Financial Markets

Highlights Subdued long-term inflation expectations and central bank bond purchases have suppressed the term premium. This is set to change, as quantitative easing turns into quantitative tightening and shrinking output gaps around the world start to push up inflation. The neutral rate in the U.S. is likely higher than the Federal Reserve realizes, which could leave the Fed behind the curve in normalizing monetary policy. A spike in the term premium is unlikely this year, given the prospect of a stronger dollar and ongoing stresses in emerging markets. Next year may be a different story, however. Fixed-income investors with a 12-to-18 month horizon should maintain duration risk at below-benchmark levels. Asset allocators should keep equity and credit exposure at neutral. Within the equity space, investors should favor developed market equities over their EM peers and defensive sectors over cyclicals. Feature The Mystery Of The Falling Term Premium The yield on a bond can be decomposed into the expected path of short-term rates and a term premium. Historically, the term premium has been positive, meaning that investors could expect to earn a higher return by purchasing a bond rather than by rolling over a short-term bill.1 More recently, the term premium has turned negative in many economies (Chart 1). Not only are investors willing to forego the extra return for taking on duration risk, but they are actually willing to sacrifice return when buying long-term bonds. Chart 1Term Premia Across Developed Markets Are Low There are two main reasons why the term premium has fallen: Long-term inflation expectations have been very subdued, which has made bonds a hedge against bad economic outcomes. Central bank purchases have depressed yields, while forward guidance has dampened interest-rate volatility. Bonds And Risk Some commentators like to describe the riskiness of a security by how volatile its price is, or if they want to get a bit more sophisticated, the skew of its returns. But this is not really the right way to think about risk. As Harry Markowitz first discussed in 1952 in his seminal paper "Portfolio Selection," investors ultimately care about their overall level of wealth. If the price of a certain security goes up when the prices of all others go down, investors should prefer to hold this particular security even if it offers a subpar expected return. Bonds today play the role of this safe security. Chart 2 shows the rolling correlation between monthly changes in the 10-year Treasury bond yield and the S&P 500. The correlation was generally negative between the late-1960s and late-1990s: Bond yields back then tended to rise whenever the S&P 500 was falling. This made bonds a bad hedge against lower equity prices. Chart 2Bond Yields Now Tend To Rise When Equity Prices Go Up Over the past two decades, however, bond yields have generally declined whenever the stock market has swooned. Since a lower bond yield implies a higher bond price, bonds have been a good hedge against equity risk in particular, and a weaker economy in general. As a consequence, investors are now willing to pay a premium to hold long-term bonds. This has bid up the price of bonds, so much so that the term premium has dipped into negative territory. Receding Inflation Fears Have Made Bonds Safer Why did the correlation between bond yields and stock market returns change? The answer has a lot to do with what happened to inflation. Bond yields can go up because of expectations of stronger growth or because of the anticipation of higher inflation. The former is good for equities, while the latter is typically bad for equities because it heralds additional monetary tightening. As inflation expectations became increasingly unhinged in the second half of the 1960s, inflationary shocks became the dominant driver of bond yields. When bond yields went up during that period, stock prices usually fell. That changed in the 1990s, as inflation stabilized at low levels and growth became the primary driver of yields once again (Chart 3). Chart 3Long-Term Inflation Expectations Have ##br##Remained Subdued For Over Two Decades Following the financial crisis, inflationary concerns were supplanted by worries about deflation. Falling inflation is generally good for bond investors. If inflation declines, the real purchasing power of a bond's interest and principal payments will go up. For investors who have to mark-to-market their portfolios, the benefits of lower inflation are especially clear. A decline in inflation will take the pressure off central banks to hike rates. This will cause the price of existing bonds to rise, delivering an immediate capital gain to their holders. Moreover, to the extent that falling inflation expectations typically accompany rising worries about the growth outlook, investors will benefit from a decline in the expected path of real interest rates. QE And The Term Premium While falling inflation expectations have been the most important driver of the decline in the term premium, central bank asset purchases have also lent a helping hand. In standard macroeconomic models, bond yields are determined at the margin by the willingness of private investors to hold the existing stock of debt. If a central bank buys bonds, this reduces the volume of bonds that the private sector can hold. To induce private investors to hold fewer bonds, bond yields must decline. There is no consensus about how much quantitative easing has depressed bond yields. A Fed study published in April of last year estimated that QE had depressed the 10-year yield by 100 basis points at the time of writing, a number that the authors expected to decline to 85 basis points by the end of 2017.2 Other studies found that the peak impact on yields has ranged from 90-to-200 basis points. One thing that is empirically undeniable is that there is a large international component to bond yields. The steep decline in the U.S. term premium in 2014 was mainly driven by the expectation - ultimately proven correct - that the ECB would launch its own QE program. Asset purchases by the Bank of Japan, along with its yield curve control policy, also contributed to lower bond yields in the rest of the world. Things are beginning to change, however (Chart 4). The Fed is now letting its balance sheet shrink by about $40 billion per month, a number that will rise to $50 billion in October. The Bank of England has kept its holdings of gilts and corporate bonds constant for over a year, while the ECB intends to start tapering asset purchases later this year. The Bank of Japan continues to buy assets, but even there, the pace of annual purchases has fallen from about 80 trillion yen in 2015-16 to 35 trillion at present. Meanwhile, the use of forward guidance - which was arguably even more instrumental in suppressing interest rate volatility and pushing down the term premium than QE - is likely to be scaled back, at least in the United States. Fed Chair Powell said on May 25: "I think [forward guidance] will have a significantly smaller role going forward." Incoming New York Fed President John Williams echoed this sentiment, noting in a Bloomberg interview that "I think this forward guidance, at some point, will be past its shelf life."3 Opening The Fiscal Spigots Just as central banks are purchasing fewer bonds in the open market, bond issuance is set to rise. Usually the U.S. budget deficit narrows whenever the unemployment rate declines, as strong economic growth draws in more tax revenue and spending on social programs drops (Chart 5). Things are different this time around. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) expects the U.S. budget deficit to increase from 2.4% of GDP in 2015 to 4.6% of GDP in 2019. Chart 4From Quantitative Easing To ##br##Quantitative Tightening Chart 5Unlike In The Past, The U.S. Budget Deficit Is Set To Widen Even ##br##If The Unemployment Rate Continues To Decline The Trump tax cuts have imperiled the long-term fiscal outlook. Up until last year, the U.S. fiscal picture appeared much better than it once did. In 2009, the amount of federal debt held by the public was projected to exceed 250% of GDP in 2046. By 2016, that forecast had been reduced to 113% of GDP, thanks mainly to the economic recovery and slower projected spending growth on health care following the introduction of the Affordable Care Act (Chart 6). The Trump tax cuts have blown those forecasts out of the water. We estimate that government debt held by the public will increase to almost 190% of GDP in 2046 if current policies are maintained. Chart 6Trump Tax Cuts Have Put Debt Trajectory ##br##Back On An Unsustainable Path While the stock of debt, rather than the flow, determines bond yields in the standard bond pricing model, flows can still matter if they provide a reliable signal as to how large the stock of debt will be in the future. Given that changes in fiscal policy are often hard to reverse, the deterioration in the fiscal outlook suggests that the stock of government debt will be much larger than investors had expected a few years ago. This justifies a higher term premium today. Broken Accelerator? Subdued inflation expectations have kept the term premium in check, but the prospect of ill-timed fiscal stimulus raises doubts about whether this state of affairs will persist. What would happen to inflation if the economy found itself in an overheated state for a prolonged period of time? The truth is that no one really knows the answer to that question. Some prominent economists have contended that nothing terrible would transpire. They argue that the entire concept of the Non-Accelerating Inflation Rate of Unemployment (NAIRU) is passé. In their view, the magnitude of economic slack determines the level of inflation, not the rate of change in inflation. Recent data provides some support to their views. Shrinking output gaps in much of the world during the past eight years have failed to raise inflation by very much, let alone cause inflation to accelerate to the upside (Chart 7). If an overheated economy simply results in modestly higher inflation, rather than increasing inflation, central banks have little to fear. A bit more inflation would allow central bankers to target a higher nominal interest rate, thus giving them greater scope to cut rates in the event of an economic downturn. Higher inflation could also improve labor market flexibility by permitting real wages to fall in the presence of nominal wage rigidities.4 In addition, as we have argued in the past, modestly higher inflation could make the financial system less susceptible to asset bubbles.5 Unfortunately, the case for letting the economy overheat is not so straightforward. For one thing, the relationship between inflation and unemployment tends to be non-linear. As Chart 8 illustrates, an economy's aggregate supply curve is likely to be quite shallow when there is a lot of excess capacity but rather steep when most of the slack has been absorbed. We may simply have not yet reached the steep side of the aggregate supply curve. Chart 7Developed Markets: Inflation Has Remained ##br##Low Despite Shrinking Output Gaps Chart 8Inflationary Pressures Tend To Increase ##br##When Spare Capacity Is Absorbed The experience of the late 1960s illustrates this point. Core inflation was remarkably stable during the first half of the decade, even as the unemployment rate continued to drift lower. In economic parlance, the Phillips curve was very flat. However, once the unemployment rate fell below 4%, core inflation took off, rising from 1.5% in early 1966 to nearly 4% in 1967 (Chart 9). Inflation ultimately made its way to 6% in 1970, three years before the first oil shock struck. Anchors Away The upward trend in inflation observed during the 1970s underscores another point, which is that there is no unique mapping between the unemployment rate and inflation. To use a bit of economic jargon, not only does the slope of the Phillips curve vary depending on what the unemployment rate is, but the intercept of the curve could potentially move up or down in response to changes in long-term inflation expectations (Chart 10). Chart 9Inflation In The 1960s Took Off Once ##br##The Economy Began To Overheat Chart 10An Increase In Inflation Expectations Can ##br##Cause The Phillips Curve To Shift Upwards Chart 11Market Expectations Versus The Fed Dots This is a point that Milton Friedman and Edmund Phelps made more than fifty years ago. Friedman and Phelps argued that central banks could only stimulate the economy if they delivered more inflation than people were anticipating. Higher-than-expected inflation would push down real interest rates, leading to more spending. As the two economists correctly noted, however, such an outcome would only occur if people systematically underestimated what inflation would end up being. If people made inflation forecasts in a fairly rational manner, the apparent trade-off between higher inflation and lower unemployment would evaporate: Inflation would rise, but output would not be any greater than before. One of the errors that central banks made in the 1970s is that they kept interest rates too low for too long in the mistaken belief that slower growth was the result of inadequate demand rather than a decline in the growth rate in the economy's productive capacity and a higher equilibrium rate of unemployment. Today, the error may be in thinking that the neutral rate of interest is lower than it really is. As we argued several weeks ago, cyclical factors have probably pushed up the neutral rate quite a bit over the past few years.6 Neither the Fed dots nor market pricing are adequately discounting this possibility (Chart 11). Inflation is a notoriously lagging indicator. It typically does not peak until after a recession has begun and does not bottom until the recovery is well underway (Chart 12). By the time the Fed realizes it is behind the curve, inflation could already be substantially higher. The fact that the New York Fed's Underlying Inflation Gauge - which leads core CPI inflation by about 18 months - has risen to over 3% provides some evidence in support of this view (Chart 13). Chart 12Inflation Is A Lagging Indicator Chart 13Upside Risks To U.S. Inflation Investment Conclusions A sudden increase in the term premium could set in motion a vicious circle where bond yields rise and the stock market falls at the same. In such a setting, bonds would lose much of their appeal as a hedge against equity drawdowns. This could put even more upward pressure on the term premium, leading to even lower stock prices. Chart 14 shows that the MOVE index, a measure of implied volatility for the Treasury market, remains near historically low levels. Just as investors were too complacent about the possibility of an equity volatility spike earlier this year, they are too complacent about the possibility of an increase in bond volatility. Chart 14Investors Are Too Complacent Getting the timing of any change in the term premium is critical, of course. It often takes a while for an overheated economy to generate inflation. The unemployment rate fell nearly two percentage points below its full employment level in the 1960s before inflation took off. The U.S. economy is only now starting to boil over. Moreover, if the dollar continues to strengthen over the coming months, as we expect, this could put downward pressure on commodity prices. Thus, we do not foresee a major inflation-induced spike in the term premium this year. Next year may be a very different story. If inflation ratchets higher in 2019, the term premium could jump. The resulting tightening in financial conditions could pave the way for a recession in 2020. Fixed-income investors with a 12-to-18 month horizon should maintain duration risk at below-benchmark levels. We downgraded global equities and credit exposure to neutral last month. Within the equity space, investors should favor developed market equities over their EM peers and defensive sectors over deep cyclicals such as industrials and materials. Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com 1 Note that the term premium and the slope of the yield curve are different concepts. The slope of the yield curve measures the difference in yields between two maturities at any given point in time. In contrast, the term premium measures the difference between the return on a long-term bond and the return an investor would receive by rolling over a short-term bill over the life of that bond. Unlike the slope of the yield curve, which can be observed directly, the term premium has to be estimated using market expectations of the future path of short-term rates. 2 Please see Brian Bonis, Ihrig, Jane, and Wei, Min, "The Effect of the Federal Reserve's Securities Holdings on Longer-term Interest Rates," FEDS Notes, Federal Reserve (April 20, 2017); Edison Yu, "Did Quantitative Easing Work?" Economic Insight, Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia Research Department (First quarter 2016); and "Unconventional Monetary Policies -- Recent Experience And Prospects," IMF (April 18, 2013). 3 Jeanna Smialek, "Powell Sees Significantly Smaller Role for Fed Forward Guidance," Bloomberg (May 25, 2018); and Jeanna Smialek, "The Incoming New York Fed Chief Talks About Inflation and the Yield Curve," Bloomberg (May 16 2018). 4 A low-inflation environment can have adverse economic consequences during economic downturns due to the presence of downward rigidity of nominal wages. Firms typically try to reduce costs when demand for their products and services declines, but employers tend to be unwilling or unable to cut nominal wages. In this context, higher inflation provides a potential way to overcome nominal wage rigidity as it helps real wages to adjust to negative shocks. When inflation is low, real wages become less flexible, making it more likely that firms will opt for job cuts as a means to decrease overall costs. 5 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Tinbergen's Ghost," dated May 11, 2018. 6 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "U.S. Housing Will Drive The Global Business Cycle... Again," dated July 6, 2018. Strategy & Market Trends Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

Highlights The 2016-2017 China/EM recovery was not the beginning of a new economic and financial cycle. We view it as a mid-cycle recovery, or hiatus, in an unfinished downtrend that began in 2011. Our basis: In EM at large and especially in China, the excesses and "deadwood" left from the 2009-2011 credit boom were not cleansed. Easy money masked the negative fundamentals in 2016-2017. Yet as Chinese money and credit growth continues to fall and the Federal Reserve steadily shrinks its balance sheet, cracks are re-surfacing in EM and China. In Thailand, continue overweighting equities, currency and fixed-income market versus their respective EM benchmarks. Feature The most striking difference between our view on EM and that of the overwhelming majority of investors and experts is as follows: Most investors and commentators view the 2016-2017 EM recovery as the beginning of a new economic and financial cycle. Hence, the narrative goes that both the EM economic expansion and the rally in EM financial markets are still at an early stage, and barring severe tightening from the U.S. Federal Reserve, it is unlikely that EM growth will slump much. BCA's Emerging Markets Strategy team regards the 2016-2017 revival in EM economies in general and China in particular as a mid-cycle recovery, or hiatus, in an unfinished downtrend that began in 2011. This is why we were reluctant to turn bullish after EM financial markets rallied in 2016-2017. China is more important to EM than the U.S. In our opinion, it was only a matter of time before China's and the Fed's tightening would lead to a considerable relapse in EM financial markets. In brief, the rally of last year was nothing more than a bull trap. In this week's report we highlight where EM and China are in their respective economic cycles, and elaborate on why we believe their pre-2016 downturns and adjustments remain incomplete.1 EM/China Cycles Chart I-1 presents the best way to visualize the EM/China cycles. Chart I-1Where Are EMs & Commodities In The Cycle? Following the devastating crises of 1997-'98, the new structural bull market in EM began in 1999-2001. By the early 2000s, crises-hit EM banks had recognized and provisioned for their bad assets, and were in the process of restructuring. In turn, companies had considerably ameliorated their financial health by restructuring debt (including foreign debt), and cutting capital spending and employment, thereby boosting their free cash flows. By 2004, China completed aggressive structural reforms, such as shutting down unprofitable SOEs, tolerating massive layoffs and allowing market forces to play a greater role in the economy (Chart I-2, top panel). The Middle Kingdom also joined the WTO in 2001, which opened global markets for Chinese exports (Chart I-2, bottom panel). The structural reforms of the late 1990s and the WTO accession created fertile ground for China's structural growth boom in the 2000s. Chart I-2China Implemented Structural ##br##Reforms In Late 1990s China's nominal manufacturing output growth - depicted on the top panel of Chart I-1 on page 2 - accelerated throughout the 2000s, reaching a 20% annual growth rate in 2007. Consistently, commodities prices and EM share prices were in a structural bull market over that period (Chart I-1, bottom panel). The U.S. credit crisis in 2008 compelled a vicious, but relatively brief, bust in commodities and EM equities. Following the Lehman crash that year, China and many other developing nations injected considerable monetary and fiscal stimulus into their economies. As a result, Chinese and EM domestic demand boomed well before the DM recovery in the second half of 2009. It was in 2009-2011 that EM and China were in the late cycle phase. This period was characterised by booming credit and capital spending, strong income growth, capacity shortages, and a surge in inflation across many economies. Starting in 2011-2012, China and EM economies entered a major downtrend. Consistently, the bear market in commodities began in 2011.2 In 