages will tend to grow more slowly than overall productivity (Chart 16). In fact, if technological change is sufficiently biased in favour of capital (i.e., if it is extremely "labor saving"), real wages may actually decline in absolute terms (Chart 17). Owners of capital tend to be wealthier than workers. Since richer people save more of their income than poorer people, the shift in income towards the former will depress aggregate demand (Chart 18). This will result in a lower neutral rate. Chart 16U.S.: Real Wages Have Been##BR##Lagging Productivity Gains Chart 18Savings Heavily Skewed##BR##Towards Top Earners It is difficult to know if the forces described above will dissipate over time. Productivity growth is largely a function of technological change. We like to think that we are living in an era of unprecedented technological upheavals, but if productivity growth has slowed, it is likely that the pace of technological innovation has also diminished. If so, the impact that technological change is having on such things as the distribution of income and global savings - and by extension on interest rates - could become more muted. To use an analogy, the music might remain the same, but the volume from the speakers could still drop. Capital In A Knowledge-Based Economy Labor-saving technological change has not been the only force pushing down interest rates. Modern economies are transitioning away from producing goods towards producing knowledge. Companies such as Google, Apple, and Amazon have thrived without having to undertake massive amounts of capital spending. This has left them with billions of dollars in cash on their balance sheets. The price of capital goods has also tumbled over the past three decades, allowing companies to cut their capex budgets (Chart 19). In addition, technological advances have facilitated the emergence of "winner-take-all" industries where scale and network effects allow just a few companies to rule the roost (Chart 20). Such market structures exacerbate inequality by shifting income into the hands of a few successful entrepreneurs and business executives. As noted above, this leads to higher aggregate savings. Market structures of this sort could also lead to less aggregate investment because low profitability tends to constrain capital spending by second- or third-tier firms, while the worry that expanding capacity will erode profit margins tends to constrain spending by winning companies. The combination of higher savings and decreased investment results in a lower neutral rate. As with labor-saving technological change, it is difficult to know how these forces will evolve over time. The growth of winner-take-all industries has benefited greatly from globalization. Globalization, however, may be running out of steam. Tariffs are already extremely low in most countries, while the gains from further breaking down the global supply chain are reaching diminishing returns (Chart 21). Perhaps more importantly, political pressures for greater income distribution, trade protectionism, and stronger anti-trust measures are likely to intensify. If that happens, it may be enough to reverse some of the downward pressure on the neutral rate. Chart 19Falling Capital Goods Prices Have Allowed Companies To Slash Capex Budgets Chart 21The Low-Hanging Fruits Of##BR##Globalization Have Been Picked Investment Conclusions Is slow productivity growth good or bad for bonds? The answer is both: Slow productivity growth is likely to depress interest rates at the outset, but is liable to lead to higher rates later on. Chart 22Output Gap Has Narrowed##BR##Thanks To Lower Potential Growth The U.S. has likely reached the inflection point where slow productivity is going from being a boon to a bane for bonds. Chart 22 shows that the U.S. output gap would be over 8% of GDP had potential GDP grown at the pace the IMF projected back in 2008. Instead, it is close to zero and will likely turn negative if growth remains over 2% over the next few quarters. Other countries are likely to follow in the footsteps of the U.S. To be clear, productivity is just one of several factors affecting interest rates - demographics, globalization, and political decisions being others. However, as we argued in our latest Strategy Outlook, these forces are also shifting in a more inflationary direction.8 As such, fixed-income investors with long-term horizons should pare back duration risk and increase allocations to inflation-linked securities. Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "Weak Productivity Growth: Don't Blame The Statisticians," dated March 25, 2016, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Dan Andrews, Chiara Criscuolo, and Peter N. Gal,"The Best versus the Rest: The Global Productivity Slowdown, Divergence across Firms and the Role of Public Policy," OECD Productivity Working Papers, No. 5 (November 2016). 3 Consider the widely-used Solow growth model. The model says that the neutral real rate, r, is equal to (a/s) (n + g + d), where a is the capital share of income, s is the saving rate, n is labor force growth, g is total factor productivity growth, and d is the depreciation rate of capital. All things equal, an increase in g will result in a higher equilibrium real interest rate. The same is true in the Ramsey model, which goes a step further and endogenizes the saving rate within a fully specified utility-maximization framework. In this model, consumption growth is pinned down by the so-called Euler equation. Assuming that utility can be described by a constant relative risk aversion utility function, the Euler equation states that consumption will grow at (r-d)/h where d is the rate at which households discount future consumption and h is a measure of the degree to which households want to smooth consumption over time. In a steady state, consumption increases at the same rate as GDP, n+g. Rearranging the terms yields: r=(n+g)h+d. Notice that both models provide a mechanism by which a higher g can decrease r. In the Solow model, this comes from thinking about the saving rate not as an exogenous variable, but as something that can be influenced by the growth rate of the economy. In particular, if s rises in response to a higher g, r could fall. Likewise, in the Ramsey model, a higher g could make households more willing to forgo consumption today in return for higher consumption tomorrow (equivalent to a decrease in the rate of time preference, d). This, too, would translate into a lower neutral rate. 4 Janet L. Yellen, "The U.S. Economic Outlook," Presentation to the Stanford Institute of Economic Policy Research, February 11, 2005. 5 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst, "Beware Inflection Points In The Secular Drivers Of Global Bonds," April 28, 2017, available at bca.bcaresearch.com. 6 Paul A. David, and Gavin Wright,"General Purpose Technologies And Surges In Productivity: Historical Reflections On the Future Of The ICT Revolution," January 2012. 7 Marc Levinson, "The Box: How the Shipping Container Made the World Smaller and the World Economy Bigger," Princeton University Press, 2006. 8 Please see Global Investment Strategy, "Strategy Outlook Second Quarter 2017: A Three-Act Play," dated March 31, 2017, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. APPENDIX: Tactical Global Asset Allocation Monthly Update To complement our analysis and intuition, we use a variety of time-tested models to assess the global investment outlook. Compared to last month, our tactical (3-month) model is recommending an upgrade to global equities at the expense of government bonds. Global equities have consolidated their gains, removing some of the overbought conditions that prevailed earlier in May. Bullish equity sentiment has also waned somewhat, while net speculative positioning in U.S. stocks has moved from being net long to net short. In contrast, speculative positioning in Treasurys has jumped into net long territory (Chart A1). Our models say that government bonds in most economies remain overbought. Regionally, we continue to favor higher-beta developed equity markets such as Europe and Japan. Canada, Australia, and most emerging markets have also received an upgrade, owing to a more favorable near-term outlook for commodity prices. Within the bond universe, U.S. Treasurys are most vulnerable to a selloff, given that the market is pricing in only two rate hikes over the next 12 months. Strategy & Market Trends Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

