Europe

Special Report

Feature This is the first of two Special Reports on Electric Vehicles. In this report, we will look at the current costs of ownership of a typical mass-market EV, including and excluding subsidies, versus a similar Internal Combustion Engine Vehicle (ICEV). Based on current manufacturing costs and battery capabilities, EVs carry a significantly higher total cost per mile, even including current subsidies. Electric Vehicles have galvanized the interest of consumers, investors, and governments for several years now. We touched on the subject in our Special Report "Electric Vehicle Batteries", published September 20, 2016, where we noted that there were many misconceptions regarding batteries in general and EV batteries in particular. Despite the current cost and utility disadvantages of EVs, we expect governments (especially Europe and China) will continue to provide subsidies (carrots) and mandates (sticks) to further the adoption of EVs for the purposes of reducing CO2 emissions and tailpipe particulate pollution. The longer-term hope is that by forcing the EV market to expand, meaningful technological breakthroughs on batteries will eventually enable EVs to exceed ICEVs on a cost and utility basis. In our second report, we will look at the potential issues associated with adoption of EVs and the investment implications for the auto industry and energy markets. Cost Comparison: EV Vs. ICEV We estimated the difference in cost of ownership of a Chevy Bolt EV (known as the Opel Ampera-e in Europe) and two equivalent Internal Combustion Engine Vehicles (ICEVs), the Chevy Sonic and the Opel Astra, over 160,000 km or 100,000 miles (Table 1). Depreciation is an important consideration in cost of ownership, and we expect EVs to depreciate much more rapidly than ICEVs, a cost that many consumers either ignore or simply fail to incorporate into their purchase decisions. Table 1Comparison Of Costs Of Ownership Between EV And ICEV Automobiles There are many unknowns, such as actual selling price, actual manufacturing cost, etc., in this exercise which may add or subtract a thousand dollars or more to the net results. Under realistic assumptions, those probably cancel out. In summary, EVs are more expensive than ICEVs: Excluding subsidies, the net difference is about $16,100 in the U.S., $18,500 in Germany, and $13,200 in France. After subsidies, the difference is about $6,600 in New York State, $13,900 in Germany, and $6,000 in France. Even if electricity were free, after subsidies, the difference in cost of ownership in the U.S. (NY) would be $3,400, $3,200 in Germany, and $600 in France. The U.S. Federal subsidy of $7,500 is designed to be phased out once a manufacturer sells 200,000 vehicles, which would happen quickly if EVs are to become main stream. Therefore, the total premium cost of ownership of an EV over a comparable ICEV in the U.S. should be assumed to be $16,100 less state subsidy, if any. European subsidies are probably more politically acceptable, even though they will become quite costly if EV sales accelerate as many predict. GM is believed to be losing $9,000 with every Bolt it sells. If so, and if GM changed its pricing to deliver the company's average Gross Margin of around 13%, assuming it currently allows a 10% markup by dealers and discounts the vehicle by 10%, the price of the car would need to be raised to around $48,300 from its current MSRP of $37,500. This would increase the cost of ownership by nearly $11,000 (Table 2), or $0.11 per mile. To make the Bolt's ownership costs - after subsidies - competitive with GM's Opel Astra in France, the Bolt's manufacturing costs would need to be cut by about $14,750 or 34%. Table 2Comparison Of Costs Of Ownership Between EV And ICEV Automobiles, ##br##If GM Sold Bolt At Average Corporate Profitability Note that although we have focused on the Bolt, the common denominator for all EVs is the cost of batteries, which are a commodity. As such, our estimates probably hold for similarly sized vehicles and the differential costs of ownership are likely larger for larger EVs. As we will show in Part 2, integrated auto manufacturers probably have a significant cost advantage over "pure play" EV vendors such as Tesla, because outside of the drive train, they are able to use many of the same components they manufacture for ICEVs. Batteries: A Review All assumptions regarding EV technology are predicated on continued improvements in the cost, durability, and performance of batteries. The leading battery technology for EVs is a Lithium Ion technology (Illustration 1), and there really are no proven near-term alternatives worth discussing. Illustration 1Lithium Ion Technology In our Special Report "Electric Vehicle Batteries", we concluded that: Although the consensus view is that EV battery prices have experienced rapid (8 - 14% per annum) price declines over the past few years, we found no evidence to support that position; Battery durability is at least as important as price, and batteries will not likely last much more than 100,000 miles (160,000 km); Planned expansion of EV battery manufacturing capacity may significantly exceed demand by 2020, resulting in the collapse of EV battery prices and heavy losses for battery manufacturers. We continue to stand by those conclusions, and would like to stress that recent stories such as "China Is About to Bury Elon Musk in Batteries"1 and "10 Battery Gigafactories Are Now in the Works and Elon Musk May Add 4 More"2 are more or less consistent with our comment that "even though there is no reason to expect significant price improvements due to technological shifts, battery prices might drop due to oversupply - at least as long as manufacturers are willing to sell batteries at a loss."3 It seems likely now that China may follow the path it took to the solar industry and mass produce batteries, likely at a loss. The exact motivation for them to do so is uncertain, but this would be moot from the perspective of a western auto manufacturer or consumer. Finally A Reliable Battery Price Data Point! As we will demonstrate in Part 2 of our EV report, excluding the cost of the battery, it should be slightly cheaper to manufacture an EV than a similar ICEV. The EV drive train is much simpler and should be less expensive than that of an ICEV (Illustration 2), offset slightly by the need for a somewhat more robust chassis and suspension due to the weight of the battery, the requirement for electric powered air conditioning, and regenerative braking. Illustration 2Key Components Of A Bolt EV Drive Unit The battery is the most expensive part of an EV and responsible for the higher vehicle prices, and that is likely to remain the case even as manufacturing efficiencies allow EV prices to decline. Unfortunately, the cost of EV batteries is subject to much more speculation than should be the case: many articles cite speculative forecasts, projections, anecdotes, and so on, but without hard data backing them up. Fortunately, we finally have a data point: GM lists the cost of the Bolt EV battery pack as $15,734 for a 60 kWh unit, or $262/kWh.4 Some reports claim the battery cells cost $145/kWh,5 however, battery cells are not the same thing as a battery pack, which is a fully assembled unit complete with wiring, electronics, and a cooling system. Peer reviewed research suggests the cost of the battery pack is about 50% greater than the cost of the battery cells,6 however, we note the same article suggests that ratio will remain the same as battery prices drop. This is unlikely as there is no reason to believe the largely mechanical battery pack will decline proportionately any more than the cost of an engine or transmission will decline. Most likely, the battery pack assembly, excluding the cells, will decline only slightly. EV vendors likely oversize their battery pack in order to limit stress on the batteries (Illustration 3). In other words, the actual capacity of the battery is likely somewhat larger than the rated or useable capacity. If GM is indeed paying $145/kWh for its cells and its pack costs are 50% more than its cell costs and it is oversizing its pack by 20%, the cost of the pack works out to $261/kWh. Illustration 3Oversizing Battery To Account For Capacity Fade The reports which cite a $145/kWh cell price further suggest GM believes cells will cost $100/kWh in 2022, which implies a potential battery cost reduction of $2,700 (assuming the packs are not oversized) over the next 5 years (Table 3). The aforementioned research paper states: "The pure material costs for the VDA-type batteries are estimated to be currently about 50 EUR/kWh ($67.50), which seems to be the lower possible limit at long term." Even if the difference between materials cost and selling price is only 20%, that implies a lower limit of $81/kWh for the cells, meaning savings of $64/kWh are possible. This has not prevented some commentators from suggesting batteries will decline in price by 77% (or $112, implying $33/kWh pricing) by 2030.7 Regardless, savings of $64/kWh work out to $3,840 assuming a 60 kWh pack, or $4,680 assuming the pack is 20% oversized. Even if the pack cost were to decline a similar amount, the cost savings (assuming 50% for the pack, 20% oversized) would only be $7,000. Table 3GM Aims To Cut The Battery Cost By $2,700 By 2022 According to press reports, at the onset GM will lose $9,000 for every Bolt it sells.8 Since the major difference in costs between an EV and an ICEV is the battery pack, the $262 price cited above is probably not representative of the true cost. It may be that part of GM's commercial strategy is to show EV buyers that a replacement battery pack is not overwhelmingly expensive, and it is therefore willing to offer them at a loss. After all, the vehicle comes with a 100,000-mile, 8-year warranty on the battery, and we doubt many consumers would spend $15,734 (plus labor) to replace the battery on an 8-year-old EV. Therefore, GM is probably not going to sell that many replacements, so they won't suffer many losses by offering a replacement battery below its cost. The price differential between a Bolt and a Chevy Sonic, which is a similar vehicle manufactured in the same factory, is about $22,300. If we include the reported $9,000 expected loss, the "true" difference in price is $31,300. We believe that most likely the actual cost of the battery pack of the Bolt is much higher than $15,734. GM Confirms That Batteries Get Used Up Although the Bolt battery pack is covered by an 8-year 100,000-mile warranty, that warranty considers the potential for degradation of up to 40%: "Like all batteries, the amount of energy that the high voltage 'propulsion' battery can store will decrease with time and miles driven. Depending on use, the battery may degrade as little as 10% to as much as 40% of capacity over the warranty period."9 We highlight "all batteries" because this is the fate of all existing battery technologies. We further note that the amount of degradation will depend on the driving habits of the user: if the car is "lightly used" (i.e. traveled much less than 12,000 miles/year), chances are the battery degradation will be at the low end of the scale, whereas if the car is used a lot, chances are it will be at the high end of the scale. The average U.S. driver travels ~13,500 miles (22,000 km) per year,10 meaning the average driver with a single car would exceed the warranty on the Bolt in less than 8 years and, most likely, battery degradation would be closer to 40% than to 10%. Assuming a normal distribution, half of drivers would likely exceed the average annual miles driven, and as a result, their battery degradation would be even greater and happen even sooner, since they would be stressing the battery system through deeper and more frequent charging. Of course, if you were to travel 100,000 miles in 5 years, your battery warranty would expire. A major motivation for buying an EV is the expectation that it will save money on gasoline, which is true as shown in Table 1. However, the more you drive, the faster you use up the battery, and the sooner you would be faced with buying an expensive replacement battery. As such, drivers who drive a lot would be best to be cautious about purchasing an EV, as their costs of ownership due to battery degradation/replacement would be even higher. The Bolt has a purported range of 238 miles, but that range is achieved only when the battery is new and likely measured under ideal circumstances. Use of air conditioning, extreme temperatures (i.e. winter), etc., would probably trim the range significantly, likely to well below 200 miles. Assuming a reasonable usage for the vehicle, an 8-year-old Bolt would probably have a range closer to 100 miles than to 200 miles. This would significantly affect resale value as a vehicle with a range of 100 miles has much less utility than one with 200 miles. Difference In Cost Of Ownership: Chevy Bolt Vs. ICEV Calculating costs of ownership is subject to numerous assumptions, and this is especially the case with respect to an emerging technology such as EVs. Because we have a significant amount of information from GM on the cost and operating characteristics of the Bolt, and because GM makes "mass market" ICEVs which are roughly comparable to the Bolt, we thought it would be a uniquely useful benchmark for a cost of ownership analysis. We are neither making a claim that the Bolt or any EV will be commercially successful, nor are we endorsing it in any way; we are simply identifying the Bolt as representative of a typical mass-market EV. In our analysis we assume: The Chevy Bolt is a typical mass market EV; The sales price of the Bolt is roughly the same in the U.S.11 and Europe12 at $37,495; The Bolt is comparable to the Sonic in North America and the Opel Astra in Europe (Table 4); There are no direct financial subsidies associated with EVs; and After 100,000 miles, both the EV and the comparable ICEV have a similar residual value. Table 4The Bolt Is Much More Expensive Than Similarly-Sized GM ICEVs As we noted above, GM is believed to be taking a $9,000 loss associated with each Bolt sold. This is not sustainable if the firm expects to sell a lot of them. Most likely, either the company sees a path to significant cost reduction over the life of the product, or the company will artificially limit supply and use profits from its other products to subsidize the sales of Bolts. For the purpose of this analysis, we will assume the company and its rivals believe they can sell such vehicles at a reasonable profit in the future. The difference in the cost of ownership for similar vehicles is mainly associated with purchase cost, fuel costs, repair costs, and resale value. Insurance, parking, and so on would be a wash and annual repair and maintenance bills on most new cars are quite modest, so it would not significantly tilt the balance. Although EV enthusiasts tend to highlight the fact EVs do not require oil changes, the significantly increased weight of the battery means EVs require more frequent tire replacement than an equivalent ICEV.13 For example, modern ICEVs require an oil change every 10,000 miles. At $70/oil change this works out to $700, similar in price to a set of tires. Furthermore, the repair experience with EVs is extremely limited, and if we are to take Tesla as an example, they do not fare as well as many had hoped.14 We address the likely higher depreciation rates of EVs below. Estimating Electric Power Costs For An EV Charging a battery is not 100% efficient as losses occur in the charger and at the battery. Batteries get warm as they are charged, and that is a sign of inefficiencies in the charging process. As smartphone and notebook owners are aware, aged batteries produce a lot more heat when they are charged because the charging becomes less efficient as the batteries age. A new EV with a "slow" charger (see below) is about 85% efficient,15,16 while the figure is almost certainly lower for an aged battery. Assuming the system were 100% efficient, the Bolt vehicle goes 238 miles on 60 kWh, averaging about 0.25 kWh/mile, or approximately 25,000 kWh for 100,000 miles. Assuming lifetime average efficiency of 80% (85% when new, 75% when old), lifetime power consumption would be about 31,250 kWh. EV advocates note there are numerous "free" public charging stations. This is true, but there are far fewer public charging stations than there are EVs, which means the average EV owner pays for her electricity (Chart 1). Regardless, somebody has to pay for the electricity, and it is unreasonable to assume that "free charging" will persist if EVs gain significant market share, which apparently they have been doing in the past few years, especially in the U.S. and the EU (Chart 2). Chart 1Globally, EVs Outnumber Charging Stations By 6 To 1 Chart 2EV Market Share Is Increasing, Especially In Europe Furthermore, although many utilities have "time of use" utility rates which are lower in the evening when an EV is being charged, there is reason to question whether those can coexist with significant EV market penetration, a subject we will address in Part 2. Regardless, average power rates incorporate discounted time of use power to some extent, so that is the figure we use. Net Operating Costs: U.S. The Bolt17 is roughly comparable to a Chevy Sonic18 in terms of size, and the vehicles are made in the same factory. The difference in price is about $22,300. At 25/33 mpg, fuel use of the Sonic over 100,000 miles would be about 3,600 gallons (13,627 liters), costing about $9,000, assuming a gasoline price of $2.50 per gallon ($0.66/liter), which is slightly higher than the current nationwide average of ~$2.30/gallon. Assuming lifetime power consumption of 31,250 kWh and an average electricity price in the U.S. of $0.104/kWh,19 electric power costs for the Bolt would be around $3,250, for a net "fuel costs savings" of $5,700 in favor of the Bolt. However, the substantially higher initial purchase price and faster depreciation still results in the Sonic costing about $16,100 less over the duration of the vehicles' 100,000 miles (160,000 km). Put another way, the Bolt's total operating costs would average about $0.38 per mile, 73% higher than the $0.22/mile cost of the Sonic. Net Operating Costs: Europe In Europe, both fuel and electricity costs are typically much higher than in the U.S., but ICEVs also tend to be more fuel efficient. The Bolt is roughly equivalent to an Opel Astra, which costs €16,700 ($19,160) in France and consumes 4.4 litres/100 km20 (53 MPG). The difference in price between the Bolt and the Astra is about $18,300, a smaller premium than in the U.S. comparison. However, even though gasoline prices are more than twice as expensive in Europe than in the U.S., fuel costs for the Astra are moderated by the car's higher fuel efficiency, approximating $10,500 for the first 100,000 miles. Energy costs and EV subsidies vary widely across the EU. Because the economic impact of EVs would be roughly proportional to GDP, we decided to look at the largest EU economies excluding the UK. It happens that EV sales in Italy are negligible, with total market share less than 0.1%,21 and EV subsidies in the country are somewhat opaque. Therefore, we confined our analysis to Germany and France. Assuming lifetime power consumption of 31,250 kWh, the electric power costs of the Bolt would be around $5,350 in France, which has low power prices, for net energy savings of $5,100. In Germany, where power prices of $0.34/kWh are considerably higher, the Bolt and the Astra would have energy costs that are roughly equal. In France, EVs' ownership costs would be $13,200 (49%) higher than the ICEV; in Germany, EV ownership costs would be $18,500 (68%) higher. Bolt Vs Sonic Cost Of Ownership: Impact Of Subsidies In the U.S., there is a federal subsidy of $7,500 and some states also have an EV incentive. In New York State, the subsidy is $2,000, meaning the net increased cost of owning the Bolt instead of a Sonic drops to around $6,600. Note that the federal subsidy is designed to "phase out" once a manufacturer sells 200,000 vehicles. GM hopes to sell 30,000 EVs in 2017 despite only launching U.S.