Economy

Highlights Portfolio Strategy The capex upcycle, a soft U.S. dollar and improving end demand signal that it no longer pays to underweight the S&P tech sector. Lift exposure to neutral. Firming domestic and global final demand, the synchronized global capex upcycle, an overly pessimistic sell-side analyst community and cheap valuations compel us to upgrade the S&P tech hardware, storage & peripherals index to overweight. Recent Changes S&P Technology - Upgrade to neutral today. S&P Tech Hardware, Storage & Peripherals - Boost to overweight and add to the high-conviction overweight list today. Table 1 Feature The S&P 500 seesawed last week, and continues to absorb the early February drawdown. While global growth cannot continue its breakneck pace indefinitely and a soft patch is inevitable, global output growth remains significant and above trend. Our constructive cyclical equity market view remains intact, premised upon the longevity of the business cycle, at least for the next 9-12 months. In the U.S. specifically, the ISM manufacturing survey is perched closer to 60 than to 50, unemployment insurance claims hover near 50-year lows and the muted 10-year Treasury yield moves all signal that generalized fear has yet to grip markets (Chart 1). In fact, if one looks back at the 2015, 2011 and 2010 global growth scares, investors took shelter in U.S. Treasuries as the SPX sold off, sending the 10-year UST yield lower by 50, 70 and 70 bps respectively in a very short time span. The fact that the 10-year yield is only 15 bps below its peak should cause us to question whether the recent equity drawdown is really about slowing global growth. On the monetary policy front, while the Fed is increasing the fed funds rate and decreasing the size of its balance sheet and volatility is making a comeback (please see Chart 1 from the March 5th Special Report), the real fed funds rate remains below the zero line and the real 10-year UST yield is also close to nil (Chart 2). Economic slack measures confirm that the Fed remains behind the curve. The output and unemployment gaps have been closed for a while now, and BCA's unemployment diffusion index and the Taylor rule both signal that monetary policy is extremely accommodative (Chart 3). Chart 1Macro Conditions... Chart 2...Remain Conducive... Chart 3...To A Rising SPX The implication is that macro conditions remain conducive to a rising equity market from a cyclical time horizon perspective. Meanwhile, sifting through the noise reveals that the market is likely coming to grips with a calendar 2019 EPS growth of a more reasonable 10% annual rate compared with this year's near 20% peak growth rate. This transition, as we highlighted in recent research, will be turbulent,1 and likely an earnings validation phase will pave the way higher for the broad equity market. In fact, dissecting the tax relief impact on different sectors is in order. Charts 4 & 5 show the calendar 2018 forward estimates on December 31st, 2017 and what analysts pencil in today, respectively. Charts 6 & 7 highlight the delta in absolute terms and percentage change terms. Chart 42018 EPS Growth On March 30, 2018 Chart 52018 EPS Growth On December 31, 2017 Chart 6Delta Chart 7Delta % Change Telecom services will likely benefit tenfold from the lower corporate tax rate (shown truncated, Chart 7), and consumer discretionary stocks are also prime beneficiaries. But this also means that 2018 after-tax profit data are masking the negative underlying trend growth rate for both of these sectors which also sport grim operating metrics. The S&P telecom services sector is a high-conviction underweight,2 and we reiterate our recent downgrade to a below benchmark allocation in the S&P consumer discretionary sector.3 Industrials, energy and financials, also benefit greatly from tax relief (Chart 7), but higher commodity prices along with improving industry operating metrics contribute to the EPS euphoria for these sectors. Nevertheless, we have identified three key risks to our sanguine equity market view: Escalating geopolitical/regulatory uncertainty Severe global growth slowdown U.S. dollar surge All three risks are intertwined and could infiltrate profit growth in the coming months. As we have posited in recent research, U.S. dollar softness begets higher global growth and the two feed off of each other in a virtuous cycle. A depreciating currency is a profit fillip for SPX constituents with heavy export exposure, the opposite is also true (Chart 8). Chart 8S&P 500: Aggregate Sector International Revenue Exposure (%) If the Trump Administration continues to slap on tariffs with China retaliating, as we experienced last week, eventually triggering a global trade war, then all bets are off on the sustainability of global growth (Chart 9). Such an outcome would weigh heavily on both market sentiment and profits, as our Geopolitical Strategists argued last week.4 Chart 9Don't Throw In The Towel On Global Growth Yet Finally, regulatory clampdown on the tech sector specifically is also on our radar screen, especially given the monopolistic powers that a handful of U.S. tech titans command. This is not only a U.S. risk, but also a global one. However, the 2000s Microsoft and recent Google precedents suggest that a corporate breakup is a low probability event à la "Ma Bell" in 1983, and heavy fines are the most likely outcome (we will be covering this regulatory risk in an upcoming Special Report in conjunction with our sister Geopolitical Strategy publication, stay tuned). Adding it up, we assign low probabilities to all three risks. This week we are taking advantage of recent market weakness and adding some cyclical exposure to our portfolio. Lift Tech To Neutral... We have been offside on tech sector positioning, but are not dogmatic and given recent market action and positive changes in a number of key drivers, we recommend acting on our mid-January upgrade alert, booking losses and lifting exposure to neutral.5 Before exploring our thesis on why we are becoming more constructive on the largest S&P sector in terms of market capitalization weight, it is instructive to look back and identify what we missed. Two reasons for the tech sector's outperformance stand out. First, BCA's constructive view on the U.S. dollar has weighed heavily on our underweight positioning in the tech sector, especially since the greenback's peak in level terms in December 2016. U.S. tech firms garner 60% of their total revenues from abroad - the highest among the GICS1 sectors (Chart 8) - and the positive P&L translation gain effects have been a tonic to EPS. Irrespective of where the dollar will end 2018, due to lagged effects, the U.S. dollar's significant depreciation will continue to boost tech sector EPS. Second, the lack of inflation at this stage of the cycle has perplexed economists and presented a goldilocks macro backdrop for the tech sector that thrives in deflation/disinflation. This benign inflation backdrop has also coincided with the V-shaped global growth recovery following the late-2015/early-2016 global manufacturing recession and propelled technology stocks. Nevertheless, in mid-September we lifted the S&P software index to a benchmark allocation and subsequently to a high-conviction overweight in late-November in order to capitalize on one of BCA's key themes for 2018: synchronized global capex upcycle. Building on this thesis, the broad tech sector also benefits from rising capex (Chart 10). In fact, there is still pent up demand for tech spending that is being unleashed following over a decade of severe underinvestment. Not only is the tech sector gaining capex market share, largely at the expense of basic resources (Chart 11), but also in absolute terms tech spending is on fire and vaulting to fresh all-time highs (Chart 10). Chart 10Prime Capex Beneficiary Chart 11Sector Capex % Of Total National accounts confirm the stock market-reported capital outlays data and tech investment is firing on all cylinders (middle panel, Chart 12). In addition, consumer spending on tech goods is also at the highest level since the history of the data, underscoring that end-demand is upbeat (fourth panel, Chart 12). The San Francisco Fed's Tech Pulse Index encapsulates all this tech optimism underpinning tech stocks (second panel Chart 12).6 On the global demand front, EM Asian exports are climbing at the fastest clip in ten years, despite the smart rebound in the ADXY. Historically, tech sales and EM Asian exports are joined at the hip and the current message is positive (bottom panel, Chart 12). Importantly, a rising revenue backdrop is necessary, especially in the context of rising capital outlays, as they sustain the virtuous upcycle. A simple final demand indicator combining tech exports and new orders is also flashing green (Chart 13). Tack on the sizable losses in the U.S. dollar over the past year and resurgent tech exports will be a boon to tech EPS (bottom panel, Chart 13). Chart 12Firm End-Demand Chart 13Soft U.S. Dollar Helps Our tech profit model does an excellent job capturing all of these positive forces and is pointing to healthy growth for the rest of 2018 (second panel, Chart 14). However, there are also a few headwinds that the tech sector has to contend with and that prevent us from lifting exposure all the way to overweight. First, any knee-jerk bounce in the U.S. dollar is a clear negative for technology stocks. Second, BCA's second key theme we are exploring calls for higher interest rates in 2018 on the back of rising inflation (Chart 15). Were the selloff in the bond market to gain steam in the coming months as inflation rears its ugly head, then tech stocks would come under intense pressure. Third, as we highlighted above, regulatory/political risks have been at the epicenter of the recent tech sector wobble, and heightened regulatory uncertainty will continue to muddy the tech waters. Finally, while tech stocks are nowhere near as overvalued as in late-1999/early 2000, they are more expensive than the broad market on a number of valuation measures (third panel, Chart 14). Chart 14Our Tech Profit Model Flashes Green... Chart 15...But Interest Rates Are A Big Headwind Netting it all out, we are compelled to lift exposure in the S&P information technology sector to neutral, by augmenting the S&P tech hardware, storage & peripherals (THSP) index to an overweight stance. ...Via Boosting Tech Hardware To Overweight The way we are executing the upgrade to neutral on the broad S&P tech sector is by lifting the S&P THSP index to an overweight stance. We are also adding this index to our high-conviction overweight list. Building on the capex upcycle theme, U.S. tech hardware manufacturers also benefit from improving animal spirits and rising capital expenditures. U.S. capex intentions are as good as they can get, hanging near multi-decade highs (second panel, Chart 16). Already, U.S. factories are humming trying to fulfill perky end-demand. Industry production is far outpacing capacity growth and this represents a boon to pricing power that has exited deflation for the first time ever (bottom panel, Chart 16). The implication is that S&P THSP profits will overwhelm. Beyond U.S. shores, global fixed capital formation is also climbing sharply. This synchronized global capex upcycle represents a tailwind for this industry and will continue to underpin U.S. computer exports (Chart 17). Add on the depreciating greenback and U.S. manufacturers are well positioned for export market share gains (third panel, Chart 17). Chart 16Capex To The Rescue Chart 17Enticing Global ... Importantly, global trade remains buoyant and signals that the global export pie is increasing in size. In particular, EM Asian exports are expanding at a healthy clip, in spite of rising EM currencies, underpinning S&P THSP net earnings revisions (middle panel, Chart 18). The tech-laden Korean and Taiwanese stock markets have positive momentum and are an excellent leading indicator of tech-heavy EM Asian exports. The current message is to expect a durable export growth phase in the coming months (Chart 18). All of this suggests that S&P THSP sales and profits will shine in 2018, easily surpassing the extremely low relative hurdles that sell-side analysts are penciling in for the coming 12 months (second & third panels, Chart 19). Meanwhile, this industry that generates excessive amounts of free cash flow and sports a net debt/EBITDA ratio below par (Chart 20) will continue to be extremely generous to shareholders by continuing to aggressively retire equity and boost dividend payouts. Return on equity is also probing all-time highs. Chart 18...Demand Backdrop Chart 19Unwarranted Pessimism... Chart 20...Given Pristine B/S And Sky-High ROE Finally on the relative valuation front, this tech sub-index trades at a 20% discount to the broad market (and below the S&P tech sector) both on a forward P/E and EV/EBITDA basis, offering an appealing entry point. Bottom Line: Boost the S&P THSP index to an overweight stance for a loss of 16% since inception, and add it to the high-conviction overweight list. This shift also lifts the overall S&P tech sector to a benchmark allocation for a loss of 18% since inception. The ticker symbols for the stocks in the S&P THSP index are: BLBG: S5CMPE - HPQ, WDC, STX, XRX, AAPL, HPE, NTAP. Anastasios Avgeriou, Vice President U.S. Equity Strategy anastasios@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report, "Bumpier Ride," dated March 26, 2018, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report, "Manic-Depressive?" dated February 12, 2018, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report, "Reflective Or Restrictive?" dated March 12, 2018, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Trump's Demands On China," dated April 4, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Special Report, "White Paper: Introducing Our U.S. Equity Sector Earnings Models," dated January 16, 2018, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 6 "The Tech Pulse Index is an index of coincident indicators of activity in the U.S. information technology sector. It can be interpreted as a summary statistic that tracks the health of the tech sector in a timely manner. The indicators used to compute the index are investment in IT goods, consumption of personal computers and software, employment in the IT sector, as well as industrial production of and shipments by the technology sector. The index extracts the common trend that drives these series." https://www.frbsf.org/economic-research/indicators-data/tech-pulse/ Current Recommendations Current Trades Size And Style Views Favor value over growth. Stay neutral small over large caps (downgrade alert).