2015, the downtrend escalated, and the selloff became vicious. In the second half of 2015, Chinese policymakers became unnerved and, once again, injected enormous amounts of credit and fiscal stimulus into the mainland economy. These reflationary efforts led to a revival in China's economy, which in turn lifted commodities prices in 2016-2017. China's growth impulse boosted many EM economies that are more leveraged to China than to the U.S. It is this 2016-2017 mid-cycle revival in EM/China/commodities'- that we refer to as a hiatus in a bear market. Chart I-3Chinese Money Growth ##br##Points To More Downside Recognizing the long-run unsustainability of this easy money-based growth model and the need to manage escalating financial risks (China's official code word for "bubbles") motivated Chinese policy makers to begin tightening in late 2016. Consequently, money/credit have decelerated, and with a time lag, the business cycle has rolled over (Chart I-3, top panel). In turn, EM risk assets and commodities have been suffering since early 2018 (Chart I-3, bottom panel). Diagnosis Of EM Fundamentals Like doctors examining and diagnosing patients in regard to their medical conditions and prescribing medicines to cure them, the global investment community attempts to diagnose the health of economies and companies, and predict their outlook. In turn, a forecast of the future will have higher odds of being right if the diagnosis it relies upon is correct. Applying this reasoning to EM and the Chinese economies, we need to diagnose their conditions: Have the hangovers following their respective credit/easy money booms dissipated? What are the productivity trends in these economies, and are they in a position to embark on a structural growth trajectory? Our hunch has been and remains that EM economies have not sufficiently dealt with their excesses and are therefore not ready to embark on a new structural growth trajectory for the following reasons: First, China's credit and money excesses remain enormous (Chart I-4). Mild deleveraging has been occurring only in the past 12 months. Importantly, the consequence of this deleveraging is that the current growth slowdown will deepen. Domestic credit has tightened somewhat in the past 12 months, but Chinese companies' and banks' foreign indebtedness has surged (Chart I-5, top panel). Remarkably, external debt repayments and interest payments due in 2018 amount to $125 billion (Chart I-5, bottom panel). This presents a risk to the value of the yuan. Chart I-4China: Not Much Deleveraging So Far Chart I-5China: A Lot of Foreign Debt Is Due In 2018 Second, the mainland's economy recovered in 2016 due to exceptionally soft budgets for SOEs and local governments as well as easier access to credit for the private sector. Notably, consistent with skyrocketing credit, money supply has been exploding in China. Chart I-6 illustrates that broad money in China has expanded by RMB 170 trillion (equivalent to $28 trillion) in the past 12.5 years - which is equal to the entire money supply in the U.S. and the euro area combined, i.e., the same as the money created by the U.S.'s and euro area's respective banking systems over their entire history. Chart I-6Helicopter Money' In China The overwhelming majority of commentators mistakenly believe that China's money and credit excesses are due to households' high savings rates. We have documented - in a series of Special Reports3 on money, credit and savings - that banks do not need savings to originate loans - i.e., there is no relationship between the savings rate of a nation and the rate of deposits growth in the banking system (Chart I-7). Banks create money (deposits) out of thin air when they originate loans or buy assets from non-banks. This is true for any country, regardless of income level and type of economic system. Chart I-7No Link Between Savings And Deposits In short, the enormous money boom in China is just the mirror image of the gigantic credit bubble. The bottom panel of Chart I-6 illustrates that money growth in China has hugely exceeded money growth in countries that have undertaken QE programs. Hence, one can argue that China has done more than QE - it is fair to say the Middle Kingdom has dropped "helicopter money." And if the supply of money has any relevance to its price, the RMBs value is set to drop relative to other countries. The behavior of mainland households corroborates that there is an oversupply of local currency. Eagerness among households in China to exchange their RMBs for foreign currency and assets confirms that they are very concerned about preserving the purchasing power of their savings. This pent-up demand for dollars from mainland firms and banks due to forthcoming foreign debt servicing obligations - see Chart I-5 on page 5 - along with lingering pent-up demand for foreign assets among households and companies will weigh on the RMB's value. On top of that, the narrowing interest rate differential between China and the U.S. also points to further yuan depreciation (Chart I-8). Do the authorities hold enough international reserves to satisfy Chinese individuals' and companies' demand for foreign currency? Chart I-9 reveals the central bank's foreign exchange reserves including gold (about US$3 trillion) are equal to 10% and 14% of broad money (M3) and total deposits, respectively. In brief, the US$3 trillion foreign exchange reserves are not sufficient to back up the enormous deposit base which has been created by banks out of thin air. Chart I-8More RMB Weakness Ahead Chart I-9China: FX Reserves Are Thin ##br##Relative RMB Deposits Importantly, these money excesses and ultimately Chinese households' willingness to hold RMBs - with the exchange rate acting as the litmus test - represent a major constraint on policymakers to indefinitely stimulate the economy. Third, the mainland's real estate market bubble has in recent years moved from coastal areas to third- and fourth-tier cities. Consistently, construction activity has recovered in the past two years, but the sustainability of the revival is dubious. The decline in inventories in third- and fourth-tier cities has been achieved via the monetization of excess housing inventories. The central bank has been funding "slum" development in smaller cities via cheap and direct financing. Since the start of 2014, the PSL program has injected RMB 3 trillion into housing and construction in tier-3 and smaller cities. In brief, the authorities have extended the property cycle by a few more years by conducting outright monetization of housing stock. In the process, property developers' leverage has continued surging, while their net cash flows have more recently deteriorated (Chart I-10). In short, the adjustment in the real estate market has been delayed, and imbalances have become larger. Fourth, consistent with easy money policies and soft budget constraints for government entities, efficiency and productivity continue to deteriorate in China (Chart I-11). Chart I-10Chinese Property Developers: ##br##Leverage And Cash Flow Chart I-11China: Declining Efficiency ##br##And Productivity In any economy, easy money leads to less productivity. Other EMs are no different (Chart I-12). Fifth, easy money in China finds its way into many other developing economies via mainland imports. As such, slower Chinese growth will translate into weaker mainland imports of commodities, materials and industrial goods. As a result, EM ex-China trade balances will deteriorate. In turn, EM corporate profits are at major risk of plunging due to a slowdown in China. Chart I-13 illustrates that the mainland's money/credit cycle leads EM corporate profits. This is why we spend ample time understanding and discussing China's cycle and fundamentals. Chart I-12EM Ex-China: Weak Productivity Growth Chart I-13EM Corporate Earnings Are At Risk Remarkably, EM non-financial companies' return on assets and profit margins are at levels that prevailed at the height of previous major downturns/crises (Chart I-14). If they relapse from these levels, this would entail very poor corporate profitability, and investors may question the multiples they are paying for EM equities. Finally, there has been little deleveraging in EM ex-China, Korea and Taiwan: External debt and debt servicing in 2018 remains elevated (Chart I-15). Chart I-14EM Non-Financials: Return On Assets Are ##br##At Levels Seen In Major Downturns Chart I-15EM Ex-China: External Debt And Servicing Local currency debt has been reduced in the Brazilian, Russian and Indian corporate sectors only. There has been little deleveraging outside of these segments. In Brazil, loan contraction in the banking system has been offset by a surge in public debt. Public debt dynamics in Brazil are unsustainable - the result will be either the monetization of public debt or severe fiscal contraction and renewed recession. We will discuss the outlook for Brazil in a Special Report next week. More importantly, banking systems not only in China but in most EM countries, have not provisioned for non-performing loans (NPLs). NPL recognition and provisioning are very low relative to the magnitude of preceding credit booms. Notably, with nominal GDP growth relapsing in many EM economies, their NPL provisions should rise, as demonstrated in Chart I-16A and Chart 16 I-B (nominal GDP growth is shown inverted in this chart). Chart I-16AEM Banks' Provisions Are Set To Rise Chart I-16BEM Banks' Provisions Are Set To Rise Bottom Line: In EM at large and in China above all, the excesses and "deadwood" of 2009-2011 were not cleansed during the 2011-2015 downturn. Specifically, credit excesses have gotten larger - not smaller - in China while the property market has become even more bubbly. Likewise, the misallocation of capital, inefficiencies and speculative behavior in both the financial system and real economy have proliferated. Easy money masked all these negatives in 2016-'17. Yet, as money and credit growth in China have plunged and the Fed steadily shrinks its balance sheet, these negatives are now re-surfacing. EM And The Fed Fed policy and U.S. interest rates are not irrelevant to EM, but they are of secondary importance. The primary driver of EM economies are their domestic fundamentals and the overall global business cycle. Historically, the correlation between EM risk assets and the fed funds rate has been mixed, albeit more positive than negative (Chart I-17). On this chart, we shaded the periods when EM stocks rallied despite a rising fed funds rate. Chart I-17EM Share Prices And Fed Funds Rate: Mixed Correlation The episodes when EMs crashed amid rising U.S. interest rates were the 1982 Latin America debt crisis and the 1994 Mexican Tequila crisis. Yet, it is vital to emphasize that these crises occurred because of poor EM fundamentals: elevated foreign currency debt levels, negative terms-of-trade shocks, large current account deficits and pegged exchange rates. Dire EM fundamentals also prevailed before the Asian/EM crises of 1997-1998. However, these late-1990s EM crises occurred without much in the way of Fed tightening or rising U.S. bond yields. Importantly, EM stocks, credit markets and currencies did well during periods of rising fed funds rate in 1988-1989, 1999-2000, and 2017, as illustrated in Chart I-17. Presently, the Fed's policy is bullish for the U.S. dollar, and, hence bearish for EM currencies. When EM currencies depreciate, their equities, credit and local bond markets typically sell off. As the Fed is shrinking its balance sheet, commercial banks' reserves at the Fed are also declining. In recent years, changes in banks' excess reserves have been inversely correlated with the dollar (the dollar is shown inverted in the chart) (Chart I-18). Furthermore, U.S. dollar liquidity is also relapsing, which is a bad omen for EM risk assets (Chart I-19). Chart I-18Fed Balance Sheet And U.S. Dollar Chart I-19U.S. Dollar Liquidity Is Bearish For EM Bottom Line: Rising U.S. interest rates in of themselves are not a sufficient condition for EM to sell off. Only in combination with poor EM fundamentals or a weakening global business cycle are rising U.S. borrowing costs negative for EM financial markets. Arthur Budaghyan, Senior Vice President Emerging Markets Strategy arthurb@bcaresearch.com Thailand: Will It Be A Low-Beta Market? 19 July 2018 Thai equities have been selling off in absolute terms and have lately begun to underperform the emerging markets (EM) equity benchmark (Chart II-1, top panel). Meanwhile, the currency has also been weakening (Chart II-1, bottom panel). Chart II-1Thai Financial Markets It is very unlikely that Thai share prices and the currency will decouple from their EM peers. Hence, given our negative outlook on EM stocks and currencies, odds are that Thai stocks and the baht will weaken further in absolute terms. However, we believe that Thai financial markets will act defensively amid the ongoing EM selloff. The basis on which we are reiterating our overweight stance on both Thai equities and the baht relative to their EM peers, is founded on the relative resilience of this country's macro fundamentals: Thailand runs a very large current account surplus of 10% of GDP and this provides the baht with a significant cushion. Further, Thai exports are not susceptible to a rollover in commodities prices and a downtrend in Chinese demand. Thailand's main exports are electronics, semiconductor chips, and autos - all of which account for about 40% of total exports. These categories are facing less downside risks than industrial metals and oil prices from weaker Chinese demand. Importantly, exports to China make up 12% while shipments to the U.S. and EU account for 12% and 11% of Thai total goods exports, respectively. We are less negative on the outlook of exports to the U.S. and EU than to China. Thailand has the lowest levels of foreign debt servicing obligations and foreign funding requirements among EM countries (Charts II-2). This stands in stark contrast to the onset of the Asian financial crisis when Thailand had the highest level of external debt. Accordingly, low external debt will limit Thai baht selling by local companies looking to hedge their foreign debt liabilities. Finally, foreign ownership of local government bonds is relatively low (15%). This will limit potential outflows. Chart II-2FX Debt Vulnerability Ranking: Foreign Debt Service Obligations (FX Debt Service In Next 12 Months) Remarkably, domestic demand in Thailand is beginning to improve. Chart II-3 shows that loan growth is picking up noticeably. In turn, growth in manufacturing production and consumption is starting to turn upwards (Chart II-3, middle panel). Passenger vehicle sales are also growing robustly (Chart II-3, bottom panel). Improving domestic demand will continue to be supported by low and stable domestic rates. In the recent months, interest rates have risen in many South East Asian countries but not in Thailand (Chart II-4). This is a critical difference that places Thailand apart from many of its peers. The Bank of Thailand (BoT) is in no rush to raise its policy rates even if the currency depreciates further. Thai core inflation remains slightly below target and the currency depreciation can in fact be viewed as a positive reflationary force. In a nutshell, the enormous current account surplus, low public debt/fiscal deficit and structurally low inflation provide Thailand with the ability to maintain low interest rates amid the ongoing EM storm. This will in turn fortify domestic demand resilience to a negative external shock. Chart II-3Thai Growth Is Firming Up Chart II-4Policy Divergence A quick comment on political risks is warranted. The Thai military junta and political institutions have begun preparations to hold elections sometime next year (likely February to May) that will return the country to civilian rule. A transfer of power from the currently stable military rule to a more uncertain civilian rule will likely trigger a period of rising volatility. However, the junta's economic management has been fairly successful. Growth is strong and, crucially, public debt is low at 33% of GDP and the fiscal deficit is manageable. The junta has the capacity to continue to appease rural voters - who traditionally vote for the populist, anti-junta Pheu Thai party - by increasing government spending. Moreover, the junta has rewritten the constitution, which was approved in a popular referendum and ratified in 2017, to influence both the electoral system and parliament in its favor. Nevertheless, the opposition Pheu Thai Party, which has won every election since 2001, retains the edge in popular opinion. Our colleagues from the Geopolitical Strategy team believe that in the 20%-30% chance scenario where the elections enable the opposition to form a government, policy uncertainty will spike. Yet, this will only occur next year and in the meantime macro factors still make Thailand immune to external shocks. Importantly, uncertainty over the transition period, and the outcome of the elections has probably caused an exodus of foreign investors from this bourse (Chart II-5). However, foreigners' diminished holdings of Thai stocks will limit the downside in the months ahead and allow this market to outperform the EM equity benchmark. Chart II-5Foreigners Have Bailed Out of Thai Stocks Bottom Line: We recommend EM dedicated portfolios keep an overweight position in Thai equity, currency and fixed income markets. Macro factors make Thailand more immune to external shocks vis a vis other EM economies. Political risks by themselves do not justify this bourse's underperformance versus the EM benchmark. In turn, the Thai baht should outperform other EM currencies amid the ongoing weakness in global growth. In line with this view, we maintain the long 5-year Thai bonds / short 5-year Malaysian bonds trade. Ayman Kawtharani, Associate Editor ayman@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report "Where Are EMs In The Cycle?," dated May 3, 2018, available on page 20. 2 Industrial metals prices began falling and oil prices peaked in 2011 even though oil prices stayed flat till 2014 when they crashed. 3 Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report "The True Meaning Of China's Great 'Savings' Wall," dated December 20, 2017, available on ems.bcaresearch.com; and Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report "Is Investment Constrained By Savings? Tales Of China And Brazil," dated March 22, 2018, available on page 20. Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations

Highlights Duration Checklist: An update of our medium-term Duration Checklist highlights that the strategic backdrop for global government bonds remains bearish. A below-benchmark overall portfolio duration stance is still warranted - even after our recent move to downgrade spread product exposure. Canada: The Bank of Canada hiked rates again last week, and additional increases are likely given growing capacity constraints and accelerating Canadian inflation. Stay underweight Canadian government bonds. Feature Chart of the WeekStagflation Keeping Yields Afloat Developed market bond yields are lacking direction at the moment, pulled by competing forces. Overall global economic activity has lost some momentum and is now less synchronized. Yet the majority of major countries in the developed world are still growing at an above-potential pace that is keeping unemployment low and slowly boosting wages. This is helping underpin inflation, both realized and expected, while keeping government bond yields elevated despite increasing concerns about the future path of the global economy (Chart of the Week). The growing worries about a potential "U.S. versus the world" trade war are weighing on growth expectations, although not yet by enough to cause a meaningful pullback in global equity markets which remain supported by current solid earnings growth. Credit spreads have increased for both developed market corporate debt, but are still at historically narrow levels suggesting that investors are not overly concerned about default/downgrade risk. Emerging market (EM) debt has seen more significant spread widening in recent months, with a stronger U.S. dollar playing a large role there, but there has been little spillover from weaker EM markets into developed market credit valuations. We recently downgraded our recommended allocation to global corporate debt to neutral, while also upgrading our weighting on government bonds to neutral. Yet we maintained our below-benchmark overall duration stance, given our view that bond markets were still underpricing the potential for faster global inflation and tighter monetary policies given the persistent underlying strength of economic growth (especially in the U.S.). In light of that change in our view, an update of one of more reliable tools over the past eighteen months - our Duration Checklist - is timely. The Duration Checklist Is Still Bearish We have maintained our strategic below-benchmark stance on duration exposure for some time now, dating back to January 2017. Shortly afterward, we introduced a list of indicators to monitor going forward to determine if that defensive duration posture on U.S. Treasuries and German Bunds was still justified.1 We called that list our "Duration Checklist", and it contains elements focused on economic growth, inflation, central bank policy biases, investor risk appetite and bond market technicals. The Checklist is meant to be a purely objective read on the data and how it relates to the likely future path of bond yields. We last updated the Checklist back on January 30th of this year.2 The conclusion was that the underlying economic and inflation backdrop was still indicating more upside for yields on a 6-12 month horizon in both the U.S. and Europe. There was a risk, however, that the bond selloff could pause given heightened bullishness on risk assets and extremely oversold conditions in government bond markets. Since that last update of the Checklist, the 10-year U.S. Treasury yield is higher (2.86% vs. 2.72%) while the 10-year German Bund yield is lower (0.36% vs. 0.70%). Although yields in both markets did climb to even higher levels - 3.12% and 0.78%, respectively - in February and March before pulling back