This month's Special Report was written by Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist for BCA's Global Investment Strategy Service. The report is a companion piece to last month's Special Report, which argued that some of the structural factors that have depressed global interest rates are at an inflection point. These factors include demographic trends and the integration of China's massive labor supply into the global economy. Peter's report focuses on technology's impact on bond yields. He presents the non-consensus view that slow productivity growth likely depresses interest rates at the outset, but will lead to higher rates later on. Not only could sluggish productivity growth lead to higher inflation, it could also deplete national savings. Both factors would be bond bearish, reinforcing the other factors discussed in last month's Special Report. I trust that you will find the report as insightful and educational as I did. Mark McClellan Productivity growth has declined in most countries. This appears to be a structural problem that will remain with us for years to come. In theory, slower productivity growth should reduce the neutral rate of interest, benefiting bonds in the process. In reality, countries with chronically low productivity growth typically have higher interest rates than faster growing economies. The passage of time helps account for this seeming paradox: Slower productivity growth tends to depress interest rates at the outset, but leads to higher rates later on. The U.S. has reached an inflection point where weak productivity growth is starting to push up both the neutral real rate and inflation. Other countries will follow. The implication for investors is that government bond yields have begun a long-term secular uptrend. The market is not at all prepared for this. Slow Productivity Growth: A Structural Problem Productivity growth has fallen sharply in most developed and emerging economies (Chart II-1). As we argued in "Weak Productivity Growth: Don't Blame The Statisticians," there is little compelling evidence that measurement error explains the productivity slowdown.1 Yes, the unmeasured utility accruing from free internet services is large, but so was the unmeasured utility from antibiotics, indoor plumbing, and air conditioning. No one has offered a convincing explanation for why the well-known problems with productivity calculations suddenly worsened about 12 years ago. If mismeasurement is not responsible for the productivity slowdown, what is? Cyclical factors have undoubtedly played a role. In particular, lackluster investment spending has curtailed the growth in the capital stock (Chart II-2). This means that today's workers have not benefited from the improvement in the quality and quantity of capital to the same extent as previous generations. However, the timing of the productivity slowdown - it began in 2004-05 in most countries, well before the financial crisis struck - suggests that structural factors have been key. These include: Waning gains from the IT revolution. Recent innovations have focused more on consumers than businesses. As nice as Facebook and Instagram are, they do little to boost business productivity - in fact, they probably detract from it, given how much time people waste on social media these days. The rising share of value added coming from software relative to hardware has also contributed to the decline in productivity growth. Chart II-3 shows that productivity gains in the latter category have been much smaller than in the former. Chart II-2The Great Recession Hit ##br##Capital Stock Accumulation Chart II-3The Shift Towards Software Has ##br##Dampened IT Productivity Gains Slower human capital accumulation. Globally, the fraction of adults with a secondary degree or higher is increasing at half the pace it did in the 1990s (Chart II-4). Educational achievement, as measured by standardized test scores in mathematics and science, is edging lower in the OECD, and is showing very limited gains in most emerging markets (Chart II-5). Test scores tend to be much lower in countries with rapidly growing populations (Chart II-6). Consequently, the average level of global mathematical proficiency is now declining for the first time in modern history. Decreased creative destruction. The birth rate of new firms in the U.S. has fallen by half since the late 1970s and is now barely above the death rate (Chart II-7). In addition, many firms in advanced economies are failing to replicate the best practices of industry leaders. The OECD reckons that this has been a key reason for the productivity slowdown.2 Chart II-7Secular Decline In U.S. Firm Births Productivity Growth And Interest Rates Investors typically assume that long-term interest rates will converge to nominal GDP growth. All things equal, this implies that faster productivity growth should lead to higher interest rates. Most economic models share this assumption - they predict that an acceleration in productivity growth will raise the rate of return on capital and incentivize households to save less in anticipation of faster income gains.3 Both factors should cause interest rates to rise. The problem is that these theories do not accord with the data. Chart II-8 shows that interest rates are far higher in regions such as Africa and Latin America, which have historically suffered from chronically weak productivity growth. In contrast, rates are lower in regions such as East Asia, which have experienced rapid productivity growth. One sees the same negative correlation between interest rates and productivity growth over time in developed economies. In the U.S., for example, interest rates rose rapidly during the 1970s, a decade when productivity growth fell sharply (Chart II-9). Chart II-9U.S. Interest Rates Soared In The ##br##1970s While Productivity Swooned Two Reasons Why Slower Productivity Growth May Lead To Higher Interest Rates There are two main reasons why slower productivity growth may lead to higher nominal interest rates over time: Slower productivity growth may eventually lead to higher inflation; Slower productivity growth may deplete national savings, thereby raising the neutral real rate of interest. We discuss each reason in turn. Reason #1: Slower Productivity Growth May Fuel Inflation Most economists agree that chronically weak productivity growth tends to be associated with higher inflation. Even Janet Yellen acknowledged as much, noting in a 2005 speech that "the evidence suggests that the predominant medium-term effect of a slowdown in trend productivity growth would likely be higher inflation."4 Chart II-10The Fed Continuously Overstated The ##br##Magnitude Of Economic Slack In The 1970s In theory, the causation between productivity and inflation can run in either direction: Weak productivity gains can fuel inflation while high inflation can, in turn, undermine growth. With respect to the latter, economists have focused on three channels: First, higher inflation may make it difficult for firms to distinguish between relative and absolute price shocks, leading to suboptimal resource allocation. Second, higher inflation may stymie capital accumulation because investors typically pay capital gains taxes even when the increase in asset values is entirely due to inflation. Third, high inflation may cause households and firms to waste time and effort on economizing their cash holdings. There are also several ways in which slower productivity growth can lead to higher inflation. For example, sluggish productivity growth may increase the likelihood that a country will be forced to inflate its way out of any debt