Highlights R-star is higher in the U.S. than in most other large economies. This includes China, where an elevated savings rate has depressed the neutral rate of interest. Countries with relatively high neutral rates like the U.S. will tend to run structural current account deficits, whereas countries with relatively low neutral rates will tend to run surpluses. The failure of the Trump administration to understand this basic economic lesson could inflame the ongoing trade spat between the two countries, at a time when populism is on the rise and China is challenging the U.S. for global influence. Fortunately, trade protectionism is less attractive when jobs are plentiful, as is the case in the U.S. today. Thus, we continue to see a market-friendly resolution to the ongoing conflict. Our base case remains that another global recession is still about two years away, which should keep the bull market in global equities intact. However, with global growth decelerating, financial conditions tightening at the margin, and the near-term signal from our proprietary MacroQuant model stuck in bearish territory for the second month in a row, the tactical picture for stocks remains rather murky. Feature Blame It On The Neutral Rate If the world of macroeconomics were set in a superhero universe, the real neutral rate of interest, otherwise known as R-star, would undoubtedly be cast as an arch-villain. R-star is the interest rate consistent with full employment and stable inflation. A depressed R-star has made the zero lower-bound constraint on nominal rates a vexing problem for central bankers. Not long after the Global Financial Crisis began, policy rates fell to ultra-low levels. But even this was not enough to engender a strong recovery. Most economies needed negative real rates. However, with inflation stuck at low levels, there was a limit to how far below zero real rates could go. Japan, of course, has been no stranger to this problem. Policy rates have been close to zero for over 20 years, yet inflation remains stubbornly low (Chart 1). Some commentators have dismissed this issue, noting that real per capita GDP has still managed to grow at a reasonably healthy clip. Unfortunately, this misguided optimism ignores the fact that Japan was only able to keep the economy from sinking into a depression by relying on massive budget deficits. With Japanese monetary policy rendered impotent, fiscal policy had to pick up the slack. High levels of excess private-sector savings were absorbed with continued government dissavings (Chart 2). The result is a gross government debt-to-GDP ratio of 240%. A low R-star has also been a major problem in the euro area. Before the European sovereign debt crisis erupted, Germany was able to export its excess savings to the peripheral countries, who were more than happy to load up on cheap debt so that they could live beyond their means (Chart 3). Chart 1Japan: Even Zero Interest Rates ##br##Were Not Enough To Spur Inflation Chart 2Japan Relied On Large Fiscal Deficits And Current Account Surpluses To Offset The Rise In Private-Sector Savings Chart 3The European Periphery Is No Longer ##br##Absorbing Germany's Excess Savings Those days are over. Today, Germany's current account surplus stands at a gargantuan 8% of GDP, but much of Germany's savings are exported to the rest of the world. Consequently, the euro area current account balance has gone from roughly breakeven in the pre-crisis period to a surplus of 3% of GDP. This likely means that the neutral rate in the euro area has fallen further. R-Star In China Chart 4China Saves A Lot What about China? One might think that China's fast trend GDP growth rate would translate into a high neutral rate. However, the neutral rate is not just a function of trend growth. Most economic models state that the savings rate also affects the neutral rate.1 The more income people wish to save at any given interest rate, the lower the neutral rate will be. For a variety of institutional and cultural reasons, the Chinese save a lot (Chart 4). The national savings rate has averaged 50% of GDP for the past decade. In fact, despite an investment-to-GDP ratio of 44%, China still manages to run a current account surplus (remember the current account balance is just the difference between savings and investment). A Simple Thought Experiment The earth does not trade with Mars. As a result, the global current account balance must be zero; current account surpluses in one set of countries must be offset by current account deficits in another set of countries. Interest rates and exchange rates play a vital role in ensuring that this identity is satisfied. Imagine a bunch of island economies - all with different neutral rates - that do not trade with one another. Now suppose a technological breakthrough occurs that permits free trade and capital mobility. What would you expect to happen? Standard economic theory says that capital will flow towards the islands with relatively high interest rates. As shown in Chart 5, the flood of capital will push down the interest rate in those economies. A lower interest rate, in turn, will discourage saving and encourage investment, leading to a current account deficit. Capital inflows will also drive up the currency, while higher spending will push up consumer prices. Such a "real appreciation" of the exchange rate is necessary to ensure that increased spending falls primarily on foreign-made goods.2 Chart 5Interest Rates And Current Account Balances In An Open Economy On the flipside, capital will flow out of economies with low neutral rates, putting upward pressure on interest rates. A higher interest rate will lead to more savings and less investment, translating into a current account surplus. Countries with relatively low neutral rates will also see a real depreciation of their exchange rates. If there is complete free trade and capital mobility, the final equilibrium will be one where interest rates are equalized across all islands and the current account deficits of the islands with relatively high neutral rates are exactly offset by the current account surpluses of the islands with low neutral rates. In addition, countries with relatively high neutral rates will end up with exchange rates that appear somewhat overvalued relative to their fair value, while those with low neutral rates will have exchange rates that appear somewhat undervalued. U.S.-China Trade Tensions: An Inevitable Conflict There are many structural reasons why the U.S. and China are at loggerheads over trade these days. We predicted that Trump would win the presidency largely because we thought the political/media establishment was underestimating the importance of the populist wave sweeping across the U.S. and much of the world. Our geopolitical analysts share this view. They have also argued that China's growing economic, military, and technological prowess will inevitably put it into conflict with the U.S., which has been the world's sole hegemon ever since the Soviet Union collapsed.3 This week's report adds another structural reason to the list. While R-star in the U.S. is fairly low by historic standards, it is higher than in most other countries, reflecting America's favorable demographics, large fiscal deficit, and relatively spendthrift culture. This means that the U.S. must run a structural current account deficit. This, of course, is at odds with the Trump administration's stated objectives. Efforts by China or any other country to "talk up" their currencies in the hopes of placating Trump will fail. The U.S. economy is already operating at close to full employment. A weaker dollar would only shift the composition of spending towards domestically-produced goods. The U.S., however, does not have enough spare labor to produce these additional goods. All that would happen is that inflation would rise, rendering U.S. exporters less competitive. More stimulative fiscal policy will further increase the neutral rate of interest in the United States. Chart 6 shows that the budget deficit is set to widen to nearly 6% of GDP by 2019 even if the unemployment rate continues to decline. A larger budget deficit will drain national savings, shifting the savings schedule in the savings-investment diagram discussed earlier to the left. This will result in a bigger current account deficit (Chart 7). Chart 6The U.S. Budget Deficit Is Set To Widen Even If The Unemployment Rate Continues To Decline Chart 7A Bigger U.S. Budget Deficit Will Cause The U.S. Neutral Rate To Rise, ##br## Leading To A Larger Current-Account Deficit Investment Considerations The specter of trade protectionism is here to stay, as is the prospect of escalating U.S.-China geopolitical tensions. Fortunately, beggar-thy-neighbor policies are less attractive when jobs are plentiful, as is the case in the U.S. today. Trump also remains constrained by the stock market's view of his actions. After all, this is a president who likes to measure the success of his economic agenda by the value of the S&P 500. As such, we expect both the U.S. and China to follow a two-pronged approach to trade issues over the coming months. Publicly, they will snipe at one another, threatening each other with tariffs and other trade barriers. Privately, they will seek out a compromise that avoids a full-out trade war. China's announcement this week that it will retaliate in kind to the U.S. decision to impose tariffs on $50 billion in Chinese imports should not have taken anyone by surprise. The Chinese government had repeatedly said that they would do precisely this. Importantly, U.S. tariffs do not kick in until June. Between now and then, negotiators from both sides will try to hammer out a deal. Just as with the steel and aluminum tariffs, the final set of tariffs will be a watered-down version of the original proposal. Political theatre will be the name of the game. As discussed in last week's Q2 Strategy Outlook, our base case remains that another global recession is still about two years away, which should keep the bull market in global equities intact.4 We warned investors to "Take Out Some Insurance" on February 2nd, one day before the VIX spike began.5 Now that the S&P 500 is 7% off its highs, our bet is that the path of least resistance for global equities over the next 12 months is up. Nevertheless, with global growth decelerating, financial conditions tightening at the margin, and the one-month ahead signal from the beta version of our forthcoming proprietary MacroQuant model stuck in bearish territory for the second month in a row, the tactical picture for stocks still looks rather murky (Chart 8). For the time being, short-term investors should sell the rallies and buy the dips. Chart 8MacroQuant Model: Tactical Picture For Stocks Still Looks Rather Challenging Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com 2 The real exchange rate can be thought of as the volume of foreign goods and services that can be acquired by selling a basket of U.S. goods and services. Mathematically, the real exchange rate between two currencies is the product of the nominal exchange rate and the ratio of prices between the countries. A real appreciation tends to make a country less competitive, either through a nominal increase in its currency or through an increase in domestic prices relative to foreign prices. 3 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, “Sino-American Conflict: More Likely Than You Think, Part II,” dated November 6, 2015; and Global Investment Strategy Special Report, “The Looming Conflict In The South China Sea,” dated May 29, 2012. 4 Please see Global Investment Strategy Q2 Strategy Outlook, “It’s More Like 1998 Than 2000,” dated March 30, 2018. 5 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “Take Out Some Insurance,” dated February 2, 2018, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. Strategy & Market Trends Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

Highlights Trade wars have captured investors' imaginations, but slowing global growth is a more immediate risk for both asset prices and exchange rates. As reflationary forces ebb, slow global growth will help the dollar stage a rally. EUR/USD and GBP/USD could decline over the next two quarters. We are selling EUR/CHF. The AUD has more downside. It is too early to close short AUD/NZD or AUD/JPY. Short EUR/CAD with a first target at 1.44. Feature The growing trade skirmish between China and the U.S. has been blamed for much of the movements in risk assets this year. We do not deny that this has been a very important factor determining the price action of all assets globally; after all, market participants are trying to price in the probability that global supply chains as we currently know them will be forever impaired. If this were to happen, global growth and profits would suffer considerably. This warrants a risk premium, one that is currently being estimated by the market.1 As we have written in recent weeks, this will be a stop-and-go pattern, and behind-the-scene negotiations between China and the U.S. will remain intense until June, when the U.S. tariffs are in fact implemented. However, trade wars are not the only force impacting asset returns today. Global asset prices are also slowly adjusting to a world where reflation is ebbing and where growth may be dipping from its heightened state. This week, we examine the role of liquidity and how it is affecting growth,2 and the implications for various currency pairs. From Reflation To Less Growth Through most of 2016 and 2017, risk assets, EM plays, commodity prices and growth greatly benefited from a wave of global reflation implemented by monetary and fiscal authorities around the world in the wake of a market meltdown that culminated in January 2016. A great victim of this reflationary effort was the U.S. dollar. Once global growth and inflation perked up, the dollar sold off. The U.S. economy is not as levered to global growth as the rest of the world is, thus investors were attracted by greater shift in expected returns outside the U.S. than in the U.S. But how is this reflation story faring today? Global monetary policy is not as supportive as it once was as central banks are not adding to global base money as forcefully as before. For example, the Federal Reserve has begun the rundown of its balance sheet, and the real fed funds rate is closing in on the Laubach-Williams estimate of the neutral rate; the European Central Bank has begun tapering it asset purchases, the European shadow policy rate has increased by 400 basis points; and the Bank of Japan has not hit its JGB target of JPY80 trillion of purchases since mid-2016. Even the Swiss National Bank has not seen any increase in its sight deposits since mid-2017. We like to use excess money growth to measure the impact of these changes in base money growth. Excess money supply growth is measured as the difference between broad money supply growth and money demand as approximated by loan growth. As base money and deposits become scarcer in the banking system relative to the pool of existing loans, the liquidity position of commercial banks deteriorates. This deprives them of the necessary fuel to generate further loan growth down the road. Chart I-1 not only shows that excess money in the U.S., euro area and Japan has been decelerating sharply in recent months, but also that this decline points toward slowing global industrial activity, widening junk spreads and decline EM stock prices. Beyond quantity-based measures of liquidity, price-based measures are sending a similar signal. The widening in the LIBOR-OIS spread has now been well documented. It is true that technical factors such as the issuance of T-bills by the Treasury and the progressive move away from LIBOR as a key benchmark for the pricing of loans partly explain this phenomenon. However, this development is now spreading outside the U.S., with Australia in particular experiencing some especially sharp widening in the spread between deposit rates and the OIS. In fact, the LIBOR-OIS spread for the G-10 as a whole is now at its widest since 2012 (Chart I-2). This also portends a situation where liquidity is becoming scarcer than it once was. Chart I-1Deteriorating Liquidity Conditions Chart I-2Price Of Liquidity Is Increasing Growth is responding to these dynamics, and the softening in PMIs around the world was in full display this week. Interestingly, two bellwethers of global growth are showing especially clear signs of a slowing.3 In Korea, exports have greatly decelerated, industrial production is contracting and PMIs are well below 50 (Chart I-3). Taiwan is also showing some signs of weakness, as exports and export orders are both slowing sharply (Chart I-4). Chart I-3Korea: A Key Global Bellweather Is Slowing Chart I-4Taiwan Echoes Korea's Message This message is also being relayed by the Japanese economy. Japan's exports to Asia have been slowing sharply as well. As Chart I-5 illustrates, weak Japanese shipments to Asia correlate closely with a weak AUD/JPY, weak EM stock prices and widening junk spreads, suggesting that these specific shipments capture systematic developments behind global growth. Key growth-sensitive currencies are flashing a similar signal. As the top panel of Chart I-6 shows, NZD/JPY has historically rolled over and declined ahead of recessions, growth slowdowns or EM crashes. It has clearly weakened for eight months now. Meanwhile, the bottom panel of Chart I-6 shows the Swedish krona versus the euro. This cross is also a good leading indicator of global growth, and it is clearly pointing south. Chart I-5Japanese Exports Point To A Malaise Chart I-6NZD/JPY And EUR/SEK: Confirming The Risks Finally, one of our favorite gauges to measure the impact of reflation has substantially weakened: the combination of global growth and inflation surprises. This indicator clearly shows that after a massive upsurge in reflationary forces over the past two years, reflation is now waning (Chart I-7). Chart I-7Economic Surprises Are Declining If reflation is about pushing growth and prices upward, removing stimulus could have the opposite impact. While it is clear that global growth is slowing, what about inflation? We do not think that global inflation is set to slow significantly: global growth is unlikely to move back below trend, and the U.S. is experiencing increasingly potent domestic inflationary pressures supercharged by fiscal profligacy. That being said, the uptrend in global inflation is nonetheless set to flatten for now as our Global Inflation Diffusion Index based on consumer and producer prices across 27 economies has begun to fall, which normally points to lower global headline and core consumer prices (Chart I-8). Bottom Line: The market's attention has been captured by the dramatic flare-up in trade tensions between the U.S. and China, but a more imminent risk has been garnering less press: the decline of reflation. China sent the first salvo on this front; DM central banks have also slowly been either tightening outright or not expanding monetary aggregates as aggressively as before. As a result, global liquidity is tightening and global growth is slowing. Global inflation is also set to decelerate as well, suggesting the decline in economic activity will not be a real phenomenon only, but a nominal one as well. Key Currency Market Implications One of the key implications of lower global growth and ebbing inflationary pressures is likely to be a stronger dollar. As Chart I-9 illustrates, when our Global Inflation Diffusion Index declines and global inflationary pressures ebb, the dollar tends to strengthen. This makes sense: the dollar does best when global growth weakens, inflation slows and commodity prices soften. This time around, the case for a few quarters of dollar strength may be even better defined. U.S. inflation is unlikely to decelerate as much as non-U.S. inflation as U.S. capacity utilization is tighter, the U.S. labor market is at full employment and America is receiving an extraordinarily large amount of fiscal stimulus at this late stage of the business cycle. Chart I-8No Acceleration For Now In Global Inflation Chart I-9Ebbing Inflationary Pressures Will Help The Dollar Technical considerations suggest the dollar is well placed to take advantage of these dynamics. On a short-term basis, both our intermediate-term oscillator and 13-week rate-of-change measures have formed positive divergences with the DXY itself (Chart I-10). While the pattern does not look as bullish as the one registered in 2014, it evokes deep similarities with the 2011 formation. On a longer-term basis, the dollar is massively oversold, as measured by the 52-week rate of change measure. It is true that it managed to stay at similarly oversold levels for nearly a year in 2003, but back then the dollar was much more expensive than today: the U.S. current account deficit was 4.4% of GDP versus 2.4% today and the basic balance of payments deficit was at 3% of GDP versus 2% today (Chart I-11). It is reasonable that with these stronger fundamentals, the dollar will not need to hit as oversold levels as back then before staging a significant rebound. Chart I-10Positive Divergences For The Greenback Chart I-11Dollar Technicals And Valuations: 2003 Vs. Today With global growth slowing, especially in Asia, it is easy to paint a picture where the dollar only strengthens against EM and commodity currencies - the currencies most exposed to both global growth and this specific geographic area. However, while we do see downside in USD/JPY, we expect the greenback to rally against the euro toward EUR/USD 1.15. Our model for EUR/USD shows that the euro is trading 10% above its fair value determined by real rate differentials, the relative slope of yield curves and the price of copper relative to lumber (Chart I-12). In fact, since Europe is more levered to global economic activity than the U.S., these drivers are likely to deteriorate a bit further for the remainder of 2018. Chart I-12EUR/USD Is Vulnerable GBP/USD also looks set to experience a period of weakness