Economy

Highlights Fed: The Fed is likely to lift rates in June, which could roil markets if economic data do not improve between now and then. Municipal Bonds: Weak state & local government revenue growth reflects the fall-out from the mid-2014 commodity price collapse. Now that energy sector capex has recovered, state & local government revenues will soon follow. Economy & Inflation: Consumer confidence remains elevated, and this should lead to a snapback in consumer spending in the second quarter. Stronger growth and a tight labor market should also cause core inflation to soon resume its uptrend, driven by accelerating wage growth. Feature How stubborn are Fed policymakers? This is an important question for markets at the moment. The Fed has clearly articulated that its base case economic outlook will result in two more rate hikes before the end of 2017, and even traditionally dovish Chicago Fed President Charles Evans said he "could be fine with two more rate hikes this year."1 Meanwhile, broad indexes of financial conditions suggest that markets can absorb another rate increase (Chart 1). Everything appears to be set up for the FOMC to lift rates by another 25 basis points when it meets next month, and this remains our expectation. The only problem is that the flow of economic data has turned decisively negative (Chart 2). Most recently, core CPI disappointed expectations by increasing only 0.1% in April, causing the year-over-year growth rate to fall to 1.9%. It was only three months ago that core CPI was growing 2.3% year-over-year. True to form, President Evans also noted last week that "downside risks [to inflation] still predominate". Chart 1Green Light From Financial Conditions Chart 2Red Light From Data Surprises The risk from a market point of view is that the Fed holds true to its promise and lifts rates in June, despite the fact that recent data have disappointed and inflation remains well below target. In that scenario, it is possible that markets come to the conclusion that the Fed is running an overly tight policy, resulting in a bear-flattening of the yield curve and a near-term sell-off in spread product. Chart 3Stay Positioned For Higher Yields As we have highlighted numerous times in the context of our Fed Policy Loop,2 with inflation below target, the Fed will be quick to adopt a more dovish stance when faced with a sharp tightening of financial conditions. This will put a floor under risk assets. Further, as was discussed in last week's report,3 negative data surprises are not likely to persist for much longer. But until that turnaround occurs, there is a heightened risk of a near-term widening in credit spreads if the Fed sticks to its guns. Ultimately, the Fed will continue to support credit spreads, and we remain overweight spread product on a 6-12 month investment horizon. Our 6-12 month outlook for Treasury yields is also unchanged, even though recent yield movements reflect the "hawkish Fed" scenario described above. The nominal 10-year yield has risen in recent weeks, driven entirely by real yields that have moved higher alongside increasingly hawkish rate hike expectations (Chart 3). The compensation for inflation protection has actually declined, in reaction to disappointing inflation data and perceptions of a more hawkish Fed. Even in the event that financial conditions tighten and the Fed is forced to adopt a more dovish policy stance, we would expect the decline in real yields to be offset by an increase in the cost of inflation compensation, which still has considerable upside (see section titled "The Consumer Is Strong, But Where's The Inflation?" below). We therefore continue to recommend a below-benchmark duration stance. Finally, futures market positioning is now solidly net long, suggesting that yields are biased higher during the next three months (Chart 3, bottom panel). Bottom Line: Risk assets could sell off in the near-term if economic data do not turn around and the Fed proceeds with a June hike. However, Fed policy will ultimately encourage tighter credit spreads and a higher cost of inflation compensation on a 6-12 month horizon. Remain at below-benchmark duration and overweight spread product. Municipal Bonds: Not Just About Taxes The uncertain outlook for fiscal policy is the immediate concern in municipal bond markets. While we expect some sort of tax bill will make its way through Congress before the end of the year, as of now, we don't have much clarity on what that bill will include. Lower corporate and individual tax rates seem likely, and the administration has also expressed a desire to curb deductions. Unfortunately, for now that's about all we can say for certain. Lower tax rates would be negative from the perspective of municipal bond investors, but fewer deductions would increase demand for munis, assuming the municipal bond tax exemption is not scrapped altogether. We haven't even mentioned the potential replacement of Obamacare and a possible federal infrastructure bill! For now, the muni market seems content to shrug off this uncertainty. Muni / Treasury (M/T) yield ratios are approaching their post-crisis lows across the entire curve (Chart 4), though longer maturity yield ratios remain elevated compared to pre-crisis levels (Chart 5). We recently recommended that investors favor long over short maturities on the Aaa muni curve.4 Chart 4Yield Ratios At Post-Crisis Lows Chart 5More Value In Long Maturities As for tax reform, although nothing is known for certain, we do expect that the administration's desire for increased infrastructure investment will keep the muni tax exemption in place. We also anticipate lower corporate and individual tax rates. How much of an impact will lower tax rates have on M/T yield ratios? Even that is hard to pin down, although we note that historically there has only been a loose relationship between yield ratios and the top marginal income tax rate (Chart 6). Chart 6The Municipal Treasury Yield Ratio & Tax Rates Further, elevated yield ratios since the financial crisis are much more driven by concerns about credit quality than changes in tax policy. With the potential for municipal bankruptcy more present than ever in investors' minds, as long as the muni tax exemption is not repealed, we think that trends in state & local government balance sheet health will continue to drive yield ratios. On that latter point, there is growing reason for optimism. Revenue Growth Ready To Rebound Periods of rising state & local government net savings have historically coincided with tightening M/T yield ratios, and vice-versa. Net savings increases when revenue growth exceeds expenditure growth. However, expenditure growth has been outpacing revenue growth since early 2015 and net savings have declined as a result (Chart 7). Unsurprisingly, state & local governments have reduced their pace of hiring in an effort to protect budgets (Chart 7, panel 3). Ratings downgrades have also spiked, but the message from our Municipal Health Monitor is that they will soon subside (Chart 7, bottom panel).5 We concur, and in fact believe that state & local government revenue growth has reached an inflection point and is poised to head higher. Breaking out the different sources of state & local government revenue we see that the recent deceleration has been concentrated in income tax and sales tax revenues (Chart 8). Property tax growth has been steady, if unspectacular. Transfers from the federal government have also decelerated since early 2015, but have been flat recently. Transfer revenue is at risk of falling if the federal government is able to pass a healthcare bill that includes the block-granting of Medicaid payments. But there is still a long road ahead before any proposed healthcare bill becomes law, and a lot can change in the interim. Chart 7A Setback In State & Local Savings Chart 8State & Local Revenue By Source What seems clear at the moment is that personal income growth is heading higher and consumer spending is firm (please see the following section of this report, titled "The Consumer Is Strong, But Where's The Inflation?", for a discussion of the outlook for income and consumer spending growth). Both suggest that income and sales tax revenue growth have bottomed for the time being. Chart 9State & Local Revenue By State Using data from the Rockefeller Institute, we can also examine state & local government revenue by state. Then, if we split out the nine states that are most heavily dependent on the energy and mining sectors,6 we observe that commodity-dependent states have dragged overall state & local government revenue growth lower since commodity prices collapsed in mid-2014 (Chart 9). Further, we see that revenue growth in commodity-dependent states is heavily influenced by nonresidential investment in the energy and mining sectors (Chart 9, bottom panel). Now that commodity prices have recovered from the 2014 bust and energy sector investment is coming back on line, we would expect state & local revenue growth to follow with a lag. Investment Implications Although we expect state & local government revenue growth to accelerate from here, yield ratios already reflect quite a lot of good news. Also, heightened policy uncertainty means there is an increased risk that yield ratios will widen sharply in the coming months. For now, we recommend only a neutral allocation to Municipal bonds within U.S. fixed income portfolios. However, an interesting opportunity could lie in focusing municipal bond exposure on those aforementioned commodity-dependent states, where revenues are likely to grow more quickly as energy capex rebounds, and whose bonds might still trade at a discount because of lower current revenues. Looking at Charts 10 & 11, we notice that the General Obligation (GO) bonds of energy-dependent Texas offer a yield advantage of 15 bps versus the overall Aaa muni curve at the 10-year maturity point. This is close to the same yield advantage offered by Massachusetts GO bonds, even though Massachusetts is rated Aa1 and Texas carries a Aaa rating. Other Aaa-rated states (Virginia, Georgia, Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina and Tennessee) trade at much lower yields. Not only that, but Texas has also seen the strongest population growth during the past 12 months of all the states in our sample (Chart 11), and employment growth in Texas should continue to rebound alongside rising oil prices (Chart 12). Our Commodity & Energy Strategy service maintains a $60/bbl year-end oil price target.7 Chart 10Grab The Premium In Texas GOs Part I Chart 11Grab The Premium In Texas GOs Part II Chart 12Texas Bouncing Back Bottom Line: Weak state & local government revenue growth reflects the fall-out from the mid-2014 commodity price collapse. Now that energy sector capex has recovered, state & local government revenues will soon follow. Commodity-dependent states should benefit disproportionately. Texas GOs in particular look attractive on a risk/reward basis. The Consumer Is Strong, But Where's The Inflation? Consumer Spending Chart 13Consumer Spending Looks Solid The post-election surge in consumer confidence does not look as though it's about to reverse. At least not according to the University of Michigan Consumer Sentiment Survey, which was released last week. The expectations component of that survey, which closely tracks real consumer spending (Chart 13), rose from 87 in April to 88.1 in May, suggesting that weak first quarter consumer spending will prove to be nothing more than a blip. We like to think about consumer spending as a combination of income growth and the savings rate. On income growth, survey measures are also pointing to an imminent acceleration (Chart 13, panel 2). Meanwhile, the savings rate will likely remain elevated compared to pre-crisis levels, but is unlikely to move meaningfully higher from here. In our February 21 report,8 we noted that while tightening bank lending standards correlated with a higher savings rate prior to the financial crisis, that relationship has since completely broken down (Chart 13, panel 3). Since the housing bust, the supply of credit is no longer the chief constraint on consumer borrowing. Households are now much more concerned with maintaining the health of their own balance sheets. For this reason, we do not view the recent tightening of consumer lending standards as a meaningful impediment to consumer spending. Similarly, we do not think the recent decline in demand for consumer credit (according to the Fed's Senior Loan Officer Survey) will soon translate into much weaker consumer spending. In prior cycles, we see that loan demand tended to fall several years prior to the next recession, while the savings rate did not spike until the recession actually hit (Chart 13, bottom panel). Inflation & TIPS As was mentioned above, the Consumer Price Index for April was also released last week. Not only was the core CPI print disappointing, but the decline was broad based across the four major components of core CPI: shelter, core goods, core services excluding shelter, and medical care (Chart 14). The tick lower in shelter inflation is not surprising, and in fact should continue now that rental vacancies have put in a bottom. We would also expect core goods inflation to stay low, given that the U.S. dollar remains in a bull market. More worrisome is the large drop in core services inflation excluding shelter (Chart 14, panel 3). This component of core inflation correlates most closely with wage growth, and we would expect this component to drive core inflation higher as the labor market tightens and wage growth accelerates. It is worth noting that while wage growth has also weakened during the past few months, leading wage growth indicators are still trending up (Chart 15). Pipeline measures of inflationary pressures, such as the core Producer Price Index and the Supplier Deliveries and Prices Paid components of the ISM Manufacturing index, are the other bright spots in the inflation outlook (Chart 16). While the 10-year TIPS breakeven rate has fallen all the way to 1.85% from its post-election high of 2.08%, these pipeline measures suggest the decline will prove fleeting. Chart 14Core CPI By Major Component Chart 15Wage Growth Will Recover Chart 16Pipeline Measures Still Positive We continue to expect that the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate will reach 2.4% to 2.5% by the time that core PCE inflation returns to the Fed's 2% target, sometime near the end of this year. Bottom Line: Consumer confidence remains elevated, and this should lead to a snapback in consumer spending in the second quarter. Stronger growth and a tight labor market should also cause core inflation to soon resume its uptrend, driven by accelerating wage growth. Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com 1 https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-05-12/evans-says-risks-to-fed-inflation-outlook-still-on-the-downside 2 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Caught In A Loop", dated September 29, 2015, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy / Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "Past Peak Pessimism", dated May 9, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Portfolio Allocation Summary, "Reflation Window Still Open", dated April 4, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 5 For further details on our Municipal Health Monitor, please see: U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, "Trading The Municipal Credit Cycle", dated October 18, 2016, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 6 These states are: Alaska, Louisiana, Montana, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Texas, West Virginia and Wyoming. 7 Please see Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, "Oil: Be Long, Or Be Wrong", dated May 11, 2017, available at ces.bcaresearch.com 8 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "The Odds Of March", dated February 21, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