problems. In addition, central banks may fail to recognize structural declines in productivity growth in real time, leading them to keep interest rates too low in the errant belief that weak GDP growth is due to inadequate demand when, in fact, it is due to insufficient supply. There is strong evidence that this happened in the U.S. in the 1970s. Chart II-10 shows that the Fed consistently overestimated the size of the output gap during that period. Reason #2: Slower Productivity Growth May Deplete National Savings, Leading To A Higher Neutral Real Rate Imagine that you have a career where your real income is projected to grow by 2% per year, but then something auspicious happens that leads you to revise your expected annual income growth to 20%. How do you react? If you are like most people, your initial inclination might be to celebrate by purchasing a new car or treating yourself to a lavish vacation. As such, your saving rate is likely to fall at the outset. However, as the income gains pile up, you might find yourself running out of stuff to buy, resulting in a higher saving rate. This is particularly likely to be true if you grew up poor and have not yet acquired a taste for conspicuous consumption. Now consider the opposite case: One where you realize that your income will slowly contract over time as your skills become increasingly obsolete. The logic above suggests that your immediate reaction will be to hunker down and spend less - in other words, your saving rate will rise. However, as time goes by and the roof needs to be changed and the kids sent off to college, you may find it hard to pay the bills - your saving rate will then fall. The same reasoning applies to economy-wide productivity growth. When productivity growth increases, household savings are likely to decline as consumers spend more in anticipation of higher incomes. Meanwhile, investment is likely to rise as firms move swiftly to expand capacity to meet rising demand for their products. The combination of falling savings and rising investment will cause real rates to increase. As time goes by, however, it may become increasingly difficult for the economy to generate enough incremental demand to keep up with rising productive capacity. At that point, real rates will begin falling. The historic evidence is consistent with the notion that higher productivity growth causes savings to fall at the outset, but rise later on. Chart II-11 shows that East Asian economies all had rapid growth rates before they had high saving rates. China is a particularly telling example. Chinese productivity growth took off in the early 1990s. Inflation accelerated over the subsequent years, while the country flirted with current account deficits - both telltale signs of excess demand. It was not until a decade later that the saving rate took off, pushing the current account into a large surplus, even though investment was also rising at the time (Chart II-12). Chart II-11Asian Tigers: Growth Took Off First, ##br##Followed By Higher Savings Chart II-12China: Productivity Growth Accelerated, ##br##Then Savings Rate Took Off Today, Chinese deposit rates are near rock-bottom levels, and yet the household sector continues to save like crazy. This will change over time. The working-age population has peaked (Chart II-13). As millions of Chinese workers retire and begin to dissave, aggregate household savings will fall. Meanwhile, Chinese youth today have no direct memory of the hardships that their parents endured. As happened in Korea and Japan, the flowering of a consumer culture will help bring down the saving rate. Meanwhile, sluggish income growth in the developed world will make it difficult for households to save much. Population aging will only exacerbate this effect. As my colleague Mark McClellan pointed out in last month's edition of the Bank Credit Analyst, elderly people in advanced economies consume more than any other age cohort once government spending for medical care on their behalf is taken into account (Chart II-14).5 Our estimates suggest that population aging will reduce the household saving rate by five percentage points in the U.S. over the next 15 years (Chart II-15). The saving rate could fall as much as ten points in Germany, leading to the evaporation of the country's mighty current account surplus. As saving rates around the world begin to fall, real interest rates will rise. Chart II-13China's Very High Rate Of National Savings ##br##Will Face Pressure From Demographics Chart II-15Aging Will Reduce ##br##Aggregate Savings The Two Reasons Reinforce Each Other The discussion above has focused on two reasons why chronically low productivity growth could lead to higher interest rates: 1) weak productivity growth could fuel inflation; and 2) weak productivity growth could deplete national savings, leading to higher real rates. There is an important synergy between these two reasons. Suppose, for example, that weak productivity growth does eventually raise the neutral real rate. Since central banks cannot measure the neutral rate directly and monetary policy affects the economy with a lag, it is possible that actual rates will end up below the neutral rate. This would cause the economy to overheat, resulting in higher inflation. Thus, if the first reason proves to be true, it is more likely that the second reason will prove to be true as well. The Technological Wildcard So far, we have discussed productivity growth in very generic terms - as basically anything that raises output-per-hour. In reality, the source of productivity gains can have a strong bearing on interest rates. Economists describe innovations that raise the demand for labor relative to capital goods as being "capital saving." Paul David and Gavin Wright have argued that the widespread adoption of electrically-powered processes in the early 20th century serves as "a textbook illustration of capital-saving technological growth."6 They note that "Electrification saved fixed capital by eliminating heavy shafts and belting, a change that also allowed factory buildings themselves to be more lightly constructed." In contrast, recent technological innovations have tended to be more of the "labor saving" than "capital saving" variety. Robotics and AI come to mind, but so do more mundane advances such as containerization. Marc Levinson has contended that the widespread adoption of "The Box" in the 1970s completely revolutionized international trade. Nowadays, huge cranes move containers off ships and place them onto waiting trucks or trains. Thus, the days when thousands of longshoremen toiled in the great ports of Baltimore and Long Beach are gone.7 If technological progress is driven by labor-saving innovations, real wages will tend to grow more slowly than overall productivity (Chart II-16). In fact, if technological change is sufficiently biased in favour of capital (i.e., if it is extremely "labor saving"), real wages may actually decline in absolute terms (Chart II-17). Owners of capital tend to be wealthier than workers. Since richer people save more of their income than poorer people, the shift in income towards the former will depress aggregate demand (Chart II-18). This will result in a lower neutral rate. Chart II-16U.S.: Real Wages Have Been ##br##Lagging Productivity Gains Chart II-18Savings Heavily Skewed ##br##Towards Top Earners It is difficult to know if the forces described above will dissipate over time. Productivity growth is largely a function of technological change. We like to think that we are living in an era of unprecedented technological upheavals, but if productivity growth has slowed, it is likely that the pace of technological innovation has also diminished. If so, the impact that technological change is having on such things as the distribution of income and global savings - and by extension on interest rates - could become more muted. To use an analogy, the music might remain the same, but the volume from the speakers could still drop. Capital In A Knowledge-Based Economy Labor-saving technological change has not been