against the greenback. Historically, GBP/USD and EUR/USD have been correlated. This is a simple reflection of the fact that the U.K. has a deeper economic relationship with the euro area than the U.S., and thus benefits from the same economic impulses as the eurozone. Chart I-13GBP/USD: ##br##Extremely Overbought Some pound-specific factors will also play against GBP/USD. As we argued last week, the British domestic economy is rather weak; this week's construction PMI confirmed this assessment.4 Additionally, the British basic balance of payments is in deficit anew. This is not only a reflection of the U.K.'s current account deficit of 4% of GDP, it also reflects the fact that FDI into the U.K. has been melting in response to uncertainty surrounding Brexit. This means the U.K. is dependent upon global liquidity to finance this large deficit. An environment where global growth is set to decelerate and where global liquidity is tightening will make it more expensive to finance this large hole. The fastest means to increase expected returns on British assets to attract foreigners' funds is to depreciate the pound today. Finally, the GBP's annual momentum has hit levels consistent with a reversal in cable (Chart I-13). Staying in Europe, another pair is currently interesting and devoid of taking on any USD risk: EUR/CHF. While we think EUR/CHF has more upside over the remainder of the economic cycle,5 this is unlikely to be the case in the second and third quarters of 2018. The Swiss franc tends to outperform the euro when reflationary forces retreat, when global growth slows and when FX volatility increases - all views we espouse for the coming quarters. Moreover, Switzerland's current account and basic balance-of-payment surpluses are 6.5% of GDP and 11.5% of GDP greater than that of the euro area, providing further attraction in a growth soft spot. Finally, EUR/CHF is massively overbought right now, pointing to heightened vulnerability to the economic risks highlighted above (Chart I-14). We are opening a short EUR/CHF trade this week. In the same vein, we remain bearish EUR/JPY. Finally, in previous reports, we highlighted the AUD as being the currency most at risk from any downshift in global growth.6 Despite its recent weakness, we think the AUD is likely to remain very vulnerable. We have been short AUD/NZD since last October, and we do believe this pair will retest 1.04 before forming a base. Australia is experiencing even less inflationary pressures than New Zealand, and is more exposed to slower global industrial production than its neighbor. Technically, AUD/NZD still has some downside. As Chart I-15 illustrates, the 13-week rate of change measure for AUD/NZD has not yet hit the kind of depressed levels associated with complete capitulation. In fact, the recent breakdown in momentum points toward such capitulation as being imminent. AUD/JPY too is not yet oversold enough to be a buy, especially in the context of slowing global growth. Thus, we continue to recommend investors stay short this pair. Chart I-14Technical Indicators Confirm ##br##The Fundamental Vulnerability Of EUR/CHF Chart I-15AUD/NZD Has A Little Bit More Downside Bottom Line: Ebbing reflationary forces suggest the trade-weighted dollar is likely to rally over the coming months. We do see upside for the USD against EM and commodity currencies, but against European currencies as well. Only the yen is anticipated to buck this trend. Within the commodity-currency complex, we foresee that the AUD will suffer the most, and the CAD the least. Within the European currency complex, we are selling EUR/CHF. We are not selling EUR/USD as we are already long the DXY. A Cyclical Opportunity To Sell EUR/CAD This trade is an attractive means to bet on global growth slowing, especially relative to the U.S. As we have argued, U.S. financial conditions have eased relative to the rest of the world, the U.S. is enjoying large injections of fiscal stimulus and it is less exposed to declining global growth. As a result, we anticipate the outperformance of the U.S. ISM to continue relative to global PMIs. Historically, this is an environment where EUR/CAD tends to depreciate (Chart I-16). This is because while 75% of Canadian exports go to the U.S., only 13% of euro area exports end up there. Thus, Canada is much more exposed to the U.S. business cycle than Europe, who is exposed to the rest of the world's. Domestic factor also argues in favor of shorting EUR/CAD. Canadian core inflation is in an uptrend, and at 2% is at the Bank of Canada's target. European core inflation meanwhile only stands at 1%. Moreover, Canada's unemployment's rate is already 0.5% below equilibrium, while the euro area's is 0.4% above such equilibrium (Chart I-17). Thus, European wages and service sector inflation is likely to continue to lag behind Canada's. As a result, we continue to expect the BoC to keep hiking in line with the Fed, or another three times this year. The same cannot be said for the ECB. Chart I-16EUR/CAD: A Play Global Vs. U.S. Growth Chart I-17No Slack In Canada, Plenty In Europe Making the trade even more attractive, EUR/CAD is currently trading at a premium on many metrics. First, our augmented interest rate parity models show that the EUR/CAD trades anywhere between 10-15% above fair value (Chart I-18).7 Relative productivity trends have been a reliable long-term indicator of the path for EUR/CAD. On this metric as well, EUR/CAD is trading at a significant 9% premium (Chart I-19). Finally, EUR/CAD has tended to trend in an inverse relationship with oil prices. Today, it is well above levels implied by various oil prices (Chart I-20). Chart I-18EUR/CAD Trades At A Premium To Rate Differentials... Chart I-19...At A Premium To Relative Productivity... In our view, a key factor explains these discounts: Fears regarding the future of the North American Free Trade Agreement. An abandonment of NAFTA would hurt Canadian growth and prompt the BoC to be much more dovish than we anticipate. However, while there will be some small tweaks to NAFTA, the probability of a major overhaul that deeply affects the North American supply chain has declined, as Canada and Mexico are being exempted from steel and aluminum tariffs and as the White House has softened its stance on the U.S. content of Canadian auto exports back to the U.S. Our Geopolitical team assesses that the probability of a major NAFTA overhaul has declined from 50% to less than 20%, especially as Trump now has bigger fish to fry with China. As a result of these improvements in negotiations, EUR/CAD is potentially set to decline toward 1.44 over the rest of 2018, especially as our oil strategists continue to expect Brent prices to average US$74/bbl this year. Meanwhile, the ratio of copper prices to oil prices, which has been a decent early directional indicator for this cross, suggests the timing is ripe to bet against euro/CAD (Chart I-21), especially as slowing global growth will further weigh on copper relative to oil. Chart I-20...And A Premium To Oil Chart I-21Where Copper-To-Oil Goes, So Does EUR/CAD Bottom Line: An attractive means to bet on slowing global growth while benefiting from the impact of the U.S.'s fiscal stimulus is to short EUR/CAD. Not only is this cross a play on the differential between international and U.S. growth, it is also currently trading at a large premium on various metrics. Dissipating risks that NAFTA will be abrogated in a major way are providing an attractive cyclical entry point to short EUR/CAD, with an initial target of 1.44. Mathieu Savary, Vice President Foreign Exchange Strategy mathieu@bcaresearch.com Haaris Aziz, Research Analyst haarisa@bcaresearch.com 1 For more analysis on trade wars and the current China/U.S. spat, please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report, "Are Tariffs Good or Bad For The Dollar?" dated March 9, 2018, available at fes.bcaresearch.com as well as the Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Trump's Demands On China", dated April 4, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 We have already gone over the role of China at length to explain the global growth slowdown. For detailed discussions on the topic, Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report, "The Return Of Macro Volatility", dated March 16, 2018, available at fes.bcaresearch.com. 3 For more indicators pointing toward slower global growth, Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report, "Canaries In the Coal Mine Alert: EM/JPY Carry Trades", dated December 1, 2017 and "Canaries In the Coal Mine Alert 2: More On EM Carry Trades And Global Growth", dated December 15, 2017, available at fes.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report, "Do not Get Flat-Footed By Politics", dated March 30, 2018, available at fes.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Special Report, "The SNB Doesn't Want Switzerland To Become Japan", dated March 23, 2018, available at fes.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report, "From Davos To Sydney, With a Pit Stop in Frankfurt", dated January 26, 2018, available at fes.bcaresearch.com. 7 EUR/CAD trades 15% above a fair value model, that does not encapsulate the trend in the cross. If the recent cross is taken into account through a model that incorporates mean-reversion, EUR/CAD trades at a more modest 10% above its fair value. Currencies U.S. Dollar Chart II-1USD Technicals 1 Chart II-2USD Technicals 2 Recent data in the U.S. has been mixed: ISM Manufacturing came in slightly weaker than expected at 59.3; However, ISM Prices Paid was a very strong number, 78.1, up from the previous 74.2; Services PMI and Non-Manufacturing ISM also disappointed expectations; The trade balance in February fell to US$ -57.6 bn; Initial jobless claims, however, came in much higher than expected at 242,000. The dollar is now up more than 2% from its February lows. This has been driven by slowing global growth, particularly in Korean and Taiwanese trade data. The greenback should fare well in this environment. Report Links: Do Not Get Flat-Footed By Politics - March 30, 2018 Are Tariffs Good Or Bad For The Dollar? - March 9, 2018 The Dollar Deserves Some Real Appreciation - March 2, 2018 The Euro Chart II-3EUR Technicals 1 Chart II-4EUR Technicals 2 European data was mixed: German retail sales disappointed, growing at a 0.7% monthly pace and a 1.3% annual pace; German Manufacturing PMI came in slightly lower than expected at 58.2; European unemployment dropped to 8.5% as expected; Headline inflation improved to 1.4% also as expected, but core inflation came in weaker than expected at 1%. The euro is set to experience a period of correction as inflation in the Eurozone remains weak and global growth is slowing, as Asian economic data increasingly shows. Report Links: Who Hikes Again? - February 9, 2018 The Euro's Tricky Spot - February 2, 2018 From Davos To Sydney, With a Pit Stop In Frankfurt - January 26, 2018 The Yen Chart II-5JPY Technicals 1 Chart II-6JPY Technicals 2 Recent data in Japan has been mixed: Housing starts yearly growth outperformed despite coming in at -2.6%. The Nikkei manufacturing PMI surprised on the strong side, coming in at 53.1 However, the Markit Services PMI underperformed expectations coming in at 50.9. USD/JPY has been relatively flat this week. Overall, we expect that the yen will continue to strengthen, given that the market will continue to be rattled by the increasing a weakening in global growth. This risk off environment should benefit the yen. However, given the slowdown in Japanese economic data, the BoJ will eventually have to intervene to make sure that the rise in the yen does not derail the economic recovery and particularly, its inflation objective. Report Links: The Yen's Mighty Rise Continues... For Now - February 16, 2018 Who Hikes Again? - February 9, 2018 Yen: QQE Is Dead! Long Live YCC! - January 12, 2018 British Pound Chart II-7GBP Technicals 1 Chart II-8GBP Technicals 2 Recent data in the U.K. has been mixed: Markit Manufacturing PMI outperformed expectations, coming in at 55.1. It also increased slightly from last month's reading. However PMI construction underperformed expectations substantially, coming in at 47. This is the lowest level in more than 2 years. GBP/USD has been relatively flat this week. Overall the latest construction PMI number confirms our analysis: the uncertainty caused by Brexit is weighing heavily on Britain's housing market. This weakness in the housing sector, coupled with a strong pound, will likely limit how high British interest rates can go. Therefore GBP/USD has downside on a tactical basis. Report Links: Do Not Get Flat-Footed By Politics - March 30, 2018 Who Hikes Again? - February 9, 2018 The Euro's Tricky Spot - February 2, 2018 Australian Dollar Chart II-9AUD Technicals 1 Chart II-10AUD Technicals 2 Australian data was weak: The RBA's Commodity Index in SDR terms contracted by 2.1% annually, much more than the expected 0.1% contraction; Building permits contracted on a monthly basis at a rate of 6.2%, while also contracting at a 3.1% pace in annual terms; However, retail sales did pick up in monthly terms at a rate of 0.6%. At the monetary policy meeting on Tuesday, Governor Philip Lowe referenced the increase in short-term funding costs that have spilled over from the U.S. into foreign markets owing to higher volatility, particularly in Australia. An escalation of a trade war will also prove to be very damaging for the Australian economy, which is a large export-based and commodity-dependent nation. Report Links: Who Hikes Again? - February 9, 2018 From Davos To Sydney, With a Pit Stop In Frankfurt - January 26, 2018 10 Charts To Digest With The Holiday Trimmings - December 22, 2017 New Zealand Dollar Chart II-11NZD Technicals 1 Chart II-12NZD Technicals 2 NZD/USD has been flat this week. Overall we expect this cross to weaken going forward, given that New Zealand is one of the most open economies in the G10, and thus, it stands to risks the most from both an increasing risk of trade wars and slowing global growth. Moreover, there are also some negative aspects of New Zealand on a more structural basis, as the neutral rate is set to be lowered. This is because the populist government is looking to lower immigration while also implementing a dual mandate for the central bank. All of these factors will cause the kiwi to suffer on a long term basis. Report Links: Who Hikes Again? - February 9, 2018 10 Charts To Digest With The Holiday Trimmings - December 22, 2017 The Xs And The Currency Market - November 24, 2017 Canadian Dollar Chart II-13CAD Technicals 1 Chart II-14CAD Technicals 2 Data out of Canada was mixed: Manufacturing PMI came in line with expectations of 55.7; Exports and Imports for February came in at CAD 45.94 bn and CAD 48.63 bn, respectively, sinking the trade balance to CAD -2.69 bn. The CAD received a fillip on Tuesday as President Trump hopes to conclude preliminary negotiations for NAFTA by the end of next week. While the outcome for these negotiations remains uncertain, the Canadian economy is still in great shape, with a tight labor market, high wage growth and a closing output gap. Report Links: Who Hikes Again? - February 9, 2018 Yen: QQE Is Dead! Long Live YCC! - January 12, 2018 10 Charts To Digest With The Holiday Trimmings - December 22, 2017 Swiss Franc Chart II-15CHF Technicals 1 Chart II-16CHF Technicals 2 Recent data in Switzerland has been mixed: Headline inflation outperformed expectations, coming in at 0.8%. Real retail sales yearly growth outperformed expectations, coming in at -0.2%. However, the SVME PMI underperformed expectations, coming in at 60.3. EUR/CHF has been relatively flat this week. Overall, we expect EUR/CHF to have further upside on a long-term basis. The Swiss economy is still weak and inflationary pressures are tepid. This means that any further appreciation by the franc will weigh heavily on the SNB's goals. While for now EUR/CHF could suffer as global growth declines, the SNB will fight this trend in order for them to achieve their inflation target. Thus, any rally in the CHF will prove temporary. Report Links: The SNB Doesn't Want Switzerland To Become Japan - March 23, 2018 Who Hikes Again? - February 9, 2018 10 Charts To Digest With The Holiday Trimmings - December 22, 2017 Norwegian Krone Chart II-17NOK Technicals 1 Chart II-18NOK Technicals 2 USD/NOK has been relatively flat this week. Overall, the krone should outperform most other commodity currencies given that oil should perform better than the rest of the commodity complex in the current environment. While all commodities would be affected by a possible slowdown in global growth and Chinese industrial production, oil will probably hold up the best given that advanced economies consume a greater proportion of oil than they do of other commodities, making oil less sensitive to gyrations in global industrial activity than metals. Moreover, the supply backdrop for oil remains more favorable than that of other commodities thanks to OPEC and Russia's production restrains. All of these developments should help the NOK outperform currencies like the NZD and the AUD. Report Links: Who Hikes Again? - February 9, 2018 Yen: QQE Is Dead! Long Live YCC! - January 12, 2018 10 Charts To Digest With The Holiday Trimmings - December 22, 2017 Swedish Krona Chart II-19SEK Technicals 1 Chart II-20SEK Technicals 2 Swedish data was disappointing: Manufacturing PM came in at 55.9, below last month's 59.9; New Orders increased annually only by 1.3% compared to 8.7% in January; Industrial production contracted in monthly terms by 0.5%, and grew annually by 5.7%, but it was still a deceleration relative to the previous 7.7% reading. The SEK has been weakening because of three factors: the talk of trade wars, the slowdown in the global manufacturing sector, and Sweden's housing bubble. While these risks are very real, Sweden's favorable macro backdrop of a cheap currency, a high basic balance of payments surplus and an economy operating above capacity mean that inflation will pick up meaningfully. This will prompt the SEK to rally once global growth can find its floor. Report Links: Who Hikes Again? - February 9, 2018 10 Charts To Digest With The Holiday Trimmings - December 22, 2017 Canaries In The Coal Mine Alert 2: More On EM Carry Trades And Global Growth - December 15, 2017 Trades & Forecasts Forecast Summary Core Portfolio Tactical Trades Closed Trades

Feature Japan's economic experience in the post bubble era is often described as a fate to avoid at all costs. We would like to turn this common notion on its head. Rather than something to avoid, Japan's post bubble experience is a fate that other major economies should actively try to emulate, at least in parts. This report focusses on three specific lessons for European investors. Japan's so-called 'lost decades' describe the weak growth in its nominal GDP since the mid-1990s. But this emphasis on aggregate nominal income is grossly misleading. Standards of living do not depend on nominal GDP. What matters is real GDP per head combined with the absence of extreme income inequality. Real income must grow and this growth must benefit the majority, rather than a small minority. Since the late 1990s, the growth in Japan's real GDP per head has outperformed every other major economy (Chart Of The Week). And unlike other major economies, income inequality in Japan has not increased, remaining amongst the lowest in the developed world (Chart I-2). This is not surprising. Credit booms inflate bubbles in financial assets, which exacerbate income and wealth inequalities. Chart Of The WeekJapan Has Outperformed Everybody Chart I-2Income Inequality In Japan Has Not Increased Admittedly, the government has been running persistent deficits, but this is to counterbalance private sector de-levering. Total indebtedness as a share of GDP has not been rising. In the post credit boom era, Japan's real growth has come entirely from productivity improvements. Mankind's persistent ability to learn, experiment, and innovate produces more and/or better output from a fixed set of inputs. Unlike the unsustainable growth that is fuelled by credit booms and asset bubbles, real growth that comes from productivity improvements is sustainable. Genuine Price Stability: Something To Celebrate, Not Fear Japanese consumer prices are at the same level today as they were in 1992, meaning that Japan has experienced genuine price stability for two and a half decades (Chart I-3). But this is neither new, nor alarming - Britain enjoyed genuine price stability for two and a half centuries! At the height of the British Empire in 1914, consumer prices were little different to where they stood at the end of the English Civil War in 1651 (Chart I-4). Chart I-3Japan Has Experienced Genuine Price ##br## Stability For Two And A Half Decades... Chart I-4...But Britain Experienced Genuine Price Stability For Two And A Half Centuries! Nevertheless, central banks continue with the deception that price stability means an inflation rate of 2%. This is clearly nonsense. Think about it - if prices rise by 2% a year, then your money will lose a quarter of its purchasing power every decade. And after a typical working life, your money will have lost two-thirds of its value.1 How exactly does that qualify as price stability?2 Still, we frequently hear a strong counterargument - in a highly indebted economy, inflation and growth in nominal GDP do matter. As debt is a nominal amount, it is nominal incomes that determine the ability to service and repay the high level of debt. So given a free choice, policymakers would prefer to have inflation at 2% rather than at zero; and nominal GDP growth at 3.5% rather than at 1.5%. Unfortunately, policymakers do not have this free choice. Contrary to what central bankers promise, inflation and nominal GDP growth cannot be dialled up or down at will to hit a point target. As we explained a while back in The Case Against Helicopters, inflation is a non-linear phenomenon which