Highlights The risk asset friendly outcomes in the French and South Korean elections are the latest examples of fading geopolitical risk, and we expect that to continue over the remainder of 2017. Although it has been well over a year since the last 10% pullback, the U.S. equity market is not "due" for a correction. For many investors, the drop in commodity prices has replaced geopolitics as the most likely cause of the next equity market correction. What is Dr. Copper's diagnosis? We re-examine our Yield and Protector portfolios to find out which assets will hold up best if there is a correction. Many investors cite the monthly report on average hourly earnings as evidence that the Fed has it wrong on the economy and the labor market. We disagree. Feature U.S. stock prices remain within striking distance of their all-time highs and many investors continue to worry about the next correction. The risk asset friendly outcomes in the French and South Korean elections are the latest examples of fading geopolitical risk, and we expect that to continue over the remainder of 2017. The market has all but ignored the recent political turmoil in Washington. For many investors, the drop in commodity prices has replaced geopolitics as the most likely cause of the next equity market correction, while others note that it's been more than 15 months since the last 10%+ correction and that we are "due" for one. But is Dr. Copper still a reliable indicator of equity market tops? And if a correction is at hand, which assets would hold up best on the way down? We also review yet another disconnect between the Fed and the market: average hourly earnings. Geopolitical Risk Continues To Fade As A Market Concern Emmanuel Macron's victory was a resounding one as French voters rejected Le Pen's anti-Europe message in last week's election. Removing the possibility of a French President that is dedicated to exiting the eurozone is obviously positive for European stocks and investor risk appetite the world over. Next up are the two rounds of legislative elections in June. Polls are sparse, but they support the view that Macron's En Marche and the center-right Les Republicains will capture the vast majority of seats in the legislature. A Macron presidency supported by Les Republicains in the National Assembly would be a bullish outcome for investors, according to our geopolitical strategists. On the international stage - where the president has few constraints - France will be led by a committed Europhile willing to push Germany towards a more proactive policy. On the domestic stage - where the National Assembly dominates - Macron's cautiously pro-growth agenda will be pushed further to the right by Les Republicains. Such an election outcome would make possible the passage of genuine structural reforms that would suppress wage growth and make French exports more competitive. The presidential election result in South Korea last week was exactly what the market expected, and should help to reduce tensions on the Korean peninsula. For now, the situation in Washington around President Trump's firing of FBI Director Comey has not had a major impact on markets. If the Democrats win the House of Representatives in 2018, our geopolitical team believes that impeachment proceedings will begin against Trump. On one hand, this means that polarization in the U.S. is about to reach record-high levels. On the other, it should motivate the GOP to get tax reform done before it is too late. Bottom Line: Investors may be shocked into pricing greater odds of Euro Area dissolution when Italy comes back into focus, but that is a risk for 2018. We expect market-friendly policies emerging from Washington this year, although the Comey affair highlights that the road will be anything but smooth. Corrections And Pullbacks In Context Geopolitical risk appear to have faded for now, but with U.S. equities at or close to all-time highs, talk of a correction is hard to avoid. We continue to favor stocks over bonds this year and suggest that any sell-off in equities will be bought not sold. A hard landing in China, major disappointment on the Trump legislative agenda, a prolonged spell of weakness in the U.S. economic data1, and an overly aggressive Fed in 2017 may all serve as catalysts for a pullback. Above average PE ratios and measures of market volatility that are at cycle lows have only added to the chorus of those saying we are "due" for a correction. History suggests otherwise. From the end of WWII through 2009, the S&P 500 has experienced, on average, two 10% corrections and 10 corrections of 5% of more during equity bull markets. Since the start of the current bull market in March 2009 we've had 22 pullbacks of 5% or more and six corrections of more than 10% (using market closing prices) Table 1. This suggests that the market has seen its fair share of pullbacks and corrections since 2009, and isn't really "due". Chart 1 takes a different approach, but reaches the same conclusion. At 15 months (325 days) since the end of the last 10% correction, the current bull market is right of the middle of the pack of all bull markets since 1932. Table 1Six S&P 500 Corrections Of 10% Or More Since March 2009: We're Not "Due" Chart 1Current Equity Bull Market Is Not Long In The Tooth Our view remains that any pullback in U.S. equities will be bought, not sold, and we favor stocks over bonds in 2017. There are few notable imbalances in the U.S. or global economies and we see an acceleration in both over the remainder of 2017. The Fed will raise rates gradually this year, and there is general agreement between the Fed and the market on the pace of hikes at least for 2017. The Fed and the market remain far apart on hikes in 2018. Our view of the economy and labor market suggests that the market will ultimately move toward the Fed's view. The U.S. corporate earnings outlook remains solid, after a very good Q1 earnings season and favorable guidance for Q2 2017 and beyond. Bottom Line: Equity pullbacks - even during bull markets - are normal and healthy. We do not believe that the market is especially "overdue" for a pullback, but when the inevitable pullback or correction occurs, we expect that investors will take the opportunity to add to equity positions and not turn the pullback into a bear market. Dr. Copper? Chart 2Metals Prices Are Rolling Over...##BR##But Is It A Signal? The recent setback in the commodity pits has added to investor angst regarding global growth momentum. The LMEX base metals index is up almost 20% on a year-ago basis, but has fallen by 8% since February (Chart 2). From their respective peaks earlier this year, zinc and copper are down about 10%, nickel has dropped by 22% and iron ore has lost almost half of its value. Is the venerable "Dr. Copper" sending an important warning about world growth? Some of our global leading economic indicators have edged lower this year, as we have discussed in recent Weekly Reports. Nonetheless, the decline in base metals prices likely has more to do with other factors, such as an unwinding of the surge in speculative demand that immediately followed the U.S. election last autumn. Speculators may be disappointed by the lack of progress on Republican promises to cut taxes and boost infrastructure spending. The main story for base metals demand and prices, however, is the Chinese real estate sector. China accounts for roughly 50% of world consumption for each of the major metals. The Chinese authorities are trying to cool the property market and transition to a more consumer spending-oriented economy, thereby reducing the dependence on exports, capital spending and real estate as growth drivers. Fiscal policy tightened last year and new regulations were introduced to limit housing speculation. The effect of policy tightening can be seen in our Credit and Fiscal Spending Impulse indicator, which has been softening since mid-2016 (Chart 3). The economy held up well last year, but the policy adjustment resulted in a peaking of the PMI at year-end. Growth in housing starts also appears to be rolling over (annual growth is shown on a 12-month moving-average basis in Chart 4 because of the extreme volatility in the series). Both the PMI and housing starts are correlated with commodity prices. Chart 3China is The Main Story##BR##For Base Metals Demand Chart 4Direct Fiscal Spending And Infrastructure##BR##Have Picked Up Recently The good news is that BCA's China Investment Strategy service does not expect a major downshift in Chinese real GDP growth this year, which means that commodity import demand should rebound: Chart 5Dr. Copper Is Not Signaling##BR##A Slowdown in Global Growth There is no incentive for the authorities to crunch the economy given that consumer price inflation is still low and the surge in producer price inflation appears to have peaked. Monetary conditions have tightened a little in recent months, but overall conditions are not restrictive. Moreover, both direct fiscal spending and infrastructure investment have picked up noticeably in recent months (Chart 4). Export growth will continue to accelerate based on our model (not shown). The upturn in the profit cycle and firming output prices should boost capital spending. Robust demand will ensure that housing construction will continue to grow at a healthy pace. Households' home-buying intentions jumped to an all-time high last quarter. Tighter housing policies in major cities will prevent a massive boom, but this will not short-circuit the recovery in housing construction. This all adds up to a fairly benign outlook for base metals. Our commodity strategists do not see the conditions for a major bull or bear phase on a 6-12 month horizon. Within commodity portfolios, they recommend a benchmark allocation to base metals, an underweight in agricultural products and an overweight in oil. We intend to update our view on oil prices in the May 22, 2017 edition of this report. Bottom Line: From a broader perspective, our key message is that "Dr. Copper" is not signaling that global growth will soften significantly this year. Chart 5 highlights that the LMEX base metals index has a high positive correlation with the U.S. stock-to-bond total return ratio on a daily change basis. However, in terms of trends and turning points, base metals are far from a reliable indicator for the stock-to-bond ratio. Where To Hide In A Stock Market Correction Over the past several years, BCA's U.S. Investment Strategy service has periodically recommended that investors add a variety of investments as portfolio "insurance" to help guard against the possibility of a material correction in equities. More recently, we have highlighted two specific forms of insurance: our yield and protector portfolios. We last discussed the protector portfolio in the October 17, 2016 and November 7, 2016 Weekly Reports2, and in today's report we revisit the issue by comparing both portfolios to a more common form of insurance: shifting from cyclical to defensive stocks within an equity allocation. Charts 6, 7, and 8 show a breakdown of the relative performance of S&P 500 defensives along with our yield and protector portfolios. Panels 2 and 3 of Charts 6, 7 and 8 present the rolling 1-year beta and alpha of each strategy vs. the S&P 500. Here, we present alpha as the difference between the actual year-over-year excess return of the portfolio (vs. short-term Treasury bills) and what would have been expected given the portfolio's beta. This measure is sometimes referred to as "Jensen's alpha". Chart 6A Modestly Low-Beta Option Chart 7A Lower Beta Than Defensives Chart 8A Negative Beta, And Positive Alpha There are several noteworthy observations from the charts: Based on the historical beta of the three portfolios vs. the S&P 500, defensive stocks are the most correlated with the overall equity market. Our protector portfolio has a negative correlation to the broad market, and our yield portfolio is somewhere in between, with a positive but relatively low beta. This is consistent with the equity composition of the three portfolios (shown in Table 2); with our protector portfolio composed entirely of non-equity assets. Table 2A Breakdown Of Three##BR##Portfolio Insurance Options After accounting for their lower beta, all three portfolios have tended to outperform the S&P in risk-adjusted terms since the onset of the global economic recovery. But this outperformance has been more significant for our yield and protector portfolios: the top panel of Charts 7 and 8 highlight that both portfolios have generated essentially the same return as equities have since the end of the recession (since the relative profile has been flat), despite exhibiting considerably less volatility than stocks. All three portfolios have experienced a relative decline vs. the S&P 500 since the election, but this has largely occurred due to passive rather than active underperformance. In other words, they have underperformed due to a failure to keep up with the S&P 500 rather than because of losses in absolute terms. There are two important conclusions from Charts 6, 7 and 8 for U.S. multi-asset investors. First, the lower beta of our yield and protector portfolios compared with S&P defensives means that the former represent a better insurance bet against a sell-off in the equity market than the latter. Second, the persistently positive volatility-adjusted returns for our insurance portfolios highlights an investor preference for these assets over the past few years, which is likely to persist over the coming 6-12 months. But investors should also recognize that this preference could eventually be subject to a reversal if the long-term economic outlook significantly improves, an event that could be catalyzed either by organic economic developments or policy decisions by the Trump administration. For now, our investment bias towards equities over government bonds makes us less inclined to favor a low beta position within a balanced portfolio. But our analysis suggests that clients who anticipate the need for portfolio insurance over the coming year should favor our yield and protector portfolios over a defensive sector allocation within an equity portfolio, and we are likely to recommend an allocation to these portfolios for all clients were we to see any material progression towards the sell-off triggers that we identified earlier in the report. Bottom Line: Investors seeking some protection against a potential equity market sell-off should favor our yield and protector portfolios over defensive sector positioning. We do not currently recommend these portfolios for all clients, but we are likely to do so if our key sell-off trigger "red lines" are breached. What's Up With Wage Growth? On the surface, the April jobs report-released in early May seemed to send mixed signals to investors and the Fed about the health of the labor market3. Our view remains that the economy is growing fast enough to tighten the labor market, push up wages and ultimately inflation, which will lead the Fed to raise rates twice more in 2017. But even though the economy is very close to full employment and the output gap has nearly closed, patience is required. Although it's a close call, the next hike is likely to come next month. Markets remain somewhat skeptical of this view, and have only priced in 39 bps of tightening by the end of the year, and have not yet fully priced in a June rate hike. The lack of wage growth (up just 2.5% year-over-year in April according to average hourly earnings (AHE)) remains a key source of the market's skepticism about the pace and timing of Fed rate hikes. Many investors cite the monthly report on average hourly earnings as evidence that the Fed has it wrong on the economy and the labor market. Does the Fed see something the market does not? Or is it the other way around? Markets tend to focus on data that are timely. That requirement certainly fits the AHE. The monthly wage measure is the most timely data point on labor compensation. While timeliness is an important factor when assessing the health of the labor market, it is also critically important to watch what the Fed watches. Investors should note that the AHE data is only one of at least four measures of labor compensation the Fed mentions in its Semi Annual Monetary Report to Congress. Since Fed Chair Yellen took office in 2014, the Fed has specifically referenced (and charted together) three measures of labor compensation in the report: Average hourly earnings Employment Cost Index and Compensation per Hour in the nonfarm business sector, and Chart 9The Fed Tracks All Four Of##BR##These Compensation Measures The Atlanta Fed's Wage Tracker was mentioned in the June 2016 Monetary Policy Report, and the Fed added it to the chart of the other three metrics in the most recent report, released in February 2017. As Chart 9 shows, all have moved higher in recent years, although it is clear that AHE has lagged the others. Given the attention it receives in the financial news media on and just after "Employment Friday" each month, it may surprise investors to learn that neither AHE nor wages were directly mentioned in any of the FOMC statements since Yellen took charge. However, wage growth (or lack thereof) has been a topic of discussion at all but a few of the 13 post FOMC press conferences Yellen has held. When asked about wages, she is careful to note that the Fed watches a wide range of indicators of labor compensation, but has lamented the lack of progress on wages. In her most recent press conference, Yellen noted that "I would describe some measures of wage growth as having moved up some. Some measures haven't moved up, but there's some evidence that wage growth is gradually moving up, which is also suggestive of a strengthening labor market." Average hourly earnings are routinely mentioned in the FOMC minutes, but only alongside mentions of the other metrics noted above. On balance, average hourly earnings are viewed by the Fed - and therefore should be viewed by the market - as one of several indicators of the health of the labor market, but not the only indicator. Chart 10 shows that only a third of industries have seen an acceleration in wage increases over the past year, which supports the market's view that the economy is not growing quickly enough to push up wages and inflation. A recent report by the Kansas City Fed4 takes a different view. Using a bottom-up approach, the author points out that only a few industries (mostly in the goods producing sector of the economy) have accounted for much of the rise in wages, notably manufacturing, construction and wholesale trade. Financial services, retail trade, professional and business services and leisure and hospitality - all service sector industries - have been the laggards. The study done by the economists at the Kansas City Fed shows that although earnings growth has lagged in those more service-oriented industries since 2015, hours worked have seen faster growth than in the mainly goods producing sector (chart not shown). This suggests to the author - and we concur - that labor demand has been strong in the past few years in areas that have not seen much wage growth. As the labor market continues to tighten, wages in these industries may accelerate, but patience may be required. Chart 11 shows that it takes two to three years after a bottom in the output gap for a decisive turn higher in ECI or AHE. While this cycle has seen a more shallow recovery - especially in AHE - both have moved higher since the output gap bottomed out in 2009/2010. Chart 10Only 33% Of Industries Have Seen##BR##Wage Acceleration Over The Past 12 Months Chart 11Measures Of Labor Compensation Move##BR##Higher After Output Gap Bottoms Out Bottom Line: Investors are always wise to watch what the Fed watches. The evolution of wage growth will be critical to FOMC policymakers, because a clear acceleration will confirm that the economy is truly at full employment and, thus, at risk of overheating. We do not expect a surge in wages, but a steady upward trend will keep the Fed on a gradual tightening path. John Canally, CFA, Senior Vice President U.S. Investment Strategy johnc@bcaresearch.com Mark McClellan, Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst markm@bcaresearch.com Jonathan LaBerge, CFA, Vice President Special Reports jonathanl@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report "Growth, Inflation And The Fed", dated May 8, 2017, available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Reports "Portfolio Insurance: What, How, When?", dated October 17, 2016 and "Policy, Polls, Probability", dated November 7, 2016, both available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report "Growth, Inflation And The Fed" dated May 8, 2017, available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 4 See "Wage Leaders and Laggards; Decomposing the Growth in Average Hourly Earnings" The Macro Bulletin, February 15, 2017; Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City.