the only force pushing down interest rates. Modern economies are transitioning away from producing goods towards producing knowledge. Companies such as Google, Apple, and Amazon have thrived without having to undertake massive amounts of capital spending. This has left them with billions of dollars in cash on their balance sheets. The price of capital goods has also tumbled over the past three decades, allowing companies to cut their capex budgets (Chart II-19). In addition, technological advances have facilitated the emergence of "winner-take-all" industries where scale and network effects allow just a few companies to rule the roost (Chart II-20). Such market structures exacerbate inequality by shifting income into the hands of a few successful entrepreneurs and business executives. As noted above, this leads to higher aggregate savings. Market structures of this sort could also lead to less aggregate investment because low profitability tends to constrain capital spending by second- or third-tier firms, while the worry that expanding capacity will erode profit margins tends to constrain spending by winning companies. The combination of higher savings and decreased investment results in a lower neutral rate. Chart II-19Falling Capital Goods Prices Have ##br##Allowed Companies To Slash Capex Budgets As with labor-saving technological change, it is difficult to know how these forces will evolve over time. The growth of winner-take-all industries has benefited greatly from globalization. Globalization, however, may be running out of steam. Tariffs are already extremely low in most countries, while the gains from further breaking down the global supply chain are reaching diminishing returns (Chart II-21). Perhaps more importantly, political pressures for greater income distribution, trade protectionism, and stronger anti-trust measures are likely to intensify. If that happens, it may be enough to reverse some of the downward pressure on the neutral rate. Chart II-21The Low-Hanging Fruits Of ##br##Globalization Have Been Picked Investment Conclusions Is slow productivity growth good or bad for bonds? The answer is both: Slow productivity growth is likely to depress interest rates at the outset, but is liable to lead to higher rates later on. The U.S. has likely reached the inflection point where slow productivity is going from being a boon to a bane for bonds. Chart II-22 shows that the U.S. output gap would be over 8% of GDP had potential GDP grown at the pace the IMF projected back in 2008. Instead, it is close to zero and will likely turn negative if growth remains over 2% over the next few quarters. Other countries are likely to follow in the footsteps of the U.S. Chart II-22Output Gap Has Narrowed Thanks ##br##To Lower Potential Growth To be clear, productivity is just one of several factors affecting interest rates - demographics, globalization, and political decisions being others. However, as we argued in our latest Strategy Outlook, these forces are also shifting in a more inflationary direction.8 As such, fixed-income investors with long-term horizons should pare back duration risk and increase allocations to inflation-linked securities. Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy 1 Please see Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "Weak Productivity Growth: Don't Blame The Statisticians," dated March 25, 2016, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Dan Andrews, Chiara Criscuolo, and Peter N. Gal,"The Best versus the Rest: The Global Productivity Slowdown, Divergence across Firms and the Role of Public Policy," OECD Productivity Working Papers, No. 5 (November 2016). 3 Consider the widely-used Solow growth model. The model says that the neutral real rate, r, is equal to (a/s) (n + g + d), where a is the capital share of income, s is the saving rate, n is labor force growth, g is total factor productivity growth, and d is the depreciation rate of capital. All things equal, an increase in g will result in a higher equilibrium real interest rate. The same is true in the Ramsey model, which goes a step further and endogenizes the saving rate within a fully specified utility-maximization framework. In this model, consumption growth is pinned down by the so-called Euler equation. Assuming that utility can be described by a constant relative risk aversion utility function, the Euler equation states that consumption will grow at (r-d)/h where d is the rate at which households discount future consumption and h is a measure of the degree to which households want to smooth consumption over time. In a steady state, consumption increases at the same rate as GDP, n+g. Rearranging the terms yields: r=(n+g)h+d. Notice that both models provide a mechanism by which a higher g can decrease r. In the Solow model, this comes from thinking about the saving rate not as an exogenous variable, but as something that can be influenced by the growth rate of the economy. In particular, if s rises in response to a higher g, r could fall. Likewise, in the Ramsey model, a higher g could make households more willing to forgo consumption today in return for higher consumption tomorrow (equivalent to a decrease in the rate of time preference, d). This, too, would translate into a lower neutral rate. 4 Janet L. Yellen, "The U.S. Economic Outlook," Presentation to the Stanford Institute of Economic Policy Research, February 11, 2005. 5 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst, "Beware Inflection Points In The Secular Drivers Of Global Bonds," April 28, 2017, available at bca.bcaresearch.com. 6 Paul A. David, and Gavin Wright,"General Purpose Technologies And Surges In Productivity: Historical Reflections On the Future Of The ICT Revolution," January 2012. 7 Marc Levinson, "The Box: How the Shipping Container Made the World Smaller and the World Economy Bigger," Princeton University Press, 2006. 8 Please see Global Investment Strategy, "Strategy Outlook Second Quarter 2017: A Three-Act Play," dated March 31, 2017, available at gis.bcaresearch.com.

Highlights Reflation Trade: The backdrop for global growth and monetary liquidity remains positive, and suggests that risk assets will outperform government debt for the balance of 2017. However, there are some early signs of fading momentum which raises risks for financial markets in 2018. New Zealand: The more dovish tone taken by the RBNZ reflects the more uncertain outlook for New Zealand growth and inflation. Go long 5-year New Zealand government bonds versus 5-year U.S. Treasuries (currency-hedged) and also versus 5-year German government debt (currency-unhedged). South Korea: Large expected increases in fiscal spending from the new government in Seoul will drive up the longer end of the South Korean government bond curve, while the Bank of Korea's easing stance and weak domestic economy will anchor the short-end of the curve. Position for this by entering a 2-year/10-year steepening trade in the South Korean government bond market. Feature "I know it makes no difference to what you're going through; but I see the tip of the iceberg, and I worry about you." - Rush Is The Liquidity Party Starting To Wind Down? Global financial markets continue to enjoy the "sweet spot" of a solidly expanding global economy, but without enough inflation pressure to force central banks to slam on the monetary brakes. That backdrop is starting to change, though. Odds are rising that the European Central Bank (ECB) will begin tapering its bond buying next year, with some hints of that possibly being announced as soon as next week's monetary policy meeting. At the same time, the Bank of Japan (BoJ) - faced with the operational constraints of buying an ever-increasing share of Japanese financial assets - is focused on targeting long-term interest rates rather than increasing liquidity. Even the Federal Reserve is now talking about reducing its massive balance sheet later this year. The liquidity tailwind to global growth and risk assets is now at risk of becoming a headwind. Already, the growth rate of the major central bank