is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to point target.3 Look at the standard identity of monetary economics: MV = PT M is the broad money supply, V is its velocity of circulation, P is the price level and T is the volume of transactions. PT is effectively nominal GDP. The big problem is that both the broad money supply M and its velocity V - whose product determines nominal GDP - are highly non-linear. Chart I-5The Money Multiplier Is Non-Linear M is non-linear because the commercial banking system money multiplier - the ratio of loans to bank reserves - is non-linear. At a tipping point of inflation, the onus suddenly flips from lending as little as possible to lending as much as possible (Chart I-5). Admittedly, the central bank (in cahoots with the government) could by-pass the commercial banking system to control the money supply M directly. But it can do nothing to change the extreme non-linearity of the other driver of nominal GDP, the velocity of money V. Again, at a tipping point, the onus suddenly flips to spending money - both newly created and pre-existing balances - as fast as possible. At this point, nominal GDP growth and inflation suddenly and uncontrollably phase-shift from ice to fire with little in between. What is the Japanese lesson for Europeans? Simply that just like the BoJ, the ECB will keep moving the 2% inflation goalpost further and further into the future, as it realises the impossibility of achieving and sustaining the 2% point target. So even with inflation in the 1-2% channel, the ECB will create a loophole to exit NIRP and ZIRP very soon after it exits QE. This will structurally support the euro. Do Not Own Banks For The Long Term (Or Now) Japanese financial sector profits stand at less than half their peak level in 1990. For euro area financial sector profits which peaked in 2007, the interesting thing is that they are tracking the Japanese experience with a 17-year lag. If euro area financial profits continue to follow in Japan's footsteps, expect no sustained growth through the next 17 years (Chart I-6). Chart I-6Euro Area Financial Profits May Experience No Sustained Growth In a post credit boom era, banks lose the lifeblood of their business: credit creation. This loss becomes a multi-decade headwind to financial sector profit growth and share price performance. Bank profits are dependent on two other drivers. One is operational leverage - the amount of equity held against the balance sheet. More stringent European regulation will make this a headwind too. Banks will have to hold more equity capital against assets, diluting their profitability. The other driver is the net interest margin - the difference between rates received on loans and rates paid on deposits, effectively a function of the yield curve slope. However, this is a cyclical driver, and as explained last week in Market Turbulence: What Lies Ahead? this driver is unlikely to be positive in the coming months.4 What is the Japanese lesson for Europeans? Simply that euro area financials is not a sector to buy and hold for the long term. Rather, it is a sector to play during periodic strong countertrend rallies, albeit now is not the time for such a cyclical play. A Surge In Female Participation Chart I-7Sales Of Personal Products Have Boomed Over the past twenty years, Japanese sales of skin cosmetics and beauty products have almost tripled (Chart I-7). This has helped the personal products sector to outperform very strongly. The personal products sector is dominated by female spending. So it is significant that in 1995, the Japanese government introduced a raft of policies to encourage women to join the labour force: paid maternity leave, subsidised childcare, and paid parental leave for both parents. Today in Japan, both mothers and fathers can take more than a year of paid parental leave at an average rate of 60% of earnings. The policies had their desired effect. The proportion of Japanese women in the labour force has surged from 57% to 67%, while the male labour participation rate has held at 85%. Therefore, all of the growth in the Japanese labour force through the past twenty years has come from women. Europe tells a similar tale. Through the past couple of decades, parental leave policies have become steadily more generous. Unsurprisingly, the proportion of European women in the labour force has also surged from 57% to 67%, while the male labour participation rate has held at 78%. So just as in Japan, all of the growth in European labour force participation through the past twenty years has come from women (Chart I-8). But for the ultimate end-point in the European trend, look to the Scandinavian countries which have had generous parental leave policies since the 1970s. As a result, labour force participation for Swedish women is almost identical to that for men: 80% versus 83%. If the EU eventually reaches the Scandinavian end-point, it would mean another 20 million women in the EU labour force. What is the Japanese lesson for Europeans? While Japanese financial profits have halved since 1990, Japanese personal products profits have quintupled. Once again, the useful thing is that euro area personal product profits are uncannily tracking the Japanese experience with a 17-year lag (Chart I-9). If euro area personal product profits continue to follow in Japan's footsteps, expect them to almost triple over the next 17 years. Stay overweight the European personal products sector. Chart I-8A Surge In Female Participation Chart I-9Personal Products Profits Set To Grow Very Strongly Dhaval Joshi, Senior Vice President Chief European Investment Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com 1 Assuming you work for 50 years. 2 Admittedly, measured inflation probably overstates true inflation. However, estimates put this measurement error at no more than 0.3-0.5 percentage points. 3 Please see the European Investment Strategy Weekly Report 'The Case Against Helicopters' published on May 5 2016 and available at eis.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see the European Investment Strategy Weekly Report 'Market Turbulence: What Lies Ahead?' published on March 29 2018 and available at eis.bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading Model* This week’s trade recommendation is to go long the Australian dollar versus the Norwegian krone. The profit target is 2% with a symmetrical stop-loss. For any investment, excessive trend following and groupthink can reach a natural point of instability, at which point the established trend is highly likely to break down with or without an external catalyst. An early warning sign is the investment’s fractal dimension approaching its natural lower bound. Encouragingly, this trigger has consistently identified countertrend moves of various magnitudes across all asset classes. Chart I-10 * For more details please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report “Fractals, Liquidity & A Trading Model,” dated December 11, 2014, available at eis.bcaresearch.com The post-June 9, 2016 fractal trading model rules are: When the fractal dimension approaches the lower limit after an investment has been in an established trend it is a potential trigger for a liquidity-triggered trend reversal. Therefore, open a countertrend position. The profit target is a one-third reversal of the preceding 13-week move. Apply a symmetrical stop-loss. Close the position at the profit target or stop-loss. Otherwise close the position after 13 weeks. Use the position size multiple to control risk. The position size will be smaller for more risky positions Recommendations Equities Bond & Interest Rates Currency & Other Positions Closed Fractal Trades Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Interest Rate Chart II-5Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations

Highlights The U.S. and China have a roughly 60-day period to prevent the current trade "skirmish" from metastasizing into a full-blown trade war; The revised U.S.-Korea trade deal suggests that Trump's trade negotiators are credible and are targeting China, not U.S. allies; The U.S. will demand that China's recent RMB appreciation is backed by a long-term reduction in foreign exchange intervention; Tariff reciprocity is not significant, but market access and investment reciprocity are; China will offer concessions first, and will only go to a trade war if Trump imposes sweeping tariffs anyway; Short Chinese technology stocks; remain short China-exposed S&P500 stocks in expectation of further volatility. Feature The market is coming to terms with the fact that President Trump is willing to put his policies where his campaign rhetoric was, at least on trade policy. U.S. equities are down 5.7% since the White House announced Section 232 tariffs on steel and aluminum and 2.34% since it announced forthcoming Section 301 tariffs against China. Although we have cautioned clients since November 2016 that protectionism is a real risk to global growth and risk assets,1 we believe that the current set of U.S. demands on China justify the moniker of a "trade skirmish," rather than a full-out war.2 That said, the 5.7% drawdown is appropriate, if a bit sanguine. Our "trade skirmish" view is low-conviction. President Trump remains unconstrained on trade policy, giving him leeway to be tougher than the market expects. As such, it is appropriate for the market to price a 20%-30% probability of a full-blown trade war. Given that the market drawdown in such a scenario could be 20% or more, the current market action is appropriately pricing the worst-case scenario. Why would a trade war between the U.S. and China elicit a bear market in U.S. equities if a similar confrontation between Japan and the U.S. did not in the late 1980s? For three reasons. First, the overvaluation of stocks is much greater today. Second, interest rates are much lower, restricting how much policymakers can react to adverse risks. Third, supply chains are much more integrated today, globally and between China and the U.S. Nearly every major S&P 500 multinational corporation is in some way exposed to these supply chains. As such, we think the current drawdown is appropriate. That said, the administration's policy is not haphazard. President Trump and U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) Robert Lighthizer are on the same page, making China - and not NAFTA trade partners or South Korea - the main target of U.S. protectionism (Chart 1). The rapid pace at which the administration pivoted from global tariffs to targeting China gives a clear indication of what is afoot. The U.S. is using the threat of tariffs to cajole its allies into tougher trade enforcement against China (Table 1).3 We think this strategy can work, as outlined last week, but there is plenty of room for mistakes that could derail it. Chart 1China, Not NAFTA, In The Crosshairs Table 1U.S. Gradually Exempting Allies From Tariffs Trump also wants to change U.S. policy on immigration and could use the NAFTA negotiation to gain leverage over Mexico. There is therefore still some probability that Trump triggers Article 2205 to leave NAFTA, but we believe it has declined substantively since we put it at 50% in November, particularly given the U.S.-South Korea negotiations we discuss below.4 This week we take a look at the revised U.S.-Korea trade deal and what it suggests about the Trump administration's trade agenda more broadly. Then we update the status of the U.S.-China trade frictions, which are only temporarily subsiding, if at all. Lessons From The KORUS Talks The just-completed renegotiation of the U.S.-Korea free trade agreement (the "KORUS FTA") offers some clues to the Trump administration's trade tactics that may be relevant for future negotiations with NAFTA partners, China, and others. President Trump has repeatedly criticized the KORUS FTA, as the U.S. trade deficit with South Korea has ballooned since its implementation in March 2012 (Chart 2). Trump used the threat of withdrawing from the deal to pressure South Korean President Moon Jae-in not to ease sanctions on North Korea too rapidly. Chart 2Why Trump Likes Tariffs Now USTR Lighthizer and his South Korean counterpart, Hyun Chong-Kim, have agreed to the outlines of a revised deal.5 The key points are as follows: Steel tariff waiver for Korea: South Korea will receive a country-level exemption from the U.S.'s recently imposed steel tariffs.6 Going forward, Korean steel exports will be subject to quotas equivalent to 70% of the average annual import volume during 2015-17. Greater market access for U.S. autos: Korea will double the number of autos it imports on the basis of U.S. safety standards, from 25,000 to 50,000 per year from each U.S. carmaker. It can import more subject to its own safety standards. It will refrain from any new emissions-standards tests, will accept U.S. safety standards on auto parts, and will ease ecological policies and the customs process of verifying the origin of exports. Delayed market access for Korean trucks: The U.S. will retain the existing 25% tariff on Korean trucks through 2041, instead of 2021 (Chart 2, second panel). Fair treatment of U.S. pharmaceutical imports: Korea promises not to discriminate against U.S. drugs but to grant them fair treatment under KORUS provisions. Ancillary currency agreement: The two sides appended a "gentleman's agreement" on currency policies, which is not a formal part of the deal and not subject to legislative confirmation. South Korea agreed not to devalue the won competitively, or to manipulate it more broadly, and to provide greater transparency regarding its interventions in foreign exchange markets. There are three main takeaways from the above. First, the U.S. is obviously focusing on non-tariff barriers to trade, the main hindrance to trade in a world with already low tariff rates. The grievances with Korea were primarily due to safety standards, environmental policies, and burdensome administration that hindered U.S. exports despite the reduction of tariffs under the KORUS agreement. Second, USTR Robert Lighthizer - the seasoned negotiator of the historic 1980s trade disputes with Japan, and the man in charge of the current NAFTA and China negotiations - deserves his reputation as a competent policymaker. He apparently makes concrete demands and is capable of compromising to conclude deals. This reduces the risk, overstated by the media, that the inexperienced U.S. president is driving the trade negotiations. Third, the U.S. is not deliberately trying to punish its allies in pursuit of some mercantilist fantasy of closing every single trade imbalance. Strategic logic dictated that Washington and Seoul needed to conclude a deal quickly so as to better coordinate on North Korea, and they did so. It is highly unlikely that the concluded deal will end the U.S. trade imbalance with South Korea, but it will likely improve it substantively. Moon Jae-in continues to be a pragmatist in his dealings with Trump and Trump is joining Moon's "Moonshine" policy of engagement with North Korea. Talk of the U.S. abandoning its allies did not materialize. (Japan and Taiwan are likely to get deals soon.) Most importantly, this deal is a strong indication that the U.S. will continue to pressure China on its foreign exchange practices. It would make no sense for the U.S. to require its allies to disavow competitive devaluation and reduce currency interventions while not demanding similar assurances from China. On this front, China's recent appreciation of the yuan will not ultimately satisfy the U.S., as it is arbitrary. The U.S. will need to extract deeper guarantees, with the implicit threat of tariffs to prevent China from backsliding. Otherwise the U.S. would yield Chinese exporters a foreign exchange advantage relative to American trade partners who agree to stop intervening to preserve a favorable exchange rate with the USD. A simple comparison of these countries currency moves over the past eight years reveals how they have allowed less appreciation relative to the U.S. than in trade-weighted terms, and how China would benefit if the others were forced to stop this practice while it was left off the hook (Chart 3). Chart 3The U.S. Will Demand Currency Appreciation This last conclusion fits with our study of previous cases of U.S. trade protectionism, in which the end-game was dollar depreciation relative to key trade partners.7 The KORUS case can be considered alongside Lighthizer's and the Trump administration's handling of the Section 301 investigation into China's forced tech transfer and intellectual property theft. The Trump administration came out swinging with unilateral 25% tariffs on about $60 billion worth of goods, to be listed on April 6 and enacted sometime in June. But it also signaled that it would allow a consultation period, and initiated a case through the World Trade Organization, thus reinforcing (rather than undermining) the global trading system. These developments give some grounds for optimism in the NAFTA negotiations and (less so) in the China negotiations. While China is preempting U.S. demands on its currency policy, it will be averse to providing any permanent guarantees, or to painful structural demands. This is due to its concerns about overall stability and its suspicion that the U.S. is pursuing a broader strategic containment policy against it. We discuss these issues below. Bottom Line: The preliminary conclusions of the KORUS FTA negotiation suggest that the Trump administration's trade leadership is credible, while Trump himself is looking for quick and concrete trade "wins" that can be presented to his domestic voter base. This is a marginally market-positive sign. But its ramifications are limited with regard to China, where strategic tensions and geopolitical competition will make it much harder to strike a similar deal quickly. U.S.-China: Fade The "Mirror Tax," Focus On Market Access And Tech China announced tariffs on roughly $3-$3.5 billion worth of U.S. goods on April 2 - ranging from fruits and nuts to wine and pork - in retaliation for the steel and aluminum tariffs that the U.S. imposed in March under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962. China used the exact same tariff rates as the U.S. - 25% and 10% - while selecting the product list so as to produce roughly the same net trade impact in USD terms (Chart 4). The implication is that China will retaliate in kind to deter the U.S., but does not wish to "up the ante." This is largely what we expected, but the implication is significant: the U.S. is about to release a preliminary list on April 6 of $50-$60 billion worth of goods on which it will slap tariffs. This second round of tariffs - which is China-specific - follows from the probe under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974. China's recent decision suggests that if negotiations fail, it will respond with tariffs worth roughly the same amount, which is a much bigger exchange of fire for these two economies. The actual retaliatory action would most likely occur in June, when the U.S.'s list is finalized and implemented, though China may hint at its product list much sooner, adding to trade fears and market volatility.8 The Trump administration claims that its product list will be chosen by an algorithm to maximize the impact on Chinese exporters while minimizing the impact on the American consumer. Consistent with this aim, some reports indicate that the goods will be advanced technological products set to benefit from China's "Made in China 2025" plan, in which China has laid down aggressive domestic content requirements (Chart 5). Chart 4Tit For Tat Chart 5China's High-Tech Protectionism What is the Trump administration's goal? Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin declared at the G20 finance ministers' meeting that he did not want to penalize Chinese imports so much as promote U.S. exports. Is this a credible basis for assessing the administration's policy? Yes and no. We think Mnuchin is telling the truth, but not the whole truth. When it comes to blocking imports or boosting exports, Mnuchin is right: the U.S. goal is not simply to punish Beijing for past unfair trade practices by blocking imports of Chinese goods. True, the Trump administration has focused on a lack of reciprocity in tariff rates. But a "mirror tax" or "mirror tariff" with China, which Trump has referred to, would not make much of a difference to the trade balance: Chart 6AThe U.S. Exports Soybeans And Cars To China Chart 6BChina Exports Phones And Computers To The U.S. Taking a look at the top ten exports of the U.S. and China to each other (Chart 6 A&B), it is quite clear that China imposes higher tariffs on U.S. goods than the U.S. imposes on Chinese goods (Chart 7 A&B). This follows from World Trade Organization rules and the relative level of economic development of the two countries. Chart 7AAmerican Exports To China Face Higher Tariffs... Chart 7B... Than Chinese Exports To America If we equalize these tariffs by raising U.S. tariffs to the same level as their Chinese counterparts for the same good, we wind up with a very small $6.2 billion gain to the U.S. trade balance (Chart 8). If we focus only on the top ten goods that both countries export to each other, and impose a hypothetical mirror tax, we wind up with an even smaller gain for the U.S. of $3.9 billion (Chart 9). This is small fry and cannot be the administration's goal (at least not its main goal). The real goal is to gain greater market access for U.S. exports in China. Here the U.S. may have a case, as China lags both its developed and emerging market peers in sourcing its imports from the U.S. (Chart 10). While China comprises 24% of total EM imports, it comprises only 15% of U.S. exports to EM. Even in commodity exports, where the U.S. has made major inroads in China, Beijing has recently limited the American share (Chart 10, middle panel). Chart 8Equalizing Tariffs Has Little Impact Chart 9Equalizing Tariffs Has Little Impact (2) Chart 10U.S. Grievance Is About Market Access A simple, back-of-the-envelope comparison of the U.S.'s top exports to China and EM ex-China suggests that the U.S. can make a case that its exports are suffering unduly in China: China's share of top U.S. exports is lower than one might expect it to be relative to EM or EM-ex-China (Chart 11 A&B). The U.S.'s market share of China's imports in key goods is lower than it is in EM or EM-ex-China (Chart 12 A&B). The U.S. share of China's top imports is smaller than the DM-ex-U.S. share (Chart 13 A&B). Chart 11AChina Is Not A Large Enough Share Of U.S. Exports (Broad) Chart 11BChina Is Not A Large Enough Share Of U.S. Exports (Detailed) Chart 12AU.S. Is Not A Large Enough Share Of Chinese Imports (Broad) Chart 12BU.S. Is Not A Large Enough Share Of Chinese Imports (Detailed) Chart 13AU.S. Has Less Market Access In China Than Other Exporters Chart 13BU.S. Has Less Market Access In China Than Other Exporters China has granted the legitimacy of U.S. complaints by pledging several times in the last few months to open market access. The latest news from the negotiations suggests that some progress is being made.9 Clearly the above is a very rough measure. Chinese consumers may not want to buy as much stuff from the U.S. as from Europe and Japan. The U.S. doubtless needs to improve its global competitiveness, and even then it may not gain as much market share in China as its DM peers. Nevertheless, Washington sees itself as the power that brought China into the global economy and allowed it to join the WTO. If China wants the U.S. to allow it to play a greater role in running the world, the U.S. is demanding a beneficial economic relationship in return. One way China is offering to deal with the problem is by buying American goods at the expense of U.S. allies' goods. For instance, Beijing has offered to buy more semiconductors from the U.S. and fewer from Taiwan and South Korea. This would alleviate the U.S. trade deficit a little, but at a greater expense to U.S. allies (Table 2). It would open up an opportunity for China to make more strategic acquisitions in those weakened, neighboring industries. It is not clear that the Trump administration will accept such a "concession," unless it is coupled with much greater concessions as compensation for selling out the allies. Table 2China's Trade Concessions To The U.S. Could Impose Costs On U.S. Allies Similarly, China's concessions that have been offered so far - like lowering the 25% tariff on car imports - are tokens in the right direction but not sufficient to satisfy the U.S. at the current juncture. This means that the U.S. will demand structural changes that increase market access, from a stronger RMB to a more consumer-oriented economy, as part of what will be a drawn-out effort to encourage China to rebalance its macroeconomy. Of course, Treasury Secretary Mnuchin was only telling half the truth: the U.S. also wants to prevent China from stealing too much of America's market share too fast. When we look at China's comparative advantage - the goods categories in which China's export growth has been fastest in recent years, weighted by contribution to the total - the U.S. is the country that has the largest global market share in these very goods (Chart 14). For instance, telecoms equipment, car parts, TVs, electrical circuits, etc. The U.S.'s export mix is not as dependent on these goods as that of China's neighbors (Taiwan, Vietnam, Malaysia, Singapore, South Korea), but it is the chief exporter of these goods nevertheless. Because many of China's most competitive goods are still low value-added (toys, plastics, textiles, furniture), China is pursuing tech upgrades, innovation, and intellectual property: it would eat away at the U.S. share of more advanced goods. Chart 14China's Comparative Advantage Threatens U.S. Global Market Share The Trump administration is trying to slow China's advance and put a stop to China's aggressive poaching of foreign tech and IP.10 This will include restrictions on Chinese direct investment and acquisitions to be announced by Mnuchin on May 21. We expect him to intensify an inherently stringent vetting process. The administration has already taken a proactive stance by blocking Canyon Bridge Capital Partners from acquiring Lattice Semiconductor and Singaporean company Broadcom's attempted acquisition of Qualcomm.11 Rumor has it that the administration is now considering invoking the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977, which authorizes the president to take actions "to deal with any unusual and extraordinary threat, which has its source in whole or substantial part outside the United States, to the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States, if the President declares a national emergency with respect to such threat." Trump would be able to cite China's use of state-backed companies, corporate espionage, and cyber-attacks in pursuit of technology and IP (Table 3). Table 3Trump Lacks Legal Constraints On Trade Issues... Especially When National Security Is Involved This is entirely aside from legislation pending in Congress, which the White House appears to support, that would provide the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) with the ability to block investments across entire industries, rather than on a case-by-case basis, and with a broader definition of national security and sensitive property and technologies.12 While American presidents have historically vetoed similar legislation against China, the Trump administration may not, depending on the outcome of talks. The key point is that the U.S. political establishment - across the spectrum - is alarmed about China's economic mercantilism. As Senator Elizabeth Warren recently declared to a group of top policymakers in Beijing: "Now U.S. policymakers are starting to look more aggressively at pushing China to open up the markets without demanding a hostage price of access to U.S. technology."13 Warren, a staunchly liberal senator from the Democratic stronghold of Massachusetts, is entirely on the same page as Trump. The takeaway for investors? China's tit-for-tat response to Trump's steel and aluminum tariffs should not be dismissed out of hand. The market is sensitive to trade fears and there is a clear avenue for them to get worse if the 60-day consultation period lapses without any major Chinese concessions. True, negotiations are ongoing and Trump's trade team has been shown to be both credible and willing to pursue trade disputes through the WTO. Nevertheless there are substantial measures aimed at China coming down the pike and the usual restraints on U.S. policy, centered on the U.S. business establishment lobbying policymakers, are not as effective as in the past. Bottom Line: The U.S.'s primary economic goal in the China negotiations is not to equalize tariffs but to open market access. The strategic goal is much larger. The U.S. wants to see China's rate of technological development slow down. As such, Washington will expect robust guarantees to protect intellectual property and proprietary technology. Investment Conclusions Several clients have asked about the constraints on the different players if trade conflict should escalate over the coming months. On the surface the U.S. is in a stronger position because its outsized deficit with China means that measures constricting bilateral trade are inherently more damaging to China's output (Chart 15). Even some of China's best retaliatory options are difficult to put into practice, including selling U.S. treasuries or imposing sanctions on U.S. commodities (Table 4).14 Chart 15China More Exposed To Trade Than U.S. Table 4China's Retaliation Options Are Limited... Even In Agriculture The U.S. also faces a constraint in imposing measures on China because manufacturing value chains today sprawl across various countries and multinational corporations. Tariffs therefore punish countries, including U.S. allies, that provide inputs to China or American companies that profit from them - think Apple. Moreover, tariffs will not in themselves change the U.S.'s fundamental savings-investment balance, suggesting that demand for foreign goods will simply shift to other producers and the trade deficit will be unaffected. However, supply chain risk is ultimately not prohibitive for the U.S. China has long ranked among the most exposed to supply-chain disruptions, while the U.S. ranks among the least (Chart 16). Moreover, U.S. allies in Europe and ASEAN stand to benefit if supply chains are rerouted from China (Chart 17). While the U.S. and allies would suffer higher initial costs as a result, they would gain the strategic advantage of reducing China's centrality to global supply chains. The latter has given Beijing an advantage in acquiring technology and moving up the value chain. Chart 16China Most Exposed To Supply-Chain Risk Chart 17U.S. Allies Benefit If Supply Chains Move While the Xi Jinping administration is weaning China off export reliance and U.S. reliance, the country still employs 28% of its workers in the manufacturing sector, which leaves it more exposed to disruptions than the U.S. if trade frictions should spiral out of control and weaken overall demand (Chart 18). While American workers are intimately familiar with the boom-and-bust cycle of free labor markets, China has not struggled with significant unemployment since 2003 (Chart 19). Its middle class was much smaller then. Chart 18Employment Is A Constraint On China Chart 19China Unfamiliar With Large-Scale Job Loss In short, China will first attempt to appease the Trump administration through market access (and keeping the RMB strong) to maintain its supply-chain centrality and overall stability. If Trump accepts China's concessions, trade frictions will not spiral out of control - at least not this year. China will only accept a full-fledged trade war if Trump rejects its concessions and imposes punitive measures that threaten its stability. At that juncture, Xi would probably find it useful to demonize Trump and execute long-term changes to make China more self-sufficient, blaming the U.S.-initiated trade war for the painful consequences. This is why it matters if Trump's demands go beyond foreign exchange rates, improved market access, and IP enforcement - for instance, if they extend to capital account liberalization, the holy grail of American trade negotiations with China. Thus far, Trump's team has not raised this demand, but it is a subject we will revisit soon as it is likely to be China's red line, at least within the economic sphere. In light of our expectation for further trade-war related volatility, we would recommend shorting Chinese tech stocks15 and remaining short China-exposed U.S. stocks. The latter trade has been in the black by over 5% in just a week, but is currently up only 0.7%. It is a way to hedge the risk of further tensions between U.S. and China. Risks to this view are: if the U.S. reduces the Section 301 tariffs that it is threatening on or after April 6; if Treasury Secretary Mnuchin's investment restrictions due on May 21 are watered down; or if the U.S. makes no structural demands on China's economy but merely accepts temporary RMB appreciation and some big-ticket import orders. Otherwise the risk that trade tensions spiral out of control will remain elevated at least through the U.S. midterm elections on November 6. By then, Trump will need either to have cut a small-scale deal with China that he can tout for voters or to have taken more aggressive trade action pursuant to the Section 301 findings. Matt Gertken, Associate Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com Jesse Anak Kuri, Research Analyst jesse.kuri@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Constraints And Preferences Of The Trump Presidency," dated November 30, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Market Reprices Odds Of A Global Trade War," dated March 6, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "We Are All Geopolitical Strategists Now," dated March 28, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism," dated November 10, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 5 A 60-day consultation period with both legislatures will follow but the deal will probably remain in more or less the same form. 6 Aluminum was not included, but South Korea is not a major source of aluminum products for the U.S. 7 Please see footnote 2 above. 8 Please see David Lawder, "Trump to unveil China tariff list this week, targeting tech goods," Reuters, April 2, 2018, available at www.reuters.com. 9 Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin spoke with Politburo member Liu He, who is Xi Jinping's top economic policymaker, and they reportedly pledged that they are "committed" to a solution on reducing the U.S. trade deficit. The U.S. is asking for a $100 billion reduction to the trade deficit within the year, as well as some progress on intellectual property enforcement. Supposedly the specific demands involve reducing the Chinese tariff on car imports and raising the foreign ownership cap on Chinese financial companies, the latter of which China has previously promised to do. Please see Andrew Mayeda, "U.S. Pushes China On Cars And Finance In Tariff Talks," Bloomberg, March 26, 2018, available at www.bloomberg.com. 10 Please see the U.S. Trade Representative, "Findings of the Investigation into China's Acts, Policies, and Practices Related to Technology Transfer, Intellectual Property, and Innovation under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974," March 2018, available at ustr.gov. 11 In September 2017, the White House and Department of Treasury intervened in the attempt by a group of investors, including the state-owned China Venture Capital Fund, from acquiring Lattice, on the advice of CFIUS. Lattice makes computer chips that are highly versatile and can be used in military functions; the Chinese SOE was suspected of pursuing China's state-backed efforts to improve its semiconductor industry. Separately, in March 2018, President Trump blocked Singapore-based Broadcom's attempt to acquire Qualcomm, which would have been a hugely consequential tech merger due to the two companies' dominance in making processors. The Treasury Department feared that Chinese state entities might get access to Qualcomm's IP or that the merger might otherwise hinder Qualcomm's "technological leadership." Please see "CFIUS Case 18-036: Broadcom Limited (Singapore)/Qualcomm Incorporated," dated March 5, 2018, available at www.sec.gov. 12 Please see Andrew Mayeda, Saleha Mohsin, and David McLaughlin, "U.S. Weighs Use of Emergency Law to Curb Chinese Takeovers," March 27, 2018, available at www.bloomberg.com. 13 She was speaking with Liu He, seasoned diplomat Yang Jiechi, and Defense Minister Wei Fenghe. Please see Michael Martina, "Senator Warren, in Beijing, says U.S. is waking up to Chinese abuses," April 1, 2018, available at www.reuters.com. 14 Please see BCA Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, "Ags Could Get Caught In U.S. Tariff Imbroglio," dated March 15, 2018, and "Oil Price Forecast Steady, But Risks Expand," dated March 22, 2018, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 15 Please see BCA China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "After The Selloff: A View From China," dated February 15, 2018, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. Geopolitical Calendar

Special Report

Highlights Hong Kong's leverage burden is a corporate sector rather than a household sector problem. But this corporate sector debt is highly concentrated in the finance and real estate industries, meaning that investors should be legitimately concerned over Hong Kong's extremely elevated debt service ratio. Our BCA Hong Kong Debt Risk Monitor serves as an important tool to help investors gauge the risk of a serious credit-driven downturn in the region. While the risk from excessive leverage is real, the current message from our DRM is that the odds of a deleveraging event over the coming year are low. Due to the importation of U.S. monetary policy, Hong Kong may "enjoy" easy monetary policy on a permanent basis. This suggests that Hong Kong's private sector may continue to leverage itself even in the face of rising interest rates, setting up the potential for a cataclysmic future recession. Stay neutral Hong Kong stocks versus the global benchmark over the coming 6-12 months. While equities may rise in relative terms if earnings momentum converges with that of the global benchmark, it is not a sufficiently compelling prospect to outweigh the significant structural risk facing the region. Feature Hong Kong has appeared in the headlines of the financial press for two reasons over the past few months. The first is due to the recent weakness in the Hong Kong dollar (HKD), a topic that we addressed last week.1 The second was prompted by the BIS' March 2018 Quarterly Review, which noted that mainland China, Hong Kong, and Canada stood out among 26 jurisdictions as being the most vulnerable to a banking crisis according to their research. The BIS's warning is rooted in the fact that Hong Kong is a highly leveraged economy, but there are two additional reasons for investors to be cautious about the region: China's industrial sector is slowing, and monetary policy is tightening due to the region's direct link to U.S. interest rates. While Hong Kong has avoided the full brunt of rising U.S. rates over the past year thanks to plentiful interbank liquidity (which has limited the rise in 3-month HIBOR), we noted in last week's report that the weakness in the HKD likely means that gap between interbank rates and the base rate cannot get much wider. This means that further Fed rate hikes over the coming year are likely to feed more fully into tighter Hong Kong monetary conditions. In this report we review the extent and disposition of Hong Kong's indebtedness, and develop an indicator for investors to monitor in order to gauge the risk of a serious private sector deleveraging event. We conclude that while it is too early to position aggressively against Hong Kong stocks, the risk from excessive leverage is real and is very likely to eventually cause a serious credit-driven downturn. For now, however, that appears to be a story for another day, and as we explain below, potentially a distant one. Breaking Down Hong Kong's Debt Chart 1 presents the basis for concern about Hong Kong's debt. The chart shows the BIS' nonfinancial private sector debt service ratio ("DSR", which includes both households and nonfinancial corporations) for the G10 countries alongside that of China, Hong Kong, and Canada. The chart shows that Hong Kong's DSR has risen nearly to 26%, a full 10 percentage points higher than the G10 average, and is now the highest among the 32 economies that the BIS has debt service data for. One important point to note is that among the three countries that the BIS recently singled out for concern, the disposition of Hong Kong's private sector debt is more similar to that of China than Canada. Chart 2 highlights that the private sector debt in China and Hong Kong is predominantly owed by the nonfinancial corporate sector, whereas in Canada the debt is more equally split among the two sectors, with households owing more in total. Chart 1Hong Kong's Debt Burden Hits##br## A New High Chart 2Unlike In Canada, Hong Kong's Leverage##br## Is A Corporate Sector Problem Normally we would be inclined to suggest that the skew in Hong Kong's debt towards the corporate sector makes it less risky than in other jurisdictions where elevated leverage is a household sector problem. The rationale is that while corporations can (and often do) misallocate their capital, firm borrowing is usually employed to acquire income-producing assets, with problems arising only when the value of those assets (or their potential to generate income) declines sharply. Household leverage problems, on the other hand, are almost always the result of a sharp rise in residential mortgage credit, and our view is that the purchase of residential property is fundamentally an act of consumption rather than a true investment. In addition, the past experiences of several countries have shown that housing-related leverage busts are particularly pernicious, in that the resulting recessions tend to be followed by long periods of subpar economic growth. But unlike in China where the majority of nonfinancial corporate sector debt is held on the balance sheets of state-owned enterprises, Hong Kong's corporate debt does not have de-facto state backing and appears to be enormously concentrated in the real estate and financial sector. Over 80% of Hong Kong's total nonfinancial sector debt (which includes households) is provided by domestic banks, and Chart 3 shows that among bank loans to firms, 35% have been granted to property building & construction companies and another 22% to "financial concerns" and stockbrokers. This high concentration of corporate sector debt in the real estate sector means that investors should be legitimately concerned over Hong Kong's extremely high DSR. On the household side, we have made the case in a previous report that a replay of another spectacular housing bust (similar to what occurred in 1997) is highly unlikely despite the fact that Hong Kong house prices have vastly outstripped income over the past decade2 (Chart 4). Chart 3Loans To Businesses Are Highly Concentrated ##br##And Exposed To Property Chart 4Lofty House Prices Are A Red Herring: ##br##The Risk Is On The Business Side This suggests that, despite extremely elevated residential property prices, investors should be more concerned about a shock that will destabilize the commercial real estate market. Hong Kong households would not likely escape the impact of such a shock, since commercial and residential real estate prices move strongly in tandem (Chart 5). But in terms of watching for a "tipping point" that could push Hong Kong's private sector into a balance sheet recession, the trigger seems more likely to occur in the market for the former, rather than the latter. Bottom Line: Hong Kong's leverage burden is a corporate sector rather than a household sector problem. But this corporate sector debt is extremely concentrated in the finance and real estate industries, meaning that investors should be legitimately concerned over Hong Kong's extremely high debt service ratio. Chart 5Still, Households Will Be Hurt##br## If CRE Prices Fall Chart 6The BIS' Warning Thresholds ##br##Don't Seem To Apply To Hong Kong Timing The Onset Of A Balance Sheet Recession Our analysis above supports the recent warnings from the BIS that the risk of a banking crisis / private sector deleveraging event in Hong Kong is nontrivial. This raises the obvious question of how to gauge the timing of such an event in order for investors to properly position their exposure towards Hong Kong's financial markets. The BIS has itself investigated this question, and has published several reports on its "Early Warning Indicator" (EWI) approach.3 Table 1 presents a list of these indicators for several countries, and highlights that the two of the most informative measures (the credit-to-GDP gap4 and the overall debt service ratio) are flashing red for Hong Kong. In fact, Table 1 served as the basis for the BIS' warning in their most recent Quarterly Review that we noted above. The BIS' EWI research has focused on identifying thresholds for these measures that can predict a banking crisis within a three-year window based on the historical record. But in the case of Hong Kong, it is not clear that these thresholds apply. Chart 6 shows the credit-to-GDP gap and overall private sector DSR along with the more stringent BIS threshold noted in Table 1, and highlights that these measures have been flashing red for 4-8 years. Based on this approach, Hong Kong should have experienced a banking crisis long ago. Table 1BIS Early Warning Indicators For Stress In Domestic Banking Systems Rather than relying on the BIS' framework, we have instead constructed our own private-sector debt risk monitor for Hong Kong. In contrast to the BIS' measures, which have been specifically constructed to predict a banking crisis, the goal of our indicator is to help predict a serious credit-driven downturn regardless of its character (i.e. we abstract from whether the result of the downturn is a full-blown financial crisis or simply a prolonged period of economic stagnation). Chart 7Low Risk Of A Serious Credit-Driven ##br##Downturn, For Now Chart 7 presents our BCA Hong Kong Debt Risk Monitor (DRM) and its five equally-weighted components, a summary of which is provided below. All series have been scaled such that an increase in the DRM represents higher risk. Alpha: We have highlighted the importance of examining the alpha as well as the beta of regional equity returns in a previous report,5 and we include a composite indicator of Hong Kong's rolling alpha versus the global benchmark as a measure of Hong Kong-specific stock performance that adjusts for Hong Kong's riskiness. While this component of our DRM was quite elevated in early-2016 (signaling weak Hong Kong stock performance), it is presently in line with its historical average, and thus is not flashing a warning sign. Property Prices: Given the high concentration of Hong Kong's corporate sector debt in the real estate sector, our DRM includes the deviation of office & retail property prices from their 9-month moving average. Similar to the first component of our indicator, Hong Kong property prices are roughly in line with their trend and are not signaling serious economic weakness. Credit Impulse: The third component of our DRM is a simple bank credit impulse, calculated as the flow of credit over the past year as a percent of GDP. While this component has fallen well into "low risk" territory, over the past year, there are some tentative signs of a reversal that investors should monitor. Monetary Policy Stance: The fourth component of our DRM is a structural variable that attempts to measure whether U.S. (and thus Hong Kong) interest rates are either consistent or out of alignment with economic conditions in Hong Kong. This component is an average of two measures of the stance of monetary policy: 1) the difference between U.S. 10-year government bond yields and Hong Kong nominal GDP growth, and 2) the difference between the base rate and a Taylor Rule estimate for the region (with the latter acting purely as an estimate of the cyclical equilibrium interest rate).6 The chart shows that despite the onset of tighter monetary policy in the U.S. over the past few years, our gauge of Hong Kong's policy stance suggests that conditions are still easy, and that material further increases would likely be required in order to see this component rise to +1 sigma territory. Debt Service Ratio: The final component of our DRM is the BIS' total private sector DSR shown in Chart 6, acting as a second structural variable that captures the underlying debt servicing risk that the BIS has warned about. We extent the BIS' series back to the early-1990s on a best efforts basis, by adjusting the product of Hong Kong's prime rate and the total private sector debt-to-GDP ratio to best align with the official DSR series over the course of its history. Our extended series suggests that Hong Kong's debt servicing burden is indeed the highest that it has been over the past three decades, underscoring that our DRM is likely to rise materially if the cyclical factors included in the indicator deteriorate. The overall message of our DRM is that a threat to Hong Kong's economy from excessive debt does not appear to be imminent, despite the underlying risks highlighted by the BIS. While the risk from excessive leverage is real and is very likely to eventually cause a serious credit-driven downturn, the odds of this occurring over the coming 6-12 months appear to be low. Bottom Line: Our BCA Hong Kong Debt Risk Monitor serves as an important tool to help investors gauge the risk of a serious credit-driven downturn in the region. While the risk from excessive leverage is real, the message from our DRM is that the odds of a deleveraging event over the coming year are low. The Spooky Implications Of The Natural Interest Rate Gap Interestingly, at least part of the benign reading of our DRM is due to the fourth component of the indicator, our gauge of Hong Kong's monetary policy stance, which suggests that there is ample room for further rate increases. In fact, in our view this observation carries much deeper significance than many may initially perceive, as it may explain why the BIS' early warning indicator thresholds have not worked in the case of Hong Kong, and why the region may avoid a debt crisis for a further significant period (but ultimately experience a much more painful collapse when it finally arrives). At root, the reason that U.S. 10-year Treasury yields remain exceedingly low relative to U.S. nominal GDP growth is because investors believe that real U.S. policy rates are likely to be much lower on average over the next 10-years than they have been historically (Chart 8). Abstracting from calendar-based cyclical considerations (such at the timing of the next U.S. recession), this fundamentally reflects the prevalent view among fixed-income investors that the U.S. natural rate of interest (or "r-star") has likely permanently declined. If true, this is of enormous importance for Hong Kong, as it suggests that the region will permanently "enjoy" easy monetary policy. This is because the substantial leveraging that has occurred in Hong Kong in response to low interest rates implies that there has been no impairment (yet) to Hong Kong's natural rate of interest (Chart 9). Chart 8A Low Estimate Of R-Star Has Depressed##br## U.S. Bond Yields Chart 9No Evidence Of A Low R-Star##br## In Hong Kong In some ways the dynamic we are describing is not new: the importation of easy monetary policy from the U.S. via competitive currency devaluation over the past decade has been a well-known phenomenon that was quite prominent during the early phase of the global economic recovery. But the fixed exchange rate regime in Hong Kong means that this process cannot be avoided without abandoning the peg, an event that itself could trigger a deleveraging event via a sharp decline in asset prices. The key point for investors is that if the U.S. natural rate of interest has indeed fallen materially and permanently below potential GDP growth, then Hong Kong will not experience tight monetary conditions even once the Fed has normalized short-term interest rates, unless it raises them well above equilibrium levels. This suggests that Hong Kong's private sector may perpetually leverage itself until debt service burdens reach some, as yet, unknown maximum level, precipitating what would likely become a cataclysmic recession. The fact that no crisis erupted in late-2015/early-2016 when the cyclical components of our DRM deteriorated significantly suggests that this level may be materially higher than is presently the case. Bottom Line: Due to the importation of U.S. monetary policy, Hong Kong may "enjoy" easy monetary policy on a permanent basis. This suggests that Hong Kong's private sector may continue to leverage itself even in the face of rising interest rates, setting up the potential for a cataclysmic future recession. Investment Implications: Stay Neutral, For Now Chart 10Room For A Rise In Relative Earnings Momentum The picture painted by our above analysis suggests that a benign cyclical outlook for Hong Kong is arrayed against a negative (and potentially horrific) structural outlook. How should investors position towards Hong Kong equities in response? First, as noted above, our Debt Risk Monitor does not signal that there is an imminent threat facing the Hong Kong economy that would herald the potential for a major deleveraging event over the near-term. Second, while Hong Kong's earnings momentum is stretched in absolute terms, Chart 10 highlights there is room for a catchup versus global stocks, which could boost relative performance over the coming year. Third, relative valuation and technical conditions are at neutral levels (Chart 11), and thus do not provide any compelling basis to avoid Hong Kong stocks. But to us, the weight of this modestly positive assessment over the coming year is overshadowed by the structural outlook, meaning that we continue to recommend a neutral allocation towards Hong Kong stocks over the coming 6-12 months. The most investment-relevant conclusion from our analysis is that investors will one day be able to earn significant risk-adjusted returns from underweighting / shorting Hong Kong stocks once a serious credit-driven downturn begins. As an example, Chart 12 shows the impact of the Asian financial crisis on Hong Kong's relative performance, a period where our DRM rose sharply and persistently into "high risk territory". It took 12½ years for Hong Kong to rise to a new high in relative total return terms, and it has yet to do so in price terms. Chart 11Neutral Relative Valuation And ##br##Technical Conditions Chart 12One Day, Shorting Hong Kong Stocks##br## Will Be Enormously Profitable So while the economic and financial market conditions are not yet in place to act on a bearish structural view, we will be closely watching our Debt Risk Monitor over the coming months and years for signs of a significant deterioration, as it will likely provide a major opportunity for investors to earn outsized returns. Stay tuned! Bottom Line: Stay neutral Hong Kong stocks versus the global benchmark over the coming 6-12 months. While equities may rise in relative terms if earnings momentum converges with that of the global benchmark, it is not a sufficiently compelling prospect to outweigh the significant structural risk facing the region. Jonathan LaBerge, CFA, Vice President Special Reports jonathanl@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Chinese Stocks: Trade Frictions Make For A Tenuous Overweight", dated March 28, 2018, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Pease see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report "Hong Kong Housing Bubble: A Replay Of 1997?", dated June 29, 2017, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 3 For example, please see "Evaluating early warning indicators of banking crises: Satisfying policy requirements" by Mathias Drehmann and Mikael Juselius, BIS Working Paper No. 421, August 2013. 4 The BIS defines the credit-to-GDP gap as the difference between the credit-to-GDP ratio and its long-run trend, derived using a one-sided (i.e. backward-looking) Hodrick-Prescott (HP) filter. 5 Pease see China Investment Strategy Special Report "China: No Longer A Low-Beta Market", dated January 11, 2018, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 6 Our Taylor Rule estimate for Hong Kong is constructed in a fashion similar to what we showed for China in our January 18 Weekly Report, using a neutral policy rate estimate of 5%. Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations

Highlights Recommended Allocation Due to the boost from U.S. fiscal stimulus, we do not expect recession until 2020. Despite some signs that growth is peaking, global economic fundamentals remain robust. Markets have wobbled because of the risk of trade war and rising inflation. We think neither likely to derail growth. Not one of our recession indicators is yet sending a warning signal. We are late cycle and volatility is likely to remain high (particularly if the trade war intensifies). But, given strong earnings growth and three further Fed rate hikes this year, we expect global equities to beat bonds over the next 12 months. Except for particularly risk-averse investors, who care mostly about capital preservation, we continue to recommend overweights in risk assets. We are overweight equities (especially euro area and Japan), cyclical equity sectors such as financials and industrials, credit (especially cross-overs and high-yield), and return-enhancing alternative assets such as private equity. Feature Overview Stimulus Trumps Tariffs Risk assets have been choppy so far this year, with global equities flat in the first quarter and the stock-to-bond ratio turning down (Chart 1). Markets were battered by worries about a trade war, signs of growth peaking, a rise in inflation, and bad news from the tech sector. This late in the cycle, with stock market valuations stretched and investors skittish about what might go wrong, we expect volatility to stay high. But the global economy remains robust - and will be boosted by U.S. fiscal stimulus - earnings are growing strongly, and the usual signs of recession and equity bear markets are absent. Though the going will be bumpy over coming quarters, we continue to expect risk assets to outperform at least through the end of this year. U.S. tariffs on steel and aluminum and the threat of $50 billion of tariffs on Chinese imports so far represent a trade skirmish, not a trade war. The amounts pale by comparison with the positive impact coming though from U.S. tax cuts, increased fiscal spending, and repatriation (Chart 2). In history, fights over trade have rarely had a serious impact on growth. They flared up frequently in the 1980s, which was a period of strong economic growth. Even the infamous Smoot-Hawley tariff increase of 1930 is now viewed by most economic historians as having played only a minor role in the collapse of trade during the Great Depression.1 Of course, trade war could escalate. China, as the biggest part of the U.S. trade deficit, is the White House's clear target (Chart 3). Japan in the 1980s, an ally of the U.S., agreed to voluntary exports restraints and to relocate production to the U.S. But China is a global rival.2 Chart 1A Tricky Quarter Chart 2Stimulus Tops Tariffs Chart 3China Is The Target For now, we expect the impact to be limited since some degree of compromise is the most likely outcome. President Trump sees the stock market as his Key Performance Indicator and would be likely to back off if stocks fell sharply. China knows that it has the most to lose in a prolonged fight. It might suit Xi Jinping's reformist agenda to boost consumption, cut excess capacity, and allow the RMB to appreciate modestly. While the U.S. has some justification for arguing that China's investment rules are unfair, China can also argue that it has made significant progress in recent years in reducing its dependence on exports, its current account surplus, and the undervaluation of its currency (Chart 4). But jitters will continue for a while. May could be a particularly tricky month, with the Iran sanctions waiver expiring on May 12, and the 60-day consultation period for China tariffs ending on May 21. Investors should expect that volatility, which in early January was remarkably low in all asset classes, should stay significantly higher until the end of this cycle (Chart 5). Chart 4...But Has Reduced Dependence On Exports Chart 5Volatility Likely To Stay High? Meanwhile, economic fundamentals generally remain strong. The Global Manufacturing PMI has dipped slightly from its cycle-high level in December, with recent currency strength causing some softness in the euro area and Japan (Chart 6). But the diffusion index shows that only three out of the 48 countries currently have PMIs below 50 (Egypt, Indonesia and South Africa). Consensus forecasts expect 2018 global GDP growth to come in at around 3.3%, similar to last year, and as yet show no signs of faltering (Chart 7). On the back of this, BCA's models suggest that global earnings growth will continue to grow at a double-digit pace for at least the rest of this year (Chart 8). Despite the strong growth, we see U.S. inflation picking up only steadily towards the Fed's 2% target.3 Jerome Powell in his first congressional testimony and press conference as Fed Chair showed no rush to accelerate the pace of rate hikes. We think the Fed is likely to hike four times, not three, but the market should not find this unduly hard to digest, as long as it is against a background of robust growth. Chart 6Dip In Growth Momentum? Chart 7Economists' Forecasts Not Faltering Chart 8Earnings Still Growing Strongly For the past year, we have highlighted a number of simple indicators we are watching carefully that have previously been reliable indicators of recessions and equity bear markets. Several have started to move in the wrong direction, but none is yet flashing a warning signal (Table 1, Chart 9). Table 1What To Watch For Chart 9No Warnings Flashing Here In February, BCA pushed out its forecast of the next recession to 2020, on the back of the U.S. fiscal stimulus. That would suggest turning more cautious on risk assets towards the end of this year - at which time some of these indicators may be flashing. But, until then we continue to recommend - except for the most risk-averse investors who care mainly about capital preservation and not about maximizing quarterly performance - an overweight allocation to risk assets. Garry Evans, Senior Vice President garry@bcaresearch.com Chart 10Not A Full Blown Trade War... For Now! What Our Clients Are Asking What Are The Implications Of U.S. Tariffs? Following recent announcements of tariffs on steel and aluminum and possible broad-based tariffs on Chinese imports, investors have started to worry about the future of global trade. But these moves should be no surprise since President Trump is merely delivering on electoral promises. From a macro-perspective, here are the key implications of rising trade barriers: An all-out trade war would certainly hurt U.S. growth, but a minor skirmish would have little impact. The U.S. is the advanced economy least exposed to global trade, which makes it harder for nations to retaliate. Running a large trade deficit, with imports from China representing 2.7% of GDP whereas exports to China are just 1.0% of U.S. GDP, gives the U.S. considerable leverage in negotiations. Additionally, the majority of Chinese imports from the U.S. are agricultural products, making it harder for China to retaliate with tariffs since these would raise prices for Chinese consumers (Chart 10). On the other hand, U.S. trade partners also have a case. With trade growth trailing output growth, other nations will be less willing to give in to U.S. threats. Additionally, unlike the Cold War era, when the U.S. had a greater influence on Europe and Japan, the world is moving toward a more multipolar structure. However, we do not believe nations will retaliate by dumping U.S. Treasuries, as that would deliver the U.S.'s desired end result of a weaker dollar. Chart 11Rising Wages Are The Missing Factor Finally, if tariffs lead to a smaller trade deficit and firms start to move production back to the U.S., aggregate demand will increase. And, given a positive output gap in the U.S., the Fed would be forced to turn more hawkish, ultimately forcing the dollar up. Equity markets do not like tariffs, and bonds will follow the path that real growth and inflation take. How the situation will develop depends on whether Trump embraces America's traditional transatlantic alliance with Europe and harnesses it for the trade war against China. If he does so, the combined forces of the U.S. and Europe will likely force China to concede. But if Trump goes it alone, a prolonged U.S.