Highlights The U.S. unemployment rate stands 0.1 points below the FOMC's year-end projection and 0.4 points below its estimate of NAIRU. If the unemployment rate keeps falling, it will have nowhere to go but up - and the U.S. has never been able to avoid a recession whenever the unemployment rate has risen by more than one-third of a percentage point. So far the FOMC has failed in its efforts to tighten monetary policy. U.S. financial conditions have actually eased sharply since the Fed resumed hiking rates in December. The Fed will turn more hawkish over the coming months. Stay short the January 2018 fed funds futures contract and position for a stronger dollar. What happens in the euro area has become increasingly irrelevant for what happens to EUR/USD. Even if the ECB raises rates somewhat more rapidly than expected, this will be largely counterbalanced by hawkish actions by the Fed. Investors should stay cyclically overweight global equities, but be prepared to pare back exposure next summer. Feature Beware Of Full Employment Chart 1Recoveries Usually Lose Steam##br## WhenThe Unemployment Rate Falls Below NAIRU After eclipsing 10% in 2009, the U.S. unemployment rate fell to 4.4% in April, 0.1 points below the median end-2017 dot in the Fed's Summary of Economic Projections, and 0.4 points below the FOMC's estimate of NAIRU.1 The fact that most Americans who want to work are able to find jobs is obviously a good thing. However, today's increasingly tight labor market does have a dark side: As Chart 1 illustrates, recoveries have tended to run out of steam whenever the unemployment rate has fallen below its full employment level. Two points about the unemployment rate are worth keeping in mind: The unemployment rate has rarely been stable over time; usually, it is either rising or falling. The former tends to occur very quickly, while the latter is more drawn out. The unemployment rate displays momentum over short horizons, but is "mean-reverting" over the long haul (Chart 2).2 Since there is a limit to how low the unemployment rate can go, periods when it is below its full employment level typically do not last long. This is confirmed by Chart 3, which shows that there is a clear positive correlation between the degree of labor market slack and the onset of the next recession: High slack means that a recession is usually far away, whereas low slack means that a downturn is approaching. And it doesn't take much of an increase in the unemployment rate to sow the seeds for another recession - the U.S. has never escaped a recession in the postwar period whenever the three-month moving average of the unemployment rate has risen by a mere one-third of a percentage point (Chart 4). Chart 2The Unemployment Rate Is Mean-Reverting Over The Long Haul, But Displays Momentum In The Short Term Chart 3The Degree Of Labor Market Slack And The Onset Of The Next Recession: A Clear Positive Correlation Chart 4What Goes Down Must Come Up? Rising unemployment tends to generate all sorts of vicious cycles. When someone loses their job, they spend less. The resulting decline in aggregate demand forces firms to lay off workers, leading to even less spending throughout the economy. A weaker economy also makes it more difficult for borrowers to pay back loans, causing them to pare back spending. Falling asset prices only serve to exacerbate this problem. Threading The Needle Today's low unemployment rate puts the Federal Reserve in a bind. On the one hand, if the Fed raises rates too quickly, this could precipitate exactly the sort of downturn that it is trying to avoid. On the other hand, if the Fed fails to raise rates quickly enough, this could cause the economy to overheat. This, in turn, may force the Fed to raise rates aggressively - something that would destabilize both the economy and financial markets. The hope is that the Fed succeeds in threading the needle to ensure that the economy achieves a soft landing. There are some reasons to be optimistic about such an outcome, but also several reasons to be pessimistic. On the optimistic side, inflation expectations remain well anchored. This means that an overheated economy is unlikely to produce a powerful price-cost spiral such as the one that broke out in the 1970s. This limits the risk that the Fed will be forced to raise rates dramatically. The real economy is also not suffering from the sort of clear-cut imbalances that plagued the late innings of the last two business cycles - a massive capex overhang in the late 1990s, and an even larger housing overhang in the years leading up to the Global Financial Crisis. Private debt levels have also fallen as a share of GDP for most of the recovery, unlike in past cycles (Chart 5). On the pessimistic side, uncertainty about the level of the neutral rate - the interest rate consistent with full employment and stable inflation - will make it difficult for the Fed to calibrate monetary policy in a way that ensures a soft landing. It typically takes 12-to-18 months for changes in monetary conditions to fully make their way through the economy. Thus, if the Fed does end up either too far behind or too far ahead of the curve in normalizing monetary policy, it may not realize this until it's too late. Structurally slower potential GDP growth could also complicate matters. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that real potential GDP growth will average only 1.8% over the next 10 years, compared to 3.1% between 1980 and 2007 (Chart 6). Today's equity valuations are arguably pricing in faster GDP growth. Should growth settle below 2% - a rate that has often been associated with stall speed - risk assets could suffer, complicating the Fed's efforts in achieving a soft landing. Chart 5The Economy Is Not Showing ##br##Clear-Cut Signs Of Imbalances Chart 6Potential GDP Growth Is Not ##br##What It Used To Be The Fed's Choice Given the choice between erring on the side of raising rates too slowly or too quickly, the Fed has opted for the former. This is a quantitative statement, not a qualitative one. Chart 7 shows that U.S. financial conditions have eased considerably since the Fed resumed raising rates last December, thanks to a weaker dollar, tighter credit spreads, and a soaring stock market. If the whole point of hiking rates is to tighten financial conditions, then the Fed has not done enough. Worries that the headline unemployment rate may understate the true amount of labor market slack partly explain the Fed's angst in raising rates as quickly as it has in past cycles. While the headline rate has fallen back to its 2007 low, the broader U-6 unemployment rate - which incorporates people who are out of the labor market but claim to want a job, as well as those who are working part-time for economic reasons - is still 0.7 points above it. Likewise, the employment-to-population ratio for prime-age workers (ages 25-to-54) is 1.7 points below its pre-recession levels. The "quits rate" - a good measure of labor market confidence - also remains a notch below its pre-recession peak. Perhaps most glaringly, the median duration of unemployment has only fallen back to 10.2 weeks, which is still close to the high of the previous cycle (Chart 8). Chart 7Financial Conditions Have Been Easing Chart 8Headline Unemployment Rate ##br##Back To 2007 Levels, But Other ##br##Measures Still Point To Slack Each of these factoids has a counterargument: The elevated share of involuntary part-time workers may be partly due to the effects of Obamacare, which has made it burdensome for companies to add full-time workers to the payrolls;3 the low quits rate and the high median length of unemployment may reflect the aging of the population as well as lower gross job creation (Chart 9); and automation, globalization, and low-skilled immigration may have depressed real wages for less-educated workers, causing them to abandon the labor market (Chart 10). Nevertheless, with core inflation still below the Fed's 2% target, it is not hard to see why the Fed has elected to take a "go slow" approach so far. Chart 9The Labor Market Has Become Less Dynamic Chart 10Less-Educated Men Are Fleeing The Labor Market The Hawks Spread Their Wings That may be changing, however. The growth in nominal unit labor costs has already surpassed 2% and is close to the peaks reached in 2000 and 2007 (Chart 11). Most other measures of wage growth remain in a clear uptrend (Chart 12). If GDP growth accelerates over the remainder of the year, as we expect, the Fed will pursue a more aggressive tightening path than what the market is currently discounting. Chart 11Unit Labor Cost Inflation Close To Past Peaks Chart 12Most Measures Of Wage Growth Are In An Uptrend Recent communications from the Fed have revealed an increasingly hawkish bias. The latest Fed statement downplayed the slowdown in Q1 as "transitory." This follows Chair Yellen's comment that "waiting too long to remove accommodation would be unwise, potentially requiring the FOMC to eventually raise rates rapidly, which could risk disrupting financial markets and pushing the economy into recession."4 Investment Conclusions Higher U.S. rate expectations should give the dollar a boost (Chart 13). We do not agree with the often-heard argument that the actions of foreign central banks will materially weaken the dollar. Consider the case of the ECB. There has been much speculation that the ECB will phase out some of its emergency measures. That may well happen, but even if it does, a full-fledged hiking cycle is nowhere on the horizon. According to a recent ECB study, the rate of labor underutilization still stands at 18% in the euro area, 3.5 points higher than in 2008 (Chart 14).5 Stripping out Germany, the rate of underutilization would be seven points higher (Chart 15). It is still too early for Mario Draghi to begin removing monetary accommodation in a concerted manner. Chart 13Higher U.S. Rate Expectations ##br##Should Give The Dollar A Boost Chart 14Labor Market Slack In The Euro Area Remains High... Chart 15...Especially Outside Of Germany Moreover, anything the ECB does which inadvertently leads to a stronger euro will likely be matched by offsetting hawkish actions by the Fed. Remember that the Fed needs to tighten financial conditions in order to prevent the unemployment rate from falling so much that it has nowhere to go but back up. A weaker dollar runs contrary to that strategy. The argument above can be applied more broadly. The euro rallied in the lead-up to the French election on the now-realized hope that Emmanuel Macron would prevail. Put aside the fact that Macron's platform calls for cutting the budget deficit from 3.2% of GDP this year to 1% of GDP in 2022 - something which, all things equal, would lead to less monetary tightening and a correspondingly weaker euro. Even if Macron's victory somehow did manage to allow the ECB to raise rates earlier than it would have otherwise, it is hard to believe that this would not influence the pace of Fed rate hikes. U.S. financial conditions could tighten through some combination of higher rates and/or a stronger dollar. The only way the Fed could engineer a tightening in financial conditions while the trade-weighted dollar still weakened would be to jack up interest rates by an inordinate amount. However, this outcome would require that other central banks raise rates even more. That's not going to happen. Stay short EUR/USD. We think the euro will reach parity against the dollar later this year. Where does this leave equities? So long as global growth remains solid and corporate earnings are in an uptrend, the path of least resistance for stocks is up. However, the risk is that the Fed overplays its hand and ultimately tightens monetary policy too much. This could lead to a broad-based global slowdown towards the end of 2018. Investors should stay cyclically overweight global equities, but be prepared to pare back exposure next summer. Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com 1 The Non-Accelerating Inflation Rate of Unemployment (NAIRU) is the unemployment rate consistent with stable inflation. 2 An Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) regression using monthly data between 1960 and 2017 shows that the change in the unemployment rate over the coming three months is positively associated with a change in the unemployment rate over the prior three months, and negatively associated with the level of the unemployment gap. 3 See, for example: Marcus Dillender, Carolyn Heinrich, and Susan Houseman, "Effects of the Affordable Care Act on Part-Time Employment: Early Evidence," Upjohn Institute Working Paper, 2016. 4 Janet Yellen, "Semiannual Monetary Policy Report To The Congress," February 14, 2017. 5 Please see ECB, "Focus: Assessing Labour Market Slack," Economic Bulletin Issue 3, 2017. Strategy & Market Trends Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