-wide in summer 2017. Combined with prior Volt sales of over 150,000 units, GM should exhaust its federal subsidies in early 2018. Subsidies vary considerably across the EU.22 In France, there is a subsidy of €6,300 ($7,200)23 associated with the purchase of an EV, while Germany24 has a €4,000 ($4,600) incentive. Besides subsidies, there are other benefits of owning an EV including reserved or even free parking spaces, often including free charging. These are offset to some extent by the limited range of EVs which may disqualify them from purchase by some. It remains to be seen how long EV subsidies will persist. They may be affordable to governments as long as the number of vehicles sold remains small, but they would become very costly if EV sales accelerate. For example, about 2 million new passenger cars are registered in France every year. If only half of those were EVs, subsides would total $7.2B. Money for roads, infrastructure maintenance, policing, and so on have to come from somewhere, and if ICEV sales decline substantially, European governments' huge gasoline tax revenues would also deteriorate; in such an environment, it is reasonable to assume that EV subsidies would eventually disappear and be replaced by taxes. It seems highly unlikely to us that a massive subsidy program would be a politically acceptable solution in the U.S. auto market; however, it may very well be that over the near term subsidies persist in the EU where concerns over climate change have greater political weight. Cost Of Ownership: Depreciation Depreciation of the EV is almost certainly going to be much higher than the ICEV, which accounts for some of the higher cost of ownership. We believe that most EV batteries will be substantially degraded after 160,000 km (100,000 miles), and we doubt there will be many EVs on the road past about 200,000 km or 15 years of operation. In contrast, the average age of a vehicle in the EU is over 10.5 years,25 while the average age of a vehicle in the U.S. is 11.6 years.26 The overwhelming majority of EVs on the road today are still under warranty and, in either event, relatively new, which means consumers lack the information to understand the inherent issues of battery degradation. As more consumers have experience with EVs, the problems of degradation and replacement cost (i.e. the high cost of depreciation) will likely temper demand. This would be the case even if battery costs drop significantly: few consumers would invest even $5,000 into repairing a 10-year-old vehicle, and an EV with a 100 mile (160 km) range is significantly less useful than one with a 200 mile (320 km) range. Rapid depreciation has been the experience of Nissan Leaf owners who are discovering their vehicles have lost 80% of their value after only 3 years.27 EV advocates suggest that degradation is not an issue and that, in any event, batteries are getting better and better. This flies in the face of what essentially every consumer has experienced with mobile phones, notebook computers, or any other cordless device. We believe GM has better insights into the issue than EV advocates do and, in any event, we see no evidence for significant improvements in battery life. If, indeed, significant improvements are made to batteries, prior-generation EVs (including today's Bolt) will plummet in value. That said, consumer understanding of battery degradation is not likely to be a factor for EV adoption over the near term. Conclusion: Costs Of Ownership Assuming similar depreciation and excluding subsidies, the net difference in cost of ownership over 160,000 km (100,000 miles) between a Bolt and an equivalent ICEV is about $16,100 in the U.S., $13,200 in France, and $18,500 in Germany, in favor of the ICEV. After subsidies, an optimistic analysis suggests the difference in cost of ownership to travel 100,000 miles (160,000 km) between a Bolt EV and a roughly similar ICEV is about $6,600 in the U.S. (New York), $6,000 in France, and $13,900 in Germany, in favor of the ICEV. Electric power costs for the Bolt are around $3,250 in the U.S., $10,600 in Germany, and around $5,350 in France. Even if electricity were free, after subsidies, the difference in cost of ownership would be $3,400 in the U.S. (NY), $3,200 in Germany, and $600 in France. GM is believed to be losing $9,000 with every Bolt it sells. If so, and it wanted to sell the vehicle at its average Gross Margin of around 13%, it would sell for closer to $48,300, which would increase cost of ownership by about $11,000. In other words it would take a cost reduction of around $14,750 (about 34%) of likely manufacturing cost before the cost of ownership would favor the Bolt in France after subsidies. As noted above in our discussion of battery costs, GM expects a $2,700 cost saving associated with battery cells by 2022. Given that it is losing money on the vehicle, it is hard to believe they will immediately pass these savings on to the consumer. Even if they did, cost of ownership would still favor the ICEVs. Brian Piccioni, Vice President Technology Sector Strategy brianp@bcaresearch.com Matt Conlan, Senior Vice President Energy Sector Strategy mattconlan@bcaresearchny.com Robert P. Ryan, Senior Vice President Commodity & Energy Strategy rryan@bcaresearch.com Johanna El-Hayek, Research Assistant johannah@bcaresearch.com 1 https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-06-28/china-is-about-to-bury-elon-musk-in-batteries 2 https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/10-battery-gigafactories-are-now-in-progress-and-musk-may-add-4-more 3 Please see Technology Sector Strategy Special Report "Electric Vehicle Batteries", dated September 20, 2016. 4 http://insideevs.com/heres-how-much-a-chevrolet-bolt-replacement-battery-costs/ 5 http://insideevs.com/gm-chevrolet-bolt-for-2016-145kwh-cell-cost-volt-margin-improves-3500/ 6 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260339436_An_Overview_of_Costs_for_Vehicle_Components_Fuels_and_Greenhouse_Gas_Emissions 7 https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-05-26/electric-cars-seen-cheaper-than-gasoline-models-within-a-decade 8 https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-11-30/gm-s-ready-to-lose-9-000-a-pop-and-chase-the-electric-car-boom 9 https://electrek.co/2016/12/07/gm-chevy-bolt-ev-battery-degradation-up-to-40-warranty/ 10 http://www.carinsurance.com/Articles/average-miles-driven-per-year-by-state.aspx 11 http://www.chevrolet.com/byo-vc/client/en/US/chevrolet/bolt-ev/2017/bolt-ev/features/trims/?section=Highlights§ion=Fuel%20Efficiency§ion=Dimensions&styleOne=388584 12 https://electrek.co/2016/12/15/chevy-bolt-ev-europe-june-2017-opel-ampera-e-gm/ 13 The Bolt weighs almost 800 pounds (360 kg) more than a similar sized Chevrolet Sonic. 14 http://www.consumerreports.org/cars-tesla-reliability-doesnt-match-its-high-performance/ 15 https://www.veic.org/docs/Transportation/20130320-EVT-NRA-Final-Report.pdf 16 http://teslaliving.net/2014/07/07/measuring-ev-charging-efficiency/ 17 http://www.chevrolet.com/bolt-ev-electric-vehicle 18 http://www.chevrolet.com/sonic-small-car 19 https://www.eia.gov/electricity/state/ 20 http://www.opel.fr/vehicules/gamme-astra/astra-5-portes/points-forts.html#trim-edition 21 http://www.eafo.eu/content/italy 22 https://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/GlobalEVOutlook2017.pdf pages 53-55 23 http://insideevs.com/overview-incentives-buying-electric-vehicles-eu/ 24 https://electrek.co/2016/04/27/germany-electric-vehicle-incentive-4000/ 25 http://www.acea.be/statistics/tag/category/average-vehicle-age 26 http://www.autonews.com/article/20161122/RETAIL05/161129973/average-age-of-vehicles-on-road-hits-11.6-years 27 http://blog.caranddriver.com/tesla-aside-resale-values-for-electric-cars-are-still-tanking/ Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed in 2017 Summary of Trades Closed in 2016

Highlights The euro area's growth prospects, adjusted for population, are no different to any other major developed economy. If the euro area continues its recovery to just the mid-point of its long-term relative growth cycle... ...the yield spread between long-dated bonds in the euro area and the U.S. will compress to around -50 bps from today's -150 bps... ...and euro/dollar will eventually rally to over 1.30. Stay overweight euro area Financials and Retailers versus U.S. Financials and Retailers. Feature ChartThe Euro Area Has Surged Because Expectations ##br##For The Euro Area's 'Terminal' Interest Rate Have Surged Feature The latest GDP releases confirm that the euro area has comfortably outperformed other major developed economies this year. Yet among mainstream equity indexes the Eurostoxx50, which is up 6%, has comfortably underperformed both the MSCI World index1 and the S&P500, which are up 9% and 11%. Why? One clue comes from the technology-heavy NASDAQ 100, which is up 21%. Whereas euro area equities have a negligible exposure to technology, the S&P500 has more than a quarter of its market capitalization in the strongly performing tech and biotech sectors (Chart I-2). Then there is the effect of the surging euro. The largest euro area companies are multinationals earning dollars. In dollar terms, euro area profit growth2 has indeed outperformed U.S. profit growth by about 10%. But converted back into euros - the base currency of the Eurostoxx50 - the outperformance has become an underperformance (Chart I-3). Chart I-2When Technology Outperforms, The Eurostoxx50 Underperforms Chart I-3Euro Area Profits Have Outperformed In Dollars, ##br##But Not In Euros Play Relative Economic Performance Through Bonds And Currencies Chart I-4Euro Area Banks Have Outperformed U.S. Banks The salutary lesson is that sector and currency effects always swamp relative economic performance in predicting or explaining the relative performance of mainstream equity indexes. To play the euro area's economic outperformance, global equity investors must drill down to the more domestically driven euro area sectors, financials and retailers. An overweight position in these two domestic sectors versus their equivalents in, say, the U.S. has outperformed this year, and should continue to do so (Chart I-4). But the best way to play relative economic performance is through other asset classes. Focus not on equities, but on government bonds and currencies. In line with the euro area's superior economic performance this year, the spread between long-dated bond yields in the euro area and U.S. has compressed by 45bps, and euro/dollar is up 12%. The good news is that these trends can ultimately run much further. He That Is Without Structural Problem, Cast The First Stone... Chart I-5For American Men, Labour Force ##br##Participation Rate Is Collapsing The obvious pushback to the longer-term narrative is: what about the euro area's much discussed structural difficulties? To which our response is yes, the euro area does face undoubted long-term challenges. Integrating 19 disparate nations into the confines of an ever closer financial, economic, and ultimately political union is a task that comes with difficulties and risks, especially in the political dimension. Having said that, the euro area is not the only major economy contending with major financial, economic and political challenges in the coming years. To paraphrase the Bible, "he that is without structural problem among you, let him cast the first stone at the euro area." The United Kingdom will spend the next few years struggling to define and redefine the meaning of Brexit, then trying to negotiate it, and then grappling to implement it - whatever 'it' ends up being. The whole process is fraught with financial, economic and political challenges and dangers. Looking West, the United States is suffering a major structural downtrend in its labour participation rate; for American men especially, the participation rate is collapsing (Chart I-5), which creates its own political problems. Looking East, Japan is suffering a chronically low and declining birth rate. And China must wean itself off a decade long addiction to debt-fuelled growth. We could go on... Seen in this light, are the euro area's structural challenges really any harder (or easier) than those faced by the other major economies? The Euro Area Is An Economic Equal One important differentiator across the major developed economies is population growth. A population that is growing boosts headline output. On the other hand, it also adds to the number of people who must share the economy's income and resources. Conversely, a population that is shrinking weighs on headline output, but it reduces the number of people who must share the income and resources. Therefore, what matters for standards of living - and the consequent political implications - is the evolution of GDP per head. In a similar vein, a growing population means that a firm will see rising sales. But absent a rise in productivity, the firm will have to employ more staff and capital to deliver those increased sales - in other words, issue more shares. Therefore, what matters for earnings per share is the evolution of productivity, which once again means GDP per head. Some people consider a shrinking population as a particular problem. They argue that when a population is shrinking, the economy needs to shed workers and capital, which can be hard to do. But a growing population can also create disruptions and pains: specifically, resources such as housing and public services might struggle to keep pace with rapidly rising demand. Consider the United Kingdom. In the 1980s and 90s, the population grew at a very sedate 2% per decade. But since the millennium, population growth has almost quadrupled to 7.5% per decade. The resulting strain on housing and public services was a major factor behind the vote for Brexit - which of course, now carries its own disruptive consequences. Chart I-6The Euro Area Is An Economic Equal Therefore, population shrinkage or growth is a problem only if it is sudden or extreme. More modest changes in either direction are neither good nor bad per se. But to assess progress in living standards and indeed equity market profitability, it is crucial to measure economic growth adjusted for population change. On this population adjusted basis, the structural growth prospects of the euro area are not meaningfully different to other developed economies such as the U.K. and the U.S. The euro area is an equal, and recently it has been the first among equals. Over the longer term, the euro area and the U.S. have generated identical growth in real GDP per head (Chart I-6). Within the bigger picture, the euro area has underperformed through multi-year periods encompassing around half the time; and it has outperformed through the multi-year periods encompassing the other half. Seen in this light, the post-2008 phase of poor performance was the impact of back to back recessions separated by an unusually short gap, with the second of the two recessions the direct result of policy errors specific to the euro area. In other words, the euro area's 2008-14 economic underperformance was not structural; it was cyclical. Prospects For Bond Yield Spreads And The Euro If the euro area continues its recovery to just the mid-point of its long-term relative cycle, then recent investment trends ultimately have much further to run. Unsurprisingly, relative interest rate expectations closely follow relative real GDP per head. Relative interest rate expectations 2 years out between the euro area and United States have compressed from -230 bps last December to -185 bps today. Relative interest rates expectations 5 years out have compressed more, to -150 bps today (Feature Chart). This makes perfect sense. Clearly, the ECB will not hike interest rates any time soon, but expectations for the long-term 'terminal' rate have correctly gone up from overly-pessimistic levels. Nevertheless, to reach the mid-point of its long-term cycle, the gap between euro area and U.S. interest rate expectations must ultimately get to around -50 bps (Chart I-7). The implication is that the yield spread between long-dated bonds in the euro area3 and the U.S. will also compress to around -50 bps (Chart I-8). Therefore, on a 2-year horizon, stay underweight euro area bonds - especially German bunds - in a European and global bond portfolio. This also carries repercussions for euro/dollar, given that it closely tracks relative interest rate expectations. The mid-cycle gap of -50 bps equates to euro/dollar at over 1.30 (Chart I-9). And an overshoot to the top of the cycle implies over 1.50. Chart I-7Relative GDP Per Head Leads Relative Interest Rate Expectations Chart I-8...And Bond Yield Spreads Chart I-9Relative Interest Rate Expectations Drive Euro/Dollar But trends do not unfold in straight lines. They are punctuated by regular setbacks. The recent surge in euro/dollar has taken its 65-day fractal dimension towards its lower limit, which suggests excessive short-term herding. That said, we could now be at the mirror-image turning point in ECB policy to that of the summer of 2014. Then, Draghi pre-announced QE; now, he may pre-announce its demise. In which case, fundamentals will override the 65-day fractal signal just as they did three years ago (Chart I-10). Nonetheless, we would not be surprised if euro/dollar first revisited the 1.10-1.15 channel before resuming its long march upwards. Chart I-10Excessive Short-Term Herding In Euro/Dollar, But... Dhaval Joshi, Senior Vice President European Investment Strategy dhaval@bcaresearch.com 1 In local currency terms. 2 Based on 12 month forward earnings per share. 3 Euro area average over 10-year sovereign yield, weighted by sovereign issue size. Fractal Trading Model* This week's trade is to position for an underperformance of Chinese shares versus the emerging markets benchmark. Target a 2.5% profit target and stop-loss. For any investment, excessive trend following and groupthink can reach a natural point of instability, at which point the established trend is highly likely to break down with or without an external catalyst. An early warning sign is the investment's fractal dimension approaching its natural lower bound. Encouragingly, this trigger has consistently identified countertrend moves of various magnitudes across all asset classes. Chart I-11 * For more details please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report "Fractals, Liquidity & A Trading Model," dated December 11, 2014, available at eis.bcaresearch.com. The post-June 9, 2016 fractal trading model rules are: When the fractal dimension approaches the lower limit after an investment has been in an established trend it is a potential trigger for a liquidity-triggered trend reversal. Therefore, open a countertrend position. The profit target is a one-third reversal of the preceding 13-week move. Apply a symmetrical stop-loss. Close the position at the profit target or stop-loss. Otherwise close the position after 13 weeks. Use the position size multiple to control risk. The position size will be smaller for more risky positions. Fractal Trading Model Recommendations Equities Bond & Interest Rates Currency & Other Positions Closed Fractal Trades Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Interest Rate Chart II-5Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations

Feature Recommended Allocation When Central Banks Turn Hawkish It seems almost as though, when central bank governors gathered in Portugal for the ECB's annual confab in late June, they agreed to start sounding more hawkish. ECB President Mario Draghi's speech included the line: "The threat of deflation is gone and reflationary forces are at play." Bank of Canada Governor Stephen Poloz went ahead and on July 12 announced Canada's first rate hike in seven years. Indeed, BCA's Central Bank Monitors (Chart 1) suggest that, with the exceptions of Japan and possibly the euro area, all major developed central banks need to tighten monetary policy. Does this matter for risk assets, such as equities? Historical evidence suggests not, as long as the central bank is tightening because it is confident about the outlook for growth and unconcerned about financial risks (rather than, for example, reacting to a sharp rise in inflation). Equity markets typically move up in the early stages of a tightening cycle (Chart 2); it is only when the central bank tightens excessively (usually later in the cycle) that risk assets start to anticipate that this will trigger a recession. Even in the U.S. which, after four rate hikes since December 2015, is the furthest advanced in tightening, the real effective Fed Funds Rate is still -0.3%, below the 0.3% that the Fed believes to be the neutral real rate at the moment (Chart 3). The Fed expects the neutral rate to rise to 1% in the longer run. Chart 1Most Central Banks Need To Tighten Chart 2Equities Usually Rise During Rate Hike Cycle Chart 3Fed Policy Is Still Accommodative But the order in which central banks tighten will be a major driver of currencies (as has been clear with the sharp appreciation of the CAD and AUD in recent weeks). Our current asset recommendations are based on the belief that the market has become too complacent about the speed at which the Fed will tighten (with futures pricing only 26 bp of hikes over the next 12 months), and too nervous about the ECB (Chart 4). As the market starts to understand that the Fed has fallen a little behind the curve, and that the ECB will remain cautious (given continuing weakness in peripheral economies, and a lack of underlying inflationary pressures), we expect to see the dollar begin to appreciate again. A key to all this is whether the recent softness in U.S. inflation data (core PCE inflation has fallen from 1.8% YoY to 1.4% since January) proves to be temporary. A rebound in inflation would allow the Fed to continue to hike without bringing the real rate close to the neutral level yet. It is worth remembering that inflation is a lagging indicator: the recent weakness is largely a reflection of last year's soggy GDP growth (Chart 5), as well as some transitory technical factors (particularly drug and wireless data prices). The recent dollar depreciation should also boost inflation via the import price channel over the coming months (Chart 6). Chart 4Markets Views On Fed And ECB Have Diverged Chart 5Inflation Lags GDP Growth Chart 6Dollar Deprecation Will Raise Prices However, with global equities having produced a total return of 35% since their recent bottom in February last year, and 17% year to date, valuations are unattractive and, on some measures, sentiment is quite optimistic (Chart 7). What catalysts are there left to give risk assets further upside? We see two. First, earnings. The Q2 U.S. results season has seen 77% of S&P 500 companies surprising on the upside at the sales line, with EPS rising 7% compared to the same quarter in 2016. Most of our indicators suggest that earnings have further to rise this year (Chart 8), yet the consensus EPS forecast for 2017 as a whole remains at just over 10%, where it has been since January. Strong earnings momentum is likely to remain a positive at least through the end of the year. Second, tax cuts. Our Geopolitical Strategy