to current levels. As we update the Checklist once again this week, we see that the backdrop is still conducive to rising bond yields in the U.S. and Europe, but with differing risks compared to six months ago (Table 1). Note that the Checklist was designed to assess if we should maintain our duration tilt, thus we apply a checkmark ("check") to any indicator that points to potentially higher bond yields, and an "x" to any element that could signal a bond market rally. Table 1The Message From Our Duration Checklist Is Still Bearish For Both USTs & Bunds Global growth momentum is decelerating. The OECD's global leading economic indicator (LEI) is in a clear downtrend, having fallen for five consecutive months (Chart 2). That weakening is broad based, as shown by the depressed level of our LEI diffusion index. The global ZEW index, measuring investor sentiment towards growth in the major developed economies, has been falling sharply since March of this year and now sits at the lowest level since January 2012. The Citigroup Global Data Surprise index peaked at the beginning of 2018 and has fallen steadily to below zero, although it may be in the process of bottoming out. Meanwhile, our global credit impulse - a reliable leading indicator of global growth - has noticeably slowed. We are giving an "x" to all these elements of our Duration Checklist, indicating that the current "soft patch" of global growth represents a risk to the performance of our below-benchmark duration stance. U.S. growth remains solid, but Europe is cooling a bit. The U.S. economy is firing on all cylinders at the moment (Chart 3). The ISM manufacturing index is near 60, while both consumer and business confidence are above the mid-2000s peak of the previous business cycle. Corporate profits are growing around 20% and our models suggest that this trend can continue over the rest of 2018. All these indicators earn a "check" on the U.S. side of our Duration Checklist. Chart 2Global Growth Indicators Are##BR##No Longer Bond Bearish Chart 3U.S. Growth##BR##Remains Strong The growth story is mixed in the euro area, however (Chart 4). The manufacturing PMI has been steadily falling since February of this year, but still remains well above the 50 line indicating an expanding economy. Consumer and business confidence are both at cyclical highs, but the upward momentum has stalled. Corporate profits are growing at a robust pace, but our models suggest that earnings should slow over the remainder of this year. In our Duration Checklist, the momentum of the growth indicators is the relevant measure and not the level. So we are now placing an "x" on the manufacturing PMI, which is giving a clear signal on slowing growth, while maintaining a "check" next to confidence and profit growth but with a question mark given that both may be in the process of rolling over. Inflation pressures are strengthening on both sides of the Atlantic. Back in January, the inflation elements of the Checklist were providing the most mixed signals. That is no longer the case (Charts 5 & 6). Oil prices are accelerating in both U.S. dollar and euro terms, which suggests upside risks on headline inflation in the U.S. and euro area. Unemployment rates are now below the OECD estimates of full employment, and wage inflation is accelerating, in both regions. Thus, all the inflation components of our Duration Checklist earn a "check". Chart 4Is Euro Area Growth Peaking? Or Just Cooling? Chart 5U.S. Inflation Backdrop Is Bond Bearish Chart 6Euro Area Inflation Backdrop Is Bond Bearish Both the Fed and European Central Bank (ECB) are biased to tighten monetary policy. The Fed continues to signal that additional rate hikes are coming given the underlying strength of the U.S. economy and rising trend in U.S. inflation. The ECB has announced that it will taper its net new bond purchases to zero by year-end in its asset purchase program, and has provided forward guidance on the timing of a first rate hike in 2019. Both policies are credible given falling unemployment and rising core inflation rates in both the U.S. and euro area. Thus, we are keeping the "check" on both sides of the policy portion of the Checklist. Investor risk appetite has grown more cautious. This element of our Checklist was a potential headwind to our below-benchmark duration stance back in January, but is much less of an impediment to higher yields now (Charts 7 & 8). Chart 7U.S. Investor Risk Appetite##BR##Has Cooled Off A Bit Chart 8European Investor Risk Appetite##BR##Has Also Cooled Off The cyclical advances of both the S&P 500 and EuroStoxx 600 have stalled, and both indices are now back close to their 200-day moving averages, suggesting that equity markets are not overstretched (and, therefore, ripe for a correction that could drive down bond yields in a risk-off move). The VIX and VStoxx volatility indices remain at low levels, even after the spike that occurred in early February and the more modest volatility shock in the aftermath of the Italian election in May. This implies that investors still prefer owning risky assets over risk-free government bonds. These elements warrant a "check" on both sides of our Duration Checklist. Corporate bond spreads, however, have widened over the past few months, suggesting that investors are pricing in some increased uncertainty over future creditworthiness. While the overall level of spreads is still historically low, the rising trend justifies an "x" in our Checklist as a possible headwind to rising Treasury and Bund yields from waning investor risk appetite. Treasuries and Bunds are not as oversold compared to January, but large short positions remain an issue. The 10-year U.S. Treasury yield is now trading just above its 200-day moving average, while the deeply oversold price momentum seen earlier in the year has eased up a bit but remains negative (Chart 9). The combined signal is a neutral one but, in our Checklist framework, neither of these measures is stretched enough to suggest that yields cannot move higher. Thus, we are giving a weak "check" to both momentum elements on the U.S. side. There is still a large short position in 10-year Treasury futures according to the CFTC data, however, and this remains an impediment to higher Treasury yields - we are keeping the "x" for this piece of the Checklist. For Bunds, yields are now trading just below the 200-day moving average while price momentum has turned slightly positive (Chart 10). While neither indicator is stretched from an historical perspective, they are not sending a message that Bunds are oversold. Thus, we are giving a weak "check" to both technical elements on the European side of our Checklist (note that due to a lack of available data, we exclude investor positioning when evaluating the technical backdrop for Bunds). Chart 9USTs Not Oversold,##BR##But Large Short Positions Remain Chart 10Bund Technicals##BR##Are Neutral The majority of indicators in our Duration Checklist continue to point to upward pressure on U.S. Treasury and German Bund yields. Thus, we conclude that a continued below-benchmark duration stance is warranted for both markets. Not all of the news is bond bearish, however. The cooling of global growth indicators, the euro area manufacturing PMI, the widening of corporate credit spreads and the persistent short position in the Treasury market remain potential headwinds to a renewed period of rising bond yields. Yet without evidence that U.S. or European capacity constraints are loosening up, triggering a dovish shift from the Fed and ECB, the upward trend in inflation will prevent any meaningful decline in yields from current levels. Bottom Line: An update of our medium-term Duration Checklist highlights that the strategic backdrop for global government bonds remains bearish. A continued below-benchmark overall portfolio duration stance is warranted - even after our recent move to downgrade spread product exposure. Canada Delivers Another Rate Hike, With More To Follow Chart 11The BoC & The Fed: Follow The Leader The Bank of Canada (BoC) hiked its policy rate last week by 25bps to 1.5%, once again delivering a tightening in lagged response to U.S. rate increases over the past year. The hike was not a surprise, as the Canadian economy is operating at full capacity and core inflation is at the midpoint of the BoC's 1-3% target band. Overnight Index Swap (OIS) markets are now pricing that both the BoC and the Fed will raise rates by another 75bps over the next twelve months, and we see the potential for even more increases than that - even with the Canadian economy cooling from the very rapid growth seen last year (Chart 11). The current spread between 2-year government bond yields in the U.S. and Canada is the widest since 2008, which is weighing on the level of the Canadian dollar versus the greenback (3rd panel). The latter is helping to ease financial conditions in Canada (bottom panel), especially at a time when the country is benefitting from the positive terms of trade impact of strong oil prices. The loonie is also being impacted by worries about future U.S. trade policy. The Trump administration has already imposed tariffs on Canadian steel and aluminum exports and is demanding serious concessions in the renegotiation of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). In their latest Monetary Policy Review (MPR) that was released after the BoC policy meeting last week, the central bank provided an estimate of the impact of the steel and aluminum tariffs that went into effect on June 1st. The conclusion was that the 25% tariff on U.S. imports of Canadian steel, and 10% levy on U.S. aluminum imports, would have little net impact on the Canadian economy once the Canadian response was factored in. The BoC concluded that the level of total real Canadian exports would be reduced by -0.6% by year-end, but that Canadian real imports would also decline by a similar amount as the Canadian government slapped its own tariffs on U.S. exports of steel, aluminum and various consumer products. This neutral view on U.S.-Canada trade tensions appeared throughout the BoC's updated economic forecasts, as its projections on the growth of Canadian exports, imports and U.S. real GDP growth (the critical driver of Canadian trade) were all increased from the previous MPR published in April. That may be an overly optimistic assessment of the potential impact of a trade dispute with the U.S. Yet the BoC did admit that it can only estimate the impact of tariffs once the precise details are known, thus it cannot adjust its forecasts based on what might happen in the NAFTA negotiations. The BoC can only base its forecasts on what they can observe now, which is that Canada's overall economy remains in decent shape, even though the composition of growth is shifting. The BoC's latest Business Outlook Survey indicates that Canadian firms continue to see robust demand and are facing increasing capacity constraints. This is boosting hiring plans and keeping capital spending intentions reasonably firm even with the uncertainties over NAFTA that is causing some firms to delay investment (Chart 12). The BoC is projecting that overall Canadian real GDP will only grow by 2% in 2018, even with a smaller contribution to growth from consumer spending and housing. The year-over-year rate of change in retail sales volumes has already dipped into negative territory and is now at the lowest since the end of 2009 (Chart 13). The BoC has attributed this to some slowing in interest-sensitive spending in response to tighter BoC monetary policy. At the same time, household debt growth has been slowing and house price inflation has plunged over the past year (although most of this decline occurred in the overheated Toronto market). The BoC is not concerned about the impact of its rate hikes on the interest burden for households, despite the high level of household debt, given the accelerating pace of wages and income growth. The BoC is likely happy to see a shift away from overheating consumption fueled by speculative increases in house prices, but there is a risk that additional rate hikes could finally trigger the long-awaited bursting of the Canadian housing bubble. Chart 12Canadian Businesses Are Optimistic,##BR##Even With Trade Worries Chart 13Higher BoC Rates##BR##Do Have An Impact (On a related note - the topic of housing bubbles will be discussed at the upcoming BCA Investment Conference in Toronto on September 23-25 by Hilliard Macbeth of Richardson GMP, who has written several books on the topic of global asset bubbles and has some particularly strong views to share on Canadian housing.) Yet the BoC will have to take the risk that additional rate increases could cause a bigger shakeout in the Canadian housing market, given that Canadian inflation is trending higher. Headline CPI inflation is now above the midpoint of the BoC's 1-3% target band, while all the various measures of core inflation that the BoC monitors are hovering around 2% (Chart 14). The BoC estimates that the output gap in Canada is now closed, and that the tight labor market will continue to boost inflation. Chart 14Inflation On The Rise In Canada Chart 15Market Is Underpricing The BoC Already, the average hourly earnings measure of wage inflation is growing close to 4% on a year-over-year basis, although the BoC has noted in recent research that other measures of labor costs are not growing as fast.3 Nonetheless, with 10-year inflation expectations in the Canadian inflation-linked government bond market now trading just below the BoC's 2% target (bottom panel), and with a high number of Canadian businesses reporting increasing difficulties in sourcing quality labor, the inflationary message sent by the surging rate of average hourly earnings growth will likely prove to be correct. Even though the Canadian OIS curve is now discounting another 75bps of rate hikes over the next year, that would only take the BoC policy rate to 2.25% - still below the central bank's estimate of the neutral policy rate, which is between 2.5-3% (Chart 15). Given the likely need for the BoC to eventually move to a restrictive stance to cool off an overheating economy and keep inflation around the 2% target, we see more potential upside for Canadian bond yields, especially with very little increase currently priced in the forwards. Stay underweight Canada in hedged global bond portfolios. Bottom Line: The Bank of Canada hiked rates again last week, and additional increases are likely given growing capacity constraints and accelerating Canadian inflation. Stay underweight Canadian government bonds. Robert Robis, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com Ray Park, Research Analyst ray@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "A Duration Checklist For U.S. Treasuries & German Bunds", dated February 15th, 2017, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "Some Thoughts On The Treasury-Bund Spread", dated January 30th, 2018, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 3 https://www.bankofcanada.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/san2018-2.pdf Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Highlights Portfolio Strategy Firming crude oil prices and recovering capex budgets suggest that energy E&P stocks are in a sweet spot and primed for outperformance. Decreasing refining margins, a deteriorating supply/demand backdrop and extended relative valuations suggest that refiners are a sell. Recent Changes Lift the S&P oil & gas exploration & production index to overweight today. Downgrade the S&P oil & gas refining & marketing index to underweight today. Table 1 Feature Equities broke out of their recent trading range last week on the eve of earnings season despite protectionist rhetoric. While Q2/2018 EPS euphoria may serve as a catalyst to catapult the SPX to fresh all-time highs in the coming months, especially given the collapse in stock correlations (CBOE implied correlation index shown inverted, Chart 1), sell-side analysts have now revised down Q1/2019 EPS growth estimates by 300bps to 7%. We view Q1/2019 earnings as critically important, as they will give us the first clean read on trend EPS growth. By that time the one-off impact of tax reform will be filtered out of the data. At present, Q1/2019 EPS estimates are likely suffering for two reasons: delayed P&L FX translation effects from a year-to-date rise in the U.S. dollar and difficult year-over-year comparisons with a blowout Q1/2018 quarter. In recent research, we have been flagging the currency as the single biggest risk to our sanguine equity market view. In other words, a sustainable breakout in equities requires a sideways-to-lower move in the greenback (trade-weighted U.S. dollar shown inverted, Chart 2). Chart 1All-Time Highs Ahead... Chart 2...But Watch The Greenback Drilling beneath the surface, Charts 3 & 4 show net earnings revisions (NER) per sector as a four week average and Chart 5 summarizes the latest data points for an easier comparison. Industrials NER have taken a hit on the back of Trump's tariff rhetoric and recent implementation. Nevertheless, the tech sector shows no signs of infiltration either from a rising currency or Trump's protectionist actions. As a reminder, the IT sector garners 60% of its sales from abroad and remains the most important sector to monitor for any broad market EPS inflection points.1 Chart 3Sector... Chart 4...Net EPS Revisions On the economic front, a softening U.S. dollar would be synonymous with a reacceleration in global growth. We are currently in the seventh month of the economic soft patch and there are high odds that by early fall the tide will turn. The global non-manufacturing PMI is already signaling that a pick up in growth is forthcoming. Historically, the global services PMI has been an excellent leading indicator of its sibling, the global manufacturing PMI, and the current message is to expect an end to the global growth deceleration sometime in the autumn (Chart 6). Chart 5Watch Tech Stocks Chart 6Longest Uninterrupted Payrolls Expansion On Record!!! In the U.S., the ISM manufacturing survey reaccelerated last month despite Trump's protectionist rhetoric with both trade subcomponents of the survey - new export orders and imports - rising smartly. Even the latest employment report came in above expectations, and confirmed that the U.S. economy is firing on all cylinders and remains a key global growth engine. Importantly, non-farm payrolls have been expanding on a month-over-month basis for the longest period on record hitting 93 consecutive months as of June (Chart 7). Similarly, the yield curve has remained positively sloped for a record 134 straight months (please see Chart 2 from our April 16th Special Report titled 'Sector Winners & Losers When Fiscal Easing Offsets Monetary Tightening'). Tack on China's recent easing in monetary conditions, as evidenced by both a depreciating currency (steepest month-over-month depreciation since 1994) and falling interest rates (Chart 8), and the likelihood of additional easing measures in the pipeline, and the world's two largest economies will likely lead global growth out of its recent mini-slump. Chart 7Can Services Pull Up Manufacturing? Chart 8China Is Easing Monetary Conditions This week we are refining our energy sector sub-surface positioning that sustains the broad energy complex in the overweight column, and we reiterate its high-conviction status. E&P Is Flaring Up... Exploration & production (E&P) stocks have significantly trailed crude oil prices since the latter broke out roughly a year ago (Chart 9). There are high odds that a catch up phase looms and we recommend to boost exposure to this late-cyclical energy sub-index to overweight. Disbelief in the longevity of the increase in oil prices is the likely culprit weighing on E&P stocks along with a bottleneck-induced steep shale oil price discount to WTI. Keep in mind that as oil prices were collapsing during the global manufacturing recession of late-2015/early-2016, the U.S. E&P industry went through a clean-up phase where a plunge in free cash flow (FCF) caused a spike in bankruptcies on the back of extreme balance sheet degradation (Chart 10). Chart 9Most Vulnerable Gap Has To Be Filled Chart 10Balance Sheets Getting Repaired Chart 11No Longer Stressed In more detail, E&P FCF got squashed, dropping by 66% from peak to trough as net debt ballooned by 30% during the same time frame. And, in response, independent energy producers' junk bond spreads skyrocketed to over 20%, surpassing even the Great Recession peak (Chart 11). Nevertheless, the steep recovery in underlying commodity prices along with the forgiving debt and equity markets that lent a helping hand to this extremely fragmented industry, has restored some semblance of normality in the E&P space. The second panel of Chart 9 shows that shale oil production is rising at a healthy clip following a long bottoming phase on the heels of reaccelerating WTI crude oil prices. Not only is OPEC 2.0 supporting oil price gains, but sustained domestic inventory draws are also underpinning crude prices. BCA's Commodity & Energy Strategy service remains positive on the oil price backdrop with oil price risks skewed to the upside. The upshot is that the recovery in E&P cash flow growth will continue in the coming months (second & third panels, Chart 10). Similar to the broad energy complex that integrateds dominate, oil & gas E&P producers are a capital expenditure upcycle play, which remains a key BCA theme for the year (middle panel, Chart 12). Rising oil prices are conducive to additional energy-related investments (bottom panel, Chart 9). Importantly, there is a sizable divergence between the oil & gas rig count and relative share prices that will likely narrow via a catch up phase in the latter (top panel, Chart 12). National data confirm the Baker Hughes weekly rig count that has been in a V-shaped recovery. Energy related investment has doubled from the depths of the manufacturing recession (bottom panel, Chart 12), and if oil prices even stand pat at current levels, additional drilling will most likely take place in the biggest shale plays (Permian, Eagle Ford, Marcellus and Bakken) where breakeven costs are roughly 30% lower. All of this suggests that U.S. producers will continue to pump oil at a brisk pace, and earnings will likely overwhelm. Sell side analysts have taken notice and relative EPS estimates are following crude oil prices higher. Similarly, S&P oil & gas E&P net EPS revisions are also in positive territory (Chart 13). Chart 12Capex Upcycle Beneficiary Chart 13Following Oil Higher Adding it up, there are high odds that E&P stocks will continue to outpace the broad energy complex and the SPX on the back of firming capex budgets and sustained oil inflation. Bottom Line: We are boosting the S&P oil & gas E&P index to an overweight stance. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5OILP - COP, EOG, APC, PXD, DVN, CXO, MRO, APA, HES, NBL, EQT, COG, XEC and NFX. ...But Refiners Are Flaming Out While we are warming up to the S&P oil & gas E&P index, the opposite is true for the pure play S&P oil & gas refining & marketing index, and recommend to trim exposure below benchmark. Refiners have taken it to the chin over the past six weeks underperforming both the SPX and the broad energy complex, and deteriorating industry fundamentals signal that more pain lies ahead. The middle panel of Chart 14 shows that crack spreads have given way recently, and as the Brent/WTI crude oil spread closes in on the zero line, refining margins will remain under intense downward pressure. Already, margins are contracting on a six-month rate of change basis and that will continue to weigh on relative share prices (bottom panel, Chart 14). This is an ominous sign for relative profits that will likely follow crack spreads lower. The refining supply/demand backdrop is also waning. Refined products consumption has sunk recently, and the year-to-date steep momentum reversal of 13 percentage points suggests that relative profits will underwhelm (top & middle panels, Chart 15). Not only is demand faltering, but the news is equally grim on refining inventories. In fact, there is no apparent supply side offset: gasoline stocks are rising (gasoline inventories shown inverted, bottom panel, Chart 15). This supply/demand backdrop will weigh on industry profitability. Worrisomely, the sell side's analyst community is extremely optimistic with regard to 12-month forward relative EPS growth estimates (north of 20%, not shown). On a 5-year forward relative EPS basis Wall Street's exuberance is unprecedented: analysts expect refiners to double the SPX's 16% long-term EPS growth rate (Chart 16). We would lean against these great expectations. Chart 14Refiners Rally Has Cracked Chart 15Mind The Supply/Demand Backdrop Chart 16Too Much Optimism Adding insult to injury, relative valuations do not offer any cushion in case of any profit mishaps as they are hovering near previous cyclical peaks and significantly higher than the historical mean (bottom panel, Chart 16). Netting it out, decreasing refining margins, a deteriorating supply/demand backdrop and extended relative valuations suggest that refiners are a sell. Bottom Line: Trim the S&P oil & gas refining & marketing index to underweight. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5OILR - PSX, VLO, MPC, ANDV and HFC. Anastasios Avgeriou, Vice President U.S. Equity Strategy anastasios@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report, "Unwavering," dated June 4, 2018, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. Current Recommendations Current Trades Size And Style Views Favor value over growth Favor large over small caps

Highlights Investors are too complacent about the risks of a trade war. Standard economic models understate the potential economic damage that a trade war could cause. Global equities would suffer mightily from a trade war. Deep cyclical sectors would be hardest hit. Financial equities would also fare poorly. Regionally, European and EM stock markets would underperform. A trade war would benefit Treasurys and other safe-haven government bonds. A contained trade war would likely be somewhat dollar-bearish. In contrast, a full-out war could send the greenback soaring. Feature From Phony War To Real War? After months of posturing, Trump's trade war is starting to heat up. The U.S. imposed tariffs of 25% on $34 billion of Chinese goods last Friday. Tariffs on another $16 billion of goods are set to go in effect on July 20th. China has stated that it will retaliate in kind. On Tuesday, Trump further upped the ante, announcing that he will levy a 10% tariff on an additional $200 billion of Chinese imports by August 31. He also threatened tariffs on another $300 billion on top of that if China still refuses to back down. That would add up to $550 billion in Chinese goods and services that could be subject to tariffs, more than what China exported to the U.S. last year! China is not the only country in Trump's crosshairs. The Trump administration levied tariffs of up to 25% on steel and aluminum from the EU, Canada, Mexico, and other U.S. allies on June 1, 2018. The affected regions have retaliated with their own tariffs. As Marko Papic, BCA's chief geopolitical strategist, has repeatedly stressed, there is little reason to think that trade tensions will ease over the coming months. Protectionism is popular with the American public (Chart 1). Trump ran on a protectionist platform and now he is trying to fulfill his campaign promises. It does not help that Trump is accusing foreign governments of doing things they are not doing. Chart 2 shows that U.S. tariffs are actually higher than in most other G7 economies. As we have argued in the past, the U.S. runs a persistent current account deficit because it has a higher neutral real rate of interest - otherwise known as r-star - than most other countries.1 Standard interest rate parity equations imply that a country with a relatively high neutral rate will have an "overvalued" currency that is expected to weaken over time, whereas a country with a low neutral rate will have an "undervalued" currency that is expected to strengthen over time. Intuitively, this must happen because investors will only hold low-yielding bonds if they expect a currency to strengthen. The result is a current account deficit for countries with overvalued currencies such as the U.S., and a current account surplus for regions with undervalued currencies such as the euro area (Chart 3). Chart 1Free Trade Is Not In Vogue In The U.S. Chart 2Tariffs: Who Is Robbing The U.S.? Chart 3Interest Rates And Current Account Balances The Economic Costs Of A Trade War How much damage could a trade war do to the global economy? As it turns out, this is a surprisingly difficult question to answer. Standard economic theory offers little guidance on the matter. By definition, global exports are always equal to imports. In a conventional Keynesian model, countries with trade deficits would gain some demand from a trade war, while countries with surpluses would lose some demand. However, the contribution of net exports to global demand would always be zero. Granted, there would be some efficiency losses, but in the standard Ricardian model of comparative advantage, they would not be that large. As Box 1 explains, the deadweight loss from a tariff can be computed as one-half times the change in the tariff rate multiplied by the percentage-point decline in imports that results from the tariff. Suppose, for example, that a trade war leads to a 10% across-the-board increase in U.S. tariffs, which causes U.S. imports to fall by 30%.2 Given that imports are 15% of U.S. GDP, the resulting deadweight loss would be 0.5*0.1*0.3*15=0.225% of GDP. That's obviously not a lot. The True Cost Of A Trade War Is Likely To Be High Our sense is that the true cost of a trade war would be much greater than these simple models suggest. There are at least six reasons for this: Most simple models assume that labor and capital are completely fungible and that the economy is always at full employment. In practice, it is doubtful that workers could easily move to companies that would benefit from tariff protection from those that would suffer from retaliatory measures. Workers have specialized skills. Likewise, a piece of machinery that is useful in one sector of the economy may be completely useless in another. Industries are often concentrated in particular regions. As such, a trade war could severely degrade the value of the existing stock of human and physical capital. This would result in lower potential GDP. It would also result in temporarily higher unemployment as workers, laid off from firms which have been adversely affected by tariffs, are forced to scramble for a new job elsewhere. Comparative advantage is not the only source of trade gains. Arguably more important are economies of scope and scale. A firm that has access to a global market can spread fixed costs over a larger quantity of output, thus lowering average costs (and ultimately prices). The existence of large global markets also allows companies to offer niche products that might not be worthwhile to develop for smaller markets. Modern trade is dominated by the exchange of intermediate goods within complex supply chains (Chart 4). This arrangement has many advantages, but it also harbors numerous fragilities. A small fire at a factory in Japan that manufactured 60 percent of the epoxy resin used in chip casings led to a major spike in RAM prices in 1993. Flooding in Thailand in 2011 wreaked havoc on the global auto industry. U.S. firms are particularly vulnerable to supply-chain disruptions because the Trump administration has dotardly chosen to levy tariffs mainly on intermediate and capital goods (Chart 5). This stands in contrast to China and the EU, which have raised tariffs mainly on final goods in a politically strategic manner (agricultural products in Trump-supporting rural areas and Harley Davidson bikes, which are manufactured in Paul Ryan's home district in Wisconsin). Chart 4Trade In Intermediate Goods Dominates Chart 5The U.S. Is Not Very Smart In ##br## Implementing A Protectionist Agenda Uncertainty over the magnitude and duration of a trade war could cause companies to postpone new investment spending. A vast economic literature pioneered by Avinash Dixit and Robert Pindyck has shown that firms tend to defer capital expenditure decisions when faced with rising uncertainty.3 Furthermore, as I discussed in an academic paper which was published early on in my career, business investment is typically higher when firms have access to larger markets.4 Higher tariffs could lead to an implicit tightening in fiscal policy. If the U.S. raises tariffs by an average of ten percentage points across all imports, a reasonable estimate is that this would imply a tightening in fiscal policy by around 1% of GDP - enough to wipe out the entire stimulus from Trump's tax cuts. Of course, the tariff revenue could be injected back into the economy through more tax cuts or increased spending. However, given the possibility that gridlock will increase in Washington if the Republicans lose the House of Representatives in November, it is far from obvious that this would happen. A trade war would lead to lower equity prices and higher credit spreads. This would translate into tighter financial conditions. Historically, changes in financial conditions have been highly correlated with changes in real GDP growth (Chart 6). Changes in financial conditions have, in turn, led the stock market. The S&P 500 index has risen at an annualized pace of 10% since 1970 when BCA's Financial Conditions Index (FCI) was above its 250-day moving average, while gaining only 1.5% when the FCI was below its 250-day average (Chart 7). Given today's elevated valuations across many asset markets, the risk is that a trade war triggers a sizable correction in asset prices. Chart 6Changes In Financial Conditions Have Been Highly Correlated With Changes In Real GDP Growth Chart 7The Link Between Financial Conditions ##br##And The Stock Market Protecting Your Equity Portfolio From A Trade War We think investors are understating the risks of a trade war. This, along with a host of other reasons, prompted us to downgrade global risk assets from overweight to neutral on June 20.5 As bad as a trade war would be for Main Street, it would be even worse for Wall Street. The mega- cap companies that comprise the S&P 500 have a lot more exposure to foreign markets and global supply chains than the broader U.S. economy. The "beta" of corporate profits to changes in GDP growth is also quite high (Chart 8). Chart 9 shows how U.S. equity sectors performed during days when the S&P 500 suffered notable losses due to heightened fears of protectionism. We identified seven separate days, including Wednesday's selloff, which was spurred by Trump's threat to impose tariffs on another $200 billion of Chinese imports. Chart 8Profits Are Much More Volatile Than GDP Chart 9This Is How Markets Trade When They Are Worrying About Trade Wars The chart shows that deep cyclical sectors such as industrials, materials, and energy fared badly during days of protectionist angst. Financials also underperformed, largely because such days saw a flattening of the yield curve. Tech, health care, and telecom performed broadly in line with the S&P 500. Consumer stocks outperformed the market, but still declined in absolute terms. Utilities and real estate were the only two sectors that saw absolute price gains. Considering that the sector composition of European and EM bourses tends to be more tilted towards cyclicals than the U.S., it is not surprising that the former have underperformed during days of increased protectionist worries. Bonds: Yields Likely To Rise, But A Trade War Is A Risk To That View In contrast to equities, a trade war would benefit Treasurys and other safe-haven government bonds. Admittedly, the imposition of tariffs would push up import prices. However, the effect on inflation would be temporary. Just as the Fed tends to disregard one-off increases in commodity prices, it will play down any transient boost to inflation stemming from a trade war. Instead, the Fed will focus on the growth impact, which is likely to be negative. To be clear, trade jitters are not the only thing affecting bond yields. Judging by numerous business surveys, the U.S. economy is starting to overheat (Chart 10). Last week's employment report does not alter this conclusion. While the unemployment rate rose by 0.2 percentage points, this was mainly because of a jump in the participation rate. Considering that the number of workers outside the labor force who want a job is near a record low, the ability of the economy to draw in additional workers is limited (Chart 11). Chart 10The U.S. Economy Is Overheating Chart 11A Small Pool Of People Want ##br##To Jump Into The Labor Market Historically, continuing unemployment claims have closely tracked the unemployment rate over time (Chart 12). The fact that continuing claims have dropped by 9% since the end of January, while the unemployment rate has dipped by only 0.1 percentage points, suggests that the unemployment rate will fall further over the coming months. On balance, we continue to maintain our bearish recommendation on Treasurys, but acknowledge that a trade war is a risk to that view. Trade Wars And Currencies Unlike safe-haven bonds, whose yields are likely to decline in proportion to the magnitude of the trade war, the impact on the dollar is more difficult to predict. On the one hand, a modest trade dispute is likely to be somewhat dollar bearish, inasmuch as it hurts U.S. growth and forces the Fed to slow the pace of rate hikes. Since most other major central banks are not in a position to cut rates, expected rate differentials between the U.S. and its trading partners would narrow. On the other hand, a severe trade war would probably be dollar bullish. As the dollar's behavior during the Global Financial Crisis illustrates, even major shocks that originate from the U.S. still tend to attract capital inflows into the safe-haven Treasury market. The U.S. is a fairly closed economy, and hence would be relatively less affected by a breakdown in global trade. Commodities are also likely to suffer if trade flows decline (Chart 13). Lower commodity prices tend to be bullish for the greenback. Moreover, as we discussed in our latest Strategy Outlook, a tit-for-tat trade war with China could force the Chinese government to devalue the yuan. That would have a knock-on effect on other emerging market currencies. Chart 12Unemployment Can Fall Further Chart 13Commodities Are A Potential Victim Of Trade War Notably, the greenback has fared better recently than it did earlier this year during days when protectionist rhetoric intensified. On Wednesday, the broad trade-weighted dollar gained 0.3% while the DXY picked up 0.6%. This supports our view that the dollar will strengthen over the remainder of the year. Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "U.S.-China Trade Spat: Is R-Star To Blame?," dated April 6, 2018, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 2 This assumes an elasticity of import demand of 3, which is broadly consistent with most academic estimates. 3 Avinash K. Dixit, and Robert S. Pindyck, "Investment Under Uncertainty," Princeton University Press, (1994). 4 Peter Berezin, "Border Effects Within A Dynamic Equilibrium Trade Model," The International Trade Journal, 14:3 (2000), 235-282. 5 Please see Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "Three Policy Puts Go Kaput: Downgrade Global Equities To Neutral," dated June 20, 2018. BOX 1 The Deadweight Loss From A Trade War Box Chart 1Tariffs Increase Budget Revenues, But Lead To A Bigger Loss In Consumer Surplus In the simplest models of international trade, an increase in tariffs leads to higher prices, resulting in a loss of consumer surplus. This is depicted by the blue region (ABCE) in Box Chart 1. The government collects revenue from the tariff shown by the red-colored rectangle (ABDE). The difference between the loss in consumer surplus and the gain in revenue - often referred to as the "deadweight loss" from a tariff - is depicted by the green-colored triangle (BCD). Arithmetically, the area of the triangle can be calculated as: Deadweight loss = 0.5 x Tariff x (Pre-tariff level of imports - Post-tariff level of imports) If one divides both sides by GDP, the formula reduces to: Deadweight loss/GDP = 0.5 x Tariff x Percentage Point Change In Import Share of GDP Resulting From Tariff There are many things in the real world that are not captured by this equation. For example, if the country that imposes the tariff is sufficiently large, this could push down the international price of the goods that it imports. The country would then benefit from an improvement in its terms of trade. As Robert Torrens showed back in the 19th century, if a country has any degree of market power (i.e., it is not a complete price-taker on international markets), there will always be a level of tariffs that makes it better off. The caveat is that this "optimal tariff" only exists if other countries do not retaliate. If everyone retaliates against everyone else, everyone will be worse off from a trade war. Moreover, as discussed in the main text, there are many factors that this simple model does not capture which could result in significant economic damage from raising tariffs even when retaliation does not take place, especially in cases where the tariffs are imposed on intermediate and capital goods. Strategy & Market Trends Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