-China trade war could turn into a significant risk to global growth. How Quickly Will U.S. Inflation Rise? The equity sell-off in early February was triggered by a slightly higher-than-expected average hourly earnings number. In recent meetings, we find that clients, who last year argued that the structural pressures would keep inflation depressed ("the Philips Curve is dead"), now worry that it will quickly exceed 2%. And it is true that the three-month rate of change of core CPI has jumped recently (Chart 11, panel 1). Investors are clearly skittish about the risk of higher inflation, which would push the Fed to accelerate the pace of rate hikes. We continue to argue that core PCE inflation (the Fed's main measure) will rise slowly to 2% over the next 12 months, but we do not see it accelerating dramatically. Inflation tends to lag GDP growth by around 18 months and the pickup in growth from Q2 last year should start to feed through. This will be magnified by the 8% weakness in the US dollar over the past 12 months, which has already pushed up import prices by 2% YoY. What is missing, however, is wage pressure. Average hourly earnings are growing only at 2.6% YoY. We find that wage growth tends to lag profits by around 24 months (panel 2) and, since profits moved sideways for close to two years until Q2 last year, it may be a few quarters yet before companies feel confident enough to raise wages. Note, too, that wages have been weak compared to profits in this cycle. This is likely partly because of automation, but also because the participation rate for the core working population continues to recover towards its 2007 level, indicating there is more slack in the labor market than the headline unemployment data suggest (panel 3). Should Investors Still Own Junk Bonds? Chart 12Credit Cycle Still On The current late stage of the economic cycle has investors worried about the credit cycle and the outlook for corporate credit, in particular high-yield bonds. The number-one concern is stretched valuations. Spreads are close to all-time lows, which means investors should not expect significant capital gain. However, spreads can stay low for extended periods, especially in the late stages of the credit cycle. Junk bonds are a carry trade at this point, and investors can continue to pick up carry before a sustained period of spread widening sets in (Chart 12). A flattening yield curve is bad for junk returns, as it signals monetary policy is too restrictive. But, as inflation continues to trend higher, the curve is likely to steepen while allowing the Fed to deliver rate hikes close to its median projection. The key risk is a scenario in which inflation falters, but the Fed continues to hike. In this case a risk-off episode in credit markets would be likely, but this would be a buying opportunity and not the end of the cycle. Corporate balance-sheets have weakened, and logically investors should demand greater compensation to hold high-yield bonds. But spreads have diverged from this measure since early 2016. However, we expect improvements in corporate health since the outlook for profit growth is strong. However, a great deal of bond issuance has been used for share buybacks. If capital structures have less of an equity cushion, then recovery rates are likely to be lower when defaults do start to rise. Cross-asset volatility has returned. But credit spreads have remained calm thanks to accommodative monetary policy and easing bank lending standards. Also, stricter post-crisis bank capital regulations have mitigated the risk. Finally, the growing presence of open-ended junk bond funds and ETFs increases the risk that, once spreads start to widen, they will widen much more quickly than they would have otherwise. Who Should Invest In Hedged Foreign Government Bonds? In a recently published Special Report,4 we found that hedged foreign government bonds are a good source of diversification for bond portfolios. Hedging not only reduces the volatility of the foreign bonds, it reduces it so much that the risk-adjusted return ratio has significantly improved for investors with home currency in USD, GBP, AUD, NZD, CAD and EUR (Table 2). This is true across different time periods for most fixed income investors other than those in Japan, as shown in Chart 13. Table 2Domestic And Foreign Government Risk Return Profile (December 1999 - January 2018) Chart 13Domestic Vs. Foreign Treasury Bonds: Consistent Performance Across Time So the answer depends on investors' objectives and constraints: If investors are comfortable with the volatility in their local aggregate bond indexes, which are already a lot lower than equities, then investors in the U.S., the U.K., Canada and the euro area are better off staying home for higher returns without dealing with hedging operations. For Aussie, kiwi and Japanese investors, however, going abroad enhances returns. If investors focus on lower volatility, then all investors should invest a large portion of their portfolios overseas, with the exception of Japanese investors. If investors focus on risk-adjusted returns, then investors in Australia, New Zealand, the U.S., the U.K. and Canada are better off investing a large portion overseas. Global Economy Overview: Global growth remains robust, though momentum has slowed slightly in recent weeks. No recession is likely before 2020 at the earliest due to strong U.S. fiscal stimulus. Inflation will slowly rise towards central bank targets but there is little reason to expect it to accelerate dramatically, and so we see no need for aggressive monetary tightening. U.S.: Short-term, growth looks to have softened, with the Citigroup Economic Surprise Index turning down (Chart 14, top panel), and the regional Fed NowCasts for Q1 GDP growth pointing to 2.4%-2.7%. However, growth over the next two years should be boosted by the recent tax cuts and government spending increases, which we estimate will push up GDP growth by 0.8% in 2018 and 1.3% in 2019. Wages should start to rise from their current sluggish levels (average hourly earnings only up 2.6% YoY) given the tight labor market, which should boost consumption. Capex (panel 5) is likely to continue to recover due to tax cuts and a high level of businesses confidence. Euro Area: Growth has been steady in recent quarters, with Q4 GDP rising 2.5% QoQ annualized. However, lead indicators such as the PMI (Chart 15, top panel) have rolled over, probably because of the strong euro (up 6.2% in trade-weighted terms over the past 12 months). The effect has yet to be seen in exports, which continue to grow strongly, 6.2% YoY in February, but earnings results for Q4 surprised much less on the upside in the euro area than in the U.S. Chart 14Growth Robust, But Momentum Slowing Chart 15Strong Currencies Denting EU And Japanese Growth Japan: As an export-oriented, cyclical economy, Japan has also benefitted from better global conditions, with GDP rising by 1.6% QoQ annualized in Q4. However, like Europe, the stronger currency has begun to dent the external sector, with industrial production and the leading index slowing (Chart 15, panel 2). However, more encouraging signs are appearing domestically: retail sales rose by 2.5% YoY in January and part-time wages are up 2.0% YoY. As a result, inflation is finally emerging, with CPI (excluding food and energy) up 0.3% YoY. Emerging Markets: China's growth remains steady, with the Caixin PMI at 51 (panel 3). However, credit and money supply growth continue to point to a slowdown in coming months. This may be evident when March data (unaffected by the shifting timing of Chinese New Year) becomes available. Elsewhere in EM, growth has picked up moderately: Q4 GDP growth came in at an annualized rate of 7.2% in India, 3.0% in Korea, and even 2.1% in Brazil and 1.8% in Russia. Interest rates: A modest rise in inflation expectations (panel 4) has led to a rise in long-term rates, with the U.S. 10-year yield rising from 2.5% to almost 3% during Q1 before slipping back a little. We expect the Fed to hike four times this year, and think this will push up the 10-year Treasury yield to 3.3-3.5% by year-end. The ECB continues to emphasize that it will move only slowly to raise rates after halting asset purchases later this year, and we think the market has correctly priced the timing of the first hike for Q4 2019. We see no reason why the BoJ will end its Yield Curve Control policy, with inflation still well below the 2% target. Chart 16Cautiously Optimistic Global Equities Tip-Toeing Through The Late Cycle. Global equities experienced widespread corrections in the first quarter after a very strong start in January gave way to fear of rising inflation in the U.S., fear of slowing growth in China, and fear of rising geopolitical tensions globally. The return of macro volatility was so violent that it pushed the VIX to high readings not seen since 2015. Granted, a background of stretched valuations, complacency, and the "fear of missing out" also contributed to the market correction. The healthy correction of global equities from the high in late January has seen valuations contracting as earnings continued to grow at strong pace (Chart 16). BCA's house view is that global growth may be peaking, but should remain strong and above trend, underpinning decent earnings growth for the next 9-12 months. As such, we retain our pro-cyclical tilts in global equity allocations, overweight cyclical sectors and underweight defensive sectors; overweight high-beta DM markets (Japan and euro area); neutral on the U.S. and Canada; and underweight EM and Australia, the markets that would suffer most from a deceleration in Chinese growth. However, we are late in the cycle and valuations remain stretched by historical standards despite the recent correction. With macro volatility returning, investors should be very conscious of potential risks that could derail the uptrend in equities. For investors with higher aversion to risk, we suggest raising cash by selling into strength or dialing down the overweight of cyclicals vs defensives. Anatomy Of EM/DM Outperformance Since their low in early 2016, EM equities have outperformed DM in total return terms by more than 20%, of which 262 bps came in the first quarter of 2018, despite the rising volatility in all asset classes recently. As show in Chart 17, the outperformance of EM over DM has been dominated by three sectors: Technology, Financials and Energy. In the two-year period ending December 2017, over half of the EM outperformance came from the Tech sector, followed by Financials and Energy, accounting for 32% and 14% respectively. In Q1 2018, however, Tech's contribution dropped sharply to 0.3%, while Financials and Energy shot up to 51% and 33% respectively. Even though Energy is a relatively small sector, accounting for 6-7% of benchmark weights in both EM and DM, the diverging performance between EM and DM Energy sectors has played an important role in the EM outperformance. In the two years ending December 2017, EM Energy outperformed its DM counterpart by 32%, the same magnitude as the Tech sector (Table 3). In Q1 2018, EM Energy gained 7.6% while DM Energy suffered a 5.2% decline, resulting in a staggering 13% outperformance (Table 4). Chart 17Sector Contributions To EM/DM Outperformance Table 3Two-Year Performance Attribution* (December 2015 - December 2017) Table 4Q1/2018 Attribution* (December 2015 - December 2017) Country-wise, Brazil and China led the outperformance, helped by the Brazilian real's 30% appreciation against the U.S. dollar. BCA's EM Strategy believes that Brazilian equities and the real will both weaken given the country's weak governance and poor fiscal profile. Chart 18Style Performance We are neutral on Tech globally, and the general reliance of EM equities on Chinese growth, and the high leverage in EM do not bode well for EM equities. Remain underweight EM vs. DM. A Sector Approach To Style Year to date, the equal-weighted multi-factor portfolio has outperformed the global benchmark slightly, largely driven by the strong outperformance of Momentum and Quality, while Value and Minimum Volatility (MinVol) have underperformed (Chart 18, top three panels). This is in line with our previous regime analysis that indicated rising growth and inflation is a good environment for Momentum and Quality, but a bad one for Min Vol.5 As we have argued before, we prefer sector positioning to style positioning because 1) the major style tilts such as Value/Growth, Min Vol and Small Cap/Large Cap have seen significant sector shifts over time, and 2) sector selection offers more flexibility. As shown in Chart 18 (bottom three panels), the relative performance of Min Vol is a mirror image of Cyclicals vs Defensives, while Value/Growth is highly correlated with Cyclicals/Defensives. In a Special Report,6 we elaborated in-depth that sector selection is a better alternative to size selection, especially in the U.S. We maintain our neutral view on styles, and continue to favor Cyclicals versus Defensives. Given that we are at the late stage of the business cycle, investors with lower risk tolerance may consider gradually dialing down exposure to cyclical tilts. For stock pickers, this would mean favoring stocks with low volatility, high quality and strong momentum. Government Bonds Maintain Slight Underweight On Duration. Despite rising volatility due to changes in inflation expectations and uncertain developments in geopolitics, the investment backdrop has been evolving in line with our 2018 Strategy Outlook. Global growth continues at a strong pace (Chart 19) and our U.S. Bond Strategy has increased its yield forecast to the range of 3.3-3.6%, from 2.80-3.25% previously, reflecting both a higher real yield and higher inflation expectations. The U.S. 10-year Treasury yield increased by 34 bps in Q1 to 2.74%, still lower than our fair value estimate, implying that there is still upside risk for global bond yields. As such, investors should continue to underweight duration in global government bonds. Favor Linkers Vs. Nominal Bonds. The base case forecast from our U.S. Bond Strategy is that the U.S. TIPS breakeven will rise to 2.3-2.5% around the time that U.S. core PCE reaches the Fed's 2% target rate, likely sometime in 2H 2018. Compared to the current level of 2.05, this means the 10-year TIPS has upside of 25-45 bps, an important source of relative return in the low-return fixed income space (Chart 20). Maintain overweight TIPS vs. nominal bonds. In terms of relative value, however, TIPS are no longer cheap. For those who have not moved to overweight TIPS, we suggest "buying TIPS on dips". In addition, inflation-linked bonds (ILBs) in Australia and Japan are still very attractive vs. their respective nominal bonds (Chart 20, bottom panel). Overweight ILBs in those two markets also fits well with our macro themes. Chart 19Further Upside In Bond Yields Chart 20Favor Inflation linkers Corporate Bonds We continue to favor both investment grade and high-yield corporate bonds within the fixed-income category. High-yield spreads barely reacted to the sell-offs in equities in February and March (Chart 21). We see credit spreads as a useful indicator of recessions and equity bear markets and so the fact that they did not rise suggests no broad-based risk aversion. Moreover, this resilience comes despite significant outflows from high-yield ETFs, $4.4 billion year-to-date, almost completely reversing the inflows over the previous three quarters. We still find spreads in this space attractive. BCA estimates the default-adjusted spread is still around 250 basis points (assuming default losses of 1.3% over the coming 12 months) which, while not cheap, is less overvalued than other fixed-income categories (Chart 22). Investment grade spreads, however, have widened in recent weeks (Chart 21), with the rise concentrated in the highest-quality credits. This is most likely because investors see little value in these securities. We keep our overweight but we focus on cross-over credits and sectors where valuations are still reasonable, for example energy, airlines and insurance companies. Excessive leverage remains a concern for corporate bond losses in the next recession. BCA's Corporate Health Monitor (Chart 23) has improved in recent quarters, mostly due to stronger profitability. But the deterioration in interest coverage ratios in recent years makes companies vulnerable to higher rates. We estimate that a 100 basis point increase in interest rates across the corporate curve would lead to a drop in the ratio of EBITDA to interest expenses from 4.0 to 2.5.7 Sectors such as Materials, Technology, Consumer Discretionary and Energy appear especially at risk.8 Chart 21IG Spreads Have Widened, But Not HY Chart 22Junk Bonds Still Offer Some Value Chart 23Leverage Is A Worry For The Next Recession Commodities Chart 24OPEC Agreements Hold The Key Energy (Overweight): Demand/supply fundamentals have been driving prices in crude oil markets (Chart 24). Fundamentals remain favorable as strong global demand is keeping the market in physical deficit. However, the outlook for demand has turned cloudy as the market may start to price in the possibility of a trade war which would dent growth. Also, threats of renewed sanctions against Iran and deeper ones against Venezuela could potentially disrupt supply sufficiently to push up the crude price. Given rising uncertainties with the demand and supply outlook, we expect increased volatility in the crude price. We maintain our forecasts for the average 2018 prices for Brent and WTI at $74 and $70 respectively. Industrial Metals (Neutral): As President Trump moves ahead with protectionist policies, markets are being spooked by the possibility of a trade war. Looking past the noise, since China remains the largest source of demand, price action will follow domestic Chinese market fundamentals which are a function of how authorities handle a possible growth slowdown. The possibility of global trade disruptions, coupled with a recovery in the U.S. dollar, suggests increased price volatility. We are particularly negative on zinc. Spanish zinc has been flooding into China, depressing physical premiums and causing inventory accumulation (Chart 24, panel 3). Precious Metals (Neutral): Rising trade protectionism, geopolitical tensions, and diverging monetary policy will be sources of increased market volatility for the rest of the year. When equity markets went through a minor correction earlier this year, gold outperformed global equities by 6%. However, rising interest rates and a potentially stronger U.S. dollar are two headwinds for the gold price. We continue to recommend gold as a safe haven asset against unexpected market volatility and inflation surprises (Chart 24, panel 4). Currencies Chart 25Dollar Will Stage A Recovery Rally U.S. Dollar: Following its 7% depreciation last year, the greenback is flat year to date. A positive output gap and strong inflation readings are giving the Fed enough reasons not to fall behind the curve. Secondly, the proposed fiscal stimulus is likely to increase the U.S.'s twin deficits which has historically been bullish for the currency, as long as it is accompanied by rising real rates. Finally, speculative positions in the dollar are net short, which means any positive surprises will be bullish for the currency. We expect the U.S. dollar to stage a recovery rally in the coming months (Chart 25, panel 1). Carry Trades: Cross-asset class volatility is making a strong comeback. Carry trades fare poorly in volatile FX markets. High-yielding EM currencies like the BRL, TRY, and ZAR will underperform, whereas low yielding safe-haven funding currencies like the Swiss franc and Japanese yen, in countries with outsized net international investment positions, will be the winners. Finally, the return of volatility could hurt global economic sentiment and possibly weigh on growth-sensitive currencies like the KRW, AUD and NZD (Chart 25, panel 2). Euro: Analyzing the euro's strength, we see a 9% divergence in performance between the EUR/USD pair and the trade-weighted euro. Global synchronized growth was driven predominantly by a recovery in manufacturing which benefited the euro area more than the U.S. Also looking at history, the euro tends to appreciate relative to USD in the last two years of economic upswings driven by strong growth. Finally, the recent divergence in relative interest rates is a clear sign that other fundamental factors, such as the current account balance, have been exerting pressure. Sentiment and positioning remain extremely euro bullish, hence any disappointment with economic data will force a correction (Chart 25, panel 3). GBP: Since 2017, the pound has strengthened by over 16% vs. USD. An appreciating currency has dented inflation readings, thereby limiting the pass-through effects via the Bank of England hiking rates. A hurdle to further appreciation is negative growth in real disposable income and declining household confidence. Finally, weak FDI inflows will hurt the U.K.'s basic balance. Since the BoE will find it difficult to tighten policy much, we expect a correction in the next few months (Chart 25, panel 4). Alternatives Investors have been increasing their allocation to alternatives, pushing AUM to a record $7.7 trillion. We continue to recommend allocations through three different buckets: 1) among return enhancers, we favor private equity vs hedge funds; 2) favor direct real estate vs. commodity futures in inflation hedges; 3) favor farmland & timberland vs. structured products as volatility dampeners. But alternatives have a few challenges that require special consideration. Private Equity: Key drivers of returns have changed. In the past, managers were able to succeed by "buying low/selling high". But today, investors need to pick general partners (GPs) who can identify attractive targets and effect strategic and operational improvements. $1.7 trillion of dry powder. Global buyout value grew by 19% in 2017, but deal count grew by only 2%. High valuations multiples, stiff competition, and an uncertain macro outlook will force funds to be selective. Competition from corporate buyers. GPs are fighting with large corporations looking for growth through acquisition. Private equity's share of overall M&A activity globally declined in 2017 for the fourth year running. Competition for targets is boosting entry multiples in the middle-market segment. Hedge Funds: Net exposure for long/short managers has remained static over market cycles, which means investors pay too much for market exposure. But if we see market rotation or increased dispersion of single stock returns, this hedge fund group will benefit. Discretionary macro will benefit from differing growth outlooks, idiosyncratic events, and local rate cycles. Also, potential for more dispersion in the large-cap space and at the index level will benefit systematic macro. Event-driven funds have been hurt by deal-spread volatility as shareholder opposition, anti-trust concerns and political issues led to deal delays. But we continue to favor short-term special situations in less-followed markets such as Asia. Real Estate: After strong growth in capital values, driven by low rates and cap rate compression, investors need to focus on income-driven total returns. Additionally, income returns do not vary across markets nearly as much as capital value growth. Increase focus on core strategies. Look for properties in prime locations with long and stable lease contracts. Investors can also consider loans made to high-quality borrowers which are secured against properties with stable cash flows. Private Debt: With ultra-low yields, private debt offers attractive risk-adjusted return, diversification, and a potential cash flow profile ideal for institutional investors. However, it is critical to source a differentiated pipeline of opportunities. Infrastructure debt, with a long expected useful life, can provide effective duration for liability matching. Risk-adjusted returns can be enhanced by directly sourcing and structuring. Risks To Our View We see the risks to our main scenario (strong growth continuing through 2019, moderate inflation, late cycle volatility, and rising geopolitical risks) as balanced. There are a number of obvious downside risks, including an escalating trade war, a sharp upside surprise to inflation, and the Fed turning more hawkish (perhaps in an attempt to demonstrate its independence if President Trump pressures it not to raise rates). Among the risks less appreciated by investors is a slowdown in China. Leading indicators of the Chinese economy, particularly money supply and credit growth, continue to slow (Chart 26). Xi Jinping's recent senior appointments suggests he is serious about structural reform, which would mean accepting slower growth in the short-term to put China on a sounder long-term growth path. Linked to this, we also think investors are insufficiently concerned about the impact of rising rates on emerging market borrowers. If, as we expect, U.S. long rates rise to close to 3.5% over the next year and the dollar strengthens, the $3.5 trillion of foreign-currency borrowing by EM borrowers could become a burden (Chart 27). Chart 26What If China Slows? Chart 27Highed Indebted EM Borrowers Are A Risk Chart 28Presidents Like Markets To Rise Upside risk centers on a continuation of strong growth and dovish central banks. We may be underestimating the impact of U.S. fiscal policy. Our assumption that it will peter out in 2020 may be wrong, if President Trump goes for further stimulus ahead of the presidential election - the third and fourth years of presidential cycles are usually the best for stocks (Chart 28). Wages may stay low because of automation. In the face of this the Fed may stay dovish: it already shows some signs of allowing an overshoot of its 2% inflation target, to balance the six years that it missed it to the downside. All this could produce a stock market meltup, similar to 1999. 1 See, for example, Clashing Over Commerce: A History of U.S. Trade Policy, Douglas J, Irwin, Chicago 2017, chapter 8. 2 For an analysis of the geopolitical implications, please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "We Are All Geopolitical Strategists Now," dated March 27, 2018. 3 Please see the What Our Clients Are Asking: How Quickly Will U.S. Inflation Rise? on page 8 of this Quarterly Portfolio Outlook for the reasons why this is our view. 4 Please see Global Asset Allocation Special Report, "Why Invest In Foreign Government Bonds?" dated March 12, 2018 available at gaa.bcaresearch.com 5 Please see Global Asset Allocation Special Report, "Is Smart Beta A Useful Tool In Global Asset Allocation?" dated July 8, 2016, available at gaa.bcaresearch.com 6 Please see Global Asset Allocation Special Report, "Small Cap Outperformance: Fact Or Myth?" dated April 7, 2017, available at gaa.bcaresearch.com 7 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst, "Leverage And Sensitivity To Rising Rates: The U.S. Corporate Sector," dated February 22, 2018. 8 Please see also What Our Clients Are Asking: Should Investors Still Own Junk Bonds, on page 9 of this Quarterly Update, for more analysis of this asset class. GAA Asset Allocation

Highlights BCA expects consumer spending to remain supportive of above-trend economic growth in the U.S. in the next few quarters. Our view is that the 2018 outlook for both the U.S. economy and corporate profits remains constructive, but evidence is gathering that worldwide growth is peaking. Today's elevated levels of corporate leverage could intensify the pullback in business spending in the next recession. Housing is a reliable leading indicator of economic activity. Spending on new construction will enhance growth in the coming year, allowing the economy to expand at a pace well above its long-term potential. Feature U.S. equity prices rallied last week, although the NASDAQ lagged the broader indices. Despite the gain in the final week of the month, the S&P 500 finished lower in March. The back to back monthly declines in February and March were the first since September and October 2016. The 10-year Treasury yield fell last week, and credit underperformed. Oil and gold prices sold-off, but the dollar rose. Worries about global growth and a widening trade war were the key drivers, as investors looked ahead to Q1 earnings reporting season, which will kick into high gear next week. BCA expects global growth to be solid this year, although there are signs that growth is peaking outside the U.S. Moreover, the U.S. economy appears to be generating positive momentum, aided by housing and capex. This is why we expect 2018 to record strong EPS growth in the U.S., which will provide the equity market with a strong tailwind. That said, elevated levels of corporate leverage and low interest coverage ratios are a concern. Stay long stocks over bonds. We expect consumer spending to remain supportive of above-trend economic growth in the U.S. in the next few quarters. Household balance sheets are the best that they have been since 2007. Net worth is soaring and the aggregate debt-to-income ratio is close to record lows last seen at the turn of this century. Moreover, conditions that crushed the consumer ahead of the 2007-2008 recession are not in place and will not be for some time. Chart 1 shows that at 41.4%, household purchases of essentials as a percentage of disposable income are near an all-time low and have dropped by almost 2 percentage points since 2012. In contrast, spending on necessities rose by a record 3% in the five years ending 2008, matching levels reached at the end of the 1980s that reflected rising interest rates, surging inflation and soaring oil prices. Wrenching consumer-driven economic downturns ensued after both episodes. We see gradual increases ahead for both oil prices and interest rates, but nothing that would trigger the collapse of consumer spending. Furthermore, BCA forecasts only a modest rise in inflation and an acceleration in wage growth; both will boost disposable income. Meanwhile, U.S. inflation is heading higher. The core PCE deflator accelerated to 1.6% y/y in February, up from a low of 1.3% y/y in mid-2017. The coming months should see a further acceleration in inflation, in part due to the very soft base effects from last year (Chart 2). That said, one worrying point is that our diffusion index for the PCE deflator remains well below zero. This means that the inflation pick-up is not broad-based, but due to outsized gains in a few components. Core PCE inflation is usually decelerating when our diffusion index is below zero. Chart 1Consumer Is Not Stressed##BR##Despite Higher Energy Costs Chart 2BCA's Inflation Models Show Only##BR##Modest Acceleration Through Year-End Bottom Line: The Q1 weakness in consumer spending and GDP growth is unlikely to persist. A return to above-trend growth and inflation inching to the 2% target will keep the Fed on a path of gradual interest rates hikes. Animal Spirits Still Intact Our view is that the 2018 outlook for both the U.S. economy and corporate profits remain constructive, but evidence is gathering that worldwide growth is peaking. Investors may begin to question recent upward revisions to the growth outlook for this year and next. Globally, industrial production has softened and the manufacturing PMI has shifted lower in most of the advanced economies (Chart 3). Bad weather in North America and Europe in early 2018 may be partly to blame, but Korean exports - a leading indicator for the global business cycle - have also weakened. It is also disconcerting that some of BCA's measures of global activity related to capital spending are lower in recent months, including capital goods imports and industrial production of capital goods (Chart 4). Nonetheless, the G3 aggregate for capital goods orders remains in an uptrend, which suggests that it is too soon to call an end in the mini capital spending boom. Furthermore, our global leading indicators are not heralding any major economic slowdown (Chart 5). BCA's Global LEI continues to trend up and its diffusion index is above the 50 line. Chart 3A Downshift In##BR##Global Growth? Chart 4Some Measures Of##BR##Global Capex Have Softened Chart 5Global Leading Indicators Are Not##BR##Heralding A Major Economic Slowdown Turning to the U.S., the environment for continued robust capital spending is still in place. The Tax Cut and Jobs Act of 2017 will boost capex, although we note that business spending tends to climb faster in the 12 months before a corporate tax cut than in the year afterward.1 The caveat is that there have been only three corporate tax cuts in the past 50 years. Both BCA's real and nominal capex models, driven by surging capital goods orders along with elevated ISM data, roaring global exports and robust sentiment on business spending, indicate strong investment in plant and equipment in the next few quarters (Chart 6). CEO confidence reached an all-time high in 2018Q1. According to the latest Duke Fuqua School of Business/CFO Magazine Global Business Outlook (Chart 7, panel 1),"sixty-six percent of U.S. CFOs say corporate tax reform is helping their companies, with 36 percent saying the overall benefit is medium or large."2 Chart 6U.S. Capex Poised For Liftoff Chart 7CEO Confidence And Capex Plans Surging Surveys by the Conference Board and Business Roundtable show similar patterns (Chart 7, panel 1). Notably, the soundings on all three surveys climbed since Trump's election, but subsequently retreated as his pro-business agenda stalled during the summer. The dip in sentiment reflected the lack of legislative progress in Washington in the first 10 months of the Trump administration. The upbeat numbers in the regional Federal Reserve Banks' surveys of capital spending intentions further support escalating capex in the next few quarters. The average reading from the New York, Philadelphia and Richmond Feds' capex survey plans are at an all-time high in early 2018 (Chart 7, panel 2). Furthermore, the regional FRBs' capex spending plans diffusion indices are close to a cycle high, despite a modest pullback since last summer (Chart 7, panel 3). In addition, ABC's Construction Backlog indicator (CBI),3 a leading indicator that measures in months the amount of construction underway but not yet completed, hit a peak early this year, which suggests that 2018 is poised to be a strong year for nonresidential building activity (Chart 8). Moreover, architectural billings hit a new cycle high in Q4 2017(not shown). This signifies that investment in office, industrial and commercial space will accelerate in the coming year. However, there are some warning signs in the nonresidential construction portion of capital spending. Commercial real estate (CRE) prices have galloped to new heights (Chart 9, panel 1). Rent growth in all but the industrial buildings sub component of the U.S. CRE sector is starting to slow, suggesting that supply is slowly catching up with demand (Chart 9, panel 2) and that a slowdown in construction may ensue. Chart 8Nonresidential Construction##BR##Backlog At Eight Year High Chart 9Commercial Real Estate Prices Have##BR##Surpassed Pre-Recession Levels Corporate Health Fundamentals Last week's National Accounts (NIPA) corporate profit report allows us to update BCA's Corporate Health Monitor (CHM) (Chart 10). The level of the CHM improved slightly between Q3 and Q4, but the overall reading remains in 'deteriorating health' territory. However, the CHM moved slowly back toward "improving health" in 2017. The improvement in Q4 was broad-based, as five of the six components improved. Liquidity decreased slightly between Q3 and Q4. Leverage declined and interest coverage improved. Our CHM has a tendency to improve during phases of increased fiscal thrust.4 In contrast, corporate leverage increases substantially in the 12 months following a corporate tax cut. As an economic expansion enters the late stages, investors focus on where leverage pressure points may lurk. The Bank Credit Analyst's March 2018 Special Report5 on U.S. corporate vulnerability to higher interest rates and a recession raised some eyebrows. In a sample of 770 companies, we estimated how much interest coverage for an average company would decline under two scenarios: (1) interest rates rise by 100 basis points across the curve; and (2) interest rates rise by 100 basis points and there is a recession in which corporate profits tumble by 25% peak to trough. Given the number of client inquiries, we re-examined our results. We questioned whether our sample of high-yield companies distorted the overall results because it included many small firms and outliers. We are more comfortable with the results using only investment-grade firms, shown in Chart 11. The 'x' marks the interest rate shock and the 'o' marks the combined shock. Chart 10Corporate Health Improved In 2017 Chart 11Interest Coverage Is Deteriorating Nonetheless, the main qualitative message is unchanged. The starting point for interest coverage is low, considering that interest rates are near the lowest levels on record and profits are extremely high relative to GDP. This is the result of an extended period of corporate releveraging on the back of low borrowing rates. Chart 12 shows that the interest coverage ratio has declined even as profit margins remained elevated. Normally the two move together through the cycle. The implication is that the next recession will see the interest coverage ratio fare worse than in previous recessions. Rating agencies use many other financial ratios and statistics, but our results suggest that downgrades will proliferate when the agencies realize that the economy begins to turn south. Moreover, banks may tighten their C&I lending standards earlier and more aggressively because they also will be attuned to the first hint of economic trouble given the degree of corporate leverage in their portfolios. Recovery rates may be particularly low in the next recession because the equity cushion has been squeezed via buybacks, which will intensify widening pressures in corporate spreads. Tighter lending standards would generate more corporate defaults, even wider spreads and a more pronounced tightening in financial conditions. Therefore, corporate leverage could intensify the pullback in business spending in the next recession. The good news is that we do not see any other major macroeconomic imbalances, such as areas of overspending that could turn a mild recession into a nasty one. The market and rating agencies will ignore the leverage issue as long as growth remains solid. Indeed, ratings migration has improved markedly following energy-related downgrades in 2014 and 2015. An improving rating migration ratio is usually associated with corporate bond outperformance relative to Treasurys (Chart 13). For now, we remain overweight U.S. investment-grade and high-yield bonds within fixed-income portfolios. Chart 12Margins And Interest Coverage##BR##For Investment Grade Firms Chart 13Improving Ratings Migration##BR##Supports Our Credit Overweight Bottom Line: We are keeping an eye on our Corporate Health Monitor, bank lending standards, the yield curve and our profit margin proxy to time our exit from both corporate bonds and equities.6 We are also watching for a rise in the 10-year TIPS breakeven rate above 2.3% as a signal that the FOMC will get more aggressive in leaning against above-trend growth and a falling unemployment rate. The tightening labor market will continue to support the housing market, despite higher mortgage rates. Risks To Housing Are Limited Residential investment will add to growth in 2018. Inventories of new and existing homes are close to all-time lows (Chart 14). Housing affordability remains well above average and will remain supportive of housing investment even if rates climb by 100 bps (Chart 15). Recent soundings from the Fed's Senior Loan Officers survey shows that mortgage demand has ebbed in recent quarters (Chart 16). The housing sector has also benefited from a recovery in household formation in the past few years alongside the labor market and disposable income. Chart 14Housing Fundamentals##BR##Are Stout Chart 15Housing Affordability Under##BR##Various Rate Assumptions Chart 16Supply And Demand##BR##For Mortgages On that note, it is encouraging that the 10-year slide in the homeownership rate appears to have run its course (Chart 14, panel 3). Furthermore, U.S. real residential home prices are still below their 2006 peak. In addition, at under 3.9%, residential investment as a share of GDP remains well below the 12-year high of 6.6% achieved in 2005 (Chart 17, panel 1). It is difficult to see how residential investment can decline meaningfully when household formation is on the rise and home inventories are already low. Homebuilders appear to agree with this sentiment and report confidence levels near all-time peaks (Chart 17, panel 2). Employment in construction and related fields also suggests that the housing market remains on solid footing. (Chart 18, panel 1 and 2). Panel 3 shows that nearly 80% of states have escalating construction employment. This metric tends to lead construction jobs by a few months. Moreover, construction jobs tend to be at least coincident with housing construction. Segments of construction (residential and specialty employment) lead residential investment in some cases. Chart 17Real Home Prices Not Yet##BR##Back To Prior Peak Chart 18Housing Related##BR##Employment Trends Furthermore, the disconnect between the NAHB Housing Market Index and housing's contribution to economic growth (Chart 18, panel 4) also suggests housing is poised to lift off. Housing investment is the best leading indicator for real GDP growth among all sectors (Chart 14, panel 4). Construction of new homes and apartments, along with additions and alterations to existing stock, peaks as a share of GDP an average of seven quarters before the end of an expansion. Consumer spending on durable, nondurable and services reach a high, five quarters before GDP hits a zenith, while business capital spending tops out six quarters ahead of the economy. There are risks for housing despite the upbeat fundamentals. Banks have been tightening their lending standards in recent quarters, although they are still loose relative to previous cycles, and an overtightening may impede the real estate market (Chart 16). It is possible that the GOP's tax plan to significantly change the treatment of state and local real estate taxes and mortgage interest could also negatively affect housing demand, particularly in the luxury market. Additionally, rising foreign demand in certain U.S. markets may lead to mini-bubbles in coastal areas. The latest reading on the Case-Shiller home price index showed nominal housing prices climbing at the fastest rate in three years, although as noted above, inflation-adjusted house prices remain below prior peaks. A prolonged period of house price increases above income gains would challenge our sanguine view of housing affordability. However, the Fed and the banking system are hyper-vigilant about excesses in the housing market, therefore, it is unlikely that another housing bubble will be tolerated. Bottom Line: Housing is a reliable leading indicator of economic activity. Spending on new construction will enhance growth in the coming year, allowing the economy to expand at a pace well above its long-term potential. Faster GDP growth will be accompanied by higher inflation and a more active Fed, especially relative to current market expectations. BCA expects global growth to be solid this year although there are signs that growth is peaking outside the U.S. Moreover, the U.S. economy appears to be generating positive momentum even before the effects of tax cuts fully kick in. This is why we expect 2018 to record strong EPS growth in the U.S., which will provide the equity market with a strong tailwind. Stay long stocks over bonds. John Canally, CFA, Senior Vice President U.S. Investment Strategy johnc@bcaresearch.com Mark McClellan, Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst markm@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report "Opportunity," dated December 11, 2017, available at usis.bca.research.com. 2 http://www.cfosurvey.org/2018q1/press-release.html 3 https://www.abc.org/News-Media/Construction-Economics/Construction-Backlog-Indicator/entryid/13680/abc-s-construction-backlog-indicator-hits-a-new-high-2018-poised-to-be-a-very-strong-year-for-construction-spending 4 Please see BCA U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report "Opportunity," dated December 11, 2017, available at usis.bca.research.com. 5 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst Monthly Report, dated February 22, 2018, available at bca.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst Monthly Report, dated February 22, 2018, available at bca.bcaresearch.com.