Highlights Shorting the RMB against the dollar is no longer a one-way bet. Investors should look to reduce bearish positions on the RMB going forward. The RMB is no longer overvalued. Therefore, any further decline will push the RMB deeper into undershoot territory, which is ultimately subject to mean reversion. The recent focus on China's low and falling reserve-to-M2 ratio largely reflects lopsided expectations on continued capital outflows and further RMB declines. The PBoC should have no difficulties maintaining control over the exchange rate with the country's massive current account surplus, low foreign currency debt and pervasive capital account control measures. Feature With widespread consensus among investors and market-watchers for the RMB to continue depreciating against the U.S. dollar, a key question is whether the seemingly unloved RMB could once again become appreciated. Indeed, the widely shared consensus a mere three years ago - that the RMB had nowhere to go but up - has now become a highly controversial rhetorical question. The current prevailing view is that the RMB is under intense downward pressure against the dollar, and the People's Bank of China (PBoC) is fighting an uphill battle in maintaining exchange rate stability. Some have gone even further, relating the RMB's ongoing weakness to "money printing" and "credit largess." According to these pundits, the country's mighty official foreign reserves pale in comparison to domestic capital flight, and the end game will have to be a substantial currency depreciation before a new equilibrium is re-established. Chart 1The RMB's Rollercoaster Ride In June 2013, amid the comfortable consensus that the RMB would perpetually rise against the dollar and the RMB "carry trade" was running amok, we published a Special Report titled "Is The RMB Still Undervalued?"1 We argued at the time that "the large valuation buffer for the RMB has mostly been eliminated," and that "there is a strengthening case for the RMB to fall against the greenback." Fast forward four years, the CNY/USD peaked in January 2014 and has since depreciated by about 15% (Chart 1). As the consensus on the RMB has now completely swung to the other extreme, it is time for a new reality check and some provocative rethinking. What Has Changed? With the benefits of hindsight, it is easy to spot what went wrong for the RMB as well as for the Chinese economy. In our 2013 Special Report, we concluded that "the dollar appears to be bottoming out from its structural bear market" and that "the Chinese central bank should guide the RMB lower versus the greenback in order to maintain a relatively stable exchange rate against a currency basket." In reality, the sharp dollar rally of 2014-'15 pushed up the trade-weighted RMB by another 10% and led to draconian tightening in China's monetary conditions - a major policy mistake that caused relentless deflationary pressure and growth woes. By the same token, the depreciation of the RMB since early 2016 has turned out to be a key reflationary force that has helped stabilize the Chinese economy. As far as the RMB is concerned, there have been a few important changes in the macro environment. Chart 2The Dollar: A Long Term Perspective First, the dollar's multi-year bull market has pushed the greenback up by 25% since 2014. The U.S. economy is currently a bright spot in the world, and the Federal Reserve appears to be the most determined to tighten among the major monetary authorities - two factors that are likely to maintain dollar bullishness. However, it is important to note that the sharp rally has already pushed the dollar close to two sigma above its long-term trend (Chart 2). The dollar may remain well bid in the near term, but another major up leg similar to the one in 2014-'15 is highly unlikely. Second, the valuation froth in the RMB accumulated in previous years has been squeezed out (Chart 3). The trade-weighted RMB has fallen back to its long-term trend line after a two-sigma overshoot. Its spot rate against the dollar has now dropped below our PPP model fair value estimate. In real effective terms, the RMB has also quickly swung back from overvalued territory. The increase in Chinese producer prices since September 2016 also suggests the RMB may have become cheap again. Third, the massive RMB "carry trade" has been largely unwound. Before 2014, the RMB's one-way ascendance attracted speculative "hot money" inflows to China in anticipation of both higher yields and further currency upside. Chinese companies also sharply ramped up borrowing in foreign currencies, mostly U.S. dollars, for lower rates and potential exchange rate gains. Both trends abruptly reversed as the RMB began to fall, with hot money fleeing and domestic borrowers rushing to pay back foreign currency obligations. Chart 4 shows the abnormal surge of the RMB "carry trade" before 2014 has essentially vanished. Chart 3The RMB Is No Longer Overvalued Chart 4The Unwinding Of The RMB "Carry Trade" Finally, the reflationary benefit of a weaker exchange rate on the Chinese economy has been proven since 2016, which in of itself rules out the possibility of an endless RMB decline. As the largest manufacturer and exporter in the world, a weaker RMB is good news for the Chinese industrial sector's pricing power, profit margins and overall business activity - unless broad protectionist backlash blocks the positive feedback loop.2 The bearish argument on the RMB fixating on Chinese credit, even if true, ignores the reflationary impact on a major part of the Chinese economy, which in turn puts a floor under its exchange rate. What's Intact? Meanwhile, some factors that were widely viewed in previous years as supportive for an ever-rising RMB have remained largely intact. China still runs by far the largest trade surplus in the world, amounting to an annualized US$ 500 billion. Chinese foreign reserves, although having fallen by US$ 1 trillion since their all-time peak, still accounts for almost 30% of the global total (Chart 5). In comparison, China's official hoarding of foreign assets accounted for about 15% of the world in 2005, when the RMB was de-pegged from the greenback and began a decade-long ascent. In addition, Chinese exporters have continued to gain global market share, currently accounting for about 14% of world exports, more than double 2005 levels. Meanwhile, it is fairly likely that China's recent export numbers have been under-reported, as exporters have hidden part of their overseas proceeds offshore in anticipation of further RMB declines. Overall, there is no evidence that the value of the RMB has hindered Chinese exporters' competitiveness. From a long-term perspective, a country's productivity growth relative to the rest of the world fundamentally determines its relative competitiveness in global trade, which in turn is the ultimate driving force behind its exchange rate (Chart 6). On all these fronts, China still compares favorably to other major countries. Chart 5China's Foreign Official ##br##Reserves Remain Massive Chart 6Relative Productivity Determines ##br##Export Sector Competitiveness Are China's Foreign Reserves Enough? Chart 7 shows that the ebbs and flows of China's foreign exchange reserves are tightly linked with the USD/CNY "risk reversal" indicator, defined as the implied volatility for call options minus the implied volatility for put options on the cross rate. Chinese foreign reserves have increased for three consecutive months, a sign of slower capital outflows and easing concerns surrounding the RMB. It remains to be seen whether this is a permanent shift or a temporary pause. A more important question is whether China's foreign reserves are large enough for the PBoC to maintain control over its exchange rate. Chart 7The RMB Risk Aversion And Capital Flows Central banks' precautionary holdings of foreign reserves are mainly to reduce the likelihood of balance-of-payments pressures. From this perspective, for a country running chronic and massive trade surpluses with minimal foreign currency debt, China should not hold large foreign reserves at all. This is also why its massive foreign reserve holdings were long regarded as wasteful before 2014 by both market participants and Chinese policymakers - and since 2014 as the RMB has weakened the exact opposite: as not enough. Based on traditional yardsticks for reserve adequacy such as coverage ratios for imports or short-term foreign currency debt, China's reserves are far more than adequate. The more recent focus has been on additional metrics proposed by the IMF, particularly the ratio of reserves relative to a country's broad money supply (M2). This ratio captures potential residents' capital flight through the liquidation of their highly liquid domestic assets, which reflects potential drains on the balance of payments. Chart 8 shows a sharp decline in China's reserves-to-M2 ratio in recent years. However, this does not mean that Chinese foreign reserves are insufficient for the following reasons. Historically China's reserve-to-M2 ratio has had no direct correlation with the broad RMB trend. China's reserve-to-M2 ratio peaked at 28% in 2008, long before the RMB peaked. At 13% currently, the ratio is comparable to 2005 when the RMB began to rise against the dollar. Globally speaking, there is no empirical evidence that a higher reserve-to-M2 ratio helps alleviate downward pressure on a country's exchange rate. Other major emerging countries such as Brazil, Russia and India have much higher reserve-to-M2 ratios than China, but their currencies have suffered brutal declines in recent years (Chart 9). In contrast, Japan's reserve-to-M2 ratio is comparable to China, but the Bank of Japan has been trying desperately to weaken the yen. Germany's ratio is even lower. Finally, China's pervasive capital account control measures and its largely state-controlled financial institutions are powerful tools to hinder capital outflows, and can be adjusted to accommodate changes in the marketplace. This further diminishes the usefulness of this ratio. Chart 8China's Reserves-To-M2 Ratio Has Been Falling... Chart 9...But Does It Matter? Overall, the recent focus on China's low and falling reserve-to-M2 ratio largely reflects lopsided expectations on continued capital outflows and further RMB declines. This has all but ignored the prospect for capital inflows. True, Chinese households and companies will likely continue to diversify into foreign assets. However, there is an equally compelling case that foreign demand for RMB-denominated assets will also increase going forward. For example, Chinese local bond yields, both sovereign and credit, are substantially higher than other major economies. Meanwhile, foreign ownership in Chinese bonds is practically non-existent compared with other bourses (Chart 10). It is almost a sure bet that foreign demand for RMB bonds will increase significantly, especially if market expectations on the RMB stabilize. Given how dramatic market expectations on the RMB have shifted in the past several years, this could come much sooner than many expect. Chart 10The Case For Increasing Foreign Demand##br## For RMB Bonds Investment Conclusions We are not making the case for an immediate resumption of a rising RMB. In the near term, the USD/CNY cross rate will continue to be dominated by the broad dollar trend, the upside of which may not yet be exhausted. However, the prevailing bearish consensus means that shorting the RMB against the dollar has become a very crowded trade. Meanwhile, our valuation models suggest the RMB is currently no longer overvalued. Therefore, any further decline will push the RMB deeper into undershoot territory, which is ultimately subject to mean reversion. Overall, we caution against being overly negative at the moment, and investors should begin to reduce bearish bets on the RMB going forward. Yan Wang, Senior Vice President China Investment Strategy yanw@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see China Investment Strategy Special Report, "Is The RMB Still Undervalued?," dated June 12, 2013, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Reflecting On The Trump-Xi Summit," dated April 13, 2017 available at cis.bcaresearch.com. Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations

Highlights ECB policy is set to become less dovish relative to other central banks. Stay long the euro; stay underweight German bunds within a global bond portfolio; and overweight euro area Financials within a global Financials portfolio. Female labour participation is surging. The state of the euro area labour market is not nearly as bad as many pessimists would have you believe. Play the mega-trend of rising female labour participation with a structural overweight in the Personal Products sector. Allowing for euro break-up risk, European equities are fairly valued - rather than cheap - versus U.S. equities. Prefer to gain exposure via a 50:50 combination of Germany (DAX) and Sweden (OMX). Feature "Domestic sources of risk to euro area growth have diminished while global, geo-global sources of risk have increased." - Mario Draghi The Cleanest Dirty Shirt Since the end of 2014, an unspectacular 1.9% growth rate1 has been enough to make the euro area the world's top-performing major economy - bettering the U.S., U.K. and Japan (Chart I-2). Chart of the WeekThe Percentage Of The French Population In Employment Is At An All-Time High Chart I-2The Euro Area Is The Top-Performing Economy The euro area economy has achieved this outperformance with exceptionally low volatility. For eight consecutive quarters, growth2 has remained within a very tight 1.2-2.2% band, less than half of the equivalent volatility in the U.S., U.K. and Japan. And growth is now "solid and broad", meaning that it includes all countries. The ECB's dispersion index of value-added growth in different countries stands at a historical minimum. We expect the euro area to remain the cleanest dirty shirt. As Draghi points out, the ECB is less worried about domestic risks and more worried about global risks. Specifically: "Markets are in the course of reassessment of U.S. fiscal policy" - Trumponomics will not be nearly as stimulative as first thought. "How the U.K. economy does post-Brexit has a channel of economic consequences for the euro area." "Possible negative surprises in some emerging market economies" - notably China. If any of the global risks do flare up, the ECB will sit pat, but other central banks will have to become more dovish relative to current expectations. If the risks do not flare up, the ECB will start to reduce its own extreme dovishness - at least with words, if not actions. Either way, ECB policy is set to become less dovish relative to other central banks. And the investment implications are: stay long the euro; stay underweight German bunds within a global bond portfolio; and overweight euro area Financials within a global Financials portfolio. Female Labour Participation Is Surging Chart I-3Rising Participation Boosts Employment As Emanuel Macron prepares to become the twenty fifth President of the French Republic, he can take heart from a statistic which may surprise you: The percentage of the French population in employment has never been this high. (Chart of the Week). How can this be when the French unemployment rate is still hovering around 10%? The answer is: as millions of formerly inactive French citizens have entered the labour market, it has lifted the percentage of the population with jobs to an all-time high (Chart I-3). But the flip side of rising participation is that it has kept the unemployment rate elevated - because some citizens