service1 remains optimistic that the U.S. Congress will pass tax legislation to come into effect in early 2018. The failure to repeal Obamacare means that the Republican Party will need a big legislative win going into the mid-term elections in November 2017. Tax cuts (which the market is no longer pricing in - Chart 9) is one policy on which there is little disagreement within the GOP. Chart 7Are Investors Getting Too Optimistic? Chart 8Earnings Can Still Surprise On Upside Chart 9No One Expects Tax Cuts Any More None of the recession indicators we highlighted in our most recent Quarterly 2 (global PMIs, the shape of the yield curve, or credit spreads) are pointing to a downturn in the next 12 months. So, given the environment described above, we are happy to remain overweight equities versus bonds, and to maintain our pro-risk and pro-cyclical tilts. But we continue to warn of the risk of a recession in 2019 - probably triggered by the Fed needing to tighten more aggressively - and might look to lower our risk profile in the first half of next year. Equities: We favor DM equities over EM. An appreciating dollar, rising interest rates, weak industrial metals prices this year and uncertain growth prospects for China all represent headwinds for EM equities. Our strong dollar view points to an overweight in U.S. equities in USD terms but, in local currencies, our preference is for euro area and Japanese equities. Both are relatively high-beta, have strongly cyclical earnings momentum, and central banks that are likely to stay dovish. In Japan, the falling popularity rating of the Abe administration might compel it to ramp up fiscal spending to boost the economy, which would help the Bank of Japan in its efforts to rekindle inflation. Chart 10Everyone Has Turned Bullish On The Euro Fixed Income: Our macro outlook, with faster rate hikes and rebounding inflation in the U.S., is very negative for rates. We are underweight government bonds, short duration and prefer inflation-linked bonds to nominal ones. Valuations in credit are no longer particularly attractive but, with a 100 bp spread for U.S. investment grade bonds and a 230 bp default-adjusted spread for high-yield, returns are likely to be satisfactory as long as the economic cycle continues to improve. Currencies: Our fundamental view of the dollar is that relative monetary policy and interest rates point to further appreciation, especially against the yen and euro. The timing of the dollar's rebound, though, is harder to pinpoint. The euro could rise further over the next couple of months. However, given speculators' large net long positions in the euro - a big turnaround from the start of the year (Chart 10) - the likely announcement by the ECB in September or October of a reduction in its asset purchases might be the catalyst for a reversal (as a classic "buy the news, sell the rumor" event), particularly if Mario Draghi dresses it up as a "dovish tapering." Commodities: Oil inventories have begun to draw down in line with our expectations (Chart 11). Continued discipline by OPEC producers until next March, combined with a slowdown in the growth of U.S. shale production (reflecting the weaker crude price this year) should bring inventories down further (despite production increases in such countries as Libya and Iran), and push the price of WTI above $55 a barrel by year end. Industrial commodity prices have rebounded somewhat in the past six weeks, mainly on the back of moderately brighter economic data out of China (Chart 12). But, given uncertain prospects about the sustainability of this growth, especially beyond the Communist Party Congress in the fall, and amid some signs of weakness in Chinese monetary and credit aggregates,3 we remain cautious about the outlook for metals prices over the next 12 months. Chart 11Oil Inventories Will Draw Down Further in Chart 12Tick-Up In Chinese Data? Garry Evans, Senior Vice President Global Asset Allocation garry@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "The Wrath Of Cohn," dated July 26, 2017, available at gps.bca.research.com. 2 Please see BCA Global Asset Allocation, "Quarterly Portfolio Review," dated July 3, 2107, available at gaa.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report, "Follow The Money, Not The Crowd," dated July 26, 2017, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. Recommended Asset Allocation

Highlights Structural Bond Backdrop: The secular global bond market outlook is slowly deteriorating on the margin. The structural forces that have driven down bond yields over the past few decades are in the process of stabilizing or even slowly reversing. With central banks moving away from "emergency" stimulative monetary policies that were designed to fight imminent deflation risks that are no longer needed, the path of least resistance for global bond yields is up. Central Bank Liquidity & Volatility: The current low volatility backdrop is a function of solid global economic growth and accommodative (and predictable) central banks. The growth momentum is likely to persist for at least the next 3-6 months, but monetary policies will continue to shift in a less dovish direction. Stay below-benchmark overall portfolio duration and favor corporate credit over government bonds for the rest of 2017. Feature The End Of The Bond Bull Market, One Year Later In July of last year, BCA put its flag in the ground and declared the end of the 35-year global bond bull market.1 This was not a view that a new fixed income bear market was about to immediately unfold. Rather, we concluded that all the bond-bullish factors of the past few decades - aging populations, anemic productivity growth, structurally declining global inflation rates - were more than fully reflected in the level of bond yields seen after the shocking result of the U.K. Brexit referendum. Even in the most pessimistic of future scenarios for the global economy, a 10-year U.S. Treasury yield at 1.37% or a 10-year German Bund yield at -0.18% (the intraday lows seen immediately after the Brexit vote) discounted an awful lot of bad news. Chart of the WeekA Less Market-Friendly##BR##Backdrop On The Horizon? We believed that central bankers would likely respond to the uncertainties created by the growing wave of political populism evidenced by Brexit (and, later, Trump) by keeping monetary settings as loose as possible for as long as possible. Overly accommodative policy would provide a reflationary tailwind to global growth - especially if governments also looked to placate voter uprisings with looser fiscal policy. Coming at a time when many of the powerful structural factors that have acted to suppress bond yields in recent decades were starting to lose potency, the risks were tilted toward a cyclical rise in yields that could turn into something longer lasting. Roll the tape forward one year, and some parts of our prediction have already come to fruition. The major developed economy central banks have generally leaned on the dovish side. Policy rates have been kept well below "equilibrium" - in some cases, below zero. Only the U.S. Federal Reserve has been able to raise interest rates a handful of times, and even then while still maintaining a bloated balance sheet left over from the QE era. More importantly, the European Central Bank (ECB) and the Bank of Japan (BoJ) have continued with asset purchase programs that have added a combined $3.5 trillion in monetary liquidity over the past two years. That massive dose of money printing has helped keep global bond yields low while supporting a coordinated economic recovery that has underwritten equity and credit bull markets worldwide (Chart of the Week). The structural aspects of our long-term call on global bonds are less evident in the current economic data, but we are even more convinced that the tide is turning. This week, we are including a pair of additional Special Reports, recently authored by BCA's Chief Global Strategist, Peter Berezin, and Mark McClellan, Chief Strategist for our flagship publication, The Bank Credit Analyst. Mark discusses how many of the secular drivers of the current low level of global bond yields - aging populations; excess global savings, especially from China; the absorption of low-cost labor from the emerging world; globalization of world trade and supply chains - are waning or may even be reaching an inflection point. Peter takes an even more provocative stand in his report, laying out a case for why the current backdrop of low global productivity growth will eventually lead to higher real interest rates and faster inflation. In this Weekly Report, we tackle the more immediate issue of the shifting outlook for central bank policies and what it implies for the current state of low market volatilities. The growth rate of the "G-3" aggregate balance sheet has already peaked which, combined with early warning signs on future growth signaled by measures like our diffusion index of global leading economic indicators, suggests that a turning point in the current low volatility, pro-risk backdrop may start to unfold in the months ahead - but not before government bond yields move higher on the back of rebounding inflation and central bank tightening actions. Are Central Banks To Blame For Low Volatility? Perhaps the hottest topic among investors at the moment is what to make of the exceptionally low levels of market volatility. The so-called "fear gauge" - the U.S. VIX index - fell into single digits last month to the lowest level since 1993. This is not the only measure of market volatility that is probing historic lows, however. In Chart 2, we show the range of realized total return volatilities for major global asset classes dating back to 1999. The current volatilities all sit very close to the low end of the historical range, from bonds to equities to currencies to commodities. Part of this can simply be chalked up to the broad-based acceleration of global growth seen over the past year, which has supported stable earnings-driven equity bull markets. Chart 2It's Not Just The VIX ... All Market Volatilities Are Historically Low The slow response of central banks to this upturn is an even bigger factor, helping keep bond volatility depressed. Low rates of realized inflation, and restrained levels of expected inflation, have allowed policymakers to maintain accommodative monetary policies and not engineer slower growth to cool overheating economies. Corporate profits have enjoyed a cyclical boost as a result, to the benefit of equities and corporate credit. For the VIX index, which is based on option-implied volatilities for the S&P 500, the current low level is consistent with a more stable environment for economic growth and corporate profits. The standard deviations of the growth rates of U.S. real GDP and reported S&P earnings have fallen to the lowest levels seen since 1990 (Chart 3). Against this backdrop, it is no surprise that the realized volatility of the S&P 500 is also depressed (bottom panel). The previous dovish biases of central bankers have also played a role in helping keep volatility low. Interest rates been kept at low levels relative to policymakers' own estimates of "neutral". Asset purchase programs in Europe and Japan have acted as a signaling mechanism to markets to delay expectations of future interest rate increases, helping suppress bond yield levels and bond price volatility. This has acted to boost risk-seeking behavior among investors seeking adequate investment returns given rock-bottom risk-free interest rates. In the U.S., policymakers still have strong memories of the mid-2000s period where predictable monetary policy, even during a tightening cycle, led to an extended period of low market volatility and encouraged risk-taking behavior fueled by excessive leverage. A greater focus on "financial stability" issues has likely played a hand in the timing of the Fed's rate hikes earlier this year, given that growth and inflation data were not rapidly accelerating (especially prior to the June rate hike). In other words, the Fed was seeing soaring equity prices, tightening credit spreads and a weaker U.S. dollar as an easing of financial conditions that could set the stage for more rapid economic growth, and more "frothy" investor behavior, down the road. The Fed can take some comfort in the fact that some signs of speculative excesses in the U.S. corporate bond market are not at levels seen during the credit boom of the prior decade. Our preferred measure of corporate balance sheet leverage, debt less cash relative to the EBITD measure of earnings, is rising but remains below prior peaks despite the current lower level of corporate borrowing rates (Chart 4). Inflows into corporates from foreign buyers are far below the levels seen in the mid-2000s, while domestic retail buying of corporate bond funds is within historic norms (middle panel). Some signs of excess are appearing, however, with the share of leveraged loan issuance taken up by so-called "covenant-lite" deals offering reduced protection for lenders soaring to a record high earlier this year (bottom panel). Chart 3A Low VIX Reflects More Stable Growth & Earnings Chart 4Not At 2000s Credit Bubble Levels...Yet The Fed will never explicitly say that monetary policy is being tightened to cool off booming financial markets. However, numerous Fed officials have mentioned signs of stretched market valuations in their public speeches in recent months. This suggests that there is growing concern about leaving monetary policy too accommodative for too long and potentially fueling future asset bubbles. We remain of the view that faster growth and rebounding inflation will prompt the next wave of Fed rate hikes over the next year - which is not currently discounted in financial markets, leading us to maintain a below-benchmark recommended duration stance in the U.S. Yet the very easy level of financial conditions will also play a role in the Fed's next move. In many ways, the current backdrop is similar to 2014. Realized U.S. inflation was falling rapidly then, but financial conditions were easing and leading economic indicators were rising, even as the Fed was tapering its QE purchases to zero (Chart 5). At the beginning of the Fed's tapering process in the spring of 2014, there was barely one 25bp rate hike priced into the Overnight Index Swap (OIS) curve. As the Fed began to taper its bond buying, even while inflation was falling, investors got the hint that the Fed was serious about becoming less accommodative and began to price in more future rate hikes (bottom panel). Chart 52014 Revisited? Chart 6The ECB Will Taper Next Year We see a similar dynamic playing out in Europe in the coming months as the markets begin to more seriously price in a slower pace of ECB bond purchases in 2018, which the central bank is likely to formally announce next month (Chart 6). In Japan, the BoJ has already been buying bonds at a slower pace this year after shifting to a bond yield target from a quantitative purchase target last September (Chart 7). Combined with the additional Fed hikes that are likely to come, in addition to the Fed beginning to "normalize" the size of its swollen balance sheet (Chart 8), the central bank liquidity backdrop is about to become much less friendly for financial markets. Chart 7The BoJ Has Already Tapered Chart 8Let The Fed Runoff Begin We have seen the lows in market volatility for this business cycle. This will become a bigger issue for risk assets after monetary policy becomes even less accommodative and economic data begins to slow in response, likely sometime in the first half of 2018. Until then, the current healthy pace of global growth will put more upward pressure on bond yields than downward pressure on equity or credit market valuations over the rest of the year. Bottom Line: The current low volatility backdrop is a function of solid global economic growth with accommodative (and predictable) central banks. The growth momentum is likely to persist for at least the next 3-6 months, but the monetary policy backdrop will continue to shift in a less dovish direction. Stay below-benchmark overall portfolio duration and favor corporate credit over government bonds over the rest of 2017. Robert Robis, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy Third Quarter 2016 Strategy Outlook, "The End Of The 35-Year Global Bond Bull Market", dated July 8th 2016, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

Highlights Structural Bond Backdrop: The secular global bond market outlook is slowly deteriorating on the margin. The structural forces that have driven down bond yields over the past few decades are in the process of stabilizing or even slowly reversing. With central banks moving away from "emergency" stimulative monetary policies that were designed to fight imminent deflation risks that are no longer needed, the path of least resistance for global bond yields is up. Central Bank Liquidity & Volatility: The current low volatility backdrop is a function of solid global economic growth and accommodative (and predictable) central banks. The growth momentum is likely to persist for at least the next 3-6 months, but monetary policies will continue to shift in a less dovish direction. Stay below-benchmark overall portfolio duration and favor corporate credit over government bonds for the rest of 2017. Feature The End Of The Bond Bull Market, One Year Later In July of last year, BCA put its flag in the ground and declared the end of the 35-year global bond bull market.1 This was not a view that a new fixed income bear market was about to immediately unfold. Rather, we concluded that all the bond-bullish factors of the past few decades - aging populations, anemic productivity growth, structurally declining global inflation rates - were more than fully reflected in the level of bond yields seen after the shocking result of the U.K. Brexit referendum. Even in the most pessimistic of future scenarios for the global economy, a 10-year U.S. Treasury yield at 1.37% or a 10-year German Bund yield at -0.18% (the intraday lows seen immediately after the Brexit vote) discounted an awful lot of bad news. Chart of the WeekA Less Market-Friendly##BR##Backdrop On The Horizon? We believed that central bankers would likely respond to the uncertainties created by the growing wave of political populism evidenced by Brexit (and, later, Trump) by keeping monetary settings as loose as possible for as long as possible. Overly accommodative policy would provide a reflationary tailwind to global growth - especially if governments also looked to placate voter uprisings with looser fiscal policy. Coming at a time when many of the powerful structural factors that have acted to suppress bond yields in recent decades were starting to lose potency, the risks were tilted toward a cyclical rise in yields that could turn into something longer lasting. Roll the tape forward one year, and some parts of our prediction have already come to fruition. The major developed economy central banks have generally leaned on the dovish side. Policy rates have been kept well below "equilibrium" - in some cases, below zero. Only the U.S. Federal Reserve has been able to raise interest rates a handful of times, and even then while still maintaining a bloated balance sheet left over from the QE era. More importantly, the European Central Bank (ECB) and the Bank of Japan (BoJ) have continued with asset purchase programs that have added a combined $3.5 trillion in monetary liquidity over the past two years. That massive dose of money printing has helped keep global bond yields low while supporting a coordinated economic recovery that has underwritten equity and credit bull markets worldwide (Chart of the Week). The structural aspects of our long-term call on global bonds are less evident in the current economic data, but we are even more convinced that the tide is turning. This week, we are including a pair of additional Special Reports, recently authored by BCA's Chief Global Strategist, Peter Berezin, and Mark McClellan, Chief Strategist for our flagship publication, The Bank Credit Analyst. Mark discusses how many of the secular drivers of the current low level of global bond yields - aging populations; excess global savings, especially from China; the absorption of low-cost labor from the emerging world; globalization of world trade and supply chains - are waning or may even be reaching an inflection point. Peter takes an even more provocative stand in his report, laying out a case for why the current backdrop of low global productivity growth will eventually lead to higher real interest rates and faster inflation. In this Weekly Report, we tackle the more immediate issue of the shifting outlook for central bank policies and what it implies for the current state of low market volatilities. The growth rate of the "G-3" aggregate balance sheet has already peaked which, combined with early warning signs on future growth signaled by measures like our diffusion index of global leading economic indicators, suggests that a turning point in the current low volatility, pro-risk backdrop may start to unfold in the months ahead - but not before government bond yields move higher on the back of rebounding inflation and central bank tightening actions. Are Central Banks To Blame For Low Volatility? Perhaps the hottest topic among investors at the moment is what to make of the exceptionally low levels of market volatility. The so-called "fear gauge" - the U.S. VIX index - fell into single digits last month to the lowest level since 1993. This is not the only measure of market volatility that is probing historic lows, however. In Chart 2, we show the range