balance sheets has rolled over and is on course to decelerate further over the next year (Chart of the Week). Importantly, this downshift in global liquidity momentum is happening as signs of slowing growth have appeared in some major economies like China and the U.S. (Chart 2). Chart of the WeekLiquidity Tailwind To Risk##BR##Assets Is Fading Chart 2Growth Momentum##BR##Already Starting To Cool Off We remain concerned that the Chinese economy will see a policy-induced deceleration in the 2nd half of the year. However, we still expect the U.S. to rebound after the soft patch of growth in the first quarter, and we see nothing in the Euro Area data to suggest that the current solid expansion is at risk of fading quickly. This should allow inflation expectations to drift upward toward the central bank targets given the apparent lack of spare capacity on both sides of the Atlantic (Chart 3). Chart 3Fed & ECB Facing##BR##Economic Capacity Constraints We still expect the Fed to deliver another two rate hikes before year-end and the ECB to begin its exit strategy from the current extraordinary monetary policies by slowing the pace of asset purchases starting early next year. For now, the backdrop will remain supportive for the outperformance of growth-sensitive assets like corporate credit and equities over government bonds in the U.S. and Europe over the balance of 2017. However, the early signals sent by "leading leading" indicators such as our Global Leading Economic Indicator diffusion index (Chart 2, top panel) suggests that liquidity and growth trends will become far more challenging for the markets in 2018. Bottom Line: The backdrop for global growth and monetary liquidity remains positive, and suggests that risk assets will outperform government debt for the balance of 2017. However, there are some early signs of fading momentum which raises risks for financial markets in 2018. Maintain a below-benchmark duration exposure and an overweight allocation to corporate debt in global fixed income portfolios. New Zealand: Safety From A Global Bond Apocalypse? A growing number of the world's most wealthiest (and, arguably, most paranoid) people are reportedly buying real estate in New Zealand as a safe haven place to live if modern civilization collapses.1 While the immediate need for taking such precautions can be debated, there is sound logic in treating New Zealand as a location far removed from the current geopolitical and socio-economic problems of the world. We now see a case for treating New Zealand bonds as a potential "safe haven" market for global fixed income investors. The Economic Backdrop Has Become More Muddled We have been running a SHORT position in New Zealand (paying 12-month OIS rates) in our Tactical Overlay portfolio since last November. Our view then was that the New Zealand economy would surprise to the upside in 2017 and inflation was likely to start drifting upward. This would pressure the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (RBNZ) to raise the Official Cash Rate (OCR) from the highly accommodative level of 1.75%. So far, that expectation has not panned out as the RBNZ has held rates steady amid a more uncertain outlook for the New Zealand economy. Growth indicators have been a bit mixed over the past few months, but the current uptick in the manufacturing purchasing managers' index (PMI) is pointing to real GDP expanding around 3% on a year-over-year basis (Chart 4). If maintained for the full year, this would be slightly above the RBNZ's estimate of potential growth at 2.8%. There are some downside risks, however, given that consumer and business confidence are both below previous cyclical peaks and fiscal policy is expected to be mildly restrictive in 2017 (bottom three panels). The housing market remains a key cyclical wild card. Residential construction has been a significant source of growth over the past few years, driven by a surge in net immigration into New Zealand and declining interest rates (Chart 5). However, the RBNZ is projecting immigration inflows to slow from the current high level, largely due to improving labor market conditions in the developed economies (most notably, Australia, which is the largest source of New Zealand immigrants). Chart 4Stable NZ Growth...For Now Chart 5NZ Housing Activity Starting To Peak Out Slower immigration would reduce the demand for New Zealand housing at a time when mortgage rates have already been rising off the record lows seen in 2016 (bottom panel). This has occurred without any rate hikes from the RBNZ, as rising global bond yields have put upward pressure on New Zealand bank funding costs, which have been passed through to higher mortgage rates. The RBNZ is currently projecting growth in house prices to slow sharply from last year's robust 15% pace to just 5% in 2017. The main drivers are higher borrowing costs and the ongoing impact of macro-prudential regulations against high loan-to-value ratio mortgage lending. Importantly, slower housing activity will not only have a direct impact on GDP growth through softer construction, but will also indirectly dampen consumer spending growth via wealth effects. Yet even with this expected drag on growth from housing, the New Zealand economy is still expected to face capacity constraints over the rest of the year. Higher Uncertainty Over Price Pressures Both the RBNZ and the International Monetary Fund estimate that the output gap has fully closed and is projected to move into positive territory this year (Chart 6). At the same time, the current unemployment rate of 4.9% is below the OECD's estimate of the full employment level and the RBNZ projects a further decline in joblessness in 2017 (third panel). Despite this evidence of the economy reaching capacity constraints, both wage growth and price inflation remain subdued and inflation expectations remain well-anchored around 2% - the midpoint of the RBNZ's 1-3% target range. Wage costs are particularly depressed, growing only 1% on a year-over-year basis in Q1. This may be related to the rise in the labor force participation rate - up to an all-time high of 70.6% in Q1 from a cyclical low of 68.2% at the end of 2015 - that has increased the available supply of labor. The most recent headline inflation print for Q1 was quite strong, taking the year-over-year growth rate up to 2.2%. Yet in the RBNZ's April Monetary Policy Statement (MPS), the central bank took a surprisingly dovish tone, citing uncertainty over the true degree of slack in the economy and downside risks to growth that would prevent a further acceleration of inflation.2 The RBNZ now forecasts inflation to not rise above 2.2% this year and to fall back to 1.1% in both 2018, led by a sharp decline in growth for tradeables, mostly energy and food inflation (Chart 7). Importantly, this forecast includes the recent decline in the trade-weighted New Zealand Dollar (NZD). Non-tradeables inflation is also expected to stabilize on the back of slower housing-related items in the consumer price index. Chart 6RBNZ Not Expecting A Big Rise In Inflation... Chart 7...As Growth In Tradeables Prices Cools A Weaker Case For Tighter Monetary Policy The official RBNZ projection is that the OCR will stay unchanged at 1.75% until September 2019. The market expectation priced into the NZD OIS curve calls for 27bps of hikes over the next twelve months (Chart 8). Our New Zealand Central Bank Monitor has been suggesting the need for tighter monetary policy since mid-2016, but appears to be rolling over (2nd panel). The diminished rate hike expectations have coincided with a decline in the NZD and a sharp underperformance of New Zealand equities. The markets are giving a consistent signal on softening growth prospects in New Zealand, confirming the central bank's more recent dovish turn. Chart 8Market Expectations Of##BR##RBNZ Hikes Are Fading Given the newfound uncertainties over the New Zealand growth and inflation outlook, the case for owning New Zealand interest rate exposure has grown a little bit stronger. Admittedly, we do not envision a major pullback