who were formerly 'uncounted inactive' are now 'counted unemployed'. Remember that to count as unemployed, a person has to be in the labour market available for work. Some argue that French citizens have simply flooded into the labour market to claim generous and long-lasting unemployment benefits. This argument might hold during downturns, but it cannot explain the 25-year uptrend which also includes economic booms. Unpalatable as it might be to the pessimists, we are left with a more optimistic explanation. France has raised activity levels in the working age population with policies that encourage much greater female participation in the labour market. The important lesson is that when labour participation is rising or falling, we must interpret the headline unemployment rate with extreme care.3 If a country's unemployment rate is high because labour participation has increased - as in France - the labour market is not quite as bad as the high unemployment rate might suggest.4 Conversely, if a country's unemployment rate is low because labour participation has decreased - as in the U.S. (Chart I-4) - the labour market is not quite as good as the low unemployment rate might suggest. Counted unemployment has just been replaced with uncounted inactivity. We propose that the percentage of the working age population in employment is the truer measure of labour utilisation. With surging female participation boosting employment in France and most other European countries (Chart I-5), the state of the euro area labour market is not nearly as bad as many pessimists would have you believe. Chart I-4Participation Down In The U.S.,##br## But Up In Europe... Chart I-5...Led By ##br##Women Play the mega-trend of rising female labour participation with a structural overweight in the Personal Products sector. Political Risk Is Correctly Priced Many people saw the Brexit and Trump victories as the leading edge of a wave of economic nationalism. However, subsequent election results in the Netherlands, Austria, Finland, Bulgaria and now France have seen economic nationalists consistently underperforming their expectations. In hindsight, the Brexit and Trump victories were idiosyncratic. Both the Remain and Clinton campaigns were lacking in personality or a strong emotional message, and this proved to be their undoing. Nowadays, many voters care about personalities more than policies; emotional appeal matters more than rational appeal. Behavioural psychologist and Nobel Laureate Daniel Kahneman calls the emotional way of thinking "System 1", and the colder rational way of thinking "System 2". Crucially, in a tight contest, both the Brexit and Trump campaigns resonated with the emotional System 1 with passionate pleas such as "Take Back Control" and "Make America Great Again". By contrast, the Remain and Clinton campaigns tried to appeal mainly to the rational System 2. But as Kahneman explains, when rational System 2 competes with emotional System 1, emotional System 1 almost always wins. Chart I-6Euro Break-Up Probability = 5% A Year In more recent elections, candidates and parties opposing the nationalists - including Emanuel Macron - have used a good balance of System 1 and System 2 arguments, thereby helping to prevent shock outcomes. This is also likely to be case in the two round French legislative elections on June 11 and 18 which we do not expect to impact financial markets significantly. Does this mean that political risk is over in Europe? No. Until the euro area turns into a permanent and irreversible political union, there has to be a probability of euro break-up. To value euro area assets, investors must ask: what is this break-up probability? The sovereign bond market says it is 5% a year (Chart I-6). This shows up in a discount on German bund yields, because after a euro break-up a new deutschmark would rise; and a symmetrical premium on Italian BTP yields, because a new lira would fall. For the aggregate euro area bond, the risk largely cancels out because intra-euro currency redenomination would be zero sum. But European equities must trade at a discount for this tail-event. At the peak of the euro debt crisis in 2011, the Eurostoxx600 underperformed the S&P500 by 25% in one year. In an outright break-up, the underperformance would almost certainly be worse, let's conservatively say 30-40%. So assuming the tail-event probability is 5% a year, European equities must compensate with a valuation discount which allows a 1.5-2.0%5 excess annual return over U.S. equities. Today, the valuation discount on European equities relative to U.S. equities implies an excess annual return of 1.8%.6 This makes European equities cheap versus U.S. equities only if the annual probability of euro break-up is less than 5%. Our assessment is that a 5% annual risk is about right. Therefore, European equities are fairly valued - rather than cheap - versus U.S. equities. But to avoid the undesirable sector skews in the Eurostoxx600, a much better way to gain long-term exposure to European equities is via a 50:50 combination of Germany (DAX) and Sweden (OMX) (Chart I-7). Chart I-7Prefer A DAX/OMX Combo To The Eurostoxx50 Or Eurstoxx600 Dhaval Joshi, Senior Vice President European Investment Strategy dhaval@bcaresearch.com 1 At an annualized rate. 2 At an annualized rate. 3 Geek's note: the unemployment rate can be expressed as: 100*(participation rate - employment to population rate) / (participation rate). Hence, all else being equal, a rising participation rate will raise the unemployment rate and a falling participation rate will depress the unemployment rate. 4 This lesson applies equally to any studies of labour market slack such as this one: https://www.ecb.europa.eu/pub/pdf/other/ebbox201703_03.en.pdf that do not take into account the dynamics of participation rates. 5 5% multiplied by 30-40% equals 1.5-2.0% 6 Through the next ten years. Please see the European Investment Strategy Weekly Report titled "Markets Suspended In Disbelief" dated April 13, 2017 available at eis.bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading Model The rally in the CAC40 after the French election is technically extended. The recommended technical trade is to short the CAC40 versus the Eurostoxx600. 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-8 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. * 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 Fractal Trading Model Recommendations Equities Bond & Interest Rates Currency & Other Positions Closed Fractal Trades Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Interest Rate Chart II-5Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch ##br##- Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations

Please note that we are publishing a Special Report today titled "EM Local Bonds: Looking At Hedged Yields". Feature Commodities prices have plunged lately, even though the U.S. dollar, up until this past week, has been weak versus European currencies. Hence, the recent selloff in the commodities complex cannot be attributable to U.S. dollar strength. Something else has been at work. Furthermore, EM share prices and currencies have decoupled from both commodities prices and DM commodities currencies such as the AUD, NZD and the CAD (Chart I-1). Chart I-1Unsustainable Divergence Is this time different, and are we entering a new era in EM investing? We do not think so. This divergence is unsustainable and reflects irrational exuberance and fund flows into EM. The decoupling is already overstretched - although it could last another several weeks, it will not continue for much longer. We have the following observations: The commodities selloff has been very broad-based, and has been especially intense in commodities that are trading in China as well as those that are leveraged to Chinese growth (Chart I-2A & Chart I-2B). Such a simultaneous gap down in various commodities prices can be explained either by a decline in speculative long positions in commodities or weakness in real demand. It cannot be attributed to supply because the selloff has transpired at the same time across various commodities. Commodities' supply dynamics are idiosyncratic. China's central bank has been tightening liquidity, forcing deleveraging in the financial system. It is very plausible that this has led to an unwinding of long positions in commodities trading in China. Chart I-2AWidespread Carnage In Commodities Chart I-2BWidespread Carnage In Commodities China bulls would correctly argue that the selloff in commodities is indicative of a reduction in speculative trading activities - not in final demand. However, to be consistent, we should also accept that that the commodities rally in 2016 was not entirely due to demand improvement in China. Instead, it was at least partially due to speculative investment demand. It is impossible to quantify the magnitude of speculative activity in China's commodities markets, yet it has probably been a non-trivial force supercharging both last year's rally as well as the latest selloff. In regard to commodities demand from the real economy, China's growth has not yet turned decisively down. That said, the growth outlook is downbeat as credit growth downshifts in response to the ongoing policy tightening. Chart I-3 illustrates that the annual growth in the number and value of newly started projects has recently contracted. This heralds weaker demand for commodities, materials and capital goods in the months ahead. The surge in new projects launched last year marked the beginning of an upturn in industrial activity, and could well be indicative of a budding downtrend now. Besides, Chinese imports of industrial metals (excluding iron ore) has by and large been flat since 2010 (Chart I-4). The mainland's iron ore imports have been strong because inefficient/expensive domestic production has been shut down, leading to an increase in imports. Chart I-3China: Capital Spending To Slump Again Chart I-4China: No Growth In Industrial Metals' Imports Although China's oil imports have been strong (Chart I-5, top panel), underlying final demand has been weaker as there is evidence that the country has used imports of crude to increase inventories (Chart I-5, bottom panel). Provided that inventories are mean-reverting, such a large build-up in crude inventories poses a risk to China's oil demand and oil prices in the months ahead. Remarkably, the Brazilian real and South African rand have recently decoupled from the overall commodities price index and platinum prices, respectively (Chart I-6). These divergences represent a substantial departure from historical correlations. We cannot find any explanation other than the ongoing irrational exuberance in EM financial markets. Finally, signposts of potential growth deceleration are not only limited to the commodities complex. For example, Taiwanese narrow money (M1) impulse has decisively rolled over; it typically leads Taiwanese exports and correlates well with the equity market (Chart I-7). Chart I-5China's Oil Imports And An Inventories Proxy Chart I-6EM Commodity Currencies And Commodities Prices Chart I-7Taiwanese Export Growth And Equities Are At Risk Too Bottom Line: The recent decoupling between commodities prices and EM risk assets is unsustainable. This divergence reflects irrational exuberance that typically transpires around a major market top. While not chasing this rally has been painful, there is no point in doing so at current levels. We recommend investors maintain a negative stance on EM risk assets. Arthur Budaghyan, Senior Vice President Emerging Markets Strategy arthurb@bcaresearch.com Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations

Highlights Duration: U.S. growth expectations have become overly pessimistic. A Q2 rebound will lead to higher global bond yields and a steeper U.S. Treasury curve. UST / Bund Spread: The extreme divergence between the European and U.S. economic surprise indexes is not sustainable, especially in the face of weakening Chinese economic data. The Treasury / Bund spread is biased wider in the near term, though could tighten in the second half of this year as the ECB shifts to a less accommodative policy. USD Hedging Costs: Declining hedging costs driven by interest rate differentials and negative basis swap spreads make international bond investment very attractive for U.S. investors. Feature Chart 1Global Recovery Will Persist The synchronized global recovery that took hold in the second half of 2016 has stalled so far this year. Measures of economic sentiment, such as the Global ZEW survey and our own Boom/Bust Indicator, have rolled over from high levels and global bonds have clawed back some of last year's lost returns (Chart 1). Year-to-date, the Bloomberg Barclays Global Government Bond index has returned +3%, after having lost more than 9% between the July trough in the Global ZEW index and the end of last year. In our view, a repeat of early 2016's global growth slowdown and bond market rally, which saw the Global ZEW index fall below zero and the Global Government Bond index return 11.6% in 2016H1, is not in the cards. The global economy is on much firmer footing than at this time last year. U.S. Growth: Past Peak Pessimism First quarter U.S. GDP growth was a disappointing 0.7%, but is poised to bounce back strongly in Q2. The volatile inventories component subtracted 0.9% from overall Q1 growth, harsh weather wreaked havoc on the March employment report and there continue to be problems with residual seasonality depressing first quarter GDP data.1 The outlook is much brighter moving forward. The latest employment report showed that the U.S. economy added a healthy 211k jobs in April and our model is pointing toward a further acceleration (Chart 2). Economic growth can be thought of as a combination of aggregate hours worked and labor productivity (Chart 3). With aggregate hours worked growing at 1.7% year-over-year and labor productivity growth having averaged 0.6% (annualized) per quarter since 2012, real U.S. GDP growth of around 2.3% seems like a reasonable forecast. Chart 2Labor Market Still Strong Chart 3Look For Above 2% Growth There is even some reason to suspect that labor productivity could strengthen during the next few quarters. A recent IMF paper2 