of realized total return volatilities for major global asset classes dating back to 1999. The current volatilities all sit very close to the low end of the historical range, from bonds to equities to currencies to commodities. Part of this can simply be chalked up to the broad-based acceleration of global growth seen over the past year, which has supported stable earnings-driven equity bull markets. Chart 2It's Not Just The VIX ... All Market Volatilities Are Historically Low The slow response of central banks to this upturn is an even bigger factor, helping keep bond volatility depressed. Low rates of realized inflation, and restrained levels of expected inflation, have allowed policymakers to maintain accommodative monetary policies and not engineer slower growth to cool overheating economies. Corporate profits have enjoyed a cyclical boost as a result, to the benefit of equities and corporate credit. For the VIX index, which is based on option-implied volatilities for the S&P 500, the current low level is consistent with a more stable environment for economic growth and corporate profits. The standard deviations of the growth rates of U.S. real GDP and reported S&P earnings have fallen to the lowest levels seen since 1990 (Chart 3). Against this backdrop, it is no surprise that the realized volatility of the S&P 500 is also depressed (bottom panel). The previous dovish biases of central bankers have also played a role in helping keep volatility low. Interest rates been kept at low levels relative to policymakers' own estimates of "neutral". Asset purchase programs in Europe and Japan have acted as a signaling mechanism to markets to delay expectations of future interest rate increases, helping suppress bond yield levels and bond price volatility. This has acted to boost risk-seeking behavior among investors seeking adequate investment returns given rock-bottom risk-free interest rates. In the U.S., policymakers still have strong memories of the mid-2000s period where predictable monetary policy, even during a tightening cycle, led to an extended period of low market volatility and encouraged risk-taking behavior fueled by excessive leverage. A greater focus on "financial stability" issues has likely played a hand in the timing of the Fed's rate hikes earlier this year, given that growth and inflation data were not rapidly accelerating (especially prior to the June rate hike). In other words, the Fed was seeing soaring equity prices, tightening credit spreads and a weaker U.S. dollar as an easing of financial conditions that could set the stage for more rapid economic growth, and more "frothy" investor behavior, down the road. The Fed can take some comfort in the fact that some signs of speculative excesses in the U.S. corporate bond market are not at levels seen during the credit boom of the prior decade. Our preferred measure of corporate balance sheet leverage, debt less cash relative to the EBITD measure of earnings, is rising but remains below prior peaks despite the current lower level of corporate borrowing rates (Chart 4). Inflows into corporates from foreign buyers are far below the levels seen in the mid-2000s, while domestic retail buying of corporate bond funds is within historic norms (middle panel). Some signs of excess are appearing, however, with the share of leveraged loan issuance taken up by so-called "covenant-lite" deals offering reduced protection for lenders soaring to a record high earlier this year (bottom panel). Chart 3A Low VIX Reflects More Stable Growth & Earnings Chart 4Not At 2000s Credit Bubble Levels...Yet The Fed will never explicitly say that monetary policy is being tightened to cool off booming financial markets. However, numerous Fed officials have mentioned signs of stretched market valuations in their public speeches in recent months. This suggests that there is growing concern about leaving monetary policy too accommodative for too long and potentially fueling future asset bubbles. We remain of the view that faster growth and rebounding inflation will prompt the next wave of Fed rate hikes over the next year - which is not currently discounted in financial markets, leading us to maintain a below-benchmark recommended duration stance in the U.S. Yet the very easy level of financial conditions will also play a role in the Fed's next move. In many ways, the current backdrop is similar to 2014. Realized U.S. inflation was falling rapidly then, but financial conditions were easing and leading economic indicators were rising, even as the Fed was tapering its QE purchases to zero (Chart 5). At the beginning of the Fed's tapering process in the spring of 2014, there was barely one 25bp rate hike priced into the Overnight Index Swap (OIS) curve. As the Fed began to taper its bond buying, even while inflation was falling, investors got the hint that the Fed was serious about becoming less accommodative and began to price in more future rate hikes (bottom panel). Chart 52014 Revisited? Chart 6The ECB Will Taper Next Year We see a similar dynamic playing out in Europe in the coming months as the markets begin to more seriously price in a slower pace of ECB bond purchases in 2018, which the central bank is likely to formally announce next month (Chart 6). In Japan, the BoJ has already been buying bonds at a slower pace this year after shifting to a bond yield target from a quantitative purchase target last September (Chart 7). Combined with the additional Fed hikes that are likely to come, in addition to the Fed beginning to "normalize" the size of its swollen balance sheet (Chart 8), the central bank liquidity backdrop is about to become much less friendly for financial markets. Chart 7The BoJ Has Already Tapered Chart 8Let The Fed Runoff Begin We have seen the lows in market volatility for this business cycle. This will become a bigger issue for risk assets after monetary policy becomes even less accommodative and economic data begins to slow in response, likely sometime in the first half of 2018. Until then, the current healthy pace of global growth will put more upward pressure on bond yields than downward pressure on equity or credit market valuations over the rest of the year. Bottom Line: The current low volatility backdrop is a function of solid global economic growth with accommodative (and predictable) central banks. The growth momentum is likely to persist for at least the next 3-6 months, but the monetary policy backdrop will continue to shift in a less dovish direction. Stay below-benchmark overall portfolio duration and favor corporate credit over government bonds over the rest of 2017. Robert Robis, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy Third Quarter 2016 Strategy Outlook, "The End Of The 35-Year Global Bond Bull Market", dated July 8th 2016, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. Recommendations Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index

Highlights EUR/USD is likely to correct over the course of the coming weeks, however, the picture remains too murky to be aggressive. The dollar move since 2015 is still in line with previous sideways consolidations. Economic developments suggest that the USD is more likely to break out than breakdown over the next 12 months. Inflation will hold the keys to the next big trend. The RBA is hampered by a high degree of labor underutilization, and the roll-over in the Chinese Keqiang index bodes poorly for the AUD. Feature The euro's recent strength has been nothing short of stunning. Abandoning our "dollar correction" stance at the end of May was clearly a mistake.1 Now that EUR/USD has punched back above its 2015 high, it is time to reflect whether this year's dollar decline was indeed a correction or whether the euro's bear market is over, in which case EUR/USD could move back above its PPP fair value of 1.33. A Dollar Move Chart I-1The Dollar Is Weak Against Everything The rally in EUR/USD has been more than just a period of euro strength: it has been reflective of a broad-based decline in the USD. As Chart I-1 illustrates, the plunge in the dollar's advance/decline line indicates the greenback has been weak against pretty much everything out there. While the White House's failures and its lack of action on the fiscal stimulus front have played a role in explaining the dollar's weakness, the Federal Reserve's absence of credibility among market participants has been an even greater factor. Weak U.S. inflation, with core CPI at 1.7% and core PCE at 1.4%, implies that the Fed is not achieving its 2% inflation target. Thus, the probability of another rate hike in December has now fallen below 50%, and the OIS curve only anticipates one interest rate hike per year for the next two years. We can add color by looking at specific contracts. At the end of 2016, the December 2019 Eurodollar futures sported a nearly 2.6% implied rate. Today, the same contract trades below 2%. This seems too complacent. For one, U.S. financial conditions have massively eased in response to the collapse in the dollar and the rally in risk assets. This suggests U.S. growth should perk up toward 3% for the remainder of 2017 (Chart I-2). Chart I-2Financial Conditions Will Support Growth Moreover, this is not happening in a vacuum. The official U.S. output gap is more or less closed, and our Composite Capacity Utilization Gauge - which incorporates both the traditional capacity utilization measure along with the unemployment gap - has now moved decisively into "no slack" territory. Under such circumstances, accelerating growth is likely to put heightened pressures on existing resources, raising the risk of a resumption in inflation. Also, in and of itself, this indicator has historically displayed long leads on inflation. Based on this measure, inflation should bottom during the third quarter of 2017 (Chart I-3). With the narrative that inflation is low forever well-entrenched in the market, an inflation surprise in the fall is a growing threat that would prompt a violent repricing of the Fed's path toward something closer to the "dots." This would support a rebound in the DXY. Would this rebound be playable? Our bias is to say yes. The U.S. labor market is still much tighter than the rest of the G10. The U.S. unemployment remains 2.7 percentage points below its 10-year moving average, versus 0.3 percentage points for the rest of the G10 (Chart I-4). Hence, U.S. rates have more upside relative to other advanced economies. This suggests that peak monetary divergences have yet to be seen. Moreover, from a technical perspective, it is far from clear that the dollar bull market is over. While the dollar A/D line has swooned, it has yet to break down - a pattern reminiscent of the second half of the 1990s, when the dollar bull market also experienced a long pause before powering ahead again (Chart I-5). Chart I-3The Trough In Inflation Is Coming Chart I-4The U.S.: In A Tighter Spot Chart I-5Too Early To Tell If The Greenback Is Dead Bottom Line: The euro's strength has been a reflection of generalized weakness in the USD. So far, the USD's weakness in 2017 continues to look and smell like a correction, similar to the action in the late 1990s. However, we cannot be dogmatic: the USD will remain under the thralls of inflationary dynamics in the U.S. The easing in U.S. financial conditions, along with the elevated level of resource utilization, suggests U.S. inflation will pick up this fall, which should prompt a repricing of the Fed's path by investors. The Euro Specifics When it comes to that specifics of the euro, the economic fundamentals are in favor of the dollar right now. First, it is undeniable the euro area inflation has been surprising to the upside relative to that of the U.S. However, this is principally a reflection of the lagging stimulative impact of the 25% collapse in the euro from April 2014 to March 2015. Its 12% appreciation since then points to a reversal of this dynamic (Chart I-6). Second, aggregate relative financial conditions (FCI) tell a similar story. The tightening in euro area FCI relative to the U.S. also points to a slowdown in relative growth in favor of the U.S. Most crucially though, this tightening in relative FCI also portends a change in relative inflation dynamics. As Chart I-7 illustrates, the change in relative FCI has been a reliable leading indicator of comparative inflation dynamics. At this juncture, it argues that inflation in Europe should slow down relative to the U.S. Chart I-6Inflation Surprises Will Move##br## From Europe To The U.S. Chart I-7FCIs Point To A Reversal ##br##Of Inflation Fortunes This makes sense. The U.S. has had trouble generating much inflation despite the U6 unemployment rate standing at 8.5% - a level at which wages and inflation accelerated in previous cycles. Meanwhile, the euro area's labor underutilization remains very high, especially outside Germany. This suggests that euro area inflation could be vulnerable to the tightening in financial conditions that has materialized in the wake of the euro's rally. In other words, the euro's strength is doing the ECB's job while the dollar's weakness is undoing some of the Fed's tightening. Third, the trading action around the release of the German Ifo survey this past Tuesday was very interesting. The Ifo came in at 116, another record reading and substantially above market expectations, yet the euro fell on the news until it was rescued by the Fed. What is fascinating is that, while the German Ifo is near record highs, the Belgian Business Confidence (BCC) survey has begun to sag (Chart I-8). Because Belgium is a logistical center deeply intertwined within European supply chains, the BCC has been an even better leading indicator of European growth trends than the Ifo. The current extreme gap between the Ifo and the BCC confirms that Europe owes a lot of its current health to Germany's boom - and indicates that the rest of the euro area is already suffering blowbacks from the euro's rally. Fourth, euro area equities have eradicated all of their gains for the year relative to U.S. equities. This is happening exactly as the euro area economic surprise index has rolled over against its U.S. counterpart (Chart I-9). This corroborates the economic risks created by the tightening of FCI in Europe versus the U.S. Fifth, the EUR/USD is trading at its greatest premium to our preferred intermediate-term fair value measure since December 2009 (Chart I-10). This measures incorporate real rate differentials at both the short end and long end of the curve, global risk aversion, and commodity prices, suggesting that the EUR/USD has dissociated from most reasonable guides.2 Chart I-8European Growth Is About Germany Chart I-9Stocks Are Sending A Dark Omen For The Euro Chart I-10Euro And Fair Value Bottom Line: European financial conditions have tightened considerably, especially relative to the U.S. This suggests European inflation will once again lag that of the U.S. Moreover, the pain of tighter FCIs is rearing its head: European stocks are once again underperforming the U.S., and the relative economic surprise index has markedly rolled over. We are thus experiencing a euro overshoot. Timing Chart I-1Skewed Positioning In EUR/USD These fundamental considerations do point to a weaker EUR/USD, but they provide little guidance in terms of timing the end of the euro bull run. Most metrics we follow are in fact pointing to trouble ahead. As we highlighted, euro longs are at all-time highs, while euro shorts have been massively purged. This suggests that chasing any further gains in the euro could be a high-risk proposition (Chart I-11). Additionally, the euro's fractal dimension is fully indicative of massive groupthink, and warns that both short-term and long-term investors are both positioned on the long side of the trade (Chart I-12). While the paucity of willing sellers in the market has been a key ingredient bidding up the euro, this also makes the currency vulnerable to a buying exhaustion phase as potential future buyers are already in the market, and will not be there to support it in the coming months. However, because of this very scarcity of sellers, only a few new buyers are necessary to bid up the euro further. Therefore, with the euro having broken above its 2015 high, a rally toward 1.2 could materialize in the blink of an eye. Because of this risk, we have been shorting the euro through the EUR/SEK, EUR/CAD, and EUR/NOK pairs, a strategy that has paid off. This week, for traders with greater liquidity needs, we recommend a tactical speculative short EUR/USD bet, with a tight stop at 1.182 and a target 1.12. Chart I-12Groupthink In Action Bottom Line: The euro is displaying signs of massive groupthink on the long side. Moreover, speculators are excessively long. Our preferred strategy is still to play a euro correction on its crosses, where the risk reward ratio seems more attractive. However, we are opening a tactical short EUR/USD bet this week with a tight stop. The Almighty AUD In a Special Report published four weeks ago, we positioned Australia in the middle of the pack within G10 central banks in terms of hiking sequence.3 Essentially, while Australia does not suffer from as much slack as the euro area and Switzerland, and from as much uncertainty as the U.K., or as severely entrenched inflation expectations as Japan, it still suffers from much more labor underutilization than Canada, Sweden, or New Zealand. As Chart I-13 illustrates, labor underutilization in Australia is still hovering near 20-year highs, underpinning low wage growth and policy rates. This weakness in wages is likely to continue to weigh on core inflation (Chart I-14). Chart I-13The Root Cause Of The RBA's Dovishness Chart I-14Wages Continue To Weigh On Core CPI Furthermore, while being deeply embedded in the Asian business cycle has helped Australia avoid a recession since 1991, this also means that Australian inflation has been greatly influenced by regional dynamics. Thus, based on recent trends, Aussie headline inflation could endure another down leg, especially as the AUD has rallied 16% since January 2016 (Chart I-15). This means that on all fronts, Australian inflationary pressures will remain muted. The recent speech by Governor Philip Lowe focusing on the flatness of the Australian Philips curve highlights that all these concerns are at the forefront of the Reserve Bank of Australia's mind. As a result, we continue to expect Australian interest rates to lag those in the U.S. As Chart I-16 illustrates, when the unemployment gap - as measured by the difference between unemployment and its 10-year moving average - is greater in Australia than in the U.S., the RBA lags the Fed. This also highlights that the AUD is at risk of a sharp correction once the broad USD rally resumes, especially as its recent strength is completely out of line with policy differentials. Chart I-15The Asian Inflation Anchor Chart I-16The Labour Market Points To A Weaker AUD Beyond the USD's own weakness, the rebound in the Chinese economy has been the main reason behind the Australian dollar's rally - despite the continued dovish bias of the RBA. Australian exports expressed in U.S. dollar terms have surged in response to the Chinese mini boom in late 2016/early 2017 (Chart I-17). However, this positive for the Australian economy and Australian profits is dissipating: the Chinese Keqiang index has rolled over, and Beijing is likely to continue to limit speculative excesses in Chinese real estate - a key source of demand for Australian exports. Chart I-17China's Boost Is Dissipating Moreover, the Australian dollar is trading 10% above its PPP, has moved out of line with interest rate differentials, and investors are massively long this currency; yet Australia still sports a negative international investment position of 60% of GDP. This combination makes the Aussie's strength untenable. When EM stocks break, a view espoused by our Emerging Market Strategy sister service, the AUD should prove the greatest victim within the G10 FX space. Bottom Line: Inflationary pressures in the Australian economy remain muted as labor underutilization remains plentiful. As a result, the RBA is likely to keep a dovish tone at least until the end of the year. The rebound in Chinese activity has been the key factor that has supported the AUD this year. However, the recent rollover in China's Keqiang index indicates this pillar of support to growth and profits is vanishing. The AUD will prove the greatest victim of any EM weakness or risk-off event. Mathieu Savary, Vice President Foreign Exchange Strategy mathieu@bcaresearch.com Haaris Aziz, Research Assistant haarisa@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report titled, "Bloody Potomac", dated May 19, 2017, available at fes.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Special Report titled, "In Search Of A Timing Model", dated July 22, 2016, available at fes.