Dear Client, Geopolitical analysis is a fundamental part of the investment process. My colleague, and BCA's Chief Geopolitical Strategist, Marko Papic will introduce a one-day specialized course - Geopolitics & Investing - to our current BCA Academy offerings. This special inaugural session will take place on September 26 in Toronto and is available, complimentary, only to those who sign up to BCA's 2018 Investment Conference. The course is aimed at investors and asset managers and will emphasize the key principles of our geopolitical methodology. Marko launched BCA's Geopolitical Strategy (GPS) in 2012. It is the financial industry's only dedicated geopolitical research product and focuses on the geopolitical and macroeconomic realities which constrain policymakers' options. The Geopolitics & Investing course will introduce: The constraints-based methodology that underpins BCA's Geopolitical Strategy; Best-practices for reading the news and avoiding media biases; Game theory and its application to markets; Generating "geopolitical alpha;" Manipulating data in the context of political analysis. The course will conclude with two topical and market-relevant "war games," which will tie together the methods and best-practices introduced in the course. We hope to see you there. Click here to join us! Space is limited. Arthur Budaghyan, Senior Vice President Chief Emerging Markets Strategist Highlights The authorities in China have begun easing liquidity conditions but that is not sufficient to turn positive on mainland growth. For the next six months at least, the mainland's growth conditions will continue deteriorating and that warrants a negative stance on China-related risk assets, including commodities and EM. The path of least resistance for the dollar is up. This will continue to weigh on EM risk assets. A narrowing interest rate differential between China and the U.S. will continue exerting downward pressure on the RMB's value versus the dollar. Our credit stress test on Turkish banks suggests their stocks are not yet cheap assuming the non-performing loan ratio rises to 15%. Stay short banks and the lira. Feature China's economic slowdown, ongoing trade wars and accumulating U.S. inflation pressures will continue propping up the U.S. dollar, thereby sustaining a perfect storm for EM financial markets. This is taking place amid the poor structural fundamentals in the developing economies and the existing overhang of investor positions in EM. Altogether this argues for more downside in EM financial markets. A strong dollar is also a bad omen for developed markets' stock indexes. The reason being that the dollar is a countercyclical variable, and the greenback's rallies usually coincide with global trade downturns that are bearish for global cyclical equity sectors (Chart I-1). Needless to say, tariffs on imports are ultimately negative for global trade, and will exacerbate the global growth slowdown that has been occurring since early this year. In fact, there is anecdotal evidence that global trade has so far temporarily benefited from mounting expectations of tariffs.1 Companies have ordered more inputs and shipped more goods in advance of higher tariffs coming into effect. This is why global shipments and manufacturing production have so far held up reasonably well, while business expectations have plummeted (Chart I-2). Consequently, global trade and manufacturing production will likely record considerable weakness later this year. Since markets are typically forward looking, asset prices will adjust beforehand. Chart I-1Global Industrial Stocks And U.S. Dollar Chart I-2Global Trade Is Heading South We are maintaining our negative stance on EM stocks, currencies, credit markets and high-yielding local bonds. China Is Easing Liquidity, But Don't Hold Your Breath Chart I-3Chinese Interest Rates And EM Stocks: ##br##Positively Correlated China's softening industrial data, growing anecdotal evidence of a worsening credit crunch in the economy, U.S. tariffs, and plunging domestic share prices have been sufficient for the authorities to ease liquidity conditions in the Chinese banking system. Not surprisingly, many investors are wondering whether the worst is over for Chinese stocks and China-related financial markets worldwide, including those in EM. At the current juncture, liquidity easing by the PBOC is a necessary but not sufficient condition to turn positive on this nation's industrial cycle as well as EM risk assets. We have the following considerations on this topic: First, China's risk-free interest rates - government bond yields - led the selloff in both EM and Chinese stocks (Chart 3). These bond yields have plunged since November, foreshadowing the slowdown in China's growth and the carnage in EM/Chinese financial markets. By and large, there has been a positive correlation between EM share prices and China's local bond yields and interbank rates as illustrated on Chart I-3. For example, EM stocks, currencies and credit markets rallied substantially in 2017 in the face of rising interest rates in China. Likewise, they dropped in the second half of 2015 as bond yields and money market rates in China plunged. The rationale behind the positive correlation between EM risk assets and Chinese interest rates is that the latter rise and EM risk assets rally when the mainland economy is improving. The opposite is also true. At the moment, Chinese risk-free bond yields will likely continue to drop as additional slowdown in growth is in the cards. This heralds a further drop in EM financial markets. Second, any major stimulus will constitute a retraction of the Chinese government's policy of deleveraging and containing financial risks. The latter is the code phrase Chinese authorities use to stop fueling bubbles and speculative excesses. Hence, any policy stimulus will for now be measured and insufficient to boost growth this year. China is saddled with massive debt and money overhangs and a bubbly property market. Ongoing enormous expansion in money supply (i.e., RMB deposits)2 (Chart I-4) and a narrowing interest rate differential over the U.S. will continue exerting downward pressure on the RMB's value (Chart I-5). Chart I-4'Helicopter Money' In China Chart I-5The RMB Will Depreciate Further Even though capital controls have tightened since 2015, the capital account is not perfectly closed. As such, shrinking interest rate deferential versus the U.S. warrants further yuan depreciation. In short, the authorities cannot reduce interest rates further and expand money/credit growth at a double-digit rate without tolerating sizable currency deprecation. If the Chinese authorities opt for a large fiscal and credit stimulus again, the nation's structural imbalances will grow further. In this scenario, the Middle Kingdom's secular growth outlook will deteriorate, and policymakers' manoeuvring room to stimulate in the future will narrow. Chart I-6China: The Industrial Cycle Is Slumping Crucially, China's enormous money and credit creation are entirely unrelated to its high savings rate. Money and credit in China have been driven by speculative behavior of Chinese banks and borrowers not households' high savings rate. We have discussed these issues in detail in our past special reports3 and will not expand on them here. Third, there has been money/credit tightening on three fronts in China - liquidity, regulatory and anti-corruption. Even though liquidity conditions in the banking system are now ameliorating, as evidenced by the plunge in interbank rates, the regulatory clampdown on the shadow banking system as well as the anti-corruption campaign targeting the financial industry are still underway. The latter policy initiatives will continue to curb credit creation by suppressing banks' and shadow banking institutions' ability and willingness to finance the real economy. In fact, it is not inconceivable that the regulatory clampdown and anti-corruption campaign will have a larger impact on credit supply than the decline in borrowing costs. Finally, policy easing and tightening works with a time lag. China's business cycles and related financial markets do not always respond swiftly to changes in policy stance. Specifically, monetary and fiscal policies were easing substantially from the middle of 2015, yet EM/China-related risk assets continued to plummet for six months until February 2016. Conversely, policy was tightening in China throughout 2017, yet EM/China-related asset markets did well in 2017. In brief, there could be a long lag between a change in policy stance and a reversal in financial markets. For now, we reckon that the cumulative effect of policy tightening of the past 18 months will continue to seep through the Chinese economy till the end of this year. Chart I-6 demonstrates that various industrial cycle indicators continue to deteriorate. Bottom Line: The authorities in China have begun easing liquidity conditions but that is not sufficient to turn positive on Chinese growth and China-related risk assets, including commodities and EM. For the next six months at least, the mainland's growth conditions will continue deteriorating and that warrants a negative stance on China-related risk assets. More Downside The indicators that have been useful in foretelling the turmoil in EM financial markets this year are signaling that a negative stance is still warranted: One indicator that gave an early warning signal for the current EM selloff was EM sovereign and corporate bond yields. At the moment, the average of EM dollar-denominated corporate and sovereign bond yields continues to presage lower EM stock prices, as demonstrated in Chart I-7 - bond yields are shown inverted in this chart. Chart I-7Rising EM Borrowing Costs Are Bearish For Their Stocks Notably, EM share prices display lower correlation with U.S. bond yields and U.S. TIPS yields than with EM corporate and sovereign bond yields (Chart I-8). Why are EM share prices exhibiting a stronger correlation with EM bond yields rather than with U.S. Treasury yields? The basis is that EM equities are sensitive to EM - not U.S. - borrowing costs. So long as the rise in U.S. bond yields is offset by compressing EM credit spreads, EM corporate and sovereign U.S. dollar bond yields - i.e. EM borrowing costs in dollars - will decline, and EM share prices will rally (Chart I-7). But when EM corporate (or sovereign) yields rise - irrespective of whether because of rising U.S. Treasury yields or widening EM credit spreads - EM borrowing costs in dollars rise, and consequently equity prices come under considerable selling pressure. In other words, a drop in U.S. bond yields on its own is not enough for EM share prices to advance, and conversely, a rise in U.S. bond yields is not sufficient for EM stocks to drop. It is movements in EM U.S. dollar bond yields, which are comprised of U.S. Treasury yields and EM credit spreads, that matter for the direction of EM equity prices. Regarding local bond yields, EM share prices typically exhibit a strong negative correlation with EM domestic government bonds yields - the latter are shown inverted on this chart (Chart I-9). Since we expect EM currencies to depreciate further and, given the negative correlation between EM currency values and their local bond yields, the latter will continue rising. Chart I-8EM Stocks And U.S. Rates: ##br##Mixed Relationship Chart I-9EM Equities And Local Bond Yields: ##br##Strong Correlation The risky-to-safe-haven currency ratio4 continues to fall after experiencing a major breakdown early this year (Chart I-10, top panel). Historically, this ratio has been correlated with EM share prices and currently heralds further downside (Chart I-10, bottom panel). This ratio also is agnostic to the dollar's direction - it swings between risk-on versus risk-off regimes in financial markets, regardless of the general trend in the greenback. Hence, this indicator answers the question of the direction of EM share prices, regardless of the dollar's trend. Finally, key to EM performance has been corporate profits. Presently, the outlook for EM corporate profits is still negative, as suggested by the negative readings on China's money and credit (Chart I-11). Chart I-10Are Risk Assets In A Bear Market? Chart I-11EM Corporate Profits Will Likely Shrink Bottom Line: EM risk asset will continue selling off and underperforming their DM counterparts. Stay short/underweight EM risk assets. The Dollar's Trend Is Still Up The U.S. dollar is instrumental to EM financial market trends. We expect the dollar rally to persist for now - at least through the end of this year. The underlying inflation gauge measure calculated by New York Fed points to further acceleration in U.S. consumer price inflation (Chart I-12). Furthermore, America's job market is continuing to tighten. In brief, U.S. domestic demand will stay robust even as global trade slumps. These will limit the Federal Reserve's ability to back off from tightening, even if EM financial markets continue to sell off. Chart I-12U.S. Inflation Risks Are To The Upside Remarkably, a strong U.S. exchange rate is needed to cap America's growth and inflation and to boost growth in the rest of the world, especially in Asia. Given the widening growth momentum between the U.S. and Asia, the dollar will likely need to rally significantly to reverse the growth differential currently moving in favor of America. This will be especially true if more trade tariffs are imposed. Odds are that the RMB will depreciate further given the backdrop of lower interest rates in China - discussed above. That will cause a downturn in emerging Asian currencies. A strong dollar, a slowdown in Chinese/EM demand for commodities and large net long positions by investors in oil and copper all argue for a considerable drop in commodities prices in the months ahead. This is bearish for Latin American and many other EM exchange rates. Bottom Line: The path of least resistance for the dollar is up. This will continue to weigh on EM risk assets. With respect to currency positions, we recommend investors to continue to short a basket of EM currencies such as BRL, ZAR, TRY, MYR and IDR versus the dollar. CLP and KRW are also among our shorts given our bearish outlook for copper prices, global trade and Asian currencies. Arthur Budaghyan, Senior Vice President Emerging Markets Strategy arthurb@bcaresearch.com Turkish Banks: A Bargain Or Value Trap? 12 July 2018 Turkish bank stocks have now fallen by 40% in local currency terms and by 55% in U.S. dollar terms since their peak early this year (Chart II-1), prompting the question whether they have become a bargain or are still a value trap. Banks represent 30% of the Turkey MSCI index and are integral to the performance of this bourse. Although Turkish banks appear to be cheap with their price-to-trailing earnings ratio at 4.5 and their price-to-book value ratio at 0.62, they are still vulnerable to a substantial rise in non-performing loans (NPL) and ensuing provisioning, write-off and equity dilution. Turkey has been experiencing an enormous credit binge for years and its interest rates have risen by 600 basis points since the start of the year. Yet, current NPLs and provisions stand at a mere 3% and 2.3% of total outstanding loan, respectively (Chart II-2). Chart II-1Turkish Stocks: A Long-Term Perspective Chart II-2Turkish Banks Are Underprovisioned The creditworthiness of debtors is worse when one takes into account that Turkish companies have large foreign currency debt and a record amount of foreign debt obligations due in 2018 (Chart II-3). In our credit stress test, we assume that in the baseline scenario the non-performing credit assets (NPCA) ratio will rise to 15% (Table II-1). Taking into account that the NPL-to-total loan ratio reached 18% in 2002 after the 2001 currency crisis, we believe 15% is a reasonable estimate. Chart II-3Turkey: Record High Foreign Debt Obligations Table II-1Credit Stress Test For Turkish Banks To put this number further into perspective, India - one of the very few countries within the EM universe to have somewhat fully recognized its NPLs - currently has an NPL ratio of 15% on its public banks. Chart II-4Turkish Equities: ##br##A Cyclically-Adjusted P/E Ratio If we assume that Turkish bank stocks at the end of this cycle will trade at a price-to-book ratio of 1 after adjusting for all credit losses, then banks' stock prices are currently about 17% overvalued in the baseline scenario of 15% NPCA (Table II-1, the middle row). In all three scenarios, we assume a recovery rate of 40%. With regards to the overall equity market, Chart II-4 demonstrates that the cyclically-adjusted P/E (CAPE) ratio for Turkish stocks is currently around 5, compared to the historical average of 8. For the bourse's CAPE ratio to drop to two standard deviations below its mean, share prices have to fall by another 20-25%. This is plausible given the outlook for more populist economic policies following the recent elections. Besides, corporate profits will contract considerably because of the monetary tightening that has occurred since early this year. The exchange rate is critical for Turkish financial markets. As such, revisiting currency valuation is also important. Our favorite measure of currency valuation is the real effective exchange rate based on unit labor costs. This takes into account both wages and productivity. Hence, it gauges competitiveness much better than the measures of real effective exchange rate based on consumer and producer prices. Using this measure, as of July 11 the lira was slightly more than one standard deviation below its historical mean (Chart II-5). For it to reach two standard deviations below its mean, it would roughly take another 15-17% depreciation, versus an equal-weighted basket of the dollar and euro. Given the current macroeconomic backdrop and the outlook for more unorthodox policies, including possible capital controls following President Erdogan's appointment of his son-in law as the key economic policymaker, the lira will likely undershoot. Meantime, foreign holdings of Turkish local bonds and stocks were not yet depressed as of June 29 (Chart II-6). Chart II-5Turkish Lira: An Undershoot Is Likely Chart II-6Foreign Ownership Is Still High Bottom Line: Provided Turkey's political outlook has deteriorated further after the recent elections, we assess that only after a 15% depreciation in the lira versus an equal-weighted basket of the dollar and euro, in combination with a 15-20% drop in stocks in local currency terms, will Turkish equities be a true bargain and warrant a positive stance. For now, dedicated EM equity and fixed income portfolios (both credit and local currency bonds) should continue to underweight Turkey. Our open directional trades at the moment remain: Short Turkish bank stocks Short TRY / long USD. Stephan Gabillard, Senior Analyst stephang@bcaresearch.com 1 Please refer to the following article Global automakers hail more ships as trade battles heat up. 2 Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report "Follow The Money, Not The Crowd," dated July 26, 2017, available on ems.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report "The True Meaning Of China's Great 'Savings' Wall," dated December 20, 2017, available on ems.bcaresearch.com; and Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report "Is Investment Constrained By Savings? Tales Of China And Brazil," dated March 22, 2018, link is available on page 17. 4 Average of cad, aud, nzd, brl, clp & zar total return indices relative to average of jpy & chf total returns (including carry); rebased to 100 at January 2000. Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations

Dear Client, Geopolitical analysis is a fundamental part of the investment process. My colleague, and BCA’s Chief Geopolitical Strategist, Marko Papic will introduce a one-day specialized course - Geopolitics & Investing - to our current BCA Academy offerings. This special inaugural session will take place on September 26 in Toronto and is available, complimentary, only to those who sign up to BCA’s 2018 Investment Conference. The course is aimed at investors and asset managers and will emphasize the key principles of our geopolitical methodology. Marko launched BCA’s Geopolitical Strategy (GPS) in 2012. It is the financial industry’s only dedicated geopolitical research product and focuses on the geopolitical and macroeconomic realities which constrain policymakers’ options. The Geopolitics & Investing course will introduce: The constraints-based methodology that underpins BCA’s Geopolitical Strategy; Best-practices for reading the news and avoiding media biases; Game theory and its application to markets; Generating “geopolitical alpha;” Manipulating data in the context of political analysis. The course will conclude with two topical and market-relevant “war games,” which will tie together the methods and best-practices introduced in the course. We hope to see you there. Click here to join us! Space is limited. Robert P. Ryan, Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist The London Metal Exchange Index (LMEX) will remain under significant downward pressure, unless and until fears of escalating Sino - U.S. trade disputes are allayed. Should this dispute devolve into full-blown trade war - something our geopolitical strategists expect - EM economies deeply embedded in global supply chains could be especially hard hit.1 This would have ramifications for commodity prices in general, base metals in particular. Alternatively, if this trade dispute evolves into a more open and free global trading system, EM income growth will drive commodity demand - particularly for metals - significantly higher. Highlights Energy: Overweight. China's $5 billion loan and $250mm direct investment in Venezuela's oil industry will alleviate the country's oil-production and -export collapse for a brief interval. However, unless China brings its own industry experts in to run Venezuela's state-owned oil company, which has suffered a near-total loss of highly trained personnel, and manages to reverse government mismanagement and corruption, it is difficult to see the collapse in that country's oil industry being reversed. Separately, China's investment in and commitment to Venezuela could be a harbinger of future deals between it and Iran, if China decides to flex its economic muscle and widen the playing field in its trade dispute with the U.S. beyond ags. Base Metals: Neutral. Fears of a global trade war overly punishing EM economies, many of which are deeply entwined in global supply chains, are weighing on base metals prices (see below). Right-tail - i.e., upside risks - are, for the most part, being ignored. Our assessment of balances and upside risk, particularly in copper, makes getting long attractive. We are, therefore, going long the Dec/18 $3.00 COMEX calls vs. short $3.20/lb calls at tonight's close. This is a tactical position. Precious Metals: Neutral. Gold recovered somewhat - trading above $1,260/oz earlier in the week - as global trade tensions increased. It since settled to the $1,250/oz level as trade anxieties re-emerged. Ags/Softs: Underweight. Prompt soybeans futures are probing five-year lows, after the U.S. announced an additional $34 billion in tariffs against China, which were immediately followed by Chinese reprisals, highlighted by 25% tariffs against soybeans. Feature Prices of the six base metals futures comprising the LMEX are highly sensitive to EM growth, which has benefited from the expansion of global supply chains. As a result, metals' prices are highly sensitive to EM incomes, EM trade volumes, and FX levels. Our modeling indicates these global macro variables will continue to play an outsized role in determining the trajectory of the metals' prices, particularly as relates to EM - China trade (Chart of the Week).2 Chart Of The WeekEM Macro Variables Drive LMEX EM incomes and trade volumes have, for the most part, held up well this year. Our base case outlook is for the resilience underpinning the global economy to continue for the remainder of the year, in line with the IMF and World Bank expectations.3 However, escalating trade disputes are threatening to weigh on the global flow of goods, which, if they persist and deepen, will dampen demand for raw materials in general, and metals in particular. An acceleration in trade restrictions would dent not only trade flows, but also would harm EM incomes in the process. Our base case longer term gets cloudier. In the left tail of returns distributions, rising interest rates on the back of the Fed's interest-rate normalization process will remain on track, particularly as inflation and inflation expectations pick up. This will support a stronger dollar, which, all else equal, will increase EM debt servicing costs. Our colleagues in BCA Research's Global Investment Strategy note, "Emerging markets are particularly sensitive to changes in U.S. financial conditions. About 80% of EM foreign-currency debt is denominated in dollars. A stronger dollar and higher U.S. interest rates make it more difficult for EM borrowers to service their debts. While EM foreign-currency debt has declined as a share of total debt outstanding, this is only because the past decade has seen a boom in local debt issuance. As a share of GDP, exports, and international reserves, U.S. dollar debt is at levels not seen in over 15 years."4 We expect the Sino - U.S. trade dispute will get nastier, but we are mindful of the right tail risks in this process, as well. If leaders in the U.S., China, and EU can agree to revamp and modernize the rules of the road for global trade - i.e., protect intellectual property, remove forced technology transfers, and make markets more open and transparent - the upside risks to base metals returns, and commodities in general, would be significant. In such an evolution, EM income growth would accelerate, super-charging global trade volumes, and commodity demand. Trade Volumes Resilient For Now, But Protectionism Looms Overhead At present, global trade in goods amounts to more than $17 trillion of merchandise exports, while commercial services exports are more than $5 trillion.5 Accounting for tariffs imposed by the U.S. under Sections 232, and 301, as well as retaliatory action by China, Mexico, the EU, and Canada, barriers have so far been implemented on ~$150 billion worth of traded goods. This represents less than 1% of merchandise trade. Thus, current restrictions -- while intensifying -- will not significantly curb global flows (Chart 2). And, so far, EM trade volumes have held up well, with resilience in the flow of goods: Our forward-looking models are pointing toward continued trade-related support for base metals in coming months (Chart 3). Chart 2U.S.-China Trade Hit By Tariffs Chart 3EM Trade Will Hold Up, Absent A Trade War This should - ceteris paribus - translate into greater demand for metals, and a strong LMEX. Our modelling finds that the LMEX and EM trade volumes are cointegrated, and that a 1% increase in EM import volumes maps to a 1.3% increase in the LMEX, in line with the overall income elasticity of trade reported by the World Bank last month.6 However, risks surrounding the flow of goods globally - especially between the U.S. and China and the U.S. and EU - are mounting. This is jeopardizing our base case for resilient EM trade and income in the near term. Most notable is the recent U.S. trade restriction imposed on $34 billion worth of Chinese imports effective July 6, and China's subsequent retaliation in kind, which hit U.S. ag exports - particularly soybeans - hard. Additional barriers similar to the tit-for-tat of late between the U.S. and China, raise the odds of a global trade war and further depress metal prices.7 If this U.S.-Sino trade spat devolves into a full-blown trade war, in which the U.S., China and the EU erect trade barriers, or raise tariffs or restrictions on foreign investment, global trade momentum could slow significantly, which would be devastating for EM income growth. The World Bank finds that if tariffs were to reach legal maximum rates under WTO commitments, global trade flows would decline by 9% - in line with the decline experienced during the global financial crisis (GFC) (Chart 4).8 In addition to mounting trade restrictions, the sustainability of Chinese demand is also relevant to our metals demand-side outlook. China's imports account for the bulk of EM import volumes, and a significant domestic slowdown that dents import demand would weigh on the metals complex. To date, China's import volume growth appears to be holding up, reflecting a controlled domestic demand environment (Chart 5). Chart 4Trade War Would Hurt EM Trade Chart 5China Trade Indicates Slowdown Is Controlled Trade Barriers Would Hit EM Incomes Hard As noted above, in line with our base case outlook of supportive trade volumes so far this year, the IMF and World Bank expect the global economy to remain strong this year and next, highlighting trade as one of the two main growth catalysts (Table 1). DM growth, while showing signs of moderating, remains perched above potential. We expect this to persist, especially given fiscal stimulus measures in the U.S. announced earlier this year. According to our modelling, a 1% increase in EM GDP translates to a 1.1% rise in the LMEX. Global PMIs remain above the 50 mark, indicating global manufacturing continues to expand, which will remain supportive of commodity demand generally (Chart 6). Table 1Global Growth Expected To Remain Supportive Chart 6U.S. Will Outperform, Supporting DM Growth China's ~ $14 trillion GDP accounts for some ~ 16% of global GDP and is the highest among the EM economies.9 China accounts for ~ 50% of global demand for metals represented in the LMEX (Chart 7). China's base-metals demand has been resilient, despite tighter credit and monetary conditions and little in the way of fiscal stimulus in China. We continue to expect Chinese domestic demand will experience a managed slowdown as the government tackles its reform agenda in 2H18. Chart 7China's Outsized Role In Metal Markets Since 2000, the impact of income growth in China has only a slightly larger effect on the LME's price index versus that of DM regions such as the Euro Area.10 Our analysis indicates that, unlike the rest of the world, China's metal consumption is trend-stationary - i.e., mean reverting - and behaves almost as it if were a policy variable, which is to say a time series that is more a function of government policy than the laws of supply and demand. Bottom Line: EM income and trade volumes are expected to remain strong, which will be supportive of metals prices. Even so, markets are now dealing with a trade spat that could metastasize into a full-blown trade war. We are not there yet. However, the tail risks are increasing and markets now have to account for a higher likelihood of a slowdown in EM trade volumes, which could be followed by a redistribution of base-metals demand and re-ordering of trade flows. On the flip side, a resolution of the trade frictions would resolve many of these tail risks, and likely would lend support to metal prices via higher EM income growth. In any case, the FX outlook is not supportive for metal prices. A stronger dollar - our base case expectation - will weigh on metal demand and the LMEX. Fundamentals Will Play A Secondary Role Individual market fundamentals, such as aluminum supply cuts, copper mine strikes, and zinc's physical deficit contributed to the LMEX's outperformance last year (Chart 8). Metal-specific supply, demand and inventory conditions will continue influencing the individual metals in the index. Aluminum and copper constitute three-quarters of the LMEX, and fundamental developments in these two markets are especially relevant (Chart 9). Chart 8Individual Fundamentals Supported LMEX Last Year Chart 9Copper, Aluminum Markets Are Key U.S. sanctions on leading Russian aluminum producer Rusal and its top shareholder, the oligarch Oleg Deripaska, led to a 9% surge in the LMEX in the first few weeks of April, followed by a 6% retracement by the end of the month (Chart 10). While risks from this politically motivated tailwind have mostly faded - the U.S. announced that a change in ownership will exempt Rusal from these sanctions - geopolitical tensions remain relevant. Chart 10Individual Markets Remain Relevant In the very near term, ongoing contract renegotiations at Chile's Escondida mine are an upside risk to the LMEX in the coming weeks. BHP's final offer to the labor union is due on July 24. Reuters reports that little progress has been made to settle the disputes between BHP and the union: agreement has been reached on only one-fifth of the points of contention.11 While June upside from these renegotiations have since faded and taken a back seat to downside pressures from the fear of a global trade war, a labor strike at the mine which dents supply, would support copper prices, and offset at least part of the index's downside macro risks. At 14.8% of the index, zinc accounts for a much smaller weight in the LMEX. After strong gains last year, the metal has been a headwind to the LMEX since March. Following two consecutive years of physical deficits, the market is moving toward a surplus, causing prices to slide. However, recent news of a possible production cut by Chinese smelters is preventing major declines. If this were to materialize - details remain vague at best - we would expect to see some support in the zinc market. Bottom Line: Demand-side macro variables - EM trade, incomes, and currencies - explain almost all of the movements in the LMEX. To date, these variables exhibit resilience pointing to support for metal prices. Left-side tail risks arising from possible trade wars have the market's attention and have been weighing on the complex of late. We expect these downside risks to be most relevant in the remainder of this year, and to take a front seat to individual market fundamentals. Nevertheless, individual metals' fundamentals will be important to follow. Right-side tail risks also bear watching, particularly if the current trade spats involving the U.S., China and the EU are resolved in favor of freer, more open global trade. This would super-charge EM growth, which would be bullish for commodities generally, base metals and oil in particular. Roukaya Ibrahim, Editor/Strategist Commodity & Energy Strategy RoukayaI@bcaresearch.com Robert P. Ryan, Senior Vice President Commodity & Energy Strategy rryan@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Research's Geopolitical Strategy titled "The U.S. And China: Sizing Up The Crisis," published July 11, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 The adjusted R-squared for each of our two cointegrating regressions is greater than 0.95. These models cover the 2000 to present period. Our modelling also indicates that the LMEX is cointegrated with these three explanatory variables, i.e., they share a long-term trend, wherein the LMEX rises as these variables rise. 3 Please see the IMF's World Economic Outlook of April 2018 (https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WEO/Issues/2018/03/20/world-economic-outlook-april-2018), and the World Bank's June 2018 Global Economic Prospects (http://www.worldbank.org/en/publication/global-economic-prospects). 4 Please see BCA Research Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report titled "Who Suffers When The Fed Hikes Rates?" dated June 1, 2018, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see "Strong trade growth in 2018 rests on policy choices," published by the World Trade Organization April 12, 2018. 6 The period for our estimate is 2000 to now. We discuss the World Bank's trade elasticities in "Trade Wars, China Credit Policy Will Roil Global Copper Markets" published by BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy June 21, 2018. It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 7 The U.S. is threatening to impose tariffs on an additional $200 billion worth of Chinese imports. 8 This is based on a simulation where WTO members increase tariffs to bound rates under WTO commitments as well as a 3% increase in the cost of traded services. This would mean average global tariff rates would legally more than triple from the current 2.7% to 10.2%. This exercise does not take into account the impact of other non-tariff restrictions, such as those on investments. Please see World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 8277 titled "The Global Costs of Protectionism," dated December 2017. 9 Please see "The world's biggest economies in 2018," published by The World Economic Forum at https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/04/the-worlds-biggest-economies-in-2018/. 10 A 1 percentage-point (p.p.) increase in China's year-on-year (y/y) GDP rate translates to a 1.8% increase in the LMEX, while a 1 p.p. increase in y/y changes in the Euro Area's y/y GDP rate is associated with a 1.6% increase in the LMEX. These results are based on a dynamic OLS model which also includes the JPM EM currency index and EM export volumes as explanatory variables. The adjusted R2 for the model is 0.97. 11 "Conversations can continue until July 24, at which point BHP must present its final offer, according to a negotiation schedule provided by the company. Between July 27 and July 31, the union will vote to either accept the company's offer or go on strike. After the vote, either party has as many as four days to request a period of government mediation that can last 10 days." Please see "Labour talks at BHP's Escondida mine in Chile enter 'home stretch," dated July 6, 2018, available at reuters.com. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed in 2018 Summary of Trades Closed in 2017

Dear Client, Geopolitical analysis is a fundamental part of the investment process. My colleague, and BCA's Chief Geopolitical Strategist, Marko Papic will introduce a one-day specialized course - Geopolitics & Investing - to our current BCA Academy offerings. This special inaugural session will take place on September 26 in Toronto and is available, complimentary, only to those who sign up to BCA's 2018 Investment Conference. The course is aimed at investors and asset managers and will emphasize the key principles of our geopolitical methodology. Marko launched BCA's Geopolitical Strategy (GPS) in 2012. It is the financial industry's only dedicated geopolitical research product and focuses on the geopolitical and macroeconomic realities which constrain policymakers' options. The Geopolitics & Investing course will introduce: The constraints-based methodology that underpins BCA's Geopolitical Strategy; Best-practices for reading the news and avoiding media biases; Game theory and its application to markets; Generating "geopolitical alpha;" Manipulating data in the context of political analysis. The course will conclude with two topical and market-relevant "war games," which will tie together the methods and best-practices introduced in the course. We hope to see you there. Click here to join us! Space is limited. Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy Highlights Chart 1Inflations Expectations Hard To Shake Low inflation expectations are proving difficult to shake. Year-over-year core PCE inflation moved to within 5 bps of the Fed's 2% target in May, but long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates barely budged (Chart 1). Instead, breakevens are taking cues from commodity prices which are being held down by flagging global growth (bottom panel). The minutes from the June FOMC meeting revealed that "one participant" advocated postponing rate hikes in an attempt to re-anchor inflation expectations, but we do not expect the Fed to pursue this course. Instead, the Fed will continue to lift rates at a pace of 25 bps per quarter until a risk-off episode in financial markets prompts a delay, hoping that the incoming inflation data are strong enough to send TIPS breakevens higher in the meantime. Ultimately we think that strategy will be successful, but Fed hawkishness in the face of weakening global growth threatens the near-term performance of corporate credit. We recommend only a neutral allocation to spread product versus Treasuries, while maintaining a below-benchmark duration bias. Feature Investment Grade: Neutral Chart 2Investment Grade Market Overview Investment grade corporate bonds underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 60 basis points in June, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to -181 bps. Value is no longer stretched in the investment grade corporate bond market, though it is not attractive enough to compensate for being in the late stages of the credit cycle or for the looming collision between a hawkish Fed and decelerating global growth. These factors led us to reduce exposure to corporate bonds two weeks ago.1 With inflation running close to the Fed's 2% target and the 2/10 Treasury slope between 0 bps and 50 bps, our research shows that small positive excess returns are the best case scenario for corporate bonds. The likelihood that leverage will rise in the second half of this year is also a concern (Chart 2). Profit growth is only just keeping pace with debt growth and will soon have to contend with rising wage costs and the drag from recent dollar strength. The Fed's staunch hawkishness in the face of decelerating global growth is reminiscent of 2015. Then, the end result was a period of spread widening that culminated in the Fed pausing its rate hike cycle. In recent weeks we also explored how to position within the investment grade corporate bond sector, considering both the maturity spectrum and the different credit tiers.2 We concluded that in the current environment investors should favor long maturities and maintain a balanced or slightly up-in-quality bias (Table 3). Table 3ACorporate Sector Relative Valuation And Recommended Allocation* Table 3BCorporate Sector Risk Vs. Reward* High-Yield: Neutral Chart 3High-Yield Market Overview High-Yield outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 40 basis points in June, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +76 bps. The average index option-adjusted spread widened 1 bp on the month, and currently sits at 365 bps. Our measure of the excess spread available in the High-Yield index after accounting for expected default losses has widened to 262 bps, just above its long-run mean (Chart 3). This tells us that if default losses during the next 12 months are in line with our expectations, we should expect excess high-yield returns of 262 bps over duration-matched Treasuries, assuming also that there are no capital gains/losses from spread tightening/widening. However, we showed in last week's report that the default loss expectations embedded in our calculation are extremely low relative to history (panel 4).3 Our assumption, derived from the Moody's baseline default rate forecast and our own forecast of the recovery rate, calls for default losses of 1.03% during the next 12 months. The only historical period to show significantly lower default losses was 2007, a time when corporate balance sheets were in much better shape than they are today. While most indicators suggest that default losses will in fact remain low for the next 12 months, historical context clearly demonstrates that the risks to that forecast are to the upside. It will be critically important to track real-time indicators of the default rate such as job cut announcements, which remain low relative to history but have perked up in recent months (bottom panel), for signals about whether current default forecasts are overly optimistic. MBS: Neutral Chart 4MBS Market Overview Mortgage-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 3 basis points in June, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to -24 bps. The conventional 30-year zero-volatility MBS spread widened 1 bp on the month, driven entirely by a 1 bp widening of the option-adjusted spread (OAS). The compensation for prepayment risk (option cost) held flat. The MBS option-adjusted spread has widened since the beginning of the year (Chart 4), though by much less than the investment grade corporate bond spread (panel 3). The year-to-date OAS widening has been offset by a contraction in the option cost component of spreads, and this has kept the overall nominal MBS spread flat at very tight levels (bottom panel). Going forward, rising interest rates will limit mortgage refinancing activity and this will ensure that MBS spreads remain low. In other words, while MBS valuation is not attractive, the downside is limited. Our Bond Maps show an unfavorable risk/reward trade-off in the MBS sector. This analysis, based on volatility-adjusted breakeven spreads, shows that only 7 days of average spread widening are required for the MBS sector to lose 100 bps versus duration-matched Treasuries. While this speaks to the low spread buffer built into current MBS valuations, the message from the Bond Map must be weighed against the macro outlook which suggests that the odds of significant spread widening are quite low. Government-Related: Underweight Chart 5Government-Related Market Overview The Government-Related index outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 5 basis points in June, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to -35 bps. Sovereign debt outperformed the Treasury benchmark by 33 bps on the month, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to -210 bps. Foreign Agencies outperformed by 10 bps on the month, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to -46 bps. Local Authorities underperformed by 9 bps on the month, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to +28 bps. Supranationals outperformed by 5 bps on the month, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +7 bps. Domestic Agency bonds underperformed by 7 bps, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to zero. The escalating tit-for-tat trade war and increasing divergence between U.S. and non-U.S. growth is a clear negative for USD-denominated Sovereign debt. Relative valuation also shows that U.S. corporate bonds are more attractive than similarly rated Sovereigns (Chart 5). Maintain an underweight allocation to Sovereign debt. Within the universe of Emerging Market Sovereign debt, we showed in a recent report that only Russian debt offers an attractive spread relative to the U.S. corporate sector.4 In contrast, the Foreign Agency and Local Authority sectors continue to offer a favorable risk/reward trade-off compared to other fixed income sectors (please see the Bond Maps). Maintain overweight allocations to these two sectors. The Bond Maps also show that the Supranational and Domestic Agency sectors are very low risk, but offer feeble return potential compared to other sectors. The Supranational and Domestic Agency sectors should be avoided. Municipal Bonds: Overweight Chart 6Municipal Market Overview Municipal bonds outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 10 basis points in June, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +120 bps (before adjusting for the tax advantage). The average Aaa-rated Municipal/Treasury yield ratio fell 1% in June to reach 85%, close to one standard deviation below its post-crisis mean. It is also only slightly higher than the average 81% level that was observed in the late stages of the previous cycle, between mid-2006 and mid-2007. The technical picture remains favorable for Muni / Treasury yield ratios. Fund inflows increased in recent weeks, and visible supply has contracted substantially compared to this time last year (Chart 6). State & local government credit fundamentals are also fairly robust. Net borrowing is on the decline and this should ensure that municipal ratings upgrades continue to outpace downgrades (bottom panel). Despite relatively tight valuation compared to history, the Total Return Bond Map on page 16 shows that municipal bonds offer a fairly attractive risk/reward trade-off compared to other U.S. fixed income sectors, particularly for investors exposed to the top marginal tax rate. Given the favorable reading from our Bond Map and the steadily improving credit fundamentals, we recommend an overweight allocation to Municipal bonds. Treasury Curve: Favor 7-Year Bullet Over 1/20 Barbell Chart 7Treasury Yield Curve Overview The Treasury curve bear-flattened in June. The 2/10 Treasury slope flattened 10 bps and the 5/30 slope flattened 7 bps. At present, the 2/10 slope sits at 29 bps, its flattest level of the cycle. The yield curve has flattened relentlessly in recent months as the impact of Fed rate hikes at the short-end of the curve have not been offset by higher inflation expectations at the long end. As explained in a recent report, we think it is unlikely that curve flattening can maintain this rapid pace.5 At 2.34%, the 1-year Treasury yield is already priced for 100 bps of Fed rate hikes during the next 12 months, assuming no term premium. Meanwhile, long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates remain below levels that are consistent with the Fed's 2% inflation target. While curve flattening will proceed as the Fed lifts rates, higher breakeven inflation rates at the long-end of the curve will offset some flattening pressure during the next few months. With that in mind, we continue to recommend a position long the 7-year bullet and short the duration-matched 1/20 barbell. According to our models, this butterfly spread currently discounts 41 bps of 1/20 curve flattening during the next six months (Chart 7). This is considerably more than what is likely to occur. Table 4 of this report shows the output from our valuation models for each butterfly combination across the entire yield curve, as explained in a recent Special Report.6 Table 4Butterfly Strategy Valuation (As Of July 6, 2018) TIPS: Overweight Chart 8Inflation Compensation TIPS outperformed the duration-equivalent nominal Treasury index by 35 basis points in June, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +129 bps. The 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate increased 4 bps on the month and currently sits at 2.12%. The 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rate increased 5 bps and currently sits at 2.16% (Chart 8). Both the 10-year and 5-year/5-year TIPS breakeven inflation rates remain below the range of 2.3% to 2.5% that has historically been consistent with inflation expectations that are well-anchored around the Fed's 2% target. We expect breakevens will return to that target range as investors become increasingly convinced that the risk of deflation has faded. Consistent inflation prints at or above the Fed's 2% target will be the deciding factor that eventually leads to this upward re-rating of inflation expectations. In that regard, the current outlook is promising. Core PCE inflation has printed above the 0.17% month-over-month level that is consistent with 2% annual inflation in four of the past five months (panel 4). Year-over-year trimmed mean PCE inflation is at 1.84% and should continue to rise based on the 2.03% reading from the 6-month trimmed mean PCE (bottom panel). Finally, our Pipeline Inflation Indicator continues to point toward mounting inflationary pressures in the economy (panel 3). Maintain an overweight allocation to TIPS relative to nominal Treasury securities. We will reduce exposure to TIPS once long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates return to our 2.3% to 2.5% target range. ABS: Neutral Chart 9ABS Market Overview Asset-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 1 basis point in June, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to -2 bps. The index option-adjusted spread for Aaa-rated ABS widened 2 bps on the month and now stands at 43 bps, 16 bps above its pre-crisis low. The Bond Maps show that consumer ABS continue to offer relatively attractive return potential compared to other low-risk spread products. However, we maintain only a neutral allocation to this space because credit quality trends are moving against the sector. The household debt service ratio on consumer credit ticked down slightly in the first quarter, but its multi-year uptrend remains intact (Chart 9). Consumer credit delinquency rates follow the household debt service ratio with a lag. Meanwhile, banks are noticing the decline in credit quality and have begun tightening lending standards (bottom panel). Tighter lending standards tend to coincide with upward pressure on delinquencies and spreads. Non-Agency CMBS: Underweight Chart 10CMBS Market Overview Non-Agency Commercial Mortgage-Backed Securities underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 11 basis points in June, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to +61 bps. The index option-adjusted spread for non-agency Aaa-rated CMBS widened 4 bps on the month and currently sits at 74 bps (Chart 10). The gap between decelerating commercial real estate prices and tight CMBS spreads continues to send a worrying signal for CMBS (panel 3). However, delinquencies continue to decline and banks recently started to ease lending standards on nonfarm nonresidential loans (bottom panel). Agency CMBS: Overweight Agency CMBS underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 6 basis points in June, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to +6 bps. The index option-adjusted spread widened 2 bps on the month and currently sits at 51 bps. The Bond Maps show that Agency CMBS offer high potential return compared to other low risk spread products. An overweight allocation to this defensive sector continues to make sense. The BCA Bond Maps The following page presents excess return and total return Bond Maps that we use to assess the relative risk/reward trade-off between different sectors of the U.S. fixed income market. The Maps employ volatility-adjusted breakeven spread/yield analysis to show how likely it is that a given sector will earn/lose money during the subsequent 12 months. The Maps do not impose any macroeconomic view. The Excess Return Bond Map The horizontal axis of the excess return Bond Map shows the number of days of average spread widening required for each sector to lose 100 bps versus a position in duration-matched Treasuries. Sectors plotting further to the left require more days of average spread widening and are therefore less likely to see losses. The vertical axis shows the number of days of average spread tightening required for each sector to earn 100 bps in excess of duration-matched Treasuries. Sectors plotting further toward the top require fewer days of spread tightening and are therefore more likely to earn 100 bps in excess of Treasuries. The Total Return Bond Map The horizontal axis of the total return Bond Map shows the number of days of average yield increase required for each sector to lose 5% in total return terms. Sectors plotting further to the left require more days of yield increases and are therefore less likely to lose 5%. The vertical axis shows the number of days of average yield decline required for each sector to earn 5% in total return terms. Sectors plotting further toward the top require fewer days of yield decline and are therefore more likely to earn 5%. Chart 11Excess Return Bond Map (As Of July 6, 2018) Chart 12Total Return Bond Map (As Of July 6, 2018) Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com Jeremie Peloso, Research Analyst jeremiep@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, "Go To Neutral On Spread Product", dated June 26, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Rigidly Defined Areas Of Doubt And Uncertainty", dated June 19, 2018, for further details on positioning across different credit tiers. Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Out Of Sync", dated July 3, 2018, for further details on positioning across the maturity spectrum. Both reports available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Out Of Sync", dated July 3, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Threats & Opportunities In Emerging Markets", dated June 12, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 5 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Rigidly Defined Areas Of Doubt And Uncertainty", dated June 19, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 6 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, "More Bullets, Barbells And Butterflies", dated May 15, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification Corporate Sector Relative Valuation And Recommended Allocation Total Return Comparison: 7-Year Bullet Versus 2-20 Barbell (6-Month Investment Horizon)

Dear Client, Geopolitical analysis is a fundamental part of the investment process. My colleague, and BCA's Chief Geopolitical Strategist, Marko Papic will introduce a one-day specialized course - Geopolitics & Investing - to our current BCA Academy offerings. This special inaugural session will take place on September 26 in Toronto and is available, complimentary, only to those who sign up to BCA's 2018 Investment Conference. The course is aimed at investors and asset managers and will emphasize the key principles of our geopolitical methodology. Marko launched BCA's Geopolitical Strategy (GPS) in 2012. It is the financial industry's only dedicated geopolitical research product and focuses on the geopolitical and macroeconomic realities which constrain policymakers' options. The Geopolitics & Investing course will introduce: The constraints-based methodology that underpins BCA's Geopolitical Strategy; Best-practices for reading the news and avoiding media biases; Game theory and its application to markets; Generating "geopolitical alpha;" Manipulating data in the context of political analysis. The course will conclude with two topical and market-relevant "war games," which will tie together the methods and best-practices introduced in the course. We hope to see you there. Click here to join us! Space is limited. Robert Robis, Chief Fixed Income Strategist Highlights Q2 Performance Breakdown: The return for the Global Fixed Income Strategy (GFIS) recommended model bond portfolio was flat (hedged into U.S. dollars) in the second quarter of 2018, outperforming the custom benchmark index by +13bps. This pushed the 2018 year-to-date performance back into positive territory. Winners & Losers: Nearly the entire outperformance came from our overweight stance on U.S. high-yield corporates versus our underweight tilt on emerging market corporates. Successful government bond country allocation (overweight U.K. & Australia, underweight Italy) helped offset the drag on performance from our overweight stance on U.S. investment grade corporates. Scenario Analysis: Our recent decision to downgrade overall spread product exposure, even as we maintain a below-benchmark duration stance, should help boost the expected alpha of the model portfolio over the next year. Feature This week, we present the performance numbers for the BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy (GFIS) model bond portfolio in the second quarter of 2018. As a reminder to existing readers (and for new clients), the portfolio is a part of our service that is meant to complement the usual macro analysis of global fixed income markets. The model portfolio is how we communicate our opinion on the relative attractiveness between government bond and spread product sectors, by applying actual percentage weightings to each of our recommendations within a fully invested hypothetical bond portfolio. In this report, we update our estimates of future portfolio performance, using the scenario analysis framework that we introduced three months ago.1 After our recent decision to downgrade global spread product exposure, our model portfolio is now expected to outperform the custom benchmark index over the next year in both our base case and plausible stress test scenarios. Q2/2018 Model Portfolio Performance Breakdown: Country & Credit Selection Pays Off The total return of the GFIS model bond portfolio was flat (hedged into U.S. dollars) in the second quarter of the year, which outperformed our custom benchmark index by +13bps.2 The first half of the quarter was driven by gains from our below-benchmark duration tilt, as the 10-year U.S. Treasury yield hit a peak of 3.13%. As yields drifted a bit lower in the latter half of Q2 in response to some cooling of global economic growth amid rising concerns on U.S. trade policy, the gains from duration reversed. At the same time, the outperformance from the spread product portion of our model portfolio started to kick in (Chart of the Week), even as credit spreads in all markets widened. Chart of the WeekSpecific Country & Credit Allocations##BR##Boosted Q2 Performance Table 1GFIS Model Bond Portfolio##BR##Q2-2018 Overall Return Attribution In terms of the specific breakdown between the government bond and spread product allocations in our model portfolio, the former generated +5bps of outperformance versus our custom benchmark index while the latter outperformed by +8bps (Table 1). The bar charts showing the total and relative returns for each individual government bond market and spread product sector are presented in Charts 2 and 3. Chart 2GFIS Model Bond Portfolio##BR##Q2/2018 Government Bond Performance Attribution By Country Chart 3GFIS Model Bond Portfolio##BR##Q2/2018 Spread Product Performance Attribution By Sector The main individual sectors of the portfolio that drove the excess returns were the following: Biggest outperformers Overweight U.S. high-yield B-rated corporates (+5bps) Overweight U.S. high-yield Caa-rated corporates (+2bps) Overweight Japanese government bonds (JGBs) with maturities up to ten years (+3bps) Underweight emerging market U.S. dollar-denominated corporate debt (+5bps) Underweight Italian government bonds (+4bps) Overweight U.K. Gilts (+1bp) Overweight Australian government bonds (+1bp) Biggest underperformers Overweight U.S. investment grade Financials (-2bps) Overweight U.S. investment grade Industrials (-2bps) Underweight JGBs with maturities beyond ten years (-5bps) Underweight French government bonds with maturities beyond ten years (-2bps) Two unusual trends stand out in the Q2 performance numbers: First, our overweight stance on U.S. high-yield debt was able to deliver positive alpha but a similar tilt on U.S. investment grade did not, even as U.S. corporate credit spreads widened during the quarter. It is odd for an asset class (high-yield) that is typically more volatile to outperform during a period of credit spread widening. Although that outcome did justify our view that U.S. investment grade corporates have been offering far less cushion to a period of spread volatility than U.S. junk bonds. Second, the flattening pressures on global government bond yield curves resulted in underperformance from the very long ends of curves in core Europe and Japan, even though the latter regions were the best performing bond markets in our model bond portfolio universe. This can be seen in Chart 4, which presents the benchmark index returns of the individual countries and spread product sectors in the GFIS model bond portfolio. The returns are hedged into U.S. dollars (we do not take active currency risk in this portfolio) and also adjusted to reflect duration differences between each country/sector and the overall custom benchmark index for the model portfolio. We have also color-coded the bars in each chart to reflect our recommended investment stance for each market during the second quarter.3 Chart 4Ranking The Winners & Losers From The Model Portfolio In Q2/2018 As can be seen in the chart, the best performers were government bonds in Germany, France and Japan. The fact that our excess return from those countries was only a combined +2bps, even with an aggregate overweight exposure to all three, suggests that our duration allocation within the maturity buckets of those countries was a meaningful drag on performance. Yet in terms of the overall success rate of our individual country and sector calls, the news was positive in Q2. We've been overweight U.K. Gilts and Australian government bonds, which were some of the top performers in Q2. On the other side, we have been underweight emerging market corporate debt and Italian sovereign debt, which were the worst performers in the quarter. Bottom Line: The GFIS model bond portfolio outperforming the custom benchmark index by +13bps. This pushed the 2018 year-to-date performance back into positive territory. Nearly the entire outperformance came from our overweight stance on U.S. high-yield corporates versus our underweight tilt on emerging market corporates. Future Drivers Of Portfolio Returns After Our Recent Changes Looking ahead, the performance of the model bond portfolio will have different drivers in the third quarter and beyond after the recent changes to BCA's recommended strategic asset allocations.4 We downgraded global equity and spread product exposure to neutral, based on our concern that the backdrop for global growth, inflation and monetary policy was turning less supportive for risk assets, particularly given the potential new economic shock from the "U.S. versus the world" trade tensions. In terms of the specific weightings in the GFIS model bond portfolio, we still prefer owning U.S. corporate debt versus equivalents in Europe and emerging markets. Thus, while we downgraded our recommended allocation to U.S. and investment grade corporates to neutral from overweight, we also cut our weightings to euro area corporates, as well as to all emerging market hard currency debt (see the table on page 12, which shows the model bond portfolio changes that were made back on June 26th). The latter changes were necessary to maintain the relatively higher exposure to U.S. corporate debt versus non-U.S. corporates, although it does leave the model portfolio with a small overall underweight stance to global spread product (Chart 5). Importantly, we are maintaining a below-benchmark stance on overall portfolio duration, even as we grow more cautious on credit exposure. This is because we still see potential medium-term upward pressure on bond yields coming from tightening monetary policies (Fed rate hikes, ECB tapering of bond purchases) and increasing inflation expectations. The majority of global central bankers are dealing with tight labor markets and slowly rising inflation rates. While global growth has cooled a bit from the rapid pace seen in 2017, it has not been by enough to have policymakers shift to a more dovish bias. Throughout the first half of 2018, we have been deliberately targeting a modest tracking error for our model portfolio, given the historical richness (low yields, tight spreads) of so many parts of the global bond universe. Our estimate of the tracking error is now below the 40-60bp range that we have been targeting (Chart 6), but we are willing to live with this given the higher degree of uncertainty at the moment.5 Chart 5New Spread Product Allocation:##BR##Neutral U.S., Underweight Non-U.S. Chart 6Staying Defensive With##BR##The Risk Budget Importantly, the changes to our asset allocation recommendations should help boost the expected return of the model portfolio over the next year. In our Q1/2018 portfolio review published in April, we introduced a framework for estimating total returns for all government bond markets and spread product sectors, based on common risk factors. For credit, returns are estimated as a function of changes in the U.S. dollar, the Fed funds rate, oil prices and market volatility as proxied by the VIX index (Table 2A). For government bonds, non-U.S. yield changes are estimated using recent historical yield betas to changes in U.S. Treasury yields (Table 2B). This framework allows us to conduct scenario analysis based on projected returns of each asset class in the model bond portfolio universe by making assumptions on those individual risk factors. Table 2AFactor Regressions Used To Estimate##BR##Spread Product Yield Changes Table 2BEstimated Government Bond Yield##BR##Betas To U.S. Treasuries With these tools, we can forecast returns for each bond sector under different scenarios. We can then use those forecasts to predict the expected return for our model bond portfolio under those same scenarios, but with our current relative allocations. In Tables 3A & 3B. we show three differing scenarios, with all the following changes occurring over a one-year horizon. Table 3AScenario Analysis For The GFIS Model Portfolio Table 3BU.S. Treasury Yield Assumptions For The Scenario Analysis Our Base Case: the Fed delivers another 100bps of rate hikes, the U.S. dollar rises +5%, oil prices rise by +10%, the VIX index increases by five points from current levels, and U.S. Treasury yields rise by 20-40bps across the curve. A Very Hawkish Fed: the Fed delivers 150bps of rate hikes, the U.S. dollar rises by +10%, oil prices rise by +10%, the VIX index increases by ten points from current levels and there is a sharp bear flattening of the U.S. Treasury curve. A Very Dovish Fed: the Fed only hikes rates by 25bps, the U.S. dollar falls by -5%, oil prices fall by -20%, the VIX index increases by fifteen points from current levels and there is a modest bull steepening of the U.S. Treasury curve (in this scenario, the Fed puts the rate hiking cycle on hold because of a sharp selloff in U.S. financial markets). The top half of Table 3A shows the expected returns for all three scenarios under our more bullish asset allocation prior to the changes made on June 26th, while the bottom half shows the expected performance of the model portfolio after our downgrade to global spread product. Importantly, the model bond portfolio is now expected to outperform the custom benchmark index in not only the base case scenario (+25bps of outperformance) but also in the two alternative scenarios of a very hawkish Fed (+46bps) and a very dovish Fed (+6bps). Those positive outcomes are not surprising, given that all three scenarios have some degree of risk aversion (higher VIX) that would play into our now-reduced exposure to credit risk in the portfolio. Our negative view on duration risk (Chart 7) also helps boost excess returns versus the benchmark in two of the three scenarios. Interestingly, these outcomes all occur despite the fact that the portfolio is now running with a negative carry (i.e. a lower total yield versus the benchmark index) after the reduction in spread product exposure (Chart 8). Although given our views that market volatility, bond yields and credit spreads are more likely to move higher in the next 6-12 months, we think that carry considerations now play a secondary role in portfolio construction. The time to try and earn carry is during stable markets, not volatile markets. Chart 7The Model Portfolio Is Not Chasing Yield Chart 8Staying Below-Benchmark On Overall Duration Bottom Line: Our recent decision to downgrade overall spread product exposure, even as we maintain a below-benchmark duration stance, should help boost the expected alpha of the model portfolio over the next year. Robert Robis, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q1/2018 Performance Review: A Rough Start", dated April 10th 2018, available at gfis.bcareseach.com. 2 The GFIS model bond portfolio custom benchmark index is the Bloomberg Barclays Global Aggregate Index, but with allocations to global high-yield corporate debt replacing very high quality spread product (i.e. AA-rated). We believe this to be more indicative of the typical internal benchmark used by global multi-sector fixed income managers. 3 For Italy, Germany & France, the bars have two colors since the portfolio weights were changed in mid-May, when we cut the recommended stance on Italy to underweight and raised the allocations to Germany & France as an offset. 4 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "Time To Take Some Chips Off The Table: Downgrade Global Spread Product Exposure To Neutral", dated June 26th 2018, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 5 In general, we aim to target a tracking error no greater than 100bps. We think this is reasonable for a portfolio where currency exposure is fully hedged and less than 5% of the portfolio benchmark is in bonds with ratings below investment grade. Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Special Report

Highlights Systemic, data-driven, political analysis is a "must-have" (and "nice to have" too!); Investment-relevant political analysis has to be data driven; Predicting political outcomes is difficult, but to generate geopolitical alpha investors should focus on "beating the spread," not predicting the match winner; Focus on policymaker constraints, not their preferences; The median voter is the price maker in the political marketplace. Feature Since the launch of our Geopolitical Strategy service in 2012, BCA Research has made a simple proposition to financial professionals: political analysis is a vital tool in the investor toolbox. It may not be the most important tool, or the one used most frequently. But a toolbox without it is incomplete. At this year's BCA Investment Conference - taking place in Toronto from September 23-25 - I will lead a seminar that will introduce the attendees to the method and philosophy the Geopolitical Strategy team employs to generate geopolitical alpha. As an introduction to the seminar, this note focuses on five frequent myths about geopolitical forecasting. Myth Number 1: Getting Geopolitics Right Is A "Nice To Have, Not A Must Have" Some investors remain skeptical about the value of geopolitical analysis. The holdouts most frequently respond with a variation of "this analysis is a nice to have, but it is not a must have." In other words, investment-focused political analysis is seen as ancillary to the investment decision-making process. A tool to be used when an exogenous event threatens one's strategic decisions. Another way to put it is to say "we will call you when something blows up." Table 1Geopolitical Crises And SPX Returns Please don't. No need. If something does "blow up," just close your eyes and buy risk assets. Table 1 lists the major geopolitical crises since the Second World War. While the average peak-to-trough decline during a major crisis is 9%, equity returns also tend to rise 5% within six months and 8% within twelve months after the crisis.1 To illustrate this trend, we have grafted the average S&P 500 return following past geopolitical crises on to the current equity bull market (Chart 1). The picture is encouraging and shows the market often grinds higher even if something does "blow up." BCA's Geopolitical Strategy takes a different approach to political analysis. We seek to understand the market-relevant interplay between global policy decisions. Rather than reacting to things "blowing up," we look to proactively predict the path of fiscal, monetary, and government policy. Take our fundamental view in 2018 that the resynchronization in global growth - the dominant market narrative in 2017 - would be interrupted by de-synchronization between U.S. and Chinese policy. The U.S. economy often dictates global monetary conditions given the dollar's status as the global reserve currency. However, China often influences global fiscal policy given its oversized contribution to global growth (Chart 2). In 2017, we argued with high conviction that U.S. fiscal policy would turn stimulative, thus encouraging the Fed to hike rates at a faster pace than investors expected.2 We also argued that Chinese policymakers would continue to double-down on growth-constraining structural reforms.3 The interplay of these two views would weigh on global growth, supercharge the U.S. economy relative to the rest of the world, and pull the U.S. dollar higher (Chart 3). Chart 1Buy Risk If Something Blows Up Chart 2China Makes The World Go Round Chart 3Political Analysis Predicted This Would Happen We relied minimally on economic data in making this strategic market call. In fact, for much of 2017, economic data was not supporting our out-of-consensus view. There were few indications of a slowdown in China and the U.S. dollar kept facing headwinds. Instead, we relied on a high conviction view that politics would be stimulative to growth in the U.S. and restrictive to Chinese growth.4 This allowed us to: Recommend a high-conviction "Long U.S. Dollar Index (DXY)" view on January 31, 2018 - up 5.90% since initiation; Recommend a "Long Developed Markets Equities / Short Emerging Markets Equities" view on March 6, 2018 - up 12.09% since initiation; Recommend a "Long Indian Equities / Short Brazilian Equities" view on March 6, 2018 - up 36.40% since initiation; Recommend that clients overweight U.S. equities relative to Europe and Japan in January 2018; Highlight in April that U.S. equities would face headwinds this summer and investors should be tactically cautious. These views have now become the House View of BCA Research as a whole.5 Prescient political analysis is indeed a "nice to have." Myth Number 2: Political Data Is Useless The second-most frequent claim by geopolitical Luddites is that political data is of poor quality and thus systematic research is impossible. Our favorite two examples of this shortcoming are the Brexit referendum and the 2016 U.S. election, which polls supposedly "got wrong." But the polls did not get Brexit and President Trump's election wrong, the pundits did. If anything, the polls were showing the Brexit camp comfortably ahead throughout June 2016. It was only once MP Jo Cox was tragically murdered on June 16, a week ahead of the vote, that the polls favored the "Stay" vote. But on the day of the vote, the "Stay" camp was ahead by only 4%, well within the statistical "margin of error."6 That should not have given investors the level of confidence they had in the pro-EU vote. The probability of Brexit occurring, in other words, should have been a lot higher than the 30% imbued by the betting markets (Chart 4). We made a case for alarm early in 2016 based on a fundamental analysis of the British electorate.7 Chart 4AOnline Betting Got Brexit Wrong... Chart 4B... Not The Polls Similarly, the national polls in the U.S. election were not wrong. Rather, the pundits and quantitative models overstated the probability of a Clinton victory despite her slim poll lead on the day of the election. What modelers missed is the unfavorable structural backdrop for Clinton: the challenges associated with one party holding the White House for three terms, lackluster economic growth, lukewarm approval ratings for President Obama, and the presence of third-party challengers. We addressed these, as well as Trump's successful "White Hype" strategy, early on in the electoral process.8 The truth is that there is an incredible wealth of political data, but investors are not familiar with it because we have become over-professionalized in our own discipline. Polling agencies, political science academics, non-governmental organizations, all provide investors with an incredible array of historical data. Some of it is of poor quality, some of it is solid. But dismissing it all outright in favor of punditry, op-eds, and the whispers of "wise old men," is folly. More recently we relied on a Pew Research survey that began in 1976 to correctly forecast that there are very few genuine fiscal conservatives in America (Chart 5). This was a critical part of our forecast, last year, that the members of the Freedom Caucus - ideologically allied with the precepts of the Tea Party revolution - would vote in favor of a massively profligate tax cut. In fact, it was Freedom Caucus members who first supported President Trump's plan to pass non-revenue neutral tax cut. Chart 5Data Told Us That America's Fiscal Conservatism Is Optional Another notable example is our long-held assertion that the world is multipolar and thus more likely to face paradigm shifts in terms of security and trade policy (Chart 6).9 To drive this point home, we have relied on our Geopolitical Power Index (GPI). To construct our GPI, we enhanced the classic National Capability Index (NCI), which was originally created by political scientists in 1963 for the Correlates of War project. Chart 6BCA's Geopolitical Power Index Illustrates A Multipolar World Political data is all around us. Just because it is not served on a platter - or accessible on a Bloomberg Terminal - does not make it useless. Myth Number 3: One Cannot Predict Politics In sports betting, gamblers are not trying to predict the outcome of a game. To be a successful gambler, one has to be agnostic to the ultimate winner. In other words, you cannot be a fan and a gambler at the same time. Instead, the goal is to "beat the spread" or choose an "over/under" on the "line" set by the casino. This is precisely what we do for a living. We do not forecast politics. We try to "beat the spread" on political outcomes set by the ultimate bookie, the market. Take our Brexit forecast. In March of 2016, we argued the probability of Brexit was closer to 50% than the 30% that was priced-in by the currency markets. Did we actually forecast that Brexit would happen? No. We argued a week ahead of the vote that Bremain would win a tight referendum. Swing and a miss, right? Wrong. Our clients do not pay us to make political forecasts. They expect us to make market forecasts. We correctly forecasted that the U.K. currency, gilts, and equity markets were not pricing in the higher-than-expected odds of a Brexit outcome. Occasionally both our political and market calls will be correct. For example, we had an extremely high conviction view that Marine Le Pen would not be able to win the French election in 2017.10 The combination of Brexit and the U.S. presidential election had bid up the probability of an anti-establishment outcome in France. Investors were imbuing an extremely erroneous conditional relationship between political outcomes in those two Anglo-Saxon countries and France. But our net assessment, made in early 2016, was that populist outcomes were far more likely in laissez-faire economies than in continental Europe, where expensive social welfare states acted as political social shock absorbers.11 Generating geopolitical alpha is the art of finding overstated and understated geopolitical risks in capital markets. Therefore, whether predicting politics is possible is an irrelevant question. The fact is capital markets are constantly pricing geopolitical risk. We believe it is our job to unearth when the market is mispricing these risks. Myth Number 4: ______ (INSERT POLITICIAN NAME) Is Unpredictable Several of our clients have pointed out that trying to forecast President Trump's policies is impossible. He is erratic, emotional, and bound to make gross errors in judgement. Another set of clients believes, with a high conviction, he is a deal-making businessman obsessed with the performance of the equity market. Yet a third group holds both views at the same time! What do we think? Nothing. We have no view on President Trump's preferences. We are indifferent and aloof of them. The fundamental precept of our method is that constraints are the superior predictor of human behavior, rather than preferences. Preferences are optional and subject to constraints. Constraints are neither optional nor subject to preferences. This is not just a neat mantra we repeat at the onset of every meeting with a prospective client. As Lee Ross and Richard Nisbett discuss in their classic of social psychology, The Person and the Situation, the context and the situation are often more important than the person themselves. In other words, what (if anything) you had for breakfast matters more for whether you were grumpy this morning than your personality traits, education, religion, and usual disposition.12 The policy path of least resistance will be bound by constraints. When faced with rigid and material constraints, predicting policymaker action is easy and our conviction is high. Take the behavior of the Greek leaders in 2015. We had a high conviction view that their political, economic, financial, and geopolitical constraints would force Athens to accept the EU's loan conditionality. In the "Game of Chicken" between Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras and Chancellor Angela Merkel, the former was riding a tricycle, while Frau Merkel was behind the wheel of a Mercedes Benz G-Wagen (Diagram 1). We therefore assigned an extremely low probability of "Grexit" even following the Greek electorate's rejection of bailout conditionality in the June 2015 referendum.13 Diagram 1ARegular Game Of Chicken Diagram 1BGreece Versus Euro Area 2015 On the other hand, policymaker optionality increases when constraints are low. Following President Trump's victory in November 2016, we penned a report that correctly forecast the next 18 months of his presidency by purely focusing on what aspects of executive power were poorly bound by constraints.14 We particularly pointed out the U.S. Congress has given up its constitutional power over tariffs through successive legislative acts (Table 2). Table 2Trump Lacks Legal Constraints On Trade Issues When constraints on policymakers are low - as is the case with Trump and protectionism - investors are tempted to fall back on preference-based forecasting. This is folly. Nobody knows what Trump really wants. No private sector institution has the necessary human intelligence (HUMINT) that would produce a statistically significant forecast of President Trump's behavior. As such, when constraints are unclear or low, investors should prepare for volatility at best, downside risks at worst. Myth Number 5: Politicians Are Price Makers The most important constraint to policymakers is the public - particularly in a democracy, but not exclusively. The public can revolt through the ballot box, tweets, or with pitchforks. As such, policymakers drain their political capital by pursuing policies that are not aligned with the "median voter." The "Median Voter Theory" is one of the few genuine theories of political science.15 It argues that parties and politicians will approximate the policy choices of the median voter in order to win an election or stay in power. Empirical work since the 1950s has both confirmed and challenged the theory, but the fact that every U.S. presidential election concludes with a mad dash to the "center" proves it has merits. That said, the median voter is not always a centrist. First, there are multiple political issues on which there exists a median voter. The job of a successful politician is to identify the most salient issue of the day and then gauge where the median voter sits on that issue. President Trump successfully identified "the issue" of the 2016 election globalization and where the American median voter sits on the topic. The American median voter is far less supportive of globalization and free trade than was previously assumed (Chart 7). By focusing on trade, President Trump forced his opponent, Secretary Clinton, and subsequently members of his pro-business, pro-free trade, Republican Party, to swing against globalization. Chart 7America Belongs To The Anti-Globalization Bloc To this day, investors continue to believe that the median voter will come to the rescue of globalization and free trade. The conventional view is that U.S. voters will revolt once the price of T-shirts, toaster ovens, and toys go up 10-15% at the local Walmart store. We vociferously disagree. The median voter is far less supportive of globalization. And ultimately, it is the median voter who sets the price in the political marketplace, policymakers are merely price takers. As such, investors should focus on the preferences of the median voter as they form the constraint matrix that policymakers have to navigate. Putting It All Together Investment-relevant political analysis is not a science. Data is of varying quality, theory is rarely foolproof, and confidence intervals are wide. However, investing is not a science either. If it were, finance and economics PhDs would be, on average, significantly wealthier than their less educated counterparts in the financial industry (they are not).16 Investors should not throw up their hands and ignore politics altogether just because of the disciplinary limitations of geopolitical analysis. By tweaking some key precepts of political science to fit the necessities of the financial industry, we have developed a set of "best practices" - if not exactly a scientific method - through which we have made geopolitical analysis investment-relevant. Ultimately, the key to sober and investment-relevant geopolitical analysis begins with the right state of mind. The job of an investor is not to predict what should happen or who will emerge victorious. Our job is much simpler: find inefficiencies in the market's pricing of geopolitical events and trends, and generate geopolitical alpha. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Can Pyongyang Derail The Bull Market?" dated August 16 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "How Long Can The 'Trump Put' Last?" dated June 14, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "China: Looking Beyond The Party Congress," dated July 19, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Upside Risks In U.S., Downside Risks In China," dated January 17 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Three Policy Puts Go Kaput: Downgrade Global Equities To Neutral," dated June 20, 2018, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 6 Given that the Brexit referendum was a "one off" and without precedent, the margin of error should have been wide to begin with. 7 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and European Investment Strategy Special Report, "With Or Without You: The U.K. And The EU," dated March 17, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 8 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "U.S. Election: The Great White Hype," dated March 9, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 9 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "The Great Risk Rotation," dated December 11, 2013; and "Multipolarity And Investing," dated April 9, 2014, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 10 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Will Marine Le Pen Win?" dated November 16, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 11 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "The End Of The Anglo-Saxon Economy?" dated April 13, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 12 Please see our book review of this seminal work in our February 2014 Monthly Report. Lee Ross and Richard Nisbett, The Person and the Situation - Essential Contributions of Social Psychology, (London: Pinter & Martin, 2011). 13 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "After Greece," dated July 8, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 14 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Constraints & Preferences Of The Trump Presidency," dated November 30, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 15 The Median Voter Theory was in fact first posited by economist Harold Hotelling in his 1929 article "Stability in Competition." His en passant comment in an article otherwise focused on business decision-making remains prescient today. Please see "Stability in Competition," Economic Journal 39 (1929), pp. 41-57. For subsequent treatments of the concept in political science, please see Duncan Black, "On The Rationale of Group Decision-Making," Journal of Political Economy 56 (1948), pp. 23-34; and Anthony Downs, An Economic Theory of Democracy (New York: Harper Collins, 1957). 16 Please see The Economist, "Why doing a PhD is often a waste of time," dated December 27, 2016, available at economist.com.