attributed weak post-crisis productivity growth to a combination of structural and cyclical factors, but also noted that weak investment in physical capital may be responsible for lowering total factor productivity growth by nearly 0.2 percentage points per year in advanced economies during the post-crisis period. With leading indicators pointing to still further gains in fixed investment (Chart 3, bottom panel), we would not be shocked to see productivity growth enjoy a modest late-cycle rebound. Chart 4Stronger Productivity = Steeper Curve All else equal, a late-cycle rebound in productivity growth would slow the increase in unit labor costs. Unit labor costs are a combination of wages (compensation-per-hour) and productivity (output-per-hour), and have historically tracked changes in the slope of the U.S. yield curve (Chart 4). Faster wage growth tends to coincide with Fed tightening, and slower wage growth with Fed easing. For this reason, all wage measures perform reasonably well tracking changes in the yield curve. But unit labor costs perform best because they also incorporate productivity growth, and low productivity growth can flatten the yield curve by pulling down long-dated yields. Rapid increases in compensation-per-hour and muted productivity growth have combined to give the yield curve a strong flattening bias during the past several years. Any increase in productivity growth would slow the uptrend in unit labor costs relative to other wage measures, allowing the yield curve to steepen. In fact, we continue to recommend that investors position for a steeper U.S. yield curve by going long the 5-year Treasury note and shorting a duration-matched barbell consisting of the 2-year and 10-year notes. This trade produces positive returns when the 2/10 slope steepens (Chart 4, panel 3), but has also returned +19 bps since we initiated the position last December, even though the curve has flattened since then. The reason for the trade's strong performance in an unfavorable curve environment is that the 5-year yield had been unusually elevated compared to the rest of the curve. Our model of the 2/5/10 butterfly spread versus the 2/10 slope showed that the 5-year note was one standard deviation cheap on the curve as recently as mid-March (Chart 4, bottom panel). This undervaluation has mostly dissipated and the 5-year note now appears only slightly cheap. For our curve trade to outperform from here, it will likely require the 2/10 slope to steepen.3 Bottom Line: With weak Q1 GDP now in the rearview mirror, we are likely past the point of peak pessimism on U.S. growth. Expect global bond yields to rise and the U.S. yield curve to steepen as the economic data start to reflect an environment of above-trend growth, in the neighborhood of 2% - 2.5%. European Growth & The Risk From China While the U.S. data have disappointed in recent weeks, as evidenced by the U.S. Economic Surprise Index having dipped below zero (Chart 5), the European economy has consistently bested expectations (Chart 5, panel 2). As a result, the Treasury / Bund spread has narrowed from high levels during the past few months. In practice, economic surprise indexes tend to mean revert because positive data surprises beget increasingly optimistic expectations. Eventually, overly optimistic expectations become too high a hurdle and the data start to disappoint. In our view, U.S. expectations have become unduly pessimistic while the Eurozone surprise index appears overdue for a correction. Against this back-drop, we expect the Treasury / Bund spread to widen in the near term as the large divergence between the U.S. and European surprise indexes starts to narrow. Further making the case for a wider Treasury / Bund spread is the recent performance of the Chinese economy. Our Foreign Exchange Strategy service recently observed that growth differentials between the U.S. and Europe are highly correlated with indicators of Chinese growth.4 This should not be overly surprising since Europe trades more with China and other Emerging Markets than does the United States. Along those lines, the IMF has calculated that a 1% growth shock to Emerging Markets impacts European growth by nearly 40 basis points, while it impacts U.S. growth by only 10 basis points.5 The worry at the moment is that Chinese monetary conditions have started to tighten, and China's Manufacturing PMI is rolling over alongside weaker commodity prices. These trends usually coincide with the underperformance of Europe relative to the U.S. (Chart 6). Chart 5Surprise Indexes Will Converge Chart 6Look To China To Trade UST / Bund Spread Our China Investment Strategy service highlights the importance of the trade-weighted RMB as a driver of Chinese growth.6 The RMB's 30% appreciation between 2012 and 2015 applied a massive deflationary force to China's economy, while its more recent depreciation helped boost producer prices, enhance profit margins and reduce the real cost of funding (Chart 7). Chart 7Monetary Conditions ##br##Still Fairly Stimulative More recently, the pace of the RMB's depreciation has slowed and this likely explains the weakness in China's Manufacturing PMI and commodity prices. Our China strategists are quick to note that while the pace of RMB depreciation has slowed, it is still not appreciating, and real interest rates deflated by the producer price index remain negative. In other words, monetary conditions have become somewhat less stimulative, but they should still be supportive of further economic growth. Although the Chinese economic data are likely to moderate in the coming months, barring the major policy mistake of aggressive tightening, Chinese growth will avoid a collapse and remain reasonably buoyant. Similarly, we would also expect European growth expectations to soften in the coming months, but growth is very likely to remain above trend and the ECB is still on track to adopt a less accommodative policy stance over the next year. In the most likely scenario, a few hints will be given at the June ECB meeting, and then an announcement that asset purchases will be tapered in 2018 will be made at the September meeting. The market will correctly assume that rate hikes will follow the taper, and this re-pricing of rate expectations will open up a window in the second half of this year when the Treasury / Bund spread can tighten. However, it is still too soon to adopt this position. Bottom Line: The extreme divergence between the European and U.S. economic surprise indexes is not sustainable, especially in the face of weakening Chinese economic data. The Treasury / Bund spread is biased wider in the near term, though could tighten in the second half of this year as the ECB shifts to a less accommodative policy. U.S. Bond Investors Should Expand Their Borders Divergences that have opened up between U.S. short-term interest rates and short-term rates in other developed countries mean that U.S. bond investors now face much lower currency hedging costs. In addition, increasingly negative cross-currency basis swap spreads have become a permanent feature of the post-crisis investment landscape, and unless significant regulatory changes occur, we expect they are here to stay. Combined, both of these factors make it incredibly attractive for U.S. bond investors to swap their U.S. dollars for foreign currencies and invest in foreign government bonds. In this week's report we explain why this is an attractive trade for U.S. investors and why it will likely remain so for quite some time. What Is The Basis Swap Spread? An excellent definition of the cross-currency basis comes from the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) who define it as "the difference between the direct dollar interest rate in the cash market and the implied dollar interest rate in the [currency] swap market".7 In essence, the existence of a negative basis swap spread should mean that there is an opportunity to arbitrage the difference between interest rates in the cash market and implied interest rates in the currency swap market. However, post-crisis regulatory constraints on bank balance sheets appear to have made this arbitrage prohibitive. Banks are either unable or unwilling to arbitrage the basis swap spread back to zero, and this increases the cost of U.S. dollars in FX swap markets. As a quick example, we can calculate the 10-year German Bund yield hedged into U.S. dollars using currency forwards. Hedged yield = Unhedged yield - Cost of hedging Where: Cost of hedging = forward exchange rate / spot exchange rate In this case, we define the exchange rates as euros per 1 U.S. dollar. By covered interest rate parity, we can also calculate the cost of hedging as: Cost of hedging = (1 + euro interest rate + basis swap spread) / (1 + USD interest rate) Using current 3-month interest rates, this means that the cost of hedging from euros into U.S. dollars is: Cost of hedging = (1 - 0.36% - 0.3%) / (1 + 1.18%) = -1.82% This means that the 10-year German Bund yield rises from 0.42% to 2.24%, from the perspective of a U.S. dollar investor, after hedging the currency on a 3-month horizon. In other words, U.S. investors can significantly increase the average yield of their portfolios by lending U.S. dollars over short time horizons and investing the proceeds into non-U.S. bonds. In Chart 8 we show the difference this currency hedging makes for German, Japanese and French 10-year government bonds. Current hedged 10-year yields for all the major bond markets are also shown on page 13 of this report. But for how long can this trade continue? In short, it can continue for as long as U.S. short-term interest rates increase relative to non-U.S. short-term interest rates and for as long as basis swap spreads move further into negative territory. At the moment there is no widespread agreement on what drives the day-to-day fluctuations in the basis swap spread. The BIS has posited a model where dollar strength weakens the capital positions of bank balance sheets, causing them to back away from providing liquidity to the FX swap market, and leading to increasingly negative basis swap spreads (Chart 9, top panel). Chart 8Higher Yields Via Currency Hedging Chart 9Basis Swaps, Reserves And The Dollar Meanwhile, Zoltan Pozsar from Credit Suisse has identified a link between basis swap spreads and reserves on the Fed's balance sheet (Chart 9, bottom panel).8 Specifically, as the Fed winds down its balance sheet it will be draining cash reserves from the banking system and replacing them with Treasury securities. This could cause money to leave the FX swap market and flow into Treasuries. The result is less liquidity in the FX swap market and increasingly negative basis swap spreads. Interestingly, the run-up to the debt ceiling in the U.S. has presented a test of this view. To stay under the debt ceiling the U.S. Treasury department has drawn down its cash account at the Fed and removed T-bill supply from the market. The result has been a temporary increase in reserve balances. As the theory would have predicted, basis swap spreads have moved closer to zero as reserves have increased. Going forward, the Fed is very likely to start winding down its balance sheet later this year. In all likelihood this will serve to pressure basis swap spreads even further below zero. Meanwhile, short-term interest rates in the U.S. will probably continue to rise more quickly than in most other developed markets. This means that the cost of hedging should become increasingly negative for U.S. investors. In Chart 10 we show that as the cost of hedging becomes more negative, total returns from a USD-hedged position in German bunds tend to outpace total returns from a position in U.S. Treasuries. Similarly, Chart 11 shows that USD-hedged Japanese government bonds (JGBs) also tend to outperform U.S. Treasuries when the cost of hedging falls. Chart 10Hedging Costs & Bond Returns: Germany Chart 11Hedging Costs & Bond Returns: Japan We should note that the relationships between hedging costs and relative total returns shown in Charts 10 & 11 are not perfect, and there will be instances when Treasuries can outperform even if hedging costs continue to decline. However, in the long run, as long as short-term U.S. interest rates continue to rise more quickly than short-term interest rates in the Eurozone or Japan, and especially if the Fed's upcoming balance sheet contraction leads to more deeply negative basis swap spreads, then U.S. investors should continue to boost their yields by lending dollars and investing in bunds and JGBs. Bottom Line: Declining hedging costs driven by interest rate differentials and negative basis swap spreads make international bond investment very attractive for U.S. investors. Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com 1 Our U.S. Investment Strategy service took up the issue of residual seasonality in a recent report. Please see U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Spring Snapback?", dated April 24, 207, available at usis.bcaresearch.com 2 IMF Staff Discussion Note, "Gone with the Headwinds: Global Productivity", https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/Staff-Discussion-Notes/Issues/2017/04/03/Gone-with-the-Headwinds-Global-Productivity-44758 3 Our outlook for the U.S. yield curve was discussed in detail in a recent report. Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "The Yield Curve On A Cyclical Horizon", dated March 21, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report, "ECB: All About China?", dated April 7, 2017, available at fes.bcaresearch.com 5 IMF Multilateral Policy Issues Report: 2014 Spillover Report https://www.imf.org/external/np/pp/eng/2014/062514.pdf 6 Please see China Investment Strategy Weeky Report, "Has China's Cyclical Recovery Peaked?", dated May 5, 2017, available at cis.bcaresearch.com 7 http://www.bis.org/publ/work592.pdf 8 https://ftalphaville.ft.com/2017/04/13/2187317/where-would-you-prefer-your-balance-sheet-banks-or-the-federal-reserve/ Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