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy and Global Alpha Sector Strategy Special Report titled, "Who Hikes Next?", dated June 30, 2017, available at fes.bcaresearch.com Currencies U.S. Dollar Chart II-1USD Technicals 1 Chart II-2USD Technicals 2 U.S. Dollar U.S. data was somewhat mixed recently: Continuing and initial jobless claims both came in higher than expected; New home sales also increased at a lesser-than-anticipated pace, with home prices also fairing worse than investors hoped for; However, durable goods increased by very solid 6.5%; Building permits and housing starts, however, are also growing robustly. The DXY has hit a crucial point. It has given up all of its gains since 2015 and even from mid-2016. The greenback has previously fared well at this level, and a buying opportunity should emerge when U.S. inflation picks up as positioning is skewed against the dollar. Report Links: Who Hikes Next? - June 30, 2017 Look Ahead, Not Back - June 9, 2017 Capacity Explosion = Inflation Implosion - June 2, 2017 The Euro Chart II-3EUR Technicals 1 Chart II-4EUR Technicals 2 Data in core Europe is still firm, although it is becoming increasingly mixed: Headline inflation is staying at the consensus figure of 1.3% and core inflation came in higher than expected at 1.2%; PPI is increasing at a 2.4% pace annually; The IFO survey was robust, with the current assessment, business climate and expectations all beating expectations; However, ZEW survey was weaker than expected; PMIs were also weaker across the board. The recent strength in the euro was also compounded by weakness in the U.S. The euro has failed to appreciate nearly as much against commodity currencies due to higher global growth. Given its much lofty momentum, we are reluctant to bet on more euro upside. Report Links: Bad Breadth - July 7, 2017 Who Hikes Next? - June 30, 2017 A Market Update: June 23, 2017 The Yen Chart II-5JPY Technicals 1 Chart II-6JPY Technicals 2 Japanese trade balance worsened as exports and imports grew at 9.7% and 15.5% respectively; However, the all-industry activity index declined by 0.9% in May; The Leading Economic Indicator increased by only 0.4 to 104.6; The Coincident Index, however, declined to 115.8 from 117.1; USD/JPY has been declining recently due to softer U.S. data and lower bond yields. However, we remain yen bears as the absence of inflation remains the key challenge facing the Japanese economy. Report Links: Who Hikes Next? - June 30, 2017 A Market Update: June 23, 2017 Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - April 28, 2017 British Pound Chart II-7GBP Technicals 1 Chart II-8GBP Technicals 2 Data out of the U.K. was mixed: Real retail sales expanded at a 2.9% annual pace, with the 'ex-Fuel' measure expanding at 3%; PPI managed to increase by 2.9%; However, CPI came in at 2.6%, falling short of the 2.9% expected. GBP/USD has managed to appreciate close to 10% since the beginning of the year, while depreciating around 5% against EUR in the same time period. We still believe the pound has more short-term downside against the euro, and longer-term downside against the greenback. Report Links: Who Hikes Next? - June 30, 2017 Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - April 28, 2017 The Last Innings Of The Dollar Correction - April 21, 2017 Australian Dollar Chart II-9AUD Technicals 1 Chart II-10AUD Technicals 2 The economic data flow in Australia saw a somewhat softer patch this week: RBA trimmed-mean CPI increased at a 1.8% pace, in line with consensus but below the previous data point; Headline CPI, however, increased by 1.9%, which was less than expected; Both the export price index and the import price index contracted 5.7% and 0.1% quarterly. Weaker data from the U.S. is helping the AUD sustain its gains, however, external pressures from China are proving to be even more paramount to the Aussie's strength. Domestically, however, the Australian economy remained challenged by persistent underemployment. We therefore believe the RBA is unlikely to follow the Bank of Canada in 2017. Report Links: Bad Breadth - July 7, 2017 Who Hikes Next? - June 30, 2017 Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - April 28, 2017 New Zealand Dollar Chart II-11NZD Technicals 1 Chart II-12NZD Technicals 2 Data out of New Zealand has been mixed: Visitor Arrivals increased at a 17.3% annual pace; The trade balance improved slightly, and both exports and imports also increased; The Global Dairy Trade price index increased by 0.2%; However, CPI came in at 1.7%, disappointing consensus by 0.2%, and falling short of the previous 2.2% figure. While the NZD has strengthened against the USD, it has lagged the euro and the rest of the commodity currency complex. WHile the RBNZ is better placed than the RBA to increase rates, it will continue to lag the BoC and the Fed this year. Report Links: Bad Breadth - July 7, 2017 Who Hikes Next? - June 30, 2017 Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - April 28, 2017 Canadian Dollar Chart II-13CAD Technicals 1 Chart II-14CAD Technicals 2 The Canadian economy continues to exhibit signs of strength: Wholesale sales increased at a 0.9% monthly pace in May; Manufacturing shipments increased at a 1.1% monthly pace; Foreign portfolio investment in Canadian securities also increased to USD 29.46 bn; The CAD has experienced an unbelievable couple of months, appreciating more than 9% in the process. Weak U.S. data, a hawkish BoC, and somewhat stronger oil, have all added to the CAD's gains. We believe that the BoC will stay hawkish and Saudi Arabia will remain adamant in reducing oil inventories to their 5-year average by the end of the year. While these factors will limit the CAD downside this year, it is now vulnerable to a short-term pullback. Report Links: Bad Breadth - July 7, 2017 Who Hikes Next? - June 30, 2017 Exploring Risks To Our DXY View - May 26, 2017 Swiss Franc Chart II-15CHF Technicals 1 Chart II-16CHF Technicals 2 Swiss data has been mixed: Trade balance disappointed at 2,813 mn; UBS Consumption Indicator improved to 1.38 from 1.32; However, the ZEW Survey's Expectations increased to 34.7 from 20.7. EUR/CHF has appreciated more than 2% this past week, while USD/CHF has also been strong. This weakness is welcomed by the SNB, but more softness is needed before durable inflation trend can emerge in the Alpine Confederation. Report Links: Who Hikes Next? - June 30, 2017 Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - April 28, 2017 The Fed And The Dollar: A Gordian Knot - April 14, 2017 Norwegian Krone Chart II-17NOK Technicals 1 Chart II-18NOK Technicals 2 Norway's recent labor force survey showed that the unemployment rate fell to 4.3%, better than the consensus 4.5%. Along with rebounding oil prices, this has been a key source of support for the NOK. BCA Energy Strategists continue to believe that oil inventories will be reduced to their 5-year average by the end of the year, which should warrant a healthy degree of downside for EUR/NOK. Against the dollar, the picture will become less positive once U.S. inflation picks up again. Report Links: Who Hikes Next? - June 30, 2017 A Market Update: June 23, 2017 Exploring Risks To Our DXY View - May 26, 2017 Swedish Krona Chart II-19SEK Technicals 1 Chart II-20SEK Technicals 2 This week's data in Sweden has been somewhat weak: PPI increased at a 4.8% annual pace, less than the previous 7.2%; Consumer confidence decreased to 102.2, below the expected 103.1, and less than the previous 102.6; Unemployment rate increased to 7.4% from 7.2; However, the trade balance increased by 4.2 bn from the previous month. These explain the recent softness in the krona in recent days, however, we doubt that this represents the end of the period of weakness in EUR/SEK. The SEK's appreciation has been the result of an aggregate strengthening in Swedish data, especially on the inflation front, which has prompted a hawkish switch in the Riksbank's rhetoric. Report Links: Who Hikes Next? - June 30, 2017 Bloody Potomac - May 19, 2017 Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - April 28, 2017 Trades & Forecasts Forecast Summary Core Portfolio Tactical Trades Closed Trades

Special Report

The performance of European stocks relative to the U.S. has been dismal in the post-Lehman period. However, the Eurozone economy is performing impressively, profit growth is accelerating and margins are rising. This points to a period of outperformance for Eurozone stocks, at least in local currency terms. Standard valuation measures based on index data suggest that Eurozone stocks are cheap to the U.S. Nonetheless, the European market almost always trades at a discount, due to persistent lackluster profit performance. In Part II of our series on valuation, we approach the issue from a bottom-up perspective, utilizing the powerful analytics provided by BCA's exciting new Equity Trading Strategy (ETS) platform. The ETS software allows us to compare U.S. and European companies on a head-to-head basis and rank them based on a wide range of characteristics. The bottom-up approach avoids the problems of index construction. Investors can be confident that they will make money on a 12-month horizon by taking a position when the new bottom-up indicator reaches +/-1 standard deviations over- or under-valued, although technical information should be taken on board to sharpen the timing. The +/-2 sigma level gives clear buy/sell signals irrespective of fundamental or technical factors. Valuation alone does not justify overweight Eurozone positions at the moment, although we like the market for other reasons. The bottom-up valuation indicator will not replace our top-down version that is based on index data, but rather will be considered together when evaluating relative value. Total returns in the European equity market have bounced relative to the U.S. since 2016 in both local-currency and common currency terms (Chart II-1). However, this has offset only a tiny fraction of the dismal underperformance since 2007. In local currencies, the relative EMU/U.S. total return index is still close to its lowest level since the late 1970s. Compared with the pre-Lehman peak, the U.S. total return index is more than 96% higher according to Datastream data, while the Eurozone total return index is only now getting back to the previous high-water mark when expressed in U.S. dollars (Chart II-2). Chart II-1EMU Stocks Lag Massively... Chart II-2...Due To Depressed Earnings The yawning return gap between the two equity markets was almost entirely due to earnings as market multiples have moved largely in sync. Earnings-per-share (EPS) generated by U.S. companies now exceed the pre-Lehman peak by about 19%. In contrast, earnings produced by their Eurozone peers are a whopping 48% below their peak (common currency). This reflects both a slower recovery in sales-per-share growth and lower profit margins. Operating margins in Europe have been on the upswing for a year, but are still depressed by pre-Lehman standards. Margin outperformance in the U.S. is not a sector weighting story; in only 2 of 10 sectors do European operating margins exceed the U.S. The return-on-equity data tell a similar story. Nonetheless, a turning point may be at hand. Chart II-3Europe Trades At A Discount The Eurozone economy has been performing well, especially on a per-capita basis, and forward-looking indicators suggest that growth will remain above-trend for at least the next few quarters. U.S. profit margins have also been (temporarily) rising, but the Eurozone economy has more room to grow because there is still slack in the labor market. There is also more room for margins to rise in the Eurozone corporate sector than is the case in the U.S., where the profit cycle is further advanced. Traditional measures of value based on the MSCI indexes suggest that European stocks are on the cheap side. But are they really that cheap? Based on index data, Eurozone stocks trade at a hefty discount across most of the main valuation measures (Chart II-3). This is the case even for normalized measures such as price-to-book (P/B). However, Eurozone stocks have almost always traded at a discount. There are many possible explanations as to why there is a persistent valuation gap between these two markets, including differences in accounting standards, discount rates and sector weights. The wider use of stock buybacks in the U.S. also favors American stock valuations relative to Europe. But most important are historical differences in underlying corporate fundamentals. U.S. companies on the whole were significantly more profitable even before the Great Financial Crisis (Chart II-3). U.S. companies also tend to have lower leverage and higher interest coverage. Better profitability metrics in the U.S. are not solely an artifact of sector weighting either. RoE and operating margins are lower in Europe even applying U.S. sector weights to the European market.1 Why corporate Europe has been a perennial profit under-achiever is beyond the scope of this paper. U.S. companies reaped most of the benefit from productivity gains over the past 25 years, with the result that the capital share of income soared while the labor share collapsed. European companies were less successful in squeezing down labor costs. Measuring Value In the first part of our two-part Special Report on valuation, published in July 2016, we took a top-down approach to determine whether Eurozone stocks are cheap versus the U.S. after adjusting for different sector weights and persistent differences in the underlying profit fundamentals. A regression approach that factored in various profitability measures performed reasonably well, but the top-down "mechanical" approach that relied on a 5-year moving average provided the most profitable buy/sell signals historically. We approach the issue from a bottom-up perspective in Part II of our series, utilizing the powerful analytics provided by BCA's exciting new Equity Trading Strategy (ETS) platform. The software allows us to compare U.S. and European companies on a head-to-head basis and rank them based on a wide range of characteristics. The bottom-up approach avoids the problems of index construction when trying to gauge valuation across countries. The web-based platform uses over 24 quantitative factors to rank approximately 10,000 individual stocks in 23 countries, allowing clients to find stocks with winning characteristics at the global level. Users can rank and score individual equities to support a broad set of investment strategies and apply macro and sector views to single-name investments. The ETS approach has an impressive track record. Historically, the top-decile of stocks ranked using the "BCA Score" methodology have outperformed stocks in the bottom decile by over 25% a year.2 The BCA Score includes all 24 factors when ranking stocks, but we are interested in developing a valuation metric that provides valued added on its own and is at least as good as the top-down index-based measure developed in Part I. The five valuation measures in the ETS database are trailing P/E, forward P/E, price-to-book, price-to-sales and price-to-cash flow. We combine all of the Eurozone and U.S. companies that have total assets of greater than $1 billion into one dataset. The ETS platform then ranks the stocks from best to worst on a daily basis (i.e. cheapest to most expensive), using an equally-weighted average of the five valuation measures. The average score for U.S. stocks is subtracted from the average score for European stocks, and then divided by the standard deviation of the series. This provides a valuation metric that fluctuates roughly between +/- 2 standard deviations. Chart II-4 presents the resulting bottom-up indicator, along with our previously-published top-down valuation measure. A high reading indicates that European stocks are cheap to the U.S., while it is the opposite for low readings. Chart II-4Eurozone Equity Relative Valuation Indicators The underlying bottom-up data extend back to 2000. However, the bursting of the tech bubble in the early 2000's causes major shifts in relative valuation among sectors and between the U.S. and Eurozone that skew the indicator when constructed using the entire data set. We obtain a cleaner indicator when using only the data from 2005. As with any valuation indicator, it is only useful when it reaches extremes. We calculated the historical track record for a trading rule that is based on critical levels of over- and under-valuation. For example, we calculated the (local currency) excess returns over 3, 6, 12 and 24-month horizon generated by (1) overweighting European stocks when that market was one and two standard deviations cheap versus the U.S. market, and (2) overweighting the U.S. when the European market was one and two standard deviations expensive (Table II-1). Table II-1Value Indicator: Trading Rule Returns And Batting Average The trading rule returns were best when the indicator reached two standard deviations cheap or expensive, providing average returns of almost 11 percent over 12 months. The trading rule returns when the indicator reached +/-1 standard deviation were not as good, but still more than 3% on 12- and 24-month horizons. Table II-1 also presents the trading rule's batting average. That is, the number of positive excess returns generated by the trading rule as a percent of the total number of signals. The batting average ranged from 50% on a 3-month horizon to 68% over 24 months when buy/sell signals are triggered at +/- 1 standard deviation. The batting average is much higher (80-100%) using +/- 2 standard deviations as a trigger point, although there were only five months over the entire sample when the indicator reached this level. The charts and tables in the Appendix present the results of the same analysis at the sector level. The results are equally as good as the aggregate valuation indicator, with a couple of exceptions. European stocks are cheap to the U.S. in the Energy, Financials, and Utilities sectors, while U.S. stocks offer better value in Consumer Discretionary, Consumer Staples, Health Care, Industrials and Technology. Materials, Real Estate, and Telecommunications are close to equally valued. Sharpening The Buy/Sell Signals We then augmented the valuation analysis by adding information on company fundamentals, such as EPS growth and profit margins among others. The ETS software ranked the companies after equally-weighting the valuation and fundamental factors. However, this approach yielded poor results in terms of the trading rule. This is because, for example, when European stocks reach undervalued levels relative to the U.S., it is usually because the European earnings fundamentals have underperformed those of the U.S. companies. Thus, favorable value is offset by poor fundamentals, muddying the message provided by valuation alone. In contrast, adding some information from the technical factors in the ETS model does add value, at least when using +/-1 standard deviations as the trigger point for trades (Chart II-5). Excess returns to the trading rule rise significantly when the medium-term momentum and long-term mean reversion factors are included in the valuation indicator (Table II-2). The batting average also improves. Chart II-5Indicators: Value And Value With Technical Information Table II-2Value And Technical Indicator: Trading Rule Returns And Batting Average Adding technical information does not improve the trading rule performance when +/-2 sigma is used as the trigger point. Investment Conclusions Our new ETS platform provides investors with a unique way of picking stocks by combining top-down macro themes with company-specific information. It also allows us to develop valuation tools that avoid some of the pitfalls of index data by comparing stocks on a head-to-head basis. Historical analysis using a trading rule demonstrates that the new bottom-up valuation indicator provides real value to investors. We would normally evaluate its track record using stretching analysis, where we use only the historical information available at each point in time when determining relative value. However, the relatively short history of the available data precludes this test because we need at least a few cycles to best gauge the underlying volatility in the data. Still, investors can be fairly confident that they will make money on a 12-month horizon by taking a position when the bottom-up indicator reaches +/-1 sigma over- or under-valued, although technical information should be taken on board to sharpen the timing. The +/-2 sigma level gives clear buy/sell signals irrespective of the fundamental or technical factors. The bottom-up valuation indicator will not replace our top-down version that is based on index data, but rather will be considered together when evaluating relative value. At the moment, the top-down version proposes that European stocks are somewhat cheap to the U.S., while the bottom-up indicator points to slight overvaluation. Considering the two together suggests that valuation is close enough to fair value that investors cannot make the decision on value alone. Valuation indicators need to be near extremes to be informative. Our global equity strategists recommend overweighting Eurozone stocks versus the U.S. at the moment, although not because of valuation. Rather, the Eurozone economy and corporate earnings have more room to grow because of lingering labor market slack. This also means that the ECB can keep rates glued to the zero bound for at least the next 18 months while the Fed hikes, which will place upward pressure on the dollar and downward pressure on the euro. Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst Appendix: Trading Rule Returns By Sector Chart II-6, Chart II-7, Chart II-8, Chart II-9, Chart II-10, Chart II-11, Chart II-12, Chart II-13, Chart II-14, Chart II-15, Chart II-16. Chart II-6Consumer Discretionary Chart II-7Consumer Staples Chart II-8Energy Chart II-9Financials Chart II-10Health Care Chart II-11Industrials Chart II-12Materials Chart II-13Real Estate Chart II-14Utilities Chart II-15Technology Chart II-16Telecommunication 1 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst Special Report, "Are Eurozone Stocks Really That Cheap?" July 2016, available at bca.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see Equity Trading Strategy Special Report, "Introducing ETS: A Top Down Approach to Bottom-Up Stock Picking," December 2, 2015, available at ets.bcaresearch.com.