in growth, and inflation may not fall by as much as the RBNZ is expecting given how little spare capacity there appears to be in the economy. Yet there is now just enough uncertainty to keep the central bank on hold for longer than expected, as was noted in the "scenario analysis" section of the April MPS.3 The RBNZ noted that if the level of spare capacity is smaller than currently assumed, then the latest growth forecast will result in inflation eventually moving to 2.0% in 2018 and 2.3% in 2019, resulting in the OCR needing to rise to 2.25% in two years. Alternatively, if housing demand slows even faster than current projections, inflation would be below the 2% target during the next two years and the OCR would need to fall to 1.25% by the end of 2018. Our takeaway from this is that, even in the more positive scenario, interest rates are not expected to rise by much more than the markets are currently discounting. Position For Tighter New Zealand Spreads Versus Treasuries & Bunds The economic risks in New Zealand now appear evenly balanced. This argues for stable monetary policy and diminished bond volatility. Current market forwards for both government bonds and NZD swaps shows that very little movement in interest rates is expected over the next year (Chart 9). We generally agree with this pricing, although the uncertainty over the degree of spare capacity, and underlying inflation pressures, make a directional view on interest rates or the shape of the yield curve an unattractive risk proposition. A more interesting opportunity presents itself in looking at spread trades between New Zealand government bonds versus other developed market sovereign debt. The yield betas for New Zealand versus the U.S. and Germany have fallen steadily over the past year (Chart 10), indicating that New Zealand bonds can be more insulated from the rise in yields that we expect for U.S. Treasuries and German Bunds over the latter half of 2017. Given the competitively high yields on offer in New Zealand, even on a currency-hedged basis (bottom panel), we see a case for going long New Zealand interest rate exposure versus U.S. and Germany. Chart 9Higher NZ Bond Yields##BR##Priced Into Forwards Chart 10NZ Bonds: Now Lower Beta##BR##With Higher Hedged Yields At current yield levels, going long New Zealand versus Germany looks more compelling relative to spread compression trades versus U.S. Treasuries. We see strong potential for New Zealand-Germany spreads to tighten faster than the forwards over the next six months (Chart 11), largely through rising German yields as the ECB signals that a tapering of bond purchases is set to begin next year. The downside potential for New Zealand-U.S. spread compression looks less likely from current tight levels, although if Treasury yields rise by as much as we expect in the coming months, some spread tightening should occur here, as well. Chart 11Go Long 5Yr NZ Bonds Vs##BR##USTs and German OBLs Based on our analysis, we are closing our current NZD rates trade in our Tactical Overlay portfolio with a tiny profit of +3bps , and entering two new trades: long 5-year NZD government bonds versus 5-year U.S. Treasuries, on a currency-hedged basis; and long 5yr NZD government bonds versus 5-year German government debt, on a currency-unhedged basis.4 We are choosing to hedge the currency exposure back into USD for the former given the view of BCA's currency strategists that the EUR/USD exchange rate is now stretched too far to the upside and is at risk of declining as the Fed delivers on additional rate hikes in the coming months.5 In other words, we see a greater potential for a decline in NZD/USD than NZD/EUR in the next 3-6 months. Bottom Line: The more dovish tone taken by the RBNZ reflects the more uncertain outlook for New Zealand growth and inflation, in contrast to the strong likelihood of additional Fed rate hikes and an ECB taper announcement in the next few months. Go long 5-year New Zealand government bonds versus 5-year U.S. Treasuries (currency-hedged) and also versus 5-year German government debt (currency-unhedged). South Korea: A Bad Moon Rising For Bond Yields Chart 12Markets Not Worried##BR##About The New President The new South Korean president, Moon Jae-In was elected on May 9th, ending a year of political turmoil after the previous president's scandal and impeachment. Our colleagues at BCA Geopolitical Strategy view Moon and his Democratic Party as a major shift to the political left.6 The new president's policy agenda is aimed at economic stimulus for the working class alongside reforms of the country's chaebol industrial giants. Korean financial markets have greeted the election result positively, with the benchmark KOSPI equity index up 2.7%, and the Korean won up 1% versus the U.S. dollar, from the pre-election levels on May 8th. (Chart 12). This is consistent with past market behavior, as the won tends to be less reactive toward domestic events (i.e. after the previous president's impeachment, the won actually strengthened) and more sensitive to international uncertainties (i.e. North Korea-U.S. military tensions, as occurred in mid-March). Korean interest rates, however, have shown little response to the change in leadership in Seoul, with bond yields unchanged since the election. We see this as presenting an opportunity for fixed income investors. Clearly, the new regime in Seoul represents a real change for the Korean people, but it also represents a potential shift in the economic backdrop - namely, through an expected large fiscal stimulus from the new government - that will impart a steepening bias to the Korean interest rate curve. A Sluggish Economy Greets The New President While the steady, if unspectacular, pace of global growth in the past few years has been enough to absorb spare capacity in many countries, South Korea's sub-par economic performance has left the country with a widening output gap (Chart 13). Policymakers are well aware that consumer spending, which contributes about 60% of GDP, has been steadily weakening alongside slowing credit growth. Chart 13Sluggish Growth In South Korea The new government will attempt to boost domestic consumption, and thus overall growth, by increasing social welfare spending. Moon's economic agenda calls for raising the minimum wage by 55% by 2020, increasing subsidies for education costs and parental leave, and doubling the basic pension payment for the elderly regardless of their income level. It might prove to be very effective in the short term at boosting consumer spending, but this may not prove to be a sustainable driver of growth in South Korea, where the marginal swings in the economy have historically been driven more by exports. Youth joblessness is another problem that Moon will attempt to tackle with his ambitious economic program. While the labor market may appear healthy, with an overall unemployment rate of only 3.7%, the situation is far more challenging for young adults in South Korea - the jobless rate for those aged 20-29 is 11.3%. One of the reasons for such a high unemployment rate among young South Koreans is that university graduates, of which there are many in this highly-educated nation, expect (and look for) high-paying jobs, but cannot find enough of them.7 The labor market has become more competitive in recent years as weak economic growth has limited the ability of private sector, especially large corporations, to hire as much. To solve this problem, the new government has promised to create 810,000 jobs in the public sector. Creating public sector jobs may temporarily solve the high unemployment rate, but in the long run, this will also cause larger fiscal burdens for taxpayers. Position For A Steeper South Korean Yield Curve Headline CPI inflation in South Korea is currently hovering around the 2% target of the Bank of Korea (BoK), while core CPI growth is lower at 1.3%. The BoK has maintain the policy rate at 1.25% since June 2016, with a bias towards additional easing given the lack of sustained inflationary pressure amid weak domestic demand. The BoK did sound a slightly more upbeat tone on the economy at last week's monetary policy meeting, led by the spillover effects from improving global growth rather than a more bullish expectation on the Korean consumer. Importantly, the central bank still expects inflation pressures to remain subdued - no surprise given the large output gap. The BoK did note that it is monitoring several factors in judging future policy decisions: the pace of rate hikes by the Fed, trends in global trade, geopolitical tensions, the pace of household debt accumulation and "the directions of the new government's fiscal policies." The latter may end up being the most important factor, as President Moon is proposing an increase in government spending equal to 0.7% of GDP - an amount equal to ½ of the estimated output gap coming after a 2016 budget surplus of 1% of GDP. This increase in fiscal spending could directly drive up the longer-end of Korean yield curve, as this would result in a narrower budget surpluses and greater KGB issuance. At the same time, the lack of domestic inflation pressures, even with the fiscal stimulus, will keep the BoK on an easing bias that will keep short dated yields well anchored. Therefore, we see the potential for the Korean yield curve to eventually steepen and break the downward-sloping trendline in place since 2014 (Chart 14). We recommend positioning for this move by entering a 2-year/10-year steepening trade in the Korean yield curve. Admittedly, this trade is more structural than tactical in nature, as the Moon stimulus policies will take time to unfold. Importantly, a flattening of the 2-year/10-year KGB curve is currently priced into the forwards, meaning that positioning now for a steepener does not incur negative carry (Chart 15). Chart 14More Fiscal Stimulus =##BR##Steeper Korea Curve Chart 15Enter A 2Yr/10Yr##BR##Korean Bond Curve Steepener Also, Korean 10-year bond yields are currently exhibiting a strong correlation to similar maturity U.S. Treasuries with a yield beta around 1.0 (bottom panel). Given our view that longer-dated U.S. yields have upside risk from both additional Fed rate increases and higher U.S. inflation expectations, that high yield beta suggests that the Korean yield curve could suffer some of the same cyclical bear-steepening pressures that we expect for U.S. Treasuries in the next 3-6 months. Bottom Line: Large expected increases in fiscal spending from the new government in Seoul will drive up the longer end curve of the South Korean government bond curve, while the Bank of Korea's easing stance and weak domestic economy will anchor the short-end of the curve. Position for this by entering a 2-year/10-year steepening trade in the South Korean bond curve. Robert Robis, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com Ray Park, Research Analyst ray@bcaresearch.com 1 https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jan/29/silicon-valley-new-zealand-apocalypse-escape 2 The central bank noted that its "suite" of output gap estimates, using varying methodologies, have an unusually wide range at the moment between -1.5% and +2%. 3 http://www.rbnz.govt.nz/monetary-policy/monetary-policy-statement 4 These trades can be done using interest rate swaps as well (receiving NZD rates vs paying USD & EUR rates), as swap spreads are expected to remain broadly stable in all three regions. 5 Please see BCA Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report, "Bloody Potomac", dated May 19 2017, available at fes.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Northeast Asia: Moonshine, Militarism, And Markets" dated May 24 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 7 According to the OECD, Korea's college enrollment rate was a whopping 87% as recently as 2014. The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Recommendations Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Highlights Portfolio Strategy Downgrade communications equipment stocks to underweight. All three end-markets are weak and signal that profits will continue to surprise to the downside. Continue to avoid the electrical components & equipment index. Deficient demand warns that the profit down cycle is far from over. Recent Changes S&P Communications Equipment - Downgrade to underweight. Table 1Sector Performance Returns (%) Feature Equities broke out to new highs last week. The minutes from the latest FOMC meeting implied that it would take considerable economic strength for the Fed to tighten more than markets currently forecast. A reactive rather than proactive Fed raises the odds that the equity overshoot will persist, because it means monetary conditions will still support profits. A good part of this year's market advance has been concentrated in a small number of stocks, but that belies the breadth of the profit recovery. Net analyst earnings revisions have hit their highest level since the initial post-GFC surge. The number of S&P industry groups with rising earnings estimates has climbed above 80%, reflecting broad-based earnings upgrades. Such widespread participation is consistent with ongoing upward revisions to 12-month forward earnings estimates (Chart 1). Evidence of a healthy earnings recovery is supported by our own Indicators. Of our ten sector pricing power gauges, seven are in positive territory. On a more granular basis, the majority of our 64 industry group pricing power proxies is also rising. This reflects increased global business activity and U.S. dollar depreciation. In terms of costs, six out of ten wage inflation proxies are decelerating, and more than 50% of our industry labor expense gauges are falling. As a result, seven out of ten of our broad sector profit margin proxies are in positive territory, i.e. pricing power is rising at a faster pace than wage inflation. Of the three in negative territory, two are easing in intensity, i.e. margin pressures are diminishing. These profit trends will support stocks, at least until they generate economic overheating and by extension, a more restrictive Fed. Thus, the good news for bulls is that financial conditions will remain sufficiently easy to sustain a durable profit recovery (see Chart 1 from last week's Report), so much so that investors are lengthening their time horizons. Evidence of the first synchronized global expansion in years and the ability of regional economies to bounce back from a headline risk, such as Brexit, have boosted conviction in the sustainability and strength of long-term earnings growth: analyst 5-year earnings growth forecasts are being steadily upgraded. History shows that as long as economic tail risk remains on the back burner, then valuations can camp out in overshoot territory, as occurred in the second half of the 1990s (Chart 2). To be sure, nosebleed valuation levels underscore that the rally is in a high risk phase and virtually guarantee paltry long-term returns. Still, timing pullbacks is notoriously difficult. We follow a checklist of five reliable indicators that should provide a helpful timing tool. Emerging market currencies have weakened prior to or coincident with U.S. stock market corrections (Chart 3). Exchange rate depreciation in these high beta economies is emblematic of growth disappointment, fears of capital flight and/or risk aversion. At the moment, our proxy of EM currencies is accelerating. Chart 1Buoyant Breadth Bodes Well Chart 2Long-Term Profit Conviction Is Driving Multiples Chart 34/5 Lights Flash Green Corporate bond spreads, both in the U.S. and emerging markets, have also widened coincident with, or in advance of, meaningful equity setbacks (Chart 3). So far, spreads remain tight in both regions, suggesting minimal concerns about debt servicing capabilities. In addition, bullish individual investor sentiment has also eclipsed the 60% zone in advance of the two largest post-GFC drawdowns. Individual investors are currently upbeat, but are not yet frothing bulls, according to the latest survey data (Chart 3). Of the five checklist items, the behavior of the yield curve is the most disconcerting. The curve