Highlights The Economic Surprise Index has declined and may continue to roll over until expectations wash out. But that shouldn't derail risk assets or the Fed. The GDP data is a mix of art and science. For investors focused on what the quarterly GDP release reveals about the state of the economy, it is important to remember that the advance release involves more of the former. The FOMC called the weakness in Q1 "transitory". The U.S. economy can grow fast enough over the final three quarters of the year to meet the Fed's 2.0% growth target. The recent readings on inflation and the labor market remain consistent with 2 more rate hikes this year, starting in June. We expect the stock-to-bond ratio to hit new highs by the end of the year even without a big move in equity prices. Feature U.S. equities have now returned to their early March highs despite the ongoing weakness in economic surprises. The latest high profile negative surprises were in the Q1 GDP report, and the March reading on core PCE inflation. Have equity prices disconnected from the underlying economic fundamentals or is something else at play? More importantly, how does the Fed view the recent weakness in economic data? The outlook for inflation, the Fed, and growth supports the relative performance of stocks vs bonds, even assuming modest returns to the former. What To Expect After A Weak Q1 The Q1 GDP report was weak. It was the latest in a string of U.S. economic reports stretching back to mid-March that have disappointed relative to (raised) expectations. In February,1 we highlighted the risk that the "current period of economic surprise could last for another month or two..." before inevitably giving way to elevated expectations and finally disappointment. On average since 2010, elevated levels of economic surprise have lasted roughly two months, with the latest period lasted about 11 weeks (Chart 1). So now what? Chart 1Economic Surprise Index Has Rolled Over Since Early to Mid March Each day that passes, economic expectations move lower, adjusting the bar down for the next batch of economic reports. The starting point was set relatively high just after last fall's election and early this year, as investors anticipated quick action from the Trump Administration and Congress on tax cuts, tax reform and infrastructure. More recently however, some of the key data have not only failed to match raised expectations, but have begun to roll over. Since 2010, periods of disappointing economic reports have persisted, on average, for 4 months (Chart 1). We are nearly 2 months in, implying that expectations will be washed out soon. With a solid backdrop for corporate earnings, and ebbing geopolitical risk, any equity pullback based on near-term weakness in the economic data should be short-lived. Q1 real GDP growth came in at just 0.7%, well below expectations of a 1.1% increase. At the start of 2017, consensus estimates were in the 2 to 2.5% range, but we were not surprised by the weak report and markets should not have been either. In our two most recent reports,2 we highlighted the well-known seasonality issues with Q1 GDP. Markets seemed to have - correctly in our view - taken the Q1 GDP report in stride and are looking ahead to Q2 and beyond. We expect a snapback in growth in Q2 and over the rest of 2017. The Atlanta Fed's Q2 estimate (+4.2%) supports our view but the NY Fed's latest nowcast for Q2 (+1.8) suggests a more modest rebound. In addition to the potential for higher growth later in the year, there is also the chance that Q1 growth was misstated. Investors can track revisions to Q1 GDP via the Atlanta and NY Fed's Nowcasts, and should bear in mind that the GDP data is a mix of art and science. For investors focused on what the quarterly GDP release reveals about the state of the economy, it is important to remember that the advance release involves more of the former. The Bureau of Economic Analysis' (BEA) GDP data are subject to near constant revision. For example, the Q1 2007 GDP data (released in April 2007) has already been revised 10 times (Table 1). Availability to the BEA of input data that is both timely and comprehensive is at the root of this constant revision. Investors need to take this into account as they try to assess the health of the U.S. economy in "real time". In the past 8 years, Q1 GDP has been revised lower half the time between the advance estimate (1/3 of the hard data) and the second estimate (50% of the data). But as currently reported, Q1 GDP in 5 of the last 8 years is now higher than it was when first reported and in some cases these revisions have been significant in magnitude (Table 1). Which reading should investors trust? A look at the composition of those estimates may help. Table 1GDP Is A Mix Of Art And Science When the BEA released Q1 GDP in late April it had collected just over a third of the "hard" data that feeds into GDP (Chart 2). The rest of the data used to calculate Q1 GDP was filled in by the BEA using assumptions, or "judgmental trend," or by using data from a similar data series. By the time the second estimate is released in late May, the BEA will have just 50% of the "hard" data. Thus, a healthy dose of skepticism is warranted when evaluating the U.S. economy on the initial reports of GDP. Chart 2Advance Estimate Of GDP##br## Is More Art Than Science For now, U.S. equities have not been affected by the weak Q1 GDP data or the recent collapse in positive economic surprises. Our work shows that the disappointing economic data may persist for another few months. Stocks are within a few points of their all-time high set in March; which suggests that markets are less focused on the noise in the economic data, but remain intently focused on the Trump Administration passing some profit friendly legislation at some point this year. If economic disappointments persist for longer than a few more months and Congress doesn't follow through, we can't rule out a meaningful correction in U.S. equities. Nonetheless, the lack of excesses in the economy, general agreement between the Fed and the market on the path of rates for this year and rising, but still modest, inflation are likely to make any pullback in U.S. stocks a buying opportunity for investors. Bottom Line: Investors should fade the recent disappearance in positive economic surprises by staying overweight stocks vs bonds over the coming 6-12 months. FOMC: Growth Weakness Is Transitory Chart 3GDP, Inflation And Labor Market All Tracking##br## To Fed's Forecast = Gradual Rate Hikes The pace of economic growth, and more importantly how that growth impacts the labor market and inflation, remain a crucial factor in how investors assess the number of additional Fed rate hikes that can be expected this year. We continue to expect two more 25 basis point hikes in 2017, whereas the market, as of May 4, was pricing in just 38 bps. At the start of the weakness in the economic data in early March, the market had penciled in 68 bps (almost 3 rate hikes). The soft performance of the economy in Q1 was certainly a focus at last week's FOMC meeting. The FOMC's assessment was that the slowdown in growth in the economy in Q1 was "transitory." The FOMC made no material changes to its assessment of inflation or the labor market in the statement. The minutes of last week's meeting due on May 24 will provide more color. While not officially part of the Fed's dual mandate (of inflation and unemployment), economic growth obviously matters to the Fed. Growth that runs above the Fed's view of potential GDP will push the unemployment rate lower and push inflation higher. Top panel of Chart 3 shows that real GDP growth rose 1.9% from a year ago in Q1, just a tenth of a percent below the Fed's central tendency range for 2017 of 2.0 to 2.2% (Chart 3, panel 2). Despite the poor start to 2017, real GDP growth would have to average only a modest 2.5% per quarter over the rest of the year to hit the Fed's 2.0% target. Is 2.5% growth over the final three quarters achievable absent positive revisions to Q1? We think it is. Since 2010, GDP growth in the final 3 quarters of the year has averaged 2.5%. The headwinds facing the economy today are weaker than they were in the early years of the recovery. The April readings on manufacturing (54.8) and non-manufacturing (57.5) ISM imply GDP growth in the 3 to 3.5% range in Q2. The FOMC is correct to look through the temporary weakness in Q1 and continue on its gradual path of rate hikes this year to match the "modest" pace of economic growth. Investors got a few other key inputs to the FOMC's decision making process last week: The March reading on PCE inflation and the April employment report. Both readings keep the Fed on track for gradual hikes in 2017. A soft reading on core PCE inflation - the Fed's preferred measure - was also a contributor to the weakness in the economic surprise index. For now, we see few signs that suggest core inflation is headed sustainably lower. Chart 4 shows that, since 2000, core PCE inflation has closely correlated with a one year lag of real consumer spending. Even with the recent deceleration in spending, the chart suggests that the recent decline in inflation is temporary. In addition, our sense is that the Fed is more likely to tolerate a rate of inflation that is modestly below its estimate as long as growth remains strong and there is evidence that the weakness in inflation is transitory. Chart 4Core PCE Inflation Likely To Move Higher To Meet Spending The April labor market data was released last week as well and confirmed the FOMC's assessment of a solid labor market, but it also had a one negative surprise for markets. The 211,000 increase in jobs in April exceeded expectations (+185,000) and accelerated from the 79,000 gain in March. Over the past three months, the average monthly gain in payrolls was 174,000,well above the 100,000 to 125,000 per month pace the Fed says is needed to tighten the labor market. The drop in the unemployment rate in April to 4.4% puts the unemployment rate at pre-recession lows and more importantly, below the lower end of the Fed's 4.5% to 4.6% central tendency for this year. (Chart 3, panel 3). The negative surprise in the April jobs report came from wages. Average hourly earnings decelerated to 2.5% year-over-year in April from +2.6% in March. The consensus was looking for a 2.7% increase. Despite the lack of traction on wages, the April jobs supports the view that the economy is growing fast enough to tighten the labor market, push up wages and ultimately inflation. June remains a close call for the next Fed rate hike, but an analysis of the economy and the Fed's reaction function suggests that two rate hikes remain the most likely event this year. Our view is that the market will adjust up expectations toward the Fed's view for 2018. Bottom Line: The recent disappointment in the data is not enough to knock the Fed off course. Investors should continue to expect two additional rate hikes in 2017, with the next move coming at the June meeting. A Pro-Cyclical Asset Stance: It's Not Just About Stocks Chart 5Investors' Preference For Bonds##br## Is Understandable... One of the most basic ways that BCA evaluates the trend in financial markets is to look at what we call the "stock-to-bond ratio". In this publication the ratio is shown as the S&P 500 total return index divided by that of U.S. 10-year government bond. Chart 5 shows the amazing evolution of the stock-to-bond ratio over the past decade, rebased to 100 at the end of 2007 (the official beginning of the 2008-2009 recession). Panel 2 of the chart shows the component total return indexes, also rebased to 100 at the end of 2007. The chart illustrates two incredible points. First, while it is true that stocks have massively outpaced bonds since the low in March 2009, it took equity investors who bought and held at the onset of recession until late-2013 to outpace bond investors who did the same. Second, until the U.S. election in November, the stock-to-bond ratio was only 10% higher than it was in December 2007, which is a powerful testament to the ability of bonds to preserve capital over the long haul. Given these observations and the still-fresh memory of the global financial crisis, it is easy to see how some investors continue to prefer the relative safety of bonds, especially since equity multiples have risen significantly over the past year. However, Chart 6 highlights how our long stock-to-bond call is motivated by an expectation of higher stock prices and negative returns from bonds. The chart shows the likely trajectory of the 10-year Treasury yield over the coming year, under the base case scenario envisioned by our U.S. Bond Strategy service: core PCE inflation rises to 2%, and the spread between the 10-year breakeven inflation rate and core rises to 50 bps. Chart 7 illustrates the implications of this forecast for bond total returns, alongside the resulting stock-to-bond ratio. For stocks, we assume a very conservative 3% annualized nominal total return, which is the sum of a 2% dividend yield and a 1% assumed nominal price return. Chart 6...But The Bond Bull Market Is Over Chart 7A New High By Year-End The key point from Chart 7 is that the stock-to-bond ratio is likely to rise to a new high by the end of the year, even without aggressive assumptions for equity returns. We agree that bond yields will fall in the event of another risk-off event, and that 10-year Treasurys remain an important component of a diversified portfolio. But it is also important for investors to recognize that, absent these types of events, the relative performance of stocks vs. bonds is set to move higher in part because 10-year Treasurys are likely to generate a negative absolute return over the coming 6-12 months. Bottom Line: Investors should retain a pro-cyclical asset allocation stance. The outlook for the inflation, the Fed, and growth supports the relative performance of stocks vs bonds, even assuming modest returns to the former. John Canally, CFA, Senior Vice President U.S. Investment Strategy johnc@bcaresearch.com Jonathan LaBerge, CFA, Vice President Special Reports jonathanl@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see U.S. Investment Strategy Special Report "Goldilocks: For How Long?," dated February 20, 2017, available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see U.S. Investment Strategy Special Reports "Spring Snapback" dated April 24, 2017 and "The Good And The Bad". May 1, 2017, available at usis.bcaresearch.com.