Special Report

Highlights Return on Equity (ROE) has historically driven bank share performance, with the yield curve being the key driver for earnings growth. Since the 2008-2009 Global Financial Crisis (GFC), however, the recovery in ROE has been anemic, largely due to a sharp reduction in leverage. Now that the Trump administration has moved towards unwinding parts of Dodd-Frank, this could be the start of a deregulation trend for U.S. banks. Return on Assets (ROA), meanwhile, has recovered to close to pre-crisis levels. Profit margin has been the main driver behind the ROA recovery, as asset utilization has been in a downtrend since the 1980s. Profit margins in the U.S. have been making new highs, while they are rolling over in Japan, and improving from low levels in the euro area. Global economic growth together with policy normalization will support banks' profit-making ability and share outperformance in the next nine-to-twelve months. Maintain an overweight stance in global Financials, with particular favor toward European banks. Feature We recently upgraded Financials to overweight from neutral in our global equity portfolio on attractive valuations and improving profit prospects (see GAA Quarterly Portfolio Outlook, July 3, 2017). As the largest sector in the MSCI ACWI, Financials account for 19.5% of the MSCI global equity universe. It is, therefore, a key sector investors need to have a view on. Banks account for 56% of the global Financial sector market cap, and bank share performance has lagged the broader market by 10% since March 2009, when global equities hit their post-GFC bottom. In this report, we delve into the main drivers that have historically supported bank profits and share-price outperformance, with a view to confirming whether now is a good time to overweight. Return On Equity (ROE) Return on equity, the ratio of a bank's earnings to its book value, measures how much profit each dollar of common shareholders' equity generates. Based on Dupont analysis, ROE is linked to a bank's return on assets (ROA) together with leverage, while ROA is linked to profit margins and asset utilization.1 As such, ROE has been a very important target for banks - despite the fact that it does not take into consideration the riskiness of capital, and has therefore received various forms of criticism.2,3 History has shown that ROE has been correlated with bank share performance, especially on a relative-to-the-broad-market basis (Chart 1 and Chart 2). Chart 1Global Bank Share Performance Vs. ROE Chart 2Regional Bank Performance Vs. ROE Chart 1 also shows that global bank ROE has averaged about 11.3% since the fourth quarter of 1980, about 10 basis point higher than that of the overall market. In the two decades before the GFC, bank ROE was mostly higher than that of the broad market. Since the GFC, however, bank ROE has been in a very different regime after an initial sharp rebound. Over the past few years, global bank ROE has been in a range of 8-10%, way lower than the historical average. On a relative basis, bank ROE has rebounded faster than bank stock prices. On a regional basis, Chart 2 shows some very interesting divergences: Unlike banks in the U.S. and euro area, banks in Canada, Australia and emerging markets have consistently outperformed their respective broad markets since the GFC, supported by rising ROE spreads. Even in absolute terms, ROE in these countries/regions are at much higher levels, with a long-term average of 15% in Canada, 14% in Australia and 13.5% in emerging markets. This could be due to 1) a less competitive environment in these countries where a handful of large banks hold the majority of domestic banking assets; 2) less risky mortgage lending practices and a lower share of shadow banking;4 and 3) the dominance of banks in the local equity indices. In Japan, banks have consistently underperformed the broader market, despite relative improvement in ROE. This could be due to the low ROE nature of Japanese banks, with an average of only 5%. So, going forward, how will ROE evolve, and how differently will banks perform in various countries/regions? To determine this, we disaggregate ROE. Return On Assets (ROA) And Leverage ROE is the product of ROA and leverage,1 which is defined as total assets divided by common shareholders' equity. ROA and ROE have historically been closely correlated, though they have diverged in the past few years. (Chart 3, panel 1). ROA has recovered to above its historical average, while ROE has been gradually declining after its initial sharp post-GFC rebound - and is still currently below its historical average (top panel). The culprit behind the anemic ROE recovery is the leverage ratio (panel 2), which has gone through three distinctive phases: It declined from very high levels (over 25 times) in the early 1980s to a two decade-low of 18.5 times during the 2001 recession, which was largely the result of the Basel Accord for minimum capital requirements published in 1988 by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, and fully implemented in 1992. It then started to rise, and hit a high of 20.7 times just ahead of the GFC; since that time, however, it has plummeted to 14.3 times, a historical low since the 1980s, as Basel III came into effect in 2010. In the U.S., the current level of 9.7 times leverage ratio is the lowest in history, and also the lowest compared to other countries. Recently, the U.S. Federal Reserve Board announced the results of the Comprehensive Capital Analysis and Review (CCAR) of the nation's largest banks, with a 100% pass rate. This is of particular note as it is the largest test (34 financial institutions versus 14 in 2013) and the first perfect score in the CCAR's history, implying that the balance sheets of U.S. banks have been fully repaired. The top panel of Chart 4 shows that U.S. bank leverage has been in a downtrend since the 1980s. Any increase in the leverage ratio would translate into a higher ROE. Now that the Trump administration has moved towards unwinding parts of Dodd-Frank, this could be the start of a deregulation trend for U.S. banks after over 30 years of tough regulation. Chart 3Global Bank ROA, ROE And Leverage Chart 4Regional Dynamics Of Bank ROA And Leverage The euro area bank leverage ratio has oscillated lower over time, currently at 18.2 times, also the lowest in its own history but still in line with that of Japan, Canada and Australia - and a lot higher than the U.S. and emerging markets. With a low and rising ROA - currently at 0.2% - EMU banks' ROA should have further room to improve (Chart 4, panel 2) as the euro area economy continues to recover. On July 4, 2017, the European Commission approved Italy's plan to support a precautionary recapitalization of Italian bank Monte dei Paschi di Siena under EU rules, on the basis of an effective restructuring plan. This will help ensure the bank's long-term viability, while limiting competition distortions. We view this as a very positive development in the European banking sector. Profit Margin And Asset Utilization The recovery in ROA has been impressive, but how sustainable is it going forward? Let's look at the two components that jointly determine ROA: profit margin (defined as net profit divided by revenue) and asset utilization,1 which is defined as total revenue divided by total assets. The correlation between ROA and profit margin has been very close, even though profit margin made new highs after the GFC, while ROA is still lower than its pre-GFC peak. (Chart 5, panel 1). The cause lies in the asset utilization ratio, a ratio that measures how much assets are needed to generate $1 of revenue. As Chart 5 panel 2 shows, asset efficiency has been on a consistent downtrend since the 1980s. Should we be concerned about elevated profit margin levels among global banks? Where are they coming from? Chart 6 shows the regional dynamics of profit margin and asset utilization. Chart 5Net Profit Margin Vs. Asset Utilization Chart 6Regional Profit Margin Vs. Asset Utilization Profit margins have been strong across the board, with the U.S. and Canada making historical new highs and Japanese, Australian and emerging market banks' profit margins near their historical peaks. Only EMU banks' profit margins are slightly above their historical average. In absolute terms, EMU banks also have the lowest profit margins, currently standing at around 6%, versus banks in other regions which have profit margins in the mid-to-high teens. Canadian, Australian and EM banks have high profit margins, supporting their consistent outperformance relative to their respective broader markets. U.S. banks also have comparable profit margins, yet they have underperformed their broader market due to lower ROE (see Chart 2 panel 1 on page 2). How can ROE be lower while profit margins are at similar levels? Because ROE is a function of profit margins, asset utilization and leverage. The U.S. leverage ratio is much lower than those in Canada, Australia and emerging markets (Chart 4 on page 5). Japan is another interesting case where high profit margins have not led to superior share performance - because assets are least efficient in terms of generating revenue. Net Interest Margin, Yield Curve and Earnings Growth Banks obtain fees (such as commitment fees or trust fees) from a vast number of different types of transactions. Interest revenue is generated principally from loans but also from repos, investment securities (bonds), and other products. On the funding side, banks pay interest expenses on bank deposits, Federal Funds, other borrowed funds, and debt. As such, net interest margin (NIM), defined as net interest income divided by interest-bearing assets - is an important driver of a bank's net profit. Chart 7 shows the close relationship between EPS growth and net interest margins. Even though data on NIM globally from the World Bank come annually and with a long time lag, the U.S. data proves the point. Because NIM is a function of the yield curve, it makes sense that the yield curve should be a driving force for earnings growth. In fact, the intuitive relationship between EPS growth and the yield curve is empirically robust across the globe, as shown in Chart 8. BCA's profit models for the global Financial Sector incorporates yield curve, 10-year yield changes and credit impulse (defined as the change in loan growth), as well as earnings revisions. They have a reasonably good correlation with actual earnings growth, both trailing and forward, as shown in Chart 9. Chart 7Bank EPS Growth Vs. Net Interest Margin Chart 8Bank EPS Growth Vs. Yield Curve Chart 9Global Financial Earnings Growth The current readings from our profit growth models are in line with our assessment based on BCA's house view of better economic growth leading to better loan growth, higher interest rates and steeper yield curves. Investment Implications We upgraded global financials in our most recent Quarterly Portfolio Strategy published July 3, 2017 - based on our house view calling for better global growth, higher interest rates and steeper yield curves over the next nine to twelve months, together with attractive valuations and a favorable technical backdrop. This was financed by a reduction in our allocation to the Technology sector, the second-largest in the global universe (Chart 10). Chart 10Remain Overweight Global Financials Chart 11Favor Euro Area Banks Within the Financial sector, we suggest clients favor banks in the euro area, in agreement with the view of BCA's Global Alpha Sector Strategy dated May 5, 2017. European banks have lost 74% from their peak relative to the MSCI ACWI Index on a U.S. dollar basis (Chart 11, panel 1). Their recent outperformance should be just the start of a more sustainable uptrend because valuations are very attractive, with a 61% discount to the MSCI ACWI based on price to book (Chart 11 panel 4), and economic growth is gaining traction, with better employment prospects (Chart 11, panel 2) and in turn higher demand for loans. An improving loan-performance ratio (Chart 11, panel 3) combined with the prospect for higher interest rates bodes well for bank profits in the region, while profit margins have room to the upside (Chart 6 on page 6). Xiaoli Tang, Associate Vice President xiaolit@bcaresearch.com 1 ROE = Net Income (NI) /Common Shareholders' Equity (E) = NI/ Total Assets (TA) * TA/E = Return on Assets (ROA)* leverage; ROA = NI/Sales * Sales/TA = Net Profit Margin * Asset Utilization 2 "Beyond ROE - How to measure bank performance,"European Central Bank, September 2010. 3 "Why Banks Come Back To Return On Equity,"Financial Times, November 15, 2015. 4 Neville Arjani and Graydon Paulin, “Lessons from the Financial Crisis: Bank Performance and Regulatory Reform,” Discussion Paper, Bank Of Canada, 2013.

Special Report

Feature We begin this short Special Report with three statements. Decide whether you agree or disagree with them: Equity market advances tend to be gradual and gentle, whereas sell-offs are sudden and sharp. Investors use the observed volatility of an investment as a gauge of its riskiness. If equity markets sell off sharply, central banks will come to the rescue by lowering interest rates and/or interest rate expectations. Feature ChartVolatility: How Low Can You Go? If, like us, you agree with all three statements then you should be concerned - because you have just defined a deeply unstable non-linear system. Statement 1 means that an advancing equity market has a defining property of lower observed volatility. Statement 2 means that investors mistakenly interpret this lower volatility as diminishing risk, which justifies an additional advance in the market. The additional advance then takes observed volatility even lower - which justifies a further market advance. And so on, in a gently self-reinforcing positive feedback. Eventually, the truth dawns on the market. Equity market risk hasn't actually declined, but the equity risk premium - the excess prospective return that equities offer over bonds - has almost disappeared. And suddenly, the self-reinforcing feedback phase-shifts from gently positive to violently negative (Chart I-2). Chart I-2Low Volatility Just Tells Us That Equity Market Advances ##br##Are Gradual And Gentle, It Does Not Tell Us That Equity Risk Has Diminished! Chart I-3Financial Conditions Are Easy Because ##br##The Equity Market Is Up! At which point policymakers panic. Statement 3 means that central banks do not allow the equity risk premium to normalise by letting current prices fall substantially (thereby boosting prospective returns). Instead, policymakers aggressively depress the bond yield. The trouble is that this just sows the seeds for a new wave of distortive behaviour. Sound familiar? This unstable system describes the global equity market since the 1997 Asian financial crisis. And we're not the only ones concerned. In the latest FOMC minutes, even the Federal Reserve is waking up to the dangers of this unstable system: "Some participants suggested that increased risk tolerance among investors might be contributing to elevated asset prices more broadly; a few participants expressed concern that subdued market volatility, coupled with a low equity premium, could lead to a buildup of risks to financial stability." (Chart 3) Why Do Equity Markets Have 'Negative Skew'? Equity market advances tend to be gradual and gentle whereas sell-offs are sudden and sharp. Mathematicians call this pattern 'negative skew'. Consider the Eurostoxx50. Today the index is at the same level it was in mid-2008. Yet despite going nowhere point to point, the intervening period has generated significantly more up weeks (55%) than down weeks (45%).1 By definition, this means that the average up week has been less positive than the average down week has been negative. At the tails of the distribution, the difference is extreme: the best week generated +11.5% whereas the worst week generated -25.1%2 (Table I-1). Other equity indexes exhibit the same pattern: markets do not melt up, but they do melt down. Or more colloquially, "equity markets walk up the stairs but jump out of the window." (Chart I-4). Table I-1'Negative Skew': Sell-Offs Are Rarer But More Violent Chart I-4Equity Markets Walk Up The Stairs But Jump Out Of The Window But why do they behave like this? There are three potential explanations. The first explanation is the 'volatility feedback' that we have just described. A sharp move in price in either direction increases observed volatility. The higher risk premium required then necessitates a lower price. So the net effect is to mute an upwards move in price, but to amplify a downwards move. Chart I-5Observed Volatility Is At A Generational Low The second explanation comes from the regulatory and operational constraints on short selling of stocks. The most optimistic bulls can express their view through long positions whereas the most pessimistic bears cannot fully express their views through short positions. This means that their bearish information will not be in the price. But when the bulls start to sell, the bears become the marginal buyer, allowing their information to finally enter the price at a substantially lower level. The third explanation is the old chestnut of leverage. As equity markets decline and leveraged investors become more geared, they risk breaching their leverage covenants. This may force further selling which amplifies the downward move. Whatever combination of these three reasons explains the negative skew, it clearly exists. One significant consequence is that when the equity market is advancing, its observed volatility is low, because up weeks tend to generate small and regular positive returns. And the longer and more established the advance becomes, the lower the observed volatility goes (Chart I-5). But understand that this low volatility is just a property of negative skew - advances tend to be gradual and gentle. Low observed volatility categorically does not mean that equity market risk has diminished. If anything, it means the exact opposite. Unfortunately, most investors - both human and now machine - do not interpret it this way. Investors and algorithms use the observed volatility of an investment as a gauge of its riskiness, and mistakenly use low volatility to justify a lower risk premium. The equity risk premium is the excess prospective return that equities offer over bonds, but a good working approximation is the difference between the equity index earnings yield and the bond yield. The concerning thing is that this measure of the equity risk premium is moving exactly in line with the equity market's observed volatility (Chart I-6 and Chart I-7), when it shouldn't. Chart I-6The Equity Risk Premium... Chart I-7...Is Just Tracking The Equity Market's Observed Volatility To reiterate, the mistaken link between observed volatility and equity market risk is a perennial source of market instability. Policymakers and regulators should endeavour to break this link. The Investment Opportunity The good news is that low observed volatility creates an investment opportunity. Options become very cheap. When the implied volatility on index options is at a multi-decade low (Feature Chart), it means that a long index plus at-the-money put option is an excellent strategy, either as a hedge or an outright absolute position. A strategy on the Eurostoxx50 or FTSE100 should work well, but right now the best opportunity is on the S&P500 - because the implied volatility on its index put options is at an all-time low (Chart I-8). As an example, consider a long equity index plus at-the-money March 2018 put option strategy. Today, the put costs 3.7%. How might the strategy perform to say, end October? Here we come to the crucial point about the equity market's negative skew. The market cannot go sideways or down with low observed volatility! If the market is at the same level as today, then observed volatility is likely to be around 40% higher (Chart I-9). Of course, the option will also lose time value. In October, it will have five months left compared to eight months today, which is 40% lower. Taken in combination, the option price would be flat. Chart I-8The Implied Volatility On S&P500 Puts Is At A Record Low Chart I-9If The Market Is Flat, Implied Volatility Will Rise By 40% Clearly if the market is lower, the strategy will become profitable as observed volatility would be even higher and the put option would also gain intrinsic value - go from at-the-money to in-the-money. But what if the market goes up? At 2% higher, we estimate that the option price would have dropped to around 1.7%. So the gain on the long index position would counter the loss on the option. Of course, if the market is higher by 3.7% or more, the strategy has to be profitable - because even if the option becomes worthless, its cost has been fully covered. The specific trade above is just an example. Investors who want to trade in large volume might need to consider shorter-dated options which have greater liquidity. But the general principle of long equity index plus put option works very well when observed volatility is at a historical low, as it is now. Dhaval Joshi, Senior Vice President European Investment Strategy dhaval@bcaresearch.com 1 As an aside, the higher frequency of up weeks means that even in a flat equity market, strategists are incentivized to be bullish. Even with no insight, they will be right most of the time, even if the stance ends up adding no value! 2 Log returns to allow for the asymmetry in compounding. Fractal Trading Model* This week's trade is to position for a rebound in USD/CAD with a 2.5% profit target and stop-loss. For any investment, excessive trend following and groupthink can reach a natural point of instability, at which point the established trend is highly likely to break down with or without an external catalyst. An early warning sign is the investment's fractal dimension approaching its natural lower bound. Encouragingly, this trigger has consistently identified countertrend moves of various magnitudes across all asset classes. Chart I-10 * For more details please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report “Fractals, Liquidity & A Trading Model,” dated December 11, 2014, available at eis.bcaresearch.com The post-June 9, 2016 fractal trading model rules are: When the fractal dimension approaches the lower limit after an investment has been in an established trend it is a potential trigger for a liquidity-triggered trend reversal. Therefore, open a countertrend position. The profit target is a one-third reversal of the preceding 13-week move. Apply a symmetrical stop-loss. Close the position at the profit target or stop-loss. Otherwise close the position after 13 weeks. Use the position size multiple to control risk. The position size will be smaller for more risky positions. 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 - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations

Highlights Major central banks outside the U.S. have fired a warning shot across the bow of global bond markets by signaling that "emergency" levels of monetary accommodation are no longer required. Pipeline inflation pressures have yet to show up at the consumer price level outside of the U.K. Most central bankers argue that temporary factors are to blame, but longer-lasting forces could be at work. There are numerous examples of deflationary pressure driven by waves of innovation, cost cutting and changing business models. However, this is not confirmed in the productivity data. Productivity is dismally low and we do not believe it is due to mismeasurement. The Phillips curve is not dead. We expect that inflation will firm by enough to allow central banks to continue scaling back monetary stimulus. The real fed funds rate is not far from the neutral short-term rate, but it is still well below the Fed's estimate of the long-run neutral rate. Market expectations for the Fed are far too complacent; keep duration short. The failure to repeal Obamacare could actually increase the motivation of Republicans to move forward on tax cuts. Expansionary fiscal policy would make life more difficult for the FOMC, given that unemployment is on course to reach the lowest level since 2000. This would force the Fed to act more aggressively, possibly triggering a recession in 2019. The peak Fed/ECB policy divergence is not behind us, implying that recent dollar weakness will reverse. However, the next dollar upleg has been delayed. Fading market hopes for U.S. fiscal stimulus this year have not weighed on equities, in part because of a solid earnings backdrop. Global EPS growth continues to accelerate in line with the recovery in industrial production. In the U.S., results so far suggest that Q2 will see another quarter of margin expansion. Overall earnings growth should peak above our 20% target later this year. It will be tougher sledding in the equity market once profit growth peaks in the U.S. because of poor valuation. Expect to downgrade stocks in the first half of 2018. Corporate bonds are also benefiting from the robust profit backdrop. Balance sheet health continues to deteriorate, but the spark is missing for a sustained corporate bond spread widening. Feature Chart I-1Sell-Off In Global Bond Markets ##br##Triggered By Central Bank Talk Major central banks outside the U.S. fired a warning shot across the bow of global bond markets by signaling a recalibration of monetary policy at the ECB's Forum on Central Banking in late June (Chart I-1). The heads of the Bank of England (BoE), Bank of Canada (BoC) and Swedish Riksbank all took a less dovish tone, warning that the diminished threat of deflation has reduced the need for ultra-stimulative policies. The BoC quickly followed up in July with a rate hike and a warning of more to come. The central bank now expects the economy to reach full employment and hit the inflation target by mid-2018, much earlier than previously expected. The Riksbank also backed away from its easing bias at its most recent policy meeting. The ECB's shift in stance was evident even before its Forum meeting, when President Draghi gave a glowing description of the underlying strength of the Euro Area economy. The labor market is about two percentage points closer to full employment than the U.S. was just before the infamous 2013 Taper Tantrum.1 European core inflation is admittedly below target today, but so was the U.S. rate leading up to the 2013 Tantrum. We have not forgotten about Europe's structural problems or the inherent contradictions of the single currency. Banks are still laden with bad debt (although the recapitalization of Italian banks has gone well so far). Nonetheless, from a cyclical economic standpoint, solid momentum this year will allow Draghi to scale back the ECB's ultra-accommodative monetary stance by tapering its asset purchase program early in 2018. The message that "emergency" levels of monetary accommodation are no longer needed is confirmed by our Central Bank (CB) Monitors, which measure pressure on central bankers to raise or lower interest rates (Chart I-2). The Monitors became less useful when rates hit the zero bound and quantitative easing was the only game in town, but they are becoming relevant again as more policymakers consider their exit strategy. All of our CB Monitors are currently in "tighter policy required" territory except for Japan and the Eurozone (although even those are close to the zero line). The Monitors have been rising due to both their growth and underlying inflation components. Another tick higher in PMI's for the advanced economies in July underscored that the rebound in industrial production is continuing (Chart I-3). Our short-term forecasting models, which include both hard and soft data, point to stronger growth in the major countries in the second half of 2017 (Chart I-4). Chart I-2Most In The "Tighter Policy Required" Zone Chart I-3Industrial Production Recovery Is Intact On the inflation side, our pipeline indicators have all signaled a modest building of underlying inflation pressure over the past year (although they have softened recently in the U.S. and Eurozone; Chart I-5). In terms of the components of these indicators, rising core producer price inflation has been partly offset by slower gains in unit labor costs in some economies. Chart I-4Our Short-Term Growth Models Are Bullish Chart I-5Some Rise In Pipeline Inflation Pressure These pipeline pressures have yet to show up at the consumer level. Most central bankers argue that temporary special factors are to blame, but many investors are wondering if longer-lasting forces are at work. There are numerous examples of deflationary pressure driven by waves of innovation, cost cutting and changing business models. Amazon, Uber, robotics and shale oil production are just a few examples. If this is the main story, then the inability for central banks to reach their inflation targets is a "good thing" because it reflects the adaptation of game-changing new technology. There is no doubt that important strides are being made in certain areas where new technologies are clearly driving prices down. The problem is that, at the macro level, it is not showing up in the productivity data. Productivity is dismally low across the major countries and we do not believe it is simply due to mismeasurement. A Special Report from BCA's Global Investment Strategy2 service makes a convincing case that mismeasurement is not behind the low productivity figures. In fact, it appears that productivity is over-estimated in some industries. It is also important to keep in mind that technological change is nothing new. There is a vigorous debate in academic circles on whether today's new technologies are anywhere near as positive as previous ones like indoor plumbing, electricity, the internal combustion engine and the internet. We are wowed by today's new gizmos, but they are not as transformative as previous innovations. While productivity is surging in some high-profile firms, studies show that there is a long tail of low-productivity companies that drag down the average. A full discussion is beyond the scope of this report and more research needs to be done, but we are not of the view that technology and productivity preclude rising inflation. We expect that inflation will firm by enough to allow central banks to continue scaling back monetary stimulus in the coming months and quarters. Did Yellen Turn Dovish? As with other central banks, the consensus among Fed policymakers is willing to "look through" low inflation for now. Yellen's Congressional testimony did not deviate from that view, although investors interpreted her remarks as dovish. The financial press focused on her statement that "...the policy rate is not far from neutral." However, this was followed up by the statement that "...because we also anticipate that the factors that are currently holding down the neutral rate will diminish somewhat over time, additional gradual rate hikes are likely to be appropriate over the next few years to sustain the economic expansion and return inflation to our 2 percent goal." Chart I-6Bond Market Does Not Believe The Fed The Fed believes there are two neutral interest rates: short-term and long-term. Yellen argued that the actual policy rate is currently close to the short-term neutral level, which is depressed by economic headwinds. However, Yellen and others have made the case that the short-term neutral rate is trending up as headwinds diminish, and will converge with the long-term neutral rate over time. The Fed's Summary of Economic Projections reveals what the FOMC thinks is the neutral long-term real fed funds rate; the median forecast calls for a nominal fed funds rate of 2.9% at the end of 2019 and 3% in the longer run. Incorporating a 2% inflation target, we can infer that the Fed anticipates a real neutral rate of 1% in the longer run. The Fed is likely tracking the real neutral fed funds rate using an estimate created by Laubach and Williams (LW).3 Chart I-6 shows this estimate of the neutral rate, called R-star, alongside the real federal funds rate that is calculated using 12-month trailing core PCE. The resulting real fed funds rate has risen sharply during the past seven months due to both three Fed rate hikes and a decline in inflation. If the Fed lifts rates once more this year and core inflation stays put, then the real fed funds rate would end 2017 close to zero, only 42 bps below neutral. However, it's more likely that the Fed will need to see inflation rebound before it delivers another rate hike. In a scenario where core inflation rises to 1.9% and the Fed lifts rates once more, then the real fed funds rate would actually decline between now and the end of the year. The implication is that the real fed funds rate is not far from R-star, but the nominal rate will have to rise a long way before the real rate reaches the Fed's estimate of the long-term neutral rate. Investors simply don't believe Fed policymakers. According to the bond market, the real fed funds rate will not shift into positive territory until 2021 (see real forward OIS line in Chart I-6). We think this is far too complacent. U.S. Health Care Reform: RIP The speed at which short-term rates converge with the long-run neutral rate will depend importantly on the path of fiscal policy. The Republicans' failure to pass their health care legislation is leading the investors to doubt the prospect for (stimulative) tax cuts. This may be premature. Ironically, the failure to jettison Obamacare may turn out to be a blessing in disguise for President Trump and the Republican Party. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the proposed legislation would have caused 22 million fewer Americans to have health insurance in 2026 compared with the status quo. The Senate bill would have also led to substantial cuts to Medicaid relative to existing law, as well as deep cuts to insurance subsidies for many poor and middle-class families. Many of these voters came out in support of Trump last year. The failure to repeal Obamacare could actually increase the motivation of Republicans to move forward on tax cuts anyway. The chances for broad tax reform have certainly diminished, since that will be just as difficult to get passed as healthcare reform. The GOP also wanted to use the roughly $200 billion in savings from healthcare reform to fund reduced tax rates. However, tax cuts are something that all Republicans can easily agree too, and they will need to show a legislative victory ahead of next year's mid-term elections. The difficulty will be how to pay for these cuts. We expect them to be "fully funded" in the sense that there will be offsetting spending cuts, but these will be back-loaded toward the end of the 10-year budget window, whereas the tax cuts will be front-loaded. This would generate a modest amount of fiscal stimulus over the next few years. Sub-4% U.S. Unemployment Rate Followed By Recession? Chart I-7Inside The Fed's Forecasts Expansionary fiscal policy would make life more difficult for the FOMC, which may have already fallen behind the curve. The unemployment rate is below the Fed's estimate of the full employment level, and it will continue to erode unless productivity picks up soon. We backed out the productivity growth rate implied by the Fed's latest Summary of Economic Projections, given its assumption that real GDP growth will be roughly 2% over the next couple of years and that the unemployment rate will stabilize near the current level. This combination implies that productivity growth will accelerate from the average rate observed so far in this expansion (0.7%) to about 1%, which is consistent with monthly payrolls of 135,000 assuming real GDP growth of 2% (Chart I-7). If we instead assume that productivity does not accelerate (and real GDP growth is 2%), then payrolls must jump to 160,000 and the unemployment rate would fall below 4% next year. The implication is that the unemployment rate is likely to soon reach levels not seen since 2000, which would force the FOMC to tighten more aggressively. The Fed would hope for a soft landing as it tries to nudge the unemployment rate higher, but the more likely result is a recession in 2019. For this year, we expect the Fed to begin balance sheet runoff in the autumn, followed by a rate hike in December. The latter hinges importantly on at least a modest rise in core PCE inflation in the coming months. A rebound in oil prices would help the Fed reach its inflation goal, even though energy prices affect the headline by more than the core rate. Saudi Energy Minister Khalid al-Falih indicated at a recent press conference in St. Petersburg that no changes are presently needed to the production deal under which OPEC and non-OPEC producers pledged to remove 1.8mn b/d from the market. The Saudi energy minister's remarks leave open the possibility of deeper cuts later this year if global inventories do not draw fast enough, or for the cuts to be extended beyond March 2018 if officials are not satisfied with progress on the storage front. We still believe they are capable of meeting this goal, despite rising shale production. Chart I-8Forecast Of Oil Inventories Our commodity strategists expect OECD oil inventories to reach their five-year average level by year-end or early 2018 Q1 (Chart I-8). In the absence of additional cuts, the five-year average level of OECD inventories will be higher than we estimated earlier this year, indicating that our expectation for the overall inventory drawdown later this year has been trimmed. Still, our oil strategists believe the inventory drawdowns will be sufficient to push WTI above the mid-$50s by year-end. If this forecast pans out, rising oil prices will push up headline inflation and inflation expectations in the major advanced economies. The bottom line is that the backdrop has turned bond-bearish now that central bankers in the advanced economies are in the process of scaling back the easier monetary policy that followed the deflationary 2014/15 oil shock. Duration should be kept short within global fixed income portfolios. In terms of country allocation, our global fixed income strategists have downgraded the Eurozone government bond market to underweight, joining the Treasury allocation, in light of the pending ECB tapering announcement that could place more upward pressure on yields. This was offset by upgrading Japan to maximum overweight. Max Policy Divergence Has Not Been Reached Chart I-9Europe Has A Lower Neutral Rate The change in tone by central bankers outside the U.S. has weighted heavily on the U.S. dollar. The Canadian dollar and the Euro have been particularly strong. Investors have apparently decided that the peak Fed/ECB policy divergence is now behind us. We do not agree. The ECB may be tapering, but rate hikes are a long way off because there remains a substantial amount of economic slack in the Eurozone. Laubach and Williams estimate R-star in the Eurozone to be close to zero, which is 50 basis points below the U.S. neutral rate (Chart I-9). The difference is related to slower potential growth and greater unemployment. Labor market slack across the euro area as a whole is still 3.2 percentage points higher than in 2008, and 6.7 points higher outside of Germany. The current real short-term rate is about -1%. We expect U.S. R-star to rise in absolute terms and relative to the neutral rate in the Eurozone because the U.S. is further advanced in the economic expansion. As Fed rate hike expectations ratchet up in the coming months, interest rate differentials versus Europe will widen in favor of the dollar. It is the same story for the dollar/yen rate because the Bank of Japan is a long way from raising or abandoning its 10-year bond yield peg. Japanese core inflation has fallen back to zero and medium-to-long-term inflation expectations have dipped so far this year. The annual shunto wage negotiations this summer produced little in the way of salary hikes. The major exception to our "strong dollar" call is the Canadian loonie, which we expect to appreciate versus the greenback. We also like the Aussie dollar, provided that the Chinese economy continues to hold up as we expect. Stocks Get A Free Pass For Now Chart I-10Global EPS And Industrial Production Fading market hopes for U.S. fiscal stimulus have weighed on both U.S. Treasury yields and the dollar, but the equity market has taken the news in stride. Are equity investors simply in denial? We do not think so. The equity market appears to have been given a "free pass" for now because earnings have been supportive. The combination of robust earnings growth, steady real GDP growth of around 2%, and low bond yields has been bullish for stocks so far in this expansion. At the global level, EPS growth continues to accelerate in line with the recovery in industrial production, which is a good proxy for top line growth (Chart I-10). Orders and production for capital goods in the major advanced economies have been particularly strong in recent months. The global operating margin flattened off last month according to IBES data, although margins continued to firm in the U.S. and Europe (Chart I-11). The profit acceleration is widespread across these three economies in the Basic Materials and Consumer Discretionary sectors. Industrials, Energy, Health Care and Consumer Staples are also performing well in most cases. Telecom is the weak spot. Our sector profit diffusion indexes paint an upbeat picture for the near term (Chart I-12). Chart I-11Operating Margins On The Rise Chart I-12Earnings Diffusion Indexes Are Bullish In the U.S., the second quarter earnings season is off to a good start. Results so far suggest that Q2 will see another quarter of margin expansion. We believe that U.S. margins are in a secular decline, but they are in the midst of a counter-trend rally that will last for the rest of this year. Using blended results for the second quarter, trailing S&P 500 EPS growth hit 18½% on a 4-quarter moving total basis (Chart I-13). The acceleration in earnings is impressive even after excluding the Energy sector. We projected early this year that EPS growth would peak at around 20%4 by year end, but it appears that earnings will overshoot that level. Chart I-13Robust EPS Growth Even Without Energy It will be tougher sledding in the equity market once profit growth peaks in the U.S. because of poor valuation. We are expecting to scale back our overweight equity recommendation sometime in the first half of 2018, although the global rally could be extended by constructive earnings data in Europe and Japan. The earnings recovery in both economies is behind the U.S., such that peak growth will come later in 2018. There is also more room for margins to expand in Europe than in the U.S. The relative earnings cycle is one of the reasons why we continue to favor Eurozone and Japanese stocks to the U.S. in local currency terms. Japanese stocks are also cheap to the U.S. based on our top-down valuation indicator (Chart I-14). European stocks are not far from fair value relative to the U.S., after adjusting for the fact that Europe trades structurally on the cheap side. The message from our top-down valuation indicator for European stocks is confirmed when using the bottom-up information contained in the new BCA Equity Trading Strategy platform. The Special Report beginning on page 20 describes a bottom-up valuation measure that we will use in conjunction with our top-down (index-based) measures. Corporate Bonds: Kindling And Sparks Healthy EPS growth momentum is also constructive for corporate bonds, although overall balance sheet health continues to erode in the U.S. The release of the U.S. Flow of Funds data allows us to update BCA's Corporate Health Monitor (CHM) for the first quarter (Chart I-15). The level of the CHM moved slightly deeper into "deteriorating health territory." Chart I-14Top-Down Relative Equity Valuation Chart I-15Deteriorating Since 2015, But... The Monitor has been a reliable indicator for the trend in corporate bond spreads over the years, calling almost all major turning points in advance. However, spreads have trended tighter over the past year even as the CHM began to signal deteriorating health in early 2015. Why the divergence? The CHM is only one of three key items on our checklist to underweight corporate bonds versus Treasurys. The other two are tight Fed policy (i.e. real interest rates that are above the neutral level) and the direction of bank lending standards for C&I loans. On its own, balance sheet deterioration only provides the kindling for a spread blowout. It also requires a spark. Investors do not worry about high leverage or a profit margin squeeze, for example, until the outlook for defaults sours. The latter occurs once inflation starts to rise and the Fed actively targets slower growth via higher interest rates. Banks see trouble on the horizon and respond by tightening lending standards, thereby restricting the flow of credit to the business sector. Defaults start to ramp up, buttressing banks' bias to curtail lending in a self-reinforcing negative feedback loop. The three items on the checklist normally occurred at roughly the same time in previous cycles because a deteriorating CHM is typically a late-cycle phenomenon. But this has been a very different cycle. High stock prices and rock-bottom bond yields have encouraged the corporate sector to leverage up and repurchase stock. At the same time, the subpar, stretched-out recovery has meant that it has taken longer than usual for the economy to reach full employment. It will be some time before U.S. short-term interest rates reach restrictive territory. As for banks, they tightened lending standards a little in 2015/16 due to the collapse of energy prices, but this has since reversed. The implication is that, while corporate health has deteriorated, we do not have the spark for a sustained corporate bond spread widening. Indeed, Moody's expects that the 12-month default rate will trend lower over the next year, which is consistent with constructive trends in corporate lending standards, industrial production and job cut announcements (all good indicators for defaults). Chart I-16 presents a valuation metric that adjusts the HY OAS for 12-month trailing default losses (i.e. it is an ex-post measure). In the forecast period, we hold today's OAS constant, but the 12-month default losses are a shifting blend of historical losses and Moody's forecast. The endpoint suggests that the market is offering about 200 basis points of default-adjusted excess yield over the Treasury curve for the next 12 months. This is roughly in line with the mid-point of the historical data. In the past, a default-adjusted spread of around 200 basis points provided positive 12-month excess returns to high-yield bonds 74% of the time, with an average return of 82 basis points. It is also a positive sign for corporate bonds that the net transfer to shareholders, in the form of buybacks, dividends and M&A activity, eased in the fourth quarter 2016 and the first quarter of 2017 (Chart I-17). Ratings migration has also improved (i.e. moderating net downgrades), especially for shareholder-friendly rating action, which is a better indicator for corporate spreads. The diminished appetite to "return cash to shareholders" may not last long, but for now it supports our overweight in both investment- and speculative-grade bonds versus Treasurys. That said, excess returns are likely to be limited to the carry given little room for spread compression. Chart I-16Still Some Value In ##br##High-Yield Corporates Chart I-17Net Transfers To Shareholders ##br##Eased In Past Two Quarters Within balanced portfolios, we recommend favoring equities to high-yield at this stage of the cycle. Value is not good enough in HY relative to stocks to expect any sustained period of outperformance in the former, assuming that the bull market in risk assets continues. Investment Conclusions A key change in the global financial landscape over the past month is a signal from central banks that they see the need for policy recalibration. Policymakers view sub-target inflation as temporary, and some are concerned that low interest rates could contribute to the formation of financial market bubbles. The bond market remains skeptical, given persistent inflation undershoots and growing anecdotal evidence that new technologies are very deflationary. It would be extremely bullish for stocks if these new technologies were indeed boosting the supply side of the economy at a faster pace than the official data suggest. Robust advances in output-per-worker would allow profits to grow quickly, and would provide the economy more breathing space before hitting inflationary capacity limits (keeping the bond vigilantes at bay). We acknowledge that there are important technological breakthroughs being made, but we do not see any evidence that this is occurring on a widespread basis sufficient to "move the dial" in terms of overall productivity growth. Indeed, the stagnation of middle class personal income is consistent with a poor productivity backdrop. Chart I-18 highlights that "creative destruction" is in a long-term bear market. Chart I-18Less Creative Destruction That said, the equity market is benefiting from the mini-cycle in corporate profits, which are still recovering from the earnings recession in 2015/early 2016. We expect the recovery to be complete by early 2018, which will set the stage for a substantial slowdown in EPS growth next year. It won't be a disaster, absent a recession, but demanding valuations suggest that the market could struggle to make headway through next year. We expect to trim exposure sometime in the first half of 2018. To time the exit, we will watch for a roll-over in the growth rate of S&P 500 EPS on a 4-quarter moving total basis. Investors should look for a peak in industrial production growth as a warnings sign for profits. We are also watching for a contraction in excess money, which we define as M2 divided by nominal GDP. Finally, a rise in core PCE inflation to 2% would be a signal that the Fed is about to ramp up interest rates. For now, remain overweight equities relative to bonds and cash. Favor equities to high yield, but within fixed-income portfolios, overweight investment- and speculative-grade corporates versus Treasurys. We are comfortable with our pro-risk recommendations and our below-benchmark duration stance. Unfortunately, that can't be said of our bullish U.S. dollar and oil price house views. Both are controversial calls among our strategists. As for oil, supply and demand are finely balanced and our positive view hinges importantly on OPEC agreeing to more production cuts. The obvious risk is that these cuts do not materialize. The dollar call has gone against us as the latest signs of improving global growth momentum have admittedly been outside the U.S. Meanwhile, the U.S. is stuck in a political morass, which delays the prospect of fiscal stimulus. This is not to say that U.S. growth will slow. Rather, the growth acceleration may fall short of the high expectations following last November's election. We continue to believe that the market is too complacent on the pace of Fed rate hikes in the coming quarters. An upward adjustment in rate expectations should push the dollar higher on a trade-weighted basis, as outlined above. Nonetheless, this shift will require higher U.S. inflation, the timing of which is highly uncertain. We remain dollar bulls on a 12-month horizon, but we are stepping aside and calling for a trading range in the next three months. Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst July 27, 2017 Next Report: August 31, 2017 1 Please see Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "Central Banks Are Now Playing Catch-Up," dated July 4, 2017, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "Weak Productivity Growth: Don't Blame The Statisticians," dated March 25, 2016, available at gis.bcaresearch.com 3 Kathryn Holston, Thomas Laubach, and John C. Williams "Measuring The Natural Rates Of Interest: International Trends And Determinants," Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, Working Paper 2016-11 (December 2016). 4 Calculated as a year-over-year growth rate of a 4-quarter moving total of S&P data. II. The BCA ETS Trading Platform Approach To Valuing Eurozone Stocks The performance of European stocks relative to the U.S. has been dismal in the post-Lehman period. However, the Eurozone economy is performing impressively, profit growth is accelerating and margins are rising. This points to a period of outperformance for Eurozone stocks, at least in local currency terms. Standard valuation measures based on index data suggest that Eurozone stocks are cheap to the U.S. Nonetheless, the European market almost always trades at a discount, due to persistent lackluster profit performance. In Part II of our series on valuation, we approach the issue from a bottom-up perspective, utilizing the powerful analytics provided by BCA's exciting new Equity Trading Strategy (ETS) platform. The ETS software allows us to compare U.S. and European companies on a head-to-head basis and rank them based on a wide range of characteristics. The bottom-up approach avoids the problems of index construction. Investors can be confident that they will make money on a 12-month horizon by taking a position when the new bottom-up indicator reaches +/-1 standard deviations over- or under-valued, although technical information should be taken on board to sharpen the timing. The +/-2 sigma level gives clear buy/sell signals irrespective of fundamental or technical factors. Valuation alone does not justify overweight Eurozone positions at the moment, although we like the market for other reasons. The bottom-up valuation indicator will not replace our top-down version that is based on index data, but rather will be considered together when evaluating relative value. Total returns in the European equity market have bounced relative to the U.S. since 2016 in both local-currency and common currency terms (Chart II-1). However, this has offset only a tiny fraction of the dismal underperformance since 2007. In local currencies, the relative EMU/U.S. total return index is still close to its lowest level since the late 1970s. Compared with the pre-Lehman peak, the U.S. total return index is more than 96% higher according to Datastream data, while the Eurozone total return index is only now getting back to the previous high-water mark when expressed in U.S. dollars (Chart II-2). Chart II-1EMU Stocks Lag Massively... Chart II-2...Due To Depressed Earnings The yawning return gap between the two equity markets was almost entirely due to earnings as market multiples have moved largely in sync. Earnings-per-share (EPS) generated by U.S. companies now exceed the pre-Lehman peak by about 19%. In contrast, earnings produced by their Eurozone peers are a whopping 48% below their peak (common currency). This reflects both a slower recovery in sales-per-share growth and lower profit margins. Operating margins in Europe have been on the upswing for a year, but are still depressed by pre-Lehman standards. Margin outperformance in the U.S. is not a sector weighting story; in only 2 of 10 sectors do European operating margins exceed the U.S. The return-on-equity data tell a similar story. Nonetheless, a turning point may be at hand. Chart II-3Europe Trades At A Discount The Eurozone economy has been performing well, especially on a per-capita basis, and forward-looking indicators suggest that growth will remain above-trend for at least the next few quarters. U.S. profit margins have also been (temporarily) rising, but the Eurozone economy has more room to grow because there is still slack in the labor market. There is also more room for margins to rise in the Eurozone corporate sector than is the case in the U.S., where the profit cycle is further advanced. Traditional measures of value based on the MSCI indexes suggest that European stocks are on the cheap side. But are they really that cheap? Based on index data, Eurozone stocks trade at a hefty discount across most of the main valuation measures (Chart II-3). This is the case even for normalized measures such as price-to-book (P/B). However, Eurozone stocks have almost always traded at a discount. There are many possible explanations as to why there is a persistent valuation gap between these two markets, including differences in accounting standards, discount rates and sector weights. The wider use of stock buybacks in the U.S. also favors American stock valuations relative to Europe. But most important are historical differences in underlying corporate fundamentals. U.S. companies on the whole were significantly more profitable even before the Great Financial Crisis (Chart II-3). U.S. companies also tend to have lower leverage and higher interest coverage. Better profitability metrics in the U.S. are not solely an artifact of sector weighting either. RoE and operating margins are lower in Europe even applying U.S. sector weights to the European market.1 Why corporate Europe has been a perennial profit under-achiever is beyond the scope of this paper. U.S. companies reaped most of the benefit from productivity gains over the past 25 years, with the result that the capital share of income soared while the labor share collapsed. European companies were less successful in squeezing down labor costs. Measuring Value In the first part of our two-part Special Report on valuation, published in July 2016, we took a top-down approach to determine whether Eurozone stocks are cheap versus the U.S. after adjusting for different sector weights and persistent differences in the underlying profit fundamentals. A regression approach that factored in various profitability measures performed reasonably well, but the top-down "mechanical" approach that relied on a 5-year moving average provided the most profitable buy/sell signals historically. We approach the issue from a bottom-up perspective in Part II of our series, utilizing the powerful analytics provided by BCA's exciting new Equity Trading Strategy (ETS) platform. The software allows us to compare U.S. and European companies on a head-to-head basis and rank them based on a wide range of characteristics. The bottom-up approach avoids the problems of index construction when trying to gauge valuation across countries. The web-based platform uses over 24 quantitative factors to rank approximately 10,000 individual stocks in 23 countries, allowing clients to find stocks with winning characteristics at the global level. Users can rank and score individual equities to support a broad set of investment strategies and apply macro and sector views to single-name investments. The ETS approach has an impressive track record. Historically, the top-decile of stocks ranked using the "BCA Score" methodology have outperformed stocks in the bottom decile by over 25% a year.2 The BCA Score includes all 24 factors when ranking stocks, but we are interested in developing a valuation metric that provides valued added on its own and is at least as good as the top-down index-based measure developed in Part I. The five valuation measures in the ETS database are trailing P/E, forward P/E, price-to-book, price-to-sales and price-to-cash flow. We combine all of the Eurozone and U.S. companies that have total assets of greater than $1 billion into one dataset. The ETS platform then ranks the stocks from best to worst on a daily basis (i.e. cheapest to most expensive), using an equally-weighted average of the five valuation measures. The average score for U.S. stocks is subtracted from the average score for European stocks, and then divided by the standard deviation of the series. This provides a valuation metric that fluctuates roughly between +/- 2 standard deviations. Chart II-4 presents the resulting bottom-up indicator, along with our previously-published top-down valuation measure. A high reading indicates that European stocks are cheap to the U.S., while it is the opposite for low readings. Chart II-4Eurozone Equity Relative Valuation Indicators The underlying bottom-up data extend back to 2000. However, the bursting of the tech bubble in the early 2000's causes major shifts in relative valuation among sectors and between the U.S. and Eurozone that skew the indicator when constructed using the entire data set. We obtain a cleaner indicator when using only the data from 2005. As with any valuation indicator, it is only useful when it reaches extremes. We calculated the historical track record for a trading rule that is based on critical levels of over- and under-valuation. For example, we calculated the (local currency) excess returns over 3, 6, 12 and 24-month horizon generated by (1) overweighting European stocks when that market was one and two standard deviations cheap versus the U.S. market, and (2) overweighting the U.S. when the European market was one and two standard deviations expensive (Table II-1). Table II-1Value Indicator: Trading Rule Returns And Batting Average The trading rule returns were best when the indicator reached two standard deviations cheap or expensive, providing average returns of almost 11 percent over 12 months. The trading rule returns when the indicator reached +/-1 standard deviation were not as good, but still more than 3% on 12- and 24-month horizons. Table II-1 also presents the trading rule's batting average. That is, the number of positive excess returns generated by the trading rule as a percent of the total number of signals. The batting average ranged from 50% on a 3-month horizon to 68% over 24 months when buy/sell signals are triggered at +/- 1 standard deviation. The batting average is much higher (80-100%) using +/- 2 standard deviations as a trigger point, although there were only five months over the entire sample when the indicator reached this level. The charts and tables in the Appendix present the results of the same analysis at the sector level. The results are equally as good as the aggregate valuation indicator, with a couple of exceptions. European stocks are cheap to the U.S. in the Energy, Financials, and Utilities sectors, while U.S. stocks offer better value in Consumer Discretionary, Consumer Staples, Health Care, Industrials and Technology. Materials, Real Estate, and Telecommunications are close to equally valued. Sharpening The Buy/Sell Signals We then augmented the valuation analysis by adding information on company fundamentals, such as EPS growth and profit margins among others. The ETS software ranked the companies after equally-weighting the valuation and fundamental factors. However, this approach yielded poor results in terms of the trading rule. This is because, for example, when European stocks reach undervalued levels relative to the U.S., it is usually because the European earnings fundamentals have underperformed those of the U.S. companies. Thus, favorable value is offset by poor fundamentals, muddying the message provided by valuation alone. In contrast, adding some information from the technical factors in the ETS model does add value, at least when using +/-1 standard deviations as the trigger point for trades (Chart II-5). Excess returns to the trading rule rise significantly when the medium-term momentum and long-term mean reversion factors are included in the valuation indicator (Table II-2). The batting average also improves. Chart II-5Indicators: Value And Value With Technical Information Table II-2Value And Technical Indicator: Trading Rule Returns And Batting Average Adding technical information does not improve the trading rule performance when +/-2 sigma is used as the trigger point. Investment Conclusions Our new ETS platform provides investors with a unique way of picking stocks by combining top-down macro themes with company-specific information. It also allows us to develop valuation tools that avoid some of the pitfalls of index data by comparing stocks on a head-to-head basis. Historical analysis using a trading rule demonstrates that the new bottom-up valuation indicator provides real value to investors. We would normally evaluate its track record using stretching analysis, where we use only the historical information available at each point in time when determining relative value. However, the relatively short history of the available data precludes this test because we need at least a few cycles to best gauge the underlying volatility in the data. Still, investors can be fairly confident that they will make money on a 12-month horizon by taking a position when the bottom-up indicator reaches +/-1 sigma over- or under-valued, although technical information should be taken on board to sharpen the timing. The +/-2 sigma level gives clear buy/sell signals irrespective of the fundamental or technical factors. The bottom-up valuation indicator will not replace our top-down version that is based on index data, but rather will be considered together when evaluating relative value. At the moment, the top-down version proposes that European stocks are somewhat cheap to the U.S., while the bottom-up indicator points to slight overvaluation. Considering the two together suggests that valuation is close enough to fair value that investors cannot make the decision on value alone. Valuation indicators need to be near extremes to be informative. Our global equity strategists recommend overweighting Eurozone stocks versus the U.S. at the moment, although not because of valuation. Rather, the Eurozone economy and corporate earnings have more room to grow because of lingering labor market slack. This also means that the ECB can keep rates glued to the zero bound for at least the next 18 months while the Fed hikes, which will place upward pressure on the dollar and downward pressure on the euro. Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst Appendix: Trading Rule Returns By Sector Chart II-6, Chart II-7, Chart II-8, Chart II-9, Chart II-10, Chart II-11, Chart II-12, Chart II-13, Chart II-14, Chart II-15, Chart II-16. Chart II-6Consumer Discretionary Chart II-7Consumer Staples Chart II-8Energy Chart II-9Financials Chart II-10Health Care Chart II-11Industrials Chart II-12Materials Chart II-13Real Estate Chart II-14Utilities Chart II-15Technology Chart II-16Telecommunication 1 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst Special Report, "Are Eurozone Stocks Really That Cheap?" July 2016, available at bca.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see Equity Trading Strategy Special Report, "Introducing ETS: A Top Down Approach to Bottom-Up Stock Picking," December 2, 2015, available at ets.bcaresearch.com. III. Indicators And Reference Charts Stocks continue to outperform bonds against a constructive backdrop of improving global economic prospects and accelerating EPS growth, while low inflation is expected to keep central banks from tightening quickly. Our main equity and asset allocation indicators remain bullish for risk, with a few exceptions. Our new Revealed Preference Indicator (RPI) jumped back to a 100% equity weighting in July. We introduced the RPI in last month's Special Report. Quite simply, it combines the idea of market momentum with valuation and policy measures. It provides a powerful bullish signal if positive market momentum lines up with constructive signals from the policy and valuation measures. Conversely, if constructive market momentum is not supported by valuation and policy, investors should lean against the market trend. Our Willingness-to-Pay (WTP) indicators are also bullish on stocks for the U.S., Europe and Japan. These indicators track flows, and thus provide information on what investors are actually doing, as opposed to sentiment indexes that track how investors are feeling. Investors often say they are bullish but remain conservative in their asset allocation. The U.S. WTP remains bullish, but has topped out, suggesting that flows into the U.S. market are beginning to moderate. In contrast, the WTP indicators for both the Eurozone and Japan are rising from a low level. This suggests that a rotation into these equity markets is underway, although it has not yet shown up in terms of equity market outperformance versus the U.S. On the negative side, our Monetary Indicator last month fell a little further below the zero line and our composite Technical Indicator appears to be rolling over; the latter generates a 'sell' signal when it drops below its 9-month moving average. Value is stretched, but our Valuation Indicator has not yet reached the +1 standard deviation level that indicates clear over-valuation. As highlighted in the Overview section, the U.S. and global earnings backdrop continues to support equity markets. Forward earnings estimates are in a steep uptrend, and the recent surge in the net revisions ratio and the earnings surprise index suggests that EPS growth will remain impressive for the remainder of the year. Bond valuation is largely unchanged from last month, sitting very close to fair value. We still believe that fair value is rising as economic headwinds fade. However, much depends on our forecast that core inflation in the major countries will grind higher in the coming months. Central banks stand ready to "remove the punchbowl" if they get the green light from inflation. The dollar's downdraft in July reduced some of its overvaluation based on purchasing power parity measures. The dollar appears less overvalued based on other measures. Our composite Technical Indicator has fallen hard, but has not reached oversold levels. This suggests that the dollar has more downside before it finds a bottom. EQUITIES: Chart III-1U.S. Equity Indicators Chart III-2Willingness To Pay For Risk Chart III-3U.S. Equity Sentiment Indicators Chart III-4Revealed Preference Indicator Chart III-5U.S. Stock Market Valuation Chart III-6U.S. Earnings Chart III-7Global Stock Market And Earnings: ##br##Relative Performance Chart III-8Global Stock Market And Earnings: ##br##Relative Performance FIXED INCOME: Chart III-9U.S. Treasurys And Valuations Chart III-10U.S. Treasury Indicators Chart III-11Selected U.S. Bond Yields Chart III-1210-Year Treasury Yield ComponentsChart III-13U.S. Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor Chart III-14Global Bonds: Developed Markets Chart III-15Global Bonds: Emerging Markets CURRENCIES: Chart III-16U.S. Dollar And PPP Chart III-17U.S. Dollar And Indicator Chart III-18U.S. Dollar Fundamentals Chart III-19Japanese Yen TechnicalsChart III-21Euro/Yen Technicals Chart III-20Euro TechnicalsChart III-22Euro/Pound Technicals COMMODITIES: Chart III-23Broad Commodity Indicators Chart III-24Commodity Prices Chart III-25Commodity Prices Chart III-26Commodity Sentiment Chart III-27Speculative Positioning ECONOMY: Chart III-28U.S. And Global Macro Backdrop Chart III-29U.S. Macro Snapshot Chart III-30U.S. Growth Outlook Chart III-31U.S. Cyclical Spending Chart III-32U.S. Labor Market Chart III-33U.S. Consumption Chart III-34U.S. Housing Chart III-35U.S. Debt And Deleveraging Chart III-36U.S. Financial Conditions Chart III-37Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Chart III-38Global Economic Snapshot: China