has narrowed considerably in recent weeks, and is closing in on the pre-U.S. election lows as inflation expectations recede (Chart 3). If real long-term yields do not soon advance and confirm the profit/economic recovery narrative, then the odds of an imminent corrective phase will ratchet higher. In sum, the overshoot should remain intact for a while longer. But we continue to recommend a barbell portfolio rather than one with excessive beta, favoring select defensives and early cyclical sectors such as consumer discretionary and financials given the lack of economic confirmation from the bond market. This week we highlight two exceptions to the generally bullish profit backdrop, which reinforces that selectivity remains critical to portfolio construction. A Weak Signal From Communications Equipment: Downgrade To Underweight Communications equipment stocks have diverged negatively from the broad tech sector and have also trailed the broad market. Instead, this small corner of the tech industry moves with the ebb and flow of telecom carrier stocks - a key end-market, with a slight lag (top panel, Chart 4). The latest signal from telecom services stocks is bearish, and we recommend a downgrade to a below-benchmark allocation in the S&P communications equipment group. While the share price ratio has lost ground and valuations look compelling (Chart 4), the risks of further near-term losses and a longer-term value trap remain high. Technical conditions are still far from previously extreme washed out levels. In fact, the overbought conditions' unwind is recent and there is ample downside left before a full capitulation materializes (middle panel, Chart 4). Worryingly, all three key communications equipment end-markets point to additional weakness in the coming months. Telecom carrier outlays have hit a wall. Telecom providers are at each other's throats and a full blown price war has engulfed the industry. This is outright deflationary, and telecom services pricing power has contracted at a double-digit rate during the past three months (bottom panel, Chart 5). In the absence of revenue growth, telecom capex is unlikely to reaccelerate. U.S. telecom facilities construction and communications equipment new order growth move in lockstep (second panel, Chart 5). Both have collapsed on a short-term rate of change basis, warning that communications equipment demand is soggy. Tack on the quickest industry inventory accumulation since 2011 (third panel, Chart 5), a soft order backlog (not shown), and the industry sales growth outlook has darkened even further. Overall corporate outlays are also soft. While a capex upcycle looms and some capital will inevitably flow to the communication equipment industry (middle panel, Chart 6), anemic C&I loan growth (an excellent proxy for broad corporate health, not shown) is a yellow flag. Chart 4Value Trap Chart 5Weak Telecom Segment Capex... Chart 6...Aggravates The Sales Risk Moreover, enterprise spending has not been concentrated on communications equipment gear for years, as the industry has been unable to gain any share of total corporate investment. The implication is that any business sector uptick is unlikely to match the pressure stemming from the telecom services sector. The government segment represents another source of drag. True, a global move away from austerity is a plus, but delays/uncertainty with regard to U.S. fiscal policy is a sizeable offset. In fact, U.S. government spending as a percentage of output is in decline (not shown) and the Trump administration's strict budget control warns that the government's purse strings will remain tight for some time. Finally, export markets are unlikely to offset domestic cooling. While the cheapened U.S. dollar should boost U.S. communication equipment manufacturers' competitiveness, China's global networking ascendancy and Europe's recent V-shaped export recovery suggest that U.S. gear providers are losing market share (Chart 7). All of this paints a grim picture for communications equipment sales. As such, cyclically stretched operating margins are at risk (Chart 8). Industry productivity growth has crested, and is likely to recede because slowing new orders and rising inventories imply reduced output. The implication will be profit margin pressure and a return on equity squeeze (middle panel, Chart 8). While the industry constantly realigns headcount to the challenging operating environment, a sustainable profit turnaround requires a demand driven rebound. Chart 7U.S. Manufacturers Are Losing Market Share Chart 8Beware A Margin Squeeze Meanwhile, industry specific forces will also contribute to margin pressure. Five years ago, Cisco's CEO dismissed the nascent virtual networking threat. However, today, virtual networking is a deflationary reality. Such intense deflationary pressure is a clear profit negative and warns that relative EPS are headed south (Chart 8). Bottom Line: The S&P communications equipment index is breaking down. Trim exposure to below benchmark. The ticker symbols for this index are: BLBG: S5COMM - CSCO, HRS, MSI, JNPR, FFIV. Electrical Components & Equipment Are Out Of Power The niche S&P electrical components & equipment (ECE) industrials sub-index has marked time since our late-November downgrade to underweight. Our bearish thesis remains intact. Cyclical momentum has sputtered after the relative share price ratio failed to sustain its post-U.S. election euphoria. Valuations remain dear, with the forward P/E ratio trading at a 15% premium to the broad market (bottom panel, Chart 9). If profits continue to disappoint, as we expect, then a de-rating phase is inevitable. ECE companies garner roughly half of their sales from abroad. Thus, the U.S. dollar's fluctuations are inversely correlated with relative share prices. Delayed translation effects from the U.S. dollar's large run-up last year should continue to weigh on profits, and offset the European and emerging market economic recoveries. Worrisomely, there is a wide gap between relative performance and the greenback. If history rhymes, then a convergence phase is likely with the relative share price ratio deflating closer to the level predicted by the U.S. dollar (currency shown inverted, top panel, Chart 9). Domestically, news is equally grim. Investment spending on electrical equipment remains moribund: outlays are contracting in absolute terms and continue to trail overall investment. Historically, the industry's new orders-to-inventories ratio has been closely correlated with relative outlays and the current message is bleak (bottom panel, Chart 10). Chart 9No Reasons To Pay For Premium Valuations Chart 10No Reasons To Pay For Premium Valuations Importantly, the surge in ECE inventory growth and deceleration in backlog growth point to pricing power pressure in the coming months. Chart 11 shows that a rising wage bill and anemic pricing power have squeezed our industry margin proxy. In terms of industry productivity, gains have given way to losses, according to our gauge. This suggests that profits will continue to languish (middle panel, Chart 10). Tack on the slump in weekly hours worked, and there is cause to doubt recent sell side analyst optimism (bottom panel, Chart 11). A demand-driven increase in revenues/backlogs is needed to reverse the industry's profit fortunes. However, our relative EPS model is forecasting the opposite: profits will continue to underwhelm and trail the broad market into the back half of the year (Chart 12). Chart 11Lean Against Analysts' Exuberance Chart 12EPS Model Says Sell Against this backdrop, we remain reluctant to pay a premium valuation to own an industry with an uncertain, at best, earnings profile. Bottom Line: While we are neutral on the broad industrials sector, we continue to recommend underweight exposure in the S&P electrical components & equipment index. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5ELCO - EMR, ETN, ROK, AME, AYI. Current Recommendations Current Trades Size And Style Views Favor small over large caps and stay neutral growth over value.