Highlights Portfolio Strategy Any advance in Treasury yields should be gradual and more reflective of an improving global economy than it would be restrictive for equities. Book profits in homebuilders and downgrade to neutral. Rising lumber prices will do more harm than good. In contrast, home improvement retailers are in a sweet spot. We reiterate our high-conviction overweight stance. Recent Changes S&P Homebuilding - Downgrade to neutral. Table 1 Feature Equities marked time at the top end of their range last week. A catalyst may be required to sustain a breakout to new highs, as robust corporate profitability and forward guidance, coupled with tame monetary conditions, are battling against a spate of economic disappointments and soft commodity prices. Financial conditions remain sufficiently easy that economic growth should rebound in the back half of the year. The Fed is in no hurry to aggressively tighten monetary policy, owing to the lack of a serious inflation threat. If hard data begin to firm, then investors will gain confidence in the durability of the profit recovery, powering a further share price advance. While there may be some concern that stronger growth will simply embolden the Fed and push up Treasury yields, we doubt that the latter will become a roadblock just yet. Last week we highlighted that it typically takes a rise to at least one standard deviation above the mean in BCA's Treasury Bond Valuation Indicator to warn that the economy and stocks are at risk of a major downturn. That level would equate to 3.3% on the 10-year Treasury yield (Chart 1). Such large moves in Treasury yields do occur occasionally, (Nov/2010-Feb 2011, summer of 2013 and winter of 2016) and have sometimes preceded/caused economic slowdowns and/or financial accidents. The speed of the adjustment clearly plays a role, as short-term spikes are much harder to digest than gradual yield advances. Nominal GDP growth is comfortably above the 10-year Treasury yield, signaling that financial conditions will stay sufficiently easy for some time, barring a major bond selloff (second panel, Chart 2). Chart 1Yields Have Room To Rise##br## Before Becoming Restrictive Chart 2Sales Will Support##br## The Overshoot In other words, any advance in yields should be gradual and more reflective of a better global economy than restrictive, especially given the ongoing gentle softening in the U.S. dollar. The upshot is that the string of economic disappointments should begin to fade. In recent research, we have stressed the importance of a meaningful revival in corporate sector revenue growth in order to sustain sky-high valuations (top panel, Chart 2). Encouragingly, inflation expectations are recovering globally. A whiff of inflation is a positive omen for top line growth prospects. Inflation and economic growth expectations have firmed around the world. Chart 2 shows that euro area sales per share are on track to exit deflation after a multiyear slump, based on the message from the bond market. The same is true for emerging markets. If companies outside the U.S. finally enjoy renewed top-line growth, that would bode well for a continued recovery in U.S. business sales, especially if the U.S. dollar weakens. Chart 3 shows that both EM currencies and regional confidence surveys are heralding ongoing gains in U.S. profits sourced from overseas. Nevertheless, it is critical to keep the backdrop in a longer-term context. BCA's Equity Speculation Index (ESI) signals that the advance is at a very high risk stage (Chart 4). The ESI can stay in elevated territory for a prolonged period, as occurred in 2014/2015, before a correction unfolds. But, investors should maintain some non-cyclical exposure even if the market continues its advance in the short run. Chart 3Foreign-Sourced Profit Support Chart 4The Rally Is Very High Risk This week we are updating our overall view of the consumer discretionary sector and tweaking our housing-related equity positioning. Consumer Discretionary: On The Way To All-Time Highs Consumer discretionary stocks have been portfolio stalwarts in 2017 (outside of autos and select media), advancing by over 10% and besting the S&P 500 by about 400bps. The heavyweight media sub-group (ex-cable and satellite) has come under scrutiny recently, as fears that ad spending will endure a deep slump have resurfaced. However, most of our indicators suggest that ad spending, at least outside of autos, will not suffer a major downturn, given our upbeat outlook for consumption and profits. Cord-cutting is not a new phenomenon, and is already reflected in very washed out profit expectations, both on a cyclical and structural horizon (we will be covering media in more detail in an upcoming Report). Consequently, there are good odds that this impressive consumer discretionary showing will remain intact especially as last Friday's payrolls bounced smartly. Two key drivers have added fuel to this fiery performance: border adjustment tax fears have subsided and soft economic data have given the Fed enough breathing room to continue erring on the dovish side. Importantly, leading indicators of discretionary spending are heralding a solid recovery in consumer outlays. Interest rates remain near generationally low levels and oil price inflation has peaked. The economy is near full employment, signaling that wage inflation will quicken. According to BCA's Income Indicator1, consumer income growth is expected to reaccelerate imminently (bottom panel, Chart 5). While consumers have demonstrated a preference for saving vs. spending, several factors suggest that purse strings should soon loosen. Consumer confidence has soared, buoyed by income gains (third panel, Chart 5). Moreover, new highs in household net worth as a percent of disposable income signal that the upward pressure on the personal savings rate should diminish (second panel, Chart 5). The implication is that recent disappointing consumer spending data should prove transitory. While these factors could ultimately put upward pressure on interest rates, there may be a window where limited inflation pressures and weak credit growth permit only a gradual upshift in the Treasury curve. Regardless, there are other indicators pointing to additional outperformance. For instance, there is still a wide gap between forward earnings breadth and washed-out technical conditions. Roughly 75% of consumer discretionary sub-groups have rising 12-month forward profit estimates. This is sustainable as long as consumers have an incentive to spend. In contrast, the proportion of consumer discretionary sub-indexes with a positive 52-week rate of change and/or are trading above their 40-week moving average remains well below 50%. This divergence between fundamentals and technicals is an exploitable gap, which should narrow via a sustained rise in relative share prices (Chart 6). Chart 5Upbeat Consumption Outlook Chart 6Exploitable Gap Finally, consumer discretionary stocks are no longer expensive. On a relative forward P/E basis they trade below the historical mean and at a discount to the S&P 500. Consumer discretionary EV/EBITDA is also trailing the broad market, as well as its long-term average. If a recovery in consumer outlays pans out in the back half of the year, as we expect, then a re-rating phase is likely. However, not all sub-groups are created equal. This week we are tweaking our housing-related consumer discretionary exposure. Homebuilders' Pain... Homebuilding stocks have been moving sideways for the better part of the past four years in a narrow trading range. They are currently sitting near the top of this range. Is it time to book profits? The short answer is yes. The recent confirmation of U.S. tariffs on Canadian lumber imports represents a source of cost inflation that may embed a risk premium in share prices until a new trade deal can be worked out. Lumber prices have nearly doubled during the past sixteen months and remain the best performing commodity in 2017 (bottom panel, Chart 7). Lumber comprises anywhere between 10%-20% of the cost of a new home, underscoring that a 20% lumber tariff will add to the cost of building a new home, squeezing margins unless homebuilders can pass this cost on via increased house prices. However, we are skeptical that there is a lot of room for new house price increases given that it would make it more difficult to compete with existing house sales. While new homes have taken market share from existing homes since the residential housing market trough earlier in the decade (Chart 8), market share gains have come at the expense of profit margins. Homebuilders have been aggressively discounting properties in order to lure new buyers. Given the buildup in new home inventories, further market share gains are at risk, unless additional selling price concessions materialize. Chart 7Elevated Lumber Prices... Chart 8...Spell Trouble For Homebuilding Margins The implication is that builders would likely have to absorb any input cost inflation, to the detriment of margins. Indeed, homebuilder sales are already decelerating as a consequence of pricing pressure (second panel, Chart 7). A simple homebuilder profit margin proxy (comprising new house price inflation minus the residential construction wage bill) warns that operating margins will compress, irrespective of the path of lumber prices (bottom panel, Chart 8). Nevertheless, there are some positive offsets that prevent us from turning outright bearish on the niche S&P homebuilding index. These counterbalances are related to the stage of the housing recovery. Homebuilders' sales expectations have surged, nearing the previous cycle's peak, according to the NAHB survey (Chart 9). Similarly, overall housing market conditions are probing multi-year highs and buyer traffic has vaulted to the highest level since mid-2005. Homebuilders remain optimistic about new housing demand. Household formation is still running higher than housing starts, representing a bullish backdrop for future new home construction. Rising incomes and a firming job market also bode well for the prospects of residential real estate. In aggregate, house prices are still expanding according to the Case-Shiller indexes and there are pockets of frothiness in select markets. The thirty year fixed mortgage rate recently broke back below 4% (Chart 10) and banks are willing extenders of mortgage credit, allaying fears that the price of credit will undermine housing affordability. According to our updated estimates (not shown), even if mortgage rates spiked 200bps from current levels, neither affordability nor mortgage payments as a percent of median incomes would return to their respective long-term average. Chart 9Housing Market Remains Firm... Chart 10...Warranting A Neutral Stance Still, these positives are already reflected in expectations, as the sell side has aggressively upgraded homebuilding profit estimates. The net earnings revisions ratio has catapulted to a 12-year high (Chart 10). Given our more balanced outlook for homebuilding earnings, we are leaning against this exuberance. Bottom Line: Book profits of 3.4% in the S&P homebuilding index and downgrade to neutral. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: DHI, LEN, PHM. ...Is Home Improvement Retailers' Gain While our confidence in further homebuilding outperformance has ebbed, the opposite is true for the S&P home improvement retail (HIR) index. We put the S&P HIR index on our high-conviction overweight list at the beginning of the year, and so far, so good. HIR stocks have outperformed the broad market and the S&P consumer discretionary sector year-to-date. There are good odds that more gains lie ahead. Industry retail sales are running at a mid-single digit rate, surpassing lackluster overall retail sales (second panel, Chart 11). Importantly, household appliance and furniture selling prices have surged, reinforcing that demand is robust and signaling that HIR same-store sales growth will likely accelerate in the busy spring selling season, and beyond (middle panel, Chart 11). Unlike homebuilders, home improvement retailers benefit from rising lumber prices. HIR companies typically earn a set margin on lumber-related sales. Thus, any absolute increase in lumber prices boosts top line growth, and profit margins (bottom panel, Chart 11). The industry's disciplined approach to store additions in the aftermath of the GFC has set the stage for ongoing selling price gains. Chart 12 shows that while house prices have overtaken the 2006 highs, increasing the incentive for homeowners to remodel and invest in this key asset, building and supply store construction activity has remained depressed. Easier mortgage lending standards should ensure that total home sales activity remains elevated, to the benefit of home prices, and provide the necessary financing needed for large projects (Chart 12). Tight labor markets, rising wages and surging consumer confidence are signaling that consumers have an appetite to re-lever and space to take on more debt (Chart 12). With store capex budgets under tight control, same-store sales and cash flow growth are bound to sustain their solid advance as renovation activity accelerates. All of this is best encapsulated by our HIR model. The model has recently soared, driven by the drop in fixed mortgage rates and surge in lumber prices, signaling that the path of least resistance is higher for relative share prices (top panel, Chart 11). Indeed, relative profits have already soared to fresh highs, also signaling the same for relative share prices (top panel, Chart 13). Oddly, analysts are overly pessimistic about the industry's sales and earnings growth prospects. In fact, top line growth estimates are trailing those of the broad market, and the 12-month forward relative profit growth hurdle is set very low at 2% (middle panel, Chart 13). Chart 11All Signals Flashing Green Chart 12Capacity Restraint Is Paying Dividends Chart 13Earnings Led Advance Given the positive message from leading indicators of remodeling activity we are far more optimistic, and expect both relative top and bottom line growth numbers to overwhelm. Bottom Line: The re-rating phase in the S&P home improvement retail index has room to run. We reiterate our high-conviction overweight stance. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: HD, LOW. 1 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report, "U.S. Households Remain In The Driver's Seat," dated March 31, 2017, available at fes.bcaresearch.com. Current Recommendations Current Trades Size And Style Views Favor small over large caps and stay neutral growth over value.

Highlights China's recent growth moderation is due to marginally tighter monetary conditions. There is no case for severe policy tightening that could lead to a material growth relapse. There are plenty of signs the economy could continue to run hotter on almost all fronts. The downside risk in the economy remains fairly low, even if annual growth rates of various macro variables do not continue to accelerate. Feature Chart 1Tighter Monetary Conditions ##br##Led To Growth Moderation Our team was in China over the past two weeks, talking to investors and exchanging views with our local contacts for some on-the-ground reconnaissance. Investors appeared more upbeat on China's cyclical outlook than during our recent past trips, but generally speaking conviction remained low, and concern on some structural issues - particularly credit and the housing market - remained deeply rooted. Investors' more upbeat sentiment on growth reflected China's cyclical recovery since early last year, but the rapidly-emerging consensus appeared to be that the growth acceleration peaked in the first quarter, and the economy is facing growing downward pressure, even though few investors seem worried about a chaotic "hard landing" at the moment. Collectively, investors appeared largely preoccupied with downside risks and mindful of negative surprises, while the upside risks were not really discussed. China's latest PMI numbers released this week seemed to validate the consensus view of an imminent growth top. Most major components of the PMI surveys in both the manufacturing and service sectors had setbacks, which were also reflected in softer commodities prices (Chart 1).1 A key reason for the growth moderation is likely the performance of the RMB. We have long argued that the RMB's depreciation has been a key reflationary force for China, which boosted producer prices, enhanced profit margins and reduced the real cost of funding.2 By the same token, the pace of RMB depreciation has moderated in recent months, removing some reflationary impulses within the economy. However, it is important to note that China's worsening growth deterioration in previous years was in part attributable to sharp RMB appreciation, a replay of which is highly unlikely going forward (Chart 2). The RMB appreciated by almost 30% between 2012 and 2015, a massive deflationary shock to the economy. Currently, the trade-weighted RMB is still depreciating, albeit at a slower pace, and real interest rates deflated by PPI are still negative. In other words, although tighter on the margin, monetary conditions are still fairly stimulative, which should continue to help the economy improve. On the fiscal front, the government significantly reduced fiscal stimulus toward the end of last year, but quickly reversed course (Chart 3).3 Both direct fiscal spending and infrastructure investment have picked up notably, and its impact will continue to ripple through the broader economy. Moreover, China's fiscal spending tends to be pro-cyclical: growth recovery typically boosts fiscal revenues, which gives the government more financial resources for fiscal expenditures, and vice versa. Unless the government steps on the brakes, there is no case for a sudden retrenchment in fiscal stimulus soon. Chart 2China: But Monetary Conditions ##br##Remain Fairly Stimulative Chart 3... Meets Waning Fiscal Stimulus China: ##br##Fiscal Retrenchment Has Been Reversed In short, China's policy setting remains expansionary, a major departure from previous years when the Chinese economy was under the heavy weight of policy tightening while external demand also weakened. Looking forward, there is little chance that the Chinese authorities will commit similar policy mistakes that could lead to a major growth downturn. Chart 4China: More Upside In Exports? Barring a major policy mistake of aggressive tightening, Chinese growth should remain buoyant. In fact, there are plenty of signs the economy could continue to run hotter on almost all fronts: Exports are likely to continue to accelerate, according to our model, barring disruptions from major external shocks such as election surprises in Europe and /or broad protectionist measures from the Trump administration (Chart 4). America's latest anti-dumping measures on some Chinese steel products are irrelevant from a big picture point of view, as U.S. steel imports from China only account for a mere 1% of Chinese steel output.4 The upturn in the profit cycle will likely boost investment, particularly among private industrial enterprises (Chart 5). Rising profits and higher output prices indicate tighter capacity utilization, which would in turn encourage capital spending. The prolonged downturn in China's capital spending cycle has likely come to an end. Domestic consumption may further benefit from improvement in the labor market, which is lifting both income and confidence. This is particularly important for large-ticket consumer durable goods such as automobiles and household appliances. Housing construction will likely continue to improve, driven by strong demand. The most recent central bank survey showed that households' home-buying intentions jumped to an all-time high in the last quarter, underscoring a massive increase in pent-up demand (Chart 6). Developers are also warming to increasing supply - and land purchases have resumed positive growth in recent months after a prolonged slump. Tighter housing policies in major cities will prevent a massive boom, but will not short-circuit the recovery. Chart 5China: Private Capex Should Have Bottomed Chart 6China: A Sharp Recovery In Housing Demand All in all, we reiterate our view that the downside risk in the Chinese economy is low from a cyclical perspective, even if annual growth rates of various macro variables do not continue to accelerate. Growth figures to be released in the coming weeks will become noisy, but we lean against being overly bearish. Overall, business activity will remain fairly robust, and a major relapse in growth is unlikely. Yan Wang, Senior Vice President China Investment Strategy yanw@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Chinese Growth: Testing Time Ahead" dated April 6, 2017, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "2016: A Choppy Bottoming" dated January 6, 2016, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Be Aware Of China's Fiscal Tightening" dated February 16, 2017, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Reflecting On The Trump-Xi Summit" dated April 13, 2017, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations